A vote for instability

BY EXPLICITLY supporting Beijing on its one-China policy, President Bush has shown great statesmanship. Ever since the US recognized China and established diplomatic relations with it in 1979, after decades of unqualified support to Taiwan, Washington implicitly accepted the status quo in terms of the People’s Republic’s legal position on Taiwan. This technical ambiguity allowed them to cultivate bilateral relations and even forge close cooperation on several issues of common interest. However, Taiwan, which is an offshoot of China coming under Communist rule, has been unhappy with this situation. Having emerged as an economically strong entity with the help of the enormous aid it received from the US with which it was strategically linked in the Cold War era, Taiwan has refused to reach an agreement with the mainland on its status. Although China has played it cool on the issue and not tried to force a change in the status quo, Taiwan tends to become impatient and quite often provokes a crisis in the China Straits.

The referendum Taiwan has announced for March 20, which is also the day presidential election is to be held, is more a political ploy. President Chen Shui-bian, who has to work with a legislature dominated by the opposition party, is trying to secure popular support for himself by stirring a sensitive issue. Whether this translates into electoral support for him is beside the point. The more important issue is that it has created tension in the region by giving China the impression that Taiwan is trying to “break away” from the mainland. Dubbed as “defensive,” the referendum would enable the Taiwanese to give their opinion on constitutional questions and also on the issue of independence. Given the discreet and pragmatic approach China has adopted on Taiwan’s intransigence — it insists that it will seek a peaceful solution to the question — it is not wise of President Chen to stir the hornet’s nest, especially at a time when his country is quite isolated in world affairs.

President Bush has made it clear that the US is not willing to rub China on the wrong side. Without the American backing, Taiwan would be a no-body in international affairs. But its confidence in Washington appears to be misplaced. This is surprising because American leaders have repeatedly warned Taiwan against attempting to change the status quo unilaterally. Hence it is unlikely that the US president was only trying to appease his visiting Chinese guest, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, now on a visit to the US. Sino-American relations have been growing over the years. Although a strange mix of competitive and cooperative equations, the ties between the two have emerged as a key factor in global politics. It is not just that their trade and economic ties have grown enormously; they are also mindful of their strategic moves on the world stage because these have a direct bearing on their role in international politics. It is a positive development that the US has indicated clearly that it holds China in high esteem and would not wish to strain its ties with the emerging superpower simply to please a strategic ally which does not have the significance of yesteryear in the changed context of today.

Flawed and unjust

THE call by sections of civil society that the Qisas and Diyat law should be repealed merits serious consideration of the federal government. First promulgated as an ordinance in 1990 and eventually passed into law without much debate by the National Assembly in 1997, the law has often been criticized as favouring the rich and influential, and for being discriminatory to women and minorities. Covering offences relating to physical injury, manslaughter and murder, it enables close relatives of victims to forgive those convicted of the crime in return for ‘blood money’. The rationale is that crimes, even as serious as murder, are committed not against the state, which is universally accepted principle of law, but against individual victims. Hence, the heirs of the victim have the right to pardon the killer. It is this aspect of the Qisas and Diyat law, which effectively translates into the government abdicating its responsibility to punish the murderers for their dreadful deeds that is most worrying.

Given the high incidence of poverty in Pakistan, and widespread illiteracy and intolerance, it should come as no surprise that the Qisas and Diyat law has often been misused, leading to the exploitation of the poor and the down-trodden. The criticism that it is biased in favour of the rich is valid because there have been several instances, particularly in the rural areas, where the poor family of a murder victim is pressured and coerced into pardoning the murderer, especially if the latter’s family is well-off or influential. Such a pardon is motivated not by a genuine feeling and expression of repentance on the part of the murderer but rather by the prospect of financial gain the poor family of the victim can make. The ‘anti-woman’ label is also justified since there are numerous examples of murderers being pardoned after killing their wives, sisters, daughters or even mothers, ostensibly to protect so-called family honour. Such acts are usually carried out with the tacit approval of clan patriarchs and the killers know that a pardon is easily available or will be secured through pressure or blandishment or both. The law is also biased against the minorities because it does not allow a non-Muslim to pay diyat for the murder of a Muslim. Any law that treats murder as a family affair and deems the consequent prosecution and conviction as something to be negotiated needs to be repealed.

Maulana Noorani

THE sudden death of Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani has left his countless followers at home and abroad, who revered him as their religious mentor, saddened. It has also dealt a blow to the opposition, which just over two months ago had lost Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, chairman of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy. Thus, in quick succession, both the MMA and the ARD have been deprived of the guidance of outstanding leaders. For the MMA, Maulana Noorani’s death has come at a particularly crucial moment when its struggle against the LFO appears to have entered a decisive phase. The JUP chief’s unruffled approach to political issues would be sorely missed by his companions and parliamentary colleagues. His career in opposition politics went back a long time, and it will always stand to his credit that, although active in the anti-Bhutto agitation, he or his party did not become part of Ziaul Haq’s dictatorial set-up.

Maulana Noorani had commanded a huge following as the leader of his own religious school of thought and of the World Islamic Mission. He had studied religion deeply and was fluent in a number of languages. While he would be considered as traditional in many of his views, he always displayed an open and flexible mind and enjoyed entering into agreeable debate on all matters. The role played by religious parties in Pakistan’s halting political progression has yet to be definitively assessed, but Maulana Noorani had never permitted his party to encourage sectarianism or to patronize violence. He remained committed to a democratic Pakistan and wanted it to be a welfare state. He was a leader of integrity whose death has left the country poorer.