| 14 May 2004 | Friday | 23 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
A blot on governance
English novel launched
It is ironic that the Iraqis whose country was invaded by US-led forces last year, ostensibly to liberate them from the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein, are now putting up a fierce resistance mainly against the Anglo-American occupying forces whose conduct has been highly questionable.
Amnesty International has also expressed its deep concern over reports of human rights violations in Iraq and a lack of accountability where the coalition forces are concerned.
The growing insurgency in Iraq has compelled President Bush to seek the UN's involvement to bail out the occupation forces. However, it is evident that he has no intention of granting the power needed by the august organization to broker a transition to a genuine sovereignty or cede any real authority that it would need to exercise political control over a post-war Iraq. Many observers, therefore, believe that President Bush's move to involve the UN is only a ploy to distract attention from his real aims in Iraq.
The recent declarations made by President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell that the coalition forces would stay in Iraq even after the planned transfer of power to the Iraqis on July 1, 2004, confirms this assertion.
In one of his recent articles, Henry Kissinger suggested that the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq must not be conditional on the withdrawal of the American forces from that country. In other words, the military occupation of Iraq by the US and its allies is being perceived as open-ended.
It may also be instructive to recall that the UN Security Council's resolution 1483 and 1511, dated May 22 and October 16, 2003, respectively, recognized the UN as one of the parties to be involved in restoring self-rule to Iraq.
However, its role has been kept ambiguous deliberately at the instance of the US which has been resisting a major role for the UN in Iraq. The fast deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the corresponding escalation of violence and loss of life is most distressing.
It cannot, however, be addressed through the use of force as the US appears to believe, and the only viable option for peace is the speedy restoration of political independence and sovereignty to that country, as stipulated in the UN Security Council resolution 1511.
There is also a consensus amongst the UN member-states that, notwithstanding its failure to prevent the premeditated invasion of Iraq by the Anglo-American forces last year, the world body should play an active role in transferring power from the occupying forces to a popularly elected government in Iraq.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which met in Malaysia last month, has also asked the UN to return to Iraq and take a central role in restoring peace and security, and has urged the UN Security Council to give the secretary-general the necessary mandate for this purpose. The impending transfer of sovereignty to Iraq would certainly help in stabilizing the situation in that country.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, however, wants an effective political role for the UN to ensure the restoration of sovereignty. He also wants the creation of a secure environment in Iraq - an essential condition for the success of the UN mission in that country.
It may be recalled that the UN had to withdraw its staff after the bombing of its headquarters in Baghdad, in August last year. The attack killed 22 people including the secretary-general's representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mellow.
Since the coalition forces in Iraq have lost the confidence of the Iraqi people, the creation of a strong and impartial multinational force, under the auspices of the UN, has become inevitable to maintain peace in Iraq till such time that indigenous forces are built up. However, in order to avoid complications, it would be absolutely necessary to pull out coalition forces from Iraq when the UN peacekeeping forces arrive there.
Regrettably, Colin Powell has recently indicated that although the interim government that assumes power in Iraq on July 1, will be sovereign, it would have no control over the US troops present in that country. This is a negative perception and is fraught with frightening prospects, besides making a mockery of the goal of restoration of sovereignty to Iraq.
The US-led occupation of Iraq, based on erroneous grounds, was indeed a big blunder, but prolonging it on one excuse or the other could lead to catastrophic results and must be avoided at all costs.
The people of Iraq, who are convinced that the Anglo-Americans have occupied their country in order to lay they hands on the country's rich oil resources and to advance other hegemonic designs in the region, want these forces to leave immediately.
Special advisor to the UN secretary-general Lakhdar Brahimi has also voiced his deep concern over the continued presence of the coalition forces after June 30, as this move would seriously impinge on the role of the UN to ensure a smooth transition to power.
The occupation of Iraq by the Anglo-American forces had also caused public outrage throughout the world. During the anti-war rallies which took place all over the world to mark the first anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq, the demonstrators demanded an end to the occupation.
An Annenberg opinion poll in the United States, conducted recently, has indicated that support for the war has dwindled. According to other opinion polls, a strong majority of the US public thinks that their country should reduce its role as world policeman.
There is a growing perception that the US, which owing to its arrogance and imperialist ambitions has alienated the Iraqis, is not in a position to prolong its stay in Iraq. In any case, after the termination of Saddam Hussein's rule and in the event of the war coalition's failure to recover the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there is absolutely no justification to stay on.
Under these circumstances, the US and its allies should give up their egocentric stance on Iraq and seek an honourable exit from that country by asking the UN to work for a smooth transition to democracy.
It is also necessary to do so in order to strengthen the UN as a viable institution to maintain and preserve the environment of international peace and security - in effect, to fulfil the role it was created for.
The writer is a former ambassador.
A blot on governance
The claim of good governance has apparently received a jolt due to the sale of valuable state land to an influential person at a throwaway price through negotiation.
As the story goes, an application for the purchase of a three kanal (60 marlas) piece of land situated inside the residences of officers of the Irrigation Department on a corner of University Road was moved by an influential person for installation of a filling station, which is said to have been approved under a "private treaty".
The provincial Revenue Department at once came into action on receipt of the application moved by Mr Abubakar Aziz, which was processed and marked to the Colony Branch officials of Faisalabad for assessment of market value of the earmarked land, for the purpose of sale to this particular party.
The local functionaries of the Colony Branch paved the way for transactions according to the desire of the party. The case was speedily processed on the direction of the Revenue Department and the price of the land was assessed at Rs550,000 per marla, which was subsequently modified to Rs500,000 a marla, owing to pressure of the buyer.
Faisalabad was laid as a city in 1896 in a desert area, which was specially provided with an elaborate network of canals. Colonization of the tracts, which formed part of the city, began in 1892 while perennial canal system was constructed and opened for irrigation in July 1887.
The city, initially developed by functionaries of the Irrigation Department, was originally named Chenab Colony. A large number of staff and officers of the Irrigation Department encamped themselves here as pioneers.
Therefore, the most attractive and centrally located land in the old city earmarked for residences and offices at the start of the colonization process, was meant for the Irrigation Department.
Because of the extremely hot weather, the houses of the Irrigation officials were designed to lie in the centre of plots with open spaces and big trees all around and grassy plots in front.
In that scenario, the piece of land measuring three kanals, mainly falling in open space and grassy plot, situated inside the residence of an SDO of the Irrigation Department near the GTS Intersection, was got declared surplus and available for sale by the provincial government and Colony Branch functionaries.
It was subsequently sold under a private treaty, which was unjust and unfair. On the same precedent, any other land situated inside a government residence, which might be commercially valuable and strategically important, can be doled out to any of the financially sound parties, scores of which exist in the city, for private and commercial purposes, which would be highly objectionable and improper and would amount to favouritism.
Insiders revealed that the transaction of this land through mutual negotiations had created a wrong precedent and also caused embarrassment to the provincial government, which reportedly had not passed a single order in relaxation of rules and created an example of good governance in Punjab after a long time.
Interestingly, the land in question was sold out through a private treaty. However, the criteria laid down for such transactions negate a sale like this as is evident from paras 230-A and 231 of the Colony Manual.
Section 230-A clearly says "when an auction purchaser of agricultural land claims to be a statuary agriculturist and the Colonization Officer or the Deputy Commissioner doubts this statement, he should, before recording any entry to that effect in the revenue papers, make an enquiry from the Deputy Commissioner or the Colonization Officer of the home district/colony of the auction purchaser.
No such enquiry need however be made in respect of those auction purchasers who declare themselves to be non-agriculturists. No proposal for the sale of state land by private treaty should be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner or the Colonization Officer and submitted to government unless government stands very clearly to gain and this gain is clearly demonstrated in the proposal".
Likewise, Section 231 regarding sale by private treaty says: "at present the only exception to the rule that land to be sold outright must be disposed of by public auction is made in the case of a few selected persons who are permitted to buy by private treaty.
These are usually retired or retiring officers or private gentlemen of standing to whom the jostling competition and speculation of the auctions are distasteful.
In all cases the price is determined on the basis of prices obtained for similar land sold by auction and no reduction is permissible. The privilege of buying by private treaty is granted only by the government, is rarely accorded and is valued correspondingly. It is of course an impracticable method of disposing of large areas of land."
The gentleman who was fortunate to acquire the rights of this land through private treaty hardly fulfils the requirements of the Colony Manual and its spirit. The local circles have expressed anguish over sale of such a valuable piece of land at a throwaway price to a favourite.
They pointed out that the government had not so far indulged in selling of state land through mutual negotiations and underhand deals. However, this transaction would lead to a pressure campaign by the influential to force the Revenue Department to sell out state land on the same pattern.
These circles pointed out that the tendency of selling the state lands of the government residences was deplorable and against all norms of justice, adding that various government departments had already been facing hardship to accommodate their officers, including judicial officers, for want of residences.
In 1993, the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry made a request for allotment of the same land for establishment of its offices and for non-commercial purposes.
The then officials of the district administration and Revenue Department fixed the price of land at Rs600,000 per marla. But the deal could not be matured as FCC&I failed to deposit the same amount within the stipulated period.
Now after 11 years when the price of the land has escalated much beyond Rs600,000 per marla, the same has been sold out at a comparatively much cheaper price of Rs500,000 per marla.
How enormous has been the increase in prices of land during the last 11 years can be judged from the fact that sale price of state land situated in Chak 212-RB (city area) has been assessed at Rs1.5 million to Rs2 million per marla.
English novel launched
KARACHI: An English language novel Where the Irrawady flows by Dr Khalid Khan, recalling the clime and culture of Burma was launched at the Arts Council on Wednesday.
Dr Khan is a medical doctor, an anaesthetist who was introduced by his niece Ms Sadaf and thereafter by Dr Salman, also a senior practitioner at a local hospital. He found the novel a veiled account of the writer's own life which was deeply evocative. It was also the story of immigration and the account of the whole century.
Dr Khalid's maternal grandpa was a fruit merchant in Peshawar. After the second World War was over, the family migrated to Burma. Dr Khalid, then five, worked hard in education to accomplish his family's cherished goal to become a doctor. They came over to Karachi in 1970.
Where the Irrawady flows is a social as well as a biographical novel depicting the cultural life of Burma, with a pleasant climate and so many things common between Pakistan and Burma. Karim, the novel's hero, presumably Dr Khalid himself, represents the active students movement and also the political culture found there.
Jamiluddin Aali in his presidential discourse advised the writer to pen down the saga of Pakistan. He was happy to include an English language writer in the community of 'Urdu wallas'.
As earlier described by Ms Sadaf, Dr Khalid was initially a poet, writing poetry since 10 to 15 years with 2,000 verses to his credit. Dr Shershah Syed, who had visited Burma in 1971, in his brief introduction said it presented two families moving in different directions.
Against the oppression and tyranny of the armymen over there, the peoples struggled for a democratic order as also the sacrifice of the Burmese opposition leader were remarkable, Shershah said.
Sarwer Javed said it was simply a social novel and not a political one. The characters portrayed by the writer were close to life and gave a fair account of the Burmese social environment.
Obaidullah Beg discovered four common values between Pakistan and Burma which inspired him to speak on the subject. First it was Buddhism found in Pakistan, and Burma being its very strong base.
Secondly, Shah Shuja the Moghal prince in the war of succession after Shah Jahan fled to Burma, his whereabouts never known thereafter. Third, the last Moghal King Bahadur Shah Zafar, who symbolized the Muslim rule in the subcontinent lies there in Singapore, and lastly Burma is a land of many Muslim immigrants.
Prof Saher Ansari spoke about English language novels written in the subcontinent. Bipsi Sudhwa, Attiya Hussain, Vikram Seth, Khushwant Singh and many others.
He said the writing of big novels in the West was a tradition dying. The present novel by Dr Khalid was a successful attempt. Though it may not be translated into Urdu to the benefit of common readers because of its certain portions unpalatable on moral grounds.
Naqqash Kazmi conducted the proceedings.