Keeping balance in justice

The very basis of creating this universe is the Divine plan of trial and justice. Ayaat 11 to 25 of Surah Al-Araaf (7) clearly state that Almighty Allah sent Adam and his wife to this world to establish the human race that shall live on earth till an appointed time.

Allah sent the divine code of conduct of man, through His books and messengers so that the human race may enjoy the blessings of nature in this world and also become entitled to the eternal life of peace and tranquillity in the world hereafter.

At the same time, he granted the request of Iblees (Satan) and gave him respite till the day of judgment, to try misguiding man and prove his assertion that human race is ungrateful and inferior to Iblees.

Allah said to Iblees, "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee, hell will I fill with you all" (Ayat 18, Surah Al-Araaf). On the other hand, Ayat 25 of Surah Al-Baqara (2) promises reward to the righteous.

Justice or "Adl", as it is called in the Quran, is the most vital ingredient of the human society. Ayat 123 of Surah Al-Baqara (2) says "Then guard yourself against a day where no soul will be of use to another soul, in anything; no compensation will be accepted from anyone (for reduction in punishment), and no intercession will benefit anyone, nor is there any help for them (from outside)".

Allah expects his servants, the human race, to abide by the same principle of trial and justice for conduct of business on earth. The main ingredients of justice are:

* Justice on merit for all; rich or poor, friend or foe.

* No room for influence of wealth, position or recommendation (safarish).

* No concealment of witness or evidence.

* Enforcement of justice with an iron hand.

Ayat 58 of Surah An-Nisa (4) says, "Allah commands you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due. And when you judge between man and man, that you judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching that He gives you! For Allah is He, who hears and sees all things".

Justice is an attribute of Allah and to stand firm for justice is to be a witness to Allah, even though it may appear to us as detrimental to our interests or the interests of those who are near and dear to us.

Some people may be inclined to favour the rich and powerful, because they expect favours from them. Some people may be inclined to favour the poor because they are generally helpless. Partiality in either case is wrong. Both the rich and the poor are under Allah's protection as far as their legitimate interests are concerned.

Mercy and forgiveness are great virtues, but none can be favoured at the expense of others. Allah can protect their interests better than any man. Ayat 135 of Surah An-Nisa (4) says, "You who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts,) lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice), verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do".

The Latin principle of justice is, "Let justice be done though heaven should fall". The Islamic principle of justice is even higher than Roman or any other human law. It searches out the innermost motives, because we are to act as if in the presence of Allah, to whom all things, acts and motives are known.

Dispensation of justice, without fear or favour, is a sacred trust and has been declared by Almighty Allah, as an essential part of piety (Taqwa). Ayat 8 of Surah Al-Maidah (5) says, "O you who believe! stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do".

To do justice and act righteously in a favourable or neutral atmosphere is meritorious enough, but real test comes when you have to do justice to people who hate you or to whom you have an aversion.

Both Plato and Aristotle have defined justice as the virtue that gives every one his due. From this point of view, justice can be termed as the master virtue that encompasses most other virtues under its fold.

Almighty Allah has enlightened man about the vital importance of justice, through all His messengers. Ayaat 84 to 86 of Surah Hood (II) say, "to the Madyan people (we sent) Shuaib, who said: "O my people! Worship Allah: you have no other good but Him. And give not short measure or weight.... And O my people! Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due ... that which is left to you by Allah, is best for you, if you (but) believed!"

Ayat 152 of Surah Al Anaam (6) categorically directs us to abide by the principles of fair play and justice, irrespective of whether the other party is weak or strong, akin to you or not.

"And come not near the orphan's property, except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength, give measure and weight with (full) justice ... whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is considered: and fulfil the covenant of Allah: Thus does He command you, that you may remember".

The mission of Islam is commended beautifully in Ayat 15 of Surah Al-Shuara (42), "The more sectarianism and division there is in the world, the more need is there for the Gospel of unity.

Stand steadfast as you are commanded, not (you) follow their vain desires, but say: "I believe in the book which Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you.

Allah is our Lord and your Lord: For us (is the responsibility for) our deeds and for you, for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal".

We must remember that no man, however powerful he may appear, has any authority to be unfair and unjust to people. If any of us shows injustice and hold a rightful entitlement from a person, or gives and undue favour to someone at the cost of others, then the divine justice plays its part.

Ayaat 38 to 48 of Surah An-Najm (53), "that no bearer of burden can bear the burden of another, that man can have nothing but what he strives for, that (the fruit of) his striving will soon come in sight, then will he be rewarded with a reward complete, that to you, Rabb is your final goal, that it is He (Allah) who grants laughter and tears, that it is He who grants death and life, that it is He who gives wealth and satisfaction".

Ayaat 7 to 9 of Surah Al-Rehman (55) say, "He has raised the sky high and He has set up the balance (of justice), so that you may not transgress (due) balance. So establish weight with justice and do not fall short in the balance".

The words, "balance of justice" in the above verses clearly guide us that we should act justly to each other and observe due balance in all our actions, not transgressing due bonds in anything.

Justice is a heavenly virtue. The heavens themselves are sustained by mathematical balance and the constellation Libra (the balance) is entered by the sun at the middle of the zodiacal year.

Taking the meaning of the above Ayaat, both literally and figuratively, man should be honest and just in all daily matters such as weighing-out things, which he is selling: and he should be straight, just and honest, in all the highest dealings and also in his obedience of the laws of Allah.

Ayat 8 of Surah Al-Mumtahinna (60) guides us to deal kindly and equitably even with unbelievers, unless they are rampant and out to destroy us and our faith. It says, "Allah does not forbid you from being kind and acting justly towards those who did not fight over faith with you, not expelled you from your homes, Allah indeed loves those who are just".

If we know the truth of any kind that is affecting the lives or interests of our fellow beings, we must bear witness to it firmly, without fear or favour. Ayaat 33-35 of Surah al-Muarij (70) say, "and those who stand firm in their testimonies and those who guard (the sacredness) of their worship, such will be the honoured ones in the gardens (of bliss)".

Almighty Allah commands us not only to be just in our decisions but also support the cause of justice with all our might. Ayat 9 of Surah Al-Hujrat (49) says, "If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, you make peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah. But if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).

It is by no means enough to frame rules but leave people free to violate the law if they choose to do so. Justice and fair play must be enforced with iron hand in order to ensure a just, equitable and peaceful co-existence in society.

Ayat 25 of Surah Al-Hadeed (57) emphasizes this important point. It says, "When We sent our apostles with clear signs and sent down with them the book and the balance (of right and wrong), that men may stand forth in justice.

And we sent down iron in which is (material for) mighty war as well as many benefits for mankind that Allah may test, who it is that will help, unseen, Him and His apostles: For Allah is full of strength, exalted in might (and able to ensure His will)". From the above Ayat we conclude that there are some essentials for ensuring a peaceful coexistence in human society:

* Allah's guidance (revelation); which gives us the code of conduct.

* Justice; which ensures that each person gets his due without fear or favour.

* The strong arm of law, symbolized by iron, to deal firmly with evil-doers and violators of law, without discrimination.

Musharraf's dual responsibility

By sanctioning a bill that enables President Pervez Musharraf to continue to hold the office of chief of army staff, acting president Mohammadmian Soomro has virtually set a new precedence in Pakistan's unenviable constitutional history.

His action releases President Musharraf from his obligation to relinquish the office of army chief at the end of December 2004. Mr Soomro is serving as acting president in the absence of President Musharraf who is on an official tour of the Latin American countries.

Information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed has rather naively maintained that there was nothing unusual about Mr Soomro's action, as in the past, too, acting presidents have signed bills that have gone through the houses of legislature.

However, the controversial bill was pushed through the National Assembly and the Senate while the opposition had been on a boycott of the legislative proceedings protesting against what they call a negation of the parliamentary system.

By its nature, the bill allowing him to retain both offices has serious constitutional implications and sets a constitutional precedence. The acting president could have been expected not to use his temporary constitutional powers to create a new precedent.

As a former vice-president of the Supreme Court bar association has said, acting presidents or acting governors never took important decisions as they were appointed only "to clear routine matters."

Mr Mohammadmian Soomro's action virtually amounts to an intervention in normal legislative proceedings deviating from regular constitutional procedures. The Supreme Court's verdict legitimizing the military take over specifically said that the basic spirit and structure of the Constitution would not be interfered with.

The close entente between the top army level and the senior political elite, as illustrated by Mr Soomro's cooperation in enabling President Pervez Musharraf to hold the offices of army chief and head of the state, has been an important feature of army-civil relations in Pakistan.

Key figures in the bureaucracy have also often maintained that Pakistanis, being illiterate, were not competent to handle the affairs of the state. This has also helped the army to consolidate its position in Pakistan's political setup. As such, it is not unlikely that Mr Mohammadmian Soomro earnestly believes that he had no choice but to approve the controversial bill.

However, after about 45 years of the army's dominant position in the affairs of Pakistan a certain amount of mutual disenchantment may be setting in between the military rulers and the country's intellectual elite.

Whether this emotion would make a real dent in the present state of affairs is too early to say. At a seminar held in Karachi the other day, there was an open expression of this sense of disenchantment.

Not insignificantly, one of the sponsors of the seminar observed at the outset, that the security perceptions that have determined the course of Pakistan's history have resulted not only in "a militarization of the state but, in a way, of the Pakistani psyche..."

It was also stated that the concept of national security, that has hardly ever been properly defined, had determined the course of Pakistan's history. It had also led to a series of constitutions being imposed on the country and they have been "changed, restructured and adapted to accommodate any unconstitutional policy imperative, whether military or civil."

One of the speakers at the seminar also observed rather succinctly: "Given the emergence of the new (army/civil elite) political axis in the country, democracy could not but be derailed; the constitutional abrogation syndrome was pre-emptively in place."

Not surprisingly, the Pakistani Constitution has been repeatedly abrogated. Veteran politician and former speaker of the National Assembly, Syed Fakhar Imam, one of the participants, bluntly said: "The army has been manipulating constitutions from day one.

The imbalance of power started when we lost the major part (erstwhile East Pakistan) of the country. We have yet to evolve a political culture to be able to face the future."

The spirited nazim from Khairpur, Ms Nafisa Shah, in her presentation at the seminar, was unsparing in her criticism of the army which, she said, functioned by passing the barriers of parliament, political parties and even the Constitution.

She pointed out that even though the western powers lured Pakistan into joining the alliances (Cento, Seato) on their side in the name of national security, their concern was not for the security of Pakistan but for frontiers beyond it.

She pointed out that when Pakistan joined the US-sponsored military alliances, there was in fact no threat to Pakistan's security from Russia or China. She also stressed that Pakistan was involved in the US-led war of terror not for the sake of its own security. It is common knowledge that the regional military alliances were not of much substantial help to Pakistan when its security was actually under threat, as in 1965 or 1971.

Aid with strings

At no time in its post-imperial history has Britain's role in the world come under such close scrutiny. Whether in the Middle East or in Africa, the UK still has the power and the wealth to make a difference on the global stage, and must decide how it wishes to use that power.

As the official consultation on its new overseas aid policy ends, we call on the government to be a force for good in the world by abandoning the harmful conditions which have damaged the credibility of Britain's overseas aid.

For too long it has been the accepted practice of donors such as the UK government and the World Bank to attach a wide range of conditions to the financial assistance they offer developing countries. The message to those countries has been clear: if you don't accept the conditions, you don't get the aid.

While aid is supposed to reduce poverty, the conditions attached to it have often had the opposite result. Donors have commonly required developing countries to privatize their public services and open up their markets in order to qualify for assistance, yet both courses have proved disastrous.

The UN's newly published report on the world's least developed countries confirms the evidence on the ground: those states which have liberalized their markets most dramatically have also seen the greatest increases in poverty over the past 10 years.

There is now a solid body of evidence showing that privatization of key services such as water, health and electricity has increased the poverty and vulnerability of low-income households in developing countries.

Indeed, paying for health care is now recognized as the single most significant cause of families falling into poverty in many developing countries - just as private health care costs already lie behind half of all bankruptcies in the US.

Nowhere is the threat of privatization more apparent than in the case of public utilities. When the municipal water system was handed over to the private sector in the Philippine capital Manila, families saw their rates rise by over 300 per cent in six years. As a direct result, many poorer households were forced to cut back on essential spending such as food for their children.

Farmers in the Indian state of Karnataka were also faced with spiralling bills when their electricity was privatized. At a time when rural communities were already reeling from the effects of four years of drought, the privatization programme introduced by the World Bank removed essential state support and raised prices for basic electricity usage.

Unable to pay, many families have been driven into debt. Over 650 farmers have taken their own lives in despair. Malawi 's rail network was the first to be privatized in English-speaking sub-Saharan Africa, also as a result of pressure from external donors. The privatization led to the redundancy of around 40 per cent of the workforce, in a country with massive unemployment and no social safety nets.

The use of aid conditions to impose Thatcherite economic policies on developing countries has also undermined fragile democracies in many states. Angry citizens have discovered all too often that their governments are accountable first and foremost to international financiers, and policies agreed in secret have led to massive social unrest when the details become known.

Scores of trade unionists in Colombia have been murdered by rightwing death squads as a result of standing up against public services privatization. Yet the protests continue - and with results.

In a historic referendum last month, the people of Uruguay voted a constitutional amendment that water is a human right which must be provided exclusively by public bodies. Similar victories have been won by other peoples opposed to the policy prescriptions imposed on them by aid donors and financial institutions alike. - Dawn/Guardian Service

A retreat to tribal society

Two recent but paradoxical developments have turned the national focus on jirgas. The proposal of legalizing jirgas has been put forth by the treasury benches in the Sindh Assembly, while a High Court judge, earlier this year, gave a ruling outlawing these tribal councils.

It should be noted however, that there is already a legal space for jirgas to operate within the law of Qisas and Diyat, an ordinance that legalizes private mediation in murder cases through the legal instrument of 'razinama,' a settlement out of court. The jirgas today are not illegal even if they are not legal.

Jirgas are popular in upper Sindh, largely because of the total failure of the criminal justice system, a strong collusive culture within the police, and weak and contradictory criminal laws.

A blood feud between Solangis and Jagiranis in my district killed at least 19 people between July and October, among them two women, and seven people from one family. Several houses were ransacked, burned. Agricultural products were left to rot. Water courses were diverted, transformers blasted and rockets fired. Public property worth millions was left in a shambles.

The whole area between Khairpur and Kingri remained a no-go area for more than three months. The Sindh Rangers came in, and at least 300 to 500 district police personnel were deployed.

Because of the conflict, hardened criminals had been brought in from the riverine belt to assist each side. Rockets, automatic weapons, kalashnikovs and other weapons had been stockpiled to the extent that the police and the law enforcement agencies found themselves completely helpless.

The Solangis and the Jagiranis have their property and houses, villages in close proximity interspersed with each other. They serve as clients and patrons -- the Jagiranis as clients, contractors and lessees to the property of the Solangis, who are often absentee farmers.

The Solangis have jobs in the government, and are economically more prosperous than the Jagiranis. The Solangis have also, over the years, by making strategic alliances, been able to gain access to government services like schools, water, and electricity more effectively than the Jagiranis, who are in large measure deprived of many basic services.

The present conflict emerged over an unsettled issue of eight years ago. The Jagiranis had suspected the Solangis of sponsoring the murder of a fellow member. When recently, they asked the Solangis on oath the latter confirmed their suspension.

However, they agreed to settle the matter with the mediation of the chief Jagirani Sardar. Before that could be settled, a grenade mysteriously exploded in a Jagirani house killing one man, and injuring two women. The latter, attributing the act to the Solangis, killed seven members of a poor, unrelated family, and hence the feud broke out.

Relief came only after a traditional jirga. Opposed to the jirga system, I nevertheless participated as an observer. Minister Manzur Panwar was the amin from one side. Others, the DPO and DIG Sukkur, did not appear on the day for fear of the courts, although they had deputed the lower police who organized the whole affair.

For nearly three months as district nazim, I had argued with the police to take action against the culprits. The police concluded that this was a "qaumi jehro", which could only be resolved though a jirga.

One killing after another was perceived as a part of the feuding game, and not in terms of human loss. The most heinous activity during the feud, in which at least 20 rockets were fired and several houses burned, was carried out at a time when there were more than 300 police and paramilitary officials posted in the district.

The communities also knew that eventually the matter would be settled though the private justice system, so they went about killing each other, in their quest to maintain a balance in this war for honour.

As district nazim, I tried to convince the police to take action, but nothing happened. The only option was that of mediation. The settlement was a mathematical game, a cold calculation like the kind presented in a balance sheet which was something to this effect.

"Solangis: nine killings - male - adds up to 27 lakh, one killing - female adds up to six lakh, Injured, total fine 35 lakh..." "Jagiranis, eight killings male, 24 lakh, one killing female six lakh ... Total cost 45 lakhs..." The Solangis, it was calculated, owed the Jagiranis Rs 10 lakh, since they had inflicted more losses. The Solangis would have to pay Jagiranis for the two groups to be equal again.

Until then the Solangis would be in debt. The settlement system is a system of account of human life and losses as opposed to a system of crime, punishment and atonement. In fact, the Solangis pleaded innocent saying that the matter that catapulted the conflict was the grenade incident, that they denied on oath. The onus of initiating the conflict would then be with the Jagiranis.

The Jagiranis cleverly offset the blame by saying that they would only believe the oath of innocence if the best among them took it in a shrine in the desert of Nara! So no one was eventually responsible for the feud.

With this settlement, the Solangis and Jagiranis forgave each other their sins, their feuds, their violence, and within minutes, life was back to normal although in a corner somewhere the lone survivor of a family that lost seven members asked "what about me".

A progessive like me, to save the area from havoc, had to succumb to the farce of settlement of feud through fines, condoning all killings, etc., knowing very well, that it would resolve nothing.

It would only give a momentary peace. But somewhere else, sometime later another violent spasm of feuding will bring turmoil and destruction in its wake, reinforcing the culture of private retribution.

A jirga is collective justice, and collective retribution instead of individual justice and individual retribution. Collections of fine ensures collectivity and unity of the group. In the aforementioned case, it was not relevant who the accused and killers were. Seven FIRs were lodged against a total of more than 600 people.

I now realised that I am operating in a tribal zone, under the tribal value system, created and pampered with a collusion among the state, bureaucracy, judges, and that the entire substance of this ugly ordeal has been provided by the laws.

The moral of this sad state of affairs is that the legal mess, compounded by bad governance, has to be sorted out if we are to put an end to the tribal system that has grown out of laws like the Qisas and Diyat and Hudood ordinances, A verdict of the High Court outlawing jirgas is not enough.

The criminal justice system has to be strengthened, and made more effective. In fact, it may be noted that jirgas have been increasing ever since. The killings in the wake of Shaista and Balakh Sher saga was also settled by a jirga, and not a court of law.

The recent move to legalize jirgas, therefore will further strengthen the tribal character of law, justice and state in Pakistan. Right now, when a bill to legalize jirgas, has been proposed, conflicts between tribes, clans, communities and people, over land, water and women, are erupting everywhere.

The problem with legalizing jirgas is that it would further strengthen a private justice system. Graver still is the apprehension that it would legitimize a tribal society that makes jirgas possible.

If jirgas resolve conflicts they also give us a system based on the tribal values of revenge, blood feuds, of killing and dying in the name of honour. If jirgas are legitimized, the ideology of feuding will be justified.

It will be deemed all right to kill and die for honour, to blow up houses, burn villages, kidnap women. Unfortunately, in Upper Sindh since the law enforcement agencies have historically patronized jirgas for the settlement of feuds, the tribal retributive self-help system is much stronger here than elsewhere in the province.

The same goes for lower Punjab, in the districts of Rajanpur and Dera Ghazi Khan. Honour killings are most often an internal matter for families and tribes. The state has over the years given families the authority to settle this issue as they please.

The police would often say: "We do not interfere in such cases. It is an issue of ghairat - honour. It is their own private issue." In such cases, complaints are not lodged where such murders are condoned.

The police, in fact, act as agents of the particular system in which they operate. On a more personal front, there have been several cases where I have battled with the police to register cases against families implicated in karo-kari cases but the intense collusive networks have always defeated me in my efforts.

Some murderers have come up to me to tell me how despite my best efforts, I have not been able to catch them. There have been countless cases when family victims of murder come to me, asking for assistance to arrest the accused.

I fight tooth and nail to get the culprits in police custody, and then, I find out that I have been left alone in the battle as the victims and the perpetrators are already distributing sweetmeat for they have signed the razimana, and the murderer has been forgiven.

Our lawmakers have to fight to amend the existing laws. The legal space for jirgas has to be done away with by sealing the compound ability provisions of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, and by completely abolishing the private space created for mediation in the case of homicide and other heinous offences. And this has to be matched with efforts to make the existing criminal justice system effective, and law enforcement more forceful.

The writer is zila nazim of Khairpur district.