| April, 1 2005 | Friday | 21 Safar 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Unlimited extravagance
Replacing tribal justice
IT SHOULD be a matter of great satisfaction that the Pakistan-India ding-dong over the F-16s and F-18s has not been allowed to get out of hand. Both sides had to go through the motions, and they have done so. But the PML-Q leader’s visit to New Delhi has proceeded according to schedule, and he appears to have been cordially received by the top Indian leadership. By the time General Pervez Musharraf makes his journey to the Indian capital a little later this month, the bilateral relationship should have returned to the level of equanimity that prevailed before the Bush administration decided to reverse its decision not to sell F-16s to Pakistan. The debate on this issue has centered on point scoring, whether or not it would upset the military balance between the two countries and who needs what to maintain a credible defence. Pakistan has a strong case in that India is already far ahead in terms of military capability. But in this debate few have bothered to look at the broader question of the level of militarization in the subcontinent and the huge amounts of money that it sucks away from development needs.
An arms race has always existed in the region, and it can only grow worse and become more expensive as India and Pakistan seek to acquire ever more sophisticated weapons in addition to the nuclear arms that both already posses. Even if the latter aspect is left aside for the moment — particularly since it is linked to the wider and more crucial issue of international nuclear disarmament — we have seen how both Pakistan and India have been engaged in test firing newer and costlier missiles. The question of rationalizing the arms race should, therefore, form an essential part of the peace agenda. Improved Indo-Pakistan relations should in time lessen the threat perception on each side, but that would be no guarantee that fresh justifications will not be conjured up (China, in the case of India) by military lobbyists and arms suppliers to keep stocking up arsenals on both sides.
What could perhaps focus attention on the issue is by stimulating greater realization of its political implications. Besides its economic cost, state militarization has shown a disturbing proclivity to strengthen militant trends in society. A culture of violence and aggression is inherent in militarized polities, with repercussions on everyday life. The rise of extremist groups in the region bears testimony to this. These groups have thrived in the climate of hatred and distrust that has been the lot of the region for the past five decades. When states bolster and glorify their military capabilities, they indirectly foster belligerence among ultra-nationalist and religious parties, with domestic consequences that are often understood only when great damage has been done to the political process. The mad arms race during the Cold War should have taught the world a lesson in this context, but we have seen how America, bloated with arms, has twice since 2001 thrown up an administration representing the military-industrial complex, an administration that in Iraq has exhibited its readiness to use arms to establish its hegemony. But that is no reason why we should ignore the lesson. The India-Pakistan peace process must concern itself with the question of how the two countries can cooperate in lowering the level of militarization and nuclearization in the area.
IT should come as no surprise that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, has approved the import of a Rs11 million Mercedes limousine for himself. This was done on Tuesday at a meeting of the NA Finance Committee, which the Speaker himself presided over, which perhaps explains why there was no strong objection from the rest of the committee members. While defending his decision to have such an expensive car, the Speaker is said to have reasoned that if his counterpart in Iran could have an aircraft at his disposal, a new car for him should not be grudged. Senate opposition leader Raza Rabbani of the PPP has slammed the decision terming it “a mockery at the abysmal poverty” of the people and said that the Speaker’s reasoning was “hollow and spurious.”
Is there no end to the perks and privileges that a section of members of the government and legislators want to bestow on themselves? In November 2004, 30 bulletproof cars were imported at a whopping cost of three billion rupees for VIPs. Last month we learnt that the government had allocated Rs119 million for perks and privileges of 33 federal ministers, 26 ministers of state, 33 parliamentary secretaries and advisers to the prime minister. Against all this, another Rs11 million for the Speaker’s car seems like adding insult to injury. Where exactly do hapless citizens — plagued by poverty, unemployment, rising prices of basic commodities, poor health care and education - figure in this equation? Do these perks and privileges enable elected members of parliament to better fulfill their promise of “good governance” and public good? Pakistan ranks 142 in the United Nations Human Development Index but one wouldn’t be able to gauge this by the lifestyles of our ministers. It is their attitude which is most unfortunate. For years such actions have ruined the credibility of those in government and unless someone puts a stop to these extravagant practices, those in power will lose whatever little standing is still left in the public eye. Perhaps we can learn from Indian ministers who choose to lead a lifestyle that is more in tune with the nation and people they represent.
FEW lawmakers in the country would have taken note of a recent seminar in Hyderabad where participants called for the abolition of the jirga system of justice. This probably owes much to the fact that the landed aristocracy has a significant presence in our assemblies, and imbued as it is with feudalistic notions of crime and punishment, is not averse to a parallel legal system. This is so inspite of the fact that the latter may be in conflict with national laws. The argument of many members of this class is that jirgas or panchayats have been in place for generations to resolve local disputes. They are not entirely wrong. These unofficial forums have had some measure of success in settling quarrels and old scores in a peaceful manner. However, of late they have come to be associated with all that is unjust and barbaric as the case of Mukhtar Mai illustrates. There have been countless instances where these councils have sanctioned gang rapes, honour killings, child marriages and other horrific punishments for innocent men, women and children.
A debate on the subject is the need of the hour. Whereas it is obvious that these tribal councils should not be given the authority to pronounce judgments in conflict with normal laws, the question arises as to how practical it is to root them out completely at this stage. At the moment, burdened with a backlog of cases, the country’s judicial system is not in a position to take upon itself the task of settling tens of thousands of additional disputes. Nor would tribal and cultural sensitivities be able to sustain arbitrary changes to the current system. The answer lies in finding a middle path that curtails, but does not entirely eliminate, the power of the jirgas or panchayats in resolving disputes of a certain type. This would help to initiate a gradual process aimed at ushering in modern laws to replace the archaic decrees of tribal justice over time.