Rigging reverberations

MORE than three months after the local body elections, their transparency continues to be questioned by the media and international monitoring groups. The latest to speak its mind on the issue is the International Crisis Group. Using rather harsh language, the international think-tank said the elections were “deeply flawed” and were conducted so as to ensure victory for supporters of the military-led government and weaken the mainstream opposition parties. Entitled “Pakistan’s local polls: Shoring up military rule”, the report pointedly blames the military regime for distorting its own devolution plan through the manipulation of the local body elections, the aim being to “set the stage for maintaining control of parliament and the presidency in 2007 and beyond”. Among the tactics which the administration employed, it said, were gerrymandering, ballot stuffing, rejecting the nomination papers of candidates on the wrong side of the military, intimidation of voters, seizure of polling stations and giving “direct support” to some candidates.

Supposed to be held on a non-party basis, the elections were for all practical purposes party-oriented. The biggest evidence of this is the victory of candidates belonging to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League. In all the four provinces, supporters of the PML and, in the case of Sindh, those of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement swept the polls. The losers invariably were candidates who had the support of the opposition, especially the PPP and the PML-N. Since the government machinery knew which candidate was on whose side, the administration worked unabashedly in a partisan spirit to ensure victory of PML-backed candidates. The manner in which the authorities levelled fictitious charges against opposition candidates to deny them the right to contest elections was seen in the manner in which a retired general was accused of having a fake matriculation certificate. He fought — and lost — the election only after the Supreme Court upheld his appeal. There were complaints of this nature throughout the country, the government however insisting that the entire electoral exercise spreading over months was transparent and fair.

Each time the military has taken over in Pakistan, it has come up with an elaborate local government scheme, insisting that the empowerment of the people at the grassroots level was the first step towards democracy. While there is no doubt that county and municipal governments in democratic countries occupy a key position in the scheme of things, in Pakistan the military has attempted to present them as an alternative to a democratic government at the top. Ayub’s Khan’s basic democracy, too, attempted to emphasize democracy at the grassroots level as an alternative to a democratic government responsible to a parliament elected by a direct vote. However, the federal and provincial assemblies which came into being during Ayub’s era were elected by BD members and not by the people. Ayub himself was elected president indirectly.

Against this background, the ICG warning that the local body elections were manipulated to maintain control of parliament “and the presidency in 2007 and beyond” sounds portentous, because of reports that the Constitution may be amended and that the nazims may be asked to serve as an electoral college for the president’s election. The Legal Framework Order has already disfigured the Constitution, which was enacted with a unanimous vote by the National Assembly in 1973. Any attempt to further maul its parliamentary and democratic character could unleash fissiparous tendencies and do incalculable harm to the federation’s organic unity.

Indiscipline on campus

IT reflects poorly on our universities and colleges that violence has returned to campuses. What is worse, teachers are being targeted by students who want to have the educational institutions run their way. On Tuesday, a geology teacher at the University of Karachi was attacked and injured because he had refused to let a student take his examination for lack of required attendance. This incident came three days after two student groups had clashed in two Karachi colleges and then misbehaved with the teachers. Earlier, students in Lahore had attacked the Punjab university’s vice-chancellor’s office in protest against a rise in fees. It is regrettable that students in institutions of higher learning are resorting to violence to give vent to their anger and frustration. While one cannot deny that there is much for students to feel frustrated about, recourse to force can cannot be condoned. In some cases, the students are themselves responsible for creating the ‘problem’ that they try to rectify. In the Karachi University case, the student who was not allowed to appear for his examination and who thought it fit to threaten the teachers with dire consequences could have avoided this unpleasant situation had he been regular in attending his classes.

It is up to university administrations all over the country to enforce discipline. The Karachi University has reacted to the incident by setting up a committee to conduct an enquiry into the matter. In the case of violence in the colleges on Friday, the Sindh home minister merely promised “stringent measures” against the hooligans. It is more important to identify the attackers in both cases and punish those found guilty. At the root of the problem of student indiscipline is the proxy presence of political parties on the campuses. They carry on their political wars through their student wings in the same deplorable way they conduct themselves in the political arena. Needless to say, these parties are doing a disservice to education. The administrations of the universities would do well to protect their autonomy, remain independent and refuse to become tools of any party. This is the only way that they will establish their credibility and succeed in enforcing discipline.

Congo virus death

THE tragic death of a young Karachi Civil Hospital doctor, Yusra Khalil, on Monday, caused allegedly by the Crimean Congo Haemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) — also known as the Congo Virus — is cause for serious concern, especially since it follows the death of another doctor, Dr Zia Siddiqui, at the same hospital a few months earlier under similar circumstances. In both cases, the hospital administration denied that the doctors had contracted the fatal virus but in the case of Dr Khalil, a probe has been instituted to determine the cause of death. Her family holds the CHK responsible for neglecting to provide staff doctors with proper and safe equipment to handle highly infectious diseases. CCHF is normally transmitted by a tick’s bite but evidence shows that an increasing number of cases have occurred among medical staff treating infected patients. There is every possibility that Dr Khalil and Dr Siddiqui were exposed to the virus at work. Doctors at the CHK — or for that matter other government hospitals across the country — often work in high-risk conditions where they are exposed to dangerous diseases whose patients cannot be isolated because there is no quarantine facility or isolation ward. It is most unfortunate that the CHK administration has displayed an apathetic attitude towards improving these deplorable conditions or protecting its staff.

The first death caused by CCHF occurred in the 1970s and since then Pakistan has had a number of cases in recent years with Balochistan being the worst hit. Over 200 cases of the virus were detected between 2002 and 2004, out of which 38 people died. Unfortunately, diagnostic facilities are virtually non-existent and until proper and timely screening is done, fears of an epidemic will always be there. The matter must be promptly looked into if more such deaths are to be avoided.

A twist of fate

NATWAR SINGH has exhausted his capacity to hurt himself. But he has not exhausted his capacity to hurt the Congress. The story of the ex-foreign minister of India confirms an old view of mine. While there is always the danger of character assassination in public life, the far bigger danger for politicians is character suicide.

Now that Mr Natwar Singh has more time on his hands, if not more peace in his mind, he is probably allotting blame for his misfortunes. Paul Volcker is surely on top of his list. But, in all honesty, he needs to divide the blame between Volcker and hubris. The details in the UN report were half the problem. The other half was television: or, to be more specific, the frequent appearances of Singh and Son on the box. Volcker condemned Natwar Singh in his report. Natwar Singh ended up condemning himself on television.

The minister is an extremely well-read man. He might have paused to check Shakespeare. “He doth protest too much.” As for Jagat Singh: his innate aggression might be tolerated in a decadent feudal environment, but it does not travel very far in civilized society. If the not-so-young man thought he could huff and puff his way out of trouble, he has not grown up.

One wonders if either Mr Natwar Singh or the Congress took any advice on how to handle a problem that quickly pole-vaulted into a crisis. Friends comment, or suggest; that is perfectly normal and understandable.

The initial reaction seemed based on the view that this was a silly season story, the sort of news that fills a gap when nothing much is happening. Hence the slightly thoughtless initial reactions, both by the Congress and the minister. “The Congress will send a legal notice to the UN.” In other words the Congress was sending a legal notice to India, since India is a member. “Who is Paul Volcker? He doesn’t even know that I am the foreign minister of India!” It was silly to doubt Volcker’s credentials, and a phone to any sensible man in America might have prevented such a mistake. But hubris tends to have an escalating impact on poor judgment.

By the time Mr Singh was asserting, vibrantly, that “I, as foreign minister of India” could dictate national policy it was apparent that he was out of sync with the culture of democratic governance. After that his departure was no longer a question of whether but of when.

Mercifully (for the victim), Prime Minister Manmohan Singh brought one stream of the running story to a halt when he decided that Mr Natwar Singh could no longer be a tenable custodian of the nation’s foreign policy. The prime minister’s initial defence of his colleague is not to be faulted. He cannot jettison a senior minister in the first onslaught even though he was aware of Volcker’s reputation, as well as the integrity of the committee that had done the damage.

But the final compromise, in which Mr Natwar Singh has become a minister without portfolio, achieves nothing. Natwar Singh is no Lal Bahadur Shastri, whose advice was needed even after he resigned his portfolio. Nor did the former resign; he was ordered to walk the plank (in his own interest, since the plank was fitted out with a temporary safety net).

The compromise has fuelled suspicion that Mr Natwar Singh knows something that we do not, at least not yet; and that something could hurt others in the Congress. This may not be true, but the Indian voter is a suspicious sort of chap. The chances of anything remaining secret are remote.

By the time the various wringers have done their work, at least half a dozen enquiries would have sifted through the oily affairs of an elitist friends’ circle who thought that the world was their oyster and their dads were little pearls. There is the Volcker report, already with us, documents awaited. The Enforcement Directorate has begun its interrogations and alerted airports that the directors of Hamdan, Andaleeb Sehgal and Vikas Dhar, should not be permitted to leave the country for the moment. The tax authorities will doubtless want their turn.

Mr Virendra Dayal has been put on a parallel track, to report on UN processes and reports. Justice R.S. Pathak, with the powers of a civil court, will enquire into the Volcker conclusions. And then of course is the continual enquiry report being done by the media. Ironically, Mr Natwar Singh and his son might find that, of all these options, Volcker might have been the most gentle.

The media has, so far, the softest job. Volcker has done most of its work; all it needs is a bit of follow-up. This is bad news for the Singhs, since with each layer and each lead their protestations look that much more hollow. It is apparent now that Paul Volcker’s basic information came from documents seized from government records after Saddam Hussein’s defeat. He then cross-checked the names with bank transactions. There were no allegations against those who did not figure in bank records: witness Bheem Singh, a Jammu and Kashmir panther.

I can hardly comment on the merits of each individual allegation, but the case against Sehgal looks strong. Sehgal was in the picture only because of his connections with the Singhs, and, as confirmed by a former Congress minister, P. Shiv Shankar, a member of the Congress delegation to Iraq, was in the group only in his capacity as their friend. It would be very unusual if two plus two did not make four. It is safe to assume that Andaleeb Sehgal did not go to Baghdad under the false assumption that it was Paris in summertime.

The life of a government is best measured in events, not months and years. By that yardstick, the Manmohan Singh government has reached its midway mark. The early hiccups, like the shindig over tainted ministers, did not affect its stride; in fact, it was the BJP that was sounding strident. But 2005 has been a year in which the government has aged faster than it expected. The budget was more hype than hope; economic reforms were trapped in the contradictions of the ruling alliance. There were political mistakes, the most unforgivable being the mismanagement of Bihar after Lalu Yadav failed to get a majority in the first assembly elections of the year.

The consequences of that mistake will be evident in the November polls. Now we have a very old-fashioned scandal, as grubby as they come. Since the foreign minister was involved, it was entirely appropriate that it had an international flavour. But the most significant fact of this scandal, as far as the Manmohan Singh establishment is concerned, is that it is a Congress scandal.

The lead singer pulls in the bigger bucks in any performance, but he also pays a higher price when things go wrong. In fact, if the lead cracks up, the show disappears. If a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha slips in the ruling coalition, it barely raises a yawn. If Lalu Yadav stumbles, despite his 25 MPs, it is probably good news for the rest, since his ability to blackmail the coalition is dented. But if the political and ethical credibility of the Congress goes, then the edifice crumbles. The coalition can still brazen it out in arithmetical terms, but it will not be able to function as a government. It will also whittle Dr Manmohan Singh’s personal credibility. Take that away, and there isn’t much left.

During his more intemperate spells, just before he lost his job, Mr Natwar Singh often asserted that he was indistinguishable from the Congress. That is precisely the sort of thing that a Congress prime minister or a Congress president might not want to hear. The last thing the Congress wants is to have beloved sons like Jagat Singh, who have dear friends like Andaleeb Sehgal and pathfinders to Baghdad like Aneil Mathrani. A Congressman might have such afflictions, but the party would like to consider itself a little bigger than an individual.

Alas, the paradox. The only time an accused is readily believed is when he spreads the accusation. Mr Natwar Singh’s power lies in ambiguity. As long as there is no clarity, and the whisky trail, or the oil-cash trail, does not lead to specific hands and homes beyond doubt, he and the Congress are safe. But there are too many documents leading to too many established companies; will everyone keep quiet? If Natwar believes that he is being made a scapegoat, will he sing?

The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi