Attack on press freedom

ON a number of occasions President Musharraf has boasted about the press in Pakistan enjoying more freedom today than any time in the past. He may be right to an extent, but the paradox is that the media person is less free today and, what is more, journalism is becoming an increasingly hazardous profession in Pakistan. The number of journalists killed is on the rise and ‘disappearances’ of media persons have become more frequent. Only recently a journalist in the tribal areas, Hayatullah Khan, who had ‘disappeared’ six months ago and was believed to have been in the custody of intelligence agencies, was found murdered. Now it has been disclosed that another journalist, Mukesh Rupeta, who had allegedly been filming a military base used by US forces, has been missing since March. After this was disclosed by the news channel for which Mr Rupeta worked, the police have admitted that he has been picked up under the Official Secrets Act. Strangely, he has not been charged or produced before a court for remand so far. All this is most disquieting, especially if it is recalled that in 2005 two journalists were killed in an ambush in South Waziristan. As for journalists being picked up by government agencies ostensibly for interrogation — but more to tame them through intimidation — it is difficult to keep count of their number.

One can understand that media persons face many risks when they are covering a region in the grip of violence and strife. But this is different from the case of journalists being picked up by official agencies because the government is not too happy with the job they are doing. This in effect amounts to curbing the freedom of expression by gagging individual pressmen rather than cracking down on the newspaper or television channel that publishes/telecasts their stories. Nothing can be more horrendous than this crude method of exercising media control. The secret arrest of a journalist by agencies without recourse to the prescribed legal procedures and with his whereabouts being concealed for long can be devastating for his family. The use of brutal force is intended to send a warning to his colleagues in order to silence them.

It is time the government recognised freedom of expression as a fundamental right of the citizens and an integral element of democracy. Gone are the days when authoritarian and oppressive regimes could crack down on the press and virtually order it what to print and what not to print, and when newspapers could be shut down at will. In today’s world of free communication, when liberty is attacked, it brings opprobrium to the government that does it. If journalists are arrested, intimidated or kept in detention without the permission or knowledge of the government, shouldn’t the government look into the matter and take action against those responsible? If the agencies, which constitute an organ of the government, are allowed to act in such a highhanded manner without any check, it will reflect very badly on the country’s image that President Musharraf feels so sensitive about. The International Press Institute got it right when it wrote on Pakistan in its report World Press Freedom Review, 2005: “The war on terrorism and on religious extremism promoted by many governments around the world is a pretext to clamp down on basic freedoms in the interest of the ruling elites.”

CVT on property

NORMALLY, the two per cent capital value tax (CVT) on sale/purchase of property of 500 yards or more, may not be questionable if the gains fall in the ambit of taxable income. But this ill-timed levy seems questionable as it is a deviation from the principle of progressive taxation and increases the number of taxes and fees/charges on real estate. These are as important aspects of a rational taxation policy as the levy itself. First, the opportunity to tax the windfalls from the brisk speculative trading has been missed. The boom petered out by about mid-2005 and property prices are no longer volatile. Now, the burden of the CVT will be essentially borne by the middle class house builders. Since incomes of this group have been eroded by high inflation, the house-building is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many because of the soaring cost of construction materials, utility services and interest charges on housing loans. In this situation, the sales/purchase of property on plots of all sizes of 500 yards or more has been subjected to the same CVT rate. This is against equity and the principle of progressive taxation. Instead of reducing the number of taxes/charges as is the stated official policy, the CVT will be a new addition to the existing property tax, transfer and registration fees and stamp duty.

This multiplicity of levies is likely to discourage house-building, a labour-intensive activity whose potential contribution to the economy can be as large as that of the textile industry. Lacking production outlets, the excess money in the market can be channelled into construction of houses for the middle class. While the speculative investment needs to be curbed, the genuine house builder must be encouraged. It will be in the fitness of things to exempt deals of property up to 1000 square yards from CVT. Although the finance bill has been passed by the parliament, the issue deserves reconsideration by the government in view of the significance of housing in the creation of employment and economic development.

Behaviour unbecoming

THE ruckus that erupted in the Sindh Assembly on Tuesday over an MPA’s “indecent note” sent to a female MPA was as unruly as was the behaviour of some of the MPAs most unbecoming of elected representatives. It is learnt that PPP MPA Shazia Marri had been receiving unwarranted messages from MPA Ishwar Lal for a year but the note he sent on Tuesday, apparently enquiring after her health, proved to be the last straw. According to the leader of the opposition, Mr Lal had also harassed two other female MPAs in the past but the speaker did not take any action against him. Mr Lal, however, claims that his note to Ms Marri was misinterpreted, a plea no one seems willing to believe, least of all the speaker of the house who suspended him on Wednesday for the duration of the Sindh budget proceedings. His suspension, as well as the suspension of four other MPAs who turned violent in the house, is a step in the right direction for it shows that the government will not tolerate any improper behaviour in the house. The incident is clear proof of the kind of harassment even elected female representative have to endure at the hands of some wayward colleagues.

Women are routinely harassed in public places: they are exposed to lecherous looks or made to hear all kinds of lewd comments from passers-by. Any kind of objectionable behaviour at workplaces is particularly unfortunate. Women rarely opt for action against sexual harassment at workplaces because they either fear that the management will not do anything or because they want to avoid any professional fallout if they press charges. This kind of attitude has to change and this can happen only if there are strong laws against unseemly behaviour towards women.

Friday feature: Values laid down by Islam

ACCORDING to a recent news report, the Muslim Imams of Europe have pledged to work hard to prove that Islam is compatible with western values of democracy and human rights. But what should have been pledged to prove is not that Islam is compatible with the western values of democracy and human rights but rather the very genesis of these values lies in the Islamic faith and teachings.

The people’s right to choose their ruler is implicit in the Quranic verse which enjoins the believers to give “trusts” into the care of those who are worthy of trust (4:58). The word “trust” in this verse is to be understood in the same sense as explained by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) when some one asked him as to when the Day of Judgment will come. He replied “when people start violating trusts, you should wait for the Day of Judgment.” “What does that imply” the man further asked. “It means when responsibilities are entrusted to those who are not worthy of it” the Prophet replied (Muslim).

The responsibilities referred to in this saying have an obvious reference to the responsibilities of the state. It is the responsibilities of the state which involve greater degree of trust and confidence. The mismanagement in this sphere can have wide-ranging unpleasant consequences. Therefore, when the verse enjoins the believers to entrust the responsibilities of the state to those who are worthy of trust, it obviously implies that the people should have a say in choosing the person to whom such responsibilities should be entrusted.

The Prophet of Islam had not nominated any one to be his successor although there was a general practice of doing so in those days. It means that he left it to the believers to choose their ruler. The way the first four Caliphs were chosen after the demise of the Prophet is reflective of all democratic norms that could be possibly adhered to in the objective conditions prevailing at that time.

Hazrat Abu Bakr, in his address to the people after his elevation as Caliph inter alia said “now that I am elevated as ruler over you, though not the best among you”, which clearly implied that he attributed his elevation not to his status or qualities but to the choice and consent of the people. He further said “if I do good, support me; if I err set me right” which meant that he solicited support of the people not on the basis of threats or coercion but on the basis of his performance. At the same time he exhorted the people to criticise him if he erred which in the modern terminology is called the freedom of speech and expression, a universally accepted value of democracy.

The Quran specifically exhorted the Prophet to consult his companions in the conduct of affairs (3:159). In another Quranic verse, the people who do their work through consultation have been termed as the people being rightly guided (42:38). Consultation, it may be added, is an indispensable norm of democracy on which the Quran lays so much emphasis. Accountability is another democratic norm which was reflected in the saying of the Prophet that any one who was appointed to a public office had to render an account of every thing, big or small (Muslim). Hazrat Umar said that he would be accountable even for the death of a hungry dog on the bank of river Euphrates.

Tolerance is yet another universally accepted democratic norm on which the Quran lays great emphasis as it says “and bear with patient constancy whatever betide thee; for this is fairness (of purpose) in (the conduct of) affairs” (31:17). Another Quranic verse says that Allah is with those who exercise patience (2:153). Patience is a clear manifestation of tolerance.

Thus most of the values and norms which are now called as the core values of democracy were spelled out by the Holy Quran 1,400 years ago. According to Professor Brifault “the ideal of freedom for all human beings, of human brotherhood, of the equality of all men before law, of democratic government by consultation and universal suffrage, the ideals that inspired the French revolution and the declaration of rights, that guided the framing of the American constitution and influenced the struggle for independence in the Latin American states, were not the invention of the West. They find their ultimate inspiration and source in the Holy Quran” (Making of Humanity).

No one can deny that the concept of equality is the very foundation on which the whole superstructure of democratic values and human rights is built. And it is also a fact that the whole world was still in dark about this concept when the Quran not only laid stress on it but also advocated its acceptance and practice. This is evident from the Quranic verse (49:13) and its explanation by the Prophet in his sermon on the occasion of his last pilgrimage when he said.

“Allah says, O mankind! We created you from a single male and female couple and then divided you into nations and tribes so that you may recognise one another. Verily the most honourable among you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. In the light of this Quranic verse, no Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab nor any non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab. Neither black is superior to white nor white is superior to black. Of course, if there is any criterion of superiority it is righteousness.”

It was the above quoted declaration that gave severe blow to the false notions and self made barriers of race, blood and colour besetting the human society for ages. This was also the main reason for the acceptability of Islam to people among all the nations and tribes of the world. According to Toynbee, well known British historian, there was hardly any race in the world from which people did not accept Islam and in the process became one Ummah. According to Professor Gibb “no other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity and endure, so many and so various races of humanity.”

The practical example of equality was manifest in the directive of Hazrat Umar to the Governor of Kufa through which he was specifically advised to treat the people equally in his presence, in his company and in his decisions so that the weak despaired not of justice and the strong had no hope of any favour.

The Quranic verse which declares that all human beings are equal at the same time provides a clear pointer to the need for giving equal opportunities, a universally accepted human right, in certain aspects of life. The criterion of honour in the sight of Allah, according to the verse, namely, righteousness could be within the reach of every one who sincerely wants to become righteous. The Quranic verse which says there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and the verse which told the Prophet that it was not his job to compel people to accept the truth of what he preached (50:45) are indicative of the fact that Islam does favour full freedom in the matter of following religion of one’s choice.

All other rights, falling in the category of human rights, have been spelled out by the Quran and Sunnah in such a way that what could be the obligation of one in relation to others should be the right of others. The Quran enjoins the believers to do justice to every one without any discrimination (4:135) (5:8) which means that it should be the right of every one to be dealt with justly and fairly.

Likewise, the Quran exhorts the believers not to eagerly desire what rightfully belongs to others (4:32), not to withhold from others that which is due to them (11:85), to render financial help to the needy (2:219), to treat others the way you would like yourself to be treated (2:219), to treat others the way you would like yourself to be treated (2:267), to help each other in all that is good (5:2) to return the same or even better greetings when greeted (4:86) and not to enter other’s house without permission (24:27, 28).

Labour at the crossroads

ON the face of it, Gordon Brown said little more about the replacement of Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system on Wednesday than the Labour party said in its 2005 manifesto. But the buzz and bustle surrounding the speech tells the real story.

The annual Mansion House speech is an intensely political event for any chancellor, never mind for one who hopes to move shortly to higher things. And Mr Brown’s people were crystal clear that their man was making a significant statement. In a few apparently innocuous words, they said, the man who wants to be Labour’s next leader was committing himself to the long-term replacement of the current submarines.

Britain is probably no more likely to launch a nuclear missile attack as a result of Wednesday night’s speech than it was on Tuesday. But Mr Brown’s commitment to support a costly new generation of British nuclear weapons will undoubtedly cause explosions in the Labour party. The party’s manifesto commitment to retaining the nuclear deterrent coexisted with a pledge to conduct a real debate within the ranks about the subject.

We need to consider our interests in a 21st-century context, not a 20th-century one. Cold War theologies about mutually assured destruction and balance of terror no longer apply in 2006.

—The Guardian, London