|
| October 23, 2006 | Monday | Ramazan 29, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Environmental fact and fiction
Plight of brick kiln workers
Autonomy issue in focus again
IN the wake of Nawab Akbar Bugti’s killing at the hands of security forces in August, the issue of provincial autonomy has resurfaced. Centre-provincial relations in Pakistan have a chequered history. The first seeds of discord were sown when Karachi was declared federal territory and capital in 1947. The then chief minister of Sindh, Ayub Khuhro, opposed this move that was seen as an attempt to wrest control of Karachi from the Sindh government without compensation.
THE government is to be commended for accepting the importance of provincial autonomy to stability and harmony in Pakistan. While autonomy may not resolve all the problems facing the country, decentralisation will certainly give various sections of society a greater sense of participation in governance. It may actually help improve policymaking and implementation. In quick succession, the federal information minister, the prime minister, the minister for inter-provincial coordination and now the parliamentary affairs minister, Mr Sher Afgan Niazi, have spoken about the government’s intention of conceding greater autonomy to the provinces. What is intriguing, however, is that none of these gentlemen have chosen to take the people into confidence about the specifics of the proposal being considered by the Waseem Sajjad committee.
Mr Niazi has given out that the centre is planning to transfer many of the functions which can be better performed by the provinces. It is time, however, for the government to spell out the subjects it plans to transfer to the provinces. There is talk of 35 items from the concurrent list in the 1973 Constitution being transferred to the federating units, leaving 12 under dual jurisdiction. Significantly, it does not say anything about the lengthy federal list comprising 67 items, some of which the centre could easily shed in favour of the provinces. For instance, there are a number of taxes and duties that should logically be collected by the provinces. Similarly, it would be advisable for the provincial governments to be allowed to manage the development of industries, ports, migration from one province to another, self-government in cantonment areas, and planning and coordination of scientific and technological research.
But more important than allocating subjects to the centre and the provinces is to recognise the primacy of the right of the provinces to manage their own affairs. The true spirit of devolution requires power to travel from the centre to the provinces and then to the grassroots level. The local bodies system that has been introduced in the name of devolution actually bypasses the provinces, with the centre having extensive powers to meddle in district government affairs. It is, therefore, encouraging to know that work is in progress on restructuring the system and establishing a mechanism for transparency at the district level. It is the virtual absence of transparency in governance at all levels that gives rise to many problems. The federal government is known to operate in the provinces through the many functionaries who are appointed by the centre. The goal now should be to transfer power to the provincial governments but require them to function within the framework of transparency. This will make the provincial governments accountable for the formulation and implementation of their policies. They will thus be more accessible to the people who can make them answerable for what they do. It will also encourage participatory government and allow the masses to get more meaningfully involved in governance at various levels — centre, province, district, city, town and union. Above all, the decentralisation of the political structure would help create inter-provincial harmony, as the parliamentary affairs minister emphasised while pleading the case for provincial autonomy. It is easier for people to live together peacefully if they feel confident that under the principle of unity in diversity their ethnic, cultural and linguistic identities will be respected and a brute majority will not impose its will over the smaller units of the federation.
THE environment minister’s words contradict the actions of his government. At a recent conference in Beijing, Mr Faisal Saleh Hayat highlighted the “various steps” Pakistan had taken to protect its environment and, in particular, stressed the need to safeguard mangroves and control the degradation of marine ecosystems. How then can he justify the cabinet’s decision to allot Bundal and Bundo islands to a UAE-based developer? The twin islands, especially Bundo, are ringed by dense mangrove forests that serve as a marine hatchery and provide a buffer against tidal surges. Located in a coastal stretch identified as a “high-priority area” by the World Conservation Union, Bundal and Bundo are a breeding ground for endangered green turtles and are also home to egrets, herons, kites, terns and waders. Migratory birds including cranes, flamingos and pelicans also roost on the islands. All this is in danger of being decimated by a luxury housing and recreation facilities project which will also affect the livelihoods of fishing communities. No environmental impact assessment has been carried out thus far in connection with the $43 billion project, as required by law under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000.
Laws may exist on paper but are flouted at will. Violating the spirit of the National Conservation Strategy as well as Pakistan’s commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, plans were floated this year to allot land to the air force in the country’s largest nature reserve, the Hingol National Park in Balochistan. Oil and gas exploration is meanwhile underway in Sindh’s Kirthar National Park. To the north, relentless logging by the timber mafia has denuded mountains and made landslides a constant threat, besides silting rivers and reservoirs. Pesticides prohibited by the UN FAO are still widely used in Pakistan and have entered the food chain after contaminating the soil, streams, rivers and groundwater reservoirs. Industries continue to discharge their effluent into the environment, and only six per cent of the sewage dumped into the sea in the vicinity of Karachi is reportedly treated. In the major cities, air and noise pollution are causing serious physical and psychological problems. The environment minister would be well served by a reality check.
THAT nearly two million brick kiln workers in the country have to undergo the rigours and indignities of bonded labour is not only a clear violation of the accepted standards of human rights but also in breach of the law. In this context, the Supreme Court’s instructions to the provincial chief secretaries to launch a drive against the abuse of brick kiln workers are welcome. For while there is greater awareness of this scourge and labourers are increasingly raising their voice against their bondage to cruel kiln owners, the provisions of the bonded labour abolition act of 1992 are not being implemented. The same is true for a Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the ‘peshgi’ system under which labourers work for their employers until they pay off their loans. This becomes a never-ending process since it is practically impossible for the workers, who are being paid a pittance, to clear their debts which are then handed down to the next generation. Cruelly treated by the kiln owners, some have resorted to desperate measures such as selling their kidneys to procure the needed money. Unfortunately, far from taking errant brick kiln owners to task, the police have actually been a party to the abuse and exploitation of the workers.
To begin with, all brick kilns are required to be registered — a task rendered difficult by the fact that many such units are located in remote areas. The government should not dawdle on this as otherwise the task of monitoring by provincial labour inspectors will not be effective, allowing kiln owners to continue with their manipulative ways. Several other measures, such as raising the minimum wage and providing rehabilitative assistance to victims of bonded labour, are also needed. But more than that, the workers should be given a greater sense of empowerment by encouraging them to come forward and demand their rights.
But the political upheaval started when the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was not allowed to work. When the Constituent Assembly passed a law in 1954 that the federal cabinet could only be appointed from its members, cabinet hopefuls including the powerful defence minister Ayub Khan and Major-General Iskander Mirza sabotaged the move and the Assembly was prematurely dismissed by Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed.
After the dissolution, the federal cabinet, practically appointed by Ghulam Mohammed instead of the prime minister, consisted of 10 members out of which five including Ayub Khan, Iskander Mirza, M.A.H Ispahani, Dr Khan Sahib and Mir Ghulam Ali Talpur were not part of the Constituent Assembly. Before this, the country had already witnessed language riots in Bengal in 1952.
In a landmark judgment, the Sindh High Court not only restored the Constituent Assembly but also declared that it had every power to enact such a law being the sovereign lawmaking body of the country. It declared that the Constituent Assembly had dual functions: it was a federal legislature as well as a constitution-making body. It also declared that the appointment of the five ministers mentioned was illegal because they were not members of the Constituent Assembly.
This sent shock waves in the corridors of power and the federal court set aside the judgment giving a new lease of life to the period of authoritarianism and political instability.
The constitution of 1956 which established parity between the two wings of Pakistan was a result of a contrived political system which denied Sindh, Balochistan and the NWFP provincial status. They were placed under the viceroyalty of Lahore. This was a grave violation of the 1940 Lahore Resolution which clearly envisaged that the units (provinces) would be autonomous. Thus the military and civil bureaucracy and opportunist politicians gave a death blow to the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan by effectively consigning the Lahore Resolution of 1940, the basis of the newly created country, to the dustbin of history.
The underlying cause of all these so-called constitutional deviations was the denial of constitutional status, self-government and autonomy to the provinces. If the 1956 constitution deprived the provinces of their status so expressly recognised in the Lahore Resolution, under the 1973 Constitution the NWFP and Balochistan were deprived of their lawfully established governments within no time.
The civil and military bureaucracy dominated by particular provincial and ethnic groups had never reconciled to the idea of self-governed provinces with the federation guiding the ship of state. It sensed that the wider responsibility to the provinces meant less ministries at the centre and a subsequent crunch in its perks and privileges.
Instead of learning a lesson from history, the forces of centralisation have always hatched conspiracies and paid lip service to the issue of provincial autonomy. When President Musharraf came to power, his seven points included the issue of provincial disharmony and its elimination. He publicly apologised to the Baloch for the mistakes of the past. But after seven years of Gen Musharraf, provincial disharmony has turned into disaffection and the state is again facing an insurgency in Balochistan and widespread resentment in Sindh and the NWFP.
The present government, instead of abolishing the Concurrent List and conceding autonomy to the provinces, took away two important provincial subjects — police and local government — from the purview of the provinces. The laws governing these two subjects have been added to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which means that they cannot be amended without the prior permission of the president till 2009.
Two new solutions are being mooted in the wake of the Balochistan crisis, which include either increasing the number of provinces to 25 or more or creating more provinces on the basis of illusory lines. This solution is being advocated without realising that the provinces of Pakistan have never worked under an autonomy regime and that the provincial autonomy model has never been tried. This solution could have had a basis if the provinces had revolted under a provincial autonomy regime.
Those who advocate the creation of more administrative provinces argue that Nigeria, India and America have also increased the number of states and are better governed. They forget that the cause of better governance in India as well as the US is democracy and federalism rather than an increase in the number of states. Nigeria, on the other hand, is a huge failure because of poor governance.
The cause of the failure of the federation in Pakistan has been autocratic rule and the negation of democracy rather than the issue of autonomy for the provinces. The federation, in the garb of local governments, has presided over more than 100 districts during the Ayub and Musharraf eras but we have not seen any perceptible change in provincial disharmony.
Nigeria and Bangladesh are unitary nation states not federations and can organise themselves into administrative units but not political units. Afghanistan’s provinces are also largely administrative rather than political units. Unlike Nigeria and Afghanistan, Pakistan’s provinces are political units rather than merely administrative divisions.
As far as India is concerned, it has not bifurcated the political units. In fact, it has created new ones on a political rather than an administrative basis. The British for their administrative convenience unnaturally amalgamated the same. For example, Sindh and Bombay were put under one administration but being political units instead of administrative ones were separated in 1936. India has declined to bifurcate or divide its biggest province UP because the increase in the number of states is not merely an administrative but a complex political issue.
The provinces in Pakistan being political units have remained states in history. The Quaid being conscious of this fact had used the word “states” in the Lahore Resolution. He had championed provincial rights in united India. During the visit of the Cabinet Mission in 1946, he enunciated the principle of the right to self-determination in a manner more forceful than that of any Indian leader. He had clearly stated that if there were three groups of provinces in united India then every province should be given the right to secede from the group after a period of 10 years. The Congress was put in a quandary and backed out. This clear stand on the lofty ideal of right to self-determination was enunciated in the charter of what was then known as the United Nations Organisation.
The provinces of Pakistan being historical entities and political units could not be done away with even by imposing One Unit. Neither can they be sidelined. They can organise themselves into more administrative units but not unless some historical wrongs have to be corrected through a political process. For example, the Pakhtun territories had been included in Balochistan by the British for administrative convenience and the Baloch would have no objection if such territories are given new status or amalgamated with the NWFP as per the wishes of the people. Besides, as per Article 239(4) of the Constitution, no new province can be created unless the assembly of that province passes a bill with two-thirds majority.
Similarly, if the Seraiki-speaking people demand a new province, it is on the basis of their historical claim to the land they inhabit and have occupied for centuries and which has been placed under Punjab for mere administrative governance. There is no further case for creating new provinces. Sindh is historically a single political unit, which is indivisible in political context.
It is lack of democracy and constitutional government that has sowed the seeds of so-called provincialism. If democracy and constitutional government had taken root in Pakistan, this issue would have died down long ago. At present, the smaller provinces have no stake in the federation. All the institutions of the federation are heavily dominated by particular ethnic groups to the detriment of the others.
Injustice breeds violence and resentment, which has expressed itself in Balochistan. It has now become clear that military rule conveys the message that only central Punjab is ruling the country. We forget that we lost Bengal because of the machinations of the military rulers. We may be again falling into the same trap and trying to legitimise military and central rule at great cost to the country.
It would have been better if the 1940 resolution had been made part and parcel of the Constitution. Instead, mere lip service is paid to it. India and America have been saved from disintegration because they both have established multiparty democracies governed by rules. Their citizens are not discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity and language and the powers of the states and the Federation are clearly defined and jealously protected.
Email:
barrister_zamir@hotmail.com