|
| February 11, 2007 | Sunday | Muharram 22, 1428 |
Cotton import prerogatives
The bane of VIP movement
Enforcing human rights in South Asia
Primary madness
WHILE the citizens of Europe are clamouring for third-generation human rights that go beyond those considered essential to the ideals of freedom and democracy, South Asia is still grappling with the enforcement of fundamental first-generation rights.
Under the plan, the Democrats' 2008 sprint starts with caucuses in Iowa (Jan. 14) and Nevada (Jan. 19), followed by primaries in New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29). New Hampshire, angry that its first-in-the-nation status is being threatened, could jump the starting gun and move its contest even earlier, to 2007.
FOR four consecutive days, the National Assembly could not conduct any business, the lack of a quorum being the cause for the last three days. Called into session on Tuesday, the lower House adjourned after offering fateha for a deceased member of parliament. But on the subsequent three days, the Assembly could not conduct any legislative business for lack of quorum. Amazing as it may sound, between them the treasury benches and the opposition could not manage to have 86 members present in a House of 342. The opposition’s strength in the House is an impressive 140. However, 64 of them belonging to the MMA were missing because the six-party alliance is boycotting the current session in protest against the passage of the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act. The original threat was to resign, but because of a split within the MMA, the current form of protest against the passage of the bill in question is restricted to a boycott of the Assembly session till the resignation issue is finally settled by the MMA high command at its meeting next Tuesday. More surprising and regrettable is the attitude of what one would like to call “government MNAs”. The ruling parties have 201 members, and those who are ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries and standing committee chairmen alone number 125. If slightly more than half this group turned up in the House, Speaker Amir Hussain would not have to adjourn the session over and over again.
There are many reasons why the legislators on both sides of the divide pay scant attention to their responsibilities as lawmakers. Those of the ruling coalition MNAs who have become ministers think they have achieved the main aim of fighting an election and do not consider it necessary to be present in the House to listen to the opposition’s criticism and defend government policies, or perhaps admit their mistakes and correct themselves. Those not having the good fortune of being picked as ministers possibly think spending money and fighting the election were not worth their while, for the entire process has failed to be rewarding and lucrative. They forget that their real task is to ventilate the grievances of their constituents, spotlight their problems and seek their solutions. As for the opposition, walkouts seem to be the only strategy they have for showing their defiance of the government and frustrating lawmaking by the treasury benches. Like their counterparts in the ruling coalition, the opposition MNAs, too, behave in a way that gives an impression as if they do not attach much importance to the sanctity of parliamentary proceedings. In fact, both sides appear to forget what a parliament represents and stands for.
As in every other country, so also in Pakistan, parliament represents the people’s sovereignty, and for that reason it cannot be trifled with. The main reason perhaps why our lawmakers of all shades and opinions do not attach importance to parliamentary proceedings is because military-led governments have often bypassed parliament and made far-reaching decisions without consulting the legislators. Besides, the elected assemblies have been dissolved arbitrarily so many times — 1954, 1958, 1969, 1977, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1999 — that a spirit of uncertainty characterises our polity, which in turn affects the lawmakers’ behaviour. Regrettably, the “graduate” condition does not seem to have made much difference to the quality of our lawmakers.
THE textile sector once again finds itself at the rough end of the federal food, agriculture and livestock ministry, which requires it to import cotton from India at a higher landing price in Pakistan because of the restrictions on cotton import through the Wagah border. Grown mainly in Indian Punjab and imported largely by the textile sector in Pakistani Punjab, cotton outsourced from India has to be imported via Mumbai-Karachi, as stipulated by the existing rules. For importers this has meant having to bear extra and unnecessary cost of transportation for the last five years. While the ministry’s excuse is that it has fumigation facilities only at the Karachi port and not at Wagah, importers counter this by saying that they will ensure the fumigation of the imported commodity as it is in their own interest to keep their cotton stocks in a good state. The volume of imported cotton involved is estimated to be up to three million bales this year, as cotton yield in Pakistan has fallen by 0.74 per cent for lack of price incentives offered to cotton growers and shortage of modern agricultural inputs. By comparison, demand on the mills from textile importers abroad of manufactured cotton products has risen considerably in the corresponding period. So here again is a story of an industrial sector whose growth is being stunted by outdated government policies which are in dire need of revision — only if the ministry concerned would care to take counsel from realism.
The global market is a highly competitive one where, in recent years, Chinese, Indian and Bangladeshi products have gained an edge over Pakistani exports. Despite this, the quality associated with Pakistani textiles has kept it in the business. The least the government can do is to ensure that this vital export sector does not suffer from a cost disadvantage in the international market. The duty-free import of cotton allowed from India was a step in the right direction. It needs to be bolstered by removing the existing bottlenecks of bureaucratic nitpicking imposed on the textile sector by the ministry concerned.
IT is never a happy time in Karachi when either the president or the prime minister is visiting the city. In that event, massive traffic jams and chaos make life miserable for the citizens. Friday’s jams were no exception as President Musharraf was in town to inaugurate the signal-free corridor. Hapless commuters had to suffer hours of being stranded on the roads, made worse by the rains. So far, there have been no reports of any deaths as a result of this jam, which is a relief as in the past quite a few emergency patients have died because they could not be rushed to the hospital in time. The repeated disruptions and chaos suffered by the city’s residents have had no effect on the VIPs or their movements. Numerous suggestions in the media, urging VIPs to make alternate travel arrangements — travel by helicopter or shift the venue of their meeting to less congested areas — have fallen on deaf ears. And the police’s inability to handle the traffic chaos that inevitably follows a VIP presence in the city only frustrates people more. No wonder callers on city radio stations were fuming in anger at the inconvenience caused by President Musharraf’s visit on Friday. Karachiites — like any other city that is taken hostage by VIP movement — are being made to suffer for no fault of theirs.
True, the president and the prime minister need heavy security, especially since both have survived assassination attempts on them. But surely, imaginative and realistic arrangements can be made, taking into account the factors of orderly movement of traffic. VIP security must not be allowed take precedence over the needs and convenience of the people. Because high-level visits are made well in advance, the traffic police can publicise alternate routes commuters can take. This will lessen jams and the inconvenience they now experience.
In Europe, the pressing need for economic and human development after the Second World War gave birth to an equitable political system based on liberal human values and fundamental freedoms. The European states signed and ratified the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Now European human rights law has become the national law of the member-states.
The Organisation of American States (OAS) followed suit and signed the American Convention on Human Rights in 1969, and putting aside sharp political differences, established the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. For many years, this court provided solace to families whose relatives were arbitrarily picked up and taken away by state authorities – the phenomenon of “disappearances”. That is a thing of the past in the South American continent but has come to haunt us in the 21st century.Africa also followed in the footsteps of Europe and America and signed the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights in 1981. But Asia, and in our context South Asia, remained out of the purview of any collective and practical forum for human rights. Although economic integration has become the agenda of South Asia through Saarc, the latter has failed to evolve a common charter of human rights and establish a human rights court in order to give economic progress a human face.
The state authorities in South Asian countries act in an arbitrary manner because their democratic systems are either weak or inefficient due to rampant poverty and underdevelopment. Because their independence is compromised, courts are not always in a position to ensure justice to the aggrieved. The Irish citizen knocking on the doors of the European Court of Human Rights against British high-handedness stood more of a chance of getting relief. This paved the way for effective regional checks on the arbitrariness of the state authorities.
Although the constitutions of most South Asian states guarantee fundamental rights their enforcement is weak and slow because of an underpaid and overworked judiciary. The judiciary tries to strike a balance of sorts between rights violations and the need of the authorities. This is in violation of the undertakings given in the constitutions of these countries which envisage that rights qualified by certain limits are to be protected in all cases.
In case of any threat to national security, the European state can seek derogation from the enforcement of fundamental rights but that derogation, even in emergency situations, has been construed very strictly against them.
Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and even Bangladesh have been facing political insurgencies in many parts of their respective territories but in order to suppress these political movements, they try to portray it as a law and order problem, which complicates the issue further as the movements never die. If they were a law and order problem, they could be controlled by simple executive methods. If the problem is not admitted, it defies a solution.
Sri Lanka has shown a much more reasonable approach although the problem of the Tamil Tigers is a complicated political issue. Colombo has nonetheless engaged the rebels in political negotiations. Unlike Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are federations with many nations as provinces/units. The political aspirations of these states/provinces cannot be contained through strong-arm tactics. They can only be accommodated through a just and fair political system.
Although both the countries got freedom from the British by espousing the aspirations of national freedom, neither wants to see the erosion of the authority of its elite’s centralised grip on power. Like colonial Britain, they may take territorial sovereignty very seriously – but in certain cases this has no meaning because the people remain politically and economically powerless.
While the British handed over power to two entities, it was left to the ingenuity of these large federations to respect the aspirations of the states/provinces. Although the British had conquered many states separately, they managed to coalesce them into two separate entities on the basis of religion and culture by the time they departed. Of the two, India has been able to establish a form of democracy based on universal patterns while Pakistan is still struggling with political problems.
Even in Europe, it was during the First World War that American President Woodrow Wilson espoused the principle of “one-nation one-state” when the smaller nations of Europe were liberated. The Austro-Hungarian and Prussian empires withered away in the First World War and the same happened to many European colonies and monarchies after the Second World War.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, Europe had not as many nation-states as it has today. Empires such as Russia, Austria-Hungary and Prussia encompassed and controlled smaller nations. Poland, the German states, Italy and others did not exist as sovereign nation-states. Europe is again moving towards political integration after much bloodshed on the national question. It would be prudent for South Asia to follow the European example and organise itself on equitable political terms. It need not shed blood for suppressing national aspirations. These have to be accommodated.We, in subcontinent, have not learnt any lesson from history. Both India and Pakistan were supposed to be federations but their ruling elites have fashioned them like empires leading to conflict in many parts of their territory.
Security agencies and administrative authorities in South Asia are arbitrary due to the lack of effective checks on the part of the executive and judiciary. It has seldom been the case when any high functionary of police or some other law-enforcement agency has been sent to prison or made to pay a heavy fine for human rights violations. If their crime against a member of the public becomes common knowledge, the high-ups immediately suspend a few of them and within no time at all reinstate them, exonerating them of all charges by applying pressure on the powers that be as well as the victims.
Arbitrary detentions, use of torture to extract confessions and now disappearances are rampant in this part of the world. Although these arrests and detentions may not serve any purpose for the regime or state, they are resorted to in order to exalt the status of executive authority when state or administration has failed to provide good governance or remove the political causes of discontent. This is being done in Pakistan and different parts of India where special laws and special courts administer rough justice to political opponents.
This mindset has made the people’s lives more insecure and we have been unable to deliver the fruits of independence to our people. Those old enough to remember the days of the Raj yearn for a time when all Asians were relatively equal before the British in the administration of justice.
The present establishments are toeing ethnic and sectarian lines and the writ of the state is weakening day by day as the state does not seem to be neutral in the administration of justice. Instead, it is callously spending hefty amounts on weapons of mass destruction just to hold on to power. Unless civil society in South Asia puts pressure on its respective governments to remove war and conflict in all forms, it will continue to suffer from poverty and underdevelopment.
The first step in this direction should aim at developing a consensus for the establishment of a South Asian court of justice or a South Asian human rights court that would gradually come to transcend national boundaries in taking cognisance of human rights violations if they remain unaddressed by individual governments. For this, a human rights convention has to be signed by the Saarc countries, one that sets out universal principles of human rights and promotes adherence to these as a way of achieving an effective mechanism to address violations.
The writer is a barrister-at-law
barrister_zamir@hotmail.com
But the worst news is that a number of larger states, including California, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Illinois, are considering moving their primaries to Feb. 5, the first permissible date for other states to hold contests. On the part of each individual state, this is a rational act: Why should voters from smaller states determine the outcome while big-state voters are shut out? But the overall result will be a worsening of all the ill effects of front-loading, and for both parties: In most states, the Republican primary is held the same day.
Front-loading benefits better-known candidates with big bank accounts more than it does dark horses who might be able to do well and gain momentum in a more rationally paced system.
—Los Angeles Times