The Karachi mayhem

MAY 12 was a black day for Karachi as on that day there was an unbridled reign of terror that was let loose by the criminals with total immunity. It looked as if the government’s writ did not exist in the city on that fateful day.

It is, however, clear that this was not a case of maladministration, inefficiency or a breakdown of the government machinery. On the contrary, it was an insidious and deliberate violation of the rule of law, a flagrant disregard for human life and an egregious abuse of power by the present rulers of Sindh who wanted to create a situation in Karachi that would prevent the Chief Justice of Pakistan from addressing the Sindh High Court Bar Association –– an event that was planned long ago. The city of Karachi and its suburbs were under siege by the criminals who perpetrated atrocities on innocent people with total immunity.

The Sindh administration had blocked the Sharea Faisal by placing large containers at crossroads there so that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his entourage may not be able to go to the Sindh High Court building to attend the Bar’s function there. Even the Sindh High Court building was cordoned off. A number of senior lawyers and the Sindh High Court judges had to jump over the boundary walls to enter the High Court premises. Despite the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court’s judicial order to remove the obstacles the Sindh government did not do so.

Perhaps the nation has never before seen such an ignominious behaviour by the executive towards the highest judicial functionaries of the country. Those who masterminded these acts of criminality must be exposed, tried and punished for their offence to prevent others from committing such crimes in the future. This is the only way to end the growing public disquiet about the safety of life in Karachi.

It is believed that the Sindh administration had offered to take the Chief Justice to the Sindh High Court Bar’s function by a helicopter. As a matter of fact, a helicopter had already been sent to the Karachi airport for this purpose. The Chief Justice spurned the offer because his hosts had asked him to stay there till they make his travel arrangements. However, in view of the abnormally bad law and order situation in the city, particularly around the Karachi airport, it was not advisable to travel by road and hence the Chief Justice should have agreed to travel by a helicopter. He could have, however, insisted on the same facility for the members of his entourage.

There is also criticism against the opposition parties for politicising the ongoing judicial crisis for their purposes. It may be pertinent to mention that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has made no political statement ever since the reference against him was sent to the Supreme Judicial Council. He is only contesting the alleged charges of irregularities contained in the presidential reference against him in the court. He has also made it abundantly clear that he has no political designs or ambitions.

The lawyers’ community throughout the country which is spearheading the campaign to uphold the independence of the judiciary and protest against the treatment meted out to the Chief Justice has also expressed its reservations about politicising an essentially legal issue. They have, therefore, distanced themselves from the political parties and have not allowed them to attend the meetings organised by the bar associations in several cities in honour of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The political parties have every right to express their disapproval of the presidential reference which they consider is mala fide. However, to follow the Chief Justice wherever he goes, carrying their parties’ flags, whenever the CJ stepped out of his residence either to go to the Supreme Court in connection with the hearing of his case or to address a Bar meeting was inadvisable as it has unnecessarily aroused doubts about the Chief Justice’s intentions. Needless to say, the political parties by their action have also displayed excessive enthusiasm in the matter. There are many other ways of upholding the independence and dignity of the highest judiciary and express solidarity with the Chief Justice.

It is also pertinent to mention that the political parties in Pakistan have not been able to mobilise the public opinion on any national issue in recent times. Their performance in the parliament also has not come up to the expectations of the people. It seems that they decided to make up for their dismal performance by taking up the issue of the presidential reference against the CJP which they thought could prove profitable for them too.

Unfortunately, there is also a long history of the suppression of the voice of the media in Pakistan. During the current judicial crisis the media, both print and electronic, has played a positive role and fulfilled their professional responsibilities remarkably well. Apparently they did not blow the things out of proportion. It is, however, regrettable that the two private TV channels, one in Islamabad and another in Karachi, were attacked by police, in the first case, and by miscreants enjoying official blessings , in the second case, to punish them for showing the scenes of brutality inflicted by them on the people of Karachi on May 12.

The mishandling of the situation in Karachi on May 12 by the Sindh government has been full exposed by the media and thoroughly condemned by the members of the Senate, national and provincial assemblies, regardless of their political affiliations. The people of Pakistan are eagerly waiting for appropriate punitive action by the president against certain key officials in the Sindh administration and the law enforcement agencies who were guilty of serious dereliction of duty on that day, at the behest of the provincial ruling elite.

President General Pervez Musharraf is likely to come under immense pressure on this account. It remains to be seen how he deals with this matter. It would indeed be a litmus test of his ability to tackle this issue that has ominous implications for his own political future. Prudence demands that he observes impartiality to have the whole matter thoroughly investigated, responsibility for lapses and failures duly fixed and action taken against those found guilty.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Judicial probe to heal wounds

IT IS intriguing why the government has not responded promptly to the public demand for a judicial enquiry into the carnage in Karachi on May 12. Given the scale of the killings, the mayhem and the paralysis or collapse — whichever way one may view it — of the law and order machinery in the city, this would seem to be the most logical thing to do.

The government should have taken measures on its own initiative to investigate impartially the events of that fateful day. A probe is important to identify those who failed in discharging their duty. This is essential if they are to pay a price for this failure that has cost Karachi 48 lives – and much more in terms of peace, stability and ethnic harmony. On such occasions, when there have been security lapses – advertent or inadvertent – the first impulse of the administration is to set up an enquiry body to look into the matter.

If it is a truly independent probe, the investigation helps to pin responsibility and as a result some heads have to roll. This also has a cathartic effect because the process of deposing before the enquiry officer and giving evidence helps people ventilate their grievances and hurt.

In this particular case, if the enquiry is to produce the desired impact and carry credibility, it must be headed by a high court judge and must be seen to be fair and free. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised because in the trading of charges and allegations one of the parties, namely the MQM, is a key member of the administration.

In fact, this could be the reason for the government’s not acceding to the demand for holding an enquiry. It would be aware of the grave implications of the events of May 12 and the repercussions of a probe that could potentially hold the administration responsible. The MQM’s top-ranking leaders have rushed to London for consultation with their chief, Mr Altaf Hussain, who has been based in London since 1992.

In such crises, it has been conventional for governments to attempt to deflect the heat away from themselves by instituting a commission of enquiry. It has been observed that by the time this body completes its mandated work and prepares a report, the crisis has usually subsided. With the pressure having decreased, governments have even conveniently shelved the reports of the commission of enquiry.

In the case of Karachi, this method was adopted way back in 1985 when the city was engulfed in the flames of violence in the wake of Bushra Zaidi’s death. Bushra was a student of Sir Syed Girls’ College and was hit and killed by a rashly driven minibus in Nazimabad.

The immediate public reaction was to attack the administration and the transporters. The breakdown of law and order rapidly assumed the shape of ethnic riots – the transport sector in Karachi was, and is even today, controlled by the Pathans.

The government’s reaction then was to set up a high sounding commission of enquiry into Karachi’s affairs. We know that nothing came out of this exercise and the findings were not even made public. But the tensions were defused for some time.

Seen against this backdrop, one can only guess why the administration does not appear to be in a hurry to probe what happened on May 12. So reluctant has it been to re-visit the happenings of that black Saturday that the police even refused to register an FIR, which was subsequently registered only on the Sindh High Court’s injunction.

It is plain that these events cannot be viewed in the narrow perspective of local politics. They are directly linked to national politics. Random statements made by various leaders from different parts of the country confirm that on account of Karachi being viewed erroneously as the MQM’s exclusive preserve the party was encouraged by its coalition partners as well as President Musharraf to preempt the rally of the Chief Justice in Karachi as a demonstration of the government’s strength on the ground. This was not attempted in other places.

When things went seriously wrong, contrary to their expectations, many of them are now using the MQM as a whipping boy to heap a lot of odium on it. This has created bad blood among the ruling parties. An in-depth probe could bring all this to the fore and unravel the coalition, which they cannot afford at this stage when the opposition parties have gained immense mileage from the lawyers’ movement for the independence of the judiciary.

Another factor that deters a probe is the seemingly ubiquitous presence of the independent television channels. The electronic media proved to be a dynamic actor as the events unfolded on May 12. It projected all that was happening instantly on the mini-screen to be seen all over the country. As a result it has not been easy for the administration, the police and the ruling party to conceal their own role in what was taking place before the eyes of the viewers who remained glued to their TV sets throughout the day.

As a result, the administration has been thrown on the defensive and is trapped in the unenviable position of constantly explaining its moves and blaming the opposition, generally without much credibility. Images are more powerful than words. Since so much has been witnessed by the public, what the bevy of ministers, advisers and the ruling party leaders now say on television does not carry much conviction.

If matters are not to get any worse, a judicial enquiry should be instituted in an attempt to bare the truth. The blame game will not help unless the allegations are substantiated. An enquiry by a judge who is strong and independent would help to heal the wounds that have been inflicted on this city of 12 million.

It’s thriving, but lethal

THREE months before his election in 1997, Tony Blair wrote in BAE Systems' newsletter that his government would champion arms exports and a "strong defence industry". That, despite the hoopla surrounding the idea of an "ethical" foreign policy, was always the prime minister's ambition. A decade on, a new set of figures reveals the devastating extent to which he has succeeded.

Monday's report by the NGO Saferworld documents the £45bn worth of arms delivered by Britain in the past 10 years, making us the world's second-largest arms exporter. In the past three years, arms have been exported to 19 of the 20 countries identified in the Foreign Office's annual human rights report as "countries of concern".

The Colombian military and its paramilitary allies have killed thousands of people in the country's civil war. Yet last year Britain exported armoured all-wheel-drive vehicles, military communications equipment and heavy machine guns, alongside a military aid programme. Indonesia has received more than £400m worth of military equipment since 1997, while using British military equipment for internal repression on a dozen known occasions.

Britain has exported more than £110m worth of military equipment to Israel during its occupation of Palestinian territories and war with Lebanon. Exports doubled in 2001, as Israeli offensive military operations were stepped up on the West Bank. Another growth market is China.

Despite an EU arms embargo, Britain has managed to export £500m worth of military and dual-use equipment - nominally "non-lethal" items. These include components for tanks, components for combat aircraft, and military communications equipment.

Over the past four years, 199 export licences have been approved to the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands ––territories without armies. The equipment includes small arms and ammunition, anti-riot shields, CS hand grenades, crowd-control ammunition and even nuclear, biological, chemical filters and respirators (for the Cayman Islands).

It is anybody's guess where this equipment is destined. And this could be just the tip of the iceberg. Government statistics show the destination of only a quarter of all arms exports - the public are not told where the rest goes.

Government policies to tighten exports, such as banning the export of torture equipment and landmines, have been minor in comparison. The government trumpets an international arms trade treaty since it would require no further restrictions on its arms exports. Ministers have stressed that the treaty should not impinge on the "legitimate arms trade", and even that it "could benefit the defence industry".

Arms exports are thriving not because of any domestic economic benefits. Academic research shows that the public subsidises arms sales by between half a billion and a billion pounds annually — far outweighing any economic stimulus they provide. What drives the growth is that arms sales support foreign policy by strengthening relations with key allies, who are often repressive elites.

But there is also a huge influence wielded by big arms corporations, as reflected in the "revolving door" between them and the Ministry of Defence. At least 19 senior MoD officials have taken jobs with arms companies since 1997, while 38 out of 79 personnel secondees to the MoD between 1997 and 2003 came from arms companies.

—The Guardian, London

Dreaming of the top job

I WAS reading excerpts from the memoirs of Mrs Dukakis, wife of George Dukakis who was the Democratic nominee for the post of US President in 1988, and found one incident so amusing I thought I should share it with my readers. Apparently she had been very worried by what life was going to be like if her husband won the election.

One night she actually woke him up from sleep and asked what was going to happen to them. Mr Dukakis replied that all that was going to happen was that, for the first time in their lives, they would be living in a house provided by the US government. Saying this he turned over and went back to sleep. As simple as that. Writes Mrs Dukakis, though she was not able to sleep for quite a while thinking over what she would have to do and what she would not be able to do as president’s wife.

It is not as simple as that for us. When I tried to imagine a similar dialogue between a president-elect of Pakistan and his begum on the eve of his installation, it took me half the night thinking up the possible questions and answers between them. Let me share this too with readers of this column although it is only a flight of imagination.

The president-designate (let’s call him PD for short) has just got into his night clothes and about to call it a day, but Begum PD says, “Nothing doing. You can’t go to sleep on a night like this. I must first know all about your new job, the salary, the perks, the privileges and the way life is going to be in the Aiwan-i-Sadar. Tell me about all these things.”

Having incidentally read the memoirs of Mrs Dukakis PD repeats the very words of her husband quoted by me. But Begum PD is not satisfied and fires off a battery of questions at him. For lack of space I shall report only a few along with the replies.“Tell me first of all, dear, how big the house is. Is it as big as the palace of Seth Zahid, the smuggler living next door to us?” PD ponders for a while and then says, “Well, not so big, but it is much more beautiful. It’ll take you a good two hours to make a round of it and see everything.”

“Really! How exciting. And how many servants shall we have?”

“Scores upon scores,” replied PD. “But that is not all. These will of course work within the Aiwan-i-Sadar. Otherwise the entire civil services of the country will be at your beck and call. That is why they are called civil servants. They are the only servants who are truly civil these days. You only have to tell them what you want and they’ll be happy to oblige.”

Begum muses, “At the moment I can’t think of what I can ask a federal secretary or a chief secretary to do for me, but I suppose I shall learn gradually. What about the flag-flying staff car that I see on TV? Will I get a ride in it?”

“Ride in it! You can sleep in it if you like, it is so big. And not one, but as many as you want. You have only to whistle and a dozen limousines will drive up for your use. And all the children too will have cars of their own.”

“How lovely!” There is a pause as Begum PD savours the situation. After this she snuggles close to PD and says, “Husband dear, do you think you’ll be able to find a job for my poor brother who couldn’t study beyond matric? You know the circumstances.”

“One poor brother,” exclaims PD, “Even if you have a dozen poor brothers they will all be accommodated. After all what are autonomous bodies for. They are always ready to oblige the head of the state. In this country even a deputy secretary’s matriculate brother can’t remain jobless. And if by chance one of the brothers is a graduate, I’ll ask some foreign firm to employ him. Don’t worry on this account. I too have many jobless relations. You’ll see that the concerned authorities will themselves provide for them. We won’t have to request anyone.”

By this time half the night is over. But the Begum’s thirst for general knowledge is not sated by the coffee of which they drink several cups. Various topics are broached by her in respect of how she will have to behave and how people will behave towards her.

“What about the wives of foreign VIPs?” she ventures. “My English is not so good, and I see from the newspapers and TV that they are always visiting Islamabad and calling on the president. What will I say to them?”

PD explains that official interpreters look after these matters. “Even if you recite from the dhobi’s clothes-book it won’t matter. For example if you say chaar pajaame, saat qameezen, giara bistar ki chadaren, the interpreter will tell the visiting lady that we have given complete freedom to our women under the Shariah.”

“Really? I can even call her bewaqoof ki bachchi if I want to?” PD assures her that she can, “But don’t do it. The interpreter may go and tell a journalist what you have been saying to the president of Ghulamistan’s wife and we’ll have to issue a clarification that what you had actually said was do you like aloo ke parathe? Moreover these foreign office types are in the habit of writing their memoirs later on.”

A few more questions and the morning azaan is heard. PD puts his foot down that he must have a couple of hours sleep if he is not to look groggy at the swearing-in ceremony. But Begum PD pleads, “One last question. “When can I see London and Paris and New York and do some much-needed shopping?”

“As soon as you want to”, replies PD as he pulls the bed clothes up to his chin. “I have already discussed with the health secretary informally about your needing a new denture. He says this means you have to go abroad for medical treatment. And for God’s sake don’t embarrass me by taking just one suitcase with you. Take at least a dozen even if you have to stuff them with old newspapers. By the time you come back they will be quite full. Good night, or rather good morning.”

What would Mrs Dukakis have said to all this? Maybe words to this effect: “The White House may be large and beautiful and rent free, and that’s about all. But for pomp and show, the perks and privileges, and for sycophantic jerks standing to attention all over the place, give me the President’s House in Islamabad.”

Cyberwar in the Baltic

ESTONIA is one of the most wired countries in the world -- people even vote on-line -- but for the past three weeks the country has been under a massive cyber-attack that has disabled the websites of government ministries, political parties, newspapers, banks and private companies.

Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip directly accused Russia of being responsible, and appealed to the Nato alliance to do something about it. Things are getting seriously foolish in Eastern Europe.

Nato can't do anything about it, because the treaty does not currently define cyber-attacks as a military act that would allow the victim to invoke the alliance's provisions for collective defence. Besides, there is no obvious action Nato could take that would stop these attacks, which are being coordinated by Russian hackers who may or may not have been sent into action by the Russian government. And yet another reason for Nato not to get officially involved is that grown-ups have been conspicuously absent on both sides in this quarrel.

It was provocative for Estonia's right-wing government to remove the Soviet war memorial from the centre of Tallinn on 27 April and re-erect it at a military cemetery on the outskirts of town. The Russians take their 30 million dead in the Second World War very seriously indeed: the Russian parliament immediately deemed the act "blasphemous and barbarous," and urged President Vladimir Putin to break diplomatic relations with the small Baltic republic. He didn't do that, but he may have found another way of making the Estonians pay.

This is all about history, and the passions run high on both sides. The Estonians got their independence from the Russian empire in 1918, but lost it again in 1940 as a result of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, in which Stalin got a free hand to annex Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern Poland and Hitler got the rest of Poland.

The Soviet Communists only murdered about five per cent of the Estonian population -- "class enemies," clergymen, Socialists, and other "unreliable" elements -- during their occupation, whereas the Nazis eventually slaughtered about twenty per cent of Poland's population. But then the Soviets only had a year and a bit to work with, because Germany invaded the Soviet Union in mid-1941 and liberated Estonia.

At least, it felt like liberation to most Estonians, although for the country's 5,000 Jews the arrival of the Nazis meant exile or death. When it looked like the Soviet army was winning the war in 1943-44, some Estonians even volunteered for the German army -- and most of them were put into SS divisions because that was where most foreigners in the German forces served. But the Soviets did re-conquer Estonia in 1944, and they called that a liberation, too.

For the Estonians, it was the beginning of another 46 years of Soviet occupation, during which tens of thousands of Estonians were sent to the camps and so many Russian immigrants arrived in their little country that it is today almost one-third Russian-speaking. They always saw the huge bronze statue of a Red Army soldier that has now been moved from central Tallin as a symbol of occupation, not liberation. There is a lot of room for bitterness in this history, and plenty of opportunities for really nasty behaviour. Few opportunities have been missed.

Even post-Communist Russians cannot bear to have the Red Army in which most of their fathers or grandfathers served treated as just another invading army, not much better than the German Wehrmacht, but like it or not, that was the experience of many Eastern European countries. Moreover, the half-century of Soviet occupation is a lot more recent than the long-dead Nazi era, so the resentments are a good deal fresher. Now most of these Eastern European countries are in both Nato and the European Union, and they have brought their anti-Russian grudges with them.

This is not going to be solved by sweet reason, but it can be managed and contained if the authorities on both sides don't exploit it for domestic political purposes.

The Estonian government, which says that at least a million computers worldwide were taken over by Russian hackers in order to launch three waves of cyber-attacks that paralysed Estonian websites, has largely solved the short-term problem by denying access to e-mail from all foreign addresses. Estonian defence minister Jaak Aaviksoo now concedes that "there is not sufficient evidence of a (Russian) governmental role."

—Copyright