|
| November 23, 2007 | Friday | Ziqa’ad 12, 1428 |
A doomed policy
Violence in Parachinar
A deadly social evil
Back to square one
OTHER VOICES – Indian Press
I REMEMBER the feelings of anguish and despair writ large on my father’s face as he read the newspaper headline that morning — July 5, 1977 — that the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had been overthrown.
THE validation of the Oct 6 presidential election has finally come. On Thursday, the newly constituted Supreme Court dismissed the last petition challenging President Musharraf’s right to seek re-election, thus enabling the Election Commission to officially notify the election results. Thus the way has been paved for the general to rule as a civilian head of state for five more years. The decision came a day after the president further amended the 1973 Constitution through an executive order to give constitutional cover to all actions taken by him since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution Order on Nov 3. The Constitution (Amendment) Order 2007 validates and affirms all actions taken by the president and army chief or authorities on his behalf since Nov 3 and debars all courts from hearing any petitions challenging these actions. With the fundamental rights already suspended, Wednesday’s amendment means that the proclamation of the state of emergency and all decisions made thereafter will be considered to have been “validly made by the competent authority… and shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever”.
While clamping the state of emergency, the president had cited the war on terror as the reason for his action. However, it was obvious that what prompted him to resort to emergency rule was his anxiety about the possible consequences of a negative decision by the Supreme Court as it existed on the morning of Nov 3. All legal hitches in the way of Gen Musharraf shedding his uniform now seem to have been removed by the post-PCO court, and — barring some unforeseen development — the general has managed to grab what he wanted in the face of stiff domestic opposition and widespread international censure. Gen Musharraf has already pledged to the Supreme Court to doff his uniform before taking the oath of office as president, and armed with this decision and Wednesday’s constitutional amendment he may lift the emergency to bow to the international pressures on this score. But a clear difference must be made between a purely legal and constitutional stamp of approval on the political set-up we are to have for the next five years and the moral endorsement of it. All Pakistani dictators, beginning with Ayub Khan, managed to overcome legal challenges to their rule because the state apparatus was with them. However, that in no way served to confer legitimacy on their rules, for the moment the ‘saviours’ were gone, the system they crafted collapsed.
Now there will be a repeat of the eighth and 17th amendment phenomena to seek parliamentary approval of all that President Musharraf has done since Nov 3, and this will obviously require a two-thirds majority. Will, then, the nation have a fair and transparent election or will the pro-PML-Q caretakers mobilise the government machinery to ensure positive results and give a two-thirds majority to the ‘king’s party’? While a reinstatement of the sacked judges is a worthy demand, President Musharraf can still redeem himself and give legitimacy to the post-Jan 8 set-up by ensuring free and fair elections. But will he? Given the composition of the caretaker set-up, the post-PCO courts and the curbs on the media and opposition political activity, even neutral observers will express doubts on this score.
HE lived and died by the sword. Balach Marri’s killing is shrouded in mystery and versions abound as to how the 42-year old Baloch nationalist, who is said to have been the head of the clandestine Baloch Liberation Army, actually died. One account being advanced by military sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, is that Balach died in Afghanistan as a result of infighting within the ranks of the Baloch militant movement. According to another, he was targeted in Afghanistan’s Helmand province by Nato forces in an air strike after his vehicle was mistakenly identified as being part of a Taliban convoy. A BLA spokesman has disputed these versions saying Balach was killed in a military operation in Balochistan and not across the border. News of his killing triggered outrage among his supporters and at least five people have so far been killed in the ensuing violence. In the past, BLA had owned up to attacks on infrastructure such as gas pipelines and power pylons as well as bombings where innocent civilians have been the victims. Nobody can condone such acts or find them justifiable. But it is equally true that there is a need to examine the factors that have driven some Baloch politicians to continue to talk in terms of separatism and opt for militancy even after six decades of the country’s existence.
It is ironical that leaders such as Nawab Akbar Bugti and Balach Marri have taken part in elections — obviously under the umbrella of the Federation of Pakistan — won handsomely and entered the assemblies and yet found the environment such that they chose to abandon electoral politics. Perhaps, they found their faith in parliamentary democracy undermined by the centre’s preference for a military solution rather than an engagement with those airing grievances. Islamabad may project its ‘development’ projects in the province as a proof of its commitment to the welfare of the Baloch believing that people will soon forget their fallen leaders. The fact is that any projects which fail to involve the Baloch themselves and don’t give them a sense of participation will be pointless. For they will see these against the backdrop of the killing of some of their leaders and the incarceration of others, such as Hasil Bizenjo, on treason charges. All the latter did was to demand the restoration of the Constitution. This policy is wrong and won’t work. It has to rethink its strategy.
AFTER five days of bloody sectarian clashes, hopes are being raised that a tribal jirga may succeed in restoring peace to Parachinar. Though the death toll is difficult to confirm, over a hundred lives are believed to have been lost in this latest round of Shia-Sunni violence in the administrative headquarters of Kurram Agency. Sadly, Parachinar is no stranger to such conflict. As recently as April this year, clashes triggered by an attack on a Shia procession left nearly 50 dead and over a hundred injured before elders from rival camps managed to broker a truce. Many homes and businesses were also ransacked or destroyed in that round of carnage.
Since the early sixties, sectarian animosity in Kurram Agency has occasionally spilled over into sporadic clashes. It was not until the 1980s, however, that matters came to a head following a massive influx of Afghan refugees. While locals outnumbered refugees almost four-to-one in the NWFP, Fata and Balochistan as a whole, outsiders at the time equalled or outnumbered Pakistanis in parts of Kurram Agency, seriously distorting the area’s demographics and changing its way of life. Many Afghans have since settled permanently in Kurram, introducing a hard-core brand of Taliban-style Sunni ideology that threatens peaceful coexistence. Hate literature and incitement by clerics have served to fan the flames of violence, while the local administration has often ignored the problem and even taken sides. The large Shia presence is one of the reasons why the influence of the Taliban is not as strong in Kurram as it is in some other tribal agencies. Distracted as they are by political crises and the threat of militancy, it is still incumbent on the authorities to crack down on those who are out to make trouble in a region where live and let live was once the dominant ethos.
A MUSLIM is expected to establish a strong relationship with the AllLord, on one hand, and with humanity at large, on the other. His relationship with his Maker develops through his acts of worship and is the manifestation of the Divine attributes in his own limited way.
The relationship with one another, on the other hand, becomes more cemented, when rights and duties of one another are observed and when the numerous aspects of social evils are avoided. So the All Wise Creator has given clear guidance as to the causes and effects of social evils.
Among the foremost of those things which destroy the good relationship in society is backbiting. Backbiting or ghibat as it is termed in the Qur’an originates from the root gha-ya-ba which means any thing that is absent or hidden from the eyes, invisible, unseen, nonapparent, whether it be or be not perceived by the heart or mind; anything absent from the range or beyond the reach of perception by senses, or beyond reach except through revelation. For example, in reference to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Qur’an says: (The Prophet) does not grudgingly withhold knowledge of the unseen. (Qur’an, 81: 24).
Because the Prophet had knowledge of the unseen from Allah, and he did not hesitate to make it known what was necessary with knowledge of life meaning contained in the root, it is easy to understand the meaning of ghibat or backbiting. The Qur’an uses this to mean:
1. Evil speech with respect to a person in his absence; 2. Something said, which may not always be true although it may have a lot of truth in it; 3. Saying something about a person, in his absence, that if he should hear it, it would grieve him; 4. Imputing to a person what he dislikes of vices or faults, even though such might be true; and 5. Mentioning about a person what is in him of evil.
The Quran has expressly prohibited backbiting. It says: “0 you who believe! Do not backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Certainly you would loathe it. So fear Allah, surely Allah is OftMost Merciful. (Qur’an, 49:12).It is not permissible to speak ill about anyone, even if that person has already passed away.
Backbiting can create confusion, enmity, hatred and above all, it breaks the good relationship with one another in society.
A nation is doomed if its people are backbiters. Backbiting can be with the tongue, through signs, with the hands, eyes, by making funny faces or by imitating another person. In short, all those gestures, which are meant to degrade another, are in the domain of backbiting and are prohibited. If one joins in the act of backbiting, or listens, or remains amongst the backbiters when he / she could have left that company, that person is also guilty. Allah has expressed disapproval for backbiting, and as a result, He says: “Woe to every backbiter”. (Qur’an, 104: 1)
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has left with us many traditions concerning backbiting. He says: Abdullah ibn Mas’ood reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To backbite a Muslim is transgression, and to fight with him is infidelity. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: “Do you know what is backbiting? They replied: “Allah and His Apostle know best.” He said: “Your talk about your brother which he dislikes.” He was asked: “What, if what we say about him is actually there?” He said, “If what you say is in him, still you will be backbiting him, and if what you say is not in him, you will be slandering him.”
Abdur Rahman Ibn Ganam reported that the Messenger of Allah said: “The best of the servants of Allah are those, who, when seen, remind one of Allah, and the worst of the servants of Allah are those, who roam about slandering people, with slanders, who create differences among the pious.”
A military ruler had taken over. All hopes had been shattered, for there had been a rude interruption in the democratic process, and it wasn’t the first time this had happened in the history of Pakistan.
This was discussed endlessly in those open house get-togethers that were a key feature of life in my grandfather’s household. The fresh earthy smell of the wet lawn in the evenings at his house in the centre of the city, where people came, yearning for discourse and debate, still lingers. There were also the coffee houses of yore that buzzed with heated discussions on politics, as if everyone’s life depended on it. It did as a matter of fact, and everyone felt the pain. My father and his friends were filled with the verve of student protests — the National Students Federation (NSF) of which my father was a member trying to maintain a political culture of sorts.
Such meeting places and areas filled the void of public spaces where people could meet. Poets, painters, writers, journalists, student leaders, unionists and many others, who brimmed with ideas, information and opinions, met and inspired one another with their commitment to a common cause. There was comfort in the knowledge that there were many more like them who maintained a common wavelength — who also felt the pain and dreamt the same dream. They were fired with the inspiration of establishing an uninterrupted democratic process.
Sadly enough, the establishment continues to hold its ground and the democratic process remains tattered. One can’t help but quote the lines from Zamir Niazi’s much acclaimed documentation of press curbs, The Web of Censorship: “Successive governments in Pakistan have in the past felt no qualms about dubbing the national press ‘public enemy number one’, but none with as much virulence and contempt as the post-1977 martial law regime of General Mohammad Ziaul Haq, the self-appointed custodian of this country…”
There are no prizes for guessing who fits the bill today. Such military custodians, who jumped into the imagined fray like knights in shining armour, have failed to give us a viable political system clear of feudalism, and ad hoc cosmetic changes have only been a façade for a smoother ‘milbus’.
We are still fighting the same battles, only with a different dynamics. Discussions and debate now take place in cyberspace and the broadcast media brings all the questions in mind right into the cosy lounges of viewers. This phenomenon along with defective political solutions of Pakistan’s self-appointed custodians, have actually distanced people from political participation. Public spaces for political interaction are not physical in nature and so the current generation’s understanding of the burning issues of society depends on clicking on the right website.
My father’s generation has lost hope in the political affairs of this country, though I still argue that we cannot let it go. I have to prove my duty as a parent at this point in time — to involve my children in life as active members of society. But they will have to move out of cyberspace into the real world.
Child at home
FOR erring children, living with parents or guardians is certainly preferable to living in a correctional centre. This has been made possible by the amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The new rules will allow children in conflict with the law to stay in their own homes or with foster parents while performing certain specific services for the community… The change is without doubt humane. Even then, certain questions are unavoidable. One lies at the very base of the homogeneous idea of children — can everyone from 0 to 18 be considered in the same way with regard to agency, vulnerability, sexual awareness and activity, or the sense of right and wrong?
In a country where studies have repeatedly pointed towards the child’s family as one of the chief sources of abuse… how safe is the minor offender in his or her home?...
Restoring street children to their families to check the rising rate of crime among them raises the same doubts, since the socio-economic profile of these families is such that the child must either work or run away. Can a neighbourhood be imagined which would look understandingly upon a family that has such a young offender in its midst? — (Nov 19)
The Telegraph
Are Pakistani nukes secure?
NOTWITHSTANDING the hard truth that the Bush administration has handed almost $100 million over the past six years to President Pervez Musharraf for keeping Pakistan’s nuclear weapons secure, there is yet another side to nuclear relations between the two countries.
However, the United States was compelled to change its stance towards Pakistan, following the Soviet troops’ entry into Afghanistan on December 25, 1979. The next day, the US decided to revoke sanctions imposed against Pakistan…
“News” about the United States giving Pakistan funds to ensure the security of its nuclear weapons has hit the headlines earlier too. The difference is that now Bush is being accused of having erred in helping Musharraf who has not proved to be reliable.
The US has all along been well aware of Pakistan developing nuclear weapons and selling the technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and others. The irony is that while nuclear cooperation has helped Pakistanis secure American training and high-tech equipment needed to keep their nuclear weapons secure, the US has little information about how and where the same is being used. Now the US views this as the “biggest mistake” of its foreign policy. — (Nov 22)
The New Indian Express