|
| December 09, 2007 | Sunday | Ziqa'ad 28, 1428 |
The real constituency?
Islamabad’s burn unit
Balochistan’s prisoners of conscience
OTHER VOICES – Indian Press
THE presidents of Balochistan High Court Bar Association and Balochistan Bar Association, Shakil Ahmed and Baz Mohammad Kakar, were arrested upon imposition of the emergency and Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) and bundled off respectively to Mach and Loralai jails. These elected presidents representing all the lawyers of Balochistan are now under house arrest.
OVER the decades, society in Pakistan has undergone many changes but one major component of our body politic has resisted all change: the feudal control of the country’s political institutions. Feudals have often made fun of city-based intellectuals’ lament over the continuation of feudalism in Pakistan, accusing the latter of a textbook addiction to socialist jargon. It is true that the pattern of land ownership has over the decades undergone considerable change, especially in northern Punjab, and modern technology seems to be chipping away at old values and giving a new consciousness to the underdogs. But in southern Punjab and Sindh the feudal pattern of land ownership and inheritance has persisted. In this respect a report in Saturday’s Dawn is revealing and confirms how well entrenched the feudals are in our political system. According to the report, the three mainstream national parties — PPP, PML-N, PML-Q — and the Sindh-based PML-F have made no efforts to diversify class representation in parliament and have continued to give party tickets in overwhelming numbers to feudal lords.
According to a survey conducted by the Free and Fair Election Network, of the 112 candidates fielded by the PML-Q, 52 happen to be big landlords. The same is true of the PPP, which has given about the same number to the feudals in 114 constituencies. In the case of the PML-N, 39 candidates happen to be landlords, and one should not be surprised if a party headed by the industrial tycoons that the Sharifs happen to be has given party tickets to 24 businessmen. This means 63 of the party’s 96 candidates belong to the elite. The businessmen’s quota in the PPP is 26, taking the total of those in the elite class to nearly 80. As for the PML-F, 13 of Pir Pagara’s 20 candidates happen to be feudal lords, since nowhere does feudalism exercise such pervasive control over the rural social scene as in Sindh. The Jamaat-i-Islami and the MQM have given tickets to the middle class. The latter has an urban base, while the JI has traditionally been a middle-class party, though this time 11 businessmen too are there on the JI ticket.
By evading the two bouts of land reforms, one by a military government and the other by a populist regime, the feudal class has demonstrated its political clout. Its hold over parliament and its consequent control of policymaking institutions in Pakistan have had disastrous consequences for the country. Often working in tandem with the military and the clergy beholden to the status quo, the feudal class has pursued policies that have retarded Pakistan’s economic progress, managed till this day to evade tax on agricultural income and militated against the growth of a prosperous and educated middle class that could have a stake in democracy. The military’s proclivity to intervene in politics, the rise of religious militancy, and the feudal lobby’s continued stranglehold over the state structure have combined to frustrate the Pakistani people’s search for a stable democratic order.
ANSWERABILITY to the people is a basic tenet of democracy. True we are currently living in dictatorial times, but public opinion has been largely inconsequential in Pakistani politics even in times of democracy, engineered or otherwise. Our leaders in recent decades, be it Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif or Pervez Musharraf, have all looked to foreign shores for validation and subsequent consolidation of power. When out of office and on the wrong end of the power equation, our politicians make a beeline for Washington or London in an attempt to destabilise the incumbents in Islamabad. Their true constituency, it seems, is not the people of Pakistan but the US and its allies in Europe and the Middle East — and of course the GHQ in Rawalpindi, in some cases. Since Nov 3 and the imposition of emergency rule, the government has appeared more concerned with the reaction in the West — tempered in any case by the bogey of extremism — than with protest in the streets of Pakistan. The reason is simple: the country’s citizens can be bludgeoned into submission while the foreign arbiters of our fate must necessarily be placated. The image abroad is clearly more important than opinion at home. When elections can be rigged, losing votes and the confidence of the people is not a primary worry. Ours is a country that has imported two prime ministers, one from the World Bank in Washington and the other from Citigroup in New York. Yet, our leaders talk of ‘sovereignty’ and waste no opportunity to condemn foreign interference.
We have only ourselves to blame for any meddling in our internal affairs. ‘Advice’ from overseas has been kowtowed to all along, so why should it be surprising that the Saudi envoy can meet Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry when former prime ministers of Pakistan and the deposed Chief Justice’s colleagues, friends and admirers cannot? Or that foreign diplomats have been dispensing advice to local politicians in the run-up to elections, or visiting the offices of media outlets banned under the emergency? The Turkish president recently met with leading Pakistani politicians, going so far as to coach them on how to deal with the military. No doubt he has some experience in this matter but purely in the context of Turkey. On Thursday the US assistant secretary of state offered a glimpse into what lies in store when he said that the Jan 8 elections will not be “perfect”. It’s all been decided beforehand and the people of Pakistan can rest easy.
FOR a person who has been burnt, the availability of a specialised burn centre determines how well he or she is treated and, possibly, how badly he or she will be scarred for the rest of his or her life, that is if s/he survives. Burn patients need a specially trained team to take care of them, not just doctors and nurses. They need a facility equipped with special features to handle their condition characterised by extreme pain, vulnerability to infection and the body’s loss of ability to regulate temperature and fluid levels. In this context, the inauguration of the Rs398m state-of-the-art 20-bed Burn Intensive Care Unit at Pims is a milestone in burn treatment in Islamabad. This modern centre will help reduce the mortality rate of burn patients, which in Pakistan is 46 per cent as compared to 20 per cent in developed countries. It will also provide burn survivors in this region with the kind of care and treatment by specialist-trained staff which was not available before.
However, establishing a burn-care facility like the one at Pims is the easy part; much more difficult is maintaining it, and that too at the standards it had when it first opened. Many hospitals in developed countries have shut down their burn centres because they were expensive to maintain and were often money losers. The president, who inaugurated the facility, has promised special allocation for the Pims burn unit’s annual recurring expenditure of Rs126m and he also ordered the creation of a fund for the treatment of burn victims at the centre. Unless these directives are followed through and maintained, the prohibitive cost of providing specialised care for burn patients could well undermine the country’s first-of-a-kind programme at Pims.
Ali Ahmed Kurd, former president of Balochistan Bar Association and Tariq Mehmood, former President of Balochistan High Court and Supreme Court Bar Associations, were abducted and sent respectively to Jhelum and Sahiwal jails. In the heartland of the Punjab, the writ of Pervez and son Moonis Elahi ruled supreme and Kurd and Mehmood were maltreated and developed various medical problems.
The fate of all judges of the Supreme Court elevated from Balochistan is a little better. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohmmad Chaudhry, Justice Jawed Iqbal and Justice Raja Fayyaz served as Chief Justices of Balochistan before elevation to the Supreme Court. As twilight engulfed Islamabad on Nov 3 they were locked-in.
Musharraf’s unkindness with Balochistan’s men and women of law has a long history. Justice Tariq Mehmood, as Balochistan High Court judge had the temerity to question the referendum of April 2002. A referendum later acknowledged as a mistake by Musharraf, but his mistake resulted in Justice Mehmood’s forced resignation. The impoverished people of Pakistan bore the astronomical expense of the referendum, under which Musharraf secured his second stint in power. His first was acquired by nudging aside the elected government and parliament.
It was also during Musharraf’s stay at the helm that Balochistan’s Justice Nawaz Marri was murdered; the first and only murder of a confirmed High Court Judge in Pakistan. When the slain judge’s brother, retired Chief Justice Khuda Baksh Marri, demanded the arrest of his brother’s murderers Musharraf dispatched him a terse letter warning him not to take the law into his hands!
Musharraf’s third job securing — “the third phase to democracy” -- started on Nov 3. The world witnessed the transmutation of General Musharraf into a civilian president; a scientific marvel, a constitutional blemish. The hybrid cost the nation its Judiciary, the Constitution and 5,000 protesting lawyers were thrown into the slammer.
Balochistan flared-up when a lady doctor was raped in Sui. The incident suggested the involvement of security personnel as it took place in a secured compound. A judicial inquiry was in progress when General Musharraf publicly exonerated the army captain who was in control of security. Interference with the judicial process inflamed passions, providing a rallying point for all disgruntled elements.
When Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry became the Chief Justice of Pakistan he became the first Balochistani to attain this distinction. Independence of mind and spirit that characterises most Balochistanis, are intolerable qualities in Islamabad and the GHQ. General Musharraf took the exceptional step of submitting a reference after the Chief Justice’s removal. The Supreme Court, the entire Court, threw out the reference. Musharraf bided his time and retaliated by throwing out the Supreme Court and then in Napoleonic fashion placed the crown on his head.
The perception of the people of Balochistan of being wronged grows. They want to be freed from the shackles of the sardari-system that was outlawed in 1976 but the interim Balochistan Cabinet has been stuffed full with sardars. There were no sardars or nawabs in the forefront of the Pakistan movement but their progeny are pampered whilst patriots lie rotting in jails. The educated leadership of the Muslim League spearheaded the people of Balochistan who heartily avowed the cause of Pakistan.
The civil society of Balochistan is a natural counter to separatists, extremists and sardars, but its leaders have been incarcerated. Balochistan gives shape to Pakistan. Constituting 43 per cent of the land mass of Pakistan it literally defines Pakistan. Where are we today? All judges from Balochistan in the apex court have been forcibly removed. The presidents of its bar associations imprisoned. Their only crime is believing in Pakistan and the Constitution which ensures that the territory of Balochistan is an integral part of Pakistan (Article 1).
Without the Constitution of Pakistan, what is the territory of Pakistan? By putting the Constitution in abeyance the physical integrity of the country is gravely undermined. It is for such reasons too that the Constitution requires everyone’s obedience (Article 5). Without it “we walk in darkness, in the thick darkness of the plague” (Albert Camus The Plague). A pestilence has descended. Persecution is rife. The rain of justice has stopped. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad, said, “The justice we were supposed to dispense, we have delivered, and are prepared to pay any price for it. Now we would see whether people would stand with us.”
In June 1948 the Quaid addressed the officers of the Staff College: “During my talks with one or two very high-ranking officers I discovered that they did not know the implications of the oath taken by the troops of Pakistan: ‘I solemnly affirm, in the presence of Almighty God, that I owe allegiance to the Constitution’. I should like you to study the Constitution which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implications when you say that you will be faithful to the Constitution.”
Musharraf took the oath prescribed in the 1973 Constitution for the members of the armed forces. “In the name of Allah, the most Beneficient, the most Merciful, I, Pervez Musharraf, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever.” Was he true to his oath? Did he uphold the Constitution?
Time magazine’s (Dec 10, 2007) evaluation is, “Pakistan’s leader leaves the army, but his war on the Constitution continues. But regardless of what outfit he wears, Musharraf has left Pakistan with a tattered constitution patched with amendments and filled now with so many loopholes justifying his rule that it resembles a crocheted doily, ready to be thrown over whatever ugliness the next ruler creates in pursuit of power.”
The article concludes with the swipe: “When Musharraf took power in his 1999 coup, he quoted Abraham Lincoln, saying sometimes you need to amputate a limb to save a life. On the day he imposed emergency rule, he repeated the reference to justify his actions. The only problem is, amputated limbs don’t grow back.”
We have “rid the world of the fascist menace and made it safe for democracy. Now you have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and equality of manhood in your own native soil.” (Quaid’s address to the men of the Ack Ack regiments, Malir, Feb 21, 1948).
Eye-openers
IT took several…visits by former defence minister George Fernandes to Siachen for the soldiers…on the snowy inhospitable Himalayan heights to obtain the basic minimum wherewithal to confront…the extremities of weather. It has taken another defence minister to discover, during a…visit to the Sino-Indian border off Nathu La (14,200 ft) in Sikkim, the miserable conditions in which soldiers are required to guard our external borders. Mr A.K. Antony described as an “eye-opener” his finding that apart from the absence of basic minimum infrastructure on the Indian side, the Chinese side across the border presented a “far superior” picture…”
The minister is…determined to…undertake expeditious upgradation of the border infrastructure, just as the shocking…conditions in Siachen goaded Mr Fernandes to take speedy remedial action. The moral of the story is…that…infrastructure is the last among the priorities of our development strategies, whether civilian or military.
However, it is unacceptable that the quality and availability of border infrastructure should become public knowledge only when defence ministers…visit border areas… Surely, the authorities should be expected to put in place mechanisms for assessing the infrastructural needs of the armed forces. — (Dec 5)
Deccan Chronicle
The communal card
WE are witnessing a competitive verbal frenzy on the subject of communalism. And in the week before the elections, the stakes in Gujarat have become decidedly more communal than political. The Indian National Congress and the BJP are equally culpable, though Narendra Modi has been more brazen in terms of rhetoric.
While the chief minister has made outrageous statements…the party that brought the country freedom…has been dangerously provocative… First, Mr Modi’s outrage…His attempt to justify the death of Sohrabuddin Sheikh is as fake as the police encounter that killed him. Assuming for the sake of argument that the man was in possession of illegal arms and had links with Pakistan, the chief minister’s remark reaffirms his profound contempt for the rule of law.
It will be difficult for the Congress to live down the dominant impression that the party’s president and its satrap in Gujarat have pitched for communal provocation as a campaign plank. Digvijay Singh’s communal profiling of terror…was intended to stoke religious sensitivities. In his reckoning, there are “Muslim terrorists and Hindu terrorists”… Still more outrageous was Sonia Gandhi’s portrayal of Modi as ‘maut ka saudagar’ (merchant of death). — (Dec 8)
The Statesman