Kalabagh consensus

THERE are two aspects of the Kalabagh dam issue — the technical and the political. The technical issues have been discussed, and continue to be discussed in the press and in other forums, by experts. It is generally agreed that we need more water projects quickly to meet our perennial water shortage, which is going to get worse as demand increases. Where a new dam or dams should be located to serve the purpose best is what is a matter of contention between the experts. The second issue is political, and it is this perhaps that surfaced most notably at President General Pervez Musharraf’s interaction with the media in Karachi on Sunday. The general made a strong pitch for a consensus on the subject and for support and understanding from public opinion in Sindh, which he argued would benefit the most from new water storage reservoirs.

In achieving a consensus, the biggest hurdle, as one journalist pertinently pointed out, was the lack of trust between the centre and the provinces as well as to an extent among the latter, at least between Punjab and the others. The mistrust is deep: it is linked to the basic question of provincial autonomy that has hounded Pakistan ever since its inception and which has never been addressed with the care and attention it deserves. The centre has ridden roughshod over the provinces and impinged on provincial rights, inevitably so because of the centralized and often autocratic authority seated in Islamabad. The quantum of provincial autonomy promised in the 1973 Constitution — which was also not considered enough — has been gradually eroded over the years. The delay in the National Finance Commission award is one indicator of the cavalier-like attitude that has prevailed with regard to provincial rights; its monitoring committee, which is supposed to meet quarterly, has not been convened recently. The Council of Common Interests, a constitutional body, has not met for probably the last eight years and has been rendered virtually meaningless; and the promised changes in the Concurrent List have never been sufficiently fleshed out or made operative. The interprovincial coordination committee was revived in 2003 after nearly four years, and has little to show for itself; the divisions within Irsa are well known. An ‘interim’ report of the parliamentary committee on water resources was said to have been given to the president, but what since?

The president argued on Sunday that history should be set aside and the issue approached logically and rationally based on what the country needs. But it is this history of mistrust that has led to the present stalemate and, if proper lessons are not learnt from what has been happening between the centre and the provinces, the confrontation can only deepen. Even looking at the present, why has the government not taken any serious notice of the resolutions against Kalabagh passed by three provincial assemblies and almost been dismissive of them? The president says he will approach the assemblies again. He should, rather than continue to create the impression that a decision to build a dam has already been taken and that all this search for consensus and consultation is a mere formality. The government has opened too many fronts — Balochistan, Waziristan, Kalabagh. All in some measure relate to the equation between the centre and the provinces, and this cannot be left unattended without dangerous consequences that the nation can ill afford — least of all now when all attention should be concentrated on the relief effort in the earthquake-hit areas.

Wedding party tragedy

THE tragic death in Lahore of 42 people in a blaze ignited by firecrackers inside a bus carrying a wedding party on Sunday could have been avoided if the prohibition on the manufacture and use of fireworks had been enforced by the authorities. The dead included many women and children, and the toll is expected to rise as eight of the injured are reported to be in a critical condition. The fire was reportedly set off when someone inside the ill-fated bus ignited a cracker as the vehicle reached the groom’s house; this led to the entire stockpile of firecrackers kept in the bus catching fire. Within seconds, the vehicle’s fuel tank exploded. The blast was so strong that it was heard a mile away. That 17 people managed to escape the inferno, though many of them sustained burn injuries in the process, should be seen as quite miraculous under the circumstances. One simply fails to understand why the ban on the use of firecrackers is not enforced and violators brought to book.

The wedding season is in full swing in Lahore, as elsewhere in the country. Anyone living in the cities will tell you what a nuisance celebratory fireworks and aerial firing have become in recent years. These typically start way past midnight when the bride is brought home, shattering the calm of the night and causing an enormous disturbance in the entire neighbourhood. Children, the infirm and the elderly are particularly inconvenienced by the noise caused by explosions and firing. Yet, the tradition flourishes because the regulation banning the use of firecrackers and aerial firing has no teeth. The dangers have increased because of the manufacture of ever more deadly fireworks. Casualties from fireworks explosions and aerial firing have become a regular phenomenon, and these will continue as long as the authorities keep looking the other way, allowing the rich and the influential to break the law. It is time the Supreme Court, in the larger public interest, took notice of the menace and ordered the law enforcement agencies to strictly enforce the existing laws without allowing for any exceptions.

Rights abuses in Kashmir

THAT rights abuses in held Kashmir have continued despite the ongoing peace process was highlighted the way Kashmiris in the occupied territory observed International Human Rights Day on Saturday. The police broke up a rally in Srinagar organized by the All Parties Hurriyat Conference and made some arrests for “violating law and order”, as the authorities put it. Another group went to the UN office and handed in a petition addressed to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The petition pointed out that there was “no let-up” in rights violations in the occupied territory and appealed to Mr Annan to “respond to the boiling Kashmir situation”. As a US State Department report has said, there are cases of extrajudicial killings, fake encounters, excessive use of force and torture. Released in February this year, the report covered the human rights picture the world over in 2004 and said in Kashmir bodies of suspects were returned to the families “or otherwise discovered with multiple bullet wounds and/or marks of torture”. That Kashmiri civilians are used as human shields was confirmed when Indian Army Chief of Staff Gen N.C. Vij announced that the army would no longer use civilian porters in combat operations. This followed an incident in Bandipora where five civilian porters used as human shields were killed in combat.

These rights violations appear an aberration when seen against the détente now in progress between Pakistan and India. The Kashmiri people are a party to the dispute, and there can be no settlement without their approval. For that reason they must be associated with the peace process. While New Delhi did indeed allow Kashmiri leaders to visit Azad Kashmir and Pakistan, it has taken no meaningful steps to involve Kashmiri leaders in talks. An end to rights violations should help improve the atmosphere in the occupied territory and make Kashmiris more amenable to what India has to say to them.

Will OIC summit make a difference?

THE extraordinary summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) concluded its two-day deliberations in Makkah last week. Has the Makkah gathering demonstrated the will and the vision to enable the Ummah to meet the challenges confronting the world of Islam? Or should the Muslim masses react with a yawn?

If one were to go by the history of its past 36 years, the OIC, even in the best of times has demonstrated masterful inactivity in the face of major crisis, occasionally even engaging in regrettable compromises. All this has led to deep cynicism on the part of the poor, illiterate and disenfranchised masses that constitute the Ummah. Nevertheless, it is relevant here to remind ourselves that the world is no longer what it was in earlier times.

The 9/11 tragedy grievously hurt the psyches of the Americans, for it shattered their belief that with the emergence of their country as the sole superpower, the United States was totally invincible. America’s response to 9/11, therefore, was neither measured nor appropriate. While there was wide understanding, and even some justification, for its desire to punish Afghanistan, the world was left horrified at the anti-Muslim sentiments let loose in the US. While President Bush and his senior colleagues denied that they had ushered in a campaign against Muslims, other influential figures in the West did not hesitate to give vent to their true feelings about Islam and its adherents.

As the only organization claiming to represent the entire Ummah, the OIC tried to react to these negative developments, especially at the Putrajaya summit in 2003, when it held a comprehensive debate on how the Islamic world could face the crisis that had emerged in the wake of 9/11, with particular reference to the distorted image of Islam in the West and the increasing hostility shown to Muslims in many non-Muslim countries.

The summit had agreed on the formation of a 16-member Commission of Eminent Persons (CEP), to prepare a plan of action to enable the Muslim world to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Pakistan’s intelligent journalist-turned-politician, Mushahid Hussain, was an active participant in the deliberations of this Commission, whose recommendations were wide-ranging and comprehensive. There were even proposals relating to good governance, transparency, accountability, democracy, civil society, political participation and respect for human rights!

The importance and urgency of the OIC’s rejuvenation was considered essential not only because of the challenges thrown up by the 9/11 trauma, but also because the organization had lost credibility and relevance, even in Muslim societies. There is no denying the fact that the Muslim world is in a state of political degeneration and economic stagnation. It is plagued by sectarian, ethnic, linguistic and tribal differences within its borders, and by deep suspicion and mistrust in its relations with fellow Muslim states.

Muslims were right to question what the OIC had achieved during its 36 years in existence, failing for the most part to take decisions of either regional or global import. This, despite the fact that the OIC is an organization representing one-fifth of the world’s population, possessing 70 per cent of the globe’s energy resources and 40 per cent of its available raw material. Yet sadly, the entire GDP of the OIC member-states is only $1,200 billion, as against Japan’s $5,500 billion.

Given this deplorable state of affairs, Muslims would be well within their right to examine closely the results of the Makkah summit, especially as the Putrajaya summit had deliberated both the OIC’s weaknesses and the need to revamp the organization. The just concluded Makkah summit had raised major expectations. Some observers were hopeful that the frighteningly enormous tasks facing the Islamic world would encourage OIC leaders to demonstrate the political resolve and wisdom to evolve a vision commensurate with the challenges facing the Ummah.

A close reading of the summit documents does not, however, measure up to these hopes. The joint communique issued at the end of the summit rejected extremism and urged the member-states to fight terrorism in “every possible manner” and pledged to promote tolerance, understanding, dialogue and diversity. Additionally, the summit adopted the Makkah declaration and a 10-year programme of action for the Ummah.

The documents adopted at the summit were all in tune with the OIC’s current emphasis on moderation, tolerance and dialogue. For example, the summit stressed that the Kashmiri people be allowed to exercise their right to decide their future. There was, however, no reference to the atrocities being committed by India in the occupied territories or what the member states could do to impress on India the need to adopt a serious approach to the resolution of the problem.

The meeting described the Palestinian issue as its central concern and repeated earlier calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian lands occupied since 1967, as well as from the Golan Heights and Lebanese lands. But it refrained from any criticism of Israel, especially for the terror unleashed against the civilian population in the occupied territories, or for failing to adhere to the roadmap. On Iraq, the summit lauded the national reconciliation conference and denounced terrorist attacks against the people. It affirmed support for the political process and reconstruction efforts in the country. But there was no call for withdrawal of foreign occupation forces. On other issues, the summit had the usual words of support for Azerbaijan in its dispute with Armenia, for the Sudanese peace process and for the Turkish Cypriots.

On social and economic issues, the summit stressed the importance of fighting poverty, unemployment and disease, by forming a special fund through the Islamic Bank. It also spoke of steps to develop science and technology and to narrow the gap between Muslim nations and developed countries.

Of some relevance was the attempt to address sectarian divisions between Sunnis and Shias, and in this context, the summit stressed the need to reform the Islamic Fiqh Academy, so as to make it the main reference for all sects. Finally, it called upon the Ummah to reflect on Islamic values and to counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and desecration of holy places. Of interest, too, was the reference in the communique to the need to take “joint Islamic action” in the face of natural calamities and foreign threats to the security of any OIC member-state in a collective manner.

These sentiments were all commendable and praiseworthy. However, if we were to evaluate the results and conclusions of the summit, we would not be remiss in expressing some regret and disappointment. For one, the total pre-occupation with the issue of terrorism, both in the statements delivered and in the summit declaration, may be understandable but was nevertheless, reflective of a desire to please audiences across the ocean.

Adherence to the global war on terror is both right and necessary, but where is the rationale for its repetition ad nauseum? We all know that Islam does not sanction violence; it actually abhors inflicting pain or injury on another human being. But what effort has been made to make the West understand, far less address, what Bernard Lewis calls “the roots of Muslim rage”? How many OIC leaders are willing to point out that it is not the Muslims who colonized the West, or engaged in ethnic cleansing (as was done in America, Australia, Canada and parts of South America), nor was the holocaust the work of Muslims.

The summit also advocated good governance, political participation, rule of law, protection of human rights and social justice. But was any thought given to how and by whom these noble goals are to be achieved, in the absence of genuine democracy and civil liberty? How many of the leaders gathered in Makkah would even countenance permitting people within their countries to air their grievances freely, or allow competing interests to press their demands inside parliament?

The underlying causes of many acts of violence may be unresolved political disputes such as Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. But can we deny the suffocating bind in which people find themselves in many Muslims societies? Is it not ironic that the Muslim youth, while detesting the global policies of the West, looks forward to the day when their own leaders will adopt the political philosophy practised in the West, especially laws that guarantee individual freedoms, which are taken for granted in the West?

President Bush could not be further from the truth when he claimed that the terrorists “hate us because of our freedom and democracy.” The truth is that Muslims, too, cherish freedom and desire democracy. What they ask of western leaders is to end their support to unrepresentative, authoritarian regimes that have become the tools with which the West exploits the resources of these countries.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi warned that Muslims “can no longer be in a state of denial.” But that is exactly the state that we are in. Nothing that the OIC has done so far gives one reason to hope for any change. If mere declarations and pious hopes could have done the task, the transformation would have come about decades ago. As long as Muslim states continue to be governed by those who have no respect for the inalienable rights of their people, as long as their leaders believe that they are in power not with the consent of the governed, but because of divine sanction or brute force, and as long as they choose the support of foreign benefactors over winning the confidence of their own people, these summits will remain exercises in futility.

The writer is a former ambassador.