Kabul declaration

THE Kabul Declaration could turn out to be a milestone in Afghanistan’s history if those who signed the document abide by it. Basically, Afghanistan has suffered on two counts: foreign interference and the failure of Afghan leaders to rise above parochial considerations and give peace to their people. The story of Afghanistan’s suffering is long and tragic. The joint condominium established over the country by Britain and Tsarist Russia towards the end of the 19th century fell victim to cold war tensions in the second half of the 20th century. The Soviet penetration of Afghanistan’s military and civilian set-up, the overthrow of the monarchy by Daud Shah, and the fall of the leftist governments headed by Nur Mohammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin are now part of history. The Soviet invasion in December, 1979, marked the beginning of Afghanistan’s trauma. Fiercely jealous of their independence, the Afghans fought back heroically. Hundreds of thousands were killed and rendered homeless, but the Afghan resistance ultimately triumphed, with the Soviets finally withdrawing in 1989 after a war that devastated Afghanistan, pauperized its people and ruined its state and economic infrastructure. However, in the post-Soviet era, the victorious Mujahideen leaders pushed Afghanistan deeper into trouble through intense factional fighting, instead of giving their country peace and taking up the task of economic reconstruction. The result was more misery, with rival militias getting support from other countries, some of them not even Afghanistan’s neighbours.

Pakistan’s role has been equally controversial. As Afghanistan’s neighbour with which it shares cultural and economic links, Pakistan has a vital interest in a stable and peaceful Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation, it helped the country regain its independence. Pakistan also provided succour to more than three million refugees who fled the war-torn country. However, Islamabad got deeply embroiled in the Afghan civil war militarily and politically when overzealous “Islamist” generals helped the Taliban conquer Afghanistan. Sections of Pakistan’s military establishment not only armed the Taliban; they also helped some Pakistani religious parties set up training camps and recruit Pakistan nationals for their partisan and factional purposes. The anti-Taliban factions, especially the Northern Alliance, also received military aid from several countries, including Iran, India and Russia, thus fuelling the flames of civil war. In the process the Taliban not only thought of exporting their brand of Islam, they also turned Afghanistan into a haven for militants and terrorists of all sorts.

The US-led coalition’s war on terror caused the fall of the Taliban regime and led to the coming into being of a government headed by Hamid Karzai. This interim set-up faces an uphill task. It needs to give Afghanistan peace and stability, write a constitution, hold elections and, above all, re-build the country and rehabilitate its shattered infrastructure. These goals can be achieved only if the international community is more forthcoming in the matter of aid and Afghanistan’s neighbours lend a helping hand to the Karzai regime in carrying out the task of reconstruction. One hopes all of Afghanistan’s neighbours will abide by the Kabul Declaration and avoid interference in its internal affairs. The aim should be, as President Karzai correctly observed, to create a region that is “free of terror, extremism and backwardness.” As Afghanistan’s most important neighbour, Pakistan is duty bound to help in that country’s reconstruction. It must lend all help to the Karzai regime to heal the wounds of a long and debilitating war, consolidate peace, and begin the task of economic and social reconstruction in right earnest.

The curse of vani

TAKING notice of the growing number of cases of ‘vani’, the National Judicial Policy-Making Committee has decided on a strong line against the custom under which women are married off to settle disputes or debts. This is a timely and welcome intervention by the judiciary to halt this ugly practice. Presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a meeting of the committee declared on Saturday that ‘vani’ was against the injunctions of Islam and strict action would be taken against offenders who continued to break the law by promoting forced marriages. The practice hit the headlines recently following an incident in Mianwali. The daughters of three men sentenced to death were to be married off to relatives of the murdered man to earn a reprieve for those on death row. One of the girls was a minor and was to be married to an elderly man. The incident shocked the nation and the outcry that followed prompted the courts to intervene and prevent the hideous deal from being concluded. However, this was only the tip of the iceberg. The practice, it soon transpired, was far more prevalent across the country than was believed. It is encouraging that the Chief Justice has taken note of this sordid custom and has spoken out against it. He pointed out that there were laws on the statute book that strictly prohibited marriages against the will of the persons concerned. He ordered the courts to strictly follow the provisions of the law and prevent the exchange of women for the settlement of disputes.

The committee also touched upon some other customs that, despite being illegal, continue to prevail in the rural areas. One such practice is child marriage, which was forbidden as far back as 1929. There are many cases of girls below the age of puberty being married off, often to old men. The committee also stressed the need to ensure that women’s rights to inheritance are not violated. While Islam guarantees a woman’s right to inheritance, this injunction too is widely violated in the rural areas. The committee decided to chalk out a strategy to ensure that all legal heirs, specially women and children, are not denied their due share of inheritance. While the committee’s decision to take on such customs and practices should be welcomed, it would be encouraging if the judges also spoke out against certain aspects of the Hudood Ordinances, which have also been used to infringe women’s rights and have caused immense suffering to thousands of women.

Murder in hospital

IT is an irony that a man who had been injured a day earlier in a gun fight should have been murdered in the very hospital where he was taken for treatment. It is even more ironic that the murderer should be none other than a doctor who is supposed to save lives rather than kill. This incident took place at the emergency ward of the District Headquarters Hospital in Rawalpindi last week, although the accused doctor works in another hospital in the same city. The doctor, who shot the victim three times, also shot twice at the murdered man’s brother, who was also in hospital because of injuries sustained in the same gunfight. The motivation behind the doctor’s action was apparently revenge against the two brothers’ shooting of his brother who was hit in the head and died. The Rawalpindi police knew about the gun fight between the two sets of brothers, which had occurred within the jurisdiction of the airport police. The least the police should have done was to step up security at the District Headquarters Hospital where the two opposing parties injured in the gun fight were admitted, given the serious enmity between the two. The higher authorities must order an inquiry into the matter and take appropriate action against those responsible for the security lapse.