Factions unite

EVEN though efforts had been made on a number of occasions in the past to unite various Muslim League factions, it wasn’t certain whether the latest attempt in this direction would materialize so soon. It seems the compulsion to rope in Pir Pagara and get a firmer foothold in Sindh was perhaps a pressing inducement in view of the current inter-provincial disputes. However, the splinter groups which have overcome mutual jealousies and rivalries and come together lack any political standing or importance and have negligible representation in the five assemblies and the Senate. The groups — PML-Q, PML-F, PML (Junejo), PML (Jinnah) and PML-Z — are also already on the right side of the establishment. Genuine opposition is represented by the MMA and the ARD, which includes the PPP Parliamentarians and the Nawaz Sharif group of the Muslim League. Thus, the unity of the five ML factions is unlikely to have any immediate impact on the nation’s political fortunes or serve to restore to it even a modicum of the glory that once belonged to a party that struggled for and created Pakistan under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam.

The Muslim League’s decline had begun within years of independence. All military dictators tried to exploit the party’s name and either grabbed it — as Ayub did — or created bogus Muslim Leagues run by their cronies. Ziaul Haq created his own brand of the League by pressuring MNAs elected in partyless elections to come together with Mohammad Khan Junejo as their leader, while no different was the reason for the creation of the PML-Q before last year’s elections. It goes without saying that, since its formation, the PML-Q has served its protagonists well. Since Ayub’s days, thus, the Muslim League has acquired the dubious distinction of being the king’s party.

To be fair, however, the fragmentation of political parties has been a phenomenon not peculiar to the Muslim League. Many other parties, too, including some left-leaning ones with their base in the NWFP and Balochistan, went through a process of splintering. Invariably, the number two man broke away from the party to form his own faction. On the whole, the process reflected a lack of principles in politics and the absence of dedicated and sincere leaders. Mostly, parties in Pakistan have tended to revolve round dynasties and personalities guided more by personal or group ambitions and less by a desire to turn their parties into instruments for the nation’s socio-economic progress and public walfare. All along, no party has concentrated on inculcating democratic values in the nation or in organizing their own parties on democratic lines by holding periodic party elections.

Now that the Muslim League factions have united, one wonders if there will be an increase in the number of ministers in the federal and provincial governments. Already, we have too many of them, and there is nothing to show that the large number of ministers has in any way contributed to the people’s welfare. Chaudhry Shujaat, the chief of the united Muslim League, is a veteran politician. He must now prove that his long stay in politics has equipped him with necessary experience and resolve to address the challenges his party faces. One hopes the party would come up to Prime Minister Jamali’s expectations that it would provide “direction to the country.”

Taming Narendra Modi

THE rigours of the survivors of last year’s communal riots in India’s Gujarat state point to an on-going tragedy. A recent report reveals that of the 240 suspects booked under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), only one is a non-Muslim, and that too a Sikh, who is accused of having attacked a Hindu shrine. India’s National Human Rights Commission went to court seeking justice for the victims of the communal riots of February-March 2002, which left more than 2,000, mostly Muslims, dead. Rights groups and independent inquiries have long held the state government led by the ruling Bharatya Janata Party Chief Minister Narendra Modi responsible for “facilitating” Hindu mob attacks against Muslim targets. A Gujarat court recently acquitted 21 Hindu extremists who were accused of having burnt to death 12 Muslims when they attacked and torched a bakery in Baroda during the riots. India’s National Human Rights Commission filed an appeal in the supreme court against the Gujarat verdict, which resulted in the apex court ordering the Modi government to hold a retrial, saying the witnesses were forced by state authorities to retract their testimony.

The way the Modi government has conducted sham inquiries into the communal killings has left little doubt as to its partisanship. Investigations into attacks on Hindu targets have resulted in the apprehension of 239 Muslim suspects, while not a single Hindu has been held for similar crimes against Muslim targets. Many of the Muslim survivors of the carnage have been forced to seek refuge outside the state for fear of life or to avoid harassment by Mr Modi’s officials. The supreme court has done well to take up the issue with the Gujarat government, and it should now carry it through to its logical end so that the victims get justice and those who wish to return to their homes can do so without any fear of reprisal attacks. If the supreme court can make Mr Modi mend his ways and comply with its orders as required, it will go a long way in restoring the minorities’ confidence about their safety and their trust in India’s judicial system.

Guantanamo ‘rewards’

THE United States military has started a reward system at its infamous Guantanamo Bay camp that lets prisoners detained there earn perks and more comfortable quarters by following camp rules and dishing out intelligence information. American military authorities contend that the system has proved useful in making prisoners obey rules as well as voluntarily give out information about other inmates that may be of use to the government. This practice, along with the whole exercise of keeping hundreds of men and teen-age boys in detention without access to legal aid and other help that they are entitled to under the Geneva Convention, is extremely deplorable.

It also shows the failure to get any worthwhile leads so far from the detainees, many of whom are believed to be innocent people caught up in the Afghan mess. Under the new plan, prisoners are encouraged to spy on each other and provide information that may result in their eventual release provided the handlers are convinced that they have nothing more to offer and are no longer a threat to US security. The whole idea of keeping war prisoners in conditions that are widely seen as sub-human, denying them legal and other help, trying them in secrecy and making them spy against fellow poisoners for intelligence gathering in return for their freedom is downright immoral. As a number of these prisoners are Pakistanis, it is Islamabad’s duty to take up this matter with Washington. By the US military’s own admission, a number of those who have been detained are persons who were duped or coerced into terrorism or becoming supporters of terrorist groups. As a first step, the US should give details of the detainees in its custody, the charges they face and what legal assistance they are being provided. After this, it should work out a programme under which these detainees can be released as and when they are cleared of the charges against them. Their release should not be made conditional on how much information they gather and provide. Such an approach will give a human face to what is otherwise an inhuman exercise the US has initiated in the name of national interest and security.