Repealing Hudood laws

FINALLY, we have a bill in the National Assembly seeking to repeal the Hudood ordinances. That the government did not oppose a bill moved by the PPP is an indication of a positive change in the ruling party’s view of the controversial laws. The ordinances were imposed by Gen. Ziaul Haq in 1979 without any reference to the people. They were enacted basically for political purposes, since the idea was to overawe the regime’s political dissidents by the threat of public flogging of those found guilty under the ordinances. There are several reasons why the Hudood ordinances — along with the blasphemy law — deserve to be repealed. First, they were enacted without obtaining a national consensus. All sections of the ulema, legal experts and intelligentsia were not consulted; only a small coterie of ulema who had aligned themselves with Ziaul Haq for political purposes was behind these legal oddities. Two, the laws are a mockery of Islam’s fundamental principles of justice and equity, for they are grossly unfair to women, because the moment a woman reports a rape she is arrested, and the burden lies on her to identify the rapist/s and provide evidence of rape. In one case, a blind woman who was raped was arrested and kept in jail for long while the perpetrators of the crime went scot-free. The laws have often been misused by influential people to accuse innocent women of immorality only to defame or harass them. No wonder, rights groups, NGOs, women’s associations and sections of the press have for long been demanding repeal of the Hudood ordinances or amendments that would remove the element of injustice to women.

It should be noted that nobody would object to laws that conformed to the Islamic provisions relating to sex offences as contained in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. What people have been agitating against for decades was, first, the mode of the Hudood ordinances’ enactment and, two, the grossly misogynist approach of those who imposed these laws on the nation without consulting the people. The draft bill will now go before the NA committee on law for vetting. If passed by the committee, it will be voted upon by the assembly before putting it before the Senate. One hopes the committee on law will elicit the opinions of all fiqhs and sections of the ulema, experts in jurisprudence, the academia, women’s associations, NGOs and the press to either repeal the laws or so amend them that they truly conform to the Islamic principles of justice, equity, equality of sexes and compassion. The movers of the bill — 13 PPP MNAs - claimed that the Hudood ordinances — which included laws on property, fornication/adultery, rape, qazf (wrongful accusations) and Hudd — were against the Constitution.

No doubt some extremist elements will try to stir emotions on the issue and may threaten to launch street agitation. But the parliamentary procedure must continue uninterrupted. The Hudood ordinances were the brainchild of a dictator, but their repeal and amendment must conform to the highest norms of law-making in a parliamentary democracy. In an Islamic state the right belongs only to the people’s representatives, for in the words of Allama Iqbal, the only forum of ijma and ijtihad in modern times is parliament. No exclusive group can arrogate to itself the right to speak for Islam or to monopolize law-making. One hopes the government will not backtrack on the issue, as it has on a number of issues in the past.

More funds for security

GIVEN the large number of crime reports that fill newspaper pages every day, news that the government plans to provide more funds to provinces to deal with the deteriorating law and order situation should reassure victims of crime, whose numbers are rising at an alarming rate. Whether it is cell-phone thefts, murders, robberies or political violence, citizens are increasingly feeling insecure, especially since the police seem ill-equipped to deal with the menace. By recognizing all this, the government has finally decided to address the issue of the police’s poor performance which has not improved despite the implementation of the police reform in 2002. The objective of reform was to transform the police from a “repressive entity to an accountable set-up”, but four years on, and we are still far from reaching that goal. The people do not trust the police, whom they see as corrupt and inefficient while the police complain that poor funding and politicking from high-ups prevents them from doing their job. If adequate funds are available to the police, and their genuine grievances are addressed, they should be able to do their job of crime control and prevention in an impartial and efficient manner. For this it is important for the police to adopt a truly professional approach to their task. Again, there is no point asking the police to adopt modern technology to fight crimes if their basic needs are unmet. Policemen need appropriate training at all levels and for this the government is said to be trying to secure funds from foreign donors. All this can prove useful if effort is made to change the outlook and orientation of the police as guarantors of the people’s safety and security.

One positive step is the government’s decision to replicate the model of the Citizens Police Liaison Committee at all provincial headquarters and Islamabad. The CPLC has been an effective and well respected crime-fighting institution that boasts many successes to its credit. Its successful replication is bound to bring some relief. While the government chalks out strategies for improving the law and order situation, it should also use this opportunity to analyze why the police reforms have failed to bring about the desired improvements.

Verdict on golf park

THE decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday to cancel a lease that the Capital Development Authority (CDA) had awarded to a businessman to construct a mini-golf course in a park in Islamabad is reassuring. The court observed, on a petition filed by a citizen, that the CDA’s rules clearly prohibited the conversion of a park into a commercial enterprise. The argument put forward by the businessman’s lawyer that the mini-golf course would benefit the general public by providing them a form of entertainment is not a convincing one because a park open to the general public could achieve that purpose far better. Besides, entrance fees to a mini-golf course would have been beyond the reach of most ordinary visitors. The other argument that preventing the project from going ahead would dampen investment is facetious to say the least. Surely, rules and regulations need to be a followed when making an investment anywhere. Why should the public interest be sacrificed or sidelined for consideration of investment?

The court’s verdict also brings into focus the CDA’s own failings. It’s chairman — who has been recently criticized for only beautifying those parts of the capital that either the prime minister or the president drive through — should explain under what rules the authority awarded the lease instead of developing the park for the use of all city residents. In fact, it is not just the CDA but local landowning authorities in almost all Pakistani cities seem to have this penchant for allowing land set aside for parks to be used for commercial purposes. In the process, they often — as in the CDA’s case — end up violating their own rules. The beneficiary is usually a land developer and some unscrupulous officials who stand to profit personally out of the whole arrangement and the sufferer is the general public which gets deprived of space meant for a park.

Playing ducks and drakes with the water issue

THE opponents of Kalabagh dam have been accused of turning a “technical” matter into an emotional political debate. They stand charged of whipping up paranoia, fostering secessionist tendencies and using the issue to achieve political objectives. It is even claimed that the opponents of the dam have put the federation at risk. Our rulers always find it convenient to label any opinion which clashes with their own designs as a threat to the state.

Emerson pointed out that “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” The supporters of the dam wish to portray it as a benign non-issue, which it most certainly is not. When fertile fields become barren for want of water and people yearn for a drop of drinking water, which is what will inevitably happen in Sindh if dams are built upstream, how can this be called a “technical” issue? This is like telling the passengers of a crashing aeroplane not to get emotional because the aeroplane is merely experiencing a “technical” problem. The water issue has direct and far-reaching repercussions on the life of every man, woman and child in Sindh.

The fact is that the bone of contention is not just Kalabagh dam, but the very principle of damming the Indus river to create water reservoirs up north. By giving priority to Bhasha and Munda dams, the president has not abandoned Kalabagh and other dams not have only put them on hold. The objection is threefold and applies to the creation of any reservoirs:

Firstly, there is not enough surplus water available on a regular annual basis to justify the creation of reservoirs. Secondly, it is feared that water will be siphoned off to Punjab for irrigation purposes by canals from these reservoirs, particularly from Kalabagh dam, at the expense of the share of water of the smaller provinces. Thirdly, there is a yawning gap of trust, created by a wilful breech of previous understandings and assurances.

The Technical Committee on Water Resources reached the conclusion that the availability of requisite surplus water essential to fill new reservoirs cannot be counted upon every year. In other words, the 117 million acre feet water around which the 1991 accord was put together is not available every year since floods are a rare occurrence. Even the supporters of new dams agree that in recent years there has been, on average, a water shortage of up to 40 per cent because of which vast tracts of fertile land has been left uncultivated, not only in the ‘pukka’ area but even in the ‘kachcha’ area located on the banks of the Indus.

This being the case, it is hard to see how one can arrive at the conclusion that the solution lies in creating more reservoirs. Where will the surplus water come from to fill these reservoirs when there is already a shortage and our current requirements are not being met? This is like Marie Antoinette suggesting that peasants eat cake if they don’t have bread.

One look at the official figures reveals that a dam at Skardu would go further than one at Kalabagh in achieving the objectives which the supporters of the dams are supposedly promoting. For instance, at Skardu a reservoir of 35 MAF can be created and 15,000 MW electricity can be produced. By contrast, at Kalabagh a reservoir of only 6.1 MAF will be created and only 3,600 MW electricity will be generated.

But since, unlike Kalabagh, canals cannot be dug at Skardu to supply water to Punjab, so far even a feasibility study has not been conducted for a dam at Skardu. When, under pressure from the smaller provinces, it was proposed by the government that the design of Kalabagh dam be modified to eliminate the canals, Punjab refused to accept any such modifications, thereby revealing their true intentions.

This is why the President refrained from scrapping Kalabagh dam and instead tried to sugarcoat the bitter pill by giving priority to Bhasha and Munda dams. But if all five dams are to be completed within ten years, then construction work on all five will have to proceed simultaneously. The question of prioritizing the dams is, in practice, purely academic.

Inter-provincial confidence is a currency that is in short supply and it will take positive action rather than useless assurances to remedy this situation. Assurances were given that the Chashma-Jehlum link canal would only be operated in the event of floods. But now this canal is operated throughout the year. The president has offered to give constitutional guarantees that every province will receive its full share of water.

Need we remind him that Article VI of the Constitution stipulates the charge of high treason for anyone who abrogates or in any way subverts the Constitution? How many times has this provision been implemented? Such hollow and cosmetic constitutional guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.

If the government really is concerned about meeting the demand for water in the future rather than just appeasing a specific clique, would it not be wiser, in the face of vociferous public opposition to the dams, to carry out the desilting and raising of Tarbela and Mangla Dams instead?

This, along with the lining of canals and watercourses and introduction of modern irrigation techniques, would not only save more water than can be stored in the reservoirs, but it would incur a lesser financial burden on the state.

Large dams come at too heavy a financial, social, environmental and political cost for them to be deemed as being feasible, a view shared by the World Commission on Dams in their report issued in 2000.

Unfortunately, the government has made it a habit of late to land on the wrong side of every important issue. The whole nation is in a state of furious uproar over the American bombing in Bajaur that caused the death of at least 18 innocent citizens.

But our rulers’ innate propensity to capitulate before the Americans compelled our prime minister to be seen smiling and shaking hands with the American president just a few days after the bombing, despite having failed to extract even a token apology from him.

There is widespread uproar against the operation in Balochistan, but the government persists in perpetuating this folly. The recently announced NFC award has been rejected by the smaller provinces, but the government is adamant. The Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtoon and Saraiki people oppose the construction of Kalabagh dam, but we are told that we shall have not just one but five dams within the next ten years.

We have learnt absolutely nothing from history. Our rulers feel that if they have the blessings of America and the World Bank, there is paradise on earth and they need not heed the call of a hundred and forty million Pakistanis who inhabit this land. Many a fallen dictator has made the same mistake in the past.

Having found no reputable popular politician in Sindh to support the building of dams, the government has now been constrained to rely on a handful of ministers, nazims and assembly members of dubious repute to launch a movement in favour of the dams.

This bunch comprises of well known turncoats and political mercenaries who thrive by making personal capital out of every situation at the expense of principles and the common good and habitually bow to the rising sun.

How they intend to live on the soil they are brazenly betraying for personal gain and look fellow Sindhis in the eye with a shred of self-respect and dignity remains to be seen. But that a government which once boasted that it would wipe out all undesirable elements from politics and introduce ‘real’ democracy should be compelled to solicit the help of such an unsavoury lot speaks volumes not only about how desperate it is to find some foothold in Sindh to promote its highly unpopular projects, but also about the extent to which it has deviated from its original seven point agenda.

The leviathan is often slow to stir. But, after enduring years of injustice and inequity, it has finally opened its eyes. The people of Sindh are united on the water issue as never before and they are on the move. Mammoth public rallies in Karachi on December 22, in Hyderabad on January 18 and in Larkana on January 28 have clearly shown that the people of Sindh have come together to raise a voice in unison on the water issue because it is a matter of their survival.

Any genuinely democratic government, or at least one sympathetic to the aspirations of the people, would see the pitfalls of flying in the face of public opinion. On the one hand, we boast of having a “real” democracy but, on the other, we turn a deaf ear to the cry of the masses on the instigation of a handful of technocrats and vested interests.

In a democracy, all executive power is exercised in the name of the people, not in deliberate opposition to their wishes. The voice of the people will have to be heard and respected. Therein lies our salvation as a nation. Those who choose to ignore the voice of the masses do so at their own peril.