Taming the warlords

ACCIDENT or sabotage, the massive explosion that rocked Jalalabad on Friday and killed at least 25 people, underlines the fragility of the law and order situation in Afghanistan. Whatever the cause, the incident made the already tense population of the war-ravaged country even more insecure. More than two months after Hamid Karzai took over as interim president, the law and order situation in Afghanistan remains a matter of serious concern. The foremost problem facing the new administration is the need to extend its writ beyond the bounds of the capital. In the vast hinterland beyond, powerful local warlords have regained their hold and seem in no mood to surrender their satrapal power to Kabul. As a result, the roads and highways have become increasingly unsafe as armed gunmen demand tolls from travellers or simply loot any passing vehicle. If President Karzai seeks to avoid a return to the anarchy of the pre-Taliban period, he will have to swiftly bring the warlords to heel and consider the difficult task of disarming them. Unfortunately, Karzai does not have the needed security apparatus at his command to take on such a daunting task, and is wary of the motives of even his own ministers, some of whom control large militias.

A sign of his unease was the decision to have American personnel look after his personal safety. Last month, a car filled with explosives was intercepted near Kabul which was to be used in an assassination attempt on the president. A number of senior government figures have been killed in recent months, including Vice-President Haji Abdul Qadeer. Like Karzai, Qadeer was a Pushtoon in a government dominated by Tajiks, Uzbeks and other smaller ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group in the country, the Pushtoons have been expressing their resentment over the composition of the present ruling set-up. What is most worrying is that the US has stood by and watched the situation deteriorate without showing any great anxiety to take decisive action. Washington refuses to allow the international peacekeeping force to operate beyond the capital’s limits, despite requests by the Afghan government. It is also going about the task of training soldiers for a new national Afghan army at an extremely slow pace. Only about 3,000 troops will be trained by the end of this year out of a target of 60,000 personnel.

Critics in the US Senate have accused the Bush administration of not doing enough to stem the slide towards anarchy. The administration has been directed by the Senate to produce a report in 45 days explaining how it intends to deal with the serious security concerns in the long and short term. Given the law and order situation, only a trickle of the massive aid pledged for the rebuilding and rehabilitation of the country has materialized. With the powerful warlords consolidating their power, the time to assert the authority of the state is now. The nightmare that haunts the Afghans is that the US could lose interest in the country once the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is over. Washington did precisely this following the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan in the late eighties and the resulting power vacuum is what triggered a devastating civil war that reduced the country to rubble and paved the way for the emergence of the Taliban. One only hopes that the current drift in US policy is not a case of history repeating itself. The outcome of another hasty US retreat from Afghanistan could well be much worse than the last time round.

Insanity as defence

THE report that, despite a legal provision, not a single person convicted under the controversial blasphemy law was deemed fit for examination by a psychiatrist raises serious concern about the impartiality of such trials. It is a well-established practice all over the world, and in this country too, that only a person who is fully aware of the consequences of his actions and who carries them out within the bounds of sanity is liable to be punished for any misdeed. That is precisely why in many countries, and in Pakistan too, insanity is accepted as a valid defence. The idea behind this is quite clear — which is that it makes little sense punishing a person for violating a certain law if he or she happens to be mentally unbalanced. In all civilized societies, the proper course of action in such cases is to send such individuals for psychiatric treatment in the hope of a cure and eventual rehabilitation of the afflicted person in society.

Unfortunately, a mix of fear and pressure that often comes to mark the atmosphere surrounding the trial of an alleged blasphemer, has led to a situation where even in the most obvious of cases — for example, a person claiming to be a prophet — courts do not order a psychiatric evaluation of the state of mind of the accused. This omission becomes all the more glaring in the presence of a law that allows a sessions court to order, if necessary, the medical examination of a person accused of that offence — to determine his mental health and sanity. Despite the pressures that come with the hearing of blasphemy cases, the government and the courts should see to it that the defence is accorded all its due rights, including the right to call in a doctor to assess the defendant’s state of mind. The nature of allegations generally made during a blasphemy trial makes it all the more necessary that judges use their discretion wisely and compassionately in allowing those accused of blasphemy to be examined by a psychiatrist.

Why they aren’t coming

CRICKET-lovers must have felt disappointed over the cancellation of the Australian cricket team’s tour of Pakistan in October. The tour had become doubtful after two major acts of terrorism rocked Pakistan — the death of 11 Frenchmen in May and the attack on the US consulate in June. Since then, more attacks on western and Christian targets have strengthened the Australian players’ apprehensions about their safety in Pakistan. This, despite a telephone call from President Musharraf, assuring Australian Prime Minister John Howard of the players’ security. That Mr Howard should have called the cancellation unfortunate shows the feeling in Australia. Nevertheless, one must understand Australian fears. A player cannot put up his best performance if he is worried about his personal safety. As correctly observed by Imran Khan, the Australian fears are genuine. The decision by the Australian Cricket Board was obviously taken on the advice of the Australian foreign office. But the ABC has offered an alternative: it said it could play a tri-series, also involving India, in a third country. But this is just a proposal.

This is the second time that a foreign team has declined to visit Pakistan: in March, the West Indies had refused to play in this country, and the series had to be held in Sharjah. Clearly, we have to blame ourselves and not foreign teams if they feel unsafe in Pakistan. The ball is in our court. We must redouble our efforts and determination to make Pakistan safe for ourselves as for foreign visitors. Once that happens no foreign team will need to be cajoled or persuaded to come here and play.