Portents and prospects
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has asserted in an interaction with reporters in Lahore over the weekend that October 13, the date for the next hearing in the Supreme Court of the NRO case, will come and go, but the government will complete its tenure. To ensure this outcome, the prime minister argued, he was willing to take “tough decisions”, uppermost being cutting down the size of the huge cabinet. What may have prompted these thoughts are the rumours doing the rounds once again that a ‘change’ is imminent. Mercifully, if it can be called that, the idea of an extra-constitutional or anti-democratic intervention seems to have been abandoned in the face of few if any takers for an idea that has been tried and found wanting too many times in the past to have much purchase today. If a change is coming, the theorists of such an event say, it is more likely to be an in-house change from within the existing parliament. On the face of it, the numbers to remove some or all of the incumbents and bring in a new slew of faces do not add up, but stranger things have been known to happen in the Islamic Republic. If there is a question that remains, it is whether the prime minister can or will carry out a purge and downsizing of the cabinet in time to save himself and stave off any further inroads into his government. The complication is that unless the president (also co-chairperson of the PPP) agrees to the changes, the prime minister may just end up whistling in the wind.
Without necessarily descending to the level of conspiracy theories, there is no denying the fact that the imminent demise of the government elected through the February 2008 elections has been predicted again and again since it took office in March that year, and predictably the ‘forecasters’ tended to come from what began suspiciously to look like a cast of usual suspects. However, whereas their earlier prognoses and even dates of departure may have come to naught, can the incumbents sleep soundly still? Or is some kind of endgame looming? What may encourage the opponents of the government, especially those with a pronounced visceral hatred of certain personalities if not the PPP entire, is the sense of drift, lack of grip and policy paralysis of the government. Incompetence and rumours and allegations of rampant corruption are not doing the government’s case much good either, especially in cases where the two charges are seen as going hand-in-hand or being embodied in the same individuals. In the minds of its unforgiving opponents, the government could be rendered ‘headless’ by disempowering the president even further than the 18th Amendment proposes.
While an air of thickening uncertainty looms, the president, prime minister and downwards, all exhibit an air of confidence and bravado that is understandable but may not be sufficient to ward off the dark clouds hovering over the government. While Mr Gilani reiterates that the army is pro-democracy, it is possible to concede this view only in the context of General Kayani’s leadership so far. No one with even a nodding acquaintance with Pakistan’s history, however, can rest sanguine that this is now a permanent state of affairs and the era of military intervention has finally been relegated to the dustbin. While a direct military intervention seems unlikely at present, given the problems the country faces, there can be no ruling out of the possibility that the ‘establishment’ is working behind the scenes to usher in a ‘change’. An in-house change from within parliament may be a small mercy, given that it does not in principle violate the constitution or abort democracy, but the real question will be whether any new faces inducted through such a process will actually be calling the shots or be manipulated on strings by hidden players behind an opaque curtain. That would end up a democracy in name only, a sham and fraud, a species we are all too familiar with already.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Daily Times editorial March 15, 2011
Political heat rising
Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani, while addressing a public rally in Multan, said his government would safeguard the rights of all the country’s institutions and at the same time not allow anyone to meddle in the government’s or parliament’s affairs. This statement, although on the face of it unexceptionable since the constitution lays down the purview and separation of powers of all state institutions, takes on new meaning in the context of the executive and parliament’s troubled relationship with the judiciary, which has found new issues and expression of late. For example, the short order of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring the appointment of Justice (retd) Deedar Shah as NAB chairman invalid evoked a strong reaction from the PPP in Sindh, including a strike and incidents of violence. The SC has since asked the authorities for a report on these events and questioned what if any action under the law has been taken or is contemplated against the ‘disruptionists’. Meanwhile there are reports that President Asif Ali Zardari’s desire to reappoint Justice Deedar may run up against the rock of the latter’s reluctance to offer himself for further controversy in this regard.
The PM also announced at the same rally that a Seraiki province would form part of the PPP’s manifesto for the next elections, whenever they are held. There has been some agitation of late in south Punjab, informed by demands for a Seraiki province as well as the restoration of the Bahawalpur State, merged into West Pakistan when One Unit was imposed. The PM’s proposed inclusion of the Seraiki province demand in the PPP’s manifesto for the next elections can be read as an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, when the largest mainstream party adopts the demand, it steals the thunder of the Seraiki nationalists, while on the other it further helps to consolidate its grip on its traditional stronghold in southern Punjab. Depending as this grip does on a feudal or large landowners’ political base, the proposal poses intriguing questions about whether this elite of south Punjab has swung over in favour of a Seraiki province.
Meanwhile, reiterations of the policy of reconciliation from the highest to the ordinary in the ranks of the government and the PPP notwithstanding, the political heat is rising on the national horizon. Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Federal Law Minister Babar Awan have indulged in a war of words, both levelling charges of ethnic/provincial bias against each other, and Awan going so far as to suggest that Nisar’s antics may well end up with the Sharifs being sent back to Jeddah. President Zardari, in the role of the good cop, has advised his Sindh Central Executive Committee members to speed up the proposed All Parties Conference to discuss the problems of the country, in the hope that this broad political consultation may help the government to take all or most political forces along in its efforts to grapple with the serious issues confronting the country. The president has also reached out once again to Nawaz Sharif to cool down the rising ire between the two erstwhile allies. Nawaz’s response can only be politely described as cool. The president has been bending his back to keep the MQM within the fold of the ruling coalition in a series of meetings in Karachi, whose outcome is still not clear.
In a return to the well known adage of no permanent friends or enemies in politics, the PPP has offered cabinet seats to the PML(Q), in a dramatic reversal of the PPP and the president’s own condemnation of the party for its role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Rumblings of dissent in both parties against this joining hands with yesterday’s ‘foes’ notwithstanding, the move can only be interpreted as the PPP’s insurance policy against the weakening and threat of disintegration of the ruling coalition, which has already lost the JUI(F), is arguably on the verge of losing the MQM at the Centre and in Sindh, and has been unceremoniously dumped in Punjab. In love and war, it is said, all is fair. The increasing bitterness creeping into the national political discourse suggests that ‘war’, not love, is imminent.
Prime Minister (PM) Yousaf Raza Gilani, while addressing a public rally in Multan, said his government would safeguard the rights of all the country’s institutions and at the same time not allow anyone to meddle in the government’s or parliament’s affairs. This statement, although on the face of it unexceptionable since the constitution lays down the purview and separation of powers of all state institutions, takes on new meaning in the context of the executive and parliament’s troubled relationship with the judiciary, which has found new issues and expression of late. For example, the short order of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring the appointment of Justice (retd) Deedar Shah as NAB chairman invalid evoked a strong reaction from the PPP in Sindh, including a strike and incidents of violence. The SC has since asked the authorities for a report on these events and questioned what if any action under the law has been taken or is contemplated against the ‘disruptionists’. Meanwhile there are reports that President Asif Ali Zardari’s desire to reappoint Justice Deedar may run up against the rock of the latter’s reluctance to offer himself for further controversy in this regard.
The PM also announced at the same rally that a Seraiki province would form part of the PPP’s manifesto for the next elections, whenever they are held. There has been some agitation of late in south Punjab, informed by demands for a Seraiki province as well as the restoration of the Bahawalpur State, merged into West Pakistan when One Unit was imposed. The PM’s proposed inclusion of the Seraiki province demand in the PPP’s manifesto for the next elections can be read as an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, when the largest mainstream party adopts the demand, it steals the thunder of the Seraiki nationalists, while on the other it further helps to consolidate its grip on its traditional stronghold in southern Punjab. Depending as this grip does on a feudal or large landowners’ political base, the proposal poses intriguing questions about whether this elite of south Punjab has swung over in favour of a Seraiki province.
Meanwhile, reiterations of the policy of reconciliation from the highest to the ordinary in the ranks of the government and the PPP notwithstanding, the political heat is rising on the national horizon. Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Federal Law Minister Babar Awan have indulged in a war of words, both levelling charges of ethnic/provincial bias against each other, and Awan going so far as to suggest that Nisar’s antics may well end up with the Sharifs being sent back to Jeddah. President Zardari, in the role of the good cop, has advised his Sindh Central Executive Committee members to speed up the proposed All Parties Conference to discuss the problems of the country, in the hope that this broad political consultation may help the government to take all or most political forces along in its efforts to grapple with the serious issues confronting the country. The president has also reached out once again to Nawaz Sharif to cool down the rising ire between the two erstwhile allies. Nawaz’s response can only be politely described as cool. The president has been bending his back to keep the MQM within the fold of the ruling coalition in a series of meetings in Karachi, whose outcome is still not clear.
In a return to the well known adage of no permanent friends or enemies in politics, the PPP has offered cabinet seats to the PML(Q), in a dramatic reversal of the PPP and the president’s own condemnation of the party for its role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Rumblings of dissent in both parties against this joining hands with yesterday’s ‘foes’ notwithstanding, the move can only be interpreted as the PPP’s insurance policy against the weakening and threat of disintegration of the ruling coalition, which has already lost the JUI(F), is arguably on the verge of losing the MQM at the Centre and in Sindh, and has been unceremoniously dumped in Punjab. In love and war, it is said, all is fair. The increasing bitterness creeping into the national political discourse suggests that ‘war’, not love, is imminent.
Daily Times editorial April 24, 2011
Droning on
After Admiral Mike Mullen’s controversial visit to Pakistan, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir has had an interaction with US Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ambassador Mark Grossman, and by the time these lines appear, will probably also have met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington. The Mark Grossman encounter yielded the usual soothing noise from both sides, revolving around both sides’ commitment to a long term strategic partnership and cooperation against terrorism. However, the fly in the ointment remains Pakistan’s increasingly assertive demand that US drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas be halted, as they are counter-productive because of collateral civilian casualties. On that question, Mr Grossman could not be drawn in the two sides’ joint press conference.
Even while these discussions are on in Washington, a US drone has struck in North Waziristan, killing 25 people. The usual round of claims and counter-claims have followed, with the US anonymously (since they do not officially discuss drone strikes) claiming terrorists were hit, while local reports claim civilians were amongst the casualties, including some women and children. This latest drone strike underlines the difficulties in the way of a resolution of this vexed question, with the US adamant that drone attacks will continue on the argument that they are highly effective weapons against terrorists in FATA. There are reports that the US is contemplating a palliative in the shape of 85 unarmed smaller intelligence gathering Raven drones. Pakistan was earlier offered the longer range larger surveillance drones called Shadow, but that deal has been stymied by cost and delivery problems. Whether the Raven palliative will help ease the Pakistani angst against drone attacks remains a moot point however, since a concerted campaign is by now in evidence from the military establishment and right wing parties against their continuation. Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaf is on the road with a caravan to Peshawar against the drone attacks and threatening a halt to NATO supplies through Pakistan unless its demand is conceded. It is no accident that the greatest enthusiastic receptions for his caravan have come from religious parties and groups along the way and expectedly at the final destination where a sit-in is planned. Since the right of the political spectrum is the most active on the streets at the moment, it is no surprise that they have achieved some mobilisation on the issue. Objectively, their actions, whatever the subjective intent, are likely to end up supporting the wishes of the military establishment and indirectly the jihadi forces.
Meanwhile an alarming development has been the attack on a border post in Dir from across the Afghan border that has claimed 16 security forces’ personnel dead, while the attackers are believed to have lost around 20. Local commanders claim the attackers are surrounded and cannot escape. The attack has been claimed by a faction of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and at the same time condemned by the US. This attack indicates that the apprehension that the TTP would sooner or later find safe havens across the border with the Afghan Taliban now seems a reality. Seen in the context of the impending endgame in Afghanistan, in which a share of power for the Taliban is being mooted, this development portends huge problems for Pakistan along the border if the TTP consolidates its toehold across the border and uses those safe havens to attack Pakistan. Hopefully, our security establishment will take note of this possibility and put pressure on its Afghan Taliban proxies not to allow any such toehold, now or in the future.
The essence of the differences that have emerged of late between the intelligence establishments of Pakistan and the US now seem to have travelled to the hitherto close relationship between the militaries of both sides. The increasingly assertive Pakistani demand to stop the drone attacks may not be conceded unless the US demand for a military operation in North Waziristan is offered as a quid pro quo. On the basis of the military establishment’s posture so far, this seems unlikely in the foreseeable future, leading to the conclusion that the soothing words in Washington notwithstanding, Pak-US relations seem premised on choppy sailing ahead.
After Admiral Mike Mullen’s controversial visit to Pakistan, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir has had an interaction with US Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ambassador Mark Grossman, and by the time these lines appear, will probably also have met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington. The Mark Grossman encounter yielded the usual soothing noise from both sides, revolving around both sides’ commitment to a long term strategic partnership and cooperation against terrorism. However, the fly in the ointment remains Pakistan’s increasingly assertive demand that US drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas be halted, as they are counter-productive because of collateral civilian casualties. On that question, Mr Grossman could not be drawn in the two sides’ joint press conference.
Even while these discussions are on in Washington, a US drone has struck in North Waziristan, killing 25 people. The usual round of claims and counter-claims have followed, with the US anonymously (since they do not officially discuss drone strikes) claiming terrorists were hit, while local reports claim civilians were amongst the casualties, including some women and children. This latest drone strike underlines the difficulties in the way of a resolution of this vexed question, with the US adamant that drone attacks will continue on the argument that they are highly effective weapons against terrorists in FATA. There are reports that the US is contemplating a palliative in the shape of 85 unarmed smaller intelligence gathering Raven drones. Pakistan was earlier offered the longer range larger surveillance drones called Shadow, but that deal has been stymied by cost and delivery problems. Whether the Raven palliative will help ease the Pakistani angst against drone attacks remains a moot point however, since a concerted campaign is by now in evidence from the military establishment and right wing parties against their continuation. Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaf is on the road with a caravan to Peshawar against the drone attacks and threatening a halt to NATO supplies through Pakistan unless its demand is conceded. It is no accident that the greatest enthusiastic receptions for his caravan have come from religious parties and groups along the way and expectedly at the final destination where a sit-in is planned. Since the right of the political spectrum is the most active on the streets at the moment, it is no surprise that they have achieved some mobilisation on the issue. Objectively, their actions, whatever the subjective intent, are likely to end up supporting the wishes of the military establishment and indirectly the jihadi forces.
Meanwhile an alarming development has been the attack on a border post in Dir from across the Afghan border that has claimed 16 security forces’ personnel dead, while the attackers are believed to have lost around 20. Local commanders claim the attackers are surrounded and cannot escape. The attack has been claimed by a faction of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and at the same time condemned by the US. This attack indicates that the apprehension that the TTP would sooner or later find safe havens across the border with the Afghan Taliban now seems a reality. Seen in the context of the impending endgame in Afghanistan, in which a share of power for the Taliban is being mooted, this development portends huge problems for Pakistan along the border if the TTP consolidates its toehold across the border and uses those safe havens to attack Pakistan. Hopefully, our security establishment will take note of this possibility and put pressure on its Afghan Taliban proxies not to allow any such toehold, now or in the future.
The essence of the differences that have emerged of late between the intelligence establishments of Pakistan and the US now seem to have travelled to the hitherto close relationship between the militaries of both sides. The increasingly assertive Pakistani demand to stop the drone attacks may not be conceded unless the US demand for a military operation in North Waziristan is offered as a quid pro quo. On the basis of the military establishment’s posture so far, this seems unlikely in the foreseeable future, leading to the conclusion that the soothing words in Washington notwithstanding, Pak-US relations seem premised on choppy sailing ahead.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Daily Times Editorial April 13, 2011
Patch-up efforts
The strain in Pakistan-US relations that emerged after the Raymond Davis affair and the subsequent fallout of the drone attack that allegedly killed innocent people in FATA refuses to yield easily to solutions. While President Asif Ali Zardari in an interview with the Guardian has iterated the destabilising effects of the war in Afghanistan on Pakistan, including but not limited to its undermining efforts to restore democratic institutions and economic prosperity, he has also complained that some US politicians show limited understanding of the impact of US policies (e.g. the recent critical White House report). President Zardari argued that the emphasis in Pakistan for long decades has been on security, whereas what is needed is a focus on commerce for our survival and progress. He spoke of the malign effects of the situation on industry and the wasted potential of gas exports to India and the world, provided of course Afghanistan settles down. He was critical of the failure of the US to quantify and calculate the effects of the war on Pakistan. Last but not least, the president said he would raise the issue of Pakistan being provided drone technology so that any future such actions should be under a "Pakistani flag”. Whether, especially in the present straitened circumstances, the president will be able to budge Washington from its past refusal to contemplate such a transfer remains a moot point. The Guardian report goes on to underline that operations against terrorists have cost Pakistan $ 68 billion and more than 33,300 civilians and military personnel killed or seriously injured since 2001.
ISI chief General Pasha is believed to have met his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta in Washington to sort out the frozen cooperation between the two agencies since the Davis affair in January. The CIA spokesman described the meeting as positive, while the ISI is mum. Significantly, General Pasha is reported to have cut short his short visit and returned. Make of that what you will. It is not difficult to surmise that around the issues of Raymond Davis and drone attacks, the discussions currently ongoing between the two sides centre on the Pakistani military’s demand that the CIA curtail its clandestine (and unknown to the ISI) activities ion Pakistani soil and stop the drone attacks. Reportedly some CIA operatives have already left or are in the process of leaving Pakistan. Another issue is the US Special Operations forces training Pakistani soldiers in counter-insurgency, a programme that too may suffer a cut of 25-40 percent if the Pakistani military has its way. Incidentally, a 40 percent cutback would probably mean the closure of the entire programme. From all this, it is not difficult to sniff out the state of affairs in the relationship.
US Ambassador Cameron Munter meantime has tried to soothe ruffled feathers in an address at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. He reiterated Washington’s desire to improve relations despite the tensions over Davis and the drones. He also tried to allay deep-seated fears from the past that the US intended to abandon Afghanistan (and Pakistan) once again as in 1989 by stating that the US was not leaving in 2014 but would be changing its role much more to training and on the civilian side.
The Raymond Davis affair also resonated in the halls of the National Assembly when Chaudhry Nisar, the Leader of the Opposition, roundly turned on the government and President Zardari, criticising them for the release of Davis and demanding a parliamentary committee or judicial commission to probe the whole affair. He was also at pains to defend the PML-N Punjab government as innocent in the matter of the release. That may or may not be true, but one cannot help wondering how a prisoner in the custody of the Punjab government could be whisked away from under its nose unless it was on board?
This brief survey of the goings on in the diplomatic, security, political and media field should help to underline the very real difficulties that the always fraught relationship between Pakistan and the US is presently confronted with. It will take a fair bit of skill, diplomacy and flexibility on either side to overcome the divergence in interests that is opening up as endgame in Afghanistan draws ever nearer.
The strain in Pakistan-US relations that emerged after the Raymond Davis affair and the subsequent fallout of the drone attack that allegedly killed innocent people in FATA refuses to yield easily to solutions. While President Asif Ali Zardari in an interview with the Guardian has iterated the destabilising effects of the war in Afghanistan on Pakistan, including but not limited to its undermining efforts to restore democratic institutions and economic prosperity, he has also complained that some US politicians show limited understanding of the impact of US policies (e.g. the recent critical White House report). President Zardari argued that the emphasis in Pakistan for long decades has been on security, whereas what is needed is a focus on commerce for our survival and progress. He spoke of the malign effects of the situation on industry and the wasted potential of gas exports to India and the world, provided of course Afghanistan settles down. He was critical of the failure of the US to quantify and calculate the effects of the war on Pakistan. Last but not least, the president said he would raise the issue of Pakistan being provided drone technology so that any future such actions should be under a "Pakistani flag”. Whether, especially in the present straitened circumstances, the president will be able to budge Washington from its past refusal to contemplate such a transfer remains a moot point. The Guardian report goes on to underline that operations against terrorists have cost Pakistan $ 68 billion and more than 33,300 civilians and military personnel killed or seriously injured since 2001.
ISI chief General Pasha is believed to have met his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta in Washington to sort out the frozen cooperation between the two agencies since the Davis affair in January. The CIA spokesman described the meeting as positive, while the ISI is mum. Significantly, General Pasha is reported to have cut short his short visit and returned. Make of that what you will. It is not difficult to surmise that around the issues of Raymond Davis and drone attacks, the discussions currently ongoing between the two sides centre on the Pakistani military’s demand that the CIA curtail its clandestine (and unknown to the ISI) activities ion Pakistani soil and stop the drone attacks. Reportedly some CIA operatives have already left or are in the process of leaving Pakistan. Another issue is the US Special Operations forces training Pakistani soldiers in counter-insurgency, a programme that too may suffer a cut of 25-40 percent if the Pakistani military has its way. Incidentally, a 40 percent cutback would probably mean the closure of the entire programme. From all this, it is not difficult to sniff out the state of affairs in the relationship.
US Ambassador Cameron Munter meantime has tried to soothe ruffled feathers in an address at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. He reiterated Washington’s desire to improve relations despite the tensions over Davis and the drones. He also tried to allay deep-seated fears from the past that the US intended to abandon Afghanistan (and Pakistan) once again as in 1989 by stating that the US was not leaving in 2014 but would be changing its role much more to training and on the civilian side.
The Raymond Davis affair also resonated in the halls of the National Assembly when Chaudhry Nisar, the Leader of the Opposition, roundly turned on the government and President Zardari, criticising them for the release of Davis and demanding a parliamentary committee or judicial commission to probe the whole affair. He was also at pains to defend the PML-N Punjab government as innocent in the matter of the release. That may or may not be true, but one cannot help wondering how a prisoner in the custody of the Punjab government could be whisked away from under its nose unless it was on board?
This brief survey of the goings on in the diplomatic, security, political and media field should help to underline the very real difficulties that the always fraught relationship between Pakistan and the US is presently confronted with. It will take a fair bit of skill, diplomacy and flexibility on either side to overcome the divergence in interests that is opening up as endgame in Afghanistan draws ever nearer.
Daily Times Editorial Feb 1, 2010
Past mistakes
Objective observers of the national political scene may well by now be both puzzled and sickened in equal measure at the repeated statements by sections of the opposition, media and lawyers that the government, by not implementing the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) NRO verdict, is preparing the ground for a clash between the executive and the judiciary. It is this continuing campaign that has forced the prime minister, and the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan the other day, to reiterate that no such clash is in the offing. Whereas the CJ has stated unequivocally that the judiciary too wishes democracy to continue and be consolidated, the prime minister has once again felt constrained to clarify the situation according to the government’s lights.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been constrained to point out that neither the politicians nor the judiciary would repeat the mistakes of the past, having matured and learnt lessons from the sorry history of the country. The prime minister said further that he would take no steps that might affect the stability of any institution. As to the seeming controversy about the appointment of judges, the prime minister attempted to pour cold water over the wishful thinking of some quarters that this provides additional ammunition to berate the government and put it under more pressure by saying that the matter would be resolved through consultation at the appropriate level, which happens to be the correct constitutional and procedural position. The ‘controversy’, if at all it may be so described (some are inclined to dismiss it as a storm in a teacup), concerns the government’s rejection of the CJ’s advice that Justice Saqib Nisar, the senior judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) be elevated to the SC. Instead, basing itself on the principles laid down by the SC in the Al-Jihad Trust case, the government has requested the CJ to reconsider his advice and instead agree to elevate the CJ of the LHC, Justice Khwaja Sharif, to the apex court, being the senior most judge of the LHC. The constitution and rules allow the government to do this, and in the face of the opinion that the advice of the CJ is binding, it is legitimate to ask why, if the advice is binding, is there the rule that the president would, in the event of rejecting the CJ’s advice, be constrained to explain his reasons in writing? Unfortunately, legal matters have become so entangled with the politics of unseating the government and the president, that even steps in accordance with the law are being unnecessarily questioned in the hope of stirring the pot to boiling point.
As to the issue of implementing the SC’s NRO verdict, out of 8,041 beneficiaries of the NRO, 34 were politicians, 12 of these belonged to the PPP, and around six of these are ministers who are now facing the courts after the reopening of their cases. Where is the non-implementation factor in this? The Swiss case, which the NRO verdict wanted reopened because it held that former Attorney General (AG) Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum withdrew it off his own bat without proper authority, is not so simple a matter. In the first place, it is inconceivable, no written instructions being available to Malik Qayyum notwithstanding, that the former AG could have stuck his neck out so far under the one-man rule of General Musharraf, who did many things without putting them down properly on paper. Second, the prime minister has argued that Article 248 of the constitution provides immunity to the president so long as he holds office from criminal or any other prosecution in the courts. Third, the case having been withdrawn, however controversially, are the Swiss courts and authorities willing to go along now with the request, should it be forthcoming, of the Pakistan government to reopen a withdrawn case? It is reasonable to state that the jury is out on this one too.
The prime minister has voiced his confidence that the government will fulfil its five year term according to the people’s mandate. That seems reasonable so long as it enjoys a majority in parliament and no extra-constitutional or anti-democratic manoeuvres are attempted. Those who do not like this government or the president are advised to be patient and wait for the next elections if they wish to see their backs, but that too only through the ballot box, not at the point of a bayonet or other tactic extraneous to democratic dispensations.
Objective observers of the national political scene may well by now be both puzzled and sickened in equal measure at the repeated statements by sections of the opposition, media and lawyers that the government, by not implementing the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) NRO verdict, is preparing the ground for a clash between the executive and the judiciary. It is this continuing campaign that has forced the prime minister, and the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan the other day, to reiterate that no such clash is in the offing. Whereas the CJ has stated unequivocally that the judiciary too wishes democracy to continue and be consolidated, the prime minister has once again felt constrained to clarify the situation according to the government’s lights.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been constrained to point out that neither the politicians nor the judiciary would repeat the mistakes of the past, having matured and learnt lessons from the sorry history of the country. The prime minister said further that he would take no steps that might affect the stability of any institution. As to the seeming controversy about the appointment of judges, the prime minister attempted to pour cold water over the wishful thinking of some quarters that this provides additional ammunition to berate the government and put it under more pressure by saying that the matter would be resolved through consultation at the appropriate level, which happens to be the correct constitutional and procedural position. The ‘controversy’, if at all it may be so described (some are inclined to dismiss it as a storm in a teacup), concerns the government’s rejection of the CJ’s advice that Justice Saqib Nisar, the senior judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) be elevated to the SC. Instead, basing itself on the principles laid down by the SC in the Al-Jihad Trust case, the government has requested the CJ to reconsider his advice and instead agree to elevate the CJ of the LHC, Justice Khwaja Sharif, to the apex court, being the senior most judge of the LHC. The constitution and rules allow the government to do this, and in the face of the opinion that the advice of the CJ is binding, it is legitimate to ask why, if the advice is binding, is there the rule that the president would, in the event of rejecting the CJ’s advice, be constrained to explain his reasons in writing? Unfortunately, legal matters have become so entangled with the politics of unseating the government and the president, that even steps in accordance with the law are being unnecessarily questioned in the hope of stirring the pot to boiling point.
As to the issue of implementing the SC’s NRO verdict, out of 8,041 beneficiaries of the NRO, 34 were politicians, 12 of these belonged to the PPP, and around six of these are ministers who are now facing the courts after the reopening of their cases. Where is the non-implementation factor in this? The Swiss case, which the NRO verdict wanted reopened because it held that former Attorney General (AG) Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum withdrew it off his own bat without proper authority, is not so simple a matter. In the first place, it is inconceivable, no written instructions being available to Malik Qayyum notwithstanding, that the former AG could have stuck his neck out so far under the one-man rule of General Musharraf, who did many things without putting them down properly on paper. Second, the prime minister has argued that Article 248 of the constitution provides immunity to the president so long as he holds office from criminal or any other prosecution in the courts. Third, the case having been withdrawn, however controversially, are the Swiss courts and authorities willing to go along now with the request, should it be forthcoming, of the Pakistan government to reopen a withdrawn case? It is reasonable to state that the jury is out on this one too.
The prime minister has voiced his confidence that the government will fulfil its five year term according to the people’s mandate. That seems reasonable so long as it enjoys a majority in parliament and no extra-constitutional or anti-democratic manoeuvres are attempted. Those who do not like this government or the president are advised to be patient and wait for the next elections if they wish to see their backs, but that too only through the ballot box, not at the point of a bayonet or other tactic extraneous to democratic dispensations.
Daily times editorial Dec 18, 2009
Pandora’s box
As widely expected, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has been unanimously struck down by a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by the Chief Justice. Long before the much awaited short order of the SC was delivered after a suspense-filled wait of about six hours from the announced time of delivery at 4:30 pm, the rumour and speculation mills were already into overdrive, with our relatively recently acquired plethora of private TV channels in paroxysms and twisting themselves into several knots in trying to anticipate the verdict. Every one of us was finally put out of our misery when the Chief Justice read out the short order. It says, for reasons to be recorded in the detailed judgement to follow, that the NRO was void ab initio, and violative of various provisions of the constitution including articles 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227. Therefore all steps taken or orders made, relief given or benefit provided under the NRO is of no legal effect, stands reversed, and there is a return to the status quo ante of October 5, 2007 (the date of promulgation of the NRO). The order states that all cases withdrawn or closed because of the NRO stand revived, the accused in these cases should be summoned by the relevant courts, and all governments and concerned authorities should assist the courts in proceeding with reopening all these cases. Former Attorney General Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum has been put in the dock as having acted without lawful authority in withdrawing the Swiss cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and the late Benazir Bhutto. The verdict has not only ordered the federal government and other authorities to seek the revival of these Swiss cases, but also asked them to proceed against Qayyum under the law. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman, prosecutor general and assistant prosecutor general too have come in for a bit of stick and the court has suggested that the federal government make fresh appointments to these posts. These officials will continue in office until the fresh appointments, but they and their successors have been charged with filing periodic reports on progress in the NRO cases to monitoring cells to be set up in the SC and the provincial courts. Further, the Law Secretary has been directed to increase the number of accountability courts.
The dust has yet to settle on the verdict, but already the country is abuzz with feverish speculation about what comes next. Many if not all of the NRO beneficiaries have already been placed on the Exit Control List and arrest warrants issued by NAB against those charged with the most serious crimes and misdemeanours. Some in our fevered rumour mill circuit may be indulging in wishful thinking that this means the end of the present government, mid-term elections, etc. But the real focus is on President Zardari’s fate and future. There have been calls from the opposition for him to resign, but if his spokesman Farhatullah Babar is heard, the president has no intention of obliging his growing tribe of enemies. Neither the government, nor the president can be forced to go so long as the former retains its majority in parliament and the latter, enjoying immunity while in office, is not either impeached or his qualification ab initio as a candidate for the office of president is challenged and found wanting. These of course are the legal and constitutional means. Most sensible people would shudder at the prospect of any extra-constitutional means being employed, of which so far there are mercifully no signs, since past such methods have proved extremely damaging to the interests of the country. Let us hope that better sense and patience with the ways of democracy prevail.
Those not hit by the NRO verdict, whether in the ranks of politicians, bureaucrats, generals, etc, should not indulge in premature celebrations at the discomfort of their rivals or disliked personalities. The logic of the verdict points in the direction of the culture of accountability having been strengthened, and the possibility of this momentum carrying on towards across-the-board accountability. Those who have nothing to hide or be ashamed of in their past can sleep easy. Those with skeletons in their cupboards had better wake up to the rattling sounds emanating from their closets.
As widely expected, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has been unanimously struck down by a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by the Chief Justice. Long before the much awaited short order of the SC was delivered after a suspense-filled wait of about six hours from the announced time of delivery at 4:30 pm, the rumour and speculation mills were already into overdrive, with our relatively recently acquired plethora of private TV channels in paroxysms and twisting themselves into several knots in trying to anticipate the verdict. Every one of us was finally put out of our misery when the Chief Justice read out the short order. It says, for reasons to be recorded in the detailed judgement to follow, that the NRO was void ab initio, and violative of various provisions of the constitution including articles 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227. Therefore all steps taken or orders made, relief given or benefit provided under the NRO is of no legal effect, stands reversed, and there is a return to the status quo ante of October 5, 2007 (the date of promulgation of the NRO). The order states that all cases withdrawn or closed because of the NRO stand revived, the accused in these cases should be summoned by the relevant courts, and all governments and concerned authorities should assist the courts in proceeding with reopening all these cases. Former Attorney General Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum has been put in the dock as having acted without lawful authority in withdrawing the Swiss cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and the late Benazir Bhutto. The verdict has not only ordered the federal government and other authorities to seek the revival of these Swiss cases, but also asked them to proceed against Qayyum under the law. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman, prosecutor general and assistant prosecutor general too have come in for a bit of stick and the court has suggested that the federal government make fresh appointments to these posts. These officials will continue in office until the fresh appointments, but they and their successors have been charged with filing periodic reports on progress in the NRO cases to monitoring cells to be set up in the SC and the provincial courts. Further, the Law Secretary has been directed to increase the number of accountability courts.
The dust has yet to settle on the verdict, but already the country is abuzz with feverish speculation about what comes next. Many if not all of the NRO beneficiaries have already been placed on the Exit Control List and arrest warrants issued by NAB against those charged with the most serious crimes and misdemeanours. Some in our fevered rumour mill circuit may be indulging in wishful thinking that this means the end of the present government, mid-term elections, etc. But the real focus is on President Zardari’s fate and future. There have been calls from the opposition for him to resign, but if his spokesman Farhatullah Babar is heard, the president has no intention of obliging his growing tribe of enemies. Neither the government, nor the president can be forced to go so long as the former retains its majority in parliament and the latter, enjoying immunity while in office, is not either impeached or his qualification ab initio as a candidate for the office of president is challenged and found wanting. These of course are the legal and constitutional means. Most sensible people would shudder at the prospect of any extra-constitutional means being employed, of which so far there are mercifully no signs, since past such methods have proved extremely damaging to the interests of the country. Let us hope that better sense and patience with the ways of democracy prevail.
Those not hit by the NRO verdict, whether in the ranks of politicians, bureaucrats, generals, etc, should not indulge in premature celebrations at the discomfort of their rivals or disliked personalities. The logic of the verdict points in the direction of the culture of accountability having been strengthened, and the possibility of this momentum carrying on towards across-the-board accountability. Those who have nothing to hide or be ashamed of in their past can sleep easy. Those with skeletons in their cupboards had better wake up to the rattling sounds emanating from their closets.
Daily Times Editorial March 10, 2010
Our terrorism travails
The first suicide bomb blast of 2010 in Lahore and the second in the residential area of Model Town in the last two years killed at least 13 people and injured close to 100 on Monday. The attack was carried out with a vehicle laden with at least 600 pounds of explosives near a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) detention and interrogation centre. On March 11, 2008, a similar attack had occurred on a similar facility in the same vicinity. This present blast was so severe that it killed and injured residents yards away from the site, demolished the two-storey SIU building, shattered about 40 houses completely and partially damaged another 150. Losses of property alone are estimated to run into the millions. Schools were closed in the aftermath and panicked parents rushed to collect their children, some of whom were seen frightened and weeping. The Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has not only claimed responsibility for the atrocity, it has threatened more such attacks through its 3,000 suicide bombers at the ready unless the military operations in FATA and the northwest are halted and the recent crackdown against the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda leadership inside the country is stopped.
The incident has thrown into sharp relief once more the callousness towards the lives, safety and property of citizens of this benighted country. The roots of our terrorism travails can of course be traced to the last four decades old policy of interference through jihadi proxies in neighbouring Afghanistan, and the three decades old jihad in Indian Held Kashmir. Astute observers have been warning over the years that this ‘forward policy’ and the pursuit of the holy grail of so-called ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan would one day result in a severe blowback and backlash at the hands of the same Frankenstein’s monsters being nurtured in the name of jihad. That day has by now arrived with a vengeance. For some time now, and especially since the last two years, the hapless citizens of this country have been the victims of the barbarians who claim the mantle of true Islam but in practice are nothing but fascist thugs and ruthless terrorists and killers of innocent people, not even sparing young children dragooned into the ranks of their suicide squads to act as human bombs. Lahore alone has suffered at least 20 such attacks in the past two years, with the loss of almost 200 lives and millions of property damage. If similar losses are totted up for the country as a whole, it indicates nothing short of a calamity heaped on the heads of our people through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, though our military and security forces have given sacrifices on the battlefield and in our cities in the struggle against the terrorists, it is the innocent citizens who have suffered the most, such being the indiscriminate nature of terrorism per se, whose ends justify all and every means. Neither yesterday, when the whole paradigm of export of jihad as a foreign policy tool was being formulated away from the gaze of an unsuspecting public, nor now when the consequences of such shortsighted and disastrous policies are well and truly upon us, are the citizens and their lives, safety and properties centre-stage in the authorities’ calculations.
Take the case of second time hit Model Town Lahore. Since the first attack on an SIU facility (a mere stone’s throw from Monday’s blast) on March 11, 2008, the residents and members of the Model Town Society have been agitating and writing letters to the authorities to shift these detention and interrogation centres, of which there are still reportedly some 12 existing even after this incident, to other places since they present targets for the terrorists and threaten the safety of residents of the area, apart from their (wholly inadequate as it turns out) security measures making life hell for the residents of the neighbourhood. The authorities’ failure to respond to this genuine concern is nothing short of criminal. As though to sprinkle salt into the wounds of the victims, the aftermath of this as other such incidents witnesses ritual condemnations by politicians and officials, promises of compensation (some victims of the earlier Model Town blast are still waiting for this promised manna from heaven), and vows to bring the perpetrators to justice, all of which ring out loud and clear, signifying however, only sound and fury, nothing more. Then there is the cast of usual suspects, the ubiquitous ‘foreign hand’ beloved of our interior minister and others leading the list. There are also the usual arguments trotted out by our gifted Rehman Malik about the ‘desperation’ of the terrorists in carrying out such actions because their back has been broken in FATA. Of what use or consolation are the reiterations of such homilies to the victims or their families? If anything, their overuse after every such incident or security lapse is now arousing anger amongst the citizenry, which demands that someone be held accountable for the pattern of security breaches again and again. Nor is there much purchase for politicians trying to play politics with and score points against each other through these tragedies, which practice is only going to alienate the citizens even more, if that is still possible.
Basta (enough)! The security units in residential areas must be shifted posthaste and without prevarication, delay or red tape out of residential areas. Security personnel in charge of pre-empting such incidents who fail to act despite (as in this case) intelligence warnings of an impending attack must be held accountable. Compensation must not be avoided through bureaucratic manoeuvring. Otherwise heads should roll. The citizens of this country, who neither authored the mistaken and disastrous jihad export policies of the past nor are responsible for their present fallout, but are the main victims of their blowback, deserve much better or their rising anger could produce unforeseen consequences for all in authority.
The first suicide bomb blast of 2010 in Lahore and the second in the residential area of Model Town in the last two years killed at least 13 people and injured close to 100 on Monday. The attack was carried out with a vehicle laden with at least 600 pounds of explosives near a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) detention and interrogation centre. On March 11, 2008, a similar attack had occurred on a similar facility in the same vicinity. This present blast was so severe that it killed and injured residents yards away from the site, demolished the two-storey SIU building, shattered about 40 houses completely and partially damaged another 150. Losses of property alone are estimated to run into the millions. Schools were closed in the aftermath and panicked parents rushed to collect their children, some of whom were seen frightened and weeping. The Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has not only claimed responsibility for the atrocity, it has threatened more such attacks through its 3,000 suicide bombers at the ready unless the military operations in FATA and the northwest are halted and the recent crackdown against the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda leadership inside the country is stopped.
The incident has thrown into sharp relief once more the callousness towards the lives, safety and property of citizens of this benighted country. The roots of our terrorism travails can of course be traced to the last four decades old policy of interference through jihadi proxies in neighbouring Afghanistan, and the three decades old jihad in Indian Held Kashmir. Astute observers have been warning over the years that this ‘forward policy’ and the pursuit of the holy grail of so-called ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan would one day result in a severe blowback and backlash at the hands of the same Frankenstein’s monsters being nurtured in the name of jihad. That day has by now arrived with a vengeance. For some time now, and especially since the last two years, the hapless citizens of this country have been the victims of the barbarians who claim the mantle of true Islam but in practice are nothing but fascist thugs and ruthless terrorists and killers of innocent people, not even sparing young children dragooned into the ranks of their suicide squads to act as human bombs. Lahore alone has suffered at least 20 such attacks in the past two years, with the loss of almost 200 lives and millions of property damage. If similar losses are totted up for the country as a whole, it indicates nothing short of a calamity heaped on the heads of our people through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, though our military and security forces have given sacrifices on the battlefield and in our cities in the struggle against the terrorists, it is the innocent citizens who have suffered the most, such being the indiscriminate nature of terrorism per se, whose ends justify all and every means. Neither yesterday, when the whole paradigm of export of jihad as a foreign policy tool was being formulated away from the gaze of an unsuspecting public, nor now when the consequences of such shortsighted and disastrous policies are well and truly upon us, are the citizens and their lives, safety and properties centre-stage in the authorities’ calculations.
Take the case of second time hit Model Town Lahore. Since the first attack on an SIU facility (a mere stone’s throw from Monday’s blast) on March 11, 2008, the residents and members of the Model Town Society have been agitating and writing letters to the authorities to shift these detention and interrogation centres, of which there are still reportedly some 12 existing even after this incident, to other places since they present targets for the terrorists and threaten the safety of residents of the area, apart from their (wholly inadequate as it turns out) security measures making life hell for the residents of the neighbourhood. The authorities’ failure to respond to this genuine concern is nothing short of criminal. As though to sprinkle salt into the wounds of the victims, the aftermath of this as other such incidents witnesses ritual condemnations by politicians and officials, promises of compensation (some victims of the earlier Model Town blast are still waiting for this promised manna from heaven), and vows to bring the perpetrators to justice, all of which ring out loud and clear, signifying however, only sound and fury, nothing more. Then there is the cast of usual suspects, the ubiquitous ‘foreign hand’ beloved of our interior minister and others leading the list. There are also the usual arguments trotted out by our gifted Rehman Malik about the ‘desperation’ of the terrorists in carrying out such actions because their back has been broken in FATA. Of what use or consolation are the reiterations of such homilies to the victims or their families? If anything, their overuse after every such incident or security lapse is now arousing anger amongst the citizenry, which demands that someone be held accountable for the pattern of security breaches again and again. Nor is there much purchase for politicians trying to play politics with and score points against each other through these tragedies, which practice is only going to alienate the citizens even more, if that is still possible.
Basta (enough)! The security units in residential areas must be shifted posthaste and without prevarication, delay or red tape out of residential areas. Security personnel in charge of pre-empting such incidents who fail to act despite (as in this case) intelligence warnings of an impending attack must be held accountable. Compensation must not be avoided through bureaucratic manoeuvring. Otherwise heads should roll. The citizens of this country, who neither authored the mistaken and disastrous jihad export policies of the past nor are responsible for their present fallout, but are the main victims of their blowback, deserve much better or their rising anger could produce unforeseen consequences for all in authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)