Daily Times Editorial Oct 1, 2012

Chickens come home to roost The dual nationality MPs’ saga continues to roll along. The Supreme Court (SC) has issued notices to three MPs to appear before it on October 3. These MPs include MNAs Begum Shehnaz Sheikh and Rai Ghulam Mujtaba Kharral and Senator and Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik. The court is disposed to deal with these MPs in terms of Article 25 read with Article 5 of the Constitution. Article 5 enjoins loyalty to the state and obedience of the constitution and law on every citizen and every other person for the time being in Pakistan. Article 25 lays down that all citizens are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. On these touchstones, the court is inclined to rule against the MPs who have been proved to hold dual nationality, and knowingly kept this information from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) when filing their nomination papers for the 2008 elections. Unfortunately, the ECP in the past has not properly vetted the nationality status of aspiring candidates, including in the 2008 elections. As a result, it is not known whether the 11 disqualified MPs according to the SC’s September 20, 2012 order, or the three mentioned above, represent the tip of the iceberg of dual nationality MPs. Rehman Malik had stated in a press conference on September 20 and 21, 2012, that if he was asked by the SC or government, he could produce the names of further MPs who enjoyed dual nationality. The SC has therefore asked him to appear to assist the court in this regard. In the meantime, the ECP has sent letters to the secretaries of the two houses of parliament as well as the four provincial assemblies seeking fresh declarations from the legislators affirming that they do not hold dual nationality. The replies have to be submitted within two weeks. The ECP’s view is that it would not be possible for the secretaries to ignore the letter as it had the force of a SC order behind it. This view has been reiterated in the light of the track record. The ECP had earlier written letters on August 29, 2012 to the secretaries of the Senate and National Assembly, provincial assemblies, Ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs and Overseas Pakistanis, seeking details within 15 days about legislators holding dual nationality. Both the Senate and National Assembly said there was no provision under the rules of business to obtain such details from MPs. They further said they did not possess such record and advised the ECP to seek such information directly from the MPs themselves. The Balochistan Assembly also said it had no record of dual nationality of its members. The provincial assemblies of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the ministries did not bother to respond to the ECP’s request. Punjab was the only province reported to have started the process of obtaining such details from its assembly members. After the 15 days deadline lapsed on September 13, a full bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in its short order in the dual nationality case had instructed the ECP to examine the cases of MPs individually by obtaining fresh declarations. It is too soon to conclude where this reassessment of the nationality status of our legislators may end up. If only a few are found to be in breach of the constitution and law on candidature while possessing dual nationality, it is conceivable that their seats could be filled through by-elections between now and the general elections. If, however, a large number of such MPs are identified and disqualified, it remains an open question whether large numbers of by-elections could be completed before the general elections kick in. And between now and then, such a development could add pressure on the government not to insist on its wish to see out its term to the full, but instead to opt for earlier elections. As the general elections loom, this and many other issues are steadily narrowing the room for manoeuvre for the government and adding to its concerns regarding holding the fort until at least March 2013.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 30, 2012

The ostrich rules ok Not unexpectedly, the government and the military/intelligence authorities have come back to the Supreme Court (SC) in reply to Akhtar Mengal’s statement before the court the other day with a blanket denial of all he had said. In short, according to the civilian/military authorities’ riposte, there is no overt or covert military operation going on in Balochistan, no death squads are operating under the aegis of the ISI and MI, and no missing person is in the custody of the secret agencies. Reading these assertions at face value, one could be forgiven for thinking that all is well in the best of all possible worlds in Balochistan. And yet, the stubborn facts and ground realities render the authorities’ statements falling far short of plausible deniability. After all, hundreds of tortured dead bodies of dissidents in the province keep appearing all over the province every other day. Thousands of people are missing, believed ‘disappeared' by the intelligence agencies. How do the authorities explain this? Their assertion that missing persons are being searched for is belied again by the fact that hardly any of the disappeared have ‘appeared’. The disturbing factor in the statement is the elected civilian government and the military establishment not just being on the same page on the issue, but in complete unanimity. What was started by military dictator General Musharraf in Balochistan therefore continues under the rule of the civilian government elected in 2008. Only two possibilities can explain this unholy convergence. Either the government is convinced of the implausible and blanket denial by the military and intelligence establishment, or they know the truth but are not willing to take the risk of annoying the military establishment by taking a principled stand against the brutal repression going on in Balochistan. Both possibilities are equally troubling. The authorities’ statement before the SC also asserts all political parties are free to operate in the province. Two facts undermine this assertion. Most of the dead or missing belong to nationalist parties or are their supporters. Akhtar Mengal’s own party’s general secretary, Habib Jalib Baloch, was murdered in Quetta after speaking at a seminar on Balochistan in Islamabad. The case has yet to reach any conclusion. Looked at as a whole, the ostrich-with-its head-in-the-sand attitude of the authorities suggest that the earth has swallowed up all the thousands of missing persons without the help of human agency, and the only exception is when the bowels of that same earth disgorge the mangled dead bodies of some of those already known to be missing. The government’s defence by recounting the steps it has taken to improve matters in Balochistan smacks of misplaced concreteness. Development packages, autonomy (under a ‘manufactured’ leadership), jobs for unemployed youth may all in totality be considered missing the wood for the trees. Unless the issues raised by Akhtar Mengal and the six-point raft of measures suggested by him to pave the way for a serious dialogue are taken note of and implemented, peace in Balochistan has all the chances of a snowball in hell. To the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and the SC’s credit, they have rejected the government’s assertions, albeit in ‘soft’ language. The CJP once again asked the rhetorical question in court why the government and military authorities do not see the gravity of the situation. Asserting once again the supremacy of the law and constitution, the SC has decided to conduct further proceedings on a case-by-case basis, starting with the next hearing on October 8 at the Quetta registry. Akhtar Mengal’s eloquent presentation of the Balochistan people’s case has evoked support from PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, whom Mengal met. In addition, support to Mengal has come from the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party chief Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Imran Khan and the Jamaat-i-Islami. If the government and the military authorities persist in their ostrich-like attitude, the CJP’s remark that a solution must be found before we enter a ‘blind alley’ may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mengal’s return and appearance before the SC offers an opportunity to retreat from the brink of the country’s destruction and engage seriously with the estranged Baloch leadership to salvage the integrity of the country before it is too late and the growing separatist sentiment inside Balochistan finds succour and support from the increasing internationalisation of the issue to bring about precisely a disastrous denouement.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 29, 2012

Mengal in the SC After years of silence in self-imposed exile, chief of the Balochistan National Party and an ex-chief minister of Balochistan, Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal made quite a splash in his appearance before the Supreme Court (SC). Akhtar Mengal’s return to the country and presenting himself before the apex court was the result of the three-member bench of the SC headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry ordering on September 20 that Sardar Aktar Mengal be asked to assist the court hearing a petition on the law and order situation in Balochistan. Apart from deposing before the SC, the visit allowed Akhtar Mengal to interact with the media and put his point of view across as articulately as he had done before the court. Essentially, Mengal distinguished between the immediate cause of the unrest in Balochistan, i.e. torture, killing and dumping of bodies all over the province, and the 65-year old political problem of Balochistan. He spotlighted enforced disappearances as the real current cause of the alienation of the Baloch people and the breakdown in law and order in the province. His solution too was in two distinct parts. First and foremost, he outlined before the court six measures that needed to be taken in order to create the atmosphere for meaningful negotiations with the genuine (not the present imposed hothouse flower) leadership of the Baloch people. These measures included, first and foremost, all proxy “death squads” murdering Baloch nationalists under the supervision of the ISI and MI must be disbanded. Mengal likened these groups’ activities to those of the infamous Al Badr and Al Shams in East Pakistan in 1971, when the Bengali people were subjected to horrendous brutalities. Mengal warned that the consequences of continuing with the death squads today would not be very different from what happened in East Pakistan in 1971. Second, all missing persons must be produce d before a court of law and allowed due process. Third, all political parties in Balochistan must be allowed to function freely, without any interference from the intelligence agencies. Fourth, all those responsible for the torture, killing and dumping of bodies of Baloch nationalists must be brought to justice. He poignantly referred to the beginnings of this regime of enforced disappearances when his brother, Asadullah Mengal, was disappeared along with a friend in 1976, and whose place of burial even has never been revealed to this day. He argued that if action against such heinous offences had been taken then, things would not have come to the present pass. Fifth, Mengal wanted rehabilitation of the displaced people in Balochistan, who were living in appalling conditions. Akhtar Mengal argued that only after these remedial steps were taken to redress the immediate cause of the Baloch people’s anger and alienation could the conditions be considered suitable for meaningful negotiations with the genuine representatives of the people of Balochistan rather than the present imposed leadership that did not even find it necessary to stay in Balochistan (the reference is to the chief minister, who is more often found in Islamabad than Quetta). Mengal came down harshly on the present so-called elected setup in Balochistan based on what he considers are tools of the establishment, leading to a situation where there is hardly any government visible in the province. The SC, after giving Akhtar Mengal a respectful hearing, ordered the chief secretary of Balochistan to discuss Mengal’s suggestions with the prime minister, governor of the province, chief minister and heads of MI, ISI, IB and submit their written response to the court today. The CJP expressed his anguish when he felt compelled to ask during the proceedings why the ISI, MI and IB were not realising the gravity of the situation. The court said if its orders were not complied with (which they have not been so far, given that the court stated it had issued 60 orders during 68 hearings, but none of them had been implemented), it would close these proceedings by issuing a binding injunction asking the responsible senior officer to recover all the missing persons. It does not take much imagination to understand who the ‘responsible senior officer’ referred to by the court is. And that precisely brings us to the 64,000 dollar question: what if the SC issues orders to recover the missing and carry out all of the steps suggested by Mengal, and those orders are, as usual, not obeyed, what then? The ticklish thought here is that that may lead to a clash/conflict between the court and the most powerful state institution. No bets on how that mother of all clashes might play out.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 28, 2012

Obama and the Muslim world Tuesday’s session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) gave the podium to Presidents Asif Ali Zardari and Barack Obama. While the former plugged his country’s case and in the process expressed Pakistanis’ deep hurt and anger at the blasphemous film, the latter mounted a spirited defence of freedom of expression, no matter how provocative. That Obama view was challenged on Wednesday by many Muslim leaders demanding once again international action to stop religious insults. Obama’s thrust focused a great deal on attacks against Americans in reaction to the film and despite his administration’s distancing itself from it. Muslim heads of state on the other hand argued forcefully for a clampdown on Islamophobia. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country by population, was represented by its President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who characterised the film as another “ugly face” of religious defamation. Quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Yudhoyono said, “Everyone must observe morality and public order,” concluding that, “Freedom of expression is therefore not absolute.” He called for an international instrument to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religious beliefs. King Abdullah of Jordan, a close ally of the US, added his voice to the criticism of the film and the violence it sparked. Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the depravity of the fanatics who made the film that set off the storm. As these influential voices from the Muslim world indicate, the fault line between the US/western defence of free speech, a principle regarding even blasphemous material being tolerated as Obama argued at the UNGA, arrived at through the secularisation of the state in the developed world’s history, and the deeply held respect for the Prophet (PBUH) and faith throughout the Muslim world, threatens to grow bigger. President Obama’s avowed intent early in his tenure to reach out to and embrace the Muslim world has remained a fond hope, partly because of the legacy he inherited of US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, partly his administration’s role in the toppling and brutal killing of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and suspicions of covert intervention in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad regime. The provocative film episode proved to be the icing that takes the cake. Anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world has flared because of each and every one of these causes enumerated above, as well as historical memories of humiliation at the hands of western colonialism and imperialism. This hostility towards, and the ‘isolation' of Washington from a significant segment of the world threaten the US ability to continue to claim the mantle of world leader. The US is the mightiest military power on earth many times over, but it has lately been exposed a s a colossus with feet of clay, given the dire straits its and the developed world’s economies are passing through. In the west’s uncritical and bland defence of freedom of speech and expression without any sense of responsibility for the consequences, the US and its western allies are shooting themselves in the foot. They have forgotten that someone else’s freedom ends where my nose begins. The fact that the west has travelled far from religious adherence to even lampooning religions and religious figures does not translate practically into license to hurt and insult those with a different set of beliefs and values. It was not therefore an exaggeration when President Zardari told the UNGA that such provocations, if not stopped, threaten the peace of the world. He could also have added that they bring grist to the mill of the extremists in Muslim societies and elsewhere, who are then enabled to hold moderate, liberal, enlightened opinion hostage. If the west cannot or will not see beyond its nose on the issue of consideration for others’ deeply held beliefs and sentiments, and refuses to act in consonance with the world to nip this increasing mischief in the bud, it will have no one but itself to blame for the impact on its interests in the Muslim world and arguably even beyond.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 27, 2012

President’s address to UNGA President Asif Ali Zardari’s expectantly awaited address to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) presented Pakistan’s case to the world community articulately, clearly, and without pulling any punches. He started by calling on the UN and world community to act against blasphemy and incitement of hatred, a reference to the recent furore over the film insulting to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). He urged the international community not to remain silent observers and move to criminalise acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing the right of freedom of expression. The president then went on to underline his oft-repeated desire for Pakistan to become the recipient of trade access and concessions, not aid. In this context, the president thanked the EU for its recognising the value of trade for Pakistan. He then went on to spell out the vision of a South Asia that becomes interconnected and the vehicle for a new regional narrative that helps bind and bring closer all the countries of the region and beyond through trade ties and economic cooperation. He mentioned the outreach to Afghanistan (the Transit Trade Agreement) and India (trade and economic cooperation) to emphasise the point. He appealed to the world to stop the refrain of ‘do more’ directed at Pakistan, arguing that this was an insult to the 7,000 soldiers and policeman and over 37,000 civilians killed in the struggle against terrorism, besides denigrating the suffering of the living. He also made a poignant reference to slain federal minister Shahbaz Bhatti and the president's friend Salmaan Taseer, Governor of Punjab, at the hands of extremists and terrorists. But he reserved his profoundest comments for Benazir Bhutto, his wife, mother of his children, and a visionary leader who had warned against the danger posed by the extremist mindset. President Zardari delineated the global challenges of poverty, injustice and climate change, amongst others, challenges that Pakistan will tackle in consonance with the global community. He supported the right of the Palestinian people to their own state and argued the case for their recognition by the UN. Pakistan’s prominent role in UN peacekeeping and its engagement with needed reform in a democratic direction for the world body found mention in the president’s address. The Kashmiri people’s inalienable right of self-determination through peaceful means was underlined. Terrorism and its nexus with the burgeoning drugs trade, which has gone up 300 percent in the last decade and funds most of the terrorist groups operating in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere was highlighted in the president’s remarks, calling on the global community for a concerted struggle against these twin menaces. While President Zardari eloquently and succinctly summed up Pakistan’s positions on the burning issues of the day, it may be politic to ask why it is that we are unable to escape the incessant drone demanding ‘do more’. The basic reason is that both in fact and in international perception, Pakistan is seen as the ‘mother’ of the Taliban against whom the ISAF forces are engaged in battle in Afghanistan. Pakistani soil continues to be used for safe havens for the Taliban and affiliated groups for their insurgency inside Afghanistan. Pakistan is therefore essentially pressed to deny these extremists and terrorists the luxury of a safe rear area to which they retreat, recuperate and relaunch their attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistan has prevaricated for long on fulfilling this demand. Although the chorus of ‘do more’ has become more muted over time, the suspicions harboured against Pakistan as the main backer of the Taliban continue to linger. So long as Pakistan does not reconsider, if not abandon, its ‘unholy’ alliance with the Taliban extremists, it will find it heavy going in the world community and perhaps not to be able to get rid of the dreary repetition of the ‘do more’ mantra.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 26, 2012

Friends, not enemies President Asif Zardari, in New York for the UN General Assembly (UNGA) session, met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the way forward in the relationship between the two countries. Needless to say, the ‘relationship’ has passed through some choppy waters over the last two or so years. At times, it teetered on the brink of a breakdown, especially at moments like the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, even at its darkest hour, the relationship was saved by sensible views in both governments as well as the media and public opinion in both countries. These views recognise the commonality of interests between the two allies, while not being oblivious of divergences where they exist. Difficult as it sometimes is to reconcile the two conflicting trends, the common bedrock interests tend to assert themselves in the long run and have therefore helped to salvage a difficult and fraught relationship. Hillary Clinton celebrated the restoration of NATO supplies to Afghanistan, a closure in the aftermath of the Abbottabad raid that soured relations for months before finally giving way to better sense. She also thanked the president for the Pakistan government’s handling of the violent protests against the US in the wake of the blasphemous film that has so roiled the Muslim world. In turn the president suggested to Ms Clinton that peace in Pakistan was critically dependent on peace in Afghanistan. Both sides reiterated their determination to work towards that common goal together, with President Zardari underlining once again Pakistan’s commitment to an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process, which Islamabad promised to facilitate. The president also expressed his and the entire country’s dismay and disgust at the blasphemous film, saying one or two mad people should not be allowed to hold the whole world hostage and threaten world peace. The president thanked the US for its aid, but suggested instead of spreading itself too thin, perhaps it should concentrate on big-ticket projects. He once again emphasised his favourite theme of Pakistan preferring trade access rather than aid, as a measure of the desire to stand on our own feet and wean ourselves off the aid teat. Economic cooperation and the bilateral investment treaty in the works also came up for discussion. The president invited the US to become a participant in the Diamer-Bhasha Dam project to dispel the perception that Washington only concentrates on areas of its own interest. While these lines were being written, there was expectancy surrounding President Zardari’s address to the UNGA on Tuesday afternoon. His address was expected to centre on the hurt and insult Muslims felt because of the blasphemous film, with an appeal to the world community to tackle the problem of hate speech through appropriate international legislation. Of course persuading the west, and particularly the US, to place constraints on freedom of speech, almost an iconic shibboleth for the developed world and protected under the US constitution’s first amendment, may not be easy. In recognition of the uphill nature of the task, the president remarked that he knew this would not happen overnight and may require a protracted campaign. At home Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf has been saying that Pakistan would approach both the UN and the OIC to promote the idea. While the government’s stance is unexceptionable and even appreciable, a troubling question lingers in the recesses of the mind. When we ask for tolerance worldwide, should we not also be looking within at the sorry state of tolerance in our own society? The hope therefore is that while the government plugs the idea internationally, it would be well served by steps to mitigate, if not eradicate, the climate of intolerance that has Pakistani society in its grip. The way forward in this direction is to mobilise the moderate majority, liberal, democratic and progressive political forces, and minorities threatened by violent acts and killings by extreme intolerant terrorist forces. As an aside, it may also be reckoned that just as the rise of extremism, terrorism and intolerance owes so much over so long to the Afghan wars, a peace in that long suffering country may be the key to rolling back the dark tide that threatens to swamp us. Another question that springs from this one is whether the civilian president and the government speak for all Pakistan, including the military establishment? The latter has of late seemingly woken up to the threat to state and society from the extremists and terrorists proliferating in our society’s bosom over the last four decades for reasons well known. Only if the civilian and military sides of the state are on one page, that being abandoning the notion of power projection in the region through armed proxies that eventually slip off the leash and bite the hand that once fed them, there can be no peace, either in Afghanistan or Pakistan or the region or the world. That is how high the stakes are.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 24, 2012

Aftermath of violent protests After the toll of lives, property and infrastructure during Friday’s violence-laden protests against the film insulting to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Saturday saw another, albeit smaller, outbreak of protest in Islamabad and Lahore. Karachi and Peshawar, which saw some of the worst violence, looting, plunder, arson and even firing from elements in the crowds, mercifully seemed to be just licking their wounds, although some small protest was mounted in Karachi after the funerals of those killed. After four of the injured died overnight, the toll of lives has now reached 21, with some 200 injured countrywide. The toll of property includes at least seven bank branches, five cinemas, seven restaurants of international food chains, six private buildings, three police posts, six shops (this is probably an underestimate), including an arms store and five wine shops. It is interesting to reflect on the interest in looting these wine shops by those who had come out to declare their love for Islam and the Prophet (PBUH). Such contradictions are legion in our society. The protest on Saturday mobilised around 5,000 people marching on parliament, including hundreds of women. About 500 members of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa laid siege to the US Consulate in Lahore, but failed to make any dent. Though the madness of Friday was not on display the day after, the angst over the manner in which the Day of Love for the Prophet (PBUH) was commemorated still leaves a bitter aftertaste. It may be premature to declare the dwindling number of protestors shows the steam has run out of the agitation. That will only be determinable in the days ahead. Friday prayer congregations usually provide the fodder for such protests. The week ahead, if not weeks, need careful watching. It must be noted that the most generous estimates of the total number of protestors on Friday have not passed the figure of 45,000 countrywide. That suggests that whereas all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim, feel anger at the insult and even love for the Prophet (PBUH), the vast majority are not prepared to bring grist to the extremists’ agenda of using the issue for political gains. So whereas there has been much comment on and criticism of the violence, perhaps we should take a minute or two to reflect on the inherent wisdom and peaceful nature of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. It is by now a well known phenomenon that the actions of the few extremists receive more than their just share of the oxygen of publicity in a milieu of media proliferation and freedom. In fact, the sobering message of Federal Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira towards the end of the day of violence, asking the electronic media to show restraint in its coverage of the events seemed to produce a sudden drop in the frantic temperature at which the electronic media had been operating throughout the day. Did incessant media coverage to the point of saturation help or fuel the fire further? Those in charge should do some introspection. We demand from the US and the west that they should not allow the principle of freedom of expression to be extended to blasphemous and insulting matter. Yet we use our relatively new found freedoms without any thought for responsibility and the best interests of the country. Inflammatory coverage only inflames further. Reports say 6,036 people have been booked for violence, arson, looting, etc. Of these, a few (not more than 200 or so according to available reports) have been actually arrested and sent on 14 days judicial remand by the courts. The justice system needs to be cautioned on the police’s penchant for filling the jails with both the guilty and the innocent in such situations just to make themselves look better. Justice must be done, but must also be seen to be dome, not sparing the actual perpetrators, but taking care at the same time not to victimise the innocent. Imran Khan and Shahbaz Sharif have shifted the goalposts by declaring, separately, that criminals (Imran) and hooligans (Shahbaz) were responsible for the violence. To them, it is unthinkable that ‘genuine’ Muslims could perpetrate such acts in the name of defending the honour of the Prophet (PBUH). Well, gentleman, wake up and smell the coffee. It is precisely those who claim a monopoly of the truth about our religion who are the most fanatical, violent, intolerant people around. Let us at least not try to fool either ourselves or the public. Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf has spoken of taking the issue of blasphemy to the UN and the OIC. Be that as it may, and in the unlikely event of the west relenting on ‘freedom of expression’ sufficiently to contemplate restrictions on such hate material, how on earth are governments, east or west, intending to control the new media and the Internet, on which such material can easily be posted and has proved very difficult to block, let alone eliminate. Welcome to the brave new world, in which restraint on hate speech and blasphemous material is conspicuous by its absence. Well intentioned, but a tough call, prime minister.