Gulf News, The Nation ( Pakistan ), Indian Express November 14, 2007
Divine Right or Constitutional Rule
By Husain Haqqani
Between them, Pakistan ’s four military rulers since 1958 have virtually created a new concept in political science that can best be termed “the divine right of army chiefs.” It is patterned on the “divine right of kings,” the absolutist doctrine that asserted that a monarch derived his right to rule from the will of God. According to the doctrine of divine right, a king’s authority could not be restricted by the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, the judiciary or a constitution. Any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers was deemed in medieval Europe as rebellion against the will of God. A similar philosophy appears to be at work in the political thinking of Pakistan ’s military rulers.
Only a belief in the divine right of army chiefs can explain some of the assertions made by General Pervez Musharraf in his Press conference over the weekend. He claimed that “I did not violate the Constitution and law of this land,” even after suspending the constitution. Quite clearly, he sees his decisions as the law of the land. Similarly his statement that the Supreme Court judges who refused to accept his Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) were not “above the Law” indicates the belief that the army chiefs, and not judges, have the ultimate authority to interpret the law. In normal jurisprudence and political science the law is what the judges say it is.
Musharraf is not the first Pakistani military chief to consider himself above the law and constitution and yet insist that he was not violating the law. Field Marshal Ayub Khan abrogated the 1956 constitution and then introduced a constitution in 1962, which began with words to the effect, “I, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, do hereby give the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the following constitution.” That language was unusually similar to the one used by King John of England in the preface of the Magna Carta in 1215 wherein he said he had “granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below” to the people. In 1969, Ayub Khan abrogated even the 1962 constitution and handed power over to the next army chief in a move akin to abdication in a monarchy.
Yahya Khan held elections in the hope of securing a fragmented and pliant parliament and was surprised by the mergence of two strong civilian leaders, one in each wing of a Pakistan which then included today’s Bangladesh . Personal weaknesses relating to wine and women notwithstanding, Yahya Khan is reputed to have been an able soldier and a financially honest man. But his inability to understand political issues and to deal with them led to military defeat as well as the division of Pakistan in 1971. Even after elections had determined whom the people supported, Yahya Khan believed that he had been assigned a mission by the Almighty to save Pakistan from politicians he believed to be corrupt and unsuited to lead the nation.
Yahya Khan did not waver for one minute from the strategy that he and his fellow generals evolved, ignoring public opinion and the voices of the intelligentsia. He declared the leader of the majority party in erstwhile East Pakistan a “traitor” and refused even to share power with the politician chosen by West Pakistanis because he disapproved of him. International condemnation of use of brute force against Bengalis was dismissed as an international conspiracy instead of being considered sane advice. But Yahya Khan’s militarized strategy turned out to be a recipe for national disaster.
Even after military defeat in East Pakistan , Yahya Khan insisted on announcing a new constitution for the country and was stopped only by fellow army officers who ensured a transfer of power to the elected leadership in West Pakistan . But Yahya Khan never understood what he had done wrong. His security officer at the time, Chaudhry Sardar later narrated that as he drove through Rawalpindi after the 1971 military debacle, the police advised the military ruler to avoid driving through crowds of people in case they vents anger upon sighting him. Yahya Khan retorted, “I have not stolen their donkey that they should be angry with me.” He did not grasp the outrage of the populace over loss of half of Pakistan ’s territory as a result of an ill-fated civil war that invited Indian intervention.
The lesson, if there was one should have been to acknowledge that the complex problems of a nation such as Pakistan cannot be solved by the simple though straightforward approach of a soldier with a sense of God-given mission. But that not prevent General Ziaul Haq from assuming power in 1977 and ruling with an iron hand. Ziaul Haq added enforcement of Islam and promotion of violent Jihadism to the list of his God-given tasks, creating many of the problems Pakistan is today trying to tackle.
General Musharraf, too, has repeatedly demonstrated that his status as army chief somehow places him above the rest of the citizenry in understanding and solving Pakistan ’s problems. Musharraf has, however, never shown much awareness of matters political and constitutional. His ignorance of history was revealed when, while visiting the Gandhi memorial during the course of the Agra summit in 2001, he asked his Indian hosts, “So how did Gandhi die?” Even now he has expelled t hree reporters from Britain 's Daily Telegraph because of an editorial in the paper that used “foul and abusive language” to allude to General Musharraf. The Telegraph editorial referred to language reportedly used by former US president Franklin D.Roosevelt in expressing Washington's grudging support for Nicaragua's then dictator Anastasio Somoza. Anyone well versed in political history and debates over US support for strongmen would have known the reference and taken it in its political context.
In 1999, General Musharraf explained his military takeover by blaming Pakistan ’s politicians and insisted that he needed to correct the country’s course by changing its politics. Now he maintains that he alone knows how to correct the course of Pakistan ’s judiciary. He does not realize that Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has become a symbol of the Pakistani people’s resistance to arbitrary rule. Justice Chaudhry is seen as the judge who refused to roll over and disappear, unlike earlier judges who cooperated with military rulers or simply went home when their conscience dictated otherwise. Chaudhry’s call upon the legal fraternity to “ Go to every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is the time to sacrifice ” for the supremacy of Pakistan’s constitution has drawn elements disillusioned with existing political leaders to anti-Musharraf protests. The people are also rallying behind the politicians hated by the military because the major divide in Pakistan is now between believers in the notion of the divine right of army chiefs and the globally accepted concept of constitutional supremacy.
According to Brigadier A.R. Siddiqui, who served as head of Inter-Services Public Relations, Pakistan ’s military has built an unrealistic image of itself as being above everyone else in Pakistan . This image has produced “self love”, “self-righteousness” and “self complacency” among Pakistani generals, which is “suicidal for the military profession”. This may be the reason that Pakistan has done less on the battlefield according to independent analysts than the nation has ever been allowed to believe and continues to fare terribly in the arena of politics and constitutional governance. Musharraf must recognize sooner rather than later that he and the rulers of Myanmar are the only ones left in the world who believes that a coup-making general can successfully lead a country forever. The rest of the world left behind ideas about the divine right of rulers, whether Kings or generals, a long time ago.
Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book ' Pakistan between Mosque and Military'
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Pakistani chief justice to receive Harvard Law School 'Medal of Freedom'
Pakistani chief justice to receive Harvard Law School 'Medal of Freedom'
November 13, 2007: Harvard Law School
Following last week's military crackdown in Pakistan and the detention of hundreds of lawyers, the Harvard Law School Association has decided to award Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry its highest honor: The Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom. Chaudhry was detained after he convened the Pakistani Supreme Court to declare the current state of emergency imposed by General Pervez Musharraf to be null and void.
Although Chaudhry has been placed under house arrest and is not free to leave Pakistan, Dean Elena Kagan has reached out to the chief justice regarding the award and hopes that he'll be able to come to the Law School to receive it when the state of emergency is lifted.
"As lawyers who value freedom and the rule of law, we at Harvard Law School want Chief Justice Chaudhry and all of the courageous lawyers in Pakistan to know that we stand with them in solidarity," said Kagan. "We are proud to be their colleagues in the cause of justice, and we will do all we can to press for the prompt restoration of constitutionalism and legality in Pakistan."
Hundreds of lawyers and other critics of Musharraf have been detained since the emergency rule was established more than a week ago. HLS graduates and practicing lawyers in Pakistan Babar Sattar LL.M. '02 and Tariq Hassan LL.M. '76 S.J.D. '80 have spoken out in protest of the suspension of the constitution.
To raise awareness and further promote discussion about the events in Pakistan, the Harvard South Asia Initiative will be hosting campus-wide events on Friday, November 16.
The Medal of Freedom was established by Harvard Law School to honor the achievements of individuals who have worked to uphold the legal system’s fundamental commitment to freedom, justice, and equality. To symbolize this commitment, the award bears the image of Charles Hamilton Houston, whose leadership of the crusade that culminated in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education exemplifies the highest ideals of our democracy.
Past recipients of the Medal of Freedom include the members of the Brown v. Board of Education litigation team and former South African President Nelson Mandela.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Role of the Pakistani Military: NPR
World
The Role of the Pakistani Military
by Liane Hansen
Listen Now [4 min 24 sec] add to playlist
Weekend Edition Sunday, November 11, 2007 · Hassan Abbas, a former Pakistani government official, talks about the continuing state of emergency in Pakistan and its effects on the political force of the Pakistani military.
Military Courts in Pakistan
Editorial: Military courts for civilians are abominable
Daily Times November 12, 2007
General Pervez Musharraf has amended the Army Act 1952 to grant the army powers to try civilians in military courts. The old act only had provisions enabling the army to try civilians if they were accessory to any criminal act committed by an employee of the army. Now the amendment enlarges this power to include all the Penal Code crimes that can be interpreted as being against the "security of Pakistan" — a term that is so loose that it can be taken to mean whatever the regime wants it to mean. Sedition, treason, keeping unlicensed weapons and attack on the army personnel, etc, can now be tried by military officers. Even more alarmingly, there is a new provision covering the "giving of statements conducive to public mischief" — another term that can be applied whimsically. While an appeal would still lie with the higher judiciary, these newly empowered military courts are aimed at enabling the government to avoid civil adjudication and its more stringent requirements of evidence and due process of law.
There are many stated and unstated reasons for expanding the ambit of the Army Act. Before the amendment, cases relating to security and terrorism were tried in special anti-terrorism courts. But predictably such courts proved ineffective in dealing with the rising graph of anti-state crimes: their sentences were either reduced or thrown out on appeal at the higher judicial level for lack of evidence. There was also a persistent objection from legal circles to the setting up of special courts when they were instituted in the 1990s, the main one being that it is the process of law that needed improvement, and that its bifurcation could not overcome such phenomena as the badly investigated and badly prepared cases by the prosecution. In many cases, terrorists punished by the special courts were let off by the higher judiciary on appeal simply because the police had botched the case during investigation. The case in point is the Supreme Court verdict in favour of the terrorists in the case of Lal Masjid in Islamabad, and this could be one of the causes why the Army Act has been beefed up. Two of the judges in the bench that let off 61 Lal Masjid extremists and terrorists are back in the Supreme Court after the PCO — Justice Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar — but the problem was lack of evidence and not miscarriage of justice.
The ordinance that amends the Army Act makes the new provisions retroactive to 2003. This means the Ordinance will cover the hundreds of cases of "disappearance" that the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was inquiring into, suo motu, to the embarrassment of the government. The new Supreme Court will no longer be able to proceed after it has been informed that the military authorities had taken cognisance of the crimes allegedly committed by the people picked up by the intelligence agencies. The habeas corpus provisions could now be avoided by simply notifying the arrests under the Army Act. The backdated law will take the cases of "disappearance" off the rostrum.
The attorney general of Pakistan, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, says the law was in the works for some time. It had in fact been attempted in the past but unsuccessfully. This time the "much-needed" provisions aimed at "state security" have finally been achieved. The Lahore High court had thrown out a similar beefing up of the Army Act in 1977. Then, as now, the government was faced with widespread civil disturbances and could not put them down with the remedies available under normal law. Indeed, under the martial law of General Zia, military officers were appointed judges in the provinces and tough punishments were handed down against protesters with summary evidence that would not stand up in courts functioning under normal law.
The courts martial under the Army Act have their own rules. People picked up under the dragnet of the amended Army Act will not be able to demand the registration of an FIR with the police. Once picked up, it will become more difficult to find out where the "disappeared" person has gone. While there is a provision for defence of the arrested person once he has been put on trial, the army officer acting as judge has his own rules to follow. And judging by the military courts' performance under General Zia when the punishments were summary and tough, we may expect that conditions under which the military courts of General Musharraf will function will not be much different from the military courts of General Zia.
In fact, considering that there are abstractions like "defence of Pakistan" in the amended Army Act, we may expect a proliferation of military courts in the country. Almost anyone can be picked up and accused of treason or sedition or terrorism and sent before a military officer posing as a judge. When General Musharraf began his rule he refrained from associating himself with the legacy of the earlier martial laws under Generals Ayub and Zia. Now we could be entering the phase of a full-dress military government even with a civilian façade.
This is totally unacceptable. It is a perversion of justice. In our intolerant and autocratic culture, in particular, such military courts will lend themselves to great abuse of civil, human and fundamental rights long after General Musharraf has gone. For every one real extremist or terrorist picked up, the "agencies" will lock up and torture many more innocent civilians. The country is asking for an end to the Emergency and the release of political prisoners and here is General Musharraf turning the knife in. There are reports that as many as 18 people have already been charged with "treason" — some among them like Mir Hasil Bizenjo and Yusuf Mastikhan who are Baloch sub-nationalists — for protesting the PCO and Emergency. Will the military now shift them from the judicial lock up and make them "disappear"? There are other leaders and their followers in jail under lesser laws than treason. Already the government is damaging its image by keeping them confined. One can say that instead of defusing the situation the government is loading the dice against itself by enhancing the profile of its opponents. The lawyers that have been released may have suffered from hunger and fatigue but they will not take it as punishment; they will simply be more emotionally charged in their reactions. The arrests under treason in Karachi will prove particularly dangerous as they will touch the already raw nerve of Baloch nationalists.
These laws are abominable. General Musharraf has come a long way from when he was a defender of the media and civil rights to when he is the chief prosecutor of them in the country. If and when the transfer of power takes place, the political parties must not forget to remove these from the statute books.
Also See:Asma Asails Changes in Army Act: Dawn
Daily Times November 12, 2007
General Pervez Musharraf has amended the Army Act 1952 to grant the army powers to try civilians in military courts. The old act only had provisions enabling the army to try civilians if they were accessory to any criminal act committed by an employee of the army. Now the amendment enlarges this power to include all the Penal Code crimes that can be interpreted as being against the "security of Pakistan" — a term that is so loose that it can be taken to mean whatever the regime wants it to mean. Sedition, treason, keeping unlicensed weapons and attack on the army personnel, etc, can now be tried by military officers. Even more alarmingly, there is a new provision covering the "giving of statements conducive to public mischief" — another term that can be applied whimsically. While an appeal would still lie with the higher judiciary, these newly empowered military courts are aimed at enabling the government to avoid civil adjudication and its more stringent requirements of evidence and due process of law.
There are many stated and unstated reasons for expanding the ambit of the Army Act. Before the amendment, cases relating to security and terrorism were tried in special anti-terrorism courts. But predictably such courts proved ineffective in dealing with the rising graph of anti-state crimes: their sentences were either reduced or thrown out on appeal at the higher judicial level for lack of evidence. There was also a persistent objection from legal circles to the setting up of special courts when they were instituted in the 1990s, the main one being that it is the process of law that needed improvement, and that its bifurcation could not overcome such phenomena as the badly investigated and badly prepared cases by the prosecution. In many cases, terrorists punished by the special courts were let off by the higher judiciary on appeal simply because the police had botched the case during investigation. The case in point is the Supreme Court verdict in favour of the terrorists in the case of Lal Masjid in Islamabad, and this could be one of the causes why the Army Act has been beefed up. Two of the judges in the bench that let off 61 Lal Masjid extremists and terrorists are back in the Supreme Court after the PCO — Justice Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar — but the problem was lack of evidence and not miscarriage of justice.
The ordinance that amends the Army Act makes the new provisions retroactive to 2003. This means the Ordinance will cover the hundreds of cases of "disappearance" that the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was inquiring into, suo motu, to the embarrassment of the government. The new Supreme Court will no longer be able to proceed after it has been informed that the military authorities had taken cognisance of the crimes allegedly committed by the people picked up by the intelligence agencies. The habeas corpus provisions could now be avoided by simply notifying the arrests under the Army Act. The backdated law will take the cases of "disappearance" off the rostrum.
The attorney general of Pakistan, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, says the law was in the works for some time. It had in fact been attempted in the past but unsuccessfully. This time the "much-needed" provisions aimed at "state security" have finally been achieved. The Lahore High court had thrown out a similar beefing up of the Army Act in 1977. Then, as now, the government was faced with widespread civil disturbances and could not put them down with the remedies available under normal law. Indeed, under the martial law of General Zia, military officers were appointed judges in the provinces and tough punishments were handed down against protesters with summary evidence that would not stand up in courts functioning under normal law.
The courts martial under the Army Act have their own rules. People picked up under the dragnet of the amended Army Act will not be able to demand the registration of an FIR with the police. Once picked up, it will become more difficult to find out where the "disappeared" person has gone. While there is a provision for defence of the arrested person once he has been put on trial, the army officer acting as judge has his own rules to follow. And judging by the military courts' performance under General Zia when the punishments were summary and tough, we may expect that conditions under which the military courts of General Musharraf will function will not be much different from the military courts of General Zia.
In fact, considering that there are abstractions like "defence of Pakistan" in the amended Army Act, we may expect a proliferation of military courts in the country. Almost anyone can be picked up and accused of treason or sedition or terrorism and sent before a military officer posing as a judge. When General Musharraf began his rule he refrained from associating himself with the legacy of the earlier martial laws under Generals Ayub and Zia. Now we could be entering the phase of a full-dress military government even with a civilian façade.
This is totally unacceptable. It is a perversion of justice. In our intolerant and autocratic culture, in particular, such military courts will lend themselves to great abuse of civil, human and fundamental rights long after General Musharraf has gone. For every one real extremist or terrorist picked up, the "agencies" will lock up and torture many more innocent civilians. The country is asking for an end to the Emergency and the release of political prisoners and here is General Musharraf turning the knife in. There are reports that as many as 18 people have already been charged with "treason" — some among them like Mir Hasil Bizenjo and Yusuf Mastikhan who are Baloch sub-nationalists — for protesting the PCO and Emergency. Will the military now shift them from the judicial lock up and make them "disappear"? There are other leaders and their followers in jail under lesser laws than treason. Already the government is damaging its image by keeping them confined. One can say that instead of defusing the situation the government is loading the dice against itself by enhancing the profile of its opponents. The lawyers that have been released may have suffered from hunger and fatigue but they will not take it as punishment; they will simply be more emotionally charged in their reactions. The arrests under treason in Karachi will prove particularly dangerous as they will touch the already raw nerve of Baloch nationalists.
These laws are abominable. General Musharraf has come a long way from when he was a defender of the media and civil rights to when he is the chief prosecutor of them in the country. If and when the transfer of power takes place, the political parties must not forget to remove these from the statute books.
Also See:Asma Asails Changes in Army Act: Dawn
At the Sabzazar Police Station Dr. Parvez Hassan
Courtesy Sheheryar Azhar's Forum
At the Sabzazar Police Station Dr. Parvez Hassan
They herded lawyers in the police bus – about 35 of us – knew nothing about where we were being taken after our arrest at the Lahore High Court on 5 November 2007. Speculation mounted in discussions in the bus but it was soon overtaken by the rumour/news received on some mobile telephones with the lawyers that General Musharaf had been removed and placed under house arrest. The hatred for Musharaf seemed so intense that this appeared the best news of the day although with the reported take over by General Kiani, it was sadly a case of "from the fire into the frying pan".
The first thing when we arrived at the Sabzazar Police Station (further out of Lahore near Allama Iqbal Town) was that we were unlocked out of the police bus and searched. All mobile phones were confiscated. I do not use, have or carry a mobile phone and by this time the expectation, subtly fed to us, was that we would be taken from Sabzazar to jails in Bahawalpur, Sahiwal or Mianwali. I am a heart patient: I had a heart attack in 2004 and doctors at the Punjab Institute of Cardiology in Lahore then operated me to place three stents in my heart blood vessels. I have been regimented since to taking several medicines, morning and evening. Some of these are important for the thinning of the blood to prevent strokes. When I saw the prospect of being held incommunicado without information to my family, I wanted desperately to reach out for my medicines.
Courtesy a colleague on the bus, I hurriedly used his mobile before getting out of the bus to be searched in the police station to inform my Secretary in the office about the Sabzazar Police Station minutes before the mobile was confiscated by the Police Station. Otherwise, no one could have found out where we were being held. The only redeeming thing for the whole day turned out to be that the Police Station allowed the medicines to be delivered to me in the cell when my son, Omar, rushed to bring these to Sabzazar.
The cell in Sabzazar was an unclean, filthy room with a toilet and tap in the middle with a 4 foot wall around it. The 35 of us were all jam-packed, once again, into this room which was actually meant for fewer people. Having been a political activist with the Tehrik-i-Istiqlal and, later, with the Tehrik-e-Insaf as its first Secretary General, I well know and have been exposed to the conditions of our police stations and jails. In criticizing the conditions for the detainees, one is not asking for 5 star comfort but what I am suggesting is that 60 years after our independence, the conditions in our police stations and jails have not matched the worldwide developments towards the dignity of human beings increasingly recognized through international Magna Cartas such as the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and the International Covenants on Human Rights, 1966 and the human rights provisions in our own national Constitution. It is a measure of our national shame that even enemy prisoners of war (POWs) receive better treatment under the Geneva Conventions than do our detainees in our police stations and jails.
We slept on the hard dirty floor in our court dresses without access to any cover of blankets in the cool and mosquito-infested night. The space was so over-crowded that when I got up from a brief nap, I found a young lawyer using my legs as a pillow.
But the mood was optimistic and the spirits high. We soon went into telling jokes and reciting poetry and found a Master of Ceremonies who directed the order of our presentations. Much of the humour – mostly obscene – was in respect of General Pervez Musharaf and if there were any (spy) bugs in the room, many of the 35 lawyers could easily be hauled up under anti-obscenity statutes!
The most eloquent and, for me, the most moving presentation was from a young lawyer who proudly declared that 5 November 2007 was the most important day of his life because he had decided, on this date, that he would never appear before a PCO Judge. He was equally proud to announce that, acting on this resolve, he had only that morning returned a (huge) fee of Rs. 4,000 to a client whose case he would no longer handle. This was the most humbling experience for me. That morning, I too had acted on the same resolve to return the professional fee of over Rs. one (1) crore paid to me by clients whose cases I would no longer argue because of the PCO Judges. But I felt that my gesture after 37 years of a busy professional life did not match the sacrifice of this young struggling lawyer. I wish all other lawyers see similar light on the start of their careers.
My bonding with the 35 colleagues at Sabzazar came to an end early on 6 November 2007 when because of the dedicated and worried efforts of my architect son, Omar, and nephew, Jawad, I was released from Sabzazar Police Station on grounds of age (66) and a medical condition duly certified by the country's leading cardiologist, Dr. Shaharyar Sheikh. I should also acknowledge the humane response to my medical problems by the efficient SHO of the Sabzazar Police Station, Qamar Abbas, and his deputy, Atif.
At the Sabzazar Police Station Dr. Parvez Hassan
They herded lawyers in the police bus – about 35 of us – knew nothing about where we were being taken after our arrest at the Lahore High Court on 5 November 2007. Speculation mounted in discussions in the bus but it was soon overtaken by the rumour/news received on some mobile telephones with the lawyers that General Musharaf had been removed and placed under house arrest. The hatred for Musharaf seemed so intense that this appeared the best news of the day although with the reported take over by General Kiani, it was sadly a case of "from the fire into the frying pan".
The first thing when we arrived at the Sabzazar Police Station (further out of Lahore near Allama Iqbal Town) was that we were unlocked out of the police bus and searched. All mobile phones were confiscated. I do not use, have or carry a mobile phone and by this time the expectation, subtly fed to us, was that we would be taken from Sabzazar to jails in Bahawalpur, Sahiwal or Mianwali. I am a heart patient: I had a heart attack in 2004 and doctors at the Punjab Institute of Cardiology in Lahore then operated me to place three stents in my heart blood vessels. I have been regimented since to taking several medicines, morning and evening. Some of these are important for the thinning of the blood to prevent strokes. When I saw the prospect of being held incommunicado without information to my family, I wanted desperately to reach out for my medicines.
Courtesy a colleague on the bus, I hurriedly used his mobile before getting out of the bus to be searched in the police station to inform my Secretary in the office about the Sabzazar Police Station minutes before the mobile was confiscated by the Police Station. Otherwise, no one could have found out where we were being held. The only redeeming thing for the whole day turned out to be that the Police Station allowed the medicines to be delivered to me in the cell when my son, Omar, rushed to bring these to Sabzazar.
The cell in Sabzazar was an unclean, filthy room with a toilet and tap in the middle with a 4 foot wall around it. The 35 of us were all jam-packed, once again, into this room which was actually meant for fewer people. Having been a political activist with the Tehrik-i-Istiqlal and, later, with the Tehrik-e-Insaf as its first Secretary General, I well know and have been exposed to the conditions of our police stations and jails. In criticizing the conditions for the detainees, one is not asking for 5 star comfort but what I am suggesting is that 60 years after our independence, the conditions in our police stations and jails have not matched the worldwide developments towards the dignity of human beings increasingly recognized through international Magna Cartas such as the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and the International Covenants on Human Rights, 1966 and the human rights provisions in our own national Constitution. It is a measure of our national shame that even enemy prisoners of war (POWs) receive better treatment under the Geneva Conventions than do our detainees in our police stations and jails.
We slept on the hard dirty floor in our court dresses without access to any cover of blankets in the cool and mosquito-infested night. The space was so over-crowded that when I got up from a brief nap, I found a young lawyer using my legs as a pillow.
But the mood was optimistic and the spirits high. We soon went into telling jokes and reciting poetry and found a Master of Ceremonies who directed the order of our presentations. Much of the humour – mostly obscene – was in respect of General Pervez Musharaf and if there were any (spy) bugs in the room, many of the 35 lawyers could easily be hauled up under anti-obscenity statutes!
The most eloquent and, for me, the most moving presentation was from a young lawyer who proudly declared that 5 November 2007 was the most important day of his life because he had decided, on this date, that he would never appear before a PCO Judge. He was equally proud to announce that, acting on this resolve, he had only that morning returned a (huge) fee of Rs. 4,000 to a client whose case he would no longer handle. This was the most humbling experience for me. That morning, I too had acted on the same resolve to return the professional fee of over Rs. one (1) crore paid to me by clients whose cases I would no longer argue because of the PCO Judges. But I felt that my gesture after 37 years of a busy professional life did not match the sacrifice of this young struggling lawyer. I wish all other lawyers see similar light on the start of their careers.
My bonding with the 35 colleagues at Sabzazar came to an end early on 6 November 2007 when because of the dedicated and worried efforts of my architect son, Omar, and nephew, Jawad, I was released from Sabzazar Police Station on grounds of age (66) and a medical condition duly certified by the country's leading cardiologist, Dr. Shaharyar Sheikh. I should also acknowledge the humane response to my medical problems by the efficient SHO of the Sabzazar Police Station, Qamar Abbas, and his deputy, Atif.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A Human Rights Champion, Cheerfully Defiant
A Human Rights Champion, Cheerfully Defiant
By Emily Wax: Washington Post, November 10, 2007; A12
LAHORE , Pakistan , Nov. 9 -- Female prison guards sit in Asma Jahangir's art-filled living room, watching as she sips tea, smokes cigarettes and talks about how proud she is to be Pakistani.
Jahangir, a lawyer and head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, was placed under house arrest last Saturday, and since then the government has turned her two-story family villa into a jail. More than 20 prison guards, some with submachine guns, are posted in her garden, and plainclothes officers in oversize suits peer through her windows.
Her country is now in a state of turmoil, following President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule, which has included the firing of Supreme Court justices and the detention of hundreds of opposition leaders, lawyers and human rights activists.
But Jahangir remains defiant and upbeat, waving to neighbors and continuing to work on position papers on how to bring the rule of law, an independent judiciary and stability to Pakistan .
Life under house arrest has been "just lovely, and it hasn't hurt me," Jahangir, 55 and a mother of three, said Friday in an interview at her home. "I am so proud of Pakistanis and specifically of our lawyers for speaking out and getting their heads bashed in for a better Pakistan ."
"We are so resilient as a people," she said. "I have so much respect for their dignity and courage. I hope the world sees this side of Pakistan , one where professionals want a democracy. The spirit of our intelligentsia cannot be broken."
The government has filed terrorism charges against Jahangir and ordered her to stay confined to her house for 90 days. She can no longer go to her office next door or even sit in her garden.
But her popularity has only grown, and news media in Pakistan and abroad are calling her South Asia 's version of Burmese human rights icon Aung San Suu Kyi. Pakistanis living abroad have also sent her e-mails expressing their support, she said.
"When you think of human rights in Pakistan , you think of Asma Jahangir," said Maria Hasan, a recent graduate of the Lahore University of Management Sciences, the scene of demonstrations against the emergency rule. "She's our national hero. She's very daring, and we, especially women, really admire her for that."
After intense pressure from U.S. diplomats, 70 civil society leaders, including professors, poets and doctors, were released from jail or house arrest after their detention Sunday for attending a Human Rights Commission meeting.
But Jahangir has not been allowed to leave her home.
"There is a limit to people's patience with brute force," she said. "I do worry about . . . blood being spilled. I don't want to see that in my country."
When the prison guards tried to listen in on her conversation during the interview, she shooed them away. "Please," she said firmly, "go rest in my lobby, take a chair and sit. Relax, even. You will not listen to this."
They shuffled out of the room.
The U.S. consul general in Lahore , Bryan D. Hunt, visited Jahangir for several hours Friday and later released a statement urging her release and free and fair elections.
Musharraf has said emergency rule was needed to combat extremism. But critics say he has instead targeted the political opposition and members of civil society, whom he sees as a threat to his hold on power.
Musharraf once invited Jahangir to join his government, she said, but she refused. He later called her unpatriotic for being too critical of what he called Pakistani culture.
Jahangir, her sister and several other women founded the first all-female law firm in Pakistan . At the outset, her most highly publicized cases involved women accused of adultery, a crime once punishable by 10 years in jail and public whippings.
After years of being belittled, she finally won the respect of men in her profession through hard work, compassion and victory in numerous cases, activists said. She has received international acclaim and several awards for her work with women seeking divorces from abusive husbands and with teenagers on death row, as well as her efforts against extremism.
Jahangir said she has been inspired by the many imprisoned women she has met. For instance, she became close friends with a blind woman who was charged with adultery after being gang-raped. Jahangir filed a protest and sent stories about the case around the world. The woman was released.
"She's an extraordinary leader, beloved in a place where there are few heroes," said Ali Dayan Hasan, South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch. "And Musharraf wants to silence anyone like her who will question his rule."
Jahangir has received death threats, but she said she finds the allegations against her ridiculous, especially those leveled this week involving terrorism.
"Does Musharraf really believe I am a terrorist?" she said, laughing and eating a snack of tomatoes and spicy chicken patties. "Yes, I am a total hooligan, bombing and looting and creating terror?"
She takes pride in her family's long history of activism. Her father was a civil servant who quit in protest after Pakistan 's first military coup. He was idealistic, she said, and took up politics, but was in and out of jail throughout her childhood.
"Every time he went off to jail, my father said to me, 'I am doing this so you can live in a freer country.' Now we are going through some horrible birthing pains in this country. And they have to stop it. The world has to have zero tolerance for naked dictatorship," she said. "There are so many Pakistanis facing violence for protesting. There are so many wives of lawyers who've had to sell their wedding jewels because their husbands are not earning or are in jail. Look at the world, all the suffering. . . . Being under house arrest is the least I can sacrifice."
By Emily Wax: Washington Post, November 10, 2007; A12
LAHORE , Pakistan , Nov. 9 -- Female prison guards sit in Asma Jahangir's art-filled living room, watching as she sips tea, smokes cigarettes and talks about how proud she is to be Pakistani.
Jahangir, a lawyer and head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, was placed under house arrest last Saturday, and since then the government has turned her two-story family villa into a jail. More than 20 prison guards, some with submachine guns, are posted in her garden, and plainclothes officers in oversize suits peer through her windows.
Her country is now in a state of turmoil, following President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule, which has included the firing of Supreme Court justices and the detention of hundreds of opposition leaders, lawyers and human rights activists.
But Jahangir remains defiant and upbeat, waving to neighbors and continuing to work on position papers on how to bring the rule of law, an independent judiciary and stability to Pakistan .
Life under house arrest has been "just lovely, and it hasn't hurt me," Jahangir, 55 and a mother of three, said Friday in an interview at her home. "I am so proud of Pakistanis and specifically of our lawyers for speaking out and getting their heads bashed in for a better Pakistan ."
"We are so resilient as a people," she said. "I have so much respect for their dignity and courage. I hope the world sees this side of Pakistan , one where professionals want a democracy. The spirit of our intelligentsia cannot be broken."
The government has filed terrorism charges against Jahangir and ordered her to stay confined to her house for 90 days. She can no longer go to her office next door or even sit in her garden.
But her popularity has only grown, and news media in Pakistan and abroad are calling her South Asia 's version of Burmese human rights icon Aung San Suu Kyi. Pakistanis living abroad have also sent her e-mails expressing their support, she said.
"When you think of human rights in Pakistan , you think of Asma Jahangir," said Maria Hasan, a recent graduate of the Lahore University of Management Sciences, the scene of demonstrations against the emergency rule. "She's our national hero. She's very daring, and we, especially women, really admire her for that."
After intense pressure from U.S. diplomats, 70 civil society leaders, including professors, poets and doctors, were released from jail or house arrest after their detention Sunday for attending a Human Rights Commission meeting.
But Jahangir has not been allowed to leave her home.
"There is a limit to people's patience with brute force," she said. "I do worry about . . . blood being spilled. I don't want to see that in my country."
When the prison guards tried to listen in on her conversation during the interview, she shooed them away. "Please," she said firmly, "go rest in my lobby, take a chair and sit. Relax, even. You will not listen to this."
They shuffled out of the room.
The U.S. consul general in Lahore , Bryan D. Hunt, visited Jahangir for several hours Friday and later released a statement urging her release and free and fair elections.
Musharraf has said emergency rule was needed to combat extremism. But critics say he has instead targeted the political opposition and members of civil society, whom he sees as a threat to his hold on power.
Musharraf once invited Jahangir to join his government, she said, but she refused. He later called her unpatriotic for being too critical of what he called Pakistani culture.
Jahangir, her sister and several other women founded the first all-female law firm in Pakistan . At the outset, her most highly publicized cases involved women accused of adultery, a crime once punishable by 10 years in jail and public whippings.
After years of being belittled, she finally won the respect of men in her profession through hard work, compassion and victory in numerous cases, activists said. She has received international acclaim and several awards for her work with women seeking divorces from abusive husbands and with teenagers on death row, as well as her efforts against extremism.
Jahangir said she has been inspired by the many imprisoned women she has met. For instance, she became close friends with a blind woman who was charged with adultery after being gang-raped. Jahangir filed a protest and sent stories about the case around the world. The woman was released.
"She's an extraordinary leader, beloved in a place where there are few heroes," said Ali Dayan Hasan, South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch. "And Musharraf wants to silence anyone like her who will question his rule."
Jahangir has received death threats, but she said she finds the allegations against her ridiculous, especially those leveled this week involving terrorism.
"Does Musharraf really believe I am a terrorist?" she said, laughing and eating a snack of tomatoes and spicy chicken patties. "Yes, I am a total hooligan, bombing and looting and creating terror?"
She takes pride in her family's long history of activism. Her father was a civil servant who quit in protest after Pakistan 's first military coup. He was idealistic, she said, and took up politics, but was in and out of jail throughout her childhood.
"Every time he went off to jail, my father said to me, 'I am doing this so you can live in a freer country.' Now we are going through some horrible birthing pains in this country. And they have to stop it. The world has to have zero tolerance for naked dictatorship," she said. "There are so many Pakistanis facing violence for protesting. There are so many wives of lawyers who've had to sell their wedding jewels because their husbands are not earning or are in jail. Look at the world, all the suffering. . . . Being under house arrest is the least I can sacrifice."
Did the nuclear programme kill Zia?
BOOK REVIEW: Did the nuclear programme kill Zia? — by Khaled Ahmed
Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity and the Rise and Fall of the AQ Khan Network By Gordon Corera
Daily Times, November 11, 2007
Is it possible that the nuclear sale was made without Zia’s approval, that he came to know of it or was about to know it and might have acted against AQ Khan and his allies in the military establishment? And that he died because he had got close to the information in August 1988 about who had made the deal?
Correspondent for BBC News, Gordon Corera, may have provided in this book the first clue to the death of General Zia in 1988. The most important disclosure is that AQ Khan sold his first nuclear secrets to Iran in 1987, quite possibly without the permission of ruler of Pakistan, General Zia, who was then siding with the Gulf Arabs against Iran after the latter had begun to threaten them upon coming to power in 1979. He also discovers that while Zia may not have been privy to the sale to Iran, some others from within his military establishment could be involved.
General Zia-ul Haq came to power in 1977 and was killed in an air-crash in 1988 at the peak of Shia killings in Pakistan. It was widely believed in Pakistan that his death was engineered by the Shia community in revenge. Zia began Islamising the country under the tutelage of Saudi Arabia. By 1980 the first Islamic laws of the sharia he enforced were backed by Saudi Arabia who sent special advisers at the time of framing them. In 1979, Iran went through its Islamic Revolution. Around the Gulf, the Arab states feared this development because most of them had Shia minorities they were not treating well.
Gordon Corera says Pakistan’s nuclear scientist and head of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) Dr AQ Khan was using Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as a base for meeting his suppliers. It is here in 1987 that he made a sale of crucial drawings and designs of a tested nuclear plant and received three million dollars in Swiss francs from the Iranian party (p 59-60).
Was this deal with Iran concluded with the consent of General Zia who was in the process of ‘reining in the Shias’ in Pakistan? If he had given AQ Khan the go-ahead, did he realise that Saudi Arabia might get wind of it and retaliate against him? Is it possible that the nuclear sale was made without his approval, that he came to know of it or was about to know it and might have acted against AQ Khan and his allies in the military establishment? And that he died because he had got close to the information in August 1988 about who had made the deal?
Corera wonders if the deal with Iran was ‘official’ or done without the knowledge of the ‘government’ — which was General Zia in 1987, prime minister Junejo being more or less a puppet by reason of the 8th Amendment in the Constitution passed by parliament which allowed Zia to dismiss him at his discretion. He records the official Iranian delegations — there was one led by President Ali Khamenei who was very keen to build the Iranian bomb — which must have clearly asked Zia for ‘cooperation’. But the ‘deal’ in 1987 was concluded by a relative of AQ Khan in Dubai. This might point to Zia’s reluctance to give the Iranians what they wanted in full public view, especially that of the Arabs, who had already reacted with alarm to the nuclear ambition of a friendly Shah in the 1970s.
Corera makes the following interesting observation: ‘But would Pakistan really want to see a neighbour with nuclear weapons? A few individuals might but not the whole government over an extended period. In essence, it appears that Khan could have received tacit approval and support from a small number of senior individuals but may have continued and deepened the relationship on his — or his network’s — initiative’ (p.73).
Then he provides a pen-sketch of General Aslam Beg: ‘During the mid to late 1980s, when Pakistan and Iran were moving closer together and nuclear dealings began, General Mirza Aslam Beg was first vice chief from 1987 and then from 1988 to 1991, chief of the army staff...As soon as he became vice chief he was ‘made privy’ to the nuclear programme for the first time. He supported a more overt nuclear policy and greater distancing from the United States and the West. According to his own writings, Beg thought in terms of ‘democratising’ the global nuclear non-proliferation order and moving to a multipolar world, which he believed would be safer than either a bipolar Cold War world or a unipolar world of American power...Beg and AQ Khan were close friends and political allies and shared many of the same views’ (p.74).
The dossier published by London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) this year on AQ Khan takes note of the fact that he told his interrogators that he proliferated in favour of the Islamic world, but it rejects the claim because of his proliferation efforts in North Korea. What the dossier finds more convincing was the tendency to proliferate in favour of those states that defied the United States in particular and the West in general. This brought his thinking close to the ‘strategic defiance’ doctrine of General Aslam Beg. In the case of both men, the general ‘guiding principle’ did not prevent them from personal enrichment. In the case of AQ Khan, two reprimands administered by General Zia to him for boasting about enrichment to the weapons’ level in 1984 and 1987 may have strengthened his tendency to defiance based on resentment against Zia.
After the death of General Zia, his son kept accusing General Aslam Beg of having killed his father. In 1993, the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission Report on Zia’s death — now classified as secret — was inconclusive, pleading obstruction from the army. The ISI, under the new COAS General Asif Nawaz, published its own 34-page ‘parallel’ findings in a Karachi weekly Takbeer (20 August 1992), which its editor Muhammad Salahuddin — assassinated mysteriously in 1994 — submitted to the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission as evidence that ‘senior army officers were involved in the killing of General Zia in an air crash in Bahawalpur in 1988’.
Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity and the Rise and Fall of the AQ Khan Network By Gordon Corera
Daily Times, November 11, 2007
Is it possible that the nuclear sale was made without Zia’s approval, that he came to know of it or was about to know it and might have acted against AQ Khan and his allies in the military establishment? And that he died because he had got close to the information in August 1988 about who had made the deal?
Correspondent for BBC News, Gordon Corera, may have provided in this book the first clue to the death of General Zia in 1988. The most important disclosure is that AQ Khan sold his first nuclear secrets to Iran in 1987, quite possibly without the permission of ruler of Pakistan, General Zia, who was then siding with the Gulf Arabs against Iran after the latter had begun to threaten them upon coming to power in 1979. He also discovers that while Zia may not have been privy to the sale to Iran, some others from within his military establishment could be involved.
General Zia-ul Haq came to power in 1977 and was killed in an air-crash in 1988 at the peak of Shia killings in Pakistan. It was widely believed in Pakistan that his death was engineered by the Shia community in revenge. Zia began Islamising the country under the tutelage of Saudi Arabia. By 1980 the first Islamic laws of the sharia he enforced were backed by Saudi Arabia who sent special advisers at the time of framing them. In 1979, Iran went through its Islamic Revolution. Around the Gulf, the Arab states feared this development because most of them had Shia minorities they were not treating well.
Gordon Corera says Pakistan’s nuclear scientist and head of the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) Dr AQ Khan was using Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as a base for meeting his suppliers. It is here in 1987 that he made a sale of crucial drawings and designs of a tested nuclear plant and received three million dollars in Swiss francs from the Iranian party (p 59-60).
Was this deal with Iran concluded with the consent of General Zia who was in the process of ‘reining in the Shias’ in Pakistan? If he had given AQ Khan the go-ahead, did he realise that Saudi Arabia might get wind of it and retaliate against him? Is it possible that the nuclear sale was made without his approval, that he came to know of it or was about to know it and might have acted against AQ Khan and his allies in the military establishment? And that he died because he had got close to the information in August 1988 about who had made the deal?
Corera wonders if the deal with Iran was ‘official’ or done without the knowledge of the ‘government’ — which was General Zia in 1987, prime minister Junejo being more or less a puppet by reason of the 8th Amendment in the Constitution passed by parliament which allowed Zia to dismiss him at his discretion. He records the official Iranian delegations — there was one led by President Ali Khamenei who was very keen to build the Iranian bomb — which must have clearly asked Zia for ‘cooperation’. But the ‘deal’ in 1987 was concluded by a relative of AQ Khan in Dubai. This might point to Zia’s reluctance to give the Iranians what they wanted in full public view, especially that of the Arabs, who had already reacted with alarm to the nuclear ambition of a friendly Shah in the 1970s.
Corera makes the following interesting observation: ‘But would Pakistan really want to see a neighbour with nuclear weapons? A few individuals might but not the whole government over an extended period. In essence, it appears that Khan could have received tacit approval and support from a small number of senior individuals but may have continued and deepened the relationship on his — or his network’s — initiative’ (p.73).
Then he provides a pen-sketch of General Aslam Beg: ‘During the mid to late 1980s, when Pakistan and Iran were moving closer together and nuclear dealings began, General Mirza Aslam Beg was first vice chief from 1987 and then from 1988 to 1991, chief of the army staff...As soon as he became vice chief he was ‘made privy’ to the nuclear programme for the first time. He supported a more overt nuclear policy and greater distancing from the United States and the West. According to his own writings, Beg thought in terms of ‘democratising’ the global nuclear non-proliferation order and moving to a multipolar world, which he believed would be safer than either a bipolar Cold War world or a unipolar world of American power...Beg and AQ Khan were close friends and political allies and shared many of the same views’ (p.74).
The dossier published by London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) this year on AQ Khan takes note of the fact that he told his interrogators that he proliferated in favour of the Islamic world, but it rejects the claim because of his proliferation efforts in North Korea. What the dossier finds more convincing was the tendency to proliferate in favour of those states that defied the United States in particular and the West in general. This brought his thinking close to the ‘strategic defiance’ doctrine of General Aslam Beg. In the case of both men, the general ‘guiding principle’ did not prevent them from personal enrichment. In the case of AQ Khan, two reprimands administered by General Zia to him for boasting about enrichment to the weapons’ level in 1984 and 1987 may have strengthened his tendency to defiance based on resentment against Zia.
After the death of General Zia, his son kept accusing General Aslam Beg of having killed his father. In 1993, the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission Report on Zia’s death — now classified as secret — was inconclusive, pleading obstruction from the army. The ISI, under the new COAS General Asif Nawaz, published its own 34-page ‘parallel’ findings in a Karachi weekly Takbeer (20 August 1992), which its editor Muhammad Salahuddin — assassinated mysteriously in 1994 — submitted to the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission as evidence that ‘senior army officers were involved in the killing of General Zia in an air crash in Bahawalpur in 1988’.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Battle for Pakistan by Imran Khan
The Battle for Pakistan by Imran Khan
November 9, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
The imposition of martial law under the garb of emergency should make it abundantly clear to everyone that dictators cannot afford even a semblance of either an independent judicial system or a free media. And neither can the assortment of criminals camouflaged as politicians who collaborate with dictators.
No one is fooled by Gen. Musharaf’s latest deception to hang on to power. The war on terror has served him well so far and so why change a successful strategy; spread fear in the western capitals by invoking images of bearded men with guns and in the meanwhile brutally crush all dissent within the country, as was recently done by the Burmese Military. Having inducted pliant and amoral judges through the PCO, the next step would be to massively rig the elections while keeping the media muzzled. What he hopes is that he will again have a rubber stamp Assembly, a controlled majority and a friendly opposition, while real power will rest with him for another 5 years.
So, what we are witnessing is the first phase of the plan. Massive crackdown on the genuine opposition, lawyers, human right activists and the civil society. He is hoping that the police brutality will induce enough fear in the people for him to crush all dissent within a couple of weeks, before he takes the next step of getting himself endorsed by his pocket judges.
Unfortunately for Musharraf, everyone can see through his latest power grab attempt. No one believes that the judges were an impediment in his fight against terrorism. He has had absolute power for the last 8 years and yet terrorism and militancy is rising rapidly. What is he going to do that is different? He has had Pakistanis abducted and handed over to the U.S authorities without allowing them their right to prove their innocence in a court of law. Others have simply disappeared. Many tortured. Our own people have been bombed by helicopters and jets and when women and children have been killed, it has been shamefully called “collateral damage”. No one to this day knows how many Pakistani (soldiers and civilians) have been killed since 9/11.
Most significantly his liberal credentials stand exposed completely, something he needed to make his dictatorship palatable to the west. Gimmicks like “enlightened moderation”, “soft image” and “sufi Islam” stood exposed as the nation saw police boots and sticks shower on peaceful human rights protestors, lawyers and the media. All laws whether it was through PEMRA, PCOs, the 17th amendment or the disgraceful NRO were only to consolidate his power.
The time has come for the people of Pakistan to decide their destiny. If Musharraf succeeds in destroying the independent judiciary through his PCO, then I am afraid it is all down hill. His “pocket” judges will assist him in suppressing the media and in rigging the elections.
A Government formed from this unholy alliance will be a disaster for Pakistan and will ensure that it heads towards becoming a failed state.
For a start there will be a quantum leap in terrorism. His policies have alienated the Pushtuns in general and the tribal Pushtuns in particular. There are around a million armed men in the tribal areas. Does it make any logical sense that to capture a couple of thousand Al-Qaeeda we invoke the hostility of around a million armed men - all natural guerilla fighters? And that is why history tells us the British lost more soldiers in the tribal areas than the whole of the sub-continent during their Raj.
Moreover fundamentalism is on the rise in most of Northern Pakistan because of Musharraf’s “enlightened moderate” media policies. There is great reaction amongst the masses who perceive this as a license to be vulgar. The Lal Masjid “warriors” belonged to this category. While in Swat & Dir, there has been a rising discontentment due to the poor governance system ever since the two regions became a part of Pakistan in 1974. Thanks to Musharraff being perceived as an American Stooge imposing an anti-Islamic agenda on the country, all these movements are morphing into one.
Another five years of Musharraff will mean that certain discontented sections of the society will lose faith in the democratic process and will also join the militants; thereby raising the prospects of Pakistan turning into another Algeria - the Army against its own people.
The other disaster of Musharraff dictatorship would be a further diversion of the country’s resources away from the people. During his 8 years 1.8% of the GDP was spent on education - the lowest ever in our history and consequently today Pakistan’s state school education system has collapsed. According to the U.N Human Development Index Pakistan has the worst social indicators in South Asia. Even Burma is ahead. On the other hand in 2006 Pakistan spent US $ 5.1 billion on arms. A new GHQ is being built on 2500 acres in Islamabad at the cost of billions of dollars.
Equally disastrous is the collapse of governance in Pakistan. According to Transparency International this is the most corrupt Government in our history. Hardly surprising since crooks, criminals and even terrorists (according to the Canadian Supreme Court the MQM is a terrorist organization) are sitting at the helm of affairs. The biggest scams in our history have been during the past 5 years. Rs.55 billion loans to the rich and powerful have been waived off while the common man has been crushed by unprecedented inflation.
Hence it is imperative that all sections of Pakistani society stand behind Chief Justice Iftikhar and demand his restoration along with the other honourable judges. We should not accept the PCO or those judges who have taken oath by it.
Only if Justice Iftikhar is restored will we have an independent judiciary, which is the bedrock of a genuine democratic system. The independent judiciary will protect the media’s freedom and ensure free and fair elections that are vital for the country’s survival only. Free and fair elections can throw up a Government that can start a political dialogue with the Militants. The war against terrorism can only be won if the people from within whom the terrorists operate, also consider them to be terrorists. If on the other hand they are perceived as heroes or freedom fighters than it is a never ending war - and history tells us that it cannot be won. Moreover, a democratic Government which comes through free and fair elections has to invest in the people. Otherwise no matter how high the growth rate it will lose the elections - as happened to the BJP despite “shining India”
Above all only an independent judiciary will stop criminals from entering politics. At the moment they know that once they are part of the power structure they are safe from the courts. The NRO is a classic case in point which under Musharraff’s pocket judges will absolve politicians of their crimes that includes plunder of the country’s resources as well as assassinations and target killings. Once a P.M. or President are not above law only then can this country develop a governance system that will make it achieve its great potential.
What needs to be done is for all sections of the society - especially the students whose future is at stake, to demand the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and a total boycott of the PCO judges. Until our demands are accepted we should agitate throughout the country. The APDM should immediately give a call to its workers to join the lawyers and the civil society in the streets.
And finally it brings me to Benazir and Maulana Fazal ur Rehman. They are the only two “opposition” leaders who are allowed to freely roam around. The former is even given protocol. Both of them have played a major role in strengthening Musharraff by undermining the opposition at every stage. Both have used the opposition to strengthen their bargaining position with the Government for their personal ends. Most regretfully neither has demanded the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar. The APDM should tell them that we have had enough of their “Noora Khushti”. If they want to be part of the genuine opposition both must demand the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and announce a street movement immediately. But they should not be allowed to sabotage the opposition movement for their personal gains again.
Imran Khan is a Pakistani former cricketer turned politician. Imran played cricket for Pakistan between 1971 and 1992, and was captain of the national team when they won their maiden World Cup in 1992. Currently, Imran Khan is the chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) (Movement for Justice) the political party that he founded in 1997. He has been placed under house arrest after a state of emergency was imposed in Pakistan but is reported to have managed to escape.
Also See: Musharraf fears democracy, not extremism: The West must not let this crisis spiral out of control; Vali Nasr, Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 2007
Standoff brews in Pakistan: CNN
Standoff brews in Pakistan
CNN International: November 7, 2007
A former official of both Pakistani leaders discusses what could be expected as the two rivals face off.
For Video, click here
Mandela and Carter condemn emergency rule
Reuters; November 9, 2007
JOHANNESBURG: A group of former world leaders including Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter has denounced General Pervez Musharraf for imposing emergency rule and suspending the Constitution. “These illegal acts have resulted in abuse and incarceration of judges, lawyers, human rights activists, journalists and other moderate and democratic opposition forces,” the group called the Elders said in a statement on Thursday. “The Elders support all freedom-loving Pakistanis who have chosen to join in peaceful expressions of opposition to these dictatorial acts and call upon political leaders throughout the world to insist on a return to a lawful government,” it said. The Elders group, formed last year, includes over a dozen Nobel laureates and former world leaders. reuters
Also See:
Deja vu in Pakistan power struggle; BBC - November 10, 2007
Democrats sound off on Pakistan
Bhutto at the Barricade: Slate.com
Alternate Viewspoint:
Former US ambassador says US should support Pakistan's Musharraf to prevent loose nukes: AFP
U.S. Strategy for Pakistan Looks More Fragile: NYT
News Analysis
U.S. Strategy for Pakistan Looks More Fragile
By HELENE COOPER; November 10, 2007; New York Time
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — In pushing for the deal that took Benazir Bhutto back to Pakistan, the Bush administration hoped to build a broader base of support that might help Gen. Pervez Musharraf stay in power.
But General Musharraf’s sweeping crackdown over the last week has raised questions about that strategy, not least when he sent thousands of police officers on Friday morning to prevent Ms. Bhutto from leading a protest rally against his imposition of de facto martial law.
The images coming out of Pakistan — of police forces blanketing the site of a planned rally by Ms. Bhutto, the opposition leader, and then barricading her inside her residence — were hardly consistent with the kind of cooperation the United States promoted.
Bush administration officials and Pakistani experts say they still believe that a power-sharing agreement between Ms. Bhutto and the general can survive. “We hope we’re seeing a little bit of political theater here,” a senior State Department official said.
By that the official meant Ms. Bhutto’s insistence on holding a rally, General Musharraf’s decision to barricade her in her house, and the subsequent speech by Ms. Bhutto to the nation that was broadcast on official Pakistani television.
But the danger, Bush administration officials said, is that the longer the public conflict — whether choreographed or not — continues, the more likely the chance that the proposed power-sharing deal collapses completely, leading to even more chaos.
The White House has urged General Musharraf to reverse his emergency power edicts. Publicly, the Bush administration complained in strong terms on Friday about Ms. Bhutto’s detention, urging that “moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy.”
“In any decision-making with respect to getting Pakistan back on the road to democracy and constitutional rule, the bias should be in favor of greater openness and dialogue among those forces who want to take Pakistan in a positive direction,” the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said. “The bias should be in favor of allowing peaceful expression of views no matter what they may be saying about the existing situation.”
For Complete Story, click here
Also See:
Pakistan's Institutions and Civil Society By Jayshree Bajoria: CFR & Washington Post
Analysts Say Decision to Block Bhutto Could Backfire: VOA
Getting away with farce? By Ayaz Amir, Dawn
U.S. Strategy for Pakistan Looks More Fragile
By HELENE COOPER; November 10, 2007; New York Time
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — In pushing for the deal that took Benazir Bhutto back to Pakistan, the Bush administration hoped to build a broader base of support that might help Gen. Pervez Musharraf stay in power.
But General Musharraf’s sweeping crackdown over the last week has raised questions about that strategy, not least when he sent thousands of police officers on Friday morning to prevent Ms. Bhutto from leading a protest rally against his imposition of de facto martial law.
The images coming out of Pakistan — of police forces blanketing the site of a planned rally by Ms. Bhutto, the opposition leader, and then barricading her inside her residence — were hardly consistent with the kind of cooperation the United States promoted.
Bush administration officials and Pakistani experts say they still believe that a power-sharing agreement between Ms. Bhutto and the general can survive. “We hope we’re seeing a little bit of political theater here,” a senior State Department official said.
By that the official meant Ms. Bhutto’s insistence on holding a rally, General Musharraf’s decision to barricade her in her house, and the subsequent speech by Ms. Bhutto to the nation that was broadcast on official Pakistani television.
But the danger, Bush administration officials said, is that the longer the public conflict — whether choreographed or not — continues, the more likely the chance that the proposed power-sharing deal collapses completely, leading to even more chaos.
The White House has urged General Musharraf to reverse his emergency power edicts. Publicly, the Bush administration complained in strong terms on Friday about Ms. Bhutto’s detention, urging that “moderate political forces work together to bring Pakistan back on the path to democracy.”
“In any decision-making with respect to getting Pakistan back on the road to democracy and constitutional rule, the bias should be in favor of greater openness and dialogue among those forces who want to take Pakistan in a positive direction,” the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said. “The bias should be in favor of allowing peaceful expression of views no matter what they may be saying about the existing situation.”
For Complete Story, click here
Also See:
Pakistan's Institutions and Civil Society By Jayshree Bajoria: CFR & Washington Post
Analysts Say Decision to Block Bhutto Could Backfire: VOA
Getting away with farce? By Ayaz Amir, Dawn
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)