What do the generals want? The Pakistan Army, like all other institutions, is a pyramid. But the Pakistan Army, unlike any other Pakistani institution, is the only Pakistani institution where soldiers rise from within to become commanding generals purely on the basis of merit. This military pyramid rests on two pillars: respect for the chain of command and the confidence of Pakistanis in their armed forces.
As of right now, Pakistan Army’s two serving generals, 22 serving lieutenant generals, 150 serving major generals for a total of 620,000 Pakistani soldiers are in a state of war. This is the longest – and the bloodiest – war that the Pakistan Army has ever fought. This war has multiple fronts – Tirah Valley, Shawal Valley, Wana, Miranshah, Mir Ali, Swat, Sararogha, Bajaur, Orakzai, Khyber and Kurram. This is a war where the distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant is blurring. This is a war where the distinction between a soldier and a civilian is blurring – even the distinction between war and politics is blurring. This war truly has all the characteristics of a 4G war.
Then there’s India with its ‘cold start military doctrine’. Then there’s the Indian army with its ‘Order of battle’, whereby at least half of all Indian army corps are stationed within a striking distance from the Pakistan-India border. The Indian army’s XV Corps with two infantry divisions in Srinagar, XIV Corps in Leh, XVI Corps with three infantry divisions, an artillery brigade and an armoured brigade in Nagrota, X Corps in Bhatinda, XI Corps in Jalandhar, IX Corps in Yol and II Corps in Ambala.
Remember, generals around the world respond to ‘capacity’ not ‘intent’. Pakistani generals look at the Indian Army and see its inventory of 6,384 tanks as a threat (since none of those Arjun MBTs can cross the Himalayas into China, they must all be for Pakistan).
Pakistani generals look at the Indian Air Force and see its inventory of 672 combat aircraft as a threat. Pakistani generals look at the Indian Army and find that XV, IX, XVI, XIV, XI, X and II Corps all pointing their guns at Pakistan. The Pakistani generals look at India’s 4th Armoured Division, 12th Infantry Division, 340th Mechanised Brigade and the 4th Armoured Brigade deployed to cut Pakistan into two halves.
As of right now, the Pakistan Army is fighting a deadly 4G war within and must, at the same time, stand prepared to defend Pakistan from the 3G threat from the east. In essence, the Pakistan Army is fighting at three different levels – physical, mental and moral. To be certain, the Pakistan Army cannot win on the physical battlefield unless it also wins the mental combat, the ‘will to fight’ and the ‘belief in victory’.
So, what do the serving generals want? The same thing that any serving general in a state of war would want – support from all other pillars of the state. So, what do the Pakistani generals need to guarantee the longevity of the Pakistani state? The same thing that any serving general in a state of war needs – esprit de corps, sense of unity, commonality of interests plus chain of command and the confidence of the public on the military.
As of right now, one retired general, five retired lieutenant generals and two retired major generals are on trial – both in the courts of the law and the media. What do the retired generals want? They don’t want to be convicted – either by the courts or by the media. Well, there shouldn’t even be any debate on this count – anyone who breaks the law must be held responsible and punished.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com
.
Believe it or not, a decisive majority in Pakistan believes – or so it did over two months ago – that a car can run on water. I am referring to a Gilani Research Foundation survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan in the aftermath of that bizarre claim by a Khairpur engineer that he had invented a device to use water as fuel to run a car. Equally bizarre was the response he got in the mainstream media, the ripples of which even touched some members of the federal cabinet. We had experts who vigorously joined the debate on both sides of the argument.
That issue, like others that momentarily flare up in our headlines and talk shows, has quietly died down. So I have no intention of reviving that hullabaloo. Irrespective of what it was all about from a scientific point of view, the ordinary people must have formed their opinions on the basis of what they saw and heard in the media – including the social media.
My concern is only about the formation of the collective mind. What do we hear from, to use the Urdu expression, zaban-e-khalq and how is this message related to facts and to the dictates of wisdom and rationality?
Back to the Gallup survey, as an example. The question posed to a nationally representative sample of men and women from across the four provinces was: “Some people think that this car actually runs on water while some people think that it is a fraud. What is your opinion on this?” As many as 69 percent believed in claims about the water-run car, 10 percent claimed it was a farce and 21 percent were uncertain.
Incidentally, the survey was released on September 6 this year – on the Defence of Pakistan Day. With this kind of public opinion, questions may be raised about the task of defending Pakistan. In any case, I was reminded of this survey – and the same question may yield different answers now – when I had a longish ride this week in a car sent for me for a meeting. It was from some rent-a-car agency. It allowed me to have a long conversation with the driver, who hailed from some place in the tribal belt and said that he had also been a driver in Afghanistan.
No, he did not profess any strong sympathy for the Taliban but his entire discourse was so fanciful and laden with contradictory opinions that were forcefully expressed. It made me afraid about how people like him could behave in certain situations. I would not try to repeat what he said except that he also firmly believes that it is not the Quaid’s body that is resting in his mausoleum in Karachi.
My intention is not to speak ill of the people who can be persuaded to believe that a car can run on water. Essentially, they are all very brave and deserve our respect because they have to fend for themselves and their families in very treacherous circumstances. They have to eke out a pitiable existence in a system that is thoroughly corrupt and unjust. In fact, if you genuinely empathise with the poor and the socially deprived people of Pakistan, you may yourself go crazy. That they continue to survive should make them our heroes.
That their passions and their opinions and their worldview can be entirely warped because of their limited knowledge and experiences is something else. I sometimes move around crowded bazaars or visit such places as a public hospital or the lower courts or bus terminals and wonder what they, the wretched of the earth, may be thinking and feeling. Why should we expect them to be sane and rational? Yet, they are supposed to be the staple of our democracy and the final arbiters of what ideas and which individuals will govern this country. Apparently, these choices will be made elsewhere, not in the minds of the awam we are so fond of putting on a pedestal.
At one level, the failure of our rulers, our media, our judiciary and all other institutions that may or may not be contending with each other, is colossal. They have not been able to protect the fundamental rights of the very poor and the very backward segments of our society. Many of our leaders have romantic notions about the tribal ways that are essentially rather primitive.
Simultaneously, we are under attack by the forces of evil that have certainly been strengthened by distortions lodged in the Pakistani mind. Suicide attacks, mostly owned by the Taliban, have continued. Sectarian violence has increased. The attack on the Rangers building in Karachi on Thursday, considering its magnitude, is awe-inspiring. And the Taliban have promised more of the same. In addition, Karachi has been conquered by organised crime and violence.
In these circumstances, we should carefully explore the role that the popular media has played in not only shaping the minds of the ordinary people but also in highlighting the dynamics of widespread poverty and intimations of anarchy and systemic collapse. Here, I need to reiterate that we get so obsessed by politics that we have no time to look at the state of our society.
What we recognise as social media has enhanced the prevailing confusion about the import of various seminal developments. So much distortion and disinformation is bandied about by subversive elements that it becomes difficult to rouse public opinion on an urgent issue. Take the example of the Malala incident, which provided the rulers with an opportunity to take bold action against terrorism and religious extremism. But doubts have now been planted in the minds of the people about what it was all about.
It is not enough to grieve over the present drift. More crucial is to understand our moral and intellectual deprivations and take emergency measures to restore the equilibrium of our society. Our political leaders should seek assistance from academics and researchers and social critics to try to comprehend the challenges confronting Pakistan. Total attention, say, to the statement made by the COAS and to the observations made by the chief justice is bound to camouflage the problems that surround and sway the directionless mobs that our society has nurtured.
If battles are fought in the minds of men, we should worry about the battle that we already have lost in the minds of our ordinary people. What is arrayed in this battlefield is not contending ideas or ideologies but monstrous conspiracies and ignorant biases. The mind is also the repository of the sanity of a person. In that sense, have we lost our senses?
The writer is a staff member. Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com
.
As the curtain rises for the second Obama presidential term, the immediate foreign policy priority will be the smooth withdrawal of US-led troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and ensuring that the insurgency-scarred country does not descend into complete chaos. There is no gainsaying the importance and centrality of Pakistan in this enterprise. It is undoubtedly in Islamabad’s own interest to skilfully employ whatever leverage it still has with the Afghan groups to persuade them to sort out their differences at the negotiating table, as only that will stave off the hideous possibility of civil war.
Last month, on Eid-ul-Azha, Mullah Omar issued a statement which commentators here believe indicated “important policy shifts.” None of them bothered to scratch the surface which would have demonstrated that, like all weak-minded men, the supreme leader of the Afghan Taliban lays an exaggerated emphasis on not changing his mind. He is convinced that, as the amir-ul-momineen (commander of the faithful), he is the undisputed ruler of Afghanistan for the rest of his life and any settlement of the conflict must be on his terms. This was the impression I gathered after several meetings with him from 1996 to 2000.
Those were fretful years in which I was involved in a shuttle mission aimed at persuading the Afghan groups to terminate their hostilities and agree on a mechanism for establishing a broad-based government reflecting the ethnic mosaic of the country. Some of these travels were life-threatening, and, on one occasion we survived narrowly as our aircraft was about to be shot down by the Northern Alliance over the skies of Mazar-e-Sharif. The incident was later recounted by Saleh Zafir of the Jang Group and Z A Qureshi of Pakistan Television who accompanied me on that eventful flight. Afghanistan has changed little since then, and the country continues to be ravaged by internal conflict.
In his Eid-ul-Azha message Mullah Omar has again affirmed: “We do not intend to grab power and nor, after the exit of foreign forces, [want to ignite] a civil war. Our efforts are centred on a political system that is in the hands of Afghans” free from external interference. This was more or less a rehash of his Eid-ul-Fitr message in August last year which was the most exhaustive statement he has ever made. In that message, which reads more like a papal encyclical, he announced: “The policy of the Islamic Emirate is not aimed at monopolising power since Afghanistan is the joint homeland of all Afghans,” and all citizens have the right to play a role in the “running of the country.”
Less than a month later, Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former Afghan president and the chief of the High Peace Council, was killed in Kabul by suicide bombers from one of the Taliban groups. His grief-stricken daughter, Fatima, reminisced how tragically ironical it was that only a week earlier, her father, a mild-mannered professor of theology, had attended a conference in Tehran on “Islamic Awakening” where “he had appealed to the ulema (religious scholars) to issue a fatwa (decree) against suicide bombings.”
The assassination, despite Mullah Omar’s assurances that he had no intention of “monopolising power,” is just one of many instances that shows how fractured the Taliban movement has become. Commanders act independently and ignore the orders of their supreme leader with ill-disguised disdain. This was glaringly apparent in the manner that Taliban fighters have violated the solemn pledges enshrined in the constitution promulgated by Mullah Omar. The main features of the document were published in the August 3, 2010, issue of Azadi, a Quetta-based newspaper.
The 35-page constitution, which contains 14 chapters and 85 clauses, stresses that jihad must be strictly in accordance with Islamic principles and “every mujahid” (holy warrior) is obliged to go the extra mile to “win a place in the hearts of the people...so that they have the prayers of the people with them.” Three days later the bodies of 10 men and women, all medical aid workers, were discovered by Afghan police in the northern province of Badakshan.
Another clause ordains that captured foreign troops must never be treated as hostages and, therefore, their release “in exchange for money is strictly forbidden.” The same paragraph enjoins the provision of “good facilities to the prisoners” and prohibits any form of torture, particularly the “cutting off of ears, noses and lips.” Five days later, the mutilated remains of two US Marines who had been captured by the Taliban the previous month in Logar province were recovered by the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (Isaf).
The document emphatically asserts that informers and spies must not even be arrested, or harmed, without their being made aware of Islamic teachings and given an opportunity to repent. This did not stop the public hanging of a seven-year-old boy on preposterous charges of espionage. Around this time international media outlets carried unconfirmed reports that the Taliban leadership had instructed their fighters to kill or capture Afghan nationals, even women, if they cooperated with Isaf.
These ghastly incidents, despite the assurances in the constitution promulgated by the self-styled amir-ul-momineen, show that his authority is gradually being eroded. This was also conceded in March last year by his close confidante, Mullah Zabiullah, who said that the Taliban movement was in the throes of an unprecedented leadership crisis.
But despite this, Mullah Omar is by far the most powerful leader of Pakhtun-dominated southern and eastern Afghanistan, and all efforts to promote a settlement will have to be negotiated through his designated representatives. In his Eid-ul-Azha message he stated: “...we have established a specific office and a separate political panel...I wish to make it clear that besides that specific office, we have no other outlet for any reconciliation or political dialogue.” This is the same “committee” for the purpose of “making external and internal policies” that was envisaged in the constitution two years earlier.
Against this backdrop, Washington believes that Pakistan can play a pivotal role for the orderly withdrawal of US troops and the eventual stabilisation of Afghanistan. It is therefore probably not coincidental that in the last few days the US Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman, the State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland and Deputy Chief of the American embassy in Islamabad Richard Hoagland, have publicly affirmed that the Durand Line is the recognised international boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
These pronouncements at this point in time are intriguing. In 2007, when Pakistan toyed with the idea of fencing its border with Afghanistan, former president Pervez Musharraf was discreetly but firmly advised by the Bush administration to abandon the project, as it would undermine the Karzai regime. The change in Washington’s declaratory policy on the Durand Line is therefore significant. Whatever the reason for this, it is vitally important for Pakistan to craft well-thought-through initiatives aimed at facilitating an intra-Afghan dialogue. The alternative is the intensification of the conflict in Afghanistan, which will have horrendous implications for the security situation in the adjacent tribal regions of Pakistan.
But persuading the Afghan groups to talk to each other has never been easy. A top-ranking foreign ministry official recently said that Mullah Omar was as “damned and elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel” of Baroness Orczy’s literary masterpiece and there had been absolutely no contact with him for several months. One can only hope that he was lying through his teeth. The supreme leader of the Afghan Taliban has always prided himself on being a man of his word. His ideas for a settlement are spelt out in the constitution he promulgated in 2010, his Eid-ul-Fitr message of August 2011 and his recent statement on Eid-ul-Azha. These documents warrant serious study as they constitute a framework for negotiations among the Afghan factions.
The writer is the publisher of Criterion quarterly. Email: iftimurshed@ gmail.com
.
Last Sunday, the Congress party held a rally in Delhi to celebrate the United Progressive Alliance government’s disastrous decision to open up multi-brand retail to foreign direct investment. This proved that the party has lost its basic political instincts. In fact, the Congress has done what no other Indian party has done: openly claim ownership of a right-wing measure that favours a tiny elite but hurts millions. The nearest anyone came to doing this was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with its “India Shining” campaign of 2004, which became a major factor in its electoral defeat.
The Wal-Mart-style hypermarkets to be promoted under the new policy will destroy street-vendors and petty shopkeepers, who cannot match giant corporations in attracting the upper middle class consumers through predatory pricing. It will also make farmers and other suppliers dependent on corporations which have every reason to squeeze them.
Going by western experience, hypermarkets will gradually eliminate competition and turn against the consumer too. Foreign-controlled retail will promote a repugnant culture of greed and wasteful consumerism that’s the opposite of environmental sustainability and social and economic equity.
Yet, by linking the FDI decision to the Congress’s “historic achievements” such as the Green Revolution in the 1970s and market-fundamentalist neoliberal policies since 1991, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi have wiped out the distance the Congress had taken from the UPA and Manmohan Singh.
Under the division of labour prevalent since 2004, the Sonia Gandhi leadership projected a left-of-centre image which fit in well with the progressive initiatives proposed by the National Advisory Council. Her emphasis on equity and inclusive growth was at odds with Singh’s policies. Now, that autonomy from Singh – chipped away gradually through repeated dilution and rejection of the NAC’s proposals on rights to food, education and healthcare, and through a change in the NAC’s composition – has vanished.
The Congress, which promised to be aam aadmi-centric, has been reduced to chanting the mantra of GDPism, the ridiculous belief that GDP growth is desirable in itself, regardless of its employment and income effects. Economist Simon Kuznets, who developed the concept of the GDP, disapproved of its use as a measure of overall national well-being because it fails to distinguish “between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run.”
The Congress’s rightward shift erases another lesson: the party has done well in elections whenever it adopted a left-of-centre stance. It’s now cultivating foreign corporations and a narrow upper class stratum and alienating the masses just when its main opponent, the BJP, is extremely vulnerable.
Recent media exposes of BJP President Nitin Gadkari’s shady business dealings have made his position untenable, as borne out by great turmoil in the BJP. The company Gadkari controls, Purti Power and Sugar, is owned by 18 shell companies, a majority of which have addresses in slums, and many of whose directors are Gadkari’s employees, including his chauffeur, besides having Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) connections.
The key to Gadkari’s rise in the Sangh Parivar is money laundered and routed through Purti. Purti has benefited handsomely from Gadkari cronies such as Ideal Road Builders, whom he favoured as Maharashtra’s PWD minister in 1995-99. The IRB, which had only built 10 km of roads in six years, was given contracts worth hundreds of crores and became Maharashtra’s biggest toll-road company. As if to return the favours, its main owner loaned INR164 crores to Purti.
To their disgrace, the BJP-RSS have unconvincingly defended Gadkari. The RSS chief, at whose behest Gadkari was appointed party president, made the amazing statement that “it’s not important how much money has been earned; it’s important ... whether it has been put to good use or not”. Such rationalisation of corruption couldn’t have been more blatant.
The Gadkari expose’ highlights nasty personal rivalries within the BJP. Gadkari has complained to the RSS that the person who leaked damaging evidence against him is party national general secretary Arun Jaitley. Jaitley probably has his eye on the party presidency, and is closely allied with the RSS joint general secretary Suresh Soni. Although the BJP constitution was recently amended to allow a second consecutive term to the president, it looks improbable that Gadkari will get it when his first term ends in December.
Gadkari’s embarrassment has produced hidden glee among his many rivals and detractors inside the party, not least former party president Rajnath Singh, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, and Jaswant Singh and Yashwant Sinha. Gadkari riled Modi by appointing his bete noire Sanjay Joshi as election coordinator in Uttar Pradesh. In retaliation, Modi refused to campaign in the UP elections and eventually had Joshi dismissed from the party’s national executive.
Gadkari, a novice to national politics, never enjoyed much credibility, leave alone respect, in the BJP. He was considered a clown, and duly acted out that role through a series of foot-in-mouth comments. Many of his detractors have chosen to tactically ally with Gadkari because they are loath to see either Modi or Jaitley become the party president.
Various BJP leaders are making different alignments to promote individual interests. Some are even campaigning for the 85-year old LK Advani to be made party president. Yet others are rooting for Modi. Many are watching the RSS’s moves. The RSS has tightened its control over the BJP, and appointed three senior leaders (in place of one) as coordinators of its relations with the BJP.
The greatest gain from all the churning in the BJP-RSS is undoubtedly to Narendra Milosevic Modi, already the most powerful of the party’s second-generation leaders. Although the recent judgment in the Naroda-Patiya massacre, convicting 31 people including Modi crony and former minister Maya Kodnani, was an embarrassment, and although his right-hand man Amit Patel is in trouble over the fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin, Modi’s stock remains high within the Parivar.
The recent ill-conceived British decision, driven by crass commercial reasons, to resume normal relations with the Modi government after a hiatus of 10 years, and the apparent softening of the US stand against granting him a visa, have also helped Modi. As has the praise showered upon him by numerous Indian industrialists for favouring them with sweetheart deals and enormous subsidies.
Modi is making an aggressive bid for the top party job. His bid will gather strength if the BJP wins next month’s Gujarat assembly elections. The hitch is the RSS, which doesn’t fully trust Modi because of his megalomania and highly individualistic style of working – despite his self-evident commitment to violent Hindutva and his success in reducing Gujarat’s Muslims to the status of second-class citizens. The RSS fears that a Modi takeover of the BJP will damage the party.
Yet, the RSS will have to give Modi a greater national role, perhaps as a campaign manager. Real resistance to Modi is unlikely to come from within the Parivar. It can only come from the BJP’s “secular” allies like Nitish Kumar – if they gather the courage to oppose his bid for the National Democratic Alliance’s prime ministerial candidate.
One thing is clear. Modi has blood on his hands. His candidacy will polarise the polity, and could help the Congress offset its continuing policy blunders. That would be quite an irony!
The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and human-rights activist based in Delhi. Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in
.
If political questions are allowed to fester long enough they transform themselves into legal questions. In a polity where the system of governance crumbles, proliferation of legal disputes is natural. And courts can’t be faulted for adjudicating legal disputes brought before them merely because they emerged from political questions. It is indisputable that the Supreme Court has the final word in declaring rights and obligations of citizens and the state. It is also indisputable that the SC has the final word in interpreting the constitution. But the fact that the SC is the ultimate arbiter of disputes and interpreter of the law does not mean it doesn’t get things wrong.
Critiquing the SC’s rulings neither amounts to questioning the validity nor the authority of the court. But just because rulings of the apex courts are binding doesn’t mean they are right. And just because the judiciary is vested with constitutional authority doesn’t mean it is being discharged unerringly. The law being developed and the manner in which the judiciary approaches its constitutional mandate are matters of public importance that must be debated vigorously since it affects all of us.
The interim rulings of the SC in the CNG case and the Balochistan law and order case highlight problems inherent in the exercise of the apex court’s now-dilated powers under Article 184(3) of the constitution. The popular argument (that a vacuum has been created due to failure of governance in the country, which by necessity has to be filled by other state institutions) used to justify the inflated role of the SC is neither a legal argument nor a useful guide to interpreting the scope of Article 184(3)’s powers.
Starting with the CNG case, the argument that the SC didn’t fix the reduced CNG price in its order but only recorded the federal government’s statement on the estimated reduced price is disingenuous. Even if we disregard the atmosphere in Court 1, where pushing a line disagreeable to the court can become very unpleasant for the summoned civil servants, why did the court need to record the reduced price as part of its order that had been predicted by the ministry, when the operative part of the order was a direction issued to Ogra to determine what the CNG sale price ought to be?
Once such indicated price made it into the SC order could Ogra exercise any discretion or exhibit the audacity to reach a different conclusion? And when Ogra goes ahead and underwrites the price that has the SC’s tacit approval, what legal remedy will those CNG station operators have who are aggrieved by such a decision of the regulator? More importantly, in ordering Ogra to determine a reasonable price as part of its interim order, did the SC not prejudge the underlying legal issue: does Ogra have the legal authority to determine the sale price of CNG?
Let’s recall the CNG price issue. Prior to the execution of the MoU between Ogra and CNG station operators, which fixed the sale price of CNG and allowed an obnoxious profit to CNG retailers, the price of CNG was determined through open competition between CNG stations. In the recent hearing before the SC, the federal government submitted that the MoU with CNG stations was illegal and was being suspended by the government. It didn’t say why it had been entered into in the first place or who was responsible for authorising and executing such a pernicious agreement that produced windfall for CNG station owners at the cost of consumers.
The obvious questions that come to mind are: By entering into this MoU did Ogra exercise its public authority unfairly? Has Ogra been in a state of regulatory capture unduly benefiting CNG station owners and, if so, who are the public servants who ought to be held to account? Does Ogra have the legal authority to fix CNG retail prices? Was this MoU a prohibited agreement under competition law that manipulated prices and restricted competition? The SC, with its zealous focus on the sale price of CNG, didn’t get into any of these questions.
Ogra has been issuing CNG sale price notifications under Section 43B of the Ogra Ordinance. This was introduced through the Ogra Amendment Ordinance 2009, which was laid before the parliament on April 10, 2009, but never became an act of parliament and consequently lapsed. With its lapse, amendments were hurriedly introduced in the 1992 CNG Rules (issued under a 1948 mines and oilfields control law), to reclaim CNG retail price-fixing authority for Ogra. The legal validity of these rules remains dubious. But Ogra hasn’t been fixing prices pursuant to these rules. It has been doing so under Section 43B of the Ogra Ordinance that simply doesn’t exist anymore.
So why order Ogra to fix CNG retail price without first determining if it has the legal authority to do so and what legal recourse does anyone who is aggrieved by the order now have? This highlights the twin problems of Article 184(3): when the SC elects to become the court of first instance, legal infirmities easily creep into its orders compromising the law being produced by our apex court; and more than producing bad jurisprudence, the decision of the SC to act as a court of first instance, while also being the ultimate court of the land, robs aggrieved parties of their right to appeal and consequently of their due process rights.
The Balochistan law and order ruling raises questions not only about the approach of the court to constitutional interpretation but also a flawed doctrine of democracy being propounded by the court. The SC has continued to emphasise more recently that none of the state institutions, including the judiciary, have any inherent powers. The only power they have flows from the text of the constitution. And yet in many rulings produced by the SC, including the Balochistan ruling, there is hardly any mention or interpretation of the text of the constitutional provision upon which the order relies.
Which provision of the constitution vests in the SC the authority to declare that if public office holders serving in a provincial government fail to discharge their obligation to uphold fundamental rights of citizens, the entire government loses its ‘constitutional authority’ to govern? In the Asghar Khan case, where the army chief and DG ISI were found to have violated the constitution and fundamental rights, the court is at pains to explain that their acts were personal and the institution they represented wasn’t culpable. So why are the acts or omissions of Balochistan government’s officials not personal?
While the SC can affix the legal responsibility of individual public office holders, does the constitution empower it to affix collective responsibility of an elected government or rule that such government has lost its legitimacy? In the 18th Amendment cases we saw the SC wading into the province of the legislature, despite clear prohibition in Article 239 to the contrary. We have also seen the SC reduce the role of the parliamentary committee on judicial appointments to a post office. Don’t these rulings when viewed together project a disconcerting judicial approach to democracy and trichotomy of state power?
The wisdom of the idea that democracy and rule of law go hand in hand is as relevant for the judiciary as it is for parliament and the executive. Khaki-rule doesn’t become representative because people yield to martial law. Likewise our SC cannot presume to possess representative credentials merely because a popular movement backed its restoration. The authority that the SC claims or the orders that it passes cannot be grounded in public expectations but must spring from the text of the law and the constitution. By definition, commitment to rule of law demands fidelity to legal texts, which is seen wanting in Article 184(3) jurisprudence of the SC.
(Concluded)
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Published in The News , November 10th, 2012.
.
Our country’s current problems may be attributed to the criminal neglect of education by successive governments. We spend only about 1.7 percent of our GDP on education, putting us among the bottom seven countries of the world. Most of our children grow up without a proper education, resulting in massive joblessness. The resulting frustration is leading thousands of youth today, particularly in cities like Karachi, to indulge in street crime as they see that as the only path available for survival. Phone snatching at gunpoint marks the beginning of ‘careers’ in crime. The easy money from these crimes leads them to the next step: car theft. And from there they alleviate to serious crimes like robbery and kidnapping.
This is the road that we have paved for our youth; all the major political parties share the blame for their role in the neglect of education that has made Pakistan a living hell for many.
If an international vote was taken today for the worst country to live in due to crime and lack of opportunities, Pakistan would probably emerge as a winner. The reckless theft and plunder of those who have been in power for the last six decades, with few exceptions, has brought this country to its knees – to a point where many now doubt if it will survive.
Our salvation lies in quality education, but first we need to change our priorities. The exciting ways in which science, technology and innovation are changing the face of development can offer opportunities for us to leapfrog and emerge from our present miserable state.
A few recent examples of new technologies are illustrative of what is happening.
It is now possible to grow cells on a large scale in bioreactors; meat cells may one day be produced and processed to offer “meat” without the slaughtering of animals. Recently, a company Organovo based in San Diego, California, announced that it had developed a commercial 3D printer for manufacturing human organs. The 3D printer is claimed to be able to place and organise cells of any type on to a template in a predetermined manner. This will, one day, allow surgeons to have access to human tissues of various types on demand.
About 130-170 million persons worldwide are infected by hepatitis C. Hepatitis is a common viral disease found in Pakistan and many other countries with poor quality water supplies and sub-standard sanitation services. In an exciting development, Michael Houghton and his co-workers at the University of Alberta have developed a vaccine from a single strain of hepatitis C that was found to be effective against all known strains of the disease.
A Madrid-based designer, Rodrigo Garcia Gonzalez, has developed “smart luggage” that follows you wherever you go automatically. The suitcase or carry-on bag is fitted with a caterpillar track system and a small battery that allows it to roll along in any direction. It can be connected by blue tooth to a smartphone carried by the passenger. A microprocessor calculates the position of the smartphone and directs the suitcase to follow the passenger carrying it.
These are only three examples of recent developments in technology around the world. Technologically advanced countries are progressing rapidly through thousands of such discoveries and inventions every week that soon become commercial products. These researches are taking place either under the umbrella of universities or in research and development (R&D) centres of private companies. The governments of these countries have played a major role in boosting research activities by strengthening universities, establishing technology parks and venture capital funds to promote new start-up companies.
In Pakistan, we have paid little heed to science, technology, education or innovation since its inception and the little that had been achieved has been systematically destroyed by the government in recent years. Biotechnology is changing the face of agriculture and medicine. India established a full-fledged department of biotechnology under the central government in 1986 and has funded major programmes to strengthen biotechnology due to which the biotechnology industry has been growing by leaps and bounds.
On the footsteps of the Indian IT industry that has already grown to $60 billion, the biotechnology industry has grown to over $3 billion and is expanding at a rate greater than 25 percent per year. The famous Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg had once stated and I quote: “Much has been said about the future impact of biotechnology on industrial development, but this does not yet apply to the less developed countries that lack this infrastructure and industrial strength. In view of the current power of biotechnology and its even brighter future, there is no question that the less developed countries must now position and strengthen their status in biotechnology – what a tragedy it would be if these enlarged concepts of genetics, biology and chemistry were available only to a small fraction of the world population located in a few major centres of highly developed countries.”
When I was the federal minister of Science and Technology in 2001, I had established the National Commission of Biotechnology. The commission started a large number of programmes and was beginning to lay the foundations of biotechnology, when the enemies of Pakistan came into action. The government that followed not only closed down the National Commission of Biotechnology but also closed down all its programmes.
Another fast emerging field in science is nanotechnology. China, India and many other countries are investing heavily in this and it is already beginning to impact a large number of industries in different fields of engineering, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, transportation, electronic and computer sciences. Accordingly, I had also established a National Commission of Nanotechnology in Pakistan and provided funds through the Ministry of Science & Technology to promote this fast growing field. Alas, it met the same fate as the biotechnology commission. The National Commission of Nanotechnology was closed down by the subsequent government and its programmes abandoned. The attempts to destroy the HEC by corrupt politicians are a part of the same sad story. Its budget is about half of what it should have been and many of its programmes have been severely curtailed or abandoned.
The greatest enemies of Pakistan lie within our country. They are desperate to make sure that Pakistan does not progress in any field and becomes a failed state, while they loot and plunder all its wealth and pile it in the form of foreign assets and foreign bank accounts before fleeing abroad.
The writer is a former federal minister and former chairman of the HEC. Email: ibne_ sina@hotmail.com
Published in The News , November 10th, 2012.
.
Gen Kayani’s statement protesting the assault on the morale and reputation of Pakistan’s armed forces is a good move. But let us not kid ourselves. It’s too little, too late, and lacks legal punch.
Attacks on our military from inside and outside the country have become a thriving business since 2007. The inability of the state and the military to defend themselves is a matter of deep concern, not only for our soldiers but also for the majority of patriotic Pakistanis. Blunt denigration of our military by domestic actors shot through the roof in this five-year period. Strangely, this unprecedented domestic military-bashing overlapped with a similar campaign originating in the United States against the Pakistani army and the ISI. There is little evidence that a statement from the army chief would end the domestic part of the campaign, although there are signs the American-led external campaign has waned to some extent, but hasn’t ended.
The military in Pakistan is an easy target. Several examples can be quoted within Pakistan. The get-ISI campaign doesn’t end with politically-motivated attacks. The Afghanistan-based BLA accused the ISI of jailing 6,000 Pakistani Baloch women. The group kidnapped a UN official from Quetta in 2009 and said it would exchange them for the Baloch women. Fortunately, the kidnapped UN official turned out to be an American citizen and the involvement of the US government in the probe proved conclusively there was not a single Pakistani Baloch woman in any jail across Pakistan, and there were no missing-person cases registered for any Baloch woman.
A different kind of attack on the Pakistani military emerged in 2010 when a British extremist group was found trying to recruit senior Pakistani officers. The group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, is a British-origin and -licensed religious extremist group. It uses gullible British Muslims to make inroads into countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. Saudi and Egyptian intelligence established the group’s links to British intelligence back in the 1990s, and this led to some tense moments in Riyadh’s and Cairo’s relationship with London. The British group no longer operates in those countries. After 9/11, it apparently shifted operations to Pakistan and Central Asia. Unlike Cairo and Riyadh, Islamabad is yet to ask London to restrain British extremists.
The anti-military bias was also apparent in the case of retired general Javed Ashraf Qazi. Almost all the media reports highlighted the remark and conveniently omitted the remarks made by the two unknown reporters.
Since 2007, the government and the military have allowed extreme forms of anti-military slander to pass as freedom of expression. American media commentaries abusing our military and levelling charges without evidence were reproduced by the media without objection from Pemra or the ISPR. As elections approach, some politicians will find it easier to make anti-military statements than answer voter questions about governance issues. We are also hearing rumours that some political parties and foreign media organisations are preparing for another round of military-bashing on the occasion of the release of the findings of the judicial commission into the American military incursion in Abbottabad.
If the government and the military are serious in containing military-bashing that is demoralising our soldiers, they should start taking legal action against those who float conspiracy theories assailing the reputation of the Pakistani military. Islamabad should also put a check on foreign meddling in our media where commentators have been recruited to promote a certain agenda serving foreign strategic purposes, including demonisation of our military.
Email: aq@projectpakistan21.org
Published in The News , November 10th, 2012.
.
If constitutionalism were to mean anything His Lordship would be more inclined to the gift of brevity than he seems to be at present. To Lord Bacon’s wise admonition he would pay greater heed: “And an Over-speaking Judge is no well-tuned cymbal.”
If my words are not taken amiss, the essay from which this comes, Of Judicature, should be affixed in stone at the entrance of all the High Courts and the most august Supreme Court, so much distilled wisdom in it.
“Judges ought to remember,” says Lord Bacon, “that their office is To Interpret Law, and not to Make Law or Give Law: else will it be like the authority claimed by the Church of Rome...” We are close to the Church of Rome in this regard, judicial pronouncements, and too many of them, sounding very much like papal injunctions.
He goes on to say, “Let judges also remember that Solomon’s Throne was supported by Lions on both sides; let them be lions, but yet Lions under the Throne; being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any Points of Soveraigntie.” In today’s context, under the throne would mean under the arch of constitutional authority, as defined in the Constitution as opposed to the idea of sovereignty propagated by the SC.
So many of us took part, in varying degree, in the justly-celebrated struggle for the restoration of the Justice Chaudhry-led Supreme Court (SC). But it is a moot point whether we struggled for this desi version of the Church of Rome.
The Inter-services press release, conveying the agitated thoughts of the army command, seems to be aimed at judicial over-reach: “...trying to assume more than one’s due role will set us back.” It is hardly a revelation that in several instances – NLC, Royal Palm, the judgement in the Asghar Khan case – military feathers have been ruffled. This press release also comes dressed in the colours of the rule of law. But Gen Kayani surely knows that such a statement in a more established democracy and he would have received his marching orders by now.
Public lectures on constitutional propriety by service chiefs: not quite what the Constitution visualises.
But we hardly need reminding this is Pakistan where a different culture of power prevails, where the army has been in the driving seat for long, where the army is still the last voice in the framing of national security issues, and where generals will continue to speak out in this manner until democracy comes of age and Pakistan’s political class grows up and is in a position to talk to the military class on equal terms – equal in terms of understanding and intellect.
The military’s version of the national interest will be supplanted, or fine-tuned, only if any doctrine propounded by the political class is more logical and convincing. Too many politicians, sadly, are given to ranting when it comes to security issues. And they are taken for a ride by the army command fairly easily.
Twice Gen Pasha appeared before parliament in secret session. On both occasions a professional violinist could not have played parliament more skilfully than he did. On the second occasion at least – this after the Bin Laden outing – he should have been on the mat, sweating. Instead he read out a patriotic psalm and had most of parliament, mercifully not all, singing with him. He should consider a career in politics. He is a persuasive speaker.
To return to the issue at hand: as if our other problems weren’t enough we now face a problem of philosophy. In laying down the extent of the SC’s powers My Lord Chief Justice sounds very much like the nation’s moral arbiter: “There seems to be no cohesive efforts in terms of a national framework wherein the mega issues have been tackled in an appropriate manner.” This in his latest remarks to senior bureaucrats-in-training. And the conclusion he draws is that heavy responsibility therefore lies upon the SC judges as guardians and protectors of the Constitution.
Who, pray, has envisioned this role for the SC? Is it for his lordship to speak of mega issues and weaknesses in the national framework? Recall Bacon, the court’s duty is to interpret laws, not make them. As for guarding the Constitution, enough if the higher judiciary, now and for the future, does not come to the aid of military takeovers by giving them constitutional sanction. To go no further back than the recent past, the SC validated Musharraf’s coup in near-record time. On that historic bench sat, among others, My Lord Chaudhry.
To be sure, times are different and we have moved on. At least that is the illusion we nurture. Still, a little humility would not be out of order. The past being the past and every institution, without exception, having earned its rich share of infamy and blame, it is only proper that stones if they must be cast should be cast lightly.
Generals have done the country much harm. No need to go over this familiar ground. But then their collaborators were both judges and politicians. And if the higher judiciary seeks to derive moral authority from the restoration movement, the army can claim redemption from something more sacred, the blood of its martyrs.
No army likes being ridiculed even if sitting in peacetime barracks. But this is an army stretched out from the eastern border up to the heights of Siachen and fighting constantly, one operation scarcely ceasing before the need for another arises, on the western marches. An army at war and the skeletons of the past being made to emerge from their gloomy cupboards in a selective manner.
Accountability? Of course but convincing only if evenly spread out. If generals should be called to account for past sins this is a healthy development. But then what about judges and politicians and robber barons and the cartels of cement and sugar and all the other activities which make the Islamic Republic, God-gifted as we never tire of asserting, a carpetbagger’s paradise?
South Africa went through tougher times than we can imagine. But after the curtains fell on the black night of apartheid the leaders of the freedom movement, Mandela in the forefront, sought to heal the wounds of the past by preaching tolerance and reconciliation. But look at us: give any of us a bit of power and who can match our armchair heroism?
This is not to deny the great good this SC has done. My Lord Chaudhry has gone where others have feared to tread. The ultimate test of wisdom, however, is to know the limits of one’s power and authority. To hear pronouncements from the bench the impression often is not of the judiciary speaking but of an overbearing executive issuing directives and implementing policy.
The dictatorship of generals we have known. The dictatorship of mediocrity is an enduring reminder of our national inadequacies. Is it now our fate to suffer the dictatorship of morality?
“Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal,” a slave would whisper into his ear as he heard the acclamations of the multitude. No true Romans here... agreed. Only the tin-pot variety, figures of straw and cardboard, but a whiff of power and good sense goes out of the window, making the office of slave, whispering that timeless admonition, a constant necessity in the hallowed confines of the Islamic Republic.
Email: winlust@yahoo.com
Fact: It had parts that were differently intended. The first three paragraphs addressed the serving military audience of the army chief’s talk and explained the evolutionary process of an attempt to seek a national consensus in a wide debate in the media that at times appeared scathing for the military. It emphasised the importance of such a process to create space in order to re-define Pakistan even as it struggles through a great transformative moment in its future direction, both as a state and as a society. This is particularly important in the background of terrorism and religious extremism, which threaten to tear the national fabric apart unless consensual re-direction is sought through honest introspection and readjustment of the fundamentals that have governed policy formulation in the decades since independence.
To the wider public it was an intimation of a recognition that institutions, including the military, have indeed made mistakes in the past and followed policies that have landed the country into dire straits. It also intimated that, while a process of reorientation of policies may appear slower than intended, such reorientation to meet the needs of a 21st century Pakistan is indeed in place. And that no more shall such a definition be the claim of just one institution, traditionally the military, but a composite and collaborative public effort evolved through discourse and debate.
Myth: The November 6 rebuttal by the chief justice in his remarks, while reviewing another case, indicates that the message was indeed intended for the Supreme Court in the wake of the trial and indictment of retired generals.
Fact: This couldn’t be further from the truth, since the statement by the ISPR quotes the army chief emphasising to his officers a national commitment to uphold the rule of law and to function within the parameters of the constitution. What might appear distasteful in the short run (such as seeing some retired senior officers of the army undergoing the ignominy of public trials), augurs well for the nation in the long run, when institutions are strengthened through the inimitable tradition of following the constitution and working within their constitutional domains. The chief justice’s remarks were a response to an overzealous attorney intending to clear the air of misperception between the court and the military, while pursuing an entirely unrelated case in the court – and hence misplaced.
Myth: If not the judiciary, the media for sure was under the spotlight.
Fact: There is significant truth in that, and it emerges from some ill-considered formulations in the debate in the media that are unable to correctly ascertain where must lie the limit on freedom of expression and where from begins the slippery slope of damaging the integrity of the institutions. The army chief, when referring to the gulf that wittingly or unwittingly is intended between the generals and the soldiers by remarks that own the army of the soldiers but ridicule the generals of the same army, indicates it as an insidious attempt to rupture institutional integrity. In legal parlance such an attempt is considered seditious. Also, such repeated insinuations against institutions – borne out of individual conduct – are firstly misplaced, and secondly yet to stand the test of trial and due process. Indictments must still become convictions before guilt is established through due process of law, which includes the right of defence. Broad-brush discolouration of an institution such as the military, which is critically dependent on favourable perceptions for public support, countervails the entire edifice on which such institutions are based. Our discourse must then be wary of such pitfalls as we learn to exercise the freedom of expression as a fundamental human right with a self imposed sense of fair responsibility. An attempt at weakening institutions is counter-intuitive to nation building.
Myth: The press release was intended to shelter the indicted retired generals from further process of trial and conviction.
Fact: In asking the question at the end of the statement, “have we not promoted law and the constitution?” the army chief suggests that, when so directed, the military brass has presented itself before the parliament and the Supreme Court in various cases. Retired generals, when asked, presented themselves before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and Generals Aslam Baig and Asad Durrani have fought their legal battles in the courts without assistance or cover by the army. When the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) established mala fide in the National Logistics Cell case, the army proceeded to act against the three generals through a court martial. There is absolutely no indication in cases of the eight generals that the army was seen to interfere with the process of law. This is reiterated by the army chief in the initial paragraphs of his address to the officers where he reinforces the primacy of law and the need to establish the tradition of respect for law.
In the question above and the following, “are we strengthening or weakening the institutions?” he indicates the huge distance that the military has covered in changing ‘mindsets’ for renewed credentials as an institution that has provided unquestioned support to the political process and other institutions, including the higher judiciary.
Myth: In mentioning ‘haste’, the army chief suggests desisting from hasty and frequent trial of the army generals.
Fact: While recognising mistakes that institutions (read army) have made over the years, the army chief implicitly suggests that time would be needed to turn around the huge ‘aircraft-carrier’ that the institution is, even as the change is already in place. In the meantime, however, if we continue to restrict the ambit of functioning of the traditional arms of governance as well as law enforcement, through court injunctions – as was done for Balochistan and Karachi – we may just find that we do not have any government agency to administer these critical regions.
As much as it is an honest admission of the errors in policy and the recognition of a need for reorientation in policy formulation, the army chief’s statement also identifies the need to keep the larger national interest of keeping the state and societal structures intact as Pakistan transforms through such a critical juncture.
The writer is a retired air-vice marshal of the Pakistan Air Force and served as its deputy chief of staff. Email: shhzdchdhry@yahoo.com
Events since March 9, 2007 – a day of defiance in Pakistan’s judicial history – represent a struggle for rule of law and constitutionalism. On July 20, 2007, when the judiciary declared unlawful the sacking the chief justice of Pakistan by Gen Musharraf, there was great jubilation – a renewed hope in Pakistan for an independent judiciary not subservient to the military hierarchy. The retaliation by Gen Musharraf, through imposition of a virtual martial law on November 3, 2007, was declared unconstitutional by a seven-member bench of the apex court. In the history of Pakistan, it was the first courageous act on the part of the judiciary – disapproval of repeated subversions of the constitution by the men in uniform.
The recent decisions of the apex court to bring mighty people to accountability have bewildered and baffled many. They could not expect such courage from the judges. Such defiance was least expected from judges who once approved Musharraf’s rule, going to the extent of giving him the right to amend the constitution. It was clear from the very beginning that Musharraf would not abdicate power at any cost. Benazir Bhutto led all the political forces to exert pressure on the establishment – using the lawyers’ movement – to transfer power to civilians. Her heroic struggle forced Musharraf and his lackeys to hold elections. February 18, 2008, shattered all hopes of Musharraf and his party to retain control over power. (What a tragedy that leading men of the “king’s party” are now sitting with Asif Zardari.)
Behind the bizarre episodes of March 9, 2007, November 3, 2007, and February 25, 2009, there lurks a continuous struggle between the proponents of cronyism and advocates of rule of law. There are those who want to subjugate their own people, deny them human rights and ensure that there is no room for judicial activism in this society as a means to empowering the people. This is why the higher judiciary poses a great threat to them. They cannot afford a judiciary that challenges their monopoly and hegemony for obvious vested interests. And then there are those who advocate rule of law and argue that dispensation of justice through an independent and efficient judiciary alone can establish democracy, a responsible government and an equitable social order.
However, the courts are meant to interpret the law, whereas enforcing the will of people and countering any form of authoritarianism is always a political question that cannot be resolved in the courts. Since civilian and military leaderships have failed in the past on this account, the entire society is facing the devastating effects of perpetual undemocratic rule-military and civilian alike. The main cause of our present-day socio-political and economic chaos is ineffectual leadership, existence of inefficient, corrupt and repressive institutions, which are anti-people, thus least concerned with the welfare of the common man.
In a democratic setup, the electoral process ensures dominance of the people over those who hold political office. In Pakistan, the forces of status quo want to determine it through force. Earlier, Musharraf and his associates challenged elected leaders on their promise of reinstatement of judges, and later Zardari and company assumed the same role till the time the masses forced them to act otherwise – there is still demonstration of an undemocratic mindset and disrespect for people’s mandate from men who violated Article 6 of the constitution and got endorsement from judiciary and later on indemnity from parliament.
The usurpers portrayed themselves as saviours of the nation, whereas the reality is that under their rule the people of this country lost their lives in suicide bombings, were deprived of basic needs and sufficient food, to say nothing of the fundamental rights of free healthcare and educational facilities, and dispensation of justice, things which are only possible under a true democratic structure. Unfortunately, the attitude of the so-called civilian rulers is not much different from that of military dictators. Every dictator – military or civilian – desires to perpetuate his rule, proclaiming himself as the saviour of the nation and in this process destroys the very fabric of national cohesion. This is what is happening now in the present government – Supreme Court-army impasse.
The constitution of a country is a living and vibrant document that determines the future direction of a nation, provided there is respect for the document and for rule of law. It is high time that people in the next elections elect persons that are capable of working for the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law.
We need a new Pakistan where parliament is sovereign, where the people of Pakistan are truly represented. To attain this goal, the masses will have to demonstrate determination and unity. Pro-democratic forces, with the people’s strong support behind them, must wage an all-out war for establishment of a representative and responsible rule, completely independent judiciary, responsible media playing positive role for vigorous accountability, socio-economic growth and justice for all. Strict action should be taken against persons indulging in high treason under Article 6, and their abettors. This action alone can ensure democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism in Pakistan. All the organs of the state must remember that it is always the constitution that represents the will of the people, and not the legislature. It is a wrong notion that parliament is above everything and all other organs are subservient to its will.
The legislature, in fact, exercises delegated powers given by the mandate of the people within the framework of the constitution. The document should not be allowed to be distorted or mutilated by the elected representatives, let alone by any individual grabbing power through unconstitutional means. The judiciary should be the custodian of the constitution and must never in future condone its violation, subversion or mutilation, at any cost by any individual, the parliament, the executive or the generals.
The writers are lawyers and visiting professors at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Emails: huzaima@huzaima ikram.com, ikram@huzaimaikram.com
Titled “Chakar Khan”, after the great Baloch hero, Asad Rahman courageously campaigned to change the mindset of the ignorant civil-military establishment. He used reason and logic to highlight Baloch people’s misery, pain, suffering and genuine political grievances. Nothing – jail, exile, torture or government enticements – deterred him from his cause. During Musharraf’s military rule and ruthless operation against Balochistan, he rekindled his campaign to awaken Pakistan’s otherwise oblivious elite about ground realities and Baloch suffering.
During the 1973-77 bloodiest Baloch-Islamabad conflict, the Baloch voice was completely suppressed due to Pakistan’s strict media regulations and ZA Bhutto’s civilian dictatorship. Reports of Baloch women being abused while in military custody, disappearances, and burning down of villages never made it to the mainstream press.
However, human rights groups took serious note of the situation and started disseminating information about the systematic killings of the Baloch people. This information served to persuade a few young non-Baloch London based students to become revolutionary Baloch comrades. A group of around 10 students left London’s luxurious lifestyle and moved to the inhospitable terrain of Balochistan to serve and defend the powerless Baloch from the wrath of Z A Bhutto and his military might.
The study of progressive literature along with some information about Balochistan’s rights violations worked to help the young pro-Baloch group better understand humanity, human rights and exploitation of the poor by the ruling elite. Loaded with revolutionary ideas and passion, Sheikh Asad Rahman was the youngest of the group. This passionate London-group started learning Baloch language, culture, and social norms, and travelled with small groups of Baloch fighters. The group compiled facts about the Balochistan conflict, and human rights violations, and started writing small reports and leaflets in Urdu and English for the outside world.
In 2002, when Musharraf launched a massive onslaught against the Baloch, Asad strongly supported the people of Balochistan. He started writing columns, and met with influential policymakers, diplomats and civil society organisations.
During my time in Islamabad as a member of the Senate, I was really honoured to meet and listen to Asad Rahman’s experienced and visionary ideas. Soon after joining Sungi Development Foundation, he wrote a masterpiece in early 2009 titled “Lack of Democracy and Socio-Economic Development of Balochistan”, highlighting historical facts about Baloch-Pakistan relations, ruthless exploitation and linking massive injustices to violent conflicts and civil wars in society.
As a true friend of Balochistan and an honest analyst, he refuted the establishment’s narrative about Balochistan, which revolved around sardars and the tribal system. In his concluding remarks he wrote “It has been proven that (the) government cannot do development works to improve the living standards of the people because of the vested interests and the corruption, inherent in our political system. Also because of the economic policies being implemented which cater only to strategic, federal and class interests. Many a time the prime minister and the president have claimed that these mega projects will improve the living standards of the people of Balochistan by the trickledown effect but history is witness that results are usually the opposite.”
He was very concerned about the endless miseries of the struggling Baloch. In his booklet he also suggested that “the Balochistan crises must be addressed on an emergency basis to rectify the 60-year mishandling of Baloch demands resulting in grievances and resentments that have brought Pakistan to the brink of another civil war. Pakistan can no longer afford military rule because it has resulted in burdens of international debts, balance of payments deficit, inflationary trends that are widening the gap between the haves and have nots and an economy that is nearing default while its policies have driven the country into another catastrophic civil war with the Baloch.”
Asad’s sudden death is not only a major loss for the Baloch in Pakistan who have very few tested and trusted friends, but will be felt in each and every corner of Pakistan where social, political, religious and ethnic intolerance is skyrocketing.
The writer is a Baloch leader and is former senator and member of the National Assembly. Tweets @Senator_Baloch; Email: baloch bnp@gmail.com; website: http://www.sanabaloch.com