Dr. Qadeer is free at last

After a prolonged period of placement under house arrest, for five years, Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khan who is considered to be one of the pioneers of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has been freed by virtue of an order of the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, Mr. Justice Sardar Akram. He is allowed to roam freely within the country but his movements outside are expected to be barred by the Government.

Dr. A. Q. Khan had acquired an international repute, for good and some controversial reasons subsequently, when Pakistan’s nuclear program got publicized. His international fame, in the Islamic world particularly, reached its high water mark when Pakistan successfully detonated six nuclear tests in response to India’s five in a quest to acquire a minimum deterrent level vis a vis India. Whether Pakistan’s security was enhanced as a result has been the subject of various debates but one thing which is clear is that Indian leader’s threatening mood after India conducted its own nuclear test subsided somewhat and the high spirits of the extremist Hindu leaders who had repeated their calls for assimilations of Pakistan into “greater-India” through force were subdued.

In Pakistan itself, Mr. A. Q. Khan’s stature and personality was acclaimed nationally and he was viewed as a national hero. Pakistanis knew that the country’s nuclear program had survived despite serious efforts by the U.S. to derail it and we were penalized through sanctions and rumours surfaced, about possible pre-emptive strike by Israel similar to “Operation Opera” during which a surprise Israel air strike had destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, Osirak in 1981. According to U.S. intelligence services, in the three months leading up to the 1981 Israel air strike, at least three Iraqi nuclear scientists died under mysterious circumstances. What pressures, inducements and intimidations Pakistan and its nuclear scientists may have had to live up with during Pakistan’s nuclear program and its completion has not been known but it is clear that Israel and U.S. have never been comfortable with any Islamic country possessing nuclear weapons.

Dr. A.Q. Khan enjoyed deep respect in the Muslim world and remains one of the most iconic figures alive today who are models for Muslims all over the world. Muslims generally, lack scientific expertise and knowledge in comparison to their western counterparts and spend heavily on hard foreign currency to purchase expensive weapons systems as well as other technological devices. Being largely indigenous in nature, Pakistan’s nuclear program is therefore looked at by many western countries as an Islamic bomb although our nuclear and missile program is directed to match the ambitions of our biggest adversary, India, which threatens our eastern border and has acquiesced and encouraged the break up of Pakistan in 1971.

These are some of the various reasons which led to Dr. A.Q.Khans detention under U.S. pressure by former General Mushrraf who had merely received some briefings and some blueprints of centrifuges plants from the U.S. to establish his role in allegedly providing nuclear technology to Iran, N.Korea and Libya to succumb to their demand of playing Dr. Khan under house arrest. He was coerced into accepting sole responsibility for allegedly transferring nuclear technology to these countries and had been under detention since 2004. It is preposterous that the transfer of nuclear weapons system technology to Israel by the U.S. and the west remained unquestioned and is a topic which is sidelined by both the western media and the western governments, while the founder of nuclear Pakistan has to suffer miserably in his own home country.

The confession that Mr. Khan made, which he subsequently retracted from, is also seriously questionable since such transfer of technology is virtually impossible without the assistance of state apparatus and the armed forces and intelligence agencies of Pakistan, who have retained control over the nuclear program under a rigid and strict control system. One should be surprised if such alleged sole proliferation by Dr. A.Q. Khan went unnoticed by them and surely their role or the role of their agents, if such proliferation did indeed take place, was not investigated and even people who seriously believe that the proliferation did indeed take place have dismissed the idea that Dr.Khan could have done this on his own. Moreover, if our missile technology was acquired from N.Korea in partial exchange for our nuclear technology, it is implicit that strategic decision markers in Pakistan knew about it.

It is a good sign nevertheless that Dr.Khan has been released by a democratic government, which can be seen as a break from the authoritarian past of Pakistan where fundamental rights were under attack, Since now even a Swiss suspect, Mr. Urs Tinner, who was suspected of being part of the international network of Dr.Khan, was released by Swiss authorities last December after 4 years in prison without trial, to keep Dr. Khan under detention without only legal justification was undesirable. The incarceration of Mr.Tinner was described by his lawyer in a complaint with the European Courts of Human Rights as "worthy of Guantanamo". It is only natural that when the condemned Guantanamo prison itself is being closed by the new Democratic President of the United States, all governments worldwide denounce and restrain from the practice of captivity without trial. The Swiss and the Pakistani governments are no exceptions. What seems even more absurd and stupid in Pakistan is that one such man who was held under such captivity was no one but a national hero, not just for this country but Muslims all over the world.

It is a pity that as per Dr. A. Q. Khan it was only through the intervention of Mr. Rehman Malik, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Interior, that his release orders were announced. This speaks volumes about the defects inherent in our legal system.

India would try to potray Pakistan as a terrorist state with even grater vigour it has already reacted to the release by claiming that the scientist is a threat to world pea. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state of U.S. has indicated U.S’s reservations over the release and the British Foreign Office has reiterated the demand to allow IAEA to question him. We must seek new diplomatic overtures to prevent our isolation in this matter. Consensus building between friendly countries over the issue is necessary. Dr. A. Q. Khan must also refrain in the national interest from speaking about the details of the proliferation or technology exchange in future.

The absence of reaction of Muslim leaders to the detention by Pakistani government in the past speaks volumes about the western influence that encapsulates their autocratic and corrupt leadership. Dr. A.Q. Khan, although much older now, suffering from cancer and bearing strains of captivity can perhaps still work to provide the Muslim Ummah what is needed the most-unity and a sense of brotherhood which revives the days of reign of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto when he was the Prime Minister. In those days for the first time in modern history, when a Muslim soul suffered, the whole Muslim world cried in pain. Perhaps such days would come again, hopefully in the writer’s life.

Is the "lawyers' movement" just the lawyers' movement?

As one of the longest and most popular movement in the history of this country continues amidst calls for a long march and ‘dharna’ on March 9, 2009, a frequent number of questions have been asked by my readers. I would try to answer some of the most frequent questions with reference to past actions of the pre-November 3 judiciary and the significance of such actions in the lives of those who feel that the issue is not paramount to them. It is clear that the present government is unwilling to reverse the actions of a usurper, Mr. Musharraf, and his illegal martial law. This is a dangerous message by our democratically elected government to those who may seek to subvert the constitution for their own interest in the future.

Some of the questions that I was referring to earlier are regarding the veracity of the claim of the present government as well as the incumbent regime led by Mr. Musharraf that the lawyers’ movement means little for ordinary citizens of this country, who allegedly have other priorities that do not seem to co-exist with the lawyers' movement and its agenda which calls for reinstatement of the judiciary as it existed on November 2, 2007 as well as supremacy of rule of law and independence of the judiciary.

I have always impressed upon such fellow citizens the significance of an independent judiciary which touches upon every problem that they have, whether it is economic in nature or relating to the law and order situation or to the freedom that they are entitled to enjoy under the Constitution.

We seem to forget that during Mr. Musharraf's reign, at a time when the administrative limb of the government was obnoxious and indifferent to the sufferings of people, it was the judiciary which took it upon itself to address their grievances and those who were holding power by virtue of their office felt accountable and hence vigilant since the judiciary was insistent that rule of law as opposed to rule of men should be the order of the day. The government was completely oblivious of its task to provide security to ordinary citizens and instances of corruption and nepotism had reached a record level. For the first time, the judiciary was trying to reassert old established legal principles as well as the constitutional safeguards which for example prevent a person from being held in prison or detained indefinitely without any charges. Moreover, the personal benefits that Mr. Musharraf and his cronies, aided by intelligence agencies, accrued upon themselves by extraditing people to the United States, many of who were held in Guantanamo prison, were being reprimanded by the judiciary. Time has proved that the stance of the judiciary in Pakistan was correct as now in the United States itself, Mr. Barack Obama, the new President has underlined the inherent violations of laws that took place by such a process and almost all Guantanamo prisoners are expected to be released.

It is also a fact that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani was also handed over to the Americans aided by the Pakistani intelligence agencies and had the same judiciary been in place today, the government would have been under pressure to explain the actions of its predecessor as well as bring them to a court of law, including former President Musharraf, who cannot deny his involvement in the whole process since he has admitted agreeing to extradite innocent fellow citizens of his country to the United States for money in his book. Such people have subsequently been tortured illegally. Not only this, all those who aided in her extradition from Pakistan would have been facing the music in a court of law as their action was illegal.

However, this was not to be so. On the other hand, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, amongst many other Pakistanis are stranded in foreign prisons without any pressure on the government by the judiciary to ensure her return or at least attempt to relay the concern of us all to the United States forcefully. Mr. Musharraf and his friends continue to enjoy the millions that they made by ‘selling’ these people like ordinary commodities to the United States. They roam freely while their sisters and brothers are trying to figure out what sin they had committed to deserve such agony and pain. What if, anyone of us, was in her place?

How then can we neglect the importance of an independent judiciary which, without being concerned about the ‘class’ or ‘influence’ of people, who sell people like animals, brings them to justice?

Some questions are also asked as to how the economic woes of people can be resolved by the reinstatement of an independent judiciary. Some people have asked me whether the need to improve the economy of the country, as well as the plight of the poor, should not be the priority of all of us, including the lawyers? Some also ask how reinstatement of a few judges would ensure an independent judiciary and supplant this question with the argument that the majority of the judges have already been restored so the lawyers should not persist with their demand for a full reinstatement. My answer to them is that an independent judiciary goes beyond the matter of reinstatement of certain judges and ouster of others. It is the institution which has to be looked at collectively and if any single judge is retired prematurely or barred from performing the functions of a judge, the sanctity of the whole institution does not remain above board. The only way to restore the sanctity of the institution is to restore the position as it stood as it were prior to the unlawful act of removal of the judge or judges at the earliest.

We forget the significance and implications of the infamous case when billions of worth of Pakistan Steel Mills was being sold at a throwaway price. Surely if this attempt had succeeded, the national exchequer, which is the collective wealth of all of us as Pakistanis, would have been literally looted. In macro economic terms, it would mean deprivation of billions of rupees which if in our national exchequer, would perhaps enable us to retire some of our debt or not seek new ones and which would in turn decrease the inflation for ordinary people when the benefits trickle down (the direct connection may some how seem remote to some economists). How then can we disassociate the economic plight of this country, be that poverty alleviation, employment generation from an independent judiciary?

Similarly there are other instances where the country's national exchequer was stopped from being looted and plundered. The housing project planned by the PML (Q) top leadership in Murree, which was stayed by the Supreme Court is another case in point. Besides other misappropriations, the project was believed to be an environmental disaster in waiting which would have led to severe deforestation. There are many other examples which will not be cited here to avoid repetition as they have been reported numerously in the newspapers and columns. I ask all my respected questioners to think about these questions before they even start thinking that the lawyers' movement is not their own. To the contrary, the lawyers' movement is more the movement of all Pakistanis as the cause of the lawyers of this country is greater their own cause. Is it not true that lawyers have suffered economically as a result of this movement? Would it then be just to say that this movement is for their own benefit? Apart from those who choose to defect and were accommodated by this government and its predecessors, are not the lawyers the biggest losers in material terms as their boycott has resulted in tremendous economic slump in their conditions and many are not even in a position to live a decent life?

We should also not forget how the independent judiciary ensured the independence of the media and allowed masses to view the criticisms of the government and know where the money they pay through taxes was being spent. Had an independent judiciary existed between the martial law imposed by Musharraf and the elections, the millions of rupees spent illegally from the national exchequer to support the electoral campaign of the PML (Q) would have also been checked by that judiciary. It is pertinent to mention that there was video evidence how state officials had supported the PML (Q) campaign and the post-martial law judiciary had chosen to neglect such irregularities. In the hypothetical event that the pre November 3 judiciary been present it would have saved our precious national wealth from being spent to support a campaign of the political power closest to Mr. Musharraf and our country would have certainly been better off. Consequently, the poor and the ordinary would have suffered less since the depletion of resources of the state means the decreased ability of the state to intervene for their interest as well as decreased economic strength which in turn leads to lesser resources being devoted for developmental projects and investments.

To illustrate this point, for example, would we not have been in a better situation to pay off the Independent Power Producers and decrease the electricity deficit and power shortage in the country? It is worth noting that the non-payment to the private power companies was one of the reasons why we faced prolonged power shortages even when the new government took power. Would an independent judiciary not ensure transparency in the new contracts being granted to new power generators to overcome the present energy crises and avoid the repetition of the previously bad contracts with power companies which also patently resulted in a long, expensive and embattled legal battle with Hubco in the past, increased electricity cost for us as consumers as well as the industry, and which also harmed foreign investment amongst the disadvantages already outlined?

To summarize, the plight of a nation, in every sphere of life, improves if strong institutions exist. The importance of the judiciary, being one of the institutions, cannot be understated. An independent judiciary, directly and indirectly, helps establish good governance as well as ensures that rule of law as opposed to rule of men exists. Rule of law ensures transparency, accountability and a sense of participation Rule of men is the pillar stone of corruption, misappropriation and leads to irregularities which in turn burdens the ordinary people of the country. So lets join the lawyers like myself, who seek to preserve and restore the sanctity of the judiciary which is only possible when the assault on it by a usurper like Mr. Musharraf is undone by reinstatement of the judiciary as it stood on November 2, 2007. By supporting March 9, 2009, physically by our participation in the long march, or morally if for one reason or the other the participation is not possible, we should give a message that we as a society have not degenerated and would struggle to establish our rights and the principles the founding fathers laid for us. If we do not stand up collectively, who will?

Change of guard in the United States- hope for the Muslim world?

A young, charismatic and intelligent man, Mr. Barack Obama has entered the presidential office and historians have already noted his name in golden words as the first black American President. Notwithstanding his popular slogan for 'change', his election itself symbolizes change in the way the Americans and the world now views America, which has been called a 'land of opportunities', even by some presidents before Mr. Obama. The tearful eyes of Africo-American men and women at the inauguration brought memories of the long and bitter struggle of non-whites to be treated as equal amongst all whites and made many recall Martin Luther King and his tireless efforts to bring parity between all men, whether black or white.

Mr. Obama's speech, although refreshing and inspiring for many fellow Americans and the world, failed to mention the killings of numerous Palestinians and injuries sustained by them what to talk about the devastation of homes and the livelihood for those surviving. Israel, which committed the most horrific crimes against humanity and modern acts of terrorism, was not even mentioned. His questionable silence while he was president-elect and had not taken oath and Israel was conducting the mass destruction also raises eyebrows in the Muslim world over his ability and intent to resolve the Middle East issue and peace in the region which can only be guaranteed after the Palestinians are granted a State. The institutionalization of the American system by Jewish interests as well as the capacity of Jews to influence lobbyists and the media has made even a charismatic President who rides on the back of an overwhelming majority of the American people a hostage when it comes to Israel and distinguishing right from wrong.

Although Mr. Obama stated that the choice between safety and the ideals of the American system was a flawed one and it makes sense considering the impact of Bush's policies vis a vis issues such as the Guantanamo prison, the Palestinians and the Muslims must be wondering why prudence does not dictate that their case be issued in that perspective and their annihilation be at least condemned. Were the founding fathers only talking about a particular period of time and limited to particular parts of the world? Not so according to Mr. Obama who followed up by words which emphasized that the charter arising out of these ideals were timeless and were outlined in a charter carried through generations and applied universally. How then can we justify such apparent dichotomy between the actions and the words of the new President and hope for a peaceful Middle East and the reduction of resentment in the Muslim world?

His direct referral to the 'Muslim world' and words which share an intent to improve relations with this 'Muslim world' have been applauded by many, including Muslim leaders and fellow citizens in that it provides a ray of hope that the West would understand their problems and may mend its ways in arenas which hurt their interest the most. However, we must as Muslims remain cautious since tangible steps have to be taken by the new American administration which seeks to remove the reasons for discord. Perhaps Mr. Obama should have included the readiness of the new administration to look into such areas of discord in his inaugural address but instead the somewhat optimistic words were followed by a note of caution for those who 'seek to sow conflict'. Furthermore, the mere referral by him to the 'Muslim world' signifies the division that has engulfed the present generation between the West and the 'Muslim World' and provides substance to the Huntington's theory of the Clash of Civilizations based on religions and which reinforces the belief as if the two are separate and distinguishable and areas of conflict would prevail in one way or the other.

Pakistan, finds a brief mention in his foreign policy statement which was issued by the White House. According to it, non military aid would be increased and Pakistan would be held accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan. What is not mentioned is the acknowledgment of the contribution that Pakistan has already made and the casualties it has suffered as well as the growing concern of Pakistanis over the drone attacks in its territory by the C.I.A. operated planes which have been resented by the local tribal people who have suffered enough innocent casualties to invite an appraisal of the whole operation of such attacks. Perhaps if Pakistan had lobbied its case well in the Democratic camp as well as acted through diplomacy to exert pressure on the U.S. via friendly states as well as bilaterally, we may have been able to achieve this concession from the U.S. administration currently dependent on Pakistan's support for its so called 'war on terror'. The fact that the killings of innocent civilians by such attacks increases the resentment amongst Muslims and give birth to militants who attack U.S. interests around the globe is considerably understated by those in favour of carrying indiscriminate attacks to kill an 'ideology' adhered to by unmarked people rather than an armed, uniformed and organized movement.

Additionally, the intent of Mr. Obama to increase the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan is not welcome. It would result in an increased sense of alienation and subjugation amongst Muslims in the world and the Taliban and the like-minded bodies would gain sympathy in the region merely for surviving the onslaught. The United States need to draw lessons from the demise of the Soviet Union, the insurmountable difficulties in Afghanistan as well as the determination of its people, many of whom adhere to beliefs of Taliban and like-minded entities. As the slain former President John Kennedy said in his inaugural address that those riding on the back of the tiger may end up inside it, the United States needs to pull back before history takes its course.

On the whole, much needs to be done and the words so far used by him are neither sufficient nor comprehensive to underline his intent to first understand Muslims directly, as opposed to merely interacting with monarchs and corrupt democracies and then trying to eradicate the unjust actions of the United States which results in their alienation.

National Security Adviser’s sacking and the way forward (10-01-09)

As the government officially accepted Ajmal Kasab as its citizen, we must gauge the events leading up to this acceptance and what it entails for our future in the comity of nations. Pakistan’s credibility has suffered a great deal from the consistent official denials in the past of Indian reports that he was a Pakistani citizen. Even when a report from a UK-based newspaper had confirmed that Kasab hailed from Faridkot and had also stated that his name was on the electoral list for the region, it was stated with confidence by the government that NADRA had no record of him. Mr. Rehman Malik, the Adviser to the Prime Minster on Interior went to great lengths to prove that Kasab had no ties to Faridkot or Pakistan whatsoever.

It will be suggested by the anti-Pakistan lobby now that the Pakistanis had tried to downplay the significance of Mumbai attacks and the hurt it inflicted on India by refusing to accept responsibility for the actions of its citizens. The case for declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, which is the dream of the majority of Indian politicians, has won a few more supporters. Even worse, it will be said that the Pakistanis only call a spade a spade when immense pressure is put on them, which is not only diplomatic pressure but also pressure to use force. It will deplete our international credibility to a great extent. Only if our decision makers had tagged all along and avoided answering yes or no to the question as to whether Kasab was a Pakistani and perhaps refer to further investigations which were required to ascertain the same, we might have averted this embarrassing situation. A part of our media also helped propagate the government’s policy of denying responsibility for the attacks and de-linking the elements involved in it from Pakistan.

General (R) Mehmud Ali Durrani, the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister was sacked for revealing the fact that Kasab was a Pakistani. It was irresponsible that such an important official admission, should have come from him without taking the Prime Minister on board. His sacking is a good way to impress upon all members of the cabinet the importance of the Prime Minister’s office, which cannot be bypassed in such important matters, merely to gain cheap publicity or the credit for breaking news, which has its attractions in the midst of the mushrooming of dozens of private television channels in the country. It is the prime minister, who is the chief executive in a parliamentary system of governance, who must be the ultimate decision maker as to the timing of such disclosure to the public, if at all it is required in the national interest. Given that Pakistan is in such a precarious situation at the moment, with Indian forces threatening to replicate the surgical strikes that U.S. drones carry out in our tribal areas, the issue gains vital importance and the elected prime minister must be given the prerogative of dealing with the situation as he thinks best.

The National Security Adviser, as the word ‘adviser’ implies, must not execute policy decisions which fall under the ambit of the highest executive of the country. In the United States, even at a time when Mr. Henry Kissinger, who is considered one of the most influential National Security Adviser, was holding the office, he used to consult President Nixon before briefing the press on major issues. It is another thing that Mr. Kissinger’s importance and influence was enhanced at a time when President Nixon was embroiled in the domestic scandal of Watergate, but that was a peculiar situation which is not faced by all Presidents at all times in the United States.

It is yet to be seen whether the sacking of Mr. Durrani ensures that members of the cabinet do not try to be heroes in the future and behave responsibly and collectively as members of the government should do, rather than randomly and issue statements without recourse to conventional practices of good governance.

Another matter which should be discerning for Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani is no more than his party co-chairperson and the President Asif Ali Zardari himself. Mr. Zardari is engaged in a game of “statesmanship” and “governance” of his own which bypasses the cabinet system of government as well as the Prime Minister’s office. His latest preferred method of diplomacy is conferral of Quaid-e-Azam awards to United States officials. Of late, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, Richard Boucher has just been awarded this award and the U.S. Vice Presidential in waiting Mr. Bidden is about to receive it soon. How conferral of such awards would serve Pakistan’s cause or how far Mr. Boucher had helped Pakistan as a ‘friend’ is debatable. What is clear however is that the award did not deter him from issuing a statement detrimental to us by urging Pakistan to do more and stating that Pakistan had not done the needful, right after he had received the award and proceeded to India.

Mr. Zardari must not seek to establish his superiority over the prime minister’s role in the governance and diplomacy of this country. The Prime Minister in turn, must not allow himself to be reduced to a mere figure head like Shaukat Aziz. Both the Prime Minister and the President must ensure that low level U.S. officials are granted their due protocol and nothing more. One-on-one meetings with the U.S. ambassador by both the officials are also a weak sign no matter what the discussions may be about. If reports that the meeting was about the sacking of Mr. Durrani and the displeasure of the Americans is true, they should be politely asked to refrain from interfering in the internal matters of Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the request of the U.S. ambassador to address the parliament and the special committee of the National Assembly was turned down, which was a positive development yet the President and the Prime Minister are maligning the state of Pakistan and their offices by continuing to meet the U.S. ambassador in this fashion. This practice must be abandoned. What is worse is barring the media from such meetings which gives rise to all kinds of speculations as well as increases the significance of the U.S. in the internal affairs more than any sovereign nation might be willing to accommodate.

The Prime Minister of Pakistan must prioritize the problems that the nation faces today and there are certain that are dire and could fatally damage the country. It is imperative that he comes out with a broad plan, if he has not done so already, and address the nation explaining how he intends to decrease their miseries as well as restore Pakistan’s credibility in the international arena. It is high time that rather than talking about Benazir Bhutto and her martyrdom anymore, the present leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party seeks to implement her vision of a prosperous and respectable Pakistan and let the people know about how they intend to do it. For a Prime Minister who faces enormous challenges, the cabinet should devise plans and advise him about the strategies and the plans for development that they have. Such a Prime Minister should not be burdened with an extra load of a rogue member of cabinet or a President who is anxious to assert his presence in domains which only the Prime Minister should have control of.

A disgusting offer by the PPP (20-12-2008)

According to Nawaz Sharif, head of PML (N), an offer was made by a government’s representative that should he refrain from highlighting the case of the illegal awarding of marks to the daughter of the de facto Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the cases pending against him and Shahbaz Sharif in the Supreme Court regarding their eligibility to hold public office would be decided in their favour. The name of the messenger was not disclosed.

The Minister of Information, Sherry Rehman has denied that any such offer was made. However, recognizing the veracity of the word of the leader of PML (N) who has in the recent past through his words and actions displayed greater maturity and truthfulness in the political field, Senior PPP leader and Minister for Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis, Sayed Khurshid Ahmed Shah during a television talk show stated that although he does not doubt the word of Nawaz Sharif, the offer must have been made by a ‘nobody’ of the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose word matters little. If that is the case, it is imperative that the PPP takes to task its rogue member lest the man is deemed to be too close to President Zardari or top party rank which revolves around him. In that probable scenario, the ‘messenger’ must have had the mandate to deliver such a message with a blanket indemnification from the head of the PPP.
It seems probable that this is the case otherwise Nawaz Sharif would not have made such a damning allegation against a member of PPP who was a ‘nobody’ and could have instead ignored the offer as inconsequential. This is so since as party head, he must have applied his mind to the fact that revelation of the act of this ‘nobody’ and possibly namely him subsequently, if need arose, would have led to an embarrassing situation for him since then it would have been absurd to affiliate the ‘nobody’ to the PPP. The disclosure would have been unjustified then to risk straining his party’s relations with the PPP any more than they are presently. Since the day the PML(N)’s government in Punjab has been formed, it is being continuously threatened and blackmailed, over its support for popular and constitutional issues, through the Governor Punjab, Salmaan Taseer who has been blocking key appointments by the Punjab Government as well as hampering its zest for reviving the good governance days under the administrative leadership of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

The news of Abdul Hameed Dogar’s daughter and the award of extra marks to her came as a shocker for everyone. If indeed such manipulation could have been conducted by a man who is supposed to be a beacon of justice and hold an office which carries sanctity- delivering justice which is also a religious belief by most religions-may God bless the future and the present generations of this nation. Indeed, a system without justice is like a body without soul and the survival of the body of the nation is in peril if those who head the judicial system show utter disregard of rules and laws and principles of equity and justice.

If one were to objectively examine the case of Farah Dogar and the allegation of the awarding of extra marks to her at the instance of Justice Dogar, the de facto Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar had the onus of proof on him to substantiate his somewhat clumsy defense that he had nothing to do with the awarding of extra marks to his daughter by the Federal Board. If he is to be believed and he had nothing to hide, why did he not take suo moto notice of the infamous case and tried to go to the heart of the matter as to how an illegality was conducted in the case of the daughter of a functioning Chief Justice? Would it not then have raised his stature as well as that of the judiciary as well as proved his claimed ‘aloofness’ from the whole matter (a claim which seems unbelievable at the outset nonetheless)? Was it not the only hounourable way ahead by the ‘Honourable Chief Justice’ to exonerate himself of the charges if he was innocent? Would it not have revived our faith in our educational system as well as the merit system which is the cornerstone of every society in pursuit of progress and prosperity? Why would the Supreme Court stay the proceedings of the Education Committee examining the case of the award of extra marks to her when it is well established convention and law that Parliamentary proceedings cannot be stayed? Have the Judges of the Superior Court become incompetent and ignorant of the British Common Law as well as its indoctrination into the system of the tracheotomy of power via Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan which explicitly prevents the inquiry of parliamentary proceedings when it comes to investigating into the affairs of their abuse of power? How could one justify the staying of proceedings by the Supreme Court of the Parliamentary proceedings unless the judges who issued the stay order were trying to protect their Chief and tainted themselves in the process? Is this how our Supreme Court wants the people to look at it? As Protectors of the wrongdoer if he happens to be from amongst them, how can Judges be watchdogs of the rights of the citizens in a just manner?

After going through the circumstances of the case as well as the attempt to ‘cool’ down the matter by trying to influence Ansaar Abbasi subsequently, who broke the news for the first time, it becomes quite clear that Abdul Hameed Dogar had influenced the Board into awarding the marks to his daughter. When one gets caught red handed with ones hands in the cookie jar the worst possible excuse could be that it was someone else who had put ones hands in the jar in the first place.

The PPP government’s support for his case exposed its bias in his favour when the right thing for it to do would have been to distance itself from the issue and let the Parliamentary Committee on Education reach a finding after investigating the matter thoroughly. It could have also appropriately filed a reference against Abdul Hameed Dogar J in the Supreme Judicial Council and let the law take its due course. It is pertinent to mention that a pending reference against the same judge has borne no proceedings. Instead, various ministers of the PPP defended Dogar’s case as his personal lawyers and in the process also demanded that the case of the abuse of power by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to get top position in the police department for his son should also be investigated. Such is the state of neglect amongst them or perhaps the eagerness to defend Dogar J that they forgot that the Supreme Court has already ruled by 10 to 3 exonerating the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on 20th July, 2007 of all charges by nullifying the reference filed against him by the Musharraf administration. The reference had included the allegation of abuse of power amongst others but the Honourable Supreme Court, as it were then, had after thorough deliberation and hearing all the sides declared that he was deemed to be the Chief Justice at all times and he was exonerated of all the charges.

It is thus the discussion of the case of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry which is prohibited under the law and not the discussion of a new matter which has arisen over the conduct of Abdul Hameed Dogar as Judge. It is also not a decision of the court which is the subject matter of the discussion which is normally prohibited, lest some misconduct or gross illegality transpires. Instead of rectifying the wrong and moving a reference against Abdul Hameed Dogar J., the PPP has become party to his cause just as Abdul Hameed Dogar became a party to the personal cause of PPP’s leadership by giving legitimacy to the unconstitutional and ultra vire National Reconciliation Ordinance which legitimized corruption for the first time ever perhaps in recorded history. Now going a step further, political parties are being coerced into submission through the judiciary and the sanctity of judiciary has been lost. To give an example of the perception of ordinary people, ‘contempt of court’, which once used to sound like a crime of the highest degree is devoid of any meaning anymore. When the Chief of the Judiciary has been tainted with criminal allegations, ‘contempt of Court’ is a mere phrase, full of dichotomies and internal contradictions. Which Court? People ask ominously. When a noun itself has become disrespectful and questionable, no suitable adjective can restore its meaning.

The present PPP leadership has not accepted the judgment reinstating Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry despite the pledges of its leader Benazir Bhutto, whose first death anniversary is just round the corner. To the contrary it has provided legitimacy and continues to provide legitimacy to the martial law imposed by General Musharraf. The subsequent renewing of the pledge by President Zardari have been interpreted as sinister political moves rather than being promises which should have been honoured for the sake of reversing the assaults on the judiciary by Musharraf. By continuously supporting Abdul Hameed Dogar as Chief Justice and denying Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as the de facto and de jure Chief Justice despite the understandings reached with the PML (N), the PPP has supported the martial law of Musharraf and it seems that the remnants of that martial law would never be eliminated until the PPP is in power at the center.

The contempt for the Constitution as well as abetting its violation by PPP does not end here. A power struggle is being waged in the province of Punjab and the constitution is being flouted once more. The latest tussle with the PML (N) government in Punjab is an example when despite the fact that the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly was under the Constitution bound to take oath as Governor, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court took oath when Salmaan Taseer left the country. It is pertinent to state here that the superior members of the judiciary had, when Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry been reinstated, vowed not to indulge in administrative and executive activities and ex officio positions to reinforce and assert the path towards independence of the judiciary but a shameful departure was made from that path. The oath was administered by the patron of Salmaan Taseer, President Asif Zardari and therefore the President’s participation in the whole conspiracy is conspicuous. It is a pity that the PPP recommended to the PML (N), knowing fully well that PPP in effect controls the judiciary, that it should go before a court of law or contact President Zardari if it had any reservations over the issue. The appointment itself should have been made in accordance with the Constitution rather than issuing such a remark which is nothing but a bluff.

Fortunately, the speaker of the National Assembly is from PPP and therefore we would not witness a situation if one is to draw an analogy from this bizarre act, that Abdul Hameed Dogar J., would one day take oath as President of this country in case Mr. Asif Zardari left the country, although with retrospect it can be said with confidence he would not mind doing so.
The PPP has, during its short tenure shown utter disrespect for the constitution of the country and is quickly losing support, especially amongst the intelligentsia and the civil society who do not believe that things would improve from here. The sad part is that the dissolution of the PPP controlled National Assembly in the past by former President Leghari on the pretext that governance in accordance with the Constitution was not possible during the PPP’s previous tenure, has not led the party to improve on its shortcomings. It is perhaps the incompetence of the PPP present leadership, in the absence of the guiding ability of Benazir Bhutto, who despite being a controversial figure in other respects, had the ability to perhaps prevent the party from repeating its past mistakes. To the contrary, the present PPP seems bent upon flouting the constitution and seems to have forgotten that it had united the opposition during Musharraf’s regime on the grounds of being unconstitutional yet is following in its footsteps and has failed to reverse any significant act during that unconstitutional rule. The PPP must repent its past performance in this regard and start following the very Charter of Democracy that Benazir Bhutto had proudly announced as being the result of her party’s struggle and initiative. For the moment, Nawaz Sharif continues to rise in the popularity charts by sticking to the basics- regard for the Constitution and abiding by past promises.

Mumbai blasts and the Indian media (06-12-2008)

I had, during a seminar held in Karachi more than a week ago on the role of media in South Asian politics, hailed the Indian media for its role in promoting peace in South Asia and defusing tensions between India and Pakistan in the past. However, I had also highlighted instances when the Indian media had behaved irresponsibly, on occasions such as the Samjhauta Express blasts about two years ago, when Pakistan was blamed for the bomb explosions as per Indian government’s stance, and the media of that country did not adopt an objective approach in trying to analyze the possible hands behind the attacks. It was discovered after some time that the Indian media was wrong and Indian army officers were behind the attack. Nevertheless tensions were high between the neighbours for some time after the Indian media’s false reporting and the peace process was derailed.
In one such instance mentioned by me where the Indian media had played a positive role and helped avert a major confrontation between the nuclear-armed foes was the tabooed Kargil affair. During the early hours and days of the conflict, the Pakistani media, thanks to a rogue general heading the armed forces, was reporting that Kashmiri freedom fighters were in fact holding Indian territory. However, the Indian media reported correctly, aided by the Indian surveillance, that it was in fact the Pakistani army that had occupied the key region. This led to an international pressure on Pakistan which eventually led to the pull out of the troops from the region. India, was tested on this occasion and had it not been for the international diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, she may have invaded Pakistan’s territory at other points or could have possibly carried out aerial strikes to cut off the supply route or destroy strategic areas of Pakistan’s infrastructure. Possessed with one of the highest number of fighter aircrafts as well as a standing army which is in the top five in terms of troop size, India certainly had the capacity to do so. However, it choose to stand in the comity of nations as a responsible state and also weakened the Kashmir cause by furthering the case of Pakistan being labeled as a terrorist and rogue state. Nevertheless, a possible confrontation was avoided through this process and for that the Indian media certainly stood out vis a vis its Pakistani counterpart.
However, just as wars can be averted through the power and leverage that the media enjoys today as arguably happened in the Kargil affair, the Mumbai blasts and the role of the media is a stark reminder to us all how wars can be imposed through the sheer pressure and power of media in preparing the people for a war that may not be as imminent as it may appear. The Iraq war and the role of the media of the United States is an example in this context. It is clear now, thanks to revelations by people close to the Bush administration as well as CIA intelligence officials, how false intelligence intercepts were provided to the media to state that Saddam Hussain’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as well to prove his alleged links to Al-Qaeda. The media of the United States by and large carried such stories without any verification on its part and the people of the United States were convinced that an Iraqi invasion was inevitable lest the United States security was threatened. It is clear now, post-2003 invasion, that the intelligence was false and even overwhelmingly manipulated to make out a case for an Iraqi invasion, which was a decision that Bush and his close circle had already made. Even when Colim Powell was making out a case for Iraqi invasion at the United Nations, the Bush administration knew fully well that the evidence and information he was relying upon for the U.S. case was deeply flawed. Today, the U.S. media is acknowledging its shortcomings but it is too late for corrections and the loss of lives cannot be compensated.
In a somewhat similar fashion, the Indian media behaved irresponsibly post-Mumbai blasts. However, going a step forward, unlike the U.S. example, it started blaming Pakistan much before the official Indian government started to move in this direction and thus possibly made the government’s task easier in this respect to cover its own shortcomings and blaming Pakistan in the conventional fashion. This was also the case in the Kabul embassy bombings as well as in the Samjhauta Express blasts and rather than helping the government probe into the matter and highlight the deficiencies in the Indian intelligence, the easy task was to blame Pakistan outright.
The aftermath has had huge consequences for the peace, stability and trade in the region. What was achieved in years of slow and meaningful negotiations and confidence building measures has been reversed with the snap of fingers. Relations between the two countries have reached their lowest ebb and each country is looking at the other with suspicious eyes and wary of the next move of the other. Relations aside, even talks of war are being openly heard on both sides of the border. Pakistan, on its part has made the right move in offering full cooperation and even asked for evidence against its nationals, if indeed they are involved in the incident. The initial blunder of agreeing to send the top intelligence official has been overcome thanks to a wise policy of building a national consensus over the matter and summoning an all parties conference in this regard.
India must not allow itself to be dominated by hawks as well as its media and allow the peace process to derail in this manner. It must act rationally and understand that statements and steps designed to appease the local media or capture domestic audience would achieve nothing but short term glory and perhaps some votes. The larger interest for the region is peace as well as cooperation to unveil the elements behind the attacks. Such elements neither serve India nor Pakistan. They are the enemies of humanity and for this reason alone can neither be termed as state or non-state actors but can definitely be classified as terrorists. For once, the Pakistani media has played a better role its Indian counterpart but it much desist from advocating and propagating too robust an approach which may move towards justification of these attacks as certainly there can be no justification for such cowardly, barbaric and inhumane attacks. Pakistan is no Iraq and India must understand that. As a nuclear state, we must seek co-existence and avenues for cooperation in incidents such as these rather than seek to pressurize or dominate the other. Since the consequences of nuclear fallout are catastrophic, even talks about war should be out of the question.
I had also suggested during the seminar that Pakistan, being a smaller country having limited conventional capability, must not have announced a No First Use Nuclear Policy in the way that President Zardari did during his address to the Indian people via Hindustan Times. This policy would, as many experts agree, nullify the deterrent effect that we hold against India, which is far ahead in conventional means and it is for times like these that we must never surrender that advantage. Otherwise, the whole point of conducting the nuclear tests on 28th May 1998 becomes an absurdity.

symbolic strike in Pakistan (22-11-2008)

Yet another dastardly attack by a CIA operated U.S. drone in the settled area of Bannu demonstrates sheer defiance of international laws by the U.S.. This was so despite the recent election of Mr. Barack Obama as president. It is unlikely that the Bush administration, which is wearing out its last weeks in office, could have approved a strike inside an ally’s territory beyond FATA, which borders Afghanistan, without taking into confidence the incoming President, Barack Obama. This is so because any lame duck administration in the U.S., which the Bush administration presently is, cannot burden its successor with a major shift in war policy without prior consultation, which in the case of Pakistan appears to be in the direction of ignoring calls of restraint by its ally over prior strikes in FATA, and extend the war horizon beyond the troubled FATA as well.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson was summoned yet again and had to hear out the latest bit of criticism from the government of Pakistan. Another instance of condemnation by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was witnessed, which seems to have lost its efficacy now that the U.S. has chosen to ignore its ally’s stance of respect for its territorial integrity by upping the ante and hitting deeper into Pakistan this time round. It is wishful thinking by the Prime Minister that Mr. Obama’s ascendancy would change the policy of striking inside Pakistan by the U.S. as his silence over the issue and his growing impatience with Pakistan’s ability to fight the war during the election campaign, suggests the opposite. Mr. Obama no doubt would like more such strikes which would be dictated on U.S.’s terms and intelligence without any coordination by its so-called-ally.

Pakistan has always stressed, at least if the government is to be believed that no agreement or secret pact with the U.S. exists to carry out such attacks, that such strikes are counter productive in that it signifies the impotency of the government the territorial borders of the country from outside strikes. It also negates the international norms and are somewhat horrific reminders of all previous instances where the U.S. has evaded international and national laws in pursuit of its goals and ambitions as it deems fit. Be that the Laos bombings, the Afghanistan missile attacks in the Clinton era or the invasion that followed it, or the horrific invasion of Iraq which has cost thousands of Iraqi lives, which would have never been taken away had Saddam still been in power. They are also reminders of the gross violations by successive American administrations of the foundations of the American system of governance which is based on justice and rule of law and fairness. Facts have been manipulated and evidence has been created to fool the world in Iraq and elsewhere. The American ideal of democracy is used as a tool to justify invasions and strikes.It is time that the Barack administration which will soon take over in a few weeks time corrects this image and in the context of the war in bordering Pakistan where a sovereign country with its own legitimate and popularly elected government in place, use of force is abandoned by the U.S. forces. Only the Pakistani government, which unlike the undemocratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan should carry out any strikes in its territory as it deems fit. The Pakistani government, for its part must come up more strongly opposing such attacks, which includes taking the issue to international forums such as the United Nations where it would hopefully receive support and it is unlikely that the new Democrat President, unlike his soon-to-be-predecessor, would be able to disregard international support for Pakistan’s case. It is time to move to the next stage since summons to the U.S. ambassador as well as direct complaints to the U.S. have fallen on deaf ears each time.