Quixotic Doings

Pakistan is in international headlines today not because of any investigative reporting by some foreign journalist but by the actions of Pakistanis themselves. First the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau volunteered to be interviewed on a TV channel. Not only did he take the opportunity (conveniently provided by the anchor) to refute all the allegations against him but he also did a super job of blowing his own trumpet. Perhaps carried away by his own eloquence and affected accent he declared that the daily corruption in Pakistan was Rupees 15 billion. He did not back up this assertion by any data or statistics or any research or analysis report. This statement by a top Pakistani official was swallowed hook, line and sinker by a public ready to believe the worst and a world that simply loves helping Pakistan do it to itself. Couldn’t this former Navy man turned Mr. Accountability go and brief the government that appointed him or does he have no faith in them? His seemingly bold action has endeared him to the public albeit briefly before the focus shifts back to his own track record with a business tycoon now facing the courts? Quite rightly the Prime Minister has summoned him to explain his conduct and if the Prime Minister has a spine he will haul him over the coals and then get to the facts. Almost immediately after the summons the man has given a public ‘explanation’ to pacify the government!!

Second there is the latest from an enterprising Pakistani journalist who is making a name for himself by unearthing ugly truths and making them public. His latest foray was into the tax returns of the Cabinet and the Members of Parliament and the report that he has produced tells the world that 75% of the peoples representatives do not pay taxes with some not even registered as tax payers and most of the rest paying very nominal amounts. His report is the subject of debates on TV and the international media has lapped it up. The countries that dole out their own tax payers’ dollars and pounds to us are not amused — in fact they must be thinking hard. Aren’t tax returns confidential documents? Is there any forum or methodology for media – government interaction when sensitive issues are involved or are ratings and personal ambitions more important than the country’s image? What effect would the release of this information have on those who are paying taxes? The Parliamentarians are rightly furious because the taxes on their meager salaries have not been indicated and nor have other things like advance tax and withholding tax that are compulsory deductions? How can tax be deducted from your salary without making you a registered tax payer with a national tax number?

Recent international surveys have ranked Pakistan among the most corrupt countries in the world, the worst governed and even among the worst places to be born in. One such report placed Pakistanis among the happiest people but now a columnist has written an article in which he tells us the difference between being happy and cheerful thereby debunking the notion that we are happy. Yet another writer informs us that the highest in the judicial hierarchy singled out a journalist for flowers after that journalist escaped an assassination attempt and then asks the question why only this journalist was sent flowers and not the countless and faceless others who have met violent ends.  Shouldn’t someone investigate a bomb that is so shoddily fixed that a conveniently standing bystander spots it and alerts the intended victim and a bomb planter who does not detonate it when the victim is sitting on the bomb and instead waits for it to be spotted? Must we make fools of ourselves?

By Ghalib Sultan

West Pakistani refugees refused basic human rights

Early Times

Hundreds of refugees from West Pakistan, who have been living in wretched conditions at different places in Jammu province since 1947, today reached Delhi by buses to attract the attention of the Union President, Prime Minister, Union Ministers and MPs to the problems they have been facing as a result of refusal on the part of the state government to grant them citizenship rights by sitting on dharna at Jantar Mantar. They had migrated to Jammu from Pakistan in the wake of the country’s communal partition to escape the wrath of the protagonists of two-nation theory that had resulted in the emergence of Pakistan as a separate country. Almost all of them are members of depressed communities. It may appear ludicrous, but it is a fact that these refugees numbering about 100,000 do not enjoy the right to immovable property, right to job under state government, right to higher and technical education, right to bank loan, right to vote in the assembly and local body elections and so on even after more than 64 years of the state’s accession to India. They can vote only in the Lok Sabha elections and are eligible only for the central government jobs, which they cannot get because they are not suitably educated. They wanted to quit Jammu in 1947-1948 itself and settle in other parts of India, but they were barred by then political leadership of the time to leave the state. They were assured by the then state wazir-e-azam and others who mattered that they would take appropriate steps calculated to empower them to exercise all rights available to the people of the state and their fellow countrymen. They did nothing in that direction.

Between 1947-1948 and 2011, these abandoned refugees organised hundreds of demonstrations, sit-ins and marches to achieve fundamental rights and lead a dignified life. In between, they also attempted to gehrao the civil secretariat leading to clashes between them, including women and children, and the police. But nothing came out of their efforts. Every political party active in Jammu province exploited them but did nothing for them. It was just a lip service. They even approached the Supreme Court but with no result. The Supreme Court left the matter to the discretion and judgment of the state government. The state government did appoint a committee during the regime of Ghulam Nabi Azad to look into their grievances but the committee did not recommend citizenship rights for these hapless refugees. The committee simple recommended that each refugee family be given some financial relief subject to the condition that the amount would not exceed Rs. 200,000. The committee made this recommendation knowing it full well that they had been fighting for citizenship rights and not for money. Some of the members of the Prime Minister’s Working Groups belonging to Jammu province also raised their issue and demands in their respective Working Groups, but the chairmen of the said groups did not do anything in order to redress their grievances, notwithstanding the fact that it was a human issue. On the contrary, one particular Working Group made recommendation after recommendation aimed at appeasing, pleasing and rehabilitating Kashmiri militants, surrendered or otherwise, with honour.

The truth, in short, is that neither the state government nor the central government has taken cognizance of this human problem in Jammu province and the result is that these refugees have been unsuccessfully moving heaven and earth to get their issue suitably addressed. It is extremely unlikely that their dharna at Jantar Mantar would produce the desired results. The reason is that the Kashmiri representatives are well-entrenched in the New Delhi’s corridors of power. They will surely play a dirty role and defeat all of the moves of these oppressed, suppressed and abandoned refugees. They have been opposing the refugees’ demands right from day one saying grant of citizenship rights to them would not only change the demography of the province but would also increase its representation in the state legislature. It must remain a matter of shame that that we have in our country a group of people are not considered fit for exercising the rights which are available to everyone in the state and outside.

Pakistan to compensate US drone strike families: official

MIRANSHAH: The government will pay compensation to the families of 39 people who died in a US drone strike last week, an official said on Saturday.

Civilians and police were among those killed when missiles hit a compound in Datta Khel on March 17.

Civilians and police were among those killed when missiles hit a compound in Datta Khel in North Waziristan on March 17. In protest, Pakistan refused to participate in a trilateral meeting with US and Afghan officials and belligerent condemnation came from the prime minister and the army chief.

Tribal administration official Asghar Khan said that a compensation package was ready for the victims’ families. “Each of the families will be paid Rs300,000, while Rs100,000 will be paid to each of the six injured,” Khan said, adding that payments would commence from Monday.

Compensation is paid to police and civilians who are killed in bomb blasts or terror attacks but this is the first time that compensation has been announced to US drone attack victims even though hundreds have reportedly died in the attacks that increased steeply when US President Barack Obama took office.

Ministers warned against meddling in elections

By: Irfan Ghauri

ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has issued directives to the federal and provincial governments that it will not tolerate interference in the election process.

Elected representatives barred from visiting constituencies after poll is announced

The strongly-worded statement came from the office of the Chief Election Commissioner who said that once the schedule for an election is announced the prime minister, chief ministers, their advisers and federal and provincial ministers cannot visit the constituencies where polls are taking place.

The commission has received complaints that the prime minister, the chief ministers and their cabinet members use state resources and their clout to get the desired results.

While unlawful, it is common practice for people in the government to visit constituencies and campaign for their party’s candidate.

In addition, elected members will not “openly or in secret give any subscription or donation or make promises” to do so, the ECP said. They will also be barred from inaugurating or announcing development projects that could influence the results of an election.

A high-level meeting to discuss the issue was held by the ECP with representatives of central and provincial governments on September 16.

In its letter to federal and provincial authorities, the ECP warned that if a person misuses his official position in a manner deemed as influencing the results of the election he can be punished with imprisonment for up to two years or be fined up to two thousand rupees. Since there is no special law ascribing punishment to public office holders if they violate the law, the commission said it would book them under contempt of court. Under the law, the CEC has powers of a high court judge and can initiate contempt proceedings.

The commission also tried to address the trend of transferring civil servants during elections, saying that transfers and postings will not be allowed once the election schedule is announced. In case of exceptional circumstances, the authorities would have to seek the ECP’s permission.

Back to the brink

Kashmir Times

Ominous signs of reverting back to the suicidal strong-arm policy

Paradoxically, while Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been asking the Union government to resume dialogue with the separatist leaders to  resolve the prolonged crisis , offering to act as a facilitator, his government appears to be re-embarking on a course of confrontation.
There are ominous signs of reverting back to the suicidal policy of strong-arm methods to deal with the alienated sections of he
population , suppress their urges and aspirations and silence every voice of dissent. The policy of “healing touch” initiated
by the PDP-Congress coalition in 2002, which paid some dividends in creating a relaxed atmosphere and bridging to some extent the
prevailing trust-deficit , despite its half-hearted implementation, seems to have been abandoned in favour of a policy of repression and
political vendetta, which in the past had proved counter-productive. Instead of taking further steps to build bridges of understandings
with the separatist leaders for resuming a meaningful dialogue to find a peaceful solution to the problem, the State administration is
sparing no efforts to rub salt on the past wounds instead of applying any healing touch. The arrests of a number of separatist leaders
under the infamous Public Safety Act without any rhyme and reason, refusal to set them free despite the courts quashing their detentions
, putting senior Hurriet leaders like Ali Shah Geelani frequently under house arrest or denying free movements to other leaders like
Yasin Malik and their right to hold rallies, make it obvious that the State government is bent upon closing all the doors for
negotiations and pushing the separatist leaders to the walls. The latest case in this regard is the remanding of the senior Hurriet and
Democratic Freedom Party leader Shabir Shah to CIK custody in a 19 year old case on the basis of an FIR in which Shah along with Syed
Ali Geelani, Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat and late Abdul Ghani Lone were accused of ” instigating youth to take arms training across the
Line of Control ” in 1991. Shah , who had earlier been ordered to be released by the High Court , quashing his detention under PSA,
has been in jail for the past several months . Instead of setting him free , in compliance of the court verdict, the State authorities ,
as a matter of political vengeance and lack of faith in democratic norms, have now invoked an obsolete and absurd FIR to keep him behind
bars. This despite the fact that Shah was incarcerated in Jodhpur jail from 1989 ( when he was arrested) to 1994 , making the FIR lodged
against him 1991 as baseless .

Tragically, at a time when there was need to pursue the policy of healing touch more vigorously for creating a climate of trust, needed
for resuming the desired dialogue process, the state rulers are embarking on a path of confrontation . A large number of separatist
leaders and activists are involved in a number of such cases filed against them since the launching of their violent struggle for azadi
. Inexplicably, even after their release from prisons these cases against them have not been withdrawn. They have to frequently appear
before the courts outside Kashmir valley causing them avoidable inconvenience nad hardships which naturally adds to their bitterness .
Withdrawal of all these cases along with the release of all other political prisoners languishing in jails for years, could have been a
major confidence building measure. There were several other ways for creating a climate of trust necessary for pursuing any meaningful
process of dialogue to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. There has been no let up on the human rights front with the
authorities failing to strengthen institutional mechanism for bringing the culprits to book. At a time when there was a need to heal the
past wounds for overcoming trust-deficit those at the helm have embarked upon a course of confrontation not only with the separatists
but also with the mainstream opposition and other critics of the government policies and actions. The present government has even backed
out from its commitment made while assuming office like the removal of troops from the civilian areas, repeal of draconian Armed Forces
Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and restoration of people’s civil liberties. The State Government has not even bothered to implement some
of the recommendations made by the group constituted by the Prime Minister on the Confidence Building Measures and Human Rights headed
by M.H.Ansari, presently Vice President of India . The present policy of confrontation can only obstruct rather than facilitating the
process of dialogue so necessary for breaking the logjam.

Governing political parties

By: Ravikiran Rao

India’s regulation of political parties is, like all its regulations unrealistic, inconsistent and spottily enforced.

Arguably, independent India’s most fateful decision was taken by the Congress parliamentary party in 1965, as they gathered to elect a new leader after Lal Bahadur Shastri’s death. Their election of Indira Gandhi as their leader, enabling her to take office as Prime Minister, not only had profound consequences for the country’s polity, but also resulted in the ultimate destruction of the Indian National Congress. The entity that exists today as a sort of family office that works to promote her grandchildren’s interests has nothing to do with the great institution that fought for and won India its freedom.

At first glance, it appears as if the election of Indira Gandhi was an accident that could have easily gone the other way. The party then had no dearth of stalwarts who could probably have served just as well as prime minister. The reason for the choice was that the Congress, at that time, was split between the socialists and the conservatives, and both sides, rather than run the risk of having someone from the other faction in power, opted to support a supposed non-entity. It is another matter that this goongi gudiya (dumb doll) went on to render both factions defunct anyway.

Where does this tendency to avoid open confrontation, a penchant for unhealthy compromises come from? The problem is institutional and structural, flowing from a lack of intra-party democracy. When a decision is democratically taken, it is perceived as more legitimate. It is a more sensible alternative to civil war. In normal, unstructured, warfare, both sides live under extreme uncertainty. The losing side fears that the winners may carry out a purge and destroy them, and the winning side is afraid that the losers may stage a coup and depose them. This provides an incentive to both sides to fight hard and dirty when they do have to fight, or avoid a confrontation at all costs when they are weary of it. An openly fought and won election, on the other hand, provides reassurance to both the winners and losers. The winners have a reasonable assurance that they will not be hassled for the current term, and the losers sure that they will have another chance to fight when the next election is called.

Democratic countries typically learn this lesson over decades, if not centuries. As they gradually build reliable institutions, internal strife has reduced. It is important not to understate the importance of these institutions. Democracy is much more than just an election. It can be hardly called a democracy if the winner could do away with, or weaken, other candidates, or cancel the next election. Truly democratic countries, through law or custom, or both, keep these institutions, the building blocks of democracy, outside of “democratic” control for this very reason.

India does have the trappings of a democracy. Its democracy is considered, by common consensus, to be a qualified success. But its institutions, such as they are, have been grafted from plants that took root outside. Does this matter? Answering this question will require us to answer the question of how much culture matters, and to understand this, we must return to the internals of Indian political parties.

The internal organisation of political parties in India is a paradox. Parties contest democratic elections, but are themselves run as fiefdoms. Party elections are rare, and when conducted, they are a sham. One could argue that this is what comes of imposing democratic institutions on an undemocratic culture. The undemocratic nature of India’s political parties probably mirrors its feudal culture more accurately than do India’s democratic institutions. Also, Indians tend to fetishise unity. The standard narrative is that it is because India was disunited that it was invaded and conquered so many times. Unfortunately, this emphasis on unity translates into an “obey the leader” ethic that kills debate and discussion, and ultimately encourages fissiparous tendencies. The fact that Indian political parties tended to follow the intellectual tradition of the revolutionary Communist parties of the Soviet bloc more than that of the parties in Western democracies, also surely matters.

But to say that a choice is cultural is not to say that it cannot be changed. Laws affect cultural change to the same extent that culture affects the decision to enforce or obey laws. More narrowly, forcing parties to hold regular elections is just what is needed to break the bind that has been discussed above. By providing the assurance that elections will be held and thereby the assurance that they have a voice and a chance to succeed, the law will provide an incentive to party members to stay on and build the party rather than break off and form a new party at the drop of a hat.

Would such a decision be antithetical to liberty and to the right to free association? The United States Supreme Court had occasion to tackle this question when it chose to force the two main parties to open up their primaries to black members. It argued that the political parties in the US were so closely intertwined with the system of government that regulating their membership rules would be no different from imposing restrictions on a government entity.

India is of course under no obligation to accept the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court. Sadly though, when India has chosen to regulate political parties, it has done so in ways that restrict democratic freedoms. Indian political parties are forced to subscribe to socialism, which is a mockery of voter choice. The anti-defection law forces members of legislatures to vote on lines dictated by their party leaders on the pain of expulsion from the legislature. It also forbids legislators from changing parties.This law has resulted in the explosion of political parties after the 90s, as petty leaders chose to form their own parties and retain the freedom to support anyone they wished rather than join a party and get locked into supporting a party boss. The women’s reservation bill, in a subtle way, will do the same.

India’s regulation of political parties is, like all its regulations unrealistic, inconsistent and spottily enforced. Campaign finance laws set such ridiculously low limits that they are practically impossible to stay within. Come election time, the Election Commission assumes almost dictatorial powers over the parties’ conduct and also on various aspects of governance, but the rest of the time, no one even bothers to audit the books of political parties.

India will benefit from a law regulating elections in political parties that is actually enforced. Yet of the two major parties in India, one is a family-owned entity, and the other is an entity that has hierarchy embedded deeply into its DNA. The minor political parties are all feudal entities in their own way. It is these groups that need to get together to pass a law that will reduce their own power. Sadly, there is not much chance of that.

Note: We’ve corrected an error that came to our notice too late, and hence cannot be changed in the print or online edition – the third sentence in the fourth paragraph should read “It is important not to understate…”

Israel moves to ease diplomatic dispute with U.S.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised President Barack Obama on Wednesday and spoke by telephone with his vice president as a vocal feud over Jewish settlements took on softer tones.

But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cast more doubts on prospects for indirect peace talks with Israel soon, reaffirming a demand it first halt all settlement construction. Palestinian youths threw stones at Israeli soldiers in the West Bank.

In an unusual twist in a week of heightened rhetoric in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, Netanyahu had to distance himself from comments by his brother-in-law, an ultranationalist, who called the president an anti-Semite in a radio interview.

“I have a deep appreciation for President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security, which he has expressed many times,” Netanyahu said in a statement, disavowing himself from all comments made by Hagai Ben-Artzi, his wife’s brother.

Israel angered the Palestinians and touched off a spat with Obama’s administration after announcing plans, during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden last week, to build 1,600 homes for Jews near East Jerusalem, in West Bank territory it annexed after a 1967 war.

Israel regards all of Jerusalem, including the eastern sector captured 43 years ago, as its capital. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of the state they hope to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

An Israeli political source said Netanyahu, who had already apologized to Biden over the timing of the settlement announcement, spoke by telephone on Tuesday with the vice president. The source gave no details of their conversation.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had called Israel’s settlement announcement an insult and pressed it to take steps to show it was serious about new peace moves.

But in less confrontational tone on Tuesday, Clinton told reporters Washington has “an absolute commitment to Israel’s security” and spoke of “a close unshakeable bond.”

A State Department spokesman made clear, however, that U.S. officials expected a formal Israeli response shortly to the demands Clinton laid out to Netanyahu last week, and that this would inform the next U.S. moves on the issue.

Israeli media reports said Clinton wanted Israel to shelve the housing plan and agree to discuss core statehood issues with the Palestinians once indirect peace talks began. Netanyahu has said he would not curb building for Jews anywhere in Jerusalem.

A day after stone-throwing confrontations with Israeli troops in East Jerusalem on Tuesday, Palestinian youngsters hurled rocks at soldiers near Ramallah and in Hebron, cities in the West Bank. There were no immediate reports of injuries.

SETTLEMENT FREEZE

With Arab League support, Abbas agreed two weeks ago to the U.S.-mediated talks, effectively backing away from his demand Israel halt all settlement activity in line with a 2003 peace “road map” that also obliges the Palestinian Authority to dismantle “terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”

Reaffirming his original demand, Abbas told reporters on Wednesday: “We demand the fulfillment of commitments before going to indirect negotiations.”

U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell on Tuesday put off plans to return to the region. The State Department said he would not begin another mission until at least after Middle East peace mediators met in Moscow on Thursday and Friday.

The diplomatic flareup over the past week has raised concern in Israel that security cooperation with the United States over a future nuclear-armed Iran could be jeopardized.

The White House has been criticized by U.S. lawmakers and pro-Israel advocacy groups for its harsh stance toward Israel, which analysts said was likely one reason for its changed tone.

Netanyahu is scheduled to address AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby group, in Washington on Monday. During his visit, he is likely to meet members of Congress, where support for Israel is strong.

No plans have been announced for talks with Obama administration officials. Obama himself is expected to be traveling overseas during Netanyahu’s visit.