When the government completed its third anniversary on the other day, the decline barometer of its popularity did not surprise any political observer. According to the Daily Star opinion survey, the negative ratings of the government performance in all aspects, starting from the direction the country is moving, view on economy and the overall popularity of the government have declined significantly over the last one year. For instance a year ago only 29 percent of the respondents were dissatisfied or much dissatisfied with the performance of the government as compared to 43 percent a year later. On the affirmative side, while this year 38.6 percent said they are either very satisfied or satisfied with the government, last year a huge 48 percent said so. The results of the two recently held mayoral elections where people in large numbers voted against the government-endorsed candidates, only validated the findings of the statistical polls.

An advisor to the government disagreed with the poll findings of the two national dailies. I would like to believe that he has only performed his routine tasks by dismissing the poll results or else I would urge him to come out from the company of the government sycophants to the midst of his party’s well-wishers, not adversaries, and from my own experience of their pulses, I can assure him that he would be surprised to discover that how still more than one third of the people are satisfied with the government.

Bulk of the sympathizers of AL are guided by some virtues, the values of our liberation war are the driving force of those virtues; their consciences are not easily swayed by any materialistic greed. It is only natural that the expectations of those people from AL, especially when the party is in the helm of the state, would be very high. Unfortunately, AL leadership, instead of taking cue from the criticisms of its well-wishers, set them aside as antagonistic elements. As a well-wisher of AL, I have sent personal e-mails to a numbers of government leaders offering my services on the arena (probably PM knows what I am referring to) on which they are either misguided or misinformed, but none of them even had the minimum courtesy to acknowledge the communications. A few politicians while they were not in the government when visited the City called me times and again requesting meetings with me. But after they became part of the government, many times I came to know from the media report about their visits to my neighborhood. When AL President visited Toronto in 2007 I was invited as the only speaker from the community in an ‘exchange of opinions’ congregation attended by a few hundreds invited guests. But when the Prime Minister visited the same city in 2011, I was not invited even as an audience, let alone as a speaker, as I am categorized now as an ‘antagonist’ because of my expressed views. These tell volumes of the extent the politicians in power are detached from their well-wishers in particular and the people in general.

One of the important election pledges of AL was to place ‘multi-pronged measures to fight corruption’ as was rolled out in the Charter for Change prior to the last general election. But did the government act according to its pledge? In fact, in this front, the AL government has even made its political opponents look like angels. It was for the first time a major donor agency brought allegations of corruption against a cabinet minister entrusted to building the most important communication bridge of the country, an important election pledge of the government. The reluctance of the PM to show concerned minister the door gave rise to speculations of the PM’s special weakness for the minister in question and it made the party’s election promise a mockery to say the least. In the process, its failure to build the bridge in its current tenure became the worst setback for the government, which otherwise would have been a landmark achievement for the party to sell in the next general election. It was impossible even for the staunchest supporter of the PM to defend her inaction. In fact, the all-pervasive corruptions which have permeated into and engulfed the lower levels of the party’s leaders and cadres hardly make any news in the national dailies but the local people, many of them are the direct victims, are very much aware of it.

Trial of war criminals is an issue dear to the heart of the nation. In this front as well, acceding a lot of limitations since the incidents happened some forty years ago, the hope of the masses has dampened; the hope that propelled millions of youth in particular to give AL-alliance the historic election victory in 2008.

The next general election is still two years away. If the government takes cue from the recently surveyed poll results, the criticisms of its well-wishers, and listen and respond to the pulses of the people, it can still reverse the tide of declining people’s support and bring them back to where they belonged some three years ago before their hopes with the government turn into irreversible despairs.

The writer is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh

Governance becomes a balancing act for the prime minister. He has to balance the demands of democratic politics with the imperative of maintaining good relations with overconfident military top brass.

The military has one clear advantage over the civilian leadership. The military is an integrated, disciplined and hierarchical institution with a well-defined command structure. It can deal with the civilian leaders as a cohesive entity.   However, civilians are not an internally cohesive entity with one authority structure. It is amorphous in nature comprising diverse, often conflicting, political, economic and societal groups.  They compete with each other for power and influence.

The civilian government is never sure that all civilian groups and parties would support it when it asserts its constitutional primacy over the military. In the present day Pakistani context when Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani took an exception to the disposition of the military and vowed not to allow a “state within a state,” not all opposition parties supported him. The PMLN took self-contradictory position. While Nawaz Sharif declared that he would oppose direct military intervention, Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar Ali criticized the Prime Minister’s hard hitting comments about the military.

The virtual anarchy in the political domain enables the military to apply pressure on the civilian government. The divided political domain also becomes vulnerable to manipulation by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). During the years of Musharraf rule, the Military Intelligence (MI) also assumed role in domestic politics.   This causes distortions in the political domain and fragments the already weak political and societal forces.

The PMLN is not supportive of strengthening the position of the civilian government, although it vows to oppose the military’s expanded role in the political domain. At the operational level, the PMLN is working towards weakening the civilian institutions because it wants to dislodge the PPP-led federal government.  As the PMLN does not have the required vote in the National Assembly to remove the government, it describes the parliament as an irrelevant institution. It has gone to the Supreme Court for the Memo issue and does not support the investigation by the parliamentary committee on national security.

Unless the political leaders and parties (both in power and out of power) rely on civilian institutions and processes, they would never be able to assert their primacy over the military.

The federal government’s position vis-à-vis the military is weakened because of its poor performance and the pressures of keeping the coalition together that requires some political compromises. Further, it faces strong opposition from the PMLN and other political parties.

In a normal democratic political system neither the Army Chief nor the Intelligence Chief can file their statements in the Supreme Court without the approval of the civilian government. Similarly, the Defense Secretary, a bureaucratic post, can directly send his statement to the court of law without the approval of the Defense Minister and the federal government.  However, in Pakistan, the military and the ISI have developed an independent profile and the Defense Secretary, a retired Lt-General, appears more loyal to the Army headquarters.

During 1997-2011, Pakistan had 7 defence secretaries; all except one were retired Lt Generals. In April 2007, General Pervez Musharraf appointed a civil servant (Kamran Rasul) to this post. This civilian Defence Secretary was replaced with Lt-General ® Syed Athar Ali in November 2008 on the recommendation of the Army Headquarters.  In the first week of December 2011, Athar Ali was replaced with another retired Lt-General (Khalid Naeem Lodhi).

As a matter of courtesy, the civilian government appoints Defence Secretary on the recommendation of the Army Headquarters and the Defence Secretary often listens to the service bosses rather than civilian authorities.  The Army headquarters/Army Chief often interact directly with the Prime Minister and the President.

The federal government is not yet known to take any disciplinary action against the Defense Secretary.    Even if the Defence Secretary is removed, the military will continue to be the most formidable political player unless the political leaders join together to create a credible civilian alternative, agree among them to strengthen civilian institutions and especially the parliament, address socio-political issues. Above all, they need to redefine Pakistan’s profile from a security state to a state devoted to human and societal welfare.

It will be a difficult task for the Pakistani state to change its security profile in the near future. The military can obtain support for its dominant role  among Islamist-militant groups and far right political spectrum. The main victim of this policy is going to be democracy, civilian primacy and the welfare of the people.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

Lahore

Any one belonging to the Indian subcontinent who knows the history and culture of this ancient land has all the reason to be proud of its history and ancestry. While in the university I was asked by a Muslim professor if I feel proud of Sultan Mahmood of Ghuzni who invaded India 17 times in 11^th century. I flatly told him that Sultan Mahmood was nothing but a plunderer or lootera and is there anything to be proud of him? He came to India to loot our forefathers’ wealth and therefore no inhabitant of India could be proud of this invader. A very mischievous attempt was made by the religious bigots to separate the Muslims of India from the majority population by promoting Muslim history of India.

Many people played in this unfortunate game and a very unimaginable cost of human lives was paid. But the soul of India is so powerful and overwhelming that all these satanic plots are crumbling very fast. Even many diehard supporters of the Partition of India are now openly talking sense and promoting unity and understanding.

Many years ago while visiting Amsterdam I saw a very old white lady pushing a shopping cart trying to cross a street. I offered help and pushed the cart across the street.  She said thanks and asked, are you from India? I agreed.

In a social function when I told this incident, many of my friends objected to my assertion that I identified myself as an Indian. My position is very clear in this respect since my ancestry is Indian, my features are Indian, my language is Indian, and my food is Indian, my culture is Indian, my history is Indian, my philosophy is Indian and the whole world recognizes me as a person of Indian origin till I show them my passport. Then in the broader perspective what is my identity?

The Partition of India in 1947 was a blunder because religion was the basis of it but religion does not make a nation. The Indian Muslims were the victims of a vicious communal propaganda which made them aliens in their own country where their forefathers were born and lived for thousands of years.

Any sensible person would find pride in their identity as an Indian. India was known to the ancient world as a civilized land with rich culture and philosophy. 5,000 years ago when Europe was catching fish naked on the sea shore India was building civilizations. Indian mysticism was so rich that many of today’s questions were answered at that time. The Vedas and Upanishad are the most authentic and original scriptures which are respected and valued for their contents around the world. The famous French philosopher Romaine Rolland once said only a sage can understand India. India is an example of unity in diversity.

The Indian Muslims were taught by the mullahs to detach themselves from the Indian roots, become disloyal to its history, culture and nationhood. They were brain washed to disdain most historical Indian values. We were taught to make a hero out of Sultan Mehmood, a man who was nothing but a bandit in its true sense. The infamous Two Nations theory declared that the Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations who do not take inspirations from the same history. What a brazen lie and a crook mischievous misinformation to break a unified nation.

But the greatness of India remains untouched from the time immemorialEmperor Harshavardana came to know that a Chinese scholar, Huen Sung, was studying at the University of Nalanda. Harshavardana invited Huen Sung to his court. He showed him utmost respect by showering him with valuable gifts and humbly asked him to bless India before his departure. Huen Sung with his folded hands said,’ O Emperor, India is a great country where sages lives, a great land who is being guarded by the mighty Himalayas from the north and from the south ocean washes it’s feet from three sides day and night. I am blessed that I could come to visit this country where a great emperor like you rules with so humbleness. India does need any body’s blessing’.

By Akbar Hussain

Toronto

On April 2, 2010, BNP said: “The government has stepped away from the trials of war criminals and now they are holding the trials for crimes against humanity, deviating from the election manifesto.”

On October 5, 2010, the BNP chairperson called the trial “a conspiracy to throw the nation into chaos in the name of war crimes trial four decades after the general amnesty to the collaborators.”

To make its final (so far) position clear BNP called a press conference, incidental or pre-preplanned is better known to them, in the month of December itself, when pains of our wounds and joys of our victory are revisited with solemn pledge to fulfill the dreams of martyrs and living heroes of our great liberation war.

At the press conference, a BNP standing committee member made no bones about BNP’s position vis-à-vis the ongoing trial process, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Act and the composition of the tribunal, and demanded that the government immediately stop the proceedings of the war crimes tribunal. The party also called on the international community “to put pressure on the government to fulfill the commitments Bangladesh had made through signing international covenants on crimes against humanity.” It concluded: “The BNP has no confidence in this tribunal. It believes that in the existing legal structure, the tribunal is nothing but a servile, rubber-stamp organisation.”

BNP’s statements are simply impossible for anyone who has the slightest respect and gratitude for those who have laid down their lives for freedom. BNP used lies, distortion and deception, the party’s forte, and quoted someone (Stephen Rapp) whose nation is not the best role model for upholding human rights in trying war criminals to make its case.

In my limited research I have not come across any war crimes tribunal whose proceedings are so transparent and where the defendants are given VIP treatment.

Telecasting of a court proceeding is solely a matter for the concerned court to decide. Does the US telecast any of the proceedings of the so-called war crimes tribunal of Guantanamo bay? Yet, the BNP leader found it appropriate to quote Stephen Rapp whose country’s president signed a law that allows the president to “identify and arrest members of al-Qaeda, ‘associated forces’ and those who ‘substantially supported’ them to hold them indefinitely without charge or trial.”

The BNP leader’s attempt to find flaws with the ICT while terming its proceedings as “farcical activities,” either reflects his self-purported ignorance of the law or is an ill-motivated attempt to mislead the public. In fact, to maintain international standard and to meet the pre-requisite of being a signatory to the Rome Statute, the Bangladesh cabinet, upon recommendation of the Law Commission, approved the International Crimes Tribunal (Amendment) 2009 on July 6, 2009, aiming to try those involved in acts against humanity during the 1971 liberation war.

It is a matter of great pride for Bangladesh that, according to a press release from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague on March 24, 2010, “Bangladesh has become the first South Asian country to ratify the pact that established the ICC and gave it a mandate for trying people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

The justices those who are presiding over the trials were justices of the highest court of the land. So far, their rulings have not corroborated BNP’s allegation that they are partisan.

In spite of the propaganda campaign initiated by BNP-Jamaat duo to sway international opinion in their favour, very few organisations that are genuine human rights watchdogs found any flaws in the ICT and its proceedings.

The Amnesty International (AI), reading through a few of my pieces on this issue in The Daily Star, wrote to me (October 20, 2010): “Amnesty International (AI) has for years been calling for an investigation of the human rights violations committed during the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence, and for those responsible to be brought to justice.” AI asked for a few clarifications and documents, which I gave to circumvent BNP’s falsehood that “Bangabandhu declared general amnesty to all collaborators.”

By demanding the abolishing of the trial process BNP has lost its moral right to pay homage at the victory mausoleum and the monument for the martyred intellectuals. To make the mockery even more wounding, BNP arranged a reception for freedom fighters. It was surprising to see a few non-BNP freedom fighters attending the so-called reception, without questioning the BNP’s stance on war crimes trials declared only two weeks ago. These are the personalities who befittingly joined the freedom movement, not because of any circumstances, even though they never believed in AL politics. Likewise, this time around as well, maybe they are distraught by AL’s governance and politics.

The trial of war criminals is an issue not only for AL but, just like the freedom struggle, is also dear to the heart of the whole nation. At this crossroad, it is imperative that the force of law, and the force of the masses join together to thwart any conspiracy against the nation’s resolve to finish the unfinished task of erasing, once for all, the perfidious mark from our history.

Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh. He can be reached at mozammel.khan@sheridanc.on.ca.

2012 will be the year of change because the elections are expected to be held by the end of the year. This will force the federal and provincial governments to improve their performance to avoid an electoral setback. The sudden rise of Imran Khan also forces the PPP and the PMLN to change their ways because he is cashing on their lapses.

The PPP’s current concern appears to be holding of the Senate elections by mid-March 2012. They would like to give the election budget in June in order to win back the lost popular support by offering some economic concessions. This is expected to set the stage for the next general elections.

However, there are no chances of overcoming uncertainty and confusion in the political, social and economic domains.  The PPP-led federal government will continue to struggle for survival in the face of lopsided opposition by the PMLN and the fall-out of politically loaded cases before the pro-active Supreme Court that appears to be determined to root-out all deficiencies and corruption from the political system.

Even if the Supreme Court gives an adverse judgment for the federal government on the Memo, the federal government is not expected to collapse except if the National Assembly decides to remove it or some extra-ordinary crisis makes it dysfunctional. It is likely to manage until mid-year but it is not expected to have an easy ride partly because of its incapacity to overcome its deficiencies and partly because the PMLN and the PTI of Imran Khan will continue with their efforts to dislodge it.

The military top brass may not be happy with the federal government and they diverge from the federal government on the Memo.  They do not have a practical option available to dislodge it and assume power directly or install a government of their choice.  They are likely to exercise influence from the sidelines and restrict the options of the elected government.

The elected federal government and elected parliament will continue to face pressures from non-elected military and the Supreme Court that want to rectify deficiencies and corruption in the political system. The parliament’s legitimacy is also questioned by the PMLN because it does not have enough members to dislodge the federal government.

2011 was a difficult period for Pakistan when it comes to governance, political management and handling of foreign policy and security issues were concerned. Karachi experienced violence for several months. The federal and Balochistan governments adopted some measures for Balochistan’s development. However, as long as kidnapping and killing of politically active Balochs are not checked no amount of development work will reduce alienation and dissident activity.

Islamic militancy and Taliban related terrorist incidents and suicide attacks declined in 2011 as compared to 2010.  This is despite some high profile terrorist incidents like the killing of the Punjab Governor and a federal minister and the attack on a naval base in Karachi.

However, one negative development is the resurgence of overt political activity by Islamic militant groups (including some banned organizations) in the Punjab in the form of anti-U.S. public rallies.  It seems that the military-intelligence establishment has encouraged them so as to show to the international community that Pakistani populace is outraged at American attack on the border security posts in November 2011.  This may help to achieve some immediate political objectives but these very groups will be an obstacle for the military and the civilian government when they decide to normalize their relations with the U.S. Religious extremism and terrorism will continue to be serious challenges but the frequency and level of violence is not expected to be higher than the last year.

Pakistan will work towards improving relations with India in 2012. It will also pursue the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project and take steps to get electricity from there. Despite the floods in Sindh in 2010-2011 agriculture is expected to show increased production that will keep the rural economy in a reasonable shape. In addition to foreign remittances some professions like banking, food and catering, telecommunication, IT and real estate/construction will provide opportunities for earning reasonable livelihood.

Pakistan is expected to disappoint those who talk of the collapse of the state and the society.  Pakistan is expected to continue facing internal contradictions and problems but it will move onwards. The society has enough resilience and good agricultural crops help rural economy and protect against starvation. Its enterprising people inside and outside of Pakistan are a major source of support to economy which is likely to continue.  International financial and diplomatic support is another source of strength. These factors will enable the state to maintain itself.

The general consensus among Pakistan watchers is that it will manage its problems with successes in some areas and failures in the other. The year 2012 will be difficult but not disappointing.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

Lahore

On December 16, 1971, Pakistani occupation forces chief Lt Gen AAK Niazi along with 93,000 troops surrendered to the joint forces of Mukti Bahini and Mitra Bahini at Suhrawardy Udyan in the capital. The nation, under the leadership of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, finally clinched independence on December 16 after the nine-month-long war that took the lives of 3 million people.

It was something different for the people to celebrate the victory day this year. Because they saw most of the top ranking war criminals not free to show their audacity in public, the day meant different thing to different people. Rather they are facing trial in an independent tribunal and except few most of the top leaders are facing legal consequences. The incident encouraged them to express their joy and amid enthusiasm and gaiety, thousands of people, who thronged the National Mausoleum to salute the martyred heroes, called for expediting the trial of war criminals and formation of political unity to protect national interest through the banners and posters they were carrying. Roads near the National Mausoleum were flooded with people carrying banners with patriotic slogans in their hands and chanting patriotic songs.

The capital had a festive look since early morning. Many buildings, vehicles, thoroughfares and median strips were decorated with the national flag and banners. The national flag was hoisted atop all government, semi-government and other important establishments.

Many demanding trial of war criminals carried effigies of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders Matiur Rahman Nizami and Ghulam Azam with shoes and noose around the necks. Students and teachers of different schools, colleges and universities brought out colorful precessions with patriotic lines written on festoons and banners. Dressed in red and green, men, women and children flocked various monuments, parks, the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, Dhaka University campus and other public places to celebrate the day. The celebrations of Victory Day, a public holiday, began with 31 gunshots at the National Parade Square in the capital at the break of dawn.

While the city streets seemed deserted in the early morning, later in the day heavy traffic was seen on many thoroughfares as enthusiastic people flooded the streets singing patriotic songs and carrying banners of different political, social, cultural and professional organizations.

Meanwhile, supporters of Awami League and BNP clashed in front of the National Mausoleum early yesterday over tearing of banners and festoons when the prime minister was in the mausoleum. The clash ensued when activists of pro-Awami League student body Chhatra League’s local unit chased rival Chhatra Dal accusing them of tearing off festoons and banners, some eyewitnesses said. There were some scattered clashes across the country too, mostly over placing wreaths at memorials.

Though the people across the country were in festive mode in celebrating the victory day, they had expressed their desire to see the faster completion of the ongoing trial of the war crime.  The crowd outside the Savar National Mausoleum on the outskirts of capital Dhaka chanted ‘Try them, hang them,’ referring to seven alleged collaborators in the massacre of up to 3 million civilians and rape of 200,000 to 500,000 women during the nine-month conflict.

The Awami League-led coalition government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed has been prosecuting suspected war criminals since she assumed office in early 2009. Five of those facing charges are top members of the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami party, including its leader and former minister Matiur Rahman Nizami. The other two are leaders of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. All were detained last year. Jamaat-e-Islami was opposed to secession, and assisted Pakistani forces during the war. An earlier initiative to prosecute war crimes was called off in 1975 when the independent country’s founding father and first Prime Minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was assassinated, and his successor Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad took power with a more conservative Islamic agenda.

The ruling Awami League, it its election manifesto, during last national election committed to try the war criminals. People of Bangladesh gave their mandate to try the criminals and the Awami League came to the power with landslide victory. So, it has become a people’s demand to try the war criminals.

For questions or comments, please write at shaugat@gmail.com.

Pakistan has been in the grip of rumours. This is partly due to the controversies about the memo and the sudden departure of President Asif Ali Zardari’s for Dubai on Dec 6^th for medical treatment.    Some rumours were about his incapacitating illness. Others suggested that he had gone abroad to save himself from the memo scandal that was being looked into by the Supreme Court. Others talked of the President being forced out of office by the military and that he would not return either for medical or political reasons.

In the earlier phase of civilian rule (1988-1999) the rumours used to surface from time to time about the removal of the elected government.

An interesting situation developed in Islamabad on September 24, 2006. The countrywide electricity breakdown caused the rumours that the military had removed President General Pervez Musharraf who was also Army Chief at that time. This unusual news of the army staging a coup against its own chief lasted for a few hours.

Rumours have become part of Pakistani politics.   Many people, especially the over-competitive private sector media, push rumours for drawing greater attention to their programmes or comments. Such rumours cause unnecessary mental strain to a large number of people and have negative impact on business and economic activity.

Before the speculations about the president’s departure to Dubai, the politically active circles and the media were focused on the memo controversy as the most  critical issue , pushing aside the problems of internal insecurity, terrorism, troubled economy and energy crisis.   The politically active circles in Pakistan and the media were dancing around the statements of one person, Mansoor Ijaz, based in New York. As he realized that Pakistani media was listening to him, he issued several statements that not only reflected his changing position but also dragged more issues and personalities in the controversy.  His word was taken as the whole truth because he was targeting the people that were not liked by the opposition and many people in the media. This enabled the main opposition party, the PMLN, to step-up its campaign to remove President Zardari from office.

The abundance of rumours manifests the fragility of Pakistani politics, especially civilian political institutions and processes. These institutions are so weak and unsustainable that any speculation about their collapse or removal is viewed by the politically active circles as plausible until a new speculation overrides the old one.

Another reason for popularity of rumours is the non-aggregative nature of Pakistani politics.     The political competitors have not cultivated the habit of agreeing on goals and strategies of political conduct.   The political parties and leaders are mostly unable to aggregate diverse individual and group political claims into broad policy demands, thereby not moving in the direction of consensus-building on what is to be pursued as the key political issues.    Non-aggregative politics intensifies conflict and weakens political institutions and processes.  It hardens the cleavages based on ethnicity, language, region, religion, political agenda which in turn fragments the political process.

Still another reason for the on-going political uncertainty and the overall absence of confidence in the future is the inability of the political players to rise above their partisan interests. If the democratic institutions and processes do not help the achievement of partisan interests of a group it tends to question the legitimacy of the political process and institutions.   In Pakistan, this trend is quite common when civilian governments are functioning.

The PMLN in its bid to oust President Zardari and the federal government feels that the parliament is not helpful. It does not have enough votes in the parliament to impeach the president or move a vote-of-no-confidence against the Prime Minister in the National Assembly. Therefore, it argues that the parliament has become irrelevant and it is endeavouring to launch street agitation.  It would like a conflict to erupt between the federal government/presidency and the Supreme Court or the military, which would result in the collapse or removal of the federal government.

The past experience suggests that whenever there is civilian rule, the opposition parties individually or collectively declare the federal government (irrespective of its party affiliation) as a security threat or launch movement for saving Pakistan from “anti-nation and anti-state” federal government.   Now-a-days, these strategies are being initiated by various opposition groups

Political parties and leaders are the guardians of elected civilian institutions and processes. If they decide to by-pass or reject these institutions and processes in pursuit of their partisan interests, these cannot endure.   Similarly, if a section of the political elite look towards non-elected state institutions like the military and the judiciary for displacing a civilian government, the future of democracy and civilian order can never be secure.

The rumour mongering is a symptom of weakness of the political institutions and processes and narrow partisan attitude of the political leaders. If these trends continue Pakistan’s civilian institutions and democracy will not stabilize and the people will continue to raise doubts about the future of Pakistan as a federal democratic state.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

As Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) leaked from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal on the night of December 2 and 3 in 1984, thousands of people were killed and many more suffered permanent health damages. The two major NGOs fighting for the victims’ rights have claimed the actual number of casualties is much higher than the official figure. The recent headlines of the tragedy were less because of the victims plight and more because of the association of Dow Chemical—the US company that now owns Union Carbide—with the London Olympic Games. Human rights groups and former Indian Olympians have urged the Indian Olympic Association to boycott the London games, following a sponsorship deal between Dow and the organising committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

What is appalling is not only the terrible effects that continue to wreak havoc on the health of the people who were exposed to the gas leak and their progeny, but also the stunning apathy—from the government—both central and state as well as the administration. As activist organizations point out, even after so many years, the state government hasn’t set up a special court for hearing the tragedy case. The compensation paid to victims is also not sufficient. Such lapses only reinforce the victims’ feelings of being cheated and given a raw deal.

In 2010, seven employees of Union Carbide were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by a lower court. In May 2011, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a government petition seeking tougher sentences for these employees. The apex court said that based on the material available to it, there was not enough reason to a build a case of culpable homicide against the accused.

Like with every environmental disaster, the effects of the Bhopal gas tragedy didn’t end on the night of the leak. Horrific consequences are continuing to this day, including the 390 tonnes of toxic chemicals abandoned at the Union Carbide plant that that continue to pollute the groundwater in the region. According to a recent study by the Centre for Science and Environment, the groundwater within three kilometres of the plant contains 110 times the maximum quantity of carbaryl, the pesticide considered safe in Indian bottled water.

Along with general apathy to the plight of the victims’ is the government’s shocking attempt to ignore at best and supress at worst the long-term health impacts of exposure to MIC. The government has even cited the work of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to dismiss claims that exposure to MIC causes congenital deformities and even cancer. However, according to one of the principal investigators for the ICMR, the research data wasn’t allowed to be published. And yet, thousands of people continue to suffer the deformities and other impacts caused by the gas leak.

Despite being denied justice through nearly three decades, victims haven’t given up the fight. Activists and human rights group have made sure the issue remains alive and the guilty are brought to book with tougher sentence. On the day of 27^th anniversary of the disaster, a rail-roko (stop the trains) movement turned violent as the state police applied lathi-charge on the protestors (stick wielding) to maintain order. The protestors were blocking all the major railway lines going through the city of Bhopal.

BY Bhaswati Ghosh

The memo issue can be described as an adventurist approach on a purely domestic issue by some people in the PPP federal government that has exposed it to a lot criticism.

A large number of people criticized the PPP government for seeking support from the United States for strengthening its position in the domestic context.  Some have gone to the extent of describing the memo affair as a betrayal of Pakistan.

A review of Pakistan’s political history shows that this was not the first occasion that Pakistani government or political leaders sought external support for pursuing their domestic or foreign policy agendas.

There are numerous instances of foreign input to Pakistan’s policy making or exploration of external support for pursuing a domestic politics or foreign policy agenda. In 1954-55, Pakistan joined the U.S.-sponsored regional alliance system and strengthened its bilateral security ties with the United States in order to obtain weapons and economic assistance to contest India.  Pakistan was not motivated by a desire to fight the Soviet Union or Communism. It was promoting its domestic and foreign policy agenda with external support because it did not have enough domestic resources to withstand military and economic pressures from India.  The U.S. exercised reasonable diplomatic clout over Pakistan during the heydays of this relationship.

In early October 1958, President Iskander Mirza informed the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan that he would assume all powers on October 8 by scrapping the Constitution. The U.S. administration endorsed the assumption of power by the military within four days through a letter from President Eisenhower.  On October 23, U.S. Defense Secretary came to Karachi to reiterate American support.

In the last phase of the India-Pakistan War, December 1971, the military regime of General Yahya khan waited in vain for the American 7^th Fleet to come to the Bay of Bengal to rescue Pakistan from the extremely difficult military situation in what was then East Pakistan.  Pakistan’s official circles were also disappointed because the Chinese did not make any military move on Sino-Indian border to ease Indian military pressure on Pakistan.

The discreet role of other states can be seen in many difficult situations in Pakistan. In May-June 1977, the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya and the UAE attempted to moderate the political conflict between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the opposition alliance, the PNA. Their intervention contributed to the resumption of the dialogue between the two sides but General Zia-ul-Haq removed the Bhutto government on July 5.

The military government of General Zia-ul-Haq got a lease of long life when it joined hands with the U.S. and other Western states to challenge Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan (1979-1989).  General Pervez Musharraf’s military government obtained economic, military and diplomatic support from the U.S. and other Western countries by joining their effort in September 2001 to eliminate terrorism sponsored or supported by the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban based in Afghanistan.  These military regimes would not have lasted for such a long period without external support.

During the period of civilian rule (1988-1999), Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif often cultivated American Ambassador in Islamabad whenever the rumors of dismissal of the government circulated in Islamabad.

Nawaz Sharif travelled to Washington for a special meeting with President Clinton on July 4, 1999, for seeking his support for bringing an end to the Kargil War (May-July 1999).  He agreed to withdrawal of troops without getting a commitment from India for cease-fire.

Towards the end of September 1999, Shahbaz Sharif visited Washington to solicit American support for Nawaz Sharif’s government against a military takeover. The U.S. administration issued a statement in support of the civilian government. However, this did not avert the October 12 coup by the Army led by General Pervez Musharraf.

It is also well-known that the departure of Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif and their families in December 2000 for Saudi Arabia after Nawaz Sharif’s conviction in the “hijacking” case was facilitated by the Saudi royal family and Saad Harrari, a former prime minister of Lebanon.

In 2007, the U.S. and the U.K. encouraged General Musharraf to accommodate political forces, especially the PPP.

Pakistani political leaders need to give up the habit of seeking support from abroad for pursuing their domestic political agendas.  If the political leaders pursue their political agendas with restraint and respect the principles of democracy and constitution in letter and spirit, their politics will not become a brute struggle for power. Then, they would not have to seek external support either to pull down the government or to save them from the government’s oppression.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

Defying widespread criticism and protest, the government has divided Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) into two parts as North and South Dhaka. The elected people’s representatives in the city corporation were forced to quit as government has appointed two administrators to run the activities of two Corporations. Interestingly, the government did not discuss or seek opinion from any quarters regarding the split of the DCC. Major political parties, civil society, and even the media strongly opposed the idea of splitting Dhaka, but the government didn’t pay attention to any of the opposition or criticism. Rather they hastily passed the bill in Parliament. The ruling Awami League lawmakers alone were present as Parliament endorsed the bill in voice votes passing the Local Government (City Corporation) (Amendment) Bill 2011, which also includes provision for holding polls within 90 days of the bifurcation.With the changes to the law, the incumbent DCC Mayor, Sadeque Hossain Khoka and all DCC councilors were forced to leave their corporation job.

Under the 2009 act, representatives were able to stay in office until new elected representatives were sworn in. “The population of Dhaka city has increased to more than one crore. In this situation, it is very difficult to provide services for the huge population by one City Corporation. The city inhabitants are not getting the desired services and civic amenities,” read the bill justifying the split.

Though the government said that they have decided to split the DCC to ensure quality service to the city dwellers, people believe that the government has taken this decision just because of the fear that they will not be able to pass the city corporation election. Elected in 2002, the mayor and all the councilors of the DCC are still in office, even though their tenure expired in May 2007. Polls to the DCC could not be held for many reasons, one being the state of emergency in 2007-2008. Assuming office in January 2009, the Awami League-led government also opted not to allow the Election Commission to hold the polls and finally came up with the move to split the DCC.
The Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) started its journey as the Dacca Municipality on August 1, 1864 with first elected chairman Ananda Chandra Roy. Prior to that, a Committee for the improvement of Dacca was formed in 1823. The Act of 1884 added the provision of elected representatives called commissioners. In 1978, it gained status as Dhaka Municipality Corporation and 1990 it became Dhaka City Corporation, which is divided into 90 wards. In 1982, two adjoining municipalities — Mirpur and Gulshan — were merged with Dhaka Municipality. In 1983, it was renamed as Dhaka Municipal Corporation. Finally, in 1990, it was renamed as Dhaka City Corporation. Until 1994, mayors were appointed by the Government. The first elected mayor by popular vote took office in 1994.

Local government experts and governance analysts said the decision to slice Dhaka was unlikely to yield the expected results while the BNP called it a decision of “narrow political convenience” to defeat the opposition’s nominee for the mayoral post in the next mayoral election. Incumbent mayor Khoka (who loses his seat after official publication of the gazette of the bill) of BNP promised that he would not contest the next city elections if the government would let the city not be split. He has also promised that the split will be scraped once BNP returns to power. The move was considered autocratic by the civil society as no public opinion was taken before the bifurcation. There were calls by the civil society to go for referendum before the split was made.

Since only the corporations are being split without a split in the service providing agencies, this may lead to a messy situation with a bureaucratic bottleneck, causing coordination failure amongst the services provided to the citizens. The creation of two corporations will result in an increase in taxes for administrative expenses, without a guarantee of improvement in civic services.

Since the Constitution of Bangladesh defines Dhaka the capital of Bangladesh, legal experts believe that the law may be challenged as a violation of the constitution. To this end, Khoka filed a writ petition at the High Court, challenging the new law after it was passed; the court, in turn, asked the government to show cause as to why the split wasn’t illegal or unconstitutional.

But the government is not willing to pay attention to protests and criticism; rather they are trying to justify their decision by criticizing the opponents of the Dhaka split decision. Political analysts believe that the government has created a golden opportunity for the opposition parties to intensify their anti-government movement.

By Shaugat A. Sagor

shaugat@gmail.com