Renowned senior journalists expressed their serious concerns over the growing challenges and threats to media persons in performing their duties in Pakistan in general and in the tribal areas in particular. They deplored the state’s failure to protect media persons and to provide them a conducive environment for the free exercise of freedom of expression.
Hassan Khan, Controller of current affairs, AVT Khyber, lamented that tribal journalists were working in an environment of constant fear and intimidation. He noted that, at a time when the US-led war on terror was at its peak, with all of its collateral damage, the state was forcing tribal journalists to either accept government jobs or leave the tribal areas and stop reporting. He said murder of a tribal journalist, Hayatullah Khan, was a recent example of such prevailing situation in that area. He said two other tribal journalists, Amir Nawab and Allah Noor Wazir, had also been killed prior to Hayatullah Khan’s murder. “Political administration, security agencies and the militant groups were harassing the tribal journalists to stop them from independent reporting” he added. The journalists did not even know where to go and how to protect themselves. Mr Khan also discussed intra-tribal rivalries, which also curb the freedom of expression in the tribal areas. As a result, nearly all the working journalists have left the tribal areas and shifted to the nearby settled districts.. “There has been complete blackout of news from FATA for several months and the miseries and plight of millions of tribesmen were out of sight as the government deliberately hides the reports about military casualties and the suffering of local people in ongoing operations,” he observed.
Renowned senior investigative reporter from The News, Rauf Klasra, said that, unfortunately, journalists were harassed in every undemocratic regime but more discouraging was the lukewarm response of civil society. He asked the civil society to support the media on issues of public interest. He condemned the government's move to restrict the media in covering meetings of Parliamentary committees.
Matiullah Jan of Inter News lamented that the Standing Committee passed the ‘Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’ bill without consulting the stakeholders, noting that the proposed legislation allows the arrest of journalists without warrant and does not distinguish between editors and cable operators. He said that even the constitutional requirement of a quorum for the Committee meeting was violated in passing the bill. He called for the judiciary to re-interpret Article 19 of the Constitution, which relates to freedom of expression.
In his concluding remarks, Zafarullah Khan of the Center for Civic Education said that the rule of law is a pre-requisite for all kinds of freedom. He said political parties, civil society, media and the government all have a responsibility to work towards ensuring the right of freedom of expression of citizens and particularly of journalists.
The seminar speakers voiced serious concerns about the lack of clean drinking water and of the prevalence of water-borne health problems in the country. They demanded that the government ensure by all means ‘effective and indiscriminate’ the supply of clean drinking water to the masses across the country. Some of the experts and participants also demanded that access to potable water should be declared a basic human right in Pakistan.
Mirza Mohammad Ramzan, who is associated with a DFID-funded water and sanitation project in Faisalabad, said, while discussing water contamination and the lack of water in Punjab, that most water schemes were non-operational because they were run by people who had no skills and knowledge. He urged the government to arrange awareness campaigns and provide filtration plants to every union council to avoid contamination of drinking water.
A German development consultant, Nils Rosemann, while sharing the findings of his study, said that access to a safe drinking water supply was both a basic need and a basic human right and must be respected as such. Expressing dissatisfaction over official data, which presents a rosy picture of the state of affairs in Pakistan, he said that the water crisis was profoundly problematic and needed to be addressed at priority basis. Noting that nearly 75 per cent of the population - some 125 million people - had no access to clean drinking water, he recommended purification, pollution control and improvement and maintenance in existing water networks and infrastructure as a short-term strategy to provide clean drinking water. He advocated local knowledge and water management as part of a long-term solution. He also raised the issue of improving water governance, including the regulation of ground water extraction and use, adding that all of these efforts require sufficient financial and human-resource investment in water sector.
Tariq Masoud Malik, of The Consumer Protection Network, said that people were dying from drinking contaminated water across the country but government’s response was a callous apathy. There are 5 or 6 government agencies and Ministries dealing with water, but unfortunately they had all failed to act on the problem. He acknowledged that water policies existed in the country but lack of effective implementation was a major issue. "No proper consultative process has been adopted in devising the national water policy,” he said. He also criticized the government's decision to provide 6,000 water filtration plants, covering nearly all the union councils in the country by 2007, arguing that this was not a solution to the problem. The operation and maintenance costs of the plants were prohibitively high. Urging the government to set water as a top priority he suggested that first the government should conduct a proper survey and establish the exact number of people who have no access to clean water.
The Capital Development Authority (CDA)’s Director of Water Supply, Jamilur Rehman, narrated the initiatives of the Authority to produce and supply clean drinking water to the residents of the federal capital. He also discussed in detail the sources and types of water-borne diseases. He said that the CDA had been making extra efforts to test and cross-test drinking water before supplying it to consumers. “The CDA is supplying 100 per cent clean water which is properly treated as per the World Health Organization’s standards,” he claimed. In addition to the CDA’s own testing, the National Institute of Health and the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources also periodically cross check the water quality supplied by the CDA, he maintained.
The experts urged that the government to take all necessary security and safety measures at nuclear mining and processing facilities to protect citizens against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
Shahid Rehman, a senior journalist who covers nuclear affairs for the media and the author of The Long Road to Chaghi discussed in detail the issue of the nuclear waste management in Pakistan. He said before the nuclear tests in 1998, the safety and security of nuclear materials and staff in Pakistan was not very good, but after the tests, the country has put in place significant safety and security measures and safeguards with the assistance of Japan, the U.S.A and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this connection, he particularly referred two new initiatives of the Government of Pakistan, which included establishment of a Directorate of Safety in the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and setting up of an independent body, the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA). Pakistan had already signed the Convention on Nuclear Safety. Referring to the D.G. Khan nuclear waste incident in July, he said that the issue came to light when a local Senator raised the matter in the Senate, claiming that radiation from the nuclear mining site in Baghal Chor D.G. Khan was causing damage to local people and livestock.
“D.G. Khan is one of the biggest locations of nuclear facilities in the country. There may not be scientific data available for people dying of cancer, birth defects, blindness and other harm to the surrounding environment and communities. However, the danger of possible harm from regulation-related issues cannot be ruled out” he said. Uranium was being mined at Baghal Chor, 65 kilometers from D.G Khan and transported to a uranium refinery at D.G. Khan for processing. The mine at Baghal Chor was closed down in 1999-2000 but the mill and refinery were still operating there, said Mr. Rehman. Although none of the nuclear installations at D.G. Khan are regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission have effective and credible arrangements in place to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities and personnel working in these installations.
Prof. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-i-Azam University briefly touched upon the nuclear history of Pakistan and said the government of Pakistan has taken proper security measures and safeguards at all the nuclear sites in the country. Referring to the D.G. Khan incident, he said that after the media reports, the concerned authorities have conducted surveys in that area and also in other districts such as Khushab, but there was no sign of any increase in levels of radioactivity. Although the government claimed that there was no change in radioactive levels, but there was apprehension in some quarters that it was hiding the facts about the incident. He questioned the reporting of the D.G. Khan incident in media, as there was still no documentary proof that the alleged incident had occurred. He also made it clear that most of the nuclear facilities in Pakistan were under IAEA supervision and strict international security and safety measures were in place.
He said that nuclear energy was becoming an alternative source of energy, so the trend of establishing global nuclear energy partnerships was emerging due to the rise in oil and gas prices. He added that PAEC was also utilizing nuclear energy for civil use in agriculture and health, as well as to generate energy. He urged civil society organizations to demand proper and safe nuclear waste management systems as everyone was concerned and wanted effective measures established to detect radioactive materials, radiation emissions and the safe disposal of nuclear wastes.
In a lively debate, the speakers highlighted successive dictatorial governments’ deliberate attempts to weaken mainstream political parties and to create political vacuums, maintaining that such attempts actually create conducive environments for religious parties to flourish. The emerging international scenario also provided opportunities to these religious groups to fill the vacuum.
Zaigham Khan, development consultant, said that religious politics gained momentum in the 1970s. “During the Zia era, religious groups were even included in the decision-making process and formulation of government policies, including the process for the enactment of Hudood Ordinances”. He maintained that state patronage under successive dictators, including General Pervez Musharraf, has created a means of victimizing political parties, thus creating opportunities for “religious politics” to make significant inroads into the political process. He went on to urge that religion and politics should be separated and that mainstream politicians should be allowed to return to the country to participate in politics.
Khurshid Nadeem, an Islamabad based columnist, divided religious parties into two: the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and the rest. He discussed the ideological and strategy changes in the JI. “During the last 15 to 20 years, there has been significant growth of Islamic thought in the world but JI’s contribution has been nil in terms of the revival of Islam and political work,” he said. Referring to other religious groups, he said they were not ideologically sound and visionary. “In a truly democratic environment in Pakistan, religious parties have no future,” he said.
Tariq Jan, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad, argued that the future of religious parties was as good as that of other political parties. “It depends on their endeavors and how they communicate with the masses.” He said Jamat-e-Islami was the only religious organization working for social welfare of the people since the 1940s. Social services have wedded religion with politics. “We could not implement Islam without political power. “JI did not oppose the creation of Pakistan but it opposed the creation of a nation state because of its ideological position since it do not believe in geographical limitations. Religious politics is not new and it plays a dominant role in South Asia. In Muslim societies, religion cannot be separated from the state,” he concluded.
Dr Inayatullah, President of the Council of Social Sciences, said that the so-called liberal and secular forces were not as well organized as the religious parties were. He said that there were two prominent traditions of Islamic thought: conservative and liberal. The liberal ideas emerged during the Abbasi era, when the work of Greek philosophers was translated and went on to significantly influence Muslim minds. However, this trend eventually disappeared due to the emergence of despotic rule, he added. Commenting on whether Muhammad Ali Jinnah was liberal or religious, he said that both Jinnah and Allama Iqbal had liberal and conservative views at the same time. After the creation of Pakistan, the so-called liberal and democratic intellectuals failed to promote the liberal ‘faces’ of the founders of Pakistan. “Jinnah’s religion was politics” he further added. Their conservative ‘faces’ were very much exploited by the religious groups. “Due to their emotional appeal, flexible strategy and the international scenario, the religious parties have a bright future while democratic forces were scattered and lacked strength,” he maintained. “The main objective of religious parties is to persuade the masses to subscribe to their way of thinking. They do not care about the bonded labor problem in Sindh and they never said anything about women being raped. Religious parties cannot solve the problems of the common man and if they come into power cultural and traditional human survival will be in trouble,” he maintained.
Strongly condemning Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the renowned analysts said that US and Israeli designs in the Middle East have utterly failed. They predicted it would have strongly negative effects on the entire world and in the region in particular. The speakers questioned US support for the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, alleging American double standards on democracy and human rights. They also feared a rise in anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments all over the world, and particularly in Muslim countries.
Agha Murtaza Poya, Senior Leader of the Pakistan Awami Tahrik, while giving a very insightful perspective on Arab-Israel conflict and the current situation in the Middle East, said that the real crisis was not simply people were dying but the situation was a crisis of humanity. Paying tribute to the heroic struggle of Hizbullah, Poya said that Hizbullah was not fighting for Lebanon or Palestine but for the destruction of the Zionist state. It was a fight between oppressors and oppressed. He said that for the first time, Hizbullah has cracked the myth of Israel’s invincibility and innocence, adding that its invincibility was first shattered in 1982 but that the present crisis have further exposed it. He predicted the fall of the Israeli state by 2008, as Hizbullah’s defiance exposed its security and vulnerability. He strongly criticized Pakistan’s stand of “soft condemnation”, urged a clearer stand and demanded the expulsion of the US and British ambassadors from Pakistan. He further said a new Middle East would emerge but not the one Condoleezza Rice has aspired to: rather, it would be the one wanted by the masses in the region.
Former Ambassador Tariq Fatemi said the Israeli attacks were a well-calculated strategy of the US and Israel, aimed at destroying Hamas and crippling Hizbullah. Comparing Hamas and Hizbullah with Al-fateh, Mr Fatemi said they had emerged from genuine, grassroots democratic movements. Hamas and Hizbullah were indigenous organizations, not relying on any foreign ideology. Despite the destruction and the suffering of the Lebanese people, the present crisis had the seeds of the region’s transformation.
He identified three developments as being very important in the context of the present Middle East crisis. The conflict defied prevalent perceptions about a Shia-Sunni divide, Arab–Ajam divide and a growing realization of unity among Muslims with recognition of threats to them by the USA and Israel. Criticizing America’s continuous support to Israel, he said that its present policies were neither bringing security to Israel nor serving its interests in the region. He concluded his remarks with the hope that the present crisis would arouse the consciousness of the masses and that the Muslim states would be forced to adopt policies reflecting the true aspirations of their respective populations.
Gen. Talat Mahsood, Political and Strategic Analyst, threw light on the military and political objectives of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon. He said that the Israeli strategy was aimed at neutralizing and militarily weakening the Hizbullah, and politically strengthening the pro-West Prime Minister of Lebanon. Then, under the UN resolution, the peacekeepers would be deployed in southern Lebanon to ensure Israel’s security. However, the heroic struggle of Hizbullah had defied this strategy. The Israeli strategy also aimed to extend the US and Israeli influence in the region by de-linking Iran and Syria from Hamas and Hizbullah. He was of the view that Lebanon would become another Iraq for the USA and that the Middle East conflict would have far-reaching implications for the region. He predicted an increase in anti-USA, anti-Israel sentiments, the marginalization of moderate forces, a growth in radicalism, the weakening of government authority and negative impacts on Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. Talat also claimed that the Middle East situation would have an impact on Indo-Pak relations as well.
Speaking at a seminar organized by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Dr. Saeed Shafqat and Zafarullah Khan, Executive Director, Center for Civic Education, discussed numerous aspects of Pakistani politics with regard to their funding sources and opportunities.
The speakers, in the course of a thought-provoking discussion of their perspectives on the political parties and current political system in Pakistan, stressed the need for public funding and incentives for political parties and for transparency in utilizing their funds. They also advocated a supportive environment for democratization of political parties and governance structures as no democracy can survive or indeed function without informed and stable political parties.
Dr. Zafarullah Khan said that politics has become an expensive business today and the frequency of scandals in politics has increased, both in Pakistan and around the world. Discussing the culture of illegal donations, he said that, although the Political Parties Ordinance 2002 forbids political parties receiving funds from corporate donors, unions and foreign donors, these groups have been actively involved in providing funding to Pakistan’s political parties. However, he identified the leaders of the parties, overseas Pakistanis and candidate’s fees as the major sources of funding to Pakistan’s political parties. He was critical of the fact that the utilization of party funds was neither transparent nor properly documented. Based on the experience of other countries, he advocated a public funding model for Pakistan’s political parties and made a number of concrete suggestions for improvement. These included the constitution of a National Commission, government’s logistical support to political parties and regular disclosure of their funding sources. Citing the Election Commission’s Report of 2003, he said that the figures provided to the EC by the political parties did not match the expenditures made by these parties for their political activities. He also questioned the claim that membership fees were a major source of funding.
Dr. Saeed Shafqat, a prolific social scientist and writer, presented an insightful analysis of Pakistan’s political system over the last three decades. He observed that, during this period, six alarming trends have emerged, not only in politics but also in society and at the state level. These trends included: increased personalization of power; the transformation of an elite structure; community fragmentation; the criminalization of society and the state; a disconnect between state and civil society and, finally, decline of political parties. He cautioned that time was running out and we must act now to put the things in their proper perspective because the country was at a crossroads and if political parties, civil society and public could not play their respective roles, an historic opportunity would be lost.
He said that for the democratization of political parties and improved governance structures, massive funds were available from different sources: however, the issue was how to effectively and properly utilize this potential. He urged political parties to implement plans for the effective utilization of funding opportunities, which could help them to attain sustainable democracy in Pakistan. They would also then become the genuine representatives of the common person, for whom all political processes and the political parties themselves have become irrelevant. He stressed the need to revive and nurture a value system, which included respect for the law and minorities, patience and tolerance as a way forward for Pakistanis.
Gumina Bilal, who facilitated the seminar proceedings, declared political parties to be essential for any political system. However, she also raised concerns over models of funding to Pakistan’s political parties and their individualistic and personality-dependent approaches.
While sharing a thought provoking analysis of Pakistan’s defense, economy, social and political spheres, the experts and analysts termed the "ruling elite" as the root cause of all ills in the country and said that the biggest challenge to the country was the apparently unbridgeable chasm between the haves and the have-nots and the widening gulf between the rulers and ruled.
Prominent intellectuals Ashfaq Saleem Mirza, Dr. Ahmed Nawaz Hakro, Department of Economics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad and Ayesha Siddiqua, Defence Analyst, Islamabad discussed different aspects of 59 years of Pakistan’s existence with regard to its economy, defense, and social and political spheres.
Ashfaq Saleem Mirza highlighted Pakistan’s major social and political developments over those 59 years and said that the common citizens of the country lived in circumstances of uncertainty. He lamented that economic and social deprivation had never allowed any genuine political and democratic processes to take root. Instead, religious extremism, repeated military dictatorships and unilateral approaches on the part of ruling elites had taken the entire political and social process hostage. He said that common people were unhappy, and dissatisfied with the deep-rooted political and social conditions. He said that it was unfortunate that Pakistan’s population was forced to survive in the conditions where poverty, drugs, unemployment, inflation and illiteracy were prevalent. He added that globalization and the WTO, Structural Adjustment Programmes, the new liberal agenda and the UN Millennium Development Goals provided potential opportunities for Pakistan’s military-bureaucracy to victimize the poor.
Dr. Ahmed Nawaz Hakro, Department of Economics, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, shared a brief analysis of Pakistan’s complicated economic history, arguing that all of the economic policies of the country had protected only the interests of the ruling elites. He lamented that people had become subject to the commercial and financial interests of the ruling elites, particularly the military. Referring to 59 years of unstable economic growth, he maintained that only external factors had arisen to rescue the economy. Through 59 years of droughts, climate change and other factors, aid, grants, loans, structural adjustment programmes, international development investment, and foreign donor agencies were the key factors that had helped Pakistan’s economy to survive. He said that the Pakistan was the 3rd. largest recipient of aid in the world, after Israel and Egypt.
He went on to say that, after the events of 9/11, the prevailing insecurity in Western countries led to increased donor contributions, the easing of loan conditionalities, loan rescheduling for the next 35 years, and extended support for the “war on terror”. These factors were the chief factors accounting for the growth of Pakistan’s economy. “The increased leasing activity, massive unemployment and the criminal neglect of the social sector were some of the serious problems of the country,” he added. He urged political resolve, land reforms, a focus on human development, and people’s participation in the decision-making process to help the nation to recover from the damage.
Ayesha Siddiqua, Defence Analyst, Islamabad highlighted Pakistan’s defense and political spheres in her analysis. Arguing that the ruling – and in particular the military - elite had made life miserable for the majority, she noted that civic and political institutions have not been allowed to grow and develop. She also identified an array of problems: the lack of competing visions; the increasingly predatory role of the state; over-dependence on the United States; policies oriented towards the ruling elites; Pakistan’s inability to redefine its internal, regional and international relationships and an environment of military hegemony – as the factors which had worked together to impede progress in all social, political, philosophical and intellectual endeavors. She said that it was high time that Pakistan’s policy makers redefine center-province and of course India-Pakistan relationships for the betterment of the people and region.
Expressing concern over deforestation in Pakistan, environmentalists urged the need for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the forestry sector, and demanded that the Government provide the necessary legislative and institutional arrangements for making PPPs a reality in Pakistan.
Amjad Nazir of the Sungi Development Foundation, Islamabad presented a very insightful overview of the situation of forests, and the forest policies adopted by different governments over the years. He lamented that, despite there being a provision for Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) in the forest laws of 1992, the roles regarding the regulation, regeneration, and management of forests had not been properly envisaged. In addition, Forest Department officials were given some arbitrary powers, including the right to dissolve a JFMC.
Atif Sandhu, Project Coordinator, Green Circle Organization (GCO) Lahore, shared the details of a PPP project in the Galiyat area, in which GCO was the implementing partner, Shell Foundation UK was the donor, and the National Environment Action Plan-Support Programme (NEAP-SP) was the implementing agency. He said the project aimed at improving participatory decision-making, promoting capacity building, creating alternative sources of livelihood, developing household economies, reducing indoor pollution by adopting clean energy sources, and the joint management of the Ayubia National Park by community members and Park authorities.
Ali Pracha, a Consultant at SDPI Islamabad, said that a wide range of individuals and groups such as small forest owners, rights-holders, non-owners, women, and grazers all depend on forests for their livelihoods. However, poor stakeholders were steadily being marginalized and were often exploited by powerful groups such as “timber mafia”. “Complicated land ownership issues further exacerbate the problem,” he added. He said that PPPs could not be effective in the forestry sector until and unless these and other key issues were addressed.
Furthermore, he said the Forest Department has been reluctant to concede rights and entitlements to forest communities, but that those communities had managed to leverage them to a limited degree. Many, however, were coerced into selling these rights at throwaway prices to the timber mafias. In his concluding remarks, he said the private sector in different parts of the world has shown that it can play a major role in natural resource management and must be encouraged to do so in Pakistan as well.
The speakers at the seminar highlighted the legal and procedural flaws and lacunae in Hudood Ordinances (HO) from religious and human rights perspectives and called for its repeal in totality. They welcomed some of the positive and progressive proposed Amendments but declared the government’s proposed amendment move to be “politically motivated” by expressing their doubts about the fate of the proposed amendments.
Dr. Arfa Sayeda Zehra, National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW); Nasreen Azhar, Women’s Action Forum, Islamabad; Dr. Farzana Bari, Centre of Excellence in Gender Studies, (QAU) Islamabad and Muhammad Saeed Alrai, ex-I. G. Police discussed different aspects of the subject.
Dr. Arfa Sayeda Zehra reiterated the position of the NCSW for the repeal of the Hudood Ordinances instead of mere amendments. She cited the NCSW 2003 report in which, after a genuine and consultative process, the learned members had called for the repeal of these laws. Although she appreciated the present government’s initiative for the amendments, she questioned its sincerity, noting that, after an extensive consultative process, the proposed amendments were forwarded to a Select Committee, rather than to standing committee of the National Assembly. While highlighting the inability of successive governments to move forward on the issue, she said that for the first time in 27 years since the enactment of the Hudood Ordinances, there was positive talk of amendment to these extremely discriminatory laws. She said that amidst the heavy and historic representation of Maulvis in the politics and the powerful Maulvi-Jagirdar nexus, the present government’s initiative to amend the HOs was a very positive step.
Dr. Farzana Bari of the Centre of Excellence in Gender Studies (QAU) Islamabad, besides demanding the repeal of the undemocratic, non-consultative and politically motivated Hudood Ordinances, said that the lacunas and faults in implementing the HOs had been violating human rights since their inception. She urged that it was high time for the state and religion to be separated from each other. She appreciated the initiative of the present government to introduce amendments in these laws, but lamented that the initiative was nothing but a politically-motivated step to achieve two political gains: to promote government’s image as a women-friendly government and, more importantly, to create a divide in the resistance and unity of the opposition.
She was very critical of the role of political parties in the arena since they were all the same when they came to the question of women’s rights. She noted the irony of the fact that one military dictator had felt a political compulsion to introduce the HOs while another was amending them for same political benefits. She urged civil society to play an active role for the repeal of these discriminatory laws as the civil society was conceptually and intellectually clear but it had failed to create popular support and public pressure.
Muhammad Saeed Alrai, ex-I.G. Police, while giving an exemplary analysis of the situation, stressed the urgent need to reinterpret Islamic Laws and to end the selective and partial implementation of some of those Laws. He said that every Islamic Law has a dimension of reform, but unfortunately the Islamic Laws have virtually never been interpreted in their true spirit and context. He opposed the HO on two grounds: without an Islamic social welfare system in place, no Islamic law in isolation can deliver justice; and secondly, an Islamic Law should be enforced in totality. He said, however, that the HO law had severe gaps and needed to be amended. While quoting some examples from Islamic history, he made it clear that Islam always stressed the prevalence of reformative approaches instead of just giving punishments to offenders. He also suggested the establishment of reconciliatory courts before lodging the issues with other courts.
Nasreen Azhar of the Women’s Action Forum moderated the session and deplored the fact that the government’s intention to amend the HO was not to win justice for the people but to achieve political ends. During the vibrant question and answer session, the participants questioned the sincerity of the government and its intended political gains. They also feared that after the assassination of Akbar Bugti and the emerging situation in Balochistan, the government would not be able to withstand the expected pressure of the MMA and would possibly withdraw from its plan of introducing amendments in Hudood Laws.
While highlighting the severe human rights violations in the war on terror, the speakers demanded that Pakistani government apply constitutional and legal safeguards and honor its international humanitarian commitments. They also urged the government to hold a free and fair legal trial and to exercise their fundamental legal rights.
Pollyanna Truscott highlighted the undermined status of human rights after 9/11. The US and other governments have misused the war on terror slogan to institute human rights violations, abductions, retentions, torture etc. She briefed that it was Amnesty International’s priority to confront this US-led ‘dirty’ war with some of the defined areas of work such as torture/inhuman treatment, abductions, detention and unlawful transfer of detainees to other countries. Referring to some of the leaked US documents, she lamented that there was no provision to check the violation against detainees who were mentally and physically tortured and were prohibited to contact lawyers, courts and families. According to her, US government had been encouraging other governments to introduce draconian laws to subjugate people despite poor evidence. She considers the diplomatic assurances for the prevention of torture as worthless and discriminatory in nature. She mentioned that the US government was having people extradited and then tortured to extract information. She raised her serious concerns over the practice, methods and patterns of transfer of persons between different countries.. She said that since 9/11, more that 2 million people have been displaced and 70,000 have been detained by the US in different parts of the world. Moreover, the number of secret retentions was unknown. She strongly condemned the inhuman, harsh and unjust treatment of detainees by the US and its supported regimes since it caused severe stress not only to detainees but also to their families. She said that Guantanamo Bay was a symbol of injustice and abuse. She declared recently introduced US Military Commission Act 2006 a “stamp for human rights abuses”. She however, regretted that governments across the globe have not accorded due attention to the Millennium Development Goals because of their increased focus on this dirty war.
Angelika Pathak suggested that post-9/11, there was an increase in enforced disappearances in Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and Sindh including men, women and children, both Pakistani and non-Pakistani citizens. According to her observation these unlawful and arbitrary disappearances have been carried out on very slim, inaccurate and unreliable evidences She further argued that the detainees were subjected to a whole range of abuses, some of them being tortured, beaten and hung from ceilings etc. She was of the view that such actions of the government caused dismay, fear, anger, and economic hardship not only to the detainees but also to their heirs. She further revealed that 750 Pakistanis were detained in Guantanamo Bay and majority of them were arrested in Pakistan and subsequently transferred to the US. She said those persons had lost their belief in criminal justice of the country. She however demanded that the government end the arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances, as well as unlawful transfer of detainees to other countries by passing the legal safeguards.
Aimal Khan maintained his focus on human rights violations particularly in the context of the military operation in Waziristan during the so-called war on terror. He said that on many accounts our region was one of the main arenas in the war on terror. According to him, the war on terror was being fought both through conventional and unconventional means in this region.
He said that the human rights record of Pakistan had never been an ideal one but after 9/11 when Pakistan joined the war on terror, and launched military operations in the country to nab and flush out the Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, the situation got worse. The human rights situation further deteriorated due to the special constitutional status of FATA, by virtue of which tribesmen were treated as second-rate citizens. Aimal Khan cited economic blockade, fines, demolition of houses, suspension of salaries and privileges of the respective tribes as traditional tools of coercion in the tribal areas. He mentioned the two types of terrorism-, state sponsored and non-state initiated. Regardless of the form however, he maintained that state terrorism led to grave human rights violations.
Dr. Saba Gul Khattak chaired the seminar proceedings. She raised her concerns over the conduct of war on terror as it has been increasingly causing civilian killings, disappearances and displacement. According to her, situation in tribal areas of Pakistan was very important when the war on terror came to Pakistan’s context. She however made it clear that it was not only violence that was being perpetuated, but also the biotic relationship between practice and discourse.
The speakers expressed their displeasure over the Balochistan situation which was exacerbated with the brutal killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti. Speakers demanded an immediate end to military operation, release of all political prisoners and production of all mysteriously disappeared Baloch nationalists in the province.
Mr. Karamat Ali from PILER, while giving a historical background of the situation of real provincial autonomy in the country suggested that the autonomy was the best solution of the Balochistan crisis. He urged that besides abolishing the concurrent list, the issue of distribution of resources on a population basis should also be resolved. He lamented that the establishment, bureaucracy and feudal have deprived the nation not only of their sovereignty and independence but also of their rights. He said that Akbar Bugti always had good relations with the establishment and supported the federation as he occupied important positions such as the federal minister, governor and chief minister. He was of the view that his assassination in such circumstances would lead to horrendous implications for the country.
He said that during the present military rule, provincial autonomy and national cohesion has reached their to a serious situation, and if it were not addressed in a timely manner the country could face a 1971-like situation. Successive governments have crushed those who were the torchbearers of nationalist and class ideologies. There were many golden opportunities for clearing the mess but the democratic forces wasted it and the military dictators took advantage of the situation. He endorsed the demand of nationalists for dividing Punjab into three provinces-Potohar, Seraiki and Punjab province.
Dr. Rubina Saigol of Actionaid Pakistan shared an in depth analysis of construction of nationalism and official nationalism and its clash. Analyzing the recent images and news articles on Balochistan, she said that the process of myth making was underway. Sardar Bugti has been transformed from being a disillusioned politician of a disaffected province into a mythological figure of heroic proportions. She said this myth making process goes hand in hand with the construction of official nationalism. She said that all nationalism whether official or otherwise was based on reconstructing the past and creating or recreating heroes. She lamented that every Pakistani had a serious concern over the critical role of the ruling elite, which was making matters worse for them.
Mr. Harris Khalque of SPO said that the issue was not merely of Punjab versus the rest but the state versus citizens. While criticizing modern states, he said all the states were oppressive and artificial and hence to term Pakistani governments as tyrannical unjust. He said that in 1947, only power was transferred, but the quest for real freedom remained elusive. He said selected elite were ruling everywhere. "Even in India seven percent high caste Brahmans are occupying nearly 80 percent public sector jobs," he remarked.
He said that it was the Pakistani state, which made the Sardars, Waderas and Khans powerful. The state made them collaborators to nurture and strengthen their power. He condemned the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti by saying that elimination of political opponents can never be condoned. He advocated pro-poor growth and environment friendly development. He said that enforcement of socialist system was best solution of our problems.
The documentary showed that contrary to government claims the sense of political and economic deprivation of Baloch people was very deep. Moreover, Baloch nationalist leaders had a wide public support in Balochistan. The documentary highlighted the high handedness of security forces and miserable life of Baloch people. This fact was evident from the interviews of ordinary Baloch people conducted for the documentary.
The documentary was made last year by the Balochistan Solidarity Front (BSF)-a broad based coalition of progressive political workers, intellectuals and ordinary citizens. Ms Asha Amirali, one of the members of the BSF delegation, introduced the documentary and briefed the participants about the situation of Balochistan. It was based on footage gathered by a delegation of the BSF during its two-week long tour of the volatile province in March 2005. The footage included an interview of Akbar Bugti, as well as of other nationalist politicians, political activists and ordinary Baloch.
The documentary was followed by a question-and-answer session. There was near consensus among the participants that the government did not handle the Balochistan issue properly. Instead of adopting concrete economic and political policies for redressing the grievances of Baloch people, the government launched a military operation, which further aggravated the situation. Some of the participants blamed the military for mishandling the situation by resorting to force. Expressing their concern over the grave situation of Balochistan, the participants stressed the need for political and democratic solution of the Balochistan crisis. They also demanded immediate end to the operation, enforced disappearances, military’s return to the barracks and release of all political prisoners.
The documentary was jointly screened by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) and Peoples Rights Movement (PRM)
Lamenting that thousands of landless survivors of last year’s earthquake were being ignored, the speakers lashed out at the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) for not doing enough for the affectees of the earthquake. They maintained that 40,000 survivors were living in tents, 26,000 to 30,000 were landless, and landowners were claiming compensation instead of survivors.
Amjad Nazir from Sungi Development Foundation said that the recent rallies in the country against ERRA have demonstrated that there were issues, which were not yet addressed. Therefore, there were feelings of discontent and displeasure among the locals in earthquake affected areas. He said that there was a wide gap between what the government claimed and what it was practically doing. He said that some 40,000 survivors were living in tents and among them between 26,000 to 30,000 were landless. While the landowners were receiving compensation but the landless were getting nothing due to wrong policies of the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authorities (ERRA). He said that one-roof-one-cheque, condition of NOC for tenants to claim compensation and women head of families in compensation policy were some of the important issues, which needed immediate government attention. He however, explained that there was no comprehensive social protection policy for the survivors of the earthquake. Rather some safety measures were functional in the name of policy.
Mr Nazir said the Azad Jammu Kashmir government has purchased 6,000 kanals of land for the relocation of the earthquake survivors but no such moves could be seen in NWFP. The government was planning to shift the population from Balakot to Bakaryal, while relocation of Muzafarabad was yet to be finalized. He said that according to ERRA’s data, the government received commitment of worth US $ 6.15 billion, and got some US $ 7 billion but had distributed only Rs. 2 billion among the survivors so far.
Arshad Abbasi, an Islamabad-based researcher, pointed out the slow pace of reconstruction work and said that there was no major construction work being carried out in the affected areas. He identified shifting of population of AJK to any safe place and the concrete-orientated solution as the major issues in the reconstruction process, which needed an early solution. He said that in 1960s a geological study of the AJK was carried out to assess if the area fell in the watershed of the Mangla Dam. However, the study suggested that the population of AJK should be permanently shifted to any safe area, as the vulnerability of this area would increase because of the Dam and earthquake fault line. He suggested that revisiting the 1960s geological and topographical survey was essential to avoid any such future human disaster. Regarding construction designs, he said the locals were opposing these inappropriate designs, as these were not only costly but also geometrically not suitable to the local conditions. Moreover, the cost of construction was also high than the compensation. He advocated that the construction design must be according to the local environment involving locally available construction resources, materials and expertise.
Kilian Kleinschmidt of UNHCR stressed that it was high time that a strong and effective advocacy movement be initiated with the government and policy makers for the recognition of citizens’ rights of shelter. He said that it was the basic responsibility of the government to provide shelter, sustained economic and social development and ensure access to opportunities to all its citizens on an equal basis. “The government should see this situation as an opportunity”, he stressed. He said that we must be specific while dealing with terms like, land rights, tenancy rights and land entitlements. He said unfortunately there was no clarity about these widely used terms at the policy and decision-making level. He stressed upon preparing a proper analysis of land rights and tenancy and devising functional meaning of these terms. He said that according to their survey, out of 5600 families, 3320 considered themselves as landless while 1942 were landowners. However, he urged that we must understand the context and background of the situation in order to do effective advocacy as land rights, ownership and management varied from country to country. “And we have not been able to understand the exact situation as far as the case of Pakistan was concerned” he added.
The speakers expressed their concerns over the increasing crime rate and law and order situation not only in the capital but also across the country, and called for strict implementation of laws and massive reforms in the police department to make it a professional, accountable, non-partisan, service-oriented and efficient department which could function according to the Constitution, law, and democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan. The concept of establishing Model Police System in the country was presented by one of the speakers urging SDPI and other stakeholders to consider it for further debate so as to make it a practical and viable option for implementation.
Mr Liaqat Banuri from SHARP, Islamabad pointed out that crime was part of every society however institutions were always there to deal with them. He said Islamabad was known as a model city because we have model institutions such as mode police and model parliament etc here, however, the law and order situation was unsatisfactory and crime rate was sharply increasing. He attributed the large number of pending untraced cases related to murder etc in the police stations of the capital to the inefficiency of police department. “Only in one police station there are 73 such cases,” he added. Quoting police sources, he said that hundreds of absconders were residing in Islamabad under the patronage of influential people but the law enforcing and security agencies avoid nabbing them. He said that the recent seizure of rockets intended for targeting the very sensitive government installations was an indication of the graveness of the situation. He mentioned that police was the prime organization for controlling the crimes and maintaining law and order situation. Billions of rupees were spent on them from national exchequer every year but it failed to serve the public and in many cases it exercised its power above the law. He lamented that law in Pakistan was not only blind but also paralyzed, and Police stations had become a “symbol of terror” where the system could offer no remedy or relief to the sufferer. A weak, inefficient, and corrupt police couldn’t control the increasing incidence of crimes, he added.
Mr. Banuri while discussing the main reasons for the rising crime rate and poor law & order situation, blamed the low conviction rate as one of the major reasons. According to him the conviction rate for the heinous crimes was 8-10 % and not more than2-5% for the remaining “How crimes will be curtailed with such a al arming low conviction rate?” he questioned. While other major reasons included Non-implementation of the laws and regulations, favoritism and non-or partial implementation of Police Order 2002. He demanded an increased respect for the constitution and rule of law, urging to expand the scope of such discourses for resolving such issues. He emphasized on implementation of laws including the Police Order 2002, strengthening of criminal procedural courts, and setting up of Public Safety Commissions and Citizens Police Liaison Committees to deal with the situation.
Dr. Ehtsham Anwar, Assistant Commissioner (Rural), Islamabad categorised the root cause of rising crimes as police related and non-police related. The socio-politico-economic situation was to be blamed for the non-police related reasons whereas the police related reasons were attributed to an ill equipped and neglected police system, which was responsible the capital. He, stressed on a collective effort to bring about a positive change in the system. He cited the concept of motorway police and Islamabad Capital Police as role models He also a concept of Model City Police for capital and other cities in the country asking institutions like SDPI to further research and debate on this proposal. According to him a well trained, modern and efficient police force, supported by latest equipment and laboratories could definitely curb the crimes. Some of his proposals for the new police force included graduation as minimum induction level, standard weight and height, fair rotational policy, transparent and merit-based punishment and reward system, competitive salary package, residential facilities for police personal, facilities like bank loans, one-shift duty, training regarding public relations, martial arts and computers education. He said that support departments such as state-of-the-art lab, crime research centre, independent prosecution service and intelligence gathering in special branches should facilitate such police force.
During vibrant question-answer session, issues such as police’s traditional reluctance in lodging FIRs, torture in police stations, political interference, extra judicial arrests, concept of model city police vis-à-vis existing police system and criminalisation within some sections of police force were discussed at length. It was a consensus it was responsibility of the government to ensure good governance to take care of its people, provide them a safe and secure environment for living and protect them from criminal odds.
The speakers expressed their anger and displeasure over the brutal killing and disgraceful burial of Nawab Akbar Bugti. They demanded an immediate end to military operation in Balochistan and urged the opposition parties to resign from National and Provincial Assemblies and Senate in protest and to express their solidarity with the people of Balochistan.
Defence Analyst Lt-Gen (Retd) Hameed Gul reiterated that military should have no role in the politics of the country as it was not possible for them to achieve the goal of nation building. He lamented that the critical role of ruling elite and military has pushed Pakistanis to a seriously alarming situation were they were living with uncertainty and scepticism. He said that state should be a sovereign entity, however after 9/11 Pakistan had lost its sovereign status. . He said that the powerful forces of military, bureaucracy and newly emerged corporate imperialism have deprived the nation not only of their sovereignty and independence but also of their rights. He said that Akbar Bugti always had good relations with establishment and supported federation but his assassination in such circumstances would lead to horrendous effects for the both nation and country. He made it clear that such incident happened because Akbar Bugti did not have access to the law of necessity. However, he hoped that only a genuine democracy could ensure freedom, rights and more provincial autonomy for the people. He also cautioned against the separation movements because these would help rulers to escalate state aggression and justify their actions.
President National Party Dr Abdul Hayee Baloch urged the Pakistani masses, particularly the intellectuals, leaders and civil society especially from Punjab to play their due role by rising against the military dictators. Lamenting at the mainstream political leadership over their shaky stance on Balochistan, he said that all the political parties should immediately resign from the assemblies and start agitation to topple the present regime. Dr. Hayee said during the 59 years of country’s independence, all the citizens had been forced to live under the slavery by the army-dominated establishment, as they were not given their due rights by the Army that had tightened its hold on national resources. “Who ever tried to dissent was coerced to follow the government line or be eliminated like Mr. Bugti”. By launching the military operation and assassinating the Baloch leader the army had crossed all the limits adding that the prevailing situation in the country was worse than the 71' crisis.
He however praised Bugti for his courage that was a source of inspiration not only for the Balochs but also for all oppressed people across the globe. Instead of establishing educational institutions, promoting science and technology and launching development projects, Musharraf government has been setting up cantonments just to have more control over the provinces, he added.
Sherry Rehman of PPPP urged the nation and politicians to show solidarity with the Baloch people and initiate a strong campaign against the ruling elite especially military. She said that Balochistan crisis was not a new issue, which basically lingered since 1950s but the critical events during last two years have led to the situation, which can be called as a “blackest era for Pakistan’s history after 1971”. She revealed that there was no talk of separation in Balochistan 2 years back rather Akbar Bugti wanted to negotiate with the Centre when parliamentary committees were engaged in the negotiation process with him but the continuous use of force and extra judicial killing of Akbar Bugti have made the situation worst. She cautioned that Balochistan issue was a strategic and complex issue that can eventually cause disaster to Pakistan’s federation and national unity as brutal assassination of Akbar Bugti, eventual Baloch nationalism and great game of oil by international powers were serious and potential threats, if the matter was not resolved through political process.
Hafiz Hussain Ahmed of MMA while condemning the mysterious assassination of Akbar Bugti demanded the government to make public the details of agreements with Akbar Bugti, reports of parliamentary committees and urged all the politicians and civil society to get united against the military dictatorship. He, however, also rejected all the fake explanations of the government’s different departments to hide the facts of Kohlu incident. He noted that institutions were weak and personalities were strong in the country, which always seriously damaged the national unity. He lamented that every Pakistani was condemning the incident while only one person (General Musharraf) was congratulating his forces for this extra judicial crime. He said that there were 77 Sardars in Balochistan but the government had been targeting only one because he had opposed the policies of military and more particularly of General Musharraf. While giving a detailed account of Parliamentary committee’s efforts to end this dispute, he deplored that the government was never serious to resolve this issue through dialogue and political means because these committees never presented their reports in the parliament. He said that Pentagon has strategic interests in Balochistan and military regime was facilitating them to achieve their goals.
Ahsan Iqbal of PML (N) lamented that the government not only brutally killed the federalist and centralist national leader but also it buried him in very a disgraceful manner. He said the government denial to hand over Akbar Bugti’s body to his heirs was a inhuman act which would further aggravate the feelings of his family, supporters and Baloch nation. He said that we have not learnt any lesson from history and rulers have again shown their bankruptcy by murdering a veteran politician who voted for the independence of Pakistan in 1947 in the Jirga. He demanded an immediate end to military governance and restoration of parliamentary democracy and national contract with the Balochistan to express solidarity and to resolve the issue of Balochistan.
Analyzing public sector’s deficiencies in providing health services to people, the speakers stressed upon the need for proper legislative framework to ensure a conducive environment for better working partnerships between private and public sectors in the areas where the government cannot work alone.
Dr. Sania Nishtar briefed the participants about the Heartfile’s experiences in public- private partnership in health care. She also explained the concept of public-private partnership and its related issues: “there is lack of understanding between public and private sectors”. Lamenting over the lack of proper legislations and regulations, she recommended legislative framework for the enhancement of public-private partnerships in the country and especially in the areas, which involved the provision of basic services to people.
Dr. Karin Astrid Siegmann of SDPI introduced her recent study about public-private partnership in primary healthcare and urged that it was high time to initiate a public discussion about the prospects and challenges for PPPs in healthcare provision. She said that the Ministry of Health was in the process of formulation of a new health policy and has expressed its interest to increase the role of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in health care. The Extended Programme on Immunization and the National AIDS Control Programme have also prepared sectoral guidelines regarding PPPs. However, issues such as conflict of interests between private sector actors like for-profit providers of healthcare services as well as health-related NGOs, unequal power relations and the lack of participation and relevant regulation may hamper the success of PPPs in ensuring effective and equitable access of people to quality healthcare services.
Dr. Talib Lashari, National Health Policy Unit, Ministry of Health, highlighted the role of private sector in health policy. He said that private sector was playing an important role in health sector and currently about 20% of the poor population was getting medical services outside the public sector. There were 946 hospitals in the public sector and 50 in the private sector. In addition, 42100 clinics/chemist shops were in the private sector. He said the government was running several national programs such as Family Planning, Nutrition, Women Health Project, Malaria Control, National Aids Control, Expanded Program on Immunization and TB Control in collaboration with private sector/ NGOs. Urging t o enhance the scope of PPPs, he said the public-private partnerships were at a preliminary stage and mainly involved “contracting” and “Training”. He also advocated the need for more comprehensive legislative framework for public-private partnership.
Terming the MMA-PML (Q) deal on Hudood Ordinances (HOs) as extra-constitutional and a grave violation of human rights, speakers demanded that the government should repeal Hudood ordinances in the best interest of the nation, saying these military-made laws had not only destroyed the lives of thousands of women but also earned a bad name to the country.
Dr. Arfa Sayeda Zehra of National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) criticised some of the discriminatory sections of Hudood Ordinances and government’s extra-parliamentary consultation process for proposed amendments in HOs. She said that every time there was a discussion on women issues it established a new tradition as even in the case of proposed women protection bill, the government first formed a special committee, and then it opted for a Ulema Committee, which bypassed the parliament.
“Laws are suppose to protect and compensate the oppressed and weaker sections but the HOs are doing injustice to the women victims of violence. And all these injustices are done in the name of religion, which is based on justice and advocates respect and honor for women”, she added. She said that she was not against the “Hudood-e-Haq” but against the “Hudood-e-Zia ul Haq”, which was extremely discriminative to women. She said when someone committed dacoity the law used to punish the dacoit not the owner of the house, whereas under the Hudood ordinances the victim got punishment.
Naeem Mirza of Aurat Foundation shared a detailed background of the Hudood debate in the parliament and certain amendments proposed by the select committee. He also highlighted the socio-political impacts of these discriminatory laws on womenfolk. He said that thousands of ill-fated women and men, mostly poor, have suffered due to this discriminatory legislation. The number of females imprisoned under the HOs was unprecedented. Therefore, repeal of HOs was the only solution to this serious problem, which had also been a long-standing demand of civil society organizations. He however acknowledged that the select committee has suggested some good amendments.
While strongly rejecting the Hudood Ordinances and demanding their repeal, renowned feminist poet Kishwar Naheed recited her poem Hazab-e-do Jehan mere, in which she portrayed the plight and miseries of the Pakistani womenfolk.
Dr. Farzana Bari also advocated the total repeal of HOs and said that two different surveys conducted by GEO TV and Pattan Development Organisation showed majority of the Pakistani citizens favoured the repeal of this discriminatory law. While drawing comparison between the PML-Q and MMA, she said that the ruling party was as much as conservative as MMA. She urged the civil society to resist amendments, which were proposed by the Ulema Committee because these amendments further disrespected the Pakistani Women.
