Amjad Malik`s Personal Page

Lord Ahmed meets US Diplomats in a delegation at House of Lords to convey community feelings on a new US policy

Press Release 

On 8th of October 2008 at House of Lords, Lord Ahmed met US diplomats with a four member delegation to air concerns of British Pakistani community on US attacks inside Pakistan and its repercussions on the people, region and the state of Pakistan.

Lord Ahmed in his letter to US Ambassador dated 08/09/08 protested over such attacks and called for a meeting with his small delegation to convey Pakistani community’s reservations Peter Lord, Political Officer and James Donegan First Secretary at US Embassy (London) met Lord Ahmed and his delegation consisting of Solicitor Amjad Malik (Vice chair of APL representing North), Barrister Abid Hussain (Association of Muslim lawyers), Tariq Dar a community leader from Brent and a business man Jameel Dada.
 
Lord Ahmed briefed them the fall outs of such policy and emphasised on the need of a genuine South African style reconciliation with all the stake holders in Pakistan. He reiterated what he said at House of Lords on 6 Oct that ‘what is needed is a genuine truth and reconciliation commission-a genuine centre for peace and dialogue where the Bugtis, the Mengals, the Murrees, The Maulanas and the Khans can sit and where every citizen of Pakistan can feel respected and equal citizen of Pakistan’.

Amjad Malik representing Lawyers & North insisted that US is failing in their perception to alienate Al-Qaeda from mainstream Pashtuns of Afghanistan and of Pakistan. He strongly expressed his reservations over US attacks inside Pakistan which lacks legality and will isolate it in the international community and in return alienate US in the eyes of common Pakistanis which will be  asset back for any drive against radicalisation & extremism. He asked them to reward Pakistan for their alliance in a difficult war and not punish it like Cambodia. Tariq Dar asked them to review Western double standards and Barrister Abid Hussain strongly expressed his views on selective national reconciliation and expressed strong reservation on the leadership of Zardari who was said to be suffering from ‘dementia’ and branded Mr. 10% by the West. He asked the diplomats to use the services of Lord Ahmed in any drive for a genuine all stake holders reconciliation. Jameel Dada briefed all about the insurgency situation in the province and the state of people who are affected, and picking up arms akin to a civil war.

Both diplomats heard patiently and avoiding answers to the question on new policy to strike inside Pakistan stressed the need of continuing a dialogue at all levels. They said that US wants stability in Pakistan and the last thing they want is instability in the region and US considers that Al- Qaeda, Taliban and insurgents are a real danger to Pakistan’s internal stability as well as a threat to the peace in the region and the World, though they think that Pakistan military is not looking at that threat and holds a different view. They think civilian leadership will share their view and rather than perceiving India as a threat to Pakistan, it will focus on inside internal stability  and will consider Al-Qaeda, Taliban and rising insurgency in Fata as the main threat which poses a bigger challenge to the state, the region and international peace. They emphasised that they are inclined to work with Civilian leadership to move ahead and advance to democracy, for national reconciliation with non violent conflict resolution. Lord Ahmed thanked the delegation after the meeting and both sides stressed the need to continue such interaction to listen to each other’s views. 

• Posted by valiantpk on 09/10/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Hot pursuit or breach of territorial integrity in Pakistan

Amjad Malik Writes specially on the issue of US incursions in Pakistan
 
Pakistan is, yet again, paying the price for flirting with the United States, who itself has not learned anything from the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.   Now Pakistan finds itself  between a rock and hard place, and is viewed by many as giving too much to the Americans, who in turn, want nothing but more and more from Pakistan, hence,  the unilateral incursions into Pakistan's sovereignty. Qasuri ex Foreign Minister confirmed some understanding on silently bearing with US predator attacks and possible limited Pakistani protest over it without physical action, but that policy does not have political and public backing. So voluntary surrender of territorial integrity is not on the table now.  

These attacks, whether by way of missiles or land operations, are fatal to any principle of sovereignty because they not only establish the impractical notion that "might is right", but also expose a deficit of truth amongst the operators of the war on terror in the international arena. Saudi Arabian King Abdullah rightly pointed out some intelligence failures and lack of cooperation in this arena and insisted on the need for international joint intelligence to combat this menace affecting us all.

The principles that guide this area, the UN Charter, were set up to avoid war, to reaffirm faith in human rights and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligation of treaties can be maintained. Tolerance is the key to the UN Charter and makes evident the agreed prohibition of armed forces, save in the common interest. Article 2(4) of the UN charter says that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations."

When we see the US incursions and attacks at Bajaur and Dama Dola in 2007 and especially when we see the one ground operation at 'Angoor Adda' on the morning of 4 September 08  in the tribal areas of Pakistan, US guided special forces killed many civilians based upon faulty intelligence, and the high value target, as usual, was missed.  These attacks mock international law and such forums of the people of less privileged countries. These unilateral attacks may support US policy internally in their drive to widen the net, but unilateral attacks are counterproductive and are failing to alienate AL-Qaeda from the mainstream. These attacks also gather the opposition of millions of Pakistanis at home and abroad who, as if mired in an addictive love-hate relationship, see the US as an unavoidable influence for Pakistan.

It is obvious from the record that such attacks are not rare.  President Clinton authorised such action in 1993 against Iraqi intelligence facilities, and in 1998 against terror camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. President Ronald Reagan authorized such attacks in Libya.  Now in July 2008,  there is US presidential authorisation, in a further and refined extension of this US position, to attack the Tribal areas of Pakistan.  It will be difficult for the US to gather support internationally if such behaviour persists.  The US stepped up its cross border operations on the premises that Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to root out the terror network.  In 1999, the General Counsel of the US Department of Defence assessed legal issues in "information operations states", and has interpreted international law to authorise unilateral action under the following circumstances: If a neutral nation is unable or unwilling to halt the use of its territory by one of the belligerents in a manner that gives it a military advantage, the other belligerent may have a right to attack its enemy in the neutral's territory. There is no sound legal backing by the community of nations on that legal assessment and such tendencies are disastrous in results.  However, based on that analysis, US defence Secretary Robert Gates in September warned of hot pursuits to chase the Taliban into Pakistan as a guarantee for the safety and protection of his own soldiers from Pakistan, who itself is at the receiving end of US "civilian collateral damage" and also of those being hotly pursued.

There is no doubt that 9/11 was the most tragic incident in this decade which carried forth so much hatred and vengeance along with it, and brought the ancient civilisations into a clash where tolerance and forbearance became lost somewhere down the line. The Pakistan Army has lost over a thousand soldiers as a result of its active participation in the northern border areas of Afghanistan. According to present reports the lives of more than 400,000 civilians in the seven agencies of Fata -- including South, East Waziristan, Orakzai, Kurram, Bajaur, Mohmand and Khyber agencies -- are directly affected by this ongoing war on terror. The lives of 450,000 people in the four districts of the NWFP including Sawat, DI Khan, Hangu and Tank have also become worse due to the operations of the army. Sources say that 80,000 Frontier Corps and 40,000 infantry troops are manning 1100 check posts, which is the ordinary duty of the police. Sources claim that public favour and support of these operations can be achieved only if there are  assurances that this war is being conducted solely for the security of the country. Thus, unilateral US incursions will prove fatal uniting even the disassociated ones as the US is seen more and more as the oppressor. In North and South Waziristan locals are taking up arms against their own military personnel.  And this new US policy of unilateral attacks is igniting fires in the lower ranks of military officers whose philosophy of discipline is to die in protecting the integrity of Pakistan. Both sides are picking up dead bodies and there is debris everywhere but no one is willing to discuss and address the root causes of the arms struggle and the genuine absence of the political process in these war torn areas and no talk to replace this with aid package, land mines to stop infiltration at Durand line, man to man watch on the border and befitting financial assistance to allies in this task and victims . A way forward could be a joint Ariel cooperation to stop the insurgency, aid packages for the affected, a reviving of the Jarga system in tribal areas, a renegotiating of settlements to root out foreign elements who are pro Al-Qaeda, winning on perception, full joint progress on intelligence sharing and border security maintenance. This way forward could productively alienate Al-Qaeda from the mainstream Pashtun population whose hearts and minds the Taliban are trying to win.

The law, on the other hand, of 'hot pursuit' is a dubious one.  The Hot Pursuit Principle was basically established to chase insurgents in territories of water and for country A's naval forces, for example, to chase criminals who run for shelter in Country B's waters after committing a crime in country A's seas. This right was established under Article 111 of the 1982 UN convention, which is mirrored originally in Article 23 of 1958 UN convention both of which establish rights of nations on the sea. Yet this principle, this "right of hot pursuit", limited with very tight conditions, is still being employed by ground and air forces.  Countries have in the past used cross border attacks: Turkey against Kurds in North Iraq last year,  Columbia against  'Farak' rebels seeking refuge in Equador and Israel taking refuge under the same principle when it attacked 'Hizb Ullah' locations in Lebanon. Analysts internationally have reservations about the usage of such law and are adamant that the Hot Pursuit Principle may only be used when an enemy is physically being chased while entering into another's territory.  When US forces attacked Pakistan last month it was not chasing the enemy on the ground.  Moreover, the US did not have a clear mandate by the UN Security Council for such pursuits. NATO did show restraint at the time and disassociated itself from these US actions, showing a clear drift away from the US application of international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter addresses the defence of nations and has many prerequisites requiring "real and present danger" to a state and where there is no other option but to use the right of a self defence. Since Pakistan is a non-NATO ally, and a front line state in the war on terror, there seems no reason for such retaliatory attacks when both nations are not at war with each other, but instead, fighting for a common cause. Under International law, post 9/11, the UN, under Resolution 1373, binds states to control non-state elements that can endanger the national security of other states. Whether it is Michael Scarf at the Council on Foreign Relations or Peter Denison of the University of Maryland School of Law, they all have a clear understanding that hot pursuit establishes rules of engagement at sea. States bear a responsibility to have effective control of their own areas, not allowing terrorism to flourish. Such states face UN sanction, if in default.
 
Winning the heart and minds of affected people is the key to prevent them from picking up arms against their own army and supporting the Taliban. Effective diplomacy is needed to calm the super power to avoid experimental military actions before their November elections.  The US seems determined to find a high value target leaving dead bodies behind.  The resulting bloodshed could be fatal to Pakistan as a state and dangerous for the world in general. We must heed the call of Nawaz Sharif  and PPP sensibles who call for a Parliamentary oversight of US-Pakistan cooperation, and call for a dialogue with the Pakistani Tribals who has a history of warfare.  The world, and the US, should also listen to the voice of Imran Khan, a cricketing legend turned politician, who on 25 September whilst addressing US lawyers at Brussels, strongly criticised the USA's unrealistic "war on terror" and the way this war is fought. He challenged US strategy that wages war in a counterproductive way. Being Pakhtun himself, he highlighted that Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Moguls, the British and the Russians all came to conquer this land. All returned with empty hands and unfinished business. Mr. Kahn calls for a review of the current US strategy which is failing to alienate Pashtun Pakistani people to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and creating a catastrophe and an up roar in those areas where millions are homeless as victims. This war can only be won with unity of thought, collective effort, and joint cooperation of intelligence, with fast economic activity and packages. Single handedly, one may attack a few areas in any country using dubious legality under the guise of 'hot pursuit' and avoiding the UN National Security Council, but one will alienate oneself from the international community and may attract many enemies in return and who knows where they may hit back in retaliation.  I finish with Prophet's companion Hazrat Ali’s quote that hopeless nations consider an opportunity as a difficulty, whereas the hopeful one's translate the same  difficulty into an opportunity. This is the time for international community to consider this knock on their door as a difficulty or an opportunity to bring peace, justice and humanity in the world, as opposed to war, catastrophe and bloodshed.
 
Amjad Malik, MA, LLM, is a Solicitor-Advocate Supreme Court of England, Life member of SCBA of Pakistan and currently a Vice chair of the Association of Pakistani Lawyers (UK)
 
4 September 2008

• Posted by valiantpk on 04/10/2008.
• login or register to post comments

American Lawyers conference on rule of law in Pakistan & my brief Interaction with Pakistanis in Brussels

I was invited by British Law Society of England to visit Brussels as part of their delegation to attend a rule of law conference on ‘Pakistan and beyond’ organised by American Bar Association (ABA) on 25th September at Hilton (Brussels). Reaching Brussels airport in the morning, I caught a cab and reached Hilton at the time of the conference and met Cricketing legend Imran Khan in the lift with his party entourage which was a pleasant beginning.   When we all reached the designated room for conference at 25th Floor, the room was more or less occupied. A lot of people were keen to have a glimpse of Imran Khan and a few specially came to listen to Supreme Court Bar President Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan who could not join us at the conference due to lack of in time delivery of his teams  visas, though I feel he missed a great opportunity to talk on the subject where various old guns of American law industry were present.
 
Conference started in time and Pakistani interest was visible as room was filled within minutes. Mohammed A Syed an advocate of King and Ballow Law Offices USA facilitated the conference and quickly invited Imran Khan to deliver his key note address following a brief haul of an English lawyer from London who pretty much filled in the blank due to sudden absence of Aitzaz. Imran Khan in his usual style battered all within his reach. Strongly criticised the USA moot of war on terror, and challenged their strategy to operate this war which was counterproductive. Being Pakhtun himself,  he highlighted that Alexander the great, Mongols, Moguls, Britishers & Russians all came to conquer this land and all after losing their teeth returned with unfinished business. He called for a review of the strategy which is rather than alienating Al Qaeda, from the Taliban to Pakhtun, mixing it with them which is creating a catastrophe and an up roar in those areas where millions are homeless as victims. He nailed President Zardari for getting the benefit of notorious National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and not being accountable for his millions of dollars graft money in Swiss banks, and though he sympathised Sharif for his current solid un resulted stand but did not side by him when a documentary was shown of 1997 assault of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah’s reign.  He called for reinstatement of Chief Justice Choudhary and defended his party decision of not going to polls. He was asked many questions by the audience which he answered boldly. One senior American lawyer questioned him the conflict between Aitzaz’s two jobs, one lawyer’s leadership and the other party membership of Central Working party of Pakistan People’s Party which Imran avoided answering and said he too would be keen to listen to Aitzaz’s answer on this subject. I asked him if US enters Pakistan unilaterally, will it not affect the overall image of war on terror as the whole nation will side behind the country’s administration & army? To which he candidly replied that the war is already lost by Americans. Imran though admired by millions for his cricketing achievement and is worshipped for his social work for erecting SK Hospital for cancer research & treatment and for his  heroic style and telling truth habits. However, this half baked politician is not considered for votes by his semi educated Pakistani voters who though adore him for his naked truth but keep him sacred as they do keep the holy scriptures, always at a high place away from children due to the fear of disrespect. I saw the same treatment with Imran by his fellow Pakistanis, believing him, but never giving him an opportunity to serve.  I think this calls for a review of his politic style and mechanics.  
 
Our next stop was at EU for a brief encounter with European Parliament members who are friends of Pakistan. The meeting was arranged at European Parliament building and thanks to Denisa Soltysova, who organised a room for interaction at Rue Wietz 1047 Brussels on behalf of Sajjad Karim who hails from North West of England, and is the one and only Muslim member of European Parliament at Brussels representing Conservative party from UK. Imran Khan addressed senior MEP’s  including Liz Lynne from Rochdale, Bjorn Hulton MP from Wales, David Martin from Scotland, and Sajjad Karim from North West of England. At the meeting, I represented British Pakistani Lawyers, Rabia Zia as UK PTI Coordinator and Shada Islam Senior programme Executive on European Policy attended the event. Imran addressed more or less in the same language as he did at the ABA conference and abreast the listeners of the ground situation at Afghan Pak border areas. He was asked by MEP’s what EU can do to aid and assist all stake holders. Imran though apprehensive about the current affairs, gave a gloomy picture in which Pakhtuns are suffering in 7 tribal agencies and 4 districts of NWFP.   Sajjad Karim thanked the audience hurriedly due to tight schedule and later kept Imran busy in various TV and media talk shows later on and I returned to hotel for a little rest.
 
Sajjad Karim later kindly invited me for a dinner plus ‘iftar’ to open my fast at a nearby Shezan restaurant. He picked me up from Hilton at around 6:45 and we went to ‘Shezan restaurant on the way seeing the big square, King’s palace, and Brussels highest court whilst driving Pervez Lossar cleverly mentioned that King is at his palace as flag is flying. Upon reaching there I was pleasantly surprised that Sajjad had organised a little interaction with a variety of local Pakistanis living in Brussels. A local mosque imam, Khabrain editor, Mr. Butt of Khyber news, Mr Naseem the owner of restaurant and Mr. Pervez Malik along with his friends were invited too. Parvez Lossar, a young politician confirmed that around 6000 souls is a mixture of different casts and affiliations and this small Pakistani community is  invited almost at all the events in the town. He mentioned that today Imran Khan is addressing a well attended gathering at  51 Salle Saada: Quai Du Mariemont where his party PTI  has organised a big show of support to the Cricketing legend. We both from UK emphasised the need to learn religion and preserve culture whilst at the same time, urged them to try to participate local politics. The group discussed various problems such as language barrier and problems in integrating due to invitation to assimilate in the host community’s life style i.e drinking alcohol and mingling with female members. We urged the need to enhance social interaction in order to create affection in host community which is vital to strengthen ties and cement their standing locally at Brussels. We emphasised that due to EU’s presence there, a strong a vibrant community can foster good relations with the Europe if time and energy is spent on exploring this aspect especially in any possible future multi polar system where Europe will be a key player due to its reunion, economic strength and joint defence force in the form of NATO. I gave example of British MP’s and Councillors who have whilst preserving their religion & culture earned their seats and the number is growing and we asked them to follow UK model to increase their voice in Representative bodies. Meal was served in an orthodox Asian fashion and seeing Sajjad Karim’s hospitality I was really proud to see a Nelson Solicitor admired by many of his overseas colleagues in Brussels. He truly made me feel at home which shows his good nature and breed. I returned Manchester the following morning and one thing which I learnt from this trip was that Pakistanis wherever they are, always show concerns about their homeland, worried about leadership and very sensitive about Pakistani politics. If a little work is done by Pakistani missions abroad this raw material can serve Pakistan better, only if given the time & opportunity. But, helplessly, Pakistani bureaucracy has  been inherited the ‘divide and rule’ policy which is prevailing every where. This Belgium Pakistani community can be best served if religion and language classes can be held for their knowledge in the evening by embassy and cultural and religious festivals are organised by missions abroad on one community platform to avoid further division and truly reflect their public service preference. As it stands I saw the small number of community disillusioned, without direction and leadership. I feel earning just two times bread must not be the only aim of Pakistanis living abroad, they can contribute more but it requires sheer understanding and due attention by the by the Govt. It is a two way traffic because one way love never works in the long run. 
 
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England & Wales & Vice Chair of Association of Pakistani Lawyers (UK)
 
Dated: 29 September 2008

• Posted by valiantpk on 30/09/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Presidential speech, is he stalling everything or truly bringing reconciliation to the soil, a critical analys - By: Amjad Malik

20th September 2008, ‘Land mark’ presidential speech to the joint session of the Parliament was overshadowed by a quick reminder of the menace of terrorism in the form of an explosive terrorist attack at Marriott Hotel, Islamabad which took over fifty three lives and scores were injured. This condemnable attack not only highlighted the kind of danger Pakistan is facing, the war of top security agencies in the region and on its soil, and the loss of many lives & families which are unaccounted during this on going struggle in order to find viable answers how to secure sustainable peace and calm to the region and in return to the world in general. So far no one has found the right key to success in this ongoing onslaught. Pakistan is caught between rock and hard place, on one side US anger over poor performance and asking them to do more, and if they do, the sheer resentment over foreign policy is visible by outlawed networks and Jihadists and is expressed by the sophisticatedly hit targets which are normally pro West outlets. In Pakistan these suicidal attacks have crossed a century in number in only last 1 ½ years though this individual Non NATO ally is at the brink of facing the wrath in the form of unitarily inside strikes by the super power for their lack of will and action despite losing over 1000 soldiers at the rear border at Durand line. High value target though is missed by inches each time, but this faulty intelligence is causing an increase in the collateral damage day by day, and that is the sad other side of the multi colour story full of blood.
 
Now coming to the speech, The president however, has successfully replaced the Presidential slogan of Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ to that of Zardari’s brand of ‘national reconciliation.’ He practically tried to exhibit his genuineness with a gesture to approach Nawaz  Sharif, the opposition head sitting in the gallery which warmed many of his critics though he did not openly give any major concession in his address. In response though a calm Nawaz once bitten desired for a concrete practical steps rather than words to reform Parliament. Looking at the positives of his speech, he has shown his willingness  to continue with General Musharraf’s commitments with US on global War on terror, if not more, however, he has exposed cleverly a possible retaliation from army and resilience from general public which is anti war & tribal invasion if he gives more concession to USA in his own areas, though he showed by his silence in last few days that he wants to. He has also sought time to sell the idea to his people that its their war not of USA as he is minded that if he acts quickly, he will be adding to the popularity of hard hitting Sharif who can pocket all conservative votes without doing anything, which he would not wish at all. So he managed to stall his action on  the major issues rather than announcing it boldly, and instead  delegated it  to Parliamentary committees which may take months to have a full debate where his party will have a control over the ‘on’ and ‘off’ button. He has escaped without calling off any military operation in FATA and did not have to condemn or affirm US policy of July to attack Pakistani areas unilaterally and just reiterated what army has said earlier  in their press release. So by default his wife’s policy statement on FATA giving access to US military and access to IAE to Scientist Dr Khan still stands. He did good by condoling the death of his brother in law Mir Murtaza Bhuttoo, the son of late Zulfiqar Bhuttoo though he was implicated in his murder by his family, and he managed to praise his wife’s sacrifice due to which he is at the top office which inspires many of his party loyalists for his humility. He has shown his desire to resume talks with India, with some confidence building measures coupled with a new liberal visa regime plus formation of an other committee of parliament on Kashmir to discuss its future and matters relating to Indus water treaty between both countries. He has acceded to the proposal of ANP the long awaited name change of their province to ‘Pakhtunkhua.’ Overall he escaped perfectly without giving any major concession, formed Parliamentary committees on almost anything and everything and avoided what does not matter to him. Though I believe backtracking on MOU’s and agreements may not work with USA, however, whatever rabbit he pulls out of his hat, if he manages to halt, postpone and stall US’s unilateral attacks in Pakistan till their November election that will be a big head start and a service to Pakistan.
 
Now if we look at the other side, he has not said a word on setting up any enquiry or a commission to investigate independently his wife’s death, Akbar Bugti’s killing, 12th May massacre, action on Red Mosque, 3rd of November coup at judiciary, indemnity or trial of outgoing dictator and above all the fate & future of Dr Qadeer Khan and Kala Bagh Dam. In fact, he managed to escape to give any commitment to restore the Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhary to that of 2nd November position as per his agreements of March, May and August with opposition and vowed to restore judiciary in accordance with the law and 1973 constitution which was a step farther and there was no word on how the fresh judges will be appointed in future. Judiciary remains a pivotal point of disagreement between him and the opposition and he managed to stick to his guns. There was no announcement to halt the ongoing operation in FATA replacing a policy to win the hearts and minds of his own with an  economic aid, rule of law drive and justice in those areas, and or  any clemency to Baluch people. His three prong strategy may not work in the presence of jets flying and missiles coming through drones in his areas. He has not given any line of action how to advance trade, and relieve the poor people and bring the economy back to its feet in the wake of looming international recession and food crisis. He has also managed to avoid the question of handing over possible accused to USA for interrogation without  a treaty to exchange prisoners and no policy statement on missing persons or Dr Afia Siddiqui. Though his desires were kind to uplift the women of Pakistan.
 
Above all, he has not announced to bring back the constitution to that of 12 Oct 1999 position as agreed by his wife in a ‘charter of democracy’ instead, he has delegated it to a Parliamentary committee opening up an avenue of negotiation to give and take on the issue of legalising the provisions introduced by the Musharraf regime on 3rd November 2007. I believe in that discussion the question will be up that power to dismiss the parliament Art.58(2)b will only be scarped if the ratification of Musharraf’s acts are secured thus safeguarding the notorious ‘National Reconciliation Order’. He has failed to give a concrete policy how to tackle unilateral attacks of USA he vowed not to give permission but they already have violated territorial integrity in violation of Article 2(4) of the charter of United Nations in the absence of any security council resolution but he did not elaborate how he would like his Govt. to tackle their future assault in this looming international crisis. In camera session on Nationals security may be a good step towards member’s awareness on core issues but if leadership lacks political will & courage, it will turn out to be a frightening exercise to tame the border liners.
 
In short, Presidential speech is a good mix of his desire to hang on to power and continue to believe in Charter of Democracy on which he may like to start full implementation in  the latter part of his 5 years tenure. His practical steps on COD, judicial independence, Parliamentary sovereignty and Pakistan’s role on US policy on war on terror will determine his government’s performance and the level of cooperation from his opponents and from those who matters in this arena. At this very moment, he and his government have a mountain to climb on credibility between his peers, trust deficit between civil and army, and at governance front. Only concrete performance not merely words on those issues will determine how far he will go.
 
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England & Wales

• Posted by valiantpk on 21/09/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Lost war and a lost cause By: Amjad Malik

On the anniversary of tragic events of September 11, the statements of both Pakistan and US armed officers are frightening for Asia. New York Times reported today that ‘President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time to allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government’. The article reported that the American commanders in Afghanistan have complained bitterly that militants use sanctuaries in Pakistan to attack American troops in Afghanistan. He said that “I’m not convinced we’re winning it in Afghanistan,”  However, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. “I am convinced we can.” Toward that goal, Admiral Mullen said he had ordered a comprehensive military strategy to address the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The commando raid last week and an increasing number of recent missile strikes are part of a more aggressive overall American campaign in the border region aimed at intensifying attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the waning months of the Bush administration, with less than two months to go before November elections.
 
However, the US policy has been vehemently opposed by Pakistani Military Chief backed by Political administration reiterating that no external force will be allowed to conduct operations in Pakistan. He said in a hurried statement in response that “There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border”. Though such policy which was already in practice indirectly during General Musharraf’s reign under his so called ‘tacit understanding’ in order to catch Bin laden and or obstruct and destroy his tactics but now its an open announcement to infringe the borders of Pakistan. Pakistan is pocketing an insult, when US administration has already violated this month by parachuting its commandos and killing civilians and it is insisting on barging in and destroying the principle of territorial integrity in future too. Of course, it will add fuel to fire and all efforts to calm the locals will be futile, in fact, will aggravate the situation and the war on terror without a clear cause and purpose will be lost without achieving its objective. Sanity is in dire demand at this very moment. 
 
There is no doubt, that 9/11 was the most tragic incident in this decade which brought so much hatred; vengeance along with it, as well as, it brought the ancient civilisations on to a flash point where tolerance and forbearance was lost somewhere down the line. Along with it came the new drive of a war against terrorism where enemy was unseen and it was a myth and ‘religious terrorism’ was invented prejudging the billions of people of one faith linking to intolerance and radicalisation. Pakistan too was asked to submit to the mighty power or was asked to face the consequences and be ready to go to the time of caves. Unlike Turkey who rejected over 35 billion aid package in exchange of allowing the mighty to use its territory to turn Iraq into rubble, Pakistani rulers devoid of legality in its newly installed regime caved in easily without any honourable settlement of their outstanding debts or without guaranteeing and addressing any threat to their national security in the form of retaliatory attacks or territorial integrity. When we look back US was demanding Receipts for the money given to hired force and weaker can only give explanations as Sovereign states seldom plunge their soldiers into a war whose results and risks are not calculated.
  
Pakistani army has lost around a thousand soldiers as a result of their active participation in the north of their country bordering areas of Afghanistan. According to the reports at present lives of more than 400,000 civilians of the seven agencies of Fata including South, East Waziristan, Orakzai, Kurram, Bajaur, Mohman and Khyber agencies are directly affected by this ongoing war on terror. The life of 450,000 people of the four districts of the NWFP including Sawat, DI Khan, Hangu and Tank have also become worst due to the operations of the army. Sources said that 80,000 Frontier Corps and 40,000 infantry troops are manning 1100 check posts, which is ordinary duty of the police. The sources claim that the public favour and support to these operations can be achieved only in this way that they are assured that this war is solely being conducted for the security of the country. This goal can only be achieved by the detailed discussion and approval of the Parliament. In North and South Waziristan locals are taking up arms against its own military personnel and new US Policy will ignite the fire in the lower ranking military officers whose philosophy of discipline taught is to die in protecting the integrity of the State. Both sides are picking up dead bodies and there is debris everywhere  but no one is willing to discuss and address the root cause of the arms struggle and genuine absence of the political process in war torn areas with aid package.
 
In civilised countries issues pertaining to country’s sovereignty and integrity are presented in parliament for approval however same countries support weaker regimes in order to avoid a parliamentary and judicial oversight over sensitive matters. Pakistan is handing over hundreds to CIA for money and can not secure one citizen namely Dr Afia Siddiqui back from them on the premises that their system is string and their courts are free. Pakistan is giving its unstinted support to United Sates for the second time. Last time it came to the region in 70’s, Bhuttoo was hanged prior to its arrival. This time post 1999, Sharif was nearly murdered judicially but later was exiled for a period of 7 years whilst he was facing a charge punishable to death. When I compare this with UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair who strolled after completing his half 3rd term in office and was made an envoy to middle east, I was trying to understand as to why in third world countries strong Parliament is not supported by the West. I have seen that only lip service is provided on the name of restoring true democracy, freedom of judiciary and media in military regimes only to tame the incumbent rulers to join the club or face the music. West prefers that military commanders keep their people under a ‘club’ and rule them to obtain desired results and education, sanctity of vote, justice, and freedom in true sense remain away from them. That may be double standards but surely that suits them. Latest twist in Pakistan on 9 September clearly depicts a gloomy picture where President Karzai witnessed his Muslim brethren President Zardari swearing an  oath of allegiance to protect the borders and constitution which was followed by US policy to enter Pakistan. 
 
Pakistan as a nation is up with a heavy task, especially its rulers who are either to show whiter than white philosophy and show maturity to take the peg from military to run the state as it deserves or keep embarking on the revenge mission and dirty tricks with unprofessional mimic corrupt advisors as in that case the work will be carried out by those who does the best. We are virtually at war with ourselves within as individuals and a nation, with our people and with a foreign force. A healthy political activity can reduce tension amongst institutions paving way to reduce radicalisation of mind and aggressiveness in the attitude, trying to address common grouses which jeopardise mutual harmony and good will. Winning the heart and minds of affected people can only stop them picking up arms against its own army and effective diplomacy to calm the super power to avoid experiments before their November US elections as they are determined to find dead bodies for their election purposes which can be fatal for Pakistan and dangerous for the NATO.
 
Politicians must see eye to eye to the challenges the country is facing removing trust deficits without losing its allies in West but saying ‘no’ to the old masters where it deems necessary, bring judiciary to a reasonable standard where justice is seen to be done and people are happy of the verdict they get from the court and run the system of civil administration smoothly addressing all the threats to it from within. Pakistani ruling elite will have to start being honest with themselves and with their people as double standards may suit the west but double crossing may cost lives here and if reliance on aid packages is not switched to ‘trade activity’ and ‘national honour’ is compromised then we must forget about country’s territorial integrity as beggars can not be choosy.
       
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court (England)
 
11 September 2008

• Posted by valiantpk on 11/09/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Old don, or new dawn for Pakistan By: Amjad Malik

Mr. Zardari despite all reservations and his past was duly elected by the Parliament on 6 September 2008 and it is a good sign for democracy that opposition legitimised the show by participating it and later whole heartedly accepting defeat. Congratulations to Mr. President and let’s bye gone be bye gone and restart a new chapter in Pakistan with an aim of parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law and economic alleviation in the country which is at the verge of institutional and economic collapse. The job which requires sheer wisdom and consultation may not be completed if President does not take himself above his party interest and venture to work jointly as envisaged in ‘ Charter of Democracy’ by his knightly wife Be Nazir as working single handedly may not remove the dark clouds on the civil system which carry a history of four decades.
 
I foresee four main issues which may take him from 5 months to 5 year rule. First of all his impartiality as his job requires him to treat all equally by genuinely promoting Federation and allowing the healthy opposition by invoking an idea of issue based constructive politics. If he can agree to disagree and allow this principle to be digested by his party and the political class in general, it will evaporate the politics of 90 and will promote tolerance which is in deficit in Pakistan. It will also strengthen the civil system and continue the political process. He must also consider giving his party position to that of his sister and or the sister in law whilst he is a head of state, of course with due consultation of his party.
 
Secondly, most important issue is Pakistan’s foreign policy. I believe the determination the limits of Pakistan’s role in war on terror will be very crucial and he must take Parliament and security apparatus in confidence in order to advance Pakistan’s due and lawful contribution in this global exercise keeping our sovereignty intact. Musharraf’s tacit understandings which has no parliamentary backing will not be acceptable now and any ‘double crossing’ will not work here either, so he must make it clear that no access either to nuclear or our rear tribal areas without Parliamentary approval and security clearance as that will determine how far his new assignment is acceptable to circles which matters. If aid emphasis remains on United States then shopping list will come with it from them and trade preference will vanish so we need a clear priority on state integrity, controlling inside security and flourishing economic activity.
 
Thirdly, judges issue will remain a bone of contention in his governance if not settled amicably. I am sure he can work on bigger issues of repealing 17th amendment, implementing charter of democracy and economic revival if judges are restored in accordance with his own declared agreements with his opponents. I am not sure whether he is acting like Nehru or is genuinely has been transformed like him but his credibility will depend a lot on how he settles the judges issue. The way he has so far managed to divide judges, pulled out pro PPP lawyers from the movement and finally had capped the long march show his capacity & management skills. However, dishonouring the whole struggle may not leave any judge in future for so called war of independence of judiciary and sovereignty of Parliament in the event military comes in future, so despite having reservation on any particular judge by PPP, saving the original principle is a genuine and national cause. Iftikhar Choudhary no doubt carries the support of the people for his resilience against a dictator since 9 March 2007 and their clans restoration, compensation and honouring them will create a serious obstacle in the way of military intervention in future.
 
Fourthly, the issue of a popular slogan of ‘roti kapra aur makkan’ the manifesto of PPP to ease the suffering of ordinary people of Pakistan by providing shelter, food and employment, basic justice and human rights and that’s only possible if Mr. Zardari’s government could get out of the mess it should have been out in the first month. When there is an international food shortage and recession looking over our heads and Pakistani budget trailing in 10 billion, there is not a lot of economic activity one may initiate. Its agreed that his govt. may not be able to fill the bellies of millions who are living below poverty line, but historian will definitely forgive him if he contributes to rebuild a basic structure from where service are provided by erecting hospitals, employment bureaus, educational establishments, and justice for all irrespective of who they are as I believe if his nation is healthy, happy and educated and is treated equally then they will find a way to contribute constructively in any national drive.
 
Finally a word of wise to new President that complacency is a vry dangeroius thing in politics and he must learn from that of the coup de tat against Mian Nawaz Sharif. When General Musharraf took over on 12 October 99, Mr. Sharif premiership had a two third majority, his own party supported President, his brother as chief minister and he had government in all provinces including his speaker and chair of senate but we witnessed that a junior ranking officer implemented the orders of his seniors by pointing a short range gun on the prime Minister and his own appointed COAS. The lesson from it was clear and unambiguous to initiate a ‘charter of democracy’ by both former premiers to avoid a similar situation. Absolute power is nothing, the key to save the system is in partnership of civil and military and collective collaboration of political forces until we are out of a real threat of a war. We wholeheartedly welcome you for being duly elected and you have a chance to either change the history from here onwards and stop the future of military dictatorship in Pakistan or become a victim of history yet again. You can either be a villain a don of yesterday or be an originator of a  new dawn for the poverty ridden, institutionally weak, segregated, and truly traumatised Pakistan. The decision is yours and BB will be watching over you with great interest. 
 
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England & Wales
 
7 September 2008

http://www.dailypak.com/epaper/allimages/col-4.html

• Posted by valiantpk on 07/09/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Self flagellations, a religious practice or child cruelty, a critical analysis By: Amjad Malik

Message of Imam Hussain, the grandson of last Prophet of Islam of sacrifice is greater in spirit and is held very dear by billions of Muslims across the globe and the message is remembered zealously during the first month of Islamic calendar Muharram. The Ashura ceremony takes place during this month to commemorate the courage & sacrifice of Hussain, a central figure of the Shia faith and his disciples in many Muslim countries adopt various means to express their grief which include holding processions, reading and listening to the tragic events as they unfolded during that month in the battlefield of ‘Karbala’, chest beatings as well as self flagellation. In order to express extreme solidarity a small percentage use five bladed whip attached to a chain and a wooden handle to carry out the matam called ‘Zanjeer Zani’. Islamic history narrates that Hussain, stood up to the tyranny of, Yazid, 14 centuries ago in order to make a principled point of justice in order to save his grandpa’s religion and humanity from oppression. During the siege at karbala (Iraq) of first 10 days of the first month of Islamic calendar, Hussain's camp suffered all kinds of trials, tribulations and hardships. In the end, Hussain was beheaded and his body was mutilated. The few survivors including women were humiliatingly and were made to march on foot to the Yazidi Palace in Damascus, where they were imprisoned: many of them died. It is believed that spectators along the route, realising what had happened to the first family of the prophet of Islam, began to beat themselves and started weeping. This mourning process is regarded the beginning of  the self-flagellation rituals that we see today amongst devout Shia Muslims. The practice has been on going for centuries. 
 
In January 2008 during Ashura,  a devout Shia Muslim first flogged himself and later considering it part of his religion allowed two under 16 boys to use the bladed whip to flog themselves until their backs bled during a shia religious ceremony. He was charged upon a complaint of the mother and statements of the boys that they were forced and he was later convicted by a Jury upon a trial at Manchester Crown Court on two counts of Child cruelty in August 2008. He will be sentenced this September. This is a land mark case carrying serious repercussions on religious practices of a Muslim minority and critics view this prosecution as a tip of the iceberg and consider this policy decision will trigger more cases in future. This incident has initiated a debate where self flagellation as a religious ritual is up against the child protection laws.
 
First of all we see what the law says, S. 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 makes it a criminal offence if any person has attained the age of 16 and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill treated, neglected, abandoned, or expose, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessarily suffering or injury to health, that person shall be guilty of an offence and if found guilty the accused shall be liable on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for any term not acceding ten years or on summary conviction, to a fine or alternatively imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months. Now in order to have a healthy debate we look at the international organ which protects any religious practice. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is part of UK law under Human Rights Act 1998 says, “1) everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” There can be only restrictions on such rights which are necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of public safety or for the public order”.
 
 
Many argue that religious practice which is ongoing for centuries is protected by such law and despite having many complaints, there has never been a policy decision by CPS to prosecute in the past and if allowed this policy decision here, it will open a Pandora’s box leading to many such prosecutions which will be detrimental to all other religious practices, cultural traditions and customs which are held dear by millions. It is also believed that minors may participate in such ritual wilfully in defiance to make a principle point to safe guard such ancient religious practice. However, on the other hand law of the land which is quite clear to ‘look after the best interest of the child’ is in conflict with the said religious practice as far as under 16 are concerned and a clear understanding, guidance and code is required in order to bridge the gap to ensure child safety whilst protecting  the said religious practice in order to avoid future prosecutions.
 
The issue of self flagellation is not disputed in adults, however the conflict arises where children under 16 use self flagellation as a religious right. There is a risk of harm and law prohibits an adults to cause or expose the child to harm and whether this religious  practice is covered by such law is arguable and superior court’s ruling will be vital in settling the narration of policy . More work is needed to identify and correct the code of conduct where the issue of self flagellation in particular under 16 and teenagers arise which needs to be addressed by the community. The limit of such self flagellation in teen ager who are wilful participants is not very clear either, is it within reasonable limits or up to an individual’s capacity and the law is impractical on self harm too. Looking at Iran’s supreme Islamic Jurist, Grand Ayatollah Khameni in response to a question on the subject said: “Any practice that causes bodily harm, or leads to defaming the faith, is haram” hence whilst self-flagellation itself is permissible, it is only permissible within reasonable limits. Whether it is on individual’s capacity or up to excluding the risk if death is quite an arguable.
 
Many say that in order to protect the workings of the Shia missions children under 16 in UK are not allowed to self flagellate, but are allowed to watch, though the guidance is not clearer. Some Shias claim that people at the age of 7 participate in such practice in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and many travel to their countries of origin to mourn the month of Moharram, however in UK & Europe this practice varies from area to area in respect of children. I strongly believe that if this prosecution goes ahead unchallenged, then the option of taking under 16 abroad for religious practice may not remain safer and free of prosecution either as UK citizens will be protected by the local law here and abroad as was the case in ‘forced marriages’. 
 
There are many other practices that fall into the same category, like the Jewish circumcision ritual where a 8 days old boy is circumcised without anaesthetic injection, teen age pregnancies, abortions, prescription of morning afternoon pill to under 16 girls,  cosmetic surgery, physical chastisement, and contact sports which could all be life threatening in UK and go scot free without prosecution. There are children under the age of ten, who do boxing, kick boxing, karate, tae kwon do and judo– should their coaches be prosecuted if physical harm comes their way? And what about  rugby, football, ballet and horse riding? They have all lead to more serious injuries of minors in the UK than self flagellation. There is still nail crossing in a few countries of Europe in memory of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If other religious practices go unchallenged by the executive, then prosecution of Muslim minority may arguably be discriminatory under Article 14 of European Convention of Human Rights. 
 
Whilst the writer agrees that Muslim community must act together to safeguard their interest together as this prosecution has far reaching repercussions on other Muslim festivities such as circumcision, fasting, performing Haj, arranged marriages and participation in religious ceremonies and processions which often involve children under 16. At the same time, it is felt necessary that before next Ashura a code of conduct is agreed in consultation with Police and Crown Prosecution Service to avoid unnecessary restrictions in religious observance. Self flagellation must not be declared a child cruelty if a teenager wilfully participate considering his faith and religious duty, however, there is no question that force must not be used in self flagellation and it must remain a decision of an individual of an age under the law. Clearly local law of the land is in conflict with the religious practice and elders need to bridge the gap with collective wisdom, mutual understanding and clarifying the religious teachings towards this ritual. It is also praiseworthy that community has expressed desire to promote alternate methods in youngsters such as donating blood and spreading the message of Hussain of sacrifice, peace, tolerance and forbearance which is important than practice for young minds.
 
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England & Wales

• Posted by valiantpk on 01/09/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Pakistan deserves better By: Amjad Malik MA, LLM

On Defence day of Pakistan elected representatives of Pakistan will choose their next head of state who is originally a figurehead, a ceremonial position but General Musharraf armed it with deadly powers of sacking the parliament and bossing the army chief. Looking at a few clauses relevant to such election Article 41(2) says as following: (2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly. Article 62 narrates qualification and clause (d) says that he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; and further more clause (f) says that he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen; (g) he has not been convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude or for giving false evidence; and  Article 63 details disqualifications where clause (h) says that he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force;
 
Looking at this when Mr. Zardari is proposing himself for the top slot there are many reservations. First of all, his party and nation deserve a better choice at this role of a fatherly figure of a nation of 160 million people. He is young and can play a better role in Parliament representing his party. As his party is forming government and if he captures this place, it will be difficult for him to avoid  conflict of interest which his party promised to avoid in a Charter signed by two top parties of the country. The head of federation is a ceremonial role requires the one to be fair, and independent without party loyalties, it will be difficult for him to continue his co- chairmanship of the party being head of the state as Pakistanis suffered at the hands of General Musharraf who sided by Q league but coalition could have produced better results.
 
Secondly it will be difficult for him to ensure compliance on ‘Charter of Democracy’ once he will be in a position of unbridled power of 58(2)b to dismiss assemblies and has a power to appoint Chief of Armed forces, in that event it is likely that Parliamentary sovereignty will become a dream. Thirdly, if there are criminal investigations internationally carried on, halted or disposed off for the time being still it  will haunt the man and wherever he will travel as head of the State these stories will follow giving unnecessary bad name and will ridicule the office of the president as well as putting his government on the back foot. Finally the job requires a political consensus as a figure head of the state must remain a ceremonial position and must be brought by consensus though I agree that the ruling party or coalition must have a major say in it.
 
 Looking at all above, I feel Pakistani nation would be much at ease if PPP had reviewed their nomination and jointly could have saved the coalition to come up to the challenges Pakistan is facing which include to bring about a change in common man’s life, true parliamentary military free democracy, rule of law, and justice in the country and create a trust between power brokers of the state. The way things are developing though his contracts may not be holy but the value of his words will be lost if he continues backing out of his written memorandum of understandings with his colleagues. Soon this trust deficit will overpower any dialogue he imitate in future as no one will sit with him as his words will carry a little value and how the international community reacts on his statements when he signs any agreement with them will be crucial too so he needs to keep his credibility intact if he wishes to survive politically.
 
Military dictatorship has long seen the power in Pakistan and its time that a man of clean record, sober approach with political consensus is brought so that coalition or two major parties along with smaller parties get on with the real job firstly to restore sacked judges, eradicate the evils by repealing 17th amendment and work together to make Parliament sovereign. This is the time for the political forces to show that they are able to muster political advantage through a genuine political process. People of Pakistan have always delivered whenever they are given an opportunity whether it is 1947, 1971 or 18th February 2008 if the politicians fail now then country will revert soon towards ever green strategy which has the backing of west which is longer spells of military dictatorships, shorter civil rule followed by accountability of politicians on the name of corruption and nexus of military and judiciary. Political consensus, and joint collaboration is the key if they wish to save the civil system, ensuring a sovereign parliament with an independent judiciary. Powerful Parliament instead of the puppet government must be the aim of like minded pro democracy politicians if they genuinely desire to embark on solving genuine problems of foreign policy, price hike, international food shortage and stability via economic revolution & political reforms. I am afraid as things are moving the current Parliament in last 6 months has not initiated any concrete debate on the issues confronted by the State and its people and an era of 90’s is on the door inviting another general to do a speech as a result of the failure of the politicians and policy of confrontation and I bet there will be sweets all around and Musharraf will start looking better and who will be responsible for all that is a million dollar question.
 
Amjad Malik is a Chair of Association of Pakistani lawyers (UK) a life member of Supreme Court Bar Association and a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. 
 
26 August 2008

• Posted by valiantpk on 26/08/2008.
• login or register to post comments

Double Standards : General Musharraf does not need a safe passage, he merely needs a fair trial

By: Amjad Malik MA, LLM

18^th August resignation of General (rtd) Pervez Musharraf was the first good thing he has done in many years believing ‘Pakistan first’. Nation was jubilant, lawyers at peace and media calmly letting him go, however, political classes are still unsure on how to manipulate the maximum advantage to this joyful experience. Testing nuclear in a tit for tat was seen as the most memorable and historic event when the nation was overjoyed, but the announcement of ‘Kala Bagh dam’ followed by freezing foreign assets divided public opinion so as the mind of investor as the timing of both was wrong. Similarly ouster of President from his occupation of top slot is a favourite moment to start a new Pakistan, but political forces never could learn to manipulate and multiply nation’s happiness just by feeling the pulse. People wishes the accountability of the man who ruined the institutions, damaged the federation, created distrust amongst provinces and above all endangered the national security of Pakistan. What stops this man to be on trial is the weaknesses of our elite rulers. Of course west would wish to allow this man to go scot free as using his 9 years experience or alternately bringing him to face the court of law would both advantage Pakistan as a state, which they would not wish. He carries so much sensitive information about the state that makes his stay in the country desirable and conducive to the good of the country with or without trial as it will take time to debrief him, and at present he is too dear to be allowed out permanently on the premises of preserving national security unless strong undertakings acceptable to security apparatus are available. Musharraf’s  safe exit would keep him safe for future for his masters alone, not for the country.

Its ironic when we compare with what Mark Layall Grant a former British envoy did in order to ease the sufferings of Pakistani President to the very treatment his country gives to its own notorious. In his own land, Ministers are brought to justice and  accountability before Parliament indiscriminately without fail.  A few glimpses will suffice to give full picture. Their General Oliver Cromwell was tried after his death in 1661 for overthrowing Parliament. In autumn 1660 parliament ordered the exhumation and posthumous execution of several regicides and in January 1661 Westminster Abbey was searched for the remains of Oliver Cromwell and others. Three corpses were duly produced and conveyed to Tyburn, where they were hanged and his body was left at the public place for years as an example.  In July 2001, a Millionaire novelist and Tory member of House of Lords Lord Archer has been jailed for four years after being found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice. The jury found him guilty of lying and cheating in his 1987 libel case against the Daily Star. The verdicts were unanimous on each count. Lord Archer, who was ordered to pay £175,000 costs within 12 months, was told by the judge he would have to serve at least half of his sentence. In January 2001, The career of Peter Mandelson at the highest political level appeared to be over after his resignation from the cabinet for an unprecedented second time. Mr Mandelson admitted that he had made misleading statements over the passport application of controversial Indian billionaire Srichand Hinduja but denied he had done anything wrong. Mr Mandelson was first forced to quit from the cabinet in 1998 after failing to disclose that he had secretly received a £373,000 loan from his then fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson to buy a house in London. Peter Mandleson resigned in the first and second leg of his Ministerial position for not declaring his loan to the Parliament and for giving misleading statement. In December 2004, David Blunkett quit as home secretary after an e-mail emerged showing a visa application for his partner’s nanny had been fast-tracked. David Blunkett had to resign as the e-mail had said "no favours but slightly quicker". Mr Blunkett said he had not been aware of its contents and insisted he had done nothing wrong. But he said questions about his honesty had damaged the government.

UK believes that courts must remain free to dispense justice otherwise there will be endless feud between the four provinces who speak different languages and share a unique heritage and culture. However, the standards they expect are different for other countries where they would expect their jailed citizens to get pardon as arms can be twisted as was the case in Mirza Tahir Hussain as there were doubts about free trial and free judiciary in Pakistan until Mr. Iftikhar Choudhary came to salvage that status. Whereas no person or state can pressurise the West to interfere their own judicial system and many are detained in Guantanamo Bay without trial. Pakistani authorities always caved in without asking as they devise ultra constitutional measures to avoid involving judiciary hardly knowing that they themselves are undermining the importance of the respect of higher judiciary. In USA though all are hushing on the impeachment of the President Musharraf but they would love to see their Nixons and Clintons to face impeachment if the matter is that grave.

These countries have double standards on the issue of democracy, free judiciary and accountability as they would sack their ministers for claiming train tickets but would love to seek ‘reconciliation ‘ for the corrupts of others only to save them for future for their own national interest. Our politicians under the cloud can easily play double agent role and can serve them well if the time comes, but at no point our politicians think what is in the best interest of Pakistan. Free and independent judiciary is the core of the demands to curb militancy and political process and democracy is the way forward to curb extremism in our views and attitudes. Its the shuffling of the good with the bad and rooting out the criminals through independent judges from the political arena keeping army at guard is the only way the system can work. Pakistan’s military has sniffed 4 times the fragrance of power, they have assumed the sovereignty of the state more than 40 years out of around 61 years of short life of the country. Its difficult to snatch the peg from the military in this Raleigh race however with wisdom, consultation and joint collaboration its possible to preach sanity. If judges are not restored at this juncture in time, the people of Pakistan who have lost trust on the politicians will lose hope too.

There must at least be one trial of General Musharraf for all charges, he must face it and if found guilty he must be sentenced to what he deserves under the law. Only then the pardon issue arises and if not pardoned this ‘endangered species’ should never be allowed to leave Pakistan. We have allowed the foreign interference in our own home affairs for long, and his is the time that the country shows some courage and declare that the time is gone where Afia Siddiqui’s of Pakistan were handed over to foreign country without due process of law, without judicial oversight and in the absence of any extradition treaty, for some dollars. Its time that the local courts are given the respect it deserves. Full court must hear the case of General Musharraf at least for once. If UK hangs their only dictator General Cromwell even after his death, why Pakistan does not deserve to at least put the man on trial who have brought miseries by sacking and detaining free minded judges twice, sending President home, arresting former premier, sacking parliament, imposing emergency twice, killing Baloch leader Akbar Bugti, allowing Be Nazir to die a few miles away from his home due to lack of security, operation in the capital on a mosque, retaining Uniform in politics, allowing missiles to fall in tribal areas at will, and for  selling hundreds to CIA for a few million dollars. At least, Pakistanis deserve to see him on a trial. And even the enemy deserves a dual so he must be given a fair trial, secured entry to court, a lawyer of his own choice and time to get evidence to defend himself. By mere hollow speeches this Nero of Pakistan is not going to be a self declared saviour. Long live Pakistan.    

Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court (England) and a political analyst based in UK

20 August 2008

• Posted by valiantpk on 20/08/2008.
• login or register to post comments

UK Lawyers agree with Punjab Bar to work jointly for rule of law and justice in the country

• Posted by valiantpk on 16/08/2008.
• login or register to post comments