PDF E-Paper ISB_Layout 1 3/31/2012 3:33 AM Page 13
Saturday, 31 March, 2012
Comment 13
Dictating to parliament Seeking the truth Is it really free?
By Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad
T
he government takes pride in having enabled parliament to undertake a review of the Pak-US relations, a vital part of the country’s foreign policy. Till now politicians were not allowed to enter the territory considered by the army as its exclusive preserve. Sen Farhatullah Babar reminded the parliament that the previous political governments had strived to reclaim what was their exclusive turf but failed to do so. a joint session of parliament is now reviewing the new parameters worked out by a parliamentary committee to determine relations between Pakistan and the US. is the parliament really free to take decisions? With the extremist organisations threatening the government of mayhem in the country and individual legislators of physical attacks in case they take decisions not liked by the extremists, every member of parliament expresses his views with an eye on the Damocles’ sword hanging over their head. as the killings of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti amply prove, falling foul of the extremist organisations can cost a politician his life. as a joint session of parliament initiated debate on Tuesday on the Parliamentary committee on national Security’s (PcnS) recommendations, threats were delivered loudly outside its gates where the Difa-e-Pakistan council (DPc) was holding a rally. The DPc is an alliance of religious parties and banned extremist outfits working under new names. its leaders include Maulana Samiul Haq who is sometime referred to as the father of the Taliban move-
More relevant than ever, not less ment and former iSi chief lt gen (retd) Hamid gul. The DPc has been allowed to hold meetings all over the country despite the fact that it includes organisations like JUD, the humanitarian wing of the banned lashkar-e-Taiba and the morbidly anti-Shia aSWJ which is a reincarnation of the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan. Since Jamaat-e-islami lost all representation in parliament with the departure of Senators Khurshid ahmad and ibrahim Khan, the party has started talking of violent agitation. is it possible for DPc to parade up and down the country with leaders of banned parties addressing mammoth crowds without a nod from the army? The alliance may not have the army’s support in all that the DPc does but definitely seems to enjoy its tacit approval to rant against the improvement of ties with the US and india. This would constitute another pressure on parliament which would be wary of taking any decision not liked by the army? after staging several rallies in major cities where fiery speakers opposed reopening of naTO supply routes, the DPc staged a sit-in outside parliament on Tuesday where a joint session was in progress .its leaders delivered fiery speeches and announced that they would not only reject the parliament’s decision to reopen the supply routes but also forcibly stop the nato trucks all over the country. in fact, this was the second rally by the DPc in islamabad after February 22. The meeting held earlier had delivered an identical message. Two of the leaders of banned outfits who were not allowed to enter islamabad by the local administration in February spoke at the DPc rally this time. Junior leaders of the DPc were more upfront about what they intended to do if the government took decisions which were not to their liking. On Friday last speaking at a protest rally outside lahore Press club, Hafiz abdul ghaffar ropari of Jamiat-e-ahle Hadith, a component of the DPc, said his workers would bomb
any naTO containers that plied through Pakistan. He said the supplies would be stopped regardless of the parliament’s decision. The militant wing of the extremists, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan has gone a step further. On Sunday, TTP spokesman ehsanullah ehsan told reuters “if the parliament decides to restore naTO supplies, we will attack parliamentarians and their overlords.” The threats are already producing the results desired by the extremists. The consensus document formulated by a multi-party parliamentary committee and duly signed by their representatives has suddenly become controversial. The PMl(n) and JUi(F) have decided not to support it unless it is amended. Speaking at a point of order in the joint session of parliament on Tuesday, Fazlur rehman categorically opposed the reopening of naTO supply route to afghanistan. He said if recommendations of the PcnS were approved with a majority, it will be the decision of the government and not the parliament. ch nisar said that his party would take part in the debate only if the government removed their reservations regarding some clauses. Both had earlier signed the consensus proposals. The parliamentary committee had submitted its proposals in the last week of January. The parliament has yet not finalised the recommendations. The joint session which started on Tuesday has yet to begin the debate in earnest. The reason why it fails to catch the bull by the horns is known to all. in yet another attempt at forging consensus, PM gilani called a meeting of the country’s top leadership on Thursday. This time the military leadership was also roped in. it remains to be seen if the move would provide enough courage to the parliament to move ahead. The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
T
he memo has not only become a test case for the judiciary to untangle, it is also so for Mansoor ijaz, the (named and un-named) government functionaries, the army and the iSi. i say so not for any other reason, but for the stands taken by each party in the matter. So far, the principal witness in the case Mansoor ijaz has been the most forthcoming in terms of testifying before the Sc-appointed commission with transcripts of conversations and other proofs to substantiate that he was in contact with Haqqani and the memo conspiracy was, indeed, conceived and put in motion for implementation. He has also indicated his willingness to forgo his privacy rights with regard to securing information from the BlackBerry company. Haqqani, on the other hand, while denying the allegations, has been non-cooperative saying that he had misplaced his two BlackBerry sets and did not remember his pin numbers. The army and iSi chiefs, in submitting signed affidavits with the Sc, ostensibly based on incriminating evidence secured by the iSi which has already claimed the scalp of the former ambassador to the US, were accused of having committed ‘unconstitutional acts’ by the prime minister – an accusation that has since been withdrawn under increasing pressure from the gHQ. in his affidavit, the cOaS had stated that the memo ‘was a reality’ that had ‘affected national sovereignty’ and should be investigated thoroughly. The government, on the other hand, considered the memo a ‘non-issue’ and questioned why the army chief had not brought the matter to the notice of the government any earlier than he eventually did. it also cautioned the iSi chief as to the chain of command that he needed to By Raoof Hasan follow under the relevant laws and rules. The detailed log of conversations allegedly between various actors which is part of Mansoor’s testimony provides extensive incriminating details of the events of the night of May 1-2. amid reverberations of an accord having been reached between the government and the security establishment to bury the controversy, it remains to be seen whether the army and iSi chiefs stick to their stated positions or take steps backwards. in the former event, the memo could boil over into becoming a major controversy while, in the latter case, their own positions would be rendered untenable - an eventuality that neither of them would be able to live with. in such a situation, would pursuit of truth be a preferred option with either party, or will they join hands, as indicated in various reports, to quash it? That brings us to the other party in the equation: the judiciary. So far, it has taken all the right steps. it appointed a three-member judicial commission to investigate the matter thoroughly which has given time
Candid Corner
and space to each party to state its case. When the government resorted to vile tactics to stop Mansoor ijaz from coming to Pakistan to appear before the commission, it conceded his request to record his statement through a video-link facility from london which he has since done to telling effect. after the completion of his cross-examination, the commission asked Hussain Haqqani to appear before it on March 15 with details of his phone sets, pin codes and any other evidence that he may want to produce in support of his contentions. He did not come. instead he asked for the provision of a similar facility that was accorded to Mansoor ijaz – recording of statement vide video-link from london. The commission rejected his request and directed him to appear in person before it on March 26. He has not done that again citing security reasons for his inability to travel to Pakistan and sent a communication directly to the cJ outlining his reasons for non-appearance. The Sc has, however, reiterated that he should appear in person before the commission as per his affidavit submitted earlier when he was allowed to leave the country that he would appear on a four-day notice. The question is: will he come at all? if he does, of which the chances now appear to be slim, the matter would proceed towards its final resolution on the basis of ascertainment of evidence produced by each party before the commission. But if he does not, which appears the more likely option at this stage, what is the course that the judiciary would follow in pursuit of truth and what are the roles that every other party to the case would play, more notably the government and the chiefs of the army and the iSi? The matter has become even more relevant in the light of the proposals that the Parliamentary committee on national Security (PcnS) has submitted for discussion before the parliament for the revival of Pakistan-US relations. This endeavour would have to be viewed in a different perspective if some of our own senior officials were found involved in forging conspiracies with a foreign power to destabilise national military and intelligence institutions. So, it is absolutely vital that the court gets to the bottom of the alleged conspiracy before the parliament could move any further with the proposed review of the Pakistan-US relations. The crucial factor here is not so much whether one party is guilty or the other. The crucial factor is the task of seeking the truth in a matter that has adversely impacted the legitimacy of the government functionaries and security institutions alike. For them to continue with a stigma on their character would be absolutely untenable. apparently, the government is virtually pitted against the security establishment. if, along the way, there has been a decision to forget and forgive, that does not render the task of seeking the truth any less important and relevant. if, for any reason or a combination of reasons, the pursuit is aborted, it would be a sad day for the country, its institutions and its fast-obliterating credentials. The writer is a political analyst and a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. He can be reached at raoofhasan@hotmail.com