The exclusive interview with Munir Malik to the Asian Human Rights Commission

A Paper by the Asian Human Rights Commission

We are publishing an interview with Munir Malik, the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association who was imprisoned and given drugs under the pretext of painkillers which caused him renal failure and liver damage, but who continues to be an inspiration for the movement for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Pakistan. His insights into the recent events will be helpful in understanding the movement of lawyers as well as the movement of democracy that is taking place in Pakistan now. This interview was conducted by Baber Ayaz on behalf of Asian Human Rights Commission. The Asian Human Rights Commission authorizes the faithful reproduction of this interview with due acknowledgements.
Munir Malik's interview by Baber Ayaz
Unprecedented movement of the legal fraternity for the independence of judiciary in Pakistan is still a cherished but elusive goal. On 20th July 2007, its victory was celebrated by all democratic forces in the country. But the gains of the movement were short-lived. On 3rd November 2007 President General Pervez Musharraf clamped Emergency on the country and chucked out all the independent judges. The struggle started again and it's a long way to go.
In this back ground I went to interview Munir Malik, the man who launched the incredible movement in March 2007, in his capacity as President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). When I went to interview Munir, he was still wearing the hospital uniform and looked frail. Munir had fallen seriously ill during his detention at Attock Jail, where he was mal-treated by the government doctor. He was only shifted to Islamabad hospital when his kidneys collapsed and he developed a liver problem.
For a few weeks that followed civil society feared that the man who valiantly led a movement that became an example even for the lawyers of developed democracies, may not be able to survive due to serious negligence of his health. But the fighter Munir fought and came back.
Following are the excerpts of his interview:
Baber Ayaz (BA): When you got elected to the Supreme Court Bar at that point the chief justice (CJ) reference issue was not there, you must be having some agenda for your tenure. What was that?
Munir Malik (MM): Well I had contested the election precisely because I thought that this would be a defining year. There were a number of issues that were likely to come up in this defining year, for instance: Elections were supposed to be held; the issue that whether an army general can be elected as a president or can he hold two offices of the president and army chief at the same time, was to be decided; then there was the issue of the holding of dual nationality by members of parliament and cabinet ministers and whether they could swear allegiance to two constitutions. There was the issue of madaris' degrees (Degrees from fundamentalist Islamic seminaries) whether they were at par with college graduates, regular college graduates. By that time Malik Qayyum (the sitting Attorney General) and Sharifuddin Pirzada (legal advisor to the president) had established their credentials as supporters of the establishment. They were very close to Chief Justice Iftikhar. There was a feeling that the Supreme Court (SC) is trying to improve its moral image or its public image by taking Suo Motto (taking cases on the court's own initiative) notices of popular issues including especially the steel mills case where a decision was given against the government. It was feared that with this image the Supreme Court will give decisions favouring the government on crucial petitions like that related to the President's election and prices of pharmaceutical products.
So I was certain that we need an independent bar to keep a watch on the SC itself. I was certain in my mind that it would be a defining year. The very first step was that SCBA passed a resolution demanding the restoration of the constitution as it was before Musharraf's take over in 1999.
At that time, by and large the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) was very unpopular in the rank and file of the legal fraternity for the principle reason that he was very arrogant and the perception was that he dispenses justice in cases according to the face value of the counsel who appeared before him. If it was Sharifuddin Pirzada he was sugar and honey, and if the counsel was not an important figure he would be otherwise. I think he was over-zealous in clearing the back log even at the cost of miscarriage of justice. Lawyers from Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar and Lahore were given notice in the evening that your case is fixed in Islamabad tomorrow. This roster problem was agitating the lawyers. So I was ready to raise this issue with him as I think justice hurried is justice buried.
BA: But you had condemned the letter written by Naeem Bokhari before the reference was moved. Why?
MM: When Naeem Bokhari's letter appeared in mid-February It was applauded in the bar rooms. I took notice of this issue (despite the fact that other lawyers supported it). Yes, my view was that he should not weaken the judiciary by making these allegations in the press.
But I was still trying to get my pound of flesh, I wanted to have the CJP fix the roster problems which was troubling lawyers, and I would come out vocally in support of him. So he sent me a message through an intermediary that he was embattled and he wants me to issue a statement of support. I gave that statement, it was front page news in Dawn. Publication of this statement on the front page was surprising for me; I assumed it must have got a push from somewhere.
In one of his speeches in February he had said that Munir Malik has promised to give me his unconditional support. When my turn came to speak I said so long as this court moves in the direction of the independence of the judiciary.
Then came the bolt of 9th March, fortunately I was in Islamabad, it was a Friday. I was contacted by the press, at about 5:30 pm or so, they asked my views. The television had broadcast pictures of CJ meeting at the Army House, where sitting in military uniform the President asked the CJP to resign. I was very clear in my stand that this is a direct assault on the third organ of the state and we shall resist it.
BA: The President has a constitutional right to send a reference against a judge of the superior court. Was your reaction more because of the indecent manner in which it was done or was it because the reference was sent in the first place?
MM: Three grounds, first, the manner in which he was summoned and detained, at the army camp office. The message it sent was that the judiciary is really not an independent organ of the state and a uniformed President can do what he pleases. And by implication the legal fraternity was also helpless. Second reason was that Pervez Musharraf could not constitutionally make a judge dysfunctional. An executive order was issued, by the 'royal secretary' at 5:03pm saying that the CJ had been suspended and acting CJ was sworn in. This was a complete negation of the principle of separation of powers. Every judge would have felt insecure; all you had to do was send a reference. While it would have subsequently determined whether the reference was of substance or not, the harm to a judge's reputation would have been done. The third reason was that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) was convened the same day with unholy haste. One of the judges was flown in via special plane. The other was tipped off in Lahore. And without hearing the CJ, the SJC imposed a restrain upon him.
BA: So if the President had followed the constitutional course you would have had no objection?
MM: He should have sent the reference to the SJC to handle, whenever they would take it. Then the manner in which CJP was held incommunicado, together with members of his family. His entire domestic staffs was replaced by ISI (military intelligence agency) agents, they were in his living room, in his lawn, 20-25 people. His cars were fork lifted, no visitors were permitted, only those whom the security gave clearance to come in, I think Asghar Khan was the first to be permitted.
BA: There was a tremendous response to the call of the SCBA when you launched the movement for the restoration of CJP. Were you certain that the people would come out like that or was it also a pleasant surprise?
MM: There was a wave of indignation in the manner of his dismissal and everybody I talked to from the legal fraternity said that though CJ was not a nice man but what has been done with him was not right. I only channelised this wave of indignation, it was boiling, the Supreme Court Bar just coordinated it and I think that the master strategy that everybody gathered around the SC building on every date the CJP was produced, worked. The administration over-reacted, they sealed all roads leading to the SC, and I had to walk 2km before I could get into the SC building.
CJP was supposed to be produced at 1:30 p.m. on 13th March, at 1p.m. images came on TV showing him being dragged by his hair. This agitated the lawyers who were practising in Islamabad and Rawalpindi and other adjoining courts and they started converging on the SC. I had given a call for the sit in at the SJC but I was not sure where it would meet because it was supposed to be in camera.
BA: So one of the reasons perhaps that your movement got such a big response was the contribution of the media?
MM: Absolutely, this was the difference between 2000 and 2007. In 2000 when 6 judges of the SC resigned, they were also detained in their houses and prevented from coming to the SC building. But at that time the print media had not given much importance to this and there was no independent electronic media. I don't think the CJ would have been re-instated without the media support.
I think one of the other factors was that, even though pre-9th March the chief was only paying lip-service to the cases of the missing persons, but those missing persons would continue to picket at the SC daily. But these issue attracted civil society.
BA: In the second Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif stint the judiciary was humiliated by both, but there was no massive movement against that. Why this time?
MM: Well, historically the judiciary has always been a collaborator, with the ruling elite. It has been the 'B' team of the army. It retains the old, imperial mindset that they are there to serve the government. If the president would call a judge of the high court he would probably take out his best suit, take a camera with him and it would be an event for him to remember, that he has been summoned by the president or the prime minister. In Bhutto's white paper that had been published after 1977 I think Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in one of his side notes remarked, 'they will come to you for petty favours' like a plot, for a diplomatic passport, an admission for a child, a posting for a relative. So they were only part of the establishment, they had no moral credibility. If a man in uniform said something that was the law. You could sense that if there was a case involving the corp. commander or cantonment land, the judge would think that before the corp. commander says something to me I should oblige him. So I think both the legal fraternity and the civil society felt why (they had to) support them.
This time the media brought to our drawing rooms a man saying 'No' to the establishment. So the image that came out was that this man has stood up to fight generals, and say that I will not resign I'm innocent.
BA: You had earlier said that there was a whole scheme of building up the image of the CJ and the SC and then getting the most crucial cases like the presidential election through; this means that the CJ was co-operating. Why did the establishment then decide to remove him?
MM: I think the CJ was co-operating with the President but not with the government. The conspiracy against the CJ as he tells me was drawn out by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, General Javed Hamid, the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court Iftikhar Hussain and his brother who was the Cabinet Minister and the Law Secretary Mansoor. The CJ had stopped his appointment to the Commonwealth. The CJ was not on speaking terms with Justice Hussain. Shaukat Aziz was really cut up on the judgement quashing the Steel Mills' privatisation. Then the CJP would humiliate civilian officers. CJP never summoned the sitting general but if he summoned the IG police or a secretary, he would take his gripe to Shaukat Aziz. Pervez Musharraf says that they had good family relations, so this reference came from the civilian element of the establishment. Pervez Musharraf was also given the impression that this man is going to be CJ till 2013 and he's already started showing his colours. I think Musharraf was misled. What was Shaukat Aziz doing in the army camp office; he was there on 9th of March. He was there before the CJ had arrived; special planes had started since the morning.
BA: After 20th July, when the SC was restored, you said that the next struggle is to bring independence to lower judiciary and remove corruption. But then the slogan of removing the president was given. Now one view is that, it was an ambitious call without consolidating the gains, the judiciary and the legal fraternity became a bit adventurous and ended up with 9th November situation. Loves' labour was lost. What are your views on this view?
MM: Yes, I was very conscious of that, as a matter of fact I'm on record for having stated if you burden the SC with political cases, it will collapse under its own weight. Now, the problem was that the politicians always wanted to fire from the shoulder of the SC, they wouldn't take the battle to the streets of Pakistan. The CJ cannot dismiss petitions without hearing them. There were Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Imran Khan's petitions before the SC challenging the holding of the dual office by the President.
BA: Is it correct that they had scared Musharraf that he would give a judgement against him?
MM: You will notice that neither the SCBA nor the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) intervened in these proceedings. We had held out, an olive branch, by saying that the CJ was not a vindictive man, he will not sit on benches hearing cases against Pervez Musharraf and that counsels who were his counsels would never appear before him. But there was one issue, in which we had taken a stand in virtually every public meeting that was the case of missing persons. Now the CJP was under pressure to hear these cases. In the aftermath of the movement of 9th March 2007 he had said that it is the responsibility of the state to account for every missing person. It was not so much that we went after Pervez Musharraf, but we went to look for the missing persons, that antagonized Washington DC because they thought that courts would now be throwing a spanner on the war on terror. Then all the signals that came from the CJP that is the way he constituted benches on these constitutional cases was that he would go slow. The 6-3 verdict that came against Qazi Hussain and Imran Khan Case was certain to go this way. One could have looked at the bench and said that it would be 6-3 split decision in favour of Musharraf. In Justice Wajihuddin case against presidential election, we would have lost that petition, because we didn't have a majority. The reports that went to Pervez Musharraf, from his intelligence people were that the SC would decide against him, that's why he imposed Emergency.
I guess in a sense you are right, that certain political issues for which the courts were not ready were brought before it, but the momentum of the events were such that if the courts did not make an attempt to address them then it would have become the old supreme court and that was not an idea worth fighting for.
We also have to remember, that although from 9th March to 20th of July we were able to rally lawyers of different political persuasions on the largest common denominator, independence of the judiciary, restoration of the CJ and supremacy of the rule of law. On this no democrat could disagree but after 20th July, I would say lawyers belonging to different political parties brought their political agendas forward and over that we had no control.
CJP attitude was that I have reached the position of the Chief Justice now I don't care what they do to me. He told me: "I would go down in history, as the CJ who took a stand, the title is something that comes and goes, I will remain in history."
BA: Do you think had everybody moved more cautiously 3rd November onslaught on superior judiciary could have been avoided?
MM: You see, this was a catch-22, if the judiciary did nothing its public image would have eroded giving an impression that this was a fight only for the CJ and not for the independence of the judiciary, not to preserve the institution. Then the judiciary would again have become weak. So the level of expectation from the masses, the legal fraternity and the civil society was such that there was no turning back without eroding your credibility, and once your credibility was eroded, they would attack again.
In retrospect I think they should have not stayed the notification of the presidential elections. 50% of the battle had been won with the re-instatement of the CJ and the president's assurance in the court that he will take off the uniform before taking oath. The stay order, perhaps gave the feeling to the President's camp that the next step of the court will be declaring the elections invalid.
BA: Most of the judges who refused to take oath under emergency Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) now, had taken the oath in February 2000 although a constitutional government was removed. Why does everybody support them now?
MM: Well even this CJ had taken an oath under the PCO in February 2000, but I think though judges say that they are not influenced by the public opinion, the fact is that this is very far from the truth. They do not sit in ivory towers. One of my favourite lines is from NY Court of Appeal's Chief Justice Cardozo, he said that "the great tides and the currents which engulf the rest of men do not in their course turn aside and pass the judges by." 9th March no one came to meet the CJ, but when the movement started, it had a domino effect. As soon as the people started coming on the streets, one fell, then the other and the other.
What we said was that, the courts say that they interpret the constitution according to the changing times; it's an organic document, not static. This is for the first time the people came to the streets and showed them that these are the changing times. There is an old dictum: "better late than never."
BA: Do you see any chance of the restoration of these judges and how it would be constitutionally possible under the current situation?
MM: I think the ball is now in the parliament's court. Historically, a usurper has sought parliamentary indemnity for the acts done during the period of deviation. Now we can't go before the present SC and expect restoration of judges. In fact they've already ruled that the 3rd November PCO amendments are a valid part of the constitution and they will not require any further parliamentary approval. And they have shifted the onus on parliament, that to undo it you have to repeal it by a 2/3 majority.
So this war will now be in the new parliament or in the streets. On the streets it's supposed to be run by the political leadership.
BA: Does that mean if political parties don't get 2/3 majority they can't change it?
MM: No sir, let's take this scenario, supposing Pakistan People's Party (PPP) gets simple majority, forms the government and the speaker asks to lay the constitution of Pakistan before the house, which one will they present, one with the amendments, or the one which was before Musharraf took over ?
BA: Can they do it legally?
MM: Like Illahi Baksh Soomro (former speaker of the national assembly) did it, when the 2002 Parliament sat, he asked for the 1973 Constitution for administering the oath. So this is a political leadership game.
BA: The government says that the SC was coming in the way of their resolve to fight terrorism. Now we all know that the problem of terrorism is there, it's an extra-ordinary situation, what can be done. The executive also needs certain powers or certain space to deal with terrorism. It is a reality, how do you fight it? And how can the judiciary really contribute to this?
MM: You see the executive ought not to shift the entire onus on the judiciary. I concede the proposition that citizen rights have to be balanced against the interest of state security. Now in England, we have the same problem but their parliament enacted a law.
The question is where do we draw this balance and who draws this balance? The balance is to be drawn by parliament, and then the executive will implement this law. Supposing the law is that they can keep a suspect incommunicado for 7 days. Ok, so they keep me incommunicado for 7 days but on the 8th day I should be produced before a magistrate. Decision on whether the executive has transgressed the law, is the judicial function. Now, in England, after 7/7 they have adopted legislations. We, on the other hand, haven't been able to define terrorism yet. What is terrorism? What is a terrorist act? The definition we have is that which is found in the Anti Terrorist Act as something which is liable to scare the general public. The classic definition of terrorists is state terrorism, where the state uses its coercive power to repress its citizens. Assuming that Al-Qaeda is a state within a state and it has to be dealt with, then the international community must come up with a framework of rules. Now tell me, supposing they pick you up on a charge of national security, doesn't your family have a right to know that they have you in their custody? So the degree of accounting will be less but accounting will have to be done. The state must account for persons. When they pick you up on preventive detention it is not a substantive charge but they say we have picked him up. They don't present you before a court but at least a person doesn't disappear.
BA: In the post 3rd November situation, gradually the movement is dying down. How do you see the future of the movement?
MM: Well, we've gone off the front pages for 2 or 3 reasons. Important events such as return of exile leadership, assassination of Ms. Bhutto and elections are getting prominent newspaper space. The problem is that we don't have many legal options; we don't have a court to turn to. Pre 20th July the struggle was within the courts and without the courts. Movement outside the courts was to put pressure and sensitize them.
Now we are re-thinking our strategy. The entire leadership of the bar was arrested. Aitzaz Ahsan, Tariq Mehmood and Kurd are still under detention.
BA: Now towards a personal side, when you were arrested, were you mistreated?
MM: I was not mistreated at Adiala Jail; I only had the inconvenience of being shifted at 3 a.m. to Attock Jail on the third day. In Attock, the civilian jail staff bent over backwards to do anything for me, but it was the intelligence that would lead them. They would be present at every meeting, at every visitation; they decided when the cell would open and when it would be closed. They would supervise and torture me psychologically. Medical treatment facilities were inadequate; I would get medicines after 3 days. At that time I was on pain killers and the pain killers they gave me, my doctors from Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and Sindh Institution of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT) tell me, would have killed a healthy man.
BA: Were you on any medication then?
MM: No, just painkillers. My problem was that they'd shut me in at 4pm and open it back at 7am, the cell only had space to lie on a mattress and the bathroom was right there too. There was nothing to do, all reading and writing material, was confiscated, there was no newspaper and first four days I was in solitary confinement. I would go to the toilet to urinate every hour on the hour. I went to the jail doctor and he said have this medicine and when nothing happened after two days, he changed the medicine.
Eventually my kidneys shut down, and my liver was also not functioning properly. This resulted in accumulation of fluid in my body. Fortunately, I was not disoriented mentally. I don't recall the events after the 23rd November afternoon. I can recall that an SSP came and called Islamabad saying that my health was bad and I should be transferred. I recall being in an ambulance. I don't think I would have survived Saturday. Once I recovered partially with the help of PIMS doctors in Islamabad, I was moved to SIUT in Karachi where I recovered pretty fast and now I am off dialysis.


About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Targeting of lawyers and cover up

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

A bomb exploded in Lahore, the capital city of Punjab province, on January 10, killing more than 30 persons and injuring 70, mostly policemen, outside the Lahore High Court building where lawyers had planned a protest rally. On the directives of different Bar Associations lawyers are holding their weekly protests against the sacking of the higher judiciary through the state of emergency across the country every Thursday. Through this Thursday’s rally the lawyers were demonstrating their resolve to fight for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. While the military regime is trying to create the impression that it has been able to dissolve the lawyer’s movement in fact, the lawyers are calling their bluff. A threatened regime is trying to do its utmost to suppress a popular movement that has risen up against it. In this incident the attack has back fired killing many policemen and exposing the regime. The regime is now trying to create a cover up.

The government was aware of the lawyers’ weekly rally and on this occasion a heavy contingent of police officers, including female officers was deployed with all the necessary riot gear and other equipment necessary to disperse the lawyers rally. Even ambulances and fire engines were deployed in the operation. The government is claiming that it was a suicide bombing. However, the lawyers claim that the bomb was planted earlier with the intention of causing death and injury to the participants of the rally.

When the bomb exploded a rally of lawyers from the District courts was about to reach the Lahore High Court building to join the lawyers from the High Court who were at that time holding their protest meeting inside the court building. The bomb blast occurred just 30 yards away from the main gate where a heavy contingent of police was deployed. The office bearers of the different bar associations said that it was the timing which had saved so many lawyers from death and injury as the participants from the District courts were more than 500 yards from the High Court building. They claim that the bomb was aimed at killing and maiming the lawyers to put a stop to their continuous protests after the sacking of the judges on November 3, through the state of emergency and against the continuous arrests of their leadership and the judges. They also claim that the government is putting the blame on a suicide attack as usual to divert attention from its crimes.

The Asian Human Rights Commission condemns the bomb attack on the Lahore High Court building and sympathises with the grieving families of the police officers who suffered the brunt of the bomb blast. One injured police head constable stated that the bomb was planted inside a white Suzuki car which had been parked near the area where the police were deployed. When they tried to push the car out of the way the bomb exploded causing heavy casualties. However the police higher ranking officers are claiming that the bomb was carried by a suicide bomber who arrived on a motorcycle.

The AHRC supports the struggle of the protesting lawyers for the rule of law, supremacy of the judiciary against the rule of emergency, and against the arbitrary actions of President Musharraf to undermine the constitutional rule. As the government appears seems to be clearly engaged in a cover up, the AHRC calls for a transparent inquiry into this case with the involvement of international experts.

As it is yet another effort by the government to scare the legal fraternity and civil society to make them desist from assembling and conducting protests against the government the international community owes an obligation to support the lawyers vigorously at this time. Lawyers throughout the world should demonstrate their solidarity with the lawyers in Pakistan by strong actions in their own countries and by communicating their anger to the Pakistan government through the local embassies and consulates of the country.

This is an incident in which many lawyers could have died. Already there are lawyers who have been seriously tortured and held under house arrest and thousands were also detained. The global legal community owes an obligation to the lawyers of Pakistan to institute an inquiry of their own into this matter. The global lawyer’s organisations and national organisations should come forward to offer protection for the lawyers of Pakistan now. We particularly call upon the International Bar Association and Law Asia to act in a demonstrative manner, letting the world know how they will fight to protect their colleagues in Pakistan. We also call upon the UN Rapporteur for the independence of judge and lawyers to exercise his mandate and to do his utmost to investigate this matter and prevent any further recurrence. It should be remembered that those who made this failed attempt are very likely to try again and next time they will also try to make sure that they will carry out their evil task more efficiently this is one of those times when the international solidarity within the legal fraternity and the human rights community will be tested.

# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Lawyers condemn blast, term it state conspiracy

By Inam Ullah
LAHORE, Pakistan, 10 January 2008 (The Post) - The legal fraternity termed the [bomb] attack here on Thursday a conspiracy against the lawyers' movement and a complete failure of the [Musharraf] government in controlling the law and order situation in the provincial metropolis [Lahore].
Member, Punjab Bar Council (PBC), Advocate Navid Anayat Malik alleged that the [Musharraf] government "wants to scare lawyers through such coercive tactics to cut short our anti-government movement, started for the restoration of all deposed judges and the Constitution."
"After repeated failure of the [Musharraf] government to stop lawyers from their movement through brutal torture and illegal detention, the government has now designed a 'suicide' attack on us, as used before to remove PPP ex-Chairperson Benazir Bhutto," he added.
"We now want to tell the [Musharraf] government we are not afraid," he said and vowed to continue "our struggle for rights." He urged the lawyers to intensify their campaigns for early success of "our"movement.
Later, he condoled the death of cops who lost their lives in the [bomb] attack and condemned the attack in question.
Another member of PBC, Manzoor Qadir, also a candidate for the LahoreBar Association [LBA] President Office, said the [Musharraf] government has tried its best to suppress the lawyers, "but come what may, we are not afraid. Our movement will only stop after we achieve our agenda," he added.
Former President LBA and member PBC, Advocate Chaudhry Imran Masood, termed the blast in the provincial metropolis a complete failure ofthe [Musharraf] government to tackle lawlessness. "The [ruling tyrant Pervez Musharraf] is playing with the solidarity of our country for his own sake," he said, adding that the only solution to the current crisis would be free and transparent general elections under the supervision of a neutral caretaker government.
Advocate Shahid Bilal Hassan, member PBC, condemning the [bomb] attack on police accused [Dictator] Musharraf of putting the whole nation at stake. "Nobody is safe in this country from terrorism," he added.
Former President, Lahore Tax Bar [LTB], Shafqat Chohan said the masses at large had pinned their hopes on "us" [the Pakistani lawyers]. "We became their voice," he said, adding that the [Musharraf] government"fears the lawyers' movement, hence the blast."
Former Secretary LHCBA, Mian Irfan Akram, expressing his grief over the number of casualties, said the legal fraternity has understood the"hidden message" of the [Musharrraf] government, but "will not retreat a single step. The government must accept defeat," he added.
Former Secretary, LBA, G.A. Khan, and Sajid Bashir said the movement would continue at any cost.

"Lawyers Rally was Real Target"

By Jamaluddin Jamali

LAHORE, Pakistan, 10 January 2008 (The Post) - The legal fraternity on Thursday blamed government agencies [Pakistan Army's Special ServiceGroup (SSG) Commandos, MI, ISI, IB, FIA, Rangers, or InteriorMinistry, etc.] for the deadly [bomb] blast outside the Lahore High Court and said that the real target of the bomber was the lawyers rally.
Hundreds of lawyers were inside the High Court at the time of the blast while others led by the Lahore Bar Association [LBA] were marching towards The Mall.
Lawyers claimed that real target of the blast was their rally, which was heading towards the GPO Chowk, but later the plan was changed and the police contingent was attacked.
The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned the [bomb] attack which killed almost 26 people, most of them policemen [and injured over 80 Pakistanis].
SCBA Vice President Ghulam Nabi Bhatti told The Post that the blast was the handiwork of [Pervez Musharraf's] government agencies which wanted to browbeat the protesting lawyers.
He alleged that [the Musharraf] government agencies conducted the blast to weaken the lawyers' protest movement. It was a "divine delay"in the protest march that saved the lives of hundreds of lawyers and members of civil society groups," Ghulam Nabi said.
Former LHCBA President Ahmed Javaid Jilani told The Post that the [Musharraf] government wanted to defer the general elections by creating a law and order situation in Lahore which was relatively safer than rest of the country.

Visiting victims of the blast..

Xani Amin

We visited the Mayo Hospital today evening to ask after the blast victims. All along the way, I was thinking what to expect and how to express my feelings; condemnation for the blast and empathy for the victims. My thoughts dispersed and the words failed me when I met the victims and their families. Stricken by poverty and pain, they sat by the bed sides of their near and dear ones whose limbs were broken and bodies burnt. We sat with them, held hands and comforted them. They thanked us for being there to share their grief. It was a humbling experience and the one I will remember for a long time.We stayed for one hour, met about 26 victims and their families, passed on small gifts to them and left the hospital with eyes gleaming with tears but a heart full of promise to visit again. I would request all of you to go and see the victims. In these testing times they need all the support and comfort that your visit can give them.

US delegation to issue preliminary report on Rule of Law issue

PRESS CONFERENCE: Friday, 11/1/08, 3PM, Holiday Inn, across from the Islamabad Press Club.

Islamabad -- A delegation from the United States National Lawyers Guild will release its preliminary findings regarding the impacts of then Proclamation of Emergency at a press conference in Islamabad at 3pm on Friday. The delegation has prepared a preliminary report concluding that anything short of restoration of the judges deposed on November 3rd will have long-lasting negative impacts on the judiciary and the rule of law in Pakistan. The report is critical of U.S. foreign policy, concluding that the United States’ failure to demand the reinstatement of the deposed judges will negatively impact both the development of democracy in Pakistan and the U.S.’s long-term interests in safety and security. The delegation also noted severe structural and procedural problems in the pre-election climate, including the lack of an independent election commission and an independent judiciary, that are likely to make the holding of free and fair elections impossible.

The delegation's findings are based on over 50 interviews with political party leaders, lawyers, members of civil society, government officials, judges, students and journalists in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and Islamabad. The report reflects the delegation's findings about the Pakistani judiciary, the freedom and fairness of upcoming elections, and the impact of U.S. foreign policy on security and democracy in Pakistan. David Gespass, the Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild and the leader of the delegation, noted that “As lawyers and law students, we have an ethical and professional obligation to support the struggle for a just and democratic society based on the rule of law wherever that struggle occurs.”

One respondent, Justice Azmat Saeed of the Lahore High Court, who refused to take the PCO oath, stated that “Musharraf said to the U.S.A., ‘I can't fight the war on terrorism with a free press and an independent judiciary.’ But you cannot fight terrorism with state terrorism.”

“Pakistan has become a state where there are suicide bombings going on, where no one is safe. We have now lost more Pakistani soldiers than Americans have lost in Iraq,” noted Imran Khan, leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf party. “If you assess the policy now, it has been a disaster for the U.S., and it’s now become an even bigger disaster for Pakistan. And there’s no end in sight. Radicalism and extremism are growing by the day. This is now a monster that could actually destroy our country,” concluded Khan.

Syed Mudasser Ameer, a barrister and a member of the executive committee of the Peshawar High Court Bar Association Action Committee, expressed a common view that “When we used to talk about America, it was just another word for freedom.” But the United States’ continued support for Musharraf has changed his views. “Now, we say it would be better if we were still ruled by Britain, because there would still be rule of law,” stated Ameer.

Justice (ret'd) Jawaad Khawaja of the Lahore University of Management Sciences invited the delegation to visit Pakistan to assess the status of the rule of law and the prospect for fair elections in light of recent attacks on judicial independence. The Law and Policy Department of LUMS founded a new initiative called the Rule of Law Project to serve as an academic clearinghouse for documentation and research regarding constitutionalism and the rule of law in Pakistan. The preliminary report is authored jointly by the delegation and the LUMS Rule of Law Project.

The delegation will return to the United States on Saturday where it will complete its final report for presentation to the United States ongress and the general public.


CONTACTS:
David Gespass, National Lawyers Guild, (0331) 412-5276, +1 (205)566-2530, thepass@aol.com
Devin Theriot-Orr, Rule of Law Project, LUMS, (0334) 428-9694,rlp@riseup.net

A page from the diary of a student..

Omer. G

Aai aye haath uthain hum bhi...

Earlier today, as we sat down in our Contracts law class, a terrified girl rushed into the class, quite late and looking baffled. The next moment we realized that she wasn't just appearing baffled to get her late entry excused. "Please call up your dad to check if he's fine. There's been an explosion outside the Lahore High Court. Many deaths and injuries"

There was a moment of silence. Then, the instructor spoke: "No, my dad's else where. Actually... em.." Our lawyer-teacher then instructed his teaching assistant to call up the teacher's father so as to enquire his well being, while the class returned to the labyrinthine world of Contracts Act 1872. I have never had a wonderful time with the intricacies of contract law, but this session became particularly distasteful so I began to think about rivers of blood, and black coats and other evocative images and many other things and very soon the class was over. The instructor's dad was reported to be safe and sound, and he looked quite relieved.

Back at LUMS, things looked just fine. It was a cloudy winter afternoon and the breeze was blowing beautifully. I thought about how the same wind blows all around the country, all around the globe, and brings on its wings, news from distant places. What it does not bring is the smell of blood, even when blood has been spilled just a few miles away.

Later, at around 7:30, a few dozen students gathered in front of the dining hall, in response to the Student Council's call. Many times in the afternoon, recently viewed pictures from the TV screen kept popping up in my mind. Bodies of humans, piled up outside the picturesque High Court building, dressed up in khaki trousers and dark grey shirts, unmistakable members of the dreaded Punjab police. Memories retured from another day, more than two months ago, when tall and strong men, dressed up in similar attire were chasing us like rats in that very premises. They beat up our friends, humiliated us and made us walk with our hands held high, just like prisoners of war in our own country.

But that moment in the cold evening, sitting on the ground, amongst a sober gathering of students, as I raised my hands for fatiha, this is not what I was thinking about. I thought about the families of the deceased and what they must be going through. Nothing should waver us in our resolve to battle every oppressive move made by the state, but that resolve must also not blind us to the plight of human beings on both sides. Our battle is not against innocent human beings; it is against a system that pits some of us against the others, exploiting everyone in the process. It is a battle of ideas of justice against ideas of injustice. More than anything else, those who were killed today were fellow human beings, brothers in Islam, killed unjustly. They deserve all our prayers, all our regards, and the maximum of our support.

The students dispersed after enlisting their names for blood donation and making contributions to the fund that the Student Action Committee promply set up to support the families of the deceased.

Thoughts in the aftermath..

Misha Rehman

In the aftermath of the bomb blast in Lahore, where do we stand in our own country?

For some like Marx, history is a linear progression-from feudalism to capitalism and so on. For the colonizers and now imperialists, man evolved from savages to barbarians to the civilized. Darwin spoke of mankind as ‘survival of the fittest’. Man, the superior of all beings in the universe, adapted and transformed the climate to suit his needs. With the advent of industrialization and the likes, we had technology to mold and change the world. From belief in a supreme being and divine law, the world moved to secularism and modern values. Thus, man has always progressed, to grow to something better, to something bigger than before-so history demonstrates, and so great thinkers tell us.

Have we really progressed, or with the passing of each day are we truly digressing to a world where law of the jungle prevails? Using new tactics and new technologies, which apparently seem to be the constructs of a modern world, our men are destroying our own social fabric, and crippling our own polity. This is the state of Pakistan. This is the day of morbidity where evil has risen. The men are standing translucent; we can see the ironies of life, of politics and statehood in a third world country, which is being dragged by the whims and fancies of everyone in the national and/or international arena, everyone but the people of Pakistan. These evil mongers rise to fill their pockets and cling on to their power. They rise to commit atrocities. They rise to curtail freedom. They rise to end Pakistan.

Let us trace back Pakistan’s steps to August 2006, just a year and five months ago. From the hue and cry regarding cases of the missing people, to the American imposed Islamic fundamentalism and Musharaf’s inception of enlightened moderation; from the killing of the prominent Balochi leader Bugti by the security forces, to the unaccounted raid that killed up to 80 people in Bajaur; from the radical Lal Masjid breathing right under the nose of the government, to the numerous bombings in cities like Karachi, Islamabad, Peshawar and Rawalpindi; from Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry’s unconstitutional suspension by the Dictator-President, to the killings of many Pakistani’s by foreign militants in Waziristan; from the treacherous killings in Karachi during rival protests against CJP’s dismissal, to the shameful deportation of Nawaz Sharif under the orders of the President against the decision of the Supreme Court; from the audacity of the President in wanting to stand in elections as an army chief after eight years of military rule, to the curtailment of media amid growing challenge to this very rule; from the belligerent breach of constitutional provisions by the imposition of a state of emergency, to the unlawful arrests and FIR reports against prominent lawyers, judges, civil servants, and politicians; from the assassination of PPP Chairperson and ex-Prime Minister Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, to the very obvious and shameful cover-up by the army, time and again we have been targeted as a nation. On the 10 of January 2008, we are once again left bruised and battered: "Twenty people have been killed and 60 wounded. Most of the victims are policemen. It was a suicide attack,'' said senior city government official Mian Ejaz after a bomb blast outside the Lahore High Court.

We can not let this go unnoticed, like the parrot that shuts its eyes when he sees a cat, hoping that the cat won’t see him. For if now we can not decide what has to be done, then only darkness prevails. We can not sit idle and wait for the monster to grow. We can not wait for it to engulf us all, for the cat to gulp the parrot down, for the powder keg to explode, for the citizens of a nation to forfeit it all. Not money, not land, no, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about fundamental human rights, I’m talking about freedom, I’m talking about existence in its very basic sense, and I’m talking about life…

“Pakistan”, a term coined by Chawdhry Rehmat Ali, “the land of the pure”.

HRCP calls for reports on Mass Arrests in Sindh

HRCP to collect the particulars of the workers of political parties arrested or wanted, in the current wave of arrests, harassment and intimidation by the local administration

January 10, 2008 Karachi:

In a joint statement issued to the press Mr. Iqbal Haider, Secretary General, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and Ms. Zohra Yusuf, Vice Chairperson, HRCP expressed grave concern at reports that the government was using the current disturbances after the tragic assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, as an excuse to enter people's homes, arrest hundreds of thousands of political workers and create an environment of fear.

They said that HRCP has decided to collect - to the extent possible - the available data and particulars of the hundreds of thousands of workers of political parties and other citizens arrested or wanted by the local administration in the Province of Sindh on the allegations of arson, loot, dacoities and burning of the private and public properties following the assassination of the PPP Chairperson. HRCP appeals to all political parties, welfare organizations, NGOs and concerned citizens to immediately give maximum possible particulars of the citizens arrested / wanted by the local authorities in the current wave of arrests, harassment and intimidation.

Information should be sent to:

The HRCP Karachi Chapter – Unit # 8, Ilaco House,

Abdullah Haroon Road, Saddar, Karachi,

Phone: (021) 5637131-32, Fax: (021) 5637133,

Email: hrcp@cyber.net.pk

After receipt of all these details of arrested / wanted / victimized citizens, HRCP would compile the same and release a detailed report.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

LUMS community condemns LHC blast

Lahore 10.1.2008 - The LUMS community strongly condemns the bomb blast that took place outside the Lahore High Court earlier today(Thursday). The students, faculty and staff expressed their grief at the loss of innocent lives and of those doing their duty. Fateha was recited for the victims at a sit in in the evening. The students launched a blood donation drive and a fund raising campaign, urging Pakistanis to unite in their efforts to help the injured and the families of the deceased.

Urgent - Blood required for blast victims

There was a bomb blast outside the Lahore high court today. Blood is needed for the injured. Most have been taken to Mayo hospital.
All those interested in donating blood - please contact - Zainab - 0334-4009309.
Also, all of those who can, please visit the wounded, who are at Mayo and Services Hospital, Lahore.
Will send out more details as they come in.

UPDATE - 56 injured in Mayo hosp, 8 in Services hosp, 6 in Ganga Ram. Blood required in Services hospital.

Suicide attack outside Lahore High Court

A suicide bomber blew himself up Thursday among police deployed in front of the Lahore High Court ahead of a planned protest by lawyers, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens more, officials and witnesses said. A press photographer said he saw more than 25 dead and wounded people, including police and civilians. Lahore chief of police operations Aftab Cheema said the bomber arrived on a motorbike, parked it near the police guards before running up to the barrier they were manning and blew himself up. He said 19 policemen and one civilian were killed. Another police official said more than 50 others were wounded, including passersby.

PHR Demands United Nations Investigation into Murder of Benazir Bhutto

WASHINGTON DC, USA, 7 January 2008 (InformPress.com) - Physicians forHuman Rights (PHR) called today for a credible and independent investigation by the United Nations into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto - the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Opposition leader and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) ex-Chairwoman - killed on Thursday, 27 December 2007 in Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi, including disturbing allegations of intimidation and harassment of doctors involved in the case.
PHR urged Pakistan to invite the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions to investigate these reports, and monitor the Pakistani and UK (Scotland Yard Police) governments' investigation of Bhutto's killing. Additionally, PHR called on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to ensure that the overall investigation into Bhutto's death is independently monitored and reviewed. If the Special Rapporteur is not invited by Pakistan to observe the inquiry, the UNSC must take other, appropriate actions to ensure that an independent investigation is made of the murder, that all forensic data is handled and preserved properly, and that all the perpetrators are brought to justice.
"There must be a credible and independent UN investigation of the Bhutto case, including whether health professionals involved have been intimidated or coerced by the Pakistani government," stated Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer of PHR. "Protecting the medical independence and neutrality of all health professionals is essential for determining the facts of what happened to the former Prime Minister."
Press reports have said that doctors who tried to treat Bhutto and examined her body soon after her death had been under intense pressureto keep their findings quiet. Some of the doctors have reportedly gone into hiding. The UN Special Rapporteur should determine whether health professionals were coerced or intimidated, medical records were changed or destroyed and whether any other evidence or witnesses have been tampered with. The UN Special Rapporteur should also be allowed to freely monitor the overall investigation into Bhutto's death by the Pakistani Government of Pervez Musharraf and he should make his findings public.
"The UN Security Council must ensure that the overall investigation into Bhutto's assassination is independently monitored and that all evidence is reviewed and made public by outside investigators," stated Donaghue. "Given the far-reaching implications of Bhutto's death for Pakistan and for the [South Asian] region, the UN must act to make sure that there is no interference, nor perception of interference, in the ongoing inquiry."
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) mobilizes the health professions to advance the health and dignity of all people by protecting human rights. As a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
PHR: http://www.physiciansforhumanrights.org

The Dirty Tricks Brigade

By Beena Sarwar

(Courtesy DAWN)

IMMEDIATELY following Benazir Bhutto’s tragic assassination on Dec 27, speculation began on who would head the party. There was barely time to grieve.

Pressures on the party leadership included insistent questioning by journalists, particularly the insatiable 24/7 broadcast media, the forthcoming elections then barely two weeks away, and crucially, the disinformation campaign started by the dirty tricks brigade that is always quick to swing into action.

Some journalists pushed the Fatima Bhutto versus Bilawal Zardari angle. Others pounced on the even younger Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (“Junior”) as the probable head of the party. Some rushed for quotable quotes to Benazir’s disgruntled uncle, Mumtaz Bhutto, known for his running feud with her. Hard-headed reporters, noses to the ground, understood the popular sentiment of the party — whoever next headed the PPP had to be a Bhutto. At the funeral, party workers raised slogans for Sanam Bhutto, Benazir’s last remaining sibling, to lead the party despite Sanam’s clear disinterest in these matters.

Cyberspace and drawing-room chatter, meanwhile, buzzed with the hopeful comments of the intellectual elite in Pakistan and abroad. ‘Civil society’ was excited at the prospect of the PPP finally ‘democratising’ — perhaps now a non-Bhutto would head the party. Perhaps now they would hold intra-party elections. Perhaps now some respected leader like Makhdoom Amin Fahim or, even better, Aitzaz Ahsan would be asked to don the mantle.

Not surprisingly, this well-meaning debate primarily took place among elitist groups who are not party members, and who reviled the PPP for its insistence on electoral politics. The polls boycott lobby held that participating in elections would ‘legitimise’ the Musharraf regime. The boycott move is believed to have originated with the dirty tricks brigade, known for its tactic of initiating “a cute slogan that raises an emotive response” as one political activist put it. Besides the fact that the president in any case claims legitimacy, they were unable to answer the question Benazir Bhutto had raised when pressurised to boycott: “Boycott, and then what?”

These people had also rejected, even vilified, Ms Bhutto for her ‘deal’ with President Gen (as he was then) Musharraf. She saw no way to proceed except through politics and defended herself in an email of Dec 3, 2007, made public after her death: “I still remain committed to the freedom and vitality of democracy, as [sic] the great Quaid-i-Awam had dreamt of. Yes, it is true that you have to deal sometimes with the Devil if you can’t face it, but everything is a means to an end.”

The dirty tricks brigade was quick to capitalise on the elite indignation when the PPP ended speculation with the announcement that Benazir Bhutto had left a will nominating as the party head her husband Asif Ali Zardari, the much maligned ‘Mr 10 per cent’ (a term known to have been coined by the dirty tricks brigade, although there is no shortage of contenders for such labels). There was further indignation at dynastic politics when Zardari was smart enough to pass the PPP’s leadership mantle on to 19-year-old Bilawal.

Why could the party not rise above negative traditions and do the ‘right’ thing? Perhaps its leaders felt constrained by their constituency — which is not the intellectual elite. This constituency of PPP workers was on the whole relieved at the quick decisions announced at the soyem (all of which, incidentally, counter the patriarchal model): Bilawal made the party’s symbolic head; Benazir and Zardari’s children taking on the Bhutto name; Benazir buried by her father’s grave as she had wished; her husband’s stated desire to also be buried there rather than at his own ancestral graveyard. Whatever the motivations behind these steps, their symbolism in perpetuating the ‘Bhutto factor’ and satiating the desire to atone for the martyrdom cannot be underrated.

The dirty tricks brigade, whose efforts to rig the elections Ms Bhutto had been about to reveal, continued undeterred. By Jan 1, in tactics reminiscent of the whispering campaign started against Benazir herself after Murtaza’s murder, a message was being circulated via SMS and on the internet implying that Asif Zardari was behind his wife’s death as the chief beneficiary — “all wealths [sic] of hers and her political power is now in Zardari’s hands”.

The unsigned message demanded that he be interrogated along with Rehman Malik “who used to manage Benazir [sic] foreign investment portfolio”. Those close to Benazir Bhutto scoff at these allegations, noting that she was too intelligent a woman to leave her “wealths” accessible to anyone other than her children.

On Jan 2, an Urdu newspaper in Karachi distributed free supplements with the (false) report that Fatima Bhutto had announced herself as the ‘real Bhutto’, suggesting that she should be leading the party. Such attempts to fan discord are of course not limited to Pakistan. PTI leader Imran Khan’s ex-wife Jemima Khan, who has developed into a political analyst since returning to the UK, wrote in the Telegraph, “If a Bhutto must run Pakistan, why not Fatima?”

Is Bilawal about to run the country? Aren’t there other more important issues at hand than who heads the PPP? Fatima Bhutto doesn’t even belong to the party. Neither does Ms Khan, although this hasn’t stopped her or others from nominating its leadership. Such presumption when it comes to the PPP is in sharp contrast to the restraint regarding other political parties.

Such efforts to deepen existing rifts are not just dishonest but downright dangerous at this point. The establishment delayed the elections that were to have been held on Jan 8 without taking the major opposition parties into confidence. The interim provides an opportunity for them to further target and weaken the opposition.

Already stunned at the loss of their leader, the PPP is now reeling from the registration of tens of thousands of FIRs against its workers. Its electoral candidates face charges that include attempted murder. All this only contributes towards the existing uncertainty and may generate more violence that could provide the establishment a pretext to further postpone elections. This must not be allowed to happen.

Although some go as far as to say that character assassination is the first step towards physical assassination, it is clear that political engagement and organisation are necessary for change. Those who vilified Ms Bhutto for pursuing these politics are now making her into an icon while continuing to vilify her party. It is time to make some choices: continue perpetuating the vilification campaign or focus on the more fundamental issue of taking politics in Pakistan beyond military interference.

The writer is a journalist and documentary film-maker based in Karachi.

beena.sarwar@gmail.com

Democratic and Political spaces

by S. Akbar Zaidi

(Courtesy DAWN)

Those of us who were hoping that political parties would take a principled stand and boycott a sham structure and system which merely legitimises and endorses President Musharraf's political arrangement were called naïve, or worse, once the main political parties decided to participate in the 2008 elections.

Questions were raised about issues relating to individual and public or political morality, where a number of people argued that while it was acceptable as individuals to take certain principled positions privately, in politics the game is not so much about such individual dilemmas but about opportunities. The arguments stated that political actors are in the game to achieve political power, and their morality or principles should not be constrained by that goal. Hence, when they have the opportunity to acquire power, their principles could be set aside.

In any other language such behaviour would be called the crassest form of opportunism, but in the language of politics it is known as tactics. The argument goes that rather than hold on to some principled stand and sit on the sidelines and watch the political process unfold, political actors are better off if they protest,yet accept and play by the rules of the game, for they would otherwise be completely marginalised in the process which they are hoping to influence. If the opportunity to influence the larger political process arises, whether through collaboration, collusion or compromise, political actors are required to be political rather than moralists.
This politics of opportunism based on collaboration, or these so-called political tactics, deserves far greater scrutiny in our public discourse than it has received. If politics is to be devoid of principles and determined merely by the possibility of opportunity, then the political stand of some actors against military intervention, or in defence of a persecuted judiciary or a hounded media, must be quickly dismissed as mere adventurism. However, even political parties sitting on the fence waiting for their collaborative opportunity would have a problem in dismissing such principled political activism asnaïve, for perhaps the same political parties are the greatest beneficiaries of such principled activism.

Let us set aside this complicated problem of the relationship between individual morality and political praxis for a moment, and proceed with a discussion on the difference between the praxis of politics and the practice of democratic politics. This might sound like a trivial difference, but the arguments of morality and the real-life politics of much of the last twelve months allow us to make a marked distinction between the two. Importantly, one must emphasise the point that while political actors and democratic actors are two different entities, which often overlap, they are mutually dependent on each other, linked and influencing one another.

The military in Pakistan is the most important political actor in Pakistan, and is obviously an undemocratic one. No problem distinguishing between politics and democracy here. Because of the power of the barrel of many guns, it has been the most dominant institution in the country for some decades now, and since 1999 has been judge, jury, arbitrator and prosecutor in Pakistan's mainstream political process. Individuals from the military have determined and set the rules of all the games related to politics, and whatever politics thathas been played in Pakistan has taken place under those rules.

By accepting the political rules of the military, one can no longer call the process, nor those who collaborate with the military, democratic. Political, certainly, but not democratic.

Yet, importantly, one must also add that the circumstances, even of a praetorian system in which some representation and participation takes place, expand both political and democratic spaces.

Political parties and other actors who claim some democratic licence, lose that license and their credibility when they collaborate with a military regime, whatever justification they conjure up, even though their collaborationist action unintentionally creates democratic spaces. In fact, and ironically, while individual decisions(morality?) of collaboration lead to the compromise of their democratic principles, the unintended consequences do create democratic spaces.

The support for Chief Executive Musharraf in 1999 by civil society actors is one example when many champions of democracy, for personal and selfish reasons, gave up their democratic license to have perhaps their only opportunity to participate in a political process, although in this case their politics did not open the way for democracy.

On the other hand, political decisions, like the Nov 3 martial law and the earlier clampdown on the judiciary and continued pressure and arm-twisting of the media, have created far more space for democratic politics than could have been expected, despite the absence of political actors in this democratic space.

The main argument here is that political parties and actors are more concerned with access to, and preferably capturing, power than with the modalities of getting there. If deals can be struck and compromises made, one ought to be clear about the undemocratic nature of that politics.
One can certainly live with such collaboration, for this too pushes the political spaces forward and creates new spaces in which others, perhaps more inclined towards democratic ideals and hence not necessarily focused on acquiring power, can manoeuvre. Political spaces do expand democratic spaces and do feed off each other, but one needs to be able to distinguish between the two.

And it is the question of morality which perhaps helps in making that distinction possible. If individual morality, such as compromise with the military, leads to more democratic spaces for everyone, should one condemn the compromise? If, on the other hand, holding steadfast to principles causes a political party or other democratic forces to lose out on the political process, by boycotting an election for example, does one celebrate the morality and laugh at their 'political' naiveté? The answers are probably to be found in an understanding of recent political processes in the country.

In an unequal relationship, the former COASdetermined the rules of all the games played in the country, as well as who would be allowed to play by those rules. Those who were allowed to participate in those political games accepted his terms. Because the relationship between representatives of the military and of political parties was so one-sided, the democratic space increased only slowly on account of this liaison. Political representatives were always subservient to the rules of the game. And in fact democratic spaces were opened up despite the presence of political actors.

The vast democratic space that has been opening up - where on earth does a military general impose martial law for six weeks, and two weeks after imposing it inform his adversaries that hewill lift it on a specific date? - has been on account of those who have been taking individual and political moral stands, and who haven't been playing by the rules. While political action and processes do lead to democratic spaces, they do so largely inadvertently. Agency, in expanding the broader democratic process, on the other hand, comes from principled stands.

SAC signs MOU with CMKP

The Students Action Committee (Lahore) signed a memorandum of understanding, MOU,with the CMKP, Communist Mazdoor Kisaan Party, which says that the CMKP will work with SAC towards reinstating the judiciary as it was on the 2nd of Nov. 2007.

Another milestone for the Students Action Committee, that has been struggling for the country's basic rights; is the CMKP's promise to vote only for a political party that promises and ensures the pre 3rd Nov. 2007 martial law judiciary returned to its rightful status.

Yesterday representatives from Students Action Committee Lahore and Islamabad met with Mian Nawaz Sharif and presented a MOU which states that PML-N will work for the restoration of the judiciary.

The memorandum states that the SAC is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any single political party in Pakistan. It seeks collaboration on points of mutual agreement with all individuals and organizations, including political parties, which work towards the revival of the constitution and restoration of the judiciary to their Nov 2 nd form and for student rights in Pakistan.

The SAC is working towads signing this MOU with all political parties, in a significant move to achieve one of its primary fundamental objectives: restoration of the judiciary.

SAC is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any single political party in Pakistan. The Students Action Committee will work towards the revival of the constitution and restoration of the judiciary to their Nov 2 nd form and for student rights in Pakistan.

Mass arrests of PPP workers in Sindh

Courtesy Teeth Meastro

(http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/)

A few activists of the People’s Resistance are actively working in the interior sindh for standing up against this wave of arrests taking place.
Today’s update is as follows

• Dadu: 235 FIRs registered and 50,400 people booked.
  400 PPP workers nominated including both candidates for National Assembly Rafiq Jamali & Dr Talat Mahesar
  All candidates for PS Pir Mazhar, Murad Ali Shah, Ghulam Shah Jeelani, Imran Leghari, Fiaz Butt, President District Bar Dadu Shafi Muhammad Memon, Barrister Pir Mujeeb, Former Minister Zafar Leghari (35 to 40 police stations total in Distt)
  
• Naushahro Feroze: 151 FIRs registered 51,323 people booked. 734 all PPP workers including candidate of Provincial Assembly seat 23 Haji Khan Bhutti nominated
  

These numbers are increasing day by day we’ve been trying to collect figures on a Police Station wise basis it would b difficult to collect all FIR but we are trying our best.

Lala Hassan,

Peoples Resistance

Post-assassination Pakistan

Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi

(Courtesy The Daily Times)

Opposition to Musharraf’s continued stay in office is increasing. In the event that the PPP and the PMLN take a significant portion of the vote in the election, an open confrontation between them and Musharraf cannot be ruled out

The postponement of general elections from January 8 to February 18 is no surprise. The Election Commission decided the issue with the consent of the presidency but it delayed the announcement to create the façade of consultations with the political parties. The Chief Election Commissioner did not name the parties approached for that purpose and refused to divulge their input.

The consultations, if any, with the political parties were irrelevant to the postponement decision that was taken partly on administrative considerations and partly to enable the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PMLQ) to revive its election machinery and campaign that faced the wrath of the Bhutto sympathisers. It is interesting to note that the destruction of Election Commission offices in 11 districts in Sindh was described as the main cause of postponement of the elections throughout the country. No Election Commission office was burnt down anywhere else. The NWFP government’s suggestion for postponement of elections in some constituencies in the tribal areas and Swat had nothing to do with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The Punjab government, fully conscious of the political predicament of the pro-Musharraf PMLQ, favoured the postponement, although no election office was attacked in the province. Similarly, the Balochistan government also favoured postponement to stay in line with the federal government.

The postponement decision is a typical example of bureaucratic and administrative approach to political problems. The long years of direct and indirect military rule and the expanded role of intelligence agencies have given salience to management and order in handling political affairs. The administration views political activities and elections as administrative burdens, if not nightmares. It tries to restrict political activities and avoid elections, if possible, or favour carefully regulated elections.

The administration was already perturbed by the positive popular response to the visits of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto to different parts of the country. This threatened the capacity of the administration to manage the elections to their satisfaction. The post-assassination violence added to their problems. From a purely administrative perspective, the situation was not conducive for the bureaucratic and security machinery to manage the electoral exercise.This decision was also shaped by another consideration. The assassination created a strong sympathy wave for Benazir Bhutto and the PPP. Most banners of PMLQ were removed and its candidates avoided public appearances. There were noticeable shifts of public support from the PMLQ to the PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s PMLN. Though it is difficult to suggest the extent to which this sympathy wave would translate into votes for the PPP and the PMLN, it is clear that the political situation has turned hostile towards the established political order in Islamabad. Official circles expect that emotions will settle down in a couple of weeks and it will be possible for the PMLQ to pursue its election campaign and retrieve support.

The most unfortunate aspect of the current situation is the growing gulf of distrust between the PPP and the PMLN on the one hand and the government and the PMLQ on other. This drift is expected to increase as the elections approach. The PMLQ will have to campaign aggressively to effectively mobilise support. The former chief minister of Punjab and senior leader of the PMLQ, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi is now targeting Asif Ali Zardari for sharp criticism so that his party’s candidates can regain the confidence to challenge PPP candidates. The Chaudhrys have also started playing up ethnic sentiments in the Punjab to neutralise pro-PPP sentiments in the province. This is likely to reinforce polarisation between Punjab and Sindh and adversely affect inter-provincial harmony.

There are three significant developments that are expected to defuse such polarisation and mitigate efforts to play the regional-ethnic card during and after the elections. First, Nawaz Sharif visited the hospital soon after Benazir Bhutto’s death and withdrew from the election to express solidarity with the PPP and its slain leader. Second, Nawaz Sharif led his party delegation to Bhutto’s hometown for condolence and visited the graves of the elder Bhutto and Benazir. He also announced that his party would accept the PPP’s decision on participation in the elections. Subsequently, Nawaz Sharif decided to take part when the PPP decided to contest elections on the scheduled date.

Third, the new co-chairman of the PPP, Asif Ali Zardari, made an equally positive gesture by reiterating the PPP’s commitment to the federation and he condemned those who raised separatist slogans in Sindh. He also acknowledged the services of PPP diehards from Punjab who were killed along with Benazir Bhutto. These moves show a deep understanding of the gravity of the situation on the part of the PPP and PMLN leaders and their desire to contain the negative fallout from the assassination.

On the other hand, the government mishandled the situation by making an ill-advised effort to change the explanation of the assassination. It blamed Islamic militants for the incident and mentioned Benazir Bhutto’s disregard of security imperatives.President Pervez Musharraf talked of reconciliation in his address to the nation on January 2. He wants opposition political parties to cooperate with him in coping with the current internal problems. However, major opposition parties and active societal groups are not prepared to talk to Musharraf, let alone work with him. They view him as part of the problem and want him to quit.There are no chances of national reconciliation under Musharraf. As a matter of fact, opposition to his continued stay in office is increasing. In the event that the PPP and the PMLN take a significant portion of the vote in the election, an open confrontation with Musharraf cannot be ruled out.

The chances of national reconciliation can improve if Musharraf addresses some of the opposition’s concerns about elections. The opposition wants the reconstitution of the Election Commission on the basis of consultation between the government and the opposition. The opposition also wants to suspend district and tehsil nazims that are openly exploiting their official positions to help the PMLQ. Similarly, there have complaints about the partisan role of the caretaker government in Punjab in favour of the PMLQ.Musharraf refuses to accommodate the opposition on these issues. Therefore, Musharraf’s appeal implies the acceptance of his commanding role in the political system and playing politics on the terms set out unilaterally by him. The PPP and the PMLN are not expected to do this.

In case the opposition concludes after elections that the polling process was manipulated to give an advantage to the PMLQ, the political situation can deteriorate in the post-election period. Already a number of political parties, lawyers and societal groups have boycotted the election. If the polls are manipulated, contesting parties will join these forces to challenge Musharraf.

As Pakistan’s political parties and societal groups grapple with the issues of stability and internal harmony in the post-assassination period, they will either endeavour to clip the role and powers of Musharraf or remove him from office altogether. The opposition has already rejected Musharraf’s re-election secured through political manipulation, suspension of the constitution and reconstitution of the superior judiciary. Musharraf faces a difficult and uncertain political future, which could have serious ramifications for political stability in Pakistan.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Cyber Crime Ordinance promulgated by Musharraf

Courtesy Teeth Meastro

Original story available on (http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/01/08/cyber-crime-bill-promulgated-by-the-president/)

Some helpful reporters of Dawn News are on the prowl to get full confirmation from the government about this story, the only news report that has appeared is in the Express newspaper today.

In a shocking and sudden development yesterday and caught our attention today when it appeared in the newspaper today that the The President of Pakistan has just promulgated the Cyber Crime Bill. I dare to say but this is just a method to crack down on the voice of free expression on the internet akin to the PEMRA ordinance that strangulated the electronic media after Nov 3rd.

I don’t have the exact document but our last understanding of the issue - which was the ‘final draft’ this bill can be considered very dangerous for regular citizens. The bill forms a Tribunal which is in effect judge jury and executioner all encompassing, it allows the FIA full authority to confiscate and arrest anyone who is deemed by the government to be in violation of the ‘integrity of Pakistan’ labeled as a person having terroristic intent - this is a new word created by the Govt of Pakistan for the English Language ;). There maybe some good aspects to the law but when an agency or tribunal supersedes the Justice system one would tend to worry of its widespread potential to misuse.

As per the final draft - an officer can walk into my house confiscate my computer and arrest me, he/she does not have to explain why and neither give reason for the arrest. I shall remain in custody as long as it takes for the tribunal to take collect evidence. And if found guilty by the Tribunal I am punishable from 3-10 years &/or Rs. 5,00,000.

A rough idea about the bill, as the one that was on FINAL DRAFT before all the emergency in Pakistan was, the FIA under orders from a Cyber Crime Tribunal court could accuse anyone of engaging in Terroristic activities and confiscate their computer without reason or explanation, and condemn the person to 3-10 years in prison, and the bill allowed the tribunal to keep the person under question without charge until it prepared the evidence. The onus of proof does not necessary have to come before the arrest. To understand the cyber Crime Bill one could follow the presentation by Zahid Jamil which he made a few months back.

DISCLAIMER: This is my own understanding as per the FINAL DRAFT that was up for approval - though our team of lawyers met the Ministry of IT and voiced their opinions, I am told that they were only heard and we don’t know if it was accepted into the bill. we await a copy and if someone has it please forward along.

Student Action Committee - Minar-e-Pakistan protest and other updates

The Students Action Committee (Lahore) held a rally today at 2 pm at Minar e Pakistan alongside CDRLP and other civil society groups. Asma Jahangir was amongst the various civil society members.

Over a 100 people turned up at the venue, fighting against the highly unfavorable weather conditions and made themselves heard loud and clear for over an hour.

The underlying purpose of the rally held, despite the heavy downpour, was to condemn the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto and to raise a voice for the restoration of the pre Nov. 3rd judiciary.

SAC (lahore) demanded an independent investigation into the assassination that is not conducted by partisan foreign allies and would include questioning of the people the late PPP leader had named as potential threats to her life after October 2007.

The protestors also demanded the release of Chief Justice Iftikhar, Justice Ramday and Aitzaz Ahsen.

Slogans like the heartfelt and popular 'Go Musharraf Go' and 'Jiye Bhutto Jiye Benazir' were raised and onlookers at the historic venue joined in despite the cold and the rain.

Also today, representatives from Students Action Committee Lahore and Islamabad met with Mian Nawaz Sharif and presented a memorandum of understanding which states that PML-N will work for the restoration of the pre Nov 3rd judiciary.

SAC is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any single political party in Pakistan. It seeks collaboration on points of mutual agreement with all individuals and organizations, including political parties, which work towards the revival of the constitution and restoration of the judiciary to their Nov 2 nd form and for student rights in Pakistan.

SAC will present this memorandum to all political parties to obtain reassurances in writing of their commitment to the restoration of the judiciary. And will work side by side with all who strive for this aim.

With the aim of working across the country, the Students Action Committee (Lahore) will continue to stand for principles and will not get side tracked by transient or personal gains.