Press Gallery
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
By Mohammad Malick
ISLAMABAD: The criminal complacency of our elected parliamentarians was amazing to witness. How else does one describe the mood of our House of shame where members could be seen huddled together like excited schoolchildren, joking and laughing, preening about as if celebrating some proud accomplishment.
The day after the Swat deal was bull dozed in this very house, not one member was interested in it except Sherry Rehman, who for some reason did not object to it yesterday when it was adopted and hailed as a major political victory.
Though it was a private members day, none of these private MNAs had the great surrender of 24-hours ago in mind. With the exception of MQM, this very National Assembly had surrendered before a group of terrorists by bowing to their dictates and effectively canonising them as the true protagonists of faith. Fear had prevailed over fortitude. Who could have ever thought that the real face of Islam would be hidden behind ski-masks and bandit bandannas (sic)?
It was a sinking feeling to sit in the press gallery and watch this theatre of the absurd and then to wantonly hope of these very actors to walk us safely through the killing fields of domestic failures and foreign intrigues. A lot has happened in the last few days beginning with the intriguing and orchestrated 72-hour cycle of baffling events with Sufi Mohammad first wrapping up his peace camp, followed by the threats of Taliban to sign or otherwise, followed by a maddening desperate rush to get the parliament to endorse the presidential approval.
And all this coming to the obvious conclusion on the eve of the president leaving for a critical Friends of Pakistan meeting which is expected to decide the level of our economic destitution in the coming months. And incidentally we are relying heavily on USA to influence these friends whereas USA itself has been royally peeved off by this deal. So who is making all these things happen and in this very manner? Ultimately who looks to be without any real authority: The president? The Army? The State itself? Your guess is as good as mine. And this is only the beginning of our woes.
So lets be thankful for the little pleasant surprises in life. By the time you read these lines, Sherry Rehman would surely already be bound, gagged and raked over the political coals by certain party colleagues for indulging in unforgivable blasphemy. How else would one expect the sycophants on the hill to paint her audacious uttering of a few right words about the utterly wrong abdication of any remaining semblance of state writ in Swat. Her question was right on dot and she was the only one who raised it: with the provincial government of ANP delegating all real executive authority to non-state players in Swat, just who will guarantee the human rights of the women, children and even the male population of the region?
She drew the critically important distinction between the much lesser and over hyped issue of the contours of the Nizam-e-Adal regulation itself, and the real and key matter of the legitimacy of those anointing themselves as its executioners. This is the meat of the matter. Its less about what, and more about who. How can a state expect to function and viably continue as one when it abdicates its authority to illegitimate non-state players.
Today, the 1300 big and small hotels stand empty. Local economy is in ruins. The women dare not venture to the corner shop to even buy lifes essentials. Decent people cower inside their homes, while criminals masquerading as holy warriors lord over their neighbourhoods. The contents of the old and the latest regulation remain near identical, then what is the difference this time around? Taliban.
The other major deviation from the past also pertains to the implementation factor of the Nizam-e-Adl. In the past model, the role of the agitating clergy (now taken over by Taliban) was that of a supportive nature with them assisting the regular courts being run by regular judicial officers. This time around the Taliban are it all. Despite the governments insistence otherwise, the Taliban are appointing their men and overseeing the entire process. Therefore the real issue is not what nizam-e-adal says but who gets to implement it, and how. Unfortunately, we all know the unfortunate answer.
But lets not blame our political elite alone. The Khakis too wanted the president to sign on the dotted line and were reportedly perturbed by the referral of the matter to parliament fearing an inordinate delay. According to the khaki viewpoint, it was essential to rob the extremists of their main propaganda tool of Taliban actually fighting for the Shariat-implementation and not for any other vested interest.
The Khaki doctrine holds that with Shariat issue out of the way, in any future confrontation between the forces and the militants (which they believe to be a question only of when and not if) the local population would not allow itself to be exploited in the name of Shariat and Allah as was the case in the past. The impression being given is that in fact the Army may be preparing for the final showdown and getting the issue of Shariah implementation out of the way was a tactical necessity and not any permanent abdication of state writ. The jury though is still out on this count.
The Swat crisis has spawned more questions than answers and hopefully those in power may answer just a few of those for now to the everlasting gratitude of us lesser mortals:
1.. Who is really in charge? Who actually gets to implement the Nifaz-e-Adl: Sufi Mohamad, CM Hoti, Maulana Fazlullah or Baitullah Mehsud?
2.. Sufi Mohammad had said that once Shariat is implemented then he will ensure that Taliban disarm in Swat otherwise he shall start a popular campaign against them. What happens if Taliban dont disarm as is expected?
3.. Who gets to expound Shariat and subsequent laws in Swat, when various muslim sects have been unable to reach a consensus for the past 1400 years?
4.. Who shall guarantee that the universally accepted and the Constitutionally guaranteed human rights of the men, women and children of the area shall not be denied by the religious extremists?
5.. What are the guarantees against the Taliban not demanding, and more importantly, forcing the expansion of this Nizam-e-Adal to other areas?
6.. What are the guarantees of the Taliban adhering to the agreed terms, both direct and implied, particularly so when Fazlullah is not even a signatory to the agreement?
7.. Who stops the Taliban from trying moving into into other areas as has already been witnessed in Bajaur?
8.. Why the insistence upon the physical removal of the army from the area? And with the Army asked to withdraw from the area, who shall oversee the de-commissioning of heavy weaponry by Taliban and certify its authenticity?
9.. Can there be a legitimate agreement between a state and illegitimate non-state players involved in anti-state activities? Should there be such an agreement in the first instance, no matter what the compulsions of convenience?
0 comments:
Post a Comment