Posts from — April 2010

The  author is a former federal secretary in Pakistan
Political crimes are far worse than common crimes because, in the former case, only individuals are wounded, whereas in the latter, the existence of free society itself is threatened. I was frightened for my country the day Benazir was assassinated and horror of horror, the scariest moment of all, when Zardari was elected as the president of Pakistan.

Who killed Benazir? Who cut short her life so full of promise? The UN commission assigned to enquire into the facts and circumstances of her death does not answer this question. For some inexplicable reason, its hands seemed to be tied. It was appointed, it seems, not to unmask the killer, but only to determine the facts and circumstances of the assassination! The duty of carrying out a serious, credible, criminal investigation to determine who conceived, ordered, and executed this heinous crime remains with the PPP government. Isn’t it tragic that even after 28 months of her assassination nobody knows who killed her?

“Men may lie. Circumstances never lie,” is a guiding principle of the law of evidence. Some facts and circumstances determined by the UN commission of inquiry speak for themselves and are worth quoting:

* “The Commission is persuaded that the Rawalpindi Police Chief, CPO Saud Aziz, did not act independently of higher authorities, either in the decision to hose down the crime scene or to impede the Post-Mortem examination.” -Section 259 (x)

* “The rapid departure of the only back-up vehicle in which Mr Malik and other senior PPP leaders rode, was a serious security lapse.” -Section 236. (It allowed Ms Bhutto’s damaged vehicle to become isolated?)

* “There was not an effective criminal investigation of either the Karachi or the Rawalpindi attacks. This is inexplicable.” -Section 238

* “Ms Bhutto was killed more than two years ago. A government headed by her party, the PPP, has been in office for most of that time, and it only began the further investigation, a renewal of the stalled official investigation in October 2009. This is surprising to the Commission.” -Section 247

* “The Commission’s effort to determine the facts and circumstances of Ms Bhutto’s assassination is not a substitute for an effective, official criminal investigation. These activities should have been carried out simultaneously.” -Section 247

Many questions arise in one’s mind that remain unanswered:

* Mr Zardari is on record having said – not once but a number of times – that he knew who the killers of his wife are. If so, why hasn’t he brought this vital piece of information to the notice of the police?

* The FIR is a very important document as it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. The success or failure of the prosecution in a murder case depends to a large extent on the contents of the FIR and when it was lodged. Why didn’t Zardari lodge an FIR in the police station at the earliest opportunity?

* The post-mortem, the examination of a body after death, is a legal requirement and is carried out by pathologists in order to identify the cause of death. Why did Zardari refuse to have post-mortem performed on BB’s body? Why was it refused by the police? Why were they not interested in identifying the cause of BB’s death?

* Why was General Musharraf, a known suspect in the murder of BB, allowed to leave the country by the PPP government which was firmly in position at the time of his exit from the country? Was it all part of some deal?

The assassination of Benazir, a stain on the nation’s conscience, still haunts me. Tragically, her death is fast becoming a non-event. It seems no one is interested in unraveling the mystery surrounding her assassination or unmasking the perpetrator or perpetrators of this dastardly crime. Should the high and mighty, with blood on their hands, get off so easily when ordinary people committing petty crimes are sent to jail?

“It is essential,” the UN report says, “that the perpetrators of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto be brought to justice. The government of Pakistan should ensure that the further investigation into the assassination of Ms Bhutto is fully empowered, and resourced and is conducted expeditiously with no hindrance.”

Is the PPP government prepared to do that? Even though it’s already very late, will the PPP government set up a high-powered judicial commission headed by a judge of the Supreme Court?

The blood of Benazir calls for justice, not revenge. The PPP government owes it to its martyred leader to unmask her killer, whoever he may be, and bring him to justice. Let an enquiry be held in broad daylight. We will not be able to live with ourselves if we do not see to it that the truth is unveiled. The interests involved are too great and the men who wish to stifle the truth are too powerful, and the truth will not be known for sometime. But there is no doubt that ultimately every bit of it, without exception, will be divulged.

Truth carries a power within it that sweeps away all obstacles. And whenever its way is barred, whenever someone does succeed in burying it for any time at all, it builds up underground, gathering such explosive force that the day it bursts out at last, it blows up everything with it. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=235928

Ordinary Pakistanis, especially those who cannot read English, should be given the opportunity to access the report in its entirety, instead of leaving them at the mercy of spin-doctors and prejudiced television anchors trashing the report

Some forces in Pakistan have already gone into overdrive to discredit the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. The 65-page report’s focus is on the circumstances surrounding Ms Bhutto’s assassination and the subsequent criminal investigation, or lack of it thereof, but it offers insights into questionable practices that pass as statecraft in present day Pakistan. The legitimacy of the state is already quite low among significant sections of the Pakistani population, and if these deeply entrenched practices continue unabated, it will further corrode those shaky foundations.

The report has done Pakistanis a favour by defining what is known as the ‘establishment’ of the country. Here is how the report defines it: “The Establishment is generally used in Pakistan to refer to those who exercise de facto power; it includes the military high command and the intelligence agencies, together with the top leadership of certain political parties, high-level members of the bureaucracy and business persons that work in alliance with them. The military high command and intelligence agencies form the core of the Establishment and are its most permanent and influential components” (page 50). It states further, “The capability of the Establishment to exercise power in Pakistan is based in large part on the central role played by the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies in the country’s political life” (page 6).

The commission was understandably “mystified” by “the efforts of certain high-ranking Pakistani government authorities to obstruct access to military and intelligence sources”. This attitude speaks volumes about the arbitrary power of the establishment in viewing itself as above the ordinary procedures of law and its ability to get away with it. Although the US and the British governments acknowledge their role in paving the way for Ms Bhutto’s return to Pakistan in 2008, the US authorities frustrated the commission by not permitting it to meet US intelligence officials.

The report castigates the federal government led by Pervez Musharraf for not providing adequate security to Benazir Bhutto, and finds the manner in which the post-assassination criminal investigation was conducted “inexcusable”. Thus, Ms Bhutto joins scores of Pakistani political activists whose deaths were “avoidable” and where the law enforcement and justice institutions did little to bring to justice the perpetrators of those crimes.

We do not have to agree with every sentence of this report, but summarily and prematurely dismissing it is tantamount to accepting “hosing down” the crime scene, allowing higher ups in the police to subvert investigations, letting intelligence agencies hunt and hound individuals without any judicial mandate or political oversight.

Intelligence agencies are part and parcel of modern states. In Pakistan, they have gone a tad too far in subverting the state they are supposed to serve. The commission is correct in observing that “pervasive involvement of intelligence agencies in diverse spheres, which is an open secret, has undermined the rule of law, distorted civilian-military relations and weakened some political and law enforcement institutions. At the same time, it has contributed to widespread public distrust in those institutions and fed a generalised political culture that thrives on competing conspiracy theories” (page 60).

What can the current government do? It should take two of the following three steps without any delay. Taking of the third step is vital, but partly contingent upon the power of the PPP government relative to other forces of the establishment.

Ordinary Pakistanis, especially those who cannot read English, should be given the opportunity to access the report in its entirety, instead of leaving them at the mercy of spin-doctors and prejudiced television anchors trashing the report. The government can, and should, commission speedy and authentic translation of the report in Urdu and regional languages and use the Ministry of Information and other methods to ensure wide distribution of the report.

Secondly, the resourceful forces directly and indirectly named in the report would ensure that the television talk shows put excessive focus on the fact of the passengers of Benazir Bhutto’s backup vehicle leaving the crime scene instead of coming to meaningful help of their fatally injured leader. Moral propriety and political sagacity makes it imperative for all passengers of that car currently holding ministerial berths to resign without any delay and cooperate fully in any future criminal investigation to ascertain the truth behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Their timely resignation will significantly deflate the efforts to distract the public’s attention from the main findings of the report. However, if these passengers refuse to part with their ministries for the time being, and are allowed to retain their portfolios by the prime minister and the president, this act will cast its shadow over the sincerity of the current government in carrying out “credible criminal investigation that determines who conceived, ordered and executed this heinous crime of historic proportions”.

Carrying out a credible criminal investigation should be the ultimate and long-term goal of the government. And it is necessary not just to answer many unanswered questions surrounding Benazir’s assassination, but doing so, as the report puts it, “would constitute a major step toward ending impunity for political crimes in this country”. This will not be an easy feat to accomplish. The forces that frustrated the UN commission will inevitably hamper a transparent and vigorous criminal investigation.

The current government has partly redeemed Benazir Bhutto’s political legacy by ensuring the passage of the 18th Amendment to the constitution. Initiating a credible and rigorous investigation into Ms Bhutto’s assassination will go a long way in restoring people’s trust in Pakistan’s political system. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\25\story_25-4-2010_pg3_5

The revelations by Mark Siegel, a close friend and adviser to the late Benazir Bhutto, on the heels of the UN commission’s report on Benazir’s death and the filing of a petition seeking the registration of a case of high treason, are another couple of nails in the coffin of former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Apparently, Musharraf was not too happy about Benazir Bhutto’s decision to come back to Pakistan in 2007. According to Mark Siegel, after the 2002 general elections, Musharraf offered to drop all charges against President Asif Ali Zardari, release him from prison and give him any ministry of his liking, in return for a 10-year hiatus from Pakistani politics by Benazir. Benazir in consultation with Zardari declined Musharraf’s overtures, which did not go down well with him.

However, history does not halt its forward progression and following the UN report, the present democratic government has — rightly — decided to let the law take its course. Everyone mentioned in the UN report should be brought to justice, even a former dictator in the shape of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. The PPP government was not able to bring Ziaul Haq to court over the judicial killing of the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto because Zia was backed by the then judiciary and he passed away before relinquishing power. However, this time around, Pervez Musharraf, especially after the sacking of the chief justice of Pakistan and the consequent lawyers’ movement, finds himself isolated. In bringing Musharraf to justice, the present government will also help control the intelligence agencies, who have over the course of time become politicised and at times a major threat to the basic fibre of the democratic system. Such moves will not only emphasise the fact that no one is above the law, it will also ensure a safer democratic playing field to the political parties.

Unfortunately, due to o’ervaulting ambition and vested interest, Pakistan from the very beginning has fallen prey to military dictatorships, with the help and collaboration of the judiciary and the intelligence apparatus. Now, finally, a democratic government and comparatively freer judiciary have the opportunity to correct the mistakes of our past. Let’s hope for everyone’s sake they do not squander this golden chance. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\25\story_25-4-2010_pg3_1

By Babar Dogar & Ranjan Roy in The News, Apr 24
LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has said the solution to the Kashmir dispute is just a signature away once India and Pakistan decide to pull the file from the rack.

While addressing the concluding session of the two-day seminar — held as part of the ongoing Aman ki Asha campaign, launched by the Jang Group and Times of India — and later talking to The News and the Times of India here on Friday, the former foreign minister revealed the previous Musharraf government had completed almost 90 per cent of the spadework on the half-a-century old Kashmir dispute by 2007 as the whole exercise just needed the formal signature of all the three parties to the issue – Pakistan, India and representatives of Kashmir.

“All India and Pakistan now need is to defreeze the process. The entire paper-work has been done. The copies of related documents are safe with some friendly countries as well,” said Kasuri.

Kasuri said that negotiators from Islamabad and New Delhi had quietly toiled away for three years, talking to each other and Kashmiri representatives from the Indian side as well as Kashmiris settled overseas to reach what he described as the “only possible solution to the Kashmir issue”.

He said the two sides had agreed to full demilitarisation of both Indian Kashmir as well as Azad Kashmir. In addition, a package of loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi and self-governance aspirations, had been agreed on and was to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier. “We agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy,’’ he said.

He said that hardliner Sayeed Ali Shah Gilani was the only Kashmiri leader who refused to come on board. “He would accept nothing but merger with Pakistan, which ironically is something we too wanted but knew wasn’t practical. I once had a seven-to-eight hour meeting with him and even Musharraf met him but he refused to budge,’’ Kasuri said. He refused to give details of the stance other moderate Kashmiri leaders adopted.

He said the former government had finalised the formula of giving independence to the Kashmiris like the one they had before the dispute surfaced in 1948. When Pakistan and India decided to engage the Kashmiri leadership, it made it clear the people of Kashmir would not settle for anything less than the kind of independence they had during the tenure of the maharaja before the partition. However, with the scenario changed altogether, and Pakistan and India having strategic compulsions against such an independence, the issue had to be worked out again on different linesî.

“Well, India and Pakistan had serious reservations over that kind of independence. So, it was decided let the Kashmiris have their homeland as desired by them, and Pakistan and India should roll a plan for gradual evacuation of the strategically important parts of the united Kashmir,’’ the former foreign minister informed.

’It was also decided both the countries would gradually withdraw their forces from Indian and Pakistani held territories of Kashmir. We decided a nominal chunk of forces would be kept back in the strategically important areas of liberated Kashmir for sometime,’’ he added.

Furthermore, Kasuri went on to say, Indian and Pakistani governments decided not to sell victories in their respective countries for avoiding a general public backlash in the other. `îIt was a dicey situation in terms of political fallout of any solution back home in both the countries. If that exercise had to materialize, both the countries needed to tell their respective masses what actually had been done for breaking the status quo,’’ Khursheed Kasuri said. He maintained it was very hard for making the public accept the achieved results either. So, at one point in time, it was decided to make the Line of Control (LoC) `irrelevant’ so that the Kashmiris could be allowed to move freely across the Valley, using their ID cards.

He said: ‘The two nuclear neighbours were quite worried about the volatile situation in the region, especially around the LoC. There were insurgencies in both the countries. The freedom struggle in Indian-held Kashmir and the growing menace of terrorism in Pakistan were becoming a cause of serious concern for the two governments by the end of 2005. The Mumbai attack worked as a catalyst for finding an immediate solution to all issues, which had the potential of sparking a full-fledged armed conflict in the subcontinent’. Kasuri further explained both the countries just couldn’t afford any Mumbai-like attack in India as it would force them to retaliate at all costs.

He said the three-year long arduous efforts were rendered fruitless by the sudden emergence of the judiciary-executive row in 2006, which forced the Musharraf regime to put the matter on the backburner for the time being. Kasuri further revealed former president Pervez Musharraf had a possible signal from the Manmohan Singh government in early 2006 vis-‡-vis formalizing the almost reached solution in August 2006. Or, if delay was inevitable, the announcement to this effect could be made by March 2007. However, Kasuri added, he suggested President Musharraf to hold the process back for a while as the political situation in Pakistan was not conducive for unveiling such a big plan, which had the popular sentiments involved to a great extent. As the media, the opposition, the people, especially the civil society and the lawyer community, resorted to opening afterburners against the former president in the aftermath of the judicial crisis, any initiative, however sincere and productive, by the government would be eyed with suspicion.

He said to soften public opinion before making this breakthrough public, India and Pakistan decided to resolve the Sir Creek issue. Indian PM Manmohan Singh was scheduled to come to Pakistan in 2006 for signing the settlement of the Sir Creek issue. However, the Indian government postponed the meeting in view of general elections in India the same year. The Sir Creek matter was put ahead of the already agreed agenda on Kashmir with the purpose to give more credibility to Indo-Pak endeavours. “There was a usual perception that Pakistan and India just couldn’t resolve any mutual dispute through bilateral engagements,’’ said the former foreign minister.

’By that time, Pakistan and India had already held over 15 informal meetings for chalking out a feasible plan to settle the dispute. In the latter part of the deliberations, both the countries realised the need for involving the crucial party to the conflict, the Kashmiris, in the ongoing negotiations. Apart from Indo-Pak meetings during the process, India and Pakistan held talks at various levels with the Kashmiri leadership. “I had held covert meetings with the Kashmiri leadership even in other countries,’’ Kasuri added. Meanwhile, a senior Indian official involved in the backdoor talks corroborated the statement of the former foreign minister.

Kasuri was all praise for the Jang Group of Publications and the Times of India Group. He said only the media had the guts and the credibility to take such an initiative of warming the process again, which was a whisker away from glory. “The media can make the difference at this point in time. If more credible media groups joined the cause, wonders could be done in near future. I hope these two media giants kept the momentum up for sometime till the respective audience realised the significance of peace in the region.’’ Kasuri stressed the need for frequent media people movement across the border, which, he believed, would go miles in propelling this vital campaign. http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28466

There are agreements on many issues that are voiced from time to time. Track-Two diplomatic efforts between Pakistan and India have in the past resulted in demands that people-to-people contact across the border be encouraged by easing visa restrictions. This issue has been brought up once more by the vice-chancellor of Punjab University, who met a high-powered Indian media delegation visiting Pakistan under the Jang Group’s Aman ki Asha initiative. The visa curbs that hamper flow across the border are indeed an impediment in the way of better understanding between our people. The more often this issue is raised the stronger the reminder to the governments to act. As media persons from both Pakistan and India have pointed out, the subcontinent hosts a huge proportion of the world’s people. Building peace here can indeed have a global impact.

It is also significant that during the discussions held under the broad Aman ki Asha umbrella there has been a genuine bid to see things through the perspective of people in the other country. Such an exchange of thoughts and ideas is of course essential to the solution of problems. It is true that today many difficulties face the two nations and they have sadly been significantly aggravated since the unfortunate Mumbai events in November 2008. Hawks in both the countries have taken advantage of this. But the tensions that have existed since the bombings make it all the more imperative that efforts to bring people together be stepped up. This can be achieved only by allowing them greater access to each other’s countries and ensuring that bureaucratic mechanisms currently in place on both sides of the border do not prevent this. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=235769

ISLAMABAD: The AJK Supreme Court has set the “historic wrong” committed by its deposed chief justice on Friday when it dismissed a petition against the Supreme Court of Pakistan, declaring AJK a separate country. Because of this very petition, a reference against the AJK deposed CJ Riaz Akhtar Chaudhry was filed and proceedings were initiated against him in the Supreme Judicial Council where he was found guilty of blasphemy, subversion of the constitution and misconduct.

The SJC has forwarded its recommendations of removal of AJK deposed CJ to the prime minister of Pakistan and a nod of Gilani is still awaited which is binding on him. Sources say Gilani has been advised by three influential political gamers to violate the AJK constitution.

The AJK SC also mentioned that the writ petition admitted by AJK’s deposed CJ was based on presupposed, hypothetical and misconceived apprehended order to be passed by the SC of Pakistan. The court also went tough on Mujahid Naqvi, the lawyer who was first benefited by the AJK CJ while going out of the way and latter becoming the mouthpiece of the deposed CJ and referred his case to the AJK Bar Council.

The judgment of AJK SC says: “It is unheard in the judicial history of the world that the Court of one country or part of a country passes an order against the court of another country or another court of the same country. Azad Kashmir Supreme Court is final appellate court for Azad Kashmir territory, while the Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court of the country, although it is not appellate court for Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have binding effect upon Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

“As far as the ground that Azad Kashmir is a foreign territory for Pakistan or ‘another country’ is concerned, it is equally misconceived, malicious and seditious in nature. Azad Kashmir, of course, is not a province of Pakistan, nor a part of Federation of Pakistan under Article 1(2) & (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, but is a liberated part of the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir; otherwise, in the control of Pakistan under the United Nations and UNCIP Resolutions. All the sovereign powers of a State in relation to AJK are directly vested in the Government of Pakistan.” http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28480

ISLAMABAD: The UN report on the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto revealed that it was the ex-MI chief Maj-Gen Nadeem Ijaz, who ordered the then Rawalpindi City CPO Saud Aziz, to hose down the scene of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination at Liaquat Bagh.

Maj-Gen Nadeem, currently serving as Log Area Commander in Gujranwala after his transfer from the MI some time back, is a relative of Pervez Musharraf. He, however, was a known crony of the former dictator and his ‘key adviser’ on all national issues.

Defence analysts have raised a serious question as to the working of the DG MI, who always takes orders from his boss — chief of the Army staff. It is not known whether Nadeem as the DG MI took orders of hosing down the scene of Benazir’s assassination from his boss, or acted on the advice of the gutless ‘civilian’ president Musharraf; or acted on his own at the spur of the moment, which seems highly unlikely in this case.

Nadeem can be entangled in criminal proceedings if President Zardari shows interest in carrying out “criminal investigations” following the UN report on Benazir’s assassination. His (Nadeem) only escape is to say that he never ordered hosing down the scene of the crime and Saud Aziz had lied through his teeth.

In another scenario, it can be said that Saud Aziz had spoken a downright lie to the UN Commission in a bid to save his skin. That probability could not be ruled out, said an analyst.

Normally, it is said, the DG MI does not take such decisions on his own; nor does he take orders from any person other than his military boss. “But this is Pakistan, where anything can happen and it is also possible that the then DG MI Maj-Gen Nadeem took orders from civilian president Musharraf without involving his military boss, Army chief General Kayani,” a senior official said, adding: “And if he took orders from Musharraf, it shows sheer weakness of the working of the then DG MI and in such a scenario he (Maj-Gen Nadeem) should have been court-martialled straightaway by the chief of Army staff.”

Given the known working and style of the former president, it is no secret that Musharraf always gave huge importance to the advice, opinions and views expressed by his DG MI. Several colleagues of Nadeem, who know him from ages, confided to The News that it was a popular whispering amongst the higher cadre of military echelon that “Nadeem was bringing Musharraf down by his poor advice, which was always based on sycophancy.”

Musharraf often took decisions based on Nadeem’s poor advice. Nadeem was superseded as 2-star general last year and stands no chance to be promoted as 3-star General. Some close aides of the former president believe that Musharraf took the decision of filing a reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Nadeem’s advice, which cost him the Presidency. Nadeem also filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court against the chief justice.

The close aides of the former president also claim that Musharraf imposed emergency, a kind of mini-martial law, on November 3, 2008, on the advice of his DG MI Maj-Gen Nadeem. This too backfired like the earlier decision against the chief justice.

Many say that by accepting half-cooked advice, opinions and views of his DG MI, Musharraf proved that he lacked the ability to make sound judgment. And, in fact, Musharraf was not known for taking decision after proper evaluation of any issue.

It is also a known fact that Musharraf’s chief of staff Lt-Gen Hamid Javed tried to persuade Musharraf not to take action against the chief justice. Musharraf, however, accepted Nadeem’s advice and removed the chief justice.

Not too many people know that Lt-Gen Hamid Javed requested to be relieved as the chief of staff to the president after this decision and he was virtually relieved of his responsibilities in the coming months. This is what Lt-Gen Hamid Javed told The News about the cause of his decision to leave the Presidency, though Musharraf arranged a grand farewell for Hamid Javed, a gentleman and a good soul.

General Musharraf doffed his uniform on November 28, 2007 and handed over the command of the Army to General Kayani. Benazir’s assassination took place on December 27, 2007 at the Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28386