Editorial
Threat of yet another extremist attack
We have recently commented in these columns that mere execution of the supreme commander of the banned Islamist organisation Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh along with five of his closest aides, which is supposed to take place sometime in April, is not the end to Islamist fundamentalism in Bangladesh. That it is not has been proved by the confession of a JMB operative, reported in New Age on Wednesday, that more than 5,000 trained JMB operatives are ready in 17 districts, including Dhaka, ‘to carry out fresh attacks ahead of the execution of six top militants’. The warning has prompted law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to step up security in the capital and elsewhere in the country. Hopefully, the Islamist extremists will be unsuccessful to execute their murderous design in the face of such stepped-up security and rejuvenated manhunt for militants. However, they may have already succeeded in achieving one of their prime goals, i.e. induction of a climate of fear in society, which will prevail until and unless we are able to effectively eliminate Islamist extremism once and for all.
Islamist extremism is not entirely a law and order issue and has to be fought on economic, social, political and cultural fronts as well. One of the reasons that Islamist extremists are still alive and kicking despite the anti-militant clampdown initiated by the immediate-past government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which led to the arrest of the JMB supreme commander, Shaikh Abdur Rahman, and his close aides, is that the operation, albeit intensive, was anything but comprehensive. The operation was limited to raids on JMB hideouts and arrests of JMB leaders and operatives; they neither traced the source of funds for the militants nor tried to go after their political patrons. Moreover, there was no attempt to redress the economic, cultural and social causes that engender extremism.
The present-day government must, therefore, take its anti-militancy activism beyond such ad hoc measures as stepped-up security and intensified manhunt for militants. It should go after the political and financial patrons of the Islamist extremists. Simultaneously, it should initiate a process to overhaul and democratise madrassah education. It is often claimed, and rightly so, that madrassah education encourages obscurantism, fundamentalism and even extremism. There have been reports that a large number of madrassah in remote corners of the country are used as training grounds for Islamist militants and culturally disorientate students with perverse teaching and indoctrination. There is also the question of mainstreaming madrassah graduates. Most importantly, the government should be mindful of the direct correlation between poverty and extremism. Overall, Islamist extremism must be treated as a whole; otherwise, any action by the government, however intensive it may be, will only result in the arrest of a few individuals while the murderous ideology will simmer on.
Access to water is a fundamental right
World Water Day is being observed worldwide today with the theme ‘Coping with water scarcity’. This is indeed one of the main challenges of the 21st century. Many countries are water-stressed, especially the poorer countries. Meeting the challenge of scarcity will be an important landmark in attaining the Millennium Development Goals. Water and sanitation are critical factors in poverty alleviation and public health and ecology. The MDG target is to cut by half the number of water-stressed people by 2115, not an ambitious target, which means the world will have to live with water scarcity indefinitely.
Bangladesh is apparently a well-watered land and the world’s largest delta but it is also overpopulated and has been facing particular problems of governance. In the coming years not only population will increase but per capita use of water will also grow due to rising standard of living and industrial activity. Pushing this issue under the carpet may be suicidal. Rivers are deteriorating due to pollution and encroachment, wetlands are being grabbed by land pirates under cover of land development and house building, and the doings of rogue shrimp farmers is also responsible to an extent for deterioration of water and land quality. Besides, successive governments have failed to ensure the steady flow of the shared rivers as rightful claim of the lower riparian. Rivers are also deteriorating due to silting and absence of dredging. It is reported that over the past 25 years the total length of navigable river routes shrank to half. When the country had made considerable progress in the supply of safe drinking water to nearly all the villages, there came the bad news that groundwater in about half of the country is contaminated by arsenic. If the situation does not yet look desperate the credit goes to the common people who have shown great resilience in the face of all crises.
Taking advantage of this scarcity of water, the most critical lifeline, the wolves of globalisation and privatisation started howling. They forget that water is natural right of mankind. The former UN secretary general Kofi Annan called access to safe water a fundamental right. We too believe that access to this gift of nature is indeed a fundamental right and a natural right. The bid to privatise water and to treat it as a business commodity must be resisted. The example of Bolivia is there before us. Bolivia under the World Bank’s pressure privatised water services with frightful consequences. Thirsty, desiccated and dehydrated, the people of Bolivia launched a massive agitation and paralysed the whole country demanding free access to water. The government had to retreat and the Cochabamba Declaration was adopted which said water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be ‘commodified’, privatised or traded. In our case, therefore, the government will have to act on two fronts – preserve and improve the water sources and ensure safe water to the poor and at the same time resist the conspiracy to try out the dangerous Bolivia prescription on this land.
WORTH A LOOK
Axing the chief justice: Pakistan crisis
AMM Shawkat Ali
Analysts believe if conciliatory move is not taken, the ongoing movement would turn into a mass movement which might be the beginning of the end of the Musharraf regime. In the view of some analysts, the premeditated attack on the highest court of law was without any precedents in the history of Pakistan. Some went to the extent of saying that even during the days of the tough dictator General Ziaul Huq, the judiciary was not interfered with.
IN AN unprecedented constitutional action, the chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was placed under suspension by the president, Pervez Musharraf, on March 9. Musharraf also appointed the next senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Javed Iqbal, as acting chief justice. Besides, the president referred the case of Chaudhry to the supreme judicial council to inquire into ‘the numerous complaints and serious allegations of misconduct and misuse of authority and actions prejudicial to the dignity of the office of chief justice of Pakistan’. This is what was released by the official news agency called Associated Press of Pakistan.
Available information indicates that before the reference was made, both the president and the prime minister had tried to persuade Chaudhry to resign. Chaudhry, however, declined to resign under duress and hence the reference. Legal experts in Pakistan say ‘it will be a unique event in our [Pakistan] history; Justice Chaudhry will defend himself in an open court’.
The media in Pakistan has also reported earlier that after the meeting with the president and the prime minister, the chief justice was barred from meeting anyone from the media. A posse of heavily armed uniformed guards surrounded his official residence.
Some enterprising journalists took the initiative to reach Chaudhry but failed because of intervention by the policemen on duty in and around the road leading to his residence. ‘Now the big judge has become prisoner of his own guards, he is under house arrest,” remarked the director of news at ARY One World TV channel.
The political fallout of the unprecedented action to make the chief justice non-functional ranged from open denunciation to cautious statements. But the distinguishing feature was street agitations by the community of lawyers backed by some opposition leaders. While the Pakistan People’s Party leaders were open in denouncing the action, a top leader of the Pakistan Muslim League was cautious in his comments to the press. He simply said ‘it is an internal matter between the army and the judiciary’.
The issue of house arrest of Chaudhry was denied by government leaders. It is reported that only Ashgar Khan, a retired air marshal, could meet Chaudhry at his residence. However, such courtesy was denied to Muslim League leaders representing the faction of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Analysts interpreted this scenario as a clever move by the government to make a show of the fact that Chaudhry was not a prisoner in his own house. Ashgar confirmed to the press that Chaudhry was not allowed to see his lawyers and friends. Besides, he was not given access to newspapers and ‘his TV cable and telephone lines had been disconnected’. Ashgar reported what Chaudhry had told him.
Street agitation by the lawyers and the political activists against Musharraf continued to mount. On March 16, it is reported that the supreme judicial council issued a directive that neither Chaudhry nor any member of his family should be deprived of the freedom of movement. In the wake of escalating agitation, the police smashed equipment of a television station that was telecasting the clashes near the Supreme Court building in the capital.
Musharraf was reported to have apologised after the police damaged equipment, roughed up staff and fired teargas shells on the reporters on duty at the television station. In a rare live telephone interview, Musharraf said, ‘I would like to apologise; such an incident should not have happened. The culprits must be identified and punished today.’ Fourteen policemen, reportedly of lower ranks, were later placed under suspension. Musharraf’s apology and subsequent suspension of 14 policemen did not assuage the feeling of discontent that soon spread all over the country. Critics interpreted the suspension as a meaningless act as those who had ordered the policemen remained unpunished.
On March 17, the winds of discontent spread further when the police attacked a convention of lawyers in the Lahore high court. It was sealed by the police who also attacked lawyers. Political activists and citizens joined the agitation in the High Court and the agitation took a violent form and left many people injured. It was at this stage that the acting chief justice intervened and passed an order asking the police to withdraw from the premises of the High Court.
Analysts believe if conciliatory move is not taken, the ongoing movement would turn into a mass movement which might be the beginning of the end of the Musharraf regime. In the view of some analysts, the premeditated attack on the highest court of law was without any precedents in the history of Pakistan. Some went to the extent of saying that even during the days of the tough dictator General Ziaul Huq, the judiciary was not interfered with.
The supreme judicial council, according to the constitution of Pakistan, consists of the chief justice of Pakistan and two senior-most chief justices of the High Courts. The acting chief justice is reported to have convened the council immediately after taking oath of office. The council invited Chaudhry to appear before it and defend himself on March 13 at 1:30 pm. The electronic media reported that he was roughed up as he tried to walk to the court to appear before the council on the first day of his appearance before the council. The hearing has been adjourned till March 21 in the face of mounting agitation.
A senior lawyer and member of parliament expressed the view that the suspension of Chaudhry was a ‘well-planned and calculated move’. This view is based on the logic that convening of the supreme judicial council coincided with the presence of two senior-most chief justices of the High Courts in Islamabad. How and for what reasons these judges, who are also members of the council, were present in the capital on a working day remains unexplained. It simply adds to the lurking suspicion of the fact that the suspension of Chaudhry was premeditated.
On Monday last, seven Pakistan judges resigned on the issue of the government’s premeditated move to sack Chaudhry. Six judges resigned in Sind and one in the Punjab. It is said that the move to sack Chaudhry has created suspicion that the controversy stemmed from Musharraf’s fear that the independent-minded judge would block his design to retain the position of the army chief.
In the latest conciliatory move, the government announced that Justice Rana Baghwan Das, the only Hindu judge of the apex court, would be appointed acting chief justice when he returns from pilgrimage in India on March 22. It is so early to predict the course of events that will follow after this development.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
