Kashmir: Hard Choices Only: New Age Islam's Selection, 20 May 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
20 May 2017
• Kashmir: Hard Choices Only
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
• Modi’s Target
By A.G. Noorani
• The Power of International Dialogue and Friendship: A Lesson From History
By Akbar Ahmed
• Saudis Host Trump to Trump Iran
By Muhammad Usman
• Muzzling Social Media
By Abbas Nasir
• No Plan or Paddle
By Irfan Husain
• Civil-Military Relations Post-Dawn Leaks
By Dr Ejaz Hussain
• Discovering Russia
By S M Hali
• On The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction
By Dr Muin Boase
• Pakistan’s Legal Follies At Hague Court
By Niaz A Shah
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Kashmir: Hard Choices Only
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
20 May 2017
I RECENTLY received an extraordinary email from a troubled young Kashmiri in Srinagar. Days before the Indian authorities turned off the internet, Saif (not his real name) had watched on YouTube the 45-minute video documentary Crossing the Lines — Kashmir, Pakistan, India that I had helped make in 2004 and mostly agreed with its non-partisan narrative. A nationalist boy turned stone thrower, Saif is outraged by the brutality of Indian occupation. He is fortunate, he says. His 14-year-old second cousin lost his left eye to pellets.
Saif continues to fight India but is worried. Protesters of his father’s generation were largely nationalist, but today’s are a mixed bunch. IS and Pakistani flags are often unfurled after Friday prayers, Azadi demonstrations resound with calls for an Islamic state in Kashmir, and Nasim Hijazi’s cartoon history of Muslim rule in India Aur Talwar Toot Gayee is serialised by local Urdu papers. Significantly, Burhan Wani was laid in the grave by a crowd of thousands, wrapped in a Pakistani flag, and celebrated as a martyr rather than Kashmiri freedom fighter.
Why this change? The present government — Narendra Modi’s — surely stands guilty. By reducing space for democratic discourse, it promotes radicalisation. Unlike Vajpayee’s accommodative politics, India offers little beyond the iron fist and draconian laws such as AFSPA. The BJP-PDP alliance — shaky to start with — is almost over as each blames the other for the two per cent voter turnout in last month’s by-elections. Hindutva’s religiosity is displacing Nehru’s secularism all across India, and Indian democracy is yielding to Hindu majoritarian rule.
Kashmiri nationalists must realise the grave dangers of giving more space to religious extremists.
But blaming Modi is half an explanation, perhaps even less. In Palestine, after decades of struggle against Israeli occupation, the secular PLO lost out to the religious radicalism of Hamas. In Arab countries, young Muslims dream of fighting infidels and dying as martyrs. In Pakistan, the celebrated army operations Raddul Fasaad and Zarb-i-Azb target armed militants fighting for a Sharia state. Last week, the Higher Education Commission showed its concern by convening a meeting of 60 university vice chancellors in Islamabad on rising extremism in Pakistani campuses.
Extremism has further complicated an already complicated Kashmir situation. What now? For long, Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indians have wagged fingers at the other for the 100,000 lives lost over three decades. Where lies the future? Does any solution exist?
A short retreat into mathematics: some equations indeed have solutions even if they need much effort. But other equations can logically be shown to have no solution – nothing will ever work for them. There is still a third type: that where solutions are possible but only under very specific conditions.
Kashmir is not of the first category. Everything has been tried. Delhi and Islamabad have created clients among the Valley’s leaders and political parties, and subversion is a widely used instrument. But they too have turned out to be useless. Elections and inducements have also failed to produce a decisive outcome, as have three Pakistan-India wars. A fourth war would likely be nuclear.
All parties stand guilty. India, under various Congress governments, had once projected itself as a secularist democracy distinct from an Islamic, military-dominated Pakistan. It appeared for that reason to be preferable, but in practice its unconscionable manipulation of Kashmiri politics led to the 1989 popular uprising, sparking an insurgency lasting into the early 2000s. When it ended 90,000 civilians, militants, police, and soldiers had been killed. Remembered by Kashmiri Muslims for his role in the 1990 Gawkadal bridge massacre, Governor Jagmohan received the Padma Vibhushan last year.
Pakistan tried to translate India’s losses into its gains but failed. It soon hijacked the indigenous uprising but the excesses committed by Pakistan-based mujahideen eclipsed those of Indian security forces. The massacres of Kashmiri Pandits, targeting of civilians accused of collaborating with India, destruction of cinema houses and liquor shops, forcing of women into the veil, and revival of Shia-Sunni disputes, severely undermined the legitimacy of the Kashmiri freedom movement.
Pakistan’s ‘bleed India with a thousand cuts’ policy is in a shambles today and jihad is an ugly word in the world’s political lexicon. Say what you will about ‘Dawn Leaks’, but Pakistani diplomats who represent Pakistan’s position in the world’s capitals know the world doesn’t care about Kashmir. How else to explain Prime Minister Modi receiving Saudi Arabia’s highest civilian award from King Salman bin Abdul Aziz?
If Kashmir is ever to have a solution — ie belong to the third type of math problem — then all three contenders will need to rethink their present positions.
Thoughtful Indians must understand that cooling Kashmir lies in India’s hands, not Pakistan’s. By formally acknowledging Kashmir as a problem that needs a political solution, using humane methods of crowd control, and releasing political prisoners from Kashmiri jails, India could move sensibly towards a lessening of internal tensions. Surely, if India considers Kashmiris to be its citizens then it must treat them as such, not as traitors deserving bullets. Else it should hand Kashmir over to Kashmiris — or Pakistan.
Thoughtful Pakistanis must realise that their country’s Kashmir-first policy has brought nothing but misery all around. Using proxies has proven disastrous. A partial realisation has led to detaining of LeT and JeM leaders, but Pakistan’s army must crack down upon all Kashmir-oriented militant groups that still have a presence on Pakistani soil. Such groups are a menace to Pakistan’s society and armed forces, apart from taking legitimacy away from those fighting Indian rule.
Thoughtful Kashmiri nationalists — like Saif — must recognise the grave dangers of giving more space to religious extremists. Their struggle should be for some form of pluralistic entity – whether independent or under nominal Indian or Pakistani control. That entity must assure personal and religious freedoms. An ISIS type state with its cruel practices makes mockery of the very idea of Azadi and would pave the way for Kashmir’s descent into hell.
Such rethinking would clear the road to peace through negotiations which, though narrowed, still remains open. Every conflict in history, no matter how bitter, has ultimately been resolved. In Kashmir’s case whether this happens peacefully, or after some apocalypse, cannot be predicted.
Pervez Hoodbhoy teaches mathematics and physics in Lahore and Islamabad.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334180/kashmir-hard-choices-only
-----
Modi’s Target
By A.G. Noorani
May 20th, 2017
EVER since the Jan Sangh was set up in 1951, one of its main aims was to wipe out Muslim law and enforce a uniform civil code. After its reincarnation in 1980 as the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), this demand became one of its emblems.
Once he became prime minister, Narendra Modi made Muslim personal law embodied in the Sharia a target of his campaign. He picked on the one feature that many Muslims themselves were moving towards reforming because they saw it as contrary to religious injunctions— the triple Talaq. His concern for Muslim women’s welfare was not very evident when, as Gujarat’s chief minister in 2002, they were raped and murdered on his watch. Now he and his henchmen are posing as their liberators.
Last year, Modi said, “Getting Muslim women their rights as per the constitution is the responsibility of the government and society,” moaning, “what is the crime of my Muslim sisters when someone says Talaq thrice over the phone and her life is destroyed?” Shortly after, BJP president Amit Shah said that a uniform civil code will be “an agenda in the UP Assembly elections”.
As far back as December 1995, the leftist All India Democratic Women’s Association stated, “This convention condemns the propaganda of the BJP for an immediate uniform civil code which is directed against the Muslim community. It protests against its hypocritical claim that it is motivated by concern for women’s rights, in this case, Muslim women. It is this very political platform which in its earlier incarnation as the Hindu Mahasabha and the Jana Sangh had led the opposition to any reform in Hindu laws, leading to an opportunist compromise at the cost of women’s equality.”
The BJP is out to exploit a problem already on the verge of a solution. Speaking in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said, “I have no hesitation in saying that the Privy Council have on several occasions absolutely murdered Hindu law and slaughtered [Muslim] law.” He himself had won his spurs in public life by securing the passage of the Mussalman Waqf Validation Act, 1913, which nullified a Privy Council ruling in 1894 on waqf-alul-awlads that would have ruined many Muslim families.
In 1897, the Privy Council made it clear that it preferred commentaries of doubtful accuracy to the Quranic text. It chose to rely on the dicta in the Hedaya, translated by Hamilton, and N.E. Baillie’s Digest of Muhammadan Law. Two of the greatest Muslim judges, Justices Ameer Ali and Syed Mahmud (son of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan) had exposed the errors in the translations.
After independence, Pakistan’s Supreme Court discarded this legacy. It ruled that it was the duty of the courts to ascertain the law from the Quran and the Hadith for themselves in preference to the opinions of British-era commentators.
But the Muslims of India did not shed the sham doctrines of the Privy Council. Some high courts’ judges departed from the beaten path and believed that the existing Muslim law on divorce had no sanction in the Quran. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of the Kerala High Court, who rose to become an Indian Supreme Court justice, said as far back as in 1970 that “a deeper study of the subject discloses a surprisingly rational, realistic and modern law of divorce”.
The Quran enjoins a clear procedure. The first step is appointment of arbiters “if you fear a breach” between the couple (4:35). Failing their efforts, either side can demand divorce; Khula by the wife and Talaq by the husband, for which a period of three months (Iddah) is obligatory. It is revocable before that.
In 1943, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi said, “Due to want of knowledge, Muslims have been generally given to understand that a Talaq can be pronounced only through the triple-divorce formula, although it is an innovation and a sin leading to many legal complications. If people knew that triple divorce is superfluous and even a single Talaq would dissolve the marriage, of course, leaving room for revocation during the next three months (Iddah) and remarriage thereafter, innumerable families could have been saved from disruption.”
Section 7 of the Pakistan’s Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 establishes an arbitration council, and mandates conciliation and a 90-day interim before a divorce is affected. Sadly, the organisations that profess to represent India’s Muslims on this issue studiously ignore this law — and thus play into the hands of the BJP, defying Muslim women’s bodies that are committed to the Sharia but that want the triple Talaq to go.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334177/modis-target
-----
The Power of International Dialogue And Friendship: A Lesson From History
By Akbar Ahmed
20-May-17
With President Donald Trump meeting Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia on his first trip overseas as president it is time to ponder on the approaches and strategies the West and the Muslim world can adopt to promote peace and harmony. ISIS has continued to instigate violence in both the Muslim world and the West and Western governments, in turn, have been responding harshly to acts of terrorism. There are those in the White House who consider Islam as the ultimate enemy.
While all of the signs in this environment are pointing towards an escalating clash between the West and the Muslim world, history in fact demonstrates the possibility of a strong friendship between these two civilizations. Take the example of Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor who lived from 1194 to 1250.
Frederick II was one of the most powerful rulers of Europe in his time. Raised in Sicily, which had a significant Muslim population, he spoke numerous languages, including Arabic, had a Muslim bodyguard and his coronation mantle, which bears Arabic inscriptions, became the coronation mantle for every Holy Roman Emperor until the 18th century.
The emperor showed respect for religious minorities like Jews and Muslims, promoted the work of the great Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd, or Averroes, and was known to celebrate festivals associated with the holy Prophet of Islam. He was fascinated by and committed to the pursuit of knowledge and greatly respected Islamic learning, often writing to the greatest rulers in the Muslim world to seek their responses to important philosophical questions.
Frederick II had every reason to think like other Europeans of his time about Islam and Muslims. Yet by taking a drastically different route — establishing rapport with the other side through learning and scholarship, laying out his objectives, and listening to theirs with respect — he was able to forge an unprecedented alliance and accomplish the impossible
Frederick's greatest triumph which should be taught in schools of foreign affairs and diplomacy today was to use these tactics of cultural understanding and respect to successfully take Jerusalem for Christianity. In doing so, Frederick accomplished the dream of every Christian ruler of Europe since the legendary Sultan Saladin had recaptured the city from the Christians decades earlier in 1187, ending nearly 90 years of Christian rule.
As word reached Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt, the nephew of Saladin, that a new Crusade was heading his way, he heard rumours about the emperor who was leading it. Al-Kamil sent his vizier, the Egyptian Emir Fakhr ad-Din, to visit Frederick and assess the situation. A close friendship developed between Fakhr ad-Din and Frederick that was enriched by the exchange of ideas and gifts. Frederick even knighted Fakhr ad-Din.
Through the exchanges with Fakhr ad-Din, Frederick and al-Kamil negotiated a deal, known as the Treaty of Jaffa (1229), whereby Frederick would obtain Jerusalem but the Muslims would control Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock on the site of Solomon's Temple, which Christians could access to pray. Jews would be permitted entrance to the city to pray at the Western Wall on the Temple Mount, Muslims would retain a qadi, or judge, in Jerusalem and non-resident Muslim pilgrims in Jerusalem were to be protected. Muslims were also to be allowed access to Bethlehem, which passed to Frederick's control. Nazareth, Sidon, Tibnin (Turon), Jaffa and Acre were also handed over to Frederick.
Escorted by his Muslim bodyguard and accompanied by his tutor in Arab scholarly thinking, a Sicilian Muslim, Frederick arrived in Jerusalem soon after to be received with honor by Shams ad-Din, the eminent qadi of Nablus, who the sultan assigned to host Frederick. In his enthusiasm to honor his guest and not to disturb his rest, Shams ad-Din asked the local muezzins not to make the call to prayer. But the next day Frederick was not pleased and complained to the qadi, "O qadi, why did the muezzins not give the call to prayer in the normal way last night?" Shams ad-Din replied, "This humble slave prevented them, out of regard and respect for Your Majesty." That, however, did not please Frederick: "My chief aim in passing the night in Jerusalem was to hear the call to prayer given by the muezzins, and their cries of praise to God during the night." Frederick then reprimanded the qadi: "you have done wrong; why do you deprive yourself because of me of your normal obligation, of your law, of your religion?"
Shams ad-Din later accompanied Frederick to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the emperor expressed his delight at its beauty, especially the magnificence of the Mehrab, or arches that points toward Makkah.
After Frederick returned from the Middle East he continued to speak effusively of the Egyptian sultan, telling distinguished visitors that his friend was dearer to him than any person alive save for his own son. When the sultan died in 1238, Frederick mourned. In a letter to the King of England, Frederick lamented the sultan's passing, writing that "many things would have been very different in the Holy Land if only my friend al-Kamil had been still alive."
While the 21st century is very different from the 13th, this episode from history is a lesson for Western governments and the Muslim World. Frederick had every reason to think like other Europeans of his time about Islam and Muslims. Yet by taking a drastically different route - establishing rapport with the other side through learning and scholarship, laying out his objectives, and listening to theirs with respect - he was able to forge an unprecedented alliance and accomplish the impossible. His example could not be more relevant than in today's age of "fake news" and rampant xenophobia.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-May-17/the-power-of-international-dialogue-and-friendship-a-lesson-from-history
----
Saudis Host Trump to Trump Iran
By Muhammad Usman
Trump lands in Saudi Arabia with fanfare and ado. A rousing reception awaits him there. His engagements include three events; a series of meetings with hosts, a pep talk to leaders of Gulf Cooperation Council how to deal with threat from IS militants, war in Yemen and threat of ballistic missiles and maritime shipping in Red Sea. Finally a launch in chorus of over fifty heads of Islamic States who on sidelines, would also be pondering at ways how to combat extremism and crack down illicit financing.
Saudis are over exuberant and elated to find Trump amongst their midst following an uneasy period of strained cordiality between them because of Obama’ overtures to Iran and counselling to them to find an effective way to share neighbourhood and institute some sort of cold peace. These were testing times particularly, when they got bogged down in proxy war backed by Iran in neighbouring Yemen. With Trump at Capitol Hill, they see an opportunity to form a partnership with US, suiting to mutual convenience.
In ME, US has two primordial vital interests; Oil and Israel. Security of Israel is unexceptionable. US and Israel are in total agreement about twin threat of militant Islam in the region; extremists led by Iran and extremists led by IS however, both attach first priority to the former because of its relative potency and motivation. The annihilation of both, step by step will ultimately add to security of Israel immeasurably. Besides, Trump intends to turn region a bullish market for US’s arms sale to stimulate US economy by boasting manufacturing jobs as he vowed during his election campaign. A series of arms deals for Saudi Arab, totaling more than $100 billion, is in offing. US is also selling fighter jets, worth $5 billion to Bahrain.
The renewed association is also aimed to act as antidote to his signature policy; entry ban on refugees and travel from six Muslim countries. Overall it also lays to rest notion that America is anti-Muslim. This all makes US an active participant in a regional conflict but of international dimensions. Surely US would exert pulls and call the shots to secure its bundle of interests at virtually no cost.
This is no strange because a big super power can wrench out the maximum without responding in sufficient, leave alone equal measure. Inevitably, regardless of their inadequacies, other stakeholders would not sit mute. By its implications, auguries do not seem good for peace and amity in the region. It may harden attitude of countries involved in affray. It would incite divide, strife and conflict and may ultimately, set the stage for mutual destruction as was the case in Iraq and Syria.
By default or design, Pakistan is in international rigmarole. It is no more in position to claim neutrality as opposed to its earlier stance. Nevertheless, obtaining situation has strengthened its leverage to act as a facilitator between two squabbling Islamic States; Saudi Arab and Iran. With its participation in Military Alliance, reliance of Saudi Arab on Pakistan has increased greatly. Word of Pakistan ought to have more weight and currency when also seen in overall context of commitments of Pakistan given to Saudi Arab for its defence against external aggression.
With backing of Saudi Arab by US and hullabaloo about its nuclear deal, Iran looks to be in an amenable mood to listen counsels of restraint and peace attentively. If persuaded meaningfully, at least, it could be ready to make temporary peace in the region. Its positive response to recent overture by Kuwait to mediate between both was a palpable pointer. Recent visit of Iranian President to Oman also reinforced the point. Need of reconciliation was not also extinct among Saudis. Surprise visit of Saudi FM to Iraq was a positive sign. On the contrary, animosity between the two is sharp, deep and mutual. Recent exchange of firebrand works was a sad but real spectacle. Both vowing rhetorically to wage war in their areas. This is what was expected with grasping Trump in the arena.
Pakistan could engage Iran on a brief of platitudes, incentives and assurances to moderate the temperature in the region. Pakistan could assuage their concerns by mutually securing shared boarders. Opening dialogue on question of stabilising Afghanistan and revival of stalled Gas pipeline project may be the right appetisers. For host of reasons, now demise of its incipient effort for reconciliation looks imminent. Confrontation or reconciliation and war or peace is now hostage to US. Intoxicated or emboldened by borrowed strength, Saudis may grow intransigent and averse to dictates of good sense. About Pakistan, they tend to take it granted. Our earlier instance of potential neutrality was viewed with ultra-scepticism. Now it seems that Pakistan itself would no longer sit on the bench for want of goodwill/gifts and fear of incurring their displeasure. Arguably US also wants Pakistan to follow same suit. The desire of both is a virtual command to our self-seeking ruling elite regardless of migraines it may cause at home. It is no one time exception rather a repeat performance. In case of Afghanistan, we had trumps. Now we hold worn out cards. Pakistan is in lurch between its two long boarders. Situation is unlikely to be no less different than before. Only we would get embroiled in cauldron of others. Our PMIs in hurry only to have photo and a separate hug with Trump even on sidelines. Rest can rest on mercy of circumstances.
Source: pakobserver.net/saudis-host-trump-trump-iran/
----
Muzzling Social Media
By Abbas Nasir
May 20th, 2017
SHOCKING footage this week from Washington, DC showed the visiting Turkish leader’s bodyguards running amok and assaulting anti-Erdogan protesters, apparently on instructions the president gave to one of his aides. This raises an important question: is every elected leader a democrat?
Going by the Washington incident, where the beefy men belonging to the Turkish president’s security detail would have caused much greater bodily harm to the handful of protesters had it not been for the intervention of local police, the answer would have to be an emphatic no.
There can be no denying that Erdogan enjoys just over 50 per cent of support in a country that seems equally divided into those who love him and those who loathe him. His party has won four consecutive elections — and recently the president got a ‘yes’ vote, despite a thin majority, in a referendum seeking to enhance his powers.
If the government’s warning is meant for political opponents, it is unacceptable and condemnable.
The fact that he has built the country’s economy into a major powerhouse from one that was moribund when he first came into power about a decade and a half back has enabled him to strengthen his stranglehold over the country; serious corruption allegations have not dented his popularity.
He also cut Turkey’s coup-prone military to size, using the good offices of his erstwhile ally Fetullah Gulen, currently in exile in the US, and whose supporters tipped off the civilian government about the potential coup-makers’ plan, helping it to pre-empt the coup and to prosecute them.
But having fallen out with him, Erdogan blamed Gulen and his supporters for the attempted coup last year, an affair which remains shrouded in mystery, with many unanswered questions about who and what actually precipitated the attempt.
The government’s handling of the coup and particularly its aftermath, with thousands of alleged Gulen supporters being sacked from their jobs and imprisoned without trial and tortured in jails amid a media crackdown, has drawn criticism from human rights groups and the handful of dissidents who remain free within the country.
This is Turkey’s elected leader. While reading in the media about how the DC protesters were attacked for merely raising slogans against the Turkish leader and watching the videos of the horrendous incident, one shuddered at the thought of how dissenters, particularly in the media, must be treated at home.
Contrast this with Pakistan, where in recent history apart from the draconian curbs on media freedom in the Zia era from 1979 to 1985, the media has fought for and enjoyed freedoms that Turkish journalists under Erdogan would perhaps long for.
No. I am not letting my imagination run wild. What I am saying is valid in relative terms as, with our societal, tribal-feudal, institutional and other biases, we are far — very far — from enjoying completely free speech.
I am also aware that more Pakistanis journalists have been killed over the past decade and a half than since the country’s inception until the start of the 2000s. Recent months have seen a renewed assault on both traditional media and, everyone’s bugbear, social media users.
Where major media houses have come under attack for merely reporting a statement or news story that one institution or the other has taken umbrage at, bloggers and social media activists have also been at the receiving end of the state’s wrath.
In each case, if malicious, slanderous or defamatory material was disseminated, the state would have been well within its rights to throw the book at those responsible and prosecuted them under the law of the land.
Ironically, in the bulk of the cases, the organisations and individuals targeted happened to be in the right inasmuch as it was their right to question state policies where these were demonstrably causing harm to the country and were against its long-term interest.
Where ‘errant’ individuals went missing for weeks (with tell-tale signs pointing to their tormentors) and were subjected to the third degree and warned to mend their ways, other means were deployed to pressurise organisations deemed guilty of crossing the line.
This week, a more sinister tool is being deployed after the warning by the interior minister that the government would act against social media users considered critical of the military and other state institutions.
A fairly high-profile journalist has confirmed a conversation with an official who introduced himself as belonging to the FIA’s counterterrorism wing, and who wanted the journalist to come over and ‘explain your social media activities’.
Before the Dawn story controversy was settled, many PML-N social media users were slamming the military, which they were blaming for overstepping its authority. This criticism reached a crescendo with the (now withdrawn) ‘rejected’ tweet by the military spokesman.
And after the issue was settled, a huge number of disappointed, vocal PTI supporters seemed to occupy the anti-military space vacated by PML-N members, with the latter now jumping to GHQ’s defence with a vehemence hitherto unseen.
Seeing this spectacle, one was left hoping that these two groups of social media users were not reflecting the thoughts of their leaders and rather betraying their own lack of political sense and maturity.
If the government’s warning is meant for political opponents, it is unacceptable and condemnable. If the warning and the use of FIA counterterrorism officials to subdue journalists is part of a mindless plan to shackle the media, it won’t work.
In fact, it would be counterproductive. Particularly, if more known journalists were to be targeted like the one referred to here. All such a policy would achieve is resentment and defiance among journalists who believe in the principle of elected civilian supremacy.
One hopes that the government, which appears determined to score its own goals, can see that to be elected isn’t enough — its conduct will largely determine whether it is indeed wedded to a democratic mindset and if its leaders are worthy of being called democrats.
Source; dawn.com/news/1334178/muzzling-social-media
----
No Plan or Paddle
By Irfan Husain
May 20th, 2017
IN the last few weeks, two names have dominated the news and views cycles in Pakistan. And I don’t mean Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif.
In their own ways, Mashal Khan and Ehsanullah Ehsan have exposed the widening fracture in our society. The former was a bright, open-minded young man with a healthy curiosity about the world around him. The latter is a vicious, self-confessed terrorist who has revelled in the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the name of Islam.
But more than revealing his cold-hearted cruelty, he has also highlighted the divisions in how our society views Islamist militancy. When a TV channel aired an interview with Ehsan recently, many objected on the grounds that it gave publicity to a terrorist who should be tried for his many crimes.
The increase in mob violence shows the state’s weak writ.
But there is a precedent for putting killers before TV cameras: recall the televised confession of Saulat Mirza, the MQM’s hit man, shortly before his execution. Clearly, this unexpected broadcast was intended to implicate the killer’s patrons in his crimes. So while I have no problem with Ehsan’s TV appearance, I do object to the softballs thrown at him by his interviewer. Surely, some tougher questions would have exposed the barbaric nature of the groups he spoke for.
Clearly, his captors gave him this opportunity for the purpose of establishing the links between Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies, and the jihadi groups Ehsan represented. He was encouraged to present himself as a misguided young man who abandoned militancy once he came to realise his masters were killing at the behest of hostile powers.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, we have Mashal Khan, a young man who was savagely murdered by a mob of his fellow students with the alleged collusion of university staff. His killing, on trumped-up blasphemy accusations, has become commonplace in Pakistan.
Now, according to his father, Mashal’s sisters are being harassed when they go to their classes. Unsurprisingly, a group of religious parties are defending Mashal’s killers.
This grotesque crime speaks as clearly for the kind of nation we have become, as does the official attempt to whitewash Ehsan’s crimes. Decades of the establishment playing footsie with extremist groups, combined with the brainwashing that began under Zia, have produced a generation that, with few exceptions, thinks it is perfectly normal to take the law into our own hands to ‘defend the faith’.
Years ago when I was a student at Karachi University, I recall arguing about religion with the head of the Jamiat on the campus, Javaid Akbar Ansari. Often, our conversations took a distinctly unorthodox turn. But those were more tolerant times.
The fact that mob violence is increasing speaks volumes for the enfeeblement of the state’s writ. People find courage in numbers, and in the sense of immunity that the charge of blasphemy confers on them.
Above all, they take advantage of the incompetence of the legal system in Pakistan. All too often, cops, prosecutors and judges either sympathise with extremists, or fear them. Witnesses are scared of coming forward.
More worrying still is the ambiguous and woolly public response to this threat. When Nausheen Leghari, a medical student and IS supporter, was recently apprehended with a suicide vest in Lahore, many on social media urged the authorities to forgive her. Had she succeeded in her plan, she might have killed scores of Christians praying in a church on Easter. For me, this amounts to blasphemy.
When Mashal Khan was murdered in Mardan, the horrifying killing was filmed and quickly went viral, provoking a multi-media storm. Had the crime occurred far from a camera, it might have been reported on page seven. And it would certainly not have received the kind of attention that it has. Some arrests have been made and, for a change, a few of the killers might actually be punished.
But had a Hindu, Ahmadi or Christian been subjected to a similar lynching, I doubt very much we would have seen the same reaction from the state or the media. After a Lahore court recently released all 46 accused of attacking a church and adjoining houses in 2015, how many Christians would have any confidence in our judiciary?
We have created a society in which people like Ehsanullah Ehsan are secretly admired, while the dwindling band of Mashal Khans are forced to duck for cover. The government has become a hapless witness, and seems to have retreated to the security enclave of Islamabad. Other actors including sections of the media, the clergy, the higher judiciary and the security establishment have usurped powers they were never meant to exercise.
So here we are, drifting down a raging river without a plan or a paddle, while the crew bicker among themselves.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334175/no-plan-or-paddle
-----
Civil-Military Relations Post-Dawn Leaks
By Dr Ejaz Hussain
20-May-17
On May 10, the Dawn Leaks controversy came to an end when the DG-ISPR, Major General Asif Ghafoor, while briefing the media, said, "our press release wasn't against any specific individual or institution. The tweet was posted against incomplete recommendations. It, unfortunately, pitted the army and civilian government against each other which should have been avoided. Recommendations as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the prime minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue."The preceding has raised certain questions. Why did the army decide to put an end to the otherwise much-hyped leak on our national security? Why didn't the DG-ISPR send a tweet in this respect? Did the army and the civil leadership make any "deal" as Imran Khan hinted at? Why did the PPP and especially the PTI try to turn the tables on the civil and military leadership by taking the matter to the parliament as the latter, in their view, is the right forum constitutionally? And, as a result of the army's position on this issue, can one argue the Sharif government has achieved another milestone by getting clear out of another trap laid out by the opposition?
To begin with, Dawn Leaks, regardless of the nature of the contentmade public by Cyril Almeida, reflected structural and institutional issues that have become chronic in Pakistan's civil-military relations where the latter has been a powerful actor for decades. Since Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in his third term as PM, was attempting to control the military by employing medieval means, including, visiting India to attend the inaugural ceremony of PM Modi or later hosting him in Raiwind along with secretly meeting Modi's confidant, Sajjan Jindal in Murree only recently. Such developments would have naturally ringed alarm bells in the corridor of the GHQ. Hence, General Raheel Sharif, the former COAS, found an opportunity not only to contain the irritating prime minister, who after all is the product of the military regime of General Ziaul Haq but also to put his organisation above all other state institutions with respect to security of the country. The military, as the green books suggest, carries and inculcates in its men as well as the society, the notion that it is responsible for the territorial and ideological borders of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. From this logic, since the prime minister was violating and compromising national security, it was but natural on the part of the security establishment to take due notice of the wrong doings. Hence, Mr Sharif was put on trial both publically, courtesy our unbridled (social) media, and legally.
To ward off public concerns, the Sharif government took little time to fire its information minister, Senator Pervez Rashid. Legally, however, the matter lingered on before the Inquiry Commission and, on April 28, the office of the prime minister, having received the final report from the commission, issued a notification that summarised major recommendations of the report which initially and ultimately fell short of damaging the Sharif government as well as PML-N. Nevertheless, the prime ministerial notification stood "rejected" by the army that demanded full compliance with the agreed upon the report. Interestingly, the opposition political parties sided with the army than the civil government. This clearly marked a return to the politics of the 1990s. In the prevailing security context, where Pakistan has worst relations with three of its immediate neighbours, the army walked rationally and stopped short of staging the sixth coup. The crisis, however, only got resolved when the civilian government decided not to test the nerves of the powerful force of the country. Hence, the civ-mil leadership probably met in camera and reached a middle ground where the Sharif government fired two of his top advisors and the Army apparently took the tweet back. Taking the tweet back does not mean tactical retreat or defeat of the military. It indeed marks its victory and superiority over the civil side of the equation. Moreover, the strategic posture of the DG-ISPR, from the institutional perspective, was required to stay clear socially and politically. Nonetheless, the healthy sign, at least in this context, is that Pakistan is not put in the past through another coup though PPP, PTI along with a coterie of ex-servicemen, wished it. The PPP and PTI acted hypocritically and opportunistically by dubbing the end of Dawn Leaks a "deal" and took it to the parliament. One wonders how many times the PTI showed respect and preference for the parliament during the 2014 and 2015 sit-ins. The PPP, only recently, cut a deal with the powers that be, to be able to survive politically.
Taking the tweet back does not mean a tactical retreat or defeat for the military — rather it establishes its superiority over the civil side of the equation
Lastly, though the Sharif government has survived the Dawn Leaks, it still is amid the crisis. It lacks the vision to correct the imbalance in the civil-military relations. Its strategy of normalising with India (or relying on the Saudis, Turks or the Chinese) may backfire any time for, to talk about India, there got to be a talk within Pakistan between the civil and military institutions. Perhaps this is time to seriously and sincerely discuss the future direction of the country mired in multiple crises caused essentially by imbalance and instability in the civil-military relations.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-May-17/civil-military-relations-post-dawn-leaks
----
Discovering Russia
By S M Hali
20-May-17
In this scribe’s formative years, Kremlin, Red Square and Leningrad were shrouded in mystery. Owing to the Iron Curtain, visiting these places was out of question. Finally, an invitation to attend the VI Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) provided the perfect opportunity to visit these places.
MCIS addresses the most pressing problems of global and regional security. This year it was organised in the backdrop of the ensuing conflict in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan.
The plenary session was on the fight against terrorism, security issues in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, and the role of militaries in enhancing global security. Counterterrorism and counter radicalism in the Middle East, security of cyber space, BMD implications, and security in Central Asia were discussed separately.
The organisers had taken pains to not only make the participants comfortable but also ensure that the burning issues were discussed in the most professional manner. Ministers of Defence from 29 countries led their respective delegations along with senior military personnel and security analysts. This scribe was afforded the chance to express his opinion in the session on Security in Central Asia: Afghan factor.
On the day of the arrival, Anatoly I. Antonov, Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation, hosted a welcome cocktail, while Pakistan’s Ambassador to Moscow welcomed the Pakistani delegation to a dinner.
The conference was a roaring success. At the end of day 1, General Sergey Shoygu, Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation, hosted a reception. Besides serving sumptuous Russian cuisine, the host arranged music and traditional dance performances by cultural troupes from the Russian Army, Navy and Air Force. At the conclusion of the symposium, the grand finale was a three-and-a-half hour boat cruise on the River Moskva. Throughout the boat cruise, theriver was kept clear of other traffic to ensure safety of guests.
Having stayed on for sightseeing, visits to Kremlin, Red Square and the Bolshoi Theatre occupied me for three days. I had some idea about Kremlin from glimpses of the place caught in movies, but I was certainly not prepared for the grandeur that greeted me when I stepped inside. Walled Kremlin is an array of museums, cathedrals and palaces. The place has been razed by various invaders but like a phoenix rising out of ashes, it has managed to regain its splendour. The Bolshevik revolution and the two world wars have left their marks but failed to subdue the magnificence of this ancient capital.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the two World Wars have left their marks but they have failed to subdue Kremlin’s magnificence
Even when Peter the Great moved the capital to St Petersburg, Russia’s rulers continued to leave their mark on the medieval town. Peter himself built the Kremlin Arsenal, originally planned as a military museum and now occupied by a barracks. The 18th and 19th centuries brought neoclassical masterpieces such as the Senate Building and the Great Kremlin Palace. After the 1917 Revolution, the Kremlin regained its rightful place as the seat of the Russian government, and the legacy of the Communist era is still visible in the large red stars that adorn many of the defensive towers, and in the vast, modern State Kremlin Palace, originally the Palace of Congresses.
Lying at the very centre of the Kremlin, the Sobornaya or Cathedral Squareserves as a junction where all main streets of the Kremlin meet. The square’s name relates to the great cathedrals that stand here - Blagoveshchensky Sobor (The Cathedral of the Annunciation), Uspensky Sobor (The Cathedral of The Assumption), and Arkhangelsky Sobor (The Cathedral of The Archangel), as well as the Church of the Twelve Apostles, and the Church of the Deposition of the Robe. This was once the stage for official parades to mark the coronations of the Tsars, and also of massed religious processions on great church holidays. On the Red Steps of the Faceted Chamber, the sovereigns of Russia would appear before their people, and in front of these steps foreign ambassadors were traditionally welcomed to the city.
Ivanovskaya Square got its name from the magnificent pillar of Ivan. This, the biggest of all the Kremlin’s squares, was a hive of activity over three centuries ago.
Red Square, lying just outside the balustrades of the Kremlin, gave a festive look since preparations were afoot to host the massive and grand Victory Day Parade on May 9.
Saint Basil’s Cathedral is perhaps the most well-known face of Moscow. It was commissioned by Ivan the Terrible to mark the 1552 capture of Kazan from Mongol forces. It was completed in 1560. According to a dubious legend, its builders, Barma and Postnik Yakovlev, were blinded by Ivan so that they could not create anything to compare.
Watching an opera at the Bolshoi Theatre was a real treat.
Saint Petersburg is also a city steeped in history and royal beauty. The cultural capital of Russia was founded by Tsar Peter the Great on May 27, 1703. It has changed names from Petrograd to Leningrad, and now back to Saint Petersburg.
Every building apart from the modern constructions has a historical value. Saint Isaac’s Cathedral, Kazan Cathedral, Church of the Saviour on Blood, Peter and Paul Fortresses and the Winter Palace are some of the major attractions. The Winter Palace, now known as the Hermitage, is one of the largest art museums in the world. Its collections boasts masterpieces made by most internationally acclaimed artists. The experts say that if you were to spend a minute looking at each exhibit on display in the Hermitage, you would need 11 years before you’d seen them all. Having visited the Louvre or the Versailles Palace in France or the MET in New York, Hermitage was a pleasant surprise.
For far too long, having been shrouded in mystery behind the Iron Curtain, the Russians are now keen to emerge as an affable and hospitable nation, which boasts of millennia of history and is definitely worth visiting.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-May-17/discovering-russia
----
On The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction
By Dr Muin Boase
20-May-17
On the 18 April 2017, Pakistan notified the United Nations depository of a new declaration under the Optional Clause to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), replacing its earlier Declaration made on 12 September 1960. The new declaration, which narrows the scope of disputes that Pakistan is willing to submit to compulsory jurisdiction marks a shift in Pakistan’s attitude towards the court. The optional clause allows states to make a unilateral declaration recognising the jurisdiction of the court as binding with respect to any other state that has made a similar declaration. This creates a class of states that are willing to resolve disputes between themselves through the court.
The ICJ, which is the principal judicial organ of the UN was founded on the basis of consent. The optional clause, which operates under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, is one of three ways in which the court can assert jurisdiction in contentious cases. The other two are of a case being voluntarily referred to it and a dispute resolution clause in a treaty under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute.
The case brought by India concerning the denial of consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav is brought under Article 36(1) under a dispute resolution clause in a treaty signed by both parties: the Optional Protocol concerning Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (1963) to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 (Protocol to the VCCR).This has nothing to do with the compulsory jurisdiction of the court under Article 36(2) as was argued by Pakistan’s counsel in the ICJ. Nor as the court made clear would the Agreement on Consular Access (2008) between Indian and Pakistan be enough to contract out of the Protocol to the VCCR since it does not even refer to the earlier treaty. As such, Pakistan should have agreed to provisional measures without an oral hearing.
It is disappointing to see Pakistan narrow its acceptance to the optional clause to such an extent as to defeat the purpose of joining those states that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
By submitting a declaration, a state agrees that all other states that have made a similar declaration may bring a case against them to the ICJ and vice versa. States are entitled to make reservations when making such a declaration limiting the categories of disputes they are prepared to submit to compulsory jurisdiction. They are also free to withdraw their consent. Since the compulsory jurisdiction of the court operates on the principle of reciprocity, the court will only have jurisdiction to the extent that an issue is covered by the declarations of both parties, in other words, the lowest common denominator.
In 1974, India entered one the most extensively reserved optional declarations ever made to the ICJ, excluding numerous categories of disputes, such as "disputes with the government of any state which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth". The purpose of narrowing India’s compulsory jurisdiction was to make it impossible for Pakistan to ever bring a claim under its optional declaration to the ICJ, for example, the Kashmir dispute. This had the incidental effect of preventing India from bringing a claim against Pakistan under the gateway of compulsory jurisdiction since Pakistan could rely on India’s reservations as between them.
The recent case instituted by the Marshall Islands in 2014 against Pakistan prompted criticism from some quarters about Pakistan’s optional declaration. In an article published by Dawn on 29 May 2014, entitled ‘Reactive Pakistan’, Sikander Ahmed Shah compared Pakistan’s declaration with India’s extensive reservations, asking why "Pakistan binds itself to certain international obligations unnecessarily?" The answer to that question is that Pakistan has historically adopted a positive attitude both to international law generally and in settlement of international legal disputes by the court.
It seems now that Pakistan has followed India’s bad example in entering a declaration with numerous extensive reservations. As a result, it now has one of the most restrictive optional declarations to the court. Building on its 1960 Declaration, it now excludes from the compulsory jurisdiction of the court disputes pertaining to hostilities and armed conflicts, national security, delimitation of maritime zones, territorial disputes, any dispute existing before the Declaration, and disputes where the other party has accepted compulsory jurisdiction for bringing a claim.
Many of these reservations have been taken almost word for word from India’s Declaration. Unlike the Indian declaration, Pakistan has added a reservation for "national security". Interestingly the reservation against hostilities, in contrast to India’s declaration, also covers "the deployment of armed forces abroad". Unlike its earlier declarations, it reserves the right to amend or terminate the declaration with immediate effect.
It is not clear what motivated the new declaration. Perhaps it was a reaction to the Marshall Islands case, which was thrown out by the court last year for the absence of a "dispute" with Pakistan.
A more plausible explanation is that Pakistan was seeking to forestall India from modifying its declaration and bringing a claim on behalf of Jadhav under its old declaration. This is suggested by one of the misconceived arguments raised by Pakistan’s counselin his oral submissions to the court that the new declaration would exclude the jurisdiction of the court because of the new reservation in cases of “national security". What should, however, beclear is that Pakistan’s modified declaration will not have the effect of preventing India’s Jadhav claim being brought under the dispute resolution clause of a treaty (Protocol to the VCCR). If this was the motive behind the change, not only will it not achieve this goal but also Pakistan’s Declaration would have been changed for no reason.
Judge Manfred Lachs described the ICJ as "the guardian of legality for the international community as a whole". A confident nation that complies with the international rule of law should not be afraid of foreign nations bringing claims against it. It is, therefore, disappointing to see Pakistan narrow its acceptance to the optional clause to such an extent as to defeat the purpose of joining those states that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, sacrificing its long-held position for the sake of a short-sighted reaction to present events.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-May-17/on-the-icj-and-compulsory-jurisdiction
-----
Pakistan’s Legal Follies At Hague Court
By Niaz A Shah
May 20, 2017
As I had indicated in my article published on 18 May 2017 in this newspaper, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was likely to hold that it has jurisdiction in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav; it did exactly that in its order on Thursday. I had communicated my views on the question of jurisdiction to Pakistani officials, albeit informally, though starkly: the Hague-based court has jurisdiction in this matter.
At the same time, I had also suggested the need to devise a strategy on how to respond to the Indian case. I proposed various steps to achieve that outcome and also the kind of legal team that would be required: a team not only well versed in the relevant law but also lawyers who could read the mind of the court and appreciate the general worldview of the ICJ, the world’s highest judicial body, in these type of cases.
Pakistan made a number of legal follies. First, it misread what the Indian case was based upon. India invoked Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relation 1963 (VCCR) whereas Pakistan concentrated its argument on Article 36(2) of the VCCR which has no bearing on the case. This was a gross legal miscalculation. Second, Pakistan based its case mainly on the 21 May 2008 agreement with India. That agreement is not registered under Article 102 of the UN Charter which states: ‘(1) Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it. (2) No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations’.
Pakistan very unwisely called it a technicality and banked on Article VI of the 2008 agreement. Pakistan can still register the agreement with the UN and get some benefit out of it in the future proceedings.
Third, Pakistan remained obsessed with the argument that ‘Commander Jadhav’ is a spy and terrorist implying that he has no rights under the VCCR. One cannot find any legal provision, in the transcript of oral submissions, in support of this proposition. It was just rhetoric.
Fourth, Pakistan had informed India that it had arrested an Indian national, Jadhav, and India, at the ICJ and otherwise accepted it, but still at the oral hearing Pakistan insisted on questioning what India had done to prove that he was an Indian national. Pakistan even questioned why, for instance, a birth certificate was not provided as in the situation of Mexico in the Avena case (Mexico versus United States) on 5 February 2003.
Finally, Pakistan said that the ICJ is not a court of criminal appeal. This is yet another miscalculation. India has never said that it is appealing against the death sentence of its national by a Pakistani court martial. One can point out a few more but let us turn to future.
Legally speaking, this is not the end of the road. It is just the beginning and Pakistan still has time to rethink its strategy. The first sensible step will be to observe the order of the ICJ in letter and in spirit as this is a legally binding order and non-compliance could lead to further orders against Pakistan and it may become liable to reparation. Second and most importantly, if Pakistan is aiming for a robust legal fight, it should listen carefully to candid confidential legal advice and chalk out a strategy accordingly.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1414166/pakistans-legal-follies-hague-court/
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/kashmir-hard-choices-only-new/d/111214