The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS

50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

OPINION

Institutionalising army’s role in Pakistan
General Musharraf’s difficulties
S. Nihal Singh
WAY back in 1967, as the first Indian newspaper correspondent to be based in Islamabad after the 1965 war, I savoured in full the Ayub Khan dispensation. He had unveiled his foreign policy testament, “Friends, Not Masters”, seeking a measure of dignity from his country’s Cold War ally and protector, the USA. He had imposed his version of democracy, which he preferred to call basic democracy”, in an effort to eliminate the political class at the national and provincial levels and had donned the mantle of the country’s presidency.

Plan panel’s delusions
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
PRIME Minister Vajpayee had advised the Planning Commission to aim for a 9 per cent growth rate in the Tenth Plan. The commission, however, has set for itself a less ambitious target of 8 per cent. In order to achieve even this small increase, the commission has pointed out that government savings, capital expenditure and foreign investment will have to be increased. But the track record of the BJP-led government is in the exactly opposite direction. All the major indicators are headed downwards.

MIDDLE

Price for progress
J. L. Gupta
MAN has reached the moon. Lives in multi-storeyed monsters. But with each “floor”, he is getting away from the ground. Losing touch with the reality. And the progeny is paying for it. The children are charming. It is fun to play and prattle about with them. But the grandchildren are in a class of their own. They are just grand. Madhav, my son’s son, is not four yet. But the little fellow is the God’s gift to the whole family. He makes everyone feel great. The few days that we get to spend with him are always a pure delight.

TRENDS & POINTERS

Anchor Daljit Dhaliwal to marry
Well-known ITN anchor Daljit Dhaliwal is getting married to an American television journalist. London-based Dhaliwal, whose celebrated “World News for Public Television” can be seen on 40 PBS stations in the US, has said she will be marrying American TV journalist Lee Patrick Sullivan later this year.

Child’s Carnegie adventure
Films with content are back

POINT OF LAW

Anupam Gupta
The latest gatecrasher at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, Islamabad
SWORN in and sanctified by none other than the Chief Justice of Pakistan, betraying political and judicial collusion at the highest level of the state, Gen Pervez Musharraf took over as President across the border last week, with India — and only India — applauding in a wholly unnecessary demonstration of diplomatic tact.

75 YEARS AGO

Forcible possession of Akal Takht

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

EDITORIALS

Question of railway safety

HARDLY a year passes when there is no major train accident in India. Immediately an enquiry committee is constituted to go into the circumstances leading to the tragedy, and everything ends there. What happens after such an exercise is rarely known. Nothing more should be expected of the probe ordered into Friday's railway disaster near Kozhikode ( Malappuram district, Kerala) which claimed at least 52 lives. Whatever may be the cause of the mishap, the affected families will, in most cases, accept it as fate-ordained, and the guilty may go unpunished. A depressing scenario, indeed! One wishes some of the kin of those killed or seriously injured took up cudgels and sued the Railway Ministry or the Southern Railway for not ensuring the safety of the passengers, the first requirement for any kind of travel. Of course, nothing can substitute a human life lost. Yet there is pressing need to tell those managing the world's biggest railway network that the travelling public is not going to spare them if they compromise on safety standards.

No one can dispute the truth that most of the accidents occur mainly because of human failure or carelessness or insensitivity to safety standards. Take the latest case of the Kadalundi river railway bridge which collapsed when the Mangalore-Chennai Mail reached it at a speed of nearly 100 kmph. As officially admitted, it all happened when a pier of the bridge sank into the river-bed. The bridge was one of a number of such structures raised by the British between 1880 and 1890 by using the screwpile foundation technology in an emergency situation. They had to tackle the crisis caused by a severe famine. The bridges were not meant to serve for over a century as used all these years. The country realised the threat posed by the screwpile foundation bridges when such a structure over the Vapi river on the Mumbai-Baroda section was destroyed by flood waters in 1975. After some time, however, everybody forgot about it. Again in 1989 the Bridge Rehabilitation Committee identified around 25 railway bridges having screwpile foundations, which needed to be dismantled soon. But the Railway Ministry slept over the crucial recommendation as if it had no significance. Thus what happened near Kozhikode could have happened anytime. Not to talk of abandoning the dangerous bridges, trains were run without any restriction on speed. The Kozhikode mishap could have been averted, or the toll could be much less if the train speed was under a permissible limit. This one example should be enough to establish that we as a nation are least bothered about safety standards. Safety may be a significant factor, but it does not seem to be on the priority list of the Railway Ministry. While presenting the budget proposals, the Railway Minister, whosoever he is, invariably prefers to appease his constituency or different pressure groups. When Ms Mamata Banerjee occupied the ministerial chair in Rail Bhawan, the Railway Safety Review Committee headed by Justice H. R. Khanna (retd) had assessed that the railways required at least Rs 15,000 crore for bringing about technological improvements on the safety front. The Minister simply ignored the suggestion, saying that the railways did not have funds for such purposes. Do we still hope for a safe train journey?

Unmollified Manipur

IN its desperate search for a quick fix, the Centre has taken one half-step to muddy the Manipur situation. It summoned 10 political leaders on Saturday to attend its durbar and after three hours of “constructive talks” declared that it would review every issue. What is wrong with this? The people in the state are so angry that a semblance of normalcy will return only after Prime Minister Vajpayee or Home Minister Advani visits the Capital and holds out a solemn assurance that their territory will never shrink. Instead, the people were treated to a brief appearance of Mr Advani on the television to make the core point. Home Secretary Kamal Pande said in relation to nothing in particular that the “commitment to the Constitution, democracy and peace will not be diluted”. He forgot that the Manipuris were not fighting for or against such a dilution. The state politicians are not exactly the darlings of the masses. They are actually in hiding. To treat their views as those of the whole people of Manipur is making the people feel that the Centre is adding insult to injury. New Delhi should listen to a BJP MLA who can become Chief Minister if the party overcomes the reservations of the all-defector Samata legislature party. A retired colonel, Mr Bhuban Singh, says the Centre has shown unsolicited bias towards the NSCN (I-M) and this has naturally created misgivings in the minds of the Manipuris.

At the height of the present controversy it has come to light that the Centre and the NSCN (I-M) had worked out ground rules for the enforcement of the ceasefire agreement. Two aspects of it are astonishing. The Naga insurgents will be allowed to shift from one transit camp to another after notifying the Army. In return the Army or the police will not enter the area within a 1 km radius of the camp and will not interrogate or arrest any member of the insurgent group. This is the Centre’s commitment and it gives an umbrella shelter to the members of the NSCN (I-M) to indulge in extortion and levy a loyalty tax varying between 10 per cent and 30 per cent. This advance and permanent amnesty has helped the NSCN (I-M) to sell its franchise to marginal militant groups. For instance, when a petty group of bank robbers were nabbed by the police they sought and received immunity by claiming to be members of the NSCN (I-M). The Centre today says that it had no clue to the intensity of the Manipuri passions. This is nonsense. In 1997 when the ceasefire agreement was first signed with the NSCN (I-M), a disparate group of organisations called a meeting and five lakhs of people packed the Polo Grounds in Imphal to condemn the accord. It is not an intelligence failure but a stunning political miscalculation.

OPINION

Institutionalising army’s role in Pakistan
General Musharraf’s difficulties
S. Nihal Singh

WAY back in 1967, as the first Indian newspaper correspondent to be based in Islamabad after the 1965 war, I savoured in full the Ayub Khan dispensation. He had unveiled his foreign policy testament, “Friends, Not Masters”, seeking a measure of dignity from his country’s Cold War ally and protector, the USA. He had imposed his version of democracy, which he preferred to call basic democracy”, in an effort to eliminate the political class at the national and provincial levels and had donned the mantle of the country’s presidency.

Murmurs of corruption in the ranks of the armed forces and in the very family of Ayub Khan were bazaar gossip. Ayub thought he was immune to these pinpricks. He had resolved Pakistan’s perennial problem of governance since the untimely demise of the founder and the assassination of the first Prime Minister. The armed forces, in tendem with the bureaucracy, had found the answer, in effect bribing men at the grassroot level with money and development projects.

As Pakistan has alternated between army and civilian rule, the military rulers who assumed power modelled themselves after Ayub Khan who, among the Generals seizing power, had almost gained some legitimacy. Those who followed him found that retaining power was a slippery slope, and, as night follows day, the initial welcome of the people to a new broom seemingly sweeping corruption away turns sour. And every General has found that the answer to the army retaining real power while letting civilians rule has eluded him.

The most recent General to bring his country salvation is Pervez Musharraf who has now blotted his copybook somewhat by sacking the titular President, himself donning the robes of the presidency by a sleight of hand, an amendment to the Provisional Constitutional Order. And as if to signify his new persons, the General wore civilian clothes when he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

It has been the ambition of Pakistan’s military rulers to legimitise the army’s role in the governance of the country. In appointing a Prime Minister after years of army rule, General Zia-ul-Haq retained the power of dismissing him and dissolving the federal and provincial assemblies. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were dismissed — until the latter did what both parties have been promising to do, to abrogate the invidious constitutional provision. General Musharraf then decided it was time for another coup.

Pakistan’s tragedy was the death of its founder shortly after it became a nation and the legitimacy the chosen Prime Minister could have given was never tested because he died at the hands of the assassin. The Cold War alliance Pakistan formed with the USA, largely because India was on the other side of the fence, played a role in enhancing the army’s political fortunes because of the new toys it received as a reward and the understandable nexus that came to exist between the US Pentagon and Pakistan’s military establishment.

Just when Americans were seeking to reassess their relationship with Pakistan, the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan, and, as is usual with the American establishment when high stakes are involved, all thought of disciplining an army riding high was given up. Pakistan was simply too valuable as an anti-Soviet base to train and fund guerrillas, send arms across and use its military infrastructure to ask questions about the nature of Pakistani polity.

The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the ultimate ascendance of the Taliban have left a mixed and troubling legacy for Pakistan. In political terms, the consequences have been negative; the army’s role and of its intelligence wing, the ISI, were further enhanced. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif sought to cope with the fallout as best they could, knowing full well that on Kashmir and security policy, the military had what amounted to a veto.

General Musharraf faces a curious scenario today. The leaders of the two mainstream parties are abroad and cannot return home for the present. The leader of the third party, the MQM, is in self-exile in London. The General has made it clear that these leaders will not be given the welcome mat as and when they return home. Apart from making himself President, he has vowed that the Supreme Court’s deadline for returning to democratic rule will be honoured.

General Musharraf has already initiated local elections, taking a leaf out of Ayub’s book, disregarding the latter’s ultimate failure in promoting “basic democracy”. How he seeks to resolve the dilemma remains to be seen. If he sees himself as an all-powerful President tolerating an elected Prime Minister given little room for manoeuvre, the experiment cannot succeed. Whatever his compulsions, the manner in which the General has assumed the presidency is an indication of his failure to take a less offensive route.

Every General who assumes political power in a coup in Pakistan, or elsewhere for that matter, dwells on two themes. He is acting in the interests of the country and is eager to rid himself of the burden of political power. In General Musharraf’s case, the deadline has been set by the Supreme Court, but few can forget the flourish with which General Zia had set his own deadline and how days and months stretched to years, the General meeting his end in a mysterious plane crash.

Some Pakistani Generals — not necessarily the coup leaders — have articulated the army’s desired role on the Turkish model, which has the mechanism of a security council dominated by the armed forces that vets important political, foreign policy and security decisions. The army seeks legitimacy from the founder Ataturk and sees itself as the ultimate guardian and defender of the constitution. In Pakistan’s case, there is no such legitimacy for the army and it must perforce rely on its capacity to solve problems and its reputation for being less corrupt.

General Musharraf is facing the dilemma of his predecessors. The army has to show results in a limited period of time, and the longer an army regime is in power, the greater is the chance of its ranks falling prey to corruption. The tragedy is that a coup leader’s eagerness to emphasise his altruism and desire to do good stands in the way of an honest public discussion on the merits of institutionalising the army’s role in governing Pakistan.

The writer is a former Editor of The Statesman.

Plan panel’s delusions
Bharat Jhunjhunwala

PRIME Minister Vajpayee had advised the Planning Commission to aim for a 9 per cent growth rate in the Tenth Plan. The commission, however, has set for itself a less ambitious target of 8 per cent. In order to achieve even this small increase, the commission has pointed out that government savings, capital expenditure and foreign investment will have to be increased. But the track record of the BJP-led government is in the exactly opposite direction. All the major indicators are headed downwards. It would be a herculean task for this government to even undo the damage it has done in the last three years. To aim for 8 per cent growth is a certain delusion. It would be hard enough for the government to maintain the present rate of 6 per cent.

The commission has brought out its Approach Paper to the Tenth Five Year Plan. It has suggested that an increase in the growth rate to 8 per cent can be achieved if the following are done. The savings — in the government, corporate and household sectors — and proceeds from PSU divestment are increased, fiscal deficit is reduced, and revenue expenditures are cut while capital expenditures are raised. Technically, these are all correct. But the track record of the NDA government is in the opposite direction on all these parameters. It has actually undone whatever improvement had been brought about by its predecessors.

The commission has suggested that the savings of the government will have to increase from the present (-)0.6 to 1.7 per cent of the GDP. According to the Economic Survey, however, the public sector savings had been around 1-2 per cent before BJP-led coalition had taken over. In 1998-99 it fell to (-)0.8 per cent and further to (-)1.2 per cent in 1999-2000.

The situation in the corporate and household sectors is not much different. The savings of the corporate sector have been declining continuously since 1995-96 when they had touched an all-time high of 4.9 per cent of the GDP. During the period of the UF government the savings declined to 4.3 per cent and under the BJP-led regime to 3.7 per cent. The commission wants this to be increased to 5.8 per cent. It is a difficult task for the NDA government to bring it back to the 4.9 per cent already achieved previously. The household sector has shown an increase from 17.8 to 19.8 per cent under the NDA government. But that will hardly be able to compensate for the huge declines in public and corporate sectors.

The commission has suggested that the revenue deficit of the Central Government will have to be reduced from 3.4 to 0.5 per cent. But the track record of Vajpayee government points in the opposite direction. According to RBI reports, the revenue deficit had touched a low of 2.5 per cent in the Congress-UF interregnum. It rose to 3.1 in the last year of the UF government and further to 3.8 per cent in the first two years of BJP-led government.

The commission wants the Central Government to increase the Plan expenditure from 3.9 to 4.5 per cent while reducing the non-Plan expenditures from 11.5 to 9.5 per cent of the GDP. These figures run more or less parallel to capital and revenue expenditures respectively. The RBI reports tell us that capital disbursements had been 3.5 per cent of the GDP in the first year of NDA rule. In the second year they fell to 2.6 per cent. Perhaps the high capital expenditures in the first year came from the momentum left by the past governments.

The commission wants the government to increase capital receipts (from PSU divestment, in the main) from 0.8 per cent to 1.2 per cent of the GDP. The government is making some headway in this direction but it is to be seen how much it can push against the opposition of its own supporters on this issue.

Lastly, the commission wants foreign capital inflows to be increased from 1.5 per cent of the GDP to 2.8 per cent. These inflows had touched a high of 2.3 per cent in 1996-97, the first year of the UF government. It has remained stagnant since then at 2, 0.9 and 1.9 per cent in the three years since then. It is unlikely that the NDA government would be able to secure an increase in these inflows, given the negative fallout of the Enron episode, and the slowdown in the global economy.

The NDA government is in trouble. Its advisers in the Planning Commission do not realise the compulsions under which it is working. They do not understand the contradiction between the increasing capital expenditure and reducing fiscal deficit. Instead of giving impractical sermons to a soft government, the commission should work out ways of increasing investment within the political compulsions.

MIDDLE

Price for progress
J. L. Gupta

MAN has reached the moon. Lives in multi-storeyed monsters. But with each “floor”, he is getting away from the ground. Losing touch with the reality. And the progeny is paying for it.

The children are charming. It is fun to play and prattle about with them. But the grandchildren are in a class of their own. They are just grand. Madhav, my son’s son, is not four yet. But the little fellow is the God’s gift to the whole family. He makes everyone feel great. The few days that we get to spend with him are always a pure delight.

He goes to a play school. He is aware of the need to be properly dressed. Also the car in which he goes. His mother drives him down everyday. On the road, he is more perceptive than I was at his age. He identifies the brand of each car. On reaching home, he has such a lot to tell. A new alphabet. A new game. The teacher. Even her dress. He cycles from one room to the other in the flat on the third floor and tells his tales.

Some days back, the school closed for the summer break. So, I went to Delhi. To pick him up. He knew it. His only query was — “Dadu, are you taking me to Maa — my grandmother?” “Yes Madhav!’ was my response. So, he agreed to come with me. For a while, he dozed off. There was peace. But before long, he was up. Then followed the non-stop questioning. When shall we reach home? Why have you built your house so far? Why not near my house? Why do you not tell the driver to drive fast? Why do you not buy a big car? And so on. The queries continued.

I cannot recall an occasion when I may have been so patient with my son or daughter. But with grandchildren, things are different. I was earnestly eager to pamper him. To make him happy. To make him feel grand.

Finally, we were home. Having heard the horn, everyone was at the door. Madhav ran to his Maa. As if none else existed. He caught her at the knees. She also responded with great spontaneity. Picked him up. Despite her bad back. Kissed him. After a while, she took off his shoes. Washed his face, feet and hands. Changed his clothes. Made him feel comfortable. Talked to him. Listened to his stories. Served him food. Since that day Madhav and his Maa have always been together. All the time and everywhere. If she changes her clothes, he promptly asks — ‘Maa where are we going?” He is not being presumptuous. She just cannot go anywhere without him. If she puts on the nightclothes, he knows it is time for him to go to bed. There is a regular and well-regulated routine.

And he seems to like it. He has never cried. Made no protest. Takes his bath in the morning. Gets his hair combed. Without fuss. Drinks his glass of juice or milk. Eats his porridge. Also takes the other meals. Whenever asked. Without anyone having to ask him a second time. It may seem unbelievable, but it is true. Probably, obedience is the child’s way of responding to love and care.

Evenings are the time to play. He is out in the open with the small ball and bat. Sometimes, he plays with water. He also likes to be on the swing. For hours. With Maa in absolute attendance. Doling over her darling. Pushing and pulling the swing. Telling him all kinds of tales. Answering his queries. Just a few days back, there was the full moon. Sitting on the swing, he noticed it. He asked, “Maa what is that?”

“Son! It is the moon. Did I not tell you the story of “Chanda Mama”?”

“Maa! We can see Chanda Mama in Chandigarh? Why can I not see it in Delhi?”

For once, Maa was speechless.

Is this the price man pays for his progress?

TRENDS & POINTERS

Anchor Daljit Dhaliwal to marry

Well-known ITN anchor Daljit Dhaliwal is getting married to an American television journalist.

London-based Dhaliwal, whose celebrated “World News for Public Television” can be seen on 40 PBS stations in the US, has said she will be marrying American TV journalist Lee Patrick Sullivan later this year.

“We are both thrilled and excited and really look forward to our new life together”, Dhaliwal told The New York Post.

Born in London, Dhaliwal was named one of People magazine’s “50 Most Beautiful People in the World” in 1999. And in August 1999, Esquire named her one of the magazine’s “Women We Love”.

She earned a master’s degree in politics, history, and economics from the University of London, started her career as a reporter for the BBC in 1980, and then went to work at ITN in 1995.

Sullivan has also been a producer and reporter for Bloomberg.

Child’s Carnegie adventure

Nine-year-old South Asian American cellist Shaheen Malick performed at the Carnegie Hall at a sold-out School for Strings 30th anniversary concert.

Performing with 164 other cellists, led by Katherine Brainard, as well as 1,000 violinists, and an orchestra, Malick played Bach’s “Minuet in C;” “Tambourin,” a French traditional piece’; “Rigadoon” by Purcell; and “Allegro” by Shinichi Suzuki.

Shaheen’s teachers tell his father Ibrahim that the boy is a prodigy. “I hope he is prodigy,” Ibrahim told IANS. “Because the cello is a pretty expensive hobby.”

Films with content are back

It’s curtains for Hindi filmmakers who tread the beaten track and are wary of experimentation.

The success of actor-producer Aamir Khan’s “Lagaan” and the bold Sunny Deol-starrer “Gadar-Ek Prem Katha” is a lesson for the Hindi film industry ridden with archaic plots.

With 91 per cent films flopping last year and not a single hit in the first half of this year, the writing has been on the wall for some time. It took Aamir and a corporate house like Zee Productions to drive home the point that the film industry needs to rewrite its script.

The success of “Lagaan” and “Gadar” is likely to give a fillip to other commercial films waiting in the wings with genuinely different storylines.

Among them, “Dil Chahta Hai,” starring Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna, has already aroused a lot of curiosity.

The film about individuality marks Javed Akhtar’s daughter Farhan’s directorial debut. The film costars Preity Zinta, Sonali Kulkarni and Dimple Kapadia.

The Rakesh Mehra film “Aks”, with Amitabh Bachchan, Raveena Tandon, Manoj Bajpai and Nandita Das, also promises to be a cinematic treat. Besides its emphasis on content, the film shares another thing with “Lagaan” — actors are in charge of the purse strings in both films. IANS

POINT OF LAW

The latest gatecrasher at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, Islamabad
Anupam Gupta

SWORN in and sanctified by none other than the Chief Justice of Pakistan, betraying political and judicial collusion at the highest level of the state, Gen Pervez Musharraf took over as President across the border last week, with India — and only India — applauding in a wholly unnecessary demonstration of diplomatic tact.

Less than two years after he deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless military coup in October, 1999, and with just over 15 months left for compliance with the Supreme Court’s “deadline” for holding parliamentary elections, the General has, with a stroke of the pen, put himself beyond the pale of all democratic vicissitudes or whatever is left of democracy in Pakistan.

For while there is no guarantee that Gen Musharraf will actually hold elections by October, 2002, as undertaken by him before the Supreme Court, and not “seek” an extension for the purpose, he has now (having installed himself as President) nothing to lose even if the elections are held as promised.

Both under the original Pakistan Constitution of 1973 and the Supreme Court’s verdict of May 12, 2000, validating the military take-over “on the basis of the doctrine of state necessity and the principle of salus populi supreme lex ( the welfare of the people is the supreme law), elections are required to be held directly only to the National Assembly — the lower house of the Majlis-e-Shoora or Parliament — and the provincial Assemblies. The President of Pakistan is not elected directly by the people.

First and foremost, therefore, Gen Musharraf’s assumption of the presidency is intended to insulate and immunise himself from the obligations of representative democracy as stipulated by the Constitution and the judiciary.

“Upon the office of President becoming vacant for any reason whatsoever,” reads the presidential Succession Order o 2001, promulgated on June 20, “the Chief Executive of Pakistan shall be the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and shall perform all functions assigned to the President by or under any law.”

While the term “Chief Executive” is nowhere to be found in the 1973 Constitution, the very first chapter of Part III of the Constitution relating to the Federation of Pakistan (as distinguished from the provinces) is devoted to the presidency.

By a simple, disingenuous statement the Succession Order thus converts an institution or person wholly alien to the Constitution into a regular Head of State enjoying the entire panoply of powers granted by the Constitution. That is the other, major significance of the change in Gen Musharraf’s legal persona.

That this conversion is much more than the mere replacement of one President by another — former Supreme Court judge Rafiq Tarar by Gen Musharraf — is evident also from the presidential tenure claimed by the latter for himself.

“The tenure is well defined for the office of the President,” Musharraf’s press secretary, Maj Gen Rashid Quereshi, told the Press on June 22. “It is very clear.”

The reference obviously is to Article 44 of the Constitution which deals with the “term of office of President”.

“ (T)he President shall hold office for a term of five years from the day he enters upon his office,” reads Clause (1) of Article 44. “Provided that the President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.”

Musharraf, his press secretary thus meant to say, will hold office for a clear period of five years, starting from June 20, 2001.

Installed as President by normal constitutional process (of indirect election by members of both houses of Parliament and the provincial Assemblies) on January 1, 1998, Rafiq Tarar had already completed the major part of his term — 3½ years out of five — when he was removed on June 20.

Had Gen Musharraf merely replaced him, his tenure, co-extensive with that of Tarar, would runout on December 31, 2002.

Theoretical though it might seem in the face of the forcible military realities now obtaining in Pakistan, it would not seem out of place to mention here that the Constitution does not permit removal of the President except through impeachment by the Majlis-e-Shoora or Parliament.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, reads Article 47, the President may be “removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.”

Notice of such removal or impeachment may be given by not less than one-half of the total membership of each House, the National Assembly or Senate. Both the Houses shall then be summoned by the Speaker of the National Assembly for a joint sitting, which may investigate, or cause to be investigated, the ground or charge upon which the notice is based.

If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, a resolution is passed at a joint sitting of both the Houses by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of Parliament, declaring the President unfit to hold the office due to physical or mental incapacity or violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct — then and only then does the President “cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution”.

Even as Musharraf invoked Article 44 of the Constitution to confer a full five-year term on himself, he blatantly and cynically disregarded Article 47 while removing Rafiq Tarar.

The humility that he displayed in this process of mauling the Constitution is touching, indeed.

“In my entire career,” said Musharraf, speaking to reporters on June 20 after assuming the presidency, “I have never done anything for myself. God has been kind and continues to be kind to me. I bow my head before Him for all the bounties that He has showered on me. I will bow in more humility as I rise.”

No less impressive is the concern that the presidential Succession Order, which put Musharraf in place as Head of State, displays for the judiciary.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan, says the order, will be the Acting President of Pakistan in the absence of the President.

No idle sop, this. During the while President Musharraf is in India from July 14 to 16 just three weeks from now, negotiating the future of Kashmir, Mr Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, shall have the pleasure of stepping into the dictator’s boots. And strutting around in them.

What more can an independent judiciary want?

“If the President,” the order goes on to say, “by reason of absence from Pakistan or any other cause, is unable to perform his functions, and the Chief Justice of Pakistan is also absent from Pakistan, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court shall perform the functions of President until the President returns to Pakistan.”

Contrast all this with the existing provisions of the Constitution. (The word “existing” seems a little more than inapt but I hope the reader will understand what I mean).

“When the President, by reason of absence from Pakistan or any other cause”, reads Article 49, Clause (2), “is unable to perform his functions, the Chairman (of the Senate) or, if he too is absent or unable to perform the functions of the office of President, the Speaker of the National Assembly shall perform the functions of President until the President returns to Pakistan or, as the case may be, resumes his functions.”

But, General Musharraf will surely protest, how can that be when the Senate and the National Assembly, alongwith all the provincial Assemblies in the territory of Pakistan, have themselves been dissolved?

And gone with them are the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate as also the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, all of whom “ceased to hold office” with immediate effect from June 20.

The General is perfectly right, of course, except for the fact that the dissolution of all the legislatures and the ‘dismissal” of all their presiding officers are very much his own doing and not, despite his very modest acknowledgement of God’s kindness, an act of God.

Incidentally, as the former Chief Justice of Pakistan and Justice Irshad Hasan Khan’s immediate predecessor, Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, pointed out in an interview to the BBC on June 21, the Senate (like the Rajya Sabha in India) is a permanent body under the Constitution and could not be dissolved in any case.

This is not only a matter of necessary implication but is expressly so provided by Article 59, Clause (3) of the Constitution.

“The Senate (says the Clause) shall not be subject to dissolution but the term of its members, who shall retire as follows, shall be six years.....”

Unlike the Senate, the National Assembly in Pakistan in not a permanent body but has a fixed term of five years from the date of its first meeting. This is so laid down in Article 52 of the Pakistan Constitution of 1973, a provision modelled on Article 83, Clause (2) of the Indian Constitution relating to the Lok Sabha.

The President of Pakistan can, of course, dissolve the National Assembly if, in his opinion, a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the Prime Minister, no other member of the National Assembly is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly ascertained in a session of the Assembly summoned for the purpose.

That is Article 58, Clause (2) (a) of the Constitution, which conforms to the established conventions of parliamentary democracy since the days of Westminster. Or is even a shade better perhaps, for it expressly requires the confidence of the House to be ascertained at a session of the House convened for the purpose, leaving nothing to doubt or speculation.

The President can also dissolve the National Assembly on the advice of the Prime Minister (who still enjoys the confidence of the House). That is Article 58, Clause (1), a provision which again is fully consistent with Westminster conventions.

But the discretionary power of the Pakistan President to dissolve the National Assembly if, in his opinion, the “Government of the Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary” — a power vested in him by virtue of Clause (2) (b) of Article 58, popularly known as the Eighth Amendment, and so often abused in the 1980s and ‘90s — was done away with by Parliament in 1997 by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Whether, therefore, it is the removal of President Rafiq Tarar and his own installation as President in his place, or the dissolution of the National Assembly and the Senate, or the “dismissal” of their presiding officers —there is not a single step, literally not a single step undertaken by Gen Pervez Musharraf on June 20 which is not outrageously unconstitutional and undemocratic.

And yet, the Indian Prime Minister is the only leader in the world not only to congratulate Gen Musharraf but to congratulate him in advance, “in anticipation”.

And thereby confer on him a legitimacy which even the USA would shy away from.

With great respect, Mr Prime Minister, that is carrying diplomacy a bit too far.