|
|
|
|
|
ELECTIONS
NAWAZ SHARIF (PML-N) |
|
|
ASIF ALI ZARDARI (PPP)
IMRAN KHAN (PTI)
Return of the Gen a non-event
sri lanka
MARINE ROW
|
|
ELECTIONS
Pakistan
goes to the polls on May 11. As things stand today, it means jumping into an uncharted territory, given the unabated violence in some key cities, continuing near-insurgency conditions in Balochistan and tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. What the fragmented polity may be headed for is a hung Parliament, fostering instability and uncertainty in the post-election scenario. Yet, there are some positive aspects of the announcement never experienced by the country in its chequered history. For the first time, the National Assembly has died a natural death at the end of its mandated five-year term instead of being sent packing prematurely by outside forces, mainly the generals itching to seize direct power, as in 1968, ’69, ’77 and ’99, or in collusion with the Presidency, as happened four times during the decade of democratic governments in the 1990s. It is also the first time transition from one democratic government to another will take place in an orderly manner. A new experiment is under way with an interim government taking charge from the outgoing administration to ensure free, fair and transparent elections, akin to the Bangladesh model. Suitable amendments were made in the Constitution, involving both the government and the Opposition, in spelling out procedures for the selection of a caretaker premier and chief ministers, hoping it would provide a level playing field. An Election Commission has been constituted, with the consent of the Opposition, that enjoys full powers, similar to its counterpart in India.
CEC undermined All of this seems too good to believe in a country where rigging and manipulations are the norm. Expectedly, it turned out to be open to deceit and fraud. While a consensus was evolved to find a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) with impeccable credentials, the other four members were chosen arbitrarily by provincial governments on partisan considerations, neutralising the CEC, who has only one vote in the panel. The ruling parties at the Centre and in provinces flouted the CEC’s directives with impunity and indulged in last-minute recruitments, transfers and postings on a massive scale, and released billions for development schemes to blatantly influence voters. In the formation of the interim set-up, both sides have tried to nominate favourites, resulting in a deadlock at every stage because of their entrenched positions. The committee system has also not worked for the same reason, with both sides refusing to budge, leaving the commission to exercise an awkward choice. In Sindh, the ruling coalition comprising the PPP and the MQM pulled a fast one on the opposition when the MQM “quit” after remaining partners in power for four years and 11 months, ostensibly to don the mantle of opposition. In reality, it colluded with the PPP to name a pliant caretaker chief minister. In Balochistan, 64 members in the 65-member Assembly have all along held ministerial posts, leaving only one in the opposition who had been facing criminal cases and never entered the House. Overnight, more than half of these members labelled themselves as opposition, and chose the interim chief minister.
No clear winner The election scenario is also very murky. The PPP as the biggest party, with presence in all four provinces, is on the decline under Asif Ali Zardari because of the deplorable performance, corruption and incompetence. It is likely to fare badly in the elections. Opinion polls have predicted victory for the PML-N led by Nawaz Sharif, a frontrunner in the race for Prime Minister. The party, however, is dominant only in Punjab and some pockets in Khyber Pakhtunkhawa. Sharif has desperately forged alliances in smaller provinces with nationalists to be able to stitch together a viable coalition in a hung Parliament. The PPP is expected to win majority in Sindh, even if with reduced margin. It already controls the Senate to make it impossible for a PML-N government to undertake any meaningful legislation. In this scenario, the emergence of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) as a formidable third force promises to throw a spanner in the PML-N’s works. Khan has caught the imagination of the country’s educated and unemployed youth and given hope of a change to the deprived segments of society. He has promised to topple the ‘corrupt ruling classes’, tax the rich and undertake ambitious programmes to provide jobs, education, health and clean water to the underprivileged. He is confident his “tsunami” will sweep into power and many analysts tend to believe him. The PPP and the PML-N are relying on ‘electables’ among influential families. But Imran says the electoral dynamics have changed to upset their calculations. In an unprecedented move, he has enrolled about 7 million members who have elected their representatives in transparent intra-party elections at the grassroots level. The preoccupation with these elections for several months till this week impacted the PTI’s popularity, pulling it down the ladder after being on the top a year ago. Khan hopes to rebound following a massive public rally held in Lahore on Saturday. Imran Khan has pledged to pull out of what he describes as America’s war on terror, saying it would deny militants the excuse to unleash terror inside Pakistan. His manifesto commits the country to peace and stability in the region by improving ties with neighbours. Nawaz Sharif also articulates similar views. This will ensure strident anti-India slogans find no place at the hustings. Both Nawaz and Imran have distanced themselves from previous conservative stances and moved closer to the centre. The PPP essentially has a secular make-up, but has shied away from taking bold initiatives to curb fanaticism. There are serious apprehensions that militants might unleash terror attacks to disrupt campaign rallies. Political leaders might be targeted. Sectarian violence has also crept in with full force to indulge in senseless bloodbath. Under such unsettling conditions, if no party wins a simple majority, the army, which has hitherto supported democratic transition, may be tempted to reverse that policy and define future course of national politics.
|
|
NAWAZ SHARIF (PML-N) After Zia’s death in 1988, Sharif posed a challenge to the newly elected Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, with whom he later alternated in the office twice in the 1990s. As premier, Sharif deregulated the economy and focused on improving infrastructure. He also ordered Pakistan’s first nuclear tests in response to India’s in May 1998. Being a businessman, he has been supportive of promoting trade ties with India and signed the historic Lahore Declaration in February 1999 with Atal Behari Vajpayee to launch a peace process. The process was, however, subverted by the disastrous Kargil adventure. Then army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf shifted responsibility to the civilian leadership to oust Sharif in October 1999. Sharif was sentenced to death on the charge of “hijacking” Musharraf’s plane, which was converted under US pressure to 10-year exile in Saudi Arabia. In exile, Sharif coalesced with archrival Benazir Bhutto and returned to Pakistan in late 2007 to contest elections. After Benazir’s assassination, her successor Asif Zardari used Sharif to defeat Musharraf’s PML-Q in the February 2008 election and then replace him as president in September. The PML-N formed a government in the key Punjab province under Sharif’s younger brother Shahbaz Sharif. As the main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif sustained the PPP government at the Centre by opposing any military intervention.
|
|
|
ASIF ALI ZARDARI (PPP) He was arrested on charges of corruption in late 1996, following the collapse of the Bhutto government. He remained under trial for eight years, was bailed out in 2004, and subsequently went into self-exile in Dubai, but returned in December 2007 after Bhutto’s assassination. As co-chairman of the PPP, he led his party to victory in 2008. His coalition ousted Musharraf and was he elected President in September, 2008. As President, Zardari has been in perennial conflict with the judiciary, but in reconciling with the army and gave a three-year extension to its chief Gen Pervez Kayani and has remained a strong US ally. Initially, he vowed to pursue friendly relations, but reversed it under army pressure. He is street smart and has maintained a fragile coalition based on patronage. To retain his hold, he installed docile and incompetent leaders on top jobs at the Centre and in Sindh and Balochistan. Zardari outsmarted rival Nawaz Sharif and roped in Sharif’s foes in the PML-Q to join the ruling coalition. He encouraged constitutional reforms, reduced his powers and enhanced the share of provinces in national finance. His strong political instincts, however, are equally neutralised by weak administrative capacity, which has pushed the economy to the brink collapse, led to rampant corruption, energy crisis, and utter neglect of social sectors. His security fears have made him live a bunker’s life, alienating the common man and party workers, resulting in steep slide of public support.
|
|
|
IMRAN KHAN (PTI) In April 1996, Khan founded and became chairman of a political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which did not take off for over a decade. While few took him seriously despite the hero image, the combative Khan went around all over the country to arouse empathy for his ideals. On October 30, 2011, he held the biggest ever rally in recent years in Lahore’s historic Manto Park, building the PTI as as a political force no less formidable than the PPP and PML-N. At a time when leaders shunned public meetings for fear of terrorism, Imran boldly addressed huge gatherings, he capturing the imagination of educated youth. This is a huge reserve which can be used extensively in the elections. He has emerged as a leader promising change and determined to rid the country of dynastic politics. He has also gathered around him men of intellect and innovative ideas. International opinion polls have rated him as the most popular leader of the country. Last year he embarked upon a risky exercise of holding intra-party elections. The process took longer than was expected and concluded only this week. This shifted the focus away from his party. Analysts feel the ‘tsunami of public support’ he has been promising has subsided.
|
Former
military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf's plans to end his five-year self-exile and return to Pakistan on March 24 have generated greater interest abroad than exciting people at home. He has been making such declarations in the past but backtracked later, often on the advice of the army for the embarrassment it may cause to the institution. He faces a litany of charges — treason, subversion of Constitution, murder, dismissing and detaining judges, shutting media outlets for weeks and involving the country in an endless cycle of terrorism by joining US operations. He risks threat to personal security from various elements, including religious groups and Taliban terrorists, and has been seeking assurances from the government and the army to guarantee safety, which he may not get. Musharraf says his All-Pakistan Muslim League (APML) launched in 2010 would actively participate in the polls in all four provinces. The claim comes despite his party being a non-starter. The only known representative of the party is Ahmed Raza Kasuri, a non-entity. Musharraf's offer of alliance has been spurned by Imran Khan, Tahirul Qadri, PML-Q and even the MQM, in which he had invested so much while in power. This has induced him to land in Karachi, hoping the Urdu-speaking crowds would accord him a rousing reception. The media has largely ignored his announcement. Musharraf has, however, launched an aggressive paid media campaign. He has lobbied hard with the Saudi rulers to reward him for services rendered, exert pressure on the Pakistan government and neutralise his inveterate foe, Nawaz Sharif. He is timing the return to the formation of an interim government with Dr Ishrat Hussain — who served as State Bank governor during his rule — as premier, hoping he would protect him. Musharraf cites the over quarter million fans on Facebook as proof of his support. He is convinced the terrible conditions prevalent for the past five years would spur people to look towards him with nostalgic memories of better days under him. Most analysts, however, believe Musharraf knows he would be unable to make any significant impact. It is the post-election scenario in case of a hung Parliament in which he visualises a role.
|
||
|
sri lanka
New
Delhi's vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva for a second successive year may have just tightened the island nation's embrace of China and Pakistan, the two main adversaries of India. Though China is currently not a member of the UNHRC, the new Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke to Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajpaksa three days before the UN meet and offered his support in protecting the sovereignty of the strategically located Indian Ocean country. Pakistan, which stood by Sri Lanka at the meet, is said to be toying with the idea of sponsoring such a resolution against India for alleged rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. Although the UNHRC resolutions are non-binding, the passage of the anti-Lanka resolution threatens to cast a shadow over India's ties with its neighbour. The overwhelming opinion in Sri Lanka is that India has allowed its domestic politics to dictate its foreign policy. The result is that India is not only fast losing goodwill in Sri Lanka, but also a majority of people in the Sinhala-dominated nation consider New Delhi as an enemy and a regional bully. This does not augur well for India. Pakistan will always remain a thorn in India's foreign policy but things seem to have gone terribly wrong in our ties with even other neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh and the Maldives.
The politics of it Much before the resolution on Sri Lanka actually came up at the meet, political parties of Tamil Nadu had started raising the pitch over the plight of their Tamil brethren in the island nation. The game of political one-upmanship peaked when the DMK withdrew support to the UPA government at the Centre even though the anti-Lanka resolution was yet to be put to vote. Even students in Tamil Nadu joined the stir in the run-up to the UNHRC debate on the alleged violation of rights during the final stages of the war between the Lankan forces and the LTTE. Nobody can deny the LTTE was one of the most dreaded terrorist outfits in the world. How could anyone in India have sympathy for the outfit which was responsible for the killing of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991? So it would be wrong to say the LTTE was an enemy of Sri Lanka alone. It caused immense damage to India as well. Still it had sympathisers in this country, particularly among Tamil Nadu politicians. The war against the LTTE began in July 2006 after the failure of the Norway brokered ceasefire. It's a fact that the Indian Government, bound by domestic political compulsions, covertly helped the Sri Lankan forces to destroy the LTTE. By the end of 2008, the script was no longer being dictated by LTTE chief V Prabhakaran but by the Sri Lankan forces, tacitly supported by not only India, but also by China and Pakistan.
Split in half The war in Lanka decisively but controversially ended in May 2009 with the annihilation of the LTTE. But it left a trail of death and destruction in Tamil-dominated areas. According to estimates, some 3,00,000 persons were rendered homeless while thousands of civilians were killed or maimed. Opinion is divided on whether the LTTE was committed to the cause of the Tamil minority or was pursuing an agenda to take control of power in Colombo. However, Prabhakaran's killing has more or less ended that debate since there is little chance of the revival of the ruthless outfit. “The LTTE can't be revived. Even if the world wants, there is no question of its revival,” says senior journalist MR Narayanaswamy, who has been a long-time watcher of events in Lanka. A book by a former BBC journalist Frances Harrison based on interviews with those who survived the war says more than 40,000 civilians died towards the end of the bloody conflict. Confront the government in Colombo with facts about the atrocities during the conflict, the flat reply would be: there were hardly any innocent civilian killings. Rajapkasa's aides will talk more about development projects undertaken in northern areas and how thousands of people rendered homeless due to the war have been rehabilitated within three years. Sri Lanka observers say Rajapaksa would have gone down in history as a statesman had he been magnanimous in the victory of his forces. He could have gone public and stated the LTTE was an enemy of the nation. In defeating the outfit, atrocities might have been committed by the Sri Lanka forces, for which he could have apologised. He could have admitted there was "collateral damage" and announced compensation for families of those killed or injured in the military action. Unfortunately, he basked in the glory of his victory and refused to face the truth that there were wanton killings of the Tamils. Despite promises to India that he was committed to devolving authority to the country's provinces, including those dominated by the Tamils in the north and east, under the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka's Constitution, Rajapaksa has done precious little. He appears to have ruled out greater political autonomy for the Tamil minority in recent months.
China card India's point of view is that Sri Lanka must implement the 13th Amendment in letter and spirit. At the same time, it realises its limitations in dealing with Rajapaksa. Every time India tries to corner him on the Tamil issue, he threatens New Delhi with the 'China card'. Senior Indian officials, however, admit Rajapaksa has done nothing that could be construed as anti-India. Even the strategic Hambantota Port project was given to China after no Indian company showed interest in undertaking it. Colombo allowed India to open a consulate at Hambantota to allow it to keep an eye on Chinese activities in its periphery. India is convinced Rajapaksa would not give up the 'Sinhala chauvinist' tag he wears on his sleeve. In Tamil Nadu, unfortunately, the issue of "genocide" of Lankan Tamils is a pawn in the hands of political parties, with both the DMK and the AIADMK seeking to rouse sympathies and position themselves as true custodians of the Tamils. The Sri Lankan Tamils perhaps would have been better off had the political class in the Indian state not tried to make political capital out of their miseries. Karunanidhi was a friend of Prabhakaran but he never showed any desire to visit Sri Lanka to express solidarity with the Tamils there. Neither did he try to prevail on Prabhakaran to give up his agenda as it was only harming the interests of Tamils in the island. When the Tamils in Lanka were facing hardships at the end of the conflict in 2009, the DMK and its representatives were bargaining for plum ministerial berths in the UPA-II government. And what about the lone crusader — MDMK chief Vaiko — who had said famously there would be bloodbath in Tamil Nadu if Prabhakaran was harmed? He continues to pay lip service to the cause. It's time for India to look at its Lanka policy afresh. It must nudge the Rajapaksa government to conduct an independent probe into allegations of war atrocities and implement the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission to ensure justice, equality, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans. At the same time, it must ensure domestic politics do not interfere with its foreign policy.
The resolution The US-sponsored resolution, adopted with an overwhelming majority on Thursday, called upon the Sri Lankan Government to conduct an “independent and credible” investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. India wanted at least seven amendments to be incorporated in the text, including one which supported the call for an “independent and credible investigation”, but with a rider that such a probe must be to the satisfaction of the international community. However, Washington dissuaded India from insisting on introducing its amendments, arguing that this might weaken the support for the resolution at the 47-member body.
|
||
|
MARINE ROW The incident happened when both governments were grappling with pressing problems. While Italy was in the midst of coping with a hung Parliament, the UPA government was struggling with major problems — the DMK tried to rock the ruling coalition by withdrawing its support and Congress minister Beni Prasad Verma offended the Samajwadi Party whose outside support was crucial for survival.
Many to blame While the Centre was guilty of not opposing their plea for allowing them to go to Italy for four weeks to vote in the February 24-25 election, the apex court accepted an undertaking by Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini that he would ensure their return by March 22. However, the main culprit was the Italian government which took the court for a ride. Italy sent three letters in the form of note verbale to the Indian Government. The first one was on March 11 on its decision not to send the marines back; the second was on March 15 questioning the court's jurisdiction to pass an order restraining its envoy from leaving India; and the third immediately after the court's March 18 order, rejecting the envoy's claim to immunity. A three-member Bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir explained it had allowed the marines to go in good faith as it did not expect a sovereign democratic country like Italy, which had friendly ties with India, to renege on its solemn commitment.
Diplomatic low After receiving the first note verbale, the government launched a diplomatic offensive against Italy which had already approached the European Union to somehow avoid sending its marines back to India. Right from the foreign office level to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, everyone sent out a clear message to Italy that its behaviour was not acceptable. Never before in the history of Indian judiciary and diplomacy has a minor incident such as this assumed alarming proportions. And this is despite the fact that fishermen from Tamil Nadu regularly fall prey to bullets fired by Sri Lankan naval personnel. It all started in the Arabian Sea in the afternoon of February 15, 2012, when an Italian oil tanker, Enrica Laxie, was travelling from Singapore to Egypt with a crew of 34, including 19 Indians, and a fishing trawler, St Antony, with 11 fishermen on board was on its way to catch tuna. The two marines opened fire on the trawler, killing two fishermen. The Indian Coast Guard chased down the Italian carrier nearly three hours later, by when it had travelled 39 nautical miles (NM) from the scene of the incident, which had occurred at 20.5 NM off Kerala coast — well within the territorial waters of India or Indian Contiguous Zone which extends up to 24 NM. Italy maintains the incident occurred outside Indian waters. The tanker was brought to Kochi port and the marines were arrested. A special investigation team filed a chargesheet against them in the court of Kollam Chief Judicial Magistrate on May 18, 2012. The European Union had stepped into the controversy on March 13, 2012, with its spokesperson calling for a “satisfactory resolution” of the case. The Italian foreign ministry summoned Debabrata Saha, Indian ambassador in Rome, on December 14, 2012 and conveyed its displeasure over the court case. Italy challenged in the Supreme Court Kerala Government’s powers to prosecute the marines, contending they could be tried only at an international forum under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. On January 18, the apex court ruled Kerala had no power to prosecute the marines. The Centre had ordered the trial by a special court to be set up by it. Citing the UN charter on the principles of international law, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and J Chelameswar held the marines could be tried “only at the level of the Federal or Central Government and cannot be the subject matter of a proceeding initiated by a provincial/state government”.
Special court The court, however, granted liberty to Italy to raise once again the issue of India's jurisdiction in the case before the special court. If the special court came to the conclusion that both India and Italy had concurrent jurisdiction over the matter, then the Supreme Court order asking the Centre to hold the trial would prevail, the Bench clarified. The marines will now face trial in the special court to be set up by the Centre. While the special court would decide whether the incident had taken place within the territorial waters of India, doubts over the other larger issues would have to be cleared at the diplomatic level or through a judicial mechanism acceptable to the international community.
TIMELINE Feb 15, 2012: Two fishermen shot by the marines in Indian waters March 13, 2012: European Union calls for “satisfactory resolution” of the case May 18, 2012: SIT files chargesheet Dec 14, 2012: Italy summons Indian ambassador to convey its displeasure Jan 18, 2013: the apex court ruled
Kerala had no power to prosecute the marines Feb 24, 2013: Marines allowed to go to Italy to cast vote March 11, 2013: Italy refuses to send its marines back to India March 15, 2013: Italy questions SC jurisdiction to restrain its envoy from leaving India March 18, 2013: Italy opposes rejection of envoy's claim to immunity March 21, 2013: Italy agrees to send the marines back
Points to ponder
What now
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE president of the PML-N has emerged as frontrunner for Prime Minister, according to recent opinion polls. Scion of a migrant industrialist family of Punjab, Nawaz Sharif (54) rose to prominence under the patronage of then military dictator Gen Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s, and became Chief Minister of Punjab. In a departure from feudal politics, he successfully created a rightwing coalition of the middle class, trading community and conservative religious groups.
THE 48-year-old widower of Benazir Bhutto is the 11th President of Pakistan since September 2008 and co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), an office he assumed after Bhutto’s assassination. A Sindhi from a landowning Baloch tribe, Zardari rose to prominence after marriage to Bhutto in 1987. Between 1993 and 1996, he held various Cabinet positions in the second Bhutto administration.
THE cricketer-turned politician has earned immense fame with his legendary cricketing career and impassioned philanthropic projects. Suave, erudite and monstrously talented, he exhibited great leadership as one of the finest captains Pakistan has produced. He has set up a modern Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital in Lahore, where 70 per cent of the patients get free treatment. It is gradually branching out to other cities. In home town Mianwali, he has established Numl University that is affiliated with Bradford.
THE return of the two Italian marines has resolved an unprecedented diplomatic crisis, but not before teaching a bitter lesson to the two governments and the Indian judiciary. Top diplomats and the political leadership in both countries had to endure nightmares during the 10-day ordeal that began on March 11 when Italy decided to give a go-by to its commitment to the Supreme Court to send the marines back to India. India heaved a sigh of relief on March 21 when it received a communication from Italy, announcing Rome’s change of heart.
The blame for letting such a situation develop has to be shared by everyone who had a role in the case relating to marines Massimiliano Lattore and Salvatore Girone, who are facing trial for allegedly killing two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast on February 15, 2012.