The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Khan of nuclear bazaar
His freedom can be a danger to peace

Pakistan’s nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan has been put under house arrest again after a two-judge Lahore High Court bench reversed the decision of a judge of the same court on Wednesday. This came about within 24 hours of the US stating that Khan continued to pose a nuclear “proliferation risk”. Khan was declared a free man in February by the Islamabad High Court with the condition that his movements would remain restricted. But a few days back a single-judge bench of the Lahore High Court ordered removal of the “security protocol” for Khan, setting him free. This was an alarming development, forcing the US to express its concern. Islamabad acted promptly as the legislation for clearing the $7.5 billion five-year aid package for Pakistan is already before the US Congress.

Going by the nuclear sales record of Khan, he should never be allowed to live as a free person. By his own admission, he sold nuclear bomb technology and design secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He admitted to running the nuclear proliferation network when the Bush administration in 2004 provided ample proof of the Khan nuclear bazaar to the then Pakistan regime headed by Gen Pervez Musharraf. The truth is that what Khan was doing had been known to the Americans, but they kept looking the other way as this suited their scheme of things in the region. Khan’s activities could not have been hidden from the Pakistan Army, too, as he used Pakistan Air Force planes for his visits abroad. The irresponsible nuclear scientist has not been adequately dealt with.

Those who have been reading A. Q. Khan’s articles frequently appearing in the Pakistani press know that the man remains as serious a threat to peace as he ever was. The Pakistan Army has apparently not been restrained in its nuclear ambitions by the Americans either. No one knows whether the Pakistan Army has taken effective steps to ensure that its nuclear arsenal does not fall into the hands of militant groups like Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The right to know
Judges can’t claim immunity from RTI

Wednesday’s Delhi High Court ruling that information on assets declared by Supreme Court judges in possession of the Chief Justice of India will come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act deserves to be lauded because it will promote transparency and accountability in the judiciary. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has ruled that the CJI is a “public authority” under the RTI Act because he holds the information pertaining to asset declaration by him and his brother judges. The Tribune has been consistently maintaining in these columns that constitutional functionaries like judges should not claim immunity from the RTI.

Chief Justice of India Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, who is opposed to the judges’ inclusion in the RTI, had earlier led the other judges in favouring voluntary disclosure of assets by the Supreme Court judges. Only last week, he said that he would resist “tooth and nail” any attempt to share “confidential” information about appointments and transfers of judges and insisted that his office be kept outside the RTI purview. It is not clear why he has taken a rigid stand on the RTI, particularly because he and his brother judges have earned the nation’s appreciation after they recently agreed to disclose their assets in tune with the public opinion.

The CJI knows that the RTI will serve public interest better if he and other judges are deemed to be a part of the uniform application of law. The RTI has turned out to be a great check on the executive. Consequently, there is a strong case for extending the Act to sectors like the judiciary that remain insulated from it. While there is rationale behind exempting areas like national security, military deployment, international relations and the like from the RTI ambit, the judiciary has no valid reason to claim such immunity from public gaze. If judges support the RTI, like voluntary asset disclosures, it would enhance their moral stature, empower the people and give a fillip to the movement for the right to know.

Thought for the Day

There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision. — William James

ARTICLE

Poor governance in Pakistan
But no one wants to rock the boat
by Inder Malhotra

ON a week’s visit to Islamabad and Lahore I tried to attempt the virtually impossible: to explore the Pakistani scene after divorcing it from the vexed India-Pakistan relations. The venture succeeded to a surprising extent. For all my sources — some of them old friends and several hitherto unknown to me —were generous with their time and hospitality and candid in their comments and exposition. Their views differed, of course, but there was also underlying consensus.

Of the conclusions reached, the most important is that for a country that has been under direct military rule for a little over half its life and under the Army’s dominance even while successive civilian governments have come and gone, Pakistan is now very keen to preserve the democratic system ushered in by the February 2008 elections. What makes this all the more significant is that there is also general dissatisfaction with the present state of the polity, bedeviled by bitter divisions and poor governance.

No one but no one wants a return to Army rule, not even the Army. Its chief, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani, is busy repairing the grave damage done to its image by the ousted Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd). He does not want to interfere with the political process unless driven to it, as happened during the Long March for the restoration of Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as Chief Justice of Pakistan. Then he had discreetly told both President Asif Ali Zardari (who wanted to keep Justice Chaudhry out) and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (who was insistent on the dismissed Chief Justice’s reinstatement) that they must not allow things to get out of hand. Both complied.

However, virulent differences persist not only between Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari but also between the President and the Prime Minister, with the latter enjoying the tacit backing of the Army and open support of Mr Sharif whose Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) or PML (N) controls Punjab, the heart of Pakistan in every sense of the word. Originally, a coalition partner of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), headed by Mr Zardari, Mian Sahib (as Mr Sharif is called) had pulled out of the ruling combination when he lost patience with Mr Zardari.

Mr Sharif is in a position to bring down the Zardari government. At one stage he did toy with the idea of doing exactly that to precipitate a mid-term election he is confident of winning. His expectation is not unrealistic, if only because while he continues to top the popularity polls, the ratings of President Zardari are steadily on the decline. Yet, in deference to the popular sentiment that no one should “rock the boat”, Mr Sharif seems to have decided not to topple the government but bide his time.

At the same tine, he has opened two fronts against the President — an insistent demand for the trial of Mr Musharraf for treason, as required under Article 6 of the Pakistani constitution, and a simultaneous move to oust Mr Zardari from the presidency. Article 6 does prescribe the death penalty for anyone overthrowing an elected government. Also Mr Sharif wants his revenge on the man who first overthrew and then exiled him. His logic for President Zardari’s removal is that the Supreme Court having declared illegal the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) under which General Musharraf had imposed the Emergency on November 3, 2007, all subsequent actions of the Emergency regime, including the withdrawal of all charges against Mr Zardari, must also be declared null and void.

Apart from his own political clout, Mr Sharif is relying on the emergence of the judiciary as a potent force for the first time in Pakistan’s history. Nonetheless, from all accounts, neither of his twin-objectives is achievable. In the case of General Musharraf, the bottom line is that the Army simply would not tolerate any attempt to “humiliate” its former chief.

As for the activist judiciary, had the Supreme Court been inclined to arraign General Musharraf or Mr Zardari or both, it would have taken its judgment throwing out the PCO to its logical conclusion. But it refrained from doing so, and left both General Musharraf’s fate and the future of the president to Parliament. In fact, it legitimised Mr Zardari’s election.

To impeach Mr Zardari through constitutional and political process is also not feasible. Despite some discontent within the PPP, a revolt in the Bhuttos’ party against Benazir’s widower is unthinkable. Therefore, the President’s adversaries can in no way muster the two-thirds vote necessary to get rid of him.

On top of it, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), a party of the Muhajirs (migrants from India and their descendants) that supported General Musharraf in the past and is now in coalition with the PPP, is fully behind Mr Zardari. Its self-exiled, London-based leader, Altaf Hussain, has fired a powerful salvo against Mr Sharif. He has seized on explosive statements in a court of law by Lt.-General Assad Durrani, a retired chief of the ISI, and others in the Intelligence establishment in the past to “prove” that the 1992 government of Mr Sharif had “persecuted” the MQM and “slaughtered” its activists on the basis of “fake and forged” documents. Since the former stalwarts have disclosed the names of all political worthies who received huge dollops of cash from the ISI, the Islamabad political and social scene is greatly enlivened.

Politics of any country cannot but be influenced decisively by the state of its economy, and that is where Pakistan’s rulers have a cause for a two-fold concern. First, at a time when almost all Pakistanis hate the United States, the country’s economy cannot be viable without generous American aid. Secondly, like India, Pakistan is reeling under an acute shortage of food and sugar and soaring prices of essentials. But, unlike India, it does not have the requisite reserves to soften the blow. Most importantly, it is in the holy month of Ramzan that neither sugar nor atta is available except at exorbitant prices.

Worried Chief Ministers of the four provinces are working overtime to open fair price shops for atta and sugar. But every evening TV channels display images of poor and elderly people being pushed around and returning empty handed from these shops. The media screams that the hoarders are making a “killing” with impunity but to no avail. This made me feel that though we are all independent and sovereign countries in South Asia, in certain respects the basic unity of the subcontinent survives.

MIDDLE

Come on Roger!
by Shriniwas Joshi

Come on Roger! Yes, these were the cheering voices that I heard at the Lindener Family Tennis Centre at the Mason suburb of Cincinnati when I went there recently to see the final between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. Roger with his temperamental cool and exceptional reach made short work of Novak beating him 6-1 and 7-5. I was, however, pleased to see the numero-uno of tennis playing live before me and overwhelmed by vain self-importance of, perhaps, being the only Shimlaite to see Federer in action.

Federer who had already pocketed 15 of the ‘masters series’ tournament was greeted to the court with banners asking him to gift the sixteenth one to Myla and Charlene. It was in July of this year that the twins Myla Rose (merciful rose) and Charlene Riva (free river) were born to Roger and Mirka. Federer read the banners and perhaps thought ‘why not?’ and though beaten by Novak the Serb twice in earlier tournaments in 2009, made him look like novice in the first set.

With lots of grunting and running in the court in the second set, Novak could make a little match of it otherwise it was Roger! Roger! everywhere — in the court and in the shouts of the spectators. Of about 9000 spectators, a small section formed the Serbs who had brought the flag of the country with them that remained unfolded on their laps.

Tennis has a long history in Cincinnati. It was the sport of choice before even football, hockey or soccer. The Cincinnati Tennis Club was established in 1880 to accommodate the growing popularity of the sport and continues to be one of the oldest active tennis clubs in the United States. No wonder, Cincinnati is the first city to be named as the ‘Tennis City of the Year’ by the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

I started thinking of Shimla which could easily have a tennis court or two because of its being a small area game but the ‘Blessington Courts’ where tennis was played in warmer months during the British Raj and immediately after were closed down in the 1950s to accommodate coaster riders or merry-go-rounds for the summer crowd.

If my memory supports me then I say Shimla never had a national player of any ranking participating in a tennis tournament there. The credit goes to Raja Durga Singh of Baghat State during whose reign Ghouse Mohammed, India’s undisputed number one then, who had reached the quarterfinals at Wimbledon in 1939, had participated in the tournaments held regularly at Solan.

The only hope for tennis in Shimla is from indoor ‘sticke tennis court’ built in 1888 in IIAS and mercifully its condition is such that tennis still is playable there and Graham Tomkinson, life-time Vice-President of Hartham Park Sticke Club in South England, visiting Shimla a few years back was enthusiastic about reviving this 19th century indoor game.

OPED

Pak army banks on US
India watches with cautious optimism
by Air Marshal R.S. Bedi (retd)

Pakistan’s current war against the Taliban represents the first real war between the Islamic extremists and the army. The army had to employ all sorts of heavy weapons that are normally not used against the insurgents or the terrorists. However, it managed notable successes against the Taliban in Swat and elsewhere in months.

The army even pulled out troops from the eastern border with India for action along the western border with Afghanistan, some thing the army would never have done normally. The army’s outlook changed largely after May 2009.

Whatever the reason for this change, the American pressure on account of their own Afghan-Pak policy compulsions or their economic aid so urgently needed or Pakistan’s own internal threat perception that it was time for action and curtail likes of Baitullah Mehsud and his hordes who were gradually marching ahead with impunity.

Obviously, Pakistan and the army are entirely dependent on American largesse. Apparently, the army is no longer as powerful and dominant as hitherto. These developments are a welcome step from both India and Pakistan’s point of view.

Pakistan Supreme Court’s judgement on July 14 declaring November 2007 emergency imposed by Musharraf unconstitutional has also far-reaching consequences for Pak society. Even the lower judiciary has displayed rare courage by ordering registration of an FIR against the General for illegally detaining 60 judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts after promulgating emergency. These measures have emboldened the democratic forces in Pakistan which may change its future course besides deterring any General in the future from imposing dictatorial rule as in the past.

Though the Supreme Court judgement makes it easier to try Musharraf for high treason in Pakistan Assembly, the army may not be happy with the government taking such an extreme action against its former Chief. The fact that General Kyani has met Prime Minister Gilani a couple of times suggests army’s concern about it. Besides, some Generals including General Kyani himself were Musharraf’s “consultants” and hence a party in imposing the emergency in 2007.

Prime Minister Gilani took a cautious line that Musharraf could be tried for treason only if the National Assembly adopted a unanimous resolution which he knew wouldn’t be possible. Besides, President Zardari is also one of the beneficiaries of Musharraf’s clemency. The fact that such unprecedented measures are being considered publicly by the government against a former army Chief for usurping power is a positive indicator of gradual changes taking place in Pakistan society. The Army exercising authority without legitimacy is not being taken kindly any more.

Again, by presenting a list of 25 banned terrorists’ outfits to the National Assembly, the government seems to be telling the nation that it is fully conscious of its responsibility of tackling terrorism that has begun to hurt the very roots of Pakistan society. Hard to believe but the banned outfits include the likes of Jamaa-ud-Dawa (JUD), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, amongst others. These were the groups that were involved in a variety of destructive activities including suicide bombings etc, often with the covert support of security agencies.

That’s how the Jud founder Hafiz Saeed was let off despite sufficient proof of his involvement in Mumbai rampage on 26/11. Unfortunately, the army still considers some of them as its useful “strategic assets.” Only time will tell whether Pakistan has really realised the dangers it faces to its own existence as a state from their home grown terrorists of varying hues.

Interestingly, President Asif Ali Zardari’s uninhibited address to former civil servants at the presidency on July 7 about the extremist shows how the thinking in Pakistan is changing as regards Indo-Pak relations. However, the President was careful in not stating that the security agencies under the military rulers created and nurtured these extremist organisations for meeting the requirements of internal and external agenda. In fact, these outfits were dubbed as “assets” in furtherance of strategic objectives in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

Apparently, this realisation has come about only after the extremists attacked the Continental hotel in Peshawar on June 9, the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters in Lahore on May 27, the police academy in Lahore on March 30 and the bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3, 2009.

This is the first-ever admission by the Pakistan President days after he said that the army would even target militants it had backed in the past for use against India as a proxy force. There has to be some understanding amongst the “top three”. Otherwise, such statements cannot not be aired in public so blatantly. Moreover, unlike in the past, President Zardari’s utterance have neither been denied nor retracted. The Army’s acquiescence in all these cases only suggests that it now stands weakened.

President Asif Ali Zardari also told his audience while speaking on the occasion of 62nd Independence Day, “From today, political activities will be started and will be allowed in FATA.” He further said” In the long run, we must defeat the militant mindset to defend our country, our democracy, our institutions and our way of life.” This can be seen as Pakistan’s attempt to draw the lawless region closer in main stream politics in order to overcome the problem of terrorism within the country. This also fits in well with the US strategy to defeat the Taliban and the Al-qaeda insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan

Over a period, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan had become a strong hold for hundreds of extremists who escaped from adjoining regions of Afghanistan into FATA after the Americans toppled the Taliban regime towards the end of 2001. These comprise seven “agencies” and six “frontier regions” and are governed through political agents who are appointed by the President. Political activities are banned in FATA and no foreigners are allowed there without the government’s permission.

By all accounts, while the Pakistan army and its ISI are seriously engaging the terrorists of varying hues operating along the western borders, they continue to provide shelter and succour to those operating across the eastern border. These extremists are considered “national assets” to be employed for destructive activities against India. As long as the Pakistan army remains paranoid of India, it is unlikely to shed its dual approach and Pakistan will remain embroiled in chaos. Terrorism ultimately strikes at its own mentor; a lesson the army refuses to learn despite the chaos created by multifarious terrorist organisations operating within Pakistan and having varying aims and objectives; some of them even challenging the state as well as the society. The army, despite its diminishing dominance, continues to assert itself.

Thus, the Pakistan government’s quest for restarting the dialogue with India in pursuance of trade and economic benefits urgently required for the country’s long-term interests will come to naught only. India at best can view these developments in Pakistan with cautious optimism.

The writer is a former Director-General, Defence Planning Staff

Why is Britain so often blind to Germany’s success?
by Mary Dejevsky

THE script, as so often, was written by the victors, but also on this first of many 70th anniversaries of the Second World War by the victims. Germany, on the grounds that Germany never tried to evade its responsibility for Poland's suffering. The Poles have in mind mostly, but not only, the Russian massacre of Polish officers at Katyn.

This does not mean, though, that Poland’s relations with Germany are anything like friendly or relaxed, either at a state-to-state or at a personal level. There is an edge there, and a body of agonized, if now mostly inherited, memory. Just as there is, though we are less honest about it, in Britain.

British-German relations have long been “normal”. We co-operate when necessary; all the proprieties are observed. What lingers, though, here as in Poland, is a knee-jerk tendency to accentuate the negative, along with a victor’s presumption of superiority. Decades on, a vast amount of comment on Germany, whether on politics, economics or social trends, seems to come with a warning swastika watermark.

Could this be why Germany’s election campaign, voting is on September 27, has been drowned out here almost before it has begun, as we tune up to recall Britain’s finest hour? There is a Germany that conforms to our stereotype and a Germany that does not. We naturally prefer the former, as it casts us in a more flattering light. But the result is a willful distortion of what 21st-century Germany is like.

As time has gone on, it might have been expected that the deep negativity would have faded, along with the myriad misjudgements that proceed from it.
Have they just! Let’s consider only the past four years in which Angela Merkel has been Chancellor.

The 2005 election was almost a tie. Ms Merkel, as leader of the majority party, was called upon to form a government. The first instinct on this side of the Channel was that she wouldn’t manage it. The second was that, if she did, the coalition had no hope of lasting. And the third was that, if she misguidedly entered a “grand coalition” with the Socialists and by some miracle it lasted, it would be “bad for Germany”. Oh yes?

Going into the election, it is not Ms Merkel, but her Socialist partners who are in difficulty. Their thunder has been stolen by the Linke, which is, as the name suggests, more to the left, and uncompromised by office. Ms Merkel has shown herself an adroit builder of consensus, and a shrewd judge of German opinion. As to whether the “grand coalition” has been bad for Germany, take a look at the reality.

Germany, along with France, was afflicted far less than Britain by the global banking crisis, not just because its financial sector was proportionately smaller, but because its attitude to credit was healthier.

These maligned pillars of “old Europe” are now leading Europe out of recession; far ahead of Britain, which, we were assured, was better equipped to withstand the downturn.

The Euro-zone, pace the doom-mongers, did not collapse. On the contrary, the euro remains strong, much stronger than the ailing pound. It has sheltered the sick economies of East and Central Europe (which were built on the sand of our very own Anglo-Saxon model).

Yet Germany is still being pilloried by the British economic establishment for its export-dependency, for its, wildly successful, car scrappage scheme (which we imitated), for not aiming at faster growth, for not fuelling domestic demand, and (now) for having an excuse not to learn from its mistakes. Er, what mistakes might those have been?

Over four years, Ms Merkel’s personal stock has risen, not just in Germany, but in Europe and beyond. She has emerged as an unostentatious, nuts-and-bolts politician, whose lacklustre campaign style, even now, belies her effectiveness in office. Yet how often is Ms Merkel, rather than the glitzier Barack Obama, held up as an example for modern politicians? How often do you hear about the pluses, rather than the minuses, of the German model? It is as though, in Britain, we can’t quite bring ourselves to do it.

Ms Merkel could be forgiven for approaching this month of anniversaries with gritted teeth. As a former East German, she grew up in the country that exemplified Germany’s punishment, which is a political advantage now. But it still cannot be easy to turn up, time and again, as today’s leader of yesterday’s defeated enemy; a necessary accoutrement of Europe’s still incomplete reconciliation. This is why, even in this election period, she must be ultra-discreet about Germany’s success. Our own, very British, reasons for under-rating Germany’s success are less noble.n

— By arrangement with The Independent

Libel suit to protect Stalin’s reputation
by Shaun Walker

THE grandson of Joseph Stalin has launched a libel suit against one of Russia’s leading liberal newspapers, accusing it of lying in an article. As the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, defended the reputation of the wartime leader in Poland, Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, the dictator's grandson, began his quest to claim nearly (pounds sterling) 200,000 from Novaya Gazeta.

“Half a century of lies have been poured over Stalin’s reputation and he cannot defend himself from the grave, so this case is essential to put the record straight,” Mr Dzhugashvili’s lawyer, Leonid Zhura, told Reuters.

Liberal critics say that the drive to rehabilitate Stalin has official backing, with the Kremlin keen to glorify Russia’s Soviet past and make Russians proud of their history, while glossing over Stalin’s crimes.

Dzhugashvili is Stalin’s real surname, and Yevgeny Dzhugashvili is the son of Stalin’s son, Yakov, who was killed during the Second World War. It is believed that the Nazis offered to trade Yakov for a captured German field marshal, but Stalin refused the offer. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, however, remains an enthusiastic Stalinist.

His anger was raised by a Novaya Gazeta publication which referred to declassified secret documents ordering the execution of Soviet citizens and which are said to bear Stalin’s personal signature.

The lawsuit also accuses the human rights organisation Memorial of libel. It has collected testimony about victims of Stalin’s terror and the article appeared in a pamphlet that it published jointly with the newspaper.

The court case is part of an increasingly bitter conflict between liberals and Russian officials over control of Stalin’s legacy. Over the past decade, the Kremlin has sought to portray Russia’s victory in the Second World War as the most significant historical event of the 20th century.

Attention has been focused on Stalin’s supposedly heroic wartime leadership, and away from his crimes and repressions.

Last week, a Moscow metro station reopened after renovations, and horrified liberals found that an inscription lauding Stalin, which had been removed from the station after his death in the 1950s, had been restored.

”Stalin raised us to be loyal to the nation, inspired us to labour and great deeds,” says the inscription, which is taken from an early version of the Soviet national anthem. Sergei Mitrokhin, the leader of the liberal Yabloko Party, called the inscription “scandalous” and said that Stalin had perpetrated a “monstrous genocide”.

However Mr Zhura, Mr Dzhugashvili’s lawyer, came to Stalin’s defence. “He turned populations into peoples, he presided over a golden era in literature and the arts; he was a real leader. We want to rehabilitate Stalin.” Such views find wide support among Russia’s population, who are fed a diet of propagandistic television programmes and history textbooks about Stalin’s war leadership and “effective management”. Last year, in a competition to find the greatest Russian in history, the moustachioed dictator, who was actually an ethnic Georgian, came third.n

— By arrangement with The Independent

Corrections and clarifications

In the first line of the report “Woman demands Rs 151 crore relief from husband” (Page 2, Sept.2) instead of “whooping compensation”, the expression should have been “whopping compensation”.

The headline “Unions’ model, if accepted, will incur heavy losses” (Page 7, Sept.2) is incorrect. It should have been “Unions’ model, if accepted, would cause heavy losses”. A model cannot “incur” losses.

The headline “Package likely to be increased for select industry” (Page 10, Sept.1) should instead have been “Package likely to be increased for select industries”.

In the report entitled “United yet divided; SOPU-INSO declare alliance” (Page 2, Sept.1, Chandigarh Tribune), the first line reference to “Women President” should have been “Woman President”.

Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them.

This column appears thrice a week — every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find any error.

Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections” on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com.

H.K. Dua
Editor-in-Chief