Jammu & Kashmir - Articles

   Legal Framework Order (LFO), Armitage’s visit and Kashmir were three issues in focus during the week 26 August – 1 September 2002.

Kashmir  

   Maj Gen Rashid Qureshi observed that Benazir Bhutto had harmed the freedom struggle in Kashmir, in an exclusive interview to The News. He was quoted (‘Benazir damaged Kashmir struggle’, 26 August 2002) stating, “When she goes to India, she describes the legitimate struggle of the Kashmiris as terrorism…Now she has proposed a ‘New Social Alliance’ between Pakistan and India, which is nothing but a fraud with the Kashmiris.” 

   Shireen Mazari, writing on India’s Kashmir policy (“India’s desperate Kashmir gamble”, The News, 28 August 2002) observed, “The stakes for India have become very high now with the planned elections it intends to hold in Occupied Kashmir. For, unless India can muster up at least a semblance of credibility to these elections, it will have no option but to dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir. Hence, India is attempting to move on multiple fronts in a desperate effort to once again try and remove Pakistan from the Kashmir equation and get a modicum of participation from the Kashmiri people and their accepted leaders - as opposed to the ones created by the Indian government. That is why the likes of Farooq Abdullah are fearing for their very survival politically”.

   In an interview to Daily Times (30 August 2002), Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the chief of Jamiat-ul-Islam, while answering whether the Musharraf government has changed its Kashmir policy, said, “This is a very important question. It strikes the mind of every Pakistani. The stand of the government is different from that of the State. The pressure being mounted on our government with regard to Kashmir is far greater than that regarding Afghanistan. We could have resisted the pressure on the very first day. But, now we would continue to submit and bow after succumbing to the pressure earlier.”

Legal Framework Order (LFO)  

   Has the LFO changed the basic structure of Pakistan’s constitution? Analysing the various viewpoints on this, Anwar Ahmad is of the opinion (“Constitutional pretence”, The News, 26 August 2002) that, “the pretence of Islam, federalism and judicial independence remain unharmed by the LFO. As for the parliamentary form of government, the petitioners could argue that an indirectly elected (un-elected, in the present case) and overly powerful president wielding the whip over a directly elected parliament is a negation of the supremacy of the parliament and primacy of the prime minister and is, in effect, a guise for a presidential form of government. Hence, the basic structure has been changed.”

   Wondering whether Pakistan will be able to become a republic after the October elections, Imtiaz Alam concluded (“End of the Republic?” The News, 26 August 2002), “If the opposition candidates are not disqualified in large numbers and elections are not entirely rigged, the next Parliament is not going to surrender its sovereignty and Pakistan can still become a Republic. In a hung Parliament, the opposition can make the treasury benches rise on their tails without the assurance of republican victory. A landslide victory for the king’s parties, orchestrated by massive rigging, will be the death of the republic in the womb of transition to a quasi-civilian rule. But, in this worst case scenario for the forces of democracy, the democratic movement will take yet another birth on the streets of Pakistan”.

   MB Naqvi commented (“A leap backward”, The News, 28 August 2002) that the LFO “was a direct assault on both democracy, by providing for President Musharraf’s supremacy over the Parliament, and on the federal character of the Pakistan polity. This comes from re-imposing Article 58(2)(B), creating an NSC and his continuing as an all-powerful President while he would remain the COAS almost indefinitely. This ‘real’ democracy is obviously tailored around the needs of Mr Pervez Musharraf, who will overshadow and bend the so-called ‘democratic institutions’“.

   However, Zubaria Hassan supporting Gen Musharraf, said ‘‘ he has not acted in any arbitrary fashion in giving final shape to his constitutional reforms” and argued (“LFO: A device to prevent disruptions”, The News, 27 August 2002) that the thrust of LFO “is on putting in place a system of checks and balances, so that every centre of power could be stopped from overstepping its mandate and authority. The essence seems to be defining the roles of the power troika of the president, prime minister and army, but, at the same time, weaving them into a well-knit body to avoid a conflict of interests in the supreme national interest.”

   On 29 August 2002, Daily Times carried an interesting article, titled ‘‘Democracy and Muslim Societies’’, written by Abdelwahab El-Affendi, on “why does the outside world not support democracy in Muslim countries”, which made for interesting reading. According to him, “There are some easy answers, especially in relation to the Middle East. Industrialised nations’ interests in cheap oil and the survival of Israel are better served by authoritarian regimes, which will resist demands for a fairer share of oil revenues or for a fair deal for the Palestinians. In other parts of the world, countries like Pakistan or Indonesia were more useful as Cold War allies under despotic regimes.”

Armitage Visit  

   The Nation in its editorial commented on the visit of Richard Armitage (“Armitage Visit”, 26 August 2002) that, “the substance of his diplomacy still seems overly tilted in India’s favour. His concern about the possibility of violence in the coming polls in Held Kashmir seems to have brought the Indian line about the polls being an important measure for India to bring the Kashmiris back into the Indian mainstream.” 

   Inayatullah questions Armitage (“Armitage and after”, The News, 27 August 2002), “You say that Pakistan is sincere in its promise to end infiltration but then you add: ‘There is some obvious infiltration across the Line of Control’. And this is how you portray Pakistan’s position: ‘I think that no one here in Pakistan or in India feels that the government of Pakistan is solely and completely responsible for activities across the border’. The catch in your statement is that the responsibility does rest with Pakistan but not completely.”