New Turn of Events in Pakistan

By M. M Ali

In an unprecedented show of judicial strength and objectivity, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has termed President Ghulam Ishaq Khan's dismissal of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and the abrogation of the National Assembly ''ultra vlres" (in excess of legal authority) and "unconstitutional." With the army standing aside from this unexpected turn of events, Ishaq accepted the decision of the court but refused to resign.

His interim government of a few weeks folded unceremoniously, however. With the National Assembly restored and Sharif back in the saddle, Ishaq returned to his machinations, and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto desperately sought to justify her new camaraderie with Ishaq, who removed her from power in 1990 just as he sought to remove Nawaz Sharif in 1993.

The current political instability in Pakistan is a direct legacy of Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia Ul Haq. Ayub and Zia, in particular, spent 20 years destroying the first manifestations of democracy in an infant country with myopic policies that suited their own interests, but not those of the nation.

The constitution was severely mauled, political parties were banned, all avenues of political leadership were closed and the country was run by fiat. Army officers and bureaucrats improved their economic conditions, but the people suffered. Tribal and religious leaders, feudal lords and the agricultural land-owning class all were humored. These are the elite's who now own the barrage lands (fertile areas with available water supply) and prime urban real estate in and around cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta, Multan, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Peshawar.

The Supreme Court decision amounted to a condemnation of the way Ishaq Khan had performed as president. When he nevertheless declined to resign, it seemed likely he was up to further mischief. Nawaz Sharif, therefore, rushed to obtain a vote of confidence from the National Assembly. If Ishaq Khan wanted to reassert himself, he would have to do it through the provinces, where he had placed some of his cronies during the one month window of opportunity presented by the interim administration.

That is the level at which Pakistan's sad drama now is being played out between Nawaz Sharif on one side and Ishaq Khan and Bhutto on the other. No principles are involved. It is purely a clash of personalities. The outcome is likely to be more court battles, civil unrest and, perhaps as a last resort, military intervention. If Nawaz Sharif is unable to extinguish the fires set by Ishaq and Bhutto, he may agree to early elections, seeking to capitalize on his current popularity. That Ghulam Ishaq Khan will ever bounce back with dignity is very doubtful. Benazir Bhutto, meanwhile, will have to produce new evidence of her devotion to democracy and the rule of law. Right now her political integrity is in question.

The Silver Lining

The court decision itself has opened a new chapter in Pakistan's brief history. In the past, when the courts were called upon to validate suspensions of the constitution and the imposition of martial law, they succumbed to pressure from the army. Trumped-up criminal charges against politicians and officials were heard, judicial procedures were violated, and laws of evidence were ignored. In one case, a prime minister, Z. A. Bhutto (Benazir Bhutto's father) was sent to the gallows more out of political fear than in pursuit of justice. Consequently, Pakistani courts had lost their credibility. By reversing President Ishaq Khan's orders, Chief Justice Nasim Hasan Shah has restored the credibility Pakistan's Supreme Court had lost.

A second ray of hope has come from the apparent decision of the army not to step into the dispute. After Ayub, Yahya and Zia established a bad tradition of military intervention, the appointment of the commander-in-chief had become highly politicized. Pakistan's constitution entitles the elected prime minister to name the commander-in-chief and the president makes the appointment. Under Ghulam Ishaq Khan this formality had resulted in a sorry tug-of-war with the prime minister.

As of this writing, however, Gen. Abdul Waheed Kakar, although handpicked by Ishaq, has kept his hands off the open dispute between the president and the prime minister. If the commander-in-chief remains uninvolved, it augurs well for democracy in Pakistan.

Kashmir: From "Paradise" to "Hell"

"Soldiers set fire to houses and shoot unarmed residents trying to escape. Detainees are tortured or shot dead in the night; civilians are raped and murdered." This is not an account of events in Bosnia or the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. It is what James Goldston and Patricia Gossman of Asia Watch observed during their recent visit to Kashmir.

Outraged at what they saw, they wrote in the May 25 Washington Post: "Kashmir used to be paradise on earth. Now it is hell. . .Until India takes steps to end the abuses . . . the United States should suspend all military assistance and military sales to India. And the United States should urge its allies to do the same." (See "Other Voices," page 100 in this issue.)

Everyone knows that things have taken a sharp turn for the worse over the past three years in Indian-held parts of Kashmir. More recently, even the local police force has declined to take orders from the Indian army and paramilitary units sent from New Delhi. According to Indian press reports, there are areas in Kashmir Valley controlled by the mujahedeen (Muslim guerrilla fighters) where Indian armed forces cannot enter.

In recent months, particularly after the Sopore massacre last January, New Delhi has increased its military actions, but without making political or territorial gains. The lead story in the May 31 issue of the mass-circulation Indian magazine India Today said: "The vital parameters of governance—emotional, logistical, political—through which civilian authority is exercised over a people or territory, have been erased by Kashmir's fierce and tenaciously dogged determination to sever ties with India."

While keeping up the military pressure, New Delhi has been vainly trying to drive a political wedge between different Kashmiri groups. Indian Minister Rajesh Pilot has offered military equipment to the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) if it would use the weapons against the proPakistan Hizbul Mujahedeen. JKLF leader Javed Mir declined the offer.

Reported Harinder Bawedja of India Today: "While in 1990 there were only 36 paramilitary companies (in Kashmir), today there are 300, and two more army divisions will move in this month."

Prime Minister Narasimba Rao, like his predecessors, has been exaggerating the national repercussions of giving up on Kashmir, implying that allowing one religious or ethnic minority to sever the bond with India will cause the country to break up as other minorities follow suit. Irritated by the human rights organizations that publicize the plight of Kashmiris and report on the atrocities committed by Indian troops, Rao has changed some administrative hands in Kashmir.

Retired Army General Krishna Rao has been brought back as governor. He will be advised by Lt. Gen. Surinder Nath on rural areas and Lt. Gen. M.A. Zaki on law and order. Old Kashmir hands Ashok Jaitley and Wajahat Habibullah will also be assisting Krishna Rao. Thus far none of this has alleviated the deepening crisis.

Acknowledging the deterioration, for the first time in 45 years the United States publicly has challenged India's stance that Kashmir is part of its sovereign territory. In a speech to a select group in New Delhi, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State John Malott said the U.S. considers Kashmir "a disputed territory." ''This is an issue to be settled peacefully by India and Pakistan, taking the views of the Kashmiris, both Muslim and non-Muslim, into account,'' Malott said, according to the May 20 issue of Dawn in Karachi.

Hard on the heels of Malott's visit came Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres with a strong contingent from Israel's ministries of defense and of industry. Their message, no doubt, was that in return for Indian purchases of Israeli goods, Israel could help India ingratiate itself with Washington.

From Kashmir itself, however, came the comment of moderate editor Khawaja Sanaullah Bhat of the Daily AJtab of Srinagar. "I don't say the people of Kashmir want to go to Pakistan," he wrote. "I don't say they want independence. But one thing I can say is they don't want to remain in India." That, by all accounts, is the reality.

What Indian leaders, and possibly their Israeli would-be advisers, are pondering, therefore, is whether America's new human rights- and democracy-oriented president might exert pressure to back up his professions. And, perhaps equally important, whether America's European allies will, once again, talk the White House out of applying the power only the U.S. still possesses to help settle a long-simmering dispute in Kashmir before it flares up into another human tragedy on an even greater scale than the sordid "ethnic cleansing'' still continuing in Bosnia.