& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Tasks, immediate and later

M.B. Naqvi writes from Karachi
THE clear popular verdict came a week ago, but the new government is still distant. The reason for the deadlock is all about undoing the mischief of November 3 2007, when Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed an emergency, gave a second Provisional Constitution Order amending the Constitution, sacked over 60 superior judges, and arrested leading lawyers and many of those PCOed judges, with many still under detention. None of this should be acceptable to those who have received the mandate to govern the country; they want ex-Gen Musharraf to resign. Musharraf refuses to go. It is a serious crisis.
There is no talk of convening the assemblies to let them sort out the issues democratically. The dispute is not restricted to the president and the winning parties of the February 18 election. Even the convening of assemblies is not easy; on which Constitution would an MPA or MNA take oath, the one made by Gen. Musharraf or the original one.
There is a third party; the US administration, supported by Nato powers. The Bush govern-
ment is insisting that Musharraf should stay as an effective president (i.e. with powers he has hitherto enjoyed), and the PPP, PML (N) and their allies should join America's War on (Islamic) Terror and be led locally by Musharraf. Now, if the US gets its way, the judges will not be reinstated, nor will any of the aims of the lawyers' movement be achieved; the mischief wrought on November 3 will stay in.
Several questions arise. Has the US bought or conquered Pakistan that it can dictate such micro-details? Secondly, do Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Asfandyar Wali et al realise that they are demeaning themselves and insulting their mandate by discussing these matters with foreign powers. Thirdly, do these mandate-wallahs realise why have the people chosen them over Musharraf's cronies?
They must understand why the people rejected Musharraf, his actions, policies and friends. The newly chosen are required to reestablish a truly democratic dispensation. How is it defined? Its fundamental basis is respect for the Constitution, rule of law, independence of judiciary, tolerance of dissent, equal freedom for all, popular participation in governance, and accountability
of all rulers. Does that allow a dictator's presence? Can the draconian measures of November 3 be admissible in a democracy?
One more thing about the February 18 election, it took place because of a year-long lawyers' movement and some judges' integrity and moral courage. It changed Pakistan, especially Punjab, and forced the rest of the world to realise how unjust and dictatorial the Musharraf regime was.
Apart from the legal fraternity's demands being just, it is these emergent factors that prevented Musharraf from enacting another 2002 "managed" polls. Restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary is, thus, the litmus test of a change, knowing that Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's resumption of office now means Musharraf's departure from the presidency, no matter how dejected Bush may become.
Let the formation of a new government be accelerated, and everyone must insist on convening of the assemblies at an early date. Let a 1971-like delay not take place. That will have horrible consequences. Secondly, it has to be ensured that the new national assembly prevents further presidential action vis-h-vis the judiciary, the way Musharraf could do
last November 3.
The Constitution has to be purged of the unnecessary distortions introduced by various dictators. The recent orders by Musharraf to gag the electronic media and to control the press must be undone. All those who are under detention should be released, including those who have "disappeared" as a result of state action. Where evidence exists, case should be instituted.
When Gen. Musharraf came, he talked so much about accountability. Why should it not be the order of the day now? There must be accountability not only of Gen. Musharraf but also of those whom he brought from New York, especially the former finance minister and prime minister and his chosen crew, for managing the economy. Some of their decisions were less than transparent and probably illegal, if not corrupt.
While there would be amendments to ensure proper redistribution of powers in the various government branches, a new law is needed to bind down the bureaucracy to their lawful role, while providing them necessary protection for legitimate actions. Similarly, parliamentary oversight over all intelligence agencies, military and civil, needs to
be instituted; they should obey the law and the parliament.
Reverting to foreign powers' role inside Pakistan, it has to be ensured that Pakistan does not meet the fate of the proverbial debtor. The Americans and the British are behaving as if they have bought Pakistan. No doubt, they have doled out a lot of money oh the books afidpossibly some out of them.
We do not really know how much has the west pumped into Pakistan's ruling circles. But the nation is not responsible for that, though it may have to pay a price for it. The money the west has given was for fighting its war in its -way.
It may be argued that Islamic extremism and militancy in tribal areas of NWFP is Pakistan's problem. Quite true. If it is Pakistan's problem, Pakistanis have to sort it out their way after a full-scale national debate. The way the Americans have fought in Afghanistan or even Iraq has led them nowhere. Who knows how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed? Almost a million Iraqis must have died. Where are the Iraqis? Thanks to foreign interventions, Pakistan's included, the Afghan state stands destroyed.
The effort to build an ersatz state by outsiders, with outside money and for outside purposes, is not succeeding; it is bound to fail. When and if an Afghan state re-emerges it would be when Afghans do it themselves. This is one of the truths that Pakistanis have to accept.
There are other major polarisations that have evolved over the years, like the India policy, distorting national poli-
tics and leading to the army's unending expansion and growth of its political ambitions. The problem is known, and has to be sorted out at its roots.
The root is the unwise, imprudent and unnecessary military approach to the Kashmir problem. After three full wars, and so many quasi-wars, the conclusion_ now is that there is .no military solution to the Kashmir, or any other Indo-Pakistan, problem. If so, we have to have a new India Policy.
Similarly, we need an urgent debate over the economy, the shortages of foodstuffs, inflation, and the growth in poverty. The statistical lies that have been fed need to be corrected and apologised for. Poverty eradication, not alleviation, is what is needed as the objective. The required debate should be over the paradigm to be followed.
Similarly, provincial autonomy is a question that has remained unresolved, although it resulted in Pakistan's dismemberment. There is a war going on in Balochistan, arising from the autonomy question. That has to be stopped, and more autonomy has to be conceded to provinces.
The best course for Pakistanis, after preliminaries, is to start a nation-wide debate over all contentious issues, and then hold another election. The winners in the last election have been returned on the issue of democ-racy-versus-dictatorship, not for basic reforms. For that, a new mandate based on precise solutions and reforms is needed. That is the rational and democratic method.
M B Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist
***The best course for Pakistanis, after preliminaries, is to start a nation-wide debate over all contentious issues, and then hold another election. The winners in the last election have been returned on the issue of democracy-versus-dictatorship, not for basic reforms. For that, a new mandate based on precise solutions and reforms is needed. That is the rational and democratic method.***