Here we go again

Irfan HusainJuly 15, 2017

3

irfan.husain@gmail.com

WHEN Nawaz Sharif and his cronies brandished photographs of Rockwood Estate known in

Pakistan as Surrey Palace back in 1995, Benazir Bhutto denied knowledge and ownership of

the property.

But as more details emerged, it became clear that Asif Zardari had indeed bought the 350-acre

(141 hectares) estate. He sold it in 2005 for 4 million, but must be kicking himself because it is

now expected to fetch 10m.

I recall writing at the time that by being party to the purchase, Ms Bhutto had lost the moral

authority to govern. I made it clear that this was not because of the corruption implicit in the
deal, but because the prime minister of a poor country should not acquire property abroad for

obscene sums.

Either way, one party is going to feel aggrieved.

Soon after that scandal, Benazir Bhuttos PPP-led government was dismissed, leaving the door

open for Nawaz Sharif to have a second crack at running the country. A couple of years later, he

was toppled by Musharraf through a military coup. Now, it seems that his third innings may be

coming to an end, even though his team may have another year to go.

But Nawaz Sharif is not known for sticking to high moral principles. He is a fighter, and I suspect

hell hang on by his fingertips until they are prised open, and hes dragged out of the prime

ministers house. Throughout his political career, he has shown no awareness of the concept of
conflict of interest; as a result, his familys business interests have flourished.

We have been aware of the Sharif familys ownership of the Mayfair flats for over 20 years, so the

JIT has told us nothing new about them. But the convoluted money trail continues to mystify

with the Qatari sheikhs account of handing over bags full of cash as return on business

investments.

It is here that the JIT report is weakest: by not going the extra mile and interviewing Qatars ex-

prime minister, members have opened themselves up to the charge of bias. While they were

willing to talk to him in the Pakistani embassy, they refused to conduct the interview at his

residence, or make a simple Skype call.

This glaring flaw in their investigation has given Nawaz Sharifs supporters plenty of ammunition

to strengthen their case. They argue that the Qataris role was central to the money trail, and by

rejecting his claim of making large cash payments, the JIT had basically undermined the ruling

familys case.

For those expecting an early end to this drama, my advice is not to hold their breath: this will run

and run. For starters, Im sure the governments legal team will question each accusation made in

the JIT report. Then, if the Supreme Court bench reaches a negative verdict against Nawaz

Sharif, he could appeal to the full bench.

All this will take time. Before we know it, well be in full election mode, unless Nawaz Sharif calls

early polls. And lets not forget that he commands massive support in the key province of Punjab.

Whether his many voters will abandon him because of the Panamagate case remains to be seen.

After years of seeing their mandate trampled under the military jackboot, the public is now

getting used to the spectacle of the higher judiciary deposing elected leaders. Thus, many buy into

conspiracy theories involving foreign powers and domestic cabals.

Another factor that goes in Nawaz Sharifs favour is the common perception that all politicians

make money. But people are concerned that these leaders should undertake development

projects, and provide decent governance.

The Sharif brothers tick both boxes. They have spent billions on projects that, to many of us,
make little economic sense. But thanks to CPEC there is a palpable sense among voters in

Punjab that the country is progressing. And according to the British aid agency, DFID, Punjab

has been highly effective in utilising foreign assistance to improve education and health

standards.

What is clear is that the country has never been as polarised and divided as it is today. The vitriol

and anger in both PML-N and PTI add up to a volatile mix that can blow up when the Supreme

Court verdict arrives. Already, the ruling party has rejected the JIT findings. Imagine the reaction

from the PTI if the Supreme Court were now to let off Nawaz Sharif with a slap on the wrist.

Either way, one party is going to feel aggrieved. Nawaz Sharif already nurses a grudge for the way

he was treated by the army when Musharraf staged his coup. Now, he feels he has been cornered

by the judiciary, and many of his inner circle have expressed their bitterness at the way only

civilian politicians are subjected to accountability, while generals and judges go scot free.

I fear this poison will infect our body politic for years to come.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

Governors in India
A.G. NooraniJuly 15, 2017
3

The writer is an author and a writer based in Mumbai.

EVERY party in India that comes to power at the centre packs the offices of states governors with

party men, or retired civil servants, heads of armed and police forces. The Modi government went

one better. It appointed party hacks as governors in states ruled by opposition parties, who

behave as if instructed to pick fights with their respective chief ministers.

The latest case concerns West Bengals governor, Keshari Nath Tripathi, who as speaker of Uttar

Pradeshs assembly, and close ally of the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has

acquired a reputation for partisanship and arrogance. On July 4, UPs chief minister, Mamata

Banerjee, accused him of threatening her on the phone when he called to inquire about unrest

in a district.

The very process of the centre appointing governors warps the countrys federal structure. Indias

governors enjoy no such safeguard. They can be transferred from one state to another or sacked
without cause. Initially, the draft constitution envisaged a governor elected by the state. In 1948,

it was amended to suggest two alternatives; appointment by the president from a panel of four

candidates elected by the legislature, or direct election by the people of the province. The

constituent assembly opted for presidential appointment, with the proviso that the governor

should act on the advice of the state cabinet.

The central government continues to flout states rights.

The impartiality and independence of the governor was strongly emphasised by the architects of

the constitution. All the leaders who intervened in the debate recognised that the chief ministers

consent is an essential prerequisite to the appointment of the governor by the president. Nehru

said, He must be acceptable to the government of the province. Every safeguard was removed
in actual practice. Chief ministers were not always consulted. Governors behave, not as

constitutional heads of state in a parliamentary system bound by the advice of the chief minister,

but as agents of the centre.

The Supreme Courts rulings are in stark contrast to the reality. In 1979, the court ruled, It is no

doubt true that the governor is appointed by the president which means in effect and substance

the government of India, but that is only a mode of appointment and it does not make the

governor an employee or servant of the government of India. Every person appointed by the

president is not necessarily an employee of the government of India. So also it is not material that

the governor holds office during the pleasure of the president. It is constitutional provision for

determination of the term of office of the governor and it does not make the government of India

an employer of the governor.

His office is not subordinate or subservient to the government of India. He is not amenable to

the directions of the government of India, nor is he accountable to them for the manner in which

he carries out his functions and duties. He is an independent constitutional office which is not

subject to the control of the government of India. He is constitutionally the head of the state in

whom is vested the executive power of the state and without whose assent there can be no

legislation in exercise of the legislative power of the state.

Even in 1979 this ruling seemed unreal. In the nearly four decades that have elapsed since it has

acquired irrelevance.
In 1983, Indira Gandhis government appointed a commission on centre-state relations headed

by Supreme Court justice R.S. Sarkaria. On security of tenure, the report made feeble suggestions

on safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. The governor should be informally apprised of the

grounds of the proposed action and afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against

it.

His reply should be examined by an advisory group consisting of the vice-president and the

speaker of the Lok Sabha or a retired chief justice. After receiving the recommendation of this

group, the president may pass such orders in the case as he may deem fit.

The report recommended that as a matter of convention the governor should not be eligible for

any appointment under the union or state governments on retirement from his office except as
governor, vice-president or president and he should not return to active partisan politics. It

also said, It is desirable that a politician from the ruling party at the union is not appointed as

governor of a state which is being run by some other party or a combination of parties.

A fortnight after the publication of the report, governors were appointed in five states in direct

violation of the commissions recommendation. The practice continues today, making a mockery

of federalism and democracy. The recent cases of governors misbehaviour will not be the last.

The writer is an author and a writer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

London property fetish

Abbas NasirJuly 15, 2017
1

0
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

IT was sometime in 1997 that a visitor from Pakistan requested if we could drive him to

Rockwood Estate, a sprawling mansion in the beautiful Surrey countryside, that had made

headlines in the United Kingdom as well as at home.

If you are wondering what is being referred to here, this might help. The 350-acre (141 hectares)

property is better known in Pakistan as Surrey Palace and was purchased in 1995. The matter

came into public knowledge when Ms Bhuttos government was dismissed towards the end of

1996.

All through his long incarceration, the spouse of the then former prime minister Benazir Bhutto,

Asif Ali Zardari, denied he owned the property either directly or through an offshore company. It

was not until 2004 that the ownership was accepted, and the property was sold for a sum said to

be 4 million.
 Rich Pakistanis seem to have a fetish for London
properties even at a time when many old-time
Londoners have to move out.

I remember our drive on a warm and sunny summer afternoon about an hour away from our

rented two-bedroom flat in a not-so-leafy part of south London. We stopped at the imposing gate

of the property and started to take pictures.

A guard came out and told us to go away. I showed him my BBC ID (I worked in London then)

and said there was no way he could stop us taking pictures from the main road as we were not

trespassing.

Although visibly unhappy, he moved back towards the gate and stood watching us as we took
some more photographs. The mansion itself was, as was most of the estate, set well back from the

road so we could hardly see anything other than the boundary wall and lost interest soon and

returned to London. But not before my visitor, who was a government officer then, became

perturbed when he realised there was a CCTV camera monitoring us, perhaps even recording

unwanted visitors. He was worried if the owner somehow found out he was snooping at

Rockwood Estate there would be all hell to pay.

Of course, it did not matter to him that the owner was in prison with no prospect of release then.

Bhai, you dont know. These people can cut deals overnight and get their freedom aur hamare

jaise be-aasra loag mare jayeinge [our type of people with no connections will be at the receiving

end of their wrath].

The irony is that while Asif Ali Zardari was being hammered for having purchased this property

beyond his known means, a number flats in Londons exclusive and prohibitively expensive

Mayfair were also being bought by the family of another politician who would be ascendant soon.

On coming to power again in 1997, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif entrusted his anti-corruption

czar, senator Saifur Rehman with the task of pursuing PPP leaders relentlessly and building cases

against them. Most of Saifur Rehmans cases against Mr Zardari and Ms Bhutto covered her last

stint in power from 1993 to 1996.

Strangely, four out of five flats featuring in the Panama Papers leaks were also acquired via

offshore companies in the same period 1993-96 at the exclusive London address. These

companies, it was to be disclosed in the Papers two decades later, were owned by members of the

Sharif family.

I have not been inside either the Rockwood Estate or any of the five flats in Avenfield House. The

only flat I have been invited to belonged to Ms Benazir Bhuttos sister Sanam in Queens Gate in

Kensington.

An alarmed and red-eyed Ms Bhutto had travelled on the overnight flight from Dubai and

requested me to record the reaction to the alleged torture of her spouse while he was in custody

by Nawaz Sharif-appointed policemen who, it was said, had slashed his tongue to force a
confession.

I recall sitting at the dining table with a BBC sound engineer in a small room while some children

played in the adjoining room. This was a fairly small flat with nothing ostentatious about it.

It was after I left for Pakistan that Avenfield House and Mr Rehman Maliks home just on the

other side of Marble Arch off Edgware Road would be the setting for negotiations and the signing

of the Charter of Democracy by Mr Sharif and Ms Bhutto.

That MQM-L supremo Altaf Husain has lived in Mill Hill, north London for some 20-plus years

and a number of other Pakistani politicians have properties in London has been a known fact.

Youd be surprised how many affluent Pakistanis have second homes in London. Their number

must be in the dozens if not hundreds.

Rich Pakistanis of all denominations seem to have a fetish for London properties even at a time

when many old-time Londoners have to move out as they just cant afford to live in the city

anymore. Ask me. We had to as well.

Youd ask what about generals, if I were to be even-handed. Well, I dont personally know of any

who own a property in London apart from Gen Musharraf, who not very unlike the Sharifs,

attributes the ownership of his flat to the generosity of Arab royalty in the oil-rich Gulf states.
The other former service chiefs who own estates outside Pakistan are former Navy chief

Mansoorul Haq (a ranch in US) and former army chief Gen Kiyani who has not contradicted

reports he has bought an estate in Australia.

As for seeing two/three stars in London, most such visitors I know of seemed to have the means

to rent pricey flats in central London and devoted their days to shopping, meeting family and

friends. Come evening, at least a couple of them were known to head out to the casino without

fail.

I am leaving the poor journalist-visitor to London for another time. Suffice it to say this sort of

individual used to end up at BBC Bush Houses basement club with us. Liquid refreshments over,

there was always the nightmarish commute to the distant (and cheap) suburb for a late night
dinner at home.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

The statecraft of torture

Asfand Yar WarraichJuly 15, 2017
7

0
The writer is a lawyer.
TORTURE has become a routine part of both Pakistani statecraft and citizenship
our state vehemently denies its existence, and persistently continues to employ it in
practice, whilst our society unabashedly concedes its existence, and silently condones
its continued employment.

The official narrative is clear and simple: Pakistan denounces torture in all forms. It
is considered inimical to a civilised society, an affront to the inviolable dignity of
mankind, a crude and barbaric practice and a pre-enlightenment heritage of
yesteryears.

We are party to innumerable international agreements, treaties and conventions, all

outlawing torture, either as a punishment or as a method of interrogation, and
Article 14(2) of our Constitution unequivocally proclaims that no person shall be
subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence.
 We are not torture abolitionists, as we fervently
proclaim, but closeted torture apologists.

In essence, we are self-certified torture abolitionists.

The non-official narrative, informed by our unsanctioned and unauthorised realities,

our lived experiences, suggests a near-unanimous consensus that torture not only
exists, but is endemic to our society, a regularised facet of everyday life.

Suspected criminals are vigorously beaten in policy custody (a now-notorious feature

of thana culture), as if corporal punishment is akin to some divine truth serum, here
to provide us deliverance from our investigative and institutional inadequacies.
Similarly, prisoners consistently complain of unchecked harassment and abuse at the
hands of prison staff; activists routinely disappear, only to magically reappear as
muzzled versions of their former selves; and dissenters of all sorts speak (in hushed
voices) of threats and intimidation by security watchdogs.

Evidently, both torture and the threat of torture have become a deeply ingrained and
firmly entrenched part of state administration. And remarkably, we have all become
silent spectators to our own subjugation. There are multifarious reasons for this
acquiescence, and chief amongst these, is that our society genuinely believes that
torture is, for one, an effective form of interrogation, and second, a necessity.

A survey conducted by Amnesty International in 2014, and titled Attitudes to

Torture, noted that more than half of those who were surveyed in Pakistan agreed
that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to gain information that may
protect the public. And herein lies the problem: we are not torture abolitionists, as
we fervently proclaim, but closeted torture apologists.

We still firmly ascribe to the outdated notion that torture can actually yield reliable
and truthful information that if you beat a suspect enough, you may actually break
them. This belief has long been rubbished by leading psychologists and interrogation
experts, who adamantly argue that torturing an individual is not only morally
abhorrent, but ineffective.
In his book, Why Torture Doesnt Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation,
Professor Shane OMara, explains that torture, rather than creating a conscious and
reasoned desire in the suspect to cooperate with his interrogators, creates panic,
mental trauma, dissociation and sensory confusion, rendering any torture-induced
testimony as unreliable and worthless. The suspect, far from being likely to tell the
truth, is more likely to say anything simply to put an end to his misery.

Putting the question of efficacy aside, let us turn to the second argument, that at
times torture is not only necessary but also ethical, that in some situations, public
interest demands that absolute rules be relaxed and the ends be allowed to justify the
means the classic ticking time bomb hypothesis.

This argument, however, is based on a multiplicity of assumptions, which may or

may not be true. Firstly, it assumes that the suspect in custody is indeed guilty, or
does indeed hold valuable information. Secondly, it assumes that if tortured, the
suspect is likely to provide correct information. And thirdly (bringing us full circle), it
assumes that torture will be effective as a form of interrogation in the first place.

The belief that torture may, in some circumstances be acceptable, is a dangerous one,
and it is doubly dangerous for the state to hold or to be allowed to hold, for any entity
that has a complete monopoly on the exercise of legitimate violence cannot be
permitted to create blurred and arbitrary formulas for how such violence should be
actualised. That is a risk to our liberty and freedom that cannot be condoned, no
matter the end, no matter the means.

It is time to stop apologising for torture. Its use, as a tool of governance and as a
modus operandi of state control must be challenged. Our legislature must be
prompted into action to create a statutory framework that addresses the issue: that
adequately defines torture, prohibits its employment and introduces strict penal
consequences for state actors that violate this prohibition. Moreover, state
institutions and agencies must be retrained and rewired to discard old notions
surrounding the effectiveness and acceptability of torture and introduce modern
cooperation-centric interrogative techniques.
Furthermore, mechanisms must be introduced to carry out thorough and serious
investigations into allegations of torture. A victim of torture is usually left with but
one option and that is to report the matter to the police (which, incidentally, is in
most cases the perpetrator). Due to lack of police accountability and oversight, most
of these cases are never registered and those that are, end up being thwarted by lack
of cooperation by the police during investigation and prosecution.

The bitter irony here is that we (quite rightly) waste little time in condemning others
for the same. We are quick to champion the cause of Aafia Siddiqui, to berate the
United States and its allies for torturing suspected terrorists, to denounce any form
of state-sanctioned violence in other jurisdictions why not extend the same
courtesy to our own people?

The writer is a lawyer.

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

Visa for Jadhavs mother

EditorialJuly 15, 2017
0

A VISA application by the mother of convicted Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav is the latest

opportunity for India and Pakistan to back away from an increasingly confrontational stance

against each other. The reasons for Jadhavs conviction and incarceration suggest that Pakistan

may not be legally required to allow his mother to visit him or indeed grant her a visa at all, but it

ought to be considered on humanitarian grounds. Jadhav has been sentenced to death and while

there is some way to go yet before he exhausts his legal options, a meeting between mother and

son would be humane and in no way undermine Pakistans case against him. A meeting between

mother and son is very different to granting consular access, which is any case being litigated by

India in the International Court of Justice. There is also little possibility of a media spectacle

being created given that Jadhav is in military custody. Indeed, were Jadhavs mother allowed to

meet her incarcerated son, it may even have the benefit of indirectly demonstrating that the

convicted spy is being treated according to the law and his safety is being taken care of inside a

Pakistani prison.
Clearly, such a visit would not automatically reverse the growing chasm between India and

Pakistan. India appears to be in no mood to talk to Pakistan and Prime Minister Narendra Modis

crackdown in India-held Kashmir shows no sign of abating. Meanwhile, Pakistan has been

plunged into political uncertainty once again with the submission of the JIT report to the

Supreme Court and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharifs decision to contest its conclusions while

remaining in office. But small gestures can have a way of lowering the temperature in the overall

relationship between India and Pakistan and opening the door to further sensible measures.

Pakistan and India are caught in a trough in relations; the request by the spys mother is an

opportunity for both sides to show that humanity can still shine through.

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

Police officials murder

EditorialJuly 15, 2017
0

WHATEVER emerges from the opaqueness that surrounds Balochistan is almost

always of a grim nature. So it has been for the past week. Last Friday, the senior-
most police official of Killa Abdullah, DPO Sajid Mohmand and his driver lost their
lives in a suicide bombing in Chaman, the district main town which lies close to the
Afghan border. On Thursday in Quetta, a senior police officer, SP Mubarak Shah
along with his three armed guards was slain by four armed men on motorcycles who
ambushed the SPs official vehicle while he was on his way to his office. Jamaatul
Ahrar, a faction of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, claimed responsibility for
the attack, as did the militant Islamic State group. There has so far been no claim of
responsibility for the murder of the Killa Abdullah DPO.

When law-enforcement personnel are killed, it has a far-reaching, psychological

impact. That is compounded when such an event takes place in a city like Quetta, a
small town with a population of only a little over a million. If those who are supposed
to secure the lives and property of citizens can themselves be targeted, that too in
broad daylight in Balochistans capital, can anyone consider themselves safe? The
city is one of the most heavily policed urban centres in the country, with Rangers
checkpoints at frequent intervals, so when individuals are singled out in this manner,
it raises a number of questions. For example, how well are the security officials
screened for radical sympathies or affiliations? How can assailants enter the city and
make good their escape without being apprehended? The kidnapping of two Chinese
nationals in May, again in broad daylight, illustrated the ease with which criminals
operate in Balochistan. In that instance too, the abductors managed to make their
way unimpeded through the city, even though they were in an unmarked car. Over
the past several years, the province has become a cauldron of multiple insurgent
outfits and extremist groups with violent, often diametrically opposed, agendas. That
these groups are willing and able to strike wherever they choose, was demonstrated
in May this year with the suicide bombing of JUI-F leader Abdul Ghafoor Haideris
convoy in Mastung and the Shah Noorani shrine bombing in Khuzdar last year. The
SPs murder in Quetta, no less than that of the DPO 75km away, once again
underscores the precarious security situation in the province.

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017

Economy at a tipping point

EditorialJuly 15, 2017
6

AFTER about two years of consolidation and growth, the economy appears to have reached a

tipping point and has resumed its slide downwards. All along, we have been told by the

government that it inherited a dismal situation but turned it around, pointing to the resumption

of growth, the rise in foreign exchange reserves and the considerable investments being made in

infrastructure. The latter, we have been told, are going to lay the foundations for future growth,

thereby breaking the cyclical patterns of boom and bust that have held the economy hostage for

decades now and brought the country to the doorstep of the IMF on more occasions than most

other countries in the world. For a couple of years, the numbers supported this claim, and the

sceptics had to dig deeper to find material that could challenge the story. In 2015, Moodys rating

agency upgraded Pakistans credit rating to B3, after a downgrade in 2012, in response to the

improving macroeconomic situation.

But this fiscal year, it all began to change. Even the numbers are now lining up to testify against

this story one by one. Two reports released back to back in the past two days make this

abundantly clear. Moodys decided on Tuesday to retain its B3 rating and outlook, but cited a

long list of vulnerabilities that have opened up, particularly with the current account and fiscal

deficits. Pakistan may enjoy one of the highest growth rates of all B3 rated countries, but it also

has one of the biggest debt burdens amongst them. On the fiscal side, the consolidation

undertaken in the past few years appears to have run its course; for the next two years the ratings

agency sees the deficit climbing to 4.7pc and 5pc of GDP respectively, much higher than what the

government projects. The reserves rose fourfold while the governments story was in play, the

agency notes, but are still low in relation to current account payments and on a declining glide

path. Neither of these are encouraging developments, and if they persist, the growth story will be

in jeopardy.

Then two days later came the IMF Article IV report, echoing many of the same concerns. After

the usual bow to the positives, the Fund notes that recently policy implementation has weakened

and macroeconomic vulnerabilities have begun to re-emerge, summing these vulnerabilities up

by saying fiscal consolidation slowed, the current account deficit widened, and foreign exchange

reserves declined. The government argues that these trends are temporary while CPEC-related

projects are implemented. Growth will resume on a stronger trajectory, we are told, once those

projects come online and the corridor gets going in earnest. It is a hope indeed, and nobody

wants to take the shine off these words for no good reason. But hoping for the best is not a good

way to manage deteriorating economic trends.

Published in Dawn, July 15th, 2017