EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

CJ’s remarks

CHIEF Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on Saturday fired the latest salvo in the perceived escalating fight between the superior judiciary and the PPP-led federal government. The Supreme Court, according to Justice Chaudhry, can strike down any legislation that is incompatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. While this is a well-established principle, the timing of Justice Chaudhry’s comments is impossible to ignore: the chief justice’s dilation on the ins and outs of the constitution came in a week that the government proposed legislation to protect its constitutional office-holders from suffering the same fate as former premier Yousuf Raza Gilani suffered recently. Unfortunate as it is that the past judicial practice of justices speaking only from the bench and through their judgments has been discarded in recent years, the comments by the chief justice come very close to pre-empting the legislative process. Astonishingly, however, the chief justice did not just stop there: he indicated that the supremacy of parliament was ‘out of place in the modern era’, the constitution itself enjoying pre-eminence over the will of parliament. This is explosive, particularly given the backdrop of the judiciary-government battles. Start with the claim that the constitution, not parliament, is supreme, add the corollary that the SC is the final and unquestioned interpreter of what the constitution does or does not permit — and suddenly Pakistan is in the realm of a supreme judiciary, an unelected institution dictating the contract by which state and society interact. This would be a fundamental shift in the way Pakistan’s constitutional arrangement is imagined and it is quite extraordinary that a serving chief justice would see fit to make such a pronouncement outside a judicial forum. In the SC, the chief justice is the administrative head but his vote is equal to that wielded by any other justice in any given case. Surely, then, at the very least, this is a matter to be decided before a full court, if and when the matter comes before the court.

But returning to the issue of fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution, why is it that the court keeps invoking fundamental rights when it comes to engaging with the government instead of concentrating on securing the fundamental rights of the people? Why not focus on the broken judicial system in which the average complainant has virtually no hope of ever getting justice, and none of getting it on time? Why not focus on the abysmally low rate of successful prosecution that allows criminals to walk free? Must the court be so obviously selective?

Gandhara relics

OF the many crimes committed regularly in Pakistan, the plundering and smuggling of historical artefacts is amongst those that receive little attention. This country is a notable repository of pre-Islamic art, but the provinces that are the custodians of national archaeological treasures are barely equipped to protect and conserve them effectively. From time to time, stories emerge regarding the theft of such artefacts, while militancy has also had an effect. The fate of Gandhara-era artefacts in Swat, for instance, remains unknown after havoc was wreaked there in the wake of the Taliban insurgency. Militants destroyed the 40-metre high, 2,000-year-old Buddha carved on a rock at Jahanabad, Swat, some years ago. Part of the problem is a general societal attitude that refuses to truly own this country’s rich heritage and history and elevate them to the importance they merit. Thus while it is positive news that the police in Karachi managed, as a result of a tip-off, to intercept a contraband consignment of Gandhara-era relics, the carelessness with which the priceless art was treated must be underscored. The trailer-mounted container transporting the relics, including life-sized statues, plaques and utensils dating from between AD 1 and 500, was seized in Landhi. Unprepared for the weight of the objects and perhaps unmindful of their value, the policemen caused damage while unloading them. It is being conjectured that the artefacts were brought to Karachi a few pieces at a time, probably with the initial intention of smuggling them out of the country.

The incident should be taken as a reminder that Pakistan needs to do far more to protect its heritage and historical artefacts, and clamp down on the black-market trade in this regard. While the relevant laws are on the books, such as the Antiquities Act of 1975, in effect there is little to deter illegal or irresponsible excavation or transportation. This area requires greater attention, hand in hand with the need to sensitise the populace. The state needs to own our ancient history and pre-Islamic heritage, and raise awareness about it through textbooks and seminars. Also needed is a national plan to conserve and showcase this country’s rich inheritance.

World consensus on Syria

WITH more than 100 nations and organisations calling for tougher UN sanctions against the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad seems to be fighting a hopeless battle at home and abroad. The call for UN sanctions was given on Friday by the Friends of Syria group, which also asked the Security Council to adopt Kofi Annan’s six-point plan for transition to democracy. President Assad had accepted the plan but violated it; the truce didn’t hold, and casualties continued to mount. So far over 15,000 people have been killed, but the regime shows no remorse. Last week, the opposition received a boost when one of the regime’s insiders broke ranks and fled. Brig Gen Manaf Tlas, one of the elite Republican Guards’ top commanders, had defied orders and been confined to his home by the president’s brother, Gen Maher al-Assad, commander of the Republican Guards. Gen Tlas is now in Paris, but the Free Syrian Army feels he could be an asset for them. Gen Tlas won admiration from the opposition when he defied the regime’s orders to cut off all cellphone links in Rastan, a city that was under attack from the government forces and was suffering.

Independent of Hillary Clinton’s strong attack at the Paris meeting on Russia and China for their continued support for the Baathist regime, the two powers need to re-examine their Syria policy. Beijing has economic interests in Syria, while Moscow’s defence ties with Damascus have continued since the Soviet days. They also know that their vetoes could frustrate the move for UN sanctions. The issue before the two is to realise they are on the wrong side of the Syrian people, who as part of the Arab nation legitimately want to breathe the fresh air infused by the Arab Spring that has toppled four Middle Eastern dictators.