|
Afzal Ali Shigri // DAWN: 14 February 2025
IN 2019, a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court rekindled hopes of accession to Pakistan among the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). The region’s status as part of the disputed Kashmir territory had long obstructed this aspiration. The same year also saw the revocation of Article 370 in occupied Kashmir by India, which transformed Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, sparking controversy.
Despite demands by locals for accession, Pakistan has tarried in integrating GB. In 2015, the PML-N government established a committee under Sartaj Aziz to examine the region’s status. It largely endorsed the residents’ demands for integration and constitutional rights. However, the government later issued the contentious Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, presenting it as a move towards greater empowerment. This order reversed key provisions of the more favourable 2009 Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order that had been introduced by the PPP government.
When the PTI came to power, it reneged on its commitment to address the issue, deflecting local political pressure by creating the miasma of progress towards provincial status for GB. However, it maintained the undemocratic 2018 order rooted in colonialist regulations. It also scuttled a bill proposed by the Balochistan Awami Party for granting GB provincial status.
Amid these developments, civil society challenged the situation in the Supreme Court, where, after extended deliberations, a significant judgement was delivered. A seven-member bench, led by the chief justice, summarised its findings thus:
“We now turn to a question of importance, which is crucial for the success of the project of creating a framework of governance for GB of a constitutional nature. Any framework of such a nature necessarily implies, and indeed it could be said demands, a degree of continuity in the manner provided in the Proposed Order… . Otherwise, what good is it? Of what value are the fundamental rights enshrined in such a framework, and how independent can a judiciary created thereby be, if the structure is impermanent, and even ephemeral? This is all the more so where the framework is put in place in exercise of executive authority, by means of an Order promulgated by the President. Such an Order can be put in place … with a stroke of the pen, but likewise instantly cast into oblivion.
“Indeed, the manner in which the 2009 Order was replaced by the 2018 Order is a telling illustration of the point now under consideration. During the course of the hearing of these petitions, and in light of the submissions by various learned counsel and the observations of the Court, the Federal Government constituted a committee …to review the entire matter, and place before the Court a draft of a fresh Order for the governance of GB. This was duly done, and the draft … examined by the Court… . In our view, that draft, as modified in the manner hereinafter stated, does provide a suitable framework in the hue of constitutional nature for the governance of GB. The Federal Government stands committed to promulgating the same … in substitution of the 2018 Order.”
The following speaking orders were then issued.
I. “The Proposed Order … shall be forthwith promulgated by the President on the advice of the Federal Government, and in any case within a fortnight hereof;
II. “No amendment shall be made to the Order as so promulgated except in terms of the procedure provided in Article 124 of the same, nor shall it be repealed or substituted, without the instrument amending, repealing or substituting (as the case may be) the same being placed before this Court by the Federation through an application that will be treated as a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Nothing in this judgement shall be construed to limit the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Proposed Order itself; and
III. If the Order promulgated is repealed or substituted by an Act of Parliament the validity thereof, if challenged, shall be examined on the touchstone of the Constitution.“
Despite this, the PML- government, and later the PTI government ignored the court’s directives. Citing a petition from a private individual as an excuse, the PTI government delayed implementing the judgement. Rather than upholding its verdict, the Supreme Court scheduled hearings and considered unverified claims that the public wanted parliamentary approval for the legislation, embracing this weak rationale for postponement.
With local assembly elections approaching, political parties have renewed calls for GB’s provisional provincial status and issued a press statement collectively. However, residents remain cautious. The current order of 2018 has four key flaws: The order grants the prime minister unbridled authority devoid of accountability. It reduces the council with local representation for federal subjects to a consultative, powerless entity. The appointment process for superior courts lacks transparency and relies on government discretion, without an institutional framework for merit-based selection. The 2018 order retains the power to amend the entire governance structure arbitrarily.
Given the need for democratic and accountable governance in GB, the quest for a provisional province warrants immediate attention. To rectify its earlier missteps, the PML-N must implement the judicial verdict and issue the 2019 legal framework draft as directed by the court. Such a move would address the breaches of the draconian 2018 order, issued against the Sartaj Aziz Committee’s recommendations. The least the people can expect from the prime minister is respect for the apex court.
The writer, a former IGP Sindh, belongs to Gilgit-Baltistan.
Published in Dawn, February 14th, 2025
==============================================================================
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar // DAWN: 14 February 2025
THE self-proclaimed experts would have you believe that the present hybrid regime has overseen a turnaround in the country’s dire economic situation. They tell us that inflation is down to single digits (hardly any relief for the working masses); default has been averted (via numerous short-run debt rollovers); and tax revenues have increased (largely reinforcing an already regressive system).
While they pontificate about these ‘successes’, they avoid mention of the innumerable crises on the horizon. Among them is the absolutely diabolical state of our public universities. Put simply, they are on the verge of going bust, and the only concrete public policy of note is to let it all just happen while preaching the virtues of a ‘new’ corporate management style.
Public universities exist to ensure that no one is denied the opportunity to acquire higher education because they cannot afford to pay for it. Young people admitted that the best public universities are in principle guaranteed a reasonable quality of education, and good employment prospects after graduation.
Today, these basic precepts have been completely superseded. The majority of public universities now enrol at least as many ‘self-financing’ students than those who qualify for highly subsidised education. These self-financing students pay semester fees as high as Rs150,000. Fewer and fewer of them get access to university-run hostels, and those that do suffer from internet blackouts, low-quality food, and pathetic supplies of water, gas and other basic amenities.
Meanwhile, the quality of education in our public universities has plummeted, particularly since the Higher Education Commission introduced financial incentives to encourage faculty publications. Plagiarism is endemic, and in many departments the majority of courses are taught by visiting rather than permanent faculty.
Finally, it is no longer true that a degree from even the best public university represents a good chance of landing a permanent job and social mobility more generally. Thousands of graduates compete with one another for every single government job that is advertised. Private sector employers prefer private university graduates. Students who have acquired research degrees are resorting to daily wage/ online work.
As far as university teachers go, one would have to be living under a rock to be unaware that more and more faculty are regularly on the roads — some striking — to get their salaries paid on time. Visiting faculty members sometimes go for a year or more without pay. In Sindh, a large number of faculty are currently protesting the outlandish plan to institutionalise a new university management structure in which career bureaucrats become vice chancellors and academic and quality considerations become irrelevant.
This is just a symptom of a larger and more insidious policy shift. The state has in effect reneged on its responsibility to provide quality, affordable education. Funding for public universities has declined markedly over the past few years as successive regimes have acceded to the neoliberalisation of higher education. It was reported a few months ago that international lending agencies are, in fact, instructing the government to pull the plug on funding higher education entirely. Which means taking in more fee-paying students, phasing out permanent employees, and even treating university land as prime real estate to be leased or sold to the highest bidder.
This is the same mantra that we have been sold ad nauseam about any and all public institutions for decades now — either privatise them entirely, or corporatise them so that the mythical investor/ donor gets to do as they please while the fundamental premises of public service go straight out the window.
The short-term implications are playing out in front of our eyes with the everyday functioning of the public university more and more strained with each passing day. Even more remarkable are the longer-term implications. The median age of our population is 23. We are fed tales daily about syncing ourselves with the knowledge economy.
But while education rapidly metamorphoses into a profit-loss enterprise, most young people, including those who are acquiring degrees from a rapidly expanding private university circuit, are being sold empty dreams. There is no plan to generate employment, let alone quality education. The only apparent plan is to (quasi) privatise higher education and let the meltdown play out.
In a sense this is just a microcosm of the country at large. Spew out big fancy words under the garb of public policy, beg for money from the usual suspects, and then allow our gracious donors to lean on our own (largely disinterested and often incompetent) bureaucrats — including the khakis — to sell our kids down the river.
The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Published in Dawn, February 14th, 2025
==============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL:14 February 2025
SPEAKING the truth should never be a death sentence. The most recent figures published by the Committee to Protect Journalists highlight that last year was the deadliest year for reporters and media workers ever since the committee started keeping track of journalist killings about 30 years ago. The CPJ notes that at least 124 journalists were killed in 18 countries in 2024, “reflecting surging levels of international conflict, political unrest and criminality worldwide”.
Given its disregard for international law and human rights — as well as its routine engagement in war crimes — it is unsurprising that the Israeli military was the worst offender, by a significant margin. A total of 85 journalists were killed in the Israel-Gaza conflict in 2024, all at the hands of the Israeli military. Of the total, 82 were Palestinians, while three were of other nationalities. Alarmingly, Pakistan ranked at number two, along with Sudan, for the most journalist fatalities.
“Today is the most dangerous time to be a journalist in CPJ’s history,” CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg was quoted as saying. It is possibly also the most difficult professionally.
The rise of social media has greatly democratised information creation and sharing. Inadvertently, it has also magnified all the dangers of mass communication that responsible media outlets spent decades building processes and policies to avoid. With disinformation spreading and public discourse growing increasingly polarised, demagogues worldwide have attacked mainstream media, seeking to erode its credibility.
‘Influencers’ have used their clout and platforms to sow distrust against media workers, gradually diminishing public empathy for journalists’ struggles and plight. This much is evident in the apparent lack of concern for journalists’ life and liberty amid a rapid rise in reported fatalities.
“The rise in journalist killings is part of a broader trend of muzzling the media globally. This is an issue that should worry us all — because censorship prevents us from addressing corruption and criminality, and from holding the powerful to account,” the CPJ chief notes.
This trend is especially evident in Pakistan, where the media has been under siege for many years amid an ongoing sociopolitical crisis. Attempts to control it have become considerably more brazen with time, and the industry is now being targeted with lawfare as well as outright violence by both state and non-state actors.
Pakistan accounted for six journalist killings in 2024, of which three were deliberately murdered, according to the CPJ. The year marked the first time since 2021 that journalist fatalities were recorded in the country, making the deteriorating situation all the more alarming.
Journalists’ lives should not be written off as mere statistics. They provide a vital public service that involves much personal sacrifice. It is tragic that their important contributions to society are being repaid with increased violence and suppression.
Published in Dawn, February 14th, 2025
==============================================================================
ALSO READ
|
