Many of us already know about the spectrum auction curruption case in India. A year back we did a post on the lessons we can learn from the case India. Now when the PTA are all set to kick the specturm launch in March end the Supreme Court accros the border has given its rulling, cancelling 122 Telecom Licenses of worlds second larget mobile subscirber market.

This is a big setback for international investers, let’s see how this will effect the upcoming license auctions in Pakistan.

More from Reuters below:

India’s Supreme Court on Thursday revoked all 122 telecoms licences issued under a scandal-tainted 2008 sale, a fresh embarrassment for the government and plunging the mobile network market of Asia’s third-largest economy into uncertainty.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government, which oversaw the sale of the licenses at below-market prices, costing the exchequer up to $36 billion in lost revenues.

The licences affected by Thursday’s ruling include all of those held by Unitech Wireless, the Indian joint venture of Norway’s Telenor and Unitech.

“We have been unfairly treated as we simply followed the government process we were asked to,” the Telenor joint venture said in a statement. “We are shocked to see that Uninor is being penalised for faults the court has found in the government process.”

The telecoms scandal is the biggest of several that have emerged during Singh’s second term and triggered massive street protests last year. Two ministers, including former telecoms minister Andimuthu Raja, who presided over the 2008 grant process, have resigned. Raja is in jail awaiting trial.

“This country is no longer willing to allow these corrupt corporations and these corrupt public officials to retain the benefits of their illegal and corrupt actions,” said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer and petitioner in the case.

India is the second-largest cellular market in the world by subscribers, with 894 million at the end of December, although the market is crowded with more than a dozen operators, making call rates among the lowest in the world and squeezing margins.

Investors and operators have long been calling for consolidation in the crowded industry, and Thursday’s ruling stands to benefit the country’s biggest operators, including Bharti Airtel and Vodafone.

“Players like Bharti Airtel and Idea Cellular with popular brands and strong balance sheets will be clear beneficiaries because they can take advantage of this situation and increase market share,” said Jagannadham Thunuguntla, Head of Research, SMC Investments and Advisors, Mumbai.

Stocks in telecoms companies including Reliance Communications and Unitech fell after the verdict, but shares in Bharti Airtel jumped.

“For foreign investors, it is a very bad news. What mistake did they do? They partnered with Indian companies, invested lots of money and followed the process of that time,” said Rishi Sahai, director at consultancy firm Cogence Advisors in New Delhi.

The Supreme Court said the current licenses will remain in place for four months, in which time the government should decide fresh norms for issuing licenses, a lawyer involved in the case said.

India’s image as an investment destination was dented over the past year as the economy slowed, government reforms stalled and the telecoms scandals along with other high profile graft cases heightened concerns about government policies.

“This is a collective failure of the government of India, said S ubramanian Swamy, an opposition politician who brought the petition to revoke the license. ” The court has said that the government must now get the market value of these licenses .”

Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd and Videcon Telecommunications, part of India’s Videocon group are also affected, along with Etisalat DB, the joint venture between Abu Dhabi’s Etisalat and India’s DB group; and S-Tel.

Thirteen licences held by Idea Cellular and three held by Tata Teleservices are also affected.

via Reuters

Oliver North takes the Fifth

Could be. Countdown to the February 2nd Issa-Grassley hearing into Operation Fast and Furious is underway, and one of the biggest questions still unanswered is whether Congress will offer former AUSA Patrick Cunningham immunity for his testimony, and if Cunningham, so immunized, will shed any light on the parentage of an ATF operation that allowed roughly 2000 military-grade weapons to walk across the US-Mexico border and disappear, without a trace, into cartel arsenals.

Nobody seems to be holding his or her breath, but if Congress does pull an ‘Ollie North’ with Cunningham, or any of the witnesses it seeks to depose on Fast and Furious, expect the narrative to change. The irony alone, in a case that so closely resembles Iran-Contra, may provide the MSM with a much-needed jolt: Cunningham reprises North’s role when Congress, challenged by his close hold on the 5th Amendment, compels him to testify by granting him use or (less likely) transactional immunity.

Don’t remember the way it worked with North? Consider the following, pulled from court documents…

In November of 1986, a Lebanese newspaper reported that the United States had secretly sold weapons to Iran. Two months later, Congress established two committees charged with investigating the sales of arms to Iran, the diversion of proceeds therefrom to rebels (or “Contras”) fighting in Nicaragua, and the attempted cover-up of these activities (controversial events popularly known as “the Iran/Contra Affair”). In July of 1987, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North, a former member of the National Security Council (“NSC”) staff, testified before the Iran/Contra congressional committees. North asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before the committees, but the government compelled his testimony by a grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002. North testified for six days. His testimony was carried live on national television and radio, replayed on news shows, and analyzed in the public media.

The government compelled North’s testimony before Congress during an investigation into the possible illegal export of arms. Sound familiar?

Yes. And then what happens? North is indicted and convicted in 1989 on three counts…

Contemporaneously with the congressional investigation, and pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 591-599, the Special Division of this Court, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 49, appointed Lawrence E. Walsh as Independent Counsel (“IC”) and charged him with the investigation and prosecution of any criminal wrongdoing by government officials in the Iran/Contra events. As a result of the efforts of the IC, North was indicted and tried on twelve counts arising from his role in the Iran/Contra Affair. After extensive pretrial proceedings and a twelve-week trial, North was convicted in May of 1989 on three counts: aiding and abetting an endeavor to obstruct Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1505 and 2 (“Count 6″); destroying, altering, or removing official NSC documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071 (“Count 9″); and accepting an illegal gratuity, consisting of a security system for his home, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)(1)(B) (“Count 10″). North now appeals his convictions on these counts.

The story, of course, doesn’t end there. In 1990, North’s attorney challenges his client’s conviction before the Court of Appeals, and North, having taken the fall for Iran-Contra, is off the hook…

SUMMARY
Because of the length and complexity of our disposition of North’s appeal, we summarize our holdings.
(1) The District Court erred in failing to hold a full hearing as required by Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), to ensure that the IC made no use of North’s immunized congressional testimony. North’s convictions on all three counts are therefore vacated and remanded to the District Court for a Kastigar proceeding consistent with this opinion.

In plainspeak, what the Appeals Court concluded was that, despite the special prosecutor’s rigorous efforts to specify the quantity and content of evidence his team had gathered before North testified in front of Congress, despite Walsh’s submission of this evidence to Congress and other relevant authorities, witnesses involved in North’s prosecution by the federal court after he’d testified on the Hill had indeed been influenced by his initial, immunized testimony. North’s conviction was vacated.

Was North ‘over-protected’?

Democrats, of course, were incensed. There was a push to bring the case to a higher court, the Supreme Court, but that didn’t happen. So we are left, two days before another hearing into an investigation about the possible illegal export of arms, with a dilemma. If Congress compels Patrick Cunningham to testify with use immunity, what are the chances this man will take the fall, challenge any convictions that may result, and walk away, like North, a hero in the eyes of the present Administration and his party?

Clearly, the Issa-Grassley Committee must be pondering the same questions, measuring the distance between the law and realpolitik, and weighing their options.

Here’s what’s at stake. For the better part of a year, the Issa-Grassley Committee, as well as the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, have been homing in on Fast and Furious, hot on a trail investigators plainly believe may lead to the Office of the Attorney General and into the executive offices of DOJ, DHS, State, and even the White House.

Does the narrative include a political subtext? Of course. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md) has issued a Democratic rebuttal of the ‘conspiracy theories’ he believes are the real stuff of the current investigation. The report is good news for Obama supporters, who contend the investigation is a ‘witch-hunt,’ a claim echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder himself. The Attorney General told the press that media focus and much of the public attention devoted to Fast and Furious reflects a kind of latent racism directed at Holder and President Obama because “You know…we’re both African-Americans.”

So there.

Let me ask you another question. Would you hear applause from the Right, from pro-gun advocates, if Fast and Furious turned out to be nothing more than an operational cover for a ideological campaign to support gun control?

Absolutely.

But let’s not forget this bit of euphemistic wisdom, observations gleaned from politics, late 20th century: “Even paranoids have enemies.” And, says author Kathryn Olmstead, “Even conspiracy theories have roots.”

The roots are what Darrell Issa (R-CA) will be digging for on February 2nd.

Get on with it

Forget the politics–keep drilling.

More than 300 deaths and assaults have already been linked to that cache of US-supplied weapons, including the murders of two US enforcement agents gunned down by Mexican thugs carrying AK-47s provided by ATF. Senior ICE Agent Jamie Zapata, headquartered in Mexico, was killed by cartel assassins when he stopped at a checkpoint enroute to Mexico City. Zapata was unarmed, per dictum of the Mexican government, and traveling in a clearly marked US government vehicle.

US Border Patrol Brian Terry, a former marine, was gunned down on US soil, and the weapon his assailant used to end Terry’s life was an AK-47 that ATF allowed to walk across the US-Mexico border. Terry’s family wants to know what’s what. They want to know who authored Fast and Furious, whose wish was father to the act, and, if it is determined that laws were broken, the family wants to see “justice done.”

Do we owe them that much? DOJ, which refuses to comment, suggests no.

Here’s what Congress already knows: ATF had no provisions in place at any time to interdict the weapons before they could be used in the commission of a crime, or to track the arms after straw buyers walked the guns across the border into Mexico.

So much, say skeptics, for the ‘botched operation theory’–if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, well, there it is.

The only discernible operational objective, given that ATF did enter serial numbers belonging to the weapons into its eTrace database, appears to have been an attempt to jury-rig the number of ‘illegal’ weapons Mexican authorities recovered from crime scenes and sent back to ATF for identification.

The goal?

Reason, the 1+1=2 kind, tells us the aim must have been to support claims that the real source of cartel violence has been the willingness of US gun dealers, scofflaws all, to sell weapons to cartel straw buyers. In other words, the United States is to blame, to a larger-than-life extent, for the death of 50,000 Mexican civilians over the past five years.

Factor in the worst-kept secret at DOJ–that its policymakers, as well as officials at DHS and State, are designated hitters on the anti-gun team–and you’ve given the conspiracists yet another reason to believe.

Another plot-thickener: ATF’s part in supplying these weapons to straw buyers who trafficked them illegally into Mexico would never have come to light had not ATF Senior Agent John Dodson, one of the officers tasked with implementing the operation in Phoenix, blown the whistle to Congress after being informed that one of ATF’s weapons was linked to the slaying of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Committee goals

Here’s what Representative Issa and Senator Grassley are after, the aims of the House Oversight Committee:

Key Goals of Investigation
1.Expose the full scope of Fast and Furious
2.Deliver the Fast and Furious facts to the American people
3.Eliminate the program’s dangerous investigative techniques
4.Discover who is responsible for starting Fast and Furious
5.Discover who is responsible for implementing Fast and Furious
6.Discover which high-level government officials knew about Fast and Furious
7.Discover which high-level government officials approved Fast and Furious
8.Expose high-level government officials who failed to stop Fast and Furious
9.Hold accountable those responsible for Fast and Furious
10.Protect taxpayers’ rights to Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch

I’m thinking 4, and 6 through 9 are the big numbers at this point in the game.

There’s more, of course, a chart titled Fast and Furious key players offers readers a clear picture of ‘who’s who’ in this expanding legal tangle and how each player may be linked to the others.

Patrick Cunningham, who just resigned from his position with DOJ as AUSA, Chief of the Criminal Division, Phoenix, wants off this chart, and we don’t wonder why.

Cunningham, a close associate of former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, is the man Eric Holder says wrote a February 4th letter on DOJ stationary and sent it, full of ‘inaccuracies’ about ATF’s ‘gunwalking’ activities, to the House Oversight Committee.

DOJ says Cunningham lied

When the House Oversight Committee obtained incontrovertible evidence that ATF had, in fact, been ‘walking’ guns into Mexico with no plans for interdiction in place, Holder invented a remedy anyone who’s ever regretted pushing the ‘send’ button too quickly will appreciate–the Attorney General merely ‘retracted’ the letter he says his man Cunningham peppered with lies. Took it back, deleting, rendering insubstantial and non-material anything that might have briefly qualified as a falsehood via a little well-placed pressure on what Holder apparently believes is reality’s secret backspace key.

All gone.

But is it, really? The paper and the writing could have disappeared, the letter’s claims lost in a legal shell game, but the author, his recollections intact, remains. Patrick Cunningham, a highly placed US attorney who had handled scores of export control and trafficking cases since the mid-1980s for law enforcement in Arizona, is between a political rock and the hard place called a criminal investigation. And Cunningham, who just this week resigned from Justice and went to work for a private sector firm, needs to live to fight another day.

And this, of course, is where the Fifth Amendment comes into play.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is a wondrous thing. Rooted in the idea (scroll back to 17th century England) that no one’s testimony (gained via torture, duress, or just plain stupidity) can be used in a court of law to incriminate oneself, the Fifth, once claimed, cannot be construed as an admission of guilt or even an admission that one knows, somehow, someway, that a crime has been committed. That’s how the law interprets the Fifth.

In real life, as we know, silence is, in fact, often interpreted as a protective device, and yes, an admission or suggestion that the guy taking the Fifth does so because he knows enough about holes to stop digging. Immediately.

When Patrick Cunningham appeared before the House Oversight Committee on January 24, the former Chief of the Criminal Division in Phoenix refused to give more than his name and title, a move that Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif) clearly views as significant.

From Fox News:

Chairman Darrell Issa called the decision a “startling development” and in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the refusal to testify implies that “Mr. Cunningham may have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to Fast and Furious is a major escalation of the department’s culpability.

Now, Issa knows that Cunningham’s decision to take the Fifth cannot legally be construed as an implied admission of guilt. But he still takes the shot. Why? Because, within the context of the ongoing investigation into Fast and Furious, even Joe Sixpack will argue that this 1+1 equals 2.

There’s more:

Issa said Justice Department officials claim Cunningham misinformed them about Fast and Furious as the department prepared its initial response to Congress’ inquiry into the failed program. Cunningham’s lawyer denies those allegations.

Yes, you heard it right. Believe it or not, Cunningham’s lawyer not only rose to the bait, he swallowed it whole, declaring outright that “Cunningham is innocent.”

Why is this important? Because taking the Fifth only works if the defendant substitutes his or right to remain silent for a plea, and Cunningham’s lawyer has clearly entered a second-hand plea for his client–’innocent.’ Astonishing. The Cunningham legal team, it seems, wants to have its cake and eat it too…

Bad strategy. Cunningham, whom I’m betting almost everyone believes would really like to get up there and wallop the bejesus out of his prosecutors/persecutors, has to understand the hand he’s been dealt–full, my friends, of wild cards.

Cunningham’s options

He’s got a new job in the private sector–the name of the firm appears to be a secret, but I suspect it has close ties to the Democratic party. So Cunningham may believe he can play it safe by taking an ‘Ollie North’–if the Committee’s next move is to grant the man immunity–and emerge tarnished, hugely indebted, but whole, a free man and maybe still employed, or he can hold fast to his Fifth and pray the House Oversight Committee passes him by.

Bypassing Cunningham is a move Issa and Grassley have probably already considered, and it may be the smartest way to go, given the North scenario. But there are other, maybe better, options for the Committee. According to Big Government, “…a determined Congressman Issa has demanded that Cunningham’s underling, Michael Morrissey, Assistant United States Attorney, ‘speak with Committee investigators about his role in and knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious.’”

DOJ is already pushing back.

Since August, the Department has identified Patrick Cunningham as the best person in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to provide information about Fast and Furious to the Committee. The Department has refused to make Michael Morrissey and Emory Hurley, both Assistant United States Attorneys supervised by Mr. Cunningham, available to speak with the Committee, citing a policy of not making “line attorneys” available for congressional scrutiny. Mr. Morrissey, however, was Mr. Hurley’s direct supervisor, and an integral part of Fast and Furious. Importantly, both Morrissey and Hurley are unique in their possession of key factual knowledge about Fast and Furious not readily available from any other source.

Wow.

DOJ has long maintained that Congress has no business handing out subpeonas to ‘line managers’ and that the House Oversight Committee should focus only on the big fish. Morrissey, it seems, may be almost as valuable to the Committee as Cunningham, and Hurley, who was also assigned to the Criminal Division before DOJ shuffled him into Civil, is strong backup. So the question now, of course, is whether Morrissey, and other DOJ officials in line behind him, are all, each and every one, prepared to take the Fifth.

Games

And they’re costing taxpayers millions.

Without Cunningham, Morrissey, or Hurley, the upcoming hearing on February 2 may only be yet another chance for Issa and Holder to bounce one another off the sides of the cage, good for headlines, bad for taxpayers eager for a reasonable return on their money.

The key to maintaining momentum, as Issa clearly understands, is finding a player willing to talk, someone ready to name the guys who gave him his ‘orders’ in return for that ‘get out of jail free’ card.

Identify every ‘who’–all the way to the top–and the ‘why’ will follow.

Give Cunningham immunity, and there’s a chance he may be the last man standing. The fall guy.

But what do I know? Under pressure, and given the right deal, Cunningham might sing like the proverbial canary. There’s always the chance that convictions, in this scenario, might not be vacated down the road, that people might go to jail. And that’s the risk for Cunningham and his cohorts down the managerial line. Given this kind of jeopardy, Ollie North may be too tough an act to follow.

By Richard Leiby for The Washington Post

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, was permitted to travel abroad Monday by the nation’s Supreme Court after two months of fending off treason allegations over his purported involvement in a mysterious memo that sought Washington’s help to neuter Pakistan’s powerful military.

The court ruling indicated that authorities seem to have lost interest in continuing to probe Haqqani’s role in the scandal, known here as Memogate, which at one point threatened to bring down the civilian leadership of this coup-prone country.

Haqqani, a confidant of President Asif Ali Zardari, was forced to resign, recalled to Islamabad and ordered not to travel abroad after a Pakistani American tycoon, Mansoor Ijaz, alleged that the diplomat engineered an unsigned missive to the Pentagon hoping to block a coup in the turbulent days after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Haqqani denied involvement and said Ijaz, a onetime acquaintance, cooked up the memo.

In an e-mail to Agence France-Presse, Haqqani said: “I am glad that the Supreme Court has restored my right to travel, which had been rescinded without any charges being filed against me.” He added that he planned to join his family in the United States.

Memogate prompted a showdown between the army and the civilian leadership, which technically oversees the military, and brought an already shaky government to the verge of collapse. The fissures between the two sides now seem to have been repaired, and the incessant political and media interest in the scandal has waned in recent days.

One reason seemed to be the dwindling credibility of Ijaz, who has yet to appear to testify about his role in the memo, saying he fears for his safety. The bulk of evidence has come from Ijaz, who released logs of what he says are BlackBerry message conversations between him and Haqqani.

Since his return to Islamabad, Haqqani has stayed within the walls of the official government residence, saying he feared for his life.

Earlier this month, U.S. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) issued a statement condemning the “harassment” of Haqqani, a former journalist and Boston University professor. They called him a “principled advocate” for Pakistan.

Despite allowing the erstwhile diplomat to travel, the Supreme Court did not drop the matter entirely: It granted a two-month extension to the judicial commission that is probing Memogate. And Haqqani’s lawyer had to guarantee that the former envoy would appear before the court if called, on four days’ notice.

A separate parliamentary investigation is also underway.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, United States Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Husain Haqqani, Mansoor Ijaz, Memogate, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, PPP

http://www.awaztoday.com/playshow/19512/Islamabad-Tonight-Special-27th-January-2012.aspx
http://www.zemtv.com/2012/01/27/islamabad-tonight-27th-january-2012/
http://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f247/video-islamabad-tonight-nadeem-malik-27th-january-2011-shaikh-waqas-akram-khawaja-saad-rafiq-261868/

ISLAMABAD TONIGHT

WITH NADEEM MALIK

27-01-2012

TOPIC- MEMOGATE SCANDAL

GUESTS- MOEED PIRZADA, SHEIKH WAQAS AKRAM, KHWAJA SAAD RAFIQ

MOEED PIRZADA A JOURNALIST said that PML-N took memo case to the court but then it wanted to withdraw from the case. He said that in the beginning America was neutral but later on helped the government to save it. He said that PML-N and Peoples Party have reached on an understanding for early elections. He said that SC is not in the position to put pressure because it is adjudicating lot of cases. He said that if memo investigations would have proceeded the questions on general Pasha’s visit to London was also going to be asked. He said that PML-N and PPPP consider PTI their common enemy. He said that it is also needed to be observed that what kind of incentives America got by helping a deal on memogate scandal. He said that PML-N took memogate case to the court but phase out from the scene later. He said that people are very foolish because politicians raise slogans and pass time.

SHEIKH WAQAS AKRAM OF PML-Q said that Mian Nawaz Sharif took memogate case to the case but later on he vanished. He said that Mansoor Ajaz lawyer Akram Sheikh was also scolding that Mian Nawaz Sharif is not pursuing the case. He said that Mansoor Ajaz always talks against the Pakistan military and ISI.

He said that PML-Q is not in the favour of early elections. He said that they are elected for five years and want to complete their term. He said that his party members want to complete development programme in their constituencies before the elections.

KHWAJA SAAD RAFIQ OF PML-N said that PML-N is still demanding early elections in the country. He said that he does not know about any deal on memogate but there is some thing which government is trying to hide. He said that the memogate case was highlighted because of the pressure on the government and military after the operation against OBL. He said that PML-N did not backtrack from the memo case and it is still in the court. He said that the court will not let memogate case go they will reach to some conclusion.

–

Filed under: CURRENT AFFAIRS

Foremost among these is the raging controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie’s scheduled appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival, a saga that neatly encapsulates both the virtues and vices of the Indian polity. The gathering has fast emerged as the largest and most prestigious literary event in Asia, and it is a fine example of the soft power strengths India brings to the competition with China for influence in the region. This year’s installment attracted some 250 writers from South Asia and beyond (including talk show maven Oprah Winfrey, new age guru Deepak Chopra and Joseph Lelyveld, whose book on Mahatma Gandhi was greeted with a blast of invective from the Indian political class last year) as well as 70,000 visitors. Yet the imbroglio over Rushdie, who was supposed to be the main attraction at this year’s festival, has tarnished India’s credentials as emerging Asia’s brightest exemplar of democratic freedoms.

Rushdie, who was born in Mumbai to a Muslim family of Kashmiri descent, is the author of the 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, which inflamed Muslim sentiment throughout the world and lead Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s supreme leader, to issue a notorious fatwa against his life. Concerned about the potential for upheaval among its sizeable Muslim population, the Indian government quickly banned the book, part of its familiar but disgraceful ritual of proscribing books that touch on sensitive issues or arouse passions in certain quarters. Rushdie, who continues to live under the threat of death, has traveled to India without incident numerous times in the years since, including an unannounced 2007 visit to the Jaipur gathering that is credited with putting it on the world’s cultural map.

But his headline participation at this year’s event brought forth a torrent of umbrage and threats. Muslim clerics started things off, including those at Darul Uloom Deoband, an influential Islamic seminary in Uttar Predesh, India’s most populous state which will hold legislative elections next month that many believe are critical to the survival of the Congress Party-led national government in New Delhi. Another seminary issued a fatwa calling for protests against the visit and a number of Muslim groups warned of “unprecedented protests” and burned Rushdie’s effigy.

Predictably enough, politicians soon took up the cudgels, many of them Congress Party leaders fearful of losing the allegiance of Uttar Pradesh’s large bloc of Muslim voters, who formed about a fifth of the state’s electorate. Ashok Gehlot, chief minister of Rajasthan, the northwestern state where the festival takes place, and a former general secretary of the All India Congress Committee, reportedly pressed the organizers to rescind their invitation to Rushdie and appeared indifferent to the threats being made against Rushdie’s safety. Chandrabhan Singh, head of the Congress Party’s Rajasthan unit, declared that “Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of many Indians. He must not be allowed to come to India.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the party’s national leader, maintained a studious silence, while one of Singh’s Cabinet members pronounced that Rushdie’s “presence is not desirable.”

In contrast to the poltroon instincts of the political class, India’s boisterous media leapt to Rushdie’s defense. The Times of India accused the Congress Party of playing identity politics and argued that “by catering to such intolerance, the Congress has further contributed to creating an increasingly illiberal atmosphere in the country.” The Hindu called the affair “a national shame” and charged that “India has again betrayed its heritage of providing sanctuary to persecuted individuals and ideas, not to speak of its Constitution.”

If the saga had ended at this point, it would have amounted to an embarassment to the country’s reputation. Instead it unexpectedly morphed into an outrage against free expression. On the eve of the festival’s opening, Rushdie suddenly withdrew when the Rajasthan police warned him of an assassination plot being hatched by a Mumbai underworld boss who has close ties to the Pakistani security establishment. Media outlets, however, soon reported that the death threat was concocted by authorities to scare him away. When Rushdie made plans to address the gathering via video link, Rajasthan officials attempted to throw up new impediments. In the end, the video conference was abruptly cancelled by the venue’s owner following police warnings about violent protests.

In solidarity with Rushdie, four Indian writers at the gathering staged an impromptu reading of passages from The Satanic Verses, a prohibited act that drew quick police notice. Advised by legal counsel that they had unwittingly opened themselves up to criminal charges, the writers hastily departed Jaipur and, in some cases, the country.

Unfortunately, the Rushdie affair stands out for its prominence but not its singularity. Currently, the Delhi High Court is considering a petition that seeks to hold Google and Facebook liable for not censoring content that might offend the sensibilities of Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The judge overseeing the matter ominously warned that if the companies could not police their own sites, “like China we may be forced to pass orders banning all such websites.” Prime Minister Singh’s government has lent its imprimatur to the petitioner’s cause.

Late last year, Kapil Sibal, a Harvard-educated lawyer who serves as Mr. Singh’s telecommunications minister, likewise threatened to censor social networking sites for objectionable content (here and here).  Similar to the rhetoric directed at Rushdie, he argued that “religious sentiments of many communities and of any reasonable person is [sic] being hurt because of content which is on the sites.” Last June’s death of M. F. Husain, the most acclaimed painter of modern India, also recalled how he had been hounded into self-exile by Hindu nationalist groups incensed at his nude depictions of Hindu deities. Prime Minister Singh called Husain’s passing in a London hospital “a national loss” but he did nothing to dampen the mob culture that caused Husain to spend the last years of his life outside of India.

Indeed, over the last two years, India’s illiberal tendencies have been in particular bloom:

• A fictionalized biography of Congress Party supreme Sonia Gandhi was banned;
• Government officials helped put the kibosh on plans to make a movie based on Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire, a non-fiction book that sheds light on Jawaharlal Nehru’s furtive relationship with the wife of the British Raj’s last viceroy;
• An outcry organized by the family of Bal Thackeray, a Hindu nationalist politician, forced the University of Mumbai to drop Rohinton Mistry’s novel, Such a Long Journey, a finalist for the prestigious Man Booker Prize, from its English-language syllabus;
• And Arundhati Roy, a perennial bete noire to the political establishment and a Man Booker Prize-winner for her 1997 novel, The God of Small Things, was charged with sedition for her remarks on the Kashmir dispute.

All democracies are continuous works in progress. But this year’s Republic Day reveals just how far India still remains from the ideals of free expression.

A morning show broadcast in Pakistan on Jan 17, 2012, on Samaa, a Pakistani television channel, has catalysed what could well be the beginning of a media consumer rights movement.

In the show, Subah Saverey Maya kay Sath (Early Morning with Maya), the host Maya Khan, charges through a public park looking for dating couples to interrogate. With her is a battalion of other women, who join her in self-righteously lecturing the couples they come across – does your family know you are here, why don’t you meet at home if you are engaged, and, most outrageously, if you are married, where is your nikahnama (marriage certificate)?

When the harassed couples ask for the camera to be turned off, the Samaa team pretends to acquiesce but carries on filming with sound. As several people have pointed out, this intrusive behaviour could result in putting those couples in life-threatening situations in a country where forced marriages and ‘honour killings’ continue to be the norm.

The first time I saw a link to this show was on Jan 22, shared on a facebook group, on Jan 21, 2012. I, and many others, began sharing the Youtube links on facebook and twitter. As it spread, the outrage grew. People were shocked at the level of intrusion and vigilantism on display. From India, came comments on twitter about the Saffron vigilante brigade that has been known to drag couples into temples and force them into instant marriage. Which reminded me that the mentality we are protesting is not limited to Pakistan – see my article ‘Peaceful Pink Panties to Tame Right-Wing Goons‘ about the Sri Ram Sene goons in India. This was in 2009 but I hear they’re gearing up again against Valentines Day… Of course it’s always the poor, who can’t meet in secure hotels and cafes, who are always most vulnerable against this kind of moral policing.

Maya Khan’s antics on Samaa TV triggered off several articles and reports – starting with blogger Mehreen Kasana letting rip in her post (with doodles) An Open Letter to Maya Khan, Jan 22, 2012.

But most importantly, the outrage was channelized into a loosely organised protest. Dozens of people sent in complaints to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) at the online feedback form, shared quickly via facebook. On Jan 22, lawyer Osama Siddique drafted a brief letter expressing outrage at the  :highly intrusive, invasive and potentially irresponsible behavior on the part of the host – a kind of vigilantism no different than the Lal Masjid variety” (referring to the black-robed women armed with sticks called the Hafza Brigade, associated with the Red Mosque in Islamabad, who went around beating up and terrorizing women whose behaviour or looks they deemed ‘immoral’ or ‘unIslamic’).

The letter protested this moral policing, and pointed out that “this kind of programming is likely to also lead to legal action for violation of dignity of man under the Constitution – which legal action we as signatories will support, propagate and promote.” It demanded an end to “this irresponsible programming”.

A group of citizens emailed the letter to the Samaa head Zafar Siddiqi (President CNBC Pakistan, with which Samaa is affiliated), and an expatriate Pakistani in California, Ali Abbas Taj, uploaded it to Change.org as an petition titled STOP “Subah Saverey Maya kay Sath” vigilantism like Lal Masjid.

Within 24 hours, the online activism had the following unexpected effects:

* In about 24 hours, there were over 2000 signatures, and by the following day 4,800 people, in Pakistan and around the world, had endorsed it.

* Maya Khan’s facebook page was closed, probably in response to the number of comments being made on it. Some of those comments were highly abusive and threatening, which we condemn and have nothing to do with.

* Maya Khan on her show of Jan 23, 2012 acknowledged that what she did could have hurt people and said that was not her intention – but she has not apologised, and appears completely unrepentant and unaware of the dangers of her actions.

* CEO Samaa TV Zafar Siddiqi wrote back to the people who had emailed him saying:  ”I have travelled to Khi to look at this matter and yesterday Maya apologised in her program for this. I can assure this will never happen again. Samaa is a progressive channel.
“There are certain other directives that have been put into place as of yesterday.
“I thank everyone concerned in bringing this matter to my attention. It’s really appreciated.”

The citizens’ response:

* We do not accept Maya Khan’s statement in her show of Jan 23 as an apology. Nor are we satisfied with Mr Siddiqi’s attempts to placate us. We want an unconditional, public apology from both Maya Khan and Samaa TV.

* We do not hold Maya Khan solely responsible for her actions; it is the producer and channel owner who set policy and allow this kind of programming to happen. We want to know what steps are being taken and what policy directives given to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

* Maya Khan should apologise publically not just to viewers but also to the couples she harassed in the park.

* There’s also outrage against a 2010 moral policing show by ARY reporter Yasir Aqeel, who is if possible even more offensive than Maya Khan, and takes harassment to another level. We protest these intrusive tactics by TV channel owners to boost ratings by harassing peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

* We would like to know what ethical guidelines TV channel owners and producers are setting down to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

* We are in contact with the commercial sponsors of television shows and will impress upon them the need to pull advertising from programmes and channels that violate basic media ethics.

BOTTOM LINE: Media is not a business like any other. It carries greater responsibility and we want its workings to be transparent and ethical.

In addition:

A college student in Karachi, started a facebook ‘cause’ on Jan 24 demanding that Maya Khan apologise to the youth of Pakistan, especially Karachi

Some activists began an sms campaign, sharing Zafar Siddiqi’s Dubai cell number with this message: Please send this sms to Mr. Zafar Siddiqui, CEO SAMAA TV if you want to raise your voice against the moral policing by Maya Khan: “Dear Mr Siddiqi, pardon the intrusion. I’m part of a citizens’ group protesting Samaa TV and its host Maya Khan’s irresponsible ‘moral policing’. We expect an unconditional apology, and this show withdrawn or at least suspended until new parameters are worked out. Thank you. “

It hasn’t all been about anger and outrage though. Predictably, Pakistanis have derived considerable mirth from the situation, some of it rather unkindly expressed. There’s this outrageous post by Urooj Zia: Things Maya Missed (relevant to my Pink Chaddis report for IPS linked above).

Some funny graphics were created – like park signs saying “Beware of dog – and Maya Khan” (unkind, yes, but then, people are angry), posted by Arif Iqbal (@eusuphxai on twitter), who also posted this, that I especially liked: a still from the old Indian film “Bobby” with its famous song “Hum tum aik kamre mein band hon…” with the next line changed to “Aur Maya aa jaye” (the original line can be translated as: “what if we were locked up in a room… and the key got lost” – changed to: “… and Maya turned up”

There have also been some really nasty shares, including videos of Maya dancing, and an animation in which she gets slapped, but let’s ignore those for now, with just this comment, that we do not condone abusive language, personal insults or threats of violence.

More important, the issue has catalysed some relevant, thought-provoking reports, analyses and discussions, including those listed here:

Wusatullah Khan in BBC Urdu website, Jan 22, 2012: ‘Aap tau naib khuda hain’

BBC Urdu report, Jan 23, 2012: ‘TV channel ka anti-dating squad’

BBC Urdu Radio report, Jan 24, 2012: ‘Sawerey ka chapa’ par sakht tanqeed’ in which Samaa senior producer Sohail Zaidi rejects civil society concerns, defends show, saying, “I am not answerable to anyone”.

Vigil-aunties (a term coined by Anthony Permal) by Bina Shah, Jan 24, 2012: ‘At the very least, the channel and the anchorperson owe an apology, if not compensation, to those two individuals who had hurt nobody on that day when they were ambushed and harassed by the television anchor and her Moral Aunty Brigade. The irony is that she describes herself on her Facebook page as “very fair and honest in her dealings”. I think that girl in the niqab, crying in the park, and her blameless friend, as well as any sane person with a conscience and a respect for other people’s privacy, would beg to differ.’

‘Big Brother (and Sister) is watching you‘ – Nadeem F. Paracha, Jan 23, 2102, on the history of what he calls ‘pussycat vigilantism’ – “This strange phenomenon is not just about simple hypocrisy, it is also and actually about glorifying this hypocrisy through gung-ho acts in which pussycat media vigilantes prey upon soft targets to exhibit their ‘bravery’ but squeak away if ever an opportunity arises to do the same to those who can and will bite back.” He says the first reported case of moral vigilantism that he stumbled upon was reported in Dawn, 1980. Must read.

In the parks of Karachi, by Ejaz Haider, Jan 24, 2012 - “From the terrible scarcity of information we now have a nauseating excess of it.”

Media ethics and responsibility at Afia Salam and Faisal Qureshi’s online talk show Off the Cuff, discussing the need for a legal framework.

p.s. Well before this issue blew up, Hosh media, which aims to bridge the gap between online and mainstream media, sat down with veteran journalist and former Editor of Dawn, Abbas Nasir to initiate “a crash course in some of the stickiest subjects that journalism in Pakistan now faces”. Four of the six part series are online at the Hosh website, that Sahar Habib Ghazi wrote about at The great ethics debate (published Jan 23, 2012).

Updates will continue to be posted on the petition link. Watch this space.

Citizens’ statement of concern about the democratic process in Pakistan democratic and safety of human rights defenders, to be released to the media on Jan 5, 2012 (to endorse, please enter your information in the form at this link)

We, the undersigned, express our grave concern that Pakistani human rights defenders are being threatened and intimidated for their stance in the ‘memogate’ case. We are also concerned at the danger this crisis poses to Pakistan’s democratic political process that had taken a step forward with the elections of 2008.

No elected civilian government in Pakistan has yet completed its tenure and handed over power to the next government following democratic elections. If the current government manages to do this, it will be a first step in an ongoing process that is essential to Pakistan’s peace, progress and prosperity in the long run.

Those under threat include former Ambassador of Pakistan to the US, Husain Haqqani, who returned to Pakistan and tendered his resignation in order to ensure a free and fair inquiry into the ‘memogate’ matter that he is accused of engineering.

The so-called ‘memogate’ affair revolves around a letter that Amb Haqqani is accused of sending to then US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen allegedly at the behest of Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, seeking American help to prevent a military coup in Pakistan. Mansur Ijaz, an American businessman of Pakistani origin, delivered the note to former US National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones to pass on to Adml Mullen allegedly at Amb Haqqani’s behest. Amb Haqqani has denied writing any such memo at anyone’s behest or asking Ijaz to deliver it to anyone.

Amb Haqqani has been barred from leaving the country, which is a denial of his fundamental right as a free citizen of Pakistan. Under threat both by the ‘religious’ extremists and the security agencies, he is currently a virtual prisoner confined for his own safety to the Prime Minister’s residence.

Also facing threats is his lawyer, former Supreme Court Bar Association President, Asma Jahangir, who has termed the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 30, 2011 a “victory” for the security establishment that she alleges is behind the case.

Amb Haqqani’s wife, Farahnaz Ispahani, a Member of Pakistan’s Parliament, also threatened, is currently in the US where she had come for medical checkups. Columnist Marvi Sirmed, who has written fearlessly against the ‘religious’ extremists and in support of Amb Haqqani, has also been receiving threats, Columnist Marvi Sirmed, who has written fearlessly against the ‘religious’ extremists and in support of Amb Haqqani, has also been receiving threats, as has senior journalist Najam Sethi. There are numerous other journalists and activists who live under threat for their outspoken views; some are forced to seek politial asylum abroad. This is essentially the case with anyone in Pakistan who counters or challenges the narrative of the ideological security state.

Without going into merits of the case, obvious contradictions in the ‘evidence’, or political motivations behind it, it is evident that it is at the crux of a matter vital to Pakistan’s politics, that is, whether Pakistan is going to be run by a civilian elected government along the lines of a parliamentary democracy that ensures fundamental rights, or along the lines of a ideological narrative dictated by the security establishment that holds fundamental rights subservient to its interpretation of ‘national security’.

Too many people in Pakistan have fallen to the ideological monster unleashed by the establishment pursuing a narrow, ideological interpretation of ‘national security’. It is time for a fundamental paradigm shift in Pakistan’s politics, to allow the nation to fulfill its potential as a progressive, forward looking South Asian nation at peace with its neighbours and the world. We urge the Pakistan government, judiciary and security establishment to play their constitutional roles, cooperate with each other and focus on re-establishing the rule of law and in order to make this possible.

In the meantime, be aware that the world is watching to ensure that no harm comes to those who are taking a stand towards this end.

Endorsed (listed alphabetically; names still coming in are being updated; please endorse at this link):
• A. Chhachhi, Sociologist, Netherlands
• Abdul Ghafoor Chaudhry Social Activist Canada
• Abdul Hamid Bashani Khan, Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Canada
• Abdullah Hussein Novelist Lahore
• Afzal Tahir Kashmir International Front/United Kashmir Journal, London, United Kingdom
• Ahmad Rafay Alam, Lawyer
• Ali Kazmi Student Islamabad, Pakistan
• Ali Arqam Blogger, Social Activist Peshawar
• Ammar Yasir, Marketing Head, Tea Break Networks Karachi
• Annie Syedah Student United States
• Anushka Jatoi Student Karachi
• Asif Khan Earth Day Network Washington DC
• Ayesha Humayun Khan Citizen of Pakistan Dubai
• Ayesha Jalal, historian, Boston/Lahore
• Ayesha Siddiqa, Political Scientist, Pakistan
• Beena Sarwar, journalist
• Faisal Mahmood Officer in National Bank Malir
• Faraz Sheikh, social activist, Lahore
• Farooq Tariq, spokesperson Labour Party Pakistan, Lahore
• Fazil Jamili, Poet, Journalist
• Fakhar Ul-Islam Project Manager United Kingdom
• Fayaz Ahmad Historian Peshawar
• Ghazi Salahuddin, journalist and columnist, Karachi
• Hamad Ur Rehman CEO/ a human and social rights activist. Lyallpur.
• Haris Gazdar, researcher
• Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizens Web (sacw.net)
• Ibrahim Sajid Malick, Technologist, New York
• Dr. Ijaz Khan Professor of International relations University of Peshawar
• Dr. Ilmana Fasih, physician, health activist, blogger Canada
• Iqbal Alavi, social activist
• Irfan Mufti South Asia Partnership Pakistan Lahore, Pakistan
• Kamyla Marvi Citizen Karachi
• Khawar Mumtaz, Shirkat Gah. Pakistan
• Kiran Nazish Journalist, Activist, Lahore
• Karamat Ali, Labour Rights and Peace activist
• Meera Ghani, Environmental and Peace Activist, Belgium
• Mehmal Sarfraz, Journalist, Lahore
• Mehr Alwy Finance Manager UK
• Michael Renner Researcher U.S. / Germany
• Dr. Mohammad Taqi, Physician & Columnist
• Muhammad Idris Khattak Researcher OSI Pakistan
• Mohsin Sayeed Journalist Karachi
• Moniza Inam, journalist, Dawn, Karachi
• N. D. Pancholi, Secretary, Indian Renaissance Institute, Ghaziabad (UP), India
• Nadeem Yousafi Businessman Peshawar, Pakistan.
• Noman Quadri, student
• Noorjehan Bilgrami Artsist Karachi
• Dr. Osama Siddique, Law Professor, Pakistan
• Pervez Hoodbhoy, Physicist
• Dr Pritam Singh DPhil, Reader in Economics, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University, UK
• Qurratulain Zaman Media Consultant, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
• S. Abbas Raza, Editor, 3QuarksDaily.com
• S. M. Naseem, economist
• Saba Hamid, Actor, Pakistan
• Saba Quraishi, activist, United States
• Sabahat Ashraf (“iFaqeer”) Communcator. Citizen. Fakir. Silicon Valley, California
• Sadiqa Salahuddin, educationist, Indus Resource Centre, Pakistan
• Saleha Haque Student University of Salford, UK
• Sana Saleem Activist, Blogger Karachi
• Sarah Suhail Lawyer
• Sehba Sarwar Writer
• Shahla Haeri, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Boston University
• Shandana Mohmand, Political Scientist, UK
• Shahnawaz Student Karachi
• Shama Noman Educationist
• Shayan Afzal Khan, Citizen and activist, Pakistan
• Shahzad Ahmad Country Coordinator, Bytes for All, Pakistan
• Siddharth Nayak Managing Director , The Jurists ; President : All India Law Students Association New Delhi
• Soulat Pasha director Titan Energy Karachi
• Tahera Ahmad Physician Germany
• Tahir Saeed Senior clinical psychologist Ireland
• Tazeen Project Director, Intermedia
• Waqas Ali CRSD Peshawar
• Yasser Latif Hamdani, Lawyer
• Zeeba T. Hashmi Citizen Lahore
• Zohra Yusuf, human rights activist
• Zulfiqar Shah, The Institute for Social Movements, Pakistan Hyderabad

Husain Haqqani: Pawn in a larger game?

There are numerous issues besides ‘Memogate’ that directly affect the people, like the shortage of gas, electricity, clean drinking water, housing, healthcare, employment and so on. But the issue gains significance because so far, no democratically elected civilian government in Pakistan has ever been allowed to complete its tenure and hand over power to the next one through democratic elections (as I outlined in this paper). There were hopes that this government would be the first to do so – a critical step towards the continuation of a democratic political that is necessary to move the country away from the military-dominated politics of the past – something, as it is now all too apparent, is not a thing of the past after all. In this context, it’s important to understand the current situation and its dangers. Myra MacDonald sums it up in an analysis for Reuters. Some insights were posted to this blog earlier (here and here). Additional facts are laid out in a document received today (reproduced below) that outlines some facts about Husain Haqqani and ‘memogate’. Also read this important article, ‘Treason? Under what Constitution? in the New Pakistan blog, which dissects the ‘memo’ contents and notes that each item in the document falls under the constitutional purview of the federal government…

Issue at hand: Former Ambassador of Pakistan to the US, Husain Haqqani, is currently a virtual prisoner as his life is under danger both from the extremists and from the security agencies. He is residing for his own safety at the Prime Minister’s residence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan imposed a travel ban on him on December 1, 2011 restricting him from leave the country. His wife, Member of Pakistan’s Parliament, Farahnaz Ispahani’s life is also in danger, which is why she is currently in the US where she had come for medical checkups.

This situation arose after the false allegations by an American businessman of Pakistani origin, Mansur Ijaz, who claimed that the Ambassador and President Zardari had sought American help to prevent a military coup in Pakistan. Ambassador Haqqani has flatly denied these allegations. Further, Ambassador Haqqani knew Admiral Mullen very well and could have contacted him directly anytime; it defies understanding why he would need Ijaz to convey a message to Admiral Mullen.

A history of false claims: Mansur Ijaz is well-known over the years for self-promotion and false claims. During the mid-1990s he claimed that he had close ties to the Sudanese government and would be able to help the Clinton administration get Osama Bin Laden. However, both Clinton NSA Sandy Berger and the 9/11 Commission that interviewed Ijaz found no credible evidence in what he said. In 1999 Ijaz claimed to be the American envoy to India and Pakistan to help resolve the Kashmir dispute but in the end neither side found him credible or someone who could deliver. In 2004 Ijaz claimed that chemical warheads were being smuggled into Iraq for an attack on American troops which he later denied.

The ‘memo’: Former US national security advisor General Jim Jones conveyed Ijaz’s memo to then Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Gen Jones in an affidavit has sworn that he believes Ambassador Haqqani had nothing to do with the memo. According to General Jones the language of the memo was akin to what Ijaz wrote.

Ijaz claims that soon after he wrote an OpEd about the ‘memo issue’ on October 10, 2011, Pakistan’s ISI chief, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha flew to London, met him and examined the evidence and found it credible. However, Admiral Mullen has stated that when he received the memo from Gen Jones, he did not find it credible and took no action on it.

Threats: Asma Jahangir, leading human rights advocate and counsel to Ambassador Haqqani, has stated that Ambassador Haqqani is under threat from his own intelligence-security agencies. In this context Admiral Mullen in one of his final testimonies stated that Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, and the Pakistani military have often lied to the Americans, and provide support to the extremist groups, including those who kill Americans.

Action required: Ambassador Haqqani needs to have his passport returned to him and have his name taken off the Exit Control List (ECL) so he can travel. The due process of law must be applied.

Background: The government’s opponents – in the media, political parties, military-intelligence establishment – have used this opportunity to attack the government and try to make Ambassador Haqqani a scapegoat. Some worrying facts:

• Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif (who in 1999 had Ambassador Haqqani imprisoned and tortured for writing OpEds against his regime)  is the leading petitioner before the Supreme Court.
• • The Supreme Court took up Mr Sharif’s petition instead of sending it to a trial court first.
• The Supreme Court ignored due process of law and immediately placed a travel ban on Ambassador Haqqani without letting him or his counsel appear before court.
• The head of the ISI himself conducted a forensic investigation and the army chief and head of ISI have stated in their affidavits that they believe the ‘memo’ was genuine – which points to an attempt to frame the Ambassador by institutions that have never agreed with his views.
• A political-media trial and witch-hunt has been ongoing since Ijaz’s OpEd first appeared in the Financial Times.

Detailed Background and Information

Background of Memo: The origins of the memo are in dispute. On October 10, 2011 an American businessman of Pakistani descent, Mansur Ijaz, wrote an OpEd in Financial Times alleging that in the aftermath of the Osama Bin Laden raid of May 2, 2011, he was approached by a senior Pakistani diplomat to pass on a memo to enlist the US military’s help to head off a feared military coup, in exchange for overhauling the country’s powerful top security leadership. He said he gave the memo to former NSA Gen (retd) Jim Jones who passed it on to then Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

In the ensuing weeks Ijaz claimed that Amb Husain Haqqani was that senior diplomat and that he and Amb Haqqani corresponded by Blackberry messenger messages, phone conversations and emails.

Amb Haqqani flatly denied these allegations. Admiral Mullen stated that he had received a memo but he did not find it ‘credible.’ According to Mullen’s spokesman “I have said this before and am saying again today. Nothing about that letter had the imprimatur on the Pakistani Government. It was not signed. And the contents of it Admiral Mullen did not find credible. So he took no action on it.” (November 22, 2011)

Amb Haqqani returned to Pakistan on November 19 and tendered his resignation in order to ensure a free and fair inquiry into the issue. The civilian government, while supporting Amb Haqqani’s account accepted his resignation. His passport was confiscated upon his return to Pakistan.

Supreme Court action: December 23, former Prime Minister and leader of the main opposition party, PML-N, Nawaz Sharif filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) claiming that under article 184(3) of the Constitution, the SCP could take up any issue of public importance which relates to fundamental rights. SCP accepted the petition along with other petitions.

On December 1, 2011 the Pakistan Supreme Court placed former ambassador Husain Haqqani on the Exit Control List (ECL) barring him from being able to leave the country, without giving the former ambassador or his lawyer to appear before the court. So due process of law was not followed and Mr Haqqani’s fundamental rights were violated.

Gen Jones in his affidavit to the Pakistan Supreme Court stated that while he did pass on the memo he does not believe Amb Haqqani had anything to do with the memo.

On December 30, Pakistan’s Supreme Court set up a 3-member judicial commission to investigate the issue. According to the SCP judgment a petition seeking an investigation into the affair had “succeeded in establishing that the issues involved are justiciable.” The court also upheld the travel ban on Amb Haqqani. Further, the court has ordered the attorney general of Pakistan, Foreign Ministry and the Pakistani High Commissioner in Canada to approach the parent company of Blackberry, Research In Motion (RIM).

The government maintains that since Pakistan is a parliamentary democracy the correct forum for any such inquiry should be the parliament. The Parliamentary Committee on National Security was already looking into the case and that should be the proper venue not the Supreme Court.

Counter arguments by Amb Haqqani’s lawyer, Asma Jahangir: According to Ambassador Haqqani’s lawyer, leading human rights advocate, Asma Jahangir, the verdict was the “darkest day for the judiciary because the apex court has subjected fundamental rights to national security.”

Terming the court’s judgment ‘disappointing’, she said, “today we feel that the military authority is superior to the civilian authority. Today, the struggle for the transition to democracy has been blocked.” And, “I am forced to think if it is the judiciary of the people or the judiciary of the establishment.” Ms Jahangir also expressed her deep regrets and said she was totally unprepared for this reward of sacrifices rendered by lawyers’ fraternity, as the Court ‘dimmed even a fraction of ray of hope’, while providing the petitioner with relief beyond what they had sought.

Ms Jahangir said the decision was against the rule of law and had compromised a citizen’s right to justice. The verdict reflected undue supremacy of national security and integrity over human rights. “When order came on 1st December, Husain Haqqani was not heard. He did not even have a lawyer,” she said. “Saying that there is a memo and linking it with Husain Haqqani are two different things, it’s more of a media trial that got hyped after Supreme Court’s order”.

DG ISI Shuja Pasha and Gen. Kayani: quick to accept Mansoor Ijaz's claims

Amb Haqqani’s lawyer and others have pointed to the role of Pakistan’s security services, especially its intelligence agency. Both the head of Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha and Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, submitted petitions before the Supreme Court insisting they believed the memo was genuine and needs to be investigated. Significantly, according to Mansur Ijaz, Lt Gen Pasha travelled to London in October and ascertained that the memo was genuine. Why was Lt Gen Pasha so eager to travel to London and agree with what Ijaz said? Whose permission did he obtain before doing so? Is he the person who should perform a forensic investigation? Mr Ijaz also alleged in an interview in December that soon after the Bin Laden raid Lt Gen Pasha travelled to the Gulf to muster support for a military coup.

Imminent danger to Mr Husain Haqqani: A media trial has been ongoing since Mansoor Ijaz’s OpEd published in FT in October. The involvement of opposition parties and their leaders in this political-media witchhunt.

The judiciary seems to be ruling on the basis of national security ideology instead of constitution and law.

All those individuals who are speaking out in Pakistan for democracy and human rights are being silenced one by one. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, former Governor Salman Taseer, former Minister Shahbaz Bhatti were assassinated. Former Amb Haqqani and his lawyer have received serious death threats.

On January 1, 2012, Ms Jahangir announced that she was quitting the case as she did not have faith in the commission been set up by the Supreme Court. According to Ms Jahangir, the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition was a victory for the country’s establishment, and it was being used to transform the country into a ‘security state.’

Ms Jahangir further stated that her client, Mr Haqqani, was under threat from the security agencies. She feared that the security forces-intelligence agencies would try to coerce a statement out of Mr Haqqani. That is why he first stayed at the President’s House and is currently residing at the Prime Minister’s residence.

(ends)

The equation as it should be: Army following policies set by the civilian elected government, not the other way round. (Reuters file photo)

What is ‘Memogate’? The ‘memo’ in question is a letter allegedly written at the behest of Pakistan’s President by the Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, asking USA to prevent a possible military coup in Pakistan after US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. Haqqani denied the allegations, sent in a letter offering to resign in order to facilitate an impartial inquiry, and returned to Pakistan to clear his name. Instead, he found his resignation letter accepted. The Supreme Court barred his exit from Pakistan. He has been forced for his own safety to confine himself first to the Presidency and then to the Prime Minister House. On Dec 30, 2011, The Supreme Court in response to a petition against the ‘memo’ formed a three-member judicial commission to look into the matter that the media has dubbed as ‘memogate’.

Asma Jahangir, counsel for Husain Haqqani and former Supreme Court Bar Association President, has refused to appear before the commission saying that she does not trust the judiciary. She has said that instead of forming a commission to create or produce new evidence the Supreme Court should have looked into the evidence placed before it to decide whether there was a prima facie case and whether the court could proceed to enforce any fundamental rights by making a binding order.

"When did the army ever leave (power) that it should come back?" asked Asma Jahangir

The entire affair appears to be geared towards undermining the democratic political process in Pakistan – specifically at targeting President Asif Ali Zardari, using Husain Haqqani as a vehicle. Asma Jahangir has unequivocally termed the Supreme Court’s judgment as a victory for the military that has run affairs in Pakistan for decades and is obviously still all-powerful behind the scenes.

Asma Jahangir has argued that the Supreme Court had no right to bar Haqqani’s travel abroad. Nor does Supreme Court or the judicial commission set up, have the right to demand Blackberry (RIM) data without due process of law. No server (BU or RIM) should share data with Commission, which is essentially pursuing a political dispute, not criminal charges. The judiciary seems to be ruling on the basis of national security ideology instead of constitution and law.

In the first place, the Supreme Court was not competent in the first place to uphold the petition as maintainable, given that no fundamental right had been violated as a result of the memo and its alleged conspiracy. Secondly, the memo had in any case failed to achieve its alleged aim – according to its recipient (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen) as well as the Pakistan Army Chief.

“Article 184(3) empowers the Supreme Court to make an order in matters of public importance guaranteed in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution in which violation of any fundamental rights has taken place. In this case, no violation of fundamental rights has taken place, a most essential question, without an answer to which the court should not have proceeded to make an order of this nature,” comments advocate Asad Jamal in his informative article of Dec 4, 2011 (Deconstructing the SC order on the memo).

The existing evidence is not sufficient to determine whether there was some conspiracy or threat to the security or sovereignty of Pakistan. The evidence placed before the court by the DG ISI and Mansoor Ijaz shows that there was no conspiracy or threat to the security or sovereignty of Pakistan.

In fact there are several contradictions in Mansoor Ijaz’s claim. For one thing, his email dated 10 May, 2011 (annexed with Mansoor Ijaz’s affidavit before the SC) addressed to Gen (Retd.) James Jones, former US national security adviser who handed the ‘memo’ to Admiral Mullen, states that the so-called memorandum had been prepared by three persons. Moreover, Gen. Jones in his affidavit has said that Mansoor Ijaz never mentioned Husain Haqqani’s name in his communication with him, implying that Husain Haqqani was never involved in drafting it or in asking for its delivery to Mike Mullen.

The court says it will not go into the facts of the case, but is clearly influenced by the DG ISI’s statement that he went and met Mansoor Ijaz on October 22, 2011, examined his evidence and believed that what he was told was correct. If the DG ISI has evidence about the case, given that he went all the way to London to meet Pakistan origin US citizen Mansoor Ijaz, why has he not presented it in the court to facilitate the evidence collection?

Husain Haqqani: Scape-goated?

Mansoor Ijaz’s Blackberry messages (BBMs) contain nothing from Husain Haqqani about the supposed memo.  Going by the transcript, assuming it is genuine, it was Mansoor Ijaz who offered to fly down to meet Husain Haqqani in 90 minutes – it was not Haqqani who invited him. There are other obvious problems with the existing evidence, including discrepancies in the BBM transcript attached with Mansoor Ijaz’s reply and that published in The News. Then, Mansoor Ijaz in his covering email to Gen (Retd.) James Jones, former US national security adviser who handed the ‘memo’ to Admiral Mullen, writes that the attached ‘memo’ was drafted by three ex-officers related to national security. Gen. Jones in his affidavit testified that Mansoor Ijaz never mentioned Husain Haqqani.

“Article 184 (3) is not an automatic trigger that gets pulled with the filing of a petition; a petitioner has to make out a proper case,” notes advocate Jamal. “When there is no violation, what fundamental right will the SC maintain? The commission appointed by the SC is to conduct an inquiry but its findings will not be binding on any court of law, the government or the Parliament. So what fundamental rights will be enforced?”

The argument so far was restricted to the maintainability of petitions but by appointing a commission, the court went a step further, granting the entire relief (and more) in one go without hearing the arguments, or discussing the commission’s terms of reference. Then, after assuming that the memorandum’s “issuance, prima facie, seems to be established”, the court suggested that the offence (the nature of which is yet to be determined) may invoke Article 6 of the Constitution, i.e. the offence of treason, notes Jamal.

He points out that: “The petitioners have, intriguingly, arrayed the President of Pakistan as a respondent, to which no objection was raised by the Court.” This lends credence to the widespread perception that the real target in this case is the President – an allegation that Asma Jahangir also levelled in her interview with Matiullah Jan of DawnNews TV, Dec .31, 2011.

Many lawyers privately agree with this view but balk at expressing their opinions publicly, afraid of antagonising the courts on which they depend for their living. “They have to plead before these same courts for relief for their clients,” says Asad Jamal. “No one wants to risk getting their backs up.”

The court’s attitude to Asma Jahangir was downright hostile, he observes. “She stood for three hours before they let her speak, and she barely said a few words when they cut in, they basically didn’t let her speak”.

Regarding Asma Jahangir’s refusal to appear before the Commission, Asad Jamal notes that for one thing, she had expressed her distrust of the Commission, and secondly, its proceedings are expected along the lines of a criminal case, which is not her area of expertise.

Last but not least, it is a matter of grave concern that Husain Haqqani, his lawyer Asma Jahangir, the columnist Marvi Sirmed and others who have taken a stand in this issue that counters the view propagated by the security establishment, find themselves at serious risk in Pakistan.They regularly receive threats to their lives. A highly dangerous situation in the current climate in Pakistan, where rule of law leaves much to be desired.

(ends)

Asma Jahangir: Speak out for democracy

Husain Haqqani: scape-goated and threatened

Former Pakistan ambassador Husain Haqqani’s counsel Asma Jahangir sounds a sombre warning about the danger Haqqani is in from the military and intelligence agencies that are capable of picking him up and ‘twisting his limbs’ to make him say what they want to hear. Talking to Dawn TV’s Matiullah Jan in a detailed interview of Jan 1, 2012 she says that she took up the case because she found it a travesty that an individual was being condemned on the basis of a media trial without due process or representation. However, she will not represent him before the Judicial Commission that has been formed as she does not trust the process. The interview, posted in six parts (about 5-6 min each), is worth listening to in full as she makes some crucial points about the significance of this judgement to Pakistan’s politics. She sums some of these points up in this earlier brief interview with Al Jazeera English:

“It’s is a very disappointing judgement, because the Supreme Court has actually said it is people’s fundamental right to come set up a commission against anyone that they accuse. So once a commission is set up and if Mr Haqqani is aggrieved by that something the Commission has done, there’s nowhere he can go; his due process has been taken away. But more than that it has restricted fundamental rights to national security. It’s a big blow to those who believe in the democratic process and in the protection of fundamental rights”.

The issue as she said, was not about one individual, Husain Haqqani. “The point of the case is to go right up to the government. So this is basically (about the) civil military relationship in which sadly the courts have more or less shifted their weight with the establishment.”

In Pakistan, the military is still in power, there has been no transfer of power, she said. “They have been able to use one of the opponents of the government to go to court and take this petition under the guise of fundamental rights.” So our fundamental rights “are now subservient to national security. When there’s a tussle between what the civilian government says and what the military says, which are two different things, there has to be a showdown and where will that take us?”

Asked what the course of action should have been, she pointed out that there was already a parliamentary commission looking into ‘Memogate’. And secondly “there are laws in this country under which they could have got an investigation”. Instead, they moved to the highest court as the first instance, taking Mr Haqqani “out of the queue and denying due process”.

In her Dawn News interview later, elaborating, she says she expected the judges to uphold the Constitution and fundamental rights, rather than undermining them in the guise of ‘national security’.

“I don’t have great expectations from the judges, they seem to have expectations of themselves,” she said. “I’ve argued in court, because this is such a politicised matter, let the politicians settle it. Secondly, if we want to further democratic norms and traditions, we need to support the power of the people” rather than the power of the establishment. It is this that will provide the state its true security.

“That’s not the job of the SC. Their job is to support us, the citizens. Judges are subservient to the Constitution. This is a crucial and critical point. They should not make an issue out of national security. There can be many interpretations of national security.”

To Matiullah Jan’s question about the issue of national security, given Pakistan’s status as a “Muslim nation with nuclear weapons”, she replied: “You can’t compromise on fundamental rights, you can’t compromise on people’s rights. Secondly, there was no danger to national security.”

About Mansoor Ijaz, she said, that the DG ISI went to him and said that prima facie this is a case. Someone who has been writing articles against Pakistan for some years, DG ISI never went to him before. He is “a man who is a US citizen, who says his loyalty is to United States, someone who has written many articles against Pakistan, including one that I didn’t read out in court out of respect, in which he’d written that the Chief Justice is indebted to Nawaz Sharif. You’re accepting his credibility, not giving credibility to your ambassador to US. You’re informing the civilian government after you’ve already conspired against them. There are so many holes in the BBM memos that we’ve pointed out, but the CJ can’t see those holes?”

In essence, the army leadership has prevailed over society and institutions. This is a victory for them. There have been many petitions before SC earlier but “this is the first time that that notice was sent to them and they went running.”

Asked what proof there was that the petition was sponsored by the military, she said for one thing, they are never in such a hurry to reply, secondly, they didn’t go through Attorney General, and thirdly, it’s “clear that the federation is giving one answer, they’re giving another”.
Could this have happened if the government wasn’t weak, asks Jan.

“Yes, the government is weak. We wouldn’t have seen this day if it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter which government it is, what matters is whether the army is going to retain its influence on politics in Pakistan. They’ve exposed themselves. They’ve exposed the fact that the DG ISI was carrying out an investigation against the Prime Minister.”

She said she had asked Husain Haqqani to get another lawyer for the Commission, as it was too much for her blood pressure.
“As a professional lawyer, shouldn’t you be able to fight this case also?” asks Jan.

“It’s not about losing a case. We lose 3-4 cases every month,” she replied. “This has been a struggle I’ve been involved in (restoration of judiciary and democracy). There was a hope, but I don’t see that being fulfilled. It’s not personal, it’s not about this government or another. There are much bigger issues at stake.”

The basic issue, she stressed, is the civil-military relationship. The judgement has been a setback to the struggle for democracy and due process. The struggle, as Asma Jahangir said, will continue.

In July 2008, 14-year-old Hamidullah Khan was picked up in Pakistan, his home country, and handed over to the Americans as a terrorist. He was shipped to Afghanistan and thrown into the US military prison in Bagram – unable to contact his family to tell them his location or get a lawyer to ensure his most basic rights were being met. Hamidullah was a child. The last four years of his life should have been spent playing football with his friends, going to school or spending time with his family, or in any of the other simple occupations of childhood which you or I would take for granted. Instead, he has been languishing behind bars, imprisoned in the legal black hole that is Bagram, while the final years of his childhood dwindle away to nothing.

I have never spoken to Hamidullah (lawyers are not allowed in Bagram) but as a fellow human being, I feel it is my duty to ensure that he is not forgotten, and to hope that while he has been robbed of his young life, he will not also be robbed of his adulthood.

Secret prisons like Bagram have become a crutch for the USA, and for international intelligence agencies, in the so-called “war on terror.” Used to stow away “suspects” without any need for evidence, procedure, or accountability, they have quickly become venues beyond the reach of the law. The concept of fundamental rights, including the assumption of innocence, has been cleanly erased. The US has sacrificed human rights worldwide – and in the process, human life – in the false belief that this will ensure its security.

My charity, Reprieve, along with our partners, the Justice Project, represent seven Pakistanis held beyond the rule of law in Bagram. We are trying to secure their most basic legal rights, and ultimately their release from a facility that has been described as “Guantanamo’s evil twin.” After a year of adjournments and our petition being handed from judge to judge, it had begun to look like Bagram might forever remain beyond the reach of Pakistani law – even though many of the Bagram Pakistanis have been “cleared for release.”

But there is hope yet. The recent order passed by Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan of Lahore High Court in the case of these seven individuals has begun to push the door open for the law.

The judge’s response to our petition was insightful. He asked the government’s Standing Counsel why it was that while criminals like Raymond Davis can get away with murder and be sent back to their country so quickly, innocent Pakistani children are allowed to suffer torture in a foreign country for years on end, without any evidence against them. In October, Justice Khalid Mehmood ordered Pakistan’s government to send a representative to Bagram to interview the prisoners, collect all the relevant information regarding their arrest and charges against them, if any, and report back to the court in one month.

This order is not only a victory for the innocent detainees biding their time at Bagram, but also for the Pakistani nation in general and the judiciary in particular. For Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan to stand up to US pressure, and to uphold the rights of ordinary people in this madness that is the “war on terror,” is no small feat.

Pakistan could use a lot more judges like Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan; judges with integrity, who are faithful to the law and who are not afraid of challenging the illegal practices that have spread from the US throughout the world during the “war on terror.” It is heartening to know that while the fight to bring the rule of law to Bagram is far from over, someone like Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan continues to seek the truth against all odds. As long as he does so, there is still hope for the young man who has been forced to grow up in a foreign prison, and sadly beyond the reach of the law.

By: Clive Stafford Smith, Founder and director of Reprieve, UK.
Email: info@jpp.org.pk