Response to challenges

Minister of Interior Rehman Malik's vitriolic attack in the Senate against the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) for claiming responsibility for numerous heinous crimes is seen by many as aligning himself firmly with the security forces; and indirectly against the Supreme Court's suo motu notice of the Baloch disappeared that, so claim the self exiled BLA leadership, is the main cause of the feeling of disenfranchisement of the Baloch people.
Malik, as always, not only externalised the problem by blaming Afghanistan and India for assisting BLA insurgents but, again as usual, was long on accusations but silent on the solutions to the intractable Baloch problem that, without doubt, was inherited by the present government but for which the government has done little to resolve over its four and a half years' rule. Malik would do well to take note of two recent international events and draw some lessons from them which he and the rest of the cabinet should then apply judiciously.
The two events are (i) the hand-shake between the Queen of England and her erstwhile most vociferous critic Martin McGuiness, the current deputy first minister of Ireland and a former commander of the militant wing of the terrorist declared Irish Republican Army, who single-handed is responsible for the deaths of many English civilians and military personnel; and (ii) the United States Supreme Court verdict 5 to 4 in favour of President Obama's health care plan.
McGuiness was convicted by the Special Criminal Court of the Republic of Ireland in 1973 after being caught in a car containing 250 pound explosives and about 5000 rounds of ammunition. However, he refused to recognise the court, served a six month sentence, and proudly declared his membership of the provisional IRA. His rationale "we have fought against killing of our people," a sentiment that is echoed by leaders of the BLA.
The 1998 Good Friday Accord evolved painstakingly was a major political development in the peace process between mainly the IRA and Britain, but included the other 8 parties in Northern Ireland. The Agreement was made up of two inter-related documents: an international agreement between the governments of Britain and Ireland and a multi-party agreement between most of Northern Ireland's political parties, excepting the Democratic Unionist Party.
The Agreement set out provisions relating to a number of thorny issues between the two protagonists: the future status and system of government within Northern Ireland; relationship between Northern Ireland and institutions in both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; human rights; the principle of respect for each of Northern Ireland's communities and their traditions; the decommissioning of arms held by various paramilitary groups; the release of members of paramilitary groups from prison; and the normalisation of British security arrangements within Northern Ireland. Decommissioning remained the thorniest issue and it was not until 2005 that Sinn Fein announced that it would decommission with Gerry Adams, representing the political arm of the IRA, calling on the IRA militant wing to use exclusively peaceful means though there was no call to disband. This is not to say that periodic political killings (for example, PC Stephen Carrol's murder by dissident Republicans in 2009) are a thing of the past however conflict is, by and large, of relatively low intensity.
The peace accord and allowing bygones to be bygones by the political government in London set the stage for the handshake between the Queen and Martin McGuiness. It is truly a landmark achievement and one that requires careful study by those engaged in dealing with the insurgency in Balochistan that is now unequivocally of high intensity.
The handshake between the Queen and Martin McGuiness was considered as unlikely pre-2000 as a handshake between General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and the exiled Brahamdagh Bugti appears to us now - Bugti who has publicly demanded a separate homeland for the Baloch, a demand that some maintain must be used to keep him out of the negotiating process. Would it not be more beneficial for this country to get UK negotiators to assist in drafting such an agreement with Baloch separatists rather than in trying to get the UK to convince the PPP's coalition partners not to part ways?
The second international event from which we can draw some parallels was the US Supreme Court's ruling upholding Obama's health care plan and maintaining that its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance was authorised by Congress with the power to levy taxes. Obama care proposed that insurance companies be compelled to ignore pre-existing conditions when determining their decision to provide full coverage, and to enable the government to ensure that premiums do not become exorbitant, the healthy would be forced into the programme. This would expand coverage to millions of Americans who have no coverage at present and to ensure that premiums remained within limits. This ruling is attributed to the Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the liberal justices appointed by the Democrats. The final outcome was a 5 to 4 vote in favour. However Justice Roberts then voted with his Conservative colleagues leading to a 5 to 4 against Obamacare's argument that its mandate was justified by Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus the ruling placed new limits on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.
The foregoing ruling may provide some food for thought in this country. First and foremost taxes, however inequitable and unfair, are the domain of the executive, and one would be tempted to add that prices of commodities are the domain of the market in a free market system. Additionally there is talk of ensuring that un-cleared electricity bills (with the major culprits identified as federal ministries/departments as well as provinces led by Sindh's unpaid bills in excess of 50 billion rupees) be deducted by the Ministry of Finance before releasing budgeted amounts due to these entities. This too may run into difficulties if the same rationale by the US Supreme Court is considered valid for this country.
In Pakistan today what the PPP is dismissing as judicial activism is supported by a large portion of the public as the superior judiciary is viewed as the only institution that is taking cognisance of public discontent on a variety of issues/scams (Rental Power Projects/NICL/Pakistan Steel Mills/Pakistan Railways), retrieving public money (Minister of Finance publicly acknowledging that the court was responsible for 100 billion rupees returned to the treasury) and sentencing those responsible. The executive is seen as partisan in court directed investigations. Be that as it may, many credit PPP's allegation that the courts are biased against it - cases implicating PPP leadership are heard continuously in contrast to cases implicating the leadership of other parties, generals as well as bureaucrats - but part of the blame for this rests with the executive in not actively pursuing cases against all the others.
To conclude there is not only an urgency to begin negotiations with the Baloch leadership with the objective of dealing with their major concerns but also proactively investigate financial scams including those implicating 'holy cows' other than politicians given that the onus of preparing a case rests with the executive. The superior judiciary, one hopes, has learned a valuable lesson too in terms of not passing a ruling that is not within its jurisdiction or indeed implementable for example setting the market price of sugar.