Importance of obligations

Inour life we undertake many mutual obligations, expressed or implied. We make promises, we enter into commercial and social contracts including those of marriage. But do we realize the importance of faithfully fulfilling these obligations? Perhaps not.

The result is evident in the form of rapidly deteriorating social and moral values, in discipline and chaos. Surah Al Maaidah (5), Ayat 1, categorically and candidly commands, "You who believe! fulfil all obligations."

Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary on this Ayat has written that this verse is so comprehensive that it forms a paragraph or a chapter by itself. The Arabic word "uqud" (translated as obligations) implies so many things that a whole chapter of commentary can be written on it.

There are mainly two types of obligations. First, there are divine obligations that arise from our spiritual nature and our relation to Allah. Then, there are worldly obligations that govern the very existence of human society. Allah made nature responsive to our needs.

He further sent messengers and teachers for the guidance of our conduct in individual, social and public life. All these gifts create corresponding obligations in our material relationships. If for example, a group or a state enters into a treaty, every individual in that group or state is bound to see that such obligations are faithfully discharged. Living in a civil society, we must respect its tacit conventions, unless they are morally wrong, and in that case we must get out of that society.

There are tacit obligations of hosts and guests, wayfarers and companions, employers and employees, which every man of faith must discharge conscientiously. And, of course, any individual commitments or promises must be honoured and fulfilled with the same sanctity.

Ayat 152 of Surah Al Anaam (16) commands us to ensure fulfilment of commitments of all types. It reads, "...Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfil the covenant of Allah: Thus does He command you, so that you may remember."

The covenant of Allah must be taken in its wider meaning that encompasses all obligations toward the Almighty and also towards His creatures. The sacred duty of fulfilling all obligations of all kinds, to Muslims and non-Muslims, in public as well as private life, is a cardinal feature of Muslim ethics.

Cases of those who abuse this principle, by failing in their duties but expect the Muslims to do their part, are not to be settled (in case of treaties) by a general denunciation of treaties but by a careful consideration of cases where there has been fidelity and not treachery.

There we are enjoined to give the strictest fidelity as it is a part of righteousness and our duty to Allah. Ayat 4 of Surah At-Tauba (9) explains the above principle in these words, "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with the pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you, nor aided anyone against you.

So fulfil your engagement with them to the end of their term: for Allah loves the righteous." The importance of truthfulness in word and deed is further mentioned in Ayat 119 of Surah At-Tauba (9), "You who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed)."

Ayat 34 of Surah Al-Asra (17) reads, "...and fulfil (every) engagement, for every engagement will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning)." The engagements referred to in this particular Ayat relate to beneficial contracts connected with the orphan's property or promises or undertakings given by the guardian or implied in the terms of his appointment. But the words may also be interpreted in the general sense.

The Holy Quran commands us to be consistent in our words and deeds. Ayaat 221-226 of Surah Al-Shuara (26) say, "Shall I inform you, (o people!), on whom it is that the evil ones descend? They descend on every lying, wicked person... and that they say what they practise not."

At Uhud there was some disobedience, and therefore breach of discipline. People had talked much, but had failed to back up their resolution in words with firmness in action. But on all occasions when men's deeds are not commensurate with their words, their conduct is odious in the sight of Allah, and it is only due to Allah's mercy, if they are saved from disaster.

Ayaat 2-3 of Surah As-Saf (61) read, "O you who believe! Why do you say what you do not practise? Saying what you do not practise is grievously odious in the sight of Allah."

The hypocrite element that exists in any society is a source of weakness and danger to its health and its very existence. The hypocrites of all times appear to be plausible people.

Their words sound fair-spoken, and as truth does not check their tongues, their flattery and deception know no bounds. But all this is on the outside. As they have no sincerity, nothing that they say or do is worth anything.

Ayat 4 of Surah Al-Munafiqoon (63), talking about the hypocrites says, "Pleasing seems their persons when you look at them; and when they talk, you listen to their speech.

Yet they are like the wooden panelling of wall. They imagine every rebuke to be directed against them. They are the enemies, beware of them." Those who fulfil their promises and honour their commitments have been categorized in the Holy Quran, among those who will be honoured with an abode in the gardens of Paradise.

Ayaat 32-35 of Surah al-Maarij (70) say, "And those who fulfil their trusts and covenants, who uphold their testimonies, and those who are mindful of their devotional obligations, they will live in gardens with honour." Again in Surah Al-Dahr (76), such people have been promised protection from the evil of the day of judgment and the reward of eternal happiness and joy.

Ayaat 7-22 of this Surah say, "Those who fulfil their vows and fear the day whose evil shall be defused far and wide, and feed the needy for love of Him, and the orphans and the captives, (saying): "we feed you for the sake of Allah, desiring neither recompense nor thanks.

We fear the dismal day calamitous from our Lord." So Allah will protect them from the evil of that day, and grant them happiness and joy, and reward them for their perseverance..."

Obligation of fulfilling trusts, promises, commitments and covenants, express or implied, is just as sacred in everyday life as it is in special spiritual relationships.

In addition, our life itself and the talents that we are bestowed upon, as well as our wealth and possessions are trusts, of which we must fulfil the duties punctiliously.

Is Iran the next target?

The way Iran is being threatened by US and Israeli officials and non-officials has taken the situation beyond the area of pressure tactics and into the sphere of a serious threat to Iran's security.

Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel, had formulated the 'dual containment' policy bearing on Iran and Iraq several years back. If that policy is not to be turned into a 'dual destruction policy' (Iraq having already been taken care of), the world community would have to assert itself more forcefully than the warning already given against a strike against Iran by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The threats and incitement include President Bush's statement that military action against Iran could not be ruled out, Cheney's statement that Israel may undertake a pre-emptive attack on Iran and the one by the Mossad chief in the Israeli parliament's foreign relations committee about the imminence of Iran achieving nuclear capability, as well as the depiction of Iran as the focal point of all danger in the Middle East by Shimon Peres, deputy prime minister of Israel.

Unless the US is persuaded against the threatened attack, serious damage may be inflicted on US interests in the region - political and economic. The resulting situation would complicate Gulf security, Iraq's future and America's own standing not only in the Muslim world but in the world at large.

It is still time for President Bush in his second term to draw a line between the legitimate interests of his country and the demands of neo-conservative elements in the Bush government bent on destroying long-standing American traditions of fair play, liberty and tolerance.

Since the early years of Pakistan, the geo-political interests of Iran and our country have always been harmonious. In view of Pakistan's long-standing ties with both the US and Iran, it should not be beyond the bounds of diplomatic ingenuity for our country to attempt to bridge the gulf and narrow the divide between the two counties. In doing so Pakistan would be making an important contribution to the promotion of regional peace and stability.

The forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to Tehran will afford him an opportunity to assess the current state of relationship with a state which used to be one of our closest allies and to ensure that the reinvigorated relationship since the end of the Taliban era and the prospects for fruitful cooperation in economic and energy spheres are not hindered by reports about Pakistan's alleged role in US planning against Iranian targets or by allegations about Iran's alleged role in fanning unrest in Balochistan.

Although the litany of long-standing US grievances against Iran include latter's alleged obstruction of the Middle East peace process, support for Hezbollah, alleged interference in Iraq and refusal to hand over Al Qaeda suspects, Washington's current drive against Iran centres on the latter's nuclear facilities.

The US has tried with the IAEA to have Iran declared being in breach of the NPT obligations with a view to refer its case to the UN Security Council. It is important for the West to take notice of Iran's security concerns.

Its security environment has darkened ominously since 9/11 with US forces operating in its neighbourhood in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the occupation of Iraq and the brutal suppression of the Palestinians, Iran has become the prime target of neo-conservatives, Zionists and fundamentalist lobbies.

Since the Iranian revolution, a number of groups, many with questionable political agendas, have influenced the moulding of US policies on Iran, thus accentuating the political hurdles in the way of a rapprochement.

According to a poll by the Middle East Centre, Tehran, over 80 per cent Iranians favour a rapprochement with the US, notwithstanding the hard line posture adopted by the religious leadership.

An important step towards normalization would be the easing of US economic sanctions which have also strained Iran's relations with the EU because of the sanctions' extra-territorial provisions of doubtful international legality.

Although the US have offered a multilateral security guarantee to North Korea in exchange for de-nuclearization, it has made no such offer to Iran, presumably because of Israeli designs and the desired stranglehold over Gulf oil.

Measures that the US should consider to help the normalization process include the lifting of the US veto over Iran's admission to the WTO which has already been supported by Japan and a number of EU and Middle Eastern states.

The US would also be well advised to end the talk of regime change which only serves to harden the stance of the leadership in Tehran and weaken the position of moderates such as former President Rafsanjani who recently declared that national security depends on popular legitimacy, not nuclear deterrent.

On its part, Iran should adhere to its understanding with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the EU over Iran's nuclear programme and maintain its largely cooperative stance over Iraq.

It would take some western pressure off Iran, if, while continuing its strong support for a Palestinian state and the end of Israeli occupation, it would fall in line with the two state formula, already supported by a number of Arab and Islamic states.

Although Iranians feel strongly about the achievement of nuclear fuel cycle capability as a mark of nuclear self-reliance, Tehran should avoid giving an excuse to its antagonists by resuming enrichment of uranium in the current tense environment.

Although the US and the EU have both been critical of alleged Iranian record of human rights, democracy, support to radical, militant organizations and development of a nuclear capability and ballistic missiles, the EU, unlike the US, has persisted with a policy of constructive engagement with Iran.

It has a better feel of the situation than the US because of the latter's diplomatic absence from the Tehran scene. Continuing the dialogue with Tehran, the EU has offered expanded cooperation in trade, technology and development once their misgivings over the nuclear issue were allayed.

In this context, the EU is looking forward to the ratification of the additional protocol by the Iranian parliament which in the wake of the last elections is dominated by conservative elements.

The call by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah for a special meeting of the OIC summit to consider the dangers confronting an Islamic world, presents a timely opportunity to chalk out a course of action with special reference to the on-going destruction of Iraq, the ominous threats to Iran, the new possibilities in Palestine and related issues.

At this juncture when Islamic states are being targeted one after the other, it is by bringing into play the combined diplomatic, political and economic leverage of the Islamic world that future aggression can be averted.

The forthcoming OIC summit in Saudi Arabia should consider adopting a credible policy under which its members would resist by diplomatic, political and economic means any pre-emptive attack or threat against any member state. It is time the OIC established a mechanism to deal with crisis situations affecting the security of OIC states.

The writer is a former ambassador.

A federal court is no solution

The federal government wants to establish a federal court through the Federal Court Act. The preamble of the proposed act states that financial matters require special expertise for their disposal and the federal court would also facilitate investment in the country and speedy justice.

The court may consist of a chief judge and as many judges as may be determined by the president. The judges will be appointed by the president after inviting a panel from the Chief Justice of Pakistan and professional bodies, including public organizations. The government plans to establish 28 federal courts.

A person would be qualified to be its judge if he is eligible to be a judge of the high court or is serving in a public organization in Grade 21 or above has suitable professional qualification and experience in commercial, economic or financial matters for at least 15 years.

Retired judges of superior courts as well as retired members of tribunal/courts established under federal laws are also eligible provided they have experience in commercial, economic or financial matters.

The judges of the federal court shall hold office until they attain the age of 68 years. A judge of the federal court could only be removed in the manner provided in the Constitution for judges of superior courts. These judges would enjoy the remuneration and perks available to high court judges.

The federal court is to have original as well as appellate jurisdiction. Schedule II of the draft law enumerates the following statutes: the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, Companies Ordinance, Insurance Ordinance, Privatization Commission Ordinance, Non-performing Assets and Rehabilitation of Industrial Undertakings Legal Proceedings Ordinance, Patents Ordinance and the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance.

Schedule III enumerates 29 enactments, including Customs act, Income Tax Ordinance, Sales Tax Act, Industrial Relations Ordinance, Drugs Act, Emigration Ordinance, etc. It also includes the laws enumerated in Schedule II. The schedules maybe amended by the government.

The federal court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction under the laws specified in Schedule II and exclusive appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals and references from orders/ judgements passed by any court or tribunal established under laws specified in schedule III.

An appeal is also provided against a decree or final order passed by a single judge of the federal court. The court shall decide cases within 90 days. Except where an appeal is provided under the laws specified in two schedules, an appeal against the judgement, decree or order of the federal court shall lie with the Supreme Court if the apex court grants leave to appeal.

It is also provided that the Supreme Court shall supervise and control the federal court. The federal court has also been given jurisdiction to execute its orders and shall have contempt powers. The draft also provides that no other court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of the federal court extends.

Since the establishment of the federal court proposes to take away jurisdiction conferred on the high courts under different laws specified in the schedules and constitutes a new forum, its constitutional validity as well as practical utility need to be examined.

Insofar as its constitutionality is concerned, the federal government is relying on Article 175 of the Constitution which provides that there shall be a Supreme Court of Pakistan, a high court for each province and such other courts that may be established under law.

Article 175 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In the case of Mehram Ali v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445), a full bench of the Supreme Court held that Articles 175, 202 and 203 provide a framework of judiciary. Words 'such other court as may be established by law' employed in Article 175 (1) are relatable to the subordinate court referred to in Article 203.

It was held that our Constitution recognizes only such specific tribunals to share judicial powers with the superior courts as have been specifically provided by the Constitution under Chapter 3A, Articles 212 and 225.

It follows that any court or tribunal which is not founded under any of the Articles of the Constitution cannot lawfully share judicial power with the courts referred to in Articles 175 and 203. Similar views were expressed in the case of Sheikh Liaquat Hussain v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504).

Since the federal court is neither a subordinate court in terms of Article 175 nor it falls within the ambit of constitutionally sanctioned tribunals, its constitutionality may be open to serious doubts. The intention behind the proposed draft appears to be to create a parallel court equivalent to the high courts. This is impermissible under the Constitution.

Merely by providing appeal to the Supreme Court and making it subordinate to the apex court may perhaps be insufficient to validate it. However, it appears to be an extra-constitutional forum which cannot share judicial power with the existing courts or tribunals.

Besides the doubtful constitutional validity of the federal court, there are other legal flaws in the draft. The appointment procedure laid down in Section 5 of the draft law minimizes the role of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to merely sending a panel along with other unnamed professional bodies from which the president would make appointment.

This is clearly inconsistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court in A1 Jehad Trust v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) as well as Mehram Ali case. The federal court being a creation of a federal enactment would be subject to the legislative whims of the government of the day.

Having no constitutional protection, the entire hierarchy of the federal court can be wound up by a simple presidential ordinance. What is the utility of a forum created with such fanfare and great expense which is open to such swift reversal.

In a country where even superior court judges are removed through Provisional Constitutional Orders, the government cannot deceive the public that the creation of a federal court would facilitate investment in the country and provide speedy justice.

The draft law also provides for the appointment of sitting government officials as judges of the court. However, this court is not open for appointments of truly qualified economists, accountants, etc. from the private sector.

It is restricted to public servants only. This restriction is indeed surprising. If the idea is to induct personnel of diverse professional expertise, most such persons are in the private sector.

The government may have experienced bureaucrats but not independent professional experts. The federal court may end up being a forum for providing lucrative jobs to persons of governmental disposition.

The underlying assumption behind the proposed law is questionable. The cases which are to be decided by the federal court are essentially legal not financial disputes and involve interpretation of laws which require legal expertise.

The government seeks to provide legal expertise by appointing persons qualified to be judges of a high court or retired Judges. The most competent eligible persons having already opted for high courts, the quality of legal expertise available for the federal court would be unlikely to be much. To argue that retired judges would provide vigour and energy and expedite cases at a pace faster than the high court would be hoping against hope.

It is indeed surprising that, on the one hand, the government has failed to appoint judges to high courts even according to their sanctioned strength, let alone increase the number, on the other hand it is prepared to embark on the gargantuan task of establishing an altogether new court at much expense to the public exchequer.

At present Sindh High Court has only 21 judges out of a sanctioned strength of 28. Out of the available 21 judges, 16 are now working at Karachi while five are sitting at benches out of Karachi. Four judges are due to retire in 2005.

It is equally surprising that while the judges of superior courts face various restrictions such as provided in Article 207 of the Constitution, the judges of the federal court are not subject to any such curbs or even the code of conduct applicable to the judges of superior courts.

To provide expeditious justice the draft law states that the federal court would decide cases within 90 days. A similar provision is also found in various laws. It does not have any effect and indeed providing such a deadline is highly misleading. The main reason for delay is not the absence of statutory deadlines but shortage of judges.

The government has also failed to appreciate that merely providing appeal to Supreme Court would not solve the problem. Instead, it would substantially add to the work of the Supreme Court which is now working with two vacancies. At the commencement of judicial year 2004-05, 25, 138 cases were pending before the court.

The dispensation of justice is indeed painfully slow. Quite often it amounts to denial of justice. It needs drastic reforms of the right kind. If the government desires to provide speedy justice to the public, as a first step it should enhance the strength of the high court and fill the vacancies promptly.

Iraq: the unfinished story

When the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, the next day's American newspapers reported some pretty rhapsodic stuff - that the war had entered the "final phase" (Baltimore Sun) or that Iraqis were "euphoric" (Boston Globe) or that the crowds were chanting "Bush is great" (Los Angeles Times).

On TV, some anchors compared the event to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, although everyone, including the Bush administration, threw in the usual caveats about the war not being quite over. Nearly two years later, it still isn't.

The toppling of Hussein's statue that wonderful April day in 2003 made for good TV and the usual pronouncements that something "historic" had happened. But it turned out to be more noteworthy for what the camera did not capture: the political culture of the crowd.

Iraq was not East Germany or Romania but its own place, where, among other things, a minority (Sunnis) had long ruled a majority (Shias) and where - not that the two are connected - a substantial number of people quickly applied themselves to the looting of the nation.

It would be both wrong and in the worst taste to make light of what happened in Iraq on Sunday - a stunning voter turnout that confirms everything President Bush and others have said about the universal yearning for freedom.

Give people a chance to have some sort of say in their governance - to make even a particle of difference in their own lives - and they will seize it. This is particularly the case if voting is new to them - a delight in a life that has offered few to none. It was, truly, one hell of a day.

This time, as with the toppling of the statue and the granting of sovereignty to Iraq last June, officialdom again uttered all the right caveats. This time, though, they weren't just protecting themselves for the record but stating an appalling truth: This thing, the war and what followed, has turned out to be a lot harder than anyone thought.

Even the turnout was something of a surprise. Just last week I asked one of the architects of the war what sort of day the United States would have on Sunday. He offered no prediction, but his demeanour gave him away. He was steeled for failure.

That failure may yet materialize. The vote, while huge in Shia areas, reportedly was depressed in Sunni regions. That may be because voters were intimidated or because they followed the dictates of their leaders and boycotted a process whose winner, in ethnic terms, was a foregone conclusion.

The Shias, with about 60 percent of the population, are going to control the new government. But the question is not whether the Shias will win it's the extent to which the Sunnis lose.

One part of democracy is easy to master: winning. It's losing that's hard. If the loss is total or feared to be - not just some political post but your very way of life - you might think that your only recourse is violence.

If the Sunnis fear that their loss will be absolute, they will not join Iraq's emerging civil society - and so far they apparently haven't. In that case, the insurgency will continue, tolerated if not supported by the Sunnis.

Those willing to fight and die for the new Iraq will be Arab Shias and ethnic Kurds - and the latter only for their own corner of the world. This is a prescription for civil war.

Some modesty is in order. Every four years, my colleagues and I go to Iowa and New Hampshire to cover the early presidential contests. They are both small states, and sometimes it seems that every other person is either a pollster or a political operative.

Yet with all the polling, with reporters interviewing everyone in sight, these states always surprise. If we cannot know Iowa, how can we possibly know Iraq? We cannot. We should not assume that a universal yearning for freedom will translate into a universal respect for minority rights.

We should not necessarily assume, either, that what we call freedom was not composed, partly or mostly, of a desire by Shias to rule Iraq for the first time. -Dawn/Washington Post Service