(Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka & Maldives)

January 1- 15, 2017

PAKISTAN

Panama Papers Case Swings Like a Pendulum

The new Chief Justice of Pakistan formed a five judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa to hear the entire Panama Papers case anew. The bench decided to hold proceedings on a daily basis to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. But ever since the hearings commenced, the entire affair has become a virtual political circus with court proceedings in the morning, followed by feisty and fiery press conferences held in the afternoon by both the opposition and the ruling party, and finally the day concluding with a dozen or more TV talk shows examining every small detail and every utterance or observations made in the case with a microscope.

The case itself has been swinging like a pendulum, partly because of the observations made by the judges who sometimes seem to be favouring either the Prime Minister and his family and other times the opposition. Strangely however the character of the case seems to have shifted from being one related to tax evasion, corruption and money laundering to one of disqualification of the PM on grounds that he falls foul of Article 62 and 63 (honesty and truthfulness) of the constitution. While the judges are asking some very searching questions and making some very searing observations, they are at the same time being fairly conservative in their approach. As a result, it is anybody’s guess which way the case is going.

But there is a consensus of sorts emerging on a couple of things related to the case: one, if Nawaz Sharif loses, his political career will be virtually over, and if Imran Khan loses, then he will suffer a grievous political setback; two, Nawaz Sharif might get off on a technicality but his explanations about the source of funds for the controversial flats and his flip-flops suggests that he isn’t coming clean; finally, the rhetoric surrounding the case has seen political vocabulary touch a new low.

Controversy over Saudi-led Islamic Military alliance Tarnishes Raheel Sharif

Reports that the recently retired army chief Gen Raheel Sharif was set to lead the Saudi initiated 39 nation Islamic Military Alliance (IMA) against terrorism, did less to further raise his prestige and profile and more to tarnish the carefully cultivated image of the former army chief. Although there wasn’t much clarity in the initial reports about Raheel Sharif’s appointment, one Urdu newspaper editor even went to the extent of laying out the roadmap of how Gen Sharif would go about his task of recruiting around a brigade strength officers and soldiers, including his recruiting around two to three retired Lt. Gens and a handful of brigadiers, to form the nucleus of the command of the proposed multinational force.

The initial reports of Gen Sharif heading the Saudi-led IMA were followed by a very ambiguous statement of the putative defence minister who claimed he wasn’t aware of the details but said that the appointment was finalised just a few days back and would have involved the permission of the government. Soon uproar erupted over this issue with politicians and analysts pillorying it, Shia religio-political parties castigating it, but Sunni extremists lauding the decision of Gen Sharif to lead the IMA. The criticism of Gen Sharif accepting the appointment and the government giving its approval was based on two grounds: one, it seemed to go against the national consensus that Pakistan would not become part of the Saudi-Iranian tussle; two, it raised questions of both propriety as well as civil-military relations.

The government soon backtracked and claimed that it had not received any request from Gen Sharif for a No-Objection Certificate to take up the new job and that the government would take a decision on such a request on basis of law and government policy. The furor also seemed to make Gen Sharif rethink the job offer and he used some retired generals to reveal that he had put certain conditions to the Saudis before he accepted the appointment. These included a) Iran would be a part of the coalition, b) he would be able to play role of arbitrator to promote harmony among Muslim countries and c) he would serve under no ones command. Clearly, these conditions were seen as a deal breaker, which is probably why these were put. In other words, these conditions were a face-saving ploy to avoid taking up the new job. But given that the Pakistanis had refused to join the Saudi war against Yemen had rankled the Arab states, the backing out of Raheel Sharif from taking command of the IMA is hardly going to go down well with the Saudis. Even so, the very fact that Gen Raheel Sharif was thinking of taking up the appointment has overnight made him a target of criticism of the very people who were rooting for his extension and even exhorting him to take over the reins of government. Worse, he has been ridiculed and even lampooned, which for all practical purposes has deprived him of the lustre he exuded at the time of retirement.

Forced Disappearance of Bloggers and Activists

Any expectation of a change in attitude of the ‘deep state’ in Pakistan ended in the first week of 2017, when in a span of a couple of days five liberal, secular social media activists and bloggers who raised uncomfortable human rights issues themselves became victims of ‘enforced disappearance’, allegedly at the hands of the infamous intelligence agencies of Pakistan. While two of the activists were abducted from Islamabad, two were kidnapped from Lahore, and one from Sheikhupura.

Predictably, the intelligence agencies deny all accusations of involvement in the enforced disappearance of these five activists. But circumstantial evidence puts a lie to the denial of the intelligence agencies. A somewhat cryptic statement by the Interior Minister that the abducted persons will be recovered soon suggests that he has some information about the identity of the kidnappers. While enforced disappearances have been something of a norm in Balochistan, Karachi, FATA, and have also been reported from Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, this is the first time people who had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism have gone missing. Until now, almost all the ‘missing persons’ had some link with terrorism.

The abduction of these activists is being seen as part of an effort by the ‘establishment’ to muzzle dissident voices espousing liberal values and causes, and is a clear message to other activists to either shut up or be ready to put up with the heavy handed response of the state agencies. In what is being seen as a classic tactic of the intelligence agencies, the entire debate around the enforced disappearance of the activists has been given a new spin by portraying them as blasphemers and launching a campaign through hard-line Islamist parties to book these activists for blasphemy. This means a double jeopardy for the kidnapped persons. Even if they cannot be charged for any crime against the State, their lives will henceforth be under threat from Islamists because of their alleged blasphemy. Nearly two weeks after their being picked up, there is still no progress made in securing their return. While some civil society activists have been protesting the abductions, and even the US and UK have issued statements condemning the disappearances, there is by and large a conspiracy of silence among most of Pakistan's ‘independent’ media which has by and large neither highlighted the case, nor agitated the cause of the kidnapped activists.

Military Courts Expire, could be Revived through Back Door

The notorious kangaroo courts run by the Pakistan army under the 21st Constitutional Amendment to try cases of ‘jet black’ terrorists, expired after the two year sunset clause kicked in. Over the last two years that the military courts were in operation, they handled 275 cases in which 161 terrorists were sentenced to death (12 were actually executed) and 116 terrorists were given various jail terms (mostly life sentences).

The military courts were sold as a panacea for the terrorism problem. But jurists, lawyers, activists and analysts have argued that these courts distorted the criminal justice system without really addressing the issue of terrorism in any meaningful way. Be that as it may, the two year period of these courts was to be utilised by the government to bring in sweeping changes and reforms in the criminal justice system to make it more efficient so that terrorism cases could be swiftly tried in civilian courts on expiry of the military courts. But the government did virtually nothing to reform the criminal justice system in these two years.

With the military courts no longer functional, the government is trying to develop a consensus to extend the tenure of these courts by another two years. But this would require a constitutional amendment, something which may not be possible given the reservations of almost all the opposition parties who comprise a majority in the Senate and without whose support it is not possible to get a constitutional amendment. But the stance of the opposition parties could get diluted given the strong pitch made for military courts in the first Corps Commanders conference chaired by the new army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa. The general grapevine is that the opposition parties will hem and haw and try to get some favour or political deal from the government before giving their nod in ‘supreme national interest’, a pet phrase used by the military and political establishment to justify anything and everything.

The government is also working on a plan B in case it isn’t able to muster the required support in parliament. One such plan is to set up special courts that function like the military courts. In such courts, the judges and prosecutors would remain a secret. But chances are that once the army ratchets up pressure on the opposition parties, they will succumb and give their nod to the military courts, if not for two years then at least for one year.

AFGHANISTAN

Devastating Terror Strikes make Fragile Security Situation Extremely Fraught

An already fragile security situation in Afghanistan suffered some more serious blows at the hands of both Taliban and Islamic State terrorists which has added to the growing disquiet about the onslaught of the foreign supported terrorists and shaken the confidence in the ability of the government to effectively counter these groups.

On January 10, a twin bombing attack close to the Parliament building in Kabul was followed by an audacious bombing in the guesthouse of the governor of Kandahar. While nearly 40 people were killed in the Kabul attack which was claimed by the Taliban. The Kandahar attack in which a bomb believed to have been planted in a sofa in the governor’s guesthouse killed around a dozen people, including UAE diplomats, the deputy governor of Kandahar and two Afghan lawmakers, and injured the governor and the UAE ambassador, was not claimed by any group. While the Taliban denied having any involvement in the Kandahar attack and blamed it initially on ‘internal local rivalry’ and later on ‘covert intelligence circles’ that wanted to damage relations between the Taliban and a friendly Islamic nation, the Kandahar police chief squarely pinned the blame on the Haqqani network and by extension on the Pakistanis. The Taliban denial was clearly a damage control exercise because the implications of killing diplomats of a powerful Arab country like UAE could be devastating not just for the Taliban but also for their patrons in Pakistan. Already there are reports that the UAE is seriously rethinking its relations with Pakistan after the attack on its diplomats in Kandahar.

For their part, the Pakistanis have denied all the accusations of their involvement in the terror attacks inside Afghanistan. The Pakistani foreign office has said that Afghanistan is blaming others for its problems which are the result of growing instability inside Afghanistan which has made it ‘a hotbed of terrorism’. The fact that the new Pakistani army chief had contacted the Afghan leadership and promised all support and cooperation is being cited by the Pakistanis as evidence of their sincerity. The only problem is that while the Pakistanis say all the right things to their interlocutors, behind the scenes its terrorism business continues as usual.

On the same day i.e. January 10, the Taliban also bombed a meeting of a dissident Taliban commanders who had switched over to the government side in Lashkargah, Helmand, killing around 10-12 commanders. Earlier on January 6, around 10 Shia coal miners were gunned down in the Baghlan province in the North. While no group claimed responsibility for this attack, security officials believe that it was the handiwork of the Islamic State terrorists. Given the deteriorating security situation, especially in the South, around 300 US Marines have been sent to train and advise the Afghan troops and bolster their fighting capabilities in Helmand. The US deployment comes in the midst of renewed Taliban offensive in Helmand during the winter months which in itself is a big change from past pattern of Taliban attacks. Meanwhile the NATO secretary general has declared that Afghanistan will not be allowed to become a safe haven for international terrorists.

NEPAL

Supreme Court Sacks Karki

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of Nepal removed Lokman Singh Karki from the post of the Chief of Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). It may be recalled that Karki was appointed to the post in May 2013 for a period of 6 years. The Supreme Court observed that Karki failed to meet the criteria as mentioned in the Constitution (Article 119.5 c and 119.5 e) and also ‘did not possess strong moral character’. Likewise, his civil service experience in service also fell short to hold the top position. The Court ordered that “All activities relating to his appointment including Constitutional Council’s decision on May 5, 2013 recommending Karki’s appointment to the post, Presidential Order on May 8, 2013 and oath administered on him have been quashed by this order of certiorari”. The decision, apart from other things, is likely to open fresh political tussle between the ruling alliance and the opposition Communist Party of Nepal (CPN)-United Maoist Leninist (UML) to select his substitute.

Bill tabled in House amid opposition:

The second constitution amendment bill was tabled in the Parliament on 8th of January 2017 amid commotion from the opposition parties who are opposing the Bill. Speaker Onsari Gharti, who had earlier deferred several meetings due to protests from the opposition, took the House business ahead. The Parliament has been obstructed for more than a month since the amendment bill was registered on November, 29. The ‘Prachanda’ government has been under severe pressure from the Madhesi parties to table the Bill for discussion. In a 3-party meeting held prior to the House meeting, the leaders mutually decided and urged the opposition CPN (UML) to allow the Bill to be tabled. UML made it clear that the party stood for presentation of election related bills but opposed the Constitution Amendment Bill. It is assessed that the ruling coalition may not find it easy to get the bill passed through the parliament and the political impasse is likely to continue.

BANGLADESH

Bangladesh and India to Continue Fight against Common Enemies

While attending the 45th Victory Day programme organized in Tripura, Bangladesh’s Awami League leader and former Foreign Minister and Dipu Moni said that Bangladesh and India shall continue to fight the common enemies, problems and threats. Dipu Moni further said that Bangladesh and Indiahave age long friendship. Bangladesh has been extending support to India on all security related issues especially in relation to India’s north-east. According to Dr. Moni, the people of India, especially from Tripura, had played an extremely vital role in the liberation movement of Bangladesh. It may be recalled that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had set up his ministry for running the liberation war at Agartala. Hence, Agartala is part of the history of the liberation war of Bangladesh.

PM Hasina calls for Trust in new Election Commission

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has expressed the hope that all political parties should have implicit faith in the new Election Commission to be constituted by the President and called upon them to join the next general elections. The Prime Minister expressed this optimism in an address to the nation marking the third anniversary of her government’s tenure after winning the polls in January 2014.

PM Sheikh Hasina highlighted Bangladesh’s notable successes and achievements since the liberation war led by the Father of Nation Sheikh Majibur Rahman. She underscored that Bangladesh had attained the status of a “lower middle-income” country under the Awami League government and shall turn into a middle-income country by 2021 and a prosperous and a developed one (‘Sonar Bangla’) by 2041. The Prime Minister reiterated her faith in democratic and secular values. She called upon all religious heads, teachers of educational institutions to remain vigilant about the militant activities. As the Awami League was entering the 9th consecutive year in government, the Prime Minister asked the people to assess how much her government has been able to live up to their expectations.

The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has criticized the Prime Minister, stating that the Awami League government has failed to address the main issues which are ruining the fabric of their country.

SRI LANKA

Indian Stance on Revamping ETCA

An official’s-level meeting was held in Colombo on January 4 and 5 to negotiate between India and Sri Lanka on an Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement (ETCA). As per print media reports, Sri Lankan side pressed for certain explicit concessions explicitly to ‘sell’ the pact to the Sri Lankan masses who perceive that ETCA would be a rank give away to the ‘Big Brother’ across the Palk Strait.

Sri Lankan side had good reasons to pursue a political line since there have been protests by locals, backed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, against ETCA describing it as “aggression” with the Sinhalese language slogan “ETCA EPA” (No to ETCA). The ETCA is expected to be an issue in the forthcoming local bodies and provincial elections scheduled for June/July and September 2017, respectively. But tailoring it to an electoral agenda of the ruling coalition might mean India’s giving in on issues which could adversely affect the interests of its own private sector. The Indian side resisted these moves on the grounds that trade pacts are too serious, too far reaching and wide-ranging in their impact to be tailored to suit short-term political requirements.

There were also differences over priorities. The Sri Lankan side lay great stress on correcting the flaws or removing the irritants in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which became operational in 2000. The Sri Lankan side has been seeking the removal of a plethora of Non-Tariff Barriers (NBTs) which impede the entry of Sri Lankan goods into the Indian market. Sri Lankans feel that the NTBs are largely responsible for the trade gap. At any rate, India thinks that pegging the signing of ETCA to removing the flaws in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is neither warranted nor practical. FTA is about trade in goods while ETCA is about investment, services and economic cooperation. It is to be a re-designed reincarnation of the now abandoned Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CEPA).

Above all, there were differences over the time period to end the negotiations and sign the pact. Not having been able to sign it by December 2016 to time with the second anniversary of the Sirisena regime, Sri Lankan wanted the talks to be wrapped up fast by mid-2017 before the local bodies and provincial elections. But both India and Sri Lanka have concerns, interests and issues yet to be resolved.

UN Resolution on Sri Lanka remains largely Unimplemented: HRW

According to the recently released 27th World Report of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, though the Sri Lankan Government was able to report progress on certain aspects and sought technical expertise from the UN and other countries, the UN Human Rights Council resolution adopted in October 2015 on the country remained largely unimplemented.

Under the resolution, Sri Lanka was required to establish four transitional justice mechanisms, including a special court integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators with an independent investigative and prosecuting body. The resolution also called for an office on missing and disappeared persons, a truth-telling mechanism, and a mechanism designed to guarantee non-recurrence and reparations. But not all commitments have been met by the Sri Lankan side including abolition of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), establishment of the Office of Missing Persons (OMP). These have impacted public trust during the transitional justice process. The senior government members continued to issue contradictory statements on the need to have international participation in the four transitional justice mechanisms, with the President and Prime Minister both claiming these would be wholly domestic processes, contrary to the Human Rights Council resolution.

The report highlighted that more than 1 million Sri Lankans are employed overseas, mostly in the Middle East, and many remained at risk of abuse at every stage of the migration cycle. It further said state and non-state discrimination and abuses against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) population also continued in Sri Lanka. Despite the criticism, the report acknowledged that the new Sri Lankan government continued to engage with the international community unlike the previous government, with the US and European Union voicing cautious optimism regarding the government’s efforts to implement the 2015 Human Rights Council resolution.

India, Sri Lanka Re-visit Palk Strait Fishing Dispute

India and Sri Lanka held ministerial-level talks in first week of January on long-standing dispute over fishermen in the Palk Strait. Indian Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Radha Mohan Singh met with Sri Lanka’s Minister for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Mahinda Amaraweera. According to an Indian readout of the meeting, the talks covered “possible mechanisms to help find a permanent solution to the fishermen issues.” The two sides agreed to release fishermen in the other’s custody as well — a regular practice meant to establish goodwill, encouraging progress on the long-standing dispute.

The Indian side agreed to encourage Indian fishermen to avoid the practice of “bottom trawling” — an unsustainable mode of fishing that indiscriminately captures aquatic life, leading to overfishing. Even the Indian External Affairs Ministry noted in its press release that “bottom trawling would be phased out in a graded time-bound manner within a practicable timeframe.” These discussions assume further importance as later this month, Sri Lankan legislators are set to debate two bills concerning the issue. One bill would increase fines for fishermen caught fishing illegally in Sri Lankan waters and the other would ban mechanized bottom trawler.

Sri Lanka has long expressed concerns about illegal fishing by Indian fishermen within its territorial waters across the Palk Strait. The country regularly arrests Indian fishermen for cross the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) that demarcates Indian and Sri Lankan waters. India also detains Sri Lankan fishermen. Further, the dispute between the two countries is complicated by domestic political factors in India. A majority of Indian fishermen caught fishing illegally in Sri Lankan waters are ethnic Tamils from Tamil Nadu and argue that the waters claimed by Sri Lanka have historically been exploited by Tamil fishermen. Moreover, both India and Sri Lanka have signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which does not recognize maritime territory based on any historical claim.

MALDIVES

EC Announces Local Council Elections, Opposition to Boycott

Opposition Adhaalath Party (AP) has decided to boycott the upcoming Local Council Election announced by Elections Commission (EC) for April 8, 2017. EC also declared the previously submitted application forms for the election as null, instructing candidates and political parties to re-apply. Local Council Election was originally scheduled for January 14, but was postponed in light of a Civil Court ruling over a lawsuit submitted by Progressive Party of Maldives.

AP has accused the government of partiality towards the ruling party – PPM - and destroying the multi-political party system in the country. It alleged that delaying the election to April 8 was a ruse to ensure council seats to candidates picked by one individual, rather than holding an election in accordance with the Constitution. AP accused EC of deliberate negligence in failing to deliver the Local Council Election to the people on the date instructed by the Constitution and stealing the election from the people. It said that partaking in the election would “stamp the seal of validity in an unjustly stolen election”.

AP had previously made a coalition with the largest opposition political party Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to compete in the Local Council Election, submitting application forms to EC together. EC’s decision nullifies applications of more than 900 candidates – a decision which MDP has announced it will contest in court. Such developments further undermine the democratic credentials of the Yameen government and put a question mark over the independence of democratic institutions.

Gayoom’s Daughter Re-inducted as Minister

The former Foreign Minister and daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Dunya Maumoon, who had resigned from the Yameen government on 6 June 2016 as Foreign Affairs Minister, has joined back the government as State Minister for Health. Earlier she had resigned due to difference of opinions on the policies and now, as per her statement, has rejoined to take up the chance to serve the people. Although her father Abdul Gayoom has made it clear that his daughter has decided to join the government on her own and it is not a decision he supports.