Minister’s non-appearance
FEDERAL Water Resources Minister Faisal Vawda’s continued absence from the Election Commission’s hearing on the issue of his dual nationality speaks volumes for his views on due process. The minister has paid a Rs50,000 fine and even tendered an apology to the ECP for not attending proceedings, yet continues to skip hearings and prefers to send his lawyer instead. The entire saga has seen considerable foot-dragging by the minister, who most recently said he missed the hearing due to his mother’s poor health. Even if this a genuine reason, his multiple past absences and the ECP’s strong displeasure over his repeated postponements paint the picture of a lawmaker hoping to somehow evade legal proceedings. Not only has Mr Vawda avoided appearing before the ECP himself, a switch in lawyers mid-case has prompted criticism about delaying tactics. The case itself is fairly straightforward: if candidates for parliament do not renounce their second citizenship and the application is not approved by the other country at the cut-off date for filing nomination papers, they do not qualify for contesting elections. Last year, a report surfaced which suggested that Mr Vawda may have been in possession of a US passport at the time he filed his nomination papers in June 2018. It is therefore a matter of Mr Vawda and his lawyers appearing before the authority and presenting their defence with evidence to avoid disqualification.
The fact that the minister is being fined for repeated adjournments and still avoiding the ECP does not speak well of his respect for the election body. It is remarkable that a member of parliament, and that too one who is a sitting federal minister, has decided to adopt such a haughty approach to proceedings. Even if one were to put aside the merits of the case, Mr Vawda’s persistent disregard for due process in itself is appalling. The minister should know that both as a matter of principle and optics, his approach to this matter is unbecoming of an elected representative.
LoC ceasefire
THE Pakistan-India relationship is known for its complexity and bitterness, but there are times when surprises of a more positive kind are sprung. The recent decision by both militaries to honour the 2003 ceasefire along the LoC certainly qualifies as a pleasant surprise, considering the acrimony that has marked relations of recent.
In a joint statement released after hotline contact between the respective directors general military operations, “both sides agreed for strict observance of all agreements … along the LoC and all other sectors”. Considering that two years ago on this date both nuclear-armed rivals were at the brink of war, this is a welcome development. Moreover, too many innocent lives have been lost in cross-border shelling and ceasefire violations last year.
The move has not gone unnoticed, with the US State Department spokesman welcoming the move and encouraging continued “efforts to improve communication between the two sides”. Washington has also urged Islamabad and New Delhi to hold direct parleys on Kashmir.
It is difficult to say in concrete terms whether this development is the result of bilateral backchannel contacts between Pakistan and India, or if the new US administration has ‘nudged’ both actors to try and resolve their differences. Regardless of the impetus, the fact that both sides are talking instead of facing off at the border heralds a welcome change in the region, especially if the bellicosity that was emerging from New Delhi not too long ago is remembered.
And while the statement covers purely military matters along the LoC, buried within it are the seeds of normalisation, should both sides — particularly India — wish to pursue deconfliction. The “DGMOs agreed to address each other’s core issues/concerns which have propensity to disturb peace and lead to violence”, the statement says. Of course, from Pakistan’s perspective Kashmir is the core issue, and it is hoped that this and other irritants to peace are eventually addressed in a frank and progressive manner by both sides.
However, no one should be under the illusion that the bitterness afflicting bilateral ties will magically disappear on the basis of one statement. Peace-building is a long and arduous process, and when the relationship is as complex as that of Pakistan and India, things will take time to fall into place. As for external players, if the US is serious about peace in South Asia, it should clearly let New Delhi know that dialogue with Pakistan needs to be continued.
In the short term, the development bodes well for the people living along the LoC, who have paid with their lives due to Indian aggression. In the longer view, if New Delhi genuinely wants peace with Pakistan, it should make efforts towards restarting the dialogue process. Confidence-building measures will be more effective once political temperatures cool and India reviews its disastrous policy in held Kashmir.