Weep, Pakistan, weep
by Farhatullah Babar
THE NEWS, June 11, 2006

On Friday May 26 a sub-committee of the public accounts committee of the National Assembly took up investigations into the irregularities in the purchase of Chinese locomotives for $100 million. The locomotives were purchased in 2001 when a retired three-star general was the minister in charge, another retired three-star general was chairman railways and a former two-star general was general manager railways.

The issue was first raised in the Senate last year upon which the prime minister ordered an inquiry. Investigations revealed that the purchase had been sanctioned despite the fact that the locomotives were unfit for Pakistani rail tracks --- they were too heavy. No international tenders had been floated either. Even the railway officials who attended the meeting said that it was a wrong decision. The chairman railways reportedly said: "If I were secretary Pakistan Railways at the time I would not have signed the agreement". According to Rauf Klasra's report in The News of May 27 the chairman railways also named the three generals involved and then challenged: "If you are serious in investigating the issue please summon them and proceed as you like".

The sub-committee, headed by a retired serviceman Col Ghulam Rasool Sahi MNA demonstrated its seriousness, but how. A 'mistake' had been committed, it acknowledged, but quickly dropped the case because the mistake had been made in 'good faith'.

A day before the sub-committee had taken a kinder view of another case of a questionable deal that involved retired military men including a brigadier. A 132 KV grid station had been set up at Kamra in 1995 at a cost of 64 million rupees. The committee learnt that the auditor-general was not satisfied because a similar 132 KV grid station set up at Taxila in 1994 had cost only 39 million rupees. The AG had also objected that the contract had not been awarded through open bidding in violation of government rules. Despite evidence and objections by the AG, the sub-committee chose to take a milder view and refrained from referring the case to NAB.

On June 1 another sub-committee of the public accounts committee met to take cognisance of the non-utilisation of 36 million rupees provided during 1988-90 for the construction of low cost houses for the widows and orphans of defence forces. The money had not been utilised during the financial year. Instead of the returning the unspent amount to the government it was unlawfully withdrawn at the end of the year to avoid lapse.

When the irregularity was first brought to its attention in 1991, the services' headquarters approached the government for post facto approval for retention of the amount. The AG however refused to accept this saying that even the government was not competent to permit withdrawal and retention of unutilised funds, as it was a violation of constitutional provisions.

When the sub-committee took up the case the defence ministry admitted that rules had been violated but insisted that the violation was in 'good faith'. The sub-committee however did not agree and refused to accept the 'good faith' plea. The chairman of the sub-committee Riaz Fityana, a non-serviceman, deserves to be commended for refusing to settle the case but this did not diminish the audacity of the defence ministry to invoke once again 'good faith' and seek exemption.

The NAB law is applicable only to political leaders and civilians accused of corruption. Serving military officers are exempt from it because, it is claimed, the military has its own internal accountability mechanism. "We live in sweet prison because of the manual of the Pakistan Military Law during our service" is how a former NAB chairman, a three-star general as well, stoutly defended exemption to military officers in an interview published in this newspaper on June 20, 2005, after he had retired both from NAB and the military.

The civilians and politicians hauled by NAB for real or imagined crimes are also promptly sent to jail. Investigations and proofs follow later at a pace determined by NAB. The accused has to prove his innocence. In an interview with The News on April 24, 2000 the then chairman justified the 'onus of proof' with great relish thus: "Yes, it does mean that the corrupt should prove himself innocent".

But five years later in June 2005 as chairman of the Fauji Foundation, the same former NAB chief was directed to appear before the defence committee of the Senate to answer serious allegations in the sale of Khoski Sugar Mills that had come to light in the National Assembly in reply to a question asked by a female MNA belonging to the treasury benches. He refused saying that the Fauji Foundation was a private concern and that the Senate body had no business to ask him any questions. The yardstick of proving innocence appeared to have changed now as the hunted was a former senior military officer. "Judge not so that ye shall not be judged".

Retired military officers, though not exempt from NAB, have also been exempted from effective accountability through the device of unending investigations. In reply to a Senate question on December 5, 2003, NAB named fourteen uniformed officers working in civil departments that also included one ex-lieutenant general as being 'under investigation for accumulating assets beyond means'. Three years later when NAB was asked again about the status of the case it replied: "Investigations are still continuing". Meanwhile the accused roam free.

To these familiar devices has now been added yet another device, 'good faith'. True, that 'honest mistakes' and 'good faith' must be recognised as basic to the concept of justice with compassion or 'adl bil ihsan'. But it seems that in the Islamic Republic only former generals are entitled to 'adl bil ihsan'.

Those who seek reprieve on grounds of 'honest mistake' and 'good faith' must possess very high standards of morality. In 1995 a scandal broke out about the American chief of naval operations, Admiral James Boorda. The case was about whether the admiral should have won a small bronze star that cost less than a dollar. His supporters said he was entitled to wear it. His detractors however insisted that technically he was not entitled to wear it. Appearing before inquiry committee Boorda called it an 'honest mistake'. The inquiry committee agreed that Boorda had made a mistake in wearing the medal even if it was an 'honest' one. The admiral who had a great sense of honour saw a personal shame and dishonour in it and shot himself with his service gun.

As I juxtaposed and placed together the admiral and the generals on my minds canvas, an anguished cry leapt from the depth of the heart and it said: "Weep Pakistan, weep".

The writer is a former member of the defence committee of the Senate. Email: drkhshan@isb.comsats.net.pk