ECP provincial officials have no moral standing left and should resign: Imran

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan , while addressing a press conference on Sunday evening said that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) provincial officials have no legal or moral standing left and they should immediately resign.

Imran also said that the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) chairman should also tender his resignation as he was part of covering-up the rigging that took place in the general elections of 2013.

“We want answers to our queries so that these issues are resolved before the upcoming by-polls and local body polls,” said Imran. If the ECP has to carry on conducting elections in this way, then there is no point having them, he asserted.

Read: Judicial commission verdict is against ECP, says Imran Khan

"Malpractices and illegalities while conducting elections are a criminal offence, and we demand that ECP take action against those who stole the people’s mandate,” stated Imran.

Commenting on the rumours circulating regarding the role of intelligence agencies in the PTI’s dharna, Imran termed the allegations as baseless and said “it is a general practice of PML-N to malign the armed forces”.

Imran was flanked by party leaders Shah Mehmod Qureshi and Jahangir Tareen.

Responding to another question regarding the issue of Muttahida Qaumi Movement's (MQM) return to the Parliament, Qureshi said that it is their party decision and the government should decide about their resignations.

Earlier in July, Imran Khan had accepted the findings of the judicial commission report which was formed to probe alleged rigging in the 2013 general elections.

He had also said that it is not him but Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who should apologise over the judicial commission's report, as all political parties are in agreement that there was rigging during elections.

Imran had said that the PTI was the only political party which brought proof of rigging, while the other 21 parties — which also admitted the elections were rigged — agreed with the party's point of view.

The judicial commission was formed on PTI's request to probe rigging allegations during the 2013 polls.

The three-judge commission, headed by Chief Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, had held 39 sittings and completed the hearing on July 3.

The commission — constituted under a presidential ordinance on April 3 after months of a tug of war between the PTI and the PML-N — had commenced proceedings on April 9. It recorded testimonies of 69 witnesses, including politicians, government and judicial officers and journalists.

The ordinance expected the commission to submit its findings to the government as soon as possible, preferably within 45 days of its first meeting.

Also read: Imran Khan accepts findings of judicial commission report

Justice Amir Hani Muslim and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan were the two other judges in the commission, which was constituted as a result of a memorandum of understanding signed between the PML-N and the PTI.

The PTI had staged a 126-day sit-in in Islamabad last year to press for its demand for a judicial inquiry into the rigging allegations.

We are a nuclear power, and know how to defend ourselves: Sartaj Aziz

ISLAMABAD: Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz said on Sunday that the current Indian government under Narendra Modi acts as if it is a regional superpower.

“Modi’s India acts as if they are a regional superpower, we are a nuclear-armed country and we know how to defend ourselves,” said Aziz.

“We also have evidence of Indian agency RAW's involvement in fuelling terrorism in Pakistan,” added Aziz.

Read: NSAs’ talks cancelled over Indian conditions

He also said that while Pakistan has evidence of Indian involvement in terrorism, India on the other hand only has propaganda against Pakistan.

“Propaganda against Pakistan is more important for the Indians, rather than giving us evidence,” stated the adviser to the premier.

Sartaj Aziz also said that India wants normalisation on their own terms, they would like to talk about trade and connectivity but not much else.

He remarked, “If Kashmir is not an issue for India, why have stationed 700,000 troops in Indian-occupied Kashmir?”

The adviser to the premier also stated that India should hold a referendum in occupied Kashmir, and the people would decide their own fate.

"India should realise after the current episode that their tactics are not working, and they need to be sincere about dialogue with Pakistan," added Aziz.

Yesterday, the government decided to cancel the planned meeting of national security advisers with India, citing New Delhi’s refusal to allow an expanded agenda and a meeting with Kashmiri leaders.

The Indian external affairs ministry immediately termed the decision “unfortunate” and tried to wash its hands of the controversy that led to the cancellation of the meeting by saying that it “did not set any preconditions”.

The decision was announced after Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj virtually set a deadline for Pakistan to decide by midnight if it was ready to go ahead with the talks by agreeing not to meet the Kashmiri leaders and restricting the discussion to terrorism.

Also read: Indo-Pak security adviser level talks in jeopardy

Besides a discussion on terrorism, Pakistan had sought inclusion of two additional points in the agenda -- a review of the progress on decisions taken in Ufa regarding release of fishermen, facilitating religious tourism and restoring peace along the Line of Control and the Working Boundary; and exploration of the modalities for discussions on other outstanding issues, including Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen.

The meeting between the two countries' security advisers was supposed to signal the resumption of talks between India and Pakistan.

Since the meeting between the two premiers in July, militant attacks and border skirmishes have poisoned the atmosphere between Islamabad and New Delhi.

India-Pakistan spectacle

RARELY, even by the tortured standards of the Pakistan-India relationship, has there been as much farce and confusion surrounding the now cancelled talks between the national security advisers of Pakistan and India.

The dual news conferences yesterday of National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj had made the late-night cancellation by Pakistan a mere formality. While it was obvious that neither side wanted to be seen to officially call off talks, it was also patently clear that neither side was willing to do much to rescue them in Delhi.

That the Indian government reacted so angrily to what was to have been a fairly innocuous and standard meeting between a visiting Pakistani leader and representatives of the Hurriyat Conference is perhaps a sign of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s true intentions. He does not really want dialogue with Pakistan, but does not want to be seen rejecting talks outright in front of the international community.

Yet, for all the Indian obstinacy, there have been some serious errors by the PML-N government in Pakistan. To begin with, what was the understanding in Ufa, Russia, that led to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Mr Modi issuing a joint statement? Did Mr Sharif mention the Kashmir dispute or bring up the composite dialogue? If not, why not?

Then, there was the statement itself – initially welcomed by many, including this newspaper, as an unexpected breakthrough, but pounced on by hawks in Pakistan for its so-called pro-India stance. That terrorism was made central to the upcoming round of talks without any mention of the broader Kashmir issue appeared an error on Prime Minister Sharif’s part. At the very least, the government should have expected the domestic backlash and prepared for it. Instead, the government seemed to have been caught unawares and quickly found itself under intolerable pressure.

Then came the next error: seemingly reversing itself on Ufa and demanding that the Indian government talk about Kashmir too. That elicited a predictable response from the Indian government in the form of an angry denial that the Ufa agreement had been about broader issues and a rejection of the Pakistani attempt to include Kashmir in the agenda. Finally, without a full-time foreign minister, the talks switched to being conducted at the NSA level, an awkward fit for full-spectrum dialogue and the Kashmir dispute.

Perhaps what is truly discouraging is the trend that has become apparent in the Sharif-Modi era. The prime ministers themselves mostly have encouraging words about the bilateral relationship, but they allow their underlings to damage goodwill and trust. Mr Modi in particular seems not to have a clear Pakistan policy at all. How does refusing to talk to Pakistan address any of the concerns that India has? But Mr Sharif needs to demonstrate stronger leadership internally too. How can a three-term prime minister find himself in a self-created bind?

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2015