Dear Readers,
Iraq is on the boil, the worst nightmares
of Pentagon's planners seem to be coming true. Having
successfully polarized the three major communities,
Shia, Sunni and the Kurds, prior to and immediately
after ousting Saddam Hussein the US is now faced with
both the Shias and Sunnis rising in partial revolt.
Even though there is no nexus as yet on the ground,
the Sunnis epi-centred in Fallyah to the northwest
of Baghdad and the Shias in part of Baghdad itself
and Najaf-Karbala area to the Southeast, there are
indications of Iraqi nationalism surfacing to unite
the two Islamic factions. Paul Bremer made two major
mistakes soon after the start of the occupation, viz
(1) disbanding the Iraqi Armed Forces and security
apparatus and (2) excluding Baath Party members from
any jobs from the highest rung to the lowest in the
administration, effectively paralyzing the structure
of civil and military administration. Taking the performance
of the Iraqi Civil Defence Forces (ICDF) in the recent
fighting (50% are taking part in internal security
operations, 40% have flatly refused to do so and 10%
are actually fighting against Coalition forces) the
substitution has been rather disastrous. As this goes
into print there is a stand-off of sorts with mounting
US casualties from increasingly blatant urban guerilla
activity in the affected areas. In these circumstances,
one hopes better sense will prevail about sending
Pakistani troops, albeit “for protection of
UN personnel and locations” and under a UN mandate,
our troops in Iraq will be cannon fodder. Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread! Back at home the plight
of the pensioners, both civil and military, in not
being treated equally with respect to wage indexation,
is a matter of great shame. Those who sit in decision-making
represent a minuscule less than a tenth of 1% of those
who are (and will be) affected. The present system
is not only illogical, it is immoral and even un-Islamic.
But why should those awash in millions (and even billions)
bother about the more than 99.9% affected? Their past
and present may be murky, they have ensured that their
future (and that of their children) is bright. Readers
may like to go through “SHOOTING HORSES AND
PENSIONERS” which I am taking the liberty of
re-producing in full.
On December 7, 2003 the decomposed
bodies of 70-year-old Professor Ghazi Khan Jakhrani
and his 65-year-old wife were found in their house
in Gulshan-i-Akbar, Malir. The couple had no children.
During autopsies it was found that both had cancer
and had been dead for fifteen days. Professor Jakhrani
taught at the Jamia Millia College at Malir and after
his retirement, for as long as his health held, gave
private tuition. According to people living in the
vicinity, the two actually died of starvation because
of long delays in the payment of Dr Jakhrani's pension
and other dues owing to him by the education department.
This is a truly tragic case, possibly involving pensions.
Whatever the cause of their death, they died in painful
and miserable circumstances.
Five years ago Haji Muhammad Ismail
Memon, an advocate Jati (District Thatta) and a member
of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, filed
a public interest Constitutional Petition in the High
Court of Sindh (D-1162/99) under Article 199 of the
Constitution challenging the withholding, for well
over a decade, by the Government of Sindh of the payment
of monthly maintenance allowances to the widows and
orphans of government servants which is fully funded
by serving government servants. On December 13, 2001,
Justices Zahid Kurban Alvi and Mushir Alam handed
down their order, quoting extracts “….This
petition has been filed under public interest litigation
with a prayer that the respondents be directed to
immediately release the funds and make payment of
all outstanding dues that are payable to the widows
and beneficiaries to whom such payments have not been
made. The amount is not dependant on budgetary grant
as it is supposed to be the amount available in trust
with the Government, thus non-payment from this account
is illegal and unfair. The amount that is due and
payable to the widows should be paid forthwith.”
To quote, Ardeshir Cowasjee, “Needless to say,
our government being what they are, the order has
been ignored”, unquote.
For years old pensioners have been
beseeching the Government of Pakistan (GOP) to accept
the internationally accepted principle of equal pensions
for the same rank/grade regardless of the date of
retirement. This principle has been followed in the
case of the judiciary whose pensions have already
been indexed by the government, both “old”
and “new” pensioners getting the same
scales. The discriminatory division of pensioners
into 'new' and 'old' pensioners' is a great injustice,
unfortunately in the case of the retired bureaucracy
and armed forces personnel the “old” and
infirm pensioners have no political clout, their demands
are based on justice and fairplay. The pensions paid
to the 'old' pensioners have not been indexed with
those of the later retirees of equivalent rank or
grade. When a group of pensioners went to the Federal
Ombudsman seeking justice, he strongly recommended
acceptance of the principle that pensions paid to
the 'old' retirees be brought in line with their 'new'
compatriots. President General Ziaul Haq rejected
the recommendation, issuing a notification in 1985-86
upholding the 'old' and 'new' division (only pensions
of the judiciary are indexed). When the 'old' pensioners
went to the Federal Shariat Court questioning “whether
government servants of the same grade who retired
on different dates could claim the same amount of
pensions”, the Court ruled in October 1992 that
“'new' and 'old' was indeed discriminatory,
that the date of retirement was not relevant, and
that whenever there was any revision of salary and
pension, each pensioner was entitled to be paid a
pension equal to others in the same grade and category”.
Against all the concept of fairplay in the world the
Government immediately appealed to the Shariat Appellate
Bench of the Supreme Court on technical grounds. Taking
its time to ponder the matter, the Court finally set
aside the order of the Federal Shariat Court, holding
that viz (1) a provision of law could not be challenged
(2) the Shariat Court judgment was of a general nature
highlighting grievances of the 'old' pensioners arising
from inflation (3) such a liberal interpretation of
pension laws and rules would render them ineffective
and (4) it was neither permissible nor possible. In
a negation of the spirit and tenets of Islam, the
SC held that the pension-related law, as it stands,
was neither inconsistent with Quran and Sunnah nor
with the constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights.
No sensible or compassionate government
could possibly accept the injustice of the enormous
disparity that exists as the comparative monthly pension
scales of the newly retired officers and the retirees
of up to the early 70s, most of whom by now should
be over 80 years of age. What about the cost of living,
we are dumb but are we also blind and deaf, or simply
insensitive? A Maj Gen as a new pensioner gets Rs
24,150.00 while an old pensioner of the same rank
gets only Rs 9,460.00, similarly a Brigadier gets
Rs 22,425.00 compared to Rs 8,600.00 for the old,
for a Colonel Rs 21,275.00 compared to Rs 7,400.00,
for a Lt Col Rs 19,550.00 compared to Rs. 7,000.00,
for a Major Rs 17,250.00 compared to Rs 6,500.00,
for a Captain Rs 11,500.00 compared to
Rs 3,500.00. In effect a Captain
if he retires today gets more than a Maj Gen who retired
25 years ago! What to talk of morality, is this even
logical? In the Civil Service a “new”
pensioner Federal Secretary gets Rs 26,450.00 while
the “old” pensioner has to make a living
with Rs 9,600.00.
In a long and tedious struggle for
their rightful dues old pensioners have been continuously
stonewalled by all successive governments, including
the present one. Whenever they succeed in obtaining
a favourable ruling the government of the day employs
every possible means to block its implementation.
What is of serious concern is that successive governments
have been opposing a moral issue on technical grounds.
Justice Nazim Siddiqi opined that neither Federal
Shariat Court nor Shariat Appellate Bench could deal
with “service matters” such as pension
or pay. When the petitioner Shahwani protested that
when they approached the Federal Shariat Court at
the suggestion of the Supreme Court, Justice Sidhwa
had clearly stated that the Federal Shariat Court
should look into this aspect, Justice Nazim Siddiqi
replied that he had to operate within the parameters
of the law, Shahwani pointed out that the Shariat
Appellate Bench was required to operate within the
parameters of Islamic injunctions, and strike down
any law which violated the injunctions of Islam which
were based on the principle of “Adl-o-Ehsan”
since Islamic Justice was superior to man-made laws.
Shahwani also referred to “judicial activism”,
another name for “Ijtihad”, which the
Indian Supreme Court was following. Shahwani was not
allowed to complete his arguments, asking the plaintiff
to stop in the middle of his submission meant that
defence was not allowed to state its case. As far
as the principle of indexation being applied to the
judiciary, the Supreme Court held that Judges enjoyed
Constitutional protection and were in a separate class.
Fifteen years of courtroom struggle have left Shahwani
feeling defeated, to quote him, “the President
and the Finance Minister seem to have no time for
poor pensioners who are literally starving and living
below the poverty line, and judges waste time discussing
legal issues and forget justice and compassion, there
is no sense in hitting oneself against these stone
walls. I am aware they will face Divine Wrath one
day”, unquote.
The “Final Solution”
the financial wizards in Islamabad have in mind is
that the ranks of the old pensioners are rapidly decreasing
due to old age and soon there will be no one left
to claim their rightful due. Successive military and
the civilian governments have treated the old pensioners
as a financial liability, a totally wrong impression
being created that billions of rupees would be needed
to equalize pensions. This is patently wrong, over
80% pensioners are at the lower rung of the ladder
drawing hardly Rs 1,500 per month, the financial outlay
would far outweigh the benefits of fulfilling a moral
and human obligation. After all, won't those presently
“serving” ever retire? And what will happen
to them 20 years hence when their pensions will not
be able to keep up with inflation? Justice delayed
may be justice denied, in the meantime old pensioners
suffer on, putting up with the discrimination of being
'old' pensioners, they can lump it for whatever years
they have left on this earth. They shoot old horses,
don't they? Why not shoot “old” pensioners?
M. Ikram Sehgal
