Pakistan and Civil Society

sameerjb

So what you are in effect telling me is that because, and I accept that the western system is more efficient, they have the right to somehow supervise me, which hamidm, for sake of humour, pointed out. I do accept your points about the rational differences between Western and Eastern Social Setups, yet what i disagree about is the self-asumed right of the ``now civilised`` desi to look down upon their brethren in the motherland and somehow pronounce them ``uncivilised`` and therefore in need of Western Guidance and Western Principles.

To be honest with you, I was pissed off with one particular point that because we are rooted in a history of Imperialist rule, it is somehow in our genes to react to the White Man as a figure of authority. I disagree, and as a matter of sarcasm, blamed this on the south asian diaspora, of which Hamidm is a part. I know for a fact that although this secondary citizen mentality was part of the mindset of the first generation immigrants specially in UK, the second generation is quite opposite, and it never was the case in the US due to the type of professional based immigration there in the 80s.

My question to you is this, Why does a civilised Desi in the west who conforms to all the social boundaries in the West, Goes back home and conducts all the uncivilised activities there? This implies that it is the system that governs a person`s action, not genes, and hamidm`s historicizing of this particular point is wrong.

Thats all that I am contesting....

SameerJB #2: ``Pakistan needs a constitutional amendment that transfers power to appoint COAS and all the justices of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice - invoking membership of British Commonwealth - to Queen of England with the conditions that all appointees should be non-Pakistanis and preferably of British origin.``

hamidm #8: ``..... i second your proposal for ammendment to the constitution with a small change - all her majesty`s appointments, in addition to being from the west, should also be white``

Would it be correct to assume that you are, like I am, overjoyed about the appointment of Shaukut Aziz as Prime Minister. He is neither the Queen, nor White. But he is the next best thing. He is about as White and as Westernized as anyone can be, without being White and a subject of the Queen. And he does roam around in the same circles, and has beaten them at their own game.....

Assuming that the Queen, herself, is not going to run Pakistan. Neither will she appoint a Viceory. Shouldn`t we go with the favorites deputies of Sandy and Citibank. A CEO and institution, respectively, far more White and powerful than Britain and the Queen every will be?

wahajat mian,

....... you ask ``Why does a civilised Desi in the west who conforms to all the social boundaries in the West, Goes back home and conducts all the uncivilised activities there? ``

......... the obvious answer of course is that there are no ``white`` people there ......... and by white i don`t mean pigment challenged folks like michael jackson, i mean people who think like the white man who has gone through the reformation, the renaissance and the enlightenment ......... the japanese, koreans, singaporeans and chileans are white ......... the chinese and the south indians are slowly changing their complexion even though it is difficult for me to imagine a dravidian from tamilland ever being able to pass off as an aryan ......................

......................the one people who have no hope of ever becoming white are muslims in general, and the arabs in particular ........ and the reason is that they are mired in their ``glorious`` past ......... they see nothing wrong with the patriachal societies they live in and the only thing they respect is sheer brutal force ......... that`s how we were raised - in homes and societies that were ruled by characters like al-sayyid ahmad abd al-jawad and hazrat omar ............ that is the only model we know, understand and respect ......... so, we are quite incapable of governing ourselves and creating a civil society without the help of the white man .............

Hello Ijaz,

Good reading, but I think the first thing that Pakistan has to do is to separate religion from governance. Only then can you start talking about a civil society. Otherwise, where the ideology of a State falls supine in front of a static religious ideology, then what ideology are you talking about?

Next, everybody in the State, women and minorities included and not just restricted to feudals and existing inertia levels, . . . everybody needs to have an equitable role in society. Where is Pakistan on that?

Thank you,

mog

Hamid Sahib

``the only model we know, understand and respect ......... so, we are quite incapable of governing ourselves and creating a civil society without the help of the white man ............. ``

Two things, I can see what you mean by the term ``White``. I am saddened however for the fate of us Muslims, where our own intellects have resigned the will to change. Where our thinkers are giving up on us, opting out for a model and governance which has done nothing for us in the past , but Divide and Rule.

All I am saying is that in full view and knowledge of the decadence and social abyss that we are in, the change has to come from within. The Revolution has to start from the inside, we dont need cosmetic revolutions, we have had far too many already and they have resulted in further complications. Most off all what we need is action from those ``intellects and Thinkers`` who mourn the most about the terrible state of the land.

I know at the end we are all Laptop warriors who are here to prove a point, but there has to be a belief in our ability to change and adopt tajdeed. To you and Romair, I will say this, There needs to be this revolution and reconstruction of the social system in the Muslim world, but whats most important is the balance that we need in moderation and religion. I wholly disagree that the Western Model should be emulated in its entirety, there is a lot to learn from the West, but we should be clear about the difference between Imposed modernity and a truly revolutionary change in the Socio-reliogious thought of the Islamic World.

#1 by labyrinth1.
I appreciate your remarks. We are indeed stuck between nationalism and religion. The emphasis on religion has come from people who opposed the partition of India.
#2 by sameerJB
Yes, the modern nation state is a European phenomenon. After Hegal et al, various notions of nationalism came to for. The French nationalism, Nazism, British and Turk are but a few in this evolution. US Civil War was perhaps the watershed that gave birth to a very strong and independent civil society. With Marx we saw the rise of the Soviet civil society based on Leninism which collapsed for wrong reasons. The nation state also ushered modernity and thereafter took many diverse routes. In USA it excluded religion but retained the same in very strong values like freedom, equality and justice. Such a notion has an ingrained concept of collective security and that is why US geo strategy is always expeditionary. The European nations have not allowed it to grow beyond nationalism because it suits their mercantilism/neo imperialism. Though there is talk of euro nationalism etc, it will never acquire the same potency as the US model. Yes Bretton Woods did put up a system of financial regulation. So instead of the Gora Sahib, we have the World Bank, IMF, ADB etc looking down our throats. It has ensured that no viable economic challenge comes up from the bubble economies of South America. Hence it is these masters that have become the new Gora Sahib.
#3 by jay
Zakat or a tithe in Christianity or Judism is a religious indulgence with no links to terrorism. Much of this money ends up in Shaukat Khanum, Shalimar Trust, Anjumman e Himayat ul Islam etc. Minorities have made their contribution too like very good hospitals, universities like NED, educational institutions etc. CARITAS Pakistan is right now one of the best NGOs. Zakat does not support terrorism. Even within the local complex it is distributed to destitute.

Like it or not Pakistan is a reality and has come to stay.
#5 by nooralain
When sub nationalism, ethnicity, sectarianism and elite interest work counter to the interests of a nation state, nationalism gets diluted and breaks up into exordial forces. See what happened to USSR and Yugoslavia. In Europe, the concept of religious nationalism has lost to modernity. As for civil society, please re read my opening paragraphs. This is a subject that needs multiple readings for comprehension. Yes the danger to civil society is from the state as well as exordialism.
#8 by hamidm2
Conrats for you fortune telling. Citibank Corporate has arrived.

10 by AdamSmith
As my premise to noor indicates, it is not a contradiction. Opinions all over the world vary. As a Pakistani, I feel that its epitome should be Nationalism or Pakistaniat. A good civil society as I wrote must pass the solidity test with the state. Please re read my parts in which I tried to elucidate the state sponsored part and the society sponsored parts of civil society.

I wonder when chowk will remove your name.

#11 by Ralph
In a society starved for ideas and dynamism, writers at best can be visionaries and conscience. That is their contribution for a change. When Faiz wrote

Jo Koo e yar se nikle to koo e dar chaley

Who knew what he was predicting?

#12 by wajahat
Migrant issue relates to transplantation of cultures and colonising of self. This is the vulnerability to modernity. You will see South Asians breaking queues and rowdism in USA and UK, but you will not find such attitudes in Mandirs and Mosques.

Secondly we are not rooted in imperialist rule. We ruled the world in 5000BC, 200Bc and again from Taxila in times of Ghandhara/ Maurya. Please read my lines on the transplantation of knowledge.

Resistance to Raj precipitated from within the civil society after 1857, once the British imposed their concept of a European nation state that suited colonialism. People like Sir Syed, Qaid, Faiz, Iqbal and progressive Pakistanis did not vie for such an end state. They were soon set aside by the elites produced by the Raj and so the story goes on.

#14 by rozaiba
You have always been inspiring. But you must realise that you have a strong influence of USA on your thinking. US civil Society is at loggerheads with the Europeans. The turf war is visible in political economy terms like Globalism, trans nationalism and regionalism. Just go through the perspectives on Political Economy. If a change comes to Pakistan, it will come through the informal sector. This is where the middle and low middle class is and where philanthropy is the strongest. CitiBank Corporate will further alienate this sector, but for how long?

#18 by Romair
I have already given you my date and time on a post on Jamali. I stand by it.

wajahat #17:

[To be honest with you, I was pissed off with one particular point that because we are rooted in a history of Imperialist rule, it is somehow in our genes to react to the White Man as a figure of authority. ]

How conveniently you ignore the earlier 700 years of imperialism resulting in our pride to be Muslims and remember the later 100 years of colonialism only because they were non-Muslim white europeans. Nothing I can do to change your imagination of looking at people who are comfortable living among whites instead of uneasy living with constant bashing them in private. The humor in mine and hamidm posts aside, had we both included Japanese, Koreans or Singaporeans in that list of men-of-character executives running affairs of Pakistan, your line of argument would have collapsed without any serious modification to our humorous posts...it is not whites per se but more like giving up on reforms from within...the point missed in the humor is that no matter who COAS or CJ of SCP are, their undesirable behavior would be predictable with higher degree of confidence than the desired behavior......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#23 by mog
(Where is Pakistan on that?)

Pakistan`s civil society exists but perhaps out of sight of many. Donations and charity are still a forte from both cultural values and religious point of views. The most vibrant exists in the informal sector and people who light their own candles. The problem is that the hyperactive state leaves very little space for citizen participation. The state and social hierchies at the top are very rigid. That is why I have talked of pluralism, instrumentalism and inclusiveness. This is how citizen participation can be ensured. To me this a very modest wish list and not an out of box scenario.

Cheerios

Izas,

Pakisyan is like a building, the foundation is sinking, the walls are weakened by the wetness of blood, there is stench emnating from the filth of those trapped inside and what do you expect the neighbours to do with this building... well implode it to make way for another.

That is what is going on in pakistan, unfortunately a slow implosion.

There is hope,

At last there is concensus, ramging from romair to hamidm that pakistan need to be rules by the whites. This is not going to happen by a constitutional amendment, it has been amended before only to make it more jihadic. the only hope for pakistan is the irquisation, then the rulers of pakistan will be apponted. the dream of hamidm can come true only after iraquisation and that can happen only after the jihadis have siezed power and there is no way that any one is going to tolerate an islamic bomb. Already, mushy is protected by the yanks and he has proved himself to be an obedient servant through the wana operations.
The true iraquisation can come only after the bearded generals take over.

ijaz gul:

i believe i have read what you`ve written more than a few times, and the fault lies not with my lack of grasp, but with my understanding of what nationalism and civil society are. perhaps you are correct in stating that `as pakistanis, the ultimate goal of our civil society should be the attainment of undiluted nationalism`, but as worthy as that goal is, unfortunately i don`t see it being attained. nationalism, be it diluted or undiluted is problematic because it has not always been inclusive. the EU is overcoming their previous challenges and struggles with nationalism which they had as individual `nation-states`.

and i do not believe that civil society should be linked with the state, or be state-sponsored. that would change the nature of civil society, with its varying definitions.

your intentions are noble, and i wish pakistan the best!
n~

Well put Nur.

This is exactly right.

Civil society was at its best when it struggled against sovereiengty and nationalism in the enlightenment period. Men and women of all nationalities came together on the basis of intellectual, cultural and commercail awakening to develop all aspects of life. Since then civil society has been at its best only when people have been similarly moved to reach out and rise above other trends such as naitonalism that seek to divide.

As I mentioned in my earlier post nations are a reality and a consturct that we all live in and must, but strong nationalism seeks to empower the state. For civil society to thrive, the state must butt out. Any intrusion of the state is contrary to the development of civil society. Hence I do nto buy state sponsored civil society.

Enlightnement civil society developed beyond the pale of the state and in cities of florence, Venice and Naples. Additonally it thrived in Scotland where the state had totally withdrawn. National states like their predecessors the monarchies seek to unite many diverse areas by means of seeking common unifying themes. These often amount to the lowest common denominator and very often as Nur says are based on ``exclusionary`` ideas. Civil society when it develops on those lines can become fascistic. After was that not he basis of Nazi Civil society.

By the way Ijaz, I do not know what exordial was in your last respose to Nur. Can you please explain the concept.

Thanks for a thought ful piece that inspired a good discussion.

Like Nur, I respect your worthy intentions for our country.

OP-ED: Change of PM and the future of democracy —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

An entrenched presidency may manipulate the weak political forces to its advantage but it cannot give enough resilience to the political process to cope with the challenges which range from political alienation, economic deprivation, religious and cultural intolerance and terrorism

Nobody was surprised at the June 26 resignation of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali. For the last two months, the presidency was planning to replace Jamali with a new favourite. What surprised most observers during this period was that the presidency did not frame any specific charges against the Jamali government. It seems that some key people in the presidency got alienated from Jamali and decided to get rid of him without taking into account the injurious implications of such a move for the polity. The parliament or the ruling coalition was not involved in initiating this move, although they endorsed it when President Pervez Musharraf decided to nudge Jamali out.

Jamali’s removal reflects three aspects of Pakistan’s current political scene. First, despite the restoration of civilian constitutional rule the president and his army-intelligence affiliates and advisors hold the high cards in the political system. The president occupies a pivotal position in the political system. Strongly believing in the ‘unity of command’, Musharraf makes sure that there is no doubt about who commands the state power. He became quite active in managing state affairs during the last couple of months. The change of prime minister demonstrates his continuing hold on power.

Second, the ruling coalition played no direct role in deciding Jamali’s fate. Although the PML president, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, was in contact with the presidency and knew about its political agenda, the key leaders of the ruling coalition and most parliamentarians did not know the dynamics of the politics of change. The decision to remove Jamali was made in the presidency and the ruling coalition went along. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s nomination as prime minister with the approval of the presidency helped create the consensus on the change. There was hardly anybody in the meeting of the parliamentary party of the ruling coalition that asked Jamali to stay on or give reasons for his resignation.

Third, the national assembly was not relevant to the change. The decision was made outside the NA without the active involvement of the ruling party. However, it would approve the decision when the matter is referred to it on June 28. The irony is that the prime minister had to quit two days after the approval of his government’s budget by the NA even though the approval of the budget is always considered a vote of confidence in the government. Many members of the Jamali cabinet are expected to join the cabinet of the new prime minister.

Jamali’s removal can be compared with the dismissal of Khawaja Nazimuddin by Governor General Ghulam Muhammad in April 1953 soon after he got his budget approved by the central legislature. The ruling Muslim League did not object to his removal and reposed confidence in Muhammad Ali Bogra who was summoned from the US to become prime minister. Several members of Nazimuddin’s cabinet joined the new cabinet. Now, Jamali has got a raw deal at the hands of Musharraf and most of his ministers are keen to join the new cabinet.

Jamali was selected prime minister by the presidency in November 2002 to head the first government under the post-military rule political arrangements. He had the qualifications to become prime minister under these arrangements that protected the centrality of Musharraf (president and army chief) to the political process. Jamali had no independent political base and he openly acknowledged his dependence on the president, whom he described as his boss. He maintained a low profile and did not object to Musharraf’s efforts to expand his role in political management and governance. And he did not hesitate to resign when the presidency advised him to do so because he knew that the ruling PML listened to the president rather than to him.

Jamali’s exit can also be interpreted as a setback to the political arrangements crafted by the presidency and its army-intelligence affiliates to civilianise the military rule in October-November 2002. The elections were carefully managed to enable the pro-military PMLQ to emerge as the largest party at the federal level. The presidency was instrumental in creating the ruling coalition led by the PMLQ. Jamali was also its choice. Now, the presidency has abandoned him and wants to bring in a more trusted person.

There was no known political crisis in the country or revolt in the ruling coalition that warranted the change of the prime minister. However, press reports indicated in April 2004 that the presidency wanted to change the prime minister which created uncertainty in Islamabad. The president gradually built pressure on the prime minister and began to spend time in his chamber in the parliament house and held consultations with parliamentarians of the ruling coalition. He also consulted his military colleagues and summoned the first meeting of the National Security Council. The president took these steps to demonstrate that he was in full command of the situation and had the capability to undercut the support of the prime minister, if he defied him.

Initially, the PML leaders like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain had reservations about the political change. However, he and has close associates could not afford to annoy the president. A dialogue between him and some key personnel of the Presidency removed these reservations and they agreed on Jamali’s successor. Press reports indicate that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s elevation to premiership is an interim arrangement. The presidency will select a prime minister in a month or so. This means the aspirants for the top political job would be cultivating the presidency and some degree of uncertainty would prevail in Islamabad until a prime minister is finally selected.

This episode removes whatever façade of democracy existed in Pakistan. The civilian institutions that came into existence after the 2002 general elections have not been able to acquire autonomous role and depend heavily on the presidency and its strong army-intelligence affiliates and advisors. This was the main reason that nobody in the ruling coalition questioned the role of the presidency in changing the prime minister. They do not want to alienate the presidency by questioning its political management. Some of them do not hesitate to publicly demonstrate their loyalty to Musharraf in parliament and outside.

In this situation, the future prospects of democratic institutions and processes do not seem bright in Pakistan. It is now firmly established that access to power and influence is possible only through co-optation by the presidency and the army-intelligence establishment. The availability of this option makes it difficult for civilian institutions and processes to acquire salience and sustainability.

An entrenched presidency may manipulate the weak political forces to its advantage but it cannot give enough resilience to the political process to cope with the challenges which range from political alienation, economic deprivation, religious and cultural intolerance and terrorism. When the political institutions cannot address the key challenges and are unable to cope with the participatory pressures, they suffer from the crisis of legitimacy which makes it difficult for them to acquire sustainability. This appears to be the fate of the current Pakistani political system.

Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

The tragedy of Bihari-Pakistanis

Sir: This is in reference to your editorial ‘Don’t keep Bihari refugees in a black-hole’ (Daily Times, June 26). While there are a number of things that can be done to ameliorate the plight of the Biharis, it should be clear to all parties that inaction is not an option. As your editorial cogently points out, the effort to help these stranded Pakistanis has to be a collaborative one between the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh, International Organisations and NGOs. However, the lead on the issue has to be taken by Pakistan, and this crucial factor has sadly been missing in the last few decades.

Some organizations have been formed specifically to deal with this issue. One such recently formulated charitable organisation is the Texas-based ‘Stateless People in Bangladesh’ (www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net). In and of themselves, these organisations cannot solve the issue. They can, however, be very useful in raising awareness and money. They can facilitate the process to a great degree. The Pakistan government would do well to form a department to oversee the ‘Bihari’ issue and coordinate with all the different organisations working on this issue.

It is imperative that the Pakistan government realised the gravity of the situation and its own responsibility. It must initiate a serious process that seeks to rectify this unacceptable situation that has been allowed to persist for more than three decades. A solution would obviously require compromises from all parties and may include repatriation of a number of people and financial packages (to help in the integration process) for others who wish to stay in Bangladesh.

Before speaking out for Palestinians, I would urge Pakistanis to look at their own region and concentrate on ending this human tragedy. This is not a favour we should be doing to the Biharis; it is our duty to help them, and their right to live in their own country, a right which has been denied them. As they continue to yearn for the land that has denied their very existence, it is up to all of us to undo this great injustice and give them what they deserve; a place to call home.
TAIMUR KHAN
Philadelphia

Daily Times, 6/26/04

EDITORIAL: Don’t keep Bihari refugees in a black-hole

Press reports from Bangladesh say thousands of Bihari refugees protested in Dhaka on June 24 and demanded that they either be repatriated to Pakistan or given Bangladeshi nationality. The refugee leaders also said they wanted a tripartite meeting among Pakistan, Bangladesh and the representatives of the refugees to sort out this issue immediately. Nearly 250,000 ‘Bihari-Pakistanis’ remain stranded in Bangladesh and live in abject poverty in 66 camps scattered in 13 districts of that country. How should Pakistan respond to their plight?

In all fairness to Dhaka, the onus of responsibility for these Bihari-Pakistanis lies with Islamabad while much of the blame for their present plight must also be apportioned to the Bihari-Pakistani leaders themselves. But before we go any further, let’s take a look at the genesis of the problem.

Some one million Biharis first came to Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, in October-November 1947 after nearly 30,000 were killed in what came to be known as the ‘Great Bihar Killing’. Most of them were from the eastern Indian states of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim, according to a South Asia Forum for Human Rights report quoting official BD documents on the refugees. Until 1971, it is generally accepted that these refugees did not assimilate and remained a distinct cultural-linguistic group. To that extent they were closer to and identified with West rather than East Pakistan’s Bengali (now Bangladeshi) culture. There is evidence that they also enjoyed official patronage. Later, with the Urdu-Bengali controversy emerging, the Biharis definitely got the upper hand after the Pakistan government announced Urdu as the official language of the country. On the language issue too (and the riots that would break out periodically) the Biharis sided with West Pakistan. Similarly, on the political front, in the 1954 provincial elections as well as in the 1970 general elections, they supported the Muslim League.

Things came to a head in 1970-71. The Biharis supported the military action against Bengali insurgents and some even participated actively against the Mukti Bahini. The resentment that was growing among the Bengalis (Bangladeshis) against them resulted in the killings of Biharis by the Bengali nationalists during and after the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Most of them were displaced and their properties taken over by the Bengalis. It was not until mid-1972 that nearly a million of them were domiciled in camps through a presidential order.

Later, the same year, Dhaka offered them citizenship through a Presidential Order. Bangladeshi official records say some 600,000 accepted this offer while 539,669 Biharis “registered with the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) opting to return to their ‘country of nationality’ — Pakistan” (SAFHR report). Under international law, henceforth they were Pakistanis. But Islamabad did not show much interest in the issue then. However, it was forced to look at it seriously when Dhaka linked diplomatic relations with Islamabad to repatriation of those Bihari refugees that had opted for Pakistan. Under the 1973 Delhi Agreement as well as in the Tripartite Agreement of 1974 Pakistan agreed to receive these refugees. As part of this agreement, the “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) facilitated the return of 108,750 Bihari refugees by June 1974” but had to suspend operations for lack of funds. The issue could also not be resolved in the 1974 Bhutto-Mujib summit and has since then hung fire. It is periodically visited but nothing has come out of it.

At this point it is important to go back to the question of what can be done. Pakistan needs first to feel responsible for these refugees. However, taking them in at this stage is a difficult though not impossible option for a number of reasons, not least because of Pakistan’s internal problems. An attempt was made by the Nawaz League government in the early 1990s to get some of these refugees and settle them in the Punjab. But that did not work because there are no jobs in the Punjab and because of ethnic, linguistic, economic and cultural reasons these refugees will always tend to drift to Karachi in the south. But that city has already become a tinderbox. Its infrastructure is crumbling under the weight of irresponsible governance and migration to it of Pakistanis from across the country. Thus there is no way it can accommodate these refugees without further sociological upheaval. Already, nearly 100,000 Biharis have illegally migrated to Pakistan and are living on the fringes of socio-economic life in Karachi.

After decades of living in Bangladesh, it is realistic to make efforts to get these people to assimilate in that country. Those Biharis who refused in the seventies to take up Dhaka’s offer now realise they may have made a mistake. Given their plight they cannot be made to suffer the consequences of it any more. They may not be averse to accepting a similar offer now. This is where Pakistan needs to start shouldering its responsibility not only in terms of helping Dhaka bear the financial burden of these Biharis but also in finding money from international sources to help Bangladesh absorb them. In the final analysis, of course, Pakistan must make arrangements to receive those among them who still insist on coming to Pakistan, despite any demographic problems that they may unwittingly create in their chosen homeland (Pakistan).

The stranded Biharis represent a human tragedy and neither Dhaka nor Islamabad can allow so many people languish in a black-hole. The Awami League government in Bangladesh has generally tended to flog this issue to score points against Pakistan. It will perhaps be easier for Pakistan at this point to take up this issue seriously with the present government of prime minister Khaleda Zia. There are of course problems on all sides but the gravity of the situation demands that a process be initiated in good faith that aims at ending this human tragedy. *