Article inserted by Musharraf

The following is the text of Article 270AAA inserted in the Constitution by President Pervez Musharraf last year.

In the Constitution, after Article 270AA, the following new Article shall be added, namely:- “270AAA. Validation and affirmation of laws etc. (1) The proclamation of Emergency of 3rd November, 2007, all President’s Orders, Ordinances, Chief of Army Staff Orders, including the Provisional Constitution order No.1 2007, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, the amendments made in the constitution through the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 and all other laws made between the 3rd day of November, 2007 and the date on which the Proclamation of Emergency of the 3rd Day of November, 2007, is revoked (both days inclusive), are accordingly affirmed, adopted and declared to have been validly made by the competent authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever.

“(2) All orders made, proceedings taken, appointments made, including secondments and deputations, and acts done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, on or after the 3rd day of November, 2007 in exercise of the powers derived from any Proclamation, Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007, President’s orders, ordinances, enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, notifications, rules, orders, bye-laws, or in execution of or in compliance with any orders made or sentences passed by any authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as aforesaid, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution or any judgment of any court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever.

“(3) All proclamations, President’s orders, ordinances, Chief of Army Staff Orders, laws, regulations, enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, notifications, rules, orders or bye-laws in force immediately before the date on which the Proclamation of Emergency of the 3rd day of November, 2007 is revoked, shall continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority.

“Explanation.- In this clause, “competent authority” means,- (a) in respect of President’s orders, ordinances, Chief of Army Staff Orders and enactments, including amendments in the Constitution, the appropriate Legislature; and (b) in respect of notifications, rules, orders and bye- laws, the authority in which the power to make, alter, repeal or amend the same vests under the law.

“(4) No prosecution or any other legal proceedings, including but not limited to suits, constitutional petitions or complaints, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force, lie in any court, forum or authority against any person or authority on account of or in respect of issuance of the legal instruments referred to in clause (1) and on account of or in respect of any action taken by the Chief of Army Staff, the President or any other in exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in clause (2).

“(5) For purpose of clauses (1), (2) and (4) all orders made, proceeding taken, appointments made, including secondments and deputation, acts done or purporting to by made, taken or done by any authority or person shall be deemed to have been made, taken in good faith and for the purpose intended to be served thereby.”

Article inserted by Musharraf -DAWN - Top Stories; June 02, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

What is Your Mission?

By Dr. Haider Mehdi

Unusual as it was, Dubai in the UAE remained under dark clouds, chilled, and rainy for several days last week. Equally unusual, at about the same time, was the fact that Pakistan’s Attorney-General, Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum, a symbol of the neo-colonial mindset of the incumbent political establishment in Islamabad, was spotted shopping all alone, unattended by the subservient bureaucracy of the consulate’s office, in a Hypermarket at the Dubai Festival City. Indeed, it was an indication that the Attorney-General, wanting to be unnoticed, was on a secret mission in the Emirates.

Then came the news that Asif Zardari was also in town to see his children. What a coincidence! This was followed by other news that the Attorney-General had met the PPP Chairperson and offered him the premiership of an interim administration on the pre-condition of accepting certain government demands that included postponing the elections for another year. In the meantime, the General (retd) has been telling his audiences in Western Europe that there is “no way” elections could be delayed.

No less surprising, another media story surfaced: Shahbaz Sharif, President PML (N), had flown to Islamabad to inquire about the health of an old friend, a retired army officer who happens to be a close confidant of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. By absolute coincidence, it was claimed, the younger Sharif and the retired Brigadier flew to London for a medical checkup at about the same time.

In the meantime, the General (retd) continues to claim, abroad as well as at home, that by imposing emergency and dismissing the Supreme Court judges on November 3, 2007, he has upheld the constitution of Pakistan. How one justifies such an absurd and contradictory claim is only known to the General (retd).  Ironically, in a similar analogous assertion, the General’s (retd) personal friend and staunch supporter, George W. Bush, considers himself “a president of peace” – notwithstanding a “holocaust” in which over a million and a half people have perished so far in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.  This human carnage has been explicitly orchestrated by his 8-year neo-conservative ultra-Right-Christian-supported regime in Washington D.C. This is despite the fact that the Center for Public Integrity in the US says that the top US officials, including President Bush, lied 935 to the American public and the world in a two-year period leading to the Iraq war – in spite of this, the American president maintains that he and his administration were merely the unwitting victims of “bad intelligence”. Amazing incidents of deliberately intended falsehood, aren’t they? What can you say about these shameful charades of the ultra-Right-Wing politicians?

An internet website is currently circulating two pictures of the former two-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. In the first photograph taken nearly 2 decades ago, Nawaz Sharif is seen on the mazar (grave) of General Zia-ul-Haq saying, “Hum ap ka mission poora karain gay (We will accomplish your mission).” In the second picture, the former Prime Minister is at Benazir’s mazar (grave) and repeating exactly the same statement verbatim, “Hum ap ka mission poora karain gay.”  What is this twice- (in two different eras) promised mission exactly?

No human relationships, honorable, dependable, mutual, respectable and lasting can be built on falsehood – let alone solid, healthy and confident relationships between political leaderships and the national masses at large. The war in Iraq is based on falsehoods.  So is the so-called incidental meetings between the Attorney-General and Asif Zardari. Contrary to the impression given in the media, the meeting between Shahbaz Sharif and the brigadier was pre-planned for specific political purposes. Similarly, the General’s (retd) assertions, in totality, are based on absolute falsehood and are intended to manipulate the public and the global audience. Just as Nawaz Sharif’s two declarations of “Hum ap ka mission poora karain gay” are purely rhetorical for public consumption.

Falsehood, at an individual level is precipitated by three fundamental psychological factors: (a) The people who habitually lie have no respect for the intelligence of others. They assume that others cannot figure out the truth. Also, they believe that if a lie is told consistently and continually, it will eventually be taken as “the truth” (this is the basis of the media-driven democracy doctrine in the US in the present technological civilization). Politicians (mostly the ultra-Right-Wing media-dependent majority) make another addition to this psychological equation: they believe that people have short memories, and there is no moral dilemma involved in lying to the public.

The second factor at the base of individual falsehood is that the feelings of others, in mutual interaction and human discourse, are not considered as important. What is assumed important is one’s personal agenda and its fulfillment. Politicians’ interpretation of this component is that the masses are too ignorant and lack basic intelligence to understand the dynamics of Realpolitik – It is not the public’s role to decide what and what not to be said in a given situational context. Nor does the public have the right to make judgments on national issues.  It is simply a prerogative that belongs to politicians, who are obviously knowledgeable and in power.

The third element that operates within the psyche of individual falsehood is personal arrogance and intrinsic disrespect for seeking mutually and an in-depth strength of relationship with others: “If you do not like what I say and do, then tough luck. It is your problem, not mine.”  Politicians extend this personal arrogance to another psychological level: “We are above and apart from the public.  We make history.  We know what you don’t. The common people neither have the right nor the knowledge nor the vision to question our judgments.”

The question is: If the politicians and the present ruling leadership in Pakistan (for that matter globally, especially in the US) are so aptly visionary, then why are we at the edge of an abyss today? One explanation of the prevailing chaos is the politics of falsehood that has become the “modus-operandi” of our political existence and the intended perpetuation of the said system.

At a time of a seemingly national political renaissance (thanks to the civil society, lawyers and the courageous judges of the apex courts), Asif Zardari did not have to lie to the nation about a pre-planned meeting with a top government functionary; all he had to do was to tell the nation that he wanted to find out about the government’s offer and make a counter-proposal to benefit the national movement for the restoration of democracy.

Shahbaz Sharif did not have to invent a story which no one considers credible; he simply had to say that he wanted to listen to what was being proposed to him. Nawaz Sharif should have remembered that people, after all, do not have such short memories, neither are the masses so remote from understanding what is going on in their country. Nawaz Sharif should have qualified his statements with a reasonable and sensible explanation.

As for the incumbent political establishment, we all know that its leadership suffers from an incurable paralysis of political incorrectness, lack of vision, poor management skills, and above all, from a futility of falsehood that cannot be healed – nor can it be restored to any meaningful dimension that is the call of our time. Judging from the severity of its misjudgments and flawed political decision-making this administration is beyond the possibility of redemption or salvation.

Surely, we as a nation have the right to know where the leadership of both the PPP and the PML (N) firmly stand on the questions of a national political renaissance movement – unequivocally.

Let it be known that the masses are not ignorant, neither are they willing to accept falsehood as the ideological “modus-operandi” of our political existence.

Perhaps the nation should listen to Imran Khan more attentively, more carefully – more diligently – that is where a clear line is being drawn between political falsehood and the political truth of our times!

Seek the truth – and the truth shall set you free…!

The Nation, January 30, 2008

A Reason to Believe - by Shehzad Roy

Source: Dawn

Op-Ed by Shahzad Roy

When I was 10 years old, I saw on the nine o’clock news on PTV a woman with a dupatta draped round her head saying, “Pakistan tareekh kay aik naazuk mor say guzar raha hai.” Then I turned 20 and again saw a woman, this time not wearing a dupatta on her head, saying with eloquence on the nine o’clock news, “Pakistan tareekh kay aik naazuk mor say guzar raha hai”.

Déjà vu… why? I tried to analyse the situation to find out how come Pakistan is still stuck at the naazuk mor even after the passage of many long years. I reached the conclusion that 50 per cent of our knowledge lies in asking the right question. Government functionaries, intelligentsia, armed forces, critics, human rights activists and, for that matter, all stakeholders ask questions. But they end up slinging mud at each other, for the simple reason that the questions they ask are never right in the first place.

The question usually asked is: “Why is the state of health and education in Pakistan in such dire straits?” The complacent response is: “At least we have some schools and a few hospitals. Something is better than nothing.”

After pondering over the state of education and health in our country, I realised that the “something is better than nothing” view cannot apply to education and health. Just imagine, would so many youth have agreed to become suicide bombers if proper education had been provided to them by the state? If they had been only taught to ask the right questions and had inter-faith dialogue at the institutions they attended, they would have thought thrice before embarking on mindless missions and most definitely have refused to be used as a pawn in the hands of others.

When it comes to healthcare, a lukewarm (something) effort — by a doctor of questionable credentials (something), to cure a patient by giving him a substandard (something) medicine or injection — has a high probability of killing the patient rather than curing him.

Quality education is every citizen’s right and its responsibility lies with the state. A paradigm shift is required in the mindset of state authorities, the people and the education system to save our future generations from destruction. The first step towards this shift would be changing the textbooks.

Just by building schools, training the teachers, increasing administrative controls, the issue of providing an education that makes a ‘thinking’ individual, will not be addressed. A student must learn from the textbook how to learn, change and inquire freely rather than becoming a “lakeer ka faqeer”. If we want our future generations to ask the right questions then a culture of discussion, interaction, proactive thinking and asking questions needs to be encouraged.

It’s high time that a quantum leap was taken in the education and health sectors. Nothing is as powerful as the idea itself, whose time has come.

The problems of education and healthcare are just the tip of the iceberg. Multiple interventions are required to turn the country around. To name a few: The state’s failure to provide timely justice (more than 70,000 under-trial prisoners are languishing in Pakistani jails), housing, power, employment, communication, clean drinking water (without which 250,000 children die annually) has created problems that should prompt the rulers to declare an emergency.

Whenever these questions are raised or talked about, most of us say, “Oh bhai! This is Pakistan.” My answer to this cliché is, where you live should not determine whether you live happily or live poorly and die.The difference between a developed or developing — rather declining — country is that people in the former are given a ‘reason to believe’ by the state and the media, that they are working to achieve and maintain a decent living. Whereas in the latter case, the state and the media fail to create this ‘reason to believe’ for the citizens. In the absence of this ‘reason to believe’, citizens lose a sense of direction and move and act aimlessly. The absence of this also leads to lack of thinking, questioning and movement by the citizens.

Only having a ‘reason to believe’ sets the ball rolling — slowly, but in the right direction. It is not strange when extraordinary people do extraordinary things. But when they have a ‘reason to believe’, even ordinary people start doing extraordinary things. That is precisely the moment when a group of people start turning into a great nation.

The writer, a pop singer, is president of Zindagi Trust, an organisation working for child welfare and education.

Farewell to wadi Bua

Thought Stream: Farewell to wadi Bua:

"By Fatima Bhutto

LARKANA (The News) — My aunt (Benazir Bhutto) and I had a complicated relationship. That is the truth, the sad truth. The last fifteen years were not one we spent as friends or as relatives, that is also the truth. But this week, I too want to remember her differently. I want to remember her differently because I must. I can’t lose faith in this country, my home. I can’t believe that it was for nothing, that violence in its purest form is so cruel and so unforgiving. I can’t accept that this is what we have come to. So, I must offer a farewell. One that is written in tears and anger but one that comes from a" read more

Manufacturing ‘truths’

By: Hajrah Mumtaz

Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist regime, said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The words hold relevance for Pakistan today. After a turbulent year that in itself augured ill for the country’s future, came the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Just over a week later, the government is engaged in a bitter blame game in the attempt to deflect responsibility everywhere but upon its own minions and shadowy agencies. As the dust slowly settles, some civilian politicians have fallen towards the relative front and this has resulted in a citizenry divided: where some people are referring with disgust to the politicians’ past reputations and practices, others are reacting sympathetically.

By way of background noise, references made by politicians both in the King’s Party and out of it are gnawing away at the idea of the federation and are hardening provincial divides. At the same time, the citizenry is angrily debating whether democracy is at all relevant to Pakistan’s needs since earlier democratic governments fell far short of standards.

In these bleak times, people are taking sides on the basis of what they know to be true. Depending on their sympathies, for example, some of us ‘know’ that X, Y or Z was corrupt or inefficient, while others ‘know’ that A, B and C acted out of the best intentions. We ‘know’ this because we read it in the newspapers, saw it on television, heard it from inside sources and wagged our heads in agreement during drawing room conversations.

Goebbels’ words indicate that what we ‘know’ may not necessarily be the ‘truth’ — if, indeed, any such animal exists — and may in fact be the result of a vast flood of propaganda and lies that have been insisted upon for so long that they have become the truth.

As Herman and Chomsky pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, state authorities or governments employ indoctrination techniques and propaganda to bolster support for their policies. Significantly, the crux of the book is how the media, on purpose or unwittingly, become the tool through which the lies and half-truths are disseminated.

The military has been in power in Pakistan for most of the country’s 60-year history and shows no indication of ever wanting to give it up. The assertions that certain extra-constitutional steps were “in the best interests of the country” must be viewed in this light. At the same time, the reputations of a number of politicians and parties must also be revisited with this knowledge.

Most of us ‘know’ that our democratic governments were tainted by institutionalised corruption on a massive scale, because this is what we have been repeatedly told for the past eight years in particular, and over decades in general. (By the same token, I wonder, do we ‘know’ that non-democratic governments were squeaky clean? Or is that just not talked about?)

It is worth examining who was doing the telling, and who was in power long enough to repeat the same shady ‘truths’ over and over again. Could this government be in the business of manufacturing such ‘truths’? It is entirely possible that our ‘knowledge’ is the result of a massive propaganda machine that has consistently run defamation and character assassination campaigns against civilian political leaders. Over the years, little proof has been offered by way of explanation while damning such politicians.

True, ample evidence of maladministration and corruption has been presented by the press. Little of this evidence, however, has been the result of independent investigative journalism. Most of the news reports upon the actions or statements of others. For example, when the press reports the dismissal of a government under charges of corruption or maladministration, the allegation is being levelled by the individual or institution doing the dismissing, not the press itself. Furthermore, such allegations are never proved or disproved through a credible trial. And what’s more, even if the press raised suspicions of misrule through solid investigative journalism, it would still be up to the courts to pronounce upon the veracity of the allegations.

Ironically, it was also Goebbels who wrote:

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

The point is not whether our politicians are blameless, but whether we have been offered any credible proof that they are not. Sadly, the idea of being innocent until proved guilty is not in evidence in Pakistan and any hope for it was stamped out with the dismissal of independent-minded judges.

The Big Lie theory, as such methods of indoctrination have been referred to, is a propaganda technique first defined by Hitler in Mien Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would be able to believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” While Hitler used this theory with reference to his view of Judaism, it is amply in evidence in Pakistan today. We have, after all, a government audacious enough to first present a theory as ludicrous as a murderous sun-roof handle, and then admit that the statement was made without taking all evidence into account. Fortuitously, in this case there was hard evidence to disprove the government’s claim otherwise it may easily have gone down in the annals of history.

Furthermore, it is worth pondering the etymology of the word ‘media’. It is the plural for ‘medium’, which since the early 17th century has been used in the context of an ‘intermediate agency’ and carries the additional meaning of ‘medium of communication.’ In this broader sense, the media include not only the formal agencies that disseminate information and ideas — newspapers, television etc — but also the informal systems through which, generally speaking, each of us knows what he knows. These informal systems are the verbal avenues for the exchange of ideas, such as debate, discussion and even rumour or gossip, since these too are amongst the streams of information that together constitute the well of knowledge available to any individual.

Such informal streams of the media can be and are extensively used by Pakistan’s well-connected, entrenched and institutionalised propaganda machine. The power of the media in terms of shaping the perspectives and perceptions of individuals is not only immense but in terms of the informal media, also truly frightening because of its nebulous nature.

The thinking person must ask himself, “How do I know what I know, and how do I know whether it is true?”

Post-script:

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed . . .”

— George Orwell, 1984.

— hmumtaz@dawn.com

Blogged with Flock