You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of democracy, social justice and the equality of mankind in your own native soil. [Mohammed Ali Jinnah]
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Saturday, February 21, 2009

'Democratic' India denies rights of Kashmiris...

SRINAGAR, Feb 20: Police opened fire and lobbed teargas shells to disperse protesters demanding the release of a top pro-independence leader on Friday, injuring at least 26 people.

Angry protesters took to the streets in Srinagar, shouting “Down with security forces, release Shabir Shah,” while some threw stones at policemen.

“Twenty-six people were injured in the clashes,” police official Fayaz Ahmad said.

Last year police detained Shah, a senior Kashmiri leader after he led some of the biggest rallies in two decades against Indian occupation of the disputed region.

Shah, dubbed by his supporters ‘Kashmir’s Nelson Mandela’ for the more than 20 years he spent in prisons for opposing Indian occupation, is an executive member of All Parties Hurriyat Conference, main alliance of Kashmiri political parties.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the region since a freedom struggle broke out in 1989. But overall violence involving Indian troops and militants has declined significantly since India and Pakistan began a slow-moving peace process in 2004. New Delhi has put a pause on that dialogue after last November’s Mumbai attacks.--Reuters
26 injured in Kashmir police firing -DAWN - Top Stories; February 21, 2009

but who cares???
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Monday, December 8, 2008

10 lessons all Pakistanis must learn

By Hassan Baig from LUMS.

"Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga" (approximate translation: the country doesn't need our contribution to thrive) is a sentence many Pakistanis are prone to saying. I confess that till a few years ago, I myself was confident of this misleading notion. Misleading and dangerous - especially in today's volatile climate. As Pakistanis, it is imperative that we come to terms with the fact that no heavenly Manna will alleviate our country's plight. The job rests squarely on our own shoulders; with the destiny of a whole nation tethered to our will and to the execution of that will. And so as the clock ticks and the prophets of doom raise a foreboding murmur from East to West, it is high time for us to learn some crucial lessons. Lessons without which our collective slumber will only deepen:


1) Extremism always overcomes moderation. History is fraught with examples of moderate majorities ruled and controlled by extremist minorities. Therefore unless we are extreme in our moderation, our endeavor - any endeavor - is doomed to be highjacked by powers which know more meticulous passion. From the radicalized Islamic cleric who preaches bigotry and hatred to the Neoconservative-backed Christian televangelist who sermonizes the urgency of preparing for an ethnic genocide pithily called Armageddon, we today live in an increasingly polarized world. And since Pakistan exists on the very fault-lines of this burgeoning conflict, our problems are exacerbated. Regardless of what stance we take or which side we pick, our country will remain on the receiving end for the foreseeable future. And regardless of how hastily we disregard conspiracy theories, the extreme forces on all sides will continue to augment their belief systems with hybrid religiopolitical prophecies. Prophecies which have a way of snowballing into self-fulfilment. Therefore it is critical that we take our moderate stance to be more of a proactive doctrine rather than apolitical aloofness. Our very existence depends on it.


2) Microanalysis never gives the complete picture. The details are undoubtedly important when comprehending any system. But often overlooked is the effort to mull over the big-picture such details contribute to – roughly the equivalent of what Sir Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal referred to as tadabbur in his reformist discourse. As denizens of a land increasingly rife with numerous challenges, we simply cannot afford intellectual naiveté. Notwithstanding esoteric themes, we consistently fall short of sensibly determining atleast the more obvious big-picture connections in unfolding narratives. This is utter mediocrity. Whereas some would mistake this for a failure of ability – this is infact predominantly a display of negligent disinterest; of an irresponsible, desensitized populace.

Countless times we have allowed ourselves to fall for the same old tricks. A glaring contemporary example is the myth of Pakistan's democratically elected government we all seem to have digested without any modicum of reflection. Ostensibly, the country voted out the dictator and brought in a government ‘for the people by the people’. But consider the macro picture: currently the seat of political power is the Office of the President - a position where the current incumbent's name was never advertised on the ballot on Election Day, a position where the current incumbent affected the people's voting decision by publicly disavowing any interest in the Presidentship on and before election day, a position which still exercises the uber-powerful, dictatorial Article 58 2(b). In form, we indeed have a democratic set-up in place. But in substance?

Now confessedly this example is a soft and convenient target. Moreover even had most Pakistanis successfully connected the dots, demands for a true democratic set up would be a low priority given more daunting issues the country is currently facing. But it's one of the more visible examples and is relatively fresh in memory - overall an effective illustrative point. Furthermore it helps emphasize the need for greater intellectual involvement on our part. Unless we start to discern between real enemies and contrived ones, manipulation of us and our coming generations by exploitative elements both internal and external will continue to be a dominant theme in the national narrative. That is no future to look forward to.


3) Moral relativism is a conduit to absolute corruption. Those who start compromising on principles – even in trivial issues – end up going all the way. A textbook example is that of our previous President: By the end of his regime, General Pervez Musharraf was not the man he was when he first usurped the seat of Pakistan's government. Over time as his political age advanced, he underwent a staged metamorphosis: from an amateur idealist, to a practitioner of temperate Realpolitik, and then finally to an outright Machiavellian Prince. This is the classic lifecycle of corruption; the philosophy that principles are subservient to actions instead of it being the other way around. We must learn once and for all that those who have the proverbial ‘crack in the armor’ inevitably succumb; that their demise is a certainty.

Now realistically speaking it is true that there is no absolute escape from moral relativism, but we atleast need to be skeptical of the more blatant practitioners of this philosophy. We all know who they are. Too many times we have fallen for those who claim that they have been reformed; too many times we have made choices based on the ‘lesser of two evils’. This is folly because it reinforces the longevity of the corrupt by repetitively giving them second chances through the people’s misplaced, gullible trust. Until and unless we explicitly reject this opportunism, our polity will remain enslaved by the puppet-masters.


4) Morality is a myth in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ethnocentric self-righteousness robs us of our ability to be constructively self-critical and stems societal improvement. Unless we teach our progeny the truth about the decrepit moral standards prevalent in the country and pass on a ‘to-do’ list of sorts; we would have failed in parenting responsible future citizens. We have all witnessed how the various religious movements burn CD shops, dynamite girl schools and dismantle barber boutiques without raising an eyebrow at the greater tyranny of the socio-political system. We have personally seen principled stands getting drowned in derision; the politics of necessity being proclaimed king. We have beheld firsthand justice being abused by megalomania; injustice becoming the law. This is not a lesson to be forgotten or concealed.


5) Don't believe everything you see in the media (self-explanatory)


6) But don't become too paranoid either: empathy and objectivity are seminal in asymptotically approaching the truth. Currently as it stands in Pakistan, we seldom 'think things through', and instead prefer to latch on to the first and most convenient explanation the social circle around us resonates with. This is futile practice. Futile because herd mentality is seldom rational, is borne of fear and dread, and invariably leads to the sort of exploitable mass-hysteria we have witnessed many times over circa 9/11. Make no mistake about it - by abandoning empathy and objectivity, we give up our very freedom of thought and become marionettes to higher interests. In a world of pervasive fear today, Pakistan can chart the course of its destiny better if the collective remains independently thoughtful.


7) Our destinies are tied to Pakistan, to our ethnicity, and to our religion. In the increasingly divisive world of today, individual allegiances are being outdone by overarching stereotypes. In other words, no matter what shade my skin may be, what dialect or accent I speak in or what my beliefs about God may be, I will always be perceived as a Pakistani Muslim by the world at large. And thus, my fate is inescapable from that of Pakistan. So for example if this country is torn asunder due to civil-war brought on by geopolitical strife, I will invariably be perceived as a refugee in the world. Thereafter I can achieve the American dream, or move in international social circles, or even perfectly synchronize my habits with Western norms - I can do all that and I'll still be a refugee. Pakistan's imprint echoes in my very existence; in all of us. We can live our life denying this fact and bury our head in the sand. Or we can accept it, embrace it and let it influence our priorities. How we choose our greater allegiance today will shape our collective, intertwined destiny.


8) The onus for reforming the system is on the middle classes. That is, the onus is on people like you and me. We are the potential agents of change. And thus by implication, we are also blameworthy for allowing the system to remain broken, for not wanting to 'get our hands dirty', for being the silent, apathetic onlookers. The moneyed elite are not to blame – they adhere to their characteristic decadence and nonchalance; they do precisely what they're expected to do. Corrupt politicians are not to blame – a thief knows little more than the art of thievery. Likewise, neither the military's top brass, and nor the have-nots of Pakistan are culpable. They all play their designated roles in manners they ought to. This leaves the middle and upper-middle classes - essentially people like you and me. Us. We are the true architects of revolutionary change. For we are the only societal segment in this country which is situated at the confluence of a moral code which may be disillusioned but still partly intact, a vision which is alienated but still somewhat patriotic and an agency which is disoriented but still adequately resourceful. In short we are far from perfect, but we are the only messiahs Pakistan can realistically count on. There is absolutely no one else. This lesson is perhaps the most consequential one we have to learn.


9) Incremental change is not a bad option. Activism through small, comfortable increments is not an impractical way of approaching the paradigm of change. That is, even small steps help since at any one time atomic constituents are more solvable than the complex whole. Hence we must not abhor atomizing issues and then indulging in micro-activism – it is ok if how one contributes does not have immediately noticeable repercussions.

I have encountered many Pakistanis who cite their inability to have a substantial, resounding impact as the main driving force behind their evident indifference to the country's woes. To all those who espouse this view, I say that though I can empathize with your sense of demoralization, I simply cannot condone the rationale for such inaction. For it is undeniable that some progress is better than no progress; that going from 100 to 101 is a better deal than staying put; that the smallest gestures help too. If all of us today - the 140 million plus of us no less – individually contemplate the smallest, tiniest way we can contribute to Pakistan's socioeconomic betterment and act on it, is there any doubt that the country will not change overnight in one big rush of altruistic activism? Now this is ofcourse an unrealistic, rhetorical example - but it is thematic of the power of incremental change. A change easy to accomplish with the results snowballing as more people buy into the paradigm. In short we must not overlook this option; rather it is sensible to include it as an ally in our portfolio of loftier ambitions.


10) Lastly, Pakistan can shine. No really; this is not just talk. If you don't know where to start, there's a lot of help around. And not to mention many examples to take inspiration from. Did you know that Pakistan possesses the technological knowhow to manufacture drones indigenously[i]? Or that one of the most highly regarded applications available in Apple's iPhone App Store today is of Pakistani[ii] origin? Or that 27 Pakistani scientists[iii] are scheduled to work on CERN's Large Hadron Collider (the 'Big Bang' experiment machine)? Or that a Pakistani Venture Capitalist has been placed in the top 10[iv] in Forbes magazine's worldwide annual VC ranking?

These are just a few inspirational stories among a plethora of real-world anecdotes and accomplishments with a quintessentially Pakistani stamp on them. For all that is made out to be defective about this country, there are flashes of brilliance just waiting to be given the opportunity to show themselves in their true splendor to the realms; to spread out and envelope the gloom infesting our polity. We just need to get rid of the “Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga” approach. And fortunately, this is not as hard as it sounds. There are numerous small but meaningful ways in which we can make a personal contribution. Some suggestions are:

  • Make yourself heard. Become involved, for your continued silence is really an endorsement of the status quo. Reject what must be rejected, condemn that what is condemnable, endorse and encourage where merited. And do not be fooled into thinking that this is an ambitious proposition: increasing accessibility to the information superhighway has made it easier for any individual to become part of the public discourse. There are numerous Pakistani internet blogs and forums where you can voice your opinions and contribute in your own way to mold the national spirit for a brighter future. And you do not necessarily have to write articles – blogs traditionally invite one-liner comments as well. It is the same as, if not easier than, writing a text message on your cell phone.
  • Brainstorm in public to seed ideas and to inspire. Many people talk about the way the world should be, but much less understand how to get there. If you do have thought-provoking ideas, then there is nothing more fruitful than exposing your design – through, say, the internet – to the collective intellect for it to dissect it, understand it, polish it if necessary and support it when satisfied. Also remember that your proposed solutions do not have to be comprehensive – for many issues simply cannot be solved bottom-up[v] and the burden has to be placed on the unlikely possibility of a non-elitist, well-educated visionary coming along and dominating our political scene in the future. But your ideas can always ameliorate problems; lessen their severity so to speak. It is imperative that such brainstorming enters our public discourse – the resulting crosspollination is what will slowly and steadily alter the course of our destiny.
  • Become an activist through inaction (can’t get easier than this). Every populace has its own share of idealists and lunatics. Ones who think the impossible is possible, the unrealistic is realistic and that conventional wisdom is unwise. And too often people succumb to the temptation of vociferously chastising such individuals; of telling them how futile their beliefs are; of how the system will crush their hopes. Now during my days at LUMS, a Groucho Marx quotation used to do the rounds quite often: “Blessed are the cracked ones, for they shall let in the light”. Just let the lunatics be no matter how imbecilic[vi] their ideas are. Let them have their shot at change. Next time you meet the idealist, unreasonably optimistic seedling who thinks he or she can change the world, be lazy and do not make the effort go negative on them.

All of the suggestions above are very small starts confessedly. But by no means is such a start inconsequential. Through the build-up of momentum, confidence to tackle bigger beasts can evolve and we can then trailblaze our way to that true destiny envisioned for Pakistan by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This is our moment; let’s seize it. Let’s get going.





[v] Take this simplistically formulated example: India has roughly 8000 universities for its 1 billion people (approximately one university for every 125,000 persons). Pakistan has around 120 for its 140 million (one university for every 1.2 million persons). Assuming this level stays constant (unrealistic assumption), simple math shows we need 1000 more universities to attain parity. That is a massive task. And therefore the kind of fiscal muscle required to pull it off necessitates active government involvement.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

The flea of inanity and the ‘PPP-Q’

By Saira Minto

IN ‘A plea for sanity’ (May 28), Murtaza Razvi focused on trashing the lawyers’ movement by indicating that it lacks vision and is isolated, a movement that was being carried on “in [a] vacuum … from day one”. He also alleged that lawyers and their representatives were acting with a “tunnel vision” without any assurance of light at the end and that their one-point agenda of restoration of the judiciary was making them miss “the only window of opportunity”, that is an agreement with Mr Zardari.

One can admire the writer’s boldness in loyally advocating participation in pro-establishment mainstream Pakistani politics and the brazenness with which the PPP is promoted as the only saviour of the current imbroglio. The PPP? A party that has always jumped at the slightest opportunity to strike deals with the establishment and which may just be renamed ‘PPP-Q’ in due course!

The lawyers confronted Musharraf and his establishment when it attempted to remove the chief justice in March 2007 by force, coercion and several manipulative devices including the pretence to act under Article 209 of the constitution. The lawyers, the public and the media thwarted that attempt by exposing it and by supporting the Supreme Court to provide it with the confidence needed to stand up to Musharraf. Political parties (especially mainstream) supported it marginally and cautiously.

The lawyers’ community is representative of a wide-ranging socio-cultural spectrum of Pakistani society and within itself it adheres to democratic norms. Estimated to be 100,000 in number and spread all over the country from grassroots tehsils and subdivisions to provincial and federal metropolises, the lawyers do not belong to any one political persuasion. They are a diverse lot.

What brings them together is their profession which is dependent on the existence of an independent judiciary and the prevalence of a system of governance based on the constitution. Their bar associations and councils are professional bodies duly elected from top to bottom. They act in unison whenever there is a threat to the constitution, to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. This is not the first time that they have done so.

In the time of Ziaul Haq, leading lawyers suffered harassment and long terms of imprisonment for raising their voices. The political parties did not unite with the lawyers even then but taking their cue from them established their own Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) in Feb 1981. After the lawyers had held their conventions in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Rawalpindi and resorted to street protests, the MRD undertook an anti-martial law campaign independently. The two movements were separate but complemented each other in working for the same objective.

Today, when the lawyers’ movement, aided by the people’s approval, the media and the real judges, has already pushed back the establishment a few steps, the political parties, especially the ‘PPP-Q’, only seem to want to enter into deals and bargains with the junta purely for personal benefits, shamelessly disregarding their commitment given in the Charter of Democracy.

Musharraf’s Nov 2007 martial law (aka emergency) which was imposed against the backdrop of the lawyers’ movement should have been a time to consolidate political forces, speed up agitation against the regime and wrap up matters effectively and finally. Nothing of the sort, however, was forthcoming from the mainstream parties, and it was again the lawyers supported by civil society and the media who agitated against the president and his coteries. The complicity of the ‘PPP-Q’ was the most glaring when the party failed to launch a movement against this group even after Ms Bhutto’s ghastly murder.

The Feb 18 elections were held under grave circumstances. The election result is now widely acknowledged to be the people’s pronouncement against Musharraf, the establishment and the emergency/martial law. While all elected representatives agreed that the Nov 3 actions were unconstitutional and that Musharraf’s continuation in power would hamper the transition to democracy, the new Assembly delayed asserting its sovereign authority to overturn the acts of Nov 3 which could have been done by restoring the judiciary to its Nov 2 position.

The drafting and development of ‘constitutional packages’ were offered as justification for the delay and even now a partial and limited restoration is being proposed — while paying lip service to the formulations in the Bhurban Declaration and the independence of the judiciary.

It is strange, indeed, in this scenario for any serious and mature commentator to propose that the lawyers, civil society and the media simply shut up and fall in line with those who have not only once again reneged on their word but are also looking for excuses to hang on to the remains of a dictatorship for their own benefit and protection.

The lawyers’ approach has been focused and to call their integrity in pursuing it ‘tunnel vision’ qualifies as either an inane and ignorant joke or cruelty or both. Lawyers have not only acted wisely but exactly according to Jinnah’s principles of unity, faith and discipline. They have kept themselves away from political manipulators and self-seekers — something that helps them stay united and strong.

It should also be pointed out, for the record, that it is wholly incorrect that the lawyers’ movement is restricted to Punjab. The huge number of people that turned out for Chief Justice Chaudhry on his visit to Peshawar on May 31 is sufficient to refute that baseless assertion.

All over the world, movements are led by trade unions under one red flag, unpolluted by political vested interests. Lawyers are doing something similar in that sense through the common bond of their profession. Their movement is neither isolated nor apolitical. It is a movement of professionals who are themselves the mainstream and their politics comprises a campaign for true democracy, not hobnobbing with the establishment. To a lot of people, there seems to be a more real and brighter light at the end of this tunnel than there is at the end of the one that the ‘PPP-Q’ wishes to drag this country through.

The long march of June 10 is well timed. If they happen, and hopefully they will, both Musharraf’s exit and the restoration of judiciary will be events that will come about as a result of the lawyers’ movement, and not because of this or that ‘constitutional package’ and the mass deception that accompanies it.
DAWN - Editorial; June 06, 2008
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thursday, May 29, 2008

‘Hidden forces’ out to throttle democracy: Asif

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has said that ‘hidden forces’ are out to impose martial law and any movement against the government may snuff out democracy.

Talking to representatives of the Punjab and NWFP chapters of the People’s Lawyers Forum (PLF) here on Wednesday, Mr Zardari said the PPP wanted not only to reinstate the deposed judges but also to introduce constitutional reforms to ensure that all state institutions worked in accordance with their roles defined in the Constitution.
‘Hidden forces’ out to throttle democracy: Asif -DAWN - Top Stories; May 29, 2008

ur own fault asif... kyun latka rahay ho 1 maamlay ko... is ki wajah se baaki sab cheezein ignore ho rahi hain... poor policy by PPP... jo kaam kerna hai karo aur aglay ki taraf dekho... yeh cautious approach wali policy bhi agar martial law ki taraf lay ja rahi hai to why use cautious approach??? y not do it instantly as PML-N suggests... abhi bhi time hai zardari saab... judge bahal karein, mulk mein se uncertainty khatam karein... zabardasti judges k haamiyon ko bura saabit kernay ki koshish na karein... ya phir seedhi tarah keh dein k hum bahal nahi ker rahay judges ko, jao kerlo jo kerna hai...
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Liberal Assembly of NWFP condemns CIA Director’s comments on Pak tribal areas

The NWFP Assembly has taken a strong note of CIA Director Michael Hayden’s recent statement terming Pakistan’s tribal areas as direct threat to US. The Assembly strongly condemned Hayden’s comments in a unanimous resolution passed by it.

The resolution also said that all the matters should be resolved through holding meaningful talks.

Raising a point of order, PML-N provincial chief Pir Sabir Shah diverted the attention of the House towards the statement issued by the CIA chief, and termed it as direct threat to the country as well as interference and attack on sovereignty of their country.

He said that aggressions from any foreign country would not be tolerated. “My countrymen had witnessed suicide attacks, bomb blasts and destruction only because of the dictatorial policies of the US in this region,” The Nation quoted him as saying.

Provincial ex-CM Akram Khan Durrani seconded the resolution and expressed the same feelings, saying that a joint resolution should be tabled to condemn the CIA chief’s statement unanimously.

Later, the parliamentary leaders of various Parties drafted the resolution and allowed the ANP leader Mian Iftikhar Hussain to move it, and was unanimously passed through which they demanded of the Federal Government to take serious note of the statement issued by the CIA chief immediately as they considered it as an interference in the affairs of an independent country. (ANI)

NWFP Assembly condemns CIA Director’s comments on Pak tribal areas | Top News

Please note that religious parties do not have much representation in the assembly... so US n mush cannot say that these are views of extremists... also see following

Provoked by the recent statements of the CIA director Michael Hayden, the NWFP Assembly promptly adopted a unanimous resolution Tuesday condemning US official’s utterances and asked the PPP-led federal government to take steps to resolve all issues through negotiations.

All parties represented in the assembly ranging from the nationalist ANP to the secular PPP and centrist PML-N, rightist PML-Q to the Islamic JUI-F, backed the resolution. ANP’s Mian Iftikhar Hussain, who will take oath as education minister today, moved the jointly drafted resolution on behalf of all members of the House.
...
PPP-S’s Israrullah Gandapur did not agree with the speaker who suggested the mover to leave the issue for another day as no other business could be made except election of the chief minister. He said they could not remain silent spectators like those of school’s children on such important and sensitive issues. “We will be doing no service if we also adopt criminal negligence like that of the previous government,” he said and suggested passage of a resolution. He also asked the federal government to summon US ambassador to know as to whether it was the American policy or a statement of one individual.

Full story at The News website
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Monday, March 24, 2008

Detained Judges Released. Well Done PM

گرفتار ججوں کی رہائی: نئے وزیرِاعظم کا پہلا ’حکم‘

یوسف رضا گیلانی نے اپنے پہلے مختصر خطاب میں گرفتار ججوں کی فوری رہائی کا ’حکم‘ دیا ہے لیکن کہا ہے کہ جج اپنے مسائل احتجاج کی بجائے پارلیمان کے اندر حل کرائیں۔ انہوں نے یہ بھی کہا ہے کہ ان کی حکومت بینظیر بھٹو کے قتل کی تحقیقات اقوامِ متحدہ سے کروانے اور ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کے عدالتی قتل پر معافی کے لیے پارلیمان میں قرارداد پیش کرے گی۔

More on BBC Urdu

Excerpts from BBC

New Pakistani PM Yusuf Raza Gillani has said he will order the release of all judges detained under emergency rule, minutes after being elected by MPs.

President Pervez Musharraf in November sacked dozens of judges as the Supreme Court was set to rule on whether his re-election was legal.

Former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was among those still held.

...

Mr Gillani made two key pledges in his speech following his election.

The first was to demand "the immediate release of all the arrested judges", sparking cheers from most of the gathered MPs.

Police have already removed barbed wire from outside Mr Chaudhry's home in Islamabad, where he has been under house arrest.

Mr Chaudhry later appeared on his balcony to wave to hundreds of supporters. It was his first public appearance for four months.

He thanked his "fellow judges and the entire nation".

Iftikhar Chaudhry
Iftikhar Chaudhry made his first public appearance for four months

"I have no words to express my gratitude to the way you have struggled... to reach this day," he said.

It is not clear exactly how many judges are held or when they might be freed.

However, correspondents say the PM should have the power to free those such as Mr Chaudhry who were held under executive rather than court orders.

Mr Gillani's second pledge was to seek a resolution calling for a UN investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

...

The PPP, which was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination in December, emerged as the biggest party in the February elections.

It is now headed by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari.

On Monday he was quoted in The News newspaper as saying that Mr Gillani would serve a full five-year term as prime minister.


Friday, March 7, 2008

PPP, PML-N ‘poles apart’ on judges issue -As expected from PPP :(

Source: Dawn

By Ashraf Mumtaz

LAHORE, March 5: The PPP and the PML-N remain “poles apart” on the issue of reinstatement of the deposed judges of superior courts and ties with President Pervez Musharraf, notwithstanding their resolve to form a coalition, with the Awami National Party as their third partner.

“We are poles apart. The PML-N just wants that all existing judges should be sent home and those deposed on Nov 3 should be reinstated,” said a PPP leader who attended talks between the two sides.

Sources close to Mian Nawaz Sharif and privy to the discussions held by the two sides on Tuesday night said that the PPP team had asked the PML-N to soften its stand on the question of judges and not to make it priority item on its agenda.

“Nothing is common (between the two sides) and nothing is likely to be common,” said the source, indicating that the two sides would continue their deliberations in an attempt to find some common ground for cooperation.

PPP leader Asif Zardari and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif are expected to meet in Islamabad on Friday to discuss matters concerning formation of the government.

The PML-N sources said their party could not afford to change its stance on the deposed judges and President Musharraf.

A PPP leader said that President Musharraf was under no obligation to seek a confidence vote from the new parliament. “There is no such provision in the Constitution. However, if he wants to show his following in the new house there is no harm in taking such an initiative,” the leader said, adding that the PPP was not calling on the president to prove that he enjoyed majority’s support.

“Let the new system take off. We want all matters in accordance with the Constitution. If the president stays non-partisan and doesn’t convert the Presidency into a hub of political conspiracies, we will have no problem working with him.”

Some reports say that the PML-N wants Musharraf to either step down or take confidence vote from the new assemblies.

The PML-Q has not lost hope that it would be able to form a government with the PPP because of the latter’s differences with the PML-N.

PML-Q sources say that knowing well that they were hated by the PPP the Chaudhrys have given Hamid Nasir Chattha a mandate to try to persuade the PPP leaders to agree to forming a coalition with them.

Mr Chattha had been close to Benazir Bhutto when the PPP and the then PML-Junejo were coalition partners during 1993-96.

One source said that Chaudhry Shujaat Husain may step down as party chief to pave the way for Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, the PML-Q’s new parliamentary party leader in the National assembly. Once he quits, some other office-bearers may also follow suit.

logged with Flock

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Interim govt. trying to make the SC 'validated' amendments a part of constituition


By Nasir Iqbal and Ashraf Mumtaz



ISLAMABAD / LAHORE, Feb 23: Controversy lies in store for the opening session of the new National Assembly as the interim government’s legal experts have decided to get printed a fresh edition of the Constitution, incorporating all amendments introduced by President Pervez Musharraf during the emergency rule.

The question haunting the PML-N and PPP’s legislators-elect alike is: will they take oath under the amended Constitution, which has been ‘validated’ by the Supreme Court?

Both parties have already rejected these amendments and termed them “unconstitutional and invalid”. They contend that the amendments have been made by an individual instead of the parliament.

The government insists the imposition of emergency (on Nov 3), the enforcement of the Provisional Constitution Order, sacking of judges and other steps taken by the president during emergency had been validated by the apex court and made part of the Constitution.

It also asserts that the legislators-elect taking oath under the amended Constitution would, by implication, be endorsing all these steps.

The PPP has said that it would not give a blanket cover to all steps taken by President Musharraf during emergency.

A PML-N leader said on Saturday that the matter was under consideration and some solution would be found by the time the National Assembly holds its inaugural session.

“Obviously (the new version of) the Constitution would contain Article 270AAA under which amendments made before and during the … emergency rule were given perpetual legal cover,” said a senior government official.
Full Story


Blogged with Flock

Thursday, January 31, 2008

US undermined Pakistani Democracy: Imran

[Following is the Interview of Imran Khan with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now TV, you can also watch Real Video Stream or listen Real Audio Stream or just MP3 Download ]

AMY GOODMAN Why are you here in US?

IMRAN KHAN Well, basically, the Pakistani- American community here, they invited me here to explain the other point of view. There’s a government point of view, Musharraf’s government point of view, and then there’s the other point of view. And they wanted me to explain it to the U.S. lawmakers, to make them understand two things. One is, that they should not back one man, a dictator, against the forces of democracy of Pakistan. Secondly, that a new strategy is needed in this war on terror because at the moment, terrorism is spreading with leaps and bounds. And unless we have a new strategy, the existence of Pakistan is at stake.

AMY GOODMAN Why is the United States relevant to that?

IMRAN KHAN Well, for two reasons. One, that the U.S. is involved in Afghanistan. Secondly, the U.S. feels Musharraf is the best bet, the US Administration they feel that hes their best bet in fighting terrorism.

AMY GOODMAN Your feeling about that?

IMRAN KHAN I think it is the biggest mistake. It is the biggest blunder the U.S. is committing. Because you could only win the war ... read more

Monday, January 28, 2008

TYRANT MUSHARRAF IS THE CAUSE OF CRISES IN PAKISTAN

By JEMIMA KHAN

(InformPress.com) - I am now a serial protester, it seems. And among my English friends increasingly the butt of jokes. Three demonstrations in the UK since October, and several others - including some of a distinctly Monty Python-esque bent - during my years of living in Pakistan. I have spent many a pre-protest evening in Islamabad quibbling with activists over the minutiae: what the placards should say (no "death to..." anyone, I would insist) or whether to allow effigy burning, a Pakistani protest staple ("Jem, you don'tunderstand how politics works here - please, just a burning Bush").

Tomorrow at midday I will once again be positioning myself outside 10 Downing Street, to await the arrival of retired General and self-appointed President Pervez Musharraf, who I intend to greet with lusty jeers, provocative placards and slogans that almost rhyme. We have agreed that we don't like the commonly used kuta, meaning dog. Monkey, fox, hyena and, worst of all (for a pork-phobic nation), swine have also been banned.

I expect most of you will be thinking: "Aren't demonstrations a bit old fashioned and irrelevant? Can they actually achieve anything?"

It is 40 years since 1968, "The Year That Rocked The World", when mass protests erupted across the globe, in France, America, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Belgium, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. While none of those demonstrations achieved their immediate stated aim, cumulatively they changed the world more profoundly than those involved could ever have imagined.

Popular protests rarely achieve much on their own. Hillary Clinton had a point when she said that "[Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realised when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a President to get it done." She was lambasted by her Democratic rivals for having demeaned the great civil rights icon. But she was right that, while there is no doubt King was brilliant at mobilising a movement, as well as an outstanding orator and inspirational activist, his real achievement was the shifting of American consciousness. This created the environment in which it was possible for Johnson to pass the humanitarian Civil Rights Act which resulted in the greatest social change in 20th-century America.

The effects of protests are rarely immediate or even measurable. What demonstrations do is to change the weather. And the weather changes the landscape. Protests invariably move from the extreme to the mainstream.

Sometimes, though, they really do what they say on the banners. Ghandi's march to the sea to make salt marked the beginning of the push to remove the British from India; the Suffragettes did get the vote for women; the Peasant's Revolt did change the feudal system; and the Anti-Slavery Movement did do away with slavery. They are all examples of what demonstrations hope to achieve: the mass power of the individually powerless.

Tomorrow I will be protesting Gordon Brown's continued support for Pakistan's dictator. I will be joined by politicians, lawyers, doctors, human rights activists, journalists and ordinary Pakistanis who want to know what happened to New Labour's "ethical foreign policy". Our equivalents in Pakistan have been denied the same right to protest. Many hundreds remain in prison - some tortured. We can't read about it because the media in Pakistan remains restricted.

Brown and Musharraf are planning to discuss democracy, counter-terrorism and the upcoming Pakistani elections. We, the crowd outside Number 10, will be there exercising freedom of speech and practising real democracy. Inside they will only be going through the motions.

How can they seriously discuss the "democratic process in Pakistan" with straight faces when 60 percent of the Superior Court judges have been dismissed and many are still under house arrest? How can "free and fair elections" take place in three weeks under the supervision of hand-picked substitute judges, a pet caretaker government and a bogus election Commission? Why is our Government supporting and our taxpayers funding a counter-terrorism strategy that has encouraged terrorism? Above all, why has our Prime Minister chosen to host a constitutionally illegal ruler who has lost the support of Pakistanis both in Britain and abroad, and who is seen as the cause not the solution to the country's problems?

Every time Gordon Brown shakes hands with and gives tea to a dictator, in some small way, like protests, it changes the weather. If you shake hands with one, you shake hands with them all. It's pointless refusing to be in the same country as Mugabe, if you invite Musharraf into your home.

Wouldn't it be nice if, on hearing our shouts, Brown came to the window of Number 10, waved cordially at the rabble outside and announced: "Actually, you are right." To be followed from within by pleasing sounds of scuffle and outrage with Brown emerging to join our final chorus of "Resign Musharraf, Resign!"

It is more likely that we will just make ourselves heard. But who knows? 2008 may yet turn out to be Pakistan's 1968. Inshallah.

Monday, midday, Downing Street. Effigies supplied.

[Ms. Jemima (Goldsmith) Khan is a leader of the Free Pakistan Movement (FPM) based in London, UK.]

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

"Restoration of Judges and Democracy" convention at LUMS

By: SAC Correspondent

The convention organized was an immense success. So many people showed up that we did not have seating place. Many were standing around or sitting on the floor or stairs in the auditorium. The next convention therefore will be organized in an even bigger hall. The attendance was over 200 people.

The convention began by Hamid Zaman addressing the audience and introducing the host, Talat Hussain. Following that, the panelist began by giving their viewpoint on the matter of the restoration of the judiciary. Retired Justice Fakhrunnisa from PPP and Ahsan Iqbal from PML-N both promised their party's commitment to the cause of the people.

Retired Justice Fakhrunnisa declared her commitment to the struggle for the restoration of the judiciary, and stressed that after elections her party will do all in their power to get the judiciary restored. She said Benazir gave her life for the struggle of democracy, and democracy is not possible without the restoration of the judiciary. Hence, PPP will first and foremost work towards that.

Mr. Ahsan Iqbal declared the recent mobilization of the civil society and students as nothing less than marvelous. He said that throughout history, countries have survived poverty, hunger, illiteracy etc but never has any country survived without justice. He said that the lack of justive effects the poor and the middle classes the most, as they are unable to shield themselves from those with power. He declared that today, the civil society and the students have stepped forward to become that shield. He pointed to the historic nexus between the judge, the general and the Jageerdar and said that for the first time in the history of Pakistan, a judge dared defy this nexus and give hope to the desolute and oppressed masses. He said that Nawaz Sharif himself will administer an oath to ALL party nominees in front of the Public. This oath will profess the utmost commitment of each to the restoration of the judiciary and the constitution. He said that Pervaiz Musharraf insulted 160 million people in his address in Europe when he declared Pakistanis as undeserving of democracy, and that Pakistanis deserve it as much as any other country. He declared Musharraf as obsessed with power.

Mr. Hamid Khan, began by historicizing the lawyer's movement. That it had begun since the first coup by Musharraf. He strongly denounced any system of which Musharraf was a part of, and added that when Benazir made a deal with Musharraf, it was a most painful moment in the lawyer's movement. He blamed this deal for the fact that Musharraf was able to remain on his seat post March 9. He therefore also denounced the current elections taking place under Musharraf's biased government. He also said that had all the parties boycotted elections from the beginning Musharraf would have been unable to retain any power and that Political parties should have only contested elections on the condition that Musharraf resign.

Mr. Parvaiz Hassan, representing Mr. Tariq Hassan in the convention, said that the so-called deposed judges are not under the law deposed. They are still legally the judges. He declared that the only solution to the problem of the repeated coups by the military is via recourse to the article 6 of the constitution. He said that Musharraf should be tried before the courts (once the judges have been reinstated de facto) for high treason. He also said that not only Musharraf but the PCO judges should also be held accountable. He stressed that unless this process of accountability begins in the country, there is no hope.

Mr. Ahsan rasheed representing PTI, stressed that these elctions are neither free nor fair. He emphasized the principled stance of his party in this regard. He said that his party now had an expanded electoral base, and stood to win many more seats, but purely on principles has decided to boycott the elections. He said that Imran Khan was offered to become part of the Musharraf government previously as well, but had refused each time.

The talk was very charged with emotions. A lot of people denounced Musharraf. Many also said that we will now hold the political parties equally accountable. PML-N and PPP were also questioned on judicial independence during their terms in power. Retd Justice Fakhrunnisa responded by saying that her party never deposed any judges. And Mr. Iqbal said that Nawaz Sharif was the first Prime Minister of Pakistan to ever present himself in front of the court. He, however, also stated that his party has learned from their past mistakes and was willing to improve hand in hand with the people. This was appreciated by many from the civil society that at least an acceptance and willingness to improve has been expressed. The general consensus of the convention was that Musharraf must immediately resign, that no power sharing agreement with him was acceptable and that the judiciary must be restored. PPP was also asked to give an official firm stance on the issue of the judiciary and to administer a similar oath as the PML-N. All politicians were asked to give an oath that if they are unable to restore the judiciary they will resign from politics.

(Although video of this event will be televised in an episode of 'Live with Talat', on Aaj TV, but we will also post here the UN-CENSORED videos of the event, in a couple of days)

Monday, January 7, 2008

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