LUMS Student Killed: Call CCPO Lahore and Protest

Three drunk people hit and killed a LUMS student early this morning, also severely injuring two other students. The students were walking near H block. The DHA police have been busy helping the culprits. Almost 500 students are protesting against this inaction in Defence right now. Please join the protest, if that is not possible, make one phone call to the police cheif of lahore and protest. Help keep the pressure up!

CCPO Lahore, DIG Pervaiz Rathore

0301-4093189

042-9202976

P.S. Please spread this around. Remember every phone call counts!

No end to colonial governance

By Rubina Saigol

THE Defence of India Act of 1915 was an emergency criminal law enacted by the British Raj to curtail revolutionary and nationalist activities in India during the First World War.

The apparent intent was to prevent ‘terrorists’ from calling public meetings, publishing material inciting the people to revolt, disseminating revolutionary literature, and so forth. The act was designed to curtail actions by armed revolutionaries characterised as ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’ with links abroad.

However, the legislation was so wide in scope that it rendered “suspect all political activity that was even mildly critical of the British Government of India, and it put an effective end to whatever freedom of expression the Indian press had been allowed”. This act gave the government of British India special emergency powers to deal with German-inspired threats especially in Punjab. A special legal tribunal was established to deal with suspects who could be interned without warrant and had no recourse to appeal.

In March 1919, at the end of the war, the British extended the special ‘emergency powers’ by passing the recommendations of the Rowlatt Commission headed by a British judge, Sir Sydney Rowlatt. Under the guise of dealing with ‘public unrest’, ‘revolutionary activities’ and ‘terrorism’, especially in Bengal and Punjab, this act authorised the government to: 1) imprison suspects without trial; 2) arrest suspects without a warrant; 3) hold secret, in camera trials of suspects; 4) tell suspects where they should live; 5) quell sedition by silencing the press.

The reasons given for instituting such a draconian law were the following: 1) alleged assistance given to the revolutionary movement in India by the German government to destabilise the British government in India; 2) destabilisation of the political situation in neighbouring Afghanistan by inciting the emir to turn against British India and the possible links of this to Bolshevik Russia; and 3) civil and labour unrest in India due to the post-war recession which led to the Bombay Mill Workers’ strikes, unrest in Punjab due to several reasons including the havoc wrought by the Spanish flu epidemic causing the deaths of 13 million Indians.

The Rowlatt Act was met with immediate denunciation by Indian leaders. Gandhi organised strikes and demonstrations against the act and Jinnah resigned from the Legislative Council writing to the viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, that “the fundamental principles of justice have been uprooted”.

The unjust law sparked furious waves of protest particularly in Punjab where there were rapid disruptions in rail, telegraph and communication systems, government buildings were burnt and five Europeans including government employees and civilians were killed.

The protests reached a peak in April 1919 and according to one account “practically the whole of Lahore was on the streets, the immense crowd that passed through Anarkali was estimated to be around 20,000”. Several banks, government buildings and the railway station were attacked. By April 13, the British government had decided to place most of Punjab under martial law. A number of restrictions were placed on civil liberties including freedom of assembly and a ban on gatherings of more than four people.

On April 13, 1919, around 10,000 people gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar to register their protest. The British feared an uprising along the lines of the 1857 revolt which began in the month of May. Under the command of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, British Indian soldiers opened fire on the unarmed crowd. The firing lasted for 10 minutes and 1,650 rounds, or 33 per soldier, were fired. Official British Raj placed the casualty figures at 379, however private sources revealed that over 1,000 people were killed and 2,000 injured. The civil surgeon Dr Smith claimed that there were over 1,800 casualties.

The Bagh was bounded on all sides by buildings and houses and the few narrow openings were locked. There was no escape. Some people tried desperately to clamber over the walls while others jumped into a well to escape the bullets. Around 120 bodies were dug out of the well.

A curfew was declared in Amritsar and Dyer reported to his superiors that he ‘had been confronted by a revolutionary army’ and was therefore obliged to ‘teach a moral lesson to the Punjab’. The lieutenant governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O’Dwyer wrote back: “Your action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves.” Jawaharlal Nehru, in his autobiography, reported hearing British soldiers saying that they “wanted to teach the bloody browns a lesson”.

In his testimony before the Hunter Commission formed to inquire into the massacre, Brigadier Dyer acknowledged that he could have dispersed the crowd without firing but he would have become a laughing stock if they re-converged on the Bagh and made a fool of him. He said that if he would have used machine guns if he could get them through the narrow gates, and that taking the wounded to hospital was not his responsibility. British officers applauded the suppression of ‘another Indian mutiny’ and the House of Lords commended Dyer.

However, the House of Commons censured him and Winston Churchill remarked: “The incident in Jallianwala Bagh was an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.” Dyer was officially sanctioned by the British government and resigned in 1920. The British press nonetheless defended Dyer labelling him ‘Saviour of the Punjab’ and started a sympathy fund collecting £26,000 for him.

An American woman donated £100 saying, “I fear for the British women there now that Dyer has been dismissed.”

The events of 1919-20 bear an uncanny resemblance to contemporary times. We are all too familiar with laws similar to the Rowlatt Act, martial laws, indiscriminate killing of dissenters, curbs on the press, detention without warrant, in camera trials and sympathies for killers. The massacre of May 12, 2007, is still fresh in our memories.

The constant armed attacks on innocent populations in Balochistan and the tribal areas in the name of fleshing out militants and rooting out terrorists are all too familiar. Our post-independence history is replete with martial laws, press and publications ordinances, arrests without warrant and detentions of terror suspects. All this has been exacerbated after 9/11 in the name of the so-called war on terror.

The techniques of colonial governmentality persist as the nature of the state is essentially colonial. As some historians say, we never really achieved independence and only experienced a transfer of power from foreign to local masters. The continuities of history reveal to us the amazing consistency of the forms and application of power.

DAWN - Editorial; May 26, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

NATO Genocide in Afghanistan

The NATO website lists its killings in Afghanistan. These killings are also reported in the world media, often with a shameless tone of gratitude as if NATO forces are engaged in wiping out cannibals. In 2007 alone, NATO helicopters and precision guided munitions bombed and killed over six thousand "Taliban." Read the following recent attacks, which the NATO itself reports, and smell the scent of genocide.

Read the whole article http://abukashif.blogspot.com/

A Case Before the Nation

By Dr. Haider Mehdi

People of Pakistan!

Let us, for the sake of deliberation and in good faith, give the benefit of the doubt to Gen.(retired) Pervez Musharraf and accept all of his claims: Yes, Benazir killed herself by hitting the car’s sunroof lever. Yes, she was warned not to hold a political rally. Yes, no state agency was involved in her gruesome murder. Yes, the Sharif brothers went into exile at their own request. Yes, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan was rightfully sacked. Yes, several civil society activists and lawyers deserve to be put in jail. Yes, Gen. (retd.) Pervez Musharraf is the best thing that has ever happened to Pakistan in its 60-year history. Yes, the General (retd.) has given unprecedented economic prosperity and political stability as well as true democracy to this country. Yes, the majority of Pakistanis are extremists and terrorists. Yes, Pakistan’s survival as a nation is dependent on American goodwill and fighting its war on terror. Yes, without the General (retd.), Pakistan has no future. Yes, the General (retd.) is the promised “messiah” and so on and so on.

Having admitted all that is claimed by the incumbent leader, the nation still needs some kind of criteria to evaluate the performance of its political leadership. After all, that is a common process in a democratically-run nation – and the General (retd.) asserts that present-day Pakistan is a true democracy shaped and gifted by him and supported by American benevolence.

Leadership performance evaluations are generally conducted within specifically defined frameworks. General characteristics attributed to political leadership are: vision, willing followers, influence, situational adaptability and communication excellence. These five concepts, though not giving a complete picture, present an underpinning of an effective political leadership. Can Musharraf’s performance be evaluated by the application of these five concepts? Perhaps these notions are too broad and the discussion could be a complex and lengthy process.

It would seem more appropriate to look at Musharraf’s performance within a more specific framework. One such perspective is the notion of charismatic political leadership. Is Musharraf a charismatic leader? Charisma, originally a Greek word, means divine gift, and scholars have attributed such a leader with “having considerable power over followers, especially in times of crisis.” A charismatic leadership is gifted with “(a) formulation of a strategic vision, (b) inspiration and empowerment of followers, and (c) superior articulation and impressive management skills.” Charisma is directly related to a leader’s behavior; it is an ability to tie the self-concepts of the followers in with the nation’s vision, goals, identity and purpose.

The questions are: Has the General (retd.) been able to invoke followers’ loyalty at a massive national level? Has he succeeded in inspiring and empowering the masses? Has Pervez Musharraf been successful in giving strategic goal-oriented visionary leadership to the nation? Has he proven effective in present-day national crisis management by acknowledging the self-concepts of the masses with their national vision, goals, identity and purpose? Has the General (retd.) demonstrated superior management skills at resolving the economic and political problematics faced by the nation? Does he enjoy considerable power over the masses by virtue of his personal behavior and attributes? Has he been able to positively influence the masses at large and provide the civil society in particular with a legendary and imaginative leap in political doctrine or ideology?

Unfortunately, the answers to all of these questions are not in the affirmative. The fact of the matter is that the nation, as a whole, is completely alienated from Musharraf’s political doctrines. Civil society is in turmoil like never before. State violence has reached unprecedented levels. Political chaos has reached unmanageable scales. The nation has been going through one crisis followed by another ever since the General (retd.) came to power some eight years ago. The era of confusion, national disarray and multiple political exigencies is a testament to the fact that the General (retd.) does not possess the credentials of a charismatic leader, nor has he the qualities that inspire people, empower followers or offer a vision, goal, identity or purpose to the nation.

Another conceptual framework in which a leader’s performance can be evaluated is to look at his/her management style. Management is a process of getting work done through others. It involves planning, organizing, leading and controlling, which are critical steps in getting the national agenda accomplished. A vital element in a political leader’s management style is that he/she uses influence rather than relying on authority or positional power to accomplish the desired end results. Concurrently, outstanding national leaders focus on political variation and accommodation of diverse points-of-view, inspire change and deal with national turbulence with imaginative innovation rather than relying on the status quo and constancy – the art of creating national harmony comes out of the craftsmanship to seek concord, congruity, peace and unison out of chaotic conditions -- rather than the other way around.

Once again, unfortunately as it is, the General’s (retd.) leadership has offered none of the dynamism of a successful, innovative management style. The national agenda remains obscure under his leadership. The masses face unprecedented price hikes, inflation is sky-rocketing, the poverty level is increasing and the socio-economic gap in the society is widening. The law and order situation in the country has never been so bad. The national consciousness has been decimated by psychological pressures of oppressive cultural and political trends espoused by the incumbent regime. The nation has lost its bearings over its national identity and purpose by overwhelming capitalistic and foreign-dominated political policies and economic planning. The General (retd.) completely relies on his authority and positional power to alter national institutions, the constitution and the day-to-day running of state affairs. The common people are suffering and in agony like never before in the chronicles of this nation. We have come to live in most dangerous times under the present political dispensation engineered by the General’s (retd.) leadership. It is quite evident that the General (retd.) has not demonstrated the prowess of an outstanding leader in national management. It is a sad and unflattering commentary on Musharraf’s leadership.

The General (retd.) claims that his intentions have been thoroughly noble and conceived in the goodness of his heart and mind – “Pakistan First” has been his symbolic patriotic slogan.

A phrase attributed to an anonymous writer warns: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hardboiled egg.”

Albert Camus, the world renowned Algerian-French writer, extensively wrote on the French oppression of the Algerian populous. “The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

On one hand, Vladimir Lenin combined ideological intentions with full-scale political actions by granting independence to Finland in appreciation of their national sentiments at the time of Bolshevik Revolution, without a bullet fired or a Finish citizen killed.

Americans, on the other hand, nearly obliterated by force an entire civilization and population of native American Indians – in pursuit of American national objectives. Ironically, the similar ideology of “the clash of civilizations” is at play in the contemporary political situation focusing on the premise: “accept Westernization or perish.”

There are lessons for the General (retd.) to learn in all of these historical events. Indeed, history is made of actions and not intentions – the General’s political actions have caused permanent and irreparable damage to the national edifice to an extent that it seems most appropriate for him to take an exit from the politics of the country. That would be an honorable course of action now.

I rest my case. The entire nation has to be the jury – in the end, it is the people of Pakistan who will be the judge.

Hold your breath – you may be in for surprises either way…!

The Nation, January 15, 2008

Aatay kay saath ghunn bhi pistaa hai!! Everything is justified for the bigger cause of fight against the terrorism

newspic.JPG (image)

Blogged with Flock