Dr. Babar Awan and Ishq-e-Rasool (SAWW) - by Dr. Ajmal Niazi

Read more...

My choice today: Monday 23 June 2008

The Pakistani nation needs a visionary leader; a statesman. By Khurshid Nadeem




Nizam ki tabdeeli? Rhetoric or reality? Hasan Nisar

The pathway to the future of Pakistan – Khurshid Nadeem

Remembering Benazir Bhutto – Ajmal Niazi

Death sentence abolished in Pakistan – Abbas Athar

Myth of minorities’ protection

The ANP government is challenged by the outlaw militants of the Tribal Areas and their followers in Peshawar and has vowed to fight back to protect the city. But while the resolve is still in the process of being strengthened, a gang of “bearded youth with long hair” has kidnapped around 20 Christians of Banaras Town and savagely beaten up the rest. The Christians were gathered at a charity dinner and had no idea that they would be accused of “bad behaviour”. The Taliban left a message behind: “Christian population should mend its ways”. This is a fresh reminder for Pakistanis that Pakistan’s dirt-poor Christians have been killed in the past to avenge the killings of Muslims at the hands of American “Christians” elsewhere in the world.

Banaras Town or Banarasabad has 350 Christian families that go back in history. Peshawar itself is a kind of melting pot of nationalities and Muslim sects. The act of attacking the poorest section of the citizens of Pakistan was dastardly in the extreme. The terrorists, arriving in half a dozen brand new SUVs and as many pick-ups, failed to see the moral contrast of what they were doing. A fully armed gang had attacked the most disadvantaged section of the city. It would be a cruel joke if the 20 abductees are kept as hostages to the demand that the Americans should leave Afghanistan. Peshawar city has seen maltreatment of its non-Muslims at the hands of its “pious” extremists in the past, but this is the most shameful example of how the city has lost control over itself and finds itself in a state of siege even as it parleys with the Taliban for a “peace” deal.

But why should we single out the NWFP? Punjab has had the dubious distinction of staging the most gruesome attacks on the life and property of the country’s constitutionally protected citizens. Under the jurisdiction of the last government, Sangla Hill saw the wholesale destruction of the places of worship of the local Christians after one Christian was accused — you have guessed it — of “desecrating the Quran and insulting the Holy Prophet PBUH”. As the government — which boasted a mismatch of ideology with its patron President Pervez Musharraf — acted against the vandals with painful unwillingness, fire-breathing clerics from Lahore swooped down on Sangla Hill and saved the culprits from punishment under law.

Faisalabad has the distinction of being the scene of the self-immolation of Bishop John Jacob after the conviction for blasphemy of an innocent Christian. It outdid itself again when on June 5, 2008, the principal of Punjab Medical College, one Mr Randhava, rusticated 23 Ahmedi boy and girl students from college and ordered them out of the college hostel “with immediate effect”. His decision was triggered by the campaign of some one thousand students of the college demanding their expulsion. The zealots encircled the principal’s office and he, instead of calling in the administration, got rid of the minority students just because they were accused, falsely, of trying to proselytise on the college premises. The agitation came from students belonging to organisations like Muslim Students Federation (MSF), Islami Jamiat-e Tulaba (IJT) and Anjuman Tulaba-e Islam (ATI). Some politically “non-aligned” students joined the siege for the sake of their own safety and also for the “empowerment” which the weak enjoy by joining the strong offenders these days. The rustication order read: “Due to the religious dispute, hate material distribution and on recommendation of the college disciplinary committee, the following students are rusticated from the college as well as hostel roll under Rule III clause-V of the college prospectus with immediate effect to maintain the law and order situation in the college and hostel premises”.

The students clashed on the basis of religion. The Ahmedi students tore down the Sunni poster against their faith and were threatened. The police arrived. Governor Punjab activated the administration. A committee has been formed of three teachers of the College to find out what really happened. But everyone in the College says it would be impossible to reinstate the expelled Ahmedi students. According to a student, as quoted in a newspaper report: “The College has a very rich history (sic!) of curbing this fitna (evil). In the 1974 movement against the Ahmedis, the College played a very important role. Some of our teachers, who were then students of the College, took an active part in that movement. We are once again ready to lead such a movement if the Ahmedi students are allowed to come back to the College”.

Up in Peshawar, the state has lost most of its writ; down in Faisalabad, the dominant sect wants to finish off an apostatised minority. There are very few who would like to prevent Pakistan from violating its own Constitution that gives equal rights to its minority communities. (Daily Times).

Islamabad Knowledge City

THE development of our country’s intellectual capital is crucial because this is an important source of competitive advantage in the new economy. So is the development of academic-industry linkages. An ambitious knowledge-development project focusing on nurturing local if not regional talent is being planned for the federal capital. Known as Islamabad Knowledge City, an initiative of the federal ministry of education, the project will be executed by a nine-member task force comprising leading officials from relevant ministries and the Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The term ‘knowledge city’ refers to an urban centre that places knowledge at the centre of city planning and economic development, enabling knowledge flows, research, technology, brainpower and innovation to provide a sustainable environment for high value-added products and services. In other words, knowledge cities are those in which both the private and public sectors value knowledge, nurture it and spend money on its dissemination and discovery to create products and services that add value and create wealth. Currently there are over

65 urban development programmes worldwide formally designated as knowledge cities. Islamabad Knowledge City could feature on the list if the project is soundly planned and effectively implemented.

What is required is not only political will and commitment to see the project through but effective coordination between relevant government agencies and industrial and commercial sectors, both private and public. Islamabad already possesses the basic educational infrastructure for such a knowledge hub. Building on the special sector which the civic authorities recently designated as an education city, Islamabad Knowledge City can leverage all other knowledge resources in the capital including schools, higher education institutions, technology parks and other public and private academic and training institutes, particularly those in the portion of the city reserved for educational and institutional development. It is also expected to house branch campuses of leading foreign universities. Supported by adequate residential and recreational facilities, Islamabad Knowledge City could help establish the federal capital as a model in innovative education and research in this region, as well as lead the people of Pakistan in meeting the challenges of an ever-changing world. (Dawn).

Lessons of the long march
By Mohammad Waseem

THE great show of solidarity with the judiciary from June 10 to 15 ended not with a bang but with a whimper. Nothing can be more offensive to the leaders and organisers of the long march than being blamed for turning back from their commitment to lay siege to the corridors of power till they achieve their objectives. They never promised that.

But, scepticism about the efficacy of the whole strategy of the long march has crept into the minds of at least some of the leaders at the top of the movement itself, apart from others from the media, the political class and civil society.

The march was a genuine outburst of anger against a series of illegal actions taken by President Musharraf from March 9 till Nov 3, 2007. It was a tribute to the intellectual, organisational and financial commitment of the lawyers’ community to the noble cause of the restoration of the judiciary. The march exhibited a superb sense of collective leadership, and a sense of shared responsibility on the part of the leaders and their followers. The picture fitted the frame.

But the question is, to what end? This has been answered in multiple ways by people from within and outside the march. The leadership replied on a positive note; it believes that the objective of building pressure on the powers that be on the judges issue has been achieved. But, some lawyers, many journalists and a large number of participants from the civil society interpret it as a lost opportunity. In hindsight, one finds two things missing in the whole spectacle: firstly, there was no strategy to achieve the goal of putting the judges back in the courts in the form of either a sit-in or a blockade, or lobbying as a pressure group or conducting negotiations. Second, there was no policy on the target of the long march, whether it was the President House or Parliament House or Army House.

In terms of strategy, the black coats’ movement failed to devise a plan beyond a show of street power. No sit-in was on the agenda, possibly because it would have been difficult to sustain it after a while in terms of numbers, momentum and newsworthiness. To lay siege needed a commitment of a much-higher order, such as in the case of Shia activism in 1980.

In the weeks and months before the march, the leaders of the movement had consistently lobbied but failed to elicit a favourable response from the government. Similarly, no elaborate preparations were made to enter serious negotiations with the PPP leadership. In the absence of a strategy, it boiled down to a shot in the dark with a hope that sheer numbers on the street would deliver.

In the light of a long delay in the restoration of judges, protagonists of the cause wanted to put their entire weight behind the long march to achieve their objective. Others, especially from the media and political parties, cautioned the lawyers against measures that could weaken parliament and harm democracy. The leadership seemed to take two steps forward and one step back.

Who was the target of the long march? President Musharraf did it all. But, he was already relegated to a secondary role in the power structure. He could not bring the judges back to their positions even if, in theory, he wanted to do so. Why was parliament projected to be the target? Was a new law to be passed or a new amendment sought? It was amazingly naïve to target the parliament. In the end, even the parliament was not really targeted, unless gathering in the parade ground can be construed to mean that.

Prime Minister Gilani was conspicuous by his absence from the political scene altogether. It was a tacit recognition of the fact that the chief executive did not carry authority of his office with him. He was neither a part of the controversy nor the target of public anger. The lawyers’ leadership comprehensively missed out on delineating the target of their great show of discipline, commitment and solidarity.

In the first phase, the movement upheld what was essentially a legal cause. The case in the Supreme Judicial Council, later Supreme Court, against rendering the chief justice non-functional remained a constant point of reference in the movement. Lawyers were able to make a common cause with the civil society, the media and to some extent the political community.

In the second phase after the emergency, when sixty judges were sent home in an overtly extra-constitutional measure, the movement widened its scope to join the political parties in protest. The third phase after the formation of governments in the centre and provinces from April onwards obfuscated the whole situation. Partners of yesterday stood opposite each other. Partners within the coalition spoke with two faces.

What will happen now? Will the bar associations be able to mobilise lawyers and the public at large within a few weeks or months? Loss of momentum on June 15 is critical in this respect. People saw no tangible gain after their huge mental and physical input. PPP lawyers are caught between two loyalties. Meanwhile, other issues such as inflation and shortage of food items and electricity are potential competitors when it comes to attracting people’s attention and energies.

All this poses a great challenge to the leadership of the legal fraternity in terms of its credibility; and the judges’ issue is staring it in the face. Will it or will it not deliver on this count? Will it reconcile with half-way measures such as the provision for 29 judges of the Supreme Court and other ‘soft’ provisions in the envisioned constitutional package? Will the movement be overtaken by events? Alternatively, do lawyers have other strategies up their sleeve to restore the judges to their rightful positions, and the country to a respectable position in the comity of nations? (Dawn).
Read more...

My choice today: Saturday 21 June 2008 - Regime of Hostile TV Anchors in Pakistan; Dehshat Nigar, Media Face of Taliban;

A selection of op-eds: First "Regime of hostile TV anchors" by Najam Sethi, followed by an op-ed and Asif Zardari and NRO by Asghar Nadeem Syed.

Regime of ‘hostile’ TV anchors

Two particular encounters on two TV channels Thursday night revealed the mind of the “misplaced or hostile anchor” in Pakistan. The first was a discussion among a group of TV journalists on the accusation levelled against them that they are no longer impartial in their conduct of talk shows and tend to favour a political stance. The “consensus” was that encroachments on institutions of representative democracy by military rulers could not be viewed with impartiality, and that a show of partiality was dictated by the anchors’ loyalty to the Constitution. One opinion was that this obligatory partiality must be accompanied by “objectivity”; but it was not clear how the state of being “objective” could be reconciled with the state of being “partial”.

The other discussion was an interview with Pakistan’s ambassador Mr Hussain Haqqani by a TV journalist noted for his acerbity of approach and bias. The topic was the attack made by NATO-ISAF forces inside Mohmand Agency which resulted in the death of 13 Pakistani troops, souring Pakistan’s relations between Washington. The ambassador, while acknowledging his duty to bring the umbrage of Pakistan to the notice of the Washington Administration in the most forceful of terms, also charged the TV person with the obligation of looking objectively at the situation in which Pakistan found itself. He asked him if he took account of the ground realities in the Tribal Areas where the war against terrorism was clearly in the national interest of Pakistan. The ambassador argued for “realism” in the handling of such crises as the one resulting from the attack in the Mohmand area. But the TV anchor demanded that Pakistan approach the United Nations for a solution to the problem of the growing breach of Pakistan’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”. The ambassador pointed out that the Security Council was an arena of power play, not a kind of Supreme Court where all plaintiffs were equal. The TV anchor then fell back on the argument of “national pride” and claimed to represent the people of Pakistan, arguing in favour of Pakistan opting out of the international war on terrorism. He had no answer, however, to the question about what Pakistan would do after that, after its various trouble spots are bombed by a combination of forces united inside the US Security Council.

The patriotically “partial” TV anchors began by opposing a military ruler and are now caught in a situation of political bias under democracy because of the dictates of their partiality. The 2008 elections have delivered a political battlefield where elected parties are trying to move together despite their different recipes and solutions. What should the TV anchors do now? Normally, they should have moved back and become neutral, letting the discussions be fairly judged by the viewers, but they continue to pose as arbiters and decide on their own such matters as the “mandate” of the 2008 elections, the “immorality” of the NRO, and the rough dismissal of President Musharraf from his job. But when matters are in dispute between elected parties and in parliament, it is the duty of the media to remain impartial in order to allow the people to make their own judgements.

While highlighting the “complaints” against the TV channels, one must be clear, however, about the over-all role played by our electronic journalism. Despite their early “philosophical” gropings, the TV channels are a sine qua non of our lives and their foibles of “partiality” are dwarfed by their achievement of creating awareness among the people on all other economic and social matters. For example, in Punjab, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is taking action, correctly, after watching TV reports on the malfunction of government institutions.

A sense of pride and sovereignty may take nations into war and humiliate them without making them understand what went wrong. This happened to Germany in the Second World War and in recent times to Serbia whose people, proud and sovereign, hate the world today for not understanding why they were killing Bosnians and Kosovars. But states don’t only feel aroused emotionally. They can also be cold-blooded. They can be motivated only by their self-interest whose pursuit might negate the state’s pride and sovereignty. When Iran and America confront each other, both tend to fly off the handle. In contrast, in Europe, where many nationalist wars were fought in the past, few feel as aroused.

Why shouldn’t a state feel emotional? Because being emotional may be contrary to its national interests. These interests are almost always economic. This is perfectly understandable because as long as a nation is prosperous and not dependent on outside creditors, its pride and sovereignty remain intact. But if a state is neglectful of its economy and pursues other emotional goals either unrelated or hostile to its economy it is bound to impose suffering on its people through the growth of poverty. And nothing removes pride and sovereignty from a nation more cruelly and quickly than poverty. Let us not forget that the organisation which kidnapped and beheaded the American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 called itself National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty. (Daily Times).

Asif Zardari and NRO - by Asghar Nadeem Syed

Level of our politics

IT is the same chicken-or-egg argument, and you can choose your bet: do we have bad politicians because the army keeps interfering in matters political, or does the army interfere because the level of politics is shockingly low? Worldwide, politics is essentially a low occupation. Power makes its own demand on those who pursue it and achieve it. You don’t mind having strange bedfellows and sacrificing principles to make happy those whose support gives you a hold on parliament. But even while politicking in an unabashed pursuit of power a politician must draw a line, for you cannot stoop to a level where even the rudimentary concepts of law, justice and truth are reduced to a farce. For instance, the noble concept of accountability has been used by our generals and politicians as an instrument of persecution. Criminal cases stand withdrawn if you change your political loyalty; or else you could rot in prison or go to the gallows.

On Wednesday, APDM leaders, including such veterans of our politics as a perpetually angry Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Mahmood Khan Achakzai, threatened to expose Asif Ali Zardari’s corruption if he did not restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary and accepted other demands, including President Pervez Musharraf’s impeachment. It is a measure of our politicians’ way of doing things that the threatened exposure of the PPP co-chairman is conditional, for they would ‘expose’ him only if he did not accept their demands. The implications are that the alleged corruption would be condoned if Mr Zardari played along. Meanwhile, agitations, street demonstrations and ‘long marches’ seem to have become an end in themselves — at least for Qazi Hussain Ahmed. A review of the JI’s politics since the end of the Zia era would make this point clear.

We also have before us an MQM statement that claims to support Musharraf’s impeachment, but the caveats it attaches to its support seem ludicrous. There are also demands that Shaukat Aziz be brought back home and tried for wrong policies. If politicians are to be tried for wrong policies — which is a matter of opinion — courts throughout the world will have time for nothing else. In the dock will not only be a glittering galaxy of foreign leaders ranging from Hosni Mubarak and Ehud Olmert to Bush and Blair but also the MMA leaders who ruled the NWFP and prohibited male doctors from treating women patients. (Dawn).

Media Terrorists in Pakistan – Nazir Naji

Remembering Benazir Bhutto – Ajmal Niazi

Read more...

My choice today: Monday 16 June 2008

Long March – an analysis (1) – Abbas Athar

Let us mourn the Long March – Abdul Qadir Hasan

Nawaz Sharif's speech at the Long March –Aftab Iqbal

Dharna dharay ka dhara reh gaya – Ajmal Niazi

Long March, Civil Society and Politicians – Khurshid Nadeem

Stealing a march —Ejaz Haider

The restoration of the judges per se cannot lead to constitutionalism which requires the fulfilment of conditions that cannot be had in this polity in full at this stage for a number of reasons How does one analyse the Long March that culminated before the parliament building and reverse-marched after speeches by the leaders. It depends on where one stands.For the Pakistan People’s Party-led government (read: Asif Ali Zardari), the March and how it ended should be a matter of great satisfaction. The strategy Mr Zardari has adopted is increasing his choices and reducing those of his rival players. That is the basic benchmark of whether one is playing the game better than the rival players.Mr Zardari’s strategy is two-pronged: keep voicing support for strengthening the institution of judiciary while also, in principle, agreeing with the issue of restoration of the judges; and, two, resisting the demand that the judges be restored upfront while tiring out the lawyers’ movement. The latter is important because the demand, as formulated, conflicts with the pact the PPP has with General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and by extension with the army and the United States.The terms of that pact, essentially the place and position within it of Mr Musharraf, can only undergo a change if the army or the US or both review their support to Mr Musharraf. Until that happens, Mr Musharraf is secure, even if carrying the stigma of being a discredited and unacceptable president.But Mr Musharraf’s continuation in office also means the PPP cannot succumb to the demand by the lawyers to restore the judges upfront and face the possibility of another round of crippling executive-judiciary standoff. Such eventuality not only has the potential to create another crisis involving the Supreme Court and the Presidency but will also end up cutting the ground from under the government’s feet.The going is good for Mr Zardari because the lawyers’ movement has lost steam and, as was visible from the Long March, is now dependent largely for mobilised protestations on the political actors. While the APDM (All Pakistan Democratic Movement) parties, especially Jama’at-e Islami, are not much to write home about in the absence of any parliamentary presence, the big political player lending support to the movement is the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz.That is also what makes Mr Zardari breathe easy.Being in power in the Punjab in coalition with the PPP and being a junior coalition partner at the Centre, the PMLN can afford to bark but not bite. Mian Nawaz Sharif has been holding aloft the judges’ cause and it makes eminent political sense for him to continue with that without really rocking the boat for a government of which he is an essential part.His brother, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, has won uncontested and taken oath as chief minister of Punjab. He is settling in and has big plans for the province. That again is understandable because Punjab is the PMLN’s bastion and the younger Mr Sharif has the desire and the capacity to do much good.But doing much good also presupposes stability and good working relations with the Centre. So even as the elder Mr Sharif continues to thunder, the younger needs to get down to doing practical work to improve governance in the province and consequently further strengthen the party’s political position.The strategy is compatible. The younger Sharif has to start governing; the elder Sharif needs to make noises because he has gained space and acceptability with the lawyers and civil society members. Plus, he needs to keep the pressure on the PPP even as he enters into an understanding with the PPP away from the glare of the “median voter”. But, and this is crucial to understanding the game, the elder Mr Sharif cannot afford to lose Punjab.The lawyers marched to or on Islamabad, depending on how one looks at it; the democratically elected PPP government let them be, as Mr Zardari had promised and which fits in neatly with his strategy; the democratically elected party, the PMLN, lent the lawyers support and made the right noises which underscores its strategy. Some lawyers, the radical and the younger ones, wanted to take the March to a more vociferous end but they can be excused for thinking that they were participating in this country’s Boston Tea Party.By now Barrister Ahsan knows the limits and limitations of the movement he has spearheaded. He should, having co-authored a book on civil-military relations. He was thus a stabilising influence on the lawyers and announced that the March had achieved its aims. For good measure he also announced a “train march”, which, except for the problem of semantics — trains can’t march — should be okay with Messrs Zardari and Sharif.For his part, the elder Mr Sharif has also gained politically by making Barrister Ahsan accept that in the future all decisions about what the lawyers might do should be made in consultation with him. Barrister Ahsan’s acceptance indicates that he is aware of what can and cannot be done.This also means that the lawyers’ movement will now be effectively controlled by the PMLN which, being a political party, will foist its own agenda and colours on it. To that extent, the movement, in its original incarnation, is dead. Mr Zardari, I have a feeling, is smiling.In a nutshell, the Long March should satisfy all those players that are playing the game within the given structural constraints. It should be a huge disappointment for those who thought — and still think — that the March could and did herald a transformation towards constitutionalism.As I have mentioned earlier in this space, the restoration of the judges per se cannot lead to constitutionalism which requires the fulfilment of conditions that cannot be had in this polity in full at this stage for a number of reasons. (That’s a topic to which we shall return shortly.) The best one can hope for is some political stability so the current gains can be solidified before elbowing on to make more political space.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times

Read more...