Kashmala Tariq versus Firdous Ashiq Awan: Solve a puzzle.

Please watch this video, and decide:

Who are the two worst persons in this talk-show out of the following four:

Javed Chaudhry, Shireen Mazari, Fridous Awan and Kashmala Tariq

Kashmala Tariq & Firdous Ashiq in Aaj TV's Kal Tak

Our answer is:

1. The Lady Taliban (Dr Imran Khan Mazari); and
2. The media face of Taliban, Mr Fake Story Mullah Omar Chaudhry

Some comments
Source: pkpolitics

gayan said:
if Sheikh Rasheed would have used the same language , i am sure many of you would have applauded him.

Just because Dr Awan is women she cant call a Pr-s—-te a Pr-s—-te .

Well done Dr Awan……you said what we all think of Kishmala……..

Ch Shujat on a tv programme said that Mushrauff apprroved Kishmala ’s name for MNA with GREEN pencil.

gayan said:
Fridous ashiq awan received 85000 votes from sialkot and her opponent received only 40000.

how many votes kishmala had………

Kishmala’s fake laugh sums up everything.

what is kishmala’s background.

Imran Khan

Mian Waheed

hamayoun akhtar

mussharuff

zardari

I guess Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan was just talking facts.

lota6177 said:

firdous awan on fire and she blew off kashmala like a little …………
Highly explosive hot hot hot
kashmala littar parade

c hussain said:

People are against Firdaus because she was wearing a dupatta and she is fat and not good looking likd Kashmala. I am so disappointed at the people here writing blogs. This was same Kashmala who went to USA supporting President Musharraf emergency and now she talks about real democracy. She was snubbed by Ali Ahsan son of Aitzaz Ahsan when she was supporting Musharraf and ridiculing CJ along with Barisstar Saif.

Firdaus would get more votes in next election – no doubt because that is what people see and not what they are told.

Mian Waheed former MNA from Lahore had instituted a case against Kashmala because she dumped him after using him to get into politics. Firdaus said right that Kashmala can do anything to achieve what she wants to. When Chaudhry Shujaat didnt given her importance she started conspiring against him particularly after she managed to get a ticket for women special seat. How can she call Firdaus a loti when she herself after using Chaudhry Shujaat and getting an MNA special seat ticket she dumped him and joined Hum Khiyal group. At least Firdaus didnt do that. She PMLQ BEFORE THE ELECTIONS and she won on open seat against Amir Hussain former Speaker National Assembly.

Can anyone tell me from where did Kashmala collect all her wealth and assets. Her father or family wasnt a rich family. She has been using people for her own self and came to this state.

Kashif said:

@c hussain

I agree with you man. If Kashmala Tariq started politics from bedroom by sleeping with political elite whats wrong in bringing it up. I applaud Firdos Awan for calling spade a spade. Unless we can openly discuss their past we won’t be able get rid of these kind of bit*hes out of political arena. On the other hand Firdos Awan like Abidad Hussain comes from general elections. Those who come on women seats like Kashmala Tariq, Fozia Wahab and many others are no match to her.

Read more...

Geo and ARY news blocked in Karachi and other urban parts of Sindh. Time for MQM as well as hostile media acnhors to pause and reflect...

Geo and ARY news blocked in Karachi and other urban parts of Sindh. Time for MQM as well as hostile media acnhors to pause and reflect... Let us listen to Khusnood Ali Khan as well as Salman Taseer:


PM orders probe into blocking of TV channels (The Post, 18 Nov 2008)

Agencies

ISLAMABAD: Condemning all forms of restrictions on private television channels, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani expressed strong resolve of his government to repeal all black laws affecting the freedom of expression.

Talking to reporters at the airport, Prime Minister Gillani renounced restrictions on the media, and ordered PEMRA to investigate the recent banning of a local TV channel's transmission. Provincial Information Minister Shazia Marri holding cable operators responsible ordered an inquiry into the incident.

There was a chorus of indignation over the incident. PML-N leaders Mian Nawaz Sharif and others said it was continuity of black laws of former Musharraf government and demanded stern action against those responsible.

PML-Q's Chaudhry Shujaat and MQM's Faisal Sabzawari condemned the move in the strongest possible way.

A private TV channel's telecast was halted Monday in parts of the Sindh province including Karachi. When contacted, government officials denied having any knowledge.

Although blamed for the incident, cable operators refused to cite any reason for their action.

Exactly one year ago on November 17, 2007, TV channels' transmissions were shut down.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) has taken serious note of suspension of the transmission of its licensed channels "Geo News" and "ARY One World" on cable TV networks in Karachi and some areas of the interior Sindh.

A statement issued here on Monday said PEMRA got the transmission restored immediately and took prompt action against the cable operators. It said that show-cause notice was issued to them and an investigation was underway.

Meanwhile, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ms Sherry Rehman Monday expressed concern and anguish over the blocking of Geo News' transmission in Sindh by some unscrupulous elements.

Talking to a private TV channel, she urged cable operators not to fear anybody and report about the rogue elements who threatened them and asked them to stop certain channels. She said the government believed in freedom of the press and was duty bound to protect the media. "PEMRA or any other government agency is not involved in any way in blocking the Geo network transmission in Sindh on Monday," she said.

Ssaid that on learning that the transmission of Geo had been blocked in Sindh she immediately contacted PEMRA but they denied having blocked the transmission.

She cable operators in Karachi and Hyderabad would be given full protection.

Talking about a coincidence that Geo News was banned on November 17 2007, she said Musharraf regime had targeted four to five anchors of Geo in a planned manner, whereas the People's Party has never gagged the press. She said some political forces were involved in blocking the transmission of Geo News. (The Post)

.......

On 17th November, Geo and ARY TV Channels tranmissions were blocked in Karachi, Hyderabad and some other urban parts of Sindh. Till now no one from Government or Media circles has openly pointed to the terrorists involved in this shameful act. This includes Geo and ARY where they hinted involvement of a political party of Karachi but could not have guts to name the culprit.

But credit goes to Daily Jinnah Editor Khushnood Ali Khan who discussed this issue very openly revealing the reasons behind this issue. Khushnood Ali Khan Says:

“Ataf Hussain had an event in London to celebrate the landmark victory of Mustafa Kamal to be delared world 2nd Best Mayor. Geo and ARY did not broadcast this event Live as per the desire of MQM Leadership that made them furious. Farooq Sattar, then ordered blocking these channels through cable operators. On contact by Chairman PEMRA Malik Mushtaq, Farooq Sattar replied that if they will not show speech of Altaf Bhai, then how (dare) they can run their channels”.

Link to Daily Jinnah article by Khushnood Ali Khan

http://www.dailyjinnah.com/?p=12794

.........

Read Wusatullah Khan's article on the hypocrisy of media by blaming PPP while not revealing MQM's name:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/11/081118_geo_secret_rza.shtml


......


Comments:

paindoo says:

At least there is some element of truth when Salman Taseer complained that TV hosts talk nonsense and media has become monster. Clips of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer’s conversation with Atiqa Odho were also shown by the programme host Hamid Mir wherein the governor vented his anger towards the TV channels saying the media in Pakistan has crossed all limits and become a monster.

Excerpts from The News:

Salmaan Taseer said the entire country had come under the clutches of the media, as “it does not let any government work smoothly.” He went on to say that anchorpersons of these TV channels think of themselves as some godly figures. He said if they (TV anchorpersons) were in the West, they would have long been handcuffed and arrested. He said the private TV channels disseminate disinformation. He said the anchorpersons do not take care of others’ respect and talk non-sense. They made people dance in front of the camera. He said in Pakistan there are no Madhuri Dixits, Amitabh Bachans and Aishwarya Rais and that was the reason why these channels are popular among the people. The information minister however struck a different note saying her government did not believe in clamping sanctions on the media. She said there were some elements outside the government who off and on counselled it to bring the media under its control.

...

Aman:

Hello All,

I think altaf hassain gives speaches so many times in a month , and they have never asked or got furious on any TV channel to brodcast his speach , than why now they will do so ? As far as the world second mayor award is concerned thats not a big deal, Mustafa Kamal has done a great job for karachi so for karachides he is already NO.1.

There is something else going around this could be molana sahib issue as hamid mir challeged moulana fazl-ur-rehman as moulana sahib calling the Jews Agents.there may be some other thing , but one could not beleive in govt stand as they do not know who gave order for this , thats what makes me confused govt has to see this issue very seriously otherwise this could lead them to another scandal , i wish all , All The Best.


piyariawam Says:
November 18th, 2008

all parties in Pakistan are not innocent. Jamaat i Islami and PPP and PML and Army and all. No one is innocent and neither is MQM. But I can tell you Paksitan can break but MQM will not they are too strong Now. To buy arms is not a crime. To use it against innocent ones is.

.... is agiants MQM and against Geo’s Kamran Khan KAy saat. Only when Nawaz Sharif was interviewed by it, They put that show on it, What kindda nonsense. No one will be allowed to play in Karachi untill MQM’s permission. Too much money involved in one place and the poeple of Karachi are behind MQM and support this Gunda Party, as all the party in Karachi is more or less the same.

People of Karachi does not trust Army , PPP and PML or any other party than MQM alone.

Just forget about MQM and forget about Karachi. Live and let live in Peace.
Chao!


alam Says:
November 18th, 2008


I watched that episdoe of CT and Hamid Mir,Irfan Siddiqui, Mazhar Abaas were all like scared to death and did not take the name of gang responsible for all this.

khipro Says:
November 18th, 2008


@piyariawam

I am totally agreed with you. This website is biased towards Sindh Urban specially Karachi. For God sake leave us, we are happy. We know better than you what is good for us and what is bad. Though i am not a big fan of MQM at all and have some serious concerns in some issues but for Sindh Urban: they are the best what i think. I was born in Hyderabad and raised in Karachi. I know the reality of Racism. As for as MQM is concerned, my and my family votes are always with MQM if they continue same performance.


justice4all Says:
November 18th, 2008

Someone will have to come forward to expose the terrorists of MQM.
Khusnood Ali Khan must be a brave man to talk about MQM.
Imran Khan was the only one we know before.

Munir Solangi Says:

With due respect i don’t agree with this claim that Pakistani media is silent against MQM.Yes media is scared and helpless but who will rescue the staffers of Geo and ARY in Karachi if theyt are attacked by MQM?

I lived in Karachi for many years and i know that how many times MQM attacked Jang and Geo.Many visitors of this website are saying that only Imran Khan can fight with MQM.With due opology Imran can fight with MQM only and only in Capital Talk of Hamid Mir.Few years ago Hamid Mir produced the film of Altaf Hussain in Delhi where he spoke against creation of Pakistan.It was a brave act og Geo but next day the channel was blocked and Geo stafeers were threatened.One of my freinds in Geo Asadullah was beaten by MQM in Nazimabad and Asadullah accused Hamid Mir for his sufferings.If Imran Khan is a real hero then he should go to Karachi and at least address a jalsa at Mazar-i-Quaid.I assure him that i will come with 200 boys from Sukhar and join his party.

...

makhalil says:


“جب حکومت نے ان چینلز کی انتظامیہ سے استفسار کیا کہ وہ کم از کم یہی بتادیں کہ انہیں کس پر شبہہ ہے تو چینل انتظامیہ کا جواب تھا کہ یہ بھی حکومت ہی معلوم کرے۔

”

Look at this piece
“ایک جانب کراچی میں چینلز کی نشریات میں خلل ڈالنے والوں کا نام تک نہ لینا اور دوسری جانب نشریاتی خلل اور گورنرسلمان تاثیر کی خبر کو ایک ساتھ نمایاں کرنا ایسا ہی ہے جیسے کمہار پر بس نہ چلے تو گدھے کے کان اینٹھ دیئے جائیں ”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/11/081118_geo_secret_rza.shtml

Enjoy the ‘free’ media.

.....

Zaigham Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 7:35 am
comment-top

MUSHTAQ MINHAS & NUSRAT JAVED:

Do you ppl remember when some of the activists of Tahir-ul-Qadir gathered outside AAJ TV office & demonstred against some comments passed by BOLTA PAKISTAN anchors against tahir-ul-qadir ???
Did u notice that how BRAVELY both the anchors talked against the protestors? Nusrat Javed was continously calling them “BALONGRAY” of tahir-ul-qadir.

NOW…Where are these anchors???

These people know that if they speak a single word against MQM, they would be KILLED…this is what we call dual standards.

......
Read more...

Hussian Haqqani gives Kashif Abbassi some good spanking.

Kashif Abbasi is a media juooni: The TV face/ mouth pieces of Taliban in Pakistan.


Regime of ‘hostile’ TV anchors
Daily Times - Saturday, June 21, 2008

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtOYSEhdWMQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GxmWsWmtA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3fanwU4Blo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSyY2ZWXsH4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh5vOhew0aE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WIaagFjVFA&feature=related

Some Comments:

H Khan
I have kept Hussian Haqqani in disdain for quite sometime but here he gave Kashif Abbassi some good spanking.

FarazA
LOL... kashif took some serious beating... this little patheritc chaos creater wasn't able to answer a single question asked by Haqanni. Amazing journalist


H Khan:

This Kashif Abbassi represents the height of pathetic journalism in Pakistan. As one could see he has no training in journalism and how journalist should present themselves in front of dignitaries. Journalistic protocol has not even touched these types of idiots.

Kashif was interviewing Pakistani Ambassador to the USA in his office (which is the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington D C) while he was wearing some faded jeans.

My no means this was an interview but a solid ruthless bashing by Hussian Haqqani and he made Kashif Abbassi an example out of.

abaig:

True, this Kashif Abbasi (I've stopped watching his arrogant programs) interviewed Foreign Minister of PML-Q govt Khurshid Kasuri, some one year back. He was his usual arrogant and was in no mood to listen to the 4 point agenda Khurshid Kasuri gave on Kashmir. After some time, Khurshid Kasuri asked Kashif some questions back asking for solutuions to Kashmir problems .... leaving kashif answer-less and shame-less!

In this interview also, he rightly pointed out that we are emotional nation and we do not understand that we must expect equal footing ONLY if we are equal in heights and standing to USA. Eyes to eyes can be seen with someone equal to us!

The basic thing that these guys lack is "TEHZEEB" to talk to any dignitary. They think they're over-smart. Governor Salman Taseer rightly says, "They'll come to their senses, if their salaries are reduced from 10,00,000 to 10,000"

SSAAD:
Clue less idiots like Mr. Abbasi should at least google things before they start their stupid, populist rants. The way he shamelessly got his ass handed to him by HH should be an eye opener for him. Essentially HH told him to keep his trap shut!

I see Hamid Mir, Kamran and this idiot as all in the same league of BS, populist, wanna-be hard talking journalists without having the fundamentals of journalism or even common knowledge under their belts!

dara Says:
November 19th, 2008


I don’t understand what that Kashif Abassi the brave warrior thing is?
I agree up to the fact that we need to criticize and question government people, but when answer has received then there is no need to argue and being judgemental.
Kashif Abbasi sounds like immature and partisan. Every one has opinion and Kashif has aright to have one but as anchor you put a question but never react to answer the way kKashif does.

I hope you take my critical analysis in good faith.
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...