RSS
 

Mian Nawaz Sharif: Will You Care to Answer Sir?

27 Mar

 

It was the afternoon of March 25, 2010. We were waiting for the session convening notification from presidency since the summary requisitioning the Joint session of the parliament had gone to the President at around 11:30 am earlier in the day. Normally it takes only couple of hours that the summary is approved by the President, faxed to the Speaker's chamber / Secretary to the National Assembly who acts as the presiding officer for the Joint Parliamentary Session.

Why we were waiting for this important fascimile from president's office was, this joint session had to be a historical one. After more than three decades, the spirit of provincial autonomy and sovereignty of the Parliament had to come back through a parliamentary committee's recommended Constitutional Reforms Package. This package was to be passed by two third majority of the Houses separately. The reason everyone was so sure of this much awaited development, to happen on March 25 was that every political player openly expressed its satisfaction over the constitutional package, which so surely appeared as the first ever consensus constitutional amendment document after the 1973 constitution itself.

Continuously in touch with my source in the National Assembly, who appeared to be quite bored of my repeated phone calls, I stuck myself to TV Screen and laptop, when finally I contacted Speaker's chamber directly at around 4:45 pm, for my entrance pass for the historic joint session, I got a rather unexpected answer. The official at the other end of phone line informed me that there was no summary for "tomorrow's joint session" and asked me where did I get the news from, for any such session?

It dropped in my ears as nothing less than a bombshell. Now I was sure there was something going on in Islamabad, which was not going to be very pleasant for anyone of us – the people of Pakistan. The summary was moved this morning, and was not only confirmed by our source in PM secretariat, but also couple of senior journalists who cover Parliament for quite a long time. We were, unofficially though, confirmed by all these sources that the summary had been faxed to the Presidency at around 11 – 11:30 am. But now the Speaker's Chamber tells us there was no plan for holding the session! What it could be? Despite my repeated attempts to call PML-N mid-level leadership, I could not get them. Confused and disappointed I tried to focus on what I was writing. And heck. There was the ticker going on the TV screen telling that the Session was postponed!

Whatever had happened must be disastrous, I thought. Pakhtunkhwah? But no, only this late morning, an internal meeting of PML-N had unanimously decided to vote for Pakhtunkhwah, according to a private news channel. But the rumours of conflict over it had been making rounds all day. Then what? The riddle soon was solved by Mian Nawaz Sharif, the Quaid of Muslim League Nawaz who held a press conference at 6 pm only to tell people that his party did not agree with the constitutional amendments the Committee for Constitutional Reforms (CCR) had come up with.

Little did he care for the questions he was evading, that arose from this sudden U-turn. The bizarreness of his pretexts to go back on his own words was so obvious and ugly that one was left wondering about how opportunist Pakistan's politics had become! Thanks to the frequently coming boots, with the pet's food they bring for shortsighted politicians, who are now completely unable to think beyond their petty personal interest.

What I did not understand from Mian sahib's long face and sore argument, is not one point. Its a whole host of factors that come in.

ONE: He said he and his party did not agree with the constitutional reforms package in toto. The question arises, why couldn't he and his party members tell this simple fact to the media and the Committee itself? They had consented in letter and spirit less than twenty hours ago and even till 11 am on the day of the press conference. Its a matter of common sense that the Prime Minister had not moved the session requisition summary to the President for the joint session, without taking into confidence biggest opposition party!

TWO: Mian sahib totally evaded the question on the name of Pakhtunkhwah and tilted the controversy towards the mechanism of Judges' appointment issue. His own party members had on record told the media hours earlier, that the CCR had reached the consensus on Judges' appointment issue.

THREE: Throughout the day on March 25, prior to the press conference, Islamabad's offices were echoing with different kinds of news about the internal meeting of PML-N discussing the name of Pakhtunkhwah. There was absolutely no question about the judicial appointments that came to any discussion anywhere. Does that mean Mina Nawaz Sharif was lying with the people when he said in the Press Conference that the only major disagreement was on judicial appointments?

FOUR: In the Press Conference and after wards, Mian Nawaz Sharif kept saying that "the intent of making this committee was mala fide because we wanted to scrap the 17th amendment and the government linked it to other issues, only to delay". May I remind Mian sahib that the Terms of Reference for the Committee were finalized with mutual consent, which was sought by the Speaker through Leaders of Opposition in national Assembly and the Senate. Secondly, why Mian sahib always choose to be dishonest with people so blatantly? Total scrap of 17th amendment was never in discussion. In fact, it was quite clear what all the parties unanimously agree to keep / remove from the 17th amendment. This amendment has many usefull clauses on which no sane person can disagree. These include reserved seats for women and minorities and voting age of 18 years among many others.

Mian sahib's selective amnesia doesn't even allow him to recall that most of Pakistan's problems emanate from center's refusal to grant provinces their rights. When he says that scrap of 17th amendment was simple just because it affects him and only him personally, but the provincial autonomy is too complex to discuss because it has no bearing on his person but has far reaching effects on people? 

So, may we deduce that Mian sahib was lying to the people when he said that Committee's linking with overall constitutional amendment was mala fide?

FIVE: Mian sahib in his landmark press conference (for which historian is never going to be able to forgive him if he doesn't rectify it by immediate action), also said that he had major disagreement on judicial appointments. He was however, not able to tell, what those differences were, and why he did not voice those differences when he gave a go-ahead to the requisitioning of the Joint Session few hours ago? Was he lying to the nation?

SIX: Mian sahib told the media in the press conference that the government has taken out his party's recommendations from the final document. He could not specify those recommendations niether could his party members in March 26 meeting of the Committee. Was he again, lying to the nation?

SEVEN: In March 26 meeting of the Committee, the members from other parties took PML-N to task and demanded what their reservations were, and why those reservations were not presented to the COmmittee before making them public through the Press Conference. The PML-N members had no answer. A feeble voice from Ahsan Iqbal told that the reservation was about the name of Pakhtunkhwah. Oh well. But Mian sahib in his press conference said it was due to judges appointment!

Are the people gone nuts or the PML-N and its leadership is insulting people by telling as many lies as they can?

EIGHT: Why PML-N thinks that it can override the decision of people's representatives from the province under discussion? ANP being the overwhelmingly largest supported party in Pakhtunkhwah, had been able to complete the process of consultation at provincial level and brought the decision of the people of Pakhtunkhwah, to the CCR much earlier than March 25 press conference. What moral grounds Punjab's PML-N has to defy so shamelessly the wishes of the people of Pakhtunkhwah? Is it because Mian sahib's son in law comes from the non-Pakhtun area of Pakhtunkhwah? Or is it because Mian sahib's right hand and prominent member of CCR Sardar Mehtab Abbasi is also against the name Pakhtunkhwah? Is the Royal Son In Law more important than the majority of Pakhtunkwah Province?

Is Mian sahib that entangled in personal politics in addition to being a compulsive liar?

NINE: This biggest achievement of current parliament having come up with a consensus document for constitutional reforms, was to give a huge moral boost to the President who had to address the joint session right after the announcement of the package. Was that the reason of Mian sahib's sudden change of mind? This further is confirmed by March 26 statements of PML-N party leaders who have been asking for presidential address as soon as possible, in accordance with the constitution which asks for presidential address in the beginning of every parliamentary year. is it smart politics?

Is Mian Sahib still not able to learn from his frictional politics of 1990s?

TEN: Mian sahib had been extremely concerned about the Charter of Democracy and President Zardari's "going back on his words" and "not keeping promises" – whereas one is at loss on making out the details of what promises Mian sahib has been talking about? If it was Judges' issue, it was resolved as early as March 2009. What other promises he always rants about?

But keeping it aside for a moment, lets come to the charter of democracy. People would be interested to learn, which clauses of the Charter are not being observed by which party? PML-N has been insisting on the mechanism of judges' appointment in total departure from not only the charter but from all democratic norms of Parliament's sovereignty and the constitutional guarantee of the separation of powers. Whose agenda is he serving?

ELEVEN: And last but not the least. Mian Nawaz Sharif was much bothered about the constitutional amendment introduced by Pervez Musharraf, but is not moved an inch on the black laws introduced by General Zia ul Haq, the most ferocious of the dictators of Pakistan whose doings have assisted Musharraf in making of the Pakistan what it is today.

Mian sahib was quite passionate about the 17th amendment, and that too, its clause which deals with the presidential power of dissolving the assemblies and the clause that bars third time premiership. But the 8th amendment never occurred to him as the one introduced by a dictator. Why? Is it because that doesn't hit him personally but hammers the people at large?

Why Mian Nawaz Sharif is doing such a blatantly personal politics? Painting himself as a pious statesmen? Putting himself at highest moral pedestal to point finger on other leaders of this country?

Is Mian Sahib a statesman or a compulsive liar? Why he should not be altogether shunned by the people?

 
16 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Happy Pakistan Day – Part II

23 Mar

Continued from my last post Happy Pakistan Day

Having seen ample evidence that Lahore Resolution was not the “only one” of its kind and the first proposal of partition, it becomes imperative now to examine the Resolution in further detail. How the truths about this Resolution have been distorted deliberately has a lot to do with today’s Pakistan. The fall-out of this distortion and outright murder of history, on Pakistan and its relation with neighboring India today is beyond the level we can imagine.

The textbooks and reinforcing media messages, owned completely by the state and the people, claim that the Resolution was adopted on this twenty-third day of March of the year nineteen hundred and forty. No lie can be whiter than this! According to the Proceedings of the 27th Annual Session of All India Muslim League, a Reception Committee was established for receiving the delegates. The “Nawab” of Mamdot was the Chairman of this Committee who opened the session on March 22, 1940 with a short address at 3:00 pm. His address was followed by Mr. Jinnah’s long speech, which for a change was not written, who was presiding over the session. The session was adjourned after this speech only to be re-met on March 23, 1940 at 3:00 pm.

At the beginning of the second day March 23, Maulvi Fazl-e-Haq of Bengal introduced the resolution, which was seconded by Chaudhri Khaliquzzaman. Both of them spoke on the Resolution for a while after which Zafar Ali Khan, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan and Sir Abdullah Haroon delivered their speeches (names are in the order of their speeches).  The session was then adjourned again to be met the next day. On March 24, 1940, the session began in the morning at 11:15 am. A non-interactive discussion on the Resolution started with the speeches of Leagui leaders from United Provinces, Balochistan and Madras. Till this time Mr. Jinnah was not present on the occasion. After the speech of Abdul Hamid Khan, Jinnah entered the venue and took the Presiding seat. Speeches in favour of the Resolution continued by other leaders. After another hour and a half, Jinnah intervened and let another resolution on Palestine to be introduced to the house. After a few speeches in favour of this second resolution, the session adjourned to be re-met at 9:00 pm the same night.

In the night session, two more speeches were made by Sayyid Zakir Ali and Begum Mohammad Ali – the only woman speaker of the occasion – in favour of the Lahore Resolution before the announcement of vote by show of hand. The Resolution was adopted although, without any dissenting vote –meaning unanimously. Two more resolutions were moved and passed without discussion afterwards, one on the Khaksaars and other on the amendment to Party’s constitution. After which, office bearers of All India Muslim League, for the next year were elected. The session was, then wound up at 11:30 pm by Mr Jinnah with a short concluding speech. So the Resolution Day that we commemorate on March 23, was actually passed (adopted) a litter earlier than the midnight between March 24 and 25, 1940.

You must be, dear reader, wondering why so much ranting about just a date? The date can very conveniently have been changed from the texts had it been an error of misprinting or typology. But there’s much more to it. For the reminder of posterity, may I recall here when Pakistan was created. Was it a day earlier than the Independence of India on 15th of August 1947? Another lie. Both the countries became dominions of the Crown of England simultaneously at the midnight between August 14 and 15, 1947. Our India-centric leadership decided to mark August 14 as the “Creation of Pakistan” day as distinction from Indian Independence Day.

But how is it related to our twenty-third day of March celebrations? A great deal. We did NOT get independence on Aug 14, 1947. We were still under the crown, observing the colonial law as our constitution (Government of India Act 1935). This made it impending on both the juvenile nation states to make and promulgate their constitution to grant themselves “Independence”. India did that in 1949 – right after 26 months of partition. They passed it o n Nov 26, 1949 and promulgated on Jan 26, 1950, which to date stands as the longest written constitution of any independent state of the world. They celebrate this day as their Republic Day.

Pakistan could, for reasons understandable, do it in 1955. We were able to promulgate it on the twenty-third day of March 1956, which became since then, our Republican day. The Yaum-e-Jamhooriya Pakistan – Pakistan Republican Day. The nation was happy although it did not have any say in authorship of that constitution but still it made them free from British Crown forever. We started commemorating it every year since then. And then a soldier came to reign in, on October 1958. The soldier felt ridiculous on the eve of third Republican Day, March 1959 to commemorate the birth of a constitution he himself had abrogated. His advisors came up with the idea to slightly twist the reason to celebrate. Thence the Republican Day of Pakistan became Pakistan Day.

What pains me is, how easily the people of Pakistan let them go scot-free. Today when we are living in a democratic independent state, we still are carrying on this farce. We still do not realize how this lie has impacted our psyches. We’re deliberately keeping ourselves oblivious. We are just not bothered. Little do we realize that an honest account of history is an undeniable right of posterity. We have committed a crime against time without realizing that it can prove too ferocious and vengeful an enemy if taken lightly!

In the next post, we’ll analyze the contents of the Lahore Resolution to make head and tail of what our leaders wanted out of that.

 
4 Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 

NRO Verdict: A Dangereous Path

23 Mar

ZardariNawazAPP-608

Finally the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave a much awaited judgment on National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 after hearing the case for 7 days. The judgment has, at one hand, made urban citizens smile, it has greatly perturbed rural population – the bulk of PPP vote bank. The urban population has been the main recipient of propaganda campaign sponsored by the establishment in connivance with media, who has shown unprecedented support to the establishment in recent months. In the past, most of the media had to stand with army-dominated secret agencies sponsoring this propaganda, under duress and for fear. But this time around, the media dynamics have changed to a great extent. Corporate interest of the media owners and individual interests of major columnists / reporters and TV talk show anchors have taken a new turn. 

As soon as President Asif Ali Zardari took oath, some media sections also took oscillating positions on a rapidly moving political pendulum. Those who were eying on lucrative positions owing to their close relationship with the President, were greatly disappointed when they were not even contacted by the presidency. Others had a more "jihadi" stance against a slightly left to the center PPP. There were yet others who were very successfully lured by PML-N leadership, who is not only fond of doing it but is also very well trained in such measures since the days when they received huge amount of cash from secret agencies for establishing notorious IJI in opposition to PPP. All of them got together to defeat a president who was trying to play smart and outwit army by getting financial support for people, right in the hands of civilian government unlike past fundings by the donor countries (mainly USA) that used to go directly to the armed forces. The sin was unpardonable. So, Mr. Zardari had to face it!

Newly unleashed judiciary – the Azad Adliyah – got a nod from establishment to break the DEAL Mr. Chaudhry had entered in, brokered by army, for getting reinstated in March 2009. It is interesting to note here, that NRO came under attack in Nov – Dec 2009, despite the fact that it was in force since Oct 2007, precisely the point when PML-N stalwarts were too anxious to join hands with same Zardari lead PPP. He still was a "NRO laundered" president when Mr. Nawaz Sharif was trying to make up with him and meeting him under carefully created media hype. But it was not about time yet, I think. Mr. Sharif was still trying his luck with Zardari to get his share. All he was interested in was, laying off of 58-2(b) and 17th amendment (that would allow him to be a third time prime minister, without a president carrying a sword on his head). He did not intend to "derail the democratic system", since it involves money and resources to fight an unncessary mid-term election. The short cut seemed, getting it done through chopping off the third time PM bar and 58-2(b). So, if necessary, he could always make a move towards contesting an election and getting on the band wagon, with an unpredictably pro-establishment MQM and the comrades in waiting under the flag of PML-Q. 

But Zardari, it appears, proved to be a hard nut to crack. The man was able to foresee the plan. He did not loosen his grip on necessary constitutional clauses. In this case, it became necessary for Nawaz, to get rid of the president, and become one. In this way, there won't be any need to abolish 58-2(b), or 17th Amendment, because what fun would it be becoming a 58-2(b)-less president? The traditionally anti-PPP media sections, the sections of media that could not get benefits it had been eying on, MQM – the great political pendulum, PML-Q comrades and a greatly misguided urban citizenry all flocked together to buck up an activist and obliged judiciary to "correct" the "corrupt politicians". The Corrupt politicians in this case obviously meant PPP leadership, especially Zardari. And to "correct" meant, it was obvious too, deposing Zardari from presidency. The easiest way was to use a highly manipulatable media and civil society and gather them under the morally high grounded flag of "Anti-Corruption". 

Everything is, so far going according to the plan. But our worthy intellectuals (mainly coming from urbanized upper middle class / elite of Punjab) probably forgot that creating a public euphoria about such a verdict and thus influencing the court, would result in many controversies and power imbalance that would not only derail democratic system, but would also affect a concerted action against terrorism dangerously prevalent in the country. Surprising, also, was the fact that the worthy court did not take any notice of every B'Grade reporter turned TV anchor talk endlessly about the NRO, which had to be treated as sub judice. 

Supreme Court gave the judgment despite the fact that it had given an opportunity to the Parliament few weeks ago, to get the Ordinance validated by it. Giving the judgment against the validity of NRO, it seems that the worthy court has said loud and clear that the Ordinance had been acceptable, had it been validated by the Parliament. But since it has come to the court, it is not going to allow a "notorious" ordinance in the statutory book. Strange it may sound, but still our media pundits are happy about a "historic" judgment. 

It may also be noted that the judgment recognizes the highly controversial clauses of the constitution 62(f) whereby the prerequisite for acquiring public office has been attached to being undefined "sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and Ameen". The said clause was added to the constitution by the then dictator Zia ul Haq through a Provisional Order (14) in 1985. Those who are rejoicing must also remember that they are not only validating but legitimizing Zia ul Haq's notorious tailoring of the constitution in favour of marrying religion with the business of state. 

Whereas Nawaz Sharif, powered by media jihadis and civil society muftis, remains worried about 17th amendment, he surely is not concerned about the unjust and unfair amendments made by Zia ul Haq through P.Os and notorious 8th Amendment. It may be reminded here, that Nawaz Sharif during his HEAVY MANDATE days did not repeal 8th amendment, he only trimmed it by giving off 58-2(b) that suited him. He was, also, not worried about NRO till he had hopes from Zardari. 

The present judgment, among many other things, builds upon Mr. Salman Akram Raja's contention that the "Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)]" and states in section 14 of the judgment that ". . . no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation . . ". This would be against the spirit of section 239 (6) of the constitution whereby legislature (Majlis-e-Shoora) is fully empowered to amend any part of the constitution. 

Strangely enough, the worthy court, whereas, speaks about those who benefited from the Ordinance, it is absolutely silent about the author of the Ordinance, General (R) Pervez Musharraf. The court also, did not consider that if it has started opening cases  in retrospect, probably no one including superior judiciary itself, is going to be above it. In some cases, the honourable judges have to open cases against their own children, and some of very important cases pending before the court since very long. few among them are, notorious Sabza Zar case, Mehran Bank case and IJI formation and doling out money case filed by Asghar Khan.

Media is watching its own corporate interest. Civil Society is confused. Citizens' minds are manipulated. Political parties are trying to build on the opportunity provided by you, you have treaded on a dangerous path my lord!


 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted in Writings

 

Mannerism & Protocol: Forgotten Values?

23 Mar

pmNot at all! That it is not forgotten, was such a pleasant discovery! I was so happy to get a demand from the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan to train their staff in mannerism and Protocol. The sense of protocol we imparted in the training was quite different from the vibes this word normally gives. Instead of reinforcing the VIP culture through wrongly perceived definition of protocol, it was great to talk about a more localized “Hifz-e-Maraatab” – the ethics and mannerism according to one’s stature (age, knowledge, wisdom, gender, office and other more egalitarian variables!). The above picture was taken after a training session on Protocol and Mannerism, specially held for the Public Relations Staff of the Senate and the National Assembly. This was an advanced session, held in compliance of the demand from the staff of both the Houses. This five days course (held in May 2009) was an advanced and detailed form of the earlier course on this theme, which we held in 2007. I’m so happy to record here that not only all the participants liked it for being informative and practically supportive for their work, but their bosses have recently regarded it beneficial in improving the capacity of their staff, in  a recent post-training evaluation.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Other Work

 

Happy Pakistan Day

23 Mar

 

Every year when this day approaches, a rampant euphoria that engulfs the air makes me increasingly nervous about our collective intelligence to understand history and putting it in perspective. Whereas one can differ on varying approaches on how to interpret history and applied to the current situations – déjà vu or sui generis – but statement of facts in a manner that doesn’t compromise factual correctness, can not be overemphasized. It is not difficult to ascertain how crucial it could become in engineering the psyche of a whole generation and changing the course of events for all the times to come. Even if it is as little a thing, as changing the dates of events!

 

This twenty third day of March is invariably painted in all the media around us, as “Pakistan Day”. Little does the term offer for a toddler to understand what the term means? I say toddler because this little piece of information I saw my daughter memorize when she was not even in grade one. And that was the day that I decided state run schools and even the private schools that are made to follow state prescribed curriculum are just not the place for my daughter’s education. I wonder why people of Pakistan let their children become the fodder of wrong state propaganda, through poorly conceived textbooks, so easily? I’ve been shrieking at the top of my throat since now almost a decade that these text books are telling white lies to our children who’re growing with strange notions and hollow rhetoric. No one is moved. Not even for the sake of our posterity. So much to talk of responsible parenting!

Sorry for this digression, thanks to my state of mind after almost a life time struggle for truth! So my dear reader, we were to talk about twenty-third day of March. Here is how a textbook for grade 12 describes Pakistan Day:

 

 

For those who can’t read Persian transcript, the transliteration would be:

“Annual Session of All India Muslim League was held on 23rd March 1940 at the historical Iqbal of Lahore. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah presided it over and a large number of Muslims from all over India participated. Maulvi Fazl-e-Haq of Bengal Province presented a resolution with the title Lahore Resolution and the participants adopted the resolution amid loud slogans. Muslims had determined their destination. That was a historical day. Mianr-e-Pakistan has been built in Iqbal Park to keep the memories of that day alive”.

What a farce! This is a Punjab Text Book Board textbook for grade 12, whose authors are some Mr Mohammad Farooq Malik, Dr Sultan Khan, Rai Faiz and Khadim Ali Khan. The book has been published by Punjab Textbook Board Lahore printed by Malik House Ganpat Road Lahore. It does neither tell the date of printing nor the number of printed copies. On the first page however, it carries messages from General (the then President of the country) Pervez Musharraf and Chaudhry Pervez Ilahi (the then Chief Minister of Punjab).

These two messages tell that it must have been printed sometime between 2002 and 2007, and must have been in force since atleast three years. I’m amazed that there’s no one from amongst the parents who could be at least as much conscious about their children’s education, as to ask at least about the authors! There’s just no mention of where the authors come from, what’s their profile etc.

All this aside, come to the twenty-third day discussion.

The quoted passage is not the only instance. This propaganda is being done at state level, at media level and in all public spheres. The notification of public holiday on March 23 every year also tells that the day marks “Pakistan Resolution”’s adoption in 1940.

Let me challenge this sheer rape of history in clearest of terms. The said resolution is not Pakistan Resolution, One. It is very clearly named Lahore Resolution in all the documents that record the happenings of that year (1940). The evidence can be had in 12-volume compilation The Partition Papers, kept in India Office Library London. The other document that could be consulted is the Proceedings of All India Muslim League’s 27th Annual Session, kept in National Archives of Pakistan.

Secondly, the Day is commemorated as if the said resolution came as a shock in which a “separate country for Muslims” was demanded. It didn’t. One can quote several dozen proposals of partition, with different details, prior to this Resolution year (1940). Whereas the Muslims may continue to fool themselves by asserting that the idea of separation was home grown by the Muslims of India starting from the era of Sayyid Ahmad Khan, the facts will remain facts. The idea of separation in terms of establishing five or six presidencies with complete autonomy and ultimately becoming independent states first came in 1858. Hold your breath, the author was John Bright, not (Sir) Sayyid Ahmad Khan! John Bright while speaking in House of Commons on June 24, 1858 elaborated on his ideas of the solution to Indian problem during the debate on Government of India Bill.

Knighted by the English, Sayyid Ahmad Khan took forward the idea and started with his famous “Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations” in 1867 as probably a prelude to the physical partition of Indian nation into two religious nationalities. It had to be this way. People had to be convinced of their being “different” before they were physically and territorially separated. The idea then started growing with at least a dozen different proposals till the turn of century. The authors of partition included Joh Bright, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Jamaluddin “Afghani”, Theodore Beck, Abdul Halim Sharar, Theodore Morison. In the 20th century more than 155 proposals of partition with different details were carried forward till the day of adoption of Lahore Resolution in 1940. The 20th century campaign was, interestingly, started by Bhai Parmanand, a well meaning leader of Hindu Mahasabha with a statement, “Divide India on Hindu-Muslim lines” in 1904. Since then, Hindu Mahasabha could not liberate itself with the idea of partition. Although this idea saw multiplication by many other Muslim, British and Hindu leaders of the time including Akbar Allahabadi, Mohammad Ali (Johar), Joseph Stalin, Hasrat Mohani etc. Almost seventy different proposal had already been taken rounds in media, public discourse and corridors of power before Chaudhry Rehmat Ali distributed his much talked about Pamphlet in 1933.

In the backdrop of the above information gathered from a host of sources, it seems ridiculous to take 1940 as the origin of the idea of Pakistan, the information shamelessly transferred to the children in Pakistan.

Continued


 

 

 
9 Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 

Women of Pakistan Envy Indian Monkey

21 Mar

monkey

The basic principle of justice has to be, justice for all. We in Pakistan still facing myriad of issues relating to a flawless dispensation of justice to masses with out any discrimination, despite the fact that we fought for a free judiciary for over one year. It makes one feel absolutely dejected to see masses still crying for justice after all that uproar and excitement. When one sees long lines of pension seekers trying to get what is their right, as something given as bounty,  women beaten up, thrown acid on, raped, maimed and thrown naked to the streets, when one sees minority communities living under severest of distress, when one sees lower judicial set up as vultures ready to eat these poor people, one is inclined to disbelief all the rhetoric of free judiciary.

At the end of the day, dispensation of justice begins from acknowledging an act as crime. If domestic violence is not even considered a punishable crime, how can one expect to get redress from the system? When acid throwing is not listed in the penal code as a form of offence, how one can even hope for it to be punishable? And when even some of these crimes  against humanity are listed as crimes, our rotten system just refuses to acknowledge that it ever happened. In our part of the world, the basic step for getting justice is registering it as crime in a police station. The registration document is called, First Information report, commonly known as FIR. Would you believe that despite all what we have done to get free judiciary with an inspiration of making it possible for masses to access justice with equality, it is still not possible for an average middle class urban family to get a complaint registered with the police.

In one instance, the FIR could not be registered for the rape of a young girl in Bahawalpur till the time she gave birth to a baby girl. Her case still lingers in one of the courts, after ninth birthday of her child. I wonder what the child would be called by our elitist intelligentsia – a love child?

Amidst all this, it was pleasant to hear that Jhumuri got her FIR registered in first attempt and without going to the police station. She just sent her written complaint, and the custodians of law came into motion. It happened in a local police station at Astarang in Orissa’s Puri district of India. Jhumuri fears for the life of her son, by a jealous former husband of hers. She then, with the help of neighborhood responsible citizens, lodged a written complaint with the police station. ”We have registered a case under Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 366(abducting for slavery) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). We are trying to give protection to the baby. . .”  inspector-in-charge of Astarang police station, Mr Satindra Kumar Das, is quoted as saying according to The Telegraph, India.

The only thing that makes this news item unique is the fact the complainant was a female monkey! Yes, Jhumuri is a female monkey who registered a complaint against her former husband, through local residents. Jhumuri charged her “former husband”, a male monkey called Raja, with attempting to kill her three-month-old baby Kuna. She put the imprint of her tail end on the one-page complaint, written in Oriya by the local people, The Telegraph says.  Raja was found to have become jealous of the baby monkey and tried to kill it several times. But her mother was able to abort all such attempts, with the help of the local people. When the locals felt that the simian kid faced a real threat to its life from the band leader, they decided to seek help from the police to drive out the rogue monkey. According to Mr Das, about a dozen monkeys led by Raja have been camping in the Astarang market area for the last few days. They have been provided with food by local businessmen and animal lovers.

Jhumuri is happy that she got justice in first attempt. Women of Pakistan envy this Indian monkey and long for justice, with bills on domestic violence and sexual harassment still pending before the Parliament.

 
8 Comments

Posted in Readings

 

This is the Time to Act!

21 Mar

This small passage was written by Rwail Sirmed in May 2009, when she was 9 years old

I.D.P’s are our sisters, brothers, friends ect. Who have been displaced from their home because of the Taliban. Pakistan army is trying to fight against Taliban and getting them out of our Homeland, these people are the kkk’s (kuu kllux klan) of Pakistan .

Some I.D.P camps are recently established in Islamabad. The children don’t have anything to eat and crockery to eat in.The hygienic conditions are not good and there is no cleanliness so that’s they have skin problems and fever etc. They don’t have medicines or doctors that’s why the diseases are increasing. there are no school so the children cant study. They don’t have books to read and toys to play.

They sacrificed for us so that the Taliban dont come to Islamabad. Now its our turn to act.I request the children from mazmoon-i-shauq and other children who want to join us, to help these children who r our friends from Swat. Lets go to I.D.P camps to selute our friends and bring them food, books and toys. More than anything they need our company and time.leta go.

My mother has volunteered to take us to the camps.Would you like to go?

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

How Difficult it is to be a Woman!

21 Mar

men working“How can a working woman be a good mother?” An assertive comment disguised as a question comes across women so many times during the day that ultimately it becomes a huge guilt for them, to work (read work for getting paid). But did someone ever realize that it’s not only paid work that generates guilt, a woman’s mere living on her choice becomes guilt at the end of a day. One of my Facebook friends was narrating how she was harassed by aggressive onlookers when one evening she just wanted to drive on roads and listen to music in car. She pulled down the car windows, and here came the wrath! I can imagine how it would have been.

Just thought to get the idea from my Facebook contact list, as my list is a perfect microcosm of the society we’re living in. There are hawks, there are moderates, there are seculars and there are very few agnostics / atheists and anti-religious people as well. There are people from political / social / economic elite, there are people from urban middle class, there are people from semi urban towns, from lower middle class, from educated (academically speaking) and semi-literate class – all of them. I thoroughly enjoy comments coming from all of them as it gives me great insight to anthropology of issues; we normally deal with in complete isolation. Although, I do understand the limitations of FB user generally and completely understand that a sample that uses FB, can’t be taken as a representative of our society. Without an academic generalization, we can somehow get an idea where the collective opinion is tilting to.

In order to get that sense, I posted a scenario, which might not occur in daily life of most of the respondents, but the possibility of which could not be set aside considering the “subject” of our story, being a human being. My question was:

A young wife, mother of three, wants to go cinema with one of her friends. The friend is a male. Should her husband ALLOW her to go with a male at the dead of the night? Three of our characters live in Lahore. What should the husband do? Please be concise and clear. We’ll analyse the result, which is going to be interesting for you to read!

The first response was from a male with a western name, in a strong NO. There were total 139 responses, out of which only five said a straight yes, only two could get the trick of my putting the word “ALLOW” in caps and put a question mark as to why she should be allowed! Rest of the people either said no, or suggested the husband of our story to allow her if the friend is her brother, cousin etc. But there came some very interesting points during all this discussion, which amply showed how women are taken among the class that uses Facebook, means the computers and the internet. This class has to be effluent enough to buy a computer, rent a computer in a net cafe, access a computer at workplace, or borrow a computer for leisure purpose. It must be the class with minimum level of education, or at least literate. It must be the class that could access internet, means in bigger cities or smaller towns of Pakistan, or may be abroad. Since majority of the respondents (99.9%) had Muslim names and displayed linguistic nuances and social jargon of Pakistan (or at the maximum north India), it is assumed that they were mostly Pakistanis.

It must be noted that I changed my question twice in order to get more natural responses from them. The second set of responses came for the following question:

I think my question was unfair. Let’s change it. A young handsome man, father of three, wants to go cinema with one of his female colleagues/friends. Should his wife allow him to go with a female in the dead of the night?

I changed it once again to the following question:

Alright alright . . . The wife wants to go alone. No male or female friend. Just alone. Cinema for herself. Then?

And finally, this one:

So guys, do we settle that wife shouldn’t go alone, her security, our religion – - – so many issues. But husband can. Right?

I record my observation on their responses here:

  1. Most of the respondents were males. Only two women became part of the discussion. One of them came up with a very strange aspect of the whole issue. It was shocking to see how gender relations are seen even among women.
  2. Any contact between man and woman is linked to sex and sexual aspect of relationships
  3. Men seem to be extremely suspicious of fellow male folk, when it comes to their contact with women. It seems all men behave in the same manner with women, overtly or covertly, which is why they would not allow “their” women to have any contact with a male.
  4. There seems to be just no concept of a relationship between men and women, which has no sexual connotation. That makes me extremely uncomfortable with all the men on my list, who are unable to see their contact with women in a platonic manner.
  5. There’s just no concept what so ever, of a woman leading her life on her own will. Men take a woman as their “owned” being, with all the rights on her life. A woman is expected to do anything and everything with their permission. Only two responses recognized the fact that a woman should need no “permission” from anyone before exercising the right to recreation, and that no o ne should have any right to allow or disallow her.
  6. It was strange to note, that men had no concern about themselves going out, but when it came to women, they had their ‘defence mechanism’ in full force. For some it was equivalent to catalysing a deterioration of moral code, for others it was repugnant to the religious injunctions. Some thought it would be dangerous for a woman to go out considering the “mentality” of men folk, others said it would be insecure for women to roam about in today’s circumstances of terrorism. It was rather strange to note that none of these insecurities could be cited to hinder men’s right to mobility. Although bombs do not recognize sexes before killing, but danger of terrorism was put in the way of women’s freedom.
  7. A woman went to the extent of saying that such a husband (the one who ALLOWS his wife to go out with a male friend) would actually be promoting prostitution. This was one of the most honest comments I must say. When a woman is out, she is seen no lesser than a SLUT by all and sundry. And if her husband is not seen encaging or “disallowing” her to move freely, he would be seen as a PIMP who draws certain benefits in lieu of “sending” his wife with someone.gender symbol

Does that piss you off? I mean, the only reason for a woman’s existence is SEX. And this is conditioned so strongly among men and women alike, that it is just not possible for them to accept that women are human beings just like men. They can long for happiness, just like men do. Their happiness might lie outside the four walls of home, and outside the ambit of social roles attached to them, just like in the case of men. A woman might want to go out, without having to think about her being an object of sex. A woman might want to do little things to have fun, outside the home. A woman might like to have friends around her – male or female. A woman might like to experience the freedom of not asking her husband before going anywhere, at any point in time, just like men do.

On the contrary, she is expected to attach all her happiness around her family. Her morality, her goodness, her value of being – everything is linked to how she performs her social role. She has to be a good mother, a good wife, sister and daughter. Every role, please note, is to cater men. A woman is respectable only if she is a sister, mother or wife. There is no other way for her to claim respect in society.

A man would never think about religion before doing anything around his daily activity. But when it comes to women, religion rapidly comes into play. If it is mingling of the other sex with them, outside homes and family, things would be ok. But women of their own families should be taken in certain way, they should behave in certain way and talked about in certain way. This hypocrisy almost always goes unnoticed by our men folk, to sensitive about religious injunctions otherwise!

It is also interesting to see that religion which is brought in whenever it comes to the rights of women, it is never brought in play whenever cultural norms, which negate religious injunctions (Swara, karo kari, Badl-e-sulh, marriage with Quran, not giving women their right to inheritance etc.) are used to coerce women.

In brief, it was very clear to see all the responses that it is just not right for women to exercise their right to befriend with anyone, to have fun with their friends without being taken as object of sex, lead their lives with freedom of will and choice. And last but not least, to have fun.

 
5 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

No Tall Talks, Just Small Actions!

21 Mar

individual actionsThis video showcases the story of a woman, who did not lose hope. A woman who gave it a try. A woman who attempted on destiny and succeeded. Washington Area Women's Foundation is a community organization working for the women of Washington DC metropolitan area. The Foundation works through philanthropy, but their uniqueness lie in their approach. Instead of giving them one-off financial help, which is very popular in societies like Pakistan, these bunch of philanthropists got together and tried to think of the ways their little money could provide them lifelong relief.

The program they developed focussed on leadership training in financial education, wealth creation, jobs and business ownership, child care, early education, health care and safety etc. Another amazingly effective feature was their identification of two general groups of women in Washington area. At one side, there were women who were most highly educated, employed and well paid in the nation. While on the other hand, there are women struggling in their role as family breadwinners, inadequately paid, living in or nearby poverty, having limited access to health care facilities for herself and the family. The Foundation connected these two groups of women. The one's from privileged backgrounds became potential trainers. This video is a success story of one of these women who got training to get a job, she eventually got a decent job and now her living standard has been changed considerably.

This is what I call power of individual's actions! Why can't we make a decision just now, that instead of making tall talk in drawing room discussions and on Facebook pages, why not do something on our own little individual level? A small step that could grow into a bigger one, could be our decision to educate people around us. Let's narrow it down a little more. All of us, well most of us, have domestic help available to do household chores. Mostly, this labour force comprises women, and in many cases children as well. Can we just take a decision NOW to educate at least one of our domestic helpers?

Education in this case would not mean literacy. It would mean enabling them to think, make informed opinion,learn life skills, develop a civic sense, make hygiene and cleanliness an inalienable part of their consciousness, assisting them developing a vocabulary related to their work, making them conscious of their rights and duties of being a law abiding citizen, teaching them importance of water and energy conservation. Believe me it is not very difficult. Its much easier than making high (mostly false) claims and doing conspiracy induced superficial political analyses in our living rooms.

One small step from us, can change a life. Is it too much to ask?

 
3 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

2nd Instalment of Truth – NRO Actually!

21 Mar

nro3This is in continuation of my earlier post on NRO, posted on November 7, 2009. We were trying to learn about this Ordinance clause by clause. So far we have examined Section II and saw that a major amendment in Criminal Procedures Code could well be used to control the damage (if any), if the federal and provincial governments want. We’ll now move on to next sections.

Section III of the Ordinance adds up a new subsection to section 39 of the Representation of People Act (RPA) of 1976. The RPA has been amended many times after its promulgation in 1976. The latest amendment came in 2008. The said Section 39 of the RPA deals with the consolidation of election results. It previously had six subsections. The seventh subsection thus added involved immediate providence of the election results by the returning officer, to the contesting candidates and their election agents who are present during the consolidation process. It is provided that the returning officer will provide them the copy of the result of the count sent to the Election Commission. It must be noted here that all political parties agree that this amendment to the RPA 1976 is beneficial for the electoral process and its free, fair and transparent holding.

Sections IV and V of NRO can be read clubbed together for better comprehension. Both of these sections provide that no member of the Parliament or of Provincial Assemblies could be arrested in a NAB related case unless recommended by Special Parliamentary Committee on Ethics. These sections also provide that such Committees on Ethics will be constituted in Senate and in National / Provincial Assemblies, having equal representation of opposition and ruling party members. The members of these Ethic Committees will be appointed by the Speaker(s) National / Provincial Assemblies / Chairman Senate as recommended by the Leader(s) of House(s) and Leader(s) of the Opposition. There will be 8 members in each of these committees and a chairperson.

Moreover, both of these sections actually make amendment to already existing National Accountability Ordinance of 1999. Under Section 31-C of the NAO, the officers of banks and financial institutions who might be charged for appropriation and right off/ waiver of loans etc, under NAB, were given protection. These two sections of NRO (Section 4 and 5) actually extend this protection to the elected representatives of people.

The protection given to the bank officers under NAO 1999 provides for the NAB to not arrest any such accused unless a formal approval is given by the Governor State Bank of Pakistan. Similarly, if some officers / other persons associated with NAB investigations are accused of hampering such proceedings, s/he will not be charged with out the sanction of a Committee headed by NAB Chairperson.

In the presence of such a protection for the bank / government officers that already existed in the form of NAO 1999, the temporary protection given to the elected representatives of people doesn’t seem a big deal. Further, this protection seems to be given to curtail political victimization of the opposition members by any sitting government. This provision, negotiated by PPP with the then military ruler, seems to be in accordance with Charter of Democracy agreed between PPP and PML-N according to which, no political victimization will be done against each other. It seems that CoD was being formally institutionalized when this very clause was being negotiated.

It must be mentioned here, that a special meeting of Parliamentary Committee on law and Justice was convened on October 31, 2009 under the Chairpersonship of Begum Nasim Akhtar Chaudhry who is member of National Assembly from ruling PPP. The said Committee comprises 16 members including the Chairperson, 4 members from PML-N, one from MQM, 3 from PML-Q. That makes one chairperson, 7 members from PPP while total 8 members from other parties. This Committee discussed the Ordinance clause be clause and approved with simple majority.

Strangely enough, all major parties i.e., PPP, PML-N and PML-Q unanimously agreed to scrap these two sections of NRO. Should we think that all the parties agree to carry on with political victimization of each other?

Section VI of NRO provides for a new sub-section in Section 31 (A) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999. This new section says that any judgement of the court passed in the absence of the accused, would be void and should not be complied with. This Section was specifically added for the benefit of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto – two main leaders of major political parties who were thrown out of the political arena in Pakistan. This clause also seems to be an outcome of Charter of Democracy. In the absence of PML-N from the entire discussions of NRO with the General, PPP and MQM negotiated this clause, to the clear benefit of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma. This is the section which made it possible for Mian Nawaz Sharif to stage a comeback.

Section VII , the last of NRO, provides for the withdrawal of all the cases against the holders of public offices, which were initiated by the Federal Government prior to October 12, 1999. These cases will only include the pending cases, and not the cases in which decisions have been finalized, or plea bargain has been settled by NAB. This also does not include cases related to cooperative societies and financial & investment companies, no matter if they are initiated prior to October 12, 1999.

Under this Section, protection is also provided to the NAB members & functionaries, federal, provincial and local governments and their functionaries against persecutions, on account of withdrawal of such cases.

It is very clear that all parties including PML-Q (including its Patriot members e.g., its Parliamentary Leader Faisal Saleh Hayat among many others), MQM, some members of PML-N and PPP are the beneficiaries of this section. It is also ironic that PML-N who is the biggest critic of this Ordinance, took active part in the Law & Justice Committee deliberations on NRO until Section 6. As soon as discussion started on Section 7, they staged a walk out. It may probably be due to the reason that the said section benefits only the mid level leaders of PML-N, and not the main leadership.

We’ll continue our discussion on NRO in the next instalment of truth, let’s assimilate this much first!


 

Bookmark and Share

 

 

 
3 Comments

Posted in Writings

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes