RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Asif Ali Zardari’

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Zardari!

11 Apr

Posting this to remind Pakistanis, what was being written about President Zardari (the then inmate of a jail) in 2005. Written by  a veteran journalist, a columnist par excellence, an inspiring rights / peace activist and a professional with unblemished credentials, Beena Sarwar, this post appeared on January 26, 2005 in The News, a paper of the same Jang Group currently at a well declared war with one person they seem to hate endlessly – Asif Ali Zardari.

It would be interesting for the readers to think and recall history of this media group, and how it has changed sides with every changing regime. May be then we're in better position to peep through their headlines and "breaking news", into the reality!

"Corruption," pronounces Asif Ali Zardari, "is a state of mind. A corrupt person wouldn’t have taken on the establishment, wouldn’t have sacrificed eight years of his life in prison. I could have accepted a deal and got out, and kept them happy — that’s what would have benefited me most."


No, no, no, there’s been no deal, he repeats. But he is confident that the government will have to call for early elections, and that BB (whom he refers to as his ’leader’) will be back, "INSHALLAH!" We’re at Bilawal House — or Bilawal Fortress, as some call it — in Karachi (the one in Lahore is a rented premise), a few days before his departure to Dubai. There is an air of expectancy about the place, which is buzzing with men, outside the gates, in the courtyards, under a shamiana, in the living room next to the book-lined study where we meet him.

Wondering if it’s always like this, one learns that yes, it was like this even when he was in prison — having an easy time of it, one heard, air-conditioned rooms, all kinds of visitors, nudge, nudge, wink, wink… And yet, it could not have been that easy. Even if he was given preferential treatment, he was still a prisoner, deprived of home and family. And yes, there were some pretty rough moments, including solitary confinement, denial bail, and worse (remember the tongue incident?). Any luxuries would have been countered by such moments — and rides in the back of rickety police vans charging along from Karachi to Lahore for court hearings. A reporter later mentions that he developed spondalitis because of this mode of transport — he could either sit on the hard wooden bench, or stand all the way. This is why he has to walk with a cane and undergo physiotherapy.

He comes into the room briskly, despite the cane. We’re expecting an informal meeting, but the seating arrangement — he sits behind the large wooden desk facing the four of us — implies an interview. During the ensuing discussion one thing becomes clear: Zardari isn’t going to complain about his prison stint or political and personal adversities. Instead, he repeats what appears to be his mantra: positive thinking (reflected in that wide, somewhat cheeky grin, flashed along with a V-sign in every newspaper photograph or television shot taken during his prison days) — "Convert weaknesses and adversity into strength."

"There is an unrepresentative, undemocratic government, and the West will eventually have to stand with the democratic forces. That process has started. Musharraf can’t step out of the umbrella of democracy. PPP is not in a rush to get into governance, and we believe that a martial thought process is not the answer — the strength it provides is temporary. We can’t wish away those who believe in a militant approach, but the real strength comes from the people, and we have to educate them against the prevalent defeatist attitude, we must be positive, we must assert our thought process. Civil liberties are never given voluntarily; we have to demand them. And we must each do what we can. I am doing what I can; I have chosen politics. I didn’t need to."

This was a ’considered decision’. The only regret is not being able to see his children grow up — the eldest, Bilawal, was just eight when Zardari was imprisoned by the Nawaz Sharif government. But this is not a complaint. "I did it for the sake of democracy, for the people, for all our children. I could have taken the easy way out, but I didn’t. I knew that one day I would win. I didn’t know how long it would take. I am fighting and I will continue to fight."

He dismisses the allegations of corruption. "They haven’t proved one case against me. You know how it started? It was Gen. Mujibur Rehman’s brainchild (information minister during Gen. Zia’s martial law), to use the old trick: give the dog a bad name and hang him. So they created this image of me, as an Achilles heel of PPP. I couldn’t counter it because I didn’t have a political image. I did have a personal political history, my family has always been in politics that people chose to ignore, but prison was a new experience for me."

And then, some unexpected philosophy — "History will redeem me. What am I? I am just a bleep in the universal picture. So I might as well try and shine."

There were times when no one would come to see him, but he never lost faith. "Nawaz Sharif left. My graph went up. The only people I’d see would be the court reporters, and the people who were looking after me — I learnt a lot from interacting with these downtrodden people. So I wasn’t entirely isolated. I’ve spent these eight years thinking, dreaming about how we can change Pakistan’s destiny for the better."

The answer, he believes, is utilising what is considered Pakistan’s weakness — its burgeoning population — and converting this into strength. "We must invest in manpower, instead of ’toys for boys’. Invest a billion dollars in our people instead of planes."

Then he makes a startling revelation: "We are working to export nurses; I believe that women are twice as hardworking as men. We will monitor everything with modern technology. The emancipation of women is the future of Pakistan. If we give land to anyone, we will ensure it is given only to women. The trouble is that we train our sons but not our girls." His own children are treated equally, he says. Bilawal and Bakhtawar are both karate black belts, and if Bilawal is learning to shoot, so does his younger sister.

What about Benazir Bhutto, will they (the establishment) let her return? "They? Who are they to stop her? She has chosen to stay away because the world has gone mad. She is working nine hours a day, to change world opinion about us, about Pakistan."

He disagrees that she is arrogant and unapproachable. "A person with an arrogant mindset wouldn’t work so hard. Look, people here are hypersensitive. She has a thousand things on her mind. But you know how people are — they’ll want to ask something, but the preamble is so long. So sometimes she may be a bit short, and that could be seen as arrogance."

What about the contention that the Peoples Party should have sat in Opposition in 1988, instead of coming into power with their hands tied? "The circumstances then were such that that seemed the only choice," he answers. "Perhaps it was not, but we are saying that with hindsight."

So if there were fresh elections and a similar situation developed, would his party accept power with similar compromises? Zardari refuses to say. "She’s the leader. Her wisdom is more than mine. Whatever decision she makes will be correct and we will abide by it."

But speaking for himself, what he would like to be if in power again, is environment minister. "That’s my passion. I can’t believe that the people responsible for that oil spill near Clifton beach are still around, that the environmentalists have not picketed KPT and so on. There is so much apathy. I’d like to change that."

But he has full faith in the people. "We are portrayed as a lawless society, but it’s not true. The average person is hardworking and honest and law abiding. Who are the people who indulge in crime? Who supports them?" He answers his own question: "From political parties like the MQM, from the jagirdars and the sardars, all crime stems from these roots!"

His minders finally prevail upon him to leave for his next appointment, and as he exits the room, that wide grin reminds one of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, who every now and then would slowly vanish, its grin being the last thing to fade out. Asif Ali Zardari’s grin lingers on too. And you wonder who will have the last laugh…

 
No Comments

Posted in Looking Back

 

Adda Sayeen, Bhali Karay Aaya!

05 Mar

asif_ali_zardari4This piece was originally published in Daily The Post on September 13, 2008

The sight of slogan shouting jiyalas at the gates of Presidency was not only a rare but moving one on ninth day of ninth month – a historic day in the annals of Pakistan’s political saga, when democratic process of electing state’s sovereign head was completed. As Plato puts it, “Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike”. Pakistan People’s Party displayed it with full life. Amid the fears raised by certain sections about his credibility and ability, Asif Ali Zardari finally took oath as the democratically elected President. While watching the ceremony on TV, one could hardly resist tears rolling down the cheeks, as the event reminded of the biggest loss people endured during their struggle for democracy in Pakistan.

Whether it was the exchange of harsh words between security personnel and supporters of the president, or embarrassment of forces’ chiefs who could not get way to leave the presidency after the ceremony due to the presence of enchanting jiyalas; whether it was dripping down of painful tears from Sanam Bhutto’s eyes or loving glitter of pride on Hakim Ali Zardari’s face; whether it was forlorn thought of the gone dictator who was nowhere to be seen or the Zinda hey BiBi Zinda he slogans gushed out naturally of the people present there, everything was but manifestation of nation’s emotional state experiencing peaceful and amicable transformation of hurly-burly arbitrary rule into serenity of democracy.

All the romance of PPP’s success and its pro-people slogans aside, one needs to objectively watch the actions of a party in-charge of country’s affairs completely, from now on. The real responsibility starts from this day. After a very successful and ably handled press conference, morale is high and spirits are up to the sky. It’s high time to capitalize on this breadth of acceptability and deliver in real terms of the word. Notwithstanding the fact that newly elected president, it is understandable, is confronting umpteenth challenges as the leader of ruling party. But the huge responsibility is not carried by Zardari alone, we all must share it. The nation must understand the fact that if past nine years have made Pakistan’s citizenry an alert one, they have taught many things to political adversaries as well. The parties, traditionally right of the center (or center for that matter), especially the ones who were born out of the wedlock of civil and military bureaucracy with clergy, now have creative ways to confront a popularly rooted political party.

We have seen how ambivalent the stances of conventional opponents of PPP have been during past six months. All popular slogans were picked up to embarrass PPP among people while indulging into inflexible single faceted politics – a quick recipe for disaster in as complex a state as Pakistan, facing multiple internal and external threats. Mr. Zardari’s politics since last half a year has been of that of reconciliation and inclusion, an evidence of party’s maturity over the years and an outcome of its sufferings at the hands of powers that be. And now, when the power at home has been successfully consolidated, these “wiser adversaries” need to be tackled in equally befitting manner. The politics of signing the documents you don’t believe you’d be able to abide by has been a tactic for a particular situation, which should be avoided in future at all costs.

It was no later than 4th century BC that Demosthenes, a prominent Greek orator and statesman of ancient Athens was able to realize that there is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust. The rulers should now candidly recognize the amount of trust deficit that exists between elements of PPP and the masses, owing to some undesirable happenings during past regimes ruled by the party. Serious efforts need to be put in to ensure issues of governance in every field and every aspect of policy implementation. That does not need resources; it just needs commitment and sincerity, which the party is not lacking right now. Whatever drastic steps government has to take, no qualms should be felt while pruning off of bureaucrat friends.

During the maiden press conference of the president, he sounded genuinely cognizant of the supremacy of the parliament. This, however, should go beyond rhetoric. Instead of putting the onus on parliament, the co-chairperson of the ruling party should actually initiate the move to remove notorious 58-2(b) and chopping off of presidential powers transferring them at length to the Prime Minister. Sooner the better. In order to avoid unnecessary political instability at the hands of opponents, and to concentrate on real problems of people, these basic hitches are required to be removed as quickly as possible.

Another monster Zardari is facing is economic challenge. Creative solutions inclined towards people oriented public policies are urgently needed. Broad based technical expert groups should be immediately established to assist the executive branch as well as legislative branch (especially parliamentary committees). While direct transfer of money, however little it is, to the poorest of the poor through Benazir Cards is highly commendable, the removal of subsidies with no plans of their provision in near future is a question mark on party’s prop-people credentials.

A long-awaited change in country’s polity is coupled with immense challenges of economic crisis, constitutional and judicial issues viz a viz credible democracy, coalition management and dealing with war on terror with popular support.  We offer you Pakistan to manage and rule Adda Sayeen, Bhali Karay Aaya!

 
1 Comment

Posted in Writings

 

Presidential Notification was Constitutional, But. . . .

14 Feb

Honourable Justice (R) Fakhruddin G. Ebraheem writes about the current judicial crisis developed after the late night suspension of presidential notification by the Chief Justice of pakistan

We are again faced with a judicial crisis – not a bonafide crisis but a crisis created for ulterior reasons. Ostensibly the crisis is the elevation of chief justice for the Lahore High Court in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the elevation of the next senior most judge Justice Saquib Nasir, as acting Chief Justice of Lahroe High Court (a la Zia ul Haq style).

 

Being of the view that more harm is done by ignoring seniority, which opens the door for exercise of discretion in principle, I am against seniority being ignored, particularly in judiciary. My first reaction, therefore, was that the appointment of Chief Justice Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and elevation of the next senior-most judge as Lahore High Court Chief Justice was justified. I had assumed that in accordance with the Article 177 of the constitution, these appointments were made by the president after consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and that the president was bound by such consultations. Was the Chief Justice of Pakistan even consulted? We are in such a sorry state of affairs where there is a denial whether such a consultation took place between the two highest functionaries of state. The president’s spokesperson asserts that the consultation took place and is denied vehemently by the honorable Chief Justice of Pakistan. There must be some documentary evidence to prove that such consultations took place. But much to our regret the people have been kept in the dark creating further controversy. With a poor credibility score of the government, the latter’s version will not be acceptable to the people. Without consultation, these appointments, in contradiction to the binding recommendations of the Chief Justice of Pakistan remain invalid, being in violation of Article 177 of the Constitution. To my mind, this issue, which is so obvious and cannot possibly become controversial, has a reason for other reason, namely, the appointment of judges in the High Courts. There are a large number of vacancies in all the High Courts which need to be filled on an urgent basis, in the interest of litigant public. There can be no controversy over the appointment of these judges.

 

The government has, without cogent reason, evaded the issue of these appointments. The procedure for the appointment of judges is clear cut. The Chief Justice of the High Court, in order to fill up vacancies, first consults with his colleagues and invites advocates and/or members of the lower judiciary, with a view to obtain their consent to become a judge. Even if there is one seat vacant, the Chief Justice of the High Court recommends two or three names which are forwarded to the provincial government. The limited function of the provincial government is to ascertain the antecedent of the candidate, and along with any adverse material, but without any deletions or additions of names, forwards the list to the Ministry of Law, which, with its comments, further forwards it to the Prime Minister. Then starts the process of consultation between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister and if a candidate has the concurrence of both the Chief Justices (High Court and Supreme Court), such a person is elevated to become the judge of the High Court. It may be noticed that neither the President nor the Prime Minister has a right to add to, or subtract, from the list of proposed candidates. This is obviously correct for two reasons – firstly, the Chief Justices know better the competency of the candidate secondly, this appointment is for an initial period of one year, to enable the Chief Justices to ascertain the ability and integrity of the judge. I will repeat that a candidate whose appointment is confirmed by both the chief justices is binding on the government. In exceptional cases, the PM may give his reasons for his disagreement and the same may be reviewed by the chief justices. But the primacy remains with both the chief justices. To my mind, the immediate controversy regarding the notifications elevating Lahore High Court Chief Justice and his elevation to Supreme Court is directly related to the government’s reluctance to initiate the process of appointment of Lahore High Court’s judges nominated by its Chief Justice.

 

Our past history, in matters of appointment of judges, has been chequered for it is public knowledge that the Executive has, more often than not, been interested in appointment of judges of its own choice, which in fact, seriously affects the independence of judiciary for the largest single litigant before the courts is the government. We have fortunately evolved a procedure, which is not only fair and just, but, in public interest. In the four HCs large number of judges remain un-appointed for the last so many months only because of the undue obduracy and the expectation that the parliament will provide for another procedure for appointment of judges, to suit the executive. In my humble opinion, the whole controversy must be resolved without further delay by appointing the judges in the HC in accordance with the Constitution. In so far as the elevation of the judge from the LHC to fill up permanent position from Punjab in the SC is concerned, it should not be a pretext for delaying the appointments of judges to the Lahore High Court. We are urgently required in larger public interest for immediate appointments of judges as the litigants are suffering for no fault on their part. Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim

 
8 Comments

Posted in Readings, Research n Record

 

For Pakistan, No Turning Back from Reform!

17 Jan

 

This article was written by Asif Ali Zardari, President of Pakistan and appeared in The Washington Post on Friday, January 15, 2010

When I was elected president more than a year ago, Pakistan was in grave condition, strained by terrorism and a ravaged economy. Countering the effects of a decade of dictatorship requires bold actions, some of which are unpopular. I am working with Parliament to run a country, not a political campaign. The goal of our democratic government is to implement policies that will dramatically improve the lives of Pakistanis. In time, good policies will become good politics.

Our economic crisis demanded unprecedented response. On taxes, education, agriculture and energy, we have shown that we must adapt, reform and become self-sufficient. Terrorists do not want Pakistan to succeed. They want to distract us from preparing for a stable and prosperous future. After a suicide bomber killed 75 people in northwestern Pakistan this month, U.S. media reports noted that "the militants' objective is to sow terror among the general population in hopes of putting more political pressure on President Asif Ali Zardari's government to back down." But militants underestimate us. Just as our people refuse to be terrorized, our government refuses to be derailed from its course of fiscal responsibility, social accountability and financial transparency.

Restoring economic health has required raising fuel prices and taxes. These moves are understandably unpopular. Stringent terms had to be accepted to partner with the International Monetary Fund, but we understood the condition of our economy and the global economy and acted decisively.

The war against terrorism has cost Pakistan not just in lives but also in economic terms, freezing international investment and diverting priorities from social and other sectors. Despite constant challenges on multiple fronts, we took the political hits and stuck with reform. The IMF has even praised "the efforts being made by the authorities to further stabilize the economy, to advance structural reform and lay the foundations for high and sustainable growth. The early signs of recovery, declining inflation, and the improved external position are encouraging." Pakistan met IMF criteria last month to receive the "fourth tranche," or $1.2 billion, of its loan funding — no easy feat during a global recession. Corrupt governments don't reach this level of IMF partnership. The World Bank, European Union and United States have all applauded our accomplishments. This praise may be little reported, but it's far more important than the chimera of polls.

Pakistan's economic resurrection has been the product, primarily, of our own sweat and blood. The return of democracy was negotiated and carried out by the intercession of the West. Pakistanis know that expediency has at times caused the world's extended democracies to support dictatorships, as happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The West has a moral responsibility to ensure that our democratic transition continues. Long-term moral values must prevail. If the community of developed democratic nations had, after our last democratic election, crafted an innovative development plan with the scope and vision of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II, much greater economic, political and military stability would already have been achieved. Some in my country disapprove of efforts to increase the power and fiscal responsibility of our provinces and the integrity of our institutions. Those who found comfort with dictators have resisted change. Pakistan tried it their way — and endured catastrophe. We intend to build a new Pakistan using long-term solutions based on sound fiscal management.

Now, some Western reports suggest the Pakistani military does not support the policies of our democratic government. This is not true. Not only is our military courageously battling extremists in Swat and Waziristan, and succeeding, but our troops also are supporting the country's democratic transition and adherence to our Constitution. Some in Pakistan question our international alliances because they disapprove of our allies' actions, such as Thursday's unilateral U.S. drone attack against militants in Waziristan. We should all understand that concern. But we are fighting for our lives, and Pakistan's policies cannot be based solely on what is popular. When Franklin Roosevelt threw a lifeline to Britain with the Lend-Lease program, few Americans supported challenging the Nazis. Harry Truman had less than 15 percent support among Americans to rebuild Europe. They did what was right, not what was popular, and so will we.

History has shown the difference between expedient policies and the long-term goals of true statesmen. When the history of our time is written, Pakistan's decisions will be seen as a turning point in containing international terrorism. We are building a functioning society and economy. In the end, these sometime unpopular steps will create a Pakistan that sucks the oxygen from the fire of terrorism. Those who are counting on Pakistan to back off the fight — militarily and economically — underestimate my country and me.

The writer is president of Pakistan.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Why Punjab needs democracy?

14 Jan

 

Sometimes it is important to look back and see where we had been a while ago, where we wanted to go a while ago and where we were wrong? Baaghi starts this series of "Pakistan Diaries" in an attempt to do the same. Following is an Op-Ed column from the Dawn archives of 2007. Have a look on how were the apprehensions despite the hang over of a "successful movement by the people". 
 
(Dawn encounter, Oct 20, 2007)
By Abdul Khalique Junejo
 
PAKISTAN is undergoing a change, without any doubt, unprecedented in its 60 year existence. A change that is substantial, visible and irreversible. This change is affecting, and will continue to affect, the patterns of politics, the working and behaviour of the state and the overall development and conduct of Pakistani society. Symptoms of the change can be seen in the hard-earned freedom of press, new-found independence of judiciary and above all rejuvenated masses and their rekindled passion for politics and their enhanced awareness of and interest in state affairs.
 
Many would look for the causes of this change in the role of some individuals and credit different persons for this –– Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharaf or Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhry. Without denying the importance of the role of personalities in impacting the shape of things, the forces behind this profound change have also undergone a change in the recent past.
 
The past political movements didn’t bring about any significant change in the state apparatus or society as a whole because they were neither aimed at doing so, nor were they able to do so due to the composition and character of the people at the helm. All the earlier movements, barring one, were initiated and led by feudals and/or mullahs who are both intrinsically anti-progress and anti-change.
 
The anti-Ayub movement was an exception. The most important party in the lead of this movement was the Awami League, a well-organised political party, having its power base in East Bengal and dominated by middle class. Owing to its class character, it was bound to succeed in securing; dissolution of One Unit, one man-one vote and, above all, Pakistan’s only free and fair elections of 1970. Though the results of these elections, giving clear majority to Awami League, were not accepted by the rulers belonging to West Pakistan in the guise of military-mullah-feudal troika, but the resulting effects this ‘mass movement’ was bound to leave were beyond their control. If the people’s mandate had been allowed to prevail, the character of Pakistani state would have changed for ever in favour of democratic forces and for the overall good of society of the whole Pakistan. The troika’s refusal to accept the vote result resulted, however, in the independence of the people of East Bengal. The remaining ‘New Pakistan’ was handed over to the second major party (the PPP) which was heavily dominated by feudals and the opposition mainly comprised religious parties. Both felt quite satisfied with the status-quo.The PNA movement of 1977 against Z.A. Bhutto was dominated by one component of the troika; the mullah, while the MRD struggle of 1980s was led by another; the feudals. With due respect to the people who sacrificed or lost their lives, both these efforts were aimed at not changing the system but becoming active partners/collaborators. And the movements (rather their leaders) achieved what was desired; the moulvis became ministers in Zia-led martial law government and PPP of Benazir Bhutto cut a deal with the army to become junior partner. It may be said that there was only a change of face at the front. The system remained unchallenged and the organs of state representing this system remained unaffected and rather became stronger.

 
This time the situation is different. In the last quarter of the past century some changes of basic nature took place in the international arena as well as within Pakistani society which includes the information revolution and an emerging and asserting middle class. Changes in the socio-economic conditions gave birth to new forces that have, in turn, taken ahead the progress of society. That is what we are witnessing in Pakistan.
 
During the last eight years, most of the political parties—particularly those calling themselves ‘federal parties’—having vested interest in the prevalent dispensation cooperate with, even desire to be co-opted by, the incumbent regime. Amongst them, the PML-N has been less eager, reasons of which we shall examine later. The vacuum thus created was filled by the lawyer community.
 
The issue of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhri was a symptom rather than the cause of the change brewing in society and immediately became the rallying point. Civil society groups like teachers, doctors, trade unions, NGOs and journalists joined the movement which met an exemplary success. The political parties who ought to be agents of change failed, before and during this movement, to mobilize the masses. The reason is simple: people have started realising that these political parties dominated mostly by feudals and clerics only serve the status-quo.
 
Another factor distinguishing the earlier movements from the current one is the role of Punjab and its capital Lahore. Punjab is considered as the ‘power base’ of Pakistani state and the city of Lahore as its heart. During the last 60 years, it was always the establishment (Civil and Military bureaucracy) vs. the ‘others’ –– Bengalis, Balochs, Sindhis or Pakhtuns. Punjab stood firmly with the backing of the establishment, so much so that Punjab and establishment became synonymous. The nationalists always alleged that the government of Pakistan was there to serve the interests of Punjab in the name of ‘national interest’.
 
This time it is different. The movement of 2007 marks the beginning of a change in the roles of different actors, corresponding to the change in ground realities. Punjab, by virtue of its domination of the state, has acquired abundance of wealth and has reached a certain stage of development where it needs democracy.
 
Democracy can grow with the growth of capitalism. In 17th and 18th centuries, Europe, by virtue of its domination of the rest of the world, was able to collect, by any means, a huge amount of resources and wealth which paved the way for the development of capitalism and emergence of bourgeoisie /middle class. And the democracy was a natural corollary.
 
There is no gainsaying the fact that during 60 years of Pakistan’s life, it is Punjab alone that has progressed at a rate much faster than other provinces. In the last 30 years, it has taken big leaps to create new ground realities which gave birth to a sizable bourgeoisie/middle class. This class now desires more rapid progress and dreams to rub shoulders with its counterparts in the developing countries. To achieve this, it needs an open society, free trade with healthy competition, even licensing and other government facilities and a free media not only within the country but in neighbouring countries also.

To have all this, it needs democracy, though limited in some senses. On the other hand, the military has, over the time, developed its own vested interest in trade, industry and financial institutions so aptly described as ‘Mil-Bus’ by Aisha Siddiqua. To maintain its monopolist status, the military needs to sustain its domination of the state and prolong its sway over society. Hence, the current clash between the ruling military and the emerging bourgeoisie/middle class of Punjab. Since the PML-N is primarily a Punjab-based party and mainly represents this rising class, therefore its role in the current movement is a little bit different from the parties of feudals and clerics (as mentioned earlier) and since Lahore is the ‘heart’ of Punjab, so this time it is the ‘epicentre’.

 
One must keep two things in mind. First, the ongoing struggle and the class leading it are in the early stage of their existence. It will take some before they mature and, in the meantime, may suffer set-backs as was evidenced during Nawaz Sharif’s high-profile return. Second, since Pakistan is a multi-national country with different nationalities having different history, culture and development stage of their societies.
 
So, here the struggle for democracy would be long and complex. Even, there is a view that national question is the biggest and foremost question of democracy.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Analysis: Hard reality as US pushes Pakistan

29 Dec


By ANNE GEARAN

The Associated Press 
Sunday, December 20, 2009

Appeared in The Washington Post

ISLAMABAD – Pakistan will not go as far as Washington wants, and there's nothing the U.S. can do about it: That's the sobering reality as the U.S. tries to persuade a hesitant Pakistan to finish off the fight against terrorists.

Expand the current assault against the Taliban? Pakistan has made clear that will happen only on its own terms. U.S. officials acknowledge that so far they haven't won the argument that militants who target America are enemies of Pakistan, too.

The U.S. has offered Pakistan $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid plus more to help Pakistan go after terrorists. The assistance is intended to help Pakistan speed up its fight not only against internal militants, but also against al-Qaida and Taliban leaders hiding near the border with Afghanistan.

Pakistanis are deeply suspicious of America's power and motives, making it difficult for their leaders to accede to Washington's pressure in public, lest they look like U.S. puppets.

U.S. officials say that while Pakistani officials cooperate more in private, there are definite limits. The U.S. wanted Pakistan to move forces deeper into the tribal belt before winter. It didn't happen, and might not at all.

A senior U.S. diplomat hinted at a separate agreement that would allow the U.S. itself to take on some of the hidden war against Pakistan's militants.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive talks with Pakistan, the diplomat said last week that more U.S. action is expected against the Haqqani network, led by longtime resistance fighter and former U.S. ally Jalaluddin Haqqani. His network, based in the Waziristan tribal area in northwest Pakistan, reportedly has strong ties with al-Qaida and targets U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan from across the border.


The diplomat said the stepped-up U.S. action would come with Pakistani support, but would not elaborate on the potential cooperation.

Pakistani officials claim they have targeted the Haqqani leadership, albeit unsuccessfully, and will go after the network when the time is right. Some U.S. officials believe that, others don't.

Military officials say the Haqqani problem illustrates how the United States sometimes needs Pakistan more than the other way around.

The U.S. military now counts the Haqqani network as the single gravest threat to U.S. forces fighting over the border in Afghanistan, and badly wants Pakistan to push the militants from their border refuges. But the Pakistani answer seems to be that unless and until the Haqqanis threaten Pakistan, they won't be a priority.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the latest U.S. official to make the case in a visit to Pakistan's capital last week.


More than most U.S. officials, Mullen has cordial, long-standing relationships with Pakistan's generals, the strongest power base inside the country. Despite those ties, Mullen's quiet effort met with a polite noncommittal from his hosts.

Mullen advises patience and humility in dealing with Pakistan, a view not shared by some leading Republicans in Congress. Mullen said Pakistan doesn't get enough credit for the push since spring against militants in the Swat valley and South Waziristan.

"Too many people eagerly and easily criticize Pakistan for what they have not done," Mullen said Sunday, days after Pakistan's military leaders took Mullen on a tour of a reclaimed Swat.

"When I go to Swat, and look at what they did there on the military I think it's pretty extraordinary."

Most of the groups aligned against the U.S. are in North Waziristan, a tribal area not pressed hard by Pakistan's army. The only firepower directed at militants there comes from American missile-loaded drones.

Mullen told students at Pakistan's National Defense University that the U.S. is concerned about what it sees as a growing coordination among terrorist networks in and around Pakistan.

"I do not, certainly, claim that they are great friends, but they are collaborating in ways that quite frankly, scare me quite a bit," Mullen said last week.

He did not come out and say Pakistan needs to expand the fight against militants. But his point was clear.


In an exchange of letters over recent weeks, Obama asked for more cooperation and Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, pledged some additional help, U.S. officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private correspondence.

Zardari, reflecting the views of Pakistan's powerful military, said his government will move against militants that attack U.S. forces when it is able to do so, the officials said.

That leaves ample room for Pakistan's civilian leaders to pursue their own agenda – and on their own schedule.

Without additional pressure from inside Pakistan, the only other option is for the U.S. to finish the fight against terrorists on its own. But Pakistan doesn't allow outright U.S. military action on its soil.

Mullen seemed to recognize that when he told the military students that he knows the U.S. is perceived as acting in its own interests almost at any cost, so it can hardly ask others not to put their own needs first.

"Sometimes that gets lost on us," he said.

—

EDITOR'S NOTE – Anne Gearan has covered national security policy for The Associated Press since 2004.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Pakistan: Zardari Falls, Kayani Rises

27 Dec

 

This article is written by C. Raja Mohan and was originally published in  Indian Express on December 18, 2009. Raja Mohan is Henry A Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC

Whether he quits or not, President Asif Ali Zardari has been so severely weakened that he no longer poses a threat to Pakistan's permanent establishment. In fact the Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani might prefer holding a de-fanged Zardari prisoner in Islamabad's presidential palace and run the country with the pliable Yousuf Raza Gilani as the Prime Minister.

Barely two years ago a discredited Army leadership under Gen. Pervez Musharraf was forced to compromise with the civilian political leaders. Now the Army is back as the arbiter of the nation's domestic politics amidst a civilian disarray.

Kayani may in fact be better placed than his predecessor Musharraf, who had all the disadvantages of being legally responsible for running the country. Kayani, in contrast, has all the effective power in without being accountable to any one.

In many ways Pakistan's story of the last three years has been about the rise and rise of Gen. Kayani. Three years ago, Musharraf seemed so firmly in control of Pakistan. But as the judicial crisis in Pakistan unfolded from March 2007, Musharraf was forced to shed his uniform and hand over the baton to Kayani.

Although he stayed on as President, the real power had passed from Musharraf to Kayani, who was the new chief of army staff. Within a few months, Kayani nudged Musharraf to quit as President and move on.

If Zardari, who was unanimously elected President of Pakistan, thought he was all powerful, Kayani showed who owns the remote in Pakistan. Last March, it was Kayani who forced Zardari to restore Ifthikar Chaudhry, who was ousted by Musharraf as Chief Justice.

Chaudhry and his Supreme Court have now declared null and void the political deal under which the Musharraf allowed the return of Benazir Bhutto and her husband Zardari to Pakistan and contest the elections which were to return the nation to civilian rule.

Benazir, it may be recalled was assassinated upon her return to Pakistan, and Zardari took charge of the People's Party and won the elections. It did not take long for the political wheel in Pakistan to turn the full circle.

Lahore's lawyers have surely won the point on the illegality of the Musharraf-Bhutto deal, which gave special protection to Benazir and her husband from the many previous charges of corruption. But they might be losing the larger struggle for establishing the civilian primacy over the military in Pakistan, as the nation's latest experiment with democracy begins to unravel.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

The Freely Political Judiciary and the NRO Fiasco

26 Dec

 

This article has been contributed for Baaghi, by Ahmad Nadeem Gehla. Baaghi is grateful to him for a brilliant analysis.

A dictator in military uniform does not become ‘constitutional head of state’ even after getting a verdict of ‘constitutionality’ from a handpicked judiciary and approval from a rubber stamp parliament. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, clearly states that a dictator who abrogates constitution along with judges and the parliamentarians who assist him are all guilty of high treason. The institutions which assisted a dictator as well as acts carried, by default remains unconstitutional unless approved by a duly elected parliament. Even after approval from a legitimate parliament, these acts might not satisfy the constitutional demands and remain as ‘political arrangements’.

Present Chief Justice was the member of Bench which validated the unconstitutional martial of General Pervez Musharaf in judgment of Supreme Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah case. He subsequently was appointed as a Chief Justice by the same dictator.  Many of us participated in movement for restoration of Chief Justice and his reinstatement was a great landmark achieved by newborn civil society of Pakistan. Apart from the political success with his restoration as Chief Justice, his appointment as a judge of supreme Court when 11 judges refused to take oath under ‘Legal Frame Work Order (LFO)’ and subsequent oath as Chief Justice was and still remains unconstitutional, as he has yet not taken oath under constitution of Pakistan. His reinstatement at the best can be a ‘political arrangement’; it cannot be constitutional by any stretch of constitutional interpretation.

Liberal and left wing politicians in Pakistan have never been able to get justice from judiciary in Pakistan, especially when powerful military establishment remains on the opposite side. ‘Jihad Enterprise’ of notorious ‘mullah-military alliance’ closed doors for ousting dictator through political movement which  face the danger of being hijacked by religious extremist groups and turned in to civil war. We have witnessed that a dictator can stage a 12th May and suicide blasts as counter measures. The options available to politicians are of negotiations with dictators to finds a workable middle path for transition to democracy, end up in prisons without conclusion of trial by puppet judiciary or get deported and exiled.

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s return after eight years of exile from Saudi Arabia can serve as the best example of choices available to politicians. On his arrival, not a single of his supporters was able to break the security arrangements of police and reach airport to welcome their leader. His party leadership rushed to Supreme Court to get a ‘restraint order’ to prevent him being illegally deported.  He is the head of second biggest political party in country, even if he was an ordinary citizen, his detention and threat of deportation was an ‘urgent matter’ in legal terms, to be taken up by court.

Constitutional courts suspend procedures to take up such matters and there are precedents where judges passed orders on such issues in middle of night. Unfortunately the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary after being restored first time, gave it a deaf ear. Mian Nawaz Sharif remained under detention at airport for several hours and was illegally deported from his own country by a dictator. What was the remedy available to Mian Nawaz Sharif to come back once again?

National Reconciliation Ordinance was issued by dictator Pervez Musharaf and was purely a political arrangement to withdraw politically motivated cases and facilitate the return of exile leaders. Withdrawal of cases is a recognized practice around the world where any state transforms from dictatorship to democracy. However, such arrangements are recognized being the ‘middle path’ for transition towards democracy and conflict resolution. There can be nothing more absurd than judging the ‘constitutionality’ of a law signed and issued by a dictator in uniform. As the dictator, being a party in such arrangements himself does not enjoy any legitimacy, these arrangements could not satisfy the constitutional criteria.

The NRO expired month before Supreme Court took it up for a judicial review and was not available as a law, the actions taken under that law became covered by doctrine of ‘past and closed transactions’. Only in case, President had promulgated it again after first expiry of 120 days, or Parliament has passed it in to a law, it would have been open for a judicial review. However Supreme Court decided to give it a new life for another 120 days in disregard of constitution, through the order passed in the petitions on PCO of 2007 and sent it to parliament for considering and vote. The order of SC was a clear violation of constitution as no court including SC has power to extend the time for a law which has already been expired.

During lawyer’s movement, we did not grant the power of legislation to ‘Chief Justice’ otherwise we would have follower the appeal of lawyer leaders and boycotted the election. The voluntary and unconstitutional legislation by SC and later striking down its own created law is the only precedent in legal and constitutional history of civilized world. While doing so, judiciary acted as ‘Judicial Messiah’ giving life to dead laws and later judged its constitutionality. This violation is nothing short than any dictator’s violation of constitution.

We have witnessed the extreme of ‘judicial biases’ in present formation of the ‘Bench’ of Supreme Court. This is important to remember that a decision by full court of Supreme Court in cases directly filed under constitutional jurisdiction closes every door of appeal. Those aggrieved can only file their appeals before ‘divine court’ even if the judgment doesn’t meet the standards of law and constitution and is biased. If it was a case decided by a larger bench of a High Court or minority view of a bench of SC, it does make sense. Composing such a bench in order to close all doors for those who are aggrieved, especially when President of the country is focus of proceedings leaves little doubt about Supreme Court playing a ‘political game’.

More than 200 lawyers, political workers and civil society activists gave their blood in lawyer’s movement. Off course, we did not struggle for a ‘Messiah’ but an institution. Although an overwhelming majority supported the restoration of Chief Justice, they participated in elections in much greater number despite the appeal of ‘lawyer leaders’ to boycott the elections of 2007. The record turnout in elections is a clear verdict of people that they are not looking for a messiah but wanted to judge and choose their leaders.

Although judiciary around the world observes a self imposed restrain in interfering into ‘political issues’, the situation in Pakistan had been opposite. We are witnessing same thing happening once again while judiciary is busy interfering in to ‘political questions’, its own functioning has changed little even after so many sacrifices. Public perception about judiciary in ‘Transparency International’ report for 2009 has put judiciary at the seventh most corrupt institution of the country. The head of lawyer’s movement and former President of SC Bar Association has expressed his appointment stating that ‘this is not the judiciary for which we struggled’.

When judiciary or military interferes in to political issues, it puts the institution against the will of people and people do react when their will is not respected. There can be nothing more shameful for institution of judiciary that whoever it convicts by them become qualified for highest offices of the country. When a handpicked judge of Pervez Musharaf convicted Yousaf Raza Gillani, the former Speaker of National Assembly, Asif Ali Zardari, present in court told the judge, “You have made him qualify for President of Pakistan”. When Gillani, who served five years in prison while judges were dancing on tunes of Pervez Musharaf, became Prime Minister, he released these judges from detention of the same dictator.  

Let us take case of Mian Nawaz Sharif who was removed and put in prison by General Pervez Musharaf. Supreme Court, including Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary, not only validated the Martial Law but gave dictator the powers to amend the constitution. The same judiciary convicted Mian Nawaz Sharif for hijacking and corruption. On his return, people gave their verdict by giving government of biggest province of country to the party of that ‘hijacker’ and he is one of most popular leader of the country. On his initiative parliament is set to remove the changes from constitution which were introduced by Pervez Musharaf with ‘permission’ of judges.

Judiciary partnered in murder of ZA Bhutto and one of the judges who signed the verdict has confessed that it was a ‘judicial murder’. The people turned the grave of a ‘murder convict’ Bhutto, in to a shrine. Million visit his grave every year giving him a verdict of innocence and add in to shame for judges and generals. Benazir Bhutto was charged of corruption and made to rush from one court to other for years while millions marched for her chanting ‘Ya Allah Ya Rasool – Benazir Bekasoor’. People turned her death in to their own loss and even his worst rivals cried on her death, her party secured the highest vote in next elections.

Almost every provision of criminal laws was used against Asif Ali Zardari from corruption to terrorism and murderer charges. He was dragged from one court to other for eleven years while ‘judges of dictator’ sat over the trials for over a decade keeping him in a continuous imprisonment. In the first free election people put the same corrupt, terrorist and murderer in Presidential Palace with a two third majority. Even in bye elections his ticket holders won from Gilgat to Quetta. Dr. Ayesha Siddiqua, one of the supporter of restoration movement has expressed that ‘judgment will strengthen the military establishment and undermine democracy and weaken President’.

 Despite observing the restraint from interfering in to a political arrangement, while declaring NRO as unconstitutional, judiciary has once again decided to reopen these cases even after same exercise in futility for a decade. Each of such interference has historically proved another blow to already deteriorating institution.  Amazingly, Supreme Court ignored to pass any order against the ‘judges’ who did not conclud cases against President Zardari for a decade just to please a dictator and got favors in return. Asima Jahangir, UN Reporter for Human Rights and top supporter of judiciary restoration movement has declared the judgment to be delivered by a ‘jirga’ rather than a court of law.

Judicial activism can be a blessing and every sane person will support if courts take up issues of public interest. Unfortunately in Pakistan the trend is reverse; courts interfere in to popular and political issues while matters of public interest are pushed under the carpet. The politicians have been always a soft target for ‘dispensation of justice’ while mighty generals and judges all remain holy cows. While politicians get ‘speedy justice’, the case filed by Air Marshal Asghar Khan against the generals for misuses of public funds to form notorious right wing alliance IJI is pending in Supreme Court for twelve year without a verdict. In Asima Jahangir’s words, the order is ‘targeted justice’.

Supreme Court also announced in it short order to ‘judge’ all politicians under controversial Article 227 of Constitution which was inserted by a dictator to disqualify the liberal politicians. The law requires all politicians to be ‘righteous’ and is under review of parliamentary committee for striking down the constitutional classes inserted by a dictator. The dangerous power acquired by Supreme Court will give it a right to disqualify political leaders who does not offer five time prayers regularly and does not fast. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pro Taliban JI has announced to ‘implement’ SC judgments through street power and SC has not taken any action on his statement.

Every dictatorship in Pakistan was imposed in name of ‘accountability’ and ‘good governance’ and proved to be another disaster.  People do react when someone pretending to be a ‘Messiah’, disregards their mandate and rejects their political decision. When people had a chance, they brought back the same leaders who were ousted by ‘Messiah’. This behavior is not limited to Pakistani society alone, people in India, Philippine, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh has reacted in similar manner. Judiciary lead government grilled politicians for two years while people voted same politicians back in government.

Corruption is a reality in developing world and particularly in Pakistani society. It can never be eradicated in one day or by once again inviting a ‘Messiah for a quick fix’. The continuation of democratic process strengthens institution and as process takes course, it eradicates corruption. Whenever an institution or a person has crossed the constitutional boundaries, it has weakened the institutions and paved ways for dictatorship.  While Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, liberal and democratic forces are strongly criticizing the judgment, ‘Pro-Taliban’ religious groups are celebrating the verdict.

The top lawyer leader and head of ‘lawyer’s movement has declared the judgment as been delivered after watching the ‘Talk Shows’ of pro Taliban private media. Many legal experts, civil society activists and human rights advocates are terming the Supreme Court’s intervention in to political decisions as revival of notorious ‘mullah-military-judges alliance’, to undermine democracy. IA Rehman, the Director of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan wrote, “The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived”.

Apart from some revolutionary verses of Habib Jalib sung by ‘Lal Band’ during lawyer’s movement, the role of Supreme Court remains limited to constitutional boundaries. In democracy, only people can ‘judge’ their representative, any unconstitutional exercise will again fail. The Supreme Court was restored with sacrifices and is built on ‘people’s blood’ and bound to respect ‘people’s will’. If Supreme Court sides with establishment and derails democratic process in dreams of acquiring the powers of ‘Judicial Messiahs’, people who struggled for its restoration will surely hold it accountable.

 

 
3 Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Pause, Sirs, and Ponder

24 Dec

This article was written by Pakistan's finest analyst, Mr. I. A. Rehman, for Dawn, published on December 24, 2009

 

The fact that in its response to the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 16 the nation is divided cannot be denied, and prudence demands that the causes of this division should not be brushed aside without careful scrutiny.

A large section of society believes that Pakistan has become a corruption-free entity and a judicially controlled democracy while a none-too-small section feels deeply hurt. Much can be said for and against both sides.

The hailers are largely guided by their desire to wipe off the shame of becoming one of the most corrupt states in the world. They appear full of zeal for righteousness. However, they will do their cause enormous harm if they fall for the universally repudiated view that the ends always justify the means. The people of Pakistan paid a heavy price for taking this route when they welcomed the usurpation of power by Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

The wailers are largely moved by the apparent setback to their group. They think the law has been used for a political purpose. They have strong memories of the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases and the judgment against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They could be wrong. However, they will do themselves enormous harm if they appear to be defending corrupt persons or practices.

Somewhere between the two extremes stand those who wish to make sure that good intentions do not lead to the dreaded hell. Some of them have a longer record of denouncing corrupt rulers and condemning the NRO than the born-yesterday anti-vice squad. They believe the NRO was a bad law, that it should not have been made, that no one claiming public support should have sought to benefit from it and that those who made this obnoxious law as well as its beneficiaries should pay for their lapses.

According to them the Supreme Court verdict has two parts: one dealing with the NRO, the other with broader themes. They have no quarrel with the first part. They only want to have their fears of the long-term implications of some of the assumptions underlying the court order duly and properly addressed.

The NRO was such an easy target that a single shot (Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the constitution) was enough to demolish it. A fusillade from heavy cannons (Articles 62 (f), 63 (i and p), 89, 175, and 227) has created problems.

The clauses of Articles 62 and 63 cited now constitute part of Ziaul Haq’s arbitrary amendments. They have never been debated by a representative assembly and have been consistently denounced by democratic opinion. It has often been said that the legislatures have not touched them. But this argument should be examined in the context of the circumstances in which the post-Zia assemblies have been elected and the conditions under which the democratic regimes have been allowed to function. Invoking Ziaul Haq’s interpolations in the 1973 constitution, whose revival in its original form is the battle cry of all democratic parties, is like quoting a PCO judge’s ruling before today’s independent judiciary.

Further, reference has again been made to the 'salient features of the constitution, i.e., independence of the judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions' and 'no change in the basic features of the constitution is possible through amendment'. The argument was last heard in May 2000 when 12 judges of the Supreme Court had not only upheld the Pervez Musharraf coup of October 1999 but also allowed him the power to amend the constitution.

Now, the debate over certain parts of a national constitution being outside parliament’s authority to amend them has been going on in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh for over 40 years (Indian Supreme Court verdicts of 1967, 1973 and 1975; Pakistan Supreme Court verdicts of 1963, 1997 and 2000). Professor Conrad, the German scholar who has done much to promote this principle, has succinctly put it thus: 'Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.'

An essential question is: are courts the sole forum for determining the basic or fundamental or salient features of a constitution? In many countries (including Canada, Germany and India) the provisions that cannot be routinely amended by parliament are identified in the constitution itself. This is an issue that calls for a thorough debate.

In any case the issue before the Supreme Court was not an amendment to the constitution that would have attracted the basic features theory. The issue before it was an ordinary presidential ordinance. And for laws and ordinances that conflict with the constitution clear remedies are available.

By invoking Article 227 in the present case the Supreme Court seems to have put Islamic injunctions in command of the whole constitution. Quite a few lawyers argue that this amounts to overruling the court’s judgments in the Hakim Khan (1992) and Kaneez Fatima (1993) cases.

The position as far as a lay writer can understand is this: the power to strike down a law for being repugnant to Islamic injunctions lies with the Federal Shariat Court and no other court. Article 227 only allows the Council of Islamic Ideology to recommend changes in laws on the ground of repugnancy to Islam. The article does not empower any forum to strike down any law. When 17 judges of the highest court invest Article 227 with the power to nullify a law it could amount to constitution-making. It is necessary to dispel the fears that the courts could start striking down any law they consider violative of Islamic injunctions.

Besides, the matter is not one of law alone, it is essentially political. The 'salient features of the constitution' theory has no answer for conflicts between these features — between a parliamentary form of government and Islamic injunctions, for instance. And what will happen to the independence of the judiciary if one accepts the view propounded by many Islamic scholars that in an Islamic order the ameer is the head of all state organs — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary?

One cannot forget the case started by Mr Kaikaus, a former Supreme Court judge, in a Shariat appellate bench but which was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on a technical ground. He appealed to the bench but withdrew his plea because he did not think the judges on it were Muslims! Mr Kaikaus had branded the parliamentary form of government, the system of elections, and the existence of political parties as un-Islamic! Fears of many such cases coming up are not groundless. The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes