I am one of those that does regularly enough watch the Morning shows on Geo TV and I must confess they do entertain me. Recently though, I understand it was to celebrate diversity and to show the hidden talents of Pakistan that Baluchis were invited as guests to the show. This was timely as there are talks recently in the political scene, whereby those speaking of an independent Baluchistan

Dear Pakistanis, Let us update you on Baluchistan. Read this carefully and slowly. Do NOT panic. InshAllah, Baluchistan is not going anywhere. The enemies and the traitors within cannot break away Baluchistan. There is a deliberate information war by the likes of SAFMA to create the hype to give this perception that Pakistan is breaking up. Stay firm and stay united. There is no power on

By Stephen Magagnini for The Sacremento Bee

KARACHI, Pakistan — On a moonlit Thursday night in February, a television network executive hosted an elegant affair for journalists and diplomats at his villa above the Arabian Sea.

Karachi’s privileged dined on lamb, shrimp, chicken, mutton and fettuccine in mushroom sauce, and were surprised by a quartet of wandering minstrels, soulful Sufi poets who serenade for their supper, uncorking ballads about love.

On the south side of this city of 18 million, a group of Afghan refugees, who scrape out a living collecting cardboard and other recyclables in a slum straddling a swamp of open sewage, were mopping up gravy with roti – Pakistani bread.

About 900 Afghans live in this fetid slum, down the street from poor Pakistanis and water buffalo. They earn about $60 a month and survive on bottled water, chewing tobacco and roti.

“We’re happy in Pakistan,” said 33-year-old Shaezhad, leader of a cardboard collection station. “We get food and respect.”

At the party across town, talk-show hosts and other Pakistani elites blew cigarette smoke into the faces of U.S. journalists, criticizing U.S. foreign policy and the toll the war in Afghanistan has taken on their country.

Many Pakistanis resent American aggression in the region and want more respect from U.S. policymakers, but they don’t hold individual Americans responsible. Yet everywhere we went, we were held to answer for U.S. wars and Americans’ deep misunderstanding of Pakistan.

“You are arrogant, playing video games with our lives,” Abdul Moiz Jaferii, political analyst for CNBC Pakistan, said over lunch one day in Karachi. He was referring to U.S. drone attacks that have killed Pakistani and Afghan civilians.

“And we hate America because the U.S. has always been the biggest, closest ally of the military dictators. You have done nothing to help democracy.”

The impact of the war in Afghanistan has permeated nearly every pore of this country of 180 million. More than 2 million Afghan refugees have fled to Pakistan, and some have brought a culture of violence. Since 9/11, 35,000 Pakistanis have been killed in terrorist attacks by suicide bombers and other war-related violence, according to Pakistan’s intelligence agency. The victims include 6,000 soldiers and 29,000 civilians.

The unpredictable violence and the kidnapping of foreign workers have created a climate of fear in this country. We weren’t allowed to visit villages outside urban areas, where 40 percent of Pakistanis live. Two shotgun-wielding security guards protected our buses in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. We entered our hotels through metal detectors and were rarely allowed to interact with average citizens in public places.

Pakistan – strategically located between Afghanistan, India, China and Iran and influenced by Saudi Arabia – remains an enigma to many Americans, who aren’t sure whether it’s friend or foe, democracy or military dictatorship.

Pakistan has provided critical support to NATO troops in the Afghan war – drones are launched from here, NATO supplies are sent through this country, and Pakistani troops have helped recapture terrorist strongholds along the volatile Afghan border.

But distrust of the United States in the wake of deadly drone attacks and the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a cross-border battle in November is such that rather than calling for more U.S. aid to build needed power plants, schools and hospitals, a growing number of Pakistanis want nothing to do with the United States. The government of Punjab – Pakistan’s most powerful state with about 90 million people – has decided to reject U.S. aid.

The killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy SEALs in Abbottabad in the heart of this country embarrassed and angered the Pakistan military and made Americans question why bin Laden was allowed to live in essentially a resort town. Some U.S. politicians have called for an end to the $18 billion in financial aid pledged since 9/11.

An Islamic republic?

Some of the world’s largest, most beautiful mosques are here, and to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday on Feb. 4, 10,000 people named Muhammad gathered in prayer in Karachi.

We saw few women wearing hijabs, or head coverings, except those at Islamabad’s Faisal Mosque, which can hold 10,000 people for Juma, or Friday prayer.

Professional women drive cars, dress like their counterparts in U.S. cities and run government ministries, clinics and newsrooms. Women, who constitute 52 percent of the population, are increasingly getting advanced degrees. There’s a Pakistani proverb: “Every girl who goes to university gets a husband.”

Despite Islam’s ban on liquor, at a party in Islamabad guests of both sexes repaired to a speakeasy in the basement to drink wine or Johnny Walker Black and smoke cigars.

Though most marriages are still arranged, as many as 20 percent are “love marriages,” said Samina Parvez, director general of the government’s external publicity agency. “The divorce rate is also increasing – it’s about 10 or 15 percent,” Parvez said. “The majority of us are not practicing Muslims.”

Kamoran Sani, sales and marketing director for the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, declared, “What you’ve heard about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s a big farce. There are orgies, voyeurs’ lounges, raves.”

A diverse nation

Pakistan didn’t become a nation until the British sliced India into Muslim and Hindu majority states in 1947. Pakistan – an Urdu acronym for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh province and Baluchistan (“stan” means nation) – varies wildly from region to region.

“There is no such thing as Pakistan,” Jaferii said. “First comes your family, then your clan, third your region, fourth your province – the nation comes a distant fifth.”

Much of rural Pakistan is a feudal society dating back to the 13th century. Mullahs, or religious leaders, still invoke blasphemy laws exacting punishment against those accused of insulting Islam. Last year, the governor of Punjab was killed by his bodyguard for criticizing the law as he sought a pardon for a Christian woman sentenced to death.

But Pakistan has tremendous religious and ethnic diversity. Muslims include Sunnis, Shiites, Ismaelis, Ahmadis and Sufis – each practicing their own brand of Islam. At Lahore University of Management Sciences, I chatted with Muslims, Hindus and Christians who were all friends.

From the Sufi love poems to Pashtun folk songs about social justice, music plays a key role in Pakistani identity.

In the center of Karachi there’s a Catholic church – St. Patrick’s Cathedral, built by the Jesuits in 1931. There’s a Jewish cemetery. Sikhs worship throughout Pakistan. The ancient city of Taxila was occupied by Alexander the Great and reflects Persian, Moghul, Buddhist and Christian traditions.

Pakistan’s future

Sixty percent of Pakistan’s population is under age 30; half is under age 20. Half the kids haven’t been to school, and fifth-grade students are reading at a second-grade level, said Nadeem ul-Haq, deputy chairman of the government’s planning commission.

“We have 2 million kids a year entering the labor force. What are these kids going to do?” ul-Haq said. There is no building boom to provide jobs, and foreign investments have been scared away by terrorism.

“Entrepreneurship is the key thing we need to focus on,” he said. “Overseas Pakistanis have been very entrepreneurial, sending back $13 billion a year to their poorer relatives.”

From 7-Elevens to Silicon Valley firms and venture capital funds, ex-pat Pakistanis are thriving in the United States. The 500,000 Pakistanis in the United States, including 100,000 in California, send $100 million a year to charities in Pakistan, said Ahson Rabbani, CEO of I-Care, which connects donors with 30 nonprofits.

In Northern California, Pakistanis raised more than $100,000 for Pakistani flood relief efforts spearheaded by cricket star Imran Khan, who may lead the country if his party wins the next election. Khan has gained credibility by building a cancer hospital for the poor in honor of his late mother. His party includes a women’s wing that has direct access to him.

Philanthropy is playing a growing role in Pakistan, financing schools in poor villages and slums. The Citizens Foundation is educating 100,000 students.

“I mentored six girls,” said Karachi journalist Samia Saleem. “One was 13 and said she didn’t want to get married – she wants to be a teacher.”

Ali Shah Haider, 17, wants to be a commercial pilot. “I sleep from 2 p.m. until 4:30 p.m., then go to work at the textile factory from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. to support my family – there are 12 of us. I do my homework between shifts.”

A nation’s dreams

Though life seems cheap in Pakistan, the people are upbeat survivors who often describe life as bo hat acha, which means “great!” in Urdu, their main language.

Last year 1,575 people were killed in Karachi, where 2 million weapons are in circulation, said Francisco Quinones of Arcis International Security. A doctor was killed in Karachi the day before we landed. Violence has been blamed on the Taliban, rival political gangs, Sunni and Shia militants, rogue security forces, and Afghan refugees.

Some refugees have been recruited by the Taliban. Others like Shaezhad, who collects recyclables in the slums of Karachi, are glad to be alive under the green and white crescent flag of this country.

Still, he wants to go home to Afghanistan. “We want our land back, we want to live with respect and we want employment.”

Azhar Abbas, the managing director of Geo TV news who hosted the party in Karachi, said that “democracy is taking hold” in his Pakistan despite the violence many here believe followed the U.S. war on terror.

The business editor of daily newspaper the News, Amir Zia, said the United States can still play a positive role in Pakistan. “If Americans pull out without getting the job done, the Islamic extremists will say it’s a victory and will become much more organized.”

But at the National Defense University, business and technology expert Bilal Munshi called Pakistan “a psychologically scarred nation suffering from a mass form of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).”

If the 4 million young people entering the workforce each year get jobs, “we will be a power … but if they don’t see a future they’re going to pick up the gun, and you’re going to be in real trouble.”

The U.S. can help develop Pakistani schools, Bilal said, “but don’t interfere in our internal affairs – let us do things our way.”

Filed under: Afghanistan, American Muslims, Democracy, England, India, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistan Cricket, Pakistani Taliban, Pakistanis, President Obama, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Tehrik-i-Taliban, terrorism, US Army, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Afghan Refugees, Afghanistan, Alexander the Great, Citizens Foundation, Geo Tv, Imran Khan, Karachi, Moghul, NATO, Overseas Pakistanis, Pakistan, Pakistani Americans, Pakistanis, Pashtun, Persian, Punjab, Sikhs, St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Taliban, Taxila, United States, Urdu, US-Pakistani relations

So, the situation of genocide of the Baloch has reached to the point where a bill has been tabled in the US which supports the ‘independence’ of Balochistan! Those fighting the Pakistani state for ‘freedom’ are looking forward to a practical response against the bill and waiting for the action in this regard.

This, however, is not a joke – a bill in the US House of Representatives does not immediately give independence to Balochistan – and may have quite severe repercussions on the land of the Baloch.

Pakistani state has always been blamed to protect on permanent basis the Punjabi interests and exploit the southern units of the ‘federation’ – Sindh and Balochistan – and has been fought back by the Sindhi and Baloch nationalists. How the Punjab started grabbing the country’s reigns was such loud that the first person to present the Pakistan Resolution in the Sindh Assembly, Saeen GM Syed, started campaigning against the exploitation of Sindh which, after the massacre of the Benglis in the then-East Pakistan resulting in the independent Bangladesh, turned into a strong movement of independence of Sindh. The slogan of Jeay Sindh turned out to be Jeay Sindhudesh referring to the proposed independent Sindh to be named, Sindhudesh.

However, in response, the Pakistani state’s infamous ISI has been in action and picking up the nationalists in both the lands, who are often found dead in the wilderness­­­ – bullet-riddled and mutilated.

Although this is an everyday story of Balochistan now, Sindh has also been witnessing such ‘kill-and-dump’ cases. Many nationalists have allegedly been abducted by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan and would be suffering in the torture cells.

In Sindh, the Jeay Sindh Muttahida Mahaz (JSMM) has been worst victim of the intelligence agencies in this regard. Although the members of the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM), one of the major Sindhi nationalist parties, Jeay Sindh Tehrik (JST) and other parties have been facing no different situation, it’s worse for JSMM because they, unlike the other parties, openly support an armed movement for the freedom of Sindh.

On such case is of Muzaffar Bhutto (Amnesty International), the vice chairman of the party, who abducted by the intelligence agencies at New Saeedabad (Sindh) while travelling with his wife and brother-in-law from Sukkur to Jamshoro. This was not the first time that Mr. Bhutto was picked up by the agencies; he had been in the agencies’ custody extra-judicially from 2006 to 2009 and suffered torture.

BBC Urdu talked to Saima Bhutto, wife of Mr. Bhutto, on her protest in front of the parliament, Islamabad; here’s the video:

Recently, Mr. Noam Chomsky, the renowned American political analyst and activist, has written a letter regarding the enforced disappearances in Sindh and Balohchistan with a special stress on the case of Mr. Bhutto.

Following is the scanned image of the letter:

Many would question the credibility of the letter since it names the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in such cases of ‘involuntary disappearance’.

For this, I contacted Mr. Chomsky on the contacts found on http://goo.gl/AjnqZ. I just wanted to make sure if the letter under discussion was ‘genuine’ and that he really felt concerned about the enforced disappearances of the Sindhi and Baloch nationalists. I wrote an email to him:

Respected Sir,

Hope this email finds you in good health- I’m ….

The purpose of writing this letter to you is to ask you for your kind confirmation whether the attached (scanned) letter is actually written by you. Since it involves the sensitive issues pertaining to the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, I need your confirmation before publishing it on my blog. I found it being shared on Facebook by some nationalists (not representatives of any Sindhi nationalist political party, though).

I hope you would be able to get a few moments to respond to the email, sir.

Thanking you in advance,

Me
Karachi, Sindh
Pakistan

(Dated: Feb 17, 2012)

I was prepared not get any response from him since he must be getting loads of emails everyday — but, to my surprise and excitement, he actually did respond to my email. I received a firm, single-line response from him:

The letter is genuine.

Noam Chomsky

(Dated: Feb 17, 2012)

Feeling confident after receiving a response from The Chomsky, I responded informing him about the worst situation of human rights violation in Sindh and Balochistan and how important it was for the world to take notice of such actions. To this, following was his response (opt not to publish my 2nd email here):

Very pleased to hear that the letter may be of some slight help in overcoming these state crimes and tragedies.  It will I’m sure be a hard struggle.

Noam Chomsky

(Dated: Feb 19, 2012)

–

Before this post, I have blogged the scanned images of the letter written by Congressman Dan Burton to the President of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. Mr. Burton has also expressed his concern over the human rights violation in the form of the enforced disappearances of Sindhi and Baloch nationalists. Read the letter here.

Tagged: Baloch, Balochistan, Enforced Disappearances, Jeay Sindh, JSMM, JSQM, JST, Missing Persons, Muzaffar Bhutto, Nationalism, Nationalist, Noam Chomsky, Sindh, Sindhi

Tuesday February 21, 2012: 

Citizens for Free and Responsible Media statement on the Media and Balochistan

To: All TV channel heads, producers and directors, newspaper editors, DG PEMRA, Minister of Information, Prime Minister Pakistan

Summary:
1. We urge the Government to facilitate dialogue by lifting curbs on the media in Balochistan.
2. We call upon the media in Pakistan to address the situation in Balochistan with sensitivity, empathy and fairness and to facilitate a civil discourse.
3. We demand a public apology from Kamran Shahid, the producers of Frontline, Express TV, Barrister Saif and APML and all channels to boycott Mr Saif until he apologises publicly for his remarks. We also urge the APML as a responsible political party to apologise for his excesses.
1. We call upon the Government to lift the curbs on the media in Balochistan and allow voices from the troubled province to reach other parts of the country.

Lift the ban on The Baloch Hal, an online publication that advocates dialogue and non-violent protest.
Direct the security agencies to stop preventing the circulation of the Urdu daily Tawar (headquartered in Karachi) in Balochistan, and to stop threatening journalists, news agents and newspaper sellers in Balochistan associated with the paper.

2. We urge Pakistan’s media to lay down clear guidelines to ensure civil discourse and discussion by active, informed moderation rather than passive presence. Inflaming discussions for commercial benefit or the persistence of a lazy editorial process is a disservice to viewers, the media house itself and in this case, the Baloch people and all of Pakistan.

In this regard, Express TV’s talk show “Frontline” of Feb 15th, 2012 hosted by Kamran Shahid, merits special mention for being inflammatory and unprofessional, by allowing, even encouraging, an abusive exchange to take place that was not only unbefitting to any respectable current affairs programme, but is also likely to fan the flames of conflict in Balochistan.

We unequivocally condemn the language used and the intent of one of the studio guests, Barrister Saif Ali Khan of the APML, as well as the irresponsible and unethical conduct of the host Kamran Shahid. Instead of moderating the highly charged, threatening and aggressive comments of Barrister Saif, Mr Shahid appeared to add his stamp of approval by suggesting that Mr Saif had raised some “valid” points. This is not the first time that Kamran Shahid has tried to discuss a serious and controversial issue with an approach which can be described as amateurish and ratings-driven at best, or incompetent and unprofessional at worst.

The fact that two other guests of the show, registered their protest and exited the discussion, suggests that Mr Saif’s comments cannot be explained away by the “heat of the moment” or justified in any way by the alleged “validity” of any points he raised.

We believe that the trouble was deliberately stirred by the host and producer by bringing a Musharraf supporter into direct conflict with Talal Bugti who is known to hold Gen. Musharraf responsible for the murder of his father Nawab Akbar Bugti. Mr Bugti’s remarks about Gen. Musharraf (as being ‘wajib-ul-qatl or ‘liable to be killed) cannot be condoned, but Mr Saif’s response was out of proportion to the unfortunate use of words by a bereaved and angry son.

We find it amazing that the Frontline producers allowed the abuse to continue, rather than cutting off the sound of Barrister Saif’s microphone when it became clear that he was going to continue his abuse. Producers can also direct the host to stop such a diatribe. Instead, the camera zoomed into the faces of the host and the abusive guest in order to highlight the conflict, a tactic that appears to be designed to boost “ratings”.

We believe that Express TV channel is a responsible part of Pakistan’s media landscape. Therefore, we expect the management to take due notice of this incident and initiate an impartial in-house inquiry which would hopefully culminate with a much required censure of the programme’s host.

3. (a) We demand a public, unconditional apology from Kamran Shahid, from the show’s producers, and from Express TV.
(Kamran Shahid’s apology on twitter needs to be made at the forum where the transgression happened, ie. Express TV, re: @FrontlineKamran: Dear All, particularly from Baluchistan- I extend my unconditional apology, if my show has hurt your sentiment- I never meant it this way.)

3. (b) We urge all channels to boycott Mr Saif until he apologises publicly for his remarks. We also urge the APML as a responsible political party to apologise for his excesses.

This unfortunate incident provides an opportunity not only for Express TV, but for the other channels, to develop editorial and production policies that ensure that the anchor is aware of his/her responsibility to the viewing public, and indeed the organization that he or she represents, particularly in cases where guests abuse or threaten individuals, groups or organizations.

The answer is not to stop raising the issue of Balochistan as suggested by Kamran Shahid’s tweet: “@FrontlineKamran: Regardless of any thing, the issue of Baluchistan will not be raised again from the platform of Front Line with Kamran Shahid”. On the contrary, we believe it is crucial now, more than ever, to raise the issues related to Balochistan, but in a sensitive and responsible manner.

We are sure that given the sensitivity surrounding the coverage, debate and discussion of issues related to Balochistan, you will appreciate our concern that programming about the region should not be marred by controversy at the expense of the issues at hand. This is critical if the heartbreaking words of Nawabzada Lashkari Raisani, known to be pro-Pakistan, are not to be proved true: ”Balochistan aap sey bohat dur nikal chuka hai” (Balochistan has gone very far from you), he said as he left the offending Frontline talk show of Feb 15, 2012.

Sincerely,

On behalf of Citizens for Free and Responsible Media (CFRM)

• Aamer Aziz Saiyid, Advocate, Sindh High Court
• Adnan Rehmat, Executive Director Intermedia Pakistan
• Ahmad Rafay Alam, Advocate, Lahore
• Ali Abbas, Freelance journalist and Researcher at Pak Institute for Peace Studies, Islamabad
• Ali Kazmi, Student, Islamabad
• Ali Mustafa, Journalist, Toronto, ON, Canada
• Ali Taj, Hedge Fund Manager Newport Beach California
• Ammar Yasir – Engineer, Technology Writer
• Asadullah Khan Broadcast Journalist. Pakistan
• Ateek UrRehman, Peace Activist, Karachi, Pakistan
• Dr. Awab Alvi, Dentist & Social Media Activist, Karachi
• Beena Sarwar, journalist, Cambridge MA/Karachi, Pakistan
• Farhat Rabia – Customer Care Professional /Trainer- Karachi
• Dr. Fatima Afridi, Physician, U.K.
• Hadi Hussain, Social Researcher/ Educationist/Activist, Lahore
• Hira Kamal Shah, Media person and Women Empowerment activist, Jeddah KSA
• Hussein El-Edroos Manager Business Development & Training, Islamabad
• Ibrahim Sajid Malick Technologist, blogger, New York
• Ilmana Fasih, Gynecologist, Health Activist, Blogger, Mississauga ON,
• Canada/Karachi, Pakistan
• Javed Ahmed Qazi, lawyer, columnist and anchor, Karachi
• Dr. Kamran Iqbal. Social Entrepreneur, Karachi
• Kiran Nazish, Independent Journalist, Pakistan
• Khusro Mumtaz, Banker/Columnist, Karachi
• Maheen Usmani, concerned Pakistani citizen
• Meera Ghani, concerned citizen, Pakistan
• Mehreen Kasana. Student, blogger, cultural/social commentator
• Mohsin Sayeed, journalist, Karachi
• Muhammad Aftab Alam, media lawyer, Executive Director, Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRADA), Islamabad Pakistan
• Munnazir Aziz, Lodhran, Blogger/video producer
• Nabiha Meher Shaikh, teacher & writer, Lahore
• Nadia Fazal Jamil, Actor/Educationist/Anchor/Pakistan
• Nadir El-Edroos, Teacher & Blogger, London
• Naziha Syed Ali, Journalist, Karachi
• Nighat Dad, Lawyer, Lahore
• Noman Quadri, concerned citizen, Karachi
• Raza Bashir, Corporate Banking, Karachi
• Saba Hamid, actor, lahore
• Saadia Toor, Associate Professor, City University of New York
• Sadaf Baig, Projects Coordinator, Intermedia Pakistan
• Sahar Habib Ghazi, Journalist, USA/Pakistan
• Shah Hayat Ahmad, Insurance Broker, Karachi, Pakistan
• Susan Marie, Journalist, Radio Producer, UNV, NY
• Syed Ali Abbas Zaidi Activist, founder Pakistan Youth Alliance; Islamabad/Lahore

Do NOT panic. InshAllah, Baluchistan is not going anywhere. The enemies and the traitors within cannot break away Baluchistan. There is a deliberate information war by the likes of SAFMA to create the hype to give this perception that Pakistan is breaking up. Stay firm and stay united.

 There is no power on earth which can undo Pakistan, InshAllah.

Baluchistan is 42 % of Pakistan territory.

By Raza Habib Raja

A few weeks ago I wrote a detailed piece on the reasons as to why democracy in Pakistan and its neighboring India has taken such divergent paths. In my opinion the reasons have to do with history of independence movement, early years after independence, image of the army in both the countries and also the attitude of middleclass in both the countries.

In any society, particularly a modern democratic society, middleclass provides a critical as well as decisive mass. Moreover it’s an extremely important contributor to intelligentsia, media and services sector, particularly critical services such as bureaucracy and armed forces. In our side of the world, the middleclass particularly urban middleclass, eventually is the major determinant of the dominant opinion and even the official policy.  This influence is not merely through electorate (where they are always numerically less strong), but through other institutions such as army, judiciary, media and civil bureaucracy as well.

In my opinion, the so called “public” support of army (or at least encouragement of fixing “corrupt” politicians by interfering in the political affairs of the country) is coming from this class.

Of course the liberal (assuming that they exist) oppose this and try to present a case for democracy but at the same time “defense” from the liberal quarters does not go beyond name calling and allegations. For example a typical response would be to brand middleclass as bigoted and authoritarian with naïve understanding of geopolitical culture. Moreover, standard references to disrespect of “unwashed’ masses would be made. And of course this is supplemented by terms like drawing room gossip, reactionary , chattering classes etc.

Defense of democracy has to be realistic and not based on lauding passionate speeches about unwashed masses particularly when politicians apparently care little
themselves about the masses. The central thrust should be to present first a convincing case as to why democracy is a better option compared to armed dictatorship and frankly a very strong case based on historical evidence exists. despite chequered history of democratic regimes. And yes admit the shortcomings of the politicians also as weaknesses of politicians are not necessarily weaknesses of the entire political system.

Spinning facts to absolve politicians of their follies is not the way. Simply assuming that everyone is just bigoted or plagued by bias is also a form of denial. And interpreting everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment mirrors the general mindset of the Pakistanis who have developed this habit to see everything through the conspiracy paradigm.

That brings us to a related question: does the middleclass hate democracy? The answer cannot be a definite yes because it’s the some apparent outcomes of the democracy in our part of the world which it detests. It does have concerns which periodically surface when democratic rule is again given a chance. One cannot conveniently dismiss every concern by branding it as reactionary or a manifestation of deep rooted insecurity about losing privileges the status quo offers. One can blame armed forces for harboring such insecurities but not the entire middleclass.

For the doubters let me remind that when elections of 2008 took place there was a severe hatred against army and it was expressed by the SAME middleclass. In fact so much so that General Kayani immediately upon assuming command as CNC had to withdraw army officials from various civilian posts. At that time even Zardari had a favorable impression and in fact several polls were revealing that by and large public was in the process of reevaluating their opinion about him. So the notion that middleclass simply hates him for the sake of hating is slightly exaggerated. There is more towards the current surge of hatred against the President.

So then what are the reasons?

In Pakistan, democratic regimes have been short on providing stability. One thing this class really loves is stability which too some extent is an outcome of its pro status quo orientation. Democracy in the developing countries, particularly if it’s not “regulated” tends to bring chaos as coalition building and consensus formation process does not develop quickly. Consequently the romantic love for a strong ruler intensifies each time the politicians indulge in destabilizing and chaotic practices when given a chance. It’s a small wonder that whenever army has intervened directly, there has been a sigh of relief from the middleclass.And historically armed forces have intervened when political chaos was reigning supreme.

However the most persuasive and unfortunately convincing argument is about the quality of governance. The executive has often overstepped its authority and has used mandate as a justification for anything from nepotism to controversial allocations of contracts. Moreover, the justification is also supplemented by the argument that if people do not approve of these “steps”, they will remove the government in the next elections. These repeated acts which use explicit justification of a public mandate, has at times alienated middleclass from the notion of democracy itself. Moreover, one has to understand the some of the interventions (though not all) by the armed forces were actually an outcome of the chaotic situation the politicians had brought.

Obviously the arguments against democracy by this class also constitutes anti feudal sentiments. It is often pointed out that the representatives of the people are actually feudal lords who come to the power through votes and in this way the feudalism is further strengthened. In fact according to some elements of the middleclass, democracy is even more problematic as it creates an umbrella of legitimacy due to mandate.

But then questions arise as to what has given rise to the above issues.

One of the major problems in Pakistan is that it still is an agriculture based society with a strong social patriarchal structure which thrives on contact building. Now this contact building and largely obliging culture comes into full play when political class is in power. People who have voted EXPECT to be given a share in the governance and this in turn has given rise to out of merit job allocations and contracts.

Expecting favours is culturally deep rooted and democracy merely facilitates it as the ruling class is accountable to the voting public. This practice of obliging of course seriously undermines quality of governance. The apparent advantage that Middleclass sees in the military establishments is that these are apparently insulated from such kind of pressures. Moreover majority of the people while growing up have seen military a shade away from normal civilian life even during the martial laws. The disciplined look, insulated from public pressure creates this strong impression that military won’t be obliging the way Politicians are.

Secondly it has to be realized that Parliamentary democracy has evolved in the industrial societies and is functionally geared to address the needs of that kind of society. Western model of universal suffrage also presupposes educated and informed electorate,established social voluntary structures like unions, associations, mature and responsible media and above all a strong tradition of constitutional liberalism which is underpinned by independent courts, separation of powers and strong emphasis on individual liberty.

In the Western world these features evolved before the advent of universal suffrage. Farid Zakria’s excellent book titled as “future of freedom” chronicles the development of constitutional liberalism in various countries of Europe and argues that such development needs to precede democracy for it to be stable, sustainable, and for ensuring that governments remain accountable in every respect. Zakria argues giving historical examples that voters alone cannot make the government accountable without a strongly entrenched tradition of constitutional liberalism.

In fact historically countries where democracy arrived before these traditions have fallen victim to chaos and eventually despotic rule by some strong man. Chaos, if developed would naturally be countered by establishing authority and unquestionable subservience which normally comes with military rule. That of course does not justify Military rule but provides a reason as to why it often takes place and why some people are obsessed with it.

Another issue which has to be kept in mind is that democracy would need independent institutions like Judiciary and Media no matter how “reactionary” these are to ensure that it remains on track. And these institutions do not automatically develop through voting process. The notion which has often proven irrelevant in a country like Pakistan is that voters alone can provide the necessary accountability. This unfortunately is not even true for developed countries. First of all mandate does not necessarily reflect complete will of the people due to principal agent problem and moreover vote received in an election does not necessarily validate every step taken by the Government during its reign. Voters eventually appraise the OVERALL PERFORMANCE of a party, not every step. So therefore claims that if voters do not approve of a particular controversial step, they will vote the party out in the next elections is not a valid argument. For democracy to be effective strong and INDEPENDENT institutions, even if they are “reactionary’ are needed!! Due to this factor, there is a legitimate rationale for judiciary and media to keep a check on the government during the interim period.Independence of these institutions is a prerequisite on these grounds.

And So what is the way out?

First the convincing has to explicitly RECOGINIZE these problems and liberal intelligentsia has to support independent institutions and check and balances. Yes it includes this vulgar media also!! Sorry but even if it is vulgar, it is needed!!And yes STOP defending political class when it merits condemnation and please stop interpreting criticism as merely “reactionary”. Trying to defend incompetence through spinning factual position and branding everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment will not do. If anything it further insulates the political class from political discipline and questions the credibility of the liberals themselves.

For democracy a culture of accountability has to be there and that culture may even at times evolve through excessive lynching (provided that does not result in army’s intervention!) phase into more mature criticism. Yes at times media is unfair but it is OK if it points to nepotism and poor governance. The argument which should be given is that we should stick with democracy but also strive to cultivate a culture of accountability and strong institutions.

What the stability obsessed crowd should be made to understand is that the solution is not replacing democracy with autocratic rule or judicial rule but by ensuring the mechanism which ensures that chaos does not develop and governments do not become excessive in their conduct. Democracy may not be a perfect system but a modern and
ethnically diverse state needs it. The central thrust has to be on recognizing where democracy is faltering and how to ensure that those areas are strengthened.

Second and the most important argument is ethnic fabric of our country. What is often overlooked by critics of democracy is that for an ethnically diverse country such as Pakistan, lack of democracy will be catastrophic and in fact historically every dictatorship has resulted in increased feeling of marginalization. Democracy is the only workable framework in a modern industrial society which can tap diverse voices and ensure integrity of the state through preservation of diversity through negotiation and renegotiation. Just simple analysis in chronological order can prove the point that after each dictatorship the feeling of depravity and anger has increased. Bangladesh and bloody 1971 episode owed a lot due to lack of consensus building which only democracy could have ensured. Ayub era despite apparent high growth rates delivered a broken Pakistan.

Zia regime instilled hatred in Sindh and Mushrraf a lot of hatred in Baluchistan. An ethnically diverse and now charged up country cannot exist without democracy. Democracy may have proven short on quality governance (for that matter so has dictatorship) but it is the only workable way to ensure that diverse voices are heard and their concerns are properly incorporated in the policy framework.

Third people have to be reminded that every military dictator’s regime ended with some kind of public protest which actually went too long because the dictator was not politically feeling the heat the way a political government would. They even went on suspending courts! Protests went on and eventually far more frustration was felt and of course when the dictatorship ended Pakistan was in a more miserable state.

Fourth, while Military regimes may have provided a façade of stability, there is nothing to support that military dictatorships fared any better in financial corruption. And moreover
systematically the resources were transferred to bolster the army schemes and industries. Of course due to censorship most of the corruption scandals never came to light. It is a fallacy that only politicians are corrupt.

We need to win the battle of minds and address skepticism through concrete, rational and factual defense of democracy. We need to reinforce an obvious truth that a modern industrial society which is so complex needs democracy and the solution is to push for better governance within democracy not substituting it with dictatorship or even through army’s proxies (known as indirect rule).

by Saad Hafiz
The Supreme Court (SC) has decided to indict Prime Minister Gilani for contempt of court for his refusal to write a letter to the Swiss authorities asking them to restore corruption cases against President Zardari in that country.  The contempt proceedings against PM Gilani stem from an earlier SC ruling which threw out the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in 2009.

The NRO issued by the former President General Musharraf in 2007 granted amnesty to politicians including President Zardari, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between January 1, 1986, and October 12, 1999, the time between two states of martial law in Pakistan.  The NRO, which erased twenty years worth of corruption charges in one sweep, can be best described as a licence to steal and keep your ill-gotten gain without fear of the law.  If the SC judgment in the contempt case is intended to prod the government to implement the NRO judgment, it can only set a good precedent in the fight against official corruption.

Regardless of political affiliations, the normal reaction to the SC verdict in the PM case should have been focused on the fact that corruption is a very serious matter, which should not be allowed to be brushed under the carpet.  The law must take its course and the PM can seek redress through the appeals process and hurrah to the people as the independent judiciary is alive and well.  One can wholeheartedly agree with Mahatma Gandhi’s quote: “corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.”

As expected, the reaction to the SC verdict is being played along party lines.  Opponents strongly feel that the government has been playing games with the apex court for far too long by not implementing the SC judgments for over two years and that the PM and other ministers deserve to be punished accordingly.  An overly emotional reaction to the Court’s judgment saluted the honorable Judges for upholding the dignity and honor of tSupreme he judiciary and suggested that the judge’s names will be written in golden words in the history books.

Some political commentators and government supporters look at the judgment from different perspective, suggesting that a rickety democratic government presented a soft target for the court.  They see the recent verdict by the SC as a selective judgment, which does not account for other possible contempt cases beyond just official corruption.  These cases include those involving the country’s intelligence agencies involved in disappearance of thousand of persons particularly in Baluchistan.  Human Rights Watch in its 2011 report titled, ‘We can Torture, Kill, or Keep you for Years’, suggests that the SC’s approach to enforced disappearance cases in Pakistan has been to focus on establishing the whereabouts of the missing individuals while being reluctant to press for accountability of security forces and government agencies.

It is probably an understatement to suggest that past SC judgments have not helped the cause of democracy and the rule of law in the country. The following examples come to mind. In 1954, the otherwise brilliant Chief Justice Munir invoked the ‘doctrine of necessity’, validating the dissolution of Pakistan’s first constituent assembly, which many feel set the precedent for future authoritarian intervention the country.  To his credit, Justice Munir also wrote a thought-provoking book, From Jinnah to Zia, arguing that Mr. Jinnah stood for a tolerant and secular state where Muslims and non-Muslims had equal rights.

Later, Chief Justice CJ Anwarul Haq is ‘ill-famed’ for giving gave legitimacy to General Zia’s martial law and for upholding the decision of the Lahore High Court, which sentenced Mr ZA Bhutto to death for conspiring in the murder of a political opponent.  Ironically, unlike incumbent Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Justice Anwarul Haq became the first Justice and perhaps only chief justice to refuse taking the oath under the military imposed PCO and resigned on conscientious grounds in 1981.

Beyond the cases of the ‘disappeared’, the security establishment has always escaped accountability for causing great harm to country by fighting and losing needless wars, pursuing flawed national security policies and more recently for their incompetence in the bin Laden and Mehran episodes. It is not unreasonable to hope that the SC will show an even handed approach in dealing with an elected government and other powerful institutions like the armed forces who are in effect a law unto themselves.

He had no doubt of  his place in literary history and left behind the following epitaph for himself: “Here lies Saadat Hasan Manto. With him lie buried the arts of short-story telling. Here he lies underneath tons of mud still wondering if he was a better short-story writer than God.”

Saadat Hasan Manto died in Lahore in 1955. He was forty-three years old. The life of  one of our greatest short-story writers had been prematurely truncated. I was eleven years old at the time. I never met him. I wish I had. One can visualise him easily enough. In later photographs the melancholy is visible. He appears exhausted as if his heart were entrenched with sadness. In these his face displays all the consequences of a ravaged liver. But there are others. Here his eyes sparkle with intelligence, the impudence almost bursting through the thick glass of his 1940’s spectacles, mocking the custodians of morality, the practitioners of confessional politics or the commissariat of the Progressive Writers. ‘Do your worst’, he appears to be telling them. ‘I don’t care. I will write to please myself. Not you.’   Manto’s battles with the literary establishment of his time became a central feature of his biography. Charged with obscenity and brought to trial on a number of occasions he remained defiant and unapologetic.

It was the Partition of India in 1947 along religious lines formed his own attitudes and those of his numerous detractors. The episodes associated with the senseless carnage that accompanied the withdrawal of the British from India loom large in Manto’s short stories. A few words of  necessary explanation might help the reader to understand the corrosive impact of  Manto on the reading public.

The horrors of 1947 were well known, but few liked to talk about them. A collective trauma appeared to have silenced most people. Not Manto. In his stories of that period he recovered the dignity of all the victims without fear or favour. Even the perpetrators of crimes were victims of a political process that had gone out of control.

In these bad times when the fashion is to worship accomplished facts real history tends to be treated as an irritant, something to be swatted out of existence like mosquitoes in summer, it is worth recalling that something terrible happened fifty years ago today when India was divided.  It is time to recognise it and see if it can be understood and transcended. The survivors owe it to those who perished. At least a million men, women and children lost their lives during the carnage of ‘ethnic cleansing’ that overcame Northern and Eastern India as the Punjab and Bengal were divided along religious lines.

In the months that preceded Partition,  Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other glared into each other’s hate-filled eyes before embarking on  frenzied blood-baths. The character and scale of the butchery was unprecedented in Indian history. In fact even Jinnah, as late as June 1946, was prepared to consider a federal solution as proposed by the Cabinet Mission sent to India by the Labour Government. It was the Congress Party which made that particular solution impossible.

This failure meant that exactly one year before Partition, the Hindu-Muslim riots started in Eastern India. During four days in August 1946, nearly 5000 people were killed and three times that number wounded in Bengal. The mood in the Punjab became edgy. Fear overcame rationality.

My mother, an active member of the Communist Party, often recalls how in April 1947, heavily pregnant with my sister and alone at home, she was disturbed by a loud knock on the front door. As she opened the door  she was overcome by anxiety. In front of her stood the giant figure of a Sikh. He saw the fear on her face, understood and spoke in a soft, reassuring voice. All he wanted to know was the location of a particular house on a nearby road. My mother gave him the directions. He thanked her warmly and left. She was overpowered by shame. How could she, of all people, without a trace of prejudice, have reacted in that fashion. Nor was she the  only one. Manto’s stories help us to understand the madness that grippped [everyone].

Trains became moving graveyards as they arrived at stations on both sides of the new divide, packed with corpses of fleeing refugees. As always, it was  the poor of town and country who were the main victims and they were buried or burnt in  hastily dug pits. Neither the song of the nightingale nor lamps or flowers would ever grace their graves. They are the forgotten victims of that year. No memorial in India or Pakistan marks the killings. The Partition of India was a tragedy and a crime. It was neither inevitable nor necessary and  its traces are only too visible in the unending anguish of the great  sub-continent. Faiz Ahmed Faiz,  one of the greatest of 20th century Urdu poets,  born in what  became Pakistan, spoke for many  in his poem Freedom’s Dawn on August ‘47:

This leprous daybreak, dawn night’s fangs have mangled—
This is not that long -looked-for break of day,
Not that clear dawn in quest of which those comrades
Set out, believing that in heaven’s wide void
Somewhere must be the star’s last halting place,
Somewhere the verge of night’s slow-washing tide,
Somewhere an anchorage for the ship of heartache.

But now, word goes, the birth of day from darkness
Is finished, wandering feet stand at their goal;
Our leaders’ ways are altering, festive looks
Are all the fashion, discontent reproved;–
And yet this physic still on unslaked eye
Or heart fevered by severance works no cure.
Where did that fine breeze, that the wayside lamp
Has not once felt, blow from—where has it fled?
Night’s heaviness is unlessened still, the hour
Of mind and spirit’s ransom has not struck;
Let us go on, our goal is not reached yet.

A year later, another poet Sahir Ludhianvi, who crossed the border and came to Pakistan could not bear the atmosphere and returned to India. He sent an explanation in the form of a dirge addressed to fellow-writers in Pakistan:

Friends, for long years
I have spun dreams of the moon and stars and spring for you,
Today my tattered garments hold nothing
But the dust of the road that we have travelled.
The music in my harp has been strangled
Its tunes buried by wails and screams
Peace and civilization are the alms I crave
So that my lips can learn how to sing again.

Saadat Hasan Manto, was moved to write ‘Toba Tek Singh’. Manto wrote sparsely, each word carefully chosen. His diamond-hard prose was in polar contrast to the flowery language of many  contemporaries. He wrote about sexual frustration and its consequences, of jealousy and how it often led to murder. One of his stories, ‘Behind the Screen’, describes a wife’s revenge once she discovers her husband has a secret mistress. The wife takes the husband to his lover’s apartment and in his presence has her body chopped into tiny pieces. The story was based on an accrual event that took place in the North West Frontier Province, bordering Afghanistan. Manto spared his readers the real life ending: the wife had her rival’s flesh cooked and forced her husband to eat the cooked flesh, a striking demonstration of the saying that truth is stranger than fiction (1).

‘Toba Tek Singh’  is a masterpiece set in the lunatic asylum in Lahore at the time of Partition.  When whole cities are being ethnically cleansed, how can the asylums escape? The Hindu and Sikh lunatics are told by bureaucrats organising the transfer of power that they will be forcibly transferred to  institutions in India.  The inmates rebel. They embrace each other and weep. They will not be parted willingly. They have to be forced on to the trucks. One of them, a Sikh, is so overcome by rage that he dies on the demarcation line which divides Pakistan from India. Confronted by so much insanity in the real world, Manto discovered normality in the asylum. The ‘lunatics’ have a better understanding of the crime that is being perpetrated than the politicians who have agreed to Partition.

Few politicians on either side had foreseen the results. Jawaharlal Nehru’s romantic nationalism portrayed independence as a long-delayed “tryst with destiny”. He never imagined that the tryst would be bathed in countless gallons of Indian blood. This was partially the result of a failure by the Congress High Command to make the large Muslim minority an offer it could not refuse.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was a second-rate politician, but with a first-class lawyer’s brain. Initially he had used separatism as a bargaining ploy. Even later, he genuinely believed that the new state would simply be a smaller version of secular India, with one difference. Here Muslims would be the largest community. He really believed that he would still be able to spend some time every winter at his mansion in Bombay, the only city where he had found love and happiness.

Jinnah conceived of Pakistan as an amalgamation of an undivided Punjab, an undivided Bengal together with Sind, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province. This would have meant that forty percent of the Punjab would have consisted of Hindus and Sikhs and forty-nine percent of Bengal would have consisted of Hindus. It was, alas, a utopian nonsense. Once confessional passions had been aroused and neighbours were massacring each other (as in the former Yugoslavia during the last decade of the 20th century) it was difficult to keep the two provinces united.
“I do not care how little you give me,” Jinnah is reported as saying in March 1947 to the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, “as long as you give it to me completely.”

A dying old man in a hurry, who could have been a willing collaborator in establishing a single state with important safeguards for the minority, had the Congress been capable of strategic insights, but now he wanted his own statelet, however small and awkward it might appear on the map.
India had come a long way in 1947. All previous rulers had attempted to govern with the consent of the ruling elites of whatever religion. The Mughal Emperors, themselves Muslims, had learnt this lesson very quickly and Akbar had unsuccessfully attempted to create a new religion synthesising Hinduism and Islam. Even the last of the great Mughals, the religious-minded Aurungzeb did not attempt any Islamisation of his army:  his ablest Generals were Hindu chiefs!

The British, when confronted with the nightmare of actually governing India, realised that, despite their more advanced technology, they would not last too long without serious alliances. They could only govern India with the consent of its traditional rulers.  The raj was maintained by a very tiny British presence: in 1805 the pink-cheeked conquerors numbered 31,000; in 1911 they had grown to 164,000 and in 1931 there were 168,000. In other words the British in India never comprised more than 0.05 of the local population.

It was this fact that concentrated the finest minds of the raj on politics and strategy. The civil servants trained by Haileybury and other imperialist nurseries in Britain to govern a mighty sub-continent were political administrators, often of the highest order. They learned to speak Urdu and Bengali so that they could, when necessary, communicate directly with peasants and administer justice. They also learned how to divide local rulers from each other and how to fan religious prejudices. The birth of modern Sikhism and Hinduism owes a great deal to the British presence in India. In return, local potentates were permitted to learn English and taught the etiquette of nibbling cucumber sandwiches with His Excellency at Government House.

If the British had granted India self-government on the Canadian and Australian pattern after the First World War it is unlikely that the sub-continent would have been divided. Partition was not a planned conspiracy by either the British or Jinnah. It came about because of a combination of circumstance during the Forties, including the Second World War. Jinnah backed the war effort, the Congress demanded Independence. Some scores had to be settled. Pakistan was imperialism’s rap on the knuckle for Indian nationalism.

Nehru and Jinnah were both shaken by the orgy of barbarism. It offended all their instincts.  But it was Mahatama Gandhi who paid the ultimate price. For defending the right to live of innocent Muslims in post-Partition India he was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a fundamentalist Hindu fanatic. Godse was hanged, but two decades later, Godse’s brother told Channel Four that he regretted nothing. What happened had to happen.
That past now rots in the present and threatens to further poison the future.  The political heirs of the hanged Godse are shoving aside the children of Nehru and Gandhi. The poisonous fog of the religious world has enveloped politics. History, unlike the poets and writers of the sub-continent, is not usually prone to sentiment.

Partition was a disaster, adjacent to which there lurked another. The two parts of Pakistan were divided by a thousand miles of India, culture, language and political tradition. The predominantly Punjabi military-bureaucratic elite belonged to West Pakistan, while the Bengali majority of the population (60%) lived in East Pakistan. The refusal of the military rulers to permit democracy led to a successful uprising in 1968. A dictator was toppled. In the elections that followed the Bengalis of East Pakistan won a big majority. They were not permitted to take office. The Army invaded the Eastern part of its own country.  There was a massacre of intellectuals and mass rape (Punjabi soldiers had been told to ‘change the genes’ of Bengalis forever) followed by a civil war. Bangladesh was born. One partition had led to another.

India, too, was severely damaged by Partition. The Nehru years (1947-64) disguised the processes underneath, but now the Furies are out into the open. Bombay, once the centre of cosmopolitanism is now Mumbai and under the sway of a neo-fascist Hindu organisation. In their absurd search for a new Indian identity, the scoundrel parties have re-discovered Hinduism and sections of the ‘secular’ Congress have fallen into line.  Communal riots have claimed tens of thousands of lives over the last fifty years.

Manto was amongst the few who observed the bloodbaths of Partition with a detached eye.  He had remained in Bombay in 1947, where he worked for the film industry, but was accused of  favouring Muslims and was subjected to endless communal taunts, even from those who had hitherto imagined to be like him, but the secular core in many people did not survive the fire.  Manto came to Lahore in 1948, but was never happy. He turned the tragedies he had witness or heard into great literature. He wrote of the common people, regardless of ethnic, religious or caste identities and he discovered contradictions and passions and irrationality in each of them. In his work we see how normally decent people can, in extreme conditions, commit the most appalling atrocities. ‘Cold Meat’ is one such story. In 1952 he wrote: “My heart is heavy with grief today. A strange listlessness has enveloped me. More than four years ago when I said farewell to my other home, Bombay, I experienced the same kind of sadness…”

Years later he was still trying to come to grips with what had happened:

“Still, what my mind could not resolve was the question: what country did we belong to now, India or Pakistan? And whose blood was it that was being so mercilessly shed every day? And the bones of the dead, stripped of the flesh of religion, were they being burned or buried? Now that we were free who was to be our subject? When we were not free, we used to dream about freedom. Now that freedom had come, how would we perceive our past state?

“The question was: were we really free? Both Hindus and Muslims were being massacred. Why were they being massacred? There were different answers to the question; the Indian answer, the Pakistani answer, the British answer. Every question had an answer, but when you tried to unravel the truth, you were left groping.

“Everyone seemed to be regressing. Only death and carnage seemed to be proceeding ahead. A terrible chapter of blood and tears was being added to history, a chapter without precedent.

“India was free. Pakistan was free from the moment of its birth, but in both states, man’s enslavement continued: by prejudice, by religious fanaticism, by savagery.”

In a series of Open Letters to Uncle Sam he marked his displeasure at the state of world politics and Pakistan’s Security Pact with the US. Hedisplayed a remarkable prescience as expressed in this extract from his ‘Third Letter to uncle Sam’, written shortly before his death:

“Another thing I would want from you would be a tiny, teeny weeny atom bomb because for long I have wished to perform a certain good deed. You will naturally want to know what.

You have done many good deeds yourself and continue to do them. You decimated Hiroshima, you turned Nagasaki into smoke and dust and you caused several thousand children to be born in Japan. Each to his own. All I want you to do is to dispatch me some dry cleaners. It is like this. Out there, many Mullah types after urinating pick up a stone and with one hand inside their untied shalwar, use the stone to absorb the after-drops of urine as they resume their walk. This they do in full public view. All I want is that the moment such a person appears, I should be able to pull out that atom bomb you will send me and lob it at the Mullah so that he turns into smoke along with the stone he was holding.

As for your military pact with us, it is remarkable and should be maintained. You should sign something similar with India. Sell all your old condemned arms to the two of us, the ones you used in the last war. This junk will thus be off your hands and your armament factories will no longer remain idle.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is a Kashmiri, so you should send him a gun which should go off when it is placed in the sun. I am a Kashmiri too, but a Muslim which is why I have asked for a tiny atom bomb for myself.

One more thing. We can’t seem able to draft a constitution. Do kindly ship us some experts because while a nation can manage without a national anthem, it cannot do without a constitution, unless such is your wish.

One more thing. As soon as you get this letter, send me a shipload of American matchsticks. The matchsticks manufactured here have to be lit with the help of Iranian-made matchsticks. And after you have used half the box, the rest are unusable unless you take help from matches made in Russia which behave more like firecrackers than matches.”

Given the circumstances it is hardly surprising that he sought solace in alcohol and drank himself to death. He had written over 200 short stories and had no doubt of  his place in literary history and left behind the following epitaph for himself:

“Here lies Saadat Hasan Manto. With him lie buried the arts of short-story telling. Here he lies underneath tons of mud still wondering if he was a better short-story writer than God.”

Notes:

Khalid Hasan, ‘Sadat Hasan Manto: Not of Blessed Memory’, Annual of Urdu Studies, 4, 1984, P.85

(From Viewpoint Online)

© 2012, Tariq Ali. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.

Raza Habib Raja

Imran Khan has been generating a lot of buzz lately and consequently a lot has been written about him in the print media and covered in the electronic media. And add to it the social media, where Imran dominates more than anyone else.

Completely in line with our emotional character, the rise of Imran Khan has been accompanied with a strange type of polarization where at one end he is hailed as a Messiah and on the other end he is being called a Taliban Khan, an Establishment tout or someone who is completely naïve.

I have seen extraordinary reverence of Imran by some of his internet “jiyalas” who refuse to listen to any criticism on Imran. They get defensive, emotional and even abusive when someone points or even raises a question. Of course not every one of his supporters is like that.

The fact Mr Khan has no real plan somehow or the other does not matter to his hero worshipping supporters. The fact, that Mr Khan has dubious links with the military and intelligence apparatus also does not matter. The fact that Mr. Khan projects misplaced hyper patriotism  and the fact that Mr. Khan has filled his party with all turncoats also does not matter. Above all the fact that a party is much more than a single chrismatic individual also does not matter. The ardent supporters of PTI will give a justification no matter how unconvincing it is. And yes they know how to abuse and a huge majority of them are expert trolls!!!

Now while the overzealous reactions of the PTI “jiyalas” do provide amusing and at times even  laughable sights, with due apologies some (not all) of his critics also do not lag behind. Just calling someone as Taliban Khan, or totally dishonest or a complete establishment tout without giving credible evidence is hardly convincing. Likewise calling all the supporters of Imran Khan, many of which are highly educated and even moderate people also, as completely impressionable reactionaries and then expecting them to change their mind about Imran is plain stupidity.

Political realities exist in the shades of grey. These are not in black or white and this fact has to be remembered by both the ardent supporters of Imran as well as his fierce critics.

Now there are many diehard supporters of Imran who have made their decision and no matter what, will not waiver. However, a substantial number of people who view him favourably still can change their minds.

My advice for those who think that Imran’s rise needs to be checked because he is a reactionary is that they should try to be credible in their claims. Yes, their arguments will not be heeded by diehard emotional Imran’s fans but a substantial majority has only recently started to look at him in favourable light and will listen to their arguments provided they make credible criticism.

Right now critics are calling him Taliban Khan and expect his supporters to listen to this allegation. The huge problem with this is that while Imran has given apologetic defense to Taliban monsters but has never clearly endorsed their suicide bombings. Yes, the right way to argue is that this kind of appeasement is wrong as an approach to dealing with militancy but blatantly calling him Taliban khan is frankly stretching it too much. And by the way apparently Taliban even denounced him when he called himself a “liberal”. However, the statement given by the TTP denouncing Imran was simply ignored by his critics who want to stick to their black and white appraisal of Imran.

Second is the allegation of using Islam for political mileage. Well here the problem is multifaceted.  First the majority of Pakistanis like references to Islam and considers it a part of their identity. Now I may not like this fact but this is a reality. Second and more importantly almost all the parties (barring very small fringe parties like Pakistan Communist Party or
some regional parties), have whipped up religion.   Unfortunately the critics forget that in Pakistan the so called liberal parties were involved in framing of 1973 constitution which made Pakistan an Islamic republic. Worst they were also involved in passing of the second amendment which declared Ahmedis as Non-Muslims. And during all these years, they have done nothing to repeal it. If the critics are equally harsh on these parties only then they can have a credible case against Imran. However, so far I have not seen that and therefore their arguments are further weakened. I personally think that a better criticism would be to highlight the difference in extent to which Imran whips up religion compared to the mainstream parties rather than saying that PTI is nothing but a good looking Jamat-i-Islami!

The argument that PTI is the one man party is a valid criticism but not something which will find acceptance. The major problem with the argument that “If Imran were to die what would happen to PTI and hence it is proven that it is a cult” is that unfortunately all the parties in Pakistan have risen through the same personality driven trajectory and worst still have evolved into family dynasties. On this basis alone you cannot call any party a mere cult. If a Sharif or a Bhutto is bigger than his/her party then what is the point of complaining about Imran being bigger than PTI. Yes you can argue that this makes PTI no different but unfortunately in Pakistan, at least in this aspect, you cannot be different.

Raising questions about PTI manifesto is important and valid but once again why critics have so much urge to ask for PTI manifesto when they know that majority of the party workers of PPP and PML N also don’t know much about the manifestoes of their parties. When you seldom raise this issue with respect to voting pattern of mainstream parties then in some ways it actually appears strange that manifesto assumes so much importance on the pretext of determining the “difference” of PTI. And why now? Why this question was not asked before?

Most importantly the critics have to understand as to what is the real source of Imran’s surge in popularity. It is  not solely because of “establishment”,  or its manipulated electronic media or due to naivety of his supporters (yes some of them are naïve) but because many people are getting sick of the performance of the two mainstream parties. Yes Imran may not be right choice but in despair human beings have the tendency to clutch at any straw of hope. In their eyes since Imran is financially credible so therefore he wont “betray” them. This emotional expectation may be somewhat misplaced but has genuine basis.

Yes I do not support Imran due to his overall ideological orientation but at the same time his rise cannot be checked unless the mainstream parties do some honest soul searching rather than blaming establishment and ISI for everything under the sun. Yes Imran may be propped up by establishment but at the same time people are also getting behind him. Establishment alone cannot fill in huge venues like Minar-e-Pakistan and Mazar-e-Quaid nor can it produce favourable ratings in polls conducted by reputable international polling firms like PEW research.

And lastly be credible and acknowledge his positive statements when you are ready to pounce on his negative ones. If he is apologizing to people of Baluchistan then have a heart and acknowledge it even if it is “hollow”. If his rhetoric is softening (and it is softening) as more people with eclectic ideological orientation come into his party, then kindly acknowledge it.

Criticism looks appealing only when it is credible.

By Ghazala Akbar:

Sonia Gandhi once imperiously remarked that the Indians need not bother going to war with Pakistan anymore, the invasion of Indian TV was enough. She had a point. For a while, the murderous machinations and dynastic power- struggles of Indian soaps had people hooked.  Not anymore. Indian soaps are passé. The gripping political drama unfolding daily on our TV screens is a serious challenge not just to Bollywood but Hollywood too. Over the past year, every genre has been represented: tragedy, high comedy, farce, buffoonery, drama, action, war, murder, spy thrillers, musical extravaganzas and a bit of soft porn too.

Such is the quality of live political theatre that I cannot remember the last time I watched a film on television. Who needs expensive blockbusters from across the border to feed our fantasies? Why would anyone go channel surfacing — when our rulers, allies, security forces, politicians, cricketers and celebrities provide non – stop 24/7 entertainment? Who needs a burger when we can all have steak at home!

2011 began tragically with murder most foul — the death of the Punjab Governor, Salmaan Taseer, heroically championing the cause of a poor Christian woman, sentenced for blasphemy. If that wasn’t maudlin enough, what followed was a worse tear- jerker. Clerics — usually in surplus in Pakistan suddenly became scarce – too scared to lead the funeral prayers for the slain Governor.

The final dénouement in the sorry tale was the odious spectacle of the self- confessed smiling assassin showered with rose petals by Lawyers — the very same that had marched up and down Constitution Avenue in support of the Rule of Law. Thankfully, a judge had the courage of his convictions to sentence the killer. The long-awaited decision of the Appeal Court is another story.

February brought us an international spy thriller complete with a car chase, shootings and carnage in the streets of Lahore. Footage of the arrest and interrogation of Raymond Davis by the ‘Keystone Cops’ of the Punjab Police went viral. Intriguingly, a miniature camera located between the suspect’s feet activated the filming. A support car coming to his ‘rescue’ also ran over a couple of bystanders adding to the body count. And just who was this trigger – happy, gun – toting suspect? A ‘diplomat’ allegedly fleeing armed motor- cycled muggers at a busy intersection in Lahore who just had to shoot in self- defence. Naturally.

No less a personage than the US President vouched for his credentials. And since we are a hospitable, law- abiding people who honour diplomatic immunity, we bent over backwards to find ways to absolve him of guilt. Shariah law ironically came to the rescue. A clause was invoked and Davis ‘forgiven’ after the payment of blood money to the victims’ families– but– not before another sad twist : the young wife of one of the ‘alleged robbers’ overcome with grief, ended her own life. End of story.

The ides of March claimed yet another fatality. Poor Shahbaz Bhatti, the outspoken Minister for Minority Affairs was gunned down for having the temerity to remind the Majority about the rights of Minorities! The brave man should have read George Orwell and learnt not to speak out of turn. In the State of Pakistan, all men are created equal but some are more equal!

Riveting as these episodes were, they were a mere trailer for May Day’s mega blockbuster: the Death of Osama Bin Laden. Without our censor’s knowledge, this film played to packed houses globally. Audacious US Navy seals  swooping down in helicopters, shooting their way to bag and bin the world’s most wanted terrorist in his ‘luxury pad’, was an instant hit worldwide.

Our US allies in the War on Terror, didn’t think it worth their while to give us a role to play. Not even as an extra. While champagne corks popped at the White House in an orgy of self- congratulation, we had to eat humble pie and suffer the additional agony of our picturesque garrison town continually mispronounced as A – BBOT- A- BAD! Surely, the BBC ought to have known better!

As if things were not bad enough when another scary episode sent us cringing for cover. Masked terrorists disguised in ‘Star Wars’ attire sneaked into a naval airbase in the heart of Karachi. Only the bravery of our security forces foiled their evil intent after a tense gun – battle lasting several hours. Reassuringly all through the crisis, the Minister of the Interior provided a running commentary soothing shattered nerves.

Soon after, another jolt shook our equanimity: the mysterious murder of a journalist, Salim Shahzad. Nudged gently but firmly not to poke his nose in sensitive matters relating to state or non – state actors, he did not take the hint. Neither did the unfortunate Wali Babar in Karachi. After too many questions about ‘target killings’ the TV Reporter became a target himself –confirming our prime position as a dangerous place for journalists.

In July, the citizens of Karachi decided to steal the show with a gory episode of their own: the killing fields of Karachi. More mayhem, more body bags and even more confused incoherence from the Interior Ministry were the main themes of this sordid drama. Not to be outdone, trigger- happy Rangers started their own sideshow. A petty thief, pleading for mercy was shot at point blank range, in full view of the camera in a public park.

Meanwhile in the badlands of Baluchistan, some unlucky Chechen men and women were mistakenly ‘taken out’ as terrorists by the Constabulary. In other areas, members of the minority Hazaras and ‘dissidents’ were being systematically decimated. Exactly who was killing who and why is of little consequence in this perplexing plot. In Khyber- Pakhtoonwa, the Taliban regularly reminded us of their explosive presence. Drones continued to strike ‘terror’ in South Waziristan adding to a continuous supply of new recruits to their cause.

The festival of Eid released Pandora’s Box, a brilliant, virtuoso, unrestrained performance by the former Home Minister of Sindh. His remarkable presentation received extremely high TV ratings – the dramatic use of the Holy Book as prop was an unforgettable highlight of the two- hour soliloquy. Several weeks later, a London production house came out with a four – hour epic. A vintage rendition of a golden oldie rang the curtain down on this superlative show that ran to packed houses nationwide.

Not shy of being in the spotlight, the perpetual drama queens, our star cricketers entered the limelight with a courtroom drama of their own.  Sadly, their coached appearances at Southwark Crown Court, UK were as unconvincing as their play-acting during the Oval Test in England last year. The show flopped miserably with Messrs. Butt, Asif and Amir reduced from fallen heroes to zeroes.

Come September, Admirable Mike Mullen took us all by surprise with his own version of ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.’ Mullen’s muddled story – line brazenly accused our security services of sponsoring a network of non – state actors and re-writing a counter script for the end – game in Afghanistan. It backfired. In a remarkable show of unity, the civilian government, raucous TV Anchors, politicians, ghairat brigades and the public booed and hissed in unison. Flying in to soothe ruffled feathers, Mrs. Clinton was publicly but politely accused of acting like a nit-picking Mother-in-law.

Mullen’s story however would not go away. It sprung back with a vicious new twist at the end of October. A rejuvenated and revamped Khan tweaked the tail of the Lions in Lahore with a spectacular televised musical extravaganza. Not only did fans dance in the aisles, his revelations rocked the boat, setting the scene for yet another blockbuster: Memo gate. A 007 wannabe got star- billing in this US- Pakistan joint production. Our Ambassador to the US has a dubious supporting role.

As we grappled with at the turns and twists of this complex saga, a brief exposition of Ms Veena Malik provided us with a moment of light relief. Then all hell broke loose. NATO helicopter in an incident of ‘friendly fire’ picked off our soldiers at the Afghan border, martyring 28 and wounding countless others. With friends like these, who needs enemies!

All this flak was too much for the beleaguered President who suddenly took to his bed. His unidentified ailment and dash to Dubai fuelled yet another mystery: the curious case of the missing President. Was his illness genuine, a reaction to the strain of the on-going Memo gate saga or something entirely unrelated? Who knows! Anyhow, it was short and sweet with a happy ending when the President returned to Islamabad with his customary grin. Who will have the last laugh is a moot question.

Finally, as the holiday season approached we settled in front of the box in anticipation of yet another extravaganza. (The Information Minister’s impromptu crying act on the morning of the holiday was a dampener but did not deter us from making merry). Billed as the greatest show on earth, the Tehreek- i- Insaaf spectacle promised to be like no other. For weeks, we had watched in bemused incredulity as self- proclaimed rebels and all the King’s men of yesteryears, shaved, showered and applied fresh make-up in preparation for supporting roles to the Rising Star, the man of the moment, Imran Khan.

Could he walk where angels fear to tread? Would the cast of thousands rally to his call? On the founder’s birthday, in the city of lights, by the dramatic setting of the Quaid’s Mazar, the Hero finally took centre stage. Amidst a glow and a roar, He came. They saw. He conquered.  Move over Shahrukh, Saif, Salman and Amir. We have the real thing, our very own King Khan.

Come December 27, we remembered Shaheed Mohartama Benazir and other fallen comrades. The cameras panned towards the dusty plains of Ghari Khuda Bukhsh and the graveyard of the martyrs in the towering tomb of the Bhuttos. There was pathos, passion, poetry and the evolving script of a new work- in – progress: the son also rises.

And so we come to The End. As we usher in the New Year, book your seats early for the next episode of Pakistan: 2012. It is still a working title and your guess is as good as mine. Will it be Great Expectations, Gone with the Wind or the Night of the Generals? Whatever we choose to call it, you can be sure it will be a sensational international box- office hit!  As Larry King used to say on CNN, Don’t go away!

Constitution of Pakistan has been amended seventeen times since its promulgation in 1973; however the ninth and eleventh amendment bills were not passed. The importance of legislation is incontestable; it is the prerogative of parliament to set the rules of business but does it make any difference for a commoner either President has more power or Prime Minister. What matters for him is good governance, availability of basic needs with in affordable price. 

Below are all amendments in a summarized form 1974 onwards…

First Amendment May 04, 1974

• Article 1 – Amendment revised units, provinces and territories of the federation
  
• Article 17 – Amendment allowed citizens other than those in service of Pakistan to form political party and every political party to account for the source of its funds by law.
  

This amendment had become necessary as East Pakistan had emerged as a new independent state “Bangladesh” and Pakistan had officially recognized it.

Second Amendment September 17, 1974

• Article 106 – Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’)” was declared minorities.
  
• Article 260 – the definition of a Muslim was made part of constitution which is, ” A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophet hood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
  

Third Amendment February 13, 1975

• Article 10, 232 – the amendment addressed the issues of preventative custody by curtailing the rights of detainee and by conferring more powers for detaining authority.
  

Fourth Amendment November 21, 1975

• Articles 8, 17, 19, 51, 54, 106, 199, 271, 272, 273, First schedule and Fourth Schedule. The amendment added 6 reserved seats in National Assembly, curtailed the powers of High Courts for cases related to preventative detainment, Land reforms, economic reforms and several regulations promulgated by President prior to Constitution were made part of constitution.
  

Fifth Amendment September 16, 1976

• Articles 101, 160, 175, 179, 180, 187, 192, 195, 196, 199, 200, 204, 206, 212, 260, 280 and First Schedule. The amendment established the rules for appointment of Governors, Chief Justices and the discretionary powers of the High Courts and Supreme Courts, abolished joint High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, constituted separate high court for each province.
  

Sixth Amendment December 13, 1976

• Articles 179, 195, 246, 260 – The Amendment extended the appointment of the Chief Justices of Supreme Courts and High Courts beyond their retirement age limit for when they have not completed the term of office.
  

Seventh Amendment May 16, 1977

• Articles 101, 245 – New Article 96 A inserted which was supposed to stay in force till September 30, 1977 Amendment suggested to hold a referendum to seek vote of confidence for the Prime Minister by General Public.
  

Eighth Amendment November 9, 1985

• Articles 48, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 75, 91, 101, 105, 106, 112, 116, 130, 144, 152 A, 270 A and addition of new Schedule, the Sixth Schedule, The constitution restored to the position of July 5, 1977 with amendment which conferred the powers upon the President to nominate Prime Minister, appointing the services chiefs, other key state positions and dissolve the National Assembly and Governors could dissolve provincial assemblies.
  

Ninth Amendment Bill 1985 (It was not passed and still remains a bill)

• In consonance with the provisions of Article 2 and 227 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which respectively offer that Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and that all laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam, as also the Objectives Resolution, this Bill seeks to amend Articles 2, 203B and 203D of the Constitution so as to provide that the Injunctions of Islam shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making and to empower the Federal Shariat Court to make recommendations for bringing the fiscal laws and laws relating to the levy and collection of taxes in conformity with the said injunctions.
  

Tenth Amendment March 25, 1987

• Articles 54 and 61 Amendment curtailed the working days of National Assembly and the Senate from 160 to 130 per year.
  

Eleventh Amendment Bill 1989 (It was withdrawn by the movers.)

• Article 51 the amendment bill was moved in Senate suggesting the restoration of 20 Women Seats in the National Assembly. It was withdrawn by the movers after government assurance.
  

Twelfth Amendment July 28, 1991

• New Article inserted: 212 B Provisions amended: Fifth Schedule. Amendment allowed constitution of special courts for heinous crimes as well as increase the salaries of Judges.
  

Thirteenth Amendment April 3, 1997

• Article 58, 101, 112, 243 – Amendment was to withdraw Eighth Amendment powers of the President and Governors to dissolve National and Provincial assemblies, the Prime Minister was conferred the powers to appoint Services Chiefs and other key position.
  

Fourteenth Amendment July 3, 1997

• New Article inserted 63A Amendment to provide disqualification of a member of Parliamentary party on the ground of defection, floor crossing, abstaining or refraining from vote or voting against the party policy.
  

Fifteenth Amendment August 28, 1998

• Insertion of Article 2B in view of the fact that the Objectives Resolution is now substantive part of the Constitution, it is necessary that Quran and Sunnah are declared to be the supreme law of Pakistan, and the Government is empowered to take necessary steps to enforce Shariah.

Sixteenth Amendment August 5, 1999

• Insertion of Article 27 which safeguards against discrimination in services, Quota system was extended till 2013.
  

Seventeenth Amendment August 21, 2002

• New Article Inserted 41, 58, 112, 152A, 179, 195, 243, 268 and 270AA Amendments were made to the constitution for the approval of Gen. Musharraf to stay President in uniform, his coup on October 12, 1999 and inclusion of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) into the constitution which empowered President again.
  

Eighteenth Amendment April 19, 2010

• Articles amended or substituted 1, 6, 17, 25, 27, 29, 38, 41, 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 71, 73, 75, 89, 90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 112, 116, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 177, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 203, 203D, 209, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 224, 226,228, 232, 233, 234, 242, 243, 260, 268, 270A, 270AA, 270B
  
• Articles inserted 10A, 19A, 25A, 140A, 175A, 267A, 267B, 270BB
  
• Articles omitted 71 and Omission of sixth and seventh schedule
  
• Summary: Parliament declared the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and the Legal Framework Order (LFO) given by a dictator as without any legal authority. NWFP renamed as ‘Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa’. Good Governance by restricting the size of the Cabinet in to 11 per cent of the members of Parliament and respective Provinces. Four seats, one from each province, to be allocated in the Senate for the minorities to increase their strength. Education to each child up to the age of 16 years made compulsory. Formation of the council of common interests revised with prime minister as its chairman. The council should meet at least once in 90 days besides abolition of the Concurrent List. Prime Minister shall keep the president informed on all matters of internal and foreign policy and on all legislative proposals the federal government intends to bring before the Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). President could use the power of dissolution of the National Assembly when a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly for the purpose. For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. Under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an act of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament). Restriction imposed on the attorney general for doing private practice. Inexpensive and expeditious justice should be ensured to the people as also the right of access to information without any hurdle. The prime minister shall, in consultation with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, forward three names for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner to a parliamentary committee for hearing and confirmation of any one person. The parliamentary committee, to be constituted by the speaker, shall comprise 50 per cent from the opposition parties, based on their strength in Parliament to be nominated by the respective parliamentary leaders. In case there is no consensus between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, each shall forward separate lists to the parliamentary committee for consideration, which may confirm one name. The total strength of the parliamentary committee shall not exceed 12 members out of which one-third shall be from the Senate. Provided that when the National Assembly is dissolved and a vacancy occurs in the office of the chief election commissioner, the parliamentary committee shall comprise the members of the Senate only. There shall be no restriction on the number of terms for the offices of the prime minister and chief ministers. Prime minister would advise the president on appointment of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and chiefs of three armed forces. The Senate shall consist of 104 instead of 100 members with the addition of one minority member from each province. Working days of the Senate have been increased from 90 to 110. Restriction on a person who has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan, service of a corporation or office set up or controlled by the federal government or the provincial government on ground of misconduct has been lifted. According to this amendment, a person could be elected as MP, three or five years after dismissal from the service. A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of parliament if he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up or, controlled, by the federal government, the provincial government or a local government on ground of misconduct, unless a period of five years since his removal or dismissal; or unless a period of three years has elapsed since his removal or compulsory retirement. The restriction on a person being elected as member of parliament, who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or bring into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release. Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission would be appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. Similarly, chairmen of the provincial public service commissions would be appointed by the governors on the advice of chief ministers. Proclamation of emergency in the province due to internal disturbances would require a resolution from the provincial assembly. If the president acts on his own, the proclamation of emergency shall be placed before both houses of parliament for approval by each house within 10 days. On dissolution of the assembly or completion of its term, or in case it is dissolved under Article 58 or Article 112, a caretaker shall be selected by the president in consultation with the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing National Assembly. Similarly, a caretaker chief minister will be appointed in consultation with the chief minister and the leader of the opposition in the outgoing provincial assembly. Proclamation of emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) No 1, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000, Chief Executive Order No 12 of 2002, Chief Executive Order No 19 of 2002, the amendments made in the Constitution through LFO, 2002, (Chief Executive Order No 24), the LFO (Amendment) Order, 2002, Chief Executive’s Order No 29 of 2002) and the LFO (Second Amendment) Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No 32 of 2002), notwithstanding any judgment of any court, including the Supreme Court or a High Court, are hereby declared as having been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Federal Shariat Court who were continuing to hold the office of a judge or were appointed as such, and had taken oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2000, shall be deemed to continue to hold the office as judge or appointed as such as the case may be, under the Constitution and such continuance or appointment, shall have effect accordingly. Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, there shall be a judicial commission. For appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the commission, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan, shall also consist of two most senior judges of the apex court, a former chief justice or a former judge of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the chief justice in consultation with two member judges for a period of two years, federal minister for law and justice, Attorney General for Pakistan, and a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to be nominated by the Pakistan Bar Council for a period of two years. The judicial commission for the appointment of High Court judge, headed by the chief justice of the High Court, would also include two most senior judges of the High Court, provincial law minister, a senior advocate to be nominated by the provincial bar council. For appointment of judges of the Federal Shariat Court, the judicial commission shall also include the chief justice of the Shariat Court and the most senior judge of that court as its members. Article 58-2(b) should be repealed and substituted with “Dissolution of the National Assembly”. The substitution clause says that the president shall dissolve the National Assembly if so advised by the prime minister, and the National Assembly shall, unless sooner dissolved, stand dissolved at the expiration of forty-eight hours after the prime minister has so advised. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 2 of Article 48, the president may also dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where, a vote of no-confidence having been passed against the prime minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly in accordance with the provision of the Constitution, as ascertained in a session of the National Assembly summoned for the purpose. Passing of the bills: Recommended substitution in Article 70 with “introduction of passing of bills”, adding that a bill with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List may originate in either house and shall, if it is passed by the house in which it originated, be transmitted to the other house and if the bill is passed without amendment by the other house also, it shall be presented to the president for assent. Bills presented in the house but not passed within 90 days of lying in the House shall be considered in a joint sitting of parliament. Islamabad High Court established and the judges of the Islamabad High Court should be taken from the federal capital and four provinces.
  

Nineteenth Amendment January 1, 2011

• Articles 81, 175, 175A, 182, 213, 246 – Amendment introduced a new system for appointments in the superior courts; the amendment also raised the number of senior judges as members of the Judicial Commission to four. Under the amendment, recommendations for the appointments of ad hoc judges in the superior courts will be made by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in consultation with the Judicial Commission. Moreover, in case of the National Assembly’s dissolution, members of the parliamentary committee will be from the Senate only.