Raza Habib Raja
Professor Philip Oldenburg is a professor of political science in Columbia University and author of the book titled India, Pakistan, and democracy: solving the puzzle of divergent paths. As an academic, Subcontinent has been his prime area of political research. A few months ago, he was invited to Cornell University where I was privileged to hear his views on a very interesting topic which was why India and Pakistan despite being apparently similar in history and culture have taken divergent paths as far as democracy and role of military are concerned.

First of all Professor Philip made an interesting statement that India’s successful evolution as a democracy is not a “normal” phenomenon but rather an exception whereas Pakistan has evolved the way most of the third world countries with similar characteristics are likely to evolve. Now this contradicts with most of the stuff I hear about the reasons as to why India and Pakistan have taken different trajectories. I have mostly heard that democracy has not evolved simply for the sole reason because military has not allowed it to evolve. Explanation for the difference in India and Pakistan has always been pinned down to only deep conspiracies of the “deep state” against political class.
Now this analysis at least partially disagrees with the overwhelmingly prevalent and rather simplistic explanation according to which democracy does not function solely because Pakistan’s army has always been conspiring against it whereas in India the armed forces have decided to respect the political template of the government.

According to Professor Philip, a country with low literacy rate, weak industrial base and with a colonial legacy is often expected to take the similar trajectory as of Pakistan. He then cited many examples of the countries where military coups have taken place and the institution enjoys great power and privileges.
However, he made an interesting remark that Pakistan in many ways had performed worse and while many other countries (like Bangladesh and Turkey) are gradually shaping towards the ascendency of political class and strengthening of democracy, in Pakistan the political developments are pointing towards the other direction.

So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Well the reasons are complicated and cannot be solely just attributed to the conspiracies of the military. Besides trying to understand as to why military intervenes, it should be worthwhile to also dwell as to how it is actually able to intervene. In Pakistan’s case the reasons are rooted in:
1) its general cultural and political traits such as low literacy, rural dominance and lack of developed stabilizing as well as independent institutions like Judiciary,
2) the history of Pakistan movement and its early years after coming into being
3) chaos when civilians are in power and their inability to take a decisive action when opportunity presented
4) Urban middleclass impatience and excessive emphasis on “order” which has provided armed interventions a semblance of support
5) Manipulations by the army and the intelligence apparatus

Firstly, one has to understand that military in weak third world country is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either nascent or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception. However, military interventions by no stretch of imagination are good developments, though in the context of tremulous political cultures, understandable .

Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people.

In Pakistan unfortunately the genesis of the military rule is actually in the way the Pakistan movement shaped up and the complex interplay of the dynamics of the movement with cultural and political characteristics of the region which eventually became Pakistan.

Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India.

It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.

Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.

This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British empire . The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic bonapartism.

Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.

So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.

When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah through charismatic did not live long and during his one year at the helm also did not do much in line with democratic norms. His one year rule was as a Governor General and was highly personalized.

In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.

While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus for the military intervention and when finally military intervened; there was actually a sigh of relief.

The military intervention of 1958 is extremely important as it initiated several things. First, military’s image among the urban middle class (at that time small in number but powerful due to its monopoly over education, and white collared job market) as a saviour was created. From that point onwards, the middleclass, particularly the urban middleclass has seen army in that light particularly when during short stings of democracy the situation gets chaotic. It actually expects army to intervene. Secondly, army’s self-image also enhanced to include itself as the ultimate custodian of the political stability as well. Third, it gave the loudest signal that army was a definite stakeholder and in fact more powerful than all others. So from that point onwards, political class had to factor in army more than any other stakeholder for its own survival.

Although Ayub was personally perhaps a secular but increasingly the army was tutored in Islam in order to provide it with an ideological fabric to bolster its combative zeal. Increasingly the army also started to see itself as the ultimate custodian of the ideological frontier also. It was in fact during the Ayub tenure that army also started to make overtures to the religious outfits for both external and a domestic objectives, a trend which over time has only increased .

The ascendency of army given the unique circumstances of Independence, earlier turmoil, the “expectations” of the urban middleclass, and the work done during Ayub era to solidify its status as political power, was difficult to check but nevertheless there were several opportunities which could have been availed.

Given army’s “respect” as a saviour, the best time to curtail army’s role as a political force is at the time when it has been dishonoured or humiliated. However, for that the political class besides removing the head of the armed forces also needs to exercise maturity in its own conduct. This is essential in order to dispel army’s potential role as the “saviour” of the last resort, a role which is largely perceived by the urban middleclass.

Unfortunately Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto due to his personal conduct and “I am above the law “ attitude squandered the chance. Bhutto ruled in a capricious manner, and used security forces to terrorize his rivals. Moreover, he alienated the urban middleclass too much due to his personal conduct and dictatorial traits. He rigged the elections and once again it was urban middleclass which was in complete resentment as ZAB had taken several steps to displease them and supplanted those with his style of rule. The “movement” against the election rigging was primarily an urban bourgeoisie movement and during those times there was a resurgence of army’s image also. The leaders of the movement were in fact giving overtures to the armed forces to intervene and “rescue” Pakistan. Army, at that time while apparently supporting Bhutto, was at the same time also in contact with the opposition and was cleverly plotting a coup. When army finally intervened on that fateful night, it was not only in accordance with its own institutional interests but also the interests of the urban middleclass.

This point is essential here because the urban middleclass actually has historically provided the armed interventions a semblance of popular support. Although urban middleclass is not monolithic and it would incorrect to assume that it can actually think like a unified orgasm but by and large this class is anti-democratic and apolitical in its orientation. This class is upwardly mobile, prefers stability over chaos and has been successfully tutored in a nationalist brand of civic nationalism. In Pakistan’s case the brand of civic nationalism has Islam as an important ingredient coupled with inherent negation towards plurality. Civic nationalism here tries to promote a strong centre and homogeneity or oneness. This brand of civic nationalism is strongest in the urban middle class as it is cultivated chiefly through education and then further reinforced by mass media. Further on this brand of nationalism also places strong emphasis on Pakistan’s place in the Islamic world and also in the global context.

Army, particularly the officer cadre is chiefly drawn from the middleclass and its ideological thrust is quite identical to that of the urban middleclass. So besides the deep suspicion about “corrupt” politicians and “chaotic” democracy, another major reason that urban middleclass likes army is its own ideological thrust resonates closely with that of army. Consequently despite major blunders army’s respect remains high. Even when it has suffered a blow it has buoyed again.

In some ways, it is the expectations of the urban middleclass and the pedestal on which it by and large holds the army that the latter finds additional incentives to keep a “check” on politicians.

And then there is the case of almost complete ownership of foreign policy by the army which was taken over during Zia’s time. Of course Zia was the head of the government also but the espionage activities of the army and ISI during the Afghan war made it the most important stakeholder. Once Benazir came into power she quickly had to resign to the fact that foreign policy was not an area where a civilian government could have much leeway.

Over the years, even under the façade of civilian governments, army has been running the show. Foreign policy particularly its terms of engagement with “foes” like India and “friends” like USA has become the sole domain of the army. It is from here that army draws its most strength and even its reason for existence and it won’t allow any sort of “interference” from the civilian government.

Over the years, army has ensured that Pakistan double deals with the United States, constantly adopts a hostile posture towards India and pursues the policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan. For these objectives, military and its intelligence apparatus has constantly courted militant organizations which at times have gone out of control like a Frankenstein monster only to at times turn against itself.

It is here that military simply does not listen to the concerns of the civilian governments and in fact won’t hesitate to pressurize it through back door means and even mount a coup. In 1999, it deeply embarrassed Nawaz Sharif government by initiating Kargil war while he was trying to make peace initiatives towards India. And it is agitated against Zardari led government for being too cosy with Washington (though these charges are hardly credible).

Unfortunately USA has also more or less accepted the dominance of military and has adopted the tactic of directly dealing with the military at times bypassing the civilian governments. And of course all the military dictatorships have been supported by the US which found it easier and convenient to deal with them and were ready to ignore “trivialities” like democracy.
In fact Hussain Haqqani’s masterpiece ( one of the most extraordinary books I have ever read) also makes the same point that USA in its desire of convenience found it easier to deal with military.

Turning a blind eye policy adopted by the USA has eventually resulted in military being the party they have to negotiate with even when it is not cooperating and indulging in double games. Civilian governments virtually are irrelevant.

It is hold over foreign policy and terms of engagement with critical countries like India, United States and Afghanistan which military guards even more than its finances. The entire intelligence apparatus is dedicated towards this end and if a civilian government tries to assert its authority in this domain, it pays the price.

Can we break this hold? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. My mind immediately goes back to what happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Instead of having a united front, Mr. Zardari was keen on creating a rift between army and Nawaz Sharif for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And subsequently Mr. Sharif actually went to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment was targeting him also and if democracy were to be derailed, he too will be a loser. However, in Mr. Nawaz sharif’s head nothing mattered more than Zardari’s scalp.

We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. Urban middleclass does not love army just for the sake of loving it. It likes army (rightly or wrongly is a separate issue) because it restores order and since it is politically insulated therefore gives an impression of merit. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts.

What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.

Remember that it is no longer feasible for the army to directly rule the country and therefore the chances of an old fashioned coup are very rare. The chances of a complete roll back of the system are slim and therefore the political parties can take decisive steps provided they are united and get their act together.

by PakNationalists

If it is forgiven today, wait for the Indus River to turn red with Pakistani blood. If the government can violate the constitution so audaciously to destroy the country, why can’t our military do the same to save Pakistan?

This is a guest column by Zaid Hamid

In 1487, Abu Abdallah Mohammad was the 22nd sultan of the great city of Alhambra. Known to the Spaniards as Boabdil, his tiny physique also won him the nickname el chico. In that year, he sought foreign help against his father and uncle. He wrote a memo to Ferdinand and Isabelle, the most powerful sovereigns in the region, to seek help and promised assistance in helping them take over Spain. He offered to make his emirate a tributary kingdom under Ferdinand and Isabella.

His wish was granted. But within five years, in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella turned to Alhambra and forced Abu Abdallah, or Boabdil, to surrender and leave for exile.
Boabdil was the author of the treacherous memo. The name of his prime minister was Yusuf.

Under another Yusuf, a memo was written last year to a foreign power, seeking help to weaken Pakistan’s military and intelligence. In exchange, a promise was made to make Pakistan a denuclearized vassal of that foreign power.

Five hundred years after Boabdil’s memo, history is being repeated. Another memo has been written on identical terms.The only difference is that the Pakistani memo has been exposed.

But even then the courts and opinion makers are playing games, while the Pakistani military watches.

A compromise or a deal on the Memo would fatally damage Pakistan. There is no turning back now. The ghosts of Agartala still haunt us after 40 years.

Treason-democracy-elections-rebellion-civil war-invasion-defeat-dismemberment-humiliation! Memo is today’sAgartala. If it is forgiven today, the dreaded sequence would turn Indus River red with Pakistani blood. The war would annihilate us as it did in 1971. Pakistani media must wake up and see how history is repeating itself.

The Pakistani nation must clearly understand that a sinister web of treachery is being woven against Pakistan and ISI by the government and its allies in political parties and media. The Memo case has almost been killed. Now the Asghar Khan/Mehran Bank case has been revived. The authors of The Memo wanted this case revived to divert attention away from The Memo and to take revenge from the military.

The links and timings between memo case and the Mehran Bank case are stunningly clear. Also, the missing person’s case is also being used as a tool to settle scores against ISI. The traitors, snakes and idiots have all joined hands to attack, humiliate and destroy the last defense wall of Pakistan. Memo is a reality just as the Agartala conspiracy was. But back then, too, the political parties joined hands against our military and protected the main accused, the Husain Haqqani of that time, Sheikh Mujeeb.

The result was elections and war and breakup.

History is being repeated today. Political parties and media are ignoring The Memo, attacking ISI and demanding elections when Pakistan is encircled for war. Shame on our politicians, media, judges and the ulema of this nation who have willingly decided to ignore and bury The Memo. Those who compromise their honor, freedom and faith deserve to be invaded.

For God sake, wake up.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has already declared NRO unconstitutional. The court has also declared voting lists as bogus. These were the voting lists that brought this government to power in 2008.
What is the moral standing of a government that has come to power through unconstitutional and bogus means?

If the government can violate the constitution so audaciously to destroy the country, why can’t our military do the same to save Pakistan? Overthrowing the government is no more a legal or constitutional issue. It is a national duty and patriotism.

This article, edited by PakNationalists.net, is based on series of text messages and Facebook status updates by Zaid Hamid, a Pakistani analyst.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS
Commission internationale de juristes – Comisión Internacional de Juristas

” Protecting and promoting human rights through the Rule of Law”

PRESS RELEASE For immediate release – 25 January 2012
Former Pakistan Ambassador to the US faces threats to his life – ICJ

Geneva, Switzerland – The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today expressed its
grave concern for the infringement of rights of Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistan
Ambassador to the United States of America.

Hussain Haqqani has been embroiled in a political and judicial conflict stemming from a
leaked political memorandum that he was alleged to have authored, only a few days after
al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed by US military forces.

“Hussain Haqqani faced a vicious media trial following which the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition filed debarred him from travelling abroad, despite the fact that he has not been charged with any crime,” said Sheila Varadan, International Legal Advisor at the ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Office. “Hussain Haqqani continues to receive threats and has been painted as disloyal to the country. There is, though, no proof of any betrayal of his
duties as an Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States.”

His counsel, Asma Jahangir, confirmed that Hussain Haqqani is under threat and has taken refuge in the compound of the Prime Minister’s residence.

The leaked memo, which on 10 May 2011 was delivered to the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, was said to contain promises of greater cooperation with the Americans in counter-terrorism operations from President Zardari’s People’s Party of Pakistan (PPP) Government in exchange for support from the United States to subvert a potential military coup d’état.

News of the memo was leaked to the media by an American-Pakistani businessman, Ijaz Mansoor, in early October 2011.

Hussain Haqqani was recalled to Islamabad and resigned his post as Pakistan Ambassador to the United States in November 2011. The PPP Government denied allegations of involvement in the memo scandal and a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was set up on 21 December 2011 to investigate the matter. A few days later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan established its own Commission of Inquiry.

There are legitimate concerns that in convening this Commission, the Supreme Court may have overstepped its constitutional authority and that this action could undermine the ongoing Parliamentary inquiry.

“We are calling on the Pakistani Authorities to respect Hussain Haqqani’s right to be presumed innocent and to remove the restriction on his right to leave the country and any other restrictions on his right to freedom of movement,” added Sheila Varadan. “They
must also ensure his personal safety at all times and respect his right to a fair and impartial hearing throughout the Inquiry process.”

For further information, please contact:
Sheila Varadan, International Legal Advisor, ICJ (Bangkok), tel + 66 2 619 83 04

Afia Siddiqui case is alone enough to say that ISI is like a truck of filthy garbage and must be grounded for sure. They have got too much authority to sell the country and its people. These morons are good for nothing. The best scenario for Pakistan will be if these feudal-corporatist and Khaki ruling elite keep fighting with each other and destroy each other. Then a new Pakistan can emerge out of it , more free, more justice-loving and more prosperous.

Below is a news report stating some shameful things which also tells us about the hypocritical justice system of United States of America. The details may be a bit exaggerated or some of the details might not be as they are but over all context is disturbing about her condition and her family facing problems to find details about her. But the main culprit is ISI as I don’t expect miracles from USA marines or security institutions.

We hope that people with sense of justice and humanity will stand up in United States of America and will raise their voice against this injustice.

Dr Afia Siddiqui gets pregnant, contracts cancer in US jail

By     Shahid Abbasi -

Karachi: Pakistani scientist Dr Afia Siddiqui, who is serving 86-year imprisonment in a US prison cell, has contracted cancer and allegedly become pregnant as a result of sexual abuse during her confinement.

Talking to The News Tribe, her sister Dr Dr Fouzia Siddiqui said she had come to know through Pakistani Consul General in Houston that Dr Afia Siddiqui had been diagnosed with a cancer. She added that earlier there were reports that the Pakistani scientist had become pregnant due to alleged sexual abuse during imprisonment. However, the Pakistan Embassy has not playing its role in either confirming or rejecting the reports.

She said that former Pakistan Ambassador to US Hussain Haqqani was called back the next day when he told us the condition of Dr Afia.

She quoted Pakistan Consul General Aqil Nadeem as saying that he was requesting the jail authorities for providing medical facilities to the Pakistani scientist.

Dr Fouzia said keeping in view the reputation of the Roswell jail and the nature of her sister’s disease the request was insufficient.

She urged the Pakistan Embassy to arrange a team of physicians comprising doctors from jail as well as from private sector for Dr Afia Siddiqui.

Dr Fouzia said that newly-appointed Pakistan Ambassador to US Sherry Rehman had assured her all possible help before leaving for America to take up her new assignment. However, despite making contact with her, the envoy has not given any response in this regard.

Speaking about the reports of Dr Afia’s alleged pregnancy, she said that her family was told about it after the Pakistani scientist showed some symptoms in the women jail.

Dr Fouzia appealed to the US and Pakistani authorities to arrange a telephonic conversation of her mother with Dr Afia.

Earlier, British journalist and human rights activist Yvonne Ridley had declared the long punishment of Dr Afia as just ‘one step away from death’. 

Talking about attitude of Pakistani politicians being adopted on the Dr Afia issue, she said that she would not believe in their statements until and unless her sister returns to Pakistan. Dr Fouzia complained that the politicians had only exploited the Dr Afia issue just to gain political mileage.

She said that the Pakistani scientist had been provided substandard food, which led to health problems at the jail as she had complained of it during her earlier telephonic conversations.

According to Pakistani TV anchor Aamir Liaquat Hussain, he had received information from his friends in the US that Dr Afia had contracted cancer and will be killed during confinement.

The renowned anchor said that the Pakistani scientist can be brought back through diplomatic efforts.

In a video uploaded on Youtube, Hussain said that Dr Afia had become pregnant as a result of sexual abuse in jail.

The News Tribe, a UK-based bilingual news website has approached Pakistan Ambassador to US Sherry Rehman through an email to get her point of view on the issue but received no response till the filing of this news.

Source : http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/01/21/dr-afia-siddiqui-gets-pregnant-contracts-cancer-in-us-jail/#.Txq0L3KsQyA

By Ahsan Kureshi

A friend, who shares my ‘liberal’ perspective on almost all things, inquired why I was surprised on what had happened. ‘Shouldn’t we be used to all this?’ His question got me thinking. Are we actually so drowned in the wetsand of fanaticism that the call of an auction of the ‘Holy weapon of Qadri’ was not even a head-turner? Are we bent upon staying fearful and oblivious to all that we deem as absurd? Is a debate on the said topic too much to ask for? Too volatile of a question with a ‘playing-with-a-knife’ consequence? Indeed and sadly yes; atleast, that’s what it seems.

What saddens me today the most is the biases of the pioneers of the ‘freedom-of-speech’ manifesto, the media. The morning newspaper (5th Jan) that greeted me today, the most widely read English daily, proved to be a rude shocker. Not a single headline, news item, editorial or article mentioned Salman Taseer’s name. Except for a small box of gratitude via a hefty payment by a cable company the deceased was an ex-CEO of, not a single paragraph was dedicated to the man. The online blogs and articles however were a relief but in terms of impact, their voices are still a whisper.

On turning on the television however, I was surprised to see all the major channels shy away from the topic of Mr Taseer. Disappointed, I tweeted a renowned anchor, questioning him of the reality of media’s freedom and warned him on how him following suit in his program later at night, would leave many of us discouraged. Almost childishly, I hoped the tweet would invite a rattling of the conscious and the taboo topic would be discussed. Later that night I watched the same ‘champion of freedom’ speak selfishly on the ‘safe’ topics of Babar Awan and Hussain Haqqani while sitting in Lahore, home to Mr. Taseer’s heartbroken family.

The fear that comes with this topic scares me today like it never did before. I was never afraid to speak rather loudly on how wrong Qadri was on murdering one rational voice amid the clamor, I was hopeful. This changed today.

The existence of such mindsets that tend to translate the horrendous murder as an act of piousness irks me. The advantage of number the said population has over the opposite side leaves little to be expected. What’s worse is that Quaid’s secularity and his vision for the secular nation that he proposed would probably never see the light of the day. In a country where the shackles of conservativeness and dogmas bind us to the extreme, intellectual debate shall forever remain a taboo.

Qadri shall soon walk the streets a free man and the voices that shall continue to protest would forcefully become the Tariq Ali’s of this generation. Nothing much will change.

Lastly, I would like to apologize to the Taseer family on behalf of everyone of us. Nothing said or done can bring back the loss of the progressive mind that this nation desperately needed. The complete show of disregard by all the key players in all the walks of life disappoints me more than it would disappoint most. Mr Taseer had high expectations from this country, he would be grieved to see it as shameless as it is today. For this and so much more, I apologize.

Ahsan Kureshi is an economics student from Lahore.

ISLAMABAD: Renowned lawyer Asma Jahangir on Sunday refused to continue as former Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani’s counsel in the memogate case, DawnNews reported. Asma Jahangir said that she did not trust the commission formed by the Supreme Court to investigate the memo-scandal, alleging that the Supreme Court judges were under the establishment’s influence. [...]

2011 is gone. The year heralded undefined and unheard hardships for Pakistan and its people. There were suicide bomb blasts, electricity outages, corruption allegations, electoral discrepancies, massive shenanigans from our dearly elected and well the usual, heat and dust and anger management issues.

Imran Khan also rose from the ashes as a phenomenon that could herald Pakistan in a new direction towards the end of the year. How true that is we’ll simply have to wait and see. With the army recuperating some of its lost pride in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death and the Karachi naval base attack, it tried to meddle in the affairs of the civilian government again by getting Hussain Haqqani sacked.

All in all it wasn’t a happy year for Pakistan and certainly not a good one. We find ourselves internationally abandoned and the world appears to be extremely frustrated with us. It is true that they haven’t been very straight with us but to their credit neither have we. We continue to try and push through the delusional mudslides that keep falling over us every other day and perhaps that’s the biggest take away of the year. We showed the world how resilient we are and how well we hold our own.

As 2012 arrives, some metaphorical bombs have already exploded on us. Petrol price has increased, CNG prices have increased in addition to their load shedding, and electricity prices have also increased. A bad start but here’s to hoping that as the year progresses, we are able to salvage some sense from all the mess we find ourselves in.

Supreme Court of Pakistan has set up a judicial commission to investigate the controversial memo involving the former ambassador to US, Mr. Hussain Haqqani, and a U.S. businessman of Pakistani descent, Mansoor Ijaz.

It is much anticipated that during the investigation the commission can seek the chat-log exchanged by both individuals and if approached through a proper channel data from the BlackBerry services provide, RIM, can be used as an evidence.

The Dawn News report gives the details:

The record of BlackBerry messages will play a key role in investigation into the memo case by the commission set up by the Supreme Court on Friday.

Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, a central character of the memo scandal, has claimed to have provided forensic evidence from his BlackBerry phone to ISI Director General Lt-Gen Shuja Pasha.

On the other hand, former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani has said he never discussed the memo issue with Mansoor Ijaz and added that his phone may be accessed to verify his claim.

A senior FIA official told Dawn: “We can get the data because we are federal police and have already performed such operations in the past.”

He said if the judicial commission set up by the Supreme Court approached the FIA for technical assistance in getting the forensic evidence it would use all its resources to acquire the data from the Canada-based BlackBerry company.

According to the official, the data provided by the BlackBerry service provider, Research in Motion (RIM), will be forensic evidence.

The RIM rarely shares data of its subscribers with any agency.

When Dawn recently contacted the US headquarters of RIM in Irving, Texas, the company said it had a strict privacy policy and never shared the data of a customer with a third party unless they were approached by police.

RIM helpline official Danielle Mora said: “We will not share our customers’ data with anyone until the police approach us.” She added: “Even if someone deletes all his messages from his chat, the person with whom he/she was chatting will have a record.

In other words, verifiable data from the service provider cannot be acquired without legal proceedings.”

But the FIA official said: “The law is there and we have international arrangements with our fellow agencies across the globeand data of BlackBerry can be acquired through proper channel.”

An international legal expert told Dawn that progress could not be made without registering an FIR. “Pakistan has an understanding with several countries called the ‘Mutual Legal Assistance Framework’ in which one state security agency can approach its counterparts anywhere in the world for assistance in seeking evidence.”

He said FIA’s cyber wing could be instrumental in investigating the matter through its Canadian counterpart Cyber Incident Response Centre or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

via Dawn News

In an extremely sensitive case of the history of Pakistan, main culprit Ijaz Mansoor, former Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States – Hussain Haqqani , other petitioners, federal government,General Kayani and ISI Chief Lt General Pasha have filed their affidavits in Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP). The court is determined to clear the air about [...]

Related posts:

1. CIA Intrigues against Pakistani Institutions
2. Memo Issue- Irrational Leadership Behviour
3. Government Tense on Memogate Scandal: Army Chief Urged Inquiry
4. National Solidarity is Need of the Hour
5. Murder of Fearless & Reliable Pak Journalist

A true picture of our government’s incompetency. http://e.jang.com.pk/12-21-2011/karachi/pic.asp?picname=06_09.gif  

Smith Richardson Foundation, an American think tank, claims that it paid $100,000 to Husain Haqqani to write a book, which attacks the Pakistan army and the military-mosque alliance and its implications for US policies. 

Haqqani came up with a book within two years and the controversial memo reflects many of the thoughts stated in his book.The think tank also claims that it funded another $175000 to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for developing a new US policy toward Pakistan in 2004 and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hired Husain Haqqani for the purpose. Smith Richardson Foundation is an American think tank whose mission is ‘to contribute to important public debates and to help address serious public policy challenges facing the United States.

The Foundation seeks to help ensure the vitality of our social, economic, and governmental institutions. It also seeks to assist with the development of effective policies to compete internationally and to advance US interests and values abroad. This mission is embodied in our international and domestic grant programs.’ The website of Smith Richardson Foundation shows under the link: http://www.srf.org/grants/grantsdb.php? username=&lg=1 that in 2003 a sum of $100,000 was given as grant to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace regarding ‘Mosque-Military Alliance in Pakistan and Implications for US Policy’. The website describes the usage of grant as, “Husain Haqqani will research and write a book on the relationship between Pakistan’s military and the country’s radical Islamic forces and assess the implications of that relationship for US security.”  Interestingly Haqqani came up with a book in 2005 titled ‘Pakistan between Mosque and Military’ and he wrote in the concluding paragraphs of his book: “Washington must not ignore Pakistan’s state sponsorship of Islamist militants, its pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles at the expense of education and healthcare, and its refusal to democratize; each of these issues is directly linked to the future of Islamist radicalism.”

Smith Richardson Foundation’s website further says that it granted $175,000 in 2004 to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Developing and explained that ‘Husain Haqqani will lead an effort to develop new ideas for US policy toward Pakistan.  He will organize working groups of US and Pakistani experts and commission papers. He will write a blueprint for a US policy to encourage Pakistan to adopt a more moderate and democratic political system. The project’s findings will appear in a series of monographs and a policy report.’

It is worth mentioning here that Haqqani in the concluding paragraphs of his book has also written “The United States clearly has few good short term policy options in relation to Pakistan. American policy makers should endeavor to recognize the failings of their past policies and avoid repeating their mistakes. The United States has sought short-term gains from its relationship with Pakistan, inadvertently accentuating that country’s problems in the process.

Pakistan’s civil and military elite, on the other hand, must understand how their three-part paradigm for state and nation building has led Pakistan from one disaster to the next. Pakistan was created in a hurry and without giving detailed thought to various aspects of nation and state building. Perhaps it is time to rectify that mistake by taking a long-term view. Both Pakistan’s elite and their US benefactors would have to participate in transforming Pakistan into a functional, rather than ideological, state.” Haqqani was tried to be contacted and an SMS was also sent on his number but no reply was given till filing of this report. A message was also sent on his verified twitter account but that was also not replied.