This 3 part series recounts religion based disorder that unfolded in Punjab, particularly Lahore, between 1950-53 resulting in several hundred deaths, violent street agitation and imposition of first martial law in our history. It also covers the religious, political and administrative deficiencies in the system which led to general deterioration of law and order, and ultimately the fall of both central and provincial governments.

The first part is factual, second is ideological and last is analytical. The source of this series is the “REPORT of THE COURT OF INQUIRY constituted under PUNJAB ACT II OF 1954 to enquire into the Punjab disturbances of 1953” also known as Justice Munir report.

In the beginning of March 1953, widespread disturbances broke out in the Punjab and these took so alarming a turn and assumed such a menacing form that in several places the military had to be called in, and Pakistan’s first Martial Law had to be proclaimed, which remained in force till the middle of May 1953.

The disturbances were the direct result of the rejection by Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, of an ultimatum by a deputation of the ulama constituted by the All-Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention. The ultimatum was to the effect that if within a month the Ahmadis were not declared a non-Muslim minority and Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, the Foreign Minister who is an Ahmadi and other Ahmadis occupying key posts in the State, are not removed from their offices, the Ulama would resort to direct action (rast iqdam).

It all started with an organization called Majlis-i-Ahrar which was part and parcel of Congress in Pre-partition days and was vehemently against formation of Pakistan. It conferred the titles like Palidistan / Khakistan to Pakistan and Kafir-e Azam to Quaid-e-Azam. The establishment of Pakistan came as a great disappointment to the Ahrar because all power passed to the Congress or the Muslim League, and no scope for activity was left for the Ahrar in India or in Pakistan. The new Muslim State came to them as a shock, disillusioned them of their ideology and finished them as a political party. Have being sidelined and seeing the level of mistrust against them in the new state, in middle of 1948, they announced their decision to cease functioning as a political party and to continue their future activity as a religious or tableeghi group. Soon to gather traction and attention, Ahmadis started featuring in their conferences and demand was raised to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims, remove Chaudhri Zafrullah (who was nominated as Foreign Minister by Quaid-e-Azam) and all other Ahmadis from Public office.

At a time when Pakistan was struggling for resources on day to day basis and faced a multitude of challenges, the Ahrar made Ahmadis their sole focus of speeches invoking feelings of hatred and disgust amongst public against the minority. The first incident occurred when a certain major Mahmud was lynched by participants of a conference on Khatm-e-Nabuwat. No one claimed responsibility and no one was arrested. The adviser for the law made the following despicable comment “They have made the Ahmadis the target of their attack in order to gain a hearing from the public. They are trying to exploit the religious feelings of an average Musalman against the Ahmadis ; but I do not think it would be advisable to take any action against the Ahrar for the present as the Muslims are very touchy on the point of Ahmadism and to prosecute the Ahrar for their vituperations against the Ahmadis, would, give them an air of martyrdom in the eyes of public which they do not deserve. I would not, therefore, advise any action against the Ahrar leaders for the present”.

In the next few years Ahrar ramped up their rhetoric, delivered hate speeches and circulated booklets/pamphlets across the country. They calculated that if they could arouse public feeling and the masses against the Ahmadis, nobody would dare oppose them and that the more the opposition to this activity of theirs, the more popular they would become. They issued fatwas against Ahmadis, declared them Kafirs, called them traitors to Pakistan, called them Indian spies, while repeating their original 3 demands. Calls to Muslims such as “not only be nimazies but also Ghazies had no other meaning but to say that Ahmadis should be put to sword.”

The civil government machinery did keep an eye on this development over the years and several references and letters were written to Chief Secretary and Chief Minister by the Central Intelligence department, department of Law and the Police. One of the reports by DIG CID reported “I will be failing in my duty if I do not point out to Government that the atmosphere aroused by Ahrar leaders is pregnant with dangerous possibilities and may lead to individual cases of violence against Ahmadis”. Several similar toned letters and notes can be found in records which were sent to higher authorities in government through formal and official channels. But to no avail…

The maximum that was done was a series of warnings issued to Ahrar leaders both in letter and in person. While the Ahrar leaders agreed to adhere to warnings in principle but in practice they completely ignored the warnings and continued with their agenda. Later on, they openly defied warnings and instructions by Police and justified their actions by blaming the government for its inaction.

More murders of Ahmadis followed across Punjab during 1950-51 and Ahmadi mosques were burnt. In some cases, even a few non-Ahmadis were killed as some people misled the mobs to settle their own personal grievances.

On the political front, Ahrar aligned itself with the Muslim League as a tit-for-tat arrangement. Ahrar brought the goodwill of the general Muslim public who always takes pleasure in satire against the cult of new prophet hood in Islam while Muslim League brought support of a popular ruling organization.

In 1952, after careful consideration, Government decided that in the general interest of the public peace and tranquility, neither the Ahrar nor the Ahmadis should be permitted to hold public meetings under any name or garb. In a clever move, the Ahrar shifted the venue of the meetings from public places to mosques which were under the control of Imams etc. The Imams were subsequently instructed by government not to become a party to violation but it didn’t work. On several occasions, public meetings were held in a Sargodha and Gujranwala mosques in violation of section 144 of criminal law with the usual ranting. Some of the people responsible were also prosecuted in court and sentenced to imprisonment but most of the senior leaders were released on bail.

Soon the Ahrar began to confound the issue by making it a grievance that for purely religious activities inside the mosques the worshippers were being arrested and prosecuted and that the Government was thus encroaching on people’s religious beliefs and observances. This is illustrative of the propaganda that began to be carried on against the Government.

The warnings continued, the hate speeches continued, violation of law continued, propaganda against government continued, CID kept informing government of the imminent dangers but the inaction also continued all the while.

Having created a lot of noise and gathered attention of the Muslims, it was at this stage that the Ahrar enlisted the support of the ulama relating to other religious parties by calling a convention of all Muslim parties at Lahore on 13th July 1952 and giving out that the doctrine of khatam-i-nubuwwat had become a general issue for all creeds and sects of Muslims. Invitation was sent to 14 religious parties including Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan, Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Islam, Jama’at-i-Islami. During the days the convention was held, section 144 was in place in Lahore but still it was decided not to interfere with the proceedings. Also at this Convention the three demands, namely, that the Ahmadis be declared to be a minority, that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan be removed from the office of Foreign Minister and that the Ahmadis be removed from key posts in the State, were adopted and a Council of Action (Majlis-i-Amal) was formed of the following to decide upon the future plan of action.

Qurban Ali Khan, Inspector-General of Police, noted “That Ahrar are assisted by someone is accepted in all quarters. The Ahrar by themselves are not strong enough to have raised this demand but someone from amongst them or those who are behind them are clever enough to have foreseen that none of the so-called religious jama’ats would be foolish enough to lag behind on an issue over which every Musalman has the strongest feeling against the Ahmadis. That every single Muslim will rise on this issue cannot be denied.”

In all this chaos, some of the local Muslim Leaguers started presiding over the Ahrar conferences, particularly in smaller towns. This was declared breach of discipline by the provincial Muslim League office and, as a policy; members were prohibited to preside over non-Muslim League meetings. Paying no head to the warning, resolutions were passed by local offices demonstrating support for the Ahrar cause.

Between the Lahore convention in July 1952 and February 1953, Punjab was marked with several incidents of lawlessness. From street protests to lathi charge, from police opening fire to police officers getting killed, from social boycott of Ahmadis to burning of commercial shops, it was chaos all around.

The Prime Minister Nazim-ud-din finally rejected the demands of Ahrar and leaders of Ahrar were arrested on 27^th February 1952. The agitation then took on a completely different course. Mobs all over Punjab, particularly Lahore & Gujranwala, defied the law, attacked police cordons injuring and even killing policemen. As the situation went out of control and Army was called in, Martial law was declared and curfew was imposed on March 5th.

Daultana, the Chief Minister of Punjab and head of Punjab Muslim League issued a statement on March 6^th giving assurance that the demands will be raised to the Centre and also demanded immediate forced resignation of Chaudhri Zafrullah. This statement was later on withdrawn by Daultana on March 10^th based on the argument that it was an appeal to citizens of Lahore to maintain law and order and since that hasn’t happened and martial law had to be declared to bring order to the province the statement is withdrawn. This demonstrates the complicity of the Muslim league leaders with the Ulama to suit their political agendas.

Post these events a commission was formed to make an inquiry. The commission conducted interviews with a large number of people i.e. from civil administration to law enforcement agencies, from Chief Minister to Prime minister, from Ulama to Masjid Imams etc. It also conducted a highly academic research into almost every important branch of human knowledge—religion, philosophy, science, ethics, attributes of God, reason and revelation, origin and destination of man, aim and object of life, functions of the State and the church, sovereignty, democracy and theocracy, in short, all subjects highly relevant to the functioning of a state.

However, the most fascinating part of the report is the ideological dichotomy which stubbornly exists in the minds of Ulama as well as ordinary citizens. The horror of it all is NOT that a handful of Ulama preached a certain ideology and were able to impose it on general population BUT that the majority of people in the citizenry and in complete control of government allowed them to.

(To be continued)…

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.

By Usmann Rana

One of the rallying points in favor of the rise of Pakistani politician Imran Khan, apart from the utter disillusionment of the masses and corruption of both the major and leading parties, has been his charismatic personality. But Khan’s recent interview to NDTV’s Barkha Dutt, seemed to have lost that element and for once laid bare the stark contradictions between his own statements showing his inanity.

For example, Khan believes, to quote him, ‘the age of martial law is over… Whatever happens I don’t see military takeover.’ Yes, Mr Khan it is. But the ‘military Raj’ has not ended, it has found new ways to penetrate back into the Pakistani society. To believe that military makes its presence felt only through martial laws and coups is naïve. Furthermore according to Khan the parliament may be sovereign but the ‘constitution is supreme’. No doubt that constitution must be upheld at all times and given utmost respect. But if the constitution is supreme and not the parliament, what about the fact that the parliament can amend the constitution? Would that not be against the supremacy of constitution? If not, then would that not make parliament supreme and not constitution?

Khan has a problem with stereotyping but would not hesitate to label Pakistani liberals across the board as drone loving ‘fascists’, or ‘scum of Pakistan’ against the interests of Pakistan. One is but bound to wonder the expression Shirin Mazari and Yasir Lateef Hamdani must be wearing while the great Kaptaan uttered the words. Ironically he uses the typical image of a liberal woman in Pakistan, wearing jeans, to show how his jalsas had garnered the presence of Pakistani people across the board from all sections of society.

The inspirational philanthropist and cricket legend deems the corruption of PPP and PLMN so despicable, and perhaps rightly so, that he would not join hands with them. Not until they declare their assets. According to him once they honestly do so, they would lose out in the game even before he accepts or rejects partnership with them since they are corrupt and an impartial Election Commission of Pakistan would preclude them from running.

However Khan seems to have made corruption the only criteria, or so it seems. That may not be wrong. But one is to ask some questions on that account. He may have problem shaking hands with PPP and PMLN but is alright having representative from his party, Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaaf, attend Defaye Pakistan Rally holding hands with the religious zealots such as notorious Hafiz Sayeed, whose inflammatory speeches the talk show host Barkha Dutt raised issue about. Khan failed to answer adequately why he would send PTI representatives to Saeed, save the explanation that one needs to reconcile the polarized sections of society than to marginalize themg. But not marginalizing the voices of the likes of Hafeez Saeed would in turn mean silencing the voice of progressive Pakistanis, and sanity. Is that really the price Mr Khan is ready to pay in hope that Hafeez Saeed and company might have a change of heart given their status quo depending on blind Islamic nationalism? How mature of Khan to believe that people like Saeed once brought to table may leave aside their fundamentalist demand for further rigid application of Shari’ah laws. It is true that the strategy would most probably work for the low levels of such fundamentalist movements, where the support and muscles are derived from the poverty stricken sections of society but let us not forget the strategy would most probably fail for the higher cadre of these movements where more than poverty it is power status quo and rigidly jihadi mindset at work. How can you reconcile them, without compromising on fundamental principles of democratic and open societies in 21st century, is my question.

One may deem it easier to imagine that if given a chance to reconcile and leave their old ways, PPP and PMLN, including notorious Zardari may turn all saints and leave corruption. On what grounds is it exactly that a misogynistic, anti-religious minority party with no sense of what the demands of a 21st century open and democratic Muslim society are, is to be given leverage over corrupt albeit progressive and secular parties. The point is not to defend any party in particular but to raise a serious question regarding the future prospective partnerships between PTI and others. While Khan is not ready to work in alliance with liberal ‘fascists’ (read: drone loving liberals), he is fine having talks and attending rallies with Islamist fascists.

For many perhaps such questions may sound moronic. Are not PPP or PMLN guilty of such crimes, leave alone almost all the so called secular parties in Pakistan? Correct. But not in the way Khan and company does it. If it was a political alliance only, we could have justified it in the name of real politik. But the darling takes it a step further and repletes his speeches, interviews and even on stage actions with ‘I Used To Be A Playboy But Now Am A Humble Sinner’ statements, while openly promising us a religious freedoms and rights in an ‘Islamic welfare state’. We know how well that promise works, in an Islamized society. Also, not only freedoms and rights Mr Khan but religious equality should be the goal of any man seeking to change the ‘status quo’ to quote you favorite word.

But how would Khan be able to change status quo when he is not ready to take on the Military/Mullah axis in Pakistan? Do the problems of Pakistan begin and end with PPP and PMLN? Surely corruption by political parties is a serious crime but one ought to ask are these parties and their corruption the disease themselves or mere symptoms of a much more serious issue lying underneath? If Khan wish to change status quo in Pakistan he would have to be a bit more courageous and call spade a spade. It comes with a price of course. But wait! Was he not the one promising us unprecedented change and the one Pakistani society deems to be an honest and upright man of principles? After all according to Khan “Religion liberates you from fear; fear of being killed.”

During the interview Khan somewhat admitted he thinks it dangerous to discuss the whole blasphemy law controversy. His solution to the problem? Reconcile the polarized society by eradicating poverty (and of course drone attacks). But is it that simple? To deal with the controversy of the misuse of blasphemy laws we would always need an unpopular iron fist move. Is Khan ready to speak up for real change? Nobody wants to end up dead but nobody should be allowed to give such reductionist explanations, making him seem like a simpleton and misleading people.

Khan speaks of revolution but why is it that there is little attention paid by him to the issue of Balochistan and how military is using its might? Why is it that he is silent on the persecution of religious minorities, especially Ahmadiyyah and Hindu community? Similarly if Khan believes, as he stated elsewhere, that ‘any law that discriminates between human beings is unjust’ and if one is to believe ,as he puts it, ‘Tehreek-I-Insaaf stands for justice’ why is it that Khan has not talked about the unjust religious laws against religious minorities in Pakistan, in the face of their ever more increasing persecution day in and day out, save the same old mantra by almost all of the political class in Pakistan stating under their rule religious minorities would enjoy liberties and freedoms? But by playing his Islamic cards he is doing exactly the opposite. His explanation that Allah is Rabb-Ul-Aalaameen (Lord of the Worlds) and not Rabba-Ul-Muslimeen (Lord Of Muslims) sounds just in an idealized Islamic state. But the fact is Khan is more than sixty now and would soon be with his Rabb-Ul-Aalaameen. What about then? Would the next leadership of PTI show the same reformed mindset while pandering to the Islamic voters on the party lines set down by Khan? That is the reason a clear cut party line for PTI must be set out now, a party line which is all-inclusive, a secular one. If Imran Khan has reached such an enlightened understanding of Islam ( “In my opinion someone who is religious, who is spiritual is going to be compassionate, leftist,” he says while his party’s Ijaz Chaudhry along with religious parties declare al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden the ‘martyr of Islam’ at the Istehkaam-e-Pakistan Caravan on The Mall in Lahore), it does not mean every PTI voter would think like him nor would be watching every interview of his explaining his understanding of Islam. For voters, the Islamic symbols that adorn Khan’s speeches may well represent a common understanding of ‘Muslim identity’, and thus add to the present status quo’s power Khan would like to deconstruct, without an intellectual exercise to comprehend the real meaning behind Khan’s usage of them. That is the reason playing with religious politics, even with a reformed mindset, is a dangerous deed. That should answer Khan’s question to Dutt, “Am I not respecting the sentiments of my own people?” when asked about his praying on stage in front of 100,000 people.

Khan goes on to tell Dutt how “if I was not spiritual I would not have been in politics” and “if I did not have faith in God I would not have been in politics”. Good Mr Khan. Now stop shoving your spirituality down our throats. Pakistan has religious minorities, and nonreligious minorities, apart from Liberal and Secular Muslims. Do you not count them in when you tell Ms Dutt that PTI “is a party that hopes to get all the country on the platform”?

In 2002 when he was elected into the parliament as the sole spokesman from PTI, Imran Khan aligned with Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), and criticized the idea of madrassah reforms as well as the mixed sex races being held. Can we be sure now that he has support even from the moderates Khan will shake off the earlier influence of MMA? To convince his critics just as he has conceded his wrong by once supporting Musharraf, he ought to concede publicly being wrong on this note as well. Above all he ought to admit how wrong he was in his reservations on the Women’s Protection Bill in 2006. If he did have the problem with bill and not the freedoms and rights of women it was seeking, Khan could have proposed amendment(s). But he did not. Unless he does so his saying to Ms Dutt that “youth and women are always in the forefront of the change” is futile and contradictory to his actions for he would have failed to protect the very harbingers of change he is counting his support and hopes from a change on.

What then is the alternative seems to be the favorite question of PTI supporters. You, one should tell them. Supporting Imran Khan does not and should not mean pinning down all on him. Your vote does not mean you have lived off your responsibilities as a citizen. It is time that PTI youth should start asking Khan critical question and form a pressure group within party to pressurize him into not only fulfilling his commitment but to move beyond rhetoric and contradictory statements. Today Imran Khan may be Pakistan’s symbol of hope, but the real force is the support behind the symbol. Liberals (if they have any shame and self-respect they should have left the party by now) and Moderates within the party must pressurize PTI to bring itself in line with common sense. Or else, if what we are seeing is the coming of a revolution, a tsunami, we better cross our fingers and hope it dies out soon.

BY E. Shahid for The Khaleej Times

When Imran Khan is around, there are more jealous husbands than worried batsmen. The famous remark made about the handsome Pathan cricketer, who took the subcontinent by storm in the 1970s and 80s, is symptomatic of the aura of the man that transcended sporting excellence. Despite the fierce cricketing rivalry, Imran was admired both in India and Pakistan, and continues to be a revered figure across the world of cricket.
Intensity and self-belief stood out in his performances on the field and charisma and poise surrounded him off it. Imran added virtues of honesty and missionary zeal to his personality when he single-handedly launched a cancer hospital for the poor and, more recently, a rural university in Pakistan. With his coming of age in the world of politics, it appears that the same set of qualities will hold him in good stead. Or is it?

To an outsider uninformed about the intricacies and conspiracy theories of Pakistani politics, Imran brings a breath of fresh air. He offers a glimmer of hope to an embattled country and a much needed respite from its present set of politicians. He combines neo-liberal political thought with a comprehensive worldview, traditional approach and a clean image in the face of rampant corruption. As a package, he promises a political transformation that can be invested in.

It appears that Imran has managed to bring a fragmented country under one umbrella defying the politics of identity, regionalism, sectarianism and even feudalism. He appears to have appealed to all segments of the society at least across a large swath of urban population, especially the youth who hold key to the future.

Imran has lured into his fold senior statesmen, veteran politicians, some even controversial ones, artists and army men. If the grapevine is to be believed, Imran Khan’s biggest catch is going to be former army general and President Pervez Musharraf, who is also trying to make a comeback into Pakistan politics.

Imran’s political discourse has also matured. In his public speeches, he stresses on programmes and policies and seems to have prescriptions for most ills facing the country, especially its ailing economy. If all this is taken at face value, Imran Khan is a godsend not just for Pakistan but also for the neighbourhood and the region as a whole.

Interestingly, not everyone is willing to label this as genuine transformation. People who matter – namely Pakistanis in and outside the country – often take disparaging positions on the subject. An Abu Dhabi taxi driver who hails from Swat valley paints a completely different picture from that of a Karachiite IT professional working in Dubai Media City.

One such individual says the rise of Imran is ‘escapism’ on a mass scale. Expecting an ‘elitist’ like him to change things is superficial, even idealistic, way of looking at the state of affairs in Pakistan. The argument is that Imran only promises to be a messiah and doesn’t have the wherewithal to become one.

The bottom line is that a lot of Pakistanis still do not see Imran’s upsurge as change, a positive one at that, and unless a majority believes in this change, it is going to be a futile exercise. There are bound to be differences of opinion but stakeholders must see change as a necessity and not necessarily as a means to an end. Pontification apart, outside perspective on Pakistan will always be interesting because it will reflect what the country should be instead of what it really is and is going to be. Unfortunately, the response usually ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous and is seldom a balanced one.

Imran is not making waves as a run-of-the-mill politician. Far from it, he is promising change in Pakistan and change doesn’t come easy. There is a natural resistance to such transformation, especially in a country where change has meant military rule or martial law. Imran is bound to make mistakes in the process but by putting faith in him the country would have at least tried and failed instead of reposing faith in those who breed inequality and deliver squalor.

Filed under: cricket, Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Cricket, Pakistanis Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, cricket, Imran Khan, Pakistan, Pakistan Elections, Pakistani Cricket, Pakistani Politics, Pervez Musharraf, PPP, PTI

By Harry Pasha:

By Len Hart

In our lifetimes, the best and brightest have been snuffed before our very eyes by the cowardly, unseen, shadowy exercise of pure evil and rotten ambition. The most prominent victims are John F. Kennedy who was, at the time, President of the United States, Robert Kennedy, a former U.S. Attorney General and candidate for his party’s Presidential nomination, Dr,. Martin Luther Kr whose ‘dream’ while liberating to right thinking persons was, in fact, a gauntlet thrown down in front of those who dare to enslave us. Those benefiting most from JFKs murder are most certainly guilty of it. It’s a question of motive, method and opportunity. The American right wing had all three. An analysis of the motives reveal a pattern, a constituency supporting murder as a means of achieving ‘regime change’.

JFK tried to strip the power of the FED, abolish the Oil Depletion Allowance, and ‘smash the CIA into a thousand pieces’. No President since has dared piss off so many powerful and ruthless people.

JFK tried to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. The move would have by passed the Fed by restoring to the government the power and authority to issue currency. Executive Order 11110 gave the US government the ability to create its own money –backed by silver! It just might have put the FED out of business.

Some background and basic economics: to pay it’s bills, the US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Federal Reserve Notes are not backed up by anything. ‘Silver certificates’ issued under the authority of JFKs order would have been backed up by government owned silver. The government would no longer borrow from the FED to pay its obligations. It would have done so with ‘silver certificates’ issued by the government itself.

Like any commodity, Federal Reserve notes are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The demand for Federal Reserve notes might have collapsed altogether and the FED itself might have been forced out of business.

Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level. It would have would have made it possible for the government to repay its debt without having to borrow worthless ‘notes’ from the Fed and having to repay them later at interest.

Executive Order 11110 was never repealed. One wonders why no other President ever bothered to utilize it. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that JFKs order made him very, very unpopular throughout the banking establishment? In fact, JFK was brutally murdered in Dallas just five months after issuing the order. No more silver certificates were issued. The FED’s gravy train was still intact.

The ‘scheme’ preferred by the Fed allows the Fed to create money which it loans to the government at interest. The private Federal Reserve owners don’t have a trillion dollars to lend the Government, nor do they need it. All they do is create it, via a bookkeeping entry, and write a check to the U.S. Government as the loan in exchange for the U.S. Bonds. The U.S. Government banks at the Federal Reserve Bank so cashing this check is very easy.

It’s a scheme, possibly a scam. Certainly –no hard currency is exchanged. Government agents are never seen walking out of the FED offices –under armed guard –carrying bullion, coins, or, indeed, anything of real value. The Fed makes an ‘entry’ in the books! The government makes an entry in its books! And you thought you had to work hard to make money!

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
–Thomas Jefferson

JFK Threatened to Repeal the ‘Oil Depletion Allowance’!

It’s always been about the ‘price of oil’ at the wellhead and the profits that accrue to ‘big oil’! Having grown up in Texas, I can vouch for the following very short, illustrative history: "Ross Sterling, the former owner of Humble Oil, was elected governor of Texas and took office on 20th January, 1931. The Texas Railroad Commission, under the control of the large oil producers, attempted to limit the production of oil (prorationing) in the new fields of East Texas. On 31st July, 1931, the federal court in Houston sided with a group of independent oil producers and ruled that the Texas Railroad Commission had no right to impose prorationing."

Large oil companies in Texas such as Humble Oil were in favour of prorationing and Sterling came under great pressure to intervene. On 16th August, 1931, Sterling declared martial law in Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. In his proclamation Sterling declared that the independent oil producers in these counties were "in a state of insurrection" and that the "reckless and illegal exploitation of (oil) must be stopped until such time as the said resources may be properly conserved and developed under the protection of the civil authorities".
Sterling now ordered the commander of the Texas National Guard, Jacob F. Wolters, to "without delay shut down each and every producing crude oil well and/or producing well of natural gas". Wolters who was the chief lobbyist of several major oil companies in Texas, readily agreed to this action. Wolters used more than a thousand troops to make sure that the oil wells in East Texas ceased production. The Texas Railroad Commission was now in firm control of the world’s most prolific oil fields. It now controlled the supply of the oil in the United States. As a result, the price of oil began to increase." –Texas Oil Industry and the Assassination of JFK

Humble later became "Exxon". It is not only prices but profits. Big oil was literally guaranteed huge profits by another bit of accounting legerdemain: the oil depletion allowance. the ‘oil depletion allowance’ is like depreciation but more abstract. Depreciation is often visible. Machines wear out, the loss of utility is real. From an accounting standpoint, the ‘oil depletion allowance’ is just a whopping write off, literally a pay off for the oil you will not find later! Now –how would like to be paid now for the money you won’t make later when the business you’re in now is no longer profitable?

Sweet deal, perhaps even better than the ‘sweet deal’ the FED got. I can think of no other industry that has managed to so effectively shake down the government. I can think of few businesses in which you are paid upfront the money you will not make at some point in the future.

By 1962, JFK sealed his fate. He decided to take on the Texas oil industry. He persuaded Congress to ‘remove the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad’. The law applied to all industries but seemed to affect the oil industry particularly. Texas oil fat cats watched earnings from foreign investments fall by one half –or from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

As President, LBJ, abandoned plans to abolish the oil industry’s sacred cow, the cow it regularly milked. The oil depletion allowance was not disallowed until the Presidency of Jimmy Carter who is still reviled in Texas. One would never suspect that Carter is among the TOP Presidents in terms of economic performance. At that, Carter is among the fortunate; it is only his ‘record’ that has been assassinated.

JFK Threatend to ‘smash the CIA into a thousand pieces’

We know that the CIA had conspired with ‘cuban exiles’ in Florida to assist in the invasion of Cuba. Both entities acted without authorization from the government, without a declaration of war from Congress which alone has the power to declare war –or so says that ‘goddamned piece of paper’, the US constitution.

Certainly, because of Cuba, the CIA was more motivated to murder JFK than was Lee Harvey Oswald. The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to "national security" and, from the CIA/Cuban exile perspective, he proved it when he refused to order air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion. The axis of CIA/Cuban exiles never forgave JFK this ‘act of betrayal’.

It is at this time in our history that the name George Bush comes up. It was in 1959 –the year that Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba–that George Bush set up Zapata Offshore in a Houston headquarters.

George must have been a frequent visitor to New Orleans. Because of his family’s estate on Jupiter Island, he would also have been a frequent visitor to the Hobe Sound area. And then, there were Zapata Offshore drilling operations in the Florida Strait. On all of these activities, the official "red Studebaker" biographical material and the Zapata Offshore annual reports are extremely cryptic.
…

According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, "a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." 1 By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:

The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA’s "Miami Station" (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the coverup of those responsible for this crime. The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the "Plumbers" and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.
The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.

George Bush’s role in both Watergate and the October surprise/Iran-contra complex will be treated in detail at later points in this book. Right now it is important to see that thirty years of covert operations, in many respects, form a single continuous whole. This is especially true in regard to the dramatis personae. Georgie Anne Geyer points to the obvious in a recent book: "…an entire new Cuban cadre now emerged from the Bay of Pigs.

The names Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Eugenio Martinez would, in the next quarter century, pop up, often decisively, over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises.

There were Cubans flying missions for the CIA in the Congo and even for the Portuguese in Africa; Cubans were the burglars of Watergate; Cubans played key roles in Nicaragua, in Irangate, in the American move into the Persian Gulf." 2 Felix Rodriguez tells us that he was infiltrated into Cuba with the other members of the "Grey Team" in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs landings; this is the same man we will find directing the contra supply effort in central American during the 1980′s, working under the direct supervision of Don Gregg and George Bush. 3 Theodore Shackley, the JM/WAVE station chief, will later show up in Bush’s 1979-80 presidential campaign.
…
This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride’s source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."
–Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography — by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, CHAPTER VIII-b – THE BAY OF PIGS AND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

I recently quoted Albert Speer’s summation of the Third Reich which, for so long, he served admirably with the best fascist architecture Reichsmarks could buy! Speer summed up the Third Reich. He said that it had been built upon hollow, meaningless platitudes. The same can be said of the GOP in America: "George Bush’s inaugural address of January 21, 1989, was on the whole an eminently colorless and forgettable oration. The speech was for the most part a rehash of the tired demagogy of Bush’s election campaign, with the ritual references to "a thousand points of light" and the hollow pledge that when it came to the drug inundation which Bush had supposedly been fighting for most of the decade…
Bush’s performance during the Panama crisis was especially ominous because of the president’s clearly emerging mental imbalance. Several outbursts during the Noriega press conferences had resembled genuine public fits. Racist and sexual obsessions were reaching critical mass in Bush’s subconscious. These gross phenomena did not receive the attention they would have merited from journalists, television commentators, and pundits, who rather preferred studiously to ignore them. It was during these waning days of 1989 that Bush’s mental disintegration became unmistakeable, foreshadowing the greater furors yet to come." — Chapter XXIII, The End of History

How will we remember the ‘presidency’ since the murder of JFK? I will remember these years for what was not accomplished because JFK was murdered –the dreams that are still unfulfilled, the hopes that were dashed! I will remember an era of GOP dominance distinguished by its celebration of mediocrity. I will remember a GOP that rewarded crookery and made of evil a banality. It took a horrible war and millions of deaths to crush the Third Reich! What will it take to crush the oppressive GOP dominion of some fifty years? Please tell me! We have work to do.

By Eqbal Ahmed:

After the publication of a letter in The New York Times (April 10, 1971) signed by me jointly with three other West Pakistani scholars and after subsequent statements of mine opposing the Pakistani military government’s intervention in East Bengal, several Pakistani officials protested my position. They all pointed out that: 1) The army, under General Yahya, is only protecting national integrity against a secessionist movement which would cause the 70 million people in East Pakistan to break away from the 56 million in West Pakistan; 2) The army intervened only after the Bengali nationalists had started killing West Pakistani residents in East Pakistan and the minority Bihari refugees from India; 3) Since the leaders of the Awami League of East Pakistan have pro-Western sympathies and connections, and the Chinese “support” the federal government, anti-imperialist and radical elements should not oppose the military’s action. The following is a reply to one such “friend”.

Dear——

I hope you understand that it was not easy for me and my brother Saghir Ahmad to publish the statement you saw in The New York Times (April 10, 1971). First, I did not have any natural sympathy for the Bangla Desh movement. In fact, I had a definite feeling of antipathy for Sheikh Mujib [East Pakistan’s leader whose party, the Awami League, won a governing majority in the national assembly and 98 percent of Bengali votes]. He impressed me as being a limited man, impetuous and unimaginative. But then I have less regard for his West Pakistani counterparts—the miserable Mr. Bhutto who changes his politics like a lizard his color, or the generals who, bred by colonial Britain and armed by the USA, appear bent on turning the country into a Muslim version of Greece and Spain.

Secondly, as you know, I am originally from Bihar, and most of my people had migrated to East Pakistan. Several of them were killed by Bengali zealots during the period immediately preceding the military’s intervention. Furthermore, I grew up during the Movement for Pakistan, and it is hard not to cherish the idea of national unity. Lastly, as a radical and an internationalist, I do not believe that separatist movements constitute a forward step in the right direction. For these reasons, my inclinations should be to support a policy of maintaining the integrity of Pakistan.

However, as I see the facts surrounding recent developments, I am able to find neither a political and economic nor a moral justification for the current policy of military intervention. I have been examining the facts as closely as it is possible to do, given the censorship of news by the military regime and the resulting imbalances in news reports, some of which necessarily emanate from India.

My considered opinion is that:

1) The East Pakistanis had genuine grievances against the federal government, dominated by the military since at least 1957. Not even the most hawkish West Pakistanis deny the gross economic inequities and exploitation suffered by the Bengalis. Politically, twelve years of direct military rule deprived them of even a minor share in the exercise of power.

2) The nearly unanimous electoral support for the Awami League’s demand for provincial autonomy was the result of the neglect of East Pakistan, climaxing in the example of the incredible negligence in the relief of cyclone victims last November. I recognize that the poor in West Pakistan have suffered also. The callousness of our rulers may be undiscriminating. Yet the more disadvantaged people of East Pakistan could only comprehend their condition as caused by regional discrimination.

3) Having failed to arrive at an extra-parliamentary settlement, the military, supported by West Pakistani leaders, intervened on March 25, 1971, to offset the results of Pakistan’s first freely held elections. Perhaps the army had little hope of obtaining the capitulation of Pakistan’s elected representatives. It is now clear that the army used the negotiations between General Yahya and Sheikh Mujib as a cover to prepare for its intervention.

4) There is absolutely no popular base of support for the federal government. Even after four months of terror it has been unable to produce a group of political quislings capable of lending some legitimacy to the army’s occupation.

5) While the military has the power to lord over East Pakistan, the cost of this colonization will be very high for the peoples of both East and West. For the latter it must include increasing economic hardships, militarization of our politics and society, and total denial of civil liberties. The closing of journals like Asad andLail-O-Nahar, the recent jailing without trial in West Pakistan of 800 persons, including leaders like Afzal Bangash, Mukhtar Rana, and G.M. Syed, intellectuals like Abdullah Malik and Sheikh Ayaz, academicians like G.M. Shah, and the recent public floggings of dissenters against the government in Lyalpur and Sialkot are indicative of the shift toward totalitarianism.

Similarly I worry over the statements and editorials which provoke public paranoia by suggesting an Indian-Jewish-American conspiracy in this conflict. This, regardless of the fact that with arms and money the American government is underwriting the murderous mission of the military dictatorship. Above all I am distressed by the promotion of religious fundamentalism and the systematic killing and harassment by the army of our Hindu citizens. I shudder when I think of the repercussions this policy may have for the 80 million Moslems in India.

6) Unless there is an immediate end to military rule in East Pakistan, famine and pestilence as well as periodic massacres by the army will cost millions of lives in the coming months. The intervention has already caused an estimated 250,000 deaths of unarmed civilians. Six million refugees have reached India. Between 60,000 and 100,000 are arriving daily and are facing infection from cholera and the hostility of poor Indians. Millions languish in the interior of East Pakistan, hungry and terrorized, potential statistics in what threatens to become the greatest holocaust in history.

As you know, the balance of survival is delicate in East Pakistan. Minor disruptions often cause major tragedies. Nineteen seventy and 1971 have been particularly hard years. The floods last August and September were the worst of the last decade and destroyed about half a million tons of rice. The cyclone in November, the most severe of the century, destroyed an equal amount of rice and rendered one thousand square miles of rice lands uncultivable for at least one year.

Then the army, in an effort to deny supplies to the Bengali opposition, started confiscating and burning the food reserves. Many displaced or frightened peasants in the villages have not harvested the winter crop. The combined losses, amounting to about 2.5 million tons of rice, must be replaced immediately if mass starvation is to be prevented. The recent survey by the World Bank, as well as the disclosures by Senator Kennedy of suppressed State Department reports, indicate that Western and US officials in East Pakistan have been warning Washington of the “specter of famine.”

Others have been more concrete in their predictions. Three months ago, Iain MacDonald, Relief Coordinator for Oxfam and other agencies, warned that 1.5 million persons may face starvation. Recently the Financial Times of Londonestimated that possibly four million would die unless relief and reconstruction were speedily begun. Alan Hart, a BBC reporter, believes it “probable that twenty or more million East Pakistanis will be starving by September or October.”

The dispatch of more supplies for relief is by itself unlikely to avert the impending tragedy. Only a quick restoration of civilian rule can prevent the use of food grains and medicine as military weapons; and only such a restoration can ensure both the distribution of relief and an effective role for international agencies in the administration of such relief.

7) Lastly, I should stress that no genuine restoration of civilian government will be possible until the East Pakistanis have been conceded their right to autonomy or even secession.

For these reasons, I believe that the only workable course for West Pakistanis is to insist on immediate and unconditional termination of martial law, the convening of the duly elected national assembly, and a commitment that the majority decisions of that assembly shall be binding on all, even if these decisions dismember Pakistan as a state consisting of East and West. We must reject the army’s absurd claim that it has intervened to protect the nation’s “integrity” from the party that had just won, in Pakistan’s only freely held elections, a governing majority in the national assembly.

In fact, the elected representatives of East Pakistan had insisted only on fulfilling their mandate to achieve autonomy for their province. The proclamation by the East Pakistanis of the independent state of Bangla Desh took place only after the army refused to convene the national assembly and after it had brutally intervened in East Pakistan on March 25, 1971. In his speech of June 28, General Yahya denied the right of the national constituent assembly to draw up a constitution and he harshly attacked all the leaders of the Awami League. This destroyed the possibility of any settlement based on the mandate of the elections.

I know that I shall be condemned for my position. For someone who is facing a serious trial in America, it is not easy to confront one’s own government. Yet it is not possible for me to oppose American crimes in Southeast Asia or Indian occupation of Kashmir while accepting the crimes that my government is committing against the people of East Pakistan. Although I mourn the death of Biharis by Bengali vigilantes, and condemn the irresponsibilities of the Awami League, I am not willing to equate their actions with that of the government and the criminal acts of an organized, professional army.

According to reliable reports, which were not challenged by the government, no more than 10,000 persons were killed or wounded by Bengali nationalists in the riots against the Biharis. At the beginning of August, however, West Pakistan military authorities issued a white paper which claimed that 100,000 people were killed by the Bengali opposition. These and other exaggerated claims in the white paper were obviously intended to justify trials and possible death sentences for opposition leaders. As this letter is being written, the military government has announced that Sheikh Mujib will face a secret military tribunal on August 12, on charges of “waging war” against Pakistan. Since the white paper announced that seventy-nine members of the unconvened national assembly will face criminal charges, Mujib’s trial may foreshadow more secret prosecutions.

I know that the army did not intervene in East Pakistan to stop the killing of non-Bengalis, which went on for three weeks while the generals pretended to seek extra-parliamentary deals with the politicians. Saving civilian lives was not the motive behind the vast repressions that have already cost countless Pakistanis their lives and property and forced millions to flee to India. Unequal bartering of brutalities is not a function of responsible government. The very fact that this military regime seeks justification for its behavior by referring to the excesses of the Awami League and the aroused masses is a measure of the steep decline in the civic standards of our army and civil services. Above all, criminality is not a commercial proposition: one cannot deposit the crimes of one into the account of another.

The Chinese rhetoric on this issue is irrelevant. They have offered Pakistan their support only against foreign interference; and indicated their belief that this conflict is an internal matter. Much more alarming is the American government’s decision to continue armaments sales and economic aid to the dictatorship, despite the unanimous opposition of its Western allies, of important men in the Congress, and of the World Bank. This is particularly striking in view of the long-standing loyalty to the West and to the US of Sheikh Mujib and his party.

Washington’s assistance to the West Pakistan junta should be a lesson to those Pakistanis who believed that the US, given a choice between militarists and moderate democrats, would choose the latter. The leaders of the Awami League in East Pakistan failed to understand how important West Pakistan was to the Nixon-Kissinger strategy of building an informal anti-Soviet alliance of dependable clients around the Mediterranean and Indian oceans—from Spain and Portugal, through Greece and Israel, to Iran and Pakistan.

It has been said that General Yahya is now being rewarded by US support for having arranged Mr. Kissinger’s recent mission to China. If this is so, then the Chinese-American detente will have started by being detrimental to the weak and poor in Asia. Whatever the reasons for US policy, however, one effect is clear: Americans have become silent accomplices in crimes against humanity in yet another part of Asia. But their obligations are not as urgent as yours and mine.

I should also stress that the recent developments strengthen the possibility of a war between India and Pakistan. The two countries are more and more becoming pawns in world politics. India and the USSR have now signed a twenty-year friendship pact in which Russia promises to give military assistance to India in the event of war with Pakistan. This treaty cancels the gains that Pakistan had made at the Tashkent conference in 1966, when the Russians promised both to give aid to Pakistan and to be neutral in India-Pakistan relations.

I do not know if my position would at all contribute to a humane settlement. Given the fact that our government is neither accountable to the public nor sensitive to the opinion of mankind, our protest may have no effect until this regime has exhausted all its assets and taken the country down the road to moral, political, and economic bankruptcy. However, lack of success does not justify the crime of silence in the face of criminal, arbitrary power.

Source:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1971/sep/02/letter-to-a-pakistani-diplomat/?pagination=false