I was completely relaxed about Musharraf’s return to Pakistan and Pakistani politics. I felt sure he did not have a future here anymore. In fact, I even felt cynical at times to his quotes regarding returning.

However, to my great shock, I heard a person speaking of some favorable chances for Musharraf in the Pakistani politics even now. I commented, ‘Well it must be by those wayward seculars who would vote for just about anyone as long as s/he keeps the wine flowing and all that goes along with it…’. To my surprise she said ‘No, but it is because of the economic growth that took place in his regime. People are interested in that’.

Dead silence.

I see. Is that so?

Are there people out there who would like to see Musharraf back despite Musharraf’s great crime of selling Pakistan’s sovereignty, constitution and people for an indefinite period of illegal detention in torture cells? He sanctioned surgical strikes within our North-West border. Does replacing with the word ‘surgical’ make it any different from the November 26, 2011 air strike of Mohmand Agency? He sanctioned ground and air logistic support for war against a neighboring Muslim country, Afghanistan. Ironically, this is the same country for which Jihad was declared by the Pakistani authorities when another superpower had encroached upon it. However, this time, anti-Jihad was in progress. However, the most amazing feat of Musharraf was selling Pakistani citizens along with their children, to American beckoning, and even taking booty upon it! He admitted this, perhaps even proudly, in his book ‘In the Line of Fire’. However, what he did not have the guts to admit was that he truly sold Pakistanis and he lies that they were foreigners. Aafia Siddiqui and many others were Pakistanis whom Musharraf declared otherwise. And I completely fail to understand his jubilance upon taking booty upon this sale. When I try to empathize and wear his boots in an effort to understand why he took the decisions which he did, I still fail to understand why he took money to hand over people for torture, be they Pakistanis or non-Pakistanis. I mean I can understand that I may be a soldier of very weak guts and my knees start to knock when the American foreign minister calls me and says ‘Either you are with us or against us’. And I, in my extreme hurry to ward off any potential danger, I even forget to consult the parliament or senate or even my group of core commanders of the country, and say ‘Yes SIR’, even then why would I take booty upon it? I can imagine myself hiding in a corner and weeping miserably that I did not have the guts to stand up to a foreign, bullish threat and I succumbed to violating the country’s sovereignty, constitution and public security, but, why would I take booty upon it?

One takes booty only upon something one considers absolutely rightful, even dutiful, and one does it with glee. I try to imagine the day Musharraf sanctioned picking up Aafia Siddiqui and her children. Did he manage to sleep that night? Perhaps not, because the payment shipment had not arrived yet…

All those who are pro-Musharraf even now, because of the economic growth during his regime, should immediately make a list of their assets which they can invest in business ventures with Musharraf when he arrives. The list begins; your wife, your children, your brothers and sisters, perhaps even your parents…

All you need is a stone heart and President Musharraf.

In view of your announcement to arrive here in Pakistan to participate back in politics, a most unwelcome to you, Pervaiz Musharraf.

With Musharraf’s possible return to Pakistani politics on everyone’s minds, Newsline has compiled a photo gallery of the former president and military man from its archives.

Jang group is the largest media group in the country and in recent times its power has only increased. Its electronic arm, GEO TV, is one of the most influential television stations in Pakistan and is known to promote populist narratives according to which politicians are corrupt and operate with no accountability.

Lifestyles of politicians is often targeted and any “exuberance” is projected as complete insensitivity to the plight of the suffering poor of the country. One would expect, that perhaps the owners of the this media empire would themselves try to set the example of simplicity. However, when it comes to contradictions, Pakistani media barons really take the cake.

Recently the daughter of the one of the owners got married in Dubai in a really expensive and high profile wedding ceremony. The interesting thing was that the ceremony was deliberately “hidden” from the expected media spotlight.

However one of the reasons may be the extremely high profile guests who made special appearance including former President General Musharraf, Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapur and Arjun Rampal. Now these Bollywood stars generally command an exuberant price to attend such events. One wonders as to why the same level of “simplicity” expected from “corrupt” politicians was not displayed by the top media barons of Pakistan.

Had it not been for this little report, we would have never known:

But Shah Rukh Khan, Arjun Rampal and Hrithik Roshan also attended a high-profile wedding on December 30 during their stay here in Dubai.

They made special appearance at the wedding of Pakistan media mogul Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman’s daughter, who tied the knot with the son of an investment banker who has made inroads into the media business. And the grand event happened in Dubai.

Atlantis Hotel was the main venue for the wedding reception where stars and famous personalities had gathered. But the icing on the wedding cake was when Shah Rukh Khan walked in with Kareena Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan and Arjun Rampal.

Just before SRK walked in another VVIP, former Pakistan President Musharraf, had been lapping all the limelight.

But King Khan’s entry saw the spot light shift and the guests went hysterical. The stage nearly collapsed under the onslaught of fans and the screams of joy could be heard a mile away and beyond

Read the full story here http://www.emirates247.com/bollywood/take-one/big-fat-dubai-wedding-bollywood-and-musharraf-2012-01-05-1.435923

Are we eventually not back to the square one? The ever so familiar situation repeating itself every so often _ the civil military stand off and the government and judiciary finding themselves at loggerheads yet again feeding ample fodder to the insatiable milling machine of media thankfully to sensationalize and spice things up to their liking, churning out conspiracy theories by creating an unnecessary hype at times while acting irresponsibly by neglecting the imperative developments and details at others to mislead ( read to keep informed) the public at large but to keep their business and entertainment (talk) shows going round the clock. 

The history is perhaps tired of repeating itself over and over again but we are not. While the cynical circular spectrum of events continue to go round and round statically with no linear development over the six decades, interestingly the question remains who is actually at fault? 

Was the judiciary at fault when ZAB riding the crest of a mammoth tide of popularism was hanged? Certainly! Was the judiciary at fault when the over zealous Sultan Muhammad Nawaz Sharif stormed the supreme court overwhelmed by his lust of power? Certainly not! Is the judiciary at fault now when it is taking government to task over a couple of security and political issues? Anybody’s guess! 

More? Was it democratically elected Nawaz Sharif at fault when he dismissed the then COAS Musharraf or was the military takeover a logical reaction to Sharif’s voracious desire for omnipotence while undermining the freedom of various state institutions? 

While it appears deceptively simple to single out Army as the most criminal force and factor in the equation that has arguably rooted out seeds of democratic culture that have been sown time and again but haven’t the democratic institutions failed time and again and caved in owing to their intrinsic weakness, imbalance, disharmony and reckless measures? I am certainly not for khakis to step in or marching boots to trample the constitution at their own free will. There are far too many lessons to learn from the autocratic Islamic revolution led by Hazarat General Muhammad Zia ul Haq and later, in stark contrast, the radiant era of “Renaissance” unleashed by enlightened moderator Mush__ both reminding us of the ages of darkness ironically in one way or the other. But the fact remains that unlike the rest, Military is the only disciplined and organized institution of the state with supposedly far less public dealing and external influence. In all fairness, doesn’t Military get more than its due share of blame for the failure of state or democratic process or institutions? Again, even if for the argument’s sake, Military is the mother of all ills, isn’t failure of a major state institution to understand its due role and to overstep its limits or jurisdiction blatantly time and again be deemed as the failure of democracy or system itself? 

If so, this brings us back to the million dollar question, how in the world do the tenets of western democracy offer the best solution to our typical political, social and economic problems that have failed to grab roots in sixty four years?

 If going to the polls with 35 million bogus registered votes every now and then and casting our vote in the favour of the candidate solely on the basis of birardari or “kinship” as Anatol Lieven ( Pakistan a hard country) puts it earns us the licence to be a democratic state, who are we fooling by expecting a change to take place simply by sticking to this ritual? Not to undermine our society, but have we got the literacy, awareness, religious and social freedom and justice, tradition and maturity to inculcate that culture of expression of freedom, tolerance, mutual respect, equal rights for all human beings that constitute the spirit of democracy together?   

If not, then why are we obsessed with the secular models of western democracy that will never work for us or has never gained roots in the sixty four years of the existence ofPakistanas a state? 

My dear friends and intellectuals who cannot see beyond the dazzling virtues of democracy and exist as if only to keep on harping about it, let us be honest and analyze is democracy the only system that has brought about change coupled with social and economic upliftment round the globe or region? We may snub China for poor human rights standings but what has brought about that magnificent rise in its economic power and splendour? Democracy? Why forget the Asian tigersSingapore? While the state has remained a kingdom with no natural resources of its own (even the drinking water is to be imported from the neighbouring Malaysia), who can deny the remarkable turn around in its stature and economic fate that has earned it the informal title of the ‘Most orderly state” in the world just in a few decades? 

Call it our mindset but name a single mainstream political party that has nurtured democratic culture within its rank and file. Does passing the leadership on to the next generation or the memebers of the family like personal fiefdom or heritage does not negate the spirit of the democracy itself? Or is it perfectly cool to build on a monarchy of  Sharifs, Bhuttos, Zardaris & Madaris while harping about democratic traditions and process?

To cut it short, there may well be countless virtues and democracy may still be the best form of governance but what good is it if it does not deliver but rather dis-enfranchise the masses to the point where the state is brought to the brink of its existential threat?

To me, democracy is after all a means or mode to deliver! 

  PT Report Chitral, January 8: General (r) Pervez Musharraf said that he would contest the the forthcoming elections from Chitral. He made the announcement today while addressing his supporters gathered in Karachi. He thanked MNA Shahzada Muhiuddin and his son Shahzada Pervez for inviting him to contest the election from Chitral. The former dictator who [...]

By Faisal Aziz KARACHI | Sun Jan 8, 2012 2:47pm EST (Reuters) – Exiled former president Pervez Musharraf said on Sunday he would return to Pakistan later this month to lead his recently formed party in campaigning for a parliamentary election, despite the possibility of his arrest and concern over his security. “There are efforts to scare me, but these [...]

My recent article for Viewpoint Online, published Jan 7, 2012:

Salmaan Taseer: The political context of a ‘religious’ assassination

Enforce rule of law, expose hypocrisy of the Taliban mentality

Just over a year ago, Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer was assassinated in the most cowardly manner by a government-assigned security guard. Mumtaz Qadri, a member of the Punjab Elite Force assigned to protect the Governor, pumped 27 bullets into his victim’s back as he headed to his car on the afternoon of January 4, 2011.

The sensational murder was no spontaneous act by an enraged fanatic. It was a well-thought out, cold-blooded plan. Was the executor acting alone, motivated only by ‘religious fervour’ as projected, or is there more to the issue than meets the eye? And even if his act was purely altruistic, should the law of the land not be applied to punish him?

The Governor was already a target of the ‘hate-filled organisations’ as he termed them, well before they saw an opportunity to (ab)use the ‘blasphemy law’ to unite their own until then divided ranks. For this, they needed a target. The opportunity arrived when a trial court sentenced a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, to death on Nov 8, 2010, for ‘blasphemy’.

A few facts to put this situation in context:

• The ‘religious parties’, historically divided amongst themselves, have never made any significant headway in electoral politics in Pakistan. A democratic dispensation does not suit them.
• Although Pakistan under Gen. Musharraf officially cut ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after 9/11 (reluctantly, the last country to do), it continued to allow the ‘home grown jihadis’ to operate, seeing them as useful to keep the fire smouldering in Indian administered Kashmir.
• In Feb 2008, a democratically elected government replaced Gen. Musharraf’s military regime. The new government eschewed the earlier policy of using non-state actors to achieve its foreign policy objectives – but the security establishment remained wedded to the outdated paradigm of ‘strategic’ depth (i.e. Pakistan’s continued influence in Afghanistan because of a perceived threat from India).

What does all this have to do with Salmaan Taseer and the politics behind his assassination?

Everything. The mindset and political ideology disguised in the rhetoric of religion is furthered by a security establishment that sees its duty as being to protect not just Pakistan’s physical frontiers but also its ‘ideology’, developed along conservative religious lines since the 1965 war with India. This ideology was strengthened during the Afghan war of the 1980s, when a national war of liberation was converted into a ‘holy war’ (as Dr. Eqbal Ahmad pointed out in his talk on ‘Terrorism, theirs and ours’, 1998).

Pakistan’s ‘religious’ organisations flourished and gained strength with Saudi and American backing during the Zia years (1977-1988). They were allowed to function freely during the military-dominated ‘musical chairs’ years in which no government could complete its tenure (1988-1999). As mentioned above, they also had a free rein during the Musharraf years (1999-2008) even after 9/11.

Since the end of the first Afghan war, these organisations have been targeting and killing religious minorities and progressive minded people in Pakistan. The genie released during the Zia years and nurtured under Musharraf was not going to go tamely back into the bottle.

Governor Taseer was already in their sights for his outspoken and rational views on religion and human rights. He had no qualms naming the organisations he suspected to be behind the May 2010 massacre of worshippers in an Ahmedi mosque in Lahore, where over 80 people were killed and scores of others injured.

“These hate-filled organisations – Sipah-e-Sahaba, (Lashkar-e-) Jhangvi — they all have same ideology – Taliban, Al Qaeda…,” he said during his condolence visit.

“They should be prosecuted in the courts,” he said. “Don’t let them off. There should be zero tolerance towards them. No political alliance is possible with these organisations, you can’t go around having them at your political meetings, the Punjab government should prosecute them”.

Five months later the religious parties found a way to unite their ranks by conflating the ‘blasphemy’ issue with the issue of the ‘honour of the Prophet’ (peace be upon Him), when there were protests against the death sentence of Aasia Bibi. The ‘religious’ organisations came out in full force calling for her death because she had allegedly said something derogatory against the Prophet (peace be upon Him).

For some years the ‘blasphemy’ issue had lain somewhat dormant. Now, after many years, a court handed down a death sentence for such a case. Protests against the sentence by human rights and Christian organisations led to counter protests by ‘Islamic’ groups that used the issue to build up their political strength.

The situation was reminiscent of the early 1990s when there was a surge of ‘blasphemy’ cases, and the first ‘blasphemy murder’ was committed. Between 1986, when the law came into effect, and 2010, 1,081 people were charged under it, including 138 Christians, 468 Muslims and 454 Ahmadis, according to the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP). In all cases investigated by human rights groups, motivations for these cases have been invariably rooted in rivalries or disputes related to money, property or other jealousies.

The High Courts and the Supreme Court have so far not upheld any death sentence passed by a lower court, although several defendants have been extra-judicially killed after being accused of ‘blasphemy’. In the early 1990s this was the scenario:

The frenzy had been building up. Masked gunmen had opened fire after a court hearing in April 1994, wounding Salamat and killing Manzoor Masih, one of the co-accused in the blasphemy case. Glossy, full-colour stickers and posters cropped up all over Lahore, calling for “believers” to find and kill (Asma) Jahangir. In July, a mob outside the Lahore High Court attacked her car. Luckily, she was not in the vehicle but her driver was assaulted and the car smashed. It was a few days later that the letter vowing to hunt down and kill Jahangir was delivered to her office. (Zarteef Khan Afridi: The tribesman who showed the way)

There was no case registered against Governor Salmaan Taseer but the propaganda against him was amplified by the proliferation of the 24/7 television channels and social media. Taseer was publicly projected as a blasphemer. The aggression of one particularly vitriolic television talk show host led the Governor to rebuke her: “You are acting as I am guilty of blasphemy” (watch the programme here and here).

Sunni Tehrik and other extremist organisations held rallies and demonstrations against clemency for Aasia Bibi and against proposed procedural amendments to the ‘blasphemy laws’ that PPP MNA Sherry Rehman sought to table. Put on the defensive, the government as well as opposition figures who had agreed to support the amendments, backtracked, leaving Rehman high and dry, her life under threat.

Zaid Hamid, Hanif Qureshi and others: preachers of hate misleading youth

Mumtaz Qadri was a known figure at such rallies where emotions were being whipped up. He even recited ‘naat’ at some of them – like at this one, just three days before he killed the man he was supposed to be protecting.

These questions arise:

• How was a man who attended such gatherings, who was already known for his extremist views (he had been earlier removed from the Special Branch because he was perceived as a security threat) inducted into the Elite Force in the first place?
• How was such a man assigned guard duty to a high profile target like the Governor Punjab?
• Why did the other guards not expose Qadri or get him arrested when he told them what he was going to do and asked them not to open fire, as he would surrender (as he said in his confession after his arrest)?
• Given that the other guards did not open fire, according to standard operating procedures in VIP guard duty, why were they not charged as accomplices to the murder, even though Qadri said he was acting alone?

Citizens for Democracy (CFD), an umbrella group of several professional and activist organisations formed on Dec 19, 2010 in Karachi, raised such questions in its statement of January 7, 2011. “We reiterate our stand that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands and kill anyone, regardless of whether they are accused of blasphemy or any other crime,” said the statement, endorsed by nearly 70 organisations.

But such voices were drowned in the din of ‘religious’ righteousness.

Qadri’s fellow guards who were detained after Governor Taseer’s assassination were released without being charged, as was the cleric whose inflammatory sermon convinced Qadri to pull the trigger.

Salmaan Taseer’s murder was followed just two months later by the murder of the Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian by faith, who had also been outspoken about the blasphemy issue. No one has been arrested for that murder. The trial court judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri to death has fled Pakistan for his own safety. Qadri’s supporters are calling for the death sentence to be commuted, which is somewhat puzzling given that Qadri has stated he is willing to die for his faith and he believes he has done right.

Pakistan has many pressing problems – including the perennial ones of clean drinking water, healthcare, education, shelter and so on that directly impact the people. But on a larger level, there is also clearly an urgent need to enforce the rule of law — charge, try and prosecute the guilty without fear or favour — and to expose the hypocrisy of the Taliban mentality that is tearing the country apart.

Recent wave of Arab spring and success of Justice and Development Party in Turkey have given many lessons to Islamic movements and political parties around the world.

These revolutions and political successes came as a result of patient and hard laboured struggles without compromising on fundamental issues.

Here in Pakistan, after wasting a decade in an un-wanted foreign war, there was a chance of smaller but ideologically focused parties to join hands against the so called war on terror.

The other fundamental issues which got spot light during that time were issues like independent judiciary,corruption, missing persons and breaking the status-quo in Pakistani politics.

Two political forces, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf led by Imran Khan and Jamat e Islami led by Munawwar Hassan, can be expected to bring people together on fundamental issues related to the survival of our country. On one hand eyebrows are being raised over the inclusion of former PML-Q members in PTI and their alleged soft corner for MQM which Imran Khan has rejected.

PTI’s poltical leadership has been denying the impression that they are forming any alliance with forces of status-quo, MQM with its politics of violence or any corrupt leadership. Their point of view on the inclusion of new leadership as expressed by Imran Khan recently is that these people are joining PTI after agreeing with PTI’s agenda and knowing that their assets and credibility will be scruitinized before giving them any party tickets.

Time will tell if PTI sticks to what it claims. Now in another turn of events Jamat e Islami is getting closer with PML-N, a force well-known for being an important part of status-quo along with two other pillars including PPP and establishment.

This development is interesting as according to the news reports, Farid Paracha of Jamat e Islami said,“All the PML-Q has been renamed as PTI. If we have to work with these corrupt people, there is no need to get closer to the PTI.”

This line of argument is interesting from Jamat e Islami’s senior leader. JI is criticizing PTI for including those who are joining the party after accepting PTI’s agenda on USA war on terror, corruption,judiciary etc. Also these people are joining PTI after knowing the fact that their assets and credibility will be scruitinized before giving them party tickets.

On the other hand JI prefers to be partners with a party which is itself an important part of status-quo and has a good history of corrupt power politics (JI’s past statements are also there on this). It was evident from the JI’s recent social media campaign that the people in JI who support PML-N and JUI-F are not happy with PTI’s growing popularity and a possible conflict of interest in the form of some common vote bank or supporter base especially anti-war on terror votebank.

If we talk about fundamentals, PML-N supported operations in Sawat and tribal areas, and played its double role in judiciary movement. Also the possibility of them having a clear stance on corruption is very limited, if we look at their past tenures in federal government.

But still they are eligible for being a partner in the eyes of JI’s senior leader despite former accusations by JI on PML-N for playing the role of a friendly opposition.

So far there are no clear statements on the recent developments between PTI and JI relationship by their top most leaderships. According to news reports, they are expected to meet soon to discuss recent developments in Pakistani politics and way forward with each other.

I hope they will keep fundamental issues like war on terror, corrution, indepndent judiciary, missing persons and independent foreign policy in mind before taking any major decision. This is a make or break time for Pakistani politics as new developments are taking place in neighbouring Afghanistan and a new wave of change in Pakistan is knocking our doors.

Will PTI and JI compromise their fundamental stances over some tactical politics? Their answer may determine the future course of our country and its politics.

By Duncan Gardham for The Telegraph

Mr Musharraf will announce his intention to return from London where has been living in exile despite facing arrest on treason charges. “His return will be announced by video link at a rally in Karachi on Sunday,” a source close to the former president told the Daily Telegraph.

He is planning to fly back to Pakistan by the end of January, plunging himself into a political crisis amid reports of an early general election and rumors the military is on the brink of mounting a coup.

The government and army are at loggerhead trading allegations over a memo allegedly sent to US military chiefs by senior officials asking for support to reduce military influence. Yusuf Gilani, the country’s prime minister, has said publicly Pakistan’s generals are behaving as though they were a “state within a state”.

As rumours of a coup gathered speed, Asif Zardari, the country’s president, has been forced to fly back to Pakistan from Dubai where he was receiving treatment for “stroke-like symptoms”.

General Ashfaq Kayani, the head of the Pakistan army, rejected coup claims, insisting the army would “continue to support the democratic process”.
However the military distrusts both Mr Zardari and the rival Pakistan Muslim League-N, headed by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister deposed by Mr Musharraf.

Political analysts believe the army command want to back an outside campaign in the elections but it is unclear if Mr Musharraf fits the bill.
While there has been some support to “bring back the general,” Mr Musharraf was deeply unpopular by the time he was forced out of power four years ago.

In order to stage a return he would need political support from Middle Eastern countries to help persuade the government to drop the charges against
him.

However, there have been reports that the army is backing Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricket captain who leads Tehreek-e-Insaf [the Movement for Justice] and has staged a series of popular rallies.

Mr Khan is a former supporter of Mr Musharraf who has since become one of his fiercest critics. Ahmed Rashid, a political commentator, said the country was facing a “multi-faceted crisis”, particularly with the economy, but he doubted Mr Musharraf could make a comeback. “I don’t think he has enough people supporting him and he would probably be arrested,” he said.

Mr Musharraf launched his own political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, in London in June 2010 and told the Daily Telegraph last year: “Pakistan is suffering. The people are extremely alive now that something has to be done in Pakistan. The youth is alive, the educated middle class is alive, they are in a state of shock and dismay over the governance in Pakistan.”

He promised a party that was “capable, viable, honest and deliverable internationally.” “I am a person who believes if I try and if I’m failing, I will quit,” he added. “I have no qualms and no ego. I have governed Pakistan for nine years, very successfully and I have no further ambitions, personal ambitions, my ambition is Pakistan.” But it is unlikely that Mr Musharraf would be able to claim victory on his own and he admitted: “I am trying to create an entity which can be the third political alternative, whether alone or in coalition with some other like-minded parties.” Mr Zardari took over from Mr Musharraf as the country’s first elected leader in nine years following the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

However his party, the Pakistan People’s Party, has become increasingly unpopular as Pakistan faces a economic depression and copes with one crisis after another. The next government is likely to be decided by smaller parties and Mr Musharraf could play a crucial role in that decision.

Filed under: Democracy, Freedoms, Pakistan, Pakistanis Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Pakistanis, Pervez Musharraf, PPP, PTI

I have been a resident of Islamabad since 1986. That makes about twenty-five years to date. I remember some electricity load-shedding, while there used to be no gas load-shedding. And the electricity load-shedding would not exceed a limit that would cause our daily routines to disrupt. Rather, in the summers, that one hour load-shedding at night would give all of us a great opportunity to take a break and have a nice stroll in the street under the star-decked night-sky. With all the black out on ground, the stars took stage to shine piercingly. In the winters, the same hour would see the family huddle in front of the heater, eat peanuts and talk.

It was the winters of 2007. I sat huddled in a cold, dark room, holding my one-month old first-born. No, God forbid, I was not in any kind of detention center (After the mind-blowing abduction of Aafia Siddiqui along with her children, such descriptions bring detention centers to the mind). This cold, dark place was my very own home which had always been used to lights, warmth and laughter. This was the first winters I was experiencing with electricity and gas load-shedding happening together. We had resorted to candles for light. The rooms were so cold. And there was no warm water in the taps, for the geyser was not running. I was so scared my new born baby would fall ill and die.

Why this dreadful situation? I thought. And my mind rocketed back to the tragedy of three months ago…

Islamabad, Operation Silence, July 2007: Lal Masjid was attacked by the Musharraf regime for the so-called crime of demanding rule-of-Shariah-Law within the land, setting a deadline for it and attempting a couple of incursions to implement it. Prior to the attack and during the siege, the dwellers of Lal Masjid were subjected to food-supply cut-off, electricity, gas and water supply cut-off, harassment and terrorism.

Soon after, Pakistan was afflicted with the worst kind of wheat and sugar shortage, electricity and gas crisis, drone attacks by the US escalating from four to thirty-three per annum and the onset of suicide attacks. Indeed, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan had committed a suicide attack upon itself when it sought to crush an Islamic movement to appease its dollar-masters.

The pattern match was not lost to the observant eye and heart and very soon the print media was buzzing with the commentary of Nature’s recompense upon the Pakistani nation for staying mute upon the Lal Masjid Operation in the heart of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.

Today, the whole nation; men, women, children and senior citizens, are turning out on the streets protesting the horrendous electricity and gas load-shedding which has wrecked the most basic routines of people. Despite the record-breaking inflation of sixteen percent this fiscal year, even if people are managing to buy some ration for their kitchens, their children are still going to schools without breakfast for there is no gas to cook food on.

However, these protests will lead to nothing. For Nature’s rule works upon ‘An eye for an eye…’, and Nature will not forgive and restore our facilities until we restore the facilities of those whom we rooted out unjustifiably. Jamya Hafsa, Lal Masjid’s girl’s madrassah was demolished to the ground post Operation Silence. A year later, in 2008, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave the ruling for the reconstruction of Jamya Hafsa. Three years later, in 2011, the court order still remains unheard.

The civil protests on the roads today might not have been needed had these protests been made prior and during the days of Operation Silence when religious students and religious social workers were subjected to hunger, thirst, electricity, gas and water cut-off, harassment and terrorization. Today the whole nation is suffering exactly the same. Perhaps we can get out of this mess if instead of taking to the streets to get back our basic facilities, we go back a little way and seek the reconstruction of Jamya Hafsa and restore their basic facilities to them through donations. For the students of Jamya Hafsa are resilient students; when their roof was taken away, they did not choose to go home or to other fancy universities as President Musharraf had offered at that time, but continued to study in make-shift arrangements, eat meager meals and sleep at night in open, windy corridors during the piercing winters of Islamabad.

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

Below are all amendments in a summarized form 1974 onwards…

First Amendment May 04, 1974

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

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

Second Amendment September 17, 1974

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

Third Amendment February 13, 1975

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

Fourth Amendment November 21, 1975

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

Fifth Amendment September 16, 1976

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

Sixth Amendment December 13, 1976

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

Seventh Amendment May 16, 1977

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

Eighth Amendment November 9, 1985

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

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

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

Tenth Amendment March 25, 1987

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

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

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

Twelfth Amendment July 28, 1991

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

Thirteenth Amendment April 3, 1997

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

Fourteenth Amendment July 3, 1997

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

Fifteenth Amendment August 28, 1998

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

Sixteenth Amendment August 5, 1999

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

Seventeenth Amendment August 21, 2002

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

Eighteenth Amendment April 19, 2010

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

Nineteenth Amendment January 1, 2011

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

-

No kidding.

On 25th Dec, Imran Khan conducted a huge rally at mausoleum of Quaid, Karachi. It was estimated that over 1,00,0000 people showed up there. Though it’s a different issue altogether that the mausoleum has capacity of 50K to 60K people. It is also said that Imran Khan managed to gather a crowd bigger than that of Lahore’s. Again, it’s a different issue that Karachi IS bigger than Lahore (by all means), and people from all over Pakistan, travelled to attend the rally, so they were not just Karachiites. Anyhow, the rally was a marvelous success. And the PTIans can now bask in success.

But behind every successful rally, there is a long list of people to thank. And in the case at hand, MQM tops that list.

Anyone without bias and with a pinch of neutrality, would agree to it. Because deep down inside, we all clandestinely admit that, if MQM hadn’t wanted it, it would never ever have happened, not even in thousand years. Imran Khan could hold a rally, because MQM let him. Imran Khan’s rally was a success, because MQM let it be.

For those, who would refute it and argue that it would be MQM’s loss, had MQM created any hurdles. I would first advice them that you are lucky, now is the winters. Kindly avail this awesome opportunity for yourself and eat almonds. Because you really need to. It will improve your memory. How in the cruel world, can you for 12TH MAY 2007? Your trite and boring but a supposedly winning argument?

It was the time when MQM supported the leader, whole Pakistan hated. It was the time when didn’t pay heed to baghi-s (rebels) like Aitizaz Ahsan ( where is he now BTW? Attending a wedding? I head he is writing a autobiographical, “baghi se baghbani tak”) , whole Pakistan was following.It was the time when MQM scorned the Cheif Justice, whole Pakistan was worshipping. And it all resulted in, the city’s—that MQM rules–roads being blocked and well, being blood baths. Needless to mention, how conveniently everyone jumped on the bandwagon and blamed MQM. I won’t argue here, that one needs to be extra ordinarily stupid to create mayhem in his own governance. Anyways, so ranging from TV anchors to print media to street opinion, it was MQM-didn’t-let-CJ-to-hold-the-rally. The anti MQM sentiment went to another level and even beat the anti American sentiment prevalent in Pakistan. MQM was to Pakistan what Muslims are to America and what America is to Muslim countries.

*Fast foward*

So elections in 2008 took place (precisely after 8/9 months of the incident) and whoa, guess what? MQM won a landside victory from the City of Flyovers ( exactly 21 seats from Karachi). And 12th May talk goes on.

The fact is, the voter of MQM is loyal and won’t shift for three reasons. 1, Mustafa Kamal. Name is enough. 2, They have seen and heard about horrendous operation clean up against Mohajirs. 3, Mohajirs have (rightfully) this being cornered mentality.

So, no matter if it is 12th May or IF it WAS 25th Dec, nothing could/would effect MQM’s votebank. Karachi belongs to MQM, and always will.

Therefore, Imran Khan should not be stingy and insecure and should thank MQM, for its bounteous goodness, open mindedness and welcoming behavior.

Having said that, I wish IK all the luck in the world. I am pretty impressed by their demonstration and campaigning. And I am pretty confident that IK would win from Punjab and Khyber, the two provinces badly need some change and some development and some flyovers and some REAL malls.

Best of Luck Imran Khan.

-

PS: I apologize in advance if anyone’s offended, I was just trolling. Been a while.

If the civilians are called into question for their loyalty to the constitution of Pakistan, why not also put the spotlight on high-placed military officials, including coup-makers and their abettors?

By Engr. Syed Ghulam Mustafa

The nation I am talking about has  sixty four years experience in different forms of government, from civil to military, parliamentary to presidential, Union council to municipal, but is still in search of a system that could satisfy their need of progress, prosperity and peace. Yes, I am definitely talking about my own nation, Pakistan. The only missing point in our whole struggle and analysis of searching a flawless political system is that, there are no man made systems which could provide us a comprehensive solution for blood sucking problems unless we have the honest, loyal and will to resolve our issues, power and its attainment by the individuals who run them.

However, since there is no tool available to measure the internal traits of the persons who exercise powers, we cannot ensure the presence of good persons/leaders on the power center. It means that we have to bring a form of government in which power concentrate in institutions rather than individuals. Nowadays democracy in which all the institutions serving the country within their specified boundaries ,is considered the most practical and functional system.

Unfortunately, every system we experienced, it worked for few weeks or at most for few months and after that nation suffered the horrible side effects of the underlying system. Neither it was surprising nor was it our bad lack, but only the contradiction of our national thoughts. Many of us praise the Marshal Law of Gen. Ayub Khan but dislike the continuation of Gen. Yahya Khan, a huge number people love the democracy under the ruling of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, but rejects it when it brings Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Muhtarma Benazir Bhutto in power. if the dictatorship of Gen. Ayub was acceptable, what went wrong with Gen. Yahya , if the democracy was lovable with ZA Bhutto, why it become unacceptable with Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto,? In my opinion, in all form of government we focused people instead of systems, and when the power exercisers made the abusive use of their, for-granted powers, nation start hating the system, considering it incapable of solving their problems. What happened in times of Gen. Ayub, we didn’t bother to think even for a single minute about the consequences of having some corrupt General, while Gen. Ayub was blindly concentrating all the powers. Same happened in the tenure of Mr. ZA Bhutto, who honored the prime minister with all the available strength, and we gladly accepted his constitution without realizing the consequences of having some incompetent person in power. The similar pattern followed from Gen. Musharraf emergency to Mr. Asif Ali Zardari’s presidency. As the result we are still thinking, which is best form of government, democracy or dictatorship. History should not only be used to give the references in books and article, but we must extract its precious lesson. How rubbish is is that we are not ready to learn anything from our “precious history”. Yes, it is precious because we incurred heavy damages and incurable losses in making it. This nation ran through appreciable moments to restore judiciary and protect its freedom, but how unfortunate is that we are ready to put all the powers in basket of supreme court without realizing that what would be our way out if supreme court start exercising its power in a way it used in ZA Bhutto case. The meaning is simple and straight forward, do not trust the abilities of the system just because of the person running, but we must have complete insight of all the bad and good we come across in future. No matter who is the president, who is prime minister, whoever is Chief Justice and whoever is army chief, neither we should support nor we should ask any of them to exercise their unconstitutional powers. On the other hand if any of them try to concentrate the powers within his or her personality; we must immediately oppose this act of damaging system. In the end I just want to say that, we should struggle to protect system rather than Individuals.