Kaiser Bengali explains the Economic performance of Shaukat Aziz

Courtesy Teeth Meastro

Kaiser Bengali is currently working for Collective for Social Science Research, a research company based in Karachi, economist Bengali has also served as the managing director Social Policy Development Centre between 2001-2004. Here he talks with TNS about a range of issues and gives his own economic blueprint which is closely tied up with politics. Excerpts of the interview follow:

The News on Sunday (TNS): How do see the relationship between military regimes and economic progress?

Kaiser Bengali (KB): There is a myth about development and economic performance of military regimes. In Pakistan, Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf have all received unprecedented support from IMF and World Bank. In the case of Musharraf, it was the rescheduling and, of course, money that was coming as rental from the United States for using our space.
There were four factors which contributed to the high growth during the Zia period, none of which can be located in Zia’s economic policy. The oil price shock hit the world in 1973 but it was 1975-77 when the first emigrants from Pakistan began to leave for Saudi Arabia and it was 1978 when the remittance inflow began and it peaked in 1982onwards. So the price of the oil price shock was borne by the Bhutto regime but the benefits were accrued by the Zia regime. This rate of remittance inflow gave the govt sufficient fiscal space.
Second, there were very large investments made during the Bhutto period that had long gestation periods. The Pakistan Steel Mills construction started in 1974, and it started commercial production in1982. Similarly there were Heavy Mechanical Complex, Indus Highway, Heavy Electrical Complex, Port Qasim and Ittehad Chemicals (chemical lindustry’s foundation was laid in 1970s and chemicals are a major input in a large number of consumer industries). So this investment in the 1970s began to fruit in the 1980s leading to large chunk of output increases.Third, because of Afghan war Pakistan received enormous amount of foreign funding, almost unlimited.
And fourth, Zia resorted very heavily on borrowing and deficit financing. When he took over the debt-GDP ratio of the country was 24%and in 1988 when Zia left the scene, it was 48%. So if you get manna form heaven your performance will be good. However, the poor performance of Zia regime became apparent in the 1990s and till later.

TNS: What happened in the 1990s?

KB: In the 1990s the civilian governments had no fiscal space because all the resources they had were mobilized for repaying the dept which Zia had left them. You will recall in 1984, Mahboob ul Haq, Zia’s finance minister floated whitener bonds with a ten year maturity period. They matured in 1994. If you look at the budget of 1994, debt service rate went very high - almost 40% in nominal terms. Zia government had collected money and spent it [on defense], so in 1994Benazir government had to repay that money.
So, if you say 1990 were not an era of good economic performance, it was there were no resources. I once asked somebody very senior in Nawaz Sharif government as to why the ninth five year plan was not being prepared. His reply was that whenever the economic team met, all they discussed was when was the next installment due and where would the money come from. He said there was no point in discussing any thing else.

TNS: In this backdrop how do you look at the economic performance of Musharraf in the last eight years?

KB: GDP growth rate is an average of growth in its component sectors. So in the years that GDP growth rate was around 8%, in 2003 for instance, banking sector growth rate was 29% and the automobile sector growth rate was 45%. Now if you have some sectors where growth rate is so high, your average will go up, even if the variance is very high.
The banking sector growth rate was high because the government, or the State Bank rather, allowed consumer financing from 2002 onwards. The monetary was you could get a loan for a house, car, fridge, camera, if for nothing else, a vacation or a personal loan. Banks made enormous profits out of consumer credit and profits are a component of GDP. A lot of this credit was going in for buying cars so automobile production went up by 40-45%.
So basically it was a one legged growth and that one leg is consumer financing. You remove consumer financing, everything else collapses. You are only managing an economy for your numbers to look good, for headlines.

TNS: What is the other leg of the economy?

KB: Largely there are two legs of an economy, agriculture and manufacturing. The services sector is the body. If you look at the national accounts, more than 50% of growth of GDP is coming from services sector. Agriculture is stagnant, and so is manufacturing barring one or two sectors, like automobiles. Today we have an economy with weak legs and a bloated body. It is not sustainable.

TNS: What is wrong with consumer financing?

KB: What it did was that it increased money supply in the economy. In the first two years, inflation remained low because there was excess manufacturing capacity in the country. So factories which were operating at two shifts began to operate at three shifts and the supply increased. But once that capacity was reached demand continued to increase because people kept going to restaurants and kept paying out of credit cards. Once supply was constant and demand continued to increase inflation was the result. Sp today we have runaway inflation, nearly double digit and food inflation which is certainly more than12%.
Another things that has happened is that a lot of demand has been created for imported products. W are importing billion dollars worth of mobile phones. We are importing cars, because we only assemble cars here. And with cars come petroleum imports as well.
So we have created two problems: inflation that is out of control and a trade imbalance. Our imports have risen sharply while the exports are stagnant. And this is what the coming government is going to inherit. Just as Zia gave a debt mountain to the incoming government, the Musharraf regime is going to give the next government a massive foreign exchange crisis.

TNS: What about the outgoing government’s privatization policy?

KB: Our services deficit which has always been very small is rising sharply because of our privatization and foreign investment policy. All the large entities have been privatized to foreign companies. And the investment (FDI) has been in terms of telecommunications, mobile phones and food. All of these companies earn their profits in rupees but remit their profit in dollars. So there is dollar outflow in terms of profit remittance against which there is no dollar inflow. We have created a liability without creating a countervailing asset.
In 1999 total profit remittance outflow, which in monetary language is called reverse remittance, was 97 million dollars a year. Today it is close to a billion dollars and rising.

TNS: About PTCL, is there a justification for a profit-making enterprise?
KB: There was no real policy or principle involved. This is a neo-liberal government which believes it is not the business of the government to be in business. What they have done is that that have sold PTCL to a company which is a state enterprise. So de facto their policy was that is not the business of the Pakistani state to be in business in Pakistan but it can be the business of a foreign state to be in business in Pakistan.

TNS: There is a massive power and energy crisis n the country. Where did we go wrong?

KB: The last investment that was made in the power sector was in the Ghazi Barotha project, which was an achievement of the political governments of the 1990s. In 1988, the Benazir govt. saw a power crisis coming and they went ahead with establishing thermal power plants which takes about three years to build. If those power plants had not been setup, we would have seen the same situation in 1990sthat we have today. There would have been power outages for eight to ten hours.
Since 1999, the Musharraf regime has not invested n a single megawatt of power. In 2001, we had surplus power, today we are living with power shortage. When Benazir’s govt. contracted to buy power at 6cents per hour, there was excessive criticism. Today, for one project they are contracting at 11.5 cents per hour. Today, the world knows that we have a power crisis, it will increase its power knowing that Pakistan has no choice but to buy.
So it is mismanagement of the highest order of the economy. All the investment that they talk about is either portfolio investment, which is the stock market, equity markets or soft investments like telecommunications. These are all investments which do not require these companies to build any brick and mortar and steel structures. So if they have to leave at 24 hours notice, they don’t lose much. What do banks lose, furniture?

TNS: But they have paid huge licensing fees.

KB: That is peanuts compared to the kind of profits they have made. They have recovered several times their licensing fees.

TNS: So are big dams like Kalabagh the only solution to the energy crisis?

KB: Dams don’t produce water, they only store water and you don’t have water. Even now you cannot store water in Tarbela and Mangla to their full capacity.

TNS: You are a strong advocate of low GDP growth rates. Comment.

KB: For about ten years we need to run an economy where the finance minister and the prime minister have the courage not to get good headlines. We need to invest in infrastructure which has deteriorated to a point that we don’t have productive capacity.
When you are investing in infrastructure, and by that I also mean cities which are totally chaotic where no foreigners wants to come, and physical and human infrastructure, the results are going to come after a while. So you are not going to get any output and the GDP is going to be low. Ten years later when you have infrastructure in place then you can target double digit growth rates. That growth will be based on real sectors - on agriculture and manufacturing outputs, not an hot air balloon sectors like mobile phones. By doing so, you will have a massive boost in employment, income generation and poverty reduction.
As for inflation it will be controlled by switching expenditures from current heads to development heads - by abolishing concurrent list ministries and reducing defense expenditure.

TNS: In an idea economic model, what sort of a role do you see for the private and public sector.

KB: Private sector is good in producing those commodities, which are low technology and require small capital investments. We have seen that our private sector is unable to put together large outlays. We have no one in this country of the caliber of Tata or Ambani in India. These are areas where the state will invest.

TNS: But then the state tends to over staff?

KB: There is no problem with that. This is where your economic and social values come in. Is the purpose of the state merely to fill the pockets of profit makers? Or is the state supposed to work for the welfare of the maximum number of people?
It’s a value judgement. When Shaukat Aziz went out for all out privatization, he made a value judgement. The welfare of the people of Pakistan didn’t matter, what mattered was the corporate profits and he made that decision accordingly. As a state we need to determine what are our values. Are we prepared to have a few people who can enjoy summer holidays in Switzerland and the rest of the people virtually starving? If that is acceptable, then fine. We should follow that policy.

TNS: And now to the most immediate issues. How do you look at the current food crisis?

KB: There was a mala fide intention to begin with. The Shaukat Aziz ministry (Finance) predetermined the growth rate they want to achieve. So when you increase the wheat output you increase the agricultural sector growth rate. When you do that GDP growth rate will go up.
There was something else that was suspect here. The estimate for the wheat crop is made after the rains, but this time they made an announcement of a bumper crop before the winter rains and, based on that announcement, allowed certain part to export wheat to India, apparently half a million tones. After that transaction was complete, the rains came and news began to come in that we are going to have a normal crop. A normal crop means that you import two million tones of wheat which is a routine
Because they had earlier announced a bumper crop, they took time to admit that they were wrong. So the LC for import of wheat was also delayed. One wheat had been exported and we had a normal crop, the wheat market knew there was to be a shortage. Now stockists every wherein the world will behave like that that when they know there is a shortage and prices can go up, they withhold their stocks. They are not evil people. This is normal behavior and this is what a market economy will do if there is a shortage.
They made another mistake. Instead of placing an order for 2 million tonnes of wheat, they placed an order of 1.5 million tonnes of wheat first. Then they realised this mistake and placed another order for half a million tonnes of wheat. After their first order, the signal had already gone out in the market that shortage will remain. So they continued to withhold stocks. If they knew that wheat was arriving and prices will fall, they would have released stocks and that would have taken care of the shortage.

TNS: Prices of other commodities have doubled alongside?

KB: There are two components of economic management: fiscal policy and monetary policy. The State Bank is following a restrictive monetary policy while the finance ministry is following a liberal fiscal policy, one is contradicting the other and neither of them effective. The government is borrowing heavily from the State Bank for its expenditure. That means the money supply increases. On one hand, the State Bank is trying to restrict money supply by increasing interest rates, and on the other the government is raising the money supply. When money supply increases prices will rise.
There is another reason for increasing food prices. Our agricultural yield per acre is constant on declining for most crops because we are not investing in our land, in supporting agriculture. The government’s adhocism is causing problems. When the government suddenly imported tomatoes and prices crash. As a result the farmer will not grow tomato next year, shifting the crisis to the next year.
For eight years Shaukat Aziz has mismanaged the economy like no other finance minister. Because Shaukat Aziz knew he does not has to go back and ask people for votes, he couldn’t care less about what he did to the economy. All he had to show for was the stock market performance which is only hot air.

Yaum-i-Iftikhar on January 31st

The bar organisations have planned a rally and a seminar to observe “Yaum-i-Iftikhar” on Jan 31.
A meeting of the office-bearers of the Sindh Bar Council, Sindh High Court Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association and Malir District Bar Association was held at the SHCBA office to draw up the day’s programme.
A rally of lawyers will be taken out from the SHC building which will culminate at the Karachi Press Club in the forenoon. A seminar on the “Rule of Law and the Independence of the Judiciary” would be held later in the bar room, SHCBA President Rasheed A. Razvi, who presided over the meeting, said at a press briefing on Wednesday.
The day is being observed to honour the services of the deposed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, to the cause of the judiciary’s independence, he said.
(Courtesy DAWN)

Caretakers see through cooked up growth

Body to study figure fudging by Aziz govt

(Courtesy The News)

ISLAMABAD: In a shocking development, the interim government headed by Muhammadmian Soomro has expressed no-confidence in the figures firmed up by the Shaukat Aziz government about various major economic indicators such as the GDP growth, major crops produce, inflation, poverty, and industrial data. Quite disturbed with the flour crisis, energy crisis, and the economic data of FBS, particularly food inflation, employment and poverty figures, which mostly do not match with ground realities, Prime Minister Muhammadmian Soomro has constituted a high-powered committee to ascertain the accuracy, reliabilityand credibility of the data gathered by the Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS).

"The economy about which the previous government used to make tall claims was exposed in the four-day wheel jam strike after the assassination of Ms Bhutto and the government has been compelled to readjust all economic indicators," a senior government official told The News. The committee has been constituted with Deputy Chairman Planning Commission Dr Akram Shiekh as the head. The committee comprises Special Secretary to Finance Ministry Dr Ashfaq H Khan, Secretary FBS Asad Illahi, DG FBS SECP Chairman Raziur Rehman, and Secretary Ministry of Industries Shahab Khawaja. When contacted, Dr Akram Sheikh confirmed the development and said that the prime minister had constituted the committee on quality figures about the economyheaded by him in the last ECC meeting. He said that primarily the committee had been tasked to bring unorganised industrial sector in the final figures about industrial growth estimates and tothis effect, the Ministry of Industries had been directed to compile and capture the data about the unorganised industry across the country.

To a question about the figures firmed up by the previous regime about the GDP growth, inflation, poverty and crops production, Akram Sheikh said the committee would start work on the said issues later. "However, it would take up the accuracy issue of the industrial data first." In the terms of reference (ToRs) of the committee, a copy of which is available with The News, the assignment of the newly-constituted body is to appraise critically the input data of the FBS and assess the accuracy, reliability and credibility of various economic indicators. The official said in the first meeting of the committee on quality FBS figures, it was decided that industrial data would now be collected by the Ministryof Industries, not the Federal Bureau of Statistics, arguing that the data collected by the FBS did not match the ground realities. There is no denying the fact that the country experienced unprecedented food inflation that hovered around 14 per cent as per the FBS figures, but the ground realities speak of something different and according to independent economists, the food inflation stands above 20 per cent.

When contacted, Qaiser Bengali, a well-known independent economist, said the move to constitute a committee on quality figures about the economy was itself not less than a no-confidence in the credibility of the previous regime. He reminded that he was highlighting how the government was manoeuvering and fudging the economic data since 2001. Qaiser Bengali said, although, the constitution of the committee was a good step in the right direction, but the main thing was to see the composition of the committee and how much credibility it commanded to fulfill its responsibility.

Bangali doubted that the committee comprising all government functionaries would come up to the expectation of the people by revealing the shocking disclosuresin figure fudging that the previous government had committed just to show its economic output. Donor agencies also, time and again in their various reviews of Pakistan's economy, have doubted figures of some economic indicators, but the previous government headed by Shaukat Aziz took on many donors for issuing such statements.

The wheat produce claims of 23.5 million tonnes are also questionable keeping in view the wheat and flour crisis that has hit the country in a big way. Many are of the view that most of the figures are manipulated to show maximum economic output. Efforts were made to seek the comment of secretary FBS Asad Illahi on the development, but he was stated to be in the Combined Military Hospital to look after his ailing son.

Rally outside Aitzaz's house

We are continuing our tradition of holding a peaceful rally outside Aitzaz Ahsan's House on sundays. Each successive rally has been bigger, more diverse ad better than the last). Tomorrow promises to eclipse previous ones. We have excellent speakers for tomorrow -

Sunday, 3 pm to 4.30 pm at 5 Canal Bank, Upper Mall so COME in large numbers, BRING all your friends and PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
See you tomorrow.
In Complete Solidarity
Concerned Citizens of Pakistan (CCP)

Lobbying for the restoration of the judiciary

As the elections approach we must not let the struggle for the restoration of the judiciary be lost to the campaign clamor. SAC members unanimously have agreed on the need for the restoration of the pre-Nov 3rd judiciary. Most of us also felt that boycotting the elections and starting a street movement would have been the ideal way to get this done. However, we still need to lobby all possible groups who support the restoration of judiciary, but not necessarily through boycotting elections.
Our highest respect goes to everyone who agreed to our demand to boycott the elections. In particular Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain have sacrificed their own seats in the NA as well as many seats for their party. SAC recognizes their selflessness for the country and acknowledges their contributions to the cause.
There are still many others who agree with us in principle but not in our boycott methodology. To them the best way to restore the judges is through the parliament. If the elections do take place there will be a parliament with the capacity to pass laws and amend the constitution.
It does make a lot of sense to keep our efforts going on in both frontiers: we should continue with our protests on the street for the restoration of the pre- Nov 3 judiciary and also clearly identify which groups, associations and political parties are on board for the judiciary. In particular SAC should also meet up with all major political parties, candidates, influential groups, prominent figures and "king-makers" and try to convince them to stand for the restoration of the judiciary and, in the event they are elected, take our crusade to the parliament.
Since not all political parties have had a good track record it does make sense to get their commitment in writing. At the same time SAC does not want to align itself with any political party. The easiest way for that is to start signing Memorandums of Understanding with groups from all sections of the society as well as prominent individuals who people look up to. For instance Justice Wajihuddin is not a member of any political party but a lot of us will support his stance on most political situations.
Once we have a significant number of signatures from political parties, NGOs, Student Groups, we can definitely exert enough pressure on the PPP to sign this as well. Recent statements by many PPP leaders do suggest that the PPP is somewhat inclined towards the restoration of the judiciary but is hesitant to take it up as openly as the other parties. If we can get a significant number of people who agree not to compromise on the stance for the restoration of the judiciary and to vote only for candidates who have agreed to take up this stance, then we will pose a threat to the PPP vote bank. When the usual desperation strikes in election camps in the final days it is likely that they will sign it.
A copy of the memorandum is attached. SAC members are requested to use their own networks to get it signed from as many student committees, lawyers associations, civil society groups and prominent figures of Pakistan as possible. A website is under way which will be updated regularly showing who is committed to the judiciary. Close to the elections the list will be circulated all around the country. The strength of this campaign solely depends on our ability to get it signed from a large number of organisations.
A point of clarification: SAC is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any single political party in Pakistan. It seeks collaboration on points of mutual agreement with all individuals and organizations, including political parties, which work towards the revival of the constitution and restoration of the judiciary to their Nov 2nd form and for student rights in Pakistan.
I suggest to everyone to get copies printed and get started on collecting signatures.

Sincerely and in solidarity,

Samad

The Shah of Pakistan

By Malou Innocent
From the Cato Institute
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; 8:45 PM

America's most vulnerable ally in the war on terror is Pakistan. But our alliance with the nuclear-armed Islamic state may be exacerbating that country's instability.

For eight years, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has delayed, deferred and ultimately denied his citizens the right to freely choose their next leader. U.S. policymakers and analysts concede that Musharraf's autocratic rule is a problem but fear that whoever replaces him may be worse.

Once before in that part of the world, Washington backed a high-profile ruler without regard to his constituents' wishes: Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran. The result was a fiasco for American foreign policy. The Shah's legacy should caution U.S. policymakers that allying too openly with an unpopular leader could have dangerous repercussions.

From 1953 to 1979, Iranian life under the Shah was dreadfully brutal. Through SAVAK, the Shah's secret police and intelligence service, political opponents were routinely tortured. Methods included electric shock, nail extraction, insertion of broken glass into the rectum, and "cooking," which entailed strapping a victim to a bed of wiring that was then heated, cooking the victim alive. The Shah's repression was systematic and unyielding, but he was also America's principal strategic ally in the region.

President Dwight Eisenhower gave the Shah millions of dollars in emergency aid for his complicity in Operation Ajax, the U.S.¿British coup that overthrew the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, a decisive turning point in Iran's history. President Lyndon Johnson, who mistakenly praised the Shah for "winning progress without violence and without any bloodshed," signed-off on a six-year, $600 million military sales credit package for the Shah. And President Richard Nixon offered the autocrat the right to buy any non-nuclear U.S. weapons system without congressional or Pentagon review, a deal later described by Time magazine as "carte blanche" for the Shah.

For Pakistan, unwavering support and an open aid spigot are rewards for Musharraf's assistance in apprehending terrorists. After the fall of Afghanistan's Taliban government in late 2001, the United States authorized over $10 billion in aid to Pakistan, allotted in $100 million monthly payments plus an additional $200 million in annual payments. The aid is meant to help the Pakistani military retard insurgent gains in the Pashtun-dominated North-West Frontier Province as well as combat the spread of Taliban fighters in the lawless tribal border regions of Waziristan.

Like America's overt support for the Shah, assisting Musharraf is risky for several reasons:
First, America's assistance to a dictator increases the power of that country's extremists. In Iran, the Shah's brutality and corruption fed deep-seated resentment among the Iranian citizenry, a resentment that led to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, the emergence of an Islamist regime and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in 1979. Iranians wanted to end the Shah's despotism, a despotism they perceived was largely underwritten by American aid. For Pakistanis, a similar anger resonates today.

A poll released this month [ed: Jan 7] by the United States Institute for Peace and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that a majority of Pakistanis favor a more democratic political system. While Pakistani voters are largely unsympathetic to al Qaeda and the Taliban, Islamists in that country exploited anti-American sentiment at the ballot box in 2002. An alliance of six fundamentalist parties called Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, or MMA, won 52 of the 342 seats in the National Assembly, becoming the third largest bloc in Pakistan's parliament.

A second danger in allying overtly with a dictator is that U.S. policies now stand at odds with the wishes of the Pakistani people. Musharraf's dismissal last March of Pakistani Supreme Court justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry spawned waves of pro-democracy protests throughout the country. Despite the Pakistani public's pervasive feeling of disenfranchisement, U.S. aid continued to flow, further cementing anti-American attitudes and feeding a unifying fervor of greater political self-determination. The more overtly we aid Musharraf, the more Pakistanis will feel that their political independence is being denied by political pressures from Washington.
The third danger of supporting an unpopular autocrat is that U.S. interests would be jeopardized should Musharraf fall. If the United States continues to work for Musharraf and against his opponents, those opponents likely would give little attention to U.S. interests if they come to power.

One alternative to backing Musharraf is to push Pakistan toward democracy; an option that many believe would address Pakistan's political problems. But this solution presumes that the United States can micro-manage Pakistan's internal politics. We cannot. Pakistan's problems are complicated, deep and systemic in nature. There is also a legitimate fear that pushing democracy onto Pakistan may bring to power a civilian leader who¿unlike Musharraf¿may not have the loyalty of the Pakistani army, chief of army staff, and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence. That loyalty troika is critical for any Pakistani leader to succeed. Even the late Benazir Bhutto was sacked twice as prime minister, in part because she did not have the loyalty of the Pakistani military. Many generals even made it a point not to salute her.

So what is left for U.S. policy toward Pakistan? History provides us with a practical alternative to either supporting Musharraf or trying to identify and back a democratic successor: the British colonial policy of masterly inactivity. Throughout the mid- and late-19th century, the British government in India assumed the role of non-interference in the internal affairs of the Pashtun tribes in what is today the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of modern-day Pakistan. The British assumed this policy because interference only exacerbated conflict and increased anti-British sentiment. American policymakers should assume a similar role by becoming more modest in their ambitions for Pakistan.

Rather than push, prod and encourage Pakistan to do what the United States wants, U.S. policymakers should not interfere in that country's political affairs. Given that country's proximity to the war in Afghanistan, the cauldron of conflict in its border region, and the fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands, some continued cooperation with whatever government holds power in Islamabad is important. But that does not mandate that Washington become embroiled in Pakistan's political dynamics.

The United States once earned the title of the "Great Satan" by propping up the Shah of Iran. We should not go down that same path by propping up the "Shah" of Pakistan.

The Camaraderie of Tyrants

By Dr. Haider Mehdi

An ancient fable from an ancient time goes as follows: A Wazir (a minister) informed the Raja (state ruler) that a thief had entered the town. The Raja ordered the immediate arrest of all people in the town. The Wazir explained the rationale of the act as “prevention is better than the cure – no people, no possibility of a future theft.” The moral of the story: absolute autocratic rule lacks absolute wisdom.

Another similar story is: a Wazir informed the Raja that a Dunda Chor (a thief with one hand) had entered the state and stolen some royal belongings. The Raja ordered that the right hands of all able-bodied male citizens of the state to be amputated at once. The Wazir explained the logic of the Raja’s act as a collective punishment of the entire citizenry that would teach them that stealing would not be tolerated in the riyasat (the state). The moral of the story: tyrannical rulers employ wickedness and naked force with senseless brutality.

In hindsight, the political behavior of George W. Bush, the American President, and Tony Blair, the British ex-Prime Minister, was very much reminiscent of the poorly conceived ill-wisdom of the past at the time of the 9/11 incident. But then, the two of them symbolize the camaraderie of tyrants. Acting with vicious intents and senseless brutality, the two Western leaders have caused an unprecedented “holocaust” in Iraq and Afghanistan. An estimated 1.5 million civilians have been killed in these two countries and an entire civilization has been decimated. All of this human carnage has been taking place (on the orders of Bush-Blair) in retaliation for the alleged attack on the Twin Towers in New York City. And now, there is a global outcry that posits the 9/11 as an inside job orchestrated by the US Vice-President with the help of the CIA, Mossad, and possible involvement of some other countries whose leadership is close and friendly to the US incumbent administration. Pakistan’s leadership and its military intelligence services have been allegedly implicated, rightly or wrongly, by certain political circles in this context.

How many more Muslims will have to die, and how many more “holocausts” in Islamic nations will have to take place to satisfy the blood-lust of the American president and his collaborators of like-minded people to avenge the alleged 9/11? How long will this ill-wisdom and wickedness of the tyrants persist and prevail? How long will it endure and expand? How long will Muslims suffer from the atrocities of the camaraderie of tyrants?

But let us not forget that George W. Bush did not have the benefit of an ancient civilization or history to learn wisdom from ancient fables. Tony Blair, dreaming of a re-insurgence of the British imperial past and a colonial glory for himself, simply transformed himself into “Bush’s poodle” – one could not expect political wisdom from someone with such a skewed world view.

However, the paramount irony of this entire equation of the camaraderie of tyrants is the implicit and willing participation of the Pakistani leadership in this global charade of the 9/11 and its aftermath. It was President Bush who, like the insane Raja, had called for universal collective punishment by blurting out the most lunatic and outrageous political statement at the start of the 21st century: “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (implying that any nation not with the US is the enemy). How much more absurd can political conduct be?

But the point driven here is: The Pakistani General, the Chief of the Army staff and the Head of State at the time, unlike George W. Bush, had the benefit of an ancient civilization and of an ancient land where various religions, innumerable philosophies, cultural diversities, ethnic and linguistic varieties, and above all, a deeply rooted respect for moral judgments have been cherished endlessly. In an absolute disregard of the historical high moral claims and implicit cultural commitment demanded of the Head of State, the General instantly capitulated and gave away every bit of national pride as well as national sovereignty simply because of a telephone call from General Colin Powell. Think about the enormity of such a national surrender by the Pakistani leader. In the name of Realpolitik, the Pakistani General-cum-Head of the State abandoned national socio-cultural imperatives and rushed in to join the scandalous community and the camaraderie of the tyrants. However, it is not surprising because that is precisely what the successive military dictators have been doing in Pakistan all along – and exactly for these reasons, the military dictatorship must come to an end now.

Tyrants use physical force (military-police) and positional power against the will of the people. Neither history nor a profound understanding of national chaos and its political solutions are relevant to tyrants. Tyrants wish to prevail under all circumstances and in all conditions. Loss of human life and carnage is considered a natural constituent of the political process. Power and the pursuit of power is the fundamental nucleus of the political ideology that drives the tyrant’s thrusts towards omnipotent imposition of political will over an entire citizenry. Political accommodation and dialogue are essentially escape routes when the struggle for power maintenance is shaken from within the tyrant’s own judgmental weakness. Innumerable political episodes and events are testament to the fact that tyrants are known to abandon political compromises at will. Adversaries are exploited, deceived and moved out of the way in pursuit of seeking unyielding power. No wonder then the opposition parties’ political equations in Pakistan vis-à-vis the incumbent president are managed in such a way by the state power that these political equations continue to change on regular intervals and within specified patterns. Now that Benazir Bhutto is out of the political drama, a new paradigm for an invincible power struggle for the incumbent presidency is clearly visible on the political horizons of Pakistan. Isn’t it surprising that the General (retd), instead of seeking popular mandate from within the country (as it should be in a democratic set-up), is now in Brussels to bolster his credibility with the West in the hope of continuing ruling his beleaguered nation indomitably and unilaterally.

A highly respected columnist wrote the following in the context of this emerging scenario in Pakistan: “As Musharraf plans to start a four-day visit to Europe today, and all the attendant publicly blitz that will focus on the unstable Waziristans, an enemy in the Hindukush will be an all too convenient campaign tool for the Republican Party campaign. Do the simplistic Sharifs know the pitfalls of playing this complicated game?”

This is a clear warning to Shahbaz Sharif not to make the same mistake that Benazir Bhutto made. Indeed, the civil society in Pakistan will not abandon the movement for the restoration of judiciary to pre-November 2007 status. Shahbaz Sharif should be mindful that a meaningful transition to democracy in Pakistan will not come with the PML-N sharing power with the incumbent president – the future of democratic restoration in this nation is tied-up with fundamental changes in the present status-quo that prevails today. No question about it – let the Sharif brothers not disappoint the masses!

Another story circulating these days is: A man caught a fish and asked his wife to cook it. She said she could not. “Why not?” the irritated husband inquired. She replied that she did not have atta, oil, electricity or gas. The man took the fish and threw it back into the river. As soon as the fish hit the water, it popped up again and shouted, “Je-yoo Musharraf!” (Long live Musharraf.)

Given the ground realities in the country, I wonder what the entire nation has to thank Musharraf for – Benazir was murdered, streets in Lahore, Islamabad, Wazistan and Balochistan are blood-soaked, judges are under house arrest, the constitution has been repeatedly violated, the Pakistani army is at war with its own citizens – but above all, the majority of Pakistanis have never had it so bad ever before…!

Can we really say “Je-yoo Musharraf”? I guess not… certainly not!

The Nation, January 25, 2008

Desperate Palestinians blow up the wall in Gaza

Though unrelated to the events in our country, the situation is a vivid reminder of the injustices being committed in other parts of the world and the valiant resistance being waged against them.

Police violently break up anti-Musharraf protest in Islamabad

Riot police used tear gas and batons here on Thursday to disperse hundreds of protesters chanting slogans against President Pervez Musharraf, AFP reporters witnessed.Around 400 people, including lawyers and supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) screamed "Death to Musharraf" when police stopped them from visiting former chief justice of Pakistan.

President Musharraf deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry under emergency rule in November last year. Chaudhry remains under house arrest in Islamabad.

The protesters tried to break through a police barricade outside the upmarket Marriott Hotel, which is near Chaudhry's house, but were forced back by baton-wielding police who then fired tear gas.

Waving black flags, the protesters regrouped and chanted: "We will lay down our lives for the chief justice."Former premier Nawaz Sharif was prevented from meeting Justice Chaudhry on Wednesday.

Pashtoon Leader Baitullah Mehsud Did Not Kill Benazir Bhutto

Militant 'Did Not Murder Bhutto'
By Syed Shoaib Hasan

(BBC News) - A Pakistani Senator says [Pakistani-Pashtoon] leader Baitullah Mehsud was not involved in the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Islamabad and Washington have both blamedMr. Mehsud - who is based in the troubled region of South Waziristan[Pakistan] - for the assassination of Ms. Bhutto.
But [Mohammad] Saleh Shah [Qureshi], a [FATA] Senator who represents Waziristan, says Mr. Mehsud was not "in any way" involved.
Waziristan is now the scene of fighting between the Armyand [Pakistani-Pashtoons].
Military officials say that [Pakistani-Pashtoons] and security forces have been involved in heavy exchanges of fire overnight on Tuesday.
'No Foreign Fighters'
"Baitullah is not involved in Benazir's assassination in any way," Mr.Shah told the BBC [British Brodcasting Corporation].
"He has communicated this to me through his spokesman."
Mr. Shah also rejects recent [U.S. Central Intelligence Agency] CIA claims that Mr. Mehsud is involved with "Al-Qaeda".
"I don't know where these [false] stories come from - about foreign fighters in the area," he said.
"I have never seen any Arab or Uzbeks in the area."
The [illegal] government Pervez Musharraf, however, remains convinced and has stepped up operations in South Waziristan.
Mr. Shah says the military action has done more harm to the civilian population than the militants.
"The Army continues to fire at civilian targets, although the militants positions are quite distinct and removed," he says.
Mr. Shah says several civilians belonging to the Mehsud tribe havebeen taken into custody, and many people now have no option but to leave their homes.
"Ladha [one of Waziristan's main towns] is now deserted as the[unlawful] government has stopped all trade intothe area," he says.
"Hospital and schools have been closed down, and food supplies are running low.
"The Army has launched a blockade of the area for the last 10 days."
Mr. Shah says the government's failure to honour previous peace agreements has led to the current fighting.
He says the jirga, or tribal council, in this regard was held on Monday but has not yielded any results.
'Self-Defence'
Ata ur Rahman, a local leader from the area, told the BBC: dialogue was the only hope of ending the fighting.
He said the militant leadership had no desire to fight the Pakistani Army, or the government. "Baitullah has said himself several times he has no quarrel with the Pakistan Army."
"Whatever he is doing is in self defence for the attacks against him and his men. For them, the main battle is in Afghanistan."

Musharraf's Supreme Court dismisses price hike case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a case pertaining to the price hike in daily-use commodities in Rawalpindi and Islamabad and observedthat it was not the job of the apex court to fix the prices of daily-use commodities.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Acting Chief Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, was hearing a suo motu case regarding the increase of prices of daily-use items. The bench observed that the suo motu did not fall under the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) of the Constitution and dismissed the case.

The Supreme Court had taken a suo motu action on June 27, 2007 on press reports, stating that the prices of the daily-use commodities had increased andthere was no check or control over them. The report was converted into a petition and fixed for regular hearing in the court on July 23, 2007.

On Thursday, the Attorney-General Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum, while appearing before the court, said the court could not influence the issues related to the market as it had no suo motu jurisdiction over such issues. Abdul Hafiz Pirzada, the counsel for the sugar mill owners while appearing before the bench, submitted that the NAB in its report admitted that an inquiry was initiated against those responsible of increase in the sugar prices but they had stopped the inquiry without nominating anybody.

At this, Acting Chief Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi said the court could not ask for initiation of inquiry against anyone as it was not the job of the court."It is the duty of the market forces to control the prices of daily-use commodities and not of the court," Justice Abbasi remarked while dismissing the petition.

SAC Discussion - 'Analytical Survey of Pakistan's History'

Student Action Committee (SAC) invites you to a Discussion On
Analytical Survey Of Pakistan's History
With Dr. Mubarak Ali

Date: Saturday 26th January

Time: 4pm SHARP

Venue: Nehrghar – 5 Zaman Park

Dr. Mubarak Ali is a renowned historian with more than 50 books to his credit. He received his M.A. in History from Sindh University, Hyderabad in 1963 and Phd on the Mughal Period from Ruhr University, Bochum , Germany in 1976. He has been the head of the history department at Sindh University and later the director of Goethe Institute, Lahore . He is also the editor of the quarterly journal Taarikh (History) and is respected for his independent views and analysis which are usually in conflict with state defined history of Pakistan.

Directions: Nehrghar - 5 Zaman Park. On the canal, cross the mall road and take the 1st left at the Zaman Park sign, take an immediate right on the side lane.It's the 2nd gate on the left.

Imran meets Senate majority leader about judiciary

Mr Imran Khan Chairman PTI and his delegation including Secretary General Dr Arif Alvi, Mr Ali Zaidi, and Dr Ikramullah Khan a Pakistani surgeon from Las Vegas met a high powered Senate group under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Dick Durbin who is Assistant Senate Majority Leader, Chairman Senate Foreign Relation Committee Senator Joe Biden, Chairman South Asia Committee Senator John Kerry, Senator Patty Murray Member Senate Appropriations Committee and Secretary of Senate Democratic Party Caucus, Senator Casey who is Member Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Tom Harkin Member Senate Appropriations Committee. The meeting lasted one and a half hour.

Mr Imran Khan expressed his views that the current US policy of supporting a military dictator is contrary to American values. He insisted that the relationship should be between the people rather than between President Bush and Musharraf. Mr Khan said that PTI is struggling for the restoration of the judiciary and that Musharraf should resign as he is an illegal President. PTI wants a free and fair election to be held under a national caretaker government. Without restoration of the judiciary elections would be a farce. Mr Khan said that he is meeting lawmakers in the US Capital to make them aware of the real situation in Pakistan. He said that the current policy of the Bush administration is actually promoting terrrorism. Musharraf's indiscriminate bombardment of civilians in Waziristan, FATA and Swat is providing a fertile ground for terrorist recruitment.

After the meeting of the PTI with the entire Senate leadership Senator harry Reids office issued the following Press Release.

REID, PAKISTANI OPPOSITION LEADER DISCUSS FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY UNDER MUSHARRAF

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met today with Imran Khan, a leading Pakistani opposition leader, to discuss the upcoming Pakistani elections and the future of democracy in Pakistan.Khan, a member of the Pakistani parliament, leads the Justice Movement party and expressed deep concern about the Pakistani judiciary.

Khan made it clear that Pakistan cannot have true democracy, or free and fair elections, without reinstating the head of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judges President Musharraf dismissed. He also believes that the February 18th parliamentary elections may be rigged, which would further undermine Pakistani democracy. “Today’s meeting made it even clearer that the United States must support the people of Pakistan rather than individuals in that nation’s government who oppose democracy,” Reid said. “I believe that the United States needs to look closely at the assistance we send to Pakistan. If President Musharraf does not allow full and free elections and does not restore freedoms, we need to consider reducing non-development aid to Pakistan.”

Reid recently sent President Bush a letter urging him to consider cutting off non-development aid to Pakistan unless President Musharraf reinstates the previous Supreme Court, restores all freedoms and allows a full investigation into the recent assassination of former Prime Minister Bhutto.

In today’s meeting, the group also discussed U.S. development assistance to Pakistan and the importance of ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars are helping the Pakistani people in areas like education and healthcare.

LUMS Issues Report Urging U.S. To Demand Restoration of Judiciary

Washington, D.C. - The Rule of Law Project at the Lahore Universityof Management Sciences (LUMS) is issuing a report today entitled Defending Dictatorship: U.S. Foreign Policy and Pakistan's Struggle for Democracy. The report is co-authored by members of a delegation from the United States National Lawyers Guild and is the result of a ten-day fact-finding visit to Pakistan to assess the status of the judiciary and the prospect for fair elections in light of recent attacks on judicial independence. The report criticizes U.S. foreign policy in Pakistan, concluding that U.S. support for PresidentMusharaff and its failure to demand restoration of the deposed judges will have long-term negative impacts on the judiciary and the rule of law in Pakistan and damage regional safety and security.
The report also concludes that the upcoming elections are unlikely to meet international standards due to widespread systemic and structural problems, including pre-poll abuses and the failure to enforce existing election regulations. Additionally, the report addresses press freedom in Pakistan, noting that severe restrictions faced by all media, in particular the Urdu-language press, constitute a "serious threat" to Pakistan's democratic development.
"The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. The United States' support for a dictator and its failure to demand the reinstatement of the deposed judges is critically damaging demcratic development and threatening regional safety and security," stated Rule of Law Project Director Devin Theriot-Orr.
David Gespass, the Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild and the leader of the delegation, stated that "We intend to share the report with the American people and place it before our elected representatives to help effect a drastic change in U.S. policy towards Pakistan that emphasizes human rights and democracy as the only real means of reducing the threat of terrorism."
Professors Roger Normand and Justice (ret'd) Jawwad Khawaja of LUMS established the Rule of Law Project to serve as an academic clearinghouse for documentation and research regarding constitutionalism and the rule of law in Pakistan. The Project is developing a comprehensive report on the impacts of the PCO and seeking information from all lawyers and members of civil society who were arrested, detained, or mistreated following the PCO.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY.
We are especially seeking to get this report into the hands ofelected representatives and members of the press in Europe duringMusharraf's European tour.
* Report available here: http://dtto.net/rlp/Defending_Dictatorship.pdf
* Full Press Release (with photo) available here: http://dtto.net/rlp/PressRelease.pdf
* Signon statement available here: http://nlg.org/pakistan
Thanks for your assistance.

Devin Theriot-Orr, Director, LUMS Rule of Law Project

Retired generals tell Musharraf to go

By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 9:27 AMET

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - An influential group of retired officers from Pakistan's powerful military has urged President Pervez Musharraf to immediately step down, saying his resignation would promote democracy and help combatreligious militancy.
"This is in the supreme national interest and it makes itincumbent on him to step down," said a statement released late Tuesday to the media by the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen's Society, after a group meeting attended by more than 100 former generals, admirals, air marshals and other retired officers and enlisted men.
The call came as Musharraf, who was commander of the army until stepping down last month, was in Europe on a tour aimed at reassuring Western leaders about his ability to restore democracy and prevail in the escalating combat between government troops and Taliban rebels along Pakistan's mountainous border with Afghanistan.
The group of former generals does not speak for serving officers, but its tough stance is an embarrassment to Musharraf whose popularity has waned considerably in the past year.
It could strike a chord within the army's current ranks —which are forbidden from expressing political opinions —over how a once-respected institution has lost a lot of support among the wider public as Musharraf's personal standing has eroded over his maneuvering to stay in power.
This fall, the U.S.-backed president purged the Supreme Court, which could have scuppered his recent re-election,and briefly suspended the constitution, setting back expectations of a restoration of democracy.
"The feeling was unanimous and strong among the (retired) officers and other ranks that Musharraf is the problem and that he is a source of divisiveness, a source of centrifugal forces and an impediment to democracy," saidTalat Masood, a retired general who is now a prominent political analyst.
"He is bringing down the reputation of the army, and undermining its support among the people which it needs in the war on terror," said Masood, who attended the meeting."He has brought disgrace on all ranks."
Musharraf, a top U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, led a military coup to seize power in 1999, but retired from the army before being inaugurated for a new five-year term as civilian president in November.
His successor as army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is believed to remain loyal to the president. The continued support of the military — which has ruled Pakistan for morethan half of its 60 years as an independent nation — is essential for Musharraf to remain in power.
The Bush administration has continued to praise the former general, saying he is committed to restoring democracy through parliamentary elections scheduled for Feb. 18.
Kayani has moved quickly to disengage the army from politics. He has banned officers from maintaining contacts with politicians, and ordered the more than 3,000 officers now serving in the civil administration and government-run enterprises to gradually revert to their military duties.
Kayani has been praised by U.S. officials as an aggressive commander who has shown he is determined to restore law andorder to the border regions that have served as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
On Tuesday, Adm. William Fallon — the head of the U.S.Central Command and top commander of American forces in theMiddle East — held talks in Rawalpindi with Kayani. ThePakistani army said the two men discussed the "security situation" in the region, but gave no more details.
In the latest violence, suspected militants attacked a military camp in the frontier region with rockets and small-arms fire Wednesday, killing three soldiers andwounding several others, a military statement and securityofficials said. The strike against Razmak Fort in SouthWaziristan came a day after fighting that left seven troops and 37 militants dead.
Meanwhile, a suspected suicide bomber was killed and five people were injured in an explosion in Jamrud, a tribal area close to Peshawar, said Khan Dad, a local government officer. The bomb went off in a market in the village ofWazir Dand, he said.
"We think he was carrying the bomb somewhere when it exploded," Khan said.
In its statement, the Ex-Servicemen's Society said its members had been watching "events in the recent past withgreat concern and anguish," according to the Dawn newspaper.
Tuesday's meeting brought together retired commanders ofall political stripes, the daily said. It included hard-liners such as Javed Ashraf Qazi, the former head of Pakistan's feared Inter-Services Intelligence, and liberal reformists like Air Marshals Asghar Khan and Nur Khan.
"Kayani has made it very clear that army has to keep away from politics and the affairs of the state," Mirza Aslam Beg, who was chief of army staff from 1988 to 1991, told The Associated Press.
"He has realized the sentiments of the people of Pakistan that they do not want the army to intervene and take decisions on their behalf."
___
Associated Press writers Bashirullah Khan in Miran Shah,Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Riaz Khan in Peshawar,and Slobadan Lekic in Islamabad contributed to this report.

Open Letter to Najam Sethi

(Note: The Letter was written on Nov 7, 2007 but most of the issues discussed are still relevant.)

Dear Mr. Najam Sethi,

I never had any illusions about your democratic credentials after having gone through your editorials in Friday Times and later Daily Times for the last 8 years in your capacity as the self appointed spokesperson and advisor to General Musharraf and the GHQ. I was familiar with your jugglery and frequent 180 degrees somersaults, but your editorial of Nov 5 in Daily times "Wages of confrontation" still took me by surprise and I was really dismayed and disappointed at your audacity to justify the martial law proclaimed by General Musharraf on Nov 3. In this editorial you have summarily accused the lawyers, judiciary, journalists and political parties as confrontationists, who have brought us to the present state of emergency. This single editorial deserves that you are nominated as his official speech writer given your expertise at rephrasing the speech of General Musharraf, perhaps more eloquently. The reward for your services was very quick: the owner of daily times was appointed as a minister in the new caretaker cabinet and some crumbs might be thrown to you personally as well in the near future. You have chosen to apply the most infamous logic of General Musharraf by accusing the victim like he did in the case of Mukhtaran Mai and accused Pakistani women of staging rape cases to get immigration to Canada. You conveniently forgot the role of the present military regime in bringing Pakistan to the status of one of the most corrupt and dangerous countries of the world, keeping its vast majority illiterate and poor and subjecting them to draconian laws.

The crux of your argument is that the civil society does not realize the importance to fight extremism in the country and was creating impediments for General Musharraf to fight the war against terror and deserved the punishment meted out to them. Despite galloping US$10 bln in direct US aid in the last seven years, rescheduling of loans by the international financial institutions and a few more billions in covert aid, what has the military regime done against terrorism. It has brought terrorism from inside Afghanistan to tribal areas, then settled areas of NWFP and now up to Islamabad. How has it facilitated it. First by keeping the mainstream parties out of 2002 elections, delivering two provinces to MMA by recognizing the sanads issued by Madrassas, letting the extremists take shelter inside tribal areas and regroup and refusing to purge extremists from its intelligence agencies who had been able to infiltrate in the armed forces during long years of training Jihadis against the Soviets and later developing Taliban. Is the militant Islamic ideology godfathered by Military inadvertently or as a counterweight to undermine democratic political forces and use it both inside Pakistan against democracy and also for its intervention in India and Afghanistan?

Secondly for quite some time now you had successfully introduced highly confusing and misplaced terms of transition and transformation in the political jargon through your newspapers. Under transition you advocated extension of PML (Q) status to some more liberal secular political parties like PPP, who could be forced to join a Government under General Musharraf without demanding any major structural or policy changes by the military regime and providing it desired legitimacy and termed the position taken by the democratic movement for fair and free elections, sending the armed forces back to barracks (and focusing on fighting terrorism) and supremacy of constitution and law as an extremist position. These genuine democratic forces were called transformationists/confrontationsts, who were unaware of the ground realities of military domination in the society and instead of realizing that the primary conflict in Pakistan is not between civil and military forces but between liberals and fundamentalists, these forces are bent to destabilize the country and bring about a revolution. This statement and understanding has serious flaws. What you call transformation is by no means a revolutionary demand, it is very much a democratic demand advocated today by all civil society forces except a few opportunists like PML (Q), MQM and some individuals like you. It takes us back to 1988, not any farther, as the protagonists of this demand are mainstream political parties who do not want any revolutionary changes and are content by restoration of constitutional rule in the country. Permanent displacement of armed forces from politics and confining them to their constitutional role may be the dream of many, but is not a realistic goal given the lack of such an organization which can spearhead such a movement. Only a civilian leadership can fight the scourge of fundamentalism with appropriate use of armed forces and not otherwise. Today all political and civil society organizations are united that the only negotiations with the military regime can be for the exit strategy for Musharraf and the whole nation is backing the joint leadership of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shareef. It is very much clear to everyone that contrary to what Mr. Najam Sethi would like people to believe, General Musharraf is a dictator who never wanted any genuine sharing of power with any genuine political party and the assumption that he would have doffed his uniform if the courts did not press him is false and a blatant lie. CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry sensed the possibility of martial law and did not form a full bench to hear the case of Gen. Musharraf and excluded three anti-Musharaff judges to be members of the bench, thus trying to defuse the situation, but Musharraf was not ready to take any chance and preferred to topple the judiciary.

You have always highlighted the corruption under the civilian regimes and completely ignored the state of corruption under Musharraf. Even in the satire columns you have always targeted the political leadership by ridiculing them. The only column on Musharraf does not ridicule Musharraf, it targets President Bush. This is your true face: joining the hated military ruler against popular civilian leaders. I have not seen any of your columns on the corruption cases under the Musharraf regime. You fail to take note of the annual report of Transparency International in 2006, which declared Musharraf regime to be more corrupt than both Nawaz Shareef and Benazir Bhutto at the index of 63% against 48% for Benazir and 34% for Nawaz Shareef. It is due to journalists like you who have served the military rulers by black outing their corruption and focusing your entire energies on the civilian leadership and thus perpetuating military rule.

We kept on hearing about Transparency International throughout 1990's, however reference to their reports completely disappeared during the present regime. I am sure you know that more than half of our revenues goes to defence and the lack of accountability and massive corruption in various defence establishments at all levels remains unreported. You for obvious reasons failed to pay tribute to the glorious movement of lawyers for the supremacy of judiciary. Instead you have complained about the suo moto notices of CJ against the inefficient, corrupt government officials who deny to serve the people and provide them any relief. Was it wrong to provide justice to Munoo Bheel, who was oppressed by his feudal masters with the active connivance of police and provincial government of Sindh headed by the infamous Arbab. Was it wrong to provide some justice to the thousands missing persons from Balochistan and other provinces. CJ simply demanded that if there are cases against them these people should be persecuted through the law and courts and not held by intelligence agencies indefinitely. One could expect that you are sympathetic to such people abducted by the agencies without charges.

I can understand the ire of military rulers and bureaucrats on Judiciary, but I did not know that they caused sleepless nights to you, who himself underwent similar experience in the previous regime and cannot forget it. Obviously Mr. Sethi does not like the Judiciary to interfere in any constitutional matters such as the dual offices of President and COAS, return of Nawaz Shareef or ruling PCO to be against the constitution. Now even Musharraf admits that it was an illegal and extra constitutional step. But Mr. Sethi, you have decided to be more loyal to the king than he himself is.

You have also conveniently forgotten to mention two of the darkest days in the recent history of Pakistan: May 12 and Oct 18, when citizens of Pakistan were killed mercilessly by known actors. Suo moto notices by the supreme and high courts were about to disclose the faces of people behind these carnages and it is one of the primary reasons why Judiciary was attacked so vehemently. Now the sole criterion of selection of Judges is just one: compliance to the orders of an authoritarian executive.

Lastly you never fail to praise the present military regime with the outstanding performance of economy in the last 7 years. You are obviously aware that from 1999-2002 the economy grew at just 2.5% and it was only after 9/11 and the massive rescheduling of loans, channeling of huge funds of more than US$10 bln by the US alone and remittances of US$5bln each year by overseas Pakistanis due to uncertainty in the West has helped Pakistan keep floating. Musharraf regime has not contributed a single kilowatt in the national energy grid forcing citizens and the industry to face long hours of load shedding, there has been no trickle down effect of these remittances on the majority of Pakistanis who are barely surviving the wave of unemployment and inflation. Pakistan remains one of the most underdeveloped countries with mass illiteracy, lack of health care and is found at the bottom of list on all social indicators at No. 138. It is the only country in the world which shares a military dictatorship with Myanmar. Major terrorist activities world wide are somehow linked with Pakistan and everyone visiting abroad knows the worth of a Pakistani passport.

In such dismal times, it really takes courage to praise the present regime which has got Pakistan to the bottom of its prestige. It has managed to stay in the world headlines mainly due to your President's penchant for negative popularity.

I know it will not be possible for you to publish this letter in your newspaper given your own authoritarian tendencies, but let it be known what some of your readers think about your journalism.

Nadeem Khalid

Letter from a student at GIK

(The following is a moving account from a student of GIK (Ghulam Ishaq Khan) Institute, where an airforce plane crashed yesterday, killing the pilot and a gardner. Though unrelated directly, to any aspect of the crises our country faces today, it is a compelling reflection of the existential angst that so many of our fellow citizens are faced with in these dark times.)

Mubeen

Today, there was an incident here that substantially changed my way of thinking. A Pakistan Airforce trainer plane crashed inside GIKI premises today. The pilot and a gardener died on the spot. There was no other loss of life or property. Further analysis (and some witness reports) revealed that the trainee pilot's quick thinking had prevented loss of 300+ lives and damage to faculty buildings. The pilot, instead of ejecting from the plane when he knew it was going to crash, maneuvered the plane and kept it on the (narrow) road away from the buildings and places nearby, where students hang out during the day. Had he ejected from the plane, he would most probably have survived but the crash site was surrounded by buildings in which 300+ people were working/studying at the time, a lot would have been lost. In short, he sacrificed his life to prevent loss of other lives.

It is incidents such as these that force you to think about...well, about everything. And this time it got me thinking about his selfless act. It is only the leader of the Pakistan Army, who had lowered the army in the eyes of the civilian population. Whereas the truth of the matter is that our army, is willing to sacrifice for the country. They stand ever-ready, to defend our homeland from any harm.

It also made me think that It is really not a leader who makes all the difference. This single man had saved 300+ lives. It made me realize that every-day people can also be heroes. They can also do big things. And they can make a difference. If the pilot would have started blaming the engineers and the government for old planes with mechanical faults, there would not have been enough time for him to think and act as he did. We are too lazy and love to put the blame on others.

From now on, I resolve to change my lifestyle to favor growth and prosperity of Pakistan. I resolve to be honest, devoted and respectful and to deliver what I promise. May Allah grant me the strength to do so. Maybe one day I will be a hero and I will make a difference. Until then, I live on in the hope that the day will soon come.

Lastly, I salute the pilot, for his selfless act. May Allah rest his soul in peace. Amen.

Engaging with Political Parties - Detailed Account of A talk organized by the CCP at LUMS

Omer. G

LUMS, JUNE 22nd: A long and engaging talk was organized at LUMS by "Concerned Citizens of Pakistan", a civil society organization, galvanized into action in the aftermath of the imposition of emergency on November 3. The arrangement was unusual in that the CCP had booked an auditorium at LUMS – only those on the SACLUMS mailing list were invited. So many outsiders came in that most students, like myself, had to keep standing. The talk will be aired by Aaj TV (we weren't told exactly when), although with some modifications because the whole thing would violate the new censorship laws. The talk went on so long that I must admit that my account cannot do justice to all its twists and turns.

The Talk was titled: "Importance of rule of Law for society" A CCP representative opened the show, after which Talat Hussain conducted its proceedings. The talk started with Dr. Pervez Hassan, a representative of the lawyers' movement(also a trustee of LUMS). He was sitting in lieu of Tariq Hassan, who couldn't come but had sent a 12-page paper to Dr.Hassan so that his position may be represented. Dr. Hassan's speech focused around the need for upholding the constitution and restoring the judiciary. He also said that the Lawyer's Movement had not ended: it will pick up strength once again, after the elections.

The second speaker was a member of Tehrike Insaf, Ahsan Rasheed. He said that when they were founding their party, many years ago, they had chosen the idea of Rule of Law as their party slogan, even though it wasn't fashionable back then. Every idea had a time and now the time for this idea had come. He felt that Musharraf was dragging Pakistan on the path to authoritarianism like Islam Karimov, Husni Mubari and Robert Mugabe have done elsewhere in the third world. He also stated that, in the coming general elections, he expected a maximum turnout of 10 to 15% ( I feel like placing a bet against him :-) His other concern besides uphold the judiciary's cause was to save the federation.

Justice(r.) Fakhrunnisa Khokhar spoke on behalf of PPP because all other senior PPP members had turned down the invitation. After paying rich tribute to the lawyers' movement (she, herself, was badly beaten up on Nov 5), she said that her party believed in contesting the elections and then championing the cause of the judiciary. She said that within the river there is a whirlpool - to bring change one had to jump into it; it couldnt be done from the outside.

Next spoke Chaudhry Ahsan Iqbal of PML-N, perhaps the most impressive speaker in the house. He told us that he had come all the way from his campaigning activities in Narowal to address this gathering because of the respect he had come to develop for the civil society of Pakistan and for LUMS. (After the event, he declined my request for an interview because he couldn't spare time from his campaigning.) He congratulated civil society for finally waking up and standing for the cause of Pakistan. He said that the best thing that had ever happened to Pakistan was this: people would not even bother so much as to go and cast their votes are now fighting the battle for Pakistan and facing jails. He said that societies have survived with poverty and ignorance but never without laws. He added that the law is the shield of the poor against oppression because the rich can protect themselves by other means like money and influence, but the poor can only seek the law's help. It is particularly impressive that today the elite is coming out to protect the shield of the poor – the law. He announced that PML-N candidates would publicly take an oath on Feb 5 to pledge support for the cause of restoring the judiciary after getting elected. He concluded by saying that he had looked at the CCP's objectives and, for a moment, he thought it was his own party's manifesto (there is much truth in this statement, by the way.)

Hamid Khan was the last speaker of the house. He bagan by prasing the lawyers' movement and, in particular, Justice Khwaja, the Head of LUMS Law School (my school!) who resigned in protest against the humilating treatment met out to the Chief Justice. Hamid Khan's key addition to the discourse was his contention that if the Parliament was to restore the judiciary, it would be an insult to the judiciary, becasue the judiciary was not just above the executive but also above the legislature. The judiciary, therefore, had to be restored before the elections.

The Q and A session was long, heated and colourful. Most of the questions attacked the politicians, alleging that the political parties were corrupt, colluding with the army and betraying the people and the cause of rule of law. At times, the booing and jeering got so loud that Talat Hussain had to intervene reminding this very educated audience that democracy entailed giving others a chance to, at least, state their argument. In general, the speakers tried to clear the parties' position on various issues. Ahsan Iqbal from PML-N managed to answer almost all questions quite gracefully because, after all, his party's current manifesto is based upon the civil society's slogans. He did face trouble when somebody mentioned the assault on the Supreme Court during Nawaz Sharif's second term in office. He replied by saying that it was party blown out of proportions by the agencies and, partly, a mistake. Talat Hussain intervened saying that he had been present at that event and was convinced that the Sharif government was involved.
Justice Fakhrunnisa from PPP, on the other hand, had a harder time and, by the end of it, she had almost reached breaking point. Her best rebuttal to all of this criticism against PPP was her continual referral to the fact that she, and countless other PPP workers, also braved atrocities to stand with the cause of rule of law. It reminded me of Nov 5: at the High Court protest , we were hiding from the charging police batallion, along with Dr. Pervez Hassan and others. Outside, Fakhrunnisa Khokhar, the old lady was, true to her word, was suffering police brutality, amidst choking levels of tear gas. The audience, however, had not seen those scenes. In the close comfort of PICIC hall, they mercilessly grilled her, making it clear that they were disgusted with the PPP's deal-making politics in the recent past, and the PML-N's similar conduct in the years before Musharraf.

Aasim Sajjad, a LUMS professor, and Athar Minallah, a lawyer and activist, reminded the audience that the future of democracy is inextricably linked to politics, politicians and political parties. In the past, the army has systematically maligned politicians, assuming for itself the role of the messiah. By its sceptical and contemptuous attitude, the civil society today is again falling into the same trap. If democracy is to survive in this country, we must all learn to respect politics and politicians and realize that political parties are, after all, comprised of politician wo are from amongst us, and, just like us, they are prone to human errors. It is by engaging empathetically with them and by trying to help them in bringing positive change that we can contribute to the country's future. By contemptuosly dismissing them, we are only easing the army's path, leading to the destruction of this country.

The Faez Isa lecture on 'You and the Constitution'

Friday, 25 th January 2007, at 6 p.m.

Venue: Shirkat Gah Office, Meeting Room (1st Floor), 2 Bath Island Road , Parin Lodge, (near Bridge Store) Karachi.

Our Constitution hasn't been much help to us lately, has it?
In fact, it hasn't been of any help for most citizens for most of our history – the reality just hit us when projected on private TV channels.
How do we prevent our country being run like a private corporation sans transparency and accountability, to profit the few at the cost of the public?
How does the constitution protect our sovereignty? For that matter, how can we be sovereign if the commons, public goods, public property and other national assets are unduly privatized and re-colonised?
What is or should be a constitutional stand on labour, natural resources, women, the marginalised, the minorities, the poor, equal rights and opportunities, and the re-distribution of wealth ?
Was the Constitution rendered meaningless when the dispensers of justice were arbitrarily dispensed with, and obstructed from participating in the electoral process?Is revolution the only answer?
These and other questions will be answered and discussed at an Info and Q&A session with Qazi Faez Isa, Barrister-at-Law andAdvocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Organised by The Green Economics & Globalization Initiative, SHIRKAT GAH in collaboration with the PEOPLE'S RESISTANCE.

We urge you to come, inform yourself, ask questions, and raise your issues.

Two leading Pakistani lawyers to receive 3rd Asian Human Rights Defender Award

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

Today, January 23, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is pleased to announce that it has decided to grant its 3rd Asian Human Rights Defender Award jointly to Muneer Malik, former President of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association, together with his successor, Choudhry Aitezaz Ahsan.

The award is in recognition of the historic leadership role that the lawyers of Pakistan have had in fighting against military dictatorship there during the past year, spearheading the protests against General Pervez Musharraf's unconstitutional removal and illegal confinement of Chief Justice Iftekhar M. Chaudhary on 9 March 2007.

The lawyers' movement has attracted interest and immense support of people from all walks of life in Pakistan and the scheme to remove the chief justice was thwarted, although he was again illegally removed from his post, along with 55 other senior judges, including 13 from the Supreme Court, when Musharraf seized power through an unconstitutional declaration of emergency rule at the end of the year.

The lawyers, judges and others of Pakistan have been making great sacrifices to defend the independence of their judiciary as a last bastion against the otherwise unchallenged power of the military. This struggle is continuing today.

The 3rd Asian Human Rights Defenders Award is thus awarded to these two leading lawyers both in recognition of their personal sacrifices as well as to them as representatives of the entire people's movement against dictatorship in Pakistan.

For his leading role in fighting against the removal of the chief justice and promoting the struggle for an independent judiciary, Muneer Malik was arrested and drugged, causing him to suffer renal failure. He is still recovering today.

Choudhry Aitezaz Ahsan has been kept under detention since the emergency was imposed on 3 November 2007. The two lawyers' leadership, courage and unswerving commitment to their profession, their integrity and their country are strongly symbolic of their cause.

In them we acknowledge and award all of the lawyers, judges and others who have refused to bow down to the immoral pressure of military force, including all of those dismissed from their posts and kept in their houses. They stand today as the representatives of civilised society and institutional commonsense in Pakistan, in stark contrast to the barbarism and primitive feudal order represented by Musharraf and his allies.

By making this award we also again emphasise that the international community is obliged to support the people of Pakistan at a time that they are faced with the very real threat of being subjected to the sole authority of a merciless and self-interested executive authority. We call upon others to join with us in open expression of support for these lawyers and their struggle.

------------

ABOUT THE ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AWARD

The Asian Human Rights Commission recognises that human rights and liberties are expanded most by persons willing to make a sacrifice in the defence of these principles. Society is obliged to recognise and honour such sacrifices. For these reasons it has chosen to present awards to human rights defenders at opportune moments. Nominees must be exemplary human rights defenders with whom--or on behalf of whom--the AHRC has worked intensely over some time, and for whom the symbolic act of receiving the award will be significant. Nominations may be submitted to the AHRC executive director by anyone, at any time. The Board of Directors reserves the exclusive right to accept or reject any nomination.

The inaugural AHRC Human Rights Defender Award was presented to Michael Anthony Fernando in 2003, in recognition of his struggle for basic freedoms in Sri Lanka. Fernando served a nine-month jail term for contempt of court arising from a fundamental rights case in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. He was jailed because of his determination to uphold principles of liberty with an uncommon sense of courage, seriousness and self-sacrifice. The UN Human Rights Committee ultimately held that his imprisonment was a violation of his rights under international law. See further: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/tonyfernando.

The second Human Rights Defenders Award was made posthumously to Somchai Neelaphaijit, a lawyer from Thailand, for his work on behalf of torture victims as a result of which he was abducted and forcibly disappeared by a group of police officers who have never been punished. The award was made in recognition both of his work as well as the emerging movement in Thailand, led by Somchai's wife, Angkhana, to acknowledge and establish a system of accountability relating to disappearances in Thailand. See further: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/somchai.

Canadian, Dutch and Hong Kong lawyers conclude that Emergency Measures are illegitimate

A Joint Statement by the Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) , the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation (L4L) and the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)

Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation (L4L) call for:

The immediate unconditional release of all jurists arrested under preventative detention measures, including: Aitzaz Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar; Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry, removed from office by the Musharraf regime; Ali Ahmed Kurd; Justice (retired) Tariq Mahmood and others.

Strict adherence by the State and state officials to all Pakistan laws in force prior to November 3, 2007 and to applicable international standards protecting the independence of lawyers and judges including those embodied in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyersand the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

Strict adherence by the State and state officials to all Pakistan laws and to applicable international standards governing the humane treatment of prisoners, including the universal non-derogable prohibition against torture and denial of due process;

The immediate re-instatement of and adherence to the Constitution of the Republic or Pakistan and The rescission of all laws that came into force under the authority of the Proclamation of Emergency Declaration of November 3, 2007, the Provisional Constitutional Order No. 1 of 2007 and the Oath of Offices (Judges) Order, 2007 Reinstatement, prior to elections, of all judges removed from office subsequent to the Emergency Declaration and removal from office of judges appointed in their stead on conditions that are reasonable fair.

Judicial Independence

Judicial independence in Pakistan was effectively destroyed by recent measures taken by the Musharraf regime. The resulting absence of an independent judiciary violates the fundamental duty, accepted as jus cogens and binding on Pakistan, to afford at all times, including during legitimate states of emergency, "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The non-derogability of judicial independence is a requirement of common sense and is also the foundation of all international and domestic human rights and humanitarian law and is secured by many instruments including all four Geneva Conventions, (common article 3), Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Basic Principles on the Role of Judges )

Without an independent judiciary, there can be neither free and fair elections nor trials in Pakistan. The thousands of charges laid in the aftermath of the murder of Benazir Bhutto cannot be lawfully determined unless and until judges removed in November are reinstated and proper safeguards of their independence are recognized by the government of Pakistan. Proclamation of Emergency fails to meet UN legitimacy test and violates the law LRWC, the ALRC and L4L reiterate earlier statements (November 5th, 6th, 13th, 26th and 29th) condemning as a violations of both Pakistan law and of international laws and standards binding on Pakistan:

a) the suspension of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and,

b) the Proclamation of Emergency of November 3, 2007; and,

c) the Provisional Constitutional Order No. 1 of 2007; and,

d) the Oath of Offices (Judges) Order, 2007; and,

e) the arrest, detention and removal from office of jurists suspected of opposing violations of the law by the Musharraf regime.

To be lawful and legitimate the imposition, duration and removal of emergency measures by Pakistan or any other state, must meet the 10-principle test of the United Nations standards. The Proclamation of Emergency of November 3, 2007 fails to meet all 10 of the UN criteria for legitimate emergency measures: the emergency measures declared in Pakistan on November 3, 2007 fails to meet the tests regarding legality, proclamation, notification, time limitation, existence of exceptional threat, proportionality, non-discrimination, compatibility, concordance and complementarity with international law and preservation of non-derogable rights.

Access to judicial safeguards of non-derogable rights remains an absolute requirement during emergency measures. Actions that compromise or destroy judicial independence, such as those taken by the Musharraf regime, render even emergency measures that meet UN standards, illegal. LRWC, the ALRC and L4L therefore take the position that all laws brought into force and all state actions taken in reliance on the legitimacy of the Proclamation of Emergency of November 3, 2007 must be considered as enacted and done without legal authority and therefore as null and the appropriate remedies must be taken to restore the law and redress violations.

---------------

Lawyers Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) is a committee of Canadian lawyers who promote human rights and the rule of law internationally by providing support to lawyers and other human rights defenders in danger because of their advocacy. LRWC is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Earlier LRWC statements on Pakistan: www.lrwc.org/pub1.php

The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) is a Hong Kong-based NGO with General Consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The ALRC was founded in 1986 by a prominent group of jurists and human rights activists in Asia and is committed to the development of legal self-reliance and the empowerment of people. The Centre promotes the respect of human rights in the region through the strengthening of institutions of the rule of law, notably the police, prosecution and judiciary. It also seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues by the bar and other legal bodies and personnel, at the local and national levels and to promote rights in the region through advocacy, research and publications, such as Article 2.

The Dutch Lawyers For Lawyers Foundation (L4L)('Stichting Advocaten voor Advocaten') is committed to enable lawyers, throughout the world, to practice law without improper interference and to this end, supports lawyers who are under threat or attack in the exercise of their profession while working for the protection of human rights. L4L, established in co-operation with the Dutch Bar Association, the Dutch affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, and the Dutch Institute of Human Rights, regularly reports on the situation of human rights lawyers.

CONTACTS

Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, www.lrwc.org; lrwc@portal.ca; +1 604 738 0338

Asian Legal Resource Centre, Mr. Basil Fernando, Executive Director, Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339, alrc@alrc.net; www.alrc.net

The Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation, Ms. Judith Lichtenberg; +31 (0)6 11 30 6378, info@advocatenvooradvocaten.nl; http://www.advocatenvooradvocaten.nl

Massive anti-Musharraf protest in London

A massive protest is being planned against Musharraf in UK. All concerned, students, lawyers, civil societies, political party workers, etc. are invited to come to this protest. If you are in or around London on the 28th, please try to come. The plan is to bring people from all backgrounds holding the flags of their political parties or the flag of Pakistan in case you don't support any political party to represent the much united resistance movement against Musharraf. Please circulate this mail widely. As with any protest, numbers matter!

JOIN ASMA JEHANGIR, IMRAN KHAN, JEMIMA KHAN, PTI, PML-N, PPP, OTHERS AT DEMO OUTSIDE DOWNING STREET .

DEMO TO RESTORE JUDICIARY AND THE CONSTITUTION

RELEASE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS

FREE THE MEDIA

HOLD FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONSON

Date: Monday January 28th 2008

Time: 11.30 AM

Location: 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA

Tube: Westminister Station

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT : KHWAJA IMTIAZ 07886318577, SHAHID DASTGIR 07939114451 OR RABIA 07515 549541

CCP Convention in LUMS - account

The convention organized was an immense success. So many people showed up that we did not have seating place. Many were standing around or sitting on the floor or stairs in the auditorium. The next convention therefore will be organized in an even bigger hall. The attendance was over 200 people.

The convention began by Hamid Zaman addressing the audience and introducing the host, Talat Hussain. Following that, the panelist began by giving their viewpoint on the matter of the restoration of the judiciary. Retired Justice Fakhrunnisa from PPP and Ahsan Iqbal from PML-N both promised their party's commitment to the cause of the people. Retired Justice Fakhrunnisa declared her commitment to the struggle for the restoration of the judiciary, and stressed that after elections her party will do all in their power to get the judiciary restored. She said Benazir gave her life for the struggle of democracy, and democracy is not possible without the restoration of the judiciary. Hence, PPP will first and foremost work towards that.

Mr. Ahsan Iqbal declared the recent mobilization of the civil society and students as nothing less than marvelous. He said that throughout history, countries have survived poverty, hunger, illiteracy etc but never has any country survived without justice. He said that the lack of justive effects the poor and the middle classes the most, as they are unable to shield themselves from those with power. He declared that today, the civil society and the students have stepped forward to become that shield. He pointed to the historic nexus between the judge, the general and the Jageerdar and said that for the first time in the history of Pakistan, a judge dared defy this nexus and give hope to the desolute and oppressed masses. He said that Nawaz Sharif himself will administer an oath to ALL party nominees in front of the Public. This oath will profess the utmost commitment of each to the restoration of the judiciary and the constitution. He said that Pervaiz Musharraf insulted 160 million people in his address in Europe when he declared Pakistanis as undeserving of democracy, and that Pakistanis deserve it as much as any other country. He declared Musharraf as obsessed with power.

Mr. Hamid Khan, representing Mr. Tariq Hassan in the convention, began by historicizing the lawyer's movement. That it had begun since the first coup by Musharraf. He strongly denounced any system of which Musharraf was a part of, and added that when Benazir made a deal with Musharraf, it was a most painful moment in the lawyer's movement. He blamed this deal for the fact that Musharraf was able to remain on his seat post March 9. He therefore also denounced the current elections taking place under Musharraf's biased government. He also said that had all the parties boycotted elections from the beginning Musharraf would have been unable to retain any power and that Political parties should have only contested elections on the condition that Musharraf resign.

Dr. Parvaiz Hassan, representing Mr. Tariq Hassan in the convention, said that the so-called deposed judges are not under the law deposed. They are still legally the judges. He declared that the only solution to the problem of the repeated coups by the military is via recourse to the article 6 of the constitution. He said that Musharraf should be tried before the courts (once the judges have been reinstated de facto) for high treason. He also said that not only Musharraf but the PCO judges should also be held accountable. He stressed that unless this process of accountability begins in the country, there is no hope.

Mr. Ahsan rasheed representing PTI, stressed that these elctions are neither free nor fair. He emphasized the principled stance of his party in this regard. He said that his party now had an expanded electoral base, and stood to win many more seats, but purely on principles has decided to boycott the elections. He said that Imran Khan was offered to become part of the Musharraf government previously as well, but had refused each time.

The talk was very charged with emotions. A lot of people denounced Musharraf. Many also said that we will now hold the political parties equally accountable. PML-N and PPP were also questioned on judicial independence during their terms in power. Retd Justice Fakhrunnisa responded by saying that her party never deposed any judges. And Mr. Iqbal said that Nawaz Sharif was the first Prime Minister of Pakistan to ever present himself in front of the court. He, however, also stated that his party has learned from their past mistakes and was willing to improve hand in hand with the people. This was appreciated by many from the civil society that at least an acceptance and willingness to improve has been expressed. The general consensus of the convention was that Musharraf must immediately resign, that no power sharing agreement with him was acceptable and that the judiciary must be restored. PPP was also asked to give an official firm stance on the issue of the judiciary and to administer a similar oath as the PML-N. All politicians were asked to give an oath that if they are unable to restore the judiciary they will resign from politics.