One party president

by DR FAROOQ HASSAN

On October 6, 2007 it became 'official' that Musharraf had been elected by the Electoral College as president for the next five years. Quite apart from the fact that at time that very 'election' was under a serious challenge in the SC through a number of cases including one that I was arguing, the voting in that election requires serious notice.

The point requiring our present attention is not that legally it was entirely a flawed exercise devoid of jurisdiction and appropriate compliance with the Constitution; it was manifestly suffering from many legal infirmities. So much so that in the 36 amendments made in the Constitution during the earlier days after enforcement of emergency by Musharraf 17, are with respect to his candidature as president and 4 with respect to the courts and judges who were examining that matter at that time. However as this topic has been examined by me in my prior columns, it is the political aspects of this manoeuvre that require a deeper analysis.

It is on record that this process was totally boycotted by the Opposition. The MMA plus other parties had resigned from the assemblies and the EC; the PPP had also totally abstained. With the result that the voting was around 55% of the total vote which is about the voting strength of Punjab. The two western provinces' majority did not vote for him nor did rural Sindh which is generally represented by PPP. So the voting for Musharraf is entirely because of its representation in Punjab and the work of PML-Q. More odious to any one who looks at this development objectively in a historical context is the indisputable fact that this process wholly relies on just one province in Pakistan. The 1971 creation of Bangladesh because of a spate of follies by the military strongman general Yahya are a vivid reminder of what yet could happen in this country.

In political terms it can hardly be called an election for the president of the country when only one of the four provincial units is voting! Does it not prove that Musharraf's entire political constituency is thus just of one party, essentially hailing from just one province, and which has been aiding the regime in power that came to power in 1999 through a coup? Does it also not prove that against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it has now attempted to cement the genesis of the break up of Federation whose unity he is supposed to represent?

Article 41 provides that the president should represent unquestionably the four units of the Republic and not just one. This provision demands that the president:
" Represent the 'unity' of the Federation.
" Be genuinely elected by the four province's majority vote in the EC.
" Must be above party politics.
In terms of political norms that govern elections Musharraf's manoeuvres of October 6 are the negation of the democratic process. It is an undeniable fact that not only Musharraf went to numerous political meetings of the PML-Q during 2007, a year of great political turmoil and extreme polarisation, even after the announcement of election he has gone around the country seeking voting preference for the ruling PML-Q under the garb of 'continuity' of his policies. Under a parliamentary system what priority does a president have to ask voters to give? Which parlimentary system allows this to go unchallenged? Does it happen in Canada or Australia or anywhere in the world may I ask?

When the Democrats pulled out of the Michigan primary, and Hillary Clinton's name did appear on the ballot, no contest was legally held, when it could have been so done, since everyone abhors in the US a one sides nominated beauty contest rather then an election which by its nature is a contested matter. As a consequence it is trite knowledge that in Pakistan the presidential camp is facing a political dilemma. How to regain the popularity of Musharraf without affecting the vote bank of the formerly ruling party PML-Q which cast its ballot in that farcical process of October 6, 2007?

According to well-placed sources in the US Musharraf has asked his senior civilian and military advisors to handle this uphill task with extra care in highlighting the president's 'impartiality'. But a question arises: how is that compatible with regard to elections when by doing so it would affect the political standing of the Q-league which is already being hard hit by the opposition parties' allegations of being the torchbearer of a military general? Would it not suffer further political damage? So the question that the pundits of the government have to respond to is this: while in theory the president is not supporting any of the political parties, all major opposition parties, PML-N and PPP are insisting that PML-Q is enjoying an overwhelming backing of Musharraf.

The presidential aides to hide the real truth of his own unpopularity have instead informed the president that people blamed their problems on the five-year rule led by the PML-Q and not of Musharraf's making. But the public perception about the presidential backing for the so-called King's party is axiomatic; the party could be equally harmed by tarnished image of the president, especially after the killing of Benazir who most in the country believe was murdered by the incumbent regime.

The dismissal of three main petitions by the reshaped Supreme Court by Musharraf in the post-emergency era against the legitimacy of the candidature of General (Retd) Musharraf for the presidential election while holding the army chief post has helped the general in an ad hoc time frame in a superficial legal sense but politically the fundamental questions of his illegitimacy remain.

Prior to the last hearing, an 11-member Bench of the Apex Court was proceeding with the petitions till November 2 when on date the hearing was adjourned until November 5. But on November 3, the state of emergency coupled with a PCO was declared in the country. The PCO suspended the Constitution of 1973 and called for taking fresh oath by the Superior Court judges under it. Resultantly 65 out of 90 judges refused. How a general can do so with the regard to the Constitution which under prevalent civilised political norms can be done only by a two-third majority of the people sitting in the assemblies? I leave that question for anyone who cares to defend this action of violating the Constitution. The legal community here at Harvard and the West Coast and at such places as Stanford and UCLA were stunned when I asked politely if they are prepared to accept that one day their chief of joint staff says, "I make these changes in the Constitution of 1787 rather than the two-third majority principle that lies embedded in the American Constitution because they aid my conceptions of democracy?"
The 1999 coup has assumed by now several times the office of 'president'; yet it is amusingly said by and on his behalf that it is only his second term! Indisputably he assumed such roles for himself, under rules devised by him at least three times before 2007. So it is the fourth time that such responsibilities are being assumed by him. Whatever policy-oriented view one may adopt, I cannot think any lawyer worth his salt can misinterpret 'facts'!

Musharraf finding that he does not have to confront Benazir any longer has made another U-turn vis-à-vis Nawaz Sharif to float the idea of a 'national government'. The move is a prelude to postponement of the forthcoming elections one more time as the regime spy sleuths have concluded that they cannot 'arrange' a sizeable number of seats for the Q-league and other collaborators even after record rigging. The elections may be postponed for a few months, then for a year and later the regime may find ways to extend itself for 4-5 years.

Even if we accept the varying interpretations being put on the causation of BB's murder, it cannot be denied that the assassins were seen by the world at just a few feet from her on December 27, 2007. Who allowed this to happen? On December 30 Musharraf did say that she killed herself. Let us agree on further implications that Musharraf wants us to agree to: Yes, Benazir killed herself by hitting the car's sunroof lever. Yes, she was warned not to hold a political rally. Yes, no state agency was involved in her gruesome murder. Yes, the Sharif brothers went into exile on their own request. Yes, several civil society activists, judges and lawyers deserve to be kept in detention. Yes it is necessary to put in detention the deposed CJ, the former acting CJ Rana Bhagwandas, and many more in Lahore and Karachi. Yes, many Pakistanis, particularly of legal fraternity are extremists and terrorists. Yes, Pakistan's survival as a nation is dependent on American goodwill and fighting its war on terror.

Does it make any honest sense I ask my American friends, to agree to such entirely false premises and preposterous hypotheses and yet appear to be serious about evaluation of the genesis of the crisis now waiting to explode?

I am informed that many of my recent columns appearing in this paper on the crisis in Pakistan are being taken as written testimony in the Congressional hearings now scheduled to be held from this week in Washington. While Lantos chairs the House Foreign Relations Committee. Congressman Gary Ackerman chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Since Ackerman is a leading critic of Musharraf government, the resolution he has introduced has alarmed the government's supporters in Washington, as they fear that it may seek new restrictions against Islamabad. In addition the Congress already has two pending resolutions on Pakistan, both strongly supporting pro-democracy forces in the country. All these three resolutions seek punitive actions against the government for suppressing political forces and placing new restrictions on the media and the judiciary.

These three resolutions reaffirm the US commitment to assisting the people of Pakistan in combating terrorism, and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan. Further, these measures express support for freedom of media, the ability of political parties to express their views without restriction and the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan. In US relevant officials and think thanks are alarmed at the continuous state of instability in that country in which it is the presidency supported by Washington that is considered by many to be a major if not the main cause.

The president is now distrusted by the world and according to three recent polls conducted by reputable American institutions. His stature has fallen so much that he is treated dismissively even by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Shaukat Aziz, his imported PM has disappeared from the scene, even losing out to an ordinary banker - coincidentally from India - for the top job in his alma mater, Citibank. Pakistan politically and economically is in a mess, its own army, for the first time, is seeing its credibility, power, its pre-eminent position in Pakistan's society and power structure questioned and losing fast its respect in public estimation.

(The writer is a Barrister at Law (UK), Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and Professor Harvard University)

A Hollow Political Economy?

By Farhan Bokhari

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s promise to a gathering of businessmen in Karachi for coming down heavy on the ‘miscreants’ planning to disrupt next month’s parliamentary elections, yet again carries a hollow ring.

At a time when the poorest of the poor have recently braved an atta shortage crisis, compounding the quality of their lives beyond the electricity shortages and mounting inflation, the challenge to the economy comes significantly more from its questionable handling by the government rather than the fallout from the mounting political challenge.

Mr Musharraf, in charge of Pakistan for more than eight years, appears eager to reassure nervous investors of his determination to ensure relative stability during a potentially turbulent election period.

It is difficult to predict exactly what emerges from a likely controversial national election, with opposition politicians already questioning the neutrality of the process, not to forget the neutrality of the present-day caretaker regime and the president’s own position.Elections taking place not just after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination but indeed also after its chaotic fallout and the bloody violence following her tragic departure, will indeed be a high-risk game.

Mr Musharraf’s decision to open front after front since making the then Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry ‘non-functional’ in March, has only demolished his once established image of being politically above board and well-meaning. History has demonstrated time and again that the moral high ground once lost by a leader is seldom regained, unlike the possible reversal of territorial loss.

It is all too easy to describe the violence after Ms Bhutto’s death as nothing more than an emotional and frenzied response by angry demonstrators to a highly tragic event. Another way of looking at what instigated this violence may well be exactly what lies behind Pakistan’s increasing propensity for instability, fuelled by the way the economy has progressed in recent years.

Pundits in high places of economic thinking such as the mighty ministry of finance in Islamabad, may well be all too eager to claim success for overseeing a so-called bold economic recovery. Parameters such as rising liquid currency reserves and mounting economic growth rates have often been cited as supporting evidence. Added evidence has been drawn from quarters such as the privatisation ministry to reinforce the success story. It is undoubtedly true that there are more visible symbols of affluence in Pakistan today, ranging from many more luxury cars — including a few Rolls-Royce — to the large-scale proliferation of mobile cellular phones.

But anecdotal evidence suggests a number of equally profound gaps in this widely touted economic success story, with alarming linkages to Pakistan’s future political outlook. If the economic growth trends were ever calculated for individual provinces and districts within those provincial bounds, there is a good chance that parts of Punjab could emerge as the land of high hope and success against the rest of the country — with the possible exception of Karachi — being areas of despair, disorder and above all shrinking economic opportunities.

Another way of looking at this distorted picture may well be the number of those who remain below the poverty line. Even if the government’s estimates, which are not accepted by independent pundits, are taken for the record, at least a quarter of Pakistan’s population of at least 165 million live below the poverty line. The figure of more than 40 million Pakistanis living below the poverty line exceeds the size of the entire population of a number of countries around the world.

Faced with this distorted pattern of economic development, both across regions and among classes, it is not surprising that the worst manifestations of political turmoil of the kind seen recently in Pakistan, have taken place in the country’s non-Punjab regions, essentially the NWFP where militancy has spread to the settled regions, Balochistan where in the aftermath of Nawab Akbar Bugti’s killing it remains a recurring trend, and now, after Ms Bhutto’s assassination, the bloody violence in the interior parts of Sindh.

By contrast, it is not surprising that Punjab — the visibly fastest growing province of Pakistan — is also home to the largest community of pro-Musharraf politicians from the PML-Q.

The pattern of recurring violence seen in Pakistan recently underlines a fundamental and obvious point. People who do not see hope for a better future may be relatively more prone to joining waves of unrest and disorder.

In spite of the obvious connect between politics and Pakistan’s future economic challenges, there may be no immediate economic solutions to dealing with this profoundly complex issue. The effect of a set of economic choices followed over eight years under President Musharraf’s rule, cannot be undone in the potentially turbulent weeks or even months that lie ahead for Pakistan.

Without delicate handling, an election that lacks credibility will immediately evoke a possibly violent public response from Pakistan’s opposition leaders including some who would be encouraged to see more public response to their cause after the recent unrest in the country. If the government moves ahead in dealing a crushing blow to violent unrest as promised by President Musharraf, there is no guarantee that the situation will not aggravate further.

In the short term, the best option for the government must be all about setting the pace for a political transition which is fair, neutral, above board and, above all, free of bias in favour or against any individual or political group.

With official credibility already in tatters, it is difficult to imagine how President Musharraf can become a neutral arbiter of Pakistan’s national affairs, following a year in which his political battles appear to have primarily been about saving his own career as well as his self-created ruling order. Once the dust settles after the polls, a new Pakistani regime will have to quickly undo some of the worst legacies of economic policies in recent years. Diverting economic and developmental resources away from Punjab towards Pakistan’s impoverished regions may well be a key priority, all for the sake of preserving, protecting and promoting the cause of national unity.

In contrast to Pakistan’s economic picture under President Musharraf’s rule which has received a lift from US-led generous western support, there are huge gaps in the country’s economic structure. Areas such as the number of income taxpayers, staggering at less than one per cent of the population, say much about the failure to undertake structural reforms with long-term benefits.

Other distortions include the controversy surrounding public services such as government-owned hospitals and schools which present a pathetic picture which remains largely unchanged from the days preceding Mr Musharraf’s rule. Economic recovery may have indeed taken place if statistical evidence is taken as the guide. But the recovery is far from real when judged against the quality of life for average Pakistanis, especially those living in areas outside the economic heartland. The recent riots are just one of the many eye-openers to prove the point.

(Courtesy DAWN, Opinion, Jan 28th)

Judges under Siege

Qazi Faez Isa

CARRY a placard — “Release Justice Rana Bhagwandas” — and you will be thrown into the slammer. FIR No.13/08 lodged at the Clifton Town police station confirms the highhandedness of Musharraf’s despotic regime.

Justice Rana Bhagwandas started his judicial career as a civil judge at the age of 24. In 1994 he was elevated to the high court and then to the Supreme Court where he eventually became the senior-most judge, serving as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan, whenever the Chief Justice was out of the country. He earned the reputation of hard work, dedication, clear thinking, impartiality and fairness. Upon retirement it has been the practice of the court to give the retiring judge a Full Court Reference, but in the building that now reminds one of the Supreme Court, traditions too have been banished.

On Nov 3, 2007, Justice Bhagwandas the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was illegally incarcerated. After his retirement he was made a prisoner in his own home in Karachi. He caused offence because he did not break his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan” when another was grinding his boot into it.
“The people should fight for the law as for their city wall” (Heraclitus, 5th century BC).

Justice Bhagwandas during his meritorious career spanning 41 years, decided thousands of cases, yet for this great judge who did not prostrate before a dictator there was no justice. Citizens, however, wanted to honour him and express their gratitude. They assembled outside his residence, held candles and flowers, and called for his release. Amongst them were recently-married Salahuddin Ahmed, barrister-at-law, Asad Umar, chief executive of Engro Chemicals Pakistan Limited, and Kamran Noorani, owner of Pakistan Law House.

The ‘law enforcement agencies’ doing another’s bidding in vulturine fashion made off with the citizens. But infamy did not stop there. The candle, flowers and placard holders have been charged under Sections 147 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for “rioting” and “rioting armed with deadly weapon”. To constitute “rioting”, there must be force and violence (Section 146 PPC).These conscientious citizens upon being convicted may be imprisoned for three years. Is this the republic that Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted to create? “The idea was that we should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men” (Quaid’s address to civil and military officers, Karachi, Oct 11, 1947). Instead, grovelling before the dictator and forced to accept the odious PCO oath of personal loyalty is the only guarantee to live and breathe freely.

The orders for lodging FIR No.13/08 must have come from the very top because Salahuddin Ahmed’s father is none other than Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, who has been prevented from carrying out his duties since Nov 3. Overnight the chief justice of the province is controlled by a foot constable. Light recedes, justice is eclipsed and darkness descends. The beast is born. “Law alone can give us freedom” (Goethe) and without it we are shackled.

The state itself violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, including the right to “freedom of speech and expression” (Article 19), “freedom of assembly” (Article 16), the inviolability of the “dignity of man” (Article 14). Under Musharraf and his neutered caretakers anyone exercising his or her fundamental rights is liable to be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time. “When dictators and tyrants seek to destroy the freedoms of men, their first target is the legal profession and through it the rule of law.” (Leon Jaworski).

In Pakistan, the Constitution stipulates, that sovereignty “belongs to Almighty Allah alone” and “wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured”. A land “dedicated to the preservation of democracy achieved by the unremitting struggle against oppression and tyranny”. Abrogation and subversion of the Constitution is categorised as “high treason”.

Justice (adl o insaf) lies at the heart of Islam. Without justice, nations perish. Justice predates democracy and representative government. A candlelit vigil for the release of a judge who spent his entire life in the service of Pakistan is manufactured into a serious ‘crime’. This happened in the heart of the largest metropolis of Pakistan, and respectable members of society were targeted in the full glare of the media, but far worse treatment was meted out to people living away.

In interior Sindh, thousands of FIRs have been registered reportedly against half a million members of the Pakistan People’s Party. After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the all-pervasive Police and Rangers disappeared for days, and advantage was taken by criminal elements. It now appears that this was done to help elect members of the quisling League.

FIRs have been lodged on the basis of ‘instructions from above’ and compliance made necessary to retain employment, but irreconcilable anomalies reveal the truth. Two representative examples put to rest the neutrality of the caretakers. The mukhtiarkar and the assistant mukhtiarkar both lodged FIRs (Nos.3/08 and 4/08) in respect of the very same incident against Abdul Jalil Memon, PPP’s candidate for PS 84.

FIRs against Haji Usman Jalbani, PPP’s candidate for PS 88, were lodged in four different police stations (Keti Bundar, Gora Bari, Garo and Gharo) pertaining to offences that took place at the same time, despite the fact that a day would be spent travelling between these areas. Coincidentally, six immediate family members of a caretaker minister are contesting on Q League tickets, including PS 84 and PS 88 constituencies.

Tainted self-seekers grasp their opportunity. Rather than apply salve to the raw wounds of the PPP, kerosene is sprinkled. People are being pushed towards intolerable injustices.Constitution is the force which coalesces and forges the nation. An iron grip must stay the hand of the terrorist as he does not have the right to take life and because the Constitution mandates that “no person shall be deprived of life” (Article 9). Forced closure of CD and barber shops must be stopped because the Constitution grants every citizen the freedom of trade, business and profession (Article 18).

“Obedience to the Constitution is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being in Pakistan” (Article 5). But General Musharraf declared war on the Constitution and its custodians. The Taliban and the terrorists have followed suit. Until the Constitution and the judiciary are restored, terrorism, oppression, tyranny, injustice and anarchy will continue.

Terrorists pierce the body. America’s trusted lieutenant whips the spirit. Pharaonic arrogance preserves the shell, mummified. A withered, shrivelled curiosity…

(Courtesy DAWN, Opinion, January 28th)

Zardari condemns victimisation of PPP workers

(Courtesy DAWN)

The Pakistan People’s Party has condemned what it called continuing victimisation of party workers as “a planned and orchestrated pre-poll rigging” aimed at forcing activists to keep away from elections.

“The registration of new cases and reopening of several years old cases to implicate party leaders and workers was clearly designed to put pressure and to disable them on the eve of elections,” PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari said in a statement on Sunday.

He pointed out that arrest warrants for a dozen of PPP leaders, including six former MPAs, were issued in Karachi on Saturday for allegedly creating a law and order situation in the city after the murder of party’s Sindh information secretary Munawar Suharwardy three years ago.

Former MPAs Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, Mazhar Marvi, Sassui Palejo, Mehreen Bhutto and Sharfunissa Leghari were declared absconders, their names ordered to be published in newspapers and police directed to arrest them.

The Sindh police registered cases against over 100 party workers on charges of blocking the Dadu-Larkana road and burning tyres on Friday night in protest against the arrest of PPP workers.

Using blind FIRs as a pretext, police raided homes of workers and misbehaved with women. Thousands of workers were previously nominated in criminal cases following disturbances in the wake of martyrdom of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.

He said that under such circumstances when candidates and voters were subjected to intimidation and complaints against it remained unattended with a powerless Election Commission, the elections would neither be free nor fair. He demanded release of workers and withdrawal of fictitious cases against them and an end to the practice of registering blind FIRs for using them against political workers later.

The party called upon the international community to press the Musharraf regime to desist from electoral manipulation by arresting and intimidating party workers and candidates, he said.

Resign Musharraf, Resign!

By JEMIMA KHAN

(InformPress.com) - I am now a serial protester, it seems. And among my English friends increasingly the butt of jokes. Three demonstrations in the UK since October, and several others – including some of a distinctly Monty Python-esque bent - during my years of
living in Pakistan. I have spent many a pre-protest evening in Islamabad quibbling with activists over the minutiae: what the placards should say (no "death to..." anyone, I would insist) or whether to allow effigy burning, a Pakistani protest staple ("Jem, you don't understand how politics works here - please, just a burning Bush").

Tomorrow at midday I will once again be positioning myself outside 10 Downing Street, to await the arrival of retired General and self- appointed President Pervez Musharraf, who I intend to greet with lusty jeers, provocative placards and slogans that almost rhyme. We have agreed that we don't like the commonly used kuta, meaning dog. Monkey, fox, hyena and, worst of all (for a pork-phobic nation), swine have also been banned.

I expect most of you will be thinking: "Aren't demonstrations a bit old fashioned and irrelevant? Can they actually achieve anything?"

It is 40 years since 1968, "The Year That Rocked The World", when mass protests erupted across the globe, in France, America, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Belgium, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. While none of those demonstrations achieved their immediate stated aim, cumulatively they changed the world more profoundly than those involved could ever have imagined.

Popular protests rarely achieve much on their own. Hillary Clinton had a point when she said that "[Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realised when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a President to get it done." She was lambasted by her Democratic rivals for having demeaned the great civil rights icon. But she was right that, while there is no doubt King was brilliant at mobilising a movement, as well as an outstanding orator and inspirational activist, his real achievement was the shifting of American consciousness. This created the environment in which it was
possible for Johnson to pass the humanitarian Civil Rights Act which resulted in the greatest social change in 20th-century America.

The effects of protests are rarely immediate or even measurable. What demonstrations do is to change the weather. And the weather changes the landscape. Protests invariably move from the extreme to the mainstream.

Sometimes, though, they really do what they say on the banners. Gandhi's march to the sea to make salt marked the beginning of the push to remove the British from India; the Suffragettes did get the vote for women; the Peasant's Revolt did change the feudal system; and the Anti-Slavery Movement did do away with slavery. They are all
examples of what demonstrations hope to achieve: the mass power of the individually powerless.

Tomorrow I will be protesting Gordon Brown's continued support for Pakistan's dictator. I will be joined by politicians, lawyers, doctors, human rights activists, journalists and ordinary Pakistanis who want to know what happened to New Labour's "ethical foreign
policy". Our equivalents in Pakistan have been denied the same right to protest. Many hundreds remain in prison - some tortured. We can't read about it because the media in Pakistan remains restricted.

Brown and Musharraf are planning to discuss democracy, counter- terrorism and the upcoming Pakistani elections. We, the crowd outside Number 10, will be there exercising freedom of speech and practicing real democracy. Inside they will only be going through the motions.

How can they seriously discuss the "democratic process in Pakistan" with straight faces when 60 percent of the Superior Court judges have been dismissed and many are still under house arrest? How can "free and fair elections" take place in three weeks under the supervision of hand-picked substitute judges, a pet caretaker government and a bogus
election Commission? Why is our Government supporting and our taxpayers funding a counter-terrorism strategy that has encouraged terrorism? Above all, why has our Prime Minister chosen to host a constitutionally illegal ruler who has lost the support of Pakistanis both in Britain and abroad, and who is seen as the cause not the solution to the country's problems?

Every time Gordon Brown shakes hands with and gives tea to a dictator, in some small way, like protests, it changes the weather. If you shake hands with one, you shake hands with them all. It's pointless refusing to be in the same country as Mugabe, if you invite Musharraf into your home.

Wouldn't it be nice if, on hearing our shouts, Brown came to the window of Number 10, waved cordially at the rabble outside and announced: "Actually, you are right." To be followed from within by pleasing sounds of scuffle and outrage with Brown emerging to join our final chorus of "Resign Musharraf, Resign!"

It is more likely that we will just make ourselves heard. But who knows? 2008 may yet turn out to be Pakistan's 1968. Inshallah.

Monday, midday, Downing Street. Effigies supplied.

[Ms. Jemima (Goldsmith) Khan is a leader of the Free Pakistan Movement
(FPM) based in London, UK.]

The military millionaires who control Pakistan Inc

Elliot Wilson (The Spectator - UK)

Elliot Wilson says Pakistan ’s economy is dominated by a ruthless business conglomerate that owns everything from factories and bakeries to farmland and golf courses: The Army.

Sometime in late 2004, Pakistan 's all-powerful army made a curious decision. Under mounting pressure from London and Washington to capture Osama bin Laden, believed to be hiding in Baluchistan, Islamabad 's fighting forces instead turned their attention to a far more profitable venture: building golf courses.

In itself this wasn’t particularly unusual. With 620,000 soldiers, Pakistan boasts the world’s seventh-largest standing army, but its senior officers long ago realised the perks to be gained from commercial ventures. Since independence in 1947, the army has steadily intertwined itself into Pakistan’s economy: so much so that it’s hard to tell where the military stops and any semblance of free-market capitalism begins.

All too often, there is no dividing line. In her 2007 book Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy Dr Ayesha Siddiqa exposes the rampant commercialism pervading every aspect of the country’s military forces, until recently headed by President Pervaiz Musharraf. Dr Siddiqa, a former researcher with the country’s naval forces, estimates the military’s net worth at more than £10 billion — roughly four times the total foreign direct investment generated by Islamabad in 2007. She found that the army owns 12 per cent of the country’s land, its holdings being mostly fertile soil in the eastern Punjab . Two thirds of that land is in the hands of senior current and former officials, mostly brigadiers, major-generals and generals. The most senior 100 military officials are estimated to be worth, at the very least, £3.5 billion.

Many of the country’s largest corporations are also controlled by the military, thanks largely to an opaque network of powerful ‘foundations’ originally set up to look after the pension needs of army personnel. The largest three — the Fauji, Shaheen and Bahria foundations, controlled by the army, air force and navy respectively — control more than 100 separate commercial entities involved in everything from cement to cereal production. Only nine have ever published partial financial accounts, and all are ultimately controlled by the Ministry of Defence, which oversees all of the military’s commercial ventures.

The Fauji foundation, the largest of the lot, is estimated by Siddiqa to be worth several billion pounds. It operates a security force (allowing serving army personnel to double in their spare time as private security agents), an oil terminal and a phosphate joint venture with the Moroccan government. Elsewhere, the Army Welfare Trust — a foundation set up in 1971 to identify potentially profitable ventures for the military — runs one of the country’s largest lenders, Askari Commercial Bank, along with an airline, a travel agency and even a stud farm. Then there is the National Logistic Cell, Pakistan’s largest shipper and freight transporter (and the country’s largest corporation), which builds roads, constructs bridges and stores vast quantities of the country’s wheat reserves.

In short, the military’s presence is all-pervasive. Bread is supplied by military-owned bakeries, fronted by civilians. Army-controlled banks take deposits and disburse loans. Up to one third of all heavy manufacturing and 7 per cent of private assets are reckoned to be in army hands. As for prime real estate, a major-general can expect to receive on retirement a present of 240 acres of prime farmland, worth on average £550,000, as well an urban real estate plot valued at £700,000.

Unsurprisingly, the military is loath to release details of its commercial operations. The average Pakistani citizen earns just £1,500 a year, making his country poorer than all but 50 of the world’s nations. Most of the military’s junior officers and other ranks live in squalid tents pitched by the side of main roads, even in the capital Islamabad . Revealing to them that the top brass in their air-conditioned, top-of-the-range Mercedes are worth £35 million each (a few are believed to be dollar billionaires including, it is quietly suggested, Musharraf) would probably create widespread unrest. Little wonder that Dr Siddiqa’s book is banned in the country — and that Musharraf was so reluctant to take off his uniform and declare himself a civilian president.
Financial autonomy has also engendered in the military a dangerous sense of entitlement. When any premier or leading politician attempts to limit the army’s power, or even emasculate it, they get slapped down. In 1990 Benazir Bhutto, during her first stint as premier, made a concerted attempt to ‘secularise’ the army, installing non-army personnel at the highest level. Shortly afterwards, her government was forced out. She tried again in May 2006, joining with another former civilian leader, Nawaz Sharif, to issue a Charter of Democracy designed to reduce the economic power of the armed forces. Yet with Bhutto’s assassination, the latest move to tame the armed forces has again faltered — a rather convenient situation for the military.

It’s hard to imagine any individual or political body summoning up enough power or courage to challenge the army head-on. Each year the military gobbles up a bit more land, diversifies into new markets and industries and steadily consolidates power in the key sectors of agriculture, energy, natural resources, logistics and construction.

On the rare occasions when any constitutional body has stood its ground, the army has given it short shrift. In 2005, the Fauji foundation was asked by the elected parliament why it had sold a sugar mill at a ludicrously low price to senior army personnel. The Ministry of Defence refused to reveal any details of the deal. When the Auditor-General’s department questioned why the army was building golf courses — rather than attempting to capture bin Laden — its question was ignored. Yet the Punjab government had that year willingly handed over, for free, 30 acres of prime rural land worth more than £600,000 to the army, which promptly built a driving-range and an 18-hole golf course. Such ‘presents’ to the military are usually returned with interest, with senior civilian officials often being guaranteed a secure retirement on the board of one or more army-controlled ventures. Craven and submissive attitudes have thoroughly pervaded the political system, which defers to the military at every turn: little wonder that senior officers have so little respect for their civilian peers. Other countries have armies, but Pakistan’s army has a country.

Absolute power, of course, corrupts absolutely. It also engenders a sense of invulnerability — that the wielder of the power can get away with anything. This certainly seems to be the case in Pakistan . Land is being requisitioned left, right and centre across the country. In the financial centre of Karachi , the army has built eight petrol stations on land appropriated from the state. In 2004, the Karachi government again willingly gave land worth £35 million to the military, just because they wanted it. These are just two examples among many.

The military has also begun to act in the manner of a feudal landlord. When landless peasants in central Punjab complained in 2001 that the army had changed the status of the land on which they depended for their subsistence (forcing them to pay rent in cash, rather than working the land on a sharecropping basis) the army cracked down, beating many and leaving eight dead. At one point, Dr Siddiqa quotes a naval officer who questions why landless peasants should have any rights in relation to the land they till. ‘They do not deserve land just because they are poor,’ he says.

It’s hard to imagine anyone managing to circumscribe the economic power of Pakistan’s army. The military’s financial security reinforces its desire to retain control of the state. If full democracy were permitted in Pakistan, it would constitute a threat to the army’s throttling power. And since political power in turn creates greater economic opportunities, it’s in the interest of the military fraternity to perpetuate it. More political power leads to greater profit, and vice versa. The one factor that could still harm the army is its arrogant, dismissive attitude to its own people. Its flagrant profiteering engenders huge resentment in rural and smaller provinces, where the army is increasingly seen as an invading force rather than a protector. Ultimately, there is only so much abuse that an impoverished and subjugated populace can take before it rises up in protest.

London Protest: The Coup Against Musharraf

We have to narrate to everyone an extremely exciting and funny incident. We knew that Musharraf was coming to speak at the RUSI center in London. We prepared about 250 leaflets to give out to people and four CMKP members and a CAML member went to distribute these leaflets at the RUSI centre. When we got there we saw that there was a group of 35 young Pakistani studentswho were all standing on the street corner wearing impeccable suits. We asked them why they were so-well turned out and they told us that the Pakistan High Commission had invited them for a dinner with Musharraf through their respective Pakistan Societies at UCL and LSE.

At first we were quite dismayed since our people were running late and pro-Musharraf people had already arrived. We were five and they were 35.

But very soon we turned disadvantage into opportunity. At first we pretended to be part of their contingent and stood next to them. The funniest part was when Nadir Cheema began to shout "We want free dinner, Weare here for a free dinner". He did this in such a comic manner that it instantly attracted the press.

They asked us what we meant. We said that Musharraf has promised us a dinner and we are here to claim that dinner but we don't support Musharraf.

When Musharraf arrived the slogans of the five of us were so powerful (we really stretched our voices to the maximum) that the media people thought that the entire protest was anti-Musharraf.

Please take a look at the video report on BBC in which you can see CMKP cadres leading the chants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7210000/newsid_7210300/7210362.stm?bw=nb\&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1

This was a fine coup against supporters Musharraf.

Next we went to the Hilton where Musharraf was speaking to the Pakistani community. He passed right next to us and we shouted "Muk giya tera show Musharraf, Tu hain zalim diyo Musharraf, Hum hain teray piyo Musharraf, Ja kaybhanday dho Musharraf, Zia tera piyo Musharraf, Jat gaya sara ghayyo Musharra, Kala bay kay ro Musharraf, Go Musharraf Go Musharraf".

Here are some press reports about our campaign forMonday and also our activity with other political parties here in London. We have really done our verybest to make sure that Musharraf gets the reception he really deserves in London.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Protest_cloud_over_Mush_UK_visit/articl\eshow/2732796.cms
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/storm+of+protest+greets+musharraf/14\11652
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0upgLKuBAeIbWi0MKsKgb4ZpmVA
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_MdL-LeErkrWMxqn2iRAr3Z04ew
http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/22/top11.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ao2Z1NcCtG5Y&refer=uk
http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/303b19022816233b/id/321138/cs/1/
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/london-demonstration-mark-mushar\raf-visit-20080125

CMKP

Pakistan's Dilemma - A Perspective

Mustafa Waris

The gulf between the rich and poor is widening with every new day. We do have a yearly list of the richest people on earth but nobody pays any heed to the poorest people especially the new entries. We have become acclimatized to lots of things which we just take for granted. In reality, our system has become something of a labyrinthine, and the most disturbing fact is that our oligarchs are adamant not to disturb the status-quo.

In the 60 years of the history of our country, we have taste both capitalism and socialism with capitalism dominating for most of the years. I am not entering the fray discussing which one of these suits us or our local environment. But my main point of concern is that our masses at large were not able to benefit from either of the two systems. We heard for many years from both schools of thought focusing on the positive attributes of both systems. I personally think that both were successful to some extent and simultaneously failed as well.

Coming back to Pakistan and finding ways so that the gulf between the rich and the poor could be controlled, let’s identify our main problem. If we examine our history and the data on the richest people of our country, we would find two different classes. One are the traditional landed elites having the proud title of Chaudries, Sardars, Maliks, Khans, Mians, Nawabs and the offspring of the Sirs and Generals. The other category is of those once poor people who now have the wealth and the power of our traditional elites. Most of the people reached this category through cynical ploy but a mere fraction did excel through purely fair means.

The dilemma of our society is that our nouvelle wealthy did nothing whatsoever to bring change in the society, instead they themselves got engrossed in ways of bolstering their budgets and turned out to be more feudal than the established elites. It can’t be said for sure, but it was probably a kind of a vengeance against the oligarchs. If the idea was to display their hatred towards the aristocratic, it was certainly not the right style. The right thing was to help their once pauper-fellows both socially and financially.

The current extremely dangerous situation of Pakistan is self-made turned self-destructive. Our country is on fire and we all are to blame for the present scenario. Year 2007 had been annus horribilis for the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. Never in our history did we witness suicidal attacks. Be it suicides or the suicidal attacks, both are performed in exasperation. The paramount reason is apartheid and injustice for which we are all culpable and should be made accountable. The oligarchs are to blame for doing too little to bring a real social change and the oppressed ones are to blame for tolerating this injustice for such a long time and doing nothing practical to bring about change. If we want to create Pakistan of our founders, we need to do something collectively and that needs to be done As Soon As Possible.

God bless Pakistan

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.