MQM, Business as Usual!

By Adnan Gill

Since the February 18 elections, a spate of threats emanating from the highest circles of MQM have served as a rude reminder that the party is still running its business as usual, i.e. meeting their goals through arm-twisting, intimidation, scaremongering and/or naked violence. Fairly or unfairly, Human Rights organizations and the majority of Pakistanis blamed MQM for orchestrating and executing the May 12 Karachi Carnage. Astonishingly, it's as if the MQM overlords haven't learned a thing from the severe backlash they received from the May 12 Carnage. Its gung-ho leadership continues with its hallmark heavy-handed tactics to convince or coarse their political foes.

As soon as MQM comes across a perceived hurdle, it tries to bulldoze through it with brute force. Ironically, despite its history of sorting matters through violent means, it's patrons in the West shamelessly project MQM as a secular and a moderate political party. Even though there are several criminal convictions against MQM's undisputed lord Altaf Hussain, still he is afforded security and luxury in London: courtesy of Her Majesty’s government, the United Kingdom. Never mind, if he is held squarely responsible for the massacre of thousands of Pakistani citizens. In a prime example of hypocrisy and violation of international laws, in February 2001, Mr. Hussain, who is believed to be one of the worst terrorists, was granted British citizenship with full civil, constitutional rights and privileges available to all British citizens. By granting him British citizenship, the UK violated several international laws, like UNSC Res: 1189 (section 5) and 1368. Why a British citizen so intimately linked with terrorism and a person who has renounced the creation of Pakistan (that too in front of Indian audience) is allowed to run Pakistan's fourth largest political party is a million-dollar question!

However, neither the majority of Pakistanis nor the human rights organizations share West’s pristine view of the MQM. In a 2007 press release, Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, disputed western establishment’s portrayal of the MQM. Mr. Adams said, “The political crisis deepened on May 12, when 42 people died in violence fomented by activists of the Mutahedda Qaumi Movement (MQM)”. He disclosed, in order to silence its critics, the MQM frequently resorts to intimidation through death threats. He said, “Mohajir Rabita Council (MRC), an affiliate of the MQM, issued a statement naming 12 eminent Pakistani journalists as ‘enemies.’” Finally, Mr. Adams commented on the long history of human rights abuses by the MQM, “The MQM has a long record of political harassment, extortion, torture and targeted killings”

MQM's lust for power is only rivaled by its founding leader’s iron grip on the party. Even though Mr. Hussain, a British citizen and a taxi driver turned politician, has not set a foot in Pakistan in the last 18 years, he remains the overlord of the party. Curiously, he manages to fly over Pakistan to land in India only to renounce the creation of Pakistan, but for some conspicuous reason, can’t find heart to stop by in Pakistan for even few hours. Nevertheless, he enjoys a decent following among the Mohajir Pakistanis from Karachi and Hyderabad. His critics allege it's because people are forced at the barrel of gun to follow his edicts.

As soon as the 2008 election results became apparent, in its lust for plushy and lucrative ministries, MQM was back at what it does the best, blackmailing and extortion. Once again it tried to muscle its way through by demanding to become a coalition partner of the incoming government. In his typical style, reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's fiery sermons, Lord Hussain led the campaign of intimidation. He threatened, “It will be dangerous for Sindh if certain groups do not respect the mandate of the people.” In an apparent threat to Pakistan People’s Party (the overwhelming winner in Sindh, especially in the rural Sindh), he said, Sindh would face confrontation because ‘certain groups’ were trying to create an urban and rural division in the province. Translation: there will be violence if you left MQM out of the incoming government.

Taking a cue from their Lord's opening shot, his lieutenants backed up Lord Hussain’s campaign of intimidation with their own. The City Nazim Syed Mustafa Kamal said that Karachi can face law and order situation if MQM was not included in the new government set-up. To score the point home, MQM presented a sample to highlight their resolve to backup their words with actions. When PPP’s candidate from PS-110 Habib Jan tried to meet the hospitalized men injured in a shootout in which four people were wounded, and an eight-year-old girl and a man were killed, eyewitnesses reported, armed MQM men surrounding the Civil Hospital roughed up and then fired on Mr. Jan.

Then in a follow-up to his initial threats, Lord Hussain again warned, “The MQM does not want war. This is 2008 and we are ready to give our lives but not ready to surrender or retreat.” Evidently, Lord Hussain had been under the impression that in the 2008 Democratic system too, the number of seats don't matter, it's the ‘bully factor’ which matters. Apparently, that is how the MQM had been able to become a coalition partner in the past governments, but this time PPP was in no mood to give in to the threats of unadulterated violence, especially not after MQM's stellar performance in the May 12 Carnage. However, perhaps inadvertently, Lord Hussain confirmed MQM's frequent indulgence in violence and terrorism. He lashed out, “Do not push us against the wall. If anything happens tomorrow, do not hold us responsible. We are against violence and terrorism, but we are also human beings and we will never compromise on our self-respect, dignity and honor.”

It is anybody's guess why the backlash from the May 12 Carnage failed to jolt the MQM leadership out of their deep slumber into the reality that the days of getting business done through intimidation and pure violence are long gone. They need to listen to their voters’ voice, that they are tired of divisive politics. They are tired of their political leaders who constantly demand unbelievable sacrifices from ordinary workers but don't part with the luxuries they have accustomed themselves to. They are tired of the leaders safely and comfortably sitting in the West expecting their party workers to do the Lord’s dirty work and bear the brunt of retributions resulting from the sins of their overlords. They are tired of politicians who thrive on pitting Pakistanis against each other on their sectarian and ethnic differences. No longer do they want to be Balochis, Sindhis, Pathans, Punjabis or Mohajirs, they just want to be plain Pakistanis. They are tired of violence and killings. They couldn't care less who sits in the assemblies or who gets what ministry. They are more concerned about who can provide them the basic necessities of life, like electricity, atta, and security for their families.

If the MQM overlords are genuinely concerned about the well-being of Pakistanis then they need to stop running their business as usual, part with the security and luxury afforded to them by foreign-powers, return to Pakistan and serve their constituents without packing a gun in their back pockets.

(Courtesy The Frontier Post)

NYT 'warns' of Pakistani leaders planning talks with militants

March 22 (AFP): The leaders of Pakistan’s newly-formed coalition government intend to start negotiations with militants in a hope of ending the spate of bombings that has shaken the country, The New York Times reported on its website late Friday.

It said Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan People's Party and Nawaz Sharif Pakistan Muslim League-N said in interviews that they will use military force only as a last resort. The talk of a softer approach to militants has alarmed US officials. Many Pakistanis -- the NYT report said -- are convinced the surge in suicide bombings (17 in the first 10 weeks of 2008) is retaliation for three Predator strikes since the year’s beginning.

Speaking in separate interviews, Zardari and Sharif said they were determined to set a different course from Musharraf. Sharif is quoted as saying, “we will deal with them sensibly. When you have a problem in your family, you don't kill your own family, you sit and talk. Britain got the Ireland problem solution. So what's the harm in negotiations?” Zardari said the war against the insurgents has to be redefined as “Pakistan's war” for a public that has come to resent the conflict as being pushed on the country as part of a US agenda, The Times said. “Obviously what they have been doing for the last eight years has not been working,” Zardari said.

Upcoming Events

1. Student Action Committee (SAC) and Institute of Peace & Secular Studies

invites you to a Discussion On

Colonialism & Resistance: From the Standpoint of its victims. A Critical Analysis of Third Worldism

With Qalandar Bux Memon

Date: Saturday 22nd March
Time: 3pm Sharp - 5pm
Venue: Nehr Ghar - 5 Zaman Park

Qalandar Bux Memon is one of the founding Editors of Naked Punch (London). Naked Punch is a quarterly journal of Philosophical and Political thought. To which Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Zia Sardar, among many others have contributed. He is currently lecturing in Political Science at Foreman Christian College (Lahore). He holds masters in Philosophy (University of London) and in Politics (London School of Economics). His current research is focused on developing and synthesizing Philosophical concepts that emerged out of resistance to imperialism/colonialism from the Third World.

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.
2nd gate on the left.

2. FASTRising, Young Professionals, and Student Action Committee invite you to
SEMINAR: Do countries sell their own citizens?

Date:	Sunday, March 23, 2008
Time:	3:00pm - 5:00pm
Location:	HRCP Auditorium (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan)
Street:	107 - Tipu Block, New Garden Town

PROGRAM SCHEDULE

3:00 PM - Screening of Missing in Pakistan, an independent documentary by Ziad Zafar

3:30 PM - Talk by Mrs. Amna Masood Janjua, spokesperson of the families of the "missing people"

4:30 PM - Q&A session

--
It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. Aung San Suu Kyi

Days of martial law over, Iftikhar tells lawyers

(Courtesy DAWN)

LAHORE, March 20: Deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said on Thursday there was no room now for imposition of martial law and abrogation of the Constitution in the country.

Addressing the Lahore Bar Association by telephone ahead of a weekly protest rally, he said the judiciary had been under pressure since the inception of Pakistan.“But now things have changed drastically because people have rejected the dictatorship and supported independent judges,” he said.

The barroom echoed with slogans in favour of the deposed chief justice and against President Pervez Musharraf. Justice Chaudhry said the Supreme Court’s seven-member bench verdict against the imposition of emergency and PCO still held the ground.“A decision violative of the Constitution, neither has constitutional and legal significance nor required a fiat for setting it aside. It should be ignored completely,” he said.“The SC in its decision had restrained superior court judges from taking the oath under the PCO. Therefore, the judges who took the oath under the PCO on Nov 3 could not undo the verdict of the seven-members bench against the Nov 3 emergency,” he added.

He said the people of Pakistan had given their verdict on Feb 18 in favour of the supremacy of the Constitution, making it obligatory for the political leadership to respect their mandate. “Only the parliament, the supreme body, has the power to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority but it also could not disturb the Islamic provisions and basic structure of the Constitution,” the chief justice said.

Justice Iftikhar said the parliament should evolve a system of maintaing a balance among various state institutions. He said it should be ensured that the executive followed directives of the legislature and the judiciary in letter and spirit. Justice Chaudhry said that under Article 199 of the Constitution it was the duty of the executive to assist the SC in getting its orders implemented. But regretfully, the executive did not act upon the Supreme Court’s Nov 3 order and surrendered before an individual.

Defending his decision of not taking oath under the PCO, the deposed chief justice said: “We (the judges) could not become part of a process where the sacred book (Constitution) is trampled upon under boots of the army, by virtue of our oath of allegiance to the Constitution.”

He said he would have betrayed the people, who cared for him in the hour of need, had he involved himself in any way with the subversion of the Constitution.“No one is above the law. Nations who do not respect their constitutions are wiped of the world map,” he added.

He paid tribute to his colleagues, who declined to take oath under the PCO on Nov 3 and said that they had remained true to their allegiance to the Constitution. He said all extra-constitutional steps taken on Nov 3 were meant to perpetuate the illegitimate rule of an individual.

Justice Iftikhar said the country stood at a critical juncture and the new political leadership needed to handle the situation prudently. He lauded the civil society, students, doctors and people from different walks of life for supporting the lawyers’ movement.

Religious minorities in India feel unsafe: Asma

By Jawed Naqvi

(Courtesy DAWN)

21st March 2008

NEW DELHI, March 20: Unacceptable delays in delivering justice to victims of communal violence across India, the state’s occasional culpability in fomenting intolerance and exploitation of religious fault lines for politics were some of the issues listed on Thursday by UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Asma Jehangir that she said required immediate attention.

“By and large, the Indians respect the diversity of religions and beliefs. At the same time, organised groups based on religious ideologies have unleashed the fear of mob violence in many parts of the country,” Ms Jehangir told a news conference at the end of a rare 18-day visit as the UN rapporteur. “All individuals I met recognised that a comprehensive legal framework to protect their rights exists, yet many of them -– especially from religious minorities -– remained dissatisfied with its implementation.”
Ms Jehangir’s mission follows a similar one undertaken by her predecessor in 1996. “My forthcoming report will also be a follow-up on developments during the past twelve years, in order to analyse what has changed and why.”She said she was concerned at the extended timeframe of investigations in cases of communal riots, violence and massacres such as those which targeted the Sikhs in 1984, or the ones that followed the demolition of the Babri mosque and the most recent one in Gujarat in 2002.
“Any inquiry should not be done in indecent haste but it should be accorded the highest priority both from the investigation, the judiciary and any commission appointed to study the situation. Unreasonable protraction of the inquiry only keeps tensions simmering and devalues justice."
“I was astonished to learn that just before I arrived in India, the Liberhan Commission -– probing the circumstances leading to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya – got the 44th extension to conclude its inquiry,” she said.
The level of action of the government to protect its citizens in terms of freedom of religion or belief varies according to the states concerned. It was thus that the potential for greater harm to Kashmiri Pundits when they were forced to flee their homes was contained by the state’s prompt intervention, while the same could not be said about the protection of religious minorities in Gujarat, who continue to live in ghettoes and in fear.
“The de-escalation of violence in Jammu and Kashmir has had a positive impact on freedom of religion there,” Ms Jehangir said. “Places of worship are now more accessible and the tensions are reducing. There have been public statements inviting the Hindu Pundits to return to Kashmir. However, many interlocutors have confirmed a continuing bias amongst security forces against Muslims who also face problems with regard to exit controls lists and discrimination when renting hotel rooms outside Jammu and Kashmir,” she noted.
She urged the state of Orissa, where the Hindutva drive is intensive and widespread, to reconsider its anti-conversion legislation.Less than three months ago, there was widespread violence in the Kandhamal district of Orissa, targeting primarily Christians in Dalit and tribal communities. The attacks could have been prevented since the Christian community alerted the authorities before the incident.
“The tensions are still prevalent and the state should rethink its anti-conversion legislation which has been used to vilify Christians in general,” she said.In UP, communal violence continues to occur while perpetrators are dealt with sympathy by the law enforcement agents. “Some of the cases are still under investigation and I hope that justice will prevail.”
In Gujarat, the wounds of the 2002 massacre, where by all accounts more than a thousand people -– mostly Muslims -– were killed, have not healed, she said. “In my discussions with victims I could see their continuing fear which is exacerbated by the reported complicity of the state government and the distress that justice continues to evade most victims and survivors.
“It is also critical for the state government to recognise that development without a policy of inclusiveness of all religious communities will only add to aggravate resentments. The same is true for the increasing ghettoisation of Muslims in certain areas.”
Ms Jehangir said her predecessor, Mr Abdelfattah Amor, “unfortunately was prophetic when he expressed his fears that something in the nature of the 1992 Ayodhya incident will recur in the event of political exploitation of a situation. In my opinion, there is today a real risk that similar communal violence might happen again unless incitement to religious hatred and political exploitation of communal tensions are effectively prevented."
She urged the government and for non-state actors to diffuse tensions and address the root causes beforehand. The sincerity of the central government to implement the Sachar Committee report will be very much seen on the ground because state governments have been given direction to follow-up on the recommendations of the report.

PPP to announce name for PM on Saturday or Sunday

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People’s Party (PP) is expected to announce the name for premiership on Saturday or Sunday.

PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar said here that 19-year son Benazir Bhutto and PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on behalf of his party and coalition partners would announce the name of the PPP’s candidate for premiership on Saturday or Sunday.

President Pervez Musharraf called the parliament session for the election of PM on March 24.

PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhuto Zardari has arrived here from London to announce the name for PM’s slot.

March towards army house if judges not restored: Aitezaz

ABBOTABAD: President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Chaudhry Aitezaz Ahsan on Thursday said that the lawyers will go for a long march towards Army House if the new government failed to restore deposed judges within 30 days of its formation. Addressing a lawyers’ convention here, Aitezaz said conspiracies are being hatched against the Murree summit but “I have confidence in Pakistan People’s Party, Muslim League-N and Awami National Party.”

Sacked judge of Peshawar High Court, Dost Muhammad Khan, President High Court Bar, Abdul Latif Afridi and other lawyer leaders also spoke on the occasion.“Those emphasizing the need for two-third parliamentary support for restoration of judiciary are in fact trying to validate the post November 3 steps,” Aitezaz Ahsan maintained.

Referring to his meeting with the US Ambassador, he said he persuaded the US administration to see the ground realities and stop its support to the dictatorship.“We will march to army house if judges are not restored,” he reiterated, adding however that the parliament house will not be surrounded because lawyers want to see a strong parliament.

(Courtesy GEO)

Mubarik Ali's talk on Student Movement of Pakistan

Sunday Group Talk

By Dr. Mubarik Ali

Topic: History of the Student Movement of Pakistan

Date: 23rd March (Sunday)

Time: 6 p.m. Sharp

Venue: Nairang Art Gallery (Second Floor)(101 – Habitat Flats, Jail Road, Lahore – opposite Kinnaird College)

For more information, call: 0323-4021894 (Umer) or Umer.Ch@gmail.com

The Sunday Group
http://groups.google.com/group/book-club-lhr?hl=en
Sunday Group is a weekly study-circle/discussion forum with the under-lying idea that any firm movement for the change of society requires guidance from a deep and clear understanding of the continuously changing social and political facts. Such understanding can only evolve with a collective effort where a variety of perspectives can be entertained. The need for a thorough comprehension of events around us is also necessary to raise awareness in other sections of the society and to mobilize them in the struggle for their rights.

A young woman abducted and gang raped by guards of the Mohammad Ali Jinnah mausoleum

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

A young woman of 18 years was abducted and gang raped continuously over a period of three days by the guards employed at the mausoleum of Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of the Nation, known as "Mazar e Quide". A guard has been arrested without proper identification as the victim is still semi-conscious. This arrest is seen as an attempt to protect the real perpetrators who are allegedly members of the armed forces. The mausoleum is guarded by the armed forces.

According to the information received the rape victim who is the wife of a resident of a village in Lodhran, Punjab province, came with her family to visit Karachi. On Sunday, March 16, 2008, they went to visit the mausoleum. Both, she and her husband, were stopped at the gate by two guards and told to obtain tickets from another gate which is at least 600 meters away from where they were. The husband went to purchase the tickets asking his wife to wait for the other relatives who were coming in a vehicle. After purchasing the tickets the husband returned and discovered that his wife was missing; her slippers, however, we lying nearby. That whole night her family searched for her and the next day they filed a police report. However, the police failed to take any action.

Then, on the night of March 18, she was found on the stairs of the mausoleum. She was taken to two different hospitals of the city where it was confirmed that she had been repeatedly raped. The mausoleum is under the tight control of the three arm forces of Pakistan and there have been many reported cases of rape and sexual harassment of women. It is due to this that the people of Karachi are avoiding visiting the mausoleum. It is believed that the police and city administration are not willing to conduct investigations and arrest the offenders as the suspected rapists are guards from armed forces personnel. They are now putting pressure on the family of the victim not to pursue the case.This is a shocking incident and the attitude of the city government of Karachi city in trying to tone down the incident is deplorable. An enquiry into this incident should immediately be instituted and the perpetrators arrested and prosecuted forthwith. The victim must be provided with protection, all medical assistance and compensation.

Many reports regarding rape are received from Pakistan. Women's organisations in particular have often spoken out about this. However, the authorities in the country do not show much concern to deal with this serious crime. The rape done by personnel of the armed forces is an even greater problem. In this particular case a family went for a visit to a national monument and the woman was raped within its premises after being abducted. We particularly urge the Ministry of Women's Development to inquire into this case and take appropriate action.

# # # About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Do Countries sell their own people? Civil liberties in the age of the War on Terror

You are cordially invited to a seminar on Human Rights titled, Do countries sell their own people? Civil liberties in the age of the War on Terror.

Time: 03:00 PM

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008

Venue: HRCP Auditorium

The speakers are Mrs. Amna Masood Janjua, spokesperson of the families of the missing people as well as a senior advocate of the Lahore High Court. Mrs Amna Masood's husband went missing about 2 years ago, since then she has waged struggle for the release of his husband whose whereabouts are still unknown. She has been joined by the relatives of other missing persons whose loved ones went missing during the last some years (allegedly 'sold' to US agencies, on the pre text of war on terror).

The issue made headlines when CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry took notice and ensured the release of several missing persons from the shackles of illegal detention.(Refer to http://missinginpakistan.wordpress.com/ for details)

The seminar will be preceded by a screening of the documentary "Missing in Pakistan".

Venue: HRCP auditorium (107 Tipu Block, Garden Town, Near Barkat Market)

Date: Sunday, 23rd March, 2008

Starting Time: 3:00 pm

Please forward this email to other groups and concerned individuals.

Location: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&z=16&msid=107032263349935690503.000448b5dbe257967a40a

You can download map in JPG format from: http://missinginpakistan.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/way-to-hrcp.jpg

NA elects first ever woman Speaker

ISLAMABAD: Dr. Fehmida Mirza has been elected the first ever woman speaker of the National Assembly (also the first ever Muslim woman speaker of any legislature) and Faisal Karim Kundi has been elected as the Deputy Speaker.

Dr Fehmida Mirza received 249 out of 324 votes, of which 319 were valid and five votes were declared invalid. Asrar Tareen, the opposition nominee, received 70 votes. Faisal Karim Kundi bagged 246 votes defeating of PPPP Mrs Khush Bakht Shujat of PML, who received 68, in the election of the Deputy Speaker.

Dr Fehmida Mirza hails from Badin in Sindh and has been winning elections continuously since 1997. She is the wife of Dr Zulfiqar Ali Mirza, a close friend of PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari.

Musharraf trying to create clash, says Aitzaz

ISLAMABAD: President Supreme Court Bar Association Atizaz Ahsan said that President Musharraf is trying to set up a clash despite the fact that Parliament had proved a two- thirds majority during the election of the house speaker.

Talking to the media at his residence before leaving for Abbotabad to address a lawyers gathering, Atizaz said the President should be careful now as parliament had proved a two third majority. He said that lawyers are not adopting the path of confrontation and 30 days would be given to new parliament for the restoration of deposed judges.

Let the original judges return

17th March 2008

Naeem Sadiq

(Courtesy DAWN)

Just imagine for a moment that an ordinary government servant, say a Lower Division Clerk of the Revenue Department appears on a local TV Channel and announces that the constitution of Pakistan is no more valid and the country would hence forth be run by a new law introduced by him, called the CCO (Clerks Constitution Order). This gentleman further states that all judges should consider themselves fired and house arrested, unless they take an oath on his newly invented CCO. What is going to be the reaction to this rather ludicrous announcement? Most people are likely to consider it comical and disregard it as an incident of no consequence. Some others may consider this person to be suffering from a delusion of grandiosity, some form of megalomania, acute egocentricity or simply undergoing a hypomanic episode. The newspapers would hardly bother to cover this story, except for some eveningers which might wish to use this as a filler for left over spaces. The local Nazim may ask the SHO to discipline this LDC for a day or two, till he learns not to talk about issues that do not strictly fall in the realm of land revenues. The Interior ministry would not even feel the need to issue a clarification, as they would not like to extend any more credence to this inconsequential irrelevance. The Parliament would not be required to even take a notice of this absurdity, while the Judges would certainly not be seen bee lining in large numbers, dying to take oath under the new CCO.

Now imagine another government servant, say the Chief of the Army Staff, one day does exactly the same thing that the UDC did, except that he calls his figment as PCO instead of CCO. One would imagine exactly the same sequence of events to repeat themselves. People considering this to be a lunatic expression and the government not even bothered to issue a clarification. The civil society does not take to the streets and the constitutional experts do not hold seminars to debate how this illegal lacunae may be resolved. The parliament would not hold a special session to undo the PCO or to restore the judges, for the judges would keep going to their offices as normal. The state institutions, police bureaucracy, ministries, and executives of all kinds would ensure that nothing hinders the judges from performing their routine activities. However the Army being a responsible, law abiding, and disciplined force, would not leave this matter to the local SHO, and instead will decide to take the necessary disciplinary action against this gentleman. After all he violated the precious Army Act by indulging in politics and saying things against the constitution. This is how it would happen in any half civilized country, and this is how it should have happened in Pakistan.

Pakistan does need to explore unique methodologies to undo what was completely illegal and irrelevant to start with. The proclamations of November 3, 2007 were the brainchild of a government servant whose oath and job function debarred him from saying or doing any such thing. We do not have to wait for the arrival of the new parliament to make a grand decision to restore the judiciary. The judiciary was never unseated, for the Army Chief has simply no authority to do so. There is neither a court order nor a decision from the parliament required to restore the judges. All that is needed is that the state institutions enable and ensure that all judges can go back to their jobs as they stood on November 3, 2007. In a situation of a blatant conflict between the delusional desires of an individual and the dictates of the constitution of Pakistan, it should not be a complex assignment for the state institutions to decide which option to take. Acting in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and constitution, they should immediately facilitate all judges to resume their responsibilities from where they left on November 3, 2007. Any state institution not doing so is itself guilty of violating the constitution.

Perhaps the matters that the new parliament may look into are why the state institutions including members of their own clan were in such a hurry to rubber stamp such illegal arrangements. Why did the government functionaries (except for the sixty honourable judges) not refuse to obey the blatantly illegal orders of the Army Chief. Perhaps the Army also needs to implement its own accountability process for those who violated the Army Act (besides the constitution of Pakistan). By bringing the violators to justice, we may forever be able to get rid of our seven yearly PCO itch. Alternately we should start tightening our seat belts and brace up for a yet another déjà vu in not too distant future.

Journalists roughed up while covering the NA Speaker election

(Courtesy Teeth Maestro)

Yesterday during the National Assembly session where the elections were underway to elect the new speaker of the house, outside it seems that the media was being roughed up for God knows what reason, under specific orders of the SP & DSP. One can only speculate as to why these media outlets were being prevented from covering the national assembly session.

A matter of impeachment

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Khwaja Ahmad Hosain

(Courtesy The News)

Two hundred and ninety-five. That is the key number. That is the number of votes that are needed to impeach President Musharraf under the constitution. The constitutional chronology contemplated for such removal is clearly set forth in Article 47. First, at least half of the members of the National Assembly would present a written notice to the speaker of their intention to move a resolution for the impeachment of the president. The notice would set out the particulars of the charge against him. In this case the charge is simple. The president violated the constitution on November 3, 2007.

Within three days from receipt of the written notice from the MNAs the speaker must send the notice to the president. Between day seven and day fourteen starting from the date the speaker received the notice, the speaker must summon a joint session of the National Assembly and the Senate which will investigate the charge. The president has the right to be represented and to appear during this investigation process. If, after considering the result of the investigation, two thirds of the total membership of both the National Assembly and the Senate at the joint session declare by a resolution that the president is guilty of violating the constitution or gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office immediately upon the passing of such resolution. No further action is required and upon the passing of such a resolution the president shall, ipso facto, cease to hold office.

The crucial point is that to impeach the president you do not need a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is currently controlled by forces supporting the president. Even if the impeachment resolution is supported by less than half the Senators, as long as sufficient number of MNAs vote in support of it so that the threshold of 295 is reached, the resolution will be passed.

This procedure is different from the procedure prescribed for amendments to the constitution. To amend the constitution you need a two thirds majority in both the National Assembly and the Senate. There is no concept of a joint sitting here and each house will separately consider the constitutional amendment bill. As long as Musharraf has the support of at least 34 senators, he can block any constitutional amendment bill.

In addition, a constitutional amendment bill must be assented to by the president to become law. If the president wants, he can send a constitutional amendment bill back to parliament to reconsider the same and then parliament will need to pass it again (with the same two thirds majority in each house). Once passed again, the requirement for presidential assent is not removed but the discretion of the president to withhold his assent is removed. Under the constitution the president must assent to a bill which has been passed twice by parliament.

Constitutional amendments require, at the very least, presidential involvement. Even if a constitutional amendment package is passed with a two thirds majority in each house, the president can refuse to give his assent to a first draft of any such bill and can delay the grant of assent if the bill is presented to him for the second time. If any constitutional amendment bill is proposed in the presence of Musharraf and the post November 3 Supreme Court, various devices could be used by the presidency to sabotage the prospects of such a bill.

The constitutional impeachment process requires no action from the president and gives no rights or discretion to the president apart from the right to be represented before and heard by the relevant adjudicating tribunal which is the joint membership of the National Assembly and the Senate. The "court" in an impeachment trial consists of the representatives of the people sitting in the National Assembly and Senate. The conduct of the impeachment trial and the timing of any vote on the impeachment resolution will be controlled by the speaker. Neither the army nor the existing Supreme Court can save the president from impeachment if the necessary parliamentary majority exists.

The PPP and PML-N have expressed their desire to restore the deposed judges by a parliamentary resolution within 30 days. The president's advisers have stated this is not legally possible and that the judges cannot be restored without a constitutional amendment. There is a risk, which has been hinted at already, that if parliament "resolves" that the judges should return, the existing judiciary may stay such a resolution before it can take effect. This will put the current de facto bench and the presidency at loggerheads with the government and the legislature. Can the political players afford to take the gamble that the army will support them in such an impasse? It is this uncertainty that the presidency and establishment will seek to exploit.

It is for this reason that it is crucial that the maximum possible support is developed in the parliament in favour of the proposed resolution for restoration of the judges. If the resolution manages to get the support of sufficient members of parliament, the president and his supporters should be able to read the writing on the wall. All institutions of state and political players will then see that trying to block the restoration by coming to the aid of the beleaguered president will be a futile exercise.

The prospect of being the first president in the history of Pakistan to be subject to an impeachment trial hangs over his head like the Sword of Damocles. During any impeachment trial, apart perhaps from certain members of the PML-Q and the MQM, his remaining supporters will abandon him like rats leaving a sinking ship for the sake of their political survival. If notwithstanding this prospect, the president stays in his bunker and still tries to block the restoration, the democratic forces in parliament can strike and put the final nail in his coffin by impeaching him.

The writer is an Oxford-educated barrister practising corporate law in Lahore.

Resolution by US Representatives Condemning the dismissal of the Supreme Court in Pakistan and demanding restoration

Condemning the dismissal of the Supreme Court in Pakistan and calling for their reinstatement by the Government of Pakistan. (Introduced in House)

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1044

Condemning the dismissal of the Supreme Court in Pakistan and calling for their reinstatement by the Government of Pakistan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 12, 2008

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself and Mr. DELAHUNT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Condemning the dismissal of the Supreme Court in Pakistan and calling for their reinstatement by the Government of Pakistan.
Whereas on March 9, 2007, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry;
Whereas this removal triggered months of protests by hundreds of Pakistani lawyers;
Whereas on July 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of Pakistan found Chaudhry's removal unconstitutional and reinstated him as Chief Justice;
Whereas following his imposition of emergency rule on November 3, 2007, President Musharraf required Supreme Court justices to take a new oath of office under the Provisional Constitution Order and dismissed seven judges, including the Chief Justice, who refused to take this new oath;
Whereas the principles of constitutional order and the rule of law are prerequisites to any functioning democracy;
Whereas an independent judiciary and free elections are equally vital as fundamental foundations of democracy;
Whereas section 699F(b)(3)(D) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), withholds $50,000,000 of Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan pending the restoration of an independent judiciary;
and Whereas these actions by President Musharraf undermine democratic governance and rule of law in Pakistan and thus reduce the ability of the Government of Pakistan and the Government of the United States to effectively fight against al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists that threaten United States interests in South Asia:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
(1) commends members of the legal profession in Pakistan as well as opposition politicians, human rights activists, and independent journalists for their courageous opposition to the removal of Chief Justice Chaudhry, their principled leadership in defending the Constitution of Pakistan, and promoting the rule of law;
(2) welcomes public statements from Pakistan's new civilian leaders that they intend to restore all judges dismissed after November 3, 2007, to office; and
(3) calls on the Government of Pakistan, consistent with section 699F(b)(3)(D) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), to restore to their positions Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and all Supreme Court and high court justices and other members of the legal profession in Pakistan who were removed from office since the imposition of emergency rule, and to respect the independence of the Pakistani judiciary .

Four FBI Agents Hurt in Islamabad Bombing

ABC News Reports: Top FBI Agent in the Country Was Among the Wounded

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, BRIAN ROSS and GRETCHEN PETERS

March 16, 2008. Four FBI agents were wounded -- none critically -- in a bomb attack on a popular Italian restuarant in Islamabad this weekend, the bureau announced today. The attacker tossed a small bomb or hand grenade directly into the restuarant courtyard, which is known for serving alcohol to Westerners.

Multiple sources said that the attack was under investigation to see whether it was based on the terrorists having learned in advance of the agents' presence. In Washington, meanwhile, officials downplayed the possibility that the attack specifically targeted the agents based on advance intelligence. They cited the relatively small size of the attack -- one in which injuries to the agent's were relatively minor -- as part of their rationale. Also the explosive does not appear to have been tossed directly at the agents' table.

The top agent in the country, U.S. Embassy FBI attache Ray Biteski, suffered serious ear damage, an assistant attache reportedly suffered a concussion and two agents are reported as suffering minor injuries. The two who suffered minor injuries were treated and released. Biteski and a second agent were med-evaced to Europe. This was the first bomb attack on U.S. citizens or government personnel in Pakistan since a church bombing in 2002.

ABC's Pierre Thomas contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4460837

Protest in Harvard University for restoration of the Judiciary

There are protests in Boston, New York and Washington this weekend and the following is the press release from the Boston area. Reports from other cities will follow soon. The pictures are in the file attachments.

March 15, 2007

For Immediate Release:

Cambridge, MA: Student Action Committee USA Chapter (SAC-USA) staged a successful protest in Harvard Yard today demanding immediate restoration of the pre-Nov 3 independent judiciary in Pakistan. The protestors condemned - in no uncertain terms- the unconstitutional acts of General (r) Musharraf which include the sacking of an independent judiciary, gagging of media and free speech, suspension of civil liberties and fundamental human rights and illegal detention of judges, lawyers and political opponents without any trial or charges. They chanted "Bring the Judges Back" and "No more Musharraf" and walked from John Harvard Statue to Harvard Square holding black flags and banners.

The protest - which is one of three organized by SAC-USA (the other two being in New York and Washington DC) - attracted a large number of students from Harvard College, Kennedy School of Government, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Massachussetts Institude of Technology, Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law, Boston University and other premier institutions of the Boston region. Joining students in their demands were doctors, lawyers - particularly the National Lawyers Guild, Massachusetts chapter-, professionals of Pakistani origin and other members of American Civil Society.

Speaking to the protestors, Aqil Sajjad, member of SAC-USA, condemned the illegal detention of the Chief Justice and his family. He said that the people of Pakistan want the judges to be restored and Pervez Musharraf to be ousted, the US and the international community should respect their wishes and stop interfering in Pakistan's internal affairs to keep the judges out. He also spoke against the continued detention of the judges with their families, including the Chief Justice whose 8-year old disabled son has been kept in confinement with him and at times denied the medication he needs. He argued that the US government should build a solid relationship with the people of Pakistan instead of supporting a very unpopular dictator.

President of Harvard Philipine Forum, Marlowe Rillera, stressed for the need for an independent judiciary. He said: "An independent judiciary assures people that court decisions will be based on the country's laws and constitution, not on orders of a dictator." In addition he said that while the situation in Pakistan did not affect him or the Philipines directly, he cared so strongly for an independent judiciary and the serious consequences of not having one that he came with his friends to protest.

After the protest, Samad Khurram, a columnist for The Harvard Crimson, said that Musharraf must respect the wishes of the people of Pakistan. He commented on the recent elections as being a heavy blow to Musharraf's rule with an overwhelming number voting against his King's party. "In addition there were a huge number of us who boycotted the elections on principle. If you add both the opposition voters and those who boycotted, the numbers exceed 80% of the country", he noted.

Of Declarations, Restorations and Premiership Aspirations

The victorious parties have acted prudently thus far in the post-election scenario. They must not squander the opportunity the nation has given them in the days to come.

Ammar Rashid

Now that the smoke has cleared from the results of the Feb 18^th polls, it is time to assess the nation’s future as it appears from here. The picture certainly appears brighter than before; The King’s men defeated, the opposition victorious and united, the Lawyers’ High Command released and the President (with Peerzada and Qayyum, forever loyal, by his side) backed into the tightest of corners. How the Mighty hath fallen indeed.

The February 18 election may well turn out to be a landmark in our nation’s chequered history, as the harbinger of a new era of democracy and stability, elements missing almost entirely from our political landscape for years. The remarkable sagacity and political maturity on display from the erstwhile political enemies, Sharif and Zardari, in the post-election scenario has also come as quite a surprise. The PPP and PML-N, as the two majority parties, stand united in their commitment to the restoration of the judiciary, the supremacy of the parliament and the choice of diplomacy over military action against the militants in the north. The Murree Declaration has put onto paper what political pundits had been expressing doubt about since the election; the commitment of the leading parties to their election manifestos, their tenacity in the face of blatant foreign interference and their ability to resolve their outstanding differences. The parties have pledged to restore the ousted judges within 30 days of the convening of the National Assembly, participate in each others governments in the Centre and the Punjab, and remove the sweeping powers of the President accorded to him by the contentious Article 58-2 (b). All very noble and worthy ambitions, to be sure; serious obstacles, however, remain to be cleared for their culmination.

In the Presidential camp, the mood is terse and seemingly ripe for confrontation, notwithstanding the rather delusional statements on offer about ‘establishing a working relationship with the parliament for the next five years.’ The legal aides to the sulking President continue to scoff at the possibility of the reinstatement of the judiciary by a parliamentary resolution, terming the notion as ‘unconstitutional’ and claiming the restoration can only be brought about by an amendment in the constitution, for which a 2/3rds majority is required. These same aides continue to assert the primacy and constitutionality of the abrogation of the constitution and ouster of the judges on the 3^rd of November. In the event of the threatened parliamentary resolution taking form, it is, therefore, likely that the executive will take recourse to the puppet PCO-Supreme Court to have the resolution declared illegal.

That such aides could prompt the embattled President to dismiss the elected Assembly – possibly his last available option - before it can make the crucial decision is an unsettling but remote prospect. In doing so, the President would, in essence, be laying waste to the nation’s mandate, which he so proudly claims to have brought to fruition himself (even though he continues to ignore its rather obvious implications for his rule). Moreover, he would require the wholehearted support of the Army for such a maniacal intervention; something he cannot be so sure of anymore.

The Lawyers’ Movement, now into its second year, has remained resolute in its unwillingness to accept any compromise on the judges’ restoration. Seeing their goal finally within reach, they will not hesitate to take the winning parties to task if they see them wavering. Their leaders have been released and are campaigning in full flow; the recent shows of strength in Lahore and Karachi proved that the judges’ issue is alive and well, in the country’s consciousness as well as in the streets. The lawyers’ stance is clear; even a parliamentary resolution is not required, a mere executive order will suffice for the judges’ restoration. As Aitzaz asserted recently, the Army House would be besieged in the event of the Presidency trying to sabotage the political efforts of the winning parties.

It is possible that the biggest threat to the winning parties’ agenda could come, not from the presidential camp, but from within their own ranks. The choice of the PPP’s candidate for premiership has become a bone of contention within the party’s leadership that could create a possible rift within its upper echelons. While it seemed certain that Makhdoom Amin Fahim would get the post earlier, his prospects appear to be growing bleaker by the day. Rumors abound regarding his ties with the President, leading some in the PML-N to voice their mistrust of the Pir from Hala. Moreover, Asif Zardari’s personal premiership aspirations appear to be influencing his proclivities towards appointing a lesser political personality, such as Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar as the temporary PM, to pave the way for his ascent to the throne in the upcoming by-elections. The ramifications of such a decision could be immense and costly.

The possibility of Amin Fahim leading a breakaway faction away from the main body of the PPP could spell the end of the winning parties’ parliamentary aspirations, cloud the political future of the PPP and generate much jubilation in the Presidency. Although the Makhdoom has denied any such plans, it is a possibility that the leadership of the PPP and PML-N must carefully guard against if they wish to achieve their stated aims of strengthening democracy and delivering the country from the throes of military dictatorship. Mr. Zardari, in particular, must realize that his newfound popularity will not survive the test of time if he cannot shelve his personal ambitions for the sake of the country.

The problems that await the winning parties upon the formation of government are immense. The economy has been reduced to tatters, the deprivation of the masses is at an all-time high, the ravages of the war of terror have found their way to the core of the civilian populace and the federation’s unity stands threatened. The pre-requisites of a progressive democratic order need to be established without delay in order to move towards the resolution of our many crises.

But first things first; let’s get the judges back in their courts.

Aitzaz made honorary fellow at Cambridge University

LONDON, March 11 (APP) : Eminent lawyer and President, Supreme Court Bar Association Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan has been made an honorary Fellow at Downing College, Cambridge University. It was announced on Tuesday.

The distinguished Pakistani lawyer and politician read Law at Downing in the 1960s, and was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in 1967.

A university’s media release recorded his career and said returning to Pakistan, he developed an internationally respected legal practice while also pursuing a distinguished political career as member of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)