LAHORE: Former federal minister, Dr. Sher Afgan Niazi has been rescued safely by President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Aitzaz Ahsan. Enraged lawyers tore up Dr. Afgan’s clothes and attacked him by throwing stones and shoes. They also shaterred the windows of the ambulance in which Dr. Afgan was being taken away from the site of the incident.
Earlier, a large number of lawyers laid a siege around the office of Dr. Afgan’s lawyer when he came to visit him. The police present at the scene failed to create a safe passage for Dr. Afgan and he remained confined in the office for about three hours.
Later, President SCBA Aitzaz Ahsan arrived here to control the situation and disperse the lawyers. Although he asked the enraged lawyers and others to leave the place, they continued to wait for Dr. Afgan to come out.
Eventually, Dr. Afgan came out of the building and escorted by Aitzaz Ahsan. Struggling through the crowd they made their way to an Edhi ambulance with the help of police.As soon as Dr. Afgan got inside the ambulance, Aitzaz Ahsan mounted the rooftop of the vehicle which was then driven slowly away from the crowd.
Later, Aitzaz Ahsan resigned from the post of SCBA President.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Dr. Afgan manhandled, rescued by Aitzaz
SAC and workers stage demo against price hike
In the first step of hopefully a long lasting and fair alliance, students and workers stood as one outside Data Darbar on Sunday.
The Student Action Committee alongside trade unions, the CMKP, and the Labor party organized a demonstration on the price hike. Starting at 4 pm sharp, adjacent to the main Data Sahib entrance, the entrancing sound of the dhols, accompanying loud impassioned slogans could be heard. Ranging from “bhukaay reh gayay mein teh tou, lutt keh laigaya GHQ” to “Roti mehengi hai hai...kafan bhi mehenga hai hai” the slogans highlighted the problems that the country was facing with the constantly rising food inflation, energy crisis, expensive education and low wage rates.
While the police tried to separate the passerby’s from the demonstration, students actively tried to cross the physical barricades present and tried engaging the watching populace with rousing slogans and highlighting that this demonstration was for everyone. That it was a platform for every citizen to use to make his or her voice heard.
Communist Mazdoor Kisaan Party member and Student Action Committee representative Ali Jan delivered a rousing speech where he delineated reasons behind the fiscal problems that nation as a people were facing. “…state needs to enter the economy and control the free hand of the multinational companies, the World Bank and the IMF” said the leftist student.
Abdullah Malik, a seasoned lawyer who has been at the forefront of the lawyers movement and has supported the f students and other segments of society who have been fighting against the regime also spoke at this demonstration. He said “The polices of the previous government regarding the IMF and the World Bank reduced the people to the point of suicide because of poverty”. According to Abdullah Malik, the new government should make policies keeping the debilitating poverty in mind, and the promises made to reinstate student unions, trade unions, free media and restoration of the judiciary should be fulfilled. While lawyers, media, students and concerned people from all walks of life will work together as a watch dog and will laud positive polices; these very factions of society will wage a war against policies that harm any segment of society.
Representing the Student Action Committee, Sundas Hurrain reached out to the people in a speech that emphasized that there was no such thing as an aam admi as everyone was equal and in order to get rid of socio economic disparity, students and workers will need to collaborate and join forces against injustices and poverty.
The demonstration lasted an hour and engaged people who were initially just bystanders and eventually crossed the barriers and participated full throatedly in the price hike demonstration.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Report on Work done for restoration of judiciary in Hazara by Omar Asghar Foundation
Omar Asghar Foundation has done a lot of good work for the restoration of the judiciary. The document[PDF] can be see here
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Workers and SAC demo tomorrow at Data Darbar at 4 pm
The Student Action Committee in collaboration with trade unions, working women’s unions, political parties and various groups of society is holding a demonstration regarding the recent price hike.
An alliance forged after years of alienation, students and laborers will stand together for the same cause: the pressure on the average Pakistani to acquire and maintain basic necessities like food and energy.
Sunday 6th April at 4 pm outside the Data Sahib Mazaar, the SAC alongside workers and other concerned individuals will present their demands to the newly formed government to find a sustainable solution to persistent food inflation and energy shortages.
Recognizing that the interim government as well as the eight year regime contributed mostly to the rising costs of living, this alliance between students and workers aims to highlight the power that the new government possesses via the mandate of the people.
Representatives from various workers unions and such have been invited to come and give short talks on the present price hike in the country. An issue like inflation and energy crisis spans across the countries ethnic and socioeconomic boundaries and allows people to stand up for their rights from a grass roots level.
Those participating in this demonstration will aim to engage as many people from the surrounding areas as a part of the effort to work together to resolve national problems rather than outlining them in isolated meetings.
Musharraf's survival strategy: remain low-key
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has no plans to quit despite the formation of hostile government and will play a low-key role as part of a strategy framed a long time ago, a presidential aide has said. The "perceived isolation" of Musharraf and his sidelining after the swearing-in of the new government had not happened in a "haphazard way but is the result of a well thought out strategy", the aide claimed.
"It was decided a long time ago that Musharraf would take a backseat after the 2008 general election and he has done so as per the plan," the unnamed aide told The News daily. "Everything was executed as per the script," the aide claimed, adding that Musharraf's moves were part of the plan for the "phased restoration of democracy".
"There is no shock for the president in the new milieu except for the defeat of the (PML-Q)," he said. The Pakistan People's Party and PML-N have formed a coalition government with the backing of two smaller parties and independent lawmakers following the defeat of pro-Musharraf PML (Q)in the February 18 polls.
He categorically said Musharraf had no plans to step down. Everything went as per the strategy, though considerable disruption was caused by the "judicial crisis" following the sacking of 60 members of the superior judiciary during last year's emergency, the aide said.
Zardari offers gubernatorial post to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
Lahore, Apr 4: PPP co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari has reportedly offered a gubernatorial post to the country's deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhary, after forcing him "retire" on superannuation in June.
He is learnt to have been offered the position of Balochistan Governor.
Zardari made the offer through Iftikhar's counsels Aitzaz Ahsan, Athar Minallah, and Munir A Malik at a dinner last night, reported the Daily Times.
Reliable sources say that the new PPP-led government was planning to bring a new law restricting the Chief Justice's term to three years, as a result of which Justice Choudhary's services would superannuate in June, as he completes his three years in the post in the same month.
Had Choudhary not picked a fight with President Pervez Musharraf last year, he would have continued as Chief Justice till 2013. Musharraf wants to see Justice Choudhary's service to be terminated because the latter has repeatedly said that he would reinstate the pre-November 7 Constitution if reinstalled in the post.
A section to Pakistani press today reported that the new Pakistan government was planning to bring a new legislation to ease out the Chief Justice, though it would reinstate other Supreme Court judges.
Zardari issues 'charge-sheet'
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has issued a long charge-sheet against the deposed superior court judges, saying they never came to his rescue and were responsible for his eight years in jail.
In the clearest indication that the PPP may not stand by the Murree Declaration to restore the judges, the PPP leader told his central executive committee in Naudero that he was not interested in the restoration of personalities but wanted a judicial reforms package.
Analysts said things were getting complicated for Zardari, both within the PPP and outside, as he was moving closer to allies of President Musharraf and drifting away from his coalition partner Nawaz Sharif.
As Zardari issued his charge-sheet against the judges, Makhdoom Amin Fahim demanded the disbandment of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians which he heads. Others in the PPP blasted the party leadership's decision to join hands with the MQM.
On the other hand, the PML-N is determined not to compromise on the issue of restoration of the deposed judges through a resolution in the National Assembly. The party says it seeks strict adherence to the Murree Declaration and would not accept any formula or constitutional amendment that restores all the deposed judges minus chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
"After gaining so much because of the political initiative that Zardari has taken in the recent weeks, the PPP co-chairperson is on the verge of losing all," a senior PPP leader told this correspondent from Naudero, revealing the situation in the interior Sindh was extremely tense after Zardari's visit to the MQM headquarters popularly known as Nine Zero.
In a post-dinner gathering of the PPP's central executive committee, the source said, many PPP leaders minced no words in criticising Zardari's decision to woo the MQM. PPP MNA Shugufta Jamani and Sethi Ishaq were among those who expressed strong resentment and wondered how the PPP could join hands with the MQM, which was responsible for the killing of PPP workers.
"The Sindhi people have not given a mandate to Zardari to thrust upon them his personal agenda of humiliation in the name of reconciliation," a PPP leader told The News, adding, "We strongly oppose and condemn the PPP-MQM coalition in Sindh."
The leader asked: "Who caused the May 12th incident? Who was behind the Oct 18 blast? Who killed Murad Baloch and Munawar Suhrawardy? But you still went to the Nine Zero to express solidarity with the MQM against the wishes of the nation. Now it's time for us to rethink our support for you, Mr Zardari," said the source, who sounded quite disturbed.
"There is a wave of anger," a PPP leader said. The likes of Raja Pervez Ashraf, Shah Mehmud Qureshi, Jahangir Badr, however, showered Zardari with praises and called him a great leader. Badr even crossed all limits by saying that the PPP had become more popular under Zardari.
Zardari, however, defended his party's rapprochement with the MQM and termed it a sensible political move having far-reaching impact. He said he wanted to open all political avenues for his son, Bilawal, and never liked to see the doors of Nine Zero closed for him. He said the MQM would be forming a government with the PPP.
Aitzaz Ahsan, who sought the restoration of the deposed judges, told the meeting that it would be in the interest of the party to get the judges restored.
Zardari, according to sources, came hard on the issue of the judges� restoration. According to one source, Zardari snubbed the widely-respected lawyer leader and said he knew the worth of the judges whose restoration was being sought by the lawyers' community.
Zardari said these were the same judges who had earlier taken oath under the PCO and validated the military rule. Referring to his jail life, a source quoted him as saying that he was let down by these judges, who had even refused to release him on parole to attend the funeral of his nephew. He said he was allowed only a two-hour parole despite Farooq H Naek's pleading before the same judges.
He said the then Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed had also refused him a parole. He termed the same judiciary biased, which he said was responsible for his eight years in jail. Party sources reported that Asif Ali Zardari was quite emotional while speaking on the judges' issue. One source said he talked of the restoration of the judges but linked it to a constitutional package. He said the party was interested in the independence of the judiciary and not in personalities.
A party leader said he was disappointed to hear what he termed the charge-sheet issued by the PPP co-chairperson against the deposed judges. According to him, almost 60 per cent of the co-chairman's speech was on Aitzaz Ahsan and the judges.
While the PPP is clearly seen connecting the judges restoration issue with a constitutional package, the PML-N is determined not to budge from what had been agreed between the two parties in Murree on March 9, 2008.
"We don't accept the 'Minus-One Formula' or any such solution that excludes Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry," PML-N minister Ahsan Iqbal told this correspondent, adding the "Minus-One Formula" would mean accepting March 9, 2007 Gen Musharraf's action of suspending chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as legitimate.
Ahsan said as per the Murree Declaration, the deposed judges would be restored through a resolution. Ahsan categorically said that the question of any constitutional amendment for the judges' restoration did not arise.
Ahsan said the coalition was committed to the Murree Declaration and clarified that the PML-N was not averse to a mutually-agreed constitutional package having no link with the restoration of the judges.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Brutalization of a University Professor
It was unbelievable to see a university professor Dr. Riaz Ahmed of the University of Karachi, standing severely injured inside the campus gate few days ago. His associates and students who saw his condition were appalled, many eyes became wet. Innumerable questions were raised; the academic mind was in great turmoil. How can this happen? Why? And for what purpose? And so on.
The inquiry was set forth, procedures started following, committees began forming. The crisscross of defenders and offenders is the norm of the situation now. Protests are launched by teaching communities and civil society through out the country. However, the incident has left deep wounds in the hearts and minds of associates of Dr.Riaz, who is known for his commitments towards the teaching community, academic institutions, and a liberal society.
The deplorable state of affairs in the academic world of Pakistan
demands a revaluation of the whole academic setup and its authentication. The cruel behavior towards a vigilant and profound thinker, a brilliant researcher and a highly conscientious member of the society, within the premises of his institution, reveals the hidden facts. It exposes the anti-intellectual and irrational mind-set working against any one who is committed towards liberalism, open-mindedness, justice, and freedom.
Dr. Riaz Ahmed’s incident symbolizes the conflict of a society struggling against itself, and thus never being able to come out of its own nostalgia. Where as the high profile educationists and policy makers will keep on falsely intellectualizing their success in bringing the academic world at par with the west, the really committed people like Dr. Riaz Ahmed will always be condemned and crushed for their courage and wisdom in their struggle against authoritarianism, and in their fight to bring the working class up to the standards of humanization and freedom; thus defeating imperialist structures imposed on a developing nations.
Judges’ scrutiny by parliament panel after reinstatement
Asif ticks off Aitzaz
NAUDERO: PPP Co-chairman Asif Zardari is reported to have ticked off Aitzaz Ahsan in an after-dinner gathering of the PPP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) members in Naudero on the subject of the restoration of the judges, independence of the judiciary and the threatened long march by Aitzaz and his supporters. According to sources present on the occasion, Zardari took Aitzaz to task for constantly threatening to launch a long march to force parliament to restore Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and the other deposed judges.
Zardari advised Aitzaz to go ahead with his long march if he was so keen on it instead of constantly threatening the PPP about it. He told Aitzaz that he was wrong to think that the lawyers movement had forced General Pervez Musharraf to take off his uniform or hold the elections. He said that honour belonged to Benazir Bhutto who had compelled Musharraf to do so and paid for it with her life. He said the entire credit for restoration of democracy went to Ms Bhutto and Aitzaz and the judges and lawyers could not rob her of her victory.
Zardari also reminded Aitzaz that while he was incarcerated for eight long years none of these heroic judges had given him justice, even when he had asked for one day’s reprieve to attend a funeral of a close relative. Zardari is reported to have said that Justice Chaudhry had politicised himself overtly and ruined his case as an advocate for an independent judiciary. He also cited other instances when some of these judges had not conducted themselves with any degree of integrity or independence in the past. Aitzaz tried a feeble defence but could not deflect Zardari’s irritation. “I thought Aitzaz would get up and leave but he just sat there,” said the source. staff report
(After reading this news report one would definitely start worrying the prospects of the restoration of judiciary - it may be time to start worrying - and planning)
Musharraf's capacity to bear indignities
President Musharraf's capacity to bear indignities, provided he is allowed to retain his office, seems to be unlimited. While he has repeatedly said he is willing to work with the new government, he continues to be conveyed through unambiguous gestures that he is not acceptable to the newcomers.
On Monday he administered oath to federal ministers, nine of whom wore black armbands to indicate they would rather see his back than face. They told the protocol officer they would not stand up on the arrival of the president to slight him. It took the ceremony to be over in seven minutes after which they walked out without shaking hands with him. Earlier on March 24, at the election of the new prime minister, the National Assembly had resounded with slogans of "Go Musharraf, Go" and at Mr Gillani's oath taking ceremony, attended by military top brass command and foreign diplomatic corps, there were again slogans that made Musharraf squirm.
On Tuesday there was another embarrassment waiting for him. None of the newly appointed cabinet members turned up at 13th Comstech General Assembly, the first international function attended by diplomats from the Islamic countries after take over by the new government to be addressed by Musharraf. As invitations had been duly dispatched to all the ministers this amounted to a calculated boycott. The unmistakable message was, well, we have other important things to do.
As if to give a lie to Rashid Qureshi's claim that everyone other than Mian Nawaz Sharif was dying to work with Musharraf, all top leaders of the four party alliance boycotted the two oath taking ceremonies. And if this was not enough, he has reportedly been told by Dr Fehmida Mirza that the speaker's chamber in the parliament under Musharraf's use since 2005, would no more be available to him.
For full five years Musharraf refused to address the previous National Assembly despite its having been turned into a rubber stamp. He called it ill-mannered because the opposition which was being constantly steam-rollered occasionally resorted to anti-Musharraf slogans. He felt at home in the meetings of a pliant ruling party that he frequently co-chaired. He wielded the COAS baton like the magician's wand to remove and install prime ministers at will. This is all a dream now. Used to playing with lapdogs Musharraf will have to live with pit bulls.
Majority of those who were administered oath on Monday have been unjustly targeted by Musharraf in the past. The idea had been to change their loyalties through pressure. The prime minister spent five years in jail on false accusations and was honourably acquitted by the court. Navid Qamar spent over a year behind the bars, Ahmad Mukhtar a year and half. Senior Minister Nisar Ali Khan was kept under detention for a year and a half, Ishaq Dar for a similar period, Khwaja Asif for over a year and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi for seventeen months. How can Musharraf build up rapport with his victims who have returned to power against his wishes on the basis of a historic verdict?
February elections have brought a seismic change in Pakistan's politics. Prime Minister Gillani says his relations with the president would be strictly in accordance with the constitution. In other words, the new prime minister would not allow him to make intrusions into his turf as he has been doing in the past. Henceforth the prime minister would deal with Bush, Gordon Brown, Manmohan Singh, Hamid Karzai, Wen Jiabao and others. It is he rather than the president who would address the UN sessions, Davos moots and attend summits. Gone are the foreign junkets and visits abroad to play bridge with friends that cost the national exchequer heavily. The voluntary reduction of expenses of the Prime Minister House by 40 percent is a signal that the presidency too is going to be required to follow suit.
The lawyers have vowed to converge on the Army House after the thirty-day countdown to evict him for being an unauthorised occupant, accusing him of using the premises for conspiracies against the elected government. Their leaders have already accused Musharraf of indulging in games to sabotage the Murree Accord. An unquenchable thirst for power has led Musharraf pocket one insult after another. It remains to be seen if his capacity to take indignities has any limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
General (r) Musharraf promised in an interview that: I can exit anytime if I want to. If I feel that nation does not want me and I have become unpopular, nation does not require me, I'll be the first person to exit.
Polls, Surveys and even General Elections in Pakistan won't make him leave his seat. How shameless can he be?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Pakistan Demonstrates the Wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers
The situation in Pakistan provides another good reason why the American people should put a stop to the U.S. government’s meddling in the affairs of other countries.
For years, U.S. officials have had a close, working partnership with Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf, which has included the delivery to him of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money. Keep in mind one important fact: Musharraf is a dictator. A brutal military dictator who has ruled over Pakistan with an iron fist for many years. He took power in a coup and refused to allow democratic elections in the country.
U.S. officials have known all of this. Yet, despite all their glorious talk about the virtues of democracy, especially in Iraq, they have nonetheless been funneling U.S. taxpayer money into the coffers of Musharraf and the military goons that have kept him in power.
Several months ago, Musharraf dissolved the country’s Supreme Court and began jailing lawyers and judges? Why? Because the judiciary and the attorneys believed in an independent judiciary. That is, they believed in the same type of judicial system that we have here in the United States, one in which the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional and unconstitutional.
Like all dictators, Musharraf could not countenance a constitutional order. When a dictator issues an order, he expects everyone, including the lawyers and the judges, to obey it. If they don’t, that’s what the military and the police are for — to round up those who don’t understand and appreciate the nature of dictatorship and put them in jail until they do.
Through it all, including Musharraf’s crackdown on the judiciary and the lawyers, the U.S. government has remained loyal to Musharraf, continuing to funnel U.S. taxpayer money into his coffers (even while killing untold numbers of people in Iraq for the sake of democracy). But why should that surprise anyone, especially given the Bush administration’s and Pentagon’s denigration of lawyers and the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to such issues as torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay, and the “war on terrorism”?
What U.S. officials never counted on, however, is that the Pakistani people hated Musharraf’s military dictatorship. In the recent parliamentary elections in Pakistan, the vote was so overwhelming against Musharraf that even the dictator could not rig the outcome. Of course, in the process the Pakistani people also implicitly rebuked the dictator’s loyal partner, the U.S. government.
Let’s recall that this isn’t the first time that the United States has experienced this type of blowback from its foreign policy of interventionism. In Iran, the CIA ousted the democratically elected prime minister from office and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, in his stead. After decades of brutal dictatorial rule, including the torture of his own people, the Shah was ousted from power by the Iranian people. Not surprisingly, the Iranian people resented not just the Shah but also his loyal partner and supporter, the U.S. government.
What does the U.S. government now do in Pakistan as part of its foreign policy of interventionism? Does it continue supporting its loyal partner, a dictator, and continue funneling U.S. taxpayer money into his coffers? Or does it align itself with the citizenry who are trying to restore democracy and a constitutional order to their land?
Such questions arise for one — and only one — reason: the U.S. government’s foreign policy of intervening and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. If the United States had a policy of non-intervention, then the rebuke of a dictator by his own citizens would be not simultaneously serve as a rebuke against the United States.
In other words, at the risk of belaboring the obvious the reason that Pakistanis who have risen up against Musharraf also resent the United States is because the U.S. government is Musharraf’s partner, a partner that has financed much of his brutal dictatorial rule. In the absence of intervention, the Pakistani people would resent their dictator without also resenting the United States.
Once again, we are learning the wisdom of our nation’s Founding Fathers, who counseled in favor of friendly relations with all nations but entangling alliances with none. The key to America’s future — the key to freedom, peace, prosperity, morality, and harmony — lies in liberating the private sector of America to freely engage with the people of the world while, at the same time, prohibiting the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of other countries.
U.S. Must Quit Bush's Chicken Little Politics in Pakistan, Cold Turkey
Ever since the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration has been warning Americans that, but for the rule of military dictator General Pervez Musharraf, the sky would be falling. Musharraf, we were told, was what was standing between us and a flood of Islamic extremists who would unleash acts of terrorism around the world. In the war on terror, leaders were either with us or against us, and Bush knew, after talking with Musharraf, that the man was in our corner. He would keep the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in check. It's now time for the U.S. to recognize that events on the ground have proven Bush wrong, and to change the way we conduct our relations with Pakistan lest we hamper the chances of the newly-elected government for successful democratic rule.
Since the initial decision to back Musharraf, the Bush administration has developed tunnel vision in Pakistan and failed to examine the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and what we were getting in return for our support. Never mind that ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, under Musharraf's direction, had helped to keep the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Never mind that, despite the billions of dollars in aid the U.S. has given to Pakistan over the past six years, mostly to its military, Musharraf has failed to explain exactly what specific benefit he has provided to the U.S. In fact, he has been widely criticized by U.S. policy-makers, scholars, and even NATO commanders who have been concerned that Musharraf has not done enough to combat al-Qaeda and has been giving sanctuary to extremists in Pakistan's tribal areas that border Afghanistan. Much has been written about whether the U.S. has actually benefited from its relationship with Musharraf, and exactly how much has been spent with astonishingly little oversight. Despite this, the Bush administration has continued to deliver enormous sums of money to Musharraf and tout him as a great U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism.
The U.S.'s backing of Musharraf has had two sets of consequences, one on the world stage, and the other within Pakistan itself. In the international arena, the U.S. has lost credibility as a purveyor of democracy. With no sense of irony, it has backed a military dictator, even as he suspended the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, cracked down on the media, jailed lawyers and opposition leaders, suspended the country's constitution, and, despite the massive aid to his military, failed to provide adequate security to Benazir Bhutto who was assassinated in Rawalpindi, a Musharraf stronghold. In addition, the U.S. has placed unnecessary stress on its relationship with India and failed to consider the potential consequences for the region of the influx of so much money with so little scrutiny given to its use. Within Pakistan, overt U.S. support of Musharraf has diminished respect for him and made him a caricature to the people -- a puppet who sold his loyalty to a bullying super-power. Many who were not necessarily anti-U.S. became polarized by Bush's message to Musharraf that he had to be for us or against us. The thinking for many was, "Well, if I'm not entirely for you, then I guess I must be against you." And, because U.S. money and influence protected Musharraf even when he disregarded the most basic human, civil and political rights of Pakistani citizens, those abuses were attributed by the people to the U.S. Living under a dictatorship and living under U.S. influence became for many, one and the same.
Recent events in Pakistan show that the Bush administration was wrong to say that Musharraf was the country's and the world's best hope for fighting extremism in Pakistan. They also show that the U.S. must and should change its foreign policy approach in Pakistan if it is to achieve its goals of fostering democracy in the region and combating terrorism. Despite what we were told, the sky did not fall when Musharraf lost his grip on power. Instead, an effort to restore democracy and national institutions has begun amid cautious optimism. In spite of Musharraf's best efforts to prevent elections, they were held with relatively little violence and declared free and fair. The media, freed from recent restrictions, reached out to the people and encouraged them to vote, not according to the instructions of their village leaders, but rather in their own interests. According to one landowner in southern Punjab "our villagers didn't vote according to our wishes this time -- they voted for their own candidates -- something they haven't done in the past."
This sense of accomplishment by the people should buffer the new government from some criticism and skepticism, even if acts of terrorism are used to unseat or disturb it. Unlike the previous government, this one has at least the temporary good-will of many Pakistanis who are willing to give these politicians the benefit of the doubt and a chance to prove themselves. Despite Bush's warnings, the county has not been engulfed by radical terrorists, and the new government has committed itself to continuing the fight against terrorism, and opened the door for counter-insurgency tactics by reaching out to militants who are willing to lay down their arms. This tactic has been praised in the past by NATO and other military commanders but condemned by the Bush administration as an unacceptable way to deal with extremists. It shows that there may a uniquely Pakistani approach to addressing concerns of terrorism, while also promoting democracy and good governance within Pakistan.
The new government has wasted no time in letting Washington know that its heavy-handed diplomacy was a thing of the past. When the U.S. sent its Deputy secretary of state John Negroponte and assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher to meet with General Musharraf on the very day that the new Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, took office, high-level Pakistani lawyers and government officials immediately made it clear that this was a mistake, and that the new government, not Musharraf, would be making decisions in the country from now on. With unprecedented candor, high-level Pakistanis told Negraponte that his visit and its timing were unwelcome, as was the implication that the U.S. intends to micro-manage the political fall-out of the recent elections.
Washington should now listen to what they were told, take a lesson from Pakistan's democratically elected government and focus on the needs and the will of the people. Up until now, U.S. relations with Pakistan have been largely centralized and impersonal. Pakistanis have felt the presence of the U.S. through coercion exercised by and on their central government. Rather than take a prominent role in programs to assist with access to medical care, schooling, shelter, livelihoods and other staples of social welfare, the U.S. has poured most of its aid into Pakistan's military, and left non-governmental organizations to address the overwhelming needs of the people in what is still a relatively poor country. (Pakistan ranks 136th out of 177 on the 2007/2008 Human Development Index.)
Rather than continue its prominent role in supporting one person within the Pakistani government, the U.S. should now assume a low profile as the new-elected order establishes itself. At the same time, the U.S. should lend its assistance on the humanitarian front in order to allow the new government to achieve the credibility it needs to fight extremism, and diminish animosity among Pakistanis towards the U.S. Finally, the U.S. should show respect for and assist Pakistan in strengthening its core governmental institutions, so that they can be safeguarded through checks and balances, and become less vulnerable to corruption and extremism.
The U.S. should recognize that it is not betraying American security interests by allowing the new government space to develop without the appearance of being shackled to outside interests. Those recently elected and their supporters have reasons and will of their own to combat terrorism and extremism. Some in the country may not be for or against the U.S., but may be dedicated to the preservation of a safer and more prosperous Pakistan. Thus, the U.S. can best serve its own interests by helping the new leadership to win hearts and minds, boost the people's standard of living, and foster the sense of ownership many Pakistanis now have in their newly elected government. We have allowed our fears to dictate our policy in Pakistan, but recent events demonstrate that we do not need to sacrifice our ideals and standing around the world to secure our security.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Why Musharraf must go
LAHORE: On February 18, Pakistanis voted against the regime of Pervez Musharraf. For more than eight years the now retired general has ruled the country with an iron fist, brooking no dissent. But when push came to shove, the Pakistani people made it clear that they would rather their country be ruled by politicians - however flawed - than an army general dancing to Washington's tune.
In the immediate aftermath of the polls, the victors - the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of late Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of Nawaz Sharif, the man Musharraf ousted in his October 1999 coup - have called on Musharraf to resign. But the man who has been a Bush administration favourite is clinging on for dear life, and so long as he does, a smooth transition to democracy is unlikely.
It is perhaps difficult for observers outside Pakistan to actually understand the depth of the crisis that Musharraf's government faced in the lead-up to the polls. Even now, the worsening security situation is not the biggest problem that the regime is up against. The vote against the incumbent regime in fact was the fallout of an acute economic crisis that has beset the country.
Over the past few weeks, Pakistanis have been suffering from prolonged power outages, a major reduction in the supply of gas, and a dramatic shortage of wheat flour. The situation reached crisis-like proportions about two weeks before February 18 and while things have not deteriorated further, they have not got much better either.
This is ironic given that the regime's most celebrated success has been the 'economic revival' that it has engineered. Since October 1999 the government has initiated a series of economic 'reform' measures, which have met with the approval of the IMF and World Bank. The regime has been rewarded, particularly after the September 11 attacks in America, with massive inflows of financial assistance.
In subsequent years, foreign exchange reserves reached record levels, export earnings improved and growth rates increased to the point that Pakistan's economy was said to be the second fastest growing economy in Asia, second only to China. However, very little structural change has taken place beneath the surface. There has been no asset redistribution, the tax net has remained woefully small, and foreign investment has been limited to non-employment generating sectors such as real estate, telecommunications and the stock market.
Pakistan's has always been an aid-dependent economy that looks a lot more robust than it actually is when the aid is flowing in. In recent times, the underlying weaknesses of the regime's economic 'miracle' have become painfully apparent. There is not enough electricity and gas to meet the burgeoning demand. The need to generate foreign exchange through wheat exports has given rise to a bizarre situation in which a record bumper crop has proved insufficient in meeting internal demand.
Development spending is being cut as means of creating fiscal space. The list could go on. With the support of western governments under the guise of prosecuting the so-called 'war on terror', the regime has succeeded in suppressing political challenges to it, most obviously by dismissing activist supreme court judges and arresting thousands of democracy-demanding lawyers and political activists.
The electorate has taken revenge for these deeply unpopular measures by voting Musharraf's clients out of power, but the imperative of the 'war on terror' is seemingly too acute for Musharraf's patrons in Washington to accept the people's mandate. Notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary, the Bush administration has not played its cards in Pakistan well, or at least not well enough to win the hearts and minds of its people. The solution does not lie in dumping Musharraf and backing his successor - Pervez Kiyani - to the post of army chief. It lies in finally accepting that the Pakistani people are best equipped to decide how to address the problems that their country is beset with.
The election result should be seen as the culmination of a year-long struggle to dislodge the incumbent regime. Of course in most cases, voters reinstated many who have been in power before and in doing so have thrown down the gauntlet to the two big parties, the PPP and the PML-N. On the one hand the election result is, in many ways, a mandate for them to really take on the military. If, instead, they buckle to the demands of the army - and the United States - the many possible gains from the politicisation that has taken place over the past year will be lost.
On the other hand, serious policy changes are necessary if the coalition wants to avoid being swept away by a tidal wave of anti-government sentiment in the way that the Musharraf regime has. For example, free market orthodoxy of the kind championed by the Musharraf government is likely to subject working people to even more acute hardship whilst not necessarily achieving macroeconomic stability.
The PPP and PML-N are now immersed in a battle to maintain the goodwill they have regained by virtue of their stance against a deeply unpopular military regime. The initial period will be crucial, and the international community would do well to honour the wishes of the Pakistani people and stop backing Musharraf and the policies that have taken Pakistan to the brink of implosion.
The writer teaches colonial history and political economy at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Pakistan's media - responsibility must anchor freedom
IT is a truism that media freedom in Pakistan today has been earned after a long struggle which will perhaps continue in the years to come.
Deepening of democratic traditions and their permeation in society are sine qua non for a free media. Whilst there can be no two opinions on the independence of the media, the need for greater responsibility and professionalism has to be articulated in no uncertain terms. Such is the confusion and chaos triggered by an overgrown executive that the issue of responsibility has been sidelined by the overwhelming noises for media freedom especially since the tinkering with the text and application of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) Ordinance.
The most recent occasion of electronic media wizardry was the announcement of the Pakistan People’s Party-led coalition candidate for the unenviable job of the prime minister. The moment the announcement was made, a leading channel played a popular Indian film song that lamented broken promises. In this case, the fabled promise of the prime ministerial cookie for Makhdoom Amin Fahim.
Admittedly, the party of the people and its allies were secretive about the process. The principle of transparency, ideally, is germane to elected institutions. However, this is neither an ideal world nor is it going to turn into one overnight. The way a momentous decision was trivialised was not in good taste. The news industry forgot that this was a party still recovering from the brutal murder of its omnipresent leader less than three months ago.
And then the vulnerable Makhdoom was grilled into a line of questioning by many channels anticipating that he would put the fissures within the party into the public domain. Much to their consternation, nothing of the sort came about. In fact, the icy Makhdoom, disappointed as he must be, maintained his dignity and decorum in the face of a media that desperately hoped for catchy breaking news.
Earlier, the guessing game on the PM nomination was played up into teacup hype, was also, to a certain extent, unwarranted. For instance, the delay in requisitioning the session of the National Assembly was far less analysed than why the PPP was unable to settle for Makhdoom. The discourse on the issue focused on ‘loyalty’, ‘honour’ and such other terms that may go well with the patriarchal-authoritarian society but not with the difficult task of inculcating democratic values.
Alas, the level of analysis was such that the ‘potential’ candidates were rarely compared in terms of merit, competence or likelihood of pulling together a difficult coalition. And no one bothered to check how this process was managed in the region especially India where coalitions are now a norm. Sadly, the chequered history of PPP media trials continues even when plural and relatively free voices abound.
Well, this is the beginning of a new journey. We have a mature political class that is willing to jointly challenge the historic ascendancy of non-elected institutions. This is something that is central to the future of all freedoms including that of the media. As the first speech of the prime minister proved, democracy —truncated as it might be — is the only way of ensuring the independence of the judiciary.
The release of deposed judges came about ironically through the parliament. The sweet irony of it all is that this was a scene not envisaged by those who were urging all and sundry to boycott the elections. That a president sans uniform had limits to his powers was a nuance not debated.
The channel gurus were more inclined towards the ‘purity’ of political positions. Considerable airtime was devoted to the Faustian ‘deal’ that was perhaps the last grand sin of Bhutto in the eyes of our puritans. She had of course to pay with her life for redemption.
In a similar vein, television debates on suicide bombings and war on terror reinforce the populism that endangers critical introspection, and reduces the discourse to a level that, simply put, is simplistic. We all know that the demons of extremism have been nurtured for decades. They existed prior to the American invasion of Afghanistan and our frontline status. But discussions about the slow Talibanisation of Pakistan being a reality are taboo; as the overwhelming majority of ‘experts’ consider this a ‘reaction’ thereby according a subtle legitimacy to the gruesome acts perpetrated in the name of religion.
Unwittingly, the agenda of the suicide brigades gets a helping hand when TV channels relay images of human limbs, severed heads and trucks ramming into security guards. I recall the ugly evening when bombs exploded prior to the chief justice’s arrival at a rally in Islamabad last summer. This was the first time that at least I experienced the disturbing visuals betraying lack of scrutiny. As violence is always gripping, it attracted the attention of my five-year-old and eventually we had to turn off the television.
Popular channels ran notifications urging parental guidance as if this would gloss the evident dearth of punctiliousness. However, this continued as a trend — entrenched, sensational — sadly when Pakistan was witnessing the worst spate of suicide bombings in our recent history. Chopped heads metaphorically are embedded in our histories: from the Baghdad tales of minarets out of severed heads, to Mongol invasions of Delhi and Lahore and the famed anecdote of Emperor Aurangzeb sending the head of Dara Shikoh to Shah Jahan.
But a modern, progressive Pakistan has to overcome this legacy of medieval barbarity and a free, mature media needs to assist in this process and condemn what is utterly condemnable.
Thus emerges the urgent need for self-regulation, codes of conduct and internal accountability. Let the media shun all ‘advisories’, this should be done of their own volition. Globally, there are several examples to follow and the capable ones within the media are well aware of them. There would be no point in listing them here. Suffice to say here that we, the engaged TV viewers, want a free media that is equally responsible; and challenges the stereotype and half-truth instead of reinforcing it.
A glorious future lies ahead for the electronic media — for we have a powerful agent of change, when we had almost given up on the hope for a change.
People's Resistance condemns assault on Dr. Riaz
KARACHI, April 1: The People's Resistance, a coalition of pro-democracy individuals and groups, joins organisations like HRCP, AHRC and others in strongly condemning and demanding immediate inquiry into the manhandling and beating up of Dr Riaz Ahmed, Assistant Professor of Applied Chemistry at Karachi University by Pakistan Rangers.
On Monday, March 31, Dr Riaz attempted to drive out of the campus from the Silver Jubilee gate. Rangers deployed in the campus had closed all entry and exit gates following a clash between two student groups and refused to open the gate for Dr Riaz's car. After some harsh words they dragged him out of the car, abused him, kicked him with their boots, and severely beat him with their fists, batons and rifle butts. They dragged up to two meters in the presence of their Commandant Colonel Iftekhar. Students who tried to protect Dr Riaz were also injured. Some teachers and students took the injured professor to the Aga Khan Hospital where a medico-legal exam was carried out.
At a time when the new government has announced the welcome step of reviving student unions and our politics are hopefully being de-militarised, with the military going back to the barracks, it is also time to remove para-military forces from our educational institutes. It should be noted that Dr. Riaz was among the university professors and staff who have consistently opposed the deployment of Rangers at the university, since the ban on student unions in the 1980s. The Rangers' deployment at KU has not only made the security situation worse at the institution, but also resulted in a disruption of the academic atmosphere.
Some months ago, Dr Riaz had berated the Rangers for kicking students' book-bags; one of the Rangers involved in that incident was among the four who maltreated him yesterday. We condemn the continuing presence of para-military forces in our educational institutes and demand that the Vice Chancellor play his due role in upholding principles rather than continuing to make compromises with anti-democratic forces. We demand:
- An immediate, full-scale and high level inquiry into the incident
- Removal of Rangers from university
- The registration of an FIR against the Rangers involved in brutalising the Karachi University professor and the due process of law to punish the culprits.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
FC Pol-Sci Society Seminar: Targeting Iran - with David Barsamian
FC (college) University cordially invites you to a Seminar in honor of FCC alumnus Eqbal Ahmad
"Targeting Iran: Imperialism the Next Phase"
with
David Barsamian
Date: Wednesday April 2nd, 2008
Time: 3 to 5 PM
Venue : E331, EBlock, F.C.College
David Barsamian is an American radio broadcaster, writer, and the founder and director of Alternative Radio, the Boulder, Colorado-based syndicated weekly talk program heard on some 125 radio stations in various countries. Barsamian started working in radio in 1978 at KGNU in Boulder, Colorado. His interviews and articles appear regularly in The Progressive and Z Magazine. He is also the author of several books, including The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting, Eqbal Ahmad: Confronting Empire and Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky.
Directions: Please tell the security at the gate your institution & that you are attending the seminar.
Any Questions: qalandarmemon@googlemail.com
Naked Punch www.nakedpunch.com
HRCP Strongly Condemns Assault on Dr. Riaz by Pakistan Rangers
Press Release, April 1, 2008 Karachi: In a joint statement issued to the press, Iqbal Haider, Co-Chairperson, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and Ghazi Salahuddin, the Vice Chairperson of HRCP Sindh Chapter, has strongly condemned the assault on Monday on Dr. Riaz, Professor of Applied Chemistry in Karachi University by Pakistan Rangers, deployed at the university. The incident occurred following a clash between two student groups.
The Rangers deployed in the campus closed all entry and exit gates after the clash. When Dr Riaz was leaving the campus at 5 p.m., the Rangers stopped his car at Silver Jubilee gate and after some harsh words they brutally hit him with batons, causing severe injuries. He was then taken to the Aga Khan Hospital by a group of teachers and students.
HRCP demands stern action against the culprits, and urges the Karachi University authorities to immediately file an FIR against them to ensure justice for the honorable professor of the university.
Iqbal Haider, Co-Chairperson
Ghazi Salahuddin, Vice Chairperson, Sindh Chapter
KARACHI: Rangers beat up KU teacher
By Meera Jamal
KARACHI, March 31: A professor of the applied chemistry department at the University of Karachi was severely beaten up by Rangers personnel on the campus on Monday afternoon, university officials told Dawn.
The incident took place following the tightening of security by university authorities after a clash between two rival groups of students.KU campus adviser Dr Majeedullah Qadri told Dawn that Prof (Dr) Riaz Ahmed of the applied chemistry department was beaten up by the Rangers. “Security was tightened and the campus gates were closed to outsiders after two student groups clashed with each other at around 1.30pm,” he said.A few hours later, Prof Ahmed was stopped by Rangers personnel when he was leaving the campus through what is known as the Silver Jubilee Gate, Dr Qadri said.
“He tried to explain that he should not be stopped as he is a teacher. At this, the Rangers personnel misbehaved and started beating him up.”He said when he reached the spot he found Rangers Commandant Colonel Iftikhar present there and Dr Ahmed had been beaten up “quite badly”.KU Vice-Chancellor Dr Pirzada Qasim also reached the place of incident and later called the Rangers’ commandant to his office.
The VC reportedly told the commandant to take immediate action against those involved and said that the university administration would not tolerate misconduct with teachers.Colonel Iftikhar told Dawn that he could not comment on the issue as he was conducting an inquiry. However, the campus security adviser said that four Rangers personnel involved in the incident had been suspended. They had been put in the ‘campus jail’, he added.
Meanwhile, university teachers announced a boycott of classes on Tuesday in protest against the incident. “Karachi University Teachers Society has called an emergency meeting on Tuesday in which the future line of action will be decided,” said a KUTS spokesman.
