http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\05\14\story_14-5-2008_pg3_5
Making a nuisance of oneself has always been a handy negotiating tool in the hands of the weak, in their dealings with the strong. But the first rule for successful negotiators is not to become emotional. That is a sure-fire losing strategy
No doubt about it: it pays to make a right nuisance of your self.
In the neo-Darwinian analysis, such instinctive behaviour, in certain species, has become ingrained over evolutionary time, through proven worth as a successful high-survival value strategy. Think of the otherwise helpless baby, crying its head off till the mother mollifies it with the milk bottle; or a pack of hyenas harrying a feeding lioness till she abandons her hard-won kill in disgust. Or think of a nameless Pakistani politician or two.
I was led to these thoughts by some recent announcements concerning aid to Pakistan by the American and British governments. Apparently, the aid packages are to be substantially increased; and, in the new thinking, most of the money is to be directed at the social sector (health, education, etc), rather than on useless military hardware. Good! Wonderful! Lucky us!
The question arises: How have we managed to get countries thousands of miles away to commit to doing something so obviously in our vital national interest, when we ourselves have steadfastly refused to do what we should have done, for as long as I can remember? Do you think there is any relation between the answer to this question, and the sentence I started the column with?
As a principle, getting others to do for you those important things you are normally expected to do for yourself, appeals to me immensely. Provided you can pull it off, what could be better? Is my own life not eloquent testimony for the merits of this approach? And let us not dismiss the main chance by being swayed by some squeamish appeals to dubious morality that would label such an attitude as ‘parasitic’. In Nature, as countless examples testify, a parasitic existence can be a very successful way of making a living.
“Ah! But is it honourable?” the same old boring crowd will say. I will come to that relatively unimportant matter later.
What is all this leading up to? Well, how often have you heard the moan that, badkismati say, our problem is lack of wise leadership?
Think again. Is the instinctive recognition of the true value of making a thorough nuisance of oneself not proof of innate political skill, wisdom, and farsightedness? Why does the world rush to give aid to North Korea and us, while ignoring Zimbabwe, Sudan and Somalia?
And that, naturally, brings me to the Bomb. Sure, I know the ostensible theory behind its development: defensive, to deter Indian adventurism, we are told. But is not the true worth of the Bomb exactly the opposite? Has it not actually, allowed us extra safety to indulge in our own adventurism, in the pursuit of the policy of being a thorn in the side of Indian flesh? Besides, don’t underestimate the nuisance value of an ‘Islamic Bomb’. So let us not sell short our finely honed political instincts.
The previous Government was often accused by foreign powers of ‘not doing enough’ in the ‘war on terror’. On occasions, the charge was extended to that of possibly playing a subtle double game. This latter charge was given some credence because of a theory by some of our great minds that argued as follows: sooner or later, the Americans will get fed up and leave Afghanistan. To plan for that eventuality, should we not then be supporting — or at least not decimating — the Taliban (who, as Pashtuns, were, and are our natural allies), rather than Karzai and the Northern Alliance (who are pro-India)?
Now I have no idea what the truth of this matter may be. But I will say, if true, the policy was brilliantly conceived (though not for the reasons given above). I say forget all that geo-strategic nonsense. Focus instead on creating and maintaining a situation that will keep the international powers bogged down here for decades. Just think of the beneficial consequences of the hundreds of billions of dollars we can hope to see come rolling in if we can pull off that geo-politically brilliant feat!
So what if we continue to suffer some suicide bombings as a result. After all, a thousand times more of our countrymen die unnecessarily every year from easily preventable diseases. And, while I am at it (being cold-bloodedly callous, that is), let me not forget to throw in, in this context, that other all-time favourite of the pontificating politician, “...when 90 percent of our population does not have clean drinking water.”
Meanwhile, let us note that even in Nature there are limits to even the most successful of strategies. For living organisms have a certain degree of freedom that precludes a 100 percent rate of predictive success for any strategy: the mother may, on occasion, ignore the crying infant, even slap it; and, sometimes, the lioness fights back in rage if the hyena pack is small in number. And we can choose to ignore that annoying fly or buzzing mosquito, or go after it with a vengeance. Or, call the pesky politicians’ ‘asooli’ bluff.
The parasite, therefore, must have a keen appreciation of how far it can go. A suitable quid pro quo is even better: the cleaner fish that swims fearlessly into the mouth of the shark, to eat food particles stuck in the latter’s teeth, is not eaten up but welcomed because it provides a valuable cleaning service to the shark. So, it is OK to be a parasite, provided you know your place and have a keen sense for limiting factors.
I ask those who speak of ‘honour’ and yearn for a defiant assertion of our sovereignty in our dealings with outside world to clarify, for the sake of the public, a simple matter. As it is, our economy seems to be in trouble. And this, despite billions in aid from the international community, the continuous hand-outs from our Arab friends, billions more in soft loans from international lending agencies, and still more billions in remittances from overseas Pakistanis. Where will we be if these foreign taps are turned off, as they so obviously and easily can?
Yes, making a nuisance of oneself has always been a handy negotiating tool in the hands of the weak, in their dealings with the strong. But the first rule for successful negotiators is not to become emotional. That is a sure-fire losing strategy. Those of our leaders — whether they be political personages, influential media personalities or heads of the lawyers’ movement — who constantly make emotional appeals, and give ultimatums, on the basis of ‘principle’, ‘honour’, and the like, do us no favours in helping us with our struggle at arriving at sensible and practical decisions.
I leave you with a parting thought: was I being serious in writing all the above? I am not saying.
The writer is a businessman
Collection of Articles From Different Newspapers and Websites..
VIEW: Return to pragmatism —Chaudhry Fawad Hussain
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\05\14\story_14-5-2008_pg3_3
VIEW: Return to pragmatism —Chaudhry Fawad Hussain
The only feasible solution to the current political quandary rests in a comprehensive constitutional package aimed at bringing stability to the system
The failure of the political process in the last six decades has led Pakistan to a stage where people at large are confused about their “national interest”. Popular, regional or ethnic interests often seem to supersede the “national interest”. Popular interest is based on emotions and can stand apart from the real national interest.
For example, popular interest demands that Pakistan should at least stand neutral if not against the war against terrorism led by the United States. But it can be argued that the national interest dictates otherwise — we must fight the war against terrorism vigorously if our society is not to be allowed to become hostage to the menace of extremism.
Likewise, the national interest demands that the government concentrate on governance issues of rising poverty, lack of energy, grain shortage(s), and inflation that need immediate attention of the government. But the popular interest is gripped by the judges issue.
I would be delighted if the reinstatement of the 2000 PCO judges is able to resolve this issue once and for all so that the government and its coalition partners can get down to the real business of governance. However, I have little hope that this will happen. The restoration of the 2000 PCO judiciary may bring a new phase of political instability in Pakistan.
The 2000 PCO judges, after all, are human beings with likes and dislikes, pride and prejudice. All of them believe passionately that they have been mistreated and wronged by President Pervez Musharraf. So it is natural to expect that once restored they will want to get down to the business of getting rid of President Musharraf as soon as possible. We may expect them to reopen and hold against past judicial transactions, in particular the case of then General Musharraf’s candidature for the presidential elections. Therefore, we will get into another power crisis and bout of confrontation and instability.
This is why Mr Asif Zardari is looking beyond the curtain and seeking a comprehensive political solution to the problem. This is the trait of a leader who looks beyond the horizon and wants to make decisions in the larger national interest which popular passions preclude.
It is not possible to restore the judges without a political compromise involving the core stakeholders in the system. Theoretically, the powers and functions of the three organs of government, i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary, are well defined. But the fact of the matter is that all three have transgressed into an area that belongs to the other.
What we have seen in the past is that the transgressions of the judiciary in the realm of the executive are much more visible in democratic regimes than what we have seen in times of military rule. The leadership of the PMLN is bent upon getting a short-term benefit that ultimately will turn out to be negative for all stakeholders.
The intentions of the PMLN leadership are clear: they want Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry and his colleagues restored so that they can push Musharraf out of the presidency on the grounds of his ineligibility as a presidential candidate.
But the approach of the PMLN leadership is flawed on this score.
Firstly, they don’t realise that Musharraf cannot be heaved out without a tornado in the political field that compels the army to effect a coup. The intensity of that tornado could well also wipe out the interests of existing political players, including the PMLN leadership.
Secondly, if the judiciary succeeds in ousting the president it will give it enormous political power; and that too is something that no political player should ever desire. In the past, Nawaz Sharif was himself a victim of judicial overkill during the tenure of Mr Sajjad Ali Shah. So he should not want to put Pakistan in the same situation once again. No political prime minister or political party would like its executive powers to be constantly exercised by a politicised judiciary. No government can ever function in the presence of a political superior court that is bent on interfering in every situation related to executive authority.
One hopes that the PMLN will review its strategy and instead of short-term measures consider a long-term solution to existing issues. The only feasible solution to the current political quandary rests in a comprehensive constitutional package aimed at bringing stability to the system.
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and columnist and can be reached at fawadch@hotmail.com
VIEW: Return to pragmatism —Chaudhry Fawad Hussain
The only feasible solution to the current political quandary rests in a comprehensive constitutional package aimed at bringing stability to the system
The failure of the political process in the last six decades has led Pakistan to a stage where people at large are confused about their “national interest”. Popular, regional or ethnic interests often seem to supersede the “national interest”. Popular interest is based on emotions and can stand apart from the real national interest.
For example, popular interest demands that Pakistan should at least stand neutral if not against the war against terrorism led by the United States. But it can be argued that the national interest dictates otherwise — we must fight the war against terrorism vigorously if our society is not to be allowed to become hostage to the menace of extremism.
Likewise, the national interest demands that the government concentrate on governance issues of rising poverty, lack of energy, grain shortage(s), and inflation that need immediate attention of the government. But the popular interest is gripped by the judges issue.
I would be delighted if the reinstatement of the 2000 PCO judges is able to resolve this issue once and for all so that the government and its coalition partners can get down to the real business of governance. However, I have little hope that this will happen. The restoration of the 2000 PCO judiciary may bring a new phase of political instability in Pakistan.
The 2000 PCO judges, after all, are human beings with likes and dislikes, pride and prejudice. All of them believe passionately that they have been mistreated and wronged by President Pervez Musharraf. So it is natural to expect that once restored they will want to get down to the business of getting rid of President Musharraf as soon as possible. We may expect them to reopen and hold against past judicial transactions, in particular the case of then General Musharraf’s candidature for the presidential elections. Therefore, we will get into another power crisis and bout of confrontation and instability.
This is why Mr Asif Zardari is looking beyond the curtain and seeking a comprehensive political solution to the problem. This is the trait of a leader who looks beyond the horizon and wants to make decisions in the larger national interest which popular passions preclude.
It is not possible to restore the judges without a political compromise involving the core stakeholders in the system. Theoretically, the powers and functions of the three organs of government, i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary, are well defined. But the fact of the matter is that all three have transgressed into an area that belongs to the other.
What we have seen in the past is that the transgressions of the judiciary in the realm of the executive are much more visible in democratic regimes than what we have seen in times of military rule. The leadership of the PMLN is bent upon getting a short-term benefit that ultimately will turn out to be negative for all stakeholders.
The intentions of the PMLN leadership are clear: they want Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry and his colleagues restored so that they can push Musharraf out of the presidency on the grounds of his ineligibility as a presidential candidate.
But the approach of the PMLN leadership is flawed on this score.
Firstly, they don’t realise that Musharraf cannot be heaved out without a tornado in the political field that compels the army to effect a coup. The intensity of that tornado could well also wipe out the interests of existing political players, including the PMLN leadership.
Secondly, if the judiciary succeeds in ousting the president it will give it enormous political power; and that too is something that no political player should ever desire. In the past, Nawaz Sharif was himself a victim of judicial overkill during the tenure of Mr Sajjad Ali Shah. So he should not want to put Pakistan in the same situation once again. No political prime minister or political party would like its executive powers to be constantly exercised by a politicised judiciary. No government can ever function in the presence of a political superior court that is bent on interfering in every situation related to executive authority.
One hopes that the PMLN will review its strategy and instead of short-term measures consider a long-term solution to existing issues. The only feasible solution to the current political quandary rests in a comprehensive constitutional package aimed at bringing stability to the system.
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and columnist and can be reached at fawadch@hotmail.com
Politics of delusion By Arif Nizami
http://www.thenews.com.pk/18-09-2010/opinion/5188.htm
Like the other military dictators who ruled before him, General (r) Pervez Musharraf is under the delusion that he was a benevolent leader who had ushered in an era of “true democracy” in Pakistan. He is soon to launch his own political party in London, to be called “All-Pakistan Muslim League.”
Every military strongman has used the name of Muslim League to launch his political career. Ayub Khan formed the Convention Muslim League, Ziaul Haq conceived a Muslim League from the womb of a party-less system first headed by his handpicked prime minister, Mohammad Khan Junejo. Later, when Zia sacked Junejo, Mian Nawaz Sharif wrested the control of the party.
Similarly, Musharraf launched the PML-Q, headed by the Chaudhrys of Gujrat and composed primarily of turncoats picked from the persecuted PML-N. In order to assure Musharraf of their loyalty, Chaudhry Pervez Ilahi famously boasted that his party would elect the dictator not once but ten times, only to abandon Musharraf when the chips were down.
Now things have come full circle, with Musharraf launching his very own Muslim League. In his own words, he wants to introduce a new political culture in Pakistan, “a culture which can take Pakistan forward on a correct democratic path, not an artificial, make-believe democratic path.”
Coming from a person who, with sheer brute force, kept his opponents in permanent exile and used every trick in the book to establish his own political base, this is pure chicanery. Those who are ostensibly flirting with Musharraf to join the new political party hardly represent a new political culture. Most of them are those who served the dictator during the nine years of his rule and in the process enjoyed the perks and privileges of power.
They include, according to one of his close aides: Hamid Nasir Chattha, Nisar Mohammad Khan, Maqbool Sheikh and Amir Muquam. Mian Kuhrsheed Mehmood Kasuri is a regular visitor to London and Dubai to meet Musharraf. He also contributed Rs5 million for the telethon Musharraf held for flood victims. Despite his denials he is tipped to join Musharraf.
Mr Kasuri’s dilemma, however, is that he is the moving spirit behind the so- called Grand Alliance. Composed mainly of the Likeminded, a breakaway group from the PML-Q, the majority of its members, including Hamayun Akthar Khan, and Ijazul Haq, are opposed to having any truck with Musharraf or his party. There is also a pervasive feeling amongst the members of the nascent alliance that neither Mr Kasuri nor Mr Chattha has the right to negotiate their inclusion in Musharraf’s proposed party.
Suffering from the messiah syndrome afflicting most military strongmen, Musharraf actually believes that he did wonders for the people of Pakistan. In an interview with Reuters news agency he said, “I did very well for Pakistan, I know that. We did wonders for them (the people of Pakistan) in those seven years, which should be compared with the fifty years of the past.”
The former military dictator does not feel any compunction that he ousted a constitutional government through a coup d’etat and later on imposed emergency rule. As such he can be tried under Article 6 of the Constitution for treason. He feels that, legally he is “absolutely on a safe wicket.” Perhaps he believes that the army would never allow his trial to take place. Prime Minister Gilani has hinted that the Supreme Court will try Musharraf if he returns. Whether the government or the courts can walk the talk is another matter.
As he shuttles between his Dubai mansion and his London flat, with a coterie of friends and hangers-on surrounding him, a reality check has eluded Musharraf even during his time in exile. Perhaps he is not fully aware that despite enormous problems (some of them his legacy) Pakistan, unlike his “true democracy,” is now a functioning constitutional democracy. There are many who are disillusioned. But, apart from a minuscule minority, no one wants him back.
The litmus test of Musharraf’s popularity is that when Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif were in forced exile their followers would travel all the way to Jeddah or London to meet them on their own expense. Musharraf’s minions, on the other hand, offer free return tickets and free stays for persons to meet him. Despite this, there are few takers.
Another question being frequently asked is: who is financing the general and his political machine? We hear a lot about politicians enriching themselves, but little about generals who, without any legitimate business, amass fortunes and expensive properties here and abroad. Surely, merely speaking engagements are not financing Musharraf’s globetrotting lifestyle.
The general should be commended for contributing Rs10 million for flood relief and holding a telethon on a Pakistani news channel that reportedly raised Rs250 million. Mian Amir Mehmood, the former mayor of Lahore, owns the channel.
The former strongman should thank his stars that his erstwhile friend was able to hold a three-hour telethon featuring him without any restrictions. When he was in power, despite his hollow claims of being a true democrat, Musharraf never afforded this kind of luxury to his opponents. When Nawaz Sharif, his brother Shahbaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari made attempts to return to the country, not only were they humiliatingly thrown out or arrested by the state machinery, sections of the media which attempted to advertise their return were heavily penalised.
It is still etched in public memory how Musharraf banned Geo television and imposed emergency rule in the wake of the lawyers’ and civil society movement for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. Apart from the sacking of the chief justice, the cold-blooded murder of Akbar Bugti, the massacre in Karachi on May 12, 2007, and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, he has a lot to answer for. He should be grateful that there is democracy in Pakistan (not his version of true democracy) and he can expect to get a fair trial if ever he returns to the country.
With the imminent launching of the All-Pakistan Muslim League from London, there will be at least six factions of the party with the same name in the political arena. Most of the persons Musharraf is going to attract to his new political setup belong to the PML-Q or the Likeminded. The PML (Functional) headed by the Pir Pagaro has already said no to him, and none from the PML-N is likely to join the ranks of his followers.
Musharraf’s proposed setup is no threat to the PPP. Even if the All-Pakistan Muslim League is able to field candidates in the next general elections it will eat into the Muslim League vote bank. Hence, the Muslim League’s N and Q groups could possibly have cause for concern.
Reportedly, the former strongman, in a somewhat quixotic manner, is hoping for at least a crowd of 100,000 to welcome him on his return. Notwithstanding his delusional sense of grandeur, this would remain a forlorn hope. Musharraf has boasted that he has 295,000 followers on his Facebook page aged between 18 and 34. He thinks that the youth are yearning for his return.
The bottom line is that neither the military nor civilians, or for that matter the people of Pakistan, want him back. The country could do without another saviour. However, if he is keen to return and face the music, he should be allowed to do so. He will soon realise that doing politics without the uniform and without the heavy security of the presidential palace is an entirely different ball game.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Like the other military dictators who ruled before him, General (r) Pervez Musharraf is under the delusion that he was a benevolent leader who had ushered in an era of “true democracy” in Pakistan. He is soon to launch his own political party in London, to be called “All-Pakistan Muslim League.”
Every military strongman has used the name of Muslim League to launch his political career. Ayub Khan formed the Convention Muslim League, Ziaul Haq conceived a Muslim League from the womb of a party-less system first headed by his handpicked prime minister, Mohammad Khan Junejo. Later, when Zia sacked Junejo, Mian Nawaz Sharif wrested the control of the party.
Similarly, Musharraf launched the PML-Q, headed by the Chaudhrys of Gujrat and composed primarily of turncoats picked from the persecuted PML-N. In order to assure Musharraf of their loyalty, Chaudhry Pervez Ilahi famously boasted that his party would elect the dictator not once but ten times, only to abandon Musharraf when the chips were down.
Now things have come full circle, with Musharraf launching his very own Muslim League. In his own words, he wants to introduce a new political culture in Pakistan, “a culture which can take Pakistan forward on a correct democratic path, not an artificial, make-believe democratic path.”
Coming from a person who, with sheer brute force, kept his opponents in permanent exile and used every trick in the book to establish his own political base, this is pure chicanery. Those who are ostensibly flirting with Musharraf to join the new political party hardly represent a new political culture. Most of them are those who served the dictator during the nine years of his rule and in the process enjoyed the perks and privileges of power.
They include, according to one of his close aides: Hamid Nasir Chattha, Nisar Mohammad Khan, Maqbool Sheikh and Amir Muquam. Mian Kuhrsheed Mehmood Kasuri is a regular visitor to London and Dubai to meet Musharraf. He also contributed Rs5 million for the telethon Musharraf held for flood victims. Despite his denials he is tipped to join Musharraf.
Mr Kasuri’s dilemma, however, is that he is the moving spirit behind the so- called Grand Alliance. Composed mainly of the Likeminded, a breakaway group from the PML-Q, the majority of its members, including Hamayun Akthar Khan, and Ijazul Haq, are opposed to having any truck with Musharraf or his party. There is also a pervasive feeling amongst the members of the nascent alliance that neither Mr Kasuri nor Mr Chattha has the right to negotiate their inclusion in Musharraf’s proposed party.
Suffering from the messiah syndrome afflicting most military strongmen, Musharraf actually believes that he did wonders for the people of Pakistan. In an interview with Reuters news agency he said, “I did very well for Pakistan, I know that. We did wonders for them (the people of Pakistan) in those seven years, which should be compared with the fifty years of the past.”
The former military dictator does not feel any compunction that he ousted a constitutional government through a coup d’etat and later on imposed emergency rule. As such he can be tried under Article 6 of the Constitution for treason. He feels that, legally he is “absolutely on a safe wicket.” Perhaps he believes that the army would never allow his trial to take place. Prime Minister Gilani has hinted that the Supreme Court will try Musharraf if he returns. Whether the government or the courts can walk the talk is another matter.
As he shuttles between his Dubai mansion and his London flat, with a coterie of friends and hangers-on surrounding him, a reality check has eluded Musharraf even during his time in exile. Perhaps he is not fully aware that despite enormous problems (some of them his legacy) Pakistan, unlike his “true democracy,” is now a functioning constitutional democracy. There are many who are disillusioned. But, apart from a minuscule minority, no one wants him back.
The litmus test of Musharraf’s popularity is that when Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif were in forced exile their followers would travel all the way to Jeddah or London to meet them on their own expense. Musharraf’s minions, on the other hand, offer free return tickets and free stays for persons to meet him. Despite this, there are few takers.
Another question being frequently asked is: who is financing the general and his political machine? We hear a lot about politicians enriching themselves, but little about generals who, without any legitimate business, amass fortunes and expensive properties here and abroad. Surely, merely speaking engagements are not financing Musharraf’s globetrotting lifestyle.
The general should be commended for contributing Rs10 million for flood relief and holding a telethon on a Pakistani news channel that reportedly raised Rs250 million. Mian Amir Mehmood, the former mayor of Lahore, owns the channel.
The former strongman should thank his stars that his erstwhile friend was able to hold a three-hour telethon featuring him without any restrictions. When he was in power, despite his hollow claims of being a true democrat, Musharraf never afforded this kind of luxury to his opponents. When Nawaz Sharif, his brother Shahbaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari made attempts to return to the country, not only were they humiliatingly thrown out or arrested by the state machinery, sections of the media which attempted to advertise their return were heavily penalised.
It is still etched in public memory how Musharraf banned Geo television and imposed emergency rule in the wake of the lawyers’ and civil society movement for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. Apart from the sacking of the chief justice, the cold-blooded murder of Akbar Bugti, the massacre in Karachi on May 12, 2007, and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, he has a lot to answer for. He should be grateful that there is democracy in Pakistan (not his version of true democracy) and he can expect to get a fair trial if ever he returns to the country.
With the imminent launching of the All-Pakistan Muslim League from London, there will be at least six factions of the party with the same name in the political arena. Most of the persons Musharraf is going to attract to his new political setup belong to the PML-Q or the Likeminded. The PML (Functional) headed by the Pir Pagaro has already said no to him, and none from the PML-N is likely to join the ranks of his followers.
Musharraf’s proposed setup is no threat to the PPP. Even if the All-Pakistan Muslim League is able to field candidates in the next general elections it will eat into the Muslim League vote bank. Hence, the Muslim League’s N and Q groups could possibly have cause for concern.
Reportedly, the former strongman, in a somewhat quixotic manner, is hoping for at least a crowd of 100,000 to welcome him on his return. Notwithstanding his delusional sense of grandeur, this would remain a forlorn hope. Musharraf has boasted that he has 295,000 followers on his Facebook page aged between 18 and 34. He thinks that the youth are yearning for his return.
The bottom line is that neither the military nor civilians, or for that matter the people of Pakistan, want him back. The country could do without another saviour. However, if he is keen to return and face the music, he should be allowed to do so. He will soon realise that doing politics without the uniform and without the heavy security of the presidential palace is an entirely different ball game.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Whither mental health law? By Zubeida Mustafa Wednesday, 14 Oct, 2009
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-whither-mental-health-law-am-05
October 10 was World Mental Health Day and the occasion provided health professionals with an opportunity to draw attention to this very crucial area of human well-being. This is a subject many do not want to talk about, so strong is the stigma attached to it.
Yet it has relevance for the lives of a large number of people. Research shows that nearly 10 per cent of the population suffers from mental illness at one stage or another in life. Given the insecurity and conflict that grip Pakistan today, it is likely that the ‘burden of mental disorders’, to use the World Health Organisation’s terminology, is greater in the country than is believed to be.
This year the theme selected by the World Federation for Mental Health was the integration of mental health into primary care. Among the reasons listed for advocating this strategy was its cost-effectiveness, the close link between mental and physical health and, above all, the human rights dimension of mental illness.
It is the last aspect that makes state intervention so essential in the matter. The issue is not simply one of healthcare being a basic right of the citizens. It is the need to strike a delicate balance. On the one hand are the rights of a person who suffers from a mental disorder and is not well enough to take care of himself. On the other are the rights of a community which may become vulnerable to violence or violation of its dignity by the presence in its midst of a person suffering from a mental disorder.
Since policymakers and people generally had no understanding of the significance of this aspect of mental illness, Pakistan remained saddled with an obsolete law, the Lunacy Act of 1912, for 54 years after independence.
As its nomenclature indicates, this law betrayed a total lack of understanding of mental illness. Patients were not perceived as having any rights. If they were prone to violence, they were treated as criminals and locked up in prisons in what were derogatively termed ‘charya wards’. An attempt to commit suicide was considered a crime and could land an ill person in jail.
Mercifully we have compassionate health professionals still in our society who have a profound understanding of the implications of not having a modern law on mental health and have devoted their life to having one adopted. It was the persistence and commitment of psychiatrists such as Dr Haroon Ahmed, the president of the Pakistan Association for Mental Health (PAMH) who has spearheaded the awareness-raising campaign that ultimately prompted the government to promulgate the Mental Health Ordinance (MHO) in February 2001.
The ordinance received a great deal of input from mental health professionals as well as legal minds, such as the late Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, who so willingly took up public health causes and as a lawyer helped draft the mental health law. It is therefore a pity that eight years after its promulgation the MHO remains a dead letter. The fact is that to be implemented the ordinance needs further action that has not really been forthcoming wholeheartedly.
Dr Rubeena Kidwai, a clinical psychologist and secretary of the MHO task force of the PAMH, has a point when she observes that no law can be implemented without a mechanism. She identifies four institutions provided for by the MHO that are essential to make the law effective.
They are the Federal Mental Health Authority (FMHA), provincial boards of visitors, courts of protection and judicial magistrates. The FMHA is to serve as an advisory body and also to frame rules to enable its various functions to be performed. The first FMHA to be appointed did virtually nothing in its four-year tenure that ended in 2005.
Persistent reminders, recourse to the Sindh High Court by the PAMH and an order by the court that the government take measures to implement the ordinance within three months pushed the authorities into action. A new FMHA has been constituted, a letter from the health ministry in July informed the PAMH. But until now the members of this body have not been notified.
The fate of the other bodies has been no different. Sindh and Balochistan appointed their boards of visitors in October 2007 to inspect psychiatric facilities and make recommendations.
Given the low budgetary allocations for mental health and with no regulatory body to report to, the board in Sindh could perform minimally. Its tenure of two years expires later this month. What next? The courts and magistrates have not been assigned to handle the legal aspects and so they can be expected to keep matters on hold — indefinitely.
Considering this tardy performance of the government can any change really be expected in the mental healthcare scene in Pakistan? Soon after the MHO was promulgated the PAMH was energised and proceeded to hold workshops and gather all stakeholders on one platform to generate the momentum to get the MHO implemented. That momentum now seems to be dying down. Apart from the seminar held every year on World Mental Health Day, there is no public reminder that the MHO lies dormant. The letters PAMH keeps sending to the federal health ministry apparently stir no one.
A visible constraint, apart from the government’s apathy and lack of commitment, is the lack of coordinated efforts by the stakeholders. The psychiatric community in Pakistan is a small one and said to number barely 400. But it is grouped into a number of professional bodies and does not always work in unison. Were its members to get together and exert pressure collectively the government would be forced to respond.
Another restraining factor is the stigma attached to mental illness. There are few people who are willing to stand up for the mentally ill. As such there appear to be few stakeholders. With mental health shrouded in privacy who will champion its cause?
US holds up a mirror to bigotry By Mahir Ali Wednesday, 15 Sep, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/mahir-ali-us-holds-up-a-mirror-to-bigotry-590
It is almost certainly no coincidence that the recent surge in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States has occurred during the presidency of Barack Obama.
Which is not to suggest that he is in any way to blame for the heightened level of bigotry, but merely to acknowledge that it is intimately related to the backlash against his electoral success.
Many years ago, during the Nixon presidency or shortly thereafter, I was amazed, and perhaps even a little alarmed, to read in Newsweek (or it may have been Time) the results of a survey which found that 25 per cent of Americans could not correctly identify their president. Today that same tendency towards ignorance is reflected in the finding that one-fifth of Americans (and, proportionately, more than twice as many Republicans) reckon Obama is a Muslim. For those inclined to swallowing this fantasy, it takes but a short hop of the imagination to believe that he must perforce empathise with Islamist terrorists. After all, it goes with the territory: any Muslim who claims he’s not particularly enthusiastic about mass murder as a means of establishing the global supremacy of Islam is nothing but a liar.
Once you accept that, is there much room for doubt that a Muslim cultural centre in the vicinity of where the World Trade Centre’s twin towers once stood would be not just a symbol of Islamist triumphalism but also a terrorist centre? But a cultural centre doesn’t sound sufficiently intimidating, so let’s call it a mosque. And proximity isn’t insulting enough, so let’s say it’s actually at ground zero.
What you then get is an extravagant monument to Islam at the very spot where Islam — that’s right, Al Qaeda’s just another name for that faith (and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to discover that some Americans view Al Gore in a similar light) — attacked America. One more short hop and you’re at least in the periphery of the mind space where burning 200 copies of the Quran seems like a particularly good idea.
To their credit, a great many Americans strongly disapproved of Terry Jones’ initiative. They ranged from political leaders (not just Obama and Hillary Clinton but even Sarah Palin) to representatives of a broad spectrum of Christian and Jewish congregations and organisations. Jones, the pastor of the minuscule (and egregiously misnamed) Dove Outreach Centre in Florida, after dithering a bit and toying with the idea of holding the Quran to ransom in an attempt to get the New York cultural centre relocated, eventually caved in.
“We feel that God is telling us to stop,” he announced on NBC television. It may just have been a call from Robert Gates that did the trick, in the wake of Gen David Petraeus’s warning that such a provocation would further endanger American lives in Afghanistan.
Of course, a great deal of damage had already been done, well before the isolated instances of Quran-burning on the ninth anniversary of Sept 11. And it is hardly surprising that the Taliban-ish elements in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere who latched on to the proposed incineration tended to project it as a considered insult against Islam by all Americans, or even all Christians. That’s a load of offensive nonsense, of course. But it reflects a mindset not all that far removed from those who hold all Muslims accountable for 9/11.
If the likes of Terry Jones, Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich were perceptive enough, when admiring themselves in front of the mirror each morning they’d probably catch a glimpse of Osama bin Laden staring back at them. And one can only wonder, when the likes of Gingrich argue that a “mosque at ground zero” would be anathematical so long as Saudi Arabia disallows churches and synagogues, whether they are aware of the irony of comparing a democracy unambiguously founded on the principle of a separation of church and state with a theocratic monarchy.
Furthermore, why do they not take issue when their government — and that goes for more or less all administrations in living memory — sells weapons worth tens of billions of dollars to the regime in Riyadh?
This kind of hypocrisy is disconcerting but not particularly surprising. And there is, no doubt, plenty of hypocrisy in the Muslim world too, often of the monumental variety. Not to mention bigotry. The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is perfectly correct in comparing the anti-Islamic bias of Americans who have rarely encountered a Muslim with the anti-Semitism of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have never met a Jew.
The difference, of course, lies in the fact that America is supposed to be both an enlightened society and a melting pot of cultures — and, furthermore, a nation that hosts many of the world’s most prestigious seats of higher learning. It also boasts an underbelly — an underbelly seething with discontent in the face of the vagaries of capitalism. The malcontents needed a target against which to vent their rage, so why not point them in the direction of Obama? And, by association, Muslims in general.
Even for someone who finds organised religion and religious institutions inessential or even distasteful, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s concept of a cultural centre — a “shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children” with “separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths” and “a multi-faith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept 11 attacks” — sounds fairly innocuous. And when the concept was first aired last December, even the deplorably extremist Fox News channel considered it unobjectionable. But then the Murdoch media empire apparently decided it was too good an angle to let ignore in terms of its ideological onslaught against the Obama administration.
During the 20th century, elements of American society — who weren’t always in a minority — have periodically vented their venom against a variety of ‘intruders’, ranging from Poles, Italians and Roman Catholics in general to Jews and communists. This in an immigration nation founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built on the blood and sweat of slaves from Africa (a fair proportion of whose descendants found solace in a version of the Muslim faith).
Today, all manner of Muslims, many of them US-born, find themselves beleaguered and uncertain about the future. What lies ahead arguably cannot be forecast with any greater degree of certainty than the consequences of global warming. But America has reconciled itself to many of the ethnicities and denominations whose existence was initially troubled. One can only hope, then, that it can be said of the present Islamophobia that this too shall pass.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
It is almost certainly no coincidence that the recent surge in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States has occurred during the presidency of Barack Obama.
Which is not to suggest that he is in any way to blame for the heightened level of bigotry, but merely to acknowledge that it is intimately related to the backlash against his electoral success.
Many years ago, during the Nixon presidency or shortly thereafter, I was amazed, and perhaps even a little alarmed, to read in Newsweek (or it may have been Time) the results of a survey which found that 25 per cent of Americans could not correctly identify their president. Today that same tendency towards ignorance is reflected in the finding that one-fifth of Americans (and, proportionately, more than twice as many Republicans) reckon Obama is a Muslim. For those inclined to swallowing this fantasy, it takes but a short hop of the imagination to believe that he must perforce empathise with Islamist terrorists. After all, it goes with the territory: any Muslim who claims he’s not particularly enthusiastic about mass murder as a means of establishing the global supremacy of Islam is nothing but a liar.
Once you accept that, is there much room for doubt that a Muslim cultural centre in the vicinity of where the World Trade Centre’s twin towers once stood would be not just a symbol of Islamist triumphalism but also a terrorist centre? But a cultural centre doesn’t sound sufficiently intimidating, so let’s call it a mosque. And proximity isn’t insulting enough, so let’s say it’s actually at ground zero.
What you then get is an extravagant monument to Islam at the very spot where Islam — that’s right, Al Qaeda’s just another name for that faith (and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to discover that some Americans view Al Gore in a similar light) — attacked America. One more short hop and you’re at least in the periphery of the mind space where burning 200 copies of the Quran seems like a particularly good idea.
To their credit, a great many Americans strongly disapproved of Terry Jones’ initiative. They ranged from political leaders (not just Obama and Hillary Clinton but even Sarah Palin) to representatives of a broad spectrum of Christian and Jewish congregations and organisations. Jones, the pastor of the minuscule (and egregiously misnamed) Dove Outreach Centre in Florida, after dithering a bit and toying with the idea of holding the Quran to ransom in an attempt to get the New York cultural centre relocated, eventually caved in.
“We feel that God is telling us to stop,” he announced on NBC television. It may just have been a call from Robert Gates that did the trick, in the wake of Gen David Petraeus’s warning that such a provocation would further endanger American lives in Afghanistan.
Of course, a great deal of damage had already been done, well before the isolated instances of Quran-burning on the ninth anniversary of Sept 11. And it is hardly surprising that the Taliban-ish elements in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere who latched on to the proposed incineration tended to project it as a considered insult against Islam by all Americans, or even all Christians. That’s a load of offensive nonsense, of course. But it reflects a mindset not all that far removed from those who hold all Muslims accountable for 9/11.
If the likes of Terry Jones, Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich were perceptive enough, when admiring themselves in front of the mirror each morning they’d probably catch a glimpse of Osama bin Laden staring back at them. And one can only wonder, when the likes of Gingrich argue that a “mosque at ground zero” would be anathematical so long as Saudi Arabia disallows churches and synagogues, whether they are aware of the irony of comparing a democracy unambiguously founded on the principle of a separation of church and state with a theocratic monarchy.
Furthermore, why do they not take issue when their government — and that goes for more or less all administrations in living memory — sells weapons worth tens of billions of dollars to the regime in Riyadh?
This kind of hypocrisy is disconcerting but not particularly surprising. And there is, no doubt, plenty of hypocrisy in the Muslim world too, often of the monumental variety. Not to mention bigotry. The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is perfectly correct in comparing the anti-Islamic bias of Americans who have rarely encountered a Muslim with the anti-Semitism of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who have never met a Jew.
The difference, of course, lies in the fact that America is supposed to be both an enlightened society and a melting pot of cultures — and, furthermore, a nation that hosts many of the world’s most prestigious seats of higher learning. It also boasts an underbelly — an underbelly seething with discontent in the face of the vagaries of capitalism. The malcontents needed a target against which to vent their rage, so why not point them in the direction of Obama? And, by association, Muslims in general.
Even for someone who finds organised religion and religious institutions inessential or even distasteful, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s concept of a cultural centre — a “shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children” with “separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths” and “a multi-faith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept 11 attacks” — sounds fairly innocuous. And when the concept was first aired last December, even the deplorably extremist Fox News channel considered it unobjectionable. But then the Murdoch media empire apparently decided it was too good an angle to let ignore in terms of its ideological onslaught against the Obama administration.
During the 20th century, elements of American society — who weren’t always in a minority — have periodically vented their venom against a variety of ‘intruders’, ranging from Poles, Italians and Roman Catholics in general to Jews and communists. This in an immigration nation founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built on the blood and sweat of slaves from Africa (a fair proportion of whose descendants found solace in a version of the Muslim faith).
Today, all manner of Muslims, many of them US-born, find themselves beleaguered and uncertain about the future. What lies ahead arguably cannot be forecast with any greater degree of certainty than the consequences of global warming. But America has reconciled itself to many of the ethnicities and denominations whose existence was initially troubled. One can only hope, then, that it can be said of the present Islamophobia that this too shall pass.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Tip for the cabbie By Jawed Naqvi Thursday, 16 Sep, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/jawed-naqvi-tip-for-the-cabbie-690
Lawyers can be heroes like Atticus in Harper Lee’s celebrated classic on racism in southern United States.
They can be villainous as were Indian advocates who defended an American company responsible for mass murder of thousands in Bhopal. Lawyers are also characters out of a Greek tragedy.
In British India, they had their highs and lows. They dreamt of India and Pakistan becoming independent nations. But their efforts resulted in unexpected blood and gore. Still they proclaimed their enterprises a laudable hybrid of a peaceful anti-colonial revolution.
Advocates of Pakistan promised a curious mélange of a secular state whose helmsmen were to be primarily liberal, enlightened Muslims. They seemed to be unaware that there were no liberal Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Christians on the horizon.
The fabulous dream waned early when a supposedly liberal prime minister of Pakistani stock was seen issuing religious edicts to woo Muslim clerics by disenfranchising a minority community.
Legal eagles of India pushed for a constitution whose idiom was lifted from societies that were struggling to overwrite their past as slave drivers, colonialists and overseers of genocide.
They can be villainous as were Indian advocates who defended an American company responsible for mass murder of thousands in Bhopal. Lawyers are also characters out of a Greek tragedy.
In British India, they had their highs and lows. They dreamt of India and Pakistan becoming independent nations. But their efforts resulted in unexpected blood and gore. Still they proclaimed their enterprises a laudable hybrid of a peaceful anti-colonial revolution.
Advocates of Pakistan promised a curious mélange of a secular state whose helmsmen were to be primarily liberal, enlightened Muslims. They seemed to be unaware that there were no liberal Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Christians on the horizon.
The fabulous dream waned early when a supposedly liberal prime minister of Pakistani stock was seen issuing religious edicts to woo Muslim clerics by disenfranchising a minority community.
Legal eagles of India pushed for a constitution whose idiom was lifted from societies that were struggling to overwrite their past as slave drivers, colonialists and overseers of genocide.
Congress leaders assumed their borrowed legal prescriptions would help erase India’s ancient and deep-rooted caste fault lines, which had spawned a more entrenched form of slavery and racism than the most virulent type of colonialism. India is still shackled by its ancient practices.
The role of lawyers in post-colonial dénouement of politics in India and Pakistan has been like Job’s comforters, whose solace heightened Job’s agony.
The role of lawyers in post-colonial dénouement of politics in India and Pakistan has been like Job’s comforters, whose solace heightened Job’s agony.
In Pakistan lawyers helped Bhutto and Zia. In India, they defended Indira Gandhi’s dictatorship while arguing against her in a commission that probed her excesses.
Bangladesh, we hear, has just passed a law making it an offence for army men to stage coups. Can we assume that until now it was legitimate for the military to plot overthrows?
Pakistan too keeps plugging loopholes in its constitution every now and then to deter ambitious army generals from what seems to be a permanent itch to ‘serve the nation’.
When India felt the heat from an imminent rebellion by its harassed people in 1975, it introduced a legal cover in the constitution by adding ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to its preamble.
Bangladesh, we hear, has just passed a law making it an offence for army men to stage coups. Can we assume that until now it was legitimate for the military to plot overthrows?
Pakistan too keeps plugging loopholes in its constitution every now and then to deter ambitious army generals from what seems to be a permanent itch to ‘serve the nation’.
When India felt the heat from an imminent rebellion by its harassed people in 1975, it introduced a legal cover in the constitution by adding ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to its preamble.
Just as it is not easy to overturn prohibition in an orthodox polity (Pakistan, India’s state of Gujarat), it is difficult to delete populist slogans from the statute books.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s free-market advocacy comes with the hypocritical caveat that all this will happen in a legally socialist republic. He can sell the country’s economy down the river, but he dare not change the preamble.
Similarly, Prime Minister Vajpayee fostered a communal ideology (honed into a more subtle art by the Congress) while serving a legally secular republic.
In Alice in Wonderland, the queen was effectively judge and jury when she needed to command her subjects to be decapitated. There was no room for legal hypocrisy.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s free-market advocacy comes with the hypocritical caveat that all this will happen in a legally socialist republic. He can sell the country’s economy down the river, but he dare not change the preamble.
Similarly, Prime Minister Vajpayee fostered a communal ideology (honed into a more subtle art by the Congress) while serving a legally secular republic.
In Alice in Wonderland, the queen was effectively judge and jury when she needed to command her subjects to be decapitated. There was no room for legal hypocrisy.
In modern democracy or for that matter in fascism legal requirements demand a sleight of hand. Hitler needed the Enabling Act of parliament to make him the fuehrer. Jews and gypsies were legally gassed. Americans legally practised racial segregation when they were questioning Hitler’s.
Home Minister Mr Chidambaram was one of India’s leading corporate lawyers. He has represented Enron as well as a slew of mining companies in his career as a lawyer.
Home Minister Mr Chidambaram was one of India’s leading corporate lawyers. He has represented Enron as well as a slew of mining companies in his career as a lawyer.
As home minister he now oversees the project of handling the civil unrest that has arisen as a result of the government’s land acquisition drive to turn over tribal land to these companies.
That is not where the problem of a conflict of interest of the man who wears three hats — lawyer, ideologue for big business and minister — ends.
The curious case of the Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad saw him in all his three avatars. After a legal battle, the Raja Sahib inherited vast properties from his father who had migrated from India to Pakistan a decade after the partition.
In 1996, the Raja approached Mr Chidambaram for help since he was the minister dealing with disputed property.
Elections were called within a month of that meeting. But in 2002, Mr Chidambaram the lawyer opposed the Raja Sahib. We may assume that he had with him the privileged information he was privy to as minister. Mr Chidambaram lost the case.
In June 2010, the Raja secured a loan to refurbish a fabulous hotel he had reclaimed from a businessman. Within days, Mr Chidambaram brought an ordinance (when parliament was going to meet in a few weeks!) to nullify the Supreme Court’s decision.
That is not where the problem of a conflict of interest of the man who wears three hats — lawyer, ideologue for big business and minister — ends.
The curious case of the Raja Sahib of Mahmoodabad saw him in all his three avatars. After a legal battle, the Raja Sahib inherited vast properties from his father who had migrated from India to Pakistan a decade after the partition.
In 1996, the Raja approached Mr Chidambaram for help since he was the minister dealing with disputed property.
Elections were called within a month of that meeting. But in 2002, Mr Chidambaram the lawyer opposed the Raja Sahib. We may assume that he had with him the privileged information he was privy to as minister. Mr Chidambaram lost the case.
In June 2010, the Raja secured a loan to refurbish a fabulous hotel he had reclaimed from a businessman. Within days, Mr Chidambaram brought an ordinance (when parliament was going to meet in a few weeks!) to nullify the Supreme Court’s decision.
An Indian columnist accused him of overlooking a clear conflict of interest. Mr Chidambaram, the home minister, said he had no memory of having appearing against the Raja of Mahmoodabad.
“Even if I had appeared in a case,” Mr Chidambaram told columnist Karan Thapar in a rejoinder, “it must have been a miscellaneous matter. Senior counsels are briefed in hundreds of matters and only a few are memorable cases. Asking a senior counsel if he had appeared in a case eight years ago is like asking a taxi driver whether his taxi had transported a person on one occasion eight years ago.” Supreme Court papers belie the lapse of memory.
I asked a cabbie, who has driven me for years, about his own memory for passengers. He told me it was not easy to forget anyone who tipped him well, or for that matter those that had grossly shortchanged him after a good ride. In the cabbie’s experience lies a useful tip for India’s home minister.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
“Even if I had appeared in a case,” Mr Chidambaram told columnist Karan Thapar in a rejoinder, “it must have been a miscellaneous matter. Senior counsels are briefed in hundreds of matters and only a few are memorable cases. Asking a senior counsel if he had appeared in a case eight years ago is like asking a taxi driver whether his taxi had transported a person on one occasion eight years ago.” Supreme Court papers belie the lapse of memory.
I asked a cabbie, who has driven me for years, about his own memory for passengers. He told me it was not easy to forget anyone who tipped him well, or for that matter those that had grossly shortchanged him after a good ride. In the cabbie’s experience lies a useful tip for India’s home minister.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Needed: the truth By Ardeshir Cowasjee Sunday, 05 Sep, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/ardeshir-cowasjee-needed-the-truth-590
It was William Randolph Hearst, American press baron, who came out with a valid truth: ‘A politician will do anything to keep his job — even become a patriot.’
We have no dearth of amateur patriots, they are a veritable swarm. One, sitting in far away London Town from where he leads a political party now in coalition, has issued a patriotic call to his fellow patriots in uniform urging them to come to the rescue of a sinking country and act to eradicate the many corrupt fellow patriots, to eliminate the feudal culture which has dragged this country down to where it is, rid it of powerful pressure groups and the so-called elite — in fact, of all those responsible for the appalling state of affairs in which Pakistan now finds itself.
Not an easy task — where does one start? The odd thing is that the general-rouser has inadvertently pleaded for his own and his party’s removal from the national scene.
The caller has offered to lead an uprising similar to that of the 1789 French Revolution, influenced no doubt by his close proximity to Paris. Naturally, this call to arms has drawn fire from all patriots of the professed ‘democratic’ bend, the generals maintaining a discreet silence.
It seems he was prompted to issue his call by the influx of flood-affected Sindhis into the urban fabric of the province, especially Karachi. With rising levels of education, the population increase rate among his community is levelling off, as is its vote-bank. In the last general elections, his party lost two provincial assembly seats of Karachi to a fellow coalition partner — since the Swat debacle of 2008, the number of Pathans in Karachi has been steadily increasing.
Nationalist Sindhi parties (and the PPP), who have witnessed the conflict with some unease, are now entering the fray. Flood-affected (and other) provincials are being encouraged and organised to take over properties (with guns, if necessary) and settle in urban areas to reclaim the cities and capital of Sindh. All of this augurs badly for an already overstressed and beleaguered Karachi.
The extensive damage over the past six weeks to standing crops, farm animals and human habitations in Punjab and Sindh (including a contiguous part of Balochistan) has been triggered by capricious and immoral decisions to breach bunds (dykes) in certain areas. As a result, the tolls in Pakistan surely far exceed the official numbers of 1,600 dead, 2,600 injured, 1.2 million houses and 11,000 schools damaged, and 18 million persons (about 10 per cent of the population) affected. The loss of over 3.6 million hectares of crops and millions of livestock threaten food security and the 20 per cent of the nation’s economy that relies on agriculture.
We have heard much about powerful political patriots and their ilk attempting to save their lands from inundation by breaching bunds on the opposite side. Tori/Ghouspur Bund on the eastern bank of the Indus above Sukkur was sacrificed in place of (allegedly the technically more appropriate) Ali Wahan Bund on the western bank (who else owns agricultural lands on that side besides federal Labour Minister Khursheed Shah?), and the river merrily haemorrhaged through the districts of Kashmore, Jacobabad, Shikarpur, Shahdadkot, Larkana, Dadu — and may still be doing so.
On Sept 1, the Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif set up a tribunal of inquiry to probe into the report that “certain main bunds and canal networks were breached by the I&P [irrigation and power] department as well as by certain local individuals to divert the heavy influx of recent floods allegedly to save the properties of influential persons which resulted in colossal loss to the properties of the inhabitants of the areas.”
Headed by a respected judge of the Lahore High Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the tribunal includes Mansoob Ali Zaidi, retired secretary of the irrigation & power department, and Abdul Sattar Shakir, dean of civil engineering at the University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore.
The body is charged with seeking out the truth while delving into the causes of the breaches in canal networks, bunds, roads and drains, ascertaining as to whether or not prescribed procedure was followed, establishing malfeasance (if any) on the part of government agencies or others, and fixing responsibility in cases of wrongdoing. When does Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah intend setting up a similar tribunal to examine the Sindh fiasco (as demanded by our ambassador to the UN)?
This is far from the end of the story. In the reconstruction phase, we must expect much more greed, selfishness, corruption and deceit. Armed mafias have already begun to take over land in areas where the water has receded, taking with it markings and boundaries of farms and survey numbers. The most severely affected will be the poor and powerless (who will then migrate to the cities, exacerbating the situations there.)
Rehabilitation of roads, railway tracks, bridges and water/sewerage/electricity facilities will generate opportunities for graft and sleaze. Profiteers, moneylenders and hoarders will come out of the woodwork to prey on those who have lost everything: prices have already begun to rise, and loans will be available at exorbitant interest.
We in ‘the land of the pure’ have convinced ourselves that the truth is a rare and precious commodity, and that we must be sparing in its use. For 63 years, we have been unable to determine the truth about the murders or assassinations of every prominent figure that has fallen to the gun or the bomb, about the loss of half our territory and about who is actually running this country. Unless we can place a premium on the telling of truth — and the enforcement of the rule of law — our future will become bleaker with every passing day.
arfc@cyber.net.pk
It was William Randolph Hearst, American press baron, who came out with a valid truth: ‘A politician will do anything to keep his job — even become a patriot.’
We have no dearth of amateur patriots, they are a veritable swarm. One, sitting in far away London Town from where he leads a political party now in coalition, has issued a patriotic call to his fellow patriots in uniform urging them to come to the rescue of a sinking country and act to eradicate the many corrupt fellow patriots, to eliminate the feudal culture which has dragged this country down to where it is, rid it of powerful pressure groups and the so-called elite — in fact, of all those responsible for the appalling state of affairs in which Pakistan now finds itself.
Not an easy task — where does one start? The odd thing is that the general-rouser has inadvertently pleaded for his own and his party’s removal from the national scene.
The caller has offered to lead an uprising similar to that of the 1789 French Revolution, influenced no doubt by his close proximity to Paris. Naturally, this call to arms has drawn fire from all patriots of the professed ‘democratic’ bend, the generals maintaining a discreet silence.
It seems he was prompted to issue his call by the influx of flood-affected Sindhis into the urban fabric of the province, especially Karachi. With rising levels of education, the population increase rate among his community is levelling off, as is its vote-bank. In the last general elections, his party lost two provincial assembly seats of Karachi to a fellow coalition partner — since the Swat debacle of 2008, the number of Pathans in Karachi has been steadily increasing.
Nationalist Sindhi parties (and the PPP), who have witnessed the conflict with some unease, are now entering the fray. Flood-affected (and other) provincials are being encouraged and organised to take over properties (with guns, if necessary) and settle in urban areas to reclaim the cities and capital of Sindh. All of this augurs badly for an already overstressed and beleaguered Karachi.
The extensive damage over the past six weeks to standing crops, farm animals and human habitations in Punjab and Sindh (including a contiguous part of Balochistan) has been triggered by capricious and immoral decisions to breach bunds (dykes) in certain areas. As a result, the tolls in Pakistan surely far exceed the official numbers of 1,600 dead, 2,600 injured, 1.2 million houses and 11,000 schools damaged, and 18 million persons (about 10 per cent of the population) affected. The loss of over 3.6 million hectares of crops and millions of livestock threaten food security and the 20 per cent of the nation’s economy that relies on agriculture.
We have heard much about powerful political patriots and their ilk attempting to save their lands from inundation by breaching bunds on the opposite side. Tori/Ghouspur Bund on the eastern bank of the Indus above Sukkur was sacrificed in place of (allegedly the technically more appropriate) Ali Wahan Bund on the western bank (who else owns agricultural lands on that side besides federal Labour Minister Khursheed Shah?), and the river merrily haemorrhaged through the districts of Kashmore, Jacobabad, Shikarpur, Shahdadkot, Larkana, Dadu — and may still be doing so.
On Sept 1, the Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif set up a tribunal of inquiry to probe into the report that “certain main bunds and canal networks were breached by the I&P [irrigation and power] department as well as by certain local individuals to divert the heavy influx of recent floods allegedly to save the properties of influential persons which resulted in colossal loss to the properties of the inhabitants of the areas.”
Headed by a respected judge of the Lahore High Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the tribunal includes Mansoob Ali Zaidi, retired secretary of the irrigation & power department, and Abdul Sattar Shakir, dean of civil engineering at the University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore.
The body is charged with seeking out the truth while delving into the causes of the breaches in canal networks, bunds, roads and drains, ascertaining as to whether or not prescribed procedure was followed, establishing malfeasance (if any) on the part of government agencies or others, and fixing responsibility in cases of wrongdoing. When does Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah intend setting up a similar tribunal to examine the Sindh fiasco (as demanded by our ambassador to the UN)?
This is far from the end of the story. In the reconstruction phase, we must expect much more greed, selfishness, corruption and deceit. Armed mafias have already begun to take over land in areas where the water has receded, taking with it markings and boundaries of farms and survey numbers. The most severely affected will be the poor and powerless (who will then migrate to the cities, exacerbating the situations there.)
Rehabilitation of roads, railway tracks, bridges and water/sewerage/electricity facilities will generate opportunities for graft and sleaze. Profiteers, moneylenders and hoarders will come out of the woodwork to prey on those who have lost everything: prices have already begun to rise, and loans will be available at exorbitant interest.
We in ‘the land of the pure’ have convinced ourselves that the truth is a rare and precious commodity, and that we must be sparing in its use. For 63 years, we have been unable to determine the truth about the murders or assassinations of every prominent figure that has fallen to the gun or the bomb, about the loss of half our territory and about who is actually running this country. Unless we can place a premium on the telling of truth — and the enforcement of the rule of law — our future will become bleaker with every passing day.
arfc@cyber.net.pk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)