Citizenship Rights for a Better Future

Dear Friends:

Abid Ullah Jan is a prolific writer and a regular contributor to the Frontier Post. He has written on numerous controversial issues. We need to develop a sympathetic critique of the problem of ``honor killing`` and its tribal (Pakhtoon) cultural context. Jan maintains:

``. . . it is extremely easy to protest murder of a women at Asma Jehangir`s office and vow to protect all the ``internationally recognized rights`` but it is equally hard to understand what do such rights entail in the perspective of our society.`` Rather than developing a critique of tribal culture, Jan has essentially linked the issue of honor-killing to Islam? Is Pakhtoon tribal culture a true reflection of any interpretation of Islam? Is honor-killing allowed in Islam? Should we simply reject Islam and accept the Eurocentric system of values? What do we need to do to balance the rights of individuals to that of family, community, or society?



Regards, Bilal Ahmad

P. S. Ms. Jehangir has recently been identified as one of the ten great Pakistanis by Khaled Ahmad (Friday Times, August 13).

Frontier Post; August 17, 1999

Women`s rights: Third dimension

Abid Ullah Jan

In yet another attempt to shine their business careers, the women`s rights activists condemned the way Senate dealt with the resolution against honour killing. It is splendid to see the human rights champions and women advocates fighting for the cause of the oppressed women, but a large number of them are causing ominous dislocations in the basic concepts of Islam and the accepted norms of an Islamic society. The reason is that their goal is not fair treatment of women, but redistribution of power from the ``dominant`` class (the male patriarchal system) to the ``subordinate`` class __ normally women, but actually only the radical feminists who know how to play by rules they have invented. The Senate happened to be just another scapegoat providing them an opportunity to make another demonstration and peddle the fiction that men are engaged in a vast conspiracy against women.

These radical feminists, together with the men who are interested in making a headway in their shadow, want to establish the rule that offences against women should be defined (not objectively, but subjectively) on the basis of how the woman felt instead of what the defendant actually did. Long before the new outburst of women`s rights` Pandora`s box, there were literally hundreds of laws clearly defined in Islam that gave protection to women based on society`s common sense recognition of facts of life and human nature.

The Senate cannot overrule what has been established since centuries.

In theory, the women`s rights activists appear to demand a doctrinaire equality, but in practice they are demanding affirmative action for women __ equal seats in educational institutes, equal job vacancies, equal seats in the representative bodies, etc. irrespective of any merit, or ability, or qualification. Their goals are the feminisation and subordination of men and their tactics are to cry ``victimisation`` and ``oppression.`` They have launched a broadside attack on Islamic jurisprudence and basic norms of an Islamic society. They want the victim, rather than the law to define the offence. They want the battered women syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime. What they wanted from the Senate, in other words, was a licence for women to kill their ``abusive spouses.``

The borrowed feminists strategy of our women`s rights activists is straightforward: whine that women are victims of centuries of ``oppression`` and ``stereotyping,`` put men on a guilt trip and use all the stereotypical cultural techniques that women have always used to wheedle what they want out of men. Then use women in NGOs, media and government to change the laws in order to force us to conform.

We are getting used to what the feminists do, the way the act and the rights they demand. Their objection to the norms set by the Holy Quran has become a routine and we accept the daily criticism of the laws set by the Shariah. But this is leading us to a stage where we would approve all the forms of behaviour that are regarded beyond the pale of morality and decency. For instance, Thomas Jefferson, in his revised criminal code for Virginia, classified sodomy with rape, as a felony to be punished by castration. But the gradual brainwashing has brought another president, Bill Clinton to address a convention of homosexuals and place a presidential seal of approval on a loathsome behaviour.

Patronising anti-Islam and anti-nature propaganda and activities of women`s rights groups is destructive of something more profound and important than public health. It is a manifestation of that moral relativism that has infected the western countries, and has been transmitted to our elites, in public education, in government, politics, the media and particularly the NGOs. The women`s rights activists say all moral choices are ``value judgements,`` and that there is no rational basis for saying one moral judgement is better than another. This is the point from where they take a start for building a case against honour killing and condemnation of the Senate.

The argument is that whatever an adult man or woman do or decide for him/herself, no third adult has a right to condemn or pass judgement on it. But there is no rational basis for ``value judgements,`` there is no rational basis for the aforementioned limitation to adults, or to consent. Relativism can validate Hitler`s genocide as well as any of his other moral preferences. It can validate rape as well as consensual sex. The reigning moral relativism of the women`s rights champions scuttles the wisdom of the Islamic tradition and of the tradition embodied in ``the laws of nature.``

It implies that whatever an adult woman decides for herself is as much a matter of moral indifference as the choice of a flavour of ice-cream or a brand of soup, and there is no need to barbarically go to the extent of killing in the name of honour. It simply removes men and women behaviour from the sphere of morality, as if it had nothing to do with right and wrong __ as both are considered to be relative to the time and generation. This relativism extends the whole length of morality. Logically, it does not admit to exceptions. It means we cannot condemn slavery or genocide, except it is something we happen not to like. But our preferences have no moral standing in the court of reason than their opposites. We cannot say that slavery and genocide are intrinsically wrong.

But those of us who will not concede that slavery is justified, no matter what others may think, or that genocide is justified no matter what Nazis may think, must say why slavery and genocide are wrong, everywhere and always. Why then do we say that it is acceptable to ``enslave`` a horse or an ox, but not another human being? Why is it acceptable to slaughter a cattle but not a Jew? Is it not because those who share a common human nature ought not to be degraded below the level of their humanity? Do we not have an obligation, arising from nature itself, apart from all law and custom, not to harm other human beings, except in self-defence?

Regardless of any religion and cultural norms, the same nature that tells us it is immoral to enslave (or eat) our fellow humans tells us how to treat men and women and this distinction between a male and female is the most fundamental distinction within all living species, and that within the human species it is the original and originating source of all moral distinctions. Man has not invented any patriarchal system to enslave women as is being propagated by the women`s rights sympathisers. Nature means that which has within itself the principle of its existence from birth to death. There is a superhuman wisdom in nature that unerringly produces puppies from dogs, kittens from cats, piglets from pigs, and male and female human babies from human parents. Not only does it produce them, but it guides their path of growth and behaviour, and decline from birth to death that can neither be controlled by men nor women to oppress all members of the opposite sex, everywhere and all the time.

When we think of women or human freedom, we should bear in mind that our humanity is not something we invented or chose for ourselves. Because we are neither beasts nor gods, we have no right to act as gods to other human beings, or treat them as if they belong to a lower order of creation than ourselves. Of all the laws we make in our common interest, none are of greater import than those having to do with the men and women relationship, marriage and family. Human freedom enables us to discover the meaning of right and wrong. But it is not the source of that meaning.

Slavery and genocide are intrinsically wrong, they represent the abuse of human freedom. So does sexual promiscuity in all its forms approved by the feminists. It is in human nature that we may obey or disobey the rules of morality, but nature does not permit us to be the source from which these rules emanate and declare than men and women are equal in all respects and that their present roles need to be redefined as they have been evolved due to ``social conditioning.``

The entire moral network arises from nature. Now it happens also to be part of the nature that sexual passion is a jealous passion that is one of the major factors leading to honour killing. The integrity of the family depends upon female chastity, because the sense of obligation of the husband depends upon his conviction that his wife`s children are his own! And the husband fidelity is necessary to convince the wife that she and her children are the undivided objects of his devotion. Nothing strikes at the well-being of the family more than adultery or incest, or relations with a person other than the spouse __ let alone breaking the marriage bond and starting a new life with another partner without fulfilling the accepted norms of society. These prohibitions against rape, adultery, incest, women`s unbridled freedom, etc. are no mere ``value judgements.`` And our Senate cannot do anything to repeal such prohibitions or allow the violations that lead to honour killings.

The base of feminist agenda is that a woman`s identity disappears in marriage and that ``marriage is bad for you, at least if you`re female.`` Would the women`s rights groups promote a right which the author of a 52-page article ``Scenes from the Family`` in Redcliff Quarterly described as, ``instead of getting married for life, men and women (in whatever combination suits their sexual orientation) should sign up for a seven-year itch.`` If they want to re-enlist for another seven, they may, but after that, the marriage is ``over.``á

The beacons for our women`s rights activists are the western feminists who extol the wonderful life of a child born out of wedlock and explain divorce as ``a significant life event that confronts individuals with the opportunity to change.`` Are we going to see campaign on these issues in the near future? Those who are calling for ``protection of all internationally recognised human rights`` under the banner of Asma Jehangir must keep in mind that the New York-based Institute for Values recently completed a study of 20 post-1994 college social sciences. Called ``Closed Hearts, Closed Minds,`` the report concludes that most of the textbooks give a downright hostile view of marriage, emphasising marital failures rather than its joys and benefits. Thanks to grip of western feminists, who view marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women due to its ``archaic and oppressive nature.``

Pro-feminist textbooks, like ``Changing Families`` by Judy Root Aulette, focus on battering, marital rape and divorce and give the impression that children don`t need two parents and are not harmed by divorce. ``Why Women Who End Their Marriage Do So Well`` by Ashton Applewhite is an example of the new genre of books attacking marriage as a bad deal for women. The author dumped her husband after reading feminist Susan Faludi`s ``Backlash.`` Now Applewhite together with other feminists, seeks social approval for her walk-out by encouraging middle-aged women to find independence by doing likewise.

The publication of another new book ``On Our Own: Unmarried Motherhood in America`` by Melissa Luddtke, attracted Hillary Clinton and many other to a book party at home of PBS journalist Ellen Hume. Hillary was thanked for her assistance as a ``reader of the book in progress.`` Similarly, in the movie industry, ``G. I. Jane,`` directed by Ridley Scott, is a fitting sequel to his 1991 movie ``Thelma and Louise.`` Both movies try to idealise the macho victim, the foul-mouthed, gun-totting women who triumph over the perceived discriminations perpetrated by an unfair male-dominated society. Thelma and Louise freed themselves from an oppressive patriarchal society by driving their automobile off a cliff. Their double suicide proved they were liberated women because they made that death decision independently from male coercion.

G.I. Jane (Demi Moore) proves she is a liberated woman by getting herself beaten to a bloody pulp, almost raped, and subjected to extreme bodily harassment. To the feminists, this is okay because her goal is to be treated just like men. This is the kind of equality our women`s rights activists demonstrating in front of the Parliament House are seeking, but what they demand in public rallies and describe in various seminars has been reduced to a simple phrase: ``double standards of human rights.``

Like the Senate members, everyone is apologetic and defensive. Whereas the fact remains that the borrowed views on motherhood, marriage, gender, career and women`s rights are being imposed on us by its champions for shining their own careers and strengthening their funding base. We cannot respond to what they say without proper research, analysis and impact study of such innovations on the western society. For namesake, it is extremely easy to protest murder of a woman at Asma Jehangir`s office and vow to protect all the ``internationally recognised rights`` but it is equally hard to understand what do such rights entail in the perspective of our society. Would any of HRCP member fight for the rights of the homosexuals and stage protest in front of the Senate because it is an ``internationally recognised human right`` endorsed by Bill Clinton as well?

Every generation seeks its defining moment. Through intellectual illumination, artistic insight, philosophical precision, political perception and moral appreciation we come to understand our life and time. Let speechlessness in the face of feminist onslaught not become the hallmark of present generation due to lack of research and inability to see the third dimension of the issue.

In resonse to Ferozk (Reply # 36):

Dear Ferozk: You are right. The frican-American people won the civil rights as a result of a long struggle in which the white American people and leadership had played an important role. However, the story of any social movement (particularly in the context of Pakistan) must not stop at the level of human agency. We need to focus upon the dialectics of structuring (or the duality of agency and structure). Ideas, events, and movements are often a product of a complex set of social relations, conditions, circumstannces, and contexts.

You wrote: ``Pakistani people can do all you have suggested, but it will amount to nothing if the politicians do not do their jobs and pass the right laws for which the people of Pakistan are fighting for!``

My concerns: Why and under what conditions the politicians in Pakistan would do their ``job,`` pass the ``right`` laws, and pave the way for the implementation of such laws?

Which politicians? What job? What right laws? What kind of political reform or revolution? What lessons does our past history teach us? What difficulties does our human and cultural geography create for the development of an effective system of governance?

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

Re: bahmad # 35

Bilal, remember that it takes two to tango!

Rosa Parks might have launched the civil rights movement by not giving up her seat and MLK may have penned his ``letter`` from a Birmingham jail after being jailed, which formulated his idea of civic opposition to Jim Crow in the south, but it was only with the cooperation of the white politicans in the Congress that MLK`s civil rights became a reality!

While MLK was marching and protesting in Montgomery, Alabama, it was Lyndon Johnson who was breaking arms and kicking ass in aisles of congress to force white southern politicans to pass the legislation enacting the civil rights MLK was preaching about and it was Robert Kennedy, as the United States` Attorney-General, who was forcing the FBI to investigate and enforce the rights of the blacks south of the Mason-Dixon line!

Pakistani people can do all you have suggested, but it will amount to nothing if the politicans do not do their jobs and pass the right laws for which the people of Pakistan are fighting for!

Dr Ijaz Ahsan`s piece provides food for thought. Ahsan`s reference to the employment of buses and wagons for the so-called public meetings is just an example of the way citizen`s rights are violated. This piece is also an example of a citizen`s peaceful protest.



The people of Pakistan need to protect their citizenship rights by learning about their rights, by recognizing their power vis-a-vis the coercive state apparatus, by overcoming their feelings of fear, and by mobilizing adequate support for their struggles. Pakistani people can learn a lot from the of the American Civil Rights Movement.



The initial phase of black protest activity started when Rosa Parks (a black woman) refused to give up her seat to a white bus rider in Montgomery, Alabama, on December 1, 1955. By doing so, she defied a southern American custom that required the blacks to give seats toward the front of buses to whites. A black community boycott of the city buses began when Rosa Parks was jailed for her offense. The boycott lasted for more than a year. It was this movement that allowed Martin Luther King, Jr. to formulate his vision of the American Civil Rights Movement.

-- Bilal Ahmad

P. S. In contemporary America, the phrase ``African-American`` is preferred over ``black`` or ``negro``.

The Nation

Tuesday, August 10, 1999

The citizen has no rights

Dr Ijaz Ahsan

Long years ago an Indian barrister by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was travelling first class by train in South Africa. He had a duly reserved berth in the compartment. It so happened that at one station an Englishman boarded the train without a reservation. The guard asked Gandhi to quit the compartment to make space for the new entrant. When Gandhi protested he was unceremoniously thrown out along with his luggage onto the platform and the train steamed away. It is said it was there and then that Gandhi decided to enter into politics and work for an independent India, where none of his compatriots would have to suffer such humiliation.

How far it all seems, yet how near. Although a century has passed since the above-mentioned incident, nothing at all has changed. How ironic that only a few weeks ago hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were equally unceremoniously ejected from their seats in buses and wagons which were being forcibly commandeered for the celebration of the Youm-e-Takbeer in memory of our atomic blasts of last year. The tyranny has obviously multiplied a thousand times. While on that occasion there was one Gandhi, now there were thousands of us who were unceremoniously thrown out.

Dear reader, you will recall that each time a democratically elected government was dissolved, the ousted party failed to get itself re-elected. The latter always blamed rigging for this. But have they ever considered whether their kartoots were such as to endear them to the masses? Did each side not throw passengers out to commandeer buses for public meetings?

Did each side not break all rules and all regulations and indulge in the worst forms of favouritism and nepotism, loot and plunder? Did each side not appoint men with the worst records as thanedars because of political expediency? Then why do they blame rigging? Why could it not simply be a vote of no-confidence in them? Each side felt that it was unfairly ousted, and that it was a paragon of virtue. But you see, if both sides are correct, then why has our dear land not turned into a heaven instead of the hell it has become? And if only one side was guilty of all the irregularities which have brought this country down on its knees, why do the people not sing praises of the other party, and remember the period of their rule with nostalgia?

After independence, throwing out even one person from his seat in a public vehicle should have been unthinkable. If thousands have been thrown out at every occasion, does it not mean that the evil has spread thousands of times? If instead of one dacoity in each district about every three years, there are thousands of dacoities every year, does it not mean that crime has increased that many times? Can we justify these well-known statistics by any jugglery of words? Should we not invite the British back to rule over us? They will likely eject only an occasional Gandhi; we have been throughout ejecting thousands on every occasion. How will their rule therefore be any worse than our own? It will be better.

It is not easy to imagine how every successive ruler, as well as his minions, justifies such uncivilised behaviour by the ruling party goons in collaboration with the police. Why do they forget the adage, `Do unto others as you wish to be done by?` How would they like to be thrown out of a bus or wagon in the middle of a journey themselves? Where would they go, especially if they were travelling with their families, with young babies in their arms? What are young ladies who are stranded in the middle of the road supposed to do after being ejected from their seats?

In this background the Chief Secretary`s assurance to the court that this will not happen in the future was welcomed by everyone. However, we shall know for sure only when the next occasion for a public meeting by one of our dignitaries comes around.

If this long-standing evil practice is stopped, this will be one of the few examples of things moving in the correct direction, and will provide some reassurance about the future course of the country.

-- The Nation Publications Pvt Limited

Mr B Ahmed : I would like to be in communication with you, to discuss Indo-Pak peace matters and possible initiatives. My e-mail address is hpp@vsnl.com.

Thanks

V Ramaswamy

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

HUSAIN NAQI a well-known Pakistani journalist was a an active student leader at the University of Karachi in the early 1960s. He views opposition protest rallies as a basic citizenship right. Should we thank the executive branch of the Government of Pakistan to reaffirm the right to oppose? Currently many so-called opposition political parties in Pakistanis are trying to develop an alliance for the ouster of Nawaz Sharif. In the following piece, Naqi has argued that the opposition parties in Pakistan can join hands for the ouster of the present government but they ``cannot agree to a socio-economic package that is tangible and convincing for the people to join in their endeavour to oust the present incumbents.`` -- Bilal Ahmad

The Nation

August 03, 1999

Opposition rallies

Husain Naqi

The decision of the political committee formed by Cabinet, not to the hinder Opposition`s hinder protest rallies against the government is correct. It is the basic right of citizens both under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the right acknowledged under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. It was no largesse on the part of the incumbents as Labour Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed tried to boast by saying, ``We decided to give the Opposition a free hand.`` The basic measure of a society, whether it is civilised or not, is that rights are available; these are not given or taken. Where these are `given`, the givers are autocratic sovereigns (that Sheikh Rashid`s boss dreams about) and where these have to be taken, the dispensation can only be termed to be undemocratic, where the rights of the real sovereign, the people, have been usurped.



Pakistan`s political history since the achievement of independence through a democratic movement of the people of Muslim India has been that of a struggle between the undemocratic establishment, inclusive of its surrogates, and the people. The people of Pakistan have not allowed the military dictators, surrogates, populist and authoritarian rulers who emerged on the political scene through the electoral process, to scotch their democratic aspirations. It goes to their abiding credit that they convincingly established the fact that Muslim India`s was a democratic and not a communal struggle as time and again they have roundly trounced the religious extremists and those who used religion for the attainment of their political agenda. The military, mullah and merchant trio did its utmost to foist obscurantists and paraded their spurious ideas and ideologies, but the people refused to be duped. Even the present incumbents, despite their opportunistic agenda, survive through distancing themselves from one and/or the other religio-political formation.



As the incumbents were initiated into the political arena through the back door, their lack of appreciation of the political fallout of one or the other event is understandable. Latest events have been quite educative for them though. Mr Nawaz Sharif who is shy of democratic participation and consultation is now being seen holding Cabinet meetings and listening to divergent opinions also from his parliamentary party members. His subordinates still (for members of his Cabinet have till lately been treated as less than colleagues) appear to have made overtures to some of the Opposition parties and groups. Hobnobbing with militant sectarian armed outfits is not as pronounced as it used to be. Linkage with rogue `Taliban` is also likely to subside sooner rather than later as the world community has communicated clear signals through Lakhdar Brahimi about non-acceptance of Taliban even if they capture the whole of Afghanistan. Whatever else the Washington statement may have achieved or failed to achieve, for the people of Pakistan it carries the welcome message that the undesirable `mujahideen` outfits that were proliferating on Pakistani soil without the will and sanction of its peace loving people, would have to be put on the leash. These armed, trained and financially well-oiled, outfits were as much, if not much more, a menace for a democratic civil society as any other ethnic or sectarian terrorist body.



Pakistan`s fundamental and abiding national interest demands that its policy makers and executives should clearly understand the difference between the indigenous Kashmiris (who are fighting against gross violations of basic human rights including their right to life and human dignity) and those who seek to impose their obscurantist agenda not only on the other side of the Line of Control but also on AJK and Pakistan`s Northern Areas, i.e. Gilgit and Baltistan. Much underserved projection and undue publicity to the so-called outfits based in Pakistan was given both by the vested interests and the print and electronic media till the latter was shamed to acknowledge the sacrifices and deeds of valour by many a martyred Pakistani soldier who had laid down his life. It seemed peculiar that only a couple of days after the PTV tribute, that had coincided with its first anniversary, the same PTV news bulletin carried footage on some wooded location where a bearded armed gentleman sitting under the shade of a tree was making claims about having shot down Indian MiGs and silencing Indian guns, etc. You can`t fool all the people all the time.

The reported conclusion arrived at by the Cabinet committee that the Opposition`s rallies were not attracting people and its campaign was `actually a non-starter`, and that the people were not responding to the call of the Opposition, can at best be conceded as a half-truth. It is not due to any performance on the part of the government that the majority of people could not be attracted by the Opposition to the rallies against the Kargil agreement. These in any case cannot be described as a non-starter. For example, Jamaat-i-Islami could never before hold such a big rally in Lahore, even if it were mostly its paid cadres asked to reach Lahore through a party whip, if one may say so. PAT also held big rallies in more than one city and PAI rallies also drew a crowd. The true political reasons for the Opposition`s failure to attract the masses of the people to the recent series of rallies were one, the people do not want yet another war between India and Pakistan because they have learnt that the Kashmir issue has not been and cannot be resolved through war; and two, they give priority to the solution of their socio-economic problems. Warmongering may ignite full-scale war, they know fully well, and they have been wisened enough that if the Kargil crisis was costing so much to India, it must also be costing heavily to Pakistan (even though no figures have been disclosed as to the costs yet by the transparency propagandists in our country). The people know that like previous wars, another war will mean diversion of funds from the exchequer to the war effort and they will have to suffer more privation, more price spiral, more unemployment, more non-availability of health, education and shelter. For there will be a ready excuse with the government that resources were consumed in the war and more sacrifices are also needed on the part of the common man, a dozen of whom opt to commit suicide instead of struggling any more for their most basic right: the right to live. If the Opposition took up the people`s issues and convinced the masses of the downtrodden and the lower middle strata that they had the answers, the people would respond, most certainly. The problem with the Opposition parties in Pakistan is that while most of them agree on one point, ouster of the present government, they cannot agree to a socio-economic package that is tangible and convincing for the people to join in their endeavour to oust the present incumbents. Despite their handicap, they can still create a lot of trouble while hoping that some day the disaffected and suffering people may rise to pull the government down.

The Nation Publications Pvt Limited

To studebaker,

It might be useful to find out what the offence of Zina mean. This is from a pak news paper, I have left out the gory parts,

The deceased was reportedly treated very harshly by her husband and in-laws, following which she decided to escape from their residence.

She took her cousin, Zakir, also a teenager, into confidence and asked him to take her out from there.

Both of them escaped, after which a lot of hue and cry was raised and a report was registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

In response to Jay (Reply #29):

I agree with the main thrust of Jay`s concern over institutionalized injustice. However, the inability of the Pakistani Senate to condemn honor killing raises a few questions:

1. What is the historic position and role of PPP concerning killing (honor; extra-judicial; judicial; etc.)?

2. How the ANP Senators prevailed over all other Senators to turn down the resolution condemning the growing incidence of murder of women in the name of family honor?

3. Why the ANP Senators opposed the resolution? Do they support honor killing? Are they ignorant bunch of politicians who simply want to maintain the patriarchical structure of Pakistani society?

4. What was the stand of PML on this issue? Did they ``really`` endorse honor killing? How about all other parties?

Studebaker,

Individual acts of bigotry, one can condemn, one can think about it. When the acts are at a collectve level, when a govt fails to uphold some of the basic values, then the people have to seriously worry about it, because each and every one, at least symbolically is part of that action. Here is something for you to ponder, when the elected representatives of a country fail to condemn an apparent injustice in their own country, let alone legislate against it.

Pakistan fails to condemn `honour` killings

Pakistan fails to condemn `honour` killings

By Zaffer Abbas in Islamabad

Pakistan`s upper house, the Senate, has rejected a resolution condemning the growing incidence of murder of women in the name of family honour.

The resolution was moved by the main opposition party of former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, but members from the highly conservative tribal region of the north-west frontier province prevailed upon the house to stop the move.

The practice to murder women in the name of family honour has been going on for ages in many of the tribal and conservative parts of Pakistan.

Shot down

Recently, it became a major issue when a woman who had fled her home in the north-west frontier to avoid a forced marriage was shot down by a hired killer in the office of a human rights activist.

The incident sparked a bitter debate in the country, with human rights groups asking for a new and strict law to discourage the practice.

It was against this backdrop that the opposition Pakistan People`s Party wanted the Senate to pass a resolution to condemn the so-called ``honour`` killings of women.

But when it tried to move the resolution, the governing party members belonging to the conservative tribal region of the north-west frontier province put up a forceful opposition.

`Sad day for democracy`

Much to the surprise of many, they were fully backed by a left-wing opposition group, Awami National Party, whose members also come from the same province.

People`s Party senator, Iqbal Haider, who had drawn up the resolution, later described it as a sad day for democracy in the country.

He said in order to win the support of some tribal leaders, the governing Pakistan Muslim League had endorsed one of the most reprehensible customs - killing women in the name of honour.

FAISAL BARI has drawn our attention toward an important issue. Is this an issue of rights or an issue of responsibility? Whose rights, whose responsibility? What role should the state play? Should the state protect the consumers? If yes, to what extent and how? What role should the society (consumers) play to deal with the greedy businessmen and the corrupt state pparatus?

The Nation

August 02, 1999

Consumer protection

Faisal Bari

We, the citizens, qua citizens, and consumers, qua consumers, have certain rights. We have the right to fair prices, and quality of services and goods that is advertised or minimally needed. We have a right not be cheated by any agency in this regard, whether it be a public sector good/service provider or a private profit-seeking enterprise. But in Pakistan, despite the fact the laws against adulteration and exploitation of the citizen and the customer have been on the books since 1965, the consumer is still being shafted, and in numerous ways.



In a recent public gathering, S.A. Hameed, Chairman of the provincial task force on essential items mentioned some very startling facts. The task force had the ghee of several units working and selling their product in the Punjab analyzed by competent authorities, and they found, to nobody`s surprise, that almost none of the manufacturers were producing the quality product which they were advertising. The melting point for the ghee was mostly too high, creating health risks for the consumers, the tins in which the product was sold were usually sub-standard, there was no vitamin A & D in products that claimed to have it, and in some cases other important constituents were also missing. None of the manufacturers gave detailed ingredients of their product, there was no date of manufacturing and expiry printed on the packaging, and no manufacturer took care to ensure that the product should be stored under monitored conditions. Even some of the multi-nationals, who are supposed to have better standards and international reputations to maintain, failed to follow the laws in this regard. But this was not all. According to the Chairman, upon being confronted with the evidence, the manufacturers still refused to change their practices. It was only after they were threatened with public disclosure and humiliation that they agreed to change some of the above mentioned shortcomings.

The task force has also done similar checks on petrol pumps and the results have been similar. Most pumps in the initial checks were found to be cheating the public in three distinct ways. On the average, pumps were giving 3-8 percent less petrol, they were overcharging the customers by 10-20 paisa a liter, and they were also adulterating the product with lower quality oils: High Octane had Super in it, Super had Regular, and Regular had cheaper oils mixed in it. Again the task of reforming the pumps has not been easy, and it is still underway.



We have already heard of the campaign against spurious pesticides as well as medicines. If you have to buy medicines from the pharmacies outside Services Hospital, or the Mayo Hospital can you be sure that you are getting the right quality and the right price? What about number 2, 3 or 4 medicines? And this is a product that we want to be very pure. Even with the purest of drugs, saving a life is not easy. If the drug is expired, not the right quality, out of reach due to artificial shortages, or actually harmful, saving a life is not going to be easy.



You go to a doctor due to some medical ailment. He prescribes ten tests, recommending a particular lab, and then he gives you a long list of medicines that he recommends you buy from a particular pharmacy. Can you be certain that all of the tests and the medicines prescribed were necessary and needed? And if you are not sure, short of going to another doctor, paying the fees again, etc., you have no recourse for getting assurance and `the truth`. From anecdotes that I hear from doctors as well as pharmacists, it seems that such things happen more often that you would have thought. And what is true of medicine is also true of other `services` too. Lawyers are quite known for saving on effort and overcharging as well.



Even food products have a problem. Ground red chillies have ground bricks in them, tea has wood shavings, and lentils and rice have stones, and the quality of flour available in the market makes baking chappatis quite a chore. And the problem is not restricted to products supplied by the private sector. To the contrary, the services and goods supplied by the public sector are in much worse shape.



A large proportion of the Pakistani population does not have access to safe drinking water or sanitation facilities, both of which are a responsibility of the government, and have been in the public sector throughout. Health facilities provided by the public sector are quite pathetic. For its per capita income level, Pakistan has a high infant mortality rate, low life expectancy, and very high mortality rates for women going through childbirth. Even the immunization programs do not have the coverage that they should.



Education facilities also tell the same sorry tale. Not only are the literacy rates in Pakistan quite low, the quality of the education imparted is extremely low even at the secondary and university level. Pakistan still does not have universal enrollment for children in the school going age, and in fact, the ratio of girls going to school is so low, it will be a long long time before we can think of universal literacy.



Of course, the mandate of the task force does not extend to the government provided facilities as that would be too difficult to handle politically, but they are important issues for the people, the citizens and the consumers.

]

WAPDA, a public sector monopoly, is notorious for its bad service and lack of consumer orientation. The `loadsheddings` are a supply issue, which one could explain by talking about lack of consensus on issues like Kalabagh and Bhasha, but how does one explain the frequent non-scheduled disruptions in power, issues related to false billing, line losses and such like. Is that not ample evidence of lack of quality and blatant cheating of the consumer?



Almost every day there is a letter or two about PIA in the papers. Only today, one letter complained that one of the domestic PIA flights was delayed by more than an hour because one of the airhostesses had not shown up on time and could not be located by the authorities, and they could not find a replacement for her either. Can you count the number of times there have been letters in the papers about delays due to VIPs, problems with inflight service, bookings and even boarding. For a time it seemed that PIA had gotten into the habit of overbooking the flight to London and then dumping a certain number hours before the flight. The rumour was people had to pay the PIA personnel to get boarding passes. Is this not cheating of the customer, and how is the customer going to be protected from such harassment and illegal and immoral activity?



The customers of the telephone department, WASA, Sui Northern, the local councils and bodies, and Pakistan Railways, all have problems with these providers. The issues with some other departments are even more serious. Police is one. If you pick up an Urdu daily on any given day, you can bet on it that the back page as well as the city page or page two will have more stories about corruption in the police than any other department or issue. Stories about torture, alleged extra-judicial killings, police involvement in crimes, police bungling, lack of accountability for their actions and even disregard for judicial orders are a dime a dozen, and it seems that there is nobody to listen to the citizens on this count.

The laws against unfair prices, adulteration and unfair practices have been on the books since the sixties, but implementation has been a problem all along. Litigation is expensive business. Taking a company to court for negligence or other illegal activity not only involves lengthy proceedings, it is expensive too. And the larger companies tend to have the better lawyers as well. Thus few cases go to court, and it is unlikely that this number will increase.



In this light, it is heartening to note that the provincial government in the Punjab has moved legislation for consumer protection. The legislation envisages not only providing people with access to a judicial process that will decide cases within 90 days, it also hopes to set up consumer councils and committees at the local level that will help in monitoring and looking after the interests of the consumer.



But where the proposed legislation can be a useful first step, it is not going to be enough to address the bulk of the problems mentioned above. Most of the agencies and government departments mentioned above will not come under the ambit of the legislation, or the local committees will not be able to do much against these large bodies. Where there is focus on ex-post redressal process, due importance to ex-ante action has not been given in the legislation. Before I eat bad chillies or am shafted by my doctor or the telephone department, what is the government doing to protect me from that? I think this is the area where the government needs to focus its attention more. The government should set up regulatory agencies with the mandate to safeguard the interests of the public. NEPRA and telecom regulatory authorities are there, but they have not been allowed to function properly. So far the government has not given them the power and the backing needed to do their job. Monopoly Control Authority (MCA), another regulatory body, was undermined by the government itself when it chose to favor the cement industry over the ruling of MCA. How can these bodies function if the government refuses to support them?



It is not the government alone that needs to act. Citizens and consumers need to get together as well to form interest groups and pressure groups to influence government action as well as the performance of various departments. There is a role for NGOs here in mobilizing the people, educating them about various issues, organizing and articulating their position and presenting a strong front to the government and the various departments. Lack of political education and awareness is hampering this development, and till that happens, even if new legislation comes in and the government becomes more vigilant, the work for consumer protection will remain crucially incomplete. So there is a long way to go before we can have some protection for the citizen, but by moving the legislation, the government has at least started the process, and given some impetus for getting things done. Can the NGOs, other government bodies and citizen groups respond to make the most of the opportunity?

-- The Nation Publications Pvt Limited

Posted August 1, 1999      

Violence continues in Ahmedabad, hotel set on fire

Ahmedabad, August 1: A group of rioters set on fire a hotel in Memnagar

area in western part of the city late Saturday night injuring at least

six people, even as the situation in other areas was returning to

normal. The situation remained peaceful during the day on Sunday in

curfew-bound areas of Shahpur and Karanj between 0800 hours and 1900

hours (IST) when the curfew was relaxed for all.

Two of the miscreants who received serious burn injuries while setting

ablaze the hotel by dousing it with chemicals, were admitted at a

municipal-run hospital while others, including the hotel employees, were

treated at a private hospital, police sources said.

The miscreants, who were allegedly carrying the chemicals, tried to set

afire the hotel when it was about to close. The hotel was targetted

because it was being run by a member of the particular community,

sources said, adding the fire had caused extensive damage to the

furniture. Fire brigade personnel rushed to the spot and put out the

blaze.

Meanwhile, a youth, who had a stab wound, revealed during the police

interrogation that the injury was self-inflicted. The violence in the

city since July 20 has so far claimed seven lives and left more than 40

injured.

Back to News Today Home

GENERAL-Other stories

Flood situation still grim, relief panel formed in Bihar

Fernandes says ‘no’ talks with Pakistan till it honours sanctity of LoC

Rally for Valley reaches Barwani

‘Unknown Indian’ Nirad C Chaudhuri dies at 101

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In response to Jay (reply # 24):

Jay has drawn our attention toward the significance (insignificance) of religion for the evolution of institutional structure in Pakistan. Although I don`t consider myself adequately qualified to provide a reasonable response, I would like to present my tentative comments as under.

Pakistani scholars have developed a discourse on an apparently religious basis of the creation of Pakistan. This scholarship has historically created enormous difficulties for the development of one of more alternative discourses. Yet religion has rarely been the lynchpin of our political-economic system. The electoral performance of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) is a living proof of this situation.

In Pakistan, a tension surely exists between those who want to impose a particular interpretation of Islam upon the Pakistani state, civil society, and economy and those who realize the dangers of adopting such a strategy. Being an overwhelmingly Muslim country, most Muslim Pakistanis are appreciative of the universal teachings of Islam. These teaching should never create any problem for the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan. Nonetheless, the rhetoric for or against Islam in everyday life is based upon a limited knowledge and understanding of Islam. A focus on the citizenship and human rights, I think, is not against the basic teachings of Islam. The problem is essentially one of interpretation.

The freedom of press (what ever its nature) will slowly and gradually help in the creation of a better balance between various existing ideological dispositions in Pakistan.

-- Bilal Ahmad

I am amused by the sophistry of the discussions on the evolution of institutional structures in pakistan. Great comparison with the US and the Uk, all the time ignoring the fact that the belief systems are created by religion. I admire the circuspection of the discussants in avoiding the religious issues because of the intractable nature and the glaring conflict between the islamic principles and democratic traditions based on one man/woma one vote. I regret, but some one has to do it. The following is from todays pakistani news paper, which at some stage the sholars of this forum will have to address, at least provide a reinterpretation. Dont forget, pakistan is an islamic country and you have to address it.

Elections not right path to achieve Islamic system: Israr

Lahore-Amir Tanzeem-e-Islami Dr. Israr Ahmed believes that elections are not the right path to achieve Islamic system in country. He was delivering a lecture arranged by ``Muttahida Islami Inqilabi Mahaz``.

He said that anti Islamic elements do not tolerate the Islamic system which is based on Quran and Sunnah because it is based on justice.

He informed that the main target of Inqilabi Mahaz is revival of Khilafat system. To revive that system, he said we don`t need elections but the revolutionary way of Muhammad (PBUH). To achieve this goal at first stage he said that we will openly invite people to join us and adopt Islamic way of life. He claimed that by this we will be able to get an ``Army`` of persons dedicated to Islamic cause.

Then in the second and final stage he said that we will force the government to pass the Shariat Bill and make Pakistan an ideal Islamic State. This he claimed could only be achieved by abolishing the interest system in banks, strictly curbing the vulgarity and other evils which are prohibited in Islam. He promised that during this struggle Mahaz will not resort to in violence.

Among other speakers were Vice President Inqilabi Mahaz, Maulana Akram Awan, Maulana Mukhtar Gul and Secretary of Jamiat Ahle Hadith Naeem Badshah.

In response to Wasiq Nawaz (Reply # 20 and #21):

I have read Mr. Wasiq Nawaz`s Reply # 20 and #21 with great interest. I am convinced that Mr. Wasiq Nawaz is a knowledgeable person. However, I and Mr. Nawaz disagree on a few crucial points.



When I gave the examples of repression in East Pakistan and Baluchistan I was simply trying to suggest the capacity of our coercive state apparatus. I have never undermined an essentially negative power of those who engage in brutality, atrocity, and repression to hurt a lot of innocent people on a routine basis. Interestingly, though sadly, the dictatorial regimes in Pakistan were relatively more successful. For example, many people in Pakistan eulogize Ayub Khan`s period as a golden period in Pakistani history. They, however, tend to forget that this regime was a source of considerable agony to a lot of people in their everyday lives in almost every part of Pakistan. In Karachi, for example, ethnic trouble first started when Gohar Ayub took out a procession from the heart of Liaquatabad (Lalu Khet) just to demonstrate his father`s might. Of course, there was a riot. In the history of people, there are some events that trigger immensely unfortunate events. For example, it was Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah`s Dhaka speech of 1948 which by 1952 led to a violent demonstration by Dhaka University Students. In this speech, Mr. Jinnah said: ``. . . let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Any one who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan. Without one State Language, no Nation can remain tied up solidly together and function`` (quoted in Jahan, 1972: 37). So, according to the standard set by our Founding Father, it was Shaikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman who misled the Bengali-Pakistanis and, thus, he was ``really the enemy of Pakistan``. I need not tell you the rest of the story. This is what Dr. Manik can never forget, I think. I, therefore, cannot digest when Mr. Wasiq Nawaz harp`s on the idea of strong central authority: How strong and how central is ``strong and central authority``?

Mr. Wasiq Nawaz informs us that a ``cursory examination of several democratic states shows us how, even they, deal with secessionists and those who threaten public order (heavy on coercion almost no effort at persuasion).`` He also informs us that he saw no sign of armed rebellion during his recent visit to Quetta, Kalat, and Sibi. I don`t doubt him. In fact, we are lucky that an overwhelming majority of Baluchis (and other Pakistanis) do not really want to secede from Pakistan. This does not mean that they support all brutal actions of the Pakistani police or army. This also does not mean that their lack of support makes them disloyal Pakistanis. I have no reason to believe that the leaders and supporters of PONAM or MQM are disloyal Pakistanis and they want to secede from Pakistan. I still don`t think that Shaikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman was an unpatriotic Pakistani or, to say it more crudely, an Indian agent. In sum, my usage of the notions of coercion and persuasion has both particular and general cannotation.



Mr. Wasiq Nawaz seem to believe that: I think that ``if Britain became a stable democratic society held together by the consent of the masses rather than the repression of the state, the same might, one day, happen in Pakistan–if only we were able to follow their lead.`` This, I think, is a gross misrepresentation of my position. In my article, I wrote: ``British scholar T. H. Marshall suggests that the civil, political, and social citizenship rights evolved, in the British context, with the development of the English state from the liberal state of the eighteenth century to the liberal democratic state of the nineteenth century to the social democratic welfare state of the twentieth century.`` Then, in the concluding part of my article, I wrote: ``In the short run, the best we can do is to think about the safe and prosperous future of our children and start our struggle for citizenship rights on all possible fronts. But here lies a rub. The English state actually granted citizenship rights in a period of relative growth and prosperity, supported partly by the British colonial possessions. Moreover, the British welfare state has recently rolled back considerably as a result of the tensions created by global capitalism.`` I have never argued that the British and Pakistani situations are identical and we can simply follow the course followed by the British. I would, however, argue that we need to ``learn`` from the experiences of other nations, including Britain.

In my short article (and elsewhere), I have never argued that there is no coercion (or even repression) in the so-called liberal democratic regimes/states. But, in stable democracies (at least) repression is not structured in the nature of the state and/or civil society. Countries like Britain, France, Germany, and the United States have come a long way particularly during the last one hundred years or so. I have studied (a little bit) the social and labor history of Britain and the United States and I can (like you) identify many many examples of the ruthless mistreatment of the working class people (especially in the American mining districts). I also know that the present strength of these democracies is partly a result of the struggles of working class people (both men and women).

I support the notion of ``the rule of law`` but I am opposed to unjust laws and unjust ``institutionalized justice.`` In my article, I wrote: ``A progressive society . . . needs to focus on both the procedural and distributive aspects of social justice, since the recognition and implementation of citizenship rights is only the first step toward attaining distributive social justice.`` In taking this stand, I am asking for more than an organized and orderly representative democracy. Mr. Wasif Nawaz doesn`t seem to like my position. He writes: Democracy may produce governments that are popular with Amnesty international and the liberal Western intelligensia; but it generally takes a very poor and chaotic polity in too many opposing and contradictory directions, all I might add, to the people`s misfortune. What progress requires is discipline and order first and only later we can afford all the high minded talk of citizen`s rights.`` I think, he has made some very good observations. Yet, I think, he has missed my point for developing a contract of partnership between the state and civil society.

In most ordinary conversations/discussions concerning the nature of state and society, people tend to neglect the structural part of the agency-structure duality. My attempt to identify a continuity (link) between the colonial autocracy and the post-colonial weak, chaotic, and ruthless autocracy in Pakistan was grounded in the need to highlight the structural causes of the plight of Pakistan. Social structures are undoubtedly a historical product of human agency, but once created structures they are difficult to change. A good understanding of the processes that create and/or transform social structures is necessary for developing a new vision for Pakistan and for reaching a ``national covenant of state-civil society partnership for a better future for all Pakistani citizens. I think, the ruling elite and state apparatus can win public support by creating a feeling of belonging and a sense of participation among the common people of Pakistan. I believe, as I wrote: ``. . . too much power in the hand of the corrupt and unresponsive ruling elite (supported by the rule of danda and monopoly over the means of violence), an unjust system for the distribution of resources, poor economic performance, conspicuous consumption, a very high rate of population growth, and an overall lack of appreciation of nonviolent means of resolving domestic and international conflicts has created enormous difficulties for the evolution of a society that recognizes and values its rights and duties.``

Unfortunately, my worldview and solutions seem to be diametrically opposite to those of Mr. Wasiq Nawaz. Nonetheless, this is a healthy sign. Even if we do not agree with each other, our discussion will lead us to rethink our positions in due course of time.

Re: wasiqnawaz # 21

I would agree with you, but the question is just how does a nation pick the right man on the horse back to rule it?

It is cases like these, which reminds one of what Ben Franklin once said,``those who give up some of their liberties for a little security, end up by having neither!``

Just to add a few words to my earlier comments: I think you mischaracterize Britain`s political development. Far from being a state whose power was based on popular consent helped along by successful persuasion, the history of Britain especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1689 was very violent. Universal suffrage came very late. Parliament was not elected, but hereditary and exemplified Republican rather than Democratic values. The Industrial Revolution coincided with labor unrest (remember the Luddites) always supressed violently.

Britain was run in ways similar to its colonies. The state in London depended on the loyalty of local powerbrokers, the aristocracy, all seated, unlike workers or peasants, in Parliament. Overtime, this small group of intermediaries grew to encompass the wealthy Industrial Bourgeosie but not the masses. The labor party and populist politicians are relatively recent arrivals,largely confined to the post-war era.

Remember, the great mass-based Democratic Revolution that capped the Enlightenment happened not in Britain, but in 1789 France also producing, immediately afterwards, the Great Terror. The British elite reacted cooly to France`s experiment. For a sample, try reading ``Reflections on the Revolution in France`` by Edmund Burke.

You are right to point to the link between Pakistan and the colonial entity that preceded it; others such as Hamza Alavi, writing about the Post Colonial state, have done the same, however, I don`t believe the link provides useful solutions for Pakistan.

Rather, we must look to other poor countries that are barely functioning because of corruption, popular withdrawal from the political process, and a break down in law and order for answers.

The reason I harp on the idea of strong central authority is that a certain kind of dictatorship focused on law, order, and economic growth has worked to bring several Third World countries back to their feet. Chile`s Augusto Pinochet inherited a country on the verge of meltdown and left it as the fastest growing economy in the world, Fujimoro brought Peru up from the brink of takeover by the Shining Path through violent repression and anti-democratic policy of centralization of authority in his person, in 1965 Suharto took the helm of a country that had gone through a mass slaughter and by 1985 had moved 70% of the population above the poverty line (the recent Currency Crisis and its fallout non-withstanding). General Park Chung Hee of Korea was a ruthless dictator, but ask anyone who is most responsible for turning Korea from a 1950s backwater at a lower per capital income level than Pakistan and transformed it into an international economic power and they`ll invariably credit the dictator.

Obviously, dictatorship only works some of the time. There are at least as many examples of failed states run by despots. What I am trying to argue is that talk of democracy needs to be tempered with a hard look around the world. Democracy may produce governments that are popular with Amnesty international and the liberal Western intelligensia; but it generally takes a very poor and chaotic polity in too many opposing and contradictory directions, all I might add, to the people`s misfortune. What progress requires is discipline and order first and only later can we afford all the high minded talk of citizen`s rights.

I`m familiar with the concept of rule through popular consent rather than state coercion. You bring to light some powerful examples of the horrors of repression and obviously these methods have failed in East Pakistan, but despite the brutality you describe, Baluchistan is still a part of Pakistan. When I visited Quetta, Kalat, and Sibi this March, there was no sign of armed rebellion; the army successfully eliminated secessionists. What I`m getting at is: do not go overboard in underestimating the role of repression and violence in keeping states together and restoring public order while also overestimating the feasability of persuading citizens to offer loyalty and support.

You seem to think that if Britain became a stable democratic society held together by the consent of the masses rather than the repression of the state, the same might, one day, happen in Pakistan--if only we were able to follow their lead.

A cursory examination of several democratic states shows us how, even they, deal with secessionists and those who threaten public order (heavy on coercion almost no effort at persuasion). Britain jails (though it doesn`t torture) IRA cadres. The U.S. guns down self styled militias in Montana (remember Ruby Ridge Idaho, the violent supression of the Black Panthers, the Fire in Waco after the Branch Dravidian hostage drama). Spain violently supresses its Basque seperatists. Granted, there is less evidence of torture, rape, and wanton genocide in all these cases, but that is more a matter of these threats being minor as opposed to very serious threats which are dealt with brutally. Witness the way Union forces destroyed much of the South after defeating the confederacy (i.e. Mobile Alabama).

The more relevant example is the Third World where illiteracy, poverty, and more immediate legacies of social injustice make persuasion through rhetoric less feasible. In Columbia, the President has failed to stop a rebel movement through nonviolence, while in Peru a violent counter insurgency has wiped out a very similar movement.

Wasiq Nawaz

In response to Wasiq Nawaz (Reply # 18, Reply #12):

In his Reply #18, Mr. Wasiq Nawaz has raised many questions and comments some of which are based on his worldview, some on his understanding of the notions of coercion and repression, and some perhaps on his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my writing. Mr. Wasiq Nawaz`s response has in a way confused me, and under such a state of mind I would prefer not to answer his questions and comments one by one. Here follows a more general response, and perhaps a clarification, of my position (please refer to my article too).

In modern social thought, the notion of legitimacy suggests that a state (or a regime) is legitimate if it is believed to be legitimate by the people. Although a state cannot maintain the rule of law without the power to coerce, a state becomes autocratic if coercion outweighs persuasion. Repression can win silence not the voluntary consent of the people. A state tends to lose its legitimacy if an increasing number of people tend to withdraw their support in one form or another.

Borrowing from Ranajit Guha (the Dean of Indian Subaltern Studies), I wrote in my article that: ``The British established an autocracy in colonial India in which coercion outweighed persuasion. Ironically, this state was fundamentally different from the one that evolved in England where persuasion outweighed coercion.`` Thus, in colonial India, the British won the hearts and mind of a select few (particularly the rajas, nawabs, and other opportunists). Why? We all know the answer.

Le me restate: A coercive state apparatus is undoubtedly a necessary component of a state. The problem, however, develops when coercion outweighs persuasion. The more a state tends to lean toward coercion vis a vis persuasion the more autocratic (and repressive) it becomes.

In my article, I wrote: ``The autocracy established in colonial India is alive and well in contemporary Pakistan. It has become rather a ruthless and chaotic autocracy where the feudal lords, urban-based elite, and bureaucracy (particularly the army) have taken refuge in the dominant ideology and the perceived threat to national security to quell dissent and resistance.`` The history of Pakistan is full of actions where the state ruthlessly violated the basic citizenship and human rights of Pakistani citizens. A case in point is the immensely sad tale of army action in East Pakistan. Our coercive state apparatus has engaged in many more similar (though smaller in magnitude) actions that most Pakistani citizens are not aware of (or they do not want to be aware of). Tariq Ali, for example, quoted the following paragraph in his book ``Can Pakistan Survive: The Death of a State`` (Verso, 1983):

``In contrast [to the Baluchistan People`s Liberation Front treatment of all Pakistani army prisoners] the enemy [i.e. the Pakistan Army] carries out savage tortures and summarily executes our captured campatriots. The army has captured over 5,000 men, women and children from BPLF zones. 95 per cent of these have been brutally tortured. Apart from the standard practice of severe beatings, limbs are broken or cut off; eyes gouged out; electric shocks are applied, especially to the genitals; beards and hair are torn out; finger nails ripped; water and food withheld, which in the summer months often turns out to be fatal. Ten fighters have become permanently deranged due to electric shock and torture. Women, in addition to being subject to these tortures, are also raped. After this they invariably commit suicide because they are too ashamed to return to their families. The prisoners who are released as being of no further use to the enemy all immediately return to the BPLG and insist on fighting again, although many of them are so badly cut up that they cannot hold a rifle or walk properly (Ali, 1983: 120-21).``

It is our discretion to believe or not believe this story. Our choice, however, will not make this story true or false. What if there is some element of truth in it? If so, what kind of nation are we that continue to support our coercive state apparatus that commits such kind of transgressions? What kind of people are we not to protest against such events? Did we protest the genocide in East Pakistan? Did we ever repent? Did we learn any lesson? Yet, the rulers and the state apparatus still find no difficulty in labeling any form of dissent (peaceful or violent) as an anti-Pakistan act. Najam Sethi saga is a recent example of the misuse of state power. Sethi is now free. If he is what the government thought he was, why he is free? To me, his freedom is an evidence of his innocence. It also shows that there are still people in our country (especially in the Judiciary) who can distinguish between the right and wrong with some degree of freedom. However, the executive branch of the government of Pakistan lacks the decency to ask for forgiveness to this man and his family (and the nation at large). This is a simple example of the violation of the fundamental citizenship and human rights of the people by a ``ruthless and chaotic autocracy.`` This is what I am opposed to. This is what I mean by repression.

Why would a state become overly coercive (autocratic) when it could choose to win public support through persuasion? This is not an easy question to answer, though it must be answered. Mr. Wasiq, I agree with your observation that Pakistan is a weak state. I have already said that: ``Repression and autocracy are signs of weakness (not strength). In this sense, you are right that Pakistan is a weak state. A weak state has every reason to violate the citizenship rights since it cannot by its very nature (capacity) honor such rights`` (see Reply #12). Pakistani political system is top-down. In this sense, the Pakistani state is elitist. We all are aware of the performance of our ruling elite (most of them, not merely a few political leaders). What do the ruling elite do? Using an analogy from Marx, they simply accumulate, and accumulate, and accumulate more political power (and other material benefits). As capitalists have often accumulated wealth through exploitation (of one form or another), the ruling elite accumulate political power and associated material benefits using a number of strategies. In my article, I wrote: [Pakistan has become] a ruthless and chaotic autocracy where the feudal lords, urban-based elite, and bureaucracy (particularly the army) have taken refuge in the dominant ideology and the perceived threat to national security to quell dissent and resistance.`` The ruling elite in Pakistan use the dominant ideology and the rule of danda as a means to legitimize and sustain their power. It is of vital importance to understand that by focusing upon class relations and the constraints on politics imposed by the main sources of power (both domestic and foreign) that an adequate basis can be established for understanding the current crisis tendencies in Pakistan. Why don`t common people resist? In fact, they do by withdrawing their support. This fail safe strategy is insufficient and, in the long run, self-destructive. I wrote: ``. . . too much power in the hands of the corrupt and unresponsive ruling elite (supported by the rule of danda and monopoly over the means of violence), an unjust system of for the distribution of resources, poor economic performance, conspicuous consumption, a very high rate of population growth, and an overall lack of appreciation of nonviolent means of resolving domestic and international conflicts has created enormous difficulties for the evolution of society that recognizes and values its rights and duties.``

Coercion (i.e. following a reasonable level of law and order) for me is not the same as repression. Najam Sethi was not arrested according to the reasonable standards of the law. He was rather kidnaped by the coercive forces of the state. This is what makes a state repressive (though according the interpretation of the law the state had every right to arrest him and try him in a court of law). A person is innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a ``just`` court of law. In Pakistani police stations, a person is not only considered guilty from the outset but is often brutalized and occasionally punished to death. The death of Mohammad Shafiq is a good example. I recorded my protest against such violence in the following letter to the editor.

Good teacher, bad students

(Frontier Post, June 4, 1999)

Quid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah taught us to stand for our rights. The brutal death of MQM activist, Mohammad Shafiq (alias Kalia) at the hands of Karachi police, suggests to ignore his teachings. Quid-e-Azam was a decent human being but he never dreamt of the atrocious misuse of power by the Pakistani police.

Bilal Ahmad

USA

In Pakistan, most people symbolize the state in the personality and actions of a single leader (BB, NS, or in future perhaps IK). This is a grave mistake. The power of state lies in our state institutions (effective or ineffective; responsive or unresponsive). In any regime, the decisions are never made by a single person. We always talk about the top leader but rarely talk about the institutions. Self-imposed budding leaders, like Imran Khan, may be very honest and sincere. What can such leaders do if the state apparatus is virtually corrupt and rotten? A single leader, or a collection of good leaders, cannot bring change if the society itself is not prepared to bring a change. In order to deal with our problems, we need to understand the underlying structural conditions and develop a new vision for the better future of our coming generations. This in my view is the best course to follow in order to transform our state, civil society, and economy.

Best wishes, Bilal Ahmad

Reply to B.Ahmed (#14):

You argue implicitly that If a state is repressive, it must be because it has lost its ability to persuade its citizens of its own legitimacy nonviolently, but this framework is overly dualistic. Isn`t public order and the ability to contain chaos (through violence) a prerequisite to developing some modicum of legitimacy? In other words, legitimacy depends on order which depends on a combination of state coercion and public consent.

I disagree with your description of a modern state`s evolution. It seems to imply that if just the proper ideology were to arise and everybody just happened to agree with it, a state with no need for repressive apparatus would come in to existence. This has never happened.

The Pakistani state has tried to manufacture some form of legitimacy by claiming to be Islamic. This, however, has not made up for its inability to provide the basic public goods one expects from a functioning state: safe streets, accountable officials, clean water, secure borders, etc.

Inevitably any ruler who steps in with the intent of remedying the situation will talk about upholding citizen`s rights which include the right to feel safe and secure from criminals in and out of uniform. This will require the new ruler to purge the state apparatus and wipe out banditry--again, this will depend on the efficient and effective use of some violence.

People value their rights to vote, to speak openly, and to participate in public life; but these rights are secondary to our more basic needs: food, health, shelter, and physical safety.

Wasiq Nawaz

MWZAMAN’S RESPONSE # 4

JULY 18, 1999

W.Zaman Manik`s esponse to KANTEPATEL (REPLY # 9, Dated July 14, 1999):

I thank you very for your response. I enjoyed your comments. The political history of early years of Pakistan is well documented. Many scholars (both sub-continental and foreign scholars) have written books, dissertations and articles on the early years of Pakistan. A lot of political leaders have also recapitulated their experiences of early years of Pakistan. Yet, many Pakistani scholars conveniently ignore the authoritarian regimes of early years from their narratives of Pakistan’s history. Many Pakistanis try their best to erase the legacies of tyrannies, autocracies and excesses of the earlier regimes of Pakistan. Jinnah is still regarded as the Quaid-I-Azam by millions of Pakistanis. I have no problem with that fact. After all, each nation needs its heroes. Even after 52 years of Pakistan’s independence, it is not politically correct course of action to criticize the Founding Father’s policies, methods, modes and procedures of governance.



But the truth of the matter is that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was not above criticism. Literally speaking, Jinnah had played “GOD” with his powers and authorities as Governor General of Pakistan. Any scholar with an iota of objectivity will admit that Jinnah had left behind dangerous precedents of authoritarianism. His exercise of unlimited power had doomed the possibility of flourishing democratic norms and values in Pakistan. His successors especially Ghulam Mohammad and Iskander Mirza were like bulls in a china shop, and they had misused their positions as Governor General. Ayub Khan had introduced a self-serving totalitarian and centralized system Government.

Yet, serious studies on Quaid-I-Azam have thus far confirmed that Jinnah had left scores of precedents of authoritarianism. I welcomed Mr. Bilal Ahmad’s commentary on the rights of Citizens in Pakistan mainly because that he is at least willing to say that “autocracy is alive and well in Pakistan.” It seems to me that he is also willing to recognize that democratic values, norms and practices need to be nurtured in Pakistan. I regularly peruse soc.culture.pakistan (through dejanews) and Chowk postings just to gauge the pattern of Pakistani thinking pertaining to their government and politics—past and present. I also read books and articles on Pakistan with open mind. Unfortunately, most of those writings are characterized by jingoistic generalizations and selective narratives of the past and present. Many Pakistani scholars are also stuck up with false pride. I found some Pakistanis who even try to take pride in Pakistan’s 1971 heritage of ethnic cleansing, bloodbath and genocide in Bangladesh. That’s really despicable.

However, in all fairness, I must note that Bilal Ahmad’s analyses or generalizations about Pakistan or recommendations for Pakistan are welcome departure from many jingoistic Pakistanis. This commendable variation is quite significant given the fact that many Pakistanis don’t want to discuss the pattern of governance and politics in Pakistan of pre-1971 era.



There are some Pakistani scholars who have already critically assessed Government and Politics in Pakistan with reference to both pre- and post- 1971 era. For example, Khalid Bin Sayeed (an outstanding Pakistani scholar settled in Canada) had written two outstanding books in late 1960s: Pakistan: The Formative Phase`(Oxford University Press, 1968) and Political System of Pakistan (Houghton Mifflin, 1967).

Any scholar interested in objective study of Pakistan’s government and politics of first twenty three plus years will find relevant information and analysis ranging from Pakistan movement through the disintegration of Pakistan. These are the most authoritative works on the early years of Pakistan. Khalid Bin Sayeed is also the author of many other celebrated works and articles on Pakistan. In her much publicized book, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 1985), Ayesha Jalal has shattered many myths about Jinnah’s leadership in spearheading the movement for Pakistan.

Let me now quickly respond to some of the points you have raised in your response:

i. yes, the imposition of Urdu as the ONLY official STATE language of Pakistan was a blatant violation of democratic norms and human decency. Jinnah sincerely believed that no ONE in Pakistan including Eastern Province would dare to question his ONE language policy. He clearly stated that both in Dhaka and other places that URDU and URDU alone shall be the State language in Pakistan. Although Bangalees vehemently challenged his one-eyed language policy, he did not deviate from his one language, one nation and one state policy. Liaquat Ali Khan and Khwaja Nazimuddin also followed Jinnah’s one language policy. They did everything to impose urdu language on the majority people of Pakistan. What a shame! I want to elaborate on this language issue in some of my writings to be posted in News From Bangladesh. I also post through deja.com in soc.culture.bangladesh, soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.indian, and soc.culture.bengali. (The chowk is yet to carry any of my articles for reasons only known to Chowk management).

ii. Yes, it was Jinnah’s sweet will that Karachi was selected to be the central Capital of Pakistan. I don’t think any one in Muslim League could oppose Jinnah’s desires or will both before and after the emergence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947. There is hardly any wonder why Khalid Bin Sayeed said in his 1967 book (Political System of Pakistan, P.62) that “as long as Jinnah was alive (he died in September, 1948), he was Pakistan.” I don’t think that Bengali leaders would have vehemently opposed the location of federal capital to be in Karachi. At any rate, majority of Pakistanis (East Bengalis) were not consulted by the Jinnah about the location of Pakistan’s capital. Additionally, this decision was never democratically or collegially taken. That’s the issue. This kind of personalistic ruling was everything but democratic. At the behest of Ayub Khan, the federal capital of Pakistan was transferred from Karachi to Rawalpindi and then to Islamabad without taking any input from East Pakistanis. Ayub Khan had just followed his Quaid-I-Azam’s precedent or footprint!



About your third comment: Jinnah was alive only for 13 months after Pakistan became a reality. Even within that short gestation gap, Jinnah had used his extraordinary powers to dislodge or browbeat several provincial ministries including the Government in North West Frontier Province (NWFP). By the way, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was not the Chief Minister of NWFP. Immediately after independence, Jinnah had dismissed the Ministry of Dr, Khan Sahib (elder brother of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) in NWFP. The following commentary this paper (which is still in the making) on the nature of centralization process in Pakistan may be relevant to you:



THE NATURE CENTRALIZATION PROCESS DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN

By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

It seems that Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the most powerful Governor General of Pakistan, was intolerant about criticism of his policies. All forms of disagreement or dissenting views from the provinces or other jurisdictions were thwarted with iron fist. From the beginning of independence, all strategies, tactics, laws, rules, and procedures were employed the Central Government for controlling the provincial ministries. As noted earlier, Jinnah had dismantled the pro-Congress Ministry of Dr. Khan Sahib in NWFP for the sole purpose of quickly installing a Muslim League Government even though the dismissed Chief Minister was enjoying majority support both inside and outside the Assembly. On a matter of principle, neither Dr. Khan Sahib nor his younger brother Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan had refused to be on their knees in front of Qiad-I-Azam or his successors.

Mohammad Ayub Khuhro, the Chief Minister of Sind, was also summarily dismissed on April 26, 1948 on the charges of corruption, favoritism, nepotism, embezzlement and misconduct. There is no doubt that some of the charges against the Chief Minister of Sind had some merits. Yet, the main reason for Khuhro’s immediate removal was opposition to Jinnah’s plan for separating the city of Karachi from the province of Sind. (Khuro’s dismissal was followed by more dismissals of ministries in Sind between 1948-’51). Although his dismissal by Jinnah was a temporary set back for him, Khuhro had proved beyond any reasonable that he had mastered the art of surviving and thriving in those early years of Pakistan’s politics of conspiracy and conflict.

Donald Wibur succinctly captured the context: “His [Khuhro’s] career in the first years of independence was marked by venality. When Jinnah ordered his dismissal as premier of Sind in 1948 [on April 26], the charge sheet contained sixty-two specific allegations of maladministration, misconduct, and corruption. Khuhro was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, only to be acquitted on appeal to the chief court of the province. Premier [of Sind] again by early 1951 Khuhro was forced to resign later the same year [1951] in the face of further allegations of corruption and mal-administration. In 1953 on the recommendation of a special tribunal the Governor general [Ghulam Mohammad] disqualified Khuhro from holding any public or representative office for six years, but the act under which his disqualification had been ordered was repealed the next year [1954], and Khuhro resumed his post [Ghulam Mohammad ousted Pirzada Abdus Sattar, the Chief Minister of Sind for his staunch opposition to One Unit Scheme], having meanwhile gained the endorsement of the central authrities by espousing a single province of West Pakistan. ……… In October, 1958 Khuhro was again arrested on charges of corruption and again disqualified from holding public office” ( Pakistan: Its People, Its Society, and Its Culture, 1964, p. 225).



Although Khan of Mamdot, first Chief Minister of West Punjab, was not fired by Jinnah, his administration was sternly reprimanded by the Governor General. Subsequently, the Central Government of Pakistan unceremoniously dismissed Khan of Mamdot, the Prime Minister of West Punjab (Punjab) on flimsy ground. He was accused of inefficiency in the administration of refugee problems. The real reason of Khan of Mamdot’s unfair dismissal in January 1949 was that his opinions on refugee issues were at sharp variance with Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. As noted by Keith Callard that Section 92A was invoked in West Punjab by the Central Government. On the advice of the then Governor General of Pakistan (Khwaja Nazimuddin), Sir Francis Mudie, (British) Governor of West Punjab had dismissed the Ministry was Khan of Mamdot, the Provincial Assembly was dissolved, the Governor’s rule was imposed (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 160). Donald Wilbur also confirmed the imposition of Section 92A in West Punjab: “In January 1949, acting on instructions from the Governor General, Mudie dissolved the provincial legislature and established governor’s rule—which was to continue until the provincial elections [in West Punjab] in March 1951” ( Donald Wilbur’s 1964 book, p. 227).

I thank you very much for perusing my comments.

Sincerely, M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

MWZAMAN`S RESPONSE # 5

ADEENDUM to MWZAMAN`s Response # 4

In response to KANTEPATEL (reply # 9), the following segments of my commentary got inadvertently deleted from my earlier post:

Pursuant to Section 8 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Government of India Act, 1935, with necessary and proper adaptations, was to be employed as the Interim Constitution of Pakistan.

Although 1935 Act of India had a semblance of a Federal system, the Governor General of British-India had retained methods and procedures for controlling and monitoring the governments of Provinces. However, most of the Indian provinces including Bengal from 1937 till independence in August 1947 had gained some degree of self-governance. Therefore, it was reasonably expected that Pakistan would have genuine Federal Governmental structure in which the constituent units and provinces would be granted provincial autonomy. Yet, after Pakistan emerged as independent nation-state, the provinces had lost out to the Central Government whatever rudimentary form of self- rule they enjoyed under the British from 1937 through August 14, 1947.

For instance, the Central Government of Pakistan from the days of Jinnah had ruthlessly used the powers of Governor General’s office for dislodging or controlling provincial ministries. Aimed at installing a Muslim League Government in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) under Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Governor General Jinnah had dislodged the pro-congress Ministry of Dr, Khan Sahib (brother of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) immediately after independence. In fact, Dr. Khan Shahib’s Ministry was dissolved on August 22, 1947. False and frivolous charges of “conspiracy” against Pakistan were brought against the Chief Minister even though the British Governor of that province vouched that Dr. Khan Shahib was not at all disloyal to Pakistan. (Adul Gaffar Khan was arrested in June 1948 for allegedly instigating masses and “conspiring” against the Government of Pakistan, and he was imprisoned for six years).

Thank you.

Sincerely, M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

July 18, 1999

In response to Reply #14:

I need not stress that you have every ``right`` to form an opinion about the issue at hand (and other matters too). I think, I have already answered your questions in my earlier response (Reply #8).

However, I should make my point explicit regarding the word ``inaccurate.`` You found no mention of responsiblity in my article (zero time). It is the word ``zero`` that makes your observation inaccurate. Kindly read the following part of my article and decide yourself. I wrote:

The autocracy established . . . and resistence. Moreover, too much power . . . created enormous difficulties for the evolution of society that recognizes and values its rights and duties.``

In my Reply #8, I have used ``duties``, ``obligations``, and ``responsibilities`` interchangeably. However, in Pakistan, the rights of a large number of ``duty-conscious`` citizens are violated by the state apparatus on a routine basis. This is something deplorable. You can see the evidence of such violations in our free (and responsible) press--such as the Dawn, the News, and the Frontier Post. My plea for the citizenship rights is for the future health of Pakistan and her citizens.

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

Ref: BAhmed Repy # 8

Sorry, I do not get it. What is inaccurate? I was not challenging your views on RIGHTS. I only asked a fundamental question. ``Can Rights exist without responsibilities?``.

If your answer is yes - we are poles apart (even though you seem to recognize only one pole!)

If answer is no - talking of one without the other is meaningless (at least for me).

In response to Reply #12 (Wasiq Nawaz`s response #1):

Repression and autocracy are signs of weakness (not strength). In this sense, you are right that Pakistan is a weak state. A weak state has every reason to violate the citizenship rights since it cannot by its very nature (capacity) honor such rights.

A state facing a legitimation crisis cannot effectively enforce law and order. The condition becomes much more severe when the state is controlled by corrupt an unresponsive ruling elite.

You are right that the government of Pakistan (Central or otherwise) is currently competing with a civil society full of armed power groups. This is a phenomenon that needs much more serious and critical scholarly attention. It is, however, important to realize that the kind of dilemma that we are facing in contemporary Pakistan is very much a product of the way that state has been controlled by the unscrupulous ruling elite. In my commentary of Dr. Mubashir Hasan`s article (published in the South Asian Survey, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 7-12), I wrote:

``In drawing some indirect parallels between the colonial and post-independence state institutions, Hasan suggests that the existing state institutions in South Asia suffer from a legitimation crisis due to: (1) the misallocation of resources, and (2) the use of brute physical force against the common people. He argues that the coercive South Asian states lack the capacity to win public support because they are controlled by unscrupulous elites who cannot afford to let ``consideration of ethics and esthetics, environment and morality, and peace and war come in their way when power or profit are at stake.`` He (a la K. K. Aziz) identifies nine characteristics of the Pakistani ruling elites. These are: (1) intolerance, (2) self-righteousness, (3) inconsideration, (4) selfishness, (5) hypocrisy, (6) irresponsibility, (7) emotionalism, (8) violence, and (9) hatred. Although Hasan suggests that most common people do not possess these negative attributes, he portrays the vast majority of them as ``childlike in manner, emotional in disposition, and spontaneous in response.`` In the final analysis, he links the predicament of the people of South Asian to the lack of capacity and confidence of the ruling elites to provide leadership. Are the ruling elites the only source of leadership? Hasan fails to raise this question. Why should the people look toward those who have repeated failed to provide leadership? Shouldn`t the leadership evolve organically from us: ``We the people. . . .``? `` (Pakistan Link, March 12, 1999).

Mr. Nawaz, I invite you to read the rest of my commentary where Hasan`s (and my) solutions to the problems of Pakistan are diametrically opposite to the ones that you have suggested. For example, you suggest centralization and violence (repression), where we suggest decentralization and non-violence. Moreover, I want to focus on the extension of the ideal of citizenship whereas you want to focus on increasing coercive power of the state.

The point raised by you in the second paragraph of your response is already covered in my statement that: ``The autocracy established in colonial India in alive and well in contemporary Pakistan. It has become rather a ruthless and chaotic autocracy where the feudal lords, urban-based elite, and bureaucracy (particularly the army) have taken refuge in the dominant ideology and the perceived threat to national security to quell dissent and resistance.``

Regarding the British state and politics, I would like to point out that my little understanding is somewhat different from that of yours. I view state formation as a contingent process in which the state, civil society, and economy shape each other in a rather complex manner. I am, nevertheless, prepared to learn if you kindly suggest me a few references.

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

The problem in Pakistan is exactly the opposite of what you say. Instead of having a repressive an autocratic state that suppresses our rights as citizens, Pakistan has a very weak state that seems incapable of enforcing law and order precisely because it is competing with a civil society full of armed power centers. If the state was, as you say, repressive and autocratic, we might be better off in having the order and stability that promotes public works and investment.

Secondly, instead of inheriting the mantle of the British Raj, Pakistan has turned what was an efficient state apparatus into an ineffectual one.

Your characterization of Britain`s political development misses one very important issue: democratic institutions always come after a state establishes itself by eliminating all competition (usually through violence and repression). A strong state is a pre-requisite for democracy, not the other way around, as you seem to think.

What Pakistan needs is strong central authority (i.e. law and order), efficient tax collection (i.e. public funds), and an end to the looting of government money. All of the above, I fear, will only come with repression (i.e. disciplinary measures).

Wasiq Nawaz

In response to Dr. Manik`s response #3 (reply # 10):

I am thankful to Dr. Manik for his appreciation of my effort. The purpose this short article was threefold: (1) to bring into focus the issue of citizenship rights in contemporary Pakistan; (2) to identify the authoritarian nature of the Pakistani state; and (3) to suggest the need for a national covenant of state-civil society partnership based on the notion of citizenship rights. My article is in a way non-conventional since it provides several social-theoretic insights for understanding the dilemma of Pakistan. I, however, expect the readers to help in highlighting some concrete aspects of the problem at hand. Dr. Manik has definitely taken the first step.

I agree with Dr. Manik that some of my generalizations (abstractions) are global. One can easily notice that, for some of my theoretical insights, I have relied upon two noteworthy scholars: T. H. Marshall and Ranajit Guha. Nevertheless, Dr. Manik finds an element of vagueness and evasiveness in some of my statements. This is a point that I would like him to elaborate. He has also asked me to speak the whole truth. This suggests that my article is based on partial truth. I would like him to elaborate his point too.

The history of South Asia is full of some very sad moments (particularly the Partition of India and the fall of East Pakistan). I have no problem with Dr. Manik`s Bengali background. I also have no problem with his narrative of the evolution of democracy or autocracy during the early years of Pakistan. I can`t understand why some of his writings were not accepted by the Chowk. Dr. Manik has every right to form his opinions based on his perspective and background. Don`t we all have our own perspectives and backgrounds. However, I commend him for his contribution and hope that he would write an unbiased and critical treatise on the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971.

Although I definitely prefer democracy over autocracy, I don`t view the representative form of democracy as a flawless political system. I also do not view too much centralization as conducive for the health of any socio-political system. As the Pakistani state is overly centralized, a decentralized system of governance may lead to good governance and peoples` empowerment.

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. On July 2, I published the following letter in the Frontier Post:

Another Call for Devolution



Many Pakistani citizens have recently stressed the need for a change in the structure of power through devolution. Devolution refers to the transfer of power from the center to a subnational jurisdiction. In Pakistan, a call for devolution is basically a call for some sort of provincial autonomy. Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto has also shown her belief in the devolution of decision-making since it would provide a more effective government to our people (Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, June 28).



In her letter, she further maintains that ``greater regional autonomy`` would ``help our people make the best use of available resources ... in tackling the problems of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness``. I wonder what she really means by ``our people,`` a select few or all Pakistani citizens irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic, religious, and other bases of individual and collective identities? Regardless of her real intent, the significance of devolution cannot be undermined since this measure may lead to greater citizen empowerment, a responsive government, and above all, national unity and security. If there is any merit in these expectations, then the issue of devolution must be placed on the forefront of our national agenda.

Bilal Ahmad

USA

MWZAMAN`S Response # 3

In response to Mr. Bilal Ahmad`s reply # 7:

I found Mr (Dr.?)Bilal Ahmad`s article very interesting and informative. I think that he deserves our thanks for writing and posting such an excellent article on relevant topic. However, many of his observations and generalizations are global and vague. Some of his comments are even evasive. His comments on Pakistan`s autocratic tendencies are facial at best. Bilal Ahmad needs to speak the whole truth. However, his articles deserves wider dissemination.

I decided to comment on Bilal Ahmad`s article with great deal of hesitancy. Given the fact that I am from Bangladesh, my comments could be quickly miscons