Our National Mea Culpa Re: Ras # 3

Nice to hear from you Ras sahi! The lenght of my articles is an old cliche on Chowk, but it was nice to know that you enjoyed the article.

My crystal ball simply paints a picture of 2007 as being as very bad year for Pakistan, but I do think that after 2007, this nation and its people will see marked improvement. There is a growing awareness in Pakistan, amongst the people, that did not exist five to ten years ago.

Ciao

Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight re: Hoodbhoy

I will defer to MantoLives, on the topic of Jinnah, but I believe that Manto's interact # 1 said it all. The constitution of Pakistan will be decided by the people of Pakistan regardless of what Jinnah may have wanted for Pakistan. The only condition is that it is done in an open and demcoratic manner and is not forced upon the people.

Jinnah was a meritocrat and he was neither an Islamist or a secularist. My inference is made on a telling point by Jinnah, in his August 11, 1947 speech, which was the reference to the religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics in English history. Religion to Jinnah, was a personal affair and it had nothing to do with the affairs of the state. Jinnah must have realized from the experience of the English religious wars that a nation, where two or more religions exist should favor all religions equally and to make sure that it happened this way, the state should not get into the business of deciding religious issues.

Secularism does not make a nation into an atheist, but it does make the tolerance of all religious believes possible and in a nation with multiple religious believes, each religion must be provided with the space to exist without being dominated or persecuted by one particular religion that has the offical patronage of the state.

In the end, one has to look at Jinnah's personal believes on the role of the state and not what his religious believes were in the role of the state to finally decided what form; Islamist or secular he supported for Pakistan. Regardless of his personal opinions, his choice of a Hindu as the first law minister of Pakistan proved that Jinnah favored the latter not because of his western education and liberal intellectual thought, but because he realized the pitfalls for Pakistan if one religion was favored over the rest of the religions in Pakistan and instead opted for a choice based on the qualifications of the person, for a task, and not his religious inclinations.

Much has been said about Jinnah and his reasons for creating Pakistan, but it still does not negate the fact that what made Jinnah great to the Indian Muslims despite his lack of Islamic knowledge or his westernized outlook, was the single minded sincerity of purpose he brought to the cause of the Muslims of India. Having said, one would expect nothing less from Jinnah once Pakistan was created and in the interests of Pakistan, Jinnah would have supported a secular form of government. He would have done so not because he was anti-Islam, but because he must have realized that Pakistan being a multi-religious state could not be single religion dominated state and still endure.

The argument, whether Jinnah was secularist or Islamist only makes sense if point was that Pakistan was created in the name of a religion, but it was not. Pakistan was created to ensure the consitutional, economic and religious, cultural freedoms of Indian Muslims and had Congress agreed to these demands, Jinnah would not have pursued the case of the Indian Muslims to the point of partition in 1947.

Jinnah, then, was neither a secularist or an Islamist as much as he was a meritocrat, who believed that meritocracy in the service of Pakistan was the best option for the new nation.

Ciao

Jinnah and the Islamic State – Setting the Record Straight re: Hoodbhoy

Jinnah's hand tailored suits were from Saville Row and not as you mentioned, "Seville Row". Seville is a city in Spain and there is, to the best of my knowledge, no Seville Row in London.

I will comment on the rest of the article later.

Ciao

The New Bedfellows Re: # 86

The nightmare never ends; one has to learn to live with it.

Pakistani politics have seen this tug of war between a strong Prime Minister's office and a strong presidency since 1947. I have been raked over the coals, by an old Chowkwallah and a good friend, for suggesting this but I believe that Jinnah's tenure as the Governor-General of Pakistan and the importance of that office in constrast to a weakened prime minsterial office, was responsible for the diminishing of the powers belonging to the prime minister's office.

Since that day, Pakistan has relived the struggle of political power between a strong presidency and a prime minister's office that would like to increase its importance. The word "increase" is used in the sense that a prime minister's office never had power and thus, it cannot "regain" it but only increase/add to its limited powers.

The point of contention is that Pakistan, due to these power struggles, has not been clearly able to spell out, whether it is a parliamentary form of government or a presidential form of government. If Pakistan wants to be a parliamentary form of government, then the powers of the presidency will have to be clipped and the Constitution of Pakistan amended because the manner in which it has been amended in the past and the powers it gives the president, suggests that it supports/favors a presidential style of government.

The army in Pakistan has always favored a presidential style of power and the civilians have always supported a parliamentary government, with a strong prime minister's office. Therefore, the politics in Pakistan have evolved into a mixture of both and since a presidential and a prime ministerial forms of goverance are different and require different sorts of institutional support, Pakistani institutions have been weakened, as a result of this power struggle, as they were made to support two conflicting political ideas; specially, when those ideas were involved in a zero-sum game with one another.

The solution, and this is open to debate, is that in the present context of Pakistan, a presidential or a prime ministerial system of government will only work after there is a national reconcilation to decide what the nation wants and then to forge that system. However, it will require a national consensus and therefore, it makes a very strong case for the need of a national reconcilation in Pakistani politics in the manner of the national consensus that created the Constitution of 1973.

Ciao

The New Bedfellows Benazir Bhutto would like nothing better than to be the prime minister and see the powers of the presidency limited. Musharraf would like an alliance with Benazir's party and still retain his presidential powers, i.e. a weak prime minister's office.

How these issues are accomodated, will decide the future of Pakistani politics and the rhetorical justifications for this act as an explanation to the people of Pakistan.

Ciao

Governance and Human Security Interesting.

Ciao

The Ugly Face of Internet Plagiarism A good public service informatative article.

Good job high lighting intellectual abuse in Pakistan.

Ciao

Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan re: Mantolives

One amendment - make the elections direct otherwise you will only end up with more horse-trading and musical chairs.

People should pick the president and the prime minister and not the assemblies! Period!

Ciao

Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan Re: # 92

Rozaiba, I agree with Mantolives in that the 1973 Constitution is a problem and not a solution.

If the 1973 document can be made workable, then that would be a great achievement, but if it cannot not, then we must consider the idea of a constituent assembly to frame a new constitution. If this means that we take the example of the 1973 and even incorporate its articles minus the preamable, then we still can have a working document.

Still, please answer how will the 1973 document will be restored and what will be trade-offs in the process. The compromise needed to achieve the restoration of the 1973 document will be more important and meaningful than the fact that all parties want to restore it.

Also, please bear in mind that all parties want to restore it because its restoration is seen as being anthi-thetical to Musharraf, but will they still abide by it once Musharraf has gone from the scene?

Political parties have not been immune from changing the document - witness Nawaz Sharif`s 15 Amendment.

The consensus to restore the document is based on the consensus of an anti-Musharraf consensus and the absence of Musharraf might unglue this consensus. Period.

When the newly formed American government realized that the Articles of the Confederation were not working, they dismantled that document and did not keep making amendments to make it work. They created the United States` Constitution.

Ciao

Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan re: Rozaiba

In reference to your comment about institutions and institutionalisms in Pakistan, please consider this fact.

Institutions cannot exist in a vacuum and need to be grounded into a framework that gives them the scope and the direction and more importantly, the legitimacy of acceptance in a society. All these factors dovetail into the issues of constitutionalism, because it is the constitution that finally offers itself not only as the bedrock of institutionalism in a nation, but also as its cornerstone and capstone. In Pakistan, to a very large degree, the failures of the instutionalism has been the result of the failure of constitutionalism, because since the 1973 document has been Rubik cubed so many times, the institutions in Pakistan have lost sight of their lodestar that not only gave them the reason for their existence, but also gave them a reason for their purpose.

The question, vis-a-vis the restoration of the 1973 document, then becomes one of how will the institutions in Pakistan function on the basis of a constitutional covenant that is has lost its spirit of consensus and its orginal political intention?

A parenthetic consideration to the above question is the role of the individuals within institutional and constitutional politics in Pakistan. If the 1973 document is revived but does not hold any degree of respect from the people, then the institutions which are supposed to function under it and hope to draw their legitimacy from it will be flawed. Institutions are not ivory-tower creations which exist outside of reality and in this case, the institutions will reflect the reality of the Pakistani politics and should that reality not find any consensus on the 1973 document, then what is there to make certain the people who do not agree on the 1973 document will agree to respect institutions founded upon the intent of the 1973 Constitution?

Hence, the last sentence of my lost post become a valid comment. Pakistan in many ways, in 2007, is placed in the same situation that it was in 1947. Pakistan needs to create a brand new social compact that takes account of Pakistan in 2007 and addresses the problems, issues and concerns faced by its federating units. We, as a nation, have to accept the fact that since 1947 the country has changed radically and what was hoped for Pakistan in 1947 cannot be gained in 2007. Pakistan of 2007 is not the same nation and neither can it be the nation Jinnah spoke off in his August 11, 1947 speech. We should concentrate on the intent of the speech while realizing that we, as a nation, must work within the limits of our handicaps and not remain expectant of our dreams, because if we remain idle in hope of waiting for our dreams, we will remain stationary as a nation without displaying any progress or achievment.

Pakistan needs a new social contract that that mirrors the reality of Pakistan and the reality of Pakistan in 2007 is that this nation belongs to 165 million people and no longer reflects the views of the minority that migrated to Pakistan after 1947 and ruled it in its early years.

Therefore, Rozaiba, institutions in Pakistan should be based on a social contract of what Pakistan is and will become in the future and not what it was in the past, i.e 1973 Constitution.

Ciao

Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan The 1973 Constitution is deeply compromised document. Its` original intent was lost immediately after it was signed and the ink on the paper was not even dry. The wishful tendency of the document to create the safe-guards for a secular society under an overarching religious credo, was untenable from the begining and could not be sustained in a society that could, or did, not wish to distinguish between a literalist interpretation of the document and one based on the spirit of the document.

The 1973 Constitution was federalist in nature, but the many amendments that were tailored into it have varied the character of the document to the extent that it now represents the autocratic power of the state personified in the political personality of who ever holds the sways of power in Pakistan. A solution to Pakistan`s political problems by simply seeking a reversal to the status quo ante of 1973 is not a practical proposal, because though federating units of Pakistan and its political parties may agree to the 1973 Constitution in the intent of its spirit; they do not agree with it in a literal defination. The only consensus on the issue is that document must be restored in its original form, but there are no answers to explain the questions in what manner and how will the document of 1973 will be restored to its original form.

Besides, Pakistan in 2007 is a vastly diffferent nation than it was in 1973 and if the Pandora`s Box of constitutional reforms is opened, then constitutional reforms must be made with keeping the realities of Pakistan in 2007 and beyond and not what those realities were in 1973. Too much blood has flowed under the bridge since 1973 in Pakistan and since that time, the Constitution of Pakistan has been altered so many times that it has ceased to represent any semblance of a civic right in Pakistan, for its citizens, and now merely stands for nothing more than a defacto legitimization of illegal political power. The 1973 Constitution, with its various changes since 1973, has become the anti-thesis of the idea for which and under which it was created in the first place - to serve the federation of Pakistan and through the federation of Pakistan to serve and protect the rights of the people of Pakistan.

All constitutions derive their power from the consent of the governed and not on the basis of the interests of the rulers, but in Pakistan the consent of the governed was never a part of the constitutional social contract between the people of Pakistan and their governors. To the large number of Pakistani people, the 1973 document is an alien document that has no tangible meaning in their lives and until this perception is corrected, the restoration of the 1973 Constitution would be a doomed affair incapable of producing any beneficial results for the nation. Pakistani politics have simply collapsed under the irreconcible weight of their own contradictions and have alienated the people from the civic discourse of the nation and this has to be remedied because without it; without the re-creation of a civic society in Pakistan that believes in a social contract, the 1973 document would nothing else than a facile attempt to revive a dead spirit of constitutionalism in Pakistani politics.

The issue at hand, in Pakistan, at this moment in time is not one of constitutions per se but rather one of a political mechanism that is needed to reach a constitutional agreement that is agreeable by all the units of the federation, as the political realities of the federation dictate in 2007 and may articulate after 2007.

Pakistan needs a constitutional form of a truth and reconcilation process and if this process advices for the replacement of the 1973 Constitution then so be it, but nevertheless Pakistan needs to seriously consider the fact whether the 1973 Consitution is an utopian wish of an osterich pretending not to see the danger or whether the time has come for this nation to move its political debate beyond the 1973 Constitution and admit to itself that maybe the time has arrived to think about a replacement constitution to the discredited 1973 Constitution.

Ciao

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective re: Bulleya

You mentioned that there is no hierarchy Islam but the point is that it exists; there is a heirarchy in Islam and this particular heirarchy issues fatwas. Fatwas maybe an opinion without force, but when the self-declared guardians of Islam, i.e. the clergy issue fatwas and then by enforce them by force and violence, then the fatwas can no longer be considered as simple opinions. When opinions are enforced upon with force, the defination of such an act can be rightfully called as intolerance. Hence, fatwas in Islam, in the present sense, are internationally considered as expressions of intolerance.

Parenthetically speaking, there will be hardly any progress towards a better situation for Muslims in the world as long as they keep on thinking that just because Islam does not allow something, that particular thing does not exist in Islam. The Muslims have to step outside of their denials and admit to themselves that there is a problem within their religion and within themselves. They have to admit that there is gulf of disharmony between their believes about their religion and how they practice their religion.

This is what annoys the world; the inability of the Muslims to realize the disconnect between their words and actions and their continued persistence to exist in a realm of denials.

Ciao

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective Karachi state of mind is unique in Pakistan and Karachi will leave the rest of Pakistan behind, because in Karachi, there is a new sense of awareness and that sense of awareness translates into the idea that time is money.

Karachi is a city in the midst of a violent evolution and transition and the immediate problem confronting Karachi is one of developing the city after a neglect of nearly half a century or more and once that is done, the attention will turn towards the issues of law and order. Law and order cannot be reality when the people are not offered anything and ahve yo think of bread and butter instead of security and hence, Karachi`s main task is to develop economically, without waiting for handouts from Islamabad because the people of Karachi have understood the reality of living in Pakistan; they are Pakistanis but they are not treated as Pakistanis. Karachi, as a casual visitor will inform, has developed its own personality and despite the mayhem, there is money flowing into Karachi and with money, the jobs are also coming to Karachi.

There is a marked rhyme to life in Karachi and this rhyme is different from the rest of Pakistan and leadership of MQM has understood it. It is because of this new realization, that there has a been shift in the rhetoric of MQM from a political party of ethnic confrontation to one of an urban reconcilation. The MQM has changed from its street fighting days into one of a national party, with a much more balanced view and it is now openly canvassing the national political scene and more importantly, is being considered as a national party of consequence. The patterns of monetary inflows into Karachi, from the Gulf, have created a trend whereby Karachi, political, socially and economically, has become an alien city in Pakistan and is now preparing to march to its own drums; of economic autonomy from Punjab dominated politics of Pakistan and it will be this rhyme, which set Karachi apart from the rest of nation.

Ciao

Pakistans Permanent Revolution The song will be repeated. :)

If the situation develops, it will most likely come down to the street power and in this sense, the street power of the mullahs is highly organized. Even in Iran, in 1979, it was the street power that allowed the intelligentsia, aided by the clerics, to topple the shah, but they were then sidelined by the street power of the clergy. Same thing happened in Russia in 1917; the Bolsheviks dominated liberals. Nazi ``strassenkampfers`` - street fighters - were the key to the Nazis beating off their opponents.

Do liberals have the street power in Pakistan? Mixed marathons do not count as expressions of liberal and enlightened moderation`s street power. The simple reality is that the situation and the debate in Pakistan has moved beyond constitutional references and it has boiled down to an old fashioned muscle power.

Remember, the mullah is willing to die for his belief/believes. The issue is whether the liberals of Pakistan are willing to die for theirs? If not, then the fight is already lost even before it began. :)

The song will be repeated because the liberals, out of habit, will chose the wrong champion again. I agree with your sentiments and I agree with your hopes, but past experience of Pakistan informs me that power and rights will be elusive till we actually are prepared to pay a sacrifrice for our believes. In the end, the liberals of Pakistan have always remained a status quo society and they accept any fate that does not alter their status quo. This time around, they are worried because the status quo seems about to be changed and they see nothing for themselves in the new status quo. Give them a right in the new status quo and see how quickly consitutionalism and liberalism is forgotten.

1947 did not happen because of few liberal Muslim lawyers from Delhi or Bombay but because of the thousands who died during the train rides from India to Pakistan and the millions who walked towards Pakistan. The sacrifice for Pakistan came from the thousands of the poor and not from the Muslim liberal intelligentisia of India. Granted, the liberal Muslims provided the thought and the leadership for Pakistan, but they did not really sacrifice anything for Pakistan. They simply sought a replacement for their declining influence in India by re-creating it in Pakistan.

Idealism never wins revolution; realism of power does.

Sadly, history tells us that liberals in Pakistan have been more than happy to make deals, which secure their interests. When something different happens, then it will be a nice change of pace, but till then; all bets are and in the meantime, the song will be repeated!

Ciao

Pakistans Permanent Revolution re: Mantolives

My friend, a word of caution. First of all, please do not idealize Justice Iftikar Chaudhry and his decisions as noble for we do not know his true intentions and in fact, his intentions may be not as noble as assumed. Secondly, it has been a Pakistani tragedy that we, as a nation, idolize people only discover at our mortal peril that they had feet of clay and though they came dressed in the finest robes of liberalism, their bodies were covered with the sores of self-interest and their hearts were filled a disdain for the very people and the cause they claimed to serve and protect. All the leaders, who came to rule and preside over this halpless nation, were brought to power by own faults and when we realized our misakes, we wished them ill and hoped they would leave. Again, despite our past, we would wrongly misplace our hopes on another mirage upon a horseback and convince ourselves that we had finally found our one and true knight.

We are a morose nation, because we refuse to learn from our mistakes and instead find comfort in blaming our stars for the miseries, which periodically visit us. We as a people are a despressed lot, because we have been routinely disappointed by our leaders, who were not leaders but followers of their own vision and sadly, their visions and our hopes were two paths that never intersected. We have twisted and turned with so many hopes and promises, that we grown confused and everything we believed in; from religion to politics and everything inbetween, does not make any sense. We as a nation cannot agree on anything and have become so insecure, that we cannot tolerate any dissent. We hate dissent, because dissent only proves our own failures and inabilities. In our state of insecurity, we have become our own judge, jury and unfortunately, our own excutioners and this further, increases our insecurity but we still continue to make the same mistakes.

This situation will continue to peter out and despite talks of revolutions, none will happen because we, as a nation, are a people of the status quo. We love our social and political and religious castes and we do not want to see them end. We, as a nation, are a nation of individuals and each one of us, prides and extols the idea of being above the law and of enjoying special privilges and we have our own personalize set of laws by which we judge each other and then, when we as individuals are judged by the personal laws of another, we cry and demand justice.

The only problem is that we do not know what justice is, because we have abused justice so much that we, as a nation, are not on speaking terms with justice and this problem pales in the light of another more pressing question: whose justice do we seek?

The personality of Pervez Musharraf or the absence of this personality and for this matter, the existence of another personality, will not solve our problems. Our problem is not the failure of the leadership, but the failure of the imagination. Our problem is that we, as a nation, are like a thirsty person who when he finally comes to well, drinks heartily, but does not realize that well had run out of water a long time ago and what he is drinking and assuming as water is not water but sand. Until we learn to distinquish sand from water, we will always be fooled and as they say; fool me once, shame on you and fool me twice, shame on me!

Ciao

An Unexpected Birthday Gift Re: dost-mittar # 61

Dost, the problem in Pakistan is not necessarily one of evolving with the times, but as Bulleya rightly identified as one of leaving the seat of power. If Musharraf stays and learns from this mistake, there would be have been no evolution but only an adjustment. However, I will give credit to Musharraf in the sense that he is a rare Pakistani politican who seems to really respond to public opinion and though he may have been proven wrong in his judgements, he has the good sense to apologise for his errors.

Ciao