Topic: The War on terror has contributed to the growing abuse of human rights

I was woefully unprepared. The paper was the first time I had probably ever written a serious essay, that too of 2500-3000 words. Thought I'd make an outline at the end but then totally forgot about it.

Other than that, I kinda argued against the topic. Not totally though, I did acknowledge that just like all wars generally contribute to the growth of violation of human rights, so has the war on terror, but at the same time I argued that it was important to distinguish between what is actual abuse of human rights & what is false propaganda by both parties of the war through their proxies like the so called human rights council of Pakistan & Jamaat-e-Islami type goons etc. For example, I said that torture on prisoners of war for the sake of humiliating them because of hatred for them and their culture, like what happened in Abu Ghiraid & constantly happens in Gitmo, is a violation of human rights, but torturing them for the sake of genuinely getting information about some terrorist attack that could kill perhaps a 100 people is not a violation of human rights, but, in fact, is a valiant effort to save the right of 100 innocent people to life. If the guy tortured was innocent & he didn't know anything even then torture is justified for this cause. All I can say about that guy is that "shit happens"; he was most probably in the wrong place at the wrong time. So its all very subjective, you can't start chanting abuse of human rights violation for everything under the sun which even remotely looks bad like the so called "missing persons phenomena" or something.

Deaths of terrorists along with their relatives & apparently civilian support network like the tajirs of IED bazaar of SWA are not human rights violations because of their close association & affinity with terrorist eco system and also to save the lives of 100s of other innocent people. I conceded that death of children is regrettable in any situation but left the moral question for the examiner on what should be done if there is a confirmed intelligence report of a terrorist hideout where planning for a major attack on innocent people is being planned & that is the only window of opportunity for getting them before they attack but they also have their children with them there. Should there be a counter terror strike on them where their children would also most probably die or should the government try to save the right of life of 100s of other innocents who might die because of the terrorist attack if its allowed to happen? Which option would be an abuse of human rights? In my opinion killing a few to save more is the only rational choice in this scenario & doesn't constitute human rights violation. Children are human shields and as the guy above, are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I also suggested that wives of fugitive terrorists should kill their husbands themselves or somehow inform the authorities of their whereabouts otherwise their own deaths by the way of a jet strike or something would not constitute a human rights violation because of their direct support of terrorism. They are a vital part of terrorist eco system.

Overall my essay flowed like a conversion with the examiner on main events which are attributed to human rights violations which, in my opinion, include 9/11 itself, handover of Afghan ambassador Mullah Zaeef to US by Pakistan at the outset of the attack on Afghanistan, later PAF & NATO bombings in Af-Pak region, drone attacks etc. I didn't give out any facts or figures but merely tried to paint the said events from the point of views of all parties involved & their opinions of how what they do does not constitute human rights violations & what I conclude from a holistic point of view about it.

Paragraphs were long as hell & the closing was botched because of a lack of time at the end & looked really cringe worthy. Yikes!

Initially I was pretty upbeat after pouring my heart out in the essay but since then I've come to a realization that the examiner is probably not going to like my overconfidence & the very informal style of writing and will fail me without even giving me a chance.

Got sight of this old post of yours while viewing your profile. I couldn't help myself noticing the striking similarity you have with me in many respects. I did the exact same mistakes that you have done in your essay (being a candid writer/blogger myself) when I appeared for the first time in 2013. I didn't bother to take any kind of guidance because I thought to myself, "hey! How difficult could it be to get through this! After all I am a regular, passionate writer". And that resulted in a failure for me

In all likelihood, your essay isn't going to sit well with the old, innovation-hating and unoriginal pedagogues sitting as the easay examiners in FPSC. They demand a particular structure and you didn't give them one. Even if you pour gold and embellish it with diamonds and jewels on your paper (as I thought I did in 2013), they're not gonna pass you unless you follow the structure they demand!

But, best of luck to you anyway. In the end it's all luck. You never know they might like some aspect of your essay and may even give it a green signal. You are a CSP material, I sense that in you. Nail it in your next attempt (even though I wish you clear this one too).

__________________
"Everything the light touches, is our kingdom."

Hi there,
I have been following this thread since a week now. I thought to jump in and give my two cents.
I read ur entire thread including ur essay. I think everybody can see the genius in you. However, I want to make some suggestions, if you don't mind.
1. If you happen to take the next attempt of css. Please write your essay in as much formal language as possible. It creates quite an impression.
2.I don't agree with your point that torturing an innocent person for the sake of saving human lives is NOT violation of human rights. It clearly is, according to Universal declaration of human rights. (Please refer to the full text in the UN website). In my humble opinion, the examiner also meant the same human rights as declared by the UN, afterall almost every country is a member of UN.
3. You mentioned in a C.A or P.A qs about elections - that educated people should have the privileage to cast more than one quote. Because an educated person is not equal to an illiterate person. I'd like to add, this also is a form of human rights violation because everybody is born equal. Moreover, please don't give reference of quran where it is not required. Had it been a recommendation in an islamic studies paper, it would have been a different game. However, i'd like to clear when quran mentions abt the standard of equality based in education. It is not to discriminate. correct me if i'm wrong but i dont think anyone was discriminated against their educatiion for their civil right of voting in prophet or khalifa's time.

Thanks for the kind words mate. Believe me, I'm no such thing as you mentioned.

Duly noted.

Mate, I've read the UN declaration of human rights and frankly speaking, its a hypocritical document from a hypocritical organization. I can rip apart the entire UN system from top to bottom but, in the spirit of staying within the legal framework that you're talking about, I'll answer based on the same declaration of human rights. The following is the article that you were referring to:

Article 5:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

But then what about this article from the same document:

Article 3:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

My point is, what right should one try to uphold if a choice comes between the above two? I say that if torturing person A extracts info which helps save the life of Person B, then torturing Person A is not a violation of article 5 but, in fact, the upholding of right to life of Person B i.e article 3. After all, saving an innocent life trumps all other considerations, no?

But you don't have to answer this because even the declaration of human rights agrees with my POV. Here:

Article 29:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.




Brother, if everyone is born equal according to UN declarations of human rights then why doesn't everyone have the freedom to visit New York without a visa? Why is it that a person born outside of US cannot become the president of the US even if he later becomes a naturalized citizen of the US? Why is it that I can't appear in PPSC exams because I was born in Islamabad(domicile) but another guy born in Lahore can? Why is it that the UN YPP exam is only open for persons of nationalities of a select few countries every year? Why is it that a person born in the China cannot marry his/her 1st cousin but a person born in Pakistan can? I thought everyone was born equal, no?

There is no universal equality or freedom. There are lawful limits to the freedom one is born with depending on where that person is born. Those lawful limits are decided the governments of the respective states in which people are born. And they can be anything!

Answer this: Why does a person needs to have at least a bachelors degree to qualify for appearing in the CSS exams? Why this qualifying criteria? Why not "just being born" as the qualifying criteria? Isn't this inequality if we go by your definition of equality? If this is not an inequality then how is education based voting an inequality?

Why is it that generally people with lesser education have lesser incomes & privileges as compared to people with higher education throughout the world? Why is it that toppers of CSS usually end up in PAS, PSP and FSP which have relatively higher income and/or privileges as compared to other groups? Isn't this justice? Can you say its an inequality? NO! It is the law of nature! If you break this law then bad things will happen and injustice will prevail, no? So why break that law of nature for the privilege of voting? Why should just being born be the criteria for this privilege? Would that not spread injustice & inequality in the land? Following the same law of nature, voting should be a privilege, not a right in a balanced society.

A person who can be easily bamboozled by cunning politicians cannot be equal to the person who can see right through them. A person who cannot think beyond his immediate and short term benefit cannot be equal to a person who has the capacity to think beyond himself, for the betterment of society and the country when deciding who to vote for. And education is the only thing that which can broaden the vision of an illiterate person. If the opinion of a former Foreign Secretary regarding international relations is deemed equal to the opinion of an illiterate traitor criminal sitting in jail for his crimes then that is true injustice and inequality. All fingers are not equal, trying to declare them equal is creating true inequality. In fact, it is by following the "one man one vote" system that we are violating the UN declarations of human rights.

As far as UN is concerned, Article 21 of the UN declaration says:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

But as I quoted before, Article 29 says:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

So to protect a society from injustice and inequality, a government can lawfully do away with the draconian "one man one vote" system.

I don't think anyone can disagree with me on this.

Quran is THE ultimate source of guidance on how to lead a life. It can be quoted anywhere, anytime.

Prophet PBUH didn't nominate a successor, influential Muslims automatically decided that Abu Bakar RA would be the one. Abu Bakar RA nominated Umar RA and no voting shoting happened. Umar RA made a 6 man committee to decide his successor. Forget voting. There is no concept of "one man one vote" in Islam. Its "right man for the right job" approach.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Your entire thesis stands on a statement " voting should be a privilege not a right" meaning you don't advocate one man for one vote. I would like you to have a look at the consequences of your statement:

This act will divide society into classes with more rigid structure where social mobility will be frozen, poor will remain eternally poor and rich will remain eternally rich, As the privileged class will further it's agenda while crushing the will of underprivileged class who will have no voice in your proposed system.

I know current system of classes is no better but social mobility is still possible because some how there is " more equality" than the system you are proposing.

For example, Privileged voting system will lead to Privilege entry into civil servants , resultantly, the children of poor and uneducated parents wont be able to aspire for civil service let alone join civil service. In one man one vote system we at least witness some underprivileged kid reaching highest posts.

I think you are misunderstanding..... Xing Lee wants to state that those who have knowledge can decide better than others. It doesnt mean that one who knows is necessarily rich and priviliged and ignorant is poor. The situation can be contrary to it. A person belonging to poor family can be educated as people join civil service from all classes of society. So dont mix right to vote by knowledgeable person with right to vote by rich.

Noble Quran says "Are those who know equal to those who dont know?" [39:9]

__________________
"And whoever puts all his trust in ALLAH, He will be enough for him" (Al-Quran 65:1)

On the contrary, education based voting will help illiterate people realize that if they don't educate their next generations they wont have much of a say in the making and breaking of the governments and its policies. No faida of bhangrai and narai. As a consequence of this they will do their utmost to give their children the best education possible. The literacy rate of the country will increase as a side benefit thereby destroying the rule of a particular feudal class of our society. Educated & informed people will have the ability to vote based on the manifesto, past performance and sincerity of the politicians. In turn, these sincere and competent politicians will ensure that education is provided to every child of the nation to realize the true potential of the country. Win Win situation for everyone.

I don't know where you came up with this idea from. I haven't even talked about changing the CSS system. CSP officers are not elected through a pubic vote but are selected based on their performance in the CSS exam. I thought you knew that!

Bottomline is the same, giving privilege to educated class would ensure that they and their children will remain educated and rest will remain illiterate. Actually this statement was springboard for crafting "Plato Republic" which lee is advocating here. Thesis of plato republic has been refuted by many scholars. For further information see plato republic and it's criticism.

Democracy is the worst form of government but still is far better than other systems.

When power and authority is vested into privilege class then they will ensure that they remain Privileged forever so they won't let underprivileged enter into mainstream no matter how hard they try. After all ,Privileged will have all authority and power. Who want to give away his authority and power?

You give 20% of the population certain privilege and after 10 years you ask them to include 10% more, will they? Why would they? Who will force them to do so? The underprivileged? How will they force after all they are under Privileged and have no rights.

Ok lets see how much change has occured so far under one person one vote system? Decades have passed and there are few priviliged groups taking their turn in power. Why? Because these privileged groups know that they will remain in power so long the people are ignorant and uneducated. Because they know they can make these ignorant fool very easily. Thats the reason feudals fear the day the son of peasant go for high education.
If this system will continue, it is in their benefit and so, according to your own statement which is very true, nobody wants to share power and so are they.

But this system can be changed when only educated people will be given power to decide. Its not easy to make them fool easily. An educated person can do critical analysis and know that much is being taken and less is being given. So he will make rational decision, atleast much better than ignorant one. That day, the status quo will change and this is the reason the privilege class will not let it happen.. This will collapse them, they know!

__________________
"And whoever puts all his trust in ALLAH, He will be enough for him" (Al-Quran 65:1)