Columns reading play an important role in making thoughts, arguments for any specific topic, and polishing your writing skills also. From some time back, I've been reading columns specifically important ones for CSS/PMS from The Nation along-with Dawn on daily basis. Here, I'll try my best to share important columns from The Nation on daily basis.

Constitutional conundrum

Full court of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, on Friday, concluded hearing and reserved its judgment on the challenges to the 18th and the 21st Constitutional Amendment. While the substance of both these Amendments is very different in essence, the pending challenges invite the court to deliberate upon, inter alia, the core issue of whether or not a constitutional (Supreme) Court can sit in judgment over provisions of the Constitution itself. Furthermore, the august Court is faced with the seemingly insurmountable constitutional questions concerning defection clauses (introduced through the 18th Amendment) and deciding on the legitimacy of military courts (per the 21st Amendment).

But before delving into some of the constitutional complexities facing the honourable Supreme Court, it is pertinent to revisit the substantive aspects of the impugned Constitutional Amendments, in order to understand the legal and political issues at stake.

The 18th Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 2010 by a civilian democratic government, in the aftermath of a decade-long military rule, enacted several tectonic changes into the Constitutional topography of Pakistan. Some of these changes, such as the constitutional command for local governments (Article 140A) was widely hailed and accepted. Others, however, were more controversial in nature. In particular, faced with the euphoric belligerence of the Chaudhry Court, especially after the judgment in Sindh High Court Bar Association case, which removed over 100 (PCO) judges, the parliamentarians (unanimously) decided to amend the process of judicial appointments (through introduction of Article 175A), in an attempt to break pater familias’ hegemony over judicial appointments, making the process more inclusive (and democratic) in nature. Furthermore, Article 63A (an anti-defection clause) was included into the Constitution, giving “Party Head” the power to recommend the disqualification of any member of the Parliamentary Party, in case such member resigns from the Party, or deviates from party line in matters concerning the election of PM/CM, voting of no-confidence motions, or the passing of a Money Bill and Constitutional Amendments.

At the time, despite the draconian implications of Article 63A, which wreck the very core of our democracy, a challenge to the 18th Amendment focused almost exclusively on the judicial appointment process (Article 175A). In what seemed like a turf-war between the Parliament and the honourable Court, in October of 2010, the honourable Supreme Court delivered a short-order that stopped just shy of declaring that Article 175A offended an unwritten (unascertainable?) Basic Structure of Pakistan’s Constitution; one that even a unanimous Parliament could not amend or tinker with.
Soon thereafter, as a sort of constitutional compromise, the Parliament enacted the 19th Constitutional Amendment, which increased representation of judges in the Judicial Commission, confirming their dominance over the appointment process. In the months to follow, the constitutional autonomy of Parliamentary Committee and the President, in the process of judicial appointments, was also cut to size through Munir Hussain Bhatti’s case (PLD 2011 SC 407) and the Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2012, in essence undoing the entire paradigm of judicial appointments that was conceived by the 18th Amendment.

The issue of Article 63A, which finds no mention – at all! – in the short-order of 18th Amendment case, lingered on, with no real urgency on part of either the polity or judiciary. Along comes the 21st Constitutional Amendment, in the wake of the unprecedented tragedy in APS Peshawar, last December. This Amendment package was designed to achieve two objectives: 1) trying religious terrorists in the military courts (through amendment of section 2 of the Army Act, which now extends jurisdiction to terrorists waging war “using the name of religion or a sect”), and 2) lending constitutional protection to the establishment and proceedings of the military courts (through exempting military laws from the protection of Article 8 of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights), and exempting such proceedings from the bar of Article 175(3) (separation of powers)).

Sum total of these amendments mean that military trials of (select) religious terrorists can now take place under the Army Act, outside the gates of fundamental rights, by serving Army officers, who cannot be challenged on the basis of the constitutional principle of due process or ‘separation of powers’. As a result, the constitutional and legal paradigm of Pakistan has created three different forums for adjudication of somewhat similar (identical?) offences: 1) Sessions Courts, for the trial of (regular) murder and connected offences; 2) the Anti-Terrorist Courts, for trial for all terrorism offences, unconnected with religion; and 3) Military Courts, for trying terrorist suspects who use “the name of religion or a sect”.
Surprisingly, the (absolute) discretion, as to which cases will be referred to the military courts, has been left in the (partisan) hands of Federal Government. Also, for now, there is no clarity or transparent procedure for how such determinations might be made. In fact, the entire exercise of such unfettered discretion of the Federal Government, to arbitrarily pick between different forums of adjudication, offends the cardinal principles of equality before law, and thus flies in the face of established principles of our jurisprudence, including the landmark case of Waris Meah (PLD 1957 SC 157).

Judges of the apex Court find themselves in an unenviable place. Deciding these questions require the making of tough, almost impossible, constitutional choices. In regards to Article 63A – despite our political history of shady deals and forward blocks – there can be very little constitutional cavil with the idea that each MP, regardless of the political party associations, must be given the autonomy to make independent choices in the Parliament, without binding dictation from the Party Head. In fact, such autonomy of the each parliamentarian must be jealously guarded by the court, as an essential part of our democracy, because this autonomy represents the freedom of each parliamentarian to voice the opinion of his/her constituents – even when such expression differs with the party line. What good would representative democracy or adult franchise be, if curtailed within the binding contours of a select few Party Heads? And if this does not offend the very core of our Constitutional ethos, what does?

Similarly, the existence of military courts, and their constitutional protection, necessarily undermines the legitimacy of our judicial process. It does far greater damage to the independence of judiciary than Article 175A ever could! How then can such an aberration be tolerated by a judiciary that claims to have “buried forever” the doctrine of necessity? Is it is not “necessity”, above all other arguments, that rests at the core of enacting military courts? And if we allow “necessity” to be a legitimate constitutional excuse today, can we really expect to not use it as a defense again, tomorrow, when some military adventurer decides to depose democracy?
On the other hand, is there any justification for the Court, which is a creature of the Constitution, to invalidate provisions of the very document that creates it? In other words, can the makhlooq invalidate part of the khaliq? And on what basis? How can we decipher, and then apply, an unwritten ‘Basic Structure’? Can the ‘Objectives Resolution’ be used as a touchstone for this exercise? If so, will we not then forever enshrined Islamic ideology (as interpreted by Mullahs) to be an unimpeachable part of our Constitution? What consequences would this have on Fundamental Rights? On minority rights? On laws of criminal procedure and evidence? On our daily lives, and that of our children, and their children after that?

These are tough questions for honourable Judges. And the answer entails a constitutional soul-searching exercise to determine not only who are as a people, but also who we wish to become as a nation.

Published on June 28, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/28-Jun-...onal-conundrum

India’s Emergency

Since the partition of India in 1947, Pakistan and India have had divergent political trajectories. While Pakistan suffered one military adventurer after the other, Indian politicians never allowed the army to bare its teeth. Professor Steven I. Wilkinson in his book, “Army and Nation: The Military and Indian Democracy since Independence” has provided three reasons that caused the difference in civil-military relations of India and Pakistan following Partition.


The first issue was the ‘far worse socioeconomic, strategic and military inheritance that Pakistan received in 1947, compared to India’. Secondly, All India Congress had ‘greater political institutionalisation’ and a broad ethnic and regional support as opposed to the ragtag team of feudals that comprised the Muslim League. Lastly, Indian political leadership specifically adopted ‘coup-proofing’ strategies by minimising the army’s ability to coordinate against the state, maximising the ethnic heterogeneity of the most senior officers and making the military subservient to bureaucrats.


By adopting various strategies, the Indian leadership avoided military intervention that was frequently encountered by post-colonial states in the twentieth century. Philip Oldenburg, a renowned political scientist, wrote that “political scientists did not expect India to survive as a democracy, because it had a desperately poor, mainly agricultural economy, a religiously justified case system and oppression of women; and was not just ethnically diverse, but composed of what could easily be separate nations”. Autocracy, however, comes in many shapes and forms. While India never faced a military coup, there was a 21-month period starting in 1975 during which emergency was declared in the country, elections were suspended and civil liberties curbed.


Daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the founding fathers of India and an intellectual, Indira grew up surrounded by anti-colonial fervour and political activity. She shadowed her illustrious father during his political journey and period in power. She was elected the President of Congress Party in 1959. After the unexpected demise of India’s Prime Minister, Lal Buhadur Shastri, Indira manoeuvred her way to the office of Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi charted her own path within the Congress Party. She grew closer to the left, causing a split in the party resulting in her being expelled. She formed her own faction of Congress and was still able to gain a majority in the parliament.


Indira Gandhi called for early elections in 1971 to assert her dominance over the parliament. Her party swept the national polls in 1971 and state elections in 1972. The 1971 elections were fought on the ambitious slogan of ‘Garibi Hatao’ (eradicate poverty). In 1971, Indian forces defeated Pakistan in East Pakistan, paving the way for Independence of Bangladesh. This gave Indira’s government a boost in the domestic arena as well. Buoyed by successive victories, Indira Gandhi tried to micro-manage the Congress Party and the Indian republic.


There was an ongoing tussle with the courts over the issue of fundamental rights such as civil liberties. The Indian Supreme Court had ruled in 1967 that Parliament didn’t have the authority to suspend fundamental rights provided by the constitution. The Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, nullifying this judgement. Finally, the court introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine (borrowed from Western Germany) which meant that some parts of the constitution could not be amended, even by the Parliament.


During 1973-75, political unrest against the excesses of Congress Government spread across India. In April 1974, a student agitation in Bihar received the support of Gandhian Socialist Jayaparakash Narayan (JP) against the Bihar government. In 1974, a former judge of Bombay high court (V.M.Takude) and JP set up ‘Citizens for Democracy’, a non-party platform to draw attention to violation of human rights across the country. JP called for ‘total revolution’ in the society, asking students labourers and peasants to use non-violent methods for transforming Indian society. Meanwhile, a case was filed by Raj Narain against Indira Gandhi for violating election campaign laws during 1971 elections. In June 1975, the Allahabad High Court found the Prime Minister guilty of misusing government machinery during her campaign and her election was declared null and void.


Protestors led by JP and Morarji Desai thronged the streets of New Delhi, demanding resignation of Indira Gandhi. The High Court verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision. Facing dire threats to the government, Indira asked the President to declare Emergency on 25th June 1975. All the opposition leaders were arrested, state governments with non-Congress affiliations were dissolved and Indira Gandhi ruled like a modern-day empress. Indira’s son Sanjay was the virtual ruler of the country during the emergency period. He devised a compulsory sterilisation program to control population growth. The press was gagged and criticism regarding the autocratic decisions was not tolerated. Economic issues also underpinned the Emergency. Inflation was hovering above 30 per cent and the quasi-socialist experiment tried by Indira after 1971 had miserably failed, in absence of industrialisation. The economy was under pressure because of massive influx of Bangladeshi refugees, war with Pakistan with the resultant halting of US aid and the failure of monsoons.


Some newspapers didn’t even name the opposition leaders who were arrested, while The Indian Express and The Statesman published blank editorials. The government went to great lengths in punishing the dissenters, including a ban on Kishore Kumar’s songs to be played on radio or Television because Kishore had refused to sing at a government function. In 1977, Indira Gandhi surprised almost everyone by calling for elections. There was no significant pressure on the government but intelligence reports had assured her of a resounding victory (similar to the assurances received by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, during 1977). The elections proved a nightmare for the congress party. Four opposition parties combined to form ‘Janata Party’ before the elections. Congress was wiped out in the General elections and the State elections. For the first time in 30 years, India had a non-Congress government. Indira Gandhi was punished for her ‘experimentation’ with democracy by the electorate. The ‘stunt’ in unlikely to be repeated in India anytime soon.

Published on June 29, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/29-Jun-...ia-s-emergency

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Eurasian Economic Union and Pakistan

For Pakistan’s policy for the West, an important development has been the growing of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the ground for which was originally laid in 2010. In fact as of this year, the European Union (EU) and Kazakhstan may be said to share a border, between Poland and the Belarus. Beyond it, there are no traffic or trade barriers between the two, thanks to the establishment of the EEU and now its new implemented rules that eliminate all internal trade borders between Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. The development effectively puts it on the EU investor radar, as it will save considerable time and trouble for European travellers and traders in terms of cross-border formalities. Moreover, investors within the zone have free access to a market of global size. More importantly, the EEU is not “Putin’s brainchild” as some western media tries to portray it, but an initiative primarily led by Kazakhstan. It allows each member state to build separate bi- and multilateral relations with other countries. In short, the new economic area creates huge opportunities without imposing restrictions on third parties.

The EEU has an integrated single market of 176 million people and a gross domestic product of over $4 trillion. What makes it one of the most interesting emerging markets is that it introduces free movement of goods, capital, services and people, and provides for common transport, agriculture and energy policies, with provisions for a single currency and for even greater integration in the future. The union operates through supranational and intergovernmental institutions, and is thus considered to be a congregation adumbrate. The supranational institutions are the Eurasian Commission (the executive body) and the Eurasian Development Bank. National governments are usually represented by the Eurasian Commission’s Council. In addition, all member states participate in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, an intergovernmental mutual defense alliance.

From Pakistan’s perspective what is important is that the EEU opens doors not just to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia or to the EU, but also to nearly all others. China and India have already declared their readiness to create privileged trade and financial links with the fast emerging new bloc. With our improving relations with Afghanistan, paving way for land connectivity as well in our case, Pakistan is ideally placed to take advantage of the EEU by strengthening its trade and financial linkages with this bloc. However, we need to move quickly to avoid missing the bus, because China, India and Latin American are already actively busy pursuing economic opportunities available in the bloc. China, is trying to create a chain that directly connects them with the EU through the EEU. In this they have recently announced a most advanced trade and transport hub of Khorgos, on the border between Kazakhstan and China, which is also a privileged Special Economic Zone.

The development of Khorgos Dry Port, is intended as the staging point at which cargo enters the Special Economic Zone and feeds, and is fed from, the planned Logistics Zone and the Industrial Zone. This Dry Port will also supply the local markets and will act as a transshipment facility for through traffic. Tax and customs privileges inside the Special Economic Zone include zero rates of corporate-income, land, property and value added tax, land lease at near zero rates (for a period of up to 10 years) and no import duties on necessary equipment. Last but not least, a rail link is being carved out by China connecting the former Soviet rail network to that of China.

On the other hand the Indian government is also facilitating tangible initiatives to see Indian public and private sector corporations to gain a foothold in EEU industries that include chemicals, metallic and non-metallic half-fabricates hardware, pharmaceuticals and others. Further, in addition India has proposed extending technical cooperation of every sort to it, in the fields of energy and technology systems.

It will be nice to see our Commerce Ministry to also timely wake-up to this opportunity and to the new trade and investment challenges of the 21st century. For the first time in history, an economic union with a powerful natural and resource potential, strategically important in terms of global and regional transport, energy and agriculture, is being created on the vast expanses of Eurasia on a voluntary, equal and mutually beneficial basis and even more uniquely, for the first time a bloc is extending an invitation to anyone who wishes to join in or is in a position to connect itself with the EEU. It will be a shame if we were to miss out on such an offer.

Published on July 01, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/01-Jul-...n-and-pakistan

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

The mockery of democracy

The number of those with a blind faith in our current democracy project is dwindling and you can see these die-hard champions struggling to keep a straight face as they try to defend the indefensible. Naturally, with Zardari and Altaf Hussain as the poster-boys of democracy these days, they have a tough job. Their sermons on civilian supremacy have stopped making sense for another reason. While they’d like to paint General Raheel as a villain for encroaching upon civilian turf, the public is hailing him as a hero for doing exactly that.


Democracy is a worthwhile ideal for societies to move towards. But what makes the present ‘democratic’ dispensation so sacred so as not to be questioned, even when it mocks every ideal in the democracy book? Why should an undisturbed unending continuation of the current democracy project be a self-evident article of faith? Wasn’t this project conceived in cold imperial capitals and finalized in deals behind closed doors between military generals and our so-called democratic leaders? Surely, to foster democratic governance in Pakistan, we’ll have to do better than that.


Any half-decent system of democracy should do better than elevating to the top post of the prime minister a man who would pocket a diamond necklace given in charity for flood victims and take it home. Not just any member of the parliament but the Prime Minister, mind you. The worth of Turkish First Lady’s necklace might be insignificant when compared to the mind-boggling sums being swindled by our political elite. Yet, its theft by the sitting Prime Minister has made it invaluable. A louder slap on the face of our holy-cow parliamentary democracy is hard to imagine.


There is a growing awareness that the corruption of our oh-so-democratic leaders is not something that happens on the side. It provides the basis for anti-people policies pursued by governments that call themselves democratic and directly eats into public welfare. It is one big spanner that doesn’t allow the system to work for the citizens. The story of the stolen necklace demonstrates the parasitic blood-sucking aspect of our elected representatives better than anything else. The necklace could have helped hundreds if not thousands of people uprooted by floods. It ended up in the jewelry collection of the Prime Minister’s wife instead.


For the blind-folded champions of democracy, those who argue for a continuation of the current project at every cost, corruption is not an issue. They shrug their shoulders and tell us it happens everywhere. They’d like to sell us a version of democracy that goes hand-in-hand with corruption.

According to them, the best we can hope from democracy is that while our representatives make stacks of hay for themselves while the sun of power shines on them, they’d also do some good things for the people. As pointed above, that’s not possible. It’s the hay that comes in the way.


Regardless of their serious anti-democratic and anti-people repercussions, they’d like to trivialize the never-ending sagas of corruption as acceptable side-effects of democracy. So what if the constitutional mechanisms for the accountability of those in power have been rendered ineffective and everyone is scratching everyone’s back to save it. We could always vote them out in the next elections. Since elections are advanced as a solution to everything wrong with our democracy, one would have expected them to be bothered, at least, by the tattered credibility of the electoral system and the Election Commissions, and what that means for the legitimacy of the political order. But they’d rather ignore basic principles of democracy so that the macabre show in its name could go on and on.


Repeated displays of a criminal lack of responsibility and integrity by legislators and ministers must all be taken in our stride, even if it translates into the death and misery of the very people they are supposed to serve. Just like countless violations of the constitution committed by them every day. The constitution is a book to be taken out from time to time to read out selective articles and remind us of the supremacy of the parliament. Everyone must go around the democracy bush even when the bush is visibly on fire, threatening to burn the whole house down.


It’s not that difficult to figure out that the problems with the current democracy project go beyond the quality of our elected leaders and the fairness of elections that make them in charge of our destiny. These problems won’t go away even if a better crop of leaders is brought forth through fair and free elections. Something more radical is needed to make the system responsive to public needs and representative of their aspirations. We need to restructure our federation and scrap the parliamentary system with a view to separate the executive from the legislature.


Nothing could save this rotten system. What with our political parties reduced to undemocratic personality cults sustained by patronage and privilege and the patently undemocratic winner-takes-all first-past-the-post electoral system. What with the role money plays in winning elections and the concentration of power in a few corrupt corridors. We need 30 or more federating units with powerful local governments and a directly elected President as head of government. Enough of this going round and round the democracy bush in circles. It’s not going to get us anywhere.


Am I inviting another martial law? Not really. If our political leaders believe in democracy and are really concerned about the welfare of people in whose name they rule the roost, they should be the first ones to initiate these much-needed changes. If they could strike secret deals with the military mediated by their imperial friends to start the current democracy project, they shouldn’t have any problem with accommodating the military’s views on the new democracy project. If they don’t move on this count, events are bound to overtake them. With an assortment of skeletons rattling in everyone’s cupboards, and no popular support, there’s not much they can do when the security establishment nudges them this way or that.

Published on July 2, 2015.
http://nation.com.pk/columns/02-Jul-...y-of-democracy

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Way cleared for launch of AIIB

Worth reading esp. for Current Affairs and Int'l Organizations

On Monday 29th June, 50 countries including Pakistan signed the Articles of Agreement (AOA) for the formal launch of Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) at an impressive ceremony held at Beijing, which determined each member’s share in the proposed capital and the Bank’s initial Capital. The AIIB will begin with an authorized capital of $50 billion, eventually to be enhanced to $100 billion. The signatories apart from Asian and Latin American nations included UK, Germany and Australia who opted to join the new financial institution despite US opposition to its launch. Seven members are expected to sign by the end of the year when the Bank is set to start its operations. The establishment of the Bank conceived by China became a reality when 21 Asian countries formally signed the MOU for setting up of the Bank on 20th October 2014. Pakistan has been actively associated with the member countries in consultations at all levels to draw up Articles for Agreement since the signing of the MOU.


Finance Minister Ishaq Dar who represented Pakistan at the signing ceremony, dilating on the significance of the AIIB said, ”We believe that the bank will be an important platform to convert the abundant savings available in the region into investment, to help regional economies achieve sustainable and rapid development and thereby contribute to the world economy. Pakistan hopes to draw financial support for communication and energy infrastructure projects including projects for construction of roads, dams and power generation”. It is indeed hard to disagree with what he has said.


The AIIB as per IMF objectives to promote international economic cooperation, international trade, exchange rate stability and to meet balance of payments needs of the member states, aims at providing finances to the member countries for the development of necessary infrastructure which is considered a vital ingredient for nudging the process of sustained economic growth in the developing countries. It would provide finances to the member countries on less stringent conditions than the IMF and also create a healthy competition among the lending institutions to the benefit of the borrowing countries. China is inclined to make the lending process hassle free, to ensure that the borrowing countries do not have to jump through hoops to get their money.


The US virtually enjoys a veto in the major decisions and policies of the existing international lending institutions by being a major contributor, especially the IMF. Thus, the policies framed by these agencies are heavily tilted towards serving the interests of the developed nations and geared to strengthening the existing global economic order. They lack recognition of the cultural sensitivities and moorings of the borrowing nations. The US and its allies view the establishment of AIIB as a threat to the existing international financial institutions. They fear that the establishment of AIIB would relax their hold on the economies of the developing countries of Asia and also undercut the international institutions like the World Bank, IMF and ADB by relaxing fiscal discipline and good governance. US reportedly also used its influence with Australia and few other countries of the region to stay away from venture. The US fails to acknowledge the fact that the Chinese President on the eve of signing of MOU in October 2014 stated in unequivocal terms that the new bank would use the best practices of the World Bank and ADB and other existing multilateral development institutions.


The AIIB would surely enhance the international stature of China. The US is also worried about any move by China to shift world attention from the existing lending institutions as both are engaged in a fierce competition for pre-eminence in Asia. Some circles believe that the establishment of AIIB was China’s reaction to being continuously relegated to second class status at the existing institutions. China also is supporting another alternative institution, the New Development Bank sponsored by BRICS countries. The idea being that if US and its allies would not make room for China at the table then Beijing could take its own initiative.


The IMF loans have political repercussions as they are given on very stringent conditions that almost dictate the borrowing countries as to the policies initiatives it should take to improve the health of the economy. It is more discernible in Pakistan where the IMF is insisting on enhancement in the prices of electricity and gas, phasing out subsidies and increase in regressive sales tax which the government finds very unpalatable in view of its political fall out because they directly affect the poor masses. Pakistan is currently spending a big chunk of its budget on debt servicing.


The establishment of AIIB is indeed a very imaginative and prudent move on part of China and member countries. China’s phenomenal rise as an economic power has generated excessive savings which can be productively employed for the benefit of all the countries of the region. The move also has the potential of building strong economic linkages and creation of a regional economic fraternity contributing to the health of the regional economies as well as the global economy.


Pakistan will greatly benefit from the establishment of AIIB as it desperately needs resources to build necessary infrastructure to revive its economy as well as to kick-start a process of sustained economic development. It also needs enormous resources to tide over the energy crisis in the country and ensure energy safety in the years to come. The entire focus of the Pak-China Economic Corridor initiative under which China would be making an investment of US$ 46 billion, is also on building the infrastructure, which would not only provide easy access for Chinese products to the littoral states of the Indian Ocean and beyond but also help in a big way to boost the economy of Pakistan. The decision by Pakistan to join hands with China and other Asian countries in the establishment of AIIB stems from the new narrative evolved by the present government for building economic and political linkages with neighbours and Asian countries. Pakistan’s security and economic progress is inextricably linked to the region where it belongs. Therefore the emphasis on finding solutions to the security and economic challenges confronting it, through collective efforts of the countries of the region is a pragmatic and visionary initiative.

Published on July 03, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/03-Jul-...launch-of-aiib

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

The quest for identity

Many states that emerged after the end of colonial rule in the 20th century had to face the challenge of acquiring a new national identity. The problem was aggravated by a number of factors. First and foremost was the arbitrary and callous nature of the new state frontiers imposed by the colonial masters in total disregard to the historical and national aspirations of people of former colonies. The colonial powers, while physically leaving their former colonies, still nurtured strong designs for creating a world order that was to be dominated by them and that could cater for their ideological, political and economic interests and keep their rivals at bay. So they had their own vested interests that mostly determined their policy in carving out state frontiers rather than the demands of the national liberation movements. Secondly the ambitious leaders of the newly emerging states, acting quite subjectively, assumed that their states are ready-made modern national states just like the states of their former European masters. They didn’t realize that they have yet to undergo the process of nation building that modern European nations have evolved through over the centuries, something that could be achieved only through historical development and not by administrative order or mere coercion. They failed to appreciate the reality, that yes they had a state of their own, but they had to build a nation for the new state through a historical process of development. This is what landed many newly born states into internal conflicts.

The most sensitive and delicate question was handling of the cultural, ethnic and national diversity existing in these societies from hundreds of years. Now this diversity could not evaporate into thin air by the proclamation of independence by the new states as it had strong roots in the history of these societies. The most sensible and rational way of dealing with this diversity would have been to draw it towards unity by recognizing, respecting and celebrating it, in other words looking for unity in diversity. But in many cases the issue was mishandled by denying the diversity thus negatively provoking it. Ethnic and cultural repression by the bigger and predominant nationality in a state has invariably led to the worsening of the situation by strengthening centrifugal forces.

For Pakistan the challenge of national identity was more severe because of its peculiar situation. Pakistan is a completely new state without history of statehood with a deep sense of insecurity as some of the neighboring states challenged its existence. Consequently the policies based on paranoia were bound to lead to unintended consequences. The early demise of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah led to a vacuum which could not be filled by Muslim League as the political party didn’t have strong and popular roots in the areas that were included in Pakistan, except East Bengal as demonstrated by the election results of 1945. The feudal leadership with a strong dependence on civil and military bureaucracy lacked the vision for nation building projects. This failure was fully reflected in the checkered history of constitution making in the country. The Urdu speaking ideologues of the new state originating mostly from Central India could not relate themselves to the local cultures and history. They rejected the cultural and historical realities of the society that constituted Pakistan insisting that Muslim nationhood can take care of every thing. Initially this idea found resonance with Punjabi intelligentsia that was traumatized by the bloody partition of the Punjab on a communal basis. This led to an effort by the Mohajir/Punjabi elites to bulldoze ethnocultural diversity by an enforced uniformity that was bound to be counter-productive. East Pakistan (Bengal) that was the population wise biggest province and had to its credit the most important role in creating the new state became the first casualty of this policy. The Bengalis were shocked to discover that even though they had been the only province of Pakistan that had clearly favored the creation of Pakistan in the crucial election of 1945 and also being the majority population in the country, their language Bengali was not recognized as a national language. On February 21, 1952 state security forces opened fire on a Bengali students’ demonstration in Dacca who were demanding the status of national language for Bengali. A number of students were killed in firing (February 21 is now celebrated every year as International Mother Tongue’s Day by UNESCO in memory of this incident). This was the beginning of the movement for a separate country Bangladesh. Diabolical “ constitutional” schemes like One Unit and Parity further reinforced the trend leading to the tragic events of 1971.

The aforementioned policy of enforced uniformity had extremely negative consequences for religious minorities as well, as it negates pluralism in all its forms. It became a basis for the intolerance that led to extreme marginalization of religious minorities. Male domination and aggressive patriarchy is also an important dimension of this uniformity denying women rights. This is a major factor for our “reverse journey” in terms of implementation of women’s rights. Contraction of socio-cultural mobility of women has been at the core of this religious narrow mindedness.

Unfortunately our ruling elites have not only failed to learn any lesson from the debacle of East Pakistan but they have redoubled their efforts for imposing religious extremism as policy for nation building after 1977. They haven’t hesitated from co-opting extremist Deobandi/Wahabi sectarian ideologies to bulldoze ethnic and cultural diversity. Huge investment of dollars and petro-dollars in propagation of religious extremism during Afghan war has played havoc with our society. Talibanization of Pakhtunkhwa, FATA and now Balochistan and Sindh is clear evidence of this phenomena. Our official history books are devoid of any information about great civilizations of this soil like Indus Valley, Gandahara and Mehargarh. Even the tolerant Islamic traditions of Sufism that travelled to South Asia from Central Asia through the areas that constitute Pakistan do not find any mention in history books. The result is the rise of religious extremism and militancy that has the potential for destroying us as a state and society.

One doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict that failure in implementing National Action Plan and in reimagining our national identity to become a normal, democratic and peaceful state can land us on the trajectory of Iraq, Libya and Syria leading to international isolation and internal implosion. The so called IS is the product of misguided state policies in the Middle East and it will be foolish to expect different results from the similarly misguided policies.

Published on July 04, 2015

http://nation.com.pk/columns/04-Jul-...t-for-identity

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Conformist judicial culture?

Pakistan’s checkered judicial history makes for an interesting read into our national culture and philosophy, as much as it does into our jurisprudence. We have had exhilarating highs and debilitating lows. Our Courts have condoned four different military dictators, while also leading the charge against democratic interruptions. The honorable judges have evolved a potent jurisprudence of constitutional fidelity and the rule of law on the one hand, while ignoring all constitutional inconveniences to develop the Iftikhar Chaudhary brand of suo moto activism, on the other. The roster of our Courts has boasted intellectual giants like Justice Cornelius, but has also had to suffer the reign of much lesser mortals. We have seen extended periods of judicial deference to the government and then exceptional moments of intrepid judicial independence.

As a result of this rollercoaster journey, however, we today have a judicial culture which, despite its many strengths, requires some critical review and re-thinking, especially at the High Court level.

First and foremost, our judicial paradigm – its structure as well as culture – is less than encouraging for the honorable High Court judges to make decisions that rattle the far-reaching vested interests of our overall polity. To this end, despite the judicial appointment process having been entrusted to the well thought out paradigm of Article 175A of the Constitution, each judicial nominee has to pass the murky test of undisclosed ‘intelligence reports’ for elevation. This touchstone alone frequently dissuades several lawyers, with aspirations of being elevated to the Bench, from taking on cases that might invite the wrath of the establishment or the ruling party.

Even after elevation, the Additional Judges of the High Courts face the uncertain prospect of confirmation, by the Judicial Commission, which frequently takes into account, inter alia, feedback from members of the Bar, and other stakeholders, in order to arrive at its decision. Consequently, during this uncertain time the Additional Judges of the honorable High Courts have an incentive to avoid making daring decisions that might cast a shadow on the prospects of confirmation, forcing the culture of the Bench to be mellow and conformist.

Once confirmed, these pressures subside a little, though not entirely. Uncertain Bench formations, adjustable case allocations, and a dire need to be instep with the honorable Supreme Court, all chip away at the inherent independence, which must be the hallmark of judicial character. Resultantly, the one sure model of ‘success’ for each Judge of the honorable High Courts is to adjudicate cases as conventionally as possible. To take no liberties with the arc of jurisprudence. To say or decide nothing that shifts the balance of our governance. To embody nothing unorthodox. In fact, decisions of the honorable High Courts, even in the very recent past, that have fundamentally changed the structure of power in our democracy, of devolution, of the rights discourse, have irked discontent. Bold judgments which challenge the status quo, altering ‘business as usual’, have evoked considerable criticism of the author judges, calling into question their judicial motives and impartiality.

Somewhere along this trajectory, which celebrates conformity over independence, we have discouraged the cultivation of our homegrown Antonin Scalia and Oliver Wendell Holmes. We have diminished the virtue of diversity in judicial opinions. The audacity to differ with other (senior) members of the Bench has been all but extinguished. We no longer produce that extraordinary dissent whose time has not yet come, but will form the basis of a majority opinion, one generation from today.

It is time for our judicial culture to learn from the peers in other liberal democracies. In fact, the very recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case concerning legalization of gay marriages, serves as valuable reminder of the necessity of bold decisions, as well as the virtue of extraordinary dissents. Writing in his characteristic flair, Justice Scalia has penned a dissenting opinion, which (whether one agrees with it or not) restores and strengthens the reader’s faith in judicial independence.

Calling the majority opinion “lacking even a thin veneer of law”, being “profoundly incoherent”, and “in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic”, Justice Scalia concludes that the majority’s opinion diminishes “Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis”, and evidences a “deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretations.”
This kind of grit and independence (belligerence?) expressed by a Judge of the Court in regards to fellow members of the same Bench in no way diminishes either the esteem or the potency of the honorable Court. What it does, however, is strengthen the soul of jurisprudence by establishing that judicial independence has not been sacrificed at the altar of institutional solidarity, and that the ability to deliver bold opinions is alive and kicking as an integral part of a pluralistic democracy.

For far too long, have we lived under a judicial umbrella that considers conformity a virtue. For far too long have the contours of our jurisprudence been defined by tepid pens. For far too long have we allowed vested interests to constrain the expanding frontiers of judicial power. For far too long have the bold and the brilliant lived a life of cloistered judicial virtue.
It is time for us to break these shackles of conformity and embrace the full measure of who we are as a constitutional democracy. It is time for us to cultivate a judicial culture that rediscovers the essence of independence. It is time for us to enrich the muchness of our laws, and deepen the meaning of our freedoms. It is time for us to celebrate the dreamers over the sages.

Published on July 05, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/05-Jul-...dicial-culture

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

I am not surprised

The involvement of university graduates in the recent terrorist attack in Safoora Goth Karachi, killing more than forty Ismailis, appears to have surprised many. For us, the university students, it was a very obvious development. In fact, we are surprised by the fact that the simmering radicalisation in some of the universities of Pakistan, took so long to transform into terrorist networks carrying out gruesome acts of terror.


When the handler of an Al Qaeda cell of suicide bombers was arrested from a hostel in one of the major universities of Punjab, in Sept 2013, we all thought that this would serve as a wake up call for the government and the law enforcement agencies, and expected a comprehensive and determined effort to deal with those who provided support to such terrorists in the university campuses. That was not to be. The government adopted an ostrich like attitude and confined itself, as usual, to those nine arrests, instead of digging deeper into the phenomenon of radicalisation in the university campuses, and framing an effective response.


Earlier, the response to detection of terrorist networks in a university of Sindh (Dr Arshad Waheed and Dr Akmal Waheed of Al Qaeda in 2004, Ata ur Rehman forming Jundullah in 2004), had also indicated our fixation with confining our counter terrorism response to the capture/kill approach rather than addressing the challenge of neutralising the radicalisation networks of different organisations in the campuses. We refuse to accept that ideology can be countered only with ideology not with arrests or killings. To this day, we continue to respond in the same way.


As university students, it was felt by us, that while the supporters of violent extremism made an organised, sustained and insidious effort to propagate their ideology, there was no effort worth the name by the government or the university administration to counter them or prepare the students to deal with this challenge through a counter narrative based on the values of tolerance, dialogue and peace.


A case in point is the content of the courses of Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies taught in the BA/BSc [Hons] classes, in the universities of the Punjab. One would expect that these two subjects would contain material emphasising the values equipping the young students to defend themselves against the ideological onslaught of the militants and their support network. With this objective in view, the course contents of Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies in some universities of Punjab was examined to find out what was being taught to our graduates in these two areas.


An analysis of the Islamiyat text book for the students of BA/BSc in 2014-2015, revealed that the text contained sixty five ayaats taken from eleven surahs of Quran. The ayaats selected for inclusion in the course are about components of faith, manners, social conduct when meeting the prophet, religious obligations, importance of holy prophet, his finality etc. These are indeed very important ayaats and ought to be part of the syllabus. It is believed, however, that in view of the threat from the ideology of violent extremism in the name of Islam, there is a need to include in the syallabus those surahs of the Quran which emphasise universalism of Islam, tolerance of other religions, message of peace for the entire humanity, forbid suicide, condemn fasaad etc. This would provide our graduates with knowledge of those values of Islam, which focus on peace and tolerance. An example can be ayat 257, of Surah Baqrah which says, “There should be no compulsion in religion”. Or which says, “And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely, all who are on earth would have believed together. Will you, then, force them to become believers?”


Similarly, the Islamiyat course consists of twenty important ahadees. The selection of ahadees has to have the objective of not only familiarizing students with some basic guidelines of faith but also to provide knowledge to them about the Holy Prophet’s emphasis on tolerance, pluralism, diversity, women rights, minority rights, justice etc. Some of the ahadees on the subject, which can possibly be included in the Islamyat course are as follows ‘Beware, whoever is cruel to a non muslim minority, curtailing their rights, overburdening them or stealing from them, I will complain to God.’ [Abu Dawudi]. There are many more such ahadees emphasising tolerance, minority rights, women rights etc which needs to be included in our Islamiyat courses to underline the oft repeated fact that Islam is a religion of peace .


Similarly, the syllabus of Pakistan studies being taught at the graduate levels does not focus on inclusivism i.e. making the minorities a part of the mainstream Pakistani identity. In fact, the book being taught in one of the major universities of the Punjab, in its first chapter on Two Nation Theory, states that the two nations theory has a global dimension also, according to which the “world is divided into two groups, Muslims and non-Muslims. All non-Muslims are pagans and infidels”. By teaching this worldview to our university graduates are we not promoting intolerance, hatred and bigotry? Do not such teachings make them prone to falling into the trap of those who preach militancy to deal with those perceived as enemies of Islam, which in this case means, the rest of the world.


Interestingly, the syllabus on Pakistan studies does not include the speech of Quaid-e-Azam of August 11, 1947, in which he said, “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of every individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” The acid test of sincerity of any government in promoting tolerance, therefore, would be inclusion of this speech of Quaid-e-Azam in the Pakistan Studies syllabus of the universities.


Thus one possible effective antidote to radicalisation in the universities is to change the Islamiyat syllabus to include those Quranic ayaats and ahadees which promote tolerance, pluralism and diversity. Similarly, those speeches of the Quaid-e-Azam be included in the Pakistan Studies syllabus which emphasise political equality of all Pakistanis. This would be a small but essential step to protect our youth in the universities from the attempts of radicalising networks to win them over.

Published on July 06, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/06-Jul-...-not-surprised

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Ideological strife in the Muslim world

In my last article, ‘Muslim world in turmoil’, in The Nation of 23 June, 2015, I analyzed the causes of the current turmoil in the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East. I pointed out that intellectual stagnation, unrepresentative and oppressive political structures, economic underdevelopment and deprivation, cultural dislocation, and scientific and technological backwardness lay at the heart of the upheaval through which the Muslim world was passing. External threats and challenges had made the situation that much worse for the Muslim Ummah. The need of the hour was for dynamism in our thought and coherence in our strategy to overcome the challenges of modernity. Instead, what we see is ideological strife in the Muslim world in the form of antagonistic ideologies vying for following and influence in the world of Islam. These competing ideologies reflect confusion in thought and the absence of a well thought out strategy in dealing with the world of today.

Confronted by the challenges of modernity and the Western political, military and cultural onslaught, some Muslims sought refuge in secularism or separation of religion and politics on the pattern of what had happened in Europe after the Wars of Religion in the 17th century. Arrayed against the secularists in the Muslim world were Islamists who sought solutions to the challenges of the modern world in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The basic difference between the two opposing points of view is the degree to which Islam should determine the laws and institutions of state.

Turkey as founded by Kemal Ataturk after the end of the Ottoman Empire was a prime example of a secular Muslim state. In recent years, however, Islamic influences have reasserted themselves in Turkey under the leadership of Prime Minister and now President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It seems to be gradually evolving into a hybrid kind of Islamic democracy. The final form that the political evolution in Turkey takes still remains to be seen. On the other hand, the Islamic Revolution in Iran established a theocracy with the veneer of representative institutions. In fact, the supreme power in Iran lies in the hands of the Rahbar (Supreme Leader), Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a senior member of the Iranian clergy. It is possible that in the long run, democratic elements and representative institutions, under popular demand, may gather greater strength in Iran than is the case at present. However, this is far from certain because the clergy is well entrenched in various centres of power.

The constitution of Pakistan, in its present form, presents a happy blend between the Islamist and secularist influences. In its Preamble it acknowledges that the sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone but it also affirms that the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people as a sacred trust in accordance with the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. It establishes a Council of Islamic Ideology to furnish recommendations for bringing the laws in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam but the final decision on these recommendations lies with the legislature in accordance with the advice given by Allama Iqbal. Thus, in contrast with the situation in Iran where the opinions of the clergy prevail, in Pakistan the views of the chosen representatives of the people prevail in matters of law.

Only time will tell how the competition between the Islamists and the secularists is ultimately resolved in the Muslim world. What is essential is that this competition should be waged peacefully through the force of reason and arguments rather than through the use of gun. Each Muslim country must decide its system in accordance with the preferences of its own people. The world of Islam should develop the spirit of tolerance so that under the rubric of the Islamic system different models of government mirroring different geographical, cultural and historical circumstances may coexist in the Muslim world.

In particular, we should not allow the old schism between the Sunnis and the Shias to divide the Muslim world into irreconcilable parts. Shias in a Sunni majority Muslim country should have the same freedom to practice their personal laws as they would have in a Shia majority Muslim country, and vice versa. No Muslim country should engage in organized efforts to export its religious or sectarian preferences to other Muslim countries, certainly not through non-transparent and clandestine means. Thus, instead of allowing Sunni-Shia differences, which relate to peripheral issues rather than the fundamentals of Islam, to create unbridgeable divisions in the Muslim world to be exploited by hostile powers, the Muslims should respect sectarian diversity in the spirit of moderation and tolerance.

Unfortunately, this is far from the case in the Middle East where efforts to export religious ideologies through the use of gun are currently at display, especially in Iraq and Syria. The resultant violence has claimed thousands of innocent lives besides allowing extremist ideologies like IS to take root in the region. It is inevitable that external powers would exploit the growing ideological strife and differences in the Middle East to their advantage and to the detriment of the people of the region in accordance with the principle of divide and rule. It is, therefore, in the interest of the regional powers themselves to prevent sectarian and ideological differences from ballooning into local or regional conflicts.

Overlaid on these ideological differences between the secularists and Islamists, and between the Sunnis and Shias are the battles being fought by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS to grab political power and establish the supremacy of their extremist ideologies in the Muslim world. These organizations because of their obscurantism cannot provide the answers to the challenges of modernity. Their use of terrorism and brutality for achieving their political ends pits them directly against the moderate Muslims who constitute the overwhelming majority of Muslim Ummah. These extremist organizations and their franchises in different regions are a bad news for the Muslim world. The sooner they are eliminated from the Islamic body politic, the better for the world of Islam.

Finally, a tussle is going on in the Muslim world between democratic forces, on the one hand, and non-democratic forces supporting various forms of non-representative governments like monarchies and dictatorships, on the other. The verdict of Islam, which lays so much emphasis on the principle of consultation in running the affairs of the government, is clearly in favour of representative governments in the Muslim world. The historical trend is also in favour of democracy. The establishment of representative governments, therefore, suits the best and long-term interests of the Muslim world. However, each Muslim country must be allowed to make this move towards a representative form of government in accordance with its own peculiar social and political circumstances.

The ideological strife in the Muslim world covering political, cultural, and social spheres basically aims at finding answers to the challenges of modernity and the threats posed by external powers to the integrity of the world of Islam. It has the potential to explode into cataclysmic conflicts in the Muslim world if not handled carefully. Such conflicts would retard the intellectual and material progress of the world of Islam for several decades. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the intellectuals and the political leaders of the Muslim world to put their heads together and suggest ways and means of avoiding these conflicts, generating intellectual dynamism among the Muslims, and ensuring the progress and prosperity of the Muslim Ummah.

Published on July 07, 2015.
http://nation.com.pk/columns/07-Jul-...e-muslim-world

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Emergency proclamation

For the last two years, I have been watching, with the deepest anxiety the ruthless struggle for power, corruption, the shameful exploitation of our simple, honest, patriotic and industrious masses, the lack of decorum and the prostitution of Islam for political ends. There have been a few honourable exceptions. But being in a minority, they have not been able to assert their influence in the affairs of the country. These despicable activities have led to a dictatorship of the lowest order…


Some of our politicians have lately been talking of bloody revolution. Another type of adventure among them think it fit to go to foreign countries and attempt direct alignment with them which can only be described as high treason.


The mentality of the political parties has sunk so low that I am unable any longer to believe that elections will improve the present chaotic international situation… The same group of people who have brought Pakistan to the verge of ruination will rig the elections for their own ends…


They will not solve our difficulties. On the contrary, they are likely to create greater unhappiness and disappointments leading ultimately to a really bloody revolution. Recently, we had elections for the Karachi Municipal Corporation. Twenty percent of the electorate exercised their votes, and out of these, about fifty percent were bogus votes.”


The preceding paragraphs are extracts taken from the Proclamation of Emergency by President Iskandar Mirza on 7th October 1958. It is believed that President Iskandar Mirza wanted to avoid elections as he had little chance of being re-elected. In order to avoid the risk of holding elections, he declared the emergency, dissolved the assemblies, abrogated the 1956 Constitution and imposed the first countrywide Marital Law. Ayub Khan was appointed as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and Chief Martial Law Administrator. Later on, Ayub Khan stripped of all the powers of the President, deported him from the country and took the reigns of the country with absolute power.


It has been more than five decades since the proclamation of emergency by President Iskandar Mirza. His intentions for imposing Marital Law are not relevant anymore. What is relevant is the charge sheet against the politicians mentioned in the proclamation of emergency. This is 2015, but if anyone was to impose Martial Law today I wonder if there is a need to change anything in the proclamation of emergency of 1958. Each and every single allegation against the politicians of 1958 holds true for the politicians of 2015. Before I am flooded with the accusations of being pro-dictatorship I should clarify that I am a pro-democracy and I support a leftist party or what is left of it now.


The argument put forward by the politicians for the flaws on their part is that because of constant interference by military dictators, institution building has not taken place and as a result democracy has not been able to deliver for the people of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I wonder what the argument would have been for the politicians in 1958 as there was no military intervention before that. The leadership at that time had been part of the freedom struggle against the British. Soon after independence, the Muslim League leadership forgot its promises and the struggle for personal power started.


The plight of Pakistan’s political development is due to the fact that the ruling elite have always tried to achieve their personal objectives at the expense of political development and nation building. During the freedom movement, Indian Muslims fought their case on the basis of the claim that they were a nation by any definition; hence they should have their own state. However, after the independence, the events took a different turn and Pakistan emerged as a state desperately looking for a nation. Since independence the ruling classes, rather than establishing a political system based on harmony, co-operation and participation of the federating units have tried to impose authoritarian systems of governance for their personal gains.


The dilemma faced by the people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is that they do not have many options when it comes to political parties. The reality is that the politics of Pakistan has primarily been based on a two party system. Recently PTI has come forward with a third option for the people. In the current scenario it appears that precondition for $40 Billion plus investment by China is to improve the security situation and a crackdown on corruption which has been rampant for quite some time now. The recent crackdown in Karachi by Rangers both against terrorists and corrupt political parties is a result of that precondition. The situation in Sindh is worse than other provinces when it comes to corruption because PPP made a fatal mistake of trying to generate the same amount of revenue through corruption from one province that it generated at the Federal level in its previous tenure. The crackdown was bound to happen and the prediction is that it will not stop at Karachi and will reach Punjab and Islamabad in the next couple of months. When it comes to PML-N the corruption is of a different level and is more sophisticated; it is limited amongst the high ups. When it comes to PTI, they have got too many favourites amongst the party and its internal conflicts are going to hurt it more than anything else. The only thing working in Imran Khan’s favour is that there have been no allegations of financial corruption against him. It remains to be seen as to how he will deal with the internal conflicts of the party and whether or not he is able to lead the country.


The only good thing that has happened in the last year is that the security situation of the country has remarkably improved. All credit for this goes to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. However, it does not entitle them to interfere in the affairs of running the country. The fact is that the situation in 2015 is not very different from 1958 when it comes to political parties. Despite the fact that both leading parties have been there for decades they have not learned much from the past. One can only hope that they will learn and improve their governance with the current crackdown against corruption. If they do not, then one fine morning we can expect a speech that starts with “My dear countrymen….”. The charge sheet would be more or less the same as that in the proclamation of emergency of 1958.

Published on July 08, 2015
http://nation.com.pk/columns/08-Jul-...y-proclamation

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')