April 24, 2012
By Sajjad Sardar
Exclusive Article

“Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens. They have their arms always in their hands…Such a power should be watched with a jealous eye.” Samuel Adams

Civil-military relations can be defined in terms of a balance between the civilian and military organization and institutions and their internal cohesiveness. Ideally, in an open society, military enjoys the professional autonomy while submitting itself to the political authority. According to present theory of civil military relation, there is complete separation between the civil and the military. In the correct relations, the military plays a subordinate role in the execution of defence and security policies. Civilian decisions are hypothetically accepted as final. Military inputs are asked not forced in the decision or policy making. The most famous case of submitting to the civilian rule was of General MacArthur after the Korean War.
But this submission was also indicative of civil- military tension. Even in the developed democracies, there are instances which show civil-military severances. During the Cuban missile crisis, there was a serious divergence between the Kennedy cabinet and the Pentagon. Each one was blaming the other for having fewer brains. In case of India, during the Brasstacks exercises held in July 1986, Indian Army Chief General Krishnaswamy Sundarji had planned to turn exercise into an operation against Pakistan without the knowledge of the Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi. However despite these clashes, the military remains under the civilian control in high politically cultured societies due to public attachment to the civilian way of life denying legitimacy to military action in the public eye.

The reason for military intervention is all too often cited by scholars as political instability, According to Huntington, “The most important causes of the military intervention are not military but political and reflect not the social and organizational characteristics of the military establishment, but the political and institutional structure of the society.” In a low politically cultured societies there is less participation and attachment of the public towards the political institution and government so chances of coup are always more. Military considers national interest as supreme and deems it to be its duty to protect it. It is when the Army started to draw distinction between national interest and the allegiance to the present government, the chances of intervention increases.

Military take over is always carried out on the pretext of bad governance and corruption but it is very strange that military regime too become victim of corruption and eventually collapsed. Military interventions are always followed by the announcement that it is for a very short duration but ultimately military fall in love with power. Military junta is considers incapable of dealing with more complex issues of the country. It is unable, to transform its organizational and technological skills to their countries setups. Military regime is highly anti-political in nature, concerned only with its own class benefits and their popularity.

Heeger sees voluntarism as only viable and most probable way of closing military rule. There are different reasons and levels of withdrawal of the military to the barracks. Though it is a complex process it depends on the objectives and the mind set of the military elites and political conditions. Likely reason cited by S.E Finer is the fear of the infection during the process of cleanliness of the society, disintegration of the conspirator group and development of the factions in the army. It can also be “conscious” (voluntarily withdrawal) or, Protracted (steady withdrawal due to shifts in political environment or objectives of military elites) civilianisation.
During the process of transition, there can not be a rigid dichotomy between civil and military relation as many of the civil and military regimes is a mix. Current scholarship offers no guide to the understanding that why successor civilian governments are unable to establish stable polity. What are the impacts of the civilianisation on the polity in post military state? The military will be taking a back seat in the new political setup but it would still be moving the reins from behind. New setup would be dependent upon the military for the “advice and consent.” This would become the situation of the “Praetorians” regime.

The democratization or civilianisation of polity is a complicated and mysterious situation because it is suffering from the influences of the military regime and their impact on society and social change. Military and bureaucracy becomes more vulnerable to political influence in the post military state. Similarly, the political parties are most plagued by “Patrimonialism,” which creates factions at all level in the party as soon as it assumes the powers. Political leader tries to control these factions through enhancement of their personnel control over the party. The personalization of party politics compels the factions’ leaders to rely on their loyalty towards the leader rather then numerical strength of the party workers thus alienating the political workers.

In the post military regime, culture of nepotism, greed and over centralization continuously cripples the polity for considerable time. Although this culture is a result of the restrictions imposed on the organized political activity during period of military rule. Similarly other important organs of the state like police and Judiciary are also manipulated by these patrimonial leaders. The most unfortunate effect of the post military era is the “impatience of the public” which often grew stronger on the civilian governments. People run out of their patience very soon on failures of civilian government but would tolerate a military ruler for a decade or even more. Resulting in very limited scope and focus on the ministerial position of the party.

An analysis of the countries being ruled for most of its existence under military regimes indicates that there is evidence of militarization of society and culture. However it is not certain that it is a reason or a factor in the derailing of democracy. The brazen violation of the rule of law by those on top, the continuing disappearances unaccounted for, the lack of judicial independence, the authoritarian manner in which the government functions, all point towards an intolerant political society. This brings us to our final query; what is the Impact on the Civilianisation of the polity?

Pakistan’s polity has always remained in the process of civilianisation therefore successor governments were unable to develop stable political system. I hypothesis that failure to establish correct civil-military relations result in the unstable political condition in almost all the struggling democracies.
It is widely believed that when a military forcefully or abruptly retires to the barracks, political culture which is left behind becomes “Patrimonial” in nature. If the transition is smooth and voluntarily or Protracted Civilianisation even then the post military state of the polity remains to be fluid and fragile for a long time. The after- effects of the military era continuously haunt and shape the future policies of the civilian government for a long time. Successor civilian governments are unable to emancipate themselves from the policies and institutions altered during the military era for long time.

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com

April 27, 2012
By Saeed Qureshi
Exclusive Article

It was quite amusing to watch Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani exuding a dim smile and facial relief after hearing the much awaited verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prime minister has remained strung on the tenterhooks of uncertainty and paranoia for a few months as to what would be the outcome of the proceedings of the contempt case being heard by the Apex court.

But perhaps the matter may not end here. His standing as the prime minister has been fairly tainted and tarnished as he did not come clean out of the messy situation he was stuck in because of his emphatic refusal to write a letter to the Swiss concerned authorities for reopening the money laundering cases against the incumbent president of Pakistan honorable Asif Ali Zardari.
But his stubborn defiance or resistance to not write the letter in order to save his party boss exhibits his unflinching loyalty to the president of Pakistan who is also the chairperson of the Pakistan People’s Party. He is certainly under a heavy debt of gratitude to Mr. Zardari for his appointment as the prime minister of Pakistan although initially the party chairman had publically announced to field Makhdoom Amin Faheem as the candidate for the exalted position. Later there were rumors that Shah Mahmood Qureshi was being tipped on behalf of the PPP to be elected by the parliament as the prime minister of Pakistan.

But loyalty to the chief has cost Prime Minister Gilani dearly. By saving a highly corrupt boss and party chief, prime minister has received a deep dent in his well established reputation as a man of principles and of clean character. He has been under a constant shadow of smear, accusations and disparagement for the blatant misuse of his vast powers as the chief executive of Pakistan. Further he is maligned because of the involvement of his two flamboyant sons in mammoth scams of corruption that are under investigation of the superior courts.

As we all are aware, his elder son Abdul Qadir Gilani skimmed millions of dollars in the Hajj scandal for which a former Hajj minister Mr. Hamid Saeed Kazmi had to sacrifice his ministerial post and face the terse legal proceedings that might entail his incarceration as well.

While delivering the verdict of this contempt case, the Supreme Court has nevertheless hinted that the prime minister could also face grim consequences due to a constitutional clause 63(1) (g) which stipulates that a convicted person cannot hold a prestigious office. It is perhaps because of that caveat that the president of the PMLN Mian Nawaz Sharif has demanded Prime Minister Gilani’s resignation.

By all indications he would not resign as despite a galore of serious legal and moral lapses by every minister of the incumbent government, not one ever thought of relinquishing his job as is the practice in other countries. Even in India many ministers resigned because there was an enquiry in progress in the courts or they were accused of indulging in corruption or committed dereliction of their responsibilities.

He might like to hang on to the post until the time of the next elections which means he would exhaust his tenure regardless of whether he is clean or tainted. But if he can still have the temerity of facing the incessant flow of accusations, his two sons cannot be absolved or walk out of the court until there was incontrovertible evidence to get themselves acquitted.

The Supreme Court is also seized of a petition against the former media advisor of the prime minister, Khurram Rasool, indicted in a case of taking bribe worth Rs630 million, from Pervez Hussain for award of an LPG contract. Khurram Rasool has already confessed the incidence of the crime and has even surrendered a few crores that he has pocketed in concert with other felons, reportedly including one of the sons of the prime minister.

While his position as the prime minister of Pakistan has become exceedingly controversial, the constitutions clause 63(1) (g) would dangle on his head like a proverbial “Sword of Damocles”. As the honorable court very rightly pointed out that there are very serious consequences for the prime minister in regard to the application of the clause that relates to the eligibility of the members of the national assembly.

If in the coming days another petition is filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the continuation of Prime Minister Gilani as the chief executive of government, he will have to justify legality of his being in the highest executive office which presently seems to be a pretty tall order.
The best way-out, therefore, for the present government and for the prime minister is to call for early elections so that a new leadership is thrown up through a veritable democratic process of fair elections. If he is adamant to remain as the prime minister despite the thickening of dark clouds over his political horizon, he might further harm his image which would be irredeemable. The possibility of face saving can be explored now and not after loss of time and loss of face.

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat. He is also a regular contributor to pkarticleshub.com

By Syed Talat Hussain
Published: April 26, 2012

The writer is a senior journalist and works for DawnNews

The Supreme Court has spoken and the government does not like what it has heard. That is obvious and to be expected. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been found guilty of the rather serious charge of wilfully flouting the orders of the Court, which the honourable judges have found to be a substantial offence, one that brings into disrepute the dignity and the esteem of the Court.

Regardless of the myriad interpretations of the law and the finer points of the Constitution that are being used to justify the prime minister’s continuation in office, the fact remains that he is now a convict. No amount of influence-peddling and chest-thumping will change this rather sad fact. Besides tainting his name, and providing grounds for putting a full stop to his active political career, the conviction has raised question marks about Mr Gilani’s ability to conduct himself as the chief executive and the leader of the house.
The Court had the option of awarding the prime minister maximum punishment, but that itself would have only provided more fire to the hyper critics of the judiciary and reinforced their opinion that it has a clear bias against the PPP. Instead, the minimum sentence was chosen — till the rising of the Court — even though the substance of the verdict has the same effect as a more stringent punishment would have highlighted.

That is smart handling of a delicate issue. However, a politically divided environment has not registered this nuanced side of the verdict. As the news of the prime minister’s conviction was beamed, prearranged protest meetings were held in already decided pockets. Effigies of the judges were burnt in Multan. In Sindh, the reaction was similar.

This is a sign of things to come. The PPP has made up its mind that it will take the battle with the judiciary to the next level, regardless of the consequences. The tradition of delaying implementation of judicial verdicts or forever finding ways to wriggle out of the responsibility of preserving the letter and spirit of these decisions now looks set to be pursued directly by the prime minister himself under the over-arching umbrella of support provided by President Asif Ali Zardari.

There is little reason to be hopeful that in the coming days the judiciary’s esteem will be factored in the political assessments of the performance and conduct of the judges. The persons and the office of the judges will be put through the shredder in a tragic re-enactment of the days of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf when pouring scorn on the judges and foul mouthing them in public was the centrepiece of a deliberate strategy.

This will further fracture an already shaken system, whose one pillar, the executive, is now pitted against the other, the judiciary. For the opposition, primarily the PML-N and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, this means decision time. Both these parties have promised, but delayed, direct action against the government for quite some time. For one reason or the other, they have trundled along with a government that they have criticised bitterly but have not really taken up arms against. It would be difficult to postpone that action anymore, especially if the government continues on the path of wilful defiance and deliberate ridicule of the judges that they think are manifestly prejudiced against them.

That could mean the final showdown: with elections just around the corner and parties looking for causes to champion, this might turn out to be a battle that may be far more consequential than most of us are able to appreciate at the moment. Of course, this shaken system of ours does not have to go through these new convulsions if the government gulps down this bitter pill of the prime minister’s conviction and winds down from the path of a head-on collision. There is nothing indispensable about the prime minister, especially if the party in power and its allies still command the numbers in the house to get another man in. However, that is the rational course of action, which has been the path least taken by those at the helm of affairs.

The Express Tribune

Harris Khalique
Friday, April 27, 2012


I am not a legal expert but as a citizen and a keen student of my country’s political history, I have an opinion on Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Apparently, the court has not invoked Article 63(1)g directly and convicted the prime minister under section 5 of the contempt of court ordinance, but it does mention the said article in its verdict and says that the finding and the conviction are likely to entail some serious consequences in terms of this article which may be treated as a mitigating factor to the sentence they pass. Meaning thereby, since the convict may face disqualification from his office and his seat in parliament, they have restricted themselves to a softer sentence.

The issue of writing a letter to the Swiss Courts to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, came to surface after the court struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in 2009, which was issued in 2007 by former president, Gen Pervez Musharraf.

The status of the president enjoying constitutional immunity from any judicial trial apart, one may argue that some judges who took oath under the same dictator’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and gave his rule lease by sitting on a bench headed by the former Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, found the NRO illegal.

One may also say that the honourable judges are selective in considering cases of the same nature involving other people. Then they also took another year and a half to dismiss the review petition filed by the government. But there is a limit to historicising. Therefore, let us now look at 63(1)g, the complete article it is a part of, and, the preceding Article 62 of the Constitution.

These articles were a part of the 1973 Constitution, subsequently amended in 1974 and made harsher in 1985. Article 62 deals with the qualifications for becoming a member of parliament and Article 63 deals with causes for disqualification from the membership.

While there are obvious reasons to have qualification and disqualification criteria for members in any constitution, the articles our Constitution contains have serious lacunae which can always be used to politically victimise any elected member.

The terms like good character, good moral reputation, moral turpitude, practising obligatory duties prescribed by Islam, abstaining from major sins, Islamic injunctions, Ideology of Pakistan, bringing into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces, etc are vague, immeasurable and hard to establish in a just way.

For instance, in legal terms, public life is affected by crime and not sin. Morality is a relative concept and good reputation is highly subjective. There was a two-nation theory when Pakistan was created. The Ideology of Pakistan became a usable term only after Gen Sher Ali Pataudi promoted it in 1969, soon to be desecrated in the eastern wing of the country. Besides, what does ridiculing mean?

If some of the judges used the law of necessity in the past, legitimised dictatorships or ruled under duress, can no parliamentarian of Pakistan raise her concerns? If some generals abrogate the Constitution, manipulate political events and violate the limits put by the Constitution, can no parliamentarian raise his voice?

I share my view of Articles 62 and 63 with also Imran Khan, whose politics I otherwise find without substance. He said in June 2007, when the MQM presented a resolution against him, that these articles can only be applied to angels and not human beings.

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and author. Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com

April 29, 2012
IFTIKHAR MIRZA

According to Article 63, 1, g), Constitution of Pakistan 1973 :-

A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Parliament, if —-

g) “he is propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan.”

The Prime Minister has been charged with contempt by Supreme Court in February for refusing to write letter to Swiss government to reopen corruption cases against President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari. PM remained defiant to Supreme Court’s direction and his cronies ridiculed judiciary enbloc.

Without going into details of who looted and plundered the wealth of poor people and who refused to write letter for illegal siphoning off wealth to foreign shores, we look at the current situation of the country. The day to day increase in the prices of utilities, coupled with increase in petroleum prices has multiplied the problems of conman man. Prices of drugs and daily use commodities have shot up to unprecedented heights. Electricity outages have gone upto 20 hours in rural areas of country. Every department is in helter skelter and running on interim schemes. We constantly live in the shadows of bombasts, target killings and serial killers. Law and order situation is deteriorating quickly. Baluchistan has become boiling pot and sending shock waves to the inhabitants of different castes and creeds. Human life is at risk. There is not an iota of hope of improving situation anywhere.

The earning capacity of a laborer has fallen sharply due to incessant price hike of bread and butter. The financial spectrum is becoming grimmer every day. Gloom stares the poors and misfortunes eying them. Life and honor is insecure. There are no health facilities for ordinary man. No job opportunities for majority of youth. Educated young generation, in sheer frustration, resorting to criminal activities ; another sad picture of our society.

The above few lines depict the state of affair of our country. — The democratic Pakistan. Democracy has various merits, but unfortunately, in a country like Pakistan, only de merits gain momentum and are visible like broad daylight. We bludgeon the rights of people and, most of the time; democratic governments prove worst than dictatorships.
Are not these enough evidences to convict the Head of Government? Especially when he himself is ready to go to gallows.

The verdict of the Apex Court to confine the PM till rising of the Court is historic. Its time for PM to reciprocate. He should quit honorably to save his face.

Bura kehey jisy dunya, usey bura samjho,

Awaz e khalq ko Naqqara e Khuda samjho.

April 29, 2012
By Saroop Ijaz

I am sure that some of you would have noticed the absurdity of the signs which one sometimes encounters on office desks and coffee shop counters saying, “I will be back in five minutes”. The sign becomes dated and untrue almost as soon as it is put up. The Prime Minister was recently sentenced to a term, which was to last till the rising of the court, and the court almost immediately rose after handing down the “historic verdict”. We are told by those who are particular about these things that the intervening time was approximately 30 seconds; in any event the sentence passed too quickly for the formation of a considered opinion, however one can be sure that there will be no dearth of considered and unconsidered views in the days to come.

One of the most interesting things about our periodic landmark judgments is the following aftermath, which reveals that most of our television anchors, retired army officers and politicians are closet legal geniuses, and feel in no way constrained to make recourse to the ordinary practice of reading the judgment or the relevant law. This is the only explanation for the almost unanimous opinion that the Prime Minister now stands disqualified. It is, perhaps, best to suspend judgment on the matter till the issuance of the detailed verdict. Yet, it might be of assistance to remind ourselves that there is an appeal process before a larger bench, which surely shall be shortly set in motion. A perusal of the short order discloses that the intention might not be to immediately disqualify the Prime Minister since while referring to Article 63 (1) (g) of the Constitution the phrase used in the short order is “likely to entail serious consequences”. The said article articulates the disqualification of a member of parliament if they are convicted of propagating any opinion or acting in a way so as to bring ridicule to the armed forces or the judiciary.

It is open to debate if that was the initial charge on the Prime Minister or not. In any event, the actual disqualification will take place through the Speaker of the National Assembly who may send the issue to the election commission to make the final determination. I do not wish to reproduce here the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the Prime Minister or the Court since both of them are capable of doing that for themselves, and do so very eloquently. Yet some sober reflection along with basic research might be helpful to the excited commentators and it may even have a dampening effect on the wild applause coming from both camps.

However, somewhere along the course of the hysteria in public discourse the real issue has been lost. At the risk of belabouring the already known, the issue in contention was the writing or non-writing of a letter to the Swiss authorities, and at a core level the Prime Minister’s refusal stems from the opinion that the President has immunity during his term in the office. It is the sole prerogative of the courts to interpret the Constitution, and the President’s immunity can theoretically be made less absolute. Yet, the Court has not done so; actually the Court has restrained itself from giving any direct observations on the matter at all. The cynic might say that it is for the reason that it is far more difficult and perhaps time consuming to neuter presidential immunity in view of the plain language of Article 248 of the Constitution as compared with the relatively easy task of sentencing the Prime Minister for contempt.

Let none of this obfuscate a primary principle, namely that once an order is passed by the Court it becomes binding on everyone it is addressed to, the legal flaws of the judgment is a ground for an appeal not refusal to comply. However, it might also be useful to remind ourselves that the courts draw their legitimacy and authority from the Constitution and equally significantly from a perception of fairness. The incumbent Prime Minister is perhaps fortunate in comparison to the PM who was sentenced for hijacking a plane and certainly luckier than the one who was hanged. Now compare this to the flagrant disregard of many Court pronouncements by the men in khakis, most recently the disregard of a Court Order passed on November 3, 2007 emergency which was “flouted” by the then corps commanders, some of them still in Pakistan and in service and thriving. Shakespeare’s words in Measure for Measure come to mind, “The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.” I agree that this cannot be the basis of the Prime Minister’s defence and two wrongs do not make a right etc., however, if the law of contempt is applied across the board, it certainly will be more effective and make it harder for everyone to disobey.

The terms ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’ are often used interchangeably as if it was a distinction without much of a difference. One could humbly speculate that in cases linked to the ‘doctrine of necessity’ and to legitimacy granting to military takeovers, some judges were driven by good faith and might have been independent; however, they certainly were not impartial. An uncritically repeated phrase “let justice be done though the heaven falls”, is quite silly since there is very little justice in total destruction. Let us not deceive ourselves by closing our eyes to the context and the implications for our nascent democracy. I don’t think the Prime Minister is a martyr in any cause greater than himself, and perhaps he should resign, at least, till the final resolution of the matter, and unconditionally obey whatever the final outcome is. However, one would expect the opposition parties, particularly Mian Nawaz Sharif, to be more cautious given his prior experience with similar matters. Given Mian sahib’s fondness for poetry, one may take the liberty of gently reminding him of these lines of Ghalib, “Mein ne Majnoon pe larakpan mein Asad, Sang uthaya tau sar yaad aya.” (When in my youth I threw a stone at Majnoon, I was reminded of my own doings).

-The Express Tribune

April 30, 2012
Yasser Latif Hamdani

Last week Taimoor
Ashraf in his article, “How liberal are they” (Daily Times, April 23, 2012) stated that since Jinnah defended Bal Gangadhar Tilak in a sedition case and Ilam Din in appeal, his worldview was somehow broad enough to include both.

This is an absurd argument. Consider the facts: Jinnah’s political career began firmly in the moderate camp when the Indian National Congress was divided into moderates and extremists. His mentor was Gopal Krishan Gokhale and Tilak was his political rival. On the limited question of sedition, Jinnah represented Tilak and represented him well. Similarly to the disappointment of those who try to use Jinnah’s role as the lawyer in the appeal for Ilam Din to somehow score a point about the Blasphemy law, Jinnah’s arguments as reported in the said judgment show that at no point did Jinnah condone Ilam Din’s act. Given the communal colour that this issue had taken, the Muslims of Punjab invented many myths about Ilam Din but the fact is that he repeatedly claimed that he did not kill Raj Pal, the publisher of the offensive pamphlet. Jinnah also represented Sardar Phanse in the famous Bawla murder trial and had his punishment mitigated to life. Would one conclude then that Jinnah’s political vision was broad enough to include even murderers?

Ashraf — who happens to be a lawyer — should know a bit about defence law. As a lawyer, one represents the most reprehensible amongst criminals but it does not amount to an acceptance or tolerance of their crime. Jinnah’s liberalism emanates not from his defence of Tilak or Ilam Din — whatever that means — but because Jinnah believed in equal rights for all people, regardless of religion or gender, because he believed in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. He was — as Agatha Harrison eulogised — a believer in unpopular causes such as the Suffrage Movement at a time when even men like Gandhi denounced suffrage for women as a ‘satanic’ idea. Jinnah was a champion of racial equality from very early on, at a time when it was still acceptable to be racist. In short, Jinnah was schooled in the political philosophy of John Morley, who was the finest amongst Victorian and Edwardian liberals.

In fact, Jinnah’s worldview was never so wide as to include retrogressive and reactionary mullahs, who opposed him at every turn. Like Kemal Ataturk, a contemporary world leader he admired, Jinnah’s views on clerics and religious scholars bordered on outright contempt. Words such as fraud, crooks, cranks, madmen, illiterate mullahs, reactionary maulvis, etc, were common in Jinnah’s public pronouncements against clerics. Even when he was not contemptuous, his speech was full of sarcasm as in the case of the famous speech he gave on why the Child Marriages Restraint Act ought to be passed despite orthodox Islamic opinion. Jinnah’s main point of departure from Gandhi emanated from the dispute the great Gujarati leaders had over the role the ulema ought to play. Jinnah’s worldview had no place for religious priests with a divine mission. He said in February 1948, “In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

To Jinnah, politics was a gentlemen’s game where rabble rousing using religious slogans was distasteful. Speaking to the central legislative assembly on February 7, 1935, Jinnah declared, “Religion should not be allowed to come into politics…Religion is merely a matter between man and God.”

Therefore, contrary to the erroneous claim made by Imran Khan in his book Pakistan: a Personal History, Jinnah and Gandhi were not on the same page regarding the role of religion. In fact, in terms of the role of religion in constitution and state, it was Jinnah and Nehru who almost had identical views with the difference being of the cards dealt to them. Jinnah was the leader of a minority community. The events that led to the partition of India had little to do with religion. It was haggling over a share of power and the structure of the future government of independent India that led to the breakdown. The Muslim League had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan without reservations — a fact no amount of mental gymnastics can disprove.

So whatever bar Jinnah set, it did not entail accepting a worldview that sought to make Pakistan a theocracy of any kind. Meanwhile, Imran Khan goes around parroting his favourite untruths about Jinnah. At a public rally, he claimed that Jinnah made Pakistan on the slogan “Pakistan ka matlab kiya: La Illaha Ilallah (What is the meaning of Pakistan: there is no God but Allah).” Nothing can be further from the truth. There is absolutely no record of Jinnah having ever used this slogan. On the contrary, we have it on good authority that Jinnah reprimanded a person who said this. Jinnah’s answer was, “Neither I nor the working committee has ever passed a resolution Pakistan ka matlab kiya, you may have done so to catch a few votes.” His worldview was just not wide enough to include crazies and religious fanatics, which is why the Ahrars and the Khaksars hated him with a passion, calling him Kafir-e-Azam (Great Infidel) and Pakistan Kafiristan (land of infidels).

Alas, he was human. Jinnah miscalculated, believing that Pakistan would produce a secular leadership that would model itself after his own example. Instead, we were left with substandard material, unable to distinguish the issues and too insecure to imagine a Pakistan even remotely close to what Jinnah had in mind. From Ayub to Musharraf and Bhutto to Sharif, we have only had leaders who emphasised Islamic ideology as post-hoc justification for Pakistan’s existence and utilised it in a most cynical way to the detriment of the people of this country.

The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalorum.blogspot and his twitter handle is therealylh
-Daily Times

April 30, 2012
By Dr Akmal Hussain

The prime minister stood respectfully before the bench of the Supreme Court, with the judges resplendent in their judicial robes behind the high table. A hushed silence prevailed in the court room as a nation waited with bated breath. These symbols of the majesty of law were given substance and the newly-won institutional strength of the Constitution was affirmed when the verdict was announced: the prime minister, whatever his compulsions in his earlier refusal to implement the order of the Supreme Court to write a letter reopening a corruption case against the president in a Swiss court, was held guilty of contempt of court. The prime minister by his defiance had challenged the authority of the Supreme Court. In convicting him and then restricting the punishment to 37 seconds, the Supreme Court not only dispensed justice but maintained the balance essential to it, by taking account of “mitigating circumstances”. At the same time, the authority of the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction within the institutional framework of the Constitution was established without destabilising the governance structure that a prison sentence and immediate disqualification of the prime minister would have entailed. Let us briefly outline a perspective of political economy to understand the significance of the Supreme Court verdict.

Over the last five years, there has been intensified institutional instability as different organs of the state have been vying for enhanced space within the power structure. In Pakistan’s case, underlying the formal institutional structure of the Constitution is a continual contention between different factions of the ruling elite for power and resources. This contention between the military, bureaucracy, the judiciary and various political organisations and their relative strength, has conditioned the dialectic between authoritarianism and democracy in Pakistan’s history. Thus, the relative weakness of the political parties, the judiciary and civil society organisations in the face of a relatively strong military organisation led to repeated military coup d’etats: the Constitution was abrogated, mauled and modified to suit the requirements of authoritarian rule. The judiciary, for many years, used the fig leaf of the ‘law of necessity’ to give a dubious legal justification for dictatorship. So the verdicts of the Supreme Court have historically been determined by its institutional weakness rather than the robustness of legal argument. This propensity resulted in a tragic miscarriage of justice when former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged following a Supreme Court verdict in April 1979. The military regimes of Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf all found legal sustenance in a kept judiciary.

The changing configuration of the power structure has also shaped the nature of and changes in economic and foreign policy. The national security paradigm as formulated by the military critically influenced foreign and security policy that involved the nurturing of extremist militant groups that were later to become a threat to the very survival of the state and the way of life of the people of Pakistan. The same security paradigm led to policies that reinforced an extractive institutional structure in the economy, whereby growing rents were generated for the elite while the provision of health, education and economic well-being of the people was ignored in resource allocation decisions.

Over the last five years, the judiciary, earlier removed by General Musharraf, was restored by a historic citizens’ movement. During the same period, there has been a dramatic contention for power between the elected government and the military and the assertion of judicial independence vis-a-vis the elected government on the one hand and the military on the other. This turbulence within the power structure is moving towards a new institutional balance as envisaged in the Constitution. If the political parties now use the April 26 Supreme Court verdict as an instrument of political conflict, it could place dangerous stresses on an emerging democracy and a fragile state. Strengthening the polity requires restraining political conflicts within the consensus for democracy and its institutional stability.

The Express Tribune

April 30, 2012
By F Z Khan
Exclusive Article

In celebration of the memory of those who laid their lives so that we may live, this special day – Yaum-e-Shuhada – is a tribute to the indomitable will, stoic courage and an overwhelming love of the nation that resonates in their heart which leads to a secure and peaceful Pakistan for us to dwell in. Deriving their military virtue from the true spirit of an Islamic ideology, the Armed Forces of Pakistan have always sacrificed their best of men in keeping intact the sovereignty of the Motherland as its soil contains as an unforgettable and primary constituent the blood of its martyrs who have fearlessly confronted the enemy and crushed their nefarious designs while guarding their land with their most precious possessions, their lives.

History has seen how the soldiers of the Pakistan Army have risen to their towering heights to defend their borders, their land, their deserts, their fertile and rich plains, their water and resources against severe enemy aggression as our heroes succeeded to stop the opponents not allowing them to touch and advance on even an inch of the country, a duty that, the world witnesses, they perform with a complete unwavering faith and courage while attaining immortality as it is stated in the Qur’an “And do not call those who die in the way of Allah as “dead”, no they are living, only you do not see them.” (2:154).

The arrival of coffins of our ‘shuhada’ received by solemn faced colleagues, despite being wrapped in green and white stirring a sentiment of pride and honour, shows the lifeless form of those who had once been the source of utter joy for their loved ones and the vivacious presence of whom was for some, the only reason to be. The immense sorrow displayed by the funeral prayers in muted silence, wreaths of eternally fragrant flowers that accompany them as the comrades and fellow officers bid them the final farewell. Life, unaffected by its grotesque and brutal realms goes on as the people progressively become engrossed in the mundane, day to day rituals. Other sacrifices, however, are equally important while less dramatic do not have a long term and such drastic after effects on the lives of those involved.
No one can, in their pursuits stop and consider the anguish and mental torment endured by the wives, children and parents of those who have been martyred or even the hundreds and thousands of others who wonder everyday if their dear ones would be the next? Uttering a few words of sympathy does not wash away the miseries as none can understand the full measure of what they have been and are still suffering while fighting a never ending battle at the home front as the smooth sailing life boat loses balance and becomes retarded. Millions of such episodes have been witnessed and been forgotten as we move forward.

Therefore, to salute the soldiers of Pakistan Army who fought showing bravery and courage and gave their lives for our great country have been awarded the highest military honour the Nishaan-e-Haider to those who embraced shahadat in the most heroic manner while inflicting heavy damage on the adversary in times of war and battles fought on borders. At the age of 38, soon after the birth of Pakistan, during the Kashmir operation in 1948, as Company Commander in the 2nd Battalion of the Punjab Regiment, Captain Sarwar (Shaheed) became a worthy recipient of this military award after he launched an attack causing heavy casualties against a strongly fortified enemy position in the Uri Sector under heavy machinegun, grenade and mortar fire, while moving forward with six of his men to cut their way through barbed wires and barriers, he embraced shahadat when his chest was riddled by a burst of automatic fire.

The Pakistan-India war in 1965 was fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began on August 5; the initial battles between Pakistan and India were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armour units with each country’s air force playing major roles while the largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region. Pakistan’s army had been able to withstand the Indian pressure, but suffered great losses of some 3,000 troops as our soldiers proved their abilities as one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers at that time.

A glorious and cherished example of the fact is the heroic martyrdom of the very famous Major Aziz Bhatti, who had been awarded the sword of honor as a cadet, carried out his duty towards the nation with unconquerable professionalism and dedication, an example of which can eloquently be explained by an incident occurring a day before his martyrdom, in which his Commanding Officer had sent to him a word that since he had been fighting untiringly for the last six days, he should take a little rest and that another officer was being sent to replace him; Major Aziz brimming with battle spirit and the will for martyrdom declined the offer to go back and fought till the last drop of his blood that was shed for his beloved homeland. As the Company Commander, Major Aziz Bhatti (Shaheed) chose to move his Platoon forward under constant firing from Indian tanks and artillery; he resisted for five days and nights, defending a Pakistani outpost on the strategic BRB canal. On September 11, he was reorganizing his Company and directing the gunners to shell the enemy positions. In order to watch every move of the enemy, he had to place himself in an elevated position, where he was exposed to enemy fire. He led his men from the front under constant attack from Indian Artillery batteries. Although he countered every Indian offensive in his area, he was hit by an enemy tank shell in the chest while watching the enemy’s moves, and thus died instantly. His martyrdom struck many hard and is remembered by his countrymen and was awarded Nishaan-e-Haider for his utmost commitment and determination.

The youngest recipient of Nishan-e-Haider, Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas, while still under training, was taxiing for take-off on a routine flight on August 20, 1971 when an Instructor Pilot forced his way into the rear cockpit, seized control of the aircraft and took off. Keeping his wits together, Minhas realized that the intruding pilot was heading towards India, he tried to regain control of the aircraft but could not manage it against the superior skill and experience of the seasoned instructor. With only 40 miles to go to cross over into Indian territory, he made yet another effort to steer the aircraft back to the base. Realizing the futility of the struggle, he so interfered with the controls as to render the Instructor Pilot helpless and force the aircraft to crash 32 miles short of the border, knowing that it meant certain death. For the supreme sacrifice that he made for the honour of his country, Pilot Officer Minhas was awarded Nishan-e-Haider.

Furthermore, the martyrs of Kargil have retained and propagated the military tradition of unparalleled valiance and bravery without losing their bond with the Motherland and its security concerns. Captain Karnal Sher Khan emerged as the symbol of mettle and courage during the Kargil conflict on the Line of Control, joined those eight legendary heroes who received the highest military award of Nishan-e-Haider as he set personal examples of bravery and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. Defending five strategic posts he repulsed many Indian attacks. Despite many abortive attempts, the enemy ringed the post of Capt. Sher Khan with the help of two battalions and unleashed heavy mortar firing and managed to capture some part of the post. Crushing the enemy intentions by a counterattack and succeeded in re-capturing the lost parts while embracing shahadat.

Our lionhearted valorous soldiers have of late taken on their strenuous shoulders the responsibility of defending the precious homeland from a fresh and recent sprouting of internal threat that emanates from the western borders and the Pakistani tribal regions. They are forcing the militants and miscreants out and have succeeded in their mission to a great extent. Pakistan is playing the central role in war on terrorism with the help of its Armed Forces as it launched a number of full-fledged military operations to fight day and night to ensure country’s survival on national as well as global level.

It has to be made evident that the army has played its due share in the purgation of the motherland and its generous sacrifices can be hidden from none. The credit has to be awarded to the Pakistan Armed Forces who has most valiantly countered the terrorists and successfully managed to expel all evil and secured the area for the inhabitants who had no power of their own.

During the operation many militant hideouts were exposed which had served as the hub of al-Qaeda networking while capturing most of the militant leaderships and stopping them from escaping. This has been possible only with the fearless and heroic offering of our soldiers who have been kidnapped, slaughtered and imprisoned but have rendered the internal enemy as defunct while engaging our age old rivals on the eastern borders simultaneously.

It is the duty of our each individual to pay tribute to them and to join their hands with the Armed Forces. As the nation is at war and by extending our support and by joining the battle we can show that the soldiers are no more solitary in their sacrifices but beside them the nation stands entirely and that Pakistanis all over the world are grateful to their grand warriors, the undoubting Trojans of strength who gave up their present for our prosperous future.

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com

April 30, 2012
Maimuna Ashraf
Exclusive Article

Youm-e-Shuhada is a day to remember the brave and courageous souls which departed for us. It’s a day to acknowledge the sacrifices of those soldiers who defended their country at their best and offered their lives for this cause. Soldiers, whose primary objective always remain to defend their land with passion and belief. They are the symbol of sacrifice and nation pride. On 30th of April, Forces and Nation address this day in respect to those soldiers, who laid their lives for protecting their motherland. Speakers and writers come forward to pay tribute to these national heroes. Here one should not forget the sizeable number of dear and near ones of the martyrs who suffers from immense mentally trauma after loosing their loved ones.

Focus of Pakistan Army always remained on governing and serving Pakistan. Nation salutes these martyrs because we feel proud to have such fighting tigers, who always step forward to fight with enemies. We owe a debt to these great souls, who served the nation well, who hugged death for the good of Pakistan. They will be always in the heart of this nation. These are our heroes. They instigate sense of security and hope. They are the mark of our self-esteem. They put their lives on a line to make us safe.

Our Army is the largest military branch in the country. It has the status of being powerful, experienced, and professional army. Pakistan Army with an active force of 619,000 personnel and 528,000 personnel in reserve makes Pakistan a seventh largest military force in the world. Pakistan Army jawaans are serving this land since 1947. The main responsibilities of the army are to protect the borders, security of administrative areas, and defending the national interests of Pakistan. They have been involved in four wars. But beside these responsibilities Pakistan Army played an important role in war on terrorism. A large number of soldiers are deployed on different places for the military operation against militants. The lives given by hundreds of young officers and soldiers of the Pakistan Army in fighting militant outfits during
Operation Rah-e-Rast and Rah-e-Nijaat should be acknowledged globally.

Approximately around 2,400 personnel lost their lives and another 6,500 were wounded in 2009-2010. In comparison, US/NATO forces in the region combined had a casualty figure of approximately 1,600. This just goes to show that the price paid by the Pakistani nation in pursuit of elimination of terrorist elements has been very high. The Operation of Bajaur is a great success story by security forces. Over 1600 militants were killed in the operation including some important commanders and foreigners while 86 security forces personnel also embraced shahadat for restoring peace in this area. In addition to its role on the War on Terror, Pakistan Army is also responsible of contributing towards the United Nations peacekeeping efforts. Pakistan Army recently grabbed the title of being the largest active force in the peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations. Many soldiers embrace shahadat in these peacekeeping missions. We honor all these martyrs who offered their last breath to protect our nation day and night from the terrorists and other anti-Pakistani national interests. It is also the time to give tribute to the soldiers of Siachen. They deserve immense admiration as they are silently sacrificing their today for ours tomorrow since last twenty-eight years. We daily talk about the fatalities of drones’ attacks and bomb battering, we promenade against Nato supply but before this incident we never spoke about the martyrs and affectees of Siachen. These 139 soldiers ensured the safety and security of Pakistan’s borders; they are the redeemer of Pakistan’s honor and dignity. These are our real heroes, the silent saviors of this land.

People will always love their soldiers who are fighting this war on frontline and this reality will not change. It doesn’t matter how the world injected hatred in them. The martyrs of Pakistan Army need to acknowledged and respected for many years to come. They have sacrificed the most precious thing for our safety. The nations, who do not acknowledge their true heroes, live a purposeless life. We salute our Army for having such soldiers who can risk everything for the safety of this country and its people.

In short, Pakistan Armed Forces role in establishing the peace and saving motherland will certainly be remember as tremendous character of future Pakistan History. Pakistan has played a brilliant role in the war against terrorism while its sacrifices and services are hard to be undermined. The role of Pakistan Army deserves to be acclaimed nationally and internationally, it has always played a significance role in countering militancy and extremism. People always love these warriors who fight for their country instead of politicians who run their country, because we will always find Jinnah’s photo in a meeting of military officials and our national flag in our hands while in a battle field. Conversely as politicians are concern, we will always see their own party leader’s photos in their meetings and their party flags in their public gathering. Our soldiers are our heroes to inspire, they are more than celebrities. They achieve something which our young admirers can relate.

Salute to these martyrs who when surrounded by enemy, with bullets and rockets hurling past their ears are asked by their commanders that “This is the moment we were made for, this is the day we were trained for, this is the day our mothers fed us for and this is the moment our fathers prayed for glory! I cannot force you to embrace death, which seems inevitable in this situation, so I beg for your advice. We all have to die, if somehow He wishes to give us some more time, we might end up dying on beds, but we all used to shout back in our training days – Live like Ali, Die like Hussein. So do you want to live like Hazrat Ali Sher-e-Khuda and die like Hazrat Imam Hussein?” The soldiers without any slightest of utters stood up, say “Nayar-e-Haidri ” – ” Ya Ali ” amongst the sound of bullets and pointed their guns towards enemies. Even after watching their jawaans wounded and martyred they never retrieve and always move forward in the rain of bullets without any fear. Hats off to these brave sons of soil, who in the valleys of fire, in the thunder of bombs, they just do not stop. Knowing that they are surrounded by death, knowing that they could leave their wives widows and children orphans, They just keep on moving because something is pumping in their hearts and flowing through their veins known as honor, devotion and motivation, ‘Death over surrender’- ‘Death before Disgrace’. All these martyrs were sons, brothers, husbands and fathers, but foremost they were soldiers and proudly upheld the obligation to global cause and national ideology for peace above and beyond personal responsibilities and relationships.

We salute their courage. It is obvious that their spirits are very high. Their sacrifice of for this nation will never be forgotten by the people of Pakistan. Despite of all the negativity and issues in Pakistan, these brave men give us hope and give us inspiration that if these sons of soil are ready to die for their motherland then no doubt we have an army of 16 crore willing to die for the Green Flag!


The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com