IS PAKISTAN HALAL (Pakistan for All)

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/09/13/is-pakistan-for-all/

• This is not cricket

The Sindh governor’s house opened its door to the public for the first time recently. Cute. All that equality and openness.

Now how about Pakistan opening its doors to its own citizens and treating them all equally? Too risky? Oh.

The above is actually a spot-on example of the hollow showiness with helicopters laid on that has suddenly become the trend. This, as opposed to real equality which needs a lot more courage, determination and planning. With the courage falling short right away as demonstrated by recent events surrounding appointments and resignations to the Economic Advisory Council, let’s see how the determination and planning shape up.

When this government elected members to its Economic Advisory Council and selected Atif Mian as one of them, there was a ray of hope for the first time since it came into power, that perhaps the PM was living up to his claims and to what people appear – for some reason – to expect from him. One hoped that maybe he did have some courage, that he was feeling his way forward given the challenges and electing the right persons regardless of their religious affiliation, that after this he would move on to other, larger reform. But no. He does not seem to have the guts to stand up to the extreme right, unlike lone, defenseless women such as (all of them now late) Sabeen Mahmud, Perveen Rehman, and Asma Jehangir.

The prime minister apologised when he retracted Atif Mian’s name as his Cabinet’s finance minister. ‘I didn’t know he belonged to the Ahmadiyya community’ is what he said. That was before he nominated Mian as an office holder to the EEC, and then caved in to pressure and withdrew that nomination as well. This is not cricket, Mr Khan. Like most other persons in government, it is obvious that your exalted position is all that is worth hanging on to, and that you too tend to the extreme right. God help this country. And welcome to the same old ghissa pitta Pakistan, with added scars of shame.

Anyone who wants to bring about real change must show, first and foremost, that the reins they have been handed following elections really are in their own hands

It was an extremely pertinent question that someone on social media posed recently:

Would this dam be halal if overseas Ahmadi Pakistanis also fund this dam?

I mean if later we find out that Ahmadis money was used in this dam too?

Asking so we should make Imran Khan say “everyone except Ahmadis should donate”….

Oh, and also, is Pakistan itself halal, seeing that one of its founding fathers was Ahmadi? Sir Zafarullah Khan, if you remember, was author of the Lahore Resolution, chief negotiator of the Radcliffe Line, and the first foreign minister of Pakistan.

Any comments?

There is an argument that since this is (supposedly) a democracy, and most persons do not wish to include the Ahmadiyya community in matters pertaining to the country (so the argument runs), then the government must accede to the wishes of the majority.

The Ahmadiyya community managed to coexist with the mainstream – after all it is in the Quran 2:257 ‘La Ikraaha fiddeen (there is no compulsion in religion) aside from some incidents. It was not until ZA Bhutto declared the members of this community non-Muslim in 1974 that the real persecution started and gained momentum when ten years after that Gen Zia came up with Ordinance XX which made it illegal for members of the Ahmadiyya community to call themselves Muslim. They must now declare their affiliation and are not, for example, allowed to vote. Or hold public office, it appears.

Both the actions, Bhutto’s and Zia’s took place without any official, objective reference to the sentiments of the majority. The sentiment taken into account belonged to the popular fist pumping segment of society which is the most visible and also the most violent. There has been no attempt to ascertain numbers since either. Therefore, the argument about democracy and what most people want does not stand.

Despite the fact that the majority of people in this country is uneducated, and has had the misfortune of being brainwashed by extremists and other uneducated persons, Pakistan also has the great good fortune of counting among its citizens many, many persons of compassion, basic decency and an understanding of religion. For these people the persecution of a community despite injunctions to the contrary in Islam goes against their nature and good sense.

Anyone who wants to bring about real change must show, first and foremost, that the reins they have been handed following elections really are in their own hands. If anyone else pulls them, that in itself is contradictory to democracy since the rulers the people elected, the visible ones, are not the real rulers. It also goes against democracy if the rulers lack the courage to stand up to threats against loss of life and power. No one else after all is surrounded by as much security, security that the country pays for. What then is it being used for?

The biggest factor is that going against the constitution of a country is a grievous offence. Here is what the Constitution of Pakistan has to say about this matter. This is Article 27 of the Constitution:

“No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth.’

This means that ZA Bhutto, our illustrious military ruler after him, and whoever else after him I don’t care to name, have committed treason.

Will anyone stand up against this and against this event in the EAC? Hats off to the two other appointees to the EAC who already did.

NOT A MUGWUMP

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/09/05/not-a-mugwump/

A person who works in a large organisation in a well-organised country has to ensure he does not step on interdepartmental toes. He cannot for example change the light bulb in his room, unless he works for the department that has the job of doing so. Changing light bulbs is the job of the department of maintenance, which functions according to its own protocols. If the person has any ideas regarding which bulbs would be better, which protocols may be safer for users, or which time may be more convenient to change bulbs around the office, there are the interdepartmental meetings and he is free to attend if he heads his own department, or he may offer his suggestions to the head of his own department who might place them on the table at that meeting.

That is a system that works, that produces results, and one in which no person makes a chump of himself or the country. Or at least less than he would otherwise.

It should be clear where this is headed.

IK asked the media not to criticise his government for three months, to give it time to settle in. But it is impossible for the media or others to wait for a period of three months following the antics of the self-appointed morality police suddenly sprouting everywhere, even among the governmental top brass. An example is the Punjab minister for information who took it upon himself to pass offensive remarks against a Pakistani film actress. A fellow PTI leader later condemned the minister’s words, and tried to explain his mistake by saying that it happened because he had ‘assumed the portfolio for the first time in his political career.’

Interesting that the minister had assumed a political portfolio even before assuming the portfolio of gentleman. 

That incident just about sums up the situation, which is reminiscent of a traffic accident where every passerby stops to intervene as police, medical advisor and moron rolled in one, resulting in chaos. Each participant leaves the scene congratulating himself on his self-righteous interference. On the road, in the meantime, the accident victim dies for lack of proper care.

For those who prefer their analogies spelt out, the poor self-abused country of Pakistan fits in as the large organisation and the accident victim — and the guy with the missing light bulb and the interferers are government officials, more specifically officials of the judiciary who owe more to their profession than they seem to understand.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan is the head of the branch of government known as the judiciary. He heads all the judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and the constitution fixes that number at seventeen. He is the chief administrative officer of the entire court system of the country and ranks just below the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariah Court, the parallel justice system allowed in the country, aside from the third, the tribal jirga system, and a fourth normally rampant in a jungle.

The CJP is responsible for supervising federal judicial policies and conducting judicial business in the Supreme Court.

He is nominated by the prime minister and confirmed by the president of the country. He has the ceremonial duty of administering the oath of office to the president of Pakistan, which if you note does not make him the president of Pakistan or anything else; he remains the CJP.

It is also very important that the CJP should be a mugwump, which may sound like something out of a book by Rowling or Dahl, and with good reason, but it is a term that means ‘a person who remains aloof and independent, especially from party politics.’ For a relevant phrase, we must thank Britain’s Boris Johnson who may not be an admirable person and possesses an execrable hairstyle, but he did coin the term ‘mutton headed old mugwump’.

There are others to shoulder the burden of activism. The judiciary is probably the only branch of government where its members, the judges, are better advised to stay aloof from the public and governmental affairs

Our CJP may be the first part of Johnson’s quote, but he ain’t no mugwump, a title he rejected on numerous occasions but most recently when he declared that IK was no one’s blue eyed boy.

With due respect, you don’t make such statements, Justice sahib, just as you don’t butt into business that rightfully belongs to someone else, from building dams, to dictating which fund a convicted person’s fine is to go into or lurking around corners on the watch for booze. This has little to do with the judiciary, and it is not advisable.

There are others to shoulder the burden of activism. The judiciary is probably the only branch of government where its members, the judges, are better advised to stay aloof from the public and governmental affairs and keep their opinion to themselves, all the better to maintain dignity, inapproachability and neutrality. The time spent lurking in corridors would be better spent reading up on how a judge must comport himself.

WHILE YOU AND I WERE CASTING OUR VOTE

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/29/while-you-and-i-were-casting-our-vote/

To depend on being in the majority to obtain one’s rights is to depend on shifting sand. Everyone is in the minority at some time, in some place or another.

We all travel and find ourselves a small part of the larger whole. When that happens we depend on the majority to display a degree of decency. Those whose sense of propriety calls for the wearing of the face veil expect the governments of foreign countries to allow them to wear it. When for example Denmark banned the veil, those people protest.

We expect time off to pray, and a day off on Eid. Most countries allow that, we take it in our stride. When there is a transgression, when for example the Dutch government distanced itself from Geert Wilders and refused to stop the offensive cartoon competition, sensibilities were ruffled here in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. The Foreign Office (by which I mean the Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureishi, and not General Bajwa) lodged a formal protest with the Netherlands.

If there is an absence of forbearance and no authority or arbiter to combat the result, there would be no human being left alive in this world, because every majority would wipe out the minority. For this reason, and since there will always be instances of intolerance and injustice, an arbiter is required. The job is handed over to a neutral entity, a human rights organisation, and depending on beliefs a divine Arbiter over all.

Arbiters in the real sense of the word are against violence, and for tolerance and peaceful co-existence. It means that no group has the right to harm another. It is the arbiter’s job to make sure of that, and in the case of human arbiters to take measures to prevent such harm.

The Convention of Human Rights recognises the inherent dignity, equality and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, and declares that these should be protected by the rule of law. Member States pledge to cooperate in achieving this aim. Pakistan is a signatory to the Convention of Human Rights. Other than calling itself an Islamic Republic, under the rules of which as well all humans are equal.

When a group of persons takes the law into its hands and starts hurting others is the time for the end of forbearance in their case. That is the time to take firm action against them

The government of each country that is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is given the role of ensuring that all persons are treated alike without discrimination, and that no person or group of persons within its borders suffers violence and injustice. It must ensure that all citizens of the country are allowed freedom of religion, and the freedom to participate in government. That means that every citizen — without discrimination — has the right to elect representatives to the government in regularly held elections.

And yet, in the recent elections in Pakistan, that was not the case. The country’s Ahmadiyya community was unable to cast a vote, and here is why:

To vote members of the Ahmadiyya community must declare either that they are non-Muslim – which they do not believe they are – or they must declare that they consider the founder of their community to be a liar – which again they do not believe he was. Just as by not wearing a veil a woman who believes this is part of her faith must be in tacit agreement that her faith is flawed.

That means that while you and I were casting our vote, taking our right to do so as a given — some 500,000 of our fellow citizens were at home, unable to cast their’s, a right that had been promised them by their government when this country was born (see Jinnah’s speech) and when this country signed the Convention of Human Rights. It means that the government has reneged on its promise to its citizens. 

It also means that in the light of the violence being committed against this community – there have been several attacks this year alone on the Ahmadiyya community and there are always attacks on this and other minority groups, the government has failed in its job of protecting its citizens.

Well, we have a new government now, new persons who will in all likelihood continue to renege on that promise. To make deals with terrorists and extremists, to invite them to the table for talks and give them financial grants – who honestly expects that to help?

When a group of persons takes the law into its hands and starts hurting others is the time for the end of forbearance in their case. That is the time to take firm action against them.

Still, one must hope. That behind all this talk of ‘naya Pakistan’, austerity and ‘change’ something honest and constructive will take place, and these words are not being used as popular catchphrases and a smokescreen to hide the same old Pakistan from view.

BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/22/being-taken-for-a-ride/

• They are being dishonest and they think their electorate is foolish

Punjab has a new chief minister, Mr Usman Buzdar of the PTI.

Although this is Mr Buzdar’s first Provincial Assembly seat, he is not a stranger to politics. Once the Nazim of Dera Ghazi Khan, he was a member of the PML-Q for nine years starting from 2002, after which he joined the PML-N. When he ran for the provincial assembly from that party in 2013 he lost to a PPPP candidate. This year, just before the elections Mr Buzdar joined the Junoobi Punjab Sooba Mahaz. When that party merged with the PTI it brought Mr Buzdar with it, after which he won the provincial assembly seat from Dera Ghazi Khan in these elections. Such are the whims of fate.

The new chief minister’s father Fateh Muhammad Khan Buzdar, meantime, has been thrice elected MPA from Dera Ghazi Khan, in 1985, 2002, 2008.

Our new PM explained his reasons for selecting Mr Usman Buzdar for the job. He said that Mr Buzdar belonged to the most backward area of the Punjab, one without water and electricity. So, the PM explained, Mr Usman Buzdar is well aware of the issues faced by the people of such areas.

“He is the only MPA to not have electricity at his home,” said Mr Imran Khan. “I am confident that he will work brilliantly to bring to fruition our vision, which aims at uplifting the lower sections of society and the backward areas of Pakistan.”

It could also be that he is a genuine choice and turns out to be a good one. Who knows? In which case he has our sincere good wishes

Since his nomination there have been several criticisms of the PM’s choice of Mr Buzdar’s as CM, the most persistent being that Mr Buzdar and his father were accused of the murder of six men in 1998. That case was apparently settled by jirga after a sum of 7.5 million rupees was paid to the heirs of the deceased and the case was closed. Simple.

In politics rumours and accusations abound, and every hit, above or below the belt appears permissible.

There is no way of knowing what the events surrounding any case are and what the truth is. In this particular case, one may not agree with a jirga being allowed to settle such major cases but it is not the fault of those concerned if jirgas have the power to do so in this country. And obviously, if the facility is available they will use it. But an accusation of murder will raise eyebrows.

That Mr Buzdar tends to roll around from party to party like a well-known domestic utensil is unfortunate but that too cannot be held against him since he is hardly alone. The PTI, the youngest of the major political parties in the country, is full of members with that tendency.

With reference to this habit of Mr Buzdar’s, and because we have been led to understand that he is disadvantaged, one could excuse him by saying that people from disadvantaged backgrounds really have little choice. Nobody stops for a person or a car to cross the road here, much less allow a disadvantaged person an advantage in politics.

But this tolerance is unnecessary if you stop to think: can a disadvantaged person pay out 7.5 million rupees for anything?

And the electricity? Mr Buzdar we are told has no electricity in his home.

Which family would live without electricity in the long, sweltering, humid summers of Dera Ghazi Khan if it could help it? A family that can pay out 7.5 million can certainly help it. If there is no electricity in their area then there are such things as generators. Those who can afford them use them.

Still, apparently Mr Buzdar really does not have electricity in his home in Dera Ghazi Khan. But that is just one of his homes. The other house, in which his wife and family live, does have electricity.

There are many people who live an arms-length from filth and poverty and do nothing about it, all the best known political figures of the country included.

If the Buzdar family lives in such a disadvantaged area, one that has no basic facilities, it is clear that Mr Buzdar senior, a three elected MPA, has not managed to achieve much. Will the son be any better? He may be, we don’t know, we hope he is, but living in backward areas is in itself no guarantee of an interest in such matters or an ability to bring about improvement.

It is hard to say for certain why Mr Buzdar has been selected for his current post. It is extremely possible that he is keeping the seat for someone else and will be removed when that someone else is free to hold office. His is most likely to stick around as the nominal ‘done the virtuous thing’ visible face while someone else pulls the actual strings.

It could also be that he is a genuine choice and turns out to be a good one. Who knows? In which case he has our sincere good wishes.

The only thing one can say for sure is that it is time politicians stopped chucking dust in the face of its electorate and concentrated on doing some genuine good, not just on making us think they are doing so.

It is of little interest where, how and in what conditions anyone lives, Mr Buzdar or anyone else. The thing that riles is the obvious attempt on the part of leaders to bamboozle, hoodwink and pull the wool over one’s eyes. They are, in short, being dishonest and they think their electorate is foolish.

Such actions often backfire on the politicians. On the country they always do, wrecking people’s lives.

  

INTERVIEW WITH KL

https://youtu.be/o-FlMT8DTYs

My interview with Khabar Lahariya, an Indian newspaper, published in certain rural dialects of Hindi, including Bundeli Bajjika dialect and Avadhi. The newspaper was started by Nirantar, a New Delhi-based non-government organisation which focuses on gender and education.

INFORMATION AND FREE SOCIETIES

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/14/information-and-free-societies/

• And people’s freedoms

Society throws all sorts of information at its people. There should be no attempt to control most of this because it constitutes the variety of information available in a free society. An absence indicates a controlled society, one in which Big Brother is watching, censuring, and controlling, a scenario that may be familiar to those of us who are not being allowed to obtain some newspapers. Another example is China where even now the government regulates any information to do with the ‘Cultural Revolution.’

It should be up to the people of every society to accept or discard this or that piece of information as their judgement tells them.

Yet some information can be corrected, and some should outright not be obtained.

Right here in Pakistani, misinformation can be found in history textbooks, where invaders are subjectively labelled as heroes or martyrs.

In his essay ‘Past, Present, Myths and Lies’, Mubarak Ali observes that the reason behind invasions is invariably lust, or greed for wealth or land. This is as the matter should be approached when it is taught. From Muhammad bin Qasim to the British, lust or greed for wealth and land was the reason behind their invasion of the subcontinent. Yet, Ali says “we recognise Muhammad Bin Qasim as a hero because Sindh was converted to Islam” as a result of his appearance on the scene. “Charles Napier also invaded Sindh in 1843 and modernised it but his status remains that of an invader and he did not replace Muhammad Bin Qasim as a hero” because we did not all convert to Christianity as a result of Napier’s invasion. Had we done so, the labels would have been reversed. Right?

Subjectivity is grossly misleading and damaging. In the same manner as the example above, various figures and institutions who interfere in the running of the country are hailed as heroes, because ‘no one else is doing what they’re doing, and whatever they’re doing needed to be done’. One hears this time and again. The fact remains that what they do is wrong because they are doing. That makes it unconstitutional and therefore illegal. To this situation Mubarak Ali’s other question applies when he asks “What gives an invader the right to demand land that legally belongs to someone (else)?” Changed to: What gives a person who ‘invades’ someone else’s job the right to do so? It is an important question.

Governments in this country have their hands tied with regards to laws that pander to discriminatory views, injustice and inequality among the population

You cannot shove the constitution aside when it does not suit you and demand its application when it does.

There is yet another category of information, and this one can and ought to be regulated at the point where questions are asked to obtain it. I refer to the questions regarding caste on property forms, and the questions regarding religion on passport forms in Pakistan.

This might appear to be a small detail, but many small details are potent and lead to larger issues.

Questions concerning race for example are asked on travel forms also in other countries, and they are as unnecessary and irrelevant. They supposedly constitute statistical data but there are so many mixed race marriages today that under what category exactly would a child of Asian and European parents fit for instance? And what useful information (seeing that it is just a box that is ticked and no detail) does that give? It is the same with questions regarding caste in Pakistan, where caste – although it is important to segments of society and those segments should be free to ask such questions personally – on the government level has no relevance, except in the discriminatory attitudes it leads to.

And so it is with question regarding religion on passport forms. All these questions deserve to be shelved and should be.

Governments in this country have their hands tied with regards to laws that pander to discriminatory views, injustice and inequality among the population. To fix those laws would take diplomacy, intelligence and a great deal of courage, not something many of our governments have been known for. The least they can do therefore is remove questions relating to those subjects. After all, there is what Jinnah in support, that: “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” But with religion and the law in this country, one ignores what one wishes to ignore.

Our new PM has in the past declared his intention to be among those who mean to allow certain crucially flawed laws to remain. His saying so may have been another example of his volatile speeches and actions prior to the elections, or it may have been an attempt to smooth some hackles for the moment. We don’t know. If it was the latter, one might still hope.

All one can say for certain is that the only reason the State would demand to know a person’s religion on a passport form is if its intentions are not benign, or if it is pandering to the demands of someone with malignant intentions.

IN DAYS TO COME

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/08/07/in-days-to-come/

• Why is so much intra-institutional interference possible in Pakistan?

It turns out to be Nawaz Sharif’s greatest achievement, that instead of achieving the greatness of his choice he has achieved the great status of a warning to those would fall afoul of the establishment.

After all, an institution that can dictate foreign policy, and even the newspapers we read and the channels we view, is not to be trifled with.

So, with the elections over, and even though much detritus remains…what now?

The most rational move would be to accept election results and extend support for the new government. There is much constructive work waiting to be done, much catching up with the rest of the world, and no government can achieve anything without cooperation from the nation, and I do not suspect IK of being unwilling to achieve change. Rational acceptance is indeed best for the country. Yet it is hard to be reasonable and accept the situation when a government is brought into power the way this one has, and democracy lies in shambles at one’s feet.

It brings one back to the question: why is so much intra-institutional interference possible in Pakistan?

No institution knows its place in Pakistan, not even the judiciary which above all others should know better. Is it after all the role of the Supreme Court of the country to raise funds for dams, and what’s more, to order fines to be paid into a dubious dam fund? Is it, for God’s sake, justice to barter on court judgements in return for payments into that damn fund? Is the CJPs response acceptable when he says that he is compelled to interfere in the executive’s business because of the poor state of affairs? Should a CJ be so little aware of the law?

This is a country in crying need of education. And there are two kinds of education, basic literacy and academic education. This segues into the education of political rights and duties. We have neither. We are not so far from our Mughal legacy to have lost the wish for dominance and the willingness to be dominated. For an institution so trained in gaining the upper hand and a people so ignorant and poor, these are some major reasons why interference is so eminently possible in this country, and the CJP’s response is very much acceptable to most people, who make use of the same argument as his own. Things are not likely to improve either when, along with the major party, radical ‘religious’ parties such as the TLP and MML too were so neatly allowed in, parties that at least did not possess an official stage prior to this.

Without a majority in the lower house, the new government will need to be a coalition. And coalition partners are likely to be accepted undiscerningly as it was with party members

Because of the same argument about dominance, and an exceedingly myopic reading of religious texts, radical ‘religious’ groups are against education, specifically the education of women. Many schools have been blown up, several very recently, for which acts ‘religious’ groups have claimed ‘credit’. So that education Pakistan needs is likely to be a long time coming, given the violent following these groups possess.

Many people hope that Imran Khan’s invective prior to the elections, his avowals of support for certain laws and questionable practices — he has expressed a resistance to re-examine the blasphemy law, a support for jirgas and has been bouncing his head off shrines — and his unpleasant language were just a means of garnering popular support, nothing more. That now that he is where he has always wanted to be, the country will be run more along the lines of Shaukat Khanum hospital than a hell-house for women. It is to be seen if this is a correct view. One hopes it is, although it is a pity that this should be the route to public support.

Without a majority in the lower house, the new government will need to be a coalition. And coalition partners are likely to be accepted undiscerningly as it was with party members – Aamir Liaqat comes to mind, and now perhaps the MQM-P, even though earlier that party had rejected the election results.

IK’s first speech after the elections was creditable. Yet with the MQM or its splinter group in tow, a group of people who have been responsible for so much disruption and terrorism in its hometown, will all the new PM says he wants to achieve be possible in days to come? Will IK have a free hand at all? Will he for example be as hamstrung as the PML-N with regards to the country’s foreign policy? If somewhere along the line his ideas diverge from the establishment, will he dare to bring them into play, given what happened to his predecessor?

God Bless Pakistan indeed, and the people of Pakistan. But if I belonged to one of the minority segments of society right now, or had a few strong dissenting views, I would be running for cover.