While greed, avarice and the pursuit of power continue to drive the power brokers of today, there are signs of a balancing of interests among the main players in support of constitutional governance. If allowed to continue, this could result in a maturing of the political process and for self-cleansing mechanisms to develop over time. This is creditable for a country without a rich history or a culture steeped in a pluralistic tradition, a state and a society under threat from obscurantism and terrorism, struggling to define its identity and its place in the world after decades of poor governance, oppression and violence.The liberalization of the media in the last decade, the restoration of the chief justice, an orderly transition from dictatorship to democracy and the reluctance of the armed forces to step in when a democratic government is challenged have improved the political environment. Without doubt, a lot of work still needs to be done to institutionalize a balanced system of governance which is not dependent on having a ‘democracy supporting COAS’ and an “independent minded judge” like General Kayani and Chief Justice Chaudhry in pivotal positions.

As has frequently been the case in the past, any gains towards achieving a fragile constitutional balance may be reversed if the power brokers revert to a ‘winner-takes-all’ attitude. Take the case of Prime Minister Gilani who has been convicted and punished by the Supreme Court for contempt for his refusal to write a letter to the Swiss authorities asking them to restore corruption cases against President Zardari. Following the SC decision, surely it should be up to Parliament or the ruling party to censure or remove PM Gilani deeming him morally unfit to continue in office and also up to electorate in the next general elections to vote out the PPP from power if the party has plundered the wealth of the country during its tenure as is being alleged. It seems that the political opposition is showing immaturity and impatience by threatening extra-parliamentary means such as long marches and other forms of civil disobedience to have PM Gilani removed, thereby putting pressure on an elected government, which could lead to a possible derailment of democracy itself.

There are some in the media that have taken to characterizing General Kayani ‘non-interventionist’ posture as vacillation which goes against the simmering discontent in the uniformed rank and file of the armed forces against the widespread civilian loot and plunder. These elements under the guise of ‘constitutional adherence’ are even advocating the invocation of the infamous and much vilified ‘doctrine of necessity’ which should gladden the hearts of aspiring Bonapartists and their civilian fellow travelers who may want to ride the military’s fatigues to power once again. In a country, where there is insufficient accountability of leaders, lack of transparency in government, inadequate checks and balances, non-adherence to the rule of law, absence of peaceful means to change or replace leadership and a lack of respect for human rights, political control by any means fair or foul becomes excessively important, and the stakes become dangerously high.

While good governance, fighting corruption and strict adherence to the rule of law are necessary goals they should be pursued through democratic means. Democratic governments help to guarantee political rights, protect economic freedoms and foster an environment where peace and development can flourish. Today, as never before, countries around the world are seeking to establish pluralistic systems of government in which political leaders are elected by the will of the majority to fixed terms of office, and exercise their authority within legal limits. This is a very hopeful trend which also bodes well for Pakistan’s democratic future, because in the absence of genuinely democratic institutions contending interests are likely to seek to settle their differences through conflict rather than through accommodation.

Pakistan blocked Twitter on Sunday, saying the website had refused to remove posts promoting a Facebook competition involving caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

“The website has been banned by the Ministry of Information Technology and the decision was conveyed to us. There was blasphemous material on Twitter,” said Mohammad Younis Khan, spokesman for Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).

“Both Facebook and Twitter were involved. We negotiated with both. Facebook has agreed to remove the stuff but Twitter is not responding to us.”

For that reason Twitter had been blocked but Facebook was still available, he said, adding that those responsible for the competition were “trying to hurt Muslim feelings”.

Ironically, #TwitterBan started trending across Pakistan soon after the ban was exposed.\

Responding to a question last night, Rehman Malik, the country’s interior minister, had denied that ban on social networking sites was in the offing.

“The government of Pakistan’s ban on Twitter is ill advised, counterproductive and will ultimately prove to be futile as all such attempts at censorship have proved to be,” said Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan director at Human Rights Watch, in a press statement. “The right to free speech is nonnegotiable, and if Pakistan is the rights-respecting democracy it claims to be, this ban must be lifted forthwith. Free speech can and should only be countered with free speech.”

“Twitter is a place where fierce opposition to Pakistan’s security agencies is expressed,” said Raza Rumi , a widely read columnist and an adviser at the Jinnah Institute, a public policy center based in Islamabad, while talking to New York Times.

“There is a clear trend,” Mr. Rumi said, “that the Pakistani military and spy agency get a strong critique from Pakistanis themselves, something that does not happen in mainstream media where people are generally shy to express such views.”|

[Update 21/05/2012]
Access to twitter has been allowed again in Pakistan after one day of twitter black out.

By: Riaz Ali Toori

Our history is replete with judicial transgressions and military interventions, the implications of which can be very unnerving. A quick glimpse at Pakistan’s history would reveal that when the dictator, General Ayub Khan deposed Iskandar Mirza, the change was welcomed but what did we ultimately reap? Governmental corruption and nepotism, in addition to an environment of repression stifling free speech and political freedom, increased unrest and above all, rigged elections.

Then we witnessed the era of Zia-ul-Haq, the worst of all dictators who stained the political history of Pakistan with the blood of ZA Bhutto Shaheed, who overthrew an elected Prime Minister in a bloodless coup d’état and in these criminal acts he was fully abetted by turncoat politicians, who are now the self-acclaimed champions of democracy.

After Ayub’s legacy, Zia-ul-Haq gave us the gift of Islamic militancy. In Zia’s hands Islam and Islamic ideology became a versatile tool for the extension of state control in the domain of personal and private lives of citizens as well as their public, political, professional and cultural activities. It is the result of that legacy that today the whole country is drenched in blood. Zia played the Islamic card to defend himself and the generals against any accusations of misrule and corruption. Zia and his generals made millions from the illicit heroin trade and underhand weapon deals, besides large-scale embezzlement in funds that were diverted towards the Afghan war. However, since media in Pakistan during his regime was brutally gagged through extreme censorship, none of his corrupt deeds could be documented or made public by the print media.

Hardly a decade later, Pakistan experienced another transition from democracy to dictatorship through another coup d’état and Musharraf became the de facto head of Pakistan. Regrettably, our apex judiciary not only validated Musharraf’s unconstitutional act of overthrowing a democratically elected Prime Minister but also permitted him to make amending inroads into the constitution of Pakistan as per his will and desire.  Keeping alive his predecessors’ illicit traditions, Musharraf bartered Pakistan’s sovereignty by striking deals with foreign forces.  Terrorism took root in Pakistan during Musharraf’s tenure and the deteriorating security situation in the whole country was due to the wrong policies pursued by him. He not only deposed the very judges who had validated his nasty rule but also threatened and forcefully detained them.

Political leaders like Bugti, who had once been the Chief Minister of a deprived province, were targeted and killed but our judiciary remained a silent spectator of the critical situation and no suo moto action was ever taken against him. Musharraf demoralized the institutions of Pakistan creating a big gap between the military and public. The flame of terrorism and extremism spread from Parachinar to Karachi and the whole country was engulfed in a deadly frenzy of suicide bombing and target killing. Political leadership of the country was either put into jail or was forced into exile. Returning to her beloved country, charismatic leader Shaheed Benazir Bhutto narrowly escaped in the first attack in Karachi but the nation lost its favorite leader in the second attack in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan’s history is pathetic but it would be inappropriate to feel pity for the nation only on account of political mistakes while there are many others who have contributed to its woes. Justice Muhammad Munir was the first who laid the foundation of constitutional abrogation. He was the one who introduced the concept of “Doctrine of Necessity” validating the dismissal of Khawaja Nazimuddin’s government by Governor General Ghulam Muhammad. In 1958 the same Justice Muhammad Munir upheld General Ayub’s military takeover on the basis of the doctrine of ’successful revolution being legal’. This was the first capitulation of Judiciary before an autocrat.

Later Justice Anwaar ul Haq & Justice Naseem bowed their nodding heads before a uniform–-thus giving new lease of life to military dictators. In another barefaced shameful episode, Bhutto was sentenced to death by Maulvi Mushtaq. The Judicial murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Shaheed at the behest of General Zia ul Haq and his generals was another offensive display of connivance of the judiciary with the army top brass.

In 1990, when Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, Peshawar High Court reversed the decision that restored the provincial assembly only to be reversed by the apex court when challenged.

We remember vividly when General Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif’s government, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was one of the TWELEVE Supreme Court judges who validated the military coup of Gen Pervez Musharraf, in the ‘Judgment on 17th Amendment and President’s Uniform Case’. Then Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was one of the five Supreme Court judges who dismissed all petitions challenging President Musharraf’s constitutional amendments.

The recent strife between judiciary and executive shows that once again things are moving back to square one. Yes, of course, pity the nation that has been suffering in the hands of those who are there to dispense justice. Yes pity the nation whose history is tainted with judicial transgresses. Yes pity the nation that has been facing dilemma of fragile democracy. Yes pity the nation in which each branch of government deems itself a sole power. Yes pity the nation in which judicial system is politically motivated. Yes pity the nation in which criminals are released without any shadow of doubt and pity the nation in which judiciary fails to convict the killers of thousands of innocent people. Yes pity the nation where people lose their battles with life in the quest of justice.

Pity the nation where independence of judiciary means the freedom of a few judges to work as per their own sentiments rather than upholding the sanctity of the constitution of Pakistan. Pity the nation where the freedom of judiciary is defined as the freedom of judges rather than the freedom of the institution to work as per law and constitution.

Indeed, Pity the nation where a judge openly expresses his sentiments of  hatred for the elected Prime Minister of the country in a very ironic way.

Note: The purpose of this piece is to discuss the brief history of Judiciary and military is not to malign any institution but the nation is fed up to its last tolerance point by the word ‘change’ through military intervention and pitting Judiciary against democracy. Please do recall history before inviting another reprehensible change.

The Progressive Writers Movement never completely owned and recognised Manto in his life. Hasan Askari also mentioned that in his essays on Manto. Apparently, there were some lists issued in literary magazines which stated who belonged to the progressives and who didn’t. “Manto did not need that. He never did and never would. He was not interested. Period. He did wish to be told of his greatness. He simply did not care about the material aspects of his social life. Manto was a qalander in that respect. He was beyond acclaim or applause. He was indifferent to constructed literature and art for a purpose. His passion was to write stories and stories alone.”

Safdar Mir

Manto’s life is an excellent example of what happens when a man of outstanding genius falls among men of little talent. First come the publishers, and in a country with no copyright laws, or where scant respect is shown to them if they exist (inspite of the Writers Guild) a man of letters has no protection against exploitation. His writings are used for the setting up of large publishing establishments whose owners, after his death, shed hypocritical tears and pat themselves on the back at having ‘helped’ and ‘established’ the unknown Manto, or who write critical articles on his work after his death with indecent haste (and indecent purpose), to prove that he was not such a wonderful writer after all. There are other publishers who takes advantage of his weakness for booze and make him dash off stories – some brilliant, others of indifferent merit— for paltry sums of money while themselves sitting their offices. Sole rights for a story by him were determined by these good Samaritans at Rs. 20/-. These stories were first published in their magazines, and then printed in collections for which neither Manto nor his family ever received any royalty…

Ajmal Kamal

He was extremely disturbed by the batwara and the heinous communal riots that accompanied it. “Towards the mayhem — inqalab — that was unleashed as a result of the country’s partition I remained insolent for long, and still am, but later I recognised the dreadful reality, though in such a way that I did now allow pessimism to get to me.”

He was consistently writing against the wholesale repression that came to be the policy of the new state in its initial years — banning of a large number of newspapers and periodicals, jailing of writers and journalists, persecution of political dissent such as the Red Shirt movement in the then NWFP — under the all-purpose Public Safety Act (which he called the “Amrit Dhara Act”) — and the unwarranted space given to religious bigotry, jihadism and intrigue in the new country’s politics through instruments like the Objectives Resolution, war and xenophobia. Twice he had himself been tried — and acquitted — for obscenity in two of his stories related to the partition riots (He was to face one more of such trials — decided against him — before he finally left the world).

In this eloquent preface — which he gave the title Jaib-e kafan — Manto draws upon Ghalib’s masterful line: Hai dagh-e ishq zeenat-e jaib-e kafan hunuz. He writes: “I used to be recognised as a progressive, then all of a sudden I was branded a reactionary, and now the fatwa-givers are thinking again and are willing to acknowledge anew that I’m a progressive. And the government, which gives its own fatwa to overrule all fatwas, believes me to be a progressive, i.e. a surkha — a communist. From time to time it gets angry, accuses me of obscenity and tries me in courts. On the other hand, the same government advertises in its publications that S. H. Manto is a great writer of our country whose pen did not stop even in the past turbulent days. It frightens my sad heart to think that this fickle sarkar may happily pin a medal to my shroud, which will be an insult to my commitment — my dagh-e ishq.”

Moazzam Sheikh

Anyone who has read Manto with any seriousness probably has a favourite. It is true that for historic reasons his stories directly impacted by the partition set him apart from his peers and raise him to a stature where he alone resides. That cannot be achieved by a writer through conscious efforts. Only Time can sculpt such beauties. It is not a stretch to suggest that Manto is to Urdu short story what Miles Davis is to trumpet, Billie Holiday to Jazz singing, Max Beckman to painting, and Chaplin to silent cinema whose City Lights’ final scenes can bring tears to your eyes even after almost a hundred years.

Dr. Ayesha Jalal

On his 100th birthday, Manto stands taller on the literary horizon than others who wrote about the mass migrations of 1947. Where he needs greater appreciation is in the role he played as a witness to history through his chilling narratives of Partition. In a country where history as a discipline has suffered from calculated neglect in the interests of projecting statist ideology, Manto’s Partition stories are an excellent entry point for enquiring minds eager to understand the past that has made their present fraught with such uncertainty and danger. The ever-percipient Manto had anticipated the problems of treating religion as a weapon rather than a matter of personal faith and ethics, which have over the past three decades surfaced with a vengeance in Muslim Pakistan. His words of warning have a resonance that is louder than when he said: “Our split culture and divided civilization, what has survived of our arts; all that we received from the cut up parts of our own body, and which is buried in the ashes of Western politics, we need to retrieve, dust, clean and restore to freshness in order to recover all that we have lost in the storm.” If there is a birthday present Pakistanis and Indians can jointly give Manto, it is to admit the reality of the problems he spelt out in his writings on Partition. It may then become possible for them to take the requisite steps towards recovering what has been lost by the myopic refusal of their respective nation-states to understand each other’s position, rectify past errors, and strike a mutually beneficial and sustainable historical compromise.

Sarmad Sehbai

Manto is too mercurial to be placed in a timeframe; he is resistant to any categorisation or placement. What shape the society is taking on, the botoxed shape of enlightened moderation or a chequered shape poxed by corruption, intrigue and terror, one is not sure but, like all great artists, Manto remains ever-present and relevant to all times; he is our contemporary. Pick up anything today, modern fiction to new linguistics or art discussions, or journalism to media freedom, he is there.
‘Civil’ society and the state, both are power constructs and Manto is a depowering experience. He never wanted to become an ‘inevitable example’ for the state or the ‘civil’ society. Unlike others he was not into popularity polls or franchised art. Manto was feared by the state and is still feared by ideologues, religious saviours, reformers and the civilised elite. He hated the pulpit culture. He was averse to enshrined reverence, as he said, “I hope my writings are not given the lofty status as that of Iqbal, my soul will be restless. God may save me from the termite.” His Adam was not a crusader or a martyr, the epicure of suffering, fetishising poverty or the epical superman. His Adam was the unaccommodated man, a petty thief, a pimp like Khushia, or a sex worker like Sogandhi. He remains an underground swell and will perhaps never be a part of the state establishment or dominant cultures.

Zia Mohiyuddin

Manto is not going to fade away from our memory. The man who laid bare the festering sores of society will, I am sure, continue to be the subject of many studies. Some bright spark might even consider to examine how badly his art suffered as a result of his migration to Lahore.

Other than Amritsar, a town he speaks of with warmth in all his reminiscences, Bombay was the only city he felt comfortable in. He knew the byways of Bombay intimately and had a large circle of friends and admirers there. He had achieved his fame as towering writer of fiction while he was in Bombay and he was more than well-off in Bombay.

Manto didn’t have any roots in Lahore. In his early youth, he had lived there for two years as a young literary aspirant. In the post-partition Lahore, he felt rejected and abandoned and he must have found it a most dispiriting chore to go begging editors and publishers of flyblown magazines to buy his stories.

In his ‘profile’ of Anwar Kamal Pasha, he recounts that the hotshot producer-director once invited him to his studio and asked him for his help in solving a knotty problem with the script he was filming. Manto immediately saw the problem and not only pointed it out but suggested a new development which could tighten the story and make it more gripping. Pasha was awe-struck. He liked what Manto had suggested but was doubtful as to whether he should accept a solution offered on the spur of moment. Manto could read his mind clearly: “You would have been thrilled,” he said, “if I had taken the script home and brought it back after a week to tell you that having mulled over it for days my suggestions are as follows. No, my friend, I think quickly.”

As he was about to leave, he said flippantly, “And do you know how much my advice would have been worth?” Shamefaced, Pasha offered him a cheque for a measly five hundred rupees. “I should have torn the cheque into bits and thrown it in his face,” he writes, “but my needs…oh my needs. I accepted it and wept bitter tears realising how low I have sunk.”

No wonder he died soon afterwards.

Masud Alam

He wasn’t really a dirty old man. For one, he never grew old: he died before his 43rd birthday. For another, between his obsessive drinking and writing — 22 collections of short stories, one novel, five collections of radio plays, three collections of essays, two collections of personal sketches, and many scripts for films — everything else must have been crowded out of his life.

As for the charge of obscenity and vulgarity in his writing, every one’s elixir of excitement is not the same. People who consider Manto vulgar may also find erotic pleasure watching a woman nurse her baby in a public place, while others present may ignore it as a private matter between the mother and child.

He has a way of looking at things and an expression all his own, and that’s what makes him Manto — a sensitive human being and a brilliant writer whose pen dances between his observation of poverty and misery and the humour and ready wit of his expression.

Mullahs of Pakistan are the worst of creatures. They are responsible for religious hatred, intolerance and spreading of extremism in our society. These mullahs freely issue kufar fatwas on their opponent sects and threaten those with a different belief. They say that religion should be part of politics in Pakistan nut in reality, mixing religion and politics has played a negative role against the prosperity and development of the country.

Until 1968, the mullah’s role in state affairs was scarce. Government and mullahs were more or less restricted to their respective sects’ mosques but when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto came into power in 1970, the mullahs started exerting pressure. Soon they started dictating their terms against beliefs of other sects. The Bhutto regime was forced to accept their demands.

Later on in 1979 when General Zia ul haq came into power mullahs also gathered around him. The ultimate aim of Zia was to become Ameer ul Momineen. To fulfill this purpose, he gave them a free hand and allowed them to promote their own influences. During his rule, Pakistani society became accepting of weapons and drugs. While Quaid-e-Azam envisioned Pakistan as a secular state with his 11th August speech as a testament to that, Zia disregarded this vision. The unity of society slowly corroded and Quaid’s motto of ‘unity, faith, discipline’ became a long forgotten memory.   

The sponsorship of mullahs by Zia has grown into a crisis today. Mullahs, who are mass produced in madrassas are now a menace to society. The murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti show that the mullah’s role is mostly to harm people and disrupt peace in the country.  

It is a tragedy that our society treats mullahs as saints even though the mullahs have no real love of religion. They use their position to brainwash the young generation. If the country is to prosper and develop, the government has to curtail the role of mullahs in politics and take constructive measures to restrict mullah’s role to mosques. Laws should be made to protect the rights of both the Muslim minorities and other minorities, school syllabus should be revised according to the teachings of Islam as laid by Allah in the Holy Quran. Thus, laws should be made by keeping in mind the beliefs of other sects by strictly banning conferences and meetings which create extreme dislike and by prohibiting the publication of material which encourage the spread of hatred and acrimony towards other groups of society.

To conclude, the whole society needs to be cleared from this cancer of mullahism and the country should be renamed as a secular country. Our government should follow the example of Kamal Atta Turk of Turkey and save this country from its downfall. Pakistan is a country blessed with many natural resources. If there are honest and dedicated leaders then there is no reason why Pakistan cannot flourish in all aspects. We should remember that ‘’qaumoon ki islah naujawanoon ki islah ke baghair nahi ho sakti’ (you cannot reform nations without reforming the youth). For that, we need to first save our youth from the influence of mullahs.

For the past few years, a silent revolution has been in progress in Pakistan of which our security agencies, political parties, the religious right, Ghairat Brigades, Difa- e- Pakistan Council are blissfully unaware. It is not an Indian – Zionist – Western inspired conspiracy. US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has no hand in it.There are no hectoring articles written by Western think tanks. Scholars at the Jinnah Institute have not issued any erudite papers.The Human Rights Commission has failed to comment. Honourable Justices of the SC are otherwise engaged to take suo motu notice. Most surprising of all it has escaped the keen trend – spotting eye of NFP, the ever- vigilant cultural critic at Dawn Newspapers!

This quiet revolution represents a paradigm shift in our internal dynamics, a development that could seriously disrupt our national cohesion. In case you haven’t noticed, the centuries-old ‘Shalwar’, a stitched garment, one of the greatest Islamo – Persian contributions in the hitherto ‘seamless’ Indo – Aryan civilisation,  is fast disappearing from the sartorial scene. Its absence is a harbinger of an even more sinister development: the Pakistani woman is asserting herself. She is making a fashion and political statement, a unilateral declaration of Independence: henceforth women will be wearing the trousers!

This home – grown rebellion began surreptitiously (as rebellions often do) among the well-heeled fashionistas on the streets of Karachi nearly five years ago. It then spread rapidly to the major urban centres of Lahore, Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The movement has now snowballed nationally and internationally, encompassing the working classes and the Pakistani Diaspora. Most alarmingly, an army of peroxide – blond Aunties, a pressure group with significant economic clout have climbed on the bandwagon, giving it the thumbs-up.

Initially confined to a tiny minority, it was a fad not expected to last the silly season, a trend that would vanish without trace. Or so the pundits predicted. They were wrong. Look around you, five years on, the penchant for pants persists among the women folk. Straight leg trousers, Wide-leg trousers, Memon Pyjamas, Capri Pants, Jersey Chooridars, Leggings and Tights are now the order of the day. The Shalwar has fallen from grace. It is relegated to secondary status, a poor relation to be disdainfully taken out and paraded on occasions or locations of no sartorial importance.

Is it possible that the Shalwar — like many of our revered institutions — is doomed for extinction? Is the garment heading in the same direction as the Railways and the Steel Mill? Or is it like Democracy in the era of Zia -ul – Haq merely ‘on hold’? Many Social Commentators opt for the latter view.

Their analysis and optimism is based on a similar historical occurrence that took place in  1966, the year  the French designer Pierre Cardin introduced a new uniform for PIA air- hostesses: the A line shift worn over straight pants. It was bold, daring, modern and innovative. It revolutionised Pakistani fashion. Even the celluloid trendsetters, the Indian film stars copied it. The Shalwar — then — as now — had seemed an endangered species but it lived to fight another day. Not unsurprisingly, politics intervened and came to its rescue.

Attire and politics in the sub-continent have always had a symbiotic relationship. Officers of the British Raj dined in dinner- jackets in sweltering humidity even in the jungles. This was a way of emphasising their ‘racial’ superiority over the natives. In a post- colonial world, many countries across Asia and Africa asserted their independence by throwing off colonial strait- jackets and re-claiming colourful national costumes.

The sartorial issue was particularly sensitive in Pakistan where religious nationalism and culture was the basis of the Two-nation theory, the country’s reason for its existence. Pakistani society was torn between identifying with West or South Asia. A ‘new’ people required a new look. But in a society of plural ethnicities with an East and West wing, which dress was it to be and from where? In the early days of Pakistan, Fatima Jinnah and Rana Liaquat Ali Khan valiantly donned the exotic Muslim ‘Gharara’ for official wear. However, old habits persisted. It could not dislodge the popularity of the aesthetically pleasing ‘Hindu’ Sari especially for ceremonial occasions.

The dilemma of a ‘national dress’ was also complicated because the Sari was the preferred mode of daywear for many migrants in the urban centres of Karachi and Lahore and — importantly — in the majority Eastern half of the country. Therefore, when Ayub Khan’s Government ill – advisedly embarked on a ‘ban the bindi’ campaign (and by implication the Sari that it often accompanied) it was considered an unacceptable attack on Bengali culture and sartorial independence.

The proposed ban became a sore point exacerbating the East’s economic grievances and sense of alienation. Thereafter, the Sari plus bindi combination metamorphosed into a defiant symbol of Bengali nationalism. Choice of attire accentuated the polarisation of East and West Pakistan. At times of heightened political tension and street agitation, Shalwar – Kameez wearers were often marked and targeted as representative of ethnic oppressors.

Following the loss of the Eastern Wing, the issue of clothing was used again to make a re-constructed identity. A new form of sartorial nationalism emerged in the remaining half of Pakistan. Underpinned by Bhutto’s populist policies, anti – colonial diatribes and lofty notions of Islamic Socialism, the ubiquitous Shalwar – Kameez was deemed politically – correct. It was democratic, egalitarian and classless, a sartorial manifestation of ‘Masawaat’ or equality.

As the Awami Suit became de rigueur for men, women responded to the ‘classless’ society by donning ethnic garb. Sindhi hand-blocked Ajrak and hand- woven Sussi shalwars became high fashion. Middle and upper class urban women of all ages also took to the Shalwar – Kameez — more so for the comfort level and practicality it provided in the workplace. Never mind that the leader had a weakness for bespoke Savile Row suits, or that the ‘leaderine’ had a preference for six-yards of chiffon and the elite continued to eat cake, at least the ‘Kapra ’ part of the PPP’s electoral promise (Food, Clothing, Shelter’) had been delivered!

Under General Zia’s stern Islamicization programmes, the Shalwar- Kameez was cut and re-fashioned yet again to fit ideological and religious dimensions. It was vigorously promoted as the ‘sole’ national dress of Pakistan for both sexes. The Sari (like the Minorities) was relegated to the margins, a fashion outcast. Short of an outright ban, it was downgraded as alien and un – Islamic.

In the face of such official hostility, the Sari rapidly faded from the fashion scene much to the chagrin of its adherents in urban centres. Many of the older generation continued to wear it. They would not be seen dead in anything else. Curiously, it survived as the uniform for female Doctors in the Army Medical Corps. The Good General obviously knew his limits! (Happily, the sari is now making a revival.)

With Benazir Bhutto’s accession and official endorsement, the Shalwar-kameez became upwardly mobile. It graced the Prime Minister’s house, the National Assembly and the catwalks. Not just stylishly chic and politically correct, it was also big business. Ready -to- wear boutiques mushroomed all over Pakistan. By the late 90’s its transformation was complete. You could dress it down. You could dress it up. The humble Shalwar – Kameez was acceptable everywhere.

As Pakistanis increasingly travelled westwards or towards the Gulf Arab states, the elegant three-piece ensemble set them apart from fellow South Asians. Their dress was not Indian, Western or even Arab. It was Pakistani. For better or for worse, it also bracketed them with the gun-toting Shalwar-clad Afghan Mujahedeen romanticized by Reagan, Thatcher and the Western media. (Agent 007 James Bond sported a shalwar-kameez to take on the might of the Soviets in ‘The Living Daylights.’)

While the misogynist General’s policies’ of cultural and religious fascism were generally disastrous for Pakistan, his construct of a single national dress is perhaps the only achievement that makes logical sense. Consider the following: the Shalwar is common to all four provinces of Pakistan. It cuts across the urban and rural divide. It promotes gender equality. It is energy – efficient requiring less ironing and electricity than a six- yard Sari. It creates multiple jobs for designers, tailors, dyers etc. It is adaptable to all weather conditions.

Most importantly, it has quietly contributed to Sub – continental unity in ways Zia could not envisage: a common sartorial identity for South Asian women. Over the past decade or so, the Shalwar- Kameez with regional modifications has evolved as a popular dress of choice of the urbane modern South – Asian woman whether she is of Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi or Nepali origin.

Writing in HIMAL SOUTHASIAN, Rita Manchandra aptly describes this phenomenon: Thought to be ‘Muslim’ by some but originating in the land of the five rivers –Punjab, East and West – the Shalwar Kameez has nearly completed its conquest of the South Asian clothesline. What politicians, diplomats and peace activists have not been able to do, this piece of stitched cloth has. This is not a victory of cultural superiority, or religion; it is a victory of practicality and common sense.

For all the above reasons the disappearance of the Shalwar in its ‘original’ form is a matter that needs to be addressed immediately. The Shalwar cannot become a fashion dinosaur. It must return to its prime position of centrality in the wardrobes of Pakistan. Not just our own cultural heritage is at stake. The spread of the Shalwar – kameez is vital to the continuing evolution of a South Asian identity, of breaking barriers, marginalising differences,   emphasising the commonalities and living in peaceful co-existence.

This issue is too important to be left at the whim of dithering designers, fickle fashionistas and bleach – blond Begums. It is of utmost national significance. There is an urgent need for action. Nothing short of an immediate counter-revolution will suffice. Like the MRD of old, the masses must be mobilised once again for MRS: Movement for the Restoration of the Shalwar. Just a simple one – point agenda and mantra:  SOS: Save our Shalwars!

One of the most hyped up slogans on the media and the rightwing nationalist circles is of “National Sovereignty”. This slogan is so powerful that Pakistani leadership particularly that of PPP is always on the defensive. According to this “National Sovereignty” school of thought, Pakistan has sold its soul to the foreign powers due to personal greed of the ruler class and has compromised the autonomy by facilitating the drone attacks. People like Imran Khan have made a full career out of opposition to these attacks.

Not surprisingly these attacks, despite killing militants are continuously being cited as a “proof” of the great treachery. But then in the past, everything ranging from Nazam-i-Adl in Swat to Military action against Militants in tribal areas has been bracketed under the same category.

More than anything else, I find the whole issue of National Sovereignty, particularly the way it is interpreted and projected in the media as grossly irrational. It is in fact a manifestation of the worst kind of irrational patriotism. I would call it irrational patriotism because it is based on instincts and does not conform to rational self interest.

One has to just skim through recent past to actually assess how irrational the whole notion of this brand of national sovereignty is. Before the current wave of drone attacks which have evoked these cries of national sovereignty, we had the issue of military action in Swat and also the in the tribal areas. Swat is an interesting case because before the action began militants had been getting stronger, burning schools and despite increasing evidence that they were using violence to get their demands accepted by the government, the media and a large portion of urban middleclass was vehemently against any action because USA at that time was also urging Pakistan.

The insistence from USA became a propaganda weapon in the hands of the rightwing religious parties and ultranationalist conservative media and they were successfully able to portray any possible action from Pakistan military as being US instigated and hence a “covert”  violation of sovereignty. The delay allowed militants to get complete foothold in the valley and gave them complete leverage to actually blackmail Government. The buildup to the eventual military action was a strange spectacle as the Government was in effect made impotent to launch a timely military action against the militants because it found itself on a very weak political wicket. Eventually the media woke out of its trance only after Sufi Mohammed gave a live speech in which he threatened to attack Islamabad. A lot of bloodshed would have been avoided had we used a little sense before. Just because US was insisting on action, we were adamant and consequently ended up paying a far heavier price.

Keeping in view this background, any action of conducted directly by US force such as drone attacks is bound to create even stronger criticism by media and its prime target market. I find it amazing that drone attacks actually draw far more condemnation than Taliban suicide bombings which until recently were just construed as a grand conspiracy of India, Israel and US nexus. It is only when the evidence has become too blatant to be dismissed as merely a grand conspiracy that the people have started to display symptoms of the next level of denial: apologetic defense by virtue of which everything is merely a reaction to US atrocities.

Come to think of it, the drone attacks though conducted by US forces are generally more accurate and end up killing some of the militants. The collateral damage is relatively less and yet they evoke huge condemnation from the ultranationalist circles. The sole reason is that US is doing it and even if it actually benefits Pakistan, it is immaterial. Attacks are negatively publicized as on the “people” of Pakistan without giving much critical thought to the fact that these may actually be benefiting the local populace under the militant hegemony and for that matter Pakistan itself through elimination of such elements. The attacks are targeted against those monsters who are guilty of gross crimes against humanity and yet we are just fixated with loss of so called sovereignty.

Let’s not forget that the tribal belt, where the drone attacks are taking place have never been completely under the Government’s control in the first place. The sovereignty does not even fully apply as the writ is not completely there and in fact ever been there. For me it is not a matter of “national sovereignty” but of rational national self interest. If viewed from the later perspective, the drone attacks target militants without engaging our military whose usage would have been far more costly, both in terms of human loss as well as from political ramifications.

But the most absurd thing is that drone attacks may be having a tacit approval of the army as well as the government. I believe there is NO way that drones attacks can take place without some sort of tacit approval of the armed forces. To assume that they do not approve of attacks is naivety. This is something which is beyond my understanding that on one side our establishment provides the intelligence and does not shoot them down when they enter airspace and on the other hand our media keeps on blaming just Americans without even trying to actually point out what is so blatantly obvious. In fact before OBL raid, Shamsi base in Baluchistan was being used for conducting drone attacks. This was in fact a common knowledge.

And yet we cry about sovereignty over something which may be having a tacit approval of our establishment.

Even if on purely technical terms, one assumes drone attacks to be a violation of sovereignty it is not the kind which is really injurious to Pakistan’s interests. Yes the attacks have their costs and to deny them would tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.  But at the same time the benefits are greater in terms of elimination of militants in an efficient way with lesser loss of lives and with far less political backlash.

What we forget is that drone attacks, or so called violation of sovereignty, would not have been needed had we shown some political will to tackle the issue of militancy ourselves. We tried peace deals several times but always ended up appeasing militants. In fact militants broke such deals several times thus making a mockery of our “diplomacy” and negotiations. We conducted belated army action in tribal areas but that too was severely criticized by our media and media savvy urban middleclass and touted as “shameless” usage of our own army against our own people. The experience has shown that militants, by and large, represent nihilistic irrational philosophy, and cannot be trusted. Therefore military action unfortunately becomes the only option as appeasement has failed miserably in the past. And if we are so reluctant to use our own military against our “own” people than what is wrong with drone attacks?

The stance becomes even more illogical when seen in the context of our blames on US for being the perpetuator of the “original sin” of nurturing Jihadists in 1980s for the purpose of defeating Soviet Union. Keeping that historical perspective in mind, it would be only fair to ACTUALLY expect US to help clean up the mess they helped create in those times. It is also in this backdrop that drone attacks need to be assessed rather than on emotional and irrational grounds.

It is said the man is a rational being. However, we continuously prove ourselves as contrary to being one. The national mindset has become hypersensitive to politically hollow sloganeering and unfortunately continues to be nurtured in that direction by our media. This irrational mindset has developed a reciprocal relationship with the media- print as well as electronic- and both reinforce each other thus making sure that we spiral downwards into a state of complete intellectual bankruptcy.

Obviously this downward spiral is not merely intellectual as it is also accompanied by lack of public interest and participation in other and far more important issues such as education, law and order, poverty, healthcare and political reforms related to issues like provincial autonomy. Instead of debating on these issues and ensuring that the respective central and provincial governments are made accountable, the entire media thrust and the public attention is on these hyped up issues.

.

In search of Osama bin Laden, the United States went on a manhunt not seen in history. The Allied Forces, and in particular America, should be thankful that Adolf Hitler committed suicide or else there would had been more death and destruction to hunt him down too. Still to this day, there are articles, books, and documentaries based on a conspiracy theory that Hitler somehow managed to deceive the world about his death and it was a cover-up for going to a permanent hideout.

However, Osama, being a brave “holy-warrior” that he self-claimed to be, did not see suicide at as end to being hunted down. Instead, America assured the world that after almost ten years, under Obama’s persistent stand on the issue despite all deaths and destruction of innocent lives, civilians, animals and environment, Osama had been killed in a secret operation in the middle of the night, partially invading Pakistan’s territory in doing so, and breaching its sovereignty. The latter though was not new as drone attacks are constantly doing just that, causing deaths untold. But has this assurance of getting the most-wanted man in recent history, and killing him, did any good to America, or the world and its security? The answer is obviously and logically a resounding ‘No’.

This negative result is what history has taught us too. But perhaps America is not a learner from the past. It tends not only to repeat its mistakes, but go on worsening them. Had Hitler’s death resulted in peace in the world? Has Nazism been completely wiped off this face of the earth? Does racism, narcissism and nihilism do not exist anymore? The answers are clear. The Obama administration has in essence failed to deliver on the dreams they came in on, of hope and change. Nothing changed and still there is no hope. And basing that hope and change on a death of an unarmed man, that when shot at was not protected, but rather taken by surprise by the US Navy Seals, is actually inhumane.

Osama was not allowed to stand trial. The world deserved to see him answerable for his crimes against humanity. Even the worst criminals get a day in court. It is their constitutional right protected under the law, so that law against their deeds could be implemented. But where was America’s sense of justice on the day that it so frivolously killed Osama. Some conspiracy theorists are so pessimistic about America getting anywhere near Osama, according to some the CIA’s own man, that American has faked his death. The reason they say this is based on the notion that the pictures of his dead body were never shown and his burial at sea was also not documented on film, at least not the on the one shown to the world.

All this leads to suspicions as whether the man was even killed or was it all just a big game orchestrated by Obama’s administration to get a second stint at the Oval Office. Thus, buying more time from the American people to give Obama another chance. At the foreign front, the U.S. is still diplomatically vulnerable. The trillions that it spends on weapons manufacturing in the name of its defense and security could easily be spent on building up the world together, removing the ill that causes the evil. But the war-mongers are the ultimate winners in this game against common man, who needs nothing more than a job security, a safe environment for his posterity that has equality in all phases of life.

Hence, killing Osama was not the end of terrorism. It is the minds that breed hatred and extremism that need to be changed. This change will begin at the very basic unit of a society, which is home. A home environment that provides full recognition to a human being’s welfare and ambitions and that teaches a person not to hate others on the basis of their world views or origin. By shelling terrorism with guns, America has in fact promoted the culture of hate and destruction. For a student of history, America’s performance as a state in the world arena, without any bias, is of a superpower that knew nothing but brute force, which takes down in the history pages as a tyrant country.

By Roxane Akhtar

The Mutua Madrid Open tennis tournament, currently taking place, has been quite the roller coaster ride.

The no. 1 seed, Novak Djokovic, fell to his countryman, Janko Tipsarevic, intheir quarter final match on Friday evening.

The first ‘giant slaying’ was a day earlier, in Round 3. Fernando Verdasco, ranked no. 19, defeated his compatriot, Rafael Nadal, currently ranked no. 2.

Verdasco has never won a match against Nadal, through thirteen encounters on various surfaces.Their most unforgettable match, one that made history for its duration (5 hours and 14 minutes: the longest ever match in the history of the tournament) was at the Australian Open, in 2009.  (Another match involving Nadal then superseded this.  It was 2012’s Australian Open final, against Djokovic.  Nadal lost this match, which lasted 5 hours and 53 minutes andcurrently stands as the longest Grand Slam singles title final of the Open Era).

To go back to 2009, the two Spaniards faced each other in the semi-finals on that occasion.Anyone who witnessed that epic match would surely not forget it. These two young men fought grimly on and on, locked in a seemingly endless battle until the ‘death’.

At one point, in the fifth set, the match had become so unbearably tense, that tears of stress poured down Nadal’s intent face. When Nadal finally prevailed, both players fell flat on their backs and closed their eyes for a moment.

Then they hopped up and Nadal graciously clambered over the net and hugged his friend, who was visibly upset. It was an astonishing performance from the two men. Nadal went on to win the Australian Open that year, defeating Roger Federer.

However, on May 10, 2012,it was Verdasco who finally got his ‘revenge’. Both players had won a set apiece.  In the third set, Verdasco was staring down the barrel of the gun.  At 5-2 up, Nadal was serving for the match.

Then Nadal seemed to lose his way.  Verdasco was now staring at a breakpoint instead of another loss.  He converted this, changing the score to 5-3. In the next game, the camera stayed on Verdasco’s face as he prepared to serve, to get to 5-4.  He stared intently ahead.  Whether he was merely staring at his opponent or at a vision of the Angel of Victory is hard to say.  But in this moment, Verdasco seemed to believe that this time, he could win.

He won the next four games, the set and the match.  This time, only he collapsed onto the strange, blue clay of the Madrid courts.  He covered his face with his hands and sobbed unashamedly.

Nadal, looking somewhat forlorn, waited until his friend got up and came to the net where they shared a brief hug. Perhaps, to Verdasco, beating his long-time conqueror was more important than his actual progress in the tournament.  For the very next day, he played an uninspired match and lost to the talented and hard-working Czech, Tomas Berdych, in two sets, 6-1, 6-2.

Perhaps he no longer had the focus or energy to attempt to win the tournament.  His emotional response to his win against Nadal spoke volumes.  Even after their hug and subsequent handshake with the umpire, he sat and sobbed in the player’s chair.

Maybe slaying a giant is the pinnacle. Maybe nothing can ever match that. Verdasco didn’t really seem invested in his match the next day.  To be fair, perhaps he was just emotionally and physically exhausted.

The next day, the second giant was defeated.

Djokovic’s opponent, the cool, calm and collected Tipsarevic,is no. 8 in the world. The no. 1 seed may have been somewhat off his game.  But as the commentators said several times, Tipsarevic seemed to want the win more…And I think that they are really onto something with this thought.

The will to win is a strange thing.  You can try and try, not succeed and start to give up hope of ever winning, against a particular opponent or situation.

Sometimes, even champions can’t find the will to win.  Maybe Nadal and Djokovic just felt jaded like everyone does at times.  Nadal has also spoken about the blue clay court hindering his movement.

Having said that, he and Djokovic are consummate champions.  Even when they are not playing their best, I have seen them manage, through their skill and experience, to carve out a win anyway. On Thursday however, for Nadal and on Friday, for Djokovic, even their outstanding skills could not save them

For a day can come for anyone, seemingly ‘lesser’ in some way, when the desire to win is so intensely felt that their own will overcomes statistics, history and perhaps even destiny.

On those days, even giants will fall.

I had a memorable yet very tiring first experience of the emergency duty. I believe this is the day a medical students “finally” becomes the ‘Doctor Sahb” that he and his parents so strive him/her to be. It is not without its trials and tribulations. Five years of exhausting studies lead to a single page document that makes you eligible for your house job, that is if you want to work in Pakistan for the future. House Job is like the first step in a long battle, and just like the cadets at Military Academies, medical and surgical wards are teeming with house officers (this is the biggest misnomer there can be, there is not much “afsari” involved. Sigh) toiling day and night getting ready to become doctors in their own right. The first day of house job can pass easily, because everyone knows it’s your first day and you can adjust yourself. The important part starts when it is your first emergency duty. In most medical and surgical wards, at least 12 hours continuous duty has to be performed by House officers(It can vary and the duration can be for up to a full twenty four hours.!!).
Emergency duty is the closest you are to your patients for the first time because most of hospital admissions are done through the emergency wards. I will share my experience as I worked from 6 am in the morning to 6 pm that day. The first two or three hours are usually quite as people are still waking up etc etc. Soon, the beds start filling up and work piles up. You learn the few basic things that are necessary and start treating the patients. Most of the times, the patients only need superficial treatment and some kind words. The problem with public sector hospitals in Pakistan is their low capacity compared to increased work load on daily basis (that is why I think Population explosion is the biggest problem facing Pakistan and not corruption). In emergency departments and even hospital wards, many beds are occupied with more than a single person. In pediatric wards, I have personally seen THREE sick kids on ONE bed due to shortage of space.

The patients in Emergency wards are divided into the more serious and less serious cases. The cases which are life-threatening are treated on an urgent basis while the rest of the patients are seen by other doctors, which can take some time. Many a times, patients come in to the Emergency departments for getting a “drip”(Intravenous Infusion) or a “strength Injection”. To tell you the truth, there is no such thing as a “Taaqat ka Teeka”(Injection for strength) as is believed by so many patients visiting our hospitals. The “drip” culture is also massively abused and mostly quacks are running profitable businesses because they offer the patients the “drips” and the qualified doctors don’t (because unless you have severe loss of fluids from the body, you DO NOT need a “drip”). On my first emergency duty day, I saw a patient almost fighting with senior doctors because they refused to give him a “drip”.
The most difficult cases to manage in an emergency are not the ones suffering from unique diseases or even life-threatening conditions, they are the patients commonly known as “functional” cases i.e. patients who act as suffering from a particular disorder without actually having that. It has even been classified as a psychiatric illness known as “Somatoform Disorder”.

These patients scare the living hell out of you because all their acting points to one diagnosis and the clinical tests and lab results point to nothing in particular. This can lead to even senior doctors labeling many patients as “functional” without proper evaluation and causing a permanent loss of trust by the patients. On a few occasions, the emergency ward can look like a kaleidoscope, with strangers(including the doctors) caring more for the patients than actual relatives while in the same room, patients(particularly old ones) being left alone and disowned by their own flesh and blood.

In the last few hours of the duty, our feet start getting heavier, minor tasks feel like major obstacles, patients are seen in a hurry and it is tired that most patients should either be discharged or shifted to the war, to make way for the next batch of doctors or for the sake of creating space for new admissions.

And just like life, things rarely change in the Emergency ward. Doctors rotate, new patients come in, the nursing staff rotates and in the end, the cycle of life goes on. Some lives are saved, some are not. Doctors usually try their best(while many of them are not even paid for the job) to do as much as possible for the patients’ lives. The circle of life continues. Tick Tock Tick Tock.

The writer is a blogger and a medical professional. He is currently working as a House Officer at a public sector hospital.

At the onset, I would like to make this thing clear that I have contrasting views on two recent executive judiciary standoffs: Memo scandal and NRO verdict. The clarification is essential because generally both the standoffs are analysed by the conservative as well as liberal media analysts through the same paradigm.
The conservative viewpoint generally castigates PPP as the epitome of corruption and incompetence. It is by and large completely supportive of the judiciary and regards the current hawkish approach of the judiciary as “essential” in order to check the “corrupt” politicians. On the other hand large section of the liberal press (assuming such a section actually exists!) construes the entire situation as establishment’s deep conspiracy to derail democratic process and vilify PPP. According to this point of view, armed forces and judges are in the same bed and everything is being done in a planned manner to bring PPP government down. Thus both the memo scandal and the NRO verdict are actually two apparently different strategies conducted by the same alliance to achieve the same sinister purpose.

Frankly I don’t agree with both these point of views. Whether judiciary is a co-conspirator with the military or nor, in my opinion the NRO verdict is very different from the memo case. With respect to memo case, I am completely with the PPP government. I have even gone to the extent of saying that even if Hussain Haqqani did write the memo he did nothing wrong  . Military hegemony is a reality in Pakistan and civilian governments do not have any leverage to control it. Pakistan has been embarrassed a lot in the international arena due to our military’s completely out of control behaviour. The killing of Osama Bin Laden near the military compound, marks the level to which military has undermined our interests, due to its selfish myopic interests. The only stakeholder who has some leverage over the military is USA and hence it is only natural that a beleaguered civilian government will try to seek its help.

But even then the memo scandal was essentially a government military standoff and not a judiciary executive standoff. If Judiciary was indeed completely in bed with the military then there was no way PPP would have survived. Even the so called conviction in the contempt case was just a 30 second sentence. I do not think that the interests of the judiciary and military always neatly correspond with each other.

Yes this judiciary is reactionary and has given a series of extremely controversial decisions particularly with respect to freeing of many Islamic militants. Worst still, it is trying to be a populist judiciary and panders a lot to media. Personally I think there is nothing worse than a judiciary trying to win appreciation from the press. By design judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator and therefore it should be insulated from the media pressures. Unfortunately the triumph of the lawyer’s movement (at least as far as the restoration of the Chief Justice) materialized largely due to media and in the process the judges were elevated to the level of demi gods. In fact they have been raised to such a high pedestal that they have constantly overstepped their limits and have at times assumed the role of the executive. Even if the intent is good, this practice is dangerous as in the long run the accountability burden is shifted away from the elective.

However, having acknowledged judiciary’s shortcomings, I do not fully agree with Prime Minister’s stance of not writing the letter. The reason is that NRO was actually a verdict given by Supreme Court and therefore it needs to be honoured. Some of the journalists have interpreted that since Parliament is supreme therefore its intent should take precedence over the decisions. I beg to disagree as Parliament’s supremacy is in the sense of being the ultimate law making body. It cannot overrule the decisions. Moreover, the Supreme Court had initially given the government an opportunity to make NRO into a permanent law. However, the government at that time could not muster the majority.

Yes there are issues with respect to the immunity but reopening of cases is not tantamount to actual sentence. In fact writing a letter to the Swiss government is merely a nominal gesture as even if the cases are reopened, it will take years for the cases to process and reach a decision stage.

I would rather agree with Ms Asma Jehangir who once remarked that even if the Supreme Court’s decision is “wrong” it has to be honoured otherwise you end up being undermining basic rule of law.

Moreover, it should also be understood that democracy’s real opposition comes from the urban middleclass in the country. It is this class which is affluent and is represented well in the media, civil services and the corporate sector. This class has deep skepticism about democracy and to a certain extent the attitude of politicians has not helped either. This class is obsessed with rule of law and likes order and stability. When politicians defy that openly then they start fancying about the military rule. If we want democracy to be successful then at least some genuine concerns of this class have to besatisfied. Openly defying Supreme Court decisions, in my opinion does not strengthen the democratic process. Yes we are right if we say that Supreme Court is overstepping its limits with respect to its interference in executive matters but this was a decision not a suo moto action.

However, despite my reservations, I would like to also point out that Mr. Yousaf Raza Gilani adopted a much better approach than Mr. Nawaz Sharif during his skirmish with the judiciary. Now PML N is trying to capitalize on the opportunity but let us not forget that during his reign his goons actually attacked the Supreme Court.

The constitution of Pakistan envisages a trichotomy of powers i.e. federal, legislative and judicial powers. Each of these three branches are distinct and derive their powers from the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is a creature of the Constitution. It derives its original jurisdiction in terms of disputes between provincial governments and federal government from Article 184 (1) and 184 (2) which judgments have to be declaratory in nature.  Article 184(3) vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to decide questions of fundamental public importance. The Appellate and Advisory Jurisdictions are derived from 185 and 186. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power of judicial review i.e. to review legislative functions and see if these are in accordance with the constitution.

The recent conviction of the Prime Minister in contempt proceedings has created a constitutional crisis. To put it simply, Supreme Court – being a creature of the constitution- cannot order something patently unconstitutional.  For example the Supreme Court cannot change Pakistan’s status as federal, democratic and Islamic state- that is the parliament’s prerogative through the amendment procedure. Similarly the Supreme Court cannot – under any circumstances- read out of the Constitution a certain Article by precedent for example Article 248(2) of the Constitution.  Therefore when the Prime Minister fails to act on a certain order of the Supreme Court which flies in the face of a clear constitutional provision, it cannot under any circumstances amount to “ridicule” of the court’s order.  There is a certain privilege associated with the Prime Minister- as the leader of the house in National Assembly- as having acted lawfully. In other words, when the Prime Minister acts under the constitution in his capacity as the Chief Executive of the country, he cannot break the law nor can Supreme Court ever ask it to violate the constitution.  The principle of harmonious construction is to be extended to the constitution.  In this particular case,  Article 248(2), as a subsequent provision, controls Article 190 which means that yes all executive and other authorities have to work in aid of the Supreme Court but the Prime Minister is privileged to reject what is on the face of it a patently unconstitutional order purporting to act against other constitutional offices i.e. president.  Furthermore Supreme Court, even when its own rules and procedures is bound by the Constitution as is clear in Article 191. So what is the check on the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is answerable in the court of public opinion for the constitutionality of his action under the circumstances, which is a lot more than any check on the Chief Justice – which is non-existent.  After all given the judiciary’s historical role in legitimizing martial laws in the country, Supreme Court playing role of ultimate arbiter and supreme legislative body with powers to amend the constitution through judicial precedent hardly inspires any confidence, all due respect.

The idea that Supreme Court can act as the sovereign and drag the Prime Minister to court and charge and then convict him for contempt for not obeying an order to initiate proceedings against the head of state in a foreign country in brazen violation of Article 248 of the Constitution is patently absurd, unconstitutional, illegal and militates against the basic structure of the Pakistani constitution which is parliamentary and democratic in nature. In Pakistan neither the parliament nor the Supreme Court are supreme but the constitution which may be amended from time to time. The principle of judicial review cannot extend to making legal illegal and illegal legal.  Perhaps – had the justices – the wise lords- consulted American jurisprudence on this question they would have come across Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) which settled the issue of whether the Supreme Court had any jurisdiction in political questions by ruling that such questions were not justiciable. Here 248 requires no interpretation and operates as an absolute bar against any kind of proceedings against the President of Pakistan.

So what am I saying? My point is that the Prime Minister when acting on a clear provision of the Constitution is incapable of “ridiculing” the Supreme Court’s order.  The part of the order of the Supreme Court which obligates the Prime Minister to violate the constitution in any way is illegal and severable from the rest of the order. The constitutional crisis has been created by Supreme Court’s actions which are ultra vires its own constitutional powers.

So what happens next? The Speaker is vested through 63(2) with discretion as to reject any challenge to the Prime Minister’s qualification and if she refuses to act, we might see a fresh round of litigation around her discretionary power.  Another route would be for the parliament specifically legislate overturning the conviction which will also spark a flurry of new cases. Legislative override is certainly not without precedent, the Shah Bano case from India being an example. All things considered, do not expect the Yousaf Raza Gilani to vacate the Prime Minister’s House any time soon. Supreme Court’s decisions have merely helped to make plain the brinkmanship all sides are ready to indulge in at the expense of this country but alas such is politics, especially if it waged between institutions.

Relevant laws:

63.(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:- (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for 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, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;

190. Action in aid of Supreme Court.

All executive and judicial authorities through out Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

191. Rules of Procedure.

Subject to the Constitution and law, the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.

248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.

(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.

Just when it seems that the boundary of idiocy cannot be pushed any further, Punjab police has proved us wrong. There are recent reports that an Ahmadi “place of worship” in Sultanpura, Lahore was damaged by policemen to fulfill the demands of local religious clerics. The offense which the Ahmadi “place of worship” had caused was the public display of Kalima in the premise. Apparently, the Islamic creed “There is no God but Allah, Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah” deeply hurt the sentiments of zealous Muslims. To prevent trouble, Punjab Police imposed Section 44 in the area and erased the Kalima themselves.

Perhaps, our police saw this as only the latest attempt by the “infidels” to pose as faithful and thus hurt Islam and Pakistan. Already hundreds of Ahmadis are jailed or are under trial for the offense of “posing as Muslims” as per General Zia’s Ordinance XX.

In the Zaheeruddin vs State case (1993), our courts struck down the petition that the state should not prevent Ahmadis from using Islamic terms as per their beliefs. Essentially, our honorable courts argued that religion is like a trademark which cannot be misused by an unauthorized party. The implication of this argument is that Islam is basically a copyright product owned by the mullahs and which is protected through laws enforced by the state. Thus, the logic is that just as an Indian film on a DVD cannot be duplicated by unauthorized dealers, likewise the copyright piracy of Islam by Ahmadis is also unacceptable.

This kind of logic is the law in Pakistan. Thus, when mullahs get inflamed by the violations of Ordinance XX by Ahmadis, we cannot blame them. But you can rest assured that had the Kalima display been removed from any other mosque, this act would have amounted to supreme blasphemy in the sight of our chest-thumping men of faith. They would have demanded nothing but the death penalty for the outrage. However, the dimwits do not realize that this is same Kalima which, in their view, was used as a slogan to achieve Pakistan. So much for “Pakistan ka matlab kiya la Ilaha Ilallah”

Let us also be assured that the people accused of blasphemy under 295-C have never committed any blasphemy even remotely resembling this act committed by our police. While we cannot blame mullahs for just being themselves we may, instead, lament about the wits of our Police and the Punjab political administration. Perhaps they think that all the grave internal and external dangers Pakistan faces today pale in comparison to this gravest threat from the Kalima. Perhaps they have issues of political expedience and of avoiding adverse reactions.

Whatever the case but it seems that Divine Intervention and sustained political action can hammer sense into their heads.

What Islamists seek and what Muslims desire are two separate objectives, sometimes overlapping, but clearly distinct. While the former seek an “Islamic State,” the latter merely desires a “state of Islam.” One state requires a theocracy, the other a state of spirituality.

The phrase “state of Islam” defines the condition of a Muslim in how he or she imbibes the values of Islam to govern personal life and uses faith as a moral compass. In contrast, the “Islamic State” is a political entity: a state, caliphate, sultanate, kingdom, or country that uses Islam as a tool to govern society and control its citizenry. At times, these two objectives overlap each other, but most often, they clash. Islamists obsessed with the establishment of the Islamic State have ridden roughshod over Quranic principles and the Prophet’s message of equality.
However, Muslims who have striven to achieve a state of Islam have invariably stepped away from using Islam to chase political power, opting instead for intellectual and pious pursuits.

Since the first caliphate in Medina in the 7th century, clerics have continually reminded Muslims that their mission on Earth—to spread Islam—is impossible without the establishment of an Islamic State. Such edicts by caliphs and imams have gathered near-universal acceptance despite the fact that neither the Quran nor the Prophet asked Muslims to establish such a state. In fact, the five pillars of Islam, which form a Muslim’s covenant with the Creator, do not even hint at the creation of an Islamic State.

It is not that early Muslims did not get a chance to establish an Islamic State. Through the centuries, from the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs to the Umayyads and the Abbasids, hundreds of Muslim dynasties have tried their hand at creating this illusive Islamic State, and all have failed in laying the foundations of such an entity. Some rulers demonstrated impeccable personal character and integrity, but as soon as they died, murder and mayhem followed. If the creation of an Islamic State was not possible when Muslims were at their peak of power and intellect, it would be reasonable to conclude that this ambition is not realizable when Muslims are at their weakest and most divorced from education and the sciences.

Maudoodi, one of the main proponents of an Islamic State in the past century, in his book Islamic Law and Constitution, poses the question: “What are the fundamental objects for which Islam advocates the establishment of an Islamic State?” Answering himself, Maudoodi quotes two verses of the Quran, suggesting that they require the establishment of the Islamic State:

“Certainly We sent our Messengers with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and Balance, so that people may conduct themselves with equity” (57:25), and “These Muslims (who are being permitted to fight) are a people who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil.” (22:41).

Nowhere in these verses of the Quran does God ask or authorize the creation of an Islamic State. Yet, from the same verses, Maudoodi concludes that God commands the creation of such an entity. In the same book, Maudoodi writes that such an Islamic State will “eradicate and crush with full force all those evils from which Islam aims to purge mankind.” In this one sentence Maudoodi reveals the true objective of the Islamists.

The urge to “eradicate,” “crush,” and “purge” lies at the heart of their obsession with an Islamic State
In his seminal work published in 1925, Al-Islam wa usul el-hukum (Islam and the Fundamentals of Authority), Razik argued against the Islamic State and advocated the separation of religion and civil society, drawing the wrath of the influential Al-Azhar University. His books were burned and he was declared an apostate for merely suggesting that the state of Islam did not require an Islamic State. His book was published in the aftermath of the collapse of the six-hundred-year-old Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the caliphate system by Turkey’s founding president, secular modernist Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. For the first time since 632 CE, the Muslim world had no central political authority. The caliph’s authority had been on the wane since the rise of European imperial power in the 16th century, but the 1925 abolition came as a shock to much of the Muslim world, which was largely living under French, British, and Dutch occupation.

It was in this vacuum of political authority that intellectuals like Egypt’s Ali Abdel al-Razik raised difficult issues. Razik questioned the need for the revival of the caliphate and proposed the idea of a nation state where religion would not interfere with the political process. Razik’s opposition to the creation of the Islamic State in the form of a revived caliphate stirred anger among Egypt’s orthodox Islamic establishment.

Paradoxically, a group of Islamic scholars chaired by Sheikh Muhammad Abul Fadl al-Jizawi, the rector of Al-Azhar, had already issued a statement reluctantly coming to terms with the abolition of the caliphate. They had even criticized Muslims who felt bound by an oath of allegiance to the deposed Ottoman caliph and regarded obedience to him as a religious duty, already welcoming the weakening of the Turkish-based caliphate and had intensifi ed their campaign to have the caliphate returned to the Arabs.)

Razik’s critique, however, went beyond the simple acceptance of a fait accompli. He launched a vociferous attack on the centuries-old school of Islamic political thought. In this, he took on not only the orthodox Ulema (Islamic scholars) and Al-Azhar, but also self-styled modernist Egyptians like Rashid Rida, who oscillated between Arab nationalism and Islamic universalism, but never gave up on the Islamic State.

Razik, based his opposition on an Islamic perspective, considering his background as an Islamic scholar and as a former judge of a religious court. He argued that the caliphate or the Islamic State had no basis in either the Quran or the traditions of the Prophet. He rightly argued that the Quran makes no mention of a caliphate and invoked the verse that said, “We have neglected nothing in the Book” (6:38).

As long as Razik restricted his criticism to the caliphate, the orthodoxy was willing to tolerate his views. However, when he challenged the long established belief that Islam as a religion necessitated the creation of an Islamic government, he crossed a line, leading to years of harassment and ostracization with accusations that he was a communist. Undeterred by the witch hunt, Razik concluded that (1) Government or political authority, as necessary as it might be seen to realize Islamic ideals and obligations, was not the essence of Islam and had nothing to do with the primary principles of the faith; and (2) Islam left Muslims free to choose whatever form of government they felt could solve their day-to-day problems, with civil society minus an offi cial state religion being best able to offer such a solution. Razik clamoured for the de-politicization of Islam, claiming that the only benefi ciaries of the Islamic State were the tyrants who ruled Muslim populations and who were able to silence opposition by getting the Ulema to declare that opposition to their government was opposition to Islam.
Iqbal wrote dismissively of the clerics: “The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, as far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I fi nd the Turkish view is perfectly sound.” He went on to defend the separation of religion and state, writing, “The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that were set free in the world of Islam.”

Iqbal further cited two examples of how in early Islam the caliphate had adapted to political realities. First was the abolition of a condition that the caliph had to descend from the Meccan Arab tribe of Quraysh. Iqbal cited the ruling of an 11th-century jurist that, since the Quraysh tribe had experienced a political debacle, ruling the world of Islam no longer required belonging to the Quraysh tribe. The second example involved the historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who in the 15th century declared that since the power of the Quraysh had vanished, the only alternative was to accept the country’s most powerful man as the country’s imam or caliph. Iqbal concluded from all this that there was no difference between the position of Khaldun, who had realized the hard logic of facts, and the attitude of modern Turks, who were also inspired by the realities of their time rather than by medieval laws written under different conditions of life.

In his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Iqbal wrote:

“Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life. To my mind these arguments, if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced by Arabian Imperialism of the earlier centuries in Islam.”

The cause of the violence that has engulfed the Muslim world is centred on the premise of an Islamic State or a caliphate as the prerequisite for the flourishing of Islam. Among the contemporary opponents of the Islamic State is the brilliant Sudanese-American academic, Professor Abdullahi An-Na’im, who teaches law at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. In his classic book, Toward an Islamic Reformation, An-Na’im writes about the unrealistic utopian dream of an Islamic State: “The authority of the caliph was supposed to be derived from popular support without any principle and mechanism by which that popular support could have been freely given, restricted, or withdrawn. This is, I maintain, one of the fundamental sources of constitutional problems with the sharia model of an Islamic state.”

It is no wonder Muslims like An-Na’im are the prime targets of the Islamic religious right. Islamists consider secular, liberal, progressive, or cultural Muslims and even orthodox Sufi s a greater threat than the West.

The reason is that Muslims opposed to the Islamist agenda cannot be fooled or charmed in a way naive liberal-left politicians can. In fact, radical jihadis and their Islamist apologists have been targeting fellow Muslims for decades.

Their conflict with the West is only recent. Long before Islamists donned anti-imperialist paraphernalia, they were the loyal storm troopers for the United States, targeting left-wing and secular Muslims or anyone who was able to unmask their fascist agenda and links to Saudi-funded Wahhabis.

Even today, the primary enemy of the Islamist is the fellow Muslim who is unwilling to surrender to the harsh literalist and supremacist use of Islam as a political tool. The Muslims who stand in the way of the Islamist agenda pay a heavy price for their courage.

The call for an Islamic State gives false hopes to Muslim masses. The followers of Maudoodi and Syed Qutb are dangling carrots and the promise of heavenly pleasures to mislead the Muslim peoples.

Had the Islamic State been possible, Allah would have brought it about it by now. There were enough men of impeccable character and integrity that had the chance to turn their domains into a genuine Islamic State, but everyone who tried, experienced failure. Perhaps there is a reason why Allah did not mention the creation of such a state in the Quran. Perhaps this is why the Prophet Muhammad talked about the message of Islam reaching the four corners of the earth, but gave no instructions on the creation of the Islamic State. Perhaps he was giving us Muslims a message that we have failed to heed. Perhaps it is time to do just that and walk away from the pursuit of an Islamic State and instead work to create a state of Islam within each one of us.