Professionals form the backbone of a society. Professionals include Doctors, engineers, bankers, businessmen, lawyers, soldiers and law-enforcers. Pakistani society as a whole has been affected by the problem of increasing intolerance and religious extremism over the years. One of the many causes of this rise is the state of textbooks in Pakistan that promote hatred and bigotry(Consider for instance Meri Kitab, which is a required text textbook for grade one students in most public schools. Seven out of 16 chapters in Meri Kitab contained religious sermons. A report by United States Commission on International Religious Freedom found that textbooks were filled with disparaging remarks about the Hindus, while never mentioning that for centuries Muslims and Hindus had lived peacefully in the subcontinent.). Students are taught from a young age to hate perceived enemies. Other causes include the propaganda-mongering by state-backed Madrassas and even state-controlled media, enormous groundwork done by religious groups and exploitation of religious beliefs of people by clergy. A common belief about terrorists is that only uneducated, unemployed and frustrated people join the ranks of terrorists. Research has proven this wrong and we know today that there are many doctors, engineers and other professionals in the terrorist ranks. The 9/11 conspirators included 8 engineers, Faisal Shehzad, famously known as Times-square bomber is a qualified engineer, Yahya Ayyash from Hamas-an electrical engineer-is credited with advancing the technique of suicide bombing,  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (confessed Al Qaeda operative and engineering student) tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit, Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj, leader of the killers of Anwar Sadat, Kafeel Ahmed, who tried to bomb Glasgow Airport in 2007, Anwar al-Awlaki(top Al-Qaeda leader from Yemen famous for his internet sermons), studied engineering as an undergraduate at Colorado State University. In Pakistan, Hafiz Saeed-the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawaa, both on International terror watch list-used to teach at University of Engineering and Technology, Faiz Mohammad, a civil engineer, was caught at Karachi’s airport with batteries and an electrical circuit hidden in his shoes, Asif Mehmood, a chemical engineer from UET, was involved in the 2009 bombing of the ISI office in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Herog in their research paper titled “Why are there so many Engineers among Islamic Radicals?” note that According to data compiled by Carnegie foundation in 1984, The proportion of engineers who declare themselves to be on the right of the political spectrum is greater than in any other disciplinary group: 57.6 % of them are either conservative or strongly conservative, as compared to 51.1 % of economists, 42.5 % of doctors and 33.5 % of scientists, 21.4 % of those in the humanities, and 18.6 % of the social scientists. The Carnegie survey reveals an even more surprising fact, hitherto unnoticed, that strengthens the suspicion that the engineers’ mindset may play a part in their proneness not only to radicalize to the right of the political spectrum, but do so with a religious slant: engineers turn out to be by far the most religious group of all academics – 66.5 %, followed again by 61.7 % in economics, 49.9 % in sciences, 48.8 % of social scientists, 46.3 % of doctors and 44.1% of lawyers.” Similarly, Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey in their 2006 study of ‘madrassas (Islamic schools) and lack of education as a putative terrorist incubator’ found that the most popular subjects amongst those jihadi terrorists who attended university was engineering followed by medicine.

Regarding the cause of this dangerous trend among engineers, Awais Masood, an engineer by profession, wrote in the Daily Times, “The relationship between religious fundamentalism and technology has remained complicated. Religious fundamentalist movements have been widely described as reaction to modernity though the movements are themselves modern in nature. Hence there exists an inherent conflict where these movements reject the underlying notions of rationality, secular and scientific constituting modernity. On the other hand, these movements continue to appropriate modern symbols and technology to further their cause. Historically, fundamentalist movements vehemently opposed natural sciences and technology but that does not hold true anymore. As stated in a paper titled ‘Postmodern Conservatism and Religious Fundamentalism’ by Geoff Boucher, the fundamentalist movements of today harbour a selective, instead of a wholesome, hostility towards natural sciences and try to engage in an understanding of the world that remains compatible with the commercialized science of today encompassing applied sciences and technology. Hence, these movements hold a significant appeal among technical professionals such as engineers, doctors and lawyers. Carrying forward this correlation between technical education and fundamentalism, a 2009 study published in The European Journal of Sociology showed that engineers constitute 20 percent of all Islamist militant organizations, a value remarkably greater than the expected 3.5 percent figure.”

There is also the question as to why people who are supposed to think according to the scientific method adopt the narrow-minded approach of terrorists. According to Professor of Nuclear Physics, Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy, “We need to separate the scientists from the technologists, meaning those who use science in a narrowly functional sense rather than as a means for understanding the natural world. I have never seen a first-rate Muslim scientist become an Islamist or a terrorist even when he or she is a strong believer. But second- and third-rate technologists are more susceptible. These are people who use science in some capacity but without any need to understand it very much—engineers, doctors, technicians, etc.—all of whom are more inclined towards radicalism. They have been trained to absorb facts without thinking, and this makes them more susceptible to the inducements of holy books and preachers.”

The phenomenon of rising intolerance and fanaticism is not limited to engineers rather it has encapsulated our society in general. The most worrying aspect about this issue is the lack of awareness regarding it. As a society, we fall upon excuses to somehow justify terrorism due to clever usage of religious symbolism attached to it, despite losing more than 35 thousand innocent lives due to terrorist activities. Veteran Journalist Khaled Ahmed recently commented that “Pakistan is sinking because it doesn’t want to look terrorism in the eye”.

Very little is being written against radicalization in mainstream newspapers particularly Urdu newspapers. Ratings-hungry News channels are not devoting any time to raise awareness about the radical ideology. Government is not spending enough resources to counter the tide of fanaticism. The problem starts with the textbooks and is augmented by societal pressures and a criminal lack of focus on critical thinking. A combined effort by the government, civil society and media is required to halt the onslaught of radicalism and to ensure a better, a safer future for this country. It should also be mentioned that by not speaking up, we are colluding with the enemy.

I first came across Paul Robeson at Rutgers University in the 100th year of his birth. His image was all pervasive for he was possibly the most well known Rutgers College graduate around the world.  The Paul Robeson centre on Busch Campus was dedicated to art, culture and African American fight for equality in America. Robeson was an extraordinary man; an all American Football Player, a concert singer, actor, communist, international citizen. What I later discovered was his intimate connection to the subcontinent through Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.  The two men had a lot in common including Lady Edwina Mountbatten, that sultry seductress and the wife of the Last Viceroy of India,  who both men had at different times been smitten by.  There was more to it. Nehru the rising star of the non-aligned movement with his own brand of socialism and Paul Robeson the great African American communist were natural allies in a world gone mad. 

In 1958, Nehru came up with the idea of an all India celebration of Paul Robeson. To this end he entrusted M C Chagla, the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. (Even though Chagla was Jinnah’s most famous associate in law, that is not where the Jinnah connection comes up) to head the celebration committee. This created quite a rift between the US and India which is well documented. America strongly objected what it called the “communist inspired anti-Americanism” of the Indian Government. Later relations between Nehru and Robeson were also estranged when the former dismissed the Communist government of West Bengal.

Now to the Jinnah connection. This review had this very interesting snippet of information that caught my eye:

At the Karachi Club a night later, Ken Mac’s band played a special request by Muhammad Ali Jinnah — Paul Robeson’s ‘The End’, which the Quaid-e-Azam apparently used to hum while visiting his wife’s grave in Mazagaon, Bombay.

I tried then to find the the said song on youtube. It turns out that the song was “the end of perfect day” sung by Paul Robeson.

Paul Robeson sings \”The End of a Perfect Day\”

That Jinnah enjoyed the finer things in life is well known.  His suits, cars, dogs etc are a testament to that. However nothing at all has ever been written about Jinnah’s taste in music.  He was after all an avid theatre goer who enjoyed Shakespeare and Milton in literature.  Yet the caricature of Jinnah that has been created is one of a monosyllabic lawyer engrossed in his law books. This song which he allegedly hummed while visiting his wife’s grave shows an intimate side that has not been revealed before. The lyrics are:

 When you come to the end of a perfect day, 
And you sit alone with your thought, 
While the chimes ring out with a carol gay, 
For the joy that the day has brought, 
Do you think what the end of a perfect day 
Can mean to tired heart, 
When the sun goes down with a flaming ray, 
And the dear hearts have to part? 
Well, this is the end of a perfect day, 
Near the end of a journey, too, 
But it leaves a thought that is big and strong, 
With a wish that is kind and true. 
For mem’ry has painted this perfect day 
With colors that never fade, 
And we find at the end of a perfect day, 
The soul of a friend we’ve made.

Why is it that the wretched state that imposes its ideology on us also tries to stifle any semblance of humanity in our heroes?

By Engr. Syed Ghulam Mustafa

M.E Electronics System Engineering

Munna Muslim Pakistani is one of my best friends, I have known him since my childhood. He has sacrificed his whole life in motivating the people for change. He believes that one should struggle for the betterment of society and his surroundings in his utmost capacity. He is really an honest person, and unlike our conventional and seasonal politicians he does not seek any personal benefit for his endeavors for the change. Rather, His only aim is to contribute towards the society within his capacity to bring real positive change.  He always wanted me to be the part of his struggle but I didn’t give any attention to his call, considering it a useless practice. I felt that the whole society was corrupt, illiterate and reluctant to lose its own personal wasted interest.  Whenever he came to me to talk about this philosophy of change, I ignored him badly by showing great apathy for his thoughts.

One day he came to me with tears in the eyes, he was extremely worried about the abusive use of internet, especially facebook and twitter. This time his tears worked, and my heart softened to listen the reason behind his vexation. In very low and soft voice I asked, what happened Munna? why you are crying?then he seized this opportunity with both hands, and started his campaign of so called change. He said, today I am very upset. After the observation of many years I found that the meaning of word “change” is almost hijacked, and everyone is using this word as a slogan to get better of their mean/coward interests. The thing that brought tears in my eyes is that majority of educated youngsters nowadays using these two social communities, has become the part of this fraudulent change moment, and consuming their energies to support the wasted interests of individuals, which is definitely increasing their distance with the real social, moral and behavioral change. First time in life his words struck my mind and I start giving attention to his words. He further said that changing the rulers and changing the system cannot bring the strong and long lasting change, but it can only be brought about by changing every individual’s thinking and thereby the society. After listening to his initial speech, I got somewhat convinced with his arguments, but still too many confusion and cross question were revolving in my mind. I said, Munna ! you are right, but me and many alike have some reservations against your change agenda. Today I promise that I’ll be part of your change moment if you can answer my few questions. In reply astute Munna said I am not here for trading or bartering, neither I want anything from you nor you can give me any, I am just fulfilling my duty, I want to be successful in my journey, but truly speaking my destination is far beyond success, even than I am ready to answer your confusions. The first question I put in front of him was how a single person can bring change when the whole society is corrupt and not ready to change. He said listen brother, if the whole society is going to kill their parents for no reason, what will you do? You will follow the society trend or will revolt against society? When you alone can stand up against this brutal injustice than why can’t you stand for your own motherland? His words struck like a hammer on my mind, and to get out of his dominating reply, I immediately threw my next question and asked him how one can make participation in this change moment, when we have no clear vision, no leadership to follow, no political party and even no visible aim. He smiled and said dear brother, you don’t need to be worried about this, you just have to practice good moral values and ask the people around to behave the same way. Whatever you are and wherever you are, just perform your duty with honesty, meet people humbly, help others selflessly, get rid of social and personal biases, lower your expectations, respect your superiors and support your sub-ordinates, talk gently, respect the other sects and religions, debate logically with the clear mind that either convince other or be convinced, don’t spread rumors, and most importantly cordially accept difference of opinion. Once you will start practicing it, there will be an addition of one good person in the society, subtraction of one ill mentality from society, multiplication of one real change campaigner in the society and of course it will signify the division between bright and dark side of the society. So do not underestimate your role, this chain reaction one day will change the whole society and in turn the whole world. I was admiring his words, but still I was not completely convinced. I said it will take many years, and how I can alone endure all the losses incurred in this process? Once again he shook his head affirmatively and replied, as far as time is concern, brother do you remember the level of honesty and self-sacrifice at the time of our independence? Only few percent people were corrupt, but their consistent bad practices has turned the color of almost the entire country into dark one, and it took almost sixty four years  to  converge from more positive to more negative society. Won’t you allow at least half of this time for the restoration? As far as the bearing of losses is concerned,   all the deeds I asked you to do belongs to good traits, in every religion and sect, these are the instructions of God, Ram, and Allah. Can you even think for a moment that one moving on the path of his lord will face any loss? Of course not, so keep practicing these good deeds and enjoy the benefits of the life approved by your lord.

I said Munna, all right I agree with your view point of changing the society, but what to do with this corrupt political set up, I don’t trust anyone hence I did not ever cast a vote. Munna said dear brother this is the biggest mistake we change-loving people are making since inception of our history as nation. If you don’t find the ideal or best correct option in the elections THEN you must at least vote for the best possible available option. If you won’t vote, than corrupt people will get an open ground to invade. And what if that best selection did not deliver? I supplied a counter question. Munna said, No problem, in next election look for another option and within four to five cycles we will be successful in bringing honest and competent leadership. But make sure your vote is not influenced by personal, communal, sectarian, lingual or territorial interest, or by historic political affiliations. No, Munna, it doesn’t seem to be right, even if we vote for honest leadership, fraudulent election and rigging will not allow us to bring genuine leadership.  Munna said, you might have heard the famous quote of Napoleon Bonaparte, in which he said “world suffer a lot not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good People” if you believe his words, you can better conclude who is responsible for this fraudulent elections.

After listening to the complete lecture once again I asked my first question again in a different way to get rid of his change campaign, as the dark side of my heart was not ready to bring this real change. I said how I can alone do this? How I can bear this burden alone? This time he did not smile, and said listen! If your home catches fire, what will you do? Will you wait for the other family members to come and join you to start the fire extinguishing process, or you will immediately initiate the rescue operation at your own? Similarly we have two options, either waiting for each other to lead, or stand up right now without waiting for anyone and start the journey of real positive change. This time I was speechless. I smiled and felt like saluting him.

The bottom line thus is my dear readers that no one can bring us the change we can bring about ourselves.

A few weeks ago I wrote a detailed piece on the reasons as to why democracy in Pakistan and its neighboring India has taken such divergent paths. In my opinion the reasons have to do with history of independence movement, early years after independence, image of the army in both the countries and also the attitude of middleclass in both the countries.

In any society, particularly a modern democratic society, middleclass provides a critical as well as decisive mass. Moreover it’s an extremely important contributor to intelligentsia, media and services sector, particularly critical services such as bureaucracy and armed forces. In our side of the world, the middleclass particularly urban middleclass, eventually is the major determinant of the dominant opinion and even the official policy.  This influence is not merely through electorate (where they are always numerically less strong), but through other institutions such as army, judiciary, media and civil bureaucracy as well.

In my opinion, the so called “public” support of army (or at least encouragement of fixing “corrupt” politicians by interfering in the political affairs of the country) is coming from this class.

Of course the liberal (assuming that they exist) oppose this and try to present a case for democracy but at the same time “defense” from the liberal quarters does not go beyond name calling and allegations. For example a typical response would be to brand middleclass as bigoted and authoritarian with naïve understanding of geopolitical culture. Moreover, standard references to disrespect of “unwashed’ masses would be made. And of course this is supplemented by terms like drawing room gossip, reactionary , chattering classes etc.

Defense of democracy has to be realistic and not based on lauding passionate speeches about unwashed masses particularly when politicians apparently care little
themselves about the masses. The central thrust should be to present first a convincing case as to why democracy is a better option compared to armed dictatorship and frankly a very strong case based on historical evidence exists. despite chequered history of democratic regimes. And yes admit the shortcomings of the politicians also as weaknesses of politicians are not necessarily weaknesses of the entire political system.

Spinning facts to absolve politicians of their follies is not the way. Simply assuming that everyone is just bigoted or plagued by bias is also a form of denial. And interpreting everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment mirrors the general mindset of the Pakistanis who have developed this habit to see everything through the conspiracy paradigm.

That brings us to a related question: does the middleclass hate democracy? The answer cannot be a definite yes because it’s the some apparent outcomes of the democracy in our part of the world which it detests. It does have concerns which periodically surface when democratic rule is again given a chance. One cannot conveniently dismiss every concern by branding it as reactionary or a manifestation of deep rooted insecurity about losing privileges the status quo offers. One can blame armed forces for harboring such insecurities but not the entire middleclass.

For the doubters let me remind that when elections of 2008 took place there was a severe hatred against army and it was expressed by the SAME middleclass. In fact so much so that General Kayani immediately upon assuming command as CNC had to withdraw army officials from various civilian posts. At that time even Zardari had a favorable impression and in fact several polls were revealing that by and large public was in the process of reevaluating their opinion about him. So the notion that middleclass simply hates him for the sake of hating is slightly exaggerated. There is more towards the current surge of hatred against the President.

So then what are the reasons?

In Pakistan, democratic regimes have been short on providing stability. One thing this class really loves is stability which too some extent is an outcome of its pro status quo orientation. Democracy in the developing countries, particularly if it’s not “regulated” tends to bring chaos as coalition building and consensus formation process does not develop quickly. Consequently the romantic love for a strong ruler intensifies each time the politicians indulge in destabilizing and chaotic practices when given a chance. It’s a small wonder that whenever army has intervened directly, there has been a sigh of relief from the middleclass.And historically armed forces have intervened when political chaos was reigning supreme.

However the most persuasive and unfortunately convincing argument is about the quality of governance. The executive has often overstepped its authority and has used mandate as a justification for anything from nepotism to controversial allocations of contracts. Moreover, the justification is also supplemented by the argument that if people do not approve of these “steps”, they will remove the government in the next elections. These repeated acts which use explicit justification of a public mandate, has at times alienated middleclass from the notion of democracy itself. Moreover, one has to understand the some of the interventions (though not all) by the armed forces were actually an outcome of the chaotic situation the politicians had brought.

Obviously the arguments against democracy by this class also constitutes anti feudal sentiments. It is often pointed out that the representatives of the people are actually feudal lords who come to the power through votes and in this way the feudalism is further strengthened. In fact according to some elements of the middleclass, democracy is even more problematic as it creates an umbrella of legitimacy due to mandate.

But then questions arise as to what has given rise to the above issues.

One of the major problems in Pakistan is that it still is an agriculture based society with a strong social patriarchal structure which thrives on contact building. Now this contact building and largely obliging culture comes into full play when political class is in power. People who have voted EXPECT to be given a share in the governance and this in turn has given rise to out of merit job allocations and contracts.

Expecting favours is culturally deep rooted and democracy merely facilitates it as the ruling class is accountable to the voting public. This practice of obliging of course seriously undermines quality of governance. The apparent advantage that Middleclass sees in the military establishments is that these are apparently insulated from such kind of pressures. Moreover majority of the people while growing up have seen military a shade away from normal civilian life even during the martial laws. The disciplined look, insulated from public pressure creates this strong impression that military won’t be obliging the way Politicians are.

Secondly it has to be realized that Parliamentary democracy has evolved in the industrial societies and is functionally geared to address the needs of that kind of society. Western model of universal suffrage also presupposes educated and informed electorate,established social voluntary structures like unions, associations, mature and responsible media and above all a strong tradition of constitutional liberalism which is underpinned by independent courts, separation of powers and strong emphasis on individual liberty.

In the Western world these features evolved before the advent of universal suffrage. Farid Zakria’s excellent book titled as “future of freedom” chronicles the development of constitutional liberalism in various countries of Europe and argues that such development needs to precede democracy for it to be stable, sustainable, and for ensuring that governments remain accountable in every respect. Zakria argues giving historical examples that voters alone cannot make the government accountable without a strongly entrenched tradition of constitutional liberalism.

In fact historically countries where democracy arrived before these traditions have fallen victim to chaos and eventually despotic rule by some strong man. Chaos, if developed would naturally be countered by establishing authority and unquestionable subservience which normally comes with military rule. That of course does not justify Military rule but provides a reason as to why it often takes place and why some people are obsessed with it.

Another issue which has to be kept in mind is that democracy would need independent institutions like Judiciary and Media no matter how “reactionary” these are to ensure that it remains on track. And these institutions do not automatically develop through voting process. The notion which has often proven irrelevant in a country like Pakistan is that voters alone can provide the necessary accountability. This unfortunately is not even true for developed countries. First of all mandate does not necessarily reflect complete will of the people due to principal agent problem and moreover vote received in an election does not necessarily validate every step taken by the Government during its reign. Voters eventually appraise the OVERALL PERFORMANCE of a party, not every step. So therefore claims that if voters do not approve of a particular controversial step, they will vote the party out in the next elections is not a valid argument. For democracy to be effective strong and INDEPENDENT institutions, even if they are “reactionary’ are needed!! Due to this factor, there is a legitimate rationale for judiciary and media to keep a check on the government during the interim period.Independence of these institutions is a prerequisite on these grounds.

And So what is the way out?

First the convincing has to explicitly RECOGINIZE these problems and liberal intelligentsia has to support independent institutions and check and balances. Yes it includes this vulgar media also!! Sorry but even if it is vulgar, it is needed!!And yes STOP defending political class when it merits condemnation and please stop interpreting criticism as merely “reactionary”. Trying to defend incompetence through spinning factual position and branding everything as a grand conspiracy of the establishment will not do. If anything it further insulates the political class from political discipline and questions the credibility of the liberals themselves.

For democracy a culture of accountability has to be there and that culture may even at times evolve through excessive lynching (provided that does not result in army’s intervention!) phase into more mature criticism. Yes at times media is unfair but it is OK if it points to nepotism and poor governance. The argument which should be given is that we should stick with democracy but also strive to cultivate a culture of accountability and strong institutions.

What the stability obsessed crowd should be made to understand is that the solution is not replacing democracy with autocratic rule or judicial rule but by ensuring the mechanism which ensures that chaos does not develop and governments do not become excessive in their conduct. Democracy may not be a perfect system but a modern and
ethnically diverse state needs it. The central thrust has to be on recognizing where democracy is faltering and how to ensure that those areas are strengthened.

Second and the most important argument is ethnic fabric of our country. What is often overlooked by critics of democracy is that for an ethnically diverse country such as Pakistan, lack of democracy will be catastrophic and in fact historically every dictatorship has resulted in increased feeling of marginalization. Democracy is the only workable framework in a modern industrial society which can tap diverse voices and ensure integrity of the state through preservation of diversity through negotiation and renegotiation. Just simple analysis in chronological order can prove the point that after each dictatorship the feeling of depravity and anger has increased. Bangladesh and bloody 1971 episode owed a lot due to lack of consensus building which only democracy could have ensured. Ayub era despite apparent high growth rates delivered a broken Pakistan.

Zia regime instilled hatred in Sindh and Mushrraf a lot of hatred in Baluchistan. An ethnically diverse and now charged up country cannot exist without democracy. Democracy may have proven short on quality governance (for that matter so has dictatorship) but it is the only workable way to ensure that diverse voices are heard and their concerns are properly incorporated in the policy framework.

Third people have to be reminded that every military dictator’s regime ended with some kind of public protest which actually went too long because the dictator was not politically feeling the heat the way a political government would. They even went on suspending courts! Protests went on and eventually far more frustration was felt and of course when the dictatorship ended Pakistan was in a more miserable state.

Fourth, while Military regimes may have provided a façade of stability, there is nothing to support that military dictatorships fared any better in financial corruption. And moreover
systematically the resources were transferred to bolster the army schemes and industries. Of course due to censorship most of the corruption scandals never came to light. It is a fallacy that only politicians are corrupt.

We need to win the battle of minds and address skepticism through concrete, rational and factual defense of democracy. We need to reinforce an obvious truth that a modern industrial society which is so complex needs democracy and the solution is to push for better governance within democracy not substituting it with dictatorship or even through army’s proxies (known as indirect rule).

The NRO issued by the former President General Musharraf in 2007 granted amnesty to politicians including President Zardari, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between January 1, 1986, and October 12, 1999, the time between two states of martial law in Pakistan.  The NRO, which erased twenty years worth of corruption charges in one sweep, can be best described as a licence to steal and keep your ill-gotten gain without fear of the law.  If the SC judgment in the contempt case is intended to prod the government to implement the NRO judgment, it can only set a good precedent in the fight against official corruption.

Regardless of political affiliations, the normal reaction to the SC verdict in the PM case should have been focused on the fact that corruption is a very serious matter, which should not be allowed to be brushed under the carpet.  The law must take its course and the PM can seek redress through the appeals process and hurrah to the people as the independent judiciary is alive and well.  One can wholeheartedly agree with Mahatma Gandhi’s quote: “corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.”

As expected, the reaction to the SC verdict is being played along party lines.  Opponents strongly feel that the government has been playing games with the apex court for far too long by not implementing the SC judgments for over two years and that the PM and other ministers deserve to be punished accordingly.  An overly emotional reaction to the Court’s judgment saluted the honorable Judges for upholding the dignity and honor of tSupreme he judiciary and suggested that the judge’s names will be written in golden words in the history books.

Some political commentators and government supporters look at the judgment from different perspective, suggesting that a rickety democratic government presented a soft target for the court.  They see the recent verdict by the SC as a selective judgment, which does not account for other possible contempt cases beyond just official corruption.  These cases include those involving the country’s intelligence agencies involved in disappearance of thousand of persons particularly in Baluchistan.  Human Rights Watch in its 2011 report titled, ‘We can Torture, Kill, or Keep you for Years’, suggests that the SC’s approach to enforced disappearance cases in Pakistan has been to focus on establishing the whereabouts of the missing individuals while being reluctant to press for accountability of security forces and government agencies.

It is probably an understatement to suggest that past SC judgments have not helped the cause of democracy and the rule of law in the country. The following examples come to mind. In 1954, the otherwise brilliant Chief Justice Munir invoked the ‘doctrine of necessity’, validating the dissolution of Pakistan’s first constituent assembly, which many feel set the precedent for future authoritarian intervention the country.  To his credit, Justice Munir also wrote a thought-provoking book, From Jinnah to Zia, arguing that Mr. Jinnah stood for a tolerant and secular state where Muslims and non-Muslims had equal rights.

Later, Chief Justice CJ Anwarul Haq is ‘ill-famed’ for giving gave legitimacy to General Zia’s martial law and for upholding the decision of the Lahore High Court, which sentenced Mr ZA Bhutto to death for conspiring in the murder of a political opponent.  Ironically, unlike incumbent Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Justice Anwarul Haq became the first Justice and perhaps only chief justice to refuse taking the oath under the military imposed PCO and resigned on conscientious grounds in 1981.

Beyond the cases of the ‘disappeared’, the security establishment has always escaped accountability for causing great harm to country by fighting and losing needless wars, pursuing flawed national security policies and more recently for their incompetence in the bin Laden and Mehran episodes. It is not unreasonable to hope that the SC will show an even handed approach in dealing with an elected government and other powerful institutions like the armed forces who are in effect a law unto themselves.

Imran Khan is Pakistan’s sports superstar. His philanthropy is also admirable. This, however, does not mean I should not exercise my right to criticize Khan’s politics. Sadly,Imran Khan’s followers do not take criticism all that well. Anyone who calls him Taliban Khan is quickly ascribed a set of views and labeled a “pseudo-liberal” and “fascist”.

In a recent interview, Imran Khan said he believed in engaging the far right and justified being represented at rallies of extremist groups by stating that his was a political party that believed in engaging marginalized groups. Will Imran Khan also engage the ostracized Ahmadi Muslims, Hindus and Christians of Pakistan? Or is his engagement limited to those that preach and execute their killings?

Imran Khan has been represented at rallies organized by banned terrorist outfits such as the Jamaat-ud Dawa and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. His vice president has spoken at pro-Mumtaz Qadri rallies and has been in attendance at anti-Ahmadi rallies organized by the extremist Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat. Khan believes this approach of friendship with the radical right will help bring them to the center. It will soften them and with time, allow them to shun their extremist ideology.

If Imran Khan genuinely believes in coherence, he should employ the same approach of engagement with the far left to make them more centrist, right? Surprisingly, he ridicules them openly, calling them “the scum of Pakistan.” He does not stop at that. He also blames all the extremism in Pakistan on the liberals living within. For example, in a recent interview, he said:

“These liberals. I don’t know these liberals, because these liberals back bombing of villages. They back drone attacks. I mean, I don’t call them liberals. I call them fascists. In my book these people are fascists…Because of them we have extremism in this country these liberals, so called liberals, applauded the incineration, where they bombed this mosque when there were children and women in it, students in it. And these liberals were in the forefront. I don’t call them liberals. I agree. I really think these are the scum of this country.”

Let me remind Imran Khan that liberals were not in the forefront at Lal Masjid. It was the Army. Also, drones do not take off from atop liberals’ houses; they take off from army bases. But I understand it is much easier to criticize vulnerable unarmed liberals than take on the Military-Mullah nexus.

I am flabbergasted. I am also confused. Does Imran Khan and his die-hard fans really understand the words he uses? A fascist is a person who is dictatorial and suppresses criticism and opposition through use of force. Scum refers to a low life, worthless or evil person.

I am yet to meet a “so-called liberal” who bombs mosques and attacks shrines. I am yet to see a “so-called liberal” who kills fellow Pakistanis citing differences of faith. I have never come across a “so-called liberal” who persecutes Pakistan’s very own minorities and razes their places of worship. I am yet to come across a “so-called liberal” who delivers sermons of hate against Shia and Ahmadi Muslims, inciting their killings.

Let me remind Imran Khan that it is the religious fanatics he engages that are the real fascists and the real scum of Pakistan. It is they that are responsible for all the extremism in the country.  Lest he has forgotten, it is they that bomb mosques and shrines. It is they that murder fellow Pakistanis they despise, namely the Ahmadi and Shia Muslims, and non-Muslim Pakistanis. It is they that have made life in Pakistan a living hell for everyone, especially its minorities. It is they that spread hate and incite violence against any and all voices of reason and moderation. Many have had to flee after being threatened by these bigots.

Now, why the far left liberals should be considered scum and unworthy of engagement while those who openly carry out and endorse acts of terror be considered worthy of engagement is beyond me!  Why must only the far right be brought to the center and the far left subjected to ridicule and left isolated? Why must one end of our political divide be
befriended and the other rejected? Above all, why must the heavy burden of sins of one be taken off its shoulder and placed on the shoulders of the other?

Is this justice? Is this Insaaf?

Imran Khan’s justice appears to favor the rightist and the strong. Unless he garners courage to blame extremism on those that actually perpetrate it and relieve the “so-called liberals” of unbefitting slander, his party will increasingly be seen as TPI (Tehreek-e-Pseudo Insaaf) and not PTI.

God Save Pakistan!

The Karachi Literature Festival

By Faisal Kapadia

A freelance columnist, Faisal Kapadia lives in Karachi, writes on everything and social media and misses the time when we could tell the good guys from the bad by the color of their light sabers. He tweets with the same name and sometimes answers emails at faiskap666@gmail.com

________________________________________

By chance if you see someone soaking up the atmosphere hunched over a smart phone, that will probably be me  See you there!!

This is a brief comment on Saroop Ijaz’s otherwise brilliant article in Express Tribune.

Good news is that Saroop Ijaz has woken up to the Ahmadi issue. Bad news is that what he finds irksome is not as much the mistreatment or discrimination but that those who choose to speak against this discrimination choose to do so in Jinnah’s name. Tragic that not everyone is as well educated as Saroop Ijaz to produce references of obscure authors at a drop of a hat.

Here it must be stated that Jinnah’s relevance to Ahmadi case is not limited to piddling subsection of his career such as his championing unpopular causes like child marriages restraint act or his efforts to legalize inter-communal marriage without renunciation of faith or his warnings against the misuse of 295-A, grandfather clause to 295-c. No Jinnah’s relevance has to do with the fact that he was last popular political leader who said that Ahmadis were Muslims and no one had the right to say otherwise. His relevance is that he resisted all demands by the Mullahs to expel Ahmadis from the League. Indeed the Majlis e Ahrar started its anti-ahmaddiya campaign partly to discredit Jinnah and as an election slogan.

This is precisely why the Munir Report dedicates an entire section to Jinnah’s Pakistan. Maybe their lordships Munir and Kayani were not as educated as Mr Ijaz.

An inevitable question Pakistanis always ask me is, “what are you?” Often, I’ve wondered the same question. Besides ‘Pakistani,’ I don’t know what else to say.  I’m not Balochi or Sindhi. I can’t speak Punjabi. In my house, besides English, Urdu is the only other language spoken. When people ask me what language my parents speak, that’s what I tell them. Unlike many of my acquaintances, I don’t come from a town or village in interior Pakistan. Like millions in Pakistan, my family migrated from India. My grandparents’ families originate from Delhi, Lucknow and Aligarh, the bastions of Urdu-speaking peoples in India. In Pakistan, I am merely a ‘Muhajir;” an Urdu speaking migrant from India, now living in Karachi.

My family, like millions of others, came to Pakistan believing Jinnah’s ideal, searching for a homeland that was ours, for all Muslims, with freedom, tolerance and dignity. During those waning years of the British Empire, freedom across the Subcontinent was not a novel idea; it was a dream that had existed for decades. Students from the Aligarh Muslim University took up the cause of an independent homeland for Muslims; the university was known for the caliber and number of intellectuals it produced espousing the cause for an independent Muslim state to exist alongside a Hindu majority one in the Subcontinent. Thinkers like Mohammad Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan were noted luminaries associated with the institution dubbed, ‘the Oxford of the East.’ Iqbal is largely celebrated in modern day Pakistan as the first ideologue championing a united Pakistan; today, his small rectangular tomb, a simple, stone structure in hues of dark crimson and burnt sienna, ensconced between the magnificent Badshahi Mosque and the grand Lahore Fort, welcomes visitors keen to learn about Pakistan’s past; a chapter of rich, Mughal heritage often obscured by the shame of Colonialism and the turbulence of Partition.

Other notable alumni of Aligarh Muslim University include Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1951. In his place as Pakistan’s second Prime Minister came Khwaja Nazimuddin, another Aligarh alumnus who was Pakistan’s second, incumbent Governor General after Mr. Jinnah’s sudden death in 1948 less than a year after Pakistan’s creation. Ghulam Mohammad, Pakistan’s third and last Governor General was also an alumnus; Ghulam Mohammad’s legacy of unchecked corruption and senility  heralded the beginning of Pakistan’s trials by promoting vice-regal politics, weakening democracy and laying the seeds for President Iskander Mirza and Field Marshal Ayub Khan to set a notorious precedent and declare Martial Law in 1958.  Coincidentally, Ayub also attended Aligarh Muslim University briefly.

One lesser known alumnus was Abu Bakr Ahmad (A.B.A.) Haleem, a noted scholar and educationist. Professor Haleem began his career in the Department of Political Science and History at Aligarh in 1923. Ayub Khan was one of students. By 1934, he was Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University and played a pivotal role in Pakistan’s formation by serving with the All-India Muslim League until Partition. Writer Mukhtar Masood describes Professor Haleem’s welcome to Jinnah, stating, “Mr. Jinnah, we are teaching history and you are making it.” After the birth of Pakistan, Professor Haleem was appointed the first Vice-Chancellor of Sindh University at the behest of Jinnah and later, the first Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University thus filling the noble distinction of being the first Vice-Chancellor for both institutions. In addition, he served in a variety of different roles and positions for the purposes of propagating education and progress in Pakistan. I refer to Professor Haleem because he was a lesser-known luminary who contributed to forging Pakistan’s identity in its early years; he was also my Great-Grandfather.

Following in his footsteps, I too graduated in Political Science and History, and like him, moved to Paris. His association with the Sorbonne and the University of Paris inspired me as I strolled down the Boulevard St. Michel as he once would have decades before, deep in thought, stopping at the Jardins du Luxembourg to sit in silent contemplation amidst the babbling fountains and the verdant green grass. Like him, I spoke French almost fluently. Like him, I expressed a desire for multilingualism and learnt Italian. Professor Haleem spoke over five languages; he even spoke Mandarin. According to my grandfather, he was invited to China to give a speech to Chairman Mao-Zedong on Chinese history.

In the late Professor’s time, the concept of nationhood was being redefined and the notion of identity that still troubles Pakistanis surfaced.  Gandhi argued that religion could not imply a separate nation since language, customs and culture dictated that, not belief. Jinnah contended that religion defined values, customs, beliefs and ideals, thus characterizing Muslims as a separate nation. With neither side willing to budge from their respective positions, the outcome of this arduous conflict was the Partition of the Subcontinent in 1947.

Like me, Pakistan is still undergoing its identity crisis. Debate still looms whether the state is secular, as Jinnah envisioned, or Islamic, as his successors outlined. Its maturity and development into a cohesive nation has been hindered by weak democracy, military dominance in addition to poor governance, lack of resources and partisan politics. Like the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan is a federation of various ethnic groups, tribes, sects and peoples. The most poorly-defined of these groups are the so-called ‘Urdu-speaking’ Muslims that migrated to Pakistan after Partition from all over India. They are defined solely on the basis of language and stigmatized by the local, ethnic populations whose ancestors have pre-existed on Pakistani soil for centuries.

Urdu was a hybrid language growing in prominence under the Delhi Sultanate, but it wasn’t until the emergence of the Mughal Empire in 1527 that Urdu became a language of the regal court. It evolved from a derivative of Farsi to amalgamate Arabic, Sanskrit, Turkish and Hindi influences. As late as the siege of Delhi in 1857, Urdu remained a language of the elite and refined, lending much of its court-like stature to literature and poetry. Urdu speakers in places like Aligarh contributed greatly to Jinnah’s movement of an independent Muslim state in the Subcontinent. As a result, at Pakistan’s birth, Urdu was to be its lingua franca. Ostensibly, this would not only curtail any one ethnic group from dominating national affairs, it would also reinforce national identity through the use and extension of a common language, keeping the federation united.[1]

Naturally, this created tensions that still exist today. Pakistan at Partition was divided into East and West with only Urdu as its national language, however strong opposition and campaigning from Bengalis in East Pakistan made Bengali a national language during the 1950s. Pakistan’s Post-Colonial legacy ensured that English was not only its official language but lent its presence to its law courts, bureaucracy and military.  After its brutal Civil War in 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh and Pakistan was left with Urdu as its only national language. English remains the language of the elite, the powerful and the source of high-paying jobs. Prominent families send their children to English or American schools in the hope that acquiring this language will be a passport to success. As Zubeida Mustafa describes in The Guardian, “people believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door of prosperity. Policy-makers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth.[2]”

And this myth affects the language spoken in my home. Today, the Urdu around me is not the Urdu spoken during Partition. At that time, Urdu’s poetic language structure, its rich vocabulary and literature was common to most speakers. My generation has been fed a bastardized version of Urdu; an Urdu with informal tenses, new verbiage, interspersed with English to create what some call “minglish,” influenced by the melting pot of Karachi’s different cultures. The Urdu I speak can barely be called Urdu; it is Urdu to get by. I can order a cup of tea but I cannot wax eloquent on anything. When I watch television, news anchors speak a strange language and I struggle to read the ticker because I was never formally taught to read Urdu and I don’t know anyone who speaks the pure Urdu that once characterized my homeland.

Pakistan was envisioned as a poly-ethnic state where religion bound peoples together. The effect of nation-building has backfired since inception because ethnic identities remain prominent. Urdu has not achieved the massive national trickle-down effect it was intended to. Urdu is the first language of only 8% of Pakistanis whereas Punjabi, is spoken by almost 50% of the population.[3] In addition, over 70 smaller provincial languages and dialects exist in Pakistan.  Today, whilst much of the mainstream media as well as state-run public schools communicate in Urdu, it is not a first-language for Pakistanis by far. Those homes with access to English find a diminished impetus for learning Urdu as pragmatism and practical exigencies dictate the study of English, primarily because all higher examinations with the exception of Islamic studies in Pakistan are based on the Western models of education.

In my case, Urdu’s oral traditions and rich cultural legacy is lost to me. In Nehru’s words, “I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere.”  I cannot read Ghalib unless it’s an English translation. I cannot even read the Urdu newspaper. I read Saadat Hassan Manto, revered as one of Pakistan’s greatest writers, in English. Often I wonder what richness of language is lost to me, what word play and complex grammatical structures I shall never understand, nor the depth of connotation that one Urdu word conveys but none in English compare.

Upon my return to Pakistan in 2009, I was faced with a quandary. I wanted to document the richness of this country and its cultural heritage; I wanted to highlight its history and its crumbling monuments, preserving those stories and retelling them for a new generation that doesn’t understand what Pakistan is, or what it once was. This new generation, fed on misinterpreted views of Islam accounts for much of the radicalization of the past few decades. I realized that if I needed to undo General Zia’s legacy of Islamization, I needed to show that the people living here weren’t always militant; that before there was a homeland for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Parsis to name a few lived side by side in peace with Muslims.

Working for a television station, I was making a documentary film but realized my shortcomings when my co-producer handed me a script to OK. The script was written in Urdu. Like a toddler struggling with an elementary primer, I held my finger over each word trying to decipher the script, until I gave up a few lines after and told him it seemed OK to me. What else could I do? When a colleague amazingly remarked that I could speak French and Italian, I turned to her and in my broken Urdu, asked what use was it if I couldn’t speak the language of my own people?

After a few months of struggle, I left the documentary film-making world because of my language handicap and ventured toward Communications. I struggled with the bitter taste of irony, that I, privileged, educated, capable of helping this country through the miasma of failure, extremism, violence and stagnation, was powerless because I couldn’t speak the language properly.  Unlike Professor Haleem who made a difference to change Pakistan for the better, I was restricted and hindered by the same hopeful language that gave this country a voice. Today, my Urdu is mish-mashed with English incorporating more colloquial slang than literal Urdu. Like my Urdu, I find myself a mix of different peoples and personalities, Pakistani at heart, but at home nowhere.

During the last few years, all the economic parameters have shown a gradual drop in Pakistan realty market. However, 2012 brings good news that Pakistan property prices will be moderated, making it an attractive investment opportunity for realtors and investors. New projects like The Centaurus (Islamabad) and many other notable projects across the country hold much promise for the industry.

Timely completion of the projects also helps them grab the attention of investors. Therefore, most of the developers may focus on execution and delivering the committed projects in 2012 rather than launching new projects to avoid reaching insurmountable inventory limit.

In the following post, let’s have a look at Pakistan real estate projects ongoing in different cities.

Lahore real estate projects:
Lahore is one of the modern metropolises of Pakistan and is quite famous for the blend of modern and traditional constructions. The announcement of new real estate development projects in this city has always been much appreciated by every sector. Currently, there are several projects ongoing in this city such as:

Defence Raya Golf Resort

Many of us are already aware of the most popular housing society of Pakistan that is none other than The Defence Housing Authority, Lahore. The project was set up with a vision to provide high quality homes. Over the years, it has proven to be a benchmark for the property development projects in the country. The elite of Lahore demands the best so the luxurious homes always remain in high demand. To cater to the demand of citizens of vibrant cosmopolitan city of Lahore, DHA has formed a partnership with Bandar Raya Developments Berhad (BRDB), a Malaysian developer with a sound background for creating luxurious homes. Defence Raya Golf Resort is a result of this partnership. The community is situated in Phase 6 of DHA Lahore.

The entire project spans over 400 acres of beautifully constructed luxury homes, a prestigious golf and country club, a retail centre and an 18-hole international standard golf course. The residential property includes 1 and 2 Kanal villas, 14 Marla semi-detached houses and trendy condominiums.

Islamabad real estate projects:
The Federal Capital City of Islamabad currently has a glut of new construction programmes. The city already holds title of one of the most expensive properties in Pakistan. Not just the real estate but every other commodity of the city is more expensive than it is anywhere else in Pakistan. Due to this and several other reasons, this city is truly for meant only for the elite class.
Al Ghurair Giga Goldcrest
The magnificent and the majestic Al Ghurair Giga Goldcrest real estate development is located at a 15 minute drive from the airport. Goldcrest abets on the spectacular and impressive DHA Phase-II, Islamabad. It is situated on main Sheikh Zaid Bin Sultan Road, which was previously known as the GT Road. The posh locality of the whole project goes to say that it offers state-of-the-art amenities such as underground power, efficient sewage system and linkage with the motorway through broad streets and roads.

All of your day-to-day needs are met well since Goldcrest provides a host of amenities and facilities such as mosque, bowling alley, hospital, gyms, day care centre, club houses, laundry, sauna, Jacuzzi and swimming pools. Two clubhouses with food courts and laundry services help you minimize your domestic chores.

Karachi real estate projects:
Karachi is an industrial hub of Pakistan and a constantly expanding city. There are several housing projects in this city that are announced for oodles of people belonging to different social classes. Let’s unveil its one of the most lavish projects that is announced by the executive board of Defence Housing Authority, Karachi.
DHA City, Karachi
The master plan for the DHA City Karachi has been unveiled and the details have revealed parts of this project. The whole project covers 11640 acres and will include 27,000 residential and commercial plots. The project is situated on Super Highway and will take 5 to 7 years to complete. Many real estate veterans are considering it a mega project that will boost the value of Karachi real estate. Karachi still holds the charm in its real estate sector and real estate agents are confident that mega projects like DHA City can bring back good times.
The primary infrastructure of the society will be completed by 2015 and project will be half done by 2020. The project is expected to provide quality living to the residents of Karachi and will include all the luxuries of life. The project will also include community centres, educational centres, efficient transport system and cycling paths. Good security system makes it a spectacular housing scheme.

William King is the director of Pakistan real estate and mainly deals in Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore real estate. Being an entrepreneur and passionate blogger he likes to share his knowledge and expertise with the industry people by writing for various related blogs.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not those of PTH editors.

By Shahbaz Ali Khan

Shahbaz, a former Industry relations and PR professional, has spent the past 8 years experimenting with the frontiers of professional competence by insisting on not specializing in anything but thinking, communicating and writing

Before he begins his day, my friend looks at himself in the mirror. He wants to ensure he is ready, in every sense of the word. His shirt’s a tight fit, high-end marvel. His tie a silken treat, his suit the stuff of bespoke quality and his shoes glimmer as only real Italian leather can. Intoxicated in his sharp, business ready look, my friend surely smiles, checks the time on his cast-iron watch, and heads to work.

My friend is a fictional convergence of the many. A point in space and time where the question beckons to him / us and it goes thus: How many more things will you buy? In it lays a simple rhetoric statement of intent; please, we plead and implore you, stop buying things. Stop purchasing happiness as it was there to be sold, stop loading your house with gadgets that have no permanence, stop replacing your technology merely because technology blogs say so, stop assuming you were born to consume, and above all else, stop destroying our fleeting chance at material redemption. We are addicts to goods and services, it is a disease. And it has consequences.

My tirade will become more cogent and less acrimonious as I let loose a little on the paradigm shift we all need to under-take within the next few years; the stuff that owns us will make us dance and delight others, not ourselves. The spotless glass glitters for the onlooker.

The paradigm shift I speak of is that inherent in practically every culture in Asia except our own. We have never, as a people, shared a vision. Perhaps the onus was on the visionaries to create a vision worth sharing; perhaps this was too complex to be universally understood. Life will give each and every one of us an insight into this common vision, and it will do so clearly, in black and white with no nuances of grey. It will not, however, do it for very long. The moment to stare at and appreciate this reality is now; we are busy creating pile-ups of goods while others around us are busy making these goods. We are too pre-occupied with maintaining life’s frills while ignoring life’s core content. We buy, up-grade and re-new that which should be stalled, ignored or sacrificed.

For we have not earned our false sense of affluence. We have pick-pocketed it from the grinding machine that is our economy; we have borrowed, begged and stolen this wealth and managed to delude our salaried classes into thinking it real. It is not. Not in the sense our Chinese brothers have managed it, nor our Indian ‘cousins’ have striven for. They have sacrificed their yesterday for their opulence of today. We seem to want to sacrifice our tomorrow for our limited sources of joy today. This will displace us and destroy our long-term ambition.

This is not to say that we all need to move to public service; that would be an idiotic statement to make and I pride myself in not being an idiot. We do however need to realize an essential truth: we have consumed more than we were supposed to. The corporation is not working for the public purpose; it is working for a limited shareholder view of the world. The hard-working soul needs to monetize his (her) sweat and blood and set is aside, not spend it. The time to upgrade and enjoy the fruits of ‘alien’ innovation will come, but it must come after, not before, the time for local innovation (and enterprise).

The global market place will be ruthless on us if we do not allow ourselves a place to sell, and not buy. We need to make our lands grow more food, our factories make better goods, and our services reap better rewards. We need to stop chasing higher pay-scales, for they are illusions that will vanish, we need to chase a higher level of self-growth, self-achievement and self-respect.

I hope our youth can realize that what they become, not what they own, will define who they are. I hope we all come to our own personal cross-roads and tell ourselves we have had enough. We have stocked up on all the clothes, toys, cars, meals and liquid lunches we need. They should, and will, last for a while. Let us now stop. Let us think, collaborate, and build.

I never want to criticize anything.  We the people beautifully give a comprehensive solution to the problems, and even the way we identify problem that jolts me. Ask anybody over a cup of tea what is this nation’s biggest problem, everybody will close argument by wrapping it in one word, Education, poverty, bureaucracy and the list goes on. The continuous bombardment of issues from media to the nation’s head has made so many scholars out of us that we even forgot to identify what is the actual issue around here? So what is really the issue here? Question still remains.

Do we have our own opinion? Or what we are talking about is Hamid Mir, Talat Hussain and whosoever banging inside our heads. No we don’t, all is cooked up. We don’t want to think anymore, we don’t want to take a break from news now, we want updates every second, even if they are shocking enough to listen that my neighborhood was targeted by American drones last night while I was having peanuts. The channels are baking every insignificant news to ‘Breaking News’ not just because they want to, but also because what we want to hear is what we want to hear from them. Talking about the latest Maya Khan Fiasco and the drop scene was as I was expecting it to be. She got fired from that channel along with her production crew.

It was not a surprise, not something very new for me in this country, recalling the past I find so many similar stories, whether it’s Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan who was the face of the crime of Nuclear Proliferation and saved millions of lives by confessing or his former president Pervez Musharraf accepting Laal Masjid Operation as a mistake and nobody knows who else were accompanying him on those kinds of misadventures. See everybody is as naked here. Samaa TV stepped forward, apologized, presented disclaimer and did what was required in ‘greater good’ of organization. Thanks but no Thanks Samaa. We never wanted that, what we want is why that kind of thing got on air in the first place.

It’s not about Maya khan, don’t worry I am not playing devil’s advocate here. It’s about stepping out of Maya khan, and let’s contemplate for a millisecond, was firing her the best we wanted from Samaa? Was all that campaigning from Social Media to get her fired or we really want to change something around here at this point of time?

From where I see we don’t want to change our very own collective unconscious here because we believe in hating the sinner (which by the way Maya herself did too), but we don’t want to eliminate the sin and then we make common cognitive errors. We create demons to kill other demons and when the new demon starts messing we market another one more fierce and beasty in nature, and we get stuck in a vicious cycle of demonization. The demon factory created trained militia ‘Taliban’ to fight soviets, Media to encounter society’s deep dark secrets and millions of other examples we can find in our daily lives. Are we going to blame Maya for all this? Because what we do best in a stress or a panic situation is to blame. Blame game is the national game for us. I don’t want to accept at my face that a Lion can be the leader of jackals. We have to cogitate that what we want is a change of face or a change of thought process. If it would not have been Maya, it would have been somebody else. We are in a hurry we want to close the case as soon as possible and wait for another problem to hit us in the head, and that’s what we are best at. Given the problem, thought it for a second and bingo ‘we have the solution’ JUST fire her! We have no time to get hooked up to a single cause for so long.

Finally a sincere apology to Maya for losing her job, we didn’t mean to hurt you either, like you didn’t want somebody to get hurt with your program. With you Maya there are millions of your kind who deserve this or may be worse, but eventually they are not losing their jobs because they are playing it safe. See that’s common between cricket and life, one wrong selection of the shot and you will be directed to pavilion with no mercy.

By Farwa Zahra:

A few weeks ago, there was a whole FHM controversy surrounding Veena Malik posing nude (read topless) for an Indian magazine. Despite the fact that it was her “personal” matter, there were arguments about morality, nationality, honour and the list goes on. Then came Maya Khan and Malik was nowhere. Television channels and newspapers started off with another round of morality debate but this time on the grounds of Khan invading people’s “private” lives by raiding public parks for couple on dates.

Both the stories revolved around morality and privacy. However, the way these issues were addressed was very different. Since Malik’s privacy had nothing to do with us, we embraced the opportunity to get judgmental, obsessively jeering at her. Ironically, many of these “self-righteous” people later came up bashing Maya Khan for intruding on people’s private lives. As if, by commenting on Veena Malik they were not invading her privacy.

As the issue of dating was more relatable for the genral audience, the reaction was proportionately humongous through videos, blogs and comics, which led to Khan’s open apology. However, the protests continued and Samma TV stepped up making a “heroic” announcement of Khan and her team members’ termination. And this seemed like a happy ending for many who commented how she deserved it.

I’m not siding with Khan as what she did was unethical. She played a role in media bullying and I’m glad people noticed it. But in all this rage and fury, what we missed was Samaa TV’s hypocrisy. Khan had been doing the show for a long time now. This wasn’t the first objectionable action on her part. The channel had even aired her slapping a guy on live show in past. It is incredible how conveniently Samaa TV now shifted the blame on Khan as if the channel had no role to play. Justifying the action, the “responsible corporate citizen” said Khan had not provided an unconditional apology. I’m only wondering how then the channel obtained the video of her apology, still doing rounds on YouTube and Facebook. And how would the channel justify terminating the whole team?

Kicking off Maya Khan is not the solution. In fact, it only problematizes the issue of media bullying by making an individual sound solely responsible for something perpetrated by the channel itself.

First of all Professor Philip made an interesting statement that India’s successful evolution as a democracy is not a “normal” phenomenon but rather an exception whereas Pakistan has evolved the way most of the third world countries with similar characteristics are likely to evolve. Now this contradicts with most of the stuff I hear about the reasons as to why India and Pakistan have taken different trajectories. I have mostly heard that democracy has not evolved simply for the sole reason because military has not allowed it to evolve. Explanation for the difference in India and Pakistan has always been pinned down to only deep conspiracies of the “deep state” against political class.
Now this analysis at least partially disagrees with the overwhelmingly prevalent and rather simplistic explanation according to which democracy does not function solely because Pakistan’s army has always been conspiring against it whereas in India the armed forces have decided to respect the political template of the government.

According to Professor Philip, a country with low literacy rate, weak industrial base and with a colonial legacy is often expected to take the similar trajectory as of Pakistan. He then cited many examples of the countries where military coups have taken place and the institution enjoys great power and privileges.
However, he made an interesting remark that Pakistan in many ways had performed worse and while many other countries (like Bangladesh and Turkey) are gradually shaping towards the ascendency of political class and strengthening of democracy, in Pakistan the political developments are pointing towards the other direction.

So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Well the reasons are complicated and cannot be solely just attributed to the conspiracies of the military. Besides trying to understand as to why military intervenes, it should be worthwhile to also dwell as to how it is actually able to intervene. In Pakistan’s case the reasons are rooted in:
1) its general cultural and political traits such as low literacy, rural dominance and lack of developed stabilizing as well as independent institutions like Judiciary,
2) the history of Pakistan movement and its early years after coming into being
3) chaos when civilians are in power and their inability to take a decisive action when opportunity presented
4) Urban middleclass impatience and excessive emphasis on “order” which has provided armed interventions a semblance of support
5) Manipulations by the army and the intelligence apparatus

Firstly, one has to understand that military in weak third world country is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either nascent or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception. However, military interventions by no stretch of imagination are good developments, though in the context of tremulous political cultures, understandable .

Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people.

In Pakistan unfortunately the genesis of the military rule is actually in the way the Pakistan movement shaped up and the complex interplay of the dynamics of the movement with cultural and political characteristics of the region which eventually became Pakistan.

Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India.

It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.

Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.

This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British empire . The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic bonapartism.

Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.

So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.

When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah through charismatic did not live long and during his one year at the helm also did not do much in line with democratic norms. His one year rule was as a Governor General and was highly personalized.

In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.

While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus for the military intervention and when finally military intervened; there was actually a sigh of relief.

The military intervention of 1958 is extremely important as it initiated several things. First, military’s image among the urban middle class (at that time small in number but powerful due to its monopoly over education, and white collared job market) as a saviour was created. From that point onwards, the middleclass, particularly the urban middleclass has seen army in that light particularly when during short stings of democracy the situation gets chaotic. It actually expects army to intervene. Secondly, army’s self-image also enhanced to include itself as the ultimate custodian of the political stability as well. Third, it gave the loudest signal that army was a definite stakeholder and in fact more powerful than all others. So from that point onwards, political class had to factor in army more than any other stakeholder for its own survival.

Although Ayub was personally perhaps a secular but increasingly the army was tutored in Islam in order to provide it with an ideological fabric to bolster its combative zeal. Increasingly the army also started to see itself as the ultimate custodian of the ideological frontier also. It was in fact during the Ayub tenure that army also started to make overtures to the religious outfits for both external and a domestic objectives, a trend which over time has only increased .

The ascendency of army given the unique circumstances of Independence, earlier turmoil, the “expectations” of the urban middleclass, and the work done during Ayub era to solidify its status as political power, was difficult to check but nevertheless there were several opportunities which could have been availed.

Given army’s “respect” as a saviour, the best time to curtail army’s role as a political force is at the time when it has been dishonoured or humiliated. However, for that the political class besides removing the head of the armed forces also needs to exercise maturity in its own conduct. This is essential in order to dispel army’s potential role as the “saviour” of the last resort, a role which is largely perceived by the urban middleclass.

Unfortunately Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto due to his personal conduct and “I am above the law “ attitude squandered the chance. Bhutto ruled in a capricious manner, and used security forces to terrorize his rivals. Moreover, he alienated the urban middleclass too much due to his personal conduct and dictatorial traits. He rigged the elections and once again it was urban middleclass which was in complete resentment as ZAB had taken several steps to displease them and supplanted those with his style of rule. The “movement” against the election rigging was primarily an urban bourgeoisie movement and during those times there was a resurgence of army’s image also. The leaders of the movement were in fact giving overtures to the armed forces to intervene and “rescue” Pakistan. Army, at that time while apparently supporting Bhutto, was at the same time also in contact with the opposition and was cleverly plotting a coup. When army finally intervened on that fateful night, it was not only in accordance with its own institutional interests but also the interests of the urban middleclass.

This point is essential here because the urban middleclass actually has historically provided the armed interventions a semblance of popular support. Although urban middleclass is not monolithic and it would incorrect to assume that it can actually think like a unified orgasm but by and large this class is anti-democratic and apolitical in its orientation. This class is upwardly mobile, prefers stability over chaos and has been successfully tutored in a nationalist brand of civic nationalism. In Pakistan’s case the brand of civic nationalism has Islam as an important ingredient coupled with inherent negation towards plurality. Civic nationalism here tries to promote a strong centre and homogeneity or oneness. This brand of civic nationalism is strongest in the urban middle class as it is cultivated chiefly through education and then further reinforced by mass media. Further on this brand of nationalism also places strong emphasis on Pakistan’s place in the Islamic world and also in the global context.

Army, particularly the officer cadre is chiefly drawn from the middleclass and its ideological thrust is quite identical to that of the urban middleclass. So besides the deep suspicion about “corrupt” politicians and “chaotic” democracy, another major reason that urban middleclass likes army is its own ideological thrust resonates closely with that of army. Consequently despite major blunders army’s respect remains high. Even when it has suffered a blow it has buoyed again.

In some ways, it is the expectations of the urban middleclass and the pedestal on which it by and large holds the army that the latter finds additional incentives to keep a “check” on politicians.

And then there is the case of almost complete ownership of foreign policy by the army which was taken over during Zia’s time. Of course Zia was the head of the government also but the espionage activities of the army and ISI during the Afghan war made it the most important stakeholder. Once Benazir came into power she quickly had to resign to the fact that foreign policy was not an area where a civilian government could have much leeway.

Over the years, even under the façade of civilian governments, army has been running the show. Foreign policy particularly its terms of engagement with “foes” like India and “friends” like USA has become the sole domain of the army. It is from here that army draws its most strength and even its reason for existence and it won’t allow any sort of “interference” from the civilian government.

Over the years, army has ensured that Pakistan double deals with the United States, constantly adopts a hostile posture towards India and pursues the policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan. For these objectives, military and its intelligence apparatus has constantly courted militant organizations which at times have gone out of control like a Frankenstein monster only to at times turn against itself.

It is here that military simply does not listen to the concerns of the civilian governments and in fact won’t hesitate to pressurize it through back door means and even mount a coup. In 1999, it deeply embarrassed Nawaz Sharif government by initiating Kargil war while he was trying to make peace initiatives towards India. And it is agitated against Zardari led government for being too cosy with Washington (though these charges are hardly credible).

Unfortunately USA has also more or less accepted the dominance of military and has adopted the tactic of directly dealing with the military at times bypassing the civilian governments. And of course all the military dictatorships have been supported by the US which found it easier and convenient to deal with them and were ready to ignore “trivialities” like democracy.
In fact Hussain Haqqani’s masterpiece ( one of the most extraordinary books I have ever read) also makes the same point that USA in its desire of convenience found it easier to deal with military.

Turning a blind eye policy adopted by the USA has eventually resulted in military being the party they have to negotiate with even when it is not cooperating and indulging in double games. Civilian governments virtually are irrelevant.

It is hold over foreign policy and terms of engagement with critical countries like India, United States and Afghanistan which military guards even more than its finances. The entire intelligence apparatus is dedicated towards this end and if a civilian government tries to assert its authority in this domain, it pays the price.

Can we break this hold? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. My mind immediately goes back to what happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Instead of having a united front, Mr. Zardari was keen on creating a rift between army and Nawaz Sharif for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And subsequently Mr. Sharif actually went to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment was targeting him also and if democracy were to be derailed, he too will be a loser. However, in Mr. Nawaz sharif’s head nothing mattered more than Zardari’s scalp.

We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. Urban middleclass does not love army just for the sake of loving it. It likes army (rightly or wrongly is a separate issue) because it restores order and since it is politically insulated therefore gives an impression of merit. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts.

What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.

Remember that it is no longer feasible for the army to directly rule the country and therefore the chances of an old fashioned coup are very rare. The chances of a complete roll back of the system are slim and therefore the political parties can take decisive steps provided they are united and get their act together.