Iqbal's Solution

Create a place for thyself in the world of love

Create a new age, new days, and new nights

If God grant thee an eye for nature's beauty

Converse with the silence of flowers, respond to their love

Do not be beholden to the West's artisans

Seek thy sustenance in what thy land affords

My words are the essence of my life-blood

Create thy elixir of life out of this essence

My way of life is poverty, not the pursuit of wealth

Barter not thy Selfhood; win a name in adversity

End Game Pakistan

Are the Taliban really as clear and present danger to the country as the media claims? Are the deep concerns voiced by Washington and London justified and legitimate? Is this really an international conspiracy aimed at deliberately destabilising the region and robbing Pakistan of it's nuclear weapons? Is the Independence movement in Baluchistan connected to this chaos in the North? What is Afghanistan's role in this mess? Are the Indians as deeply involved as some Pakistani officials claim? How will all this end? So many questions and so few answers, so much confusion and so little understanding...

In a situation where there is no shortage of opinions, there seems to be consensus on the view that, irrespective of the cause and regardless of the solution, this is indeed a fight for Pakistan's survival.

The Taliban are not one group united under one flag fighting one enemy. These are several outfits with separate motives being funded by different sources. This propaganda of the Taliban being miles from Islamabad is nothing but fear mongering designed to justify further instability. It is true that some of these militants are blinded by hatred, guided by a tribal form of of Islam, and determined to impose this on others by force. However the fact remains that this is a small minority and gunship helicopters and fighter jets will only help rather than hinder their progress. A civilized, well-intentioned campaign of development, education and justice combined with subtle intelligence and covert operations will convince the local directly-impacted population to join the government and put an end to this fanaticism. As noted Pakistani commentator Haroon-ur-Rashid says, "nations and not armies fight wars".

The talks between the government and militant groups in Swat that resulted in the Nizam-e-Adl regulation were indeed a positive step despite being conducted under the shadow of a Kalashnikov. Any option is better than forcing an army to fight on it's own soil against it's own citizens. But our friends in Washington did not quite see it that way. Lo and behold, the agreement is up in the air again as the Pakistani army backed by the air force has moved back into Swat's surrounding areas of Dir and Buner. It pains one to suspect that the current brief but welcome lull in suicide bombings is about to end.

The Americans are hell-bent on pursuing the case that with the fearsome Taliban less than a hundred kilometers from Islamabad, the country's nuclear arsenal is up for grabs. How can we blame them when we ourselves give fuel to this fire? During his last days in power, in a bid to shore up fast dwindling support, Musharraf portrayed himself as the lone guarantor of Pakistan's nuclear safety. His successor, Asif Ali Zardari on a recent fund-raising trip to Japan proclaimed that his country was fighting not just for it's survival but for the world's. The message in both cases could not be clearer - keep giving us money and we will keep fighting. Alas, beggars cannot be choosers.

It is high time we realize who our true enemy is. It is not the Taliban, India, Israel, Afghanistan or even the Americans. It is our slave mentality. We must bury this before the ship has sailed - which, by the way, is being fuelled as we speak. We must get together, call another All-Parties Conference if that's what it takes, and come up with a road map that will get us out of this mess and on some path to stability, with only Pakistan's interests in mind. If it means bidding farewell to the Americans and their bail-out money then so be it. More than half the country has trouble putting food on the table, and that food doesn't arrive because of that money. Our feudal lords and generals may have to do without six-car entourages and personal golf courses for a while but that's desirable anyway.

That phone call from Washington in September 2001 that turned our former commando-cum-president into a pile of dust must be disconnected - once and for all.

High Treason

Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan reads as follows:

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Former President Gen. (r) Pervez Musharraf holds the distinction of being the only military dictator in the nation's history who imposed martial-law twice. First on 14 October 1999 when he deposed the government of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and then on 3 November 2007 when he declared emergency-rule and introduced his Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). The first act was later indemnified by parliament, albeit controversially, however the second offence has not received any cover, legal or otherwise. In fact Musharraf, in an interview to the BBC, has admitted his violation of the constitution (reference).

Many rulers in Pakistan's unfortunate history, both civilian and uniformed, have had their sins washed away despite raping the law. Sometimes at the behest of foreign masters and sometimes in the name of reconciliation. It is high time that this despicable practice ends.

If ten criminals rob a home and only three are caught, they must still be punished even if the other seven remain free forever. It is time that this Parliament invokes Article 6 of the Constitution and brings Musharraf and his suited, LLB-holding henchmen (Sharifuddin Pirzada et. al.) to account and sets a precedent that will deter any future violator.

AIG Bonuses

I don’t get it. The recent outcry in the media regarding the AIG bonuses has puzzled me. I am not confused about ‘what’ people are worried about, because that part is understandable - that taxpayers money should not be spent paying ridiculously large bonuses. But I am more-so baffled by the ‘why’ because the dialogue in the media has been framed around ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’, and it has been conveyed in such a manner that there is an underlying assumption that hitherto corporations have been ‘nice.’ Has the not-so-distant history, and even contemporary issues, of sweatshops, child labour, and environmental degradation been forgotten? And really, why is that all of a sudden corporations are expected to act according to some sort of moral and ethical standards? What makes this act of immorality different from the previous?

One difference that I think is apparent is that this issue is ‘closer to home' to the American people than the rest because there is the perception that it’s the ‘taxpayers’ money that is being given away in bonuses. So essentially, Joe the plumber is financing the lavish lifestyle of the already wealthy, and this is not sitting well with Joe and the rest of America - hence the recent public outcry. Now, if this is the reason that all major media outlets, the American people, and Obama himself have been criticizing AIG, than I don’t see the difference between Joe the plumber and the CEO of AIG. Both are being selfish and both are concerned with their money. Besides the couple of zeros on the cheque, essentially, what is the difference? If the American people are going to make their case on morals and ethics, than the argument is redundant because look at it this way: the issue of corporate immorality is not new. In fact, corporations were strategically built to dodge the moral and ethical standards that a person was judged against, and they have been this way since inception. So the large-scale opposition that AIG has faced, so much so that Congress passed a bill to specifically target them, is hypocritical because such a response has never been organized, at least in America, and to my knowledge, against sweatshops, child labour, or environmental degradation. Even if it has been done, I can say with a large degree of certainty that none have been advocated as rigidly as this one, meaning publicly denounced by the President, or have had an impact worthy of comparison. And so in my opinion, it’s hypocritical to go against AIG for being selfish because the American people are being selfish in doing so. Because for the most part, previous corporate immorality has been largely ignored by the average individual, let alone the media outlets. And the reason the media is even headlining this story is precisely because there is a large opposition. Now, the other argument that could be made is that this is nothing suprising, and that it’s human nature to respond more actively to issues that are more relevant. But that is precisely my point - the only reason a large number of Americans are pissed off is because they feel it’s their money. Secondly, and the main point here, is that it's problematic to make a claim, on moral and ethical grounds, against AIG employees for being selfish when the significance and widespread attention that this issue has gained itself is attributed to selfishness. I would agree that the context is different, but the principle is the same.

The moral of the story, then, is that this whole situation is a prime indication of the selfishness that is inherent in human nature. So we can criticize the big corporations for being selfish all we want from our perspective, and we can keep satisfying ourselves by thinking that we are different from ‘them’ because ‘we’ are guided by a set of moral and ethical rules and 'they' are not, but take a moment......and seriosuly consider if you would act differently if you were in their position.

The Judge's Crimes

(This is based on a recently published Urdu column by Ansar Abbasi, Investigative Editor for The News, titled Justice Iftikhar's Crimes.)

Why is it that Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator, kicked Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry out of the Supreme Court? Why is it that, despite countless statements, promises and agreements, the civilian government following Musharraf resisted every effort to reinstate him and his fellow judges? Some of his following 'crimes' may shed some light on the establishment's fear of Justice Iftikhar:

1. On 8 August 2006, the Supreme Court halted the shameful sale, in the name of privatization, of the state-owned Pakistan Steel Mills. According to some estimates, this asset worth at least 250 billion rupees was being sold for less than 21 billion rupees, but the court decision prevented some individuals from pocketing billions overnight.

2. Taking suo moto action, Chief Justice Iftikhar took notice of the Missing Persons case and became a thorn in the side of not only Musharraf and the intelligence agencies, but the Americans as well. The judge ruled that no individual could be handed over to a foreign government or kept in detention without first presenting the individual in front of a court.

3. On 8 October 2007, Chief Justice Iftikhar ordered Islamabad's Capital Development Authority to immediately halt the allotment of any farm houses in the Chak Shahzad area that violated existing by-laws. Intended for farming and agriculture, many influential members of society, including Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz, General Ehsan ul Haq and Muhammad Mian Soomro, had obtained land in this area for personal use.

4. Chief Justice Iftikhar halted implementation of the controversial and divisive National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) that was negotiated between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. This is one of the main reasons why Asif Ali Zardari too fears Justice Iftikhar.

5. Taking suo moto action, Chief Juststice Iftikhar suspended the practice of allotting each Federal Secretary two plots in Islamabad. The question he put before the court was whether distributing free land among civil servants was constitutional.

6. On 21 October 2006, the Supreme Court overruled a government order that created special land quotas for members of national and provincial assemblies, ministers, senators and judges in the new development of the port city of Gwadar.

7. Chief Justice Iftikhar took suo moto notice of the famous Munno Bhel case and ordered the police to arrest the influential kidnappers and recover Bhel's family members.

8. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of environmental activists and halted the 60 billion rupee New Murree Project. This project was initiated by the government at the behest of a powerful land mafia and would have resulted in the deforestation of some of the most expensive areas of Murree.

9. Further earning the displeasure of Musharraf, Chief Justice Iftikhar restricted the kite-flying festival of basant in Lahore that had previously resulted in countless deaths and injuries. On 25 October 2005, basant was completely banned.

10. Taking suo moto action, the Chief Justice halted plans by a personal friend of Musharraf to demolish a slum dwelling in Islamabad's sector F-7 and replace it with a commercial plaza.

11. On 27 June 2006, the Supreme Court declared the practice of wani, where young girls are forced to marry a member of an opposing tribe to settle a family dispute, un-Islamic. In it's decision the court further regretted the fact that many sitting members of parliament were involved in this awful practice.

12. On 14 September 2006, the Supreme Court rejected a petition by the Karachi administration to use plots along six of the city's major roadways for commercial purposes.

13. On 5 July 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the Punjab government to demolish illegally constructed high-rise commercial buildings.

14. Taking suo moto notice of a collapsed building in Murree that resulted in five deaths, Chief Justice Iftikhar ordered the Punjab government to demolish all buildings in Murree that had been constructed in violation of by-laws.

15. Taking suo moto action, the Supreme Court declared null and void a government permit for an international fast-food chain to operate in Islamabad's Fatima Jinnah Park.

16. The Supreme Court also overturned a decision by the then government to allow an influential person to convert a city park in Islamabad into a mini-golf course.

17. Dongi Ground in Lahore's Gulberg is the only recreational outlet for the area's children and ordinary residents. The government's plan to replace it with a multi-storey commercial building and cinema house was overruled by the Chief Justice.

18. On 3 November 2007, the Supreme Court declared General Pervez Musharraf's Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) unconstitutional.

19. At Benazir Bhutto's request, on 27 July 2007, the Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission to allow registration of all eligible voters.

20. On 26 July 2007, the Supreme Court instructed the government to immediately implement laws to counter the illegal practice of human organ harvesting by some individuals and doctors.

21. In several cases, at the request of ordinary citizens, Chief Justice Iftikhar took suo moto action and called before the court officials from the police and administration, ordering them to take action.

22. The Chief Justice took notice of several cases involving rights violations against journalists. In one such instance, The News' experienced journalist and crime reporter, Shakeel Anjum, was targeted by police and implicated in a triple homicide case. Chief Justice Iftikhar ordered an immediate enquiry that revealed a conspiracy to frame Mr Anjum as revenge for his reports exposing police brutality and incompetence.

During the baton-charge, shelling and beating of lawyers and journalists by police on 29 September 2007 in Islamabad, the government acted only as a spectator. But on 1 October 2007, the Chief Justice took suo moto notice and suspended the Inspector General (IG) of Islamabad police.

Bail-out Plans

BBC today reported that the legislation designed to bail out the ‘Big Three’ automakers in the US did not get approval from the Senate, but sooner or later, it will be passed. At first, however, I was against this new trend of bailing out big corporations – from banks to automakers – simply because the burden shouldn’t be on the taxpayers to save these companies. After all, they had little, if anything, to do with these companies getting to where they are now. But the problem is more complex. Allowing these companies to go bankrupt will have a profound impact on hundreds of thousands of employees who will be out of a job, and many others who will be indirectly affected in such a scenario. So essentially, the government has no choice but to bail them out through taxpayers’ money. THAT, to me at least, is the bigger problem. The fact that these companies essentially have a safety net, whether it’s acknowledged or not, is the fundamental issue that should be addressed.

Coincidentally, I think this can be done through the same bail out plan. The fundamental principle underlying this problem is the idea of ‘debt’. Allow me to explain the logic…if you take out a loan from the bank, you are indebted to the bank. This means that they have some sort of power over you, and can, in one way or another, influence your decisions. Because the fact of the matter is, if you do not abide by the conditions of the loan, they can basically screw up your life. So ‘debt’ is a powerful tool. Next...using the same logic, one can argue that the government is indebted to these huge companies since they employ millions of people and pay their wages; precisely why the US government is inclined to bail them out. But now, if a bail out package for the automakers is approved, the roles can be reversed, and through ‘conditions of loan’, governments can have more say in the decisions of these companies. This can be a viable approach to eliminate the safety net that allows these companies to exploit their power.

President Zardari's Note

Two days after taking oath as President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari paid a visit to Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah's mausoleum, prayed, and recorded his thoughts in the visitor's book. This is referenced in Ardeshir Cowasjee's latest column as well.

This is a photograph of the said note:

May God give Pakistan the strength to save itself from such rulers.