Dividing up Punjab

Written by: Ayesha Siddiqa ·

Suddenly there seems to be greater conversation about creating a Seraiki or, alternatively, a Bahawalpur province. These are two independent movements with independent dimensions. But why is there sudden talk of new province/s in Punjab? What makes it even more interesting is that there is no real popular movement that could make it look like a public demand.

Recently, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani talked of his party including the demand for a Seraiki province in the PPP manifesto. His critics would immediately see this as his bid to stay politically relevant. But he is not the only one endorsing the new province project. The demand for a Seraiki province was endorsed by Pervaiz Elahi as well, who is a hardcore central Punjabi and should, technically speaking, have not supported such a move. However, who says leaders have to be wise all the time? For Pervaiz Elahi or Yousaf Raza Gilani, the main objective is to push the Sharif brothers. Once threatened with a division of the larger province that they rule, they might agree to shake hands with the establishment. An indicator of whether there is appeasement between the establishment and the Sharif brothers will be if Nawaz Sharif, who is not liked by the establishment, will take a back-seat in his own party.

Ideologically, there are many forces, including the MQM, that would like to see Punjab divided, as that would reduce the power of the larger province and the Sharif brothers as well. Such a division will also set the principle of more divisions elsewhere which, in turn, supports the MQM’s plan to carve out something for itself in urban Sindh. The establishment itself may not be totally averse to the idea, as it will deflect attention from the issue of Punjabi dominance of the state and the security establishment.

Needless to say, the Bahawalpur and Seraiki province indicate two different approaches. In many ways, the establishment in Pakistan is far more comfortable with the idea of a Bahawalpur province than a Seraiki one, mainly because the former is ethnic-neutral. Notwithstanding the legal claim regarding Bahawalpur’s status as a province, the fact is that in the past 60 years and more, the former state of Bahawalpur has become a melting pot for all ethnic groups. The main powerhouse is no longer the Nawab family but Punjabis like Tariq Basheer Cheema — a turncoat who defected from the PPP to the PML-Q. The very people who vociferously opposed the movement for the restoration of Bahawalpur province (1969-71) and were party to the killing of hundreds of innocent people, are now supporting the idea. The very fact that the movement is spearheaded by a person like Mehmood Durrani, who has the reputation of being close to the establishment, indicates the way the winds are blowing.

The Seraiki province, on the other hand, is an ethnicly-potent concept which the establishment does not like. It recognises the concept of Pakistan woven around its multiple identities. Sadly though, the country’s establishment is extremely nervous of a national narrative based on multiple identities.

In any case, both movements deserve attention because they protest the highly skewed distribution of resources, especially in the largest province. For instance, a glance at the development budget for the financial year shows that the highest share goes to Lahore. The district’s development budget is about Rs75 billion. This is in stark comparison to DG Khan’s Rs20.6 billion, Bahawalpur’s Rs17.7 billion, Bahawalnagar’s Rs8.7 billion, and Bhakkar’s Rs4.8 billion. Interestingly, it’s not just a matter of south Punjab. Even north Punjab seems to be suffering vis-à-vis central Punjab. For instance, Attock’s development budget is Rs5.7 billion and Chakwal’s Rs6.5 billion. In fact, Multan, DG Khan, Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Kasur are comparatively better.

Surely the development budget is skewed in favour of the big cities of central Punjab, especially Lahore. But a glance at official figures shows that some cities of south Punjab have done equally well. For instance, the prime minister has put in an effort in recent years to develop Multan due to which the city’s development budget seems to have gone up. Such examples may not absolve the Sharifs of their skewed distribution policy, but it also says something about the lack of capacity of local leaders who were unable to vie for resources. Hence, it is necessary for intellectuals from these areas to look at the errors of their own leadership before they propose the creation of a new entity.

Read More

Time to save the Higher Education Commission

Written by: Dr. Attaur Rahman,

There is an impending disaster looming in front of us (something also mentioned in a recent editorial in this newspaper on the matter of devolving the functions of the Higher Education Commission [HEC] to the provinces). What has been decided by the cabinet (on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee on devolution headed by Raza Rabbani) is to tear higher education to shreds and hand over the pieces to the provinces.
What has not been realised by our policymakers is that the process of socio-economic development takes place through central strategic planning, which is intimately connected to a country’s higher education and science and technology programmes. The minimum quality requirements and the numbers of engineers, scientists, doctors, economists and social scientists needed for nation-building have to be determined through careful central planning regarding human resource requirements in various sectors. A multiplicity of standards and regulations would be disastrous. That is why the world over, including in India, higher education planning and funding is done centrally, even though universities are located in the provinces.
All the vice-chancellors of public sector universities, on November 27, 2010, therefore, unanimously resolved that the status quo of the HEC should be maintained since it has performed exceptionally well and is completely protected under the 18th Amendment. Pakistan’s highest level science body, the Pakistan Academy of Sciences (whose members have included such luminaries as the late professors Abdus Salam and Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, and whose present members include Dr A Q Khan, Dr Ishfaq Ahmed and Dr Samar Mubarak Mand, and of which I am now the president) held a press conference in Islamabad recently, protesting in the strongest possible terms, the fragmentation of HEC. A strongly worded article protesting the dismantling of the HEC, by Dr AQ Khan, was published in The News of March 29, 2009. All this fell on deaf ears. The motivation behind the shredding is “to teach the HEC a lesson”. This, he wrote, was for upholding the principles of merit, not bowing to political pressures and, particularly, for refusing to verify forged degrees of a large number of parliamentarians as being legal.
Pakistan made remarkable progress during 2001-2008 in higher education. There was a 600 per cent increase in scientific publications in international journals and a 1,000 per cent increase in citations in this period. Today, several of our universities are ranked among the top 500. The University of Karachi was ranked at 223 in the world, NUST at 260 in the world and Quaid-i-Azam University at 270 in the world, in the field of natural sciences. This is no ordinary achievement after decades of stagnation. The World Bank, USAID and the British Council published comprehensive reports on the higher education sector, applauding it and calling it “a silent revolution”.
Pakistan won several prestigious international awards for the revolutionary changes in the higher education sector brought about by the Higher Education Commission. These include the TWAS (Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, Italy) Award for Institutional Development in October 2009 and the Austrian high civil award “Grosse Goldene Ehrenzeischen am Bande” (2007), conferred on me as chairman of the Higher Education Commission.
An eminent educational expert, Professor Wolfgang Voelter of Tubingen University, paid glowing tributes to the Higher Education Commission in an article in a Pakistani newspaper on November 28, 2008 under the heading “The Golden Period”. I quote: “A miracle happened. The scenario of education, science and technology in Pakistan changed dramatically as never before in the history of Pakistan. The chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Education recently announced it as ‘Pakistan’s golden period in higher education’.” Professor Michael Rode, former chairman of the United Nations Commission on Science, Technology and Development wrote, and I quote: “The progress made was breathtaking and has put Pakistan ahead of comparable countries in numerous aspects.” The world’s leading and oldest scientific society, Royal Society (London) recently published a booklet entitled “A New Golden Age”, considering Pakistan to be the best practice model to be followed by other developing countries.
India became deeply concerned at these developments. In an article entitled “Pak Threat to Indian Science” published in the leading daily newspaper Hindustan Times, India, on July 23, 2006, Neha Mehta reported that Professor C N R Rao, (Chairman of the Indian prime minister’s scientific advisory council) made a presentation to his boss and expressed serious concerns at the remarkable progress made by Pakistan in the higher education and science sectors. The article wrote that “Pakistan may soon join China in giving India serious competition in science”. The Indian leadership need not be concerned since we are ourselves hell-bent on destroying our nation by undermining the development and progress of higher education, science and technology and then being doomed to perpetual slavery.
The HEC was created as an autonomous federal regulatory institution with the prime minister of Pakistan as its controlling authority. The composition of the commission reflects a balanced federal structure with representation from each province, as well as the secretary education and secretary science and technology, together with eminent academic and research experts. All powers and functions of the HEC defined under its legislation are covered and protected in the provisions of the 18th Amendment. But, alas, who cares about what is legal and what is not.
Lower level education has been a complete mess, because of half-witted plans and lack of a national commitment towards education. Some of our leaders have now come up with this strategy to destroy the higher education sector as well. My plea to the government is: Please stop this suicidal madness. Something good happened in Pakistan after some 55 years of neglect. Let us not destroy this wonderful initiative.
I hope that the president, prime minister and the army chief will intervene to stop this madness before it is too late. If ever there was a case for the chief justice of the Supreme Court to take suo motu action on, this is it.

Read More

Malodorous reporting, Sir!

Written by:  Fasi Zaka ·

My High Priest Hermit of the Presidency, it is your trusted sage Rehman Malodorous reporting. Dark Lord, as per your instructions I have been learning yoga to dislodge my foot from my mouth. It shall be free from my oral cavities soon, so I can walk with dignity again.

And now Sir, highlights of the main issues you wanted clarity on, whether the match was fixed and if the balti chicken on Burns Road is hygienic. Allow me to prioritise, yes, the chicken is good to eat. And the cook, from what our intelligence gathering has told us, is not a blasphemer. So he is alive. For now.

I will be the first to admit Sir, that I know very little about cricket. But you shall be pleased to know that has not stopped me from giving you my expert opinion. It has, however, stopped me from reciting the Holy Quran. I stopped not because of the press criticism, because I have never cared for what they say, but because when your foot is always in your mouth it is hard to maintain the wuzu.

Yes, about the cricket. It was fixed. It seems they are not afraid of my warnings. Inshallah, once I develop a spine after careful surgical grafting this will not be the case next time. No Sir, I am not being rhondi about Dhoni.

You will be happy to know that I have furthered our diplomacy in India. If you remember, your attempt at flirting with Sarah Palin was as successful as the Kargil Operation. I firmly told the Prime Minister that he should keep his banter family friendly, and to ask about the health of her (Sonia Gandhi’s) children instead of complimenting her beauty. But you know these Indians, she did not take it well.

Sir, I have received your new shopping list from Harrods. Please sanction Zulfiqar Mirza to shoot his mouth off again so I can make the trip to the United Kingdom. They have very good sales these days. Altaf Bhai will lend us his discount card for the mall on High Street.

Also, I need to report that terrorists are targeting shrines once again. No Sir, shrines are not a form of bitter wine. They are places of worship. And no Sir, Poonam Pandey has not taken any action yet. I am monitoring the situation on a war footing and will let you know of any development if and when it happens.

Sir, this is just in, apparently she has changed her offer now by saying she will only go nude in private in front of the Indian team. This is similar to our changed stance on to the restoration of the judiciary.

Sir, to avoid misunderstandings with the public I am now directly talking to them through Twitter. Please Sir, do not say I need a babysitter for Twitter. Terrorism is under control which is why I am now looking at other important matters. I opened the free pollen allergy camp in Aabpara, last week. Inshallah, your nosy-posy will be all better soon.

Sir, I have also told Interpol to cancel Terry Jones’ priesthood. They have said they don’t have the mandate. I have written to the Pope to cancel the priesthood of Terry Jones. He says that he doesn’t have the mandate because Terry Jones is not a Roman Catholic but a Protestant. The Catholic Church says Terry Jones is actually a pastor, as if I would believe he is a macaroni.

The situation internationally is not good. There is civil war in Libya, problems in Syria and my own blunderbussphilia. In addition, Bipasha is not happy with the performance of Deepika in Duma Maro Dum.

Read More

Banned books

Written by: Hajra Mumtaz ·

Not only have they had to add electronic media such as Facebook and Twitter, with their worrying potential to stir up trouble and perhaps even bring about revolutions, now there’s WikiLeaks as well. And meanwhile, it’s not like they can cross the good old-fashioned book off the list either.

The latest book giving some people a headache is Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India, written by Pulitzer prize-winner Joseph Lelyveld. On Wednesday Gujarat’s state assembly voted unanimously on a ban — even though the members had not read the book, which has not yet been released in India. (Gujarat also temporarily banned Jaswant Singh’s Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence.)

Their decision seems to be based on reports about early reviews of the book in the US and the UK, some of which suggest that Lelyveld writes of Gandhi being in a homosexual relationship.

Tridip Suhrud, a noted Gandhian scholar who interacted with Lelyveld while he was researching the book — and, crucially, has read it — stands with the author’s claim that he does not refer to Gandhi as bisexual. In interviews to the Indian press, he has called it the first political biography of Gandhi by an expert on apartheid.

In terms of the furore over passages relating to the nature of Gandhi’s relationship with a German man named Hermann Kallenbach, Suhrud points out an important aspect of the matter — how crucial context is. He has been quoted by the press as explaining how in earlier decades men often addressed each other in a manner that would now be construed differently.

Giving the example of the letters exchanged by Rabindranath Tagore and C.F. Andrews, he said, “Andrews wrote to Tagore in a manner that might raise eyebrows today. But the context was different then as also the usage of words.”

Context is everything and what is considered unacceptable at one time or place may become acceptable later, or elsewhere. Books have through the ages suffered from being too ‘advanced’ for a particular time and place. Consider D.H. Lawrence’s 1928 book Lady Chatterley’s Lover, which was banned in the US and UK for violating obscenity laws.

A great number of books, many of them recognised later or elsewhere as being fine pieces of work, have been banned for political reasons. Dr Zhivago, for example, was banned by Russia until 1988 for its criticism of the Bolshevik party. George Orwell’s political satire Animal Farm, which is today part of the English literature curriculum in many countries, was found by the Allied forces of the Second World War to be critical of the USSR. The book was considered too controversial to print during wartime, including by publishers, and copies of it were withdrawn from bookstores and libraries.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn’s 1982 book, The Gulag Archipelago, was banned in the Soviet Union because it ran contrary to the image the government was trying to project of itself.

The logic behind banning these books is simple to understand, whether one agrees with it or not. Yet lists of books that various countries have banned, and the reasons, make for interesting and sometimes surprising reading.

The Da Vinci Code was, for instance, banned in Lebanon because Catholic leaders found it offensive to their religion. Lebanon also banned The Diary of Anne Frank for portraying Jews, Israel and Zionism favourably. In 1966, Yugoslavia banned by court order the Dictionary of Modern Serbo-Croatian Language because, apparently, “some definitions can cause disturbance among citizens”.

The Chinese province of Hunan banned, in 1931, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for what seems, on the face of it, to be a bizarre reason: that it portrayed anthropomorphised animals as acting to the same degree of complexity as human beings.

Sometimes, despite bans, the books are available regardless. But occasionally, bans are so severely enforced that even the author’s existence is in danger of being wiped out.

That was nearly the case with Chinese writer Shen Congwen (1902-1988). A writer and research scholar of historical cultural relics, his work was denounced by both the communists and the nationalists. The books were banned in Taiwan and on mainland China publishing houses burned his books and even destroyed their printing plates. In effect, his name was to a large extent simply erased from the modern Chinese literary record. It was only in 1978 that the Chinese government reissued selections of his writing, and then only in limited editions.

Pakistan too is no stranger to banned books, though one often feels that some of the literature that really ought to be banned — the pamphlets inciting sectarian and communal hatred, militancy and anarchy — remain freely available. The most notable example is, of course, The Satanic Verses that led to deadly protests and riots. The incendiary book was also banned in Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Malaysia and a number of other countries.

Some documents on the web say that Stanley Wolpert’s 1982 book, Jinnah of Pakistan, was also banned (while India banned the same author’s 1962 book Nine Hours to Rama, apparently because it exposes security lapses that led to Gandhi’s assassination.).

Books are dangerous because they can contain ideas that can change the world. But are bans necessary or effective? Governments around the world clearly think so. Yet it might be worth pondering how far the state ought to dictate its citizenry’s thoughts.

Read More

We must exorcise our devils

Written by: Kamran Shafi ·

I WRITE this one day before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, elected prime minister of this luckless country, was murdered 32 years ago by an army usurper and his handmaiden judiciary, and two days before he, the beloved leader of millions of Pakistanis, was buried in the presence of seven or eight people, the rude charpoy on which his body lay for the funeral prayers so short that his feet were protruding a foot off it.

His wife and daughter were not allowed within hundreds of miles of the funeral, jailed as they were in the headquarters of the establishment, Rawalpindi; not a sparrow flew that day in Larkana. The military establishment under Zia had had its revenge: killing the very man who put salve on the deep wounds inflicted on the hapless nation, and upon the army rank and file, by unthinking and cruel and stupid generals led by a drunken sot.

And then some say his murder should not be revisited, yes that is the word I want, by our newly emboldened and muscular (the Almighty be praised) superior judiciary; trotting out mealy-mouthed reasons and technicalities and more mealy-mouthed reasons and technicalities. There are very many reasons to look at the disgraceful way in which ZAB was tried and then done to death.

The first, of course, is the shameful way in which his so-called ‘trial’ was held, first by denying him a court of first appeal by trying him in the Lahore High Court instead of in a sessions court. Secondly, by bringing him before a judge who was an avowed enemy: Maulvi Mushtaq, whose appalling behaviour towards ZAB during the trial is a horror story in itself. And thirdly, by the army usurper putting pressure on pliant (all of them from Punjab, please note) judges through the servile chief justice, Anwarul Haq as admitted by Nasim Hasan Shah, one of the hanging judges, and later the chief justice(!) of Pakistan. I ask you.

Indeed, by the dictator and his collaborators in the judiciary using every trick to get rid of those judges who were considered ‘unreliable’ (all non-Punjabis, please note again), and changing the make-up of the bench to facilitate their plan to hang Bhutto come what may, forced retirement of judges included.

Nor is this all. Noted lawyer Raza Kazim disclosed just the other day that Anwarul Haq, who headed the hanging bench, tricked Bhutto into stating that (unlike the Lahore High Court) he had faith in the Supreme Court which was hearing his appeal. The quid pro quo was that the death sentence imposed by the Lahore High Court would be commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court. This trick was played on Bhutto through Mr Hamid Mehmood a great gentleman, who had grown up with Anwarul Haq, and who also knew and liked ZAB.

When Mr Mehmood visited Bhutto in Rawalpindi jail and made the proposition to him, ZAB asked him if he was sure this was not a trap being set by Anwarul Haq. Mehmood replied that he had known the chief justice since childhood and that he would not go back on his word. We all know what happened subsequently. Hamid Mehmood was a broken man after that and could never forgive himself for trusting Anwarul Haq. He died of a broken heart not long after. No, gentlemen, no, ZAB’s case must be revisited and if it opens other Pandora’s boxes so be it. We simply must exorcise our devils.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is an unfathomable personality if he is anything: requesting the American ambassador (thank you, WikiLeaks) to push his candidacy for the premiership of this luckless country one day; the very next saying the Americans are the worst thing that ever happened to Pakistan, and the Taliban the very best; the very next offering to mediate between the Americans and the Taliban, but not in Pakistan (thank you again, WikiLeaks).

Let’s say it straight: why will their apologists not understand that the Taliban and their friends and associates whether they be called Al Qaeda or Hizbut Tahrir or Al-Muhajiroun or Afghan Taliban or Pakistani Taliban, and all other such, are all linked to one another, and are in the business of taking over the state of Pakistan, a first step to global jihad? And that they will kill and maim all who come in their way: innocent men and women and children; our army soldiers; our police, even their own apologists such as Maulana Fazlur Rehman simply because he too is a part of the organised state.

Why will the maulana, deft son of the greatly deft, and shall we say most innovative, politician Mufti Mahmood, not understand that he was targeted twice in as many days last week precisely because he is a part of the democratic system, by the very same terrorists he supports? Plainly said, anarchy is the aim of these murderers.

Nor is it only people like the maulana who refuse to smell the coffee, so does my friend Imran Khan. Nor do my friends in the afwaj-i-Pakistan, hung up as they are on being India-centric whatever the devil that means. Really, one despairs at the shallowness of the thinking that goes into their ‘strategic’ policies. Consider: the so-called and short-lived Kurram peace deal seemingly done, and now allowed to be undone to further the self-same agenda, taking with it many innocent lives so cruelly cut short by the terrorist murderers.

The denouement is at hand, however, and no matter what lies are told to the common people and more harebrained schemes thought out, this country is in for a very high jump indeed. Remember that the US presidential elections are to be held in 2012 with campaigning starting this autumn. Remember too that the Republicans, more hard-line than the democrats, will up the ante re: Afghanistan many notches. Think about it, gentlemen, and for God’s sake come to your senses.

Read More

The daily tutorial on arrogance management

Written by: Ayesha Tammay Haq 

Two years ago Pakistan threw up a unique movement, it was liberal, secular, democratic and plural, it engaged the nation and unlike other battles being fought in Pakistan this one’s weapons were concepts. The lawyer’s movement, as it came to be known, has been criticised on many fronts, for being used, no hijacked, by political parties for their own gain, first by the PPP to negotiate political space with a military director and then by the PML-N who lacked an election slogan. Once the PPP moved on and the movement’s goals clashed with the party’s leaderships personal goals, the accusation was that it had been taken over by rightist forces. If truth be told the politicians have much to thank the lawyers for, but it is not in their nature to do so. The movement set the tone for our political forces to do the right thing and our parliamentarians to exert themselves and do something that will bring real change. There was no need for them to hide behind fear now, the undoable had been done!

Through all this we saw the growth, development and contribution of the media and what became known as civil society. The media was the darling of those opposing the government of the day. I have heard those who today veil threats of censorship in calls for self-regulation wax lyrical about how the media’s contribution to democracy was invaluable. As the media began to play a more assertive and investigative role, the once much derided civil society moved out of their comfort zones to be recognised as a force where “people power defeated state power”.

So here we are two years later, the movement saw the second reinstatement of the chief justice, and while everyone claimed his restoration as his own nobody stopped to think for a minute as to who the real victor was. Sadly our politicians do not take time out from their personal agendas to pause and think which in turn may lead them to the realisation that it was Right that won. Principle won over compromise, expediency, wrong, un-constitutionalism, brute force and more. There was a need to do the right thing and once it was done the nation let out a collective sigh. The stock market soared; suggesting political stability and consequently confidence in the market. Even the cynics were smiling. If ever hope had been rekindled it was now. And it was something to build on. But before you could say chief justice the squabbling had started again.

The PPP spent a year in office before it bowed to public pressure and did what it said was not possible, and then unleashed a wave of unconvincing propaganda as to its intent. Showing no embarrassment, they did not stand on any point of principle. This old-style politics will not wash today. Politicians may have selective memory but we certainly do not and if there is a case of amnesia we can always relay on media archives. The judges were not the Musharraf government’s only legacy; there is an empty treasury, an untenable security situation, internal political strife and a very unpopular war that must be dealt with.

A year in government and nothing to show for it other than bickering, fighting and jostling for power. In all this education, health, security, the rule of law, poverty, unemployment and more have been ignored. Suicide bombings increased, and so did drone attacks. And it became glaringly apparent that we lacked any kind of credible and effective leadership. Everyone was running around doing their own thing, policy was missing in action and no one took ownership of what passed for policy. The buck having been continually passed around really needed to stop somewhere.

Where are the so-called secular liberal forces? They seem to be missing in action. And this is brought home by the story of a young foreign correspondent who fell victim to a teargas shell near the Lahore High Court on March 15 and found, when he regained consciousness, that he had been rescued and revived not by his friend Zammurad Khan of the secular liberal PPP but by Mr Liaquat Baloch of the right wing Jamat-i-Islami. Yet, a few hours later when the announcement was made by the prime minister to restore the judges, Mr Zammurad Khan, hitherto on the wrong side of the tear gassing, was seen taking a posse of PPP workers to the chief justice’s house. This is not leadership. This is fraud, a fraud on the people.

Government spokespersons sound so angry all the time. Who are they angry with? Topping the list it appears is the media. But the media is only holding them to the same account that it held the previous government to. At that time it was hailed as a champion of democracy by the same angry lot. If they weren’t so busy accusing others they might actually see that are vacating the political space their party should be occupying. They are allowing right wing and extremist forces to occupy it in their stead. Swat has been surrendered, what next?

A lawyer friend, Nadeem Ahmed, sent me the following email: “I have always believed that if, God forbid, this nation were to fail one day, then, contrary to what is generally believed, it would not be because of people’s intolerance but purely because of excessive tolerance, tolerance bordering on pathetic cowardice, tolerance that is a product of just a whimpering, shameless attempt to persist in biological survival, regardless of the fact that this survival takes place amid a dark and ghostly multitude of ugly injustices, abuse and exploitation that have been haunting this nation for the last sixty years. It is this kind of crouching keenness to survive at the biological level of the animal kingdom that makes it impossible for men and nations and their leaders to stand tall with honour and confidence against injustice in all forms and shapes.”

Fortunately amongst those seeking to survive at the biological level, there are those too who stand tall. We need them to come forward now and lead the way in this very difficult time and let the likes of Maulana Fazalur Rahman be a reminder of a bygone era.

Read More

Politics anyone?

Written by: Ayesha Tammay Haq

Politics is a strange thing. It affects every aspect of our lives, yet we view it with suspicion, shun it, refuse to engage — it’s dirty, it’s untouchable. We claim distance, yet it touches everything we are. Imran Khan is bemoaned for having committed that ‘fatal mistake’— joining the political process. The general consensus amongst those we call the chattering classes is that he should stick to doing social work, help people and leave politics to the pariahs. Which then leads one to the conclusion that politics is this thing that is not for the general weal. How such an illogical conclusion can be drawn is mind-boggling.

Pakistanis seem to be afraid of doing anything substantive about Pakistan’s problems. We are big on philanthropy, build schools and hospitals, run soup kitchens, plant trees and clean beaches but we don’t work on making policy and getting it implemented. The sense of doing ‘something meaningful’ is restricted to sticky tape and iodine solutions without realising that these actions in themselves are political. They give the government of the day more breathing space, space that allows them to get away with thousands of ghost schools, hospitals without facilities and environmental degradation of our beaches and mountains. They are not required to provide solutions for job creation or poverty alleviation. They leave the welfare of millions of young Pakistanis, who roam the streets eking out an existence with extended hands, at our benefaction.

Having rabbited on ad nauseam for years about engaging, I have decided its time, once again, to walk the talk. So I am in the market for a political party. Everyone I know thinks I have lost the plot. Are you crazy they scream, you can’t join that lot, they are evil, the others are corrupt, the third lot is fundo and the fourth are evil, corrupt and fundo. No party will let you do anything and if you want to get anywhere you will have to become one of those hideous sycophants who are required to shout louder than anyone else. It sounds like it’s over even before I begin. Undaunted, I have decided to soldier on and boldly go where no one I talk to wants to go.

In pursuit of this new career, I set about investigating options. Of course, every political party wants new recruits, so they all put their best foot forward, extolling their virtues, real and imagined. It reminded me of law firms in the US whose summer internship programmes are designed to lure fresh graduates — having enjoyed a few weeks of the best restaurants, theatre and a very gentle work schedule, they are thrown in the deep end and put in 20-hour days. Here, the best foot forward also tends to be an obstacle in itself. Most politicians stray far from the party manifesto and are themselves the very reason one wants to jump into the fray. By the end, what should have been a civilised discussion has disintegrated in to a shouting match. It gets worse if you have two politicians from rival parties, they forget all about the manifesto, about being charming and user-friendly and start slanging each other. Not good if you are trying to reach out to people and convince them of the need for engagement with the political process.

My first discussions were with the PPP and the PML-N. It started well, we talked of things that mattered — democracy, the need for all citizens to have a stake in the country and become a part of the political process. All was good for about five minutes, then the attacks began. They forgot all about me, I may as well have not been there, and attacked each other. The attacks were personal and unrelenting. It was unproductive, alienating and, in a quandary, I thought of options. Should one join a major party as that would be the only way of being in a position to influence decision-making, or should one join a smaller party with no real prospects, or should one reject all options and start a new party? Or perhaps the best thing to do is to continue the search and close out on a party of choice by January 2011. So watch this space.

Read More