Archive for January, 2008

Jemima Khan Asks Musharraf to Resign

January 31, 2008 at 5:41 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

I am now a serial protester, it seems. And among my English friends increasingly the butt of jokes. Three demonstrations in the UK since October 2007, and several others – including some of a distinctly Monty Python-esque bent – during my years of living in Pakistan. I have spent many a pre-protest evening in Islamabad quibbling with activists over the minutiae: what the placards should say (no “death to…” anyone, I would insist) or whether to allow effigy burning, a Pakistani protest staple (“Jem, you don’t understand how politics works here – please, just a burning Bush”).

Tomorrow at midday I will once again be positioning myself outside 10 Downing Street, to await the arrival of retired General and self- appointed President Pervez Musharraf, who I intend to greet with lusty jeers, provocative placards and slogans that almost rhyme. We have agreed that we don’t like the commonly used kuta, meaning dog. Monkey, fox, hyena and, worst of all (for a pork-phobic nation), swine have also been banned. I expect most of you will be thinking: “Aren’t demonstrations a bit old fashioned and irrelevant? Can they actually achieve anything?” It is 40 years since 1968, “The Year That Rocked The World”, when mass protests erupted across the globe, in France, America, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Belgium, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. While none of those demonstrations achieved their immediate stated aim, cumulatively they changed the world more profoundly than those involved could ever have imagined. Popular protests rarely achieve much on their own. Hillary Clinton had a point when she said that “[Martin Luther] King’s dream began to be realised when U.S. President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a President to get it done.” She was lambasted by her Democratic rivals for having demeaned the great civil rights icon. But she was right that, while there is no doubt King was brilliant at mobilising a movement, as well as an outstanding orator and inspirational activist, his real achievement was the shifting of American consciousness. This created the environment in which it was possible for Johnson to pass the humanitarian Civil Rights Act which resulted in the greatest social change in 20th-century America. The effects of protests are rarely immediate or even measurable. What demonstrations do is to change the weather. And the weather changes the landscape. Protests invariably move from the extreme to the mainstream. Sometimes, though, they really do what they say on the banners. Ghandi’s march to the sea to make salt marked the beginning of the push to remove the British from India; the Suffragettes did get the vote for women; the Peasant’s Revolt did change the feudal system; and the Anti-Slavery Movement did do away with slavery. They are all examples of what demonstrations hope to achieve: the mass power of the individually powerless.

Tomorrow I will be protesting Gordon Brown’s continued support for Pakistan’s dictator. I will be joined by politicians, lawyers, doctors, human rights activists, journalists and ordinary Pakistanis who want to know what happened to New Labour’s “ethical foreign policy”. Our equivalents in Pakistan have been denied the same right to protest. Many hundreds remain in prison – some tortured. We can’t read about it because the media in Pakistan remains restricted. Brown and Musharraf are planning to discuss democracy, counter- terrorism and the upcoming Pakistani elections. We, the crowd outside Number 10, will be there exercising freedom of speech and practising real democracy. Inside they will only be going through the motions. How can they seriously discuss the “democratic process in Pakistan” with straight faces when 60 percent of the Superior Court judges have been dismissed and many are still under house arrest? How can “free and fair elections” take place in three weeks under the supervision of hand-picked substitute judges, a pet caretaker government and a bogus election Commission? Why is our Government supporting and our taxpayers funding a counter-terrorism strategy that has encouraged terrorism? Above all, why has our Prime Minister chosen to host a constitutionally illegal ruler who has lost the support of Pakistanis both in Britain and abroad, and who is seen as the cause not the solution to the country’s problems? Every time Gordon Brown shakes hands with and gives tea to a dictator, in some small way, like protests, it changes the weather.

If you shake hands with one, you shake hands with them all. It’s pointless refusing to be in the same country as Mugabe, if you invite Musharraf into your home. Wouldn’t it be nice if, on hearing our shouts, Brown came to the window of Number 10, waved cordially at the rabble outside and announced: “Actually, you are right.” To be followed from within by pleasing sounds of scuffle and outrage with Brown emerging to join our final chorus of “Resign Musharraf, Resign!” It is more likely that we will just make ourselves heard. But who knows? 2008 may yet turn out to be Pakistan’s 1968. Inshallah. Monday, midday, Downing Street. Effigies supplied.

Ms. Jemima (Goldsmith) Khan is a leader of the Free Pakistan Movement (FPM) based in London, UK.

Comments (2)

Dawn Editor Ziauddin Explains His Position

January 31, 2008 at 5:35 pm · Filed under Uncategorized

You see I had the prerogative to ask a question and he had the prerogative to snumb me. He actually called my patriotism in question for asking how can our nuclear assets be safe and a thorough enquiry be conducted into Benazir’s assassination when we cannot even keep a proper watch on a suspected terrorist like Rashid Rauf. He said I was casting asperions on Pakistan and that with Pakistanis like me Pakistan did not need any enemies. I felt bad but did not mind it at all because I have had the dubious distinction of being snubbed by politicvians a number of times in my career of 40 years. But then what takes the cake is his address to the Pakistani Community later. Here he incited the community to violence against me ( Aisey Logoon to aik do tikka dina chahiay–Such persons be given a couple of slaps or thrashed or whatever he meant by tikka dina chahiay.

m_ziauddin@hotmail.com

Comments (6)

Baitullah Mehsud Criticizes Musharraf

January 31, 2008 at 5:30 pm · Filed under Army's Involvement, Talibanization, War Against Terror

During a 25-minute sit-down interview with CIA Jazeera TV, in his first ever television interview, Pakistani-Pashtoon leader Baitullah Mehsud also called Musharraf a tool
of Israeli-Zionist President George W. Bush and says he is not
interested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Mehsud was recently chosen as the leader of a Pakistani coalition known as the ‘Freedom Movement of Pakistan,’ a collection of 26 groups that have come together to battle the Musharraf Mafia and, he claimed in the interview, fight the PML-Q and MQM on their home soil.
The interview takes place in the mountains. Mehsud’s face is obscured, but you can see his long jet-black hair and you get the sense that he is quite tall. He has been described by Pakistani authorities as a brave and able leader.

The Mush government of serial killers maliciously accused him of orchestrating Bhutto’s assassination and, not long after she died, released a false, fabricated, malicious and fraudulent audiotape in which a voice praises ‘brave boys’ for accomplishing a ‘mission.’
Through a spokesman, Mehsud has denied to local media that he was involved in Bhutto’s death. But Mehsud has publicly pointed to Musharraf as one of the leading militants behind the spate of violence that has hit Pakistan in 2007. Almost 60 official attacks killed more than 3,000 people in
2007, the most violent span since 9/11 and, depending on how it’s measured, the most violent time since Pakistan was created in August 1947.

Mehsud saves his most pointed critiques for Pakistan’s Devil:

Musharraf is no more than a follower to his masters,’ says Mehsud, who is known as the President of South Waziristan. ‘He started attacking mosques, killing women, children, the elderly inside the mosques. What was pushing him to do this was his will to satisfy Bush. But now we are saying that Musharraf has committed crimes against Muslims and he
has destroyed mosques — and our response will be much harder than his acts. We will be teaching him a lesson which history will write with gold. Allah (God) willing, Musharraf will be in severe pain. And all those who assisted him will also be in pain.’

Pakistanis in northwest Pakistan have increased their attacks against Musharraf in recent months. They have won battles for isolated forts throughout the region, killing soldiers,
sometimes by beheading them. Earlier in January 2008, a group of soldiers fled their fort before the militants could even attack.

‘The main objective of this coalition is ‘defensive’ jehad,’ Mehsud says. ‘Musharraf is deploying its criminal gangsters here in response to orders from Bush. Mush is bombarding our houses and fighting with us. Therefore, we have formed this coalition to guarantee the safety of Pakistani civilians. This war which Mush launched in the tribal areas is an American war.’

He continues: ‘We never feel sad about armys’ deaths. They are implementing the orders of the West and the United
States, and they are destroying our houses. And I do pray that Allah (God) will guide them back to the right path because they are ‘Muslims’ and this is an ‘Islamic’ country. But when Mush forces  come to this area to kill us, we will definitely be killing them.’

Source: CIA News ABC – PARODY-SATIRE – Monday, 28 January 2008 – New York,

Comments (1)

Chief Justice Writes Against Musharraf

January 31, 2008 at 5:21 pm · Filed under Lawyers' Agitation

 AN OPEN LETTER TO: His ExcellencyThe President of the European Parliament, Brussels. His ExcellencyThe President of France,Paris. His ExcellencyThe Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,London. Her ExcellencyMs. Condaleeza Rice,Secretary of State,United States of America,Washington D.C. Professor Klaus Schwab,World Economic Forum,Geneva. All through their respective Ambassodors, High Commissioners and representatives.  Excellency, I am the Chief Justice of Pakistan presently detained in my residence since November 3, 2007 pursuant to some verbal, and unspecified, order passed by General Musharraf. I have found it necessary to write to you, and others, because during his recent visits to Brussels, Paris, Davos and London General Musharraf has slandered me, and my colleagues, with impunity in press conferences and other addresses and meetings. In addition he has widely distributed, among those whom he has met, a slanderous document (hereinafter the Document) entitled: “PROFILE OF THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN”. I might have let this go unresponded but the Document, unfortunately, is such an outrage that, with respect, it is surprising that a person claiming to be head of state should fall to such depths as to circulate such calumny against the Chief Justice of his own country.In view of these circumstances I have no option but to join issue with General Musharraf and to put the record straight. Since he has voiced his views on several public occasions so as to reach out to the public at large, I also am constrained to address your excellencies in an Open Letter to rebut the allegations against me. At the outset you may be wondering why I have used the words “claiming to be the head of state”. That is quite deliberate. General Musharraf’s constitutional term ended on November 15, 2007. His claim to a further term thereafter is the subject of active controversy before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was while this claim was under adjudication before a Bench of eleven learned judges of the Supreme Court that the General arrested a majority of those judges in addition to me on November 3, 2007. He thus himself subverted the judicial process which remains frozen at that point. Besides arresting the Chief Justice and judges (can there have been a greater outrage?) he also purported to suspend the Constitution and to purge the entire judiciary (even the High Courts) of all independent judges. Now only his hand-picked and compliant judges remain willing to “validate” whatever he demands. And all this is also contrary to an express and earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on November 3, 2007.Meantime I and my colleagues remain in illegal detention. With me are also detained my wife and three of my young children, all school-going and one a special child. Such are the conditions of our detention that we cannot even step  out on to the lawn for the winter sun because that space is occupied by police pickets. Barbed wire barricades surround the residence and all phone lines are cut. Even the water connection to my residence has been periodically turned off. I am being persuaded to resign and to forego my office, which is what I am not prepared to do.I request you to seek first hand information of the barricades and of my detention, as that of my children, from your Ambassador/High Commissioner/representative in Pakistan. You will get a report of such circumstances as have never prevailed even in medieval times. And these are conditions put in place, in the twenty-first century, by a Government that you support.Needless to say that the Constitution of Pakistan contains no provision for its suspension, and certainly not by the Chief of Army Staff. Nor can it be amended except in accordance with Articles 238 and 239 which is by Parliament and not an executive or military order. As such all actions taken by General Musharraf on and after November 3 are illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. That is why it is no illusion when I describe myself as the Chief Justice even though I am physically and forcibly incapacitated by the state apparatus under the command of the General. I am confident that as a consequence of the brave and unrelenting struggle continued by the lawyers and the civil society, the Constitution will prevail. However, in the meantime, General Musharraf has launched upon a vigourous initiative to defame and slander me. Failing to obtain my willing abdication he has become desperate. The eight-page Document is the latest in this feverish drive. Before I take up the Document itself let me recall that the General first ousted me from the Supreme Court on March 9, 2007 while filing an indictment (in the form of a Reference under Article 209 of the Constitution) against me. According to the General the Reference had been prepared after a thorough investigation and comprehensively contained all the charges against me. I had challenged that Reference and my ouster before the Supreme Court. On July 20 a thirteen member Bench unanimously struck down the action of the General as illegal and unconstitutional. I was honourably reinstated.The Reference was thus wholly shattered and all the charges contained therein trashed. These cannot now be regurgitated except in contempt of the Supreme Court. Any way, since the Document has been circulated by no less a person than him I am constrained to submit the following for your kind consideration in rebuttal thereof:The Document is divided into several heads but the allegations contained in it can essentially be divided into two categories: those allegations that were contained in the Reference and those that were not. Quite obviously, those that are a repeat from the Reference hold no water as these have already been held by the Supreme Court to not be worth the ink they were written in. In fact, the Supreme Court found that the evidence submitted against me by the Government was so obviously fabricated and incorrect, that the bench took the unprecedented step of fining the Government Rs. 100,000 (a relatively small amount in dollar terms, but an unheard of sum with respect to Court Sanction in Pakistan) for filing clearly false and malicious documents, as well as revoking the license to practice of the Advocate on Record for filing false documents. Indeed, faced with the prospect of having filed clearly falsified documents against me, the Government’s attorneys, including the Attorney General, took a most dishonorable but telling approach. Each one, in turn, stood before the Supreme Court and disowned the Government’s Reference, and stated they had not reviewed the evidence against me before filing it with Court. They then filed a formal request to the Court to withdraw the purported evidence, and tendered an unconditional apology for filing such a scandalous and false documents. So baseless and egregious were the claims made by General Musharraf that on July 20th, 2007, the full Supreme Court for the first time in Pakistan’s history, ruled unanimously against a sitting military ruler and reinstated me honorably to my post. Despite having faced these charges in open court, must I now be slandered with those same charges by General Musharraf in world capitals, while I remain a prisoner and unable to speak in my defense? There are, of course, a second set of charges. These were not contained in the Reference and are now being bandied around by the General at every opportunity. I forcefully and vigorously deny every single one of them. The truth of these “new” allegations can be judged from the fact that they all ostensibly date to the period before the reference was filed against me last March, yet none of them was listed in the already bogus charge sheet. If there were any truth to these manufactured charges, the Government should have included them in the reference against me. God knows they threw in everything including the kitchen sink into that scurrilous 450 page document, only to have it thrown out by the entire Supreme Court after a 3 month open trial. The charges against me are so transparently baseless that General Musharraf’s regime has banned the discussion of my situation and the charges in the broadcast media. This is because the ridiculous and flimsy nature of the charges is self-evident whenever an opportunity is provided to actually refute them. Instead, the General only likes to recite his libel list from a rostrum or in gathering where there is no opportunity for anyone to respond. Incidentally, the General maligns me in the worst possible way at every opportunity. That is the basis for the Document he has distributed. But he has not just deposed me from the Judiciary. He has also fired more than half of the Superior Judiciary of Pakistan – nearly 50 judges in all — together with me. They have also been arrested and detained.What are the charges against them? Why should they be fired and arrested if I am the corrupt judge?  Moreover even my attorneys Aitzaz Ahsan,  Munir Malik, Tariq Mahmood and Ali Ahmed Kurd were also arrested on November 3. Malik alone has been released but only because both his kidneys collapsed as a result of prison tortureFinally, as to the Document, it also contains some further allegations described as “Post-Reference Conduct” that is attributed to me under various heads. This would mean only those allegedly ‘illegal’ actions claimed to have been taken by me after March 9, 2007. These are under the heads given below and replied to as under:

  1. “Participation in SJC (Supreme Judicial Council) Proceedings”:

(a) Retaining ‘political lawyers’: Aitzaz Ahsan and Zammurrad Khan:It is alleged that I gave a political colour to my defence by engaging political lawyers Aitzaz Ahsan and Zamurrad Khan both Pakistan Peoples’ Party Members of the National Assembly. The answer is simple. I sought to engage the best legal team in the country. Mr. Ahsan is of course an MNA (MP), but he is also the top lawyer in Pakistan. For that reference may be made simply to the ranking of Chambers and Partners Global. Such is his respect in Pakistan’s legal landscape that he was elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan by one of the widest margins in the Association’s history.All high profile personalities have placed their trust in his talents. He has thus been the attorney for Prime Ministers Bhutto and Sharif, (even though he was an opponent of the latter) Presidential candidate (against Musharraf) Justice Wajihuddin, sports star and politician Imran Khan, former Speakers, Ministers, Governors, victims of political vendetta, and also the internationally acclaimed gang-rape victim Mukhtar Mai, to mention only a few. Equally important, Barrister Ahsan is a man of integrity who is known to withstand all pressures and enticements. That is a crucial factor in enaging an attorney when one’s prosecutor is the sitting military ruler, with enourmous monetary and coercive resources at his disposal. Mr. Zamurrad Khan is also a recognized professional lawyer, a former Secretary of the District Bar Rawalpindi, and was retained by Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan to assist him in the case. Mr. Khan has been a leading light of the Lawyers’ Movement for the restoration of the deposed judiciary and has bravely faced all threats and vilification. Finally, surely I am entitled to my choice of lawyers and not that of the General. (b) “Riding in Mr. Zafarullah Jamali (former Prime Minister)’s car”:How much the Document tries to deceive is apparent from the allegation that I willingly rode in Mr. Jamali’s car for the first hearing of the case against me on March 13 (as if that alone is an offence). Actually the Government should have been ashamed of itself for creating the circumstances that forced me to take that ride. Having been stripped of official transport on the 9th March (my vehicles were removed from my house by the use of fork lifters), I decided to walk the one-mile to the Supreme Court. Along the way I was molested and manhandled, my hair was pulled and neck craned in the full blaze of the media, by a posse of policemen under the supervision of the Inspector General of Police. (A judicial inquiry, while I was still deposed, established this fact). In order to escape the physical assault I took refuge with Mr. Jamali and went the rest of the journey on his car. Instead of taking action against the police officials for manhandling the Chief Justice it is complained that I was on the wrong!(c) “Creating a political atmosphere”:Never did I instigate or invite any “political atmosphere”. I never addressed the press or any political rally. I kept my lips sealed even under extreme provocation from the General and his ministers who were reviling me on a daily basis. I maintained a strict judicial silence. I petitioned the Supreme Court and won. That was my vindication.

  1. “Country wide touring and Politicising the Issue”:

The Constitution guarantees to all citizens free movement throughout Pakistan. How can this then be a complaint?By orders dated March 9 and 15 (both of which were found to be without lawful authority by the Court) I had been sent of “forced leave”. I could neither perform any judicial or administrative functions as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. I was prevented not only from sitting in court but also from access to my own chamber by the force of arms under orders of the General. (All my papers were removed, even private documents). The only function as ‘a judge on forced leave’ that I could perform was to address and deliver lectures to various Bar Associations. I accepted their invitations. They are peppered all over Pakistan. I had to drive to these towns as all these are not linked by air. On the way the people of Pakistan did, indeed, turn out in  their millions, often waiting from dawn to dusk or from dusk to dawn, to greet me. But I never addressed them even when they insisted that I do. I never spoke to the press. I sat quietly in my vehicle without uttering a word. All this is on the record as most journeys were covered by the media live and throughout. I spoke only to deliver lectures on professional and constitutional issues to the Bar Associations. Transcripts of every single one of my addresses are available. Every single word uttered by me in those addresses conforms to the stature, conduct and non-political nature of the office of the Chief Justice. There was no politics in these whatsoever. I did not even mention my present status or the controversy or the proceedings before the Council or the Court, not even the Reference. Not even once. All the persons named in the Document under this head are lawyers and were members of the reception committees in various towns and Bar Associations.

  1. Political Leaders Calling on CJP residence:

It is alleged that I received political leaders while I was deposed. It is on the record of the Supreme Judicial Council itself that I was detained after being deposed on March 9. The only persons allowed to meet me were those cleared by the Government. One was a senior political leader. None else was allowed to see me, initially not even my lawyers. How can I be blamed for whomsoever comes to my residence? Had I wanted to politicize the issue I would have gone to the Press or invited the media. I did not. I had recourse to the judicial process for my reinstatement and won. The General lost miserably in a fair and straight contest. That is my only fault.

  1. “Conclusion”:

Hence the conclusion drawn by the General that charges had been proved against me ‘beyond doubt’ is absolutely contrary to the facts and wide off the mark. It is a self-serving justification of the eminently illegal action of firing and arresting judges of superior courts under the garb of an Emergency (read Martial Law) when the Constitution was ‘suspended’ and then ‘restored’ later with drastic and illegal ‘amendments’ grafted into it. The Constitution cannot be amended except by the two Houses of Parliament and by a two-thirds majority in each House. That is the letter of the law. How can one man presume or arrogate to himself that power?Unfortunately the General is grievously economical with the truth (I refrain from using the word ‘lies’) when he says that the charges against me were ‘investigated and verified beyond doubt’. As explained above, these had in fact been rubbished by the Full Court Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against which judgment the government filed no application for review. What the General has done has serious implications for Pakistan and the world. In squashing the judiciary for his own personal advantage and nothing else he has usurped the space of civil and civilized society. If civilized norms of justice will not be allowed to operate then that space will, inevitably, be occupied by those who believe in more brutal and instant justice: the extremists in the wings. Those are the very elements the world seems to be pitted against. Those are the very elements the actions of the General are making way for.Some western governments are emphasizing the unfolding of the democratic process in Pakistan. That is welcome, if it will be fair. But, and in any case, can there be democracy if there is no independent judiciary? Remember, independent judges and judicial processes preceded full franchise by several hundred years. Moreover, which judge in Pakistan today can be independent who has before his eyes the fate and example of his own Chief Justice: detained for three months along with his young children. What is the children’s crime, after all?There can be no democracy without an independent judiciary, and there can be no independent judge in Pakistan until the action of November 3 is reversed. Whatever the will of some desperate men the struggle of the valiant lawyers and civil society of Pakistan will bear fruit. They are not giving up.Let me also assure you that I would not have written this letter without the General’s unbecoming onslaught. That has compelled me to clarify although, as my past will testify, I am not given into entering into public, even private, disputes. But the allegations against me have been so wild, so wrong and so contrary to judicial record, that I have been left with no option but to put the record straight. After all, a prisoner must also have his say. And if the General’s hand-picked judges, some living next door to my prison home, have not had the courage to invoke the power of ‘habeas corpus’ these last three months, what other option do I have? Many leaders of the world and the media may choose to brush the situation under the carpet out of love of the General. But that will not be. Nevertheless, let me also reassure you that I continue in my resolve not to preside any Bench which will be seized of matters pertaining to the personal interests of General Musharraf after the restoration of the Constitution and the judges, which, God willing, will be soon. Finally, I leave you with the question: Is there a precedent in history, all history, of 60 judges, including three Chief Justices (of the Supreme Court and two of Pakistan’s four High Courts), being dismissed, arrested and detained at the whim of one man? I have failed to discover any such even in medieval times under any emperor, king, or sultan, or even when a dictator has had full military sway over any country in more recent times. But this incredible outrage has happened in the 21st century at the hands of an extremist General out on a ‘charm offensive’ of western capitals and one whom the west supports.I am grateful for your attention. I have no other purpose than to clear my name and to save the country (and perhaps others as well) from the calamity that stares us in the face. We can still rescue it from all kinds of extremism: praetorian and dogmatic. After all, the edifice of an independent judicial system alone stands  on the middle ground between these two extremes. If the edifice is destroyed by the one, the ground may be taken over by the other. That is what is happening in Pakistan. Practitioners of rough and brutal justice will be welcomed in spaces from where the practitioners of more refined norms of justice and balance have been made to abdicate.I have enormous faith that the Constitution and justice will soon prevail. Yours truly,  Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry,Chief Justice of Pakistan,Presently:imprisoned in the Chief Justice’s House,Islamabad.

Comments (2)

Unresolved Constitutional Issues

January 31, 2008 at 5:07 pm · Filed under Lawyers' Agitation, Pakistan

After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s military-backed government is under tremendous pressure to ensure transparent, free and fair elections on February 18. But such elections are impossible in the shadow of President Musharraf. Indeed, had Benazir lived and elections been held as planned in January, those elections would have been a farce, even though she was probably the most popular politician in Pakistan. Regardless of who runs for prime minister, crucial constitutional issues must be resolved before credible democracy becomes possible once more.

After proclaiming a state of emergency on 3 November, Musharraf deposed judges of the Supreme Court. They were about to decide whether his re-election as president of the nation had been constitutionally correct. The dismissal of the chief justice and other independent-minded members of the bench flies in the face of the legal principles democracy depends on. There is something rotten when armed forces enjoy extra-constitutional power.Iftekhar Choudhry, the ousted chief justice, is still in detention at his home. Nonetheless, he manages to get messages out and is contesting Musharraf’s rule. Public opinion is on his side.

According to article 6 of the constitution, “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”. The punishment is the death penalty. But that law does not seem to apply to generals. Up to now, they always enjoyed immunity. It is telling that – when amending the constitution in the past – military governments never bothered to touch article 6. They did not think it might apply to their extra-constitutional actions.

While excessively meddling in domestic politics, however, the army has failed to fulfil its professional mission. It did not win any of the four wars it fought (including the proxy war in Kargil, Indian Kashmir, in 1999), nor is it able to control militant groups in Pakistan. In the so-called “war on terror”, hundreds of military personnel surrendered to Islamist militants. They were only freed after the negotiated release of various most-wanted militants by the national government.

The failings go back much further. In April 1948, seven months after Pakistan’s creation, the army triggered a war with India. After the humiliation of being rebuffed, the military command decided to become a force inside the country. Because of the army’s colonial background, that step was welcomed by the establishment of the civil service and tribal chiefs. They thought the army would permit social exploitation, but quell demands for democracy – and for many years, that was so. There were several spells of martial law. The army set up its own secret services and made sure it controlled political parties.

One reason Pakistan’s army does not respect any other domestic institution, is that it has been serving a mercenary function for the West – first in the Cold War, and now in the “war on terror”. Western opportunism has made the military dismissive of national law and international norms.

When Musharraf first suspended Chief Justice Choudhry in March 2007, there were nation-wide protests, and Choudhry re-assumed office. In November, however, Musharraf, acting as the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), imposed a state of emergency, amended the constitution and suspended fundamental rights. Musharraf-the-COAS re-arranged the country’s power matrix according to his wishes, and then ruled on as Musharraff-the-President. It hardly matters that he stepped down as COAS after these manoeuvres.

The real questions now are

  • whether the president will be allowed to stay in office after elections,
  • whether there will again be indemnity for extra-constitutional actions of the military and
  • whether the generals will hand-pick the next prime minister.

All of this depends, not least, on who has the last say in constitutional mattes. In Pakistan, powers must be divided appropriately among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. If the army does not understand its subordinate role in a democratic nation, it is hard to see how the country will survive.

Baseer Naveed is a senior researcher at the Asian Human Rights Commission, based in Hong Kong. baseer@ahrch.org

Leave a Comment

Aitzaz Ahsan Writes About Benazir

January 31, 2008 at 4:59 pm · Filed under Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto as I knew her

“THE first thing I want to do is to release all political prisoners,” she announced as our meeting on Nov 30, 1988, began at Dr Zafar Niazi’s house in Islamabad. In the elections held after the death of Gen Zia, the PPP, despite all efforts of the agencies, had succeeded in the elections.

After failing to prop up any rival, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan had finally agreed that very day to accept her as prime minister of Pakistan.

The historic meeting of the PPP leadership was being held to set the top priorities of Benazir Bhutto’s first government. It was here as the prime minister-designate that she showed her mettle. So far her life and emotions had been premised on the bitter fact that her dearest father had been deposed, imprisoned, humiliated, falsely charged, hanged and then buried without due ceremony.

But she brought to that meeting only her winning smile and the undiluted optimism of a political idealist.Zia had left behind a large number of political prisoners and convicts of military courts. Each had been denied due process. Releasing them, she said, was going to be her number one priority.

What pledge should we make to ourselves? she asked. “That we must ensure press freedom,” I suggested. “For anything that it may print?” she asked. “Yes, for anything. We must set a precedent,” I said. And she agreed at once, excited that it was a good idea.

Next day I was sworn in as her interior minister. In that capacity, I received countless recommendations to prosecute this or that publication. I turned down each of these even when our government was brutally and deliberately slandered.

Once a cabinet colleague complained to her that I was not prosecuting publications for false propaganda against her husband Asif Zardari. “But Malik Sahib,” she retorted, “we have pledged to allow full freedom to the media. We will have to bear with it.” Then she turned to me and asked: “Is there anything that can be done without the government getting involved?” “Yes,” I replied. “Asif should file a civil suit for damages in his personal capacity.” And so it was that Mr Asif Zardari, husband of a serving prime minister, had the grace to file a private civil suit for damages as an ordinary litigant.

That is what she was. At once humane and proper. How can I recount in such a short piece, all aspects of a life lived to such fullness particularly when I have worked so close to her during her life? Even books will fail to do justice. At present, only a few instances establishing her more prominent qualities must suffice. One was fortitude.

Between 1990 and 1993, there were as many as 18 prosecutions against her and her husband Asif Zardari. Both were also slandered and defamed. I had publicly promised to turn these prosecutions “from the trial of Mohtarma into the trial of Ishaq Khan”. In the end, they were both acquitted in all those cases, with her husband bravely facing adversity and she standing by him like a rock. She had the fortitude to bear the designed torment aimed at her by the notorious regime of Jam Sadiq Ali in Sindh.

Never will I forget that one day in 1992 when I entered the outer gate of Landhi Jail to defend Asif in a trial being conducted inside the jail itself. There she was, the former prime minister of Pakistan, carrying two young infants, Bilawal and Bakhtawar, in her arms, and sitting on a pile of bricks. I was furious and immediately went to the jail superintendent. But she calmed me down saying that she had learnt not to expect any decency from the jail staff. After all, she herself had remained imprisoned for five years as a young girl.

Through all her trials and tribulations, she demonstrated amazing charm and stamina. When she came to stay with us in Gujrat in December 1986, she arrived at 3am on that freezing December night having travelled a full 10 hours from Lahore, but she sat up chatting with my wife Bushra for another one hour with Zaynab, our youngest, in her lap. Early in the morning she was up, fresh as a flower, all ready to meet local party officials.

She kept punishing schedules and was the only politician who had toured the entire Pakistan, city by city, town by town, village by village and hamlet by hamlet at least five times. She knew the party workers by face and the towns by the streets.

And through it all she remained a model of womanhood at its most sublime. While being the most hardworking, hands-on, leading politician of the country, she was unabashedly feminine at the same time. In this intolerant and male-dominated country, she refused to be uncomfortable about her womanhood. She gave birth to her first child in the middle of the 1988 election campaign and another child while she was the first woman prime minister of Muslim Pakistan.

Then there was her courage. She was afraid of nothing. I was on her truck at the time of the blast of Oct 18. Next morning when I met her she was in her normal routine. I did not know that I was seeing her for the last time. When I sought her leave to return to Lahore for my Supreme Court Bar elections, she said, “It will be a landslide in your favour. Good luck. And thanks for being here.”

When I was withdrawing from the parliamentary contest I sent word to her and she consulted me, through Senator Safdar Abbasi, on my choice for my substitute. She accepted the choice. But I was arrested the day after my election as president SCBA and denied permission even to attend the funeral or soyem of the one who believed in freeing political prisoners and the media, and in the politics of non-violence.

As a political leader she could organise and mobilise the biggest political organisation in Pakistan, set the political agenda, make millions of ordinary people dream the greatest dreams for this land and yes, in fair elections, win elections too. She could do all that. But what she could not tackle were certain self-appointed guardians of the state, who refused to allow people the right to solve their problems themselves and who harassed, hounded, threatened and conspired against her.They did not permit her a fair shot at the democratic game because they knew that she would win, not by breaking the Constitution or at gunpoint but through the sheer will of ordinary people who are supposed to be sovereign. Even on the last day of her life, her foremost concern was not how to win the elections but how to prevent them from being rigged. I wonder if people understand that in this lies a tragedy, not only for Benazir Bhutto, but for this nation.

Many sincere analysts questioned the integrity of her politics. They did not understand that after facing conspiracy after conspiracy, Benazir Bhutto was forced to factor painful ground realities in her decision-making, always striving to achieve one day her true political ideals.

This fundamental question may indeed be addressed through another question: why, during the 30 years from 1977 when an elected and popular prime minister was ousted at gunpoint to the date when Benazir Bhutto lost her life to another gun, was the total period for which she, the most popular political leader, was allowed to govern the country three times less than the time that Chaudhry Shujaat’s party remained in power? The real source of this country’s problems may be revealed by the answer. In kowtowing to the civil and military bureaucracy there is a premium. He and his ilk can do it. She could not. They survive. She had to be eliminated.

One cannot help wondering why our establishment that claims to be obsessed with maintaining the federation, could not bring itself to see in Benazir Bhutto that glorious human chain that kept all four provinces together, and as an asset and an ally instead of a foe.

Above all else, I will remember her for three qualities: a constant urge to reach out to her people, a willingness to take on Herculean challenges, and for her ability to forgive, even embrace, her enemies. These three qualities made her superhuman. And all three took her to her tragic, yet heroic death.

All I can now say is: “Bibi it is an honour to have worked for you and with you. The Himalayas wept at the death of your father. The world weeps for you.”

Comments (3)

6 3838 7.org Website on Indian Villages

January 31, 2008 at 4:51 pm · Filed under India

638387.org : Giving you opportunity to share your work, village by village. See the coverage of Byrraju Foundation.

Everyone says India lives in villages.
How many ?
638387 – remember as 6 3838 7
IndianNGOs.com is pleased to announce the launch of our village portal, 638387.org, which gives opportunity to you to share
and see the work of multiple stakeholders, village by village.

To start with, we are sharing the wonderful work being done by Byrraju Foundation in 6 districts of India, a replicable examples of
how a village in Maharashtra Hiware Bazar has helped itself, a couple of modules to sensitise you on the canvas of India and a
quiz ( with answers ) on just how India’s population is spread over its states and union territories.

638387.org is a serious site with a great fun and creative element. Because it is not targeted just at IndianNGOs.com traditional audience of NGOs, corporates, funding agencies, media….
This site is for every citizen of India and therefore this site will use the people who have power to influence to influence you and help you participate in India’s roadmap to 2020

Quick links on Developed Nation
Vision of a developed nation by Mr Amitabh Bachchan
Vision of a developed nation by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Dr Pachauri’s model of development

Quick links on list of villages – district wise, alphabetical and sample of Byrraju Foundation
District wise coverage of villages
Alphabetical coverage of villages
Byrraju Foundation programmes in over 100 villages

Tracking work in villages
Village visioning
50 parameters to track village development

Success stories
54 millionaires in a village

Sensitising India. And take a quiz
Free modules on sensitising India on social and developmental issues
250 questions and answers on population of India

Tracking
Tracking former president Kalam’s PURA
Just visit 638387.org

To share your work in villages, send a mail to Vrushali@IndianNGOs.com

Leave a Comment

Retired Generals Oppose Musharraf

January 31, 2008 at 4:46 pm · Filed under Army's Involvement

Hindu’s special correspondent based in Islamabad Ms Nirupama Subramanian writes about the General’s Moot held in Islamabad:

A hundred or so of Pakistan’s ex-servicemen, including former service chiefs and retired Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals, came together in an extraordinary spectacle here on January 31, 2008. In the banquet hall of a small hotel, and before an invited media audience, the retired servicemen stood up one by one to denounce President Pervez Musharraf, describing him as the main obstacle to democracy in Pakistan, and asking that he step down immediately before causing more damage to the country.

Speaker after speaker said free and fair elections were impossible under General Musharraf, and the only remedy was for him to step down before February 18, the date of the elections. Many of those in the hall were once part of Pakistan’s military regimes, including that of General (retd.) Musharraf’s when he first took over in 1999. Some of them are seen as having played pivotal roles in toppling elected civilian governments.

Air Marshal Asghar Khan;s letter to the Chief of the Army Staff in 1977 to save Pakistan from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s illegal regime is considered by many to have brought on the Zia dictatorship. As the Chief of the Army Staff, General Mirza Aslam Beg, reportedly drew red lines for Benazir Bhutto’s first government, and is said to have played an important role in engineering a premature end to her rule. The 89-year-old General Majid Malik was Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s staff officer and drafted Prime Minister Iskander Mirza’s resignation letter. Until 2005, he was in the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), an ally of General Musharraf. The main mover behind the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen’s Society is Lieutenant General Faiz Ali Chisti, who was one of the prime players in General Zia’s dictatorial regime. But undeterred by their past, these speakers demanded that the Pakistan Army must not play a role in the politics of the country any more.

The main issue is to restore the image of the Pakistan Army. After 17th August 1988 [the day General Zia ul-Haq was killed in a plane crash] had I wanted I could have continued to rule. But I held elections within 90 days, said General Aslam Beg, who succeeded General Zia as the Army chief.

Demanding that President Musharraf step down, he predicted that there would be good news on February 18, when our democracy will speak, and when the role played by our civil society, media, lawyers, will come to fruition. We are lakhs and lakhs of ex-servicemen, and if we put our minds to it, we can get the word out to the people of Pakistan that they must use their votes to strengthen democracy, General Beg said. Cries of Go Musharraf go punctuated the speeches, and there were some unmentionable references to him.

One speaker thumped down a packet of bangles on the table, asking those who did not have the courage to stand up to General Musharraf to wear them. Another advised that the ex-servicemen should get together to prevent the holding of elections. Once the elections are held, politicians will be bought, they will be sold, a government favourable to Musharraf will be formed and he will consolidate his hold, said a Major. Safe passage for Musharraf? Another ex-officer wanted General Musharraf to be given safe passage.

There were also occasional admissions that the military had committed mistakes. An Admiral rose to say that the Pakistan armed forces were professional, but only until 1958, when we started playing a part-time role, having taken on the job of running the country. But, he said, while the responsibility for the mess had to be shared by all, this does not mean we should not speak out now.

The gathering was a mixture of political moderates such as Lieutenant General Talat Masood, who supports the peace process with India, as well as hardliners such as Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, a former Director-General of the ISI, who appealed to the ex-servicemen to show their opposition to President Musharraf by joining the anti-India rallies on February 5, which is observed here as Kashmir Solidarity Day. The gathering was also bristling under General Musharraf’s remarks during his Europe tour that the ex-servicemen were an insignificant bunch, and many of them held a grouse against him because he had kicked them out.

This is one of the worst things I have heard. With this he insulted everyone who wears the uniform. He has insulted the entire armed forces, said General Aslam Beg. Army must lay off Air Marshal Asghar Khan said had politicians been allowed to rule, 60 years, we would have learnt some lessons. But each time there was dissatisfaction with the politician, the Army stepped in and did not allow democracy to take root. “This must not happen. Politicians should be tried, and if they fail, let them be rejected, let other politicians take their place. The Army must not come in. But the desire of the retired officers to form a pressure group against President Musharraf is being looked at with scepticism and suspicion, and their statements as too glib for those who held high offices in Pakistan’s military dispensations.

At a heated press conference after the meeting, a retired officer and a journalist nearly came to blows when the latter sarcastically complimented Air Marshal Khan for finally discovering his conscience and asked why it had taken him all these years. The Air Marshal replied that initially, there was some faith in General Musharraf but when he started veering from his promises, disillusionment set in.

Another journalist asked why the gathered ex-servicemen had not decided to offer a collective apology to the people of Pakistan for their wrongdoings of the last 60 years. To this, Air Marshal Khan replied: Sit down. There is no need for us to ask any forgiveness. Ex-servicemen have sacrificed with their blood for this country. Some have made mistakes, we do not deny it, but the real need of the hour is to save the country.

————————————————————– 

 Jan 23, 2008 ISLAMABAD - An influential group of retired
officers from Pakistan’s powerful military has urged President Musharraf to immediately step down, saying
his resignation would promote democracy and help combat
religious militancy.

“This is in the supreme national interest and it makes it
incumbent on him to step down,” said a statement released
on January 22 to the media by the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen’s
Society, after a group meeting attended by more than 100
former generals, admirals, air marshals and other retired
officers and enlisted men.

The call came as Musharraf, who was commander of the army
until stepping down in December 2007, was in Europe on a tour aimed at reassuring Western leaders about his ability to
restore democracy and prevail in the escalating combat
between government troops and Taliban rebels along
Pakistan’s mountainous border with Afghanistan.

The group of former generals does not speak for serving
officers, but its tough stance is an embarrassment to
Musharraf whose popularity has waned considerably in the
past year.

It could strike a chord within the army’s current ranks —
which are forbidden from expressing political opinions —
over how a once-respected institution has lost a lot of
support among the wider public as Musharraf’s personal
standing has eroded over his maneuvering to stay in power.

This fall, the U.S.-backed president purged the Supreme
Court, which could have scuppered his recent re-election,
and briefly suspended the constitution, setting back
expectations of a restoration of democracy.

“The feeling was unanimous and strong among the (retired)
officers and other ranks that Musharraf is the problem and
that he is a source of divisiveness, a source of
centrifugal forces and an impediment to democracy,” said
Talat Masood, a retired general who is now a prominent
political analyst.

“He is bringing down the reputation of the army, and
undermining its support among the people which it needs in the war on terror,” said Masood, who attended the meeting. “He has brought disgrace on all ranks.”

Musharraf, a top U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, led a
military coup to seize power in 1999, but retired from the
army before being inaugurated for a new five-year term as
civilian president in November.

His successor as army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is
believed to remain loyal to the president. The continued
support of the military — which has ruled Pakistan for more
than half of its 60 years as an independent nation — is
essential for Musharraf to remain in power.

The Bush administration has continued to praise the former
general, saying he is committed to restoring democracy
through parliamentary elections scheduled for Feb. 18.

Kayani has moved quickly to disengage the army from
politics. He has banned officers from maintaining contacts
with politicians, and ordered the more than 3,000 officers
now serving in the civil administration and government-run
enterprises to gradually revert to their military duties.

Kayani has been praised by U.S. officials as an aggressive
commander who has shown he is determined to restore law and order to the border regions that have served as a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.

The group of former generals does not speak for serving
officers, but its tough stance is an embarrassment to
Musharraf whose popularity has waned considerably in the
past year.

It could strike a chord within the army’s current ranks —
which are forbidden from expressing political opinions —
over how a once-respected institution has lost a lot of
support among the wider public as Musharraf’s personal
standing has eroded over his maneuvering to stay in power.

On January 22, Adm. William Fallon — the head of the U.S. Central Command and top commander of American forces in the  Middle East — held talks in Rawalpindi with Kayani. The Pakistani army said the two men discussed the “security situation” in the region, but gave no more details.

In its statement, the Ex-Servicemen’s Society said its
members had been watching “events in the recent past with
great concern and anguish,” .

Jan 22 meeting brought together retired commanders of
all political stripes. It included hard-liners such as Javed Ashraf Qazi, the former head of Pakistan’s feared Inter-Services Intelligence, and liberal reformists like Air Marshals Asghar Khan and Nur Khan.

“Kayani has made it very clear that army has to keep away
from politics and the affairs of the state,” said Mirza Aslam
Beg, who was chief of army staff from 1988 to 1991. “He has realized the sentiments of the people of Pakistan that they do not want the army to intervene and take decisions on their behalf.”

___
 

RAWALPINDI, 27 January 2008 (AFP) – A retired Pakistani General who opposes Musharraf said he would “not be surprised” if Musharraf had engineered terror attacks to manipulate his image in the West. Former Lieutenant General Faiz Ali Chishti heads the influential Pakistan Ex-Servicemen Society, which last week issued a blunt open letter signed by more than 100 senior military officers calling on Musharraf to quit. The statement fuelled Western speculation that Musharraf may be losing support in the military following his resignation as Army Chief in November 2007, a potential blow with parliamentary elections only three weeks away. “Musharraf is an intellectually dishonest person. He is a clever ruler, who makes the U.S. and the West believe that they can only effectively deal with ‘Al-Qaeda’ as long as he is in power,” Chishti told AFP in an interview. “But what is ‘Al-Qaeda’ and who are ‘Taliban’? I will not be surprised if this clever ruler is behind all suicide attacks,” he said. Pakistan has been buffetted by more than 50 “suicide” attacks in 2007, culminating in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27 2007, which led to planned January 8 2008 general elections being delayed. The  government blames Bhutto’s killing on a tribal warlord, Baitullah Mehsud, but many of Bhutto’s supporters have accused the government or parts of the military of involvement. 

Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in October 1999, has rejected those claims, and last week he angrily brushed aside the calls for his resignation by Chishti and the other generals. “They are insignificant personalities,” Musharraf told the Financial Times in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “Most of them are ones who served under me and I kicked them out… They are insignificant. I am not even bothered by them.”

In another interview with the BBC he said that the retired officers had no clout with today’s 500,000-strong, nuclear-armed military. But Chishti — a former federal Minister and the one-time Corps Commander for Rawalpindi, a key post in the Pakistani Army — urged current and former military servicemen to push for change. “My request, as head of the Society, is that Musharraf should also step down as President,” Chishti said. “We request all military ex-servicemen, and even those who are in uniform, to vote for persons who are fit to do something for this country and people.” Chishti himself is no stranger to military rulers, having supervised the imposition of Martial Law in July 1977 in Pakistan. He went on to become a close associate of late  General Zia ul Haq. But he said that the situation now was different, partly because of Musharraf’s close ties to Washington. “Musharraf is in league with the U.S. and the West for the sake of his own survival. The majority of Pakistanis feel he… has been taking illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful actions for his survival,” Chishti said. He rejected Western “propaganda” about Musharraf being able to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from religious extremists, saying it was the Army’s job. “Is he carrying these nuclear weapons in his pocket? The answer is no,” he said. Chishti also accused Musharraf of “taking sides” and campaigning for the former ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q  party ahead of the elections on February 18 2008.

Comments (1)

The Year That Was 2007

January 20, 2008 at 10:20 am · Filed under India

By Joseph Gathia
 
Regular readers of newspapers need no reminder that 2007 was another terrible year for the cause of religious freedom.
 
In 2004, Indians voted for a change in direction, and got a change in parties by bringing the Congress led UPA to power. But by the end of 2007 this changed.
 
Nearly three out of four Indians feel that the country is heading in the wrong direction.  It’s not hard to see why: looming large are job loss for millions of people, rising prices of eatable  items , more people than ever without access to health coverage, persistent threat to farmers and continued  federal inaction in cases of violence against innocent minorities  and privatization which threatened livelihood sources of ordinary citizens. These calamities detonated in 2007 but were years in the making. 
 
The year was not entirely bereft of hope. The nation’s sensex continuously rose .The UPA Govt. announced special economic package for the minorities and grant in aid for low income students. Private companies made their operations more environmentally sustainable as well. Many Multi National Corporations pledged to social responsibility policy.
 
Yet several important policy announcements grounded to a halt in 2007, short of finding solutions that would actually benefit Indians. The push for investment in retail business collapsed amidst fear and hateful rhetoric. An overwhelmingly popular effort to enter into nuclear pact with USA failed to overcome a bitterly ideological veto. Rather than seeking a new direction on trade consistent with our new vision and the Man Mohan Singh Government yielded to the pressure of the Left.
 
Meanwhile, we had the first Dalit, K. G. Balakrishnan, elected Chief Justice of India. Middle of January was the Ardh Kumbh; almost one million devotees washed their sins in the Sangam at Allahabad.
 
The beginning of the year was plagued by the Nithari case of  Moninder Singh Pandher which made headlines  as skeletons of girls and children whom he and his servant allegedly raped and murdered emerged from his house in Noida adjacent to the capital  of  India.
 
With nationalist parties re-asserting themselves a new phenomenon emerged. Shiv Sena with Bal Thackeray’s son Udhav, instead of the recalcitrant nephew Raj, won the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections. More significant was the Akali-BJP alliance defeating the Congress-led government by Captain Amarinder Singh and forming government in Punjab under Prakash Singh Badal. In Uttranchal the BJP-led by General Khanduri ousted the Congress from power. Of the three states that went to the polls only Mizoram stayed with the Congress.
 
March saw resurgence of Naxalite and Maoist in Central India. Violence also erupted in Nandigram (West Bengal) 11 farmers protesting against acquisition of their lands were shot by the police.
 
On April 1, Laurie Baker (90) who designed homes for the poor and had made India his home died at Thiruvananthapuram. Three days later Jagjit Singh Chauhan (80) founder of the Khalistan Movement died in his village Tanda. Anyone who thought BJP was a spent force was proved wrong; it swept the Delhi Municipal polls.
May was eventful. India’s biggest state was won by Mayavati’s Bahujan Samaj Party ousting Mulayam Singh’s Samajwadi, with BJP in the third position and Congress in the last. Dalit leader and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati forged a rainbow electoral coalition that embraced upper and lower castes and Muslims in one magic formula that brought her to power in India’s most populous state.
 
 In Punjab, Sikhs were up in arms against the head of Dera Sacha Sauda for having imitated Guru Gobind Singh in dress and ritual. More sinister was an explosion in Hyderabad Makka Masjid, killing 12 worshippers. Police remained clueless about the culprits.
 
Large-scale protests by the Gujjars of Rajasthan demanding scheduled tribe status privileges as granted to Meenas and Jats. They started their agitation at the end of May in Rajasthan when six people lost their lives, and spread to Haryana ending in Delhi bandh.
 
In all those turmoil environment India got first woman President Pratibha Patil.
 
In July, the monsoons flood revealed chinks in the armour. The financial capital Mumbai was water logged.
 
August started with cheerful news for Congress party. Renowned scholar Dr. Hamid Ansari of the Congress defeated Najma Heptullah of the BJP to become Vice President of India.
 
In September the country witnessed two bombing episodes: one in the Chisti dargah in Ajmer and the other in a Ludhiana cinema. The biggest sensation of October was a sting operation carried out by Tehelka on perpetrators of atrocities on Muslims in Gujarat following the arson in Sabarmati Express at Godhra. Chief Minister Narendra Modi, was explicitly named as giving them permission to do what they liked.
 
Mumbai Christians got some good news in Oct 2007.  The Archbishop of Mumbai Oswald Gracias, head of the almost 600,000-strong Catholic community in the city -became a cardinal , the only Asian in the latest list announced in Rome.
 
 
In November significant development was the erosion of power and integrity of the CPI (M) government in West Bengal. It started in Nandigram, predominantly a Muslim area. They resisted taking over their farmlands for industrialization. It led to clashes between the police and peasants in which some lives were lost. The CM apologized for the excesses by his police.
 
On 21 November, 2007, a political pressure group, dominated by religious Muslims, demonstrated against Ms Nasreen’s books in Kolkata (where she had been based for some months) and the protest turned violent. Soon afterwards, Ms Nasreen left Kolkata (Calcutta), the capital of the left-run state, Bengal, for Rajasthan, a northern state near Delhi, dominated by the rightist-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
 
December was marked by electoral battles in Himachal and Gujarat, Congress versus the BJP. The Bharatiya Janata Party registered spectacular victory in both the states.
 
The Gujarat election results have sent tremors across the political spectrum, thrilling the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and unnerving its opponents. Modi’s success showed, his developmental efforts, which made Gujarat attain a 10.6 percent growth in the Tenth Plan period, played a considerable part in boosting his prospects along with the combative pro-Hindu subtext of his campaign. Whether one likes it or not the Modi brand of middle class Hindu youth power is like to stay. During the Gujarat election several analysts made mountain out of mole by stating that the BJP suddenly brought Shri L.K. Advani fearing that Modi’s stature was growing. This was no where near to the truth. Those of us who were in Gujarat hearing the echoes with out ears to the ground could feel that the masses to know who the strong man at the center leadership level is ?
 
The year 2007 threw two possibilities before India: one, which of Sushri Bahan Mayawati who is defining aspects of affirmative actions in deeply caste divided Indian society and second Shri Narendra bhai Modi. Whatever the critics say, it’s likely that this is not the last time that the BJP will attempt to mix politics and the past.
 
The third alternative of Congress – Rahul baba – would have to await the results of ten assembly elections scheduled in 2008. But Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are crucial for the congress. The signs of the Congress’s weakening hold on the ruling coalition at the centre can already be seen in the meeting which took place between two erstwhile inveterate adversaries in Maharashtra – the Shiv Sena’s Bal Thackeray and union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).
 
If the Congress has hit a low patch in its fortunes, the Left remains embroiled in its own troubles. There has been a rupture in the Left unity in its stronghold of West Bengal following political and administrative miscalculations during Chief Minister Buddhadev Bhattacharjee’s industrialisation drive.
 
The Christmas was overshadowed by the violence against Christians in Orissa.
 
After every instance of turmoil and trauma, “dialogue” offers itself up as a panacea. The word is everywhere, especially now. The desire to transcend differences through discussion and peaceful communication is a powerful one, but by itself, dialogue means nothing. The tenor of  the conversation—its richness, its nuance, its integration of the personal and the factual—is as important as the effort toward dialogue itself; perhaps more important. Though this review is not a direct response to events in Orissa and Gujarat, it is an attempt to take ourselves—and our thoughts—seriously. I hope that you’ll agree that our leaders need to enter into dialogue, and that they pay attention to what they say and how they say it. But whether you agree or not, I urge you to start dialogue with the people of other faiths.
 
With that, dear reader, I must leave you, so that 2008 can take its course. Happy New Year to you all. Who among us can predict the future?  (END)
Joseph Gathia is senior media and human rights analyst and can be reached via e mail: josephgathia@yahoo.co.in Mobile  09810270489

Comments (2)

January 20, 2008 at 9:51 am · Filed under Uncategorized

pakistan-cartoon.jpg

Comments (2)

Older Posts »