Energising Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

Smokers’ Corner: Che, cola and hijab

Dawn
Nadeem F. Paracha
November 28 2010

Here’s a fascinating series of ironies: Folks who for years were known to scorn at and work against anything to do with populist political reformism and revolution during the Cold War have suddenly started turning up on TV and chanting for a revolution. Being from the right-wing of the conventional ideological divide in this country, it is not surprising to see them doing so during a time when Pakistan is not under a dictatorship, but struggling under a shaky democracy.

Instigating a revolution and rebellion usually means taking a principled or passionate stand against the status quo, or going against a largely held narrative which the rebel accuses of being a lie constructed to keep a repressed populace sedated. But if one listens to newborn revolutionaries like the Jamat-i-Islami (JI), the Tehreek-i-Insaaf (TI), the ‘hawks’ in the PML-N, and talk show hosts and their largely urban middle-class audiences (masquerading as ‘common people’), one can easily realise that the revolutionary mantra emerging from them is nothing more than the kind of chauvinistic rhetoric that the state itself began devising after the 1971 debacle in the former East Pakistan.

In other words, unlike in the past, today’s ‘revolutionaries’ in Pakistan are not fist clenching leftist outsiders facing wave upon wave of resistance, repression and ridicule from the state, the government, the right-wing press and urban middle-class morality. Today’s revolutionaries are usually middle-aged men and women who played into the hands of reactionary avengers in 1977 to topple a democratically elected prime minister and paved the way for an equally reactionary dictatorship.

They then spent their time sitting pretty during the tyranny, gazing at their navels about the ‘strategic importance’ of the United States’ aid to that dictatorship against the spread of ‘chaos’ in the shape of godless communism and liberal democracy. The young among this lot of revolutionaries are those who, after living a life under the sword of unprecedented carnage and terrorism by psycho flag wavers of the faith, are venting out their frustration by barking up the wrong tree. They punch away at politicians for discharging huge loads of corruption and economic crisis upon their fragile heads, but the same heads are cluttered with the most airy ideas about reform and revolution. If rebellion is someone challenging a prevailing narrative that he or she accuses of being a lie then, I am afraid, none of these middle-aged and young rebels are revolutionaries. They are not offering any alternative narrative or ideas to stem the economic and political rot this country has been besieged with.

On the contrary, when you hear them talking about revolutionary change, theirs is a spiel constructed by all the muscle-flexing, chauvinistic hoopla about ‘patriotism’ and nationalism, first constructed by the state to soften the blow the nation suffered in 1971. They then fatten this old-school, state-constructed narrative with stuff that was once anathema to them: i.e. left-wing populism and symbolism.

So what you get are young middle-class urbanites, talk show hosts and certain middle-aged politicians carelessly fusing Marx with Maududi, Osama with Che and the so-called common man’s tragedies with what is actually the eternal and traditional Pakistani middle-class grudge against anything smacking of democracy. Democracies, no matter how flawed, are not toppled by revolutions. History teaches us that they are floored by military dictatorships. However, it is military dictatorships and assorted tyrannies that generate revolutionary opposition.

Whereas it is natural for one to become a revolutionary under the yoke of a usurping dictatorship, it is only wise for a disgruntled soul to simply vote out a flawed democratic government. Even in a revolution there are no immediate solutions. No matter how much blood is shed in its name, revolutionaries from 19th century France to 20th century Russia and China, all had to come down to earth to find solutions beyond lofty rhetoric, slogans and massacres.

In a country like Pakistan, brimming with ethnic, religious and sectarian diversity and interests, it is only logical to conclude that much of the economic, political and social turmoil that it faces can only be sorted out by finally allowing democracy its innings. Democracy cannot be allowed to get derailed by lofty middle-class romanticism, morality and frustrations — attributes that have over and over again been manipulated and exploited, sometimes in the name of faith, sometimes in the name of order by those who are the real architects of most of the tragedies that have befallen this country.

So how seriously should one take the current middle-class mantra of revolution? Not really, because one can only smirk sceptically when one sees a charged debate on the need for a revolution on TV taking a commercial break to run the many soap, detergent, ice-cream and facial cream products that are sponsoring the debate. For the new revolutionary, Che, cola and hijab truly have become one. Lord have mercy.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Empowering the provinces

Daily Times
December 03, 2010

Some of the promises made in the 18th Amendment are finally beginning to come to fruition. One of them is making the provinces more autonomous and powerful. In this regard, the Federal Cabinet has approved the transfer of five federal ministries to the provinces: Special Initiatives, Zakat and Ushr, Population Welfare, Youth Affairs and Local Government and Rural Development. Casting a glance at these ministries, one notices how they are perfect to start off the transfer process; one that is slated to transfer a total of 18 federal ministries to the provinces by June 2011. These initial five ministries are apt right now because they are those that deal with grassroots issues, the kind that can be best dealt with at the provincial level.

The fact that the implementation commission for constitutional reforms has decided on the ministries that will kickstart the devolution plan is commendable; the fact that a final deadline has been given is even more so. The government is finally taking some initiative and setting some much anticipated targets. This devolution is a welcome step; it enriches the provinces with increased finances. The Special Initiatives ministry for example is a key area for investment in development programmes and projects. It also enables the provinces to cut through any unnecessary central bureaucratic red tape. All in all, this is a very efficacious step forward by the centre in giving the provinces more control over their own matters.

Initial anxieties have been quashed to a certain extent. The fate of some 3,769 employees was hanging in the balance, with fears that they would either be transferred from the centre or laid off. However, the chairman of the implementation commission, Senator Raza Rabbani has assured during a news conference that these employees will not be “physically dislocated”, but would be absorbed in other government functions and organisations. This was the primary concern of all those linked to the transfer plan. Another was the fact that the provinces are too cash-strapped to take on the liabilities associated with the setting up of new ministries. For that it has been decided that, for now, the centre will bear these liabilities till the situation in the provinces improves. It must be remembered that the question of capacity in both organisation and finances was like a Damocles sword hanging over the provinces; they themselves have enough to cope with, given straitened financial resources. The fact that the centre is stepping up to nurture this transition is commendable.

With the initial phase underway and direction provided to guide the transfer, the real test will come once these ministries start functioning in the provinces, where they must rise to the best of their available capacities.

What must be kept in mind is that this is an inherently difficult and complex process. Now that the government has set its deadline, its many detractors will lie in wait to detect any slackening. It is vital that this empowerment of the provinces continue; all anticipated problems and inherent difficulties notwithstanding.

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Democratic failings

Daily Times
Salman Tarik Kureshi
December 04, 2010

There is a distinction between the reporting in the main pages of a newspaper and the musings by op-ed writers (such as this scribe) on this feature page. More than even the difference between news and views, it is expected that the former will be bang up to date, the immediate events that have happened only a day before, while the latter is about things that are more long-term, the fruits of reflection, analysis and insight.

It seems to me that this is where our TV anchors often get it wrong, failing to grasp that their role is analogous to that of a features editor, who permits individuals to present their varying opinions in one place for the readers/viewers to gain perspective. Seen thus, the role demands a measure of sobriety that is not usually apparent in the expostulations and expletives that pass for discussion on TV. Therefore, while the other pages of this paper may have Wikis leaking all over the place and the price of sugar or gas or whatever may be hitting whichever heights, here one must write against a longer-term perspective.

My piece today has been triggered by a highly educated relative of mine, a top professional, who has demonstrated outstanding abilities and achieved unusual success, both here and in other countries. Commenting on the numerous failings of the present government, he remarked, “Democracy clearly doesn’t suit us and, anyhow, even the ideas of democracy are nowadays coming into question by intellectuals everywhere.” Now, to my understanding, no serious intellectual anywhere (other than the mouthpieces for al Qaeda and suchlike) queries the validity of constitutional democracy as the basis for running a state. In fact, formal democracy, from its emergence in Switzerland, England and the US over the last three centuries or so, has gone from strength to strength in its evolution. It has freed nation after nation from monarchist, imperialist and feudal oppression. In more recent times, democracy claims to have fought and won wars against both fascist and communist totalitarianism.

Even the earlier accepted ‘development’ shibboleth that, for economic take-off, developing countries require to be hard-driven by the whip of a dictator is no longer accepted. One of the ‘horrible examples’ has been in fact Pakistan itself, which has seen a succession of tin-pot tyrants, claiming economic development as a raison d’être. After all these decades, however, Pakistan’s comparative position is that it remains among the bottom 40 countries in terms of per capita GDP, while its internal socio-economic indicators continue to worsen.

Clearly, then, democracy has never been a more near-universally favoured means of ordering the state than it is today. So much for that. But is the contention that it may not ‘suit’ us in Pakistan in accord with the evidence? The poor track record of our present parliament and government would seem to support this view. Now, while partisans of constitutional democracy can argue endlessly that the failings of a particular regime do not condemn an entire system, the other side could equally suggest, first, that there must indeed be something very wrong with a system that produces such bad regimes and, second, that Pakistan cannot afford these ill-governed interregnums anyhow.

Let us then take a quick look at Pakistani democracy’s past record. The follies of the eight governments (four elected and four caretaker), who held power between Zia’s death and Musharraf’s seizure of power, are too well known to need recounting. However, democracy’s proponents point to the massive constitutional distortions and the grotesque socio-cultural disfigurements perpetrated by the Zia regime, which crowded the space in which those governments operated. Worse, Zia’s powerful legatees, in the persons of President Ishaq Khan, General Hamid Gul and others, effectively castrated the governments of that period. It can be justifiably argued that democracy did not fail; it was deliberately made to fail.

Let us go back further, to the time of the father of Pakistan’s constitution. ZA Bhutto’s party won a massive electoral victory in the regions that are now Pakistan and enjoyed public adulation, enthusiasm and support that no leadership before or since can claim. Pulling together ‘the pieces, the very small pieces’, an ambitious programme of reforms was initiated. We are not considering here the merits or otherwise of measures like nationalisation, only noting that the programme of radical changes was far-reaching and deep. Bhutto’s was a hyperactive administration (in sharp contrast to the somnolence of his party heirs today). But his style was abrasive and often vindictive. He created his own worst enemies, sometimes out of his natural allies. In 1973, he dismissed the government of Balochistan and forced out the government of NWFP, causing a major insurrection to develop in Balochistan. The armed forces, quiescent and under control as a result of defeat in former East Pakistan, had now to be cultivated and built up again. Repeatedly used, they were soon again a power in themselves. In 1974, the government sought to appease the religious lobby by turning against the Ahmedi community. In 1977, thumping on the arm of his chair and proclaiming its power, Bhutto banned alcohol and declared Friday as the weekly holiday. A government with such an authoritarian style, underpinned by the Army and the Mullahs, could scarcely be claimed as an exemplar of democratic values.

Go back to the very beginning, to Pakistan’s first government and parliament. Is it not relevant to point out that, by 1949, the year when India enacted its constitution, our constituent assembly had only managed to pass the Objectives Resolution? By 1954, our assembly — elected in 1946 under the Cabinet Mission Plan for an undivided India — was still waffling and playing political musical chairs when Malik Ghulam Mohammad staged his coup d’état.

My reader may at this point query that, if none of our past episodes of constitutional rule can be called democratic, then are our present rulers the first ‘properly’ democratic rulers we have had? And is this not then an appallingly bad advertisement for democracy in Pakistan?

Precisely, and therefore the exceedingly heavy weight of history sits on the weak and fallible shoulders of Messrs Zardari, Gillani, Sharif, et al. Can they, even now, straighten up and bear that weight forward? On that depends our future.

The writer is a marketing consultant based in Karachi. He is also a poet.

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Progression vs retrogression

Daily Times
Shahab Usto
December 09, 2010


What does it mean when the elected prime minister declares in the house that the armed forces will not take over, as they are a patriotic force? Does it mean that the forces’ patriotism is the only saving grace for the continuation of democracy in the country; or does it mean that the forces believe that derailing democracy would imperil the country beyond retrieve? The difference is subtle but vital; the former concedes the popular ‘will’ to a subjective power, but the latter signifies the fallouts of undoing democracy. In other words, democracy ‘can be derailed’ but the country cannot bear the cost of another adventure.

This difference must also be underscored for those who fail to differentiate between democracy’s form and content. A democracy can be faulty yet indispensable, but an inept government is always disposable, thanks again to democracy. Therefore, democracy as a system is no more controversial; if it is when it is not in its true substance, then the dictum: more democracy for a bad democracy.

Therefore, democracy has become a barometer of a country’s socio-political progress. Sociologists treasure its social empowerment; political scientists value its ‘power shift’; historians glorify its epochal change, and great philosophers like Aristotle link it to ‘equality and liberty’. Only some decadent obscurantists or autocrats would build on its failures a counter-narrative in favour of a personal or absolutist rule.

But that does not mean democracies do not fail. They do when the powerful oligarchic or autocratic forces undermine them, or when the elected governments fail to ‘deliver’ the goods to the people, their ultimate saviours. Therefore, fledgling democracies have historically owed their success and survival to a fine balance of power between their beneficiaries and adversaries.

Our democratic travails also bear the same trajectory. Civilian governments were effortlessly dismissed because, inter alia, they failed to pass the economic and social benefits of democracy to the people. The present government’s apparent fragility seems real in the backdrop of the rising social and economic discontent, with 40 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

Save Bhutto’s ‘socialist’ interregnum, our entire economic history can be defined in one metaphor: the ‘trickle-down effect’, or incentivising business entrepreneurs to amass wealth in the hope that they would reinvest it to expand the economy. This naïve and untested assumption has been the gospel truth since the economy was taken over by the Harvard-trained wizards during the first military government (1958-1969).

Since then, tomes have been written on the glory of this ‘decade of development’. But few would deny the fact that most of the current problems owe their origins to that period. For instance, it was then that elitism was strengthened, the state was militarised, the centre trampled on provincial rights, the majoritarian principle was denied, sectarianism was accommodated, and rights and liberties were suppressed.

And the state and society have since paid the due price of these policies in the form of wars, dismemberment, ethnic uprisings, political murders, and long autocratic rule. The ongoing disastrous sectarian and scholastic disputes are also rooted in the 1950s through 60s when powerful sectarian forces literally ‘besieged’ and later compelled the state to expel a section of bona fide citizens from ‘Islam’.

In fact, since then the state has never been the one as envisaged by its founding fathers. By the late 1970s, an unwritten anti-democracy coalition between the sectarian, autocratic and oligarchic forces was formed and that later changed the nature and role of the state through constitutional, economic and strategic changes.

Thus, a military general inserted Article 2A to incorporate the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part of the constitution, making the state subservient to a subjective interpretation of Islam. Religious outfits were created and co-opted by the state as its strategic partners in regional and international conflicts, the Washington Consensus-based mantra of decentralisation, privatisation and deregulation became the official economic policy; and the western wars including the ongoing war on terror were owned up.

The people were, however, never consulted on these crucial decisions, nor was their overwhelming rejection of these policies through elections ever respected. As a result, a clear disconnect has existed between the democratic populace and the authoritarian-elitist state. Democratic society might still have prevailed over the authoritarian state if four major developments had not changed the internal, regional and international calculus: the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan; the rise of Hindu-revivalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India; the intifada in Kashmir; 9/11 and the resulting war on terror.

However, as against India (and also Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka), where democratic institutions kept the state steady vis-à-vis myriad ethnic, sectarian and secessionist challenges, Pakistan’s undeveloped democratic institutions, coupled with inept political leadership, could not withstand the loaded state agendas, internally and externally. As a result, none of the civilian governments could deliver or complete their term. On the contrary, a sizeable section of the political leadership, including the supposedly anti-establishment PPP, defensively owned the authoritarian state’s agendas: the oligarchic economy, nuclearisation of the state, legitimising the Taliban in Afghanistan, and espousing the armed uprising in Kashmir.

The present government also betrays the same ‘bunker mentality’. Instead of using its democratic mandate to resolve conflicts, improve governance, and better the worsening economic conditions, it has conveniently given way to the powers that be. No wonder our foreign policy is dictated by the US (and the establishment), the economic policies by the IMF/World Bank, governance by the courts, and the budgeting, billing, taxing and monetary policies by the powerful business, industrial, financial and agricultural lobbies.

But the ultimate victim of the government’s incompetence and abdication of authority is the common man who is faced with a double whammy: the increasing cost of living caused by the international financial institutions (IFIs)-induced economic measures, and the menace of mis-governance, racketeering, lawlessness and terrorism.

In the given situation, what should the common man do? Should he give up on democracy and seek anarchistic or autocratic options? Or should he demand more democracy to replace a bad democracy? Obviously, the only way forward is more democracy, which guarantees accountability and a peaceful transfer of power. But alas, as ever the spin-doctors are out looking for ‘acceptable’ versions of autocracy to hoodwink yet again the democracy-loving people of Pakistan.

The writer is a lawyer and academic.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Five ministers lose portfolios to devolution

December 12, 2010

ISLAMABAD: With the devolution of five ministries to the provinces under the 18th Amendment, four ministers and a minister of state have lost their portfolios.

The federal cabinet had on Dec 1 approved the devolution of these ministries to the provinces.

The cabinet division said on Saturday that Dr Firdaus Ashiq Awan, Minister for Population Welfare; Lal Mohammad Khan, Minister for Special Initiatives; Shahid Hussain Bhutto, Minister for Youth Affairs; Noorul Haq Qadri, Minister for Zakat and Ushr; and Masood Abbas, Minister of State for Local Government and Rural Development, had ceased to hold their portfolios from Dec 7.

However, Dr Firdous Awan, who is currently holding an additional charge of the Ministry of Women Development, will continue to enjoy perks of a federal minister.

The next round of devolution of five more ministries to the provinces will be completed by the end of June.

In May this year, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had constituted a nine-member commission, headed by Senator Raza Rabbani, to oversee the implementation process of the 18th Amendment.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Delusions of grandeur

Daily Times
December 17, 2010

Every time former president Pervez Musharraf publicly voices his opinions, he, quite frankly, puts his foot in his mouth by rehashing his usual rhetoric in often unremarkable ways. His latest barrage of comments came on the eve of the fall of Dhaka in 1971, one of the most devastating points in Pakistan’s history, a dismemberment that could have been prevented had it not been for army intervention. To hear Musharraf say that the army may yet again be forced to intervene in politics due to the declining state of affairs in the country is enough to make one understand why the man is being kept at an arm’s length from Pakistan. Musharraf fails to understand that many of the problems that plague Pakistan are precisely a consequence of the malaise of the military’s direct interventionist policies. He fails to understand that it is because the democratic process he so openly castigates has been flimsy and constantly interrupted that the country has been gripped by many maladies. He fails to understand that the various periods of army rule that subverted the democratic process did nothing but pile problem upon problem for the civilian government that would inherit them, only to be toppled in the next coup. He fails to understand that it is this vicious cycle of army rule followed by an overburdened civilian rule that has brought the country to its knees. And he fails to understand that his suggestions are tantamount to bringing Pakistan crashing down even further.

He went further by saying that if the rest of the world continued to alienate Pakistan, the country would be forced to take matters into its own hands, including “working with the Taliban”. Now that is hardly a novel idea since Musharraf is the original architect of the dual policies vis-à-vis the Taliban and the US. It was during his stint as president that he struck a deal with the Americans for a crackdown on extremist jihadis but continued to give safe havens to the Afghan Taliban. Musharraf’s assertion that Pakistan may just have to work with the militants is ironic because it is Pakistan that initially deployed the Taliban fighters to Afghanistan in 1994. Pakistan was also one of only three countries to officially recognise the Taliban after they took over in Kabul in 1996. Our creation of, and collusion with the Taliban is common knowledge but it looks like the ex-president may need to brush up on his history.

Musharraf went on about how the army is the saviour of the country and how it knows best. Musharraf has the mindset of the typical khaki man. The fact that Pakistan has suffered incrementally because of the policies adopted by authoritarian dictators who wrestled power from civilian governments elected by the wishes of the people, shows just how much they actually knew and know about what is best for this country. If the army takes over now, Pakistan could lose some of the precious support it is receiving from the US — support that is vital in keeping the economy afloat — because the army’s ‘quiet’ support for the Afghan Taliban is no secret as well as the fact that the Pakistani Taliban could very well be given free reign due to negotiated peace processes and truces. These are situations that can be ill afforded by this country.

It is unfortunate that the many previous and current civilian governments leave much to be desired. Their incompetence and barely concealed corruption have always given adventurers room to dream. Musharraf is one such opportunist. Even though he is hardly taken seriously anymore, his words ought to wake the present incumbents out of their slumber to straighten the affairs of the state so that men like him are not given a chance to issue such outrageous statements.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Towards maturity


Daily Times
December 23, 2010

The near-unanimous approval of the 19th Amendment bill by the National Assembly has set a precedent of restraint, wisdom and mutual respect among various institutions of the state in Pakistan. The need for this amendment was felt when the Supreme Court (SC), while deciding on identical petitions challenging the 18th Amendment, made recommendations to parliament regarding the procedure for the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) accepted all but two recommendations. It increased the number of judges from three to five in the judicial commission (including the Chief Justice of Pakistan), agreed to the holding of the parliamentary committee’s meetings in camera, and made it mandatory for the parliamentary committee to give reasons in writing in case it rejects a nomination made by the judicial commission. These changes have increased the serving judiciary’s power in the appointments process. The PCCR, however, did not accept the proposal that rejected nominations will be sent back to the judicial commission for reconsideration and if the commission reiterates its decision, it would become final. It did however, adopt a provision that any rejection by a three-fourths majority of the parliamentary committee would have to record its reasons in writing, to be forwarded to the judicial commission through the prime minister. Nevertheless, parliament and its committee would have the last word, a befitting reiteration of parliament’s sovereignty over and above all other institutions of state.

Another important feature of the 19th Amendment is the empowerment of the judicial commission in the appointments of ad hoc judges. An amendment to Article 182 of the constitution binds the chief justice to appoint ad hoc judges in consultation with the judicial commission. Experience shows that leverage in the hands of one person, even one as competent as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, laid these appointments open to accusations of bias or personal likes and dislikes. There is an inherent risk of bias in favour of retired judges or advocates who might be considered close to the court because of frequent interaction. The broadening of decision-making powers will make the appointment of ad hoc judges less likely to become controversial.

The SC’s verdict on the 18th Amendment petitions shows its respect for parliament. By passing the 19th Amendment, parliament has reciprocated that gesture of respect. The PCCR examined the SC verdict on merit and incorporated most of the recommendations made by the SC. This is the spirit of institutions working within the boundaries set by the constitution, which can make democracy work. A clash only becomes inevitable if institutions intrude onto one another’s turf. Despite provocations by certain sections of the media, parliament, the judiciary and the executive have all observed their boundaries. Better sense prevailed on all sides. It shows that institutions are beginning to learn to work in cooperation with each other, not at cross-purposes. This is no mean achievement.

Pakistan had to wait so long for this to happen because of frequent military coups. The democratic process has been interrupted so many times that systems could not evolve. Every time there was an intervention, the question of how to govern the country went back to the drawing board. How can the various constituents of the system work together in such an environment? The history of democratic experience stands witness to the fact that continuity strengthens a system and ensures its success. Developed countries have taken centuries to evolve their systems. Continuity, reform and wisdom are the key factors in institutionalising democracy. This was the first such instance of this happening in Pakistan. It must be welcomed. It is hoped that this tradition will be upheld in future too.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Security first?

Dawn
Jan 01 2011

CRITICISING the `obsession` of the West with democracy, Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) has in an opinion piece for this newspaper yesterday repeated an old formulation for statecraft here: national security, physical and economic, first and then democracy. Is it a self-serving canard of a former military ruler or is there a grain of truth to the formulation? Looking at the history of military rule in Pakistan, it certainly appears that Gen Musharraf has got yet another thing wrong. After running the country for nearly a decade, he left behind a country that was clearly in much trouble, economically, security-wise and politically. The general`s greatest `achievement` was to give the country a few years of economic `growth` — growth which proved to be hollow and left behind structural problems, such as a declining tax-to-GDP ratio, that subsequent governments will take many, many years to reverse. Similarly, the other periods of military rule were also hyped as economic `successes`, but it is the universal opinion of economists and experts that the successes were hollow and the result of good fortune.

The costs to the country of military rule, however, have not been an illusion. Gen Ayub Khan started the trend of vilifying and demonising politicians. Gen Yahya Khan presided over the loss of half the country and the horrors that were perpetrated against the Bengalis in East Pakistan. Gen Ziaul Haq left behind a legacy of Islamism and militancy that the country is still reeling from three decades later. Unlike political governments, the generals who ruled Pakistan cannot have claimed to have been impeded in running the country`s affairs, so they are squarely responsible for all the mistakes and sins of omission and commission that occurred on their watch. Indeed, the only thing Pakistan, or more specifically the army, has never tried is giving politicians the time and space to run the country on their terms. With the generals` abysmal record of trying to put Pakistan on the right track, it is certainly debatable if the very worst politician could do more damage to the country than the best military ruler has done so far.

Having said that, there is an undeniable sense the political class in Pakistan does not appear to have the ideas or the capacity to address the country`s more serious problems. Collectively, the performance of civilian, genuinely elected politicians on the economy, on the provision of basic services, on managing cities and towns, on strengthening the agricultural sector has been poor. As long as the civilian politicians do not improve their own record, Gen Musharraf`s arguments may resonate with a large section of the public.

 

[nightcrawler]

NFP post n46 is talking about Student Union era & the respective activities

http://www.defence.pk/forums/national-political-issues/87028-street-fighting-years_dawn.html

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Justice for Taseer

Daily Times
January 08, 2011

Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer’s murder trial has not yet begun but the way the supporters of his killer, Mumtaz Qadri, are trying to intimidate the judiciary as well as the legal fraternity is a cause for worry. On Thursday, Qadri was supposed to be presented before a judge at a temporary court set up in Islamabad instead of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Rawalpindi, ostensibly due to security concerns. Qadri was taken to Islamabad but after a few hours he had to be taken back to Rawalpindi because ATC Judge Malik Akram Awan cited some legal bindings that “did not allow the judge to hold the ATC anywhere else but its designated courtroom”. The fact that Justice Awan had previously agreed to hear the case in Islamabad means that there were sound legal grounds and the legal bindings that he later cited were only to paper over the real reasons for his decision. Apparently the hooligans and the lawyers who support Qadri created quite a ruckus by surrounding the ATC and preventing the judge from leaving for Islamabad. On top of that, no public prosecutor showed up at the ATC for fear of reprisals. A five day remand for Qadri was given by the judge after the police officers concerned argued the case. All this just goes to show how powerful the extremist forces are.

Under these circumstances, it would not be wrong to ask if there would be a fair trial. Judges and prosecutors would definitely be under extreme pressure once the murder trial begins in earnest. This is the age-old tool used by the extremists to exert pressure on the judiciary when they want a verdict to go their way. We have seen this phenomenon at work especially in cases involving alleged blasphemy. Pressure from local clerics and their supporters is the reason why most of the blasphemy accused are handed down death sentences in the first place. It will be a test for the state and government to make sure that they provide swift justice to the Taseer family. The government must combat this pressure. It cannot allow the fanatics to subvert due process. If the PPP government cannot ensure a fair trial for Salmaan Taseer, who was assassinated while he was a sitting governor, then how can it possibly provide justice to the masses? We expect the now independent judiciary too to ensure the ends of justice.

Governor Taseer’s murder is a political murder but the way the PPP is colouring it is open to question. There was definitely a security lapse by the Punjab government, for which it should be held responsible, but to suggest that blame for the murder lies on the Nawaz-League may be jumping the gun. The PML-N does have a soft corner for the extremist forces and had no love lost for the late governor, but accusing the Sharifs of Mr Taseer’s murder even before investigations are completed seems inappropriate and dangerous for peace. This murder, ostensibly carried out in the name of religion, is in essence political. This is a reality that discerning minds already accept and the country will have to acknowledge in the coming days. Religion and politics are intertwined and this evident truth can be seen in the way a section of our society reacted to Mr Taseer’s brutal murder. No one in a civilised society would ever celebrate the death of an innocent man. What we saw in Pakistan was appalling, but perhaps no surprise. Until and unless there is a separation of religion and the state, Pakistani society will get uglier with every passing day. Secularism is the key to a democratic, progressive Pakistan. We must not let the mullahs suffocate the liberal voices. It is time to stand up. It is time to say no to mullah-gardi (clergy-instigated violence).

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Reeking perfidy of the self-righteous

Daily Times
Mohammad Jamil
January 12, 2011

The Punjab Assembly has done well by adopting a unanimous resolution strongly condemning the assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, which should be a message to extremists that the two major political parties are in unison in fighting the spectre of terrorism. The brutal assassination of Salmaan Taseer was indeed tragic and grievous as he had taken a principled stand that the Blasphemy Law should not be misused. Salmaan Taseer had only suggested removing lacunas in the Blasphemy Law so that innocent persons are not framed and punished. In fact, many commentators have been suggesting that the government should evolve some mechanism so that the Blasphemy Law is not misused by anyone.

A moderate, enlightened, erudite, principled and outspoken man, Salmaan Taseer earned fanatical ire for his stand that there is a need to reform the Blasphemy Law so that no innocent person is charged and sent to the gallows. If religious parties continue tossing around the issue, it will lead to further polarisation of society. It is a fact that emotions are what drive us, and also what drive us astray. We must remember that Allah sent Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) as a great blessing for the world, carrying the message of peace and, above all, truth. Therefore, while awarding the death sentence to a person who is accused of committing blasphemy, it must be established that he or she is not framed by a vested interest or booked because of a vendetta. If truth is not pursued then it is in negation of Islamic injunctions. After his martyrdom, the case lies in court and there is no need to take out rallies as Pakistan’s economy is already in dire straits; anarchy-like conditions could bring Pakistan to the brink of disaster. Nevertheless, no one should be allowed to influence the court through rallies or other means.

Meanwhile, the assassin has confessed to his interrogators as well as the court that he committed the crime in reaction to Salmaan Taseer’s statements regarding the Blasphemy Law. He had no right to take the law into his own hands; he should not be projected as a hero. On November 23, 2010, Sunni Tehreek and Aalmi Tanzim Ahle Sunnat held a protest demonstration in front of the Lahore Press Club. Addressing the rally, Pir Muhammad Afzal Qadri said, “If Arif Iqbal Bhatti, a judge of the Lahore High Court could be assassinated for acquitting two Christians, government functionaries should not expect to be spared.” It is true that Pakistan is an extremist society, but extremism should be eliminated in every form and manifestation. Pakistan’s military has been fighting extremism and terrorism, losing many of its soldiers and officers. Therefore, all progressive forces should unite against extremism and the media should play its role in this regard.

Speech is an important form of communication, revealing critical aspects of our nature. But some self-righteous media anchorpersons, politicos, eminences, intellectuals, scholars and religious leaders shout at the top of their lungs and interrupt when others express their views. Our anchorpersons, panellists and their guests (mostly politicians) shriek during talk shows; their screeches present a dismal picture of our society, as shouting has become their main characteristic during the discourse. They believe that the louder they shriek, the more they prove they are right. In the 19th century and first five decades of the 20th century, the role of the press was to inform people about what was happening around the world. Today, the print and electronic media’s role is to inform the people, create awareness, build public perception and mould public opinion to create unity and give hope to the crisis challenged people.

Most member states of the UN have incorporated human rights in their constitutions, bearing an identical serial number — Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter. The Pakistani constitution’s Article 19 says: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan.” Some people interpret freedom as the ‘right to do wrong’, which means that they are free to act even if that means trampling upon the freedom and rights of others. This is against the very concept of the citizens’ rights in a civil society. Investigating or reporting is serious business and if media men start using such reporting to take sides and extract money then, of course, it is despicable and condemnable.

There is widespread perception that some media men have weaned away from the high standards of professionalism demanded of them. One reporting editor of a media group in his columns and frequent appearances on television is trying to justify the rallies taken out by religious groups and parties despite the fact that the government has categorically stated that it would not change the Blasphemy Law. He condones the act of Mumtaz Qadri in a subtle manner through his flawed polemics. Last year, he tried to convey the impression that the military leadership was calling the shots, and went on with his insinuation of the army’s hand behind the unrest in Abbottabad and Hazara after changing the NWFP’s name to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He stated, “After the recent bloody riots in Abbottabad and Hazara, another PML-N leader told this correspondent, strictly off-the-record, that he believed that some intelligence agencies had played tricks to trigger violence in the area.” He did not feel any qualms over his betrayal of the trust of the person who strictly told him that it was off-the-record.

The Pakistani media should take notice of the black sheep in its fraternity who are out to create chaos and confusion by pitting one organ of the state against another. They have to realise that if the law and order situation does not improve, no domestic or foreign investment will arrive, no jobs will be created and, with spiralling inflation, Pakistan will become a breeding ground for extremists and terrorists. If this trend is not stemmed, the ruling elite should realise that Salmaan Taseer will not be the last person on the fringe’s hit list. This fringe has also been knocking out mosques, imambargahs, shrines and tombs of revered saints. In Surah Furqan, Allah has described the properties of the momin, and one of them is described in XXV (73): “And those who, when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat.” God Almighty expects His servants to keep their eyes open to reason, thought and light. “Those who were blind allegorically to knowledge and self-development will be blind to the hereafter and most astray from the path” (Al Quran).

The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Thank God for little mercies

Dawn
Kamran Shafi
Jan 18 2011

IN times like these, when Pakistani is falling upon Pakistani, Muslim upon Muslim, and Muslims upon our poor minorities, one has to thank the Almighty for little mercies shown through good men who stand up and take cognisance of wrong and attempt to put it right.

I refer here to the case of once-famous Sindhi folk singer Zeenat Shaikh, who has been reduced to penury and in her seventies is begging in the streets of her village in Thatta to feed herself and her paralysed husband. They live in a mud hut with a thatched roof and draw water from the local ****** pond.

The story first surfaced in this newspaper through its Thatta correspondent. Once it was brought to their attention, the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation arranged a benefit concert in Ms Shaikh’s honour at the Hyderabad station of the PBC within a week of the news having appeared in the press. The organisation worked hard to contact Ms Sheikh, to bring the frail lady to Hyderabad and then to make the considerable arrangements for the benefit concert.

It was an honour for one who lives in the north of the country to meet Sindhi intellectuals like the 90-year-old but still sprightly author Ibrahim Joyo Sahib; former Vice Chancellor of Shah Latif University in Khairpur, Hameed Sindhi; Regional Director of the Allama Iqbal Open University in Hyderabad, Inam Shiekh; and young columnist and social activist, Jami Chandio. There were also talented musicians like Abdullah Khan on the shehnai, Amb Jogi on the dholak, Sodho Jogi on the harmonium, Abid Hussain on the sitar and his namesake Abid Hussain on the tabla.

All in all it was a wonderful evening, and it was great to see poor Ms Shaikh draped in gifts of ajrak and other clothes with the other presents that people had brought for her spread at her feet. A total of over 100,000 rupees was raised to help the lady, and the Sindh culture ministry has promised to build her a house. By far the most uplifting part was, of course, when Ms Shaikh herself belted out a folk song in her strong and melodious voice, not missing a beat, as if she had just come from a month of practising her voice and rehearsing with the musicians!

In the cultural desert that our country has surely become, many thanks to Gen Ziaul Haq, this small concert was a ray of hope for one such as I who despairs at the direction this blessed country is taking. It is important, also, to recall some events for the benefit of younger Pakistanis who have no idea of the damage the dictator did to the country and its social fabric. It is critical that they be told, for example, about the cruel and inhuman way in which great artistes like the incomparable Naheed Siddiqui, who brought so much honour to Pakistan, were treated by his regime.

I remember when the late and much-lamented Benazir Bhutto was visiting London for an investor’s conference in 1995 and one of the slated functions was a dance performance by Ms Siddiqui. She refused to even speak to the government because of the way in which she had been humiliated those many years ago, when she used to visit the culture ministry in Islamabad for a no-objection certificate to go abroad to teach dance. She would be made to sit and wait in the ****** corridors until the burra sahib (the section officer) finally condescended to see her, this disgraceful behaviour going on for weeks and months. Eventually she was convinced to forget the past, that the horror was no more and that Ms Bhutto’s was a democratic government that had immense respect for artistes.All I can say is that with more people like those who helped make Ms Shaikh’s benefit concert a reality and were responsible for lifting her up from the ground and giving her respect back to her, there might be a slim chance to invigorate and revitalise our culture, which has taken such a severe beating during obscurantist dictatorships. We can only hope.

And now let’s come back to earth with a most unpleasant thud … Karachi, the city of my birth, is burning once again with many people losing their lives every single day and various political parties blaming each other and everybody else but themselves. And then there is the great disconnect: Ranchore Lines might be in flames, but you wouldn’t know anything was wrong if you lived in, say, Clifton or Defence, where the good life goes on.

But again, the situation in the country is getting through to some people. Walking in Clifton one can see many a fancy home in complete darkness (no, not because of loadshedding, for they have great generators), with the usual two or three expensive motorcars and SUVs parked in driveways, the owners having decamped to Canada or England or Malaysia or wherever they maintain their alternative nests.

We are in very serious trouble, my friends.

 

[RabzonKhan]

ANALYSIS: Democracy in Pakistan

Daily Times
Anwar Syed
January 25, 2011

Many political observers tell us that democracy in Pakistan is still in the making, that it is threatened by hostile forces, or that it might crumble under the weight of its own misdirected operations. These warnings deserve to be scrutinised. It is true that democracy has come and gone more than once, and that it did not work well during its tenures. It was removed by the military establishment on the ground that its workings had been corrupt and incompetent. This may have been merely an excuse for the officers to take power, which they coveted in any case.

Let us look at some of the current ground realities. Elections to the central and provincial assemblies were held in February 2008. They were considered to have been reasonably fair and honest. As a result, elected assemblies at the Centre and in the provinces are in place and so are the executive heads responsible to them. Issues are brought to the assemblies, debated, and settled. Proposed bills and resolutions are considered, accepted, turned down, amended or withdrawn. Some of the permanent committees of the National Assembly work hard on proposed legislation. Its Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is well known for the competence and thoroughness with which it scrutinises government expenditures. What is then wanting in the working of democracy in Pakistan?

It may be said that we have more the appearance than the reality of democracy. Democracy and equality go together; not the equality of incomes and material possessions but equality of rights under the law. In an election a servant’s vote carries the same weight as that of his employer. Given the pervasiveness of poverty, the incidence of buying and selling of votes can be substantial. The voter here is also amenable to pressures of caste, clan, and feudal hierarchical relationships. Winds of change are however blowing. As mentioned above, the elections of February 2008 were reasonably fair. I have seen reports that even in some villages, husband and wife voted for different candidates. As the generality of people become politically more advanced and mature, the state of democracy in the country will improve. Ideas of personal dignity, self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and autonomy in the choice and pursuit of one’s objectives are slow in coming. They are not components of our culture at this time. Many of us look for a protector who will also be our guide in choice-making. We are the same way even as a nation. We have sought and adopted the patronage of the US and look there for advice even on issues of our domestic policy.

In a parliamentary system the majority party in the House is expected to form the government. It assumes the presence of a minority whose members are entitled to the same rights and privileges as members of the majority party do. The minority may choose the function as an opposition to the government. It will then scrutinise the government’s bills and proposed resolutions, keeps an eye on its performance, and brings out its shortcomings. The majority takes its criticism in stride. It may offer rejoinders but it does not dispute the opposition’s right to pick holes in the government’s policies and action. It tolerates the minority’s role as a watchdog. In considering the working of a democracy it may be useful to recall John Stuart Mill’s celebrated observation that he would defend as vigorously as he could his opponent’s right to form and voice his opinions whatever they might be.

The people of Pakistan have become notorious for their intolerance of the dissident. Many of them will ridicule opinions of which they do not approve. Some of them will resort to physical violence against persons who think unconventional thoughts. A man, presumably a religious fanatic, recently killed Salmaan Taseer because he thought the governor had criticised a law that prescribed death penalty for anyone who had detracted from the Prophet’s (PBUH) high status and honour. He considered the governor’s presumed failing as despicable enough to merit death. He was obviously not tolerant of opinions different from his own. Consider also that we have Shia-Sunni riots periodically in which members of the two sects kill one another. Acts of violence go beyond sectarian strife. We know of cases in which members of different factions of the same political party have exchanged blows and thrown furniture at each other in party meetings. Supporters of rival candidates in elections have often fought one another.

The people in Pakistan do indeed elect the political elites who will sit in parliament and make laws and policies and nominate the executive that will implement them. The prime minister and his colleagues are accountable to the parliament, but neither they nor the legislators are accountable to the people in actual practice. The people are politically more aware than they were, let us say, 30 years ago. But their awareness has not advanced to the point where they will ask their elected representative why they the latter have not been diligent in performing their duties or what they have done to serve their interest. A few days ago I saw a television channel’s interviewees say that if their MNAs did not do something to bring down prices and make gas and electricity available to consumers on a regular and more equitable basis they would not get their constituents’ votes in the next election. But this change in the voters’ disposition has not become common as yet. The good news is that it is coming.

Certain religious beliefs may also be holding democracy back. It is said in some quarters that western democracy — elections, assemblies, their primacy among the organs of governance, and the executive’s accountability to them — is inconsistent with Islam. This is not true. The Quran asks believers to settle their common affairs by mutual consultation, and the pious caliphs after the Prophet’s (PBUH) death, Umar bin Khattab more than the others, did consult citizens whom they could reach. Consultation was not institutionalised: time, place, and frequency of the meetings, their agendas, rosters of those to be consulted, voting procedure if any, were not settled. It was all done on an ad hoc basis. But in no way would it be un-Islamic to regularise them. In this connection it should be noted also that the Islamic parties in Pakistan do participate in the country’s political system even if they think it is not Islamic enough.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Silent majority?

Daily Times
Naeem Tahir
January 29, 2011

What is a ‘silent majority’? Why does it stay silent? What is its role in a society? How long it needs to stay silent and when must it speak? Is silence at some point almost criminal? Or has this ‘majority’ become silent out of fear?

The silent majority is an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularised by US President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, “And so tonight — to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans — I ask for your support.” In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War, who did not join in the political opposition, and who did not participate in public discourse. Whatever Nixon’s motives had been the strength of the ‘silent majority’ was recognised. He saw this group as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority.

The ‘silent majority’ must play a constructive role in critical situations for a nation. Such a situation has developed in Pakistan. It is said that 80 percent of Pakistanis believe in the fact that Islam gives the message of peace. The message of peace is repeated again and again in the Holy Quran. Also, all believers in other religions who were blessed by the Almighty’s message through holy books, namely Zabur, Taurat, and Injil are to be respected. The Quran even indicates other prophets not known to us. Compassion, charity, social responsibility, welfare, and mutual respect are the essence of human behaviour. If the ‘silent majority’ in Pakistan believes in these peaceful values, then how is aggression and intolerance creeping in?

In hindsight one is inclined to believe that it has not happened in a day. The poisoning has been slow and over at least 60 years and has continued. One would like to hope, without the desire of blood but for gaining political power. Unfortunately, it has shed a lot of blood and shaken society.

Two groups involved in this activity can be identified. One is the determined self-righteous group of claimants to religious expertise who did not believe in Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of an enlightened Pakistan. Second, equally responsible, is the ‘silent majority’ whose members did not study the Quran’s message themselves and accepted anything given to them by persons in typical attires, to be the teachings of the Holy Quran. I have personally experienced that some individual quoted Arabic verses in support of an incorrect message, which were not actually from the Quran. May Allah forgive such proponents and also forgive those who are misled. The silent majority found it convenient to give up their responsibility of learning from the Quran and succumbed to the lethargy of letting someone else claim expertise. This was a critical mistake. Even today substantial amount of hate literature is being circulated by extremist sects in the name of Islam and misleading people.

Also responsible are some of those on the pulpit who misuse their privilege. Their hands were strengthened by the ‘Objectives Resolution’ being adopted in preference to the Quaid’s guidelines in his speech of the August 11, 1947, to the Constituent Assembly. The aggressive sectarians looked for greater slice of support from the simple-minded and increased their street power and added an element of fear for those who did not comply with their views. So the story goes on.

The agitations of the mid-1950s were confronted but still these sent a message to political operatives that the effort had some potential. The radicals continued to monopolise the religious rituals, and found the ‘elite’ and so-called liberals compliant. The room for manipulation by the religious groups kept increasing. This created a more dangerous situation. Now the silent majority, instead of learning and acquiring the knowledge themselves, completely surrendered and preferred to side with one strong group or the other. A powerful monster of radicals came into existence that had a taste for power. The silent majority is now a hostage of aggressive religious-political groupings and mafias. These groupings are destroying peace by in-fighting for power. They have no scruples; everything is acceptable including foreign help and coercion. The target is hegemony over the nation for their brand of religion. Killings, fatwas, rewards, head money are all going on. Members of the ‘silent majority’ think and hope that they will not be the targets but actually they are sitting ducks. If the so-called ‘silent majority’ does not get motivated to save its belief that Islam upholds peace and the finest human values, then it can only be interpreted to be ‘silent partners’ in crime and nothing else. I believe this is not what the majority of the people in this country can find acceptable. If my optimism is justified, then each member of society will stand up and should be counted. Each one will gain strength from the study of the Quran and reject anything that is concocted. Each member must raise his/her voice against the ‘mortals’ who assume the right to declare a ‘kalima-goh’ as non-Muslim. Society as a whole must insist on the sovereignty of the Almighty and refuse to accept the commands of the individuals who try to exercise His powers. The ‘silent’ must raise their voice now, prevail upon the media, government agencies, courts, educational institutions, civil bureaucrats, and everywhere else to de-radicalise the nation. After the killing of Salmaan Taseer and the events thereafter, the message must be read loud and clear. The ‘silent majority’ must not stay silent anymore. Any more silence will be a criminal consent. The role of the ‘silent majority’ at this point is to restore the sanity in the people and uphold the values they believe in. They must speak loud and clear in voice and in action. If we all do so, there will be hope.

The writer is a culture and media management specialist, a researcher, author, director and actor.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Reclaiming Jinnah’s Pakistan

Daily Times
February 02, 2011

On Saturday the resignation of a Hindu member of the Sindh Assembly, Ram Singh Sodho, after reportedly receiving threats is alarming. In 2008, Mr Sodho was elected on a Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PML-F) reserved seat for minorities. Fearing for his life he submitted his resignation from India to the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, Nisar Ahmad Khoro.

Historically, minorities — especially Hindus — in Sindh and Balochistan have been an integral part of society. Even during the time of partition when Punjab was witnessing some of the worst communal riots in the history of the subcontinent, Sindh and Balochistan were comparatively peaceful. Interior Sindh is abundant with prominent Hindu families that thrive economically and have been central to the province’s development. These families are also steeped in and maintain the indigenous heritage and culture of Sindh. However, the Sindh province and our country in general have seen a negative turn of events. Religious intolerance has been in the forefront ever since the Lal Masjid operation in 2007. No minority, irrespective of caste, creed or religious beliefs, is safe. Reports in the media also state that 400 to 500 Pakistani Hindu families fearing for their lives are trying to obtain Indian citizenship. With attacks on Shias, Ahmedis, Christians and now Hindus becoming a daily occurrence, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government, which champions itself as the defender of minority rights, must deliver.

Although Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of Pakistan says that “all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law”, the reality is quite the opposite. Successive governments have failed to legislate and provide sufficient mechanisms for protecting minorities. The blame is even greater on the governments during the 1970s and 80s for promulgating laws that ostracised minorities. Minority groups rightly raise questions as to the fulfilment of the promise made before partition for the integration as full and equal citizens of minorities in Pakistani society.

Due to the extremism that has crept into society, we have become increasingly intolerant. The greatest example of this is the assassination of Shaheed Salmaan Taseer for his stance on the right of a Christian woman to justice. Only now can we start to fully understand what he was trying to do. Quaid-e-Azam envisaged a progressive, democratic and tolerant Pakistan. The time has come to revisit and recover it.