Energising Pakistan

[somebozo]

Pervez mushraff was good but he failed to give the country its much needed political system and only benefited the elites. With democracy by western standards which our so called intellectuals want to enforce, we are going to turn into another trollocracy like India with boat load of social problems and few elites getting rich!

 

[nightcrawler]

Here is my opinion:

Forget about all the isms...Socialism,Communism,Orientalism,Marxism & Forget about all the acys...Democracy,Aristocracy...Conspiracy.
What we must be content with should be a just person elected or not elected; we as Pakistanis mustn't care as long as he is providing food/education/shelter & adequate defence technology to our state

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: Setting the record straight

Daily Times
Gulmina Bilal Ahmad
February 04, 2011

Nowadays, Tunisia and Egypt are making headlines in every newspaper and on every television channel. The images of street protests and clashes with armed security personnel have been projected everywhere. The talk on the street is about a revolution of the same kind in Pakistan. This thought is not only limited to tea stalls or drawing rooms, but it has been spreading throughout the media as well. In fact, the media (electronic and print) has been the basic medium promoting this type of mindset. The mainstream newspapers and electronic media have been continuously provoking this idea of revolution in their editorials, discussions and articles. Pakistan is being depicted as teetering on the brink of an uprising by the aggrieved in the nation. The government and political parties are being provoked on various talk shows to comment on this issue and words are being put into their mouths by the anchorpersons.

It seems that a general perception is being developed of a failed state, which can only be addressed through a violent uprising. These are not the facts and whatever facts are being presented have been distorted. This clearly is a view that is being lobbied by people with vested interests. It has to be understood by the people that Pakistan is not being ruled by a dictator or an authoritarian regime, but now has a democratically elected government. Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, where the constitution and the laws have been forged and bent according to the wishes of a certain group or individual, Pakistan has a constitution with the 18th Amendment, where the elected representatives of the people have the power. They cannot introduce laws or take actions that will generate a negative outcome for their constituents. The democratic system holds everyone accountable and does not allow immunity to any person, no matter what rank he or she holds.

As Pakistan’s democratic process has always been interrupted and institutions have never been allowed to flourish, therefore it is taking time for these institutions and the democratic process to establish a foothold in the country. The procedure is there, it only requires a little time and effort to be implemented and run smoothly. The frustration of a common person is understandable, but the public should realise that, in the end, democracy is the only solution to their problems. An interruption in the democratic process will only lead to turmoil and chaos. Perhaps the elements that want such chaos and are plotting to snatch the reins of power from the Pakistani people are promoting such ideas. Instead of talking about revolution and complaining about corruption or bad governance, we should all work together to promote our democratic institutions.

It has to be realised that the people in Tunisia and Egypt are fighting for a concept, which we already have attained through a long and tiring struggle ourselves. It is the concept of democracy and democratic values. We have successfully achieved our objective, through a silent and peaceful revolution, and we do not need another one. It is now time to stabilise the process that we have acquired for Pakistan and promote the nascent democracy that is still under threat from various quarters.

Democracy has a self-regulating mechanism. As time progresses, the institutions that came into being as a result of democratic efforts start to flourish and people get to know the benefits of a democratic process. There are also some quarters that talk about democracy not being an indigenous idea. It is true that this region, like many other regions of the world, had remained under authoritative rule, but almost every region of the world has experienced this. Perhaps this is a part of human transition from the primitive to modern civilisation. We might have lagged behind in attaining the status that other democratic countries have but we never got the chance. Dictatorships have always hindered the growth and development of democracy in Pakistan.

However, now it is the responsibility of every Pakistani to start thinking in the right direction. Instead of focusing on inciting a revolution, or being a part of the process, we should start focusing on the problems that exist in our society that need to be tackled immediately. Extremism being the priority issue, needs the backing of all quarters. We have seen different political and religious parties getting together on the issue of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. This might not be a priority issue for me, but the issue of extremism needs the same backing. Once we are out of this mess, we will be in a position to focus on improving other illnesses that exist.

Our economy can only take a forward leap when the law and order and security situation of the country will improve. The general sentiments of the population about the government will improve once they observe that the administration is taking the right steps in the right direction. A revolution will only make things worse. A possible clash between the political parties will incite violence and innocent lives will be lost. We should act responsibly as every responsible nation does in difficult times. No, we do not need a revolution .We need reformation.

The writer is an Islamabad-based development consultant.

 

[nightcrawler]

An interruption in the democratic process will only lead to turmoil and chaos.

\
...& I don't agree!!
If the democracy revolves around two/three selected parties [Sharif;MQM;JMI;PPP] then sorry I ain't buying it. The word democracy suits only to society concerned & educated enough to make their own independent choices for their leaders but this ain't the case with Pakistan; where 30/100 are literate enough to read/write their own language

 

[RabzonKhan]

Very true and very well said!


VIEW: Choosing sovereignty over servitude

Daily Times
Christine Fair
February 09, 2011

Pakistanis are outraged by US Ambassador Munter’s reported assertion that the US government is entitled to influence Pakistan’s internal affairs in exchange for US assistance. The US is Pakistan’s largest source of economic support either directly or through international financial institutions. These funds enable the government of Pakistan — if not the state — to survive.

Pakistanis naturally resent this situation because they have no leverage in Pakistan’s relationship with Washington and thus are beholden to Washington’s diktat. They are right: this funding renders Pakistan answerable to the US taxpayer (e.g. me) rather than Pakistanis (e.g. you).

But this anger towards Washington is misplaced. Pakistanis should ask why it is that their state — including its massive, nuclear-armed military — requires outside assistance on the scale it does when Pakistan in fact has considerable national wealth.

Pakistan is not a Somalia. Why is that neighbouring India can pay its way, having transformed itself from an aid-receiving to an aid-granting state, while Pakistan must grovel at the table of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other multilateral and bilateral donors? Indeed it is India’s financial success that has drawn global capitals to its doorstep seeking to sell India’s state and central governments weapon systems, surveillance technology, power plants, and other needed infrastructure and commodities needed and demanded by the growing country and its millions. It is India’s growing economic heft that gives it leverage in the strategic partnerships it forges — including those with the US and Israel.

There is no reason why Pakistan cannot step out of the shadow of its servitude and into the light of sovereignty. After all, Pakistanis are hardworking and proud patriots.

What does it mean for a state to be sovereign? Apart from exercising monopoly of force and writ of law more or less homogenously over the state territory, one of the most important elements of state sovereignty is the ability to pay its own bills. While Pakistan is making strides in the former, it has made no progress in the latter.

To free Pakistan of international meddling, Pakistan’s political leaders need only to subject themselves and their patronage networks to an agricultural and industrial tax, a move which Pakistan’s leadership has steadfastly avoided throughout the state’s entire history. Of course, it must improve income tax compliance too.

Given this refusal to expand its tax net, the state relies upon an admixture of international assistance and punitive and regressive domestic sales and income taxes to pay its bills. Sales taxes are especially regressive because they affect the poor far more than the wealthy. Government servants — whose income tax is deducted from their wages — and other honest income tax payers pay their way while the wealthy agriculturalists and business elite abscond. Bangladesh has a better tax compliance record than Pakistan.

The sad truth is that Pakistan’s elites –many of whom sit and have sat and will sit in parliament—have chosen to subjugate their country for their own personal accumulation and preservation of wealth. This should be the focus of public outrage: not Washington’s expectation that its massive investment in Pakistan yield some return for the interests of its taxpayers.

Some readers of this missive may counter that China and Saudi Arabia help Pakistan without such expectations. These cherished myths are rubbish.

What has China done for Pakistan? It did not help Pakistan in any of its wars with India in 1965, 1971 or the Kargil crisis of 1999, when it took the same line as the US and even India. It did little to help Pakistan in the 2001-2002 crisis with India and it even voted in the UN Security Council to declare Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) a terrorist organisation in 2009 in the wake of the Mumbai terror outrage.

The roads and ports and other infrastructure that the Chinese are building in Pakistan principally benefit China. Pakistanis are an afterthought. The Chinese obtain contracts on favourable and profitable investment terms, use their own employees, and contribute little to the local economy ultimately to build projects that facilitate the movement and sales of cheap (but also dangerous and poorly crafted) Chinese goods and products into and through Pakistan.

It is a sad fact that China uses Pakistan for its foreign policy aims as well. It provides Pakistan nuclear assistance and large amounts of military assistance to purchase subpar military platforms in hopes of sustaining Pakistan’s anti-status quo policy towards India. By encouraging Pakistani adventurism towards India, Beijing hopes that India’s massive defence modernisation and status of forces remain focused upon Pakistan — not China. China wants to sustain the animosity between India and Pakistan but it certainly does not want an actual conflict to ensue as it would then be forced to show its hand again — by not supporting Pakistan in such a conflict.

What about Saudi Arabia? The increasingly broke US citizen provided more assistance to Pakistan’s flood victims than Pakistan’s Islamic, oil tycoon brethren in Saudi Arabia. While the US government has not figured out how to give aid in a way that minimises corruption and maximises benefit, Pakistanis should note that at least the US tries to do so in contrast to Saudi Arabia, which simply abdicates.

Saudi Arabia does fund madrassas, albeit of a highly sectarian variety. Yet, Pakistan does not need more madrassas. In fact, the educational market shows that Pakistani interest in madrassa education is stagnant while interest in private schooling is expanding. Unfortunately, those madrassas and Islamic institutions that Saudi Arabia does support have contributed to a bloody sectarian divide in Pakistan that has killed far more innocent Pakistanis than the inaccurately reviled US drone programme a thousand times over.

In short, Saudi Arabia too uses Pakistan to isolate Shia Iran and to promote the dominance of Wahabiism over other Sunni maslaks (sub-sects) and over all Shia maslaks. Pakistan has paid a bloody price for the Saudis’ assistance.

There is no such thing as “friends” in international relations. Any country will help Pakistan because it expects that doing so will advance its interests, not necessarily those of Pakistan and its citizenry. Pakistan will never be free of the “nok” of donors until it raises its own revenue from its own domestic resources.

There is another important reason why all Pakistanis should pay local and federal taxes according to their means: it is the bond that ties the governed to the government. When the state extracts taxes from its citizenry, the citizens demand services in return. When the government fails to perform at either local or federal levels, the citizens have the opportunity to vote the miscreants out of office. The incoming elected officials learn, over the course of several electoral cycles, to be responsive to the voters, not dismissive of the same. Within constitutional democracies, payment of taxes is the most important mechanism by which citizens exert control over their government.

If Pakistanis genuinely want to toss off the yoke of financial servitude and gain a genuine stake in their government, they should stop howling at the US government. Instead, the street power mobilised to support a flawed law and a murderer should be redirected to policy issues that are critical to the state’s survival. And rest assured, financial sovereignty is one such issue.

The writer is an assistant professor at Georgetown University, Peace and Security Studies Programme.

 

[Developereo]

Very true and very well said!


VIEW: Choosing sovereignty over servitude

Daily Times
Christine Fair
February 09, 2011

Yes, I also agree 100%. She is right on the money on all three counts.

I have already noted that China's relationship with Pakistan is strictly at the officials level (government, military, industrialists). There is no desire or effort to forge a cultural exchange with the common people. As a Pakistani, I never knew until I came to PDF that China was so central to Pakistan's foreign policy.

Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Other than trying to encircle Iran in its ongoing Arab/Persian Shia/Sunni war, and to use ordinary Pakistanis as expendable cannon fodder for their Wahhabi expansionism, the Saudis don't give a damn about Pakistan or Pakistanis. Anybody who has spent time in the oil kingdoms knows how they treat Pakistanis over there.

As for the US, Hillary Clinton was absolutely right when she demanded that wealthy Pakistanis should step up to the plate before asking for foreign aid. Angelina Jolie noted that Gilani wanted to fly out his whole family for dinner with her while thousands of Pakistani flood victims lay homeless and hungry. Compare that to the Queensland governer here in Australia who looked haggard and sleepless on camera as she worked to coordinate flood relief in her state.

Most Pakistanis also supported the US demand for US oversight on aid expenditures in Pakistan. We, who know the system inside out, don't trust our government so why should foreigners?

The ordinary Pakistani has already resigned himself and adapted to the situation by providing their own governance. We send our kids to private schools, buy our own water trucks, our own power generators, and hire our own private security guards instead of paying taxes and expecting these services from the government.

It is a fact that Pakistan will never climb out of this morass until the feudal/industrial/military elite relinquishes its special privileges and enacts a complete overhaul of the tax system. Quite frankly, I don't see it happening any time soon. These blooksuckers will never reform themselves voluntarily.

 

[Ahmad]

An interesting article.

To free Pakistan of international meddling, Pakistan’s political leaders need only to subject themselves and their patronage networks to an agricultural and industrial tax, a move which Pakistan’s leadership has steadfastly avoided throughout the state’s entire history. Of course, it must improve income tax compliance too.

What is the share of agriculture compare to other industries in pakistan? if i am not wrong agricultural products/incom are not taxed by the gov, which is in a way good to ensure food security and dont allow food prices to go up-that will effectively help the poor, but if a larger portion of the country are busy with agriculture, then that is a big problem in terms of generating the required tax - in all of these cases and considering the insecurity/militancy, GoP will have to accept foreign aid as there are no any other choice for at least short term.

If Pakistanis genuinely want to toss off the yoke of financial servitude and gain a genuine stake in their government, they should stop howling at the US government. Instead, the street power mobilised to support a flawed law and a murderer should be redirected to policy issues that are critical to the state’s survival. And rest assured, financial sovereignty is one such issue.

she picked another interesting point, but some ears are too deaf to hear it.

Some readers of this missive may counter that China and Saudi Arabia help Pakistan without such expectations. These cherished myths are rubbish.

friendship, ha. that doesnt exist in international relations-simple as that. everything is about give and take, self interest.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Three ‘liberal fascists’


Daily Times
February 13, 2011
By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Today is the 100th anniversary of Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Pakistan’s most famous poet laureate and secular humanist. It has come amidst unprecedented religious and social turmoil in Pakistan and the larger Muslim world which makes it all the more important for us to look back at the life and times of this great minstrel of and see if we can salvage something of the message of this great man and apply it to our lives.

In my opinion, Faiz is the third in a series of poetic giants who formed a glorious continuum of artistic and philosophical revolution in thought for Muslims of South Asia that began roughly in 1799 which coincided with the fall of Seringapatam and the beginning of the final phase of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The humiliation and extinction of the Mughal Empire in India embedded in the Muslim community a sense of depression and fear. Ghalib’s poetry was in part a reflection of this depression and profound sense of loss. Consider for example ‘koi umeed bar nahin atee koi soorat nazar nahin ati’ (there is no hope, no way forward). In this Ghalib’s own life became a metaphor for the decline of Muslim power and prestige. This brought forth the first man of action amongst Muslims of South Asia, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who sought to rectify the ills of Muslim community by encouraging modern education and founding the premier modern institution for Muslim renaissance
in Aligarh.

The next phase was of Muslim regeneration and here is where the second of these giants Iqbal came forward. He became the voice of Muslim confidence and assertive nationalism when he declared ‘Muslim hain hum watan hai sara jahan hamara’ (we are Muslims; the whole universe is ours). Despite his allegiance to a universal religious identity, Iqbal was, in the balance, a liberal modernist. If there is a sense of confusion or his adherence to certain causes which sit uneasy with liberals today, it is because he was driven by his anxiety to see Muslims as a united force for reform of Islam. Reacting to a Hindu majority, he placed emphasis inadvertently on issues that were later utilised by conservatives for their own purposes. However it is important to place in perspective Iqbal’s attachment to causes such as the issue of Ilam Din, the murderer of Rajpal. Consider for example that Dr Muhammad Din Taseer, a leftist par excellence and the father to Shaheed Salmaan Taseer, was involved in Muslim agitation for Ilam Din in Lahore.

Iqbal’s efforts to forge Muslim unity found a man of action in Jinnah and a purpose ultimately in a free homeland in Muslim majority areas of South Asia. Therefore by the time the third of these giants, Faiz, emerged on the scene, the concerns and issues of Muslim consciousness and identity had already been replaced with more universal and humanistic concern. Even the lessons of Islamic modernism had been internalised and become part of conventional wisdom. Thus in Faiz we find the culmination of the thought process that began with Ghalib. Faiz was a free man and a poet writing in a free country unhampered by his Muslim identity. Like Ghalib his poetry was secular but instead of depression, he called upon his people to listen to the hope of the new dawn ie umeed sahar ki baat suno. Unlike Ghalib who was the poet of the Delhi’s Ashrafia and Iqbal who spoke of communal consciousness, Faiz’s poetry spoke of the people and of workers and peasants rising up and bringing down the divisions of class, caste and religion. Going beyond the individual and the community, Faiz resonated in the third world and was more universal than his predecessors. Unfortunately unlike Ghalib and Iqbal, Faiz did not find a man or woman of action to galvanise his vision into something concrete but one suspects that the final chapter in this book is not yet written.

According to the standards set by the anchors of our free media like Kamran Shahid and Orya Maqbool Jaan, however, all three of these giants were ‘liberal fascists’ in some form or the other. Ghalib was a ‘liberal fascist’ because as poet of the Mughal darbar, his poetry was entirely secular (because Mughal culture was essentially secular with the exception of the aberration caused by Aurangzeb) and even atheistic. Iqbal was a ‘liberal fascist’ because while he emphasised his religious identity, he openly praised Kemal Ataturk’s reforms in Turkey as perfectly Islamic, including the strict ban on polygamy and his change of alphabet. For more on this read Iqbal’s rejoinder to Jawaharlal Nehru. Faiz was a ‘liberal fascist’ because he stood for a secular democratic and economically just Pakistan. Perhaps then it is ‘liberal fascism’ that Pakistan needs more than ever before.

 

[Safriz]

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Here is my opinion:

Forget about all the isms...Socialism,Communism,Orientalism,Marxism & Forget about all the acys...Democracy,Aristocracy...Conspiracy.
What we must be content with should be a just person elected or not elected; we as Pakistanis mustn't care as long as he is providing food/education/shelter & adequate defence technology to our state

wow sounds like you are asking freemasons to help out the nation. They love helping people in such desperate state.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Democracy at the local level

Dawn
By Geoffrey Weichselbaum & Katherine Vittum
Mar 05 2011

WHILE Pakistan has made significant gains in deepening the democracy that its people worked hard to achieve in 2008, democratic institutions continue to require serious reforms in order to empower citizens and ensure sustained civilian rule.

Many reforms are outstanding at the national level — such as the mechanics of devolving administrative powers and building the policy capacity of the provinces. This will take time.

Perhaps most urgently, local elections have not taken place since 2005, and the local government system is in flux. Provinces have been slow to prepare new legislation for local governance and how elections will take place at the local level. These are urgent issues for Pakistan’s emerging democratic credentials.

Local government elections were due in 2009. However, following the 2008general election, the new provincial governments decided to postpone local elections in order to amend the local government system. To date, those amendments have not been made, and in the instance they have been made, are not operational.

This has meant that there have been no firm dates set for local elections. Instead of the people’s representatives running local governments, decisions are being made by an interim administrative set of arrangements. This cannot last. The lack of accountability and absence of citizen participation at the local level represent a grave threat to Pakistani democracy.

This does not mean that the previous local government system was necessarily a good thing. It has rightly been criticised for being about the consolidation of power, designed to serve and benefit various military regimes. Perhaps this has tainted the very concept of local democracy in Pakistan.

Gen Ayub Khan established the first system of elected local government in 1959. ‘Basic Democrats’ were elected at the local government level and constituted the electoral college for presidential elections and Members of the National Assembly. As such they became the political backbone to Ayub Khan’s rule.

Gen Ziaul Haq, who seized power in 1977, also established elected local bodies through the 1979 law. They provided a power base for his regime by bypassing provincial authorities. Gen Zia’s local government system faded away soon after his death in 1988.

Shortly after taking power in 1999, Gen Pervez Musharraf presented the Local Government Plan as a part of his reform and reconstruction agenda. This plan is often referred to as the ‘Devolution of Power Plan’; — the system being reformed today at the provincial level.

In contrast, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, prime minister from 1973 to 1977, opted to install local bureaucrats (civil servants) to administer local affairs rather than revive the local governments. Likewise, due to strong political polarisation between 1988 and 1999, during the two terms of Benazir Bhutto’s and Nawaz Sharif’s governments, local affairs were run and controlled by administrators instead of locally-elected representatives.

A revival of local government was attempted but never materialised because the federal governments were dissolved in the middle of their tenures. It is also believed that the increased control through the deputy commissioners (powerful civil servants) heading district councils was convenient for those governments. For members of the national and provincial assemblies, the system offered leverage over district policies, which was advantageous for securing electoral support.

The 2010 18th Amendment to the constitution retained the local government system that had been strengthened by constitutional amendments under President Musharraf. Article 140A of the constitution requires provinces to “[…] establish a local government system and devolve political, financial and administrative responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local government”.

The local government reform process and preparation for elections is interminably slow and tortuous. It has been argued that provincial governments are delaying the holding of local elections in order to avoid their political power being tested mid-term, particularly given the challenges of a struggling economy, rampant insecurity and the post-flood reconstruction.

However, for Pakistan to further its democratic advancement, it is imperative that elected local governments be established and elections held as soon as possible. Elected local governments could be a stabilising force for the country, by establishing governance accountability and increasing a culture of participation.

The local government reform process has been driven since 2009 by provincial executive branches. The provincial assemblies have played little to no role in the development of policy or legislation. Legislative committees responsible for local government may exist, but they are sidelined. Thus representative decision-making about local government does not appear to be taking place.

One particularly important aspect of the new legal framework for local government will be the election laws. This is a highly sensitive matter needing broad-based political support if the laws are to be accepted as legitimate by all political forces. Significant issues to address include: candidacy requirements, criteria for constituency demarcation, and the participation of political parties.

It is critical that there is opportunity for stakeholders to be consulted on these matters and to have meaningful opportunity to review proposals. This should include the ruling parties, the opposition, the election management body, civil society and the public.

The respective provincial legislatures need to pass legislation based on such consultation and debate. This legislation needs to be fully compliant with the constitution and Pakistan’s international legal commitments, including those related to elections (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). All of these factors will help to ensure the acceptance and sustainability of the future local government system.

Democratic practices must be strengthened at all levels in Pakistan if there is to be effective civilian governance. The years ahead may be difficult, but failure to address democratic reform at the national and local level is in nobody’s long-term interest. Provinces need to urgently adopt precise timetables for the passing of local government laws, facilitate an inclusive debate on local government reform, promulgate legislation and hold local government elections.

Geoffrey Weichselbaum is co-director of Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and Katherine Vittum is DRI Pakistan country director. DRI is a Berlin based group promoting political participation.

 

[muse]

Meaningful democracy is local democratic governance and processes -- But Pakistan's political parties, in particular the PPP and PML-N strongly resist the idea that they and their party will have to fall in line with the people instead of the people falling in line with them, under their direction and control

 

[nightcrawler]

Rabzon I hope you don't mind my interfering in ut forum but this post seems much relevant here & I don't like starting threads at mere articles...
I will delete it if you want to

@ Forget it; Ottoman... | Facebook

a fight is goin on here which led me to read the following article regarding rather favouring Islamistaion of Pakistan & urging youth in the wake [Energising Pakistan I suppose]
http://www.pakspectator.com/status-of-minorities-in-pakistan/

Minorities are generally neglected section of the society due their difficulty to adjust and live with harmony with other fellow nationals as well as their rejection by small reactionary groups. When these small reactionary groups grow more than their size, either violence erupts or minorities’ rights are violated. Minorities suffer a lot where either justice system is weak or common man is ignorant of his rights. Unfortunately, in the case of Pakistan, despite the passage of 62 years as an independent state, we are unable to agree to our identity. Ironically, some so called educated people in Pakistan talk about secularism, capitalism, socialism or communism, knowing very well that Pakistan was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. The strong western and anti-Pakistan propaganda has in fact disappointed and mislead many of Pakistani nationals. Resultantly, some of the disgruntle elements talk about independent states, some about minority province and some even talk about handing over Pakistan to some international organization or western country so that justice prevails at grass root levels. It is not only the minorities that are sufferers in Pakistan but the plight of majority community i.e. Muslims is even worse. One feels ashamed to mention the number of mosques destroyed during the last five year in this Islamic state. However, there are only one or two incidents during the same period where church was dishonored. As regard to Hindu Temples and religious place of other communities like Parsis, Qadianis, Bhais, Kafirs etc there is nil report of any damage or disrespect but still there is much to be done for the minorities’ rights.

The root cause of violation of rights of ordinary Pakistani citizens revolves around the fact that the system in Pakistan should have been Islamic which emphasizes as an all-embracing code of life standing for non-discriminatory social justice, fair play, democracy, equality of manhood and welfare of masses. It is pertinent to mention here that as regard to the system which Muslims of Indo-Pak subcontinent including Quaid-e-Azam wanted in Pakistan was Islamic. In the same context, during the Allahabad session of the All-India Muslim League in 1942 he was asked as to what type of state Pakistan would be? He replied: “It will be an Islamic state on the pattern of the Medina state with human rights, liberalism, democracy and complete tolerance and freedom of conscience to all citizens without any distinction of colour, creed, language, and race as granted by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Christians, Jews, idol worshippers and all others. Justice, brotherhood, liberty, equality and fraternity will reign supreme.” It is evident from said saying of Pakistan’s founder of nation that in Islamic system of governance in Pakistan can only ensure complete protection of minority rights.

The question arises that what was the pattern of the Medina state referred to by the Quaid-e-Azam? The Medina state was run on the basis of a document known as the Constitution of Medina (Messaq-e-Medina). This document, prepared under the instruction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), dealt with the rights and obligations of the citizens of Medina including Muslims, Jews and all others. Through this document the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made a friendly agreement especially with the Jews and established them in their religion, property and occupations and declared them as one community. The tolerance and goodwill shown by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina and elsewhere became established as a basic principle of state policy in Muslim countries. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam gave the following Charter of Freedom given at the time of conquest of Jerusalem to Christians and others by the Hazrat Umar Bin Al-Khattab: “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the security which ‘Umar’, the servant of Allah, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Elia. Grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, their churches and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion, their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed, neither shall they nor their appurtenances be in any way diminished, nor the crosses of the inhabitants nor aught of their possessions, nor shall any constraint be put upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one of them be harmed.”

The non-discriminatory and humane tradition of the Constitution of Medina and Hazrat Umar’s Jerusalem Agreement was literally followed by the Quaid-e-Azam when he addressed Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 thus: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state”. It is interesting to note that three days after this speech, the Quaid-e-Azam spoke again on the inauguration of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly on 14 August 1947, re-emphasizing the central theme of his speech of 11 August 1947, said “The tolerance and goodwill that the great Emperors showed to all the non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back 13 centuries ago when our Prophet (peace be upon him) not only by word but by deeds treated the Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with those humane and great principles which should be followed and practiced”.

It is on the record that on 1 November 1941, there was an Akhand Bharatyia Conference in Jalandhar. Mr. Munshi, a well-known Hindu leader was in the chair. In his presidential address he said, “Do you know what Pakistan is? If you don’t, listen! Pakistan means that Muslims can make in one or more parts of India, their homeland, where the system of government would be based on the Al Qura’an with Urdu as their national language. In simple terms, Pakistan will be a Muslim land where the government will be Islamic.” Similarly in a meeting of the Pakistan Association of Germany on occasion of the centenary of the Quaid-e-Azam, a German scholar Professor Dr. Kanhan said, “The model before the Quaid was the Al Qura’an.” In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on 21 November 1945 Quaid-e-Azam said, “We have to fight a double-edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the other against British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions, and Islamic Laws.” Similarly in a message to N.W.F.P Muslim Students Federation, in April 1943, he said, “You have asked me to give you a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Al Qura’an for our guidance and enlightenment.”

It is apparent that the Quaid-e-Azam’s speeches of 11 and 14 August 1947 bear close similarity, in both letter and spirit, to the Constitution of Medina. This constitution was neither secular in the prevailing sense of the term as the Islamic State of Medina was not a secular state, nor was it based on the concept of papacy, an institution which does not exist in Islam. Further, it recognized the existence of Muslims and Jews as separate entities, though bound together as citizens with mutually agreed obligations and duties. It is also pertinent to note that the Quaid-e-Azam’s speeches of 11 and 14 August, read along with his pronouncement at the Allahabad Session of All-India Muslim League in 1942, clearly point to the fact that there was remarkable consistency in his pre-independence and post-independence thoughts about the pattern of state in Pakistan. It is high time for the people of Pakistan to forget about notorious concept of secularism and strive to make Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of Pakistan a reality. The preamble of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 clearly spells out that Pakistan would be governed by the Law of Allah given in Al Qura’an and Sunnat of Holy Prophet Muhammad (May Peace be Upon Him).

 

[RabzonKhan]

Rabzon I hope you don't mind my interfering in ut forum but this post seems much relevant here & I don't like starting threads at mere articles...
I will delete it if you want to

Dear Nightcrawler, you’re more than welcome to post anything in this thread that you may find appropriate.

Cheers!

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Reaping fruits of a folly

Daily Times
Mohammad Jamil
March 12, 2011

No aspect of life merits more urgent attention and greater investment of resources today than the eradication of illiteracy and improvement in the quality of education, as quality of life is directly linked to the social profile of the country. The decade of the 1990s did witness some programmes aimed at improving the key social sectors, but mismanagement by a callous leadership brought a resourceful country like Pakistan to the level of one of the least developed countries of the world. Despite spending billions of rupees under the Social Action Programme, the improvement in the social indicators remained unimpressive. Historical evidence suggests that educated and healthy workforce plays an important role in the development of a country and the prosperity of its people.

The present state of education and less than 20 percent literacy rate in Pakistan is the most glaring reflection of our people and society’s backwardness. In fact, the nation is reaping the fruits of a folly. Had we not been so negligent of education, we would not have seen the country engulfed in extremism so badly.

It is true that even the most developed countries with top-class educational systems have fanatical fringes, but their mainstreams stay uninfluenced, robust, decisive and domineering largely because of the mass of their citizenry being educated with broad outlook and worldview. The main reason why our mainstream is under such a grave assailment of extremism is arguably the raw deal that education has got from the state throughout history. Educating the citizenry has not been the pursuit of any government since our independence. And the worst hit is schooling, which in any educational pyramid makes up the base and so gets all the primacy and import in the education systems of advanced polities. In the 1990s, the crumbling public sector education system deteriorated further, as an unregulated growth of private sector education led to a system of education apartheid. The quality of public sector education at all levels had degenerated to the extent that quality education became an exclusive preserve of the elite, thus forcing the majority to perpetual ignorance and poverty.

Despite unprecedented increase in population, the ratio of students attending government primary schools declined. Surveys showed that the drop in enrolment ratio in government schools was due to substandard education, inadequate and untrained teachers and lack of other facilities. Therefore, a cost-effective model was needed to raise the level of education across the massive schools’ network. It is an established fact that investment in human capital reduces poverty, and on the contrary illiteracy and ill health are obvious impediments to progress and prosperity in a competitive global economy. Today’s industrialised and developed countries had once invested in human capital to achieve the present status. In the west, it is the state that steps in proactively to lay out and run strong networks for children’s schooling. They too have elitist private schools for the privileged and the well-off. But it is the state-run schooling, catering primarily to the educational needs of the commoners’ children, that receives all the official focus, attention and patronage.

It has to be mentioned that about 80 percent of British children go to state-run schools. The state provides schooling at all stages of education; however if parents desire, they can send their children to private schools. In the US, the states are responsible for education but most of the states transfer management of educational institutions to local districts. In the 18th century, France started developing an education system under which all children attended schools, financed and regulated by the state. No wonder, today it is one of the most developed countries of the world. Germany and Japan, having been destroyed in the Second World War, were able to quickly rebuild their countries only because their earlier governments had laid solid foundations for the education system. In Pakistan, there are financial and other constraints, and the government is facing difficulties in hiring the services of qualified lecturers and professors due to the brain drain in the past. However, some efforts were made to bolster the education sector by previous governments.

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) had replaced the University Grants Commission with a view to improving the quality of education. Up to 2001, there were only 26 universities in the public sector and 11 in the private sector in a country of 150 million people. Former chairman HEC, Dr Attaur Rehman, was assigned with the task of promoting higher education in the country, and an overall improvement in the education sector was visible. The government, however, should ensure that education is purposeful and responsive to the needs of the market economy so that Pakistan could compete in the world market. In 2002, the HEC was created, which is today the regulator of 132 universities of the country. The number of universities during 2002 to 2008 had gone up by 35 percent and access to higher education opportunities doubled.

Unfortunately, the progress made and gains achieved by the then Chairman HEC Attaur Rehman are not being preserved, firstly by abandoning some development projects and reducing the expenditure on others because Pakistan’s economy is in dire straits due to the economic crisis the world over, and Pakistan is no exception. The question is, how any government could have achieved the basic objective of human development when less than 2 percent of the GDP was allocated for this sector in Pakistan. It is in fact due to mismanagement by a callous leadership that a resource-rich country like Pakistan is rated as one of the least developed countries of the world, and it lags behind in social indicators if compared with even other South Asian countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. However, during the last decade, many organisations were formed and the structure of education was revised and revamped. But still a lot has to be done.

When the state is so cavalierly negligent about schooling, what more could you expect from it for keeping the polity as a predominantly moderate and tolerant entity? Schooling is the crucial formative stage where pupils imbibe attitudes, ideas and thoughts that develop their outlook and worldview as they grow up. It is true that advanced polities have religious schools and lots of them. But it is their widespread state-run schooling that produces far more educated students than do their faith-based schools. And it is the alumnae of the state-schooling that make up those polities’ bedrock. In Pakistan, urban government schools are by and large functioning in deplorable conditions; their plight in rural areas is just lamentable. If we are to contain extremism, the government must progressively increase allocation for the education sector from less than 2 percent to 5 percent within three years. There is also need to improve quality of teaching by raising standards of teacher-training institutions to turn them into centres of excellence. If these steps are not taken, Pakistan will continue to face the spectre of extremism.