Ghazal-e-Musalsal - Phool Yeh Kaisa Hay Andar Baagh Mein

Please note: This post has been shifted to the Urdu Blog - Civil Pakistan. To see it, click the link below:

Ghazal-e-Musalsal - Phool Yeh Kaisa Hay Andar Baagh Mein

Taliban and Hamas – the same ilk? – 2

Here is more evidence:

Hamas shaves heads of Gaza youths with long hair

Gaza City: Police in Hamas-ruled Gaza have started grabbing young men with long or gel-styled spiky hair off the streets, bundling them into jeeps, mocking them and shaving their heads, two of those targeted and a rights group said Sunday. It is the latest sign that they are imposing their strict practices on the population. The crackdown began last week, and two of those targeted told The Associated Press said they were rounded up in separate sweeps in Gaza City included more than two dozen young men. – AP

[The News, April 9, 2013]

See the previous post: Talibanand Hamas – the same ilk? - 1

Kis Qayamat Ke Yeh Intikhabaat Aaye Hain!

Please note: This post has been shifted to the Urdu Blog - Civil Pakistan. To see it, click the link below:

Kis Qayamat Ke Yeh Intikhabaat Aaye Hain!

The State of the Rule of Law in Pakistan

March 9, 2007 is an epoch-making day for Pakistani citizens. With Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s (at the time Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan) blunt refusal to bow down before the unconstitutional demand of the military elite, and his unconstitutional removal by General Musharraf, at the same time Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan, the movement for his restoration with time transformed into a movement for the Rule of Law in Pakistan.

It’s just a co-incidence that the following article, which probably first time talks of the state of the Rule of Law in Pakistan, was completed on February 10, 2007. I realized the fact later.

This article was carried by The News in its edition of Political Economy on March 18, 2007 with a different title, The State of Misrule. Then, Business Recorder published it in two parts on March 24, and 25, 2007, without changing its title.    

During the Lawyers’ Movement or as it is termed, Rule of Law Movement, I wrote and published a number of articles highlighting the issue of the Rule of Law. Then, the same articles were compiled into a short book-form, and published under the title, TheGreatest Battle for the Rule of Law in Pakistan. As I was too eager for this collection to appear before the judgment of the full bench of the Supreme Court was announced, it came out in June 2007. The Judgment which restored the Chief Justice unanimously was announced on July 20, 2007.

Now I read with a bit of amusement what I wrote about the state of the Rule of Law in February 2007.

Here are a few lines:

“In sum, the state of the rule of law in Pakistan is precarious, and so the life of the people. This shows utter failure of the government and criminal negligence on the part of the institutions of government. Or is it willful? Willful in the sense that it might be serving, or it might suit, certain interests of certain quarters. This fear is strengthened by the fact that there is no serious notice seems to be taken of the situation, and there are no efforts on the way to improve it.”

And the recommendation:

“It (government) must divert all its resources to the performance of its ‘protective function’ ably and indiscriminately. The government which succeeds in creating a sense of protectiveness in its people as regards their life and property is a government helplessly needed by the people at this critical moment of our half century long unruly history.”

   

Read the article:

The State of the Rule of Law in Pakistan

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”

[Dwight David Eisenhower, 1890-1969]

“I would have government defend the life and property of all citizens equally; protect all willing exchange; suppress and penalize all fraud, all misrepresentation, all violence, all predatory practices; invoke a common justice under law; and keep the records incidental to these functions. Even this is a bigger assignment than governments, generally, have proven capable of. Let governments do these things and do them well. Leave all else to men in free and creative effort.”

[Leonard E. Read, ]

  

The greatest affliction that can happen to a nation is that its institutions brazenly indulge in activities other than they are supposed to be involved in by general consensus or assigned to them by law or constitution. Thus, they defy their own raison detre. One such institution is government.

All governments on earth unmindfully do many such things for which they are not formed or which they are incapable of by their very nature. They leave their original purpose/s far behind of their mandate and run after so many pseudo goals they lay claim to that can never be achieved; these pseudo goals only  prolong their lies and unjust rule. But, as a rule, they fail in performing their very duties they are meant for. 

Differences abound what a government should do and what it should not. For instance: whether a government should involve itself in economic activity or not, or if it should, to what extent. Or, whether a government should adopt the role of a re-distributor of income or not. Or whether it should regulate economic activity or not; and if it should, to what extent. All this is a matter of great controversy. However apart from these controversies, there is one value on which universal agreement exists: it is rule of law. That a government ought to establish the writ of law and maintain it.

The greatest achievement of human civilization is that we have come to treat all of us as equal as regards rules and laws. Indeed, everybody is born unequal – he is unequal from others, physically, mentally, and in so many ways. So, had there been no rule of law, there would have been stark inequality. And, in that case, the mighty and powerful must have been ruling the roost.

Actually, all types of power or might or force subsumes under the concept of authority. This power or might or force may be of two types – one is one is born with by birth and other is one that is acquired. The former is like the might of a lion, elephant, rhinoceros or a powerful person. The might or power may be acquired by effort as well. As wrestling techniques, judo karate, tae kwan do, kung fu, etc; all these make one powerful. This power is part and parcel of human body; it cannot be separated from the person until and unless he suffers any damage physical or otherwise that is injurious to him and his acquired abilities.

But, there is another power that can be separated from the body of the person who has got it. This power consists of all those things or instruments which can be used in an attack on another person or in defense of one’s own self. However, the expertise or dexterity of using these ‘weapons’ can be learned and separated from one’s person by inflicting damage to his body or mind. A strong branch removed from a tree may be used to attack a person or in one’s defense with or without dexterity. The firearms are like that. Their use with or without dexterity can lessen or enhance the possibility of one’s success and survival.

All this power, might or force has something to do with physical bodies of human beings or with material things. However, in addition to these, there is another type of power which characterizes human society and human progress. This is Authority per se. Authority also endows one with power or might or force. A person who is invested with certain authority comes to be powerful regardless of the fact that he is weak or armless. Likewise, if a person is divested of such authority, no matter how mighty, powerful and armed he is he comes to be powerless.

It is this authority that initially was a symbol of democratic development and later came to be known as legal authority. In other words, this authority used to be derived from law. With the advent of this authority, individuals and groups lost their source of authority, viz, their power or might or force, natural or acquired. Now law became the source of power and might. This outdated the monarchical period.

With time, it was this legal authority that developed into constitutional authority. In order to manage communities and countries, constitutions were devised. Constitutional duties and responsibilities were fixed. All power or might or force was brought under law and constitution. This helped societies move forward from the law of jungle to the law of humanity. This was a great leap forward in the history of human civilization.     

But perhaps factually it is not like that! There are many societies that still oscillate between older and modern concepts of authority. Most of their people are still infatuated by power and might. They are still a victim of worshipping the rule of the powerful, and consider power and might as panacea to all ills. In such circumstances, forces opposed to rule of law easily get rooted and strengthened. They show no regard for the legal and constitutional authority, and law of the land. The law that invests them with authority they violate that very law. This is no human condition.

No doubt, Pakistan is one such country. We are steadily sliding down on the scale of rule of law – a sine qua non for the smooth running of social and economic life of a country. Take up newspapers, magazines, etc, of, say last six months, and there is recurring warning of worsening law and order situation. The editorials, opinion-articles, reports, news, news-features, letters to editors, all point to the same thing: that the government is not fulfilling its fundamental duty of protecting life, property and freedom of its individual citizens, and as a result, life for the common and general public is becoming a nightmare – no body feels safe anymore even in their homes. Not only is this the general perception, it is a fact also.

As to the factuality of this state of affairs, ruling leaders and government functionaries would differ by calling it impressionistic. As an argument, we have another source to validate our thesis: that Pakistani people are experiencing what is not rule of law and what is a grave law and order situation!

The business of life depends on a healthy life of business. A healthy life of business requires an environment conducive to its establishment, smooth running and flourishing, and protection of its income and property. It is because of this that many indices that measure in fact various business factors place rule of law at the top. We shall navigate only one such index and see how Pakistan fared on the scale of rule of law for the last 10 years.

The Economic Freedom of the World Report is prepared and published by the Fraser Institute, Canada. It is ‘the best measure of economic freedom available.’ It uses the data collected and processed by ‘third-party international sources such as the IMF, World Bank, World Economic Forum. Much of its ‘data is of the “objective” statistical sort, and much is also “subjective,” coming from surveys, case analyses, or expert panels.’

This Report does not measure rule of law specifically and independently, however, it takes into account the factors related with the state of the rule of law which affect economic freedom. Out of its five main areas, the second one is concerned with Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights.

Area → Components ↓	Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights
A	Judicial independence – the judiciary is independent and not subject to interference by the government or parties in dispute
B	Impartial courts – a trusted legal framework exists for private businesses to challenge the legality of government actions or regulation
C	Protection of intellectual property
D	Military interference in rule of law and the political process
E	Integrity of the legal system

By this area, the Report seeks to assess and establish the following:

“Security of property rights, protected by the rule of law, is essential to economic freedom. Freedom to exchange, for example, is meaningless if individuals do not have secure rights to property, including the fruits of their labor. Failure of a country’s legal system to provide for the security of property rights, enforcement of contracts, and the mutually agreeable settlement of disputes will undermine the operation of a market-exchange system. If individuals and businesses lack confidence that contracts will be enforced and the fruits of their productive efforts protected, their incentive to engage in productive activity will be eroded. Furthermore, poor performance in this area is sure to deter investment. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that countries with low ratings in this area will be able to achieve and sustain high rates of growth.”

Finally: “Protection of persons and their rightfully acquired property is a central element of both economic freedom and a civil society. Indeed, it is the most important function of government. The key ingredients of a legal system consistent with economic freedom are rule of law, security of property rights, an independent judiciary, and an impartial court system.” [Economic Freedom of the World 2006 Annual Report]

Here is the score assigned to Pakistan in this area for the last 10 years. The score is allotted from 1 to 10. The higher the score, the higher the rating and the better the performance and prospects.

Area: Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights	Overall score in the Area	A: Judicial independence – the judiciary is independent and not subject to interference by the government or parties in dispute	B: Impartial courts – a trusted legal framework exists for private businesses to challenge the legality of government actions or regulation	C: Protection of intellectual property	D: Military interference in rule of law and the political process	E: Integrity of the legal system
1995	4.9	- (No data available)	4.5	- (No data available)	4.6	7.0
2000	4.6	- (No data available)	4.3	- (No data available)	5.3	5.0
2001	3.4	- (No data available)	4.3	- (No data available)	0.0	5.0
2002	2.7	3.0	2.8	2.5	0.0	5.0
2003	2.3	2.3	2.2	2.0	0.0	5.0
2004	2.5	2.6	2.3	2.7	0.0	5.0

As to the overall score in the area, it has been steadily declining from 1995 onward. The same is the case with other components of the area with little differences: on the whole they too are minimizing. The two components, D and E, require our special attention. In the D component, the last four Reports have assigned zero score, why they did not do so prior to 2001? Didn’t the present spell of military government start in 1999? Also, in E, though the score declined from 7.0 to 5.0, but from 2000 onward it is static. How so? Has the integrity of the legal system in Pakistan come of age? Why is it at a standstill? This may be explained as an illusion of quantification since practically the integrity of our legal system is in complete disarray. Also, if read in conjunction with other components of this area, this score is unintelligible: when there is little judicial independence, almost non-existing impartial courts, and absolute military interference in the rule of law and political process, how the integrity of legal system can remain intact?

In component C, an improvement is visible perhaps because of increasing awareness on the part of people as well as government that rights to intellectual property need to be protected. In components A and B also, there is a bit of upward movement: that A bettered from 2.3 to 2.6 and B from 2.2 to 2.3. But it was in 2004. What about what happened in 2005 and 2006 and how it affected the general perception and belief of people and media in Pakistan? Out of a plethora of heart-rending news reports and stories spread over the electronic and print media, here is just one example: a letter to the editor of an English daily has following to say:

“My generation – one that once lived under British governance – knows what the rule of law meant. What we have today is anarchy. People like me, who are not affiliated with a political party, the bureaucracy, the army or the press, are treated as though we are not even citizens of the state. And yet we are the majority, the teeming, toiling citizens of Pakistan . . . .”

In sum, the state of the rule of law in Pakistan is precarious, and so the life of the people. This shows utter failure of the government and criminal negligence on the part of the institutions of government. Or is it willful? Willful in the sense that it might be serving, or it might suit, certain interests of certain quarters. This fear is strengthened by the fact that there is no serious notice seems to be taken of the situation, and there are no efforts on the way to improve it.

Whereas what is urgently needed, and is strongly recommended here, is a new prioritizing by the government putting the establishment and maintenance of the rule of law at the top with zero tolerance. The government must leave all its businesses other than infrastructure to the genius of its citizens and focus whole-heartedly on its basic duties such as betterment of the law and order situation, provision of justice. It must divert all its resources to the performance of its ‘protective function’ ably and indiscriminately. The government which succeeds in creating a sense of protectiveness in its people as regards their life and property is a government helplessly needed by the people at this critical moment of our half century long unruly history.

It is this policy which alone can ensure peace and prosperity to the people of Pakistan.

[This article was completed on February 10, 2007.]

© The Blogger
All rights reserved. No part of the contents published on this Blog – Notes from Pakistan may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of The Blogger.

Polio Ke Qatray, Chaychak Ka Teeka

Please note: This post has been shifted to the Urdu Blog - Civil Pakistan. To see it, click the link below:

Polio Ke Qatray, Chaychak Ka Teeka

Political moral depravity

Politics and morality are not the same thing. Politics is not religion nor is it a moral code. It is the art and the science of reaching, keeping and sustaining power. It is a system of making, or breaking alliances, for the common cause.

[Nafisa Shah, PPP MNA]

Lately in Pakistan, politics, politicians, political parties and their supporters have become an antithesis of whatever we associate with the name of morality. But the way this truth manifests itself under the present Pakistan Peoples Party government is dangerously alarming.

We know our given world is amoral, and it is we who try to make it morally meaningful. The physical and botanical world is absolutely beyond any moral apprehension. The zoological world shows some crude or not so crude signs of actions which may appear as morally motivated, but sure they are not. Taking care of each other, or of those who belong to other species, sharing food or such things, defending partners from the attackers, these are observed facts of their behavior. All this is ingrained in their instincts; the purpose is to preserve their specie.    

As we go up the ladder of evolution to us humans, moral trepidations come to make their way into our world. We humans develop, devise, and formulate rules, norms, values, principles, etc. and appreciate living in accordance with them what may come in our way be it any harm or other fatal risks. Here the purpose is not to preserve the specie. Instead, the fundamental motivation is moral, what we do is right or wrong. It is more than that which is given in our instincts. Among other things, it temperates, or humanizes, our “struggle for survival” so much reviled and defended as well on many counts. Not only it characterizes us with a sense of superiority over animals, but gives our life a semblance of humanity, civility, integrity, and uprightness also. We just do not live like animals driven by instincts, but try to live according to values and principles we consider right and which form moral basis of our society.

All this can be summed up in a very simple proposition: in what circumstances, ends justify means? Exceptions are there as the plethoras of conundrums are that may confuse us, but morally speaking no circumstances allow ends to justify means. That’s the moral ideal! 

Let’s be practical. Every one of us has countless needs to fulfill to live and to be happy, and sure the things which we need to meet our needs are scarce. That’s the greatest problem facing the humanity since the very first day. We have the rules of jungle which animals follow. We have the dictates of our instincts to follow. But with time and experience, we came to have a consensus that in order to behave humanely we need certain other rules to meet our needs in the midst of scarce resources. This provided us with such rules which we consider universal. They are such as: do not tell a lie, or speak truth; do not steal; do not harm/kill anyone; be honest; be just.

Some of these rules, for example, stealing, killing, were so indispensable to the existence of human society that they were encoded into laws and punishment was associated with their defiance. It means that law is a form of morality and in no way can be separated from it. It also means that law strengthens moral principles and must never weaken or repudiate them.

Although, no one ever theoretically contests the veracity of these rules, but practically at smaller or larger scales they have always been defied. History attests to this fact. The golden periods of human civilization were those when the trends to defy these rules were on the decline. The downfalls saw their rise and widespread practice in vogue. This is how nations and societies dispersed and merged into the dust of history. However, the net loss or gain came to the share of ordinary people who suffer under the hot and cold sun equally. It is they who are the real losers or gainers.

The nature of defiance of these rules is also important to the existence of human society. It determines the pace of decline, decay, and destruction of the soul of a nation. At personal individual level, we are all susceptible to a variety of temptations that may force or persuade us to defy these rules. But if someone defies these rules by commitment, that’s really serious, and it is not defiance as usual. It must be taken into account, debated, refuted and quarantined as zealously as possible. That’s important to save the moral foundations of a nation or society.

The aim of the present article is to bring into focus the same crisis facing the nation and society of Pakistan today. In our sixty year history, we have seen various forms of defiance of these rules on the part of individuals, groups, communities, religious and political parties, and government functionaries. But the current phase has uniqueness to it. One political party, Pakistan Peoples Party, its leadership from top to bottom, its MNAs, its MPAs, its members, and its supporters, all of them, probably without any exception, has made it a point to defy these rules by commitment.

Are all of those who are directly or indirectly or in any manner associated with PPP moral depraves? They are more than that. They are political moral depraves. They are consciously, deliberately, intentionally defending certain political means as justified to attain certain political ends, and all that at the cost of those moral principles. That is why they are not only moral depraves but political depraves also.

No doubt, they have made politics an immoral enterprise through and through. Actually, Mr. Zardari’s signing agreements with Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan Muslim League to restore the judiciary of November 02, 2007, before the full lights of media and nation, and then saying that that was just a political statement, and thus his betraying the written word, PML (N), the lawyers, and the whole nation, was so brazen an act that they had to admit it openly. On the fateful day of presidential election (September 06), one PPP leader and MNA from Sindh, Ms. Nafisa Shah, published an article in a national English daily. She wrote: “Politics and morality are not the same thing. Politics is not religion nor is it a moral code. It is the art and the science of reaching, keeping and sustaining power. It is a system of making, or breaking alliances, for the common cause.”

Well-said and well-confessed too! Bravo that she speaks the truth, and at least in this case, PPP is not telling lies. But who knows? May be on another fateful day, there is another article from the PPP leadership that will again clarify that that admission by Ms. Nafisa Shah was just a political statement. Believe, Sir, politics and morality are not the same thing!

In ancient times, in Crete, one of the islands of Greece, there used to live a Cretan, Epimenides, who claimed that every Cretan is a liar, and being a Cretan he could never belie that he too was a liar. What happened to him is of no importance, but he gave us a paradox, Liar’s Paradox which helps us sort out things clearly. Thus, PPP has put everything topsy-turvy, or has made a mess of everything. When after taking oath of President of Pakistan, Mr. Zardari revealed: within one month you will have good news on Kashmir, all the Cretans believed him and started solving the riddle what would be the good news. But we are mistaken here, we are not Cretans, that is why we believed him and wasted so much time on guessing, talking and writing about that good news. I for one think that now we should always be on our guard while thinking of believing in whatever PPP says since PPP is doing the politics of non-issues for the public consumption; its ‘realpolitik’ has other ulterior objectives. 

Once again let’s come to the point: Ms. Shah writes, and I repeat it, that politics is the art and the science of reaching, keeping and sustaining power. Earlier on, I stressed that it is serious, and it is serious even if we do not go to the Machiavelli or Chanakya to prove our point. If politics is the art and science of reaching, keeping and sustaining power, what was wrong with Major General Iskandar Mirza, Field Marshall Muhammad Ayub Khan, General Muhammad Yahya Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq, and PPP’s beloved General Musharraf! Of course, there is nothing wrong with all these usurpers, and this is good news for all the future usurpers that there will be nothing wrong with their takeovers. They are welcome to throw off civilian governments and rule Pakistan for decades and may be for centuries until and unless they make a mistake in sustaining power!

Since we the ordinary people believe in promises made in black and white or even otherwise and in honoring them more than making them, I have a soft corner for the PPP MNA for she gave us the statement of admission in black and white which is both an admission of truth or falsehood, like the agreements to restore the deposed judiciary, that she may be meaning something else or she could not say the whole thing. I conjecture she may be meaning to say that politics is the art and science of reaching, keeping and sustaining power under the laws of the country. But even this helping hand cannot save PPP from the “crime” of ditching all the moral principles to reach power. Rather it complicates the issue, and PPP sinks deeper into the morass.

Let’s imagine that PPP tried to reach power lawfully and without any under-hand deal with the local and foreign power brokers, and that presidential election was quite fair and transparent. Personally, I have no qualms against the person of Mr. Zardari, our constitution does have reservations on his credentials and reputation. However, apart from this unending debate, after its coming into power, the immediate test of the sincerity of PPP was that if it believed in the constitution of Pakistan as the basic law of the country, it did not need sign any agreements with PML (N) to restore the judiciary; instead as the first good will gesture it should have restored the judges sent home by a dictator immorally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally. In that case, it should have also restored the constitution to its original state so much disfigured by the dictators, or at least annulled the 17^th amendment, and the moment Mr. Zardari became the President of Pakistan, PPP should have moved to restore the powers of the Prime Minister unconstitutionally grabbed by the dictator-presidents.        

But nothing of the sorts happened. Nor is there any chance of happening that. Instead, even after seven months in power, PPP is trying hard to justify its policy and actions. From an ordinary supporter to the top leader, from an illiterate Jiyala to the most qualified Jiyala, and from a newly converted PPP man to a seasoned politician like Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Raza Rabbani, there is no single voice that dare say that signed agreements are not political statements, and that it is wrong to betray promises and agreements. There is no note of dissent on any string. Even those Jiyalas who have education and training in Philosophy are as vocal in defending the immoral and unconstitutional policies and actions of PPP leadership despite that. This shows both morality and philosophy cannot be taught an issue they would be familiar was taken up by the Greek philosophers.

Under the circumstances, it will not be far from truth to say that PPP has completely turned into a conscienceless body. No one from PPP seems to have an inkling of moral courage who can challenge its leadership. Rather, all of them are out to defend everything said and done by the PPP leadership as a moral duty. It is tantamount to usurping the morality by party commitment. That is dangerously alarming because, it can result in, and is resulting in civil strife and ultimately in internal warfare.

One’s affiliation with a party, his commitment to its ideology, and his submission to its leadership, are all just incidental things and they should be put in their due place in the larger scheme of things, and must never be replaced with universal moral principles, or laws of the country, or its constitution. In case, one’s party is pursuing such policies and taking such steps which are against the dictates of morality, and are damaging to the laws and constitution of one’s country, should he remain subservient to such a party? PPP is stretching farther than that. I give benefit of doubt to all those who are in PPP or support it, and do not allege them with any vested interest in supporting such immoral and unconstitutional policies and actions of PPP and its leadership, but it’s no denying the fact that otherwise it is party commitment that has forced or persuaded them to defend the party and its leadership.

In addition to its crusade against morality, PPP is intent upon defying universal political truths such as independence of judiciary, rule of law, and security of fundamental rights to the citizens. It is at will making a mockery of the constitution also. Then, what is democracy for, for which PPP has been struggling since its inception! Is it for the rule of a party which in defiance of everything already settled authorizes itself to judge upon every thing be it moral principles, laws, or the constitution and then destroying them all? Is PPP’s democracy for the dictatorship of its party? Isn’t all that taking place under the nose of PPP, its leadership, and its supporters leading Pakistan to a sort of fascist quagmire? Isn’t it up to creating such deaf and dumb political moral depraves who are just mindless, conscienceless slaves of the party and its leadership? If it is so, then surely we are headed for a major moral and political breakdown!

[This article was completed on October 26, 2008.]

© The Blogger
All rights reserved. No part of the contents published on this Blog – Notes from Pakistan may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of The Blogger.

Uboori Hukoomat: Khawaab Ya Sazish

Please note: This post has been shifted to the Urdu Blog - Civil Pakistan. To see it, click the link below:

Uboori Hukoomat: Khawaab Ya Sazish