Is keeping assets abroad criminal?

This April a bill was submitted in the National Assembly which is yet another attempt to make the citizens of Pakistan "loyal" to it. The bill seeks to amend the Article 63 of the Constitution – an article that sets the criteria for the members of parliament and provincial assemblies. The bill requires that any person who holds dual nationality and owns bank accounts and assets in countries other than Pakistan will not be able to be a member of the parliament and provincial assemblies as well as public service, both civil and military. It ensued from the womb of Muslim League (Q). Leaving aside the doubts whether it is part of a political ploy or a trick of political blackmailing, the bill needs to be examined on its merits.

This article does not aim to dwell on the issue of dual nationality. The same restriction already existed in the Constitution, though the bill means to extend it to the public office holders also. As far as politicians' (and public officials') ownership of and keeping their wealth in foreign countries is concerned, the media and patriot lobby has since long been there manufacturing the public opinion against it. In fact, such matters came to fore mostly during the military dictatorships when politicians were especially made a target of political victimization. The argument put forward said the loyalty of the leaders to their country who own assets in foreign lands is precarious. Nonetheless, this class of doubtful loyalty with Pakistan has lately come to include generals, judges, and other high-profile officials. The bill does not make a target only of the politicians which had been the common practice in cases of such legislation in the past. 

It is as simple as that – if an ordinary citizen, or a public office holder, or an elected representative owns assets in any other country where he abides by the laws of that country and pays taxes duly, and back home also, then keeping accounts and assets there is his legal and constitutional right. In that case, he cannot be barred from being a member of any elected body and joining public office. Innumerable Pakistanis are already present in foreign countries' elected bodies and public institutions and own assets in both countries of their nationality. For that matter, in Pakistan probably very few citizens of other countries would be found in our elected bodies and public institutions! Doesn't this bill invite other countries to go for a legislation of the same ilk? 

Furthermore, if an elected representative or a public office holder uses his wealth in this or that country in an unbecoming manner and for illegal purposes, such laws already exist which deal with this wrong-doing. As the bill assumes that after its enactment politicians will be discouraged from indulging in corruption, or will not be able to escape political vengeance or legal action rightly or wrongly initiated against them, the same is just a figment. The fact is that many countries have bilateral or multilateral agreements on the extradition of alleged criminals. Also, in addition to the governments of other countries and their powerful elite classes, the relatives, friends and acquaintances of 'victimized' politicians and public office holders will be more than welcoming to them in having them as their 'pricey' guests. The reason for this investment is obvious: the prospects of going up of the value of such "assets," both in political and financial terms, will be hundredfold! 

In its essence, the bill questions the loyalty of elected representatives and public office holders to their country, and as proof of that loyalty instead of demanding from them, it by imposing legal constitutional restriction on them tries to force them from having and keeping their accounts and assets in foreign countries. Is holding accounts, owning property, doing business, and keeping assets abroad a crime? There is no such bar in the Constitution of the country. Then, why should there be such a bar on the elected representatives and public office holders? Does that specific status of theirs deprive them of their natural and fundamental constitutional rights? Will, by putting such a bar on them, they be more loyal to the country? Will, by putting this restriction, their patriotism be increased manifold? 

The factors which strengthen love and loyalty to one's country have nothing to do with such legal and constitutional restrictions. Instead of focusing on those factors, the bill diverts attention from them. In sum, in a time of extreme insecurity, forgoing the need of securing the protection of life, and security of rights and rightly earned wealth and property of its citizens, wherever in this world they own it, the bill seeks to put a narrow-minded and altogether unintelligible restriction on the citizens of Pakistan – the present and would-be elected representatives and public office holders. 

Without any fear of exaggeration, it may be surmised that the bill seems to be ringing the bells of/for another Martial Law! 

Note: This article was completed in August 2011.

A Story of Complicity

A Story of Complicity: Statistical Relationship between a Newspaper and a Politician

* The writer supports freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of press as sort of absolute values.

* This analysis by him is in good faith and may not be construed as intrusion in anyone’s privacy and freedom.

* Since newspapers are public entities (though they are privately owned), and politicians public personalities, the writer as a reader and as a citizen may use his freedom to question and criticize both.

* The writer is a keen reader of the newspapers. In the month of May 2014 he noticed unusual news coverage given to one politician “P” in the newspaper “N.”

* When the month of May completed, the writer took a stock of that coverage.

* Here is the table that shows the detail of the news coverage which emerged out of this exercise:

Serial no.	Date	Page no.	Photo / Sketch	Brief statement	Detailed statement
1.	2.5.2014	13	√	√	-
2.	6.5.2014	13	√	√	-
3.		14	-	-	√
4.	9.5.2014	14	√	√	-
5.	13.5.2014	14	√	√	-
6.	16.5.2014	14	√	√	-
7.	17.5.2014	14	√	√	-
8.	19.5.2014	13	√	√	-
9.		14	-	-	√
10.	23.5.2014	13	√	√	-
11.	26.5.2014	13	√	√	-
12.	28.5.2014	13	√	√	-
13.		14	-	-	√
13	10	13	10	10	3

      

* Here are the results that this table generates:

1. The number of days in the month of May 2014 on which the Newspaper “N” was published = 31

2. The number of days on which news coverage was given to the Politician “P” = 10

3. The number of times Photo / Sketch of the Politician “P” was published = 10

4. The number of times Brief Statement of the Politician “P” was published = 10

5. The number of times Detailed Statement of the Politician “P” was published = 3

6. The number of times Photo / Sketch, Brief Statement, and Detailed Statement of the Politician “P” 

was published = 10 + 10 + 3 = 23

* In sum, out of 31 days of the month of May 2014, the number of times 3 type of coverage was given to the Politician “P” in the Newspaper “N” Lahore Edition = 23.

* Here is the news coverage in terms of percentages:

* As mentioned above, in case all 3 types of coverage the Politician “P” was given is added together, it turns out to be 23 times out of 31 days.

* Thus, out of 31 days of the month of May, the percentage of coverage given by the Newspaper “N” Lahore Edition to the Politician “P” reaches to 74.19 %.

* How come that a politician of the stature of P, who may not be considered a national level political leader, is given coverage for 10 days and 23 times in a month by one of the top national English dailies, i.e. the Newspaper “N”!

* No doubt, the newspaper under consideration, in exercise of its freedom of press, has all the right to give any type of coverage to any type of politician or otherwise. No questioning on that!

* However, as a reader and as a citizen, the writer has the right to object why such an enormous coverage was given to the Politician “P”!

* He may criticize such coverage as noticeable and abnormal!

* He may ask: Doesn’t coverage of such abnormality raise questions which may bear on the nature of transparency the newspaper observes? And, he may ask: What’s the deal? Or what’s the package?

* Also, the writer is curious to know how the decision to give such enormous coverage to anyone is reached and put into effect.

* In short, what the writer as a reader and as a citizen would like to know is: Does the newspaper under consideration (the Newspaper “N”) operate on the basis of a transparent policy and an open criteria which it follows in deciding what and how much coverage this or that public personality deserves, and which it shares with its readers especially and Pakistani citizens generally? Or it just operates arbitrarily?

* As a matter of principle, this question applies to all the newspapers, magazines, and TV and Radio channels, and raises the issue of accountability in the eyes of the citizenry.

* Hence the issue this piece really wants to bring to the fore is: Do Pakistani print and electronic media operate arbitrarily? Or, does it believe it is accountable to the citizens of Pakistan, and in line with that belief, it operates in accordance with a transparent policy and open criterion which it shares both with its readers and the citizens?

* In the end, it needs to be admitted that this piece tries to exhort Pakistani media to be transparent and accountable to the public it claims it is there to serve!

* So finally the issue is: Has Pakistani media any internal code of conduct to follow in its operations? Has it a transparent policy and an open criterion to share with its readers? And, lastly, do Pakistani media behave morally? Or not?

Note: This article was completed on August 3, 2014.

Crimes and the political alibi

“I am a politician; I cannot commit any crime; I am perfectly innocent!”

That is how, as we know at least in Pakistan, politicians argue. That manner of political self-defense clears the two-way traffic: criminals may become politicians; and, politicians may become criminals. Pakistanis have enough of both. And the breed is multiplying like rabbits. All the more, species belonging to other realms of social, economic, military, cultural, religious have started aping the politicians. They have learned the art of politics from them. That’s a hundred percent fool-proof method of overcoming any odds.

Also, that has rendered all the systems of accountability inefficacious. Why? Because, and it is awfully baffling that, all the systems of accountability are conceived, detailed and legislated by the criminal politicians or political criminals. Who can forget the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO)? And it is these politicians, tainted with criminality, who appoint the heads to these accountability systems, just like Chaudhry Qamar Zaman, has been appointed Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Just like the leader of the opposition party in the National Assembly, Khurshid Shah, has been made Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Such systems are a product of the political-criminal complex in Pakistan.

The latest episode from this complex unfolded a few days earlier when on May 29 an anti-corruption court issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and Makhdoom Amin Fahim, former commerce minister and a member of Gillani’s cabinet. Both are senior leaders of Pakistan Peoples Party. Seven others include the list of the accused in this case which allegedly involves major irregularities of Rs.7 billion in granting freight subsidies to fake trading companies by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP). Previously both politicians were issued three notices to appear before the court. As the notices were ignored (note their arrogance!), then bailable warrants were issued. Now non-bailable warrants have been issued with hearing adjourned till June 17.

The same day the former prime minister issued a statement and said: no case in this country was completed without implicating him whether it was the case of OGRA, NICL, NRO, TDAP or Haj scam. He added: the beneficiaries of the NRO had been exonerated but he was still facing the music. His political alibi was worded thus: ‘He asked the government to avoid crossing the limits of victimization and unleash it to the extent they could also bear it tomorrow. They had no stomach to tolerate even the fraction of what was going on against him.’

No sooner this news item flashed than the political machinery of Peoples Party got switched on and statements started pouring in the newspapers and TV channels to beat the drum of political victimization. Very next day co-chairman of the PPP and former president Asif Ali Zardari ‘deplored the victimization of former prime ministers Yousaf Raza Gillani and Raja Pervez Ashraf and former federal minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim behind the façade of accountability as witch-hunting.’ He warned: ‘that bodes ill for the politics of tolerance, accommodation and reconciliation.’ 

This narrative of Political Victimization is very much typical and repeats itself on various occasions and for various personalities. Now it’s Asif Ali Zardari’s turn to mouth it: in his statement he pretended to be shocked while, according to him, the PPP was seeking to protect the democratic system through political reconciliation the government was chasing political opponents and thereby undermining the unity of political forces. His tirade is totally based on political alibi: he said that decisions in national policies whether in the rental power plants or subsidies or concessions in importing commodities were taken collectively and transparently by the cabinet in the light of objective realities and singling out the prime minister is patently wrong and smacks of political victimization. Also he found a poignant similarity between the hounding of Benazir Bhutto in late 1990s for the decisions jointly taken by the cabinet at the time and the chasing of Yousaf Raza Gillani, Raja Pervez Ashraf and Makhdoom Amin Fahim now for decisions taken by the cabinet. He advised the government to review its policies and stop witch-hunting and victimization of political opponents.

This narrative of political victimization amounts to this: all the decisions politicians make while they are in government, whether they prove to be good or bad, must be treated as unquestionable; since by dint of their electoral mandate they are innocent; and more than that by virtue of their being politicians and representing the people they cannot make any wrong decisions. In short, in their capacity of being politicians, they are infallible. And while they win elections, they place themselves beyond every norm, value, principle, and morality and law; thus, their infallibility perfects. Gillani’s and Zardari’s words quoted above are based on these presumptions. They may be termed as the Political Alibi.

Thus the political alibi claims the politicians must be considered and treated as beyond the law of the land. That means they are King, who used to be law unto himself. So they, the politicians of Pakistan, are law unto themselves. No need to try Yousaf Raza Gillani, Raja Pervez Ashraf, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, or Asif Ali Zaradri for any wrong-doing; they are infallible; they are themselves law of this land.

Or otherwise, if this or any other government think of trying or tries them, their narrative by implication means to say that, they will not protect the democratic system; they will give up political reconciliation; and so on. In this sense, the political alibi conceals threats of undermining the system. Just as psychological alibis provide criminals with excuses for their crimes, such as harming others, or murders in the name of honor, etc; in the same way, politicians use the political alibis as excuses to hide their inefficiencies, incompetencies, corrupt and dishonest practices, scamming, nepotism, cronyism, and misappropriating the public exchequer.

Finally it may be reminded that the law of Pakistan provides for no such alibi to any one, be they politicians. That was why they took recourse to the NRO; otherwise, such a law would have come to their rescue. If any charge is made against any politician, he / she should present himself / herself in the court of law and prove his / her innocence. Political alibi is no way of proving ones innocence; it may prove the guilt, instead!

Note: This article was completed on June 2, 2014.

The 21st point: Overhaul the state

Note: This article was completed on December 31st, 2014, and was originally posted on this Blog in January 2015.

Presently there is happening quite a serious debate on the 20 points envisaged in the National Action Plan. Its thrust is on two points:

i) All these measures should have been in their place since long as a matter of routine, probably from the day first when Pakistan came to exist; and,

ii) Due to the past negligence of the governments, doubts and questions are being raised about the efficacy of these measures.

The argument the present writer aims to make is a bit different; he wants to propose a 21^st point to be added to the NAP, which focuses on overhauling the state. Let’s be precise in judging: It’s the state that played havoc with the society of Pakistan, and now it needs to be back to the basics!

First and foremost: The politicians of Pakistan should stop behaving like Haakim and Ashraaf; they are empowered by the vote of people and are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the constitution; they are the same citizens albeit with certain responsibilities and duties with which strings of accountability are attached.

The citizens of Pakistan while they participated in the Lawyers’ Movement learnt about: Constitutionalism; Rule of Law; Fundamental Rights; Independence of Judiciary: these must materialize into reality. That amounts to minimizing the role of the politicians which they exert on the society and market through various instruments of the state and government; and that will strengthen and enhance the civil society and its role in the life of the citizens.

There are two domains wherein an urgent overhaul is required: Political and Economic. In the political domain, following practical measures are needed:

i) The role of the state be redefined as a protector of the citizens life, property and their freedoms and not as an institution of welfare, and not as a proprietor of Business; 

ii) Constitutionalism should be the only way to run the affairs of the state; 

iii) Top priority be given to the protection of all the citizens’ life, property and their fundamental rights; especially the right to religious freedom be ensured to every citizens whatever his/her faith is; 

iv) Institutions and agencies responsible to dispense justice and extend protection to the citizens, such as Police, Courts, be made autonomous and accountable to the parliament or the provincial assemblies as the case may be; 

v) Civilian authority be retrieved and restored both in letter and spirit; formulation of defense and foreign policies constitutionally rests with the elected government and parliament, these should go back to them; as in accord with the constitution the Army has nothing to do with any other matters save related to its professional duties, it must confine itself to the role assigned by the constitution; also not only the Army but all the intelligence agencies be made accountable to the parliament; 

vi) Any interference in the matters of the state and its institutions whether it comes from the political or military quarters be not heeded to in the least and violators be brought to the book; 

vii) Judiciary be completely made independent financially and in matters of its appointments especially; 

viii) All the institutions of the state, such as Election Commission, National Accountability Bureau, be made autonomous absolutely impervious to any external influence; 

ix) In the matters of Army’s and Bureaucracy’s appointments, posting, transfers, promotions, Prime Minister’s, or any minister’s prerogatives be done away with, and the principle of merit and seniority strictly be followed; 

x) All the legislation regarding the citizens’ right to information be it at the federal or provincial level is a farce; in fact all the information regarding the affairs of the state and government belongs to the citizens; why should they pay and be asking for it; so it be posted on the respective websites for their examination; 

xi) The role of all the elected representatives be confined to the matters of legislation and they should enjoy no other status or powers; no funds, be it for development or for any other purpose, be given to them; 

xii) Foreign visits of state and government officials be drastically curtailed; no visit be allowed without prior budget sanction; 

xiii) It be legislated that only professional politicians could contest and become elected representatives, and no one doing or having any business interests could join politics and government.

In the domain of Pakistan’s economy, following radical reforms need to be introduced: First and foremost: The state must come back to its original protective function and focus on its regulatory and facilitatory role and be doing no business at all. 

i) All the lands gifted/allotted by the British to anyone be taken back and distributed to landless peasants and homeless citizens under a uniform policy; 

ii) All the monetary privileges and tax exemptions be abolished;

iii) All the discretionary powers, discretionary or secret funds be stopped; 

iv) All the state enterprises be privatized be they incur profit or loss; 

v) As growth is a function of citizens’ entrepreneurial efforts, and state or government creates not a single penny of wealth, this be adopted as a guiding principle while formulating any economic policies; 

vi) As in its role of a taxman, the state by heavily taxing can hamper the economic growth, so it must commit itself to the principle of lower and flat rate taxes; 

vii) As a regulator, the state should commit itself to the principle of regulation for facilitation, not for control; 

viii) All the restrictions on domestic or international trade be lifted; it’s for the producers/traders to see and decide where to export to and where to import from; 

ix) In the spirit of a slim, smart and strong state, unnecessary ministries, departments, etc. be downsized or done away with altogether; 

x) As the state machinery, i.e. departments of the state which collect tax or render various services, such as permissions, licenses, has become an enemy of the people, a complete overhaul of it is long due; with an iron hand it be made citizen-friendly; 

xi) All the accounts of the state be posted on the respective websites and even a single penny be accounted for, i.e. political and economic parasitism must come to an end.

Pak polity – racing backwards

So to say, in about 70 years, the political gains Pakistan’s polity has been able to make are dismal! Pessimistically, it’s NOTHING! Optimistically, it’s merely the Constitution that itself came to be agreed upon about 25 years after the country’s emergence on the map of the world. That casts a heavy doubt on the credence of Pakistan’s polity. Politically speaking, things stand in the same mould now they stood on the first day. The final verdict on the quality of the Pak polity may thus be worded: The citizens still live at their own risk in a country which is consuming itself by its own pseudo-nationalist, religious, militarist rhetoric!

No wrangling, the fact is that no politician and no political party find the constitution and its provisions tolerable to their will and temperament; they trample them whenever they see any of it obstructing what they want to do or to achieve. Not only that, they make use of it against its spirit; amend it at their will; or suspend it whenever they do not need it; ignore it when it doesn’t serve their purpose; and validate any amendments stuffed into by the military dictators. To the Paki politicians, the constitution is like a toy!

The latest example in this regard is the ruling party’s attempt to weaken and tame the higher courts whose newly obtained sort of independence proves to be a thorn in their heart. One parliamentary committee is already busy formulating such proposals which may help cut the judicial panel down to size. No doubt, all the parliamentary parties will be on the same page to bring the judges back into their pockets. Hopefully, if the civil society organizations especially lawyers fail to stop this onslaught of politicians against the judiciary, once again there will emerge judges of compliant character inside the High Courts and Supreme Court. There is one more hurdle to it; it’s the Supreme Court itself, which may send back the amendment (thus passed) to the parliament for review, if it does not find sufficient grounds to annul the same.

Hence, one very important gain obtained by the citizens of Pakistan, i.e. sort of independent judiciary, which is in fact an essential part of the constitutional scheme for the country to run, is going to be lost to the politicians’ lust for absolute power. That speaks volumes about the state of the polity in Pakistan! That leaves no hope alive that the Paki politicians and political parties will ever learn one or two things. How unfortunate! After about 7 decades they are still intent upon running a country of more than 180 million citizens like a principality! Everything, be they moral or social values, or rules and laws, is like something they must break and trash in their Ashraafist vein. That’s their way!

In 2013, for the first time one civilian government completed its constitutional tenure, general elections were held and a new government sworn in. No doubt, it should be a matter of routine in a democracy, not something both notable and noticeable; however, given the Pakistan’s political history where no civilian government was allowed to rule for its full tenure, it’s a Herculean achievement. In the midst, another event of unprecedented magnitude and significance took place: a usurper general was brought to the court for the highest crime allegedly committed by him, i.e. of suspending the constitution of the country; the case is sub judice. Both of these happenings may be overlooked or underestimated in the heat of the moment; which otherwise must be reckoned as the steps forward, no matter how small, as far as political evolution of Pakistan is concerned.

It is in the above-discussed context that both Inquilabi and Azadi Dharnas which took the capital sort of hostage this August need to be seen and explained. Whatever both of these parties, i.e. Pakistan Awami Tehreek of Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf of Imran Khan, and their allies, in or out of the state, aim to achieve and for that to achieve whatever they do and are doing need to be weighed against the gain of political evolution for Pakistan. Will that especially what the PTI is aiming at help Pakistan’s polity to evolve or not? Or, will it push it backwards? That’s the crucial question which must be answered by all having any concern for Pakistan!

Although the PAT concluded its Inquilabi Dharna at the end of last month, it is still not out of the game; and no doubt it has declared its parting of ways from the PTI and Imran Khan, it may join the 30 November call of the PTI to stage another Dharna in Islamabad, and be back in the game. That’s the same politics like of which both have been playing in the month of August this year when they were planning their marches to move together and when they landed in the capital and played their tricks in unison, till the PAT left the capital late in October. Under the circumstances, it may be conjectured that they may join hands again. That means the race to the corridors of powers is intact, and that there is no doubt about it this struggle is non-political.

How this struggle for power fares vis-à-vis the political evolution of Pakistan is the real problem to be dealt with! In addition, regardless of the apprehensions of majority of political analysts about the sponsored nature of the PAT and PTI’s offensive struggle, it may be suggested that what is more important is not who is behind them but what impact they are having and may be having in future on the political evolution of Pakistan. As to this, the writer’s considered opinion goes like this: The way PAT and PTI are conducting their fight is certainly impacting the polity of Pakistan extremely negatively: first, it’s distracting and confounding the constitutionalities; and second, it’s presenting no competitive challenges to other political parties including the ruling ones in a positive sense to move forward, it’s detracting them instead. That’s pushing the Pak polity race backwards!

Note: This article was completed on November 19, and was originally posted on November 27, 2014.

Stray reflections on the 68th Independence Day

Note: This article was completed on August 4, 2014. Since then little has changed; this piece is still relevant on this 68th Independence Day. 

Stray reflections on the 67th Independence Day

For the sane in Pakistan the fight is about protecting the values, the humanity has developed in the course of thousands of years, from the political and religio-political witchcraft, which it is intent upon destroying thoughtlessly. How the time-tested values were trashed (and are being trampled even this moment) when Pakistan came into being is a saga of ruthless fights between the politicians continuing to this very day, the August 14.

The greatest deceptive lessons the politicians taught the citizens derive their justification from the misconception that a state may be based on this or that faith, or ideology. That also hints at the infatuation that a theocratic state is a political possibility; whereas history has no such example to show but the only ones which ultimately proved tyrannies and relaxed in political absolutism.

In addition to such ideological adventures, another fever gripped the nation’s mind from the very beginning; that is the notion of an omnipotent welfare state. The politics exclusively revolving around the slogan of such a state gave rise to a state which started feeding itself on the hard-earned money of the citizens. Thus, not only became the state a handmaiden in the hands of every types of criminals under the leadership of politicians, but gradually it turned out to be the cruelest enemy of the citizens of Pakistan itself.

Resultantly, the state of Pakistan became a goldmine for the elite classes, and in order to appropriate the resources which the state happens to possess and generate, there emerged a new class, which the writer has termed as the State Aristocracy (Riyasati Ashrafiya) and which he has elaborated upon in his Urdu book, Pakistan Mein Riyasati Ashrafiya Ka Urooj (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan). This class of Riyasati Ashrfiya thrives and survives by its capture of the institution of the state and its resources, and use the slogan of democracy to befool the citizens of Pakistan. That is why the Pakistani Riyasati Ashrafiya is thoroughly against constitutionalism, rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and the latest evidence in this regard comes from the Parliament’s efforts to give more powers to the Parliamentary Commission vis-à-vis the Judicial Commission as far as appointment of the judges for the higher courts are concerned.

Despite the emergence of this new class of Riyasati Ashrafiya in Pakistan, the political elites remain divided and at dagger-drawn towards their own tribes. That’s what is happening today in Islamabad. It’s actually a ruthless fight to capture the state of Pakistan. But why does this fight continue even after about 7 decades have seen Pakistan go from bad to worse? What’s wrong with Pakistan, and its political elites or the new class of Riyasati Ashrafiya?

Philosophically, the chronic cancer may be diagnosed and explained thus: whenever any size of community forms, in order to live together the members of it agree to follow certain values, i.e. sort of a code of conduct. Never ever any community did come into being on the basis of a faith or an ideology. It was always an agreement or a contract to abide by certain values and rules which with the passage of time were abandoned; and what remained to be followed and imposed by this group on that group had only the semblance of a faith or an ideology leaving its moral core behind to rot. This complex phenomenon may be simplified by proposing that the abandonment of moral principles or values or rules of conduct served the interests of the elite classes who and/or their cohorts, without conspiring, politicized the faith or ideology of their community to perpetuate their rule and appropriate the resources of the kingdom or the state they happened to rule. The same took place when the state of Pakistan was instituted in 1947 on this day of August 14.

Integral to this is another proposition: When a community forms together, it invests certain persons with powers to give protection of life, property, and personal freedom to each and all of its members without any discrimination. Also, part of this function is the provision of justice and that to all equally. That is what comes to be instituted and known as a state. From the day one, Pakistani citizens were bereft of this protective role of their state and to this moment remain so. Their life, property and personal freedom are more than ever vulnerable today to the whims both of state and non-state actors. The ordinary Pakistani citizens were never that insecure in Pakistan as the present day Pakistan has forced them to be!

All the more reason to despair today is that the same political elite which is ruthlessly fighting for the capture of the state of Pakistan is exhorting the ordinary citizens, and spending millions to celebrate the Independence Day! What is there to celebrate? Celebrate the state of Pakistan, which has badly failed in protecting its citizens’ person and property and their personal freedom! Or celebrate the thoughtless fight for the capture of the state of Pakistan?

Must we ask what is there to celebrate on this 67^th day of independence? What did we achieve through these 7 decades? Should we celebrate that chronic disease called Disagreement, or the Lack of Consensus? Ji, that lack of consensus between the political elites which did not allow a constitution take shape and secure Pakistani citizens their constitutional freedoms during the first 25 years or so after Pakistan was established. For the next 40 years, the citizens knew they had a constitution, but never enjoyed the security of their person, property and personal freedom.

Instead, what the ordinary citizens witness today is that despite the existence of a constitution which is verily in enforcement, certain political elites are adamant to give it up for an Anti-Constitutional Revolution which will make them capture the state of Pakistan! That means Pakistan virtually has no constitution to run the state of Pakistan. The fight for the capture of the state is still raging on the 67^th Independence Day. It is the political elites which are demeaning the state and the constitution of Pakistan. That delivers a message for the citizens of Pakistan to heed: Demean the political elites! They are their culprits!

Politics and the destruction of our cities

Years back, I sent an article titled, “Nationalization of social and moral values in Pakistan,” to a newspaper. It did publish but with entirely a different title. The new title, “A state that took over society” aptly described what that article was about. Now when I want to write about the destruction of our cities by the political elites in their bid to impress the citizens as voters, I cannot think of a better title than the present one. First I thought of this one: “Preserving the older cities.” However, both the titles communicate what this article argues about. First, the political elites are destroying our cities; and, second, we need to preserve our cities and their age-old soul.

As far as the concept of cities prevailing in our society is concerned, it needs to be reminded that cities are not a complex of roads, buildings, houses, streets, schools, colleges, universities, markets, hotels, restaurants, parks, gardens, libraries; in fact, they are a complex of conceptual environment in which people are born; where they are brought up; where they play, study, comingle, make friends, indulge in love; where they do business, politics; where they organize in various associational initiatives; where they build their world of dreams; where they wage struggle for the improvement of their life or others’ life; where they marry, settle in new homes and beget children; where they pass their old age completely in harmony with their cities; and finally where they are buried. And cities are such places where after their death, they are remembered and visited and prayed for a peaceful afterlife by their survivors. Ultimately cities are made of the stuff dreams are made of.

But as the Pakistani state has taken over its society; along with it, it has grabbed that environment of our cities also where the citizens used to be part of the city’s conceptual environment, and now they feel stranger in their own cities. Now when I go about in Lahore here and there, I miss so many things that were the part of my existence, and like me part of millions of Lahoris’ existence; however, they are no more there. Flyovers, underpasses, overhead bridges, metro-bus have encroached upon the canvas of Lahore. I really feel lost. Just go in front of the MAO College, and see how that Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College has lost its look and image under the ugly shadow of the elevated road for the metro-bus. Not only the MAO College, but just opposite to it another old red-brick building of the erstwhile government college of education stands eclipsed by the same elevated road.

That may mean that one is despising the progressive work meant for the benefit of the people at large, and he may be diagnosed of having a retrogressive mindset. For example, metro-bus is such a good facility that saves time and money of the thousands of commuters. Flyovers, overhead bridges, or underpasses, they all facilitate smooth flow of vehicles and do not allow for any traffic jams. That it’s a great achievement seems to be a truism.

However, the underlying story is quite different. As far as Lahore is concerned, its population has increased manifold and it lacks many of the civic facilities. Good roads and smooth traffic are two big issues. But the question is how to solve these issues; by running metro-bus (which consumed so muc of the space), building flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses; or by improving the roads and managing the traffic as is required by the traffic laws. It cannot be controverted that in Lahore and in other cities also, rules and laws of traffic are not implemented. Nobody in the department of the traffic police, and up to the chief minister, bothers about controlling the traffic mess that’s a daily suffering for millions of people. While a number of flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses do not witness much traffic using them, one is forced to ask why so much money has been spent on such “political marvels.”

Clearly, it is political economy working behind these, in most of the cases, un-needed and un-wanted projects. And, no doubt, they are to prove that the government is doing a lot, and surveys and studies are misled by this illusion of progress and development. In Lahore, there has been built an overhead bridge where the Shalimar Link Road crosses the Canal Road; one can stand there for one hour and count only dozens of vehicles use this bridge; and just beneath this bridge, there is almost always a painful traffic mess facing the people. That shows what is needed is management of traffic on the roads by strictly implementing the rules and laws of traffic, not these political impressive!

It reminds me of a short-story which narrates the ordeal of a simple woman from a suburban village coming to one of the biggest city hospitals to have her daughter treated by the specialist doctors. The first day she has to go back unattended by the doctors; because she has to face a complex network of doors, corridors, floors, stairs on the one hand, and on the other, complicated system of availing various medical services provided by the hospital. She was not familiar to that complicated style of building housing the complicated way of providing services. It takes whole of her second day to know where to go for this and where to go for that.

The gist of the matter is that progress and development means facilitation; not complication; simplicity, and not complexity. Sure, that means simple cities imbued with their soul and spirit. That amounts to saying that development in cities doesn’t mean disfiguring of the face of those cities. Politicians and rulers must understand this simple truth that their mandate to rule is just for 5 years, and they have no authority or right to destroy the 500 years old existence of our cities. In many cases, these cities of ours, like Lyallpur, Gujrat, Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore and so many others may be much older than a period of 500 hundred years.

The politicians and rulers must not impose their dreams on our cities; they should go and develop new cities and do whatever they like, just as they did in Islamabad. Our cities are the dreams of our ancestors as well as ours. We want our cities back. O politicians and rulers leave our cities alone to us, the civil society which can better take care of them. O politicians do not destroy our cities for your temporary political gains! Do not politicize our cities! Let our cities be ourselves!

Note: This article was completed on June 9, and was originally posted in June 2014.