Thursday, October 11, 2012

Malala, Taliban and the mindset of the Pakistani state

Malala Yousafzai, a 14 year Pakistani girl student and activist keen on getting education and advocating it for other girls, has been targeted by Taliban!

In this context, I would like to point out two things:

1. Every time Taliban repeat such a heinous crime, there is abundant outrage and endless condemnations both by the state and not-state elements. When such crimes are committed by non-Taliban ordinary or not-ordinary persons, or by the Pakistani state itself, that evokes far less condemnation from the non-state elements as well as other state elements. What does that amount to? That indicates what the Taliban go for is not that new or strange or unacceptable in this land; instead that means the Taliban has no right to do such things, this right belongs to us only!

That brings my second point to light.

2. The crimes of the Taliban put the Pakistani state, the ruling government, Leftist and Rightist political parties (all the religious groups or parties are basically political), print and electronic media, and civil society into a frenzy: they start spitting out fire against the Taliban mindset.

I do not differ with the notion of the Taliban mindset. That is there and that needs to be condemned and, more than that, uprooted. I did write a piece on this mindset, which is going to be shared below. What I am deeply disturbed at is the fact what is designated as this Taliban mindset is nothing alien to the Pakistani state, the Pakistani Right, the Pakistani Left, and a portion of the Pakistani media, academia and the civil society also.

The type of Pakistan the Taliban wants Pakistan to transform into is not much different from the Pakistans, the Right and the Left aim at making it. The Pakistani state has its own designs against its own citizens. They do not give any weight to the basic rights and freedoms which the Constitution ensures to each individual citizen of Pakistan. Just like the Taliban, all of them, be it Right or Left, want to run Pakistan according to the dictates of their political ideologies and turn Pakistan in the image of their political ideologies, and interests.

The only difference between the Taliban and the Non-Taliban Taliban is the way they operate in to achieve their designs: the Taliban do want to capture the State and they use every imaginable violent means to attain their goal; whereas the Non-Taliban Taliban (I must admit the difference of degrees between the violent Taliban and the non-violent Taliban; but between them there is no difference of kind.) use non-violent means to capture the state. However, the game is the state; both, or all those who share this mindset, are there to seize the political power to make Pakistan this or that type of state, or say to use the citizens of Pakistan to their interests.

So, there is a rat race in Pakistan to capture the state of Pakistan. That was the plague Pakistan has been afflicted with in its first 25 years or so, and it was that race because of which no constitution was accepted by all and sundry, and when in 1973 a constitution was agreed upon and enforced, the Pakistani state, the Right, the Left and the elite classes were least ready to follow it.

They never talk of the fundamental rights of the citizens the constitution talk of. They never talk of the basic function of the state, its protective function, i.e. the security of life and property of its citizens, and their rights.

That deliberate criminal neglect sowed the seeds of Taliban mindset in Pakistan, and with time as the state played its non-constitutional and anti-constitutional games, the violent Taliban grew taller and stronger.

In short, that is the story of the Taliban mindset. This mindset is not new to this land; it has it roots in the same soil, in the same state, and in the same society. In other words, it means when states are ruled by ideologies, not only do they grow such mindsets, they bear the fruit also, killing all the values human civilization values most.

Fighting that mindset is not easy; psychologists know better and reveal the details what happens when a mind fights against itself, and how difficult it could be. But a constitutionalist does have the recipe: to fight this mindset, the state must enforce the constitution and the rules and laws indiscriminately and single-mindedly, which in other words mean, the state must protect life and property and rights of each citizen; and let the mindset fight its own battles.

The Taliban mindset

In order to secure constitutional protection for Muslims, the, Muslim League, under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, argued in separatist language on the basis of a different religious identity. However, as the Congress would not budge on the issue, the Muslim League went ahead with its demand for Pakistan.

Thus, the constitutional issue was merged into a religious issue. Naturally when Pakistan came into being, Quaid-e-Azam found himself facing a dilemma: he had been using the rhetoric of separate religious identity and now wanted to make the new homeland a religiously neutral state, as is evident from his speech of August 11, 1947.

That it could not happen, and the controversy lives to this day, proves that.

Also, that a constitution could not be framed until 1973, or while a few were framed and enforced, whatever their merit was, they could not survive, is sufficient to demonstrate the point: transforming the constitutional issue (especially the right to religious freedom) into a religious one proved poisonous for the new homeland.

That it provided various elites, including military and religious, with an excuse to exploit the absence of a constitution to their benefit is undeniable, and it was they who tried their best to ensure that no constitution should prevail in Pakistan.

The fundamental rights of the citizens, which found a mention as far back as in 1928 in the Nehru Report, remained a chimera in Pakistan until the lawyers’ movement brought them to the streets in 2007. Socialism, populism, religion, and a mixture of parasitism and welfarism completely eclipsed the issue of fundamental rights.

All the politics through the last six decades can be summarized thus: from the very beginning, a constitutional issue, i.e. the issue of fundamental rights of individual citizens, was confused with the issue of state’s control of individual citizens’ lives, i.e. the State’s right to determine what is best for its citizens including their religion.

Principally, the only point of a constitution is its ability to protect life and property and fundamental rights of individual citizens. Also, the State’s control of its individual citizens is a relic of the monarchical past where instead of law, the ruler was the law, with a divine right to take care of his subjects. When law rules supreme, however, it means the laws and the State give equal protection to every citizen’s life, property and fundamental rights. That is why all the attacks on constitutions first require the suspension of these fundamental rights.

That brings us to two beliefs: that it is right to deprive others of their natural freedom, and that it is not. Whether those who deprive others of their freedom also try to control their lives or not is beside the point: what is important is whether this deprivation is achieved by force or by (false) law. Such rule of law, ensuring the fundamental rights of each citizen to live his life as he wished, was missing in Pakistan, creating a vacuum which many groups and parties, religious, sectarian, ethnic and otherwise, and conglomerations of intellectual, political, business and military elites rushed to fill. That this vacuum was deliberately kept intact and prolonged is obvious.

That this explains what is happening around us in Pakistan today again proves that the nature of the crises is constitutional. It explains the onslaught of the Taliban as a violent resurrection of that mindset which was never brought under the constitution nor dealt with constitutionally. The absence of a constitution, and when we had one, its sheer violation by all elites, intellectual, religious, political, business and military, strengthened that mindset.

Additionally, this mindset was deliberately strengthened by all the elites to perpetuate their rule and hegemony and to protect their interests. It was nourished and nurtured and trained at the cost of constitutional provisions relating especially to fundamental rights and, especially, religious freedom.

So, what was sowed by the intellectual, political, religious, business and military elites is being reaped mostly by ordinary citizens in the form of absolute insecurity that threatens their very existence without any reprieve in sight. This tragedy is deeper than our imagination can fathom: the number of Hardcore Taliban in Pakistan may well be smaller, as is repeatedly claimed these days by the political and military elites, at hundreds or thousands who will be wiped out in months, but who can enumerate the number of Softcore Taliban living amongst us? The Softcore category can be divided into active and passive. Religious groups and parties fall into the active, while the passive are those ordinary citizens who are unaware of their own Taliban mindset. This passive category openly believes in depriving others of their freedom and controlling their lives according to its own scheme of thought. That may be why we see no mass agitation against the Taliban in spite of their killing us indiscriminately.

To fight this war we first have to admit that we are in the midst of an intellectual as well as a real war. The constitution of 1973 should be the rallying point for all who do not believe in depriving others of their freedom and who believe in the fundamental rights ensured in that constitution. Not only will that help us fight both the Hardcore and Softcore Taliban but it will help bring harmony, peace, stability and happiness to Pakistanis.

[This article was completed on November 15, 2009.]

© 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.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Paikaar - Meri Shayeri

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

Monday, October 8, 2012

Riyasati Munafqat

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


Enemies of the rule of law

Pakistan is a china shop and the bull is its ruling elites. They are on the rampage since the day this shop was established. The stories of which come to light, I say which come to light, tell of the ways the bull is playing in and with the china the shop contains.

The bull of the present government of the Pakistan Peoples Party is a unique bull which believes in breaking the shop itself. The latest story of this dispensation is heart-wrenching and kills the hope that this country could ever be ruled by laws.

Today's The Express Tribune ran a story "Likely to surrender - Ex-chairman of OGRA plays hide-and-seek with sleuths." Take time to read this story which reveals how the Governor of Punjab, and Secretary General of Pakistan Peoples Party tried to protect Tauqir Sadiq, ex-chairman Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) and the main accused in a multi-billion rupee scam, from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officials who were in Lahore to arrest him. Actually for the last few days news was circulating in the newspapers and on the air-waves that he was hiding in the Governor House, in Lahore. The story also tells how from inside the Punjab police he was being tipped about the raids made by the NAB, and how he kept escaping from one place to another.

In contrast, even if he is not one of the accused in a criminal case, police arrests an ordinary citizen in no time, and if he is not available they arrest his relatives. But this high-profile case (Does law allow for high-profile cases? Practically, it seems it does!) where the highest court of the land has ordered the arrest of the ex-chairman OGRA, there are those dignitaries who are helping him escape the arrest. Aren't they committing a crime? Will the Supreme Court take notice of that? Ah, my dreams and my wishes! It's china shop and who can try the bulls!

Read this piece which I wrote earlier in December 2007 relating the same story:

Enemies of the Rule of Law

In times of crises, such as the one we are undergoing, it is safer to go back to basics than wrangle over which political party is doing wrong and which is doing right. Not only going back to the basics but sticking to them is itself a way out; since compromising on basics results in a lost sense of direction. Moreover, this helps see who is doing what and what it amounts to.

Why do we humans live together? Not only that we are gregarious in our nature, but also that we cannot live without fellow human beings. Now, as John Dewey, the great American Pragmatist said, the most pressing problem of humanity is living together. When we start living together, there arise more conflicts than even Shakespeare’s Horatio could dream of in his philosophy. So, irrespective of the differences amongst us such as that of color, caste, creed, origin, area, and thence of opinion, we form norms, values, rules, codes, etc, obeying which helps live together.

As the number of human beings increased, the conventional arrangements lost their relevance. They needed to be replaced. The new arrangements came to be formulated not very easily. The older arrangements had their dependents that resisted the change. But the underlying principle of both arrangements was the same: it is the will of the people around which every norm or code must revolve. The authority to enforce the will of the community or rules is derived from the consent of the people. In newer arrangements, the older norms, values, rules, and codes are replaced by such norms that are stringed with fines or punishments in case of disobedience with a specific authority to enforce them. This is law. For those who are in the government there is a constitution that lays out the principles of governing people, i.e. powers and responsibilities; and for those out of government, there are their rights and freedoms. But the spirit of the laws or the constitution is also derived from the will of the people. Again, the authority to enforce laws or constitution is derived from and accountable to another supreme authority, the will of the people.

Thus, whoever rules draws his authority from the consent of the people. This consent may be vocal or silent. This is sort of an unwritten contract. But when one who rules goes against the will of the people, he loses all moral authority, nay legal and constitutional authority, whether the opposition is vocal or silent. The great German idealist, G. W. F. Hegel, talks of a reflex category. That, ‘for instance, one man is king only because other men stand in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are subjects because he is king.’ When this veil of reflex category is lifted, there prevails will of the people in the form of revolt. This state is Revolution and is much longed for; but is, in fact, anarchy and lawlessness which benefits only those who wield might.

As regards will of the people, the back to basics is that every authority is constituted to safeguard life and property of all the individual persons. This lends itself to the derivation of another principle that binds every authority to protecting each person’s inalienable rights since what constitutes one’s life and property is one’s freedom to live a life of one’s choice, to live his ideas and beliefs, to earn, spend and dispose off his property as he wishes. In other words, one’s life and body and earnings are his property, and cannot be subjugated or confiscated by any law or authority unless he encroaches upon the rights of his fellow beings; or with his consent; or with due process of law, with his right to appeal intact.  

That means no authority can curtail these rights on any pretext; and if it happens, it amounts to a sheer breach of the contract that ultimately leave people without any option but to revolt to regain their rights and freedoms. This is to revert to an authority that rules them by the force of laws, not by the force of might.

Such are the basics of humans living together. But in the case of Pakistan the big players, military, judiciary and political/religious parties have been constantly and willfully ignoring these basics and preconditions of a civilized society. By creating an illusion of executive (a militarized executive!), judiciary and legislature working independently and separately, they thickened the reflex category veil so that people could not be able to see through it: lest they should come to know the reality that all three are a three-in-one. They tried to give their own rule a semblance of peoples’ rule: the ploy used was and is democracy and elections. The Pakistani Pragmatists termed it as political space that must be taken advantage of whenever allowed to. But that’s no principle. The argument is in vogue again to justify contesting the January 08 elections.

Hence, in this anti-people political game, when judiciary stood up for the rights of the people and for the rule of law, that reflex category veil disappeared altogether. So much so that today all the players stand completely exposed before the people. What a shame they are vulgarly naked also!

Of these, political parties are the most indecent entities. They have shown, particularly since this March, that they are arch enemies of the rule of law, and rights of the people. They just pay lip service to the civil society’s efforts of strengthening an independent judiciary. On this list of the enemies of rule of law, JUI (F) is at the top with PPP (Benzir) as the runner for the same slot. PML (N) is out to prove that no other party supports the cause of the rule of law more than it does. Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaaf promises the same thing. But the past conduct of all these and other parties leave us with no room to trust them. It can’t be ruled out that whenever there is such an opportunity, they will not be tempted to act as the King’s party. All of them have been playing that role or have been aspiring for the same, and may be in the queue for transforming themselves into another PML (Q)  or MQM.

Is there any political party or leader who ever raised voice for the rights of people to be protected and rule of law to prevail?  Did they ever speak of the supremacy of the constitution? Did they ever stand for an independent judiciary? What has changed them now? Is there a transformation or a qualitative change now that turns them into friends of the rule of law? Apart from the politics of the situation that Benazir Bhutto’s PPP’s decision to contest elections at any cost forced PML (N) and other parties to participate in the elections, there is no way of testing their sincerity and commitment to the cause of the supremacy of the constitution and an independent judiciary.

The first test ‘who contests elections is an enemy of the rule of law’ failed all of the political players regardless of their boycotting such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Tehreek-e-Insaaf. It failed as a test also. Because as the situation demands all or almost all the bigger opposition political parties such as PPP (Benazir Bhutto), PML (N), ANP (JUI (F) is no opposition party; it’s rather a partying while in opposition.) must boycott elections to render them meaningless that would eventually exert a pressure on the government to restore the pre-November 3 Martial Law judiciary, and as PPP (Benazir Bhutto) has misled them all to go for the elections, there is no way out of this morass. This has been conceded to by two great lawyers, Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan.

So, the next test ‘who does not contest elections is an enemy of the rule of law’ is in place now. Such are the travails of the politics. But this requires that whoever contests elections must be doing it first and foremost to be able to restore the deposed judiciary. Against this new situation, some players such as Tehreek-e-Insaaf and JI, no matter how sincere they are in their boycott, are making a fatal mistake. They will be out of the arena, and will have little chance to play the game to attain the objective. They have seen already to what degree they are capable of doing out of the arena.

As Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan has urged all those contesting elections to sign and take an oath to do their best to restore the “ousted” judges, all those political parties which have decided to contest the elections must have all their candidates go to the respective bar associations to sign and take that oath. This will help dilute the suspicions about their allegiance to the cause of an independent judiciary and will help them get votes also. But the test of their unconditional support to the rule of law would finally take place when they are in the parliament. In the face of a dictatorship that is intent upon tightening its tentacles to protect its interests, it is foreseeable that in case they steadfastly stand for the reinstatement of the deposed judges and do not go for any compromise whatsoever, the elected parliament would meet another throwing out and the imposition of another martial law. But that will not be the end of the story; it is from there that the story will begin anew. It will be the story of how people of Pakistan won supremacy of the constitution, an independent judiciary and the rule of law in Pakistan and how political parties that stood for the cause of the rule of law in Pakistan led them to that goal.

[This article was completed on December 11, 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.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Photography wih No Manipulation

As for Photography, I believe in NO Manipulation!

It's the Photographer, and then his Camera and the World, the combination of which may produce a work of art!

The availability of an Opportunity for that combination to work wonder depends both on Chance and the Photographer's Eye.

All the photo-manipulating tools and things like that are not for the Photographer to take advantage of but what the traditional photographer used to do, such as cropping and minor adjustments which do not disturb (which otherwise is known as "improvement") the originality of the photo taken spontaneously.

A photographer's Basic Tool is Camera. If in order to produce a work of art, he is dependent on such manipulations, he is not a Photographer, but a Graphic Designer, entirely a different branch of Art where he belongs to try his talent.

I use my camera with this 'Philosophy of Photography' in mind, and seldom go even for cropping.

I exhibit my photography at deviantART:


Here is a photo absolutely un-touched. It was made in Khanaspur, Ayubia, Pakistan, on June 14, 2012.

It's title is: Abode 


Here is another without any manipulation. It wa made in Bayon Temple, Siem Reap, Cambodia, on October 11, 2009. 

It's title is: The unknown 


© 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.

Sarkari Jonken

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