The much anticipated iPad 2 launched today. After giving the Apple store a visit and having a hands on look at the iPad 2, I come to realize that my perception hasn’t changed a bit. Despite the long lines of anxious customers waiting outside of Apple stores – which are probably the first time buyers, – there isn’t much excitement for the second generation iPad. For an iPad owner there isn’t much for which I would spend another $500. Although it has two cameras (front and back), it is lighter and thinner, and apparently a bit faster, the new iPad is very similar to the first one. Besides taking the pictures I don’t see much use of the camera either. Since the video chat is only compatible with Apple’s FaceTime, and not with skype, which most of my friends use,. It has no benefit to me.

As far as having the tablet experience, I believe that the first iPad does good enough job, and now that it will be sold at a cheaper price, I would recommend getting that instead. But unless you have enough money or you are a gadget person, then go for it. For me, I shall be waiting for the iPad 3 or 4, with actual new features, before I make my next purchase.

Watch the unboxing of the iPad 2:

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ LAHORE POST

It really makes me wonder, if we will continue to live in denials and disbelieves of being a perfect and “pure” society or will we start living like a true “Pak”istani. Our issues seem to be restoring a bunch judges due to their perceived “moral” stance against a dictator, or striking down a “national reconciliation ordinance” and restarting the corruption cases which were created in a corrupt manner to begin with. And to top it all off we got Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – a convicted terrorist – to lead our list of national priorities.

As I read and hear of the atrocities and crimes committed against women in our great nation, I am forced to question, how many of those protesters at the Aafia rally actually respect and treat their wives with dignity at home. How can we change when our, twenty-first century’s self proclaim, preachers and television pundits teach the otherwise.

The right politics, I believe, is the politics that leads us to self correct ourselves. The politics that forces us to look within and not be hypocritical. Not talk of corruption when we know the whole society is corrupt, but try finding solution that will solve our everyday problems so we will be less corrupt. Not look at how other countries are treating their citizens but start treating ours with respect and dignity and give them their human rights. Treat all citizens equally – regardless of their color, creed, sex, sect, or caste – and give them all equal constitutional rights and freedom to practice their believes however they wish to.

For all I know is that “God will not change the condition of the people until they change what is within themselves.”- 13:11 Quran.

In a recent press conference Mian Nawaz Sharif – the head of the largest opposition Party Pakistan Muslim League-N (PMLN) – claimed that terrorism in Pakistan is a result of government’s foreign policies. Sharif made the comments two days after two terrorist suicide bombers had attacked the most popular Sufi shrine in Punjab. The province that his party controls.

While attacking the federal ministers for criticizing his party’s provincial government’s failure to stop the attacks, Sharif replied with his own criticism on the federal governments’ foreign policy. Rather than giving solutions and answering why his government fails to provide security in the province they control, he blamed the federal government for not sharing the right intelligence. While it is on record that intelligence over all past incidences have been shared with the provincial government.

Nawaz Sharif and his party is believed to have ties to various terrorist organizations in the past. Sharif had alegedly met Osama Bin Laden, who funded his party to oppose and weaken the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s government.

On the other hand Imran Khan – the head of another right-wing political party Pakistan Tereek-e-Insaf (PTI) – also related terrorism in Pakistan to government’s alliance with United States. He Stated that:

the government of Pakistan [is] a slave of the US and added that the ongoing terrorism in the country would continue until Washington stopped meddling in the internal affairs of Islamabad - Dawn News

This same rhetoric has also been used by religious parties to criticize the federal government of Pakistan Peoples Party. The religious parties along with PMLN and PTI has criticized the government’s decision to take the war to taliban’s doorsteps in Pakistan’s western bordders, and have suggested negotiations with the terrorist organizations as an alternative.

Every now and then the rightist – PMLN, PTI, and religious parties – cite unconfirmed news stories on Afghanistan and American government’s policy to negotiate with taliban as an example for Islamabad to follow. However in the past government of Pakistan has negotiated with the Pakistani Taliban, only to see negotiations fail, or the taliban breaking the agreement to further their aims.

The situation in Afghanistan is different and incomparable to Pakistan. In Afghanistan, America is a foreign force and the taliban are a political reality. Having ruled Afghanistan, the talibans have political stakes in the country. If Americans or Kabul decides to negotiate with the reconcilable taliban, that would be in the interest of all parties and the future of Afghanistan. It would be to end war in Afghanistan and leave the country in a governable situation.

Contrary to that, Pakistani taliban are not a political reality, but rather an illegal militia. There are no grounds for negotiations with the Pakistani taliban or any other terrorist organization inside Pakistan. They don’t have a constituency or a vote bank for that matter.

Although the Pakistani taliban cannot be negotiated with, there are political players which can be. For which Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has called for an APC (all parties conference). So the taliban’s like-minded political parties can also be consulted in a discussion to formulate a national anti-terror policy.

One can only hope that the rightist parties will not derail the agenda of the conference just to get their absurd anti-USA policy agreed upon. Rather focus on a strong policy that strictly deals with terrorism inside Pakistan and suggests ways to tackle it. Part of the solution would be for the right-wing parties to shun their alliances with any sort of extremist organization and allow government along with law enforcing agencies to take conclusive actions against those who operate on Pakistani soil.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ FPA

As the government gets ready to present its third annual budget (2010-2011), reports and estimates for the next fiscal year is the talk of the day for economists and politicians in Pakistan.

Besides all the buzz created by media commentary and the editorials, which is mostly negative, Pakistan’s economy is said to be stabilizing for which there is very tangible evidence. Most of which were presented in the latest economic survey report.

The economic report has showed stability in today’s economic indicators compared to last few years’. Some of those indicators presented in the Economic Survey (2009-2010) are as listed below.

The economy grew by 4.1% during 2009-10 after a modest growth of 1.2 % in 2008-09.

The industrial output expanded by 4.9 %, with Large Scale Manufacturing posting a 4.4 % rate of growth.

The services sector grew by 4.6 % as compared to 1.6 % in 2008-09.

For 2009-10, the fiscal deficit is aimed to be kept in check at 5.1 % of GDP, despite the absorption of larger-than-budgeted security-related spending.

The external current account deficit was contained to 5.6 % of GDP (US$9.3 billion) in 2008-09 from a high of 8.3 % of GDP in 2007-08 (US$13.9 billion). The current deficit is expected to decline to under 3 % of GDP in the current year.

Foreign exchange reserves have been rebuilt to nearly US$15 billion, from their low of under US$6 billion in October 2008.

Inflation declined from 25 % in October 2008 to a recent low of 8.9 % in October 2009, though it has accelerated sharply of recent and is showing persistence.

The total installed electricity generation capacity has increased to 20,190 MW during July-March 2009-10 from 19,780 MW during the same period of last year

The number of villages electrified increased to 147,038 by March 2010 from 133,463 by March 2009, showing an increase of 10 %.

Overall exports recorded a positive growth of 8% during the first ten months (July-April) of the current year against a decline of 3% in the same period last year.

Trade deficit improved by 13.9% from $14,218 million in July-April 2008-09 to $12,238 million during July-April 2009-10.

Social safety nets have been strengthened. Benazir Income Support Program is being streamlined. Pro-poor spending is significantly rising over recent years

2009-10 started with a recovery in the Capital Markets following the global financial crisis. The KSE-100 Index crossed the 10,000 points barrier on 12th March, 2010, however it could not be sustained.

Net inflow of foreign investment in Pakistan from July 2009 to March 2010 was US$431.9 million which was a large increase  considering the negative foreign portfolio investment in the  last financial year.

Economic Survey 09-10

While projecting Pakistan’s economic future, by analyzing the next budget, these figures should be kept in mind . As these reflect the present foundations which can undermining any skepticism about the future of Pakistan’s economy and what the next budget is capable of delivering.

Sana’s Blog:
www.sanavision.wordpress.com

Farhad’s blog
www.criticalppp.com

Sana, Kamran, and I — discussing the situation in the latest episode of S4DP.

YOUTUBE:

DAILYMOTION:

Monday April 19, 2010 – President Zardari made history by signing the landmark constitutional reforms amendment bill into law. Zardari – after taking office 18 months ago – pledged to reform the constitution. He promised that all the anomalies that were created by the dictators to protect their powers will be removed from the constitution. After this amendment the powers he inherited from the former President, General Pervez Musharraf, has been reverted back to the Prime Minister. The significance of this gesture is that Zardari is the first President in Pakistan’s history to give up his powers and act as a figurehead President as the original constitution intended.

A great milestone was achieved when the Parliamentary Constitutional Reforms Committee finished drafting the bill for the 18th Amendment in Pakistan’s constitution. After 9 months of deliberations the committee, that represented all Parliamentary parties, came to a unanimous consensus on amending around 100 articles of Pakistan’s current constitution. Majority of the changes are made in effort to revert back to the original spirit of Pakistan’s 1973 constitution. This was followed by a week’s debate in National Assembly, where it passed unanimously, and later passed by the Senate after another week long debate.

Reforming the constitution after 37 years of its creation was not the only milestone this president completed in his 18 months in office. Creating consensus on a landmark National Finance Commission (NFC) Award was another tangible achievement by Zardari regime. The NFC Award along with the 18th Constitutional Amendment is aimed at giving the provinces more autonomy and decentralizing the authority and finances from the center to the provinces.

Pakistan’s media, which is overwhelmingly right leaning, opposes many of President’s policies and term him as a “unpopular president.” The media and press in Pakistan act like Fox News on steroids, giving it all they can to prove their point; whether it be conspiracy theories, one sided polls, false sense of nationalism, or even fortune tellers to predict the future of Zardari regime.

The flip-side of all the media’s Zardari-phobia is that the president might as well turn out to be one of the most powerful civilian presidents in Pakistan’s history. He had not only brought the institutional and democratic reforms as mentioned earlier, but also benefited and strengthened his party to great extremes. Holding the party together after the death of Ms. Benazir Bhutto, and leading the party to a victory in the, February 2008, general election polls was a tremendous task. He didn’t stop there; creating government of his Prime Minister, forging alliances with parties to make governments in all four provinces, taking majority in Senate without any tussle, having a chairman senate from his party, and leading his party to victory in Gilgit Baltistan, the newly formed unofficial province of Pakistan.

After his grand achievement, President Zardari, is back on the road selling the accomplishment of his government to the people while announcing and inaugurating various development projects along with organizing his party for upcoming local bodies’ elections. President Zardari has said that his party has completed eighty percent of work from their election manifesto and will continue to work for improving the lives of poor people of Pakistan.

As the President has transfered his powers to the parliament, it is up to them and all the political parties elected in the parliament, to focus on the issues that matter to the public the most. After the passage of 18th Amendment, It is high time that all parties should also create consensus over  other national issues such as the energy shortfall, inflation, and economy.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ FPA

Filed under: Pakistan, Politics Tagged: 18th Amendment, 1973 Constitution, Asif Ali Zardari, Constitution, Pakistan, Pakistan Peoples Party, PPP, President Zardari, Reforms ]]> http://anasm.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/president-zardaris-constitutional-reforms/feed/ 0 Anas http://anasm.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/prospects-for-us-pak-civilian-nuclear-deal/ http://anasm.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/prospects-for-us-pak-civilian-nuclear-deal/#comments Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:31:37 +0000 Anas http://anasm.wordpress.com/?p=464 ]]>

President Asif Ali Zardari, in a meeting with Director of US National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, urged US to assist Pakistan in its own civilian nuclear technology deal to help overcome its dire energy needs. President had suggested that this kind of deal will not only bridge the trust deficit between the two countries, but also address many misperceptions about US inside Pakistan.

Some of those misperceptions are based on many conspiracy theories that are the limelight of Pakistani drawing rooms and various media outlets. Although most being hypothetical, some of those theories are based on the burden of history that the two countries carry in their relationship.

For the entire history of Pakistan, the relationship with United States has been a love-hate one, which at times had made them the most-allied-ally and at others axes-of-evil. It is a relationship that has almost always revolved around the security aspect and has been mostly with the Pakistan’s military establishment.

Since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s last visit to Pakistan, the US has been giving more attention to Pakistan’s economic and energy needs, rather than just the security and counter-terrorism. Ms. Clinton had stated that US will like to address Pakistan’s energy problem in a way that stands out and which will in-turn help create a better image of United States in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s energy problem is not only impacting its economy but its security as-well. There is an urgent need to produce more energy and meet the industrial and economic demands for today and the future. Currently Pakistan is producing 80% of its required electric demand, which is causing massive blackouts all around the country. United States can use this as an opportunity to tackle a problem that impacts the ordinary people directly and create a lot goodwill and a positive image.

Just recently the US special envoy Richard Holbrooke expressed Americas concern to help Pakistan with its economic and energy needs. He believes that it is the right time, in the US-Pakistan relationship, that more of US attention and resources can be diverted to help Pakistan.

The right time it is, as US and Pakistani intelligence forces are doing joint operations to capture high valued terrorist targets, reducing the trust deficit that existed 13 months ago. These unprecedented moves to build the trust between the two countries can go a long way paving the way for a new era of relations.

C Christine Fair, in her Wall Street Journal article “Pakistan Needs Its Own Nuclear Deal“, stressed on a need to make a civilian nuclear pact with Pakistan. She argues that it will help reduce the trust deficit and serve mutual interest of US and Pakistan. It will give US a leeway in asking for tougher demands such as “Pakistani cooperation on nuclear proliferation and terrorism.” She suggests that a deal like this could be very meaningful to the Pakistanis, which could also help in getting Pakistan to adhere to some of the tougher conditions on the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation.

Ever since the US-India Civilian Nuclear deal, the Pakistanis have been yearning for equal treatment as a partner in the war on terror. They believe if a deal like this was possible for the Indians, why can’t the front-line-state on war on terror can get a similar deal. Although US has stated that its relationship with India is different than the one with Pakistan, does not mean that Pakistan cannot have a similar relationship with the United States in the future.

Ms. Christine Fair had suggested on having a “conditions-based civilian nuclear deal,” that will not only help US to convince Pakistanis to comply with nuclear non-proliferation demands, but also shut all terror organizations and revert from the strategy of proxy wars and strategic depth in Afghanistan using those organizations.

Pakistan could raise this issue as the two countries meet, March 24th, for another round of negotiations. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who will be chairing this meeting, suggested that he wants to see some action on American side. The agenda of the meeting includes in-depth discussions on various issues including energy.

Although it is likely that some form of energy plan might be announced after the US-Pak dialogue, it is far-fetched to believe that some type of civilian nuclear deal might be one of the options. Although, It might be too early to imagine the two countries getting to this level of confidence, it is not entirely impossible. Pakistan could follow India’s footsteps and do extensive lobbying on Capitol Hill if it wants to go this direction. Of-course it will require Pakistan to focus on internal issues and stability inside Pakistan, before it can get into this kind of contract or even imagine it happening.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @ FPA

Today we live in an increasingly dangerous world, which is filled with people who have their ulterior motives and willingness to harm others to benefit themselves. Our world is filled with criminals, gangsters, murderers, and terrorists. The people who would go to all extremes to get their way being inconsiderate of the rights of other human beings.

Every state and the government has the right to arrest any criminal it wishes to put off the street for the safety of others, it does that to keep the law and order intact, and most importantly to keep the social order in place. The state also provides services to its peaceful citizens, hoping that nothing out of ordinary will happen, that no one with their ulterior motives will try to abuse that service.

A service like a commercial plane is there to help its passengers travel, but often we see maniacs abuse that service, in other words hijack the plane for their own ulterior motives. That is when things start to turn chaotic, everyone panics, the innocent lives and the system is put on stake by a few hijackers.

In situation like this a state, who would arrest criminals, has to release them. At time it has to pay them, or help them escape. It does it for greater welfare of the innocent lives. It negotiates with the hijackers, listens to their demands, regardless of how absurd and illegal they are, state fulfills them.

When this happen and the plane lands safely, the passengers come out and breath freely, and many lives are saved, we consider it a victory of the state. Although state might have given up to many criminal demands, released prisoners, given money to the hijackers, or let them flee to a different country safely. The state does not lose in this case, but succeeds to protect the most valuable asset, the life of innocent.

This very situation occurred in Pakistan. As the country began a perfectly normal day, went on with its business, everything was perfect and normal till some one got into a flight and hijacked the plane. All the sudden there was uncertainty, havoc, and chaos, created by the commentators in the studios lashing out at the government for its inability to stop the hijacking.

As the hijackers stood to their grounds the government had to go in action, they started formulating plans, and counter plans, assuring their citizens that they have everything in control. Before the government could sort things out, it started to face retaliation from the sympathizers of the hijackers. Government stuck, between a rock and a hard place, started the process of negotiation with a very few options. It started to become a zero-sum-game, as the sympathizers and the commentators, disregarding the sensitivity of the situation, kept giving the “end of the world” impression.

All democratic governments know how to deal with situations like this, but the key is not to let its citizens panic, cause if they do, their negotiation position is compromised. That is exactly what happened – thanks to commentators and sympathizers of hijackers – and things got worse. Things happened exactly as the commentators wished, apparently they were hoping to capture a plane-crash in their cameras.

End of the day, the government gave into the demands of hijackers, allowing them to get what they wanted. Doing so the government succeeded in freeing up its citizens and saving the nation. Pakistan’s very valuable asset, democracy, and its citizens were saved from incurring great losses. It was a victory for the government, democracy, and the peace loving citizens of Pakistan.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

Nawaz Sharif present flowers to Justice Khawaja – daylife

Saturday February 13 – The Chief Justice of Pakistan defied Presidential orders through a suo moto action against the Presidential notification for appointment of certain judges. Chief Justice, in a rare nightly emergency session, formed a three members bench that suspended two recommendations for judges’ appointment by the President. The matter will be heard by a larger bench on February 18^th.

The dust from the politically motivated NRO verdict hasn’t even settled, that the Chief Justice had other political plans to benefit his right-wing judicio-politico mafia.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had reportedly recommended appointing the recently retired Justice Ramday as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court, and to elevate Justice Saqib Nisar, the second most senior judge in the Lahore High Court, to the apex court. [Dawn - By Nasir Iqbal]

Bypassing the traditions and the precedence in the Al-Jihad case, the Chief Justice tried to retain his fellow – a retiring – Supreme Court Judge. Along with appointing another superior justice in an irregular manner, by skipping the seniority principle and not elevating Justice Khwaja Sharif the CJ of Lahore High Court.

It is believed that Chief Justice of Pakistan and his right-wing political cronies wanted to keep Khwaja Sharif in Punjab for greater political agendas and judicial favors in the High Court. The problem arose when this recommendation was rejected by President Zardari as he wanted all judicial appointments in accordance to the constitution and follow the principles of seniority.

This Judicio-Politico Mafia has always existed in Pakistan. Nadeem F. Paracha, a Dawn News columnist,  tries to explain this judicial right-wing nexus in his new blog post:

Explaining this idiosyncrasy, some go on to suggest that this is because those who have been turned into ‘judicial heroes’ symbolise the rise of a New Right in Pakistan. Or that this is a brand of right-wing politics that has little to do with the military anymore, and more with groupings within judicial activism and the media, which have expanded the scope of right-wing politics in Pakistan. [Dawn Blog]

The whole conflict apparently revolves around a single judge – Justice Khwaja Sharif – who seems to have close ties to the opposition right-wing party Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N). Thus the reaction displayed by the PML-N, to the current political stand-off between the President and the Chief Justice, is of no surprise. Similar to calling Benazir Bhutto a “threat to security” to undermine her governments in the 90s, Nawaz Sharif has termed President Zardari as “a threat to democracy.” Apparently Nawaz was expressing his anger over Presidents attempt at moving Khwaja Sharif from the Lahore High Court, as a Dawn News article stated:

Nawaz Sharif has lashed out against President Zardari. The president is the ‘biggest threat to democracy’ in Mr Sharif’s reckoning and the move to replace Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khwaja Sharif was unconstitutional. [Dawn]

It is the politics that is prevailing, not the sense, and certainly not the law as Cyril Almeida – Dawn News columnist – wrote:

… what’s so great about the chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khwaja Sharif, that he must at all costs stay in Punjab to oversee the judiciary there? And, if you think about it, it’s nothing short of remarkable that CJ Iftikhar apparently believes that Justice Saqib Nisar is qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court — the highest court of the land — but not the chief justice of a provincial high court. [Dawn]

Similar concerns were raised by many renowned names in the judicial community, including Ali Ahmad Kurd a very stringent supporter of the Chief Justice Iftikhar, who:

expressed disappointment over the events and deplored that it appeared as Justice Khawaja had become the most important individual in the country. “We the people of the Pakistan want to see constitution, democracy, parliament as well as the judiciary flourished in the country,” he said adding the seniority principle settled in the 1996 Al-Jihad Trust should be honoured at all cost. [Dawn - By Nasir Iqbal]

Contrary to the obvious, this is purely a political conflict, with its core in Punjab’s power politics. This is where Justice Khawaja Sharif becomes the most important man in the country, as he makes 28 of his own politically motivated judicial recommendations for the Lahore High Court, only to be scrutinized by the Governor Punjab.

Governor Punjab has also informed the president in his summary out of 28 persons recommended by CJ LHC, five persons Shahid Karim, Mamoon Rashid Sheikh, Waqar Hassan Mir, Ms Gulzar Butt; and Mian Mahmood advocate are directly or indirectly affiliated with the chamber of LHC CJ. Khawaja Mohammad Sharif. Similarly, four persons Mian Shahid Iqbal, Mohammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, Shaukat Umar Peerzada, and Anwer Bhour advocates are reported to be closely associated with the Hamid Khan Group. [The News]

Muslim League Nawaz, the ruling party in Punjab, always had issues with Governor Taseer of Peoples Party. He is seen as a great impediment to the unchecked authority of the Nawaz League in Punjab. The rift between the Governor and the PML-N widened, when he became a hurdle in the way of PML-N’s politically motivated judicial appointments.  The PML-N’s Punjab government used all its influence over the institutions and its political muscle to get Justice Khawaja’s recommended judges appointed at all cost. The Governor, ignoring all pressures, decided to accept 19 out of the 28 appointments. Stating merit and the reputation of those persons as the reason of rejection.

The Governor has objected that the CJ LHC had evidently ignored certain judicial officers bypassing the principle of seniority and legitimate expectancy standing in his letter that “either their performance is not up to mark or they don’t enjoy good reputation”. [The News]

It seems as PML-N and justice Khawaja has not given up and want to continue strengthening their mafia to establish a stronger rift over the  Lahore High Court and the Punjab province as a whole. It is this mafia plus the intelligence establishment that allowed Muslim League to become a challenging political force for the Peoples Party. Without this mafia and the support of establishment the Nawaz League cannot manage to win more than a third of Punjab in the polls.

If this political crisis escalates, the sufferer will be no other than the people and the democracy of Pakistan. Advocate Athar Minallah, the spokesperson of the Chief Justice during the two years long lawyers struggle, also believe that:

the development was infact a gift to the non democratic forces and to those who were sitting on the fence and would like to see confrontation between state institutions that could only cause irreparable loss to the country. [Dawn - By Nasir Iqbal]

We might be repeating the history as a senior lawyer Dr Khalid Ranjha said a “vacuum is being deliberately created” to pave the way for third party interference. [Daily Times] An interference that Pakistan can’t allow nor afford at this time.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

Two years ago – February 2008 – Pakistan began its transformation to democracy with a general election that brought Benazir Bhutto’s PPP (Pakistan People’s Party) into power. The party decided to continue its policy, introduced by its slain leader Ms. Bhutto, of reconciliation with all political players. It formed a coalition government with its rival and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz) in Punjab province, ANP (Awami National Party) in NWFP province, and MQM (Muttahida Quami Movement) in Sindh province. PPP also decided to share power with those parties in the center and the idea was to create a powerful democratic government alliance that can address all the challenges faced by the country after a decade long dictatorship.

Democracy
Reconciliation allowed, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, there to be a unanimously elected Prime Minister. Seats in Senate were also distributed amongst the parties according to the strength of their mandate in the National Assembly. It was unprecedented in Pakistan’s history that every party’s mandate was not only respected but many of the major ministerial positions were given to the smaller coalition partners and the opposition parties.

Struggling Coalition
This unique grand coalition government used its strength to drive Musharraf out of power and resign from the Presidency. Soon after Musharraf’s resignation, PML-N and PPP alliance started to fall apart. It was considered an unholy alliance of a rightist PML-N and a Leftist PPP. The differences in ideology and manifesto along with issues related to constitutional reforms and reinstatement of judges caused a lot of friction between the two. Analyst believe that it was enmity for Musharraf rather than willingness to work together that brought the two parties together. Or some say it was PML-N’s shortsightedness, as it did not only heat up the political temperature, but hurt the chance for the democracy to flourish.

Lawyers movement
PML-N’s hawkish politics after the separation from alliance changed the whole political environment. What was seen as a real change in Pakistan’s democratic history soon turned into a political chaos. Thereafter PML-N joined the lawyers movement to reinstate the deposed judges and demanded that it be done instantly with an executive order. Ignoring the parliament they went straight to the streets to march towards the capital and force the government into accepting their demands. An infant media started portraying this as a revolution; the things started to look bad, Pakistan’s democratic future bleak, and the government seemed powerless. PML-N, playing its usual reactionary politics, brought the system to the brink of collapsing. The government at-last reinstated the judges, following its policy of reconciliation, though on the PML-N’s terms rather than its own. PPP’s government could have utilize its majority and its executive muscle effectively to resolve the issue at an earlier stage. Perhaps being out of power for fifteen years and losing its leader had made the party quite vigilant.

War on Terror
The coalition government of PPP began to put itself at a weaker position by agreeing – contrary to its political ideology – to have a dialogue with the taliban. The hawkish right-wing opposition, overwhelmed by its victory in judges restoration campaign, kept pushing PPP’s government further to the wall. PPP, not realizing the strength of its mandate, let media and right-wing parties dictate the policies. Luckily the dialogue with taliban failed as the militants, who had entered Swat, started making mistakes. The militants, who had moved closer to the population centers, were now in the eyes of the camera. Their true image was exposed as the video of flogging a young girl was televised around the world. The rightist parties toned down their rhetoric – as the taliban leaders started to denounce democracy and judiciary – distancing themselves from the policy of dialogue with the militants. Government finally reconciled at its own terms and ordered the army to conduct successful operations in Swat and surrounding areas. Effectively managing the conflict, government was successful in clearing the area from the militants and returning the internally displaced people back to their homes.

Kerry Lugar Bill
PPP’s authority was challenged when some of its own coalition members started to part themselves from the Kerry Lugar bill. As US and Pakistan were getting into a new era of partnership through an aid package by the US congress, the political parties along with media and military generals exhibited their contention over the language of the bill. This brought PPP on a defensive, its leaders clueless and defenseless to the pure absurdity of the opposing parties’ arguments against the American bill. The opposition ran out of rhetoric, media lost interest, and the debate faded away.

Provincial Issues
Reconciliation is not always a zero-sum-game, as it was proved by the coalition government in passing the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award. It was a huge step in resolving most of provincial conflicts and financial problems. Many previous governments had failed to formulate a method that will be acceptable to all provinces. PPP-led government managed to get this passed with consensus and reconciliation between all players. This was one time PPP showed its leadership and political strength, to achieve one of the most important benchmarks of its manifesto.

National Reconciliation Ordinance
The politics of reconciliation seemed to have failed once again when the issue of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) came to the table. The Supreme Court had allowed the parliament to revisit all ordinances promulgated by  former President Gen. Musharraf during his term. One of the ordinance was the NRO, which PPP’s wanted parliament to pass. It seemed as if the PPP-led government had enough votes to pass it, but the tide turned as MQM decided not to back PPP on passing this legislation. Not learning from the past, PPP failed to reconcile with its coalition partners or even use political arm-twisting to get this important legislation passed. Obviously it was short-sightedness on the part of MQM, but they were not the ones facing a political loss. Failing to take an aggressive stance on their policy and following a weak strategy caused PPP to lose a vital political battle.

Future Strategy
PPP is said to be more effective and better organized when in opposition than when it is in power. This is proving to be true, as we see the party not fight for its stance, nor use its political and executive powers effectively, and act apologetic on many major political issues. As the government will be facing many tough issues in the future; such as local body elections, constitutional reforms, law and order situation, and economic policies. They must use reconciliation, and the political strength that comes from the mandate given by the people, to resolve all these difficult matters. The leadership of PPP needs to realize that it is the one running the country and it will be them who will be answerable to the people in the elections three years later. The government needs to start running the country on their terms not the opposition parties’ and definitely not the media’s. It is PPP’s prerogative to make the policies, for which it should use all its political and executive strengths, not getting dictated by other parties in the alliance or the opposition. Reconciliation is not the ultimate solution, or a silver bullet, the government in power will not be effective in governance unless it uses its strengths to maximize its political goals and follow its manifesto for which it was elected.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

President Asif Ali Zardari directed the government to provide legal assistance to Dr Aafia Siddiqui, after the jury found her guilty on all seven counts. The government of Pakistan has so far spent $2 million in defense of the ‘Lady Al Qaeda’ along with enormous amount of diplomatic efforts to bring her back to Pakistan. The legal assistance and the embassy services provided to Dr. Aafia Saddiqui is unprecedented and is probably the first ever for any Pakistani citizen held in United States on charges of terrorism. It was Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts that helped expedite the trial process and assured the family of Ms. Saddiqui that there will be justice.

It is certainly a rare and a strange case, the lady that was wanted by Pakistani and American authorities in 2003 has suddenly become the most valuable person to Pakistan. She is being called “daughter of Pakistan” a label that has come from no other than the right-wing political parties. Whats even more striking is that even terrorists such as Hakumullah Mehsud labeled her “sister in Islam.”

Those right-wing politicians are playing their usual anti-American narrative, using a purely legal issue and turning it into a political theater. But surprisingly the liberal coalition government has also taken the pressure and provided, a supporter of terrorism, the sort of attention she certainly did not deserve.

Aafia and her husband, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, divorced a year before she had disappeared. Her husband describes her violent nature and extremist views to be the reason of their divorce. Her activities and links to world’s most wanted terrorists had gotten her and her husband on the terror watch-list. Since her husband was not involved, and did not know of her links with terrorists, he was only questioned by the American authorities but never arrested.

United States intelligence agencies have said that Ms. Siddiqui has links to at least 2 of the 14 men suspected of being high-level members of Al Qaeda who were moved to Guantánamo in September 2006. NYT

There is no doubt about her acquaintances to the terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, It was the reason she was being watched by agencies for a long time. The only reason she is not being charged under the allegations of terrorism is because, although she had intentions to, she had not yet attempted to commit an act of terror. If she didn’t have such motives, she would have never fired at an investigation officer, or have been ended up in Afghanistan after hiding for five years.

Before her arrest, U.S. authorities had called Siddiqui an al-Qaida sympathizer. She was never charged with terrorism, but prosecutors called her a grave threat who was carrying ”a road map for destruction” — bomb-making instructions and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was captured. NYT

In order to avoid arrest she kept a low profile, and was said to be missing during the the five year period of 2003 to 2008. She was arrested, in Ghazni Afghanistan in 2008, after authorities became suspicious of her loitering outside the provincial governor’s compound. She was carrying instructions on making explosives and a list of New York landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building along with sealed bottles and glass jars filled with liquids and gels. She tried to escape the detention by shooting at the FBI officers, for which she was tried and convicted at United States District Court in Manhattan.

While in custody, on July 18, 2008, prosecutors said, Ms. Siddiqui grabbed an M4 rifle from a police station floor and fired on Army officers and F.B.I. agents. She was shot in the abdomen. NYT

It is believed that she was never arrested or tortured prior to 2008 incident.  Her husband claims that the pictures that have been floating around the media with her lip badly hurt is an old picture. In an interview to The News:

He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle) in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.

Experts believe that it was her own behavior in the courtroom that contributed towards a negative perception of her. Her frequent outbursts and at times failing to cooperate with her own lawyers, ended up hurting her case. Due to her objections a few jurors had also stepped down from the bench, which leaves no room for any biases from the side of jurors.

I would suggest not wasting anymore time on this issue and let the American justice system take its course. I would also advice the Pakistani government of not spending any more taxpayer money for someone who clearly had bad intentions and is not innocent what-so-ever.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

On Wednesday January 13, the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari arrived at Lahore. The city that is believed to be strictly the opposition’s (PML-N) turf. The irony was that both the leaders of PML-N, the Sharif brothers, were surprisingly not in town.

Video: Punjabi Speech in Lahore

The President, who is also the Co-Chairman of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, took this opportunity to give the speech that is believed to be the game changer. The speech was delivered in the local language Punjabi and was aimed aggressively at addressing the grievances of the workers of his party. With this speech he did not only revived the party worker’s spirit but also kicked off for the upcoming competition for the local bodies’ elections.

President Zardari started the new year on road traveling around the country re-organizing his party and signaling that he is still in-charge and is here to stay for his full five year term. With the local bodies’ elections approaching, Asif Ali Zardari seems to be playing the game wisely. During his stay in Lahore President inaugurated many social and development projects, which he suggested will  directly benefit the poor. This he said was the promise and the vision of his late wife Benazir Bhutto, which he has been honored to fulfill.

In the latest speech, President Asif Ali Zardari, also claimed that it will be his party that masses will support in the upcoming local bodies’ elections. He also took the opportunity to formally launch the membership drive for his party, with which he wishes to revitalize the party at the grass roots level throughout the country.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

Amb. Husain Haqqani (pro-pakistan.com)

On January 15, 2009, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, was a special guest to a gathering at the Nixon Center, which discussed the US-Paksitan relations. This is one of the many forums Honorable Ambassador has addressed, since being appointed at his current position in April 2008. Since taking office he has lectured many think-tanks and academia on a regular basis, which is a part of his efforts to bridge the gaps between US and Pakistan and create a better understanding and relations.

With the return of democracy to Pakistan, it has become critically important for both US and Pakistan to establish close strategic relations. This partnership shall not only be limited to military – transactional – like in the past, but needs to be a transformational  that serves the interests of both nations.

As the former Prime Minister late Ms. Bhutto had envisioned the future of both countries – US and Pakistan – is tied together and is directly linked with the eradication of terrorists networks from the region and establishing democracy along with improving and supporting Pakistan’s economy for the long term.

It is vital that United States does not remain just a fair-weather friend like it has in the past. US has used Pakistan when it was strategically required but did not follow through with its partnership and left Pakistan to face the consequence, which at times had been dire for Pakistan’s interests and security. Mr. Haqqani wants that attitude to change:

There is barely a think-tank in Washington that has not heard Mr Haqqani argue this must change. “We are transforming ourselves from an authoritarian state to a democratic state. We want it to be a real alliance this time round.” – Financial Times

For the longest time US has allied itself with the dictators in Pakistan, which indirectly ended up keeping them in power. As an Ambassador Mr. Haqqani has lobbied to change that image along with the misconceptions and bad-taste that exists, between the two nations, due to the burden of history.

Representing and clearing the image of Pakistan might be one of the hardest job on the planet, which is why Mr. Haqqani might just be the right person for the job. Ambassador Richard Holbrook has occasionally admired and claimed that Mr. Haqqani is:

“one of the most skilled ambassadors I have ever seen.”

“Some ambassadors’ influence is derived logically from the country they represent; Husain Haqqani’s influence is derived from his absolute mastery of the American media.”

Amb. Haqqani has repeatedly argued that it were the Pakistan’s insecurities towards its much larger neighbor and a foe India – that forged previous military relationships between US and Pakistan -  which has changed over time and US needs to address Pakistan’s much larger concerns which are not only the military needs but also social and economic situation.

There needs to be a partnership between the democracies of two nations that will help complete the democratization of Pakistani society.   Ambassador argues that the goal should be to offer alternatives to militancy and militarism and a future to the very vibrant youth of Pakistan, which can only be done by helping Pakistan increase its literacy rate from 49% to upper 90s.

Mr. Ambassador has been able to put forward his argument to the policy makers in a way that has already started to change perceptions and policies. One example would be the passage of Kerry-Lugar Aid package along with recent announcement of $1 Billion into Pakistan’s energy sector. He does not only enjoys the trust of President Zardari but also, being a familiar face on Capitol Hill, gives him access to the corridors of power and important decision-makers of American politics. As the Washington Post article noted:

As spokesman and political confidant of then-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Haqqani became a familiar face at Washington think tanks, on American news programs and on Capitol Hill, where he lobbied, after being exiled in 1999, against the government of President Pervez Musharraf

His deep insights and lobbying skills has most probably helped Pakistan Air-force secure the delivery of much awaited F-16 that Pakistan had been lobbying to receive since the 1990.  It is apparent that:

Mr. Haqqani has become an influential figure in Washington — a silver-tongued interpreter in public of his country’s bewildering politics, but also a relentless, unyielding defender of Pakistan’s image and reputation – New York Times

With all that we wish you best of luck Mr. Ambassador.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

This year began with a blow to the UN investigation into Benazir Bhutto’s murder, as the commission was denied access to the top brass military and intelligence officials. The three member commission, which was investigating the facts and circumstances that lead to former Prime Minister Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s murder, was not allowed to interview the Army chief along with several other officials.

Dawn News reported that the government had denied the commission access to:

the Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, former ISI Chief Lt.Gen Nadeem Taj and former Military Intelligence Chief Lt.Gen Nadeem Ejaz Mian among other top officials of the intelligence agencies.

Now the commission that was supposed to present the final report at the end of 2009, has extended its investigation for another three months.

These recent developments seem to raise many questions, some of which might suggest the role of radical establishment into the murder of Benazir Bhutto. In the light of what has already been presented, along with some historic facts, we can begin to derive certain conclusions.

Benazir, returning Pakistan after a long period of self exile, knew of the dangers she faces upon her return. She had been warned by many friends outside and in Pakistan of the dangers and threats to her life. Her life as a politician has always been at risk, as she had inherited enemies and dangers along with her party after her dad was executed by a very extremist dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. She had known of the threats and the people who have vowed to kill her. By the time she started politics, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq had managed to infect the establishment of Pakistan with an extremist mind-set and jihadi agenda. He had filled the intelligence agencies and the army with the people who had jihadi ideology and agendas for Afghanistan, and very close ties to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

The powerful intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), not only had its links with jihadi militants, but also with politicians. The agency managed to create a coalition of powerful right-wing IJI (Islami Jamhoori Ittehad) that would challenge Benazir’s popularity and undermine her control over the government. The then ISI chief Hamid Gul was in-charge of this whole operation. He used all his resources and money to manipulate the politics of Pakistan. He along with Al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, committed failed attempts to assassinate Ms. Bhutto.

It is no surprise that Ms. Bhutto listed Hamid Gul as one of the conspirators, who might attempt to kill her. She did this in a letter to then President Pervez Musharraf, after a failed attempt to assassinate her in Karachi upon her arrival to Pakistan. She also identified Ejaz Shah (IB Cheif), an intelligence official who was put in-charge of her security in Karachi.

Ejaz Shah (Nadeem Ejaz) is also one of the people to whom UN probe was denied access to. He is a friend of Musharraf and Muhammad Aziz, the man who orchestrated the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif as Prime Minister in the October, 1999. He was the creator of Musharraf’s party PML-Q and a special friend of the Chaudhries, the rightist political rivals of Benazir Bhutto. He was also a key figure in breaking more than 20 members of the National Assembly from the PPP after the 2002 elections. He was the ISI’s handling officer of Osama Bin Laden and Mulla Omar. And also had ties with extremist leader Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, with whom he kidnapped and killed American journalist Danial Pearl. And it was on his, and a close friend of Musharraf’s, Maj. Gen. Nadeem Taj’s advice Chief Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar was sacked. Gen. Taj was the director ISI when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. He is also one of the official to whom UN probe access has been denied.

It is widely believed that the Intelligence agencies of Pakistan are fully capable of removing any political opponent they deem not fit for their pro-taliban and proxy war agendas. The view that has also been expressed in a report on the Henry Jackson Society’s – an independent foreign policy organization – website.

President General (retired) Pervez Musharraf’s military and intelligence colleagues were, for example, responsible for the killing of two democratic, secular and anti-Taliba’an leaders from the rebel Pakistani province of Baluchistan. The former Governor and Chief Minister, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, was assassinated in 2006,[1] Mir Balaa’ch Marri was bumped off last November.[2] These murders are evidence that Musharaaf’s men are capable of the assassination of political opponents

As we know that Benazir has always been the target of these extremist segments of Pakistani establishment, it was only under the shadow of Musharraf’s dictatorship they succeeded in eliminating her. She posed greatest threat to extremism, as she wanted to change the direction of Pakistani society, away from the agendas of these extremists, and towards progress and democracy.

They knew that Benazir has an agenda to clip off the wings of the powerful establishment and its terrorist proxies. One example of it comes from the American Congress’s Kerry-Lugar Act, which was her idea of bringing America on the side of democracy rather than military dictatorships. She knew that the only legitimacy and the source of power for dictators and its agencies is the west and its aid. If she manages to get the Americans to aid democracy and condition the aid to the promotion of democracy, only then will the establishment weaken and democracy will strengthen. Farahnaz Ispahani described the then Biden-Lugar Bill as:

This Biden-Lugar bill reflects the shift in the way Americans look towards Pakistan as an ally, this time focusing on the people of Pakistan rather than its military alone. The role of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and the decades- long struggle by the Pakistan People’s Party to put Pakistan’s people first must get credit for persuading American leaders to broaden their outlook towards Pakistan. The Biden-Lugar bill is actually the result of the vision of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. She often espoused her vision of a different kind of relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Mohtarma Shaheed always advocated and lobbied for greater support by the US government for non-military projects in Pakistan, terming it the only way that the Pakistani masses would be able to trust the United States and to see it as a friend not a master.

Recently, with the dissatisfaction of Kerry-Lugar Act by the establishment, it has become very evident that whenever pushed the establishment will use its full muscle. It was very apparent how the establishment manipulated the politicians and the media coverage to direct the debate to favor its views.

Benazir came to Pakistan with the clear agenda of democracy and reconciliation with all her opponents. She managed to strip Musharraf off of his uniform and made him drop all charges against all politicians that were not proven under his term. She made sure that democracy returns to Pakistan and the establishment loses its biggest strength, the political players and politically motivated cases, that can be used to manipulate the government to their liking as they have before.

Benazir Bhutto’s party came to power, knowing  of the involvement of establishment and its powerful high ranking officials in Benazir’s murder, they decided to have the United Nations investigate the case. UN has also hit the wall and it is very unlikely that the military will let one of its own get punished, at-least knowing their history we cannot expect that to happen anytime soon. Pakistan is a very unpredictable country, what happens next, only time will tell. For now the justice seems to be denied.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

On 12 October 1999, General Prevez Musharraf ouster the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in a non violent military coup. The reason given by Musharraf was the rampant corruption under Nawaz Sharifs regime. Although the same “corruption card” has been used previously, to disrupt the tenures of two Benazir Bhutto’s and a Nawaz Sharif’s previous government, to change the political setup before either Prime Minister starts to exert their muscle over the almighty military.

The judiciary has always been there, as a sidekick of dictators and those who disrupts democracy, to back their extra constitutional actions with a legal cover. Many judicial experts believe that the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has stepped over its legal limits to facilitate dictatorships by granting them with the authority of legislative powers. This crime was also committed by the current judicial setup and the current Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Recently the Supreme Court of Pakistan struck down the amnesty for politicians and bureaucrats, which The Guardian labeled as “Supreme court Chaos.” It was a Chaos indeed, blurring the line between the judiciary and the executive, and very likely causing a tussle for powers between the two pillars of the state.

Just as this Supreme Court was gaining some trust amongst the people, blinded by its newly gained fame and popularity, it started making one after another judgment that was clearly an attempt to overstep its constitutional jurisdiction. Some experts have noted that Supreme Court’s decision to intervene into governments taxation policy in the budget and fixing price ceiling for sugar were just a few examples of judiciary interfering in the executive matters.

According to an article in The Guardian:

The judgment reeked of politics, designed to unseat an unpopular president halfway through his term.

Asma Jahangir, a lawyer and a prominent human rights activist, has also hinted at the Supreme Court’s “encroachment” into executive business. In her recent article she stated:

The judgment goes much further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role over NAB cases.

Although she supports the verdict against the NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance), she seems to be skeptical of the actions the supreme court has described in its verdict.

Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the judiciary

This judicial activism is not very helpful in strengthening democracy, especially when it is very selective, and biased in some cases. For instance, the Supreme Court bypassed its norms and procedures to hear an appeal by former PM Nawaz Sharif, for a case he was convicted more than eight years ago, and acquitted him. While on the other hand only targeting President Asif Ali Zardari, and his cases, out of more than 8000 cases that were under the parameters of NRO. The New York Times also pointed at this in their article:

Of most interest to the 17-member bench, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was the question of who had authorized the return of $60 million in suspect gains by Mr. Zardari to offshore companies in his name after the government withdrew criminal proceedings against him in Switzerland last year.

As some right-wing segments of Pakistani society, media, judiciary, and army might not like President Zardari’s stance on militancy, and his closeness to the Americans, they might be tempted to repeat history by overthrowing another elected government for the sake of their politics and ideology.

While The Guardian also came to the same conclusion:

Who profits from this? right-wing members of the senior judiciary; sections of the military and intelligence establishment who regard Mr Zardari as too pro-American and want to stop him cracking down on the Afghan Taliban; and the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. His own previous conviction was not covered by the NRO, but he profited from Ms Bhutto’s return to Pakistan by coming home from exile himself.

Now the ball is in the politicians’ court, and it is up to them to handle the situation in a way that the establishment and some extreme right-wing players can’t take advantage and destabilize the current government or weaken President Zardari. Any mishandling can end up being catastrophic for the democracy, and ultimately the security of Pakistan.

The judiciary needs to understand this and operate in its constitutional parameters, because any harm to democracy can also lead to restriction to their own freedom, as they faced under Musharraf era. They should make sure that the corruption doesn’t become just another card to ouster another democratically elected government, but rather is used to promote transparency, and the scrutiny should not be limited to the politicians, but also the bureaucrats, judges, military, media-journalists, and highly controversial institutions like the National Accountability Bureau.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto - pakistaniat.com

It was surprising to see the media and other segments of society’s enthusiasm over the decision of Supreme Court on the NRO, declaring it null and void. This kind of decision was expected but surprisingly the reason for peoples enthusiasm wasn’t that allegedly corrupt people will face the court of law, rather it was that President Zardari and Rehman Malik along with Hussain Haqqani will again face cases that were dismissed under the National Reconciliation Ordinance.

Out of the list of 8,000 beneficiaries only 34 were the politicians and out of them the main target was the President and the Co-Chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. The debate on the majority of beneficiaries of NRO, the bureaucrats, didn’t even take place on the media. Instead the discussion directly started with the politicians and didn’t take too long to shift to the topic of Presidential immunity and resignation of President on ethical basis. Also being asked is the question that whether Mr. Zardari could have contested an election if those cases existed against him, or if there was a conviction against him in the past could he have become the President. They debate these issues and make assumptions on president and his election’s legitimacy while forgetting that according to the article 41(6) of the Constitution of Pakistan “The validity of the election of the President shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority.” Creating a false sense of accomplishment, which is half-hearted in its roots, and extremely politically biased against one person. Surprisingly to the historians and the followers of Pakistani politics, this is nothing new.

So the question remains that if corruption is the real issue, why target one personality and anyone close to him. The answer is not that simple, in fact there isn’t one answer to this question. It ranges from the fact that Pakistan Peoples Party’s head and people closer to him or liberal politicians of Pakistan that are anti-establishment and anti-taliban and extremism are always targeted by the rightist / pro-establishment media/press and the politicians along with the establishment itself.

Whether it be the Kerry Lugar bill or the 17th amendment, the Army and the establishment seems to have their reservations. In both instances the power of civilian control over military seemed to have upset the establishment. Which is why the targets are no one but the biggest advocates of civilian authority over military, as in Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Rehman Malik, and Hussain Haqqani. If these “hawks” are replaced by someone who has a weaker stance on civil and parliament’s independence and control over military matters, it will be perfectly acceptable to the generals of Pakistan army.

If that happens the debate will end, the country wont be facing any “crisis” or turmoil, the democracy, the government, and most importantly Pakistan Peoples Party will be acceptable to everyone. This is how it has been laid out historically and this is how it is now. All we can do is wait and see if the people of Pakistan and their vote is victorious or the establishment gets to crush the democracy and the will of people yet one more time.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED @

With rights come responsibility, in terms of media the responsibility is to be objective and not to create confusion and chaos. While the media in Pakistan, driven by some sort of self-created agenda, has decided to do just the opposite. Claiming to be the voice of 170 million people, the media has taken upon itself to bypass democratically elected representatives and run the country on their own agenda.

Perhaps the media that took off under the tyranny of a Military General has not learned the ways of democracy. In my view the media in Pakistan fails to understand that it is the government’s prerogative to set the agenda – the to-do list – for the next five years, and not the media’s. The media’s job is to report the events and the policies of the government, analyzing them rather than taking sides. It is not the media’s job to run political campaigns and protests; as it did with the restoration of the judges, the campaign against Kerry Lugar bill, and the NRO just to name a few. Maybe the military intervention into Pakistan’s politics wasn’t enough that media wants its own piece of the pie.

Pakistani media is obsessed with the polls and survey numbers, sometimes even reporting them without adding objectivity or understanding to what they are reporting. In the midst of reporting all other polls they forgot to report one that relates to them. Maybe this time 170 million people didn’t matter as much as they do when they are unsatisfied with the government. The poll suggests that one-third of Pakistanis believe that media is responsible for the political instability in the country. Maybe it wasn’t the in their best interests to show the “mirror” this time around.

While 62% of Pakistanis support the current government and its efforts to deliver, the media portrays a totally different picture. In another poll, the Gilgit Baltistan elections, the media learned another valuable lesson. The party that media projected as very unpopular came out to be the most popular and winning the elections. And the party that the media suggested had the whole country on its back barely survived the elections.

The media’s recent obsession is with the new Transparency International survey, which claims that Pakistan slipped from 47th most corrupt nation to 42nd. Media is portraying this figure as a failure of the current government and a charge sheet against the current government setup or even democracy. What they fail to report is that in this report the rank of a country doesn’t matter, the rank is only relevant to the number of countries being surveyed. As they survey more countries the ranks can get worse. While the real number is the score each country gets, which ranges within 1 being most corrupt to 10 being the least. The previous government under General Pervez Musharraf hit its lowest in 2004 & 2005 when Pakistan received a 2.1, which was the time when Musharraf regime was at its peak. On the contrary this government is still at a 2.4 in its 18 some month period of being in control.

The media rejects any attempt by the government to enforce rules and regulations. But fails to realize the responsibilities it is failing to accept. If this carries on, not only the government and democracy will suffer, but the nation will too.