Older readers will recognise this mantra from the past: “South Korea stole our first Five-Year Plan.” According to this urban legend, when a Korean was accused of this petty larceny by a Pakistani, he retorted: “Yes, but we implemented it.”

The other pat on the back we give ourselves is about how PIA helped establish Air Malta and Emirates. I suppose that’s how those who have failed comfort themselves after having been knocked out of the league many years ago: in our period of decline, we sit around, reminiscing about the good old days.

Younger Pakistanis may find it hard to believe, but there was a time when Pakistan was held up as a model of development. India, constrained by its tightly regulated economy, was plodding along on what was called the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. Buoyed by foreign aid, then quite efficiently utilised, and with relatively liberal economic policies, Pakistan grew at a respectable rate that gave economists the widespread expectation that soon, the country would reach the take-off stage.

In the mid-1960s, a Turkish friend who worked for one of his country’s financial institutions told me that Pakistan’s Industrial Development Bank (IDBP) was cited as an exemplary state-sector enterprise in his organisation. As a young student, I remember feeling quite proud of my country. What institutions do our young people have to be proud of today?

In 1963, I drove from Germany to Pakistan with some friends over a series of steadily deteriorating roads. In Iran, we came across a metalled road 100km or so before and after Tehran. The rest were unpaved dirt roads. Poverty was so widespread that workers in eastern Iran would beg us for a box of matches. When we crossed into Pakistan, it was like entering a developed country: although the roads in Balochistan were also unpaved, they had been neatly graded and properly marked. The border rest-house where we spent the night was adequate, and we were cooked a hot meal. Sleeping in the open under a brilliant, star-speckled sky, it felt good to be back.

So what happened to derail this success story? The short answer is 1965. This brief, pointless war, needlessly provoked by Pakistan, destabilised Ayub Khan’s government, and set in motion a chain of events that had far-reaching consequences that haunt us still. Without getting into the causes leading up to this military disaster, I do see it as a hinge moment in our history.

Although the economy has grown in fits and starts since then, governance and institution-building have recorded a steady and terminal decline. Internationally, we are toxic, with our geopolitical location, our nuclear arsenal and our scary jihadi threat the only reasons why we figure in the calculations of other countries.

Many Pakistanis are convinced that if only we would get a good leader, everything could be fixed. Scores of readers have emailed me over the last couple of years, complaining about Asif Zardari. “What have we done to deserve him?” they moan. It’s almost as if they think some celestial figure should parachute down to take over. The reality is that all the actors are on the political stage, and we know what the options are.

A sizeable chunk of our chattering class is convinced that once Zardari quits the scene, rivers of milk and honey will start flowing again. Considering that his predecessors in the presidency include such stellar figures as Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Farooq Leghari and Pervez Musharraf, it is difficult to understand how Zardari can do any worse. Indeed, whatever his many detractors say about him, his performance in office has been far better that anybody could have hoped for.

Of course, the inevitable allegations of graft swirl around this government, as they have around every elected civilian government in the past. The only reason military rulers have been spared this scrutiny is that our media moguls know better than to take on the generals over such a sensitive issue. Mere politicians, of course, are fair game. The wildest, most unfounded charges against them can be amplified in the megaphone that is the electronic media today.

Political discourse in Pakistan today resembles a Roman amphitheatre where gladiators fight and die before a mob baying for yet more blood. In this hysterical environment, it is next to impossible to initiate and sustain a sensible discussion on the real issues. When people get used to a steady diet of raw meat, it’s not easy to convince them that vegetables are good for them.

Thus, deadly serious matters like religious extremism and violence, illiteracy, poverty, the need for clean drinking water, rapid population growth, the degradation of our urban and rural environment and the water crisis are impatiently swept aside by the public and the media. What counts most to them are the NRO, the 18th Amendment, allegations of graft and the comings and goings of politicians, judges and generals.

This national preoccupation with peripheral issues lets the government off the hook. When the political discourse is diverted away from our pressing problems, the administration is under no pressure to deliver. While civil society is ready and willing to agitate for judicial independence and against the NRO, it does not show the same energy and zeal to take to the streets to demand better governance. I suppose ‘Go, Musharraf, go!’ makes a better slogan than ‘Clean drinking water for all!’

One reason for these warped priorities is that we seem to prefer to talk about abstract issues rather than mundane ones. For our educated middle class, access to clean drinking water is not the problem it is for millions of deprived Pakistanis. Ditto for education and health services as they can generally afford not to rely on creaking state facilities.

In most societies, pressure for change comes from an educated middle class. Until this class feels strongly enough for the country’s masses to demand an improvement in their lives, little will change. Currently, our civil society’s problems are more to do with the courts and government departments, so their focus is on reforming them. The media’s concern is to improve circulation and audience figures, so they whip up sudden squalls in the teacup about non-issues. And we lap up these little dramas and express our indignation in the comfort of our drawing rooms.

Meanwhile, in the real world, children starve quietly, or grow up stunted, unloved and malnourished in a hostile world. Uneducated, they have little chance of finding a job. But at least we have the consolation of being blessed with an independent judiciary.

irfanhusain@gmail.com

Source: http://friendsofpakistan.net/wp-admin/post-new.php, written by By Irfan Husain on
Saturday, 24 Jul, 2010

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.

Politicians are generally born without a conscience. It is Nature’s obligation to ensure that no politician is born with a conscience. But sometimes Nature’s watchfulness slackens. Because of this slackness, a politician is born with a conscience. When he grows up and becomes politically active, he experiences that something is obstructing his activities. He cogitates and cogitates. Suddenly, there is a flash across the sky. The flash warns him: “It is your conscience which is blocking your way to glory.” The politician becomes furious and immediately gets his conscience surgically removed. From that moment onwards whatever he does is a brilliant success.
Plato declared that the world’s misery was a creation of kings and princes. He asserted: “Unless philosophers rule as kings or those who now as kings become philosophers there will be no respite for humanity from evil.” Obviously, the implication is that kings are conscienceless creatures whereas every philosopher has a gigantic conscience.
If the masses of a country keep dying of starvation, it is not the starvation which kills them. They die of starvation because the rulers don’t have consciences. A conscientious ruler would kill himself before starvation killed a citizen. Plato’s philosopher-king is a ruler with a great conscience. Under such a ruler, immoral politicalism cannot survive. If Plato were to revisit the world, the professional politicians would jointly assassinate him mercilessly. The professional politicians are modern versions of kings and princes.
An animal is an animal simply because it has no conscience. A genuine human being is a genuine human being only because he has a sensitive conscience. A man’s humanity is directly proportional to the quality of his conscience. The greater the quality of the conscience, the greater the humanity. When an animal looks at a conscienceless ruler, it enthusiastically proclaims: “Look, there is one of my human brethren.”
We desperately need a supreme leader. A supreme leader means a leader with a supreme conscience. God’s greatest gift to a nation is a supreme leader. Let’s keep begging: “O’ God! Kindly bless us with a supreme leader.” We must keep on begging and begging and begging till our supplication is granted.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/23-Jul-2010/Conscience-Conscience-Conscience

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.

When a degree-faker passes Matric to MA in reverse order and leaves his peers way behind, it’s time to announce that the art of forgery has reached its summit. People have witnessed commotion inside and outside the houses of parliament against the public reps with faked degrees. Recently, amid cacophony in the Punjab Assembly the good members in a rare gesture of solidarity passed a resolution against the media for pointing out degree-fakers. The chief minister who one thought was somewhat prudent was in his chambers at the time. By tacitly supporting the fakers, he has gone down a few notches on the public moral scale.

The Punjab chief minister didn’t support the fakers in public. Did he censure them behind the scene for forging degrees? Perhaps he didn’t because of political expediency and because of the crucial numbers game in the assembly that keeps him in power, which he doesn’t want to lose for the sake of principles. And principles are expendable when they begin to impinge on one’s self-interests.

However, regarding fake degrees, Prime Minister Gilani outdid all others. When the court deprived Jamshed Dasti of his National Assembly seat for faking his degree, Mr Gilani not only gave the party gem a fresh ticket but also brazenly led his political campaign to get him re-elected. Mr Gilani left no room for dichotomy on the reprehensible act of faking degrees. Henceforth, nobody is likely to ask him embarrassing questions. Propriety suggested that Mr Gilani had better keep a safe distance from Dasti after the court verdict. Instead, he chose the same candidate for the same seat and campaigned for him. Mr Gilani in fact denigrated the status of the honourable court that he doesn’t tire of claiming to hold in high esteem. Herein is the dichotomy in what the prime minister says and what he does. End of debate.

The silent majority is aghast at how resourceful lawmakers have raised the level of fakery to an art form. Some shysters in the legal profession have done one better. They’ve even faked PhD degrees. A leading legal light who after a court appearance had acted as Al Capone returned victorious even wangled a PhD from a dubious American university unauthorised to confer it. Another such luminary briefly appointed a federation lawyer and relieved, when quizzed by a reporter about his PhD, retorted, “I am not obliged to answer your query”. Why not, sir? Haven’t you been addressed ‘Doctor Sahib’ for decades? Although it took long but you stand exposed, Doctor Sahib.

Had all these villains lived in a civilised society and exposed, they would promptly end up in gaol and forgotten. But in our dear land, they not only prosper but also hold the system hostage to their wicked ambitions. It’s not as much about faking degrees that irks as it is about the collective mindset and integrity of the fakers, and more so, of their associates in parliament who strive to bail out the guilty by passing resolutions. It speaks of the decadence of the class that rules us. While the Pandora’s box of fake degrees seems bottomless and new fakers crawl out by the day, what should be the next step? Isn’t a midterm election the only option to clear out the scum? But not without first banning the fakers for at least a decade. Nevertheless, the ensuing battle is between the judiciary and vested interests of the politicians, which have nothing to do with public interests. The silent majority has thrown its full support behind the judiciary, praying for it to succeed, and waiting to see how the situation unfolds.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252249, Friday, July 23, 2010, written by  Iftekhar A Khan
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Lahore. Email: pinecity@gmail.com

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.

If there were half as many coal pits in Thar as the pits into which Pakistan has been led by its present rulers, the country would lick the power crisis.

While there is probably not a single coal pit in Thar, the number of pits into which the country has been pushed by its current minders would be the envy of any coalminer. These are the pits of galloping corruption, racing inflation, increasing poverty, growing despair, the horrific energy situation, the looming water crisis, dwindling exports, mounting indebtedness, ineffective governance, worsening bigotry, expanding terrorism, the rulers’ profligacy…, the list goes on.

The newest pit to become exposed is that of fake degrees. Unluckily for them, it is mainly the parliamentarians who have tumbled into it. Fake degrees are a measure of the descent of the country’s politicians and parliamentarians into ignominy. Even worse are the measures being adopted by the rulers to “rescue” the parliamentarians. These measures have turned parliament, as an institution, into an object of mockery and scorn.

The rulers are using unheard-of tactics and devices to help these parliamentarians climb out of the pit of fake degrees. These include arm-twisting of academic institutions, delaying response to requests by the Higher Education Commission to verify the academic certificates of parliamentarians, and harassing the brother of the HEC’s chairman.

In their latest moves, which remind you of the movie To Catch a Thief, the rulers appear ready to involve in the verification process the federal law minister who himself sports a “doctorate” from a fake university. They also appear ready to involve the federal education minister, who makes light of fake degrees by claiming that these should be no problem since the same people will be elected again, fake degrees or genuine.

The verification reports, with the worthy law minister with the fake doctorate playing a role in procuring these, will be required to be forwarded by the HEC through the very education minister who says “fake degrees are no problem,” not directly to the parliamentary committee. As if all this were not enough, the Election Commission of Pakistan has chipped in with the statement that it is the commission which should be verifying the degrees, not the HEC. Why the Election Commission did not do so in the first instance? This is not the kind of questions anyone is encouraged to ask.

If they don’t approve of all this, the parliamentary committee or the HEC, can take a hike. Who says parliament is not sovereign? Or higher education is not a serious purpose?

While all the above is going on, the coalminers with a billion dollars in hand have to just wait, although they are trying desperately to draw the rulers’ attention to coal pits and coal-fired power plants in Thar.

There are also those who, like hired guns, have saddled up to ride to help the parliamentarians thrashing about hysterically in the pit of fake degrees. Their first shot is at the graduation condition to contest elections, which they claim is not a valid stipulation in a democracy.

Are fake degrees any more wrong, they ask, than splurging on the election campaign far beyond what the rules permit, or with visual self-promotion through billboards, posters, banners, graffiti, and in all other unsightly ways imaginable, or bussing voters to the polling stations against the rules? Are fake degrees worse than cheating on taxes?

The hired guns are right in their first contention. There should not be a graduation requirement in a democracy for any elective office. The only requirements should be the minimum age, possession of a sound mind, and no conviction for felony. If there are unwarranted stipulations, however, such as graduation, the contestants can show their rejection of these by not participating in the elections. What they ignore is that by producing fake degrees to participate in the elections, they are not only confirming their acceptance of the graduation condition. At the same time, they are proving that they are not above cheating, or instituting fraud, and committing felony.

By the same token, are fake degrees any more wrong than some of the other violations of rules at election time? Is holding a fake driving license any more wrong than parking improperly, going beyond the speed limit or running a red light? The first is a felony, the others, at most, serious traffic violations. The use of a fake degree is as much a felony as a fake driving license. Convicted felons are debarred from holding public office in most democracies. In many others they cannot even vote.

Tax evasion is a felony too. Anyone convicted for evasion of taxes pays the price any felon would pay. However, unlike a fake degree, tax evasion is not easy to pin down. Tax lawyers can keep finding loopholes in tax laws, and with convoluted interpretations of the laws, can keep cases going for years, often settling in court on the amount to be paid by their client to have the case brought to an end. On the other hand, fake-degree cases are not hard to prove. They are probably the easiest. It is not possible to end them through a settlement in court.

Why are only parliamentarians being targeted for fake degrees, and not generals, bureaucrats, journalists and others? This is sad defence by legislators. In every democracy, parliamentarians are deemed to have a higher national purpose than generals, bureaucrats, journalists and others. In using the excuse of their being “singled out,” and not being counted with the rest, our parliamentarians are in denial of their privileged status. This is not surprising, considering that parliament is crowded by those who are not above cheating by any means, including fraud and fake degrees.

These days, genuine democrats in parliament must have their heads bowed in shame over these goings-on. These are democrats who entered parliament and the provincial assemblies without chicanery and fraud and who believe in the legislature’s sovereign status and in the high national purpose accorded them by the voters. They should consider what they can do to help save parliament’s honour and dignity.

There are constitutional conditions for a president, such as that he should be a Muslim, regarded as non-political, who has a reputation which is above reproach, and who would serve largely as a figurehead.

However, if someone who did not fulfil these conditions is voted in, someone who insists on functioning both as party head and president of the country, who interferes in the normal conduct of state affairs, such as vetoing the prime minister’s decision to change his IT minister, his validity as president should be called to question in court.

A parliament free of fakes is hardly likely to overlook the president’s open and camouflaged violations of constitutional stipulations, whereas as a parliament laden with fakes will. Therefore, if there is a wild scramble by the president’s men, led by the worthy law minister who sports a doctorate from a fake university, to stop the parliament from being rid of fakes, there are deep reasons for it, and even deeper fears.

Source: http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252073, Thursday, July 22, 2010, S Khalid Husain
The writer is a former corporate executive. Email: husainsk@ cyber.net.pk

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.

We are reproducing a letter in the name of President of Pakistan sent to us by AHRC as following. The contents of this letter are an appeal to president about the murder of two christian brothers who were murdered by some un-known peroson while they were in custody of Police. It can be concluded how is the security system of Pakistan and what can be guranteed of life of minorities. Sinec this forum is for all Pakistanis, so we are publishing it without any comments and bias.

Dear President,

PAKISTAN: Open letter to the President of Pakistan regarding the killing of two brothers from a Christian family

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is deeply saddened and appalled by the murder of two brothers from a Christian family, victims of a hate campaign launched by banned Muslim extremist groups on July 19. We hold the government and the authorities of Punjab province responsible for this crime and urge you to take immediate measures to restore justice, punish the perpetrators and protect religious minorities of Pakistan.

The AHRC had informed you, as well as the competent authorities, of  the brothers’ case (AHRC-UAC-102-2010
<http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2010/3503/>. We warned you before the severity and urgency of the situation and promptly urged you to take efficient measures in order to protect them. However, you failed to answer our demands or to guarantee the protection of the Christian brothers.

Rahid Emmanuel, 32, Pastor in the ministry of united international Pakistan and his younger brother Sajjid Emmanuel, two residents of Daud Nagar, Warispura, Faisalabad, have been arrested on July 2 on false charges of writing and distributing blasphemous pamphlets. The case triggered a heinous campaign from Muslim extremists, who misused mosques’ loudspeakers to exhort Muslim crowds to take revenge on the Christian community of Punjab.

At that point, we were already very concerned for the brothers’ security. They were held at a police station, without proper protection. It was also feared that a new attack was planned for the end of the month, around the anniversary of a deadly attack on Christians 50km away in Korian village, Tehsil Gojra where six people
were set alight and burned to death last year.

We deplore that no efficient measure was taken and on July 19, as both the brothers came out from the court, they were suddenly shot by unknown persons. The elder brother Rashid died instantly, whereas Sajjid died on the way to the hospital. A police officer, Muhammad Hussain also received a bullet injury and is in a critical condition.
The attackers escaped unhindered.

Despite our warnings and the threats by extremist elements from the banned Muslim militant groups to kill the brothers, the administration of Faisalabad city and the Punjab government did not take any security measures for their protection. We strongly denounce the sheer negligence and biased attitude of the Punjab provincial  government, the police and the federal government, that allowed the execution of innocent victims.

We believe that this crime is partly due to the misuse of mosques’ loudspeakers by Muslim extremists, with the complaisance of the authorities. As you know, Section 3 of the Loudspeaker Act 1965 bans all types of speeches other than Azan (the call to prayer) and the Friday sermon in Arabic. In this case, hate speeches were repeatedly given to encourage violent actions against the accused brothers and the Christian community as a whole. The AHRC repeatedly denounced the weakness of law-enforcement agencies that allows the violation of the law by Muslim extremist groups. We warned you against the abuse of loudspeakers by dangerous extremists, with the tacit support of the police and the authorities, but no action was ever taken to efficiently enforce the law.

Religious minority groups in Pakistan have always been threatened by blasphemy charges and are much vulnerable before the section 295C of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). We regret that the police generally do not
follow the requirement of the 295C before filing a FIR. According to the amendment made in section 295C in 2004, it was mandatory that only a superintendent of police can investigate charges of blasphemy before
filing a FIR. But the police generally work on the behalf of Muslim extremist groups, which makes religious minority groups always vulnerable before 295C. Once again, we informed you several times of such abuses and their consequences, with no answer or satisfying measures taken.

We further deplore that charges of blasphemy are still met with the death penalty in Pakistan, and desecrating the Quran carries a life sentence. The blasphemy law is regularly misused by people with vendettas against minority.

We urge you to appoint a judicial commission to probe the incident of killing of the two Christian brothers and the attacks on the Christian community. The high police officials must be prosecuted for their negligence in providing security to the Christians when it was obvious that the extremists would attack them.

The Blasphemy law, which was introduced by a fundamentalist military dictator in the 1980s for the purpose of prosecuting religious minorities, must be immediately abolished and all religious minorities must be protected, as it must be the case in a modern democracy.

We also insist that you ensure the fair application of the Loudspeaker Act and the prosecution of every person who contravenes it, especially when loudspeakers are used to encourage religious hatred and violence.

Religious violence is pushing Pakistan deeper into the crisis and it is the government’s responsibility to prevent intolerance, violence and religious extremism. We hope the Christian community and the people in Pakistan as a whole will overcome such traumatic experience by appropriate action of your government.

The AHRC has too many times warned the government against the abuses of criminal groups and law-enforcement agencies. Yet, no progress has been made so far in the implementation of the rule of law in Pakistan.

It is because of the rogue legal system and incompetent rule of law, along with the corruption of the federal and provincial governments and law-enforcement agencies, that religious extremism is deepening in Pakistan and threatens the Republic and its people. We deplore that you show to sign of willingness to fight this plague and finally to implement democracy and the rule of law, two missions for which you have been elected.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Fernando

Executive Director

Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

CC:

1. Mr.Syed Mumtaz Alam Gillani, Federal Minister for Human Rights,
PAKISTAN

2. Mr. Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, PAKISTAN

3. Chief Secretary of Government of Punjab, PAKISTAN

4. Mr. Tariq Saleem, Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, PAKISTAN

5. Ms Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief, SWITZERLAND

<b>AHRC New Weekly Digest – an easy way to receive all your Human Rights
news in just one weekly email – subscribe <a
href=”http://internal.ahrchk.net/phplist/?p=subscribe&id=31“>here</a>.</b>
—————————–
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) – 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) – 2698-6367
twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.