Ghoraba

A man who moved the world with his vision, genius and amazingly talented personality...

2011-10-07T01:39:00.002+05:00

“Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent,” explained Jobs.

Shame on all the people who attended the APC and consented to the Resolution...

2011-10-01T00:25:00.000+05:00

Following is the full text of the APC resolution:

1. On the invitation of Prime Minister Syed Yusaf Raza Gilani, the leaders of Pakistan’s political parties met in Islamabad on September 29, 2011 to consider issues relating to national security

2. The conference was briefed by Foreign Minister Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar and Director General ISI, Lt. Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha on the security environment of the country and the regional situation.

3. After in-depth deliberations, leaders of all political parties unanimously resolved, as follows.

i. As a peace-loving country, Pakistan desires to establish and maintain friendly and cordial relations with all countries of the world on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual interest and respect.

ii. All Parties Conference recognized that there has to be a new direction and policy with a focus on peace and reconciliation. “Give peace a chance” must be the guiding central principle henceforth.

iii. Pakistan must initiate dialogue with a view to negotiating peace with our own people in the tribal areas and a proper mechanism for this be put in place.

iv. We need to further enhance our brotherly bilateral relations with Afghanistan at three levels on priority basis: government to government, institution to institution and people to people.

v. The APC recognized the sacrifices of the people and the Security Forces of Pakistan, especially the people of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and tribal areas. The international community needs to recognize these tremendous sacrifices as well as the colossal magnitude of destruction in Pakistan.

vi. Pakistan can enhance its self-reliance comprehensively. Trade, not aid, should clearly be the way forward. We should also focus on internal economic and tax reforms as well as resource mobilization and the curbing of corruption.

vii. Defence of Pakistan’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity is a sacred duty which shall never be compromised.

viii. National interests are supreme and shall guide Pakistan’s policy and response to all challenges at all times.

ix. Pakistan shall continue to endeavor to promote stability and peace at the regional and global planes, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.

x. All earlier unanimous resolutions of the Parliament, the recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on National Security must be implemented.

xi. APC rejected the recent assertions and baseless allegations made against Pakistan. Such assertions are without substance and derogatory to a partnership approach.

xii. The Pakistani nation affirms its full solidarity and support for the armed forces of Pakistan in defeating any threat to national security.

xiii. A Parliamentary Committee be formed to oversee the implementation of earlier resolutions as well as this Resolution and progress on the same be made public on monthly basis.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 30^th, 2011.

Even if a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty. ~ Hazrat Umar's (Razi Allah'tala Anhu) words on accountability.

2011-09-28T01:49:00.000+05:00

More than 40 people have died in Kalar Kahar tragic incident. Most of them little kids returning from their school trip to famous tourist attraction. Irony is that these innocent lives were lost solely owing to criminal negligence of authorities and these authorities and the functionaries will be let off the hook.

A Rock in Sajdah

2011-09-22T10:17:00.000+05:00

Does anyone know the whereabouts of this rock?

World ignores a growing humanitarian crisis in Pakistan’s Sindh province where a second year of catastrophic floods has forced up to two million to flee their homes.

2011-09-18T18:22:00.000+05:00

A man carries his daughters as he searches for higher ground after flood waters engulfed his house in the town of Khoski, in Badin

Help Sindh

2011-09-18T18:16:00.000+05:00

The world is ignoring a growing humanitarian crisis in Pakistan’s Sindh province where a second year of catastrophic floods has forced up to two million to flee their homes.

They need our help

A town completely submerged

People recover belongings from their flooded shanties caused by heavy monsoon rains in Nawabshah

Keti Bunder

2011-09-18T18:10:00.000+05:00

Pakistani children, displaced by floods, sleep outside their makeshift tent on the roadside in Keti Bandar near Thatta

A child displaced by floods sleeps on the ground outside his makeshift tent at a roadside in Keti Bandar near Thatta

Mirpurkhas...

2011-09-18T18:06:00.000+05:00

Sindh floods caused by heavy rains have killed more than 200 people, made about 200,000 people homeless and left 4.2 million acres of agriculture land inundated with water, authorities said.

A girl displaced by floods sits beside her mother who suffering from diarrhea at their shanty in Mirpur Khas district, in Pakistan's Sindh province.

Children displaced by floods eat donated food at a camp near Mirpur Khas, in Pakistan's Sindh province, Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011.

Badin...

2011-09-18T17:59:00.000+05:00

The latest floods, triggered by monsoon rains, have killed more than 230 people, destroyed or damaged 1.2 million houses and flooded 4.5 million acres (1.8 million hectares) since late last month, officials and Western aid groups say. More than 300,000 people have been moved to shelters. Some 800,000 families hit by last year's floods are still homeless. Aid groups have warned of a growing risk of fatal diseases.

A boy, displaced by floods, is silhouetted by the water's edge after escaping to higher ground from his flooded village in the district on Badin in Pakistan's Sindh province September 17, 2011.

A man walks on a tree trunk while wading through flood waters in his village in the Badin district of Pakistan's Sindh province September 16, 2011.

Majda, a three-year-old flood victim suffering from diarrhea,. sit with her mother while seeking treatment at a civil hospital in the Badin district of Pakistan's Sindh province September 16, 2011.

Devastated :(

2011-09-16T12:08:00.000+05:00

A boy waits for food handouts with other flood victims as they take refuge at a makeshift camp in Sukkur, inPakistan's Sindh province August 8, 2010. (REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro)

It could have been your or my child...

2011-09-16T11:48:00.001+05:00

Flies cover the face of two-year-old flood victim Farhan in a relief camp in Sukkur, in Pakistan's Sindh province 2010. (Reuters)

BBC Reports on Sindh's floods

2011-09-16T11:32:00.000+05:00

Pakistan floods: Two million hit by disease in Sindh

The continued rainfall has added to the threat caused by water-borne diseases

More than two million people in Pakistan are suffering from flood-related diseases following torrential rain in Sindh province, officials say.

More than 7,000 people are being treated for snake bites.

Aid agencies estimate that six million people have been affected by the floods and that cases of malaria and diarrhoea are increasing.

The UN's refugee agency says that the flooding is so bad that some areas will remain submerged for six months.

However the BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Pakistan says that the situation in the southern port city of Karachi is showing some sign of limping back to normal after three days of heavy downpours.

Our correspondent says that some schools whose premises were not flooded have managed to reopen after being closed for two days.

'Very serious'

But flooding elsewhere in the southern province of Sindh continues to give cause for...

(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14931833)

2011's devastation from floods and rains in Sindh is even worse than 2010...

2011-09-16T11:27:00.000+05:00

2010's picture of flood victims

Almost 4000 reported cases of Dengue virus in Punjab

2011-09-14T13:48:00.000+05:00

Punjab and especially Lahore is struggling miserably in dealing with Dengue epidemic, however, Rana Sana Ullah (PML-N) and Raja Riaz (PPP) are going through their usual fits and declaring the Governor's House, Punjab a college for women and the Raiwind Palace, a zological garden, respectively. This shows how serious our leaders are for their people.

Patients, who were suffering from dengue fever, lie under mosquito nets at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Lahore.

Aleem Dar - a name all Pakistanis are proud of...

2011-09-13T19:43:00.000+05:00

Aleem Dar, who is 43 and from Pakistan, was voted to this award by the 10 Full Member captains as well as the eight-man Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees, based on his decision statistics and officiating skills over the past 12 months.

It is the third year in a row that he has received the ICC award which was renamed last year after the late England umpire David Shepherd*.

Dar accepted his award from ICC Hall of Fame 2011 inductee Alan Davidson and said: “It’s a great honour and I’m thankful to everyone at the ICC and also my colleagues on the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires along with the Pakistan Cricket Board. I’d like to also thank all my family for all their support since I’m away nearly eight months of the year umpiring.”

Dar beat off strong competition from his colleagues on the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires Steve Davis, Ian Gould and five-time ICC Umpire of the Year Simon Taufel. Dar, who made his international debut as an umpire in 2000, joined the Emirates Elite Panel in 2004. In the voting period of these awards, Dar stood in five Tests and 13 ODIs. He stood in the ICC Cricket World Cup in the India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, where he was an on-field umpire in eight of the matches, including the final between India and Sri Lanka...

(Source: http://www.espnstar.com/rss-feed/detail/item673048/)

20 million people affected in Sindh's floods, await help from the World

2011-09-11T16:51:00.001+05:00

According to Pakistani government data the floods directly affected about 20 million people, property, livelihood and infrastructure, with a death toll of close to 2,000.

Kids in Islamabad studying at roadside park

2011-09-09T19:32:00.000+05:00

Pakistani poor children from Islamabad's slums study at a roadside park in Pakistan. People voluntarily provides education to these underprivileged children mostly street kids.

Floods in Sindh and Baluchistan

2011-09-09T17:16:00.000+05:00

Five million people have been affected by floods in the Pakistani provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, according to regional officials. At least 133 people have been killed, officials said, and the number is expected to rise. About 900 villages have been submerged and about 100,000 homes have been completely destroyed.

Aise Dastoor Ko ...

2011-09-08T10:59:00.007+05:00

Open Letter to the Honourable Chief Justice of Baluchistan.

2011-09-07T13:03:00.002+05:00

This is with reference to the news item “Kharotabad report to be kept secret” in DAWN’s issue of June 28, 2011, page 14 by Saleem Shahid and Amanullah Kansi. It reports that the Baluchistan Government has decided not to implement the recommendations and also not to make public the findings of the tribunal - investigating the killings of five foreigners three of them women by our security personnel at Kharotabad Chekpost.

As per the news item, an official of Baluchistan Government has stated that, “the recommendations of the report could not be fully implemented owing to the fact the foreigners entered in Pakistan illegally, the security personnel have acted in self-defense for the foreigners were terrorists and the media could exploit the recommendations, therefore the report would not be made public”.

It is pertinent to mention, that as per statements of the witnesses and other concerned people, which include police officials, Frontier Corps and journalists, it has transpired that no orders to fire on the foreigners were given, however, the five victims have received 56 bullets and died of gunshots.

Anyone who has seen the footages of this gruesome and heartrending incident can tell that the victims were tied up and they were shot from close range. There were no signs of suicide vests, weapons or explosives, which is clearly a concoction of our authorities. Obviously, the victims must have been arrested and then tied up and God knows what ordeals they went through before they were shot mercilessly.

Question is, how was this crime then carried out in the name of self-defense and does anyone defending himself from someone whose hands and feet are tied and who does not even has a stone in his or her hands? Why after spraying hundreds of bullets on them no detonators or explosives went off? Why the footages and pictures submitted before the tribunal show no proof such weapons? Why the authorities have threatened and manhandled the police surgeon and the cameraman? Whoever issued the orders to shoot and declared them terrorists, will have answers to all our questions.

Now that answers to these questions are known and the independent commission has concluded its findings why is the Baluchistan Government not making it public and not implementing the recommendations of the tribunal?

The Baluchistan Government and the authorities involved and responsible in this issue have forgotten that the acts of public functionaries are and would always remain subject to the Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

The extra-ordinary circumstances of this incident, the decision of the Baluchistan Government of not implementing the recommendations of the independent tribunal and not making the findings public have rendered it essential for me to humbly request the Honourable Chief Justice of Baluchistan, on behalf of the five victims and the seven month old baby carried by one of the victims, all those who feel that no man should be condemned unheard and no man should be a judge in his own cause and all those who also strongly believe that, “Courts should be the final arbiter and protector of the constitutional norms” to convert my request into a petition and direct the authorities to make the report public and implement all the recommendations so that all those who are responsible for this cruelty should be held to account.

My Lordship (Honourable Chief Justice of Baluchistan), every time the footage of the victims comes to my mind, the waving finger of one the victims tells me that I have a responsibility and Almighty will hold me accountable for not fulfilling that responsibility.

Sincerely,

Asim H. Akhund

MQM - A Terrorist Organization - UNHCR

2011-09-07T01:42:00.005+05:00

Pakistan: Information on Mohajir/Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Altaf (MQM-A)

Query:

Provide information on the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Altaf (MQM-A) in Pakistan.

Response:

SUMMARY

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Altaf (MQM-A) has been widely accused of human rights abuses since its founding two decades ago. It claims to represent Mohajirs— Urdu-speaking Muslims who fled to Pakistan from India after the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, and their descendants.

In the mid-1990s, the MQM-A was heavily involved in the widespread political violence that wracked Pakistan's southern Sindh province, particularly Karachi, the port city that is the country's commercial capital. MQM-A militants fought government forces, breakaway MQM factions, and militants from other ethnic-based movements. In the mid-1990s, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and others accused the MQM-A and a rival faction of summary killings, torture, and other abuses (see, e.g., AI 1 Feb 1996; U.S. DOS Feb 1996). The MQM-A routinely denied involvement in violence.

BACKGROUND

The current MQM-A is the successor to a group called the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM) that was founded by Altaf Hussein in 1984 as a student movement to defend the rights of Mohajirs, who by some estimates make up 60 percent of Karachi's population of twelve million. At the time, Mohajirs were advancing in business, the professions, and the bureaucracy, but many resented the quotas that helped ethnic Sindhis win university slots and civil service jobs. Known in English as the National Movement for Refugees, the MQM soon turned to extortion and other types of racketeering to raise cash. Using both violence and efficient organizing, the MQM became the dominant political party in Karachi and Hyderabad, another major city in Sindh. Just three years after its founding, the MQM came to power in these and other Sindh cities in local elections in 1987 (AI 1 Feb 1996; U.S. DOS Feb 1997, Feb 1999; HRW Dec 1997).

The following year, the MQM joined a coalition government at the national level headed by Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which took power in elections following the death of military leader General Zia ul-Haq. This marked the first of several times in the 1980s and 1990s that the MQM joined coalition governments in Islamabad or in Sindh province. Meanwhile, violence between the MQM and Sindhi groups routinely broke out in Karachi and other Sindh cities (AI 1 Feb 1996; Jane's 14 Feb 2003).

In 1992, a breakway MQM faction, led by Afaq Ahmed and Aamir Khan, launched the MQM Haqiqi (MQM-H), literally the "real" MQM. Many Pakistani observers alleged that the MQM-H was supported by the government of Pakistan to weaken the main MQM led by Altaf Hussein, which became known as the MQM-A (Jane's 14 Feb 2003). Several smaller MQM factions also emerged, although most of the subsequent intra-group violence involved the MQM-A and the MQM-H (AI 1 Feb 1996; U.S. DOS Feb 1999; Jane's 14 Feb 2003).

Political violence in Sindh intensified in 1993 and 1994 (Jane's 14 Feb 2003). In 1994, fighting among MQM factions and between the MQM and Sindhi nationalist groups brought almost daily killings in Karachi (U.S. DOS Feb 1995). By July 1995, the rate of political killings in the port city reached an average of ten per day, and by the end of that year more than 1,800 had been killed (U.S. DOS Feb 1996).

The violence in Karachi and other cities began abating in 1996 as soldiers and police intensified their crackdowns on the MQM-A and other groups (Jane's 14 Feb 2003). Pakistani forces resorted to staged "encounter killings" in which they would shoot MQM activists and then allege that the killings took place during encounters with militants (U.S. DOS Feb 1996). Following a crackdown in 1997, the MQM-A adopted its present name, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, or United National Movement, which also has the initials MQM (HRW Dec 1997).

MQM-A leader Hussein fled in 1992 to Britain, where he received asylum in 1999 (Jane's 14 Feb 2003). The MQM-A is not on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations (U.S. DOS 23 May 2003).

While the multifaceted nature of the violence in Sindh province in the 1980s and 1990s at times made it difficult to pinpoint specific abuses by the MQM-A, the group routinely was implicated in rights abuses. In 1992 after the Sindh government called in the army to crack down on armed groups in the province, facilities were discovered that allegedly were used by the MQM-A to torture and at times kill dissident members and activists from rival groups. In 1996, Amnesty International said that the PPP and other parties were reporting that some of their activists had been tortured and killed by the MQM-A (AI 1 Feb 1996).

The MQM-A and other factions also have been accused of trying to intimidate journalists. In one of the most flagrant cases, in 1990 MQM leader Hussein publicly threatened the editor of the monthly NEWSLINE magazine after he published an article on the MQM's alleged use of torture against dissident members (U.S. DOS Feb 1991). The following year, a prominent journalist, Zafar Abbas, was severely beaten in Karachi in an attack that was widely blamed on MQM leaders angered over articles by Abbas describing the party's factionalization. The same year, MQM activists assaulted scores of vendors selling DAWN, Pakistan's largest English-language newspaper, and other periodicals owned by Herald Publications (U.S. DOS Feb 1992).

The MQM-A has also frequently called strikes in Karachi and other cities in Sindh province and used killings and other violence to keep shops closed and people off the streets. During strikes, MQM-A activists have ransacked businesses that remained open and attacked motorists and pedestrians who ventured outside (U.S. DOS Feb 1996; Jane's 14 Feb 2003).

The MQM-A allegedly raises funds through extortion, narcotics smuggling, and other criminal activities. In addition, Mohajirs in Pakistan and overseas provide funds to the MQM-A through charitable foundations (Jane's 14 Feb 2003).

Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States, the MQM-A has been increasingly critical of Islamic militant groups in Pakistan. The MQM-A, which generally has not targeted Western interests, says that it supports the global campaign against terrorism (Jane's 14 Feb 2003).

This response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RIC within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

References:

Amnesty International (AI). HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS IN KARACHI (1 Feb 1996, ASA 33/01/96), http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330011996?open&of=ENG-PAK [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

Human Rights Watch (HRW). WORLD REPORT 1998, "Pakistan" (Dec 1997), http://www.hrw.org/worldreport/Asia-09.htm#P823_214912 [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

Jane's Information Group (Jane's). JANE'S WORLD INSURGENCY AND TERRORISM-17, "Muthida [sic] Qaumi Movement (MQM-A)" (14 Feb 2003), http://www.janes.com [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (23 May 2003), http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2003/12389.htm [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1998, "Pakistan" (Feb 1999), http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1998_hrp_report/pakistan.html [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1996, "Pakistan" (Feb 1997), http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1996_hrp_report/pakistan.html [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1995, "Pakistan" (Feb 1996), http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_sasia/Pakistan.html [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1994, "Pakistan" (Feb 1995), http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1994_hrp_report/94hrp_report_sasia/Pakistan.html [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1991, "Pakistan" (Feb 1992).

U.S. Department of State (U.S. DOS). COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1990, "Pakistan" (Feb 1991).

Attachments:

Jane's Information Group (Jane's). JANE'S WORLD INSURGENCY AND TERRORISM-17, "Muthida [sic] Qaumi Movement (MQM-A)" (14 Feb 2003), http://www.janes.com [Accessed 6 Feb 2004]

Source: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/414fe5aa4.html

Karachi Burning - Appeal For De-Weaponisation of Karachi

2011-09-07T01:31:00.003+05:00

Eight-year-old Sumayya, whose uncle, Imran Ali, was injured in a shootout by unidentified gunmen, looks at him as he is brought to a hospital for treatment in Karachi August 23, 2011.

Karachi faced a complete shutdown on Tuesday after the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) announced that a day of mourning would be observed against the ongoing wave of violence that has claimed nearly 100 lives in less than a week, local media reported.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR2QMR8

Canadian courts have ruled the MQM party meets the legal definition of a terrorist organization.

2011-09-07T01:21:00.001+05:00

Judge orders deportation of Pakistani party chief

Stewart Bell

National Post

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The head of the Quebec branch of a Pakistani political party is facing deportation after the Federal Court of Canada ruled he belonged to an organization that committed terrorism.

The judge upheld the deportation of Mohammed Kashif Omer, a resident of Montreal, on the grounds he is a member of the Mothaidda Quami Movement, or MQM.

It is the second time this year Canadian courts have ruled the MQM party meets the legal definition of a terrorist organization.

Mr. Omer is one of dozens of Pakistanis whom Canadian immigration authorities are trying to deport because of their involvement in the MQM.

Despite being blamed for the kidnapping, torture and murder of its political rivals in Pakistan, the MQM has opened a Canadian branch called MQM-Canada.

Members of the group have worked on Conservative election campaigns, met Prime Minister Stephen Harper and recently hosted a conference in Calgary.

Conservative MP Art Hanger spoke at the June 8-10 MQM Canada convention, which was attended by several Pakistanis who are being deported for their alleged involvement in terrorism. Mr. Hanger said he did not support the group. Conservative MLA Shiraz Shariff also attended. He said yesterday he was unaware Canadian courts had deemed the MQM a terrorist organization. "Why are we as a nation then allowing them to have a congregation here?" he said.

Among the speakers at the convention was Mr. Omer, who presented a report on the "achievements and future strategy" of the Montreal office of MQM, according to the group's Web Site.

Mr. Omer has no immigration status in Canada. A Canada Border Services Agency spokesman, Erik Paradis, said the court ruling means that the deportation order against Mr. Omer is now in effect.

The MQM is a Pakistani political party that is part of President Pervez Musharraf's ruling coalition. The Canadian MQM branch has never been accused of illegal activities but in Pakistan the party has been blamed for widespread violence, most recently in May when gunfights between the MQM and anti-government demonstrators left more than 40 dead.

MQM officials deny any role in attacks and say they are victims of misinformation spread by Pakistani authorities. Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee has been looking into complaints from MQM members that immigration authorities have unfairly branded them as terrorists.

Mr. Omer came to Canada in 1998 and was granted refugee status but in 2005 immigration officials said he could not remain in Canada "because he knowingly and for a long period of time belonged to an organization that has engaged in terrorism."

In Pakistan, Mr. Omer had been a member of the MQM and its student wing from 1987 to 1998. He denied any involvement with the MQM in Canada but eventually acknowledged he was in charge of the MQM's Quebec office.

The Immigration and Refugee Board said "Mr. Omer's reasons for trying to hide that, in Canada, he is responsible for the Montreal section of the MQM-Canada lead me to believe that he knew that his party was committing many violent acts."

He appealed the decision to the Federal Court, arguing that the MQM is not a terrorist organization and that the violence was committed by rogue elements in the party, but the court was not convinced.

sbell@nationalpost.com

Source:

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c045bc85-f122-423e-bcad-8cc6f2f20031

Division of Sub-Continent the Greatest Blunder - Altaf Hussain in Delhi

2011-09-07T00:54:00.006+05:00

MQM claims that Pakistan was created owing to the sacrifice of Mohajirs, however, their leader believe that the creation of Pakistan and the sacrifices for Pakistan were the greatest blunder in the history. The video appended is Altaf Hussain's speech in Delhi in 2005.

Dr. Zulfiquar Mirza - Facts or Figments

2011-09-07T00:49:00.001+05:00

While a lot has been discussed, commented, opined and concluded on Dr. Zulfiquar Mirza saga, there is a need to tell what public feels about it. Before discussing the above, few things about the political outfit which received Mirza’s scathing statements, need to be agreed.

This outfit has in the past and recent times, innumerably, been branded a fascist party which controls and derives its strength through striking fear in the hearts and minds of its people. It is an outfit that has and continues to strive and thrive on breeding terror, fear and hatred amongst people. Needless to mention some events such as torture and killing of an army captain, murder of an ex-governor Sindh, running militant wings within the outfit, May 12, 2007, April 9, 2008, and very recently the violence in Karachi which was a reaction to Mirza’s remarks at the dinner hosted by one of the members of Sindh Assembly. Most of us believe that the followers/supporters of this outfit live their lives like its hostages and are very afraid of admitting, openly, its innate firebrandedness.

Without commenting on the motives of Mirza saga, we must have the courage to admit that whatever Mirza has said about this outfit only proves the above sentiments of people towards this outfit and he is the first person to have exposed this outfit in public that too with evidence which he is willing to give to the courts if asked.

I have considerable respect for a person who has done things in the interest of his nation, especially when they are done by someone who has put all his super privileges and importantly his existence at stake. Moreover, if that person is from a party which is not even committed to unearth the murder of their own party leader.

Apolitical people of this country have hailed Mirza’s courage, which by the passage of time, be emulated by many others.

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

2009-03-17T00:22:00.008+05:00

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. ~Gandhi

I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles; but today it means getting along with people.
~ Gandhi.

If you have power to dream, you have power to make dreams come true. (Unknown)

Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men. ~Goethe

A Pakistani lawyer throws a tear gas canister back to the police during clashes in Lahore, March 15, 2009.

The Lawyers’ Crusade

2008-06-01T14:20:00.004+06:00

By JAMES TRAUB | New York Times | 1st June 2008

In April, on the highway outside the little Punjabi town of Renala Khurd, Aitzaz Ahsan was waylaid by a crowd of seemingly deranged lawyers. The advocates, who wore black suits, white shirts and black ties, were not actually insane; they just seemed that way because they were so overcome with excitement at greeting the mastermind of Pakistan’s lawyers’ movement, perhaps the most consequential outpouring of liberal, democratic energy in the Islamic world in recent years. The 62-year-old Ahsan was on his way to address the bar association of Okara, 10 miles away, but the lawyers, and the farmers and shopkeepers gathered with them, were not about to let him leave. They boiled around the car, shouting slogans. “Who should our leaders be like?” they cried. “Like Aitzaz!” And, “How many are prepared to die for you?” “Countless! Countless!”

Pakistan’s lawyers were not, in fact, courting martyrdom, but their willingness to stand up for their convictions, and to suffer for them, has transformed their country’s legal and political landscape. After Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, demanded the resignation of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in March of last year, the lawyers boycotted the courts and held massive rallies across the country. The movement was managed by a small group led by Ahsan, a prominent legislator and one of Pakistan’s leading constitutional lawyers. Ahsan also took Chaudhry on as a client, and last July persuaded the Supreme Court to restore Chaudhry to the bench — an astonishing rebuke to Musharraf.

Pakistan, the lawyers’ movement and Ahsan have been through a great deal since then. Early last November, Musharraf declared martial law, deposing Chaudhry and 60 other judges and putting Ahsan and thousands of other lawyers into prison or under house arrest. The assassination of the popular opposition leader Benazir Bhutto seemed to leave the field clear for Musharraf to reassert his dominance. But in February of this year Musharraf’s party was routed in parliamentary elections, and Ahsan and his colleagues resumed agitating for the restoration of Chaudhry and the other judges. That’s what he was doing in Okara in April: keeping the heat not only on Musharraf but also on the new civilian government, some of whose members seemed less than happy at the prospect of a truly independent judiciary.

In fact, a man who had done so much to restore democratic government to Pakistan was now threatening the new, elected regime — in the name of democracy. What’s more, Ahsan was pointing the weapon of popular agitation at his own political party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose leader, Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, was dragging his feet on the restoration of the judiciary. The lawyers themselves were talking about a coming “train wreck”; so were nervous P.P.P. officials. But Ahsan was unfazed. “You can’t have a democracy without an independent judiciary,” he told me in one of a series of conversations across Pakistan earlier this year. “And you can certainly not construct a parliamentary structure on the debris of the judicial edifice.” Over the ensuing weeks, Zardari made and unmade a series of promises to restore the judges. A few weeks ago, Ahsan and the country’s lawyers voted to go back to the streets.

Pakistan has all the accouterments of democracy with, at least until recently, very few of the habits of thought or behavior upon which democracy depends. Along with India, from whose territory it was carved out in 1947, Pakistan inherited the English institutions of law, parliament, civil service and the like; judges even wore powdered wigs until about 30 years ago. But something went wrong from the very start. The scholar Stephen P. Cohen writes in his 2004 book, “The Idea of Pakistan,” that the country was conceived as a fortress or refuge from Hindu domination in India, putting security before individual rights. The “key power players,” Cohen argues, including the army, the bureaucrats and the political left, “wished Pakistan to be democratic, but they were not willing to make it so.” Other factions, including feudal landlords and Islamists, did not even wish it to be democratic.

But since Pakistan had a constitution, a judiciary, a parliament and an electoral commission, the country’s military rulers felt compelled to engage in a democratic dumb show, and they rarely failed to secure the active collaboration of the judiciary. When Gen. Ayub Khan overthrew a civilian government and annulled the constitution in 1958, the Supreme Court endorsed the act as a matter of “revolutionary legality.” In 1962, Khan promulgated a new constitution, which transferred many powers to himself as president. In the years to come, the courts would find rationales for superseding constitutions and for rigged elections and referendums; judges would actively collude with military officials against the political parties. A report by the International Crisis Group, which monitors conflict areas, describes Pakistan’s constitutional history as “a series of elaborate jurisprudential efforts to vindicate and facilitate military interventions into democratic politics.”

Aitzaz Ahsan (pronounced “AY-ti-zaz EH-sen”) grew up in this system. He comes from a prominent family in Lahore, a Mughal capital in what is now Punjab, Pakistan’s administrative and cultural heart; the spacious bungalow in which Ahsan lives and works was built by his grandfather in 1926. After the declaration of martial law last fall, he was held there under detention for four months, working out on his treadmill, writing resistance poetry and receiving occasional visitors said to be family members.

We had lunch on trays in his living room, followed by Swiss chocolates. Ahsan ate sparingly; he’s slender in a country where successful men are generally ample. He tends carefully to his appearance: even in the midst of a howling crowd, his elegantly styled mop of silver hair, parted just to the left of center, stays in perfect order. Ahsan has a deep and melodious voice that must work wonders in the courtroom; he speaks slowly and methodically in both English and Urdu. In his speech, his bearing and his restrained gestures, he has the equipoise of the well born. He is, at the same time, a youthful figure with something of the schoolboy’s sly, chaffing manner.

Like Jawaharlal Nehru, another silver-tongued barrister-activist, Ahsan studied at Cambridge, where he earned his law degree. Returning to Pakistan in 1967, he soon joined the Pakistan Peoples Party, which had been founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir’s father, and was widely considered the country’s most liberal and forward-looking party. Bhutto became president in 1971, and Ahsan, barely out of his 20s, was soon appointed a minister in the Punjab state government. In 1977, yet another military figure, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, overthrew the government, jailing Bhutto and ultimately executing him. Ahsan began defending hundreds of the journalists and party members whom Zia had imprisoned. “I became,” he told me, “a pain in the neck.” Ahsan — whose wife, Bushra, was herself a prominent activist — spent more than two years in Zia’s prisons. He put the time to good use by writing “The Indus Saga,” a book that argues that Pakistan derives its identity not from Islam, as the theocrats around Zia insisted, but rather from the confluence of “primordial” Central and South Asian cultures.

Soon after Zia was killed in a plane crash in 1988, power passed back to a civilian government led by Benazir Bhutto. Ahsan won a seat in Parliament and served as minister of law and of the interior, making him, he says, “virtually the deputy prime minister.” But Bhutto’s inexperience, her imperious manner and the constant interference of the army prevented the government from making much headway. After the president dissolved the government in 1990, Bhutto was replaced by Nawaz Sharif, who then, in classic Pakistani fashion, turned the courts on his political rivals. Ahsan defended both Benazir and Zardari (popularly known as “Mr. 10 Percent” for his reputation for supposedly taking a skim from big government contracts) in 14 cases, including, he says, “corruption against both,” and in Zardari’s case, “kidnapping, ransom and murder.”

Ahsan is almost recklessly outspoken about P.P.P. leaders, even though they are his own political patrons. He speaks admiringly of Benazir Bhutto’s courage and steadfastness but also points out with disdain that she viewed herself as the P.P.P.’s “life chairperson.” And he does not bother to conceal his dim view of Zardari. In the car, as we drove back through the night to Lahore, I asked him how many of the allegations of corruption he believed were justified. “Most of them,” Ahsan said, after a moment’s reflection. “The type of expenses that she had and he has are not from sources of income that can be lawfully explained and accounted for.”

In 1999, Pakistan’s messy democratic interval came to an end in the usual way, with a military coup, this time by General Musharraf. At first, Pakistanis welcomed the relief from chaotic and ineffective civilian government. But Musharraf’s appeal began to wear thin as he rigged elections and rewrote the constitution almost at will, cozied up to the Islamist political parties and, at the same time, made himself America’s front-line ally in the war on terror. But Musharraf might have faced no threat to his continued rule had he not tried to fire Justice Chaudhry on March 9, 2007.

Though a country lawyer who lacked the polish of Ahsan and his ilk, Chaudhry had become something very unusual in Pakistan — an activist judge. He had used his power to hear cases suo moto — on his own motion — in order to take on controversial cases involving, for example, women’s rights and sensitive property issues. Though Musharraf later accused the judge — on very flimsy evidence — of releasing terror suspects, at the time he and others in the Pakistani elite saw Chaudhry as a judicial crusader who had set himself against the government, most notably by nullifying a deal to privatize a major steel company. He was not so much a threat as an extremely vexing gadfly. The president ordered the chief justice to come to an army office and, in the presence of the country’s highest intelligence officials, ordered him to step down. Musharraf had forcibly retired other judges before; so, for that matter, though more circumspectly, had Nawaz Sharif. And the judges had gone quietly. But Justice Chaudhry refused; and he did so, in effect, on television.

The confrontation came at a moment when the leaders of the two major parties were languishing in exile; there was no one of stature to oppose the increasingly unpopular dictator. And after so many years of feeding on cynicism, Pakistanis were almost palpably hungry for genuine heroes. The whole country seemed to follow the Chaudhry story as the chief justice was browbeaten for hours and then, emerging from his ordeal, shoved into a car to be sent to house arrest. Here was a narrative that instantly lent itself to allegory. As Ahsan says, “There have been corrupt and vile chief justices in the past, but he seemed to be a prince — the prince who challenges authority, defies his executioners and was prepared to go to the gallows holding his head up.”

The response was astonishing. When, eight weeks after the drama, Ahsan drove Chaudhry from Islamabad to Lahore, tens of thousands of people lined the streets; the 150-mile trip took 26 hours, and every minute was covered live on television. Ahsan, a seasoned politician as much as an advocate, quickly grasped that he could use the power of public opinion to give the timid judges of the Supreme Court the courage to stand up to Musharraf. For the next three months, he and Chaudhry crisscrossed the country by car, with Ahsan addressing the delirious crowds and the chief justice carefully limiting himself to high-minded speeches to his fellow lawyers.

And it worked. On July 20, the Supreme Court ruled that Musharraf had deprived the chief justice of office in violation of the constitution, which vested such powers in the judiciary, not in the executive. It was a historic victory. Malik Saeed Hassan, a retired judge of the Lahore High Court, a venerable figure who began practicing law in the late 1950s, told me that the decision constituted “the first victory over military authority in 60 years.” With perhaps a trace of hyperbole, Hassan compared the spectacle of Musharraf grudgingly allowing Chaudhry’s return to King John accepting Magna Carta.

In late September, Musharraf filed his candidacy for the presidential election to be held the following week. As the army’s chief of staff, Musharraf was in violation of a constitutional rule prohibiting the president from holding another office. He took care of this problem with a 2002 referendum that allowed him to serve for five years; but that period had now lapsed. Nevertheless, Musharraf was refusing to remove his uniform. Ahsan petitioned the Supreme Court — headed once again by Chaudhry — to declare Musharraf’s candidacy invalid. The court allowed the election to proceed, and Musharraf won; but the court also retained for itself the option of finding the election legally invalid. On Nov. 3, with the court poised to deliver a verdict that Musharraf must have feared would be negative, the general declared martial law.

People who knew Pakistan well were taken aback by the lawyers’ movement. Stephen Cohen, the Pakistan scholar, admits that he “misjudged” the country’s commitment to constitutional principles. In his 2004 book on Pakistan, he wrote, “While Pakistan’s Islamists have enthusiastically cultivated international ties and contributed much to Islamist thinking . . . Pakistan is an ideological ghetto, especially as far as its liberals are concerned.” But there truly was a liberal tradition in Pakistan, buried beneath six decades of dictatorship, corruption and religious extremism. I was struck by the deep sense of embarrassment, even shame, that many Pakistanis feel over their political and economic failures, and their sense of resentment about being viewed in the West as an Islamic autocracy. “We are and very much remain,” Ahsan says, “a South Asian Muslim country, sharing aspirations and history with India — due process, habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari. We are not a Middle Eastern Arab Muslim country.”

The movement to restore Chaudhry, and the constitution, and the rule of law, held out the hope of disinterring the liberal tradition. In a country where politics taint everything, many of the lawyers were independents. Pakistan’s bar associations were among the few bodies that had consistently selected their leaders through democratic elections; and the country’s 116,000 lawyers had chosen through their bar associations to commit themselves to protest. Ahsan was not then an officeholder, but he worked alongside the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Munir Malik, and Tariq Mahmood, a former judge who had quit rather than accept Musharraf’s blatant rigging of the 2002 referendum. Years of disappointment had made Pakistanis cynical about politics and public life, but these were men whose integrity put them beyond question.

The lawyers see themselves as the custodians of Pakistan’s liberal traditions. Many of the advocates I spoke with in Islamabad and Lahore, and in smaller towns in Punjab and Sindh, had been involved in the struggle against authoritarian rule since as far back as the 1960s and the era of Ayub Khan. Some had been jailed by Ayub, others by Zia or even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, himself a lawyer but no friend of civil liberties.

I spent one morning at the Lahore High Court, where Aitzaz Ahsan has been practicing for 40 years. The High Court is a splendid compound of tawny brick, trellised arches, glittering domes — an incarnation of the Anglo-Indian tradition. The High Court Bar Association occupies a courtyard at the center of the compound. Between cases the lawyers, as well as venerated elders like Malik Saeed Hassan, camp out in the Bar Room, a dilapidated lounge with sticky benches and tables (where tea rather than alcohol is served), and in the paved brick courtyard, dominated by a great, spreading banyan tree.

The advocates spoke of last year’s epic confrontations as if they were the scenes of a democratic passion play: March 9; July 20; and then Nov. 3, “a dark day in our history,” when Musharraf declared martial law. The lawyers had borne the brunt of the general’s wrath, as they did earlier in the year. Abdul Hayee Gilani, sitting in the courtyard with two colleagues over endless cups of tea, described in detail how, on March 17, 2007, the police invaded the sacred precincts of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, trashing the place and even raining bricks down from a parapet. But that was only a prelude. On Nov. 5, Gilani said, the police executed “the most brutal attack on this compound since the creation of the High Court in 1893.” Lawyers, including women and the elderly and infirm, were manhandled and beaten. Over the ensuing days, more than 500 members of the bar were arrested; many were sent to remote jails beyond the easy reach of families and then denied the routine right to receive food and bedding from home.

Since that time, the lawyers in Lahore, like those all over the country, have boycotted the courts, refusing to appear before the judges who took the places of those Musharraf fired. Many have exhausted their resources. Mohammad Azhar Siddique, a 41-year-old lawyer who served as Ahsan’s traveling sidekick and press attaché, said flatly, “I’m penniless.” He hadn’t paid the rent in months, and he pulled his second-youngest child out of private school. But, he added grimly, “I’m not going to compromise.” The lawyers’ anger and pride, their sense of the righteousness of the struggle, still burned brightly. Gilani said that he and his friends were fully prepared to return to the streets if that’s what Aitzaz Ahsan told them to do. “He organized the crowds and the bar associations,” Gilani said. “It was through his brainchild that we gained the confidence of the people.”

On the morning flight from Karachi to Sukkur, a city in the southern province of Sindh where the Pakistan Peoples Party high command was going for an annual pilgrimage to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s grave site — now that of his daughter as well — Ahsan was approached by Farooq Naik, the law minister and a party leader. Naik, according to Ahsan, asked him to mute his harsh criticism of Zardari and the party. Zardari had reached an agreement with Nawaz Sharif to reinstate the judges within 30 days of the formation of the new government, and Naik implored Ahsan to show some faith and trust. Ahsan agreed to act as if he accepted their bona fides, though he didn’t altogether. He says he believed that Zardari feared that Chaudhry and other apolitical judges might restore some of the cases against him that had been summarily dismissed. Beyond that, he recognized that the P.P.P. was itself a feudal and only marginally democratic body led by a figure accused of corruption and violence. Zardari, Ahsan told me flatly, “doesn’t want independent judges. He wants dependent judges.”

Ahsan and the lawyers no longer had the commanding position they enjoyed in 2007, when they alone stood up against Musharraf. And they had committed the serious tactical mistake of boycotting the parliamentary election, which they predicted that Musharraf would once again rig. The lawyers seemed to have mistaken themselves for a political party rather than a political force. “Lawyers have no right to decide whether to participate or not,” as Tariq Mahmood, the former judge, said to me. Ahsan opposed the election boycott, but he seems to have felt, perhaps mistakenly, that he had to honor it. He had been allotted a constituency but chose not to run, a decision that infuriated P.P.P. loyalists. The election turned out to be surprisingly honest, and the P.P.P. and Nawaz Sharif’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, won an impressive victory despite the fact that Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated (leaving the party in the hands of her unpopular husband) and the fact that Nawaz Sharif had not been permitted to return to Pakistan from exile until immediately before the election. The P.M.L.-N, in particular, far exceeded expectations — because, it was widely believed, the party had made the restoration of the judges its top priority.

After the election, the lawyers returned to the streets, declaring a “black flag” week to press their demand for the restoration of the judges. But did Pakistan really still need protest politics now that it finally had a democratically elected government? What’s more, that government had formally embraced the cause for which the lawyers had fought. Some of the civil-society activists who rejoiced at the lawyers’ movement were appalled to hear Ahsan threaten to embark on a “long march” across Pakistan if Parliament failed to bring the judges back within 30 days. “A protest,” said Samina Ahmed, the director of the International Crisis Group’s Pakistan office, “would endanger the credibility and the stability of a democratically elected government in its infancy.” The lawyers’ movement, she said, had lost perspective: “The lawyers have played an essential role, but it is one lobbying group, and it must operate inside a democratic framework.”

Ahsan seemed quite blithe about these concerns. When I asked if he worried that the lawyers could be blamed for splitting the fragile coalition, he said, “If the party doesn’t act, it will force a debate inside the party, and that would be a good thing.” That night he pushed Zardari hard at the party’s conclave near the Bhutto family grave site; Zardari pushed back, insisting, according to Raja Adil Bashir, a party official, that the lawyers “should not try to threaten the government.” And Ahsan kept up the public pressure. That’s why he visited Okara and then the larger city of Sahiwal; both were on the planned route of the Long March.

He had promised the law minister to sideline Justice Chaudhry and to keep a lower profile. But the crowds thronging the markets of both cities were very large and very noisy. Ahsan stood up through the sun roof of his S.U.V. and waved, while men standing on the ledge of a mosque showered him with a great cascade of rose petals. As many as a dozen lawyers hung on to either side of the car as it crawled along. A drummer sent up a tattoo, firecrackers banged, men danced in the street. People shouted “Musharraf is a dog!” and “Go, Musharraf, go!” and “Countless! Countless!” Members of an armed police unit, wearing T-shirts that read “No Fear,” trotted alongside.

The lawyers of Okara were fired up; in Sahiwal, they were feverish. The scrum at the door of the bar association was so violent that the man in front of me was slammed into a plate-glass window, which then shattered. Ishtaq Ahmed, a lawyer with a close-shaved beard, explained the mood to me. “Here we have suffered more than any place,” he said. “During our demonstrations, petrol was sprinkled and lawyers were put on fire. We had 50 injuries, five serious.”

They had been boycotting the courts since the day Musharraf confronted Justice Chaudhry. After the head of the bar association furiously recited the litany of their suffering, Ahsan spoke in his calm, inspirational manner about the battle they had waged against Musharraf. He conscientiously steered clear of his own party. Only at the very end of his 75-minute oration did he wax passionate, chanting a protest poem he wrote while in detention, pausing to let his listeners roar back the lines they had all come to know. Ahsan cross-examined me on the way home. Had I noticed the enthusiasm of ordinary people? Had I seen them standing on the highway and waving and smiling from the shops? “That,” he said, “is the resource we want should there be a Long March.”

And then, a few days later, the pent-up anger and restlessness boiled over in a way that seemed to jeopardize the Long March and everything else. On April 8, a mob of lawyers in Lahore gathered outside an office building in which Sher Afgan Niazi, a despised Musharraf loyalist, was visiting his own lawyer. When he finally emerged, after five hours, Sher Afgan was cuffed and punched by the mob. Here was a televised image to wipe out all those fine scenes of self-control from last summer. Senior lawyers like Tariq Mahmood were aghast. The lawyers’ vaunted moral authority seemed to have dissolved in a spasm of outrage. Who would listen to them now?

The only one who wasn’t worried seemed to be Aitzaz Ahsan. He was ill that day, and when he awoke from a nap to see the appalling pictures of lawyers armed with eggs and tomatoes, he rushed to the scene. He addressed the lawyers and admonished them to put down their missiles. He had arranged to have an ambulance pull up to the front door, and he took a trembling Sher Afgan in his arms and brought him outside. Then everything went haywire: the feeble police cordon broke, and the ambulance driver vanished. That, he conceded, was a terrifying moment. But he clambered up on top of the vehicle and ordered the lawyers to push it to safety. And they complied. It was the nonlawyers in the crowd — provocateurs, it now seemed — who manhandled Sher Afgan. And they, too, were captured on TV.

By the time I saw Ahsan in his Islamabad home the next night, he had been interviewed dozens of times, and his narrative had begun to carry the day. He did one more phone interview, watching the news program at the same time, somehow concentrating while his voice emerged several seconds later. He was a media virtuoso, in his element. We talked when the show ended. “The lawyers have emerged more unified than ever,” he insisted. “And I have become much more famous.” The thought tickled both his vanity and his sense of irony. “I’m being treated,” he said, “like the policeman who’s rescued the cat from the tree.”

Almost everyone I met in Pakistan asked me some version of the question, “Why is America against Pakistan’s democracy?” It wasn’t easy to come up with a good answer. President Bush had, after all, grandly declared in his second inaugural address that the United States would “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.” A mass movement seeking the return of constitutional rule in an Islamic nation would seem to be the answer to the president’s clarion call. And yet the Bush administration had neither publicly nor privately backed the movement to restore the judiciary. American officials offer several explanations. “It’s a sequencing issue,” one senior official explains: Musharraf was to be carefully coaxed to make concessions he could live with, like inviting Benazir Bhutto back from exile and ultimately holding democratic elections. Musharraf could not live with Chaudhry, whose very name induced a fit of spleen. “We didn’t want to see Musharraf humiliated,” as this official, who requested anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss policy formation, says. And the administration feared triggering any process that might lead to the ouster of the general, who had proved willing to wage the war on terror on American terms. Another way of looking at it was that the imperative of the war on terror had trumped the imperative of democracy promotion.

Once the election demonstrated how very unpopular Musharraf was, the American strategy shifted from preserving his authority to ensuring an orderly transition. This still meant sidelining Justice Chaudhry, who would, in all likelihood, resume hearing the case the lawyers filed against Musharraf and quite possibly force him to step down as president. Senior American officials pointedly declined to join the call to reinstate the chief justice. The Americans were widely believed to be quietly encouraging both Musharraf’s allies and Pakistan Peoples Party officials to find a face-saving formula, including shortening the chief justice’s tenure in office or pensioning him off to an ambassadorship. Tariq Mahmood told me that when Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, obliquely suggested to him that an opening might be found for Chaudhry somewhere in the international bureaucracy, he found himself wondering whether he was being asked to offer a bribe to the chief justice of Pakistan. (Patterson declined to comment.) Mahmood told me he described the five-month-long detention of Chaudhry and his family — for which no legal order had been issued — and asked, “Madame, can you conceive as an American that this could happen in your country?” The lawyers were insisting on democratic principles in the face of American realpolitik.

The chief justice had become a political shuttlecock. Both the Bush administration and the P.P.P. would have liked to bat him down but could not publicly say so. The P.M.L.-N wanted to keep him aloft, both because it had vowed to do so and because Nawaz Sharif, who as prime minister had trampled on civil liberties, would be delighted to position himself as the champion of democracy against a reluctant or double-dealing Zardari. (A quick restoration of the judges might also remove some legal obstacles to Sharif’s political ascent.) Throughout April and into May, the two parties and their leaders engaged in a series of floating negotiations, in Dubai and London as well as Pakistan. Would the judges be brought back right away, with a simple parliamentary resolution, or later, as part of a larger package of constitutional reforms whose fate was uncertain? Would their tenure be curtailed? Would the judges who replaced them and took Musharraf’s oath remain in office? Zardari finally dug in his heels and refused to permit a swift and unambiguous return to office; perhaps he had never intended to make such a concession. The P.M.L.-N withdrew its ministers from the coalition government. And the national bar association, meeting two weeks ago at the Lahore High Court, decided that on June 10 — in what could be 120-degree heat, in their black suits — they would begin the Long March from Multan, in southern Punjab, through Okara and Sahiwal and onward to Islamabad.

I spoke to Ahsan by phone a few days later. He had decided not to contest a by-election slated for this summer. He had decisively chosen movement politics over party politics, and perhaps he was happiest there. Zardari and the P.P.P. seemed to have increasingly thrown in their lot with Musharraf, appointing allies of the president to key posts. Ahsan wasn’t worried that a new round of protests, this time directed in part at his own party, would divide the country. “There’s enormous popular support for my position,” he said. And he was, as ever, blithe in the face of confrontation. “I’m comfortable,” he reported from his home in Lahore. “I have no problem.”

James Traub, a contributing writer, is author of “The Freedom Agenda: Why America Must Spread Democracy,” coming in September.

[www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/magazine/01PAKISTAN-t.html]

Our only hope...

2008-05-17T01:08:00.000+05:00

Lord why have you forsaken us?...

2008-05-17T01:04:00.003+05:00

This is happens when there is no law and order and people have no faith on police and judiciary.

2008-05-17T00:59:00.001+05:00

Walk for the Restoration of Judiciary on 8th May

2008-05-07T00:56:00.001+05:00

Peoples Resistance shall hold a demonstration for Restoration of Judiciary on Thursday May 8th, 2008, at 6:15 pm at Khadda Market DHA (in front of Rahat milk shop). Participants will walk down to the Legal Chief Justice of SHC, Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed’s house for a 30 minute protest.

PR expresses its disappointment that this important issue has not been addressed as promised. This protest acquires even more significance in view of the increasingly lesser chances of a solution by the 12th of May. Fakhruddin G Ibrahim opting out in protest from the core mediating body in Islamabad and the postponement of the bye-elections all have added to the crisis. We would like to reiterate the demand for urgent and unconditional restoration of judiciary.

All concerned citizens /groups are requested to join and show solidarity for the cause of restoration of original judges.

People’s Resistance is a coalition of students, teachers, NGOs, journalists and citizens concerned with restoration of judiciary, freedom of media and restoration of constitution. Bring banners, placards, flags, T-shirts and your friends!

All those in Karachi are requested to join. Please inform all your friends in Karachi.

Date: Thursday 8th May 2008
Location: Khada Market DHA (in front of Rahat Milk Shop)
Time: 6:15 sharp
Facebook Event: Walk for the Restoration of Judiciary - May 8th

[Courtesy Teeth.com.pk]

Breaking News: Dubai talks failed or succeeded!!!

2008-05-01T18:29:00.005+05:00

It has been reported now that Dubai talks between PMLN and PPP have ended and according to Nawaz Sharif both parties have reached to an agreement and in principle it has been decided that the deposed Judges be reinstated through a resolution not through any constitutional package. BBC reports :http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/

While asserting the above, Nawaz has said that formal announcement regarding the talks would be made on Friday the 2nd of May in Lahore, there are still some doubts; i) why did Asif Zardari leave before the talks concluded? ii) why PPP members have been meeting foreign delegates throughout these talks? iii) who exactly were these delegates and what were they discussing with them? iv) why Farooq H Naik was putting his words in Nawaz's mouth while Nawaz was addressing the media? v) why Nawaz Sharif would be making an announcement tomorrow why not the coalition i.e. a joint announcement? and vi) why Asif Zardari has not spoken to media since these talks started?.

Are we still being fooled by these politicians like they did when Murree and Bhurban declarations were being signed?

This will and must spread...

2008-05-01T15:01:00.002+05:00

Pakistani lawyers and political activists burning effigies of President Pervez Musharraf and politicians during a protest in on April 30, 2008 and demanding the reinstatement of judges sacked by Musharraf.

Walk in Karachi for Judiciary - 6 pm, 30th April at Dalton Market DHA

2008-04-30T10:10:00.005+05:00

Peoples Resistance shall hold a demonstration for restoration of judiciary on Wednesday April 30, 2008, at 6 pm at Dalton Market DHA, (in front of Rahat milk shop). Participants will walk down to the Legal Chief Justice of SHC, Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed’s house for a 30 minute protest.

PR expresses its disappointment that this important issue has not been addressed as promised and would like to reiterate the demand for urgent and unconditional restoration of judiciary. April 30th is the last day of 30-day period committed by two major political parties in Bhurban Declaration for the resolution of this issue.

All concerned citizens /groups are requested to join and show solidarity for the cause of restoration of original judges.

People’s Resistance is a coalition of students, teachers, NGOs, journalists and citizens concerned with restoration of judiciary, freedom of media and restoration of constitution.

Bring banners, placards, flags, T-shirts and your friends!
In a rare quirk of fate if the judiciary is restored on that day, we will mark it as a celebration!

All those in Karachi are requested to join. Please inform all your friends in Karachi.

[Courtesy www.teeth.com.pk]

PPP, PML-N talks fail over judges' restoration

2008-04-29T17:12:00.000+05:00

ISLAMABAD ( 2008-04-29 14:25:47 ) : Talks between the two major ruling coalition partners on Tuesday failed to break the impasse over the restoration of judges.

Co-chairman, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Asif Ali Zardari's and president Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) Shahbaz Sharif held talks at Zardari's residence in Dubai but could not come to any conclusion on the issue.

PML-N members have avoided media to tell the detail of talks.

On Monday the two sides had a marathon session spread over several hours before they left the talks inconclusive prior to the dinner.

The deadlock was reportedly on linkage of the resolution for judges' restoration with the constitutional package for the judiciary, and the PPP was not ready to take the two, separately.

On the other hand, the PML-N also refused to get the two - resolution and constitutional package - linked and made it clear to the PPP that the resolution and the constitutional package were two separate things and both must be treated separately.

Further, there was a deadlock on the constitutional package too, as the PML-N was opposed to slashing down the tenure of the judges and simply wanted the restoration of the superior courts judges to pre-November 3 position. But PPP wanted to get the resolution linked with the constitutional package and insisted that the two should be tabled simultaneously in the Lower House of Parliament.

The proposals formulated by the seven-member committee from two sides to hammer out differences on the issue, were discussed between Asif Zardari and Shahbaz Sharif. But, having failed to break the ice, the two sides left the negotiating table empty handed, said sources privy to the talks.

[Courtesy AAJ TV]

No Amry man has ever left willingly...it takes something drastic

2008-04-28T10:39:00.000+05:00

Reality of Musharraf's 8 years prosperity...

2008-04-28T10:35:00.003+05:00

Judges issue won't break Pakistan coalition says Sharif - By Kamran Haider

2008-04-23T01:47:00.002+05:00

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Leaders of Pakistan's ruling coalition vowed on Tuesday to honor a commitment to reinstate judges dismissed by President Pervez Musharraf and said any differences over the issue would not break their alliance.

"The desire of those who think this coalition should break up will go unfulfilled," former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said as he stood alongside Pakistan People's Party leader Asif Ali Zardari at a joint news conference in Islamabad.

Neither Sharif or Zardari, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, hold any government office, but they lead the two largest parties in a coalition that took power in March.

They formed a post-election alliance after defeating Musharraf's political allies in a February 18 vote.

Zardari, whose PPP leads the government, signed an accord with Sharif last month committing to the reinstatement of around 60 judges dismissed by Musharraf after imposing emergency rule in November.

Restored judges could revive challenges to Musharraf's re-election by the last parliament while still army chief.

Having removed Musharraf's parliamentary support they now aim to amend the constitution to strip him of presidential powers to dismiss...complete story @ reuters.com

Parliamentary sovereignty… a fine notion - Ayaz Amir

2008-04-23T01:39:00.001+05:00

And so far in this blessed country, where form has always reigned over substance, parliamentary sovereignty is just that: a fine notion, to be spoken of in thundering terms. That's about it. In actual practice it is rather a threadbare notion. You would expect the members of this 'sovereign' National Assembly to be well-informed about the nation's affairs. They are certainly not better informed than newsmen.

Ask most of the members and perhaps most of them wouldn't have a clue about what's really cooking over the judges' issue. They get their information from the newspapers and newspapers too, such being the standards of reporting, can be dodgy, the headlines suggesting one thing while deep in the story would lie buried something completely different.

Take the recent meeting between Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif in Islamabad to discuss the restoration of the deposed judges. The headlines said unambiguously that they were in complete agreement and that they had reiterated their commitment to the Bhurban declaration or accord. But the later paragraphs of the same story suggested that no agreement had been struck on the actual mechanics of getting the legitimate Supreme Court, and high courts, back.

Every time I now hear about another reiteration of commitment to the Bhurban accord I feel like wiping my nose, or reaching for my gun. Why is the National Assembly, attired in the robes of its yet-to-be-proven sovereignty, being so foolish? Restoring the rightful Supreme Court is not a matter of partisan politics, although this is what many in the PPP seem convinced of, that the judges' issue deep down is a conspiracy between the PML-N and My Lord Chaudhry.

We are familiar with silly things but this takes the cake. No, it is not a partisan issue. It concerns all of us and, on the pragmatic plane, it concerns the National Assembly most of all because the sovereignty of the National Assembly will remain a pipedream unless buttressed by an independent and powerful judiciary.

There was a time, lasting for much of our history, when there was a compact between generals and judges and together they made a fine thing of our democracy. Today we have a chance to build something new: a compact between the judiciary and parliament.

This will not open the floodgates of prosperity. Let's not kid ourselves on that score. But it will be good for democracy and that is something worth striving for because with all its shortcomings democracy is a whole lot better than the rotten military dictatorships we have endured.

If the political leadership doesn't get this, if it doesn't grasp the importance of an independent judiciary, then God help us. The stories we are getting to read about committees to examine the judges' issue, the seniority of Justice Falak Sher over the seniority of My Lord Chaudhry, are getting a bit too much because even if most of these stories amount to kite-flying, they at least suggest that there are worthies uneasy at the prospect of seeing Justice Chaudhry back in the Supreme Court.

The word conspiracy is much in vogue these days. Anything happens and it is put down to a conspiracy. But on the judges' issue if there is any conspiracy to see the last of Justice Chaudhry and ensure that he doesn't stay long in the Supreme Court it is arising not from the walls behind which the once-powerful generalissimo, President Pervez Musharraf, lies besieged but from the redoubts of democracy. Ironic but grimly true. Justice Chaudhry and his brother judges may be popular with the masses. Alas, they are not so popular with the political class or with the political leadership.

For obvious reasons I am drawing no distinction between the PPP and the PML-N but when I say the political leadership I think my meaning is pretty clear.

In an email from distant Singapore Dr Noeen Arshad makes a rather telling point: "I have…noted that even since Feb 18 elections, there is directly or indirectly a mention of Musharraf in your articles. Agreed he was bad for the country. But do we have to keep on talking about him all the time? I am sure you will agree that even if one talks in negative of another it means that the person is on one's mind. Let's get him off our minds, let's not talk about him…I just hope that we have learnt from our mistakes and I would not like to read about the present government in future like we read about Musharraf today!!"

Touche! Musharraf did what he did and he is paying the price of his many failures. But now the reins of power are in different hands. How long do we propose living in the past? We should now be asking ourselves what Bastille walls have we pulled down, what bright morn are we ushering in?

The judges' issue may be taking forever but how quick the new interior boss, Herr Rehman Malik, has been with a measure which, had it been proposed during the Musharraf era, would have triggered a national uproar. As you must have read in the papers, anyone wanting to hold a public meeting or take out a rally would have to seek permission three days in advance. Provincial governments, we are informed, have also been asked to select a 'people's corner' in every tehsil and district headquarters where public meetings will be held on a 'first come first serve' basis.

You might have thought that such a sweeping measure, which amounts to restricting political activity, would have been debated in the sovereign National Assembly. But the sovereign National Assembly heard about it on the evening news or read about it in next morning's newspapers.

As I say, had anything like it been mooted before Feb 18 all hell would have broken loose, column writers and TV anchors going blue in the face denouncing another draconian (another word we have fallen in love with) measure. But since we have stepped into another era of democracy our reaction, I guess, will be more restrained.

Anyway, does the permission clause mean that if another Bushra with her two minor kids, driven to despair by poverty, lies down in the path of an incoming train in order to put an end to her miserable life, and if, on account of this, the people of her locality, also children of despair, are roused to fury, they would first have to put in a request to their local police station before taking out a rally? Or would they be expected to travel to their 'People's Corner' at tehsil headquarters, there to deliver angry speeches?

One Abdul Basit died the other day in Lahore because of police torture. This happened in the Baghbanpura police station. Incensed, as they had every right to be, the people of the locality came out to protest. They beat two policemen in plainclothes and burnt their motorcycle. What else could they do? On what or whom else could they have vented their anger? But under the new Herr Rehman decree people like the incensed citizens of Baghbanpura would have to give three day's prior notice before taking out a procession.

I think no provincial government, except perhaps the good government of Syed Qaim Ali Shah in Sindh, will be silly enough to go along with this exercise in creative fancy. Be that as it may, it surely deserves some kind of a prize for unintended comedy.

I think the most momentous event in the country since Feb 18 has been the suicide of Bushra and her two minor kids because it tells us of what we truly are and what we pretend or profess to be. I am sure it will shake none of us out of our complacency. But such things are taken note of in the skies above. Such are the events that drive the avenging angels to fury.

The prime minister went to Bushra's house, or the hovel that passes for her parent's house, bearing a gift of two lakh rupees. At least he went there which is more than can be said of those who occupied high office during the past eight years when suicides as a result of poverty became a pretty frequent affair.

But I liked what Bushra's father said before the television cameras: to how many people will you go giving one or two lakh rupees? The more important thing is to do something about inflation. A professor of economics could not have put it more succinctly. There was pain on his face as he said this but, surprisingly, not much bitterness in his tone.

I am reading a life of the young Stalin. Stalin too grew up in poverty. The question to ask is why the conditions of life in Tsarist Russia produced a Stalin, and so many others like him, and why with us, poverty and oppression give rise only to acceptance and resignation…and endless visits to mazars and khanqahs, of which we have more than any other country in the world.

[Courtesy THE NEWS]

Judges must be restored - By Dr Rubina Saigol

2008-04-23T01:29:00.000+05:00

THE post-election public euphoria, and bonhomie among political parties, seems to have given way to a sense of foreboding and a feeling of dismay.

The news from various quarters in recent days is disturbing and reinforces the fear that palace intrigues, combined with pressure from powerful countries, may have finally managed to ‘soften the target’ to use a favourite military euphemism for bombing and killing. The vocabulary of some of the political actors seems to have dangerously metamorphosed following the visits of John Negroponte and Richard Boucher.

First, the defence minister reportedly described Pervez Musharraf as ‘a national asset’ who is good for Pakistan and someone with whom the political forces can work. Then one read about Asif Zardari’s tirade against the deposed judges for not allowing him any reprieve during his incarceration

This was preceded by reinvigorated ties with the MQM and its chief Altaf Hussain, and according to news reports Mr Zardari wanted Nine Zero to be accessible to Bilawal. Later, relations between the two parties soured somewhat. Accompanying all these actions was a news item that the judges would be restored according to a constitutional package in which they would be scrutinised. Amid rumours of restoring some and not all the judges such news items led to anxiety among those waiting to see the implementation of the Bhurban accord in its full spirit.

Lately, PPP sources have sought to dispel misgivings on this count by stating that a draft resolution for the reinstatement of all judges was ready and would be presented in the National Assembly soon. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of confusion around the restoration of the judges and the future of Pervez Musharraf. Some of it seems to have been deliberately created to obscure the real issues haunting the nation.

First, let us take the issue of the judges to understand why all of them must be reinstated. The issue of the judiciary is not about one man or a few men, for men come and go while institutions continue. The judicial issue is about the institution, its integrity and its independence. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is the symbol of judicial freedom and his action of March 9, 2007, has come to stand for the independence of the judiciary.

Those who separate ‘independence of the judiciary’ from ‘restoration of the judges’ simply miss the point. Such people argue that they are not interested in ‘personalities’ but in the independence of the institution. Institutions are made up of, and run by, persons who at certain points in history become signs and symbols representing the institution.

At this critical juncture of our history, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, irrespective of his personal foibles, has become infused with meaning — he has come to mean standing up to the establishment and being able to say ‘no’ to an array of uniformed interlocutors. If he is not restored fully and properly, along with the others who followed their conscience and refused to take dictation, a terrible precedent will be set. In future, the removal of non-pliant judges will become easier and more acceptable.

If the nation gives a resounding ‘no’ to the illegal removal of judges, and the mandate of the political parties suggests that the people have done just that, then the political parties must respect this verdict at the risk of losing their massive support. If the political parties fail the people, the latter may not only turn away from the parties, they may lose faith in the political process itself. This would be a real loss for the nation and its democratic development.

Although the news of a draft resolution for the judges’ reinstatement may allay doubts, there has also been confusion among politicians about whether or not a constitutional amendment was needed to restore the judges. The country’s leading lawyers, and a large number of former Supreme Court judges had already given their learned opinion, one can only add one’s layperson’s thoughts on this.

It seems very strange that illegal acts committed by one person would need a constitutional amendment in order to be undone. The illegal acts of any citizen are brought before a court of law and he/she is punished as per the Pakistan Penal Code.

But the spate of illegal acts by one person, whose power is derived from the barrel of a gun, would require a constitutional amendment to be reversed. This seems twisted and suggests that as long as a citizen carries arms and ammunitions, he may dismiss the entire court, make constitutional amendments, create his own court and the only way a legitimately elected Assembly can change all this is through a constitutional amendment. This is preposterous logic and clearly designed to create confusion in the minds of the people.

In other words, one man can make constitutional amendments without the lawful authority to do so, but the whole Assembly and the executive together cannot undo such illegal acts. So why have elections and a parliament or a cabinet? Why waste precious national resources on the paraphernalia of democratic institutions?

It does not make sense to an ordinary citizen why certain crimes cannot be taken cognisance of by a duly elected government. Even high school-level children know that only a duly elected legislature can make constitutional amendments, which is why the previous dictator-driven amendments had to be indemnified by the elected assemblies.

If one man can change the fundamental law of the land, and his hand-picked court put a stamp of approval on an act that benefits that court, then we do not need institutions that represent the will of the people as they become superfluous. If we accept this precedent today, at some future time any military adventurer who wants to usurp all parliamentary and executive powers, would simply need to impose an emergency cum martial law for a short period, remove all the judges, replace them with favoured ones, change the Constitution and there would be nothing to stop him. We will rue the day we accepted such a tradition.

It is imperative for Pervez Musharraf to leave the highly respected office of the president. This office represents the federation, the entire country. It must have legitimacy and acceptance by all the provinces and different shades of opinion. A man who violated the Constitution twice, and mangled and mutilated it single-handedly, cannot represent the nation. If the person at the helm of affairs violates the law how can one expect ordinary citizens to obey and follow it?

The retired general needs to be replaced by a person of honour willing to work according to the limited, ceremonial role of the president within the confines of the Constitution. This means that his powers under Article 58- 2(b) and the National Security Council need to be eliminated so that we can establish a system envisaged by the consensus social contract agreed upon in 1973.

[Coutesy: DAWN]

Blame Al Qaeda!!!

2008-04-20T21:40:00.001+05:00

European Union Election Observation Mission exposed MQM and PMLQ's rigging in 2008 elections

2008-04-20T21:19:00.006+05:00

EU Observation mission reports on the irregularities of 2008 elections specially MQM and PMLQ's abuse of government machinery and use of force in the elections

Click on link to view EU's findings: http://www.eueompakistan.org/

BBC's website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/04/080416_eu_observer_si.shtml

Express also reported on EU Report: http://express.com.pk/epaper/Article.aspx?newsID=1100389276&Date=20080417&Issue=NP_LHE

U.S. Military Seeks to Widen Pakistan Raids: New York Times

2008-04-20T21:09:00.001+05:00

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan’s government has given the Central Intelligence Agency limited authority to kill Arab and other foreign operatives in the tribal areas, using remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But administration officials say the Pakistani government has put far greater restrictions on American operations against indigenous Pakistani militant groups, including one thought to have been behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

American intelligence officials say that the threat emanating from Pakistan’s tribal areas is growing, and that Pakistani networks there have taken on an increasingly important role as an ally of Al Qaeda in plotting attacks against American and other allied troops in Afghanistan, and in helping foreign operatives plan attacks on targets in the West. The officials said the American military’s proposals included options for limited cross-border artillery strikes into Pakistan, missile attacks by Predator aircraft or raids by small teams of C.I.A. paramilitary forces or Special Operations ...full story @ http://www.nytimes.com

It was reported on TV channels that Musharraf is meeting his constitutional expert Sharif uddin Pirzada in Karachi late night. Can Pirzada save now?

2008-04-20T03:57:00.005+05:00

New Pak plan may leave Musharraf no option but to "bow out without facing impeachment": WebIndia

The new regime in Pakistan is learnt to devised its strategy last night to oust President Pervez Musharraf by bringing about constitutional changes that would 'curtail' Musharraf's powers.

Sources said that the constitutional changes were being prepared that would "so cripple (Musharraf's) authority in all respects" that he will have "no option but to bow out without facing impeachment".

Sources close to the PPP and the PML-N said last night that after the deletion of discretionary and other powers, "Musharraf is unlikely to continue while having such an insignificant role".

The changes would strip Musharraf of nearly all his discretionary powers, which sustain his hold on office - most importantly, the vital Article 58(2)(b) of the constitution that gives him the authority, at a whim, to dissolve parliament...full story @ http://news.webindia123.com

New Pak bill set to clip Musharraf's wings: NDTV

2008-04-20T03:52:00.000+05:00

Pakistan's new government is finalising a constitutional amendment bill to ensure the balance of power between the President and the Prime Minister, Law Minister Farooq Naek said on Saturday.

The law ministry is preparing the draft of the bill that is aimed at curbing President Pervez Musharraf's sweeping powers, including the power to dissolve the parliament and to dismiss the elected prime minister and his government, officials said.

Naek indicated that the proposed amendment bill will address presidential powers that were inserted in the sixth and seventh schedules of the Constitution through controversial amendments made by Musharraf after he assumed power in 1999.

The sixth schedule contains several laws that cannot be altered or repealed without the assent of the President, including the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance.

Though Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani had announced ...Full story @ http://www.ndtv.com

Mahleej or Maha Leech...

2008-04-19T00:32:00.015+05:00

Musharraf's legacy is to abuse our women either by rapes or encouraging them to wear bikinis, swimsuits or may be no clothes in his Sharaab and Ghazal mehfils...

[Photos above are to show how disgraceful and disrespectful it is to see our women in such outfits]

Just like in the West, female sex is exploited in the name on moderation and liberation. This lady named Mahleej Sarkari who was recently crowned Miss Pakistan 2007 in Toronto, Canada (and many more girls who think by showing their flesh they are liberated) recently said that “in Musharraf’s tenure women of Pakistan have been given a lot of rights. His contribution towards building a better image of Pakistan throughout the world has turned me into a huge fan of his. I truly admire, respect and love him for all he is worth.”

Mahleej declared in a TV programme that she loves Musharraf and wants to go out for a date with the President.

“I love Musharraf, I love Musharraf, I love Musharraf, and it would be an honour and privilege for me to meet him in person and talk to him. I like the President because he has a charming personality and a charisma that attracts me towards him,” the Daily Times quoted her as saying.

Mahleej should be reminded that in Musharraf's time Mukhtaran Mai was gang raped in 22 June, 2002 on the orders of a village council in the southern Punjab village of Meerwala in Pakistan.

Musharraf restricted her movements and Mukhtaran Mai's name was also added to the ECL list. Another lady Dr. Shazia was also raped in Musharraf's time and an Army Captain was alleged to have been the culprit. Musharraf stated in public that "no Army men is involved in this", despite the matter was sub-judice. Dr. Shazia was forced to withdraw her case and fled the country because of life threats to herself and her husband by the alleged Army Captain.

Musharraf visited the US and was asked by one of the newspapers about the growing abuse of weaker sex in Pakistan and Musharraf replied that "there is no such thing, it is just that nowadays in Pakistan women use these tactics to gain sympathy from Western world and the Western countries give asylum to such people on humanitarian grounds etc." Mehleej and all other people who believe that by participating in beauty pageants or by socializing like western females they have been bestowed upon rights that they were never given before, are living in fool’s paradise. They must know that emancipation of women and exploitation of women are two entirely different things. How many laws do we have in Pakistan that are favourable and protect our women in work environment (harassment laws), public places (hudood laws) and provide welfare benefits and protections. None. All the laws we have are against women and they are heavily favorable to the stronger sex.

Musharraf is the worst thing happened to us and by statements which Mahleej has given in favour of Musharraf again show that Musharraf is loved by wrong people and for very wrong reasons. No dignified person would ever praise Musharraf.

US 'lacks Pakistan terror policy': BBC

2008-04-18T17:41:00.000+05:00

A US report says that terrorists are still operating freely along the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.

It says that there is "no comprehensive plan" to deal with the threat, even though Pakistan has received $10.5bn in military and economic aid from the US.

The report was released by a government watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

US officials suspect that al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden and Taleban head Mullah Omar are in the border areas.

The GAO is the audit and investigative arm of the US Congress.

Its report said that more than six years after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the US still does not have a coherent plan to destroy the threat from Islamist militants.

It said that both the US ... Full story @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7353852.stm

Ms. Kashmala Tariq's photo taken while she arrived to attend NA session...The comment below says all!!

2008-04-18T00:33:00.006+05:00

khuda ki bandi ....kapray tu behtar pehan ...its showin waht she is ...for me its quite different cuz i admire her and i always saw her wearin FULL SLEEVES .........so this is real face of our MAZLOOM AORTO KI hamdard heheeh

[Source: http://www.buzzvines.com/kashmala-tariq-coming-attend-na-session]

Everyday there is a protest...legacy of PML-Q

2008-04-18T00:27:00.003+05:00

The Netherlands has shifted its embassy in the Pakistani capital to a luxury hotel because of security worries following the release of a film criticizing Islam.

US: Terrorists operating freely on Pakistan border - Associated Press

2008-04-18T00:14:00.002+05:00

By ANNE FLAHERTY | WASHINGTON (AP) — Terrorists are still operating freely in Pakistan along the country's Afghanistan border, despite the U.S. giving Pakistan more than $10.5 billion in military and economic aid, according to a government watchdog agency.

The Government Accountability Office says in a report released Thursday that the U.S. lacks a comprehensive plan to deal with the terrorist threat.

Democrats called the report appalling because of congressional mandates demanding the nation do more to coordinate efforts by federal agencies.

"For anyone wondering how we're doing in the fight to get the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, this report pretty much says it all," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

Some federal agencies, including the Defense Department, agreed with the findings. But the State Department disagreed, saying that a comprehensive strategy does exist and is being implemented.

Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the United States is dealing with the terrorist threat in Pakistan through a variety of means across political, economic and security fronts.

"We devote resources to health, education, economic development, political reform, as well as going after al-Qaida with the Pakistani security forces," Johndroe said. "This is going to be a long battle against a determined enemy and I can assure you that the president and his ...

Full story @ http://ap.google.com/article/

The Charter of Democracy

2008-04-17T14:36:00.001+05:00

We the elected leaders of Pakistan have deliberated on the political crisis in our beloved homeland, the threats to its survival, the erosion of the federation's unity, the military's subordination of all state institutions, the marginalisation of civil society, the mockery of the Constitution and representative institutions, growing poverty, unemployment and inequality, brutalisation of society, breakdown of rule of law and, the unprecedented hardships facing our people under a military dictatorship, which has pushed our beloved country to the brink of a total disaster;

Noting the most devastating and traumatic experiences that our nation experienced under military dictatorships that played havoc with the nation's destiny and created conditions disallowing the progress of our people and the flowering of democracy. Even after removal from office they undermined the people’s mandate and the sovereign will of the people;

Drawing history’s lesson that the military dictatorship and the nation cannot co-exist – as military involvement adversely affect the economy and the democratic institutions as well as the defence capabilities, and the integrity of the country - the nation needs a new direction different from a militaristic and regimental approach of the Bonapartist regimes, as the current one;

Taking serious exception to the vilification campaign against the representatives of the people, in particular, and the civilians, in general, the victimisation of political leaders/workers and their media trials under a Draconian law in the name of accountability, in order to divide and eliminate the representative political parties, to Gerrymander a king's party and concoct legitimacy to prolong the military rule;

Noting our responsibility to our people to set an alternative direction for the country saving it from its present predicaments on an economically sustainable, socially progressive, politically democratic and pluralist, federally cooperative, ideologically tolerant, internationally respectable and regionally peaceful basis in the larger interests of the peoples of Pakistan to decide once for all that only the people and no one else has the sovereign right to govern through their elected representatives, as conceived by the democrat par excellence, Father of the Nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah;

Reaffirming our commitment to undiluted democracy and universally recognised fundamental rights, the rights of a vibrant opposition, internal party democracy, ideological/political tolerance, bipartisan working of the parliament through powerful committee system, a cooperative federation with no discrimination against federating units, the decentralisation and devolution of power, maximum provincial autonomy, the empowerment of the people at the grassroots level, the emancipation of our people from poverty, ignorance, want and disease, the uplift of women and minorities, the elimination of klashnikov culture, a free and independent media, an independent judiciary, a neutral civil service, rule of law and merit, the settlement of disputes with the neighbours through peaceful means, honouring international contracts, laws/covenants and sovereign guarantees, so as to achieve a responsible and civilised status in the comity of nations through a foreign policy that suits our national interests;

Calling upon the people of Pakistan to join hands to save our motherland from the clutches of military dictatorship and to defend their fundamental, social, political and economic rights and for a democratic, federal, modern and progressive Pakistan as dreamt by the Founder of the nation; have adopted the following, “Charter of Democracy”;

A. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

1. The 1973 Constitution as on 12th October 1999 before the military coup shall be restored with the provisions of joint electorates, minorities, and women reserved seats on closed party list in the Parliament, the lowering of the voting age, and the increase in seats in parliament and the Legal Framework Order, 2000 and the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment shall be repealed accordingly.

2. The appointment of the governors, three services chiefs and the CJCSC shall be made by the chief executive who is the prime minister, as per the 1973 Constitution.

3. (a) The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: i. The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.

ii. The members of the commission shall be the chief justices of the provincial high courts who have not taken oath under the PCO, failing which the senior most judge of that high court who has not taken oath shall be the member

iii. Vice-Chairmen of Pakistan and Vice-Chairmen of Provincial Bar Association with respect to the appointment of judges to their concerned province

iv. President of Supreme Court Bar Association

v. Presidents of High Court Bar Associations of Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, and Quetta with respect to the appointment of judges to their concerned province

vi. Federal Minister for Law and Justice

vii. Attorney General of Pakistan

(a-i) The commission shall forward a panel of three names for each vacancy to the prime minister, who shall forward one name for confirmation to joint parliamentary committee for confirmation of the nomination through a transparent public hearing process.

(a-ii) The joint parliamentary committee shall comprise of 50 per cent members from the treasury benches and the remaining 50 per cent from opposition parties based on their strength in the parliament nominated by respective parliamentary leaders.

(b) No judge shall take oath under any Provisional Constitutional Order or any other oath that is contradictory to the exact language of the original oath prescribed in the Constitution of 1973.

(c) Administrative mechanism will be instituted for the prevention of misconduct, implementation of code of ethics, and removal of judges on such charges brought to its attention by any citizen through the proposed commission for appointment of Judges. (d) All special courts including anti-terrorism and accountability courts shall be abolished and such cases be tried in ordinary courts. Further to create a set of rules and procedures whereby, the arbitrary powers of the chief justices over the assignment of cases to various judges and the transfer of judges to various benches such powers shall be exercised by the Chief Justice and two senior most judges sitting together.

4. A Federal Constitutional Court will be set up to resolve constitutional issues, giving equal representation to each of the federating units, whose members may be judges or persons qualified to be judges of the Supreme Court, constituted for a six-year period. The Supreme and High Courts will hear regular civil and criminal cases. The appointment of judges shall be made in the same manner as for judges of higher judiciary.

5. The Concurrent List in the Constitution will be abolished. A new NFC award will be announced.

6. The reserved seats for women in the national and provincial assemblies will be allocated to the parties on the basis of the number of votes polled in the general elections by each party.

7. The strength of the Senate of Pakistan shall be increased to give representation to minorities in the Senate.

8. FATA shall be included in the NWFP province in consultation with them.

9. Northern Areas shall be developed by giving it a special status and further empowering the Northern Areas Legislative Council to provide people of Northern Areas access to justice and human rights.

10. Local bodies election will be held on party basis through provincial election commissions in respective provinces and constitutional protection will be given to the local bodies to make them autonomous and answerable to their respective assemblies as well as to the people through regular courts of law.

B. CODE OF CONDUCT

11. National Security Council will be abolished. Defence Cabinet Committee will be headed by prime minister and will have a permanent secretariat. The prime minister may appoint a federal security adviser to process intelligence reports for the prime minister. The efficacy of the higher defence and security structure, created two decades ago, will be reviewed. The Joint Services Command structure will be strengthened and made more effective and headed in rotation among the three services by law. 12. The ban on a ‘prime minister not being eligible for a third term of office’ will be abolished.

13. (a) Truth and Reconciliation Commission be established to acknowledge victims of torture, imprisonment, state-sponsored persecution, targeted legislation, and politically motivated accountability. The commission will also examine and report its findings on military coups and civil removals of governments from 1996.

(b) A commission shall also examine and identify the causes of and fix responsibility and make recommendations in the light thereof for incidences such as Kargil.

(c) Accountability of NAB and other Ehtesab operators to identify and hold accountable abuse of office by NAB operators through purgery and perversion of justice and violation of human rights since its establishment.

(d) To replace politically motivated NAB with an independent accountability commission, whose chairman shall be nominated by the prime minister in consultation with the leader of opposition and confirmed by a joint parliamentary committee with 50 per cent members from treasury benches and remaining 50 per cent from opposition parties in same manner as appointment of judges through transparent public hearing. The confirmed nominee shall meet the standard of political impartiality, judicial propriety, moderate views expressed through his judgements and would have not dealt.

14. The press and electronic media will be allowed its independence. Access to information will become law after parliamentary debate and public scrutiny.

15. The chairmen of public accounts committee in the national and provincial assemblies will be appointed by the leaders of opposition in the concerned assemblies.

16. An effective Nuclear Command and Control system under the Defence Cabinet Committee will be put in place to avoid any possibility of leakage or proliferation.

17. Peaceful relations with India and Afghanistan will be pursued without prejudice to outstanding disputes.

18. Kashmir dispute should be settled in accordance with the UN Resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

19. Governance will be improved to help the common citizen, by giving access to quality social services like education, health, job generation, curbing price hike, combating illegal redundancies, and curbing lavish spendings in civil and military establishments as ostentious causes great resentment amongst the teeming millions. We pledge to promote and practice simplicity, at all levels.

20. Women, minorities, and the under privileged will be provided equal opportunities in all walks of life.

21. We will respect the electoral mandate of representative governments that accepts the due role of the opposition and declare neither shall undermine each other through extra constitutional ways.

22. We shall not join a military regime or any military sponsored government. No party shall solicit the support of military to come into power or to dislodge a democratic government.

23. To prevent corruption and floor crossing all votes for the Senate and indirect seats will be by open identifiable ballot. Those violating the party discipline in the poll shall stand disqualified by a letter from the parliamentary party leader to the concerned Speaker or the Chairman Senate with a copy to the Election Commission for notification purposes within 14 days of receipt of letter failing which it will be deemed to have been notified on the expiry of that period.

24. All military and judicial officers will be required to file annual assets and income declarations like Parliamentarians to make them accountable to the public.

25. National Democracy Commission shall be established to promote and develop a democratic culture in the country and provide assistance to political parties for capacity building on the basis of their seats in parliament in a transparent manner.

26. Terrorism and militancy are by-products of military dictatorship, negation of democracy, are strongly condemned, and will be vigorously confronted.

C. FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

27. There shall be an independent, autonomous, and impartial election commission. The prime minister shall in consultation with leader of opposition forward up to three names for each position of chief election commissioner, members of election commission, and secretary to joint parliamentary committee, constituted on the same pattern as for appointment of judges in superior judiciary, through transparent public hearing process. In case of no consensus, both prime minister and leader of opposition shall forward separate lists to the joint parliamentary committee for consideration. Provincial election commissioner shall be appointed on the same pattern by committees of respective provincial assemblies.

28. All contesting political parties will be ensured a level playing field in the elections by the release of all political prisoners and the unconditional return of all political exiles. Elections shall be open to all political parties and political personalities. The graduation requirement of eligibility which has led to corruption and fake degrees will be repealed.

29. Local bodies elections will be held within three months of the holding of general elections.

30. The concerned election authority shall suspend and appoint neutral administrators for all local bodies from the date of formation of a caretaker government for holding of general elections till the elections are held.

31. There shall be a neutral caretaker government to hold free, fair, and transparent elections. The members of the said government and their immediate relatives shall not contest elections.

D. CIVIL - MILITARY RELATIONS

32. The ISI, MI and other security agencies shall be accountable to the elected government through Prime Minister Sectt, Ministry of Defence, and Cabinet Division respectively. Their budgets will be approved by DCC after recommendations are prepared by the respective ministry. The political wings of all intelligence agencies will be disbanded. A committee will be formed to cut waste and bloat in the armed forces and security agencies in the interest of the defence and security of the country. All senior postings in these agencies shall be made with the approval of the government through respective ministry.

33. All indemnities and savings introduced by military regimes in the constitution shall be reviewed.

34. Defence budget shall be placed before the parliament for debate and approval.

35. Military land allotment and cantonment jurisdictions will come under the purview of defence ministry. A commission shall be set up to review, scrutinise, and examine the legitimacy of all such land allotment rules, regulations, and policies, along with all cases of state land allotment including those of military urban and agricultural land allotments since 12th October, 1999 to hold those accountable who have indulged in malpractices, profiteering, and favouritism.

36. Rules of business of the federal and provincial governments shall be reviewed to bring them in conformity with parliamentary form of government.

A very clear message to the US...hatred breeds hatred

2008-04-16T23:47:00.005+05:00

Supporters of Jamiat-e-Talba Islam, a Pakistani Islamic student group, chant slogans next to a burning U.S. flag during a rally against an anti-Quran film made by a Dutch lawmaker and the reproduction of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers.

Restoration of Pre Nov 3 Judiciary seems a reality by looking at this picture

2008-04-16T23:39:00.004+05:00

During Olympic torch ceremony in Islamabad both visibly seemed to be living in two different worlds.

Another promise to be fulfilled...

2008-04-16T10:51:00.003+05:00

Why Jagdesh was not given a chance to say anything in his defence? How are we going to know the truth?

2008-04-16T10:44:00.007+05:00

Jagdesh, factory worker in Korangi, was beaten to death by his co-workers because he was allegedly blaspheming our Prophet. Islam gives equal opportunity to all, why Jagdesh was not given an opportunity to defend or explain his actions?

Lazim hai k hum bhi dekhenge ~ Faiz Ahmed Faiz Sahib

2008-04-15T22:40:00.002+05:00

Hum dekhenge
Lazim hai k hum bhi dekhenge
Wo din k jis ka wada hai
Jo looh-e-azl pe likha hai
Hum bhi dekhenge

Jab zulm-o-sitam k kooh-e-giran
Roi ki tarah ur jaenge
Hum mehkomon k paaon tale
Ye dharti dhar dhar dharkegi
Aur ahl-e-hukum k sir oper
Jab bijli kar kar karkegi
Hum bhi dekhenge

Jab arz-e-Khuda k kaabe se
Sab but uthwae jaenge
Hum ahl-e-safa mardood-e-harm
Masnad pe bethae jaenge
Sab taaj uchale jaenge
Sab takht girae jaenge
Hum bhi dekhenge

Bas naam rahega Allah ka
Jo ghayab bhi hai hazir bhi
Jo manzar hai nazir bhi
Uthega ANAL HAQ ka nara
Jo mai bhi hon tum bhi ho
Aur raaj karegi Khalq-e-KHUDA
Jo mai bhi hon tum bhi ho
Hum dekhenge
Lazim hai hum bhi dekhenge
Hum dekhenge!

Our beautiful world...

2008-04-15T17:00:00.003+05:00

Polar bear cub Flocke jumps in the water as she is introduced to the public on April 8, 2008 at the zoo in Nuremberg, southern Germany. Four-month old Flocke -- German for snowflake -- has until now been kept behind closed doors at Nuremberg zoo and has been hand-reared by zookeepers because of fears her mother might harm her.

Why the hell this man keeps saluting his audience?

2008-04-15T10:20:00.005+05:00

Musharraf salutes to Chinese students as he leaves after his speech at the Tsinghua University in Beijing on April 14, 2008.

Pakistan was generating 1000MW in surplus in 2004 and now we are in 3500MW acute shortage...who is responsible?

2008-04-15T10:06:00.006+05:00

An unidentified official of a power company catches a protester, right, during a protest against power cut in Multan

Pakistani protesters fire in the air beside a burning vehicle during a protest against the power cuts in Multan on April 14, 2008. Thousands of people angered by power cuts staged a violent protest in the home city of Pakistan's new premier leaving 40 people wounded and 50 under arrest. Police fired in the air and launched tear gas shells to disperse demonstrators in the central city of Multan after they attacked the office of the state electricity company and set fire to a bank.

An official of Water and Power Development Authority helps his chief Mohammad Ishtiaq, center, to load an assault rifle he used to disperse angry crowd in Multan, Pakistan, Monday, April. 14, 2008. A crowd protesting power cuts rioted in the home city of Pakistan's new Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani Monday, ransacking the office of the state electricity company, torching a bank and leaving at least 13 people injured.

Angry protesters destroy vehicles outside the Water and Power Development Authority office during a protest against power cuts in Multan

This poor woman committed suicide because the privileged class is unaware of their responsibilites towards them...

2008-04-14T01:05:00.003+05:00

Poor woman commits suicide with two children |By Faisal Ali

LAHORE, April 12: A woman committed suicide with her two children by throwing herself in front of a train in Naseerabad area of the city on Saturday.

Police said Ms Bushra, 30, carried a bag which contained a suicide note. Reading from the note, a police official said Ms Bushra, wife of a welder, had committed suicide because of poverty.

The woman appeared on the main railway line along with her two children at around 12.20pm when a train coming from the Cantonment station was approaching there.

“Despite an alarm raised by shopkeepers and some passers-by, she threw herself on to the track,” rickshaw driver Rashid Naseer, who witnessed the incident, told Dawn.

He said Ms Bushra covered the eyes of her son and daughter with her hands before taking the leap.

Police said the woman, wife of Mohammad Ramzan, came from Mecca Colony, Gulberg-III.

The children were identified as Zubair, 5, and Saima, 3.

When the news was broken to Ramzan, he went into a state of shock and was hospitalised.

A rescue 1122 official, while quoting the note, said the woman had termed poverty the main cause of her suicide decision and requested that if any of her children survived during the attempt, he or she be handed over to her parents.

She said she was doing it on her own and no one should be held responsible for the deaths. She wished that she should be laid to rest near the grave of her sister Sumera.

[Source: http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/13/top8.htm]

Time and again proven that a dictator can never be a solution to our problems...

2008-04-14T00:51:00.007+05:00

Pakistani woman Masoom Bibi cries while talking about a recent price hike which barred her and her family from buying food stuff in suburb of Islamabad, Pakistan on Friday, April. 11, 2008. In the recent months milk prices go to Rs 42 per liter from 30, prices of rice sky rocketed to double, a 20 kilograms bag of wheat flour jumped to Rs. 350 (US$5.80) from usual price of Rs. 230 (US$3.80) and flour became a scarce commodity.

Not a single day without protest against dreaded and damned Musharraf...

2008-04-14T00:48:00.002+05:00

Women supporters of Pakistan Muslim League-N party chant slogans during a rally against President Pervez Musharraf, Sunday, April 13, 2008 in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Another promise PPP, PLMN and ANP to fulfill...

2008-04-14T00:42:00.005+05:00

Supporters of the Pakistan Movement for Justice party protest calling for the release of disgraced scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in Karachi on April 13, 2008. Khan, who has been under effective house arrest since confessing on television in 2004 to running a proliferation network, added that the country's new government had not yet contacted him about his possible release.

Protest at MQM HQ London - Sunday 13 April 2008

2008-04-13T02:51:00.000+05:00

This is a courtesy message from professionals in London:

Join us for a protest outside the MQM London Head Quarters to condemn the atrocities committed in Karachi against Civil Society and Lawyers.

This is one of the key goals that we as a party have been struggling for Justice!!!

Civil Society, Political Parties, Students & Others will be gathering outside the MQM HQ in London on April 13th, 2008 at 1pm at Elizabeth House, High Street, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 7EJ.

We would like to invite all those who are against violent killings, anti- democratic forces in Pakistan and who are striving for the restoration of an independent judiciary to join us in solidarity for this demonstration.

Please do make the effort and MUST bring your own Play Cards and Posters - every single number counts!!

For additional information contact Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Wattoo at 07799214021 or Rabia Zia 07515549541

[Courtesy: PKPOLITICS.COM]

Complete judgement of Kashir Omer v Canada [Citation 2007 FC 478] which upheld that MQM is a terrorist organization.

2008-04-12T22:52:00.002+05:00

Date: 20070503

Docket: IMM-5295-06

Citation: 2007 FC 478

Ottawa, Ontario, May 3, 2007

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED KASHIF OMER

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1] This is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), rendered on September 14, 2006, where it concluded that the applicant was ineligible as per paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act and ordered his deportation.

BACKGROUND

[2] Mohammed Kashif Omer (the applicant) is a citizen of Pakistan who came to Canada in December 1998 and was granted refugee status, but was never landed.

[3] While in Pakistan, the applicant was a member of the APMSO (All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation) at the Government National College in Karachi from 1987 to 1989, and was the “information secretary” to APMSO from 1989 to 1992. He then joined and worked for the MQM (Mothaidda Quami Movement), from 1993 until he left Pakistan in 1998. While he initially denied any involvement with the MQM’s political activities in Canada, he eventually acknowledged during the hearing that he was responsible for the “MQM Quebec” branch.

[4] On July 12, 2005, a report under subsection 44(1) of the Act was written, and on July 22, 2005, a referral under subsection 44(2) of the Act for an admissibility hearing was signed. The officer who prepared the report under subsection 44(1) of the Act was of the opinion that the applicant was inadmissible because he knowingly and for a long period of time belonged to an organization that has engaged in terrorism. The admissibility hearing was held on November 15, 2005, January 24, 2006 and April 6, 2006.

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

[5] In a decision rendered on September 14, 2006, the Board concluded as follows:

I conclude that, based on Mr. Omer’s testimony and on the careful analysis of the documentary evidence on the MQM, the MQM-A and the AMPSO, there was a shared common purpose and knowledge on the part of Mr. Omer of the actions of his party which there is reasonable grounds to believe was engaged in acts of terrorism.

[6] The Board thus concluded that paragraph 34(1)(f) applied to the applicant and consequently issued a deportation order.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

[7] The sole issue for consideration in this judicial review application is the following: Did the Board err by concluding that the MQM was an organization described in paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act?

PERTINENT LEGISLATION

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27

33. The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

44. (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.

(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the Minister may make a removal order.

33. Les faits — actes ou omissions — mentionnés aux articles 34 à 37 sont, sauf disposition contraire, appréciés sur la base de motifs raisonnables de croire qu’ils sont survenus, surviennent ou peuvent survenir.

34. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour raison de sécurité les faits suivants :

a) être l’auteur d’actes d’espionnage ou se livrer à la subversion contre toute institution démocratique, au sens où cette expression s’entend au Canada;

b) être l’instigateur ou l’auteur d’actes visant au renversement d’un gouvernement par la force;

c) se livrer au terrorisme;

d) constituer un danger pour la sécurité du Canada;

e) être l’auteur de tout acte de violence susceptible de mettre en danger la vie ou la sécurité d’autrui au Canada;

f) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle est, a été ou sera l’auteur d’un acte visé aux alinéas a), b) ou c).

44. (1) S’il estime que le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui se trouve au Canada est interdit de territoire, l’agent peut établir un rapport circonstancié, qu’il transmet au ministre.

(2) S’il estime le rapport bien fondé, le ministre peut déférer l’affaire à la Section de l’immigration pour enquête, sauf s’il s’agit d’un résident permanent interdit de territoire pour le seul motif qu’il n’a pas respecté l’obligation de résidence ou, dans les circonstances visées par les règlements, d’un étranger; il peut alors prendre une mesure de renvoi.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[8] The choice of the proper standard of review for substantive decisions of the Board is driven mainly by the nature of the decision. On questions of law, the proper standard is that of correctness, on questions of mixed fact and law, reasonableness, and on questions of fact, patent unreasonableness. This approach was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100.

[9] More specifically, the issue of whether an organization is one described under paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act has been reviewed by this Court on a standard of reasonableness (Kanendra v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 923, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1156 (QL)). The related issue of whether an applicant was a member of an organization referred to in paragraph 34(1)(f) has also been reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, as it is a question of mixed fact and law (Poshteh v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FCA 85, [2005] F.C.J. No. 381 (QL)).

ANALYSIS

[10] Before turning to the specific arguments raised by the applicant, it is important to note that the standard of proof under section 34 is that of “reasonable grounds to believe”, a standard which has been explained as follows by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera, above, at paragraph 114:

... The FCA has found, and we agree, that the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion, but less that the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities: Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 433 (C.A.), at p. 445; Chiau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 297 (C.A.), at para. 60. In essence, reasonable grounds will exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information: Sabour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (2000), 9 Imm. L.R. (3d) 61 (F.C.T.D.).

[11] It should also be noted that, in its decision, the Board found the applicant to be complicit in the actions of the MQM. Counsel for each party also made submissions to this Court with regards to the issue of complicity, which it will not be necessary for this Court to address, since the issue of complicity is irrelevant to a determination under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act, which refers strictly to the notion of membership in the organization. The question of inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f) should thus be distinguished from inadmissibility as a Convention refugee under section 98 of the Act, which relies on article 1F of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, where the ground for inadmissibility is described as having “committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity” and, absent direct proof as to the involvement of the person in a specific crime, requires a finding of complicity with the organization who committed such crime.

[12] In Kanendra v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 923, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1156 (QL), Justice Simon Noël considered the notion of membership under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act, and stated the following:

¶ 21 The Applicant submits that the interpretation of "member" in s. 34(1)(f) must be read strictly, so as not to include in its ambit persons who may associate and sympathize with an organization described in s. 34(1)(a), (b) or (c), but who are not themselves a threat to Canada. The Applicant further submits that "member" should be interpreted to mean current and actual or formal membership, including only those who are subject to party discipline and not entitled to act in accordance with independent belief and action.

¶ 22 To adopt such an interpretation would, I think, be contrary to the spirit of the legislation as well as to prior jurisprudence. In Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 40 Imm. L.R. (2d) 247 (F.C.T.D.) at 259 (para. 22), rev'd in part (on different grounds), 47 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.), Justice Teitelbaum stated that, "Membership cannot and should not be narrowly interpreted when it involves the issue of Canada's national security. Membership also does not only refer to persons who have engaged or who might engage in terrorist activities." See also Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, (1998) 44 Imm. L.R. (2d) 309 at para. 51 et seq. (F.C.T.D.); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Owens, (2000) 9 Imm. L.R. (3d) 101 at paras. 16-18 (F.C.T.D.); Poshteh, supra, at para. 29.

¶ 23 Therefore, the term "member" as it is used in s. 34(1)(f) of IRPA should be given a broad interpretation. The Applicant is concerned that those who are not a threat to the security of Canada, despite their former membership in a s. 34(1)(a), (b) or (c) organization, should not be included in the ambit of s. 34(1)(f) and therefore excluded. However, I note that s. 34(2) effectively exempts them from exclusion. This section provides that those who would otherwise be deemed inadmissible because of certain associations or activities not be so deemed where they can satisfy the Minister that they are not a danger to the security of Canada. This interpretation of the statute was also found to be the case in Suresh (S.C.C.), supra. Though that case was determined under s. 19 of the old Immigration Act, the principle remains the same.

¶ 24 In order, then, to determine whether an applicant was or is a member of an organization described in ss. 34(1)(a), (b) or (c), an assessment of their participation in the organization must be undertaken. …

[13] In the present case, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was, and indeed still is, a member of the MQM. He joined the student wing of the organization in 1987 and became a full-fledged worker in the MQM in 1993, and continued his participation until his departure for Canada in 1998. No evidence was provided to the effect that he was coerced into joining, or that he was prevented from leaving the organization. In fact, upon arriving in Canada, the applicant joined the Canadian chapter of the organization and is now the head of MQM Quebec. This was clearly recognized by the Board member who wrote:

Therefore, I conclude that he knew what was happening, that he voluntarily joined the AMPSO and then the party, remained a party member and worker until his departure, never tried to dissociate himself from it, and still holds a senior position in it.

[14] Membership in this case has thus been clearly established and the only remaining issue before this Court is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism.

[15] Finally, while the Board erred by considering the issue of complicity instead of simple membership, this is not a reviewable error, as it had no effect on the outcome of the decision

(Cable Television Assn. v. American College Sports Co., [1991] 3 F.C. 626, [1991] F.C.J. No. 502 (QL)).

Did the Board err by concluding that the MQM was an organization described by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act?

[16] In order to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, we must first define the term terrorism. This has already been done by the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v. Canada (MCI), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, where the Court wrote at paragraph 98:

¶ 98 In our view, it may safely be concluded, following the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, that "terrorism" in s. 19 of the Act includes any "act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act". This definition catches the essence of what the world understands by "terrorism". …

[17] This is the definition that was applied by the Board, and indeed it is the definition that continues to be used by this Court (Fuentes v. Canada, 2003 FCT 379, [2003] F.C.J. No. 540 (QL), Ali v. Canada, 2004 FC 1174, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1416 (QL)). However, the applicant argues that the Board erred in its interpretation of the definition provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, when it wrote:

It is perfectly clear that intimidation, when supported by violence, torture, assassinations, the use of secret detention centres and bomb attacks, figures among the acts that fall within the scope of the definition of terrorism when they blindly target the entire population or even mere political opponents who are not personally involved in the hostilities. [my emphasis]

[18] The applicant argues that intimidation that targets political opponents is not violence to intimidate a population or to compel a government or organization, as per the definition of terrorism in Suresh, above. The applicant further submits that terrorism does not include settlements of accounts within an organization, or between organizations, however despicable and politically incorrect this may be. Furthermore, the “civilians” or the “persons not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of harmed conflicts”, in the definition of terrorism provided by Suresh, above, are meant to refer to random targets, not an identifiable opposition.

[19] The respondent for his part submits that the applicant’s contention does not resist a careful reading of the Board’s reasons in light of the definition of terrorism as provided in Suresh, above. Indeed, the Board refers to “entire population or even mere political opponents who are not personally involved in the hostilities”, who are clearly blind targets of the acts committed by the MQM. This must also be read in contrast with the Board’s rejection of violence in the context of urban guerrillas, “where people on both sides participated directly in the hostilities”, as evidence of terrorism.

[20] Since “political opponents” could theoretically be anyone in Pakistan who supports a political organization other than the MQM, and thus a very large segment of the population, I believe that such opponents who are not personally involved in the hostilities would be considered civilians or other persons not taking an active part in the hostilities, as per the Suresh definition of terrorism. Therefore, I agree with the respondent that the definition adopted by the Board was proper and does not justify the intervention of this Court.

[21] Turning now to the finding of the Board that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, I reproduce the following excerpt from the Board’s reasons:

I agree with Me Bertrand’s assertion that, when we look at the reported acts of violence, we must look at them in the context of the climate of political violence that has characterized Pakistan for decades. However, we must also remember that this violence reached endemic proportions in the years during which Mr. Omer was working for the MQM-A.

The direct actions against identifiable opposition members would not be associated with terrorism in cases of [Translation] “urban guerrilla” battles where people from both sides participated directly in the hostilities. Of the 13 elements – excerpts from the documentary evidence – listed by Mr. Beaupré in the section describing the nature of the group (page 2 of his submissions), number 5 – abduction and counter-abduction of P.P.P. and Mohajir Quaumi Movement student’s activist – and 7 – people were killed almost daily in fighting among factions of the MQM, and between the MQM and sindhi nationalists – can therefore be set aside. However, many of the actions (listed by Mr. Beaupré in his submissions or mentioned in the documentary evidence) in which the MQM, the MQM-A or some of its members were allegedly involved could be considered terrorist acts. It is perfectly clear that intimidation, when supported by violence, torture, assassinations, the use of secret detention centres and bomb attacks, figures among the acts that fall within the scope of the definition of terrorism when they blindly target the entire population or even mere political opponents who are not personally involved in the hostilities.

Is the documentary evidence that reports these events so lacking in credibility, as Mr. Omer claims, that all of it must be dismissed? I do not think so. Although the organizations that reported the events use terms such as “imputed”, “alleged” or “are suspected of …”, the number of witnesses, some corroboration, and the consistency of the information from these various sources are sufficient to conclude that this specific exhibits are credible and trustworthy. We are talking about intimidation, often accompanied by violence (M-2, p. 38; M-3, p. 1596; M-5, p. 3; M-5, p. 17; M-8, para. 76, M-12, p. 1), rapes (M-2, p. 38), torture, assassinations, the use of secret detention centres (M-2, pp. 37, 38, 39 and 40; M-3, pp. 1588 and 1593; M-4, p. 5, M-5, p. 2; M-8, paras. 76, 78, 81 and 82; M-10, p. 1085; M-11, pp. 2 and 3), bomb attacks (M-10, p. 1088), and terrorist acts in general (M-9, p. 1; M-10; M-12, p. 1). In short, I find that terrorist acts as defined in Suresh can be attributed to the MQM and the MQM-A during all of the years in question in this case, so these organizations were engaged in terrorism.

[22] The applicant argues that the Board’s reasons do not disclose reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is a terrorist organization. At most, the evidence shows that some rogue members of the organization are alleged to have been involved in violence, and that, at times, this was not condemned by the organization.

[23] The applicant also maintains that there was no reasonable ground for finding that the MQM is a terrorist organization, as there was no objective basis for the belief which was based on compelling and credible information. While the Minister’s evidence, generally speaking, comes from credible informers such as Amnesty International, the US Country Report and the UN Reporter, the applicant maintains that the source of their information lacks credibility, which is why they report that the violence described is ‘imputed’ to the MQM or is ‘alleged’ to have been committed by the MQM. The applicant argues that Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, one where disinformation is rampant, and that since the authorities often lie to achieve their purpose, they cannot be trusted as a source for this information.

[24] It is important to make clear at this point that it is not the place of this Court to determine whether the MQM is a terrorist organization, nor is this Court being asked to state whether it would have found the MQM to be an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism. Rather, this Court must determine whether the conclusion of the Board to the effect that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, is in itself reasonable.

[25] This is not the first time that this question has been the subject of judicial review. In Ali v. Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1174, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1416 (QL), Justice Anne L. Mactavish concluded the following at paragraphs 64 to 68:

¶ 64 There are additional problems with the officer's decision. The immigration officer's reasons make specific reference to Mr. Ali's admission that he was, and still is, a member of the MQM-A. As such, there is a clearly articulated explanation for the officer's finding of membership in the organization. However, I am concerned about the failure of the officer to identify any specific acts carried out by the MQM-A that would meet the Suresh definition of "terrorism", or to provide any analysis of that evidence. There is also a question as to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the officer's conclusion.

[…]

¶ 67 As Justice Layden-Stevenson observed in Alemu, at paragraph 41:

An exclusion finding is extremely significant to an applicant. Caution must be exercised to ensure such findings are properly made. The court will not substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker when the analysis and basis for the decision are reasonable. That is not the situation here. A finding of exclusion must provide some basis for the determination regarding the nature of the group... . Failure [to do so] ... yields a result that falls [far] short of being reasonable.

¶ 68 In this case, the officer's reasons do not provide an adequate basis for her finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM-A is a group engaged in terrorist activities. In particular, there is no analysis of the IRB report, and no identification of which activities on the part of the MQM-A the officer considers to be terrorist in nature. In my view, in light of the seriousness of the finding in issue and its consequences for Mr. Ali, it was incumbent on the officer to provide some explanation for her finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM-A is a terrorist organization. Her failure to do so constitutes a reviewable error.

[26] In Khan v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 1053, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1303 (QL), a finding that the MQM was an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, based essentially on a report by Amnesty International, was upheld by Justice Douglas Campbell, who wrote at paragraphs 13 to 15:

¶ 13 As a central objection, Counsel for the Applicant attacks the sufficiency of the Amnesty International Report relied on by the Member, because it was not an independent assessment of MQM activities. On this point, the Applicant argues as follows:

71.		All of these "reports" and "allegations" are heresay [sic], and not credible. In fact, Amnesty International questioned the credibility of their very own report stating: "Amnesty International has not been able to independently verify reports of torture by the MQM".
72.		In other words, this single document to the issue before the Member is very questionable on credibility.

[Original underlining]

(AR, pp. 54-55, paras. 71-72)

¶ 14 With respect to this argument, I find that a complete reading of the Report (AR, p.37) does not bear out the credibility argument advanced. While the Report does state that Amnesty International was unable to independently verify the reports of torture, it goes on to state the information was gathered a variety of sources being members of other political parties, the media, the army, and "observers". I find no error in the Member's willingness to give the Report weight for the stated reason that the "reappearance of similar information and incidents in diverse publications contribute to the trustworthiness of the documents" (AR, p. 19, para. 31).

¶ 15 As a result, I have no hesitation in agreeing with Counsel for the Respondent's argument that the evidence contained in Tab 5, while it might be less than proof on a balance of probabilities, is more than a flimsy suspicion. As a result, I find that the evidence in Tab 5 meets the standard of "reasonable grounds to believe" as that term is used in s.34(1)(f). Thus, the answer to this question is "yes".

[27] The present case is clearly much closer to the situation in Khan, above, than in Ali, above, as reasons were provided by the Board to support its conclusion, which disclose some analysis and a clear identification of which activities on the part of the MQM the Board considers to be terrorist in nature. The Board also addressed the issue of the credibility of the evidence, finding that “the number of witnesses, some corroboration, and the consistency of the information from these various sources are sufficient to conclude that this [sic] specific exhibits are credible and trustworthy”.

[28] Finally, in terms of the assessment of the documentary evidence and of the credibility of the applicant, the findings of the Board are owed great deference and the Court will not re-weigh the evidence that was before the Board. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera, above, at paragraph 38:

… The IAD is entitled to base its decision on evidence adduced in the proceedings which it considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances: s. 69.4(3) of the Immigration Act. Its findings are entitled to great deference by the reviewing court. Indeed, the FCA itself has held that the standard of review as regards issues of credibility and relevance of evidence is patent unreasonableness: Aguebor v. Minister of Employment & Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at para. 4.

[29] In Fuentes, above, Justice François Lemieux stated at paragraph 84 :

¶ 84 It is trite law the Adjudicator can prefer documentary evidence over the testimony of a claimant but, the Adjudicator was bound to state in clear and unmistakable terms why it preferred the documentary evidence over the applicant's testimony (see Okyere-Akosah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 411 (F.C.A.). This the Adjudicator did not do.

[30] While the applicant has maintained that the MQM is not a terrorist organization and that it was only rogue elements that engaged in such activities, the Board preferred the documentary evidence to the testimony of the applicant. Contrary to the situation in Fuentes, above, in the present case, the Board’s preference for the documentary evidence was explained by its finding that the applicant lacked credibility. The Board member wrote:

Mr. Omer’s testimony, heard over several hours, lacks credibility. When he was questioned about the actions of his party or certain of its members and confronted with the documentary evidence reporting these actions, Mr. Omer was vague, tried to evade the questions, and initially denied any knowledge of the existence of such allegations, but a little later, reluctantly admitted that he [Translation] “might” have heard about them, the he [Translation] had “possibly” read about them in the newspapers … I think Mr. Omer knew what was happening in Pakistan in general and in his party in particular. …

…

Furthermore, Mr. Omer’s reasons for trying to hide that, in Canada, he is responsible (Unit in charge / M-17) for the Montreal section of the MQM/Canada lead me to believe that he knew that his party was committing many violent acts.

[31] Having reviewed the Board’s reasons in light of the evidence presented, I find that the conclusion of the Board to the effect that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, is reasonable. While the Board did not provide a detailed analysis of the documents on which it relied, as was done with the Amnesty International report in Khan, above, it identified a series of acts attributed to the MQM which it considered to be evidence of terrorist activities, and noted precisely where in the documentation submitted this evidence could be found. The Board not only relied on a number of different documents, but also explained why it found the information to be credible. As in Khan, above, while the evidence relied on by the Board might be less than proof on a balance of probabilities, it is more than a “flimsy suspicion” and does appear to be based on compelling and credible information. As such, the decision of the Board is reasonable and the Court will not interfere with it.

[32] For the above reasons, this application for judicial review is denied.

[33] Neither counsel suggested any question for certification.

JUDGMENT

1. The application is denied;

2. No question for certification.

“Pierre Blais”

Judge

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-5295-06

STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMED KASHIF OMER v.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal

DATE OF HEARING: April 18, 2007

REASONS FOR: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIS

DATED: May 3, 2007

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Jean-François Bertrand FOR APPLICANT

Ms. Lisa Maziade FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Jean-François Bertrand

Montreal, Quebec FOR APPLICANT

JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.

Montreal, Quebec FOR RESPONDENT

[Reproduced from http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2007/2007fc478/2007fc478.html]

Musharraf Quami Movement: A Terrorist Organisation

2008-04-12T22:37:00.003+05:00

Excerpt from the Judgement of Kashir Omer v Canada [Citation 2007 FC 478] which upheld that MQM is a terrorist organization.

31. Having reviewed the Board’s reasons in light of the evidence presented, I find that the conclusion of the Board to the effect that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the MQM is an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism, is reasonable. While the Board did not provide a detailed analysis of the documents on which it relied, as was done with the Amnesty International report in Khan, above, it identified a series of acts attributed to the MQM which it considered to be evidence of terrorist activities, and noted precisely where in the documentation submitted this evidence could be found. The Board not only relied on a number of different documents, but also explained why it found the information to be credible. As in Khan, above, while the evidence relied on by the Board might be less than proof on a balance of probabilities, it is more than a “flimsy suspicion” and does appear to be based on compelling and credible information. As such, the decision of the Board is reasonable and the Court will not interfere with it.

[Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2007/2007fc478/2007fc478.html]

Why there is a delay in restoration of the Judiciary?: BBC Urdu

2008-04-12T02:39:00.003+05:00

ججوں کی بحالی میں تاخیر کیوں؟

سکولوں میں آج بھی طلبہ میں ایک بات کی اہمیت کوٹ کوٹ کر بھری جاتی ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ آج کا کام کل پر نہ چھوڑو۔ یعنی جو کام جتنا جلد سر سے اتر جائے بہتر ہے۔ یہی اصول اگر نئی حکومت بھی اپنا لے تو اس ملک کے عوام کو کئی سیاسی مصیبتوں اور مشکلات سے چھٹکارا مل جائے۔ یہ ملک مزید تلخیوں سے بچ جائے۔

وہ مسئلہ جو کل کی جگہ آج حل طلب ہے وہ ہے معزول ججوں کی بحالی۔ جیسا کہ حکمراں اتحاد کی دو بڑی جماعتیں پیپلز پارٹی اور مسلم لیگ (ن) اعلانِ بھوربن میں کہہ چکی ہیں کہ ان ججوں کی بحالی قومی اسمبلی کی ایک قرار داد کے بعد کر دی جائے گی۔

اب سب کو انتظار ہے کہ وہ قرار داد کب آئے گی، جج بحال ہوں گے اور ملک ایک سال سے زیادہ عرصے سے چل رہے اس عدالتی بحران سے جان چھڑا پائیں گے۔ اب تو وفاقی حکومت بھی قدرے قائم ہوچکی ہے، قومی اسمبلی نے قانون سازی بھی شروع کر دی ہے ججوں سے متعلق قرار داد بھی مزید خون بہنے سے قبل آ جائے تو بہتر ہے۔

ججوں کی بحالی کے مسئلے پر حکمراں اتحاد سے مختلف اشارے مل رہے ہیں۔ مسلم لیگ (ن) کا وزیر اعظم کے حلف لینے کے وقت کہنا تھا کہ الٹی گنتی کا آغاز ہو چکا ہے۔ لیکن چند روز قبل وزیر اطلاعات شیری رحمان کا کہنا تھا کہ ججوں کی بحالی کے لیے الٹی گنتی نہ صرف وفاقی بلکہ چاروں صوبوں میں بھی حکومت سازی کے عمل کے مکمل ہونے پر شروع ہوگی۔

اب لوگ مانیں تو کس کی بات مانیں۔ وکلاء نے تو بظاہر حکومت کی ’تڑی‘ کے بعد خاموشی اختیار کر لی ہے۔ معزول چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری بھی اپنی رہائش گاہ پر اپنا ملک گیر دورہ ملتوی کرتے ہوئے خاموشی سے آکر بیٹھ گئے ہیں۔ ایسے میں گومگو کی سی صورتحال ہے۔

البتہ وفاقی وزیر قانون و انصاف فاروق ایچ نائیک نے جمعہ کو کچھ وضاحت کرتے ہوئے اور کچھ تسلی دیتے ہوئے اسمبلی میں صحافیوں سے بات کرتے ہوئے یقین دلایا ہے کہ عدلیہ کی بحالی کا معاملہ آئندہ ہفتے پارلیمنٹ میں طے ہو جائے گا۔ فاروق نائیک کابینہ کی اس کمیٹی کی سربراہی بھی کرتے ہیں جس کے ذمے ججوں کی بحالی کا طریقہ کار طے کرنے کی ذمہ داری سونپی گئی ہے۔

اختلاف نہ صرف ججوں کی بحالی کی میعاد پر بلکہ طریقہ کار پر بھی دکھائی دے رہی ہے۔ مسلم لیگ (ن) فوری بحالی کی بظاہر خواہاں ہے تو پیپلز پارٹی اسے ایک جامع آئینی ترامیم کے پیکج کا حصہ بنانا چاہتی ہے۔

کئی کو خدشہ ہے کہ صدر کی جانب نرم گوشہ رکھنے والی پیپلز پارٹی کے شریک چیئرپرسن کہیں ججوں کے مسئلے پر کوئی خفیہ ڈیل ہی نہ کر لیں۔ پیپلز پارٹی اسے ایک پیچدہ آئینے قضیے کےطور پر پیش کر رہی ہے تو مسلم لیگ (ن) پارلیمانی قرار کو اس کا آسان ترین حل بتا رہی ہے۔

سیاسی پنڈتوں کو خدشہ ہے کہ اس بڑے مسئلے کے طول پکڑنے سے سیاسی رنجیشیں اور تلخیاں مزید بڑھ سکتی ہیں۔ یہ ایسی چیزیں ہیں جن کی اس ملک کو اس وقت ہرگز ضرورت نہیں۔ ارباب غلام رحیم اور شیر افگن نیازی سے جو سلوک ہوا اس سے ایک بات واضع ہوئی ہے کہ جمہوریت کی کافی دھکوں کے بعد چلنے والی یہ بس کو روٹ سے ہٹانے کی سازشیں بھی شروع ہو چکی ہیں۔

تاہم ایک مثبت پہلو وکلاء کی حد تک سب کو یہ یقین کامل دکھائی دیتا ہے کہ نئی حکومت جلد یا بدیر ججوں کو بحال کر ہی دے گی۔ اب تک کے مخمصے سے ایک بات واضع ہے کہ سب کو پریشانی صرف اونٹ کے کس کروٹ بیٹھنے کی نہیں بلکہ کب بیٹھنے کی بھی ہے۔

[Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan]

Pakistan's new order plans thanks, goodbye for judge: Reuters

2008-04-11T22:20:00.000+05:00

By Simon Cameron-Moore - Analysis

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The party leading Pakistan's new coalition is drafting a constitutional package likely to sideline Iftikhar Chaudhry, the recently freed judge whose defiance of President Pervez Musharraf made him a cause celebre.

Strains in the less-than-two-week-old coalition are foreseen when the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) submits its wide-ranging proposals for scrutiny, a move expected as soon as next week.

The PPP, led by the late Benazir Bhutto's widower Asif Ali Zardari, is honor bound to reinstate Chaudhry as Supreme Court Chief Justice, and restore other judges Musharraf dismissed when he imposed six-weeks of emergency rule on November 3.

Last month Zardari signed an accord with Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister Musharraf overthrew in a military coup in 1999, to pass a resolution to bring back all the judges within 30 days of forming a government, which means it should happen by end-April.

Pakistan's new political order will thank Chaudhry for precipitating the political shift that led to the defeat of pro-Musharraf parties in February's parliamentary poll, reinstate him and then try to wave him goodbye, analysts and others said.

"Restoration will redeem his honor," said a senior PPP official in...

Full story @ http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/idUSSP30454220080410

Sher Afghan's event orchestrated to give Musharraf Quami Movement a reason to repeat May 12, 2007...

2008-04-11T09:43:00.006+05:00

Pakistani lawyers march during a protest in Lahore on April 10, 2008. Thousands of lawyers protested in Pakistan 10 April as tension mounted over the deaths of 10 people in political clashes between supporters and opponents of President Pervez Musharraf.

Pakistani lawyers march during a protest in Quetta on April 10, 2008.

Pakistani lawyers set fire to an effigy of President Pervez Musharraf during a protest in Multan on April 10, 2008.

MQM Burns Karachi Again : Musharraf Quami Movement’s New Drama

2008-04-10T10:21:00.001+05:00

By Ali Yar Khan | Apr 9th, 2008 |

Malir Court has been burned down and the City Court in Karachi has been taken by the terrorists of MQM. Many people have been injured, and there are reports of couple of deaths on the roads of Karachi. Heavy firing is going on in the city. People are running on the roads in panic, and many accidents in the city of Karachi have been reported. All the markets are closed and things are getting out of control.

How many times is it that we are going to see the theatrics ond terrorism of Motahhida Qaumi Movement of Altaf Hussain in Karachi. MQM has been supporting Pervez Musharraf’s regime for eight years, and now just for an eye-wash it for a while supported Pakistan People’s Party, but when PPP didn’t include it in the federal cabinet, it has slipped again.

Just a while ago, MQM staged a new drama. It’s legal aid committee was present in the premises of the city court and protesting against the manhandling of Dr. Sher Afgan Niazi in Lahore yesterday, when some goons of MQM in the garb of lawyers attacked them. MQM lawyers quietly received some slaps in front of cameras, then wept a little and after that agitation has started throughout Karachi. Naeem Khanzada of MQM and a member of Legal Aid Committee was the most active actor of this melodrama, which is taking now it’s toll from the people of Karachi.

Now Karachi is burning. More than two dozens of buses and private vehicles have been torched in Jamia Cloth, Burns Road, Malir and at various other locations. A building in the Saddar area has also been set on fire which contained the offices of lawyers. The worst affected road is M.A. Jinnah road where MQM goons are torching the buses and buildings and doing aerial firing.

Traffic is jammed at all the major roads of Karachi, and power is off, and in many areas of the city, cable tv channels have been closed down. Agitation is spreading throughout the city of Karachi and there are many reports of violence in front of Malir Bar and Karachi Bar offices.

It’s time that lawyers leaders throughout the country converge at one point and identify the shenanigans and intrigues of President Musharraf with the help of agencies and terrorist groups like MQM and the lotas of PML-Q. People of Karachi should also now some courage and they must raise their voice against these thugs of MQM who control Karachi from London, and who have ransacked the whole city under their cruel grip.

The government of Pakistan People’s Party should understand the message of MQM. MQM wants to tell PPP that if PPP wants to rule in Karachi, then they have to bow in front of the blackmailing of Altaf Hussain and his thugs. Asif Ali Zardari must now start taking some leader-like decisions. It’s time Karachi should be freed from the terrorists of MQM.

[Courtesy: http://www.pakspectator.com/mqm-burns-karachi-again-musharraf-quami-movements-new-drama/]

Why would there be such a reaction in Karachi for Sher Afghan when there was not any for Arbab?...

2008-04-10T09:49:00.010+05:00

Although khakis are not controlled by Musharraf but what about the intelligence agencies? all the intelliegence agencies are working for Musharraf, khakis and US. We will not progress until political wings of these agencies are disbanded...

A Pakistani commuter walks past the burning vehicles on a street in Karachi on April 9, 2008.

Pakistani rescuers shift a burnt dead body in an ambulance at the district court of Karachi on April 9, 2008. Eleven people were killed, five of them burned to death, in clashes between rival political groups in Pakistan's southern city of Karachi on 9 April, police said. The violence erupted in the port city of 12 million people when supporters of embattled President Pervez Musharraf held a protest against the beating up of a pro-Musharraf minister by lawyers a day earlier.

Hatred breeds hatred

2008-04-08T23:24:00.003+05:00

Although I do not endorse the treatment meted out to Arbab Ghulam Rahim inside Sindh Assembly, however, on the contrary I would not condemn such treatment outside in the public. I must here point out some very disturbing instances attributed to this ex-Chief Minister of Sindh. When the bomb blasts went off on October 18, 2007 on Benazir's motorcade, Arbab Ghulam Rahim stated that the safest place for Benazir would be either Jail or a bagtarband gari (armoured van). Another statement he made once was that "Aurat ki hukumrani manhoos hoti hai" (Women rulers are a curse on people).

Importantly, we all have seen the footage in which Arbab Ghulam Rahim is slapping an innocent journalist and abusing him in public. For those who aren't aware of this incident must watch this you tube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TYNoAtoJ4).

All these instances without any doubt prove that Arbab Ghulam Rahim has no respect for other fellow beings and if he can say and do such damn things openly in public just imagine how uncivilized and uncultured this man would be in private.

Coming to what happened to Sher Afghan Niazi last night. We all are aware of behaviours of people like Sher Afghan Niazi, Wasi Zafar, Ahmad Raza Kusuri and etc., during Musharra’s tyrannical rule. I think people have just vented out their sheer anger and for this I would not blame them but those who have angered them for more than 8 years. Just to cite one instance to remind why people have vented out in such way.

On September 29, 2007, the day Musharraf was submitting his papers for his presidential election in Islamabad, state coercion was used against innocent journalists and lawyers outside EC headquarters on the Constitutional Avenue. Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd were severely beaten by the Police on the instructions of the government and not a single condemnation came from the government. At least in Sher Afghan’s case Aitzaz came to his rescue and he should be thankful to him. There are several incidents such as May 12, 2007 so much bloodshed and killings on the streets of Karachi but the coalition partners in Sindh were not even serious to conduct an inquiry into the killings of innocent people.

I think all those who side and sympathize with Arbab or Sher Afghan are actually no different than them. The way Arbab and Sher Afghan were treated was only because they are reaping what they have sowed. This anger of the people is not particularly against Sher Afghan Niazi, Wasi Zafar, Ahmad Raza Kusuri or Arbab. It is against Musharraf and people are now venting it out to them because they supported the dreaded dictator.

A.Q.Khan says he confessed in 2004 to save Pakistan

2008-04-08T14:58:00.001+05:00

Islamabad, Apr.8 (ANI): Dr. A.Q. Khan, the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, has said that he confessed to passing atomic secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya four years ago to “save his country”.

Khan,who has been under effective house arrest since confessing on television in 2004 to running a proliferation network, added that the country’s new government had not yet contacted him about his possible release.

It may be recalled that President Pervez Musharraf pardoned him after his confession, but kept him under detention. Musharraf denied any state involvement in Khan’s activities and rejected international requests to quiz the scientist.

“I saved the country for the first time when I made Pakistan a nuclear nation and saved it again when I confessed and took the whole blame on myself,” Dr Qadeer told a foreign news agency during a telephone interview from his Islamabad ...

Full story @ http://www.thaindian.com/

PPP, PMLN, ANP and MQM etc., none issued a single statement on this issue and yet they very proudly say that they represent people of Pakistan

2008-04-07T00:02:00.010+05:00

Supporters of Pakistan's largest Islamic party Jamate-e-Islami takes part in a rally in Karachi, Pakistan on Sunday, April 6, 2008. More than 25,000 people rallied in the largest protest in Pakistan so far against an allegedly anti-Quran film made by a Dutch lawmaker, urging government to expel the Ambassador of Netherland. Looks as if the newly formed government is too busy to think of matters that are important to us.

The displaced Baloch - The Dawn

2008-04-06T23:32:00.004+05:00

By Shehar Bano Khan

DADO had lived happily with her seven siblings in Koho, Dera Bugti, until that fateful day which changed her life for the worse. Soon thereafter the 16-year-old found herself, along with her brothers and sisters, seeking refuge in different parts of Balochistan to escape the conflict that annihilated her home, her village and her school in Dera Bugti.

Two years later Dado has turned into an embittered, fiery 18-year-old whose understanding of the Balochistan conflict goes beyond political discourse rooted in debates on the concurrent list and provincial autonomy, or the need to strengthen the federation, remove inter-provincial strife and restore national cohesion. She has lost everything to the political jargon mouthed ad nauseam by politicians since Partition. Her province, in the meantime, has been pushed to the brink of implosion.Dado’s family members are among the 84,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Balochistan who lack access to health care, food, shelter and state protection. This huge mass of people has been shunted out of Balochistan — by the government, no less — since the military operation began in January 2005, purportedly to suppress tribal militias.

Though the government continues to deny the mass displacement of the Baloch people, hundreds of families can be seen living in decrepit, makeshift camps outside Quetta, Jaffarabad and Naseerabad.

Kachkol Ali, leader of the opposition in the outgoing Balochistan Assembly, claims that the number of displaced people has exceeded 100,000, with children suffering the most through a perplexing aid blockade foisted by the government. These ‘insignificant’ people have come to signify the state’s military strength. The drive to root out ‘terrorists’ from Balochistan is in actuality a game plan in which suppressing provincial autonomy is the primary motive.

Innocent victims like Dado cannot, quite understandably, link their displacement to state-sponsored definitions of terrorism. Their queries about the unfairness of a forced itinerant existence leave a huge unanswered gap between political necessity and humanitarian aid apathy.

Dado’s little brothers and sisters want to know why their home was destroyed, when they will be able to eat three meals a day, instead of one, and if they will ever live in one place for more than a month.

These people, displaced within their own country for reasons not answered through politics, constitute one of the biggest human catastrophes of South Asia. An official working for the UNHCR, who did not wish to be named, disclosed that after the story of the displaced Baloch was first printed in the western media two years ago, all roads leading to conflict zones in Balochistan were closed.

“Aid workers were not allowed to have direct contact with the people and were instructed to carry out aid service through local authorities. International aid agencies like Oxfam, Care and the International Committee of the Red Cross have been denied the right to provide relief to these people. That was two years ago, but if you visit the people who have been forced to move as far as Sindh you’ll see that nothing has changed and their condition is still the same,” said the UNHCR official.

A report compiled by Unicef was released shortly after news of the IDPs hit the media. It revealed that 28 per cent of children under the age of five were acutely undernourished, of which six per cent suffered from acute malnutrition. Children under the age of five account for 80 per cent of all recorded IDP deaths.

In the same year, a five-member provincial committee was formed to deal with the IDPs crisis. The committee members included Abdur Rehman Jamali, Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, Saleem Khosa, Juman Khan Bugti and Kachkol Ali, but their recommendations were not taken up by the government.

The term ‘Internally Displaced Persons’ applies to citizens of a sovereign state, people who are forced to flee as a consequence of military operations carried out not against foreign aggressors but citizens of a theoretically independent country. This is the defining paradox of our ‘independence’. The bleakness of this internecine conflict becomes ever more grim when people living outside the physical perimeters of Balochistan are made to believe trumped-up stories of rebels demanding secession and the omnipresence of terrorist organisations constructing ‘havens for global destruction’. These are lies.

Accepting the justification of the military operation, the denial of aid relief to the IDPs is inexplicable and not helped by the government’s persistent refutation of this man-made catastrophe. All Pakistanis need to realise the reality of the misery inflicted on Balochistan.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/06/op.htm

Another not so remembered promise to be fulfilled by PPPP-PMLN government...

2008-04-06T17:13:00.004+05:00

Burqa-clad students of religious school Jamia Hafsa listen to a speaker at a rally demanding release of their cleric Abdul Aziz and rebuilding their seminary in Islamabad, Pakistan, Friday, April 4, 2008. They were demanding Pakistan's new government rebuild an Islamic seminary that was razed after a bloody army raid last year against Islamabad's militant Red Mosque which left more than 1000 dead.

Pak to strip Musharraf of powers: Press TV Iran

2008-04-06T01:26:00.001+05:00

Former Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif says the new government is planning to pass legislation to remove Pervez Musharraf from power.

"Musharraf has harmed many institutions in the country. We intend to bring the legislation in Parliament for Presidents removal. Musharraf is isolated and will have to go," The Nation quoted Sharif as saying in an interview with a private TV channel in India.

He denied having struck any deal with Musharraf. "I have not struck a deal with Musharraf nor have I gone soft on him. I think an autocrat has no role to play in a democratic set-up."

Federal Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar said on Friday that the future of President Musharraf will be decided in the parliament adding he should not meddle in the government's affairs.

A close aide of Musharraf who spoke on condition of anonymity had earlier told The News that Musharraf's policy of keeping a low profile was a result of a well-thought-out strategy.

"It was decided a long time ago that Musharraf would take a backseat after the 2008 general elections and play a low-key role as part of a strategy framed a long time ago," the aide concluded.

Political analysts believe that Pakistan's army is speeding up the transfer of power to the country's new civilian government, further isolating the embattled President, a key US ally.

Source @ http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=50358&sectionid=351020401

Our heroes were humiliated and made villains by Musharraf...

2008-04-05T23:55:00.004+05:00

The founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, is seen in this undated file photo in Islamabad, Pakistan. Khan on Wednesday, April 2, 2008, expressed hope that the new government will release him from house arrest, but he said he has not yet heard anything on the matter.

Our leaders should learn to speak the truth like our common man...

2008-04-05T23:53:00.003+05:00

Pakistani religious students react and hold a poster protesting against America, while attending a rally against the recent anti-Islam dutch film and a Danish newspaper which reproduced cartoon images of Prophet Muhammad, in Karachi, Pakistan, Thursday, April 3, 2008.

Afghanistan has 5 Trillion Dollars of gas reserves yet...

2008-04-05T23:47:00.006+05:00

Afghan people walk on receiving wheat donation bags from the World Food Programme (WFP) in Kabul on April 3, 2008. 5,000 tonnes of food purchased with a contribution from the Government of Japan valued at JPY 390 million (around US$ 3.1 million) arrived in Afghanistan, World Food Programme (WFP) said. "WFP is deeply grateful for Japan's continued assistance in helping the poor in Afghanistan," said Rick Corsino, WFP Country Director."This donation strengthens WFP efforts to help vulnerable families who have been living as refugees in camps in Pakistan and have recently returned to Afghanistan to start new lives."

Asif snubs Aitzaz; says he is not interested in restoration of personalities - Courtesy The News

2008-04-05T23:39:00.002+05:00

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has issued a long charge-sheet against the deposed superior court judges, saying they never came to his rescue and were responsible for his eight years in jail.

In the clearest indication that the PPP may not stand by the Murree Declaration to restore the judges, the PPP leader told his central executive committee in Naudero that he was not interested in the restoration of personalities but wanted a judicial reforms package.

Analysts said things were getting complicated for Zardari, both within the PPP and outside, as he was moving closer to allies of President Musharraf and drifting away from his coalition partner Nawaz Sharif.

As Zardari issued his charge-sheet against the judges, Makhdoom Amin Fahim demanded the disbandment of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians which he heads. Others in the PPP blasted the party leadership's decision to join hands with the MQM.

On the other hand, the PML-N is determined not to compromise on the issue of restoration of the deposed judges through a resolution in the National Assembly. The party says it seeks strict adherence to the Murree Declaration and would not accept any formula or constitutional amendment that restores all the deposed judges minus chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

"After gaining so much because of the political initiative that Zardari has taken in the recent weeks, the PPP co-chairperson is on the verge of losing all," a senior PPP leader told this correspondent from Naudero, revealing the situation in the interior Sindh was extremely tense after Zardari's visit to the MQM headquarters popularly known as Nine Zero.

In a post-dinner gathering of the PPP's central executive committee, the source said, many PPP leaders minced no words in criticising Zardari's decision to woo the MQM. PPP MNA Shugufta Jamani and Sethi Ishaq were among those who expressed strong resentment and wondered how the PPP could join hands with the MQM, which was responsible for the killing of PPP workers.

"The Sindhi people have not given a mandate to Zardari to thrust upon them his personal agenda of humiliation in the name of reconciliation," a PPP leader told The News, adding, "We strongly oppose and condemn the PPP-MQM coalition in Sindh."

The leader asked: "Who caused the May 12th incident? Who was behind the Oct 18 blast? Who killed Murad Baloch and Munawar Suhrawardy? But you still went to the Nine Zero to express solidarity with the MQM against the wishes of the nation. Now it's time for us to rethink our support for you, Mr Zardari," said the source, who sounded quite...

Full story @ http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=13936

US carrying out drone attacks in tribal areas: Pakistan Forces

2008-04-04T22:18:00.010+05:00

Reported by BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/

پاکستان کے فوجی ذرائع نے پہلی مرتبہ اس بات کی تصدیق کی ہے کہ قبائلی علاقوں میں اب تک کے بغیر پائلٹ طیاروں کے حملے امریکہ ہی کر رہا ہے۔

بی بی سی سے بات کرتے ہوئے ذرائع کا کہنا ہے کہ پاکستان کو یہ یقین دہانی کرائی گئی ہے کہ امریکہ اپنے ہدف کے بارے میں سو فیصد تسّلی کے بعد ہی حملہ کرے گا تاکہ اس میں عام شہری نہ مارے جائیں۔ فوجی ذرائع نے اس تاثر کو مسترد کیا کہ یہ کارروائیاں امریکی پاکستان میں جیکب آباد سمیت کسی ہوائی اڈے سے کی جا رہی ہیں۔

جب مسلح افواج کے تعلقات عامہ کے محکمے آئی ایس پی آر سے اس سلسلے میں رابطہ کیا گیا تو انہوں نے ان تفصیلات کی تصدیق یا تردید کرنے سے انکار کیا۔

فوجی ذرائع نے بعض امریکی اخبارات میں شائع ہونے والی ان خبروں کو بھی غلط قرار دیا جن میں پاکستانی فوج پر امریکہ سے ملنے والی فوجی امداد کے غلط استعمال کے الزامات عائد کیے گئے تھے۔

فوجی ذرائع کا کہنا تھا کہ افغانستان میں امریکی فوجیوں کی تعداد تقریباً تیس ہزار ہے اور ’ان میں سے ایک فوجی پر امریکہ کا ماہانہ خرچہ اسی ہزار ڈالر ہے جبکہ پاکستان میں افغان سرحد پر موجود ایک لاکھ بارہ ہزار فوج کے لیے دی جانے والی امریکی امداد اس کے مقابلے میں بہت کم ہے‘۔

ان کا کہنا تھا کہ قبائلی علاقوں میں اب تک پاکستانy فوج کے ایک ہزار سے زیادہ سپاہی ہلاک ہو چکے ہیں اور ہلاک شدگان اور زخمی ہونے والے فوجیوں کے اہل خانہ کی طویل عرصے تک دیکھ بھال کے اخراجات امریکی امداد سے کافی زیادہ ہیں۔

فوجی ذرائع کے مطابق ہیلی کاپٹروں سمیت دیگر جنگی مشینری کو چلتی حالت میں رکھنے کے اخراجات اس سے کے علاوہ ہیں اور پاکستان نے دو خصوصی دستے قائم کیے ہیں جس میں بڑی تعداد میں فوری حرکت کرنے والے بڑی تعداد میں ہیلی کاپٹر رکھے گئے ہیں۔

فوجی ذرائع کے مطابق پاکستانی فوج توقع کر رہی ہے کہ ملک میں نئی حکومت کے قیام کے بعد قبائلی علاقوں میں طالبان اور القاعدہ کے خلاف جاری کارروائیوں میں اس سیاسی عمل کی کمی پوری ہو جائے گی جسے ماضی میں نظرانداز کیا گیا۔

اعلٰی فوجی ذرائع نے بی بی سی کو بتایا ہے کہ نئی حکومت کے لیے بڑا چیلنج قبائلی شدت پسندوں کی سرحد پار جہاد جاری رکھنے اور مہمان کو تحفظ دینے کی شرائط کا توڑ تلاش کرنا ہوگا۔ نئی حکومت کے پاس اس وقت دو ہی راستے بتائے جا رہے ہیں وہ یا تو قبائلیوں کو ’جہاد‘ اور ’مہمان نوازی‘ سے بات چیت یا طاقت کے ذریعے روکنے پر آمادہ کرے یا پھر دوسری جانب منہ کر لے۔

ان کا کہنا تھا کہ امریکی خدشات صرف امریکی اخبارات کی حد تک محدود ہیں اور امریکی اہلکاروں کو بریفنگ کے ذریعے مکمل طور پر مطمئن کیا جاتا ہے۔ اس بابت فوجی ذرائع نے امریکی سینٹر جوزف بائڈن کی مثال دی جنہوں نے واپس امریکہ جا کر پاکستان کے لیے امداد میں تین گنا اضافے کا مطالبہ کیا تھا۔

امریکی فوجی امداد ذرائع کے مطابق براہ راست فوج کے پاس نہیں آتی۔ ’یہ وزارت خزانہ کے پاس آتی ہے جو اسے وزارت داخلہ کے تحت کام کرنے والی فرنٹیئر کور اور وزارت دفاع کے ذریعے فوج کو بھیجتی ہے‘۔

فوجی ذرائع نے گزشتہ دنوں بیت اللہ محسود کے ایک قریبی ساتھی کی بیس سیکورٹی اہلکاروں کی رہائی کے بارے میں کہا کہ ان کے علم میں یہ بات آئی ہے تاہم اس بارے میں وہ زیادہ معلومات نہیں رکھتے۔ تاہم ذرائع نے واضح کیا کہ بیت اللہ محسود سے اس وقت کوئی مذاکرات نہیں ہو رہے اور قبائلی علاقوں میں حالیہ دنوں میں پرامن حالات ان سے کسی ڈیل کا نتیجہ نہیں ہیں

Pakistan Judge Scraps Travel Plans

2008-04-04T22:16:00.000+05:00

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's deposed chief justice has scrapped plans to address lawyers' associations across the country and press for his restoration following his release from house arrest last week.

A lawyer close to Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry said Friday that the judge plans to stay in Islamabad and not make any speeches. Ali Ahmad Kurd said the move comes amid expectations the new government will restore Chaudhry and other judges axed in November.

''We took this decision on our own so we do not give any impression that we are pressuring the government,'' Kurd said. ''The chief justice has to remain calm and quiet. There will be no statements and no addresses.''

But Kurd said if the government does not honor its promise to restore judges ousted by President Pervez Musharraf within 30 days, Chaudhry will address bar associations across Pakistan. He also said lawyers would stage a huge protest rally in the capital.

Chaudhry was greeted by crowds of lawyers and political activists when he traveled to his home city of Quetta on Monday in what had been expected to be the start of a series of trips across Pakistan to put him back in the public eye.

He was to fly back to Islamabad on Friday.

Chaudhry emerged last year as the main check on Musharraf's dominance of Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

The former army chief's powers have diminished further since the party of slain ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto came in top in February elections and cobbled together a broad coalition.

The new government's first action was to free Chaudhry from nearly five months of ...

Full story @ http://www.nytimes.com/

Pakistan nuclear scientist hopes to be freed: paper

2008-04-04T22:08:00.001+05:00

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan termed his detention as "irrational" in a newspaper interview published on Wednesday, and said he hoped the new government would free him soon. Khan was put under house arrest by President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad after an investigation was launched in late 2003 and he confessed on television in early 2004 to passing nuclear secrets and materials to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Lionised by many Pakistanis as the father of the country's atomic bomb, Khan escaped more severe punishment.

Khan's admirers want the new coalition government, which took power after the defeat of pro-Musharraf parties in a February 18 election, to free their hero.

In an interview with the Urdu-language Nawa-i-Waqt, also carried by sister publication The Nation, Khan rejected the impression he was kept under detention for his own security.

"It is nothing but a lame excuse," Khan was quoted as saying in an interview carried ...

Full story @ http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/idUSISL20060720080402

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln

2008-04-04T16:53:00.002+05:00

Pakistani lawyers step on a picture of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf during a rally to celebrate release of Pakistan's deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry in Multan, Pakistan on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. Chaudry emerged onto his balcony on Monday after more than four months under house arrest. It is Chaudhry's first public appearance since Musharraf purged the courts to protect his disputed presidency from legal challenges.

Quotes

2008-03-22T16:51:00.000+05:00

If you judge people you have no time to love them. ~Mother Teresa

Our thoughts are unseen hands shaping the people we meet. Whatever we truly think them to be, that's what they'll become for us. ~Richard Cowper

We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them. ~Author Unknown

Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom. ~Merry Browne

Judge me all you want, just keep the verdict to yourself. ~From a Winston advertisement

Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike. ~Oscar Wilde

Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances. ~Wayne W. Dyer

Our prejudices are like physical infirmities - we cannot do what they prevent us from doing. ~John Lancaster Spalding

Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds. ~Albert Einstein

Iraq: Public Opinion Five Years In

2008-03-19T23:49:00.001+05:00

Five years after the start of the Iraq war, American public opinion has solidified around the notion that the war was not worth fighting and that the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order there.

For more than three years, majorities in Washington Post-ABC News polling have called the war's benefits not worth the costs. And the percentages calling the war a mistake have been higher than those saying it has been worth it since before the 2004 presidential election. Two-thirds in the latest poll said the war was not worth fighting, including 51 percent who felt so "strongly." (Check out a pre-primary analysis of public opinion on the war here).

But not everyone has turned on the war, which most Americans supported at the outset. Republicans have remained strongly behind the war since the outset, with more than two-thirds saying the was worth fighting in the most recent Post-ABC poll. Only a third of independents and one in eight Democrats agree.

Assessments of the current situation on the ground are somewhat more positive, and have improved since the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. Forty-three percent now say they believe the U.S. is making strides toward restoring security in Iraq, higher than it was in December 2006. But the percentage seeing progress has changed little over the past four months. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans said significant progress is being made, as did 40 percent of independents 24 percent of Democrats.

Iraqis themselves have a somewhat improved outlook on the state of life in their country, particularly the security situation. According to a survey of Iraqis conducted by ABC News and several international TV news outlets, 55 percent now say their lives are going well, a big bump up from 39 percent in August. However, 61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse. About three in 10 said American troops improve security. For more from the poll, click here.

Back in this country, the remarkable stability of American opinions on the war combined with a dramatically souring economy have contributed to the war's decline in importance in the ongoing presidential election campaign. In early September, more than a third cited the war as their top concern in choosing a president, while one in 10 named the economy. Five months later, the economy outweighed the war by 20 percentage points.

And President Bush's approval rating has been steadily dragged down by flagging assessments of the war in Iraq, and has not topped 50 percent in more than three years. In the most recent poll, only 32 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president, tying his career low in Post-ABC polling.

[Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers...]

Restoring the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

2008-03-18T12:15:00.000+05:00

By Kazim Hasan

The president and his advisors persist in propagating the fiction that the constitutional amendments made by him have become effective and do not require validation. They seem to be under the impression that if they say this long enough and loudly enough, everyone will believe them. The correct position is that all amendments made since November 3, 2007 have ceased to have legal effect. Unless the purported amendments contemplated by Article 270-AAA passed by a two-thirds majority of the legislature, they shall have no legal effect whatsoever. A permanent change in the constitution cannot be countenanced at the behest of the president or of the Supreme Court. Any attempt by any "court" to negate this, would be violative of the basic law. Even otherwise, the new Assembly must be reminded that each member of the armed forces is required, vide Article 244 of the constitution, to take oath as follows:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law."

The proclamation of the emergency and the promulgation of the PCO apart from being void ab initio, must be categorized as political acts. The then chief of Army Staff could not, in his capacity as army chief, have imposed the emergency as he could not engage in political activities, nor could he act in violation of the constitution which he had sworn to uphold. An attempt is also being made by the presidency as well as by a few politicians to trivialize the courageous stand taken on and after November 3, 2007 by the judges of the Superior Courts. It is repeatedly said that this is a storm in a tea-cup as some of the judges took oath under the previous Provisional Constitutional Order. The presidency and these politicians have lost sight of the fact that on November 3, 2007, the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed an Order which, in material part, directed as follows:

"1) Government of Pakistan i.e. president and prime minister of Pakistan are restrained from undertaking any such action, which is contrary to independence of judiciary.

2) No judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts including chief justice(s) shall take oath under PCO or any other extra constitutional step.

3) Chief of Army Staff, Corps Commanders, Staff Officers and all concerned of the civil and military authorities are hereby restrained from acting on PCO which has been issued or from administering fresh oath to chief justice of Pakistan or judges of Supreme Court and chief justice or judges of the provincial high courts. They are also restrained to undertake any such action, which is contrary to independence of judiciary. Any further appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan and judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of high courts or judges of provinces under new development shall be unlawful and without jurisdiction.

Put up before full court on 5th November 2007."

In the light of the above Order, all actions in violation thereof are illegal, unconstitutional and void. The judges who did not take oath were upholding the directions of the Supreme Court, which was not the case with earlier PCOs.

That the presidency is supporting this proposition is hardly surprising. However, the politicians who parrot this line must keep in mind that a strong and independent judiciary is the main bulwark against assaults by non-democratic forces and will be their most powerful protection in the future. The pre November 3, 2007 position must be restored and restored immediately.

The writer is a barrister-at-law. Email: kazimhas@gmail.com

[Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=101817]

Ex-judges say NA resolution enough for reinstatement

2008-03-16T17:07:00.001+05:00

KARACHI, March 15: Eight former judges of the Supreme Court, three chief justices among them, have affirmed that the removal of judges under the emergency decree on Nov 3 was unconstitutional and that a resolution in the National Assembly would be “more than sufficient” for their reinstatement.

“The removal of judges, which was admittedly unconstitutional being in defiance of Article 209 of the Constitution, could not be validated by the unilateral act of one individual through the so-called introduction of Article 270-AAA and purported amendments to 270-C in the Constitution nor could it be validated by the Supreme Court,” the former judges said in a joint statement released on Saturday.

“Since Article 270-AAA and 270-C (2) have not been adopted by two-thirds majority of the parliament, they are not part of the Constitution.

“The power to make permanent amendment in the Constitution does not vest in the president. Nor can any court confer such a power, particularly a bench appointed through an unconstitutional instrument and acting in defiance of order dated Nov 3 passed by the Supreme Court established under the Constitution,” the statement went on to say.

The statement was signed by Justice Ajmal Mian, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, former chief justices of Pakistan, Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Justice Mamoon Qazi, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid and Justice Kamal Mansour Alam.

The former judges said no “principle of state necessity” allowed an individual to “make permanent changes in the supreme law”.

“Even if an individualised power to amend were to be conceded, such power can only be available during the period of deviation/emergency and, upon restoration of the Constitution, the power to make changes as well as the effects thereof stand completely effaced unless duly indemnified by the Parliament.”

The statement recalled that the amendments introduced in the Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq in 1985 and by Gen Pervez Musharraf in 2002 had become part of the Constitution only after they were adopted by a two-thirds majority through the 8th Amendment Act of 1985 and through the 17th Amendment Act of 2003.

“Accordingly, a two-third parliamentary majority is not required to restore deposed judges.

“A simple resolution in the National Assembly reflecting the intention of the people’s representatives to deny affirmation to the purported amendments would provide more than sufficient backing for the executive to do the needful which is, in any event, obligated under articles 5 and 190 of the Constitution to take immediate measures restoring all Chief Justices and judges removed on Nov 3 (save those having reached the age of superannuation) and issue necessary directions to concerned law enforcement agencies enabling the deposed judges to resume their judicial duties.”

About the judges appointed during the emergency and since, the statement said the “removals being unconstitutional, no new appointments of chief justices or judges could be made against existent or non-existent vacancies, particularly without consulting the de jure Chief Justice”.

“Nevertheless, on humanitarian considerations the cases of deserving meritorious appointees could be considered for fresh appointment in accordance with the exercise carried out in Al Jehad Trust case,” the statement said.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/16/top16.htm

Thank you, Musharraf

2008-03-16T01:53:00.005+05:00

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - MARCH 15: A wounded foreigner is carried out of Italian restaurant Luna Caprese after an explosion was detonated amidst diners on March 15, 2008, in Islamabad Pakistan. Three people have been reported killed in the blast and several wounded.