The Salient-Hidden Rulers


Institutional Ranking In Pakistan

Institutional Ranking In Pakistan


Only fools are glad when governments change. No, this isn’t my personal sentiment I’m expressing. It’s an old Romanian maxim that really-truly implies that it’s solely not the change of government that matters, but the change of system.


Since the time Iskander Mirza, the first president of Pakistan, imposed the Martial Law and appointed General Ayub Khan a Martial Law administrator, the history of Pakistan has always been at declasse. That was the first time army ever intervened in the politics of Pakistan. Things went by and Ayub Khan abdicated the serving General Yahya Khan. Those were the days when the commencement of ‘establishment’ started to happen. This is the same establishment we talk a lot about in regards with the mainstream politics of Pakistan. Since then, establishment — the army, intelligence and to some extent foreign powers — kept on deciding the fate of Pakistan. The influence of establishment in the politics of Pakistan grew more and more and year after year. And to date there have been 4 Martial Laws in Pakistan, to be precise the figure is 5. Besides, not to forget the role of our intelligence agencies — the imperative and decisive part of establishment — in the political culture of Pakistan.


There are quite a number of reasons and irrational motives why establishment has kept on interfering in the politics of Pakistan for last 5 decades. I had a debate with a friend on it few days back about it and we compared the similar situation in a view of fact that why there has been no martial law in India ever since independence or why establishment isn’t so predominant the way it’s in Pakistan. She gave the strong points and I agreed to that. Adapted to the words of her: Their (Indian) leadership and bureaucracy has always been hellishly strong; they never had impotent leaders like we had and still have. None of the leader and bureaucrat in India ever paved a way for martial law because they, from the beginning, stood strong ahead of the establishment i.e. army and intelligence and the opportunist political parties.


And what we always had for last 5 decades was Ayub Khan, the lodestar. We could have reset our political position and could have made strong the political institutions and ourselves, the awaam, by not endorsing the acts and moves of establishment after the first martial law which was also the first ever interference of army in politics and which was the beginning of the formation of establishment. Now today, establishment has become too strong, and interference in politics of Pakistan has become a requirements for survival of establishment itself that it’d take a long time to revert the things.


This is a fact that in Pakistan, it’s not the premier or president supervising the country nor their parliament is set upped to handle all democratic decisions; God-knows-what democracy we talk about in the contemporary world. If anything, it’s the establishment that decides the future of Pakistan in a major manner. Toppling the governments or using and abetting the political parties for their cause is something not very new coming from establishment. Of late, some top leadership of PML-N has been found covertly meeting with the top brass servicemen in GHQ. This all happened at a time while everyone knows president Zardari isn’t kindly-disposed when it comes to the establishment. Reasons are many to make president Zardari believe why establishment isn’t congenial with him while simultaneously the same establishment seems to be benignant with premier Gilani.


While all this is happening and establishment again is standing under the klieg light, we all must also understand the fact that removing Zardari wouldn’t be a settlement to start with a new era of peace and prosperity as removing Musharraf wasn’t a logical solution neither it gave a reasonable outcome since Zardari is also guided by the examples of Musharraf — nothing has changed so far; and because we know that the next-best in line (most certainly Nawaz Sharif) is another fallen angel as Zardari and Musharraf are. So why so much fuss about Zardari?


I feel like reiterating the Romanian maxim again: Only fools are glad when governments change. Eventually, it should be understood by everyone after the careful examination of this problem that we need to leash the establishment from ever intervening in the political culture of Pakistan. For that, I can only say all the ethnic, regional and national political parties of Pakistan shouldn’t fall prey to the uncalled for interference of establishment in politics. Let these institutions not to impede in the politics of Pakistan because, forsooth, they’re not meant for it. Turmoil only lasts as long as the status quo is unchanged. So we ought to find a way to make sure the status quo changes in our favor — in awaam’s favor, so that we really become the ones deciding the future of Pakistan, not the establishment nor the dictators.

Story Of Human Rights


Human Rights

Human Rights


And once in Ancient time it was decided that people should have rights too other than Kings and Emperors — which was great; Except not everyone agreed. And it only took a few thousand years of fighting and declarations and more fighting until everyone finally agreed that Human Rights should apply to everyone. And they all lived happily ever after … Except for one little problem: If people have freedom to speak their mind, then why are they suppressed? If people have right to food and shelter, then why 16,000 people are dying of starvation every day — one every five seconds? If people have freedom of speech, why are thousands in prisons for speaking their mind? If people have the right to education, why over a billion at all are unable to read? If slavery has truly been abolished, why are 27 million people still enslave today? Why unjust is prevailing and innocents are held in prisons and tortured and wars are happening?


On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Do you think everyone really lived happily ever after that? Do you think every state in the world respect the charter of Human Rights passed by UN? There are 30 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter and each article is followed by the strict Human Rights but essence of the matter is that none of the article is in full functioning — none of the article is honored under Human Rights; none of the state in the world abide by the law.


For instance, the article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Article 16 states that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.


Article 18, which I believe is quite controversial with respect to the uncalled for religious controversies, states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


So what it’s that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are documented and why it’s documented? Because the Godfathers of Democracy and Justice and the custodian of God-knows-what religion are clothed with authority and omnipotence and under that breaching these sets of rules which are determined to be followed by the world — the primary legislation is dismantled all over the world. There’s an old idiom: When old cock crows, the young cock learns. In the hour of need when Godfathers of Democracy and Justice need to show some mercy on the Human Rights charter, they’re more busy in proving themselves superior akin to Napoleon and Hitler or perhaps God in regards with the attitude of superiority.


The fact is, when the Universal Declaration was signed, it didn’t have the ‘force of law’. It was just signed then — the force of law was merely optional. And despite many more documents, conventions, treaties and laws — the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still a little more than worth on a piece of page.


PS: Inspired from a brief documentary entitled “Story Of Human Rights”.

NRO Thrashed


17 Members Bench Of Supreme Court

17 Members Bench Of Supreme Court


Since the promulgation of NRO to date, it has always been confronted by absolute majority of Pakistanis. Now it’s adjudicated by 17 members bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan, after 5 hours of long discussion in a meeting room, to ultimately drub the NRO. A host of argle-bargles had kept on brewing in at times to prove and disprove if NRO was really an ordinance to subscribe to.


The controversy has now come to an end. A long standing issue is finally settled with a strongly yearned for decision.


Today again, I’ve started believing that the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ — that has always been a part of Judiciary in the past — is now buried deep under the ground. This is the same de facto ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ that has ruined Pakistan all the time in the past. This decision of Supreme Court is lauded by everyone by and large. Some exceptions — when ‘Jiyalas’ are concerned at this particular event — are always there.


The recent decision has opened new horizons of Justice, and that how Supreme Court will adjudicate so many cases against the so many beneficiaries of NRO. Supreme Court should adjudicate the long standing cases imminently. But there are problems with the initial velocity of the proceedings at this beginning stage against the culprits since the hierarchy begins with the name of incumbent president of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari who’s said to be the top banana amongst the NRO beneficiaries.


The Article 248 of the constitution of Pakistan gives legal immunity to the president of Pakistan. But there’s something startling in the same constitution under the article 25 of the constitution which guarantees that every citizen is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of law. The startling thing is now about to begin that no ‘reference’ has been made in the article 25 of the constitution that can disjoin or conjoin article 25 with the article 248 and vice versa. So, if anything, it has in some manner become an oxymoron. However, at different places, there are quite a number of references mentioned in the constitution just in case that it wouldn’t become double-barreled.


Whatever the case see may, but the question is simple: why a president can’t be summoned before the court?


Once, Hazrat Omar RA appeared before the court of Medina. Somebody had made a complaint against him. The judge stood up to show respect to the Caliph as he entered the court. “This is the first injustice you have done to the plaintiff,” said Omar RA, addressing the judge.


Modern democratic states have yet to reach this level of democracy. Their heads cannot be summoned before an ordinary court.


Not long since the article 248 of the constitution has been challenged in Supreme Court — the petition of which was filed by Communist Party of Pakistan — which says that the article 41 of Chinese constitution gives courts the right to summon any leader including the president of China before the court. A socialist country can summon its president, democratic countries can’t. Gee whiz!


In a wake of this donnybrook, we should be thinking that why such looters and plunderers like Zardari hasn’t been punished ever in the past. Perhaps or rather we don’t have any quick response to this question — only when the de facto ‘greatest national interest’ is concerned — yet we’ve so many responses suddenly lining up one after other once the de facto explanandum is snubbed from the mainstream politics of Pakistan. One big response would be the uncontrolled state of accountability which, to all appearances, is now attempting to get back on the track.


The journey to provide justice to Pakistan — by Supreme Court judges restored after 2 years of interminable efforts and exertion of awaam — hasn’t finished after the annulment of NRO. The rejoicing is effective at the moment, but subject to change depending upon the performance of Judiciary in future, as I’ve an urge to remind this again and once again. Supreme Court must again prove its commitment to the Justice by rendering the Justice — again, in a manner which gives evidence about Justice. Justice is all we need.

This is for the genuine beneficiaries of NRO: for how long could you save yourself now? Your time’s up.

Killing Two Birds With A Single Stone



Few days back, I attended a wedding ceremony of one of my friend. This was after almost 2 years that I’ve been to some wedding. And, then, that I found something completely a thunderclap. It’s that, Government had decided days back to put a ban on the extended time of weddings: the wedding halls should be closed by 12 midnight. I’m not sure of the penalty if someone breaches this rule by continuing the wedding after 12 midnight, but what I’ve heard from the word of mouth is that the groom would be nabbed, detained in a lock up for one day on the very night of his wedding. The penalty is something mirthful, if at all it’s genuinely legitimate (Caution: This is what I heard from a word of mouth, while not giddily I believe)


I forgot to add that this thunderclap wasn’t at all with respect to the performance of government actually, but what really was it about is that the invitees were seriously following this law. They came on time — they joined the happy moments with relatives, friends, acquaints — and then fled on time and many even before the 12 midnight without thinking of elongating the wedding time to even an hour or two.


As I was reading one of the article on Dawn, it was criticized that this law isn’t really about safeguarding the interest of the bride-groom relatives, friends, acquaints and generally the residents of Pakistan. The presentation of law, if anything, speaks volume about the failure of government to cope with the national security condition, the national energy crisis including this ‘kunda system’ and all.


The motive of government might have been the same as delineated by the author who wrote in Dawn, and that a good thing has been done inadvertently. But then, a restriction on weddings of such sort out of the blue is actually commendable. Even if there was some normalcy in regards with energy crisis and crimes like theft, robbery, mugging — I would have preferred these restrictions yet. And I hope there would be a myriad like me commending on this ban.


If anything, this is one of the bonzer step government has taken and this is something lauded by almost everyone I’ve seen and I’ve known to, despite that fact that government has really killed two birds with a single stone — by blotting out its failure of coping the relevant problems, simultaneously enacting a law on the wedding time. Besides, some more restrictions need to be placed with respect to the standard of weddings in general — the lavishness and flamboyance in particular.


Sometime back there was a news in Pakistani media about the usage of Guns in weddings — the aerial firing and all — that killed some of the invitees. I believe this should also be stopped at once by enacting a strict law on it.

A Notorious Winner For Nobel Peace Prize


Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner


Obama won the Peace Prize days back, and tomorrow he’s going to visit Norway to receive it in person. The term ‘Peace’ — for which Obama is actually getting the Prize — categorically talks about the absence or nonoccurrence of war. The so-called summa cum laude Peace Prize Obama has won during a time when he’s commanding two ugly wars — Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars are always ugly, besides, the disputed resolutions on war across the globe does substantiate the fact that these wars are supplementally ugly. Is he really worthy of receiving the Peace Prize?


I’m not against the Peace Prize itself, but I was wondering about those 5 members in the panel who unanimously approved Obama’s name for Peace Prize. Were they actually known to the definition of Peace? Or perhaps Obama has won so many hearts and minds and enjoying the warmth of so many of the fans throughout the world after the same intensively hanky panky orations — a traditional weapon of every political leader. But it’s another matter altogether that giving a ‘hope’ for reshaping the world in this 21st century by Obama — the Peace Prize winner — has reached to an ad infinitum end. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s ‘sincere’ efforts have actually brought about peace. Obama has done nothing pragmatic to bring peace to any where in the world by even an ane percent. Is there there any?


There’s something for sure I can say that Obama won’t be winning any such phenomenal prize within his country during his stay in office as President. It’s been nearly one year now since Obama took the office and the state of financial and commercial hardship in US is at its peak. Instead of getting better, it deteriorated more. The unemployment rate has touched 17.5% in United States.


The committee of Nobel Peace Prize has made a mockery of the award. Now I understand again, how hard it’s to distinguish the hopes from the achievements — real achievements. Same has been the case with Pakistan, but without a Peace Prize involvement.