Today is the death anniversary of one of Pakistan’s greatest heroes. One can safely assume that there will be no mention of his services to Pakistan. It would be rare to find any expression of appreciation from a nation for whom he did so much. His memory has been wiped out from the minds of most Pakistanis because of his faith. His doctrinal difference as an Ahmadi makes him an outcast to the timid leaders of today despite his glorious contributions to Pakistan and its cause. The treatment of this hero by the leaders of today makes a mockery of the leadership and wisdom of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah who held him in the highest regard. Sir Mohammad Zafrullah Khan’s contribution for the betterment of the Muslims of India and Pakistan as a jurist, a diplomat and a patriot are exceeded by only that of our revered leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah. By all counts Zafrullah Khan stands much above men who have made a mockery of our nation. Born in Sialkot in 1893, Mr Khan rose to be one of the most astute legal minds of British India. His early education was in his town of birth from where he proceeded to Lahore for his graduation. He received his law degree from King’s College London in 1914, where he excelled and topped his class. He was the first from the Indian subcontinent to do so. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, the same place where Mr Jinnah went earlier. As a practising lawyer, Mr Khan proved his abilities quickly and had many reported cases to his credit. Starting his career in his early 30s as a member of the Punjab legislative Council, he rose to prominence as an untiring campaigner for the Muslims of Punjab. Later, he represented the Muslims at the Round Table Conference. In 1931, he became the president of the All India Muslim League. At the Round Table Conference, he forced a committee to accept his point of view over someone no less than Churchill. Later, Mr Khan was offered a seat on the Viceroy’s permanent Council. He also served at varying times as the minister of railways, labour, law and public works under the Viceroy. For a brief period, he became British India’s representative to the League of Nations, just before it was dissolved. From 1942 onwards, he served as a federal judge of India. He took leave from this position to serve Pakistan’s cause before the Radcliffe Commission on Quaid-e-Azam’s personal request. Mr Khan’s greatest contribution to the cause of Indian Muslims is his drafting of the Lahore Resolution, which is the rallying point of our nationalism as our founding document. The Lahore Resolution was a broad-based solution leaving room for several solutions, all of which were meant to safeguard the interests of the Muslims of India. The 1946 elections failed to dislodge the Unionists from a position of dominance in the Punjab Legislative Assembly. This made Mr Khan come to Muslim League’s assistance. He induced Sardar Khizar Hayat Khan to dissolve his powerful Unionist Ministry and hand over the reins of government in Punjab to the League leaders. For this he came to Lahore and within 48 hours, the League was restored to its rightful place in the Punjab. History would bear testimony that this was the final act that made Pakistan possible and also avoided a dangerous division among Muslims on the eve of Independence. On December 25, 1947, Mr Jinnah appointed Zafrullah Khan the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At the UN, Sir Zafrullah emerged as the most eloquent advocate of the Arabs, Africans, the Third World and Islamic issues. His efforts materialised into the UN Resolutions on Kashmir, which are the basis of the Pakistani stance on the issue. Mr Khan’s speech to the UN on the issue of Palestine is perhaps one of the immortal speeches delivered at the UN. The passion with which he advocated the Palestinian cause and the arguments that he laid against the partition of Palestine made him a hero in the eyes of the Arabs. In the context of the repatriation of the Jews to Palestine and the creation of Israel he says: “...Shall they be repatriated to their own countries? Australia says no; Canada says no; the United States says no. This was very encouraging from one point of view. Let these people, after their terrible experiences, even if they are willing to go back, not be asked to go back to their own countries. In this way, one would be sure that the second proposal would be adopted and that we should all give shelter to these people. Shall they be distributed among the Member States according to the capacity of the latter to receive them? Australia, an over-populated small country with congested areas, says no, no, no; Canada, equally congested and over-populated, says no; the United States, a great humanitarian country, a small area, with small resources, says no. That is their contribution to the humanitarian principle. But they state: let them go into Palestine, where there are vast areas, a large economy and no trouble; they can easily be taken in there. That is the contribution made by this august body to the settlement of the humanitarian principle involved...In the hearts of the populations of all the countries from the North African Atlantic Coast to the steppes of Central Asia, you sow doubt and mistrust of the designs and motives of the Western Powers. You take the gravest risk of impairing, beyond the possibility of repair, any chance of real cooperation between East and West, by thus forcibly driving what in effect amounts to a Western wedge into the heart of the Middle East.” Mr Khan’s selfless efforts to win freedom for Palestine, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria were unmatched. King Hussein of Jordan awarded him the Star of Jordan, the highest civil award of the country. The rulers of Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria followed suit and honoured Sir Zafrullah Khan with the highest civil awards of their countries. The communist victory on mainland China produced a distinct division among the member countries of the UN on the representation of China in the Security Council. In the debate on the issue, the US-led western countries openly opposed the People’s Republic of China’s seat. Representing Pakistan, Mr Khan opposed this western stance and demanded the seating of the Communists in place of the Nationalists. This laid the foundation of Sino-Pak friendship. Serving briefly as the president of the UN General Assembly, Zafrullah Khan later became the first Asian to be appointed the president of the International Court of Justice. This was a unique honour for anyone, as Mr Khan is the only person ever to become both president of the UN General Assembly and president of the International Court of Justice. Mr Khan was a great writer and he authored books and tracts on the history of Pakistan and religion. His famous book that is about the sad betrayal that took away the country from the hands of the patriots into the hands of those who were its ideological enemies and who had worked to the hilt to hinder its creation is aptly titled Agony of Pakistan. Although his adherence to the Ahmadi faith was known to all, in March 1958, Zafrullah Khan performed Umrah and visited the Prophet’s (PBUH) mausoleum. During the visit he met the King of Saudi Arabia Ibn Saud, and stayed at the Royal Palace as a personal guest of the king. In 1967, he returned to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Having served his motherland to the best of his abilities this able son of the country and comrade of the Quaid passed away in September 1983 in Lahore. His death was condoled by eminent personalities from within the country and abroad. The text of the condolence telegram sent by the King of Jordan at his death sums up the deep gratitude and respect the Arabs had for the champion of their cause: “I was deeply grieved to learn of the passing away of my dear friend the late Sir Zafrullah Khan. He shall always be remembered for his great contributions to humanity and to just causes everywhere, especially the Palestinian cause. He was indeed a champion of the Arab cause and his ceaseless efforts whether among the Muslim and aligned countries or at the international court of justice will remain for ever a shining example of a great man truly dedicated to the noble principles of our faith and civilisation. Please accept my sincere condolences. May Almighty God bless his soul and may he rest in peace. Hussain — His Majesty King Hussain of Jordan.” The idea of Jinnah’s Pakistan lives as long as the memory of people like Zafrullah Khan is alive. The people of Pakistan yearn to reclaim their country as the progressive state envisioned by the Quaid-e-Azam. Being gracious, they are thankful to those who worked for the creation of their homeland and served it well. That Zafrullah Khan is not paid due homage is only because most of them are unaware of his services to the Arab cause and Pakistan The reason being that successive governments have deliberately fed them an incomplete history of Pakistan, telling them the story with Zafrullah Khan’s name wiped out. The day this distortion of history is corrected he would claim his rightful place in their memories as one of Pakistan’s founding heroes.
By: Lailufar Yasmin
Published in http://www.opendemocracy.net/Whenever democratic space has opened up, people have been eager to choose those who not only provide a better solution for their economic and social problems, but who can also offer them a recognition of the authenticity of their cultures. The idea that the West has a mission to civilize the rest of the world rests on a conventional view of modernity in which modernity is viewed as involving a separation between religion and the public sphere. This mission sets out to impose a singular and unidirectional conception of modernity on Islamic countries that overlooks the differentiated experiences and perceptions of non-western societies, as well as the differentiated experiences within the west towards modernity. Instead, religion becomes the decisive factor in determining who is modern and who is not, and, by extension, who is civilized and who is not. Such a viewpoint asserts that there is an “organic” linkage between modernization and secularization, of which the west has been the bearer for the past century and a half. This tends to create a dangerous binary that excludes the rest of the world, especially countries with Muslim majorities, as uncivilized members of the community of states. I argue here instead that the masses in Muslim majority countries have rejected such a view, instead supporting the Islamists who have an alternative prospect in view which involves blending modernity and Islam. It is elites in Turkey, Egypt and Bangladesh, who are opposed to such an understanding and are rather inclined to replicate the western construction of religion, i.e., Islam as a hindrance to modernity. This is only paving the way for more unproductive tension in these countries. Secularism: the great invention The modern west has made itself distinct from the rest of the world by separating the temporal and spiritual worlds from each other. This separation, according to Charles Taylor, is “the great invention of the West.” Reformations throughout the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries in Europe paved the way for the rise of humanism, and a modern understanding of the world that is distinctively secular. Secularism refers to the confining of religiosity to the private domain of life. The term was initially coined by George Jacob Hollyake in 1851 as a way of creating a conscious difference between a secular approach to religion in which religion was to be considered part on one’s private life, and atheism. The term was in frequent use for this purpose during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The distinction between atheism and secularism originated in the fear that endorsing a secular public sphere would be misunderstood as denoting the eradication of religion, which was quite the opposite of the Kantian agenda for the secular. Kant, a principle theorist of the secular, defined a clear boundary between a private and public sphere. He insisted that making the public sphere secular did not indicate the end of religion, and he certainly did not disapprove of the practice of religion in the private sphere of human beings. Rather Kant insisted that reliance on a transcendent God violated human autonomy and freedom. Modernity was thus perceived to diminish the role of religion in public life in favour of reason and science. This was a central assumption in the theories of John Locke, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, to name but a few. In one way or the other, the proponents of this school of thought, with their varied backgrounds and ideological orientations, argued that religion was a private matter for citizens. Although few said so explicitly, one further implication of this argument was that religion would eventually disappear, as secularization was essentially progressive. By the beginning of the twentieth century there was a widespread assumption in the west that, as had been implied by the Enlightenment framework, religion was “a soon-to-disappear remnant of the “dark ages.” However, this view of the early twentieth century changed dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s with the beginning of the studies of “history from the below” in the west. The predicted eventual end of religion in modern societies was challenged, based on the evidence of thriving religious practices in everyday life. Since then, the increasing visibility of religion in the west has led to the late-twentieth century perception that there has been a ‘return’ of religion to the west. The dilemma of the Muslim majority countries The growth of the modern nation-state system and its continuation in its modern form is directly linked to keeping a separation between religion and public space. It is interesting to note that as the secularization thesis developed in the west, some major theorists, such as Durkheim or Weber, did not endorse the usual teleological view of modernity, and in particular did not support the imposition of such a modernity on non-western societies. Nevertheless, enlightenment theories in general predicted the eventual decline and death of religion wherever these theories were to be applied. As these theories served as the basis of modernity, they also served as the basis of westernization and extended beyond the west to form the basis of universalism. Secularisation came to essentialize religion as a hindrance to modern development universally. As the non-western countries formed their own nation-states, they blindly replicated the western notion of keeping religion ‘confined’ without reflecting on the cultural particularities of these societies. A glaring example of this orientalist perspective would be Turkey, where the founding fathers of the country branded Islam and decreed that Islam needed to be contained in order to build the modern state of Turkey. The Cold War period, dominated by superpower rivalry saw the non-western countries follow the path of industrialization, as Jawharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India proclaimed in parliament that ‘catching up’ with both the United States and Soviet Union was the main imperative, “These two types of development [the US and the Soviet Union], even though they might be in conflict, are branches of the same tree.” Identity issues assumed a backseat as nation-building took the route to being modern, which was considered as synonymous to being industrialized. One can of course argue that identity issues, although multi-layered, were always present as the newly developed countries attempted to establish their ‘distinct’ identity vis-à-vis the other through projecting a ‘national’ narrative. However, the end of the Cold War and particularly the ‘war on terror’, resurfaced the debates on identity—should all modern nations be ‘western’ in all senses or revive and retain their own cultural distinctiveness, often imbued with religious practices and symbols. The rise of Islamism and the Arab Spring The resurgence of Islam in the political arena is traced to the defeat of the Arabs by Israel in the Six Day War, the 1973 oil crisis and more infamously, the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The Arab Spring, which started to rock the Middle East from December 2010 onwards, was at first seen as revolt against long-standing Islamic autocrats in the Middle East. The subsequent fall of the regimes and return to democracy left the world amazed as governments in Tunisia and Egypt were formed by popularly elected Islamist groups. Many now asked what the Arab Spring was all about? The Arab Spring had been considered by many commentators as a way of rewesternizing the world through the embrace of western ideals of democracy; instead, those democratic options paved the way for Islamist political parties to come to power peacefully. Before the onset of Arab Spring, the same happened in Turkey where the AK Parti was re-elected by popular mandate twice, and consolidated its political hold on power. This re-emergence of Islamists and their popular support might instead suggest that the people of these countries, and maybe more generally, are interested in a gradual return to their ideological roots and an amalgamation of these with the modern forces unleashed by democratic ideals. In other words, modernization is not the exclusive preserve of westernization. In countries with Muslim majorities modernisation aspires to blend Islam and modernity together. We might not want to call this Islamic modernity. We might want to recognise both its dichotomous nature and its insistence that the relationship between the two is amenable to peaceful coexistence, by referring to it as ‘Muslim and Modernity’. For example, the projection of Malaysian identity in the wake of 9/11 by Dr Mahathir Mohammad, as Shanti Nair has commented, spelt out, “Malaysia's status as a powerful, disciplined and learned nation that could defend itself and Islam.” Malaysia’s active promotion of ‘Asian values’ also reflected the nationalist aspiration of postcolonial countries to project their cultural distinctiveness over and against that of the west. This process of modernisation allowed space for the creation of identity internally. As Stephanie Lawson has pointed out, the promotion of Asian values, “operates to produce a unified, nationalistic rallying point—and it differentiates the unified ‘us’ against the external ‘them’.” This call for a unified ‘us’ appears at a clear juncture in the career of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who developed from being a “charismatic fundamentalist” in the 1980s to a “globalist liberal advocating for reformasi (reform)” in the late 1990s. The responses that emerged especially from Southeast countries with Muslim majority populations in the wake of 9/11 championed this creation of commensurability between modernity and Islam, an important feature of which is embodied, as Lily Rahim has argued, in the demand for, “the equal treatment of all religions by the state and freedom of religion and conscience.” Such views reject orientalist perspectives on Islam as a hindrance to modern development. Lily Rahim argues that such a shift in the Islamic countries was much evident during the Arab Spring in the Middle East and has termed this unique assertion of post-Islamism a ‘refolution’—a mixture of reformist and revolutionary zeal. In her analysis of post-Arab Spring political developments, Rahim has argued as research seems to show, that these countries have equally rejected authoritarian Islamic state systems and authoritarian secular principles in the conscious effort to blend modernity with cultural specificities in Muslim societies. The cases of Turkey, Egypt and Bangladesh The elites in these three countries seem quite oblivious to the fact that Islam can co-exist in the public sphere as long as it is not used as a political weapon. What started out in Turkey as a protest against a proposed development project at Gezi Park soon escalated and turned towards blaming the Islamist government for hijacking Turkey’s secular identity. What began in Bangladesh as the trial of the war criminals soon turned ‘secular’ with the so-called progressive elites ridiculing Islam. A democratically elected government was ousted in Egypt on the grounds that it wanted to establish totalitarian control of the society. While the political situations existing in these three countries may seem politically unconnected, at the bottom of all three scenarios lies an intense desire to contain Islamists and thereby to gain ‘modern’ credentials by reorienting Islam according to an essentially western perspective. Marxist writers have attributed the recent political turmoil in Greece and Turkey to protest against the elimination of ‘public spaces’ by capitalist regimes. But the underlying cause remains related to the ‘recognition’ of identity. Whenever democratic space has opened up, people have been eager to choose those who not only provide a better solution for their economic and social problems, but who can also offer them a recognition of the authenticity of their cultures. In their response to this, the division between the masses and their political elites is not only widening, but the elites have opted to deploy repressive measures to quell the challengers. The recent moves  of the Bangladesh government against the Islamists was a glaring example of this, leading to the imprisonment of a renowned human rights activist, lawyer Adilur Rahman Khan, charged with fabricating the number of deaths that had occurred during these demonstrations. The actual death toll remains controversial after the Egyptian military’s crackdown on the Islamists this August. The basic understanding of secularism is perhaps ‘lost in translation’ worldwide, both in the west and the non-west, especially in the Muslim majority countries. Secularism emerged out of the internecine intolerance between the Catholics and the Protestants that led towards the mutual accommodation and toleration of religious differences. But as it has developed, it has turned out instead to identify religion itself as the problem for the development of modernity and reason. Such a politicization of secularism has led towards intolerance and religious feud, which needs to be rethought, not only in the Muslim majority countries, but also in those European countries where self-expression through religious attire has been banned in public institutions.
BY RAFIA ZAKARIA
“Your eyes aren’t eyes, they’re bees
I find no cure for their sting”
The above is a “landay,” or a folk couplet, common among the Pashtuns living on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This particular one was written by one of the twenty million women. The creators and listeners of landay, which are meant to be sung aloud, do not have to be literate, and in Pashtu the landays rarely rhyme. The only formal property of a landay is that it consists of 22 syllables, nine in the first line and 13 in the second. The poem ends with the sound “ma” or “na.”
The story of the landay, the above selection, and many others written by predominantly Afghan women, were compiled, collected, translated, and then published by Poetry Magazine in the United States. The author of the volume, Eliza Griswold, traveled across Afghanistan collecting them. The result is an evocative collection that allows a glimpse into the private world of Pashtun women, one largely unavailable for public consumption. There are landays about lost loves, landays about drones, landays about emotional misgivings, and personal ones. As Griswold narrates, collecting them was difficult; the women were often afraid. In one instance, when she tried to take a picture of the gathering with her iPhone, they took it from her and hid it. In Pakistan, everyone would know why; we bury women for transgressions caught on cell phones all the time.
There is something sorrowful about reading the account in an American magazine, much like learning of a neighbor’s illness from the mouth of a distant, faraway acquaintance. But such is the reality of our estranged proximities. In the decade of fighting the Taliban, from the days when they were a mysterious faraway force marauding Kabul, to the present when their names, faces, and ravages are well known, Pakistanis have never really learned much about either Pashtun or Afghan culture. As the Tehreek-e-Taliban have usurped the rhetoric of religion – appointing themselves the arbiters of authenticity, of righteousness, and of faith – there has been protest. Many mourn and question this; Islam must not be lost to the Taliban.
Fewer have mourned the loss of Pashtun culture, of poetic forms such as the landay, of traditional music, of storytelling. The politicisation of Pashtun identity has meant that the loss has been constructed in entirely political terms, cultural appreciation thus neatly equaling ethnic segregation. Pakistan’s aging but persisting ethnic enmities have dictated that any appreciation of cultural tropes associated with ethnic identity must be celebrated only by those who either ascribe to that identity or who have forgotten it completely. Add to this that the loudest, brashest, and most violent claimants of culture usually win, and you have a rout in which the Tehreek-e-Taliban own Pashtun culture.
The dynamics above, the language of geopolitical maneuvering, and strategic balancing has dominated Pakistan’s understanding of its next door neighbor. Any remaining space has been filled by images of an encroaching refugee horde, in the 80’s and the 90’s and recently as a result of the Nato invasion. The dark grays and blues and beards and burqas of the men and women that live on the outskirts of our cities add to this stark and dehumanised palette. There is no room for culture here, no room for understanding. Humanising the Pashtun and the Afghan is thought to impose costs far too dear for us to bear. After all, our bloody cities, our bombed schools have given us enough to mourn and little left; looking to the pain in another’s poetry may impose still more costs, and we are all emotionally bankrupt.
So it is left to others to celebrate the landay. In the Pakistani imagination, Afghanistan remains a black hole of mystery populated only by worn images of fighters perched on mountain promontories and nameless, faceless women in blue burkas. What we have in common, the Pashtuns that live here and there, has been understood only in terms of the political liabilities they impose or, on good days, the strategic gifts they can bestow. The state is dismal and it can best be captured by the landay that begins the essay published in Poetry magazine. Written by a teenage poet who goes by the name Rahila Muska, from Helmand in Afghanistan, it simply says:
“I call, You’re a stone,One day you will look,and I am gone
Let Us Build Pakistan
By Lal Khan
There has been an aggressive campaign in the media that the recipe for growth and the solution to the economic crisis is privatisation and not the nationalisation of industry, agriculture, finance capital and the economy. Nationalisation has been dubbed as a failure and an economic disaster.
The burgeoning losses and corruption in the PIA, WAPDA, Railways, Steel Mills and other state institutions have been diagnosed as the products of nationalisation and public ownership. For most analysts and politicians dominating society, the solution of these economic woes is simply the ‘privatisation’ of these enterprises. Such brusque and absurd statements only lay bare the obtuseness and mediocrity of the experts of the elite who slavishly ape the western bourgeois economists who have plunged the economies of advanced capitalist countries into the deepest slump in memory.
The reality is that the economic development in Europe, the USA, Japan and other advanced capitalist economies in the post war period was possible through the domination of state sectors in the economy that gave them a certain social advance and stability. The economic history of Pakistan also contradicts this approach of monetarist economics. In the 1960s under the Ayub regime there was a substantial expansion of industry and infrastructure and the main emphasis of the economic policy was not the present doctrine of trickle down and free market economics.
On the contrary it was Keynesian economics that was pushing the growth rate and expanding the economy. Although it was the by-product of the spin off effects of the boom in western capitalism in that period, it was mainly through the intervention of the state that the economy surged forward. The state set up industries and dams and other infrastructure projects under the state institutions like the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC). Similarly, land reforms were introduced and the state invoked policies to expand and stimulate demand. But this model failed to carry out an equivalent social development which sharpened contradictions in society that exploded in the revolutionary upheaval of 1968-69.
Despite defeat in a war, dismemberment of the country and massive destruction, the PPP government, under the influence of the mass upsurge, carried out some of the most radical reforms in the country’s history. Large chunks of the mainly domestic capital and industry were nationalised and massive land reforms were instituted. However, the capitalist state and the system were not overthrown under the utopian doctrine of a ‘mixed’ economy. The reforms were sabotaged by a bureaucracy that was in cahoots with the landlords, capitalists and the imperialist monopolies.
The failure of these reforms to deliver laid bare the incapacity of carrying out of reforms within a capitalist setup. These nationalisations were in fact bureaucratisation of the industries and did not introduce workers management, control and collective ownership. It was a regime of state capitalism that tried to attack some sections of the ruling class without eliminating their system in its totality. As soon as they recovered from the initial blows, this elite hyped inflation and sabotaged the economy resulting in severe social and political instability. In connivance with the imperialists and the military generals they toppled the PPP government and assassinated Bhutto through the gallows in a venomous vengeance for the bruises they got from these expropriations.
In the 1980s, when Keynesian economics started to collapse internationally after the oil shock and the first major post war slump of the mid seventies, the new mantra was trickledown economics under the synonyms of Reaganomics and Thatcherism. In reality, it was the same old monetarist capitalism of the 1860s. The collapse of a bureaucratic caricature of socialism in the Soviet Union and the capitalist degeneration of the Chinese bureaucracy further gave impetus to this aggressive neoliberal economics.
However, these policies in the ex-colonial countries from Chile to Pakistan were a catastrophe for the teeming millions. The brutal but cowardly Zia dictatorship was afraid and cautious of implementing large scale privatisations as they were terrified of a massive workers backlash that could have overthrown the despotic regime. But with the advent of the democratic regimes of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif the privatisation process was accelerated. Thatcherism became the role model. With the lull in the movement and the ideological betrayals of the left political and trade union leaders, who capitulated to Fukuyama’s theory of ‘the end of history’, the interests of the rulers were served. The disastrous impact on the workers and the impoverished masses was cynically ignored. Today, almost all of the mainstream political leaders in Pakistan subscribe to this doctrine of trickledown economics.
Even in the present situation there are numerous examples which demonstrate the progressive impacts of expropriations for the oppressed masses. In its issue of 19th January this year the most ardent advocate of privatisation, The Economist, had this to write about the situation in Bolivia. “Since becoming Bolivia’s president in 2006, Evo Morales has brought ever more of the country’s economy into the hands of the state. In his first year in office he renationalised the oil industry. Telecoms, much of electricity generation and then zinc and tin mining followed. On December 29th Mr. Morales announced the expropriation of two electricity-distribution companies owned by Iberdrola, a Spanish company...Bolivia has overtaken its wealthier neighbour Peru in access to clean water, the World Bank reckons... average incomes have more than doubled in dollar terms...The government may now be able to expand electricity provision, as it has with water...”But to sustain this alleviation of poverty and the access of the basic amenities Evo Morales will have to go the whole hog and expropriate the commanding heights of the economy. Capitalism has to be overthrown and the socialist revolution completed for the emancipation of the masses in Bolivia.
With the present catastrophic condition of Pakistan’s economy, privatisations only end up in worsening the plight of the toiling masses. What we can learn from the economic history of capitalism is that class interests are irreconcilable. For the ruling classes and their imperialist bosses these policies of privatisation and the intensification of exploitation are necessary to sustain their rates of profits. For the working masses it means exclusion from health, education, water, electricity and the other basic needs of life. But half hearted nationalisations within the constraints of capitalism are futile and end up in a disastrous economic crisis. The politics of the people’s emancipation need the expropriation of the banks, industry and agriculture. This can be only brought about by the creation and establishment of a democratically planned economy where all production, wealth and resources are not for the sake of profits but for fulfilment of human need and for putting an end to deprivation.
Green Left Weekly
Najeeba Wazefadost came to Australia as a child refugee in September 2000 by a perilous journey by boat. She is now president of Hazara Women of Australia and I interviewed her for Green Left TV at a 500-strong Hazara community demonstration in the centre of Sydney on February 20 to protest the ongoing massacres of Shia in Pakistan.
“Hazaras all over the world have been persecuted for so many years, especially in Pakistan. Lately we've had seen many Hazaras killed – slaughtered mercilessly. But unfortunately, the Pakistan government has been very quiet. It has been silent on all the targeted killings that have happened.
“Actually it is no longer just targeted killings, it is a genocide. This needs to stop.
“We need to condemn these targeted killings of Shia. It has happened many times in the last year. It has happened in the same city, Quetta, again. It has happened against the shame Shia community of Hazara again.
“Where is the UN? Where is Human Rights Watch? Where is the Pakistan government raising its voice to bring some changes to give peace to our people?
“The Australian government is very concerned about the number of refugee arrivals in Australia. But if it really wants to decrease this number then they need to put pressure on the Pakistan government about the way it treats the basic human rights of Hazaras. They should put pressure on the Pakistan government to provide safety and security for these people so they are not forced to flee to other countries like Australia.”
Nick Reimer, a spokesperson for the Sydney Refugee Action Coalition told Green Left TV:
“The Australian government is complicit with the Pakistani government in the outrages going on in cities like Quetta because Australian money is funding measures that are trapping Hazara people in Pakistan because our government is so desperate to prevent them coming here as refugees and making claims for our protection.
“Australia should welcome Hazara refugees, as it should welcome all other refugees. We should process them in the community when they arrive here and apply for asylum. They should be able to live decently while their refugee applications are being processed. Which should give them the support and care that they desperately need.”
Protests were held in major cities around Australia on February 20. Najeeba Wazefadost will be speaking at a forum on Voices from Afghanistan at Jubilee Room, NSW Parliament on February 27, 6-8.30pm. See Facebook event page here.
Dr M Taqi
The religious extremists were co-opted by the security apparatus, not by the civilians. The signal to decommission them also has to come from the brass
Mankind has been practising some
form of vaccination since almost when it first discovered diseases and understood that those conditions could kill, disable or disfigure. Ancient populations knew, for example, that people could be immunised against smallpox by inoculating them with it. The practice of scarification where the inoculums — the material taken from the afflicted person — was applied on to small superficial incisions, was practised from the Far East to Europe. As far back as 1500 BC, the Indian physician Dhanwantari is said to have performed it. The Arab-Persian Muslim physician Muhammad bin Zakariya ar-Razi, known to the west as Rhazes, wrote the first treatise on smallpox in 920 AD and described the differences between smallpox and measles. Inoculation went to Europe from Turkey in 1701 when a physician Timoni described the process as he had observed it in Constantinople. The idea was simple: to create immunity in healthy people by producing a mild disease using a weak (attenuated) live or dead contagion and thus protect against the severe form of the disease.
On June 18, 1774, the very young King Louis XVI of France was inoculated against smallpox. The American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not that lucky against his disease. He ended up becoming the most famous polio patient in history. But not just that, he also became a champion against the disease. FDR founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that is called the March of Dimes Foundation today. This organisation funded the research to develop a vaccine against polio. D. Jonas Salk along with his associates was successful in developing the first polio vaccine in 1952 at the University of Pittsburgh. The vaccine’s trial, in which 1.3 million US children participated, was completed in 1955. However, what is today given as the oral polio vaccine (OPV) was developed by a US physician Dr Albert Sabin, a Polish-American who interestingly worked closely with the Soviets to test the vaccine. The 1959 Soviet OPV trial had enrolled 10 million children. Sabin’s OPV was later tested and it became the standard in the US too. The polio vaccine is not the only shining legacy of those who stood firm against the debilitating and deadly disease. What is today known as mechanical ventilation or life support by artificial breathing machine was originally developed as the Iron Lung in 1929 to help the paralytic polio patient breathe.
Fast forward to Pakistan at the end of 2012 now. Nine healthcare workers, mostly women, administering OPV have been killed in cold blood. The Taliban and/or other jihadist groups have been blamed for these heinous murders. The campaign by the religious zealots against healthcare workers as well as preventive health measures is not new. These extremists allege that the polio vaccine causes male infertility and precocious puberty in females. These charges are not new either. When iodised salt was introduced a few decades ago where thyroid disease was endemic, it was blamed for similar adverse effects. Vaccines can fail or cause allergic or adverse reactions; Salk’s vaccine did and was stopped at one point. The Soviets were however not blamed by the US for the vaccine’s failure to prevent certain forms of polio or for the impurities that caused problems. But in the land of the pure it has to be a conspiracy of the ‘infidels’ to sterilise the pure in the land.
The bottom line is that one cannot empower and embolden the ultra-fanatics in matters of politics, order them to conduct violence in the name of jihad and expect that somehow this would not spill over into other areas of life. It is not possible to mobilise such legions on the street to protest the US presence in Afghanistan and expect that they would not use this same muscle to protest whatever else they feel is ‘wrong’. By sharing the monopoly on violence with the jihadists outside its borders, the Pakistani state inevitably shared it within the country too. If the man on the pulpit has been propped up to think that he can commission jihad and bring down two superpowers in less than 30 years, what is to keep him from commissioning his flock to take out a few healthcare workers? Just as it is erroneous to assume that jihadists can be programmed to operate nine-to-five and take the weekends off when told to, it is foolish to assume that once authorised to use violence for political issues they would not use it to pursue their social or doctrinal agenda.
After the attack on the Pakistan Air Force base and the attached airport in Peshawar, there has been talk by some quarters that the civilians did not show leadership and take the terrorism bull by the horns. I, too, have lamented the lacklustre civilian leadership many times. However, the way the Pakistani street is mobilised to protest whatever Pakistan’s security establishment wants sends a different message to the secular political parties. Pressure applied from the street, which is given full support by the Urdu media, sets the dial to the right each time politicians try to bring it to the centre. Also, when the only Pakistani ambassador who took a firm stand in favour of civilian supremacy over the military is held hostage for weeks, it does not encourage the civilians to take charge. In this matter, even the superior judiciary had seemed to play along with the security establishment. But then again the same judiciary sent an elected prime minister packing but set free sectarian terrorists.
There is no chicken and egg situation here. The religious extremists were co-opted by the security apparatus, not by the civilians. The signal to decommission them also has to come from the brass. Some clerics ostensibly being used to counter the extremist narrative have a clear agenda against healthcare issues like contraception and more ominously against the vulnerable communities like the Ahmadiyah. They openly consort with the domestic sectarian terrorists who harbour and work in tandem with the transnational jihadists. Empowering such clergymen would merely replace one set of fanatics with another and the political paralysis they have and will cause is as bad as that from polio. Using fatwas to counter fatwas is not going to work and Pakistan would remain caught between polio and the jihadist pox that is of its own making.
By MICHAEL FREUNDFundamentally Freund: The return of the Bnei Menashe to our people is a tangible reminder of the power of Jewish memory to overcome all obstacles, and the inevitability of Jewish destiny to prevail. This past Monday, as the Uzbekistan Airways flight began its descent to Tel Aviv, over 50 pairs of eyes looked out the plane’s windows, anxious to catch a glimpse of their new home. For more than 27 centuries, their ancestors had wandered in exile, clinging to the dream that one day, despite the odds, they would somehow be able to return. And now, at last, that age-old ambition was poised to become reality, as 53 new immigrants from the Bnei Menashe community of northeastern India came in for a safe landing at Ben-Gurion Airport. Who says we don’t live in an age of miracles? The Bnei Menashe are descendants of the tribe of Manasseh, one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel exiled by the Assyrian empire in 722 BCE. Despite being cut off from the rest of the Jewish people for so many centuries, the Bnei Menashe remained dedicated to their heritage, stubbornly cleaving to the faith of their forefathers. They observed the Sabbath and kept kosher, celebrated the festivals, practiced the sacrificial rites and even argued a lot among themselves, just as Jews have done since time immemorial. Indeed, the Bnei Menashe never forgot who they are or where they came from, or where they one day dreamt of returning. That fidelity is now being rewarded as their remarkable odyssey comes full circle and they make their way back to their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. THE 53 new arrivals constituted the first group of Bnei Menashe that Shavei Israel, the organization I founded and chair, has been able to bring on aliya since 2007, when the Olmert government inexplicably decided to freeze the immigration of these precious souls. But after five long and often lonely years of pounding the pavement as well as a number of bureaucrats’ desks, we were able at last to persuade the powers that be to open the door once again for the Bnei Menashe. In a unanimous and historic decision, the Israeli cabinet on October 24 passed resolution 5180, which formally restarted the aliya and granted Shavei Israel permission to bring an initial group of 274 Bnei Menashe back home to Zion. The 53 immigrants who arrived earlier this week were the first batch from among the 274, while the remainder will come here over the next month. This is all being made possible thanks to some generous Jewish philanthropists in Europe and the United States, as well as some of Israel’s Christian friends. The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem is covering most of the cost of the flights for the immigrants, while Bridges for Peace and others are helping to fund their absorption. The new arrivals will join the 1,700 Bnei Menashe who are already living in the Jewish state, and have become an integral part of Israeli society. I HAVE had a lot of emotional and uplifting experiences over the years, but few can compare with those of the past several days, which I spent in India together with the Bnei Menashe as they prepared to make aliya. Though normally restrained and undemonstrative of their emotions in public, it was difficult for the immigrants to control their excitement and nervousness as the day of departure approached. At the Beit Shalom synagogue in Churachandpur, Manipur, an overflow crowd of worshipers prayed and sang with extraordinary intensity, led by their longtime hazzan (cantor), Shlomo Haokip. “This is our last Sabbath in exile,” one of the men told me, his voice choking with emotion. “Next week, we will merit to greet the Sabbath queen in the Land of Israel. It is a dream come true!” Later, on the bus ride to the airport, the Bnei Menashe burst into song, chanting the prophet Jeremiah’s prediction (31:16) with ever-increasing intensity, “and the sons shall return to their borders.” Finally, many hours later, after the plane had landed at Ben-Gurion Airport and we emerged from the gate, the entire group stood as one, turned their faces heavenward and recited the Sheheyanu blessing, thanking God for sustaining and enabling them to reach this joyous day. After being processed by the Immigrant Absorption Ministry, they emerged into the arrivals hall at Terminal 3, where relatives and loved ones fell upon them, showering them with tears and a hearty welcome home. And then, in a remarkable scene, we all stood at attention and recited one of the most rousing versions of “Hatikvah” I have ever heard, as throngs of onlookers joined with us in serenading the Jewish state that made all this possible. The return of the Bnei Menashe to our people is a tangible reminder of the power of Jewish memory to overcome all obstacles, and the inevitability of Jewish destiny to prevail. Let anyone who doubts the power of the Jewish spirit take a moment to consider the wonder of it all. A tribe of Israel, once deemed lost forever, is lost no more.
The writer is founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists lost tribes and hidden Jewish communities to return to the Jewish people.
The former vice-president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Barrister Baachaa on Friday stated that the Lahore High Court had ignored several legal points while delivering a judgment in favour of Kalabagh Dam.
In a press statement issued here, Barrister Baachaa said the petition decided by the LHC was not maintainable as the three provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Balochistan were not made party to it.
He stated that the three provinces were necessary parties to the controversy of Kalabagh Dam and deciding that controversial issue without hearing them was unjust. He added that while the LHC mentioned a controversial decision of the Council of Common Interest of 1991 in support of the dam it altogether ignored the resolutions passed by the provincial assemblies of the three provinces.
Barrister Baachaa pointed out that under the constitution deciding the controversy of Kalabagh Dam was not in the powers of the high court and in fact the LHC had overstepped its constitutional jurisdiction given in article 199 of the Constitution.
He stated that the arguments mentioned by the LHC in support of construction of the dam were based on assumptions primarily attached with the interest of Punjab. He added the controversial project was aimed at irrigating the barren lands of Punjab. He regretted that while the court referred to production of electricity it ignored to mention the importance of Basha Dam in this regard.
The senior advocate stated that the LHC had referred to article 154 of the Constitution and ordered the government to implement the decision of CCI, whereas under sub-article 7 of the said article the three provinces had the right to bring the issue to the parliament and unless the parliament endorsed the decision of CCI it could not be implemented.
Written by Lal Khan
THURSDAY JANUARY 15: NIGHT FILLED WITH ARTILLERY FIREThe night was filled with the noise of artillery fire and I woke up three times. But since there was no school I got up later at 10 am. Afterwards, my friend came over and we discussed our homework. Today is 15 January, the last day before the Taleban's edict comes into effect, and my friend was discussing homework as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Today, I also read the diary written for the BBC (in Urdu) and published in the newspaper. My mother liked my pen name 'Gul Makai' and said to my father 'why not change her name to Gul Makai?' I also like the name because my real name means 'grief stricken'. My father said that some days ago someone brought the printout of this diary saying how wonderful it was. My father said that he smiled but could not even say that it was written by his daughter.
WEDNESDAY 14 JANUARY: I MAY NOT GO TO SCHOOL AGAINI was in a bad mood while going to school because winter vacations are starting from tomorrow. The principal announced the vacations but did not mention the date the school was to reopen. This was the first time this has happened. In the past the reopening date was always announced clearly. The principal did not inform us about the reason behind not announcing the school reopening, but my guess was that the Taleban had announced a ban on girls' education from 15 January. This time round, the girls were not too excited about vacations because they knew if the Taleban implemented their edict they would not be able to come to school again. Some girls were optimistic that the schools would reopen in February but others said that their parents had decided to shift from Swat and go to other cities for the sake of their education.
FRIDAY 9 JANUARY: THE MAULANA GOES ON LEAVE?
WEDNESDAY 7 JANUARY: NO FIRING OR FEAR
MONDAY 5 JANUARY: DO NOT WEAR COLOURFUL DRESSESI was getting ready for school and about to wear my uniform when I remembered that our principal had told us not to wear uniforms - and come to school wearing normal clothes instead. So I decided to wear my favourite pink dress. Other girls in school were also wearing colourful dresses and the school presented a homely look.My friend came to me and said, 'for God's sake, answer me honestly, is our school going to be attacked by the Taleban?' During the morning assembly we were told not to wear colourful clothes as the Taleban would object to it. I came back from school and had tuition sessions after lunch. In the evening I switched on the TV and heard that curfew had been lifted from Shakardra after 15 days. I was happy to hear that because our English teacher lived in the area and she might be coming to school now.
SUNDAY 4 JANUARY: I HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOLToday is a holiday and I woke up late, around 10 am. I heard my father talking about another three bodies lying at Green Chowk (crossing). I felt bad on hearing this news. Before the launch of the military operation we all used to go to Marghazar, Fiza Ghat and Kanju for picnics on Sundays. But now the situation is such that we have not been out on picnic for over a year and a half. We also used to go for a walk after dinner but now we are back home before sunset. Today I did some household chores, my homework and played with my brother. But my heart was beating fast - as I have to go to school tomorrow.
SATURDAY 3 JANUARY: I AM AFRAIDI had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taleban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid going to school because the Taleban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools. Only 11 students attended the class out of 27. The number decreased because of Taleban's edict. My three friends have shifted to Peshawar, Lahore and Rawalpindi with their families after this edict. On my way from school to home I heard a man saying 'I will kill you'. I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else over the phone.
In a democracy, the remedy for a malfunctioning legislature and executive must come from the people, not the judiciary
It is evident that the Pakistan Supreme Court has embarked on a perilous path of confrontation with the political authorities, which can only have disastrous consequences for the country. Recently its Chief Justice said that the Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme. This is undoubtedly settled law since the historical decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
The grave problem, however, that courts are often faced with is this: on the one hand, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, on the other hand, in the garb of interpreting the Constitution, the court must not seek an unnecessary confrontation with the legislature, particularly since the legislature consists of representatives democratically elected by the people.
The solution was provided in the classical essay “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law” published in 1893 in the Harvard Law Review by James Bradley Thayer, Professor of Law at Harvard University. It elaborately discusses the doctrine of judicial restraint. Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court were followers of Prof. Thayer’s philosophy of judicial restraint. Justice Frankfurter referred to Thayer as “the great master of Constitutional Law,” and in a lecture at the Harvard Law School said: “If I were to name one piece of writing on American Constitutional Law, I would pick Thayer's once famous essay, because it is a great guide for judges, and therefore the great guide for understanding by non-judges of what the place of the judiciary is in relation to constitutional questions.”
The court certainly has power to decide constitutional issues. However, as pointed out by Justice Frankfurter in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943), since this great power can prevent the full play of the democratic process, it is vital that it should be exercised with rigorous self restraint.
SEPARATION OF POWERS:
The philosophy behind the doctrine of judicial restraint is that there is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the three organs of the State, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, must respect each other, and must not ordinarily encroach into each other's domain, otherwise the system cannot function properly. Also, the judiciary must realise that the legislature is a democratically elected body, which expresses the will of the people (however imperfectly) and in a democracy this will is not to be lightly frustrated or thwarted.
Apart from the above, as pointed out by Prof. Thayer, judicial over-activism deprives the people of “the political experience and the moral education and stimulus that comes from fighting the problems in the ordinary way, and correcting their own errors”.
In Asif Hameed vs. The State of J&K, AIR 1989 S.C. 1899 (paragraphs 17 to 19), the Indian Supreme Court observed: “Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity, the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. The legislature, executive, and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated in the Constitution. No organ can usurp the function of another. -- While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.”
Judicial restraint is particularly important for the Supreme Court for two reasons:
(1) Of the three organs of the state, only one, the judiciary, is empowered to declare the limits of jurisdiction of all three organs. This great power must therefore be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self restraint.
(2) The errors of the lower courts can be corrected by the higher courts, but there is none above the Supreme Court to correct its errors.
Some people justify judicial activism by saying that the legislature and executive are not properly performing their functions. The reply to this argument is that the same charge is often levelled against the judiciary. Should the legislature or the executive then take over judicial functions? If the legislature and the executive do not perform their functions properly, it is for the people to correct them by exercising their franchise properly, or by peaceful and lawful public meetings and demonstrations, and/or by public criticism through the media and by other lawful means. The remedy is not in the judiciary taking over these functions, because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources to perform these functions.
In this connection I may quote from an article by Wallace Mendelson published in 31 Vanderbilt Law Review 71 (1978): “If, then, the Thayer tradition of judicial modesty is outmoded, if judicial aggression is to be the rule, as in the 1930s, some basic issues remain:
“First, how legitimate is government by Judges? Is anything beyond their reach? Will anything be left for ultimate resolution by the democratic process, for, what Thayer called ‘that wide margin of considerations which address themselves only to the practical judgment of a legislative body representing (as Courts do not) a wide range of mundane needs and aspirations?’
“Second, if the Supreme Court is to be the ultimate policy making body without accountability, how is it to avoid the corrupting effects of raw power? Also, can the Court satisfy the expectations it has aroused?
“Third, can nine men [the Supreme Court Judges] master the complexities of every phase of American life? Are any nine men wise enough and good enough to wield such power over the lives of millions? Are Courts institutionally equipped for such burdens? Unlike legislatures, they are not representative bodies reflecting a wide range of social interest. Lacking a professional staff of trained investigators, they must rely for data almost exclusively upon the partisan advocates who appear before them. Inadequate or misleading information invites unsound decisions.
“Finally, what kind of citizens will such a system of judicial activism produce, a system that trains us to look not to ourselves for the solution of our problems, but to the most elite among elites: nine Judges governing our lives without political or judicial accountability? Surely this is neither democracy nor the rule of law.”
In Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshal, while avoiding confrontation with the government of President Jefferson, upheld the supremacy of the Constitution. Another example is the very recent judgment of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts in the Affordable Healthcare Act case, in which he basically followed the doctrine of judicial restraint.
In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Course vs. Chander Haas (2006) the Indian Supreme Court observed: “Judges must know their limits and not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and each of the organs of the state must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each other’s domain.” A similar view was taken in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi.
NEW DEAL LEGISLATION:
A reference may usefully be made to the well known episode in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court when it dealt with the New Deal legislation initiated by President Franklin Roosevelt soon after he assumed office in 1933. When the overactive court kept striking down this legislation, President Roosevelt proposed to pack the court with six of his nominees. The threat was enough, and it was not necessary to carry it out. In 1937, the court changed its confrontationist attitude and started upholding the legislation (see West Coast Hotel Vs. Parrish). “Economic due process” met with a sudden demise.
The moral of this story is that if the judiciary does not maintain restraint and crosses its limits there will be a reaction which may do great damage to the judiciary, its independence, and its respect in society.
It is not my opinion that a judge should never be activist, but such activism should be done only in exceptional and rare cases, and ordinarily judges should exercise self restraint.
In Dennis vs. U.S. (1950), Justice Frankfurter observed: “Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. Their essential quality is detachment, founded on independence. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardised when Courts become embroiled in the passions of the day, and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic, and social pressures”.
The Pakistan Supreme Court would be well advised to heed these words of wisdom, even at such a late stage.
(Justice Markandey Katju is chairman of the Press Council of India.)