Great Wedding Planning Site

Wedding Planning

 

Imran Khan – Pakistan

 

Paul Weller – You do something to me

 

Let sacked judges be restored

By Sajjad Ali Shah – DAWN

PAKISTAN was born 60 years ago and we are still at the elementary stage of learning the art of Constitution-making. To preempt the subversion of the Basic Law by military rulers, the architects of the Constitution of 1973 incorporated Article 6 which deems a person abrogating the Constitution by force to be guilty of high treason.

When General Ziaul Haq suspended the constitution and imposed martial law in July 1977, the Supreme Court validated the move on the ground that the Constitution was not abrogated but suspended for a short time. This was treated as an extra constitutional step that was protected and validated by the parliament by the eighth amendment.

Thus the Supreme Court validated the violation of the Constitution as an extra constitutional step on the ground of state necessity, ignoring Article 6 completely. Then, the parliament elected with the backing of the military government in power gave this act constitutional cover and made it a part of the constitution under the eighth amendment. So this is how the practice of introducing patch-work in the constitution was initiated. It was judicial surgery followed by parliamentary surgery that attempted to validate the military’s move.

Blame can be equally apportioned to the three pillars of the state, namely, the executive, the judiciary and the parliament in their pursuit of power sharing. I have always wondered whether the “suspension of the Constitution”, though temporary in nature, is not the subversion of the Constitution. If not, then why have the words “the subversion of the constitution” in the Basic Law?

There should be a proper debate in the parliament on the language used in Article 6. Suspension of the constitution amounts to mutilation rendering it non-workable and inoperative for a considerable time, which is easily covered by the article on the subversion of the Constitution, open to punishment.

The moot point is whether an act done outside the constitution is a violation. If yes, then it cannot be condoned on the ground that it is for a short time only and justified as an extra constitutional measure on the basis of the law of necessity.

In Oct 1999 General Pervez Musharraf, the army chief, suspended the constitution and imposed martial law. The Supreme Court validated his action in the Zafar Ali Shah case following the precedent of the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case. Elections were held and with the active assistance of the MMA, one of the opposition groupings, the parliament passed the 17th amendment giving constitutional cover to all extra constitutional steps taken by Musharraf.

Musharraf thus continued as chief of army staff. He wanted to be elected again as president for the next term by the same assemblies. It was a matter of necessity for him to wear both his caps and continue in uniform as he drew his power and protection from the army.

He was, however, not eligible for election as president because his uniform came in the way since a serving general could not engage in politics until two years after his retirement. He was not elected by the electoral college — that is the federal legislature and the provincial assemblies — as required by the constitution. Other options, such as the referendum and a vote of confidence by assemblies, were adopted.

The term of office of the president under the 17th amendment was to end before the term of the assemblies expired. Hence the president wanted to be elected by the same assemblies for the second time. Meanwhile the Supreme Court launched its programme of judicial activism and gave bold decisions on the sale of the Pakistan Steel Mill and initiated proceedings on tracing missing persons allegedly in the custody of the intelligence agencies. This was a blow to the government’s ego.

It was then that the decision was taken to teach a lesson to the judiciary and get rid of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. He was suspended, maltreated and taken into custody and a reference for his removal was filed before the supreme judicial council. The lawyers, journalists, civil society, and political parties came out to defend the Chief Justice.

The media played an important role in highlighting the minute-to-minute proceedings against him. Lawyers were beaten up and TV channels were attacked. Ultimately the Chief Justice was reinstated by his brother judges on July 20. This was a great victory for the judiciary and the government was crestfallen.

When the election of the President by the same assemblies for a second time was challenged in the Supreme Court, the court did not grant a stay order but restrained the chief election commissioner from issuing the final notification.

The emergency was declared by the chief of army staff — not the President as empowered by the Constitution — and the Constitution was suspended. The Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) was issued with the idea of sending Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry home along with several other judges. The act of dismissing 50 judges in one go was the biggest blow the judiciary has ever known in Pakistan. A seven-member bench dismissed all the petitions against the President, confirming that his election was valid.

Now the president has nothing to fear from the judiciary. It is going to be smooth sailing for him. On Nov 3, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry heading a bench had issued an order restraining the government from proclaiming an emergency and issuing the PCO but this order could not be implemented. So the main purpose of the PCO is to punish the judges for dispensing justice according to the law.

The latest order of the newly inducted Supreme Court which gives a clean chit to the President has once again followed the rule laid down in the cases of Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Zafar Ali Shah that considered the action of the president as merely extra constitutional on the basis of the law of necessity.

The Supreme Court has validated the move that now has to be validated by the next elected parliament. The western powers, including America and Europe, want President Musharraf to continue as president with an elected secular government so that the war against terror continues uninterrupted.

Many political parties have entered the polling campaign for the Jan 8 election. The president has announced that the emergency and the PCO will be withdrawn and the Constitution restored on Dec 16. But there is no talk of restoring the judges, who became victims of the PCO.

Are we going to forget them? I feel the political parties should not participate in the elections if the sacked judges are not restored. If the judiciary is honest and independent, the system will work successfully. Power-sharing is not a substitute for democracy. It is time to save the country and its system, which can be done through democracy, transparent elections and the elimination of martial law.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of Pakistan.

 

In Pakistan’s villages, it’s the economy, Musharraf

By David Rohde and Salman Masood – International Herald Tribune

In a recent interview, President Pervez Musharraf challenged Western journalists to journey to the villages of Pakistan and gauge public opinion.

“The people who vote are these people on the streets in the villages,” Musharraf said, recommending a trip to Punjab, the province that holds 55 percent of the Pakistani population. “Please go around and ask them, what do they think?”

Westerners overestimate the popularity of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the main opposition leader, he said, because they only meet “human rights activists” in Pakistan’s cities. And he scoffed at Bhutto’s claim that her party would have “trounced” his party in a nationwide election.

“Don’t let anyone misguide you, form your own opinions, go to the streets and find out,” Musharraf said. “Find the common man and ask him or her about her statements.”

In random interviews in this farming village in northern Punjab, the vast majority of Pakistanis criticized Musharraf’s government, saying prices have soared during his tenure. Some said they supported Bhutto, but most expressed a deep cynicism about whether any leader would ever help Pakistan’s poor.

“God knows who will be the leader after Musharraf,” said Tariq Hussain, a shop owner in this destitute village of 2,000 families. “Whoever becomes leader is worse than their predecessor.”

Villagers said Musharraf’s government had supported the feudal landlords who rule rural Pakistan, where 5 percent of the population controls 66 percent of the land, one of the most lopsided ownership divisions in South Asia.

“Musharraf has announced he will end poverty,” Hussain said. “It seems he will end the poor.”

While city-dwellers complained that Musharraf’s dismissal of the Supreme Court, suspension of the Constitution and shuttering of independent media were illegal, villagers complained that they had driven up prices.

Since the Nov. 3 emergency, the price of wheat has risen by 25 percent, from $7.50 for 40 kilograms, or 88 pounds, to $10, villagers said. Rice has risen by 25 percent as well. Mustard oil prices has risen by 75 percent, from $1.33 a kilogram to $2.33. Even before the emergency, they said, prices had been rising over the last several years.

“Here, a poor person earns 100 rupees a day,” said Shahed Imran, a 22-year-old tea stall owner. “How can he support his family?” A hundred rupees is the equivalent of $1.60.

Pakistani and international economists agreed. Pakistan’s inflation rate was 10 percent last year, they said. While the economy has boomed under Musharraf, with 6 percent growth a year on average, nearly all of the growth has come in the urban service sector in areas such as banking, construction and stock trading. Farming has remained stagnant.

Villagers said some aspects of rural life have improved under Musharraf. More families have televisions sets. New Chinese-made motorbikes speed down the village’s rutted, one-lane road. And new generators and concrete lining have been added to the local irrigation system.

But villagers said the improvements aided wealthy landowners. The 50 percent of village residents who were landless continued to struggle, they said.

“The routine is the same,” said one man, who asked not to be identified. “The government does not make a difference.”

Expressing limited interest in politics, they said a former member of Parliament from the area had been a member of Bhutto’s party in the 1980s. But they did not know who represented them now.

Most villagers vote for whomever their landlords tell them to, they said. Pakistani political scientists have long blamed the feudal system for stalling the development of democracy in Pakistan. Winning elections depends on creating an alliance among landlords – often by spreading government favors – not by meeting the needs of average voters.

Villagers said that Musharraf’s crackdown on independent news stations had had no impact in rural areas. All independent stations are broadcast over cable systems available in the country’s cities, they said. Only state-controlled television can be seen in the countryside.

But villagers said that they were aware of Musharraf’s crackdown and that he had blocked a protest march by Bhutto’s party across Punjab. Urdu-language newspapers, which arrive one day a week, kept them abreast of events, they said. Those who read the papers said Musharraf had declared the emergency to retain his hold on power, not to deter terrorism.

“Emergency is not good in any country,” said Azmat Ali Bhatti, who runs the village’s largest store. “It’s not natural.”

Most villagers reported having only a grade school education, but they displayed a keen awareness of prices and land ownership. The economy was more important to them than any other issue, they said, adding that development will be stalled as long as feudalism continues.

“Until the time feudalism ends in our country, the situation cannot get any better,” Bhatti said. “Because of the feudal system, the woes and the problems of the poor go ahead.”

 

Ghulam Ishaq announcing the death of Zia

 

Road construction in Quetta

 

Imran Khan’s interview after release from jail

 

Imran Khan – after being freed from Jail

 

Sahil – new band, great song

 

Benazir Bhutto – Jawab Deh

Part 1:

 

Part 2: 

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

 

MUSHARRAF: THE TOLSTOY OF THE ZULUS

By Ann Coulter

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What’s not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one.

We didn’t hear much about Musharraf — save for B. Hussein Obama’s threat to bomb Pakistan without informing Musharraf — until the last few weeks.

Musharraf has been a crucial ally of ours since Sept. 12, 2001. His loyal friendship to the United States while governing a country that is loyal to al-Qaida might prove dispiriting to the terrorists. So, until recently, the media mostly confined stories about Musharraf to page A-18.

Now, with the surge in Iraq working, Democrats are completely demoralized. Al-Qaida was counting on them. (We know the surge in Iraq is working because it is no longer front page news.)

In a tape released in early September, Osama bin Laden bitterly complained, “You elected the Democratic Party for this purpose” — of ending the war in Iraq –- “but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.”

It isn’t enough for the media to drop all mentions of the surge or to subsidize ads denouncing Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” (He is betraying liberals by winning the war for America, the enemy of liberals.) They need to stir up trouble for the U.S. someplace else in the world.

On Sept. 20, Osama bin Laden cued liberals by issuing another tape demanding Musharraf’s ouster. The Democrats and the media quickly followed suit.

Weeks later, The New York Times editorial page called on “masses of Pakistanis” to participate in “peaceful demonstrations” against Musharraf, which would be like calling on masses of Pakistanis to engage in daily bathing (The New York Times editorial page being the most effective way to communicate with the Pakistani masses). Most of the editorial was a mash note to that troublesome woman Benazir Bhutto for demanding democracy in the land of the deranged.

Media darling Bhutto returned to Pakistan after fleeing the country following her conviction for corruption as prime minister. Her conviction was later overturned by the corrupt Pakistani Supreme Court, leaving me to ponder, which is worse: being convicted of corruption in a Pakistani court or being exonerated of corruption in a Pakistani court? She was again convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering.

The media adore Bhutto because she went to Harvard and Oxford, which I consider two more strikes against her. A degree from Harvard is prima facie evidence that she’s on the side of the terrorists. I note that Bhutto demonstrates her own deep commitment to democracy by giving herself the title “chairperson for life” of the Pakistan Peoples Party.

Liberals hysterically opposed our imposing a democracy on Iraq and despise Nouri al-Maliki, the democratically elected leader of Iraq. Say, has Maliki ever been convicted in a Swiss court of money laundering?

Compared to Pakistan, imposing democracy in Iraq is like imposing democracy in Darien, Conn. But in Iraq, liberals prefer an anti-American dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Only in Pakistan do liberals yearn for pure democracy.

You wouldn’t know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected — in a landslide — just weeks ago under Pakistan’s own parliamentary system.

But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf’s election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That’s when Musharraf sent them home.

Musharraf’s election was certainly more legitimate than that of Syrian president Bashar Assad (with whom every leading Democrat has had a photo-op) or Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (adjunct professor at Columbia University) or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (loon).

Where were the headlines like this week’s Economist’s (“Time’s up, Mr. Musharraf”) about those lovable rogues? They hate America, so they can stay.

The last time liberals were this enthusiastic about popular rule in some Third World country was in 1979, when they were gushing about Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University assured liberals in a 1979 New York Times op-ed that the “depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.”

I’m no clock-watcher, but it’s been 28 years; I don’t think Falk is going to be issuing an apology.

Falk cheerfully concluded that the fanatical Muslim leaders in Iran “may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane government for a Third World country.”

And just look at all the wonderful things Khomeini did for Iran!

How might popular rule turn out in Pakistan? As Saul Bellow rhetorically said of multiculturalism, “Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus?”

Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the Islamists’ bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he has promoted the Women’s Protection Bill, which would punish rape, rather than using it as a device for social control.

According to The Boston Globe, the most common form of homosexuality in Pakistan –- punishable by death –- is pederasty.

Pakistan doesn’t need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan’s Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.

To try to force democracy on the differing “I hate America” factions in Pakistan at this stage would be worse than Jimmy Carter’s abandonment of the Shah in 1979. It would result in what former assistant secretary of state Edward Djerejian called: “one man, one vote, one time.”

The difference is: Instead of scimitars, this den of al-Qaida-supporting pederasts will have nukes.

 

Frost Over The World – Jemima Khan

 

Jemima Khan: I had to tell my boys their father could be executed

Daily Mail 

Jemima Khan has revealed how she had to tell her two young boys their father had been arrested – and could be executed after being charged with terror offences.

The millionaire socialite, who was married to former cricketer Imran Khan for nine years, told how she had first attempted to joke about her ex-husband’s detention to reassure them.

But she said it became harder to laugh after it emerged he could face the death penalty or life imprisonment. 

Imran, the leader of a small but very vocal opposition group, was arrested by Pakistani police earlier this week after appearing at a student protest against the imposition of emergency rule by the country’s leader General Pervez Musharraf.

Since then, Pakistan has dismissed a call by a top American diplomat for an end to emergency rule and freeing of thousands of political opponents.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a blunt warning to Musharaff to restore the constitution, but his foreign minister told reporters there was “nothing new” coming from Washington and no real assurances.

Writing in today’s Sunday Telegraph, Jemima Khan said: “When I told my children that their father had been arrested I tried to make light of it, joking that to get anywhere in Pakistani politics, a stint inside is mandatory.”

“Then I heard that he had been charged with ’state terrorism’ and that if convicted he faces the death penalty or life imprisonment.

“It was harder to muster up a laugh, even for their benefit.

“The latest news is that he was shifted, in handcuffs, to a high-security jail in Dera Ghazi Khan, Interior Punjab.

“His crime? Criticising President Pervez Musharraf and attempting to address a peaceful student protest at Punjab University.

“For that he was first beaten – according to reports – and then carted off to Kot Lakhpat jail. His supporters were also beaten, arrested and several have broken bones.”

Jemima, who has two boys Sulaiman and Kasim, went on to attack the Pakistan leader General Pervez Musharraf, who ordered emergency rule earlier this month, claiming he was “the most repressive leader in the country’s history.”

She went on to reveal that Imran’s three sisters had also been arrested – as has his elderly aunt and several female cousins.

“Many of them have small children at home and husbands who are already in jail,” she said. “I watched footage of the women that I lived with for five years being dragged across the ground screaming.

“Other friends of mine recently arrested include my children’s teacher, a housewife and a journalist, not to mention the hundreds from Imran’s political party.”

” …The jails are so full, they are holding people in police stations. There are reports of torture and beatings within the jails. And those that have been arrested have not been allowed access to lawyers or visitors.”

She described the situation as a personal vendetta for Musharraf and that in claiming to fight terror, he had “terrorised an entire nation.”

“Musharraf is still viewed by the West as an important ally in the “War on Terror”, she said. “But, despite billions of pounds worth of Western aid, Osama bin Laden has not been captured, the Taliban are resurgent and the extremist elements in Pakistan are more active than ever.”

Later in the day she joined hordes of protesters outside the Pakistan High Commission in London to call for an end to the state of emergency and the release of all political prisoners.

About 150 noisy demonstrators gathered calling for “Democracy”, “Revolution”, and for the General to stand down.

Jemima, 33, stood at the heart of the demonstration with the youngest of her two boys, Kasim.

The eight-year-old held a picture of his father with the words “Release Imran. Release my Aba” – meaning father.

Jemima received a message from her former husband yesterday, which was smuggled out of the jail where he is being held, to tell their other son, Sulaiman, 11, that he was thinking of him on the boy’s birthday.

She also handed a petition to the High Commission alongside Supreme Court lawyer Hina Jilani and Dr Aamer Sarfraz.

Speaking to the media, she said: “I think it is time for Musharraf to resign.

“It’s gone too far, he needs to go, but there are other things we are calling for: for the judiciary to be restored, for the press to be freed, for the conditions of democracy to be restored, for all political prisoners to be released, and for the right to protest.

“We have to protest here because our friends in Pakistan are being arrested for protesting in Pakistan..

“I’m doing this because Imran and my friends in Pakistan have asked us to make noise here because they are not able to in Pakistan, but I am doing it because I care about Pakistan and I care about the issue of democracy and human rights.”

She said she visited Pakistan regularly with her children and had been involved in the relief effort after the earthquake.

Jemima called for the Government to continue putting pressure on the General, saying: “I think that pressure does work and I think that demonstrations do have an effect but Musharraf seems to be impervious at the moment.”

She said her ex-husband’s sisters, his female cousins, and an elderly aunt had been arrested when they protested outside the prison in Pakistan, with the aunt being “dragged across the floor and thrown into a police van”.

“It is brutality that we have never seen before in Pakistan.” she said.

“We’re all worried, my sons are worried, I’m worried, my family are worried, his family in Pakistan are worried.”

She said that unfortunately she had not been able to speak directly with Imran since his detainment.

 

Hamaqat – excellent article on Imran Khan’s arrest

 

Aunt Benazir’s false promises

Fatima Bhutto – LA Times

We Pakistanis live in uncertain times. Emergency rule has been imposed for the 13th time in our short 60-year history. Thousands of lawyers have been arrested, some charged with sedition and treason; the chief justice has been deposed; and a draconian media law — shutting down all private news channels — has been drafted.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this circus has been the hijacking of the democratic cause by my aunt, the twice-disgraced former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. While she was hashing out a deal to share power with Gen. Pervez Musharraf last month, she repeatedly insisted that without her, democracy in Pakistan would be a lost cause. Now that the situation has changed, she’s saying that she wants Musharraf to step down and that she’d like to make a deal with his opponents — but still, she says, she’s the savior of democracy.

The reality, however, is that there is no one better placed to benefit from emergency rule than she is. Along with the leaders of prominent Islamic parties, she has been spared the violent retributions of emergency law. Yes, she now appears to be facing seven days of house arrest, but what does that really mean? While she was supposedly under house arrest at her Islamabad residence last week, 50 or so of her party members were comfortably allowed to join her. She addressed the media twice from her garden, protected by police given to her by the state, and was not reprimanded for holding a news conference. (By contrast, the very suggestion that they might hold a news conference has placed hundreds of other political activists under real arrest, in real jails.)

Ms. Bhutto’s political posturing is sheer pantomime. Her negotiations with the military and her unseemly willingness until just a few days ago to take part in Musharraf’s regime have signaled once and for all to the growing legions of fundamentalists across South Asia that democracy is just a guise for dictatorship.

It is widely believed that Ms. Bhutto lost both her governments on grounds of massive corruption. She and her husband, a man who came to be known in Pakistan as “Mr. 10%,” have been accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan’s treasury. She is appealing a money-laundering conviction by the Swiss courts involving about $11 million. Corruption cases in Britain and Spain are ongoing.

It was particularly unappealing of Ms. Bhutto to ask Musharraf to bypass the courts and drop the many corruption cases that still face her in Pakistan. He agreed, creating the odiously titled National Reconciliation Ordinance in order to do so. Her collaboration with him was so unsubtle that people on the streets are now calling her party, the Pakistan People’s Party, the Pervez People’s Party. Now she might like to distance herself, but it’s too late.

Why did Ms. Bhutto and her party cronies demand that her corruption cases be dropped, but not demand that the cases of activists jailed during the brutal regime of dictator Zia ul-Haq (from 1977 to 1988) not be quashed? What about the sanctity of the law? When her brother Mir Murtaza Bhutto — my father — returned to Pakistan in 1993, he faced 99 cases against him that had been brought by Zia’s military government. The cases all carried the death penalty. Yet even though his sister was serving as prime minister, he did not ask her to drop the cases. He returned, was arrested at the airport and spent the remaining years of his life clearing his name, legally and with confidence, in the courts of Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto’s repeated promises to end fundamentalism and terrorism in Pakistan strain credulity because, after all, the Taliban government that ran Afghanistan was recognized by Pakistan under her last government — making Pakistan one of only three governments in the world to do so.

And I am suspicious of her talk of ensuring peace. My father was a member of Parliament and a vocal critic of his sister’s politics. He was killed outside our home in 1996 in a carefully planned police assassination while she was prime minister. There were 70 to 100 policemen at the scene, all the streetlights had been shut off and the roads were cordoned off. Six men were killed with my father. They were shot at point-blank range, suffered multiple bullet wounds and were left to bleed on the streets.

My father was Benazir’s younger brother. To this day, her role in his assassination has never been adequately answered, although the tribunal convened after his death under the leadership of three respected judges concluded that it could not have taken place without approval from a “much higher” political authority.

I have personal reasons to fear the danger that Ms. Bhutto’s presence in Pakistan brings, but I am not alone. The Islamists are waiting at the gate. They have been waiting for confirmation that the reforms for which the Pakistani people have been struggling have been a farce, propped up by the White House. Since Musharraf seized power in 1999, there has been an earnest grass-roots movement for democratic reform. The last thing we need is to be tied to a neocon agenda through a puppet “democrat” like Ms. Bhutto.

By supporting Ms. Bhutto, who talks of democracy while asking to be brought to power by a military dictator, the only thing that will be accomplished is the death of the nascent secular democratic movement in my country. Democratization will forever be de-legitimized, and our progress in enacting true reforms will be quashed. We Pakistanis are certain of this.

Fatima Bhutto is a Pakistani poet and writer. She is the daughter of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed in 1996 in Karachi when his sister, Benazir, was prime minister.

 

Clash between Musharraf and Bhutto a “farce”, says Bhutto niece

Marco Liconti  – AKI

The clash between Pakistan’s President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto during the country’s current state of emergency is a “farce”, according to Bhutto’s niece, Fatima.

In an exclusive interview with Adnkronos International (AKI), Fatima Bhutto accused her aunt, who heads the largest opposition party, the Pakistan People’s Party, of “cynicism” and wanting “to sell out the country to the United States”.

Speaking by telephone from Karachi, the 25-year-old niece launched a scathing attack on the former leader and accused her of returning home to Pakistan “not to serve the interests of the people, but to chase power”.

“She has certainly not returned to Pakistan to spearhead political reform,” she said.

The young woman said the current crisis had degenerated into a war between two people, Musharraf and Benazir, who were losing sight of the real issues facing the country.

Bhutto said Benazir had come to an agreement with the president “because she wanted to please public opinion”.

But she claimed they would both find a way to “maintain the status quo” and “extend their own respective power”, excluding the only other leader with any clout, exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

As for Benazir’s house arrest, revoked on Thursday, the young Bhutto described it as a joke.

“Have you ever seen anyone placed under house arrest released continually for interviews and even receive an American consul?” she said.

The young Bhutto, a poet and writer, is actively involved in politics beside her stepmother Ghinwa Bhutto, plans to stand as a candidate for the breakaway Pakistan People’s Party Shaheed Bhutto (PPP-SB), which supports a return to Pakistan’s liberal Constitution of 1973.

Fatima Bhutto is the daughter of the late Murtaza Bhutto, who was killed by police in 1996 in Karachi during the premiership of his sister, Benazir Bhutto. She is grand-daughter of Pakistan’s former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

During her interview with Adnkronos International, Fatima blamed her aunt for the death of her father.

“The second term of Benazir was characterised by several acts of state violence against opponents,” said Bhutto.

She accused Bhutto of “creating the conditions for the violence in which he (her father) was a victim” and of also being responsible for the cover up at the inquest.

Bhutto accused of Musharraf of failing to live up to his promises while her aunt had simply given “new strength to the fundamentalists” in Pakistan.

She also called for the US alliance to be renegotiated in a way that gave Pakistan greater parity.

Fatima’s mother, Ghinwa Bhutto, is the chairperson of the PPP-SB. The Lebanese widow of Murtaza Bhutto, she has staked claim to her share of the Bhutto political legacy.

 

Dubai agrees to pull plug on Pakistani TV networks

Source: CNN

Two Pakistani television networks that transmit from Dubai in United Arab Emirates were ordered off the air Friday at the request of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, officials from the networks told CNN.

GEO-TV and ARY Digital both offer a variety of programming, including news, entertainment, sports and music.

Since Musharraf declared a state of emergency earlier this month, Pakistani authorities have shut down media outlets and jailed opposition leaders.

Musharraf has said the order improves stability and will foster peaceful parliamentary elections, which he has said he would like to see take place before January 9.

The exact date will be set by Pakistan’s Election Commission.

Opposition leaders have accused Musharraf of declaring emergency rule to keep his hold on power and avoid an expected court ruling that would have nullified his election victory in

 

Musharraf’s downfall

Every empire has a downfall. The same can be said about rulers of Pakistan. From Liaquat Ali Khan to Ayub Khan to Bhutto to Zia to the democratically “elected” Nawaz and Benazir and finally to Musharraf. Musharraf’s downfall began earlier this year when he sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. Since then, it has been a downward spiral.

 This year has been important in defining who is who of Pakistan politics. We have seen the likes of Sheikh Rasheed and the Chudhries – proving themselves to be opportunists of the worst kind. If America were to invade Pakistan tomorrow, these people will be their willing ministers and executioners. Then we have the Sharif “bradraan”. Another bunch who tried to come back to Pakistan to exploit the situation, probably dreaming about being handed over the throne. Musharraf got the better of them. Jamat-e-Islami showed its true colors by handing over Imran to the police. The Jamaat with all it’s Qazi Hussains and the Fazloos have been puppets of the Army – from Zia’s time. No surprises there.

 Benazir Bhutto on the other hand is in a league of her own. She has to be the most shrewd politician in Pakistan. Her are the likes that I like to call “professional” politicians. Their sole purpose for coming in to politics is not to serve the people or the country, but to become rich. Convicted by Spanish and Swiss courts for money laundering, the BB walk around the country with what we Pakistanis like to call “dhitai” – shamelessness. Her coming back and reconciling with Musharraf was the biggest sign that America has given it’s blessings to this unholy union. Musharraf, it seems, was not too happy with this.

Benazir is now saying that she will not accept Musharraf in any situation. The only reason that BB can take this stand has to come in the form of assurances from America. Otherwise, taking on Musharraf – a military dictator – just on the basis of “awami” support is not something BB can do. That requires balls. And BB has none – literally.

Musharraf is in a tight corner now – the only thing that can save him is the creation of an environment that will convince America that Musharraf is needed at the top to fight these “extremists”. I think we should all be ready for another round of bombing in the northern areas.

In my estimate, Musharraf’s days are numbered – America has already given BB assurances of power, and that can’t happen with Musharraf in power. After all, BB is no Shaukat Aziz.

 

PU students protest against IJT

Students at the Punjab University have begun to vent their rage against the Islami Jamiat-e-Tuleba (IJT) over their role in undermining Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan. 

On November 14 as Chairman Khan emerged from hiding to address the students of the Punjab University to spark a movement where the young would begin to lead the change in Pakistan.  Unexpectedly, the IJT manhandled and kidnapped Chairman Khan before handing him over to the police.  The Islami Jamiat-e-Tuleba also beat up Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf workers who were accompanying Chairman Khan. 

In retaliation over the role of IJT, the Punjab University students ransacked the offices of the militant IJT.  The students of Punjab University feel betrayed by the IJT’s role in trying to subvert the increasing opposition to General Musharaf’s rule.  Chairman Khan is unanimously seen as a hero by the young both when he was on the cricket pitch and today in the political arena. 

The student protests against the IJT were so strong that one of the IJT leaders is said to have quit.  Other IJT leaders and workers have been beaten up by the enraged campus.