It should be called Stupid Ordinance, not Hudood!

Dear HP,

I would have gladly accepted the ANP and its leadership along those lines had they been serious.

But it is clear - if one reads Adam Khan`s double speak for example which I have pointed out in my two posts in response to his 36 and 57- that the ANP wants to encourage its old pre-partition Islamic fundamentalist buddies (all opposed to Pakistan`s creation) to take over Pakistan by using specious and simplistic logic that since Pakistan was created for Muslims, they, the same Mullahs who opposed Pakistan, must have the right to interpret Islam for them... it is simplistic, dangerous and flies in the face of reality.

But I have many such examples that make it clear to me that ANP is committed to stopping anything progressive for Pakistan...

Saleem Bhai & others,

We should see if we can lure George Galloway to pakistan in the mean time What about Imran Khan? I am always enamoured when he speaks, always get a feeling that he is genuine and honest. He is the only politician that i have ever seen apologizing for a past indiscretion. He is quite comfertable with his religion but i do think he has a long way to go, just because we as a society has a long way to go

#67 Yassar,

“but now I`ve realised that ANP workers feel that Pakistan`s failure as a federation means their triumph and vindication.”

That to some extent and from your perspective may be true. The ANP belongs to a school of thought that differed with the Muslim League interpretation of the independence struggle. One more thing that you need to understand that when you claim the 1940 resolution as the basis of Pakistan, then you actually endorse what the founding fathers of the ANP were looking for before 1947. They were looking for an independent or semi independent NWFP. Which was primarily an economic demand coupled with the political freedom to choose what was best for them. The essence of the 1940 resolution was the same. The ML asked for economic independence of Muslim majority and a political freedom to choose what was best for the Muslim majority provinces with in a United India.

The 1940 resolution was never a manifesto for independence. It was a framework for the Muslims to work within united India. Later on the whole saga took another turn but the initial reason of the Surkhposh and the Muslim League was the same. The only difference was that the Muslim league based their demand for economic independence on religion whereas the surkhposh based it on their ethnicity.

A politics based on ethnicity would be inherently secular as the ethnic camaraderie does not distinguish between religions and castes. Therefore the Surkhposh were more sympathetic to the Congress.

Not to mention that Pakistan was created within 7 years of 1940 resolution and that was a very short period of time for a political outfit to come around to see the similarities in the stand or even switch platforms. The emotional aspect of the Indian politics contributed to the schism between the ML and the Surkhposh.

The politics after 60 years is entirely different. In Pakistan no one can afford to dwell on the past. Both parties have to get together on common grounds though I am not sure if the ANP has enough influence in NWFP now, to counter the mullah surge in that province.

My last post-

To Adam Khan in 36:

1. NWFP`s MMA government was elected in a dubious manner under a dubious election.. where Musharraf, increasingly isolated from the liberals, had to show the US that democracy meant mullahs. Therefore, Madrassah degrees were legitimised and Afghan refugees were allowed to register as Pakistani citizens.

2. It is the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Constitution of Pakistan that is stopping the Mullahs from enforcing their stupid and idiotic piece of legislation. The Hisba Bill exceeds the provincial assembly`s constitutional position... Islamisation and the interpretation of Islam is, under the current constitution of Pakistan, the sole domain of the Central legislature.

3. Nawaz Sharif`s government was, as you admitted in your later post, supported by ANP.

4. Calling Bhutto Quaid-e-Awam will not necessarily make him the equivalent of Quaid-e-Azam. But for the record... Bhutto threw the question to the assembly and it decided to declare Ahmadis outside the fold of Islam. As the son of an Ahmadi, I might disagree with Ahmadis being outside the fold of Islam... but it was the parliament`s sovereign right and I respect it while disagreeing with it. It goes without saying that Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement had relied upon Ahmadis who Jinnah refused to declare kafirs ...

5. It is amazing how you tie yourself up in knots when on the one hand you hark back to 1947 saying that the land was liberated for ``Muslims`` who believed in ``Islam`` but you refuse to accept that ``Islam`` of 1947 and ``Muslims`` of 1947 who supported Jinnah included Ahmadis as Muslims for example. Therefore... a clear distinction is made on the basis of intepretation. How can the Pakistan Movement be unimportant if it is what you are basing your case for Islamisation on?

We need some new political parties in Pakistan who carry no excess baggage from the past and are not merely reincarnations of some discredited felon`s fan club. Nawaz, BB, Mushy, and Altaf Payee are all unnecessarily usurping too much space on the stage and are, frankly, starting to smell as a result of the rotting flesh of boring familiarity. I urge Manto Bhai to get his movement started and discard any lingering effects of ethnicity, provincialism, linguistic chauvinism, sectarian strife, and right-wing whacko fundo Sunni Wahabbist terroristic tendencies.

We need some new political parties in Pakistan who carry no excess baggage from the past and are not merely reincarnations of some discredited felon`s fan club. Nawaz, BB, Mushy, and Altaf Payee are all unnecessarily usurping too much space on the stage and are, frankly, starting to smell as a result of the rotting flesh of boring familiarity. I urge Manto Bhai to get his movement started and discard any lingering effects of ethnicity, provincialism, linguistic chauvinism, sectarian strife, and right-wing whacko fundo Sunni Wahabbist terroristic tendencies.

Fighting for pushtoon rights is quite different from bearing ill will towards the federation.
I used to think that ANP could transform itself into a liberal Pakistani party working to make Pakistan a truly strong and progressive country.... but now I`ve realised that ANP workers feel that Pakistan`s failure as a federation means their triumph and vindication.

The alliance between PPP and ANP has never come about for some deep seated differences. ANP and PPP having liberal strands competes from the same vote bank in NWFP... therefore ANP and PPP are natural rivals... But since ANP is smaller (and is a historical spin off of a party that willing allied itself with the worst religious parties), it allies itself either with Mufti mahmood/Fazlurrahman and the Military or as in 1997 with right wing conservatives like Nawaz Sharif.

Therefore, given that ANP is quite uninterested in Pakistan being successful or progressive ... it cannot be relied upon for support against Hudood... if anything it can be relied upon to join up with MMA which have been its allies in the past.

#65 by Mantolives
“it will never want anything good for Pakistan as a whole (for that would mean a negation of its own historic stand) and all I want is that once Pakistan becomes a constitutional democracy worthy of its people... we don`t allow ANP to as they say in urdu ``Ungli kaat kay shaheedon main shamil``.”

You are representing just one pov. I think ANP folks are as patriotic as the PPP folks. One should never question the patriotism based on the political views. I support Sindhi nationalist rights and the ANP supports the Pushtoon national rights. This support is not contrary to Pak nationalism. It a difference of perspective and that should not be a reason for creating an alliance on minimum demands or find common grounds on some issues while still maintaining the dispute over the political philosophies…

``Ungli kaat kay shaheedon main shamil`` is not bad if that means broader support for the repeal of an inhuman law.

``PPP is not some principled party. It is as opportunist as the ANP. Opportunism can be bad or good depends on how political parties takes advantage of the situation. It is not an ego issue...both the ANP and the PPP have liberal strands and they need to cooperate on issue by issue basis. When time is right to take up dispute, both parties can go their own ways.``


Agreed that both are opportunist and have some liberal strands... these two ``qualities`` are not enough to bring them together... ANP is Pushtun Nationalist and PPP is an all-Pakistan party ...

I don`t blame ANP for its politics... it is obviously a question of angles and our unique positions... but all I am saying is that it will never want anything good for Pakistan as a whole (for that would mean a negation of its own historic stand) and all I want is that once Pakistan becomes a constitutional democracy worthy of its people... we don`t allow ANP to as they say in urdu ``Ungli kaat kay shaheedon main shamil``.

Same goes for the religious parties- especially Fazlurrahman- who made his loyalties quite clear by replacing the father of the nation`s portrait with his own father`s in his public office in his chamber in the parliament.

There is no disagreement there... supporting Musharraf was a big mistake because the most benovelent dictator is worse than the worst democracy.

However there were many reasons why people like me, novices in their teens, and others older and more educated chose to support Musharraf then... I think hardly anyone can deny that Musharraf has embarked on consistent and gradual social liberalisation ... which has undone some of the suffocation that Zia had left behind and his spiritual son -Nawaz Sharif (of which ANP were proud sponsors)- had created...

Despite all of this.. there is no escaping the fact that only sustainable progress is constitutional progress.

#61,

``This will never happen... as we know ANP has always stood against the PPP because of its own other agendas... ``

PPP is not some principled party. It is as opportunist as the ANP. Opportunism can be bad or good depends on how political parties takes advantage of the situation. It is not an ego issue...both the ANP and the PPP have liberal strands and they need to cooperate on issue by issue basis. When time is right to take up dispute, both parties can go their own ways.

#60

``but we mistakenly assumed it would when we supported Musharraf in 1999... the only reason we chose to support him was because we thought he had come to undo what Zia did. ``

Yasser,

What made any one even mistakenly assume that he would undo what Zia did?
If the winds have not changed in the international politics, we would still be looking at the mullah as the closest army ally.

I think you are not clear on the army`s role in Pakistani politics. Army cannot govern Pakistan w/o the mullah support. The day mullah and the army decided to go separate ways; Pakistan would be a democratic country. The MMA or the Jamaat Islami are the civilian face of the army and manufactured opposition. The liberals will need to understand that.
Understand the power politics in Pakistan and then find ways to get things done. The hudood ordinance needs to go but it will take its time and it will be a long and hard struggle...

Also...

``The PPP and ANP need to support each other on issue by issue basis while still disagreeing on some other issues.``

This will never happen... as we know ANP has always stood against the PPP because of its own other agendas... The major point of division between ANP and PPP is that the latter is at heart a Pakistani party while the former is uninterested in anything good for Pakistan.

Therefore, as in the past, ANP will stand with the military, the mullahs and whoeever to defeat the PPP- which represents the Pakistani Nationalists- ... because PPP, despite all it faults, stands for a liberal democratic and strong Pakistan... the success of which would mean negating the historic ANP stance against the country.

Dear HP,

It is not a question of lumping them together.

All I am giving is a possible explanation for the historic stances of these parties in supporting dictatorship (especially that which aimed at hurting Pakistan) ... and the common ground all of them shared : opposition to Pakistan`s creation. If you think I am merely using the Indian ``occam`s razor`` on their own allies.

Agreed on the rest. Army will never stand with the liberal elements ... but we mistakenly assumed it would when we supported Musharraf in 1999... the only reason we chose to support him was because we thought he had come to undo what Zia did.

Manto,
Lumping ANP with Fazloo is not right. Things have changed and the politics have changed in NWFP. Fazloo is not his father, the Mufti nor is Isfandyar, wali khan.
We need to get out of this type of blame game.

The way the hadood ordinance was sneaked in the law books and the way it was defended for 20 years would make it hard for any government to change that in just one act. It has to be progressively demolished and pressure will need to be continually built to finally get rid of the whole law.

The problem is that the army lacks the political support and the political will to counter the mullah pressure. Both Muslim League and the Mullah are important army allies and the army is not willing to completely stand by liberal elements in Pakistan.
The major reason being that the liberals are not politically strong enough to put pressure on the army.

BB needed to come out strongly against the law as she is not going to gain any thing from cooperating with the MMA at any level at this time. BB needs to make allies with ANP and other like minded parties to create a bigger pressure group. The PPP and ANP need to support each other on issue by issue basis while still disagreeing on some other issues.

Dear Khan Sahab,

What I find strange with the ANP crowd is that while you seek no ownership of Pakistan and its ideal, you try and claim exclusive jurisdiction over how to interpret it... Ofcourse, asking you to produce the exact resolution of the league where it declared Pakistan`s matlab to be La illah illallah would be too inconvenient for you... but like I said, in our earlier debates, these are inconvenient facts that Indians and their supporters always find hard to answer. But let us forget all of this...

Would you mind telling me how you came to the conclusion that Islam or La Illah illallah should logically translate into Hudood Ordinance... The problem here is simple. ANP, JI and Mufti`s goondas raised the slogan of ``Nizam-e-Mustafa`` in 1977 and then supported Zia`s coup against Bhutto...

And you`ve rightly pointed out that Wali Khan`s party was part of the Nawaz Sharif government (after all Wali and Zia went way back.. and Nawaz Sharif was the spiritual son of Zia ul haq) ... yes the same Nawaz Sharif Government which was trying to establish Islamic Khilafat ultra vires to the constitution and which had colluded and attacked the Supreme Court of Pakistan... Thanks for admitting that as with Fakir of Ipi and Zia ul Haq, Ghaffar khan`s progeny were collaborating with yet another anti-Pakistan demagogue (from the uncaring group) who wanted to use and abuse the Pakistanis` affiliation with Islam...

FTR ... I for one don`t blame Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan etc for their historical stances in favor of Zia and Nawaz Sharif etc... since they did not make Pakistan, it certainly could not be expected from them to do something good for the country...

As for those who continue to support Musharraf... the reason why most liberal Pakistani nationalists chose to support Musharraf was because he promised to undo what Zia did ... 3 or 4 years later many of us realised that any unconstitutional method leads to the same destination.... some haven`t ... and others like Kasuri have made mistakes in the past as well... but it doesn`t take away from their over all outlook..