Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Satyavadi # 104

I am glad that YLH has not mentioned Hindu influence.

It stinks.

At least you do.

And what source do you have which says that Mahmud of Ghzna was not benevolent ... how can you be so sure ... ????

Shammi#107

Why Pakistan not merge with India.

Well because of you.

We have to listen the smelly lectures again and again.

and Incase my last post was not posted ...

I hope you read this satywadi

my name Hamdani should have given it away but obviously you dont know enough...

From my mother`s side ... I have documented lineage straight to Muhammad PBUH ... so next time you want to expound upon your personal non sensical theories of where 0.01 percent Arab, Persian or Turkish Blood .. read first ....

Please for god sakes grow up ...

I am not saying that local Pakistani blood is any less Noble ... all I did say was that it has a lot of mix ...

Where do you Indians get your information anyway?

I think all present here know my views about Secularism and Pakistani Nationalism ... and I am proud to be a Pakistani ... but if I were to trace the origins of current PAKISTANI people ... yes there will be local people ... and then there will be the descendants of the settlers...

I dont know why descendants of the settlers are such an impossible thing for you ... are you telling me people from all over the Islamic world didnt settle in India from 1100s to 1800s???

Did you know that your leader Abu Al Kalaam Azaad was the son of a Muslim migrant from the Middle East?

and what about the Mughals werent they central Asian ... dont they have descendants in Modern Pakistan ???? or Syeds or Khiljis or Lodhis or Tughlaqs??? werent post of them Turks???

and dont tell me ... Arabs in Sindh didnt leave any descendants????

Your babbling is not only nonsensical but it is also worthless....

The truth is that no one is out to deny any heritage ... but I am not going to lie to make you happy .... to me Pakistani nation is a modern nation with various influences. I wonder why you made such a big deal of the word Arab or Turk anyway ... what insecurity is it anyway????

Pakistan is not yours ... ok ? You shouldnt be concerned about us.

I am sorry Bilal sahib but I had to write that last post ... because these Indians tend to get out of hand...loose without their leash.

I dont understand why these Indians come and ruin a perfectly good discussion anyway ...

What is your obsession with Pakistan ... werent we discussing a devolution plan which was implemented by Musharraf in ``PAKISTAN`` and not in India ... so why are you people so keen to learn about Pakistan ... did you ever see any of us come to your websites and discuss Andhra Pradesh

CMship or Jay Lalita`s whatever???? Did you see us give expert opinions on your budget or your micro finance schemes or whatever?????

Why did Hamsab make that statement anyway .. criticizing our way of perceiving History ...

you know what whether we do it one way or the other ... whether we wanna make Pakistan secular or not ... is None of any Indian`s business.

And I request chowk editors to put this post up please because eventhough it is a digression ... it might just make Indians stop trying to come here and giving us their rusting two cents for which we have no worth or use.

Now Bilal Bhai I am really sorry for the digression.

I have a question for you about the Devolution plan ...

Dont you think without an election on party basis

a clear situation might not emerge ... no agenda .. no platform... no manifesto... ?

Yours sincerely

Yasser Hamdani

Satywadi

You talk about not mentioning Hindus ... well I will tell you why I didnt mention Hindus ... in my own personal understanding of History Hinduism is a term coined by others... so yes in my personal opinion Aryan suffices. Besides right now I am not a big fan of Hindus ... and my current ``PERSONAL`` definition of Hindus is all Indians ... and that has nothing to do with religion .. to me all people living in Hindustan are Hindus regardless of their personal faith or religion. Ofcourse I will be politically incorrect if I tried to make it an official definition.

I have my personal views and I ll adhere to it.

Now coming to the next objection you have raised about 0.01 percent blood being Turkish or Persian .. so let us begin with who is who in Pakistan ..

but first I wanna make sure that it wasnt a personal attack ... I am not going to deny what I am ... I admit that I have a lot of different ethnic backgrounds... and I am willing to admit that around 60% of my blood has to be local subcontinental but believe me the name ``Hamdani`` and the fact that my mother has a direct lineage from the Prophet PBUH which is well documented ...

makes me ``PERSONALLY`` claim atleast 40% foreign blood ... but I am not saying it makes me superior .. I am just out to discredit your generalizations ...

Now coming to the people of Pakistan in general ..

seriously now have you considered the ethnic make up of Pakhtuns or Pathans and of Baluchis????

Pakhtuns or Pathans belong to 4 different ethnic backgrounds

1) Huns from Central Asia

2) Persian and Afghani native

3) Bani Israel (Yusuf Zais etc)

4) Turkestan

Baluchis on the other hand are predominantly two groups of people ...Persians and Kurds and this is documented.

So please tell oh wise one how the ethnic make up of these Pakistanis is the same.

I dont have any intention to deny any ancestry of anyone ... that is not my raison de ettre for Pakistan at all ... all I am trying to prove are the facts here.

I am not pro Arab ... as a matter of fact I am totally against the reverence shown to the Arabs..

but they do have a considerable influence in certain parts of Pakistan ... as for Africans, maybe a study of Makranis is necessary ...

Now coming to Mahmud Ghaznavi, you forget that he did establish his rule in most of what is Pakistan today minus Sindh ... and Sindh was ruled by the remnants of the Arab rule then...

Mahmud had what is now NWFP and Punjab right uptill Sutlej and Northern Baluchistan ...

But that is not the question ... if we wish to admire a Turk Conqueror as own ... we will and you are no one to tell us we cant.

Now coming to subservient ... you Indians have some nerve ...

You people appoint a British white man as your first Governor General of Independent India and you have the nerve to call us subservient. The truth is that you know as well as I do ... that Pakistanis seldom give up ... and their have fierce pride in their country.

Then you people talk about the 1971 war ... forgetting that an Army of only 90 000 was pitted against close to 50 million rebels/freedom fighters and an agressor five times its size...

was it really a military defeat or a political one?

You said our Prime Minister when running to the US or something I dont even remember what you said ...

Maybe you forget that when Clinton came to Pakistan and asked Musharraf to restore Democracy

(Which I think is a great request) Musharraf replied ...``This is my Country, I will do whatever the hell I want`` ...

This was in sharp contrast to you chaps in India who were busy cleaning up the streets of Dehli and busy making peoples in slums homeless by throwing them out of their shabby homes because the American Daddy was coming.

So stop telling us subservient nonsense ...

I suggest you come to Pakistan ... you are in for a lot of surprises ... positive and negative ...

and let me ruin a negative one for you ....

You will find an AK 47 or a decent Pistol in almost every household. I dont personally appreciate this violent trend but just as in my opinion Pakistanis are not fundamentalist or religous fanatics and know how to have a good time ... they are also NOT subservient ....

I have said it before ... keep these subservient theories to yourself ... for your nation is known for its centuries old wisdom and Himsa and Satyagrahas and other BS (READ SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE) .... we are far from SUBSERVIENT.

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

Satywadi

You talk about not mentioning Hindus ... well I will tell you why I didnt mention Hindus ... in my own personal understanding of History Hinduism is a term coined by others... so yes in my personal opinion Aryan suffices. Besides right now I am not a big fan of Hindus ... and my current ``PERSONAL`` definition of Hindus is all Indians ... and that has nothing to do with religion .. to me all people living in Hindustan are Hindus regardless of their personal faith or religion. Ofcourse I will be politically incorrect if I tried to make it an official definition.

I have my personal views and I ll adhere to it.

Now coming to the next objection you have raised about 0.01 percent blood being Turkish or Persian .. so let us begin with who is who in Pakistan ..

but first I wanna make sure that it wasnt a personal attack ... I am not going to deny what I am ... I admit that I have a lot of different ethnic backgrounds... and I am willing to admit that around 60% of my blood has to be local subcontinental but believe me the name ``Hamdani`` and the fact that my mother has a direct lineage from the Prophet PBUH which is well documented ...

makes me ``PERSONALLY`` claim atleast 40% foreign blood ... but I am not saying it makes me superior .. I am just out to discredit your generalizations ...

Now coming to the people of Pakistan in general ..

seriously now have you considered the ethnic make up of Pakhtuns or Pathans and of Baluchis????

Pakhtuns or Pathans belong to 4 different ethnic backgrounds

1) Huns from Central Asia

2) Persian and Afghani native

3) Bani Israel (Yusuf Zais etc)

4) Turkestan

Baluchis on the other hand are predominantly two groups of people ...Persians and Kurds and this is documented.

So please tell oh wise one how the ethnic make up of these Pakistanis is the same.

I dont have any intention to deny any ancestry of anyone ... that is not my raison de ettre for Pakistan at all ... all I am trying to prove are the facts here.

I am not pro Arab ... as a matter of fact I am totally against the reverence shown to the Arabs..

but they do have a considerable influence in certain parts of Pakistan ... as for Africans, maybe a study of Makranis is necessary ...

Now coming to Mahmud Ghaznavi, you forget that he did establish his rule in most of what is Pakistan today minus Sindh ... and Sindh was ruled by the remnants of the Arab rule then...

Mahmud had what is now NWFP and Punjab right uptill Sutlej and Northern Baluchistan ...

But that is not the question ... if we wish to admire a Turk Conqueror as own ... we will and you are no one to tell us we cant.

Now coming to subservient ... you Indians have some nerve ...

You people appoint a British white man as your first Governor General of Independent India and you have the nerve to call us subservient. The truth is that you know as well as I do ... that Pakistanis seldom give up ... and their have fierce pride in their country.

Then you people talk about the 1971 war ... forgetting that an Army of only 90 000 was pitted against close to 50 million rebels/freedom fighters and an agressor five times its size...

was it really a military defeat or a political one?

You said our Prime Minister when running to the US or something I dont even remember what you said ...

Maybe you forget that when Clinton came to Pakistan and asked Musharraf to restore Democracy

(Which I think is a great request) Musharraf replied ...``This is my Country, I will do whatever the hell I want`` ...

This was in sharp contrast to you chaps in India who were busy cleaning up the streets of Dehli and busy making peoples in slums homeless by throwing them out of their shabby homes because the American Daddy was coming.

So stop telling us subservient nonsense ...

I suggest you come to Pakistan ... you are in for a lot of surprises ... positive and negative ...

and let me ruin a negative one for you ....

You will find an AK 47 or a decent Pistol in almost every household. I dont personally appreciate this violent trend but just as in my opinion Pakistanis are not fundamentalist or religous fanatics and know how to have a good time ... they are also NOT subservient ....

I have said it before ... keep these subservient theories to yourself ... for your nation is known for its centuries old wisdom and Himsa and Satyagrahas and other BS (READ SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE) .... we are far from SUBSERVIENT.

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

For those who are interested in reviewing how the Constitution of India has devolved powers to the local level (village Panchayats -- not an easy task given that there are roughly 600,000 villages in India), please refer to:

http://alfa.nic.in/const/p09.html

and the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act, 1992:

http://alfa.nic.in/const/tamnd73.htm

The 73rd amendment mentions:

`STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been

able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people`s bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of

regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient

representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources...

...Accordingly, it is proposed to add a new Part (to the Constitution) relating to

Panchayats in the Constitution to provide for among other things, Gram Sabha in a village or group of villages; constitution of Panchayats

at village and other level or levels; direct elections to all seats in Panchayats at the village and intermediate level, if any, and to

the offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at such levels; reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population for membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each level; reservation of not less than one-third of the seats for women; fixing tenure of 5 years for Panchayats and holding elections within a period of 6 months in the event of supersession of any Panchayat; disqualifications for membership of Panchayats; devolution by the State Legislature of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to the preparation of plans for economic developments and social justice and for the implementation of development schemes; sound finance of the

Panchayats by securing authorisation from State Legislatures for grants-in-aid to the Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of the

State, as also assignment to, or appropriation by, the Panchayats of the revenues of designated taxes, duties, tolls and fees; setting up of a Finance Commission within one year of the proposed amendment and thereafter every 5 years to review the financial position of Panchayats; auditing of accounts of the Panchayats; powers of State Legislatures to make provisions with respect to elections to Panchayats under the superintendence, direction and control of the

chief electoral officer of the State; application of the provisions of the said Part to Union territories; excluding certain States and areas from the application of the provisions of the said Part; continuance of existing laws and Panchayats until one year from the commencement of the proposed amendment and barring interference by courts in electoral matters relating to Panchayats.`

In response to Ras Siddiqui (Reply # 62)
Dear Ras:

I am not sure if should really blame Jinnah, G. Mohammad, Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, B. Bhutto, N. Sharif, and/or Musharraf for various transgression in Pakistan. What I am sure is that our state institutions are in dire need of radical and humanistic reform. I published the following letter in response to the incarnation of Khalid Aziz. Do you see some commonality?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Frontier Post, Letter
Circa March 17, 2000
Pakistani People: A Question of Rights?

Ayesha Aziz’s recent letter concerning the unlawful incarnation of her father touched my sensibility both as a Pakistani and as a human being (The News; March 14, 2000). This letter was followed by another letter by Colonal Razak of Peshawar (Frontier Post; March 15, 2000).

Ayesha informs that, according to the National Accountability laws, a citizen of Pakistan cannot be incarcerated for more than 90 days. Although no person should be held without formal charges, Ayesha’s father has spent more than 170 days under army detention without the due process. Ayesha also informs that her father has recently been shifted to the Attock Fort, the most infamous state-mandated torture cell in Pakistan.

The horror chambers of the Attock Fort, as casually described by Colonel Razak, are spaces of medieval coercion in modern Pakistan. Such spaces, and the practices therein, are nothing but a blot on our state and society, which has long been going down the drain. Such spaces of coercion are a major cause of the slumberness of the people of Pakistan. Nation-building can not be achieved when the people are scared and when they aren’t even able to struggle peacefully for their fundamental citizenship and human rights.

General Musharraf needs to promise the people of Pakistan that their rights will not be violated by the state of Pakistan, neither overtly nor covertly. General Musharraf should also declare all forms of systematic transgressions against the people of Pakistan as a national offense.

Bilal Ahmad
USA

To Whom It May Concern:

Kindly refrain from the issues that have no relevance to the issue of DEVOLUTION. This my personal request. Thanks.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Tahmed321 #91

``Should religion be seen as an personal matter or something for the state to decide? ...Should the government seek peace with India even if it means forgetting about changing the status quo in Kashmir? ``

Tahmed321, unfortunately two of the questions that you mention will only imperil the legitimacy of military government in Pakistan (and perhaps even Pakistan as a nation state). Therefore, they are unlikely to be posed as a choice in a referendum.

First, if religion as a public/personal matter is put to a test, then a question that immediately arises is `why even have a Pakistan?` since Pakistan`s inception is supposedly based upon a distinct identity derived from religion. Why not re-integrate, merge with India with a shared `cultural, lingual` heritage?

Second, in Pakistan today given the severe erosion of civil institutions, one of the few things that still binds the country is the issue of Kashmir and the associated vilification of India. No (un-elected) Pakistani government (much less a military one) will have the political courage to confront the military on this issue. Not only will there be one less issue for all Pakistanis to rally under, but the military will also lose a casus belli and the resultant need for big budgets.

That said, I do hope that SOME sort of democratization (however imperfect) takes place in Pakistan. Democratization is a slow, evolutionary process. After all, Rome was not built in a day. Indian democracy is far from perfect, but it is definitely stronger and deeper today than it was in 1947. Pakistanis have rarely or never been allowed to boot out a malfunctioning government. In the process, I feel that both voters and politicians have not been given adequate opportunities to learn the necessary lessons.

Rsaxena

Kindly dont make it a point to attack unnecessarily .... all I said was that our culture has various influences... including Arab...

By the way I never seen anyone dress their kid up as an Arab in Pakistan ... I have done it before and I ll do it again ... I invite you to come to Pakistan ...

I took one of your countrymen to Pakistan ...maybe

you should talk to him sometime.

Now dont try to twist what I say...

Dear Prof Ahmad:

I just sent a response to your reply to me on the ``1971 in 2000`` board. Please check it out.

Satyavadi

YLH:::::

``We dont despise ourselves. Thats what you dont understand about conquerors. Pakistan is unique blend of various cultures ranging from, Aryan, Buddhist, Turkish, Arab, Iranian, Sindhi, Punjabi, etc etc Therefore conquerors from central Asia are sometimes hailed as our own and not as our conquerors... because we are all of the above and not single one of them ... this goes a long way in contributing to the UNIQUE Pakistani identity.``

Why there is no mention of Hindus while you felt the need to mention Buddhists? Dont you tell that you mentioned Aryan and that suffices, because werent the Buddhists also Aryans?

And having 0.01% Arab and 0.001% Turkish blood in your veins makes you one of them. Does it? You might wanna know how most of that 0.01% came about, and please dont take it personally. For all you or I know, you maynot have any Turkish or Arabic heritage.

``It is only logical that the worst plunderer depicted in your Indian History books, Mahmud of Ghazna is looked upon as a great Hero by us. This has little to do with religion ...``

I am sorry but I didnt follow your logic. Could you explain?

Did Mahmud Ghaznavi not plunder, invade and rape Punjab on his way to Gujarat? Or did he actually distribute his war booty among the people of present day Pakistan?

``This has little to do with religion``

What does it have to do with, if not religion? Anything that Mahmud of Ghazna had in common with the present day Pakistanis except his religion? Any kind act of benevelonce, any act of mercy? Did even bother to propogate Islam or anything, unlike Mohammad Bin Kasim?

Talking about Mohammad Bin Kasim, my textbook mentioned his invasion of Sindh and his role in intordusing Islam in the subcontinent. Though there was no praise for him, there was no slander either. Cant say about all Indian textbooks though, since there are 30 odd school boards other the one under which I studied.

``How can you even blame us of being subservient in anyway``

Please tell me that was a joke. Who keeps on sucking on to, praising and then complaining against the US, in cycles all the time? Which country`s PMs and military turn to the US for succour and support in times of domestic political crises? Which country is obsessed with the US approval even in matters purely domestic?

In response to hassans (Reply # 55)
Dear Hassan:

Your point concerning many smaller provinces are well taken for a society where people easily create othernesses on some basis of collective identity. It is often erroneously believed that the present four provinces are somewhat homogenous ethno-linguistic geographical units. In each of the four provinces, one could easily identify a dominant and one or more smaller ethno-linguistic groups. Hence, in Punjab we have Punjabis, Saraikis, and Potohari as three major linguistic groups; while in Baluchistan we have at least Baluchis, Pushtoons, and Saraikis.

Are strictly homogenous administrative units (be they provinces) possible in present day Pakistan? In my view, yes in our imagination and no in reality (we face a definite problem when the imagined is perceived as real). The desire for strictly homogeneous administrative units within a multicultural (multinational) nation-state often leads to exclusionary policies. Exclusionary policies creates rifts and are, thus, bad for the short and long-term health of a nation-state. A sense of deprivation among a group of people thus creates intra- and/or inter-provincial conflicts and rivalries. In Pakistan, PONAM is one such group of people/politicians who consider the Sindhis, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, and Saraikis as oppressed nations within the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This group does not recognize the so-called Mohajirs as a nation. We need to carefully understand the view point of this group which, if not seriously taken, is likely to further damage our national cohesion.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Anil,

I must ask you for the source of the quote :

``1973 Senate Report 93-549, 1973:

“In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549, in 1973, and entered into the Congressional Record is: ``For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.``

The reason I ask is you can go to

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/bdquery.html

and follow links (93-549 is the 549th public law passed by the 93rd Congress) to find what 93-549 is about.

Here is the title of the item :

549. H.R.15067: A bill to prevent reductions in pay for any officer of employee who would be adversely affected as a result of implementing Executive Order 11777.

Sponsor: Rep Wyman .- LATEST ACTION: 12/26/74

Public law 93-549.

-arun gupta