Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Chowkwallas:

Kindly read the first line of my previous post to Ferozk as follows:

In response to Ferozk (Replies # 48 and 83)
Dear Feroz:

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Feroz, I am sorry for my sloppiness.

In response to scout (Reply # 52)
Dear scout:

I appreciate your thought behind going back to Pakistan and serve the people. With some reservations, I tend to agree with your position. However, could you explain why so many Pakistanis continuously choose to leave Pakistan? Are they all greedy nothing but greedy people? For some insights, please read Irfan Husains’s piece in Dawn (circa September 16, 1997). I don’t have the URL for the same, but I could send you a copy. My e-mail address is: bahmad@home.com

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Musharraf`s devolution plan is, on the face of it, an excellent plan.

Will it succeed ? For this, you have to define what success means, and define in what time frame you will measure success or failure.

Thinking about it some more, I see a basic underlying flaw in the whole plan.

An underlying assumption of the devolution plan, which I agree with, is that there are a bunch of powers that exist today that block actions or programs that would benefit the majority of common people.

The idea behind devolution is that new institutions and/or new rules will allow new actors to bring in changes in the face of opposition from the powers-that-be. I agree with this as well.

However, my reading yesterday leads me to believe that a certain stability of rules is required for the new actors to start defying the powers-that-be.

Why would a rational person antagonize the powers-that-be (and who will be around for a while) under the cover of rules that are going to almost certainly change ? Then you have created powerful enemies and your protection has been removed.

The rules will change after Musharraf steps down in three years or after the next set of politicians draft the next Constitution or after the next coup.

Because the rules of the game are not fixed, the advantage always remains with the powers-that-be.

Musharraf did not respect the Constitution, he can hardly guarantee constitutional stability. There is a chicken-and-egg problem here that people will not trust the ``system`` until it stops changing every three years; but the ``system`` will not stop changing as long as the time-period for the ``system`` to prove itself is just a few years.

The only answer is to produce the blue-print of a workable system (a workable Constitution), and then stick with it through thick-and-thin for a couple of decades -- no extra-Constitutional changes allowed. At the end of it, perhaps success or failure can be gauged.

-arun gupta

Re: ylh

``...conquerors. Pakistan is unique blend of various cultures ranging from, Aryan, Buddhist, Turkish, Arab, Iranian, Sindhi, Punjabi, etc etc ``

There is NOTHING Buddhist about Pakistan or its people. Don`t insult the one unscathed religion left in the world today by claiming that. As for Arab, you`ve got to be kidding me.

btw, wasn`t it hamidm who joked about people in Pakistan making their kids look like fools by trying to dress them up in Arab costumes?

The 1973 War Powers Act can be found at :

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Please note section 5(b).

I also think

http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/idiotarguments.html

is food for thought. With a little search, I can find arguments on the web that the US has been a dictatorship since the Civil War and stuff like that.

-arun gupta

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

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

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?

Dear Prof Ahmad:

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

Satyavadi

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...

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.

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

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

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.`

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