A New Constitution for Pakistan

#133 by rsridhar

You are bang on target when you say that the Indian Army didn`t play the ``holier than thou`` role. There were occasions in India especially in 1975 when there was a risk of military coup against Indira Gandhi.

In Pakistan, the army seizes the CM/governor house, PTV, Radio, PM/governor house and airports within a matter of 1 hour. The entire exercise is well coordinated (after years of practice). Essentially, the Army operation needs to be performed in 5 cities (Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawer and Quetta).

In contrast, if the Indian Army wanted to impose martial law, it would have to move simultaneously in 35 state capitols besides the federal capital. The logistics of such an exercise are mind boggling.

#119 by Mantolives

++
The inherent contradiction of the `Islamic Democratic state` is what has ruined the liberal spirit of the 1973 constitution...

My suggestion is to remove that contradiction.
++

Firstly, Islam and democracy are not incompatible because the Quran is silent about the form of government. There is consensus among Muslim scholars that this silence was intentional. God wants society to pick a political system suitable to the times.

Many people misunderstand liberalism. So before I compare Islam with liberalism, I will define it in terms of the classical concepts propagated by J.S.Mill, Locke and Adam Smith:

1. government should be limited in scope
2. free market transactions without government control
3. protection of basic individual rights (food, shelter, clothing, medical care)
4. right of ``self-development`` (education, employment, business, etc)

Islam is in total agreement with the 3rd and 4th ideals of liberalism. The differences emerge with respect to the first 2 liberal ideals. Essentially Islam stipulates:

1. government is responsible for enacting Islamic laws
2. no interest/riba allowed in market transactions

Thus the contradiction between Islamic Republic and Liberal Republic, actually boils down to these two contradictions.

PS: Rights to life, liberty, property, religious belief I have already mentioned earlier.

Proposed Principles for Human Rights Charter.

This article was written with respect to the issue of Presidential vs Parliamentary democracy. It was not written as a complete constitution. I have already made my charter on the issue of equality clear, but it seems that some people just like to make crass accusations with no roots in reality. Hence the principles on which the Pakistani Charter of Human rights and State vis a vis the citizens (which I have repeated off and on)

1) Equality complete, unconditional, total for all citizens regardless of religion, caste, creed, gender, sexual orientation. I consider all people christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, atheists Men, women, Sindhis, Mohajirs, Punjabis, Pathans, Homosexuals, heterosexuals EQUAL... Equal citizens, Equal Human beings, Equal nationals, Equal Pakistanis, Equal Human beings... (One would have assumed that when one said the Human Rights Charter as per the UN one would mean all of them but not so for Bharatvaasi)

2) Freedom of Speech and expression, complete, total, unconditional ... (I admit that this part will require more tolerance on the part of the society). Open ended ... not limitations because there is often no limitation to limitations.

3) One Person One Vote: Adult Franchise. Universal. No discrimination . All Pakistani Citizens above the age of 18.

4) Sovereignty must rest unconditionally with the people. There can be no compromise.


This is atleast the 1000th time I have repeated this vision in the last 4 years... I hope I will not accused in this manner again.

-Manto

nazar#116:
``India and Pakistan began with equal oppurtunity and poverty - Both had a reasonable infrastructer, bureacratic elite, political & government system, coastline, natural resources, technology - only India was 7 times bigger``
This is not quite true. I think the Pakistani elite was almost exclusively restricted to the small Mohajir class from India. While the physical/military infrastructure was the same, it lost much of its native intellectual and professional/business class, which was largely Hindu-Sikh. No wonder, army has such an important role in the country`s life.

`` But economically, with all the above chaos, it is comparable with India - everything 7 times less - exports, reserves, et``

Yes, but only because of the massive infusions from abroad, both by Pakistani ex-pats and foreigners, mainly Americans and Saudis. In my opinion, one of the biggest deficiencies in Pakistan has been its very low savings rate, something which will get even worse if interest is outlawed.

One area where Pakistanis can take justifiable pride is the area of extreme poverty. While the overall poverty levels are the same in the two countries, there is significantly less display of extreme misery on the Pakistani streets than in India. Maybe, it has something to do with the impotance to charity in Islam.

``Do you consider all people to have the same rights? Do think all people are equal?``


After 4 years of answering this question am I still to answer this question... Is there even a doubt... why the hell do you think I keep repeating the `Jinnah` speech?

I consider all people christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadis, atheists Men, women, Sindhis, Mohajirs, Punjabis, Pathans, Homosexuals, heterosexuals EQUAL...

I can`t believe that after 4 years of harping about equality on this website , I am still supposed to explain my position... I am being accused of avoiding this question.

-Manto

Thank you mantolives #122. However you have not addressed the issues fully. The way they have been done leads to a picture of hand waving and all that. However, what you say raises a few more issues

(a) Is there equality of citizenship. Or is it the case that some are more equal then others?

(b) ALright you say fundemental rights to religion, espression etc. Are these open ended or closed? Are you going to impose a limitation on these activities?

(c) Yes one of the many duties of a citizen is not to subvert the state - this has to be be a given since we will all swear by the consitution so it is moot. HOwever what else are the fundemental duties of the citizen? Or do you consider these to be irrelevant?


(d) you say power is to be achieved by the ballot? But you don`t address the issue associated with the ballot? Who has the right to vote? Is it by Adult Franchise? Is it going be by religious pursuation? Is it going to be by sexual persuasion? What is it? You have stated the people will be free to follow a religion etc but nowhere do you suggest that all are equal?(Note: You have not listed this as one of the Fundemental Rights).

(e) Your point 4 is a bit of contradiction. If both Houses have the same powers then there will be a dead lock? How do you envisage getting round these problems? Also if they have the same pwoers then why have two whynot have just one?

(f) you say in point 4 for the sake of the federation? What do you mean by this? Can you be more explicit? For nowhere is this clear. In what way will two houses be better for the federation rather than a single house?

(g) what you have in point 5 is essentially what you have in the US. That is why I said your manifesto is US constitution lite? (this includes pt 7)

(h) further your points under pt 7 has been tried in one way or the other in pakistan.

Again I say the vision you have attempted to give is incomplete (even the answers you give in post 122 donot give it).

Alright you say secular country and then what?

Can you state your vision is a consie form like the declaration of freedom in the US or the charter in England (of John)? I guess you have readthese? At the very least you would have gone to the lincoln memorial in DC and seen something writen there on the inside?

I say all that you are doing is talking about power sharing amongst the elite? That is what this is all about. Not the country not the people. These are used as a fig leaf to cover the naked ambitions. Rethoric to hide the real issue!

Come on Mantolives you can surely do better than that. I know you have your heart in the right place.

(h) the list system of proportional representation you mention in point 7 can be flawed. Currently you have people from one family in various parties or spread all over so that they are never out of power really. The proportional list you suggest is open to the same problems. You will have an Elite perpetrating their rule forever without a great churn of the society. That DISCONNECT again will become more apparent. This is what I mean by hitting the familiar buffers again? In what way are you going to eliminate this particular feature. There is NO WAY that the people not from the elite can aspire to be top dog.

mantolives 127 says:``That brings me to my assertion that there should be a complete separation of church and state... and hence sovereignty should belong to the PEOPLE unconditionally. BTW I still don`t understand what Bharatvasi`s point was... I have strong suspicion he didn`t even read the article. ``

tut tut mantolives. You are handwaving again. You do not want to address fundemental issues. You have usedthe popular words/sentiments here like seperation of church and state etc. These are just words there is nothing concrete here. Even Mush-e-ruff can sy that and he has said that. What is the difference?

Come young man, a future leader out with the answers? Be moreexplicit think about the nuts and bolts to get a good abstract idea from it. You are not doing justice to your self.

re:#79 by HisExcellency
Sorry for the delay in answering your post.
The scenario you described is interesting. It is typical of any developing country, including India. India is by no means a perfect democracy. The only difference between India and Pak as i see it is that Pakistanis seem to consider Army rule even as an option when the political process fails while it is a big NO, NO in India. Army stays clear of the political class in India as hobnobbing with politicians do not go well with the public there.
In all other respects, India and Pak are the same: the same amount of corruption, favoritism, and so on. Only, the Army never played this ``holier than thou`` attitude towards the political class and never dismissed an elected govt or told them to behave. Perhaps Pak army acquired this image by projecting itself as saviour of Pak from a much bigger and menacing neighbour, an image that looms large over every Paki citizen.
Sridhar

mantolives 128: What I want to hear from you is

Do you consider all people to have the same rights? Do think all people are equal?

You have simply avioded these questions. These are fundemental questions. I am not drunk. I am trying to get you to answer these questions. I can see that you are not willing to state categorically that all are equal.

A vision like the preamble of a constitution in important since it lays out what the state and country are all about. You have that in the declaration of Freedom in the US (I will not suggest the preamble of the Indian Constitution since it would cause epoplexy here). That is what I am looking for. Not a lenghty litany of who power will shared.

You have not read my responses but are just running from it since the answers to my questions are very uncomfortable to you and would perhaps contradict many of the things you hold dear (I am not saying this is the case but your obsfucation indicates a certain degree of discomfort).

re: my post # 125 to fuzair

``Would a poor man in India prefer the disruption of democracy and sacrifice his Right to Work un...``
The above should read: `` Would a poor man in India prefer the disruption of democracy and sacrifice his Right to Vote...``
There is no Right to work in India. At least not yet. Right to vote is a fundamental right that every Indian values.
Sridhar

re:#117 by echoooobooom
I agree with you partially. Some people are more difficult to deal with than others. I have interacted with FerozK in the past and respect his integrity and honesty. I think fuzair is definitely different from FerozK.
People who criticise Indian democracy while residing in (or hailing from) a dictatorial regime are just pathetic. Indian democracy has survived naysayers from its inception and is going strong. The only criticism in the past was that this democratic model was not suited to economic growth. What the heck! India is among the fastest groing economies in the world today, after China. So, that argument too goes down the toilet. Need i bother to convince anyone Indian democracy is good or bad. As they say, proof of pudding is in eating.
Sridhar

re: bharatvaasi # 107

You asked about Pakistan`s vision and what Pakistanis wish to become. You have put your finger on the problem. Pakistan is still in the middle of a debate deciding what it wants to be and to the vision, we have never really answered that question either. Our failure to answer this question has to a great extent retarded our growth in an economical sense, but more importantly in a political sense.

You mentioned (I think it was you) the issues concerning power sharing as a preoccupation of the elites. That is correct. These issues and this debate is mostly limited to the educated elites of Pakistan and to an extent to the middle class. The middle class is mostly interested in this debate from an economic perspective; their economic rights, which the political instability in Pakistan is steadily eroading. You are right that a large middle class Muslims migrated to Pakistan. However, that was in 1947 and today, Pakistan is economically polarized between an affluent class and poverty striken class. The Muslim emigres upon arriving in Pakistan were embroiled in a power struggle with landed aristocracy in West Pakistan. Since 1947, we have not answered the question how power is to be shared in Pakistan and whether we endeavor with the parliamentary system or replace with a presidental system.

You mentioned we should look forward, but you are using an example from the past. The situation of Pakistan in 1947 is vastly different from the situation Pakistan finds itself in 2003. As you mention, Pakistan has to look forward. We have to learn from our past mistakes and try to avoid them in the future. We have made mistakes in the past and we cannot go on repeating the mistakes. We have to decide whether to keep repeating them or seek another alternative. Yasser`s article was in that sense. It was offering a suggestion as to what is possible and not stating, as you claimed, what needed to be done. This arguement may seem insignificant to you, but Pakistan never really settled this issue and now, we have to decide once and for all, what we want. When we do, we will be in a better position to answer your question as to what our vision shall be and what we, as Pakistanis, hope to become.

As to the rights of the citizens, you are correct in your observations that they were misssing from my article as well as from Yasser`s. Bharatvaasi, before we even get to the level of discussing the rights of citizens in Pakistan, we have to decide what we want politically in Pakistan: parliamentary or a presidental form of government. The critical issue in Pakistan is governance and its lack of there of and once we settle this issue, we will be in a better position to debate the previleges and obligations of Pakistani citizens and their contitutional rights. Our failure to decide this issue has confused our political intitutions, because we have parliamentary political insitutions supporting a presidental style of government for which they never were designed. In fact, politically speaking, we placing the cart before the horse and blaming the cart for not pulling the horse!

This brings the discussion to your other question, asked of me, of what did India gain in comparsion to Pakistan. In my reply to Dost-Mittar, I mentioned that it was the political institutions and political infrastructure, which made all the difference between India and Pakistan. What India gained over Pakistan in 1947 was political stability and institutional continuity. Pakistan had to develop its political institutions and unfortunately, we never were able achieve this, because the process was aborted by the military coup d` etat of 1958 and throughout our history we have been debating this issue. What did India gain over Pakistan? India gained political coherence over Pakistan in the sense of the intergrity of the political institutions. Even if the policies of the Indian government were wrong, the Indian political system still operated, but Pakistan due to its political incoherence and indecision ended up with a badly deformed and malfunctioning political system.

This is where India gained the most over Pakistan. The reason being that political organization is the basic paradigm, which organizes all other policies and gives them a political/economic vector. India, by the virtue of having well functioning political institutions and a stable political infrastructure, was in a better position to implement policies in its formative years. While Pakistan was busy in its early years deciding what it wanted to be, it was incapable of implementing policies and thus, emerged as an inchoate state. India knew what it wanted to be; we did not and that, my friend, made all the difference.

I hope this answers your questions and concerns.

Ciao

Bharatvasi...

Either you are drunk, or you are just very illogical ....

You are repeating the same mantra... I answered your questions. Now you are saying I am just repeating what is there in most constitutions... frankly you are not making any sense... My concern in this article was to criticize what I find to be the point of disputes in the existing constitution of Pakistan, and hence replace them with new principles which would resolve the disputes. As for your specific questions... I have answered all of them.
My vision of an egalitarian and progressive Pakistan has been repeated many times. I don`t have the time for someone who has a circular focus.

Like I said... make whatever of my political thought.

-Manto

Also... most of these rights are given as such in the 1973 constitution except the last one ... the sovereignty doesn`t belong to the people of Pakistan according to that constitution but to Allah ...

That brings me to my assertion that there should be a complete separation of church and state... and hence sovereignty should belong to the PEOPLE unconditionally. BTW I still don`t understand what Bharatvasi`s point was... I have strong suspicion he didn`t even read the article.

-Manto

Mantolives #119 - The problem I have is what you have said IS SAID IN ALL CONSTITUTIONS IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER (caps mine for emphasis). There is nothing new in there. There is a lot missing from it though (see my last interact) which was partially given by HE.

As I said the article os typical of the Disconnect between the Over Schoolled Elite and the real people. The elite are interested in the DISTRIBUTION OF POWER only - and the framework and those discussed by others is an indication of this basic underlying problem!

Also I would be grateful if you could give in less than 100 words what is your vision for Pakistan and how this would be reflected in your constitution? This should be easy for you after all you are doing Law and are extremely very well schooled comapred to the rest of us.

``#91 by nazarhayatkhan on August 19, 2003 12:53pm PT

yogiraj # 82

The Indian issues that you mentioned in your post are not make or break issues. You have your basics well sorted out``

Agreed and accepted. But and it is important to me. You may disagree.

Let me only take point one

Population control do and will make a difference. No leader in my country, in spite of all the vision, was ready to spell it out. They wanted votes. Again, more than ready to digress into economic effects why this is important

As to your point about what is the biggest problem we face .. The fanatisism.

We Indians, inherently, are not bigots. I work with people with every religion and sect. Day in and day out. Let me make some basics clear. I come from the Balasaheb Thakare`s heartland, (a very popular figure on this site it seems!!). I do not think he is right. I do NOT always think he is wrong.

I do not think I have a right to question your religion, your country, your views. But my country is mine.

Your country, has forced us to believe there is something really wrong in us. We tolarated more than we should. A slap on a wrist, earlier would have avoided fanatisism. A stitch in time.

Now people go amock (Gujarath). My fanatisism may not be a cause, but an effect.

More and more I interact with muslims in India, more and more I realize. I am not wrong, neither are they. Moderate, humane, and with all the basics that I and they agree. There is a huge silent majority of muslims, who simply were never vocal earlier. Now they should. They will have to speak up.

What we in India have failed sirjee is my point # 3. To all and sundry, in India.. We sail together or we sink. Hindoo, muslim, sikh, issaee

Yogiraj Patil