A New Constitution for Pakistan

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://www.geocities.com/zq83_uk/archives/traitor_jinnah.htm

Hizb-ul-Tahrir`s view of Jinnah: He was a JEW....

Jinnah Exposed.

Jinnah (1876 - 1948) was amongst the band of westernised men who were part of the British educational system founded by Lord Macaulay “to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern - a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in tasks, opinions, in morals and in intellect.” Simply put, it was founded by the British to nurture their agents from a very young age. The British Government had plans and they chose Jinnah to be the man who would turn their plans against the Ummah into a reality. Jinnah was going to be the man who would rob the Muslims of their land which had been conquered by Mohammed Bin Qasim centuries ago, and initiate the problems faced by the Muslims today in the Indian subccontinent by depriving the region of Islam and implementing Kufr over the land where Islam had governed for centuries before.

Jinnah Adores the Enemy of Allah (swt) ~ KEMAL
Having completed his studies in London, Jinnah returned to India in 1896 and quickly earned himself the title ‘The ambassador of Hindu - Muslim unity.’ Jinnah was an avid member of the Hindu dominated Congress Party. He left Congress because the British were cooking him for a bigger task - the complete capitulation of the Indian Muslim. He returned to his masters in England in 1930, where he lived for five years . In London Jinnah was greatly influenced by a study on the life of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (may Allah curse him), the Turkish leader responsible for abolishing the Islamic State established by Muhammad (saw) and his sahaba (ra). Kemal is responsible for the humiliation and oppression being faced by the Muslims of today because of his efforts in removing Islam as a way of life under the Khilafah. With the enemy of Allah as his role - model, Jinnah was inspired to build the nation of Pakistan and somehow managed to earn himself the title Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader). Allah have mercy on those who sincerely but naively associate this name with this treacherous man.

In a speech made by Jinnah on 4th March 1948 in reply to the speech made by the first Turkish Ambassador to Pakistan, Jinnah praised the enemy of Islam: “...the rise and career of the great Ataturk, his revitalisation of your nation by his great statesmanship, courage and foresight...”

Jinnah’s adoration for this heretic is a clear indication that he never intended to create a Pakistan in the name of Islam for the benefit of the Muslims. If his objective had been to rebuild a truly Islamic state again then he would have followed the way of our Prophet (saw) rather than this renegade. But his actions clearly indicate his intentions were insincere.

JINNAH DEFIES ALLAH
Jinnah is revered by many Pakistanis to an extent which no other political personality approaches even remotely and modern textbooks invariably portray him as the architect of an Islamic ideological state: “The All India Muslim League, and even the Quaid-i-Azam himself, said in the clearest possible terms that Pakistan would be an ideological state, the basis of whose laws would be the Qur’an and Sunnah, and whose ultimate destiny would be to provide a society in which Muslims could individually and collectively live according to the laws of Islam.”

In another speech in November 1945 Jinnah said: “Muslims are demanding Pakistan so that they may live according to their code of life and traditions, and so that they may govern themselves according to the laws of Islam.”

How does one interpret these speeches of Jinnah, together with others of essentially similar nature, with the outright secular and Kufr declarations quoted earlier in his career? “Islam believes in democracy” (Speech at Aligarh Muslim University, 6th March 1940) “We learned democracy 1300 years ago. It is in our blood...” (Presidential address at the session of All India Muslim League, Delhi, 24 April 1943)

These are the kinds of things you would say if you learnt your Islam from a Kafir and were too ashamed of the deen to speak about the truth purely because you would be considered backwards and uneducated.
It takes a man of very little intelligence to point out the contradictions in these statements made by Jinnah when compared to what

Allah says in the Qur’an:
“And he who does not rule by Islam is a kafir” [TMQ 5:47]

“The rule is for none but Allah” [TMQ 6:57]

“Judge by what Allah has revealed...” [TMQ 5:49]

Jinnah also said: “The constitution and the government would be what the people will decide.” (Presidential address at the session of All India Muslim League, Delhi, 24 April 1943)

But Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided on a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in plain error.” [TMQ 33:36]

The constitution and Government of an Islamic nation have been already decided by Allah (swt), it is the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and structure of Government is also clearly illustrated in the seerah of the Prophet (saw). On this matter man cannot take a decision. But once again Jinnah choose to ignore this commandment of Allah (swt) as well. These are only some of the examples where Jinnah clearly defies Allah (swt) and chose the way of the Kafir over the way of the Prophet (saw).

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Jinnah and his counterparts could not offer anything to the Ummah apart from lip service to Islam. Jinnah expounded his views with such eloquence and force that most Muslims, and even some Hindus, came to believe in them. Jinnah had no understanding of Islam and had no intention to learn about Islam. The founders of Pakistan used Islam to achieve their Kufr objectives. Once achieved, Islam was discarded and put back onto the shelves in the form of history books.

Jinnah went one step further than most traitors, the man also had the audacity to justify his kufr actions by Islam. His disrespect for the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is evident in the fact that he was prepared to lie about Prophet Muhammad (saw) to deceive the Indian Muslims and strengthen his position as a political leader. “Thirteen hundred years ago he (saw) laid the foundations of democracy” (Speech on Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) Birthday at Karachi Bar Association, 25th January 1948). “It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by a great law giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles” (Speech at Sipi Durbar 14th February 1948).

How dare this man associate a Kufr concept such as democracy with our Prophet (saw)! The Prophet (saw) fought ‘People Power’ (more commonly known as democracy) for the entire twenty-three years of Prophethood. Muhammad (saw) said words to the effect of: ‘Anyone who tells a lie about me intentionally, let him take his place in the hellfire.’

PAKISTAN: Where “Muslims would cease to be Muslim”!
In his personal life, Jinnah was liberal and westernised. He maintained his inner secularism even in the seething cauldron of communal hatred following partition, as is evident from the fact that he appointed Joginder Nath Mandal, a Hindu, to serve in Pakistan’s first cabinet. He also chose a Qadiyani as his foreign minister. His famous speech 11th August 1947 before the nation is the clearest possible exposition of a secular state in which religion and state are separate from each other: “We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state...Now I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state...You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

This speech states very clearly that Jinnah felt that Islam should have no role in the politics of the state and should be confined to individual belief. He did not allow Islam to play a role in the everyday part of Muslims life and advocated the understanding that Islam could not deal with the complex political situations faced by man today. He felt that his kufr methods of dealing with societal affairs would be more effective than the way of Muhammad (saw). Looking at the mess Pakistan is in today, we can see that Jinnah could not have been more wrong. As we can see from the structure of the Prophet’s (saw) Islamic state in Madinah, Islam commands that there is a clear distinction between the Muslim and non-Muslim (dhimmi) in an Islamic state and even goes as far as having a separate tax structure for them. The dhimmis are given their rights and protection as long as they agree to live by Islam or else face the Hudood for their crimes. They are not allowed to be a part of the system in an authoritative position nor can they hold the security of the Muslims in their hands. Once again, Jinnah chose to neglect this commandment of Allah. These are only some of the examples, the list is endless. But it is very clear that Jinnah never intended to create an Islamic State in Pakistan and his objective was most certainly not to benefit and give security to the Muslims. So he wasworse than Ataturk, in the sense that Ataturk made his hatred for Islam open, while Jinnah was a hypocrite when he praised Islam to deceive the people about his British Masters’ real objectives of creating Pakistan.

In an interview to Doon Campbell, Reuters’s correspondent in New Delhi in 1946, Jinnah made it perfectly clear that it was Western style democracy that he wanted for Pakistan: “The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.”. Note the highly significant phrases “sovereignty resting in the people” in contrast to the Prophet’s (saw) Islamic State where ‘sovereignty rests with Allah’. On the record of these writings and speeches, Jinnah comes out to be far more liberal and secular than Gandhi - who was a Hindu.

* These are the most important classics of Muslim modernism. They belong on the ``black-list`` and should be approached with extreme caution because they have all done (intentionally or unintentionally) irreparable harm to the Islamic cause.


Source: Khilafah Magazine, London

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

It is really very sad state of affairs for Pakistan. But some more principles should be added to:
1. Ensure that the aims of the state is to produce ``secular-citizens`` whose individuality is constituted by the liberal democratic constitution of the country rather than the religious books. ( Thesis of Suprimacy of the Democratic Constitution).
2. Ensure that even in case of clash betwen the constitution and the religious books, the constitution would not be amended but attempt would be made to save those sentences of books through a ``suitable interpretation``.
3. Ensure that the usurpers of power do not go un-punished and all actions done by state machinery whose control is not by government elected by democratic electoral institutions would not be deemed illegal and punishable.

My name is Yasser Latif Hamdani. I have gone by ylh for 4 years. Everybody on this website knows it... what complex can there be? My name, YLH, has a lot of currency and rouses a lot of emotions, so I have chosen a more moderate identity for the sake of dialogue. Your insults are not going to change the fact that you don`t have any arguments. Other than harping about how copied it is you haven`t come up with any argument which can be worth anything. Point no 7 is not just for social reform. It is to stop Party manifestos from becoming hostage to the whims of the feudals and biradaris. Any change is a long process...

I know you are severely lacking in the brain cell department, but have you considered why great intellectuals behind PPP like J A Rahim, Mubashir Hassan, Meraj Khalid, Meraj Muhammad Khan etc became unimportant, and people like Fahim became strong in the PPP? Do you even know who these people are?

Late J A Rahim, Mubashir Hassan, Late Meraj Khalid and and Meraj Muhammad Khan were the real PPP wallahs. They are the ones who made this party progressive and liberal. They lost importance because feudals were important to the leadership when it came to winning seats... through the horrid single member constituency system which is a travesty of democracy.

-Manto

Re: manto
Now lets not get carried away over here with the self respect bit mr manto..or is it yasser jamdani ? any complex about using ur own name....probably know on its own it would never amount to anything ? i guess must be due to your childhood frustrations and inferiority complexes. Hence the desire to lick the soles of the elite. So much for your own self respect. As for your point about no one in pakistan having the will to do away with the feudals ...will # 7 after imposition suddenly do away with the feudals.....? i can imagine PPPP doing that with Benazir and Makhdoom Amin Fahim as its head. wow and you are lecturing me on having sense. Look kid dont waste your time on defending something which you copied from somewhere and have no clue what it really means. Constitution is not meant for social reform.........governments having the proper political will to do that can do that by using other means which i have already mentioned which seem to beyond your comprehension.


cheers
raza

back to the feudalism debate...

Pointing to a few examples won`t help. India had done away with feudalism at that early stage... no one in Pakistan has the political will to undo the feudals who are entrenched in this system. The bottom line is that you haven`t come up with anything that would make me change my mind about #7 ... your ignorance of the Pakistani politics and the facts is apparent from your MQM example... hence nothing you say makes any sense.

As for your insults .. You can go on making a fool of yourself calling this a `copied constitution`. I am quite amused. It shows that you never had a concrete argument against it in the first place. For your information, human endeavor is based on learning from the past...

Indeed this constitution is very similar to the US model... Others too have noticed the similarities with the US constitution, but they also recognize that it is basically a presidential constitution and hence whatever similarities there are, flow from this constitution... are you suggesting that the constitution of 1973 was a copied constitution? and 1956 was a copied constitution too? What about 1962... did Ayub Khan ask De Gaulle to send over the french constitution via fax? Since the greeks were the first one to use the word `senate`, I suppose all the constitutions of the world are copied constitutions.


I am sure some fool in 1780s must have accused Jefferson of `copying` as well, when Jefferson repeated Locke`s `Life, Liberty and Property` ... sad ain`t it, that genius no one remembers, but Jefferson everyone knows...


-Manto

ah more insults from the brat I see...

Bachay learn some manners before you talk to me. You obviously are lacking in self respect.

-Manto

Re: plats8:

Sure that this particular development (vacuum tubes) took place in the exact time period but lets argue if it had been developed in the 1940`s would the same effect on marriages taken place. I guess not. Similarly i am sure you know sexual liberation can not be defined as a particular entity. It was an amalgmation of so many factors ...with increased women job participation being just one of them. This very factor increased women/men interaction thus leading to the whole thing about sexual liberation. Women participation in the work place has relatively increased in countries like Iran and Pakistan but they have not registered such high increase in divorce rates and i think most people would opine that whatever increase in divorce rates has taken place in these countries is due to the women becoming more aware of their own rights and safety rather then being involved with someone else. No need to apologize. All taken in good spirit.

cheers
raza

Re Manto:

Who died and made you the Chowkidar over here. As for your fine arguments and recommendations.....next time try to come up with them on your own rather then copying them. Your title should ve read

A New Constitution for Pakistan
Copied by Yasser Hamdani.

As for your continous raving about #7 ......just think why India with single member constitutiencies managed to curb feudalism.

raza

plats,

I think it is hardly fair that you are apologizing. This twit has been extremely abusive and unnecessarily brash in his posts... he deserves a taste of his own medicine.


-Manto

razzz #239,

No, I am not arbitrarily expanding the parameters of this argument. I knew this
could be a problem, and specifically chose an event from that specific time frame
that acted as a major catalyst in communication modes.

I do not think sexual explorations of the 60s affected marriages any more than
the civil rights movement did - in the US, the 60s brought in an awareness about
various inequities against blacks, women, Native Americans and other groups. More
women joined the workplace, and living in a Norman Rockwell painting didn`t seem
so attractive any more. Subsequent rise in divorce rate cannot be uniquely tied to
any one social factor - that is my core argument. There could have been a sudden
jump in divorces in the mid-60`s, but that would be a perturbation more than anything
else.

Anyway raza, I really would like to apologise for being rude in my earlier post. It was
unnecessary.

Razzz,

Everyone here can indeed see it. Like I said, if the list system of proportional representation was tried, the feudals would become unimportant and hence would lose their importance even within the PPP which you claim is a feudal dominated party.

Obviously given your perverse logic vis a vis MQM MMA , I don`t expect you to understand such fine arguments... let us say that what I am suggesting is a little too much for your brain cells...

-Manto

Re manto post 238:
I dont have to prove anything which is already there for everyone to see in your case. As for your argument about the feudals......How will the PPPP after becoming the ruling party in sindh would help decrease feudalism since it happens to be the major vehicle used by the feudals...just a simple question. The fact is that abolishing single member constitutiencies wont change the political scenario that much. It would only limit representation of the people and marginalize communities. As i said constitution is not the means to implement SOCIAL reform. Its meant to give fair representation and rights to the people.
Whats wrong with using tools like Education, industrialization, development of a Bourgeoisie and a middle class, land reforms and enforcement of family laws to curb feudalism


Re plats 8:
Your point about the vacuum tubes is quite logical but why stop here then in this case. Why not blame the chap who sent signals via the air waves in the first place and then we dont even have to stop over there, we could even blame adam who started the human race in the first place because of which all these guys happened to come into the world (just assuming that we are taking the islamic and judaeo christian perspective....i dont know what your religion is...you have the right to disagree ofcourse). So i guess the degrees can be expanded as much as we can.....(AGREED >>>???). So it would help keeping the discussion limited to the things which directly effected the institution rather then going into a pseudo intellectual debate of how degrees can be expanded.


cheers
raza

plats8

He deserves it. No amount of reason worked with him... its not that he disagrees with me or you but it is his self righteousness coupled with a desire to prove everyone else stupid that is bothersome.

-Manto

razzz,

Let me parse my post, very slowly, for you. Your point was that the sexual
revolution of the 60`s caused the instiitution of marriage to collapse in the west.
I picked another criterion, which I claim destroyed the same institution - the
advent of the transistor to replace vacuum tubes. Let me show you why:
(by the way, feel free to interject if I make a false statement)
1) The invention of the transistor made a radio much more affordable
and popular. Lots of people could afford it.
2) Popularity of transistor radios translated into increased popularity of rock
music.
3) Rock music was a major vehicle used to define sexual mores in the 60`s.
4) Said sexual mores made marriages brittle (YOUR CLAIM).
Now, did I not say there`s only about 2 degrees of separation between my
claim and yours. Given that, can we now squarely blame the inventors of
the transistor for the social collapse that you have witnessed ?

You see, I can equivalently blame failed marriages on the rising popularity of
washing machines and air-conditioners - all I need is to maintain a quality of
reasoning commensurate with yours. I also think that a parent who cannot
advice his/her child on how irrelevant porn is, is not fit to be a parent.

And you have some gall, coming from a country and culture (include India in
this list) that has among the highest rates of spousal and child sexual abuse
and lecturing Netherlands and Belgium. I do not even understand your point
(if you have one)
- Are you claiming Pakistanis are more moral creatures than the Dutch/Belgians
by virtue of having no access to porn?
- Are you claiming that by banning porn videos, Pak govt has reformed the
sexual predators that prey on underage boys and girls ?

Your silly remark about having Dutch friends fetches no response.

Manto #231,
When an intellectual midget acquires a large ego, we get to observe a sad
spectacle. I would prefer not to be so harsh, but razzz`s puritanical illogic
deserves it.

razzz,

So you don`t think Pakistan has its own set of child molesters, and those who exploit young children for sexual activity? I thought a Madrassah educated lad like yourself would be well aware of that...

That argument again is as illogical as your previous one ...

-Manto

razzz,

Your question shows your inability once more to grasp simple logic. It is also based on your utter and complete ignorance of history and facts... I ask you a simple question:

1) Why did feudals become so important to the political parties of Pakistan?

2) Why did Jinnah, who by all accounts despised the feudals, have to depend on the feudals in his Punjab strategy ?

The answer is simple : Because of their guaranteed victory in the single member constituency politics. So what happens when the single member constituency is abolished? Think long term..


As for your belated analogy.... it is like comparing apples and oranges. I have already used the G.W.Bush analogy with your `Nazim of Karachi` logic.

What you are suggesting can`t happen with DISPARITY of 31 to 9. It can`t by any calculation happen ... The MMA is not even the third largest but the 4th largest party in Sindh. MQM remains the second largest, and you can check with the election commission on this.


You are probably some sheltered little arm chair wannabe rational practical kid who hasn`t a clue about the politics of Pakistan!!

-Manto

Re Manto:
Pray tell me how the abandonment of the single constituency member principle would lead to the decrease of the powers of the feudal. Lets say tomorrow your principle is applied............will that make Benazir and Makhdoom Amin fahim disappear from the political scene ? Just answer that question and EXPRESS your infinite pathetic wisdom ?

raza

P.S plats8: your arguments in your post 228 reflect your mental capabilities. have fun with them.

Re Manto:
As for your continous harping about the MQM issue tell me this.........DID gore get more popular votes or Bush ? and in the end who won the election.....? that alone should answer your question. As for defending your pathetic COPIED constitution which anyone could have done......Just answer the question how would putting PPPP in power would reduce feudalism in Sindh...since PPPP is a power house of all the major feudals in sindh.


raza

Re Plats8:

Try and ask your ONLY dutch friend (we r so glad to know you have a dutch friend!!! )
that why is it that most of the child pornographic rings,websites and networks are uncovered in Netherland and Belgium.

raza

plats8, 228

Sad ain`t it...

-Manto

PS We all know JI is a component of the MMA .. what is your point? What is required is that you prove to me how having a JI Nazim means that more votes were polled for the MMA than MQM which has thrice as many seats in the Sindh Legislature...

Obviously this is sheer ignorance of the facts, and how the district government system works...

Razzz Dude...

Looks like after talking about `Grace` so much, you don`t seem to have any to admit that MMA doesn`t have has much of a vote bank as MQM in Sindh... According to you, eventhough MMA has a greater vote bank, it still got 22 fewer seats than MQM? Wonderful logic... I know for a fact that the votes polled for MQM were far more than MMA within the Sindh Province... I will really like to see how you prove it otherwise...

Again, I don`t blame you for not getting the gist of the argument. Given your logic (MMA had more of a vote bank eventhough MQM had like 3 times as many seats) I doubt that you are able to understand anything. The argument was that given the fact that when the `sure winner` feudals will lose importance as a result of the abandonment of single member constituency, they will automatically cease to be the major players in popular parties... Right now parties are held hostage by local chieftains and feudals. Since the feudals will no longer be major players, the party workers will be able to assert themselves within the party forcing the leadership to become more in tune with the party manifesto.

Obviously one needs a brain to actually discern such arguments... given your MMA-MQM argument, it is quite obvious, that you are lacking that vital commodity.

-Manto

Manto #223,

He also thinks that advocating equal rights for men and women insinuates that
men should have babies....so, there you have it.

razzz #226,

A little digression here, if I may. You had mentioned (in the pornography thread)
that the sexual revolution of the 60`s destroyed the institution of marriage. My
take is that the replacement of vacuum tubes by transistors (again, in the 60`s)
is the root cause of why marriages fail in the west.

Would you please tell me why your reason is more valid than mine ? Mind you,
we are both choosing an important event from the same time frame. And they
are not as disconnected as you may think (2 degrees of separation, at the most).

You have advertised your rational and logical skills repeatedly in various threads.
In fact, I have seldom seen anyone so sure of his intellectual capabilities. Surely
you can help me resolve this.

Going back to your lofty moral stand, I should tell my only Dutch friend that the
poor guy is hopelessly abnormal - his govt legalises prostitution, after all.

Fuzair:
I agree.
....and am impressed with your knowledge of Africa. Had no idea that Botswana had made so much progress or who was responsible for it. Thanks for the info.

Re Manto
We are not talking about the number of provincial seats over here sunny. We are talking about the TOTAL VOTE Bank in the province. MQM only contests elections in the urban areas of hyderabad and Karacvhi....it does not even field any candidates in the rural areas.
As for JI .....JI is a part of MMA....get it . ???
As for the logical approach you claim to take. We can settle that cant we over here.
You are suggesting # 7 to curb feudalism right ???
That point alone makes PPPP the leading party in Sindh. Any doubts about that ?
Who happens to lead PPPP right now ? Makhdoom Amin Fahim.....one of the biggest feudals in Pakistan. Apart from him various other feudals form the backbone of the PPPP. So putting PPPP in total control would lead to curbing feudalism ? That sums up your rationality i guess. Think about it if you have the brains to do so. For once try to answer my question.

have fun
cheers
raza

Re Manto/plats8: post 223#

Try to stick to the issue will ya.....The fact that some perverts like you find pornography liberating and legal can be a bit strange for NORMAL people.
when you dont have anything to say then its better to keep quiet.

cheers
raza

Logical vs Illogical, factual vs fallacious...

MQM won 31 seats in Sindh`s Provincial assembly.
MMA won 9 seats in Sindh`s Provincial assembly.

And Mr. Razzz somehow seems to think that since Karachi`s Nazim is from the JI, MMA has more of a vote bank in Sindh.

God knows how the logical, factual, rational and practical economists like Razzz come to such conclusions. So much for the `arm chair` and `book worm` approach.

-Manto

Plats8

A very apt observation.

sigh ... and then he also claims to be the fountainhead of all rational and logical thought.
I remember reading his posts on one of those articles about Pornography...

-Manto

Mantolives #220/#221

The interactor you mention engages in what I would call the Monty
Python style of debating. Have fun at being liberally condescended
to.

previous post addressed to RAZZZ

No genius of the logical approach and rational approach, I don`t have any solutions, except praying that God save Pakistan from the self proclaimed economists and bankers who claim a monopoly of rational thought ...

Having JI district nazim doesn`t mean that MMA has more votes. Besides Naimatullah Khan has other factors supporting him and not just MMA.... Please be a little more logical.. (an analogous argument would be that since George W is the President Republican party has more popular vote than Democrat party)...

I still think MQM had a greater vote bank than MMA in Sindh, and I recall this from the figures given by the election commission a few months back. If you have other information please bring to light and I will willingly withdraw my assertion.

re: Razzz

There seems to be some confusion. I never cojoined the issues of constitutionalism with feudalism. It was you, who suggested that I did likewise. I was responding to your comment about feudals representing rural Pakistan. I think you misread my interact and if you would kindly go back and re-read it, you will see the error.

Secondly, the end of honor killings cannot be undertaken by the law, when the feudals in the national assembly support it! As to the issue of marrying women to the Quran, the fact that even if it is limited to Sindh, it does not condone the practice. Constitutional rights are for all and those rights should not exclude Sindh. Are you saying that a Sindhi women has less rights than women in the rest of Pakistan? I hope you are not suggesting such an idea.

Thirdly, as to your views on the 1973 constitution, I agree. However, that document has too many contradictions, which need to be cleared. Amendments are one solution and if that does not work, then we must be prepared to replace it. It is better than persisting with a flawed document. The powers are not clearly divided and there is a general ambiguity over its clauses, which is causing all sorts of interpretative conflicts. If you look at the nature of the document, it has clear presidential pretensions. If that is the case, then we should admit to it and stop wasting our time trying to circle a square!

Ciao

RE:fuzair :

Whats so ridicolous about it...i am just giving you the facts about how reserve seats have been exploited in the last elections and how dynasties exist in almost every party in pakistan.

cheers
raza

Re manto:

Oh my ....your highness approves. Must be my Lucky day. :) Well i beg to differ from your impression. I think you would be able to look up the results on some pakistani government website concerning the Pakistani Election commission or the offical election results published by the election commission. Otherwise the fact that even MQM`s power base i.e. Karachi is being run by a MMA nazim should be enough to illusrate my point of view.
anyway have fun
cheers
raza

(P.S Anyway leavng behind all the fuss we OR according to You I as a NAYSAYER created lets discuss this issue at hand. So any opinion about my little solution of bringing a change within the system (NSC etc) instead of looking for miracle solutions ? )

Razzz

Good finally a civil response.

I am under the impression that MQM won more popular vote than MMA in Sindh. Please inform me of any websites or Books or reports which indicate the actual figures.

Thankyou

-Manto

Re: Dost-Mittar #104

Apologies for the delay in replying but have been quite busy and didn`t have the time to compose a long response. You are quite right about Nehru. For all of his faults and vainess, he did set India solidly on the path of parliamentary democracy, a path his daughter was unable to wreck. Nehru was certainly vain but not a megalomaniac or even with megalomaniacal tendencies and he certainly did not equate opposition with treason. Its very unfashionable these days to take the ``Great Man`` view of history (the fault of all of those Marxists and neo-Marxist running dogs) but there is no doubt in my mind that if, say, Subash Chander Bose had become the first PM of India, Indian history would have turned out very differently.

You have only to look at Africa for a pretty good case-study of the importance of the Great Man view of history. Ghana, the crown jewel of British African colonies, should have prospered after independence but was run into the ground by Kwame Nkrumah (OK, he started the mess, the military dictatorships that followed finished the job but a final (?) military dictatorship ``saved`` it from imploding). As Rhodesia, the country was doing quite well economically (keeping in mind that it was fighting a full-scale insurgency, its economic performance was quite creditable) while, as Zimbabwe, the same country is a few years removed from being the next Zaire-Congo. And the less said about Zaire-Congo, the better.

In contrast to this, look at Botswana. It is an unqualified economic and social/democratic success (in spite of its rate of AIDS infection--although this might well end its economic run) with the highest per capita GDP in Africa: $3,100. The secret to its success is Sir Seretse Khama, 14th Paramount Chief of the bamaNgwato, the most important of the Tswana clans (who formed ~80% of the population). He was the Lee Kwan Yew of Africa and served as Botswana`s first leader, from 1965 to 1980, and ensured that it started its post-colonial life practicing democracy, not just paying some kind of lip-service to it. He went so far as to abolish chieftaincy (i.e., the King abolished the Monarchy) since he was afraid that it might interfere with true democracy!

While the same party has held power in Botswana since independence, Botswana is not a one-party state. His son is now the current VP but it remains to be seen if he will become president.

I agree that the luck of the draw matters tremendously. Who would have thought that Botswana would prosper and Ghana would fail?

---

Razz:
Every country has its political dynasties (Kennedys in the US who get elected because of their name; and Bush; and Gore; and Sununu; etc) but that list you gave for Pakistan is quite ridiculous!

Re: Manto/ ferozek

(1)
Re: Manto :
Why dont you check up on the vote bank of MQM vs the MMA in the recent elections instead of guessing without any facts..........for your kinds information it is the MMA which displaced MQM from almost 9 consitutiencies which were its traditional seats in Karachi alone. The Nazim of Karachi happens to belong to MMA .......and Karachi IS the power house of MQM. Similarly Hyderabdad the only other power base of MQM also showed a shift to MMA instead of MQM.....so please get your facts straight first. So even though MQM has two more seats then MMA in the legislature its share of total votes being cast in its favour is less. This is because MQM draws its strength only from Karachi and Hyderabad. need more facts ?
As for your mentioning the lack of solutions from my end. Well i think i gave the answer to that in my very first post over here on chowk. Which was that Change always comes from within the system unless a revolution takes place which sadly in this case is not a possibility. Nothing can be imposed on the people after being brought in from abroad as has been proved by the devolution plan (which our esteemed NRB chairman Naqvi not very surprisingly lifted out of the western democratic model and imposed on us without first realizing the practicalities of the matter) and now which has failed miserably with DCO`s being given back the power they used to have. In my opinion the current system can work as long as you have the proper political and moral will as well as honest human resources to run it. To be honest i dont find many problems with the 1973 consitution ( the orginal one). Its a perfectly balanced constitution which if properly imposed and carried out can lead to a better pakistan and has been agreed to by almost all major parties of pakistan. Even you would agree with that.
As i have earlier said ..its not a perfect world out there....so dont expect miracle solutions. Thats why we need to focus more on pragmatism rather then idealism. I am sure the constitution which you suggested would work very fine in a developed country but in pakistan it would face a lot of problems because of ill-developed institutions and a very low literacy rate. We need to talk about providing education to the people so that we can have a substantial middle class in the future (like INDIA) that would help us get rid of feudalism. Meanwhile we can incorporate amendments like the ones proposing National Security Council (suggested by Karamat in 96) in the contitution in order to give a permanent but a marginalized role to the Army so that they can be kept away from the mainstream. That would also create a check n balance for the politicians. We can have people from the Judiciary and DMG in this NSC to balance the power of the military. This institution would serve us well for the short term atleast till our other institutions and democracy have become strong enough to work on their own without the constant meddling of the Army.




(2)
Re Ferozek:
I am totally in agreement with your point of view about the disadvantages of feudalism. Even in my earlier post about feudalism i said it was a curse which needs to be removed but my friend there is always a sensible and practical approach to go about something, so i dont know why you are bringing that issue all over again. As i said earlier frankly speaking consitution is not the way to get rid of feudalism. Constitution is not meant for social reform........its meant to protect the rights of the citizen and give everyone equal and fair representation. There are other policy tools which can be used to decrease the power of the feudals. Providing Education, industrialization, development of a Bourgeoisie and a middle class, land reforms and enforcement of family laws can help us a long way in order to curb the effects of feudalism. Believe me no where in the world has a constitution been used to curb feudalism. Furthermore not all of the rural vote goes to the feudals now. Feudal families have ceased to exist as they used to before. With time their hold is gradually decreasing. If we were to check the land holding of most of the major fuedals who used to sit in the legislature we would realize that most of them have lost their land. Leghari, Khar and even the Virks and Khichis as suggested by Manto over here now only have a very small share of land compared to what they used to have in the past. Plus by abolishing single member constitutiency we would ignore the accountability issues which arise from the same person returning to its constituency for campaigning in the future elections. As for the marrying to Quran problem is concerned....sure its a very grave issue but its limited to Sindh and it can be dealt by legal means..........you dont need to amend the constitution to deal with it. Infact if the #7 of Mr Manto`s constitution were to be used...then that would inevitably make PPP the ruling party in SINDh........( PPP is the power house of the feudals in sindh isnt it.) Its current head Ameen Fahim himself has unmarried sisters because of this very reason. So what do you say....should we use # 7 then ?
I hope you get my point now........that is ......we have to look at all aspects of a problem to come up with a viable solution......you cant deal with problems by imposing something while not realizing what other effects can that solution lead to............nothing can be imposed on the people after being brought in from abroad like the devolution plan.......which has failed.



cheers

raza

ferozk 212,


Thankyou for your kind words too :)

I think the title `a new constitution for Pakistan` must have misled many. I had chosen the title only to suggest that the final solution is to replace our existing constitution which has become mired with contradiction and can never be redeemed.

The constitution of 1973 in many peoples` opinion was indeed a `presidential` constitution given the enormous executive powers vested in one Prime Minister, the all powerful Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It is no secret that he had hoped for a Presidential constitution and had only opted for a parliamentary form after he was left with no choice. Pakistan has a general structure of a constitution which is the Government of India Act 1935. It is that constitution which ultimately manifests itself in some form or the other in Pakistan. The elements of GOI Act 1935 were present in the 1956 constitution, parts of it were there in the 1962 constitution and it definitely forms part of the 1973`s constitution.

The other mistake of the 1973`s constitution is the definition of `state religion`... I suspect the idea of a liberal muslim state was more vocally expressed in 1956 and 1962. In 1973 however it was very much the `Islamic Republic` that was being sought after, eventhough the liberal secularists of the PPP had no idea what that really meant.

-Manto

re: razz

Your argument is flawed in a sense. Feudals may represent 60 percent of the rural population in Pakistan, but they only represent their family interests politically. Therefore, 60 percent of the rural population is not represented in fact. Feudals are not the only demographic, which can represent rural Pakistan; rural Pakistan has other candidates, but they are not allowed to run for political offices.

One has to travel and live in the interior of Pakistan to fully understand and appreciate the power of the feudals and what you see there, is nothing less than slavery. The power of the feudal over his/her tentants is awesome and it is the power of life and death. Feudals are also responsible for another problem and that is, of marring their daughters to the Qu`ran. According to the feudal tradtion, land is divided at marriage and feudals in Pakistan do not like to see their land divided and hence, their power lessened. Thus, if they have a daughter, they refuse to allow her to marry and keep her as slave within their households so they may not lose their lands. Therefore, the feudals do not only represent a political problem, but also a social and a cultural one. They deny women their rights; legal and social. Honor killings are more common among the feudals of Sindh than any where in Pakistan.

Everyone in Pakistan agrees that feudalism is a curse and you have to see feudalism in Pakistan to believe this. If you have not seen feudalism in Pakistan, you will doubt what I have said.

re: bharatvassi

I am short of time, but will post a reply to you soon!

re: Mantolives

Thanks for the words!

Y, the key to rationality in agruments is that both sides must be flexible in their agruments.
In order to convince the other, you have to be convinced by them and what is required is a intellectual compromise - you work from the opposite ends to the middle and you reach an agreement. If you assume a dogmatic stance in your agruments and try to convince the other person on the correctness of your agrument and on the orthodoxy of your views, you will have an argument of the deaf, because s/he will respond in a similar manner.

I think you have made your points well. The problem is that Bharatvassi misunderstood the intent of your article, which was a reply to mine. Both the articles were about the nature of power and its divisons in Pakistan. I raised the question and you offered a hypothesis; and not a solution to the problem. I wish Bharatvassi would read my article, because then raison d` etre of your article will become more clear. The articles were not about defining consitutional rights in Pakistan, because those right have been already stated. The articles were about deciding upon a constitutional mechanism, which implements those rights in a equitable manner.

I supported the parliamentary form of government in Pakistan till I started to read the real politically undoctored history of Pakistan. Pakistan, given the circumtances of its historic birth and early formative phase of its political development, was more of an administrative state than anything else. Pakistan needed and needs good, solid administration, which means we have to review our historic experience with a degree of brutal objectivity and not through rose colored views. In my personal opinion, a presidental system, which presupposes a strong federal government and less political autonomy for provinces fits the bill. A presidental system like the one, which is in vouge in France is more suited to the Pakistani politics than a pure parliamentary system. Parliamentary democracy presupposes a plurality of views, but we in Pakistan do not have a plurality of views as much as we have a monopoly of views based on a quadarchy of power: military, bureaucracy, politicans and the feudals.

Based on my personal observations, I wrote the article listing the historic reasons why Pakistan would be better served under a presidential system. Whereas, I wrote my article as more of a suggesstion, you offered a tangible hypotheis to my idea. Nothing more and nothing less. Personally, I think that this debate was misconstrued from the very start under the impression that, we were suggesting a new constitution of Pakistan. Far from it, because what we are suggesting is really to streamline the 1973 constitution and clear away the contradictions, which are inheirent in it. Contradictions, which resulted as the 1973 constitution was made to politically see-saw from serving military presidental governments and civilian parliamentary governments. What we are suggesting is to simply clearify the raison d` etre of 1973 constitution so that it can be implmented in its true spirit, which is to help the people of Pakistan realize their vision of a liberal, progressive Muslim, not necessarily an Islamic, republic.

Ciao

Razzz,

The point remains that while people like you know how to criticize (though frankly your criticism can hardly be termed logical, but is rather a barrage of continuous abuse) you can`t bring up anything of your own. First it was the `elitist arm chair idealist`, now it is the bookworm approach. It would help you to check the vote bank of MQM vis a vis MMA in Sindh in the recent elections. Maybe facts are also a `Bookworm` approach.


bharatvasi,

So you answered my post #203 in your post #201. No wonder you know that I am an elitist who wants to grab power ... after all you are psychic... you can predict before something happens.

Waisay in what world is the son of a hardworking Car-salesman`s son part of the power grabbing elite? ... because I am dying to know... cuz it ain`t this world, and I sure as heck would wanna move to that world.

-Manto


PS: Neither of you fine gentlemen gifted with supernatural powers of sight beyond sight , given us any concrete improvements or amendments to my `flawed` and `impractical` vision.

Mantolives 208 - I did, if you read 201! Read it carefully.

Perhaps I should recommend that you return to Rutgers and do a reading comprehension 101 course! They do run wonderful courses at Rutgers which would help you.

Well let us keep this up we will go beyond the 300 interacts

Re: Manto:

What you believe is quite wrong mr manto. MQM wont have the second largetrs vote bank in the province and hence they wont have any representation in the assembly. and its not just about MQM in sindh......its about all the provinces. Many parties and communities will be marginalized by your proposed mechanism which is quite unfair to say the least. As for the khichis and virks of these areas......dont you think that the leaders of mainstream parties like PML-N and PPP would still incorporate these feudals in order to gain access to their vote bank as was proven in the last election where relatives of leaders like gohar ayub and leghari were given reserve seats just because of their vote bank. So you can forget about the lawyers,technocrats and ex judges etc getting these seats. Do you think the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir who are so self centred and autocratic would let their parties be dominated by these people.........no they would not........they would definitely want all kinds of syocphants to accompany them to the legislature. But i guess you dont have the vision to see that happening with your narrow (book worm approach to everything).
As for the being copied part........i think my last post made it clear that the only thing which you seemed to have come up with yourself was # 7 which happened to be quite impractical. So have fun with the rest of your copied constitution.


cheers
raza

Yes Bharatvasi, you are right. Thats why oh great one I asked you to add your own vision...

You didn`t answer #203

Let me ask you again... Where has my `elitist` family consisting of a hardworking self made businessman (a car salesman), and a government employed medical doctor ever tried to grab power in Pakistan?

It seems like you and your twin brother just thrive on name-calling.

-Manto

Manotlives, 202 You are still do not have the vision thing so far on this...that is missing mantolives !

Have a nice day - bharatvaasi.
p.s I guess your next target is 300 interacts. Are chowk now paying you for the number of interacts;-)

First line should read `incapable of HAVING a`

Razzz,

I have come to the conclusion that you are basically incapable of have a tameezdar Dialogue. You believe in just churning out insults and nothing else. Despite my requests you persist with your incendiary vocabulary and you fail to realize that this is my point of view and I have the right to my point of view. You can criticize it but you have no right to indulge in invective. Anyway, I have tried to answer you politely. Last time I am going to say it ...If you don`t answer back politely, don`t expect any more answers from me... Ok .. it takes GRACE to be tolerant, but then you`ve shown us how how tolerant you are.

You say my point #7 is copied. Please tell me where it is copied from. Last time I checked it was a principle which many states follow, but US is not one of them. So there goes your perverse logic on that one. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that MQM will have no representation in the Sindh Assembly if this was to happen. I believe MQM would have the second largest vote and hence the would form the opposition in the Sindh Assembly. Also you have to appreciate that this formula will also force parties to become more populist to seek more popular support which transcends ethnic, social and indeed religious lines.


As for the rural population`s representation, how are the Khichis of Vehari, the Virks of Sheikhupura etc representing the rural population. All of them have houses in Lahore or Islamabad where they live, and where their families get educated. They go back only to claim their seats which they win because they terrorize their people. Parties can have a national agenda and they can bring technocrats, lawyers, ex-judges, engineers, and economists who would plan nationwide. The RESPONSIBILITY atleast under my constitution
of the legislature is to make the laws. The executive authority can be divided up into many tiers, and hence the rural population would have their say in governing them through Nazims, district Nazims and Local assemblies. We are not talking of ideals. It would be ideal if there were single member constituency and the best person got elected from each constituency, but Pakistan`s society and the curse of feudalism has shown us that it is inherently incapable of undoing the present social ills. Germany, Turkey etc have adopted this system (albeit in different ways) and they have done very well.

There are many people who might not agree with #7. I suspect Sameerjb might not. Even Ferozk may not, though I am not sure. Yes disagreement is there, but have you seen them attack me in that fashion? I mean it is a point of view. Why must everyone accept your point of view... What is this urge you have to impose your views on everyone else. If you don`t like my point #7 or my `Esteemed copied constitution` you are welcome to express your disagreement, but to call me words like `elitist armchair idealist`, `imbecile`, `messed up`, `without grace`, .... ( you and Bharatvasi should start a course- Incendiary 101)


And why should I come up with `radical new solutions`... Why don`t nay-sayers like you come up with a solution also ? I have repeatedly asked you that instead of wasting your energy cursing at me and proving yourself to be quite immature and intolerant, why don`t you come up with your own counter-solution to the problem? And then maybe if you convince me, I will have the `grace` to give up what I feel is a perfectly legitimate solution to a ghambir problem.

-Manto

Re manto :
So by trying to remove the feudals from the scene you are effectively denying 60 % of the pakistani population i.e. (rural areas)......represenatation in the legislature. Good going !!!!.........WAY TO GO man......which messed up university are you doing LAW from anyway ? what do they teach u over there apart from hallucinating.
Take the rights way from people.....marginalize them as much as possible.

As for your premise about the so called democratic nature of the political parties....how would you respond to the following scenario....which is A REAL ONE....in order to PROVE the viability of your #7.
Suppose the # 7 was followed in the Sindh province......we would end up with PPP and MMA as the two major political parties in that province. So that inherently means that the sindh legislature will have basically NO representative from the MQM. Now i guess that would imply some problems wont it, with such a major community of the sindhi province not being represented. Democracy is supposed to give representation to each and everyone..not take it away from them and here you in your such VALIANT effort at providing a solution are doing just that.Imagine a sindh assembly without representation from MQM. The whole muhajir community would feel isolated and would naturally react to the scenario in perhaps a violent way. So YOUR ESTEEMED copied constitution would end up weakening the federation rather then making it strong. Similar scenarios would follow suite in other provinces.
So what is more important.strength of the federation or removal of the percieved threat from feudalism ?

You know it takes GRACE to admit the fact that one of the points of your solution is a bit impractical. But i guess you dont have any.

As for what you appreciate or dont appreciate..? i care two hoots about that. Anyone could have opened a few sites on the net and come up with a constitution like yours by copy pasting stuff. You have proposed only one thing which is a bit new and radical...i.e. # 7 and i hate to say it but its quite impractical as proven by the above scenario. So what would you do..........come up with a solution to improve your copied constitution or try to ignore the question ?


cheers
raza

Janaab Bharatvasi sahib,

Please also inform me who in family has grabbed power and how are they trying to hold on to it...Your arguments don`t make sense.

Stuka,

Thanks man...

-Manto

Razzz,

First of all I don`t appreciate your constant reference to my proposal as `copied` constitution. I told you that it has the same features that the US constitution has because both are Presidential in form.

Now coming to the democratic nature of the parties... they favor the feudals for a reason. The parties right now, whatever their manifesto, have to seek the rural vote. The rural vote is controlled by the feudals who are single member constituency candidates. If you abolish the single member constituency, it renders the feudal worthless. Hence the parties no longer need to depend on the feudal they were previously backing. Hence you see that feudalism will no longer be a consideration for the major parties, once #7 is implemented. This is my view. Like I said you have the right to disagree, and present your own point of view.


Bharatvasi,

The fact of the matter is that you didn`t even stop at 138 which is the same post as 168... this shows us your real intent.


Feroz,

Yup.. its a virtue.. and you are very virtuous :)

That is why I always learn a lot from you.

-Manto

ferozk 200 I am not changing the tenor of my arguments. I asked for some questions. Mantolives gave it in 168 - Iin fact I have said that if this had either been alluded to in the article or given at the outset in the interacts a lot of band width would have been saved.

The reason for this is that if any such an endeavour (like what you and mantolives have undertaken) you need to establish paremeters around which you can develop the case. In this case I felt that there was not enough to go on.

So having given post 168, I have moved on from it - to the the form discussed in the article.

All I am now saying is that discussing the form is immaterial since any settlement will always come to naught if constitutionalty is not acccepted. It doesnot matter if there is a presidential form, a parliamentary one, or a mixed one or any other form. It will degenerate into a farce.

I have no axe to grind - against the elite or any one.

What I am saying is that

(a) there is a constitution in pakistan (which seems acceptable in its original form)
(b) if this is the case why go through all the meaderings of trying to set up another
(c) alright given that you want to now start again then start by giving the details and set the context for it
(c)(i) these pertained to rights duties responsibilities of the citizen and state
(c)(ii) I said that these were and have to be universal irrespective of the form of govt
(d) mantolives having done it in 168 (after a lot of trouble) I said fine and moved on
(e) Now all I am saying is the appears to be a law applicable to pakistan
- He who respects constitutionality is a weakling
as long as this is the case my argument goes it does not matter what you come up with
you will always hit the buffers.
The proble with this lack of respect is that IT IS THE COMMON PEOPLE who suffer
the people with power (the elite as I call them) will never suffer - they have their assets
intact and can move continents.
(f) Constitutionality forms a part of the VISION of what you want tthe society to be. It is the basis of all government. if the people with power donot have this implies that there is definitely a lack of vision of what you want the country to be.

This isthe genesis of what I am saying. We spent a lot of time on items (c)(i) and (c)(ii) and if mantolives had done the honour early rather than get onto his horse (after a lot of jibes re: elite etc he did deliver but that is besides the point). As far as I am concerned it is (f) which is the key. if Power does not respect it why talk of LAW and ORDER, RESPECT FOR STATE who cares where the state and country is heading.

I hope this explains ,.....I have nothing against the elite - I have a lot of friends amongst them (which I have made over the years).

I guess I must thank your perceiverence in this matter - the good humour (as compared to the honourable author) shown on your part. Mind you I have never included you in the elite in power category though I might just start doing it now ;-)

Well I guess we must move on.

P.S Mantolives - You have now touched that magic 200 interacts on your article (double century by jove you have done it again! - congrats)

re: bharatvassi

Please do not change the tenor of your arguments.

First you wanted details and now you are talking about the people in power abusing the constitution and taking it non seriously. These are seperate issues. What you said about Musharraf and the rest before him are valid comments, but they are not what we were debating! LOL

The fact that no one in Pakistan follows the constitution does not mean that it does not have the details, which you requested. The fact that that constitution in Pakistan is ignored by all has nothing to do with your arguments of vision and direction and rights, which you said were the sine qua non of a constitutional design.

This is a personal observation and I hope you will indulge me in making it. I think that you have a personal axe to grind against the elite of Pakistan. That is your right and you are entitled to that opinion. However, it is coloring your objectivity and you are only keen on being told, confirmed and justified in your hatred for the elite of Pakistan through this discussion. Bharatvassi, I am really interested in this topic and I would be delighted to argue it with you, but I will not persist if only to add fuel to your anger against the elite of Pakistan. I do not support the elite of Pakistan and neither do I belong to them; I am an immigrant`s son, who had to struggle to establish his identity in Pakistan. You are more than welcome to hate the elite of Pakistan, but please do not exploit my arguments as a reason to justify your hatred for them. If you disagree with my arguments, then we can agree to disagree and end this dicussion.

I honestly think that your rancour and bitterness towards the elite of Pakistan is making you adopt a very narrow argument, which blames everything on them and for someone really interested in details, you have not given considered the detail of identifying them! LOL

Ciao

``While he has a point of about clearly defining the state`s nature and not leaving it to interpretation, that is beyond the scope of this article. ``

I guess that is the way of the elite who grabbed power and are trying to hang to it through their progeny. For them their rights - their sole right infact of ruling the masses - are important. those ofthe masses are not.

A clear inunciation of the rights and duties and responsibilities of the both the citizen and the state is not beyond the scope of your article. Unless it is there no one knows what it is your are trying to achieve or what it is you want to achieve. In other words you need a raison detre for the setup you are describing in your article.

At the very least one would have expected you would devote some space for it. That you chose to ignore this extremely important and vital aspect, and declare it NON-ESSENTIAL in the most off-hand manner indicates your preference for handling of POWER rather than the RIGHTS and FREEDOMS of the CITIZEN!. You have 45 lines from 59 lines on page one devoted to the past and all the stuff about POWER SHARING amongst the elite. Then the remainder of the article some 50 odd lines on HOW YOU FEEL THE POWER SHOULD NOW BE SHARED. And in all this not one word about RIGHTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES of the PEOPLE IN POWER shows the PRIORITIES OF THIS POWER HANKERING ELITE. In all some 7500 words in the article and not one word on the RIGHTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES of the PEOPLE IN POWER (aka the elite and their progeny). All the excitement is about Divving up of the POWER amongst those who have the Power NOT ONE WORD about those WHO DO NOT HAVE POWER (the non-elite)

Oh yes I forgot that is beyond the scope of the understanding of the elite and their henchmen. What can I say Mantolives! You have taken on Manto`s name I wonder if you can live up his ideals? CAn you take on his mantle?

FerozK - thanks for 193. Now you say that there is a constitution which has every thing (I agree with you on this having made read it ). So having the 1973 constitution why rewrite it? Wait you have answered it in your post so I wil lnot go into it.

The point I would like to add (and have said so on earlier occasion) is that : It does not matter what the FORM OF GOVT - parliamentary presidential whatever? They will all run into similar buffers. The reason and the only reason for this is that `the people in power DO NOT BELIEVE IN CONSTITUIONALTY. Anyone with power usurps it. Today Mush-e-ruff has done it, yesterday it was Nawaz, before that BB, before these two Zia, before that Bhutto and thelist goes on.

I will give you an example (and I sure Stuka or dost-mittar or any other knowledgable indian can confirm it) is the time there was a diference of opnion between Prasad (president) and the Prime Minister. The president thought he had certain prerogatives and sort ot use them independently he was reminedd that these can only be used with the recommendation of the cabinet or something like. There was as stand off. In the evnt the PM and the cabinet won the day since Prasad accepted the argument.

In Pakistan that would not have happened (witness the Leghari and BB stand off). In fact I would say that in such events two things are likely to happen
(a) he who has more muscle (Army ofcourse ) wins the day
or
(b) The army takes over

There is no respect for constituionalty.
You can argue about the LFO, you argue parliamentary system, you argue presidential system, whatever it does not make a difference.

Once you respect constitutionality you respect law and order and you respect rights and freedoms. The key is this. It is this respect that has allowed democracy and rule of law to run in India. It is this respect that has allowed the US to florish.

FerozK: you say:`` In another sense, where you see the glass half empty, I see the glass half full.``

I say that there is a constitution which is good. When I say trust : there are two kinds. The pwoer to people trust and the power to power trust. These two kinds have broken down.The second kind is the one which worrisome - this is directly related to the respect for constituionalism. And I say as long as this is missing you can argue till the cows come home, till turn blue in the face etc (put in all the well worn cliches) you will always be back to square one.

Re Manto:

According to the provisions provided in the LFO, democratic elections were held in the political parties before the last elections. But as we can see nothing changed because of them. The same old guard with just the sons and daughters representing the family and its interests instead of the fathers. So obviously that alone wont solve the problem would it. So lets move on and discuss what might happen if your provision # 7 was to be implemented. Suppose the same principle was followed in the Sindh province......we would end up with PPP and MMA as the two major political parties in that province. So that inherently means that the singa legislature will have basically NO representative from the MQM. Now i guess that would imply some problems wont it, with such a major community of the sindhi province not being represented. Democracy is supposed to give representation to each and everyone..not take it away from them and here you in your such VALIANT effort at providing a solution are doing just that.Imagine a sindh assembly without representation from MQM. The whole muhajir community would feel isolated and would naturally react to the scenario in perhaps a violent way. So YOUR ESTEEMED copied constitution would end up weakening the federation rather then making it strong. Similar scenarios would follow suite in other provinces.
I appreciate your sentiments against feudalism. I too want it to be abolished but consitution is not the means to do that. Remember constitution is there to provide the basic rights to each n every person along with a means of laying down the principle postulates for forming a viable government ............not indulge in social reforms. For that we need other kind of tools. Education and building a middle class are few of the best means for that. And they will come with ecnomic prosperity. (anyway thats a separate issue....we can talk about that in detail some other time) coming back to the point....... One member constituency are best for Countries like us. IF our political parties were mature enough to be sooooo democratic as you are proposing they will be.....then we would nt be in such a mess in the first place.


cheers
raza

re:bharatvassi

My mistake, there was a typo!

The sentence:

``If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more rights``

should be read as:

``If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more details``

Ciao

re:bharatvassi

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong.

I think that you are subsituting the rationale for a consitution with that of a legal code. The consitution will give you the vision (preamble) and the direction (nature of goverance). The details will be provided by the legal codes and how the law evolves within the limits of the contitutional penumberas.

For example, the United States` consitution does not expressively give the women the right to an abortion, but that right does fall within the intent of the consitutionally guranteed rights. Roe v. Wade (1973) resulted from a body of laws and decisions, which evolved over a period of time. Consitutional rights are defined legally and they are created through precedent and each precedent sheds more light on the issue and further defines the rights. No where does it in the American constitution that you have the right to burn the flag, but it is the legal interpretation of that right (First Amendment right of freedom of speech) that gives you that right. The Superme Court of America defined the issue as a symbolic right, which is permissable under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. This right was given in 1968! The argument of symbolic speech was never even imagined in 1789!

Like wise, the Second Amendment to the American consitution gives you the right to bear and keep arms. However, that right is being challenged and legally, that right has been curtailed and it may even be revoked if there is enough body of legal precedents to support the argument. That right was clearly stated in 1789 as a public right, but in 2003 that right is considered to be more harmful than helpful to the public good. Again, the vision of the American polity has changed and the consitutional debate over the Second Amendment reflects this point.

The Pakistani consitution of 1973 and rights and their legal interpretations are different matters all together. The fact that you disagree with a legal defination of a right does not mean that it is non-existant in a consitutional sense. Rights are legal ideals and their basis for existance and their orgins are located in the experience of the people who make the laws. A constitutional right is nothing more than an intent and what implements that intent is the legal body of laws, which take an consitutional aspiration and give it a tangible form.

If you want the details, then my recommendation is read the legal code of Pakistan and I promise you, you will never again ask for more rights! ROFL

Ciao

re: bharatvassi

First of all, I need to ask you point blank: have you read the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitution? I will even settle for if you have read the 1973 constitution. Have you?

The details, which you are asking are provided; the 1973 consitution from a liberal perspective is more proactive towards the issues of political rights and plurality. The articles of the said constitution have a clear bias towards liberal polices and as far as constitutions are concerned, it is the most comprehensive document clearly spelling out the rights and obligations.

Having said that, another point needs to be stressed. The critical question, regarding the 1973 constitution, is not whether enough details upon the nature of goverance were provided, but the real issue is the lack of implementing its liberal intentions. Immediately after its adoption in 1973, Z. A. Bhutto for his own political reasons failed to implement the constitution`s liberal inclinations. Then through the Zia years and the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif decade of rule, new amendments were added and old amendments were deleted. In all of this, some admendments ended up conterdicting one another. A good example of this can be stated thus: the constitution gives religious freedom to all in Pakistan, but at the same time it denies this right to the Ahmedis.

Yasser and I, in posting our respective articles, were not in any sense of the word recommending a constitutional convention to replace the constitution of 1973. We were simply asking that the given the history of Pakistan, it makes more sense to adopt a presidental form of government. Our articles were nothing more than a detailed hypothesis supporting this proposition. If you are familar with the constitutional history of Pakistan, this would have seemed like a reasonable question to you and if you are not, then the question to you would be meaningless and hence, the nature of the articles self-defeating - your analogy of the details, vision and purpose arguments.

Now to directly answer you question, the issue of trust is important and there is no denying the fact that its is central to the issues of goverance and the concerns of sovernity. The issue in Pakistan is not so much of trust, between the government and the electoral, as it is about disappointment. Pakistanis are perpetually trusting their governments to improve their lot in life and they hope each new government will fulfill their aspirations. Pakistanis look at each government, military or civilian, and hope it is better than the old one. The problem is that the governments are more interested in defining their powers and in this process, they fail to implment or live up to the hopes of the average Pakistani. Hence, what seems like a question of trust to you, an average Pakistani defines it as political apathy. The disconnect in Pakistani polity and the problem is apathy and not trust, which causing people to move from participatory politics in Pakistan.

Also, what you call a ``nation of lawyers``, is nothing more than a reflection of your own perceptions. Granted that Pakistanis are bitterly divided over issues and are engaged in a robust debate over the issue of contitutionalism in Pakistan. In another sense, where you see the glass half empty, I see the glass half full. The fact that we are debating and disagreeing provides the answer you are demanding; we are defining the details, which you keep asking! The details are all there and so is the basic vision and the direction and the lack of operationalization of these criteria only suggests we have to convince one another of the efficacy of our arugments. The fact that we disagree does not mean we are incapable of providing the details and vision, which you keep demanding from us as some sort of a constitutional holy grail.

re: Mantolives

Y, patience is a virtue! :)

There is a saying, ``the wise man points to the moon and the fool looks at the finger of the wise man``

Ciao

Manto: Read your letter in TFT.

PS: Yes Bharatvasi we know... I am a visionless elite pi-g who wants to keep his power over the masses (ofcourse minor details like the fact that I don`t have any power nor am i in the army is quite irrelevant).

Ferozek,

It seems to me that Bharatvasi is incapable of grasping the basic idea that this article was NOT a constitutional draft, but a simple response in the Presidential vs Parliamentary debate in the article initiated by you. I don`t understand. The fundamental Rights Charter is already given in 1973 constitution. My #168 has only extended the equal rights to homosexuals which were not expressly mentioned in the 1973 constitution, and simple retracted some of the Islamic elements of it.

I seriously don`t understand why I should have presented the preamble to the constitution in an article which was only dealing with the separation of powers between executive, judiciary and the legislative body. Maybe the `separation of church and state` point shouldn`t have been made also, because it was irrelevant to this discourse. While he has a point of about clearly defining the state`s nature and not leaving it to interpretation, that is beyond the scope of this article.

Bharatvasi,

No it doesn`t clear all because atleast I have presented all the `sufficient` details. I believe I have given a clear charter of peoples` rights in #168 and I have given an outline of how the executive and legislative bodies would be elected and run in the article. Infact I have gone a step further and defined the process by which Judiciary should be appointed....

Yet you continue to attack me. Both Ferozek and I have asked you to add something new.. but you have failed miserably to do so... Your continuous mantra is `not enough details`... Why don`t you tell us what details ... because I think we, ignorant and foolish as we are, have exhausted our `vision`. Since you are a know all... why don`t you tell us. Either quit attacking us as `visionless elite` (which is your imagination) or add something which you think is missing.

And the statement about Pakistan being a nation of lawyers... unfortunately it is not. Yes there have been out