Jehad and The Curriculum

Ref ferozk #156

[Jinnah did set a bad precedent when he assumed the majority of sovereign authority if not sovereign power within his person after 1947. Pakistan`s legacy was the British parliamentary system and in such a system, the prime is the head of the government and the governor-general is the head of the state. At the time of partition, there was no politican in Pakistan who could stand up to Jinnah in terms of competence and persona need to lead Pakistan and even his prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, felt politically inferior to Jinnah.

Why Jinnah assumed and gave such an over arching role to the ceremonial position of governor-general is open to speculation. One reason might be that even though Pakistan in 1947 did have a constituent assembly, it did not have any sense of political institutionalism. Therefore, Jinnah might have felt a need to arrogate more powers to the office of governor-general to create the political institutions of Pakistan along the lines of the British parliamentary tradition of politics based on constitutionalism and rule of law.]

Excuse me for piping up but I think this is a fallacious argument. There were functioning legislative assemblies in East Bengal, Sindh, Punjab and NWFP; executive power was with the Premieres (Chief Ministers) of these provinces with the governor having over-ride powers, exactly like what we had in the presidencies of Madras, Bombay and (West) Bengal or in the provinces of Orissa, Assam, Bihar, Central Provinces, Northern Provinces or East Punjab in India. All of these provinces had inherited the British-Indian Constitution of 1935 and if they could function in India with Nehru as the Prime Minister, I really can`t see why it couldn`t have functioned in Pakistan with Jinnah as the Prime Minister. I think Jinnah was loathe to permit himself to bow ceremonially before a governor-general and chose to become an executive governor-general. He could very well have accepted the offer of Mountbatten to be the joint governor-general of both dominions (in which case, he couldn`t have pulled off the shenanigans in Hyderabad, Kashmir and Junagadh but then Pakistanis wouldn`t be able to accuse Mountbatten of partisanship either).

[The Government of India Act 1935, which was being used as Pakistan`s interim constitution, did give the governor-general the right to dismiss the parliament. Jinnah might not have opted for the position of the head of the government, that is of a prime minister, because he might not have wished his policies to be held hostage to a governor-general, with whom he might have developed political difference and chose the office of the governor-general to ensure that he held the ultimate power over the evolution of Pakistan`s political infrastructure.]

That fact didn`t prevent Nehru from being the Prime Minister under two governors-general, Mountbatten and Rajagopalachari, nor did it prevent him from functioning under the presidencies of Rajendra Prasad -- who actually attempted to test the limits of his powers and was firmly told by his constitutional advisors not to provoke a confrontation -- and Radhakrishnan. Even Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad as President meekly signed Indira Gandhi`s Internal Emergency proclamation rather than force a confrontation. It is all a question of people willing to put the law against their personal preferences. To this day, the powers of the President of India remain vague and untested. For instance, can the President dismiss the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister loses the majority in Parliament (due to changes in MPs` political affiliations but before a formal vote of no-confidence is taken) or can the President refuse to accept the Prime Minister`s advice that the Parliament be dissolved when the Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence on the basis that he no longer reflects the will of the majority of the Parliament and should the President then try to find an alternate Prime Minister from the current Parliament?

re: harimau # 177

That is one point of interpretation.

Ciao

Jahad : As it seems the wastage of lives and blood of civilians, is not as it looks. Jahad is one of the main critarian to judge a Muslim. But the Muslim is one who knows exactly what Jahad means. The innocent youth of Pakistan becomes passionate after listening the Maulanas and Religious Personalities, when they talk about cutting the heads of enemies. They doesn`t mean to kill the enemies without any reason. If you see a non-Muslim and he is not speaking harsh about Islam, you have no right to punish him.

Jahad means ``Fight to establish peace`` or ``Fight for the rights``. If every Muslim will keep this definition of Jahad in mind, he will never be deviated from the ``Sirat-e-mustaqeem`` or the straight path. Pakistani government has taken an appreciable step to stop the groups of people who has wasted many lives only to get money for their benifit.

I have closely seen these groups and ``Jamats`` and Insha-Allah i shall write an Article in this topic, if accepted by Chowk.

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

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

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