Why a State Matters

Karachi saw Abdullah Shah Ghazi's mausoleum being bombed by suicide bombers yesterday. I a regular follower of that route and I know how crowded it is even on normal weekdays forget about Thursday which enjoys significance amongst shrine-attendees (because its day before Friday, the sacred day of muslims). The suicide bombers not only hit a shrine, they also hit the most popular place karachiites love to visit - that too in the most posh of localities. Karachiites being shocked is an understatement.

Before that, it was Daata Darbar where suicide bombers struck in Lahore - a source of 'shirk' as the attackers would say so it had to be dealt with. Rehman Baba shrine near Peshawar has been bombed twice. Allied to this is the issue of murder of notable scholars. Just recently, Dr. Mohammad Farooq, vice chancellor of Swat University, who openly opposed suicide bombings and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, was killed in Mardan. Before that we had Mufti Sarfaraz Naeemi, a very popular religious scholar in Lahore whose academy was hit by suicide bombers and he was killed. He too openly condemned militaristic acts carried out in the name of Islam and especially had a distaste for suicide bombings.

Behind all these acts, lurches a philosophy of 'Prevention of Vice', apart from the modus operandi for the implementation. Some people say that 'evil has to be stopped by hand'. Unfortunately, this is what happens when individuals or entities take this responsibility upon themselves to prevent vice and promote virtue. According to opinion, visits to shrines and placing offering are unislamic and this have to be stopped. Attacks on shrines are exactly for this purpose. The scholars were killed not because of any vice but having ideas that may lead to acts that perhaps hinder the 'good causes'; like jihad. What would Dr. Mohammad Farooq know about jihad, who has written 5 books on it, as compared to good old medressah produced talib who perhaps does not even know any other thing than rote learning of Quran?

Taliban attacked various shrines in Swat. For them, person of opposing sect is also not tolerable. Pir Safiullah, a barelvi, the opponent of Taliban, his grave was dug up, his head chopped and his body was hung by the pole. Taliban go with the same argument - stop the evil and impose their version of Islam as only they are the custodians.

Lal Mosque brigade thought the same - stop the vice as they were mandated to check it in society. They do not understand that taking law in their own hands is not productive for the society. Take for example the case of 2 brothers that were lynched in Sialkot. People took them for robbers and hung their bodies on poles after killing them. The whole nation was shocked. Why? because people are not supposed to take law into their own hands.

People of a society, collectively, assign the responsibility of governance and dispensation of justice to Govt, The State. They abide to be governed by Laws and Constitution. Why? because this is how order is maintained in a chaotic environment. No doubt there are weaknesses in a system and that is why people choose their elected representatives to bring the change.

But choosing the path of Lal Mosque brigade, the Taliban - by enforcing change, and a change that favors their own opinion, is downright oppressive and extremely dangerous.That is why the entity called State gains more importance wherein people live according to agreed upon code of conduct. That is why, it is even more important, that no rule or law be made that somehow infringes upon the rights of people based upon, if not any other criteria, then religious beliefs of majority people. Am I calling for a secular constitution?! Is it 'Damn You' I hear?! Shit.

The point is - that we pakistanis live under a constitution in which it is stated that we are an 'Islamic Republic'! We are not infidels for heavens sake. This has to be told and reminded to people like Taliban, Lal Mosque types, right wingers and ordinary people alike! No body should try to take law in their own hands. The Objectives Resolution in 1973 Constitution of Pakistan states that all authority and sovereignty belongs to God, that He has delegated this authority to the Pakistani state through elected representatives, that people will according to Islamic teachings, minorities will be given their rights and everyone will enjoy the universal fundamental rights. Why would anyone rebel against it?!

Try to improve upon the system ladies and gentlemen... not fight it.

Peace.

Why Is Concurrent List Necessary

"First, parliament will for the first time in the country’s history lose the power to legislate (except for the Islamabad Capital Territory) on the country’s penal code, criminal procedure, civil procedure, law of evidence, and other major branches of substantive and procedural law such as marriage and succession. The single legal space that the country has had so far will be history. There will be not one but five penal codes and the same number of criminal procedure codes, civil procedure codes and law of evidence, one each for the four provinces and another one for the Islamabad territory. Similarly, the country will need not one but five new accountability laws to replace the NAB Ordinance and five anti-money laundering laws, to give just a few examples from recent legislation."

...

"Second, parliament will lose the power to legislate on a number of matters which can best be regulated at the federal level, such as drugs and medicines and environmental protection. The result will be quintuplication at best and chaos and large-scale evasion of the law at worst."

The News

Gilgit-Baltistan

If you ever thought why only four provinces are represented on 14th August, why the customs and traditions of Northern areas are absent in any cultural representation of areas of Pakistan... then know this. They can not get Provincial status, representation in Parliament of Pakistan and constitutional rights bestowed upon the citizens of Pakistan because they are in a disputed territory. The Government of Pakistan is under obligation of UN resolutions on Kashmir which state that Pakistan can only have administrative rights over these areas and can not change their status (like naming it as a 5th province of Pakistan).

The recent Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009 is an attempt by the Pakistani Government to give more legislative powers to the locals. There will be a Governor, a Chief Minister and a legislative council. This will be more on pattern of Azad Kashmir Government. The idea is to give more autonomy and legislative powers to the inhabitants of these areas. But the problem of giving full constitutional cover to Gilgit-Baltistan still remains as after passage of 62 years. So how about solving this issue? I found this idea very neat and effective.

"This can be done by giving Gilgit-Baltistan provincial status on a purely provisional basis, pending the implementation of UN resolutions. If Pakistan does so now, after sixty years first of stalling and then of refusal by India to allow a plebiscite, there will be no breach of our international commitments, nor will such a step affect the sanctity of those resolutions, or absolve India of its obligation under international law to cooperate in their implementation. However, to preclude any misgivings, Pakistan will have to coordinate this step with the people and government of Azad Kashmir and with the APHC as the representative body of Kashmiris on the other side of the Line of Control. ..."

"... This should be followed by an amendment to the Pakistani Constitution, declaring that: (a) the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be decided through a plebiscite in accordance with UN resolutions; (b) until the final status of the state has been so determined, Pakistan admits it to the Federation on a provisional basis in accordance with the wish expressed by the elected representatives of the liberated territory; and (c) Pakistan remains committed to the implementation of the UN resolutions." - Asif Ezdi

read about it more here.

The Next President?

Come on guys.. vote with me. Justice (retd) Bhagwandas for President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan!

A noble guy, a person with great integrity. He is a Hindu and the best I can think as a representative from minority and as President of Pakistan. But the hurdle you, he and I face is the Constitution of Pakistan - specifically Article 41 (2), which states

(2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

Amend it for heavens sake! Article 41 (1) suggests the following:

The President. (1) There shall be a President of Pakistan who shall be the Head of State and shall represent the unity of the Republic.

See? A president shall represent the unity of the republic! Republic is not composed of muslims only! A president should be a 'Pakistani Citizen'! No religious affiliation should be there. Minorities have equal rights to be President of this country! its theirs too!

And nothing is going to happen to 'Islam'! It will stay safe and secure! Majority of the people of Pakistan are muslims, a non-muslim being President will not hurt us or Islam for that matter.

So who is in?!

Check My Previous Post:

- Why cant there be a non-muslim Pakistani Head of State?

Why cant there be a non-muslim Pakistani Head of State?

Pakistani constitution bars non muslims from assuming the role of Head of State and of Republic. The reason being that majority of Pakistani's are muslims (around 97%) so they should have a muslim head of state.

Although it seems logical but it would be even 'more logical' if there were no restrictions on minorities to assume this role constitutionally. Its their right being the citizen of this country. Would a minority head of state be a risk to Islam? give me a break...

What would you have.. a very good administrator (minority representative) or not-so-good-administrator (very pious muslim)? It is totally hypothetical but this is a scenario. That’s why I believe separating religion from politics is a very good thing. Now we cannot have an exceptionally talented (lets say) minority representative as head of state because he should be a muslim.

Some people might argue that even USA would not allow a Muslim President (just as having an African American president is difficult) so why should Pakistan do that? Correct. But the Constitution of USA does not bar the minorities from taking the charge of President. Its not that "you have to have a minority head of state" as its often difficult (minorities are by definition minorities) but at least there should be no bar constitutionally. Every citizen of a country should have this right.