When our Bloody Sunday report will come?

I first came to know about the Bloody Sunday about 3 years ago, that day I came to know that it is not only we who have their near past dotted with blood of our people; the list is full with developed nations also. Today they have shown the difference between them and us.

Thirty eight years after the incident, today the report has come telling us that those who were killed were not carrying guns and soldiers were not under threat. British news papers are saying this has given rise to  chance that soldiers might be prosecuted, who knows they will ever be, but atleast Prime Minister has apologized.

And I am sitting here waiting for my Prime Minister to endorse mistakes committed in East Pakistan. I want an apology of putting our troops in a position that they became responsible of killing the ones they were hired to defend. I want them to apologize for delay and prosecute the killers of this nations democracy.

Well I take back what I said, infact I don’t even want an apology, I just want an investigation and acknowledgment that mistakes were done so that process could be changed.

I want details of how Bugti died and how the Lal Masjid were allowed to bunker up in the Capital. I want to know what happened in Swat and what is going around in Baluchistan. I want reports on Karachi Operation, how many people died and how many people went missing, details of their deaths, details of operations, details of arrests, details of conviction. I want to know who placed containers on the roads during Chief Justice’s visit to Karachi?

And don’t throw at me the supporter comment, does British Prime Minister’s apology means he is siding with terrorism? Does this means he is supporting dismemberment of his country?

I look around the Muslim world and find I am not the only one, be any country which proudly calls itself Muslim, it’s hands are busy in suffocating their own people.  When people talk about Extraordinary Rendition, I mostly ask my countrymen why do they think Muslim countries were chosen as destinations? might be because our governments themselves practice the brutality as the form of everyday business?

Don’t you say no! look at your law enforcement agencies. How many of us are comfortable in dealing with them, even when we know we are aggrieved party how many of us want to go and report the crime?

It might change if we get our Bloody Sunday Reports or will it?

 

N.Y Bomb; and there comes the news

Update: Guy Named Shahzad Faisal has been arrested (nytimes, dawn)

Yes, there comes the news which I was hoping will never occur. From the day I read in NYtimes about the Bomb in SUV (that thankfully did not exploded, much due to observant street vendor), I was wishing that no Muslim generally and no Pakistani in particularly gets connected to this one.  We have enough bad publicity already, we don’t need any other stupid person messing it more.  But NYtimes is reporting that F.B.I is looking for the Pakistani connected to that S.U.V. , so much for wishing.

Today with this news those hundreds of Pakistani taxi drivers will have question mark hanging on their heads.

Just today someone was telling me that we are discriminated at airports and I was saying yes even our visas take long time (3 to 4 months for student visas are not uncommon, where as my Indian friends get them like in week), but you know our (people from Muslim) reputation is not good. Whether this reputation is based on some solid reason or not is another thing, but baseline is we are seen as terrorists. Everytime we try to tell other countries look we are not terrorists, you cannot generalize it,  some nut-job claiming to be Muslim is caught doing something stupid.  There was shoe-bomber, then there was some under-wear bomber, then there were backpack people in England,  crazy, crazy crazy people.

I know we cannot generalize the terrorists, there was I.R.A blowing the buildings but no one started discriminating Irish people, there were Tamil suicide bombers but not all Tamils are killers, there are crazy people in every culture in every country; just few weeks ago some White Americans were arrested for planning a terrorism activity and who can forget Oklahoma.  But this we can tell to an educated or understanding person, to general population every Muslim will be susceptible.

I still wish that they arrest people responsible for this activity and I wish he/she is not Muslim and not Pakistani.

I wish because whenever such thing happens no one sees that how many Pakistani are dying everyday in terrorists attack and how much govt. is doing in getting rid of these monsters; monsters which were created not only by Pakistan but rest of the world to fight then communists Russia. Monsters that have attacked every city of Pakistan and which are mutating into different shapes; engulfing and dividing our society.

 

Me, Pakistan and media

Yes,  I am about to block all the websites that can give news about Pakistan. How can you concentrate after reading all this. Bomb blasts, rising prices, electricity not there, and now Shehbaz making stupid remarks.

One good thing is atleast they can’t say or do stupid things and get away with them; remember Zardari & Child Born in Rikshaw both President and PM both had to do something to correct it, electricity theft atPML-N rally and now Shehbar Sharif making this statement. Credit must go to media and some form of working democracy. Few years back during dictatorship of Musharaf clothes were tore away from the bodies of prominent protesters and nothing happened.

I know there are many other cases where our politician’s and their worker’s transgressions are covered up, but then democracy is also work in progress.

You, see that’s what happens, I start thinking about Pakistan, reading about Pakistan and then oh this, oh that keep bubbling in my mind.

Right now I have to concentrate on my work, that’s what Pakistan needs more people doing their job correctly. So bye bye news for sometime

 

After Fort Hood Shooting; a Muslim view

Everyone right now must have heard the news that a Muslim Army officer went on shooting rampage at Fort Hood. I first thought it could be any person having Arabic name, but then it became apparent that he is Muslim. And Guardian is reporting that He shouted Allahu Akbar before shooting.

This is sad and worrying day, 13 lives have been lost and about 28 people are injured. This is worrying not only because such shooting are becoming repetitive event in which some normal looking guy walks in with gun and start shooting. It happened at mall, it happened at school and it happened at university campus; now at military base.

It is worrying also because an involvement of a Muslim will open door for more prejudice, bias and hate towards Muslims.  As a Muslim I am concerned that instead of viewing this event as an action by mentally ill person much like previous shootouts, people will try to put in the picture of Islamic Terrorism. This will give people tool and opportunity to speak against the Muslims.

There is going fear in online community that this might trigger religious or atleast geographical profiling. One of the interesting discussion of which I was pointed out is going on over article by Hirscfield on Washington Post  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2009/11/fort_hood_massacre_no_indictme.html

Ironically, those who will use this event to disparage all Muslims or Islam in general, even to the point of violence, will prove themselves no different from those they oppose. In fact, they will prove how much they share with Mr. Hasan. Such generalized hatred is precisely the animating approach of anyone who opens fire on a collection of individuals who pose them no immediate threat.

But in b/w he asks that question should be asked from Community he came from. Interesting reply came from one of the poster

kjohnson3′s Reply:

When you refer to “the community from which the murderer came,” why do you look only at the religious community from which he came? He also came from the military community and the medical community.

I personally have not viewed till now any discrimination, I can feel that heat is increasing, someone on Fox News just asked that whether Muslims in Military should go through Special Screenings.

I will like to ask; was some Special Screening arraigned for the people belonging to ethnicity or religion or community of previous shooters? But then we all know about the Fox News, if you don’t know much about Fox News,  you can assume they are Big Version of Zaid Hamid.

In response to these hate messages there are lots of messages talking about not to use Guilt By Association, and are for supporting American Muslims. I have personally found Americans to be friendly and never came face to face with anti-Muslim person. One of the reason might be because I live in University Town, but I believe this is general feature.

As for with such event, I ask people to not to let their fears, biases and pain make them hate other people. And as for every such case one of the critical question that should be raised is how he was able to take gun inside a secure area? Why was there such security lapse?

Other critical question is Why was this person not flagged as a risk person?

If his views, as being told by some news agencies, were extremists he should have been separated, where was negligence? An extremists person should not have a place in any Army, this is true for any extremists, be it religious or social.

If it becomes visible that his motivation was not only PTSD but also religious, then it will be quite worrying part. It is critical that we should recognize that there are thousands of extremists who think their motivation comes from the religion.  Hundreds have died in Pakistan from the hands of extremists who think their actions are justified from Religion, about 2 decade back there were groups going for extremists activities because of their political (which were non-religious) views. Just few months ago Tamil tigers were killing their own people and still in regions of India Maoist have been accused of mass killing.  In America there are White Supremest and religious conservative who think they will one day have to go on war with others. In Europe there has been rise of BNP.

These all form of extremisms are to be condemned but understood that they don’t define communities, religions or ethnicity. I wish everyone good luck, it is difficult period on this world.

I am just a visitor in America, soon I will be back to my homeland Pakistan; the one thing I love about America is Equal Rights for everyone. But such rights can not just be dictated by Law they have to be implemented by society. I hope American society keeps on implementing that.

 

Please dont ask Army to interfere

I was disappointed by many who were saying Army should interfere; many of whom who were pretty active against Musharaf. It is same mindset that resulted in acceptance of many previous military intervention.  One should not accept illegal actions even if  they result in  something he/she wished.

If we cannot enforce will of the  majority then there is flaw in our system that should be rectified by the people not by army. If we need army to come and do the corrective measure then we should accept their permanent position in the political system, give them role legaly and forget about the salogans of democracy.

 

Writting off Pakistan!

I have been on many sites and many websites and many blogs. I was disappointed to read people writing with full confidence about Pakistan, much of which can be summarized in few sentences  i.e. Pakistan is finished, Pakistan is too dangerous to exist and every ones favorite Pakistan is factory of terrorism. With it was tag line that if we support the democracy thats what will be going to happen.
The American presidential elections added further factors. Most the messages except  Mike Huckabee every one else messages looked like they have already found who is responsible. Interestingly this the same tune of the Pakistani officials i.e. Terrorists and extremists are responsible of that. I think these people dont know what people of Pakistan are feeling, many of them feel that ‘someone else’ is responsible for that.

The people who are on the streets are not burning mosques, destroying the madrasas and beating people with beards; they are attacking the offices of the PML(Q) , burning the flags, banners and even sometime even the houses of the people considered to be allies of the Musharaf. If you see videos you see that people are raising slogans and chanting against Musharaf.

I must stress that in this time we dont know who is the killer and who is behind it, I have just tried above to show that how different is the view of the international community

Today we have got 4th main leaders killed starting from Liaqat Ali Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and now Benazir. We survived everyone of it.

Yes its a sad day but believe me we will survive it, in fact I feel its the moment we can transit to more prestigious position, by asking for the resignation of the Musharaf, holding the elections. People on the streets is what was not there before, now people will be more willing to come outside, it will be difficult for the leaders to make deal with the establishment.

But for this Pakistan require America not to mess with Pakistan’s internal matters for their own benefit, let people decide. Accept the verdict of the people.

 

Should I vote?

Should I vote? or boycott elections.

Question so important for the people of Pakistan and it is without answer.

I dont know answer, what I know is that our decision should be unanimous. Unanimous is the silver bullet, its the solution. How difficult is to get? Extremely extremely difficult; even in the room full of educated, knowing and honest people its difficult and impossible.

But in this situation there is something we know what will not happen, its unanimous that there will not be complete boycott. There will be vote-casting either for the PML(N) or PPP or in the worst case for the Musharaf but there would be.

So what will happen now in the present scenario if we dont vote? We will just help dictator’s party.

But then I question my self what if the long lines of the people are just the used for propaganda for  free and fare election while results are manipulated in the background?

For this I dont have answer.  The answer I have is that if I had been in Pakistan I would have gone for voting.

I know that PML(N)  and PPP have made unwise decision for participating in the election, but now they have decided to enter the ring the only option I have is to either support the ring masters or them. I will support them even while I dont feel good in supporting them, they are not much  different from the ring masters, but they atleast require me for their existence.

But like many questions in Pakistan, there is no perfect answer and what decision is correct and what is wrong depends on the future.

I know one thing after the election the student/civil-society activism will become more important,  they will be the force ready for battle and then political parities will need them to put pressure on the government. They are the only threat to government and every party will play card with Musharaf that if their terms are not agreed they will become part of those who are protesting.

 

Pakistani civil society’s answers to the governments propaganda Team in USA

I received this message from a friend in US. This was written in the reply of allegations made by the Musharaf’s PR team.

• Dr. Nasim Ashraf, Minister of State, Government of Pakistan; Chairman, National Commission for Human Development
• Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif, Minister of Tourism and Youth Affairs, Government of Pakistan
• Ms. Kashmala Tariq, Former Member, National Assembly of Pakistan

I found this document quite powerful rebuttal of the Govt.’s arguments.
Musharraf PR Team’s Mis-statements at Asia Society in New York on Friday Nov 30, 2007
(listen to the recording at: http://www.asiasociety.org/resources/pakemergency.html)

Background: On November 3rd, 2007, General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan and its Chief of the Army Staff at the time, declared a state of Emergency and issued a “Provisional Constitutional Order” (PCO). Under the PCO, General Musharraf suspended that country’s 1973 Constitution depriving the people of Pakistan of their fundamental rights and preventing the actions of his government to be challenged in the Courts. The justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were ordered to take a fresh oath to abide by the PCO. The Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and seven other justices issued their own legal order calling General Musharraf’s declaration of Emergency unlawful and urged the military officials not to act on unlawful orders. General Musharraf then dismissed CJ Chaudhry and in his place swore in a pro-Musharraf member of the Supreme Court as the new Chief Justice. It should be noted that CJ Chaudhry was earlier dismissed by General Musharraf in March 2007 but was later reinstated as Chief Justice by a special bench of the Supreme Court.
In late November 2007, President Musharraf sent a Special Delegation to makes its official case in various cities in the United States including New York and Washington DC. The delegation comprised of Mr. Nasim Ashraf (Minister of State and Chairman of National Commission for Human Development), Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif (Minister of Tourism and Youth Affairs) & Ms. Kashmala Tariq (Former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan). What follows are rebuttals to some of their mis-statements at an event at Asia Society in New York on Friday November 30, 2007. The event was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and was moderated by Ambassador Nicholas Platt, President Emeritus of Asia Society and US Ambassador to Pakistan from 1991 to 1992. The audio of the event was made available by Asia Society on their website:
http://www.asiasociety.org/resources/pakemergency.html.

While listening to the tape, it becomes quite apparent rather quickly that the main target of this delegation was the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Several mis-statements were made specifically with regards to the person of CJ Chaudhry in order to discredit him. The main objective of the delegation was to make a case that the pre-emergency Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by CJ Chaudhry, does not deserve to be reinstated under any circumstances.

Mis-statement # 1: The Supreme Court of Pakistan was releasing terrorists
Barrister Saif and Mr. Ashraf argued that the Supreme Court was releasing terrorists. Specifically, Barrister Saif stated that “Chaudhry after being reinstated took missing person’s case in which persons were ‘allegedly’ involved in terrorist activities.” (34:05)

Rebuttal: The Supreme Court never ordered the release of any person charged with any crime. Instead, it addressed a petition filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) with the names of 485 individuals who had simply disappeared. Barrister Saif acknowledges on the tape that these people were “alleged” terrorists. These people had been picked up by Pakistan‘s intelligence agencies and had never been heard of again. Many of these people have been held without being charged for years. Many apparently have no connection to terrorism, but have no way of proving their innocence since the government does not even acknowledge holding them. At the request of the HRCP, the Supreme Court demanded that the basic right of Habeas Corpus be observed, and that these missing people be produced in court, and properly charged with crimes or offenses. In those instances where the intelligence agencies and the government were unable to provide any charge or supply even the most basic evidence against such individuals, the Courts ordered their release. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court demanding that, as per Pakistan‘s Constitution, any person in government custody be charged with a crime, and tried for it.

Mis-statement # 2: The Supreme Court ordered the re-opening of the Red Mosque
Barrister Saif stated that a two member bench of the Supreme Court ordered the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) to be opened.

Rebuttal: The two-member bench of the Supreme Court that ordered the reopening of the Lal Masjid was comprised of two judges who later took the oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) after the emergency was declared by General Musharraf on Nov 3rd. It is clear that those two judges, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Javed Buttar, are loyal to President Musharraf and it is not difficult to conjecture that these two “government judges” were instructed to issue such orders as a way of constructing a charge sheet against the Supreme Court and CJ Chaudhry.

Mis-statement # 3: The necessary military action in NWFP province was not possible without declaring Emergency on Nov 3rd
Mr. Ashraf argued that the Musharraf government needed the NWFP provincial government’s written approval to send military troops into Swat and because such an approval was not provided the Emergency declared on Nov 3rd was necessary for the military to carry on its operations in Swat.

Rebuttal: The NWFP provincial government had resigned and the provincial assembly was dissolved prior to Nov 3rd. The central government already had full authority to send the military into Swat before Nov 3rd and it did not need to declare Emergency on Nov 3rd to do so. Even the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) told several representatives of the media at a briefing at Military General Head Quarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi soon after Nov 3rd that the Emergency was not needed for the Swat operation. The GHQ briefing was attended by leading journalists and TV anchors including Ayesha Haroon, Nasim Zehra, Talat Hussain, Zaffar Abbas, Najam Sethi, Ejaz Haider, Kamran Khan and Shafqat Mahmood. It should be noted that President Musharraf and the newly appointed Army Chief General Kiyani both held the DGMO post earlier in their military careers. It should therefore be quite clear that when it comes to military matters, the DMGO has lot more pertinent knowledge compared to a civilian like Mr. Ashraf.

Mis-statement # 4: There was a long list of charges against Chief Justice Chaudhry
Barrister Saif and Mr. Ashraf stated the there was a long list of charges against CJ Chaudhry when he was initially deposed in March 2007.

Rebuttal:
These charges had their day in court, and were dismissed unanimously by an 11 member bench of the Supreme Court. Yet Barrister Saif continues to malign the Chief Justice by bringing them up. Specifically, these charges were the subject of a several months long proceeding before a full bench of the Supreme Court. During the proceedings the bench not only unanimously rejected the charges, but also dismissed them as being filed with mala fide (i.e. malicious) intent, and as being false on face value. Indeed, the government actually tendered a formal apology to the Supreme Court for several of the accusations which were false on their face, and were remarkably fined Rs. 100,000 for making baseless allegations. The credibility of these charges and thus the integrity of the Chief Justice can be judged by the fact that, last month, Harvard Law School awarded Chief Justice Chaudhry its highest award, the Medal of Freedom. The most immediate past recipients of this award were Nelson Mandela, and the legal team which argued Brown vs. The Board of Education. In addition, the New York City Bar Association, in another vote of confidence in the integrity of the Chief Justice, has awarded him an honorary lifetime membership. This rare honor was last given to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court.

Mis-statement # 5: Chief Justice Chaudhry was making political speeches
Barrister Saif stated that after CJ Chaudhry was first deposed in March 2007, he went around the country making political speeches at Bar Association events. He also stated that those events were political in nature with flags of all political parties flying in one place. (52:00)

Rebuttal: The Bar Association event organizers only allowed lawyers who were members to attend the events with CJ Chaudhry. Members of political parties were not invited at these events. CJ Chaudhry made all his speeches regarding human rights and did not touch on political matters. There is no evidence whatsoever that CJ Chaudhry made any political speeches.

Mis-statement # 6: Chief Justice Chaudhry was planning on running for President
Barrister Saif alleged that Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, who was CJ Chaudhry’s lawyer after he was first sacked in March 2007, had stated that CJ Chaudhry was planning on starting a “Justice Party” and CJ Chaudhry would be its presidential candidate. (52:30)

Rebuttal: Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan or CJ Chaudhry never made any comments regarding any new party or about CJ Chaudhry running for President. Like all other public servants, CJ Chaudhry cannot run for public office till two years after his retirement from the Supreme Court, as stated in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. President Musharraf broke that law by running for President while still in a military uniform. The legal challenges against his actions were pending in the Supreme Court when he declared the Emergency on Nov 3rd.

Mis-statement # 7: None of the Supreme Court Judges are under house arrest
Barrister Saif stated that CJ Chaudhry and other judges are not under house arrest and there is no written order for their arrest. (38:09)

Rebuttal: CJ Chaudhry can’t get out of his house which is under heavy police guard and his closest relatives are not allowed to see him. CJ Chaudhry’s daughter was due to take her O-Levels exams and the British High Commission arranged for her to take her exams at CJ Chaudhry’s house as she was not allowed to leave the house by the police. Even the moderator of the Asia Society event, Ambassador Nicholas Platt, told Barrister Saif that the judges were indeed under house arrest. In addition, US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson was not allowed by the police to meet with Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan who is also under house arrest after two weeks in solitary confinement in a prison. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11535)

Mis-statement # 8: A leading Pakistani journalist said that the Supreme Court was to blame for the declaration of emergency
Mr. Ashraf quoted Mr. Najam Sethi of The Friday Times from an article where Mr. Sethi blamed CJ Chaudhry and the Supreme Court for pushing President Musharraf to a point where he had to declare the Emergency on Nov 3rd.

Rebuttal: Najam Sethi is indeed considered one of the prominent journalists of Pakistan but he is clearly in the very tiny minority among Pakistan‘s influential journalists. The following journalists who are as widely read as Najam Sethi have strongly criticized President Musharraf for his Nov 3rd actions and lay the blame fully at his feet: Ayaz Amir, Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Hasan Askari Rizvi, Nasim Zehra, Shafqat Mahmood, Tariq Fatemi & Zahid Hussain. The overwhelming majority of respected journalists are against President Musharraf’s declaration of the Emergency, including those who were previously somewhat sympathetic to him.

Mis-statement #9: Mr. Saif is a “neutral” member of the caretaker government
Barrister Saif stated in response to a question over the internet that he is a “neutral” member of the caretaker government installed by President Musharraf because he does not belong to a political party.

Rebuttal: Barrister Saif is not neutral. He was an Advisor to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs during the previous PML-Q government supported by President Musharraf. At the Asia Society event, he made the case in defense of the previous PML-Q government and blasted several major political parties in Pakistan as well as the lawyers, Supreme Court and the media. In every country of the world, except under the emergency in Pakistan, such a person is considered “biased”. Barrister Saif should be immediately removed from the “neutral” caretaker government and so should others belonging to the PML-Q party who are considered loyal to President Musharraf.

Mis-statement #10: International observers are welcome to come monitor elections
Ms. Tariq stated that “we welcome western observers to monitor the elections.” (50:58)

Rebuttal: US government has officially raised serious concerns that foreign election observers willing to rush to Pakistan are being denied visas by the Pakistan embassies, a matter which has been raised at the level of President Musharraf and caretaker Prime Minister Muhammed Mian Soomro. US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson held an urgent meeting with the caretaker PM to raise the issue while a delegation of US Congressmen, who called on General Pervez Musharraf on Friday, also informed him that visas were being denied to election observers. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11475)

Mis-statement # 11: President Musharraf would not have to face the death penalty
Mr. Ashraf stated in response to a question that while he agreed that under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, a military coup or martial law is punishable by death as its considered mutiny, President Musharraf was off the hook because the (hand-picked pro-Musharraf) judiciary post the coup in 1999 had upheld the coup and a 2/3rd majority of parliament (constituted after elections in 2002 which were considered by most to be massively rigged) had also condoned his actions.

Rebuttal: President Musharraf could still face the death penalty if the 1973 Constitution is reinstated. On Oct 12, 1999 the then-elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sacked General Musharraf under powers vested in him by the Constitution of 1973 and replaced him with another general. Mr. Musharraf who was no longer the Chief of the Army as a result of the PM’s actions, later that day took the unlawful step of a military coup with the help of other military generals and breached Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan can indeed be amended by a 2/3rd majority of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies but Article 6 has not been amended or deleted even by the pro-Musharraf government and it still states that a military coup is punishable by death without any statute of limitations. Therefore, President Musharraf could still face the death penalty for his actions on Oct 12, 1999. In addition, his actions on Nov 3, 2007 when he declared an emergency and revoked the 1973 Constitution (for the second time) are also punishable by death under the 1973 Constitution. As a matter of fact, President Musharraf recently admitted in a BBC interviews that he had in fact violated the 1973 Constitution on Nov 3rd. Since the Constitution cannot be amended until after it is reinstated and only an elected Parliament and Provincial Assemblies with 2/3rds majority have the right to amend it, the question at Asia Society by a member of the audience highlighted the lack of legal protection that President Musharaf would have under a reinstated 1973 Constitution. This could be one reason why President Musharraf does not want the pre-emergency Supreme Court and CJ Chaudhry to be restored.

 

(Batton Charge) Lathi Charge on Student/Civil Society’s Protest

Just wanted to post this BBC video link about this because this link was in BBC urdu

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/meta/dps/2007/12/bb/071204_isbprotest_16x9_bb.asx 

Only thing I will going to say about this is Wao, I am impressed by these people.

Its important that people know about these and see these videos, these are not Bearded men or veiled women, whom media can label as Extremist Muslims. I am never appologistic about people having beards and women having veils and protesting against government western or their own.

But importance of this video is that it shows people who are much closer to what Western society have habit to seeing around them, people wearing jeans and speaking English.

So what do you think about these people?

Do you think these people in any way represent what you call extremists or fundamentalists?

So my Western friends these are not the so-called  extremists who want to remove the Musharaf, its the civil society that wants to remove Army from the government.

 

Pakistani Ministers in America (Asia Society)

3 of Govt. ministers were here in America and spoke at Asia Society. At following site audio of the event is present

http://www.asiasociety.org/resources/pakemergency.html

Most interesting is when Barrister Saif tries to say that their is no written order to control movement of removed judges. This person is hilarious in lies or representing the lie.