Jamshed Dasti, Parliament Lodges, Mujra and Alcohol

Source: Geo.tv/The News

Recently, Jamshed Dasti, an independent MP, has revealed to the nation that the tenants of the Parliament Lodges often hold Mujras and drinking sessions while speaking on the House floor. Dasti even vowed that he can produce video evidence if any MP attempts to refute his claims.

Later, the former PPP populist MP even produced empty liquor bottles on a TV talk show that he claimed he retrieved from the Parliament Lodges. He has even called for medical tests of the MPs to help determine the culprits.

Though it is hilarious that the Pakistani TV channel on which he appeared blurred the liquor bottles on screen. Why? Are those bottles that hard to watch?

I am not too sure if this is the greatest issue that our nation is facing. Personally, I find little problem with it, unless it is violating Parliament regulations and laws. But it surely does break one law, which is the main point behind it.

I can see only one reason to respect Jamshed Dasti’s complaint. And it’s a big one.

No act should be permitted for the Members of the Parliament should which is prohibited for any other citizen of Pakistan. Because, after all, they are citizens as well.

Therefore, they must not be allowed to consume alcoholic beverages.

This warrants an investigation, as the Speaker of the House has reluctantly called for. Whereas, the Interior Minister has completely ruled out the possibility of a Mujra or a dance party.

By law, holding a Mujra party, or inviting a female dancer over to your place, is not prohibited. For now. Unless the police changes their mind. Any citizen can do that for entertainment.

But what a citizen cannot do is buy and consume liquor, except through bootleggers. Which rules out the legal consumption of the commodity.

This is not a question of morality. It is a question of law.

Some could argue that the prohibition of Alcohol that materialized in the late 1970s is an infringement on the personal liberties and the fundamental rights of the people.

Even though the Pakistani Constitution does provide for the fundamental rights for the citizen, it also faces the dichotomy of accounting for the Shariah and Islamic tradition. The problem is you can hardly protect individual liberties if you are accounting for Shariah at the same time.

Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman complained about the moral policing on the MPs in a statement that I loved. But sadly, he is a proponent of Shariah himself and it is partly due to people like him that these acts are even considered crimes. While I hate to say this, his political position in this case arguably amounts to hypocrisy.

But then again, passing moral judgments about our MPs is not my prime interest here. I would leave that to our clerics and leftists.

But with Dasti’s complaints, our lawmakers are having a taste of their own medicine. This is how it feels when someone interferes in your private affairs. Even though they are holding public offices and should be up for greater scrutiny.

But will they ever learn?

If our MPs are so fond of drinking, a choice that I very much respect, they should call for a vote to legalize liquor and marijuana.

Let the people choose too.

The Window of Opportunity

Maulana Abdul Aziz - Source: AP/B.K. Bangash

Maulana Abdul Aziz – Source: AP/B.K. Bangash

I have observed that most Pakistani secularists find the idea of talks with the Taliban nauseating. However, a new window of opportunity has dawned for their cause by the turn of events in the past weeks.

The religious conservatives of the country have really put themselves in an awkward position by making practical steps to negotiate with the Taliban.

The Taliban have made their lives even more difficult. They have responded by demanding the imposition of Shariah Law throughout the country and have rejected the constitution. Curiously, these are demands that are not even acceptable to most conservative parties, except for the extreme religious groups.

This makes a common Muslim wonder why would there be such resistance to a system that they have been taught is the solution to every ill in the world. How are the likes of Maulana Abdul Aziz wrong in their insistence that the obvious demand of Shariah imposition should not even be a matter of debate.

What, then, is making the Pakistani political leadership so suspicious about Shariah imposition?

Even though every Muslim is supposed to be an Islamist, the fact remains that an overwhelming majority of them are not.

At least not in Pakistan.

Their lifestyle, their customs, their way of life and their voting patterns, all suggest that they want nothing to do with Shariah Law.

Pakistanis watch movies, love music and love to dance. They may indulge in a lot of social ills, but they would have problems with someone blowing up music shops and telling the women of their family how to cover themselves. They also like to shave and do not mind skipping their prayers.

They also do not seem to be prepared to sacrifice their almost Western lifestyle in cities and traditional ways in rural areas to embrace an 8th century code of life.

To them, Shariah is a word that must be revered and must not be challenged, but it really has no place in their lives.

While the Taliban have reminded the people of Pakistan of what Shariah is, it is the perfect time to convert them against this threatening and authoritarian ideology.

At least it is time to ask some tough questions about Shariah, if we must not get too carried away with our ambition.

And make no mistake about it, it can be done in the most discreet and polite manner.

There is no harm in asking them why they would want to support something they do not practice. There is no harm in asking why they would not embrace Shariah as it is if they are Muslims, and why would they reject secularism then.

Everyone can start with their near and dear ones. I ask my family this question everyday, and no, it would not get you killed if you do it respectfully. Charity begins at home and it can easily be propagated to bigger platforms through leading secular opinion leaders.

They would surely shy away from the taboo subject. Surely, they would find it hard to step out of the reassuring shelter of faith, but a little perseverance could pay well.

This is the first step to win the battle against the Taliban. And the first step to convince people why proactively countering the indoctrination of Islamism is essential to their liberty, peace and way of life.

This is the perfect time to reiterate that secularism will prove to be the best social contract to resolve the multitude of religious problems. This is something politicians on right and left must agree on.

It is the perfect time to offer reason to those who are willing to take it.

But don’t get me wrong. This is not a time to build fences. It is not a time to merely win debates and score ideological points.

It is a time to win hearts and minds. We must overcome our curmudgeonly cynicism to see that perspective.

Even in the darkest of thunderstorms, there is always that silver lining.

I Brought You Flowers… and Got Arrested

Source: siasat.pk

Source: siasat.pk/Express News

What will become of you in a country in which people are arrested for bringing someone flowers.

Maybe I am exaggerating the horrific nature of their crime, because these men happened to have been standing outside a college exclusively for girls for the probable intention of harassment. You guessed it, on the demonic, capitalistic occasion of Valentine’s Day.

But that is not the point, because hey, moral policing on Valentine’s Day is nothing new. Moral policing and big government measures for all the wrong reasons have been a feature of the current administration.

What is noticeable in the incident is that in Pakistan you can get arrested when you are not even breaking the law, apparently.

The incident occurred in Faisalabad when dozens of male youths were arrested by the Punjab police for standing outside a girl’s college and allegedly “making noise“, whatever that means. It can even be argued that the noise was harassment and that they infringed on the institution, but I am not too sure if the latter really was the case.

The police can be rightfully called as a security measure, but why would they proceed to arrest them without any reported wrongdoing? In a news report I watched, the police officer was just having the question of them standing there. Whatever happened to the right of assembly?

The news report even mentioned special security arrangement in hotels and restaurants to prevent any wrongdoing or immoral activities. What in the world does that mean?

I mean, are all  those security measures related to a “festival”? Then why are weddings not raided?

The arrest was probably a preemptive measure to prevent possible or further harassment. Yes, it seems that pre-crime is not science fiction anymore. But of course, arrest on harassment would make complete sense.

Alright, I concede that the act of giving Valentine’s Day cards and flowers to someone (like that) is arguably cheesy and inappropriate, but it is not really the kind of offense that someone should be locked up for.

But I do want to give the police the benefit of the doubt and would like to think that they responded to the complaint of the college officials, but still the boys were not apparently breaking any law. The police could have guarded the scene if they thought the security situation was unsatisfactory.

But without a second thought, the police only ended up ruining their public record of a number of people for nothing at all, especially because they probably arrested some people who were there to pick up their relatives. Rest assure, these were more of raids than anything else.

And of course no one cares about the mental agony and harassment that they went through before they would be released. That is just not a priority for a nation obsessed with false sexual moral righteousness.

But what is alarming is that in a country where the police can just arrest people without a reasonable cause, a warrant or even without an instance of crime, what would be the status of those perceived to be rebels or enemies of the state?

The issue of Baloch “missing persons” is often brought up, but how can you expect suspected rebels to be treated fairly, and hey just about anyone can be a suspected rebel anywhere in the country, when citizens with no such credentials are treated so harshly.

And it does not even matter if the citizen knows their rights because the cop would only respond to reason with overwhelming slaps on the back of the head. The trademark policing maneuver in the country.

But nevertheless, it seems that Pakistani citizens must only leave their homes with a copy of the fundamental rights in the Constitution and the penal code with them to prove to the police when and why they can arrest them.

But perhaps the problem lies with the Constitution itself, in which Article 10 lacks much clarity and speaks very loosely about the “detention” of a citizen. This pretty much encourages the prevalent detention on suspicion practice of the law enforcers.

The Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan states:

No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

But more importantly, the Article 14 states:

(1) The dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable.

(2) No person shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence.

Obviously the Constitution comes with countless caveats when it comes to the inviolability of the “dignity of man” and the “privacy of home”. Without the requirement of showing a prior lawful document pertaining to the cause, the articles could even arguably be in conflict with each other.

The provisions are somewhat vague and fail to convey a clear idea of a more precise guideline to prevent abuse of authority. Not that we can be sure that the police all over Pakistan would still read and follow it anyway.

But in comparison, the following is how the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, which is an inseparable part of the Bill of Rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As opposed to the apparently compulsive right of detention provided for by the Pakistani constitution, the Fourth Amendment is very specific on the line it draws between the liberty of the citizen and the authority of the state.

It even goes to the length of requiring the mention of specifics in the warrant to make the search or seizure lawful. In comparison, Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan does not even mention the word “warrant“, correct me if I am wrong.

US Senators like Rand Paul (R-KY) are even suing the President of the United States for violating the Fourth Amendment rights over unwarranted NSA surveillance. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the extent of empowerment that the Constitution accords to the citizens in the United States.

But as long as liberty of the law abiding and peaceful citizens of Pakistan is continued to be abused at the subjective will of the law enforcers of the land, it is hard to trust its government to be democratic.

What Sochi is All About

Source: Google Inc.

Source: Google Inc.

So it is a very politically correct and morally righteous thing to condemn the Sochi Olympics, isn’t it?

I mean my social media feed is having multiple orgasms over this beautiful Google Doodle.

Hey, Russia is homophobic. Fuck that event. I agree. But here is the deal.

There is something curious about the way Western media has covered this event, even before it kicked off.

All of a sudden everyone in the Free World has risen up for gay rights on a sporting occasion, which is a good thing by the way, even though still being on a learning curve to fully accept gay marriage.

But hey, I am not going to present a lot of logical fallacies to make the point. I’ll get down to business.

The coverage of the Sochi Olympics has mainly been about the Free World v Putin more than anything else. Certainly more than it has been about gay rights.

Because frankly, if it were really about discrimination, a lot of countries would not even be the members of the International Olympics Movement right now.

But I do not really expect people to even talk about that, because that is precisely what they do not want to be talked about from this side of the fallen Iron Curtain.

And while I am writing these lines, I see Gary Kasparov going after NBC for how they are covering the Sochi Olympics. Look who just jumped over the Berlin Wall. Good for him.

It is not an appropriate thing to say, but I don’t really have that kind of a job to lose.

The smear campaign of the Western media has really appeared to be more about Putin than it is about gay rights. Though some would argue this is precisely the point.

I am not usually for doubting intentions and would only comment on actions, but hey, I am commenting on actions.

And Google comes out with its gay Olympics doodle to insult Russia and undermine the Olympics. But it will be actually celebrated for that.

I mean I know Russians have been terrible organizers, to the point of being pathetic, and screwed up a lot of things. I even think they did not deserve the Olympics, but I guess that tomorrow Western nations would get to host the event too.

But at least the reliable Russian incompetence is offering a lot of schadenfreude to people who are upset the Western powers could not prevent it from getting underway altogether.

I don’t think it is very wise to sabotage an international sporting event with such political antagonism, and yes, this is precisely what it is. Even if about gay rights, though it is fortunate that the cause is gaining more traction as a result.

I guess if the media is so sensitive about political causes, they should make sure that all such issues should be taken care of before any major sporting event is organized.

Alright, I concede it is really a logical fallacy, but hey, this could happen.

The Arab media and the scattered Arab people should have called for boycotts of London 2012 to protest the Iraq War. Remember, Britain was the prime partner of the United States in turning Iraq into a junkyard.

Or perhaps, Google should ensure to draw a doodle condemning how the Fukushima Plant has contaminated the planet irreversibly ahead of the Tokyo 2020 event.

Hopefully, the media would not forget raising the anti gay laws in Qatar when the 2022 World Cup approaches. It’s good if some of them are already doing that.

But tell you what, it would not be half as much as what the Sochi coverage has been.

But I bet no one in the media would demand America to shut Guantanamo Bay down, to suspend anti gay laws in States at home and perhaps ask the Nobel laureate President to stop bombing random weddings from unmanned drones.

Living in the house of glass and throwing stones?

Yes, I know it is emotional blackmail. But this would be a rather conservative way to describe this sort of coverage of a sporting event by the Western media.

Putin is an authoritarian and it makes sense to trash his system. But there is a time and a place.

I am just waiting for the time for Russia to return the favor in the future events. There is a good chance that the authoritarian Putin would still be around for that long.

Putin is a propagandist too but his propaganda machines are not this loud.

And not half as much politically correct.