Why No One Noticed This Historic Day for Pakistan

Source: Dawn.com

General Pervez Musharraf – Source: Dawn.com

March 31, 2014 will remain to be a historic day for Pakistan as a democracy.

Call it political point scoring or obsession with political correctness, but for the first time ever, a special civil court has indicted a former Army General for high treason for abrogating the Constitution.

He has been indicted for the November 2007 emergency, even though I guess his bigger crime was the October 1999 coup d’etat.

However, there is no sense of jubilation among the people of Pakistan. There is a good reason for that.

From the beginning, the Pakistani government establishment has undermined the importance of the Constitution in people’s eyes. And they have very much succeeded in it too.

This is why every time there is an imminent need to suspend people’s rights to save the State, nobody raises a brow. And this is why the violators get away with it every time, destroying the democratic system of government.

And no, I have absolutely no interest in people declaring President Musharraf a “traitor”. Neither do I support the barbaric law of capital punishment for treason.

But I am interested in seeing people who break the law brought to justice. I am interested to see some fair and equal treatment, especially when hundreds of thousands are rotting in prisons for acts that are arguably not even crimes.

Even if the secularists of Pakistan accept the Constitution of Pakistan for its own merits, it should serve as an inviolable social contract for the citizens.

Not only should the Constitution be respected, but it should not be suspended under any circumstances to protect the fundamental rights of the people. And any amendment whatsoever must be channeled through the legislative branch under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

It is this attitude that has left people not offering a lot of weight to the Constitution as far as the protection of their rights is concerned. And this is precisely why they have largely been left unaware of their fundamental rights.

However, clearly this is not a day of victory or celebration for most Pakistani people. To many of them, this is just another piece of daily news. Inconsequential, because they know that the military will ultimately come to the rescue of the General.

Probably the real historic day would only arrive when the people of Pakistan actually start believing in their fundamental rights as given in the Constitution. And standing up for them too.

But it’s encouraging to see that we are making progress.

Advertisements

The Libertarian Case for the Baloch Resistance

Source: balochistanpoint.com

Source: balochistanpoint.com

No resistance movement is popular in the State against which it is initiated. The Baloch resistance to Pakistan is not any different.

But do they have the right to resist the tyranny of the State and struggle for freedom? And does that also extend that right to the Taliban? It is illegal, but arguably, yes.

This pertains to their fundamental rights, which should be covered by the Constitution, even if they are not currently.

The resistance movement would prove very sound from a Libertarian viewpoint as well, but from the standpoint of the defending State, it would be rightful to enforce law and order and curb it. So in terms of warfare, it is a violence for violence battle. But what is the limit?

While there is little doubt about the Baloch right for the secession, what should the State do to win the hearts and minds of the Baloch people?

Should the State continue to rule a people like a colony, as an alien ruling class, or should it start allotting more aid to the province? Should the State take measures to free the local people from the tyranny of local Baloch nobles and feudals or would that be the tyrannical intervention of the Federation on one of its independent units or States?

How should a civil war be treated? Is it justified to use violence, or any means possible, to preserve the Union?

There are arguments on both sides, but the dissidents are arguing beyond Pakistani nationalistic fervor here. Their opinion may not necessarily be liberal, but would reach out to the violated individual liberty of the freedom fighter.

The Libertarian case for the Baloch resistance would be the recognition of their right to bear arms and engage in an armed struggle against an oppressor. It would be the recognition of their right to life and liberty and protection from any unwarranted searches, detention and unlawful killing. It would be the recognition of their right to free speech for expressing dissenting views against the State and rejecting the Constitution.

This is where the Pakistani state law enforcement and military agencies are making a big mistake.

Pakistani agencies are allegedly detaining Baloch citizens on the suspicion to be a part of the treasonous resistance, which is both illegal and unconstitutional. An extrajudicial killing after torture would be even worse.

Now there would be a lot of Pakistani nationalist friends who would defend this act, which is supporting the idea of curbing the resistance by all means necessary.

But if this sort of behavior were to be given legal approval, then the State could detain any citizen for any given cause, without warrant. If it does not alarm a citizen, then they need to be more aware of the excesses of the government that could threaten their liberty.

I am not saying that the State has no right to curb an uprising by force and to enforce law and order. What it cannot do is to alienate its own people. So while it is curbing an uprising, it is up to the State how it treats its own people.

But above all, it is the responsibility of the State to not violate the liberty of an individual based on suspicion, instead of a legal warrant based on reasonable doubt.

This is not how a democratic republic should curb an uprising. Of course, a military dictator or monarch could use any means at their disposal, but surely that would be the wrong way of doing things. In another words, not the democratic way.

Now arguably all the rights for the Baloch resistance also apply to the Taliban. Which is true, like it or not. So let it be the Baloch cause or the Taliban, the liberty of the individual citizen must not be violated.

Surely, it would be outrageous for some for me to mention both of the different resistance movements together, considering the different morality of their ideologies. But then again, morality of ideologies is relative.

Of course, all that makes Baloch cause any better to that of Taliban is that the latter is fighting to enforce the authoritarian Islamism on an unwilling population. While others could have the same distaste for the Baloch resistance if it were Socialistic or Anarchic in nature.

While you could talk about just about any resistance movement regardless of the ideology or cause, there is a reason to present the case of the Baloch resistance. At least in the context of Pakistan. At least when we have inspirational people like Mama Qadeer marching all the way from Quetta to Islamabad to make this point.

The Baluch people have allegedly seen brutal assaults from the State elements and have had their liberty violated.

This is the perfect way to make enemies of already dissenting and defecting citizens.

—————-

Disclaimer: The post does not reflect my support of or opposition to any of the resistance movements anywhere.

The Right Question to Ask About the Council of Islamic Ideology

Source: geo.tv

Source: geo.tv

A lot of people, including some religious Muslims, are offended by the latest revelations and recommendations of the  Council of Islamic Ideology.

The body created to ensure the Shariah compliance of Pakistani law and constitution just recommended that wives need not be asked for their permission if their husbands wanted to marry another woman.

Personally, I don’t think polygamy and polyandry are issues the government should be concerned about. But they further recommended that the prohibition of underage marriage by law is unIslamic and against the Shariah.

A lot of people are debating whether these provisions are true as per the Shariah or not. Others are outraging if the recommendation curbs women’s rights. But I wonder if there is any use to it. How can people possibly claim to know more about Shariah than the Council, I would never figure out.

But rightly so, a lot of people are worried that the CII will “push us back to caves“, and perhaps back to the 7th century.

Now that fear makes more sense to me. Because here is the right question that we need to ask about the Council of Islamic Ideology.

Should the Council of Islamic Ideology be abolished? And if not, why not.

But of course anything that has Islamic attached to its name is sacred. So, surely there will always be hue and cry about it. But we need to have that conversation more and more, and I appreciate if anyone already is asking that question.

Because English language publications are filled with articles condemning the CII. It is time to take the conversation to the next level.

There is no harm in addressing this issue without getting killed and it is possible. It is not blasphemy, but it must be done before it is turned into one. Pretty much everybody knows that Shariah is not only outdated but also regressive and dangerous in any form.

Despite its apparent and undeniable necessity, abolishing the Council of Islamic Ideology will be a small step toward cleansing the Law and the Constitution of all the Islamic provisions.

Made for Intolerance

Source: Wikimedia Commons

A lot of people outrage at the thought that there is so much discrimination and intolerance in the Paksitani society.

After all, Pakistani society is made up of such brilliant individuals and forward looking political and social groups. There are intellectuals in this country with ideas and works that are as brilliant as they would have anywhere.

So why is Pakistan stuck with elementary issues, such as religious and social discrimination and intolerance?

Well, Pakistan is not just like any other country in the world. Its creation involved one of the most unique events ever. Arguably, the biggest mass migration in modern, if not recorded, human history.

When you are artificially creating a homogeneous demographic and forcefully rejecting any variation, at least discouraging them to flourish, if not just expelling them out of communities, then you can expect resistance to accept what is different.

This is why Pakistan was always bound to be intolerant as a society, with the demographics not being the only factor for the aggravation of the intolerance.

Arguably the only other country that rivals it in this unique characteristic is Israel.

This is only a subjective opinion, but I have a feeling that it is a scientific fact. The resistance to strange ideas must be stronger in a more homogenous society.

Because over time, the Muslim population has increased exponentially in Pakistan and the non-Muslim population has declined. And as this trend continues, we have only seen lesser tolerance to communities with ideas alien to Pakistani and Islamic nationalism, and more tolerance toward religious rioting.

So why are people complaining? This is what we have always wanted.

Pakistan was made for intolerance.