President Musharraf introduced a law in 2002 which reshaped the qualifications for being eligible in the Parliament system of Pakistan. The law cited a bachelors degree as a requisite for being a citizen to be a member of the Parliament. Critics claimed that this law was legalized by President Musharraf so that many of the opposition leaders( who were of feudal background) could not run for office. This was also the same time that PPP and PML-N were both banned from running for office.
Eight years later, the Supreme Court has cracked down on an alleged 140 members of the Parliament for holding a "fake" degree. With the resignations of various Parliamentary members, one can't help but question the notion of whether the law is right in the first place.
The notion that only someone with a bachelor's degree or more is fit for being a representative of the government is extremely questionable in the first place, as history will show.
The First President of the United States, George Washington, did not have an educational background. Yet in his farewell address of 1796, Washington had the wisdom to say that " The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars." ( Current U.S. government could use this right now)
Abraham Lincoln, who was the 13th President of the United States, legalized the 13th and 14th Amendment in the United States, which abolished slavery and guaranteed African Americans the right to due process and equal protection under the law. Abraham Lincoln was not educated with a "bachelors" degree either.
Even though the notion of having a bachelors degree to run for Parliament can be put under question, it still doesn't answer the notion of obtaining a fake degree in order to run for Parliament.
Is possessing a fake degree the answer to the law's flawed logic. Even if we remove its political relevance to the system, the concept of buying a degree is illegal in every sense of the word. Whether one is trying to get a medical license to start his/her own practice or wants to work at a business enterprise, the possessing of a degree which you did not work for is punishable by law and can essentially be described as "cheating" your way through the system.
So when Parliamentarians and their avid supporters lash out at the ridiculous nature of the law, they have every right to do so. However, it is the parliamentarians themselves who are to blame for their misfortunes. They chose to run for office when that law was put into place. Rather than fighting for the removal of that law from the legal frame work, they instead combated flawed logic with false degrees.
The excuse of obtaining a fake degree due to the strict nature of Musharraf's law is not understandable. In 2002, Musharraf did indeed have a strong threshold in the government. However, by 2008 Musharraf's reign was well within its path of ending. The Supreme Court Chief Justice was removed by a Military Dictator, yet through the power of the people and the opposition, he today stands as the Chief Justice of Pakistan while the Military Dictator delivers lectures to a half empty auditorium in Dallas, Texas. This Military Dictator was finally forced into resignation after repeated outcries by the people of Pakistan to put an end to dictatorship. Thus, the idea(excuse) that the implementation of the "degree" law could not possibly have been challenged is FALSE and does not serve testament to the strength of the people of Pakistan.
In February 2008, when the Parliamentary elections were being held, Pakistan should have seen the respected Parliamentarians and their supporters initiate movements proclaiming an end to the fake "degree" law that was imposed in 2002. Instead, these politicians decided to buy a fake degree and run for election, which honestly leads me to ponder whether these politicians should represent their people or not.
I just got news that the degree of PML-Q member of the National Assembly Nauman Langrial has been found to be fake (According to a source cited by the Daily Times). I'm sorry Mr. Langrial, but you are on your own this time. You had the power to stand down against flawed laws, but you chose instead to succumb to them. You are no better than that flawed law itself.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Yeh Jo Halka Halka Military Coup Hay
General Ayub Khan(Pakistan's first Military ruler after suspending the Constitution in 1958) claimed that his take-over was a "revolution to clean up the mess of black marketing and corruption." He similarly fired President Iskandar Mirza just after Mirza had appointed Ayub Khan as Martial Law Administrator. Ayub Khan cited his firing of Mirza because the "the armed services and the people demanded a clean break with the past."
Pakistan has undergone 4 coups in it's 62 + years of independance. What can we determine from these 4 coups and these 4 generals? The timeline definitely implies that Ayub Khan was different than the other 3 generals that came after him. " Ayub Khan did not believe that a sophisticated parliamentary democracy was suitable for Pakistan. Instead, the Basic Democracies, as the individual administrative units were called, were intended to initiate and educate a largely illiterate population in the working of government."
Fatimah Jinnah, who ran against Ayub Khan in 1965, responded to the "basic democracy" by exclaiming; “What sort of democracy is that? One man’s democracy? Fifty persons’ democracy?”
Ayub Khan was truly a man of his word, as he made no bones about cleaning up the mess that he claimed existed before he came to power. He bashed Fatimah Jinnah in the election campaign of 1965 by claiming: “They call her the Mother of the Nation, Then she should at least behave like a mother.”
By the time he finally resigned from office, Ayub Khan in his final speech in 1969 sighed that "I cannot preside over the destruction of my country." What constituted the "destruction" of Pakistan for Ayub khan? It can be inferred as the " Democratic Action Committee" that was installed in 1969 by all the opposition parties. However, Ayub Khan was part of the destruction of his own "country" as the the distribution of economic growth tremendously favored West Pakistan more than East Pakistan, and critics believe that it was one of the core factors leading to the fiasco of 1971. Khan's refusal to acknowledge other civilian leaders and the somewhat unfair criticism of the public directed towards him failing to secure Kashmir also led to the destruction of his state.
Ayub Khan, in his book "Friends not Masters," reflects and defends his tenure by stating that his revolutionary were for the benefit of the nation:
" Whoever presumes to act as a pioneer in the field of ideas must be prepared to face criticism and resistance. I have had a good deal of both. But my conviction of the need and validity of the changes which I have tried to bring about in the social and political life of the country remains as fervent and unfaltering as ever."
Ayub Khan indeed was a revolutionary, and pg. 71 in his autobiography Friends and Masters proves it:
"revolutions take long and painstaking preparation, detailed planning, clandestine meetings, and country-wide movement of troops. In our case there was little preparation. It was handled as a military operation.”
Now, lets take the examples of the 3 Generals that have come after Ayub Khan. In all of their speeches,not one of them had a revolution ideology in any of their speeches as they took over office. Yes, as their tenures became longer, the revolutionary ideology did step in.
General Perez Musharraf( 17 October, 1999), addressing the nation 5 days after deposing Nawaz Sharif:
"This is not martial law, only another path towards democracy. The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan."
General Zia ul Haq, in 1978 after declaring martial law in the country:
"My sole aim is to organize free and fair elections which would be held in October this year. Soon after the polls, power will be transferred to the elected representatives of the people. I give a solemn assurance that I will not dissipate my power and energies as CMLA on anything else. I will do my best to refrain from doing anything which is likely to restrict the power of judiciary."
General Yahya Khan-1970: "I am a soldier basically, and you know I am not a politician. I don't want to stick to this job. The moment I find that I am out of touch with the people, I will quit. I am not out of touch with the people."
A case can be made that the succeeding 3 Generals did realize that this was not the Pakistan of 1958 any more. From 17th October 1951 till 16 December 1957( 6 years), Pakistan had gone through 6 prime ministers. Ayub Khan used the instability of the post and the military's elevated role to take over office. However after 1968, people did not want to see military rule any longer. It did last till 1971, but then a civilian leader was finally elected.
By 1978 the civilian leadership was deposed, but it had already left its mark behind in the military/dictator rule in Pakistan, and more importantly to the people. No longer could Generals invoke the notion of suspending democracy on a permanent basis. In 1978, General Zia ul Haq( and then General Musharraf) would have to bring upon to the public false promises of the restoration of democracy in order to stay in power.
What does Pakistan want from its leaders; Democracy or military rule? In 1968 a strong case could have been made that the Pakistani people were tired of the civilian leaders. However, due to the immense insecurity of the future Pakistani Generals( that can be seen in their primary speeches in office), a case can also be made that maybe finally it is time to see whether democracy works or not.
As my mentor told me a couple of days ago; It took the U.S. democracy till the 1960's to give proper voting rights to African Americans. Today, that same U.S. democracy has a Black President in office.
Our nation is still a young nation, and it has only seen 30 rough years of democratic rule marred by relentless military oversight/intervention. Democracy has never been allowed to serve a full term, and a part of me wonders whether it ever will. After all, it took just 7 years for Zia-ul-Haq to initiate a military takeover in 1978. This is extra-ordinary considering that in 1971, OPERATION SEARCHLIGHT led to Pakistan reducing 52% of its population( East Pakistan). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did have a huge part to play in vetoing the outcome of the 1970 elections, but he was probably even more careless in saving the military's integrity after he got elected. If he had only had the power( or will) of exposing the depth of the military's incompetence in 1971, maybe the Pakistani people could have started to think twice about the false legend which is the strategic might of our military.
Lord Mountbatten was proven wrong in predicting that it would take East and West Pakistan 25 years to disintegrate from each other. It took 24 years.
Pakistan has undergone 4 coups in it's 62 + years of independance. What can we determine from these 4 coups and these 4 generals? The timeline definitely implies that Ayub Khan was different than the other 3 generals that came after him. " Ayub Khan did not believe that a sophisticated parliamentary democracy was suitable for Pakistan. Instead, the Basic Democracies, as the individual administrative units were called, were intended to initiate and educate a largely illiterate population in the working of government."
Fatimah Jinnah, who ran against Ayub Khan in 1965, responded to the "basic democracy" by exclaiming; “What sort of democracy is that? One man’s democracy? Fifty persons’ democracy?”
Ayub Khan was truly a man of his word, as he made no bones about cleaning up the mess that he claimed existed before he came to power. He bashed Fatimah Jinnah in the election campaign of 1965 by claiming: “They call her the Mother of the Nation, Then she should at least behave like a mother.”
By the time he finally resigned from office, Ayub Khan in his final speech in 1969 sighed that "I cannot preside over the destruction of my country." What constituted the "destruction" of Pakistan for Ayub khan? It can be inferred as the " Democratic Action Committee" that was installed in 1969 by all the opposition parties. However, Ayub Khan was part of the destruction of his own "country" as the the distribution of economic growth tremendously favored West Pakistan more than East Pakistan, and critics believe that it was one of the core factors leading to the fiasco of 1971. Khan's refusal to acknowledge other civilian leaders and the somewhat unfair criticism of the public directed towards him failing to secure Kashmir also led to the destruction of his state.
Ayub Khan, in his book "Friends not Masters," reflects and defends his tenure by stating that his revolutionary were for the benefit of the nation:
" Whoever presumes to act as a pioneer in the field of ideas must be prepared to face criticism and resistance. I have had a good deal of both. But my conviction of the need and validity of the changes which I have tried to bring about in the social and political life of the country remains as fervent and unfaltering as ever."
Ayub Khan indeed was a revolutionary, and pg. 71 in his autobiography Friends and Masters proves it:
"revolutions take long and painstaking preparation, detailed planning, clandestine meetings, and country-wide movement of troops. In our case there was little preparation. It was handled as a military operation.”
Now, lets take the examples of the 3 Generals that have come after Ayub Khan. In all of their speeches,not one of them had a revolution ideology in any of their speeches as they took over office. Yes, as their tenures became longer, the revolutionary ideology did step in.
General Perez Musharraf( 17 October, 1999), addressing the nation 5 days after deposing Nawaz Sharif:
"This is not martial law, only another path towards democracy. The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan."
General Zia ul Haq, in 1978 after declaring martial law in the country:
"My sole aim is to organize free and fair elections which would be held in October this year. Soon after the polls, power will be transferred to the elected representatives of the people. I give a solemn assurance that I will not dissipate my power and energies as CMLA on anything else. I will do my best to refrain from doing anything which is likely to restrict the power of judiciary."
General Yahya Khan-1970: "I am a soldier basically, and you know I am not a politician. I don't want to stick to this job. The moment I find that I am out of touch with the people, I will quit. I am not out of touch with the people."
A case can be made that the succeeding 3 Generals did realize that this was not the Pakistan of 1958 any more. From 17th October 1951 till 16 December 1957( 6 years), Pakistan had gone through 6 prime ministers. Ayub Khan used the instability of the post and the military's elevated role to take over office. However after 1968, people did not want to see military rule any longer. It did last till 1971, but then a civilian leader was finally elected.
By 1978 the civilian leadership was deposed, but it had already left its mark behind in the military/dictator rule in Pakistan, and more importantly to the people. No longer could Generals invoke the notion of suspending democracy on a permanent basis. In 1978, General Zia ul Haq( and then General Musharraf) would have to bring upon to the public false promises of the restoration of democracy in order to stay in power.
What does Pakistan want from its leaders; Democracy or military rule? In 1968 a strong case could have been made that the Pakistani people were tired of the civilian leaders. However, due to the immense insecurity of the future Pakistani Generals( that can be seen in their primary speeches in office), a case can also be made that maybe finally it is time to see whether democracy works or not.
As my mentor told me a couple of days ago; It took the U.S. democracy till the 1960's to give proper voting rights to African Americans. Today, that same U.S. democracy has a Black President in office.
Our nation is still a young nation, and it has only seen 30 rough years of democratic rule marred by relentless military oversight/intervention. Democracy has never been allowed to serve a full term, and a part of me wonders whether it ever will. After all, it took just 7 years for Zia-ul-Haq to initiate a military takeover in 1978. This is extra-ordinary considering that in 1971, OPERATION SEARCHLIGHT led to Pakistan reducing 52% of its population( East Pakistan). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did have a huge part to play in vetoing the outcome of the 1970 elections, but he was probably even more careless in saving the military's integrity after he got elected. If he had only had the power( or will) of exposing the depth of the military's incompetence in 1971, maybe the Pakistani people could have started to think twice about the false legend which is the strategic might of our military.
Lord Mountbatten was proven wrong in predicting that it would take East and West Pakistan 25 years to disintegrate from each other. It took 24 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)