Dharna is Over

This article has been published in Daily Times Blog https://dailytimes.com.pk/148283/dharna-is-over/

It had to end. Everyone knew it would end but could it be better than the way it actually ended? Could the mess and chaos in Islamabad and then in Pakistan avoided?

Let us analyse the situation critically. The Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) government made a minor amendment related to the issue of Khatam-e-Nabuwat and expected it to go unnoticed. For PML-N, unfortunately, the issue got highlighted and then reverted to immense pressure. In order to hide its intentions, the government foolishly presented it as a clerical error.

The question, however, remains that why was the amendment even necessary? This attempt of the government to change Khatam-e-Nabuwat declaration happened almost at the same time when the government was engaged with UN Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) Universal Periodic Review. The government attempted to be more acceptable to the UN’s charter and therefore proudly stated in the national report submitted to the UNHRC on September 17, 2017, under the subsection of Rights of Minorities, “As an example, it may be underscored that no sentence of a lower court in blasphemy laws (which are non-discriminatory) has been upheld by the higher courts and no one has been punished under these laws.”

Moreover, The US mission to the UN in Geneva advised Pakistan in its statement on November 13, 2017, “The United States welcomes the Pakistani delegation to the UPR Working Group and recommends that Pakistan repeal blasphemy laws and restrictions and end their use against Ahmadi Muslims and others and grant the visit request of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

Now, PML-N had been trying to present itself in front of the western quarters as a liberal party in the country which is evident from the various statements of Nawaz Shareef. But stepping on the Khatam-e-Nabuwat issue is a landmine in the Pakistani context.

Exploiting this ‘clerical mistake’, TLY chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi, who had been a champion of Mumtaz Qadri’s post-hanging glorification and self-proclaimed “Defender of Khatam-e-Nabuwat issue”, saw a golden opportunity to rally his newly established political party against the government so that he could build his credentials in front of the masses for the next elections as well as consolidate his position amongst the religious circles as a man who is brave and bold enough to defend the issue of Khatam-e-Nabuwat.

Could he have done that without the consent of the establishment? Could he park himself and his dharna in front of ISI Headquarters in Faizabad? The constant slogans in support of Pakistan Army by dharna leaders hold a significant answer to this question. But why would the military establishment do that? The is an ongoing visible rift between PML-N and this dharna presented yet another opportunity to push the political elite to give up more ruling decisions in favor of the military elite.

One interesting aspect was the absence of other religious groups’ direct participation in the dharna. Why? Firstly, Khadim Hussain Rizvi is a Barelvi hardliner with a significant sectarian bent. He has claimed in his various speeches that he does not want Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Jamat-e-Islami members and the Shias in his cause. He calls upon only the Sunnis and had been pushing to mobilise the Peers of Punjab and elsewhere. Just because of the sectarian positioning of this issue deliberately by Khadim Hussain Rizvi, the other groups avoided joining him officially, even though individuals from other religious organisations were actively present in the dharna.

Secondly, other religious groups deemed it enough that the amendment had been retaken thus making it clear that there was no need for any further politics over it. They were also involved in this amendment, therefore, they wanted to save their own faces. They sided with PML-N by not going out on the streets and distanced themselves because of the sensitivity of this issue.

As far as PTI is concerned, they could have joined the bandwagon with TLY and would have given enough tough time to the government that it would have probably collapsed thus paving way for early elections. But it did not. One reason could be that PTI did not want to frame itself in front of the western world as a party that supports religious fanaticism against the minority Ahmadi community. Secondly, elections require preparation and early elections would not be good for anyone and not letting the PML-N government complete their tenure would give PML-N an advantage over the other parties.

The judiciary wanted to flex its muscles here as well to display their independence. They were not so vocal when the PTI dharna or the Tahirul Qadri dharna took place. Why? Maybe the establishment wanted another round of pressure on PML-N.

The question people have been asking is: Why did not PML-N give into the demand for Zahid Hamid’s resignation and why did they handle it so badly? The answer is not that simple.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of PML-N. You have a western world that is keenly looking at your credentials. You have your team who actually made the amendment on your behalf. You have an establishment who is pushing a religious group in the centre on a very sensitive topic which can cost you votes from religious groups. You have a judiciary that is actively pushing you to use force. You have some very scary demands from the religious zealots present in Islamabad, most of who glorify Mumtaz Qadri.

What do you do?

• If you try to stop them before gathering at the dharna, you might face the wrath of establishment too directly. So you let them gather.
• If you listen to the demands of the protesters on the first day then they will gain a lot of confidence and start making unrealistic demands of hanging and overthrowing. So you delay the acceptance of demands.
• If you listen to the demands then you destroy your credentials in front of the UN and US on the issue of minority rights. So you try to divert the issue of resignation and try to mould it.
• You try to wait it out but then the judiciary comes into play and the people are getting frustrated.

So what do you do now? You weigh your options.

1. You do not destroy your credentials in front of the west and use brutal force, finish off the dharna and do not accept any demands. But you make many more Mumtaz Qadris and destroy the massive vote bank of your party and give enough reason for a martial law situation to occur.
2. You do not destroy your credentials in front of the west and use enough force to create a critical situation, then call the army yourself to handle the situation and make establishment stand in front of the people. Let the establishment do the dirty work and save your face in front of the west and your own people.

Plan A was too risky to go through so PML-N embarked upon Plan B. The establishment understood the PML-N plan and backed off from doing the dirty work saying, “We will not use force against our own people”. Therefore PML-N was pressurised into accepting the demands.

The PML-N came out victorious as far as the UN and US requirements are concerned and now they safely say that they were pushed by the establishment to accept demands. The consequence is that a lot of votes from the religious groups were pushed into the ground but the speeches of Captain (r) Safdar and Shehbaz Sharif might have saved some of those votes.

The TLY came out victorious in front of the people and for the next election campaign.

The establishment saved its face in front of the general masses and was able to weaken the PML-N in Pakistan but did not quite trap the PML-N as they wanted.

Nonetheless, the dharna is over but the establishment proved once again that it is they who pull most of the strings in the country while the politicians keep trying to break some of them.

Are varsities breeding grounds for militancy?

This article has been published in Pakistan Today https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/11/04/are-varsities-breeding-grounds-for-militancy/

Universities are a breeding ground for terrorists; therefore, we need to take serious actions to resolve this issue. This is the argument that is being bombarded by the state institutions towards the academia.

Let’s analyse the first part of the argument: Is it really so? Examples of IBA alumnus Saad Aziz and the recent phenomena of Abdul Karim Sarosh Siddiqui—a central commander of Ansar-ul-Sharia Pakistan (ASP) and a dangerous militant described as the mastermind of the attack on Izharul Hassan—are cited to justify this point. However, looking at this point deeply shows that both of these people had left the university well before they started their terrorist activities.

If the varsities are to be blamed for the actions they did well after leaving their institutions, then why not also talk about their schools, colleges, locality, mosques and everything else around them? Why point out just one level of education? And out of more than 30,000 students at Karachi University (KU), if you have one example, would you consider it to be a systemic problem at the university level? Or is it just a natural outcome of how the society at large is responding to state policies, not just at the campus level but also at a local level.

This seems to be a case of grasping at straws on part of varsity administrations, as no matter how invalid the argument may be, it facilitates pressurising campus students and varsity bodies to curb any form of dissent against the policies of the state.

Secondly, if universities are somehow facilitating radicalisation, then we must go through the university curriculum and carefully analyse it. After all, the curriculum plays an important role in an individual’s learning process. But when we observe that a person who was studying applied physics or business administration is getting radicalised towards militancy, something feels amiss. Is there even a correlation between militancy and such advanced subjects?

Thirdly, if the case is presented in such a manner that a non-university-going person, who was a non-militant individual, became a radicalised individual after joining a university, then this argument can and should be investigated. But, before we delve any deeper into it, we need to question the state once again: When you ban student unions and create various hurdles and roadblocks in the way of an open environment for political discussions at campuses, what else do you expect?

How will the students—some of them deeply frustrated—vent the anger that exists against state policies and religious bigotry? If they are not allowed to discuss and debate such issues, sorting them out in an educated, political manner, then—like it or not—the environment of militancy would naturally flourish. This is true not just for a university, but the society in general.

The state routinely abducts people, and they go ‘missing’ on matters of political differences and ideas, without giving them the right to present themselves in a court. When these individuals return, their jobs are gone; their family is devastated; they have gone through psychological trauma; their friends are deeply affected. Such an environment of fear will only give rise to a hidden form of militancy, which can be easily exploited by incorrect Islamic interpretations. This is generally true for the whole society, and, when it comes to campuses, it is evident there as well.

Fourthly, the examples of militants cited were not actively engaged in developing a militant network in their respective universities, as we have one ex-IBA student and one former KU graduate who connects with others and engages in a terrorist activity. They were not creating a network of militants in IBA or KU which would have meant that an environment of militancy was being created at campuses. Had they been engaged in any such venture, they would have been easily singled out and targeted beforehand by the administration. But that was not the case.

The first part of the argument does not hold any weight on which the next part is being suggested by the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD): The CTD wants data from the universities and they want character certificates of the students and teachers from police stations before admission.

If for the sake of discussion, we agree that the universities are indeed a breeding ground for terrorists, then the suggestions presented by CTD seem to be very irrational. There are over 3 million students enrolled in grades 13 through 16 in Pakistan’s 1,086 degree colleges and 161 universities, according to Pakistan Higher Education Commission report for 2013-14. Is this a rational approach to put 3 million students under surveillance just on the basis of some lone wolf terrorists, who were not even trying to expand militancy within the campuses? What message will you be sending to the students in general? As Senator Raza Rabbani correctly pointed out: it would create fear amongst the students, which is a very negative impression for them.

On the contrary, if a person had a militant or radical mindset before joining a university, there is a fair chance that he may change his mindset after getting a decent exposure of social sciences and technology. His vision is more than likely to be broadened in understanding society after coming across different perspectives and ideas.

Opening up student unions and allowing political and religious discussions in an educated manner can flush away lingering thoughts of militancy within a society.

What needs to be done is to grasp the real reasons behind militancy and radicalism that has engulfed our society in general. Not recognising a string of wrong foreign policy decisions by the state since the 1980s will only exacerbate the situation. A coherent counter-narrative to extremism is yet to be developed, whereas the state is still relying on force and coercion to resolve this issue.

Lecture on 1917 Russian Revolution and state capitalism

This article has been published in PakTeaHouse Blog at http://pakteahouse.net/2017/10/23/lecture-on-1917-russian-revolution-and-state-capitalism/

This blog is not intended to “deliver” such a lecture but present an account of my observations and intellectual discourse on the event which was organized by Inqilabi Socialists Karachi in collaboration with Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences on Thursday October 19.

The speakers included Dr Talat Ahmed who specializes in South Asian History, Islam, Women and Culture at University of Edinburgh and Dr Riaz Ahmed who is an activist of revolutionary politics and associated with University of Karachi.

The event had to be started at 5pm but since I had certain commitments at my university, I reached the place at around 6pm. I missed Dr. Riaz’s Speech on the subject but fortunately I was able to listen to Dr. Talat. This was the first time I was at Irtiqa institute and I found it very humble: No AC, a small shelf of books on socialism, no interior design, normal classroom chairs, a microphone system that needed maintenance. This seemed to be a place where intellectual dialogue is focused, rather than the pomp and show at other liberal NGO funded café’s. The audience was also more from the working class families with dominance of Baloch, Sindhi and Pashtun ethnicities and it was a house full.

Dr. Talal is an avid and emotional speaker who was bashing Stalin for destroying the whole soviet revolution and derailing it from the ultimate purpose and therefore does not represent the socialist ideals. She discussed how Lenin was the one who not only implemented but also understood the correct ideas delivered by Marx, angles, Trotsky and Luxemburg. It was at the time of Lenin that a truly socialist society was established which had freedom of religion and the correct wealth distribution model. However, Stalin destroyed all his opposition and even got Trotsky killed and completely deviated from the international socialist path.

After the Speech had ended, there was an unusual thing that caught my attention. A bowl was floated where the audience put in 10 or 20 rupees or maybe a 1000 Rupee note into it. This was a kind of “Chanda” for the tea and biscuits that followed at the end of the session.

The Q&A session was also very interesting.

A person asked “After brief successes in Russia and China, even if we bring such a revolution, it might fail again?”  To which Dr. Riaz first pointed out that yes the socialist revolution did last just for 6 to 7 years during the regime of Lenin but China never had such a socialist change. It was a militant force of Mao which led to a regime change and it had nothing to do with the struggle of the working or the peasant class. Therefore China cannot be taken as the face of international socialism. Secondly, Stalin derailed the socialist struggle in Russia. Furthermore, he said, there are possibilities of a future failure again because the enemy i.e. state capitalism has now its roots all around the world and extremely powerful and it will never give up its status. Even in these tough situations, should we stop aspiring for a better world?

Another question posed by someone in the audience stated “How much time will it take to bring such a revolution, do we have a blueprint or a guided plan?” Dr. Talat responded by first saying that revolutions do not have a timeframe but they do need an organized group of cautious revolutionaries who are ready to grip the moment and sail the wave of a crises. Crises and conflicts will continue to happen but it is up to us to give it the right direction. She said, could anyone imagine in Egypt in December 2010 that in Febraury 2011, the Mubarak regime will fall after a massive wave of protests supported by the working class? She further pointed out that the spark of revolution was not a local phenomena in Egypt, but it happened somewhere in Tunisia. This adds another dimension to the discourse that revolutions do not happen in isolations but have an international dimension to it.

The third question was regarding the role of students in bringing about such a revolution. Dr. Talat emphasized that students are not the working class and therefore, according to socialist theories and understanding, they cannot bring a revolution in isolation. However, they do have the time and luxury to discuss ideas and counter the capitalist narrative from an intellectual standpoint. They can lead the workers and motivate them and stand with them to bring about such a change.

There ended the Q&A session. I had so many questions in mind but we had to move the discussion on to Tea.

So I was quick to place my chair near Dr. Talat and present her with some of my understandings. I asked her that the fancy idea of everyone being treated equally and live happily sharing everything is very appealing but how do you intend to actually do that. I mean, I asked her that wealth was circulated well amongst the Muslims in Islamic rule especially during the reign of Umar bin abdul Aziz and the examples of spain. She immediately jumped up with that the Islamic state i.e. Daish and Taliban did this and that and I stopped her there. I said, if Stalin does not represent socialism, then bad examples also do not represent the Islamic political model. She agreed. 

Then came the difficult question i.e. “Do you believe in absolute equality” and she responded with a “Yes ofcourse”. I said, “humans have intellectual, physical, economic and emotional differences and isn’t it absolutely unnatural to actually EQUATE them?” She did partially agree but then responded that economic disparity creates conflicts and crises and eventually develops towards a capitalist imperialist framework. I came up with “What if we restrict some forms of ownership which creates such massive disparity rather than actually moving towards economic equality which destroys human incentive towards progress. I added with a sarcastic “Like in the times of ummad, abbasid and Ottoman Caliphate” And She responded with, Yes I do regard those times which had intellectual dialogues in the Muslim world which eventually lead to the renaissances in Europe but they had pathetic conditions for women and very hard towards separate ideas. I clarified that we had massive historical debates on proof of God, logic, religion, metaphysics etc during the Muslim rule and isn’t that a clear sign that caliphate does actually promote serious debate on ideas? Moreover, the women were creating universities at that time!  

She paused and then said, I am a materialist and I do not believe in religion or God and therefore I cannot accept such provisions as commandments. I said, then, if, suppose, you believe in a creator then maybe Islamic rule is the natural and best thing one can have. She said, I do not believe in such things and evolution is the difference where we disagree.  I thanked her for the nice discourse and went on to meet another socialist friend in the same gathering.

Tanveer is an x-jaamti and now a strong socialist. We always plan to sit for long hours for a full day and night discussion session on these subjects but time and commitments had always been unfavorable. 

A brief discussion started off with me asking “How do you intend to abolish ownership when it is very natural even for my two year old kid to own her doll and not give it to someone else? You are challenging the basic human natural disposition here” , He argued that it is the private ownership that has created class differences and massive inequalities and chaos in the world. He further said, if there are 100 labors in the factory, then why the product is not collectively owned. The ownership should be social.” 

My response was: Firstly, do you think your shirt, your car, your wallet, your watch and everything in your private ownership is social, then it means I can live in your room and use your car whenever I want? Is that what social ownership is? Well this is absolutely unnatural and ridiculous. Secondly, if I designed the factory, I payed every labor, its due wage for working to develop a product, then how can he claim to a shareholder in profit or ownership? Thirdly, this argument can only be correct regarding the discussion of the “due wage” and the liberal position on labor conditions which promotes exploitation and have created a new form of slavery in the world under the capitalist regimes.” 

Before my tanveer friend could respond, our discussion was broken up by another socialist friend sajid sahib enthusiastically entered with “What model do you have against socialism?” Tanveer was already in a hurry so he departed with a “Lets meet for full 2 days and 2 nights for such a discourse”, I obliged.

“Sajid sahib the problem is that Islamic model does not allow ownership of massive resources like lands, minerals, petrol, Gas or those on which the community depends. There are several hadiths and examples from the times of Caliphs to demonstrate that. Then the taxation system is very limited to zakat, usher, custom and jizya i.e. there are no sales tax, gst etc which means that the people will not be looted of their private wealth by the state and they will have enough purchasing power”, my answer to him when we went down from Irtiqa institute and sat on a tea shop for an anda paratha.

Dr. Riaz contradicted with a point that your islamist stuggle creates a division in the society which actually does not help stand against the capitalist narrative fully. In contrast to the socialist narrative which does not have any form of religious or ethnic or nationalistic discrimination. I did agree with him on this point but then again, in an islamist dominated country and propagating an islamist political agenda, I believe standing up against oppression would enable a much bigger response. 

Secondly, the Islamic political thought clearly does not discriminate the rights of non-Muslims in anyway and treat them as its citizens. Examples from history clearly demonstrate how the Muslim world was a safe heaven for jews and Christians and other religions.

Amongst us, at tea hotel was the ex-chairman of Department of Philosophy Dr. Zaheer ud din Babar. I met him the first time and was amazed at his level of understanding on the matters. He listened to our discussions quietly with only a few inputs and sponsored the whole chai paratha for us.

We stood up to depart and I was keen to have some more discussion with Dr. Zaheer sahib. Fortunately enough, my house is in gulistan-e-jauhar and Dr. Zaheer needed a lift. I immediately offered to drop him in my car to his home. The 15 minute discussion with Dr. Zaheer in the car was one of the best learning experiences that I ever had.

Here is an account of our discussion that I remember. It should be very clear that these are not exact his words but the things that I remembered from our discussion.

Me: Sir, are you a socialist?

Dr Zaheer: No I am not. I think the world has more to offer than Capitalist and Socialist extremes.

Me: The concept of absolute equality and abolishment of ownership is unnatural and impractical.

Dr. Zaheer: Yes, they try to look at the human only from the economic perspective. This is wrong. Humans are affected by much more than just means of productions. This is the problem which is why creativity was destroyed in Russia when the state even owned Art and Culture and the incentive to progress was lost. That cannot be a pluralistic and thriving society.

Me: I sensed dogmatic understanding of things when I talked to people at the event. Did you?

Dr. Zaheer: Yes, all ideologues are dogmatic. That’s why philosophy is important

Me: Yes, but all are not labeled as such except the Islamist one. But isn’t dogmatic understanding very relevant for a person to actually give his time, money and life for a cause? Else, a confused philosophy student cannot be a conscious revolutionary.

Dr. Zaheer: Yes, it’s necessary, but people have their inclinations and responses to certain ideas. Some have an inherent ability to be convinced on fix ideas while others do not.

Me: Is contradiction a continuous reality as explained by the Marxists.

Dr. Zaheer: This is Hegelian thought which started off with contradictions as a reality but converging towards Idealism and absolute thought. But Marx and Engels believe it to be a constant reality.

Me: Then there is no truth according to them.

Dr. Zaheer: Truth is based on Logic and Rationality.

Me: But Ghazali and Iqbal believed in the creator and philosophically denied such truths.

Dr. Zaheer: Ghazali and Iqbal were intuitionalists. But intuitions of a person can vary and therefore it cannot be a universal truth for all.

Me: But logic has its problems with propositions. If the propositions are incorrect, won’t the result be incorrect? For instance, the premises “Table has four legs” and “Donkey has four legs” will lead to “Table and donkey are the same”.

Dr. Zaheer: Wrong premise will give wrong results, and sometimes right premise can also give wrong results. The truth would be the right propositions giving the right results and its very difficult to find.

I stopped the car as we had arrived at his home. I was amazed at his intellectual dept and clarity and have become his permanent fan. He is a wonderful conversationalist to sit with to discuss the deepest ideas with great ease.

I never imagined that I would learn so much from a gathering discussing something so contrary to my beliefs and meet such wonderful people.

The freedom to make or amend constitutional laws is Pakistan’s fundamental flaw

This article has been published in Tribune Blogs at https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/57106/the-freedom-to-make-or-amend-constitutional-laws-is-pakistans-fundamental-flaw/

Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi recently remarked that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution 

may be scrapped with the consultation of all parties. In case readers have forgotten, this particular article had provided the grounds of Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification.

Constitutionally, Abbasi is correct, as Article 239 titled ‘Constitutional Amendment Bill’ states the following in clause (5):

“No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.”

Furthermore, clause (6) states,

“For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatsoever on the power of the Parliament to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.”

Therefore, if Article 62 is removed with parliamentary majority, it cannot be legally challenged even though it may be termed as morally and ethically correct.

In fact, there is an amendment in the presidential election rules that allows people from all walks of life – for example, government servants, mentally ill persons and offenders – to compete for office. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) modified the regulation prevailing presidential elections in 2007 and thus it took away said provision for the debarment of presidential contenders. This change was basically put in place to please Pervez Musharraf, and in fact took place right before the 2007 polls, thus allowing Musharraf to be elected.

Similarly, if the amendment had come before Nawaz’s debarment, he could have remained prime minister of Pakistan. In fact, he can still become president since the decree allows a convict to legally act as president – how ironic is that?

This utter freedom to make or change laws is a fundamental flaw in Pakistan’s democratic philosophy. It not only crosses ethical boundaries but can also surpass definite religious commandments entitled as a source of legislation for our country.

In addition to this, the freedom to make or amend any law is a tool for systematic corruption. Dr Daniel Kaufmann, director at the World Bank Institute, defines “legal corruption” as a phenomenon where power is abused within the confines of the law as those with power often have the ability to make laws for their protection. This tool for legal corruption is available for the politicians/rulers as a system level provision within the current constitutional framework to exploit public offices and get away with it.

Moreover, the supreme court is unable to address this issue because it interpreted corruption in 2008 while adjudicating on a case investigated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as “An act which is done with intent to give someone advantage inconsistent with Law and wrongful and unlawful use of official position to procure some benefit or personal gain

For example, we have a legally accepted provision called the “plea bargain”. Since 2010, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) recovered Rs25.6 billion from 2591 cases through plea bargains and voluntarily returns.

There are numerous popular cases regarding the acceptance of a plea bargain request of over Rs2 billion.

Mushtaq Ahmed Raisani, Balochistan’s former finance secretary, and that of Sohail Majeed Shah, the former advisor to the chief minister of Balochistan, is one such case. The corruption cases against the two accused were closed temporarily. Raisani was reproached for embezzling billions of rupees. Even though his plea bargain application, was initially accepted and then cancelled in April, it still poses the question – why did NAB accept it in the first place? Is there no accountability anymore? Is this not a legal support model for the corrupt? Attempt a serious corruption scheme, and if you are caught, just give the amount back and you are good to go…sounds perfect, right?

Another legal support structure for the corrupt was that of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) 2007 which had 8,041 beneficiaries who were relieved of all corruption, embezzlement, murder, money laundering, and terrorism charges between January 1, 1986 and October 12, 1999. Therefore, if you were lucky enough to carry out massive corruption or mass murders during the 13 years mentioned, the system says that you are free to start over.

The most hidden legal support system for the corrupt is the tax amnesty scheme. These schemes are in place to convert black money into white money and are readily available. Tax amnesty schemes were announced in 1958, 1969, 1976, 1985, 1997 and 2000. Furthermore, two were announced during Asif Ali Zardari’s regime, while another three were announced during our present government’s tenure.

In November 2016, President Mamnoon Hussain gave assent to the Income Tax Amendment Act 2016 to grant legal cover to amnesty schemes. This scheme allows property owners to whiten their money in the real estate sector on the payment of 3% tax. According to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), around Rs4,000 billion is parked in the property sector each year.

A one-month amnesty was allowed for legitimising 52,000 vehicles smuggled from Afghanistan upon payment of duty and taxes. This only goes to show how we are supporting smugglers. Another amnesty scheme allowed for individuals doing business without an NTN to file tax returns with a maximum payment of Rs25,000 per year for the previous five years. This scheme allows businesses to legalise without any questions asked about their past illegalities.

The Protection of Economic Reforms Act, passed by the Nawaz government in 1992 is similar as well. It stated,

“All citizens of Pakistan, resident in Pakistan or outside Pakistan who hold foreign currency accounts… shall continue to enjoy immunity against any enquiry from the income tax department or any other taxing authority as to the source of financing of the foreign currency accounts.”

If these tax amnesty schemes do not ring any bells then Article 248 serves as the final nail in the coffin. It states,

“No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the president or a governor in any court during his term in office.”

The unquestionable freedom to make or amend laws is a fundamental structural flaw in the current constitutional setup of the country. It helps the elite strengthen their grip over power while crossing all moral boundaries to do so. It also ensures that laws mostly serve the giant capitalists and businesspersons in making more money, in turn widening the wealth gap. Alternatives to this model should be debated for a sincere attempt at eradicating corruption.

Some solutions to Pakistan's professor mafia

This article has been published at https://www.dawn.com/news/1345756/some-solutions-to-pakistans-professor-mafia

Earlier this month, Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy wrote an article describing the mechanisms of what he termed Pakistan's professor mafia and the various "academic crimes" that this racket commits to the detriment of Pakistan's higher education system.

To demonstrate the dysfunctionalities of Pakistani universities, Professor Hoodbhoy gave a startling example: at the Faculty of Management Sciences at the International Islamic University, a "world record of sorts was set last month" when five PhD degrees on various topics were awarded under a single supervisor who received his doctorate merely five years prior.

Professor Hoodbhoy went on to explain how the country's higher education system legitimises and gives room to such instances, analysing in detail the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) PhD-related policies which are to blame for the academic disrepair.

"A major setback happened in 2002," he says, "when, in a bid to boost research and production of PhD degrees, the Higher Education Commission hooked the promotion, pay, and perks of university teachers to the number of research papers they published."

This gave rise to the professor mafia, which works as follows: a good friend of mine sitting in a university will publish my papers along with my students’ in their journal and I shall return the favour. This trading of favours is the beginning of the racket. The more publications the members of the mafia have to their name, the easier it is for them to get the attendant perks and benefits.

In this article, I wish to offer what I believe can be solid solutions to the issues highlighted by Professor Hoodbhoy.

To start off, the HEC should raise the bar and make it mandatory for PhD scholars to publish at least one conference paper at a reputable international conference and one journal paper in ISI indexed and impact factor journals.

What qualifies as a publication also needs to be changed. A paper presented at a high-quality conference and in an impact factor journal with cited works of reputable researchers should be defined as a publication. Any other definition must be discarded.

This will ensure quality and set a high standard by which someone's contributions are measured. A researcher with 50 publications in dubious, local journals will not have contributed nearly as significantly and will rank lower than their counterpart with even a singlepublication at a renowned conference/journal with quality citations.

If this step is taken, I'm sure Professor Hoodbhoy would agree that the 'world records' that Pakistani universities are proud of would be set by only the most extraordinary and experienced researchers, while the mafia will be dealt a harsh blow.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with incentivising publications and basing promotions on them. Such mechanisms for motivation can remain. However, it should only happen once quality of research is made top priority.

Secondly, professors should be tasked with bringing in funding on their own through collaborations with various agencies and institutions in different industries and sectors. This is something that's of equal importance but is missing in Pakistan.

This will help link academic research to concrete development goals and projects, social programmes, and private or public sector policies and initiatives. As a result, research will become more useful and will contribute to the betterment of the country. It will also pop the bubble the HEC has created thanks to its myopia.

The HEC can assist by funding different private and public sector institutions that have well-defined projects for which they need researchers' help. It should be left to these institutions to decide who is the most competent researcher to hire.

ICT R&D funds, Plan9 and Institute of Research Promotion are setting excellent trends in the technology domain. New organisations should be formed and tasked with distributing funds in the social sector as well.

Now, as far as teaching is concerned, whether or not instruction and research can go hand in hand is a subject of widespread debate. A good teacher might not necessarily be a good researcher and vice versa.

For example, teaching is not incentivised in North America as it used to be, with the focus now being on research. How much funding a professor can bring in from the outside and how many papers and books they publish determines the prestige of a university. A large number of courses, especially at the undergraduate level, are taught by part-time professors, which is having a negative effect on North American universities.

The HEC has also gone down the same route of 'publish or perish' and the consequences of imitating North America are there for all to see.

Focus on churning out research papers means that serious issues have been overlooked, such as the need for better monetary incentives for teaching, developing subject specialists, identifying individual faculty weaknesses and ensuring their development.

Pakistani universities need to work on teaching, pure research and applied research, and entrepreneurship. Fixating on only one of these aspects will end up limiting the impact and usefulness of our universities, which would be a disservice to education.

When minds are enslaved

This article has been published at https://tribune.com.pk/story/1453531/when-minds-are-enslaved/

The release of former CIA contractor Raymond Davis’s book has sent shockwaves through Pakistan’s civil and military establishment. The revelations are not new but they are reminiscent of a brutal and miserable situation that we, as a nation, had to go through. Recap the whole scenario for once: an American spy kills two Pakistanis at a public place, then the Pakistani regime pressures the family to pardon him for money and our top intelligence official personally overlooks the safe return of the spy. This was not just a slap on the integrity of Pakistan, but a reminder to Pakistanis that their state will not support their own citizens in front of powerful nations.

This feeling of humiliation lodges in memory and has an element of revival. The failure to secure the rights of citizens can be corrected in years to come with a better response only if the mind is filled with an urge for integrity and honour. This in turn means thinking about ways and means that are “practically possible” in the face of powerful nations. But if minds have been corrupted with thoughts like “This was the best decision that we took in the interests of the country”, then all hope is lost. This enslavement of the mind will bring more possibilities of utter shame for our country. For instance, just after the Raymond Davis episode we witnessed the Abbottabad raid on the hideout of Bin Laden and Salala attacks on Pakistani servicemen. This was followed by the never-ending drone attacks and calls for “do more” even after a major military operation.

The problem lies with the fact that we have given a clear message to Americans in that the lives of our citizens are nothing but fodder in the war on terror. Why would they not exploit our weak self-positioning for their interests? A common layman response is “What else can we do? Can we fight the Americans?” An informed reply would be “No, we cannot fight them head on, but does that mean we should not stop them even politically or diplomatically?”

A small lesson on global politics is that wars between states are not a boxing match in a ring where the mighty can defeat the weak easily. There are thousands of factors present in international scenarios which is why America cannot just start a war on a morally weak incident. Does America start a war when Ecuador throws out the US ambassador? Does America start a war when Iran targets an American drone in its vicinity? Does America start a war when Qatar is accused of financing terror? Does Russia engage in war when Turkey shoots down its plane? Wars do not erupt instantaneously without a strong pretext in the current global scenario. Take, for instance, the Afghan war: 9/11 and the campaigning of public opinion against al Qaeda was one major reason for entering Afghanistan. Similarly, a full one year campaign arguing the presence of weapons of mass destruction was needed before entering Iraq. In short, America cannot just go to war with a country over the detainment of one of their criminal citizens. They do not even have moral entitlement to do so in such a case.

Moreover, we customarily tend to forget that we are a nuclear power nation. It is an intense security badge that we wear. I am not suggesting a war with America; rather I am suggesting a policy of restraint. We should not undervalue ourselves to the advantage of America. General Pervez Musharraf did exactly that after 9/11. Rather than looking for alternative allies in the global world and making life challenging for the Americans, we gave them everything out of fear of being attacked. That created a mess in our own country.

This binary approach of “with us or against us” or “follow American orders or get ready for war” is nothing but an easy tactic for an already enslaved mind with defeatist thoughts. Our political and military elites should come out of the colonized frame of mind.

The sad state of Kashmir

This article has been published at http://tribune.com.pk/story/1246318/sad-state-kashmir/

Just after Partition, the Pakistani state claimed the complete Kashmir as its legitimate territory
which should be certified by a plebiscite by the Kashmiri people based on the fact that majority
of its inhabitants are Muslims. “Kashmir humari sha ragh hay” is the major slogan sung by
Pakistanis and the claim that the letter “K” in Pakistan is for Kashmir.

On the contrary, in 1963, the Pakistani side under Field Marshal General Ayub Khan announced giving Kashmir’s 13,000 square miles land to China on Kashmir’s border with the Chinese region of Xinjiang. It means we were ready to give some part of our vital land as gift to China. Then in 1972, PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto accepted the Line of Control (LOC) as an almost official border and in 2006, president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf gave a proposal which included two major points. Firstly, borders between Pakistan and India remain the same and secondly, Kashmir be given autonomy but not independence. These chronological events clearly show that Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir has been going back slowly and steadily. This means that the “sha rag” is no longer considered as such
practically but only remains so in speeches and slogans. The people of Kashmir on the Indian side have not accepted Indian domination even after more than 68 years. Interestingly, India has millions of Muslims living peacefully in other parts of India but continuous wave of revolts and protests against the Indian regime can be seen in Kashmir. Either it is because of the continuous and deliberate interference of Pakistan in Kashmir or the brutal and inhumane behaviour of the Indian regime which includes pallet guns, disappearances, extra judicial murders etc., or maybe it is because of the nature of the people of Kashmir to not bow down against injustice and stand for their freedom.

Whatever may be the case, the Kashmir issue should have been properly handled rather than going again and again on the negotiating table when things get hot on the roads of Kashmir and betraying the hopes of the people by slowly stepping back from the initial claims. As far as the UN resolutions are concerned, which is the prime route Pakistan intends to take to resolve the conflict, it seems that since the UN has failed miserably for the last 68 years, expecting it to intervene and resolve the issue ahead is nothing but self-deception. It can be safely stated without any exaggeration that UN has been an absolutely useless platform when it comes to issues related to the Muslim world which include nations like Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, chachnya, Syria, Libya etc.

Similarly, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has always discussed this issue but never taken any practical steps for its resolution. It could have become a strong force in dealing with resolving conflicts of the Muslim world by using its massive influence. But it chose to remain an incapable platform. Now then, with negotiations, we are losing Kashmir, the UN and OIC are not doing anything about it. We have also tried small military operations like Gibraltor and Kargil and have failed in them miserably because of lack of political will.

Having said that, it seems that in order to seriously liberate Indian occupied Kashmir, a sound political and military strategy is required with a sincere and determined will. Secondly, any demotivating claims like “India and Pakistan are both nuclear states and therefore we cannot do much about military solution with India” are outcomes of a politically weak mindset. Have we not seen two nuclear superpowers in cold war where America came out triumphed? Secondly, have we not seen how India took out Bangladesh from Pakistan? Why is it not possible then with a serious visionary leadership to turn the tide of history?

The question would still remain, What if we do get the Indian occupied Kashmir, can the current Pakistani regime yield to the demands of the Kashmiri people? The Pakistani regime is already responsible for massive atrocities on its own people in places like Balochistan, Fata region, Karachi etc. Will the people of Kashmir really accept such an attitude from Pakistan? Or would they then demand independence and would be dealt with the same fate as that of the people of Bangladesh?

And finally, let us assume, we give up the “sha rag” and India gives up the “Atoot Ang” and both nations decide to let Kashmir become an independent state. Would that be really good for the Kashmiris or would they become colony of either India or Pakistan or china because of inability to take a firm stance in front of these giant neighbours? Consequently, it means that an independent Kashmir would also not prosper much, would remain in turmoil and therefore will not be in a position to make its own destiny.