Arshad Mahmood’s column on Nawaz Sharif’s Meesaq-e-Pakistan and Mubarik Haider’s response
Mubarik Haider’s Response:
I wish to appreciate the conciliatory stance taken by Mr. Waseem Altaf. Even worthier is his emphasis on evidential logic and on the need for intellectually honest discourse. Let me add another emphasis: correction of concepts through modest acceptance of error.
This needs self criticism and readiness to learn, which virtues are not available to those of us who have acquired exaggerated self image.
Those of us born and bred in Muslim societies, have an unconscious tendency toward narcissism and aggressive self assertion. This seriously retards objective thinking and hampers agreement.
Since Muslim masses and their intelligentsia lagged behind the world after about the 14th century AD and lost power as a result of their intellectual laziness, while retaining their high self image as the best of mankind, they, therefore, developed hostile attitudes to the world which they never tried to understand objectively. This gave birth to several ills including the assertive ego and quarrelsome styles of thinking . Almost all of us have these tendencies even when we have access to modern scientific ways of learning. This may, perhaps, explain why we readily accept a compliment but feel deeply hurt over a disagreement.
It is encouraging to see that many of us have started asking for solutions to the present crisis which is no more limited to Pakistan but spills over to the world from its borders.
Colonel Naeem thinks he has a solution. Mr. Butt thinks he has another. Mr. Arshad Mahmood believes his dismissal of all entities in Pakistan, except Nawaz Sharif, with a stronger debunking of PPP from Z.A. Bhutto to Asif Zardari is the solution. He seems to share his teacher’s (Mr. Butt’s) hatred of Bhutto and admiration of Ayyub Khan.
But perhaps there is no hasty solution possible. One simple reason is: we do not have the instruments to implement our proposed solutions?
I feel the maximum that we can do is to form a serious forum for intellectual change. This has its own requirements. But nothing seems to be attainable without thoroughly thrashed intellectual positions.
My dear Arshad Mahmood, who is doing apparently good work, seems to have an urgent commission. I feel he unwittingly supports those who are in a hurry to overthrow the present coalition in Pakistan. But unfortunately, this overthrow can bring no substantial relief to the crisis. The proposed solution of a new constitution, with Nawaz Sharif as the guiding star, will only reward us with a new military set up.
Although I have not known him for long, yet I do not doubt Mr.Arshad Mahmood’s integrity. But, judging by what he is writing in his columns, I have serious doubts about his political understanding and his concepts of social dynamics. Since he has an opportunity to express views in press, his responsibility grows manifold. I have a request for him: please balance your feet before you hit and carefully consider the potential outcome when you dismiss the available.
Who are the stakeholders in Sharif’s ‘Charter of Pakistan’? by Mazhar Arif
Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif has been advocating for a national agenda which he calls the ‘Charter of Pakistan’. He claims the panacea he has been suggesting is “the only solution to all the evils ailing the country”.
One cannot question the sincerity and earnest desire of Sharif to make the country stable and prosperous. But his identification of stakeholders is rather intriguing. Perhaps, because of finding himself in a secluded, political space and the fear of being left alone in political wilderness, Sharif has been grappling with ideas to keep his support in particular classes and groups intact. Certainly, he has a support base in the so-called educated urban, social and economic middle-classes in big cities of Punjab, who could be receptive to the idea, or rhetoric, of the national agenda developed with the consent of armed forces, the judiciary and the media.
The stakeholders he has identified, besides political forces i.e. the army, judiciary, the civil society, the media etc., comprise urban middle-classes with specific thoughts and an ideology regarding the Pakistani state and polity. The judiciary, the so-called civil society and the media, in particular, have emerged as new power centres in the country during the past few years, overshadowing, in fact, challenging, the power of the masses.
Ironically, Sharif has included the armed forces in the stakeholders to chalk out a national agenda for 25 years. Perhaps he forgot that the role of the armed forces in politics was denied in the Charter of Democracy, signed by him along with slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto. When asked whether formulation of the proposed national agenda would be something extra-constitutional, he vaguely responded that the supremacy of the constitution and the parliament would be maintained.
But the question is: Who are the real stakeholders in a democracy? Only the masses! Who are the creators of the parliament and subsequently of the constitution and hence their guardian? The people of Pakistan! If anyone desires to rewrite the social contract i.e. the constitution, he or she will have to seek the will of the people of different regions, both rural and urban, and of different cultures, languages and identities, and will have to develop a modus operandi to know their aspirations.
The mother of “all the evils ailing the country” is denial by the state, or by the establishment controlling all the affairs of the state, of cultural, economic, political and constitutional rights of the regions and peoples constituting the State of Pakistan. Workers, peasants, women and minorities make up the majority in the country, and they are also the stakeholders of any national agenda being chalked out in their name. Without their participation, no agenda could be dubbed as ‘national’. If people do not matter, why should a nation matter? An agenda prepared by interest groups or power brokers can prolong the status quo but cannot bring any qualitative change in the lives of the people.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2010.
واضح رہے کہ سابق وزیراعظم میاں نواز شریف نے چند روز قبل کہا تھا کہ ملک کو خراب صورتحال سے نکالنے کے لیے ’میثاق پاکستان‘ کی ضرورت ہے جو پچیس سال کا ایجنڈا ہو۔ ان کے مطابق تمام سیاسی جماعتوں، عدلیہ، فوج اور میڈیا کو مل کر یہ ایجنڈا طے کرنا چاہیے۔
ان کے اس بیان پر بعض حلقوں نے تنقید کی کہ نواز شریف کی تجویز انیس سو تہتر کے آئین اور میثاق جمہوریت کی نفی ہے کیونکہ آئین میں فوج، میڈیا یا عدلیہ کا کوئی سیاسی کردار نہیں ہے۔
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/11/101102_pm_speech_a.shtml
Good idea, academically. But practically it would be next to impossible to be implemented in this country. First of all who will decide who all are the stake holders ?
Every tom dick and harry would like to be included in the list of stake holders. Secondly, will all the stake holders agree on one agenda ? I doubt.
The PML-N leadership, including Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif, engaged in massive criticism of the PPP, especially President Asif Ali Zardari, during the last couple of months. However, it did not articulate the strategies to get rid of this government. Unable to muster the required number in the National Assembly to remove the federal government or Zardari, the PML-N leadership hoped that the Supreme Court would deliver a judgment either to knock out Zardari or embarrass the federal government to the extent of paralyzing it. It is understandable that the PML-N has declared support to the Supreme Court and advised the federal government to respect the court and implement its judgments. This disposition is different from how Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif dealt with the Supreme Court during their years in power between 1997 and 1999. The Supreme Court was attacked by the Sharif loyalists to delay the contempt of court proceedings against Nawaz Sharif. Later developments, including the ouster of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, are well known.
So, whats bad respecting ?
air jordan tees http://www.vskforum.com/?pageid=3686