For, updated report, click here:
Ansar Abbasi with his venom against Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar….
It is interesting to note that in November 2008, conscience of the Editorial Board of the Jang Group made them to publish a concocted, maligning story against Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar, however, in 2006, the same Editorial Board of the Jang Group decided to censor a story against the then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Read details here by clicking on the following link:
Ansar Abbasi’s story against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s corruption in 2006:
There are a few questions:
1. Why double standards by the Jang Group to publish one story while censoring another story (of a corruption case of a higher order) filed by the same correspondent.
2. It seems that Ansar Abbasi, the notorious Jamaat-e-Islami stooge, yellow journalist, could not find any substantial case of corruption against Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar. Therefore, in breach of all moral and ethical principles, he used an ordinary application of rechecking of papers by a school girl for mud-slinging against Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar.
3. Is the Jang Group being blackmailed by enemies of democracy, the supporters of Mullah, the Jamaat-e-Islami lobby? Or have they been bribed to be selective and biased in their reporting of events?
4. Whose payroll is Ansar Abbasi on? He is a notorious right-winger, a supporter of Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is not hard to believe that his sources of funding lie outside Pakistan.
Shame on you Ansar Abbasi. Shame on you Jang Group.
Our special daughters
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
WHEN the Editorial Board of the Jang Group decided after long and very intense discussions that we should publish the story of the special daughter, it was a difficult decision as there was immense pressure coming from all sides, including the movers and shakers of the God-gifted Republic of Pakistan and even some elements within our own house. That the people, at all levels, got involved in an otherwise straight story exposing blatant misuse of authority and position, was surprising. It was argued at senior and powerful levels that this story should not be published because it involved the career of a daughter, a young student who was trying to improve her chances of making her life more meaningful and productive. It was hammered on us that publication of one such case would not change the destiny or the prevalent system in the country. We were repeatedly reminded that authority is always used in the developing and the Third World countries in a similar manner and not much would change with this one episode, even if it is splashed on the pages of the print media. Attempts were made to emotionally blackmail us as it would ruin the life and career of a young and innocent lady.
We considered all these arguments before we decided to go ahead with the story. Our Editorial Board did not agree with most of these arguments, except the one that such misuse of authority is common in Banana Republics. We weighed the pros and cons and when it was clear to us that by unduly favouring the career of one young Pakistani, we would, by design, be ruining the careers of thousands of other similarly placed young boys and girls, not linked to powerful and mighty high-ups in our political or judicial systems, the verdict was unanimous: we must do our best to stop this injustice, we must throw the first stone and we must show the mirror to those who sit in judgment, deciding life and death matters every day, but when it comes to the future and careers of their own kith and kin, they behave like men of straw.
We believe that this one case of extraordinary favour to the special daughter of a top judicial person will make the rest of us feel belittled and slighted. We believe that the injustice done to hundreds and thousands of others who could not get such special treatment will be undone. We believe that someone somewhere will feel the guilt and come clean with the nation. We hope someone somewhere will resign and reinforce our belief that we can become a nation of honest people where justice can prevail. We hope all our daughters will become special.
CJ’s daughter has a head start over thousands
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: In what could become a mass denial of rights of thousands of students throughout the country, the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (FBISE) Islamabad has illegally awarded extra marks and upgraded the examination results of the daughter of the country’s top judge.
In indecent haste and under direct written orders of the chairman FBISE, relaxing and violating all rules and even some judgments of the Supreme Court, the FSc result of student Farah Hameed Dogar was jacked up from 640 marks in Grade ‘C’ to 661 marks in Grade ‘B’, thus making her eligible to apply for admission into any medical college in the country.
Documentary evidence available with The News, background interviews and on the record discussions with concerned officials of the FBISE establish that the Islamabad Board went out of its way in the case of Farah Hameed Dogar by fast forwarding the entire process of re-checking, re-assessing and even re-marking her examination papers to her advantage and superceding thousands of other candidates who had obtained marks between 642 and 660.
Sources close to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, however, insisted that no influence was used by the chief justice in his daughter’s case and if the Board had taken some action, they must have done it under the rules or under powers vested with the Board’s chairman….
November 25th, 2008
Don’t get too excited, there is not going to be a press release from Dogar as my dear friends are naively expecting. This kind of nepotism is not new is it? And we have somewhat have become to accept it….
No disrespect to Iftikhar Ch but he did the same thing for his son as well…
Samad Khurram Says:
November 25th, 2008
Dogar’s daughter’s marksheet is here:
1) The allegation was sifarish, and not tampering with education system of Pakistan in case of Iftikhar Chaudhry.
2) The government’s prosecution team dropped the charges before the SC because they could not substantiate this. However the news did detailed analysis of this before publishing it.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
@samad: In the case of AH Dogar also, Charges are the same i.e. Sifarish. As, under law, one can apply for the re-checking of his/her papers, and the checking authority can increase the marks if he/she considers so. And here in this case, the undersigned authority is the Controller of Exams, which is a lawful authority. Therefore it is not the case of tampering.
It is very difficult to prove the allegations of Sifarish in the court of law, as mostly sifarish is done through verbal means.
CJ Iftikhar’s son later requested to send him back to his original department, which means that he accepted there was something ‘unsual’ in his case.
P.S. I fully support independence of judiciary movement.