A mandate for miseries?

Kadar Khan

PM Gilani during a press conference asked media to unearth the conspiracy against the political leadership. Emphasis all along was having a mandate by the nation and therefore the right to complete five years of the tenure. It doesn’t matter even if people are having hard time surviving a day but they must wait for next three and half years and at that point they can vote them out! PM Gilani stated that PPP led government is working in accordance with its manifesto to serve the people of the country. The people are suffering with high inflation, unemployment, no food, no power and with out security. If this is the manifesto than PM Gilani is right on track! In that case people have not given the mandate for their misery! Therefore the right to serve the nation depends on the performance and must be earned everyday of the week! Year and half is already lost in pathetic performance now no time for long or short marches and tripping around. And rather than worrying about the mandate and the right to complete five years PM Gilani and his team should work hard to solve the problems of the nation. Once the conditions started getting better in country the people can see for themselves! —Via email

Afghan polls

Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal

Even as millions in Afghanistan voted despite NATO forces still occupying their nation killing defenseless Muslims, all Afghans certainly feel gloomy about their future. Election officials have estimated turnout at between 40 and 50% of Afghanistan’s 15 million registered voters, which, if confirmed, would be well down on the 70% who voted in the first presidential election, in 2004. In total, voter turnout appeared weaker than in the country’s first election in 2004. A leading group of election observers say there was widespread voting fraud and intimidation during the presidential election in Afghanistan. Stuffed ballot boxes, illiterate voters being told who to vote for and biased officials were cited by Afghanistan’s Free and Fair Election Foundation.

Pre-election opinion polls suggested Hamid Karzai was leading the field of candidates but might face a run-off with Abdullah. With a view to boosting the chances for Karzai, NATO unleashed terror to terrorize the voters thinking the Taliban are doing it. Many people stayed away, however, especially in the Taliban’s southern heartland. Since voters in the south were expected to back Karzai, poor turnout there increases the chance of a run-off.

Final results are due to be released in September. If neither candidate wins an outright majority of 50%, then the vote goes to a second round in October. NATO military forces did host the polls, despite at least 26-additional Muslim deaths resulting from election-linked violence. The incumbent Hamid Karzai and his main rival Abdullah Abdullah say both have won the presidency to support the NATO genocides in the country. The leading contenders have said they will not incite street protests if they lose. With the outcome still unpublished and both sides claiming victory, both gave the assurance to the US special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke to respect the result. President Obama has not yet announced the NATO would quit Afghanistan soon after ht poll by placing a regime in Kabul.

During election, government officials in Afghanistan asked the media to not report on violence. But it wasn’t only the true extent of the violence that remained murky. The fact is that the handling of the votes also demands independent verification. It’s hard to see anything positive in the fact that complaints about multiple voting and voter coercion were already piling up on the same day as the election. What is clear is that the enthusiasm sparked by the presidential election five years ago has given way to a climate of insecurity and anxiety”.

NATO still finds it hard now to ensure the victory of their puppet Karzai - who is unpopular in the country and hence poll frauds are alarming- in the first round itself. The prospect of an election dispute has led to fears of unrest, especially if it takes on an ethnic or regional character in a country where competing groups have often taken up arms. The best possible assessment of the electoral exercise in Afghanistan was put succinctly by one of the opposition candidates, former planning minister Ramadan Bashardost: “This is not an election. This is a comedy.” —India

US intentions: Real or fake?

S R H Hashmi

It is claimed in certain quarters that those of us who express grave doubts about the real intentions of the US and its accomplices in this region are basically rumour-mongers, who are unnecessarily creating this scare. I would like them to consider the following points: The US and Britain, headed by two born-again Christians George Bush and Tony Blair did attack Iraq on charges which they knew to be false / deliberately exaggerated. What is even worse is that these two men show absolutely no remorse for their action and even before the winding up of Iraq operation, they descended on Afghanistan. Like in Iraq, they have already started revising their objective for being in Afghanistan.

Quite recently, Israel said it regards Pakistan as an even greater threat than Iran. Now, the US and Israel are basically two sides of the same coin. Israel exercises sufficient control over the US through the majority of US officials and lawmakers in both houses who come through the filtration process applied by the Israeli lobby. There is absolutely no doubt what the US will do, specially when it regards the security of Israel even more important than that of its own. Being under Israel’s thumb, it cannot dare displease or disobey Israel.

It was in the news that the US Immigration Services show Balochistan as an independent country on its form. It was also reported that in an article published in the US Armed Forces Journal, some countries were described as ‘unnatural countries’ whose borders need adjustment, and Pakistan was included in the list. According to the proposed map, Pakistan’s tribal areas will be merged with Afghanistan, Balochistan will become an independent state and the remainder will comprise a very much trimmed Pakistan, deprived of the vast mineral and other resources in Balochistan and the tribal areas. The US is trying to promote India as a major power in the region and both the US and Israel are on very close terms with India. So, you see, the US, India, Israel and Afghanistan, are all bent on harming us in furtherance of their goals, and in this, they also have the active support of hunting dogs from other European countries. Now, should I take it that being great humanitarians, they are making these sacrifices in men and material just to help us? The facts and signs of things to come are all there to enable us make correct judgment. If we still bury our heads in sand and fail to take any corrective action, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences. —Karachi

In defence of Ijtehad

Col Riaz Jafri (R)

I tend to agree with Dr Rubina Mumtaz to what she says in response to Dr.Muzzafar Iqbal’s article “Pervasive Secularism” (29 August), that there is need for Ijtehad in the 21st century rather than following (All) decisions of the 12th century scholars blindly in Taqleed.

In addition to the (All) added above by me, I have yet another question to ask. Who all could do Ijtehad? According to the clergy it is only the Islamic scholars who can do it. Allama Iqbal suggests it is the parliament (masses through their representatives) who can and should do it. I, however, think that given the advancement in every field, especially the science and technology since the doors of Ijtehad were last closed eight centuries ago, there is a need for the knowledgeable masters of respective subjects, like religion(s), commerce and economics, trade and Industry, health and medicine, biology, microbiology and marine biology, science and technology, space and planets, etc. who should give their decision on an issue under dispute which should then be placed in front of the Committee of the Mujtehads for their consideration and final verdict.

For example a space scientist would be the most suited person to say as to how someone could or could not maintain his Qayyam (facing the holy Ka’ba during the prayers).during space travel. Similarly only a marine biologist could verify eating of a sea creature found at 20,000 fathoms safe for human consumption or not after chemically analyzing its meat in the laboratory, which could determine it to be haram or hillal Now, such masters of the subjects may not necessarily be always Muslims. The big question arises, will their findings be acceptable to our theologians?—Rawalpindi
 

Indo-US deal

Saba Nisar

On December 18, 2006 US President Bush signed the legislation that allowed civilian nuclear cooperation between India and the United States. The deal received a large and bi-partisan support in the congressional circles, but it did meet criticism, both inside and outside the US. Most of the criticism has, however, focused on global implications especially for Pakistan. A strong argument against the deal was that it would seriously undermine the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and would encourage other countries to embark upon the path of nuclear weapon development programs. Pakistan, on the contrary, did express its fear that civil nuclear deal has the potential of triggering a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Indo-US deal was an unprecedented agreement, which entitled a non-NPT state to purchase nuclear fuel from 45 member states of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) without joining NPT. Pakistan, being a nuclear weapon State, has already expressed concerns about the effect of this treaty on the security environment of region. India like Pakistan is not the signatory of NPT, Pakistan has the same claim and expectations for international cooperation under safeguards for nuclear power generation, especially because Pakistan is a fossil fuel deficit country and has a significant and fully safeguarded nuclear power generation program. It was said by Pakistani intellectuals that it was necessary for US Government to inform Pakistan about the deal while it was in the works. It was stated by US secretary of state that “Indian deal was a unique deal with a unique country”.

The Indo-US deal would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactor. This agreement is a win-win situation from the Indian point of view. India will be able to build more nuclear power plants. This is a strong indication that Pakistan would be forced to expand its nuclear arsenal and perfect its delivery system in order to correct the strategic imbalance, which the Indo-US deal is likely to create.

China is not included in the South Asian region; Yet, India claims its (Indian) nuclear weapon development program is closely related to its threat perception emanating from China. There is already close cooperation between Pakistan and China in the civilian nuclear energy with speculations that disappointed by the US refusal to agree to civilian nuclear cooperation similar to the one provided under the Indo-US deal, Pakistan is trying to clinch an agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with China. The Indo-US deal gives the lesson to other countries to break the rules as well.—Rawalpindi

Quetta

Muzaffarabad

Online Edition