Karachi needs SC action
Pakistan’s sophists never missing an opportunity to make controversies on any point were busy questioning the Supreme Court’s authority to meddle in purely administrative matters which in their view were the responsibility of the Provincial government, even when the positive reaction to the Chief Justice holding the Enquiry in the Killings in Karachi was so obvious. After the Supreme Court intervened it is revealed that all the political parties have their killers, torture cells and arsenals, some catches of arms were located right in the offices of the political parties. This meant that only under a neutral party like Supreme Court such facts could be detected. There was a public demand for the Army to take over Karachi because public did not trust the local administration or law and order officials. There is no such thing left under the present political- so called democratic- regime as a neutral independent police officer. Now after Chief Justice’s intervention through an Enquiry into the affairs of Karachi, the investigation have been channeled into professional lines with no favourites and not doctored in favour of any group or against any.. This introduction of objectivity in the local administration is entirely due to the intervention of the Supreme Court in the investigation the Karachi happenings which has ordered raids in all areas , irrespective of any affiliation, arrest of suspects without regard to political affiliations..
Unfortunately, in Sind the administration is heavily infiltrated by party favourites. When MQM was heading Home Department they filled it with their favourites and when PPP took over Home Department, which controls law and order apparatus and police, they filled it with their nominees and partisans. Without an independent law and order apparatus, which the Rangers commanded by a military officer, working under the Army supervision alone can provide Administration cannot have confidence of the public, Chief Justice reputation has instilled confidence that such an independent neutral apparatus is possible. But even then it is a hope and future will show whether this objective could be achieved once temporarily law and order has been restored in Karachi. The Rangers have described the task of law enforcement more difficult in Karachi than in the Northern areas. But if establishment of peace and restoration of normalcy is possible it can be achieved only by the Supreme Court directives.
During the debate on Altaf’s statement the need to have a non party and thus neutral person as Governor of Sind was stressed . He should have control over law and order in Karachi – and suggestion were made that some highly respected retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may be appointed Governor. Perhaps appointment of such a person might be helpful in bringing peace in Karachi. It is not necessary to comment on the entire speech of MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain . Yet, we may comment on two remarks observations in the speech viz., his statement that Super Powers are planning to break Pakistan. This has been substantiated by the Map published in some American journals and news papers some time ago. There is much substance in support of Altaf;s statement. Some half baked so-called experts on international affairs claim that such writings are not worthy of taking seriously as an evidence of a plan to break Pakistan. In their view such writings are personal opinions of journalists. These half baked experts are living in a make belief world regarding how US launches new policy.
There is a close cooperation between some writers of note and State Department. When a new policy is to be made and implemented, first its head is raised in writings of those columnist who are close to the State Department and in the know of the thinking of the policy makers like Secretary of State etc , Presidency or C I A.. They start a series of articles selling that point to the American public and the implementation of the policy begins. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilization” and such other researches are a proof of this practice. US is deeply involved in Baluchistan and through its operations in Jabl-us Siraj is indulging in subversion in Baluchistan and now its demand to open consulate/consulates in Baluchsitan has been recently made - What US commercial interests are to be promoted in Baluchistan and how many US citizens are residing in Baluchistan that to protect their interests US need to open a Consulate there? Consulates are NOT for political work but for looking after commercial interests and Americans residing in that area. Certainly there is enough evidence that US is indulging in some scheme of dividing Pakistan into bits. US-NATO are anti Muslim forces and war against Islam is a main plank of US/western powers the recent example of which was toppling of Qaddafi regime in Libya with local traitors working as their cut outs..
The other point is Mr Altaf’s statement that Pakistan history is wrongly written in Pakistani books . He thinks that Quaid was a secularist ( and not thus NOT a believer in Two Nations which he presented as justification for creation of Pakistan from Lahore Resolution) We the generation of what was the student leadership in Pakistan Movement were around Quaid and Liaquat on all important occasions. If what Altaf says that Quid was not for theocracy or a Mulla controlled state he is only saying what Aligarh Movement which was the soul of Pakistan Movement has stood for. It meant non-Muslims were not to be treated as Muslims were to be treated if Muslims had accepted one Indian National identity. Quaid’s speeches are a-plenty on what two nation reality meant and Liaquat has stressed on it during his American visit in May 1950 in which he has explained “Islamic way of Life” with equal rights for the minority and that Pakistan will not be a theocracy. These speeches are available in Harvard University publication “ Pakistan Heart of Asia” ( published in 1951). The 11 August 1947 speech at Karachi was only an enunciation of state policy of a liberal Pakistan but not denial of Muslim nation concept. Quaid has stressed through out his career separate identity of Muslims,- “Millat”- as a nation and so the question arose what was to be the position of minorities? Even the Lahore Resolution of 23 March 1940 assures minorities equal rights in the new state If Secularism was acceptable to the Quid why the Muslims went for a separate home land.
Let me quote Liaquat . “Islamic way of life has been on many occasions misinterpreted” and “misconstrued as religious intolerance, theocratic rule, return to medievalism and so on”. “I wish to make ‘it clear we have no theocratic state in mind, no special privileges of citizenship for Muslims in our country. We abhor the idea of applying any religious or cultural coercion to our non-Muslim nationals. But we firmly believe that our religion has taught us certain principles of social and economic justice whose application in statecraft is bound to promote human welfare”. (National Press Club, Washington, 4 May, 1950- p 12). He repeats this explanation of Islamic way of life at many other places in his speeches in US”. “There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns.. coercion, ... It believes in the equality of all men”, (p4 of “Pakistan the Heart of Asia”). No one knew Quaid’s mind better than Liaquat, his right hand man in Pakistan struggle and after six decades Altaf Hussain’s statement about teaching wrong history of Pakistan, has no significance.