Articles and letters may be edited for the purposes of clarity and space. They are published in good faith with a view to enlightening all the stakeholders. However, the contents of these writings may not necessarily match the views of the newspaper.
Dual nationals eligibility for elections
I belong to a family whose forefathers struggled for the creation of Pakistan under the dynamic leadership of Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal for a modern democratic welfare state for all citizens, irrespective of their faith, creed, ethnicity or sex. My heart bleeds to see the chaos this country has been plunged into by the mediocrity that has been at helm, who have compromised our security and refused to respect the vision of our Founding Fathers.
I fail to understand why individuals who have on oath “renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any state of which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen” be considered eligible to contest elections in Pakistan, after revoking their loyalty to it. How can dual-nationals have right to represent people with whom they are not willing to live and share their undivided commitment to what people of Pakistan consider as their motherland? An individual can only have loyalty for one country and faith in one religion.
As Muslims, we must understand the importance of an oath, because the recitation of Kalema by a non-Muslim is all that is needed to enter the faith. The argument that those who have pledged on oath their loyalty to another country and its constitution, will renounce their foreign nationality only if elected is shocking. These individuals have pledged to “bear arms on behalf of the US when required by law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the US when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction”, should never be eligible to decide the fate of 220 million people. Please don’t compromise our sovereignty.
MALIK TARIQ ALI
Idealism vs realism
A hot debate is still continuing on the entire social media about the Iqbal’s monument constructed in a public park. There are numerous voices against and in favour of the situation. I think it must be cleared in theoretical concepts and this dilemma should be solved. A perspective in favour of monument building is proving its stance by highlighting the impressive art of a “poor mali” and honouring the “Iqbal’s personality”. I think it is a way in which one can pay homage to the work which is endorsed by one’s mind. Another perspective is against the situation and debating by calling it unacceptable and blasphemous.
Both are representing the idealism and realism according to their own mindset, knowledge, and perceptions. All are right but I think that it is an issue related to the state. State should not remain silent on the situation by only ordering the removal of the monument. A strict policy should be made for the preservation of the integrity of “national figures” and if it is necessary to build, only state should be authorised, and keen observation and well debated policy should be observed before the action.
AMMAR UL HASSAN
After the Single National Curriculum for educational institutions in Pakistan, the Federal Government is planning to take over the control of issuing Domicile & Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) through NADRA.
Accordingly, the Pakistan Citizenship Bill 2021 was moved in the National Assembly to modify Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 in order to authorize NADRA to make domicile and PRC in the country. The mover informed that NADRA is already issuing birth certificates so NADRA may be empowered to issue domicile and PRC. He was of the opinion that the matter of bogus domicile can be stopped as NADRA is having the birth record.
A few members of National Assembly opposed the bill and stated that it is the right of provinces to issue domiciles. Government instead of seizing such a right from the provinces should think of the ways to stop bogus domiciles to protect rights of the youth. Most of the members favoured the bill and unanimously approved it.
SAJID HUSSAIN CHANDIO
It is no wonder to have a dog and not any issue to carry it in the vehicle as well. Things discussed here are government’s vehicle, exchequer’s money and surprising police squads with it. It is the same PTI which criticized VIP culture while being in opposition. Today, it crosses one step forward, the same party enjoying extra immunities. Reports are circulating on social media regarding the dog alone with driver enjoying in vehicle of Governor House having police squads behind.
We live in a society where people change with the slight time. They have different opinions and views before being in power and extremely different after being in power. Mr. Khan used to hold press conferences on very little things against his opponents a few years ago. He has no time to check what his party’s members are doing. PTI in the past talked to demolish the palatials of government office bearers. It has remained the thing of the past. They are even crossing the step forward and showing the public that their dogs have more facilitates than people of the country.
FARAZ ALI SHAH