Pakistan - Articles

The New Prime Minister

On Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali becoming the Prime Minster, Dawn cautions in its editorial (“An uncertain start,� 22 November 2002) “he did not get the 180 votes which his backers had predicted for him but actually managed to scrape through with just a one vote majority. Over a dozen members did not take part in voting for various reasons, and going by the trend, Mr Jamali's position should be reinforced in the coming days…. Mr Jamali is the country's first prime minister from Balochistan, and this distinction should make him more conscious of his responsibility to guard the interests of the backward regions of the country as well as the underprivileged sections of society. Mr Jamali comes to office carrying a great burden on his broad shoulders. The skullduggery that created his party and which subsequently ensured his majority means that he will be constantly under pressure to prove his credentials before what appears to be the largest parliamentary opposition in Pakistan's history.�

What would the women MPs, “the first largest parliamentary debutant group in the political history� of Pakistan, who form one fifth of the total strength of the House, do? Ghani Chaudhry, writes (“Agenda for women MPs,� Dawn, 18 November 2002) that “much as the women MPs would try to tackle problems facing the womenfolk they perhaps would not go beyond scratching the surface. The vices are too deep-rooted in the social fabric to be weeded out in a five-year term. Maybe their effort becomes the starting point of a crusade to rid the women of the shackles of ignorance, poverty and discriminatory traditions.�

To the question “how will history remember President Musharraf's three years of rule?,� Roedad Khan answers (“What a mess we are in,� Dawn, 18 November 2002) that “he was no crusader; no Tribune of the people, no enemy of entrenched privileges; that he held a dubious referendum to enable himself to rule for another five years; that he allowed blatant use of the administration and official machinery in the election in support of the king's party; that he denied the people the right to elect their president in accordance with the Constitution; that he disfigured and mutilated the Constitution of Pakistan; that he promised a great deal and delivered very little.�

Aimal Kasi – A Martyr?

Dawn on the funeral procession of Mir Aimal Kasi, who was executed in the United States for murdering two CIA agents reported on 19 November 2002, “Hundreds of supporters wearing headbands inscribed with the words "Aimal Kasi, Martyr" greeted the flight, shouting angry slogans to denounce the US over the execution and hailing Kasi as a martyr… crowds outside the airport gate chanted, "We are proud of you Kasi," and, "Down with the US." Others chanted, "We will take revenge", "We will continue Kasi's mission."

The News quoted Kasi’s brother Hameedullah (“Kasi’s body reaches home,� 19 November 2002) saying that his brother had "lived like a brave man and died with no regrets". "His death will not help America. Hatred against the US will increase in the Muslim world." Dawn further reported on 20 November 2002, “This was the largest mourning in the history of Quetta... The football ground of the Ayub Stadium was jam-packed with people belonging to all walks of life…Traders and business community observed complete strike in the city and hoisted black flags on their shops. Protest processions were taken out by different organizations. Various youth organizations took out protest procession, which although were highly charged but remained calm and peaceful�

Ahmad Faruqui, traces “the roots of anti-Americanism,� (Daily Times, 19 November 2002) to the US double standards in removing weapons of mass destruction, following UN Security Council resolutions and promoting democracy. According to him, “The US has not questioned Israel’s right to have them, because in its view, Israel would only use them in justifiable self-defence…There is no pressure on Israel to implement Resolution 242 of 1967. The US had implicitly legitimized Israel’s illegal 35-year old occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza, since such it has a right to have safe and secure borders. Other nations that invade their neighbours have to withdraw immediately… Most of the repressive regimes in the Muslim world � the Gulf Kingdoms, Egypt and Jordan � are propped up by the US. In the early nineties, when the FIS Islamist party in Algeria won the national elections, it was banned because the US suspected that it would hold no further elections. A few years ago, an Islamist Prime Minister in Turkey was removed from office and his party banned by the US-backed Turkish military. The democratically elected government in Teheran is viewed with suspicion because it pursues an independent foreign policy.�

Burhanuddin Hasan, on the same issue comments that (“Resurgence of Osama,� The News, 20 November 2002) “most acts of terrorism against the US were committed by Arab Muslims not because it is a Christian country but because of misguided policies of President Bush against Palestinians and the people of Iraq and Iran which have caused outrage throughout the Muslim world.�

In its editorial “Pakistan-DPRK connection,� Daily Times argues (19 November 2002) that the visit of Abdul Qadeer Khan to Pyongyang “cannot substitute for hard evidence…Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, the issue boils down to one state’s word against another’s. That’s just not good enough. We suggest the international experts would be better off accepting Islamabad’s word on the issue. Further, as these experts know, no state possessing nuclear or missile capabilities can be entirely absolved of the charge of proliferation.�