Newspaper Articles

MQM’s strange recipe to end feudalism -by Riaz Missen

The MQM, which often complains of Taliban’s growing presence in Karachi and is unhappy for being unable to convince its coalition partners to retain the local government system of the Musharraf era at least in Sindh, has surprised everybody by suggesting an unthinkable remedy for the country’s ills that every parliamentarian has only recently vowed to reject and fight back by adopting the 18th Amendment.

The MQM chief Altaf Hussain has publicly urged ‘patriotic generals’ to impose a sort of martial law in the country and bring to an end the hegemony of corrupt politicians and landlords. It immediately caused a political storm. Several politicians belonging to both the coalition government and the opposition have reacted instantly and condemned the statement, calling it irresponsible and mischievous. Civil society has also rejected Altaf Hussain’s utterance and reminded him that democracy is the only way to move forward.

It was during a telephonic address to a gathering of MQM workers in Karachi on Sunday last that Mr Hussain had floated this proposal which his local deputies later insisted was the right step to save the country. The political pundits are in a fix as to what has prompted the leader of the urban-based party to issue such a statement that can lead to dangerous consequences.

However, the Karachi-based MQM leaders are facing difficulty in keeping a bold face to defend what their London-based chief has spoken out in his usual screaming tone a well-calculated policy statement, of which apparently they were not informed in advance and were equally taken aback like other citizens. He was in fact addressing the real stakeholders of power in the country seeking their intervention to put the country’s affairs back on the rail but at a time extremely inappropriate for such an invitation. The country is struggling to overcome effects of the worst ever floods in a century.

The MQM, a coalition partner of the PPP in Sindh and at the Centre and holding some important portfolios in the two cabinets, boasts of being a secular, democratic and liberal party and usually talks of sweeping changes in the current social system to eliminate feudalism and provide greater facilities to the middle and lower middle classes.

At the meting, he also blamed the US for supporting the reactionary feudal classes in Pakistan that have strangulated the masses through their corrupt ways.

In the face of the barrage of criticism by the PML-N, PML-Q, ANP, JUI-F and JI, An MQM Senator told a private news channel that his party was not in favour of derailing democracy and that Altaf Hussain did not mean martial law but something similar to it that would end corruption and bring back the plundered wealth of the nation. He particularly referred to the NRO and demanded across the board action against the looters whether they were politicians, generals or the bureaucrats.

The Peoples Party, which has been accommodative of the concerns of the MQM in its drive to take all the political parties on board to provide moral support to the army in its efforts to eliminate religious militancy from country’s soil, has been careful in its reaction initially but has now strongly criticised Altaf’s views favouring a martial law.

Information minister Qamaruzzaman Kaira has described the statement being against the spirit of the constituion and democracy and hence not acceptable. As compared to the PML-N leaders’ calls for invoking the Article 6 (that deals with the cases of sedition), the PPP leadership used only cautious words and insisted on the importance of saving democracy, for which it had rendered so many sacrifices.

It may be recalled that it was the MQM chief who proposed the name of Asif Ali Zardari for the office of the president. The ‘secular’ credentials of the MQM had been a source of strength for the PPP that had put war on terror on the top of its agenda in its election campaign. The MQM was duly awarded for its support to the PPP: it has a well-deserved share in the provincial (Sindh) and central government portfolios while Ishratul Ibad continues to be the governor of Sindh, originally selected and installed during the Musharraf regime.

There was no problem for the PPP to form a government in Sindh on its own; the PPP would not have needed this party in the centre either if Zardari had offered some exceptional concessions to the PML-N. But keeping the MQM out of the government would have been more problematic for the PPP given this party’s control on the two major cities of the Sindh — Karachi and Hyderabad. Though the MQM secured good share in power in both the Sindh and the Centre but it was more than manifest to its leadership that the abolition of the local government (LG) system would do it the real damage. It had pinned much hopes on the Rabbani-led parliamentary committee and it proposed the redrawing of the provincial boundaries while it supported the provincial autonomy but such a move was defeated.

It was not only the MQM that has been upset by the 18th amendment but a large segment of the population that had attached high hopes with this monumental exercise to correct the anomalies in the law of the land. The ANP wanted to strip the constitution of its ‘Islamic’ credentials that would have really alleviated the sufferings of the religious minorities and made the country more acceptable to the civilised world but the federal law minister spearheaded the move to sabotage this move. The ANP did not press for its demand and remained contented with the renaming of NWFP as Khyber-Pukhtoonkhaw — the other ‘secular’ forces also saw it better to keep quite. Such other forces were the Baloch nationalist parties who wanted a new ‘social contract’ and do away with the present constitution altogether.

While the ANP, PPP and PML-N stood for provincial autonomy, the MQM wanted to condition it with regional concessions: it wanted the LG system intact to ensure its control over Karachi and other urban centres of Sindh which constitute its support base. Hopes of the leadership remain high and it entered into negotiations with the PPP on the issue but its hopes did not materialise. The political atmosphere of Karachi heats up and flares up each time when the Sindh government tries to convey the message that the LG system of the Musharraf era cannot be revived.

The tussle between the MQM and the ANP has caused a heavy loss to the peace, life and property in Karachi, each side claiming deaths of their workers in hundreds whenever there is an exchange of fire. The interior minister and the premier had to rush to Karachi early this month when the murder of MQM’s provincial legislator plunged the city into chaos and anarchy. In current month the ANP has lost one of its leaders. The spiral of violence just goes on.

Altaf Hussein’s call for ‘some sort of martial law’ is a clear message to the US, (Ambassador Bryan D. Hunt met him a few days ago in London), which he has criticised for supporting the feudal lords, not the middle class. In the same vein he has praised India for having a ‘successful’ foreign policy while terming that of his own country as ‘ineffective’. Although he made the call for martial law, he also questioned whether time had not come for refusing to accept America’s dictates.

While the political parties including PML-N, JUI-F and ANP have rejected MQM’s call, the civil society has also come forward in defence of democracy. “We have witnessed time and again that military rule exacerbates ethnic cleavages and separatist tendencies gain currency amongst smaller nationalities under military rule. It is only democracy that can cater to the needs of a country having diverse nationalities and can hold it together.” said a press release of the Centre for Peace and Development Initiative (CPDI) , Islamabad, adding that it “vehemently condemns these invitations to the generals and urges politicians to see beyond narrow parochial and short-term interests.”

Source: DAWN.com

About the author

Junaid Qaiser

10 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • MQM wants to end Feudalism there is no doubt about it but what’s this? Who are these which are supported by MQM, during Musharraf era MQM voted for Jamali [not a clerk]and even recently :

    Sanghar by-polls: MQM withdraws candidate in support of PML-F Sunday, July 11, 2010 By By our correspondent
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=250093

    The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has decided not to field its candidate in the by-elections against the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PLM-F) nominee in Sanghar its policy of reconciliation.
    This was decided by MQM when PML-F leaders led by Imtiaz Ahmed Sheikh called on MQM Coordination Committee at Nine Zero here on Saturday. Sheikh said that the PML-F delegation visited Nine Zero on the advise of the party chief Pir Sahib Pagara. As per the decision, MQM has withdrawn its candidate Ramesh Kumar from Sanghar against PML-F’s candidate Khuda Bux Rajar in NA 235 Sanghar 2. Talking to The News, Sheikh said that this was an attempt towards the continued reconciliation process as per the directives of Pir Pagara. Sheikh also thanked President Asif Ali Zardari who had advised local PPP leaders not to field their candidate against PML-F.

    MQM seeks Pagara’s backing for LG system By Azfar-ul-Ashfaque Friday, 12 Mar, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/local/mqm-seeks-pagaras-backing-for-lg-system-230

    Meeting with Pir Pagara – Later, a delegation of the MQM called on Pir Pagara at his residence and discussed with him issues related to the local government system and the cooperation that has existed between the two parties for the last many years. After meeting the veteran politician and spiritual leader, MQM leader Babar Ghauri told newsmen outside the Kingri House that the MQM delegation had gone there to meet Pir Pagara on the directive of MQM cheif Altaf Hussain.

    MQM, PML-F agree on ‘saving system’ Friday, March 12, 2010 By Fasahat Mohiuddin Karachi http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=228451

    The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PML-F) have resolved to save the present system of local governance (LG), and to ensure that local government polls are held on time. An agreement over the LG system was reached at on Thursday, after two rounds of comprehensive dialogue between leaders of the two parties at Kingri House.

  • PPP Wallah are Land Grabbers but why did MQM nominate Zardari for the Office of President! despite of the fact that Zardari was involved in Corruption cases ??? Zardari is a Fedual so why MQM supported him, MQM is a party of Middle Class but support Wadera and if that was not enough MQM also supported the Waderas of Pir Pagara as well

    MQM to support Zardari for presidential slot: Altaf Monday, August 25, 2008 By our correspondent Karachi [link is dead read in the old newspapers of Jang and The News]

    The coordination committee of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) Rabita Committee will support Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari for the presidential slot, MQM Founder and Chief Altaf Hussain said Sunday. Addressing a general workers’ meeting at the office of the Khidmat-e-Khalq Foundation (KKF), Altaf asked workers whether they approved the decision of the Rabita Committee. The huge gathering endorsed the decision. He also appealed to the Haq Parast people of Punjab to support Zardari and urged Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif to support Zardari for his presidential election and avoid confrontation.

    Hussain said that the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam – Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) and the Awami National Party (ANP) had also announced to support Zardari, who was at the moment the most suitable candidate as his wife had given her life for the restoration of democracy. Benazir Bhutto’s father and brother also sacrificed their lives for democracy, Hussain said. He asked Sharif to avoid any kind of crisis as the need of the hour at the moment was to remain united. Hussain said that after he had extended support to Zardari it was being given an ethnic colour and the PML-N had started opposing the idea.

    Referring to sectarian clashes in D.I. Khan and Parachinar, Hussain said that the MQM could play the role of mediator and bring closer various religious scholars for creating harmony among different sects. He paid tribute to the law-enforcement agencies who are trying to control the highly tense situation in D.I. Khan and Parachinar. He lauded the role of the Adviser to the Prime Minister for Interior Rehman Malik for arranging food and shelter for those people who had migrated. Hussain referred to his past speeches and said they were given a wrong impression and said the MQM was neither against the Pakhtoons nor the ANP. The MQM is against Talibanisation, Hussain said. He stressed that the party would never allow Talibanisation in Sindh, including Karachi as Sindh was the land of Sufis and citizens of this province were peace-loving. He said the people of Karachi were against extremism and any kind of terrorism. He asked the Pakhtoons and the ANP to not get provoked as the MQM was not against them.He also appealed to the well-to-do people to donate generously zakat, fitra and other donations in Ramazan to Khidmat-e-Khalq Foundation (KKF) as this organisation was helping the needy. Hussain’s address from London was simultaneously telecast in 19 cities of Pakistan. A KKF board of trustees was also formed and Dr Farooq Sattar was named its Secretary General.

    Nominations filed for president Wednesday, August 27, 2008
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=16852

    The MQM leader said the political and economic stability should be major priority of all democratic forces as the country was passing through defining circumstances. “MQM chief Altaf Hussain has also appealed to our old ally Mian Nawaz Sharif to review his decision,” Farooq Sattar said.

    Nominations filed for president August 27, 2008 http://elections.com.pk/newsdetails.php?id=657

    Scrutiny of the nomination papers would be conducted on Thursday August 28 at the election commission secretariat by the returning officer Justice (eetd) Qazi Muhammad Farooq. Talking to the media outside the election commission office, MQM deputy convener Farooq Sattar said his party has supported PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari’s candidature for office of the president unconditionally.

    Farooq Sattar said the MQM has supported Zardari just for the cause of democracy and wanted same backing from its former government ally the PML-Q. “A decision on our participation in the ruling coalition is up to the discretion of the allies,” he added. The MQM leader said the political and economic stability should be major priority of all democratic forces as the country was passing through defining circumstances. “MQM chief Altaf Hussain has also appealed to our old ally Mian Nawaz Sharif to review his decision,” Farooq Sattar said.

  • MQM to present land reforms bill: Altaf – Wednesday, September 01, 2010 By our correspondent Karachi He recalled that all these huge lands had been awarded to these feudal lords for serving the British at that time. Hussain said that the details of how much land these feudal lords possessed was barren or cultivable were also being gathered.
    ========================
    Mr Altaf Hussain and MQM are Conveniently forgetting that Mr Altaf Hussain is a “British Citizen” a citizen of a Country which as per Mr. Altaf Hussain had created Feudal Lords in Pakistan for the Services they offered for the British Raj. One wonders what Services Mr Altaf Hussain and MQM have offered to the British Government in 21 Century.

  • MQM to present land reforms bill: Altaf – Wednesday, September 01, 2010 By our correspondent http://www.thenews.com.pk/01-09-2010/karachi/2323.htm
    Karachi He recalled that all these huge lands had been awarded to these feudal lords for serving the British at that time.
    ====================
    Mr Altaf Hussain and MQM are Conveniently forgetting that Mr Altaf Hussain is a “British Citizen” a citizen of a Country which as per Mr. Altaf Hussain had created Feudal Lords in Pakistan for the Services they offered for the British Raj. One wonders what Services Mr Altaf Hussain and MQM have offered to the British Government in 21 Century.

    What’s This? If the services to the British wee so wrong then following may please be explained?

    The Karachi ruling party ‘run like the mafia’ from an office block in London · MQM accused of planning carnage which left 42 dead · Khan calls for leader in UK to face anti-terror charges Declan Walsh in Karachi and Matthew Taylor The Guardian, Saturday 2 June 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/02/uk.pakistan

    What’s This? If the services to the British wee so wrong then following may please be explained?

    The Karachi king After a bloody conflict in Karachi, much-feared political boss Altaf Hussain fled to London, but he is no less powerful in Pakistan Mustafa Qadri
    guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 July 2009 18.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/06/altaf-hussain-karachi-pakistan-london

    With his healthy plume of gravity-defying hair and chunky tinted glasses, Altaf Hussain is as colourful in appearance as his reputation suggests. Perhaps no other Pakistani politician has as big a list of enemies as the one-time cabbie and university student who transformed himself into one of the most feared political bosses in the country. That he has directed his Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) party from the distant shores of the UK since 1994 speaks volumes for his enduring influence in the treacherous political life of Pakistan.

    What’s This? If the services to the British wee so wrong then following may please be explained?

    Running Pakistan’s biggest city – from London By Alastair Lawson BBC News, London Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 May 2007, 11:33 GMT 12:33 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6658231.stm

    At first sight it may appear that there is not much to link a nondescript office block in the heart of north London suburbia with the leadership of one of Pakistan’s most influential political parties. But it is from the somewhat drab streets of the London Borough of Barnet that hundreds of thousands of people in the country’s largest city, Karachi, receive their orders. The “International Secretariat” of the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) is based in the suburb of Edgware, and from the first floor of a grey tower block their leader, Altaf Hussain, addresses huge audiences in the southern port city. Mr Hussain says he lives in London because he fears he would be assassinated if he went back to Pakistan.

  • Zardari is no feudal, he is just a theaf.
    His fortune was nothing before he was married to BB.
    His political fortune was nothing before he has killed BB.

  • Sameer says: – September 1, 2010 at 6:34 am Zardari is no feudal, he is just a theaf.
    ================
    Lets assume you are right which you are not [Zardari is also in the category of Feudal] but why MQM nominated a Thief [you said]??? 🙂

  • But Ansar Abbasi inciting the MQM and trying his best to use MQM [Where is Mustafa Azizabadi who is very fond of writing replies to Ansar Abbasi and composing Poems on the departure of MQM] Read the “Personal Opinion” rather advice of Ansar Abbasi to MQM-PML-N in today’s Jang: Wednesday, September 01, 2010, Ramzan 21, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/sep2010-daily/01-09-2010/main.htm

    A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi – By Mustafa Azizabadi
    Member – Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM http://www.mqm.org/English-News/feb-2009/azizabadi-article07-02-09.htm

    Thursday, February 05, 2009; 2:44 AM….In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee in London on Jan 27, 2009. During the address Mr. Altaf Hussain put a simple question to Mr. Nawaz Shareef vis-à-vis PCO judges. that “what does the Charter of democracy’s article 3, clause (a) & (b) says about those judges who took oath under the PCO and if Mian sahib can answer this question then MQM too would diligently work with them towards the enforcement of Charter of Democracy.”. But in case Mian Nawaz fails to answer the question then it will be morally binding on him and an obligation to reconsider his decision to participate in long march.
    Principally & professionally speaking the answer should have come from Mian Nawaz Shareef. Alas it never came; nevertheless Mr. Ansar Abbasi took upon himself to issue a rejoinder.

    Peoples Party’s Shaheed Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef put their signatures on the Charter of Democracy (COD) comprising of 7 pages, 4 important topics and 36 articles in London on May, 14, 2006. But here we will only talk about the relevant points brought up by Mr. Ansar Abbasi, explained and deliberated upon in the aforementioned column. Mr. Abbasi says that COD’s article 3(a) explains the procedure for appointment of new judges and that Article 3(b) addresses the already appointed judges of higher courts with relevance to their oath taken under PCO.
    Indeed this is true that Article 3 (b) addresses the oath taken by superior courts judges under the PCO and this is exactly said in the COD that “No judge shall take oath under PCO and nor shall he take any oath whose language stands at odds with the 1973 constitution’s defined language for oath of judges”.

    Let’s read the exact text of the relevant Article from the COD. Under Article 3(a) it says “The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: (i). The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.”
    Ansar Abbasi in his column translates it as “The recommendations for the appointment of judges for the superior courts shall be undertaken through a Commission. This commission will comprise of following individuals. 1) The Commission’s chairman shall be a Chief Justice, who has never previously taken oath under PCO”. Mr. Ansar Abbasi himself mentions that “according to this Article Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) Chief Justice cannot become the chairman of this commission which has been entrusted with the task of making recommendations for the appointment of new judges. And for this any chief justice who in past did not take oath under PCO stands eligible to become chairman of this commission”. Our question to Mr. Ansar Abbasi when he openly admits that according to COD’s Article 3(a) Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) CJ cannot become chairman of the commission that will make recommendations for the appointment of judges to superior courts and is not eligible for the task then how can he according to Article 3(a) be eligible to hold the highest and honorable office of the superior court? Knowing this reality in its totality and fully well would it be right and legal to demand his restoration?

    A very amusing point that MR Ansar Abbasi brings forth with regards to Article 3(a) in his column; it says “this sub-article has nothing to do with the current judges and that few people according to a well thought of plan are interpreting Article 3(a) in such a way so as to make the restoration of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial and create confusion in common people”. But after explaining Article 3(a) he says “the authors of COD after much thought did not use the word “The Chief Justice” of Pakistan but used “a chief justice” since they knew that the chief justice of that time and those who will follow as chief justice will be those who took oath under the 2001 PCO”.
    Quite strikingly Mr. Abbasi accepted the fact that in May 2006 this particular Article in the COD was specially included for the chief justice in office at that time and his brother justices who had taken oath under PCO so that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and other justices who took oath under General Pervez Musharraf’s PCO will stand disqualified for appointment as superior court judges. Moreover this is absolutely true that on May 14, 2006 when Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Mian Nawaz Shareef signed the COD, both the leaders had no clue and nor did the senior leadership of two parties knew anything or for that matter the leaders of lawyers movement had any idea that on march 9 a reference would be filed against Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the sitting chief justice of Pakistan, that on November 3 General Musharraf would again impose emergency in the country and that judges would again be required by him to take new oaths under the PCO. As for making Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial, it is those parties who are dragging him into political rallies and processions that are to be blamed. As a justice Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry deserves the respect and protocol that comes with the office. Sadly & with due respect the chief justices and judges of superior courts are not only and strictly prohibited from public appearances, attending or endorsing political rallies and agendas, but even barred from attending private functions of such nature. But the honorable justice thought it right to go ahead with attending political rallies and processions and let the exalted office of chief justice go to the street and let himself become a spectacle on top of being controversial.

    PML (N) leadership came up with the ludicrous argument that PCO’s mention in the COD is with reference to those judges who took oath on November 3, 2007. The question is that when the signatures were being put on charter of democracy on May 14, 2006 it was way before November 3, 2007, then whether PML (N) leadership got the premonition that on November 3, 2007 judges will take oath under the PCO? As per Ansar Abbasi if Article 3(a) of COD has no relevance with current judges or of any consequence to them then who are these particular PCO judges mentioned in the COD, since before January 2000 the PCO came in General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law in 1977 and none of those PCO judges from General Zia’s time were present in the judiciary of 2007. Accordingly it proves that in the COD announced on May 14, 2006 the very mention of PCO refers to the PCO of General Musharraf introduced in January 2000 and those who took oath on it.
    The fact is that in the COD the issue of judges taking oath under PCO has been dealt with utmost seriousness and in Article 3(a) clause (2) with reference to procedure for appointment of judges in superior courts that it clearly says commission that makes recommendations for the appointment of judges, its members shall be Provincial High Court Chief Justices who have never taken oath under PCO. In case the criteria are not met then it will be senior most judges who will be members of the commission and those who have never taken oath under PCO. If in January 2000 there had been no PCO by General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his brother justices not taken oath under the PCO and provided constitutional protection to General Musharraf’s dictatorship, then it is our firm belief that in COD the mention of judges who took oath under PCO and their appointment would not have been mentioned as an Article in order to disqualify them. But on the contrary this would not have been an issue at all.

    Mian Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Husaain Ahmed, Imran Khan and their like minded political leaders, lawyers, Ansar Abbasi and others of same thought look down on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar and judges appointed under the PCO after the emergency of November 3, 2007 and don’t spare a moment in maligning them and consider them unconstitutional. Mian Nawaz Sharif has taken the extreme position of not recognizing them and has not hesitated in using derogatory and uncouth language such as “anti-state elements”, “traitors” and ”anti-Pakistan” and keeps using it in public. We have one question to all the above mentioned personalities and with all due respect we ask if Mr. Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and other judges taking oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 in their eyes was a serious and punishable crime then Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s oath on January 4, 2000 under General Musharraf’s first PCO too falls in the category of a serious and punishable crime. Then why do they present this one judge who committed the same unconstitutional act as a hero and the other as a traitor? Was General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 was correct and in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan? If this is true then the Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman would not have said no to taking oath under PCO and would not have said that we have already taken oath under the constitution of Pakistan and therefore we will not take a second oath under the PCO. These were the true heroes of judiciary those who demonstrated strength of character and were brave enough to not to take oath under PCO and instead submitted their resignations. This most important chapter in Pakistan’s legal history went unnoticed by Mian Nawaz Shareef and by the leadership of PML (N) who are always at the forefront of all kinds of foul and malicious attacks on Supreme Court. Rather they never came out on streets at that time, nor protested or bothered to become champions of judiciary. Nor did the lawyers who are ardently campaigning for restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and equate it with freedom of judiciary ever bothered to come out at that time and launch protests. Neither did Mr. Ansar Abbasi custodian of the pen and freedom of expression bothered to come out and lodge angry protests and columns. The sad irony is that lawyers and those political leaders who are at the forefront of long marches, waving angry fists and raging in fury never bothered to come out for Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman. Not even a mild protest or statement from these lawyers was registered or launched in favor of these true heroes of judiciary. Why this dual approach and where was the civil society then? And what were the prominent members of ex-servicemen’s society doing at that time or were they hiding in some hole? Where was their sense of democracy at that time? Had Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry taken the honorable and brave step of siding with the judges who refused to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 then MQM too would have been at his side, as MQM’s demand and stand is principled, MQM questions as to why is only the restoration of the Nov 2 2007 judges being demanded & why not the judges who refused to take oath under PCO in 2000 and are true heroes who stood up like true men and should all be restored.

    MQM strictly adheres to the principled stand that if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s taking oath in 2000 under General Musharraf’s PCO is acceptable and correct according to Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like-minded then how is that judges who took oath on November 3, 2007 under General Musharraf’s second PCO could be illegal ? If one judge who took oath under one PCO is judiciary’s hero, protector and flag bearer of the constitution and considered champion of law then how is it so that another judge who took oath under second PCO can be declared as the villain of judiciary ? and one who abrogated constitution ? If the oath taken on November 3, 2007 by judges was wrong then how is that oath taken earlier in 2000 under the first PCO by General Musharraf by justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was legit and right in the eyes of law ? Asking to restore judges appointed under the first PCO and taking out long marches in their support and when it comes to judges who took oath under second PCO showing utter and abject disregard , calling them as unconstitutional and demanding for them to be removed is nothing short of blatant dichotomy in the character and logic of those who are espousing Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. If the PCO of January 2000 was right and legit then how that is the PCO of November 3 2007 was wrong and illegal? If the second PCO was wrong and illegal then how can the first PCO be declared as right and legit?

    Ansar Abbasi and his like minded political and religious leadership, members of legal community curse and accuse General Musharraf for breaking the constitution, twice introducing PCO, keeping both President & Army Chief offices, fighting elections in uniform and distorting the constitution of the country. Alongside they also demand the restoration of the judiciary of November 2, 2007. Basically they want the restoration of the judiciary whose Chief Justice was Iftikhar Chaudhry. For those with short memories let me remind them with great respect that General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12 1999 and his non-democratic step and his chief executive’s position was validated under doctrine of necessity by whom? In 2000 General Musharraf was allowed to postpone elections for two years by whom? Again in 2002 and in 2005 General Musharraf had both the offices of Chief of Army Staff as well as President and a constitutional writ that was filed against it in Supreme Court was rejected by whom?
    Yet again on September 28th 2007 who gave permission to General Musharraf to fight elections in uniform? Was it the Dogar Judiciary as cynically put by Nawaz Shareef or was it the judiciary of November 2, 2007 that rejected the constitutional writs against General Musharraf regarding his Chief of Army Staff uniform, these writs according to Article 184(3) were declared as non maintainable and rejected by whom?

    If Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his like minded friends and cronies call General Musharraf a dictator and usurper then who gave sanctuary and constitutional protection to this dictator’s extra-constitutional steps?

    In due consideration and full acknowledgement of these facts and in light of this evidence Mr. Ansar Abbasi should sincerely ponder and seriously reflect as to whom is the true violator of the Charter of Democracy? Whether it is MQM or was it Nawaz Shareef and his political allies and confidantes who in demanding the restoration of PCO judges are standing accused of violating their own charter of democracy? If Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded political friends think and view the COD as that sacrosanct document that if its is not practiced then the entire judiciary, parliamentary system and democracy can be declared as non constitutional and can lead to the turning of tables on democracy and its lynching then principled approach and scruples tell us that if one has faith in COD then one should not talk of restoration of an individual who took oath under a dictator’s PCO, someone who provided full protection to the dictators extra constitutional transgressions. And if one only wants to talk out loud on the COD and not to practice it in spirit , then those who talk out the loudest on the COD should instead of long march go to the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad and burn this COD in the presence of public and in their court and to stop fooling people and pray for their forgiveness.

    Would Mr. Ansar Abbasi exhibit moral courage to seek nation’s forgiveness for supporting Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry a person who took oath under General Musharraf’s PCO, a person who provided constitutional protection on many occasions to General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional steps? MQM’s leader Mr. Altaf Hussain sacrificed his party’s interest in lieu of the sensitive national security situation, the perils that democracy is facing today and for its survival in Pakistan. But is that what Mr. Ansar Abbasi would like to see that we put the entire country at stake for one person’s ego arrogance and his employment? Would MR Ansar Abbasi like to sacrifice the entire country, throw democracy in tailspin and put it to the torment of long marches, shutter-down strikes, chaos and lawlessness in these perilous times? Is MR Ansar Abbasi ready to back a long march and sit-downs that aims to destabilize the elected parliaments and to rock democracy’s boat and only to lead to have it trampled under some new dictator’s boots?

    Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded friends will for the sake of democracy have to select between an individual and our country’s democratic system. Is Mr. Abbasi he ready to do it?

  • I don’t trust Judiciary but read what Mr. Altaf Hussain has said about the same Judiciary – “QUOTE”

    LONDON: Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain on Saturday called for the setting up of a government of honest bureaucrats, generals, judges, intellectuals and journalists to replace the present corrupt system and urged the people, including patriotic generals and soldiers of the Pakistan Army, to bring about a revolution. Altaf Hussain said he looks with pride to the courage with which the present Supreme Court is working today. He said if the SC judges did not take decisions in favour of the nation by ignoring the results, people will not spare them as well and hold them accountable. I will also personally oppose them.Altaf Hussain said the Army can act and clean up the system if the Supreme Court of Pakistan issues directions under Article 190 of the Constitution. Regarding the 18th Amendment, he said the MQM would accept the verdict of the Supreme Court. REFERENCES: Altaf calls for new honest govt Sunday, August 29, 2010 Sunday, August 29, 2010 Ramzan 18, 1431 A.H http://www.thenews.com.pk/29-08-2010/Top-Story/ Sunday, August 29, 2010, Ramzan 18, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/aug2010-daily/29-08-2010/main.htm

    “UNQUOTE”

    NOW READ MQM’S MR. MUSTAFA AZIZABAD:)

    A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi By Mustafa Azizabadi Member – Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM http://www.mqm.org/English-News/feb-2009/azizabadi-article07-02-09.htm

    Thursday, February 05, 2009; 2:44 AM….In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee in London on Jan 27, 2009. During the address Mr. Altaf Hussain put a simple question to Mr. Nawaz Shareef vis-à-vis PCO judges. that “what does the Charter of democracy’s article 3, clause (a) & (b) says about those judges who took oath under the PCO and if Mian sahib can answer this question then MQM too would diligently work with them towards the enforcement of Charter of Democracy.”. But in case Mian Nawaz fails to answer the question then it will be morally binding on him and an obligation to reconsider his decision to participate in long march.
    Principally & professionally speaking the answer should have come from Mian Nawaz Shareef. Alas it never came; nevertheless Mr. Ansar Abbasi took upon himself to issue a rejoinder.

    Peoples Party’s Shaheed Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef put their signatures on the Charter of Democracy (COD) comprising of 7 pages, 4 important topics and 36 articles in London on May, 14, 2006. But here we will only talk about the relevant points brought up by Mr. Ansar Abbasi, explained and deliberated upon in the aforementioned column. Mr. Abbasi says that COD’s article 3(a) explains the procedure for appointment of new judges and that Article 3(b) addresses the already appointed judges of higher courts with relevance to their oath taken under PCO.
    Indeed this is true that Article 3 (b) addresses the oath taken by superior courts judges under the PCO and this is exactly said in the COD that “No judge shall take oath under PCO and nor shall he take any oath whose language stands at odds with the 1973 constitution’s defined language for oath of judges”.

    Let’s read the exact text of the relevant Article from the COD. Under Article 3(a) it says “The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: (i). The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.”
    Ansar Abbasi in his column translates it as “The recommendations for the appointment of judges for the superior courts shall be undertaken through a Commission. This commission will comprise of following individuals. 1) The Commission’s chairman shall be a Chief Justice, who has never previously taken oath under PCO”. Mr. Ansar Abbasi himself mentions that “according to this Article Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) Chief Justice cannot become the chairman of this commission which has been entrusted with the task of making recommendations for the appointment of new judges. And for this any chief justice who in past did not take oath under PCO stands eligible to become chairman of this commission”. Our question to Mr. Ansar Abbasi when he openly admits that according to COD’s Article 3(a) Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) CJ cannot become chairman of the commission that will make recommendations for the appointment of judges to superior courts and is not eligible for the task then how can he according to Article 3(a) be eligible to hold the highest and honorable office of the superior court? Knowing this reality in its totality and fully well would it be right and legal to demand his restoration?

    A very amusing point that MR Ansar Abbasi brings forth with regards to Article 3(a) in his column; it says “this sub-article has nothing to do with the current judges and that few people according to a well thought of plan are interpreting Article 3(a) in such a way so as to make the restoration of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial and create confusion in common people”. But after explaining Article 3(a) he says “the authors of COD after much thought did not use the word “The Chief Justice” of Pakistan but used “a chief justice” since they knew that the chief justice of that time and those who will follow as chief justice will be those who took oath under the 2001 PCO”.
    Quite strikingly Mr. Abbasi accepted the fact that in May 2006 this particular Article in the COD was specially included for the chief justice in office at that time and his brother justices who had taken oath under PCO so that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and other justices who took oath under General Pervez Musharraf’s PCO will stand disqualified for appointment as superior court judges. Moreover this is absolutely true that on May 14, 2006 when Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Mian Nawaz Shareef signed the COD, both the leaders had no clue and nor did the senior leadership of two parties knew anything or for that matter the leaders of lawyers movement had any idea that on march 9 a reference would be filed against Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the sitting chief justice of Pakistan, that on November 3 General Musharraf would again impose emergency in the country and that judges would again be required by him to take new oaths under the PCO. As for making Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial, it is those parties who are dragging him into political rallies and processions that are to be blamed. As a justice Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry deserves the respect and protocol that comes with the office. Sadly & with due respect the chief justices and judges of superior courts are not only and strictly prohibited from public appearances, attending or endorsing political rallies and agendas, but even barred from attending private functions of such nature. But the honorable justice thought it right to go ahead with attending political rallies and processions and let the exalted office of chief justice go to the street and let himself become a spectacle on top of being controversial.

    PML (N) leadership came up with the ludicrous argument that PCO’s mention in the COD is with reference to those judges who took oath on November 3, 2007. The question is that when the signatures were being put on charter of democracy on May 14, 2006 it was way before November 3, 2007, then whether PML (N) leadership got the premonition that on November 3, 2007 judges will take oath under the PCO? As per Ansar Abbasi if Article 3(a) of COD has no relevance with current judges or of any consequence to them then who are these particular PCO judges mentioned in the COD, since before January 2000 the PCO came in General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law in 1977 and none of those PCO judges from General Zia’s time were present in the judiciary of 2007. Accordingly it proves that in the COD announced on May 14, 2006 the very mention of PCO refers to the PCO of General Musharraf introduced in January 2000 and those who took oath on it.
    The fact is that in the COD the issue of judges taking oath under PCO has been dealt with utmost seriousness and in Article 3(a) clause (2) with reference to procedure for appointment of judges in superior courts that it clearly says commission that makes recommendations for the appointment of judges, its members shall be Provincial High Court Chief Justices who have never taken oath under PCO. In case the criteria are not met then it will be senior most judges who will be members of the commission and those who have never taken oath under PCO. If in January 2000 there had been no PCO by General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his brother justices not taken oath under the PCO and provided constitutional protection to General Musharraf’s dictatorship, then it is our firm belief that in COD the mention of judges who took oath under PCO and their appointment would not have been mentioned as an Article in order to disqualify them. But on the contrary this would not have been an issue at all.

    Mian Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Husaain Ahmed, Imran Khan and their like minded political leaders, lawyers, Ansar Abbasi and others of same thought look down on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar and judges appointed under the PCO after the emergency of November 3, 2007 and don’t spare a moment in maligning them and consider them unconstitutional. Mian Nawaz Sharif has taken the extreme position of not recognizing them and has not hesitated in using derogatory and uncouth language such as “anti-state elements”, “traitors” and ”anti-Pakistan” and keeps using it in public. We have one question to all the above mentioned personalities and with all due respect we ask if Mr. Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and other judges taking oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 in their eyes was a serious and punishable crime then Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s oath on January 4, 2000 under General Musharraf’s first PCO too falls in the category of a serious and punishable crime. Then why do they present this one judge who committed the same unconstitutional act as a hero and the other as a traitor? Was General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 was correct and in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan? If this is true then the Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman would not have said no to taking oath under PCO and would not have said that we have already taken oath under the constitution of Pakistan and therefore we will not take a second oath under the PCO. These were the true heroes of judiciary those who demonstrated strength of character and were brave enough to not to take oath under PCO and instead submitted their resignations. This most important chapter in Pakistan’s legal history went unnoticed by Mian Nawaz Shareef and by the leadership of PML (N) who are always at the forefront of all kinds of foul and malicious attacks on Supreme Court. Rather they never came out on streets at that time, nor protested or bothered to become champions of judiciary. Nor did the lawyers who are ardently campaigning for restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and equate it with freedom of judiciary ever bothered to come out at that time and launch protests. Neither did Mr. Ansar Abbasi custodian of the pen and freedom of expression bothered to come out and lodge angry protests and columns. The sad irony is that lawyers and those political leaders who are at the forefront of long marches, waving angry fists and raging in fury never bothered to come out for Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman. Not even a mild protest or statement from these lawyers was registered or launched in favor of these true heroes of judiciary. Why this dual approach and where was the civil society then? And what were the prominent members of ex-servicemen’s society doing at that time or were they hiding in some hole? Where was their sense of democracy at that time? Had Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry taken the honorable and brave step of siding with the judges who refused to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 then MQM too would have been at his side, as MQM’s demand and stand is principled, MQM questions as to why is only the restoration of the Nov 2 2007 judges being demanded & why not the judges who refused to take oath under PCO in 2000 and are true heroes who stood up like true men and should all be restored.

    MQM strictly adheres to the principled stand that if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s taking oath in 2000 under General Musharraf’s PCO is acceptable and correct according to Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like-minded then how is that judges who took oath on November 3, 2007 under General Musharraf’s second PCO could be illegal ? If one judge who took oath under one PCO is judiciary’s hero, protector and flag bearer of the constitution and considered champion of law then how is it so that another judge who took oath under second PCO can be declared as the villain of judiciary ? and one who abrogated constitution ? If the oath taken on November 3, 2007 by judges was wrong then how is that oath taken earlier in 2000 under the first PCO by General Musharraf by justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was legit and right in the eyes of law ? Asking to restore judges appointed under the first PCO and taking out long marches in their support and when it comes to judges who took oath under second PCO showing utter and abject disregard , calling them as unconstitutional and demanding for them to be removed is nothing short of blatant dichotomy in the character and logic of those who are espousing Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. If the PCO of January 2000 was right and legit then how that is the PCO of November 3 2007 was wrong and illegal? If the second PCO was wrong and illegal then how can the first PCO be declared as right and legit?

    Ansar Abbasi and his like minded political and religious leadership, members of legal community curse and accuse General Musharraf for breaking the constitution, twice introducing PCO, keeping both President & Army Chief offices, fighting elections in uniform and distorting the constitution of the country. Alongside they also demand the restoration of the judiciary of November 2, 2007. Basically they want the restoration of the judiciary whose Chief Justice was Iftikhar Chaudhry. For those with short memories let me remind them with great respect that General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12 1999 and his non-democratic step and his chief executive’s position was validated under doctrine of necessity by whom? In 2000 General Musharraf was allowed to postpone elections for two years by whom? Again in 2002 and in 2005 General Musharraf had both the offices of Chief of Army Staff as well as President and a constitutional writ that was filed against it in Supreme Court was rejected by whom?
    Yet again on September 28th 2007 who gave permission to General Musharraf to fight elections in uniform? Was it the Dogar Judiciary as cynically put by Nawaz Shareef or was it the judiciary of November 2, 2007 that rejected the constitutional writs against General Musharraf regarding his Chief of Army Staff uniform, these writs according to Article 184(3) were declared as non maintainable and rejected by whom?

    If Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his like minded friends and cronies call General Musharraf a dictator and usurper then who gave sanctuary and constitutional protection to this dictator’s extra-constitutional steps?

    In due consideration and full acknowledgement of these facts and in light of this evidence Mr. Ansar Abbasi should sincerely ponder and seriously reflect as to whom is the true violator of the Charter of Democracy? Whether it is MQM or was it Nawaz Shareef and his political allies and confidantes who in demanding the restoration of PCO judges are standing accused of violating their own charter of democracy? If Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded political friends think and view the COD as that sacrosanct document that if its is not practiced then the entire judiciary, parliamentary system and democracy can be declared as non constitutional and can lead to the turning of tables on democracy and its lynching then principled approach and scruples tell us that if one has faith in COD then one should not talk of restoration of an individual who took oath under a dictator’s PCO, someone who provided full protection to the dictators extra constitutional transgressions. And if one only wants to talk out loud on the COD and not to practice it in spirit , then those who talk out the loudest on the COD should instead of long march go to the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad and burn this COD in the presence of public and in their court and to stop fooling people and pray for their forgiveness.

    Would Mr. Ansar Abbasi exhibit moral courage to seek nation’s forgiveness for supporting Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry a person who took oath under General Musharraf’s PCO, a person who provided constitutional protection on many occasions to General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional steps? MQM’s leader Mr. Altaf Hussain sacrificed his party’s interest in lieu of the sensitive national security situation, the perils that democracy is facing today and for its survival in Pakistan. But is that what Mr. Ansar Abbasi would like to see that we put the entire country at stake for one person’s ego arrogance and his employment? Would MR Ansar Abbasi like to sacrifice the entire country, throw democracy in tailspin and put it to the torment of long marches, shutter-down strikes, chaos and lawlessness in these perilous times? Is MR Ansar Abbasi ready to back a long march and sit-downs that aims to destabilize the elected parliaments and to rock democracy’s boat and only to lead to have it trampled under some new dictator’s boots?

    Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded friends will for the sake of democracy have to select between an individual and our country’s democratic system. Is Mr. Abbasi he ready to do it?

  • EDITORIAL: Social change through land reforms Thursday, September 02, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201092\story_2-9-2010_pg3_1

    Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain’s controversial statement regarding a martial law-like intervention by ‘patriotic generals’ took the country by storm. With the exception of opportunist politicians like Imran Khan and Pir Pagara, all other political parties came out strongly against Mr Hussain’s appeal to the military. It seems that in order to redeem himself, the MQM chief has asked his party to table a land reforms bill in parliament. “We believe that Pakistan and feudalism cannot exist together and the only formula to save Pakistan is to abolish the feudal system, which is against the spirit of democracy,” said Mr Hussain. It is incontestable that in a democratic system, feudalism has no space but what the MQM is proposing — limiting land holdings and distributing the rest of the land among poor farmers — is not any different from General Ayub Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s failed bid for land reforms. Either the MQM does not understand that the redistribution of land through such a process has not been successful or it is merely indulging in populist rhetoric.

    Speaking to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said: “If we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor…” What we see today in Pakistan is the exact opposite of what our founding father envisioned. The feudal lords have used this country’s land as their fiefdom while the landless peasantry is treated like animals. Nothing much has ever been done for the poverty-stricken people. Neither have we adopted a poor-friendly economic policy nor have there been any proper land reforms. During General Ziaul Haq’s regime, the Federal Shariat Court declared land reforms against Islamic injunctions, hence slogans like “jarra vahvay, ohi khaavay” (he who tills should get the reward) have remained mere slogans and never materialised in reality. The unequal relationship between the peasants and the landlords goes back to colonial times. During the Mughal rule, the peasantry paid rent to the state through a class of revenue collectors (mansabdars). As long as the peasantry paid rent on the land they cultivated, land tenure was relatively secure but the landless peasantry did not own these lands. When the British came to power in the Indian subcontinent, they instituted private property in land and gave absolute ownership rights to a new, manufactured class of landlords, reducing the peasants to tenants, with inadequate land tenure. This made the landlords very powerful. This reversal of Mughal policy is still practiced in Pakistan because of our colonial hangover. The propertied class is always wary of the peasantry. Thus, in order to protect its own interests, the feudal landowning class not only entered politics but also penetrated the bureaucracy and the military. Now there is a strong nexus of the landlords with all the powerful institutions of the state.

    If the MQM wants to bring about real land reforms, it has to understand that unless the landless peasantry is mobilised, nothing will really change. We have been down this road before and know from experience that the military and bureaucracy will never allow a revolutionary transformation of fortunes from the top. Instead of latching on to empty rhetoric, the MQM should move the bill keeping this in mind. The only way we can have a successful democratic system in Pakistan is by breaking the chains of the feudal class structure, arguably from below. *

  • Imran Farooq’s murder linked to rows within MQM party- by Farhad Jarral 27 September 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/24436

    Imran Farooq’s Murder: Altaf may not return to lead the ‘revolution’ By Shiraz Paracha 19 September 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/23094

    MQM leader Imran Farooq assassinated in London 16 September 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/22940

    BBC Hard Talk : MQM Muhammad Anwar Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq36z52CwDk

    BBC Hard Talk : Part 2 MQM Muhammad Anwar
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXF0gCNEidU

    Altaf accuses foreign powers of plotting to eliminate him
    By Azfar-ul-Ashfaque Monday, 27 Sep, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/altaf-accuses-foreign-powers-of-plotting-to-eliminate-him-790

    Mr Hussain said the murder of Dr Imran Farooq was a link in the chain and news analysis and columns published in the international press gave a clear indication about which party and personality were being targeted. He referred to the BBC programme “Hard Talk” in which the host asked coordination committee member Mohammad Anwar why the MQM leader (Mr Hussain) had not been removed.
    “This has implications for the situation… what was the purpose of this question?”

    Saleem Shahzad expelled from MQM Rabita Committee Saturday, February 14, 2009 [The News and Jang] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:daTZSTmCaXgJ:www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp%3Fid%3D20309+aleem+Shahzad+expelled+from+MQM+Rabita+Committee&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk

    KARACHI: The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has expelled Saleem Shahzad from its Rabita Committee on account of his personal and secret activities and contacts. Besides, MQM activists have been asked not to contact another Rabita Committee member, Muhammad Anwar, on any issue.

    According to a press release issued by the MQM on Friday, anyone found contacting Saleem Shahzad would be expelled from the party. Similarly, the MQM activists have been directed instead of contacting Muhammad Anwar they may contact the Rabita Committee in Karachi or the party’s international secretariat. The party took the decision on the basis of Anwar’s suspicious activities and his disinterest in the affairs of the party, the statement said.

    Meanwhile, MQM’s senior member and in-charge of its Labour Division Anees Ahmed Khan, advocate, has voluntarily resigned from the basic membership of the MQM, the statement said.

    Another MQM statement said on the grounds of serious violation of organisational discipline and involvement in activities outside the organisation, the Rabita Committee had suspended the following activists of the All Pakistan Muttahida Students Organisation (APMSO) for an indefinite period: Ejaz Qureshi and Mohsin Shahab (University of Karachi unit); and Mohsin Ahsanul Haq (NED unit). When contacted, MQM spokesman Faisal Sabazwari offered no comments, saying: “Whatever the MQM has to say in this regard, it has stated in the press release.”

    Saleem Shahzad expelled from MQM By Our Staff Reporter
    February 14, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/2009/02/14/nat3.htm

    KARACHI, Feb 13: The Muttahida Qaumi Movement expelled on Friday its senior leader Syed Saleem Shahzad from the party for his alleged ‘mysterious’ activities. The decision was taken at an emergency meeting of the party’s coordination committee. A statement issued from the MQM’s London secretariat said any party member found in contact with Mr Shahzad would lose his membership.

    A former MNA and London-based MQM leader, Anis Ahmed Advocate, resigned from the party and stated that in future he would have nothing to do with the views and actions of the MQM, the statement said. Meanwhile, the MQM directed its workers not to contact Mohammad Anwar, another senior London-based member of the coordination committee.