Thursday, May 31, 2012

In Pakistani Media, the U.S. Is a Target for Acrimony

Akram Shahid/Reuters
Supporters of a religious political party burned an effigy of President Obama at a rally in Hyderabad, Pakistan, on Tuesday.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States might still be weighing its options about how to deal with Pakistan, but many politicians, retired army generals and popular television talk show hosts here have already made up their minds that America is on the warpath with their country.
Multimedia

Related in Opinion

World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Such is the media frenzy and warmongering that popular talk show hosts have even begun discussing possible scenarios of how Pakistan should react if the United States attacks the country. One television news channel has even aired a war anthem.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has called on a conference of opposition political parties and government’s allies for Thursday to discuss the crisis. The government is also enlisting allies.
Islamabad, the capital, has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity with the visits of Chinese and Saudi officials. The American ambassador, Cameron Munter, has also met with President Asif Ali  Zardari and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir.
After meeting with Vice Premier Meng Jianzhu of China on Tuesday, Mr. Gilani said that “China categorically supports Pakistan’s efforts to uphold its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,” an oblique reference aimed at the United States.
Earlier in an interview with Reuters, Mr. Gilani warned against any cross-border raids by American forces in Afghanistan. “We are a sovereign country,” Mr. Gilani was quoted as saying. “How can they come and raid in our country?”
Pakistan’s powerful army and intelligence chiefs, meanwhile, have conveyed their message through their posturing. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief, canceled his Monday visit to Britain, stoking a sense of crisis.
On Sunday, General Kayani led a meeting with his top military commanders. No press statement was issued, but leaks to local media outlets warned of a “stern response” to any attack on Pakistan by American forces from Afghanistan.
A military official, privy to the meeting, said that the military commanders agreed to make efforts to defuse the situation and de-escalate the tensions with the United States. However, “certain decisions were taken, primarily of some defensive nature, in the event of a possible U.S. attack,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Lt Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the country’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, also flew Monday to meet with Saudi officials. Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Pakistan.
Javed Ashraf Qazi, a retired lieutenant general and former head of the ISI, said Tuesday that the United States is “pressurizing Pakistan to hide its own failures in Afghanistan,” a widely held view here. Mr. Qazi, now a senator, was quoted as saying that “U.S. officials often lie for their own interests” and as criticizing the American media for supporting what he called government propaganda against Pakistan.
The sharp display of anti-American sentiment is reflective of the deep divisions, mistrust and suspicions that exist between the countries.
The rambunctious electronic and print media have been rife with discussions about the possible rupture between the two troubled allies. Several retired army officials have taken on a very hard line, urging the government to break ties with the United States.
Such displays have been evident in the past few days, since Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a statement describing the Haqqani network, a militant group based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as a veritable arm of the ISI. He also charged that the ISI had supported an attack this month by Haqqani militants on the American Embassy in Afghanistan.
“Why cannot we snap diplomatic relations?” asked Shuja Khanzada, a retired colonel, during a live talk show on Tuesday on Dunya TV, a private television news network.
On Monday, Hamid Mir, the host of “Capital Talk,” a talk show on the popular news network Geo, started the show asking, “Is United States going to attack on the ground in Pakistan?”
Mr. Mir, who has a penchant for sensationalism, asked Asma Jahangir, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, what would happen if, in response to an American attack, Pakistan blocked the NATO supply lines that pass through the country for the Afghan war.
Ms. Jahangir rebuked the host. “America hasn’t launched any attack yet, and you are talking this way,” Ms. Jahangir said. Instead, she urged Pakistanis to reflect on where they have gone wrong.
Earlier in the show, another participant, Abdul Qayum, a retired lieutenant general, said that an American attack was a possibility.
When another participant, Farukh Saleem, a columnist and widely quoted analyst, criticized the local media by saying that it had “put more fuel on the fire,” General Qayum interjected and said Admiral Mullen’s statement was an insult to the whole nation.
“You cannot trust them,” General Qayum said of the Americans. “There is a history of betrayal.”
In another talk show, “Khari Baat” on Dunya TV, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief, said that American threats were actually a blessing in disguise, as they had united the whole nation.
General Gul said the United State wants to give archrival India a “proxy role” in Afghanistan and American actions now risked the “dangers of a third world war.”
In an interview, Enver Baig, a former senator, said that the threatening American statements “resulted in gluing all political parties together.”
He added, “U.S. elections are approaching closer and Americans want a safe and respectable exit from Afghanistan and are scapegoating Pakistan,” echoing a widespread perception in Pakistan.
“The majority of the public sentiment is anti-American despite the fact that the U.S. is the biggest donor to Pakistan,” Mr. Baig said. “The U.S. has not been able to convert this into good will. American P.R. in Pakistan is very poor.”
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan: "Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader": Article in Express Tribune



Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan: "Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader": Article in Express Tribune

Kaptaan, the country’s most popular leader

Published: July 13, 2011
The writer is professor of political science at LUMS rasul.rais@tribune.com.pk
There are a number of changes in the substructure of Pakistani politics and society that no insightful observer of Pakistan can escape. The question is, what do they mean for the old ruling classes of Pakistan, which are grouped into two major political parties?
The first notable change is that the old coalitions of the elite, assembled under two dynastic parties, have lost credibility and the trust and confidence of the larger number of Pakistani citizens. One may wonder why this isn’t reflected in the elections, since the same flock keeps getting elected. An explanation may be that the politics of patronage, at the expense of public interest and the public exchequer, along with the massive illegal wealth that most of the members of assemblies have made, are major factors in determining the outcome of electoral contests in their favour.
Thanks to the broad reach of the electronic media, from cities to villages and hamlets, the true character of the old elite stands exposed. In popular perceptions, the image and reality of the old coalitions as thugs, robber barons and thieves converge. Another factor that will definitely go against them is the pace of relative economic prosperity in the agricultural sector in the rural areas that has produced a very large rural middle class. This class is likely to vote independently of traditional family, clan or caste patterns and think of larger issues of governance, corruptions and who can provide better leadership.
Economic changes in other countries have translated into fresh social and political alignments; consider for example the rise of the Hindu right in India or the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. Both represent the rethinking of old political elites that survived on myths of charismatic leaders and their political legacies.
The second important change is the youth factor in Pakistan, which is not impressed by the quality and character of the political leadership dominating the major or even minor political parties, including the religious parties. They juxtapose Pakistan with the global landscape and see the failings of our traditional ruling elite. The youth in Pakistan is better educated, more enlightened and deeply patriotic, more so than previous generations; they want to get their country back on the rails of progress and modernity. Young people disregard locality, province, region and ethnicity to support Imran Khan, andlook toward him as the only hope. This is a big loss for the traditional ruling parties that can only assemble ruffian musclemen in party nurseries, who speak through wall chalking land and guns and cash are doled out to them by party bosses.
The third important change is that, according to a poll, Imran Khan today has emerged as the most popular leader of Pakistan (68 per cent), leaving Mian Nawaz Sharif (63 per cent) and Asif Ali Zardari (11 per cent) miles behind, according to the Pew Research Centre, one of the most credible institutions for global opinion polls.
The question is if and how Imran Khan will convert these changes into a political advantage in the next parliamentary elections. My gut feeling is he will. He has energy, commitment and popular appeal. The great kaptaan presents a very clear agenda of change that no other leader or party can match. Change, credibility and popular appeal will define the new politics of Pakistan, which the kaptaan represents.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2011.

Tsunami and Saleem Safi (a rejoinder): by Adnan Randhawa

Imran Khan in capital talk - 31 may 2012


Benami Transactions well explained


Benami Law

First Law itself is never to be blamed. Be it any  law, the law can be followed and can be misused with equal legal standings before the court of law.
Benami is a “certain position” that the plaintiff  or defendant takes before the court,  the purpose is to protect the rights of lawful owner, be it a plaintiff or a defendant.
There are certain legal situations arises in man’s life when “Benami” is used to protect the rightful claimant of the property/assets.
Let us first be clear about Benami position. the principle states that Mr “A” can purchase Property/Assets in name of Mr “B” under “given situations” with “good faith” and that he can prove with evidence that he is the hard earner of that property which he kept under else’s name.
For example Benami can be used to avoid the claim of Haq Shufa (right of neighbouring land owner comes first, but under certain situations it can be avoided, to establish a stronger position benami position is used).
2)  Keeping property on relatives/family name in case the investor is working abroad but wants to have assets in home country. it can be moveable and unmoveable property/assets.
3) To protect the rights of unborn child in which a father transfer’s the property to wife for the unborn child, but situation arises when they get divorced,  so the property given to wife has its rightful claimant that is the father of that unborn child. (Transfer can be reverted)
4)  If Mr “A” puts the property in name of his wife/mother/brother under “good faith” to have trust/love grow in the family. however, his act would never change the rightful owner of the property which is Mr A in this case.
I have done a case in which son kept his property in his mother’s name out of good faith for his family, but when his mother died, his brothers and sisters claimed that the property in her name is inherited property  so they also have a share in it, so we claimed benami in this case to protect the rightful owner…  so the motive to claimant/plaintiff  in taking benami position should always be “good faith” and that he can prove before the court of law that the property/assets are his hard earned.
Another thing that needs to be clear is that benami is either claimed or proved.  In no case of Transfer of property Act you will find the word benami. its a claimed position not a law itself. so it can not  be used in transfer of property documents.
Now there are certain situations when benami is used to hide corruption and property/assets made through illegal source of income.
Coming to the case of ImranKhan.
ImranKhan’s position is that he bought the property from Jemima’s money. his intention(good faith) was to buy a house from his own money, but he havn’t had it at that time so he decided to borrow the required money from Jemima, since the money used was from Jemima therefore, he  decided its better to keep it on her name (maybe he thought he would gift her anyway or that it would be a token to his good faith towards his wife) so as soon as his flat got sale in UK, he gave back the borrowed money to Jemima.
Unfortunately they got divorced, Jemima had no intention to keep the property (as it was given to her by IK so that they can have a family life there= intention/goodfaith) therefore, Jemima transferred the property back to ImranKhan which he bought for themselves and kept in Jemima’s name. now using the word benami as explained earlier is either claimed or proved and can no where we find it being mentioned in transfer of property act, therefore Jemima claimed in her Affidavit that it was a benami transaction which is to say that the  real owner is ImranKhan, as he paid off the borrowed money to jemima already, and that he intended to buy the property for “themselves as a family” but when they got divorced Jemima out of good faith made no false claim over the Bani gala property and wrote in affidavit that the real owner is Imran Khan and that he kept the house in my name out of good faith.
We all know that ImranKhan has no corruption charges over him,  that his sources of income are not hidden from anyone, and that he can prove all his financial transactions, in fact he has already put all documents before the the public in a press conference.
The point UmarCheema used is that “why he used benami position?”. the answer to this poor position is “why wouldn’t he to claim his rightful and lawful property/asset?”
Giving further example to explain UmerCheem’s position, “The contract law says that contract can only take place, if the “object” in the contract is lawful, you dont argue that contact law should not be used, similarly situations where Benami position is to be claimed for rightful purposes, one cannot argue that why someone used a benami position.  he/she used it cause its their right.
ImranKhan says that people who buy property in the names of their gardeners, guards, driver or any relative to hide their corruption and money earned from illegal sources shall be curbed through amendment in this regard. when he says Benami law shall be ebolished, he means Transfer of property Act shall be amended.  that is not to abolish the benami position but to protect those who have rightful claims and curtail those who misuse it.
We do advice everyone to buy property/assets in name of their wives/children to enjoy family life.
If anyone still has confusions regarding Benami please contact us at @TheRealLahori

Imran Khan : Next Man In ? Documentary On Al Jazeera


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Turkey: The model for Pakistan

Turkey: The model for Pakistan


By Fraz Shafique    |  
Turkey:  The model for Pakistan
It is no secret that the Turkish people have an enormous reverence for Mahomed Ali Jinnah or Cinnah as written in Turkish, honoring him with Cinnah Avenue, a major artery in Ankara.  It should not be surprising as both Jinnah and the founder of modern-day Turkey, Ataturk, were modernist Muslims educated and tailored in the western traditions.  Both dedicated their lives to uplift the economic and political cause of their people.   The similarities between the two men also include both being members of minority communities within the religion of Islam.  Jinnah was an Ismaili-Shia, a community following Imam Agha Khan while Ataturk, born in Salonika, was a Muslim of Albanian-Macedonian parents.  Their roots outside of mainstream Islam were significant in determining their modernist, secular ideology which was accutely aware of the 'tyranny of the majority' and desiring of equal rights for those whom demographics did not favor. 

But more than this, it was the economic degradation of their communities that encouraged them to lead their people. 

In pre-1947 India, the Muslim population was primarily illiterate with little or no significant role in commerce, which was almost exclusively owned by a non-Muslim majority.  Jinnah however, was part of the coastal Ismaili Muslim community which unlike most Muslims, was more interested in enterprise and bourgeoise professions and thus could grasp the need to set up a state - be it within the Indian union or without - whereby the members of his Muslim community could have opportunities allowing them to gain a stake and representation in the economic system.

In similar respects, the Young Turk movement, of which Ataturk was a member, also aimed to establish a state where the Muslims held economic power.  Due to the abhorent decadence of the Khilafat-e-Usmania, the Muslim community had become the equivalent of 'white trash' of the Khilafat while the minority communities like the Armenians and Greeks prospered as they opted to adopt western legal codes.  The biographies of Ataturk and the early 20th century indicate how the non-Muslim Ottoman neighborhoods were well lit with paved roads and had the best schools and hospitals.  It was Ataturk's desire to see the majority Muslim community achieve the same modern life style denied to them - a denial he and many of the Young Turk movement linked to the Khilafat's archaic legal codes and traditions. 

Unfortunately, while Turkey has stuck to the ideals of Ataturk, Pakistan has quickly forgotten Jinnah's almost single-handed struggle to build a prosperous nation.  While the Islamic-bent AKP party of Turkey today ferociously supports Turkey's union with the European Union as part of Ataturk's modernist legacy, Pakistan is fraught with internecine civil war, religious bigotry, a self-destructive obesession against India, and whose Army is now wrecking havoc against its own people in the FATA region, for a war fought on someone else's behalf.  Whereas Turkey has always stood up for its national interests and been the only country to militarily attack Europe since WW II (through a military assault  it forcefully occupied 40% of Cyprus in the 1970's) and refused $25 billion in aid from the United States to assist in the war against Iraq, Pakistan has capitulated in a dramatically tragic manner to the whims of foreign powers. 

While Jinnah and Ataturk had many similarities and would not mind enjoying a glass of Turkish wine if they met, there is a massive gulf between the leadership of Pakistan and Turkey today.  What can Pakistan learn from the successful model adopted by Turkey?  What does modern day Turkey have to teach us?

Prime Minister Erdogan's AKP party started its journey assisting the poor members of the urban Turkish landscape.  One of the projects was to offer bread at break-even cost to the poor who were severely effected by hyper inflation.  The scheme became so successful, that private bakeries went out of business.  More importantly it catapulted the AKP party (then known as Welfare Party) into the mainstream of Turkish politics. 

In a similar attempt, Chairman Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is also attempting to find resonance amongst the urban poor of Pakistan who are the suffering from exorbitant food inflation.  Thus the Sasta Tanduur project has been set up in much the same fashion as the Turkish party's.  However, the Sasta Tanduur project goes a step further by offering subsidized roti which results in each tanduur incurring a daily loss.  This loss is expected to be fulfilled by the appeal for donations voiced by Chairman Khan. 

Aside from aggressively reaching out to those bruised by faulty economic policies, the other major example to learn from the Turkish Republic is to stand up to foreign powers.  Completely redefining the war we are currently fighting is critical as persisting with policies in which our military is massacring our own people will lead us down the path of self-destruction. 
Finally and most importantly, the fact that Turkey has pursued a pro-development economic policy beneficially tied to the West without forfeiting its sovereignty is worth emulating.  Today, Turkish consumer electronics firms rank among the top three in terms of sales in many of the household product lines. 

Standing up for the poor and against foreign powers are the hallmarks of good leadership which Chairman Khan has shown and which our nation needs to adopt.  While we cannot be a replica copy of the Turkish Republic, the fundamentals of standing up to western powers and focusing on the have-nots of our society deserve to be copied so that one day, Pakistan too will  mirror the glorious image of its founder, Mahomed Ali Jinnah.