Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category CIVILIAN DICTATOR NAWAZ SHARIF’S KANGAROO COURT JUDICIARY

INTERNATIONAL LAYER OF INSTABILITY By Samson Simon Sharaf

My Opinion in Nation.
 While reading do not miss moles planted within the most vociferous opposition party and the moles within us. 

 

INTERNATIONAL LAYER OF INSTABILITY

Samson Simon Sharaf

 
Like the simile of an onion I have used to frame my hypothesis, the most crucial and damaging is Pakistan’s susceptibility to US interests in chagrin to its short and long-term interests. Whenever a Pakistani leader has shown a flair for independence, he/she has been eliminated. Add to the list Pakistan’s tax evaders, money launderers, political business cartels, offshore businessmen, bad fiscal policies, impotency of regulators, opaqueness in transparency and economic hit-men to make a lethal brew of anti non-state actors. All these layers compliment each other but for the interests of Pakistan. They also coalesce when needed to subdue the winds of change. They exist in every sinew of Pakistan’s politic body. 
 
Pakistan has never had a cohesive, self-serving and permanent national policy; a sad but true reflection of a state that spent half its existence under military dictatorships or tailored democracies under the watchful eye. The first decade was lost to political conspiracies hatched by a group of bureaucrats and politicians, who had the advantage but not the conscience of serving with Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. They chose to wade through a muddied perspective on an elusive and unending journey of inventive nationalism that caused disfigurement. To complicate the national construct, foreign policy resulting in subservience to USA set in motion a diplomacy of invisible interventions that often became violent.
 
How intense were US interests in Pakistan that Prime Minster Liaqat Ali Khan had to be assassinated by CIA through the Afghan Government because he refused to destabilize Mossadeq’s regime in Iran begs no answer. Subsequently USA not only changed the regime but also reached a long-term alliance with Saudi Arabia that was to later forge the Oil-Dollar Equation. Pakistan’s close relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab Kingdoms are imbedded in working within US interests and in the bargain provide a security balance to Middle East. Now that USA is easing its policy on Iran after many decades, Pakistan will be dissuaded across the entire spectrum of policy from placation to violence to keep its relations with Iran in concert with US-Saudi objectives. 
 
This shift in Pakistan’s policy was the result of Bhutto’s policy of a greater Muslim alliance through the Islamic Summit. Ultimately it distanced Iran. But Iran too had its hegemonic designs that became aggressive after the Iranian Revolution creating frictions on international border, inside Afghanistan and sectarian lines. Ever since, both neighbors have played a game of brinkmanship with mutual suspicion under the watchful eye of USA and KSA. 
 
On his part Bhutto suffered a fate no different from Liaqat Ali through a military dictator groomed to work for US-Saudi Interests. His judicial murder was actually a correction course for Pakistan lest it became too independent and powerful.What did Bhutto do to merit such a cold-blooded end? The answers lie below.
 
First, he rebooted Pakistan’s nuclear program towards weapons. Bhutto envisioned a nuclear Islamic block strengthened by the oil wealth and Pakistan’s skilled manpower. However, his left leaning policies were viewed with suspicion by his Arab allies. Bhutto had a long-term vision for his country but his economic plan backfired. To put Afghanistan under pressure he supported the Afghan Student résistance against Sardar Daoud. The pressure worked and Daoud was ready to sign a permanent deal on Durand line. Days before the two heads of states were to formalize the agreement; Bhutto was overthrown by a military coup. The military regime never pursued this agreement. Bhutto proving too big for his boots was made an example. 
 
Bhutto’s erstwhile military chief and his executioner fared no better. The military takeover in 1977 served US interests and infused permanent seeds of internal instability in the form of weaponisation of society, drugs, militant organizations, intolerance, sectarianism and religiously inspired violence. The mock Afghan jihad lasted as long as it served US interests and was conveniently relabeled as the invisible floating threat of Islamic terrorists. USA was suspicious of Zia’s growing nuclear cooperation with China. He had to go and so did that fatal flight on C-130. 
The daughter of the East returned to Pakistan with a thumping popular applause. But also attached to her Bhutto symbolism was an ill matched spouse willing to cut her to size whenever she over grew. Her spouse through his corruption twice got her governments removed. 
Yet within her limitations of working with many uncles, new entrants and a dubious husband, she never gave up her father’s vision. The nuclear program progressed to perfection including the weapon testing sites in Chagai. Then began the pursuit of delivery systems and their indigenous production. She continued to pursue the Afghan policy of her father. By 1996, Mullah Omar had agreed to the international demand of a broad based government and also signing the Durand Agreement. A day before she was poised to sign this historic accord with the new Afghan broad based government, President Laghari mysteriously sacked her government. Neither the interim not the subsequent PMLN government pursued this historic opportunity.
 
To her credit, Benazir never lost heart. After 9/11 she almost engineered the handing over of Osama Bin Laden to Turkey, a NATO country. USA refused. Then she returned infused with an elixir. She had made some of the most critical decisions of her life; amongst them to team up with Musharraf to make a formidable Pakistani team and secondly to shed off her yoke. As per her terms of agreement with USA, Nawaz Sharif was to serve his time of self-exile in KSA. She rejected the NRO. The daughter of East had become too hot to handle. Though her fire is seemingly extinguished, it is in the interests of Pakistan that the pyre must burn. Musharraf’s exit after her death and subsequent humiliation were writings on the wall. Zardari became the heir to the political dynasty through a controversial Will. 
 
So what does this entire ongoing drama in Pakistan mean? If precedence is to be followed, it is all hallow and the birds of feather will flock together.  These agents of instability are well placed in every system, organization and political party to allow a departure towards an independent Pakistan. Even if some amongst them wish contrition, they will be ruthlessly cut to size. 
 
Like a conventional current on a boil, everything must go down for a new to begin. 
 
Samson Simon Sharaf

, , , , , ,

No Comments

NAWAZ SHARIF & HIS KANGAROO COURT JUDGES : BAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST HERO MUBASHIR LUCMAN FOR LIFE

EXPOSING CORRUPTION IN PAKISTAN IS A SIN, SPECIALLY IF JUDGES ARE INVOLVED THEN SUO- MOTO

 

 

 

 

unnamed-2

 

Why Is This Man Banned For Life From Pakistani TV? 

 

 

 

 

 

On October 17 of this year, investigative journalist Mubasher Lucman was banned for life from television in Pakistan. The case was taken up suo motu by the judiciary and found that Mr. Lucman maligned the judiciary egregiously enough to merit a lifetime ban from appearing in any capacity on television. As he says, “I cannot even host a game show.”


Mr. Lucman has covered many topics since entering televised journalism in 2006. He has become well known for investigating government corruption despite reprisals including three untimely visits to his home by the police, threats against his 14 year-old son and 12 year-old daughter, as well as having a gun fired in his general direction.

Mr. Lucman, age 52, is a graduate of Aitchison College Lahore and Government College, both esteemed institutions in Pakistan. He has had many careers before entering the field of journalism. He has served in a government ministry position, been part of the first fiberoptic network installation in Pakistan and worked in advertising. Along his largely business career, he occasionally wrote columns for newspapers in both Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

In 2006, his boss suggested he move to a different part of the conglomerated business to try life as a journalist on television because, “he thought I would be good at it.” Since then, Mr. Lucman estimates he has done more than 2,500 shows, the majority of which involved investigative reporting. He has changed stations many times and up until his recent ban was at ARY News where his investigative show was called Khara Sach.

286827d0fae372901780afd7585c1eb1_1024Initially, all programming from ARY was also banned from the airwaves for the first 15 days of Mr. Lucman’s ban but the decision to suspend ARY from the airwaves for half a month was subsequently reversed. ARY has continued to be supportive of Mr. Lucman in social media and as otherwise possible. Salman Iqbal, President & CEO of ARY Digital Network, states:

Since our inception ARY has always stood for the freedom of press, speech and to always bring out the facts and the truth. Mubasher stands for these same principles. We may have been quieted temporarily but the truth can never be buried for good.We know we will face a backlash for these ideals, but ARY, Mubasher and its supporters will continue to bring to the public the truth and face this political turmoil.

The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) is ostensibly in charge of regulating all media in Pakistan. Mr. Lucman relates that the suo motu judgment was taken without his own presence in court and that PEMRA has subsequently been informed by the judiciary that they must enforce this ruling. Attempts to contact PEMRA for this story were not responded to prior to publication.

1601319_10151983488425069_41144247_nThe principal judge involved in this case is Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of the Lahore High Court. Justice Naqvi has additionally put Mr. Lucman on Pakistan’s Exit Control List (ECL) which essentially bans Mr. Lucman from traveling outside the country. The ECL is typically reserved for persons committing corruption, misusing power, trafficking drugs, in significant violation of tax law, known terrorists or people who are dangerous criminals.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international non-profit, hasquestioned the treatment of Mr. Lucman and ARY. Bob Dietz, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator says:

Basically, we see Lucman’s case as part of a broader anti-media attitude on the part of the judiciary. They have often taken on the media for criticizing courts and judges as if they were somehow above reproof. It’s a problem that has saddled most of Pakistan’s governments over the years. Though they have often been on the same side in political issues, the press and the judiciary are not natural allies. The overkill of the lifetime broadcast ban meted out to Lucman is typical of the courts’ sense of being beyond the give and take in modern society, that they still have an imperial sense of their role in a democratic government.

Benjamin Ismaïl, Head of the Asia-Pacific Desk for Reporters Without Borders (RSF) agrees with Mr. Dietz’s sentiment:

It is not exceptional for the PEMRA to take repressive measures such as ordering a ban on a media, especially in such a period of political tensions. However, a lifetime ban, which is the equivalent of a permanent shutdown of a media, on an individual, I haven’t ever heard of such case in Pakistan… [T]his ban seems to be a ban on appearing in television in any capacity, which is absolutely disproportionate and illegal in regard to the laws of Pakistan. RSF strongly condemns this decision, as well as the raid on the home of the journalist by the police, in an attempt to arrest him. All these judiciary and police actions constitute blatant and shocking violations of press freedom and are counter-productive in the sense that they will not help cool down the political debate… We ask for an immediate annulation of this decision.

I spoke with Mr. Lucman to find out what he did to earn a complete censorship from television, a suspension of income from his livelihood and a ban from leaving the country so that he might earn a livelihood elsewhere.

Jon Springer: What is the basis for the case against you?

Mubasher Lucman: I never criticized the judiciary in this case. I was investigating a businessman [Asim Malik] who ran off from Pakistan with 11 billion rupees [approximately U.S. $183 million at the time] fourteen years ago. We tracked him down and went abroad to interview him. He agreed to provide his point of view if I would meet his request that I do not edit his interview to ensure his side of the story would get out. He relayed information that part of conducting his business was more than half a dozen ministers taking bribes from him. He accused members of the judiciary of taking bribes as well. We showed a video that this businessman provided that he says shows the son-in-law of one said judge accepting a bribe of 40,000 British pounds as a ‘scholarship’ from him in exchange for a ruling in his favor.

Springer: Is it against the law in Pakistan to interview people who say such things? or to interview criminals wanted by the government?

Lucman: It isn’t against the law to interview anyone, even someone evading the law. People interviewed Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri.

Springer: Do you think it is political?

Lucman: I did vote for the [opposition] PTI and Imran Khan in the last election. I was open and said so prior to the election. There is tons of evidence of wrong doing in that election. Yes, I think the mandate of the people was stolen in the last election. However, as far as I know, my case emanates solely from the judiciary that took it up suo motu.

The problem with Pakistan when you go beyond a certain level is that everyone is connected. You never know who is backing who. It is difficult to say a particular party is behind the scenes of this or that.

Springer: There have been other reports that have been negative on you. For example, there was a recent article that accused you of saying some journalists were receiving money from government officials.

Lucman: I know some of those journalists and I can vouch for them that this report was not true. I never made this accusation. I have defended those journalists against these wrongful accusations.

People love me or hate me. I am opinionated and people are opinionated about me. People have made up fake accounts with my name on Twitter and Facebook. Refuting things falsely attributed to me is part of my job.

Springer: What is PEMRA’s role in this case?

Lucman: PEMRA is being ordered by the judge to ban me. This ban is beyond their regulatory mandate.

Springer: Have you appealed the ruling?

Lucman: I have appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. I do not know if I can make my appeal. I think I am the only journalist to have this type of persecution except one in Swaziland [who, along with his lawyer, have been sentenced to two years in jail this year].

Springer: What is the exact charge against you?

Lucman: I have been charged with contempt of court. They could charge me for defamation perhaps, but how is this contempt?

Springer: How does this ban reflect on Pakistan’s democracy?

Lucman: Many times I have filed police reports of incidents however they have not materialised in formal FIR reports by police and I can only attribute that to the interference of the government. For instance when the police illegally raided my home a few weeks back and harassed my children taking their snaps, they had come in full uniform and police vehicles. When I reported the matter, the Deputy Inspector General of operations said ‘These are not our people….’ I urged him to lodge a formal complaint if that was the case. My written complaint is at the police station and to-date no formal report has been lodged by the police. This is a usual practice here for those who are perceived to be not supportive of the government.

I have been fired upon. My home has been invaded. My children have been threatened. No one makes these types of sacrifices unless they believe that things can be better than they are.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar