Marvi Memon refused to meet Mrs. Clinton

[This letter was first published by The Nation.]

Marvi Memon refused to meet Mrs.Clinton
November 3, 2009

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Whilst the message from you and your government is that of peace and friendship, the Kerry Lugar Bill passed by your legislative branch has been one of the main stumbling blocks in this mission. The assumption that Pakistanis have misunderstood the bill is equally faulty. Pakistanis have read the bill and understood your intent to micromanage Pakistan, to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear expansion program and to direct the war against extremism in Pakistan from White House.

What follows below is an understanding of the bill which needs to be amended if relations between US and patriotic Pakistanis have to be established. Your assertion that if we have issues with the bill we don’t need to take the money is ‘spot on’; patriotic Pakistanis have rejected your mere $1.5 billion. We will not negotiate on our country’s sovereignty and defence. And these are not mere slogans. They are based on facts which we read out of your conditionalities which do exist. And here are the facts Secretary Clinton:

1. The most controversial clause in the bill pertains to giving US ‘direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks’. The explanation given in the note is equally unacceptable because it wants ‘cooperative efforts’ to combat proliferation to continue. This cooperation mentioned is intrusive since it demands ‘direct access’. Secretary Clinton, we have already handled our proliferators and believe in non proliferation. This we consider a breach of our sovereignty.

2. The reference to Pakistan military and intelligence agencies being involved in giving support to terrorists in the past is equally offensive. This is a clause which enables the Indian lobby to target Pakistan and hold it responsible for all future terrorist acts in the region.

3. The other issue pertains to the fact that President Obama’s regional security strategy will include working with ‘relevant governments and organizations in the region and elsewhere.’ The strategy which could include RAW and Mossad would be imposed on Pakistan for US national interest not Pakistan. And as such we cannot give the authority of making Pakistan’s security strategy to a US President.

4. There are references to expansion of Container Security Initiative at various Pakistani ports which we consider a security hazard.

5. The term sanctuary for terrorism implies that Pakistan is a failed state as is included in intelligence reforms and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004.

6. Bill allows ‘irregular forces to be used for US combat operations in Pakistan’ as stated in the Ronald Reagan Act 2005. This in effect gives legal cover to the Dynocores and Blackwaters which we Pakistanis have major issues with and consider a threat to our security.

7. The bill micromanages Pakistan’s important federal government agencies from education, madrassah’s to trade, to judiciary, to natural resources. All aid given will be to NGOs and if more than $100,000 is given those NGO files will become classified. As such Pakistan will not have access to such operations. This we consider an attempt by US to create its own financial political power bases for future.

8. Approximately $860 million of the aid will go back to US in the form of administrative expenses etc. This truly reflects badly on the actual impact on an average Pakistani’s life.

Here were some of the issues with the bill. Now let’s examine what aggravates Pakistani sensitivities with regards to current US policies. And why you are not welcome in Pakistan by patriotic Pakistanis. This might help you understand why over 80% of Pakistanis have issues with your policies as per certain reliable surveys.

1. Firstly, the US stance in the war against extremism is biased towards protecting Indian and Afghan interests. The TTP and Baloch terrorists have been using these two countries and their resources as bases for their operations inside Pakistan as is proven by Pak military evidence. Whilst you consider Pakistan to be sovereign our aid is linked to these two countries which we find distasteful.

2. Whilst Pakistan’s nuclear program is an issue for US, the Indian nuclear program (civil nuclear technology agreement) is being allowed to expand without any blockades.

3. Whilst you have personally complemented Pak military efforts in your recent visit, at the same time there are conditionalities in giving aid to Pakistan to strengthen its military against terrorists. Certainly these terrorists are linked to India and as such conditionalities are one sided. Moreover, if Pakistan military is being complemented why can’t it be trusted with drone technology? Additionally US policy wishes to strengthen Pakistan’s parliament and yet it ignores the resolution passed by Pakistani parliament against drone attacks.

4. Whilst Pakistan is a frontline state which has paid dearly in terms of men lost in battle with terrorists, US considers India and Pakistan to be equals. Where is the advantage Pakistan should get for cooperating on terrorism? $1.5 billion is a joke compared to the billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, even in Turkey and Egypt. As well as the fact that no where with other allies has US imposed intrusive conditionalities.

5. Whilst Pakistan is blamed for terrorist sanctuaries how many infiltrators coming from India and Afghanistan specifically have you managed to stop?

6. The commitment for ROZs looks like its dithering. Where is the actual support for the tribals who have suffered the most in the war being fought to destabilize Pakistan?

7. What effort has the US played in cutting drug money which is destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism considering its source of entry is US backed Afghan territory. UN report confirms that after US entry into Afghanistan opium production has increased manifold. This is impacting Pakistan’s security since it’s ready financing for terrorism inside Pakistan.

Secretary Clinton,

If you wish to improve Pak-US bilateral, a more productive approach would have been to not justify the bill on arrival but rather to give an open ear to the criticisms with a commitment to amending it. Since there have been no such commitments it seems fruitless to meet with you. This is even more disturbing considering that you have been given plenty of evidence of Pakistani uproar on the bill before your arrival. It’s a pity that the bill was executed minus real Pakistani input. This has no doubt created a diplomatic fiasco for the US. Instead of underestimating the fiasco or considering it a result of Pakistani lack of comprehension, it would have been better to deal with it head on: amending the bill being the only viable option.

Pakistan might have a government which is beholden to you for its future longevity, but there are patriotic Pakistanis who will defend the soil before accepting your policies of creating a US fiefdom in Pakistan. As a young parliamentarian, I would only welcome you to Pakistan once we have evidence of your shift in policy so that Pakistan is dealt with as a sovereign country.

MARVI MEMON

An Analogy of Socialism

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset an d the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

The Bro Code

• Article 1: Bro’s before Ho’s
• Article 2: A Bro is always entitled to do something stupid, as long as the rest of his Bros are doing it
• Article 3: If a Bro gets a dog, it must be at least as tall as his knee when full-grown
• Article 4: A Bro never divulges the of the Bro Code to a woman. It is a scared document not to be shared with chicks for any reason…no not even that reason.
• Article 5: whether he cares about sports or not, a Bro cares about sports.
• Article 6: A /bro shall not lollygag if he must get naked in front of other Bros in a gym locker room
• Article 7: A Bro never admits he can’t drve stick. Even after an accident.
• Article 8: A Bro never sends a greeting card to another Bro.
• Article 9: Should a Bro lose a body part due to an accident or illness, his fellow Bros will not make lame jokes such as “Gimmee three!” or “Wow, quiiting your job like that really took a lot of ball”. Its still a high five and that Bro still has a lot of balls…metaphorically speaking of course.
• Article 10: A Bro will drop whatever he’s doing and rush to help his Bro dump a chick.
• Article 11: A Bro may ask his Bro(s) to help him move, but only after first discoling an honest estimate on both time commitment and number of large pieces of furnititure. If the Bro has vastly underestimated either, his Bros retain the right to leave his possessions where they are-in most cases, stuck in a doorway.
• Article 12: Bros do no share dessert
• Article 13: All Bros shall dub one of their Bros his wingman
• Article 14: If a chick inquires about another Bro’s sexual history, a Bro shall honor the ‘Code of silence’ and play dumb. Better to have women think all men are stupid than tell the truth.
• Article 15: A Bro never dances with his pants below his hips.
• Article 16: A Bro should be able, at any time, to recite the following reigning champions: Cricket, Football, and Playmate of the Year
• Article 17: A Bro shall be kind and courteous to his co-workers, unless they are beneath him on the Pyramid of Screaming
• Article 18: If a Bro spearheads a beer run at a party, he is entitled to any excess monies accrued after canvassing the group
• Article 19: A Bro shall not sleep with another Bro’s sister. However, a Bro shall not get angry if another Bro says, “Dude, your sisters hot!”
• Article 20: A Bro respects his Bros in the military because they’ve selflessly chosen to defend the nation, but more to the point, because they can kick his ass sex ways to sunday.
• Article 21: A Bro never shares observations about another Bro’s smoking-hot girlfriend. Even if the Bro with the hot girlfriend attempts to bait the Bro by saying “she’s smoking-hot, huh?” a Bro shall remain silent, because in this situation, he’s the only one who should be baiting.
• Article 22: There is no law that prohibits a woman from being a Bro.
• Article 23 When flipping through TV channals with his Bros, a Bro is not allowed to skip past a program featuring boobs. This includes but is not limited to, exercise shows, womens athletics, and on some occasions surgery programs.
• Article 24: When wearing a cap, a Bro may position the brim at either 12 or 6 o’clock. All other angles are reserved for rappers and the handicapped.
• Article 25: A Bro doesnt let another Bro get a tattoo, particularly a tattoo of a girls name.
• Article 26: Unless he has children, a Bro shall not wear his cell phone on a belt clip.
• Article 27: A Bro never removes his shirt in front of other Bros, unless at a resort pool, the beach or egg splashing.
• Article 28: A Bro will, in a timely manner, alert his Bro to the existance of a girl fight
• Article 29: If two Bros decide to catch a movie together, they may not look at each other during a hot scene, Bro’s must respect the privacy of the other bros.
• Article 30: A Bro doesn’t comparison shop.
• Article 31: When on the prowl, a Bro hits on the hottest chick first because you just never know
• Article 32: A Bro doesnt allow another Bro to get married until hes at least twenty six.
• Article 33 When in a public restroom, a Bro (1) stares straight ahead when using the urinal; (2) makes the obligatory comment, “aaahh, Thand par gaye” if there are more than two dudes waiting to pee; and (3) attempts to shoot his used paper towel into the trash can like a basketball…rebounding is optional.
• Article 34: Bros cannot make eye-contact during a Devil’s Threeway.
• Article 35: A Bro never rents a chick flick
• Article 36 DD: When questioned in the company of women, a Bro always decries fake breasts.
• Article 37: A Bro is under no obligation to open a door for anyone.
• Article 38: Even in a fight to the death a Bro never punches another Bro in the groin.
• Article 40: Should a Bro become stricken with engagement, his Bros shall stage an intervention and attempt to heal him. This is more commonly known as “a bachelor party.”
• Article 41: A Bro never cries (Exceptions- Death of a close one.)
• Article 42: Upon greeting another Bro, a Bro may engage in a high five, fist bump, or a Bro hug, but never a cheek kiss.
• Article 43: A Bro loves his country, unless that country isn’t Pakistan.
• Article 44: A Bro never applies sunscreen to another Bro
• Article 45: A Bro never wears jeans to a strip club
• Article 46: If a Bro is seated next to some dude who’s stuck in the middle seat on an airplane, he shall yield him all of their shared armrest, unlesss the dude has (a) teken his shoes off, (b) is snoring, (c) makes the Bro get up more than once to use the lavatory.
• Article 47: When a Bro gets a chicks number, he waits at least ninety-six hours before calling her.
• Article 48: A Bro never publicly reveals how many chicks he’s banged.
• Article 49: When asked, “Do you need some help?” a Bro shall automatically respond, “I gotit,” whether or not he’s actually got it.
• Article 50: If a Bro should accidentally strike another Bro’s undercarriage with his arm while walking, both Bros silently agree to continue on as if it never happened.
• Article 51: A Bro checks out another Bro’s blind date and reports back with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down
• Article 52: A Bro is not required to remember another Bros birthday, though a phone call every now and again probably wouldn’t kill him
• Article 53: Even in a drought, a Bro flushes twice
• Article 54: A Bro is required to go out with his Bros on First holiday of Semesterand other official Bro hollidays, including New Year’s Eve, and Desperation Day (February 13th)
• Article 55: It is obligatory for all bros to attend the EOGM.
• Article 56: A Bro is required to alert another Bro if the Bro/chick Ration at a party falls below 1:1. However, to avoid Broflation, a Bro is only allowed to alert one Bro. Further, a Bro may not speculate on the anticipated Bro/Chick Ratio of a party or venue without first disclosing the present-time observed ratio.
• Article 57: A Bro never reveals the score of a sporting event to another Bro unless that Bro has thrice confirmed he wants to hear it.
• Article 58: A Bro doesn’t grow a big beard (Unless Bro has gone Islamic)
• Article 59: A Bro must always post bail for another Bro, unless it’s out of state or, like, crazy expensive (Crazy expensive bail >(years you’ve been bros) x $100)
• Article 60: A Bro shall honor there father and mother, for they were once Bro and chick. However, a Bro never thinks of them in that capacity.
• Article 61: If a Bro for whatever reason becomes aware of another Bro’s anniversary with a chick, he shall endeavor to make that information available to his Bro, regardless of whether he thinks his Bro already knows.
• Article 62: In the event that two Bros lock on to the same target, the Bro who calls dibs first has dibs. If both call dibs at the same time, the Bro who counts aloud to ten the fastest has dibs. If both arrive at the number ten at the same time, the Bro who bought the last round of drinks has dibs. If they haven’t purchased drinks yet, the taller of the two Bros has dibs. If they’re the same height, the Bro with the longer dry spell has dibs. Should the dry spells be of equal length, a game of discreet Broshambo* shall determine dibs, provided the chick is still there. *Rock, paper, scissors for Bros.
• Article 63: A Bro will make any and all efforts to provide his Bro with protection
• Article 64: A Bro must provide his Bro with a ticket to an event if said event involves the latter Bro’s favourite sports team in a playoff scenario
• Article 65: A Bro must always reciprocate a round of drinks amoung Bros.
• Article 66: If a Bro suffers pain due to the permanent dissolution of a relationship with a lady friend, a Bro shall offer nothing more than a ‘that sucks, man’ and copious quantities of beer. A Bro will also refrain from pejorative commentary – desered or not – regarding said lady friend for a period of three months, when the requisite BACKSLIDE WINDOW has closed.
• Article 67: Should a Bro pick up a guitar at a party and commence playing, another Bro shall point out that he is a tool.
• Article 68: If a Bro be on hot streak, another Bro will do everything possible to ensure its longevity, even if that includes jeopardizing his own records, the missing of work, or, if necessary, generating a realistic fear that the end of the world is imminent. (Dry spell trumps hot streak)
• Article 69: Duh.
• Article 70: A Bro will drive another Bro to the airport or pick him up, but never both for the same trip. He is not expected to be on time, help with luggage, or inquire about his Bro’s trip or general well-being.
• Article 71: As a courtest to Bros the world over, a Bro will only bring rocketeer Bros to the party.
• Article 72: A Bro never spell-checks.
• Article 73: When a group of Bros are in a restaurant, each shall engage in the time-honored ritual of jockeying to pay the bill, regardless of affordability. When the group ultimately decides to divide the check, each Bro shall act upset rather that enormously relieved.
• Article 74: At a red light, a Bro inches as close as possible to the rear bumper of the car infront of him, and then immediately honks his horn when the light turns green. That way if another Bro is several cars behind, he’ll have a better chance of making it through the intersection before the light turns red again.
• Article 75: A Bro automatically enhances another Bro’s job description when introducing him to a chick.
• Article 76: If a Bro is on the phone with a chick while in front of his Bros and, for whatever reason, desires to say “I love you” he shall first excuse himself from the room or employ a subsonic barry white-esque tone
• Article 77: Bros don’t cuddle infront of chicks.
• Article 78: A Bro shall never rack jack his wingman
• Article 79: At a wedding, Bros shall reluctantly trudge out for the garter toss and feign interest for the benefit of the chicks present. Whichever Bro gets stuck with the garter shall lightheartedly pretend he’s not horrified at the thought of being the next one to drop before scurrying to the bar for a very stiff drink and/or shots.
• Article 80: A bro shall make every effort to aid another Bro in riding the tricycle, short of completing the tricycle himself.
• Article 81: A Bro leaves the toilet seat up for his Bros
• Article 82: If two Bros get into a heated argument over something and one says something out of line, the other shall not expect him to take it back or apologise to make amends. Tha’s inhuman.
• Article 83: A Bro shall, at all costs, honor the Platinum Rule: Never, ever, ever, ever ” love” thy neighbor. In particular, a Bro shall never mix it up romantically with a co-worker unless she’s a classmate.
• Article 84: Bro shall stop whatever he’s doing and watch Baywatch if it’s on TV.
• Article 85: If a Bro buys a new car, he is required to pop the hood when showing it off to his Bros.
• Article 86: When a Bro meets a chick he shall endeavor to find out where she fits on the Hot/Crazy Scale before pursuing her.
• Article 87: A Bro never questions another Bro’s stated masturbations per day, maximum bench press, or height. He can however, ask the Bro to prove it, traditionally in the form of a wager.
• Article 88: If a Bro, for whatever reason must drive another Bro’s car, he shall not adjust the preprogrammed radio stations, the mirrors, or the seat position, even if this last requirement results in the Bro trying to drive the vehicle as a giant praying mantis would.
• Article 89: A Bro shall always say yes in support of a Bro
• Article 90: A Bro shows up at another Bro’s party with at least one more unit of alcohol than he plans to drink. So if a Bro plans on chugging a six pack, he shall bring a six pack plus at least one can of beer. If the party sucks and/or there are too many dudes, the Bro is entitled to leave with his alcohol, though etiquette dictates he should wait until nobody is looking.
• Article 91: If a group of Bros suspect that their Bro is trying to give himself a nickname, they shall rally to call bim by an adjacent yet more demeaning nickname
• Article 92: A Bro keeps his booty calls at a safe distance
• Article 93: Bros don’t speak ‘Yo Engrezi’ to one another
• Article 94: If a Bro is in the bathroom and runs out of toilet paper, another Bro may toss him a new roll, but at no point may their hands touch or the door open more than 30 degrees
• Article 95: A Bro shall alert another Bro to the presence of a chesty woman regardless of whether or not he knows the Bro. Such alerts may not be administered verbally. (The shoes tap, The eye redirect, The swift shin kick *D cups and up only, please*)
• Article 96: Bros shall go camping once a year, or at least attempt to start a fire
• Article 97: Bros cannot be gays.
• Article 98: A Bro never lies to his Bros about the hotness of chicks at a given social venue or event
• Article 99: A Bro never asks for directions when lost
  Exception: A Bro may ask for directions for a hot chick who seems to know the area
  Exception: A Bro may ask for directions from a hot chick even if she also appears lost
  Exception: A Bro may ask for directions from a hot chick even if he is not lost at all.
• Article 100: When pulling up to a stoplight, a Bro lowers his window so that all might enjoy his music selection.
  Corollary: If there happens to be a hot chick driving the car next to the Bro, the Bro shall pull his sunglasses down to get a better look. If he’s not wearing his sunglasses, he will first put them on, then pull them down to get a better look.
• Article 101: If a Bro asks another Bro to keep a secret, he shall take that secret to his grave* This is what makes them Bros, not chicks
  *And beyond if the Bro discovers there is indeed life after death.
• Article 102: A Bro shall take great care in selecting and training his wingman.
• Article 103: A Bro never wears socks with sandals. He commits to one cohesive footgrear plan and sticks with it.
• Article 104: The mom of a Bro is always off-limits. But the stepmom of a Bro is fair game if she initiates and /or is wearing at least one article of leopard print clothing…provided she looks good in it…but not if she smokes menthol cigarettes
• Article 105: If a Bro is not invited to another Bro’s wedding, he doesn’t make a big deal out of it, even if, let’s face it, he was kind of responsible for setting up the couple and had already picked out the perfect wedding gift and everything. Its cool. No big whoop.
• Article 106: Given an option on quantity when ordering a beer with his Bros, a Bro always selects the largest size available or shall never hear the end of it that night
• Article 107: A Bro never leaves another Bro hanging
• Article 108: If a Bro forgets a guy’s name he may call him “brah”,”dude”, or “man” but never “Bro”
• Article 109: When Bros attend a sporting event and see themselves on the JumboTron, they shall purse their lips and flex their biceps while informing the crowd that their team is number one, despite any objective rankings to the contraty.
• Article 110: If a Bro is hitting it off with a chick, his Bro shall do anything within his means to ensure the desired outcome
• Article 111: If a Bro discovers another Bro has forgotten to sign out of his email the Bro will sign out for him, but only after first sending a few angry emails to random cntacts and then deleting all sent messages.
• Article 112: A Bro doesnt sing along to music in a bar.
  Exception: A Bro may participate in karaoke
  Exception to exception: No chick songs
• Article 113: A Bro abides by the accepted age-difference formula when pursuing a young chick
  Acceptable age difference formula
  Chick’s age = Guy’s age divided by 2, + 6
• Article 114: If a Bro must crash on his Bro’s couch for an extended period of time, he shall offer to split the cost of toilet paper and the cable bill if said period exceeds two weeks. If he stays longer than a month, he shall offer to contribute some rent. If he stays longer than two months, he shall sheam clean the couch or have it incinerated, whichever is more applicable
• Article 115: A “clothing optional” beach doesn’t really mean “clothing optional” for Bros
• Article 116: A Bro shall not kill another Bro or a Bros chances to score with a chick
• Article 117: A Bro never willingly relinquishes possession of a remote control. If another Bro desires a channel change, he may verbally request one or engage in the fools errand of getting up to manually change the channel
• Article 118: When a Bro is with his Bros he is not a vegetarian
• Article 119: When three Bros must share the backseat of a car, it is unacceptable for any Bro to sexually arouse another bro.
• Article 120: A Bro always calls another Bro by his nick name.
• Article 121: Rocketeers is an exclusive invite-only club of Bros who determines all other bros.
• Article 122: A Bro is always psyched. Always.
• Article 123: Two Bros shall maintain at least a three-foot radius between them while dancing on the same floor, even when reenacting the knife fight from “Beat It” which, I guess, two Bros shouldn’t do anyway, or at least not very often.
• Article 124: If a Bro should shoot an air ball, strike out while playing softball, or throw a gutter ball while Bowling, he is required to make some sort of excuse for himself.
• Article 125: If a Bro is driving ahead of another Bro in a Bro TRain, he is required to attempt to lose him in traffic as a funny joke.
• Article 126: In a scenario where two or more Bros are watching entertainment of the adult variety, one Bro is forbidden from intentionally or unintentionally touching another Bro in ANY capacity. This may include but is not limited to: the high five, the fist bump or the confratulary gluteal pat. Winking is also kind of a no-no.
• Artricle 127: A Bro will always help another Bro reconstruct the events from the previous night, unless those events entail hooking up with an ugly chick or the Bro repeatedly saying “I love you, man” to all his Bros.
• Article 128: A Bro never wears two articles of clothing at the same time that bear the same school name, vacation destination or sports team. Even in a laundry emergency, its preffered that a Bro go out half naked rather than violate this code…half naked from the waist up, naturally.
• Article 129: If a Bro lends another Bro a DVD, video game, or piece of laawn machinery, he shall not expect to ever get it back, unless his Bro happens to die and bequeath it back to him.
• Article 130: If a Bro learns another Bro has been in a traffic accidident, he must first ask what type of car he collided with and whether it got totaled before asking if his Bro is okay.
• Article 131: While a Bro is not expected to know exactly how to change a tire, he is required to at least drag out the jack and stare at the flat for a while. If he needs to consult the car’s ownership manual to locate the jack, he shall do so from inside the car, where he is not visible to passersby and where he can discreetly call a tow truck, after which it is recommended that he hide the jack by the side of the road so he’ll have a legitimate excuse when the tow truck arrives.
• Article 132: If a Bro decides to let all of his Bros down and get married, he is required to invite them to the wedding, even if this directly violates the wishes of his fiancée and results in a “no ex” penalty or whatever lame domestic punishment couples might employ
• Article 133: A Bro only claims a fart after first accusing at least one other Bro.
• Article 134: A Bro is entitled to use a woman as his wingman
• Article 135: If a scenario arises in which a Bro has promised two of his Bros permanent shotgun, one of the following shall determine the copitot: (1) foot race to the car, (2) silent auction or in the case of a road trip exceeding 450 miles, (3) a no-holds-barred cage match to the death.
• Article 136: When interrogated by a girlfriend about a bachelor party, a Bro shall offer nothing more than an uninterested “It was okay”
• Article 137: When hosting, a Bro orders enough pizza for all his Bros
• Article 138: A real Bro doesn’t laugh when a guy gets hit in the groin.
  Exception: Unless he doesn’t know the guy.
• Article 139: Regardless of veracity, a Bro never admits familiarity with a Broadway show or musical, despite the fact that, yes, “Broadway” begins with “Bro”
• Article 140: A Bro reserves the right to simply walk away during the first five minutes of a date. (Lemon Law)
• Article 141: A Bro can only get a manicure if he’s trying to sleep with the hot woman performing the manicure
• Article 142: A Bro shall seek no revenge if he passes out around his Bros and wakes up to find marker all over his face.
• Article 143: When executing a high five a bRo is forbidden from intertwining fingers of grasping his Bro’s hand
• Article 144: It is unacceptable for two Bros to share a hotel bed without first exhausting all couch, cot, and pillows-on-floor combinations. If it’s still unavoidable, they shall prevent any incidental spoonage by arm wresting to determine who sleeps under the covers. Once decided each Bro shall don as many lower layers as possible before silently fist bumping the other good night.
• Article 145: A Bro is never offended if another Bro fails to return a phone call, text or email in a timely fashion
• Article 146: A Bro refrains from using too much detail when relating sexual exploits to his Bros
• Article 147: If a Bro sees another Bro get into a fight, he immediately has his Bro’s back
  Exception: If his Bro has picked a fight with a scary looking guy
  Exception: If this is the third fight (or more) his Bro has gotten into that week)
  Exception: If the Bro has a note from a physician excusing him from having anybody’s back
• Article 148: A Bro doesnt listen to chick music…in front of other Bros. When alone, a Bro may listen to, say, a Avril Lavinge album or two, but only to gain valuable insights into the female psyches, not because he finds her melodies tragically haunting yet curiously uplifting at the same time.
• Article 149: A Bro pretends to understand and enjoy cigars
• Article 150: No sex with you Bro’s ex

Views

Friday, April 17, 2009
Sehar Tariq

Eight years ago I boarded a plane to the United States to come to college. I was 17. As I left, my father hugged me and told me to never come back because he believed that soon Pakistan would not be a country fit for me to live in. I told him he was trying to save money by not having to buy me tickets to come home. We laughed it off. I hugged him goodbye and that day my father and I began our great debate about the fate of Pakistan. Abba told me to stay away. I defied him every time. I came home twice a year. I only flew PIA. I refused to do an internship in the US I worked every summer in Pakistan. I moved back when college ended. I started work in Pakistan. I worked two jobs because there was so much to do and not enough time to do it in. I was inspired and energised. I was hopeful and optimistic.

Today I am neither. And I have lost the debate with my father about the fate of Pakistan. The Parliament by endorsing the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation (NAR) has heralded the end of Pakistan as I knew and loved it. Today, the elected representatives of the people turned Pakistan into Talibanistan. Today we handed over a part of the country to them. I wonder how much longer before we surrender it all.

Today we legislated that a group of criminals would be in charge of governing and dispensing justice in a part of Pakistan according to their own obscurantist views. They have declared that the rulings of their courts will be supreme and no other court in the land can challenge them. They have also declared that their men that killed and maimed innocent civilians, waged war against the Pakistani army and blew up girls schools will be exempt from punishment under this law. A law that does not apply equally to all men and women is not worthy of being called a law. Hence today we legislated lawlessness.

What was most disturbing was the quiescence of the Parliament to this legislation. The utter lack of debate and questioning of this ridiculous legislation was appalling. The decision was not informed by any independent research or expert testimony, and to my knowledge none of the parliamentarians are authorities on matters of security, rule of law or regional conditions in Swat. This signals disturbing possibilities. Either our politicians are too afraid to stand up to criminals or maybe they don’t possess the foresight to gauge the national impact of this action. There is no hope for a country led by cowards or fools.

How can one be hopeful about the political future of a country where the will and the wisdom of politicians becomes hostage to the threats of barbarians? How can I be optimistic about a country where doyens of the media like Ansar Abbasi hear the collective silence of the parliamentarians as the resounding support of the people of Pakistan, but are deaf to the threats issued by the Taliban to anyone opposing the legislation? How can I feel secure in a country where the army, despite receiving the largest chunk of our resources, cannot defeat a bunch of thugs? How can I expect justice when there are different laws for different citizens, and I as a woman am a second class citizen? How can I be inspired by a country where there is no culture, no music, no art, no poetry and no innovative thought?

How can I be expected to return to a country where women are beaten and flogged publicly, where my daughters will not be allowed to go to school, where my sisters will die of common diseases because male doctors cannot see them? How can I be expected to call that country home that denies me the rights given me by my Constitution and religion? I refuse to live in a country where women like me are forced to rot behind the four walls of their homes and not allowed to use their education to benefit the nation. By endorsing the NAR and giving in to the Taliban, Parliament has sapped my hope and optimism. Parliament has dealt a deathly blow to the aspirations of the millions of young Pakistanis who struggle within and outside the country, fuelled by sheer patriotism, for a peaceful, prosperous and progressive Pakistan.

When there is no hope, no optimism, no security, no justice, no education, no progress, no culture  there is no Pakistan. Maybe it is because I am the grandchild of immigrants who was raised on stories of hope, patriotism and sacrifice that even in this misery I cannot forget that Pakistan was created to protect the lives, property, culture and future of the Muslims of the Subcontinent. It was not established to be a safe haven for terrorists. We fought so that we could protect the culture of the Muslims of the Subcontinent, not so that we could import the culture of Saudi Arabia. Our ancestors laid down their lives so that the Muslims of the Subcontinent both men and women – could live in a land free of prejudice, not so that they could be subjected to violent discrimination of the basis of sect and gender.

Maybe it’s because I’m competitive and I don’t want to lose the debate to my father, maybe I am afraid to lose the only home I have, or maybe because I love Pakistan too much to ever say goodbye  I hope we can remember the reasons why we made Pakistan, and I hope we can stand up to fight for them. I hope we can revive the spirit of national unity of 1947 and lock arms to battle the monster of the Taliban that threatens our existence. Talibanistan is an insult to my Pakistan. I want my country back. Pakistan Paaindabad!

The writer is pursuing a master’s at Princeton University. Earlier, she attended Yale University.

Those Annoying Sales Calls

Ten ways to stop those credit card sales, mobile companies, insurance calls from irritating you:

1 After the telemarketer finishes speaking, ask him/her to marry you.

2 Tell the telemarketer you are busy at the moment, and ask him/her, if he/she will give you his/her home phone number so you can call him/her back.

3 Ask them to repeat everything they say, several times.

4 Tell them it is dinnertime, BUT ask if they would please hold. Put them on your speaker phone while you continue to eat at your leisure. Smack your food loudly and continue with your dinner conversation.

5 Tell them that all business goes through your agent, and hand the phone to your five year old child.

6 Tell them you are hard of hearing and that they need to speak up…. Louder… Louder… Louder!

7 If they start out with, “How are you today?”, say “I’m so glad you asked, because no one these days seems to care, and I have all these problems………….”

8 Tell them to speak very slowly because you want to write every word down.

9 Cry out in surprise, “Helen, is that you? I’ve been hoping you’d call! How is the family?” When they insist they are not Helen, tell them to stop joking. This works especially well if the telemarketer is really MALE.

10 Tell the ICICI call centre guy to call on your office number – and give him the HSBC call centre number.

Indian View: Cover-up?

By

Sandhya Jain

1 December 2008

While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.

Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that “super-terrorists” simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the “mercenaries” to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?

Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.

By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don’t believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?

Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.

For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
“It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood.”

To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.

This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces – were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].

One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.

Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.

Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not “ordinary terrorists” and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the ‘Green Flag’ special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.

Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.

What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.

Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.

Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.

The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!

This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of live and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.

It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American ‘friends’ (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.

It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)

Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that “the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them.” Instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html]

Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, “a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its “godfather”.

Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.

More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.

Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to “help” the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.

The International Council of Manlaws

Some general rules from the International Council of Manlaw.

To prove your manhood, MUST FOLLOW AT ALL TIMES.

1. Under no circumstances may two men share an umbrella.

2. It is OK for a man to cry ONLY under the following circumstances:

(a) When a heroic dog dies to save its master.

(b) The moment Angelina Jolie starts unbuttoning her Blouse.

(c) After wrecking your boss’s car.

(d) When she is using her teeth.

3. Any Man who brings a camera to a bachelor party may be legally killed and eaten by his buddies.

4. Unless he murdered someone in your family, you must bail a friend out of jail within 12 hours.

5. If you’ve known a guy for more than 24 hours, his sister is off limits forever unless you actually marry her.

6. Moaning about the brand of free beer in a buddy’s fridge is forbidden. However complain at will if the temperature is unsuitable.

7. No man shall ever be required to buy a birthday present for another man.

8. On a road trip, the strongest bladder determines pit stops, not the weakest.
9. When stumbling upon other guys watching a sporting event, you may ask the score of the game in progress, but you may never ask who’s playing.

10. You may flatulate in front of a woman only after you have brought her to climax. If you trap her head under the covers for the purpose of flatulent entertainment, she’s officially your girlfriend.

11. It is permissible to drink a fruity alcohol drink only when you’re sunning on a tropical beach … And it’s delivered by a topless model and only when it’s free.
12. Only in situations of moral and/or physical peril are you allowed to kick another guy in the nuts.

13. Unless you’re in prison, never fight naked.

14. Friends don’t let friends wear Speedos. Ever. Issue closed.

15. If a man’s fly is down, that’s his problem, you didn’t see anything.

16. Women who claim they ‘love to watch sports’ must be treated as spies until they demonstrate knowledge of the game and the ability to drink as much as the other sports watchers.
17. A man in the company of a hot, suggestively dressed woman must remain sober enough to fight.

18. Never hesitate to reach for the last beer or the last slice of pizza, but not both, that’s just greedy.

19. If you compliment a guy on his six-pack, you’d better be talking about his choice of beer.
20. Never join your girlfriend or wife in discussing a friend of yours, except if she’s withholding sex pending your response.

21. Phrases that may NOT be uttered to another man while lifting weights:

A) Yeah, Baby, Push it!

B) C’mon, give me one more! Harder!

C) Another set and we can hit the showers!

22. Never talk to a man in a bathroom unless you are on equal footing (I.e., both urinating, both waiting in line, etc.). For all other situations, an almost imperceptible nod is all the conversation you need.

23. Never allow a telephone conversation with a woman to go on longer than you are able to have sex with her. Keep a stopwatch by the phone. Hang up if necessary.
24. The morning after you and a girl who was formerly ‘just a friend’ have carnal, drunken monkey sex, the fact that you’re feeling weird and guilty is no reason for you not to nail each other again before the discussion occurs about what a big mistake it was.
25. It is acceptable for you to drive her car. It is not acceptable for her to drive yours.
26. Thou shalt not buy a car in the colours of brown, pink, lime green, orange or sky blue.
27. The girl who replies to the question ‘What do you want for Christmas?’ with ‘If you loved me, you’d know what I want!’ gets an Xbox. End of story.

28. There is no reason for guys to watch Ice Skating or Men’s Gymnastics. Ever.
29. We’ve all heard about people having guts or balls. But do you really know the difference between them? In an effort to keep you informed, the definition of each is listed below:

‘GUTS’ is arriving home late after a night out with The guys, being assaulted by your wife with a broom, And having the guts to say, ‘are you still cleaning or are you flying somewhere?’
‘BALLS’ is coming home late after a night out with the guys smelling of perfume and beer, lipstick on your collar, slapping your wife on the ass and having the balls to say, ‘You’re next fatty!’

The Ant and the Grasshopper

GLOBAL VERSION

 

The Ant works hard in the withering heat all summer building its house and laying up supplies for the winter.

 

The Grasshopper thinks the Ant is a fool and laughs & dances & plays the summer away.

 

Come winter, the Ant is warm and well fed. The Grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

 

PAKISTAN VERSION

 

The Ant works hard in the withering heat all summer building its house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The Grasshopper thinks the Ant’s a fool and laughs & dances & plays the summer away.

 

Come winter, the shivering Grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the Ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

 

Geo TV, ARY News, AAJ and DAWN News show up to provide pictures of the shivering Grasshopper next to a video of the Ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

 

The World is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be that this poor Grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

 

Chief Justice Iftikhar takes a Suo-moto against the Pakistan Government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the Grasshopper.

 

 

 

Imran Khan goes on a fast along with other Grasshoppers demanding that Grasshoppers be relocated to warmer climates during winter.

 

 

 

Asma Jahangir stages a demonstration in front of the Ant’s house.

 

 

The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the Grasshopper (many promising Heaven and Everlasting Peace for prompt support as against the wrath of God for non-compliance).

 

 

 

Shahid Masood at Geo openly criticizes the military regime for the fiasco

 

 

Qazi Hussain and opposition MPs stage a walkout. 

 

 

 

Jamaat-e-Islami calls for “Hartal” in Frontier and Baluchistan demanding a Judicial Enquiry.

 

MQM Coalition in Sindh immediately passes a law preventing Ants from working hard in the heat so as to bring about equality of poverty among Ants and Grasshoppers.

 

Sheikh Rasheed allocates one free coach to Grasshoppers on all Pakistan Railway Trains, aptly named as the ‘Grasshopper  Express ‘.

 

Finally, the President drafts an ordinance ‘ Anti State Terrorism Against Grasshoppers Act’ [ASTAGA], with effect from the beginning of the winter. Mobilizes state agencies.

 

Punjab Govt. makes ‘ Special Reservation ‘ for Grasshoppers in Educational Institutions & in Government Services.

 

The Ant is fined for failing to comply with ASTAGA and having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, it’s home is confiscated by the NAB and handed over to the Grasshopper in a ceremony covered by PTV.

 

Nawaz Sharief calls it ‘ A Triumph of Justice ‘.

 

 PPP  calls it ‘ Democratic Justice ‘.

 

MQM calls it the ‘ Revolutionary Resurgence of the Downtrodden’

 

Prime Minister invites the Grasshopper to address the National Assembly.

 

Many years later……

 

The Ants have since migrated to the US, Canada, UK and Middle East, have worked harder then they did before and have set up a multi-million dollar business.

 

100s of Grasshoppers still die of starvation despite reservation somewhere in Pakistan …

 

As a result of loosing lot of hard working Ants and feeding the Grasshoppers, Pakistan is still a developing country!!!

An Inconveniant Truth :From ‘THE NEWS’ paper

Saturday, March 08, 2008

M P Bhandara

Various expressions such as ‘massive victory, ‘crushing defeat, ‘a clean sweep of President Musharraf�s allies, ‘the nation rejects previous rulers and a slew of chest-thumping slogans have been used by the victors and the media to celebrate the electoral success of the PPP and the PML-N. Even the New York Times, on February 29 referred to the “overwhelming rejection of Musharrafs party by the voters this month”; surprising since the Times has a reputation for scrupulous fidelity to facts. There is an inconvenient truth about this election and President Musharraf has pointed it out in his assertion that his allies have got more votes than his adversaries.

Let us consider the voting facts for a moment: According to the statistics of the Election Commission, the PML-Q and its allies, the MQM, the PML-F and the PPP-S received 10,844,233 votes. The PPP-P received 10,055,491 votes and the PML-N 6,240,343 votes. Therefore, the PML-Q and allies received 40 per cent of votes, the PPP-P 37 per cent and the PML-N 23 per cent of the 27.14M votes cast for the three major parties.

On a one-on-one basis between the three major contenders, the votes received were: the PPP-P 10.3 million, the PML-Q 7.6 million, and the PML-N 6.67 million.

The proportional representation system (PRS) is widely recognized worldwide as a more equitable and a more relevant index of peoples representation than the Anglo Saxon ‘first past the post, which prevails in India and Pakistan. Under the PRS system the PML-Q and its allies would have received 88 seats in the National Assembly out of 220 seats, the PPP-P 81 seats and the PML-N 51 seats; the remaining 52 seats (the National Assembly has a total of 272 seats which are under direct election) would have gone to the smaller parties.

It is generally recognized that the election of 2008 ranks with the election of 1970 — both held under the auspices of military rulers — as among the fairest in our history. The electoral rolls used in this election were less imperfect as compared to any previous electoral rolls used in Pakistan.

Never before was an election fought on turf as unfavourable as it was for Musharraf and the ‘Q government as it was in 2008. The incumbent government always carries the burden of everything that goes wrong, during its time, and seldom of what went right. The classic case is that of Churchill who lost the election of 1946, being blamed for food shortages and rationing; what the electorate temporarily forgot was that Churchill was the architect of the greatest victory in British history.

Had an election been held exactly a year ago or so, it is the view of most political observers that the Musharraf government would have been returned with a thumping victory. Instead of preparing the turf for an election year to be smooth and free of major controversy — just the very opposite happened — a series of horrors commencing with the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Lal Masjid fallout (the blame of which has been unfairly placed on the previous government), the events of May 12 in Karachi, the intensification of war in North & South Waziristan, intensification of random suicide bombings, the PCO of November 3, the ethically unacceptable National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the direct intrusion of the US in our domestic affairs, and finally the inflation in the prices of basic commodities after December 15, last year. The last happened in the time of the interim government, which did not have the wisdom to stop the flow of wheat flour to Afghanistan before it reached a massive outflow.

The most astonishing, nay surprising, result of this election is that the PML-Q and its allies – Musharraf’s party — gathered the highest number of votes, and the ‘Q party by itself was the runner up in terms of votes given. The result appears to express the latent support for the previous government. Why latent? Because the Musharraf years between 2001 and 2007 built up an undeniable economic prosperity which gave Pakistan for the first time a vibrant middle class. Food & energy prices were the lowest in South Asia in the above period and per capita income the highest. These hard economic facts had their remembrance for the voter.

If all parties allegedly believe in the goddess of democracy, then seats in the House of the People (National Assembly) should be proportional to the votes given to parties on a regional or national basis. Most European countries and Japan employ the PR system in one way or the other. For example, in the German Bundestag, half the seats are under PR and the other half by direct election.

The PR system in a broad outline works as under: -

Each party before the election nominates a ’slate of its members in a preferential numerical order. The National Assembly has a total of 342 seats (which includes 60 reserved seats for women and 10 for minorities who are currently elected in proportion to seats won by the parties in the general election). If a party wins 20 per cent of the popular vote, the same number of seats on regional basis in the National Assembly will be allotted to the party.

The PR system has many advantages and some disadvantages. Be that as it may, it is a truer index of the voice of the nation. Consider: -

Candidates wealth plays a much lesser part in the PR election. Since voting is for a party, not directly for an individual, contributions will be to the party and should be subject to tax concessions. A party worker of modest means, if high up on his party list, will have a better chance to be elected as opposed to a wealthy candidate at a lower slot in the same party list.

The present system is distortive. For example, if candidate-A gets 150,000 votes and candidate-B 200 votes less than candidate-A, the winner enjoys all the benefits of membership (which are substantial) but candidate-B is left in oblivion. Is this fair? Under PR system both the A & B candidates if high up in their parties respective lists can get elected.

P.R. will strengthen inter-party democracy by law. Currently no free or fair elections are held within the party, if at all. Witness the feudal mode of succession in the People’s Party. The same is true of most other parties. Inter party voting should be by secret ballot and held by the Election Commission. The key-stone in the arch of the PR system is to break or lessen dynastic politics by exposing dynasties to the vote of party members.

Currently the party manifesto is simply forgotten the day after the election — as a scrap of paper. Parties will be held better accountable than before, since it is a party programme being sold not the candidate’s election boast. The ruling party will be held accountable at election time in relation to its previous manifesto.

Currently voters are “bussed” and “fed” before being taken to voting stations by interested candidates. This and a slew of election mal-practices will continue under either system, but, will be lesser under PR as the candidate is fighting for a party ideology not directly for himself.

No system of public representation is perfect. But, a combination of the PR and ‘first past the post has many advantages. Several combinations of mix are possible and should be explored for the future of our polity

Pakistani intelligentsia’s problem: It prefers cynicism to nationalism.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The problem with Pervez Musharraf is that he wants his people to be as patriotic as the Turks and Iranians and, more recently, the Indians. But the Pakistani intelligentsia’s problem is the same as sixty years ago: It prefers cynicism to nationalism. That’s what the spat between the Pakistani president and a Pakistani journalist at a British think tank really comes down to.

Critics are calling on President Musharraf to apologize to Mr. Mohammad Ziauddin, a senior editor with the Pakistani Dawn newspaper, for calling him anti-Pakistani and questioning his patriotism.
At first glance, the journalist is vindicated. He simply asked Mr. Musharraf why he was trying to convince his western audience of the professionalism of the Pakistani security institutions when recently a wanted terrorist slipped away from the custody of Pakistani police. The President’s view went something like this, ‘Why a Pakistani journalist is asking me this question that embarrasses Pakistan , in London , in front of a British audience at a British think tank, when not a single European journalist posed this question to the Pakistani president throughout his nine-day visit?’ So, who is right? Mr. Ziauddin or Mr. Musharraf?
You will hardly find Turks or Iranians who wash their dirty laundry in the bright glare of world cameras the way Pakistanis do, and, to be more precise, the way Pakistani politicians and media do.
Even exiled Iranian liberals, who disagree with the mullahs in Tehran , calibrate their criticism when it becomes too focused on Iran . The Turks just won’t hear it against their country. The Israelis are as protective about Israel as a jealous wife, which is surprising because cynics tease Israel by saying it has so many ethnicities it can’t be a nation.  Indians are a good example too. India has been anxiously building up its nationalism over the past decade in order to bolster its claim to a military superpower role. Since there is no precedence for Indian nationalism in the strict sense of the word, New Delhi has turned to its film industry and expensive PR advertisements on CNN to prop up a newfound sense of patriotism.
Pakistanis have not met a single Indian visitor to Pakistan who would be willing to speak against India on any issue on Pakistani soil. This is impressive since tens of delegations of Indian professionals and activists, from all shades of Indian opinion, have visited Pakistan over the past four years as part of the peace dialogue.
In contrast, members of Pakistani delegations visiting India during the same period have given scores of interviews criticizing their own homeland for everything under the sun. Our own hero, Mr. Imran Khan, recently selected an Indian city, Mumbai, as a venue for a huge press conference where he accused Pakistani military and government of assassinating Benazir Bhutto. If his choice was not intentional, it certainly was in bad taste. There are millions of U.S. citizens of Chinese descent, disconnected from mainland China for three or four generations. But even during the height of Sino-American political tensions, I have not heard or seen a single U.S. citizen of Chinese descent agreeing to write or speak against China in the same way that other American commentators do. Out of more than a billion Chinese, hardly any Chinese in the West is ready to form a political association to work against China ’s interests. There have been a few dissidents but they never had an impact. In Pakistan , ordinary Pakistanis have no problem with Pakistani nationalism. The real problem lies with the intelligentsia, mainly journalists and politicians. In six decades of Independence , the Pakistani intelligentsia has failed to build and evolve a sense of Pakistani nationalism. This failure becomes clearer when compared to China , Israel and Turkey , where politicians, journalists and thinkers led the nation in building and consolidating their own nationalist identities.
The Pakistani intelligentsia has always justified its lack of interest in a Pakistani nationalism by pointing out that Pakistan consists of several ethnicities and languages and cannot be united on a single nationalist platform. Of course, this is a brazen excuse.  Pakistani thinkers, journalists, and politicians have either been preoccupied by communism and socialism or simply held back by incompetence to ever think about Pakistani nationalism. (What I keep telling you of the specific cartel, their covert anti state activities, and rewards for carrying them out, etc.)

This is why it is understandable that in the seconds before he actually stepped up to the microphone to ask his question, Mr. Ziauddin never thought for a second whether his question is ‘good or bad for Pakistan .’
He never for a second thought to himself, ‘Well, it is good that nine days in Europe and nobody questioned the President on the escaped terrorist. Musharraf is defending the Pakistani record and the audience appears to be genuinely listening. I oppose Musharraf, but here, in London , he is the President of my country. I won’t question the competence of Pakistani security institutions before a foreign audience.’
Would Mr. Ziauddin have been wrong if he restrained himself in this way? Many Israelis disagree with Israel ’s policy of killing innocent civilians during conflict. But so far no Israeli journalist has embarrassed the Israeli president and prime minister this way on their many foreign tours. Many Indians disapprove of the systematic Indian atrocities in Kashmir . But how many Indian journalists have confronted their leaders with this fact on foreign soil? A western journalist will not understand this mindset. That is why I am not very bothered by what the British media has written about this spat between our President and one of our senior journalists. Politics in Europe have evolved so much that patriotism and nationalism have been rendered obsolete, at least at the official level. But, for God’s sake, this is a country under attack. Pakistan has enemies even when we are not involved in Kashmir or Afghanistan . Pakistan ’s detractors are bent on proving to a global audience that this country is a rotten apple and it’s okay if we invade it.
We need to prove this is not the case, even as we deal with our internal problems. That’s what our President, whether you like him or not, was doing in Europe . Was that too much for a senior journalist like Mr. Ziauddin to understand? This is why President Musharraf owes an apology to no one. It is time someone took a stand for Pakistani nationalism.