Is the Kind of Change KAPTAAN "Struggling" for, the change actually people want?

                  In the current miserable corrupt political environment and quagmire of exploitations in Pakistan, no doubt almost everybody explicitly or implicitly desires for a political change that might hopefully also become a favorable fortune change for the people of Pakistan. In this quagmire, a very prominent name stirring a boat with a tag named "CHANGE" is Imran Khan, the former champion cricket team captain famously known as KAPTAAN. And surely he more or less has succeeded in gaining so called popular support and especially of Pakistani youth by striking the drum of "Change". His political party Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), which until months before considered as a political party that can win only one seat all over Pakistan has shown significant improvement in changing its image in the political arena of the country. But here a very critical question underlying is that "Is the kind of Change Kaptaan "struggling" for, the change what actually the people of Pakistan want and need."

                                       In my opinion, the answer to this question for certain reasons is a big NO. The change that is needed to rectify the life conditions of our people in the actual sense has become a very sacred cause and to achieve this noble cause, the most essential requirement is forthrightness and an accord between sayings and actions. But Kaptaan hasn't got rid of the contradiction between his words and actions yet. On one hand, according to him he doesn't need winning horses for his movement and so called revolutionary change, but on the other hand, he does consider Shah Mehmood Qureshi his most adept pacer to get the powerful "Jayales" bowled out in Multan and similarly he does not hesitate to put his trust in Khawaja Muhammad Khan Hoti to play the Yorkers and speedy bouncers of present Khyber Pukhtunkhwa rulers in Mardan district in the field of coming elections. The examples of inducting such recycled players are too many all over Pakistan. Without considering their political careers and past innings, Kaptaan is very generous in providing some very "FAMOUS" players an opportunity to play in his team. Kaptaaan is also very bold in giving justification for his such generous behavior by defining it as a Tsunami that cannot be controlled. He also provides one other justification for inducting such people in his team that now he isn't refusing any body's request for becoming member of his party but later he will carry out a proper scrutiny before awarding tickets. Here I cannot understand the kind of scrutiny that will take place against those who after not getting ministries of their choice, not getting desirable party offices or not having a chance of getting party tickets for coming elections from their parties have joined him with the deal that they would be provided in PTI with what they were deprived in other parties. Furthermore, awarding the offices of vice chairman and head of party election comity to one who joined just a week before after enjoying an affluent ministry for three and a half years, isn't an apparent exploitation of those who remained party loyal in the times when it was quite ridiculous and humiliating when somebody used to call himself as a member of PTI, an only one seat party in those times.  From this, the motives of Kaptaan clearly implies that if he manages to get into Presidency or Prime Minister House, the "Change" will be achieved, no matter who is sitting in the assemblies and running the ministries. Here he completely ignores or tries to forget the fact that he won the world cup 92 with the combined efforts of the whole team, if he was the one alone performing he couldn't have won it. Not mere ruling but efficiently running a government requires efficient contribution on part of each and every responsible authority. Only having a hand full of legislatures who do not have a sense and spirit of serving sincerely won't bring change in true sense, rather it would be a change of mere faces in the Presidency and Prime Minister House. Remember Kaptaan, if you are going for such a change then kindly take pity on this nation because we have no more foreign accounts to freeze, no more people to bleed and no other East Pakistan to secede.

 About The Author: Muhammad Azhar Khan is currently studying Economics at Lahore University Of Management Sciences. Besides research in his own major subject, he is an advocate writer of Pakhtun Nationalism. He has publications on various global dynamic issues. His areas of interests include international political and diplomatic relations.

Critique on “The Bad Sufi”

Qalandar Bux Memon is a well reputed writer and analyst. He is currently the editor of The Naked Punch, a UK based magazine. This article first appeared on The Samosa-a new politics, culture and arts journal, campaigning blog and website-on 26^th January 2010. The main theme of the article is that the root of all problems in Pakistan-feudalism-is actually fueled by the combined interests of the American government and that of the Pakistani elite. According to him they achieve this by capitalizing on the uneducated classes’ unwavering belief on Sufi saints.

Throughout the work the author uses a very challenging and aggressive tone. On many occasions he employs harsh terms and even lays some serious criticism on the Pakistani elite. Using techniques such as rhetorical questions, dramatic dialogue, statistical analysis and historical references he paints a vivid picture of his beliefs. On many occasions in the text he has also used examples from his own experiences to support his argument which is actually the technique that he has used most effectively.

            The basic assertion that the author makes is that the Sufis,-which he has taken to be same as landlords and feudal chiefs-while hiding behind the façade of “moderate Islam” are using the gullible masses to achieve their own ends. He also claims that the Americans use this charade to do whatever they please in a country that’s not their own. He states that the new Sufi version of Islam is acting as an “opiate for the masses.” (Memon)  So, as the Sufis get richer, the poor get poorer without the latter realizing what is actually going on. Furthermore he goes on to point out that as these Pirs/Sufis are the people that invariably end up in the national assembly, they have deep roots inside the government of Pakistan. This is the reason that they are in effect answerable to no one.

            To illustrate his aforementioned assertions, Mr. Memon employs his own experiences and presents them as examples in explicit detail. The shrine of Shah Kamal has been mentioned at the very start of the article. The writer describes how the people, in their blind faith upon these Pirs, are engrossed in the nets of deceit that are woven by their mentors themselves. Then he also quotes the example of Imam Bari Sarkar (a famous Pir). His examples are no doubt very authentic and also very relevant. Taking them in, the reader tends to agree with the author’s view point.

            Another factor that makes the work so effective is the bold accusations that the author makes. Reading the text, the reader comes across many occasions where the writer rather blatantly blames some specific groups for the problems in Pakistan. He even names people like Mr. Yusuf Raza Gillani, the prime minister of Pakistan and Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the foreign minister of Pakistan. Time and again the writer directly criticizes the Americans for supporting the Pirs so that their rule might prevail. In short the author has laid some serious blame on some very important people.

            The writer also introduces statistical evidence, expert opinion and at a point a historical reference, but on a very limited scope. He only reveals once that Ziauddin Sardar, a famous scholar of Islamic faith, helped him formulate the opinion that he holds now. Coming to statistical evidence, the writer gives some statistics about the poverty problem in the sindh province. But again this is done with a very obvious lack of detail which is contrary to the vivid examples that he gives. The historical reference to the British is again just a statement without any details at all. So in these three aspects, the work clearly is deficient in necessary detail.

            Viewing the text as a whole there are certain instances where the writer has truly made an impact on the reader. Take for example the part where he blames the prime minister as being from a feudal lord/Pir background. He has used that to prove that the roots of these people are very deep in the government. Then on another occasion, to emphasize the suffering of the working classes at he hands of the Pirs, he sheds light on the opulence of the “Bhuttos” and the “Gillanis” which he considers to be from the same background as the Pirs.

            On the whole the writer has presented his viewpoint in a very effective manner, but what he fails to do is to provide hard facts to back his arguments. For example he quotes the president as being from the same group as the Pirs and the Sufis but does not provide any evidence based upon which he makes his assertion. Although at one point he does use statistical analysis but that too is not backed by any credible source regarding its authenticity.

            All through the work it is strongly asserted that all or most of the feudal lords derive their power and lordship through being a Sufi. He has constantly taken the terms landlord and Pir to be the same character. This is a very questionable assumption. While some feudal lords do claim to be the “holy saviors” of their people, most simply derive their authority from sheer force itself. In some cases it may come through the leadership of ancient clans, but the point is that the power base of the feudal lords in Pakistan cannot be attributed to Sufism alone.

            Another point is that the writer has taken an invariably negative take on Sufism. What he fails to realize is that all Sufis are not rogue thieves that get rich by selling charmed amulets to uneducated people. Although this sort does exist but to classify all in this category would be unfair. There also exist people who are Sufis and are actually learned religious scholars and devout men of God who the writer fails to acknowledge.

            Concluding all his work, in this article, the author has tried to highlight how the feudal system in Pakistan prevails behind the theological illusion of Sufism and how it is maintained with the help of the Americans. But while what he implies appeals immediately to the average educated reader he has failed to support his arguments in the academic sense. Apart from that, the author has presented his opinions very convincingly and in an aggressive manner.

Written By: Awais Iqbal

Rubin Hurricane Carter: An Innocent Man or a Killer on the Loose?

2:30 A.M., June 17, 1966. It was almost time to call it day at the Lafayette Grill in Paterson, New Jersey. James Oliver, the bartender, was standing by the cash register counting the day's proceeds. Fred Bob Nauyoks was seated at the center of the bar, close to where Oliver was standing. Two stools to the left of Nauyoks sat William Marins, a patron of the Lafayette Grill. At the far end of the bar, Hazel Tanis lingered over her drink. She was a friend of Oliver and had stopped by for a little chitchat after an evening's work as a waitress.

The front door opened and in walked two African-American men. The shorter of the two was carrying a double-barreled shotgun. The other carried a .32 caliber revolver. The bartender looked toward the front door and dropped the money he was counting in terror. Fear stricken and panicking, he hurled an empty bottle at the men. It smashed against the air conditioner to the right of the door. Oliver turned to run from the gunmen. A shotgun blast caught him in the lower back. He fell to the floor behind the bar. He was dead.

At the same instant, the second gunman shot Nauyoks in the back of the head, quickly turned to his left and shot Marins just above the eye. Nauyoks' head slumped forward onto the bar. He looked as though he had fallen asleep. A lit cigarette remained between his fingers. His foot remained on his stool's foot rest. He, too, was dead.

Marins was dazed. With one eye blinded and his skull fractured, he stumbled around the bar. The gunmen left him for dead and turned toward the door. When they first arrived, the door had blocked their view of Hazel Tanis. Now they saw the helpless woman who was pinned in a corner. She screamed as the two men fired one shotgun blast and four .32 caliber rounds at her. Fatally wounded, she fell to the floor near the doorway.

The gunmen walked out onto the street, where their car was parked. They were laughing and talking loudly. Directly in front of them was Alfred Bello, a man with a lengthy criminal record. He was on the look out as his partner attempted to break into a sheet metal plant across the street. Bello, who had heard the gunshots, thought the two armed men were police officers and continued walking toward them.

He was within 15 feet of the men when all of a sudden he realized what he had stumbled upon. He turned and ran from the gunmen, whose weapons were empty, and hid in an alley about 200 feet away. The gunmen pulled away in a white car. When they had gone, Bello returned to the Lafayette Grill and the shocking scene inside. He walked to the cash register and pocketed about $62, after which he called the police. (The preceding description was based on a police reconstruction of the crime. It has been adapted from the article ‘How it all went down’)

2:40 A.M., June 17, 1966. The Passaic County Police Force arrived at the crime scene and started questioning the witnesses. Alfred Bello, who had accidently confronted the gunmen, told police officers that both the assassins were of African-American origin and that they hit the road in a white car which had out-of-state license plates. The only other witness was Pat Valentine. She lived directly above the Lafayette Grill. Peeking through her bedroom window, she witnessed the gunmen escaping. Valentine’s description was consistent with Bello’s account. She was dead sure that the gunmen were of African-American origin and that they took off in a white car with out-of-state license plates. She further informed officers that the tail lights of the get away vehicle resembled a butterfly. The witnesses’ accounts gave the Passaic County Police Force a sense of direction and formed the basis of a criminal investigation. The search for the ‘Lafayette Killers’ began.  

3:00 A.M., June 17, 1966. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter and John Artis were taken into custody by officers of the Passaic County Police Force, in the vicinity of the Lafayette Grill. The police suspected that Carter and Artis were the two gunmen who went on a killing spree at the Lafayette Grill earlier that night. This suspicion was on solid grounds and not some wild hunch. Both the suspects were of African-American origin and were travelling in a white colored 1966 Dodge Polaro, which belonged to Carter. Apart from being white in color, the car also had out-of-state license plates and its tail lights resembled a butterfly, a feature unique to the 1966 Dodge Polaro.

3:05 A.M., June 17 1966. Passaic County Police Officers brought Rubin Carter and John Artis, both in handcuffs, to the scene of the crime, the Lafayette Grill. The two men, prime suspects of the investigation in the eyes of the authorities, were approached by Alfred Bello and Pat Valentine. Both witnesses positively identified Carter and Artis as the gunmen and the evidence against the ‘prime’ suspects continued to pile on. 

In the summer of 1967, Rubin Carter and John Artis were found guilty by a Passaic County Court jury for the murders of Jim Oliver, Bob Nauyoks and Hazel Tanis (she succumbed to her injuries on July 14, 1966). William Marins survived the shooting but later passed away in 1973. Carter and Artis were sentenced to life in prison. The convictions came as the mountain of evidence against the two men reached insurmountable heights.

December of 1976 saw Rubin Carter and John Artis appeal the guilty verdict that they were handed over nine years earlier. The appeal proved fruitless. The second jury found no compelling reasoning to overturn the original verdict. Both men were reconvicted and imprisoned once more. Disillusioned and with little optimism of being set free, John Artis found it agonizing to swallow the fact that he would die behind bars. Rubin Carter, however, continued his struggle to attain his freedom. After rejecting numerous appeals against Carter’s life imprisonment sentence, the Federal Court finally accepted an application for appeal by Carter’s attorneys.

Judge Haddon Lee Sarokin of the United States District Court heard the appeal in 1985. Rubin Carter’s determination and strong resolve finally paid off as Judge Sarokin set aside the conviction. He ruled that Carter had not received a fair trial, stating that the prosecution had been "based on racism rather than reason" (The Sarokin Decision) and "concealment rather than disclosure" (The Sarokin Decision). Judge Sarokin’s decision meant that after spending eighteen years in prison and being convicted twice for triple murders, Rubin “Hurricane” Carter was a free man once more.

Only a couple of years before the ‘Lafayette Murders’, Rubin Carter was ranked the number one contender for the World Boxing Middleweight Title. His destructive style and heavy muscle punching earned him the nickname “Hurricane”. The two years from 1964-66 saw Carter lose competency as a boxer and his ranking fell. But his celebrity status remained well intact.

When Rubin Carter was first indicted and put behind bars, the sentiments of the general public laid in his favor and several celebrities at the time lobbied and campaigned for his release. Muhammad Ali and Bob Dylan were the first to endorse Carter’s innocence and unfair trial. Dylan even co-wrote, sang and officially released a song depicting Rubin Carter’s innocence. The latest feature of publicity stunts by celebrities to proclaim Carter’s innocence was the movie ‘The Hurricane’, directed by Norman Jewison. But was Rubin Carter truly innocent and had he really been unfairly tried?

Ever since his release in November, 1985, the “Hurricane” has repeatedly claimed his innocence. He alleged that he was “framed by racist, corrupt police and prosecutors” (Top Ten Myths About Rubin Hurricane Carter and the Lafayette Grill Murders). Carter argued that the case against him was “thick with racism and thin on evidence” (Top Ten Myths About Rubin Hurricane Carter and the Lafayette Grill Murders). He highlighted the fact the he was first convicted by an all-white jury and the jury in his second trial consisted of only two men of African-American origin. Carter also pointed out how he was charged and found guilty of the triple murder on the testimony of Alfred Bello, who himself was a known thief and liar, with an extensive criminal record. According to Carter, William Marins, the only survivor of the Lafayette shootings, shook his head when police officers asked him whether Rubin Carter was one of the gunmen. Carter alleged that he was only stopped by the police on the night of the murders because he was “DWB – Driving While Black” (Top Ten Myths About Rubin Hurricane Carter and the Lafayette Grill Murders). Carter also said that he was “harassed by the police because of a Saturday Evening Post article in which he joked about shooting cops” (Top Ten Myths About Rubin Hurricane Carter and the Lafayette Grill Murders) and that several acquaintances had warned him that the police were out to get him. He also believed that the whole conspiracy was formulated and executed because of him being a Black Activist, something the authorities could not bear with and thus they wished to silence Carter.

Some of Rubin “Hurricane” Carter’s allegations and conspiracy theories might seem absurd and difficult to believe. For instance, there was not a single piece of evidence to even suggest that Carter was a Black Activist. Also, Williams Marins was not sure whether Carter was one of the gunmen or not. He never suggested that Carter was ‘not one of the two murderers’. The biasness of the juries, as suggested by Carter, was far from the truth. Carter’s attorneys used all their challenges during jury selection and jury members were only selected after passing a test specifically designed to check for any racially prejudiced behavior.

However it seems that some of his proclamations of innocence might have had some truth in them. After all, Rubin Carter’s conviction was set aside by Judge Sarokin, and the reasons that he cited for his decision were not far off from some of Carter’s claims.

Nonetheless, one should not forget that Rubin Carter was twice convicted for the murders at the Lafayette Grill, first in 1967 and then in 1976. The evidence against him was thought to be sufficient by two different juries. So was Rubin Carter one of the two gunmen who ruthlessly carried out a triple homicide at the Lafayette Grill in 1966?

Considering the evidence against him, it seems so. He and his car perfectly fit the descriptions given by two crime scene witnesses of the gunmen and their vehicle. When Carter was taken into custody, police found a live shotgun shell and a live .32 caliber bullet rolling around inside his car. Both live rounds exactly fit the murder weapons. Also, Carter called upon four witnesses to testify in court in order to prove that he was not at the Lafayette Grill when the shooting took place. All four of these witnesses later admitted that Carter had forced them to commit perjury as their testimonies were all lies. On top of this, Carter and Artis both gave conflicting stories as to there whereabouts at 2:30 A.M on 17^th June, 1966, when the murders were committed. Carter changed his alibi twice during the course of the first two trials. To add to this, both Carter and Artis failed lie detector tests conducted by the police.    

Then there was also the racial revenge theory which the prosecution raised. Six hours prior to the Lafayette shootings, a prominent member of the Paterson African-American community was murdered. Racial tensions were at a high in Paterson, New Jersey at the time. The victim happened to be the step father of Eddie Brawls, a close friend of Rubin Carter. Both of them were seen together on the night of the shootings. The prosecutors felt that racial revenge could have been a possible motive for the killings, as the Lafayette Grill was known for not serving colored people. This seems a very plausible theory considering the fact that when the police stopped Rubin Carter’s car on the night of the murder, he was on the street on which Eddie Rawls lived. The prosecution believed that Carter dumped the weapons at his friends’ apartment. Also, Carter claimed to be heading home, while he was heading in the opposite direction before being taken into custody.

Rubin Carter had spent almost half his life in prison even before the Lafayette murders in 1966. Carter had a criminal record which began when he was only nine years old, and his offenses varied from petty crimes such as stealing and loitering to sinister offenses such as assault with a knife and attempted murder. A notorious statement made by Carter during an interview in 1964 truly reflected his character. “I don’t enjoy hitting or hurting people, not unless they mess with me. Then I enjoy it. I’ve never been one that could take anything from other people. If you mess with me I’m going to try to kill you. When I get angry I don’t fight by any rules and I don’t shake hands when it’s over” (The Saturday Evening Post Article).

Whether or not Rubin “Hurricane” Carter was one of the two gunmen in the Lafayette shooting was an issue of great controversy, dispute and debate. Infact, it still continues to be so today. Carter himself always maintained his innocence. Those who supported Carter felt he was the scapegoat in a conspiracy of tremendous proportions. Skeptics, however, always persisted that Carter was definitely guilty of the Lafeyette murders, given the heap of evidence against him and his shaky defense. Was the “Hurricane” an innocent man who the authorities tried to frame or was he guilty of brutally murdering three white people, his motive being racial vendetta? Given the strength of evidence against Carter, the latter proposition seems more legitimate than the former.  

Written By: Irteza Jafri 

The Need Of Reallocation Of Resources In Pakistan

 With 24 percent of the Pakistani population below the poverty line and almost half the population illiterate (World Bank), the proportion of the budget allocated by the government on Defence is deplorable. The government needs to realize that the consequences of spending as low as 1.8 percent of the budget on education can be catastrophic and hence increase its expenditure on education, reducing it on Defence.

Any developing economy that hopes to be a part of the developed world someday has to allocate a significant amount of resources towards the education sector. Studies confirm that the productivity benefits of education are large- just one additional year of education can increase productivity of a worker by 10 percent (Russell), hence an educated workforce means a much higher output of a country.  

Research has shown that Pakistan has lost a considerable amount of earnings due to under investment in education, implying that had the government spent more on education problems like poverty and unemployment would not be as serious as they are today. “Pakistan’s 1985 income would have been 25 percent higher if Pakistan had had Indonesia’s 1960 primary enrolment rate and about 16 percent higher if female enrolment rates had been the same level as for boys and extending these projections to 2005 it would be safe to conclude that Pakistan’s per capita income today would have been almost double than what it actually is and the record on poverty much better” (Bridsall, Ross, Sabot). “Pakistan missed economic opportunities that have been exploited by many developing countries by increasing educational levels for the bulk of its labour force and, thus, enhancing their household incomes and reducing poverty”(Khan). To avoid losing more potential output in the future the government needs to divert resources from defence towards education.

As proposed by Geofrey Harris, defence has a negative trade-off with education. Studies have found that an increase in defence expenditure involves an opportunity cost in terms of a reduction in some other sector mostly education. It is self evident that government expenditure on any activity means that those particular funds cannot be spent on possibly highly desirable activities.  “It is also important to note that half or more of such defence expenditure is usually allocated to personnel. The purchase of weaponry typically amounts to around 20 percent of defence expenditure” (Geofrey Harris). One might argue that the army employs a large number of people and reducing the budget for defence would cause these people to become unemployed, hence employment will fall. The answer to this is that the government along with reducing expenditure on defence is increasing it on education and education is not restricted to building schools and employing teachers. This sector also includes programmes such as vocational training centers which the redundant army officers can go to and hence improve their employability.

“Economists consider investment in education as an important factor contributing to “human capital” beside skills training and healthcare. Education through human capital formation can thus reduce poverty as proposed by the Poverty Reduction Strategy paper- more investment in human capital for sustained economic growth and poverty alleviation” (Khan).The positive relationship between years of schooling and labour market earnings is well established in the field of labour economics. Mincer in 1974 developed an economic model which showed a direct link between individual earnings and years of completed schooling. This clearly indicates that an educated workforce will earn more, implying a higher standard of living.

In opposition it might be argued that Pakistan shares its border with India, with which Pakistan has had a hostile relationship in the past and reducing expenditure on defence would threaten the national security of Pakistan. In response to this, it is not at all being suggested that the army should be withdrawn from the border. However the government needs to curtail excess expenditures which are included in defence but do not contribute towards national security in any way e.g. the perks army officers receive. Further a smaller but a more trained army would be better for Pakistan talking in terms of efficiency. The Palme report refers to the “increase in human deprivation in many developing countries which follows from the use of government revenues on the military rather on health and education.  The report also asserts that military spending can jeopardize economic growth and development and thus the foundation of lasting security.”(Geofrey Harris)

“Education is an effective solution for economic backwardness which is highly linked to low labour efficiency and training, deficient supplies of entrepreneurship and slow growth in knowledge. The countries that have surged ahead are characterized by high level of human capital accumulation where the educated labour force has raised the level of output and the rate of growth over a sustained period of time”(Ishrat Hussain)

The government needs to take drastic steps towards improving the education system of Pakistan if it wants Pakistan to move on the road towards development. Spending more on education will yield more that what spending on defence has yielded over the past 64 years.

Written By: Ayeshah Tetlay ( LUMS )