|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
opinion As
the summer heats up Taal
Matol policy Rights and
wrongs RIPPLE EFFECT
opinion What should be the role of politics in everyday life and what should be the state's reaction to mass political processes? A relevant question in the wake of the recent Long March By Ameem Lutfi One of the more popular TV
news channels recently aired a special report on the preparations being In another report on the participants present in the 'Long March' (criteria being the prevalence of party flags), the reporter commented on the absence of People's Party flags, for the first time in quite a while now, People's Party red, green and black were missing from a large mass movement.Under the pretext of giving preference to dialogue over public agitation, People's Party representatives are keeping out of the very movement of which they were the heart and soul, some time before the elections. If one goes back to 1972, shrouded behind the horrors of the war (an event that to date continues to dominate the public memory of that period) is the history of the SITE area labor strikes in Karachi. Bhutto, who in 1968 led the Anti-Ayub movement and fed fuel to the anti-urban industrialist strands in the movement, now urged the labourers to stop their politics of agitation, and work together to help the nation progress. Bhutto claimed the then government was 'mazdooron ki hukoomat', and hence there was no need for the labourer to protest against it. My argument here is not to present the concerned politicians as being hypocritical and self-serving, neither am I here trying to make an argument that even democratically elected governments in Pakistan, when elected, act like a military government. I have related the two news clippings and the forgotten history of 1972 to create a background allowing me to posit the question: what should be the nature of mass politics in a democratic Pakistan? Across the border in India, where they have not been plagued by military rule and have had an extended run of democratic rule since independence, this very question had surfaced a long time ago. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime-minister of independent India was trying to shake off the hangover from pre-independence Gandhi'esque mass-politics of protests, strikes, boycotts and what not. It was the very same Nehru who had been during the anti-colonial struggle along with Gandhi giving crowds arousing speeches to get the multitude on to the streets, and it was Nehru, who at Patna on Aug 30, 1955 while addressing a group of college students exclaimed: "To take part in demonstrations and hooliganism in the name of politics, is apart from the right or wrong of it, not proper for students of any country." To rationalise his drastic change in stance on mass-politics from pre-independence days Nehru did what Bhutto was to do in 1972 -- to present protest politics as being legitimate means of expression only under certain circumstances. Nehru went on to argue in his Patna speech, quoted earlier as well, that the use of violence and indiscipline was "the lot of students in countries under foreign rule" only. Using indiscipline tactics, Nehru felt, were "not the sign of a free nation." What was it about post-independent India that made it so fundamentally different and left protest politics as not only redundant but also illegitimate? For Nehru it was the presence of democratically elected native representative government under the parliamentary form of government that made street-politics a relic from the past. We in Pakistan have unfortunately not kept up with the five-yearly ritual of elections. With military rule filling a large part of our history there has not even been the impression of popular sovereignty. The presence of dictatorial rule has created enough space for anti-authoritarian rebel tactics to be deemed 'moral' and 'appropriate' in the popular mindset. Military rule in our country under Ayub, Zia, Yahya and now Musharraf has resembled colonial enough for anti-colonial practices to continue to exist. This is not to say that democratic government presents no signs of colonial hangover, but that the absence of even any semblance of popular electoral processes has been enough to keep a clear separation between the state and the citizenry. Like colonial times, the state at least in popular perception in Pakistan continues to exist outside of the populace. Hence, tactics used to barter, plead and battle against foreign rule still remain in play. It is only during these small pockets of democratic rule, not the PML-Q type of democratic rule, but one with credibility, that questions notions such as what should be the role of politics in everyday life of the people and what should be the state's reaction to mass political processes. Dipesh Chakrabarty, a famous post-colonial historian and anthropologist, from whom I have borrowed a lot from in the article, in his paper 'In the name of Politics: Power of Multitude in India' while assessing Nehru's relationship with mass politics, exclaims "at the moment when a crowd unleashes its power in a situation where the memory of repression has become remote, it creates a vision, however fleeting, of direct and popular control of governance. Not only that: by forcing otherwise anonymous officials to come and speak to them, the crowd forces the state to represent itself in a concrete manner." Thus protest politics carries with it an undeniable sense of empowerment that would be difficult for the state to take away without the use of an iron fist. Thus the question we must address at this moment is: how do we as a prospective 'liberal' nation find order in the multitude without appearing authoritarian. Perhaps the People Party's recent move to channelise the 'Long March' by recognising it and arranging for the security, food, water and basic requirement of the protesters might present us with a possible solution to the problem, but would the state continue to keep the same approach when faced with labour protest or movements run by less 'civil forces'? Can we, or should we get rid of the anti-colonial legacy of breaking the law to express political sentiments? The spate
of incidents on our North Western border, including the By Rahimullah Yusufzai Protests are still taking
place in the NWFP over the June 10 US airstrikes in Mohmand tribal region in The incident, in which 27 Pakistanis including 13 soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps were killed, would continue to haunt and influence the uneasy relations between Pakistan and the US. Their unequal partnership has seldom grown into a sincere relationship. The killing of Pakistani troops could further widen the distrust that has characterised their ties since the 9/11 attacks in America and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001. The US attack has further inflamed the anti-America sentiment in the NWFP and FATA. The US refusal to offer an apology has added fuel to the fire. The fact that the US forces came to the aid of the Afghan National Army that was trying to set up a border post at the contested Durand Line was seen as evidence that Washington backed Kabul's claim to territory at the disputed Pak-Afghan border. This was unacceptable for Islamabad as it wanted the US to use its influence with Kabul to resolve the border once for all instead of taking sides. The US further provoked Pakistan when it subsequently used its pilotless Predator or Reaper planes to fire two Hellfire missiles directly at the Frontier Corps' border post and killed the 13 soldiers including one major. Civilians were also killed and injured in the attack. According to Pakistani
Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar, several militants too lost their lives in the Some US government spokesmen rubbed salt on Pakistan's wounds by insisting that they (US) were not sure if Pakistani troops had been killed in the airstrikes in Mohmand Agency. They were making these statements at a time when the media was providing reports and pictures of the funerals of the slain soldiers and some of them were seen under treatment at public hospitals in Peshawar. The US attempts to justify the missile strikes against the Pakistani security post at the border also raised tempers in Pakistan. The US belatedly realised the gravity of the situation and offered a joint military probe of the Mohmand Agency incident. A US military team was due to arrive in Pakistan to carry out the joint investigation with Pakistan Army. However, this probe is unlikely to fix responsibility or recommend disciplinary action against anyone, not the least against the mighty Americans. All we can expect from the inquiry is to give assurances that more care would be taken in future to avoid such incidents. There would also be talk of better coordination between the the US and Pakistan Army. The US may also belatedly console the families of the Pakistani soldiers killed in action. One doesn't know if the US would offer monetary compensation to those killed and wounded. While talking about US military suspicions about the Pakistan Army, particulary the FC, it is pertinent to mention recent comments made by American General Dan McNeil, who was until recently the Nato commander in Afghanistan. He recalled that two US military officers were shot dead by FC personnel during flag meetings between American and Pakistan army officers on the Pak-Afghan border. Some US military commanders and scholars have also pointed out that FC was composed of Pakhtun tribesmen, who are of the same ethnic stock as the Taliban and, therefore, they would sympathise with the Taliban cause. Rand Corporation's researcher Seth Jones also made the same accusations against the FC and Pakistani intelligence agencies. It is also relevant to mention that the FC has suffered the most in the military operations against the Taliban in the tribal areas and a significant number of its troops have deserted their jobs. Ironicaly, the US is offering assistance to train the same FC personnel whom it suspects of supporting the Taliban. All this makes the situation confusing and complex. The dramatic rise in Taliban attacks in Afghanistan this summer is testing the patience of the US-led Nato forces. The jailbreak in Kandahar when more than 1100 prisoners including about 390 Taliban escaped and the subsequent Taliban capture of Arghandab district, sited just 10 kilometres from Kandahar, has both embarrassed and angered the Nato forces and the Afghan government. President Hamid Karzai was unable to control his anger as he threatened to send Afghan troops to Pakistan to kill Pakistani Taliban commanders Baitullah Mahsud, Maulana Fazlullah and Maulvi Omar. It was undiplomatic on his part to issue such a threat even if he was somewhat justified in asking as to why Pakistanis were coming to Afghanistan to fight and kill Afghans and their Western allies. It was, therefore, hardly surprising that his outburst provoked Pakistan to issue a strong-worded protest and term his comments irresponsible. The incident also contributed to the distrust that characterises the uncertain relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan and made it even more likely that the governments would offer each other sincere cooperation while fighting the militants. The same uncertainty now haunts Pakistan's ties with the US, which hasn't helped matters by continuing to stand by the discredited Pakistani President General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf and by missing no opportunity to interference in Pakistan's affairs. The spate of incidents mentioned above would certainly have some fallout. We could see more of the same as the summer heats up. By Shoaib Hashmi There is the old story of this gardener's son who had grown up with a prince who became very fond of him, and when the prince eventually became king the man thought he had hit a gold mine. Whatever job the king put him to, he found a way to extort money from whoever came in contact with him. The king got fed up, but the man was a great favourite with him, and finally the king told him to just go sit by the seaside, and count the waves. The man just stopped all ships coming and going on the pretext that it interfered with his counting. This has nothing to do with my tirade against the DHA against whom I have nothing except some slight resentment at having to pay the ten rupee toll every time I go to school; especially because each time there is some bloody-minded driver ahead of me who wants to argue with the collectors if I am in a hurry, or the collector is a butter-fingered clod holding on to three token books and three wads of notes, quite unable to keep them sorted even if he keeps the whole lot sodden with spittle! The point is the people have a rather uppish attitude and the residents keep complaining. The latest episode is the Authority has told residents with vacant unbuilt plots that they have to build by the end of this year, or face hefty fines! In reaction the residents are brushing off old excuses and old placards and protesting. Actually I am a bit confused about the morality. After all the people own their land having paid through the noses, and I, and them, can't see why they should be pushed into building until they want to. Obviously they don't want to because most of them are living in the US, working their way to a Green Card and they don't have the time to come home and build. But that makes me think of the selfish bloody mindedness of hogging all the real estate in town and then going and sitting in America making their fortunes while we have to endure their empty eyesores here! And then they come up with lame excuses and asking for some relief. That is a great sport here, asking abjectly for 'some relief.' Each year the tax authorities announce the date for submitting tax forms months in advance, and as the time comes closer tax payers spend all their energy, and the department's agitating for an extension in the date instead of filling forms. And each time the excuse is that the date has come upon them unawares and there just isn't enough time. It's the same here. I am positive the authorities didn't spring the date on them suddenly. They must have served notices on owners for years before taking the step of imposing a fine, but nobody is going to admit how long they have known of the deadline -- only that the time is too short beginning now, and they deserve 'some relief.' Brilliant! The absence of a proper regulatory framework for private medical education is a cause of huge concern in the province of Punjab By Ali Waqar The Punjab chief minister
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has constituted a high level committee to The committee, constituted on June 18, 2008, chaired by the secretary health department, comprising eight to ten members including Punjab MPAs, educationists and vice chancellor of University of Health Sciences(UHS), is scheduled to hold its first meeting on June 23. TNS also learnt from certain government officials that this was not the first attempt to streamline private medical education. About nine years ago the then chief executive of the province, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, issued an order to make rules and regulations for the medical education in the province, the official said. It was August 4, 1999 when the secretary to the chief minister wrote to the provincial health department to finalise a policy for the establishment of private medical colleges in the province within 14 days. Soon after this directive, the political situation changed leading to the Oct 12 military coup The story started in mid- 1990s when private medical colleges began operating in the province. The affiliating university of that time -- University of the Punjab -- started demanding a registration certificate from the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) for colleges of Punjab government, which is the registration authority according to the Punjab Private Education Institution (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance of 1984. As a result, it was learnt
from the Punjab Law Department, that there was no provision for private A Punjab Law Department official said that the new commitee is supposed to ensure proper legislation and regulatory framework for private medical education. According to the official, who requested anonymity, the non-provision of a registration and regulation law for private medical education in Punjab allowed a mushroom growth of private medical colleges in the province in the last 10-12 years. According to the official, a study of the Punjab Private Education Institution (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance of 1984 reveals that there is no provision of medical institutions' registration and regulation. Another senior official of the federal health ministry maintained that the health and education regulations were provincial subjects. "The federal government has only a policy guidance role to play," he said. In 2002, the Lahore High Court also directed the Punjab government to formulate a clear policy to allow and register all private medical colleges. On a petition seeking permission to start a Bachelors of Computer Sciences course at Government Asghar Mall College, Justice Abdul Shakoor Paracha observed: "The government hasn't formulated any policy regarding imparting education through private institutions. A culture has developed in the country to extract money from students by establishing institutions for imparting education in software, hardware engineering, medicine, homoeopathy and business administration. Private persons or NGOs establish private institutions without basic facilities. It is a matter of great concern that these private individuals and NGOs publish advertisements without getting an affiliation from any university and without having any proper building, libraries, computers or labs." Meanwhile Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) assumed the role of 'regulating' and 'recognising' private medical colleges in the country, which in fact is a provincial subject. PMDC, created through an ordinance in 1962, is a recommendatory body of the federal government,that operates under the health ministry, and is supposed to register medical practitioners, as per clear definition and explanation of its 1962 Act. The issue started when private medical colleges started emerging on the scene. PMDC started expanding its role and made its own 'regulations' under certain rules, not mandated in the ordinance. A state of panic emerged as PMDC started to reject the students of colleges, which according to PMDC, were not registered or recognised by the council, whereas a study of the PMDC Ordinance 1962 reveals that the council is unauthorised to inspect any medical college or intervene in its academic affair This issue provided an opportunity to point out fingers at PMDC The Lahore High Court more than once and also a double bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan has directed the federal government to frame a proper policy on the subject or at least empower PMDC with such powers. A copy of the Pakistan Medical Council Ordinance 1962, says: "It is an ordinance to consolidate the registration of practitioners and medical qualified personell." All necessary points of the Ordinance are concerned with medical qualifications and practitioners' registration. The Council is empowered only to certify that certain persons possess medical and dental qualifications. It is an advisory body and can only ask for information and propose inquiry committees on the medical qualifications of a person and not on an institution. In 2007, a double bench of Supreme Court pushed the government to empower PMDC with such power within six months but that also did not happen. PMDC president and former principal of Allama Iqbal Medical Colleges, Prof Syed Sibtul Hasnain believes that the propaganda against PMDC is baseless. He said, PMDC was authorised to inspect and regulate the medical colleges under certain rules. He said instead of any provincial authority, PMDC should be the only national level authority to inspect and verify colleges to ensure uniform standards. In 2002, University of Health Sciences (UHS) was established in Punjab through an ordinance to bring public and private medical education under one roof. But UHS consider PMDC a 'competent authority' to recognise colleges and asks every college to get the approval of PMDC first. Then another committee of UHS visits and inspects those colleges, repeating the PMDC procedure. On the other hand, many people also consider UHS as controversial, as after a long tug of war, King Edward Medical College, -- now a university -- managed a separate charter of university. While Fatima Jinnah Medical College (FJMC) was asked to continue with its affiliation with the University of the Punjab. Though UHS Ordinance clearly states that every medical institution within the jurisdiction of the province will be attached under UHS but the provincial authorities themselves had been breaching this law. It is also interesting that various medical colleges under various universities are operating in Punjab. Though these colleges belong to one university, it is the UHS which takes examinations of their students and awards degrees. In simple words, students are seeking education and paying fee to one university and getting a degree of another one. UHS VC Prof Dr Malik Hussain Mubashir told TNS that the UHS ordinance was meant to bring uniformity in medical education. However, UHS was not granting affiliation to any private medical college that was not 'registered' or 'recognised' by PMDC first. He said UHS had done the utmost to curb various colleges from looting students by charging high fees. Dr Mubashir said that before UHS, colleges were least interested in imparting education and more interested in making money without having a proper system of teaching and examination. Currently, eight medical colleges are affiliated with UHS privately. The number of registered students of private medical and dental colleges is 3,232, while the number of registered students in public sector medical colleges is 14,224. Another senior official of the health department said that now the new committee would look into all matters to make the system fool-proof and remove all lacunae. A report of the UN Human Rights Council from Geneva By Ayra Inderyas Responding to a United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 60/251 of 2006 that created a The institution building package adopted by UNHRC in 2007 gave a concrete shape to the UPR, stating that it should be based on objectivity, transparency, reliable information, and interactive dialogue. As per aforesaid UNGA resolution and UN ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 of 1996 UPR should ensure the participation of all relevant stake holders including NGO and national human rights institutions. The troika along with the working group of UPR, both composed of members of the UNHRC, is tasked to examine human rights records of member states. The UN working group session for Pakistan UPR took place on May 14 this year, the troika members to Pakistan UPR included Saudi Arabia, Ghana and Azerbaijan. Its report documented proceeding of the review, interactive dialogue and recommendations by council state members calling to improve areas such as women, minority and child rights, freedom of religion, independence of judiciary, media freedom, and supremacy of the law, labour legislation, adherence to international procedures and human rights mechanisms. The major achievements with regard to Pakistan international Instruments included Pakistan's ratification to International Covenant of Economic Social and Cultural Rights in April 2008 and signing a convention on Torture and International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The eighth session of UNHRC in Geneva was held from June 1-18. The Final adoption of UPR of 32 countries including Pakistan took place in the UN 8th session. The time allocated to speakers in the final UPR adoption was one hour to each state, whose report was scheduled to review in order to speak on its human rights situation, 20 minutes to member states, 20 minutes to national human rights institution and international NGOs, with further division of 3 minutes and 2 minutes to each state and NGOs respectively. On June 8, the session turned quite interesting during the adoption of the first UPR report of Bahrain, the Council proceedings got interrupted by Pakistan and Egypt, who criticised NGOs for making issue specific comments than general remarks on the outcome. On the other side Slovenia (on behalf of EU), Switzerland, Mexico, Canada and France were of the views that NGOs should be allowed to speak on issues lacking in the final report. The President of Council seemed more in agreement with Egypt and Pakistan's position emphasising several times to refrain from deviating the report's content and insisted on keeping the order of point. The final outcome report of Pakistan's UPR was adopted by the plenary of UNHRC on June 12. Pakistan's Ambassador Mr. Masood Khan, in his statement on the UPR, categorically emphasised Pakistan's commitment to promoting human rights, rule of law and democracy. The statement also highlighted Pakistan's concern to ensuring security, safety and freedom of human rights defenders. During its final adoption, China, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait, Algeria, Indonesia and Egypt congratulated and appreciated Pakistan for its commendable actions for promoting and protecting human rights. However, Canada raised concerns on issues such as discriminatory laws and freedom of opinion and expression. Exercising the right to make oral statement, some NGOs expressed concerns over jeopardising independence of judiciary, women rights, discriminatory laws against women and minority, adoption of moratorium of execution and freedom of press. During NGOs interventions on Pakistan, Egypt interrupted the proceedings four times accusing NGOs for making out of context remarks. It clearly manifested Pakistan's as Council member and representative on behalf of OIC members, and enjoyed cordial relation with Egypt in its Geneva mission. During the general debate on the Human Rights situation on June 5, countries namely Sudan, Zimbabwe, Srilanka, Somalia, Keniya, Democratic Republic of Korea, Congo, Myanmar, Iran and China were highlighted for alleged human rights abuses and violation by the EU member states, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Responding to the international community by exercising the right in reply Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Sudan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, China and Bangladesh camouflaged their position under the pretext of breaching sovereignty by discussing internal issues, calling NGOs bogus with malicious purposes, applying selective justice and accusing south countries of xenophobia. UNHRC is a state driven body in which states decide, with narrow involvement of international NGOs, who have accredited status with UN. All through the UPR process, NGOs were restricted to submitting only written questions to troika members and making an oral statement at the final adoption of UPR. Apart from limited involvement of civil society, UPR can still be viewed as a significant innovation for at least standard setting for accountability and can be used as an added mechanism for challenging human rights abuses worldwide. During the session, sensitive issues to various cultures such as sexual orientation, maternal mortality were raised; women issues were discussed under a separate agenda item. In a nutshell, stake holders: civil society particularly NGOs had room to engage and participate in the UPR process in the follow-up activities, monitoring and coinciding with country's national programs to improve and promote human rights records.
It's never useful or constructive when newspapers start criticising other newspapers and particularly when they gradually make a habit of it. Of late, one has also noticed that some newspapers regularly for criticism some television channels as well. The merits of such criticism aside, what purpose can really be served by criticising the editorials or reports, or hosts or anchors of other newspapers or television channels, especially when such people are not allowed to defend themselves. Frankly, I cannot understand the reason for publishing such material except to kind of denigrate the competition, and sections of the electronic media. If the purpose is to actually engage in constructive criticism then surely to bring up such 'criticism' in professional/industry meetings or complaints taken directly to the editors meetings,particularly on a social level should be quite frequent. Lest one be accused of promoting a culture of mediocrity and secrecy, the point that I am is trying to make here is that in a country like Pakistan, it should be obvious to all practitioners of the print as well as the electronic media that they are all in it together. As in, when things become bad for the media and when there is an authoritarian government or at least one that is authoritarian towards the press (when is any government not?), the whole of the Fourth Estate will be in for it and likely to suffer. It will not be just the employees of newspapers deemed overly critical or indulging in alleged 'rumour-mongering', or the anchors of television channels labelled as sensationalist who will have to face the end of the government's stick, it is more than likely that the whole of the media will be forced to bend and play to the tune of the government. Of course, one can also argue that several of our television channels and perhaps at least one newspaper have already begun doing this and that this unfortunate turn of events -- at least for many of the television channels -- dates back to the curbs imposed on the media by the president on Nov 3 last year. In addition to this, those who think along these lines -- that some sections of the print and electronic media are overplaying the conflict and uncertainty in the country are the same ones who harbour views that the media in the country is partly to blame for its negative image and that part of the reality that Pakistanis see and read about is manipulated by the media. Of course, this then takes one to the very basic question regarding the role of the media -- is it, like in a country such as China, avowedly to promote national development or is it to be a monitor and watchdog and to reflect, to the best of its professional and editorial abilities, reality as it occurs in the society/community/nation that it operates in? And to that the answer should be, quite unequivocally, that the main function of the media is to be a watchdog, which is precisely why stories of government corruption, political failings, or errors and mistakes by public figures will get prominence and reports that, say, a particular ministry is doing a good job will be relegated to the inside pages, or perhaps excluded entirely. Those who say that the job of the media is to promote national development and to facilitate the national interest are either being naive or simply do not know what the media is there for. For example, take PTV. Its credibility is low precisely because it presents too much of the government's line on just about everything and hence few people watch it if they want to get hold of news in a quick and reliable fashion. Also, if television channels and/or newspapers start working for 'national development' then what will differentiate them from the state's propaganda machinery/apparatus. Again, PTV or Pakistan are both good reminders in this regard because that is precisely what they have become over the years as a resulting of being mouthpieces of the state/government. However, this is not all there is to this question. Of course, some of our drawing room/arm-chair analysts and particularly sections of the English-speaking chattering classes (of which this writer is presumed to be a member as well!) will equate this refusal to work for national development as proof that some sections of the media have their own agenda and that this agenda is decidedly anti-government and anti-establishment. Well, for starters, it never hurt anyone to be anti-establishment and changes happen in societies and communities only when such elements gain strength and a loyal following. There too the goal is not personal aggrandisement but rather a societal change for the better. And on a more serious note, surely our chattering classes know that the 'national interest' has often been abused in the past -- and even the present -- by governments who first made it deliberately amorphous and then used this given vagueness to label any individual, group or activity by an individual or group that was dissenting against government policies or critical of the government, state or of officials of the state as working against the national interest -- and basically equating them with traitors. As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and that's what any government, which has failed its people, and failed to live up to its mandate often tends to indulge in. The link with this officially-defined 'patriotism' and the also-officially-defined 'national interest' should then be clear, as should be the fact that there is essentially no difference between members of civil society who accuse the press/media of being partisan and fomenting unrest and government officials and ministers who do the same, in their defence of their regime (in Pakistan's case, the regime and President Musharraf being one and the same). The
writer is Editorial Pages Editor of The News. Email:
omarq@cyber.net.pk
|
|
made by the state for the 'Long March'. A reporter on the channel claimed
that the barbed wire put around the parliament was the very same wire used by
the military government in the protests arranged immediately following the
disposal of the then Chief Justice.
Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Politicians have not
stopped issuing statements to condemn the attack. Families of those killed in
the missile strikes are mourning their near and dear ones and some of the
injured are fighting for life in military and public hospitals.
airstrikes. The killing of militants certainly gave credence to the US claim
that its forces were attacked inside Afghanistan's territory not far from the
border with Pakistan and that they were in 'hot pursuit' of the attackers and
retaliated in self-defence. However, by targetting the Pakistani border
security post, the US military overdid its job and hit the wrong target. It
is even possible that the US drones were used to deliberately attack the FC
border post after a number of American officials, military commanders,
scholars and mediapersons pointed fingers at the said paramilitary force for
helping the Taliban to launch attacks across the border in Afghanistan.
regulate private medical education and to curb the mushroom growth of medical
colleges in the province.
medical education in the registration act. This forced the then-CM Shahbaz
Sharif to order the Health Department to frame a legislation on this issue.
UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the year 2007 has witnessed the
establishment of a new human rights mechanism as Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
to subject 192 UN member states to review human rights records in their
respective states within four years.