Taal Matol
Not bad at all!
By Shoaib Hashmi
She is young and bright, and pert and pretty and she is our adviser to the Prime Minister for finance and economic affairs. Last Saturday she stood up to the House and presented the budget for 2009-10, as there is no regular finance minister. The next day all the papers were full of it. From screaming headlines to editorials to endless comments -- nobody had anything else to talk about.

economy
Ifs and buts
The forthcoming budget is based mainly on assumptions. If you get one wrong, others will only follow suit
By Mustafa Nazir Ahmad 
It was expected well before the presentation of the Federal Budget 2009-10 that there would be more problems in store for both the government and the people in the next fiscal year. As concerns an average Pakistani, there were many reasons for this pessimism, ranging from the country's increasing security needs to the plight of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the one hand and burgeoning fiscal deficit to high inflation on the other.

"Those who commit suicide attacks for getting Jannah (paradise) will go to hell because they kill innocent people. Islam stands for peace. One cannot take one's own life or that of another individual. And one cannot start jihad against one's own state," Dr Sarfaraz Hussain Naeemi said speaking to TNS on May 8, 2009. It almost noon and we were in his office -- the place where he would be killed a month later -- leaving this scantily furnished room into a debris of human organs and things under his personal use. Clad in white shalwar kameez Dr Naeemi, 64, looked more like a benign elderly man than a fiery cleric.

During the interview he was interrupted several times by phone calls and students -- daily business for him as the head of Jamia Naeemia and a trustworthy religious scholar. Among the callers were people asking for his religious expertise on business and trade. What I liked about him, during that brief meeting, was his politeness and patience towards the people he talked to. While the interview was being conducted, he interrupted me several times to make sure I wasn't misquoting or missing something.

Dr Naeemi, a leading Sunni (Barelvi) religious scholar became the victim of a suicide bomber on June 12, 2009. He was among the first religious scholars who issued a fatwa (edict) against suicide attacks in 2005. In October 2008, he led the committee of religious scholars from different schools of thought that declared suicide attacks haram (forbidden). Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan took no time to claim responsibility for his death.

An ardent supporter of the military operation in the Malakand agency, he stated, in the interview, that "military must finish the Taliban once and for all." He was upset over the activities of the Taliban and 'Ulma-e-Deobands' in Pakistan who, he said, "are following the US directives to create unrest in the country. They opposed the creation of the country in 1947, and have not accepted it even today."

He was well-aware of the problems Barelvis, the majority sect in Pakistan, are facing. "We are divided while our opponents are united both politically and socially. Barelvis will have to understand that their opponents will destroy them if they do not stand united."

Before his death, he was busy in a joint campaign with MNA Sahibzada Fazl Karim and other leaders of his school of thought to make an alliance against the Taliban to curtail support for them from within the society. "People supported the Taliban thinking they want to implement shariah. It took them some time to realise it is a misinterpreted version, their own version of Islam, instead of true shariah. Those who refused to accept it were met with fierce opposition through throat-cutting. People are now aware of their intentions to destroy Pakistan," he had told TNS.

Dr Naeemi got his early education from Jamia Naeemi and then got a PhD from the University of the Punjab in 1992 besides doing a short course from Al-Azhar University, Cairo in 1986. He also remained member of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) from 1998 to 2000. He was the head of the Tanzimat Madaris Deeniya, an organisation responsible to look after more than 6,000 Barelvi madrassas in Pakistan. He actively took part in the Nizam-e-Mustafa Movement in 1977.

"He opposed the Taliban because they are trying to impose the thinking of a particular sect and eliminate all other sects," said Mufti Muhammad Abdul Aleem Sialvi, who has been working in the Jamia Naeemia since 1966. He remembered Naeemi as a humble and simple fellow --"You could often see him in the city riding an old motorcycle."

It was because of Naeemi's efforts that last month's Sunni Ittehad Council, a joint platform for all Barelvi groups, strongly condemned the Taliban. They urged the military to eliminate them. The council pledged to unveil the real face of the Taliban before the public by exposing their brutalities. On May 17 this year he took part in a conference of Islamic scholars convened by the government in Islamabad which criticised suicide attacks and the beheading of innocent Muslims. He took part in an anti-Taliban rally in Peshawar on May 5, and led an anti-Taliban rally in Lahore on June 2, 2009.

Dr Naeemi was not directly involved in politics but was more inclined towards Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, mainly because of his close family ties with the Sharifs who called Naeemi their "elder brother". This "brotherhood" goes back to the close friendship between their fathers. Mian Sharif, father of Nawaz Sharif, was among the main sponsors of Jamia Naeemia, a suit followed by his sons. Mufti Sarfaraz Naeemi was among the few Sunni clerics who opposed Musharraf regime, mainly because of his relationship with the Sharifs. Since his return in September 2007, Nawaz Sharif has visited Jamia Naeemia twice and after his death he and Mian Shahbaz Sharif also visited his family to condole his death. It is believed that Sarfaraz Naeemi played an important role in convincing Nawaz to condemn the Taliban publicly.

Dr Naeemi expressed his anti-Ahmadi sentiments openly. He strongly favoured the controversial blasphemy laws. In 2000, when Musharraf tried to amend 295-C regarding the process of investigation of the accused in a blasphemy case, he was among the first to oppose it. He was the brain behind the formation of Tahaffuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz (TNRM) 2001, a group of over 20 Sunni parties, and started protests throughout the country.

Dr Naeemi spearheaded the protest against the Danish cartoons. He led the Namoos-e-Risalat rally in Lahore on February 14, 2006, that turned into a violent protest in which at least two people were killed. The angry protestors destroyed hundreds of shops, restaurants and banks in Lahore. Naeemi was arrested for his involvement in this rally and also removed from his position as a Khateeb in Auqaf Department. Like other religious leaders, he opposed Musharraf's decision to provide logistic support to US-led coalition in the war on terror.

Before his death, Dr Naeemi was planning to launch the Save Pakistan Movement from the platform of TNRM. He organised the 'Save Pakistan' seminar on June 10, during which it was decided that from June 15 onwards, the movement against the Taliban's effort to destabilise Pakistan will be launched throughout the country.

His son Raghab Naeemi, 37, told TNS that his father "always believed in dialogue and was against the use of force. He invited those who threatened him to come and argue with him saying "if you still think I am wrong I will stop opposing you but if I am proved correct then you will have to leave the use of force against innocent people"." He said his father supported equal access to education for women and the use of computers in schools.

"His assassination has not only deprived the Sunni, Barelvi sect of a sincere leader who believed in uniting different Sunni political parties and groups but has also deprived the Pakistan government of a strong anti-Taliban voice." He was not an enemy of Deobandis, according to Raghab, but hated the use of force against innocent people. According to him, he was an innocent man and a real fan of cricket and American wrestling.

President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally broke the ice in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit last week. India is said to have urged Pakistan to take strong measures to fight terrorism.

This high level Indo-Pak interaction -- first ever after the Nov 2008 Mumbai attacks -- has taken place at a stage when India is pressing Pakistan for action against the alleged perpetrators of the attacks. India held Pakistan's banned religious outfit Jamatud Dawa (JuD) responsible for the massacre of more than 170 Indians. Dawa, led by Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, denies charges. He was, nonetheless, put under house arrest following a resolution passed by the United Nations' Security Council, requesting Islamabad to freeze JuD assets and impose travel ban on its leadership. Saeed was released by the Pakistani court on June 2, 2009, asserting that "not a single document has been brought on the record that JuD or the petitioners were ever involved in the said incident".

On his return to India from Yekaterinburg on June 17, Manmohan said: "I asked Mr Zardari to show the same determination towards anti-Indian terror elements operating from Pakistan soil which they are showing against Taliban." According to the Indian PM, President Zardari said he was sincere in fighting terrorism but his government is facing "difficulties"; and that "they need some more time".

Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, who was engaged in Indo-Pak confidence building measures (CBMS) during the Pervez Musharraf regime, told TNS that India can also be partly blamed for Hafiz Saeed's release as it did not share evidence with Pakistan. "The reason could be the recent election," he said, adding that "may be the government thought that the opposition would manipulate it as a failure to handle the situation." Kasuri believes the detention of JuD leadership showed that Pakistan was sincere but "you cannot detain someone indefinitely without a charge. Both sides can help each other. India should come forth with solid evidence."

Commenting on Pakistan's alleged involvement in Kashmir, Kasuri said he is aware of past allegations as well -- "but this is the time to look forward because Pakistan can also point out India's past conduct. Let us move forward with strong political will and act beyond civil and military bias."

New Delhi-based senior journalist and political editor of Hindustan Times Vinod Sharma said, "We believe the Pakistani courts are impartial but the government should have filed a review petition. Violent activism in Kashmir, which is a core issue, cannot be a solution." He maintained that these issues must be settled at the negotiating table. "Pakistan needs to show its commitment to counter-insurgency on its eastern border while fighting terrorism on western border."

As for Manmohan-Zardari meeting, Vinod Sharma felt this is hardly the resumption of talks "but only a step towards the resumption of talks". He said the secretary level meeting will show its seriousness, including the Hafiz Saeed case."

Sharma pointed out three factors that can bring stability to Indo-Pak relations: trust on both sides; India's satisfaction that Islamabad is seriously pursuing perpetrators of 26/11; and how these countries deal with issues bilaterally instead of relying on the third (external) force."

"Mumbai is a serious issue in India. Pakistan's wishy-washy attitude towards JuD is hampering the creation of a friendly environment. There should be redress of Indian demands at the state level and India should provide, if it has, any evidence against JuD. This is a question of trust deficit which can be solved with honesty. And, yes, there are some elements even in India that show cynicism. An educated Indian knows that terrorism is now not just limited to Pakistan but is getting closer to us," he opines.

Farrukh Saleem, executive director of Islamabad-based Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), believes that such blames cannot hamper Indo-Pak peace process if political will is strong and sincere. He considers these issues insignificant compared to the strategic interest of the two countries. "I feel that incidents like the release of Hafiz Saeed do not change the strategic balance but any actor that desires to delay or refuse engagement can, and will, use such incidents to achieve its own strategic objective(s)."

Pakistan-based international law expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi argues that UN resolution does not demand any prosecution against Hafiz Saeed and JuD except freezing assets and imposing a ban on his travel. "No legal action can be taken against JuD unless India gives substantial evidence against the organisation. Even the copy of the challan of the Mumbai attacks on Indian government's website names Saeed without evidence which means their police is unable to clearly identify the culprits."

Soofi feels that Hafiz Saeed's detention, or no detention, should not halt the peace process between the two neighbours. "What if Saeed is arrested again and granted bail, once again? Will India stop the talks?" he questioned.

"Indian demand is irrational and ridiculous. There is a clear shift in Pakistan's stance to fight terrorism. So it should be valued instead of following legally evasive target of Saeed. UN has linked JuD with al Qaeda, however, this cannot be the only ground to persecute JuD. The grieved party can always deny the charges," he comments.

JuD's spokesperson Yahya Mujahid told TNS that the organisation was formed in 2002 as a relief group after Pervez Musharraf banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) -- a fighting force engaged in Indian Kashmir in the late 80s and 90s. JuD claims LeT is not part of it but is being run by a board of Kashmiri leaders and is functional only in Kashmir, Mujahid added. "We also deny that JuD enjoys patronage of the Pakistani security establishment," he said.

After being banned in 2008 JuD is also allegedly working under a new name Tanzeem-e-Falah-e-Insaniyat (TFI), an organisation for the welfare of humanity, and is active in relief work for internally displaced persons (IDPs) camps after Swat operation started. "The TFI is an independent organisation. Our workers just coordinate with the TFI and provide relief goods and possible help," Mujahid claimed.

Meanwhile, Hafiz Saeed vows to continue his "struggle" in Kashmir. Addressing the first Friday sermon on June 5, 2009 after his release, Saeed said: "Everyone is aware of violence against Muslims in Indian Kashmir. The recent press reports of gang rape of Kashmiri Muslim girls by Indian army men are also a fact. India should withdraw its troops from Kashmir and stop violence in its Muslim majority states."

She is young and bright, and pert and pretty and she is our adviser to the Prime Minister for finance and economic affairs. Last Saturday she stood up to the House and presented the budget for 2009-10, as there is no regular finance minister. The next day all the papers were full of it. From screaming headlines to editorials to endless comments -- nobody had anything else to talk about.

It was the first time a budget had been presented by a lady, and with another lady presiding over the proceedings, as the Speaker of the house is also a lady. One would have thought that would be enough to blunt adverse comment, but it seems everyone had already made up their minds to lay into the budget.

And the Sunday papers were a tirade against the budget. "Timid, unimaginative, risky" screamed one headline to be followed by all others. This was followed by mini headlines, "Raw deal for the salaried," "Salaries, pensions hike lower than inflation," "Education gets Rs31 billion but teachers unhappy," "No real term increase in defence budget," "People to pay more than world fuel prices."

It seems everyone the papers talked to had something nasty to say about it, with the single exception of Kaira, the provincial finance minister, whose statement was headlined "It's balanced"! "Federal Government has presented a very positive and balanced budget in a difficult time and real growth will be achieved." But this was followed by a spate of statements, "Budget rejected" this was the employees of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. And Imran Khan piped up: "It will add to miseries." "People term raise meagre against inflation" was the general public. Former high officials of WAPDA declared the budget unsatisfactory and the PML-Q, true to form, met in committee to declare "People were expecting a relief package including reduction in prices of essential items and elimination of load shedding". Sure they were!

It is with a bit of reluctance that I must admit that most of these people, the paper wallas and the commentators, are my old pupils and I have spent years telling them not to be too quick to comment. I have spent a lifetime studying and teaching economics and even I cannot understand the budget. I am sure none of them can. It's just a series of figures put together by the Finance Ministry in a fashion to confuse.

But I think we have developed a habit of making up our minds beforehand and then bursting forth with our opinion. I don't think the budget could be all bad. No budget is. The odd thing was that all the papers seem to have made up their minds in the same fashion. Ah well, that doesn't make a difference, it's just so many words.

It was expected well before the presentation of the Federal Budget 2009-10 that there would be more problems in store for both the government and the people in the next fiscal year. As concerns an average Pakistani, there were many reasons for this pessimism, ranging from the country's increasing security needs to the plight of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the one hand and burgeoning fiscal deficit to high inflation on the other.

However, economists had other reasons to believe that the forthcoming budget would be another attempt at building castles in the air or, to put it exactly, befooling the hapless masses through jugglery of figures. Over the last few years, there has been an increasing tendency among Pakistani budget-makers to thwart any meaningful debate on the economy by making public access to actual budgetary figures almost impossible. This trend was entrenched in our economic policy realm especially during the period when Shaukat Aziz was at the helm of affairs.

There is a need to look into this problem in detail. When a government announces its first budget, it can conveniently blame its predecessors for the poor state of economic affairs and justify its anti-people measures citing resource constraints. By the time a government presents its next budgets, it does not have the same luxury and the best it can do is to obfuscate figures, so that its own shortcomings become less obvious.

When the Pervez Musharraf regime presented its first budget with Aziz as the finance minister, the preceding government of Nawaz Sharif was blamed for all the ills afflicting the economy. In the following years, the government relied on other means -- such as changing the budget accounting model to make comparisons with past years impossible, and fudging poverty, growth, unemployment and wheat figures -- to make its performance palpable in front of the donors, though without much success.

The PPP-led coalition government that came to power after the general elections last year was expected to do much better on this count, mainly due to its pro-people rhetoric, but it did not make a departure from the past. When Syed Naveed Qamar presented the federal budget last year, he very conveniently blamed the Shaukat Aziz government for the record fiscal deficit, thus justifying all the anti-people measures in the budget; for example, increase in the rate of general sales tax (GST) from 15 to 16 percent.

As illustrated above, the government did not have this luxury this year, so like its predecessors it chose to make access to budget figures difficult. This is obvious from the fact that the Federal Budget in Brief document has not been posted on the website of the Ministry of Finance, as has been the practice for the last many years. In simple, this means that anyone interested in analysing the budget has only government press releases and handouts to rely on, while having no access to revised budgetary estimates for the current year that form the basis of comparison with estimates for the forthcoming year.

In this situation, budget analysts are left with but one choice: to rely on provisional budgetary figures for the first three quarters of the current fiscal year (July 2008-June 2009) that are available on the website of the Ministry of Finance. However, these figures are yet to be validated and do not show the compete picture of how different budget heads are performing. This leaves the government with the room to cite any figures to justify its claims without the fear of being caught off guard.

Polemics apart, even a cursory look at available budget figures shows that the government lacks a concrete strategy to solve the economic problems it is facing. "Though the government's constraints are severe and well known, why it created all the hype about the imposition of new taxes on the hitherto untaxed sectors of the economy when it lacked the resolve to do so," asks Dr Pervez Tahir, a former chief economist in the Planning Commission of Pakistan. He also thinks the budget is agriculture-oriented, though other sectors have not been adversely affected.

Dr Tahir, however, accuses the PPP government of remaining oblivious of the country's economic situation and letting Ministry of Finance officials run the show. "Even the guidelines provided by Advisor to the Prime Minister on Finance Shaukat Tarin were not followed during the preparation of the Finance Bill and that is why it is being amended now," he informs.

Another weak area in the budget, according to Dr Tahir, is the assumed support from the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoP) group, which has been included in the development expenditure under the head of 'Other Development Expenditure' and estimated at Rs157.1 billion. "In case this support does not materialise, the government would have to borrow from the IMF, thus adding to the country's debt," he warns.

Some of the other estimates (better call them assumptions) in the budget -- having a total outlay of Rs2.897 trillion -- does not augur well too, especially the tax collection target of Rs1.378 trillion for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). Similarly, the government would in all likelihood fail to restrict the current expenditure to the estimated Rs1.699 trillion, especially considering the fact that the same was Rs1.415 trillion in only the first nine months of the current fiscal year.

The same goes for the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP). As always, its outlay has been increased without caring for the actual utilisation or making the last year's figures the basis of allocation. For the current fiscal year, the size of the PSDP is Rs549.709 billion, of which only Rs243.179 could be spent in the first nine months. However, for the next fiscal year, the size of the PSDP has been increased to Rs783.1 billion.

Even more surprisingly, the size of the federal component of the PSDP has been increased from Rs372.990 billion to Rs446.0 billion; though the actual utilisation in the first nine months of the current fiscal year was only Rs106.808 billion. This is a clear indication that either adequate funds are not available for the PSDP (it has been increased only to meet the World Bank's conditionalities under the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper-II) or the same would be re-appropriated to cater to the country's increasing defence or debt-servicing needs. This argument is substantiated by the fact that the allocation for defence has only been marginally increased from Rs296.077 billion to Rs342.9 billion and that for general public services (of which debt servicing is the major component) from Rs929.522 billion to Rs1.189 trillion.

Considering this, the government would be well advised to at least ensure quality execution of the schemes it has devised for the poor (for example, the Benazir Income Support Programme for which Rs70.0 billion have been allocated). Similarly, funds allocated for relief and rehabilitation of the IDPs should be spent in a transparent manner. Finally, the government should ensure that more sectors, such as agriculture, are brought under the tax net from FY011 by initiating a thorough debate on the issue at the earliest.

Who is Mir Hossein Mousavi, the declared runner-up in the recently held Iranian presidential election, and what does he stand for? What does a reformist mean in the Iranian context and how is he different from a conservative? As protests on the election results, believed to have been rigged in favour of the incumbent president, continue on the streets of Tehran, it would be both instructive and interesting to see what the reformists seek, how old is the tussle and whether this movement aims to upstage the system or only re-form it.

It is impossible to explain Mousavi's call for reform without going back to Seyed Mohammad Khatami's presidential years -- 1997-2005 -- because he happens to be the father of the present phase of reform movement. A virtually unknown cleric, his election to the office of the president was a radical break from the past because he stood for liberalisation (of economy), freedom as well as free market, democracy, tolerance and reform. He supported better diplomatic ties with other states at a time when the Iranian hostage crisis was not yet erased from public memory.

In a decade when Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' theory was being widely debated in the world, Khatami seriously questioned it and came up with his own "Dialogue Among Civilizations" idea. He sold it to the world to the extent that the United Nations proclaimed year 2001 as the "Year of Dialogue among Civilizations" on his suggestion.

Long before he could actually put into practice his election promises, he was able to win the polls on the basis of these slogans alone. It was an election in which the voter turnout was 80 percent and Khatami secured 70 percent of the vote. And he did it twice. He stepped down in 2005 because the Islamic Republic's constitution only allowed him to serve for two terms.

It is interesting that each time in recent years the reformist candidate appeared serious about his campaign, the contest became heated to the extent that the voter turnout exceeded 80 percent.

Ironically, once in office, Khatami did not achieve much by way of social and political reform. The conservative elements within the Iranian establishment did not let his reform programme succeed; the bills in the parliament were vetoed by the Guardian Council, whose members are not elected but appointed by the Supreme Leader. Within the Iranian political system, "Khatami was outranked by the Supreme Leader, and had no legal authority over many key state institutions such as the armed forces (the police, the army, the revolutionary guards, etc), the state radio and television, the prisons, etc."

So there's no irony involved. Khatami sought a democracy with a prefix attached -- Islamic democracy. He sought reform in a system that needed to be reformed itself.

The system of checks and balances is flawed; you ignore the election bit (which you are forced to once you see the fate of the elected representatives at the hands of unelected people including the Supreme Leader) and the democracy changes its colour to theocracy. At least this is how the Iranian democracy appears to an outsider.

The fact is that Khatami has sought the solution or reform from within religion; he distinguishes his reform from the Western notion of "liberty" and "civil freedom" which he thinks leads to "unbridled individualism" and hence to "aggression, domination and colonialism".

It is in this backdrop that Mousavi appeared, the one time prime minister (1981-1989), on the election scene after a gap of twenty years. Khatami who had expressed his desire to contest the election again in March withdrew in favour of Mousavi.

There isn't much difference between the reforms promised by the two. Mousavi has stated his main goals as: "to institutionalise social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, to root out corruption and to speed up Iran's stagnant process of privatization and thus move Iran away from what he calls "an alms-based economy"."

Mousavi wants private, non-governmental television channels and stop the operation of the moral police. Within the broader framework of Iran's nuclear programme, there aren't many disagreements between the two candidates but "Mousavi's plan includes reducing the cost by opposing radical approaches while maintaining what he sees as Iran's right".

He is exceptionally reformist in as far as the role of women is concerned and wants some major changes in laws and society. Of course, he wants to strengthen the office of the elected president, like Khatami, and snatch some powers from the Supreme Leader. But none of it seems likely in the near future.

While the reformist politics in Iran may be drawing its ethos from within the system, one is not sure if the younger generation of urban-dwelling Iranians share their views as well as their revolutionary zeal. More than half of the voters were not even born at the time of the revolution. Whether they will be able to effect reform in some other form or will it need another revolution?

Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, once the designated successor to Khomeini, and living in Qom for the past many years, issued the following statement this past week. One would like to reproduce it here in full because of its importance vis-à-vis the protests currently underway in Iran against what many Iranians see as an election rigged to prolong Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency. (The thinking goes that the president is seen as a convenient showcase for the kind of policy that those above him -- read Supreme Leader Khamanei -- would like Iran to adopt especially vis-à-vis American involvement in the region and its continued criticism of Iran's nuclear programme).

The statement says: "In the name of God, People of Iran: These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections. Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government's officials to bond with their people. But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and eight years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.

"Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you: 1) A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. 2) Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people's confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy. 3) I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed. 4) I ask the police and army personnel not to "sell their religion", and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognise the protesting youth as your children. Today censor[ing] and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth -- I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people."

Those readers who may not know so much about Ayatollah Montazeri, he was one of the main leaders of the Iranian revolution and was once designated as a successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. However as early as 1989, he fell out with Khomeini when he criticised the latter's handling of political prisoners and criticised the Islamic government's approach towards civil liberties and personal freedoms.

Since that falling out, Montazeri has remained a vocal critic of the country's domestic and foreign policies, often taking it to task over perceived human rights abuses. Montazeri in the early 1960s answered Khomeini's call to ordinary Iranians to rise up against the Shah of Iran's 'White Revolution' and became active in the fledgling movement.

Khomeini had to go into exile and when that happened it was Montazeri who became the focal person organising the resistance to the Shah's mostly tyrannical rule. While seen as a supporter and key advocate of reform in recent years, Montazeri was one of the leaders behind a movement which replaced Iran's secular draft constitution with one where Sharia was to be held paramount.

In November 1987 Montazeri publicly said that political parties should be legalised and that there needed to be an "open assessment of failures" of the Islamic Revolution and that the "export of revolution" should be ended. Things came to a head following the execution of thousands of members of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq and many leftist and Communist groups opposed to the post-1979 Iran. Montazeri began asking for a "far more open" policy and in an interview in 1989 to the well-known daily newspaper Keyhan made a direct attack on Khomeini and the consequences on the Iranian people of his rule.

He said: "The denial of people's rights, injustice and disregard for the revolution's true values have delivered the most severe blows against the revolution. Before any reconstruction takes place, there must first be a political and ideological reconstruction. This is something that the people expect of a leader." His criticism of the executions was prominently broadcast all around the world by BBC, by which time his estrangement from the regime was near-complete. A couple of days later, Khomeini strongly criticised Montazeri and his comments and another two days later an announcement came that Montazeri had resigned. In addition to losing his position as designated heir, his title of Grand Ayatollah was withdrawn, any reference to him on state-owned radio was stopped, his portraits were taken off from walls of government offices and mosques, and his security guards was taken away.

In June of the same year Khomenei passed away and Khomeini was elected as his successor. In December of the same year, Mont Azeri's supporters in Yom distributed pamphlets questioning Khameini's qualifications to be a Marja-e-Taqlid ('Source of emulation', or an Ayatollah. In retaliation the Revolutionary Guards detained and humiliated him. Eight years later Ayatollah Montazeri was put under house arrest, which initially was ostensibly done for his own protection against hardliners, after he openly criticised Ayatollah Khameini. This ended in 2003 after several dozen MPs called on then President Khatami to free Montazeri -- which was done.

On Jan 22, 2007, Ayatollah Montazeri criticised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his nuclear and economic He said he agreed that Iran had the right to develop nuclear energy but he also said that Ahmadinejad's approach to the issue was not right. He said: "One has to deal with the enemy with wisdom, not provoke it, and such provocation only creates problems for the country." He also asked whether Iranians don't have other rights as well.

Montazeri has also issued a statement in support of the rights of the Bahais in Iran saying that though they did not belong to the People of the Book like Jews and Christians, they were citizens of Iran and had the right of right of citizenship and to live in Iran without fear of persecution.

*******

I also read the other day, on a website www.persecution.org, that a Christian man was apparently killed in a village in Punjab on May 9 after he drank from a tea cup which offended members of the majority community. The site gave the details as follows: Ishtiaq Masih ordered tea at a roadside stall after a bus he was travelling on made a rest stop. As he went to pay for his tea, people notice his necklace -- which had a cross -- and grabbed him. They told him that non-Muslims had to identify themselves before being served and the website claims that the stall even had a sign saying something to this effect. The owner of the tea stall and his employees then proceeded to "beat Ishtiaq with stones, iron rods and clubs, and stabbed him multiple times with kitchen knives as he pleaded for mercy."

The other passengers and passers-by finally intervened and took Ishtiaq to a rural health centre in the village but by then Ishtiaq had died because of "excessive internal and external bleeding, a fractured skull, and injuries to the brain". The website said the stall was called located on the Sukheki-Lahore highway near Pindi Bhattian and is owned by someone who has sympathies for extremists. The website said that following this grisly incident an independent observer went to the said tea and noticed a "large red warning sign with a death's head symbol" which read: "All non-Muslims should introduce their faith prior to ordering tea. This tea stall serves Muslims only."

The writer is Editorial Pages Editor of The News. Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk