Armenia/Azerbaijan: Expectations Muted On Eve Of Karabakh Talks
By Liz Fuller
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Aug 19 2005
The foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are scheduled to meet
in Moscow on 23 August to resume their talks on approaches to
resolving the Karabakh conflict. Days later, the two countries’
presidents, Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev, will meet in Kazan on
the sidelines of a CIS summit to address the same issue. But although
international mediators from the OSCE Minsk Group expressed cautious
optimism after visiting Baku, Stepanakert, and Yerevan in early July,
they and senior officials in Baku have warned in recent days that
there is little chance the two presidents will sign a major peace
accord in Kazan.
The Kazan talks will be the second between the two presidents in the
span of four months. The first took place in Warsaw in mid-May on the
sidelines of a Council of Europe summit and, according to an Armenian
Foreign Ministry statement released several days later, that meeting
constituted “yet another step forward in the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict,” RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported. The statement
added that the Warsaw meeting “makes it possible to continue the
discussions” between the two countries’ foreign ministers that began
one year earlier. On 17 May, the French, Russian, and U.S.
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group that is mediating the search for
a solution to the Karabakh conflict released a statement similarly
noting that the two presidents “confirmed their strong interest in
reaching a peaceful, negotiated solution of the conflict.”
Growing Expectations
In early July, Armenian officials told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service that
Armenia and Azerbaijan had reached agreement on the key points of a
formal peace accord ending the Karabakh conflict, and that agreement
could be signed by the end of this year. Days later, the Minsk Group
co-chairmen likewise expressed cautious optimism. U.S. co-Chairman
Steven Mann told journalists in Yerevan on 14 July that “there is a
possibility of a Karabakh settlement in the course of this year,”
RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reported. Mann repeated that prognosis the
following day but qualified it, saying, “There are very difficult
issues that are still on the table and real gaps between the two
sides.” Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov, who is
President Aliyev’s special envoy for the Karabakh conflict, was even
more upbeat, telling journalists in Baku on 18 July that “we are
closer to peace than ever before,” according to the website day.az.
Citing the need for confidentiality, the Minsk Group co-chairmen have
consistently declined to divulge any details of specific issues under
discussion. But both Azerbaijani and Armenian officials have gone
public in recent months, identifying aspects of the hypothetical
peace agreement. In mid-May, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov claimed that Yerevan had agreed to, and the two sides
were already discussing the time frame for, the withdrawal of
Armenian forces from seven districts of Azerbaijan bordering on the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). The Armenian Foreign
Ministry rejected Mammadyarov’s claim the following day.The timing of
the Kazan summit — two months before the 6 November parliamentary
elections in Azerbaijan — in itself makes it unlikely that the two
presidents would sign a formal peace deal that would require a major
concession from Baku, because any such concession could alienate many
voters. But Russian Minsk Group co-Chairman Yurii Merzlyakov was
quoted on 17 August by day.az as suggesting that the two presidents
might issue a joint statement hinting that a formal peace deal is
imminent.
Three weeks later, on 7 June, Mammadyarov told journalists in Baku
that the two sides were discussing between seven and nine issues
related to a peace settlement, and that those issues have to be
addressed in a specific order, with each made secure before the
following is added, “like pearls knotted on a silk thread.”
Mammadyarov said Azerbaijan insists on the liberation of the seven
districts currently occupied by Armenian forces, and that the two
sides are discussing which countries or organizations could provide
peacekeeping forces to be deployed on those territories after their
liberation, according to day.az. He also said that “after the
frontiers are opened we must revive trade links and transport.”
Echo-az.com quoted Mammadyarov as saying that the two sides are
discussing both the “phased” and the “package” approaches to
resolving the conflict. But a senior Armenian Foreign Ministry
official told this writer on 8 June on condition of anonymity that
the final agreement will be a package one, although its various
provisions might be implemented one after the other, rather than
simultaneously.
Then in early July, a senior Armenian official told RFE/RL’s Armenian
Service that under the anticipated peace deal, Armenia would return
to Azerbaijani control five of the seven districts adjacent to
Karabakh currently controlled by Karabakh Armenian forces, excluding
the strategic Lachin corridor. A peacekeeping force comprising troops
from countries that are not members of the OSCE Minsk Group would be
deployed in the conflict zone. Then, after 10-15 years, the
population of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic would be
required to vote in a referendum on whether the region should become
independent, become a part of Armenia, or revert to Azerbaijan. That
blueprint is very similar to one proposed in December by former
Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio and NATO Parliamentary Assembly
President Pierre Lellouche. But both Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign
Minister Azimov and NKR Foreign Minister Arman Melikian promptly
denied that the two sides were discussing a possible referendum.
Azimov made the point that the constitution of the Azerbaijan
Republic does not make provision for a referendum to be held only on
selected parts of Azerbaijan’s territory, or on issues related to the
country’s territorial integrity.
Pulling Back?
Since the beginning of August — when Mammadyarov visited Washington
— the upbeat statements by both the Minsk Group co-chairs and
officials from the Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministries have
given way to more guarded pronouncements. Commenting on 6 August on
Mammadyarov’s visit, U.S. Minsk Group co-Chairman Mann said the
Karabakh conflict was one of the issues Mammadyarov discussed with
his U.S. counterpart Condoleezza Rice, day.az reported. Mann added
that despite “certain progress” in the peace talks, the degree of
consensus reached to date is not sufficient to sign a peace treaty.
In an interview published on 17 August in the online daily
zerkalo.az, Mann similarly said that “it is still early to speak of a
specific document. It would be a mistake to affirm that we shall sign
some document right now.” At the same time, he stressed repeatedly
that the two sides “have achieved a great deal over the past 18
months,” and he predicted that the upcoming Kazan meeting between
Kocharian and Aliyev “will give an additional impulse to the talks.”
Armenian fighter near the the strategic highway that connects the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with Armenia, known as the
Lachin corridor (file photo)
(AFP)
Also on 17 August, Mammadyarov echoed Mann almost word-for word,
telling day.az that “the negotiations have not yet reached the level
of signing a document.” Echoing his comments of 7 June, he said that
between seven and nine issues would be on the agenda at his 24 August
meeting with Oskanian, and “we shall try to reach agreement on
certain elements and inform the presidents, so that they can discuss
them in Kazan.”
The timing of the Kazan summit — two months before the 6 November
parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan — in itself makes it unlikely
that the two presidents would sign a formal peace deal that would
require a major concession from Baku, because any such concession
could alienate many voters. But Russian Minsk Group co-Chairman Yurii
Merzlyakov was quoted on 17 August by day.az as suggesting that the
two presidents might issue a joint statement hinting that a formal
peace deal is imminent. A 17 August EurasiaNet analysis similarly
quoted an unnamed Azerbaijani official as saying that the most that
can be hoped for from the Kazan meeting is “a statement by the
presidents in which they would order their foreign ministers to start
working on the text of a future agreement.” Such a joint statement
would serve to send the message to Azerbaijan’s electorate that peace
is finally within reach — provided its elects a parliament in which
Aliyev’s Yeni Azerbaycan Party has a comfortable majority.

15.000 Tourists Visit Ani City
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Aug 19 2005
KARS (JTW) – When Turkish government opened Ani region to civilian
activities, the 5.000-years-old historical town lured thousands of
tourists. More than 15,000 tourists visit Ani in a year. Ani is one
of the oldest Turkish towns and home of the first Seljuki Mosque Ebul
Menucehr Camii (1071).
Ministry of Culture expects more than 20.000 visitors to Ani in 2005.
Ani is an important town for the Armenians as well. There are 10
historical churches in Ani region.
Ani is very close to Turkey-Armenia border.

Azeri leader says list of ruling party candidates prepared under his supervision
Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
19 Aug 05
Text of report by Azerbaijani private TV station ATV on 19 August
The [ruling] New Azerbaijan Party is constantly developing, which is
the reason for changes on the party list [of members running in the
November parliamentary election], the president has told journalists.
Ilham Aliyev said the party list had been prepared under his direct
supervision. Influential members who make efforts to promote the party
will preserve their positions. But refreshing changes are also needed,
he said.
Commenting on the [forthcoming] meeting of the Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents in Kazan, the president said it is too early to
speak about an agreement, but there is always hope. The president
said that during the talks, he would stick to previous principles,
the main principle being the country’s territorial integrity.

Armenian opposition splits over constitutional reform – agency
Regnum, Moscow
18 Aug 05
[No dateline as received] The opposition Justice bloc does not see
any reason to take a positive position on the forthcoming referendum
on constitutional changes in Armenia. However, members of the bloc
decided at a meeting on 18 August to attend an extraordinary sitting
of parliament on 29 August. The sitting is due to discuss the package
of constitutional changes.
Among the members of the bloc, only the Republic Party did not back
this decision. Three MPs representing the party do not intend to stop
boycotting sittings of parliament, which they announced immediately
after the 2003 election. The party leader, Aram Sarkisyan, told
reporters that the party will keep to its position announced earlier
and is still saying “no” to the constitutional reform.
He said the position of other members of the bloc is close to that
of his party. “The Justice bloc today does not see any reason to say
‘yes’ in the referendum on the constitution,” he said.
The secretary of the Justice bloc, Viktor Dallakyan, has confirmed
that the opposition has no reason to back the referendum as almost
all their proposals have been rejected.
The opposition Justice bloc is comprised of nine parties and has 14
seats in parliament.

Armenia confirms capture of Azeri officer
Regnum, Moscow
19 Aug 05
[No dateline as received] The Armenian side has taken captive
Azerbaijani warrant officer Ramil Xudaverdiyev, the press secretary
of the Armenian Defence Ministry, Col Seyran Shakhsuvaryan, has told
Regnum news agency.
Shakhsuvaryan said that Azerbaijani sources reported earlier that an
Azerbaijani soldier had been taken captive, which is not true. He
clarified that according to verified information, the Azerbaijani
warrant officer was really taken captive about two weeks ago.
Azerbaijani sources said that the captive is held in a remand
centre in Yerevan. His health and the conditions in which he is
held are satisfactory. Representatives of the Yerevan office of the
International Committee of the Red Cross are permitted to visit and
register him.
[The Armenian news agency Arminfo on 18 August quoted Shakhsuvaryan as
denying Azerbaijani reports that Xudaverdiyev had been taken captive.]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Abu Dhabi chess: Ganguly finishes third
Chennai Online, India
Aug 19 2005
Abu Dhabi (UAE), Aug 19: Grandmaster Surya Shekhar Ganguly defeated
GM Konstanin Chernyshov of Russia 2-0 to finish third in the Blitz
event of the 15th Abu Dhabi International Chess Festival here.
National champion Ganguly, who was leading 1-0 in the semi-finals
against Igor Kursonov of Russia, went down fighting in the next two
games and spoilt his chances for the top honour.
In the finals, GM Sergey Grigoriants of Russia defeated Kursonov 2-0
to emerge the winner of this 3,000 UAE dirhams prize money tournament.
Earlier, Ganguly had defeated International Master Othman Moussa of
UAE in the first round and outplayed Russian GM Vladimir Dobrov to
set up his quarterfinal clash with another Russian GM Dmitry Bochrov,
who had also lost after some brilliant play by the Indian. Ganguly
came under pressure in the semi-final.
The other Indian participants in the Blitz tourney Woman
Grandmaster-in-waiting Tania Sachdev, IM D V Prasad, Akshat Khamparia
and M B Muralidharan had lost in the first round itself.
In the Master’s section, which had a rest day, it has been a predicted
story for Ganguly, who has won two with white and drawn two as black
to reach 3 points out of a possible 4.
The Indian is placed joint fourth while Russian GMs Mikhail Kobalia,
Bocharov and Armenian GM Ashot Anastesian shared the lead with 3.5
points each in their kitty. (Agencies)

Ethnically-Armenian Bush attacker pledges to escape
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Aug 19 2005
Baku, August 18, AssA-Irada — Ethnically-Armenian individual accused
of an assassination attempt on US President George Bush and murder
of a police officer has said he will try to escape from the hospital
where he is kept, Georgian media quoted the country’s interior ministry
as saying.
While in hospital, Vladimir Arutyunian has repeatedly attempted to
hurt himself. A special video camera has been installed at Arutunian’s
cell to oversee his actions.
Arutyunian was detained in Tbilisi, Georgia on July 21. The 27-year
old individual faces several charges, including an attempt to commit
a terror act, murder, illegal possession and use of weapons.
Arutyunian admitted that on May 10, immediately after his arrest,
he threw a hand grenade to the rostrum where President Bush and his
Georgian counterpart Mikhail Saakashvili stood. He added that he would
‘continue attempts’ on Bush’s life ‘if he had a chance’.*

Asharq Alawsat (The Middle East), UK
Aug 19 2005
Iraq: A tactical Setback, A Strategic Gain
Amir Taheri
19/08/2005
Is the decision by the Iraqi National Assembly (parliament) to
postpone for a week its scheduled debate on a new draft constitution
“a major setback” for the newly liberated nation, a or just a bump on
the road to democratization?
There is no doubt that many who are nostalgic for the days of Saddam
Hussein had been hoping and praying that the 15 August deadline would
not be met. These are people who want Iraq to fail so that they could
prove that George W Bush and Tony Blair were wrong in toppling the
Ba’athist regime in Baghdad.
The postponement was a setback if only because this was the first
time that the new leadership was unable to meet a political deadline
it has fixed for itself. One cannot begrudge the opponents of the
liberation their unique moment of jubilation.
But if this was “a major setback”, as some dons of dilatory deeds
have claimed, why did Iraqi lawmakers broke into spontaneous applause
after they had voted to postpone the constitutional debate? Did they
know something that the serial filibusterers on Capitol Hill didn’t?
The answer is that while the postponement was a tactical setback for
the Iraqi lawmakers it represented a strategic advance for the
practice of democracy in the newly liberated country. The Iraqis
working on the draft resisted intense pressure from all quarters,
including Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the Shiite top
cleric, and the US Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, to brush
disagreements under the carpet and come up with “something.” They
were told to set aside the contentious issues and offer the assembly
the apple-tart and motherhood parts of their exercise.
But the drafters understood that the goal of the exercise could not
be making everybody happy for a brief moment. They understood that
the object of democracy is not to make everyone happy on every issue
every time. In fact, the opposite is often the case if only because
democratic decisions based on compromise as they are bound to be,
never fully satisfy anyone. What matters in democracy is that
everyone should feel happy about the way decisions are arrived at.
As far as the way decisions are made is concerned, the overwhelming
majority of Iraqis are happy. They know that the days when a
mustachioed despot could impose any constitution on them are gone,
hopefully for good. They also know that no single group can impose
its will on all others. More importantly, they know that if they
ignore the wishes of the people they wouldn’t be able to look their
neighbors in the face.
It is disingenuous to make much of the fact that the Iraqis have not
succeeded in writing a constitution in three months.
The physical act of writing a constitution is not difficult.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini asked one of his minions to translate the
constitution of the Fifth French Republic and then added a few
articles to enshrine his own despotic rule. The exercise took a few
days. The Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq once told me that he
could write a new constitution “in a mater of weeks, if not days.”
General Douglas Macarthur is said to have assigned one of his
secretaries to write the Japanese Constitution, again in a matter of
days.
But the American “founding fathers” needed three years to write a
constitution which was, subsequently amended two dozen times.
And then remember that all “the founding fathers” were Christian
Protestant English gentlemen sharing the same ethnic, linguistic and
cultural background.
Iraq’s “founding fathers”, however, represent a complex mosaic of
ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities. The whole thing is
further complicated by the fact that five rival political coalitions,
representing some 60 different political parties- from the Communists
to the Islamists and passing by secularists and monarchists- are
involved in the writing of the constitution.
On top of all that the debate over the new constitution was widened
to involve virtually all Iraqis. Over 300 constitutional conferences
were held throughout the country, enabling some 50,000 people to
express the views of countless trade unions, cultural associations,
women’s organizations, human rights groups, guilds, tribal
leaderships and religious fraternities. An even broader debate took
place through the newly-born private media, including 150 newspapers,
dozens of talk-radio stations and half a dozen television channels.
Thus the exercise went far beyond a political task assigned to a
committee and developed into a nationwide course in politics, human
rights, civic duties, and public ethics. Many Iraqis discovered the
complexity of their society for the first time. They saw that Iraq
did not consist of the uniformed, mustachioed and gun-toting
individuals who marched in front of Saddam Hussein’s giant portraits
like so many robots.
“I didn’t know that we had a Luri minority,” a highly educated Iraqi
friend told me the other day.
“I had no idea that many Iraqi Kurds were Shiites,” another Iraqi
friend admitted.
Others discovered that there are Iraqi Turkmen, Yazidis, Assyrians,
Armenians, Chaldaeans, and Ahl-e-Haq in addition to a variety of
Kurds, Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites. Iraq’s ethnic, linguistic and
religious diversity is further complicated by a rich array of
political and ideological sensibilities. On the left there are
Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Labour Party-style
social democrats. On the right there are Islamists of a dozen
different sensibilities. In the middle there are democrats,
republicans and liberals who aspire after a Western-style system.
Imposing a constitution on all these different strata at gunpoint may
be easy. Getting them to agree on one is less so.
Recently, The Americans took six months to appoint an Ambassador to
the United Nations, and, even then, failed to agree. So imagine if
the Americans were to write their constitution in the multicultural,
multi-ethnic and politically divided United States of today rather
than in the homogenous country it was two centuries ago.
There is no doubt that every political move in Iraq today should take
into account two factors: the fight against the terrorists, and the
need for an early end to the US-led coalition’s military presence.
The speedy introduction of a draft constitution would be helpful on
both accounts. But it would be wrong to see the drafting of the
constitution as nothing but a tactical move related to the war
against terrorism and the departure of the foreign troops.
While the Iraqis must work hard and fast to meet the new deadline
they have set for themselves, there is no need to sacrifice quality
to speed. The terrorists will continue killing the Iraqis with or
without a constitution but are ultimately doomed to defeat. The
departure of he foreign troops is equally inevitable, although it
could be speeded up through the Iraqi political process.
The constitutional debate has turned Iraq into a giant school for
democracy. A nation that had been terrorized into silence for more
than half a century is beginning to learn to talk, to debate and to
engage in polemics. People, who never thought anyone would bother
about their views, or whether they could have any views of their own,
are now beginning to discover the power that they could have as
individuals and groups in a democracy. The new political elite is
learning the art of negotiation, diversion and, yes, even
filibustering. In Iraq today the past is fighting the future. The
future is sure to win.

Moreover / A language everyone understands
By Gideon Levy
Ha’aretz, Israel
Aug 19 2005
Sunday, Gemona, Italy
So who danced better? The Croat woman or the Czech woman? The argument
went on into the night, for as long as the party lasted. The Croat
was more stylish but the Czech was more rhythmic; the Czech more
modern, the Croat a little old-fashioned. The Maltese woman has an
unforgettable body, if you like broad women, like the Polish woman. The
two Armenian women were sexy, too, the Bulgarian was a bit vulgar. The
Guatemalan woman huddled with the Albanian woman in Italian. Simona,
the curly-headed Italian, changed her skirt for tight pants to dance
better. But the most beautiful of all, by general consensus, was Anna,
the tall Russian woman, always wearing a hat and a white dress and
sporting a dreamy look.
A hundred young people from around the world, 80 girls and 20 boys,
came for a month to Gemona, a town at the foot of the Italian Alps
that was totally devastated in a 1976 earthquake, lying not far from
the border with Austria and Slovenia. The International Laboratory for
Communications, a combination of a serious seminar on Italian culture
with a little Club Med in the evenings, is an impressive project,
which has also produced more than a few trans-oceanic weddings and
heartrending romances that were born and died in the 40 years of its
existence. It was only from the Arab states that no one came this
year: the Italians do not issue visas to citizens of those countries,
because of terrorism.
Advertisement
This evening there is a prize ceremony. The international singer Noa
is receiving the seminar’s annual prize for her activity on behalf
of understanding and peace. It’s 4,000 euros. She arrived at 7:15,
Ahinoam Nini, of Israel, like a true superstar, to judge by the fact
she is 45 minutes late and by the excitement her arrival causes. Her
children, Eineha, a Hebrew name, and Ayehli, an Indian name, stayed
in the hotel in Venice with their grandmother and the nanny; her
husband, a pediatrician, was on duty in a hospital in Israel. The
previous day she appeared in Germany, the next day she will sing in
Venice and next week in Spain. She is an honorary citizen of half
the cities in Italy – there is no other Israeli singer of this era
who has enjoyed a comparable international success. Only Bassem Eid,
from Jericho, has never heard her name before.
Her success seems to sit well on her. In a half-open black blouse,
black pants stuffed deep into brown boots, a beautiful necklace
(designed by Michal Negrin), she won the hearts of the seminar
participants in no time. Sitting with legs crossed on the chair,
flowing American English, tons of self-confidence and personal charm,
even for those who are not wild about her mannerisms. Motherhood and
territories, Israel and America, career and occupation, singing and
journalists – she talked about everything articulately, touching the
hearts of her listeners.
Afterward they stood in line to get her autograph and went to dance
until dawn in the student dorms. Hala Khoury, a beautiful young
woman from Fasuta, in Galilee, danced to Arab music. During her month
in Gemona she is staying at the estate of the physician Dr. Shalom
Silberschmidt, a former Israeli from Moshav Yogev – a childhood friend
of Major General (res.) Uzi Dayan and a friend of Hala’s mother, Jerais
Khoury – who for 30 years has been healing backaches and headaches
in Gemona by means of jaw treatment. Nini returned to Venice, to the
children, and in the alleys of Gemona a torch procession was held as
part of a medieval festival taking place here. “Fire to purify the
world,” cried the costumed marchers.

SECOND OPINION: Myth of ‘Qadiani in the works’ -Khaled Ahmed’s Review of the Urdu press
Daily Times, Pakistan
Aug 19 2005
The Qadianis did it. The Jews did it. Why not add a few more categories
we don’t like? Why leave the Hindus out? The Urdu newspapers that
publish such statements contribute to the negative image Pakistan
has abroad. Don’t expect direct foreign investment to peak after this
piece of wisdom!
There are moments when a Pakistani Muslim plumbs the depths of his
negative side. One and all, we go cross-eyed when on the subject
of the Qadiani sect. All kinds of lies are in order. The Germans
had this kind of thing for the Jews, Iranians for Bahais, Turks for
Armenians… and one can enlist many other nations with a death-wish.
Quoted in daily Pakistan (22 July 2005) Jamiat Ulema Pakistan (JUP)
leader Qari Zawwar Bahadur said in Lahore that the London bombings
were done by the Qadianis and the Jews as a conspiracy against Islam.
He said the Qadianis and the Jews had finally come together as enemies
of Islam and their plan is to victimise the Muslims of the world. He
said the breakaway factions of his JUP would soon reunite to face
the government on local elections.
It was reported that after the death of the JUP founder Maulana
Shah Ahmad Noorani, the Lahore faction of the Noorani faction led
by Shah Faridul Haq and General (Retd) KM Azhar rebelled against the
family of Maulana Noorani now headed by son Anas Noorani and formed
a new faction.
This is killing two birds with one stone. Get the Muslims to believe
that two of their permanent enemies had done the London thing in
tandem. Sotto voce, fall on them and kill them! The Jews, alas, are
absent, but no matter. Why should the press publish such provocative
and patently mendacious material? If nothing else, think of the
trouble it can get Pakistan into.
As reported in Jang (15 July 2005) chief election commissioner Justice
Abdul Hameed announced that all candidates standing for local elections
would have to submit affidavits of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat so that no Qadiani
could avail the right of standing for elections under otherwise joint
electorates. Non-Muslims are allowed but not Qadianis. The affidavit
denounces the apostatised sect.
Let the MMA come to power, then we will have a few others on the banned
list. In actuality, the Shias and the Ismailis are next. No election
commission can be really proud of making announcements like the above.
Columnist Irfan Siddiqi wrote in Nawa-e-Waqt (21 July 2005) that
Saad Saud Jan who died in Lahore was born in Lahore and became
additional sessions judge in the city in 1961 as a CSP officer. He
was a judge who refused to be drawn out into the social circuit. He
helped significantly in the drafting of the 1973 Constitution. He
became judge of the Lahore High Court in due course of time and was
the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1994 when
chief justice of the Court Justice, Nasim Hassan Shah, retired.
Justice Jan was not a favourite of the PPP after he had refused to
‘cooperate’ a number of times at the request of the PPP’s senior
politicians including President Leghari. Law minister after 1993,
Iqbal Haider, already had chosen to elevate Justice Qadeer, a junior
judge. Prime minister Benazir Bhutto asked law secretary Justice
Sheikh Riaz Hussain to give her a list of the senior-most judges of
the Supreme Court, but when the list was given, the senior most judge
Saad Saud Jan was excluded. The list comprised Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry,
Ajmal Mian and Sajjad Ali Shah. The last named was made chief justice.
Justice Saad Saud Jan who was retired as acting chief justice received
the pension of a chief justice till his demise; Chief Justice Sajjad
Ali Shah, who was unseated in 1997, receives the pension of a mere
Supreme Court judge. Why was Justice Jan denied his rights? This
needs to be investigated.
The crux of the injustice meted out to Justice Jan was the rumour on
which the PPP relied: that he was a Qadiani. One unspoken rule of
this nazism is that if someone denies being one, then he really is
one! Justice Jan’s greatness stands whether he was one or not. Some
of our worst-reputed judges were not Qadianis. All the great judges
were either Christian or Parsi! On a lighter note, an honest ban on
Sunni judges would be in order.
Speaking to Nawa-e-Waqt, (20 July 2005) a group of great Islamic
scholars of Lahore, including Sarfraz Naeemi of Jamia Naimiyya,
Maulana Abdur Rehman Makki of Jamaat Dawa, Pir Saifullah, Maulana
Nusrat Ali Shahani, Maulana Abdul Malik and others, said that Tony
Blair’s popularity was failing therefore he arranged the 7/7 London
bombings to unite his voters. They said that 9/11 too was a plan to
grab the Muslim states; and Musharraf was committing a blunder by
supporting Bush.
If one is looking for the process that creates suicide-bombers in
Pakistan, here it is in full view. Many of us take it to be the froth
that sticks to the beards of our holy men, but unfortunately some
youths take them quite seriously.
According to Khabrain, (20 July 2005) head of the journalism department
in Punjab University, Dr Mughisuddin said that new terrorism was
being spread in the name of ending terrorism. He said it was never
found out as to who was responsible for the 9/11 act of terrorism in
the United States.
Much has been published about the boys who did 9/11. Their families
have been interviewed, their friends interrogated and their social
backgrounds minutely screened. Muhammad Atta’s father in Egypt accepts
that his son led the attack. He says what happened on 9/11 will happen
again. Before 9/11 Atta’s father was quite secular in life. After 9/11,
he changed into an America-hater.
Quoted in daily Pakistan (21 July 2005) MMA leaders said in a
meeting in Lahore that 7/7 bombings in London were organised by
the Jews just like the bombings of 9/11 in America. JUP leader Mufti
Hidayatullah said that Pakistan was being run by the slaves of America
and Britain. Jamaat’s Lahore leader Hafiz Salman Butt said that the
West had put the label of Islam on terrorism.
The Jews did it. Why not add a few more categories we don’t like? Why
leave the Hindus out? The Urdu newspapers that publish such statements
contribute to the negative image Pakistan has abroad.
Don’t expect direct foreign investment to peak after this piece of
wisdom! *