Pakistan newspaper cartoons

12 November 2010

2010-11-11T22:21:00.000-08:00

11 November 2010

2010-11-10T23:04:00.001-08:00

10 November 2010

2010-11-09T21:21:00.000-08:00

09 November 2010

2010-11-08T22:39:00.000-08:00

08 November 2010

2010-11-07T21:38:00.000-08:00

07 November 2010

2010-11-07T01:19:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 8th October 2008

2008-10-07T20:42:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 7th October 2008

2008-10-06T20:36:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 6th October 2008

2008-10-06T02:23:00.002-07:00

Cartoon 5th October 2008

2008-10-06T02:23:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 4th October 2008

2008-10-06T02:22:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 1st October 2008

2008-10-06T02:20:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 30th September 2008

2008-09-30T02:15:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 29th September 2008

2008-09-29T02:14:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 28th September 2008

2008-09-28T02:12:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 27th September 2008

2008-09-27T02:10:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 26th September 2008

2008-09-25T18:31:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 25th September 2008

2008-09-24T20:29:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 24th September 2008

2008-09-23T22:47:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 23rd September 2008

2008-09-22T18:29:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 22nd September 2008

2008-09-21T20:42:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 21st September 2008

2008-09-21T20:41:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 20th September 2008

2008-09-21T20:38:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 19th September 2008

2008-09-18T19:58:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 18th September 2008

2008-09-17T19:47:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 17th September 2008

2008-09-16T18:09:00.000-07:00

Making a joke of democracy

2008-09-16T01:13:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Anjum Niaz
The writer is a freelance journalist with over twenty years of experience in national and international reporting

Here's the unmentionable truth: if today Pakistan had an independent judiciary, Asif Ali Zardari may not have been the president. The 107 legislators who voted for him in the NWFP assembly would have faced disqualification for breaking the sanctity of the ballot. Were the Supreme Court free, it would have taken notice and ordered a stay. What does the word 'secret' mean? If our honourable parliamentarians of the Frontier don't know its meaning, then they don't deserve to be sitting and making laws for the province. If our honourable judges of the superior courts don't know the meaning, then they too don't deserve to be handing down judgments. And if Chief Election Commissioner Justice (r) Qazi Muhammad Farooq was sovereign, he would never have rushed to judgment and announced Zardari's victory disregarding the evidence before him.

When the lawmakers en masse become the lawbreakers, democracy becomes a joke. The NWFP lawmakers played dumb charades on the day they voted for a new president of Pakistan. Like excited school kids, they put up an act for the media and their PPP fellow legislators when they stood up to vote. Acting out their parts they let it be manifestly known to all who they were voting for. It was Asif Ali Zardari! Lining up like playful schoolchildren under the towering roof of the mock-colonial styled assembly, one after another held up his/her ballot paper to show to the TV cameras and the monitors of Asif Ali Zardari that they were dutifully voting for him before putting their papers in the ballot box. Exalting the pack was the proud chief minister of the Frontier. Young dashing Ameer Haider Khan Hoti treated the media and his PPP minders to a peep show. I bet you all must have exchanged high-fives after the peep show.

Chief Justice Tariq Pervez of Peshawar High Court was the presiding officer. Those inside the hall and the world at large saw almost all MPAs of ANP, PPP, JUI-F, PPP-(S) and independents showed their ballot papers to ANP leader and provincial information minister Mian Ifthikhar Hussain and PPP leader and provincial Health Minister Syed Zahir Ali Shah after marking their votes in AAZ's favour. Both the provincial ministers were sitting on the left and right sides of the polling booth. After marking his or her ballot paper, each MPA showed them in whose favour he or she was casting the vote. The ministers were the two 'angels' recording the legislators' deeds – one on the left and the other on the right.

According to press reports, Nargas Samin, an MPA from PPP-S, was "caught" by Chief Justice Tariq Parvez showing her ballot paper to Mian Ifthikhar. She was called to the dais and told to hand over her ballot paper to the honourable judge. "He put it in his pocket." At this point, the polling halted. The judge went to the speaker's chamber accompanied by polling agents, Barrister Javed Abbasi of the PML-N, Liaqat Shabab of PPP and Nighat Aurakzai of PML-Q.

When the judge returned to the floor, he again summoned Ms Samin to the dais and pulled out the ballot paper which he had earlier put in his pocket. A triumphant Nargas Samin then strutted to the ballot box and put her paper clearly marked in Zardari's favour, earlier witnessed by everyone present, into the box. What did that signal? Oh, it's okay for the remaining 106 voters to show they have voted for Zardari before polling their votes. "Presiding Officer Justice Tariq Pervez Khan directed all the MPAs to stop showing their ballot papers but the parliamentarians set aside his directives and kept on showing ballots till the end of the election," say the media reports.

In a rare interview with the Quarterly Criterion which comes out of Islamabad and is published by S Iftikhar Murshed, Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday says that an independent judiciary draws its might from the people: "The courts of law are not equipped with tanks and guns and fighter planes. Their strength lies in the people and the public." Well, if the people today were that strong, the sacked Supreme Court judge who restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry last July would have been resuscitated by now.

But Asif Ali Zardari broke his promise to the people of Pakistan that he would restore Justice Chaudhry along with Justice Ramday and all others sent packing by Musharraf on November 3. Why? Tell me which democratic government likes to have an independent judiciary even if it claims to want one. I call it the ultimate hypocrisy. When coalition governments' parliamentarians break the law, the government of the day hates the judiciary to interfere and take them to task. But if the people were to wrest the power away from the government and demand an independent judiciary, not even President Zardari, the man who "swept" the presidential polls and made some sort of a record, would have the power to resist. "I've always said that the county judge who summoned President Nixon or the county judge who summoned President Clinton was not made of steel," says Justice Ramday. "He was also made of the same flesh and bones as I am. The difference however, was that this petty county judge in Washington knew that he was summoning the president of the United States of America…and he knew that he [president] would come. The reason was that both knew that the people of the country were standing behind that county judge, and the president despite all the power and might he enjoyed, dare not disregard the summons from the court."

Who has the gumption to call President Zardari before him today? Or even question him? Or even entertain a case against the government of the day? Does a name come to your mind? As for the past, there have been judges who "showed strength of character," says Justice Ramday, "but they have just fizzled out. People forgot about them. It was as if they never existed or as if they had never done anything commendable for the people, the nation or the constitution."

The judiciary today looks the other way when the ruling party legislators in the NWFP assembly breach the constitution and later shamefacedly tell the media, "Oh, we were just joking!" while defending their illegal action. So what's the future of the judiciary? Justice Ramday is asked by the Criterion. "There are lots of forces working on either side. This is the defining moment. Out of this melting pot you will either get a judiciary which will be the pride of the people or you will get a judiciary only in name." The judge gives the example of Café Zumzum which he and his Gordon College buddies often frequented as students. The owner had a record player. "We were given the privilege of requesting songs that the owner would play [for us]… Will we get courts or a Zumzum café where only some privileged people's requests are catered to?"

Law Minister Farooq Naek may have driven a wedge between the pre-November 3 judges, but for how long? The intensity to get them restored may have decreased but it will never die out. "It will come back one day or the other and when it comes back it may be with very disastrous consequences. One should not let that stage be reached," warns Justice Ramday.

Put back the steel in the judiciary, I say. Attorney General Sardar (newly affixed) Latif Khosa and Law Minister Farooq Naek need to listen to their conscience and not sell their souls for petty political gains that can recklessly pull down their government in the months ahead.

Email: aniaz@fas.harvard.edu
The article first published in thenews on 16th September 2008

Cartoon 16th September 2008

2008-09-15T21:08:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 15th September 2008

2008-09-14T18:42:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 14th September 2008

2008-09-14T18:40:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 13th September 2008

2008-09-14T18:34:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 12th September 2008

2008-09-11T21:08:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 11th September 2008

2008-09-10T18:52:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 10th September 2008

2008-09-10T18:51:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 9th September 2008

2008-09-08T21:34:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 8th September 2008

2008-09-08T21:32:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 7th September 2008

2008-09-08T21:31:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 6th September 2008

2008-09-08T21:28:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 5th September 2008

2008-09-04T18:06:00.000-07:00

Bhutto's speech at security council

2008-09-03T23:41:00.000-07:00

FULL TEXT

My Country Beckons Me
Speech at the Security Council, New York,

December 15, 1971

We have met here today at a grave moment in the history of my country and I would request the Council kindly to bear with me and to hear the truth, the bitter truth. I know the United Nations; I know the Security Council I have attended their sessions before. The time has come when, as far as Pakistan is concerned, we shall have to speak the truth whether members of the Council like it or not. We were hoping that the Security Council, mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance of world peace and justice, would act according to principles and bring an end to a naked, brutal aggression against my people. I came here for this reason. I was needed by the people of Pakistan, and when I was leaving Pakistan I. was in two minds whether: to go to the Security Council to represent the cause of my country, to represent the cause of a people that had been subjected to aggression, or to remain with my people, by their side, while they were being subjected to attack and violence. However, I felt that it was imperative for me to come here and seek justice from the Security Council. But I must say, whether the members like it or not, that the Security Council has denied my country that justice. From the moment I arrived we have been subjected to dilatory tactics.

It will be recalled that when the Indian Foreign Minister spoke and I spoke after him, I said that filibustering was taking place. That was my immediate observation. The Security Council, I am afraid, has excelled; in the art of filibustering, not only on substance but also on procedural matters. With some cynicism, I watched yesterday a full hour of the Security Council's time wasted on whether the members of the Council would be ready to meet at 9.30 a.m. or that bed and breakfast required that they should meet at 11 a.m.

The representative of Somalia referred to the population of East Pakistan as 56 million, but later on he corrected himself to say that the population of Bengal—of Muslim Bengal—was 76 million. If he had waited for a few more days he need not have corrected himself because millions are dying, and it would have come to 56 million if the Council had kept on filibustering and discussing whether it should meet today or tomorrow or the day after tomorrow—whether the lines of communication between New York and Moscow and Peking and other capitals would permit the members to obtain new instructions. Thus, we could have gone on and on. That is why I requested you, Mr. President, to convene a meeting of the Security Council immediately and I am thankful to you for having convened this meeting, because precious time is being lost. My countrymen, my people, are dying. So I think I can facilitate your efforts if I speak now. Perhaps this will be my last speech in the Security Council. So please bear with me because -I have some home truths to tell the Security Council. The world must know. My people must know. I have not come here to accept abject surrender. If the Security Council wants me to be a party to the legalisation of abject surrender, then I say that under no circumstances shall it be so. Yesterday my eleven year old son telephoned me from Karachi and said "Do not come back with a document of surrender. We do not want to see you back in Pakistan if you do that." I will not take back a document of surrender from the Security Council. I will not be a party to the legalisation of aggression.

The Security Council has failed miserably, shamefully. "The Charter of the United Nations," "the San Francisco Conference," "international peace and justice"—these are the words we heard in our youth, and we were inspired by the concept of the United Nations maintaining international peace and justice and security. President Woodrow Wilson said that he fought the First World War to end wars for all time. The League of Nations came into being, and then the United Nations after it. What has the United Nations done? I know of the farce and the fraud of the United Nations. They come here and say, "Excellence, Excellence, comment allez-vous?" and all that. "A very good speech—you have spoken very well, tres bien." We have heard all these things. The United Nations resembles those fashion houses which hide ugly realities by draping ungainly figures in alluring apparel. The concealment of realities is common to both but the ugly realities cannot remain hidden. You do not need a Secretary-General. You need a chief executioner.

Let us face the stark truth. I have got no stakes left for the moment. That is why I am speaking the truth from my heart. For four days we have been deliberating here. For four days the Security Council has procrastinated. Why? Because the object was for Dacca to fall. That was the object. It was quite clear to me from the beginning. All right, so what if Dacca falls? Cities and countries have fallen before. They have come under foreign occupation. China was under foreign occupation for years. Other countries have been under foreign occupation. France was under foreign occupation. Western Europe was under foreign occupation. So what if Dacca falls? So what if the whole of East Pakistan falls? So what if the whole of West Pakistan falls? So what if our state is obliterated? We will build a new Pakistan. We will build a better Pakistan. We will build a greater Pakistan.

The Security Council has acted short-sightedly by acquiescing in these dilatory tactics. You have reached a point when we shall say, "Do what you like." If this point had not been reached we could have made a commitment. We could have said, "All right, we are prepared to do some things." Now why should we? You want us to be silenced by guns. Why should we say that we shall agree to anything? Now you decide what you like. Your decision will not be binding on us. You can decide what you like. If you had left us a margin of hope, we might have been a party to some settlement.

But the Indians are so short-sighted. Mr. President, you referred to the "distinguished" Foreign Minister of India. What may I ask is so "distinguished" about a policy of aggression he is trying to justify. How is he distinguished when his hands are full of blood, when his heart is full of venom? But you know they do not have vision.

The partition of India in 1947 took place because they did. not have vision. Now also they are lacking in vision. They talk about their ancient civilisation and the mystique of India and all that. But they do not have vision at all. If I had been in his place, I would have acted differently. I extended a hand of friendship to him the other day. He should have seen what I meant. I am not talking as a puppet. I am talking as the authentic leader of the people of West Pakistan who elected me at the polls in a more impressive victory than the victory that Mujibur Rahman received in East Pakistan, and he should have taken cognizance of that. But he did not take cognizance of it. We could have opened a new page, a new chapter in our relations.

As I said, if the French and the Germans can come to terms, why cannot India and Pakistan come to terms? If the Turks and the Greeks can still talk sensibly as civilised people over Cyprus, why cannot India and Pakistan do likewise? If the Soviet Union and the United States can open a new page in their history, if China and the United States can open a new page in their history, why can we not usher a new era in. our relations? We could have done so. But as it was said about the 1967 Arab-Israel war, the military victory of Israel made it more difficult for Israel and the Arabs to reach a settlement. If you want to subjugate Pakistan militarily, you will find it more difficult to bring peace. I say that the choice for us is either to accept living in the-same subcontinent and co-operating for peace and progress, or to be implacable enemies of each other forever.

The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union does not like my reference to the Roman Empire. I do not know what objection he has to it, unless he sees some similarity between his empire and the Roman Empire. I do not really see why he had any objection to that. But I shall again refer to the Roman Empire, and I hope that the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union will have no objection to it because we want to have good relations with the Soviet Union and we want to open a new chapter with the Soviet Union because we are neighbours. I go back to the Roman Empire and I say what Cato said to the Romans, "Carthage must be destroyed." If India thinks that it is going to subjugate Pakistan, Eastern Pakistan as well as Western Pakistan—because we are one people, we are one state— then we shall say, "Carthage must be destroyed." We shall tell our children and they will tell their children that Carthage must be destroyed.

So please, Mr. President and members of the Security Council, realise the implications. The Pakistani nation is a brave nation. One of the greatest British generals said that the best infantry fighters in the world are the Pakistanis. We will fight. We will fight for a thousand years, if it comes to that. So do not go by momentary military victories. Stalingrad was overwhelmed. Leningrad was besieged for a thousand days. People who want to be free and who want to maintain their personality will fight and will continue to fight for principles.

We were told about the realities; to accept the realities. What are the realities? Realities keep changing, the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union knows that once the reality was that the Nazis were out side the gates of Moscow, but you fought valiantly, bravely, and the world saluted the Soviet Union for having resisted the realities that were sought to be imposed on it. The reality was that China was under the occupation of Japan, that Manchuria was taken—half of China. That was the reality. Since the Opium War, China has seen reality. The reality for France was that it was under occupation. But there were great men like President de Gaulle who left France and fought from across the seas. Ethiopia was under Fascist domination. But the Ethiopians fought. The Emperor of Ethiopia left his country and sought asylum in Britain. Ethiopia is free today. The realities that matter are those which are not temporary phenomena which are rooted in historic principles. The principle is that Pakistan is an independent, sovereign state which came into being because of the volition of its people. That is the basic reality which has existed for 24 years. Pakistan would not have faced dismemberment like this if it had not been attacked by another country. This is not an internal movement. We have been subjected to attack by a militarily powerful neighbour. Who says that the new reality arose out of free will? Had there been the exercise of free will, India would not have attacked Pakistan. If India talks about the will of the people of East Pakistan and claims that it had to attack Pakistan in order to impose the will of the people of East Pakistan, then what has it done about Kashmir? East Pakistan is an integral part of Pakistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory. Why does India then not permit it to exercise its will?

But yesterday I saw how the Security Council was pandering to India. Even the great powers are pandering to India, saying to us, "Do not misunderstand," "Would you please let us know" and "Would you please answer the following questions; I am not insisting on those questions, but if you do not mind." India is intoxicated today with its military successes.

I told the Indian Permanent Representative in 1967 that we wanted good relations between the two countries—but based on principles, based on justice, based on equity, not based on exploitation and domination, because such relations cannot be lasting. What we want is a lasting, a permanent solution. I do not say this just today; I said that in 1967 to their Permanent Representative who was then the High Commissioner of India to Pakistan. I said that to the Foreign Minister of India when we were negotiating on Kashmir, "Let us settle this problem on the basis of equity and justice, so that we can live as good neighbours." And I add today: we can still live as good neighbours, as friends. Do not wipe out that possibility by military conquest and military power.

This has been the worst form of aggression, of naked aggression. Even Poland was not invaded by Germany in this fashion. Even in that case there were some pretences, some excuses that were made. Here the excuse was, "We have refugees, so we must invade another country." We said, "We are prepared to take those refugees back." If we had said, "We arc not prepared to take them back," then you could have said, "Well, you will be sunk." India's population rises by 13 million a year. The number of refugees was alleged to be 9 million, 10 million. According to our estimate they were 5 million. But that is not important; figures are not important. The point is that we were prepared to take them back. If India's population can grow by 13 million a year, then with all the aid and assistance that India was getting for the refugees, it could have held on for a short period till Pakistan had a civilian government to negotiate the return of the refugees. I told the United States Ambassador in Pakistan that once a civilian government came into power in Pakistan, was prepared to go to the refugee camps myself to talk to them. But India pre-empted it all because the refugee problem was used as a pretext to dismember my country. The regfuee problem was used as a pretext, an ugly, crude pretext, a shameful pretext to invade my country, to invade East Pakistan.

The great powers will forgive me. I have addressed them in this moment of anguish, and they should understand. The great powers or the superpowers—the super-duper-powers, the razzling-dazzling powers—the superpowers have imposed their super will for the moment. But I am thankful to the people and the Government of the United States among the superpowers, for the position it has taken. The people of the United States, to some extent have been misled by massive Indian propaganda. Because we had no paraphernalia of popular administration and government in Pakistan, there was a political vacuum. The Indians took advantage of that political vacuum and they spread out fast to project their point of view. As a result, American public opinion and public opinion in Great Britain and France and other countries was influenced. Unfortunately, nothing was said of the massacres that took place between 1 March and 25 March. No doubt there were mistakes on our side. I said yesterday that mistakes were made, and the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union said that I had admitted mistakes. Well, that is not a sign of weakness, is it? Do we not all make mistakes? Are India and the Soviet Union the only two countries that have never made mistakes? I have made mistakes personally. But mistakes do not mean that my country must be destroyed, that my country must be dismembered. That is not the consequence of mistakes of government. Which government does not make mistakes? But if some government has made a mistake, does it-follow that the country itself must be dismembered, obliterated? Is that going to be the conclusion of the Security Council if it legalises Indian aggression on the soil of Pakistan?

So you will see now: this is not the end of the road, this is the beginning of the road; this is not the end of the chapter, a new chapter has begun a new page has been written in international relations. This is gunboat diplomacy in its worst form. In a sense, it makes the Hitlerite aggression pale into insignificance because Hitlerite aggression was not accepted by the world. If the world is going to endorse this aggression, it will mean a new and most unfortunate chapter in international relations. A new chapter may have begun in India and Pakistan, but please do not start a new dreadful chapter in international relations. For us, it is a hand-to-hand, day-to-day, minute-to-minute fight. But do not do that to the rest of the world. Please do not permit this kind of naked, shameful barbaric aggression to hold sway. In the old days great warriors swept over the world—Changiz Khan, Subutai Khan, Alexander, Caesar, coming down to the great Napoleon. But this is worse, this is much worse than all that was done by the great conquerors of the world in the past. If the United Nations becomes a party to this kind of conquest, it will be much worse than all that has been done in the past. You will be turning the medium-sized and the small countries into the harlots of the world. You cannot do that. It is against civilised concepts: it is against all the rules of civilisation and of international morality and justice.

The United States Government was criticised for supporting the position of Pakistan. What crime has the United States Government committed? It has taken a position identical to that of the whole world on the India-Pakistan conflict. That position was supported by 105 countries—it was 104 officially, but it was really 105 because one representative did not press the right button. That was the voice of the world. It was an international referendum. You talk about the election of 1970. Well, I am proud of the election of 1970 because my party emerged as the strongest party in West Pakistan. But here was an international poll and India flouted it. With such an attitude towards international opinion, how can India pretend to be sensitive to a national election in another country? The same India that refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir?

The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union talked about realities. Mr. Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union look at this reality. I know that you are the representative of a great country. You behave like one. The way you throw out your chest, the way you thump the table. you do not talk like Comrade Malik; you talk like Czar Malik. I see you are smiling. Well, I am not because my heart is bleeding. We want to be friends, but this is not the way to be friends when my country is decimated, sought to be destroyed, wiped out.

Why should China and the United States be criticised when the whole world is for Pakistan? You know that we have won a great political victory. We might have suffered a military defeat, but a political victory is more important than a military defeat because political victory is permanent while military defeat is temporary. The United States Government has acted according to its great traditions by supporting Pakistan, and I. will go to the people of the United States before I return home and tell them the truth. The United States has stood by the traditions of Jefferson, Madison. Hamilton, right down to Roosevelt and Wilson by supporting Pakistan as an independent state, its national integrity and its national unity. What wrong and crime has the United States committed? Why is the Indian delegation so annoyed with the United States? The Indian delegation is annoyed with U.S.—can you imagine that? If it had not been for the massive food assistance that the United States gave to India, India would have had starvation; its millions would have died. What hope will India give to the people of East Pakistan? What picture of hope is it going to give when its own people in Western Bengal sleep in the streets, where there is terrible poverty, where there is terrible injustice and exploitation, when the parliamentary rule in West Bengal has been superseded by presidential rule? Is India going to do better for East Pakistan, for Muslim Bengal, than it has done for West Bengal? Thousands of West Bengali people sleep in the streets of Calcutta. The people of West Bengal are the poorest. India goes hat in hand to the United States for six million tons of food. If they are going to impose presidential-rule in West Bengal, in their Bengal, how can they do any better in our Bengal? They will not. And time will show that they will not.

So the United States has taken a correct and moral position. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn eternal hostility against any form of tyranny practised over the mind of man". This is a vast form of tyranny practised over the mind of man and over the body of man. So the United States has adhered to its tradition. And if some misguided Senators were here, some young, misguided Senators who have been overtaken by Indian propaganda—and if the Permanent Representative of the United States were not from Texas—I would have told those young Senators that I was setting up the headquarters for a republic of Texas and making the former President-of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, the chief of that republic, in order to spread the cult of Bangladesh everywhere. Why can Texas not be free? Let there be a republic of Texas. We did not buy Bengal as Alaska was bought by the United States. We did not pay money to get our territory. We did not pay dollars to acquire territory. The people of the United States should appreciate the position taken by their Government.

Muslim Bengal was a part of Pakistan of its free will, not through money. We did not buy it as Alaska was purchased. Why do the people of the United States not see that? And we are beholden and thankful to the great People's Republic of China. We shall always remain thankful for the position it has taken. It has taken a position based on principles of justice. And I thank the Third World for having supported a just cause, a right cause.

And now in the Security Council we have been frustrated by a veto. Let us build a monument to the veto, a big monument to the veto. Let us build a monument to the impotence and incapacity of the Security Council and the General Assembly. As you sow, so shall you reap. Remember that Biblical saying. Today, it is Pakistan. We are your guinea pigs today. But there will be other guinea pigs and you will see what happens. You will see how the chain of events unfolds itself. You want us to lick the dust. We are not going to lick the dust.

Britain and France have abstained from voting in order to play a role. I said the other day, with all due respect to those two great powers, that they have really exhausted their position in trying to play a role because now the only role they can play is to accept a shameless fait accompli. Britain and France abstained, and that abstention has cost us dearly. Gallic logic and Anglo-Saxon experience, whatever it is, have cost us dearly. If Britain and France had put their powerful weight behind the international community rather than sitting on the fence, the issue might have been different. There is no such animal as a neutral animal. You take positions. In that respect we admire the Soviet Union; it took a position, a wrong position, but it took a position. You have to take a position on these matters. You have to be either on the side of justice or on the side of injustice; you are either on the side of justice or on the side of injustice; you have to be either on the side of the aggressor or of the victim. There is no third road. It is a black and white situation in these matters; there is no grey involved. You are either for right or you are for wrong; you are either for justice or for injustice; you are either for aggression or for the victim. If the United Kingdom and France had earlier put their full weight behind the verdict of the international community, I think that we would not have reached this position. But Great Britain and France want to come back into the subcontinent as Clive and Dupleix, in a different role, the role of peacemakers. They want a foot here and they want a foot there. I know that British interests in East Pakistan required this kind of opportunistic role because in East Pakistan they have their tea estates. They want the jute of East Pakistan. So that is why they sat on the fence. And I am sorry at France's position because with France we had developed very good relations, extremely good relations. But they took this position. And now, today, neither Britain nor France can play a role because their resolution has been overtaken by events. There is a lot of goodwill for France in Pakistan, and they will not get the same goodwill in East Pakistan because in East Pakistan already the clock is now moving in another direction. Everyday that the Indian Army of occupation stays there, it will be a grim reminder for Muslim Bengal that they are under Hindu occupation, and you will see the result of it. You will see how it will turn out. Let them stay—why not? Let them stay. Let them swagger around. If they want to take East Pakistan, let them stay as an army of occupation. They are an army of occupation; how can they be called liberators? They will stay, and they will see how the clock is going to move in a different direction.

Finally, I am not a rat. I have never ratted in my life. I have faced assassination attempts, I have faced imprisonments. I have always confronted crises. Today I am not ratting, but I am leaving your Security Council. I find it disgraceful to my person and to my country to remain here a moment longer than is necessary. I am not boycotting. Impose any decision, have a treaty worse than the Treaty of Versailles, legalise aggression, legalise occupation, legalise everything that has been illegal upto 15 December 1971. I will not be a party to it. We will fight; we will go back and fight. My country beckons me. Why should I waste my time here in the Security Council? I will not be a party to the ignominious surrender of a part of my country. You can take your Security Council. Here you are. I am going.

Cartoon 4th September 2008

2008-09-03T18:06:00.000-07:00

Hasan Nisar

2008-09-02T19:26:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 3rd September 2008

2008-09-02T18:36:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 2nd September 2008

2008-09-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 1st September 2008

2008-09-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

JQuery

2008-09-01T03:46:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 31st August 2008

2008-08-31T20:08:00.000-07:00

Why Musharraf resigned

2008-08-28T20:57:00.001-07:00

Cartoon 29th August 2008

2008-08-28T20:20:00.001-07:00

sasta tandoor

2008-08-27T23:50:00.000-07:00

In the face of obnoxiously high, pocket pinching inflation, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Lahore has begun a new welfare program lead by Lahore President Mian Mehmood ur Rashid and Welfare President Javed Butt.

The program envisages teaming with established tandoor in the lower class areas of the city and selling roti and naan for less than half the cost. Roti are being sold for 2 rupees and Naan for 3.

The first tandoor was launched today, August 27, 2008 in the congested run-down locality of Dubanpura. Chairman Khan visited the area to inaugurate the project amidst massive applause.

“Inflation has broken the back of the common person and those sitting in parliament cannot seem to find the time to help the poor,” said the Chairman.

“Tandoor like these will be opened across Pakistan to show that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is committed to help fight the dreadful effects of inflation.”

According to Mian Mehmud ur Rashid, the idea was plucked out of the books of the AKP (former Welfare) party in Turkey which had begun to sell bread at subsidized rates in the localities of Ankara and Istanbul after the country was hit with hyper inflation in the mid-1980’s. Places selling cheap bread became so popular in Turkey, that private bakeries ended up going out of business. It was schemes like these which helped propel the AKP to become the largest and most popular party in Turkish politics. PTI Lahore leadership and the party’s central executives feel the model can be replicated in Pakistan as affordable roti is the need of the hour.

Between now and the end of Ramzan, four tandoor will become operational. Once they are successful, the ‘Sasta Tandoor’ scheme will spread across the localities of Lahore and Pakistan.

Because of the repute of Chairman Khan, many concerned citizens have come forward to provide free flour for this scheme. As 60% of the cost of running the ‘Sasta Tandoor’ is the cost of the flour, the scheme has potential to be an enormous success.

PTI encourages all its members to help out in this effort – be it in the form of organizing donating flour or manpower to oversee the individual projects. This will show to the people that even though Tehreek-e-Insaf is not in parliament, it is making efforts to help alleviate hardships of the downtrodden – more so than those in the corridors of power.

Queries can be forwarded to welfare@insaf.pk

Cartoon 28th August 2008

2008-08-27T22:06:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 27th August 2008

2008-08-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

Justice

2008-08-25T23:36:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 26th August 2008

2008-08-25T20:54:00.000-07:00

NRO ke saye tale

2008-08-25T00:43:00.000-07:00

Zardari Corruption

2008-08-24T23:36:00.000-07:00

PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE

PART FOUR

PART FIVE

PART SIX

Cartoon 24th August 2008

2008-08-24T23:02:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 25th August 2008

2008-08-24T21:59:00.000-07:00

Closures For java

2008-08-22T03:04:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 22nd August 2008

2008-08-21T21:34:00.000-07:00

Mansoor

2008-08-21T05:19:00.000-07:00

‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’

Mansoor ke parde main Khuda bol raha hai
israar Khudai ke Khuda khol raha hai
Mansoor ka haq hai kay ‘Ana'al-Haq’ kaha hai
‘Ana'al-Haq’ hai Mansoor ‘Ana'al-Haq’ rahega
‘Ana'al-Haq’ ka naara to sada haq rahega
aisa bhi din hoga jo her koi kahe ga
‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’ hi ka wird karega

jhoota tha Khudai per Firon ka dawa
Firon tha Firon woh zalim ke khuda tha
Iblis mawahhid magar baaghi-e-Khuda tha
Shahadat-e-Mansoor ki shahid hai Khudai
Shahid tha Mansoor kia shahadat di Khuda ki
shahadat-e-Mansoor, shahadat hai Khuda ki
Mansoor ka haq hai kay ‘Ana'al-Haq’ kaha hai
Mansoor ka yeh qarz sada qarz rahega
‘Ana'al-Haq’ hai Mansoor ‘Ana'al-Haq’ rahega

Mansoor Khuda pe hai fida, kesa fida hai
Mansoor kahan yeh to Khuda bol raha hai
Kate hath, kate paon per sarshaar hai Mansoor
Dooiee ki wajah jism tha to thora bacha hai
Daar pe ‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’ Ki jo lai pe tanga dol raha hai
Yeh Mansoori sada hai jo Khuda bol raha hai
Mansoor ka haq hai kay ‘Ana'al-Haq’ kaha hai
Mansoor ka yeh qarz sada qarz rahega
aisa bhi din hoga jo her koi kahe ga
‘Ana'al-Haq’ ‘Ana'al-Haq’ hi ka wird karega

raakh se Mansoor ki jo Phool khila hai
kantoon ki mohabbat se kia surkh howa hai
ya dil hai Mansoor ka jo Phool howa hai
ya lai pe ‘Ana'al-Haq’ ki sir phor liya hai
is Phool ke parde main yeh Mansoori sada hai
yeh Phool Khuda hai yeh Khuda bol raha hai
Mansoor ka haq hai kay ‘Ana'al-Haq’ kaha hai
‘Ana'al-Haq’ hai Mansoor ‘Ana'al-Haq’ rahega
‘Ana'al-Haq’ ka naara to sada haq rahega
aisa bhi din hoga jo her koi kahe ga
‘Ana'al-Haq’, ‘Ana'al-Haq’ hi ka wird karega

tehqeeq-e-Mansoor se yeh pata chla hai
'haqeeqat' hai yahi ke 'haq' 'muqaddas howa hai
"main 'haq' hoon aur 'haq', hai 'haq' ke sath 'haq'
‘Ana'al-Haq’o w'al-Haq lil'Haqq Haqq"
‘Anal-Haq’ ‘Anal-Haq’ ‘Anal-Haq’ ‘Anal-Haq’

shame shame shame

2008-08-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 21th August 2008

2008-08-20T21:49:00.000-07:00

YouTube Scalability

2008-08-20T03:42:00.000-07:00

Habib Jalib

2008-08-20T02:44:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 20th August 2008

2008-08-19T21:44:00.000-07:00

Talat Hussain about Musharraf

2008-08-19T05:19:00.000-07:00

Faraz : Muhasra

2008-08-19T04:14:00.000-07:00

Missing persons in Pakistan

2008-08-19T04:00:00.000-07:00

Jalib

2008-08-19T03:24:00.001-07:00

Also listen this

Musharraf musheer

2008-08-18T21:37:00.000-07:00

Alos listen this

Cartoon 19th August 2008

2008-08-18T21:22:00.001-07:00

Funny

2008-08-18T03:47:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 18th August 2008

2008-08-17T21:19:00.001-07:00

Altaf Hussain funny

2008-08-13T03:51:00.000-07:00

Also Watch this

TIC TAC TOE

2008-08-13T02:31:00.001-07:00

SPEAKERS ON

Imran Khan with Fareed Zakaria

2008-08-13T00:58:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 13th August 2008

2008-08-12T22:06:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 12th August 2008

2008-08-12T03:23:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 8th August 2008

2008-08-07T21:14:00.000-07:00

Musharraf

2008-08-06T21:37:00.000-07:00

Cartoon 7th August 2008

2008-08-06T20:47:00.000-07:00

6th august cartoons

2008-08-06T04:40:00.000-07:00

Smoking is injurious to health

2008-01-21T23:30:00.001-08:00

cartoon on Imran Khan

2008-01-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

Media

2008-01-09T02:49:00.000-08:00

Our embattled media

By Tanvir Ahmad Khan

For moving to Google page click here

GEN Pervez Musharraf’s latest address to the nation and his conversation with foreign journalists the next day has revived the question of balance between freedom and responsibility in our media. He seemed to return to the idée fixe of the present regime that Pakistan’s current troubles are mostly caused by irresponsible journalists.

Furthermore, there was the ancient lament that the foreign media ignores the great gap between the developed West and a primitive Pakistan in its reports and comment.

Prominent amongst the images streaming out of Pakistan during an entire year of political protest were those of a protracted tussle between the government on the one hand and the lawyers and journalists on the other. The media people and the legal fraternity had no background of working in tandem and what telescoped them together was the regime’s paranoid reaction to what these two disparate communities perceived were their essential professional responsibilities.

The lawyers claimed they were upholding the national Constitution and the rule of law. The media people were exercising their right to report the unfolding political drama freely. Draconian measures to curb both the groups probably did more harm to Musharraf’s standing than anything else during his long, mostly unquestioned, rule.

Unlike the predictable conflict with the men of law, Musharraf’s quarrel with the media was an unexpected development. No military ruler of Pakistan had ever been as media savvy as Musharraf. On their part, most journalists began by supporting him. He had taken major decisions such as ending the state monopoly on broadcasting that led to a veritable revolution in the dissemination of news and views.

An entire new generation of well-educated young men and women emerged that cherished freedom of expression while continuing the tradition of being patriotic to a fault.

In a recent BBC lecture, the distinguished Cambridge philosopher, Onara O’Neill, built up a case for media responsibility by arguing that any search for truth needs structures and disciplines and that this search is undermined by casual disregard of accuracy or evidence.

In Pakistan’s case, the need for such structures was never an issue as the innate restraint of a conservative Muslim society exerts a normative pressure. Compared to the mass media in the West, the Pakistani media is much less prone to slander and sensationalism. The major newspapers and electronic outlets can be tediously conservative. There is, indeed, considerable room for improvement in the discipline of accuracy and evidence.

There are discernable weaknesses of infrastructure and database, which can only be aggravated by the financial losses that the Pakistan government has imposed on media organisations.

The present travail of the Pakistani media comes largely from the unusual power its electronic component acquired in a society where access to printed information and knowledge is limited.

The regime wanted this power to work exclusively to the government’s advantage which could be done only by massive airbrushing from the picture of grim realities such as violated women, provincial insurgencies, thousands of terrorism-related fatalities including in the armed forces, police atrocities against peaceful demonstrators and, above all, a wanton disregard of the Constitution.

As if this litany of horror was not enough, the year ended with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, an event which sent shock waves across the globe and caused much foreboding about Pakistan’s future.

The Pakistani media has never failed to lend a helping hand wherever something positive could be found. Consider the transformation of public opinion in Pakistan about India. What might have been only a tactical shift in inter-state relations has struck deep roots as the media whole heartedly supported it. It demolished the myth of eternal hostility and enabled General Musharraf to conduct a dialogue with the Indian leadership in a tranquil environment.

In the ‘war on terror’ Musharraf got media support so far as the paradigm of it was concerned. But his regime never succeeded in carrying conviction with the people when it came to details. From the commitments made to the United States in 2001 to the “collateral damage” in Pakistan’s tribal belt, government versions have regularly conflicted with independent reports filed by Pakistani and foreign journalists.

It is often said that all governments are obliged to take liberties with truth for reasons of state. If this is so, they must also accept the fact that in this information age and in this globalised world a counter-narrative would also emerge.

Since the credibility of the regime remained in free fall, the suppression of the mainstream media resulted in a high premium on unconventional information disseminated through the internet and the mobile phone. These new sources of information are subject to no discipline of verification but are often credited with more truth than they carry. During ten weeks of travelling in Europe recently, I was struck by their impact even on professional foreign observers of the Pakistani scene. Between the blogs and the text messages, the official version became almost irrelevant.

Basically, Gen Musharraf fell out with the media because of its coverage of his conflict with the higher judiciary. There is no doubt that real-time coverage made a great difference. Without it, the forced retirement of the judges and the reconstitution of courts might not have become a public issue. Nor would there be internal and external questions about the plan to use democratisation as a means to perpetuate military rule by another name.

Even illiterate Pakistanis say that media curbs continue because the government plans to rig the forthcoming election or not hold it at all.Therein lies the ultimate justification for a complete restoration of media freedom.

Without that freedom democracy would remain devoid of credibility. Without recovering the lost trust no future government will be able to calm Pakistan down. The media must inform the people accurately; the state must treat it with respect. The Pakistani media is perfectly capable of balancing freedom with responsibility. It is time that the executive too learns to tolerate the accountability inherent in a modern democratic state.

Swat Tragedy

2008-01-09T02:35:00.000-08:00

The roots of Swat’s tragedy

By Asim Effendi

For moving to Google page click here

THE journey that our serene Swat Valley has made from being a prime tourist attraction to becoming a battlefield is nothing short of tragic. Going back in history, it was the Yousafzai tribe’s migration into the area under Sheikh Malli in the 16th century that further pushed the valley’s original settlers, the Swatis and Dalazak, across the Indus.

Even today the Hazara region has a sizeable population called the Swatis because of its pre-Yousafzai affinities.

With the dawn of the 18th century, Swat emerged as a stateless entity pursuing a nomadic lifestyle as its population moved from one village to another under the administrative arrangement of ‘Wesh’ land distribution. The area’s political evolution was shaped primarily by events that took place around its geographical boundaries, and by the mid-18th century the arrival of the British made the need for a viable state more acute.

Lack of modern education and sociocultural restraints left the Yousafzais of Swat without any political options other than the moral authority exercised by its theocratic leaders. Abdul Ghafoor, locally known as Saidu Baba, was one such spiritual figure and it was on his recommendation that the first ruler, Syed Akbar Shah of Ghali Khay village, was selected. Subsequently the Akhund’s grandson Miangul Abdul Wadood, known as Badshah Sahib and recognised by the British, ascended to the throne as the Wali of Swat.

The mullah phenomenon that we now see in Swat is not entirely new to the area. A case in point is the uprising at the end of the 18th century led by Sartoor Faqir, called the ‘mad mullah’. But the British were astute administrators and countered the threat by taking care of the means and letting the end take care of itself. They not only recognised the new ruler but was also conferred a knighthood on Miangul Abdul Wadood (making him Sir Abdul Wadood) in recognition of his exceptional statesmanship that ensured an arms-free and peaceful Swat.

The Miangul dynasty, though founded on religious grounds, ensured that the state prospered on modern lines with foolproof law and order mechanisms. Its judicial system was fashioned according to local customs and traditions, or ‘Riwaj’, and the subjects ensured that all laws were observed and respected. In case of any violation the culprit was speedily brought to book.

The primary functions of the state were performed competently to protect the life and property of its citizens. This, coupled with the dispensation of speedy justice, created unprecedented economic dividends in the shape of a booming tourism industry. Boulevards, bridges, schools, dispensaries and lush playgrounds came to dot Swat’s landscape. Not only were religious seminaries built under state patronage but missionary schools were also constructed to ensure modern education for all.

There was absolute religious harmony and not a single incident occurred where any tourist felt insecure. Even Queen Elizabeth was impressed with the scale of development in the infant state whose economy was sustained wholly by tourism and forest resources.

The state was generous enough to gift the poorly equipped PAF a fighter named ‘Jehanzeb’ at the time of Pakistan’s independence. But July 28, 1969, when Swat was absorbed and fully integrated into Pakistan, marked a turning point in the area’s history. A supposedly theocratic state that was progressive and democratic, thereby ensuring economic prosperity, became a victim of superficial democratic dispensations that exploited the religious sentiments of the people for personal gain. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was arguably the first to advocate Pan-Islamism, primarily to assume an international political stature with Saudi support. It was in 1977 that the Swatis, disillusioned with the new bureaucratic order, demanded the enforcement of Shariah for the first time.

General Ziaul Haq was another who made the people wait indefinitely for his brand of ‘Islamic’ rule of law that would ostensibly guarantee fair play and justice. All this while he flogged political opponents in the name of religion and served as the vanguard of a CIA-sponsored operation against the Soviet Union to prolong his rule. Subsequent democratic governments were extensions of their predecessors in one way or the other.

While political jugglery of the worst kind was de rigueur, Swat underwent systematic deterioration in all areas of its infrastructure. The roads began to disintegrate, the once leafy soccer grounds became deserted, deforestation set in and the emerald river was poisoned by effluent from unplanned hotels along its banks. Swat’s wildlife died out, and so did its art and culture. The corrupt judiciary dragged out day-to-day civil litigation over decades, contributing hugely to the emergence on the political canvas of the mullahs who eventually came to challenge the writ of the state.

Once a tourist haven, Swat today is a militant stronghold and at a virtual standstill. Confused residents are living under traumatic conditions, terrorised both by the mullahs and the military and braving indiscriminate shelling and daily curfews. The presence of some 20,000 army personnel sent to battle militancy in the area is unlikely to achieve lasting peace. The unplanned deployment, marked by operational flaws and an absence of clear objectives, has demoralised the troops who in some cases have surrendered to militants in the absence of logistical support. The subsequent use of excessive firepower, without any accounting for collateral damage or a proper rehabilitation plan for displaced residents, makes the shortcomings of the security ‘strategy’ all the more evident.

It appears that the most workable option would have been to empower residents to clear their own designated areas of militants. The security forces should have concentrated on eliminating militants in the inaccessible Peochar Valley through a simultaneous two-pronged ground assault from Dir and Matta. Unfortunately, the security forces continue to focus on all that is unnecessary, subjecting ordinary residents to the nuisance of checkpoints and hardship of prolonged curfews. All these measures will be counter-productive in the long run.

The extremism espoused by Maulana Sufi Muhammad and his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah may be one of the causes of the turmoil in Swat but it is not the sole reason. The incompetence displayed by the state machinery has contributed immensely to the present anarchy. Violence is likely to escalate further if the security forces continue to pursue the flawed strategy of securing areas without winning hearts.

AJAX

2008-01-09T01:30:00.000-08:00

AJAX BASICS

For moving to Google page click here

Ajax (sometimes called Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a way of programming for the Web that gets rid of the hourglass. Data, content, and design are merged together into a seamless whole. When a client clicks on something on an Ajax driven application, there is very little lag time. The page simply displays what they're asking for. If you don't believe me, try out Google Maps for a few seconds. Scroll around and watch as the map updates almost before your eyes. There is very little lag and you don't have to wait for pages to refresh or reload.

Ajax is a way of developing Web applications that combines:

XHTML and CSS standards based presentation
Interaction with the page through the DOM
Data interchange with XML and XSLT
Asynchronous data retrieval with XMLHttpRequest
JavaScript to tie it all together

The Ajax engine works within the Web browser (through JavaScript and the DOM) to render the Web application and handle any requests that the customer might have of the Web server. The beauty of it is that because the Ajax engine is handling the requests, it can hold most information in the engine itself, while allowing the interaction with the application and the customer to happen asynchronously and independently of any interaction with the server.

What is Asynchronous? This is the key. In standard Web applications, the interaction between the customer and the server is synchronous. This means that one has to happen after the other. If a customer clicks a link, the request is sent to the server, which then sends the results back.

With Ajax, the JavaScript that is loaded when the page loads handles most of the basic tasks such as data validation and manipulation, as well as display rendering the Ajax engine handles without a trip to the server. At the same time that it is making display changes for the customer, it is sending data back and forth to the server. But the data transfer is not dependent upon actions of the customer.

Cricket 2007-Test matches results

2008-01-07T22:42:00.000-08:00

2007 - Test matches

For moving to Google page click here

Team	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	W/L	%W	%L	%D
Australia	4	4	0	0	0	-	100.00	0.00	0.00
Bangladesh	5	0	4	0	1	0.00	0.00	80.00	20.00
England	11	3	3	0	5	1.00	27.27	27.27	45.45
India	10	3	2	0	5	1.50	30.00	20.00	50.00
New Zealand	2	0	2	0	0	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Pakistan	8	1	4	0	3	0.25	12.50	50.00	37.50
South Africa	9	6	2	0	1	3.00	66.66	22.22	11.11
Sri Lanka	8	4	2	0	2	2.00	50.00	25.00	25.00
West Indies	5	1	3	0	1	0.33	20.00	60.00	20.00

Urdu Poetry

2008-01-07T02:06:00.000-08:00

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

tareek rahon main maray gaye!!

tere honton kay phholoon ki chahat main hum
daar ki khushk tehni pe waray gaye
tere hathon ki shamo`on ki hasrat main hum
Neem tareek rahon main maaray gaye
sooliyoun per hamaray labon say paray
terey honto ke lali lapakti rehi
teri zulfon ke masti barasti rehi
terey hathon ke chandi damakti rehi
jub ghuli teri rahoon may sham'e sitam
hmm chalay aaey laey jahan tuk qadam
lub pay hurf'e ghazal, dil may qindeel'e ghum
apna ghum tha gawahi terey husn ke
dekh qaim rehay iss gawahi pey hum
hum jo tareek rahon may maray gaey
narsai agar apni taqdeer thee, teri ulfat bhi to apni he tadbeer the
kiss ko shikwa hay gar shauq k silsilay
hijr ke qatalgahon say sub ja milay
qatal gahon say chun ker hamaray alam
aur niklain gay usshaq k qaflay
jin ke rah'e talab say hamaray qadm
mukhtasir ker chalay dard k faaslay
ker chalay jinn ke khatir jahan geer hum
jaan ganwa ker teri dilbari ka bharam

hum jo tareek rahon mai maray gaey.

Pakistan's Judicial History

2008-01-07T01:56:00.000-08:00

PCO and its victim judges

By Justice Sajjad Ali Shah
OUR Constitution is the basic law of the country and is the fountainhead of all other laws, which are subordinate to and consistent with it. The oath of office is prescribed to important office-holders in the third schedule to the Constitution, and calls on them to preserve, defend, uphold and act according to the basic law.

Judges of the superior courts and officials of the armed forces also take the oath with an additional requirement for armed forces personnel — they are required to steer clear of political activities.

If the Constitution stands suspended, the oath of a judge remains intact because he acts according to law which includes a suspended Constitution, essentially an extraordinary situation. A judge, having taken oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO), can declare both the suspension of the Constitution and the PCO illegal.

The country has seen constitutions abrogated in 1958 and 1969 and martial laws imposed. But the judicial system continued as it was, without any removal of judges. In 1971, after the war with India and the consequent fall of Dhaka, West Pakistan saw Zulfikar Ali Bhutto become president and the first civilian CMLA.

The martial law imposed in 1969 continued, with many government officers being dismissed and retired on grounds of misconduct, without a mandatory inquiry. However, some were retired following scrutiny of their record and in consultation with the chief justices of the high courts.

In 1977, General Ziaul Haq imposed martial law, suspending the Constitution instead of abrogating it as was done on two previous occasions. The Supreme Judicial Council was approached to investigate whether any judges in the high courts were selected for political reasons and, after an inquiry and the right of personal hearing, several were retired as political appointees.

As if this was not enough, the 1981 PCO was promulgated after the Supreme Court granted validation to the martial law, empowering the CMLA to amend the Constitution.

As a result, many judges were retired from the Supreme Court and the high courts without having their say. This PCO came after a delay of four years as the Supreme Court had granted conditional validation that required all orders and regulations passed by the regime to be subject to judicial review by superior courts. Hence, such orders were often challenged in the courts, much to the chagrin of the martial law authorities.

The martial law administration also wanted the courts cleared of non-cooperative, independent judges; hence a list from the federal ministry of law ensured that the selected ones were not invited to take oath.

In 1981, I was a judge in the Sindh High Court. The Chief Justice was instructed by the federal law secretary in Islamabad to meet the governor of Sindh, and he returned from the meeting to announce that two judges from the Sindh High Court, Abdul Hafeez Memon and G.M. Shah, would not be allowed to take oath. All other judges were asked to appear before the governor at 2 pm.

Some in the Sindh High Court argued that if all judges boycotted the oath-taking and bowed out, other pliant ones would replace them and therefore it was far wiser to fight from within. Meanwhile, events in other high courts were kept under wraps. After the oath, it transpired that countless judges had not been called and all those who declined to take the oath became heroes, garnering much admiration from members of the bar and the public.

In fact, despite attempts to conceal the events in the Supreme Court, certain proceedings did come to light. Chief Justice Maulvi Mushtaq of the Lahore High Court, who headed the bench of five judges and sentenced Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to death, had fallen out with President Zia.

Maulvi Mushtaq had been elevated to the Supreme Court but, although ready to take oath, he was not invited. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Anwar-ul-Haq invited all the judges of the apex court to his chamber to discuss this matter and the fact that the PCO barred the jurisdiction of the courts.

The CJP began with the junior-most on the list, ad hoc Judge Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, who replied that although he was not party to the judgment in Nusrat Bhutto’s case, he had followed it and since the PCO curtailed the jurisdiction of the court and nullified the effect and object of the judgment, he would not take oath.

For similar reasons, Justice Dorab Patel also refrained but all other judges agreed and lastly the CJP declared that since he was the author of the judgment, he too would opt out.

The actual facts remain with the federal ministry of law but rumour has it that only Maulvi Mushtaq was not invited. If this is true then apart from Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, hats off to Dorab Patel who refused to become the CJP. It is worth a mention here that Dorab Patel, Mohammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah had acquitted Mr Bhutto. It thus became clear that General Zia believed that under the PCO of 1981, he had the right to pick and choose judges favoured by the government and axe others.

On Oct 12, 1999 General Pervez Musharraf suspended the Constitution. Another PCO replaced the Constitution. One of the seven points in the speech the general gave shortly after taking over was his pledge to rebuild institutions. Interestingly, the Supreme Court came under attack again. Finally after a delay of three months, 15 judges were not given an oath under the PCO. These included five judges of the Supreme Court who chose to stay out.

However, General Pervez Musharraf has the unique distinction of imposing ‘martial law’ twice in the same tenure. On Nov 3, 2007 he imposed emergency-plus with the suspension of the Constitution and promulgated the PCO under which he sent home 13 out of 17 judges of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, and prevented about 50 judges of the high courts from taking oath.

This is how the entire judicial system was demolished to avoid a judgment from the apex court that restricted Musharraf from holding dual office — that of the army chief and the president’s — and denied him eligibility in the elections if he chose to stay in uniform. President Musharraf succeeded in obtaining an interim order to proceed with the polls. Apprehending a judgment against him, the president introduced the PCO to turn the judiciary around and the new Supreme Court issued a judgment in his favour on the basis of the law of necessity.

It is surprising how the western powers have been able to digest this unconstitutional and malafide action of dismantling the judiciary, an essential pillar of democracy. How this issue has been sidelined in favour of the elections is amazing. If the elections are held, President Musharraf may have a hung parliament of his choice and the issue of restoration of judges will certainly recede into oblivion.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of Pakisan.

How to iterate hash table in java

2008-01-04T04:46:00.000-08:00

PRINTING HASH TABLE

To print all the elements of a hash table is not simple task, here is a sample code to help you in this regard

import java.util.Hashtable;
import java.util.Enumeration;

// create a new Hashtable
Hashtable h = new Hashtable( );

// add some key/value pairs to the Hashtable
h.put( "LA" , "Lahore" );
h.put( "KR" , "Karachi" );
h.put( "MN" , "Multan" );
h.put( "SDK" , "SADIQABAD" );

// enumerate all the contents of the hashtable
Enumeration keys = h.keys();
while ( keys.hasMoreElements() )
{
key = (String)keys.nextElement();
stateName = (String)h.get( key );
System.out.println( key + " " + stateName );
// prints lines of the form LA Lahore
// in effectively random order.
} // end while

Politics

2008-01-04T04:27:00.000-08:00

Another political watershed

By Ayesha Siddiqa
THE PPP is back on the road again to fight its political battle. While the steering wheel has been passed on to Benazir Bhutto’s 19-year-old son Bilawal, Asif Zardari will be the actual driver. The decision will not be welcomed by all. The PPP will most certainly be criticised for being a dynastic party.

The foreigners, the educated middle class and the military’s covert propagandists will berate the murdered Bhutto and her party for concentrating power in her family’s hand. After all, progressive and liberal political parties do not do this. But then this is pragmatic politics and about the survival of a party which the evil forces in the country damaged severely by killing its leader.

I just read an offensive letter circulated to most writers by a fictitious character employed to propagate the myth of the military being the only worthwhile institution in the country. I would like to agree with the ghostwriter. In fact I would like to add that the PPP, which was the only remaining civilian institution representing the politics of federalism in Pakistan, has also been killed which leaves ample space for just one institution.

The symbolic significance of another dead body flown to Sindh from Rawalpindi does not bode well for relations amongst the federating units, especially the smaller apropos the one large province. Moreover, the PPP was one of the rare civilian institutions which connected the federating units and held them together. There was truth in the slogan ‘Saray soobon ki zanjeer — Benazir, Benazir” (the link between all provinces — Benazir, Benazir). Now we have just the military. Perhaps we are fated to remain with only one institution.

Is it then a foregone conclusion that the PPP is no more? Many believed even in 1979 that the party would die after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s assassination. The appointment of Benazir Bhutto’s son Bilawal is designed to keep the party alive. The educated classes might not understand how important are emotional symbols in Pakistan’s politics. Personal charisma is central to the game of politics. If you can’t excite people then it doesn’t work for you.

Many years ago I remember a personal conversation with Aitzaz Ahsan about playing a more active role in the PPP’s politics and about the possibility of challenging Bhutto’s dominance of the party. His answer was that the PPP worker commonly known as the jiyala only recognises the sacrifices of the Bhutto family or his own. No other person has the personal charisma to take over control of the PPP.

I remember another conversation with an Indian friend about the possibility of Rahul Gandhi, who is deemed intellectually less sharp than other youngsters in the party, taking over the Congress. Despite all what we believe about Indian politics I was informed that it would not take a lot for Rahul Gandhi to lead the party. For the common person it is not how smart you are but whether you have the personal charisma which the Gandhi name carries.

The PPP’s decision is about the politics of personal and familial charisma which its other leaders do not possess. There is no one to fill Benazir’s shoes. It is true that lately Aitzaz has built an impressive image but one wonders if he can carry this beyond the educated to the illiterate crowds and across the ethnic divide. The Bhutto name still works because of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s political legacy and personal charisma.

He was the man who for the first time in the country’s history convinced the masses that the world was about them. Furthermore his ability to come down to the level of the people and speak their language and inspire them was something totally new. He was truly the only charismatic leader. Bhutto even surpassed Jinnah who was not personally magnetic but had a charismatic cause.

So one understands Asif Zardari’s decision to appoint Bilawal as the party’s chairman. However, the boy is 19 and deserves political and social grooming to actually play the role he has been assigned. The six years in which he will educate himself, followed by years when he will have to acquaint himself with Pakistan, must be spent reorienting the party and providing it with a charismatic ideology.

The fact is that the PPP faces the major challenge of keeping itself intact. The forces which killed Bhutto will also find an opportunity to exploit the difference of opinion amongst its leaders and between leaders and party workers. After all the PPP no longer has Benazir whose commanding voice could silence difference of opinion and make all decisions appear unanimous. Under the circumstances, the best option is to adopt two approaches. First, the party must become inclusive and recruit leadership for the future. This could include other members of the Bhutto family such as the young Fatima and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Junior who could be seen sharing his duties during the burial of his aunt.

Second, the party leadership must revive some radicalism in the party ideology. Asif Zardari’s present posture is indeed understandable. His first priority is survival of the party and keeping it relevant nationally. However, he must get rid of the conservatism which had crept into the party. The PPP’s election manifesto, which almost seems to have been developed in the offices of the Asian Development Bank or other multilateral NGOs, is one example of this conservatism.

Surely Mr Zardari realises that the evil forces within Pakistan’s establishment might let him build and enjoy some power, but they will not let the PPP survive unless he can connect with the masses. The politics of pragmatism that every single person will talk to him about or educate young Bilawal in is good but it didn’t help Benazir Bhutto save her own life. The evil elements were not keen to see her party survive.

I remember talking to a prominent PML-Q leader a couple of months before Bhutto’s murder. The gentleman insisted that the era of Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif was over. Perhaps what he didn’t tell me was that they had planned to terminate Bhutto’s era because she was not listening. She was the leader of a popular party and could not be expected to compromise beyond a certain point. This would threaten the new state which the powerful forces of the establishment have built. So it made better sense to get rid of Benazir.

Asif Zardari is a survivor and has learnt the ropes of politics during his years in jail. But this also means that he might instinctively over-concentrate on the game of survival. The party intellectuals will teach him about pragmatism. But being ideologically barren is the least pragmatic thing. He has already filled the board of advisers with conservative members representing the landed-feudal-cum-industrialist. He must bring the more honest and ideologically motivated people on board as Bilawal’s trainers and party advisers.

The Bhutto name is important but it might not necessarily help Bilawal when he returns to Pakistan after six years to start his life as a Pakistani politician. More than the Bhutto-Zardari son, this traumatised country needs a political party which can heal the bleeding wounds. Mr Zardari, let it be the PPP once again.

The writer is an independent analyst and author of the book Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

Science

2008-01-01T23:02:00.000-08:00

Sham university reforms

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

GEN Pervez Musharraf’s regime boasts of its successes in science and education at home and abroad. Recently I saw Pakistan’s successes trumpeted by a large official delegation headed by Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, chairman of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), at a conference in Trieste, Italy.

They came to address a special session on science development in Pakistan — the only country that had requested and paid for such special treatment at the conference. Those who did not know about the state of science in Pakistan were amazed by the claims made. Those who knew better were stunned by the flood of self-serving lies, half-truths and deceit.

The claims made were several. A 300 per cent jump in research publications shows that academic activity in Pakistan has vastly increased; nine new engineering universities with European teaching faculty will soon be established; the 3,000 Pakistani students sent overseas for higher degrees will revolutionise the university system upon return; PhDs produced annually from Pakistani universities will soon approach the spectacular figure of 1,500; mathematics is now a strong discipline in Pakistan; and so forth.

The truth is very different. Even though spending on higher education has increased 15 times over the last five years, the improvements have been cosmetic. Genuine science in Pakistan has actually shrunk, not grown, over the last three decades. The trend has not been reversed. Euphoric claims notwithstanding, public university education in Pakistan remains miserably backward by international standards. Its real problems are yet to be touched.

Take the HEC’s first claim: the three-fold increase in Pakistani academic publications. Fantastically large per-paper monetary rewards to university teachers — a practice not adopted anywhere else in the world for excellent reasons — have indeed boosted publication rates. But publishing more papers is not the same as doing more research. Instead, the high rewards have caused an explosion of plagiarism, theft of intellectual property, publication of trivial results and falsified data, and publication of slightly different versions of the same paper in different journals. Most published papers are worthless academically and scientifically.

The reader can readily verify the last point. All that is needed is a computer and an Internet connection. Simply type www.scholar.google.com into your browser, and then the name of any individual scientist or scholar you want. (Academic databases even more comprehensive than Google are available but not free.) A list of publications of that person, together with a count of the number of times his/her papers have been cited by other scholars, will be displayed. Remember that a piece of scientific work is important only if it is useful to other scientists, or to industry in the form of patents that lead to new products (a separate database exists for that). So, in a matter of seconds, one can see which individuals are considered important by the world of science and academia.

The results of such database searches are eye-opening. A majority of papers by Pakistani authors, even if published in international journals by hook or crook, have exactly zero citations (once self-citations are removed). Such papers have contributed nothing. They may just as well have not been written. The average number of citations per Pakistani paper is 3.41 (includes self-citation), which is much below that in scientifically advanced countries.

Still more shocking is the citation record of some of Pakistan’s most well-advertised scientists, whose relentless self-promotion at government expense would be considered a crime in another country. While they have hundreds of papers and books to their credit, most of these have zero citations. Others in their field seem to have scarcely noticed any of their work. On the other hand, the reader can check that about 25-30 other Pakistani scientists, who are unadvertised and relatively unknown, have a far better citation record and a moderately good international standing in their respective fields.

Now for the HEC’s nine Pak-European universities project. This is a stunning disaster. The most advanced university (in terms of construction and planning) was the French engineering university in Karachi. Named UESTP-France, with a completion cost of Rs26bn, it was to have begun functioning in October 2007. There is still no official explanation for why this did not happen, no new date has been set, and no account given of the money already spent.

On the face of it, making Pak-European universities sounds like a wonderful idea. Pakistan would pay for France, Sweden, Italy and some other European countries to help set up, manage and provide professors for new universities in Pakistan. It would be expensive — Pakistan would have to pay the full development costs, recurrent expenses, and euro-level salaries (plus 40 per cent markup) for all the foreign professors and vice-chancellors. But it would still be worth it because the large presence of European professors teaching in these Pakistani universities would ensure good teaching. High-standard degrees would subsequently be awarded by institutions in the respective European countries.

Even common sense said that the project could not work. Perhaps one can persuade beefy mercenaries of the French Foreign Legion to go to some country where suicide bombings happen daily and killing of ordinary citizens by terrorists is routine. But it takes an enormous leap of faith to think that respectable academics from France — or any other European country for that matter — will want to live and teach in Pakistan for a year or more. Travel advisories issued by several European governments warn against even brief visits. That the French professors did not turn up at UESTP-France is scarcely surprising. But, lost to their mad fantasies, HEC planners are now working on the vain assumption that the Germans and Swedes are made of sterner stuff than the French.

A wiser leadership would have aimed for one properly planned new engineering university, set up under the European Union. It would have sought external help for adding engineering departments to existing universities, as well as to massively upgrade existing ones. But these relatively modest goals are unacceptable to the present HEC leadership that believes, like the Musharraf regime as a whole, in grand plans rather than practical, feasible reforms.

Showing the hollowness of the other official claims of progress would take more space than available here. Slick PowerPoint presentations by HEC officials throw one figure after another at dizzying speed giving the impression of fantastic progress. But the intelligent listener must ask many questions: does it make sense to select thousands of students on the basis of a substandard high-school level numeracy and literacy test, and then send them for an expensive graduate-level education in Europe? Will the quality of Pakistani graduates not be further degraded by pushing PhD production far beyond the capability of the present universities?

It is time to end the fetish of buying tons of expensive scientific equipment that, at the end of it all, produce only zero-citation papers and zero patents. Curiously, after a bunch of projects were exposed as phoney, the HEC broke with its past practice and now no longer puts on its website details of HEC-funded projects. It is also time to stop HEC officials and HEC delegates from gallivanting across the globe at public expense on the vaguest of excuses for ‘fact-finding’ missions and conferences.

There must be an independent investigation of the HEC’s plans and financing, a review of its programmes and a full audit of accounts. The inquiry should be jointly done by the future government through the PAC and NAB, assisted by a citizen’s committee. Individual whims and personal ambitions must be checked to protect the national interest. Pakistan is a poor country although, looking at the HEC’s spending patterns, one would conclude the opposite.

In my next article, I shall argue that there are far better uses for the enormous funding that is now available for higher education.

The writer teaches physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz

2007-12-27T04:57:00.000-08:00

moti ho keh sheesha, jaam keh dur
jo toot gaya, so toot gaya
kab ashko.n say jur sakta hai
jo toot gaya, so choot gaya

tum nahaq tukray chun chun kar
daman mai.n chupaye baithay ho
sheesho.n ka maseeha koi nahi
kiya aas lagaye baithay ho

shayad keh inhi.n tukro.n mai.n kahi.n
woh saghir-e-dil hai jis mai.n kabhi
sad naz say utara karti thi
sehbay-e-gham-e-jana.n ki pari

phir duniya walo.n nay tum say
yeh saghar lay kar phor diya
jo maiy thi, baha di mitti mai.n
mehma.n ka shehpar tor diya

yeh rangeen rezay hai.n shayad
un shokh bilori.n sapno.n kay
tum mast jawani mai.n jin say
khalwat ko sajya kartay thay

nadari, daftar bhook aur gham
in sapno.n say takratey rahey
be reham tha chomukh pathrao
yeh kaanch kay dhanchay kiya kartay

ya shayad in zarro.n mai.n kahi.n
moti hai tumhari izzat ka
woh jis say tumharay ijz par
shamshad qadro.n nay raksh kiya

is mal ki dhun mai.n phirtay thay
tajir bhi buhat, rehzun bhi kai
hai chor nagar, yaa.n muflis ki
gar jan bachi tou aan gai

yeh saghar sheeshay laal-o-guhr
salim hoo to qeemat patay hai.n
yu.n tukray tukray hoo to faqt
chubtay hai.n, lahoo rulwatay hai.n

tum nahaq tukray chun chun kar
daman mai.n chupaye baithay ho
sheesho.n ka maseeha koi nahi
kia aas lagaye baithay ho

yadoo.n kay garebano.n kay rafo
par dil ki guzr kab hoti hai
ik bakhia udhaira, aik siya
yu.n umr basr kab hoti hai

is kar geh hasti mai.n jaha.n
yeh saghar sheeshay dhaltay hai.n
har shay ka badal mil sakta hai
sub daman pur ho saktay hai.n

jo hath barhay yawar hai yeha.n
jo aankh uthay, wo bakhtawar
ya.n dhan dolat ka ant nahi
ho.n ghat mai.n lakh daku magar

kab loot jhapat say hasti ki
dukanai.n khali hoti hai.n
ya.n parbat parbat heeray hai.n
ya.n sagar sagar moti hai.n

kuch log hai.n jo is daulat par
parday lutkaye phirtay hai.n
har parbat ko, har sagar ko
neelam charhaye phirtay hai.n

kuch wo bhi hai.n jo lar bhar kar
yeh parday noch giratay hai.n
hasti ki uthai geero.n ki
har chal uljhaye jatey hai.n

in dono.n mai.n run parta hai
nit basti basti, nagar nagar
har basti ghar kay seenay mai.n
har chalti rah kay mathay par

yeh kalak bhartay phirtay hai.n
woh jot lagatay phirtay hai.n
yeh aag lagatay phirtay hai.n
woh aag bujhatay phirtay hai.n

sab saghar sheeshy, laal-o-guhr
is bazi mai.n bid jatay hai.n
utho sab khali hatho.n
us ran say bulawey atay hai.n

java

2007-12-27T04:42:00.000-08:00

Initialization of Classes and Interfaces

Initialization of a class consists of executing its static initializers and the initializers for static fields (class variables) declared in the class. Initialization of an interface consists of executing the initializers for fields (constants) declared there.

Before a class is initialized, its superclass must be initialized, but interfaces implemented by the class are not initialized. Similarly, the superinterfaces of an interface are not initialized before the interface is initialized.

When Initialization Occurs

Initialization of a class consists of executing its static initializers and the initializers for static fields declared in the class. Initialization of an interface consists of executing the initializers for fields declared in the interface.

Before a class is initialized, its direct superclass must be initialized, but interfaces implemented by the class need not be initialized. Similarly, the superinterfaces of an interface need not be initialized before the interface is initialized.

A class or interface type T will be initialized immediately before the first occurrence of any one of the following:

T is a class and an instance of T is created.
T is a class and a static method declared by T is invoked.
A static field declared by T is assigned.
A static field declared by T is used and the reference to the field is not a compile-time constant. References to compile-time constants must be resolved at compile time to a copy of the compile-time constant value, so uses of such a field never cause initialization.

Invocation of certain reflective methods in class Class and in package java.lang.reflect also causes class or interface initialization. A class or interface will not be initialized under any other circumstance.

The intent here is that a class or interface type has a set of initializers that put it in a consistent state, and that this state is the first state that is observed by other classes. The static initializers and class variable initializers are executed in textual order, and may not refer to class variables declared in the class whose declarations appear textually after the use, even though these class variables are in scope . This restriction is designed to detect, at compile time, most circular or otherwise malformed initializations.

As shown in an example in, the fact that initialization code is unrestricted allows examples to be constructed where the value of a class variable can be observed when it still has its initial default value, before its initializing expression is evaluated, but such examples are rare in practice. (Such examples can also be constructed for instance variable initialization. The full power of the language is available in these initializers; programmers must exercise some care. This power places an extra burden on code generators, but this burden would arise in any case because the language is concurrent

Before a class is initialized, its superclasses are initialized, if they have not previously been initialized.

Thus, the test program:

class Super {

        static { System.out.print("Super "); }

class One {

        static { System.out.print("One "); }

class Two extends Super {

        static { System.out.print("Two "); }

class Test {

        public static void main(String[] args) {

               One o = null;

               Two t = new Two();

               System.out.println((Object)o == (Object)t);

prints:

Super Two false

The class One is never initialized, because it not used actively and therefore is never linked to. The class Two is initialized only after its superclass Super has been initialized.

A reference to a class field causes initialization of only the class or interface that actually declares it, even though it might be referred to through the name of a subclass, a subinterface, or a class that implements an interface.

The test program:

class Super { static int taxi = 1729; }

class Sub extends Super {

        static { System.out.print("Sub "); }

class Test {

        public static void main(String[] args) {

               System.out.println(Sub.taxi);

prints only:

because the class Sub is never initialized; the reference to Sub.taxi is a reference to a field actually declared in class Super and does not trigger initialization of the class Sub.

Initialization of an interface does not, of itself, cause initialization of any of its superinterfaces.

Thus, the test program:

interface I {

        int i = 1, ii = Test.out("ii", 2);

interface J extends I {

        int j = Test.out("j", 3), jj = Test.out("jj", 4);

interface K extends J {

        int k = Test.out("k", 5);

class Test {

        public static void main(String[] args) {

               System.out.println(J.i);

               System.out.println(K.j);

        static int out(String s, int i) {

               System.out.println(s + "=" + i);

               return i;

produces the output:

j=3

jj=4

The reference to J.i is to a field that is a compile-time constant; therefore, it does not cause I to be initialized. The reference to K.j is a reference to a field actually declared in interface J that is not a compile-time constant; this causes initialization of the fields of interface J, but not those of its superinterface I, nor those of interface K. Despite the fact that the name K is used to refer to field j of interface J, interface K is not initialized.