| 29 March 2004 | Monday | 07 Safar 1425 |
Dialogue of the deaf
Talking of a dream I had
Pakistan's Nato status: what's the big deal?
Game of chance
A cascade of embarrassing revelations and accusations are demolishing George W. Bush's slickly packaged, made-for-TV image as a "war president" and scourge of Islamic miscreants.
Former president Jimmy Carter accused Bush and Britain's Tony Blair of waging a "war of lies" against Iraq. Poland's president said he was 'deceived' by Bush into sending troops to Iraq. Spain's new prime minister denounced Bush's Iraq adventure as a "fiasco" and a "war based on lies."
A group of leading American business executives ran a full-page ad in the "New York Times" entitled "Have you noticed what's happened to chief executives who lie," with a picture of an executive being led away in handcuffs.
The ad described the Iraq invasion as a "state-sponsored deception (that) already dwarfs the damage done by the worst corporate scandals," citing 566 American dead and a cost of $125 billion (not to mention 20,000 Iraqi deaths).
The underlying message was stark: the president and his "war cabinet" ought to face criminal charges for lying to the nation and starting an unnecessary war for domestic political reasons.
The fourth bombshell exploded when Richard Clarke, the respected former counter-terrorism chief under presidents Clinton and Bush, went public with the most damning accusations yet made against the Bush White House.
His testimony before a commission investigating the September 11 attacks on the US asserted that the Bush administration damaged US national security, did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and obsessed over Iraq while largely ignoring Al Qaeda's threat.
Bush, said Clarke, did "a terrible job" in fighting terrorism. Bush's obsession with Iraq left the US "needlessly unprepared" to counter an Al Qaeda attack. He also criticized, somewhat less strongly, the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
Clarke, a Republican, insisted there were no links between Iraq and either 9/11 or terrorism, and that Iraq had no concealed weapons, a position long maintained by this column. But the feeble, politicized 9/11 commission failed to follow up on this dramatic testimony.
Vice President Dick Cheney was described by Clarke as a "right-wing ideologue." Clarke accused Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a principal architect of the Iraq War, of "belittling" the Al Qaeda threat, the unspoken assumption being that Wolfowitz was more eager to destroy an enemy of Israel than go after Al Qaeda.
We learned Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was so preoccupied with anti-missile defence before 9/11 that he ignored Al Qaeda. The commission's report stated Rumsfeld "did not recall any particular counter-terrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11," though CIA claimed to have urgently warned Bush and Rumsfeld almost daily of impending attacks.
National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice, who refused to testify, was shown to be a dithering, confused amateur, and a viperous character assassin. She has led the White House's vicious attacks on Clarke.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, another self-styled scourge of Islamic militants, actually proposed cutting spending on counter-terrorism exactly one day before 9/11 - and then, again, afterwards. Unfortunately, the limp-wristed commission failed to ask why the Bush Administration had been sending millions in aid to the "terrorist" Taliban until four months before 9/11.
It has been repeatedly asserted that the Bush administration was asleep on guard duty on 9/11. True, there was no warnings hijacked airliners were coming on that specific day.
But with the benefit of hindsight, we see the same ineptitude and confusion that preceded the December 1941 Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour: a combination of distraction, smugness, self-deception, disbelief and bungling. Japan's naval codes were being intercepted and deciphered; her attacking aircraft were spotted by radar. Yet the obvious conclusions were somehow not made. The same applies to 9/11.
In the US Navy, a ship's captain is responsible for all accidents or misfortunes, no matter what the excuse. But no senior member of the Bush administration has accepted responsibility for the death of some 3,000 people on 9/11. No one resigned.
No senior US official acted with the honour and courage of Britain's former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned to protest a war against Iraq that he charged was based entirely on falsehoods and disinformation.
Instead, the Bush administration launched a trumped-up war against Iraq to mask its own negligence prior to 9/11, and satisfy America's lust for revenge by attacking a nation innocent of that crime.
Clarke at least had the decency to apologize to the families of the 9/11 victims, saying "the government failed you. And I failed you." We have yet to hear a peep of self-criticism from the blundering but arrogant Bush White House.
Of course not. This administration is running for re-election on its "war record" against Iraq, and its so-called war on terrorism. Bush is playing Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
But Bush's claim to be a war president is like the man who murders his family, then begs for mercy because he is an orphan. The Iraq war was not one of self-defence, like WWII, but an unprovoked, illegal aggression engineered by pro-Israel ideologues within the Bush administration and justified by a torrent of shameful lies.
Bush's "war on terrorism" should have been a police and intelligence action; instead, it was unnecessarily and foolishly militarized - a process into which Pakistan has now been dragged in the tribal territories. Richard Clarke, no matter his motives, has done his nation an important, badly-needed service.-Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2004
Dialogue of the deaf
The new Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, was very careful in his choice of words. "Military intervention in Iraq was a political mistake," he said on March 15. "It divided more than it united; there were no reasons for it. Time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility....Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection...you can't organise a war with lies. The Spanish troops will come back (from Iraq)".
Mr Zapatero made exactly the same argument a year ago, when the United States was about to invade Iraq and then-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar was cheering it on. Over 80 per cent of the Spanish people agreed with Zapatero about Iraq then, and they still do today.
He did not say a single word about appeasing terrorism, and nor does anyone else in Spain want to do that after a terrorist attack that killed over 200 commuters in Madrid. They are just sick of being lied to, and they don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism..
The reaction in the United States, however, has been distinctly ungenerous. "The plain fact is that the Spanish electorate displayed craven cowardice by electing the Socialists. It embraced the wrong-headed notion - so dismayingly popular in Europe - that to adopt any policy more resolute than abject appeasement of terrorists is to invite terrorist attacks," wrote the 'New York Post'.
The 'Post' is a Murdoch paper and has to say that sort of thing, but what about the 'New York Daily News' writing that the terrorists "must be big fans of the democratic process after watching the lemming-like Spaniards do their bidding," or David Brooks writing in the 'New York Times' that Spanish voters had chosen to "throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" Or the 'Washington Post' editorialising that "The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve."
On the contrary. The real 'danger' is that those European governments that were always able to tell the difference between fighting terrorism and invading Iraq - 'old Europe', in US Defence Secretary Don Rumsfeld's contemptuous phrase - are growing at the expense of those who went along with Washington in blurring the distinction between the two.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi faces an election in the next year, and runs a similar risk of a rebellion by voters who overwhelmingly opposed his support for the invasion of Iraq. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose day of reckoning is a bit further off, must be feeling apprehensive.
He is right to be, for the Madrid events have only deepened popular doubts about Mr Blair's Iraq venture. The Murdoch-owned 'Sun' predictably praised Mr Blair for his unquestioning support of the Bush administration's actions, but Steven Glover in the 'Daily Mail', traditionally the conservative voice of 'middle England', wrote that "Mr Blair...has succeeded in making things worse than they would otherwise have been.... This is the story of how a sophisticated modern democracy has been misled by one misguided messianic figure....I do not think that the British people will spare, or forgive, Mr Blair."
Is there a risk that Al Qaeda would try to deepen this growing alienation from the current governments in London and Rome by 'doing a Madrid' on the eve of the next Italian or British elections? -Copyright
Talking of a dream I had
I had a dream a few nights ago. But let me first tell you something about the man I saw and talked to in that dream. Mr Mazhar Ali Khan was the editor of The Pakistan Times till the paper was taken over by president Ayub Khan's Martial Law government in 1959. This was unacceptable to Khan Sahib and, like the great gentleman he was, he resigned.
In 1975, he brought out his own weekly magazine, Viewpoint, which he edited till 1992 when circumstances forced him to close it down. This closure made Khan Sahib very lonely and very sad. Week and frail and fragile and in indifferent health, he died early the following year.
Khan Sahib had grown very fond of me during the last years of his life but I was always afraid of him because I could never forget the great glory of the man as the country's most powerful and universally respected editor of The Pakistan Times.
Years rolled by and my memory began to fade. More than eleven years later I saw Khan Sahib in my dream on Sunday night. He was, I saw, coming down from his office towards me.
I felt that he was not stable and might fall down any moment. I rushed towards him and offered him my shoulder to lean on. He refused my offer and tottered to a chair. I thought he might faint any moment. However, he recovered quickly and said he was all right but I knew he was not.
"This is not a request, Khan Sahib, but an order. You must appoint me your special assistant and delegate most of your work to me." "How can I do that, Lahori Bahadur? You are Ruqayya's successor. You have enough on your plate as it is. No. I just cannot do that."
Now Ruqayya was one of my numerous aunts. I used to call her Kooko Khala. She had died years before Mr Mazhar Ali Khan. The two had never met and most probably she had never even heard of Khan Sahib.I have been wondering ever since. Was it just a dream, a meaningless dream? Or is there more to it than that? Sometimes your subconscious plays fascinating tricks on you.
* * * * * *
I am writing these lines on Sunday afternoon. The first Test match between Pakistan and India is on and the visitors are 224 for two at tea with Virender Sehwag not out on an incredible 155.
India have made nonsense of Pakistan's much vaunted pace attack led by Shoaib Akhtar, Mohammad Sami, Shabbir Ahmad and Abdul Razzaq. There is nothing in the wicket. There is no movement in the air or off the pitch.
Sehwag, strong on the onside to begin with, has cracked some glorious cover drives just to show that he can play on both sides of the wicket. A couple of chances have gone abegging but that is what happens when you have Sehwag in the mood.
The mercurial Indian opener did it to Australia when he made 195 in the Melbourne Test earlier this year. I have stopped watching the game. I have seen enough. If the first four hours' play is any indication, Pakistan are in for a hiding they are not likely to forget in a hurry.
* * * * * *
In the Lahore Number of the magazine, Naqoosh, there is an article by Shaikh Ahdul Shakoor, Kuch Ravadari Ki Baten in which the author speaks of the communal harmony of the years gone by.
He narrates a story which is worth recalling here. According to him, Raibahadur Ram Saran Das was the son of Rai Bahadur Mela Ram. He was one of the richest men in the Punjab. He used to live in a bungalow just outside Bhati Gate.
He had three sons all of whom were educated at the Atchison College. One of his sons, Roop Chand later became India's Ambassador to Afghanistan. The Rai Bahadur spent lavishly on the marriage of his sons.
In 1918, an epidemic of influenza spread across the sub-continent. A countless number of people died within months. The three sons of Ram Saran Das were also afflicted.
There was great consternation in the house. Leading doctors of the city like Col. Bhola Nath, Col. Amir Chand and Col. Sutherland were called in. They tried their best but in vain. (Sutherland it may be recalled, was Princess Bamba's husband and the principal of the King Edward Medical College. Princess Bamba was Maharaja Ranjit Singh's grand daughter.)
What happened later is narrated by Rai Bahadur Saran Das himself. This is what he said: "One night I was asleep when there was some disturbance in the room which woke me up.
I saw an elderly gentleman with a flowing white beard dressed in white. He had a stick in one hand and a rosary in the other. He was standing by the bed of my son, Gopal Das and was intoning something.
"A great fear overtook me and I shouted at him, asking him who he was and what was he doing. The bearded man ignored me and continued to pray. He repeated this for my two other sons.
Having completed his job, he turned to me and said that he was my neighbour Ganj Bakhsh and that he could not suffer to see me so greatly worried. Therefore he had come to pray for my sons and I could stop worrying. God would restore my sons to full health."
As God would have it the Rai Bahadur's sons began slowly to recover. In order to express his gratitude to Data Sahib, he had his mazar electrified. The Mela Ram story is long and fascinating. I will return to it some other day.
* * * * * *
In the same issue of Naqoosh the following poem on Lahore by Mustafa Zaidi has been published on page 1153:
* * * * * *
A man is known by the friends he has. Sami is one such friend. On March 23, he received the president's Pride of Performance Award for Photography. I have seen some of the best shots taken by him but I cannot reproduce them here because they are too personal. By personal I mean I was his model.
The citation for the award reads: Mr. Samiur Rahman is recognized as one of the best photographers at home and abroad. He won laurels for Pakistan as recipient of over 130 international and national awards. He has represented Pakistan in over 370 exhibitions held in 45 countries, winning awards in the USA, England, France, Japan, Singapore, Turkey, Belgium, Spain, India and Italy.
The Photographic Society of America awarded him its highest rating of '5 Star Exhibitor'. He was honoured with awards of 'Artist FIAP' in 1993, followed by 'Excellence FIAP' in 1997 by the Federation of International Art Photography of Belgium.
The European photographic body, 'Image Sans Frontiere' in France, awarded him Honorary Membership and a dual distinction of 'Exposant Distingue' and 'Exposant Honorable' in 1999. He was awarded a Gold Medal for his photograph entitled 'Mirzan Mai', adjudged as the Best Portrait in the 'Best Of Circuit-2001' International Competition held in Austria.
Since 1990 he is a member of the General Body and Art Committee of Alhamra Arts Council, Lahore. In 1999 he founded the Photographic Art Society of Pakistan. His watercolour paintings are part of the collections of the Foreign Office, the Senate and Pakistan National Council of the Arts.
In recognition of his outstanding contribution to the field of Art (Photography), the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been pleased to confer on Mr. Samiur Rahman the President's Award for Pride of Performance.
Pakistan's Nato status: what's the big deal?
India's brouhaha over the status given to Pakistan as America's major non-Nato ally is just that- noise. It is also eyewash. To claim that US Secretary of State Colin Powell had kept New Delhi in the dark about his move to anoint Islamabad thus would imply that Indian foreign ministry officials do not read their newspapers carefully, if nothing less.
It was not a headline one could have missed. "Nato eyes India, Pakistan and Russia as future partners," said the front page headline in The Asian Age on January 30, 2004.
And the story could not have left anyone in doubt about the US strategy. "We're (already) in Afghanistan. We're going to be spreading out and I think that Nato will take control of all international military operations under a UN mandate in Afghanistan.
I think Nato will probably go into Iraq this summer. Our partners increasingly are going to be Russia and I would say India and Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kirgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan."
This was what Mr Nicholas Burns, US ambassador to Nato, told The Asian Age editor M.J. Akbar in Brussels in January. In a separate article published in a South East-Asian daily Mr Akbar used his insight to suggest that prospects of Indian and Pakistani troops working jointly in Afghanistan would be a surer way of handling terrorism there than what the combination of American and European troops had achieved so far.
Did Mr Burns use the newspaper as a sounding board to test the acceptability in India and Pakistan as America's new Nato partners in their fight against terrorism? Did Mr Burns reveal something to a newspaper that was not already under discussion between the governments involved? Either way, the discussion about Nato's new vision and the likely role for India and Pakistan, among others, was now in the public arena. A fair question to ask is not whether the Indian or Pakistan governments knew anything about the move. The question to ask really is what did India have to say to its various interlocutors in the American establishment on the issue?
Of course, it could be argued that the proposal offered by the US envoy to Nato was not exactly what it turned out to be when Mr Powell announced the relationship.
What does 'major non-Nato ally' mean? It means Pakistan is now on par with nations like Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines, which have been accorded this preferential treatment.
So the question is not why Mr Powell did not tell New Delhi about his move, assuming that he did keep it secret. The question, to paraphrase a popular saying of the Nixon era, is: What did the Indian government know and when did it know it, about the new US-Pakistan ties? Did it discuss the issues raised by Mr Burns with the American government? Did the Indian government express its unhappiness to Washington about the possibility of Pakistan being inducted either as a Nato partner as Mr Burns suggested, or as a non-Nato ally as Mr Powell announced eventually?
If yes, what was the American response? Did it assuage India's concerns or did the Americans convey their intentions to go ahead with their stated objective quite clearly? If India had, indeed, objected to a role for Pakistan in the new American-led security architecture, then Mr Powell had clearly ignored the Indian protests. In that case it is America's priorities for Pakistan and not its strange secrecy with the Indian government that should be of concern to New Delhi.
It is nobody's secret that India is beginning to play the role of America's strategic partner in the region-a role it has been seeking since 2001, even earlier. India was, after all, the first country in the wake of 9/11 to urge the US to use its territory to wage war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is another matter that the offer just didn't make sense logistically.
What is of import is that Pakistan is now on par with Israel, at least notionally, in its ties with the US. Whether this has neutralized India's quest for an Israel-India-US strategic triad remains to be analysed. This may have thrown out of gear the hoped for triad alliance. In any case Pakistan, too, has been subtly changing its stance on relations with Israel.
In the final analysis it is difficult to believe that there are any serious surprises in store for the region's relationship with the US. We just have to look up the script, replete with every nuance of the US policy and its objectives that was read out by US envoy Richard Haas in Hyderabad in January 2003.
It contained all the directives for India-Pakistan ties, and so far they have all been faithfully implemented. From cricket to Kashmir and to commerce, all of Prime Minister Vajpayee's initiatives of the last year have borne the hallmarks of the American direction.
Admittedly, Mr Haas did not spell out the objectives for the two countries in Afghanistan. That was signalled quite clearly by Mr Powell before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in Washington last week.
This is what he said: "The old silk route of 2,000 years ago is going to be recreated, except this time it will be with hard roads, with ports, with an information infrastructure, and I hope, eventually, with pipelines that crisscross this area and move oil and natural gas from Central Asia to the east, and not just to the west. So the opportunities here are enormous, and we have to deal with security. We've got to get rid of these remaining Taliban and Al Qaeda elements.
"But we should not sell short, not only our accomplishments over the last couple of years, but the potential that lies ahead for a region-the Caucasus and Central Asia, South Asia all being linked in a new hub of transportation and trade as long as we can keep the peace and security, and that's what we are committed to." In fact, it seems Mr Powell has, unknowingly perhaps, also spelt out Mr Vajpayee's highways project too. So what are we complaining about?
* * * * *
If Prime Minister Vajpayee does get the Nobel Peace Prize, as many people want to believe he would, he had better not park it anywhere carelessly. Poet Rabindranath Tagore's Nobel Prize medal has been stolen from the museum at Shantiniketan in West Bengal.
A watch and a bangle along with important citations belonging to the poet, kept in the showcase of the museum at the Uttarayan complex, were also found missing, reports said.
Game of chance
There are no casinos in Karachi. But this is not to say that enterprising Karachians do not play games of chance for money, referred to as satta in the local vernacular.
Indeed, some of them either speculate on the stock market or put their money on the outcome of elections, which, thanks to political instability, are held often in Pakistan. But the game that is immensely popular among gamblers in the subcontinent and in Dubai is cricket.
A friend who is fond of speculative investment points out that satta on cricket is not for the faint-hearted. According to him, Rs22 billion, give or take a few millions, changed hands as India and Pakistan played five high-voltage one-day internationals.
He recalls that during the tournament the going rate was 4:6 in favour of Pakistan. (Put simply, this means that if you put Rs4,000 on Pakistan you got the amount if Pakistan won, but would've to pay Rs6,000 if Pakistan lost)
The friend says that most top-notch bookmakers are based in the United Arab Emirates. These bookmakers operate through trustworthy agents, known as 'peggers' in common parlance, in Karachi and in other major cities. According to him, those wishing to make a wager have no problem in locating these small- time bookies who frequent all the major financial markets of the city.
The friend points out that for the most part these bookies are scrupulous in all their business dealings. They take bets from old-timers without bothering to get any document signed. But those new to the field are issued a ticket or a parchi. Payments are made promptly and without any fuss. However, dishonest satta players seeking to renege on a deal can risk life and limb.
Quite often those who initially place bets just as a bit of harmless fun end up losing a substantial sum when they get carried away. This happened in a big way when Pakistan played Bangladesh, widely thought to be an underdog, during the last World Cup.
The rate shot up to 1:52 with Pakistan as a strong favourite. When the cricket match ended, those who had put their money on Bangladesh came out of the stadium and laughed all the way to the bank.
Never a dull moment
When your car stops at a red light, you can be sure that there won't be a dull moment. If nothing else, a promotional pamphlet will be handed over to you. If the windows are up, the pamphlet will be placed under the wipers of your windscreen.
If it's late morning or afternoon, you can buy a newspaper. There are some people who buy eveningers on a regular basis and the hawkers know them. An outsider to this city will be surprised to see that in some cases no money exchanges hands for the payment is made on a monthly basis.
There are some newspaper vendors who also sell magazines in the morning or late in the evening. Karachi is perhaps the only city in the subcontinent, apart from Mumbai, where eveningers are bought at traffic signals.
At some signals, women sell towels or dusters, and most of them seem to belong to one large extended family. Then occasionally there are sellers of economically priced Chinese toys. But a more regular feature are the flower sellers.
You can buy a gajra or you can get a bouquet, but you should be able to haggle. You can get bouquets, for instance, at half the price if you pretend that you are not interested in flowers. Towards late evening, the prices go down further.
Two new categories of alms seekers have emerged recently. One are the madaris with monkeys. These bundar walas say that they are no longer in demand. "These days children are not fascinated by our monkeys, for they have access to television," an older madari claimed. He perhaps doesn't know that children are now into computer games also.
The second category of newcomers are the eunuchs. Until a couple of decades ago, the eunuchs, who were into singing and dancing as a profession, had a comfortable living. They somehow found out about births and weddings - their intelligence system was amazing - and would swarm the house where a celebration was taking place to sing and earn a few rupees. Now chowkidars and security guards turn them away, and all they can do is ask for charity.
Memorable visit
Pakistan had the honour of welcoming the Quaid's only child, Dina Wadia, who set foot on the soil of the country her father had created after 56 years. The first and the only time she had come here before was to pay her last respects to the Father of the Nation.
This time round, Ms Wadia came on a private visit to watch the one-day international match between Pakistan and India in Lahore along with her son and grandchildren.
She later flew into Karachi to visit the Quaid's mausoleum. Very much her father's daughter, the 85-year-old Ms Wadia wrote in the visitors' book: "May his dream for Pakistan come true."
Mr Jinnah's grandson and a business tycoon, Mr Nusli Wadia, wrote similar comments in the visitors' book, expressing the desire to come back one day "to see his (the Quaid's) dream come true."
The prayers echo the sentiments of all those Pakistanis who have not been kowtowed into buying the distortions that have come to be associated with the Quaid's vision of a progressive democracy that he wished Pakistan to be.
Contrary to the popular assumption that Mr Jinnah had severed relations with his only child after she married against his wishes and opted to stay behind in India, correspondence between the two continued until the Quaid's last days, with the daughter always being addressed as "Dear Mrs Wadia". The short trip to Karachi, by her own admission, was at once "sad and wonderful" as it brought on a rush of memories.
Among such memories, one is sure, are reverberations of the Quaid's dream of a prosperous and vibrant Pakistan, free from poverty, corruption and other social ills. Ms Wadia's interest in Pakistan's wellbeing cannot be questioned because the country is after all her only sibling, and also because she happens to share her birthday - August 14 - with it.
One can return the sentiment by saying 'Thank you, Ms Wadia for your timely reminder and may your wish come true'.
Security problem
Increased security measures in place after the seizure of an explosives-laden van outside the US consulate in Karachi have greatly increased public inconvenience since only the private cars are now being allowed past the building. The new security plan has reportedly come about after a team of US officials met Sindh government officials and gave "several proposals" to beef up security.
The reason for increased vigilance around the US consulate building is obvious. It has been targeted at least twice in the past two years alone, and the neighbourhood is a high-profile area: it houses a major city park, a premier hotel, the State Guest House, a club and the country headquarters of a foreign bank. Besides, one of Karachi's main traffic arteries also cuts across it.
But the new measures seem short-term and do nothing to redress the problem in a manner that minimizes public inconvenience. The consulate offers no visa services, nor are its library and information centre open to the public.
While it might offer consular offices to US citizens visiting or resident in Karachi, they constitute a minuscule proportion of the city's population. For all practical purposes, it has no public dealings.
There is a view, therefore, that a lot of problems and security concerns could be solved if the consulate could be moved to some other, more isolated, part of the city. That way its right to greater security would not compromise the right to free movement for the residents of Karachi.
email: karachi_notebook@hotmail.com