‘They will have to quit or I will quit’
THINGS are getting too hot in the National Assembly. The opposition seems to have painted itself in a corner on the issues of LFO and the president’s uniform. On the other hand, the ruling alliance is groping around like a blind man looking for a black cat in a dark room!
The prime minister was absent from the assembly on Friday. He was not there on Wednesday as well when for the first time the house erupted into slogans of ‘ No-LFO-no.’. The absence of the PM from the scene on the second day running reinforces the impression that he has decided to leave such matters to his party chief to sort out.
But the situation had seemingly gone even beyond Chaudhry Shujaat’s intellectual reach. Therefore, he could not have been expected to do anything other than resort to irrelevant tricks like reading out from the Oct 29, 2002 agreement with the opposition which today not only appears outdated but also sounds too superficial to be accorded the respectability of an agreement.
President Gen Pervez Musharraf is perhaps the only person who can untangle this tangle. But he had already made it clear way back in August 2002 that the constitutional amendments incorporated by his government ‘are irreversible and need no validation by parliament to be formed after October elections’. And if the future parliament tried to reverse the amendments particularly the one pertaining to the National Security Council ‘either they will have to quit or I will quit” (president’s press conference on Aug 21, 2002).
At the same press conference he had also reiterated that he would continue as president and chief of the army staff for the next five years and “a provision to this effect had already been incorporated in the constitution.”
So, where do we go from here? Few would like to make a guess about the future course of events. But many like M.P. Bhandara have started warning the opposition of dire consequences if it fails to see the writing on the wall. He is a civilian politician himself but seems to have more faith in the political insight of Pakistan’s military leadership’s political than in the collective wisdom of the elected members of parliament. He has advised the opposition to return to the house and agitate its demands through the various avenues provided in the rules of business. He said if things did not take a turn for the better soon, the president would dissolve the house and introduce the presidential system which, according to Mr Bhandara, would be disastrous for Pakistan’s unity as the federating units, in his opinion, would feel completely alienated.
But can the opposition go back to the house now and agree to work as they say at ‘the same salary’ after having gone so far? Or is it now possible for the opposition to scale down its demands even if it is promised the moon itself in the trade off? Only the opposition will be able to answer these questions. However, if one went by the answers given by various opposition leaders during their combined press conference in the cafeteria on Friday, one felt that they are in the process of burning their boats.
On the other hand, going by the firmness which the president displayed in his August 21 press conference, it is hardly likely that the COAS would like to be seen to have conceded defeat at the hands of civilian politicians who have never been regarded by the Pakistani establishment to have the sense or the ability to think in ‘strategic’ terms.
So, the way the conflict over the LFO is developing, one is constrained to believe that it is a genuine discord, and unless the ruling alliance does some quick thinking and brings President Musharraf around to looking at the whole issue from the perspective of the NA members, the elected house is likely to be sent home packing even before the senators-elect take oath.
The opposition groups which among them have won about 45 of the 100-seat Senate have announced that their members will not take oath on the LFO-ed constitution. In such an eventuality, even by-elections to fill the unoccupied seats in the Senate would not help the government because the provincial houses are likely to send the same number of opposition members to the Senate even in a re-election.
If things had not gone so far, one would have thought that the whole rumpus had been kicked up by a designed consensus between the ruling alliance and the under pressure MMA (from allegations of having links with Al-Qaeda) to avert a debate on foreign policy in the house which would have caused the government to make public how it was going to vote in the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Iraq.
A crowded week
LAST week was so crowded with literary functions that I shall hardly be able to do justice to one in the space available with me. And then, there was also a clash of functions during the week. Both Neelam Ahmed Bashir and Shahid Ali Khan, chief editor of the monthly Alhamra and a close relation of the late Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan, had told me days earlier about their proposed functions but when I received the invitation cards, I found that both had chosen the same date and almost the same time.
Neelam wanted me to be at the launch of her latest novel, Sitamgar Sitambar, at 3pm at one hotel, while the launching of Muraqqa-i-Ghalib by the late Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan was at 3:30 pm in another. On top of it, there was a ‘clash of personalities’ as well in these. One said that Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi would be presiding over the function, and the other claimed him as the chief guest. Where Ashfaq Ahmed was shown to be presiding over Neelam’s function, the Majlis-i-Yadgar-i-Hameed Ahmed Khan, which issued the other invitation, listed him as one of the speakers. However, it did not take me long to figure out which of the two would at which function. Qasmi Sahib was sure to be at the launching of Muraqqa-i-Ghalib as it had been published by his organization, Majlis-i-Tarraqi-i-Adab, and Ashfaq Sahib had to be at Neelam’s because of his deep connection with her family. And I knew that those invited to both these functions would divide their loyalties. I did see Javed Shaheen and Salim Shahid at one function, but soon found them missing. Dr Attiya Syed and Seema Peroz, however, made bold to leave their chairs in full view of everyone and moved out of the hall. They were later seen sitting merrily in Neelum’s function.
Those who spoke on the book about Ghalib included doctors Tehsin Firaqi, Khwaja Zakariya and Tabassum Kashmiri. Dr Aftab Ahmed Khan, who had been a student of Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan, could not come in person but sent his paper which was read on the occasion. He specially lauded his late teacher for being a perfectionist so far as the written word was concerned. Jafar Baloch paid a tribute in verse to the compiler of Muraqqa-i-Ghalib. The proceedings were conducted by Zahid Munir Aamir of the Oriental College without indulging in any histrionics for which Aqeel Ruby is notorious.
Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan was born in Lahore but graduated from the Osmania University in Hyderabad Deccan. Coming back to Lahore, he did his master’s in English from the Government College, where Pitras Bukhari was among his teachers. His contemporaries at college included the well-known Ghalibologist, Sheikh Muhammad Ikram, Sirajuddin, who later taught at the college and the literature-loving bureaucrat, Mumtaz Hasan. Later, he did his M Litt from the Cambridge University on “The Sensuous and the Mystical in Wordsworth”. After having taught at Delhi and Karachi, he eventually became principal of the Islamia College, Lahore, from where he was elevated to be the vice-chancellor of the Punjab University.
Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan spent fifty years of his short life on writing and editing books. His two favourite subjects were Ghalib and Iqbal. The book, Muraqqa-i-Ghalib, is the result of the research he carried out on that great poet. In 1938, he visited all the places where Ghalib had lived, met his surviving kith and kin and recorded their interviews. The book carries the letters written to his mother giving details of his ramblings and meetings in Delhi, Bhopal, Calcutta and other cities. The book also carries some rare photographs and facsimiles of Ghalib’s handwriting. Details of Ghalib’s habits and domestic life are included plus the revelation that the poet was hard of hearing.
Most of what has been said above was brought out by the speakers that evening. They specially referred to the chapters in Muraqqa-i-Ghalib in which he has been masterfully compared with Bedil and also the one relating to husn-o-ishq (beauty and love) in Ghalib’s poetry. However, I could not appreciate Dr Tehsil Firaqi’s attempt at settling an old score with a contemporary. Whatever he said about him was in bad taste.
I would also have liked to hear something about Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan. I understand he was an upright person who went to the extent of resigning his principalship of the Islamia College when its governing body refused to decrease the fees. He also refused to meet governor of Kalabagh when he summoned him to discuss matters during his vice-chancellorship. The Nawab had met some students on strike which was resented by Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan. “When the chancellor entertains students in the absence of the vice-chancellor, let him deal with the matter himself,” he said.
Speaking briefly on the occasion, Qasmi Sahib lauded the efforts of Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan by providing research material for further studies on Ghalib. He felt happy that such an important work had been published during his tenure.
Since Prof Hameed Ahmed Khan’s son Saeed Ahmed Khan has taken active interest in having the Muraqqa published, I wish he goes in for the publication of the late professor’s books in English. I gather that apart from miscellaneous articles in English, he has written some on Ghalib as well. And then his M Litt thesis must appear for the benefit of scholars.—Ashfaque Naqvi