Curmudgeon Cowasjee Raises Relevant Points
Curmudgeon Cowasjee raises a few very relevant points in today's column.
1: PM Gilani says Zardari paid out of his deep pockets for the entourage of 240 that went with him to SoodiAmerica. Where is the proof? Yes, where is the proof?
2: " why a bankrupt country needs 61 ministers to run it ...?"
3: Why appoint "The man from Balochistan, Mir Israrullah Zehri (of the “our tribal custom”, which “are centuries-old traditions”, and which he “will continue to defend” infamy)?
and
4: Why appoint Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani (who was reportedly involved in a vani case in 2007)?
Being a opti-realist I can raise the issues for you to consider....to keep the pot boiling...but I do not hope to receive ripostes from Mr. Zardari
****
The progeny of the sons of Ibn Saud are able men, habituated to reigning and ruling, and remain well informed about the world around them. What thoughts would have flashed through King Abdullah’s shrewd mind when told that President Asif Zardari, apart from bringing with him a begging bowl, brought 240 people, mostly presidential cronies and friends, involving three chartered flights? How would he have reacted to the sparing of no pains by the prime minister of Pakistan to assure everyone that Zardari had footed the bill for the 240 and their spin to SA out of his own depthless pockets? Would the expenses incurred not have been better used to bolster up the national kitty? If he has so much lucre to spread around, why the rush from counter to counter pleading for funds?
And, also, perhaps the King wondered (along with many others) why a bankrupt country needs 61 ministers to run it into the ground when China, that great friend and greater nation, can manage with 25 and Germany can get along with 18. Puzzling as well is the invitation to investors from abroad when local Pakistanis, particularly those in politics, are reluctant to invest one rupee in their own country.
What must be censured even more than the number of ministers is the quality and choice made by Zardari, particularly in the case of two appointments. The man from Balochistan, Mir Israrullah Zehri, has had a special ministry fashioned for him — the new portfolio of postal services.
The man Zehri’s fame precedes his ministership. As an honourable senator, on Aug 29 in the upper house, when the issue of the burial alive of five (the figure is disputed) women in Balochistan, in the name of ‘honour’, was raised by Senator Bibi Yasmin Shah, Zehri cautioned the good Senator Shah, suggesting that she not refer to matters which are part of “our tribal custom”, which “are centuries-old traditions”, and which he “will continue to defend”. “Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid,” was his warning.
As is the custom in the Senate, such matters as honour killing are always strictly avoided and under the party of the people this custom was continued by the leader of the Senate Raza Rabbani, now of devious thinking, who finished off by condemning it and stating that a report on the incident would be submitted. Where is it?
Then, in the vital position of education minister, the education portfolio normally shunned by the ambitious and greedy but is taken as being better than nothing, we have Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani who was reportedly involved in a vani case in 2007 (he says he was acquitted by a lower court). He was one of the 11 members of a jirga which ordered that five minor girls be handed over to the family of a murdered man as compensation. As in many similar cases, a Supreme Court bench headed by the then CJP, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, ordered the arrest of the members of the jirga and froze the illegal decision to hand over the girls. But, now that CJP Chaudhry is no more, the fate of the young girls is unknown to us — but not to Bijarani.
1: PM Gilani says Zardari paid out of his deep pockets for the entourage of 240 that went with him to SoodiAmerica. Where is the proof? Yes, where is the proof?
2: " why a bankrupt country needs 61 ministers to run it ...?"
3: Why appoint "The man from Balochistan, Mir Israrullah Zehri (of the “our tribal custom”, which “are centuries-old traditions”, and which he “will continue to defend” infamy)?
and
4: Why appoint Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani (who was reportedly involved in a vani case in 2007)?
Being a opti-realist I can raise the issues for you to consider....to keep the pot boiling...but I do not hope to receive ripostes from Mr. Zardari
****
The progeny of the sons of Ibn Saud are able men, habituated to reigning and ruling, and remain well informed about the world around them. What thoughts would have flashed through King Abdullah’s shrewd mind when told that President Asif Zardari, apart from bringing with him a begging bowl, brought 240 people, mostly presidential cronies and friends, involving three chartered flights? How would he have reacted to the sparing of no pains by the prime minister of Pakistan to assure everyone that Zardari had footed the bill for the 240 and their spin to SA out of his own depthless pockets? Would the expenses incurred not have been better used to bolster up the national kitty? If he has so much lucre to spread around, why the rush from counter to counter pleading for funds?
And, also, perhaps the King wondered (along with many others) why a bankrupt country needs 61 ministers to run it into the ground when China, that great friend and greater nation, can manage with 25 and Germany can get along with 18. Puzzling as well is the invitation to investors from abroad when local Pakistanis, particularly those in politics, are reluctant to invest one rupee in their own country.
What must be censured even more than the number of ministers is the quality and choice made by Zardari, particularly in the case of two appointments. The man from Balochistan, Mir Israrullah Zehri, has had a special ministry fashioned for him — the new portfolio of postal services.
The man Zehri’s fame precedes his ministership. As an honourable senator, on Aug 29 in the upper house, when the issue of the burial alive of five (the figure is disputed) women in Balochistan, in the name of ‘honour’, was raised by Senator Bibi Yasmin Shah, Zehri cautioned the good Senator Shah, suggesting that she not refer to matters which are part of “our tribal custom”, which “are centuries-old traditions”, and which he “will continue to defend”. “Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid,” was his warning.
As is the custom in the Senate, such matters as honour killing are always strictly avoided and under the party of the people this custom was continued by the leader of the Senate Raza Rabbani, now of devious thinking, who finished off by condemning it and stating that a report on the incident would be submitted. Where is it?
Then, in the vital position of education minister, the education portfolio normally shunned by the ambitious and greedy but is taken as being better than nothing, we have Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani who was reportedly involved in a vani case in 2007 (he says he was acquitted by a lower court). He was one of the 11 members of a jirga which ordered that five minor girls be handed over to the family of a murdered man as compensation. As in many similar cases, a Supreme Court bench headed by the then CJP, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, ordered the arrest of the members of the jirga and froze the illegal decision to hand over the girls. But, now that CJP Chaudhry is no more, the fate of the young girls is unknown to us — but not to Bijarani.
Now, how do the women who sit in the cabinet with these two men, Zehri and Bijarani, react? They are silent. How can they bring themselves, in all good conscience, to even sit in the same room as these men who think in the manner in which they do, let alone agree to be their companions in cabinet?
posted by temporal at 11/10/2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home