home of the brave.

I recently read a comment by a blogger stating that they "hate, hate, hate that my parents are from Pakistan and I have to be associated with this cowardly, despicable country at all."

Could everyone please take a step back?

There are so many adjectives one can use to describe the current state of Pakistan. Dysfunctional is the first word that comes to mind. But not cowardly. Anything but cowardly. It may be plagued by an apathetic upper-class and an angry lower class, but it's not a nation of cowards. All the pundits and writers have been predicting the balkanization of Pakistan since its birth, a country of multiple ethnicities tied together by a single boundary. But it's still here. Even Yugoslavia broke into pieces, despite being kept together by the iron fist of Tito. Pakistan survived through every transition of governments. All it has to its name is an assortment of leaders who were too afraid of being deposed by the next guy to lead the country properly.

Let's list out some of the things the people of Pakistan have lived through in the last few decades. Four coups, three wars, two of the worst natural disasters seen in recent history, and numerous acts of terrorism. It houses more refugees than any other state in the world. Its democracy is barely a toddler; all eyes are on President Zardari because if he survives the next two years, he will become the first democratically elected Pakistani leader to complete a full term in office. Pakistani troops have sacrificed more to the so-called "War on Terror" than all of NATO combined. Drone strikes in Pakistan take more innocent lives than those of terrorists. Pakistan is a country of survivors. It will get through these dark times.

When you call Pakistan a country of cowards, you are insulting the memory of the martyrs who were killed for standing up against the blasphemy laws. Governor Salmaan Taseer and Minister Shahbaz Bhatti fought for a new Pakistan to their dying breath. Are they cowards? No. Inspired by them, the liberals will raise their voices and be heard over the radicals. This battle isn't against the government, it's against the lingering traces of Zia's regime that still haunt us. As Shehrbano Taseer recently tweeted, "if you believe in a progressive Pakistan, you must be willing to die for it.” You see, the people of Pakistan are fighting its revolution right now as we speak. It may not be as fast-paced, loud, or as visible as the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, but it's there. Our war is against ignorance and hate. There are people who have given their lives for a progressive Pakistan and we fight in their memory today for reform. We will fight for the white stripe of the flag, representing the country's minorities. Progressive reform will happen. Education, minority rights, women's rights, removal of the blasphemy laws are just some of the reforms that must occur. Despite the bloodshed, we are not daunted. We will fight in the name of our martyrrs.

It took years for Bhutto Sr. and Zia to destroy the institutions of the country. Years. We can’t fix everything immediately. The damage was done and it will take a while, perhaps a generation, to fix. I promise you, you will see Jinnah’s Pakistan.

Never, ever, ever call Pakistan a country of cowards.

152 dead in tragic plane crash

Let us keep the men, women, and children whose lives were lost in the horrific Airblue plane crash and their families in our prayers tonight. No survivors were found among the 152 passengers abroad the flight, whose journey from Karachi to Islamabad met a tragic end, as an attempt to drive through the foggy weather proved to be a fatal blunder. The investigation is underway to find out the cause of the event. Terrorism is not suspected to be a factor and so far, the usual “India, Israel, America ki saazish hai” conspiracy theorists are keeping quiet.

Al Jazeera English reports that “there were initial reports of up to six passengers being found alive, but Imtiaz Elahi, chairman of the state-run Capital Development Authority, later said these reports were wrong.

"So far, we have not found any survivors," he told Reuters news agency.”

For more information on the crash, read Al Jazeera's report

chaiside chats: javed jabbar

With the first talks between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India having just been completed in Islamabad since the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, the world is buzzing about Indo-Pak relations. Javed Jabbar, former Minister of Information under General Musharraf’s term, speaks with Zainab Javed and Sehr Akbar about Pakistani social attitudes and the relationship between India and Pakistan.

Question: India-Pakistan dialogue was just completed with the Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Memood Qureshi, meeting with his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna. However, Al Jazeera reported that no progress was made and that both sides “avoided divulging details on how they plan to tackle major is obstacles to outstanding problem” Do you believe that any progress was made? Do you believe that avoiding touchy subjects such as Kashmir is a strategic success or a blunder that could hinder future relations between the two countries?

Javed Jabbar: First of all, the fact that the two foreign ministers met represents substantive progress because it vindicates Pakistan’s position for the past two years since the Indians suspended the level of contact at the foreign ministers level after the November Mumbai attack in 2008. It represents an acceptance in India that there is no alternative to dialogue. So it is progress. However, progress is also coming back to square one because in any case we were already talking,(right, they suspended the talk, so it was frozen). So in a way you can say it is one step forward and at the same time it’s one step back because it goes back to the pre-November 2008 position, when by coincidence the foreign minister was in New Delhi on the very day the terrorists carried out their attack in Mumbai. Bizarre that the foreign minister of Pakistan was in Delhi and there was this terrorist attack there which they immediately blamed on Pakistan.

So first of all, the meeting in Islamabad is good. Second, I’m not surprised by the fact that there was no major positive outcome. It is too early to expect a sudden improvement or major new development. The very fact that they are now talking and listening to each other face-to-face is a very positive sign. Third, on Kashmir, I am not expecting anything quick or overnight from the Indians. It will be a gradual process. Public opinion in both countries will have to be prepared to accept a compromise of the historical position with some adjustment which needs time. So everyone has various compulsions to think of in both countries, but I’m confident that this meeting will lead to a positive outcome.

Question: What do you see as the solution for Kashmir being? Military solutions have never worked for Kashmir (4 wars have been fought). Is there any other way to solve the problem?

Mr. Javed Jabbar: If you remember, I identified four steps which are vital to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Those are the same four elements which were in the Track II process and in different levels of dialogue have been researching and advocating for several years. Finally General Musharraf authorized his representative in what is called backchannel dialogue and the India head of government earlier Vaj Pai and then Mon Singh) are reported to have also authorized their representatives to discuss some of those elements which I presented that day.

First element is try to get an agreement between both Pakistan and India on which areas require a clarification about the status of Kashmir. For example, is Ladak a part of Kashmir or is it to be treated as an autonomous region separate from Kashmir? The northern areas of Pakistan – are they to be treated as something outside Kashmir or are they considered historically to have been a part of Kashmir? So the first step has to be, let us agree that this is the area we are disputing. At this time, there is vagueness about it. The only definition is this line of control -- where both sides know this is the LOC, but other than the LOC there is some vagueness. So remove the vagueness.

The second step is to gradually reduce the troops on both sides of the LOC instead of having 500,000 Indian troops and 100,000 Pakistani troops. Reduce them gradually so that you reduce the tension and conflict with local people. Especially in Indian Kashmir

Third step should be the delegation of power by the Indian government from Delhi to the government in Srinaghar. Give them more authority, give them more power. Similarly in Islamabad, we should give more authority and power to the local government of Azad- Kashmir. At the moment, the government of Pakistan decides many of the appointments that take place. So give more power to both sides of Kashmir, the local people.

Fourth step then can be, start a dialogue between the elected people in Azad-Kahmir and the elected and political people of Indian Kashmir. I say elected and political because the Hooriath conference/Hoortiath leadership of Indian occupied Kashmir has never taken part in the elections that are held within Indian Kashmir. They boycott them. Why do they boycott them? Because they say the elections are held under the Indian constitution, whereas the Hooriath leadership says we don’t accept the Indian constitution so we don’t want to be a part of a legislature functioning under the Indian constitution. So you have to also bring in the Hooriath leadership, apart from those people like Umar Abdulah (CM of Indian Kashmir, he’s elected). The Hoorithat is not elected and the Indians say the Hooriath doesn’t represent people, but they do represent some people. So there should be some dialogue between the elected and political people from both sides of Kashmir.

Once you take those four steps, then public opinions in both sides of Kashmir and in India and Pakistan may be willing to accept a final settlement. What that final settlement will be, let’s leave it to those two dialogues and to what the governments of India and Pakistan can agree upon.

Question: Pakistan and Indian relationship is built on a very fragile thread of trust. What do you believe are some of the measures that can reduce the trust deficit?

Mr. Javed Jabbar: I believe that the first step towards reducing the trust deficit has to be continuous, uninterrupted, sustained dialogue, at all levels. At the summit level (heads of state and government should meet regularly and frequently), and at the minister level, then at the official level and very importantly at the military level. The Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan should meet the Commander in Chief of the Indian army, even if there’s no agreement and they are very angry with each other. They must meet because the whole point about the current environment of the world is that you listen to and meet each other. At the UN, you sit in the same hall, where you have people completely opposed of each other’s viewpoint, but you listen to each other. So it’s very important for dialogue to be conducted on a regular, continual, uninterrupted basis. That’s the first way to reduce the trust deficit.

Second, there should also be regular dialogue between all major political leaders who have different viewpoints. I was so far only talking about the official dialogue, I believe there should also be regular non-official dialogue between people who are not holding offices or in a government capacity, but people who have the capacity to influence public opinion. That’s the second type of dialogue.

The third type of dialogue is media dialogue between the editors and proprietors of various media, especially indigenous language – not English media, but indigenous – Telagu, Tamil, Bengali, Marhati. These are the languages spoken by the majority of the people of India. Those should interact with people from Pakistan – Urdu, Sindhi, Pashtu language media, electronic and print, so that there is greater communication.

The next step should be increased trade and commerce.

If we take all these measures, there should be a reduction in the trust deficit and an increase in a sense of mutual confidence.

Question: If India-Pakistan open up trade borders, there's fear that Indian products will swamp Pakistani markets. Do you believe this will in fact happen or that the Pakistan economy can withstand such pressures? Can complementary trade, as seen among ASEAN member countries, also develop in SARC?

Mr. Javed Jabbar: When you have trade relations, you can have at least three categories of products and services in which you can allow trade.

The first category is where the industries or service sectors of both countries are reasonably confident and think they can take can take on the competition. We don’t mind if we think the Indians can bring in a quality product and compete with us. Because the Pakistani product has also proven its ability to be exported. For example, Pakistani products like National Masala is being exported to Australia or USA. Or Pakistani cement is in great demand in India because the quality of cement is very good. So in that category we should allow Indian products to come in because we are confident. And just because they are larger doesn’t mean they’ll swamp us, we can also fight back and using pricing and aggressive marketing to protect our markets

Second category of products and services are those where Pakistan is just beginning to enter into those fields – where we need certain time before we can become internationally competitive with India. In this category, we should not allow Indian goods to come in without any check. There should be restriction.

Then there’s a third category. Third category is that where commodity shortages occur. For example, if there is a lack of rainfall in Pakistan in a given year, the wheat crop is less than what is demanded. If food is a very important requirement for any country, so in this 3rd category, where food and commodities are required, instead of saying no we won’t buy wheat from India, we’d rather buy wheat from Australia or America even if we have to pay more, we should avoid this foolishness. And if it is a question of food at the right price, we should get it from India, because we will save money. And vice versa. India sometimes needs commodities from Pakistan. It may need cotton, rice from pk. So there’s a third category where we should be flexible in depending on a particular years crop because it is so dependent on the weather/climate. We should not be so rigid on policies.

Fourth area where we can collaborate with India. For example, we have huge coal deposits. India has vast experience of using coal to generate electricity. We have done very little in that field, but if they can offer that expertise and we benefit from it, we should take it. In some fields, India may need our expertise because we have sometimes been very good in high precision engineering. You’d be surprised to know that the Swiss watch makers, who are supposed to be among the best in the world, subcontract some of their highly precise work to people in Pakistan and it is not widely known. Pakistanis have the ability to meet the highest standard set by the Swiss manufacturers of watches. India may require that kind of expertise from Pakistan, so there can be reciprocity of exchange – you help us with the coal, we’ll help you in some field.

So there are these are different ways to regulate trade between both countries to mutual benefit.

Question: Track II diplomacy – was it pursued effectively under Musharraf’s regime?

Javed Jabbar: Track II diplomacy didn’t start during General Musharaff’s term. It started in 1992, ironically it was a time when PM Nawaz Sharif was in office for the first time. It was initiated by an American initiative through the Ford Foundation with an American scholar and former diplomat called Paul Krysberg. He brought together a group of Indians and Pakistanis, and they met at a place called Neemrana, New Delhi in Rajisthan. Neem standing for Naeem, Rana standing for a Hindu named Rana, that’s why the place is called Neemrana. And the concept was that this group of specialists from different disciplines meets every once every five-six months with the knowledge and approval of both governments, but speaks its own mind. They are not government officials and not bound by government policy. And the cardinal rule was do not talk to the media. Because the moment we start talking to the media and the headline is reported “Pakistan suggests this solution for Kashmir” they’ll be a great negative reaction in India. So we decided don’t talk to the media. That is why for the last 18 years we have been able to meet regularly and develop possibilities for solving some of the problems. This Track II process should continue because on some occasions it helps governments with new ideas that governments can then make into official policy since they’ve already tested those ideas in Track II.

There’s a public track, which is normally also called Track II but it shouldn’t be, the public track can be called Track III which is media oriented. You get a group of say film actors from India to visit Pakistan, vise versa, you send some public personalities from Pakistan to go to India. Sports, culture, all that can be Track III. Trade can be track IV. Sports is another track. So there are different tracks on which you can build relations. And Track II has a specialized function which should continue.


We’re interested in knowing what you believe is the existential threat to Pakistan whether it’s extremism or India?

Javed Jabbar: I believe that the greater threat to Pakistan today is our own internal state of being, the conditions in which we live, the mindsets that shape some of our official policies, and the attitudes and practices of some parts of our society. These need to be reformed, modernized, brought in tune with the rest of the world because some part of Pakistani society is still living in medieval times [while the other] part of Pakistan is living in the current times. There needs to be a coherence and harmony with the rest of the world. We can’t be so out of step as to be seen as a freakish country which has some completely mad practices or allows those practices. In many ways, very good things are happening in Pakistan. We have a strong judiciary, we have a strong media, we have flourishing civil society; many organizations raise their voices when it comes to human rights, when it comes to freedom of expression, and the rights of trade unions, or laborers, or doctors, or teachers, and so on. We should extend them.

In India’s relations with Pakistan. We must never lower our guard with India. We must remain vigilant but we must reach out to them with a hand of friend and ask them to be fair to Pakistan and not to undermine Pakistan by attacking it outside like they do through academia and media in the USA, for example, constantly undermining our country. We should adopt a policy of mutual respect and dignity. [We must] treat our own internal conditions (lack of education, lack of social justice, lack of economic opportunities for the poor). These are the main existential threats to Pakistan.


President Musharraf decided to expand the media. Do you know why he chose to do this and in retrospect, were Musharraf's policies that led to the explosion of private media wise to begin with? Was Pakistan ready or mature enough?

Javed Jabbar: Without taking away any credit from General Musharraf for enabling media to be free, this character here [Javed Jabbar] had a little something to do with it because well before Musharraf, I had written the original law in 1996, [which] was passed as a law called EMRA, Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance [on] February 14, 1997. [It was] the last law passed by the caretaker government of Farooq Leghari and Malik Meraj Khalid in which I was also a minister. That law should have been made a permanent law by the second government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which he didn’t do. Otherwise we would have had free media about five years earlier than we did. When General Musharraf made the mistake of asking me to be in his cabinet, we revived that law, improved it, and we finally introduced it. Media freedom came because of General Musharraf’s decision, which was a bold decision and credit should go to him for implementing a law that had already been there but that had not been acted upon.

It is, I think, a tribute to him personally that he allowed this to happen, but it is also a reflection of the basic commitment that the people of Pakistan have to freedom of expression. People like to listen to different points of view and they have a very open-minded attitude. People like watching Indian movies. They may hate India’s policies in Kashmir, but if it comes to enjoying Indian music, they’ll enjoy it. Similarly, Indians also enjoy Pakistani music or something which is done in a good, noncompetitive way by Pakistan. So, it is a reflection of our society’s open-mindedness and a tribute to the people of Pakistan. At the same time, media should also recognize the need to build national self-confidence and self-esteem. [They should] not treat all news as bad news and good news as no news. There is a need to balance the bad news with the good news and bring out the strengths and the beauty of Pakistan.

How do you suggest that the socially-minded next generation get involved in order to make a difference in Pakistan?

Javed Jabbar: First of all you see that the young generation is not a homogenous generation. It is not a generation in which all the young people share the same characteristics. All of them may be young but there can be many different types of youth [and] different types of mentalities. First, reform has to be in the educational institutions. The quality, the content of our education has to improve significantly. The quality of teacher training has to go up very, very significantly. And second, campuses, especially universities, must not become the hotbeds of narrow-minded, reactionary mindsets. In some campuses in Pakistan, you cannot have open intellectual, free discussion because there are people sporting various beards, hijabs, all—wearing religion on their sleeves and they think this [open conversation] is unislamic or this is against religion whereas you should not keep suspecting the loyalty or the religious faith of people just because they raise questions. The whole point about knowledge is to raise questions and to ask. Questions are more important than answers and that is the direction in which our educational system should move so we produce young people like yourselves who are interested in learning without regard to whether the source is Jewish or the source is Hindu or the source is Christian. Knowledge knows no religious identity.

With knowledge should also come wisdom. Wisdom is a very difficult thing to achieve. First of all, we must encourage knowledge as a value and then second we must encourage respect for diverse opinions. When that happens, hopefully the young generation will rediscover the true roots of Pakistani identity and then apply it to their daily lives so that a more vibrant atmosphere is shaped in the galis, in the puchas, in the streets, and in the villages of Pakistan because even today, there are young people who blindly follow barbaric practices purely because their fathers have done it or because this part of their tribal or caste honor. Even young people are doing this, so just by being young, you don’t necessarily become virtuous. You can have very bad young people, excluding the two of you of course, but you can have some very good old people who are willing to change their past practices and say no, it’s time to call a stop to this and to allow women to be educated, allow women freedom of movement, freedom of choice. If a woman wants to be an IT specialist or a pilot, fortunately in Pakistan, now there are women pilots, women engineers, women bankers. Many good things are happening. Young women should, when it comes to making babies, have the right to decide how their bodies are used so that they don’t become just vehicles for producing babies. Women’s health is respected. Young people have a major role to play in balancing the size of Pakistan’s population and enabling people to have access to health care, education, water, electricity, and reasonable equal economic opportunities.

Thank you so much for this interview. It was truly an honor.

the begum chronicles

ChaiChutneyPolitics (with artwork from Four Coups Later) is proud to be present "The Diary of Noreen Begum." A woman of formidable fashion, she is married to Major General Assad Akhter, and recounts her daily life as a member of Lahore's elite.

-----------------------------------------------------

July 2010

Ufff! Paris mein itni garmi nahin thi!

Yesterday morning, Assad and I landed in Lahore after two months abroad in Europe. Two glorious months!

You just cannot match Europe for the wining and dining, and the things to DO. I cried more coming back to Pakistan than I did at my rukhsati! (Though back then I was weeping for different reasons) I was such a mess at the airport that Assad insisted on buying out the first class cabin on the plane for me. We landed and Saleem met us at the airport and brought us back to our home, Gulshan House.

I hardly recognized the neighborhood. They must be re-doing the streets again. I haven't left the house, I'm still much too distraught to do anything but mope and look at our vacation pictures. I swear, I'm so much more beautiful in Europe, the lighting does wonders for my skin. Here? The government thinks we don't NEED lights for ten hours a day!

Assad suggested I take up writing to pass the time. Who has the time to write when she could be shopping instead? Long shirts are back In style. Last season short shirts were in and so naturally I threw out all my long ones. Now I must have Bunto Kazmi make her fashions for me again.

Chalo, enough writing for now. The new episode of "Mere Saas Ki Bi Ek Saas thi...Aur Uski Bhi Ek Saas Thi" is on soon!

the jum'ah tributes

Coming soon is the first edition of the Jum'ah Tributes, a weekly column in which I will be profiling a personality that has to do with Pakistan. Jum'ah, in Arabic, means Friday, which means that the Jum'ah Tributes will be updated every Friday. Personalities will range from politicians to singers to sports players to American leaders and intellectuals. I think Pakistan has a wide array of people who have shaped the country into what it is today. From Dr. Maleeha Lodhi to Senators Kerry and Lugar- each have something different to contribute to the country whether good or bad. Please email me with suggestions of personalities you would like to see profiled on this blog.

bhutto: a review of the documentary

As a child growing up in the United States, I never hesitated to brag about Benazir Bhutto.

After all, she was a female leader of a Muslim nation. The United States never had a female representing it as a president or vice president. Hell, the closest women came to a mainstream presidential ticket was the vice presidential nominee for the GOP, Sarah Palin who was seen more as a setback to women's rights than anything. When feminists in my history classes would rage over the lack of female leadership in government, I would laugh and point at that my country, Pakistan, beat the United States to it with Benazir.

However, I was simply a shameless name-dropper.

At the time, I could not grasp the idea of Benazir Bhutto. I knew snippets from what I had heard and read. Views on her ranged from the heroine of Pakistan to the co-orchestrator of corrupt deals with her husband, the infamous Mr. Ten Percent, Asif Ali Zardari. Absolutely everyone I knew from Pakistan had an opinion on her-- everyone but me. For me, she was an enigma. I was in Canada when my aunt woke me up to the news of her death in 2007. I simply rolled over and went back to sleep, a reaction I later regretted. I tried to love her, to hate her, to feel anything about one of the most controversial women in Pakistani history, but I couldn't. I just didn't understand her enough to form a solid opinion.

Luckily, the Washington D.C. premiere of the critically acclaimed documentary Bhutto took place on July 7, 2010 and I found myself reserving a ticket last second. I realized that with watching the documentary, I learned more about Bhutto than I could have through a book or article. It wasn’t about Bhutto the politician, but rather Bhutto the woman, the mother, the sister, the daughter. She became humanized in my eyes.

The premiere itself began with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, walking in. Instantly, the chatter hushed down to excited whispers and gasps as one of the most powerful women in America walked into the auditorium in order to pay homage to her late friend, Bhutto. Speaker Pelosi was asked to make a speech at the very last second so she kept her speech short and sincere. She spoke of one of her earliest memories of Bhutto was when the former prime minister spoke in front of a joint session of Congress and uttered the famous line, “democracy is the best revenge.” That single line summed up the entire documentary.

One of the opening scenes of Bhutto includes a voiceover of Benazir recalling that no one visited her mother in the hospital for three days because they mourned the birth of a daughter. Those mourners would obviously be shocked that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto chose his eldest daughter, not his eldest son, to succeed him and eventually become the most powerful woman in Pakistan. A very interesting choice made in the production of the documentary was to have Benazir Bhutto narrate her own story using snippets from audiotapes. Using her words, story of the Bhuttos unfolded in an interesting narrative marred with the execution of her father, the poisoning of one brother, and the shooting of the other.

The filmmakers placed her life story into historical context, showing how the turbulence in the politics of Pakistan affected her as a person. The story of Bhutto’s life begins with the career of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Footage of his infamous speech to the United Nations Security Council shows him ripping up a piece of paper and stomping out of the room, showing exactly where Benazir inherited her conviction from. Bhutto quickly skimmed through his rise and fall in Pakistani politics, showing his desperation to hold on to power as his appointed of Chief of Army Staff Zia ul-Haq took control of the country through an illegitimate military coup d’état. The documentary continued through to describe the tragedies that befell her family, her political marriage to Asif Ali Zardari, her stints as Prime Minister—everything all the way up to her tragic death in 2007.

Her life was a tragedy indeed and the footage from the documentary caused one to sympathize with her. Her public breakdowns in reaction to the loss of both of her brothers to politically-charged murders caused tears to appear in my eyes—her pain was so transparent. I could not understand how anyone could accuse her of being the plotter of Murtaza’s assassination because her emotions after his death were so raw. The documentary featured interviews from her husband, sister, daughters, and son, allowing one to put aside their politics for a second to remember that Benazir was a human being just like the rest of us. Rather than merely showing Bhutto as a political entity, the filmmakers humanized this enigmatic woman.

Bhutto's most prominent traits, her conviction and bravery, were heavily emphasized throughout the documentary. Despite numerous threats on her life, she still held on to her beliefs. Despite being a woman, she never let that hold her down. During Zia ul-Haq’s regime, she was held in solitary confinement for months, coming to the brink of death. Still, she survived and went abroad to continue her fight for democracy in Pakistan. Even in 2007, Bhutto knew that there was a chance of death. An interview with her daughters described how their mother wished them a happy birthday early because she was not sure whether she would survive or not. Even with these doubts, Benazir returned to Pakistan. One could see her dauntlessness as she refused to hide behind bulletproof windows. And that’s exactly when my respect for her increased tenfold. No matter what allegations were pressed against her, she was ready to fight the charges. She was unafraid.

However, I must admit, the film had a transparent bias slanting towards Bhutto. Although the filmmakers, much to their credit, featured much screen time for interviews from critics of Bhutto such as Fatima Bhutto and Former President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf, they undermined the critical opinions with interviews from Bhutto supporters. In response to Fatima’s accusations of Bhutto being a key player in the role of her father’s death, pro-Bhutto interviewees such as Ms. Sanam Bhutto said that she was “angry” over her father’s death. As a friend of mine pointed out, it was such an easy way to disarm Fatima’s comments by claiming that she was simply ‘hurting’ and didn’t know what she was talking about. Most of the documentary was simply praise for Bhutto’s intrepidity and how she stood steadfast against the regimes that threatened democracy in Pakistan.

From a technical aspect, even critics of Bhutto must admit that the editing and graphics were impressive. The filmmakers were no James Cameron but they made the production successful with their choice of special effects. The music was set perfectly to the mood of the scene, a steady crescendo reaching its climax during heated moments. Both Pakistani music and Western songs were present, perhaps symbolizing Bhutto’s belief that Pakistan could coexist peacefully with the West. The story itself was told through footage from historical moments and photographs, complemented by interviews from important Pakistani political leaders, friends, and family of Bhutto.

At the end of the day, my opinion of Benazir Bhutto changed completely. Despite an obvious bias in the film, I would highly suggest watching the documentary. It showed the life of a woman, a life that was snatched away in an instant. It was both powerful and moving. Bhutto hits theaters later this year. Do not miss it.

a brief introduction.

When democracy is concerned, the United States of America and Pakistan have been both polar opposites and kindred spirits. Despite four periods of martial law staining Pakistan's history as a republic, the two states share a common history of keeping the voting power in the hands of the elite.

For most of American history, voting has been a privilege of the wealthy, educated elite. Since its creation in 1776, the framers of the Constitution took careful measures to keep power out of the hands of the masses. Voting was a privilege that only white, property-owning males could enjoy. Even with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting states to deny citizens the right to vote based on their "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" in 1870, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes hindered the chances of African American and poverty-stricken white males to make their voices heard through voting. It wasn't until 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act banning all such obstacles, that voting became the right of the common man. The masses of Pakistan too have been denied the right to vote and a say in the Republic created for them in 1947 for decades. For too long, their voices had been supressed by unstable regimes and military dictatorships.

However, on September 8, 2008, a democratically elected leader of Pakistan was sworn in. Asif Ali Zardari was elected by the people to become the 11th President of Pakistan, becoming their representative as Head of State. As the middle of his five-year term approaches, the world's eyes are on Islamabad to see whether or not Zardari can become the first democratically elected Pakistani president to finish an entire term. Should this feat occur, it will go down as a milestone in Pakistani history and a huge step towards democracy and the power of the people to decide their laws and policies.

What this blog is going to be about is Pakistan and the United States— their policies, their politics, their people, and most importantly, how the two countries, although worlds apart, collide to form one of the most turbulent and mutually beneficial alliances of modern times.

Pakistan in Numbers

63 years of existence.
Population of 166,111,487.
6th most populated in the world.
Literacy rate of 55%
Four coups later...