The Century Of Ulema In Politics: New Age Islam's Selection, 17 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
17 April 2017
• The Century Of Ulema In Politics
By Zaigham Khan
• Mashal’s Murder
By Syed Talat Hussain
• Cancer With Purpose
By Zarrar Khuhro
• The Unpredictable Trump
By Shahid Javed Burki
• A Republican Executive
By Waqar Rana
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
The Century Of Ulema In Politics
By Zaigham Khan
April 17, 2017
Less than a week after the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam celebrated what can be termed as a century of ulema (Muslim religious scholars) in politics, a lynch mob of university students in Mardan brutally murdered a fellow student on the accusation of blasphemy. Can we see this incident as the culmination of a process that was set in motion by a group of religious scholars a hundred years ago in Delhi?
The Mughal Empire was shattered into pieces and its capital, Delhi, was overrun by a Muslim invader, Nadir Shah, in 1739. However, it was the final defeat of the symbolic Mughal king at the hands of the East India Company that carried the most scars for Muslims, particularly in the Gangetic valley. Interestingly, the areas that are now Pakistan had changed hands from the Persians to the Afghans, from the Afghans to the Sikhs and finally from the Sikhs to the British.
Following the 1857 War of Independence, ulema led a number of revivalist movements, all based on the premise that Muslim decline in India was caused by the lack of adherence to the Shariah. Glory, therefore, could be regained only through purifying religious beliefs and practices. Their analysis, based on spiritual, religious and cosmological reasons, saw modernity as a problem. It also put ulema at the centre stage and declared the secular elite to be a cause of Muslim decline.
On November 19, 1919, a group of leading religious scholars founded the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (JUH), electing Maulana Syed Hussain Ahmad Madani of Darul Uloom Deoband as the head of the party, a position he held until his death in 1957. Though it was founded by religious scholars from different denominations, the JUH soon turned into the political arm of the Deoband and still retains that sectarian orientation.
On September 6, 1920, less than a year after its founding, the JUH issued its famous fatwa of tark-e-mawalat. As a result of this fatwa, hundreds of thousands of Muslims returned their titles and stopped sending their children to government schools; many young Muslims bartered their government jobs for petty private employment. The aim was to support the declining Ottoman caliphate against the British Empire.
Two great religious scholars of their time, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Abdul Bari, came up with an even more innovative form of resistance. They issued another fatwa declaring India ‘Darul Harb’ (Land of War), making it mandatory upon Muslims either to fight the British Empire or migrate from India. This fatwa earned widespread support in the community of religious scholars who urged the Muslims of India to migrate to Afghanistan.
This great scheme turned GT Road into a graveyard of Muslims. Those who migrated or tried to migrate fell victim to death, disease and destitution as Afghanistan stopped them from entering into the country; those who had arrived there were forced to retreat in extreme weather conditions. The politics of the ulema had thus resulted in a grave human tragedy and in disastrous consequences for the Muslims of India.
The failure of the idealism of the Khilafat Movement meant that the experiment of leadership by the ulema had failed miserably. This failure resulted in two interesting consequences. It gave birth to Islamism, a new kind of religious movement, led by scholars who came from the background of secular education and wanted comprehensive Islamisation of the state alongside some kind of marriage between faith and modernity. This brand of religious politics was born in India in the hands of Maudoodi who founded the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941.
The failure of the ulema also pushed Muslims back to the traditional elite and to a new kind of middle-class elite who had been educated at modern Western institutions and saw a solution to the problems of Muslim community in separatist politics, modern education and modern institutions. People in Muslim majority areas never trusted ulema in politics again.
Alongside the ulema, most Muslims also lost trust in Gandhi who had fully backed the ulema on these adventures. The Jamiat, led by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, however, kept working closely with the Congress from 1920 to 1947. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who had never left India despite his own fatwa, became one of the top leaders of the Indian National Congress.
In 1945, a faction of Deoband scholars, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, parted ways from the JUH and founded the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam to support the Muslim League, a party that had been able to win the support of the Muslims of India.
In India, the leadership of the Muslim community has largely remained in the hands of religious scholars; this is one reason of their economic and social decline. In Pakistan, however, people have never trusted them with their votes. However, it is in Pakistan that we have seen ulema, in alliance with the state, wreaking havoc upon society.
Both the JUH and the JUI have been staunch supporters of their respective states and have worked closely with the ruling elite. In India, the JUH supports secularism and considers it a part of the social contract between Muslim and the state of India. To explain this social contract, the Deobandi scholars in India give the example of the contract made between Jews and Muslims during the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
n Pakistan, however, the JUI aspires to make Pakistan a Shariah-compliant state run by ulema. Though unable to win popular support, ulema have formed a close alliance with the secular ruling elite of the country. This alliance helps the ruling elite in ensuring their legitimacy, promoting a national identity based on religion and recruiting religiously motivated young men for the jihad project. The ruling elite also pampers the religious groups out of the fear and, in the case of the political elite, due to the greed for votes.
This has resulted in a unique fusion of religion and the modern nation-state – which has proved to be a catastrophic combination. While ulema aspired to occupy the state – like in Iran – they have ended up making a gainful accommodation with the state, something that resembles Saudi Arabia.
The ulema can claim this situation as a great success, but their followers see it as a failure, which has resulted in violent religious groups and religious vigilantism. The Deoband movement in Pakistan first gave birth to the Sipah-e-Sahaba and then to the Taliban and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
These kinds of religious parties hold that any act done in the name of Islam should not be questioned. Their strength does not lie in numbers but in blackmail and nuisance value, which make them both useful and threatening to the ruling elite and helps them in cutting deals with them.
The deathly silence from religious leaders over the lynching in Mardan is not without meaning. Maulana Fazlur Rehman has ironically condemned American bombing in Afghan while keeping silent over this most gruesome murder in his own area of influence.
The JUH has harmed Muslims in India and the JUI, and other ulema, have harmed Muslims in Pakistan. The failure of the ulema in 1920 had turned Muslims away from ulema. Their failure, a century later, is turning people away from Islam. Congratulations on the centenary of the Jamiat-e-Ulema.
Source; thenews.com.pk/print/199022-The-century-of-ulema-in-politics
----
Mashal’s Murder
By Syed Talat Hussain
April 17, 2017
A murder most foul, carried out in a manner most beastly and barbaric. That it happened at a supposed seat of learning makes it even more despicable than it would have been were it an act done in caves away from the reach of civilisation. That it was done by urban, educated and seemingly better-off young men of the digital age makes it harder to digest than it would have been if it were the deed of some bloodthirsty militant faction of a terrorist organisation or a criminal gang.
When we saw the video of IS burning alive a Jordanian pilot or of the bodies of our own soldiers getting desecrated by cold-blooded murderers we asked ourselves: what kind of mindset would visit such inhumanity upon another human being? Now that we know and have seen how Mashal Khan’s body was treated by self-appointed executioners from decent families after they had dragged him out of his room, thrown him off the second floor, tortured and killed him, our queries about human nature and its propensity for extreme violence are practically silent.
What we have done so far is condemn it (there are some who have actually endorsed this murder). We have promised an inquiry. And of course we have done the bravest thing no one has done before: tell everyone and ourselves that no one will be allowed to take the law in his own hands. Yes, we have buried Mashal and have hospitalised his friend, who survived the lynch brigade and is still, in the eyes of the University administration, a suspect who might have actually committed blasphemy. And, yes, we have tweeted extensively on the subject.
This, in sum, is our response to what has to be one of the most heart-breaking news of the past decade. One only has to think for a few seconds of what might have been passing through Mashal Khan’s mind when he was being picked on limb by limb by those he must have had tea with at some point. Only then can we grasp the depth of the tragedy. Or simply imagine the mental state of his parents who must have spent sleepless nights when he ran a slight fever but finally had to see his body being reduced to a pulp in a university where he was sent to find a bright future and become a star.
It is only when we look at this side of this collective murder of Mashal Khan that we realise how inadequate we all are in understanding the implications of the event. No less inadequate is our effort to figure out why it happened. We have tried to explain it with reference to our falling moral values, the purposelessness of our young minds (the murderers are all adults and some may even be political and administration position-holders) and of course on the fasaadi culture that Ziaul Haq planted and which was later allowed to flourish.
All these are relevant explanations for us: but to Mashal Khan and his family these do not matter. He is gone and his family disturbed for life. ‘Could he have been saved’ is an academic question or a point of forensic inquiry, which like all forensic inquiries will be manipulated to fit the pretention that we are a sane nation. But let us still ask the question: could he have been saved? The answer is ‘no’ – for various reasons.
We are now reaping what was sowed some years ago. Recall how this province was made an experiment lab of our most recent dictator – who is currently living a fine life – Gen Pervez Musharraf. The killers of Mashal Khan were born and raised in the years when Musharraf’s pseudo-liberalism had installed a clergy-driven government in the province. He handed the reins of power to the very rightwing forces that he globally claimed to fight so that he could receive his yearly allowance from the Bush Bank of USA.
Recall how in the then NWFP extreme public religiosity was imposed to the extent that public advertisements showing even the face of a woman were considered a sin and a crime. Music in public transport was banned. Cultural activities were snuffed out. Musicians and artists were rendered jobless. Some were beaten out of the province. Cinemas were closed down. And a reign of strict self-serving puritanical morality was introduced in schools, colleges and universities where every dissenting voice was dubbed as satanic.
The Manufactured by Musharraf Administration (MMA) was at the helm for a full term and brought out that side of the national culture where tolerance of dissent is zero and co-existence with an alternative worldview next to impossible. The generation that is in university now was in school back then. Killing in the name of religion becomes easy if you are brought up in a particular way.
If this sounds like a stretch, consider the statistics: the total number of lynching or extrajudicial killings in the name of religion between 1946 and the mid-80s of the Zia regime were two – yes, two. From the Zia years to 2014 these had risen to a harrowing 57 – yes, 57. Consider another set of disturbing data. The total number of blasphemy-related accusations between 1927 and the mid-80s (Zia years) were seven. From the mid-80s to 2014, the number rose to 1,335. Seeds of hatred and intolerance sprout late, but they surely do sprout.
So Mashal Khan is a victim of the opportunistic politics of the Musharraf era, infamous for dollar-deals with the US. But that alone isn’t sufficient as an explanation. The curse of the present times is an important part of the missing puzzle of the bestiality that became Mashal Khan’s tragic fate.
Over the last few years, freedom of speech has become licentious. There are judgements all around. These are mostly about demeaning the other and defining people as enemies who deserve no sympathy.
These judgements have gone beyond distributing degrees of patriotism; these are now religious decrees about others’ faith and about their qualification to be Muslim. The unbridled social media is ticking up this trend. Commercialisation of religion on TV channels has aggravated it further, with each in a rat race to establish that it has the best understanding of the code of Islam. Mostly this ‘best’ is all about calling the other the worst. Sectarianism is paraded as diversity of opinion. Fatwas are delivered as analysis. Calling others kafirs, jahils, infidels, atheists (in the popularly misunderstood sense), non-believers, ‘murtads’, enemies of Islam etc is now a trend. With their little knowledge, Wikipedia information, inadequate lives, personal failures, short tempers and long tongues, these hatemongers are all over the place – infecting minds, poisoning hearts, darkening souls.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, you have state institutions perceived to be patronising these witch-hunters, who appear on television every night and spout hate laced with desperate threats. They incite the public, take names and openly declare groups (not just individuals) to be outside the circle of Islam, and therefore deserving of terrible death. The whole system knows what this is about. The judges know it. Pemra knows it. The prime minister knows it. The army chief knows it. And yet, there is nothing anyone can do about it because these witch-hunters are the designated issuers of black warrants on the media. The state loves them. They love themselves.
It is demons like these that defile sanity. These are products that find ready replicas in universities, colleges, on the streets and inside homes. These characters father fetishisation with violence and thrill to kill for causes that are not even remotely connected with the spirit or letter of religion. The state backs them. The state protects them and then when they (or those like them) drag a student’s body through the corridors of a university with the aim to burn it, the state goes into a state of hypocritical shock and remorse. Mashal Khan could not have been saved, not even by a hundred guards. He, after all, lived in the age of free fatwas available at a price.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/199021-Mashals-murder
----
Cancer With Purpose
By Zarrar Khuhro
17 April 2017
ACCUSATION is evidence, trial is by ordeal, and the sentence is always death. This is how it went with Mashal Khan and this is how it has been with the countless others who have preceded him. His final words do not matter, it does not matter that he professed his love for the Prophet (PBUH) as he lay dying from gunshot wounds inflicted by his pious tormentors, all that matters is the accusation and the accusation is evidence.
It doesn’t even matter that his murder seems to have nothing to do with his actual words, that it is likely that it was his vocal stance against the university administration that prompted the campaign against him. It doesn’t even matter that the university administration has displayed its complicity by forming a committee, not to investigate the killing, but to investigate the alleged blasphemy committed by the murdered Mashal Khan.
It doesn’t matter that after his death fake accounts bearing his name have cropped up like poisonous toadstools aiming at providing post-facto justification.
And so here we stand, bending over backwards to ‘prove’ that he was not a blasphemer, that he was a ‘good’ Muslim and did not deserve the fate that should, by implication, be reserved only for the not-so-good. But none of that matters either, because evidence is accusation, is a death sentence to be carried by public acclamation in some dark, murderous perversion of democracy.
It has always been so, in just about all such cases. Take Salmaan Taseer, for example; you’ll find countless people – their eyes blazing and their lips spewing venom – who will justify his killing. Ask why and you will be told that he was a blasphemer. Ask what blasphemy he committed and you’ll be met with stunned disbelief at the temerity of your question. Don’t you know that accusation is evidence?
The harvest of hate has ripened.
It was the same with the (in)famous ‘bloggers’. We still don’t (officially) know who abducted them or why or what treatment they were subjected to. What we do know (somehow) is that they are blasphemers. We’ve heard it from TV screens, from pulpits, from Facebook pages and Twitter feeds. And that’s enough. Accusation is evidence and … well you know the rest.
We have nurtured our own disease, have fed this cancer of the soul, this cancer which has a mind of its own; this cancer with purpose. The fault lies with a society that sups on hate and willingly butchers its own children at the devil’s altar, mutilating their bodies and crushing their skulls like some kind of ritual sacrifice.
But let’s be fair; it’s not just us, impotent and exhausted as we are. The fault lies with each and every crumbing pillar of the state, every diseased branch of it. It rests with TV anchors and print columnists who lie in every breath, who condemn innocents to death for a salary raise and a bump in ratings.
It lies with those shadowy operators who use the fig leaf of blasphemy to mask the crushing of dissent. It lies with ministers launching witch-hunts for blasphemers as if there was some sort of epidemic under way, as if anyone was mad or suicidal enough to actually commit blasphemy while knowing the consequences. It lies with state agencies who aid and abet this madness to serve their own ends.
Last, but never least, it lies with those preachers who measure their strength in the amount of killers and madmen they can rally to their cause. And for the rest — politicians and the prominent — what does it matter if they did not attend the funeral of Mashal Khan? What does it matter if they release a mealy-mouthed statement of condemnation or remain silent, hoping that the storm will pass them by?
The corpse we planted in our garden has come to full bloom, the poison tree has borne fruit, and the harvest of hate has ripened.
Yet here we sit, begging like whipped and frightened curs waiting for a scrap to fall from our master’s table; grateful for a piece of gristle, a shard of chewed bone. Anything we can hold on to in the hope that the hand that whips us may absentmindedly one day stroke our mangy manes; desperate for any fragment we can shore against our ruin.
But we wait in vain because they are not just cowards, but complicit. And such is the level of their degradation, such is the shortness of their sight that they do not see that the noose they have fashioned will one day be fitted around their necks, snug and suffocating. They do not see that the fire they have started, the flames they have fanned, may first burn our huts and homes, but will one day reach their palaces too. And what will they rule over then, but an empire of ash?
Source: dawn.com/news/1327411/cancer-with-purpose
-----
The Unpredictable Trump
By Shahid Javed Burki
April 17, 2017
During the campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump had emphasised the need for the leader of a major power such as the US to be unpredictable. A powerful country has both friends and enemies. Much of what happens in the world happens when the nations that live in the periphery make adjustments to what the one at the centre does. If the periphery knows what the centre is doing or is likely to do, it will accommodate to the environment in which it lives. Trump maintained in his campaign appearances that a world thus ordered was not necessarily good for the country or the countries that occupy the centre. Constant disruption is a good strategy for the centre.
It was in order to save the globe from superpower unpredictability that the world’s nations, following the end of the WWII, crafted an international order that produced a predictable environment. If a country faced financial stress, it could go to the IMF to get temporary relief. In return for help, it would follow the IMF’s advice to make adjustments to the way it managed the economy, that way future disruptions would be avoided. If a country did not possess enough resources of its own, it could approach the World Bank and several regional development banks to get help. Most of the funding for operations by the IMF and the development banks came from the US and to a lesser extent from other rich countries.
If there were disputes among trading partners, they could appeal to the WTO to resolve them. The WTO operates according to the rules and procedures crafted by all nations working together. These institutions along with several others in the UN system produced predictability. The UN High Commission for Refugees minded the millions of refugees displaced by the many small wars that were being fought across the world. Another UN agency, Unicef, helped millions of deprived children across the world with food, medicines, clothing and shelter. But all these institutions are of no use to Trump’s America. This is the global order that Trump set out to disrupt. He succeeded even before he finished his first 100 days in office. The new administration has promised to significantly reduce the funds it provides them.
The Asian continent was by far the most affected world region as President Trump continued to implement his unpredictable resolution. It has three of the world’s largest nations and all three — China, Russia and India — are busy trying to figure out which way Trump and his administration is headed. In less than a week, Trump took actions that surprised the world and forced many capitals around the world to go back to the drawing board. On April 7th, while Chinese President Xi Jinping was still with him at the seaside resort of Mar-a-Lago, Trump hit an airbase in Syria with 59 missiles to punish the regime of President Bashar al Assad for using chemical weapons against Syrians. The following day, he agreed with President Xi to launch a 100-day plan to ease tensions between the two countries on trade issues. On April 13th, the Americans dropped the deadliest non-nuclear bomb ever used on an Afghan mountain range bordering Pakistan.
Three days after launching a missile attack on Syria, Trump ordered a well-equipped aircraft carrier to head towards North Korea. This was his reaction to the provocation by Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s young and equally unpredictable dictator, who tested simultaneously a number of ballistic missiles. If the Americans use the flotilla headed towards his country, Pyongyang would respond by attacking the US west coast with missiles loaded with nuclear weapons. And a day after the American ships were ordered to head towards North Korea, Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, arrived in Moscow with the expectation to discuss world affairs with President Vladimir Putin. The president seemed reluctant to issue an invitation to America’s top diplomat. They met but did not agree on a whole lot of issues. Only a few months earlier, Putin had pinned a high award on Tillerson’s chest when the latter was the head of Exxon, the giant American oil firm.
The American foreign policy establishment — the people who man Washington’s many think tanks and are often called upon to join the senior ranks of administrations — was struggling to define what could be termed a Trump doctrine. There was agreement that lack of predictability cannot be a strategy. Anne-Marie Slaughter, one prominent member of this establishment, suggested that by changing “America First” slogan used by Trump in his campaign and in his inaugural address to “Americans First” could serve the purpose. This will require the commitment that “America’s national interest includes the defense of universal values, the values the US was founded on and that its soldiers try hard to uphold. Part of the reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is how hard it is to figure out how to be the good guys in cultures and conflicts we do not fully understand. Against this backdrop, Trump’s decisiveness and precision in punishing Assad offered a refreshing moment of moral clarity, notwithstanding the risks. Now he needs a strategy to turn a moment into a manifesto.”
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1385579/the-unpredictable-trump/
-----
A Republican Executive
By Waqar Rana
17 pril 2017
THE subject being important, after a piece on the limits of power (March 28), I decided to further expound related concepts. A people form a government to achieve their common ideals of justice, political, social and economic, and to have peace, tranquillity and happiness. The choice of those who are entrusted with political power becomes all the more important.
Executive is that branch of government, which is vested with that power of the state that executes laws and exercises power given in the Constitution. Executive possesses police power and spending power with previous approval of parliament.
This power is vested in the executive to achieve the aforesaid ideals. It is bound to act in accordance with law and the Constitution. This is called rule of law. No person can be deprived of his live, liberty, property and reputation except in accordance with law. The journey from rule, in the name of God, by absolute monarchs with all political powers to the modern democracy, which simply means rule by consent, is an interesting story. Francis Fukuyama has very aptly narrated this long story in his book Origin of the Political Order. Earlier, in The End of History and the Last Man, he claimed that Western liberal democracy was, in fact, the pinnacle of socio-political thought.
Rules by which a government is formed by a people are put together in a formal document called the constitution. A constitution must have its genesis in the behaviour of a people, protect their values and must provide the means to meet their aspirations.
In all democratic systems, the common feature is rule by consent.
There are three modes by which the executive branch is elected. An indirect method, like the cabinet form of the government. It has its origin in England and has been adopted in most of the English-speaking world, except America and South Africa. People’s house is elected directly on the basis of universal adult franchise (one vote, one person). That house then chooses one of its members, usually the party head, as the chief executive, who is called the prime minister.
A cabinet is a combining committee — a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the legislative branch with the executive, said Walter Bagehot. Like the British monarch, there is a president, a head of state, indirectly elected, in whose name the executive power is exercised. The prime minister appoints his cabinet/ministers, advisers etc. The business of the government is then allocated and distributed amongst various divisions of the government, which are headed by the ministers.
A minister is responsible for his business to parliament (this is called ministerial responsibility). Executive actions are amenable to judicial review. The Constitution of Pakistan follows this model (Article 90-99). Moreover, it provides federal polity where power is distributed between the federal and provincial governments.
In some other constitutions, a chief executive, named as President, is directly elected for a fixed term on the same basis of one vote, one person. The US, South Africa, Sri Lanka, France, Indonesia, Russia and some Latin American countries have adopted the presidential system. A third form of the executive is a hybrid of the earlier two systems. There is a directly elected president/chancellor or president and there is also prime minister who is indirectly elected. France, Russia, and Turkey. In all democratic systems, the common feature is rule by consent.
In Pakistan in 1973, after experiments, trials and errors, the constituent assembly decided to have a prime ministerial system. In that system the executive authority actually lay with prime minister but it is exercised in the name of an indirectly elected president.
Under Articles 48(3) of the original Constitution, the prime minister would counter-sign every order issued by the president. Unlike other constitutions, the National Assembly does not pass an appropriation act. Mere authentication from the prime minister would suffice under Article 83. Under Article 90, the federal government acts through the prime minister. Heads of the armed forces would be appointed on the advice of prime minister under Article 243.
When the Constitution was restored after nine years of dictatorial regime, which had taken over power in 1977, it was drastically amended. The president was vested with executive authority on the pattern of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Supreme Court in Mehmood Achakzai’s case approved this ‘balance’ of powers in 1997.
From 1988-2010 (excluding 11 years of another unelected regime of Gen Musharraf) this new system started a tug of war between the presidents and prime minister that was ended by the 17th Amendment and Article 58(2) (b) being repealed. By the 18th Amendment in 2010, the cabinet system was brought back.
A truly people’s representative chief executive is the ultimate democratic norm: government by consent. The ideal can be achieved by regular elections, argues the educated elite. After all, this system is successfully working in many countries of South Asia, they argue. Political parties need to be strengthened. Voting patterns based on caste, religion and regional affiliations negate free consent. A single seat based constituency distribution of seats to the National Assembly under Article 51 of the Constitution is bound to return the same people.
The most cynical view, on the other hand, is that nothing has changed from the days of Harappa/Mohenjodaro; the history of the region has remained unchanged. The Supreme Court in its several judgments has urged for electoral reforms. Fortunately, all political parties agree on reforms. Even the most conservative societies are changing. A series of reforms was introduced in the UK since early 2000.
A state needs stability that comes with a strong executive. Stability brings prosperity. Over the past several centuries, invaders from the north have left in the DNA something which keeps the people of this region in a state of uncertainty. Messages circulated on mobile phones are just one example. The Supreme Court has held in Rawalpindi Bar Association case (2015) that democracy, a parliamentary form of government and independence of judiciary are the basic feature of the Constitution, and there to stay. A short experience under the Constitution of 1962 closed the door even for debate.
Source: dawn.com/news/1327409/a-republican-executive
----
URL: