Talk:2007 Pakistani state of emergency

Citation needed
I personally did not get any citation of these parts of artical as only MMA resigned from NWFP provencial assembly.

"All but one opposition party (Pakistan Peoples Party) resigned from the assembly in protest."

BBC shows some different movie taken by a person when former CJ was comming out of his office, did not showed any military

"Subsequently, the 111th brigade of the Pakistan army entered the supreme court building and removed Chaudhry and several other judges from the supreme court and arrested them."

possible typo
It says that the new supreme court denied that it was not the case. That's a double negative are the fore it or against it??Cryo921 16:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone has added their own personal graffiti. Paragraph 2 of the first section.  "President General Pervez Musharraf announced that he has huge umberella up his butt".   It also looks as if whoever added this has replaced some of the original text.  --Daimyotx (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pics of speech
I've got some screenshots of Musharraf giving his speech to the nation on TV explaining the state of emergency. Is this ok for fair use? Joshdboz 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I doubt it. What was the source?--Patrick Ѻ 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's being webcast on http://www.ibnlive.com/ Joshdboz 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't it count? They'll be quite helpful to this specific article, and I can't imagine that any free alternatives could be created.  And it's not like the Pakistani government would have financial losses if we had such screenshots.  Nyttend 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
It has taken me a while to grasp exactly what is going on...is this a step by the president to stop the judicial from impairing his presidency, or is this a judiciary stepping out of its bounds? I don't know if this is a matter of opinion and thus not allowed in an encyclopedia, however I think something needs to be mentioned to clarify what's happening.Apolloae 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The court had yet to decide whether Musharraf could become president, because despite winning the election, he had been in uniform. Musharraf preempted their decision by sacking the chief justice and imposing a state of emergency. Joshdboz 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

well sme can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel similarly to Apolloae in that the article doesn't seem to clearly state why a state of emergency was called, what it means, etc. It does give great detail in other areas, however. Is there anyone who understands Musharraf's rationale that can perhaps incorporate this into the lead in a clear manner? WDavis1911 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be great to understand better... This is a good article, however, if I had been asked what the REASON for everything was.. I'd be clueless. 72.147.127.16 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't too complicated to understand. Pakistan's constitution clearly states that the President must be a civilian, but Musharraf is a general. The Pakistani Supreme Court was going to rule that his presidency was unconstitutional. Musharraf was already frustrated at them for allowing exiled political opponents back into the country. So he basically sacked all the supreme court justices who wouldn't vow an oath of fealty to him. This is an even more blatant violation of the constitution, so people (especially judges, lawyers, and political opponents) were going to be mad about it. Hence the need to take preemptive steps to stifle dissent. Hence the Globe and Mail's recent headline, "Musharraf sweeps democracy aside". Hence, Pakistan is a dictatorship again.

Don't be confused by the excuses of terrorists here, almost all the people rounded up by the general's new powers are lawyers and moderate to liberal political opponents. The reason many (mostly American) media sources are being coy or confusing about what is going on is that Musharraf has been a "key ally" in the war on terror, especially in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it is rather embarrassing that Pakistan is now a dictatorial nation with nuclear weapons, harboring Osama bin Laden. That's all the reasons given for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq rolled into one, but nothing can be done against Musharraf because of realpolitik and/or political expediency. The US is unlikely to suspend its billions of dollars in military aid to the country, despite its stated commitments to worldwide democracy. With such unconditional support, it's no wonder Musharraf has become a spoiled brat. -- 68.146.220.249 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Realpolitik here is that if Chaudry had declared Pakistan to be without a Government the country would be... basically without a Government. After the suicide bombings in Karachi and the Lal Masjid incident this would not really be the best time. The most sensible thing to do would be to hold the elections as planned- which Musharraf has said he will do (mind you so did Zia al-Huq) with Kayani as Chief of Army Staff, and Musharraf to soldier on (as it were) until then. If Nawaz Sharif is allowed back, it should be in order to complete his prison sentence for plane hijacking, and whilst we would like to believe that Bhutto is not corrupt, there are few who believe this. There is obviously going to a lot of moaning when members of the chattering classes are rounded up, but it is unlikely that they will be detained for a long time and, given their high profile unlikely to suffer quite as much as members ogf the working class routinely busted by the police, and will publish autobiographies about it, which no-one will read. Also since the likes of Imran Khan and others have been calling for the violent overthrow of the Government what can they expect ? Streona 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, Pakistan's constitution, like all modern constitutions, includes a provision for what happens should a president be removed from power. So it would not be "without a Government", just without this current dictator in charge.  Even if the politicians were served tea every afternoon in their cells, rounding up one's political enemies and shutting down free television transmission has nothing to do with creating an environment conducive to democratic legitimacy, and everything to do with punishing and discouraging rivals.  While there have always been people like Streona who celebrate sweeping aside democracy and the institution of authoritarian rule if it opposes whoever has them scared at the moment, I can't get behind that and I don't think my tax dollars should either.  This is a repeat of the west's support of Saddam Hussein and all the other dictators who were "good" until they no longer served their purpose.  -- 68.146.220.249 16:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

- Dear 68.146.220.249 ( may I call you 68.146 for short?),

1. Your tax dollars have not entirely bought the country 2. Saddam Hussein and the Baathi's were in a different league. Their first actions were to shoot dead 5,000 people in their own homes. Later on more unpleasant means were employed, often involving meat grinders. 3. Musharraf has until now ruled under the civilian constitution since 1999.

My post was not about the constitution but realpolitik.How it really is under "democracy" in Pakistan is broadly similar to that of 18th century England. The landowners -or Numbahadurs- control the ballot boxes and observes who votes and how many times. The politicians pay for this or promise the numbahadurs freedom from taxation. When elected the politicians recoup their expenses through corruption. My wife fought for democracy against General Zia and was tortured for it. She reported electoral fraud under Nawaz Sharif and they broke her legs. When Benazir Bhutto she sold out for "10%"- or "Mr 10%" as her husband was known.When my wife returned under Bhutto (whose government founded the Taliban)the airport police still had her name and tried to illegally detain her.When Musharraf seized power he shook down the numbahadurs for their back taxes and soft "loans" to stabilse the country's finances and lessen dependence on IMF borrowing and we were able to go to Pakistan in safety.So forgive me if I am overly cynical about the overthrow of "democracy"- what democracy ? (Though I notice that there are few poor US presidential candidates either. Wasn't your first president General Washington?). Musharraf has been elected and has stated that elections will be held again by 15 February 2007, when he will pass his military office to Ashfaq Kayani, which is the best chance for democracy. My understanding is that the President cannot hold an office of profit under the government, so presumably his position depends on whether or not he is drawing two salaries (does anyone know if he is?)and the Speaker would hold the presidency pending an election. When that election comes the question is ; will it be a return to the same old corrupt system ? My concern is for the future of the vast majority of ordinary Pakistanis who want to bring their families up decently, without fear from corrupt and egocentric politicians and crazed suicide bombers. As I am sure is your concern too. Streona 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. By "best chance of democracy", do you mean rigged election just for the sake of electing Musharaf and his supporters. Who are his supporters? The Chaudhry Bros., probably the biggest feudal lords in Pakistan, with their own jails and slave camps. Pir Pagara, The uncrowned king of Sindh and Of course MQM, the people who have been terrorizing Karachi for the past 20 years. And what Musharaf is doing in Balochistan is Genocide. And as for the economy, you cannot afford milk on a daily basis at the average pay, while the army is making a huge multi-billion dollar Headquarters. In a time of free judiciary, people actually had hopes for a free democracy, all of which have bneen quashed by this emergency. Now, the only option is to get out fropm this place, because these bastards have sucked it dry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.23.162 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Example
here is a good example given by our a Indian friend. "The truth is that the US secretly supports this action. The logic is simple, one man is easier to negotiate with than a whole parliamentary assembly. Just ask the Indians and the now dying nuclear deal.

Harry Singh, Melbourne " User talk:Yousaf465 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's it an example of? Sopwith 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- UBstudent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.65.118 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Create a timeline?
Should we create a timelime to track new developments? If things continue for more than a week the current format will become very messy. TSim 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

important news
add this link where needed it's about the rejection of emergency by SC.User talk:Yousaf465 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC) http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=10979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thousands?
Someone claims in the article that "thousands are protesting in the streets of Pakistan." Really? Unfortunately this is not so. A few hundered lawyers and journalists appeared outside Karachi Press Club and The Karachi High Court and few hundered appeared outside Lahore High Court. The truth is, public reaction has been rather discouraging. I suggest my young Thereek-e-Insaaf (Justice Party [of Imran Khan]), to stop using Wikipedia for sensationist stuff and lets stick to the facts. This is a highly important episode in Pakistani politics and we shouldn't tuirn it into a soap opera. Many non-Pakistanis and Pakistani expats get their info from here, so lets stick to the facts. Thanks. .User talk:Builder2 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The Day's Events


 * Builder2, I disagree with you. Have you watched news? BBC reports that 500 people are captured by police today. Police surrendered Lahore High court and fire shells on it. All judges who refused to take oath under PCO are under house arrest. Wisesabre 14:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * one correction, I dont know about sunday , CNN wrote that 1500 people were captured from around the country Wisesabre 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because they were arrested does not mean that they were protesting. Many have been arrested at home. Streona 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Aljazeera did have an article on their website which stated thousands were protesting in Lahore. That article is no longer on their website. They now have another article which states: "Pakistani police have used batons and tear gas against thousands of lawyers and political activists protesting." BradMajors 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Aljazeera reports that: "Around 2,000 lawyers gathered on Monday in the eastern city of Lahore as police warned them not to violate a ban on rallies in Pakistan." BradMajors 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Geo TV is reporting "a crowd of at least 1,000 lawyers had gathered" in Lahore. The Day's Events BradMajors 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AP is reporting "2,000 lawyers congregated at the High Court in the eastern city of Lahore" BradMajors 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"State of Emergency?"
I think this article is mistitled. There is no emergency. The only "emergency" is that Musharraf might be voted out of office. It should be labeled: 2007 Pakistani Martial Law. --209.242.137.211 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)(Lucia)
 * Though you're quite possibly right, the legal term being used by the Musharraf government and governments abroad is "State of Emergency". Since the Pakistani government is using the term, it's the best fit here. A redirect from 2007 Pakistani martial law might not be a bad idea, though. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect added per WP:BOLD. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Had Iftikar Chaudry announced on 5 November 2007 that Pakistan did not have a government, then this would be an emergency, unless the suicide bombers and terrorists could be persuaded to hold off a bit whilst things were sorted out, but considering that that Chaudry could not be persuaded to do the same what are the chances ? Streona 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Martial Law?
It's not martial law by definition because the military has not taken control over the country. The police, judiciary are fully active. Kindly remove the word martial law from the beginning statement.

I have deleted the word Martial Law from the opening lines. Just because one English daily (Daily News) with a mere 5000 circulation calls it Martial Law does not make this a Martial Law. The Parliament and local government stop operating under Martial Law. This is not so here. Kindly stop sensationalizing this topic. This is not Geo TV. Builder2 —Preceding comment was added at 07:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not only Dawn and GeoTV who speak of Martial Law. See, in the External Links, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/11/martial-law-by-another-name-in-pakistan.php by Moeen Cheema, professor of Law & Policy at the Lahore University of Management Sciences in Lahore. Besides, Dawn's paper circulation is only partly relevant, as Dawn is widely followed online. And re GeoTV, they are giving remarkable coverage in extremely hard circumstances. See http://pkpolitics.com/2007/11/05/news-english2-5-november-07/ (audio version in http://pkpolitics.com/audio/emergency/5_nov_07/news_english2_5_nov_07.mp3 ), with a phone interview of Justice Bhagwandas (from 1/3 to 3/4, roughly). I  am not going to revert your change because I never do that, but would you consider doing it yourself? --Calmansi 10:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Too Narrow
This article gives many fine points and details but doesn't give a broad, understandable view to someone not entirely familiar with the situation. The background section is a good example. It should read something like "On October 6, Presidential elections were held with Musharraf winning 671 or 99% of the 685 votes cast in the parliament and the provincial assemblies. Since Musharraf is still Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Army, the Supreme Court was set to rule during the week of November 4 as to whether the elections should be voided."

Instead the section gives the detailed back and forth making difficult to understand and ending up at the same point anyway.

It basically answers the question "why?" instead of "what"? The answer of course is that the Supreme Court was going to rule and Musharraf wanted to stay in power.

This article should say "what time it is" not how to build a clock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.77.13 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

yep
well said. i completely agree. --MagneticFlux (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

link
important link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7087570.stm about the deal and protest.User talk:Yousaf465 —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

POV; "Enlightenment and Moderation under Attack"
This is blatant and opinionated. And what is a "Generalist" in this context ? Workersdreadnought (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference under "Ban on Media" to which the heading "Enlightment and Moderation are under attack" is consigned makes a reference which shows the polemics against Musharraf's ban on the media are complete distortions. The Christian Science Monitor in the reference did NOT view Musharraf as "Talebanising" Pakistan, but reports fundamentalist protestors as doimg so. Whilst polemics are out of place in wikipedia, this is deliberate falsification. Streona (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

President of Pakistan
Why isn't Mussarref being called President in this article? General isn't a title it's a military rank; where's President is the title of the most 'senior position' in Pakistan. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, constituionally the power solely lies in the Prime Minister. The President is just their for blance. Of course, in the sordid history of this place, the office has only caused unbalance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.23.162 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

People's Reaction
This section is not very clear on which 'majority' of lawyers are protesting and which are not. Just the usage of the word 'majority' is a little sloppy. What is the CJP saga? Repeated use of 'So far...' Mintal (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Small Typo
changed "fanatacism" to "fanaticism". That's all.

Copyright of declaration text?
Currently, the article includes the full text of the 2007 declaration. Full versions of source texts are rarely included in Wikipedia — if a text is available under an acceptable license, it's generally moved to Wikisource; if it's not, then the full version doesn't belong on Wikipedia or Wikisource.

Is the license information available for this text? If nobody knows, it should be either be trimmed down to a shorter quote, or removed and linked to instead. Commons:Commons:Licensing and PD-Pakistan suggest that it isn't available under a suitable license. --98.206.221.93 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Replaced with an external link. --98.206.221.93 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and summary confusing
As mentioned by several people already on this talk page, the general introduction and background sections are not written clearly so they can be easily understood by a reader new to this subject. This is a question of copy editing, not necessarily of facts or correctness. Although clarifications have been attempted on this talk page and on other related articles, nobody has yet tried to improve this article's text. So I'm going to jump in and try to clean it up from a writing style perspective, hopefully not changing any of the facts or information or introducing any bias. Please feel free to subsequently correct anything I may have messed up. -- Dmeranda (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the introduction and background sections. Hopefully they are much easier to understand now without changing any of the facts previously researched and presented. More copy edit work is still needed; especially regarding how the upcoming January/February general elections fit into this topic. Those sentences mentioning it seem out of place and disconnected, but I'm not confident yet to make those changes. -- Dmeranda (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pakistani state of emergency, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107072206/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/news/wn_report/2007/11/05/2007-11-05_as_many_as_3500_detained_in_pakistan.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/11/05/2007-11-05_as_many_as_3500_detained_in_pakistan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pakistani state of emergency, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071207140236/http://www.dawn.com:80/2007/12/05/top4.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/05/top4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Pakistani state of emergency, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222205907/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C04%5Cstory_4-11-2007_pg7_3 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C04%5Cstory_4-11-2007_pg7_3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828034546/http://www.angus-reid.com:80/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363 to http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/04/top16.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/04/top15.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213234019/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/paperchase/2007/11/pakistan-supreme-court-to-rule-on.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/pakistan-supreme-court-to-rule-on.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ljcp.gov.pk/Menu%20Items/Publications/Reports%20of%20the%20LJCP/reports/AnnualReport2004.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Supreme_Court_Report_Golden_Jubilee_Edition_2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417225900/http://thenews.jang.com.pk:80/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17378 to http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17378
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?154123
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219231849/http://www.app.com.pk/ud_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4538 to http://www.app.com.pk/ud_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4538
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524211755/http://www.zeenews.com/South-Asia/2007-12-05/411442news.html to http://www.zeenews.com/South-Asia/2007-12-05/411442news.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/14/top1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C04%5Cstory_4-11-2007_pg1_10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803102628/http://www.geo.tv:80/7-31-2009/46861.htm to http://www.geo.tv/7-31-2009/46861.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)