This discourse with Saeed Afridi took place in a WhatsApp group and has been compiled with his permission.
On May 7, 2024, out of desperation, I made a comment in a WhatsApp group, of which most of the prominent intellectuals are members. And thus, a discourse was set in motion.
The discourse is copied below, as it happened in the heat of the moment. That is, without any correction of spellings, etc., in order to keep the spirit of the discourse intact.
But it is not to be taken as an isolated dialogue between Saeed Afridi and me. We have been, now and then, conversing in the same WhatsApp group on this and other topics, and hence this discourse has a context as well.
The credit for this idea of compiling this discourse goes to Amer Zafar Durrani, who, in the middle of the discourse, intervened with these words: “This discourse is worthy of documenting and penning on the reasons to rewrite or simply shelve the constitution of Pakistan”
If you are interested in reading the moment-by-moment happenings of the discourse, go to the end of this slightly edited version, from which entries of time and dates have been removed.
—
Dr Khalil: The courts are neck-deep acting politically.
So, what’s the end?
Dr Khalil: When an act in favor of the supremacy of the constitution results in the defense of criminals, is it a constitutional act?
Amer Zafar Durrani: We are all failing new institutions being created daily.
Amer Zafar Durrani: Yes. When constitution is not principles but prescriptions
Dr Khalil: But when it’s principles?
Amer Zafar Durrani: Ours is not, so chill
Dr Khalil: I do believe in a methodical constitution based on certain principles…
And anything can work when it’s there guiding all the actions all the time, but when it’s used selectively, it’s not there guiding…
So the issue is sincere judges, and not the political judges!
Saeed Afridi UK: I think issue we face is that there are constitutional PRINCIPLES (which are supposed to be sacrosanct) and then constitutional RULES (which in our case are designed to undermine those principles). This is a colonial legacy where the executive was given the powers to undermine principles whenever the Executive authority thought it was “reasonable” to do so.
Saeed Afridi UK: In the 1935 India Act the Executive Authority’s interpretation of what is “reasonable” was paramount, above any constitutional principles, and Pakistan reverted back to this travesty in 1973.
Dr Khalil: … want to understand how you connect it with colonialism…
73 constitution was written more than 20 years after the independent status
Saeed Afridi UK: Historically Pakistan’s courts have sided with the Executive’s interpretation rather than the Principle of the contitution.
Dr Khalil: You see my point… sincere judges become a political instrument and they don’t seem to realize that and the danger
Saeed Afridi UK: I think that is a very optimistic way of looking at the 1973 contitution… This is NOT a new document, but a reworking of the 1935 India Act. The Crown needed to ensure that any “indepedent acts” of the colonial population were still subject to the authority (& interests) of the coloniser. Which is why even basic rights needed to be subject to the wish/whims of the crown. Getting rid of these provisions was a major reason why the constitution took so much time to frame once Pakistan became indepedent. (In India that debate simply did not happen). Both the 1958 & 1962 contitutions bore thr fruits of this debate. However, in 1973 Pakistan reverted BACK to the 1935 India act (where quite a few checks and balances were actually taken away like instittional indepdence)
Saeed Afridi UK: Its quite a revelation that centralised executive authority that the British Parliament thought was “far too draconian” (exact quote) where brought into the 1973 constitution….
Saeed Afridi UK: Ours is not a constitution for an indepedent state … but a colonial state…we simply don’t have a coloniser present 🙂
Saeed Afridi UK: Pak judiciary is NOT an indepdent body checking Executive Authority… it is subject to the Executive’s interpretation of resonable… which makes it political by design
Saeed Afridi UK: So any judge abiding by the “Principles” of the constitution when they clash with the Rules (as invested in by the Executive) is actually (quite ironically) breaking the constitution 🙂
Saeed Afridi UK: Which is precisely why all earlier attempts to create a Constitutional court were opposed by the Executive (military & civilian)
Saeed Afridi UK: The problem is the System itself… not those acting within it
Saeed Afridi UK: Place the same people in a better designed system & you will see a shift in behaviour
Dr Khalil: I won’t connect it with colonialism… but with what our politicians wanted…
Years back when I read the 73 constitution… surprised to see that how fundamental rights were curtailed conditioned etc…
As a result I wrote a Charter of Liberty… arguing that they are the core values of the constitution and they must be so.
Dr Khalil: I don’t subscribe to that View
Dr Khalil: No … again
Saeed Afridi UK: It is deeply colonial colonial…. the very fact that the SAME Westminster Parliament that deemed a right that was ‘unconditional’ for an individual in 1930s London … made that same right conditional (subject to any reasonable restrictions) for some one in 1930s Lahore … is a Colonial legacy
Saeed Afridi UK: The Lahori was a different breed of citizen (inferior) in interpretation compared to the Londoner… and despite nominally indepedent for more than 25 years…. was deemed to still be so in 1973
Dr Khalil: The second point…why don’t the judges and intellectuals, politicians etc don’t realize that constitutional rule is a continuous stream… not like that yesterday it was a constitutional rule, today it’s not and tomorrow again it will be… that creates a Hole from which politics enters…and thus the courts stand politicized
Saeed Afridi UK: In Pakistan it is not the Judge who decides whether a restriction is “reasonable” but the Executive (case in point the judgements made re the Rlrction Commission) … the judge can only decide if the Executive has the authority in law to place the restriction …. and then must rely on the parlimentary process to decide if that restriction is reasonable or not.
Dr Khalil: We are humans and don’t see and accept things as they are given to us… it’s human continuity…we can change improve etc things
Saeed Afridi UK: The judge is NOT in a position to check the executive interpretation…
Dr Khalil: No again
Saeed Afridi UK: Because the seperation of powers is not in fact indepedent of the Executive… again… we saw this exercised throughout the past two years
Saeed Afridi UK: Thats not a VIEW… its a Fact … the 1935 India Act (& the Burma Act) placed this restriction …. while no such restriction was present for British Citizens ….
Dr Khalil: I witnessed a different history.. the SC acting independently…
Your view doesn’t hold water here …
Dr Khalil: Not denying that fact…
Questioning its acceptance
Saeed Afridi UK: It can’t… the constitution does not allow that… its in black & white… the fundamental rights of Pakistan’s citizens, example freedom of assembly, are “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order”… the restriction is placed by the Executive … NOT the judiciary…
Saeed Afridi UK: The Judiciary does NOT have the authority to decide if a restriction is reasonable… it can only request for the Parliament to review said restriction… it can NOT strike it down
Dr Khalil: Not denying that… questioning it
Saeed Afridi UK: By reintroducing this in 1973 (taken away under 58 & 62) Pakistan reverted back to the Colonial
Amer Zafar Durrani: This discourse is worthy of documenting and penning on the reasons to rewrite or simply shelve the constitution of Pakistan
Dr Khalil: PIL orgs may question that in the courts
Saeed Afridi UK: You are right to question it… it is not suited to an independent state… where the Judiciary should decide if the action taken by the Executive is/was reasonable….
Dr Khalil: But you know it’s always the politicians who write the constitution… not the executive.. it uses misuses it
Saeed Afridi UK: This is the basic principle behind the judiciary signing off on a warrant … the Executive institution has to ‘make its case’ before a judge who then decides if teh restriction warrants an intervention on a basic constitutional right
Dr Khalil: Yes that’s so
Saeed Afridi UK: By taking this away from the Judiciary and giving it to the Executive (under 1973) the constitution made the Rules sacrosanct rather than teh principle
Dr Khalil: Again it’s the politicians who days after approving the 73 constitution imposed the emergency…. and it remained there for years…it was ZAB and co
Dr Khalil: Don’t the judges realize that?
Saeed Afridi UK: The problem we have is that the System itself is designed to govern a Colony …. we have simply given it some additional bells & whistles… The Politicians did not debate & frame a constittution (like they did for 1958)… they signed off on a re-worked framework of the 1935 India Act
Saeed Afridi UK: That is why the Executive (taking the place of the Crown’s representative) has perpetually exercised authority OVER the constitution…rather than subject to it
Saeed Afridi UK: Most do… but as I stated before… siding with the principles of the constitution AGAINST the rules is actually unconstitutional under the 1935 India Act
Saeed Afridi UK: Judges in Colonies were not supposed to challenge the crown’s Executive Authority
Dr Khalil: What’s the need of putting all the blame on the system design…
Are not there actors.. involved in it?
They must be spotted
Saeed Afridi UK: Judges were subject to Crown’s patronage…. By reverting to the same system in 1973… Pakistan revived the practice…and teh judiciary answered to its patron… whether poltical or military
Dr Khalil: In Pakistan, they have been…
Dr Khalil: Now you taking another position…give and take between judges and the politicians
Saeed Afridi UK: Judges only challenge the executive in Pakistan when their patron is NOT the executive… example Bandial vis a vis Military… Isa/Ifitikhar vis a vis Nawaz Sharif
Saeed Afridi UK: its not give and take… its patronage
Saeed Afridi UK: When Pakistan was a colony… the patronage was exclusive to the Crown which was the single unchallenged Executive …. once the Crown left … the Exective changed and the patronage shifted too
Saeed Afridi UK: the systemic framework remained… but the actors changed positions
Dr Khalil: Not the case.. exactly…now they are questioning the military etc … though their motives are political and not judicial
Dr Khalil: Not so simple…there is a pattern…that snacks of a give and take
Saeed Afridi UK: I would argue the motive is subject to patronage…. The same military would be challenged when it acts against the Judge’s patron…. but not challenged if the Military acted in collusion with the Judge’s patron ….. and if the Military iself is the judge’s patron then it wont be challeneged at all
Saeed Afridi UK: The problem is the systemic inclusion of patronage ….
Dr Khalil: Again not inclined to buy that view in toto …. it’s the memory of the people lived at that time that that was when the Indians saw what’s rule of law
Saeed Afridi UK: I would be very surprised if Isa’s current position would be the same if the recipient of Military’s excesses was Nawaz rather than Imran Khan…. similarly..had the Steel Mill privatisation been a Nawaz act.. Iftikhar would not have struck it down
Dr Khalil: That’s like an easier way to explain it
Saeed Afridi UK: Its not the fault of either judge… the system design makes their actions in line with the patron… without that oatron they would not be in the position they hold
Dr Khalil: I see a tussle there… least of anything like patronage
Saeed Afridi UK: That is why the System itself needs redesign… blaming individual judgeslike Isa, Bandial, Iftikhar etc might be cathartic but does not go to the root
Dr Khalil: I’m talking issues… without naming
Dr Khalil: No evidence….
Saeed Afridi UK: You cant have a colonial system and then expect individuals to act independent
Dr Khalil: Though I don’t reject this view totally… but for the sake of clarification… redesign from within or from without
Saeed Afridi UK: Redesigns are always from without…. reform is from within
Dr Khalil: I don’t blame and don’t mind colonialism…I’m an independent soul… criticality seeing judging things…
Saeed Afridi UK: its about revisiting the principles and the intitial conditions…. you can not reform a colonial system into an indepdent one…
Saeed Afridi UK: ou can reform a bad colonial system into a ‘better’ colonial system… but not an independent one
Dr Khalil: That’s it… I think it can be reformed from within… and I always argue from that standpoint
Dr Khalil: Again… sorry… it’s not a colonial system… it’s a system we designed
Saeed Afridi UK: One of teh things I often repeat is that you can not reform/evolve a bad system into a good system… the best you can do is reform/evolve a
bad system into a BETTER bad system
Saeed Afridi UK: If you want a good system… then you have to at least start with a badly run good system…
Saeed Afridi UK: That again is not a view point… but a fact
Dr Khalil: It’s not black and white… you know…a system is never bad or good in absolute terms… therein lies the hope that a bad system can be transformed…and a good system can be improved
Dr Khalil: Historical facts are subject to various interpretations and thus views
Dr Khalil: @Saeed Afridi UK
Thanks for a considerate exchange
—
Here is the original discourse as it happened, moment-by-moment.
[5/7, 8:37 PM] Dr Khalil: The courts are neck-deep acting politically.
So, what’s the end?
[5/7, 11:15 PM] Dr Khalil: When an act in favor of the supremacy of the constitution results in the defense of criminals, is it a constitutional act?
[5/7, 11:15 PM] Amer Zafar Durrani: We are all failing new institutions being created daily.
[5/7, 11:17 PM] Amer Zafar Durrani: Yes. When constitution is not principles but prescriptions
[5/7, 11:39 PM] Dr Khalil: But when it’s principles?
[5/7, 11:42 PM] Amer Zafar Durrani: Ours is not, so chill
[5/7, 11:49 PM] Dr Khalil: I do believe in a methodical constitution based on certain principles…
And anything can work when it’s there guiding all the actions all the time, but when it’s used selectively, it’s not there guiding…
So the issue is sincere judges, and not the political judges!
[5/7, 11:54 PM] Saeed Afridi UK: I think issue we face is that there are constitutional PRINCIPLES (which are supposed to be sacrosanct) and then constitutional RULES (which in our case are designed to undermine those principles). This is a colonial legacy where the executive was given the powers to undermine principles whenever the Executive authority thought it was “reasonable” to do so.
[5/7, 11:55 PM] Saeed Afridi UK: In the 1935 India Act the Executive Authority’s interpretation of what is “reasonable” was paramount, above any constitutional principles, and Pakistan reverted back to this travesty in 1973.
[5/7, 11:57 PM] Dr Khalil: … want to understand how you connect it with colonialism…
73 constitution was written more than 20 years after the independent status
[5/7, 11:57 PM] Saeed Afridi UK: Historically Pakistan’s courts have sided with the Executive’s interpretation rather than the Principle of the contitution.
[5/7, 11:59 PM] Dr Khalil: You see my point… sincere judges become a political instrument and they don’t seem to realize that and the danger
[5/8, 12:02 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: I think that is a very optimistic way of looking at the 1973 contitution… This is NOT a new document, but a reworking of the 1935 India Act. The Crown needed to ensure that any “indepedent acts” of the colonial population were still subject to the authority (& interests) of the coloniser. Which is why even basic rights needed to be subject to the wish/whims of the crown. Getting rid of these provisions was a major reason why the constitution took so much time to frame once Pakistan became indepedent. (In India that debate simply did not happen). Both the 1958 & 1962 contitutions bore thr fruits of this debate. However, in 1973 Pakistan reverted BACK to the 1935 India act (where quite a few checks and balances were actually taken away like instittional indepdence)
[5/8, 12:04 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Its quite a revelation that centralised executive authority that the British Parliament thought was “far too draconian” (exact quote) where brought into the 1973 constitution….
[5/8, 12:05 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Ours is not a constitution for an indepedent state … but a colonial state…we simply don’t have a coloniser present 🙂
[5/8, 12:06 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Pak judiciary is NOT an indepdent body checking Executive Authority… it is subject to the Executive’s interpretation of resonable… which makes it political by design
[5/8, 12:07 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: So any judge abiding by the “Principles” of the constitution when they clash with the Rules (as invested in by the Executive) is actually (quite ironically) breaking the constitution 🙂
[5/8, 12:08 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Which is precisely why all earlier attempts to create a Constitutional court were opposed by the Executive (military & civilian)
[5/8, 12:08 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The problem is the System itself… not those acting within it
[5/8, 12:08 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Place the same people in a better designed system & you will see a shift in behaviour
[5/8, 12:08 AM] Dr Khalil: I won’t connect it with colonialism… but with what our politicians wanted…
Years back when I read the 73 constitution… surprised to see that how fundamental rights were curtailed conditioned etc…
As a result I wrote a Charter of Liberty… arguing that they are the core values of the constitution and they must be so.
[5/8, 12:09 AM] Dr Khalil: I don’t subscribe to that View
[5/8, 12:12 AM] Dr Khalil: No … again
[5/8, 12:12 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: It is deeply colonial colonial…. the very fact that the SAME Westminster Parliament that deemed a right that was ‘unconditional’ for an individual in 1930s London … made that same right conditional (subject to any reasonable restrictions) for some one in 1930s Lahore … is a Colonial legacy
[5/8, 12:15 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The Lahori was a different breed of citizen (inferior) in interpretation compared to the Londoner… and despite nominally indepedent for more than 25 years…. was deemed to still be so in 1973
[5/8, 12:15 AM] Dr Khalil: The second point…why don’t the judges and intellectuals, politicians etc don’t realize that constitutional rule is a continuous stream… not like that yesterday it was a constitutional rule, today it’s not and tomorrow again it will be… that creates a Hole from which politics enters…and thus the courts stand politicized
[5/8, 12:17 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: In Pakistan it is not the Judge who decides whether a restriction is “reasonable” but the Executive (case in point the judgements made re the Rlrction Commission) … the judge can only decide if the Executive has the authority in law to place the restriction …. and then must rely on the parlimentary process to decide if that restriction is reasonable or not.
[5/8, 12:18 AM] Dr Khalil: We are humans and don’t see and accept things as they are given to us… it’s human continuity…we can change improve etc things
[5/8, 12:18 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The judge is NOT in a position to check the executive interpretation…
[5/8, 12:18 AM] Dr Khalil: No again
[5/8, 12:19 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Because the seperation of powers is not in fact indepedent of the Executive… again… we saw this exercised throughout the past two years
[5/8, 12:20 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Thats not a VIEW… its a Fact … the 1935 India Act (& the Burma Act) placed this restriction …. while no such restriction was present for British Citizens ….
[5/8, 12:20 AM] Dr Khalil: I witnessed a different history.. the SC acting independently…
Your view doesn’t hold water here …
[5/8, 12:21 AM] Dr Khalil: Not denying that fact…
Questioning its acceptance
[5/8, 12:22 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: It can’t… the constitution does not allow that… its in black & white… the fundamental rights of Pakistan’s citizens, example freedom of assembly, are “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order”… the restriction is placed by the Executive … NOT the judiciary…
[5/8, 12:23 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The Judiciary does NOT have the authority to decide if a restriction is reasonable… it can only request for the Parliament to review said restriction… it can NOT strike it down
[5/8, 12:23 AM] Dr Khalil: Not denying that… questioning it
[5/8, 12:24 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: By reintroducing this in 1973 (taken away under 58 & 62) Pakistan reverted back to the Colonial
[5/8, 12:24 AM] Amer Zafar Durrani: This discourse is worthy of documenting and penning on the reasons to rewrite or simply shelve the constitution of Pakistan
[5/8, 12:24 AM] Dr Khalil: PIL orgs may question that in the courts
[5/8, 12:25 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: You are right to question it… it is not suited to an independent state… where the Judiciary should decide if the action taken by the Executive is/was reasonable….
[5/8, 12:26 AM] Dr Khalil: But you know it’s always the politicians who write the constitution… not the executive.. it uses misuses it
[5/8, 12:26 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: This is the basic principle behind the judiciary signing off on a warrant … the Executive institution has to ‘make its case’ before a judge who then decides if teh restriction warrants an intervention on a basic constitutional right
[5/8, 12:27 AM] Dr Khalil: Yes that’s so
[5/8, 12:27 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: By taking this away from the Judiciary and giving it to the Executive (under 1973) the constitution made the Rules sacrosanct rather than teh principle
[5/8, 12:29 AM] Dr Khalil: Again it’s the politicians who days after approving the 73 constitution imposed the emergency…. and it remained there for years…it was ZAB and co
[5/8, 12:30 AM] Dr Khalil: Don’t the judges realize that?
[5/8, 12:31 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The problem we have is that the System itself is designed to govern a Colony …. we have simply given it some additional bells & whistles… The Politicians did not debate & frame a constittution (like they did for 1958)… they signed off on a re-worked framework of the 1935 India Act
[5/8, 12:31 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: That is why the Executive (taking the place of the Crown’s representative) has perpetually exercised authority OVER the constitution…rather than subject to it
[5/8, 12:32 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Most do… but as I stated before… siding with the principles of the constitution AGAINST the rules is actually unconstitutional under the 1935 India Act
[5/8, 12:33 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Judges in Colonies were not supposed to challenge the crown’s Executive Authority
[5/8, 12:34 AM] Dr Khalil: What’s the need of putting all the blame on the system design…
Are not there actors.. involved in it?
They must be spotted
[5/8, 12:34 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Judges were subject to Crown’s patronage…. By reverting to the same system in 1973… Pakistan revived the practice…and teh judiciary answered to its patron… whether poltical or military
[5/8, 12:35 AM] Dr Khalil: In Pakistan, they have been…
[5/8, 12:35 AM] Dr Khalil: Now you taking another position…give and take between judges and the politicians
[5/8, 12:36 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Judges only challenge the executive in Pakistan when their patron is NOT the executive… example Bandial vis a vis Military… Isa/Ifitikhar vis a vis Nawaz Sharif
[5/8, 12:36 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: its not give and take… its patronage
[5/8, 12:37 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: When Pakistan was a colony… the patronage was exclusive to the Crown which was the single unchallenged Executive …. once the Crown left … the Exective changed and the patronage shifted too
[5/8, 12:38 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: the systemic framework remained… but the actors changed positions
[5/8, 12:38 AM] Dr Khalil: Not the case.. exactly…now they are questioning the military etc … though their motives are political and not judicial
[5/8, 12:39 AM] Dr Khalil: Not so simple…there is a pattern…that snacks of a give and take
[5/8, 12:39 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: I would argue the motive is subject to patronage…. The same military would be challenged when it acts against the Judge’s patron…. but not challenged if the Military acted in collusion with the Judge’s patron ….. and if the Military
iself is the judge’s patron then it wont be challeneged at all
[5/8, 12:40 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: The problem is the systemic inclusion of patronage ….
[5/8, 12:41 AM] Dr Khalil: Again not inclined to buy that view in toto …. it’s the memory of the people lived at that time that that was when the Indians saw what’s rule of law
[5/8, 12:41 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: I would be very surprised if Isa’s current position would be the same if the recipient of Military’s excesses was Nawaz rather than Imran Khan…. similarly..had the Steel Mill privatisation been a Nawaz act.. Iftikhar would not have struck it down
[5/8, 12:42 AM] Dr Khalil: That’s like an easier way to explain it
[5/8, 12:43 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Its not the fault of either judge… the system design makes their actions in line with the patron… without that oatron they would not be in the position they hold
[5/8, 12:43 AM] Dr Khalil: I see a tussle there… least of anything like patronage
[5/8, 12:44 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: That is why the System itself needs redesign… blaming individual judgeslike Isa, Bandial, Iftikhar etc might be cathartic but does not go to the root
[5/8, 12:44 AM] Dr Khalil: I’m talking issues… without naming
[5/8, 12:45 AM] Dr Khalil: No evidence….
[5/8, 12:46 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: You cant have a colonial system and then expect individuals to act independent
[5/8, 12:47 AM] Dr Khalil: Though I don’t reject this view totally… but for the sake of clarification… redesign from within or from without
[5/8, 12:47 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: Redesigns are always from without…. reform is from within
[5/8, 12:48 AM] Dr Khalil: I don’t blame and don’t mind colonialism…I’m an independent soul… criticality seeing judging things…
[5/8, 12:48 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: its about revisiting the principles and the intitial conditions…. you can not reform a colonial system into an indepdent one…
[5/8, 12:49 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: ou can reform a bad colonial system into a ‘better’ colonial system… but not an independent one
[5/8, 12:49 AM] Dr Khalil: That’s it… I think it can be reformed from within… and I always argue from that standpoint
[5/8, 12:50 AM] Dr Khalil: Again… sorry… it’s not a colonial system… it’s a system we designed
[5/8, 12:50 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: One of teh things I often repeat is that you can not reform/evolve a bad system into a good system… the best you can do is reform/evolve a
bad system into a BETTER bad system
[5/8, 12:51 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: If you want a good system… then you have to at least start with a badly run good system…
[5/8, 12:51 AM] Saeed Afridi UK: That again is not a view point… but a fact
[5/8, 12:53 AM] Dr Khalil: It’s not black and white… you know…a system is never bad or good in absolute terms… therein lies the hope that a bad system can be transformed…and a good system can be improved
[5/8, 12:54 AM] Dr Khalil: Historical facts are subject to various interpretations and thus views
[5/8, 1:01 AM] Dr Khalil: @Saeed Afridi UK
Thanks for a considerate exchange
—
Compiled on July 19, 2024