During the week 11-17 November 2002, on the internal front, the continuing deadlock over the formation of a government and the success of the MMA were two main issues of discussion in the English media.

  Commenting on the MMA agenda to ban co-education, Dr Farzana Bari wrote in The News, (“Showing the real face,” 11 November 2002) “the notion of sex segregation in Muslim World is purely ideological and false and does not correspond with gender realities. Women from the Muslim World have always been active in production processes in the public arena. The majority of women among seventy percent rural population in Pakistan work on the fields in a non sex segregated environment.” Further, Dr Bari questions “If MMA wants to establish sex-segregation through abolishing co-education, then they must stop women to work on the fields and in factories where they work along with men in the public space. The MMA must also do something to stop women to perform Haj which they do side by side with men. While the MMA wants to abolish co-education, how would they justify to sit with women in the parliament. There will be representation of 72 women in the parliament and 133 women in the provincial assemblies.”

  Daily Times, in its editorial (“Bin Laden’s anniversary message,” 15 November 2002) on the controversial message of Osama bin Laden, telecast recently by the Al Jazeera TV, commented “The cause of Osama bin Laden will not flourish because it has no intellectual foundation. Its appeal to Islam is bogus because the kind of bloodthirsty boasting Osama bin Laden indulges in is unforgivable in Islam. Muslims all over the world may feel aggrieved for a number of reasons, and may even feel that much of their pain comes from the conduct of the Western powers towards them, but they don’t think like Osama bin Laden. A large number of them have settled in the very societies that he attacks. In fact a large number of Muslims, including Pakistanis, died when the World Trade Center was destroyed by him in 2001. He has participated in the Muslim-kills-Muslim war in Afghanistan and got the Tajik leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, assassinated. He has contributed to the instability and disorder in Pakistan in collaboration with the Taliban government that refused to hand over to Pakistan the terrorists who faced trials for killings inside Pakistan. He has to answer for much more than just the attacks he has enlisted in his message.”

  In an article on the elections in Turkey, Roedad Khan tries to answer the question, that is baffling many security analysts. “Why is political Islam now so resurgent in many Muslim countries?.” According to him, (“Turkey’s fateful choice,” Dawn, 11 November 2002), “the answer lies in part in the failure of the existing political systems to address the basic economic and social problems - poverty, inequality, rampart corruption, injustice. It is this failure that has made Islam the only available choice for billions of Muslims in the Islamic world.” He also continued, “Nationalist parties in the Islamic world are weak and thoroughly discredited. The left is in disarray. Liberal democrats cannot even muster enough supporters to stage a demonstration in any Muslim capital. Like it or not, therefore, various forms of Islamism will be the dominant intellectual current in the Islamic world for a long time to come - and the process is still in its infancy. Islam, not the scholastic, institutionalized, fossilized Islam co-opted by authoritarian rulers, but the true, dynamic, pristine, revolutionary Islam of its early years, is perceived by the elite as the greatest threat to established order in the Islamic world.” Thus Roedad Khan raises important question, which also needs further research, especially on the failure of nationalist parties in Islamic world.

  On the political deadlock in Pakistan, The News in its editorial (“National government,” 12 November 2002) commented that, “The solution for ending the present political impasse is not to set up a national government…(It) is obviously meant to make the passage of the highly controversial amendments and LFO easier… it will also at the same time negate the very concept of a National Assembly with treasury and opposition benches and healthy debate.”

  Dr Moonis Ahmar, writing on three important possibilities (“A new political culture in offing?” The News, 12 November 2002) predicts that “the emergence of religious alliance as a powerful force in NWFP and Balochistan means that the two provinces of Pakistan will have a political culture different from the mainstream Punjab and Sindh…Second, Pakistan's political culture will not undergo any substantial change because the establishment, both military and bureaucratic, will make sure that if power is transferred to religious elements in NWFP and in Balochistan (in coalition with some other party) then their authority is curtailed and they are not allowed to implement their cultural agenda… Third, the so-called secular-cum-Islamic forces which include PPPP, PML(Q), PML(N) and MQM are also not interested in changing the political culture in which people will have a voice and the real issues will be taken up instead of personal or vested interests.”

  On the present deadlock, The News, in its editorial (“NA session,” 15 November 2002) commented, “the search for a government would not have become a virtual quest for the Holy Grail if the political parties were allowed to settle the issue along themselves without let or hindrance. The overt and covert moves to improve the chances of the king's party, like the proposal to lift the ban on the floor crossing and requiring the independents to join the political parties exacerbated the political confusion, creating doubt and uncertainty. This growing distrust is at its worst when the coalescing parties start dividing the plums of office among themselves.”