Dangerous Game Start | Establishment Angry | The Economist Trolling Caretaker’s | Samina Pasha

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.
Assalamu Alaikum, I am Asadullah Khan.
The Economist seems to have started playing with the emotions of Murtaza Solangi.
Ever since Murtaza Solangi tweeted for The Economist,
The Economist has repeatedly taken clips or paragraphs from Imran Khan’s article and started posting them again and again.
And The Economist posts one after every few minutes.
And The Economist is getting a very good response.
There are thousands of retweets and hundreds of thousands of impressions.
So, obviously, any public institution would like to have as many readers as possible.
So, The Economist’s tweets and articles are getting more and more published.
They are reaching more and more people.
And every now and then, he takes out a part of it and posts it.
And it seems that The Economist has made it an issue.
And it seems that he is posting it again and again.
Murtaza Solangi should take back his tweets.
And he should say that he made a mistake in his opinion.
And he should admit his mistake because he is not able to answer it.
The mistake he made in his opinion is not being justified.
Shehzad Iqbal asked a very good question in his program.
And the answer that Shehzad Iqbal asked is not being justified.
It is a very interesting clip.
I would like to discuss two or three things with you in this video.
First, the election commission has given a very bad response on the level playing field.
And they have demanded that Tariq-e-Ansar’s petition should be returned with a fine.
Let’s share that.
Let’s share that.
An interesting document of Maryam Nawaz has come out.
She has told us how much she has spent for 18 days in Switzerland.
There are two or three other things.
Tariq-e-Ansar has brought a major change in his policy.
What is the purpose of this?
I will share all these things with you.
But first, see this.
Murtaza Solangi’s interview with Shehzad Iqbal.
See this small clip.
Shehzad Iqbal’s opinion is that if a person is convicted and is in jail, his article cannot be published.
And you are going to ask questions to economists.
But we have seen that on 21st October, Nawaz Sharif comes back to this country.
All the private channels have covered him.
His speech was shown.
Before that, he was in London.
Even then, his press conference was going on.
PTV has properly covered that Jalsa.
And said that his headline was that Nawaz Sharif’s victory has been written.
So at that time, as an information minister, you were not in a position that a person is convicted.
So how is his Jalsa being published?
His press conference is being published.
You were not in this position at that time.
See, the thing is that the conviction, there are a lot of things about it.
For example, what is the allegation on whom?
What is the conviction on whom?
That also matters.
This decision will be made by the courts.
No minister will sit with Maazat or PTV that his allegation seems weak to us.
If his conviction is weak, then we show it.
If someone’s conviction seems strong, then we don’t show it.
This decision is being made by the courts.
No TV channel will do it.
All the private channels have shown Nawaz Sharif.
No camera has taken notice of it.
Nor did you receive any tweet that why are you showing a criminal?
Yes, the courts have made the decision and you have seen it.
That has happened later.
When he came on 21st October, there was no decision at that time.
Yes, even at that time, his punishment was death penalty.
Yes, Imran Khan’s punishment is also death penalty.
But there are a lot of serious charges on him and he is not a free citizen and he is not on bail.
And the court did not give him any facility which was given to Nawaz Sharif.
The judge had said that until there is no conviction, the person is innocent.
And the conviction of the former chairman was not overturned.
Nawaz Sharif’s conviction was also overturned.
Anyway, thank you very much.
This is Mr. Murtaza Solangi.
Once I asked Mufti Qifayatullah.
I said to him that you say in the constitution that there should not be a protest.
There should not be a dispute.
I said that there should not be a protest.
There should not be a dispute.
I said to him that you say in the constitution that there should not be a protest.
There should not be a dispute.
You yourself have protested in the constitution.
You yourself have protested in the constitution.
You yourself are doing it.
He said, look, Asadullah, the thing is that the intention is seen.
If a person is protesting against 144, then the police will see that a person is coming from the mosque after offering prayers.
Or someone is coming with a dagger.
If someone is coming after offering prayers, then the police will release him.
He said that the intention of the police is seen.
The police have the power.
A rule has been told to him that 144 is this.
Similarly, there is conviction.
Whether it is Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan.
Conviction is conviction.
Now he is saying that conviction has to be seen who is more serious and who is less serious.
Then he says that Nawaz Sharif was released by the court.
He did it later.
Shahzad Iqbal pointed out the right questions.
And I think he kept shying away.
He had no answer.
With Murtah Solangi.
Although he himself was an analyst, a journalist.
And he worked on important issues.
But you saw that he presented a very weak position.
And in the end, when nothing happened, he repeated his position.
That this is different, that was different.
So the criticism of the economist has become very expensive.
Now look, the matter is that.
The request made by the Judiciary about the level playing field.
It has been answered by the Election Commission and the Chief Secretary of Punjab.
Now what is the Election Commission answering?
The Election Commission is answering.
That the allegations of not providing the level playing field of the Judiciary are rejected.
The Election Commission has demanded that the request of the Judiciary be accepted with a fine.
I will tell you that later.
The Supreme Court has met with the Judiciary.
He is saying this in his answer.
He says that the Judiciary was not convinced to provide a level playing field in the meeting.
Guidance was also issued to the IJs of all four branches on behalf of the Election Commission.
By December 26, 33 complaints were filed all over the country on behalf of the Judiciary.
Guidance and details have also been provided to the Supreme Court on the complaints of the Judiciary.
On the complaint of the Judiciary, the IJs, the Chief Secretary and the ROs have also submitted the following reports.
We reject the allegations of not providing the level playing field in the context of the ROs’ report.
According to the data, 598 out of 843 papers were accepted from the Judiciary National Assembly.
And 245 papers were rejected.
1398 out of 1777 were accepted for the Judiciary National Assembly.
And 389 papers were rejected.
389.
It is not easy to reject 389 papers.
And 245 papers were rejected from the Judiciary National Assembly.
In reality, only 245 people fight.
Yes, there are only a few.
There are only 266 people.
In reality, only 245 people fight.
So, if you reject the papers of the real fighters, what will be left behind?
76% of the papers of the Judiciary National Assembly were accepted.
I do not consider this situation to be correct either.
The reason for this is that how do they know that the Judiciary National Assembly was expected?
How do they know that 76% of the papers of the Judiciary National Assembly were accepted?
How do they know?
It was written on someone’s face that this is the Judiciary National Assembly.
Even the free candidates have done it.
And who knows who will fight for freedom and who will fight on behalf of the Judiciary National Assembly.
So, this is a fake data.
And the Election Commission is saying that we have given an order for the level playing field to the Supreme Court.
We issued the order.
They also replied.
Compliance was done.
Everything is fine.
If you look at the document, you will find the last line.
In view of the above, it is humbly requested that the contempt petition is without any substance and may be dismissed with cost.
Return this request by imposing a fine.
And the interesting aspect of this answer is that it has been submitted by Dr. Syed Asif Hussain, who is the special secretary of the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Not by Umar Hameed.
Yesterday, our friend, Mr. Fahim Akhtar, gave a news.
He said that there has been a fight between the Secretary and the Chief Election Commissioner.
And according to the information, Umar Hameed Khan has left the office.
This is the reason.
Today, this news is confirmed.
This is the reason that today the answer should have come from the Secretary Election Commission.
It did not come from him.
In fact, it came from Syed Asif Hussain, who is the special secretary of the Election Commission.
So, this is the confirmation of this.
Then the Chief Secretary has also submitted his answer.
The answer given by the Chief Secretary of Punjab is also a kind of homeopathic, which the Chief Justice himself says that it is a word.
This is English.
It is a word.
It is not a substance.
As they say that the government of Punjab is ready to take all measures for the free and transparent elections.
This is such a sentence that will work in all fields.
Then the instructions from the Election Commission have been sent to all the DROs for implementation.
Yes, our responsibility has been fulfilled.
The Election Commission has sent us.
I have sent the DROs.
Instructions have been sent to DROs and other officials so that all candidates can submit their nomination papers without fear.
It is said that the nomination papers have been instructed to take strict action against those who obstruct the process.
It has not been instructed.
It has been instructed that if someone obstructs, then the action should be taken strictly against him.
But what action has been taken against those who obstructed?
This is not what they said in response.
According to Article 220, all the Deputy Commissioners have been instructed to fully cooperate with the Election Commission for free and transparent elections.
So, what is this answer?
It has been said.
It has been instructed.
It has been told ahead.
This is our job.
We have done it.
Now, who has to implement it?
No one is ready to give an answer to this.
So, this strange and strange answer has been given by them.
From the Election Commission as well.
And more than that, it is mentioned by the Secretary of the Election Commission.
This statement is from the Secretary of Punjab.
Okay.
Now, you see one more thing.
Yes.
Let’s come to Pakistan Tariq-e-Insaf.
Pakistan Tariq-e-Insaf has changed its strategy.
Yesterday, we were seeing a lot of criticism in the courts.
But the senior lawyers of the party are sitting.
They have held a press conference.
And they have also made Sher Afzal Marwad sit.
And they have said that we have complete trust in the courts.
Sher Afzal Marwad has also said that yes, I am standing with Mr. Gauhar.
And he is saying that if we have trust, then we have trust.
Otherwise, I had sent a message to Mr. Khan.
Pakistan Tariq-e-Insaf’s point of view in this is that it is obvious that the case of the bullet mark is going to go to the Supreme Court.
Tariq-e-Insaf does not want to leave any gap from its side.
It does not want to give any opportunity.
Tariq-e-Insaf wants us to go and express our complete trust and ask for a mark from this court.
And say that we should be given the bullet mark.
So, since all the cases are important to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, I think that Mr. Tariq-e-Insaf does not want to go into any kind of dispute or tension with the Supreme Court.
And they have prepared this case.
So that at least they get a big decision like the bullet mark.
And this is what they are taking to the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Mr. Tariq-e-Insaf has also issued a notification.
And has said that these five people have the right to give the party statement.
Mr. Gauhar Ali Khan, who was also the chairman till now.
Mr. Ayub Khan, Mr. Tariq-e-Insaf, Mr. Shibli Faraz, Mr. Rao Fasan, Mr. Talat and Mr. Shoaib Shaheen.
All of them have the right to give the party’s policy statement.
And Sher Afzal Marwad was not included in this.
So, Sher Afzal Marwad will obviously work on another issue.
Their responsibilities are different.
And their responsibilities are also very important.
So, they were not given this responsibility that they have to give the party’s policy and statement.
So, I think that Mr. Tariq-e-Insaf has made a slight change or a strategy in his opinion.
Because of which they are expecting that they will benefit.
Okay, let’s see.
I told you yesterday or the day before yesterday that the documents that Ms. Maria Nawaz has collected.
That in her documents, she has mentioned her property.
Which is not only in London, but also in Punjab.
1,500 acres of land and property worth 84 crore rupees and assets.
And in that, the cars that she had received from the prince or the Arab princes.
She deleted them.
I also showed you a document about them.
In which they said that I got this car as a gift.
Then they said that the price of this car has increased so much that it has become cheap.
Now they have said that this car does not belong to me.
I don’t know if they sold the car or what they did.
Anyway, no car belongs to them.
And now a document of Ms. Maria Nawaz has come to light.
That which of her properties she went to.
Now it is written in it that she went to Switzerland for a surgery.
This was her 18-day tour.
And the expense of 18 days is 53,000 rupees.
Now a lot of people have made a lot of memes on it.
They have also made a lot of comments.
And people say that we will die if we go for a day.
It costs 50,000 rupees.
So how did she spend 53,000 rupees in 18 days in Switzerland?
Anyway, the conditions have been accepted.
See Najib, those who have to be accepted, then they are accepted.
No one can stop them.
No matter what kind of form they fill.
And on the other hand, if they put obstacles, then they are put.
The last thing is that for Mr. Bilawal Bhutto, there is a rally in Lahore today.
Carpet was laid in the street, sir.
Those streets where the gutters keep boiling all the time.
There are dirty streets.
The party wanted to show Mr. Bilawal what kind of challenges he is facing in the area.
And what is the situation of the streets in this area.
There, the carpet was laid upside down.
Mr. Bilawal is walking on the carpet towards the Jalsa Gah.
And the most surprising thing is that even Bilawal did not refuse.
I am a public figure.
I am a representative of the rule of the people.
And that rule of the people Bhutto, who is mentioned in every speech.
Mr. Bhutto used to pick up a pot and drink water while walking.
So that he can tell that I am a public figure.
And Benazir Bhutto used to hug the women of Sindh and express that I am one of you.
But here a carpet was laid in the street for Mr. Bilawal.
What will be the effect of this on their campaign?
What will be the effect on the people?
People get more upset with such actions.
In the days of the election, people put it from the chest.
They hug the people who are sweating.
They don’t care.
And they get into the mud.
They get into the water.
They don’t care.
And they think that this is the day to tell people that we are like you.
And when you lay a carpet in the street for such a leader and let him pass.
Then people will be more upset.
Nothing else will happen.
Give permission.
Allah Hafiz.