President Asif Ali Zardari's grip on power is increasingly under threat from opposition lawmakers and elements within the powerful military who want him to resign or divest powers to the prime minister and take on a ceremonial role. Opinion polls show him to be desperately unpopular 15 months into a five-year term.
His presidency suffered another blow Saturday when an amnesty protecting him, several key allies and thousands of other officials from graft prosecution expired. While he enjoys immunity from prosecution as president, opponents could now go to the Supreme Court to challenge his eligibility for office.
Adding to a sense of a government under siege, Taliban militants have unleashed a surge of suicide bombings in recent weeks in response to an army offensive into one of their strongholds close to the Afghan border, killing hundreds of people.
The nuclear-armed country's Western backers had hoped Zardari and the civilian government he leads would usher in political stability after the chaos that marked the end of the nine-year tenure of his predecessor, military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Zardari took the presidency months after his wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was killed in a suicide bombing at the end of 2007.
A major factor in his unpopularity are the many presidential powers he took from Musharraf, who staged a 1999 military coup and resigned last year amid nationwide protests. Among the most important are the authority to fire an elected government and appoint top military chiefs.
On Friday, Zardari transferred another Musharraf-era power — the command of the country's nuclear arsenal — to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. The move, which had no impact on nuclear security, was seen as an attempt to allay some of his critics within the military by giving up some authority.
Shahbaz Sharif, the brother of main opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and chief minister of Pakistan's largest province, Punjab, said Zardari should act to now to transfer the other powers to the prime minister, noting that the president had already promised to do so.
"The nation would appreciate this act," Sharif told reporters Sunday.
Late Sunday, Zardari said he would make an announcement "soon" on changes to the constitution needed to divest those powers, but the statement gave no specifics. He already promised at least twice give up some of his authority to the prime minister since taking office.
He also took a swipe at his critics, saying the democratically elected government "was being subjected to a vicious campaign to tarnish its image by the remnants of dictatorship."
The political upheaval comes as President Barack Obama's administration is expected to announce this week a new strategy for defeating the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan and on Pakistan's northwestern border. To have much hope of success, the U.S needs a stable Pakistani government committed to fighting militants blamed for attacks in both countries.
Pakistan's original constitution envisages a parliamentary style of government in which a popularly elected prime minister is the chief executive and the president is a ceremonial head of state. But Musharraf, who was widely despised when he stood down, accumulated powers to stay in office.
Shabaz Sharif did not repeat a remark by one opposition lawmaker on Saturday calling on Zardari to resign, neither did he call for anti-government street rallies, perhaps wary of pushing the country into chaos and paving the way for more military rule.
Some analysts have said they believe opposition leader Nawaz Sharif — whom opinion polls show to be the most popular politician in the country by far — would prefer to wait for national elections that he is seen likely as winning than join any movement to push Zardari out. Such a drive would likely require the support of the army, which has had uneasy relations with Sharif in the past.
That reluctance could help Zardari complete his term so long as he takes on a ceremonial role, analysts say, especially given that impeaching him looks all but impossible because the party he heads is the largest in parliament.
Zardari, 54, has long been haunted by corruption allegations dating back to governments led by his late wife, Bhutto.
He denies any wrongdoing. He spent several years in prison under previous administrations in connection with the allegations which he says were politically motivated.
Since taking office, the president has found himself locked in a power struggle with the powerful military, which sees defense policy and relations with India and Afghanistan as its responsibility despite being nominally under civilian control.
Military chiefs have objected to his friendly overtures toward India and his acceptance of a multibillion dollar U.S. aid bill that came with conditions they feared imposed controls over the army. Pakistan's president told to give up powers By CHRIS BRUMMITT (AP) – Associated Press writer Asif Shahzad contributed to this report
The cost of the war has been a sticking point for Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned last week, "There is serious unrest in our caucus about, 'Can we afford this war?' "
The timing was just right, The Obama Administration has been taking a beating like a piñata from Congress and from the Republicans in general. The victims were at least two Democratic governors including the electorally important state of New Jersey. The Afghan war is going horribly for President Obama, and he is ready to announce some major decisions in the lost war and how to go about face saving gestures “after the battle is lost and won and the hurly burly is done”. The only wise American general in Kabul is unfortunately not wearing the American military uniform—he is running the role of Ambassador and “Save-the-royal-ass-of-Obama-in-Chief”. Fortunately, the words of the US Ambassador in Kabul may outweigh the general who is wearing the US uniform—General McChrystal who is playing the role of “I-wanna-be-just-like-my-defeated-generals-in-Vietnam” and keep asking for more troops. 
What President Obama didn’t announce publicly in front of the Bharati prime Minister was the fact that it was Islamabad that was saving America’s butt in Afghanistan and saving it from the sling by stitching together a face-saving mask for America and NATO. If it weren’t for the Pakistanis, the Obama one term presidency would be singing goodbye to a Democratic victory in the next elections.
It in these circumstances that Mr. Manmohan Singh was gulping down his Red and Blue label on ice. Like Cindrella he was anxiously looking at the clock and hoping that midnight would not come soon. he wa wondering how much time will the Bhartis have to pack their bags once the Yanks have left Afghanistan. he was wondering, why he coudl not have been the recpient of the Nobel Peace prize. If it weren’t for the Pakistanis, and their obdurate obsession with Kashmir, he could have struck a deal with them and visited Oslo—now it was back tot he grind doing the chores for Sonia and being bombarded by the BJP and the RSS. While sucking a red Label soaked ice cubes, he was wondering why he hated these foreign trips—as much as he tried, he never relished the jjourney back home where he would be roasted in the Lok Sabha.
I think it is time that Mumbai was made a Union Territory. Industrially and commercially, it is the hub of India’s financial activity. Delhi is a Union Territory because it is the centre of the country’s political activity. Why should Mumbai, which is India’s financial capital, have a different status? 
If nothing else, the contribution by ‘outsiders’ should shut up the Shiv Sena and its ilk, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, that they are a burden on Mumbai or that the jobs in the state should be given to Maharashtrians alone. This pernicious thesis, the son-of-the-soil articulation, was advanced by many states, including Maharashtra, before the Fazl Ali States Reorganisation Commission in 1955. It firmly rejected the various claims and held: “It is the Union of India that is the basis of our nationality.” In its report, the Commission said that “it (Bombay) has acquired its present commanding position by the joint endeavour of the different language groups”. 
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took a fancy to the idea of keeping Bombay apart. He pushed it when Maharashtra and Gujarat were agitating against the commission’s recommendation to integrate them into one bilingual state. Nehru presented before the cabinet a proposal to have three units: Maharashtra, Gujarat and the city of Bombay. The then finance minister, C.D. Deshmukh, agreed to the formula in the cabinet. But he changed his stand following the furore in Maharashtra and submitted his resignation. Bombay was made part of Maharashtra. 
After the formation of states, it was understood that the regional language could be learnt after the recruitment. But now its knowledge has been made compulsory before a person is eligible for the job. This is making state services an exclusive preserve of the majority language group of the state. 
In the late 1950s, the southern states felt that they were not getting their share. There were agitations and public rallies. Nehru was quick to convenethe National Integration Conference to discuss the various grievances. The conference appointed many committees to give their recommendations on how to bring about national integration. 
