Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do

I don`t respond to nonsense- thats what I say.

I will await Harish hyd`s response since Harish has on occasion shown that he can rise above his biases and be fairminded enough to acknowledge when he is wrong.

Thanks for the discussion…wherever it has gone…

Since everyone here has now watched the Musharraf interview or read the transcript, I repeat: He has been upfront, creative, and has made unthinkable offers.

1. He agreed to have “joint management” of Azad Kashmir if the Indian government plays ball re. the Valley. He has spoken clearly about a medium between autonomy and independence. “Self governance”. And he has emphatically stated that the Kashmiris would be involved in the talks, something that they have always emphasised.

2. Those who are going “bah, how could he be so petty about Ayaz Amir?” the reason was that he was asked about his editorial. It was flashed at him. I think the fact that all the newspapers that were quoted during the interview were critical of him should tell us that there is freedom of press in Pakistan…something even I was not quite sure about! Besides, leaders are known to not like writers critical of them. And if you guys think someone can hold an anti-establishment point of view re. his country and it is fine, please cut this writer some slack too...the gesture will be much appreciated.

3. It must be noted that a good deal of criticism he gets in his country is because he makes “concessions to India”. How about that?

4. Why the insistence that we have every right to be worried about Baluchistan? How would we react if the Pakistan government started issuing statements about Mizos and Nagas? Why were we silent about Baluchistan all this while?

Individually, people may have opinions and connections and could be concerned, but not as a government policy.

Some interactors can get away with their connections and history; others have to be baited for “quami” sympathies.

There are Bush sympathisers, Blair sympathisers…and that seems okay. What peace initiative can we even hope for when regular people have such opinions and we have to ‘hate’ to be legitimised?

5. If Musharraf has said in the past that his is a “democratic dictatorship”, there is nothing “obscene” about it (well, it is less obscene at least than wondering about who gets off watching Jinnah’s photograph). The term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ is common parlance and has been used often as a valid political credo. Besides, let us not go overboard with what constitutes a practising democracy.

Not when we have words thrown at people about appeasement and states running wild to curb the rights of populations.

6. In the past, the democratically-elected leadership of Pakistan has done precious little for peace with India. BB was the one who talked about wounding India with a thousand cuts; Nawaz Sharif masterminded Kargil (Musharraf was the general); and have you heard any of the aspiring democrats say anything about peace with India?

7. About asking him to hand over Dawood Ibrahim…certainly…but when the don was frolicking in Dubai for years and giving interviews, nobody had that bright idea? And how about adding Chhota Rajan, his former henchman and now great don in his own right, added to the list? Remember how once he broke away from the D company he was being hailed as a “Hindu hero”?

It may not have been the common person, but people who matter were playing his game.

Today he and Dawood want to control Mumbai. Everyone knows how these things work. And I have brought this up here because Dawood was mentioned and terrorism is also about this.

Besides, I clearly demarcate between how the System and the individuals of a group respond to events; I think you should do the same. That is the reason I put in the footnote.

PS: Good to know that a couple of people did get the “peace do” double entendre.

Before we rush to give credibility and peace to Mr Mushy let`s hear out what his own countrymen think about him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pakistan has finally and rather bluntly named India as the fomenter of trouble in Balochistan. President Pervez Musharraf accused India in an interview on the CNN-IBN TV channel of arming and financing militants in Balochistan: “There are a lot of indications, lot of financial support, support in kind being given to those who are anti-government, anti-me and to those feudal people who are anti-national.” He said he was “annoyed” and “disappointed” by the Indian government’s “statements and actions” in Balochistan, but hoped that “this would not hurt the peace process between Pakistan and India”.

India, on the other hand, has rejected the Pakistani allegations of interference and also snubbed President Musharraf’s “invitation” to the Indian prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, to come and see the cricket matches. Pakistan’s information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, added to the rejoinder to India by saying on Friday that “good relations with neighbours have kept Pakistan from making public evidence of the involvement of foreign countries in the Balochistan insurgency. We have evidence that foreign countries are involved, but we don’t want to spoil the good relations.” This implied that there were more than one “foreign” country involved in the Balochistan crisis.

While an exaggerated sense of “external” threat will not do Pakistan any good, what is happening internally is quite heart-breaking. It also points to the gradual isolation of the PML government and President Musharraf. As the facts on the ground were disputed between the government and the rebellious Baloch leaders, a Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) team on its way to Dera Bugti was allegedly shot at by “security personnel” to prevent a neutral observer from finding out what was actually going on. The HRCP cars were photographed from Multan to Dera Ghazi Khan by what appeared to be “security personnel”. As the convoy approached the Balochistan border, a man beamed a torch at the HRCP officials’ car and then two gunmen sprayed bullets around it, being careful not to actually hit it.

While this was going on, President Musharraf was on the telephone line to the exiled leader of the MQM, Altaf Hussain, swearing that military action in Balochistan was not an “operation” and that there would be no operation in Balochistan. The MQM — which is a PML ally and has its governor in Sindh — had given an ultimatum to quit the government if the “operation” in Balochistan is not stopped. Was the Indian “interference” gambit used to get the MQM to relent? In Lahore, the chief minister imposed Section 144 to prevent an ARD protest rally from taking place. (Nawab Akbar Bugti’s Jamhoori Watan Party is a member of the ARD.) There seems to be more to the situation than meets the eye.

As far as the question of “Indian interference” is concerned, this has been brewing since the installation of the new political order in Afghanistan and the restoration of the Indian consulates there. But as recently as November 2005, the PML government was not willing to say if RAW was involved. GEO’s Kamran Khan had announced last November that the Karachi PIDC bombing was not traced to any religious or jihadi organisation but to the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) which was connected through the Indian consulates in Afghanistan to RAW. He then called on former Balochistan police IG, Shoaib Sadal, to confirm it. But Mr Sadal did not do that, saying instead that in the past the BLA had been funded and activated by Baloch sardars in exile. On November 17, Kamran Khan called on Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao to confirm that India’s RAW was involved in the Karachi bombing; but Sherpao insisted he had no proof.

No one outside Pakistan (or even outside Punjab) is going to believe Islamabad’s story. It is clear that the government doesn’t care whether a neutral witness confirms if its claim. President Musharraf’s growing isolation within the country, coupled with his waning credibility in foreign capitals, is going to compound the problems faced by Pakistan. This is the juncture where Islamabad should pause and meditate a bit more on the wisdom of the divisive policies it is pursuing.

Source: Daily Times
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#210,

Pakis hate him because he`s so naive in his dealings with India. Take for instance `3 cities` plan. No one in Pak believes it`ll work and they think it`s defacto acceptance of Paki role in terrorism.

I will anyday bank on democrats like BB, MQM, NS whoever.

Regs

#210 by FarzanaVersey on January 10, 2006 5:24am PT


Since everyone here has now watched the Musharraf interview or read the transcript, I repeat: He has been upfront, creative, and has made unthinkable offers.


He has been upfront in his desire to ask on a platter what he couldn`t win in repeated wars and insurgencies...F for creativity...


3. It must be noted that a good deal of criticism he gets in his country is because he makes “concessions to India”. How about that?


What concession? Instead of asking for the whole of Jammu and Kashmir(which he couldn`t win in the war he launched), he`s asking for the Kashmir valley?


please cut this writer some slack too...the gesture will be much appreciated.


Oh you poor persecuted writer, you...Luckily you haven`t been given the shaheen sehbai treatment..how`s that for slack?


There are Bush sympathisers, Blair sympathisers


And you are an Islamist sympathizer...If the Islamist taliban blow up the buddhas, you are on their side..if the saudis don`t let women vote or drive, you`re on their side..


Nawaz Sharif masterminded Kargil (Musharraf was the general);


Sure..Musharraf was just following orders..cause we all know the paki army never does anything on it`s own without being told to do so by the civilians in power..wonder why the army chief who was subservient to the civilian authority in May of 99 suddenly wasn`t in october of 99.

I`m auctioning off Haji ali..I can let you have it cheap...

re: HP

Thanks, for the correction!

Ciao

Can anyone on this board actually outline the `concessions` that Musharraf / Pakistan has granted to India on the J&K issue? I dont see any concessions at all. All CBMs today (including free trade or movement of people) benefit people of both countries.

Right from Day 1, Pakistan`s expectations on Kashmir has been unrealistic. It has tried various means - war, terrorism, supporting secessionists, internationalisation, roping in the OIC, pleading with US to mediate etc, all to no avail. It is now coming up with half-baked proposals, one a day on average, all of which have one thing in common - India to give up its territory (and sovereignty over it) as a solution. No wonder India rejects each proposal outright. However, it is creating an impression in the minds of Pakistanis that Musharraf and the Pak government is being flexible or innovative (look, he is asking only for a part of J&K, not Ladakh or Jammu! or look, he is asking only for territory upto Chenab!) - unfortunately a few morons on the Indian side (such as FV) are falling for this. The set piece action - Pakistani proposal on TV followed by Indian rejection - creates an impression of Pakistani flexibility and ``Indian obduracy`` (to use a phrase favoured by the Paki press).

And we have FV on our side (presumably), who makes an asinine comparison between the situation in Balochistan and Telugu pride or Dravidian antecedents or whatever. A large number of Indians in the south are Dravidian - what is wrong about it? Was the Indian army out in Andhra or Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra, like the Pak army is now in BStan? Did Tamilians or Andhraites shoot and kill people as part of Telugu pride or whatever? I agree with FV on one point - ``Baluchistan is no Kashmir.`` - You need helicopter gunships in one situation and not in the other.

Regarding the ``18-insurgencies in India`` thing, in no case has India negotiated away its territorial integrity or soverignty. Why does FV expect J&K to be different?

On another note, I really hope India is stirring the pot in BStan. For too long, it has been a one-way process - Pakistan dishing it and India meekly taking it. Hopefully PStan will get a taste of their own medicine.

Layman...

You have to be delusional to think that India has never stirred the pot in Pakistan. I suppose Mukhti Bahini was not being trained and supplied with weapons by India... and the bomb blasts and terrorist attacks in Pakistan all throughout the Afghanistan war had nothing to do with India doing Soviet Union`s dirty work... or Sindhu Desh tehreek was never supported by the Indians... or right from day 1 - the Pakhtunistan movement...

This self righteousness should be stopped... you guys have stirred the pot as much as we have... but I am sure people like you would continue to feign ignorance...

#215 by Layman on January 10, 2006 6:33am PT


Can anyone on this board actually outline the `concessions` that Musharraf


Shut up and be in awe of mushy...don`t ask why you need to be in awe of him or his concessions...just STFU and do it..


Why does FV expect J&K to be different?


Because J&K is a muslim problem and the special rule for muslims apply.

1. When muslims conquer non-muslim land, that`s part of the glorious Islamic past and is to be celebrated.
2. When non-muslims conquer muslim land, that`s a historic grievance to be felt by all true muslims( however disconnected they might be from that event..e.g. pakis i.e. wannabe arabs whining about the crusades...).
3. If a muslim sets foot on a non-muslim land and displaces the local populace, that land becomes muslim land till eternity.
4. If a non-muslim entity sets foot on a muslim land and displaces muslims, that`s a genuine grievance to be mourned by the whole world and can be used as a justification for terrorist acts....

Hope that helps...

#216 by Mantolives on January 10, 2006 6:42am PT


This self righteousness should be stopped.


Why? India is on a roll right now? It`s got the dreaded-by-the-world Islamic terrorism brush to use on Pakistan..Islamic terrorism that the paki army created, funded..Islamic terrorism that the paki junta supported in Afghanistan and Kashmir...

Scream all you want about Indian supported terrorism..while Indians stay on message: Islamic terrorism..9/11..Pakistan..taliban..Islamic terrorism..London..bali..Islamic terrorism in Kashmir... well..you get the point..

#210 FV:
``1. He agreed to have “joint management” of Azad Kashmir if the Indian government plays ball re. the Valley.``
Why should we? And I dont really think the Pakistani establishment or people in PoK (Azad Kashmir in FV`s lingo) would appreciate ``joint management`` of PoK. Musharraf is coming out with ill-thought out proposals from his hat, in a non-serious way, for the sake of TV sound bytes.

``2. Those who are going “bah, how could he be so petty about Ayaz Amir?” the reason was that he was asked about his editorial.``
Granted - there is a free press in Pakistan.

``3. It must be noted that a good deal of criticism he gets in his country is because he makes “concessions to India”. How about that? ``
And, pray, what concessions are these? All agreements till date between India and Pak benefit both nations. It is easy to concede something that you dont have.

``. Why the insistence that we have every right to be worried about Baluchistan? How would we react if the Pakistan government started issuing statements about Mizos and Nagas? Why were we silent about Baluchistan all this while?``
FV, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, would you take the position of ``non-interference in internal affairs``? There could be several reasons for India commenting on BStan: 1. The proposed IPI pipeline will flow through Balochistan and any unrest there will affect Indian energy security. 2. India may want to get out of the IPI pipeline deal under US pressure and is laying the groundwork for it to cite instability in BStan as the reason for squashing the deal. 3. Or most likely, India has finally found a chance to tweat Pakistan, like Pak has been doing to India for several years now. It was the most minor expression of concern - a two line statement - compared to the way Pakis have been beating their chests over the years.

``5. If Musharraf has said in the past that his is a “democratic dictatorship”, there is nothing “obscene” about it (well, it is less obscene at least than wondering about who gets off watching Jinnah’s photograph). The term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ is common parlance and has been used often as a valid political credo. Besides, let us not go overboard with what constitutes a practising democracy. ``
I think Pakistanis know best how much of a democracy there currently is in Pakistan right now, when the army has a major say in everything. A simple test for democracy in Pakistan today would be if Musharraf were to give up his post as COAS. That is the true lever of power in Pak, not his position as President. If he stepped down as COAS and there was a new one, he would be calling the shots, not Musharraf. Nevertheless, India should negotiate or deal with whoever is in power in Pak, whether a democratically elected leader or a military ruler.

``6. In the past, the democratically-elected leadership of Pakistan has done precious little for peace with India. BB was the one who talked about wounding India with a thousand cuts; Nawaz Sharif masterminded Kargil (Musharraf was the general); and have you heard any of the aspiring democrats say anything about peace with India?``
The issue is with the Pakistani establishment - however bear in mind that even when BB or Nawaz Sharif was ruling, it was really the Pak army that was calling the shots. And India being the big brother in the neighbourhood, there will always be some resentment against it and no politician in our neighbourhood dare say anything positive about India if he/she wants to come to power.

``7. About asking him to hand over Dawood Ibrahim…certainly…but when the don was frolicking in Dubai for years and giving interviews, nobody had that bright idea? And how about adding Chhota Rajan, his former henchman and now great don in his own right, added to the list? Remember how once he broke away from the D company he was being hailed as a “Hindu hero”?``
Good question.

#219 by Layman on January 10, 2006 6:58am PT


FV, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, would you take the position of ``non-interference in internal affairs``?


Why yes...there`s 2 rules-for-muslim I left out..

5. When non-muslims are responsible for muslim deaths, that event is to be remembered forever and the whole world must demand that the perps be brought to justice. Said killings can be used as a cause for terrorism.

6. When muslims are responsible for the deaths of non-muslims(armenia) or muslims(bangladesh, iraq, balochistan etc etc), there is no such requirement to persecute the perps and we all need to move along.

#216 Mantolives: Well, if we really did stir the pot, that is all to the good, tax payer money well spent. Here I was, getting a complex that while the ISI is so capable, our guys are so weak-kneed and ineffective. Thanks for bolstering my confidence in our cloak-and-dagger men.

But I would still credit ISI for achieving more than RAW or whoever.

Dear Farzana Versey
Sorry, but, this is a very confused article. With no direction.

First of all, What do you wish to convey to the readers??
That Musharaf is a bad guy, he should leave immediately.
Alright, he is. Tell me , who was/is/ will be the good guy for Pakistan?

Second, Indian occupied Kashmir is NOT an issue for Pakis. It is an issue for Kashmiris.
If, they want freedom for themselves, why Indians are choking them with their weapons?

Kashmir do not belong to Pakistan. Kashmir do not belong to India. Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris( I am NOT pointing out Kashmiri Muslims only). Whatever majority decides in open fair elections, that should be well respected and they should be the one to decide for their destiny.

They should have this freedom of choice. 1:-if, they wish an independent state. 2:- If, they wish to be with India.3:- If, they wish to be with Pakistan.

When , I say Kashmir, I also include Azad Kashmir (Pakistani Kashmir).