Pakistans Permanent Revolution

ylh: i agree that it wasnt the 1965 war (which actually raised the nation`s spirits and united them) but the fact that people got fed up of Ayub Khan`s self-promotion that led to his downfall. i will add that yahya was never seen as anything other than an interim president, and would have left office anyway, regardless of the 1971 war. however, he did oversee the elections quite well and they were fair. meanwhile, we can all wait and see the outcome of the current crisis. i think we will either see fair elections and a civilian government taking charge, or a continuation of military rule that is even more beholden to the religious right than it has been to date....but a continuation of this ``benign dictatorship`` that musharraf would like to see is highly doubtful.

They have an article in the WP on this today...

Battle Brews Over Rule By Military In Pakistan
President Pressed to Leave Post That Helps Sustain His Power
By Griff Witte
Monday, April 2, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- For weeks, lawyers in black suits have paraded through the streets of Pakistan`s cities, demanding that Gen. Pervez Musharraf step down as president. But it is Musharraf`s other job -- as head of the army -- that rankles the protesters most.
...
The clash is likely to gain intensity in the coming months. Musharraf is constitutionally required to step down as army chief when elections are held later this year or early next if he wants to stay on as president. But the general is considered reluctant to cast off a uniform that brought him to power in a coup eight years ago and has helped sustain him...

#291 by Mantolives on April 2, 2007 7:23am PT


their nocturnal experiments of which you seem to have carnal knowledge.


Umm...maybe you should consult a dictionary on the appropriate use of ``carnal knowledge``...

#267 by Urstruly on April 1, 2007 7:57pm PT



scroll past the first 5 minutes of arabic gobbledygook..

Malik99,

As usual you have no point. First go clear your head. The words I quoted were from your own post. You are the one who brought up Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Yahya and Niazi and their nocturnal experiments of which you seem to have carnal knowledge.

Either you said it... or you didn`t... but you can`t say I put words in your mouth. Your mouth spit them out autonomously.


Ferozk,

I am saying the same thing as you are. Two weeks into the ``glorious revolution`` that thrilled us.... and I am thinking these mass movement business is really to give Musharraf a way out from constitutional re-election at the end of the year which he certainly cannot contest with his uniform on.

Majumdar,

Ayub Khan did not give up power because of 1965. He went out as a result of a mass movement that was bigger than this little thing. Yet in the end... things got even worse.
I think the whole situaton needs a re-calculation... because Musharraf seems to have played a masterly hand worthy of the erstwhile British rulers...

-YLH

#283 by Mantolives on April 2, 2007 3:34am PT


``1- General Yahya - alcohol loving womanizer
2- Bhutto - alocohol loving womanizer
3- General Niazi - alcohol loving womanizer``


Maybe you need a better brand of alcohol...have you considered that?

anil #265 {``Salim bhai:
I do not know what is your position. However, to me this issue of putting a modern girl / woman (daughter, wife, sister or whoever else) inside a black tent and then letting them loose as vigilante, ranks with slavery, dastardly acts of bride burning, and sati. ...``}

Anil Bhai,
My position on the issue of burqa, hijab, and any other form of public disguise by men or women is crystal clear. I am against all of these methods of deception - primarily for security reasons. How many criminals go around covered up in a tent while authorities are looking for a tall man with a beard and a Kalashnikov?

As for the issue of female students dressed in black, waiving sugarcanes, and abducting women accused of prostituting themselves, we need to separate several conflicting elements of this very complicated situation:

Women in burqas, especially when they are taking the law into their own hands, are unacceptable to society.
Male and female lawyers, hurling bricks at police, setting fires, and acting in a very illegal manner are equally unacceptable to any civilized society.
Prostitution is illegal in Pakistan, even under its current laws, and should be stopped and punished by the law enforcement and judicial authorities. Apparently the police are too busy taking bribes and the legal system is more concerned about a corrupt CJ trying to get his son ahead.
From what I have observed, these female students are quite well educated, well informed, and have made the unfortunate decision of camouflaging their physique all on their own.
I agree with you that men have no right to dictate how women should or should not dress.
I also agree with you that ALL citizens should adhere to the normal, acceptable and legal public standards of morality, behavior, and assembly.
Having said all this, let us try to separate the burqa from the real issues of police corruption and prostitution. How many Bollywood movies have glorified ``Janta Justice`` when a town`s police, administration, and leaders are either corrupt or don`t take action against illegal conduct? How many westerns have been made about a town`s citizens taking the law into their own hands when faced with a corrupt sheriff and rule by outlaws?

So, is your issue with the fact that the misbehaving students are in burqa or that they have taken action against an illegal activity?

Reply to #283 by Mantolives:
[``1- General Yahya - alcohol loving womanizer
2- Bhutto - alocohol loving womanizer
3- General Niazi - alcohol loving womanizer``
So you think that 1971 did not happen because the Punjabi-Pathan oligarchy refused Bengalis their constitutional rights .... but because Pakistan`s leaders were not pious enough? Do you really think the alleged fondness of Yahya, Bhutto and Niazi for alcohol and women were the issue why Pakistan Army surrendered in 1971? That argument is neither here nor there.]

The root cause of the separation of East and West Pakistan was neither the “alcohol loving womanizers” nor the “Punjabi-Pathan oligarchy”. East and West Pakistan were separated by a 1000 miles of hostile Indian territory, this was the real problem. “Territorial contiguity” is an essential element of any nation state. But it is also a fact that “alcohol loving womanizers” and “Punjabi-Pathan oligarchy” compounded the problems. In 1971 it became quite obvious that East and West Pakistan can’t be kept together at least not as a quasi-Federation (in effect a unitary form of government). Had there been more able leader instead of those corrupt, inept and self-serving generals and politicians some sort of “confederate arrangement” could’ve been made, and the mismanagement and humiliation could’ve been avoided.

The song will be repeated. :)

If the situation develops, it will most likely come down to the street power and in this sense, the street power of the mullahs is highly organized. Even in Iran, in 1979, it was the street power that allowed the intelligentsia, aided by the clerics, to topple the shah, but they were then sidelined by the street power of the clergy. Same thing happened in Russia in 1917; the Bolsheviks dominated liberals. Nazi ``strassenkampfers`` - street fighters - were the key to the Nazis beating off their opponents.

Do liberals have the street power in Pakistan? Mixed marathons do not count as expressions of liberal and enlightened moderation`s street power. The simple reality is that the situation and the debate in Pakistan has moved beyond constitutional references and it has boiled down to an old fashioned muscle power.

Remember, the mullah is willing to die for his belief/believes. The issue is whether the liberals of Pakistan are willing to die for theirs? If not, then the fight is already lost even before it began. :)

The song will be repeated because the liberals, out of habit, will chose the wrong champion again. I agree with your sentiments and I agree with your hopes, but past experience of Pakistan informs me that power and rights will be elusive till we actually are prepared to pay a sacrifrice for our believes. In the end, the liberals of Pakistan have always remained a status quo society and they accept any fate that does not alter their status quo. This time around, they are worried because the status quo seems about to be changed and they see nothing for themselves in the new status quo. Give them a right in the new status quo and see how quickly consitutionalism and liberalism is forgotten.

1947 did not happen because of few liberal Muslim lawyers from Delhi or Bombay but because of the thousands who died during the train rides from India to Pakistan and the millions who walked towards Pakistan. The sacrifice for Pakistan came from the thousands of the poor and not from the Muslim liberal intelligentisia of India. Granted, the liberal Muslims provided the thought and the leadership for Pakistan, but they did not really sacrifice anything for Pakistan. They simply sought a replacement for their declining influence in India by re-creating it in Pakistan.

Idealism never wins revolution; realism of power does.

Sadly, history tells us that liberals in Pakistan have been more than happy to make deals, which secure their interests. When something different happens, then it will be a nice change of pace, but till then; all bets are and in the meantime, the song will be repeated!

Ciao

Manto mian,

Just becuase past ``mass movements`` in SA have been masterminded by the establishment as you allege is no reason to diss mass movements altogether. They have bought good elsewhere (if replacing autocracy by democratic rule is to be considered good to begin with) in Phillipines for eg. To some extent in SA too- Bdesh (1990), Nepal recently overthrowing its monarchy.

(it is about creating an excuse for perpetuating the dictator`s military rule. )

How would a mass movement perpetuate Mush`s rule. And how indeed do you overthrow military rule permanently (that is if you consider that a worthwhile aim) without a mass movement. After all, history indicates that military rulers have only been replaced only by losing wars (Ayub 65, Yahya 71) or being bumped off (Zia 88).

Regards

manto # 283 ``So you think that 1971 did not happen because the Punjabi-Pathan oligarchy refused Bengalis their constitutional rights .... but because Pakistan`s leaders were not pious enough? ``


Dear Manto, this trick of putting stupid words in people`s mouth and then charging them with stupidity is perhaps as old as the oldest profession.

No. I never suggested that east pakistan got separated because our rulers were not pious enough. What I did suggest however was that since you are so ready to attack people of religion, then why is it that you are overlooking the secularism and liberalism of the people who cost us half of Pakistan? Had Mullah Fazlur Rehman been the PM of Pakistan when we lost half of our country, we would not have seen an end to your rants.

Hence, IFFFF your rhetoric against mullahs is taken as logical, then we should be more wary of the likes who cost pakistan its biggest tragedy so far - the secession.

Yes, ignorant mullahs are an issue. But not as big as the ones who are hell bent on presiding over another 1971.

Re: # 282

Majumdar,

As with all ``mass movements`` that have come in South Asia`s history , I am beginning to think that is with the sanction of the hidden hand of the establishment...

It is not about popular aspirations really... it is about creating an excuse for perpetuating the dictator`s military rule.

Malik99,

``Wrong again``

Yes you always are.

Iran represents a legitimate revolution brought about by an intelligentsia which was hijacked by the religious class.... Iran`s own version of Orwell`s 1984.

``1- General Yahya - alcohol loving womanizer
2- Bhutto - alocohol loving womanizer
3- General Niazi - alcohol loving womanizer``

So you think that 1971 did not happen because the Punjabi-Pathan oligarchy refused Bengalis their constitutional rights .... but because Pakistan`s leaders were not pious enough? Do you really think the alleged fondness of Yahya, Bhutto and Niazi for alcohol and women were the issue why Pakistan Army surrendered in 1971? That argument is neither here nor there.

Now as you know I have till now ignored your delusions about ``west`s slaves`` (the same west where you are probably employed as a janitor or something - because your ability beyond that is hardly comprehensible), ``sympathizers`` blah blah blah ... but since you have nothing to offer, my humble suggestion: refrain from personal attacks of the kind you`ve resorted to for many years now.

I suppose you are the kind of person who encourages Jamia Hafsa and their brand of freaks to break the law and infringe upon people`s constitutional right to privacy of the home... Do you think that is what Islam stands for?

When Umer (RA) entered a woman`s house accusing her for some lewd activity or something... what did that woman say? She said ``Oh Ameer ul Momineen, how dare you enter into my house and violate my rights which are given to me by God and his Prophet``... If you don`t see the clear and present danger in those who throw acid on the faces of women who drive alone .... or who take over libraries or resort to similar illegal and unconstitutional activities.... then you are worse than all of them.

Perhaps one should be wary of freaks and their sympathizers.

Manto mian,

(It is about- if in case this develops in a mass movement- as to who leads it... the dangers outlined by HP are real. Which is why something this important cannot be left to the mullahs and the rabblerousers of the half naked fraud variety. )

If the Pakistani govt. fails to meet popular aspirations for long, a mass movement cannot be ruled out. In that case, who do you think could be the possible leader of that movement? The mullah of course is one as you have rightly suggested, is there any other alternative?

Regards

#280 ``We should learn from the events of 1979 in a city called Teheran.``

Wrong again! We should learn from the events of 1971 in a city called Dhakka. The three top characters most responsible for the rape and murder of innocent bengalis were:

1- General Yahya - alcohol loving womanizer
2- Bhutto - alocohol loving womanizer
3- General Niazi - alcohol loving womanizer

As you can see, mullahs are no where to be found in this greatest tragedy that pakisan experienced in its history. Therefore your warnings about mullahs in the current unfolding drama are based more on ignorance and bias, rather than reality.

If anything, we should be wary of the alcoholics, womanizers and their sympathizers.

Re: # 274

Iftikhar is not a hero... nor are we making Bhagwandas a hero... so no need to burst into song....

It is about- if in case this develops in a mass movement- as to who leads it... the dangers outlined by HP are real. Which is why something this important cannot be left to the mullahs and the rabblerousers of the half naked fraud variety.

We should learn from the events of 1979 in a city called Teheran.

PS: I am surprised that BJkumar is fighting with Masadi.... Masadi and I had a rather horrible exchange when he first came around on Gandhi, who Masadi admires as much as BJKumar.... for the same reasons BJKumar does.

Now either Masadi is the true Gandhi follower or BJKumar is... given that despite being a pompous ass and an extremely rude person, Masadi makes some sense, some times... for Gandhi`s sake I hope it is Masadi.