The New Bedfellows

What happened to my pending posts on this thread?

in #146 read "(but never do it he's out of uniform)"

as "(but never does it when he's out of uniform)

According to captain clueless, "fK", the Army has nothing to do with Pakistani political institutions being weakened, fighting US wars, as it works politically with the Pak Army, against the public, has nothing to do with it. According to Einstein here, it's all a power fight between a president and prime minister, and the Army would gladly support a strong president (but never do it he's out of uniform) and that is because of the time Jinnah spent in office! Go figure MashaAllah..., what the hell is this fool teaching our youth?

Re: # 143


Supreme Court hears Nawaz Sharif’s exile appeal ISLAMABAD, Aug 9 (AFP) Pakistan's Supreme Court Thursday began deliberating an application by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to have his exile overturned and be permitted to return to the country. The application was heard by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. “It is Nawaz Sharif's unconditional and unequivocal right to return to the country, which cannot be either curtailed or denied,” his lawyer Fakharuddin Ibrahim told the court. Returning to Pakistan was a “fundamental right,” Ibrahim said, adding that Sharif's desire to come home was “linked with his concerns for the future of democracy in the country.” ”We are concerned with the future of parliamentary democracy in the country, which cannot be undone by a gentleman in uniform,” Ibrahim said.(Posted @ 15:05 PST)

Re: # 136

HH

I agree with you, if required Mush will simply dismiss the entire bench.

As for the honorable Chaudhry CJ, well he is the same Chaudhry who endorsed Mush takeover and continuation thus the reward of becoming CJP. The recent standoff against Mushy was led by Lawyers not the CJ who was a mere spectator. Had the honorable CJ any ethics or principles he wud have resigned from his position once the decision was made in his favor cause his actions had compromised his neutrality as CJP. But, then again he is no saint nor any different from the rest.

can anyone confirm this Times of India news?

Setback to Musharraf as SC clears Sharif's return
Topic started by stuka on Aug 9, 2007 8:42:47 am


Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruled that exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif can return to the country (AFP Photo)
ISLAMABAD: A two-judge Bench headed by re-instated Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar M Chaudhry on Thursday ruled that the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother can return home from their "forced exile".

The petitions of Sharif and his brother Shabaz was filed on August 2 and was listed for hearing by Chaudhry and senior judge M Javed Buttar.

The Supreme Court ruled, "It is a settled proposition of law that the right to enter in the country cannot be denied but a citizen can be restrained from going out of the country. The petitioner (Sharif) is a citizen of Pakistan and has a Constitutional right to enter and remain in the country."

It was similiar to the grounds of the 2004 court order, which the Sharifs had attached to their petitions.

The brothers had also accused the government of "brazenly violating" the orders in preventing them from returning.

Nawaz Sharif along with 20 family members were exiled to Jeddah in 2000, which the Musharraf government says was part of a deal it reached with Sharif and the Saudi royal family.

Sharif, who later moved to London, denies making a deal and claims that he was forcefully deported.

he will soon realize it ...

#140 by dawa-i-dil

Yaar if that happens, it'd be a good thing. But unfortunately, dictators seldom realize how much people hate them. They have an inflated sense of their self-importance.

LOL...have you not sen millions of people when they came on the street when he dismissed CJ ...
man ..he cannot dismiss any SC judge...and if he will ever try to attempt that...he will be kicked out of this country forever ..believe me...

#137 by dawa-i-dil

LOL...you dont know MUSHY CANNOT dismiss any judge of SC....

And you don't know Dawa beta that Mushy will do what pleases him most...do you think a DICTATOR will take your permission before he does something?

BREAKING NEWS....


no Emergency all....
Ch shujaat ...and Mushahid Hussain syed categorically denied ANY chance of Emergency....

as Mushahid said that ..these are the same fool people who once gave the foolish advice of CJ sacking to Mushy...

Mushy dar giya hai..SC sai or people's movement sai..hahahaha

Re: # 132

LOL...you dont know MUSHY CANNOT dismiss any judge of SC....

wghat the hell SC 13 judges decided after 2 months case hearing of CJ that Executice CANNOT any judge of SC...

ballo jee...dont doze...

#135 by rf786

Re: the judiciary, Mushy has two options. If as you say the judges are corrupt and nothing has changed since the Iftikhar Chaudhary episode, then Mushy has nothing to worry about. The judges will endorse the Emergency, just as they did with his PCO. If OTOH, the judiciary has been emboldened by the CJ episode and decide to oppose Emergency, Mushy can just sack them all at one go, under the provisions of the Emergency. In both cases, he's likely to emerge the winner.

But then, even Zia was invincible, until nature (or was it man?) decided to do him in.

Re: # 132

HH

Mush is running out of options, under attack domestically and externally he has decided to go in his bunker, that may prove to be another German bunker or Saddam pothole. Our judiciary was ranked the third most corrupt institution right behind Police and customs, in all probability not much has changed and the esteemed judges will rollover like obedient pets.

Worse case scenario is looking at a fractured Pakistan which will be bad news for the region in the short to medium term but may prove to be the perfect elixir for this region.

power in pakistan must be the ultimate aphrodisiac......the ultimate high.......no one is willing to leave it, once they get the taste of it.....

....benazir has lost a father and two brothers.....she has been pm twice, and has been exiled for a decade.....yet she still wants to come back and become the pm again....to the point, that she is not even willing to have anyone else from her party become the pm......

......musharraf has been coas for ten years and president for eight......he has been the center of the world's attention, for six years......he has been wined and dined everywhere.....

.......both these individuals have gone far beyond their personal capabilities.....benazir has never had a job.....there is nothing extraordinary about her, other than her last name......musharraf rose up through a mediocre bureacracy to become the head of the army....there is nothing extraordinary in his career, either......neither of them are abdus salam, or imran khan, or edhi, or agha hasan abdis etc. of their professions......i doubt either could survive and compete in the international marketplace, on their individual skills......

yet they are willing to hold the whole nation hostage, just to gain personal power, again and again......i suppose, in the end, it is the nation's fault also, in that it agrees to be held hostage.......

pakistan has far too many people who fight their political battles from the comforts of their expat keyboards and their domestic living rooms.......and far few with enough conviction to actually do something about it.......

there are individuals on this website alone, who are apparently:

- declaring jihad wihin pakistan
- allowed access to fbi and cia, before even bush does
- are advising all the top politicians of pakistan
- etc.

they are doing all this, without even having to set foot in pakistan, or participate in any political activity!!.......we are, thus, a defeated nation of individuals who can talk the talk, but are too scared to walk the walk.....

One more thing. People in Pakistan are so disgusted with the army's antics that if Martial Law or the emergency is declared, we might see people spontaneously come out on the streets and vocally resist it.
Musharaf is paving the way for another army General. He is the set up guy and he should not be given any quarter now.

#128 Posted by dawa-i-dil

SC will kick out this Emergency....inshallah

The first thing Mushy will do after imposing Emergency is dismiss the SC judges. Are you so dumb that you cannot see it?

#115 Posted by Urstruly

[One down; ]

One down, eh? Wasn't that easy?

Have you prostated today?

Here is something I posted on another forum.
On August 4, 2007 - 7:28pm HP said:

Musharaf does not have much political support in Pakistan and that’s why he is looking more towards Benazir, a moderate Pakistani politician, to bail him out. It is not easy for Benazir when we consider that general population is completely disgusted with Musharaf and his policies. She is risking her popularity and the wrath of the liberal and moderate segments of the population by initiating talks with him.

By destabilizing Musharaf, the Bush admin has taken a path that most diplomats would tread on gingerly. I hope the Bush admin is watching the situation very carefully and keeping tabs on the day to day changing situation. This may just be wishful thinking on my part considering the track record of the Bush admin.

It was only two days ago that I wrote this on this thread #44 HP and we are beginning to see the end game in Pakistan.

“We are entering the Danse Macabre stage of the game in Pakistan. La Danse Macabre has all the characters: the king, the commanders, the slaves and a pretty woman.

When the dance of death starts many unlikely characters join together. That is what is happening in Pakistan. Musharaf is dancing his way to death (metaphor) and he will take many down with him.”

I spoke to couple of friends in Pakistan and they have reported that army has already been stationed on many Govt buildings and telephone exchanges in Isloo and pindi and all officers were asked to report for duty at 4 AM and they are still on duty.
I think this appears to be more than emergency, perhaps Martial Law.

I would like to add my nickel and a very important nickel about the reports of Anti-American sloganeering from the treasury benches. I kind of expected this but held back to write about it until I get full confirmation.

Nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrels and we are going to see that so that Musharaf can claim public support on this issue. There is no doubt that there is a strong anti-American current in Pakistan but Musharaf is not the one who can tap those sentiments. All Pakistanis know how much anti-American the Pak army and is and Musharaf’s anti-Americanism is probably of the size of a mustard seed.

All dictators and even one PM claimed that US was responsible for their downfall. It is true but why they did not see that when they reached the peak of the power with the US help.

There is strong possibility that US was behind Zia’s murder and it is very much possible as there was no public accounting for his death. Richard Clark in his book claimed that the KGB was behind it. This does not appear to be correct as Pakistani Generals would have loved to investigate the Zia murder, if the perpetrator was the KGB.

Currently, we are looking at a very dramatic situation. Musharaf went to Karachi with Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen, Ehasan and kept him on his side all the time he was in Karachi. I doubt that Musharaf would have taken the risk to take a plane to go Afghanistan considering that the plane was going to flyover NWFP and the tribal areas.

SC will kick out this Emergency....inshallah

Benazir hasn't picked a good time to be the US backed candidate..between the paki parliamentary secy of defense calling for jihad against the US and this, the paki people are going bat shit crazy against the US..

One billion Muslims to turn into suicide bombers if Makkah, Madina are attacked: NA

Wednesday August 08, 2007 (1737 PST)

ISLAMABAD: The treasury and opposition members in National Assembly (NA) Wednesday have made it clear on US that one billion Muslims will turn into suicide bombers if the holiest places of Makkah and Madina are attacked and warned Vetican City will not remain secure if any such threat is materialized.

They said this unanimously while participating in debate on foreign policy. Opposition legislator Ghulam Murtaza Satti said US was pursuing double standards. Those talking of launching any military offensive against Makkah and Medina are accursed. This will not happen nor will we allow it to happen.

Treasury member Rozina Tufail said Benazir Bhutto was striking deal with government and was seeking guarantee from US. If US presidential candidates are giving offensive statements then our candidates can also say that Vetican be attacked during the election campaign in the upcoming elections ", she added.

JUI-S legislator Hamid ul Haqqani said Muslim Ummah was facing the situation the sketch of which was presented by the last prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) 1400 years back.

Treasury member Ejaz Chaudhry said US was not friend of any one. " We will teach the lesson to US if it dares to come forward to attack upon us. Americans are coward nation and they can do nothing. Army should not target their brethren. US aid is like killer disease AIDS We curse it. The whole nation does not want US aid. Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists. Those who are engaged in freedom war are freedom fighters. US ship is close to sink. It is hurling threats like a coward.

He demanded president and prime minister should stop holding any talk with junior US officials like Richard Boucher. "If US dared to hatch unholy conspiracy to attack Makkah and Medina then one billion Muslims will become suicide bombers and I will also be among them", he added.

Opposition member Sher M Baloch called for convening joint session of parliament for holding debate on foreign policy.

Haji Khuda Bakhsh Nizamani of PML-F said Western countries and US were out to weaken Muslims.

Fazal Subhan of MMA said it has become problem for us to safeguard nuclear device we have made for our protection. Army be immediately withdrawn from tribal areas, he demanded

Treasury member Faiz Timman alleged US was making mockery of Pakistan since the last 60 years.

MMA legislator Qari Gul Rehman demanded of the government to review its relations with US.

Minister of state for finance Omar Ayub Khan warned those involved in attacking army should abandon their activities other wise they would have to face dire consequences. " We will have to address the root cause of terrorism. These causes are Kashmir and Palestine issues.

He asked NWFP government to resign if it could not control deteriorating law and order situation in the province.

Dr Farida Ahmad alleged government was adhering to Indian agenda and had put the Kashmir issue on backburner. Iran and Afghanistan are not happy with us due to our ill-conceived policies.

MQM parliamentary leader Farooq Sattar called for bringing feudalism to end immediately. We have to eliminate religious fanaticism and address the root causes of terrorism, he stressed.

Re: # 86

The nightmare never ends; one has to learn to live with it.

Pakistani politics have seen this tug of war between a strong Prime Minister's office and a strong presidency since 1947. I have been raked over the coals, by an old Chowkwallah and a good friend, for suggesting this but I believe that Jinnah's tenure as the Governor-General of Pakistan and the importance of that office in constrast to a weakened prime minsterial office, was responsible for the diminishing of the powers belonging to the prime minister's office.

Since that day, Pakistan has relived the struggle of political power between a strong presidency and a prime minister's office that would like to increase its importance. The word "increase" is used in the sense that a prime minister's office never had power and thus, it cannot "regain" it but only increase/add to its limited powers.

The point of contention is that Pakistan, due to these power struggles, has not been clearly able to spell out, whether it is a parliamentary form of government or a presidential form of government. If Pakistan wants to be a parliamentary form of government, then the powers of the presidency will have to be clipped and the Constitution of Pakistan amended because the manner in which it has been amended in the past and the powers it gives the president, suggests that it supports/favors a presidential style of government.

The army in Pakistan has always favored a presidential style of power and the civilians have always supported a parliamentary government, with a strong prime minister's office. Therefore, the politics in Pakistan have evolved into a mixture of both and since a presidential and a prime ministerial forms of goverance are different and require different sorts of institutional support, Pakistani institutions have been weakened, as a result of this power struggle, as they were made to support two conflicting political ideas; specially, when those ideas were involved in a zero-sum game with one another.

The solution, and this is open to debate, is that in the present context of Pakistan, a presidential or a prime ministerial system of government will only work after there is a national reconcilation to decide what the nation wants and then to forge that system. However, it will require a national consensus and therefore, it makes a very strong case for the need of a national reconcilation in Pakistani politics in the manner of the national consensus that created the Constitution of 1973.

Ciao

Re: # 123
Musharraf is getting ready to do a Lal Masjid on the Supreme Court -- nu rahega baaNs nu bajay gee baasuNree

"General Musharraf cannot have it all either. If he has to survive at all, he has to now learn to share power."

Yes Mushrraf can have it all -- either. The man has worked hard for 8 years for that -- he deserves to eat his cake and keep it too for another 5 years.

And why do you say Musharraf has to 'learn' to share. Musharraf is a an already learned sharing guy like few are in this -- he shares prime ministership with bay Shan-o Shaukat Aziz sahib -- foreign ministership with bay Kasuri sahib -- shares defense ministership with Rao Alexander sahib -- Railway ministery with bay-lagammur-Rashid sahib -- Home with Qaghuz kay Sher -- Pao Sahib -- and leadership of opposition with baykar maulvi Fazoolurrahman sahib -- please do not accuse the Bycharay General sahib for something he already is doing.

Declaration of emergency likely tomorrow: Reports
ISLAMABAD: A high-level meeting presided over by President General Pervez Musharraf decided Wednesday to declare emergency in the country for one month that could be extended for three months, the well placed sources told Geo News.

The meeting reviewed current political situation and various options regarding changes in the political set up came under discussion.

Pakistan Muslim League (QA) president Chaudhry Shujaat also reportedly said while talking to women parliamentarians of party during a reception which was hosted by him at his residence that emergency is likely to be declared.

Speaker National Assembly was also called at the reception in which he was consulted that in case of emergency how it could be approved from the National Assembly.

Some reliable sources confirmed that the decision regarding declaration of emergency was taken in the meeting.

However, the government sources have denied the reports about the declaration of emergency in the country.

Re: # 121

What does it mean to have "State of Emergency" in the context of Pakistan. The country is under Martial Law already, it is at war externally, it is also in a state of civil war internally and state uses Napalms, chemical weapons, and cruise missiles against its citizens without any qualms, even with in the state capital. What the eff could be more of a State of Emergency than that. Would the state, as a next step, suspend the constitutional rights of the citizens....oooooh that would be really bad, now wouldn't it.

According to reports coming in a State of Emergency has been declared in Pakistan

-----

Note my post on June 20 on Chowk:

#14 Posted by masadi on June 20, 2007 2:29:48 am
The end game for the US is to replace Musharraf (Iran has a big role to play in this matter), regardless of the difference in tactics between the Warlords of the Pentagon and the State Department, one will relent to the other in pursuing their mutual end game. Tactics might vary but their end game is the same.

History in Pakistan has shown that direct transition from one military dictator to another is not attempted (what the Pentagon would like), therefore, the reluctance of the person clutching at straws to give up his uniform. Transition is always attempted indirectly through an intermediate so-called ``democracy`` period (what the State department would like).

The Americans have an occupation force in Pakistan, aka the Pakistan Army, the transition period therefore must involve the overlooking of whoever comes to power by this institution, mavericks that are independant are too risky. Musharraf cannot be that uniformed person who will have an alliance with the civilian transition team, since the US wants to replace him, therefore if Musharraf is to survive in power he has to give up his uniform. If he gives up the uniform he becomes powerless to dictate to the Army which will dictate all affairs. This is the catch-22 Musharraf faces and not the CJ issue which was manufactured by the US, using the Pakistan Army to place Musharraf in this very catch-22. Whether the CJ stays or goes is immaterial. How the transition will occur is what is interesting- not that it is going to matter- the Army is still going to be in charge, either way Musharraf`s fate is sealed.

The final solution for the poor b**t**d, declare emergency, stay in the uniform and in power while abandoning elections. This final solution wont last long either, since it leaves the only option open to the Americans being sending a hellfire homing towards his a$$ (the role of the CIA). I see no escape for Musharraf in any direction, reminds me of Saddam in the hole...

Associated Press
Musharraf Pulls Out of Peace Council
By JASON STRAZIUSO 08.08.07, 11:22 AM ET

A U.S. State Department official said the Bush administration was surprised and dismayed by Musharraf's snub, particularly after Karzai repeatedly expressed satisfaction about the meeting during a joint appearance with President Bush on Monday.

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said it was unclear if Musharraf could be persuaded to reconsider.

"We'll see if President Musharraf is able to attend any portion of the meeting," McCormack said.

The four-day "peace jirga," due to start Thursday, already is being boycotted by delegates from Pakistan's restive South and North Waziristan regions amid fear of Taliban reprisals.

The absence of Musharraf, Pakistan's army chief and most powerful figure, could further undermine its effectiveness.

Pakistan's Foreign Office said that Musharraf had phoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai to say he couldn't attend because of "engagements" in Islamabad, and that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz would take his place.

Actually the remembrance of Allah ignites hatred for mushriqoons, munafiqoons and kafirs in the hearts of faithful muslims.

Idolators have mastered the practice of dhikr and nirvikalpa samadhi or fanaa has been considered the summum bonnum of idolator meditational practices.

How can some one whose heart is filled with hatred for kafirs ever achieve peace inside.

Never.

That is why without "vairagya" and renunciation from hatred and desires no peace is possible.

No muslim who hates kafirs can ever be at peace with himself or Allah!!

PUBLISHED in TIME magazine April 22 1946 issue: Jinnah on the Cover

What a great man indeed!
A FUNDAMETALIST muslim..a hindu hater; a Britto-babboon hater.

Tyhe Secualaroons keep on barking unsuccessfully that Jinnah was a Kanjaroon.. Not at all. He couls easily have been labelled a Terrorist today..and if the enemy like the United Satan uses this term for Muslims..it indedd is an honor. The Kanjaroon who worship the West are the real enemies of Islam
& muslims especially the ones from the Cantonment & Colony kennels.
___________________________________________________________
Monday, Apr. 22, 1946
Long Shadow
(compliments of Roses Club)

India's festering sun beat down impartially on New and Old Delhi—on the precisely geometric, grandly drab preserves of the British Raj, on the noisy, squalid, sprawling native town. A sweat-soaked British wallah might change his shirt four times before settling down to an evening burra peg of bad Australian whiskey in the garden of the Cecil Hotel. Even the calloused, naked feet of shirtless Indians burned as they padded along the teeming Chandni Chauk. In the brassy glare, the flowering trees near the Viceroy's residence seemed to bear sparks rather than blossoms. The rind of an orange would shrivel the moment it was peeled from its fruit. Here & there an exhausted cow rested, sacred and undisturbed, in the traffic lanes of the boulevards.

Delhi in the spring heat of 1946 was not relaxed; it was taut with waiting, gravid with conflict and suspense. Two Socialist lawyers and a former Baptist lay preacher from Britain had sat for 25 days in the southeast wing of the viceregal palace, preparing to liquidate the richest portion of empire that history had ever seen—to end the British Raj, the grand and guilty edifice built and maintained by William Hawkins and Robert Clive, Warren Hastings and the Marquess Wellesley, the brawling editor James Silk Buckingham and the canny merchant Lord Inchcape, and by the great Viceroys, austere Curzon and gentle Halifax. The Raj was finished: scarcely a voice in Britain spoke against independence; scarcely an Indian wanted the British to stay; scarcely a leader in India questioned the sincerity of Britain's intention to get out. The only questions were "when?" and "how?"

Last week the three members of the British Cabinet Mission strove to force Indians to take the ultimate step—agreement on the constitution of an independent state. Much like a judge locking a hung jury in an uncomfortable room, Ministers Lord Pethick-Lawrence, A. V. Alexander and Sir Stafford Cripps prepared for a long Easter weekend in Kashmir's cool mountains with a message that when they returned "they hoped to find sufficient elements of agreement on which a settlement will be based."

Inside the cream stucco Imperial Hotel, beneath the propeller-blade fans, zealots and schemers argued, intrigued and speculated in more tongues than the Ganges has mouths. When they repeated to each other (as they often did) that now at last Britain's colonial policy had lumbered to the point where Whitehall really wanted to free India, hope revived. When they reflected (as they often did) that civil war had never been closer, despair reached .its depth. The issue seemed to turn on one man—Mohamed Ali Jinnah. Last week all India watched Jinnah's words and actions.

Man with an Angora Cap. While the Cabinet Mission still talked with India's leaders, a meeting was held in the courtyard of Anglo-Arabic College across Delhi from the Viceroy's palace. Green and white banners flaunted unacademic slogans: "Pakistan or die," "We are determined to fight." The speeches were equally inflammatory. Said Abdul Qaiyum Khan from the North-West Frontier Province: "I hope the Moslem nation will strike swiftly before [a Hindu] government can be set up in this country. . . . The Moslems will have no alternative but to take out their swords." Said Sirdar Shaukat Hyat Khan of the Punjab (which furnishes more than half the troops of the Indian regular army): "The Punjabi Moslems . . . will fight for you unto the death."

One of the wealthiest of Moslem leaders, Sir Firozkhan Noon, a Punjab landowner, did not hesitate to wave the Red flag; "If neither [the Hindus nor the British] give [Pakistan] to us . . . if our own course is to fight, and if in that fight we go down, the only course for Moslems is to look to Russia. ... I will be the first to lose every rupee I have in order that we may be free in this country." Five thousand Moslems cheered. Even the women in the purdah enclosure to the left of the platform could be heard-applauding behind their screen.

The presiding officer was neither shocked nor carried away by the incendiary speeches. Mohamed Ali Jinnah, clad in black angora cap, a long black sherwani (tunic), and tight-fitting black churidar on his wire-thin legs, smiled his ice-cold smile. He was at the peak of his power. He was the man who might say whether one-fifth of the world's people would be free. His 5 ft. 11 in. and 119 Ibs. stood between India and independence.

Man with a Monocle. After the meeting, Jinnah got out of his political costume as soon as possible, relaxed in his comfortable New Delhi home (he has a more palatial one on Bombay's Malabar Hill). He changed quickly to a tropical grey suit, blue & black striped tie, black & white sport shoes. Later, as he read to a reporter passages from one of his past speeches, Jinnah screwed a monocle into his right eye. He wears Moslem dress only because his enemies sneer that Jinnah, head of India's Moslem League, is lax in his religious observances. ("Jinnah does not have a beard; Jinnah does not go to the Mosque; Jinnah drinks whiskey!") With his perfect English, which he speaks better than his native Gujerati, his slick grey hair and graceful, precise gestures, he might be a European diplomat of the old school. How such a man at a fateful moment in history came to be the spokesman for millions of Moslem peasants, small shopkeepers and soldiers, is a story of love of country and lust for power, a story that twists and turns like a bullock track in the hills.

Jinnah was born on Christmas Day, 1876, the eldest son of Jinnah Poonja, a wealthy Karachi dealer in gum arabic and hides. The boy grew up in an atmosphere of wealth among a doting family. After going to school in Bombay and Karachi, young Jinnah, "a tall thin boy in a funny long yellow coat," as Poetess Sarojini Naidu described him, went to England. At the age of 16 he was admitted to Lincoln's Inn to read law. Soon after Jinnah returned to India, his father lost his money. Three hard, jobless years followed, until briefs and money started coming in.

Man of Unity. In 1940 Bombay Moslems elected him to the Supreme Legislative Council. Jinnah rose steadily in the councils of the nationalists and in the courtrooms of India. He revisited England and there, in 1913, enrolled in the Moslem League. "Typical of his sense of honor," wrote his rhapsodic biographer Naidu,* "he partook of it something like a sacrament . . . made his two sponsors take a solemn preliminary covenant that loyalty to the Moslem League . . . would in no way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger national cause to which his life was dedicated."

During World War I Jinnah was a conspicuous worker for Moslem-Hindu unity, persuaded the Congress Party and Moslem League to hold joint sessions, used as his slogan "a free and federated India." In 1917 he could still attack the idea which later became his obsession. "This [fear of Hindu domination] is a bogey," he told League members, ". . . to scare you away from the cooperation with the Hindus which is essential for the establishment of self-government."

Man of Discord. The solemn dedication to the "larger national cause" began to waver after the war. The shrewd, suave Moslem saw a shrewd, complexly simple Hindu, Mohandas Gandhi, step into the leadership of the nationalist Congress

Party. When Gandhi began to turn the party, once the sounding board for polite talk about independence among a few cautious Indian leaders, into a powerful mass movement, Jinnah drifted out of the fold. Some Hindus think he lost his nationalist ardor when he lost his beautiful Parsi wife (he was 42, she 18, when they were married) after their only child, a daughter, was born. His wife had been a zealous worker for independence.

Since then he has shared his Malabar Hill and New Delhi homes with his sister, Fatima. He lives austerely, has no close friends. He disowned his daughter for marrying a rich Christian.

Even Poetess Naidu found little warmth in Jinnah: "Somewhat formal and fastidious and a little aloof and imperious of manner. . . . Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Jinnah's attenuated form is the deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance."

Man of Threats. That vitality and cold intelligence were turned more & more to the Moslem cause during the late '30s. After the sweeping Congress Party victories in the 1936-37 provincial elections, Moslems charged that Hindus were trying to monopolize the government.

At a crucial meeting in March 1940 Jinnah first publicly plumped for Pakistan.* A hundred thousand followers thronged into the shade of a huge pandal (big tent) in Lahore, where the League was meeting, overflowed into the scorching heat outside, heard Jinnah proclaim over the loudspeaker: ". . . The only course open to us all is to allow the major nations [of India] to separate to their homelands." He warned that any democratic government in a unified India which gave Moslems a permanent minority "must lead to civil war and the raising of private armies." An enthusiastic woman follower tore off her veil, came from behind the purdah screen, mounted the speakers' platform. But Moslem revolutionary ardor was not ready to break with tradition; she was quietly escorted back to purdah by a uniformed guard.

When Gandhi led Congress into civil disobedience after the failure of the Cripps mission in 1942, Jinnah ordered his Moslems to take no part, promised a "state of benevolent neutrality" that would not hamper the British in fighting the Japanese. He boasted that if his followers joined Gandhi's pacifist program, the British would have 500 times more trouble "because we have 500 times more guts than the Hindus." He recalled past glories of the Mogul Emperor Baber ("The Tiger") and other Moslem warriors: "The Moslems have been slaves for only 200 years but the Hindus have been slaves for a thousand."

A historic meeting with Gandhi on Malabar Hill in 1944 ended in an impasse. Even Gandhi's healer, Dinshaw Mehta, who massaged Jinnah for two hours daily during the meetings, could not rub out the wrinkles of obstinacy that made the skinny Moslem uncompromisingly demand Pakistan, made the skinny Hindu as uncompromisingly demand a unified India, with the Pakistan issue postponed until after independence.

Man of Pomp. Today Jinnah revels in his one-man show. Nobody in all his Moslem League can be called a No. 2 man, or even No. 8. He delights in the princely processions staged by his followers when he tours the Moslem cities of northern India. His buglers herald his arrival at railway stations. Bands play God Save the King because "that's the only tune they know." Victory arches go up, rose petals flutter down from the rooftops, richly bedizened elephants, camels, mounted guards of honor accompany the Hollywood float in which Jinnah rides. Today Jinnah, and not the hated Hindu Gandhi, is prima donna on India's stage.

The gulf between Moslem and Hindu had always been real, but Jinnah dug it deeper. Last Christmas Day, Jinnah's 69th birthday, he summed up his demand for two nations. "I want to eat the cow the Hindu worships. . . . The Moslem has nothing in common with the Hindu except his slavery to the British."

Economic differences aggravate the irritation. Enterprising Hindus and Parsis almost monopolize banking, insurance, big business. Moslems, slower to welcome Western education, complain bitterly that Hindu factory owners rarely employ a Moslem clerk or foreman even when most workmen are Moslem. Moslems have a real fear that, in a unified India, Hindus would freeze them out of important posts in government and industry.

The British, in the years when they still hoped to hold India, gave the religious difference official standing by decreeing, in 1909, that Hindus and Moslems should vote separately. H. N. Brailsford, a sympathetic British student of India, has said: "We labeled them Hindus and Moslems till they forgot they were men." The British policy of "divide and rule" has been turned by Jinnah to the Pakistan demand "divide and quit."

The Poorest State. The British Raj had given India a unified defense and a unified region of internal free trade. Jinnah would destroy both. His Pakistan, in northwest and northeast India, would be an agricultural state, poor in resources and industry, unless, improbably, the Hindus agreed to turn Hindu Calcutta over to Pakistan. Between mighty Russia to the north and the main body of India to the south, Pakistan would dangle like two withered arms. Only half the population of the area claimed for Pakistan is Moslem. None could claim that to split India in twain would solve the minority problem—in Hindustan there would still be islands of Moslems, in Pakistan large Hindu minorities. Jinnah has not concealed that behind Pakistan lies the ancient Asiatic practice of taking hostages; a Hindu minority in Pakistan could, "by reprisals, be made to answer Tor persecution of Moslems in Hindu India.

To warnings that a separate Pakistan would be poor and backward, Jinnah answers: "Why are the Hindus worrying so much about us? Let us stew in our own juice if we are willing. . . . [The Hindus] would be getting rid of the poorest parts of India, so they ought to be glad. The economy would take care of itself in time."

The Plainest Answer. The Congress Party's position on Pakistan was just as firm as Jinnah's. The party's official head, goateed Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a Moslem who looks like a caricature of a Kentucky colonel, paced up & down in his Delhi quarters last week, smoking a big cigar. "Eighty percent of the Indian people live in villages where Hindus and Moslems get along well together—the only trouble is among the twenty percent living in the cities. This is basically an economic conflict, not religious." Jawaharlal Nehru made the plainest answer: "Nothing on earth, including the United Nations, is going to bring about the Pakistan of Jinnah's conception." The Congress Party might compromise on some plan for a limited Pakistan within a federated India. Jinnah might change his mind—as he has so often before. But if neither gave way, the British Cabinet Mission would probably impose a constitution on India despite the threats of civil war. When a British official in Delhi last week said, "This is the most important British diplomatic effort of the century," he had in mind the danger that a failure to settle the Indian problem would keep the whole East in turmoil and disturb international relations throughout the world by presenting Rus sia with an opportunity to increase her influence among Asia's people.

Even if settlement of the constitutional issue resulted in an independent, unified India, the future was none too bright.

Famine was tightening its grip on the subcontinent. Sir A. Ramaswami Mudaliar warned of "ten million dead on the streets of India" unless he could buy four million tons of grain this year in the U.S.* Independence alone would not answer the food problem, which would recur until India had more irrigation, more fertilizer, better agricultural methods and more industry. Many Indian leaders looked to the U.S. for machinery and technical advice. The most practical immediate step would be a U.S. loan to Britain, which would permit London to pay off much of its wartime debt to India and to give India the dollars she needs for imports from the U.S.

Where Akbar Failed. If India, with its diverse tongues, its anachronistic princes and princelings, its millennium of dependence on the rule of outsiders, could become a nation in the Western sense, the achievement would be one of the greatest triumphs of history. In E. M. Forster's A Passage to India, a Moslem character, Dr. Aziz, recalled that the great Mogul Emperor Akbar had worked with tolerance and wisdom to unite India, had even attempted to devise a new unifying faith. But, says Dr. Aziz: "Nothing embraces the whole of India—nothing, nothing, and that was Akbar's mistake."

This people without a common denominator are at the same time the most bound and the most free in the world. They are bound by poverty, by caste, by religious practices that often descend to the crassest animism, by political ignorance and by disease. Yet they have been free enough to produce great contemporary leaders and thinkers. Nobody, not even the British Raj in the days of its strength, has regimented the Indians, who wear a thousand local costumes, speak 225 languages, and follow highly individual patterns of behavior. An Indian is free to sleep on the sidewalks of Madras when he feels tired, or to declare himself a saint and sit waiting for disciples by the burning ghats of Benares; or to send out a seven-year-old child with a dead baby dangling from its hand to beg in Calcutta's Howrah railroad station.

No one who looked at India's anarchic scene last week could believe that Jinnah had created all the obstacles to India's freedom, but in the present crisis he had come to symbolize them. The Indian sun cast Jinnah's long thin shadow not only across the negotiations in Delhi but over India's future.

* At 67 plump Madame Naidu is still a member of the Congress Party's Working Committee, is considered India's topmost orator. She paints her toenails bright red.

* Pakistan, a dream of Moslem students before it became a political issue, was originally concocted from P for Punjab, A for the Afghans of the North-West Frontier, K for Kashmir, S for Sind, "pure" in Tan from Urdu, with "stan" Baluchistan. means "Pak" also "Land of the means Pure." Last week the League convention defined it to embrace Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, North-West Frontier Province (all in northwestern In dia), Assam and most of Bengal (in the north east). Jinnah has even advocated a thousand-mile corridor across Hindustan to connect the two parts.

* In 1943's Bengal famine 1.5 million starved.


"Without doubt, in the remembrance of Allah, do hearts find peace." Quran 13:28
Asafran

Ha! Musharraf cancel's his Kabul trip after reading the Asadi report on Chowk about the US planned assassination....funny, news agencies are saying that the US is "suprised" at the last minute cancellation by Musharraf.....Ha Ha no "surprise" here. Wasn't the Saddam man jumping from hideout to hideout when the cruise missiles were on his a$$ = )

It is not what Benazir wants or what Musharraf wants, as a famously clueless ignoramus on Chowk- "K" has written, it is what those that pull their strings want....and Musharraf's sting is soon to be cut by his puppet masters. The damn fools here want to deliberately mask and downplay and hide the real cause of political events of significance in Pakistan, the US elite...

From the Grade VIII Social Studies textbook in NWFP:

(Original is in Pushto, this is a translation)

CHAPTER 4: Hindu Hygiene
(Omitted, will post later)
_________________________

CHAPTER 5: Why are Hindus such bitter enemies of Pakistan
700 million people in India defecate in the open, there are 120 million 'no toilet' households and 10 million homes with bucket toilets which rely on Dalits or achoots to be removed by hand. Numerous Hindu babies are born in these bucket toilets, as the plop out when full term Hindu women squat over these rusted steel buckets to relieve themselves every morning. The Hindu newborns splash and kick around in the bucket until they are noticed by the mother and picked up. (only boys are picked up, girls are left behind). Someone born in the bucket is bound to hate Pakistan bitterly for the rest of their lives, which literally means Land of the Pure and clean people.

One down;

Re: #113

I have to run now. But good, we will discuss this to the end. And if you have no argument to offer in the end, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT PUBLICLY THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

I'll give you a hint about the line of my arguments "lying by omission".

Catch you soon.

Re: # 112

" including this kind of material in texbooks is wrong by any standards"

Please elaborate and cite some of these standards that you are referring to and do show how it is wrong. Also explain what do you mean by "this kind of material". Do you think it is purely subjective and has no basis in historically established documented facts? I do not want to know why Hindus "do not do it". Lets keep it focused to Pakistan only.

And yes I do have a tendency to crawl out of "argument" when I get rebuttals like that in #103 & #108. It is merely a waste of time when discourse gets at that level.

#105 Posted by Urstruly

[So in other words you do not have an answer about curriculum question. That's what I thought. ]

You have crawled away from many arguments in the past when you did not have any answer. So it's very low-class and Islamic on your part to "demand" answers.

Here is the answer you are looking for - including this kind of material in texbooks is wrong by any standards except for Islamic standards. We Hindus could do the same in our textbooks - the only difference would be that it would all be based on historic facts.

But we don't do it.

#107 Posted by Urstruly on August 8, 2007 7:44:27 am

goatbrain: I didn't post the curriculum question...you can go look at my posts....like I said, I couldn't care less why pakis got to be such terrorists...

#99 Posted by dawa-i-dil

[pakistani textbooks are not filled with hindu relgious personalities..not at all..]

No, they are just filled with bad things about the Hindu religion and Hindus.

[I have heard that he has 14,000 wives...]

This is why you fall under the "ignorant" category. And in any case, he is a mythological figure. Unlike your "prophet".

[i have always said that youre all political leaders are imams of makkars..is there anything false ?????]

But they operate in a democratic framework. Unlike your makkars. No?

[and do you know the meaning of rapist....ignorant fool...]

Yes, one who has sex without the other's legitimate consent, numbnuts.

[he married them ...read history before posting OK]

Learn about your own "prophet", shithead. Your 60-year-old "prophet" had sex with a 17-year-old war booty the same night that he had killed her father and brother. That is the work of a monster.

Well, can anybody who is relatively sane and not delusional explain this.......

"The Hindus and the Muslims could not amalgamate each other's way of life to become one nation.The main reason for this difference of cultures, civilisation and outlook was the religion of Islam which cannot be assimilated in any other system as it is based on the principle of...oneness of God....On the other hand, Hinduism is based on the concept of multiple Gods....There lies the difference between the Hindu and Muslim way of thinking.

Ok so why are there more Muslims in India after Pakiland was created.....the "amalgamation" ought not to have happened, if one were delusional enough to believe this tripe......

Hey,

You guys have strange logic. The relationship of animosity is certainly not transitive. Mohammad may have believed that the idolators were his enemy. The converse may not be true.
Paki Islamists believe that hindu idolators are enemy of Islam. The converse may not be true.
That is the strange logic of Paki Islamists.
Nothing wrong, if you can read the logic of Quran. You can understand the way these PAki Islamists think and behave.

Re: # 106

I think you are lying. The fact that you can't refute any claim in the curriculum has ignited fire under your tail. Otherwise I do not see a reason for your Tourrett's Syndrome.

#105 Posted by Urstruly on August 8, 2007 7:06:20 am

huh? the curriculum question wasn't posed to me...I agree with most things there about the hindoos..and personally, I couldn't care less why a paki got the way he is..I don't care that it was his curriculum...or that his mom didn't hug him enough..all I know is that the end result it that the paki is more likely to turn out to be an islamic terrorist..

Re: # 103

So in other words you do not have an answer about curriculum question. That's what I thought.

abai arjun ...

tell me about this text book information is right or wrong...

Mushy is not my phuppi ka puttar that we are responsible for what he do...

hey urstruly...your dictator is using artillery and helicopter gunships to whack your paki brothers...did you read the weekend washington post? turns out, the bush administration got the NIE report changed to emphasize the spread of AQ in the land of the pure...to put pressure on mushy's tushy and get him to do exactly what he's doing now...

Re: # 100

Yes, I would like to know too, which piece of information is incorrect in the curriculum.

LOL..so whats wrong in all this information..100% correct...

and is thier any Karishna..Arjun..etc etc are thier in these texts books...??? LOL

Some extracts from Pakistani text-books...
These are extracts from government-sponsored textbooks approved by the National Curriculum Wing (NCW) of the Federal Ministry of Education:
General:
'Who is a Hindu? A Hindu is an enemy of Islam'

'Before the Arab conquest, people were fed up with the teachings of Buddhists & Hindus. Before the arrival of Islam in India, people lived in untold misery'.

'European nations have been working during the past three centuries to subjugate countries of the Muslim world'.

Class IV Text Book:

* The Muslims of Pakistan provided all facilities to the Hindus and the Sikhs who left for India in 1947. But the Hindus and the Sikhs looted the Muslims in India with both hands and they attacked their caravans, buses and railway trains. Therefore, about one million Muslims were martyred on their way to Pakistan.

* The Hindus treated the ancient population of the Indus Valley very badly. They set fire to their houses and butchered them.

* The religion of Hindus did not teach them good things, Hindus did not respect women.

Class V Text Book:

* After the war of 1965, India with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, incited the people of East Pakistan against West Pakistanis. In December 1971, the Indians themselves also attacked East Pakistan. As a result East Pakistan separated from us. We should all receive military training so that we can foil the designs of the enemy in the future. (By implication, not even a single Muslim in East Pakistan, including Mujibur Rehman, fought against West Pakistanis in 1971)

* The Hindu has always been an enemy of Islam.

Class VI Text Book:

* In the middle of the city of Deebal (Sindh), there was a Hindu temple. There was a flag hoisted on top of it. The Hindus believed that as long as the flag kept flying, nobody could harm them. Mohd bin Qasim found out about this. The Muslims began to catapult stones at the temple and at the flag, ultimately making it fall to the ground. The whole city became tumultuous and the Hindus lost heart. Some Muslims clambered up the walls of the temple and forced open the door. Qasim's army entered the city and after conquering it, announced peace. The Muslims treated the vanquished so well many Hindus converted to Islam.

* Before the Arab conquest the people were fed up with the teachings of Buddhists and Hindus.

* The foundation of the Hindu setup was based on injustice and cruelty.

* The Hindus who had always been opportunists cooperated with the British.

* The Hindus used to please the goddess Kali by slaughtering people of other religions.

Class VII Text Book:

* Some Jewish tribes also lived in Arabia. They lent money to workers and peasants on high rates of interest and usurped their earnings. They held the whole society in their tight grip because of the ever-increasing compound interest.

* History has no parallel to the extremely kind treatment of the Christians by the Muslims. Still the Christian kingdoms of Europe were constantly trying to gain control of Jerusalem. This was the cause of the Crusades.

* European nations have been working during the past three centuries, through conspiracies or naked aggression, to subjugate countries of the Muslim world. Hindus always desired to crush the Muslims as a nation. Several attempts were made by the Hindus to erase Muslim culture and civilisation.

* The Hindus too wished to ruin Muslim civilisation and culture by destroying Urdu which has been closely associated with the Pakistan Movement.

Class VIII Text Book:

* During the Khilafat Movement Hindus and Muslims were completely united and like brothers and they started to cooperate and live in peaceful togetherness. But as soon as this movement ended, Hindu hatred of the Muslim re-emerged.

* Before Islam people lived in untold misery all over the world.

Class IX Text Book:

* The Hindus and the Muslims could not amalgamate each other's way of life to become one nation.The main reason for this difference of cultures, civilisation and outlook was the religion of Islam which cannot be assimilated in any other system as it is based on the principle of...oneness of God....On the other hand, Hinduism is based on the concept of multiple Gods....There lies the difference between the Hindu and Muslim way of thinking.

* In connivance with the (British) government the Hindus started communal riots and caused loss of life and property. At the time of prayers the Hindus tortured the Muslims by playing music in front of the mosques. Before the commencement of classes the students saluted the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and Muslim students were also forced to do so.

* Muslims promoted equality and social justice as against the division created by the Hindu caste system.

Class X Text Book:

* The ideology of Pakistan...was a revolt against the prevailing system of India in which Hindu nationalism was imposed on the Muslims.

* Islam gives a message of peace and brotherhood.... There is no such concept in Hinduism. Moreover Islam preaches brotherhood, equality and justice.... On the other hand, the Hindu society is based on caste system which downgrades the entire mankind.

* After the establishment of Pakistan the Hindus and Sikhs created a day of doom for the Muslims in East Punjab.

* The Hindus were encouraged by the (British) government to force the Muslims to join the Congress.

(These extracts have been translated from Urdu which is the standard medium of instruction in Government Schools in Pakistan)

Re: # 94

pakistani textbooks are not filled with hindu relgious personalities..not at all..neither we wnt to quote that into our text books..our text books are filled with Ali..Umar..Ibne Waleed.. Bilal...etc etc..


I have heard that he has 14,000 wives...


i have always said that youre all political leaders are imams of makkars..is there anything false ?????

and do you know the meaning of rapist....ignorant fool...

he married them ...read history before posting OK

true..but ground realities are always different...

if this not the case ...why there are 56 islamic countries in world instead of 1...

Dawa bhai,

(what else was between us except islam....)

Isn't everything else immaterial in front of Islam?

Regards

Yaar 1971 was a different scenario..1000 miles away ..2 part ..totally different geography..language..customs ...and rituals...what else was between us except islam....

Pakistan is not in such a bad condition as you are saying...

Re: # 87

Nothing can save a country when its people do not wish to live with each other. We have already lost half of the country in 1971 and have done little to keep the rest together. Nuclear capability had its shortterm positive impact but has since lost its effect on nation building. Post 9/11 world has made Pak nukes more of a liability, weapons of death for others are being protected as if though our life depended on it.

Pakistan is on a self-destruct mode and we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

#93 Posted by dawa-i-dil

[behave youeself ajeya...]

After you...

[i have never stepped onto your religious leaders like Arjun..Karishna....etc ...]

Neither of them was a "religiou leader". Throw away the Paki textbooks.


[do you know..how many wivesof Karishna ???]

Yes. One.

[shame on you ...to degrade our prophet(pbuh)...]

Telling the truth is degrading only in Islam.

[have i ever said a single word to your religious leaders ????]

You want me to play by exactly your rules?

[and who says that we worship Muhammad(pbuh)...we worship none but Allah Almighty..thats all]

Good. Then fact-based criticism about him should be perfectly acceptable by you. No?

behave youeself ajeya...

i have never stepped onto your religious leaders like Arjun..Karishna....etc ...do you know..how many wivesof Karishna ???

shame on you ...to degrade our prophet(pbuh)...

have i ever said a single word to your religious leaders ????

and who says that we worship Muhammad(pbuh)...we worship none but Allah Almighty..thats all

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

indian politics..is very stable...LOL

BJP..the poltcal wing of RSS..whose politics move around religious fanatics..and fasaadat..and balatkar..RathYatra of Adwani to shheed Babri Mosque....in Gugraat ..train drama of Sabar Mati Express..then kill 3000 innocent muslims..burn all the shops of muslims in Ahemedabad...

Kill the former MLA ...Ansari in Ahmed Abad from Congress..while he was calling help to everyone ...including Commissoner...but nobody came to his help...

The shameless beast ...ballar kar 7 7 yewars old girls in streets of Ahmedabad...in Cobra Nagar...etc...then burnt these innocent flowers alive....

The Best Backery case in which 18 people were burnt alive..anfd then giving threats to her only witness...and pressurizing her....

Operation Blue Star..when Sikhs were rightly demanding the seperate land for them..kill thousands...destroyed thier holy place...kill thier commander..Bhandrawala....

Nehru Dhoti wala...who promissed in UNO...that he will arrange refrendum in Kashmir..then his dhoti became wet..when half of the Kashmir was snatched by brave tribal and armed forces...then he ran to UNO for war ending....

Giving arms ..training ..and money to sepeartists...in Sindh..like MQM...Jai Sindh....

Giving arms and money to terrorist in Balochistan....Bugti..etc..fdrom 3 counsellate in Afghnaistan of Kandhar...Kabul...and Herat...

This is indian democracy that...6 or 7 provinces want seperation from it...including..

* Jhar Khand
* Mani Pur
* Tri Pura
* Assam
* Kahmir
* Chatees Garh
* West Bengal


This is indin democracy..who gain vote on muslim bloodshed...


have ever heard a single bloodshed in Sindh where hindus are in large number..or in punjab..where Christains are in large no...

this is shining india...which has given by zeemax..by few pics of Kolkatta..Mumbai etc..the dirtiest country on the face of earth....and still claim super power ...hahahaha...

super power to Bhutan..and Nepal...etc

1971 war issue ..i have already given the reasons

LOL

Re: # 71 Masadi I agree with you. Appointed people can not make democracy. You are right but you need to be moderaate in expressing.
I hope YLH can contribute to discussion as he knows big people in lahore politics and will be good to hear from him his feelings about what Punjabi heart land thinks

Re: # 69
1971 will not be repeated for now there is atmomic reality of superior atomic bombs by us. ( all world experts have concluded pakistani design and yield in Kilotons is far higher than Indian. More bigger cities means more targets). If the stage comes due to spilitist encouragement from India general will make atomic attack and cripple india before split occurs.
Also soniya gandhi is not Indira Gandhi.

#85 FerozK

The past as a prelude to the future?!

Will this nightmare ever end?!!

Benazir Bhutto would like nothing better than to be the prime minister and see the powers of the presidency limited. Musharraf would like an alliance with Benazir's party and still retain his presidential powers, i.e. a weak prime minister's office.

How these issues are accomodated, will decide the future of Pakistani politics and the rhetorical justifications for this act as an explanation to the people of Pakistan.

Ciao

Is there any truth to the rumor that mian Hamidm2 is out there hobnobbing between Mushy and BB - putting on massive frequent-flyer mileage between vilayat and Pakistan, looking to be annointed the next Wazeer-e-alam, hence not been able to address these here important interacts?!

congrats Pakis ....you're number 1...most unstable country...woo hoo..

Pakistan, Venezuela among most unstable: Eurasia Group
By Polya Lesova, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:20 PM ET Aug 7, 2007

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Pakistan, Venezuela and Nigeria are among the most unstable emerging markets and rank the lowest on Eurasia Group's Global Political Risk Index, a political stability ranking for 24 emerging markets.
The top three most stable countries are Hungary, South Korea and Poland, according to the group's scores on the Global Political Risk Index for August. Tailored toward emerging markets investors, the index is produced by Eurasia Group and distributed in partnership with Citi Private Bank. See Emerging Markets Report.
The index is based on 20 indicators in four equally weighted categories: government, society, security and economy, which are combined into a single country score on a scale from zero to 100. The higher the score, the more stable the country.
Once again leading the ranking, Hungary has a score of 79, followed by South Korea with 76, Poland with 72, Bulgaria with 70 and Brazil with 69. Read more about Brazil.

Most unstable
Pakistan is the most unstable country with a composite score of 46. It is ruled by General Pervez Musharraf who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999.
"President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown against extremists is unlikely to ease political pressures on his government," said analysts at the Eurasia Group. "The heavy hand displayed in the government's dealing with radicals occupying the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) and its renewed commitment to fight extremism, while improving Musharraf's standing with moderate secularists, triggered a backlash from religious conservatives."

Dawa-ill-dil:

Lekar humm
Dawwaa ka fill
Firtey haiN
Mehfil, mehfil
Koi bataye, kidhar ko jayen?!
Zee ke sang – karnee hai tuttee!

#76 Dawa, it is worth repeating...

YOU LOSE!

YOU LOSE!

YOU LOSE!

#76 Dawa-ill-dil

Dawa, pehley apni dawa kar! Uske baad India ko updesh dena!

Guys like you are such ignoramuses that one can only pity you.

You lost Bangladesh!

If you do not mend your ways, you may lose more! (Who would have believed that ten years ago?!) There is a REAL danger of that at this time. The NWFP/easern side divide is already too stark.

Learn to live together - like the people of India have tried more or less successfully!

Your jihadi crappshoot's time is up!

It came out a cropper!

YOU LOSE!

masadi: you write Tahmed is an unconditional worshipper and peon of the West

I am demolished. You have ruined my reputation. :-(

Why you are sent to fetch samosa and chai for the staff room of government college, pind dadan khan, why dont you get one for me too to cheer me up? :-)

#65 anil: I think much depends on how BB reacts to Musharraf's announcement today that he will run for "re-elections" (i.e. by playing making a mockery of the election process as before) and stay in uniform. If she re-joins other political parties from whom she broke ranks by having separate talks with Musharraf, then perhaps she will have a chance. If she does not, I think the PPP could easily end up splintering.

That is my uneducated guess. All one can say for sure at this time is: August is going to be a hot month that may well determine the shape of Pakistan's political structure for the next few years.

#66 Salim: Two year term limits would seem to make sense, although even four years is better than what Musharraf is trying to do - 8 years of unelected rule plus 5 more, complete with uniform to match!!

An important thing missing in Pakistani politics is inner party democracy. All parties seem obliged to stick to their party leaders, when in fact these individuals have made serious errors as prime ministers and should themselves step aside. This of course is institutionalized in the US through the primary process - and political leaders have often voluntarily stepped aside.

In Pakistan, time is ripe for such a change. Aitezaz Ahsan is clearly a better candidate than BB, and there is every reason to give Javed Hashmi a chance and for NS to step aside. The fact that both BB and NS are fishing to remain party leaders rather acting responsibly and calling for party primaries to elect new party leaders is disappointing, although keeping in character with these two. If they should chose to do so, their personal prestige would be greatly enhanced, and more importantly, the democratic movement would receive a big stimulus.

BJ Kumar...

truth is bitter...accept it or not...

while pointing fingers in MAJ..look into your own shirts..OK

what your shameless leaders have done in past....

MJ is our hero..thanks god..he saved us ..from ultra beautiful mumbai..and cacutta...as given in pics by zeemax...

we send 1000 times lanat to such place...

thanks ..we have seperate land..where we live like a free 1st class citizens...not as 3rd class as poor slave indians muslims live under dhoti walai shameless hindus..makkar qaum...

and i am asking for one more seperate mulim country inside india..as 200 millions muslims have a right of freedom..how cn you put a lock on it ?????????? tell me ?????

#43 Posted by bulleya,

somewhere in there is the pakistani awam.......which is now moving in a totally different direction.....they are fed up with musharraf, bb, nawaz and the usa.......

Above is true that people are fed up, but it must be noted that above all people are fed up with Musharraf's kowtowing to US interests resulting in grave domestic polarization, and more so now given the recent US military threats. It is obvious BB will need to follow the same path if she's in power. On the other hand, NS is the only one who has a record of successfully resisting US pressure with the nuke tests, a posture which is widely admired.

The other factor is that the 'extremists' can no more be treated dismissively by any political party as in the past given the civil war in FATA and Swat, and will need to be given political representation to avoid its spread. BB/musharraf combine will continue to use force.

People are likely to take into account that NS has worked well with religious elements of all persuasions before, and is the only one with the ability to do so again.

Besides, the article 58 (2b) will make any BB/Musharraf smooth working relationship impossible. So even if a deal occurs, it will not last more than a few months. So all these discussions are academic.

However, notwithstanding the above, the chances of 'emergency' are far more than any elections. In which case, I would place my money on Urstruly's prediction.

Hoping against hope

Poor Babar Mufti, you have absolutely no idea about pakistan. benzir comes and goes, nothing will change in pakistan. The events and institutions of pakistan represent the will of the people.

Benazir was there when hoodood, and blasphemy laws were in place, she did nothing. The spread of jihadis and the madrassas took place when she was there. The corruption and mullaism flourished during benazir time. The moderate islam was never there in pakistan and no one can create it when TNT was the foundation of its creation.

Take it from me babar nothing will change.

Now let us look at budget alocations. Most of the money is cornered by the military. from corn flakes to cement are made my the army. Most of teh transport is cornered by the military. Most of the top jobs are cornered by the military. No benzir can change any of that in th e short term.

There is no excess money to allocate to schools, so madrassas will flourish , they are supported by the mums and dada.

The export situation will not improve because no one wants to come to paklistan because of terrorism.

Pakistan is in a situation of no options, there is no where to move. It is pure power craziness that attracts Benazir, she has no vision for the country, no ideas, no nothing.

She will not be able to do anything about kashmir, no trade improvements with India.

Under the US [pressure shortly pakis will have to allow shipments to afghanisatan through pakistan. That is all.

No Osama will be caught by Benazir.

Hoping against hopes,

The poor Babar Mufti is having high hopes for pakistan, that too about enlightened moderation.

Let us look at the social institution level.

Hoodood and blaspjemy laws were there during the time of benazir and she did nothing because the paki people want it including the YLH.

So nothing will change there, even after the return of benazir.

LOL

Tahmed wrote "Pakistani people need to rule themselves through duly appoi