Remembering the Presidential Election of 1965

#134 Posted by HP

“These Islamists are not against the State of Pakistan. They are in fact its biggest patriots.”Duh! I know the definition of patriotism can be pretty extended but what makes them patriots?

Wresting Azad Kashmir for Pakistan in 1948; acting as Pakistan's unpaid volunteer army on the North Western Border against a hostile Zahir Shah regime till his downfall and thus freeing Pakistani regular army for the Eastern border with India; fighting the soviet Jihad at Pak's bidding and winning; climbing Kargil to 6,000 metre heights with dismantled anti-aircraft guns carried on their backs and whacking indian convoys to Siachen while the regulars just maintained reconaissance and logistics - and getting betrayed for all of the above with heavy casualties to them but still remaining loyal to Pakistan.

If this isn't patriotism, what is?

On the other hand, the Corp commander (read musharraf) Peshawar embraces Nek Muhammad in a peace deal and then assassinates him in a helicopter strike; allows foreigners to stay who had been there since the past 20 years and then starts to kill them and handing them over to Gitmo for $5,000 apiece in supposed anti-alqaeda operations; bombs and kills 82 madrassa students in Bajaur plus scores other innocents in league with Nato in attempts to get Zawahiri, and last but not least incinerates 1200-1500 of their women and children in Lal Masjid with chemical weapons and buries them in mass graves and levels the ground and then demolishes the 6 storey building on top of it to destroy evidence ...

If this isn't treachery, what is?

In revenge, they have turned against the military regime in Pakistan, and NOT the State of Pakistan. If they want, they can turn ALL your cities into Baghdad with bombings - blowing up bazaars and shopping malls. But they haven't. They're targeting uniformed security services as a legitimate enemy with little and unavoidable civilian collateral damage. It could be worse, and may yet become worse.

dullabhatti #135: "majority of the Pakistanis had pinned high hopes on Musharraf during majority of the last 8 years time frame...were the majority being childish? yes."

..i don't think the majority of pakistanis had pinned high hopes on him.......they were just glad to see nawaz sharif go.....it had nothing to do with musharraf......even if sonia gandhi had come and gotten rid of nawaz sharif, people would have celebrated.....

......what did happen after that is that the musharraf govt. stabilised the economy, and eventually the economy started growing at levels, rarely seen before......so the people figured that even though this is a military govt., at least they are getting jobs.....

.....where musharraf made his mistake was leaning over far too much towards the americans.......he overdid it.....literally sold out pakistan's sovereignity.... .america is, hugely, unpopular in pakistan.....and with musharraf bombing the tribal areas, on behalf of the americans, the pakistani population turned against him....

.....the other mistake he made was the kidnapping etc. of pakistani citizens on behest of americans......that made him very unpopular......

all of this showed up in the cj case, when the public came out.....

musharraf, basically, belongs to the westernised very pro-usa crowd of pakistan.....the dailytimes and chowk crowd....this is where he feels comfortable......his brother and son are in usa.....he may himself go there, after retirement........this crowd has a tendency to make decisions in favor of the usa, even if the, "unwashed masses" of pakistan are very anti-usa.....

......now you are seeing support for bb and ns....this is, however, also not support........now, people just want someone to kick out musharraf.....and feel ns and bb are the two best options to kick him out......not that they have any high hopes from bb and ns........

Re: # 134

HP

And above all they have been made law-givers as members of the Paky Parliament when the laws made by it are not applicable to them. Is it not a blatant discrimination in the Paky Constitution?
Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told.
Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right."

Re: # 134 Posted by HP on September 8, 2007 2:36:39 pm

Now in a convoluted way you make it sound that the State of Pakistan was doing all this through the goodness of their hearts. Is this what you are suggesting?

zakkk, for those of us who are only vaguely familiar with Mr. Khattak's background, would that strengthen ANP at the grassroots level, politically?

HP: Something you may like to know: Afrasiab Khattak has become the NWFP provincial head of the ANP.

HP, obviously not many are gaga over him anymore..but my point remains, majority of the Pakistanis had pinned high hopes on Musharraf during majority of the last 8 years time frame...were the majority being childish? yes. that was my point too by the way.

#122 Posted by zeemax

“These Islamists are not against the State of Pakistan. They are in fact its biggest patriots.”
Duh!

I know the definition of patriotism can be pretty extended but what makes them patriots?

Is suicide bombing the cities an act of Patriotism?
Is killing innocent people for no good reason patriotism?

Let me ask you what the state of Pakistan has done to these guys in the tribal areas. Pakistan rarely interferes in the tribal affairs. Pakistan rarely interferes in their economic system and in fact Pakistani liked our smugglers from the tribal areas and tolerated their car stealing and hashish smuggling ways. What has Pakistan done to them that make them stand against the state?

They had more freedom than any other citizen of Pakistan at any given period in history. They never knew Section 144, they never knew the draconian laws that were used against the people of Pakistan by the army and others. They always had a free reign. What more do they want? Did the Pak armies ever attack them? Did the Pak army treat them the way Bengalis were treated?

Pakistan supported these nahinjaar, havyoon, and Mala’oons in their war against the soviets. Pakistan allowed them to shelter the worst criminals from all over the world and they are the reason Pakistan is now in such a difficult state internationally.

How do they repay for all the liberties? They want to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the country. How many in Pakistan agree with the tribal lifestyle and why should Pakistanis be forced in to accepting the tribal way of life.
They know they can’t have that in Pakistan so they are trying to create a country for themselves and that’s why they are Indian agents and enemies of Pakistan.

Since these guys were raised on money made through crimes of smuggling, car stealing, selling Hash and heroine and kidnapping people for ransom-- they are now trying to impose that culture on Pakistan. Crime is in their blood because thats what they were taught at home.

#130 Posted by dullabhatti

“HP saab, you want me to dig up articles and posts by Pak awaam on how dashing , good looking he is,”

There are plenty in Pakistani awam with your level of childish knowledge of politics. If you were to talk about the awam going gaga over his looks, then why this dashing good looking man is afraid to face the awam?

So you think because some people posted their wet dreams of having sex with dashing men on this site, you would pray for those dreams too?

The case is closed, Fatima Jinnah was supported because of the cultural recognition of MAJ (monarchial succession), this type of support that rested on religious/theological exclusion and seperation, deters human consciousness and becomes an opiate. ZAB was supported by the masses because of economic and not theological reasons, bread and butter issues, a kind of support that regardless of the success or failure of the ruler produces consciousness of the social scene, merely by this act it liberates humanity.

the case is closed

Manto writes "You know as well as I do that I have nothing to do with Jamaat-e-Islami. "

Of course you do, but it is an alliance of convenience. Haven't you been upholding Urstruly's posts against me as some sort of evidence, repeating the JI falsehoods and nonsense arguments against ZAB, and then holding them up as some criteria in your support of Fatima Jinnah. How many times have we seen the peons of the colonials get in bed with the mullahs, across the globe, to suppress the people's voice!

HP saab, you want me to dig up articles and posts by Pak awaam on how dashing , good looking he is, how smart and energetic he is, how he is going to take Pakistan to 21st century by getting rid of corrupt Sharif? I give you there were few extreme liberals, anti-mohajirs and mullahs like sameer and zeemax who did not welcome him.
of course the story has been different for the last few years.

bulleya: NS was corrupt and so was BB and their nearest and dearest. I am in agreement with you on that. but so were guys before them and so has been the new nizaam..is Pakistan system any less corrupt now than it was at NS's time? Pakistan was at financial bankruptcy during NS time bceause of the sanctions and nuke tests....first year of Musharraf was not that good either then 9/11 changed lot of things.
Another thing favoring musharraf was spread of new technologies in the last decade and rising consumerism.

#129 Arjun

You are blinded by your feelings.

The 1971 surrender was AFTER fighting a war. There were casualties on both sides.

Comparing the cowardly surrender in NWFP of "professional" Pakistanis is insulting the memories of those soldiers (on both sides) who were driven by their sense of patriotism (misguided as it was on the Pakistani side).

#127 Posted by bjkumar on September 8, 2007 8:34:08 am



Professional soldiers do not just surrender.


WIth the paki army, that's par for the courses...remember 90K momin laying down their weapons?

I must admit there is something highly fishy about this whole "surrender" business. Professional soldiers do not just surrender. Period.

Surrender monkeys surrendered without firing a shot..maybe the paki army should use the new F-16s it bought for air cover...after all, with the restrictions and special "features" in them, they're useless against India(not that pureland would ever get the testicular fortitude to go to war with india to get kashmir or anything)...

VIEW: Surrenders and frontier warfare —Shaukat Qadir

The recent incidents of soldiers supposedly ‘captured by’ militants in the tribal areas — 208 a few days ago, and another dozen a couple of days later, according to various sources — is a matter of concern for all citizens. This seemingly soft surrender becomes even more interesting when we consider that mountain warfare is taught at the Infantry School as well as the Staff College and is also practised during the War Course. Further, veterans of earlier operations in Balochistan or Afghanistan have had chances to apply these concepts in hostile environments.

Any convoy moving through hostile territory, whether vehicular or on foot, routinely occupies all heights along the route to prevent being ambushed. If a vehicular convoy has to meet a time limit then other troops occupy these heights and signal the convoy that the route is safe, thus allowing it to proceed speedily to its destination.

Alternately, if the convoy has to protect itself, then soldiers mounted on the vehicles dismount and clear neighbouring heights, permitting the convoy to proceed with caution till the next possible ambush site is reached, where the same drill is repeated.

Consequently, the explanation for these recent kidnappings offered by DG-ISPR raises more questions than it actually answers.

First, it is intriguing that a convoy of over a hundred regular soldiers and another hundred or so Frontier Corps men with a lieutenant colonel in charge were proceeding on leave. If the regulars were proceeding on leave with the FC personnel along for protection, which makes better sense, then why did the FC men remain mounted on their vehicles while passing through possible ambush sites? The latest suggestion that these soldiers had chosen to spend their leave as guests of the Mehsud tribe is absurd.

In all environments where it is not possible to differentiate between a hostile and a peaceful citizen, clear and unambiguous ‘rules of engagement’ are issued by the highest authority. In such a situation, any individual bearing arms would be assumed hostile and, though the rules of engagement should clearly state that such an individual or group is not to be fired upon unless they initiate hostilities, they would be apprehended and questioned.

In the unlikely event that a force in excess of 200 armed soldiers commanded by a lieutenant colonel were successfully ambushed by a smaller hostile force (of a dozen or so!), especially if routine SOPs (standard operating procedures) were not being followed, a battle would be expected where a large number of soldiers would be killed and wounded. But the rest would break through the ambush as anti-ambush drills are routinely taught and practised.

However, in the absence of any battle or casualties, the capture of such a contingent, followed by a smaller one, within the span of a few days offers no explanation other than that the troops opted to surrender. Admittedly, this is conjecture, but following the explanation offered before this conclusion is drawn, there appears no logical alternative.

Knowing the way militaries all over the world operate, it is a matter of certainty that the careers of the officers among the captured will come to a swift and untimely end, whenever they are repatriated. The other ranks will also be interrogated and while many of them may also be discharged, those who are retained will bear this stigma for a long time.

If the troops have indeed chosen to lay down their arms rather than fight against their own ‘brethren’, two conclusions can be drawn.

First, morale is low and the idea of killing own citizens, which has never sat well with any moral soldier, has become an increasingly difficult burden to bear. Some of us may recall that in 1977, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wanted to declare martial law in selected cities, including Lahore, three brigadiers refused and resigned in protest; which was the catalyst for the military takeover by General Zia-ul Haq.

Second, there is, among the soldiers and officers, either increased sympathy for the so-called militants or decreased sympathy for Musharraf’s policies; in all probability the latter. It is important to state at this point that those who have chosen to blame the captured soldiers, of whatever rank, for these incidents should perhaps pause and consider for a moment, for the moral burden of killing your own citizens can only be understood by those who have had occasion to do the same.

In either case, if even the rank and file of the army are disillusioned with Musharraf’s policies for dealing with the very real problem of religious militancy, then there really is no possible justification for him to continue in uniform, which he refers to as his ‘skin’, and none whatsoever for him to prolong his stay.

It is time for him to say his farewell to arms and political power.

The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)