Remembering the Presidential Election of 1965

YLH-

All stupid all the time manto manto

Re: # 1 YLH you know that I have great respect for your achievements.
Past is past. Please tell who you feel we should support ?
Tell us about following few things for future
1 Who you are inclined to support for better of country.
2. is Bhutto constitution defunct or can be reformed or necessary to have new start?
3. Is present constitution clear about supremacy of Primeminister and elected bodies or elected president by them or it is ambigious.
4.Kashmir/India question had reached dead end ? What should be thrust for finding solution solution acceptable and possible or elected govt will go according to majority of taking K by snatching
5. Is provinces right specially mineral and gas related is it local(province) ownership or National, what constitution defines ?
Present demand by extremist Nationalist parties for all control except three (national army,currency and foreign policy) is expressibily against constitution ? Also right to depart from federation, what the law says.

Hope you can shed some light on what constitution of our nation says about these crucial matters.
Thanks

what achievements? Please share. I would like to see Manto as a human being, and not as a bandar tamasha.


with much respect,
thinking storm

Re: # 3
He has completed education at Lahore.
He went to usa to good college.
He has worked in IT sector , he once here even advertised for High Tech people to apply to his company.
He went back to school and is LAWYER ( not low paid coolie stylist code programmer)
He was very very good in explaining his support to CJ and lawyers movement. He always kept in mind when he said that this is very important as pakstan is looked by muslim nations as spiritual leader. That was music to ears with good confidence.
He can be making lots of extra money by speding time in his profession than giving advantage of knowledge, visdom and experience of travelling different countries( I do not agree this Jinnah-holic or Gandhiphobic attitude)to readers. He is giving lots of time to this social work of spreading analysis of political things. That quite achievement

ahmed-

Thanks for the post. I appreciate you taking time out to share your opinion with me.

I have tried to view this wanabee slug manto as a human, but I see an unformed blob.

the first four or five points are not accomplishments. It is like applauding a snail that takes a few days to cross the road and continuously pisses on its way. Not accomplishments, just a part of living.

Now regarding explaining why he supported the CJ and other lawyers. Again, any dipshit with a couple of brain cells sparking could do that.

I do take offence to the part where you confuse his bullshit warblings for wisdom.

The only thing I will give him credit for is that he has been travelling (if he has indeed).

Regarding doing charity...he should keep his trap shut about that. The key to charity is to do it without gloating about it.

Well at least I don't see manto looking like a turd anymore. I see him more like a continously pissing snail. Blob like, and filthy.
with much respect,
thinking storm

Musharraf is hell-bent on creating another bloody Karachi in Islamabad -- the uncivil control-freak will destroy every civil institution of Pakistan just to keep his personal pathological control over every aspect of Pakistan governance.

The reptile is hell-bent on ruining the career of Benazir by making her the new Queen of the new Quislings of Aitzaz Ahsan's PPP -- and by preventing that half-crazed hyper man Nawaz Sharif to have a Supreme Court sanctioned -- normal run of the mill uneventful homecoming -- even after 7 years of totally illegal exile -- the man with the Kargillian brain is hell-bent on making a mediocre Sharif a larger than life figure in Pakistan politics – by making a polticial martyre -- or who knows even physically martyred like another ZAB -- besides starting another nauseating confrontation with the FULL bench of Supreme Court judges –- not just one CJ this time.

Even after 8 years of absolute power the crazy control freak is still hungry for another 5 years of ugly illegal stint.

Musharraf is surely a sick man of the subcontinent. He needs to be institutionalized in the psychiatric ward of the GHQ Hospital with his arms strapped behind his back and a duct tape over his forked tongue mouth.

When this man is going to QUIT, good grief. It's just like “Hazrat-e Daagh jahaaN baith gaye baith gaye......

Re: # 5 Posted by thinkingstorm on September 6, 2007

No you are quite wrong with your opinion about Yasser. He is the life of this web site. Just stick around and you will see the number of interacts on his article.

Gulf News, Indian Express, The Nation (Pakistan), Oman Tribune September 5,
2007



IJI De Ja Vu?

By Husain Haqqani



The last three decades have seen the ouster from power of several entrenched
authoritarian rulers around the world. The process of political change at
the end of dictatorship in most cases falls into two broad categories: the
blood-in-the-streets outcome or the negotiated transition scenario. In the
first case, disillusionment with the autocrat leads to civil disturbance or
mass protests. Either the arrogant ruler or the opposition refuses to engage
in talks and the regime collapses after excessive violence. The successor
regime is not guaranteed to be more democratic or inclusive than the
outgoing one. In the second situation, a weakened regime negotiates a
transition that protects some of the interests of its leading members but
allows a new, usually more representative, government to emerge.



As General Pervez Musharraf’s grip on power slips, Pakistanis are
contemplating the most effective way for the restoration of democracy. Given
the pervasiveness of the military in Pakistan’s politics there is a widely
expressed desire to ensure that Musharraf’s relinquishing of power should
not be under circumstances that allow the military to continue to dabble in
politics. There is a widespread desire for systemic change. Hardly anyone
wants a rerun of Pakistan’s troubled past, manifested in changes of faces at
the helm without a weakening of the army’s overall control.



Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his many supporters, especially in
the media, believe that a hardline stance towards Musharraf is in order. The
coup making general is on a slippery slope since his ill-fated decision to
dismiss the Supreme Court Chief Justice on March 9. The lawyers’ campaign on
behalf of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry mobilized civil society
sufficiently to expose Musharraf’s lack of popular support. The Supreme
Court asserted its independence and restored justice Chaudhry to office,
raising hopes that the legitimacy of Musharraf’s arbitrary rule can now be
brought into question before the courts. Musharraf’s desire to rule with the
dual offices of president and army chief seems less and less likely to be
fulfilled.



Mr. Sharif has been allowed by the Supreme Court to return from exile and he
seems to believe that upon returning home he can bring the masses into the
streets and force Musharraf’s resignation. The “let nobody talk to Musharraf
and thereby oust the dictator” crowd is ecstatic. Mr. Sharif’s “courage’ in
deciding to return home, face the threat of arrest and challenge military
rule is being praised on TV talk shows and in newspaper columns. Negative
comparisons are being made with the decision by the other exiled former
Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, to negotiate with Musharraf the terms of her
return to the country.



Suddenly, Mr. Sharif is the paragon of democracy and Ms Bhutto “the sell
out.” No matter that Ms Bhutto and her husband have spent more years in
prison and exile while resisting military rule than the period of hardship
under Musharraf of the entire Sharif clan added together. Those praising Mr.
Sharif’s principled stance forget that he launched his national political
career with the help of the military and the Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI), on the shoulders of Pakistan’s Islamists. Without necessarily casting
doubt on his current commitment to democracy, is it not relevant to at least
wonder whether his enthusiasm in returning home to topple Musharraf could
mark a repetition of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) of 1988? Then, the
ISI had encouraged Mr. Sharif to join forces with the Jamaat-e-Islami to
contain Ms Bhutto and her Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Even now, it is
clear that the might and wrath of Pakistan’s establishment is reserved for
the PPP and not for Mr. Sharif’s faction.



Notwithstanding her recent negotiations with Musharraf, Bhutto is not known
for being a protégé of Pakistan’s military or intelligence services. On the
other hand, Mr. Sharif may have fallen afoul of General Musharraf but he is
clearly acceptable to other rightwing generals who still regard him as their
former ally.



Ms Bhutto is being targeted with a hatchet job comparable to that undertaken
covertly in 1988. See the proliferation of stories in some newspapers about
her party’s lobbying efforts in the United States. Pakistani-Americans
affiliated with the PPP have apparently retained the services of a lobbying
firm to advance their party’s cause just as the firm of Robinson, Lake,
Lehrer and Montgomery (RLLM) was asked to lobby for the IJI United States in
1988-90 to establish that Mr. Sharif’s ascendancy to power would not run
contrary to US interests. The Washington-based lobbying firm organized Mr.
Sharif's 1989 trip to Washington and neither that nor the current actions of
Ms Bhutto’s followers in America are sinister or unethical. Strangely, those
hyping up the PPP’s lobbying effort in the US have remained unusually quiet
for the last several years over Musharraf’s own marketing initiatives paid
for by government money rather than by contributions from Pakistani doctors
and IT professionals (as seems to be the case with PPP’s lobbying).



Ms Bhutto is also being denigrated for trying to achieve a deal with
Musharraf without mention of the fact that negotiations are an integral part
of politics. Ms Bhutto would have been at fault if her negotiating points
had excluded key democratic demands such as removal of Musharraf’s uniform
and the abrogation of the notorious eighth amendment to the constitution.
Now that the talks between Ms Bhutto and Musharraf’s emissaries have stalled
over these key issues, it is clear that Ms Bhutto has been trying to work
out a negotiated transition rather than just cutting a personal deal with
Musharraf. The general, on the other hand, has been trying to “create the
illusion of a deal without actually pursuing one” (as I wrote in these
columns on April 11). Part of the purpose, especially of the government’s
covert operatives has been to undermine Ms Bhutto’s credentials as a
democrat and to pave the way for a new IJI that challenges Musharraf but not
the military-ISI paradigm of state.



Mr. Sharif’s entire political career has comprised of deals with the
military-intelligence establishment. One cannot grudge his decision to get
out of jail in 2000 as a result of a deal with the Musharraf regime,
facilitated by foreign albeit friendly-to-Pakistan emissaries. But surely
that should disqualify him from being painted by some as an unbending
champion of civilian-democratic rule. New York based banker, Shaheryar
Azhar, who moderates one of the best online forums of discussion on
alternatives for Pakistan recently summed up the argument against jumping on
the Nawaz Sharif bandwagon. He observed, “Any talk by the Sharif-Jamaat
Islami alliance to 'sweep away' Musharraf' may come out to be true. But will
this be transformation? Or ticket to chaos?”



The better bet for Pakistan right now is a negotiated settlement that
enables both Mr. Sharif and Ms Bhutto to return to Pakistani politics while
at the same time addressing the systemic and institutional problems that
have blocked Pakistan’s path to democracy. It appears that supporters of the
‘overthrow Musharraf at all costs’ line are as much an obstruction to a
grand national bargain as those asking Musharraf to rule without changing
anything for as long as possible.



Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University's Center for International
Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson
Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book 'Pakistan between Mosque
and Military'









Husain Haqqani

Director

Center for International Relations

Boston University

So who won the 1965 conflict?

#9

Never mind, everyone knows it was India.

Debate between MQM (representing the Dictator), PML(N) representing the ex-Marde-e-Momin-Wannabe, a duffer from the French Institute of Strategic Analyst, and a Pakistani jurnalist, Zahid Hussain. The compere is cute, btw.

Highlights:
PML(N) talks about return to democracy.
MQM provides the standard MQM line (Musharraf is good, and if Musharraf goes Pakistan should give "complete autonomy" to all provinces);
Zahid Hussain ignores the MQM bakwas; supports PML(N) call for democracy saying it is the central issue - but questions if PML realizes its mistakes in behaving like a dictatorship and not respecting the Constitution when NS was PM. PML(N) assures him PML(N) will respect the Constitution in future. Doesnt sound credible - given that NS is as obsessed as Musharraf and BB with power.
The Frenchie mumbles some bs about Pakistan lacking experience in democracy - spoken like a true statist Frenchman. The same country that gave the world Napoleon the Dictator.

May God protect Pakistan from this lot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0jXZ03tpNI

"The better bet for Pakistan right now is a negotiated settlement that enables BOTH Mr. Sharif and Ms Bhutto to return to Pakistani politics while at the same time addressing the systemic and institutional problems that have blocked Pakistan’s path to democracy.

It appears that supporters of the ‘overthrow Musharraf at all costs’ line are as much an obstruction to a grand national bargain as those asking Musharraf to rule without changing anything for as long as possible."

Haqqani is 100% on the target -- thanks Ras.

debate on youtube in #11 is 30 minute clip from French TV, in english, and post-Rawalpindi bombings. Follow-up debate from same place tomorrow.

“Today he is also seeking election in uniform. Ayub did so after 7 years and won but could not complete his term.”

I don’t know what you want to prove here but lets do a little fact checking. Ayub had resigned the army after the 1962 constitution and he was not in uniform at the time of the 1965 election. Gen. Musa was the CnC. At that time, the CnC term used to be five years.(Ayub was FM and FM never retire!)

“which essentially envisaged the election of 80000 electors known as “Basic Democrats” who in turn were to elect the president.”

The BD members were supposed to run the municipal corporations like the city council members do now.

Bhutto in 1964 was still a small fry. He was first a petroleum Minister in the Ayub Cabinet and then became Foreign Minister in the early '64. He was not even influential in Sindh. It was after the 1965 war that he gained notoriety. that too after his speeches in the UN during the Sept war. His speeches and then stories from Tashkent made him a household name.

I would just say that there was not a single politician in Pakistan who had any illusion of Ms. Jinnah winning those elections. The elections were rigged to start with when only 80k were allowed to vote. The purpose of the alliance was to challenge the army and no one was interested in MS. Jinnah becoming the President because it was impossible. Her election campaign helped the general public to take interest in Pakistani polities.

I am not familiar with the story that Ms. Jinnah approached Bhutto and I will need some serious references to that. The truth is MS. Jinnah never approached any one. People approached her. She was too arrogant to do that. She appeared only in public meetings and she had no interest whatsoever with the strategy or any other aspect of the elections.
In fact, she herself knew that she would not win.

How was Bhutto support of Ayub bad and the PNA support of the army in 1977, good?

PNA consisted of all the elements that were against Ayub in 1965. I am not interested in debate about Bhutto and his politics. I brought this up to show you that politicians do different things in different circumstances.

The debate about Bhutto is really tiring. Bhutto was a politician from a different cut and debating his politics without the context is a futile.

I hope everyone knows that Thinkingstorm is Masadi's sockpuppet... it is so transparent that it is not funny. I wonder if Chowk guidelines still forbid multinics.

Hussain Haqqani is just being ridiculous. Maybe it is time for him to curry favors with Benazir!

He is right about Benazir having no lobby in the army. I have said that in my article just two week or so ago. Her not having any lobby in the army is the thing that works against her. That is the reason she is trying to find a workable solution with Musharraf. That is a silly game. Musharraf, once out of uniform, has no value. He will in fact be a hurdle for Benazir in making a direct contact with the army.

Nawaz propped by the army is an old line. 90% of Pakistani politicians have been propped up by the army including Benazir’s father. That did not help when the Army sent him to the gallows. Alliances between the army and the civilian politicians are mostly of convenience.

There are three main issues the next government will have to deal with (pl. see my article for details) and two top issues are almost Baghawat in the tribal areas and the Suicide bombers in the city streets. The mullah and Islamists are mean. At this time, they are not interested in fighting the US. There goal is to bring Pakistan government down and divide up the state by taking the NWFP and the tribal areas as independent country.

These Havyoon are against Pakistan. The Pak army and the next civilian government will have to deal with these Havyoon.

The lack of the army support will render Benazir crying again in the PM house like she used to when she was PM. For the next several years, Pakistan needs an alliance between the army and the civilians and Benazir is not the one to pull that alliance. Nawaz has a better chance. The Musharraf-Benazir alliance at the helm in Pakistan will hasten the civil war in Pakistan. Beware of such an alliance.