Overcoming Learned Helplessness and Apathy

Hamidumdum Sahib,
After a long long time, I have to agree with you. Pretty crooks (only if she loses 10-15 pounds and gets rid of the bags) and psychopathic killers (wearing Paki Army uniforms to discredit our Jawans) seem to be the only choice here. Things are so bad, that I suggest a "Draft Urstruly" movement.

Re: # 17

salim mian,

..... i think we should elect the troika of masadi, urstruly and romair - if we are going to have a circus, we might as well have the best clowns .....

.... personally, i would vote for the sharif brothers - they seem to be well fed, have new hairdos, and nice wadrobes .... shahbaz has been looking particularly sharp since he stole khar's wife - khar still looks damn sharp for a seventy two year old guy ..... if jemima takes back imran kahn, we could also vote for him - she would still make a fine first lady after she comes out of rehab .....

.... like i said,we dont have too many choices ........ you have to dance with the ugly gal you brung to the dance .......

Get the Americans out of our affairs, which means get the military out of our affairs and its excrement (also known as sh**) and by products i.e. dictators that have outlived their usefulness to the Americans, and you will see what kind of leaders emerge. The best clowns in town are the ones who are myopically dumb like our friend h2.

see what i mean! ... you throw a whoopie cushion out there and they will jump on it ....

hamidm: the situation in Pakistan is so hilarious, even the scores of Pakistani killed the past few months are laughing their heads off in the grave (those who had their heads taken off in Swat while they were still living are also laughing); not to mention the thousands of pakistanis in jail who are rolling over the grave floor laughing at your joke. Pervez "Napoleon-Lincoln" Musharraf promises to give you a Gold Star for getting everyone to lighten up!!

Hamidumdum Sahib,
Aunt Jemima without her syrup is like Urstruly without his beer. I think that for the sake of Pakistan, she should ditch Huge Grant and marry Zardari, freeing Bezamir Bhutni for the Dick Traitor. The Sharif bros have a better chance of bringing their brand of "kleptocracy" to Soodi Arabia with much greater rewards than keep getting turned around at Lahore airport. Auntie Sehba can join Moola Fazloola on a permanent Swati honeymoon.

Hamidumdum Sahib,
If Dubya ran the US as deftly as he runs Pakistan, Hillary would don a burka and Nancy would join a nunnery.

#23 Chuhay, where is Tafoo basterd in all of this? Is he also looking for some opening?

#24 Kulharee,
As a member of a despised minority in Punjab, it is not wise for you to piss off egalitarian Mojos in Karachi.

This public safety message was brought to you by MQM. :)

tahmed mian,

..... if it weren't so sad, it would be funny ....... unfortunately we are headed for another ten years or so of the same old stuff - actually, now with the new taliban factor, things could get a lot worse ...... it is enough to drive a man to drink or bang his head against the floor six times a day (i am counting tahajjud) - it is either death by cirrhosis or concussion ....... take your pick

Learned Helplessness is not a collective behavior. Pakistanis as nation don't suffer from helplessness. The political apathy is the result of years of anti politics and anti social propaganda unleashed by the army thorough the controlled media.

Unfortunately, the intelligentsia that these two learned professors are a part of, has no idea what is taking place in Pakistan. I never expected two historians to write such a childish article. Hiring standards at LUMS must be pretty low.

It would not be bad idea however to correct these gentlemen

“the West applies double standards while dealing with despotic Muslim rulers, which creates hatred amongst the masses..”

Double standard line is oxymoron. The West or the US specifically had supported many tin pot generals in Asia, South America, Africa. The policy is not Muslim specific. I would also point out that only repressive ruler in the so called Muslim world was perhaps Saddam Hussein. The Rest of them are dictatorial but repressive is a wrong political term to use for them.

Musharaf regime or for that matter any other military regime in Pakistan were never repressive. (Exception: 9 months in e. pak) Compared to Ayub Khan and Zia ul Haq, Musharaf regime is actually benign. Neither Musharaf nor any other regime in the Muslim world is playing havoc with the peoples’ lives as the authors claim. They are all run-of-the-mill third world regimes that can be compared to the South American dictators of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Both “legal Historians” don’t show any understanding of the political-legal terms and that must not bode well for their students.

The issue really is how much we can blame the US for the situation in Pakistan.

The US certainly has a lot riding in Pakistan and there is no denying the fact that it has not hesitated to interfere in Pakistani affairs. Though the US interference is not the only cause of the miserable situation Pakistan is in.

However, in the current circumstances the simple fact is that it is vanishingly unlikely that the US will permit any form of democracy to take root in Pakistan. Keeping the Pakistani military sweet is vitally important for American. The Pakistani people are well aware that they have been turned into American puppets themselves, given free elections; they would almost certainly express against this via the ballot box. Of course Bhutto is an opportunist, but given the strength of anti-American/pro-democracy feeling in Pakistan even she might have to bend to the prevailing winds, and that's a risk the US will not be willing to take.

So the US will not support free and fair elections in Pakistan. Instead, it would prefer controlled elections where its fave Bhutto is the only one with a chance to form the government.

One aspect that does not appear to have elicited much comment is that the opposition to Musharraf, the attorneys and the NGOs, are precisely the people and institutions normally relied upon by the US to legitimize policies, primarily by reducing broad social needs to legal rights and privileges.

Hence, the attorneys and NGOs emphasize due process and human rights (such as freedom of speech, the right to travel, women's rights, the right to judicial due process) even as the economic policies eviscerate public services for much of the populace through loss of housing, education and medical care, not to mention employment under sweatshop conditions.

Thus, the US faces a serious dilemma: support Musharraf over the short to medium term, at the price of allowing him to destroy the "civil society" that serves as the foundation of the neo-liberal order, to permit the ongoing prosecution of the "war on terror", or push Musharraf out, to preserve the people and institutions that the US intends to utilize to preserve long term control over the society.

Bhutto, naturally, is a lynch pin of this second approach.

My guess is that the US and Britain have started gently pushing Musharraf to stand aside, and permit younger military leader with a reformist image to take charge, a person who then proceeds to make a deal with Bhutto, containing the pressures for radical change that bubble beneath the surface.

Washington's fears about the future of this geopolitically vital, yet combustible, area are unlikely to be allayed by a prolonged crackdown by Musharraf.

HP sain,

(even as the economic policies eviscerate public services for much of the populace through loss of housing, education and medical care)

As if pre-" structural reform" Pakistan (and India and other third world countries) had provided universal housing, education and health services to everyone.

(not to mention employment under sweatshop conditions.)

People who are working in sweatshops today may well have been working as bonded labour on some farms or some such stuff had those sweatshops not been around.

Regards

hamidm #26 you wrote "unfortunately we are headed for another ten years or so of the same old stuff:

There you go predicting the future again. Like I said, you are catching this dreaded disease, Nostrodamusitis from Romair.

you added "- actually, now with the new taliban factor, things could get a lot worse ..."

If the taliban have actually grown, then this happened under Musharraf's military rule, and it is time to give someone else a chance. If the taliban are a convenient "Willie Horton" that Musharraf flashes as a kind of a ticket to keep his dictatorship (which is what it basically is), then get rid of Musharraf and military rule and the taliban are no longer a problem.

So: whether you think the taliban are a real threat of a bogeyman maintained by musharraf, you should be thanking them for trying to solve your problem for you. Instead of ridiculing them.

#30 has some confusing typos. Pl ignore and read this instead:

hamidm #26 you wrote "unfortunately we are headed for another ten years or so of the same old stuff:

There you go predicting the future again. Like I said, you are catching this dreaded disease, Nostrodamusitis from Romair.

you added "- actually, now with the new taliban factor, things could get a lot worse ..."

If the taliban have actually grown to become a real menace, then this happened under Musharraf's military rule, and it is time to give someone else a chance. If the taliban are a convenient "Willie Horton" that Musharraf flashes as a kind of a ticket to keep his dictatorship (which is what I think it basically is), then get rid of Musharraf and military rule and the taliban are no longer a problem.

So: whether you think the taliban are a real threat or a bogeyman maintained by musharraf, you should be thanking those trying to end military rule in Pakistan for trying to solve your problem for you. Instead of ridiculing them and betting on a demonstrated loser.

Tahmed sahib,

Re:#30

(If the taliban are a convenient "Willie Horton" that Musharraf flashes as a kind of a ticket to keep his dictatorship)

Here is waht I posted to Zee sahib on UP.

{{{I am having my doubts about the havayoon campaign in Swat. I would have readily swallowed the havayoons winning control of much of the countryside there but there is something fishy about the ease with which they are taking over the towns. Towns can readily be identified from air and it is inconceivable that the army would lose control of towns and allow them to fly Talib flags there UNLESS they wanted to do so on their own. Now you would want to know why the kanjaroon army would want that- simply to convince their Yank mentors that Mush is indispensable and that emergency is justified.

IMHO the moment the army wants they can chuck the havayoons out of the towns at least (given their recourse to white phosphorus and helicopter gunships and disreagrd for civilain casulties). Yes they wont be able to get control or countryside very easily and suicide bombing, sniping will remain constant menace but havayoon control of urband centres may be very short-lived.}}}

Regards