Media: The more things change...

rf: The CJP is not "what's his name". He has already won on the one of two issues that had led Musharraf to "fire" him - i.e. Mush had wanted to remain President AND in uniform at the same time. This alone has ensured that the Chief Justice's name will go down in Pakistan history.

The second issue was the Chief Justice standing up for Habeas Corpus - and in doing so stood for the rights of every individual in Pakistan to not be "disappeared" by Musharraf's agencies. In doing so, he was standing up for your rights as much as for mine and for every Pakistani. How well he succeeded there, time will tell. Why is this so dificult to understand?

#49 Posted by tahmed32,

The US ambassador visited Aitezaz Ahsan's residence today. I'm waiting if and when she's going to visit Chief-Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's.

Re: # 49

tahmed32,

You are being far too generous to the gentleman in question, surely some credit goes to the lawyers, human right groups and international agencies not to forget El Prezidente Moosharaf architect of this entire fiasco.

By the way, said gentleman was also taking interest on vegetable prices in Islamabad.

FREE AITZAZ AHSAN

list of people who have boycotted the election so far

1. Imran Khan
2. Tahmed
3. .........

..... i will update the list after watching four more hours of ary and geo ..... stay tuned

list of people who want the droopy eyed pco-1 cj chaudary whatshiname reinstated

1. Tahmed
2. Imran Khan
3. ........

p.s. all the vegetable vendors in islamabad oppose his reinstatement

Re: # 50

yea ! .......... release aitizaz ahsan - i like the guy !

.... oh sure, go ahead and release the cj too even though he has served his purpose and is now about as useful as tits on a bull ........

hamidm: look at mush's pictures after he has been separated from his precious wardi and you will notice a close resemblance with a plucked chicken.

hamidm:

mush tried to be ataturk. and failed.

mush then tried to be hosni mubarak. and failed - after 2007, he can no longer use the terrorist bogeyman.

So, no mush is trying to be putin - by cheating in the elections. and rest assured he will fail again.

after that what? maybe he will try to become hamidm, and spend his remaining days talking about the unwashed pakis..

Poor hindu idolators - they do not know that even with all the movement for "democracy" in Pakistan they would still have to face terror attacks from Pakistanis after the holy months.

The deadly script has already been written for them thousands of years back:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the jizya (poor-due), then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
- Qu’ran, 9:5"

p.s. all the vegetable vendors in islamabad oppose his reinstatement

How about shopkeepers in Peshawar.

Balkanization, not Talibanization, is the real threat facing Pakistan
Politics of irrelevance in the banana republic. From frying pan to fire.

Participation in the elections under a dictator will be an act of treason in the current conditions and would tantamount to collaboration with a regime that is presiding over the balkanization of Pakistan.

By Yousuf Nazar, Former Global Head of Emerging Markets Investments, Citibank

Pakistan’s establishment and sections of its media have perfected the art of projecting the most irrelevant topics as national issues of paramount importance. They have now been joined by the Bush administration. Musharraf’s ‘doffing’ of his uniform is one such example. Some newspapers even published comments to the effect whether it was the beginning of a drastic transformation. Really; transformation to a completely failed state from a ‘failed state’? Another general? So what? Hitler was not from the Army. He never really wore a general’s uniform. So he never had to take it off. But that did not alter the fact that he was a dictator whose third Reich led to Germany’s worst defeat and complete destruction.

Ayub Khan took off his uniform in 1962 but ruled for another seven years as a military dictator without many problems. He was the most ‘moderately enlightened’ of all generals. He introduced private enterprise to the Army as well as to his family and institutionalized corruption at the highest level of government for the first time in Pakistan’s history. He wore fine dinner jackets to the state dinners in Western capitals and swam with beautiful British call girls [see photo of Christine Keeler left] in his leisure time. But the extreme inequalities and regional and ethnic polarization caused by his misrule led to the dismemberment of Pakistan (presided over by another general) after two years, eight months, and twenty two days of his exit as the President of Pakistan. So much for the stability that his ‘economic achievements’ had supposedly brought to Pakistan.

One would think that Pakistan’s elites (although intellectually depleted to a debilitating degree due to massive brain drain over the past three decades) having lived most of their lives under military dictatorships, would have learned that only two generals in the modern history brought about any positive political change, Napoleon and Atatürk. And they would therefore focus on more substantive issues. Is this too much or too rational to expect?

Let us now look at some real issues: The history teaches us that all generals behave in exactly the same manner when they have power. Their policies revolve around self-preservation and protection of the military’s institutional interests, and absolute concentration of power inevitably leads to greater problems than the ones, they supposedly seized power to solve. It is therefore of little consequence if they rule with or without uniform, as one-man dictatorship or as a group. Or with ‘rubber-stamp’ parliaments or without even the pretense of having an election or a parliament.

Musharraf’s both coups were desperate acts of a man who saw his career coming to an end. Both the coups showed complete and contemptuous disregard for the constitution and the interests of the country. He acted with impunity in a brazen display of naked power that showed no regard for any consideration other than his own self. What really led to his ‘dismissal’ by Nawaz Sharif was his misadventure into Cargill; a historic blunder whose sole purpose was to sabotage the peace process initiated with Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. A peace process that could have led to a period of greater stability and development in the sub-continent and a reduced role of the military. After eight years of his misrule, what has Pakistan really achieved?

Not only Pakistan does not have a democracy, it does not have even a chance of holding free and fair elections that would be at least as ‘fair’ as they were twenty years back in 1988.
Pakistan is as corrupt, if not more, a country as it was on October 12, 1999. The biggest loan defaulters and arguably the most corrupt family in Pakistan’s history – the Chaudris of Gujrat – are Musharraf’s principal backers and lead the ruling party.
Pakistan has been declared the most dangerous country in the World by the Americans, his best friends. It ranks 12th on the failed states index, has the highest inflation rate in Asia and the second highest rate of suicide bombings in the world. It also achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the largest buyer of arms in the developing world in 2006.
Pakistan’s judiciary had a tainted record but it still operated with some semblance of respect. Now it stands completely destroyed.
And the economy? The massive inflow of funds (over $65 billion) during the eight years has been a wasted opportunity. The greatest beneficiaries have been the generals, bankers, stock brokers and their friends without any real development, whatsoever, in the country. As far as the $11 billion aid from the United States is concerned, a little over 90% of this amount is military aid and has nothing to do with economic development. The largest source of external funding has been the remittances ($26 billion), which would have come any way regardless of which government was in power.
The general was shrewd enough to use the 9/11 to end his own international isolation but in his desperation to undo the blunders committed by the generals (himself included) that earned Pakistan the reputation of a ‘terrorist state’, his regime has made the biggest compromises on Pakistan sovereignty and independence in the country’s history; compromises that may ultimately lead to Balkanization, and not Talibanization, of Pakistan.

Why Balkanization? The term usually refers to division of a place or country into several small political units, often unfriendly to one another. The term balkanization comes from the name of the Balkan Peninsula in Europe, which was divided into several small nations in the early twentieth century.

A major fallout of the prolonged periods of military rule (1977-1988 and 1999-to date) since the break-up of Pakistan in 1971, has been that the country no longer thinks nationally. For example there is no real national party. The PPP which once played that role was squeezed out of that role by the Army generals and their minions, like Nawaz and Chaudris, with the slogan “Jag Punjabi Jag” and mindless repression and persecution of its followers, leaving aside its own blunders for a moment.


The ANP, MQM, MMA and PML(N) are either purely ethnic parties or at best Provincial entities. Similarly on issues such as Kalabagh Dam, division of assets, etc; the discussions, regardless of which Government is in power, are conducted on the basis of provincial rather than national interests. Musharraf says that the Army provides the glue to Pakistan’s integrity but implicit in this dangerous argument is the admission that nothing else holds the country together.

In any case as the situation exists, Baluchistan is in the midst of a war for secession, and the Northern territories of Pakistan are on their way to forming autonomous entities with their own justice system, tax collection regime, police force, and fairly effective militias.

From a Federation we seem to be evolving into a de facto confederation which is usually a prelude to independence. The question may no longer be whether this slow motion disintegration of Pakistan can be stopped but whether it can be managed peacefully.

That is the challenge Pakistan faced in 1969-1971 and failed. The apologists for the Field Marshals and Generals dismissed the possibility then. They are again ignoring such warnings now. But history and conditions do not seem to be on their side, never mind the ‘pragmatism’ of the Busharraf followers, moderates, realists, etc. The threat of Balkanization is not an issue of ‘idealism’ or ‘morality’. This threat has never been so real since 1971.


Participation in the elections under this dictator will be an act of treason in the current conditions and would tantamount to collaboration with a regime that is presiding over the balkanization of Pakistan. This is not a time for polemics and short-sighted tactics. The nation and its political parties must rise to the challenge or be prepared to face the consequences

Rashid mian,

Re: #60

Pakistan is facing serious turmoil no doubt but it is nowhere near breaking up as it was in 1971, which I must remind you had significant geographical peculiarities which dont exist now. I find the article alarmist in nature.

Regards

Re: # 61

Dada - you are using the benefit of the hindsight on 1971 episode... Before it happened, nobody believed it would happen - nobody believed rice-eating, dark, short bongs would ever beat back martial race west-pakis - the "geographical peculiarity" notwithstanding...

The theory of "geographical peculiarity" is an after-thought, commonly used by pakis to explain away their humiliating defeat and paper over the fact that they are basically surrender monkeys with no guts and no glory...

That said - of course, the current situation in pakiland is very different from 1971, but you never know what the consequence could be...

majumdar #: "Pakistan is facing serious turmoil no doubt but it is nowhere near breaking up as it was in 1971..."

...perhaps not as near......but one never knows......i have always felt that balkanization and not talibanization is ther real issue for pakistan......

....having said that, i am starting to realize that, perhaps, balkanization may actually be something good for pakistan (and for countries, which have diverse cultures and populations)......take uae as an example.....

pakistan should be a federation of autonomous states, within a state, like uae.....in fact, all of south asia should be like that, if you ask me......

i have never figured out why people want to be a part of giant unnaturally united countries....

Re: # 63 romair
[..i have never figured out why people want to be a part of giant unnaturally united countries...]

Well, for one, there is safety and benefit of numbers... but only if all the groups are willing to work together...

the problem in pakiland is not the size of the country, the problem is the ideology... you pakis adopted ideology of exclusion and isolation, instead of inclusion and integration... the result is obvious...

It may be too late already to repair the damage... too much blood and water has gone down the drain...