The Good Monster: Musharraf's Cultural Legacy

Ooops...typo...should have read "rankle a few Pakis"

#49 by viqarm

Let there be no doubt whatsoever in this matter in the mind of any Pakistani. When India denied Pakistan its share of resources and money at Partition, do you think they expected that it will be still existing and tottering along 60 years later, even become a nuclear weapons state?

Yaar you are comparing apples and oranges. Pakistan in those days didn't face an existential threat. India wasn't about to gobble it up - neither were there western powers breathing down its neck nor was there a dangerous threat from internal non-state actors. Pakistan today is slightly more sovereign than Puerto Rico, but that's about it.

Nations with dignity pay what price they have to in order to take a stand for principles. Now I realize that the govt of Pakistan has been very short in the dignity department; the same is, however, not true for all its citizens, not yet anyway.

Yaar Pakis (most anyway) no doubt are a dignified lot, but principles alone cannot help a nation survive. All nations, howsoever powerful make compromises and the less powerful they are, the more compromises they end up making. Germany and Japan swallowed their humiliation at the hands of the allies only to emerge among the most developed nations today. There is a lesson in it for Pakistan, don't you think?

After dedcades of absolute misery, the poor Afghans can still stand up and fight with primitive weapons against the occupiers of their country. Why do you imagine that Pakistanis can't do it?

Yaar the Afghans are born to fight - warfare is their bread and butter. A wolf with stripes painted on it will not change into a tiger. Similarly Pakis (Indians too) cannot fight indefinitely and remain unaffected because we are probably more endowed with brain than brawn. Oops, my comparison of Pakis with Indians is bound to ranke a few Pakistan...but what the heck!

Viqarm sahib,

(Pakistan is vey much a party to the Kashmir dispute)

How? If we have established that Pakistan has no claim to J&K, how is it a party to the dispute?

(Neither is it India's.)

Here you are wrong. JK signed the IofA in 1947 and has been regularly participating in elections since then.

(if there weren't 600K Indian troops on permanent holiday in the Kashmir valley against the wishes of the Kashmiris.)

You guys recall your havayoons who are spreading terror in J&K, we will do so. We have no desire to keep so many soldiers in J&K.

(Why do you think Pakistan does not need that kind of military presence on its side of Kashmir.)

Why does Pak need troops there? Has India starting infiltrating jihadis into POK and NA?

Regards

Re: # 48 Majumdar Sahib
Pakistan is vey much a party to the Kashmir dispute, even as Kashmir is not its property. Neither is it India's.

I think that Pakistan will feel a little easier about your assurances if there weren't 600K Indian troops on permanent holiday in the Kashmir valley against the wishes of the Kashmiris. Why do you think Pakistan does not need that kind of military presence on its side of Kashmir.

Re: # 45 Harish Sahib
"Viqar yaar, India can do fine even without normalizing its relations (as events pre-2002 have proved), but can Pakistan afford it?".

Absolutely it can. Let there be no doubt whatsoever in this matter in the mind of any Pakistani. When India denied Pakistan its share of resources and money at Partition, do you think they expected that it will be still existing and tottering along 60 years later, even become a nuclear weapons state?

Nations with dignity pay what price they have to in order to take a stand for principles. Now I realize that the govt of Pakistan has been very short in the dignity department; the same is, however, not true for all its citizens, not yet anyway.

After dedcades of absolute misery, the poor Afghans can still stand up and fight with primitive weapons against the occupiers of their country. Why do you imagine that Pakistanis can't do it?

There is no excuse for Pakistan (and for Pakistanis) to not support Kashmiris for their just rights, in whatever way they can.

Viqarm,

Even if JK is not the ancestral property of any Indian between the two of us we have established that Pakistan has nothing to do with J&K.

Even if I agree with you that India is occupying J&K (which I assure you is not the case) why is that a problem with Pakistan?

Regards

Re: # 44 Majumdar Sahib,
India should resolve Kashmir problem because it is occupying, and forcing itself, on the Kashmiris by military means. I am absolutely certain in my mid that Kashmiris do not wish to be part of India.

And when I said that Kashmir is not the ancestral property of any leader in Pakistan, I did not mean thereby that it is therefore the ancestral property of someone in India.

I think Pakistan history per NFP should be written anew with Before Musharraf (BM) -- and After Musharraf (AM).

9 years BM -- there was no culture in Pakistan -- it was
an Ahad-e Jahiliya -- when they would bury the culture alive as soon it was born a female.

9 years AM there is this Heaven of Emergency -- that allows the culture to grow and reach even its infancy.

May be -- Before Musharraf there was no Pakistan either!

#43 by viqarm

And India should give up the idea of normalizing relations without first resolving the Kashmir problem.

Viqar yaar, India can do fine even without normalizing its relations (as events pre-2002 have proved), but can Pakistan afford it? A hostile Afghanistan to its west and a hostile India to its east can mean the end of roads for Pakistan. Mushy realized it which is why he tried his best to calm the eastern front. India only reciprocated, because peace was a bonus that could accelerate India's growth even further.

Viqarm sahib,

(Pakistan does not have a claim on Kashmir; Kashmiris do.And India should give up the idea of normalizing relations without first resolving the Kashmir problem.)

If Pakistan does not have a claim on Kashmir as you very correctly point out, why should India be required to "resolve the Kashmir" for normalising relations with Pakistan.

(Kashmir is not the ancestral property of any leader in Pakistan for them to keep or give away to whoever they please.)

Precisely. So we agree that:

Pakistan should walk out of POK & NA as it is not their ancestral property anyways.
Pakistan should just look the other way and not interfere in how the Injuns and Kashmiris sort out their mutual disputes.

Regards

Re: # 42 Majumdar
Pakistan does not have a claim on Kashmir; Kashmiris do. Kashmir is not the ancestral property of any leader in Pakistan for them to keep or give away to whoever they please.

I agree that Pakistan should give up its claim on Kashmir.

And India should give up the idea of normalizing relations without first resolving the Kashmir problem.

Romair sahib,

(which is bringing in competent people to run the economy.......)

To what extent was Pakistan's recent economic upturn since 2001 owing to extraneous events- global economic upturn, financial support as part of WOT, inflow of Arab money fleeing USA- and how much to own good management of GoP. In your opinion of course.

(pakistan does not have an india policy anymore......)

Does Pakistan reall have a choice now? Wouldnt it be better for Pakistan to simply give up on Kashmir (without officially giving up its claim) and simply normalise relationships without a quid pro quo. Do you really expect India to give up an inch of land in J&K, without being thoroughly defated on the battlefield.

(all three institutions are destroyed...)

Yes, but post 12/15 and elections dont you see a gradual recovery in all three? Especially if the winners of the election- PMLN and PPP (assuming free and fair elections) restore SC as on 11/2.

Regards

anil #22: "I would give him an A as a leader..."

...anil, you would give him an A as a leader because he has done what you wanted him to do in dealing with the two entities that are important to you - USA and India....

....however a leader should be rated on what he has done for the country he is leading; not for other countries....if Manmohan Singh does what i want him to to do vis-a-vis pakistan, i might give him an A as a leader......but that is immaterial, because he is not leading pakistan.....similarly musharraf is not leading india or usa......

.........he has one success to his name, which is bringing in competent people to run the economy.......lets take a look at other items....

1. usa - pakistan's us policy is quite messed up now......the usa is forcing pakistan to bomb its own citizens, much against the will of its own citizens.....this has resulted in pakistan becoming the second largest recepient of regular suicide bombings......with one half of the country fighting th other half.....doesn't matter what the usa thinks, suicide bombings are surely not in pakistan's interests....niether is such polarization.......

2. india - pakistan does not have an india policy anymore......india has not budged a single inch on its stances.....pakistan has bent over backwards and has received nothing in return........india wanted status quo, which is what it has gotten......how is that a success for pakistan?.......it is a success for india....put the shoe on the other foot......if india agreed to pakistan's demands, and pakistan kept its status quo for india......would that be a success for india?......according to paksitanis, it would make manmohan singh an excellent leader......but i doubt indians would agree......

3. judiciary/legislature/executive.....all three institutions are destroyed.....thoroughly destroyed......the army is running the executive.....60-70% of the best and brightest judges have resigned......and the legislature is (and will be in the future) filled with the same corrupt faces that have run the country for decades......

musharraf's first three years were a succcess......he should retired then, and would have gone down as a hero....his last few years have been huge disasters.....and i believe, irrepaiarable disasters for pakistan.......

but yes, if one is an american or an indian, then i can see that he has done what the citizens of those two countries are interested in......much of it at the expense of pakistan, and much of it because he had no other choice, if he wanted to maitain his own personal survival.....

the next five years will either be the old status quo, or hugely turbulent; neither of which are good for pakistan.....

pakistan should have a hands-off neutral foreign policy vis-a-vis usa, otherwise it will face the same blowback as it did in supporting usa in the first afghan war......pakistan should open trade with india, but negotiate on all other foriegn policy issue in a complete give-and-take manner......

it is doing exactly the opposite......though i think it is too weak to really do anything else......

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

Masadi #35,

***** And yes, I am going all the way to the top......all the way to the top, that is where I am headed*****

Utterly and completely despised Masadi,

True words from you after a long time.

Abb aap ke oopar jaane ka waqt aa gaya hai.

As soon as the coalition forces start cleansing Pakistan, all rabid dogs shall be shot on the streets.

you think you can fool people here with your fake sensibilities even as you advocated the destruction of Iraq in order to "save" it and were all nostalgic about British colonization of India, and deliberately try to "pass over" US meddling that has destroyed Pakistan and taken the soul out of our people. You think you can fool the people, but you as the US elite do not realize that the people of Pakistan are waking up and now understand these shenanigans. They will not tolerate them, nor will they tolerate the US occupation force or its meddling come another martial law. You can keep flagging me but the people will "flag" you because now they know their enemies....