Drama of Succession - Pakistan People’s Party

Romair,

#169

Although India has put the "feudal-pir" culture behind to a great extent, surprisingly in politics it still works and barring BJP/Commies/Left other parties are still considered hereditary properties. The only thing is considering how strongly the masses are mobilised on religion/ caste/ language lines, leaders have to be extremely careful with their speech in public. The kind of stuff that Mush has often said (Canadian visa and all that) wud be absolutely haraam in Injun electoral politics.

As far as being civilian martial law administrator is concerned, I did point it out to Masadi sahib in one of the earlier posts.

Regards

majumdar #: "What kind of elected leader does that..."

...it is difficult to understand the rule of bhutto.....a major item you missed is that immediately after the 73 consitution, he altered it as a civilian martial law administrator....

yet, his name remains enormously popular....a whole political party is surviving on his name alone......they have been massively corrupt and incompetent, yet they cling to his name and remain the largest political party in the country.......

i think the reason is that pakistan is, primarily, a feudal/pir society....the hierarchies of society are accepted by the rural populace.....if someone is a feudal/pir, the common rural folk allow him/her a lot of room in being corrupt, incompetent and most of all, unfair to them.....

kind of like how a mughal king must have been allowed a lot of room to be rude to his subjects......the subjects accepted it......

so people don't mind if bhutto(s) do all these shenanigans....benazir can have swiss millions and have a person beat up at her speech if he takes her picture.......zab could have ja rahim beat up.....murtaza bhutto could have a plane hijacked and have a passenger killed.......zardari could be mr. 10% and still be ok.......

this is the deal between the subjects and the ruler in feudal/pir land......in return, the subject is to get protection from the neighboring feudal........

society in feudal pakistan has not evolved beyond this yet....if you ever get a chance, do visit the areas where some of these feudals/pirs rule.......specially the pirs, who are considered the descedants of prophet mohammad.....

i know some of them......they, mostly live in lahore karachi etc........but they, themselves, laugh at how they are treated, when they go back to their ancestoral villages....one guy told me, a lady who had a ph.d used to sit on the ground when she talked with him........someone else came and handed over his land to the pir!!.......

it will take some time for this to evolve......the bad part is that, through democracy, the feudals have now taken over the whole country.....previously they used to only have the assets of their landholdings under them......now they have the whole state resources under them.....

on the other hand....if you meet them, personally, they will seem like the nicest people in the world......highly educated from ivy league schools (though in useless fields), they do charity work, women's rights, and write a lot of (bad) poetry for some strange reason.....which is why they are so appealing to the west, and to the chowk crowd.......

19 year old bilawal has been appointed the head of ppp, and no one has quit the party......in fact, there are educated people on this site, who actually think the ppp has now, "evolved!!"........amazing!!

Romair,

Further to 167.

ZAB's conduct even as the PM of residual Pak was hardly conducive to the growth of democracy in Pak. If I am not mistaken he publicly threatened to kill the Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly. What kind of elected leader does that.

Bashing up JA Rahim. Having Amer Tufail and his son beaten up and sodomised in custody. Mass bombing in NWFP and B'stan. Rigging elections in 1977. Excommunications of Ahmedis.

Some democrat!!!

Regards

...it is incorrect to say that Zulfiqar Bhutto had nothing to do with the break-up of Pakistan......On the contrary, he had everthing to do with it.....even if we give him complete benefit of the doubt, and consider him a great champion of democracy, he could have opposed the army action........and could have, simply, resigned when he realized that mujeeb was not going to be allowed to form the government......however, bhutto threatened to, "break the legs" of any ppp member who attended the inaugaral session of the assembly.........and refused to allow mujeeb to head the govt......

all of this happened prior to the 71 war.......had the above not happened, there probably would have been no 71 war......

zab, infact, never won an election.....and like most pakistani rulers, came in through the back door.....he was, initially, a product of ayub khan's military regime......and then turned totally against it.......basically, like nawaz sharif was a product of the zia regime and has now turned against the military......

in the first major election, bhutto swept only punjab......however, mujeeb swept a much larger east pakistan and had more seats.....

simple math.......the guy with the most seats should form the govt......the only way this would not happen is if east pakistan was out of the picture.....which bhutto, obviously, supported......

.....the election win by mujeeb was the biggest, and perhaps only, rising of the pakistani society against feudalism (and against the army)......had mujeeb come into power, power would have shifted from the feudal west pakistani elite to the lower east pakistani proletariat.......

this was not allowed, and the rest is history.......

bhutto would have won the next election, but he rigged it......and well, again, the rest is history......

so if one is going to make an argument that bhutto stood for the common man, one has to take into account the common man of east pakistan, also.......

Re: # 158

ferozk,

... that was a hoot ! let's hope we have seen the last of masadi and his madness ......

YLH

"boo hoo... mohar dragged my dead father..."... stop whining, how many times do I have to tell you this...

anyhoo - you got to wisen up... otherwise, you will end up hurting yourself pretty bad... you are a secular ahmedi in land of pure... with taliboons around the corner, you have a big problem in hand...

Re: # 162

Massaddi Mian:

"....#160, they would certainly be were they a primary product nation with a population like that of India or Pakistan, unless nationalization ensured that state money that goes to protect and bail out industry gets some return in the form of added employment for the people whose (tax) money it is or gives the state ownership to the percent of the bailout which in many cases of failing businesses would be 100%, unless you happened to be US occupied like Korea and the "bailing out" was being done as bribes by outsiders or a rat fart "country" like Singapore or Taiwan (with which a giant, China was being tormented) ..."

The above is what you wrote. Not even a period / full stop. Have you lost your marbles?

Massaddi Mian:

"...Majumdar you are wrong on all counts again:...."

For the sake of students, please do not grade your students with such haste. Their parents won't give you money, even if you will beg them for. "Jootoun ki barsaat hogi aap ke upar."

Can you tell us about development economic models that have been used from 19th century industrialization, when the colonialism started, to early 1970s when the colonialism ended upon the conclusion of Vietnam War? If you cannot answer, then please at least read about them, after you have learnt your capitalism from the street peddler in Gujranwala, even if you are Summa Cum Laude.

Don't get surprised if you find out Korean model was akin to the Japanese model, and Taiwan used a different entrepreneurial model. In Taiwan's case initial capital came from stolen gold brought over by Chiang-Kai Sheik and his cronies. None, from Japan to Korea to Taiwan, were nationalized models.

You may consider removing distortions in your views and increasing knowledge before teaching or passing judgments.

In Japan and Korea's case development started as “trading houses” each with a bank, for small manufacturing units, and was called Keiretsu in Japanese. Japanese Zaibatsus were destroyed by allies in the post war Japan, as the punishment. I forget the Korean equivalent name, although Korean trading companies became the provider of cheap capital and market access, therefore, there was no bank in the center.

Contemporaneous Turkish model to Korea failed and produced massive devaluations of Turkish Lira. Latin American models suffered from the same disease as Turkish model.

Major distinction has been that East Asian cultures always had very strong private lending cultures, and high savings rates. Housewives still lend money to each other. Turkish model and subsequent Latin American models were hotch potch of spending their way through the development. They forgot someone has to write checks also.

In Japan and Korea development model, the cost of capital was made negative and was selectively available to few through a deliberate attempt. Key for these models is lowest cost capital. Higher internal savings rate drives the cost down, while trading generates profits to give a sustainable balance. Entrepreneurship is the mantra, not your Theory of Nonsense and Elites.

Koreans frequently narrate the story about the Chairman of Hyundai. In post Korean War, Americans and Korean government wanted to pay junk yard dealers to remove bombed out bridges over the river in Seoul. Tender was announced, everyone bid millions of dollars to remove the bridges. Hyundai Chairman, an unemployed man, instead offered to pay nominal fist full of dollars to remove it. He got the contract and built his empire from the iron and steel assets he got from the bombed bridges. Others wanted to remove and resell it in the junkyard. This is vision and entrepreneurship, Massaddi Mian. He was no elite, get your head screwed properly so that you can see straight. I would not tell you about a college dropout hippie named Steve Jobs.

On the other hand, Socialist models relied on the lowest cost abundant labor. These could become no more than job perpetuation and your elites - without laddus in their undies - creation machines. Although China and SU did tightly control labor, which is the closest anyone comes in the modern times to owning slaves. Previous to it, Islamic traders dominated slave trade; they could have instead do what Chinese did with the labor instead. Socialists missed out big times, due to theory of elites. They forgot what motivates people. In late 80s and early 90s, I had seen the largest computer companies of SU (still SU), and East Germany (ex by then). I was shocked, when the East German engineer did not let me complete my sentence, and grabbed my beer and sausage coupons. I was half way through saying that I do not eat sausages.

India used the mixed model.

Then what would you know about capitalism, till you start taking lessons from the street peddler in Gujranwala. Learn this mantra, in economics market rules, rules cannot be the market.

Regarding land reforms. Please stop shooting from the other end. Can you tell me where land reforms have been successful? Allow me to share my personal discussion with Jyoti Basu, the most ardent of the Marxists, and land reformers. He in fact is the last Marxist in the world to drop land reforms, he was so dogged about land reforms. His goons now deliver land to Tata Motors. During the meeting, he was more interested in sharing his formative student days at London School of Economics. Wen I tried to tell him that during my student days, I followed his land reforms in India as believer ans with admiration. He stopped and gave me a look I will never forget. I was politely told by my class mate that Jyoti babu does not talk about land reforms any longer. Instead, he acknowledges it as total failure.

Reliance on land to create wealth or jobs continues to diminish, making reforms unnecessary. Watch out for new fuedal who own water rights instead, if you must.

In any case please do wake up Massaddi Mian.

Even China gave up their Land Reforms in the middle of the reforms. They had only created bigger mess, and more inefficient farming cooperatives. They could not mechanize their farms fast enough to the stop famine, or distribute and not pay farm labor.

Job creation in America happened before the war, not during the war. So I am at loss at the point you are trying to make with employment and war economy. Highways got created from Roosevelt’s "NEW DEAL", this built the most efficient infrastructure of the time in the process. You are completely incapable of measuring the economic value this NEW DEAL created.

Draft is a tool to take youth to the waste land of war. That job is not productive, it dismantles economies. People you quote must be delusional. As a consequence of war, new economies get built in post war period, which is always a growth period. If you or your son died in the war, you would not call it productive. Then again, you may call suicide bombers and their reward of 72 houris as very productive.

Therefore, only exception has to be a special case of Massaddi Mian who wants entire world to go back to his 7th Century to Mills par course.

Do you even know that there is a very strong correlation between wars and economic growth? Of course you will have see beyond 72 houris and 7th century and Mills par course to understand this relationship.

Like I have said many times, today knowledge is larger than we ever had. Use it Massaddi Mian or you will lose yourself.

In post 1970s period, development economic models are different. Study them, and see how new playing fields are getting created, what counts and what does not count. Islam's sword cannot reach faster than what technology can deliver. Consider what Mohammad was empowered then, and who is empowered now with what.

None of the economic model has been based on your Theory of Nonsense and Elites. None has emerged from your 7th century to Mills par course. None, Massaddi Mian, none.

No parent should send kids to be taught by you, let alone pay you, but then there are honest people like, Madani sahibs also, who get wowed by the name throwing that you do. I bet when it will come to paying you to teach their kids, Madani Sahibs of your neighborhood would think twice, if you were not attached to the institution you insult. Your attachment to an institution may be more appropriate, if it is with an institution of different kind, where everyone claims to be better than Massaddi Mian.

#160, they would certainly be were they a primary product nation with a population like that of India or Pakistan, unless nationalization ensured that state money that goes to protect and bail out industry gets some return in the form of added employment for the people whose (tax) money it is or gives the state ownership to the percent of the bailout which in many cases of failing businesses would be 100%, unless you happened to be US occupied like Korea and the "bailing out" was being done as bribes by outsiders or a rat fart "country" like Singapore or Taiwan (with which a giant, China was being tormented)

#120 Posted by MantoLives on February 11, 2008 6:31:20 pm


So it the patriotic national duty of third rate freaks like mohar 11 and arjun 5 to abuse me, drag my dead father into it and make statements which make no sense.



You bring up the long dead gandhi every time...even blame him for the current jihadi trouble in pureland..

What's so special about you and your dead father(who you always use to make a point when it suits you)


The fact of the matter is that ahmedis themselves say they are persecuted in pureland...and your dad isn't buried in a muslim graveyard because the law of the land doesn't consider him a muslim..and your father's place of worship can't legally be called a mosque..

no amount of pulling stuff from your rear will change that fact...

Masadi sahib,

Wud u say that the average Korean or Tiawanese worker is worse off than the average worker of a pro-natioanlisation developing nation (if such a nation exists).

Regards

Majumdar writes "And why cud ZAB not just provide protection to domestic industry rather than ruin it by wholesale natioanlisation."

Because unlike the state help "wealthfare" that helps industrialists alone, ones that were leeching off the people, nationalization ensures workers rights, while ensuring the benefits of protection of infant industries.

The rest of your "points" and nonsense especially since no civilian leader in Pakistan, even the most powerful among them, could have had a free hand inspite of the military and feudals to carry out whatever little he was able to achieve laying the foundations of a people's movement in Pakistan...


Feroz: nice cock and bull story. Tahmed already made one up as did Hamid in order to discredit my very valid points and well researched empirical analysis on the elite by people who have more "brains" in their toe than you have in your entire linage ten generations past. Constructing straw men like this, just tells me the sorry state of your ability to refute your opponent...

re: Masadi

I had a conversation, today, with a US elite. He was not really an elite, as he was only 5'5" tall and had black hair, which was thinning. He was wearing faded, torn, jeans and a plaid shirt, open-buttoned not tucked in. He looked like an unemployed college student. I think that he was wearing Timberlands, which also happen to be my favorites.

Then, I realized how crafty the US elite were and so, I acessed my iPhone and opened my notes on Mills, which I alway carry with me like the picture of Vladamir Lenin, which is the screen saver on my iPhone. The US elite lied to me; they said I was a peon of the west! I immediately, took the US elite's picture and emailed it, using my WLAN access, to the all newspapers in the world. I had to warn the people about these dangerous cameleons, who pretend to be the saviors of the world only to leech its' blood as Mills has so wisely predicted.

I now see the error of my ways. I have seen the light of the coming of the Lord and His Truth shall trample the vintage, where the grapes of the US elites' lies are sown, as Mills had predicted.

Lo! Behold! The US elites are really the Romans, who killed Christ! One day when Jesus was strolling along the shores of the Dead Sea with Mary Madeleine, he accidently stumbled and fell. Looking at what tripped him, Jesus saw some scrolls and when he read them, he realized that they were the primary drafts of Mills' new book and realizing their worth, he buried them in a cave.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were Mills warning the world that the Romans were the US elites and to keep their secret, the Romans framed Jesus as the king of Jews and killed him! O' tradedy! Howl! Howl! Howl! Howl! Howl!

Mills was right! I was wrong! You were right! The world is flat! The sky is green and tangerines are purple, Papa Smurf is the Grandmidget of the US elites and Jimi Hendrix still rocks around the clock!

Ciao

I suppose "indisputed" is a new category of "Facts" masadi style.

May God- if there is one- help you. Good night.

Sanatani,

Lets put it this way. He was more secular than the rest including your Congress walas, with the possible exception of Jawaharlal Nehru who had other issues.

re: Leadenwinter

Your article stated the problems well, but then lost focus when it swooned over the military's role in Pakistan.

That one lapse of reason, a failure to judge the military on past its performance and but only on its future intentions, was the Achilles' Heel of your article. An objective analysis should judge the situation on the basis of a documented past record and from that record, to infer a conclusion. Your article clearly showcased the problems/issues in Pakistan, but then again; did what was done in the past - state the problem but never offer a probable solution. :)

Secondly, analysis of this sort generally contains an element of a solution embedded within the article, which has a realistic probability of happening, but your article did not have that element and as a result, came across as stilted and one of grandstanding.

Ciao

Masadi,

(Taiwan and South Korea became "big" because of heavy state protection, nationalization is just a slight difference.)

That is certainly true, even the French and Germans protected the domestic industry in 19th century against British comptt but I beg to differ that that means natioanlisation or state ownership of resources. And why cud ZAB not just provide protection to domestic industry rather than ruin it by wholesale natioanlisation.

(Land reform has to do with society and creating conditions and laws for it)

And what indeed did ZAB do to create conditions for radical changes? Packing his PPP with feudals, making a genocidal general like Tikka Khan his Defence Minister?

(The institutions created or incepted by the ZAB was the non existant political one)

Civilian Martial Law and the Political Cell of ISI being prime examples.

(where the people of Pakistan for the very first time had an avenue for a say)

They had no say in 1971-77 as much as they have sadly had no say in the rest of their history.

(the sentiments created by the partition makes him responsible for the massacres that occurred.)

Hindu-Muslim differences had cropped up long before MAJ (pbuh)came up with the Partition demand. But that needs a whole FP article not this thread.

(it is more difficult to manage and control and use by proxy due to its size and diversity for ulterior motive)

Residual India is by no means a small or non-diverse state so why did not Brits split (residual) India into even smaller parts.

( division and rule has been one of the very favourite formulas of the colonial elite)

Of course that is true.

(like I said you're a fake)

Just because you hold a diff POV does not make you a fake. I realise that about you, I hope one day you too will realise about people who disagree with you.

Regards