Fears of a Military Coup in Pakistan

Responses to BilalM article is heading for the record books, time for guinness to start a new record series. What is disturbing in all these responses is the overwhelming desire for vengeance, every one wants NS to be made `accontable`, the assets to be siezed. The notion of pay back as the first priority of a new govt is a bad omen. Janata party imprisoned Mrs gandhi, the party is no more, father bhuto was killed, zia is in the scrap heap of history. The famous Bofor scandal, the govt is still investigating, no one arrested, the govt is still in power. May be there is a lesson there, the animus of vendetta is elf defeating, after settling with NS, new scape goats will have to be found, and there in lies danger.

It is pathetic, that the upper class, some expat, mostly educated, definitely anglicised [akistanis are wallowing in this mud of revenge, cannot see the future, cannot see beyond NS.

I make no apologies for being a `two-nation` fan, read his article, see his priorities, have a breath of fresh air.

to drrac,

Except for some nutters on chowk, at least in the indian news papers, i havnt come accross any jubilation obout the events in pakistan, at worst it is an anxiety about the future, not of a nuclear war, but of the ``low cost variety``. There is only hope, desperate look for signs of peace.

There is an article by M.J Akber, a well known political commentator in india, and his article is reproduced in todays dawn, shows the extend of wishful thinking by the mainstream indians, despite all the forebodings.

drrac:

Nicely stated. I do disagree with one point. I personally, would welcome the sympathy and advice of those Indians who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the average Pakistani. Apart from that, I agree with almost everything you have said.

All the posts from indian friends seem to condemn the military takeover in Paksitan. They have been emphasising the take home message that Pak army is a rouge force, indidiciplined and one which fans religous fundamentalism all over the region. All seem to be very unhappy with dismissal of Nawaz Sharif, irrespecive of the fact that he indulged in massive financial corruption, was bent upon destroying all the institutions of state including parliment, constitution, judiaciary, economy and the armed forces, just to stay in power. The common man`s fundamental and basic rights were being trampled all over.

The indian friends seem to be dissappointed that such destruction of Pakistan seems to be at an end now with army takeover. Do they really think Nawz Sharif was good for Pakistan ? They support him because of obvious reasons and i can read frustration in their minds at his dismissal since there is a chance that Pakistan might come out well after all these crisis.

Leave us alone please, we don`t want your symapthy and don`t try to portray your country as pillar of democracy and strength. Just ponder and think the state of common man in your country as well.Fifty years of democracy has not changed much for them.The per capita income and standard of living of a common indian is still way less than a Pakistani even after all the upheavels we have gone through. All we need is a few years of stability and good ledership ,and let me tell you that our nation has realised this.We have to do what is best for us and we don`t want your symapthy and advice.

Best wishes

R.Cheema

drrac@hotmail.com

In response to jay (Reply #: 103):

Dear jay:

Your statement: ``Thank you for the extensive quote from nehru, i dont remember these passages at all, in those days the emphasis [sic] was different.``

Comment: Why you have thanked me for a long quote from Nehru`s book? I really don`t understand. If you don`t remember the passages quoted, you have at least two options: (1) believe in what I have posted, or (2) go back to the book and see yourself. I would personally prefer the latter course. Following your reference to your recollection, you say that in those days the emphasis was different. What do you mean?

Your statement: ``You can call it a theory, any thing, what ever you like.``

Comment: No, you cannot do it. A theory is a theory, and we need to understand the process of theory construction and the significance of theory in any discourse. You cannot twist the things the way you like. Good scholarship is always based on some foundations. No disrespect to you, I have already suggested a few basic readings.

Your statement: ``What really puzzles me is the apparent illogical way the pak society behaves, the govts, the news papers and even at individual levels. The fixation about india, the tendency [sic] to deny any influences, and if any to criticize [sic] it.``

Comment: Who has said that Pakistan is close to perfection? Most reasonable Pakistani`s recognize the weaknesses in the Pakistani state and civil society. A lot of Pakistanis, including myself, are developing an internal critique. I may often sound that I am opposed to external critique. I have never said anything to this effect. I, however, have often indicated to the external (particularly the Indian) critics is that your criticism my not be taken in its spirit in view of the nature of our historical gulf. When an Indian criticizes Pakistan, as you do, it creates a problem in the minds of most Pakistanis (perhaps all Pakistanis). This situation may lead to the widening of the existing gulf between the two peoples. Please think. Having said this, I think you often paint Pakistani people, society, the government, the newspapers, and individuals with a broad brush. So, your writings have a double-negative effect. Now, compare my writings about India (and particularly Hindus) with your writings about Pakistan (and the Pakistani Muslims). Can you see a difference? If not, then I am simply wasting my time (I am sorry to say). If you still insist on your standpoint (whatever the reasons), you will leave me with only a few choices that I myself would not prefer to opt for.

Your statement: ``I am so acutely aware of this, from a very personal point of view, you or even Musharraf [sic] could have been my neighbour, my friend Mustafa i mentioned earlier, who now heads a major military design organisation in india, we chat about every thing, extensively.``

Comment: We still are neighbors. We can still chat freely. I agree with some of the comments of other Pakistani Chowkwallas about your style of doing things. I must emphasize that you need to make some fundamental changes in your style if you really want to engage in a discourse. There indeed is a difference between the Indian and Pakistani societies, although there are a lot of other commonalities. So, try to see Pakistan and Pakistani people from a Pakistani perspective. Please consider.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I personally like your presence on the Chowk. Please consider my friendly comments.

Dear Bilal,

Thank you for the extensive quote from nehru, i dont remember these passages at all, in those days the emphesis was different.

You can call it a theory, any thing, what ever you like. What really puzzles me is the apparent illogical way the pak society behaves, the govts, the news papers and even at individual levels. The fixation about india, the tencency to deny any influences, and if any to critiicise it. I gave you several examples of this tendencey.

I am so acutely aware of this, from a very personal point of view, you or even musarrf could have been my neighbour, my friend Mustafa i mentioned earlier, who now heads a major military design organisation in india, we chat about every thing, extensively. There is some fundamental difference i can perceive, some how pakistanis are not able to see any thing other than india in their horizons. What is that has created this mind set, i donot know, may be it needs a different name, but still i prefer to call it TNT.

I give you a good example, this time more profound. Use any word you like, call it theory X, but please, please, refrain from quotes. As i have said before i am only interested in what is shaping the thinking today, i accept the history as given, i dont need any justifications.

Let us look at the pak response to US pressure for signing the CTBT. All that pakistan said every time it was mentioned was that Pakistan will sign it along with india.

India all along maintained that CTBT should be in a disarmament frame work, CTBT favours the existing bomb makers, it implies domination by the five etc.. etc. All these are relevant to pakistan, applicable to pakistan. tHESE ARE SIMPLY LOGICAL POSITIONS, UNIVERSALLY TRUE. The tragedy is that, among the nations of the world, pakistan remained singular, it is the only country repeated this .... it is all because of india.

Now no one has to sign CTBT, it has collapsed, even pakistan can continue to test as many as it wants.

Give this infantile mentality of the pak system a name.... it is all because of india. You prefer to trace the origins of TNT, to me this is what it is today. What jinnah thought, what nehru thought etc are irrelevant. As i have stated before, i am not very perticular about the name, you can suggest some other name to it.

In response to jay (Issue of Theory):

Your postings are sometimes very perplexing. Please slow down.

Theory has some specific connotations in social science. The term theory is often used in the following three senses: (1) Theory as an ordering framework which permits observational data to be used for predicting and explaining empirical events; (2) Theory as conceptualization, in which the to theorize means to prescribe a particular way of conceptualizing something; and (3) Theory is also used interchangeably with hypothesis or explanation.

Andrew Sayer, a well-known British scholar, argues that theory and observation are implicitly mischaracterized by the ordering framework model and that the idea of theory as an examined conceptualization of some object is more appropriate. Sayer further maintains that social science that neglects the importance of conceptualization is prone to insert the misconceptions of unexamined common sense into its ordering frameworks. Please think.

For additional details, see Sayer, A. 1984, Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, London: Hutchinson; see also Rhoads, J. K., 1991, Critical Issues in Social Theory. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, and Giddens, A., 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory, London: Macmillan).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Jay (Reply # 100 and other previous replies concerning the two nation theory):

Dear jay:

You have raised the issue of the two-nation theory on several occasions. I asked you to explain what you really mean by this phrase. You have your own conception of this theory but you have to date failed to provide an unambiguous outline of your theory. The notion of two-nation theory is often attributed to Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan (I have already written about this and have explained my understanding of Sir Syed`s views). This theory, in its more modern form, was stressed by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (henceforth Jinnah). It seems that you are not much interested in the history of this theory. You want to shun history, forget all previous problems, and suddenly evolve a society of Indian and Pakistanis that fits your noble views about the South Asian Subcontinent. If I am write, I vehemently (yet politely) disagree with you. We have at least three choices: (1) that we never talk about the two-nation theory; (2) that we take it more lightly in our attempt to avoid unnecessary skirmishes and misunderstandings; (3) that we talk about it extensively and critically for understanding and to learn (in the interest of peaceful coexistence) from our past mistakes. My preferred choice is definitely not the first option. I am more inclined toward the last choice (if we keep on talking about it). But, this choice is not easy and it is important the we build mutual confidence in each other and don`t let civility leave us at any cost. I want to quote from Nehru`s The Discovery of India (1946), an excellent source of information that every Pakistani must read. I think, most Indians have already read this book. I am simply quoting the following paragraphs as a starting point for a debate on the issues raised by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (henceforth Nehru).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Nehru writes (pp. 390-94):

``Since British rule came to India, Moslems have produced few outstanding figures of the modern type. They have produced some remarkable men but, as a rule, these represented the continuation of the old culture and tradition and did not easily fit in with modern developments. This incapacity to march with the changing times and adapt themselves culturally and otherwise to a new environment was not of course due to any innate failing. It derived from certain historical causes, from the delay in the development of a new industrial middle class, and the excessively feudal background of the Moslems, which blocked up avenues of development and prevented the release of talent. In Bengal the backwardness of the Moslems was most marked, but this was obviously due to two causes: the destruction of their upper classes during the early days of British rule, and the fact that the vast majority were converts from the lowest class of Hindus, who had long been denied opportunities of growth and progress. In northern India the cultured upper-class Moslems were tied up with their old traditional ways as well as the land system. In recent years there has been a marked change and a fairly rapid development of a new middle class among Indian Moslems, but even now they lag far behind Hindus and others in science and industry. The Hindus are backward also, sometimes even more hide-bound and tied up with traditional ways of thought and practice than the Moslems, but nevertheless they have produced some very eminent men in science, industry, and other fields. The small Parsee community has also produced outstanding leaders of modern industry. Mr. Jinnah`s family, it is interesting to note, was originally Hindu.

Both among Hindus and Moslems a good deal of talent and ability has in the past gone into government service, as that was the most attractive avenue open. With the growth of the political movement for freedom, that attraction became less, and able, earnest, and courageous persons were drawn into the Congress. Thus many of the best types of Moslems came in to it. In more recent years young Moslems joined the socialist and communist parties also. Apart from all these ardent and progressive persons, Moslems were very poor in the quality of their leaders and were inclined to look to government service alone for advancement. Mr. Jinnah was a different type. He was able, tenacious, and not open to the lure of office, which had been such a failing of so many others. His position in the Moslem League, therefore, became unique and he was able to command the respect which was denied to many others prominent in the League. Unfortunately his tenacity prevented him from opening his mind to any new ideas, and his unquestioned hold on his own organization made him intolerant both of his own dissidents and of other organizations. He became the Moslem League. But a question arose: As the League was becoming a mass organization, how long could this feudal leadership with outmoded ideas continue?

When I was Congress president, I wrote to Mr. Jinnah on several occasions and requested him to tell us exactly what he would like us to do. I asked him what the League wanted and what its definite objectives were. I also wanted to know what the grievances of the League were against the Congress governments. The idea was that we might clarify matters by correspondence and then discuss personally the important points that had arisen in it. Mr. Jinnah sent me long replies but failed to enlighten me. It was extraordinary how he avoided telling me, or anyone else, exactly what he wanted or what the grievances of the League were. Repeatedly we exchanged letters and yet always there was the same vagueness and inconclusiveness and I could get nothing definite. This surprised me very much and made me feel a little helpless. It seemed as if Mr. Jinnah did not want to commit himself in any way and was not at all eager for a settlement.

Subsequently Gandhiji and others amongst us met Mr. Jinnah, several times. They talked for hours but never got beyond a preliminary stage. Our proposal was that representatives of the Congress and the League should meet and discuss all their mutual problems. Mr. Jinnah said that this could only be done after we recognized publicly that the Moslem League was the sole representative organization of the Moslems of India, and the Congress should consider itself a purely Hindu organization. This created an obvious difficulty. We recognized of course the importance of the League and because of that we had approached it. But how could we ignore many other-Moslem organizations in the country, some closely associated with us? Also there were large numbers of Moslems in the Congress itself and in our highest executive. To admit Mr Jinnah`s claim meant in effect to push out our old Moslem colleagues from the Congress and declare that the Congress was not open to them. It was to change the fundamental character of the Congress, and from a national organization, open to all, convert it into a communal body. That was inconceivable for us. If the Congress had not already been there, we would have had to build up a new national organization open to every Indian.

We could not understand Mr. Jinnah`s insistence on this and refusal to discuss any other matter. Again we could only conclude that he did not want any settlement, nor did he want to commit himself in any way. He was satisfied in letting matter drift and in expecting that he could get more out of the British Government this way.

Mr. Jinnah`s demand was based on a new theory he had recently propounded--that India consisted of two nations, Hindu and Moslem. Why only two I do not know, for if nationality was based on religion, then there were many nations in India. Of two brothers one may be a Hindu, another a Moslem; they would belong to two different nations. These two nations existed in varying proportions in most of the villages of India. They were nations which had no boundaries; they overlapped. A Bengali Moslem and a Bengali Hindu living together, speaking the same language, and having much the same traditions and customs, belonged to different nations. All this was very difficult to grasp; it seemed a reversion to some medieval theory. What a nation is it is difficult to define. Possibly the essential characteristic of national consciousness is a sense of belonging together and of together facing the rest of mankind. How far that is present in India as a whole may be a debatable point. It may even be said that India developed in the past as a multi-national state and gradually acquired a national consciousness. But all these are theoretical abstractions which hardly concern us. To-day the most powerful states are multi-national, but at the same time developing a national consciousness, like the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R.

From Mr. Jinnah`s two-nation theory developed the conception of Pakistan, or splitting up of India. That, of course, did not solve the problem of the `two nations,` for they were all over the place. But that gave body to a metaphysical conception. This again gave rise to a passionate reaction among many in favour of the unity of India. Ordinarily national unity is taken for granted. Only when it is challenged or attacked, or attempts are made to disrupt it, is unity really appreciated, and a positive reaction to maintain it takes place. Thus sometimes attempts at disrupuon actually help to weld that unity.

There was a fundamental difference between the outlook of the Congress and that of the religious-communal organizations. Of the latter the chief were the Moslem League and its Hindu counterpart, the Hindu Mahasabha. These communal organizations, while in theory standing for India`s independence, were more interested in claiming protection and special privileges for their respective groups. They had thus inevitably to look to the British Government for such privileges, and this led them to avoid conflict with it. The Congress outlook was so tied up with India`s freedom as a united nation that everything else was secondary, and this meant ceaseless conflict or friction with the British power.

Indian nationalism, as represented by the Congress, opposed British imperialism. The Congress had further developed agrarian, economic, and social programmes. Neither the Moslem League nor the Hindu Mahasabha had ever considered any such question or attempted to frame a programme. Socialists and communists were, of course, intensely interested in such matters and had their own programmes, which they tried to push in the Congress as well as outside. There was yet another marked difference between Congress policy and work and those of the religions-communal organizations. Quite apart from its agitational side and its legislative activity, when such existed, the Congress laid the greatest stress on certain constructive activities among the masses. These activities consisted in organizing and developing cottage industries, in raising the depressed classes, and later in the spread of basic education. Village work also included sanitation and some simple forms of medical relief. Separate organizations for carrying on these activities were created by the Congress, which functioned apart from the political plane, and which absorbed thousands of whole-time workers and a much larger number of part-time helpers. This quiet non-political, constructive work was carried on even when political activities were at a low ebb; but even this was suppressed by Government when there was open conflict with the Congress. The economic value of some of these activities was questioned by a few people, but there could be no doubt of their social importance. They trained a large body of whole-timeworkers in intimate touch with the masses, and produced a spirit of self-help and self-reliance among the people. Congressmen and women also played an important part in trade union and agrarian organizations, actually building up many of these. The largest and best-organized trade union--that of the Ahmedabad textile industry--was started by Congressmen and worked in close co-operation with them. All these activities gave a solid background to Congress work, which was completely lacking in the religions-communal organizations. These latter functioned on the agitational plane only by fits and starts, or during elections. In them also was lacking that ever-present sense of risk and personal danger from government action which Congressmen had almost always to face. Thus, there was a far greater tendency for careerists and opportunists to enter these organizations. The two Moslem organizations, the Ahrars and the Jamiat-ul-Ulema, however, suffered greatly from governmental repression became politically they often followed the same line as the Congress.

The Congress represented not only the nationalist urge of India, which had grown with the growth of the new bourgeoisie, but also, to a large extent, proletarian urges for social change. In particular, it stood for revolutionary agrarian changes. . . .``

To UR,

In any biographical sketch, it is customary to mention the year and place of birth, it was not there in the `dawn` and that is what made me curious. To an average person, and latter knowing that it was in india, the conclusion is obvious. If you prefer to believe that to be an omission, not deliberate, so be it.

Dear Bilal,

In my posts i dont remeber hurling abuses, using slang and excessive value judgements, which i consider is the hall mark of a cyber warrior. At best you can accuse me of pomposity and terrible spelling, hope `temporal` is not reading my posts.

Why i havnt talked about my version of the two nation theory, TNT, is simply because we have different views about what is an operational thoery. As i have seen from your posts, a social theory will reduce to a juxtaposition of hollow words from dead people. It hardly matters to me what jinnah thought about two nation, what gandhi felt about it.

To me theory is a living being, manifest in the people under its spell, it has to be devined from the day today actions of people, distilled from the neblaii of conflicting demands and influencs and ultimately the person under its influence may not be aware of it. It is an explanation that resides in the observer, it is akin to psycho analysis.

I donot prefer to delve into past events, if at all only to illucidate the present, only to provide a sense of continuity. I prefer to avoid the words of the leaders, i prefer to concentrate on, actions of ordinary people, like the editor of dawn, like people on the chowk; not on profound matters, carefully considered and executed, but on the spotaneous and the mundane.

One element of the TNT is the denial of any linkages any heritages of indian origin, especially of non muslim in content. I gave the dawn example and here you have another.

Kuswant sing planted a kiss on the cheek of the daudhter of pak high comissioner PHC in india, i dont remeber his name. Look at the huff it created, look at the acres of news print devoted to this in pakistan. Now Bilal tell me the name of the selective amnesia that ignores the fact that kushwant and the PHCs father were class mates in england, they were family friends and the one of the persons that PHC invited first on his posting in india was kushwant. Now Bilal tell me the name of the incendiary flame that evoporates any semblence of friendship between a sikh and a pakistani muslim that runs several generations. Now Bilal tell me of the motivations of an editor to put this story as the violation of a muslim girl and islamic code. I havnt read a sigle commnt or letter to the ditor about the triviality of this in the pak press. Comments by the high comissioner and kushwant were prominant in the indian press, as they were taken aback by the pak reaction.

Why didnt the pak press print the whole story. I can feel the questions welling up in yours and URs mind, should i claim telepathy, better not, how many papers have you read, have you talked to the editors, how many, have you been to pakistan, are you still in the extrapolation mode.

Bilal, let the dead rest in peace, including the mahatma. We have only the present, our lives are mostly mundane, look at our motives and persuations on small things, we are unlikely to conduct coups and rule the nation, let us look at the ordinary, let us look at the poison that is killing us.

Your notion of external and internal criticism, is it not a manifestation of TNT, is it not the reason why UR keeps asking about my pak experience. Again i can only extrapolate, i was thrilled when i read naipauls, `india a wounded civilisation`, that was the first time i saw the word ``M.K.Gandhi``, it took me a while to understand whom he was refering to . Now i can say may the mahatma rest in peace, it would have been very different if i had viewed naipaul as an external critic.

An interesting editorial on Pakistan`s politics taken from Australian newspaper, ``Financial Times``.web address is:

http://www.afr.com.au/content/991015/world/world4.html

Pakistan coup a rage

against kleptocracy

Analysis,

By Nick Hordern

The international community`s reaction to the coup in Pakistan has been remarkably uniform.

US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the current EU President, Finland, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Commonwealth Secretary General Chief Emeka Anyaoku and a host of others are all singing the same song.

They insist Pakistan`s new military ruler, Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf, must ``observe the constitution``, and prepare for a return to ``civilian rule and democracy``.

Failure to do so will mean suspension of US economic and military assistance, cancellation of a proposed visit by the Bill Clinton, cancellation of an EU-Pakistan trade and co-operation agreement, expulsion from the Commonwealth and even the disapproval of Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad. Not to mention the ultimate sanction of withdrawal of IMF support for Pakistan`s beleaguered economy.

But hang on.

Nawaz Sharif was the most powerful Pakistani civilian politician in decades. Since the 1977-88 dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq the powers of Pakistani prime ministers had been heavily circumscribed. These constraints on the power of the elected head of the government were the means by which the military perpetuated its political influence over a nominally civilian government.

But Sharif`s 1997 landslide election victory gave him such a large parliamentary majority that he was able to amend the constitution at will. As a result, he was able to sack the country`s Chief Justice, the President and General Musharraf`s predecessor as military supremo.

So if the international community really does want democracy, civilian government and the Constitution they should be demanding Nawaz Sharif continue in power. But, with the sole exception of Dr Mahathir, they`re not.

This is because everyone knows Nawaz Sharif`s government was a byword for corruption, mismanagement and the occasional brutal crackdown on journalists.

So just who is the civilian, democratic alternative to Nawaz Sharif? Ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto believes it is she.

In mid-1986, a Western journalist travelled with Ms Bhutto back from London to the capital of Pakistan`s heartland province of Punjab, after seven years of house arrest and exile following the execution of her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, by General Zia.

In 1986 Benazir enjoyed deservedly the same respect Burma`s Aung San Suu Kyi does today. She was a champion of democracy and an opponent of military rule. The journalist noted that on the flight Bhutto had two fears; one, that she would be arrested (or even murdered) on arrival; the other, equally as grave, that Pakistan would ignore her.

Instead, the crowd of supporters which gathered to meet her at Lahore airport numbered more than a million. Defying Zia, Benazir had opened a new political chapter in Pakistani politics. She had an overwhelming popular mandate to restore democracy to Pakistan.

Thirteen years and two failed terms as Prime Minister later, Benazir is back in London. She is again in exile but this time it is self-imposed: she is avoiding a five-year jail sentence for corruption. One of her brothers is dead, allegedly murdered by his own wife. Her other brother also dead, allegedly murdered by her husband. And she actually endorsed Musharraf`s coup, though insisting the Army now restore ``democracy``.

Pakistan`s civilian elite`s preferred form of government is kleptocracy. Small wonder General Musharraf`s takeover appears to have been actually welcomed in Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has joined the ranks of those calling for the restoration of ``democracy`` in Pakistan. This is in the long standing, bipartisan Australian tradition of treating South Asia as a diplomatic free-kick zone, a suitable venue for a ritual display of disapproval of bad things like nuclear tests and military coups.

Will General Musharraf heed Alexander Downer`s call? Who knows. But when last year Canberra was trying to persuade Islamabad not to follow India`s lead and test nuclear weapons, Mr Downer made the princely offer to double Australian aid if Pakistan didn`t test.

This worked out to a princely $00.017 per Pakistani.

Bet they`re kicking themselves they didn`t take it up.

BAHMAD#

The problem with democracy is that it recognizeses the majority to the the fullest but leaves no room for MINORITY to wriggle out througha an escape to BREATH for eg....

Violence against Christians on the rise: archbishop

Josy Joseph in New Delhi

Violence against Christians and their institutions have increased

immediately after the recent Lok Sabha election, Archbishop Alan de

Lastic said in New Delhi while demanding that Year 2000 be declared the

Year of Christ.

``We deeply regret that the vicious campaign has been aggravated in

recent months. There has also been a rash of violent incidents in

Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab, among other areas, immediately after the

elections. We are sorry that instead of condemning these actions, some

senior leaders of the Sangh Parivar have chosen to aggravate the

situation,`` he asserted in a written statement.

He also demanded that ``prompt action should be taken against those

responsible for the hate campaign and the violence against the community

in the last two years``.

Claiming there was ``some sort of discrimination`` in the last BJP

government`s refusal of the Christian community`s demand, de Lastic

said, ``The community also expects the government to act on its demand to

declare 2000 AD as the Year of Christ, who was born on the very soil of

Asia.``

He also took on right-wing groups, saying their demands for an apology

from Pope John Paul II during his November 5-7 visit to India are

unjustified.

``They have chosen the occasion of the visit of the Holy Father, Pope

John Paul II, a revered international personality, to launch a

mischievous and systematic propaganda constructed on half-truths, lies

and disinformation. These attempts vitiate the atmosphere on the eve of

a historic visit, and threaten to tarnish the good name of the country

known for its hospitality,`` he said.

The Archbishop called upon Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to ``take

necessary action to prevent anything that would mar the environment of

amity in the country``.

He also called on the new government not to ``affect changes in education

and social policies which could be seen by minorities, the working class

and underprivileged groups as an erosion of their rights``. There is a

special responsibility on the prime minister, the archbishop said, ``as

head of government, and on the constituents of the National Democratic

Alliance, to reassure minorities and other groups on issues of law and

order, justice and development.``

He said there are several long-pending demands of the Christian

community for changing some laws. ``The most important among them are the

restoration of full rights to Dalit Christians, and urgent legislation

on laws relating to Christian marriages, divorce, adoption and

inheritance. The community has suffered much in the delay on these

issues,`` he said.

On the papal visit, he said the head of the Roman Catholic Church is

expected to have an hour-long meeting with leaders of various religions

during his visit to New Delhi.

Meanwhile, the All-India Catholic Union, the main body of lay Catholics,

said it was deeply concerned about the ``statements by senior ministerial

colleagues of the prime minister`s Bharatiya Janata Party that the BJP

has not disowned its Hindutva agenda``.

``Such encouragements, we fear, are directly responsible for encouraging

the spate of anti-Christian violence that has been reported from

Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab, among other states, in the wake of the

NDA returning to power after the general elections.``

John Dayal, national secretary of the AICU, said the Gujarat state

government has ``once again been silent``.

In response to STATESMAN (Reply #: 97):

Dear STATESMAN:

Your statement: ``The problem with democracy is that it recognizes [sic] the majority to the [sic] fullest but leaves no room for MINORITY to wriggle out through [sic] an escape to BREATH for. . . .``

Comment: Indeed this is a flaw with liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is perhaps unsuitable for multicultural societies (I wrote a short article on this issue, but the Chowk staff perhaps found it unsuitable for publication; may be the queue is too long). An alternative is some sort of compromise between liberal and multicultural forms of democracy (as successfully implemented in South Africa).

In electoral politics, the majority rule is only one of the many ways to resolve a conflict (or reach a compromise). The best solution is a unanimous decision (if possible).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to fozia (Reply #: 90):

Dear fozia:

A good response. Democracy is a very complex political notion, system, and process. David Held (1987: 1) writes, in his Models of Democracy, that the ``history of the idea of democracy is curious; the history of democracies in puzzling.``

I think, democracy need not necessarily follow the same course as it followed in Western Europe. Democracy has developed in Europe and America from both top-down and bottom-up. The development of democratic systems in Europe and America have involved a lot of working class (common people`s) movements.

The workers` movement is the classical form of social movement that marked nineteenth and early-twentieth-century industrial society. For basic reading, in the American context, see the contribution of David Montgomery (1993) ``Citizen Worker`` or Alan Dawley (1991) Struggles for Justice.

In the 1960s, most Western countries experienced important social movements, such as the student movement, civil rights movement, and peace movement. The national liberation movement, in Third World countries, also fall in this category. During the 1970s and early 1980s, a multitude of social movements proliferated throughout North America and Europe. Examples of these are women`s, ecological, anti-nuclear and peace movements, and movements for regional autonomy. In other parts of the world, a lot of movements basically revolved around the issue of cultural identity.

Many social movements challenge the pre-existing institutional structures, ways of life and thinking, norms and moral codes. In a nutshell, social movements are linked closely to social change.

A plethora of literature has developed during the past two decades or so. One of the best sources of information is Manuel Castell (1983). The City and the Grassroots. London: Edward Arnold. Good luck, keep thinking.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Here are the details (from Dawn)

Constitution Suspended: State of Emergency Declared

Oct 15 (01:30 PST): ISLAMABAD, Oct 15 : The following proclamation order has been issued by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, who has assumed the office of the ``Chief Executive`` of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army, I General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff, Proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

I hereby order and proclaim as follows:

(a) The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance;

(b) The President of Pakistan shall continue in office;

(c) The National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and Senate shall stand suspended;

(d) The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies shall stand suspended;

(e) The Prime Minister, the Federal Ministers, Ministers of State, Advisors to the Prime Minister, Provincial Governors, the Provincial Chief Ministers, the Provincial Ministers and the Advisors to the Chief Ministers shall cease to hold office;

(f) The whole of Pakistan will come under the control of the Armed Forces of Pakistan.

This Proclamation shall come into force at once and be deemed to have taken effect on and 12th day of October, 1999.

The order has been issued in pursuance of deliberations and decisions of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army.

RE: Fozia (Reply # 70)

In the usual ``intellectually stimulating debate`` at Chowk, it was throughly unusual to face Fozia`a terse, relevant, perspicacious, and therefore educational commentary.

Read at your own risk!

RE: Whereabouts of Quaid-e-Azam

It`s been brought to my knowledge (through completely unreliable yet highly indispensable sources: like the sabz reSh buzurg) that Quaid-e-Azam has escaped from his confined quarters at The Sang-e-murmur Mausoleum, kiraaaChee. His current whereabouts are unknown but we hope that it`s one of the Polynesian Islands. The escape was achieved through the well-understood (but under-utilized by politicians) process of Quantum Tunneling. The Quaid could not bear yet another ``sincere`` speech in his presence (the Quaid operates this presence through a network of his portraits in key installations: due to technical difficulties he has to consult a database of posteriors to identify the speaker), and the resulting karwaT in the maQbara (turning in the grave) initiated this tunneling effect. The absolute lack of reports regarding VIPs in Pakistan having visions of the Quaid beseeching them to help him get back to his resting place only help strengthen my belief that he is happier with his relocation.

Wallah aalam bissawab...

I have read a couple of points by different writers and thought of taking the “liberty” to put forth my analyses:

- I think folks who have ideas and opinions for the future should direct them to “Ibn-ae-Sina’s” post. As that is the follow-up to the present situation. Readers and Writers who are posting their suggestions to “The Empire Strikes Back” will create a mix-up.

(Just a suggestion)

- I agree with UR’s portrayal of army life. I have had two uncles who have been in army quite a while back and have now moved to different fields. Therefore, I can say that I have seen the armed forces life style a little bit as I used to visit my uncles whereever they were posted. Going back to my childhood memories: I loved the cantonment areas in all the major cities of Punjab and NWFP. Mainly my hometown Lahore Cantt.

- I think many understand what is going on and what should not have happened. Though some folks with blinders on have started going into the details of army life and connections of Civilians. And that is it! That is where our so-called wisdom personified folks divert the nation. Rather than condemning the wrong, they take a side road to bring forth-irrelevant points. Ironically, some are even bringing the foreign corespondent’s views who are just the observers.



{Khud Kalami} Oh, I did not realize in order to even see what is going on in our country and conduct an analyses; we need foreign correspondents to tell us! As if they have the Umroo Ayaar’s Zanbeel and some kind of Fortune Telling Equipment that they can see everything and be anywhere they want to.

What happened to the ones who add to the (20-30% Readers should excuse my ignorance if the figures are way off, I am just taking an uneducated guess) literacy chart of the country? Have they been buried for sometime or what? {End of Khud Kalami}

- I hate to repeat what I have been saying in different posts. But some folks have got the gist. Shukr Hae’.

A response to Mr. Shan: I was just trying to portray the role of army and Civilians as separate entities but still part of the same family. And some of my harsh remarks towards the Civilians should not imply that I have no respect for them. If one has hopes and expectations from a government only then one will criticize their wrong judgements. I will always prefer Nawaz Sharif on his lunatic opposition. I voted for him the 1st time he was elected. And it was a conscious decision, No regrets!

Lahore, my city, enjoys new roads and many other good additions. And of course, the Man is a born and bred Pakistani therefore he will have some attachment with the soil unlike his opposition. Therefore, I was quite shocked on the foolish act. But I do not think one can put the blame on the PM alone for the reckless step, his Hawaris are to be blamed equally.

- Now coming back to dear Army. I feel one cannot totally neglect army in a democratic rule. Because in times of war alerts, the govt. will have to contact the army. Let’s Imagine a Scenario:

There is tension at the border and the army chief is out of the country on an assignment.

(I would like to remind the readers, if they have forgotten, that a man who dies while he is on an assignment is regarded as a martyr. So is it only a sentence that can fire a person who can be a martyr? In other words, is the respect that one had built over the years can be crushed by one sentence? What an Irony! )

Now the first person the PM will give a call is going to be the Army General and not a Jawan to take an appropriate action. The Army will be the one to debrief the Govt. on the steps they plan to take. If the army does not perform well then of course they should be criticized. Imagine the tension reaching slowly towards the borderline. The General is heading back home and then he hears the sacking story. His plane is not allowed to land. Damn it, this is the person who is leading the armed forces and is not a traitor or a terrorist that one does not allow to land in his own country and will be the one to take necessary steps if the tension travels inside. I feel like imagining his feelings:

Human Reaction: Hey, I have spent about 24 years of my life serving the country. I cannot land on my own land? Sadness. I do not know what is going on that led to this crucial step. But the authorities should have told me if there was any anger or differences once I was back home. Should have given me a chance ?

The General’s Mind: I have to take a step because the wolves at the borders will have a ball. They will love to see us crack. I have to take an action. If a Civilian Govt. can take such a strong step then the world(Basically the Neigbours)will never respect the army and the hierarchy in the army. They may take advantage of this action.

{My thoughts: This irony is quite prevalent in Muslim History that whenever there was internal anarchy in their system their foes took advantage of that} How can I let this happen?

That is it!

Regards to all those who cared to read my naïve and idealistic thoughts.

Interesting observation I found in The News on the ``cunning`` Ziauddin, it`s worth the read.



Ambitious Ziauddin steered Nawaz to political disaster

News Intelligence Unit

By Kamran Khan

ISLAMABAD: Within half an hour of his surreptitious climb to the post of the Chief of Army Staff on Tuesday afternoon, the former Inter-Services Intelligence chief, General Khawaja Ziauddin knew that the Army he was supposed to lead was not prepared to accept his command.

The News Intelligence Unit (NIU) has gathered that all of Ziauddin`s phone calls to the Corps Commanders and the Chief of General Staff -- placed from the Prime Minister`s House in Islamabad on Tuesday -- drew a blank, a reaction that almost instantly drew down the curtains on former prime minister Nawaz Sharif`s second term in office.

Debriefing sessions with detained aides of the Nawaz Sharif administration by security officials here have disclosed that the former ISI chief-led operation to stage an in-house coup in the Army was driven by his personal ambitions ignoring the actual situation on the ground.

``Even a layman in Pakistan is aware that any operation of this sort can never be completed without the active support of the troops and commanders posted in the cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi,`` an Army official commented.

``It was foolish of the former prime minister not to be aware that his nominee for the Army chief didn`t have the key support of the 10 Corps and more specifically the 111 brigade,`` he added.

It has now become clear that Lt. Gen. Ziauddin was the architect of the secret operation that envisioned the official announcement of his promotion to the post of COAS once Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded PIA Flight PK 805 in Colombo for a journey that severed his contact with the GHQ for a good 200 minutes.

It was also Lt. Gen. Ziauddin who, along with the former principal secretary Saeed Mehdi, had suggested to Nawaz Sharif that General Pervez Musharraf`s plane must not be allowed to land at Karachi so that he could be arrested at any other less busy airports in Sindh.

Sources said that Ziauddin had assured Sharif that he would gain the full command of the Army much before the landing of General Pervez Musharraf`s plane at Karachi airport, a dream that suddenly transformed itself into Sharif and Ziauddin`s worst nightmare.

Officials here believe that because of his family and, more particularly, his father`s old ties with Khawaja Ziauddin`s family, Sharif always wanted to appoint him to the coveted post of the COAS, but he couldn`t do that since he had ignored a senior-most three star general as General Jehangir Karamat`s replacement. Several close aides to Sharif had often conceded in the past that Gen Kuli Khan Khattak was ignored because Sharif was not comfortable with a Pathan general.

Ziauddin, an officer from the Army`s Corps of Engineers, was one course junior to Gen. Ali Kuli Khan and Gen. Pervez Musharraf at the Pakistan Military Academy, but even before Karamat`s dramatic exit from the Army, Ziauddin had told his friends about the likelihood of his replacing Gen. Jehangir Karamat.

Sources said that General Karamat had posted him as the Corps Commander, Gujranwala in response to a personal request from Sharif, who wanted to give him a fair chance at the time of Karamat`s retirement.

Those who had close access to Sharif always contended that his decision to appoint Gen Musharraf was a stopgap arrangement between Gen. Karamat`s abrupt resignation and Ziauddin`s eventual appointment as the COAS. Ziauddin`s appointment as the ISI chief, minutes after Musharraf`s posting as the COAS, spoke volumes of Sharif`s bent of mind at the time.

With the knowledge that doubts deliberately created about Musharraf`s tenure as the COAS would further deteriorate worsening relations between the Army and the former prime minister, Ziauddin using his position as the ISI chief nonetheless invented an intriguing conspiracy theory on the Kargil crisis and helped fuel misinformation that the Army leadership got Sharif trapped by launching the Kargil operation.

During the Kargil crisis, Gen. Ziauddin`s exclusive briefing to the former prime minister almost always contradicted the GHQ`s version. ``He was responsible for planting the seeds of intrigue on the Kargil issue in Sharif`s mind,`` according to a reliable official source.

In his rash drive to convince Sharif that Musharraf`s removal as the COAS would ease tension with the Army, Ziauddin is believed to have also encouraged the former Intelligence Bureau chief Colonel (retd) Iqbal Niazi, to invent a variety of Army-backed threatening scenarios for Sharif, who apparently had an unlimited appetite for stories that painted a highly negative picture of Musharraf and the corps commanders considered close to the COAS.

Khawaja Ziauddin`s desperation to please Nawaz Sharif became evident on the first day of his appointment as the ISI chief when he readily confirmed a police-doctored version about the culprits allegedly involved in the ghastly murder of Hakim Mohammad Said.

On Ziauddin`s report, submitted without any independent verification, Sharif got an excuse to knock out the democratic set-up in Sindh, an act that later emerged as part of a well-engineered plot to make way for the installation of an exclusive PML-run unelected administration in Sindh.

An independent Army probe later discovered that the Sindh Police`s version of the Hakim Said case, with a stamp of ISI confirmation from Gen. Ziauddin, was nothing but ``a pack of lies.`` Neither Sharif nor Ziauddin, however, ever acknowledged the blunder.

In another desperate attempt to please the former prime minister, Ziauddin ordered the illegal detention of Najam Sethi, the editor Friday Times, for more than two weeks. Despite the Army`s blunt refusal to initiate sedition or treason charges against Sethi, Ziauddin obliged Sharif and Saifur Rahman by keeping Sethi locked up for about 20 days.

Sethi had been handed to Ziauddin`s ISI after being abducted by IB goons from his Lahore residence. Sources said Ziauddin agreed to hold Sethi in illegal detention in response to a single phone call from Saifur Rahman, who later also made Sharif speak to him on the subject.

Reliable sources said that Ziauddin was also behind severe criticism of the Kargil crisis by at least two corps commanders, who later met Sharif in Ziauddin`s presence. These meetings were never reported to the COAS, who later reacted by removing both corps commanders from their posts.

For Sharif, sources said, Ziauddin`s mission was to divide the corps commanders on ethnic and professional lines and to create an anti-Musharraf lobby amongst the corps commanders.

``Since his appointment as the DG ISI, Ziauddin was playing a dangerous game that pitched his boss against the Army,`` observed a senior official. ``His operation ultimately turned out to be hara kari (suicide).``

re:bahmed #77

`` However, what is the basis of you prerequisites for the success of a

western style democracy (I think, you mean liberal/representative democracy)? It seems that your comment are based upon

the situation in Pakistan and not upon the nature of Western societies/countries. You are right about the time taken by the

Western democracies to mature. What are your views about participatory democracy, the proportional system of electoral

democracy, and the grassroots social movements?``

My comments re: the prerequisites for democracy are based on lessons learned from basic courses on Western European history taught in high school. The abolishment of feudalism and rise of the middle class bourgeoise were the main ingrediants on the path to modern day democracy in western Europe.

It can be very easily seen that democracy grew from the bottom up in Western Europe. The same must be expected for a smooth evolution to democracy in other parts of the world.

The fundamental idea of a democracy is that the gov`t is accountable to the people. The two main checks for this system are the election process and use of an ethical civilian justice system free of political interference.

The election system in Pakistan is grossly flawed due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous post: I.e the majority of people are illiterate, votes are bought from feudal and tribal leaders, plus there is widespread corruption in the political process both from within the parties and the way elections are conducted.

It is of course common knowledge that the civilian justice system is largely ineffectual from the police level all the way up to the Supreme Court Level.

Thus modern day western-style democracy simply cannot function properly under such conditions in Pakistan.

Re: My views on grassroots social movements

Well I need more clarification of your definition of grassroot social movements.

If you mean grassroot social movements to change the political power structure - well the end result of that is generally a people`s revolution.

Otherwise if your context is of a smaller scale dealing with changes from within the same political power structure - such as establishing new parties, lobbying for influence within existing parties, establishing new rights and priviledges for the electorate - that is a natural result in a democracy. It is an effective way of adjusting the democratic gov`t`s method of governing in accordance with the changing times.

Regards,

Fozia

To UR,

Indians like Nawaz because of Lahore, he had the courage to settle the kashmere, he used multi level contacts to solve it, i trust Niaz Naik, he said that a treaty was to be signed in a matter of months with some adjustments, may siachen and some areas would have gone to pakistan, may some of kargill would have come to india.

We hate Nawaz for kargill, we never believed that it was his handy work, it was the army, the mullahs. recently only i have read that a large number of the madrassa graduates end up in the army, others as mujahideen in afghanistan or india, the link between army and mullahs are organic. Consistant with Lahore he with drew the troops, and we like him.

As i have stated before, i dont know of any indian seeking military confrontation with pakistan, who wants to provoke war with pakistan, may be i am in the wrong crowd, may be i am out of touch with indian reality.

If coruption pervades the pak society and the people are sick of it, to pin the entire responsibility on one person is unforunate, it doubly unfortunate because it is futile. Bhutto was kicked out because of corruption and you got Nawaz. Zulfi was hung because of alleged political murder and now you have Sardari, you could not hang it on Benazir being a female.

Wake up, great men are no more, the same is true for incarnation of evil. To me it looks like some of the `pagan` rrituals i witnessed when i was small, they used to transfer the evil spirits into a chicken and kill it, to exorcise the spirits. Wake up my friends, corruption is no such spirit, it cannot vanish with Nawaz, dont make him a chicken.

In response to jay (Reply # 83):

Dear jay:

You wrote: ``I regret the emotional provocations it causes, it was not my intention.``

Comment: I read you comment and smiled. ``Emotional provocations``? You are an expert of cyber warfare. Aren`t you?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

to UR,

Your siachan proposal, india withdrawing from siachen, i can respond at two levels. To me personally and to a whole lot of people i know, we dont care a damn, the alleged zias words can be repeated, `` not even a blade of grass grrows there``.

Second level is from the position of a nation state. No, india should not unilaterally withdraw from siachen, simply because india was there, pakistan will have evict india.

Kargill is different, pakistan was not there, they were mujahideen whom only diplomatic support was given, no arms. Even in the final withdrawal, washington declaration, the anouncement was that nawaz would request the mujahideen to withdraw.

Till now no one in pakistan has accepted that kargill invation was a govt sponsored action to which the military should get the credit.

To say the least, the army`s claim for glory in kargill is pathetic, they having denied their presence for so long, for having left their dead unclaimed to hide their involvement, having unceremoniously buried their dead, for having hid behind a el-cheapo outfit called northern light infantry.

Reigniting your military valour is not my intention, but brevity and provocation should not be confused.

THis reply is to message 70 something written by Fozia. I don`t intend to write much here because anyone interested in pontificating about the coup should first read her post.

Fozia:

your insights are dead on. I think self proclaimed `progressive` pakistanis should break away from dogmatic support of democracy, especially as for most it boils down to the simple right to vote (which is a minimalist conception of democracy and the right to vote doesn`t mean anything in Pakistan). Furthermore this obsession with the right to vote can be pernicous because it lulls people into believing, falsely, (especially Western Journalists) that now the leaders are accountable to the people.

Democracy is an evolutionary process (it took Europe 200 years, starting with the enclosure movement and rise of the bourgeoise, middle class, in England), it cannot be imposed from the top, especially not from Washington.

If people disagree with me then maybe they would agree with political heavyweights like Aristotle and Lenin. Who both decried the negative consequences of democracies among an illiterate population.

Faisal

to two-nation

I whole heartedly welcome the fresh breeze coming from the introspection and learning from the past. i cannot but agree with your remrks about the elite, and i sincerely hope that you are a pakistani to meet bilal ahmeds `internal` criticism criteria so that your views are considered with out the emotional recoil which my posts seem to elicit.

To bilal and UR,

I regret the emotional provocations it causes, it was not my intention.

( to UR )As i mentioned some where else, pakistan is the only country i havnt visited in south asia, but that should not undermine the analytical exercise and the web of underlying motives one can weave to inter connect the jems of factual events. This, like psychoanalysis is only an interpretation, there is no `truth`, but provides an understanding and some times have predictive and curative powers. What comes to my mind is the definition of schizophrenia by R D Laing, ` it is mental construct of the psychoanalyst who cannot explain the behaviour of the patient.......``

Now to a diversion, touched up on by others, the kargill evaluation, from pak and indian perspective.

The pak feeling about the kargill can summarised as follows `` Nawaz Seriff SNATCHED DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY``. The mighty indian army was caught in quagmire, `never` to recover and for the first time there was the chance of a tangible military victory, a reversal of 1971 to extract concessionbs from india. A military victory that could have been translated to political advantage has been transformed by nawas to a political defeat and military capitulation.

Pakistanis have easily forgotten that the pak military was not involved, it was only the freedom fighters, the gun fodder that moved into kargill. When the people realised that due to strtegic advantage, the `rag tag ` mujahideen could not be easily dislodged that the pakistanis started claiming it to be military operation. Every politician and the military denied their involvement. Now the military wants credit, now they are telling that it is a formal military operation.

One part of pakistan want to say that it is a jihad against india, by the ordinary people of pakistan to save the muslim brothern. This was the story all through kargill till the coup. Now the story is that the military has been put to shame, there was wide spread discontent because of withdrawal from kargil. Nobody wants to ask, how was the military involved. Nobody wants to ask if the military had identified its role, the indian response would have been entirely different. Nobody wants to ask, howlong duplicity can be sustained.

The indians viewed the kargill as insane, the work of rogue elements in the army, nawas and the world at large believed it. Opening a new front would have involved the regular sane part of the army and the political institutions. Indians stuck to the official pak statements and won politically and translated into a military win.

I am still awaiting the pakistani post, Musaraf conducted the coup, because he was sacked. Of course, add a few masala, he was corrupt, he was gay....That is intutively clear, no need for any two nation theorists.

London Telegraph: October 14:

SITTING in his flat in Park Lane, Mayfair, the son of the Nawaz Sharif, the deposed Prime Minister of Pakistan, spoke yesterday of the ``previously extremely polite man`` who overthrew his father.

Hasan Sharif said that Gen Pervaiz Musharraf had always been ``very reserved`` whenever he met him. He said: ``He was very respectful to my father. But in politics you never can tell about people around you. You never know who will betray you.``

No wonder they rob the country, and comment on their `misfortune` while relaxing in their Park Lane apartments. Someone has to squeeze the billions they owe to the banks and all the money they have deposited abroad.

anaryan:

I can give you as many justifications of Siachen being a part of Pakistan (if you want to get into the technicalities, we can exchange emails. It was part of my job to study it in minute details), as you can of Siachen being a part of India. I can also give as many justifications of the Pakistani military achieving success in Kargil, as you can of the Indian military being successful (I am assuming you were not physically present at Kargil; I certainly wasn`t. So both of us have only second hand information). After all, Nawaz Sharif backed out after talking to Clinton, and not to Vajpayee. And no one knows what they discussed. Infact, an argument could be made that the whole area of Kashmir is disputed according to the UN, so it does not belong to anyone. However, neither one of us would be able to fully convince the other, because both of us are looking at the situation with a national bias.

This is the whole point I was trying to make to Jay. You and Jay continue to look at only the Indian point of view, and are convinced you are right. The Pakistanis similarly will look at the Pakistani point of view, and will be convinced they are right. This is what you need to understand. That is why Pakistanis were not in favor of the decision made my Nawaz Sharif. What would be reaction of Indians if Vajpayee decided to have a unilateral withdrawl from Siachen, and hand it over to Pakistan? Would it effect a major setback to Indians? Probably not. Things were quite peaceful in Siachen for decades, before the Indian army moved soldiers there. Siachen did not carry any geo-strategic importance. What has India gained? However, I assume Indians would still be quite upset at a unilateral withdrawl, because according to their view of the situation, this action would be against the interest of India.

To understand the Pakistanis reaction to Kargil, you need to look at it from the point of view of the Pakistanis. A unilateral withdrawl from Kargil effects the Pakistanis the same way as a unilateral withdrawl from Siachen would effect the Indians. If you continue to look at it from the point of view of India only, the Pakistani reaction will never make sense to you, because you would have pre-judged India to be right and Pakistan to be wrong. I am not saying you or Jay should change your points of view, I am just saying if you want to understand the Pakistani reaction, you need to understand their views of the whole situation.

My second point is that I get the feeling that Indians are somewhat pro-Nawaz. Their is nothing wrong with that, as long as they like him because they genuinely think he was good for the common Pakistani. Also, the Indians seem convinced that Pakistanis want Nawaz out because of Kargil. The replies on this thread should indicate they want him out due to other reasons.

two-nations:

Your comments make a lot of sense. The one part I still do not agree with is giving the clergy any constitutional role. That could be dangerous. The people of Pakistan give a lot of importance to Islam, but not to the religious parties. Many religious parties have secretarian agendas, and will divide the country on these lines.

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

What a lovely saga !!!!!!

A failed polity ---- Can any pakistani recall even one instance of an elected government handing over power to another elected government.

A collapsed economy ---- When the world starts shooing beggars away, kissing the feet of IMF and World Bank might still not get you anywhere.

Incompetent diplomacy ---- which has ensured that the country gets reduced to the stature of a leper in the comity of nations. The heads of all countryment all over the globe hang in shame.

Rogue Army ---- That grabs power at every opportunity. Puppet governments, martial law administrations- while the rape of a nation continues unabated.

Corrupt Politicians ---- Looting and plundering to hoard wealth abroad, these shameless punks deserve to be shot in a row.

Inefficient Bureaucracy --- Supposed to be the cream of the country- they make a total mess of whatever they control.

Fanatic Theocracy ---- Taking the country thousand years back in the name of Islam.

Wretched and beleaguered populace --- Is there no respite.

Nuclear Generals --- I dare not write, shudder to think.

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

In response to fozia (Reply #: 70):

Dear fozia:

I commend for your pertinent comments and questions. However, what is the basis of you prerequisites for the success of a western style democracy (I think, you mean liberal/representative democracy)? It seems that your comment are based upon the situation in Pakistan and not upon the nature of Western societies/countries. You are right about the time taken by the Western democracies to mature. What are your views about participatory democracy, the proportional system of electoral democracy, and the grassroots social movements?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

JR:

It takes thirty years to become a general, so they do deserve some perks. This is true in all forms of managements, and industries. Believe me, they do not live as lavishly as you think. You cannot even begin to compare their lifestyles to the politicians and feudals, or even successful Pakistanis in private enterprises in Pakistan.

Your comments would have made sense twenty to thirty years ago. At that time, the military was quite well paid. Their salary and perks were up there with the private enterprises and businesses in Pakistan. So your statements would hold true for those who retired during those days, but not now.

``Most of the officers children (and ex-Army officers) are abroad.`` This is incorrect. Some of the officers have children here in the US, not most. The ones who do have children here, are independently wealthy. There is no way they could have done it through their military salaries. You need to check the salary of a general. If I were to go back to Pakistan right now, I could make twice as much as a Lieutenant General (I am not joking).

Anyways, this discussion has nothing to do with the topic. If what you are saying is correct, then perhaps I made a bad career choice to leave the military. I should have tried to become a general, and live lavishly :) I did take all these things into consideration, and concluded that it wasn`t worth it.

Re: UR Reply #: 47

UR:

``(To Jay) Nawaz Sharif seems to be quite popular with you. The only reason I can see for this is that he pulled back from Kargil.``

Here is something I`m not able to comprehend. What major setback (to pakistan) did Nawaz Sharif effect when he asked his soldiers in mufti to retreat ?

The Indian army was advancing steadily. They were understanding the terrain and climate better each day. The airforce was bombing the daylights out of the pak soldiers. It would have been a matter of a few weeks at most before the intruders were evicted. After Tiger Hill was recaptured, there was negligible threat to Siachen highway.

Did NS not hasten the inevitable ? Plus he saved the lives of hundreds of Indian and Pakistani soldiers in a pointless affair. I guess most pakistanis cannot swallow the bitter pill.

My second point is your statement:

``If you look at the Simla accords, and extend the line of demarcation along Siachen, it actually falls under Pakistani territory (even though it is not specificaly marked, the rules imply an extension of the line, at a certain angle). The actual aim of Kargil was to cut the supply routes to Siachen, from India.``

You words are certainly well tailored ! ``...the rules imply an extension of the line, at a certain angle...``.

Your argument may stem from websites like this:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9305/sr.htm (I request all chowkwalas to check out this map)

Here is the Indian side of it:

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/nov/05sia.htm:

``Controversy later erupted over the wording of the Karachi Agreement. India inferred from this wording -- `thence north to the glaciers` -- the tacit extension of the ceasefire line northwards through glacial terrain all the way to the Chinese border, which meant that most of Siachen was unambiguously and lawfully in Indian hands.``

And finally here is a CIA map of the place:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/middle_east_and_asia/Kashmir_area.jpg (I request all chowkwalas to check this map - you may need to scroll to the siachen area)

Notice the little upward-curving crook of the line at the end. And notice how the geocities site map has altered it. Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry to show you up UR, but I hope you are a bit wiser now.

UR:

It takes a while before my responses show up here. Anyway, about your question if I had served in the Pakistan Army- No, I have not. It does not matter. It is common knowledge that the senior officers of the Pak Army live quite lavishly, of course, second only to the feudal lords and politicians. Nevertheless, the Army elite get their pound of flesh from the exchequer, even if everything else has to suffer. I don`t know what rank you held, but I stand by my statements and I don`t see anything in your response to convince me otherwise. In fact, you reinforced my statements by saying ``The only people in the military who some lavishness in their lives are the senior generals.`` That is what I was saying too, except you chose to say ``some lavishness`` as opposed to ``lavishness`` - just word play. I was not referring to the ordinary sepoy wallahs in the Army. They are just cannon fodder in any army. And I should add to my earlier statement quoted below with the new addition in braces.

``Most of the officers children (and ex-Army officers) are abroad and the officers themselves live quite lavishly with their bungalows and officer`s clubs- all at the expense of the common man.``

Mr. Waheed:

I appreciate your attempt to express yourself in the National Language. It was hard to read your concerns, a little bit of Aa`raab would have helped.

Secondly, just like you ended up writing your senseless review I ``Waqtun Fawaqtun`` have an urge to bring the Baa`Mauqa or Bae`Mauqaa verses from the Kulyaat. My prerogative! You are not obligated to read.

Simple!

Take Care

To UR:

Well Said.

Regards

It`s too early to comment on whether the coup was good for Pakistan or not. What can be said for a fact however is that the ``democratic`` status quo was seen to be an utter failure.

The real question is what is the true reason for the coup?

1. Was this an impulsive reaction to being so obviously stabbed in the back by Nawaz Sharif?

2. Does the General truly have Pakistan`s best interests in mind and simply chose this incident as the final straw to a serious of injustices commited by the Sharif government?

3. Is the General( or the army) personally interested in the top job of Pakistan slowly planning this coup for a while and used his dismissal as an excuse?

The great danger in martial law is of course that the ruling military is not accountable to anyone.

However at the same time I question the blind acceptance of a western style democracy as the solution to Pakistan`s problems. In order for a western style democracy to be successful, you need:

1. Feudal System to be abolished.

2. Financially the majority of the people be belonging to the middle class.

3. A significant majority of the population to be literate.

4. Political Parties that don`t operate as the leadership candidates personal hoodlums. I.e there is a real party platform that provides real solutions to guiding the country.

5. A justice system that has the power to hold the politicians accountable for their actions.

6. Major institutions such as the Police,Education system and Banks to be operating with majority of it`s employees being honest and ethical.

Pakistan rates very poorly on all of these points. And as such it`s political climate will always be ripe for dictatorships unless the very foundations of Pakistani life are properly established.

If one looks at the rise of democracy in the west, you see that of the 6 points I mentioned , #1 and #2 were an absolute necessity before the nations can even begin to move towards democracy. Yet even then the early forms of democracy were very limited to ``elite`` of the country. This was normally done by establishing ``rules`` on who is allowed to vote. e.g a certain amount of income used to be required and many other rules. Eventually as literacy rates increased, the rules were changed to enable the majority of the men and women to vote.

Voting for a leader requires knowledge and understanding what the political parties stand for. Illiterate people simply aren`t in the position to make an informed decision. What ends up happening in modern -day Pakistani elections is that the candidates either appeal to the emotion of the voters in the cities or buy out their feudal masters in the villages. Then the people just vote for whomever the master says to vote for. Similar events occur in the tribal areas.

Unfortunately the westerners and Pakistanis themselves have forgotten how long it took for democracy to evolve in Europe and North America, and instead look as democracy being the quick fix to everyone`s problems. As another reader mentioned earlier, Russia is a prime example of how this went wrong. Russia went from being a socialist state ruled by the communist party elite to a ``democracy`` ruled by the ex-communist party elite. The prime reason for Russia`s problems isn`t #1-#3 rather is the the lack of #4-#6. Especially their gov`t not being accountable to the general public via a functional ethical justice system.

Regards,

Fozia

JR:

You stated: ``You know better than I that the Armed Forces in Pakistan enjoy a very elitist position. Most of the officers children are abroad and the officers themselves live quite lavishly with their bungalows and officer`s clubs-all at the expense of the common man.``

Have you ever served in the Pakistan military? I did for a long time, and believe me your statement is furthust from the truth. The reason I left the military was because I could barely make a living. The Pakistani military is one of the lowest paid professional jobs in the country. Very few people in Pakistan chose the military as their first choice of profession. Most youngsters try to go towards jobs in the business, medicine, computer industry etc., or Civil Services. The military is usually way down on their list. For the record, my wife and I never lived in anything even close to a bungalow. We could barely pay our bills, with my salary. The only people in the military who some lavishness in their lives are the senior generals. And their lavishness is quite a bit below the lavishness of their civilian counterparts. I believe the above is true for the Indian military, as well (although, I cannot say with certainity regarding the Indian armed forces).

I am not stating this to support the military. I am just describing a fact.

Re: ALL

This was perhaps the only way, short and sweet that Nooaaz-Sheriff`s govt could have been disbanded. Wether he bought, coerced, bribed the ``mandayte`` is besides the issue. He however did have the ``heavy mandayte``. They really would have to do it the ``legal way`` which ``they`` thought would be too long, and hey, my god would set some half decent precedent in the country for a change.

The so much timid Musharaf, almost reminded me of Bhutto, Gialani, Zia triangle...my god...what a flash back.

Generals, my foot...!!! They are all in together. The ever green ex-cia club in washington, bueraucrats/technocrats and party. Its not even funny any more.

P.S: Zahra Bibi

humaray haal per rahem kha`eyae, aour waqat baywaqat, batukkay aour baymozooN iqbal kay shaer daghnaa baund farmaeyae...! Aap bayshak mussllaye per bara-jamaan ho ker noor jahan kay jang 65 kay milli naghmaye sunniyyae, aour dua go rehaye, kay aap kay Fauji humayshaa aap kay sir kay saa`aye baan rahaiN...humain aisaye koi shoak nahin. Aour aggar aap iss ghalat fehmi kaa shikaar hain kay mulk ka difaa sirf aap key Fauj he karr saktee haye aour baqi saaree qauom baygharait haye toua aap foraaN Haj key tiyyaree kiyjeeyae, Munataey maaneeyae aour mazaaroN key taraf rajooh farma`eyae, shaid aap hey key du`aoN mein asar ho...!

In response to ``two-nations`` (Reply #: 60):

Dear ``two-nations`` (What a name! Can your explain its?):

You have made some interesting points. Permit me to summarize them:

First, ``the army is well in power now.``

Second, ``it would be foolish to return to some interim government.``

Third, the ``entire system has to be scrapped`` and a constitution needs to be promulgated.

Fourth, in the new set up Army must have a formal role in governance.

Fifth, the new constitution must be based on Quran/Koran.

Sixth, the westernized elite (proponents of liberal democracy in Pakistan) are far removed from the ground realities.

Seventh, the westernized elite must be deported from Pakistan (at the cost of public money).

Eighth, and finally, that ``God`` help Pakistan ``come to grips so that the people can stop suffering.``

Let me respond:

First, the army is still not in power in a formal sense. Nonetheless, Army has long been in virtual control of Pakistan. The Army is an important part of the problems of Pakistan.

Second, yes it would be foolish to return power to some interim government that is honest, trustworthy, free, and cognizant of the real problems of Pakistan. This would hurt a lot of people of power in Pakistan.

Third, the existing constitution has no meaning if an Army general can overthrow a democratically elected government. The Army has killed the constitution on two other occasions in our history. Perhaps we still do not understand the meaning of the Constitution. However, our existing Constitution needs an overhaul, but through a high level democratically agreed Constitutional Commission.

Fourth, why the Army needs a role in governance when it already virtually controls Pakistan (Share of resources; Fauji Foundation; appointment of retired Army officers in many public and private Corporations; and other goodies).

Fifth, why the Constitution be based on the Quran, why not the Quran be the Constitution? By doing so, people will think several times before making any attempt to dishonor it. If your argument has any real power, we would solve all of our problems by adopting the Quran as our Constitution. At this juncture, we may make it easy for our non-Muslim minorities to leave Pakistan (if they wish so). But, there is one major danger. Can you think of that?

Sixth, who is not westernized (in one form or another) in Pakistan? For example, you and I are westernized because we have written this post in English language. Why liberal democracy is inappropriate for Pakistan? What ground reality, what it entails?

Seventh, the westernized elite would love to get out of Pakistan if they are allowed to take their wealth with them. Why should the public pay for their tickets? And, who are you/we to throw them out of Pakistan?

Eighth, and finally, if you/we only look toward the God for help and do nothing to end our sufferings, God surely is not going to help us.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Karakoram,

I`ll update my records. Good to know you don`t have Army connections, then I value your opinion more than those that have Army connections.

You know better than I that the Armed Forces in Pakistan enjoy a very elitist position. Most of the officers children are abroad and the officers themselves live quite lavishly with their bungalows and officer`s clubs- all at the expense of the common man. The very reason the Army wants a continued confrontation with India is because they can conjure up this spectre of an India ready to attack Pakistan and thereby keep the budget funds coming straight into the Army`s pockets rather than for any other cause. The Army people want to protect their life styles and Nawaz was trying to short change them by diverting funds into his pocket. That`s why he got it bad.

Please don`t trust your benevolent Army to keep the nation`s interests in mind.

two-nations:

Regarding reply 60: I agree partly. A new system does need to be in place. I do not think giving the army an institutionalized role in politics is the right idea. The correct way to go, in my opinion, is to bring back the checks and balances that existed earlier, and that NS has worked so hard to remove. Had the 8th amendment been in place, the army would not have needed to act directly.

Also, I think people over-estimate the popularity of clergy in Pakistan. If you take a look at previous elections, the Pakistan population has never even come close to voting for religious parties. The current National Assembly has only 2-3% representation from a combined religious group of parties. The religious parties are very vocal, and have a very very strong following amongst their very small group of followers. The general population doesn`t care for them. Again, the election results of the past bear this out. Any govt. with an institutionalized rule for the clergy will divide the country up on secretarain lines, because many groups amongst the clergy hate each other.

I vote for:

`` The Empire Strikes Back``

:-)

There seems to be a significant body of opinion in Pakistan that a great military victory in Kargil was thrown away politically in Washington. This is contrary to the Indian view whereby a facesaving exit for Pakistan was negotiated from a humiliating military misadventure. In hindsight, it was a mistake by Nawaz Sharif to put himself in the center of the Pakistani climb-down in DC and not have humiliated the military with himself. This allowed the military and many Pakistanis to delude themselves about a military victory in Kargil.

From an Indian viewpoint, the most disappointing thing about the final act of Kargil was a lack of any sense of humiliation of the Pakistani Army about itself. Yes we feel the Pak Army was humiliated but the Pak Army does not feel that about itself. In certain circumstances, self-humiliation is necessary so that the beast does not rise again. The beast of military rule has risen again. Pakistanis have to realize that the growth of Pakistan is in the hands of the common man - it is not in the hands of the army or Nawaz or Benazir. The only way a common man takes control of his own destiny is by giving democracy time to take root. Bihar in India has gone through a decade of misrule but at the end of it all, the Biharis have realized caste-affiliations are not a substitute for good governance. This is an extremely valuable lesson in itself and it is through the process of democracy, failures included, that the realization has made its way into the consciousness of the common man. A decade of civilian rule in Pakistan is not long enough - I give Karamat credit for going gently into the night even if NS was dead wrong in the decision. Pervez still hasnt got it.

I am going to go out on a limb here. These coups may have a theological/social/religious basis - when you believe the collective wisdom of the people should be subordinate to a holy book because the book is divinely inspired, it is very easy to believe that democracy itself is at fault.

A military coup is a far cry from Iqbal`s exhortation of raising consciousness to the point where khuda himself asks bataa teri marzi hay kya?

A lot of people seem to be confusing the Pakistani`s support of the coup, with support of Army rule. They are two different things. This coup, in my opinion, as much as I hate to say it, was a necessary evil. NS had blocked all constitutional ways of getting rid of corrupt rulers (it could not be done through the President, through the Supreme Court, through a vote of no-confidence, or through street protests). I have no doubt he would have been able to manipulate the next elections, and would have gotten himself elected again. By that time, Pakistan would have completely gone down the drain. This is what I believe most Pakistanis seem to think, as well. This is apparent from the news reports from Pakistan. However, I do not think too many Pakistanis support an extended military rule. I certainly do not.

two-nations:

I saw Oakley`s interview also. I thought he made some very good observations. He stated that perhaps a technocrat govt. for a few years was the right idea. He stated that the previous technocrat govt. (of Moeen Qureshi) had worked well, but all their good work had been undone by NS and BB. He also stated that the civilian govts., similar to those of the past (refering to BB and NS) were only going to cause more problems. He also suggested that extended military rule would not work either, because it had not worked out earlier. I agree with his analysis.

I would like to make a point here, regarding elections. Elections are only worthwile, if they are actually in a free and fair environment. Otherwise, they only legitimize the rule of the thugs. Take Benazir, as an example. She has been convicted of corruption by the Pakistani courts, the Swiss courts. Independent investigations by BBC, New York Times etc. have also proven her corruption. She is the current poster child for Transparency International. Everyone in Pakistan knows she is incompotent and corrupt. Yet if elections were held today, she would win by a landslide in her constituency of Larkana. The reason is that Benazir and her ancestors have been the ruling feudal landlords of that area for ages. Even if her 10 year old kid stood for elections, he would win. There are tribal lords with murder cases against them in Baluchistan, who win unopposed again and again. These are the anamolies of the Pakistani elections that people in the West do not seem to understand. This process will not be changed by BB or NS, because it suits them perfectly. Someone needs to create a level playing field for the average citizen.

I hope some kind of neutral govt. can be put into place that makes changes like land reforms etc. If the whole govt. can be removed in two hours without firing a shot, then introducing land and other reforms is also not that hard. It just requires motivation, and the right people in positions of power. If this is not done, then Pakistan would have been better off without the coup.

This is unbelievable! Just because a person cares to write about his/her likings for the army or for the Civil Govt that in no way implies a family connection. I guess very fe