Time for a fresh start

Poor Godot.... his reasoning is so flawed

Hindu and Jewish writers/academics have formed a cabal and have manged to inveigle themselves into the upper echelons of the media(NYT, The Wall Street Journal)and the universities for the express purpose of bashing Pakistan. And so has Sumit Ganguly! This is the raison d`etre of their existence.Somehow in Godot`s mind they become ordinary after critiquing Pakistan.

Note Godot`s use..... `Hindu writers` In Godot`s rather limited world no Indian Muslim writer can be critical about Pakistan.Somehow ... yet again in Godot`s tunnel vision this boils down to a flawed sense of religiosity.

As for Godot`s adulation and naive trust in State Dept officials..... what proof does he have that they have any better understanding of what goes on in Pakistan?

By the way it is Tunku Varadarajan.

Regards

Shourin

While I welcome Army take over of Pakistan and wish the Generals well in their search for peace and prosperity for their Countrymen.

I would like you to point out the following two issues which must be addressed before anyone in India should talk the Generals:

a) Six Jawans of Jat Regiment, captured in Kargil, were subjected to toture and mutilation beyond comprehension. This is against rules Geneva convention to which Pakistan is a signatory. An apology to the familes of these Jawans should be tendered by Pakistani Army; further, due compensation provided to their families and the people who carried out these monstrous acts should be brought to book.

b) Pakistani Army (ISI ?)should stop aiding and abetting cross-border terrorism in India or anyhwere else in the world.

In my opinion, these gestures will be a barometer of the sincerity of the Generals - afterall, what is the point is talking when both parties are not truly committed to truth.

JD Singh

ex-Capt

In respne to jay (Reply # 51):

Dear jay:

Your statement: `` I only take a position based on what others are taking, once up on a time i was a champion debater.``

Comment: If I waste a lot of my precious time, I can write a long rebuttal. You may be a champion debator, I don`t doubt it. Yet, I have a few problems about you style of engaging in a debate: (1) despite your wide knowledge, you lack a good understanding and appreciation of Pakistani state and society (and it seems that you don`t care about it); (2) in your postings, you do not care about specific question posed to you based upon your previous postings; and (3) despite your good command of English language, your composition (and the state of your mind) is sometimes difficult (at least me) to understand. Part of the problem, I think, is the speed with which you want to get back to your (friendly/not so friendly) critics.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P. S. Since there are too many persons on Chowk who share my first name, it would be wise if you find some way of distinguishing between them. May be for me your could either use Bilal Ahmad or bahmad or Bilal (Bahmad) and for Bilal Musharraf use either his full name or Bilal (BM). Take care.

Dear Bilal,

The reach of chowk is far far and wide, I was amused to find this in an indian news paper,

``The very first response on Chowk to his article was a raspberry directed at this consensus: ``Bilal! How`s your father going to pay the salaries of the military? The civilian government managed to give your father eight per cent of the GDP. Your dad can`t manage that any more. You, being his son, would hate to see his body being dragged through the streets by his own militiamen. That`s what he has done. He has killed Pakistan as well as himself.``

Interestingly, Bilal has many Indians supporting him. Jay writes in on Chowk: ``Hope your father does a good job. If he won`t mind, can I send a dozen Hindu gods also to guide him along with the Muslim God?``

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

To UR,

No provocation intented, but i was criticised for stating that Mushrraf was a beneficiary. This is from another post on the chowk, suspects from another pakistani.

2 - Mr Bilal has probably forgotten ( or does not know ) that his father was handpicked by Nawaz Sharif himself, just because he thought that he would be more compliant. He played havoc with the seniority and merit principles of army. General Musharraf was preferred over two generals who unarguably were far far better than him. Not only were they from a fighting arm ( as compared to General Musharraf who was from a supporting arm ), but had far better careers. Between them they had nearly five years of experience as Principal Staff Officers ( as compared to none by the General ), and the Corps they commanded included the most extensive and only operational Corps, and the most strategic and heavily armed

Dear Bilal and UR,

I am no apologist for any indian action, nor i justify any indian actions for that matter, i am no emotionally involved patriot. I only take a position based on what others are taking, once up on a time i was a champion debater.

In the indian forum i am probably one of the most virulent critics of india, some have accused me to be a pakistani agent.

In the overall scheme of things we are insignificant, this www. is a new mode of interaction, which was not there before, all that it helps is to bring some other viewpoints, you can take it or leave it. The problem arises when there is too much self importance, when we presume that this chowk forum with a few hundred expat indians and pakistanis determine the desiny of nations, misguide the younger generation, spread misery through pakistan, happiness through india etc. and misinformation through the cyber space.

We are little people, some times with big egos, but the fact that we are hitting away is proof enough that we dont have country to run, close multi billion deals, even to tell stories to little children which is lot more a worthwile task. We are here to expand our minds, let in some disturbing thoughts and in that process understand the devils inside us. Tke it easy.

Jay: You stated: ``I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india.`` I don`t know whether Mr. Ganguly is a propogandist for India or not. I have seen Mr. Ganguly on TV discussing India and Pakistan, quite a bit. He is currently a fellow at Stanford. He stated in the Christian Science Monitor that, General Musharraf is known to be a militant, and a fundamentalist. He also stated, that General Musharraf had been brought up in the the Pakistan Military by Gen. Zia. I do not personally like or dislike Gen. Musharraff. What I objected to was that people who are considered scholars in America should not spread misinformation amongst the American public, because it causes problems between Pakistanis and Indians.

The reason I call it misinformation is that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that General Musharraf is a militant and fundamentalist. I have been in touch with friends in the Pakistan military, and no one has indicated General Musharraf to be a fundamentalist. Even the BBC has called him, ``pro-Western.`` How does Mr. Ganguly know this sitting in Stanford. Also it would have been impossible for Gen Zia to, ``bring up`` Musharaff, since Musharraf was probably one of the hundreds of majors or colonels in the Pakistan Army. Generals do not have time to bring up Majors and Colonels. And by the time Zia died, Musharraf was probably at most a Brigadier. I do not know what Mr. Ganguly`s motivations are. Perhaps he just wants to sound like an, ``inside expert,`` but to me Mr. Ganguly is spreading misinformation.

``You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action.`` I never said I think that. Please do not generalize. I stated earlier that India did achieve a, ``political`` victory in Kargil. I will be the first to admit it, because it is fact. That still does not justify spreading misinformation. The reason India achieved a political victory, was due to the lack of coordination between the Pakistan military and the Pakistani political decision-making bodies.

``Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the punjab dominated military.`` This comment makes no sense to me.

Jay, you make take the following as a compliment or as an insult. I enjoy discussing issues with Indians, because it I want to understand their point of views on situations. Because of this, I have carried on most of my discussions with Indians on this site, and not with Pakistanis. However, I will have to say, that I cannot carry on a discussion with you anymore. I have nothing against you personally, but I get the feeling you know very little about the internals of the Pakistani society. So there is no point in discussing baseless conspiracy theories. If you have any specific questions for me, I will gladly answer them, apart from that I think we are both wasting each other`s time.

In response to jay (Reply #: 45):

Dear Jay:

Your statement: ``I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india. You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action. Soory sirs, Bilal Ahmed included, you are in a time warp, this the world of the present and the soud bites, no one is interested in historical justification.``

Comment: The name of Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-American who is Professor of Political Science, was first mentioned by UR. UR was critical of a part of Ganguly`s piece. After reading UR`s comments, I felt that UR is not aware of the fact that Professor Sumit Ganguly (henceforth Ganguly) is a well-known scholar. So, I provided some information about him. I am still not clear about the veracity of the statements made by Ganguly, though I felt that UR was making some sense. Anyhow, I provided some additional information about Ganguly`s contribution, particularly excerpts of a review on Ganguly`s book on Kashmir. I think, Ganguly`s reviewer has provided a powerful critique of some of his ideas and his historical narrative. Then, came the posting of Godot in which he provide some of his personal views and experiences with Ganguly. Then, came a parody of Godot`s narrative in which RV finally advised Godot to attack the issues not personalities. Unfortunately, RV himself/herself did not follow his/her own advise. So, Godot came back and said: ``Attack the issue not the person.``

My narrative is important to understand and evaluate what you have said in your statement. Kargil was not a simple single incident. It needs to be explained in terms of the historical-geographical background of Indian-Pakistani political relations. Although I don`t support the Kargil venture, why do you expect Pakistan not to intervene in Kashmir when: (1) Pakistan believes that the Indian occupation of Kashmir is unjustified; and (2) Pakistan had experienced fatal blows to its security and solidarity at the hands of India in 1971. Do you justify the Indian invasion of East Pakistan? If yes, why? If you don`t, what punishment do you suggest for the Indian administration?

Can you figure out why history is so important and so cruel?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Ref # 45

“...Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the Punjab dominated military...”

I think you are really obsessed with the MOHAJIR thing, and you will really believe whatever someone will throw at you!

Why not a single Pakistani news media (includes all the respected and not so respected ones) have mentioned your Australian invented interesting theory. Why is that, because there is not a single shred of evidence of truth in there.

Recently, TFT (Friday Times) has mentioned the selection of Musaraf, a prelude to the grand design of PM to eventually put his right man after the forced departure of Musarraf.

Nawaz was not able to put ISI chief Ziauddin directly after the resignation of General Karamat due to his qualification so he created the situation where he putted him first as a

Chief of ISI and then one’s the condition were good he can make him COAS, thus become

the true democratic elected dictator.

But his grandiose design backfired and Musarraf strike back with vengeance and dear PM

lost his chair instead. This would never had happened if the dolt has thought it carefully

instead of relying on sycophant’s advice. The coup was not planned as you have accused

him, the signs are there, the hesitation in imposition Martial Law right away, abeyance of

the Constitutions, the rights of the people are not suspended and etc.,

So, if you want to believe an obscure journalist’s fanciful theory then its your choice but

the facts are there. Give this General a benefit of doubt but then, if you are typical Indian

who has been brain washed about the Pakistan Army (no wonder their movies, articles are

so full of fanciful stories) then I’m sorry. I will give him the chance first, before pointing

my finger at him (and for your info I’m not related to any kind of Army link).

Pakistan’s problems are myriad and there is no easy way out, but today we are at the critical juncture in our history and the time is now for Pakistan. I pray that the General uses his intelligence and commonsense to steer away the country from the engulfed

trouble waters.

Moez Momin,

There is a general stereotype exist in the world about Pakistan, which is not favorable. India, has successfully projected it`s image abroad and no wonder when Kargil happened world was with them. I`m here not sympathizing with that misadventure, but the great hypocrisy is also self evident, when India occupied Siachen in the pretext of gray area. They claim it was never the part of LoC, thus they didn`t violated it. But great Irony here is that area was left in ambiguity because it is so cold & barren that no one would be interested in occupying the it. So, India used that ambiguity in their advantage and attained the strategic upper hold. Then came, the Kargil (which in my mind was happened in really at a bad time, when Lahore process was going on) and whole west raise hue & cry.

In Pakistan`s Military circles, there is an assumption that a serious military conflicts is needed before the American can guide the Kashmir conflict (Dawn Oct 16,1999 Crying over split Sharif), and bring both parties to table for permanent solution.

When Army backed Mujahideen secured the hills at Kargil, which was intended to cut off the supply line for Siachen, suddenly all the hell broke lose and Pakistan become the `rogue` state and needed to teach a lesson. There was no mention of their aggression, the typical double standard. When you try to point out that hypocrisy they will in turn called you a typical Pakistan brainwashed mindset. Why there is no cries for Pakistan`s point of view, the reason might be we`re Islamic country and therefore west put all of them in one garb of Islamic fundamentalism. Our own government is also to blame for not putting credible foreign policies or effort to educate the West. Our own misdeeds has also not garner the support from the biased west.

We need to put our own house in order first before we can see the tilt on our side, otherwise, the West is comfortable with `secular` India. In, today`s world politics it`s not justice but the interest that counts. Remember, it was Jinnah`s liberal Pakistan that made possible the UN resolution on Kashmir but if we keep portraying the fundamentalist image of us we will never win the Indian propaganda war and sympathetic west view.

To UR,

I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india. You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action. Soory sirs, Bilal Ahmed included, you are in a time warp, this the world of the present and the soud bites, no one is interested in historical justification.

You can try your best, but people want simple, intutively plausible explanations. The following is from a commentator in australian press, just as an exercise try to debunk this.

Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the punjab dominated military. So he took support of the mujahideen and created kargill. Now he is ruling the country, with punjabis dominant in the military, the new chief will turn to mujahideen and the fundamentalists for support, more militancy and sooner war in pakistan, indian hope for peace is doomed.

Re: RV (the clueless), #43

``Attack the issue not the person``.

Re: Godot

I know Godot. I read him several times and chatted with him at Chowk where he was a contributor. He has an assuming personality (and a very ordinary vision, according to those who read his posts on Chowk) and does not come across as a brilliant scholar.

He has been manipulated by the system and people around him to get to where he is: knowing the wrong people at Pakistan (and now USA), knowing the journalist who quote him (the people who helped him have very unsympathetic view of India, and are quite pro-nothing-but-anti-every-thing-Indian). He was part of a War Game in which there was a nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. He was with the team that was Pakistan and like Mahmood Ghaznavi he single handedly inflicted nuclear anhillation on India and detroyed every Hindu. (gloat, gloat...)

That Hindu writers, and many American journalists, especially in the New York Times, try to create

a wonderful image of India and exact opposite of that for Pakistan for the American public is no

secret. Its infathomable that how these vile people can cast bad light on Pakistan, the ``Jannat`` on the earth. (he has only left this Jannat for the land of great satan to make room for other poor souls)

A writer in the Wall Street Journal, an Indian named Tunku V. (last name too long to spell

correctly), next day after the coup, wrote a very negative article about Pakistan that why America

should not support Pakistan. How dare he question the right of propriety of of martial-law over democracy. Its every Pakistani`s right to murder and rape democracy.

To Godot, the article was too stupid to be worthy of the Wall Street Journal, and the reflection in the mirror upset him so much that I am sure every one can see froth dripping from the corners of his mouth. But Tunku somehow has manipulated to become a writer for the Wall Street Journal. Damn it. Would somebody stop these guys. (more froth)

Thank goodness for the world that American policy makers and those at the State Dept are not as stupid and idiot as, say, ``Godot``.

:-) Attack the issue not the person

UR:

Your Points well taken.

Thanks.

Re: Sumit Ganguly

I know Sumit Ganguly. I met him several times and chatted with him at Columbia University where he was a visiting professor. He has an unassuming personality (and a very ordinary teacher, according to those who took his classes at Columbia) and does not come across as a brilliant scholar. He has manipulated the system and people around him to get to where he is: knowing the right people at Columbia (and now Stanford), knowing the journalist who quote him (the people who helped him have very sympathetic view of India, and are quite anti-Pakistan). I was part of a War Game in which there was a nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. I was with the team that was Pakistan and Ganguly was one of the overseers of the Game. In that game, Pakistan stared India down.

That Hindu writers, and many American journalists, especially in the New York Times, try to create a wonderful image of India and exact oppsite of that for Pakistan for the American public is no secret. A writer in the Wall Street Journal, an Indian named Tunku V. (last name too long to spell correctly), next day after the coup, wrote a very negative article about Pakistan that why America should not support Pakistan. To me, the article was too stupid to be worthy of the Wall Street Journal, and I am sure the editors of that newspaper would not agree with it. But Tunku somehow has manipulated to become a writer for the Wall Street Journal. Thank goodness for the world that American policy makers and those at the State Dept are not as stupid and idiot as, say, A M Rosenthal of the New York Times.

Dear jay:

Thank you for your last two replies. I am also thankful to you for saying ``Dear Bilal`` instead of the usual ``To Bilal.``

I will get back to you soon. Take care.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to UR (Replies #: 18 and 30):

Dear UR:

I saw you comments on Professor Sumit Ganguly`s Christian Science Monitor writeup. I don`t know the veracity of his comments about General Musharraf. I want to provide some information about him such that you and other Chowkwalla could develop a critical appreciation (critique) of his writings. I have found the following information about him in a recent publication by Harrison, S. S. et al. (1999). India and Pakistan: The First Fifty Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (and Woodrow Wilson Center Press).

SUMIT GANGULY is professor of political science at Hunter College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York. A specialist on ethnic conflict in South and Southeast Asia, he has published articles in Asian Affairs, Asian Survey, Current History, Foreign Affairs, the ]ournal of International Affairs, International Security, the Journal of Strategic Studies, Survival, and the Washington Quarterly. He has received grants from the American Institute for Indian Studies, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the United States Institute of Peace. He has been both a Fellow and a Guest Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His most recent works are ``The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace`` and ``Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific`` (coedited with Michael E. Brown). He is currently at work on a manuscript that seeks to explain political quiescence and ethnic violence in Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

My additional comments:

Professor Ganguly has contributed a chapter in the above mentioned book, entitled ``India: Policies, Past and Future.`` Students of South Asian affairs must read this article. He has also contributed a piece on ``The Indo-Pakistani Wars`` for Microsoft`s Encarta Encyclopedia. He is also viewed as an expert (widely-quoted) on nuclear issues, regional security and world politics. He is also the author of ``Understanding Contemporary India`` and ``Mending Fences: Confidence- and Security-Building Measures in South Asia.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. If interested I could perhaps provide a little more information about the contents of some of his publications.

another good one ...

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

In response to UR (Respone # 39):

Dear UR:

Robert G. Wirsing of the University of South Carolina, in a review of Ganguly, S. (1997). The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace. New York and Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press, co-published with the Woodrow Wilson Center Press, has said something that you may find interesting (American Political Science Review 92, 4, 1998, 959-60). This is a small book: only 182 pages and costs $49.95. Here are some excerpts from Professor Wirsing`s review.

``This book focuses on the roots of the insurgency that has embroiled the Indian-administered portion of the state since 1989.``

``In his examination of the sources of the insurgency in Kashmir, Ganguly begins with a discussion of four existing categories of argument--(1) that the insurgency is little more than state-sponsored (Pakistani) terrorism; (2) that the insurgency arises from India`s brutal denial of the Kashmiris` right of self-determination; (3) that the insurgency bears witness to the rise in Kashmir of ethnic subnationalism, which destroyed the syncretistic Kashmiri cultural identity (called kashmiriyat) that had bound Hindus and Muslims together peacefully for many centuries; and (4) what Ganguly labels circumstantial and atheoretical accounts, that the insurgency arises from a mix of historical variables. Dismissing all of them as more or less inadequate, Ganguly proposes an alternative explanation, one that relates the insurgency in Kashmir to the theoretical literature on ethnonationalism, and, in particular, to the pioneering work of Samuel P. Huntington on political mobilization and institutional decay. Ganguly argues that rapidly paced modernization, in the form of more education, literacy, exposure to mass media, and social and physical mobility, exponentially enlarged consciousness among Kashmiris of political rights and privileges. As their awareness grew of the possibility of an alternative future, so did their disaffection from the increasingly ill-functioning and repressive political apparatus--the ``institutional decay,`` in other words--that increasingly characterized political life in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Ganguly points to a curious paradox here, namely, that it was India`s considerable success in introducing the benefits of modernization to Kashmir that eventually produced a radicalized younger generation for whom violent and separatist sentiments had a natural appeal. Most of Ganguly`s book is an effort to chronicle the gradual widening of the gap between the enlarged expectations of Kashmiris and the Indian government`s declining ability and/or, willingness to alter the political circumstances that frustrated their realization.``

``. . .Ganguly himself furnishes an amazingly truncated and haphazard version of the Kashmir dispute`s earliest phases. Particularly puzzling is his rendering of the weeks immediately preceding the princely ruler of Kashmir`s request for Indian troops in late October 1947. He states, for instance, that ``under the terms of the Indian Independence Act, none of the princely states would be allowed to declare independence.`` (p. 8). In fact, the act did no such thing, the departing British having deliberately decided not to mandate the automatic legal transfer of paramount power over the princely states to the new governments of India and Pakistan at independence. That British reticence in this regard resulted in an immediate political tussle between India and Pakistan, the latter committing itself at that stage wholeheartedly to the legal right of the princes to decide the matter, is dealt with at considerable length by an Indian historian whom Ganguly cites frequently throughout his book (Jyoti Bhusan Das Gupta, Jammu and Kashmir, 1968).``

``Equally puzzling is the distortion of events found in Ganguly`s narrative of the invasion of Kashmir by Pashtun tribals--an invasion that lent moral legitimacy to India`s airlifting of troops to the beleaguered ruler of the state. In Ganguly`s rendering, the ``invading column`` (p. 9) of tribesmen, augmented by disguised Pakistani troops, appears to have materialized at the Kashmir State border on October 22 following its participation in a successful rebellion earlier in the month slightly to the south in the Poonch subdivision of Jammu and Kashmir State. Indian and Pakistani accounts of the facts of this invasion disagree violently; but there is widespread agreement that a significant portion of the tribesmen were recruited for the invasion in Pakistan`s Northwest Frontier Province, that they were transported to the Kashmir State border in trucks and busses through Pakistan`s Hazara district, and that at the border they were joined by rebellious Muslims from Poonch and from the Jammu and Kashmir State forces. Also objectionable is Ganguly`s suggestion that the ruler of Kashmir, ``caught in a panic`` by the tribal invasion of October 22, appealed at that time for military assistance to the princely ruler of Patiala State. In this claim, Ganguly is given no support either by Lamb, whose version he dismisses, or by Jha (Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir 1947.` Rival Versions of History, 1996), whom he cites approvingly. Jha, anxious to free the Indian government of responsibility for military assistance to the princely ruler of Kashmir prior to the tribal invasion, goes to great lengths, in fact, to demonstrate that the Patiala men were dispatched to Kashmir possibly even before India gained its independence on August 15 but in no case later than the early days of October.``

``Also to be questioned is Ganguly`s argument that Kashmiri Muslim disaffection from India is of very recent origin--hardly antedating the 1980s. As evidence, he points to the fact that neither in the 1965 nor 1971 wars between India and Pakistan did the Kashmiris seize the opportunity to rise against their Indian masters. It is true, of course, that they did not rise up then. But Ganguly runs well beyond available empirical evidence with his claim that ``the vast majority of Kashmir`s Muslims had [thus] amply demonstrated their loyalty to India during both the 1965 and the 1971 wars`` (p. 64).``

``His own proposal retains Kashmir solidly within India and, since it recommends only token concessions to Pakistan and rules out independence for Kashmir, is unlikely to meet with favor, at least initially, either in Pakistan or among vast segments of the Kashmiri Muslim population.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal: I think I have seen Mr. Ganguly speak on these issues on television. That is the point I was trying to make. How could such scholarly people spread such misinformation. People in the US consider them authorities on India-Pakistan relations, and listen to them. Their ridiculous remarks will only cause furthur problems amongst Pakistanis and Indians. I hope their aim is not to incorrectly potray the Pakistani Army as fundamentalists in the US, just to help out India. I have no respect for people like that.

Jay: You said, ``but what i cannot understand is the total silence from you and other pakistanis, above all from the author.`` I do not know why their is silence from other Pakistanis. However I do know why there is silence from the author. He is a professor in Pakistan, who writes regularly in newspapers. I think Chowk just asks his permission to reprint his articles from Pakistani newspapers. I read this same article in The NEWS; a Pakistani newspaper.

interesting 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).``

Dear Bilal,

Here is another example of the TN phenomenon, right here on the chowk. There is an article by Parvez about the nuclear options for pakistan and a criticm of the indian proposal. In the very beginning i posted that the article makes no mention of the arch stone of the indian policy ``NO FIRST USE``, which has resulted in the multimodal deployment requirements. I would have prefered in the article or at least some other posts by some one else to say, `` oh indians are such and such and for such and such cannot be trusted``. I would have glady accepted it or may be refuted it.

The entire article, talking about the survivability of pak weapons after ``premptive`` indian attack would have vanished like fairy floss in a tidal wave, if the author had mentioned about the indian no first use idea. There is every reason and there is a role for articles like this, they should be published, but what i cannot understand is the total silence from you and other pakistanis, above all from the author.

There is a fear of reality, there is a fear criticism, there is a fear that some thing, may be an article by a pakistani could have some fatal flaw, and better that we dont confront it. Ignore it completely, if it is pointed out by an outsider, if it is by an indian. Bilal, can you find a link between this and my previous post about mujahir, if you can find it, give it a name, give me the word.

Let me conclude by taliking about christians in kerala. Many untouchables in kerala converted to christianity. After the newness has faded and the support from christian organisations withered, the new christians realised that the special previlages accorded to untouchables are not availabt to them. They held demonstrations, wrote artcles about their plight, in those days we all listened, looked at it as an interesting phenomenon and the governement with public support ligislated to create a new caste, approximately translated as ``exhausted christian``, as part of the hindu system of caste.

What is its link to the nuclear bombs and mojahir, well, there is no need to get worked up, there could be innovative solutions, to the extend of christians as a caste in the hindu system. My language is not provocative,i hope, but the ideas are disturbing to the self satisfied, it could upset the old, but challenge the young. Bilal, the young wont be `misguided` as you allege, by my posts, they might just start to think for them selves.

When one reads a book, the thoughts are that of the author, when you quote even the words are his, there comes a time in ones life, where the thoughts are unique, which doesnt need the crutches of quotes, if at all, only to the extend of credits.

sir, you are truly a voice of reason in unreasonable times...i`ve read ``the man who would be king`` and, in retrospect, it seems prophetic

for believers in fate, let it be noted that musharraf landed in karachi at 19:47 pakistan time. perhaps this is a good omen for the country; lord knows we need them.

JR:

Answers to some of your questions.

I personally did not support the Kargil operation, for the following reasons.

First of all, I do not think there is any kind of military solution to Kashmir, so there is no point in either side trying one. I have commented on this in detail in on of the other articles.

Secondly, no country should carry out military operations, if they cannot back them up politically. Because in the end, military operations are decided by the their political success, and not their military success.

Thirdly, I believe Pakistan`s aim in Kargil, was to cut off the lines of communication to Siachen. Siachen (in Pakistan`s opinion) is Pakistani land occupied by the Indian army, in an operation similar to Kargil. However, if Kargil had to be carried out to achieve this goal, then to do it immeidately after the Lahore diplomacy was wrong.

My views have been proven. And Pakistan has received a political defeat in Kargil. I disagree with people who state that Pakistan was given a military defeat, as well. In my experience of military tactics, in the moutainous Kashmiri area, anyone who is first to capture the heights basically wins the game; whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Indian, Pakistani, German or Japanese is immaterial. It is the basic laws of Physics that are in play. The best the opposing forces can do is to create a stalemate. This is what Pakistan has created in Siachen. But since India occupied the posts in Siachen first, it is probably impossible for the Pakistan military to remove them. A similar stalemate would have occured in Kargil. The only way for India to dislodge the mujahideen and Pakistani forces from the heights, would have been to bomb them endlessly. This is what India was doing. Since the Pakistani Air Force was not giving any air cover, India achieved some success through these bombings. However, had the Pakistani Air Force given air cover, then the Indian Air Force would not have been able to bomb endlessly. So a stalemate like Siachen would have occurred, in my opinion, with Pakistan occupying the high ground. However, I am not sure whether Pakistan would have been able to keep the Indian supply lines to Siachen cut off indefinitely. Again I am basing all this on the fact that whoever gets the high ground in that area, has basically won half the battle. Had India occupied the heights first, then India would have won half the battle.

Pakistan and India are already wasting there money in the Siachen stalemate, ever since India moved its forces there. In my opinion, a similar stalemate in Kargil would not have served any purpose to either country. This is only my personal analysis, and I have not based it on news reports from either side.

You stated: . ``Jay was only pointing out that a reputed paper had conveniently forgotten to mention Musharaf`s Mohajirness for obvious reasons. The paper did not want to get pulled up for telling Pakistan at this crucial juncture that the one at the helm of affairs was actually a Mohajir.`` This statement will sound very strange to any Pakistani. Why should a newspaper mention the ethnicity of any Pakistani, that it writes about? Perhaps that is common in India, but not in Pakistan.

Jay himself has now suggested that he was extrapolating. That is the problem with his comments on this situation. He is extrapolating about issues on which he has little knowledge. I have no idea how he has decided that the paper did not publish Musharaff`s muhajirness for, ``obvious`` reasons. Did Jay talk to the person who wrote the article? I believe he is extrapolating incorrectly again. How about stopping these extrapolations, based on little factual knowledge, so that no more confusion is caused. If the paper itself stated the reason for not mentioning Musharraf`s muhajirness, then I will accept your argument. Otherwise stick to the facts. And kindly extrapolate only about issues that you know and understand.

You stated: ``No Army should overstep its position and dismiss an elected civilian government. If democracy was truly being practiced in Pakistan then this coup is completely extra constitutional. This should be condemned from all quarters rather than speculating that it is a cloud with a silver lining. Most Pakistanis are jumping the gun and hoping Musharaf is the savior.``

In principle, I completely agree with everything you state here. The reasons most Pakistanis, including myself, are supporting this action so far, is that the situation under NS had just gotten terribly pathetic. I am not sure if you understand how bad the situation was getting. So what else could be done, if NS was bent upon completely destroying the country. This sounds understandably strange to most people who are not familiar with the actual situation in Pakistan.

You also stated: ``I tried putting myself in his shoes and I realized that I would not be able to stick a sword into the belly of the earth that bore me and my ancestors.`` This statement makes no sense to me. There have been many officers in the Indian military who were born in what is now Pakistan. They have fought for India against Pakistan. Would you make a similar statement about them? If your answer is, ``yes`` then I respect your view on this. Otherwise, you are only looking at one side of the issue.

Musharaff is not sticking a sword into anyone`s belly. Kashmir is an area in dispute, and he, as the Pakistani COAS was leading a battle, as was the Indian COAS. Did you expect him to resign, just because he was born in Dehli? What if I suggested that Indian COAS should resign because India has occupied Siachen, and I think that is an aggression similar to Kargil. Would you agree with me? Both COAS`s have a job to do, and they were carrying out their jobs. I highly doubt Musharraff was working without Nawaz`s approval. Although, the Indian media seems to have convinced you that he was. The Indian commuity in the US also sponsored a similar media campaign in US newspaper suggesting the Pakistani Army was operating on its own. I have no idea how they received such sensitive intelligence information.

I have already mentioned the remarks of Mr. Ganguly, a fellow at Stanford, who has now stated to the Christian Science Monitor that Musharraf is a militant or fundamentalist, and was brought up by Zia. Where do these people get their info, and why are the creating misinformation. This will only cause furthur problems between Pakistan and India.

There are other points you have made. In my opinion, some are valid and some are not. I will comment about those later. I hope you can see that, even if we disagree, I am more than willing to have a discussion on issues, like Kargil/Kashmir etc. becuase both of us have info on it. However when people start extrapolating on Pakistan`s internal issues (like why a paper did not use the word muhajir) without adaquete background knowledge, then not much room for discussion is left.

Dear Bilal,

I have been branded to such an extend that i have to start every post with a preamble, if not an apology for provocation, if not a cyber war.

About musaraff, i was only extrapolating, what i would have felt in a similar situation. I am proud that that indias defence research is headed by a muslim of the rank of a cabinet minister, i am proud that indian president is an untouchable, i am proud that indian defence minister isa christian and above all i am proud that in the constituency where i could have voted in the recent state election has elected a marxist muslim as the representative.

I celebrate the divercity, support for the minority and the down trodden. I celebrate that advani, if i remember was born in lahore. I am proud that my thesis supervisor was a pakistani with whom i have still contacts after 15 years. I am proud that my best friend of 30 years standing, in whose house i have stayed every time i visited india is a muslim.

I was only asking why the pakistanis are not proud that musraf is a mojahir. In my stupid way of thinking, confirmed by the uproar it has created on the chowk, i seek an explanatory construct, i again stupidly call it the two-nation theory. Bilal, give me another explanation, give me another word.

What a powerful and eye opening editorial!

See yourself how the GHADHAAR Nawaz Sharif has planted the seeds of division within the only disciplined and professional institution of Pakistan. Shame on him! If the tapes were given to dehli were proved, will show how power hungry and faithless corrupt he was. God help us.

Saviours?



Two weeks ago, we asked ``whether some sort of political change was in the air`` and answered that ``if change is to come, good or bad, it must originate from the direction of GHQ or the PM`s house`` (TFT Editorial, ``Optional leaders or policies?``, September 30th). And that is what happened on the fateful day of October 12. A civilian coup against the military leadership was launched from the PM`s house and thwarted by GHQ in a counter-coup. The story of events leading up to the two coups is worth recapitulating, if only to gauge what lies ahead.



General Pervaiz Musharraf, it may be recalled, was handpicked by Nawaz Sharif as COAS after General Jehangir Karamat was sacked last year for decrying the lack of a consultative process of governance. Then, disregarding criticism, General Musharraf went out of his way to prop up Mr Sharif`s government - from ordering the army to unearth ghost schools and carry out a long overdue census to manning military courts and running WAPDA. He did so because he sincerely believed that his efforts were aimed at enhancing national security and ``nation-building``.



But some months ago, following the enforced withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kargil under American pressure, the chummy relationship between the PM and COAS began to sour. As the Kargil episode increasingly came to called the ``Kargil misadventure``, Mr Sharif decided to pass the buck to the army and get General Musharraf to take the rap for it. Indeed, speculation was rife at the time that Mr Sharif`s Intelligence Agencies had bugged conversations between the COAS and CGS and passed on the tapes to New Delhi as ``proof`` of Mr Sharif`s ``innocence`` in the matter. Irked, the COAS was compelled to publicly assert that ``everybody was on board`` re Kargil. Relations between the two deteriorated when the COAS announced that ``there would be no unilateral withdrawal from Kargil`` even as Mr Sharif was making plans to rush to Washington and surrender unilaterally, an event which led to much demoralisation and anger within the armed forces.



Matters now took an ugly turn. Even as General Musharraf was rushing from pillar to post, exhorting his troops to keep their morale high, Mr Sharif was secretly sowing the seeds of division in the upper echelons of the armed forces. Rumours were floated to suggest that the COAS had not taken his colleagues, including the Air Chief and the Navy Chief as well as several Corps Commanders, into confidence, the idea being to undermine the authority of the COAS and sow dissension within the ranks.



For Mr Sharif, it was a tried and tested strategy - weaken an opponent by creating tensions and misunderstandings between his colleagues and him, isolate him and then destroy him. That was how Mr Sharif had contrived the ouster of the chief justice of the supreme court, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, in 1997. Now the strategy was swiftly executed once again and at least two corps commanders (General Saleem Haider in Mangla and General Tariq Pervez in Quetta) along with the DG-ISI, General Khawaja Ziauddin, were egged on to flout the authority of the COAS and challenge his views at home and abroad, in private and in public. The stage was set for a coup against the army high command by Mr Sharif which would begin with the sacking of General Musharraf.



But General Musharraf was not blind to goings-on in the PM House. So he moved to protect his flanks and consolidate his home base. General Saleem Haider was transferred from a command position at Mangla to a staff position at GHQ on September 20 and General Tauqir Zia, a loyalist, appointed to head the critical corps. Then, on October 10th, General Tariq Pervez was sacked by the COAS, as a warning to other generals that dissent at the behest of the PM or at the alter of personal ambition would not be tolerated. The dye was cast. The COAS was ready to thwart any attempt to remove him from his command and purge his senior colleagues. Shortly thereafter, he made the confident statement that he ``would complete his tenure``, suggesting that the prime minister would not, or could not, remove him.



However, disregarding the obvious ``moves`` by the COAS to ``protect`` himself, Mr Sharif made bold to put his plan into action. General Musharraf was confirmed as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, so that he would be lulled into a false sense of security. Then Mr Sharif waited for the COAS to go to Sri Lanka on official business before striking.



Mr Sharif`s trip to the UAE when the COAS was in Sri Lanka came out of the blue. It was not on any agenda. Nor could one fathom what Mr Sharif urgently needed to discuss with the Emir of the UAE. But the composition of the PM`s entourage was the giveaway. What was the need to take the DG-ISI with him? Why were Mushahid Hussain and Pervez Rashid, head honchos of media disinformation, members of the select entourage? What was Nazir Naji, the PM`s speech writer, doing in the UAE along with the PM? There were no press conferences or speeches or briefings. Clearly, all were together to put the finishing touches to a coup against the army high command away from the prying eyes and ears of Military Intelligence.



The evidence of October 12 confirms this. Mr Sharif went to Multan, ostensibly for a routine, scheduled public meeting, to give the impression of ``business as usual``. Then the civilian coup was launched, shortly after General Musharraf`s PIA flight took off from Sri Lanka and he was out of contact with GHQ. Pakistan TV in Islamabad was ``occupied`` at 5 pm by Pervez Rashid and a contingent of the police. The announcement of General Musharraf`s sacking, as well as the appointment of General Ziauddin, followed. General Ziauddin is then reported to have called up the CGS, General Aziz, to inform him that he was on his way to GHQ to take charge. When he was politely rebuffed on the plea that GHQ wanted to wait for General Musharraf to arrive and relinquish charge, the counter-plan went into operation. The pilot of the PIA flight carrying the COAS to Karachi was radioed by Chairman PIA Khaqan Abbasi to divert the Airbus to Nawabshah where a special plane and a police escort was waiting to arrest and transport the COAS to Islamabad. When the pilot protested that the airstrip at Nawabshah could not accommodate the Airbus, he was ordered to fly to Dubai. When the pilot said he did not have sufficient fuel to do so, he was ordered to go to Islamabad. Then General Musharraf intervened and ordered the pilot to land at Karachi and discovered that a coup against him was in the process of unravelling.



Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corps Commander Pindi had sent a contingent to stop the PTV authorities from broadcasting news of the sacking of General Musharraf and the appointment of General Ziauddin as the new army chief. But the small contingent was overpowered by a force led by the PM`s military secretary and the PTV broadcasts were resumed. This compelled GHQ to despatch a stronger force and rout the erstwhile coupmakers. Troops loyal to General Musharraf had already sealed the PM and his close associates in the PM House and elsewhere by the time General Musharraf landed in Islamabad and assumed full operational charge. Then the corps commanders went into session to determine how to deal with the situation, eventually declaring that the Sharif government had been ``dismissed`` (by whom, it was not said) and that the Chairman JCSC and COAS (not CMLA), General Pervaiz Musharraf, would address the nation in due course.



The facts are clear enough. General Musharraf is not an innate, politically ambitious, coup-maker. The sincerity in his short but emphatic four minute address to the nation on October 13 rings true, every word of it. Mr Sharif, on the other hand, clearly tried to over-reach himself once too often and failed. Indeed, he seemed to have been finally emboldened in his recklessness by the statement of support from the Clinton administration in Washington warning the army not to carry out a coup some weeks ago!



It is also clear that a majority of the people of Pakistan had had enough of the Sharifs and their hangers-on. They were repressive, deceitful, corrupt, incompetent and dangerous. Not too many tears are going to be shed at the passing of their rogue regime. And as for democracy, it died in Pakistan when the supreme court was stormed and the judiciary humiliated and undermined, when parliament was gagged, when provincial governments were arbitrarily removed, when the press was attacked, when the bureaucracy was politicised, when all checks and balances on the power of the prime minister were systematically removed and the sword of the impending Shariah Bill was waved to scare away conscientious dissenters. If a formal burial of this long-decaying corpse was ordered on the day of the successful counter-coup, does it matter?



It matters in one sense. All other things being equal, democracy is still the least objectionable system of the lot. But there are democracies and democracies. Indeed, there are as many forms and types of democracy as there are countries. Nor do elections constitute the be-all and end-all of democracy. Apart from a number of Western countries with history on their side, most new nations cannot demonstrate uninterrupted periods of successful democratic practise. Nor is democracy an end unto itself. Indeed, it is meant to be a means to desireable ends like security, stability, prosperity, creativity. So where does that take us?



We have had ten years of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Each regime has been worse than its predecessor. Neither has given us security, stability, prosperity. Indeed, we have become worse off on all these fronts with each passing year. That is why our loss of faith in the electoral system is now reflected in diminishing turnouts at the polls and an increasing resort to arms to fulfill our needs or overcome our frustrations and alienation. Therefore another round of sham elections with the same ``leaders`` and candidates is the last thing we need.



Most Pakistanis are desperate for an ``interim arrangement`` which will hold across-the-board accountability and set the new rules of the game to include the many demands of good governance before the political system is opened up a couple of years down the line for a fuller form of representative federal democracy. This is a do-able formula. But certain conditions are attached to it. The ``caretakers`` must be transparently above-board and competent. They must be prepared to take hard decisions without fear or favour. They must have the moral authority to lead from the front so that no one may cast a stone at them. And they must demonstrate the collective courage and wisdom to reverse course on a number of disastrous domestic and foreign policy adventures.



General Pervaiz Musharraf and his colleagues have unwittingly arrived at a critical juncture of Pakistani history. Everything around them smacks of failure on a grand scale. If they can deliver a significant portion of a new agenda to restructure and revamp Pakistan, history will remember them as the saviours of Quaid i Azam`s dream. If they can`t - for whatever reasons - the implosion will engulf them as surely as it will all of us.



The Friday Times Oct 15, 1999.

Bilal, UR:

Based on your interacts I know you have been very civil. I like your writing voices too. However, when you suddenly pounced on Jay when he was just stating facts, you seemed to completely break away from the volley-and-return to bang-bang-bang. That is why I was saying that you guys were being too high handed. Jay was only pointing out that a reputed paper had conveniently forgotten to mention Musharaf`s Mohajirness for obvious reasons. The paper did not want to get pulled up for telling Pakistan at this crucial juncture that the one at the helm of affairs was actually a Mohajir. This is a very valid point brought forth by Jay. He was not being provocative in my opinion.

Musharaf having been born in Delhi was news to me. I tried putting myself in his shoes and I realized that I would not be able to stick a sword into the belly of the earth that bore me and my ancestors. This is how I feel and I am not saying that others should feel this way, but I cannot suddenly switch allegiances based on dates. For me the permanence of the soil bears more sanctity than the political whims of a misled peoples. This is why I stated I do not understand the Pakistani mindset.

Aside, UR having served in the Pak army has never commented on questions about how the Pak Army now wants all the credit for Kargil when all along the Pak Army and the government have stated that it was only Mujahideens sitting on the Peaks. When Pakistani papers alongside Indian papers were giving Indian soldier body counts, there was scarce mention of Pakistani body counts or losses. And can anybody across the fence explain a nation that is so divided within that while one of its arms was extended in friendship the other stabs a vicious sword into the side of the country whose hand was held out in friendship too. All the Pakistanis on this forum have steered clear of commenting specifically on these.

No Army should overstep its position and dismiss an elected civilian government. If democracy was truly being practiced in Pakistan then this coup is completely extra constitutional. This should be condemned from all quarters rather than speculating that it is a cloud with a silver lining. Most Pakistanis are jumping the gun and hoping Musharaf is the savior.

I hope I have made my position clear. There is no need to accuse me of anything, these are statements like every other on this forum.

Sigh of relief once again for a while, may be, for Pakistani Nation! As a Pakistani I am not yet mature and much concerned or affected by the form of government, no form of government changes my life, but what bewilders me most is the worlds concern about systems of governments in Pakistan. As I see it they will accept a martial law government if it has squealed on armtwisting and bowed to the conditions laid down by them. Then they will forget the plight of the masses, the human rights violations etc.etc. and allow the martial law administrator to do whatever way he liked, no matter even if it is a farce, to stage election and win the majority vote for their face saving that they are dealing with a legitimate government for the people by the people of the people! Instances are not rare, 1964 B.D. Ayub Khan elections and the elections held by General Zia! Mr. America is very much concerned nuclear capability should not be acquired by any other nation and not certainly without his permission and inspection. He realises that inspection of his arsenal will jeopardise his defence! Please, we are a very new and proud, though may be a small nation, enlighten our path you want us to traverse with one standard. Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Israel, Bosnia, Chechnya are all very illustrative examples of world conscience and care. The people of small countries are habitual of hunger. They may lessen their plight if they vowed not to accept the expensive world loan to pay for the luxuries of the socalled donors!

tariqlodi

In response to JR (Reply #: 14):

Dear JR:

In response to my Reply # 13, you have provided (I think, unwarranted) support to jay. I wonder if you have read my previous numerous interactions between jay and myself. Please read them and then form an opinion.

If all Pakistanis agree on some point, then it is really very hard to understand the Pakistani mindset. In reality, all Pakistanis only rarely agree on any issue. I think, this is a healthy sign. It seems to me that we, in Pakistan, are going through a somewhat silent intellectual revolution. You need to have a good grasp of the Pakistani history to appreciate it.

Your statement: ``A discussion is a discussion and why have Bilal and UR chosen not to counter your points but rather take away from it by accusing you of provocation etc.``

Comment: I think, UR has been extremely polite in his response. As far as I am concerned, I have very patiently engaged in a serious of discussions with jay. In many cases, both jay and myself have appreciated each other. However, there is something interesting about jay that I have long been trying to figure out. For example, Jay has persistently talked about the two nation theory. I have, on several occasions, tried to engage with him and tried to fully understand his understanding of the two nation theory. Jay has always chosen not to tell me/us what he means by the two nation theory, how it evolved over time, and what it really means to an average Pakistani in his/her everyday live. Being a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, and to my disappointment, jay has failed to show that he (barely) adequately understands the Indian Freedom Movement, the role of Muslims in it, the conditions that led to the creation of Pakistan. So you are right that a discussion is discussion, but a discussion must be based on something concrete and/or its theorization. I did not chose to counter his point, of General Musharraf being of Mohajir background, because I didn`t appreciate jay`s apparent engagement in the cyber warfare. A discussion should be a discussion, not a warfare. Although emotions are a part of every human being, my writings generally reflect my intellectual focus (rather than emotional focus). I am still waiting for jay`s response.

Your statement: ``Bilal especially was talking about young Indians and Pakistanis getting the wrong ideas, yah right! Climb down UR and Bilal from your high pedestals.``

Comment: I don`t understand your point. Please clarify. May I ask you, what do you know about me?

Your statement: ``Jay has pointed out some very interesting facts, the most recent being that a person of Indian birth is number 1 in Pakistan today. It is even more interesting and shocking to think that this Musharaff leads an Army against the soil of his birth and the home of his ancestors.``

Comment: So what? We were all Indians once upon a time (I don`t prefer the phrase British Indians, although this is technically more appropriate). Our forefathers were loyal inhabitants of the land that we now call India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. Let us not degrade their contributions by pointing out petty pieces of information that General Musharraf was born in India or by creating unnecessary tension in an already tension-ridden society of the South Asians. A lot of us and our parents and grandparents were born in India (when India was somewhat United under the control of the British). The current reality is that Pakistanis do not belong to contemporary India. This, however, does not mean that there should not be peaceful coexistence among various South Asian nationalities.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I read his (Jay) reply# 10 and also read his earlier replies and it seems to me this guys has already a negative mindset about Pakistan.

First, he accuses the general being a pro-taliban type then news came he is moderate, so now he is trying to portray him as a mohajir and trying to CREATE a rift b/w chowkwalas and other Pakistani.

Well, let me tell you, if you never lived in Pakistan and doesnt know about the how people feel about the army then please just keep your analysis (blurred one fromm reading too much Rediff on the net)to yourself. Otherwise share some your EXPERTISE with substance!!! will you?

Now, as per ``Mohajir`` in Pakistan, there are several people in Pakistan who have and had occupied senior positions in Pakistan`s affairs in all fields. So, what if the general came out to be a MOHAJIR, it will not make him less patrotic!!!!

Furthermore, if you want to engage in a meaningfull responses (this article) try to come up with good and practical solutions otherwise you will be the part of the problem too.

Ref UR`s post# 18

Its amusing to see the army loyalist cropping up on chowk so soon after the military takeover. More amusing is their attempts to whitewash the lavish lifestyles of these generals.

I guess UR, being an ex-army man, can provide some information on following:

- what is the pay structure in Pakistani army

- how much is the official salary of a general

- How is that children of most of the Army generals (and Lt. generals...) land into US universities. General Musharraf is no exception. In fact his brother too is enjoying the fruits of democracy in US.

It was quite sad to learn that pakistani public has been celebrating the official demise of democracy in pakistan. (ooops... military has declared democracy to be intact even after the takeover) Especially when the opposition was so close to overthrow the unpopular Nawaz government by democratic means. Political alliances were gathering strength and the sapling of democracy was taking roots. It takes a cycle of several good and bad governments to grow the democratic temprament in the psyche of the people (India and its repeated election is a glorious example).

Maybe democracy is the right system for pakistanis (or pakistanis are not the right kind of people for democracy)

Re: JR, #14

The fact is that, prior to 14 August 1947, there were no mohajirs. It did not matter whether one lived in Karachi, Lahore, Quetta, Dehli, Lukhnow, or Bihar. They were all Indians. Now, if someone moved to Karachi or Lahore from, say, Dehli, after 14 August 1947, what makes him any different than from someone who always lived in Karachi or Lahore? After 14 August 1947, everyone in now what constitutes Pakistan is a Pakistani, regardless of his (or her) origin of birth. [By the way, when Musharraf was born, in the year 1943, there was no Pakistan.]

You and Jay are an example of a stereotypical Hindu that is fed into Pakistani mind: a conniving enemy who wants to destroy Pakistan and who is always trying to sow the seeds of hatred among Pakistanis, ie, divide and conquer. I do not believe that. Unfortunately, you and Jay are proving me wrong.

JR:

I missed something: Regarding your comment, ``Jay has pointed out some very interesting facts, the most recent being that a person of Indian birth is number 1 in Pakistan today. It is even more interesting and shocking to think that this Musharaff leads an Army against the soil of his birth and the home of his ancestors. It is very hard to understand the Pakistani mindset!``

There have been many Chiefs of Army, Naval, and Air Staffs who were born in what is now India. If you consider the position of COAS number 1, then you should know that General Zia-ul-Haq was born in Jullundher, India in 1924. I believe he went to an Indian Military academy also. I wouldn`t be surprised if some of the present or ex-Chiefs of Staff of Indian armed forces were born in what is now Pakistan. General Shallikashvilli, the Chairman Joint Chief of Staff of USA, was not born in the USA. Henry Kissinger, the ex-Foreign Secretary of the USA was not born in the USA. I believe Madeline Albright was not born in the USA (i may be wrong on this one). What`s so strange about Musharraff being born in India, and becoming the COAS of the Pakistan Army?

Jay:

You say that Pakistan and Pakistani newspapers do not mention that the General was born in colonial India. You are wrong. Read todays jang. Article is attached below for your convenience. Does this imply that everything else you said that depended on this point is garbage too ? I say let the readers decide.

Musharraf flies high in US media

By our correspondent

WASHINGTON: The dramatic political change in Pakistan has had the US

media suddenly focussed on the new man in power `General Pervaiz

Musharraf`.

Who is Musharraf? What kind of a general is he? What are his leanings?

Is he secular or fundamentalist? From CNN to Washington Post to New

York Times, the US media seemed engrossed by these questions all day

long on Wednesday.

For the Washington Post, Musharraf is considered a secular figure with

pro-Western leanings with his son and brother living in the United

States. Although the US officials acknowledge they have few inklings as

to his intentions for governing.

The Los Angeles Times described him as a `tough, no-nonsense soldier`.

The New York Times said that the general was ``an unlikely coup-maker

because he appeared to be an apolitical officer who took over the army

at a time when military coups seemed to be a thing of the past.``

In a detailed analysis, the Times published Musharraf`s comparison with

Karamat `who had political ideas`. Musharraf, on the other hand, was

described as `a soldier`s soldier`. An artillery officer with commando

experience, Musharraf, with his scholar`s rimless glasses, took over after

the resignation of a predecessor who had suggested resurrecting a

broader role for the military in national policy-making.

Stephen Cohen, an expert on the Indian and Pakistan military at the

Brookings Institution in Washington, was quoted as saying that

Musharraf seemed an unlikely `political` general in the moUld of other

Pakistani officers who have seized power in the past.

``I suspect he is going to want to get out of power as quickly as he

can,`` Cohen said in the interview. ``This is not his kind of thing. His

colleagues regard him as a good professional soldier. He is not regarded

as a great strategic thinker, like most special forces people. He has a

narrow focus on things.``

His bio data, as published in the Times says: Musharraf, who was

decorated for service in the 1965 war with India, is a graduate of the

Pakistani Command and Staff College at Quetta and also studied at

military institutions in Britain. He has commanded an infantry brigade

and artillery regiments as well as serving in various commando

battalions.

He was born in New Delhi, India, in August 1943, then migrated to

Pakistan with his family and lived as a child in Karachi. He joined

Pakistan Army in 1964 and served in an artillery regiment after training

in the well-known Military Academy of Kakul in NWFP.

In 1965, he fought Indian troops in the Khem Karan sector in Punjab

during the 16-day war with India, taking part in intense battles for

which he received a medal for gallantry.

In 1971, when Pakistan again went to war with India, Musharraf was a

member of the elite military Special Services Group of commandos. He

has also commanded an infantry division and a strike corps and has

received a number of military decorations.

He has been on the faculty of the Command and Staff College in Quetta

and of the war wing of the National Defence College. As a lieutenant

general, his last key posting came in 1995 when he became a

commander in Mangla, Punjab, an important military area close to Indian

border.

He was appointed army chief in October 1998 after the resignation of

former military chief Gen Jehangir Karamat, who stepped down after

making remarks seen critical of Nawaz Sharif. Little is known about his

personal life. He is known to have a son and daughter, both of whom

are married.

Experts say that Musharraf may have seized the moment of his dismissal

to respond as much to civilian frustration with an ineffective

government as to festering army resentment at Sharif`s withdrawal in

July of support for a Himalayan war with India. ``Musharraf was my

director general of military operations,`` the paper quotes Benazir taking

the credit.

``He wasn`t a cleric. He was a professional soldier and I thought that he

was very courageous and brave. He`d been a commando, and a person

who is a commando can take tremendous risks and think afterwards.``

Definitely an unflattering remark from Benazir. May be he will think about

Benazir before time now.

Soorya and JR:

I have nothing against people expressing their opinions on issues. I have had many constructive discussions with Jay on issues on which both of us seem to have experience. All I am saying is that one should at least have a basic understanding of the issue before making authoritative statements. Otherwise, these statements just cause unnecessary conflict, which is the last thing the Indians and Pakistanis need.

JR had made comments about generals living lavishly. I have nothing against any comments like that, as long as they are based on fact, or if the person making the comments has some experience and knowledge backing his/her statements. I have no interest in defending generals. There are a lot of things generals do that I do not like. But nothing JR has printed seems to indicate that he has any info on the Pakistan Army.

People should not become critics on the issues on which they have no knowledge. Many people print poetry on Chowk. I have no knowledge of the finer or even abstract points of poetry, so it would be incorrect for me to become a critic. I can, ``draw a conclusion (as mentioned by Soorya),`` and state whether I like the peotry or not, but if I start giving critical advice, I would probably harm the poet more than help. Of course, I can give advice anyways, and state that it is my right. But to me that would just create confusion.

The following appeared in the Christian Science Monitor:

``For [Musharraf] to have his finger on the nuclear button worries me to no end,`` says Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-American visiting fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

Mr. Ganguly goes on to say that Musharraf was ``brought up`` by Gen. Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, who took power through a military coup in 1977. He was a militant and considered by some to be a Muslim fundamentalist.``

How does this gentleman named Ganguly know that Musharraf was ``brought up`` by Gen Zia. And who the hell has told him that Musharraff is a militant or fundamentalist. After spending so much time in the Pakistan military, I do not even know whether Musharraff is a militant or fundamentalist, or neither. I do know he was not, ``brought up`` by General Zia, because during Zia`s regime, Musharraf was one of the hundreds of majors or colonels in the army. Generals do not have time to, ``bring up`` majors or colonels.

I fail to see why Indians who are fellows at Stanford are making statement like this. Similarly, I fail to see why Indians who have no knowledge about the motivations of Pakistanis, and absolutely no knowledge about the Pakistan army (apart from what they read in the press, by people like Mr. Ganguly) continue to present conspiracy theories about Pakistan. These will only cause more problems between Pakistanis and Indians.

Again, there is nothing I can do about misinformation. However, I would encourage people to give theories on things they understand.

``Come writers and critics, who prophecize with your pens;

Don`t criticize what you don`t understand``

(from a Billy Joel album)

Jay writes: ``There is no mention that he was born in india and moved to pakistan when he was four.``

JR writes: ``Jay has pointed out some very interesting facts, the most recent being that a person of Indian birth is number 1 in Pakistan today. ``

Anyone who was born before 1947(on the east or west side of the current boundary) was born in ``British India.`` Pakistan and Bharat (also referred to as India) came into existence after August 14th and 15th of 1947, respectively.

JR: Yes a person of ``British Indian`` birth is No. 1 in Pakistan today, as would be any leader whose age is more than 52 years. There is nothing perturbing about that...you`re wasting energy in trying to alarm yourself with facts that are straightforward.

Jay: Everyone in the country knows that he is of Urdu-speaking/ `mohajir` background. If the detail of his migration wasn`t mentioned in Dawn...I understand your concern and I will not defend the source unnecessarily. But when he was appointed, Dawn posted that fact in his bio-data. The entire nation is aware of his background and this fact is nothing new or alarming to the people. Gen. Aslam Beg (the army chef from `89-`92) was also Urdu-speaking.

The fact that Gen. Musharraf was four when he migrated is because he was 4 at the time of partition. Anyone born before `47 was a citizen of `British India`...and after that, either Bharat (India) or Pakistan...and Gen. Musharraf has been a Pakistani citizen for as long as Pakistan has existed. This is the case with every citizen of Pakistan over 52 years of age. They were all citizens of ``British India`` before `47.

In response to Reply # 12 & 13:

I think its best to leave the reader (young or not so young) to decide what conclusions to draw from a post.

The idea of questioning the background or intention of the participant, in ways to hinder all points of views is what scares me more.

Isn`t that the democratic way. OR has the millitary coup had an impact on the chowkwall(a/i)s` psyche, too !

Jay,

Whether Bilal and UR accuse you to be provocative or not, facts remain facts. A discussion is a discussion and why have Bilal and UR chosen not to counter your points but rather take away from it by accusing you of provocation etc. Bilal especially was talking about young Indians and Pakistanis getting the wrong ideas, yah right! Climb down UR and Bilal from your high pedestals. Jay has pointed out some very interesting facts, the most recent being that a person of Indian birth is number 1 in Pakistan today. It is even more interesting and shocking to think that this Musharaff leads an Army against the soil of his birth and the home of his ancestors. It is very hard to understand the Pakistani mindset!

In response to jay (Reply # 10):

Dear jay:

I and you have interacted a lot. As you know, my responses have been reasonably polite. I never appreciated your style of provocation, but I always believed that you were really interested in the affairs of Pakistan for the greater good of the people of South Asia. I regret to say hat I was wrong.

Jay, you are a person of above average intellegience (a point made earlier too). You are knowledeable, in general. You have a reasonably good command over English language. However, you have forced me to say that you are simply engaged in a cyber warfare and your objective is to create unnecessary tension in the minds of many young Pakistanis who are trying to develop a healthy critique of Pakistan. Your comments will also mislead a lot of young Indians who are interested in learning about Pakistan.

Now the ball is in your court, prove it that I am wrong about you. This time a simple statement will be not be sufficient.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Why don`t you reply to my postings when I ask you specific questions? There exists a Mohajir problem in Pakistan. Yet, there a lot of people of so-called Mohajir background in high positions in every walk of life (both public and private). I commend UR for writing a good and polite response (Reply # 12). I am also symthetic to his several other responses.

Jay:

Everyone in the military knows that Musharraf was born in India; as does almost everyone in Pakistan. That is what the word muhajir means for people in his generation, right. There have been many muhajir generals, air marshals, admirals etc. It does not bother anyone in Pakistan or in the military. The loyalties of these military leaders, whether they are Muhajir, Punjabi, Pathan etc. is luckily with the military, and not with their ethnicities. That is why the military has been such a strong institution.

As I stated earlier, and my views grow stronger, as I read your posts, please do not criticize what you do not understand. You probably have never lived in Pakistan, I am certain you have never been part of the Pakistani military (so you have no idea how it works), yet you continue to make statements as if you are an expert. I encourage criticism from people who have some kind of an expertise in the area, but I do not think you fall into that category. You seem to know very little about the motivations of Pakistanis, and nothing about the Pakistani military. I do not mean disrespect to you. However, one should know one`s limit of knowlegde when one gets in a discussion. Otherwise your comments are just going to cuase confusion amongst Indians and Pakistanis.

Re: Jay, #3

``[Musharaf] is the one who benefitted and exploited (he was happy when his predecessor was forced to leave)``.

And how do you know that? Unless you can provide evidence to support your statement, I`d say that, in light of your above statement, whatever you write is crap and you have no credibility.

To Bilal Ahmed,

`Truth` and two nation theory.

I was taken to task, it was `temporal` i think for stating that a tenet of the two nation theory is to deny any links to india.

Now my good friend Bilal, read the biographical sketch of musarraf in Dawn. There is no mention that he was born in india and moved to pakistan when he was four. To admit that and to publicise it will be nothing short of blasphemy, if not an insult to the great man. There is no sensorship, but there is a self sensorship, the editors of dawn can feel it, they know the people, they know the version of two nation theory i am talking about, they cannot intelectualise it, they cannot debate it with you with the quotes and original texts....they simply put it into practice.

Now look at it from another perspective, it is great, a mujahir has come to the top, the diatribes against pakistan on the treatment of mujahirs will have note this as an exception, at least right at present it is a `moderate` face of pakistan. No no a pakistani cannot see this, the ditors of dawn cannot see this... what clouds their mind is the two nation.. a person born in india, the very name, even though `pakistan` was part of it, is the supremo of this country cannot be publically stated in pakistan.

Read the posts of `` two-nations``, he/she appears to be young, do not switch on your analytical mind, do not read with an intension of responding, juat aloww his passion and emotions sink into you, it takes only a few of him to build a nation, i rejoice in his presence on the chowk, may his voice echo from kargil to karachi. I hope my words of adulation, words from an indian, will not undermine his reach.

Interesting article by Brian Cloughley, in The News: Pakistan.

Exit of another government

Brian Cloughley

The coup, thank God, the coup! It is what we have all been wanting for over a year, now, and at last Nawaz Sharif has gone too far and forced the hand of the military. Nobody, myself least of all, would ever have thought of Pervaiz Musharraf as a coup leader. Not in a thousand years. Which just goes to show that circumstances alter people dramatically. Faithful readers will recollect that I referred to him in my ``A History of the Pakistan Army`` as a ``first-rate officer`` which he was at the time of the comment being made, and still is. He will go down in the annals as the saviour of Pakistan from the clutches of a man who, in spite of possessing little brain, was cunning and thought he could outmanoeuvre everybody else.

How Mr Sharif could possibly have imagined that the sacking of a chief justice, attempted suborning of the entire juridical system, dismissal of a president, forced resignation of an army chief, and monstrous politicisation of the civil service could benefit the country is beyond imagination. He was the most powerful prime minister the country has ever had, but he was incapable of understanding that there were limits to what he could do. And all he wanted to do was to continue in power. There was no national agenda; no thought to anyone or anything beyond the influence of the brothers and their father, the eminence in the background who gave Pakistan the ineffectual Tarar as president. World reaction to the appointment of Tarar was at first disbelief, then laughter. And this is the way Nawaz Sharif`s actions have been regarded for too long.

What now? I cannot imagine Musharraf relishing the role of Zia. Far from it. I see him handing over ek dum to a band of technocrats who will run the country for the next two years. It was coincidence, of course (and I do not mean that ironically) that Moeen Qureshi gave an interview to this newspaper that was published on coup day, and that he spoke of a caretaker government. We have not forgotten his last wise and effective administration, the initiatives of which, alas, were destroyed by Benazir`s band of sycophants. I don`t blame Benazir. She was led astray by a bunch of disgusting, greedy men, most of whom had but one claim to inclusion in governance: some degree of loyalty to her father, which, of course, she could not ignore. I remember, after the PPP electoral victory in 1993, attending a party at which there were several members of her cabinet and other close associates. Most of them were to accompany BB on an overseas visit next morning. It was fairly typical Islamabad party: both alcohol and conversation were unlimited, and a good time was had by all. I enjoyed myself greatly because I engaged one