Text of Speech by Gen. Pervez Musharraf

Musharaf didn`t know about the coup!

Excertps from

http://www.dawn.com/daily/19991104/top8.htm

Actually, we were just relaxing coming back from Sri Lanka and we were supposed to arrive at seven O`clock, or may be 6.55 in the evening. And, at about 6.45 or 6.50pm, my Private Secretary Brig Nadim, standing right in front of you, came to me and said the pilot is inviting you to the cockpit for something urgent.

``And, when I went to the pilot, he said that we are over at Karachi, and are not being allowed to land. And the worst is what they are telling us is that you can`t land anywhere in Pakistan. You get out of Pakistan.

...........

They came back on the air and he said, you have been permitted to divert to Nawabshah and land there. So, I said, immediately let`s go. We have the fuel we can reach Nawabshah. We diverted to Nawabshah. And somewhere in between we crossed Hyderabad. I saw Hyderabad down there.

That was the first time the GOC Gen Iftikhar came on air and said it is a message from Gen Iftikhar for the Chief and I want this aircraft to come back immediately and land at Karachi. Everything is alright.

``Initially, I had a little bit of suspicion on who was speaking and all that. However, then I myself took the mike and asked for the Corps Commander who was not there and then Gen Iftikhar told me that everything is OK. I asked him what has happened: You tell me first. He told me that actually you were fired at 5-O`clock. You were dismissed which I didn`t know till now. I just didn`t know what`s happening. And, after that, the army reacted and everything is all right. We are now in charge of everything at Karachi airport and come back immediately.``

Re UR #: 106

[However I have some differences on, ``As they say, be careful what you pray for: you may actually get it! Asking for Pakistan in the hope of getting a veto over the majority in a united India has resulted in today`s situation.`` I think inspite of the current situation in Pakistan, an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, regardless of ethnicities, are happy that Pakistan was formed. This is based on my personal experiences, and discussions with people who were alive at the time of partition. I do not hold any ill-will towards Indians, but I certainly am glad Pakistan was formed.]

To some extent, my statement was tongue-in-cheek.

Interestingly, Jinnah made the last attempt to have a united India in 1946/47 timeframe by having a loose federation of Hindu-majority and Muslim-majority provinces within a weak Federal structure. It was Nehru`s insistence that, after the British left, the Constituent Assembly could alter this delicate balance by a majority vote that led to the brak-up of India.

While the Indians most affected by Partition, the Punjabis and Bengalis, may have some nostalgia for their places of birth, there has never been much wishful thinking in India about a united India, no matter what Advani might say. In fact, after the failure of early attempts in Pakistan at building a democracy, most Indians probably thought this was a headache they could live without. In a united India there may have been no Kashmir problem but certainly the tribals at either end, be it the Balochs or the Pathans at the western end or the Nagas, Mizos, Bodos (name a tribe here) at the eastern end, would have posed problems for the Central government. Thus getting rid of Pakistan rid India of at least one turbulent frontier (the one with Afghanistan and Iran).

Most Indians wish Pakistan well. Our only wish is that your newspapers in 1999 still don`t drag up Junagadh and Hyderabad in every article about Indo-Pak relations because it feeds and maintains the Pak perception/myth that India is a dangerous enemy out to get Pakistan. Kashmir is okay to discuss but it is not a central problem in Indians` minds unless there is a hot war such as Kargil.

And without Pakistan, would India have a worthy opponent in cricket (or in earlier days, hockey)?

AN-OTHER CONQUEST OF PAK-ARMY - CELEBRATE MY COUNTRY-MEN

I am reproducing the NEWS item published in the Nov. 3 internet NEWS UPDATE of the DAILY NEWS.

QUOTE:

Wednesday, November 03, 1999 -- Rajab 24, 1420 A.H.

Army raids Senate Chairman`s office

(Updated at 1230 PST)

ISLAMABAD: The military forces, on Wednesday, raided the office of the Senate Chairman Waseem Sajjad, apparently for the latter`s refusal to hand over certain confidential documents to the forces, it was reported.

UN-QUOTE

What are you and your people looking for, Mr. general Mutterraf. Most likely it is an attempt to prevent the Senate Chairman from proceeding to SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, preventing him from challenge your illegal rule our our homeland, in the court of law. Or an attempt to destroy the evidence of conspiracy that general Musharraf and others had hatched against the elected government and the people of Pakistan, known as a video cassette and audio tape of general Mutterraf and general Aziz conversation. Clelebrate my country-men, your army has once again conquered our own country, Pakistan.

Rahat

jay #reply 107 cont`d: You stated, ``Charter of the UN are broad principles, it doesnt talk about implementing UN resolutions and in any case are instruments of a multilateral forum,``

A detailed copy of the UN Charter can be found at www.un.org/Overview/Charter/contents.html.

I am quoting Article 25 out of Chapter V, Titled, ``The Security Council.``

``Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.``

To me this indicates that the UN does talk about the UN resolutins being implemented. However, the UN does not have the, ``firepower`` to force the countries involved to implement the resolutions. So the resolutions rarely get implemented.

I am willing to accept an argument that no country can realisticly force India to implement the UN resolutions. However, I do not agree that the UN resolutions are invalid.

jay #107: The Simla Accord clearly mentions the UN Charter. What was the point of even mentioning the UN? You seem to have completely ignored part (i). You can twist and turn it all you want, but it is quite obvious from reading the Simla Accords, that it does not nullify the UN resolutions. However, the UN is helpless in implementing its resolutions. So it is true that India does not, ``have`` to honor the UN, since it cannot be forced to do so. If it was going to honor them, it would have done so, even before the Simla Accords were signed (between 1947-1972).

Lets assume your argument to be correct, regarding the Simla Accords nullifying the UN resolutions. Could you let us know what stopped India from honoring the UN resolution during the time period before 1972? In my opinion, India has never had the intention to honor the UN resolutions. The only reason for this I can think of is that India is certain that it will lose a plebescite in Kashmir. But then why is India trying so hard to become a member of the Security Council, if it has no intention of honoring the resolutions passed by the same Security Council.

In summary, you had stated that, ``the simla accord has annuled the mandate of the UN on indo pak affairs.`` Since the Simla Accords themselves mention the UN charter, I do not see how your statement can be considered correct. I however do agree with you that India will not recognize the UN resolution, and that there isn`t much anyone can do about it.

You had also stated, ````Even he (Gen. Musharraf)wont take the issue to the UN.`` Now you have stated, ``Yes, pakistan takes the kashmir to the UN, as far as i know, not as a territorial dispute, but as some human rights, and some other crap like that.`` This seems to indicate that you have changed your mind on Gen. Musharraf taking the Kashmir matter to the UN.

By the way I do not consider human rights to be, ``some other crap.``

As far as the LOC=IB; As long as India gives the Kashmiris a right to vote for their own future, I do not see any problem with Pakistan accepting LOC=IB or LOC=Border of Independent Kashmir (depending on what the Kashmiris decide). I have stated this earlier, as well.

Just out of curiosity, could you give me an honest answer to the following question: Suppose the Kashmiris in Indian Kashmir were given a chance to vote for their own future today. Do you think they would a) vote to remain a part of India b) Vote to be independent c) Vote to become a part of Pakistan? Kindly give an honest answer, and not an emotional answer.

Pu Li,

I dislike the style of ``i agree``, `i dis agree`` type of response, to each and every point, because by agreeing, i am not contributing any thing other than boosting my ego. Who cares whether i agree, while disagreemnts can give a new bit of information.

With that as preamble, let me state the areas of disagreement.

Islam in kerala is as old as islam any where, incidently it is claimed for christianity as well. But any how it is alleged, that a ruler of calict, kozhikode, was a deciple of prophet, he went to saudi, and he was instrumental in the spreading of islam in kerala. It is some where in the history of calicut, where i come from.

1921, i would dismiss as an aberration, TNT effect, considering the history of islam in kerala. It would be inaccurate to say that the muslim/hindu consciousness is permanently altered by 1921, or some police action.

It is not that muslims are not trying to create a `mini pakistan` in malapuram dist by progressively buying hindu property, but i would call that a natural tendency. The important point is that several ISI agents involved in coimbatore bombing were arrested in malapuram, it is not considered beyond the reach of law. It is not a golden temple story, and hopefully will not become. When the reach of the law is un-affected, i am not overtly concerned, thankfully, kerala has no border with pakistan. I have a lot of trust in any home grown mujahideen, a mujahideen fed on TNT is guided weapon, very expensive and teneous to nutralise.

UR,

UN is a multilateral forum, if the following quote is adhered to, UN is out as long as india says so, ie. it has to be mutually agreed.

Charter of the UN are broad principles, it doesnt talk about implementing UN resolutions and in any case are instruments of a multilateral forum, and as such are not applicable because of Simla and Lahore.

(ii)`` That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the tw``

Yes, pakistan takes the kashmir to the UN, as far as i know, not as a territorial dispute, but as some human rights, and some other crap like that.

When there is a bilateral agreement, reiterated in lahore, pakistan reasonably could not make a case of territorial dispute in the UN. But of course, i dont want to comment on the recent competance of the pak diplomacy.

I know that you had been pushing this line of kargill is a pay back for siachen, good luck to you, the events have shown that the indian position was correct, the `rogue army` doctrine, i would term as ``autonomous army`` doctrine.

Long befor general PM could order any thing, local commandres had taken over the airport in karachi, TV station in islamabad. I completely believe in BilalM, son generals comment that he had `no choice`. The choice would have been to courtmartial the local commanders. If the local commanders can conduct a coup with out the coordination of a higher command, pushing a few mujahideen could be done at the brigadier level. The `autonomous` army.

Siachen, i dont care whether it is in india or pakistan or timbektu, but after kargill, i am not sure. If it can prevent another mujahideen route it would be worth holding. Again if i accept your kargill for siachen idea, then may be there is something there in siachen which the pakistanis want, for which they are ready to trash lahore accord. Zia may be correct, not a blade of grass grows there, may be easier for the jihad fighters to walk across. It is quite possible that with the changed approach of pakistan of sending mujahideen, may be siachen is of strategic importance, you know the geography and the military imports better.

Siachen was against the spirit of simla. But i wonder why no one bothered for so long.

What i fail to understand is that how knowledgeable people like you cannot see the reasonable solution on the wall, LOC=IB and move on. There seem to be a national past time of revelling based on the `scores` from kashmir.

Pu Li #105: You stated, ``A similar situation exists in the Kashmir valley now that needs to be dealt with politically so that the problem is resolved to everybody`s satisfaction.`` I strongly agree with this.

You also stated, ``Looking at what is happening in Pakistan, seemingly they haven`t figured out that it is more important to build a sense of national identity apart from being Muslims. That is why the divisions within Islam such as Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiya, etc., have come into prominence. Loyalty to the tribe or the sect has taken the place of national identity and the existence of a single linguistic group, the Punjabis at 57%, as the dominant majority has not helped matters. In some sense, what the Muslims of the subcontinent complained about -- the tyranny of the majority Hindus -- has come back to haunt them as the tyranny of the Punjabis.`` I would agree with the above as well.

However I have some differences on, ``As they say, be careful what you pray for: you may actually get it! Asking for Pakistan in the hope of getting a veto over the majority in a united India has resulted in today`s situation.`` I think inspite of the current situation in Pakistan, an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, regardless of ethnicities, are happy that Pakistan was formed. This is based on my personal experiences, and discussions with people who were alive at the time of partition. I do not hold any ill-will towards Indians, but I certainly am glad Pakistan was formed.

Can`t say anything about your comments on Kerala, because my knowledge of India`s internal affairs (outside Kashmir) is very limited.

Re jay #: 97

My quoting of history has only one reason: to try and understand what caused the partition of India. History shows that serious Hindu-Muslim differences existed in the past even in pacifist South India, that it didn`t take much in those days to start a riot, and that a stern hand in dealing with such riots is critical if the riots are not to recur. There was never any chance that Malabar would have formed a Moplahstan in 1947, primarily because the iron fist (the Malabar Special Police) prevented any further riots from 1921 onward and the people realized it was better to spend their energies in figuring out how to live peacefully with one`s neighbor. This has happened to such an extent that today, a Keralite takes pride in being a Keralite first, an Indian next, and then only he thinks of identifying himself with his religion.

This is the same nation-building effort that India has undertaken since 1947. One could argue that a Keralite has not much in common with a Punjabi (one Keralite vehemently abused the BJP to me for their imposition of Ram as a major deity by trying to build a temple to Ram somewhere in Kerala as opposed to Krishna who is the favorite in Kerala!) or a Bihari. Nevertheless, the patriotic feeling that India is one country has grown roots in the minds of the majority of the Indian people who feel included in the political process. By trying to exclude at least some segments of society through post-electoral coalitions and manipulations, a sense of alienation was fostered in Punjab which has since evaporated. A similar situation exists in the Kashmir valley now that needs to be dealt with politically so that the problem is resolved to everybody`s satisfaction.

Looking at what is happening in Pakistan, seemingly they haven`t figured out that it is more important to build a sense of national identity apart from being Muslims. That is why the divisions within Islam such as Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiya, etc., have come into prominence. Loyalty to the tribe or the sect has taken the place of national identity and the existence of a single linguistic group, the Punjabis at 57%, as the dominant majority has not helped matters. In some sense, what the Muslims of the subcontinent complained about -- the tyranny of the majority Hindus -- has come back to haunt them as the tyranny of the Punjabis.

As they say, be careful what you pray for: you may actually get it! Asking for Pakistan in the hope of getting a veto over the majority in a united India has resulted in today`s situation.

General Mutter Plans to Stay for Good

(Refer Bulbul reply# 99): General Mutterraf is trying to please USA and is selecting persons which will be acceptable to USA. By Malleha Lodhi`s appointment,the new rulers are conveying to USA that they are liberals, as liberal as Malleha Lodhi; the special gift (dry fruit) from general Mutter for US senators. What a pitty general Mutter cannot bring in BB as he fears public resistence, otherwise he would have done it right away but he is committed to put in his energies to bring her back or else saty himself for ever. LOL . New rulers are exposed in the very first month of their illegal rule. The looters of Pakistan as shouting accountability. Why not ask general Mutterraf that how come he amass six plots (as declared by him)in most posh areas of Karachi and other cities, which is certainly too much for an army officer. How is he managing such wealth while he gets paid only US$ 12,000 or less per year. We better start accountability with general Mutterwa Ji.

Roohi

Why Test the Already Tested?

dear UR (Reply # 101): The only concern I have is that why general M wants to re-test the Zia era experts. Pakistan is full of experts and talented personnel. Is it so the general M is planning to force himself on us for longer period.

Rahat

jay reply # 97: You stated, ``What annoys me the most is the history addicts of the chowk, are not up dating their version, a good example is UN resolution on kashmir, the simla accord has annuled the mandate of the UN on indo pak affairs. May be that is why people are still rejoicing at what happend to bhutto. Still the so called scholars keep talking about Un resolution when the govt of pakistan has declared that UN has nothing to do with kashmir.`` Since you seem to be addressing all, ``chowkirdars,`` hence I feel obliged to reply.

The following is the text of the Simla Agreement,

``The Simla Agreement

The Government of Pakistan and the Government of India are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of Pakistan and the government of India have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance and encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;

(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other`s territorial integrity; and sovereignty and non-interference in each other internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have divided the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

(v) That they shall always respect each other`s national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.

In order to progressively restore and normalise relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights.

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other countries.

(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.

In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:

(i) Pakistan and India shall be withdrawn to their side of international border.

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instrument of Ratification are exchanged.

Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements of the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including the question of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians, resumption of diplomatic relations.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto President Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Indira Gandhi Prime Minister Republic of India

Simla, the 2nd July, 1972.

I think after reading the above you could make a good argument that Kargil was against the accords. A Pakistani supporter would argue that Siachen was against the accords, as well. I happen to oppose both the Pakistani action in Kargil, and the Indian action in Siachen, because I feel both were against the accords. Anyways, that is a separate discussion.

However, the statement ``(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries;`` seems to clearly indicate, at least to me, that the UN resolutions are still valid, since they fall under the charter of the UN.

Also ``(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.`` This part also mentions, through ``bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means.`` It does not indicate bilateral negotiations, ``with disregard to the UN resolutions.`` If that were the case, then part (i) would not have been added.

Neither of the above seem to indicate that the UN resolutions are invalid. I don`t understand how you can say, ``the simla accord has annuled the mandate of the UN on indo pak affairs.``

Finally, you stated, ``Even he (Gen. Musharraf)wont take the issue to the UN, while the chowkirdars keep harping on the UN resolution and the UN disputed territory.`` Could you let us know how you know that Gen. Musharraf will not take the issue to the UN. Pakistan takes this issue to the UN every year. I would be very surprised if Pakistan did not take it to the UN this year.

MQ_Rahat #96: I follow Ayaz Amir`s articles very closely. He was an MPA in the previous Nawaz Sharif government, from Chakwal. He gave up his MPA seat a few months ago, when he got sick and tired of NS, and his cronies. I think because of this he carries a lot of credibility. He has been one of the biggest critics of NS. On Oct 15, he wrote in Dawn:

``FIRST a few words, by way of an obituary, regarding the dolt (no other description fits him) who took a step too far and who had not the wit to understand that it is only so much incompetent audacity the furies can stand.

There could not be a sadder commentary on the Pakistani ethos than that a person such as Nawaz Sharif, with his limited ability and unbounded greed for money and power, should have risen to the highest position in the land. In few other democratic dispensations would this have happened.

The army`s hand was forced. If it had not done what it did it would have stood condemned before the bar of history. The Sharifs were wanting to do to the army what it had done to the Supreme Court: sow the seeds of dissension in its higher echelons so as to render it ineffective as a check on their ambitions. Had the Sharifs succeeded in their designs they would have had two Rana Maqbools in their service: one as the IGP Sindh and the other, in the form of Lt Gen Khawaja Ziauddin, as head of the army.

To most Pakistanis all this is very clear but the Americans are having a hard time understanding it. Or rather accepting it because the Sharifs, as their internal difficulties mounted, had started clinging to America`s coat-tails, in the process becoming the greatest lackeys of the Americans that we have ever had. Benazir too kowtows in that direction and thinks nothing of exchanging inanities with second-ranking officials in the State Department. But the Sharifs beat her hollow. They bartered national self-respect in a bid to seek American support.

It takes no special wisdom to see that the condemnation of the Taliban by the two Sharif brothers in the week before their ouster was the quid pro quo for the State Department statements issued earlier in their support - statements warning the army against any extra-constitutional steps.``

DAWN (October 15, 99)

I just listend to Gen. Musharraf`s press conference. He said that he realized that some of the people are not happy with his recommendations to the NSC. He said that if they did not perform well, they would be removed. Let`s hope that is true.

I think Ayaz Amir`s criticism is quite valid. Personally, I am waiting to see the performance of the current govt. before forming any final opinion.

Dear MQ-RAHAHT.

Just the same thing put differently. NO HARD FEELINGS. The only difference from yesterday is being out of the pan,but there is foolish hope!

A clown was sentenced to death by a king. He started laughing on query from the king he said,``an astrologer told me that I would be killed by a rascal``.(I have replaced the original with rascal)

The king said then why are laughing he said,`` Apparently it is not so but may be``!{lagta to nahin per shayed!``

tariqlodi

The Musharraf/ BB `` Dubai Accord`` is being implemented in full swing. After loan defaulter Fahim Zaman another P.P.P. Stalwart Maleeha Lodhi has been inducted as Pakistan`s Ambassador to United States. The Pakistan armed forces have been reduced to the status of B team of P.P.P.Now we know who was really behind the Coup. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto destroyed the country in collusion with Yahya Khan now his daughter has aquired the services of another big boozer to dismember the rest of the country. This is no revolution for reform. This is a back door entry by P.P.P. defeated in the last elections.The party elected by the masses has been dismissed under a volley of disinformation and those defeated are being slowly brought to power. LONG LIVE THE ARMED FORCES OF PAKISTAN

Response to Mohammad Imran reply # 66

The traitor, dismissed general Mutterraf`s alais general Mutterwa or Mutter, which ever you prefer, since it is miltary democracy in Pakistan; is reachable at following email address:-

generalMUTTER.mutterwa.ghadar.com

No Kidding

ronjay