Text of Speech by Gen. Pervez Musharraf

INTENTS ARE NOW CLEARER

After 48 days of illegimate takeover of power in Pakistan by the armed forces, each day makes the intents of the so called fair deal military rulers, more and more obvious. Jernaile Mussrraf and his touts couldn`t find a single corruption case against Nawaz Sharif, the legal Prime Minister of Pakistan. But to get rid of him, the jernailes instructed their employee, a colonel to lodge a report (FIR) for flight 805 hijack. What are you trying to prove jernaile ji? Well, this is his style of accountability, of course inspired by Zia-ul-Haq, jernaile Musharraf is inclined towards elimination of Mr. Sharif for good. ``Hang him`` said the drunk jernaile after his routine Friday night booze. Musharraf may be feeling very secure after having sent all his family members to USA, including his only son, Bilal. But those who are unjust and unfair to their own country and people, shall be doomed anyway, no matter where they are. Jernaile Ji, you have acted against the constitution of Pakistan, who gave you that right? You are artificially popular in the intelligence agenicies books through phony gallop polls conducted by newspapers under your control, in real life you are a villian. You belong to the same lot that killed our first prime minister, RLA khan; hanged the second prime minister ZA Bhutto; got the third prime minister convicted; and are now aiming at hanging the legal prime minister, democratically authorised ruler of Pkaistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif. Our all these years, army has shown no respect for the people`s representative. The pakistan army generals somehow still beleive themselves to be superior, still living in a fools paradise, a part of ruling British army that conspired with the fuedals and treated my people like animals. But we are sure, that this time we will make the difference, and we shall see the jernailes hung by their necks. The world shall see you and your team end in hell. Insallah.

Bye bye Jernaile Ji

Rahat

blast blast and more blasts !

Martial law is the worst thing that can happen to a country. Martial law administrator cannot expect people to follow the law since he himself has broken the constitution. We hav`nt experienced democracy because of our long association with military or quasi-military rule. Thats way all democratic governments we experienced have been dictatorial in nature. Democracy takes a lot of time and patience to florish. The journey for a perfect democratic system is painfull but in the end very effective. The

western countries has gone through the worse since they believed in the system and now they are

enjoying the fruits of democracy. On the other hand our people have been repeatedly fooled by our

military for the last 52 years. You can fool a nation once or twice but not for ever. But our nation is so

marvellous that it has been fooled for 52 years and still has`nt learnt from its mistake. So instead of

blaming the politicians for not knowing the spelling of democracy, we should look at ourself and ask ,

are we really literate? After 52 years we don`t even know our destiny. Are we really a failed nation?

It is the army who has failed us and those ignorant masses who celebrate whenever a democratic elected

government is uncounstitutionally removed. Army has a habit of counqering our nation every 10-20 year.

It destroys all democractic norms that flourished in its absence. The Indophobia we inherited since our

creation is also the reason behind this mess. Only people has to decide the fate of out nation. No

mard-e-momin of khlifa would help. The reason for all this mess in Pakistan is because peoples opinion

has been voilated every now and then by military and its pawns. For a country entering 21st century,

having a system even looked downed upon by ancient Greeks is a shame. Shame on Pakistan nation!

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

Thank you very much for your last message. Obviously I am not as well read as you are about the history of Pakistan. I learn something new from your every message although my opinions are more closer to Nashat( Raja Amir Janjua ).

I agree with you that in 1946 elections, unionist lost their appeal because Pakistan was almost a reality. It was convenient for them to go with ML.

I am still waiting for your theory as to what transpired the coup im Pakistan.

This article and replies will be moving to chowk archives but I hope to keep interacting with you on other reply sites.

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 124):

Dear Sameer:

Your statement: ``The Punjabis who voted for Unionist in 1937 election were voting their locally powerful feudal as well as non-feudal leaders and these local leaders together constituted the Unionist party.``

Comment: Your posts have encouraged me to refresh my memory about the electoral politics in Punjab. In the 1937 provincial elections in Punjab, the Muslim League won only 1 out of 86 Muslim seats, whereas the Unionists won not only the majority of the seats in the provincial assembly (96 out of 175) but also the bulk of the Muslim seats. Khalid B. Sayeed (1980) argues that this was a result of the triumvirate (the deputy commissioner, the landlord, and the pir) that supported the Unionists.

Your statement: ``The vote for Unionist party had nothing to do with supporting or opposing the freedom movement.``

Comment: Soon after the 1937 election Jinnah and Sir Sikandar Hyat reached a pact. Khalid Bin Sayeed writes: `` . . . A pact with such pro-British conservative elements was distasteful to the Muslim League leader and poet Iqbal, for in his view it would undermine the prestige of the Muslim League along the Muslim masses. Jinnah was neither an ardent Islamic reformist nor a revolutionary but a hardheaded politician. Therefore he urged leaders like Iqbal to be patient and cooperate with him`` (p. 10). Sayeed further adds: ``A more important factor was the concern of the Unionists to align themselves with a party that was by no means anti-British against the formidable and growing power of the Congress, which was successful in forming governments in seven out of the eleven Indian provinces in 1937`` (pp. 10-11).

Evidently, the Unionists were essentially landlords. They prioritized their own interests. They were pro-British. They were supported by the British administration. They were supported by the pir, who themselves were landlords particularly in the Muzaffargarh, Multan, Montgomery, and Jhang districts of west Punjab. Iqbal was contemptuous toward the claims of some of the sajjada nashins to be very religious and saintly because of their total loyaty to the British government. In short, when the Unionists leaders felt threatened they signed a pact with the Muslim League, but by 1946 they lost their appeal (as most of their support transferred to the Muslim League). Do we need to understand the ideological and material basis of this transfer?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Sayeed, K. B. (1980). Politics in Pakistan: The Nature and Direction of Change. New York: Praeger.

Sameer JB, 122.

It does not pay to differ or agree with history or history cares a hoot if somebody does or does not agree with it. History is there to take lessons- to correct the course and rectify the errors of the past. It is not a question of scoring or conceding any points. It hurts every body sensible and sensitive to the national issues. Unfortunately ours is a case where we learn the tables by heart, 2x2=4, but in our day to day dealings when we are to give it is 2x2=3 and when taking it is 2x2=5! Luckily the CHOWK has provided a forum where one can speak his mind out. I feel absence of such fora within the country and the gaged press has contributed much towards not resolving common issues.

Histories are written by different people, and they narate their experiences not necessarily shared by all. As for the problems among any ethnic groups, luckily there is none among the common people it has perhaps been miscontrued, it is the vested interest that manouvers, creates and exploits the situation. I have lived and worked in the Punjab and have best of my associates and friends from Punjab with whom I have been freely exchanging my views. In the manouvered troubled days a friend, a very scared one, from Pindi came to see me at Karachi. I took him to the Empress Market Pedestrian Bridge and asked him to identify the punjabis, sindis, pathans and muhajirs bustling in thousands down below and to see for himself who was killing who. All people live here in peace and all do realise that the situation had been created for certain ends.

In a discussion no body is 100% right and neither is wrong. The best course of action to my mind is that we should mark out the differences and try to resolve them. The boat with a hole in its bottom has greater chance of making to the shore for repairs if the rowers in unison rowed in one direction. That can only be achieved by agreement in making the wrong good.

The British have left long ago with their intersts and this is Pakistan I am sure they have not left a “SAHIFA” and every ablebodied Pakistani should be inducted on merit.

It is not a question of Biharis but of Pakistanis, how would one feel if those Pakistanis, Biharis, had been repatriated and not the 73ooo Pakistanis in Indian jails? We see in the press so many other nations caring for welfare of their natioals and their embassies going all out for their safety in foreign lands. A piece of cloth painted with some colours does not become a flag unless it provides shelter to everyone who comes under it.

It is strange that you do not want to give people freedom of choice. Why should any body accept an imposed political party? In fact in my view this, imposition of personnel and parties, has been one of the main reasons of turmoil in Pakistan. The muslim league in early days of Pakistan did not hold elections perhaps because they did not want to give the people right to choose. The reasons put forth then have all been proved wrong by time: Bangladesh held elections soon after gaining sovreignty, their economy was in shambles after the 1971debacle, Iran held elections during the war when their whole assembly had been bombarded!

In my previous despatch the first line should read: My dear since you lisp and stammer…….

Love,

tariqlodi.

Dear Bilal Ahmad

I intentionally used the term ‘study the history’ which according to Arnold Toynbee’s definition means the causes and effects of history instead of knowing or describing the history. It will be naive for me or any other person to think that most Punjabis were (or are) familiar with the history of last 1000 years or think about it before casting their votes. I was implying that the events of history have effected the attitudes of the people. Since converting to pacifist Islam at the hands of Sufis, Punjabis remained mostly true to their teachings. This does not mean that they remember the teachings of the Sufis. Actually most Punjabis can not name the particular Sufi responsible for their ancestor’s conversion. The peace and relative prosperity during the 100 years of colonial rule made them politically pacifist also although there was plenty of activism in the cities and Jullianwala Bagh incident will attest to that.

All politics was (and is) local, especially in the parliamentary system. The Punjabis who voted for Unionist in 1937 election were voting their locally powerful feudal as well as non-feudal leaders and these local leaders together constituted the Unionist party. The vote for Unionist party had nothing to do with supporting or opposing the freedom movement. Neither ML nor Congress had strong support among these traditional local leaders to be able to convincingly convey their message. Moreover, the activist Muslim leadership was divided between ML, Khaksars and Ahrars. Muslim League had only two major leaders, Nawab Mamdot and Mumtaz Daultana, who do not have large support beyond Lahore and Multan respectively.

The vote for present day PML has nothing to do with the ML of the freedom movement. Actually the make up of PML in the rural Punjab resembles more with the Unionist party of the forties. The recent elections are not a beauty contest between BB and NS rather people voting for their local leaders who belong to PML or PPP.

In short, the rise of locally powerful politicians neither form the descendants of the ruling elite of afghan-turkic empires nor from orthodox religious leaders are the direct consequence of history and this is exactly what I meant by Punjabis voting differently than most other Muslims during 1937 election.

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 122)

Dear Sameer JB:

Your statement: ``Punjab history is no one liner, set in 1946 elections. You have to study the history of Punjab of the past 1000 years to understand the justification of Punjabis choosing unionist party over Muslim League and Congress.``

Comment: So, those Punjabis who voted for the Unionist Party knew the 1000 year long history of Punjab. Is this what you are implying? If there is some element of truth in your implication, it would interesting to find out why Muslim League has been so popular in post-independence Punjab. Could you identify a couple of authentic books on the history and politics of Punjab that deal with the issues at hand?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Tariqlodi

I beg to differ on every point you have made in your last post. In my opinion:

1. Punjab history is no one liner, set in 1946 elections. You have to study the history of Punjab of the past 1000 years to understand the justification of Punjabis choosing unionist party over Muslim League and Congress. I can not reproduce all the history here except stating that Punjabis were playing the pivotal role for 100 years in the colonial rule and reaped the dividends of peace as compared to previous 900 years when they were reduced to just an outpost of Afghan-Turkic empires of India, largely ignored, often plundered and limited to two cities, Lahore and Multan which were always administered by afghan or turkic administrator. The punjabis had every reason to be suspicious when the descendents of the afghan-turkic masters asked them to join hand in the mane of religion.

2. The event at Lahore railway station can, at best, be a localized event by few individuals, besides most of the immigration from U.P. and Bihar took place through Khokrapar in Sindh and not through Lahore. Most of Punjab cities have sizable immigrant population and do not have any apparent problems.

3. The dominance of Punjabis in the army is the result of traditions developed during the colonial rule. Actually it is few district in the northern Punjab and Hazara, Mardan and Bannu of NWFP which provide bulk of the army soldiers while officers caders come from all over Pakistan as reflected in the ethnicities of the past and present COAS and core commanders. Naturally more casualties of the major ethnic group will be expected in any war. Dominance of one ethnic group is not localized to army only. Wapda is predominently Pathans while Pakistan Railways, PIA and Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation are predominently mohajir.

4. Last elections were largely fair, though low turn out. All the credible studies in Europe and in USA suggest that a higher percent of people voting do not change the outcome. It is nonscence to think that all those people who did not vote would have voted the losing candidates.

5. Mohajirs do not have their backs against the wall. They are as Pakistani as any other group. But they should understand the sensibilities of the other groups. For example, why to stress so hard to bring stranded Biharis from Bangladesh when there is no support for it in rest of Pakistan. When most were voting either PPP or PML, they chose JI and JUP and recently voted overwhelmingly for MQM who has no support outside mohajirs. That is why some people are criticizing their attempt to create an identity which unlike other ethnicities, is not linked to the geography.

RoohiAD#66.

My dear since you and stammer like a child and have not learnt to say Musharraf yet one can assume that you are mostly banking on hearsay. It is not advisable to disturb the ashes or sparks will ensue and may cause a fire. But since you already in your innocence have, ring for the fire brigade:

1. The poor masses of Punjab, who did not and do not matter, may have been jubilant on creation of Pakistan. The Elites and the people who mattered did not vote for Muslim League then and Muslim League did not win the 1946 elections in Punjab and the N.W.F.P.

2. As for the ansars role, people do have memories of having been told at Lahore Railway station when they were not allowed to leave the station and were told that Pakistan is far forward, ?Pakistan aage hai!? and who called you?

3.Yes in 1965 and 1971 mostly it were Punjabi brethren who laid their lives because their elders would not let people from other provinces join the armed forces. I wonder what has been the height of General Jahandad Khan and I wonder if Japan, Philipines Indonesia Korea and Bangladesh forces and other dwarfs of the world import perfectly tailored personnel from elsewhere.

4. Here you are sadly sadly very very mistaken that any government was formed in Pakistan by elections. They were installed by the armed forces, dominated by our Punjabi Brethren and toppled by armed forces dominated by our Punjabi Brethren.

5. You are wrong here also the jernail you are talking of at the time of ouster of N.S. government not only was out of the country but also was not even on any land, he stood dismissed and hanging in the air.

Yes. It is a good sign for the first time in Pakistan that a mattarva has been accepted, perhaps, though may be out of necessity. And he knows Iam sure, if he wavers who he would be disappointing.

If your ?Allah Hafiz? is a prayer all truly loving Pakistanis join in chorus with you and particularly the muttarvas because they are the only people who need this word, PAKISTAN for their survival or they have no right, nowhere in the world to exist. They are Pakistanis by choice and not by compulsion.

Tariqlodi.

Jernaile Mutterraf wants to be known as a Lahori!

Well beleive it or not jernaile Mutterraf wants to be known as a Lahori (Punjabi) contrary to the fact that he can`t even speak punjabi, probably he thinks Punjabi as inferior. Jernaile Mutterraf has instructed his military intelligence that the word be spread in interior Punjab that jernaile Mutterraf belongs to Lahore. Then the jernaile claims, he has no political motives; LOL. Let me tell you one thing, when Pakistan came into being, like everyone else, Punjabis were enthusiastic, rather over enthusiastic as my dad recalls. Punjabis played `Ansars` role, they open heartedly accepted Urdu as national language, but Bengalis and Sindhis never did not. Punjab has sufferred because of its giving and scarificing nature. In 1965 and 1971 and now 1999, most of, rather all of shaheeds were from Punjab. I am pleased to say that for past five decades, never ever a government with a Punjabi head of state was never formed through the back door channels. In recent past government from Punjab was formed through elelctions, twice democratically elected PM Nawaz Sharif`s government. This had scared enemies of Pakistan, first time NS was removed though he was doing excellent, again through army pressure; second time the enemies didn`t play it simple,but announced support of NS government and lead to its intriguing downfall. When NS came to power, in both tenures, the opposition formed alliance, and leaders from smaller provinces, mostly feudals, refused to work with NS. Displaying highest level of hatred for Punjab leadership originated from a mid class. Opposition claimed that smaller provinces are being neglected. All the four marshall laws where either imposed by NWFP or Mutter jernails. What is all this nonsense? I beleive that enemies of Pakistan know that they cannot break Pakistan unless the largest province is deprieved of its rights. So their agents in Pakistan continue to do so, and if jernaile Mutterraf on his mission, leading us to another, rather final disaster; To break Pakistan jernaile ji you will have to get rid of NS, may be hang NS and other popular leaders of Punjab, rsulting a strong wave of resentment in Punjab. Keep it up jernaile ji, Allah Hafiz Pakistan. But mind it, if you dare do so, we are still there, we will snatch your skin.

Roohi A Ditta

Correction to reply #116:

Pu Li # 112:

Nicely stated. I agree with pretty much everything you have said. (forgot the word, ``much``)

YET MORE DISAPPOINTMENT OVER CABINET MEMBERS

Usman Aminuddin, though an oil and gas industry related professional, is yet not a suitable selection for the post of minister for petroleum and natural resources. Usman runs his own bussiness in collaboration with one `Shahzad International`` of Islamabad, owned by one Zahid Muzaffar, son of a retd. army general. These people are notorious for being class-I crooks, and their roots are spread deep into the ministry of petroleum and natural resources, that includes Gulfaraz, secretary, the oppotunitist and most dishonest person in the oil industry. Gulfaraz made a shady deal on award of Qadirpur contract for $ 105 million to an Italian firm to oblige the then COAS, general Mirza Aslam Beg. Please note the Italian bid as US$ 43 million more expensive than the lowest bid of a Canadian company that was in full compliance. This great service of Gulfaraz(we better write him Gulloo) gave him a green card with miltary intelligence and ISI ever since. Gulloo was inducted by Benazir, general mirza Aslam Beg helped him survive through with Nawaz tenure, and Gulloo is still in there. All deals for oil and gas industry related concessions and contracts are made through this group of crooks. Well they can serve generals purpose for making easy money over oil deals but imagine how much they are going to loot to give a part of it to the generals.

And that Asghar Khan`s son, the ``Alloo Putter`` (potatoe`s son), a worthless smuggler and notoriously known for his g_y activities in the frontier province, Allah have mercy on us. In last elections, a local hijra contested elections against ``Alloo Putter``, claiming that he was his he-girl friend. Well Allo Putter couldn`t win the elections then, nor his hijra friend.

It appears like general Mutterraf with all his sincerity continues to head for a greater disaster.

Roohi Allah Ditta

Pu Li # 112:

Nicely stated. I agree with pretty everything you have said.

MORE DISAPPOINTMENT OVER THE CABINET AND NSC MEMBERS --- WHY NAWAZ ACTED ON THE LAST DAY OF GENERAL MUTTERRAF`s TOUR TO SRI-LANKA

General Mutterraf`s cabinet is a complete disappointment, and so is the NSC team. General Moinuddin has been assigned ministery of interior only based on the fact that he has personnel score to settle against Nawaz. Please recall only less than a year ago, general Moinuddin had to resign from his position as governor after a meeting with Nawaz. Close associates of Nawaz claim than general Moin was involved in other activities than what his job as governor demanded from him. General Mutterraf has brought him in position so that he can put his iron hand on muslim league. So what is the difference in governance, Mutterraf? Similar sort of news are there for Sharifuddin Pirzada, Atiya Inayat Ullah and Mohammad Yaqoob.

In military takeover, one important event is the fact that general Mutterraf had gone for a three day visit to SriLanka, where he had conference with the army chiefs of SAARC, most important being Indian COAS. It would have been reasonable for Nawaz to dismiss mutterraf the day he had left, if the reason was some ongoing dispute. But why Nawaz acted on the third and last day of general Mutterraf visit to Srilanka, why? Certainly some new information from intelligence circles had surfaced to Nawaz`s ear by that time. Tight lipped diplomats claim a secret meeting of general Mutterraf with indian COAS. Who knows why India has not strongly condemned the military coup in Pakistan? Indian reaction to present coup in Pakistan is lot more mild than to earlier 1958 and 1977 military takeovers, which were openly condemned by India. Well the general Mutterraf of Dehli might turn out to be gobachev of Pakistan. WAKE UP COUNTRY MEN, WATCH LIKE HAWKS, THESE ARE BANARSI TUGS. If we loose this last chance, as plans seem to be, Allh forbid, we might loose our independence.

UR,

Of course, i do not deny that india has no intention to implement UN resolution. India would have done it before simla. But the important point you are refusing to admit is that since simla and lahore, the primacy is on bilateral. I reapeat, UN being a mutilateral organisation, it is well and truly out of kashmir. Just think of it, why is simla repeated again and again, in lahore, in washington, the sanctity of the line of control. Just wake up, bilateral, bilateral... Un is multi lateral.

One of the major reasons why india did not cross LOC during kargill was that it would have allowed pakistan to approach UN. As long as the incidents are restricted to LOC, it is bilateral domain.

Your hypothetical question about plebicte out come, well i can only give a reasoned answer. At present pakistan has nothing to offer to the kashmiris, a nation waiting for a self apponited chief executive to bring about economic growth and national prid, well a kashmiri voting for that option should have rocks in his/her head, or is a product of madrassa. Remaining with india is a status quo, no decision is required. Kashmiris should be convinced of a better future to change that.

Now the third option, this is non existent, never part of anything. The real option all along is to join india or pakistan.

The third is a dog in the manger idea, now pushed in the chowk. This is really pathetic, it is an admission that pakistan has nothing to offer.

Well, i can comment on it when at least some pakistanis on the chowk unreservedly admit that pakistan is not a desirable country for kashiris to join, at least at present.

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

Pu Li,

This is my criticism against history quoting chowkwallas. I am not denying the moplah rebellion, muslims in north kerala are called moplahs. But the fact is that even my father was not born in 1921, three generations have grown up snce then. Malappuram was created as a district in response to the muslim aspirations.

But as far as i know, there has not been any `massive` riots in kerala since 1921. There are the routine ones, they happen between religious and caste lines, all in a days work.

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.

Even in the first speach by general PM, he said that pakistan will honour all the previous accords. Even he wont take the issue to the UN, while the chowkirdars keep harping on the UN resolution and the UN disputed territory.

Sinking into the sand - Get out while the sun still shines

Dear friends of Chowk,

Here is something for you to read, understand and ponder about.

Quote:

THIS was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, carrying everything before it, smashing the pillars of corruption and turning the waters of the five rivers red with the blood of accountability. It is acquiring instead all the hallmarks of a classic battle of attrition reminiscent of the trench warfare of 1914-18.

Nothing so strikingly illustrates this as the first batch of names chosen for the National Security Council (NSC) and the cabinet. After 15 days of frenzied consultations, is this what the army has to show for its pains? It does not say much for the skill employed in the search or indeed for the abundance of talent available in the Islamic Republic.

Sharifuddin Pirzada as the principal adviser to the Chief Executive? The mind boggles. Pirzada has been adviser, legal counsel, eminence grise to every tinpot dictator since Field Marshal Ayub Khan. What are the generals hoping to get from him? If they want the status quo defended, he is their man. But if this takeover is about changing the nation`s destiny, as the Chief Executive insists it is, what will be Pirzada`s role who is already saying that his inclusion in the new set-up is not a full-time job? Interestingly, as in the deal he swung with General Zia whose legal adviser he also was, membership in the highest councils of government will not debar Pirzada from his private practice.

The finance commissar of the revolution unfolding before our eyes is Dr Yaqub who in his extended term as State Bank Governor may not have done much to turn the economy around but who has definitely set a record of survival which most politicians would envy. Although a clutch of scandals and scams have hit the banking sector during his stewardship of the State Bank - the Mehran Bank scandal, the travails of Bankers Equity Ltd, Nawaz Sharif`s various yellow schemes, the Mera Ghar programme - the reputation for probity and financial brilliance of Pakistan`s very own Alan Greenspan remains intact.

At Attiya Enayatullah`s inclusion in the NSC the mind does not only boggle, it goes into a bewildered sleep. She is a charming lady and a great lobbyist of the causes she espouses (population control, her own career, and not necessarily in that order), but as far as having a measure of Pakistan`s problems is concerned, she is simply out of her depth.

The fourth person to have been inducted into the NSC is Imtiaz Sahibzada. He is a nice person (every one seems to be a nice person around here) and a Gallian (alumnus of Lawrence College) to boot. But, pray, what in heaven`s name is he expected to achieve?

Foreign minister is Abdus Sattar. As foreign secretary he was taken seriously. Ever since he takes himself seriously, a sense of humour seemingly alien to the man. To plumb his depths further read the longish dissertation on nuclear matters which he recently co-authored with Mr Agha Shahi and Air Chief Marshal Zulfiqar Ali Khan although I suspect most of it was written by him. That a single document should bristle with so many contradictions and half-baked generalizations is quite amazing.

Finance minister is a New York import (Citibank), Shaukat Aziz. Why this country must remain dependent upon such fly-by-night reformers will remain a mystery till the cows finally come home.

Fifteen days if not more of anguished cogitation, and 140 million people to choose from, and this is what we get. Obviously, there is no escaping the glitter of mediocrity in this country.

General Jahangir Karamat has a lot to answer for: for the weakness he showed at several turnings when a bit of firmness was demanded and for this idea of a national security council (the reason for his quarrel with Nawaz Sharif) which his successors have picked up from him. What good will it do? Apart from the other service chiefs who are in it as of right, its other members are creatures of the Chief Executive. Will they be able to advise him in the real sense of the word and check him should the need so arise? If not, and they simply sing to his tune, or pander to the shibboleths which become the received wisdom of the moment, what useful purpose will they serve?

As a check on a democratically-elected government, an NSC can make sense from the military`s point of view (I repeat from the military`s point of view). But in a military set-up it is not only a contradiction in terms but also an exercise in redundancy. There will be the corps commanders calling the shots from the wings. There will be the cabinet advising the Chief Executive and helping him implement policy (or whatever passes for policy in Pakistan). How many more layers of advice does the country need?

All this amounts to running on the same spot. What does it betoken? To most people it would look like confusion. If something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, in all probability it is a duck. In the same way, something smelling so strongly of confusion is probably confusion.Most of this confusion stems from a lack of clarity about aim and objectives, a serious failing in any endeavour but absolutely fatal in a military undertaking where decisiveness of action is lost if the mission is not defined with clarity and precision.

Reviving the economy, carrying out accountability, strengthening national cohesion are objectives which have tested the collective wisdom of the Pakistani nation for the last 52 years. How much time does the Chief Executive want for fulfilling this agenda? In Saudi Arabia he said it could take anything from six months to three years or even longer.

A six months` limit we can safely discard for if it took 15 days to pick Sharifuddin Pirzada and his team, it gives us an idea of the speed at which this dispensation is likely to work. As it is, the economy is being revived since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s time. Accountability became a catchword under Zia, a good 22 years ago. Strengthening national cohesion is an open-ended exercise. Free elections will follow not precede the fulfilment of these aims. We are talking therefore of a flexible time-frame made finite or infinite depending upon the convenience of the time-keepers.

The trouble is that whenever the army has ridden into the political arena it has done so on the back of iron certainties, convinced that to every problem there is a black and white solution. It has usually not tended to understand (1) that life is a complex affair, often a messy one, with little of the beguiling simplicity of the parade ground; (2) that politics is not a search for perfection, because perfection we will find only in heaven, but an undertaking in which a choice all the time has to be made between lesser and greater evils; and (3) that given its make-up and ethos, its conservative background and the intellectual limitations of its higher echelons, the Pakistan army can never be a wholly satisfactory or ideal instrument of lasting reform.

It is not a question of individuals being good or bad. General Musharraf may be a very nice person but that is not the issue. The issue is that power, especially untrammelled power, encourages arbitrary and whimsical behaviour. This has been the sub-continental norm throughout history. This has been the Pakistani norm since 1947. Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza, Ayub Khan, Yahya, Bhutto, Zia, Benazir, Nawaz Sharif: all of them, regardless of whether they were elected or not, have exercised power in the manner of mediaeval despots, treating the state as their personal estate, the state`s servants as their personal retainers. This is the Pakistani problem and from it flow the other symptoms which so agitate us and form part of our national discourse: corruption, misuse of authority, the looting of banks, the squandering of national resources, etc.

How can the army solve this problem when its first and last resource in the political arena is the untrammelled exercise of authority?

Wherein lies the answer then? At the risk of sounding anti-climactic, it lies in creating an ethos in which institutions are developed and laws respected. If this task requires time and hard work it begins with a crucial step: ensuring that in all seasons the state`s functionaries are chosen for their merit and talent and not their political usefulness. If the army can provide just this, if it can leave in place constitutionally-protected checks which ensure, firstly, that in the judiciary and bureaucracy the best available people are appointed and, secondly, that the administration of justice and the maintenance of law and order are insulated from the influence of politics, sifarish and money, it will have done its job and earned the nation`s gratitude. Addressing the other problems facing the country can then proceed in an institutional rather than an ad-hoc manner.

The army`s own self-interest is tied to this approach. More than most countries in the same league, Pakistan needs a professionally competent and politically neutral military, qualities put at risk when generals, admirals and air marshals acquire a taste for power. The choice, accordingly, is simple: to be distracted by an open-ended agenda and sink, inevitably, deeper into the mire or concentrate on essentials and get out while the sun still shines?

Un-quote:

The author of above article is Mr. Ayaz Mir a very learned and well known journalist of Pakistan, who writes for the daily Dawn. I strongly share his views and fears. When will we learn our lessons from the history.

Rahat

In response to jay (Reply # 93):

I regret to say that you have once again missed the point and moved away from the main focus of our discussion.

Any how, thank you for your input.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re jay #90 and bahmad #91:

If only the history Hindu-Muslim relations in Kerala were so amitable! History records otherwise.

``In August 1921, the cracks widened into a breach on the Malabar coast in the deep south, where a fanatical Muslim group known as the Moplahs rose in a jihad against their Hindu landlords and the British, killing both indiscriminately. When a British regiment was sent in to restore order, some 3,000 Moplahs arrived by train for a pitched battle. Others declared their own Khilafat kingdom, and at Tirur, a mob of 10,000 set fire to the police station and the courts and seized all the arms and ammunition. They sacked Hindu homes, destroyed their temples, and raped the Hindu women. By the time the rising was put down, an estimated 4,000 Moplahs and almost 100 British troops had been killed. Since the deaths and thousands of injuries were the result of an open rebellion, there was no outcry, even though the toll was more than ten times that of the Jallianwala Bagh....

During the rising, the Moplahs forcibly converted thousands of Hindus to Islam - Hindus on the Congress subjects committee were shocked when a maulana who was a member of the committee refused to condemn this, arguing that it was a voluntary change of faith, not a forcible conversion, if the Hindus had become Muslims to save themselves from death.`` (`The Proudest Day`, p. 192, Anthony Read and David Fisher).

``The Moplah outbreak - mainly directed at Hindus - broke out in August 1921, at a time when it was important to make the reforms a success; the Government of India tried to conciliate the rebels and were gradually forced into measures more and more rigorous and finally far harsher than anything in the Punjab. In the end, `more than two thousand Mohammedans were killed by troops and thousands more in other ways... while the number of Hindus butchered... skinned alive and made to dig their own graves before slaughter, ran into thousands...` with other horrors not to be told.`` (`The Men Who Ruled India`, p.288, Philip Mason).

This probably gave rise to the idea of Moplahstan in Malabar as a constituent of Pakistan in Chaudhri Rehmat Ali`s original concept. Of course, since Rehmat Ali died in exile in England (AFTER the founding of Pakistan!) and his map of the conceptual Pakistan cannot be seen anywhere in Pakistan (or India, for that matter), this is not common knowledge. If it were, it is likely to increase the sense of loss Pakistanis feel, as they would add Moplahstan to Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir.

However, the Moplah uprising has left a legacy: the Malabar Special Police, a paramilitary force headquartered in Malappuram, Kerala, probably the first police to use radio communications (`the wireless`, in British parlance) between police headquarters and mobile forces on jeeps and police vans for quick exchange of information. The old timers in Malabar (does anybody still use that term to describe the Muslim majority Northern Kerala?) still talk about the Moplah Rebellion.

Dear Bilal Ahmed,

``Why in Pakistan two whole generations were socialized into anti-Hindu and anti-India rhetoric and ideology? These questions are just the tip of the iceberg.``

The need my dear Bilal is to change it, which probably can come from some straight talking. For example, with all your reading and knowledge, you should know that bi-lateral agreements supercede multilateral. For example the UN resolution on plebiscite on kashmir is irrelevant because of Simla accord and Lahore declaration, Pakistan cannot reasonably take kashmir to the UN with out abbrogating Simla accord.

My dear Bilal, you have pushed the UN line on this forum for so long, I am sure simply for polemical reasons. You know pretty well at the pakistan Government level no one is pushing the UN line, even general PM is talking about time bound agenda of bilateral talks. With all your knowledge and internal critique doctrine, you could have told the truth. UN is out, because of SImla and Lahore. You also like polemics.

In response to jay (Reply # 91):

Dear jay:

I do not want to control your life or your opinions. You are definitely entitled to both. Based on your experiences in life, you may be working with a very noble agenda. If so, I must regretfully point out that your focus and your rhetoric is not supporting your agenda and intentions. If you really are desirous of friendly and peaceful relationship between the people of India and Pakistan, you need to focus (I must very humbly suggest) on developing a critical discourse on South Asian history and politics and try to understand: Why Pakistan became a reality? Why a person like Jinnah used the rhetoric and ideology of the two-nation theory? What Jinnah wanted to accomplish with the TNT? Why the nationalist leadership (including Jinnah) failed to reach a compromise for keeping the unity of India? Why in Pakistan two whole generations were socialized into anti-Hindu and anti-India rhetoric and ideology? These questions are just the tip of the iceberg.

I don`t see your strength in your obsession with the TNT. For a lot of Pakistanis, this theory is redundant. This is a theory that I don`t fancy, yet I don`t oppose it they way you want me to oppose (I suppose). There are still a lot of people in Pakistan who do not view the Partition with any joy. I am definitely one of them.

The people of Kerala must be commended for maintaining harmony between the people of several religious orientations. I, however, do not think that the situation in several other parts of India is not the same (as you have also identified). So, we need to create an environment such that the people of India and Pakistan slowly and gradually realize the need to learn lessons about religious harmony from the people of Kerala.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I still view Dr. Khan`s piece as a very progressive effort. Please read this article from the Pakistani perspective (a very difficult task) and realize that it is addressed to the Pakistani audience. If the ideas of Dr. Khan are more openly and frequently expressed, it may bring some positive change in the psyche of many anti-Pakistan elements too.

My dear Bilal Ahmed,

I do agree, the main focus of what you have posted is a significant improvement over what has been the traditional view, the sacrosanct nature of the military budget.

The reason for cutting the military budget could have been easily arrived at with out including india in the picture, and the necessary corollary that it is a race which pakistan cannot win, so let us cut the military spending.

To me this is TNT thinking, it is in relative terms to india.

An arguement in terms of percapita military spending in pakistan vs on education, health, any thing for that matter could have made a stronger case than comparing with india. The numbers would have been self explanatory.

One could have even gone a step further, talked about the nuclear parity, the remoteness of an indian `occupation` of pakistan, etc , etc.

There are probably a thousand reasons for pakistan to cut military spending, but to cut the spending based on a theory that IT IS A RACE THAT PAKISTAN CANNOT WIN, MY GOOD FRIEND, it is down right TNT at work.

I am in no way argueing that military spending shoul be cut, but the reason is india-centric, and it is a vestige of TNT.

You can accuse me not acknowledging the positive aspects of the post, i accept it, but i am in a TNT scanning mode. May be at some stage you would realise that it is my forte, i can probably look at pakistanis in comparison to hundreds of muslims with whom i grew up with, in a social setting where i have never seen, or had first hand info about hindu muslim riots, where it has always been some where far away, in another country called `north india`.

Dear Chowkwallas:

I wonder if Pakistanis (living in Pakistan) are participating actively on this forum. We need their input. We really do not know what the NSC is doing?

General Musharraf`s speech was a good starting point, but to make all key elements of his speech a reality he needs to form several high powered, independent Commissions to prepare independent reports (which must be made public).

We have a lot of intelligent people in Pakistan who for the first time in the history of Pakistan should/could be consulted thoroughly though open discussions that are encouraged by each of these Commissions. The people must also be promised that their views will not be used against them (in any form) by the Pakistani coercive state apparatus.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

If Pervez Musharraf was so concerned about the Pakistani economy why did he wait until he was sacked by Nawaz Shariff, to take over Pakistan. Pakistani economy was in dire straits much before he was sacked. Many Pakistani Intitutions were already in ruins. The fact that the coup took place only when he was sacked makes me believe that his main concern was his power and not Pakistan. The speech is just a fig leaf to cover his own ambitions.

While I am not questioning support that he has recieved from people of PAkistan, I do question the timing of the Coup and the intentions behind the coup.

In response to Replies # 86 and 87:

In response to a visionary article by Dr. Shahrukh Rafi Khan, which I endorsed, jay (an active Chowkwalla) has shown some problem with the article and my comments on it. I fail to understand his concerns. However, after reading the article one more time I concluded the aptness of my endorsement and comments. Jay seems to be critical of this article because (I guess) it talks about India, Kashmir, and according to jay about the two-nation theory (TNT). This encouraged (forced) me to do a word search. Here are the results (word; how many times used in the main text):

Two-nation theory = 0

Ideology = 0

Love = 0

Hate = 0

War = 0

Peace = 0

Injustice = 1

Fairness = 1

Plebiscite = 3

Right of self-determination = 6

India = 14

Pakistan = 15

Kashmir + Kashmiris = 17

Now, a question directly to jay: Can you yourself make any sense out of your critique? If yes, please develop a critique of the specific parts of Dr. Khan`s paper (and kindly do not make it personal).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

What a great article to reproduce on chowk, india, india, TNT, TNT.

What a reason to reduce military spending by pakistan, it is race that cannot be won?. Think of an ideology vision for pakistan, should that not be the reason?

What a ringing endorsement for a TNT inspired article? kashmir, indian muslims, TNT, the eternal preoccupation.

Dear Chowkwallas:

Although I endorse Dr. Khan`s views, a lot of Pakistani will not be appreciative of some of his arguments/positions. This opinion piece deserves your serious attention.

The News International Pakistan; Wednesday, October 27, 1999; Opinion

High road on Kashmir

Dr Shahrukh Rafi Khan

Without peace, there will be no progress in Pakistan. Some very basic statistics demonstrate this. The 1999 Human Development Report shows that Pakistan`s military expenditure in 1996 was 5.6 per cent of GDP, which is much higher than the average growth for this decade. It is also much higher than the 2.5 per cent India spent as a much larger economy or the average of 1.8 per cent spent by all developing economies.

The 1999 World Development Report indicates that Pakistan`s GNP in 1998 was $63.2 billion while India`s was $421.3 billion. Taking these statistics at face value, this means that in absolute terms Pakistan spends about $3.5 billion on the military while India spends about $10.5. By spending less than half of Pakistan in relative or percentage terms, India spends about three times as much in absolute terms because they have a larger economy. As of this decade, India has also started clocking a considerably higher GDP growth rate than Pakistan.

Thus this is not a race we can win. The fate of the Soviet Union locked in an unsustainable arms race with the USA has been mentioned before by others and should be taken very seriously. Military expenditure does not have the social rate of returns from resources well spent on productive social and physical infrastructure, which is crumbling in Pakistan.

As a percentage of GDP, Pakistan spent 3.0 per cent on education in 1996 (now down to 2.2 per cent) compared to 3.4 per cent for India and 3.9 per cent for all developing countries. Thus Pakistan has been and, if there is no change in course, will continue to pay a very high price due to hostilities with India. Some of my young Pakistani students, who do not carry the same emotional baggage as first generation Pakistanis like me, consider Kashmir the most expensive real estate in the world.

It is also quite clear that the fundamental reason for this hostility is our perception of the injustice of the Indian position on Jammu and Kashmir and their illegal occupation of this disputed territory. If this problem were resolved, resources could be released for human development. Of course more resources, in and of itself, does not mean more human development. However, at least there is a possibility of getting out of the internal and external dept traps and attaining sustainable human development by using the resources well.

For the past fifty-two years we have been locked in dead-end negotiation positions, talks about talks, exchange of non-papers and breakdown of talks. Meanwhile, the Kashmiris have moved from being passive to resentful to active in fighting for their right of self-determination.

What does the right of self-determination mean for the Kashmiris and is that identical to what Pakistan has in mind when it champions the right of self-determination for Kashmiris? In 1947, these two perspectives might have been the same, but after the sustained struggle that the Kashmiris have engaged in against Indian occupation, these two perspectives may now be far apart. Judging from responses to journalist questions during the attempted Indian elections, for the Kashmiri people the right of self-determination may now mean freedom and independence. For Pakistan, it means a UN organised plebiscite in which the Kashmiris are given a choice to join either Pakistan or India.

If the Kashmiri peoples` perception differs from ours and if we are not prepared to accept that reality, we risk alienating the majority of Kashmiris and losing whatever goodwill they have for us.

One reality we may have accepted is that it is not possible for Pakistan to wrest Kashmir away from Indian occupation militarily. Thus, most now pin their hopes on assistance from the international community. However, the international power structure was quick to dismiss any resemblance of the Timor plebiscite with the situation in Kashmir and all, including China, pointed in the direction of more meaningless bilateral talks with India.

There is a real need to break the logjam and there may be a way out. First, Pakistan needs to engage in talks with the Kashmiri leadership and see eye to eye with the Kashmiri people on what the right to self-determination means. Second, it must engage in talks with India, but insist that the Kashmiri leadership should attend these talks as legitimate stakeholders.

Third, having thus taken the high road, which admittedly is not without perceived costs for Pakistan, it can legitimately push for a plebiscite in which the Kashmiris have the option to choose what they view as their right of self-determination. There will be much more reason for the international community to champion a just stand endorsed by the Kashmiri people.

-- The News International, Pakistan

In response to Pu Li (Response # 84):

Dear Pu Li:

Thank you for another informative post. I wonder if you have seen the following sources: (1) O. H. K. Spate (1947). The Partition of Punjab and Bengal. Geographical Journal pp. 201-222; (2) O. H. K. Spate (1948). The Partition of India and the Prospects for Pakistan. Geographical Review pp. 5-29; (3) Ali Tayyab (1966). Pakistan: A Political Geography. London: Oxford University Press. These sources will hopefully answer some of your more relevant questions.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Although the boundary problem is very important and interesting, I am currently unable to do the needed research on this topic. I hope you won`t mind this brief response. Have you published any article on the issue at hand? If yes, I would like to receive a copy. My e-mail: bahmad@home.com. Thanks.

Re bahmad #80:

[Comment: Could you explain to me how the award of five Muslim majority tehsils to India helped India and why the Pakistanis have made such a big deal of this?]

Would some of these be the tehsils of Ferozepur and Zira? If so, these formed a salient east of the Sutlej river and I believe the intention was to ensure defensible boundaries by eliminating this salient which thrusts like a dagger into East Punjab. The other point is that in some of the places, while the Muslim population was in a majority, they were just the tenant farmers but the land was owned by the Sikhs. It was felt that it was easier to uproot the tenant farmers than try to uproot the landlords and figure out a way to compensate them for lost property.

``Baldev (Singh) complained bitterly of the wrongs done to the Sikhs by having many of their sacred places left in Pakistan, but he was silenced by (Chaudhry) Muhammed Ali, who pointed to the many Muslim-majority areas that had been assigned to India`` (The Proudest Day by Anthony Read and David Fisher, p. 495)

None of the British authors? books I have read or am reading have detailed maps nor do they talk by name about the 5 tehsils you have mentioned. It is interesting that the Montgomery district which is physically located in West Punjab had a population of a million Sikhs but only a quarter million Muslims. Thus, population was NOT the only concern in drawing up the boundary. There were to be no enclaves of one country within another. (I also remember that this was not the case with East Bengal. India had tiny enclaves within East Bengal and Bangladesh within West Bengal and this issue was finally resolved just this year in 1999. I don?t know how or why this happened. These might have been small princely states.)

Also, in an earlier post you had said [However, after several years of the Partition, Radcliffe told a Pakistani diplomat that Pakistan got more than it should have. Then, in 1956, Radcliffe told Feroz Khan Noon in New York that he thought the Ravi River would make a better boundary between India and Pakistan. In fact, Radcliffe has given several different explanations on different occasions.]

The Ravi river does form the boundary for a short segment northeast of Lahore but not further northeast or near Lahore. So, did Radcliffe mean that India should have gotten the lands up to Lahore or did he mean that Pakistan should have gotten more of East Punjab northeast of Lahore? It is difficult to know. How about his statement that Pakistan got more than it should have? Why is it that this statement is never played up to say an injustice was done to India (in reality, to the Sikhs)?

The problem is that Pakistan does not want to accept the partition of Punjab and Bengal even 50 years after the fact. They seem to be under the impression that somehow they were robbed. Jinnah asked the Sikhs to come into Pakistan but they wisely refused. If Jinnah had gotten a united Punjab and Bengal, do you honestly think there would be any minorities left there today? Jinnah had demanded Assam -- even though it was a Hindu majority state and only the Sylhet district with its Muslim majority voted to join Pakistan -- because if he had gotten a united Bengal, Assam would have had no connection to India. He was refused and this probably rankles. How come the vote to join Pakistan was taken in the Legislative Assembly of Sind but by a plebiscite in NWFP? Because the Sind assembly was Muslim League dominated but NWFP had a Congress government under Abdul Gaffar Khan and the NWFP assembly might have voted to stay out of Pakistan? How about Gaffar Khan?s statement to Gandhi that he was being abandoned?

It seems that Jinnah remarked that he was willing for a complete exchange of population if he were given an undivided Punjab and Bengal. But the response to this is that it would be simpler if the provinces were first divided because the numbers involved would be smaller. (The Last Years of British India by Michael Edwards, p.155) If this statement is true, then it is clear that Jinnah was NOT thinking of a Pakistan where minorities could live in safety, no matter what he said in his address to the Pakistan nation on Aug 14, 1947, because he had already thought of the possibility of population exchange but only in Punjab and Bengal. How about the Muslims of United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces, etc.? Were they to be left within India in this scheme or was his idea to have a Hindustan as pure as Pakistan?



[In the last meeting between Jinnah and Mountbatten on 1 November Jinnah accused India of seizing Kashmir by ``fraud and violence`` (Wolpert,

1996: 420). In fact Mountbatten ensured that Indian troops were sent to Kashmir before the state declared its intention to join India or Pakistan, thus technically ordering an invasion of foreign territory (p. 138).`` He goes on.]

Hodson?s account is at variance with this. Hodson refers to Mountbatten?s contemporaneous reports to London as well as meetings of Defence Council of India meeting minutes for the period Oct 21-24 in coming to the conclusion that Mountbatten was scrupulous in ensuring that Hari Singh acceded before sending in Indian troops. Unless you believe that the reports and the meeting minutes were being faked by Mountbatten to cover up his involvement, one might say that this was indeed the sequence of events; but I realize that in Pakistan, the conspiracy theory has a lot of currency. Anthony Read and David Fisher also say that no Indian troops were sent to Kashmir before accession even though they repeat the claim made by Lamb, Wolpert, et al, that Gurdaspur provided the only road link to Kashmir from India and that Radcliffe was influenced by Mountbatten, VP Menon, and others in this regard.

``Mountbatten, however, decided he must go himself ( before Aug 15 to Kashmir). He did not succeed in persuading the Maharaja to accede to India - or Pakistan. Mountbatten / *could/ * probably have forced him to make a decision, but that decision would in the circumstances almost inevitably have been in favour of India. Mountbatten felt that he could not run the risk of the British government being accused, through his actions, of such obvious partiality.`` (The Last Years of British India by Michael Edwards, p.200)

One thing that everybody seems to miss: a lot of people, including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, have hinted that Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru had a romantic interlude at this time. Would Mountbatten allow himself to be cuckolded by Nehru and still treat him better than Jinnah?

bahmad #81: I found