Again, Desperate Times

UR #119

I think you`d do well to remember the sordid acts by the Pakistani army in E.Pakistan where tortures were commonplace.

nashat #123

Not only the indian army, but also the pak govt appears to have underestimated the extent of intrusion. Your own minister of information mocked the indian army on firing on empty mountainside, since he didn`t believe there was any intrusion. Either he was totally in the dark or was playing along with the pak. army.

ARTICLE ON FINANCIAL WARFARE RELEVENT TO PAKISTAN.

Suggest everbody read the following article that will frighten the wits out of you:

http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/globalization/financial/warfare.html

Briefly, the writer explains the mechanics of takeover and consequences of takeover. We are seeing some very dangerous signs in Pakistan that parallel what this person has written. Incidently he is University professor in Canada. The indicators are:

- Forced bankruptcies of Pakistani companies.

- Creeping takeover of Pakistani banks.

- Substantive changes in Pakistani laws..

- All the above are not ``germane`` to the economic crisis by any stretch of imagination

Dear Chowkwallahs,

I donot aim to vitiate the cordial tone of the discussion currently on, I have full respect for

the objectivity of those discussing weighty and complicated issues. However, I think that

very revealing that an important discussion of Pakistan`s internal situation is sidetracked by Kashmir and Indo-Pak military strategy. Let us not slide into that old and familiar form of escapism, so soothing to the egos, but ultimately futile.

Also, with respect to the lack of Pakistani mass support for fundamentalism versus Indian public`s

voting into power a party like BJP. I think Pakistani posters are trying to have it both ways. One post said I believe, that Nawaz Sharif claimed 2/3 majority after only 1/3 of the electorate voted and the results were largely rigged. Another figure I heard (not on chowk.com) about the percentage of voting was 17%. Now what can anyone infer from these figures about `lack` or otherwise of support for fundamentalists. Rather, I see in these figures a reason for fundamentalism. It seems that fundamentalism could well be considered by many in Pakistan to be the only way to operate within or defeat a corrupt electoral and political system (some others prefer army rule).

In contrast to `Hindu fundamentalists` who restrict themselves to activities within India and are generally made to pay for breaking the law of the land,(Thackeray lost his right to vote), news reports show Pakistani civilians being killed in missile attacks on Afghan training camps, captured and imprisoned in Afghanistan by Taliban`s opponents, killed in Kashmir, blamed by Russia for trouble in Chechnya, openly holding rallies and collecting funds in Pakistan for armed battles outside Pakistan.

I think Pakistanis ought stop being ambiguous about these `ambassadors-at-large` who are jeopardizing the future of their own countrymen. I think the fate of the mothers of future Pakistanis demands it, at the very least.

It will also be beneficial for Pakistan to learn to distinguish between those who derive their

power largely from narcotics and arms(and pass it off as Islam)with no constitutional restraints and those who are fairly elected under the scrutiny

of the rule of law and democratic checks and balances and who have never been allowed to assume the role of authority on religious matters.

Sadhana

In response to tvarad (Reply #: 125)

Dear tvarad:

Your statement: ``Even in the height of the Cold War in 1971, all that the United States and China, Pakistan`s staunchest allies, did was to mouth a few sympathetic words. In this day and age when the whole civilized world is war-weary what with Iraq, Yugoslavia, Russian Repulics et. al, for the Pakistani defence planners to think that anyone would stick up for blatant aggression, they must have been smoking something really strong, far beyond the usual strength which instigated the misadventures in 1965 and 1971.``

Comment: I know almost nothing about the operations of army (and I am not interested in such details). I may also be a very naive and idealistic kind of individual. I, however, have my life-time experience and a common sense to see the bigger picture and to decide what is good for Pakistan (and the humanity at-large). I think, most Pakistanis live in a world of self-deception (or perhaps that is the reality that I don`t want to understand). Nonetheless, no foreign nation would ever support Pakistan the way Pakistanis expect them to be. Foreign nations will support as long as their own interests are not sacrificed (even if we believe erroneously that they are our most trusted and sincere friends).

For a good historical overview of the US-Pakistan (military) relations, I suggest the Chowkwalla`s to read: Hasan N. Gardezi (1998). The Failure of Capitalism in Pakistan. Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 310-326. Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

UR#121

Your statement {These parties do not constitute the, ``masses.`` It is a question of controlling people who are willing to die for their cause. I do not know of any govt. in the world that can control people/groups who are willing to die for their cause. This is something that has to be taken into account in the Kashmir scenario. It should not be used to justify a solution. However, it is a potential problem. If you have a way of controlling people who are willing to die for their cause, please let me know.}

Comment: All sovereign nations desiring peaceful relationships with neighbors control their borders. ``People willing to die for their cause`` should never be allowed to cross over and create bigger conflicts that can result in much bigger losses in terms of life and resources. For example, Pakistani authorities did stop their civilians when an attempt was made to cross over from POK. Pakistan does not care about this issue (armed infiltration) at this time, since it won’t mind seeing India bleed to death in Kashmir and frankly it thinks that India does not have enough guts and muscle to cross over across IB. Is it a good gamble? Time will tell.

My issue was more with your statement that Pakistan government would not be able to control the fanatics even after the peace agreement. You asked for my help in this. I would give you some short term and long term ideas.

Short term: I would have Pak ISI infiltrate these groups, lock them up or arrest them at the border. Major assumptions -

a) Pakistan does not want to have wars and its focus is on diverting funds towards education and economic development

b) Per your statement, the fundamentalists do not constitute masses and their political support is almost nil.

Long term: I would go for secular education that emphasizes our common heritage (per Amir sahib’s suggestions) rather than Jihadi education (as Mohajir had reported and if it’s true). I would open the borders gradually for commerce, as trust builds, like US Canadian border. Anyway, we can talk more about our common dreams some other time.

Your statement: {The masses of Pakistan, have never supported fundamentalists. Please take a look at all the results of the elections of Pakistan assmeblies. The no. of members elected from the religious parties have been has always been extremely small. Some of our Indian friends refuse to believe this. I am trying to get a list of all the representatives of religious parties in Pakistan that have made it to the National Assembly, to prove it to them. It is less than 5% of the total members of the National Assembly. These kinds of criticisms are a bit odd coming from the Indian critics, since India has repeatedly elected BJP, which is widly recognized as a Hindu nationalist party. Their manifesto and philosophy at www.bjp.org clearly indicates it (I personally believe that as long as a party recognizes the rights of the minorities, it is fine, regardless of whether it is religious or non-religious). But these comments about Pakistanis always voting and supporting fundamentalists are getting a bit old. Kindly indicate the results of any recent elections in Pakistan, in which a religous party has won a majority, or even any significant no. of seats. If you cannot, then please do not portray the Pakistanis masses as being fundamentalists.}

Comment: You are perhaps right on this one, but please allow me to explain my rationale. If I am still wrong on this one then I do apologize for it. My basis was Mohajir’s post which indicated to me that wide majority of schools (except the elite ones which produce the best and brightest of Pakistan by providing them broad exposure of the world) do indeed ``hard code`` anti-Indian and anti-Hindu views in children at an early age. Later on, even if these kids vote for different parties, based upon bread and butter issues (like every where else in the world), one common denominator view (Hindus/India is the enemy and must be destroyed) does stay with them. This explained to me why no government (civilian or military) will dare to control ``people willing to die`` while trying to liberate people from Indian yoke. In fact the masses, if indeed they were all programmed earlier with hard religion, will consider the fundamentalists as heroes who are willing to lay down their lives for their beliefs rather than living ordinary lives worrying about material possessions.



Your statement {I think the infiltrators will only enter into Kashmir, if they feel India is interfering in Kashmir, and that Kashmir is not completely independent}

Comment: Who would judge as to whether their fatwas are right or wrong? Which lashkar would India try to plead with for their case? Would India negotiate with Pakistan government or some representatives of infiltrators? How many Lashkars Indians will negotiate with? What do we do if new ones pop up after we complete negotiations with the existing ones? You see UR, we are back to square one.

Your statement: {Some of the extremist Hindu parties in India probably would not be too happy with an independent Kashmir either. Perhaps you could mention some of their names}

Comment: This is slam-dunk. RSS, Shiv Sena will oppose anything to do with Pakistan. BJP will advocate peace if it’s good for business class. Congress will oppose or support based upon what helps it to regain power. However, thank god none of these parties has their private Lashkars that would dare to cross over the border on their own. Some times timidity becomes a virtue. Indian government got lucky on this one. The RSS and Shiv Sena add their ``hot religious fundamentalism`` flavor to the educational curry through their own newspapers etc. School education however, at all levels, is secular with critical review of all historical Indian failures against British and Muslim invaders. Since there are a number of Muslim students along with other minorities, you really start making your own impressions about people irrespective of what some nut might tell you. This however does not mean that people will act rationally when riots break out and politicians act out of self-interest. Absence of accountability from police and politicians leaves much to be desired, as I guess is true in all countries of that part of the world.

Re: ZEEMAX # 116

It is interesting to hear that you and Ras Siddiqui were Bhutto supporters in the past. Well, I was jamatia belonging to islami jamiaat-e-tuliba during that period. It is sad to see the continuation of such fradulent traditions where students and other educated people are duped into believing that Islam in not just a religion but offers solutions from simple headache to complex socio-economic problems.

You are absolutely right about Saigols and others. The accountability seems to be for those who are not liked by the ruling mafia rather than defaulters only. Such actions do not help revivial of sagging economy.

On another topic, knowing your interest in Law, I have copied the following news item from soc.cul.pakistan. What do you think about it.

Tarar will dismiss military govt: Kakakhel

PESHAWAR, Nov 18: The president of the Pakistan Jurists Association,

Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel, has criticized the promulgation of the

ordinance by President Rafiq Tarar for the recovery of loans from

defaulters.

In a statement on Wednesday, he claimed that after being allowed to

promulgate the said ordinance under Article 89 of the Constitution,

the President could issue another ordinance dismissing the present

government and restoring the one headed by Nawaz Sharif.

A prominent lawyer, Kakakhel said ``(the) President of Pakistan has no

legal authority to issue an ordinance after the enforcement of PCO

No.1 of 1999 and proclamation of emergency on Oct 14 last``.

His theory of opposition to the presidential ordinance is based on the

fact that the Constitution had been held in abeyance with Article 89

(which empowers the president to issue such an ordinance) being part

of it. Hence, he said, the President under the present dispensation

was legally not an authority to promulgate an ordinance, and thus the

present ordinance was without jurisdiction and without lawful

authority besides being beyond his (president`s) competence.

The PJA chief noted that the ordinance appeared to be mechanical,

without adherence to the procedure prescribed and the law laid down

for the issuance of ordinances.

He observed that the President`s powers to promulgate an ordinance

could only be exercised during the period when the parliament was not

in session in a democratic set-up, while in the present situation

neither the democracy exists nor is parliament functioning.

Kakakhel was of the opinion that by allowing the president to

promulgate an ordinance the sanctity of law attached to the PCO 1 of

1999 and proclamation of emergency had been ``seriously hampered``

thereby creating doubt as to who was heading the government - the

president or the chief executive, Gen Pervez Musharraf.

If the president can issue an ordinance then he is the president

having the powers of the chief executive, Kakakhel remarked. In his

view, since the president has started exercising his powers under

Article 89 despite the existence of the PCO No 1 of 1999, the very

existence of the PCO and the proclamation of emergency have become

redundant and challengeable in the court of law.

He continues: Once the president has been allowed to exercise his

powers of promulgation of ordinances under the Constitution, he then

can claim the power to issue other ordinances whereby he can dismiss

the present government as well.

Kakakhel, who is the author of the commentary on the Constitution,

apprehends that being a friend and an old associate of the deposed

prime minister`s family the President of Pakistan, Mohammad Rafiq

Tarar, would definitely exercise his powers to dismiss the military

government by issuing the next ordinance.

KASHMIR- THE THIRD FORCE.

After the simla agreement it took more than a quarter century of peace to catch a bus to Lahore. This period also set the stage when the two adversaries took decisive cross roads in their tangled destinies.

As it has become apparent in Pakistan, there is the civilian/democratic forces, there is the military and the third is the militia, the ‘army of god’. Kargill was the coming of age for this army, first decisive win for jihad, turned into a loss by the political inaptitude of NS, for which he is on trial. Enshrined in Islam is the sanctity of jihad, and no Muslim country can deny the legitimacy of the jihadic activities evidenced by the universal support for bin-laden in the islamic world, a conclusive proof of operational jihad in Islam.

The jihadic forces in [Pakistan led by Lashkar e-Toiba is real, the tremendous energies and the assasinic determination of these forces will have to be canalised, it could be against Kashmir, it could be against other Muslim sects, it could be against the army or the democratic forces. Every ruling elite of Pakistan here after will be faced with this issue of Lashkar and for them the choice is clear.

At present, following Kargill, the jihadic forces are with the military. The last act of NS was TO CRITICISE TALIBAN AND ASK THE ARMY TO CLOSE DOWN the Taliban training camps in Pakistan. The man has paid the price, may be weeks away from paying the …….

There was only one bus from Lahore to the peace shan-gri-la, the bus plunged to the ravines of Kargill, having hit the land mine of the Third force.

Predicting future is a simple trivial exercise, what is important is to avoid certain ones. Since its creation more than 50 years ago, Pakistan has been evolving along a fairly steady path towards an islamic country with saudi arabia as its model. In the distant echoes of Jinnah’s speech, supremacy of sheria has been progressively recognised, minorities have been de-franchised by separate electoral roles. Except in the very elite ‘English medium schools’, teaching is in Urdu, masters degree in science can be obtained in Urdu, universities are the fertile grounds for religious extremism, new ideas and inputs will have to rely on English-Urdu translators, in the Internet age madrassas have flourished, the wall around the Pakistani mind is being built, BOOK BY BOOK, by the same book.

Peace with Pakistan is more remote than ever before, the challenge is to avoid it. The proliferation and eventual take over of Pakistan by jihadic forces is independent of Kashmir out come, it is independent of those with head in the sand who keep telling that only 2% vote for jamaat-I-islami, it is independent of those debating about one Cowasjee, whether it is contempt of court or whether it is contempt for court and sending letters to the chief justice, while the entire legal basis of the court system has been trashed. It is driven by the primordial forces of attraction, the exigencies of UN sanctions, the uniting ideologies of the same book, the eternal embrace of two neighbours that launched a thousand invasions of neighbouring countries. What is important is to avoid certain futures.

Re: TAhmed321

You are absolutely correct when you refer to the excessive timidity of GHQ. Again, I don`t know if the story is true or not, but I`ve heard that Ayub and Musa were so paralyzed upon hearing of the news of the Indian attack across the international border that they were incapable of issuing coherent orders to the Pakistani formations. It fell upon Brig. Gul Hasan (then DMO) to do so.

It was a ridiculous strategic miscalculation on the Pakistani part that India would not attack across the international border and that the fighting would be kept localized in Kashmir. I believe Bhutto, as For. Min., had assured Ayub of this. Indian planning had always planned to counter any Pakistani attack with a counterattack on Lahore, and they had said so--repeatedly. We chose to believe that they would not escalate the war. Wishful thinking in the extreme.

Patton and Rommel (and other WWII German generals) were all superb tacticians and some of them were even excellent strategists. Patton admitted that his act was just that, an act. If you look at his troop handling, whether in N. Africa, Sicily or France, he was easily the best Allied field commander. Montgomery believed in the carefully planned and orchestrated set-piece battle--requiring massive superiority in infantry, tanks and, above all, artillery. The planning for El Alamein took almost a year I believe.

Patton, on the other hand, showed how good he was when during the Battle of the Bulge he turned his entire Army around and launched a full scale counter-attack in the opposite direction literally overnight. If you have any idea how difficult it is to turn around thousands of men and tanks and reverse-tracks and launch a full-scale counterattack in the middle of a winter-blizzard, you would know why Patton was the only Allied general to be honored by the Germans by having his Army referred to as ArmeeGruppe Patton (instead of just 3rd Army or 4th Army, which is what they did with all the other Allied formations).

Leaving aside the issue of atrocities, etc., the German Army fought magnificiently against over-whelming odds all through 1943, 1944 and 1945. The Wehrmacht fought for every inch of territory on the retreat from Moscow to Berlin and did not collapse, suffer from mass desertions or lose its fighting power until just before the fall of Berlin (i.e., the very end). Rommel had accurately predicted that the Allies would attack at Normandy and begged Hitler to release the Strategic Reserve (two SS Panzer divisions) to his battlefield control. Hitler refused. If the Allies had to face two more SS panzer divisions in Normandy, maybe D-Day would not have succeeded.

In short, German generals were trained to seize the tactical initiative, to lead from the front and to not rely on long lines of command. The training of all Germans (officers and NCOs) was designed so that they were ready to step into the rank above them at a moment`s notice. This is something we (or the Brits or the Americans) have never managed to achieve. It was this extremely aggressive battlefield posture that led to German success on the battlefield. Incidentally, it also led to one in three German generals to be killed or wounded in action in WWII.

Whatever one may think of the Nazi Party or the Wehrmacht or the Waffen SS, they could fight. They may have lost WWII, but it took the whole world to beat them.

Regards.

Re: #128 zabed

``I personally believe Gen. Manstein was the greatest of all german general ..``

That`s also the assesment of all military historians and the German General Staff of WWII.

Based on conversations and correspondence with the German generals held as POWs after 1945, Liddell Hart wrote:

``The ablest of all the German generals was probably Field-Marshal Erich von Manstein. That was the verdict of most of those with whom I discussed the war, from Rundstedt downwards. He had a superb strategic sense, combined with a greater understanding of mechanized weapons that any of the generals who did not belong to the tank school itself.``

A very good source on the German High Command is ``The German Generals Talk`` by Liddell Hart.

Fuzair #132

You write: ``Indian planning had always planned to counter any Pakistani attack with a counterattack on Lahore, and they had said so--repeatedly. We chose to believe that they would not escalate the war. Wishful thinking in the extreme.``

This may well be the most important military lesson of 1965. The fact that we seem to have repeated the same mistake in Kargil 34 years later means that this lesson has gone unlearnt. I think that nuclearization in South Asia makes the situation even more, not less, dangerous for both India and Pakistan. The need for a ``peace strategy`` for both India and Pakistan is increasingly clear.

On the WWII German generals: I accept your premise that they fought well and against overwhelming odds. They did lose though. Granted the ``Field Marshal`` Hitler screwed them up by forcing one stupid military decision after another on the military - from letting the Brits get away at Dunkirk, to taking on the Russians without bothering to provide winter clothing and without realizing what he was getting into, to ensuring the disaster (for Germans) at Stalingrad by refusing a timely retreat, to thinking he could stop the flow of US war material across the Atlantic with a German Navy that was not strong enough to take on the British Navy, let alone the US, and so on. However, it does not speak much for the German generals who did go along for the ride with Der Feurher. Furthermore, I dont think we need their (German WWII generals) kind any more than the Germans (or anyone else) needed them. And we certainly dont need any Pattons running around in Pakistan. I guess my concern is that in order to succeed in today`s world we need to glorify science and learning and the rule of law, and not militarism. This may be hard, given the traditional glorification of the ``martial races`` in India and Pakistan, but we do not have that option anymore. Not unless we want to see the subcontinent become the rear end of the world. It is close enough already.

Thanks for writing, and best regards.

Zabed: Could you provide the full name of Maj. Gen. Iftikhar, which arm of the military he was in? I am not promising anything, but it would help me ask questions if I run into someone who knows.

In response to SameerJB (#139)

Sameer wrote:

``it is sad to see the continuation of such fradulent traditions where students and other educated people are duped into believing that Islam in not just a religion but offers solutions from simple headache to complex socio-economic problems.``

I too was once swayed by that manipulative polity, so I must agree.



However, equally disconcerting is the multitude of

students and other educated people who are duped into believing that democracy is not just a mechanism to manifest the machinery of a stable government but a religion that will offer solutions to problems varying from simple hedaches to pakistan`s complex socio-economic situation.

The point is, Pakistan needs technocrats (doers and pragmatists) and not dogmatists (sayers and theorists). Irregardless of their place on the political spectrum, pakistani politicians are high on ideals and low on solutions.

What makes matters worse is the poloticians` constant bickering on how each other`s ideals have led to the country`s downfall...

ADMIRAL MANSUR, CNS/PN

His medaled picture was in the paper as one of the corrupt that they are looking for. As a great U-Boat commander he has silently slipped out with the loot.

Probably some of shore installations like his palatial house in Karachi are going to be hit. After all he apparently belonged to the silent service and must have learned how Gunther Prien

of the Kriegsmarine slipped out of Scapa Flow after torpedoing all the British ships in the port.

I ask the Chowk High Command to ratify the immediate promotion of this this shyster to the rank of Gross Admiral.

German Generals - Manstein`s brilliance was universally accepted by the German staff and he proved it time and time again - most successfully in France 1940 and in Russia (Kursk - I believe).

However since he was fighting against the Russians most of the time, he was not glorified while Rommel, who took on the Brits and the American`s, has numerous movies and books about him. This is also probably because he had command over an independent theatre of operations. Another brilliant General - Guderian (father of the Panzers) is not a house hold name outside war buffs.

But these were remarkable soldiers were relatively junior in the Army heirarch and would not have become famous if they hadn`t caught the eyes of Hitler. Manstein was disciplined by his superiors during the invasion of France and Guderian was sidelined on numerous occassions because of his independence of mind.

Interestingly all the military blunders (Dunkirk, Russia, etc. ) are heaped on Hitler while he does not get the credit for being imaginative enough to go for the bold plans advocated by his junior generals.

No doubt Hitler had a huge role in the military defeat, but without his active interventions, the war would have ended in a stalemate in 1940 if a variant of the Schleiffen plan had been followed.

Re:bahmad#101

Bilal,

My observations are based on my perception of the democratic process in USA and South Asia, particularly India. Parliamentary form of government requires a political party to get a majority in the legislature and subsequently the leader of that majority becomes the Prime Minister. There are several issues with this process. In a diverse nation like India, it is becoming very difficult to get a parliamentary majority because of competing interests of different groups of people. Regional parties and caste based parties are becoming prominent as compared to national parties. One option is to create coalitions, but such governments are inherently weak and indecisive. You must be quite familiar with the procession of elections occuring in this decade in India, when coalition governments fell due to the whims of a particular individual.

What is even more bothersome is that in such a confused environment, there is a tendency for parties to pick up polarizing issues that will enable one large chunk of the electorate to consolidate. Typical examples are the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Masjid case, nuclear explosions, Kargil etc. It is easier to whip up emotions and come to power than to come up with a substantial national level agenda. There is also a problem with accountability in such a setup. If the ruling party has a commanding majority, it can very easily become the tyranny of the majority. Nawaz Sharif took this to an extreme as he interpreted his heavy mandate to believe that he could be the king of Pakistan.

The Presidential system in USA offers a better alternative. Firstly the president is directly elected by the people. That prevents underqualified people like Sonia Gandhi to come to power based on backroom maneuvering by party elders. The president has a fixed two term limit which curbs long term ambitions of the president and allows him to focus on the people`s needs. The Congress and Senate is representative of the diverse electorate, but it is only one branch of the government. This separation of legislative and executive branches allows more freedom in making decisions. There are built in mechanisms for check and balance, because neither branch is beholden to the other. The senate`s filibuster power ensures that brute majority cannot always control the agneda. The system guarantees stability as the congress cannot remove the president unless it is an extraordinary situation. Since there is less pressure of brining down the government, there is more focus on getting things done. Wedge issues are not that attractive because you can win without resorting to the lowest common denominator. It does not make sense for us in India and Pakistan to blindly copy something from England and hope it works in our desi environment. We may borrow the US system and fine tune it to our needs.

Amit

One reason that almost everybody seems to parrot

about why Sharif had to go is that he was

``destroying all the institutions of the state``.

Has anybody noticed how the army is doing much

the same thing;

1. Mr Sharif used the Ehtesab bureau to settle

his score with Ms. Bhutto. Gen Musharraf is using

the National Accountability Board and the default

list to destroy his own opponents; the ``corrupt`

politicians. If in the process he also seriously

undermines the entire political structure of

pakistan, well too bad! It was all sham democracy

any ways. One of the Gen`s agenda is to bring in

a ``new and glorious`` democratic structure. What

the basis for this new structure is going to be,

nobody yet knows...a democracy at call?

2. Mr Sharif tried his level best to bring the

judiciary to heel. Well, the Gen didn`t even have

to try. The judiciary came begging to him to

define their role. Even now they exist only at

his command, and have been ``told`` not to

entertain any cases which question the legality

of the present set-up. A less showy, but much

more effective way of control.

3. Mr sharif destroyed the office of the

president by bringing in his own man to the job.

The Gen. has done the same, even worse, by making

the president his personal rubber stamp.

4. Sharif tried to browbeat the journalists to

toe his line (Remember Najam Sethi?). The Gen has

not yet had to show his hand on this front since

the press is still having a honeymoon period with

him. But his true colours showed through somewhat

in the latest edict that while the press would be

``free` to cover sharif`s trial, they would not be

allowed to report the ``political`` statements that

were made. Hmmm.. is political = inconvenient?

Now isn`t it strange that everybody reviles Mr

Sharif for TRYING to do the same thing that they

are so happy in letting the General do? Is it

that so conditioned are they that no one even

even questions the army`s right to have absolute

power?

One can only hope that the army meets their

expectations better than the ``sham`` democrats

did. And yet there must be some truth to the

adage that ``power corrupts, and absolute power

corrupts absolutely``?

-narain

Re : SameerJB # 139

Interesting you were a Jamatia. We used to be real scared of them. One terror was Hafiz Salman Butt in Lahore.

Actually I started out being a staunch communist during University and hung out with the underground movement. Then discovered it was not compatible with basic human nature, besides some people will always be more equal than the rest; so mellowed down to socialism. That changed too and I now believe Scandinavia style Social Democrat welfare states are the best .. but we all live and learn !

Islam is a great motivational system. Though as a system of governance questions arise in history. The dream of Ummah is still exactly that while the members of the supposed Ummah busily butchered each other throughout the 16th and 17th century culminating in Islam`s loss to the Christian crusades heralding the beginning of Renaissance in Europe. Then the Anglo Saxon Christians did in the Church as well and entered the Industrial revolution, while we still live in the Dark Age.

I wish the book by Allama Iqbal named `` Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam`` hadn`t been banned in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; which he wrote after having wept in the Alhambra mosque in Cordobia (Qartaba).

Mr. Kakakhel`s contention is inaccurate. The Presidential role and status is a constitutional one while the constitution itself is in abeyance. As it stands the President has no powers or legal authority at all. The promulgation of the recent presidential order is accordingly illegal. The article 58 2(b) doesn`t exist in any event even if the president was to try to invoke it to dismiss the government taking a cue from the regime`s using him to promulgate an ordinance.

Actually there is no legal authority at all in vogue at the moment. General Musharraf was not the Chief of Staff of the armed forces after 5.00 PM on 12th of October since the constitutional Prime Minister had signed his dismissal papers. Consequently Musharraf could not declare an emergency (or martial law) as he had ceased to be a Government functionary. This question was the main reason the CEO`s speech to the nation had been delayed till the 17th, a full 5 day delay, till Pirzada advised Musharraf that a ``successful revolution carries it`s own legal and moral authority``. So it`s like me or anyone else occupying the State by force; If I`m successful, I`m legal. If I fail, I hang for treason. That`s the logic. There isn`t even the cover of the ``Doctrine of necesity`` of Gen Zia`s so far.

The oath taking by governors was delayed for the same reason. The dilemma was that the judiciary couldn`t administer an oath under the PCO unless thay themselves had taken an oath under the same; where they knew the PCO in itself is clearly illegal. The judiciary is still under the oath of the constitution and perhaps they resisted the pressure to convert to PCO. Nevertheless they consented to administer oaths under the PCO maybe for pragmatic reasons.

President Tarar has been kept on only to present an acceptable face to Might is Right. There`s no law right now. Tarar probably agreed to play the game in order to remain in the picture, and he certainly isn`t rubbing the regime`s back. When time`s right he will unfold his cards.

Ces`t La Vie.