Again, Desperate Times

to chowk staff:

wonder why this article is archived in `university avenue` indicating it is related to science/education, instead of in `civic center drive` indicating politics/economics?

I belong to an airforce family from Pakistan. There is a lot of truth in this article, and it shows that people do know exactly whats going on in Pakistan. It is in good faith that the two professors are passing on their perceptions of the circumstances in Pakistan. One of the professors living in the United Stated cannot really judge the leaders intentions but only make assumptions as to what they may think is their intentions. I for one would like to wait and see wha course is taken to end the corruption in Pakistan. I believe the Principled General Musharraf will not let even the officers relatives get out of corruption. This as we know right now is still being tested. To say that only the few innocent ones will be prosecuted is to just make a mockery of the hard and difficult task that the general has taken upon himself to complete. In conclusion to the brilliant professors article, i would like to say they should put more time and effort into coming up with strategies to help the general or somehow help the country instead of posting aricles that gives the pakistani living abroad hopelessness in the prosperity of a great nation created by a great person. Lets all suppport the General and not pinpoint people who are part of the armed forces. We should support them, afterall they are defending our national interest and putting their lives on the line everyday at the border.

Sincerely

Arshy (M A RASHID)

HOW DID KASHMIR FALL INTO INDIA`S LAP?

By Tauseef Ahmed

It is very difficult indeed to analyze the accession of Kashmir to India. There is

considerable variation in the chronology of events that led to the occupation of

Kashmir by India. Depending on which sidea given author supports, certain

events are highlighted or omitted. The author has decided to rely solely on

non-partisan

authors from the sub-continent, and non-Indian, non-Pakistani authors for

constructing the events leading to accession in the hope that that an unbiased

presentation

of the events would help in a fairer and more accurate interpretation of the

accession of Kashmir to India.

1945- A tumultuous year in world history- Japan and Germany had fallenand had

officially surrendered- the ``Allies`` with the exception of theUnited States of

America had won the war but were themselves in shambles, the victory being but

pyrrhic for them. As they struggled to re-establish themselves, it was evident

that the

requiem for colonialism would soon have to be sung. At this stage in 1947, there

moved into the Indian subcontinental arena Lord Mountbatten- a man whose

blood

was indeed royal but whose reputation was all soiled. He would fit the imaginary

character who was lampooned in ``My Lord Tomnoddy goes to school``, his one

qualification being that he was related to the British royal family. A man endowed

with an elephantine ego and a pea size brain, he was the wrong person to govern

an

island even the size of Tasmania. Yet it was into his hands the destiny of India

was thrust by the then British government.

There is no denying the fact that of the leaders in the subcontinent, the one whom

Mountbatten came to like the most was Nehru and the one whom he detested

most

was Qaid-E-Azam Jinnah. Some authors put down the friendship between Nehru

and Mountbatten to Nehrus affability and ability to get along with Mountbatten

and

co-exist with his vanity, others claim that both were genuinely enchanted and

emotionally attached to each other, but nobody denies the fact that Nehru and

the

Mountbattens got along famously with each other. There are tales told about the

extra-friendly relationship that existed between Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten,

the

less controversial ones talking about the relationship between a bored countess

and an ambitious,charming and power-mongering Indian while the seamier ones

talk

about a relationship that seems to have been a real life version of ``Madame

Bovary`` or``Lady Chatterleys Lover``. Considering the fact that this is an academic

analysis,

the author thinks it unethical to play the proverbial peeping Tom and report on

what went on beneath the bedsheets, but would confine himself to saying that

Lord

Mountbatten himself said that he and his wife had spent most of their nights in

other peoples beds and that Edwina`s thoughts did influence his own thinking very

deeply. It is therefore no surprise that Lady Mountbatten, whose knowledge of

India was confined to garden parties and Shikar came to play a part as great as

any of

the other dramatis personae in the accession of Kashmir to India. She influenced

things in India in the same way in which the numerous lovers of Catherine the

Great

influenced things in Russia. The part played by Lady Mountbatten, according to

the author, has been underestimated by most commentators on the Kashmir

drama.

This interaction must be contrasted with the relationship that the Mountbattens

had with Qaid-E-Azam Jinnah. Inflexible and unwavering with a stiff upper lip,

Qaid-E-Azam Jinnah was more than a match for the imperious and arrogant

Mountbatten. Uneasy with each other from the time they first set eyes on each

other, they

loathed and suspected each others intentions with a religious fervor. As is well

known,Lord Mountbatten threw a tantrum (and a very royal tantrum, it may be

added)

when the Qaid-E-Azam informed him that he could not be the governor-general of

both India and Pakistan and that he (Jinnah) would be the governor-general of

Pakistan. This was obviously the last straw but much had happened earlier to

embitter the relationship between these two gentlemen, all of which led to

Mountbattens

completely identifying with Nehru and his interpretation instead of looking at

events with the dispassionate attitude as one would expect of a neutral observer.

With

Mountbatten and his wife supporting Nehru, Jinnah never even had a chance of

presenting his arguments to the British Government.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was an Indian leader whose sagacity and tenacity stood

out. It was his sagacity which first made him announce his opposition to India

taking

over Kashmir( in the early 40s) and it was his tenacity that helped fructify Nehrus

dream of adding Kashmir toIndia. His assistant was V.P.Menon, the dream

bureaucrat. While this gentleman had ethics or no is debatable, but as far as

efficiency and protection of ones interests were concerned, he was second to

none. It was

his shuttling and running around that finally helped India occupy Kashmir.

Of course, the list of dramatis personae would be incomplete without a mention of

Mehr Chand Mahajan, a known Arya Samaji who was a judge of the Punjab High

Court. A man whose cleverness would put a jackal to shame, he was responsible

for a number of sleights of hand which made India the master of Kashmir. He was

arguably the ``Flying Dutchman of Indian politics``, since like the Flying Dutchman

he could appear and disappear at his will and could also make documents apprear

and dissappear as per his convenience.

Maharajah Hari Singh of Kashmir was a real life Nero who fiddled while his Rome

burned; while Kashmiris were furiously debating the subject of accession to India

or Pakistan, Hari Singh dreamt about an independent state where he could indulge

in his orgies. As was pointed out earlier by the author, the only voice of reason in

Kashmir was that of the Dewan, Ram Chandra Kak, whose voice was drowned by

the din of Nehrus friends in Kashmir and was ultimately eased out because his

views did not agree with Nehrus pre-conceived conclusion of the Kashmir tangle.

Once Kak had been dismissed, the new appointee was a roaring pro-India

chauvinist, Janak Singh who only aided and abetted India. Nehru adopted a

two-pronged

strategy of filling the administration with his nominees and cultivating Sheikh

Abdullah with a lot of fervor. To this end, he visited Kashmir( with a lot of publicity

and

attention) in order to defend Sheikh Abdullah who had been put in prison. He was

arrested at the border after a dramatic confrontation at the border by the

Maharajah,

with the added bonus that the photographic coverage of these five hours made

him look like the sole defender of Kashmir andAbdullah. One really wonders if

Kashmir didn`t have a single competent lawyer to represent Abdullah; was it

necessary to rush to India in order to obtain a lawyer? Morever, if they had to

turn to

India, why did they pick Nehru; surely a leader of his stature had other things to

worry about other than reading legal tomes in order to find a clause getting

Sheikh

Abdullah released.

Nehru and his friends on the Kashmiri side made a farce out of the whole event

which benefitted them and none else, it may be noted that public opinion turned

very

much in the favor of Nehru after this event. It is generally agreed that Nehru

once openly broke down in front of Mountbatten and said that Kashmir mattered

more to

him than anything else. If the Maharajah had moved quickly and announced his

accession to either side, it would have been possible for both sides to make

military

and legal preparations for the inevitable conflict, but the Rajah, the very picture

of indecision preferred to vacillate and postpone his decision. This meant that

while

maneuvers were being carried out behind the screens, the ordinary Kashmiri had

no way of expressing his ideas and opinions on the problem, since as far as the

government was concerned, officially nothing was being done and the matter was

still in abeyance.

All these events led to the great ``Jihad`` of 1947.

THE JIHAD

The Jihad, as it is popularly called is merely a reaction of the Muslims in Poonch

and NWFP towards the suffering of their Muslim brothers in the valley. The

Maharajah alleged that there were raids from the Punjab side into Kashmir by

Pathan tribesmen with the explicit intention of fomenting trouble and chaos. The

Muslim League distanced itself initially by saying that while it sympathized with

the grievances of Muslims in the valley, it had no intention of interfering in the

internal affairs of the Kashmiris. It is believed that the demonstrations in

Peshawar, of the atrocities inflicted upon Pathans in Kashmir, first egged Pathans

to help

their brethren out in Kashmir. It must be remembered that the Pathans

themselves were great believers in the policy of ``siyaasat`` and are renowned

even today in

Pakistan for their family ties and the tenacity with which they avenge murders.

This intention of revenge made them travel to Kashmir to avenge the atrocities

inflicted

upon their brothers. Their trips was encouraged by Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, the

then governor of NWFP. This gentleman was a native of Poonch himself and was

had the unique advantage of understanding the situation on both sides. In

response to a request for ``500 guns to help themselves liberate Kashmir`` Abdul

Qayyum

Khan provided petrol, lorries, guns, ammunition and food rations for the venture.

It must be mentioned that in spite of Indian propaganda, Qaid-E-Azam Jinnah

does

not seem to have been a part of any ``conspiracy`` though it is impossible to

believe that he was completely in the dark. According to Iskander Mirza, he was

once

informed about some tribal plan to invade Kashmir but stopped the informant

with ``Please tell me nothing. My conscience must remainclear.`` This seems to fit

in

with the general picture of Jinnah never aiding or abetting anything unethical; it

also conveys the feeling thathe was willing to sympathize with the Pathan

tribesmen

but would not covertly or overtly help them. The Qaid-E-Azam deserves praise for

the sensitivity with which he walked the thin line between indifference and covert

help.

According to British reports, around 5000 tribals gathered near the Kashmir

border around the 20th of October to start the ``Jihad`` on Kashmir. They ran into

their

first serious resistance near Muzzafarabad around the 23rd but pushed on to win

Domel, Grahi and Chinari over thenext two days. Their quick victories are to be

attributed to the fact hat they were fighting with great zeal , while the Kashmir

troops were in a fairly advanced state of decay;its top brass were better at

enjoying

*Mushairas * and *Shaam-E-Ghazal * than any serious battle manoueveres. It is

rumored that near Uri, they met with resistance with the troops of Patiala. If this

were

true, it would mean that India had its troops in Kashmir by this date since Patiala

had officially acceded to India in August of 1947. Within days,the advancing

tribals

ended up taking Baramullah,from where it was a matter of time before they took

Srinagar. Other than a few skirmishes, their advance had largely been

unchallenged.

Much hasbeen made of their tendency to loot,( which is deplorable and atleast in

the authors opinion, delayed their arrival in Srinagar) but it must be remembered

that

looting is a feature that has been typical of winning armies since times

immemorial.

It was at this stage ( according to this thesis) they made a serious strategic

mistake.

The authors understanding is that Maharajah Hari Singh and his coterie were busy

with their annual Durbar in Srinagar. They had sent a few pleas to India and were

aware of the fact that Nehru was interested in bailing them out. Swollen with

overconfidence, they were making merrywhen the invading troops blew up the

Mahura

power station. With this thewhole valley was plunged into darkness. Instead of

``letting sleeping dogs lie``, the tribals went out of their way to warn the Maharajah

oftheir arrival in Kashmir. This single incident paralysed everything in the palace

and the Maharajah was left with no illusions as to what would be his fate if the

tribals

really reached Srinagar.

The complacent Maharajah was suddenly vitalized into action and made plans for

escaping to Jammu. Somebody had tipped off Delhi about the invasion of

Kashmir.

Mountbatten in one his more inspired performances insisted that troops could be

sent if and only if the Maharajah acceded formally to India.

From this stage onwards, the ensuing action outstrips that in any modern day

thriller- the Indian side tried every possible ruse to get Kashmir onto their side.

The

incidents of 24th October to 27th October are very controversial and confusing.

The author has therefore decided to rely on non-continental sources since they

would

be more balanced and impartial than continental sources which indulge in

unwanted jingoism. It is generally agreed that the first thing that V.P.Menon did

was to air

dash to Srinagar. He encouraged the Maharajah to continue with his plans of

fleeing to Jammu while asking the pro-IndiaDewan to stay on in Srinagar. This

apparently was to prevent a last minute volte face by the Maharajah. With the

Maharajah out of the way, Menon decided to go to the guest house and ``take

some rest``.

Upon reaching the guest house, he was contacted by the Dewan who advised him

that it was not advisable for * * *them * * * to stay in the city.

They then airdashed back to Delhi in Menons plane and remained closeted with the

cabinet/army chiefs meeting for the next two hours. After that they went

straight to

the house of Sardar Baldev Singh, the Indian defence minister. It is not known as

to what transpired at the meeting, but at 12:45 A.M. Sardar Baldev Singh

announced

that the decision to send two companies of Indian troops to Kashmir. Menon who

was feigning tiredness in Srinagar seemed to recover very quickly! After this

announcement he redashed to Jammu( on the 26th October) to obtain the

signature of the Maharajah on the ``instrument of accession`` after which he

airdashed back

to Delhi.

The ``obtaining the Maharajahs signature on the instrument of accession`` has the

air of an Agatha Christie mystery about it. The paththrough which it was obtained

seems to have been more devious than theway in which Caliph Yazd had Imam

Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) murdered. The most

important thing to remember is that three versions of these events exist-

Menons, Mahajans and Mountbattens.

It is a singular event that no two versions agree on chronology or the specific

time of any particular incident.According to Menon, the Maharajah signed the

accession

on the 26th in Jammu. ( The letter of accession itself is written in a note of regret

though significantly enough, it callsfor military aid from India more in defence of

Indian territory as opposed to friendly help to an alien nation, as was the

Maharajahs tune earlier.)It must be remembered that the Maharajah had left

Srinagar only in

the early hours of the morning of the 26th and his convoy had taken extra time

and halted twice in order to reach Jammu.

By the time they had reached Jammu, it was some time in the evening and the

Maharajah went to sleep``before Menon arrived``( according to Karan Singh, the

Yuvaraj

of Kashmir who subsequently became the home minister of India). If this were

true, it would have been impossible for Menon to obtain the signature of the

Maharajah in the evening and returnto Delhi by the evening of the 26th since the

Maharajah did not reach Jammu by the time Menon reached Delhi. To add to the

confusion, Menon claims that Mahajan accompanied him to Jammu on the 26th

but Mahajan contradicts this; Mahajan claims that on the evening of the 26th got

a

message from Nehru saying that he should ``accompany Mr Menon the next

day(27th October) to Jammu`` which is not mentioned by Menon. Nobody seems

to

agree even on the total number of trips made to Jammu over the three days!

Mahajan describes how the deputy Diwan left for Jammu on the 24th with a

signed copy

of the letter of accession,but does not try to solve the contradiction about the

instrument of accession being signed twice in his version( in Srinagar on the 24th,

Jammu

on the 26th). Further more, Mahajan would have to be a clairvoyant to tell that

the Maharajah would flee to Jammu and send the Deputy Diwanpacking there a

FULL

TWO DAYS in advance.

The solution provided by this thesis is that the arch villain of the letter and related

forgeries is Mehr Chand Mahajan. The moment he knew that Kashmir had been

invaded by the tribals, he had an unknown numberof identical copies of the

``instrument of accession`` cranked out....These copies were signed on various

days and in

various places with the possibility of the Maharajahs signature being forged;

Mahajans plan musthave been to suppress all copies subsequently except the one

that

officially agreed with the whitewashed version given by the Government of

India.A very diabolical plan indeed! It misfired because ``too manycooks spoil the

broth``.

Given the large number of copies of this ``instrument`` available, different people

read out the same contents but with different dates and places. This explains why

all

the people involved on the Indian side stick to their version with such indignation-

Mahajan alone knows which one was signed by the Maharajah and in which place!

( or whether the Maharajah signed the said documentat all!)Considering the fact

that Mahajan carried the secret to hisgrave, we will never know the actual

sequence of

events. All that can be said is that Mahajan could have rivalled the magician

Houdini in his disappearance and reappearance acts. In a humorous vein, it can be

saidthat

the Rembrandt scam that occurred in Europe in the 70s can be traced to the

document scam in Kashmir in 1947.( ``originals`` of Rembrandts paintings would

turn up

at different galleries in Europe simultaneously,at times 3 galleries would claim to

have the ``original`` portrait; an investigation revealed that all these ``originals``

were

fraudulent). If only Mahajan had patented his``Duplication of Documents

Scheme``, he would have collected millions of dollars as royalties from the art

thieves who

duplicated his methods. It must be remembered that Mahajan rose to bethe Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court in India fairly early on bypassing many

luminaries.(Was this a reward for his part in getting Kashmir to accede to India?)

Once the deed was in the hands of the Indians, Indian troops flew into Srinagar

and the war for Kashmir was lost. It was impossible for a band of irregulars, no

matter

how courageous, to defeat a disciplined regular army with the benefit of superior

weaponry.

The author would like to pass over the retaking of the valley by the Indian troops

since he has nothing to add( the official Pakistani and Indian versions agree on

how

the valley was taken by India, and the author would like to express his agreement

of the standard version of the history of take-over by India).

Before closing this chapter, it is necessary to talk about a very unique and brave

British Major who was stationed in Gilgit. Major William Brown was a British Major

who had a reputation of being independent minded and bold. He requested the

local governor Brigadier Ghansara Singh to find out as to which side the local

populace

wanted to join. On receiving no reply, Major William Brown conducted his own

opinion poll and came to the conclusion that the local populace overwhelmingly

favored Pakistan. He initiated a mutiny on the night of the 31st of October and

managed to take the governor prisoner. After capturing all the vital installations,

he

dashed off a telegram to the premier of the NWFP requesting for help. Major

Brown held out till the 16th of October when re-reinforcements were finally sent

in.

While TECHNICALLY guilty of mutiny, Major Brown revealed that his heart was in

the correct place and that he was capable of bold action where desired.

This district is the nucleus of ``Azad Kashmir`` as is known today. Pakistan

belatedly rewarded him with a medal in 1994 for his action in the Kashmir war; his

widow

collected the medal in the name of the dead Major.

Thus ends the sordid episode of Kashmiri accesion through sleight of hand to

India.

Tauseef Ahmed

BEAUTIFUL PAKISTAN

When Pakistan came into being, the people residing here were Indian or British Indian Nationals and subdivided into Bengalis, Punjabis, Pathans, Baluchs and Sindhis. They could not over night, on 14th August 1947, be knitted into an altogether a new nation: Pakistani. On 14th August 1947 we took a pen and on the map of the world marked areas denoting Pakistan. And the land we strewed with seeds of a Pakistani Nation. We hoped it would germinate in time to come, into a Nation. After all nations are not made in days, weeks or years. It takes centuries. All these years we have experienced good luck as well as bad. I have travelled quite widely, and compared my people with many others. I find them to be, from Manora, one end to Torkham the other end of Pakistan at the borders with Afghanistan, very decent people wanting to abide by the laws if there be any, and they be let to abide them. They are hard working, want to live an honest life, and earn an honest living by any standards. They want to be proud of Pakistan! They are in a great hurry to become a nation- to compete with nations of the world, which took centuries to become what enviable position and shape they have today. In their ambition to compete they have set very high goals. In a way it is good. In their effort to jump and reach the stars they may be able to jump as high as the Eifel Tower, presently! A people subject of monarchies for centuries, including that of the Brithish Imperialism can not be expected to adapt to the modern day democracy without undergoing the pangs. Surprising though the people of Baluchistan who to my view are the most democratic of all the people in Pakistan inspite of the very strong sardari system. An original and not artificially thrusted feudalism upon the people by the British in exchange for their loyalty.

Then what went wrong? I find three wrongs:

1. We were told that Islam and the Muslims were to face grave danger in undivided India after the British left. Islam was in danger in India. Perhaps this theory needed elaborating. I argue how?

1) Today there is every freedom in Pakistan for TAUHEED, belief in one god and to my knowledge there is no prohibiton on offering Namaz in India. (ii) Zakat is not forbidden in Pakistan and so is not in India. (iii) People who can afford to travel for Haj pilgrimage can from Pakistan as well as from India and do.(iv) Neither Roza or fasting is prohibited in either of the two countries. The last Pillar of Islam, Jehad…

then how could Islam and the Muslims be endangered in undivided India? May be there is a prohibition in India in certain localities on slaughtering of sacred cow. Which to my mind is trivial a matter. Islam does not rest on eating of beef. The thing our leaders did not pay heed to explaining in clear words is and was that economy of the muslims was endangered and that in Pakistan all were to share the economy. Had they, the leaders of that time, explained to the masses that Paksitans economy was to be shared by all the Pakistanis Bengali would not have been labeled a Bhooka Bengali, “Hunger stricken”, a sindi would not raise his finger on a punjabi and Muhajir would not be termed a “MUKKAR”, the locust! Unfortunately this very lapse was made use of to keep the people divided and is still resorted to.

2. Politically the division of India may mean any thing but socially it was no less than a upheavel or a quake in the society particularly in that of the Pakistani areas. The exodus of refugees to and from created a vacuum in the economic system of these areas. Suddenly in no time, just as happens in a earthquake that things perched high find themselves in the bottom and things lying under come up on the surface, some people found themselves in a similar economic state. The first victim was “Traditions”, Moral or QADRAIN. In order to ensure security and avail the opportunity, some butchers, Qasai, became “Khokra pari Syeds, (Khokra Par is a bordering area with India one of the entry points in to Pakistan) as the term applies, no body knew them here, so why not be called by a decent name? And some Khalifa, the barbar, became Choudhry, the real one had fled leaving the ground all to himself! Name cast and traditions were estranged. Priority was earning a living. How became secondary.

3. And the vacuum and the opportunity lead to greed for wealth and power. By hook or by crook, many made it a moto of life. The chinese followed only one book, Mao’s red book and woke up a giant. We have two green books, one, the Quran, and the other, Pakistani constitution. Alas we interpret and amend both to legalise our sins to the society. No thesaurus has been consulted to find the meanings of Democracy, ever! Eversince it has been taken to mean to make fool of the masses, keep them divided and rule!

Luckily a majority escaped this horrible infection and is still fighting although no effort is spared on the part of the usurpers to keep them silenced. They are the silenced majority erroneously called the silent majority. At times one has to agree with the devil, Bhutto once said, there is no such thing as neutral, you have to take sides. If you don’t raise your voice you are in fact siding with one by not denouncing him. You are letting the weak stay weak or allowing the strong to be stronger.

Every thing in Pakistan or the Pakistani nation in the making, as I prefer to call ourselves, is not rotten. We have our achievements to be proud of. Our very existence for 52 years against all odds is something to marvel. I find only two countries in the world to compare with, which are akin in some ways to Pakistan. U.S.A. a heterogeneous mass of people from all over the world, with altogether different cultures, customs, colours and languages is today a strong nation. In how many years? And lucky for the Americans, they did not face any foreign aggression on their soil ever since promulgation of Democracy in the U.S.A. Not a single bullet has ever been shot on the U.S.A. from their skies by any intruder. Pakistan has fought three wars, single handedly while the aggressor had never been alone. Laughable justice of friends of Pakistan to have stopped aid to both warring countries. One school boys’ team has three sticks and the other 10 and in event of a scuffle supply of sticks is stopped to both! In 1970 the Indian forces entered in to East Pakistan by land only after the cease fire. Our Pundits did not think it necessary to build alternate air fields and strengthen east Pakistani air. In east Pakistan the soldier did not lose the war our lords did.

It is somewhat easy comparatively to rise on a scale of progress from 25 to 100 but it takes some doing to start from scratch and reach 10. What did Pakistan inherit at the time of independence. What industry Pakistan inherited in 1947? Dalmia Cement Factory at Karachi, J.B. Manga Ram Biscuit factory at Sukkur, Ganesh flour mills at Faisalabad and a few film studios at Lahore, all sans technicians. What Universities Pakistan could boast of in 1947? In West Pakistan there were only one and a half universities: The Punjab University, and the other half Sind University, affiliated with Bombay. Only three colleges at Karachi namely Daya Ram Jethu Mal Science College, (D.J.), and N.E.D., Engineering College and Dow Medical College! The number of universities and industrial units having been developed could certainly be much more to satisfy the aspirations of the people.

The only other country to have been carved out of a geographic unit is Israel. Does Pakistan have the financial/moral support of the Muslim brethren the world over or did our leadership earn it? Like the Israel does that of the jews from all over the world. Like wise has or would any super power exercise a veto in any matter favouring Pakistan?

With all its shortcomings Pakistan is a beautiful place with beautiful people and multitude of resources. Pakistan has been deficient in leadership, which is understandable. People have been minting the leadership and the good thing is that they reject their artefact the moment they realize it is not coming of the shape they would wish it to be. One thing is certain they may be fond of imported cosmetics and other luxuries of life they will certainly not accept imported leadership!

A great article. Exactly what I have been saying since Oct 13th on Chowk forums. People when are you going to realize that army is the biggest enemy of our nation. Army is the real problem of Pakistan, not Nawaz or Benazir. This coup is another slap on the face of Pakistan. And our gharatmand awam has no dignity left as they have accepted the worst treason and rape of the country. People you got to wake up before its too late. Or else our next generation will loath us forever for not raising our voices against injustice.

The last para reads :``Like all other governments in crisis in Pakistan, the military are likely to resort to the cover of Islam. This time, however, waiting in the wings are the armies of god.``

Pls refer to my oft repeated thesis elsewhere on Chowk; that Musharraf is merely a ``Fall Guy`` conveniently picked to be made a scapegoat when things turn sour. His image carefully projected as that of a secular, Kemalist, Alcohol accepting, pet dog loving moderate will be his undoing.

Remember the fate of Sardar Dawood after the Taliban takeover next door ?

M/s Mian & Nayyar:

Bravo for your patience and pessimism.

You say, ``The problems identified with.... point to deep systemic problems in Pakistan. The most significant among these is not the venality, corruption and ineptitude of Pakistan`s political class, nor the reckless ambitions and simple mindedness of its military leaders, it is rather the absence of organised public opinion strong enough to discipline either.``

At the risk of sounding naive and incredulous, how do you propose to instil this in the populace?

And further you say, ``The coup truncated a democratic process that would certainly have thrown Nawaz Sharif out of office as decisively as Benazir Bhutto had been rejected in the last election. The next election may have created political confusion, coalition government and instability, but it would have reinforced the feeling in Pakistan that the citizens would not tolerate the gross abuses of power they had suffered at the hands of both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.``

Sirs, do you really think the patient and the disease have the luxury of time? In a utopian sense I`d agree with you. But I shudder to think of what calamities Sharif Inc. could have caused upon the patient till such time. And if the patient had enough resiliency, then in the aftermath of the next election as you suggest.

And finally this observation: cannot help notice your faith in democracy. I am also all for it. But democracy in itself is not the cure-all for our ills. It is only one ingredient.

Drastic times call for drastic solutions. I don`t see it fortcoming. In that I share your pessimism.

regards

t

Re: RISHI, #5

What`s wrong with the Pakistanis, where is the outrage for the glaring abuses by the incompetent and greedy politicians, you ask.

Pakistanis are not the revolutionary types. They complain a lot but don`t take it out on the street. They`re waiting for a messiah. A revolution, for better or worse, has to be organized. For a revolution to take place in Pakistan, Pakistan needs a charismatic leader. Unless that leader shows up, the military will take care of it. Further, there are too many competing interest groups in Pakistan for a revolution to be organized. So, it`s the military, the only institution left in that God-forsaken country, that must, for better or worse, intervene. Moreover, all those people you mentioned, the Chinese, the Indians, and so on, have distinct identities as a group. Pakistanis, after 52 years, still don`t know who they are and what they are. Pakistanis are yet to define themselves as a group. They not only need to figure out what it means to be a ``Pakistani``, but what kind of ``Pakistan`` they want to live in.

The one solution is to draw-up two government and social structure scenarios: a theocracy and a modern, secular, progressive state not unlike Turkey. Put it to people of Pakistan to vote on one structure they would like for their country, and then draw a new constitution based on the vote. If a theocracy, with little rights for the minorities and women in burqas, is what the people of Pakistan want, then let that be. If a modern state is voted on by the Pakistanis, then that is what Pakistan must becomes. Let the people of Pakistan decide what they want.

Interesting analysis. Let`s hope this military government is better than the ones Pakistan has had before (specially the Zia-ul-Haq variety). It`s unknown whether Musharaff will turn out to be good for Pakistan or bad. We have no choice but to wait. However, one thing is for sure; Nawaz Sharif and Benazir were definitely terrible for Pakistan.

I have a hard time agreeing with the following statement,``The coup truncated a democratic process that would certainly have thrown Nawaz Sharif out of office as decisively as Benazir Bhutto had been rejected in the last election.`` I am not quite sure whether I share your faith in the idea that Nawaz Sharif would have been thrown out of office. He is too deeply involved in the system, to leave it so easily.

``. Having neutered all the possible threats to his autocratic rule, he had turned his attention to the press, and it was only a matter of time before this last bastion of critical speech was muzzled. Given his lack of respect for democratic institutions, I have no doubt in my mind that he would have rigged the elections shamelessly when the time came.`` (DAWN: Mazdak)

I tend to agree with what Mazdak has stated. We would have continued on the merry-go-round of corrupt leaders. I am not sure whether the country would have been able to survive another few years of NS and BB.

Anyways, this is a turning point for Pakistan. If the military regime resorts to the same deeds as the regime of Zia, then Pakistan would have been better off without the coup. If it does bring about some correct changes, then I am willing to accept it as a necesary evil.

Tariq Lodhi,

Jehad is not a pillar.

In case he also proves to be another of the ayub, zia or any bodys type we dont lose much because we have already been in hell but there is a chance that he may prove other wise. It is true that he has been made to sit on the forefront, there always are somepeople who need a mouthpiece, lets pray to God that he or the people behind him are benevolent.

tariqlodi

Dear Authors :

Is there any historical parallel to this item ?

-arun gupta

http://ghazali.net/book1/reference3.htm

1. A statement by Abdul Qadir, Governor of State Bank of Pakistan, so annoyed him [Ayub Khan] that he sent a strongly worded message to the Prime Minister on 24 Aug. 1958: ``I see from the press that Mr. Abdul Qadir, Governor of State Bank of Pakistan, is going about saying that the way to check inflation in the country is to cut expenditure on the army and reduce America`s military aid as it leads to inflation..... the army is fed up to the teeth with this man`s fulmination.`` Altaf Gauhar, Ayub Khan: Pakistan`s First Military Ruler - cited by Dawn 18.7.1993

THE NEWS (Pakistan)

Government announces list of big defaulters

(Updated at 0200 PST)

ISLAMABAD: The Government on Monday announced the list of the big defaulters, with Ittifaq Group, Sehgal Group and Tawaqal Group being the major defaulters. Tomorrow is the last day for return of debt of banks and financial institutions and all preparations for crackdown against defaulters have been completed. According to PTV, Various groups and personalities have to pay the debt of two hundred fifty billion rupees to banks and financial institutions. Only one thousand and five hundred people have taken 80% of the loans. Most of the people could succeed in rescheduling the loans and even written off in various regimes. There are only few persons who had to default due to inflation, market slump and other unexpected factors. Most of the defaulters had defaulted intentionally. The amount of bad loans, which was eighty billion rupees in 1993, increased to two hundred fifty billion rupees in 1998. According to figures, 3.86 billion rupees are outstanding against four units of Ittifaq group. Four units of Sehgal family borrowed 2.7 billion rupees and Tawakkal group has to pay 2.27 billion rupees. The largest loan to Sehgal family is against Muhib Textiles of Rafique Sehgal. According to 1993 list, Fazal group has to pay thirty-one loans of 2.16 billion rupees of various banks. The key figure of the group Mian Aftab Ahmed has fled to Britain. He owns three hotels and one health club there. Abdul Shakoor Ismail Kalhori of Karachi fled abroad with 1.2 billion rupees. The industrial unit Bela Chemicals of Basharat Elahi owes 1.25 billion rupees. Shonn Group has to pay fife hundred seventy million rupees and its owners are supervising their business in Dubai for the last three years. Zahoor Textile Mills of a former Allied Bank official owes one billion rupees of the nation. PTV further says that perhaps Pakistan is a unique country in the sense that loans of billions of rupees were either waived completely or written off. The head of a committee set up for restoration of sick industrial units Faruq A Sheikh got four loans worth five hundred million rupees waived. Habib Bank, under general scheme, had written off six hundred and sixty million rupees loan of Balochistan Foundry of their previous owners. Arq Industries was also given relief and two hundred million rupees principle loan and mark up was written off. Remaining three of the five groups who succeeded in getting waiver of their loans of more than one hundred million rupees loans from this bank are Awami Textile – two hundred ninety million, Zebtan Textile Mills – two hundred thirty-nine million and four hundred thousand rupees and Pak Asia Industries – one hundred and forty million rupees. Thirteen persons or industries got loans worth more than one hundred million rupees written off from Habib Bank in 1998. Asia Board Industries, Ahsan Elahi and Brothers, Ghafoor Textile Mills, SV Textile Mills, Rashid Corporation, Kamani Textile Mills, Agen Silk Mills, Marker and Company, Amanat Leather Industries got two loans waived off. Galaxy Construction, Lahore Spinning Mills and Hassan Tannery also written off their loans. United Bank too has written off last year twenty hundred ten million rupees of Harappa Textile Mills and fifty-five million rupees of Ghulam Muhammad and Brothers of Karachi. The UBL waived off more than ten million rupees loans include UASA Battery, Shah Enterprises, Albarq Pak, Commodities exports, Adam Autos, Pakistan Fisheries, Bishan Das Mangha Ram Cotton, Jannat Textiles, Crescent Sugar Mills, Alnoor Chicks, Quadri Textiles, Bretna Industries, Shafiqaue Tanneries, Hafiz Steel, Bashir Engineering and Omar Bilal Traders. Bannu Sugar Mills succeeded in writing off three hundred ten rupees. The question is ``What is the legal status of loan written off in the past``.

THE NEWS

Defaulting on loans, by the way, is equivalent to robbing the citizens, without having to enter their homes. To stock up so much money through stealing, NS would have had to rob thousands of homes. Taking out a loan, and not paying it back, allowed him to steal, without physically entering the homes of the innocent people who had deposited their money in the banks, in good faith. If NS and the other loan defaulters do not pay back their loans, then the money they have stolen will have to be paid for by the average Pakistani.

How can Pakistan progress if the Prime Minister of the country is the biggest defaulter, and hence the biggest thief, in the country?

chowkwallas:

why don`t we just provide the internet links to the items that we consider newsworthy instead of cluttering the pages of chowk with reproducting entire articles from other sites? anyone reading the chowk pages can certainly visit other sites, if he/she is interested. this would save some space here for more constructive dialogue.

In response to Zia Mian and A. H. Nayyar`s useful article:

Eqbal Ahmed`s statement that: ``The army may bring temporary relief. But the problem is eminently political; it shall not yield to military solution`` is nothing but a historical truth. We, nevertheless, don`t need the intelligence, knowledge, and experience of Eqbal Ahmed to reach such a conclusion. It is share common sense.

If army is a major part of the plight of the people of Pakistan, which I believe it is, one should not expect middle or long-term relief from a military intervention. Pakistani people need to realize that our size of pie is too small and the share enjoyed by army is too big. However, the question of army-civil society relation is not limited to army`s share of our budget. The tentacles of our army are very long and have penetrated considerably in our society.

The people of Pakistan are not a monolithic entity who simply suffer from weak (medium and long-term) memory. We need to go beyond the weak memory syndrome diagnosis. We need to understand: Why most Pakistanis are so strong at grumbling but so weak at taking collective actions? We also need to understand why dissent is not institutionalized in Pakistani politics and society?

I disagree with the implication that the conditions before each of the two coups (Ayub`s and Musharraf`s) were somewhat similar. The period before Ayub`s coup was one of political and economic instability, but before Musharraf`s coup the political and economic instability existed in combination with autocracy, anarchy, bloodshed, unprecedented corruption, domestic center-periphery tension and a threat to national unity, and an extremely poor image of Pakistan in the global community. We need to understand: Why the military rulers (Ayub and Zia) stayed in power so long? Why did they fail to honor their pledges? What measures do we need to take to contain the transgressions of our ruling elite?

In a society there are always many people who can easily diagnose the malaise. However, they may not have the ability/capacity to treat it. If Musharraf has correctly diagnosed that Pakistani democracy was/is a sham, this in no way makes him qualified to outline the nature of ``true``democracy. We need to shape a true democracy in Pakistan by slowly and gradually educating ourselves about it. A true democracy is not a simple concept. It is practice, in which an active role is played by: ``We the people.`` The real source of power in a true democracy are the people, not the ruling elite.

The choice of people like Sharifuddin Pirzada raised goose bumps. We need new blood, new spirit, new ideas, and new strategies. The policy of maintaining the status quo is no more sufficient. I have no problem with Musharraf`s borrowing of ideas from our past history. For me, it is more important that he honors his pledges. Does he really have the capacity to honor his promises? There is no way to find it out in the short-run.

I am unable to understand the usefulness of quoting Marx`s well-known statement: ``Men [and women] make their own history, but they do not make it as they please. . . .`` Marx, in this statement, was trying to identify (what Giddens calls) the duality of agency and structure. The authors need to fully elaborate this point.

Reference to Altaf Gauhar`s piece concerning the issue of the freedom of expression depicts only partial truth. After the initial period, Ayub Khan had tried to crush the freedom of expression, in both media and in real life.

The authors have painted a reasonable picture of Nawaz Sharif`s regime. I also agree with them that Pakistan has some serious systemic problems. These systematic problems need to be clearly identified. A fundamental problem of Pakistan, the writers correctly inform us, is ``the enduring inability of Pakistani people to organize collective action to define and protect their own interests.`` Here we need to understand: Why Pakistani people have generally failed to organize themselves collectively? Why there is a culture of deference, fear, and acquiescence in Pakistan? What do we need to do to transform these conditions? What insights does human history provide us? How applicable would such a history be in the case of Pakistan?

The authors seem to have more confidence in the top-down electoral democracy of Pakistan. A sham democracy is one which fails to protect the people from politicians like Nawaz Sharif (and Benazir Bhutto). What kind of measures do we need to take to contain the military in the barracks, the bureaucracy to serve the people, and the rich and powerful to be less exploitative? Is there a simple answer to this question?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The delivery here is so eloquent and articulate that I am almost convinced history will repeat itself in the same sad way. You point to so many similarities between past coups and Musharaff`s which I, and many of my generation, are unaware of. Yet something also tells me that Pakistan has changed in ways that would not allow an exact repeat of the past. Firstly, peace with India is most likely if negotiated by the military. Secondly, Pakistan is much poorer than ever. Thirdly, it has nuclear weapons. Fourthly, Musharraf will not use religion as a crutch.