Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan

Bilal:

The article is here on page 1. We should direct our comments throught the inter act here.

rgds

t

gymnosophist:

(from the side lines) heheheh...humour is not extinct, yet. That is a positive sign. Bravo!

t

gymnosophist:

You had me in stitches. Brilliant.

rgds

t

Ref Sameer JB #: 166

You said about national symbols {I guess, in any from of consensus, cow, eagle, rose and mango tree will be the winners.}

The cow as the National Animal of Pakistan? Do you realize exactly where this would lead to? The National Animal cannot be slaughtered. It has to be treated with respect, just like you treat the flag with respect. Pakistan will have to pass a Cow Protection Law. Those Indian Muslims who take their cue from Pakistan (a minuscule number) will DEMAND the protection of cows in India too. The Hindus, just to be contrary, will read through their holy books and discover that all major Vedic sacrifices call for the slaughter of a cow and ceremonial offering of beef in the sacrificial fire, after which the roast beef is to be consumed by all, including the presiding Brahmins. Beef eating will become the norm in India, just so that Indians can piss off the Pakistanis by slaughtering the Pakistani National Animal. McDonald`s will have its largest number of franchises in India. The surplus Indian cattle population will disappear soon, the roads will not be full of cowdung, and Benares will have clean pathways and alleys. Worshippers of Shiva will find vibhuti (holy ash that they smear on their bodies) to be in short supply. The villages of South Asia will run short of fuel (dried cowdung patties) and will have to switch over to natural gas. This will lead to other modernizations in the villages.

Holy cow! The times, they are a-changing!

Jalal Ahmed, a citizen of Pakistan (he is not known to me) has published the following letter in the Dawn. Jalal seems to suggest that the proportional representation system of elections, coupled with the presidential system, would relieve our politics from the domination of the feudal lords. An interesting observation! How sound? At least, I don`t know. Is there a hidden agenda (in addition to personal preference and viewpoint) in this letter? I just wonder!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn Internet Edition

Monday, January 3, 2000

The bane of feudalism

FEUDALISM was abolished soon after independence in India and later in Bangladesh. But in Pakistan the feudals continue to remain in control of the legislatures.

Almost seventy-five per cent of the population is rural in Pakistan. The feudal gives loans to the tiller to keep him under his thumb. Even after he clears his debt along with the interest, he is told that he is still in debt. He remains indebted to his landlord for ever. No wonder, he casts his vote as ordered by his master. Thus one or the other feudal gets elected from almost all the constituencies. This has been happening in every election.

Maybe proportional representation coupled with the presidential system will bring about a change for the benefit of the masses.

The situation here reminds us of the plight of Turkey when the Crimean war ended in 1856. Turkish treasury was empty and Sultan Abdel Majid was forced to borrow money from European bankers at ruinous rates of interest. In 1854, Turkey was not in debt but by 1875, Sultan Abdel Aziz owed amounts equivalent to nearly one billion dollars in foreign currency to European banks. In 1881, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA) was established to help repay the foreign debt. In a few years, OPDA succeeded and foreign investments started flowing into Turkey.

Insha Allah, Pakistan`s public finance specialists will come up with a solution to extricate the nation from its debt crisis.

JALAL AHMED,

Karachi

Dear Bilal Ahmad: I did not find discussion forum at Dawn.com. Is it under ``feedback``?

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 172)

Dear Sameer:

Please go the following address:

www.dawn-usa.com/pakistan.shtm#nation

I suspect the debate has just started. See in particular the replies of Bilal Ahmad (myself), Khalid Hasan, Hussain Haqqani, and Nayyar Zaidi.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In a recent opinion piece, Shaheen Sehbai has called for accountability in journalism (see Reply # 143). Shaheen`s article was sent to all Pakistani newspapers, only the Frontier Post published it. However, the Dawn has started a discussion forum on the internet. I recommend all Chowkwalla`s to go to the Dawn site and register your views about the article. Other than myself and temporal, Benazir Bhutto, Khalid Hasan, Hussain Haqqani, and several others have already contributed.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

GENESIS OF RUTHLESS AUTHORITARIANISM AND UNDEMOCRATIC MODE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN(1947-’55) [PART I and II]

By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

The political history of Pakistan is replete with anti-democratic modes of governance. The authoritarianism seems to be the legacy of Pakistan. Indeed, the authoritarianism has always been the hallmark of government and politics of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the nation, was known for his honesty and integrity of character. Yet, it was Jinnah who laid the foundation of ruthless authoritarianism and centralized political structure in Pakistan. It was him who created the precedents of undemocratic and autocratic modes of governance in Pakistan. He was as much responsible as his successors for the continuation of the undemocratic tradition of authoritarian mode of governance in Pakistan. At the independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, Jinnah had both the charisma and authority to introduce democratic norms and institutions in the new nation. Yet, from the beginning, he demonstrated his disdain towards democratic norms and practices. At his behest, an oligarchy was formed for ruling Pakistan with iron fist. The ruling oligarchy was completely divorced from the rudiments of democratic principles and values.

Although Mohammad Ali Jinnah had governed the nation only for 13 months, his tradition of assumption and exercise of “absolute” state power had dangerous effects on the subsequent rulers of Pakistan. Instead of instituting the ‘institutional rule’, he installed his ‘personal rule’. The way the nation was administered by the founding father and his chief lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan had invariably conditioned the behavior of the successive regimes. The re-assessment of the nature of governance of the early years of Pakistan is quite pertinent at a critical juncture of the country when a military dictator has seized state power by force. It is imperative for observers of Pakistani political scene to look back at the past heritage of the country at a time when the military junta has virtually declared Pakistan a polity without politics and politicians.

The main intent of this paper, then, is to examine the genesis of ruthless autocracy and authoritarianism in the early years of Pakistan with specific reference to Jinnah-Liaquat-Ghulam Mohammad regimes. Once Jinnah’s passion for the use of unlimited power and authoritarian mode of governance is overviewed, the undemocratic and autocratic behavior and actions of Ghulam Mohammad will be underscored.



Given the fact that neither Khwaja Nazimuddin nor Mohammad Ali Bogra had any real power, the timid roles of these dwarfed leaders from East Bengal will be discussed with reference to Liaquat Ali Khan and Ghulam Mohammad. Aimed at substantiating my generalizations, some gleanings from well-recognized scholarly works will be quoted. Finally, some concluding observations will be made. Let me also point out the scope of this commentary: No attempt has been made to cover Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan years. Hopefully, each of these despicable authoritative regimes can be the focus of separate articles. The power relationship between the Central Government and the Provinces will also not be included within the purview of this paper.

Jinnah’s Passion for Unlimited Power & Undemocratic Mode of Governance

Jinnah was undoubtedly the most effective and powerful President of All-India Muslim League (AIML). There was a total absence of any leader of Jinnah’s stature in the entire AIML to question or challenge his policies or desires in the mid-forties. His words were like dictates from the absolute monarch. He always encouraged lieutenants or loyalists in the party, not colleagues per se. Thus, at the independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, Jinnah was all of the following: Quaid-I-Azam, Governor General of Pakistan, President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (which was also the Central Legislature of Pakistan) and the President of Pakistan Muslim League.

In his seminal book titled Pakistan: A Political Study, Keith Callard, one of the early writers on the government and politics of Pakistan, had succinctly observed that people of Pakistan “looked for guidance to their Great Leader, Quaid-I-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There was no one else, he was Pakistan; and wherever he went he was received by vast crowds with adulation amounting almost to worship.” Keith Callard also underscored that Jinnah “was by nature a commander and leader of men. He was not to be treated as a colleague or even primus inter pares, for he demanded lieutenants who would serve him rather than partners who would argue with him. In manner he was cold, brilliant and unyielding, a man to inspire either fury or devotion. He organized the campaign for Pakistan as though he were a commander-in-chief issuing orders of the day to encourage the troops and tactical directions to control the provincial commanders” (Keith Callard, Pakistan: A Political Study, (New York, N.Y: The Mcmillan Company, 1957, pp. 19-20. Henceforth this book will be cited as Keith Callard, 1957).

Jinnah’s passion for the assumption and consolidation of state powers was evident when the date of partition was nearing. He had selected himself to be the Governor General of Pakistan. According to Ayesha Jalal, “On July 2, 1947, Jinnah formally told Mountbatten that he intended to become Pakistan’s first Governor General. Of course Mountbatten was outraged. It complicated the partition process, as planned by him [Mountbatten], and especially the already odious business of dividing the Indian army. ------- He knew that as Governor-General he would have wide ranging powers over the Muslim areas, powers which he could not possibly afford to let any other individual exercise. Moreover, as the Governor-General of Pakistan, Jinnah felt he would be better placed to ensure the division of the army, and the army was what he needed most of all to clamp central authority over Pakistan’s provinces. At any rate, the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have to take orders from the Governor-General. ‘In my position’, Jinnah told the bemused Viceroy, ‘it is I who will give the advice and others will act on it.’ Mountbatten concluded that Jinnah had either gone ‘mad’ or was suffering from an acute form of ‘megalomania``(Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 292).

It is apparent from Ayesha Jalal’s observation that Jinnah made a deliberate choice to assume the position of Governor General of Pakistan. He had planned ahead of time to dictate the terms of reference to the Prime Minister. As the undisputed leader of the All-India Muslim League (AIML), Mohammad Ali Jinnah had consolidated all organizational authorities and powers in his hands even before Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947. Therefore, he knew it well that there will be no one from his party to oppose him. In fact, he used to act like the Head of the Muslim State before Pakistan was even created. Keith Callard had pointed out long time back in 1957 that as “President of the Muslim League he (Jinnah) felt that he was the effective head of the Muslim nation” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

The first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (CAP) met on August 10, 1947 (Four days before independence). Jogendra Nath Mondal was made the interim President of CAP. Aimed at controlling both the process and outcome of the Central legislature of Pakistan, Jinnah, the Governor General designate of Pakistan, expressed his desire to be the President of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The members of the CAP obliged, and on August 11, 1947, they unanimously elected Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the President and Tamijuddin Khan, the Vice President of the CAP. The CAP also passed a resolution conferring on Mohammad Ali Jinnah the title of Quaid-I-Azam (the Great Leader) – a title to be invariably employed in official correspondence of the Government of Pakistan. As noted by Keth Callard, “When Pakistan was formed the Quaid-I-Azam was recognized to be above the political battle, a figure to whom all might turn for authority and justice and protection. He became Governor- General and President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan; ---- he (Jinnah) was the personification of the state” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

As the Governor General, Mohammad Ali Jinnah had handpicked Nwabzada Liaquat Ali Khan to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. There is no doubt that Quaid-I-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan was capable of running the administration. Yet, Jinnah decided to retain the de-facto authorities of the Head of the Government in his hands. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet had to hold offices at the pleasure of Jinnah, the Governor General of Pakistan. In other words, Jinnah combined the roles of both the Head of the State and Head of the Government. Was it unconstitutional on the part of Governor General to intrude in carrying out of executive functions of the Prime Minister? I don’t think that it was unconstitutional per se because of the existence of contradictory constitutional provisions. Henry Frank Goodnow has summarized the context: “Prior to 1956 [Constitution] the governing constitutional laws were similar, but the relationship between the Governor General and the cabinet ministers was not entirely clear. The Pakistan Provisional Constitutional Order of 1947 had provided that the Governor General and the provincial governors would act on the advice of their ministers. On the other hand, an unrepealed provision of the Government of India Act of 1935 provided that the ministers were to be chosen by the Governor General and would hold office at his pleasure” (Henry Frank Goodnow, The Civil Service of Pakistan: Bureaucracy in a New Nation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964, p.54).

In view of the above-mentioned provision of 1935 Act, Jinnah had the legal basis to establish the Governor -General’s hold over the Cabinet. Yet, it needs to be recognized that he had deliberately ignored the provision in the 1947 Provisional Order in which it was stated that the Governor General would act on the advice of the Cabinet. It is also fair to suggest that it was Jinnah’s responsibility to see to it that the contradictory provision of 1935 was being repealed with the passage of 1947 Provisional order. It is very difficult for me to comprehend after so many years how and why a constitutional lawyer of Jinnah’s stature had used a dead provision of 1935 Act over a provision of 1947 for the purpose of dwarfing the independence of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. At any rate, Jinnah had created a dangerous precedent that directly impacted the relationship between the Governor General and the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the subsequent years, especially when Ghulam Mohammad was the Governor-General of Pakistan. The volatile relationship between the Head of the State and Head of the Government was also a characteristic feature during the years when Iskander Mirza was either Governor-General or President of Pakistan.

With assumption of the Presidency of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Governor General Jinnah virtually controlled the functions, the process, and the outcomes of the legislative branch of the central government. Such concentration of both the legislative and executive powers of the State in Jinnah’s office of Governor General was nothing short of nullification of the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches of government. It was unfortunate that the legislative branch of the central government was rendered impotent from the very beginning of independent Pakistan. Additionally, Jinnah had retained substantial decision-making powers of the Muslim League even though Chowudhury Khaliquzzaman was chosen to be the Chief organizer of the party (later he became the President of Pakistan Muslim League).

In his assessment of the nature of Jinnah’s power, Keith Callard observed: “No constitutional ruler and few autocrats have possessed such plentitude of power. He had full authority over the civil administration and armed forces. By his own order he could amend the existing constitution and promulgate laws that would be beyond the effective of review of any court. These were not powers which existed only on paper and which in practice were limited by the conventions of constitutional responsibility. On the contrary, cabinet ministers understood clearly that they held office as the agents of the Governor-General, and the [Constituent] Assembly, with its powerless opposition, was in no mood to challenge any action of its own President” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

The Specter of Ghulam Mohammad’s Ruthless Authoritarianism in Pakistan

After Jinnah’s death on September 11, 1948, Pakistan’s ruling oligarchy had co-opted Khawaja Nazimuddin, the Chief Minister of East Bengal, to be the Governor General of Pakistan. Yet, there was no reason for Bangalees to be gloating about such elevation of their Chief Minister. He was not only a non-Bangalee Jinnah loyalist but an anti-Bangalee collaborationist Muslim Leaguer from East Bengal. He was neither a match nor a substitute for Jinnah. He was selected to be the Head of the State because of his willingness to be subservient to Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. For the first time after Jinnah’s demise, the Governor General’s office was made secondary or an appendix to the Prime Minister’s office. Nazimuddin had to remain content with various mundane and ceremonial functions of the Head of State. At Prime Minister’s initiative, the CAP had restricted certain powers of the Governor General. In other words, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan had emerged as the real head of the government. This power relationship between the head of the state and head of the government continued till Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination on October 16, 1951.



After Liaquat Ali Khan’s sudden death on October 16, 1951, Khwaja Nazimuddin stepped down from the position of Governor-General to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The ruling oligarchy of Pakistan inducted Ghulam Mohammad (a Punjabi bureaucrat with well-entrenched connections with the ruling establishment), the powerful Finance Minister of Pakistan, to be the Governor-General of Pakistan. It seems that Nazimuddin wanted to exercise ‘real power’ as the Prime minister! Unfortunately, Ghulam Mohammad had something else in his mind. One thing for sure is that the Punjabi bureaucrat was not willing to be satisfied with his ceremonial role as figurehead or ceremonial Head of the State. Therefore, Gholam Mohammad reversed the power relationship in favor of his highest office. All Ghulam Mohammad had to do was to follow the precedents left by Jinnah, the first Governor-General of Pakistan. Once again governmental powers were centralized in the office of Governor-General of Pakistan. The Prime Minister’s office of Khawaja Nazimuddin was made an appendix to the Governor-General’s office.



Following the legacy of the founding Father of Pakistan, Ghulam Mohammad had also exercised absolute authoritarianism in one form or another during his tenure as the Governor-General of Pakistan. However, he had outshone and superceded the Quaid-I-Azam in the process of employing absolute powers as the Governor General of Pakistan! For instance, he had summarily dismissed Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin and his Cabinet in 1953 even though the Prime Minister was apparently enjoying the confidence of a substantial majority in the Constituent Assembly. In lieu of employing appropriate parliamentary procedure for dismissing a Ministry for valid cause, Ghulam Mohammad had used the following capricious and arbitrary statement for removing the Prime Minister (issued on April 17, 1953): “I have been driven to the conclusion that the cabinet of Khwaja Nazimuddin has proved entirely inadequate to grapple with the difficulties facing the country. In emergency which has arisen I have felt it incumbent upon me to ask the cabinet to relinquish office so that a new cabinet better fitted to discharge its obligations towards Pakistan may be formed.”



The dismissal of Nazimuddin’s Cabinet by Governor General Ghulam Mohammad was discussed by most of the celebrated writers on government and politics of Pakistan of that period (including Keith Callard, K.J. Newman, Khalid Bin Syed and Frank Goodnow). Most of them discredited the Governor General for dwarfing the role of office of the Prime Minister. For example, K.J. Newman had observed in 1959 that “Ghulam Mohammad left the path of constitutional government by dismissing Prime Minister Nazimuddin in 1953, even though the latter enjoyed the confidence of a majority of the Constituent Assembly” (K.J. Newmamn, “ Pakistan’s Preventive Autocracy and Its Causes,” Pacific Affairs, 32, 1959, p. 25; cited by Henry F. Goodnow, The Civil Service of Pakistan, 1964, p. 55).

Instead of providing an opportunity to the dismissed Prime Minister to demonstrate that he enjoyed majority support in the central legislature (CAP) by seeking a vote of confidence, Ghulam Mohammad conveniently handpicked Mohammad Ali (Bogra), another spineless Jinnah loyalist from East Bengal, to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It was reported that that the members of Mohammad Ali Bogra’s first cabinet were selected by the Governor General. It has been widely stressed by many scholars that during his tenure as Prime Minister, he was a captive in Ghulam Mohammad’s hand. Quite often the Cabinet was shuffled or reshuffled at the behest of the Governor General.

Although Mohammad Ali Bogra was known for his timidity and loyalty to Ghulam Mohammad, he was conniving with the members of CAP for curtailing the powers of Governor General. In fact, the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was in the process of further reducing the powers of the Governor General. In his (infamous) book titled Friends Not Masters (London: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 50), the self-declared President Ayub Khan mentioned: “He [Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Bogra] told me quietly that his colleagues wanted some amendment to be made in the Government of India Act [1935] by which Governor-General’s powers would be limited. A resolution was printed in the middle of the night and placed in the pigeonholes of Members of the National Assembly [CAP]. In the morning the [Constituent] Assembly met as a Constitution-making body, an hour before its scheduled time, and revoked Sections 9, 10, 10-A, 10-b, and 17 of the Government of India Act [1935], thus stripping the Governor –General of the powers in exercise of which he [Ghulam Mohammad] had dismissed the Nazimuddin Cabinet [on April 17, 1953]. The Resolution was moved and passed within ten minutes. The Governor General was convalescing in Abbotabad at that time.”



In retaliation, the Governor General had dismissed the Cabinet and dissolved the Constituent Assembly --- the highest law-making body of Pakistan. Obviously, his hostility toward democratic principles and parliamentary institutions got fully exposed when he dissolved the (first) Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on October 24, 1954 by issuing the following Proclamation: “The Governor General having considered the political crisis with which the country is faced has, with deep regret, come to the conclusion that the constitutional machinery has broken down. He, therefore, has decided to declare a State of Emergency throughout Pakistan. The Constituent Assembly as at present constituted has lost the confidence of the people and can no longer function” (cited by Goodnow, 1964, p. 57, and also by Callard, 1957, p. 141).



Henry Frank Goodnow succinctly summarized the situation: “On October 24, 1954, Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad reacted by declaring emergency. Censorship was imposed on all Karachi newspapers. All gatherings of more than five persons were banned on October 25. A strong police cordon was placed around the building in which the Constituent Assembly customarily held its meetings, and members of the Constituent Assembly were forcibly prevented from entering” (Goodnow, 1964, p. 57).

Goodnow also noted that according to one constitutional authority [Goodnow was referring to K.J. Newman’s observations which he made in his 1959 Pacific Affairs article on “Pakistan’s Preventive Autocracy…”], Governor General’s dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954 was “clearly unconstitutional since the Governor General’s powers had been specifically amended so as to exclude the power to dissolve the Constituent Assembly. ----- Governor-General’s Ordinance 22 of 1947, issued according to Section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, by which paragraph 5 and 6 of Section 19 of the Act of 1935 were validly amended” (Quoted in Henry Frank Goodnow’s, The Civil Service of Pakistan: Bureaucracy in a New Nation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964, p. 57).

The Governor General’s arbitrary dissolution of the Constituent Assembly pushed the new nation of Pakistan to the brink of a serious constitutional and political crisis that was avoided with the implementation of Supreme Court’s creative verdict by forming the second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. As pointed out by Donald N. Wilbur: “the dissolution of the first constituent assembly by the governor general touched off a chain reaction of judicial activity which, but for the good judgment of the Federal Court and the patience of the governor general, might have resulted in complete legal chaos in Pakistan” (Donald N. Wilbur, Pakistan: Its People, Its Society, Its Culture, New Haven, CT: Hraf Press, 1964, p.238).

Although the Chief Court of Sind (Tamizuddin Khan, the President of the CAP, had challenged the action of the Governor General) found Governor General’s actions as “illegal” and “ultra vires,” the Supreme Court (federal court) had reversed the decision. Briefly stated, while Sind Court asserted that since the Acts of the Constituent Assembly did not require the “assent” of the Governor General, he (Ghulam Mohammad) had “no power of any kind to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.” On the contrary, the Federal Court of Pakistan quickly declared that the Provincial (Sind) Court “had no authority to issue such writs because the 1954 amendment to the Government of India Act (1935), had never received the assent of the Governor general” (Donald N.Wilbur’s above mentioned book, p. 239). The Federal Court finally came out with the verdict that the Governor General had lawfully “dissolved the First Constituent Assembly”, and the constitutional legislation needed the “assent” of the Governor General. The verdict also ordered the Governor General to form a new Constituent Assembly.



However, there was a gestation gap between the court deliberations and court decisions. Yet, there also remained a constitutional vacuum between dissolution of the first CAP and the formation of second CAP (approximately six months). While the Federal Court decisions provided a bridge to fill the gap, Ghulam Mohammad`s disdain for democratic principles and constitutional process was responsible for creating legal chaos throughout Federal Government. Wilbur (in the above-mentioned book) succinctly summarized the immediate legal effects of Gholam Mohammad’s willful violation of constitutional principles: “since the [Constituent] Assembly for seven years [1947-‘54] had assumed that the assent of governor general to ‘constitutional’ legislation was not required, the Federal Court’s decision [in favor of Governor General’s arbitrary actions] created general consternation. Altogether, forty- four acts of far-reaching legal consequences suddenly were found to be invalid. The implications were staggering. The provincial legislatures had been elected under voided procedures. The governors of three provinces, under emergency conditions, had issued 143 acts, all of which were invalid. The State Bank of Pakistan had been regulating the currency and exercising exchange controls under invalidated legislation. The administration of Karachi [Federal Capital] had been illegal since 1948. Many persons had been imprisoned, including some convicted of conspiracy, under invalidated laws. It was even discovered that one of the federal judges in the case had been appointed under one of the invalidated acts. (He was quickly re-appointed under a different law.)” (Donald N. Wilbur, Pakistan: Its People, Its Society, Its Culture, New Haven, CT: Hraf Press, 1964, p. 239).

The most interesting fact is that the Governor-General, the creator of that constitutional nightmare, had complicated the crisis further through his arrogant actions. In response to the constitutional limbo, Ghulam Mohammad had declared another emergency (based on his interpretation of 1935 India Act) for the purpose of assuming “legislative powers under such conditions, promulgated an ordinance retroactively validating thirty-five of forty-four invalidated laws and, at the same time, amend certain provisions of the existing Constitution Order to preclude suits against the government in respect of any acts arising out of the emergency proclamation. The Federal Court within a few weeks declared that the governor general had gone beyond his legislative powers and threw out the emergency ordinance” (Donald N. Wilber, Pakistan: Its People, Its Society, Its Culture, New Haven, CT: Hraf Press, 1964, p. 239).

Ghulam Mohammad’s vanity knew no bounds. He could never settle with the idea that even the Governor General of Pakistan was not above law. He had “issued a proclamation assuming to himself, until other provision could be made by the constituent assembly, such powers as were necessary to validate and enforce laws designed to avoid a breakdown in the constitutional and administrative machinery of the country. He then again validated retroactively most of the laws in question” (Wilbur, 1964, Ibid, pp. 239-240).



The Second Constituent Assembly that consisted of 80 members (40 from each wing) was formed in June 1955. Pursuant to Governor General’s order, the Provincial Assemblies elected the CAP. The second CAP met for the first time on July 8, 1955. (What were the chief accomplishments of second CAP? It validated most of the legislation/acts that were hanging in between the dissolution of the first CAP and creation of the second CAP; it passed the “One Unit” bill; and the adoption of the 1956 Constitution).

As noted earlier, Ghulam Mohammad had concentrated all executive powers in his office. Mohammad Ali Bogra could be characterized as the ‘ceremonial’ Prime Minister of Pakistan. There were instances when Mohammad Ali Bogra was rebuked or scolded like a grade school boy by the Punjabi Governor General. For example, it is on the record that the Prime Minister was hurriedly summoned back to Karachi by the Governor General from the middle of a trip to North America before the first CAP was dismissed. On his arrival at the Mauripur Airport at midnight of October 23, 1954, he (the Prime Minister) was surrounded by the emissaries of the Governor General “as soon as he came down the runway of the aircraft. ……. Like a prisoner Mr. Ali [Mohammad Ali Bogra] was escorted to the car and driven to the residence of the Governor General.” It was reported that Mohammad Ali Bogra was “weeping when he came out” of Ghulam Mohammad’s residence. It was said that Ghulam Mohammad gave him an ultimatum: ‘Do as I order or go to prison’.” (Joyti Sengupta, “Eclipse of East Pakistan’, cited in Mazharul Islam’s Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib, Agamee Prakashanee, 1993, pp. 151-152).

The way the Governor General had scolded and reprimanded the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan was less than civilized or dignified. Yet, the prestigious position of Prime Minister was more preferable to Mohammad Ali Bogra than to be satisfied with a sense of self-respect and dignity. Although he was allowed to retain his title as Prime Minister, a new cabinet was formed by Ghulam Mohammad on October 24, 1954. That Cabinet included, among others, General Ayub Khan, the Commander Chief of Armed Forces (took over Defense Ministry), Iskander Mirza, Governor of East Pakistan, (became Minster of Interior), Choudhri Muhammad Ali (Finance) and Dr. Khan Shahib. (To the chagrin of many Bangalee leaders including Awami League president Maulana Bhasani, H.S. Suhrawardy had joined the so-called talent-cabinet in December 1954 as Law Minister. He, however, resigned from that cabinet in August 1955].

It is a verified fact that Ghulam Mohammad had appointed the members of the so-called “Cabinet of Talent” without any input even from Mohammad Ali Bogra, the lame-duck Prime Minister. There is little wonder why this cabinet was dubbed as “Ghulam Mohammad’s Cabinet.” However, the formation of this cabinet subsequently had paved the way for the Army Generals and bureaucrats to take over the political process of the country. As noted earlier, the second Constituent Assembly was formed in June 1955. Once the second Constituent Assembly met in July 1955, Mohammad Ali Bogra’s “obedience” or “subservience” to the Governor General was not enough for him to continue as the Prime Minister. Although Mohammad Ali Bogra had managed to win a seat in the second CAP from East Pakistan, he did not have any real constituency being the sole Muslim League member from East Pakistan. (He had literally pleaded the Members of East Bengal Legislative Assembly to elect him to the second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan). This renegade from East Pakistan was no more capable of serving any useful purpose for the Punjabi dominated ruling coterie of Pakistan. Therefore, Mohammad Ali Bogra was ejected from the position of Prime Minister. The members of the ruling Muslim League parliamentary party decided to lend their support to Chaudhri Mohammad Ali to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It was on August 11, 1955 when Chadhuri Mohammad Ali, a Punjabi bureaucrat (he was Finance Minister of Pakistan since Ghulam Mohammad was selected to be the Governor General), became the fourth Prime Minister of Pakistan.



It was once again demonstrated that the Prime Minister of Pakistan could be recruited, retained, disciplined and fired by the Governor-General of Pakistan. It was obvious that the Prime Minister could hold office only at the sweet will and pleasure of the Governor General. Being disgusted with the humiliating experience of both Khwaja Nazimuddin and Mohammad Ali Bogra, H.S. Suhrawardy had said the following in the Second Constituent Assembly on September 10, 1955: “to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan which has been held by certain honouarable gentlemen who have turned out, taken by the ears and thrown out as it suited the ruling coterie is not a matter of very great honour” (quoted by Khalid Bin Sayeed, “The Political Role of Pakistan’s Civil Service,” Pacific Affairs, 31, 1958, p. 137 cited in Goodnow, 1964, p. 155).

The worst brunt of the Governor General’s unlimited power fell on Bangalees when Ghulam Mohammad summarily and unilaterally dismissed the elected provincial Government of Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq in East Bengal in 1954. After dismantling the Huq’s United Front Cabinet, Ghulam Mohammad had promulgated the Governor’s rule in East Bengal through the use of infamous section 92 (A), an instrument enacted during Jinnah’s tenure as the Governor General. Although Jinnah had employed various tactics to dictate the terms of reference to the provincial Governors, his successors introduced the infamous “Governor’s Rule,” through the use of section 92(A), in the following provinces: Punjab from January 1949 through April 1951; Sind from December 1951 through May 1953; and East Bengal from May 29, 1954 through June 6, 1955.

Some more serious changes in the political leadership of Pakistan also took place at that time. Given the fact that Ghulam Mohammad was seriously ill since late 1954, Iskander Mirza was acting as Governor-General when he decided to take leave of absence for treatment. There lies a tragedy that of all the cabinet members, Ghulam Mohammad had trusted Iskander Mirza, a descendant of infamous “Mirzaffor” (Mirzafar Ali Khan), to be officiating as the Governor General during his absence! Iskander Mirza, a master of cliques and tricks, had devised a blueprint to oust the Governor-General. It was on August 11, 1955 when Iskander Mirza replaced Ghulam Mohammad as the Governor-General of Pakistan.

Summary & Conclusion



Neither mohammad Ali Jinnah nor his handpicked Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, had demonstrated any sincerity in establishing democratic institutions in Pakistan. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, both before and after the 1971 genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh, was not known for instituting any semblance of a democratic mode of governance. In fact, the government of Pakistan during pre- or post-1971 era can be characterized as a laboratory of ruthless authoritarianism and centralization. It is crucial to underscore that neither Jinnah nor Liaquat Ali Khan was a champion of decentralized and federal system of government. They had installed a centralized system of government, and as long as they were alive they had wholeheartedly propagated the benefits of a strong centralized form of government. They had little or no concern for ensuring provincial autonomy and democracy.

The relationship between Governor-General Jinnah and Prime Minister Liaquat was unequal. Jinnah’s unlimited power and personal charisma did provide no opportunity for the Prime Minister to question any of his action. Given the fact that Liaquat Ali Khan was a loyal lieutenant of Jinnah from pre-independence years, that convenient arrangement worked well as long as Jinnah was alive. Yet, the founding father of Pakistan had left behind a dangerous precedent. However, Liaquat Ali Khan emerged as a strong Prime Minister (first and last) when Khwaja Nazimuddin was co-opted as the titular Governor General (first and last) of Pakistan after the demise of Jinnah.

After Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination on October 16, 1951, Nazimuddin became the Prime Minister, and the Finance Minister Ghulam Mohammad was selected to be the Governor-General of Pakistan. However, Ghulam Mohammad concentrated all executive powers of the government in Governor-General’s office. He fired Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin and his cabinet in 1953. In place of Khwaja Nazimuddin, he appointed Mohammad Ali Bogra, who was not even a member of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, as the new Prime Minister. It was Ghulam Mohammad who had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Prime Minister of Pakistan could hold office only at the pleasure of the Governor-General.

Ghulam Mohammad had declared Emergency throughout Pakistan and dissolved the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. He pushed the new nation of Pakistan to an unprecedented constitutional crisis. It was Ghulam Mohammad who had become the source of law when there was no Central Legislature in Pakistan during the gestation period between the dissolution of the first CAP on October 24, 1954 and the convening of the second CAP on July 8, 1955. It is not very difficult to comprehend why several political scientists had characterized Ghulam Mohammad’s excesses and intrusions in legislative and constitutional matters as Pakistan’s “constitutional autocracy’ or “preventive autocracy.”

The founding leaders of Pakistan including Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat ali Khan were not at all sincere believers of democratic rule in Pakistan. Nor were they the champions of a decentralized and federal form of government. Instead of fostering better understanding between and among diverse peoples of the new Republic through nurturing diversity, they had demanded hardcore uniformity. They were the greatest champions of “one nation,” “one state,” “one religion,” “one government,” “one leader,” “one party,’ and of course “one language.” Their successors (non-Bengali East Pakistani Khwaja Nazimuddin, ruthless Punjabi bureaucrat-turned-autocrat Ghulam Mohammad, most obedient collaborationist Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Bogra, notorious traitor Iskander Mirza, Dictator General Ayub Khan and Jallad General Yahya Khan) had unsuccessfully tried to implement the policy of deadline uniformity, centralization and authoritarianism through the use of brute force. In sum, personal rule, authoritarianism and autocracy were the salient features of government and politics during early years of Pakistan.

Re: #158 Sameer

Sameer sahib and all other chowk friends:

Wish you all, and your families, very happy new year! let`s hope and pray that the sub-continent stays quite for at least another full year.

Regards.

PS: Sameer - My post didn`t make through Chowk staff for most admired people (with detailed reasons) for last few centuries. They were: Guru Gobind Singh, M. Gandhi, Kemal Ataturk, Abe Lincoln and Karl Marx.

Re: #158 Sameer

Dear Sameer,

Happy New Year!! Wishing you and your family all the best.

Amir

Re:SamirJB#158

Happy new year and best wishes to your family as well !!

Amit

Dear Bilal Ahmad (# 165): This is a very good example of the way and mindset of the ruling elites in Pakistan. There is absolutely no logic or any sort of consensus in making this or other decisions regarding naming missiles, planes, cities, roads and parks etc. I see at least two types of mindsets of the elites. One is based on pure ego, to impose their personal desires and biases imposed on others and the second group, mostly above-ankle shalwar kameez wearing Islamists who try to find names from Arabic and Islamic history. The current case, however, examplifies the elites of former kind because of no markhor instead of camel and deodar instead of berg-ul-deodar type names loaded with Al- and Ul-.

Here is one possible imaginary scenario leading to this decision:

On a weekend evening, few generals, after having one too many drinks, were discussing hunting or their expertise. A leading so-called expert of mountain warfare was describing his skills and comparing it with Markhor`s way of defending his territory. All the yes-men sitting there applauded at the comparison; what a smart metaphor! Another general probably considered expert in desrt warfare compared his tactics of camoflauge during daytime and using the moon light to attack, used Chakor as an example. Another one might have had experience with the deodar trees in some way. Well their egos were translated into national animals, national bird and national tree. Although this is just an imagination but believe me this is how such decisions are made in Pakistan. Now our jornalists will start writing articles about the wisdom and logic behind these choices.

You are right as any rational individual should be, seeing no logic or consensus and merely imposing worthless decisions from the top. I guess, in any from of consensus, cow, eagle, rose and mango tree will be the winners.

According to an APP report, the present regime has approved the following national symbols (considered necessary to identify them for promoting national identity, where-ever so required ):

National Animal: Markhor

National Bird: Chakor

National Flower: Jasmine

National Tree: Deodar

Can somebody explain the logic of this selection? How the present regime reached this decision? Is this another example of imposition from above without public consent?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

(MWZAMAN Manik #I, December 31, 1999)

THE LEGACY OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN:

GENESIS OF RUTHLESS AUTHORITARIANISM AND UNDEMOCRATIC MODE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN(1947-’55) [PART I]

By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

The political history of Pakistan is replete with anti-democratic modes of governance. The authoritarianism seems to be the legacy of Pakistan. Indeed, the authoritarianism has always been the hallmark of government and politics of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the nation, was known for his honesty and integrity of character. Yet, it was Jinnah who laid the foundation of ruthless authoritarianism and centralized political structure in Pakistan. It was him who created the precedents of undemocratic and autocratic modes of governance in Pakistan. He was as much responsible as his successors for the continuation of the undemocratic tradition of authoritarian mode of governance in Pakistan. At the independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, Jinnah had both the charisma and authority to introduce democratic norms and institutions in the new nation. Yet, from the beginning, he demonstrated his disdain towards democratic norms and practices. At his behest, an oligarchy was formed for ruling Pakistan with iron fist. The ruling oligarchy was completely divorced from the rudiments of democratic principles and values.

Although Mohammad Ali Jinnah had governed the nation only for 13 months, his tradition of assumption and exercise of “absolute” state power had dangerous effects on the subsequent rulers of Pakistan. Instead of instituting the ‘institutional rule’, he installed his ‘personal rule’. The way the nation was administered by the founding father and his chief lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan had invariably conditioned the behavior of the successive regimes.

The re-assessment of the nature of governance of the early years of Pakistan is quite pertinent at a critical juncture of the country when a military dictator has seized state power by force. It is imperative for observers of Pakistani political scene to look back at the past heritage of the country at a time when the military junta has virtually declared Pakistan a polity without politics and politicians.

The main intent of this paper, then, is to examine the genesis of ruthless autocracy and authoritarianism in the early years of Pakistan with specific reference to Jinnah-Liaquat-Ghulam Mohammad regimes. Once Jinnah’s passion for the use of unlimited power and authoritarian mode of governance is overviewed, the undemocratic and autocratic behavior and actions of Ghulam Mohammad will be underscored.

Given the fact that neither Khwaja Nazimuddin nor Mohammad Ali Bogra had any real power, the timid roles of these dwarfed leaders from East Bengal will be discussed with reference to Liaquat Ali Khan and Ghulam Mohammad. Aimed at substantiating my generalizations, some gleanings from well-recognized scholarly works will be quoted. Finally, some concluding observations will be made.

Let me also point out the scope of this commentary: No attempt has been made to cover Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan years. Hopefully, each of these despicable authoritative regimes can be the focus of separate articles. The power relationship between the Central Government and the Provinces will also not be included within the purview of this paper.

Jinnah’s Passion for Unlimited Power & Undemocratic Mode of Governance

Jinnah was undoubtedly the most effective and powerful President of All-India Muslim League (AIML). There was a total absence of any leader of Jinnah’s stature in the entire AIML to question or challenge his policies or desires in the mid-forties. His words were like dictates from the absolute monarch. He always encouraged lieutenants or loyalists in the party, not colleagues per se. Thus, at the independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, Jinnah was all of the following: Quaid-I-Azam, Governor General of Pakistan, President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (which was also the Central Legislature of Pakistan) and the President of Pakistan Muslim League.

In his seminal book titled Pakistan: A Political Study, Keith Callard, one of the early writers on the government and politics of Pakistan, had succinctly observed that people of Pakistan “looked for guidance to their Great Leader, Quaid-I-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There was no one else, he was Pakistan; and wherever he went he was received by vast crowds with adulation amounting almost to worship.” Keith Callard also underscored that Jinnah “was by nature a commander and leader of men. He was not to be treated as a colleague or even primus inter pares, for he demanded lieutenants who would serve him rather than partners who would argue with him. In manner he was cold, brilliant and unyielding, a man to inspire either fury or devotion. He organized the campaign for Pakistan as though he were a commander-in-chief issuing orders of the day to encourage the troops and tactical directions to control the provincial commanders” (Keith Callard, Pakistan: A Political Study, (New York, N.Y: The Mcmillan Company, 1957, pp. 19-20. Henceforth this book will be cited as Keith Callard, 1957).

Jinnah’s passion for the assumption and consolidation of state powers was evident when the date of partition was nearing. He had selected himself to be the Governor General of Pakistan. According to Ayesha Jalal, “On July 2, 1947, Jinnah formally told Mountbatten that he intended to become Pakistan’s first Governor General. Of course Mountbatten was outraged. It complicated the partition process, as planned by him [Mountbatten], and especially the already odious business of dividing the Indian army. ------- He knew that as Governor-General he would have wide ranging powers over the Muslim areas, powers which he could not possibly afford to let any other individual exercise. Moreover, as the Governor-General of Pakistan, Jinnah felt he would be better placed to ensure the division of the army, and the army was what he needed most of all to clamp central authority over Pakistan’s provinces. At any rate, the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have to take orders from the Governor-General. ‘In my position’, Jinnah told the bemused Viceroy, ‘it is I who will give the advice and others will act on it.’ Mountbatten concluded that Jinnah had either gone ‘mad’ or was suffering from an acute form of ‘megalomania``(Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 292).

It is apparent from Ayesha Jalal’s observation that Jinnah made a deliberate choice to assume the position of Governor General of Pakistan. He had planned ahead of time to dictate the terms of reference to the Prime Minister. As the undisputed leader of the All-India Muslim League (AIML), Mohammad Ali Jinnah had consolidated all organizational authorities and powers in his hands even before Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947. Therefore, he knew it well that there will be no one from his party to oppose him. In fact, he used to act like the Head of the Muslim State before Pakistan was even created. Keith Callard had pointed out long time back in 1957 that as “President of the Muslim League he (Jinnah) felt that he was the effective head of the Muslim nation” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

The first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (CAP) met on August 10, 1947 (Four days before independence). Jogendra Nath Mondal was made the interim President of CAP. Aimed at controlling both the process and outcome of the Central legislature of Pakistan, Jinnah, the Governor General designate of Pakistan, expressed his desire to be the President of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. The members of the CAP obliged, and on August 11, 1947, they unanimously elected Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the President and Tamijuddin Khan, the Vice President of the CAP. The CAP also passed a resolution conferring on Mohammad Ali Jinnah the title of Quaid-I-Azam (the Great Leader) – a title to be invariably employed in official correspondence of the Government of Pakistan. As noted by Keth Callard, “When Pakistan was formed the Quaid-I-Azam was recognized to be above the political battle, a figure to whom all might turn for authority and justice and protection. He became Governor- General and President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan; ---- he (Jinnah) was the personification of the state” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

As the Governor General, Mohammad Ali Jinnah had handpicked Nwabzada Liaquat Ali Khan to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan. There is no doubt that Quaid-I-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan was capable of running the administration. Yet, Jinnah decided to retain the de-facto authorities of the Head of the Government in his hands. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet had to hold offices at the pleasure of Jinnah, the Governor General of Pakistan. In other words, Jinnah combined the roles of both the Head of the State and Head of the Government. Was it unconstitutional on the part of Governor General to intrude in carrying out of executive functions of the Prime Minister? I don’t think that it was unconstitutional per se because of the existence of contradictory constitutional provisions. Henry Frank Goodnow has summarized the context: “Prior to 1956 [Constitution] the governing constitutional laws were similar, but the relationship between the Governor General and the cabinet ministers was not entirely clear. The Pakistan Provisional Constitutional Order of 1947 had provided that the Governor General and the provincial governors would act on the advice of their ministers. On the other hand, an unrepealed provision of the Government of India Act of 1935 provided that the ministers were to be chosen by the Governor General and would hold office at his pleasure” (Henry Frank Goodnow, The Civil Service of Pakistan: Bureaucracy in a New Nation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1964, p.54).

In view of the above-mentioned provision of 1935 Act, Jinnah had the legal basis to establish the Governor -General’s hold over the Cabinet. Yet, it needs to be recognized that he had deliberately ignored the provision in the 1947 Provisional Order in which it was stated that the Governor General would act on the advice of the Cabinet. It is also fair to suggest that it was Jinnah’s responsibility to see to it that the contradictory provision of 1935 was being repealed with the passage of 1947 Provisional order. It is very difficult for me to comprehend after so many years how and why a constitutional lawyer of Jinnah’s stature had used a dead provision of 1935 Act over a provision of 1947 for the purpose of dwarfing the independence of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. At any rate, Jinnah had created a dangerous precedent that directly impacted the relationship between the Governor General and the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the subsequent years, especially when Ghulam Mohammad was the Governor-General of Pakistan. The volatile relationship between the Head of the State and Head of the Government was also a characteristic feature during the years when Iskander Mirza was either Governor-General or President of Pakistan.

With assumption of the Presidency of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Governor General Jinnah virtually controlled the functions, the process, and the outcomes of the legislative branch of the central government. Such concentration of both the legislative and executive powers of the State in Jinnah’s office of Governor General was nothing short of nullification of the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches of government. It was unfortunate that the legislative branch of the central government was rendered impotent from the very beginning of independent Pakistan. Additionally, Jinnah had retained substantial decision-making powers of the Muslim League even though Chowudhury Khaliquzzaman was chosen to be the Chief organizer of the party (later he became the President of Pakistan Muslim League).

In his assessment of the nature of Jinnah’s power, Keith Callard observed: “No constitutional ruler and few autocrats have possessed such plentitude of power. He had full authority over the civil administration and armed forces. By his own order he could amend the existing constitution and promulgate laws that would be beyond the effective of review of any court. These were not powers which existed only on paper and which in practice were limited by the conventions of constitutional responsibility. On the contrary, cabinet ministers understood clearly that they held office as the agents of the Governor-General, and the [Constituent] Assembly, with its powerless opposition, was in no mood to challenge any action of its own President” (Keith Callard, 1957, p. 20).

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Dear Bilal Ahmad # 162: Not many persons of south asian origin will disagree with your post about the millenium (or millennium) and Eurocentrism, in general terms. The millenium stuff is, at least to me, not a serious matter. It is mostly marketed/propagated for its commercial significance like many other festive occasions. Anyway, rationally or scientifically, such events do not have any deeper meaning. The famous Harvard Palientologist, Stephen J. Gould wrote a book recently about the insignificance of any particular number including year 2000, except for historic record keeping. In the presence of so many other time keeping calenders, this one has more acceptance due to the European domination of last 500 years as well as recent success of western science and technology worldwide. I accept it, in a way, Europeans accepted Pheonician alphabets, Indian/Arabic decimel and zero and Egyptian concepts of year, month and week.

The Eurocentrism is different. It is biased towards non-white people and effects the psyche of non-whites terribly. It should not be accepted.

Besides being holiday and traditional wishing this and wishing that business, the new year day is just another day like yesterday and tomorrow. I liked the Chineese approach today when President Jiang Ximen marked the new year occasion as a celebration of 5000 years of continuous Chineese civilization and Egypt used this occasion to attract foreign tourists. It almost went unnoticed among 1 billion people of south asia except for insignificant celebration in Columbo and major Indian cities. The millenium business will be with us for one year until December 31, 2000 and unlike Eurocentrism, we would not need to worry about it. It is a useless issue from Pakistan and Pakistani standpoint.

On a forum concerning a so-called Millennium Conference pertaining to development in Pakistan, I raised a set of simple questions: Is Millennium a buzz word? Why Pak Millennium Conference? Why this conference would be annual? I also tried, though unsuccessfully, to engage in a mini-debate on the uncritical acceptance of Eurocentric images, thoughts, worldviews, etc. We need to fully understand what the word Millennium means, how it affects our psyche, and how to combat with both positive and negative effects of a particular discourse -- such as the discourse on Millennium.

Happy new Millennium (a period of joy, serenity, prosperity, and justice for all).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmadt

P. S. Sameer, thanks for your best wishes and kind thoughts. You indeed are organized.

Sameer:

Wow! What an effort it must`ve been.

I reciprocate your sentiments.

Peace and Goodwill all around.

May they find cure for common cold and cancer in the next century.

May India and Pakistan become one again. (remotely possible) in the next century.

May India and Pakistan form a federation to be called Pakistan (not even remotely possible) in the next century.

so long till ......(pls write in your favourite cliche here)

rgds

t

Sameer;

Land Reform, Free Market Economy, and Socialism

In a recent article in Dawn, entitled ``Focus on Agriculture,`` Syed Fakhr Imam writes:

``It seems that the entire panacea of agricultural ills has boiled down to land reform as understood to mean a drastic reduction in land holding, an attractive slogan in the hands of yesteryears. More recently the ``land to the tiller`` slogan has brought devastation, destruction, and ignominy to the former Soviet Union, which became captive to Western Powers by becoming deficient in food grains, needing to import 30 million tonnes from Europe, after imposing stringent land ownership ceilings.

Currently the two major global themes that are being enunciated by the Group of 7 countries are Democracy and Market Economy. Since the takeover in Pakistan of the new regime on October 12, 1999, there is a growing noise amongst the chattering classes on the need for land reforms. These chattering classes want to revive socialism, a negation of market economy, for application to land holdings (the current land ceiling being 8000 PIUs, which is approximately 100 acres), while allowing free market policies for all other economic sectors, industry, business, trade, real estate owners, etc. In other words, capitalism for all, but socialism for landowning farmers who may have inherited and some of whom may trace their lineages for a few generations and have a linkage with history and tradition.``

Mr. Imam is a former minister and a member of the suspended National Assembly. Several questions emerge from the reading of this excerpt. These are: Why people are riding on the bandwagon of land reform? What benefits or losses will accrue as a result of the proposed reform? Who will benefit, how? Who will lose, how? Why previous land reforms were not so successful? Who benefitted and who lost in the previous land reforms? Why free private enterprise for all, but restricted free private enterprise for landowning farmers? What is Mr. Imam`s personal agenda for writing this piece? One could ask additional questions regarding his rhetoric (socialism; former Soviet Union; etc.), maybe we first need to seek some answers of the questions raised by me.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

To: A1, Ali1, Alireza, Amit, Anil, Anil Sharma, Arun Gupta, Assad_K, Bilal Ahmad, Bd, Bulbul, Chief Justice, Chowk Staff, Dragon Slayer, Dua’go, DullaBhatti, Fh, Fuzair, Gautama Sidharata Buddha, Gnostics, Godot, Gymnosophist, Hamidm, Iahmad, J.Alam, Jay, JR, Kafir k. Khan, Krashid, Majestickhans, Moez Mohsin, MQ_Rahat, Pardesi, Patrick Masih, Pu Li, Qanungo One, Rachna, Raja Amir Janjua, RAS Siddiqi, RoohiAD, Sadna, Sahib, Senior Justice, Shahzad C, Sohny Dharty, Syedha, TAhmad321, Tariqlodi, The Happy One, The Ravian One, Temporal, Truth, Tvarad, Umairr, XXYZ, Zeemax, ZZ and all Ckowkwallas.

Wishing you and your families a happy New Millenium, a happy New Century and a very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year. I wish the same to all the people of sub-continent.

Bilal:

Syed Fakhr Imam`s article appeared on Dec 14, issue of one of the Pakistani papers. If you cannot find it let me know. I have a printout. Will gladly fax or mail it to you. (temporal3@hotmail.com.)

I was at the KU about a decade later.

For your article Fatehyab Ali Khan may not be the right person, but he can guide you to the right ones.

Those were the activists` hey days. Fatehyab, Ali Mukhtar Rizvi, Mairaj Mohammed Khan and the late Shahinshah.

The former three are still kicking. If you know Fatehyab you would also know Masooma Hasan. She was in Pol. Sc. Her family built and run the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, near the Topsy, Musical Fountain, Rex CInema Chowk. Masooma was at one time Pak Amb. to Australia and last I heard was chairwoman of NIPA. You can reach Fatehyab through her.

As for the Mazdoor Kissan Party ----this couplet surmises all:
Naa mazdoor, naa kisssan
bus Fatehyab Ali Khan.

You can also get interesting feed back from Kaiser Bengali and his organisation Social Democratic Movement. It has branches all over Pakistan. Kaiser probably teaches at KU. He visited Toronto past summer. I attended one of his talks.

It will be interesting the way you are thinking. By inviting feedback from all interest groups and then churning them, synthesising them, you would perhaps arrive at some novel solutions. Good luck.

rgds

t

I have a suggestion towards Pakistan`s economic problems. A large portion of its annual revenues go out in the form of interest and principal repayment, which I believe is over 50% of its total revenues. After considering defence and govt salaries and other `fixed` expenditure, this leaves very little for development. Why not declare a unilateral moratorium of three-five years during which period no interest/principal repayments will be made and no fresh loans taken either.

This will leave an enormous amount of money that can be used for development activity, especially infrastructure. The IMF and the creditor nations may not like it, but what can they do? They will have no leverage since Pakistan will not ask for fresh loans either (in the short term). All the money saved should be sufficient, if prudently invested, to make a fresh start.

Of course, one could also look at reducing defence expenditure by reducing tensions with India and Iran.

In response to temporal (Reply #: 153)

Dear temporal:

Good commentary and suggestions. Educated people are privileged, and they need to do their job by educating a massively uneducated society in Pakistan. The role of educated people has been dismal in the making of Pakistan. People often confuse literacy with education. In my view, a lot of so-called illiterate and less-educated (in terms of schooling) people have a better consciousness of unequal and unfair reality around us. Pakistan will continue to serious problems as long as there is unfairness and lack of freedom of minds and spirits. Women have played an important role so far, but it is not enough.

Do have a copy of Fakhr Imam`s article? Do you any information about the role and experiences of Fatehyab Ali Khan (Mazdoor Kissan Party)? I would like to know.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P. S. Fatehyab was a senior colleague of mine (as a student of Karachi University) in the early 1960s. He was also the President of Karachi University Students` Union (circa 1961).

Bilal:


In #151 you say, ``In future, I will post additional information about the land reforms in Pakistan with some sense of why they failed.``

I would sugggest you do an article on Land Reforms. And in addition to examining why they failed I would suggest you dwell more on what can be done to enhance farming. I am sure with your sense of fairplay you`d do justice to ALL sides of the issue.

In addition to the article by Hakim Ali Zardari there was another article by Syed Fakhr Imam recently. There were some interesting angles in these two articles.

The `Dou begh zameen`` concept is all but outdated and designed to keep the poor peasant perpetually in slavery. It barely provides sustenance to the peasant farmer. And as an economic unit it is counter productive to national interests.


So much for free land distribution to haris and peasants. Without necessary infra structure, cash advances, bridge financing, crop insurance, education, supply of seed and fertiliser, and buying and storing facilities etc. this land re-distribution is nothing more than photo op for our pseudo leaders.

If mechanized and scientific farming is introduced all over Pakistan, ofcourse with the necessary support infrastructure, it would go a long ways in alleviating the rural miseries and .

And I envision some if not all of our big jagirdars playing a postive role in it.

Land remains an under utilised asset of Pakistan.

rgds

t

rajanjua #147

hamidm #145

Piousness and sanctimoniousness are not confined to people on one side of the border. Please do a search on all my posts and all your own posts and compare who has been the most negative(and expressive about hatred) about the other. For the record, I do have a deep hatred, for hatred itself.

And by the way, I meant IK Gujral when I mentioned an Indian Prime Minister calling GB a `fourth-rate nation` or something like that. One question, why does this expression preoccupy you more than the prospect that Pakistan may end up being a fourth-rate state? What I remember of IK Gujral, he declared unilateral MFN status for Pakistan on India`s behalf. Pakistan, no doubt considered it a conspiracy by India to dominate Pakistan economically. What I admire most about supposed `Akhand Bharati` BJPites is that their PM caught a bus to Lahore in all his poetic simplicity. Pakistan no doubt considered it a ploy to snatch away what is rightfully its own as India has been doing consistently since Independence. Another step in denying Pakistan its rightful place in the scheme of things.

Guys, what do you think they were trying to do? Hit you when you were bowing down or trying to create an environment to reduce hostility? Now we will be back to the Pakistani circular argument of Kashmir.

India must reduce troops --India must reduce hostility -- give us a good deal on Kashmir or we will take it by force -- India must reduce troops--etc

India`s merry-go-round

Try to reduce hostility with Pakistan, talk about Kashmir -- fight Pakistan in Kashmir -- Forced to increase troops -- try to reduce hostility, talk about Kashmir--etc

My own merry-go-round

Say ``Make up your minds`` -- reply to hate posts --say ``do what you want to do as a country`` -- Say ``Make up you minds`` -- etc

If I disowned responsibility why would I be on a discussion board. But I am not taking responsibility for some Pakistanis lack of clear vision. If someone talks of reduction in troops, another talks of the moral duty to fight `Hindus`, yet another espouses `secular` dictatorship for his country while demanding something else for someone else. And which entities are mostly blamed for not yielding all things to all people? Take a guess.

Sadhana

Ethnic Politics in Pakistan (particularly Sindh)

The word ``Mohajir`` literally means immigrant. After the partition of India milions of Muslim immigrants came to Pakistan, these immigrants included both Punjabis and non-Punjabis. However, the word Mohajir is currently used for the non-Punjabi Indian Muslim immigrants and their off-springs (even if they were born in Pakistan). Mohajirs are concentrated in large urban centers of Sindh province. One major demand of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (both movement and political party) was the creation of a new province in Pakistan. This meant the partition of Sindh province. The word Mohajir (M in the MQM) was replaced with Muttahida (which means United) to suggest that the MQM was not merely a Mohajir organization. The policy of apparent moderation has once again been changed to a policy of difference (and perhaps separation). The following news clipping is from Dawn (December 29, 1999). Is this a sign of trouble? Is MQM going to adopt a cooperative or confrontational policy with the non-Mohajir (native Sindhi) residents of Sindh who dominate at least in the rural Sindh.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Special: MQM to change strategy

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief, Altaf Hussain, has finally agreed with the viewpoint of party hardliners that Mohajirs problems can not be solved by the system prevailing in the country or through peaceful means and will soon announce a major shift from his previous stance.

There are indications the MQM may return to its old name, Mohajir Qaumi Movement. Party leaders, however, are tight-lipped about the likely line of action of Mr Hussain. In the past, Mr Hussain had also announced retirement from politics when he developed differences with murdered Chairman Azim Ahmed Tariq. ``We are waiting for his announcement,`` said one leader.  

Feudalism: A Question of Abolition?

The author of the following letter, Sheikh Umar Khan, calls for another but effective round of land reform in Pakistan. In future, I will post additional information about the land reforms in Pakistan with some sense of why they failed.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The Nation, Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, December 29, 1999

State-cum-jagir lands

This refers to Hakim Ali Zardari`s article, `A word about jagirdari and feudal system` (December 5). Mr Zardari has claimed that due to the land reforms introduced by Ayub Khan, no jagirdars exist in Sindh today. While naming big jagirdars whose jagirs were abolished, Mr Zardari has not mentioned Sultan Ahmad Chandio whose jagir measuring three lac acres was also abolished.

It needs to be explained here that after the Mutiny of 1857, the British Government thought it prudent to reward loyalties; a number of feudal lords succeeded in establishing proprietary claims to vast tracts of state land as jagirdars, where they came to wield considerable power, influence and prestige.

Under the land reforms introduced by General Ayub Khan, jagirs were abolished and the land was resumed without payment of compensation. All jagir land reverted to state land, to be disposed of in a prescribed manner by the West Pakistan Land Commission.

Having served in the Land Commission during General Ayub Khan`s regime, I can affirm that the jagirdars who had predominance and sway in the region blocked all efforts of the Land Commission to dispose of the resumed land till the time Ayub Khan`s land reforms were thwarted by Yahya Khan. Thus the jagirs were abolished but the land remained in their possession.

Some of the jagir land was distributed in Sindh recently by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif among landless haris. Lacs of acres still remain for disposal. It is high time Chief Executive General Musharraf disposed of all available state-cum-jagir land along with the unallotted evacuee land as per his announcement.

It will not only be a catalyst for increased agricultural production, but also erase the remains of an unjust and deceitful act of the British raj.

-- SHEIKH UMAR KHAN, Lahore, December 23.

In response to temporal (Reply #: 149)

Dear temporal:

The image that you expect from your crystal ball is optimistic. We have paid a big price of our unjust social order. Societies do not evolve or transform in short time spans. They are a product of innumerable actions of all kinds of people -- both rich and poor, educated and uneducated (nor merely illiterate), wise and unwise. I don`t expect, a quick transformation of Pakistani society, but I do believe in a slow, gradual, and uninterrupted social change based upon a vision and a sense of direction. It is a shame that a lot of Pakistanis are still living a less than human life.

We need to keep on writing against injustice and the lack of freedom. A strong internal critique with some positive suggestions is the only way to move forward.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal:

Here`s an article a friend sent me yesterday.

If I gaze in my crystal ball, I can tell you what would happen in future. Instead of taking any measures to alleviate the injustice and suffering the powers that be would transfer the Superintendent of the Jail and other minor functinaries and then withdraw back into their shells.

cynically,

t


Plight of women and children in Adiala prison

By Narjis Zaidi


RAWALPINDI: As many as 112 women and 14 children, including 10 foreign nationals, are in Adiala prison. 72 female prisoners are charged for
drug trafficking, 21 are booked under Hudood ordinance and the remaining are jailed for minor offences. 10 women have been granted bail, but are
still in jail as they do not have the money for surety bond.

A visit to the Adiala prison by this correspondent and three members of the Crisis Centre for Women in Distress reveals that the majority of the accused have no lawyer, are languishing in the prison for months and years as under trials prisoners, have been abandoned by their families and feel severely stressed because of the long separation from their children.

Rehana Kauser of Rawalpindi is a typical case. In February 1993, she was booked under Section 302 (attempted murder) for killing her husband. Pregnant at the time of her arrest, she gave birth to a baby girl in jail and has been in Adiala and Kot Lakhpat prisons ever since.

Named Ayesha by the cell mates, the six-year-old girl has not seen the world beyond the compound of barrack number II in Adiala prison. The case has been under trial for six years and ten months. Meanwhile the accused mother and innocent daughter have served a lifetime sentence as
February 2000 will mark seven years of their long ordeal in prison.

Sombol, a Thai national, was booked under the drug trafficking act and was arrested from the Islamabad airport four months back. A mother of
four minor children, Sombol appeared distressed as she had no news from home. ``We are very poor,`` she said, and requested the visiting team to
mail a Christmas greeting card to her children in Bangkok. The prison manual allows its inmates to write and receive mail but the Thai mother
insisted on communicating with her children through the free world channel.

Rukhsana Bibi, 22, of Pir Wadhai is imprisoned for the last 20 months. She is accused by her husband of killing their three-year-old daughter.
``I had gone out to fetch milk leaving my little daughters, aged 3 and 5, in the house. They went near the fire and one of them got severely burnt. My enraged husband held me responsible for the accident and booked me under Section 302 (attempted murder).

After spending one year and eight months in jail, Rukhsana has been declared innocent by the court and has been bailed out. What more is required to free her from the detention is a surety bond which she has not been able to arrange. Proven innocent, young Rukhsana narrated details of severe police torture in Pir Wadhai police station at the time of her arrest. Rukhsana`s sixteen-month-old son, born in the prison, was down with cold and high fever. The CCW is making
arrangements for provision of surety bonds for the under bail women, currently ten in number.

Another accused, still waiting to be heard is Nasreen Akhtar of Nawabshah. She was arrested sixteen months back along with her husband
in the famous Nina Aziz murder case. ``For several days both me and my husband were mercilessly beaten up in the police station for signing the
murder confession but we did not. We are innocent.`` The couple`s only child, a three-year-old daughter has been sent back to Nawabshah on
their request.

Farasat Bibi of Wah Cantonment was remanded to Adiala prison from the local police station two days ago. She is charged for trying to hide her
brother in law who was being raided by the Wah police on suspicion of heroin addiction. After her arrest on December 18, Farasat Bibi was
cruelly beaten by the male SHO of Wah police station. ``He stripped me of my dignity in the presence of several men and made me a `murgha` for
hours, she said, weeping bitterly at her humiliation by the SHO and showed marks of physical abuse on her arm and lower back.

The Pakistan legal system disallows physical torture of accused persons as part of investigative procedure. Police torture on Farasat Bibi by a male SHO is a serious violation of law, said the CCW lawyer and observed that there was clear evidence of the law enforcers taking on presumptive powers. Should a prisoner who cannot afford bail remain in prison? Is
poverty itself a crime to be paid with incarceration?

In response to hamidm (Reply #: 145)

Dear Hamid:

A good response in spirit (except the last sentence). Although I still see some element of over-simplification, nobody would disagree with your point that we are ``still stuck in the cesspool of human misery.`` I would like all of us to look into the origin, growth, and perpetuation of economic, political, cultural, psychological, and spiritual misery in both India and Pakistan. I think, part of this is a result of our over-emphasis on the preparedness for war. As far as the case of East Pakistan and the 1971 war is concerned, we need to first look into the causes why our own house was not in order. I think, you are giving too much credit to Indira Gandhi for her unwise and unwarranted role in the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971.

I believe that both Indians and Pakistanis need to develop internal critiques of their respective countries first. An external critique needs to be very cautious and mixed with an element of cooperation, support, and friendship. As far as Sadhana`s writings are concerned, I have a lot of admiration for her ideas, writing style, command over language, and sentiments (though being a human being she is also likely to get carried away occasionally). I think, we are all in a process of learning from each other.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: #144 sadna

Very cute, Madam :-). But your suggestion only solves the internal problems of us war-mongering, gun-totting, hijab-wearing, fanatical terrorists. If you want peace in the region you need to chill-out on that Akhand Bharat dream of yours-the only way you can convince your neighbours that you don`t have any such grand plans is to cut down on your armed forces, which you can neither afford nor justify as a defensive force. The message of ``shanti and love`` from Shiv Sena and Advani, et. al., sounds a whole lot more ominous and discomforting to us war-mongers when backed by one of the largest armed force in the world.

In the meantime, while you are campaigning for an arms reduction by your government-I`ll be preacing for the eradication of all these Lashkars-

Sincerely yours,

Janjua The Terrible

Altaf Gauhar and K. M. Arif

In a recent opinion piece, Shaheen Sehbai has called for accountability in journalism (see Reply # 143). Shaheen is a Washington, D. C. based Pakistani journalist. In a list of some opportunists and ambition-hunters who have used the print media for achieving political goals, he includes many ``uniformed generals, air marshals and admirals, retired bureaucrats and technocrats, many of whom were shunted out in disgrace __ sinners of the past, who would just not quit, and continue to impose themselves on the nation in one form or the other. Politicians have also been trying frequently to use the media to stage a come back when they lost the game on their own wicket.`` Shaheen contends that the ``spearheads of this list would be stalwarts like Altaf Gauhar from the bureaucracy and Lt. Gen. K.M. Arif from the khakis.``

Both Altaf Gauhar and General Arif have played an important role in the making and unmaking of Pakistan. We need to discuss the role of these two personalities (important members of the army-bureaucracy power bloc).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I don`t think my intention was to tie myself in knots when I talked about the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay. I was simply trying to point out that inspite of Indira Gandhi`s brash and insolent remark about England, the fact remains that we ( with people like her and the big-mouth Bhutto leading us ) are still stuck in the cesspool of human misery.

However, I must admit that she was brilliant in her planning and execution of the 1971 war. She has put a generation of both Indian and Pakistani politicians and generals to shame - maybe we Pakistanis need a woman with ironpants to show us the way ! ( and it is not Bennzir )

A general observation .... it is obvious from your reply to rajanjua that you blame it all on the Pakistanis - just like us, who blame it all on those living, on what I affectionately call, the wrong side of the border. It is a sad fact that inspite of all the posturing by self-claimed humanists and peaceniks on both sides,we are consumed by hatred for each other which makes real peace impossible, at lest in the forseeable future. Theren lies my rationale for being prepared for the inevitable battles.

hamidm #141

``After fifty years of ``freedom`` citizens of India and Pakistan still prefer the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay.``

You tie yourself into knots. This is precisely the point I was trying to make when I mentioned 30 year mortgages. The reason for this is people who are full of self-loathing and donot think it worthwhile even after fifty years to find ways to have order and harmony in their own countries.

rajanjua #140

This pro-war discussion is getting me all misty-eyed. I think the first task for our war-loving, AK-47 clutching, money-grabbing and peace-hating children of the pure from Pakistan is to convince their disreputable government to reduce their support to armed radical and lawless groups, stop trying to blackmail their neighbours and get on with the job of bringing prosperity to Pakistan. Peace will come automatically in the sub-continent.

Sadhana

Yellow Journalism?

A number of Chowkwallas have been talking about yellow journalism in Pakistan. The following lengthy piece seems to be a critique of the same.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Frontier Post, December 27, 1999

Accountability of the Press

Shaheen Sehbai

Every one in the present morally, intellectually and financially depleted Pakistan __ the print media and its well-entrenched ``gurus`` among the foremost __ is shouting from the roof top for accountability of every one else. Yet no one has seriously demanded, nor does any one appear to be contemplating, any accountability of the media itself.

Accountability of the media should, under ordinary circumstances, be conducted by peers of the profession in terms of its moral, professional and intellectual integrity. But in the lopsided Pakistani context, financial accountability of journalists, columnists, newspaper owners, publishers and editors also needs to be promptly and urgently undertaken and that would require intervention of the state investigative apparatus.

Accountability to determine integrity should not just include professional and financial conduct of journalists but it should also try to understand the reasons why objective journalism and traditional professional journalists are fast becoming an extinct breed and almost all opinion writing, analysis and interpretation work has been taken over by ``lateral entrants`` __ people who had no journalistic training, who never went through the mill, who acquired writing skills doing something else and when they failed in their professions, took refuge in journalism.

These ``lateral entrants`` mostly comprise ambitious generals, politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and opportunists, all masquerading as journalists, opinion makers and columnists of the highest order. Most of them have no reporting or editing skills and some appear to even have been planted by vested interests. It is common knowledge in Islamabad that at least two well-known editors of the now-defunct Daily ``Muslim`` were nominees of the military establishment, including one who became an ambassador and another who graduated to be a federal minister.

That most of them had, and still have, political ambitions and hidden agendas has never been concealed by them, as their current or past conduct would show. Many of them have virtually ``used`` journalism as a stepping stone to achieve their political and/or financial goals. Names in this category are numerous and if these big names are removed from the present spectrum of editors, leading op-ed writers, columnists, commentators and leader writers, newspapers would appear to be barren.

The purpose of this piece is not to condemn any one for his or her views and opinion nor does this piece encompass all the problems that journalism faces in Pakistan, specially the ills created by yellow journalism and a ``free-for-all`` attitude to Press freedoms. Yet one specific purpose is to pinpoint those who have been continuously ``using`` or ``abusing`` journalism for their own ends.

Some of these leading lights of present-day journalism in Pakistan are so brazen and unabashed in their pursuit of profit, politics or power, that they seem to have lost their sense and powers of judgement. The exercise their judgement only if their own political interests are served. They never measure their own conduct by the yardstick with which they measure everybody else in their writings.

Since all accountability processes began in the country from the cut-off date of mid-`80s, looking at the media scene in these 15 years brings up a horde of opportunists and power-grabbers, who have been rampaging the newspapers and their columns in one form or the other.

The best way to start such a process would be for the leading stars of the profession to present their own assets and liabilities to the public, like the chief executive and other services chiefs have done. One or two journalists have done that already but generally there is deafening silence. That would set the stage for authorities to go into their financial conduct. Newspaper owners and their families, some very high-profile editors and some upstarts who overnight became millionaires after they turned editors and publishers, would have to answer a lot of messy questions.

The integrity check should simultaneously be launched by the peers of the profession at whatever forum they think would be appropriate. Perhaps this first hurdle may be the only big hurdle and may never be crossed.

The peers, naturally those who come out unscathed and ``clean``, should sit down to formulate lists of those who have been publicly demonstrating a lack of intellectual, moral and professional integrity. Big names like Minhaj Barna, Mushahid Hussain, Maleeha Lodhi, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Nazir Naji, Ataul Haq Qasmi, Ayaz Amir, Hussain Haqqani, Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Najam Sethi, Nasim Zehra, Jamiluddin Aali and many others who sought or accepted political, diplomatic or government jobs, or joined political parties as activists, should be asked to explain why they did not quit journalism to do so and why they continued to use the profession to get, keep or regain lucrative jobs or positions of power. How do they retain, or claim to retain, their objectivity and credibility, once they have demonstrated their political ambitions? In the least they should have apologised to the profession.

Some of them have been going in and out of journalism so frequently as if the profession was a revolving door only to be used when they needed a push to restore their lost position of political, economic or administrative influence and power.

Some others accepted so petty, temporary and at times demeaning jobs that the entire profession could only hang its head in shame. Scenes when stalwarts of the profession were seen waiting outside offices of petty bureaucrats in Islamabad`s corridors of power, to get an extension of their foreign assignment were, to say the least, despicable, bringing no merit to Pakistani journalism.

I would never forget a supposedly well known name in today`s op-ed pages who, in order to ``please`` an ambassador in Washington, turned himself into the ambassador`s private photographer and started taking pictures of the ambassador with all those present at a grand farewell dinner thrown at the official residence. For three hours this newspaper columnist behaved like a personal privately hired professional. He even carried his ``act of sycophancy`` to the next day at the airport where people went to see off the ambassador, clicking rolls and rolls of pictures with the ambassador standing and smiling with every Tom, Dick, Harry and Larry. Even junior embassy staffers started making jokes about this senior journalist and his ``buttering skills``. To his ultimate disgrace, he was never obliged by the slick ambassador, despite his publicly self-demeaning conduct. But later these skills worked with the other political government of the day and he landed a cushy government job in Islamabad. Still he retains his claim to be an ``impartial and objective`` analyst and writer and does not include himself in the long list of trapeze artists that crowd the media circus in Pakistan.

Pakistan`s so-called free press is on the verge of becoming, or has already become, a beggar`s market where cheap and shoddy journalism is sold to the highest bidder __ whether political or military __ and thus the sellers get unprecedented access to power corridors. Many in Pakistan`s print and news media seem to have forgotten their responsibilities as guardians of the truth. It has therefore to be decided: whether these political aspirants, masquerading as journalists, deserve to be given the status of ``objective commentators``; whether what they dish out every day as ``informed opinion`` or ``dispassionate analysis`` should be presented to the readers as material worthy of credit; and whether the value of transparency is not irreparably compromised by the actions of those who compromise the integrity of journalism as a profession.

Financial accountability of journalists has to take place parallel to what the peers may decide to do and for that the government sleuths have to determine how small-time reporters turned overnight into millionaires, newspaper owners and big-time real estate tycoons.

Tax accountability will demonstrate the fraud Pakistani journalism has evolved into. Tax collectors should go into the records of ``overnight millionaire journalists`` to determine whether, for example, the life style of some of the big names match what they have been paying into the exchequer, whether the properties they have built in short spans of time match the incomes, or losses, of their otherwise unprofitable newspaper organisations.

Cases of open and blatant government cash handouts to favourite journalists, newspapers and news agencies are no secret in Islamabad and Lahore. A deceased news agency owner, a small-time reporter not long ago, was awarded two costly plots of land in Lahore to set up his news agency by the first Nawaz Sharif administration. The agency still claims to be ``independent`` but always dishes out planted stories that suit the rulers of the day. Open and blatant black-mailing tactics by some vernacular newspapers were hated by every political government and party but no one ever tried to curb their activities, fearing an exposure.

While the peers of the profession and the state probers look into the conduct of the mediamen, the editors and publishers should also carry out a simultaneous process of introspection to determine how other outsiders __ opportunists and ambition-hunters __ have used the print media for achieving political goals that would otherwise not be achievable.

This category would include a long list of uniformed generals, air marshals and admirals, retired bureaucrats and technocrats, many of whom were shunted out in disgrace __ sinners of the past, who would just not quit, and continue to impose themselves on the nation in one form or the other. Politicians have also been trying frequently to use the media to stage a come back when they lost the game on their own wicket.

The spearheads of this list would be stalwarts like Altaf Gauhar from the bureaucracy and Lt. Gen. K.M. Arif from the khakis. But in politics, not only Benazir Bhutto has been trying to regularly push her case of innocence through op-ed pieces, even her famous one-time house-maid Naheed Khan got at least a couple of articles published in obliging newspapers to include her name in the list of those who could be seen brandishing the media sword. That was like adding salt to the injury.

I vividly recall my first encounter with Lt. General (Retd) K.M. Arif in Washington D.C. when I saw him at the Carnegie Institute, while he was here with the then opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, US columnist Mansoor Ijaz and Editor Najam Sethi to speak at a conference on nuclear proliferation in South Asia. I had always carried one question for the general which I had wished I could ask him. That day I did. We were standing in a small group of some five or six people including then Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael and then ambassador Maleeha Lodhi during the tea break, when I asked: ``Have you, General, ever thought of apologising to the people of Pakistan for the years and years of rape of democracy and institutions that you committed in collusion with military dictator General Ziaul Haq, virtually as his No 2.``

The General was thunder-struck. Face distorted, he tried to compose himself for a few anxious seconds and then said he would like to take a cup of coffee and moved away from the group. That general is one of the most outspoken authority on democracy and foreign affairs in our newspapers today and has just been named as a member of the think tank on foreign affairs by General Musharraf. His appointment can best be described as the most apt example of insulting the collective intelligence of the people. If he is not punished for what he did to democracy, he should at least have been banished from giving sermons on democracy and good governance in newspaper columns.

The list of foreign and home-based technocrats and experts on economy, sciences and geo-strategic subjects, who pushed their resumes through newspaper columns, would also not be a small one. Some may have achieved their objectives. What they did could probably not be called objectionable, but if they did so in collusion with newspaper editors and owners who now expect to be rewarded because the aspirant expert has assumed political power, it would be patently unethical and against professional integrity.

While carrying out this exercise of accountability by the peers and by the state apparatus, it should not be forgotten that journalism has always been proud of many who have remained spotless, intellectually and financially, despite the most adverse of conditions in their professional and personal lives. They would definitely emerge as the ``clean peers`` that we desperately need for self-cleansing.

Among those the profession has to remain for ever thankful to late Messrs Mazhar Ali Khan, A.T. Choudhri, Khwaja Asif, Nisar Osmani and Maulana Salahuddin besides living legends like Ahmed Ali Khan and Zamir Niazi and very respectable names like Aziz Siddiqi, I.A. Rehman, S.G.M. Badruddin, A.B.S. Jafri, Salim Asmi, H.K. Burki, Munno Bhai, Hussain Naqi, and the present younger lot of many hardcore professionals who have turned down all inducements and bribes, plots and privileges, to remain honest and upright journalists. These leading lights should do something to clean up journalism or what is left of it as a growing cesspool.

  

In response to hamidm (Reply #: 141)

Dear Hamid:

Other things being equal, if an opportunity is provided to choose between the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay, all sane people would choose the former. Maybe you were trying to say something else? A little explanation of your points would help.

Protest against injustice does not necessarily end injustice. In fact, in many situations, protest leads to an enhanced reproduction of injustice. Does this mean that people should stop resistence? The Vietnam War did not end due to either Bertrand Russel`s mock trials and protests or the efforts of Ho Chi Minh. I think, you are oversimplifying the complex and chaotic nature of human history.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sadhana

``Here you seem to be saying that when others wage war, war is the only alternative. I agree with you 100%, I believe covert wars ought to be included within this principle.`` .... I believe you are referring to the fact that Pakistan is conducting a covert war in Kashmir, which I don`t deny, and of course India has every right to fight back. But, in my view, Pakistan has the moral responsibility to wage this war because, again in my view, India is the agressor in this case. Having said that, I disagree with the way Pakistan is conducting this war, because it seems to be on an ad-hoc basis without a plan for the end-game.

``If ``technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` `` is ``what every general dreams of``, maybe automatic weapons and their overwhelming use is what every sectarian terrorist dreams of``... here again I agree with you and fanatical sectarian groups, whether they are the Lashkar-i- Tayiba, the Shiv Sena, or the Red Brigades are a major threat, but they cannot be equated with professional armies as an instrument of the state. I don`t think any of these groups should be encouraged to take on the trappings of an army.

``Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister`` ... both Indira Ghandi and Z.A. Bhhutto, like Nyrere, Kaunda, Castro, Mugabe, Boumediene, and a slew of other big-mouth leaders of improvished fourth world countries wer ling on rhetoric and short on results. After fifty years of ``freedom`` citizens of India and Pakistan still prefer the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay.

Bilal,

I quoted Churchill on Chamberlain because he recognized the reality and dealt with it, whereas the well-meaning Chamberlain, like you and Sadhana, ignored reality because it did not fit his pacifist views.

As for Chomsky, what can I say ... if it were up to him his tribe would still be roaming the desert while he indulged in intellectual debate with Edward Said from the comfort of his Cambridge office ! His advocacy of the ``South`` is the internationsl equivalent of Hayden`s liberal agenda in California. Again, a well meaning ``intellectual`` without a sense of reality. People like him philosophize and write about world events, while people like Churchill Teddy Roosevelt, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir shame them. Remember Betrand Russel (and Tariq Ali) and his mock Vietnam trials ..... did he end that war or was it Ho Chi Minh?

This anti-war discussion is getting me all misty-eyed. I think the first task for our war-hatin`, daisy-clutchin`, tree-huggin`, peace-lovin` flower children from Bharat is to convince their respectable benevolent government to reduce the size of their armed forces and to stop bullying their neighbours-Peace will come automatically in the sub-continent.

Peace Man!!

In response to hamidm (Reply # 133):

I wonder if you have quoted Churchill to show your ``worldview`` or it was just a random choice. Churchill was great statesman of the past, when Britain was a great world power. Compare Churchill`s views with people like Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great you may find some remarkable commonalities. During the past one-half century, a lot of changes have occurred (and a lot more have yet to occur) that make our today and future different from our past (at least intellectually). For your reference, I want to share a few quotes from Noam Chomsky (Chomsky, N. 19994. World Orders: Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press; pp-4-5). I suggest everyone to read this book.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

A Question of Discourses and Worldviews

``The Cold War has had a certain functional utility for state and doctrinal managers, offering ritual patterns of apologetics for any horror or injustice. The serviceability of the conventional picture for dominant elements offers some reason for caution about its accuracy. The historical record reveals that such skepticism is warranted.``

Calls for a New World Order

``With the Cold War at an end, there were calls for a New World Order. These came in several varieties. The earliest was published by the nongovernmental South Commission, chaired by Julius Nyerere and consisting of leading Third World economists, government planners, religious leaders, and others. In a 1990 study, the Commission reviewed the recent record of North-South relations culminating in the catastrophe of capitalism that swept through traditional colonial domains in the 1980s, apart from the Japanese sphere in East Asia, where states are powerful enough to control not only labor, as is the norm, but also capital, so that economies were somewhat insulated from the ravages of the market. To mention one aspect, capital flight from Latin America approximated the crushing debt, not a problem in East Asia, where the hemorrhage was stanched by tight controls.``

The South Commission on Neocolonialism

``The South Commission observes that there were some gestures toward Third World concerns in the 1970s, ``undoubtedly spurred`` by concern over ``the newly found assertiveness of the South after the rise in oil prices in 1973.`` As this problem abated and the terms of trade resumed their long-term shift in favor of the industrial societies, the core industrial powers lost interest and turned to ``a new form of neo-colonialism,`` monopolizing control over the world economy, undermining the more democratic elements of the United Nations, and in general proceeding to institutionalize ``the South`s second-class status``--the natural course of events, given the relations of power and the cynicism with which it is exercised.``

Churchill`s Vision and The South Commission`s Call for a New World Order

``Reviewing the miserable state of the traditional Western domains, the Commission called for a ``new world order`` that will respond to``the South`s plea for justice, equity, and democracy in the global society,`` though its analysis offers little basis for hope.

The prospects for this call are revealed by the attention accorded to it, or to the report generally, which also passed silently into oblivion. The West is guided by a different vision, one outlined forthrightly by Winston Churchill as an earlier New World Order was being constructed after World War II:``

``The government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations, who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations, there would always be danger. But none of us had any reason to seek for anything more. The peace would be kept by peoples who lived in their own way and were not ambitious. Our power placed us above the rest. We were like rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations?``

Chomsky on The Rich People`s Right to Rule

``To rule is the right and duty of the rich men dwelling in deserved peace. It is only necessary to add two footnotes. First, the rich men are far from lacking ambition; there are always new ways to enrich oneself and dominate others, and the economic system virtually requires that they be pursued, or the laggard falls out of the game. Second, the fantasy that nations are the actors in the international arena is the standard doctrinal camouflage for the fact that within the rich nations, as within the hungry ones, there are radical differences in privilege and power. Removing the remaining veil of delusion from Churchill`s prescription, we derive the guidelines of world order: the rich men of the rich societies are to rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of wealth and power and mercilessly suppressing those who stand in their way, assisted by the rich men of the hungry nations who do their bidding. The others serve, and suffer.``

hamidm

Let me back up a few steps, it seems warranted.

hamidm#130

``Are you suggesting that Pakistan should abandon the Kashmiris, accept the Indian army occupation, accept Indian hegemony in the region, become a vassal state like Bhutan, and essentially roll over and play dead?``

Its pitiful to see human intellect reach such a dead end that it recognizes only two choices, war or ignominy. Thats what is meant by failure of intellect.

`` You asked if war had solved any problems in Africa and Southeast Asia.``

Well, you have only confirmed my suspicions that it didnot and that war was the result of the world powers refusal to recognise political solutions. The lack of popular voice may have had something to do with it. Who mourns the 1-2 million Indians(Indian/Pakistani) who were killed in WWI, noone in the West who initiated the War, I am sure. Here you seem to be saying that when others wage war, war is the only alternative. I agree with you 100%, I believe covert wars ought to be included within this principle.

``the bombs did end the war, which should be the objective of any blue-blood pacifist``

The bombs worked because the other side didnot have them. Have you heard of the Cold War?

hamid #124

``True, but on the flip side of the coin, the objective was to kill as many Serbs as possible - and that is generally the objective in any war. The US has the technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` to do what every general dreams of. ``

Use of boardgame or videogame terminology again? The reason for this situation was that Serb leaders had less regard for the lives of their people than the Americans. Also, the use of overwhelming force without regard to political implications is what is making terrorism the first headline in the US consistently in this holiday period of faith, love and prosperity.

Look at these headlines from Dawn. 27th Dec:

`` 13 killed, six injured in attack on funeral in Haripur

ISLAMABAD, Dec 27: Thirteen people were killed and six injured when gunmen opened fire on a funeral procession, an official news agency reported today. The massacre occurred in the village of Sikandarpur near Haripur, a town in North West Frontier Province. Three people opened fire on a funeral procession. It is said that the attack was linked to a dispute over the construction of a Shiite mosque in the village. The attackers, believed to be Shiites, attacked the funeral procession, which was taking the body of a deceased Sunni Muslim for burial. (AFP) (Posted @ 22:15 PST)

``

If ``technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` `` is ``what every general dreams of``, maybe automatic weapons and their overwhelming use is what every sectarian terrorist dreams of. Try your hand at convincing these people of a need for political solutions. Oh, you are likely to be situated too far away to feel any need to do so.

Sadhana

hamidm

``Hope you are not disappointed``

I am disappointed since being introduced to chowk.com to see a large number of Pakistanis(yes Pakistanis) who donot live the principles they espouse. Emma Duncan in her book says something like ``hypocrisy has become a fine art in Pakistan.`` It seems almost a compulsion to mouth one thing and do another. Frankly, I have great respect for most posters here and the sincerity of their intentions, whether anti-Indian or not. Each person of integrity lives the principles they profess and in these days of almost hand-to-hand combat, it is up to Indians and Pakistanis to get their hands dirty and get to work on what they believe. I don`t see the relevance of outdated colonials and their sayings in this situation.

Its wonderful to sum up human history by trite sayings such as

``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars.``

Those are not statements of `do-ers`, they are statements of those who are content to passively let history make itself and then be wise in retrospect.

I would rather sum up Indo-Pak history(the scope I am presently interested in) and say ``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.. nation-states and politicians belonging to progressive countries(many of which were members of the erstwhile Third World) have now learned to advance their interests and those of their citizens by trying to reach just solutions without war``. For such a thing to happen, there are many prerequisites, firstly, citizens have to assume responsibility for actions and consequences and

secondly, specifically for you, they have to transport themselves to the present and not be utterly lost in admiration of `40s Europe.

Sadhana

PS: Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister?

hamidm

``Hope you are not disappointed``

I am disappointed since being introduced to chowk.com to see a large number of Pakistanis(yes Pakistanis) who donot live the principles they espouse. Emma Duncan in her book says something like ``hypocrisy has become a fine art in Pakistan.`` It seems almost a compulsion to mouth one thing and do another. Frankly, I have great respect for most posters here and the sincerity of their intentions, whether anti-Indian or not. Each person of integrity lives the principles they profess and in these days of almost hand-to-hand combat, it is up to Indians and Pakistanis to get their hands dirty and get to work on what they believe. I don`t see the relevance of outdated colonials and their sayings in this situation.

Its wonderful to sum up human history by trite sayings such as

``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars.``

Those are not statements of `do-ers`, they are statements of those who are content to passively let history make itself and then be wise in retrospect.

I would rather sum up Indo-Pak history(the scope I am presently interested in) and say ``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.. nation-states and politicians belonging to progressive countries(many of which were members of the erstwhile Third World) have now learned to advance their interests and those of their citizens by trying to reach just solutions without war``. For such a thing to happen, there are many prerequisites, firstly, citizens have to assume responsibility for actions and consequences and

secondly, specifically for you, they have to transport themselves to the present and not be utterly lost in admiration of `40s Europe.

Sadhana

PS: Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister?

sac,

Since you mentioned Machiavelli, please note that he insisted that war should be conducted by the state and not weekend or holy warriors led by bony-kneed scout-masters or bearded mullahs :

``Every well governed commonwealth should take care that the art of war is practiced in peacetime only as an exercise and in time of war only out of necessity and for the acquisition of glory, and practiced by the state alone.``

You suggest a low-intensity war in Kashmir - I agree with that in principle (as part of the battle-plan), but there is a great danger that these crazed lashkars can get out of hand and harm Pakistan more than India. I believe it is already happening with the proliferation of groups that are not controlled by the Pakistani government.

As for Lalu Khet - never been there, and have no desire to either. I have spent some time in Shakar Parian, although I did prefer Daman-e-Koh -that was when only the brave dared to go up there; before they ruined it with roads and bad resaurants and frightened off the barking deer, snow-leopard and the paharia.

hamidm:

I must admit I enjoyed the intellectual gymnastics you went thru to explain your point of view regarding war as a ``noble`` human endeavour. What I found irksome was your prescription for a military solution to Kashmir. Do you really believe that the Pakistani army(and the navy and the airforce!!) has the guts and the resources to wage a serious war with India for more than 2 weeks? Pakistan has no choice but to wage a low-intensity war with India hoping that India would never have the audacity to risk a full-out war. Maybe you read your Clausewitz too diligently and forgot about Machiavilli. BTW which contonment have you been spending time in? Lalu Khet or Shakar Parian :)

Regards

-sac

Sadhana and Bilal

No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars. I admire your personal convictions and hope that you are not disappointed. You may take heart from Churchill`s gracious eulogy to a well-meaning person whose sincerity and love of peace was responsible for the death of millions of innocent people :

``It fell to Neville chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man.

But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart -- the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity and clamour.

Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged.``

hamidm

Ask the Vietnamese and the Kampuchians. Ask the Rwandans, Somalis, Sudanese and the children of Sierra Leone. Those are the proud traditions of war which are most likely to be perpetuated.

(though a nuclear attack that ends the war in a moral victory for soldiers of God seems to be what you actually have in mind). What are you doing in a measly discussion board exhanging words with an Indian female? Get on with it.

Sadhana

In response to hamidm (Reply #: 130)

Dear Hamid:

First, I am not sure which part of your post is addressed to me. Second, we need to understand why some people support or oppose any war. In my case, I oppose all wars based upon my personal convictions. I, therefore, believe in a no-war policy. This does not mean that such a belief by some, like me or Sadhana, would automatically (and ever) wipe out the incidence of war from the face of the earth.

My example of the atomic bomb was simply to show how people justify their actions. Based upon my understanding and interpretation of human history (and thus my personal convictions), I find their viewpoint as unacceptable. If you do not like this example, permit me to ask: What was the justification of using Napalm bombs in Vietnam? During the Vietnam War, the whole world was against the US (including a lot of the Americans).

As far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, I support the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir (based upon the assumption that Kashmiris want to use this right). As far as India-Pakistan relations are concerned, we need to develop both competitive and cooperative strategies such that the people of both countries are able to live in peace and prosperity.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sadhana and Bilal,

Are you suggesting that Pakistan should abandon the Kashmiris, accept the Indian army occupation, accept Indian hegemony in the region, become a vassal state like Bhutan, and essentially roll over and play dead? Living in ignominy and disgrace, is probably better than dying in a blaze of glory, but it will make Tipu Sultan turn in his grave. It will also prove that the Battalion Subedar Major was right when, upset at the listless march up that hill, his ruddy mountain cheeks quivering with emotion, he thundered: “ Shabash! Ye Pak fauj kay jawan a rahe hain ! Oye, mein toh samjha ke Calig ki larkian a rahee hain. Peechay Pher!``.... Not that I have anything against ``college girls``, having chased(courted) a few and finally married one, but I still think of that irascible BSM with fondness.

You asked if war had solved any problems in Africa and Southeast Asia. Let`s see. Do you, for a minute, think that the Vietnamese could have negotiated their freedom from the French and the Americans over Gâteau de Saumon and Dom Perignon or hamburgers and Budweiser. And what about the Algerians – I doubt very much that they could have convinced the French to leave by beating them in an haute gastronomy contest!

As for Bilal`s lamentation, that the Americans are somehow less than human because they believe that dropping the atomic bombs was necessary, conveniently ignores the fact that the bombs did end the war, which should be the objective of any blue-blood pacifist.

bahmad #128

Dear Bilal,

I agree with you that there is really no just war. I just didnot want to feed into the commonly held misconception in the Indo-Pak context that talking of peace is a sign of lack of valor or lack of moral fibre. Also I feel some posters do look for moral validations of their hatred from their perceived enemies.

Sadhana

In response to sadna (Reply # 127)

Dear Sadhana:

My statement that ``War is a failure of our intellect which we don`t believe to possess`` requires a little more thinking and understanding. I believe, there is no such thing as a ``just war`` because if their is justice there won`t be a war. Justifications of war are always constructed by those who want to engage in a war for one reason or another. Human beings have a tendency of least effort. It is relatively easy to engage in a war than to make peace.

In the United States there are a lot of people who have been indoctrinated to believe that the dropping of the Atomic bombs was necessary for saving human lives. This thinking, in my view, is unfortunate.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

hamidm #124

In talking of `just` causes, I had deliberately put quotes on `just` to emphasize that the justness of any cause can be very subjective.

``You do make a very compassionate and sincere case against war, and it difficult not to be moved by it, but it does not take into account geo-political realities.``

Instead of looking merely at the Western Hemisphere where decisive force settled the matter many times, and society survived in good enough shape to draw logically and analytically neat conclusions by hindsight, if you look at the African continent and parts of Southeast Asia, almost no geopolitical realities that dictated war could ever be resolved through war. In many parts of the world, the only surviving feature of a previously special and distinct ethnicity is the fact that they are now `locked in a death struggle` with another ethnic group. No ideological culmination has been reached in these wartorn parts of Asia and Africa even after decades of conflict. Noone writes of nobility of war in these parts. It might be revealing that not many writers from these parts are even known, let alone quoted on war, because its likely they never got a chance to contemplate writing, let alone be published.

In context of all this, I think India and Pakistan are special in that there are still links between them that may yet be revived(though personally, I am presently running just a little low on the enthusiasm).

You are still a little too eager to spill your military`s blood. It must be all the martial music you heard in childhood. In school, just the sound of the PT drum used to send our hearts racing and blood pumping(it was meant to, I guess). BTW, I am surprised noone has mentioned the very easy, though much more condemned way of releasing aggression or man`s base instincts these days : the whole range of combat video games including Doom?. Perhaps, someone can write one specific to the subcontinent and give players `religious` `ideological`, `moral` , `military` and `diplomatic` options. And no thanks, I don`t want any share in the profits.

Sadhana

PS: All arguments against war are not to be mistaken for a disinclination to fight if any `geopolitical realities` demand it. This misunderstanding has been common.

Reply #: 117 bahmad

Regarding Roedad Khan´s excellant article that you have quoted, I found the part containing his observations on role of Judiciary the most revealing, indeed shocking. I´ll reproduce it here :

[The question of political succession and legitimacy has plagued the Muslim world since the death of the Prophet (PBUH) in AD 632. The holy Qur`aan is silent beyond saying that Muslims should settle their affairs by mutual consultation. The Prophet had abstained from nominating a successor or laying down any rules of political succession. This has inevitably led to uncertainty, civil wars, wars of succession etc. In actual practice, the question of succession throughout Muslim history was decided not by the qazi but by the length of the contenders` sword and the sharpness of its blade.

On the occasion of the deposition of Caliph Qahir, the qazi, who was sent to attest the documents declaring the former`s abdication, was very upset when the caliph refused to submit. The qazi said, ``What use was it to summon us to a man who had not been forced to submit?`` On hearing this, Ali ibn Isa remarked, ``His conduct is notorious, and therefore, he must be deposed``. To this the qazi replied, ``It is not for us to establish dynasties--that is accomplished by the men of swords. We are only suited and required for attestation.`` Therefore, when Munir validated martial law in 1958 or Anwar ul Haq sanctified Ziaul Haq`s military takeover and usurpation of power, they were both following well-established traditions of Muslim history and were not innovating.]

This raises a few questions. Is the role of Judiciary different in the public view from that of the Judiciary itself ? Did Ardeshir Cowasjee have a point when he said how could one be guilty of contempting an institution which is beneath contempt ? I would hate to believe that !

Rgds

A Question of Minorities: A Question of Humanity and Justice

I cannot forget December 25. On this day Jesus Christ and Mohammad Ali Jinnah were born, and more importantly on this day I celebrate the birthday of my older son (now 29; a smart computer scientist). One common element in Jesus Christ, Quaid-e-Azam, and my son (Omar) is their sense of humanity and justice for all. On June 11, 1999, I published the following letter in the Frontier Post. I dedicate this letter to everyone who believes in the protection of minorities in Pakistan. Following this letter, I want to share a piece written by another old resident of Karachi, Pakistan, who more or less belongs to my age cohort.

Protect minorities, ensure national unity

The Quid-e-Azam was very sensitive to the minority question. In pre-Partition India, particularly during the 1930s and the 1940s, the Muslim minority developed a sense of insecurity. It was this sense of economic, political, and cultural insecurity that eventually led to the creation of Pakistan.

Given the ethno-linguistic setup of Pakistan, the Baluchis, the Pukhtuns, and the Sindhis are some of the leading minority groups. Pakistan, however, is the home of numerous additional minority groups. Majority-minority relations exist in every province of Pakistan. Can we say with pride that the minorities in Pakistan are fully protected against the kind of alienation, oppression, and deprivation that the Indian Muslim minority felt some fifty-two odd years back?

The imagined community of the Indians was shattered in the late 1940s. Can we protect ours in this period of gradual and persistent decadence? If we, as a Pakistani nation, have some hope, then we must find ways to save ourselves from further disintegration. One major step would be to show real concern for our socially and geographically variable economic, political, and cultural insecurities.

Bilal Ahmad,

USA

Dawn Internet Edition

December 25, 1999

A column for Christmas

By Irfan Husain

VERY soon after he took over, General Musharraf spoke out in a refreshingly direct manner against religious extremism. This unambiguous statement was reinforced by his publicly stated admiration for modern secular Turkey`s founder, Mustafa Kemal Pasha.

While many rational Pakistanis here and abroad took some comfort from the general`s straightforward words and waited for action, the religious right immediately attacked these sentiments. Since then, the general and his spokesmen have maintained a discreet silence on the matter. When I mentioned this to a senior member of this government, he repeated the now-familiar plea for more time. But why does the general need more time to enunciate his policy on the status of the minorities, for example? Surely if he can make detailed pronouncements on the state of the economy, he can tell us how he will safeguard the rights of our minorities.

If he would like to hear the voice of a member of this threatened community, let me reproduce below excerpts of an e-mail I received last month from a Pakistani-American reader who now lives safely in the United States. His name is J. Philip, and he was a student at St Patrick`s School, General Musharraf`s alma mater:

``I understand the Chief Executive is from St Pat`s... In any case he wouldn`t be a fanatic like Zia and that`s the good part. I wonder though whether he would do away with divisive laws like the separate electorate laws, something very dear to the hearts of minorities. Also, other laws like the one on blasphemy is again a life and death issue for minorities... I sometimes feel the country has abandoned me with all these laws and I am scared to think about coming back for a visit. This is true for most other minorities I have talked to here. I sometimes wonder how the minorities in Kashmir - since about 25% of Kashmiris are Hindus or Buddhists - would feel about being in a state controlled by Pakistan.

I guess these questions would not be in the minds of anybody given the problems the country faces... For the past 50 years the Kashmir issue has been the issue of supreme importance for which half the country was lost and the rest [remains] mired in poverty. Isn`t it time for a change?``

I think all of us who belong to the majority Muslim population of this country should be ashamed that members of the minority should feel so unsafe in Pakistan that they fear returning to their homes. Even Pakistanis going to India for a visit don`t feel so insecure. This is a truly damning comment on what we have been reduced to as a nation. While we blame Zia for virtually disenfranchising the minorities through his separate electorate ordinance, the fact is that since his death eleven years ago, no civilian government has moved to undo this divisive law. To his credit, Farooq Leghari has included the repeal of separate electorates in his Millat Party`s manifesto, but apart from him, no mainstream politician - even a self-proclaimed liberal like Benazir Bhutto - has raised his or her voice against it.

What J. Philip has said about Kashmiri non-Muslims is also very relevant. While beating our pathetic little drum to raise support for our stance on Kashmir, we fail to consider the fact that given our terrible track record of dealing with our own minorities, the world is hardly likely to entrust the fate of millions of non-Muslims to us. If we can`t safeguard the rights of our Christian, Hindu and Ahmadi citizens, we are clearly incapable of guaranteeing the lives and property of Kashmiri non-Muslims. As it is, Kashmiri mujahideen groups are targeting innocent Hindus, apart from attacking Muslims who do not support them.

Fortunately, bigotry and intolerance are limited to a small number of highly vocal and well-armed fanatics whose influence far exceeds their numbers. After years of financial and administrative support from Zia throughout the Eighties, they have become accustomed to setting the national agenda. Unfortunately, a succession of supine civilian governments just could not summon the gumption to face them down, even though both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had a common interest in confronting and routing these enemies of democracy.

The question now before us is whether the present military government has the will to address this problem. I place this issue very high on any rational set of priorities. Currently, Pakistan is being viewed as a breeding ground of religious intolerance and an exporter of fanatical terrorists. Our image abroad is so awful that few foreigners are willing to risk coming here. When we talk about increasing tourism and foreign investment, we are totally out of touch with reality. As long as the perception in the international community is that Pakistan is a haven for terrorist gangs, only the foolhardy will invest here, or visit these shores for a holiday.

Scores of non-Muslims are currently languishing in jails across the country on trumped-up charges under the Blasphemy Act. Under this Act, it is easy for a couple of people to swear they heard or saw a non-Muslim blaspheme against the holy Prophet (PBUH). Since the automatic punishment for such a crime is death, this has become an easy way to settle old scores or acquire somebody`s property. Also, many Ahmadis have been sentenced for the simple ``crime`` of saying or writing ``Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim.`` And yet we take great pleasure if a foreigner manages to recite.

Under such circumstances, it comes as no surprise that J. Philip and his co-religionists should feel threatened in Pakistan. Growing up in Karachi, I, too studied at St Patrick`s around the same time General Musharraf did. Apart from Christians, Parsis and Hindus, we even had a couple of Jews studying with us. Nobody bothered about each other`s faith. We played and fought as boys do, and survived under the ministrations of tough disciplinarians like Father Tony Lobo. When I returned to the school a few years ago out of pure nostalgia, I was shocked to see that there were hardly any non-Muslim names in the class lists on the notice board.

So despite Mr Jinnah`s assurances to the minorities that they would be treated as equal citizens in Pakistan, the sad fact is that we have not kept faith with the founder of the nation. But can General Musharraf undo the harm his uniformed predecessor, General Zia, did not just to the minorities, but to the whole country? Only time will tell, but meanwhile, let me wish my Christian readers a very happy Christmas.

Sadhana

``War is a failure of our intellect which we don`t believe to possess. ``

I don`t know if that is entirely true. War, like diplomacy, is another instrument of settling issues betwen nation-states. Historical precedents stretch all the way back to Mycenea and Troy, and Mecca and Madina. If the Mednians had been content with their thirty seven date palms and a hundred and four camels, and had negotiated a peace with those dastardly Meccans, you can agrue that those poor people wouldn`t be stuck on an airplane in Kandahar! But then, if wishes were horses, beggars would be sipping champaigne with the Agha Khan in Lexington.

You do make a very compassionate and sincere case against war, and it difficult not to be moved by it, but it does not take into account geo-political realities.

``I am not against war for a so-called `just` cause.`` Now, who defines what is a just cause? In my view, myopic as it might be, having been shaped by a life of living in cantonments, Kashmir is a just cause for Pakistan ? If the British are willing to die for two hundred men and four thousand sheep, stuck on a rock in the middle of nowhere, isn`t Kashmir worth a war or two? It is also the root cause of tension with India, which once solved will lead to a thousandyears of peace in the sub-continent.

You said. ``the need for war must be grounded on more than the incompetance or unimaginativeness of those who influence events``. To that I ask : who was more incompetent and unimaginative - Chamberlain or Churchill! The terible carnage of WW-II cold have been avoided with timely military action.

``Its revealing that in the recent Kosovo conflict, public opinion forced Clinton to avoid risking to even a single Amercian life. When will India and Pakistan show as much value for its people`s lives?`` True, but on the flip side of the coin, the objective was to kill as many Serbs as possible - and that is generally the objective in any war. The US has the technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` to do what every general dreams of. Pakistan, and India, have to prepare for an eventual military solution to the Kashmir issue. I am not completely ruling out a negotiated settlement if the Pakistanis start eating tofu and bacon, and the Indians stop making those terrible movies and start eating hamburgers, and of course if hell freezes over.

``My personal opinion is that the `sweatshops` of jihad in Pakistan are much more exploitative and more morally indefensible`` - on this I fully agree with you. These sweatshops, run by the fanatical mullahs, must be shut down because they are a tool for political advancement for the religious parties. The business of war should be conducted by the army ( once it gives up running its side-business ) and not by holy warriors looking for carer opportunities and/or houris.

Feudalism and Land Reforms in Pakistan:

Should Musharraf Miss the Oppotunityt?

Here is an excellent feature article on the need for a fresh land reform in Pakistan. Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn Internet Edition

December 25, 1999

The need for fresh land reforms

By Sabih Mohsin

THE feudal system, as inherited by Pakistan at the time of independence, was essentially one of the relics of the British Raj. During the 19th century the British had made, in an attempt to create a class faithful to the Raj, generous grants of lands to local chieftains who had sided with them. Unlike the `jagirs` granted by the Mughals which were given in return for the maintenance of a specified number of troops and which could be withdrawn during the lifetime or after the death of the land-owner, the British had made a permanent settlement causing these holdings to become hereditary estates and the holders to behave like despotic rulers.

Besides collecting rent from the tenants, they extracted a number of taxes which were not legal such as `nazrana` on various occasions and also used them as `begar` or free labour. Men, women and children belonging to the `raiyat` class were given and taken by big landlords at the time of marriages as part of dowry.

Even after more than half a century of Independence, the situation has not changed much, and we often come across reports of bonded labour and private jails maintained by the waderas and molestation of peasant women by them. Neighbouring India abolished `zamindari` in the early years of independence. Even East Pakistan got rid of it in the 1950, as agriculture was a provincial subject. But in the area which is now Pakistan, jagirdars and big landlords so dominated the political scene that no change could be brought about until the country came under its first military rule.

One of the earliest steps taken by the Ayub administration was to set up a Land Reforms Commission. According to the recommendations of the Commission, a ceiling of 500 acres of irrigated or 1,000 acres of unirrigated land was fixed. However, a variety of exemptions was allowed, including those in respect of orchards, stud farms, hunting preserves and holdings of religious, charitable and educational societies and trusts. Thus ample loopholes were provided to big landholders to retain much of the land occupied by them. According to one study, the land resumed under those reforms constituted only five per cent of the total landholding in the country.

The second land reforms were promulgated through a Martial Law Regulation in 1972 by Z.A. Bhutto, the civilian Martial Law Administrator. Those reforms appeared to be more egalitarian, but on close examination, one arrives at a different conclusion. The ceiling for individual ownership was fixed at 150 acres of irrigated or 300 acres of unirrigated land or 15,000 produce index units (PIUs), whichever was greater. The limit was subsequently reduced to land equivalent to 12,000 PIUs plus an additional area equivalent to 2,000 PIUs if the landlord owned a tubewell or tractor or both, as of December 20, 1971. Thus the maximum permissible holding became land giving 14,000 PIUs.

Since the produce index unit depends on the productivity of land, the operative ceiling in acres was different for different areas. In the Punjab, a most fertile area, the operative ceiling was 318 acres, while in Sindh it was as high as 519 acres. According to an IBRD (World Bank) survey conducted in 1966, the size of a farm necessary to provide a minimum subsistence for an average family in an irrigated area was five acres. Those operative ceilings, which were for an individual and not for a family, could enable the feudal lord to retain thousands of acres in the names of his family members which would provide him the means for a highly lavish and luxurious living and also with a lot of surplus money to invest in politics from where he could reap further profits.

However, the `elected representatives of the people` who were in fact the big landholders of the country themselves manoeuvred to bypass even these generous ceilings. Consequently, soon after the announcement of reforms, the provincial assemblies of Sindh, the Punjab and the NWFP passed identical amendments to the effect that: (a) transfer of land from owners of land in excess of the ceilings to unmarried or widowed sisters, who did not receive any share in the ancestral land, was allowed if made between March 1, 1967 and December 20, 1971; (b) the provision of additional PIUs for the owners of tubewells and tractors was extended to those who had purchased those items any time after the enforcement date of the reforms; (c) a clause which restricted intra-family transfers of land in excess of the ceilings retroactively to March 1, 1967, was deleted and (d) another provision restricting any one `in the service of Pakistan` not to hold more than 100 acres under certain conditions, was re-worded so as to exempt non-CSP government officers and the members of the national and provincial assemblies from that ceiling.

With the adoption of this legislation, ways were found to keep large parts of land holdings either out of the sphere of application of the reforms or to manipulate the retention of large areas within the family with back-dated paper transfers to female members. Thus, the `representatives of the people` managed to prevent large parts of their huge holdings from being resumed and distributed among the landless peasantry whom they claimed to represent in the assemblies and whose interests they professed to protect.

The foregoing analysis shows how ineffective were the two land reforms in achieving the goal of an equitable distribution of land in the country. It also highlights another fact which is more important: the feudal lords who dominate the assemblies in this country will never allow any measure, howsoever essential for the overall good of the people, to take effect if it happens to be against their own interests.

Since the strength of the feudals has remained undiminished, all sections - the civil administration, the police, the legal system, education and all development work - are plagued by their interference, which is always motivated by self interest. The unmitigated power of the feudals has resulted not only in the prevention of the establishment of true democracy but also in holding back development in some of the sectors so vital for the overall economic uplift of the country.

The aversion of the feudal lords to the spread of education in their own areas is no secret. They fear that education would make the people living as serfs under them aware of their rights and bold enough to resist exploitation. As such they have made every effort to check education from making inroads into the rural areas. Even after 50 years of independence, these vast regions have been kept without adequate educational facilities and whatever do exist have been rendered inoperative through various means.

There are frequent reports of school buildings in villages being used as `autaqs` (visitors rooms) or used by landlords as cattle sheds. Ghost schools which exist only on official records for the purpose of misappropriating public funds as salaries drawn in the names of teachers are also very common. The worst part of the story is that usually no punitive or corrective action is taken in such cases.

Since a major part of Pakistan`s population lives in the rural area, the plight of education there has affected the overall status of the country in this field. A comparison with other countries shows that Pakistan is almost at the bottom. According to a World Bank study, primary school enrolment rate in Pakistan in 1991 was 46 per cent and the secondary school enrolment rate was 21 per cent while the average rate in South Asia was 89 and 39 per cent for the two levels respectively. In Pakistan, the dropout rate for primary schools was above 50 per cent. The adult literacy rate for Pakistan was 35 per cent while for India, Iran, Malaysia, Kenya, China and Sri Lanka it was 48, 54, 78, 69, 73 and 88 per cent respectively.

But it is not education alone to which the feudals are averse. They are against anything that would bring people from outside in contact with the people living on their lands and within their control, because they believe that such interaction would lead to a loosening of their grip. While the government itself is not truly committed because of various factors, including its own feudal connection, whatever effort is made in respect of programmes like rural health services, population planning, building of roads and other rural development schemes are thwarted by the landlords. The result is that Pakistan has a population growth rate much higher than those of many countries in South and South East Asia, and its place with regard to the health status of its population is close to the bottom line.

The situation in respect of elements of physical capital is also not much different. Pakistan has 73 km of road per 1000 persons, while Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia have 86, 105 and 149 km respectively. Moreover, the road infrastructure in Pakistan consists mainly of ageing and obsolete roads, only 20 per cent of which are in good condition while in other countries, this ratio is above 50 per cent. Drinking water is available in Pakistan to only 75 per cent of the population, mostly urban, though such access in Bangladesh, India and Korea is 98, 81 and 93 per cent respectively.

In the field of economic progress, Pakistan has lagged behind many Asian countries, some of which were only a few decades earlier on the same level of economic development as this country. And the main factor behind this slow progress is the persistent domination of the feudal class. The two land reforms have not at all been able to weaken their power and liberate society from their hold. In fact, their control of government policies and machinery and their exploitation of various institutions to their own advantage has become greater and more visible with the passage of time. There is, therefore, an urgent need for further land reforms.

While introducing fresh reforms, it would be advisable to take into consideration the new realities in agricultural productivity and also to eliminate loopholes that might reduce its effectiveness. For example, it has been observed that in countries like Pakistan, smaller farms give better productivity. The small land holder uses his land more intensively and maximises his returns by the use of more inputs and labour which is abundant. The optimum sizes may be worked out, which would definitely be much smaller than the size of the present holdings, and the new ceilings may be fixed accordingly. To prevent `benami` transfers, it would be prudent to prescribe the limit for a family and not for an individual.

Purposeful land reforms can be introduced and implemented only by a government which is free from the influence of the feudals and the present administration seems to be so. Thus, this is an opportunity which should not be missed.

A Christmas Day Wish

``Peace, Happiness, and Prosperity to Everyone on the Face of the Earth``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Zeemax (Reply # 117)

Dear Zeemax:

Pakistan is a mutlicultural society where people belonging to any particular identity are both tolerant and intolerant of the people of another identity. Tolerance creates a sense of belonging, while intolerance reproduces and reinforces a sense of otherness. Common people have often addressed these issues from their own narrow perspectives. A major part of this reason has been pre-existing ethnic identities and a lack of a sense of direction and vision for the nation as a whole.

My parents came to Karachi in 1947 from Delhi, India. My great-grand parents migrated from Gujranwala District to Delhi. My father was born in Delhi. My mother`s forefathers perhaps came to Delhi from Afghanistan some three hundred years ago. I came to Karachi when I was four years of age. My family is an interesting mixture of several cultural backgrounds. In my generation, the immigrants from India disliked to be called as Mohajirs. We always questioned: How long would we remain mohajir? I consider myself as a Pakistani first, and a Karachiite next. This is perhaps the case of a large number of other immigrants from India. In the early 1960s, we felt very proud of the fact Karachi was a true representative of Pakistan -- a cosmopolitan microcosm of Pakistan. We had friends who belonged to diverse ethno-linguistic and other cultural backgrounds.

On a national level, Pakistani society is not without some significant ethno-linguistic meanings and affects. The people in most parts of Pakistan have not yet discovered a formula to stress a true sense of solidarity and to deal with othernesses created as a result of their various ethno-linguistic backgrounds. In Pakistan, there is much room for the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pakhtoons, or Baluchis but little room for the Pakistanis. In this environment, the so-called mohajirs have fallen in the trap of narrow ethno-linguistic identities under the belief that they will have no power unless they become sons/daughters of soil (by asking for a Karachi province) and by becoming hyphenated Pakistanis. Moreover, in the absence of an environment of citizenship and human rights, they have failed to demand their rights as the citizens of Pakistan. In my view, the demand of a separate Karachi province (basically) for the mohajirs is unwise and is grounded in prevailing territorial ethics in Pakistan. I believe, the future of the people of Karachi is tied fairly strongly with people of in other parts of Sindh as well as in other parts of Pakistan.

As the state of Pakistan has been a major employer and an actor in the allocation of national resources, ethno-linguistic differences have played an important role. Asaf Hussain (1979) writes: ``Ethnicity was . . . not a myth. Other studies also reinforce this ethnic bias of the BE [Bureaucratic Elites]. A recent survey revealed that some 49.1 percent of the bureaucrats agreed that they were subject to regional biases in their decision-making, 14.4 percent indicated that it had some influence and only 22.9 percent denied that there was any such bias`` (pp. 64-65). It is a sense of this ethnic bias, a perception of deprivation among the so-called mohajir youth, the role of the repressive state apparatus, and a host of other factors that gave birth and development of the MQM.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Hussain, A. (1979). Elite Politics in An Ideological State. Folkestone, England: Dawson.

There is no need to debate this issue of the elite ruling over Pakistan and their hegemony, because it will never change for the better. Those of us who think that the elite will willingly up their notions of timocracy, in Pakistan, are discussing an utopian nonsense. The present socio-political idiom will not change itself internally and external reforms will be resisted by the elites of the nation.

The dilemma is that Pakistan can not do without the elites for practical reasons, i.e. governing, agriculture etc. unless the army wants to run the country and it can not live with them, because the are a parasite, which is slowly going to bleed the nation dry. What needs to be done is to arrive at an understanding, which clearly and expressly advocates a ``compromise with the devil`` relationship between the people and the elite. In other words live and let live.

It is sheer non-sense to think that Pakistan will ever be free from the shadow of the timocrats who rule Pakistan as a personal fiefdom. Nothing is going to happen in Pakistan for the better, because Pakistanis are their own worst enemies and they are, it seems, determined to destroy this nation for their own petty myopic self-interests.

Nothing less than an inspired act of God can now save Pakistan from its own folly and it no coincidence that this nation has lasted so long. God must really shine his grace on this nation, because He refuses to let this nation be destroyed despite the avowed intentions of Pakistanis to seek it ruin from their delibrately short sighted polices.

Merry Christmas Everyone!!!

Interesting observation by Pervaiz Musharraf reported today in the papers :

In Lahore yesterday a journalist asked him why did he take on such a huge responsibility on Oct 12. He narrated an anecdote in response .. about a child who fell into a well and a man jumped after him and saved his life. When people commended that person for that brave act, he said .. but I want to know who pushed me into the well..

Pervaiz Musharraf added that in his case the exception was that he knew who pushed him !

By saying that, was he referring to the ex-government ? Or was he referring to Generals Aziz and Mehmood ?

I wish Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif a happy 50th birthday and many happy returns. Not a happy situation as of now but it will change Mian Saheb.

Sincerely,

Zeemax

In response to temporal (Reply #: 112)

Dear temporal:

Thank you for your comment and reference to Roedad Khan`s opinion piece, ``The Illusion of Power`` (The News International, December 22, 1999). Let me first say something about your comment. You seem to suggest that if the origins of wars are ideological then wars may (or may not be) evil. The question of ideology, however, is no less chaotic and Pakistan is currently passing through a crisis of ideology (see Najam Sethi`s famous speech).

Something about Roedad Khan, from the inside back cover page of his book ``Pakistan -- A Dream Gone Sour``(1997): ``Roedad Khan joined the civil service of Pakistan in 1949 and had held several important appointments including those of Chief Secretary, Sindh; Secretary, Ministry of Interior; Secretary General, Ministry of Interior; Federal Minister in charge of Accountability; and Advisor to the Prime Minister on Accountability. He served under five of the six presidents that he writes about and knew all six of them personally.`` Roedad Khan`s book needs careful reading. A careful reading needs to be informed by some sort of perspective.

In his long opinion piece, Khan draws eight conclusions. He writes (my brief comment interjected) :

1. `` That the army is a permanent reality in the politics of Pakistan and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. And the sooner we come to terms with this reality, the better.``

Comment: Nobody can deny this reality. Should we come to terms with this reality? If yes, why so? However, there are many other realities in Pakistan, such as corruption and unresponsive of the state officials. Should we come to terms with this reality too (in fact, this is exactly what a lot of people have so far done in Pakistan as a ``rational strategy``). What if Khan`s sense of reality is self-created by the army-bureaucracy alliance (as Hamza Alavi and Hasan Gardezi suggest fairly clearly). Khan is simply arguing for the hegemony of army-bureaucracy (hegemony = legitimization of domination through public consent and its institutionalization).

2. ``That the sword of martial law or political intervention by the army, by whatever name it is called, will continue to hang over all our democratic institutions as has been the case throughout our troubled political history.``

Comment: I agree with the statement. So, what do we need to do? Three main options: maintain status quo; do what Khan is suggesting; strengthen democratic institutions through mass empowerment (this would require an active participation of the people of Pakistan). The question remains: How to bring effective social change?

3. ``That Le pouvoir will continue to play its traditional role of a referee with a strong whistle in the political power game in Pakistan.``

Comment: The Le pouvoir (defacto source of power) playing the role of referee is an interesting idea. But, a referee without rules. Khan want the rules to be established. For Khan, the role of a referee would be acceptable as long as the rules are established through some constitutional provisions (here we need to know the history of the making and unmaking of Pakistani constitution to appreciate the nature of procedural justice in Pakistan). What if the referee (after legitimation) acts basically in his (its) own interest? What it means in terms of the social geography of Pakistan?

4. ``That the highest power over citizens, unrestrained by law, will continue to reside where the coercive power resides.``

Comment: A bureaucratic mind, despite being very intelligent, is evident here. Highest power over citizens? So, Rousseau is out of picture. One-sided decision made. What change will it bring once the power of the coercive state apparatus is legally established over the citizens of Pakistan?

5. ``That no political institution in the country is strong enough to confront the army and challenge its usurpation of power as it has solid popular support.``

Comment: If army has sold popular support, what is the problem? Let us declare the army rule as the Pakistani style of democracy by the people, for the people, of the people.

6. `` That it is unrealistic, naive and quite unfair to expect the judges alone to uphold the supremacy of the constitution and confront the state when nobody else is willing to do so. Who was there to defend the Supreme Court when it was assaulted by goondas organised and led by the government?``

Comment: I tend to agree, but he seems to limit the state to the executive branch and its goons. Who is included in ``nobody else``? The army, ISI, police, or the silent majority? How much the judiciary is responsible for the current state of affairs? All these matter need to be viewed in light of the notion of de facto power (and in the case of future, in terms of de jure power). Unfortunately, Khan unintendedly (or intendedly) wants to reinforce de facto power by confusing it with other form(s) of power through a constructed process of legitimation.



7. Ironically, it is the army and not any political institution which represents the ``general will``, and the hopes, aspirations and dreams of the people of Pakistan today, ``and yet this same day come four years``! But let the curtains of the future hang``.

Comment: It is a myth that the army represents the general will. This myth is a product of an ideology that has been imposed upon the people of Pakistan. The present chaos in Pakistan is partly due to the tension between those who support the imposed ideology and those who challenge the same. And, this myth is not entertained by a large number of people in every part of Pakistan. This myth has a limited geography.

8. And most important of all, that no political system--parliamentary, presidential or any other--has any chance of survival if the army has no role in it or is not its integral part.

Comment: Musharraf, being an army chief, has pledged for the depoliticization of state institutions. Isn`t the army a state institution? Khan seems to negate the wisdom of Musharraf`s pledge.

Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Hamidm # 110

Okay Hamid .. tell me about the manifesto of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM). What´s Altaf Hussain´s agenda ? What do the Mohajirs of Karachi want after having called themselves Mohajirs for 52 years when no one else did ? That sounds a bit like the black americans caling themselves Niggers even though noone else calls them that .. !

Waiting ..

bahmad #106

Thanks for the interesting and illuminating quotations. Your own remark

``War is a failure of our intellect which we don`t believe to possess. ``

is the one I appreciate the most for its relevance to the India-Pakistan context.

hamidm #104

I am not against war for a so-called `just` cause. However, like any other political option, the need for war must be grounded on more than the incompetance or unimaginativeness of those who influence events. The quotations which Mr. Bilal Ahmad has kindly posted bear out this aspect of war. And I am against war imposed on a populace by an unresponsive, and unimaginative leadership. If the Pakistani people indeed want war, let them go to war. But let a general`s career graph not be the deciding factor.

Its revealing that in the recent Kosovo conflict, public opinion forced Clinton to avoid risking to even a single Amercian life. When will India and Pakistan show as much value for its people`s lives? About war leading to solutions of problems around the world, well, lets look at its relevance to the Indo-Pak context. Must we always look westward for solutions. Do we not have wisdom and innovativeness of our own?. Let us have a sense of history but also have a sense of the immediate and present. And if war is a natural state with us, I would rather not make this statement in the presence of all those in Southeast Asia and Angola who are still losing limbs on a daily basis because the world had no political options to avoid conflict in the past and in the present has neither the money nor the technology to get rid of all the landmines planted `naturally` in these areas. No problems ever got solved here, BTW. And how is it that Chowkwallahs(meaning no disrespect personally, though) are likely to be mailing 30year mortgage checks every month in between abetting war in theory? Basically, one is assuming that his life and livelihood will last some more years, one`s house will not be bombed out or destroyed by vandals wanting to smell his blood, or that the banks will not go bankrupt and call in all loans and continuity of peace will not be broken by war. Can anyone deny that this has been the result of finding innovative solutions over and above armed conflict to solve problems?

Returning to the relevancy of a military solution to Indo-Pak problems: let me make an analogy with the current currency of `jihad`. I don`t doubt in many regions of the world, Islamic jihad is a useful rallying cry for those whose identity and very existence is under threat. In the Indo-Pak context, does such an urgency exist, or is it merely expediency on the part of military and political leaders. My personal opinion is that the `sweatshops` of jihad in Pakistan are much more exploitative and more morally indefensible than those run by multinationals for pure commerce in other countries. Here, a poor person with limited options in life is indoctrinated, his life is almost certainly put at risk, and social and legal fabric of society destroyed, all because some leaders choose to use religion as a tool for personal advancement. No houris will compensate such leaders in the afterlife, I am pretty sure. By the same token, Pakistan`s political leaders, intellectuals and citizens owe it to their brave soldiers to find very good reasons to send them to their deaths in any war. It is a disrespect to these soldiers when they are sacrificed for their leaders` personal agendas or for the failures of their country`s thinkers and its political apparatus.

Sadhana

Feudalism in Colonial India/Pakistan

In his book, Elite Politics in an Ideolgical State, Asaf Hussain (1979) identifies three land tenure systems in Colonial India: the zamindari system, the ryotwari system, and the mahalwari and bhaichara system. Hussain writes:

``In the zamindari system, sole proprietary rights were bestowed on individuals who in turn paid a fixed revenue to the government. This class of landlord was particularly loyal to the British Empire. In the ryotwari system, the ryot was merely an occupant of the land so long as the he paid land revenue to the government. In the mahalwari and bhaichara system a group of villages formed a collective body of co-sharers who were treated as landlords, and the lambardar (headman) was responsible for the payment and land revenue to the government. All these colonial land tenure systems were essentially political strategies for entrenching colonial power in the sub-continent so that colonial rule could be imposed without constant force. They were also intended to prevent a repetition of the mass uprising of 1857 headed by the Muslim and Hindu royalty and nobility which had revolted against the British`` (Hussain, 1979: 45-46).

Hussain`s excerpt suggest that there was a geography of land tenure in Colonial India. What kind of land tenure systems exist in present-day Pakistan? What it means when people call for the abolition of feudalism? Does it mean abolition of all forms of land tenure system? Would the abolition entail confiscation of land by the Government of Pakistan? What right does the state of Pakistan has to confiscate anybody`s property? How would the government re-allocated the land? What should be the basis of such re-allocation?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

hamidm,

I am convinced that you are the `hamid` of the yester years, your sharp wit and humour is verymuch needed in the new millinium. You claimed to know tehsin, he is the only noble soul ever to grace this chowk and hope to see/read him.

Regards

Jay

Bilal:

Thanks: that is the most relevant quotation. It (war) is an evil that men of prudence and wisdom are known to indulge in to advance their ideals and longings. Why evil? Because sometimes its origins are whimsical not ideological.


Oh, relating to the thrust of this article, did you read the News Op Ed piece by Roedad Khan? It was Dec 21 or thereabouts.

rgds

t

OVERTHROW OF THE NAWAZ REGIME AND THE ASSAULT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

- While there is no question that the ``anatomy of the Nawaz regime`` did not present a particularly attractive site, it is important to examine who the regime veered from its political agenda.

- The Nawaz regime did come into power on the basis of an agenda that aimed at removing restraints to trade, rollback of the state bureacracy and an environment conducive to industrialization.

- As is usual with such regimes the man and his team became individually greedy and the daily struggle for survival left the regime without a compass course. With the onset the economic crisis that started in Benazir`s regime the Nawaz government became more beleaguered with the IMF knocking the door and the military and civil bureaucracies - the real leaches -unwilling to control their pillage.

- The basis of the destruction of the regime really originated in the subtle propaganda campaign against the private sector aimed at putting Mr. Sharif`s original core constituency in disrepute. The anti defaulter campaign was part of it. They extorted 9 billion but let the economy contract by 50 billion in the end.

- The proof in the pudding is that not a single civil servant has been arrested. Not a single inspector has been arrested for amassing criminal wealth. Musharraf has himself admitted having 15 crore rupees of wealth - legally acquired - so just imagine the funds with corrupt civil servants who take 50,000 rupees to recruit a driver in a government department.

- They will NOT strike at these people because it is the same establishment. Same uncles and cousins and the entire pollution of the country`s economic environment and demeaning of its business class was designed to sidetrack the nation from the thievery of the civil and military bureaucracies. I cannot accept the children of corrupt civil servants and sons in laws of corrupt generals expressing indignation at unpaid bank loans.

Jay,

Centuries ago Khushal Khan Khattak, the Afghan warrior-poet, had the Taliban or Osama`s hordes in mind when he wrote this :

As I look on I am amazed

At this world`s denizens,

Just seeing what these dogs will do

To satisfy the flesh.

Such dealing as are brought about,

Men being what they are,

Satan himself could not devise,

Still less consider fair.

They place before them the Koran,

They read aloud from it,

But of their actions not a one

Conforms with the Koran.

It may be that in other lands

Good men are to be found

But they are few and far between,

I know, among Afghans.

Unfortunately these denizens and not-good men have found safe haven in Pakistan from where they wage war against infidels and windmills. Not that I am opposed to dislodging India from Kashmir, by force if necessary, but it is a job that is best done by a professional army and not by bands of fanatical and half-crazed ghazis seeking shahadat, infidel women and booty. These holy, but not too competent, warriors after they have been soundly spanked and roundly thwacked by the Indian army, will continue their rampage in Pakistan. There is a lot of burning, looting, raping and pillaging to be done in Karachi - the home of the not-so-true-muslim muhajirs from the land of Hind; in Rabwah - the hell-on-earth bastion of the heretic Ghulam Ahmed; in Jhang - where the followers of the Prophet`s misled grandsons and nephew disgrace His name; in Hunza where a half-breed great-grandson of the Agha Khan is leading Muslims astray with that poisonous Hunza Water; in Lahore - where that woman of ill-repute, Asma No-Last-Name and her tout, Imran Jew-Married, are leading women and cancer patients astray; and of course Islamabad, where farangi-inspired youth celebrate the Kafir New Year drinking only-for-sufi bhang and dancing the dhamal to the tunes of Iqbal-desecrating Junoon.

So, Jay, you Indians have nothing to fear and a lot to celebrate. We Pakistanis, in our typical philistine manner, perhaps the result of generations of first-cousin marriages, have created this monster which has, and will, turn on us sooner than later.

In response to temporal (Reply # 107)

Dear temporal:

Here is one by Clausewitz:

War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. Karl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian soldier, strategist. On War, Preface (1832).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal:

You missed one relevant quotation on war.

I think it was either Clausewitz or Bismarck, quoted by Kissinger-- war is an instrument of foreign policy, or words to that effect.

rgds,

t

internationalising kashmir.

One of the alleged motives for kargill was to bring kashmir to international attention. Kashmir is the frontier of the expanding Ummeh, there are 13 countries involved in the fight as this report from indian express shows.

``MERCENARIES: AS many as 1,121 foreign mercenaries belonging to 13 countries were killed and 136 apprehended in the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir between 1991 and December 1998, Defence minister George Fernandes said.``

In response to sadna (Reply #: 101)

Dear Sadhna:

War is an optimally intense expression of otherness. Much more than that, it is simply the failure of human beings to realize their unlimited capacity to avoid war. War is a failure of our intellect which we don`t believe to possess.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Now let us see what some learned people have said about war:

The chief reason warfare is still with us is neither a secret death-wish of the human species, nor an irrepressible instinct of aggression, nor, finally and more plausibly, the serious economic and social dangers inherent in disarmament, but the simple fact that no substitute for this final arbiter in international affairs has yet appeared on the political scene. Hannah Arendt (1906-75), German-born U.S. political philosopher. Crises of the Republic, sct. 1, ``On Violence`` (1972).

It takes twenty years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only twenty seconds of war to destroy him. Baudouin I King of Belgium (b. 1930), from 1951. Address, 12 May 1959, to joint session of U.S. Congress.

Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war. Otto Von Bismarck (1815–98), Prussian statesman. Speech, Aug. 1867, Berlin.

``Let there be light!`` said God, and there was light!

``Let there be blood!`` says man, and there`s a sea!

Lord Byron (1788–1824), English poet. Don Juan, cto. 7, st. 41

We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves. Albert Camus (1913–60), French-Algerian philosopher, author. Notebooks, vol. 3 (1966), entry for 7 Sept. 1939

A ``just war`` is hospitable to every self-deception on the part of those waging it, none more than the certainty of virtue, under whose shelter every abomination can be committed with a clear conscience. Alexander Cockburn (b. 1941), Anglo-Irish journalist. New Statesman and Society (London, 8 Feb. 1991).

War is not a life: it is a situation,

One which may neither be ignored nor accepted.

T. S. Eliot (1888–1965), Anglo-American poet, critic. A Note on War Poetry, st. 5.

Morality is contraband in war.

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948), Indian nationalist leader. Non-Violence in Peace and War, vol. 1, ch. 268 (1942).

War has been the most convenient pseudo-solution for the problems of twentieth-century capitalism. It provides the incentives to modernisation and technological revolution which the market and the pursuit of profit do only fitfully and by accident, it makes the unthinkable (such as votes for women and the abolition of unemployment) not merely thinkable but practicable. . . . What is equally important, it can re-create communities of men and give a temporary sense to their lives by uniting them against foreigners and outsiders. This is an achievement beyond the power of the private enterprise economy . . . when left to itself. E. J. Hobsbawm (b. 1917), British historian. Observer (London, 26 May 1968).

All quotes from the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations.

Feudalism in Pakistan

A lot of people in Pakistan think that abolishment of feudalism is necessary for the future development and prosperity of Pakistan. What is fedualism? How does it affect the people of Pakistan? Should we distinguish between the good feudals and the bad feudals? Is there a geography of feudalism? What would we gain and/or lose by abolishing feudalism? How justified the state of Pakistan would be to take a unilateral action against it? Why India was able to take care of its problem of zamindari system? Why this oft-talked problem still haunts Pakistan? Why our previous land reforms were not successful? All these questions require a discourse on feudalism in Pakistan. Let me start with an excerpt from Benazir Bhutto`s Daughter of Destiny (1989:

39). Bhutto writes:

``Before the first land reforms in 1958, the Bhuttos were among the largest employers of agricultural workers in the province. Our lands, like those of other landowners in Sindh, were measured in square miles, not acres. As children we loved to hear the story of the amazement of Charles Napier, the British conqueror of Sindh in 1843. ``Whose lands are these?`` he repeatedly asked his driver as he toured the province. ``Bhutto`s lands,`` came the inevitable response. ``Wake me up when we are off Bhutto`s lands,`` he ordered. He was surprised when some time later he woke up on his own. ``Who owns this land?`` he asked. ``Bhutto,`` the driver repeated (p. 39).``

What kind of questions does this paragraph raise? Any comments?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

sadna #101

No one can deny that war is a terrible thing and we would be better off if we could evolve out of this primal instinct. Unfortunately, we have a better chance of turning lions into vegetarians and monkeys into professors.

Once we accept the fact that war is a natural state for us, then we can get on with the business of making sure that it doesn`t get out of hand, like it almost did in WW-II and during the Cold War. It is obvious that everyone is preparing for it and there are still a lot of romantics around who will go to battle with tears in their eyes like Achilles and Hector - pround, gallant, chivalrous and yet ready to kill.

Someone said, war is the old-fashioned way of solving problems and that business and commerce is what really wins wars. Sure? Most wars, including ancient conflicts like the war between Troy and Mycenea, and modern ones like the one with Iraq are over trade and commerce. John McCain and Bush Jr., Gore and Bradley, all advocate a strong defense and a tough stance towards China, Russia and other assorted enemies of the Free World. Nothing wrong with that - if one really believes in the underlying principles of the state, then it is worth fighting ( and dying) for. War is not outdated .... just look at the last decade or so : Iraq-Iran, Allies-Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Malvinas (Falkland), Kargil, Angola, Arab-Israel, Bosnia, Kosova, Sri-Lanka,... and the list goes on. And yes these wars did solve some problems ... It was Egypt`s military performance in 1973 that brought the Isralelis to the negotiating table and the Argentinians have left man and sheep alone on the Malvinas since the British kicked their posteriors. I doubt very much that superiority in Wireless Internet technology or Pottery would have helped any of the combatants win these wars. Inspite of Nokia`s amazing techology I don`t think Finland can defend itself if the Rusiians decide to move in with vintage T-72s. The Americans will have to intervene with technology developed by Boeing, Texas Instruments and GE to defend the poor Finns and their cute cellular phones.

I wish there was a better way, but based on history the Hare Krishnas and other assorted flower-children have never been able avert wars and battles wrought by real men - men who, once the carnage is over, turn swords into ploughs to be later converted into better swords (or micro-chips).

Sun Tzu :`` Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of the forest.In raiding and plundering be like fire, is immovability like a mountain.Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.``

Cavalry major in `Apocalaypse Now`:`` I love the smell of napalm in the morning !``

hamidm #79, #100

I thought you were just kidding when I read your post #79 (I must tell you that I am very envious of your writing skills. It’s always a pleasure to read your posts). After I read your post #100, I got little worried about the content though.

I agree with you that basic human instincts (e.g., aggression, acquisition) have not changed and will never change. However, where the game has changed is how do we channelize this source of energy. If we stay within old paradigm (zero sum game), we can keep on killing each other on some pretext (e.g., religion, ethnicity, race) and keep spinning our wheels at the same place. These killings, wins or defeats will generate equal reaction and after a few decades, the grieved parties will start on their revenge cycle. We in the sub-continent have perfected this operating model to a science.

The other option is western model where these energies can be channelized into business expansion or capturing markets as you mentioned. It’s true that more aggressive ones will still have upper hand and produce higher value goods and the subjugated ones will produce shoes and shirts. I still like this win/win model since the guys who are making shoes and shirts are still better off than before. Moreover, if they are truly smart they can move up the ladder as Asian tigers did earlier and India is on its way through IT. No one is killed and every one’s lot is improving. If people still have excess aggression and killer instincts let them take it out in cricket, football or hunting sports or some thing similar.

No one knows what would happen when every one on the planet becomes very smart and has the capability to contribute at higher level. What would we do with our aggressive instincts? Hopefully, we would be looking for aliens on Mars so that we can have a good game of football or whatever they play.

Regards.

I would appreciate if some one can explain how the business models work without paying or charging interest. There must be precedents in other Islamic countries. Thanks.

News Item from “The News (Jang) 12/23/1999”

Supreme Court declares interest un-Islamic

(Updated at 1830 PST)

LAHORE: The Supreme Court on Thursday declared the charging of interest on loans un-Islamic and ordered the government to make the economy interest-free by the year 2001, said reports.

The verdict was given by a full bench of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, the reports added. Riba, or the charging of interest, was declared an un-Islamic practice under the Islamic Sharia law by the Federal Shariat Court, in 1991. But the government, led by then premier Nawaz Sharif, appealed against the verdict.

hamidm #100

``Actually war is perhaps the most noblest of human endeavours, if conducted properly and with chivalry. Unfortunately weapons of mass destruction make it difficult in the conventional sense, but new rules of engagement can be drawn up.``

``I hate to sound like a pessimist but it is impossible to change man`s base natural instincts.``

A little contradictory, perhaps?

Anyway, let me guess, as long as somebody else gets killed, or loses as arm or a leg, or is blinded or suffers the rest of his life from shell shock and mental breakdown from witnessing the butchery of war, as long as someone else`s wife is widowed and children orphaned and left to fend for themselves, as long as someone other person, instead of investing in his future, his home, his family and his community, goes away never to come back, (and maybe does so in the name of his religion, even better)war is `noble`, war is another age-old boardgame pandering to man`s baser instincts.

I understand.

Sadhana

concerned, you said-

``however, hamidm, the old –fashioned way of settling disputes (a la ww2) is, well... old. The new-fashioned way to settle disputes is increasingly becoming knowledge/economic power. It is quite possible, indeed hoped, that the already powerful nations in these aspects would make sure that the old-fashioned way of settling disputes is never revived``

Sun Tzu said - ``No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life``

I beg to differ with you and agree with the long-dead and still revered military and business guru, but some things never change. Man has been fighting and killing each other since Cain and will continue to do so - war is a natural state. I don`t know if you have noticed but even the world of business uses terminology from the battle field. Frontal attacks, tactical alliances and flanking moves are used by Microsoft to pulverise its enemies (competition). Actually war is perhaps the most noblest of human endeavours, if conducted properly and with chivalry. Unfortunately weapons of mass destruction make it difficult in the conventional sense, but new rules of engagement can be drawn up.

And please don`t fool yourself: the ``already powerful nations`` are still busy arming themselves to the teeth so that they may protect their ``strategic interests`` and ``way of life`` . Nothing wrong with that, as long as we are not lulled into dropping our defenses. Do you think, for a moment, that the US will allow China, or for that matter Japan, to roam freely in the Pacific ? What do you think would happen if China ``captured`` half the world market for all manufactured goods and controlled all the major banks. Remember what happened when they didn`t allow ``free-trade`` in opium.

I fully agree with you that a strong economy, universal education and modern industrial base is necessary - only because it is required to wage war effectively when the time comes. I hate to sound like a pessimst but it is impossible to change man`s base natural instincts. But, as always we have to make sure that the objective is clear before we plunge into battle :

``Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical``

Happy war-mongering !

Jay:

Can you please tell me your job description? Considering the amount of ``borrowed`` material you put up here, I sincerely hope you have a life outside the confines of the monitor :-)

BAHMAD # 85

Cultural Politics in the Indus Valley

(During the time of Sachal Sarmast the boundaries between various regions of the South Asian Subcontinent were not narrowly and artificially defined since the imagined communities of Sind and/or Punjab (for example) were much larger and, thus, overlapping. Shouldn`t we consider our existing regional boundaries as somewhat artificial? If yes, we need to learn more about the regions and people other those which provide a basis of our limited collective identities. The following article on Sachal Sarmast is a first step in such a direction.)

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

It is very nice of you to bring this idea and the appended article about Hazrat Sachal Sarmast. I doubt any one will disagree with you about the current artificial regional boundaries which are more political and recent than the cultural and historical overlapping of several millenia. Actually one does not have to go any further than past 100-200 years when political boundaries were much more dynamic and did not matter for the people as compared to current static boundaries, created for administrative and record-keeping purposes.

As one moves south from Lahore, the language starts changing. Half way between Lahore and Multan, in Jhang-Shorkot it is a mixture of Punjabi and Saraiki, similarly Saraiki is a blending of northern Indus valley (Punjabi) and the southern Indus valley (Sindhi) and so on. The languages of the Indus valley are pearls of the same chain. If common arts and cultural heritage, instead of political, is allowed to play a significant role then many of the static boundaries will become invisibly blurred.

It is almost surprising that Uch( sp?) Sharif (distt. Bahawalpur) will be right at the centre of this land and will be the hotbed of great cultural and religious traditions of sufism.

The article you appended was excellent, however I wished that the era of Sachal Sarmast should have been more clearly defined with his biodata, though it is not difficult for me to figure it out. It must have been after Waris Shah and little before Khawaja Ghulam Farid, somewhere late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Moreover, I do not find Sachal Sarmast`s inclination towards any of Chishtiya, Qadriya or Shataria (Wahdat-ul-Wajood) etc. schools of thought unless he was mostly a literary person.

Bullah Shah had seen Aurangzeb`s times and did not like it. He was greatly influenced by the native Hindu traditions and wahdat-ul-wajood. He said: doi door karo, koi shor nahin----sab sadh hain, koi chor nahin----hindu muslim do aur nahin.

Waris Shah has seen Ahmad Shah Abdali`s attacks and in his famous `Heer Waris Shah` justice was delivered through a Hindu Raja and Ranjha finds peace and love through asceticism whereas Muslim Qazi`s character is less than admirable.

Khawaja Ghulam Farid was not much different than Bullah Shah in his admiration of Wahdat-Ul-Wajood. I would assume that Sachal Sarmast must have had similar message of love and harmony.

I think these great poets and sufis of late seventeenth century onward had much less to do with conversions and more to do with the development of culture and religious thoughts compatible with the native traditions in addition to being influenced by the Bhagti Movement.

These are just my opinions. Please correct me if I am mistaken somewhere. Thanks again.

Regards,

Sameer

METHOD IN THE MADNESS

Temporal,

That was a good one. The following if I remember correctly is from Karl Jung, “The Unconscious”

.

Once up on a time a Kerala Brahmin (KB) was sitting with a fishing line dangling in the bathtub. A Pakistani psychologist (PP), member of a Pak peace delegation approached KB and in a condescending manner and asked, “having any bites”.

KB responded, “ you must be really mad, cant you see, it is a bath tub”.

PP went away, other members of the delegation are still waiting for KB to land the big one.

Regards

Jay

Jay:

Hopefully this reply will make it through. My last one did not.

I agree with the parallels that you draw between the Arab/Israeli conflict and the Pakistan/Indian conflict. India like Israel needs to consider the following concepts: ``Land for Peace`` and ``Peace of the Brave``.

Seasons Greetings to All

Peace.

temporal #89

(PS to my last post)

I donot deny that `` if a people, individually and collectively think that they are different, or believe in their identity and stand up to ask for their rights,sooner or later they are bound to get it.``

Whatever such questions do come up now or later in India, I consider that there is no fundamental reason why the principles of universal justice should necessarily be compromised when Indians make efforts to deal with these. The success and justice of those efforts rests on India`s vision of itself and Pakistani pessimism in this regard has become relevant in other parts of India not merely due to the irresistable pull of `civilisational` forces but also due to Pakistan`s self-serving policies of interference. How Pakistan deals which similar forces in its own midst depends on Pakistan`s vision of itself.

For purposes of discussion boards : all theories and extrapolations using Huntington`ian terminology may be applied, but these are equally applicable to India and Pakistan. I think you would agree with that.

For purposes of detente between two nations: The minimum norm of accepting each other at their own current valuation is required. I think you maynot agree with that.

I realise now, the conflict is not merely between Indians` vision of India and Pakistan`s vision of Pakistan, there is also conflict between Indians` vision of India and Pakistan`s vision of India.

Sadhana

temporal #89

Thanks for your reply. I still don`t get the relevance to anything being discussed, of having to go back 5000 years to find an entity to proximate todays India. Proximations of many countries in this world, in West Asia, in North America especially, don`t go back even 1000 years, and let us not forget Pakistan. Why so much emphasis on India?

When an argument is made that India is too closely tying Kashmir to the question of its existence

as a viable state to Kashmir`s detriment, a very common fact revealed in the posts on this site gets by without being generally noticed. The fact is, that some Pakistanis seem to tie THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS about Kashmir to THEIR OWN conviction of India`s inviability as a state, and do so, to the whole region`s detriment. This is an unusable debating position, because, why would any Indian even with every claim to objectivity concede the point on this issue?

If India`s political concept is from 5000 years ago, it has at least been in existence as an entity for 52 years, exactly as long as Pakistan(maybe just a day less). I suspect this fact is a lot more difficult for many Pakistanis to accept than vice versa.

My reading is, to expect some resistance among Indians to your assessment of India`s past and future and disregard for the present. Points raised by anyone anywhere can always be taken as opportunities for self-examination by Indians. However, whatever openness is espoused by India`s democratic principles in settlement of any issue with Pakistan, these democratic principles do not morally or otherwise need to extend toward accepting any Pakistani view of the Indian nation`s overall unviability as gospel or even moot. By the same token, it is best if Pakistanis decided ASAP what they wanted for their country and got on with it.

This may provide a clue to why Indo-Pak agreements never yield lasting results, since a fundamental premise is violated by the attempts of each to redefine or undermine the very nationhood of the other. The question is, is this violation a usable approach for future stability? Now those who want longterm peace will say, no, those who want shortterm satisfaction including the General, will say yes.

Sadhana

hamidm #79:

`I really don`t see any problem with us continuing to despise and hate each other as other nations have done for centuries and eons. Actually, we have a much better reason to spit venom and spill blood than those who fought the Hundred Years War or that mother-of-all wars, WW2.

So let`s cut out this pretentious and pedantic debate and get on with the business of trying to solve the Kashmir problem the old fashioned way. Sophistry and polemics never won any battles`

Hmmm... another omar1974 in the making?

evidently brig(r)usman khalid in the frontier post today agrees with you:

`...Pakistan, unlike Bangladesh, is not vassal state of India. The people of Pakistan consider themselves to have been fighting a long war with India over Kashmir for the last fifty years. We want no concessions from the enemy nor do we want to give it any. We want to close our frontiers with India and stop flying over each other`s territory. We want no foreign visitor to treat us like an appendage of India. We need to underline not ignore that we are at war with India`

however, hamidm, the old –fashioned way of settling disputes (a la ww2) is, well... old. The new-fashioned way to settle disputes is increasingly becoming knowledge/economic power. It is quite possible, indeed hoped, that the already powerful nations in these aspects would make sure that the old-fashioned way of settling disputes is never revived.

paksitan can not afford a full-scale conventional war with india. and despite the relenteless and irresponsible talk of kashmir being `a nuclear flashpoint`, the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons is zero. so what are you talking about?

for a pragmatic, the futility of war is crystal clear. The only realistic solution to kashmir is to accept loc=ib. and get on with nation-building.

Ref macgupta #: 80

You say {Asked why he advised the then U.S. President, Richard Nixon, to send the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal during the Bangladesh War when he knew that the liberation of that country could not be prevented, Dr. Kissinger replied that the U.S. did not want India to march into West Pakistan within three months of the establishment of Sino- American relations in which the American ability to stand up to the then Soviet Union was a factor and India was having an alliance with the Soviets. He said that the U.S. had sought an assurance from the late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi that India would not move into West Pakistan but she refused to give such an assurance.}

So, why did India NOT move into West Pakistan if the US had already been rebuffed? Why didn`t India capture the coastline and make Pakistan a landlocked country? Just like the Israelis have held on to Jordanian territory for 32 years, we could still be holding on to Pak territory and squeeze Pakistan.

The Bangladesh war was in December 1971. That means China could not do anything: all the Himalayan passes would be snowbound. It would be May 1972 before China could have done anything. So, the Chinese threat was non-existent.

The reason is that Russia told India that it would veto Security Council resolutions condemning India so long as the action was limited to Bangladesh. Any move into the West would mean that India would be condemned by the Security Council unanimously. The other fact is that the Indian Army was not capable of holding down Bangladesh and simultaneously fight a war in the West where Pakistan would have no disadvantages. A thrust toward Karachi would leave the armored columns exposed to Pak air attacks.

{Whether this should be interpreted as gun-boat diplomacy, and whether India should be vulnerable to it is a matter for debate. It is not something

swallowed whole by the Indian public, however.}

Why did the US 7th Fleet sail into the Bay of Bengal? Were they going to land Marines into East Pakistan? And, do what? Hand over Bangladesh to Pakistan? Hello? Did anybody think this through?

It was a signal not to invade West Pakistan all right, but it could have been ignored because the fleet will have to steam into the Arabian Sea to be effective in that theater of war. If that would have taken another week, India could have launched a blitzkrieg across the desert and captured at least Karachi. So, why didn`t we do it?

In the final analysis, it has to do with lack of strategic thinking.

Zeemax #86:

In my response #66 I was seeking a creative approach towards defense. Your ‘cantonment for self sufficiency’ idea is intriguing, but full of pitfalls.

However, I was probing for a 180 degree shift from the ingrained military thinking: shifting the emphasis away from hi-tech weaponry to older conventional small weaponry based defensive postures. And no more.

This is bound to result in savings that can be used in other areas. And, simultaneously, this will also signal to friend and foe alike that the defense establishment has no offensive designs. Thus paving the way for friendlier normal relations with all the benefits that ensue.

rgds

t

Jay #83

Since you so love parables:

Let me share with you the story of this Keralite Brahmin.

One day when KB was three or four and playing in the courtyard a provoked rooster fought back and attacked him. KB was frightened of roosters ever since. He genuinely believed that roosters are out to swallow him.

KB comes to States, graduates, returns to marry a beautiful Keralite girl KG. She soon discovers his phobia of roosters. Reasons with him. Rationality in this respect takes her nowhere. Eventually she nudges him to seek psychiatric help. Thus enters KP in the parable.

KB has scores of sessions with KP. KP tries hard to overcome KB’s resistance. One day he tried to use simple reasoning. He brings in a rooster in a cage, points at the rooster’s mouth and asks KB, “Look at yourself and look at this mouth, how can this rooster swallow you?”

An unconvinced and adamant KB replied, “Dr. you know it, I know it, but the rooster does not know it. Given the chance he will swallow me.”

Good luck with your foibles and phobias re Tri Nitro Whatever and obsessive fault findings and knee jerk reactions.

t

Sadhana #78:

First, we have to go back nearly five thousand years back in history to find one geographical and political entity that proximate today’s India. The rulers came and went, some governed large areas some smaller, but seldom the whole of the subcontinent for any appreciable length of time.

(And before I go onto the second reason a short detour is necessary. Forget for a moment what you read about national integrity, UN Resolutions, Agreements, Treaties etc. Just remember this: if a people, individually and collectively think that they are different, or believe in their identity and stand up to ask for their rights, sooner or later they are bound to get it. History books are full of their tales.)

Second, (Indian) intellectuals and policy planners have expressed the fear that if Kashmir is allowed to slip away, the state (of India) would have less of a justification to stand firmly against other people and movements within the union. Thus an intractable stand in Kashmir is a necessary bulwark for supporters of this Domino Effect theory.

Let me end by repeating myself. If ever there was a time when we could gain or lose together, this is it. We are the inseparable siamese twins desperately looking for individual survival and identity. Time for bold decisions, indeed.

rgds

t

Re: #85 bahmad

Hallaj is a favourite of most Sufis-Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai says,

Lo! every creature whether on land or sea

Even the trees and shrubs harp the same tune;

As if everything is liable to be hanged,

But countless are the Mansurs! How many would you kill?

Thanks for the post.

Amir

Ref Temporal # 66

[Won`t fly. Idea has been floated in the past and been rejected by one or the other.]

Temporal, If something hasn´t worked in the past, it better work now because we have no other option but to look towards the future and future alone.

As for cutting defense expenditure, since it is a thorny issue, there is an alternative means in making the defense establishment self-sufficient instead of providing for it from federal revenue. The People´s Liberation Army of China generates a major part of it´s budget from industrial enterprises run by it all over China. The Pakistani military establishment can do the same with their management expertise, already displayed in their successful army welfare trust industrial enterprises in banks, fertilizers, cement, even cereal; amongst others. That would contribute to the nation´s GDP and provide employment. The funding/capital investment of this industrial enterprise would come from privatising military cantonment land for re-development, in major cities. This is a logical step not only from the point of view of the civilians but also that of the army. The concept of military cantonments is that these should be located away from centres of civilian population for two reasons : One, that the Military culture/way of life/objectives are quite different from that of civilians and the two should not intermingle for maintaining the motivation and personal integrity and direction of the armed forces personnel. This is why many civilian social centres like bars/discos etc. are declared out of bounds for military officers. Secondly, in case of war, civilian populations are unnecessarily put at risk by enemy aerial attacks on military barracks and other installations.

The army cantonments when originally established by the British were accordingly a suitable distance away from cities & towns. By growth of cities since then due to urbanisation trends, these same cantoments have ended up being right in the middle of major cities like Lahore, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Multan, Bahawalpur, Jhelum, Nowshera etc. These are extremely valuable properties located in the poshest and most prestigious residential districts of above cities.

Privatising the above lands for redevelopment into shopping malls, residential apartment/bungalow complexes, office high-rise blocks and entertainment facilities would not only fetch at-least a trillion Rupees ( maybe 2 trillion) but also kickstart the construction materials and cement industries. Massive employment would be created without any further debt burden. The military installations could be re-located again away from city centres on existing government land lying waste & unutilised.

Above is the simplest and the most non-abrasive solution to the present economic quagmire. But will the military co-operate in a positive manner and put their money where their mouth is ? If they´re half the patriots they claim to be, I´m sure they´ll give it a serious thought.

Musharraf`s Address: Raise for Grade 1-16

Two main objectives of General Musharraf`s recent address, according to a commentator, were poverty alleviation and self-reliance. Where Musharraf announced several taxes which would significantly increase the prices of various goods and services, he announced a minuscule raise of Rs 100 per month for most government employees (grades 1-16). What difference will this raise make to alleviate poverty of the government employees? It would perhaps allow an average family to eat meat once a month (provided all other things remain the same). The following letter also questions the intelligence of the new regime.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn Internet Edition

December 22, 1999; Letter to the Editor

Rs 100 raise

I was really amazed and shocked to hear about the Rs100 increase for government employees in the Chief Executive`s recent address to the nation. It seems as if the CE is not living in Pakistan otherwise he would have known that such a pittance cannot compensate for the skyrocketing price hikes and the increase in utility bills, etc.

ILYAS JABBAR

Karachi

Cultural Politics in the Indus Valley

During the time of Sachal Sarmast the boundaries between various regions of the South Asian Subcontinent were not narrowly and artificially defined since the imagined communities of Sind and/or Punjab (for example) were much larger and, thus, overlapping. Shouldn`t we consider our existing regional boundaries as somewhat artificial? If yes, we need to learn more about the regions and people other those which provide a basis of our limited collective identities. The following article on Sachal Sarmast is a first step in such a direction.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. This post is especially for Sameer.



Dawn Internet Edition

December 21, 1999; Feature Article

A bridge between Sindh and Punjab

By STM

SACHAL Sarmast`s generation of Sindhi and Punjabi poets was not much worried about the deteriorating political conditions of the Muslim rule in the sub-continent. For instance, Shah Latif was not concerned with the internecine strife among the Mughals.

By frequently using Sarmad`s name as a martyr, Sachal had expressed his dislike of the way the Mughals were ruling over the dissidents or the non-Muslims but he was also sorry for them as they were being replaced by foreigners like the Afghans from Kabul and Europeans including the Dutch who had played havoc with the Sindhis living in port towns like Thatta. It had happened since Akbar`s time and during Sachal`s life, it were the British traders who had become a threat to the Sindhi people already divided into three states or provinces one of which was Khairpur to which Sachal belonged.

Sachal`s senior Punjab contemporaries like Bulleh Shah, Ali Hyder and Waris Shah were opposed to foreign invaders including the Afghans and the British. Bulleh Shah was sorry for the Mughals. While Ali Hyder and Najabat had witnessed the invasion and plunder of Nadir Shah and had strongly condemned it. Both of them severely criticized the role of many wazirs of the Mughal court including Nizamul Mulk. The two poets accused the Mughal ministers of conspiring against their rulers and the people. Waris Shah had witnessed the invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali. He condemned both Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah.

Sachal Sarmast also followed his senior Punjabi contemporaries and expressed his concern first on the in-house fighting of the Mughals, the Muslims and the regions. In his time, even Sindh had to face the wrath of Nadir Shah and later at the hands of the successors to Ahmad Shah Durrani including Shah Shuja.

Sachal was trained and educated in Arabic and Persian also while Sindhi was his mother tongue while Punjabi/Seraiki was the language spoken throughout the Indus valley. Hence Sachal wrote poetry in all of these languages and he is called a poet of seven languages.

Sachal`s Persian poetry is normally on the traditional sufi pattern but his concern about the political conditions in his time had been aired in Persian because probably its official status prompted Sachal to do so. In one of his Persian poems, he had surveyed the political situation of the sub-continent and feared that the Whites would replace the local rulers Urdu got special attention from the Delhi rulers and after Persian it was also used as the second official language. Therefore, Sachal also used Urdu to convey his message, but not with as much clarity as he had used in Persian. He used Sindhi to convey his fears about the advancing colonial forces. He warned the Sindhi rulers and the people about the dangers that lay ahead. In Sindhi poetry, Sachal traditional themes of love, romance and mysticism were used well while same was the case with Seraiki-Punjabi which was the mother-tongue of the Baloch rulers of Hyderabad, Thatta and Khairpur-cum Bhakkar.

The same was the case with Multan`s Pathan rulers who had disassociated themselves from the Delhi darbar. They owed their allegiance to the Kabul rulers, who had repeatedly clashed with the Punjabi and Delhi rulers. When Delhi failed to stop the onslaught of the Afghans, Lahore governors also played a double role. For instance, Mir Munno and later his wife, Mughlani Begum, accepted the authority of the Kabul rulers while at the same time acknowledging Mughal authority.

This disenchanted the local population and ultimately a militant group emerged in the Punjab and the Frontier which stopped the Afghan invasions on the one side and took the charge of the Punjab on this side of the river Sutlej and declared their independence. They had a religious background also but that was a factor of secondary importance. The success of the Sikhs was mainly due to the continuous Mughal-Pathan strife. The Sikhs, in the eyes of Sachal Sarmast, became a threat to the weak and separatist Muslim states like Bahawalpur, Multan, Bhakkar, Monkeera and Khairpur. Sachal had also expressed concern on ascendancy of the Sikhs. These were the conditions in which this son of Sindh was trying his best to convey his political message to all the regions in the Indus Valley.

Sachal Sarmast was not a political figure nor was he a reformist. He was just a sensitive poet of love and mystcism for whom romances like Umar-Marvi, Sohni-Mahinwal, Heer-Ranjha and Sassi-Punnu were more inspiring the warriors and rulers of his time. He was closer to Mansur Hallaj, Sarmad and the other servants.

As he says:

Where there a crowd of men be,

There myself you will not see.

My head I am ready to sacrifice

Like Hallaj his will suffice.

(Translation by G Allana)

His approach towards the love stories of the land is quite in keeping with the tradition of the sufis of other lands:

He says about Heer and the jogis:

O mother, today away departed

The yogis, whose ears are pierced.

Playing on their flutes a melody,

They intoxicated my mind and body,

O mother, how can I ever forget,

The love of the yogis without regret?

(G. Allana)

Sachal was as fluent in Punjabi as in Sindhi. His diwan bears testimony to this. Therefore, he is rightly regarded as a bridge between Sindh and the Punjab.

WAR IN ANOTHER FRONT

FROM iNDIA TODAY

FAKE CURRENCY

Notes of Alarm

The countrywide seizures of counterfeit Indian currency with face value of crores reveal a diabolic design by Pakistan`s ISI to finance its proxy war and undermine the Indian economy.

By Ramesh Vinayak

On the face of it, there was nothing wrong with the Rs 2.5 lakh cache -- Rs 100 notes, serialised and neatly stapled, and as crisp as they come from the Reserve Bank of India. It had come as part of a Punjab Police-seized consignment that also included an AK-47 rifle, 6 kg of RDX and 10 kg of opium. But there seemed nothing more to it. Then one of the Pakistani smugglers arrested with the consignment revealed that the notes were counterfeit. The police wouldn`t believe him at first. They thrashed the captive and accused him of misleading them. But after examining the currency note under ultra-violet light, the police realised the smuggler wasn`t lying. He also revealed that scores of such caches had been routed to India from across the border.

Counterfeit money appears to be Pakistan`s latest weapon against India. According to intelligence sources, the ISI has been pumping in huge consignments of counterfeit notes, believed to be printed in Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, through the porous borders as part of its plan to undermine the Indian economy and sustain its own proxy war. Security officials across the country -- in the border states of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan as well as Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and even distant Assam -- have seized fake currency with face value of crores in the past year or so.

DEFINING KASHMIR PROBLEM.

There are a lot of chowkwalas seeking solution to Kashmir problem with out attempting a definition of it , and the different and varying perceptions of it between the two countries and over time. Kashmir is a Pakistan problem, the recent attempts by general PM to make it into a global problem by talking up the nuclear option of Pakistan will remain a bluster. The pervasive reporting of Kashmir news in the Pak media has created an illusion of Kashmir as a burning issue on both sides of the trenches. If any one cares to see the Indian newspapers, Kashmir is one of the regular run of the mill issues in India, between Bhopal, Bofors Bihar.

Kashmir is a multi-dimensional problem for Pakistan, foreign policy, economic and above all religious. The religious aspect of Kashmir is the most intractable and as such there can be no “solution” other than the transfer of Muslim majority areas of Kashmir to Pakistan. .In simple and may be even simplistic words that people can understand, Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims because Muslims and Hindus cannot live in peace.( I have to, TNT). In the process of partition to realise this dream, many injustices were done to the muslims, Hyderabad, Junaghar etc, which many chowkirdars still complain about, and the biggest of them all, Kashmir. Pakistan, the home land of the Muslims remain incomplete because Kashmir is not part of it. Creation of Pakistan is based on religion and that alone, and hence its realisation is a religious dictate, liberation of Kashmir is a jihad. The mums and dads have realised this, the ‘diplomatic and moral’ support the govt will have to provide and the war will continue. Some of the similarities with the arab-israel conflict is striking, attack on the Indian troops are ‘claimed’ by some organisation in Pakistan, the bomb blasts in ‘Azad’ Kashmir is stone walled. One thing significant in ‘he had no choice’ article is the statement that Pakistan is also part of west asia, that is from a person closest to general PM and he has well and truly introduced the west asian dimension to Kashmir.

The erstwhile rulers of Pakistan have avoided this central issue, they have sought political solutions, relegating the religious imports, repeating ad-noseum one speech by one dead man.. The developments in Pakistan over the last fifty years has evolved in line with its seeding imperatives and the version of history taught to the children. The politico economic situation of Pakistan today, many chowkirdars want to see as an aberration a product of some extraneous factors, ‘corruption’, ‘in-competence’ as if theses have come in the last downpour. The situation in Pakistan is systemic, it can be traced to its principle of creation, ranging from cricket bribery to Kashmir

General PM is honest in his utterances on Kashmir, he understands the Pak psyche stripped of the veneer of modernity and progressiveness which the chowkirdars tend to enamour. Nothing other than a plebicite where the outcome is in favour of Pakistan will be acceptable. Peace is a vague concept, what is the acceptable kill rate in peace.

At least for the sake of argument, having undermined TNT and betrayed Pakistan, `temporal` may have enough time to respond before the midnight knock.

In response to SameerJB (Reply #: 115)

Dear Sameer:

I must applaud you for your honesty and courage to admit your mistake (no big deal, however). We all get carried away occasionally due to one reason or another. I wish the Pakistani ruling elite could learn something from you. Interestingly, there are millions of good people like you in our country. The question is how to bring them together.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Leadership: A Question of Integrity?

Farhatullah Baber has raised a question of integrity of our leaders (decision-makers). Why the former Chief of the State Bank of Pakistan, Muhammad Yaqub, failed to stand up and say no to illegal financial practices? Are our ruling elite simply morally bankrupt? Is this simply power and its addiction in the absence of accountability? What role do our common people need to play? Do they need to get up and say enough is enough? Do they have the moral courage to face the rich and powerful and our coercive state apparatus? What kind of social movements are needed to make Pakistan a respectable and prosperous country in this fast shrinking world?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The Frontier Post, December 21, 1999

No Yaqub, the defence is spurious

Farhatullah Babar

Former Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan Muhammad Yaqub has finally opened his mouth, but how? Not by tendering an apology as General Pervez Musharraf has done. But to justify the May 1998 foreign currency freeze, absolve himself of the fiasco and lay the blame at the door of the government of the day. 

In an interview with the Financial Times reported in the Frontier Post of December 17 he said the freeze decision was `inevitable`. Then absolving him he says that he `advised Sharif government to offer conversions in equivalent rupee amounts to domestic depositors while offering a formula for a phased withdrawal to foreign depositors` implying that things would have been different if his advice had been accepted 

Yaqub has the audacity to say that the decision was `inevitable` and asserts that `weak liquid foreign reserves` dictated so. But he does not have the courage to admit that it was under his stewardship of the central bank that its reserves were criminally weakened. 

Yaqub was governor of State Bank for over six years. During his tenure successive governments illegally drew billions from these deposits for meeting their deficits. Despite a measure of autonomy granted to the central bank he failed to stand up and say no to the illegal withdrawals. It was only during hearings before the Supreme Court early this month that the nation learnt that nearly 8 billion dollars had thus been stolen. In May 1998 when the government `tore its bum`, the ultimate guardian of finance and guarantor of deposits, decamped with all the 12 billion dollars of private accounts. When custodians become robbers, robbing becomes `inevitable`. 

If, as he says, Yaqub had a better formula, which the Sharif government did not accept he should have resigned, rather than irreparably discredit the central bank. After all with his fat pension from the international financial institutions which he served he did not need a job for living. 

The freeze act of the central bank under Yaqub dealt an irreparable blow to the nation`s economy. The SBP has admitted this in its latest annual report. Sharif has acknowledged that he was wrongly advised. As no foreign investment, no remittance have come since then, General Pervez Musharraf in his address to the nation had to tender public apology for this robbery. But Yaqub says it was `inevitable`. 

Worst still, Yaqub did nothing when the big wigs transferred their dollars abroad on the eve of the freeze. The SBP even tried to withhold the information from the court. 

Yaqub also cannot easily absolve himself of the charge that the State Bank under him acquiesced in the massive loan defaults and consequent destruction of the nation`s banks. 

The central bank`s rules on lending were violated with impunity. Take the case of BEL. It violated all banking norms and regulations in advancing and writing off loans. For 30 months the SBP maintained intriguing silence. When the press exposed the conspiracy of silence, governor Yaqub issued a show cause notice to the BEL chief executive Rauf Kadiri. 

SBP under Yaqub lacked courage and competence to recover bad loans from the high and mighty. No wonder that when Yaqub took over as governor the defaulted loans stood at about Rs 50 billion. When he left, it stood at Rs 225 billion. He raised no objection to the over 400 billion rupees Mera Ghar scheme which was not even discussed with the banks which were to advance huge loans for it. The SBP closed its eyes to the obvious possibility of huge default inherent in the scheme as was witnessed in the yellow cab scheme. Defaulters were shielded, dubious projects based on political rather than economic considerations acquiesced and big banking frauds like the Mehran and BEL and names of defaulters and those who spirited away millions on the eve of freeze never made public. 

Yaqub may be credited for personal integrity. But integrity does not only mean absence of financial corruption. It also means courage of conviction and the willingness and ability to stand down when necessary. Yaqub sees the inevitability of freeze but fails to see the greater inevitability of his stepping down when the central bank was being violated. Absence of financial corruption is a virtue. But it is no substitute for competence, and strength to stand up and speak up.

In his interview with the Financial Times Yaqub also lamented ``they (the previous government) froze the foreign currency deposits and kept it like a dead body at home rather than bury it.`` Yaqub certainly would wish it dead and buried. Buried it may be but die it will not. The ghost of the greatest financial blunder will continue to haunt him.

1. Regarding India`s defence budget -- over the last ten years it has declined, as a percentage of GDP. The following is a quote from http://www.idsa-india.org/an-aug9-1.html :

The decline in India`s conventional capability has been transparent for a decade. The defence

expenditure dropped from 3.6 per cent of the GDP in 1987 to 2.3 per cent last year. There has

been hardly any modernisation or replacement of equipment. The successive reports of the

Standing Committee of the Parliament have been pointing out the need to arrest the increasing

weakness in military preparedness. The army by all accounts has been short of nearly 13,000

officers.

* * *

Supposedly these facts played into the decision by Pakistan to start the Kargil affair. You will now see India`s defence budget soar, and with very little political or public opposition.

* * * * *

Regarding Kissinger and the American fleet in the Bay of Bengal in 1971, here is a quote from Kissinger himself, in Bombay :

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/kiss.htm

Asked why he advised the then U.S. President, Richard Nixon, to send the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal during the Bangladesh War when he knew that the liberation of that country could not be prevented, Dr. Kissinger replied that the U.S. did not want India to march into West Pakistan within three months of the establishment of Sino- American relations in which the American ability to stand up to the then Soviet Union was a factor and India was having an alliance with the Soviets. He said that the U.S. had sought an assurance from the late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi that India would not move into West Pakistan but she refused to give such an assurance. Dr. Kissinger observed that the then relations between the two countries were not made in heaven. Both the countries should have talked frankly about their objectives. But Indira Gandhi went ahead with dealing with Pakistan not because she was sure of the Americans being fair but because she knew that she would succeed.

* * *

Whether this should be interpreted as gun-boat diplomacy, and whether India should be vulnerable to it is a matter for debate. It is not something swallowed whole by the Indian public, however.

* * *

Here is a good synopsis of India`s ``paranoia`` about China :

http://www.idsa-india.org/an-oct9-3.html

In all the earlier Indo-Pak conflicts, China had been known for following a standard pro-Pakistan policy. To start with, the Communists were at the peak of their fight against the Guomindang regime during the first Indo-Pak conflict of 1948 and, therefore, this conflict may not have really interested Mao who was nearly one year away from founding his Communist People`s Republic. Yet, going by his later criticism of Nehru`s bourgeoise liberal democracy, in which he described it as only a transition stage towards the heralding of an era of Communism, his views on India were neither sympathetic nor very positive. Later, he was to describe Nehru as a stooge of the Western countries which clearly reflected his perception of New Delhi`s policies.

However, a more thought-out and detailed response of Chairman Mao was provided during the second Indo-Pak War of 1965. First of all, this war came too soon after the Sino-Indian War of 1962. This interlude of three years had seen China and Pakistan becoming friends against their perceived common enemy. Accordingly, following their border settlement agreement of March 1963, wherein Pakistan conceded over 5,000 sq. km. of Indian territory to the Chinese, China had gradually come to be one of Pakistan`s major suppliers of military equipment and technologies. The Pakistani generals, later, were confident about Chinese reliability and believed that Beijing had, in fact, issued New Delhi some sort of a deadline for coming to a ceasefire with the Pakistani armed forces.[ General Mohammad Musa (Retd.), My Version: India-Pakistan War 1965 (Lahore: Wajidalis Ltd., 1983), pp. 11, 92.] However, even if China did not carry them out, its veiled threats to physically intervene did constrain India to retain five of its seven mountain divisions on its northern borders. Even the other two divisions were kept only in reserve and were not put on the frontline until the ceasefire was signed.

Similarly, during the last Indo-Pak War of 1971, China had called India an adventurist,

expansionist and aggressor and both General Yahya Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had publicly

declared that, if need be, China could militarily intervene in support of Pakistan. Once again, while China may not have actually intervened militarily, it provided Pakistan weapons and equipment and even allowed Pakistan Air Force flights eastwards to over-fly from its

territory. All this did provide weight to Pakistani statements about China`s possible intervention, which had to be viewed in the backdrop of the problematic Sino-Indian ties.

Moreover, the Sino-American entante during the early 1970s and Pakistan`s role in the historic trip by Henry Kissinger to Beijing, had made things all the more complicated for New Delhi. It was in this situation that New Delhi signed the historic Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship which, however, did help New Delhi to withstand these pressures from Beijing and Washington DC. But again, this Indo-Soviet relationship, in fact, made Beijing all the more suspicious of India`s intentions and policies and only further strengthened China`s commitment to the successive regimes in Islamabad. This long-standing Sino-Pak ``special relationship`` was to later emerge as the single most difficult issue for India`s policy-makers as they tried to build a rapprochement with a slow-moving and reluctant Beijing.

* * *

-arun gupta

This is wonderful! It is thrilling to see how the tenacious and verbose, sometimes touching, yet pathetic, often irritating and provoking, quite annoying, needlessly malicious, insulting and thoughtlessly provoking debaters have futilely attempted to solve the Indo-Pakistan problem. The protagonists beat each other bloody with age old arguments and tales of lamentation, drawing Kuldip Nayyer, General Musharref and God-knows-who into their profound pontifications on a subject that every five year old Pakistani fully understands: WE are right, because we are on Sirat-ul-Mustaqeem, and THEY are wrong. And that`s that!

I really don`t see any problem with us continuing to despise and hate each other as other nations have done for centuries and eons. Actually, we have a much better reason to spit venom and spill blood than those who fought the Hundred Years War or that mother-of-all wars, WW2.

So let`s cut out this pretentious and pedantic debate and get on with the business of trying to solve the Kashmir problem the old fashioned way. Sophistry and polemics never won any battles.

temporal #67

`` ------I have serious misgivings about your interpretation of the event. You give too much credence to the Pakistani planners. They envisaged Kargil as a mini Siachen, nothing more. There was never any hidden China Card. Don`t read too much about the General`s visit to China nor the ISI taped, and passed to RAW,tapes.``

Nawaz Sharif visited China, too, didn`t he, after the Kargil conflict began?

`` -------Reluctantly and against logic I am being won over by the side that argues that Kashmir solution is the core of all problems among the scores of nationalities in the sub continenet. China, US, renegade Korea etc are all peripheral to the basics.

Time is for bold decisions by India and Pakistan.

We have to go back over 5000 years in time to find a political entity proximating today`s India. (Ashoka`s times if my memory serves.)``

Could you kindly clarify what you meant by the last sentence in the context of Kashmir?

Sadhana

Might as well throw in this Kuldip Nayyar for you jay to complete your file.


The view from Kashmir

Kuldip Nayyar

How does New Delhi look from here? I posed this question at a small gathering of lawyers and intellectuals in Srinagar recently. One lawyer replied: ``It is ugly and makes me feel ashamed.`` Another one said: ``How could you criticise Pakistan for having lost democracy when you never allowed us to rule ourselves?``

Indeed, as I talked to more and more people -- lawyers, journalists, retired bureaucrats, politicians, economists and businessmen -- I found that India`s image was more smeared than before. It is not only alienation, it is a mood of indifference.

During my earlier visit, one and a half years ago, I had seen the Kashmiris expecting things to take a turn for the better. A substantial number of them had participated first in the Lok Sabha poll and then in the state assembly election in October 1996. In more than one way, they had rebuffed the forces which were pro-militant, parochial and which had stalled the process of merging with the mainstream. The anti-India elements stood somewhat isolated.

Even otherwise, the Kashmiris were tired of leading an insecure and uneasy life. The militancy had once ignited a spirit of challenge and defiance. But it had also brought in its wake the retaliation by security forces, often brusque and brutal. Enough of bloodshed had taken place. There was a realisation that all that had happened had taken them nowhere. Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah`s promise for a better deal administration sounded more credible than before. They wanted to try him again -- and also the Government of India.

New Delhi was seen learning from the Lok Sabha election in 1996 that a free atmosphere evoked a wider response. The assembly election was a welcome follow-up. Afraid of gun culture and communal sentiments overtaking their peaceful and Kashmiri way of living, many came forward to exercise their vote. Despite a boycott call by the Hurriyat leaders, who associated themselves with the demand for independence or elections under the UN, nearly 40 per cent of the Kashmiris went to the polls in 1996 to elect the assembly. It was not that they had come to accept New Delhi but it was their feeling that normalcy would give them better dividends.

Whether the Centre or Farooq Abdullah realised this or not, most Kashmiris had generally reconciled themselves to the situation provided they got good governance and secure living. Two years, from the assembly election in October 1996 to the end of 1998, was a trial period. It seems that the advantage has been blown up. The 1999 Lok Sabha election in Kashmir was the biggest fraud committed on the voters. Elections were only in name. It is a sort a blot which the Central Election Commission will not be able to rub off easily.

The rigging in the 1998 assembly election had driven young men from ballot to bullet. A feeling of disappointed had turned first into desperation and then into insurgency, with the help of the Pakistan army and arms. The same thing happened in the 1999 Lok Sabha election. More than 200 disgusted boys have crossed into Pakistan to get training. The local population is once again showing a sneaking admiration for even foreign militants, 90 per cent of them Pakistanis.

People feel that their expectations have been belied. They find the government failing in every field, particularly the administration. Nor do they find any redress of their grievance. The cost of living is going up, electricity alone, if and when available, costing 50 per cent more. On top of it, they daily come across examples of waste and unchecked corruption from top to bottom.

In fact, people have felt cheated. New Delhi is seen engrossed in security, not in the measures on how to improve their lot. Farooq Abdullah`s acts of omission and commission have come to be seen as New Delhi`s doings. The state government`s defence is that the promised economic package is yet to arrive. And the Rs 400 crore released by the Centre is inadequate.

Criticism of India, which was somewhat mute at one time, has now become loud. They feel that they have no say, much less participation, in managing their own affairs. A political solution is at the back of their mind. But a cleaner, quicker and more sympathetic administration would have gone a long way to span the ever-growing distance between the people and the government.

Even during my short visit, I found instances of harassment, maltreatment and authoritarian behaviour. People have fewer complaints against the BSF. But their main anger is directed against the special operation group (SOG) comprising the Kashmir police. The Rashtriya Rifles, which is dubbed Rashtriya Sangh, also comes in for severe criticism. Once again, there are searches by cordoning off a particular area, as was done in the early 90s. There are allegations of excesses.

The militants operate even in the city. A hand-grenade was lobbed at a place near my hotel. There was an explosion at the inauguration of a bridge by Farooq Abdullah. One thing different from the past is that such incidents do not seem to disturb people. They have begun to take such incidents in their stride. There is no hartal, no detour of the affected place by pedestrians.

While walking on the road, I found no sign of Talibanisation of the city. Very few women wore burqua and few men sported beards. There is normalcy of sorts. The number of bunkers in the city is far less than before. Even security men on the streets are not so visible as it was the last time. No doubt, there are more militants from across the border than are from within. But the local population does give them shelter and provide them guides for ``the target.`` The attack on the army headquarters at Badami Bagh is one example of local assistance.

Cross-border militancy has increased since the advent of General Pervez Musharraf`s military rule. Islamabad is also encouraging local militancy. Apart from Pakistan`s encouragement, the atmosphere of disappointment is also conducive to desperation. Since the rigging of the 1999 election, people have lost hope of changing the Farooq Abdullah men through the ballot box. Some had pinned their hopes on a third force, which Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, his daughter Mehbooba, and Muzafar Ali Beg, the three candidates, were trying to build so as to be an alternative to Farooq`s National Conference and the Hurriyat. But the defeat of the three seems to have convinced many that there is no respite from their plight except through militancy.

Economically, the state has not done well. The apple crop has got spoilt and the Kargil operation has taken its toll. Many people have suffered. There are no openings for the young men leaving schools or colleges. Some of them are tempted to join the militants, who pay their parents Rs 2,500 a month regularly. For some time, the militants have been spending lavishly. If they eat at any house, they leave behind at least Rs 500. There are very few examples of extortion.

In fact, the image of the militants has improved. Lately, they are seen as ``liberators.`` When anyone of them is killed, there is a burial procession. Even youthful leader Shabir Shah argues that there may not be any other option ``if New Delhi does not listen to us.`` At present, he favours a dialogue and wants the Hurriyat leaders, who have become more credible after their detention, to be associated with the talks.

It looks as if when it comes to India, almost all Kashmiris join hands. The realisation that Islamabad is in no position to force any solution on New Delhi makes them feel helpless. And then they pick on India all the more.

Gymnosophist

I`m not sure how going from PTwNT to Gymnosophist implies a loss of anonymity! :-)

Your guess is right, though..

Cheers, AK

For those who believe in the sanctity of the printed word, here is something to chew on. In all fairness, the author has gotten the month of hte coup wrong. Also, a suggestion: any responsible chowkwallah, if genuinely interested in Kuldip Nayar`s valued opinion, could directly check with him about what he actually wanted to say in his article.

About being in denial, lets see. Can the following statement be applied to Pakistanis currently under the yoke of an unelected military government?

``Let the (Pakistanis) decide what they want to do with their future. Don`t force a solution on them. After that, on the whole, most of the Indo-Pak problems will start getting resolved. As long as people try to force their views on others, no solutions can be reached.`` (holds good for both Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf)

...

``If the average (Pakistani) isn`t supporting self-determination for Pakistan, than why doesn`t (the General) hold a vote in (Pakistan)? One should be consistent in one`s principles, and not be selective when it suits one`s own interests. If someone does not want to give the (Pakistanis) their right to (democracy)self-determination, then I would have more respect for them if they came out and stated that they do not believe in people`s right to self-determination, rather than trying to justify their stance by altering the facts regarding Kashmir.

Just hold a vote, accept the results, and get the whole problem over with. Otherwise just say that you do not believe in self-determination for human beings.``

Umaiir #69

I am not just trying to score points. There is a serious issue here concerning the future of the subcontinent. The type of governance prevailing in Pakistan heavily influences the options available to Indians including Kashmiris. You might or might not accept the fact that Pakistanis are not the only large-hearted and unselfish set of people in the world who are worried about the fate of the subcontinent including Kashmiris. Also you might or might not accept that people on this board may disagree with you for good reasons other than their own selfish nationalist interests.

Sadhana

http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/99/1203/nat.pakistan.kashmir.html

DECEMBER 3, 1999 VOL. 25 NO. 48

Taking an About-Turn?

Pakistan`s Pervez Musharraf cannot separate his domestic agenda from Afghanistan and Kashmir

By ANTHONY DAVIS

Since the army coup in September, the attention of Pakistan`s new ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has been focused squarely on domestic tasks, namely economic stabilization and a high-profile crackdown on the country`s rich and famous debt defaulters. Before long, however, Musharraf will be confronting the need to make far tougher decisions over foreign-policy issues no less critical to national security: the seemingly unending conflicts in neighboring Afghanistan and Kashmir,where Islamabad runs covert wars.

Reining in Pakistan`s cross-border entanglements is virtually inseparable from implementing Musharraf`s wide-ranging agenda. In the long term, reviving a crippled economy, reducing sectarian and criminal violence and combating the country`s notorious ``Kalashnikov culture`` of drugs and guns, depends critically on a stable regional environment. ``Under his skin,Musharraf has one main goal: internal stability for Pakistan, both socially and economically,`` reflects an Islamabad-based Western diplomat. ``But he simply can`t achieve that with these continual sores on the country`s borders.

Decisions looming in the coming months will not be made by Musharraf alone. From the post-coup reshuffle at the top of the army, a core security triumvirate has emerged. While headed by Musharraf - who doubles as chief executive as well as chief of army staff - it also includes the new director-general of Pakistan`s premier spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Lt.-Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, and the new chief of general staff, Lt.-Gen. Mohammad Mir Aziz Khan. Mahmoud is a longtime friend of Musharraf`s, and Aziz was largely responsible for planning the summer`s Kargil operation that sparked a mini-war with India on the Kashmir Line of Control(LOC).

Afghan policy clearly demands sweeping review. Diplomatically,Islamabad remains largely isolated in its support for the Taliban,a pariah regime shunned by the U.N. and widely condemned for human-rights abuses, support of terrorism, runaway narcotics exports, and unblinking political intransigence. Pakistan has also been roundly criticized for condoning the role of thousands of its own citizens fighting as volunteers alongside the Taliban. In 1999, the ISI`s logistical and advisory backing failed conspicuously to bring Afghanistan`s hardline Islamic militia any closer to their goal of subduing the whole country. A late July offensive was routed by a dramatic opposition counter-thrust that cost the Taliban hundreds of casualties in a single day. The second phase of operations met even greater setbacks. Despite the capture of territory which threatened the opposition`s capital of Taloqan, the Taliban eventually lost all their gains to an October counter-offensive led by northern chieftain Ahmadshah Massoud.

Since the coup, Pakistani policy has been in what one intelligence source describes as ``holding mode.`` Some new shipments of munitions have crossed the border, but in the field, ISI officers have been withdrawn from advisory roles with Taliban forces. Coming at the same time as an army closure of the Afghan border to crack down on smuggling, Islamabad`s shift has sparked alarm among the Taliban. The militia are already under pressure from U.N.-mandated sanctions imposed over the sanctuary they give the U.S.`s Public Enemy No. 1, terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden (though they have offered to talk).

Pakistan`s military triumvirate must now confront a tough dilemma: continue backing the Taliban`s campaign to subdue the north; or concede the improbability of a military solution and cut back support. Pushing on - likely to appeal to ISI hardliners -would necessitate backing a renewed spring offensive. The alternative would be to dump Pakistan`s long-cherished goal of Afghanistan united under a friendly regime. This would entail urging the Taliban to reach a compromise on a coalition government. The outlines of such a set-up are far from obvious, but unpalatably for Islamabad would probably need to include in some capacity the stridently anti-Pakistani Massoud.

The trouble is, reducing support is also fraught with risks. A concerted opposition push in the spring could break the militia`s shaky hold on the north. Such a collapse would inevitably trigger political upheavals in Taliban ranks and create chaos in southern Afghanistan. ``For Pakistan that scenario would pose a major foreign-policy disaster and a security risk,`` reflects one Western analyst.

As for Kashmir, because of Kargil, Musharraf is widely perceived in India as a hawk. Islamabad-based analysts, however, view him as keen to reduce tensions with New Delhi. ``The army wants a solution in Kashmir as much as anyone else, but on their own terms and in their own time,`` says a senior Western diplomat.

Achieving real tension reduction will not be easy given Indian suspicions and the difficulties of reaching specific, step-by-step agreements that might include a deal on stopping cross-LOC shelling or even a mutual downsizing of forces along the LOC. Complicating matters are the Pakistan-based religious organizations committed to holy war in Kashmir. Says a diplomat: ``At some stage the Pakistan army will have to control what they`ve let loose.`` But attempting to close down militant training and infiltration could well trigger a domestic backlash pitting the religious parties against the military regime.

The snows now settling across the mountains of both Afghanistan and Kashmir give Musharraf and his colleagues breathing space to review various uninviting options and to explore diplomatic openings. As they will be discovering, dampening holy wars is far more difficult than cheering them on.

Ref rajanjua #: 71

You ask {I don`t understand why they censored this post of yours earlier-apart from some paragraphs its quite reasonable.}

It is better to let the editors of Chowk explain it than for us to attribute motives to them! I wanted it published as an article only to generate more debate. (And to bait Omar1974!)

You say {I want your opinion on why there has never been a strong call by the Indians for reduction in their own defense budget}

I would attribute it to three reasons. The first is that during the period 1947-1962, India totally neglected defense. The government did not analyze what threats to the country`s security might arise from its neighbors (perhaps, other than from Pakistan) and this led to the problem with China in 1962. At that time, Nehru was worried about the world being destroyed by nuclear war between Russia and the US but not about losing territory to China because he never understood the Chinese mindset. Even after the Chinese intervention in Tibet in 1950 and the outright takeover in 1958, Nehru did not understand how to handle the Chinese or their claims to Ladakh, NEFA, and a few other places. India was so unprepared for the 1962 war with China that Indian troops didn`t have snow shoes to fight the war and this was in the winter. This has so scarred the psyche of the nation that China is considered Enemy Number One by India. The statement by George Fernandes last year that China is a major threat to India is only a public acknowledgement of what all Indians (except perhaps the Communists of West bengal) believe.

Because of that war, defense thinking in India has undergone a change. India is attempting to put itself in a position where it cannot be blackmailed by any other country. If you read any of Altaf Gauhar`s articles (published in The Nation a few months back) on the 1965 Indo-Pak war, he claims that Chou En-Lai offered to assist Pakistan if that war if Ayub Khan was serious about Kashmir. The offer was for China to occupy more of Ladakh, thus diverting India`s attention away from the Uri-Poonch sector where the initial Pak incursions took place.

The other issue that is always brought up is that the US sent an aircraft carrier into the Bay of Bengal in 1971 as a veiled threat to India. This was most likely a gesture to India not to go too far in dismembering Pakistan. Strategically, this made no sense: the real threat was that India would invade West Pakistan after settling the score in the East. Sending the aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea would have signalled that if India attacked in the West, the US would come to the assistance of Pakistan. But this issue is dredged up repeatedly by the Govt of India as well as the newspaper columnists and mindlessly accepted by the Indian public. The fear of Chinese intervention in 1971 was so great that India signed a 20-year defense treaty with the USSR. The Chinese card always comes up in India`s defense planning.

Thus, India believes that the only way to handle the Chinese is to be militarily prepared even though the possibility of getting back lost territory in Ladakh (14000 square miles) is remote.

The second reason is that the defense budget is a smaller portion of the overall budget or the GDP. Thus, India doesn`t feel the bite as much as Pakistan does.

The third reason for India`s defense budget can only be described as delusions of grandeur. Instead of being pacifist and non-interventionist as India was in the 1950s, the strategic thought is that if India does not dominate the Indian Ocean, somebody else will. Effectively, the US does that now and India has no way of throwing the US out. The fear again is that the US might withdraw in favor of the Chinese and the Chinese at least should be denied dominance over the Indian Ocean. It is going to take India compounded annual growth of 20-30% a year for the next 20 years if it is to dream of a blue-water navy. The current growth rate, about which Indians are ecstatic, is 8% which is better than the ``Hindu`` growth rate of 3%. This, and the typical lackadaisical work ethic inside India, guarantees that this will remain a pipe dream.

You ask {-and whether this situation should be remedied.}

Probably, yes. But national pride over Kashmir and Ladakh won`t let India do anything about it. That is why you see the BJP winning the elections: not on the basis of domestic policy but because it is thought to be a strong international player. That is why they got 91% approval rating for the nuke tests in the big cities. That is why Abdul Kalam is a hero for the missile development efforts. Even the Hindutva ideology is being projected as a projection of India on the world scene; after all, the 83% Hindu population guarantees dominance over any minority inside the country.

Anyway, these are my opinions. Let us see what others have to say.

Regards.

KASHMIR SOLUTION- ANOTHER CROSS ROAD.

Solution to kashmir has passed another cross road, recently, that is after the major junction at Kargill. In the past one week there had been three bomb explosions in `azad` kashmir, two days ago all shops were closed in protest against the bomb, a scenario quite familiar on the indian side.

One recommendation after kargill is to put RAW under the control of the military, a situation similar to ISI of pakistan.

At last there are plans for symmetrical responses. I am heartened by the indian response, for once pakistanis are in the lead, they are showing the way and indians are following. At least general PM has a new approach, he is a leader.

Re: #63 gmnosophist

I don`t understand why they censored this post of yours earlier-apart from some paragraphs its quite reasonable.

``The remedies that have been suggested are a reduction in tension along the border with India, a non-aggression or no-war pact, and simultaneous reduction in the armed forces of both India and Pakistan. The previous Pakistani attempts at maintaining parity with India have come back to haunt it because parity is still desired, though at lower force levels.``

You are right that one of the major reasons for Pakistani problems is the overwhelming defense budget, but no amount of international gaurantees can result in a unilateral reduction of arms by Pakistan. It has to be bilateral.

I want your opinion on why there has never been a strong call by the Indians for reduction in their own defense budget-and whether this situation should be remedied.

Regards,

Amir

This appear to be an `un-edited` version, at least I havnt tampered with it.

Normality is what is required first

By Kuldip Nayar

MILITARY dictators tend to be simplistic in their approach. It is either black or white. There is no grey area for them. General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan Chief executive, is of the same mould. From the day he has taken over, he has been harping on one point: there will be no peace with India until the Kashmir issue is resolved.

This is the difference between a democratic government and a military junta. The former knows the price that people have to pay when hostilities break out. Neither Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif, not even the two martial law administrators, General Ayub Khan and General Zia-ul-Haq, ever said: either Kashmir or no peace.

At one time, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto talked of a thousand-year war with India. But he withdrew the threat. He came to realize that normality between Islamabad and New Delhi was a prerequisite for reconciliation. In an interview at Rawalpindi two months before the Simla conference, he told me that a step-by-step approach was necessary to reach the Kashmir settlement. The Simla agreement, like the Tashkent Declaration, listed several steps to normalize relations between the two countries. The fault was not with the proposed steps but with Islamabad which simply did not implement them.

The Lahore process was yet another attempt to create a favourable climate to tackle Kashmir. If the behind-the-scene negotiations were any indication, the problem was nearing a solution. Gen. Musharraf should know that he is being blamed in India for sabotaging such a possibility. Anyone will tell him that the anti-Pakistan lobby in India had collapsed after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee took the bus ride to Pakistan and said in Lahore that the integrity of Pakistan was essential for the integrity of India.

It was the intrusion at Kargil which reignited the anti-Pakistan sentiments in India. How should the country take Musharraf`s words, ``I am for peace,`` seriously when he is seen as the author of the Kargil tragedy? Why was the Lahore process sabotaged when it was moving towards a direction where all problems, including Kashmir, were sought to be settled in a give-and-take spirit? Maybe, Musharraf knows the answer.I have just returned from Srinagar. The situation there is really depressing. It is not to the liking of anyone. The city has no electricity for most of the time. After dark, there is eerie silence and even trees look like men standing with stenguns. Both the security forces and the militants can take shots at one another if they are so inclined. People are exasperated and stay indoors out of fear. During the day, the activity is limited and the youth - most of them unemployed - roam the streets. Political parties may make any claim but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. There is an attitude of indifference to whatever is promised or, for that matter, what is happening.

But Musharraf is not helping the Kashmiris when the militants from Pakistan are allowed to enter Kashmir. After his takeover, the activity of militants has considerably increased. I am not defending the excesses committed nor the Lok Sabha election in the valley. It was more of a formality than of people exercising their vote. Let guns fall silent first. Peace is necessary for any effort to fructify. The solution will then begin to appear.

Islamabad can play a positive role if it stops the cross-border militancy, to begin with, for one year. Local militants, who are generally dependent on Pakistan, can be influenced by it to declare a cease-fire for that much time. In turn, New Delhi should stop military and other operations. This will create the climate for talks.

However, the basis of any solution cannot be religion. Many people in Pakistan hawk about a proposition that the Muslim areas, primarily the valley, should be integrated with Pakistan, and the Hindu and Buddhist areas of Jammu and Ladakh with India. Were this to be ever accepted, the wounds of partition would be reopened. History might repeat itself. One shudders to imagine the consequences.

Even otherwise, India cannot endanger its secular polity. It is already facing a tough time at the hands of the Hindutva forces. It cannot accept a position where it is told that the Muslims in Kashmir, even after 52 years, want to separate on the basis of religion. Any referendum will be reduced to the Quran versus the Gita. The Red Shirts in the North West Frontier Province were decimated when the referendum was held for the fate of the state after the creation of Pakistan because then religion became an arbiter. How can secular India afford to go over the same exercise?

This is the reason why it is so important to avoid a situation which may land India in the vortex of religion and its aftermath. And what kind of solution will it be if it is based on the lines of religion? The crust of enmity will become still harder. Kashmir is only a symptom, not the disease.

Normality is what is required first. The two countries must learn to live like neighbours. Only then can they take up a knotty problem like Kashmir. So far they have either fought wars or behaved in a manner which has threatened peace. There has never been harmony, much less true understanding. It may have been said in a lighter vein but it is true that the foreign policy of India is formulated in Islamabad and Pakistan`s in New Delhi.

Since there has been no real contact between the two, not even an exchange of newspapers or books, both sides are dismally ignorant about each other. The young people of the two countries have no interaction and the old have not given up their age-old prejudices. History which is taught in Pakistan does not recognize the Indian heritage. Nor do students know about the period before the advent of Islam in the subcontinent. That there is no cogent reply to the question asked on the missing link in history is one problem. The other, more important one - and this applies to India as well - is that the people in both countries have grown up in the midst of doubt, suspicion and fear.

Tackling Kashmir first is putting the cart before the horse. The ground has to be prepared for any structure to come up. General Musharraf may begin with trade and commerce. He needs to improve his country`s economy. India can help a lot in this matter. We should also be willing to accept exports from Pakistan without any duty. People on both sides will develop a vested interest in the economic relationship and this in turn will generate genuine goodwill. Kashmir will be easy to tackle in that atmosphere.

Devolution and Provinces

Devolution is process of decentralization that entails transfer of power from the national (center) level to the local and/or regional level. The need for devolution exists due to: (1) the presence of dissatisfied or nonconforming groups within a society (nation-state); (2) the need for an effective governance and delivery of public goods and services according to the needs and wishes of local and regional communities. The following letter by M. Shamim Raza suggests that the issue of devolution is not as simple as some people (including General Musharraf) thinks. A bureaucratic solution of the centralization-decentralization debate may not bring desired results. Devolution is a serious political issue, it needs to be dealt with through a (democratic) political process. Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn Internet Edition, December 20, 1999

Devolution of power

Devolution of power plainly suggests transfer of power from the centre to the provinces and from the provincial to the local government as actually enshrined in the Constitution (now suspended). Any deviation from this recognised path will damage the equation and make the `cracks` grow bigger.

The SNF executive presided by its chief Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto has been critical of the move of the administration to transfer power to the districts for the benefit of the people in solving their problems locally (Dec 10). The party is clearly suspicious of the mode of transfer from the Centre which has been ignoring the just and long-standing demands of the smaller provinces.

The contention of the SNF is that power should be transferred to the provinces and it is for the province to manage local affairs. The power struggle between the centre and the provinces has been agonising. With the passage of time and myopic attitude of the Centre the distrust has grown so much that neither of the two is prepared to accept the words of another.

It is an irony of fate that 1973 Constitution, though drafted in a hurry and approved unanimously by all the parties in the parliament at that time, did not provide a binding base for our living together. The fault was not with the constitution. It has fully met the demands of provincial autonomy. It is simply unfortunate that we could not evolve a mechanism to transfer those given power to the provinces. This is now the core issue of equation between the federation and its units.

In his address to the nation (17-10-99) the Chief Executive in his 7-point agenda promised to strengthen the Federation and remove inter-provincial disharmony. It would be a great achievement if it is realized early.

Two months have already passed but nothing is visible how this solemn promise will be effected and the confidence of the aggrieved provinces restored to their satisfaction.

Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto has clearly stated in the said executive meeting that the Council of Common Interest (CCI) could be the only platform to speed up this issue in the light of the ground realities and evolve a mechanism to transfer power to the provinces.

The issue is very sensitive and has been agitating the minds of the smaller provinces since long. Having the entire state machinery and a viable think tank at his disposal it is now the golden time for the CE to solve this problem of distrust for good. The idea put forward by Mr. Bhutto also needs sober consideration.

M. SHAMIM RAZA

Karachi

Let the Kashmiris decide what they want to do with their future. Don`t force a solution on them. After that, on the whole, most of the Indo-Pak problems will start getting resolved. As long as people try to force their views on others, no solutions can be reached. What to talk of Kashmir, people (including me) do not even want others to force their own views on them at Chowk. I have no problem with loc=ib, as long as the Kashmiris have no problem with it. Otherwise, this solution is just an attempt by India to legalize its atrocities in Kashmir.

I am suprised to see that so many Indians are still in a state of denial, and think that the Kashmir problem is only being cause by some fundamentalists. If the average Kashmiri isn`t supporting self-determination for Kashmir, than why doesn`t India hold a vote in Kashmir? As I stated on another thread, if someone opposes the Muslim conquerors right to rule the Hindus, if they support the Indians efforts for self-determination against the British, then I do not see how they cannot support the Kashmiris right for self-determination. One should be consistent in one`s principles, and not be selective when it suits one`s own interests. If someone does not want to give the Kashmiri`s their right to self-determination, then I would have more respect for them if they came out and stated that they do not believe in people`s right to self-determination, rather than trying to justify their stance by altering the facts regarding Kashmir.

Just hold a vote, accept the results, and get the whole problem over with. Otherwise just say that you do not believe in self-determination for human beings.

Arun:

Hi, nice to seeya here again.


``Good India-China relations are in Pakistan`s interest IF good relations lead to a reduction in India`s defence budget. Pakistan can then commensurately reduce its defence budget.``

------Your IF is a loaded, big time IF. Am afraid the Pakistani politicised civilian, nor the army has the luxury of time at its disposal.

``As the recent Kargil conflict shows, reliance on China to back Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is going to be disappointing. The China card has not trumped India yet.``

------I have serious misgivings about your interpretation of the event. You give too much credence to the Pakistani planners. They envisaged Kargil as a mini Siachen, nothing more. There was never any hidden China Card. Don`t read too much about the General`s visit to China nor the ISI taped, and passed to RAW, tapes.


``A three-way rapproachment (Pakistan, India, China) with the goal of lower level of armaments and not necessarily involving a final solution to Kashmir is in all our interests. Again, to keep China from arming up, a China-US dialog on East Asian security needs to be pushed for.``

-------Reluctantly and against logic I am being won over by the side that argues that Kashmir solution is the core of all problems among the scores of nationalities in the sub continenet. China, US, renegade Korea etc are all peripheral to the basics.

Time is for bold decisions by India and Pakistan.
We have to go back over 5000 years in time to find a political entity proximating today`s India. (Ashoka`s times if my memory serves.)

The dilemma for Pakistani junta is obvious and has been stated to death recently.

It is in India`s own interest to see a stable and strong Pakistan. Or else, the ``domino effect`` some Indian policy analyst believe that will affect Indian unity will not start from Kashmir but from a disintegrating Pakistan.

If ever there was a time when we could gain or lose together, this is it. We are the inseparable siamese twins desparately looking for individual survival and identity. Time for bold decisions, indeed.

rgds

t

Zeemax:

Went back to that post #443 you referred to. Some interesting ideas. Overeall, I think it should be rethought some more.

And now the relevant points. I asked your thoughts on curtailing and effectively reducing defense budget:

From your post I will reproduce the relevant points: My rejoinder in parenthesis.

Defence

1) No-War-pact to be signed with India. Bilateral and simultaneous withdrawal from the Line of Control and the International Borders. A summit to be held in either Delhi or Lahore with the single-point agenda to honour the war-dead of both countries. (Won`t fly. Idea has been floated in the past and been rejected by one or the other.)

2) Line of Control to be made permanent into an International Border in return for India agreeing to withdraw from Siachen. Siachen to be declared as no-man`s-land by mutual treaty. (Track two diplomats were working on this angle according to K. Nayyar and others.)


3) Immediate cessation of active militant interference in Kashmir. A recognition and expression of the realities as follows:

a) Kashmir does not belong to Pakistan regardless of historical events during partition, and is not likely to belong to Pakistan even after a referendum or self-determination. If Kashmir thus is a secessionist movement it is an internal matter of India. (Who are we to determine the fate of Kashmir. Only Kashmirirs can decide for themselves. The moment India and Pakistan honestly recognise this dictum with all its implications, the region will be on its way to
peaceful coexistence.)
b) Human rights violations in Kashmir are wrong and the party will continue to raise it`s voice on purely humanitarian grounds as called for in Chechneya or Kososvo or any other such spots in the world. The Party has faith that the United Nations and other bodies also will intervene to prevent human rights abuses in Kashmir. (Are you alluding to lip service only? Faith in UN? You must be joking. It is alright to have faith in heavenly masters, but one must tie down the camel before going to sleep.)

c) Pakistan is not at military parity with India nor equipped to to occupy Kashmir by force. Even if it was, it would be an agressive and expansionist act which is morally wrong and unacceptable to the world community. Therefore a complete disavowment of any military action for resolution of the Kashmir dispute. (wow---this is a mouthful---- you are saying too much here--- ah let` see----I agree with the first sentence here----As for Pakistan deciding the fate of Kashmiris I can only reiterate-- let us leave it to the will of the Kashmiris.)

d) A realisation that although solution of the Kashmir Dispute is ingrained in our hearts by our environmental and political influences, policies of losing Pakistan in the pursuit of gaining Kashmir cannot be sustained. (sorry, you are losing me here.)

e) Nuclear program to be maintained in line with the regional balance of power. CTBT to be signed unilaterally as well as the Nuclear Non-Profileration Agreement. Nuclear program to be developed solely on computer simulated testing basis. (Again, this is loaded and am afraid need a bit more cohesive thinking.)



Zeemax, I was hinting and looking at more creative ways to reduce the defense budget and transferring those amounts to other much needed areas ---education, health, environment etc.


The goal of the Pakistani Army ( and I am no expert here) aims for defensive parity with India. Experts elsewhere have opined that given the terrain this can be achieved at 25-35% of the Indian defense spending. Even that I find an abhorrent violation of the average Pakistani`s fundamental rights.

What I would like to see debated in this respect is how can we creatively shift the emphasis from hi tech planes, missiles and tanks to lesser and equally effective and more cost effective defense deterrent while still maintaining defensive parity. This will free a percentage of the budget to be re-allocated to other needed areas.

Digression: I had certain thoughts post Oct 12 shenanigans. If interested send me your email address. You will find mine at my Chowk home page in the Leafy Glade Inn called Dargah.

rgds

t

temporal:

`Reluctantly and against logic I am being won over by the side that argues that Kashmir solution is the core of all problems among the scores of nationalities in the sub continenet`

don`t give up hope yet. the `core` problem is the (in)ability of people of different religion to live with eachother peacefully. once that issue is resolved (a great task, in the evergrowing presence of, often violent, fundamentalism) kashmir would be a non-problem. a good, viable solution for now is loc=ib.

Zeemax:

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it here otherwise we would not have seen it. You say,``The budget cannot be balanced without cutting non-productive expenditure, which in the most part means Defense expenditure; both visible, that is allocated in the budget as well as invisible which is never revealed. Military hardware purchases and maintenance place demands on foreign exchange resources that are unsustainable. All other economic concerns are secondary to this primary factor and are dependent.``

Agree with you completely. Any thoughts how this can be achieved without trading off sovereignity. Last time I invited somebody`s comments on this topic the answer must have gotten lost in the midst of hundreds of interactions there.

rgds

t

Jay wrote, ``Never ever have I seen a Pakistani post which says unconditionally that MUSLIMS CAN LIVE WITH THE HINDUS IN PEACE IN INDIA.``

Sir, I do. And if this is not sufficiently explicit to satisfy your inner urges, peace of mind, constipatorial thinking or whatever, I am prepared to say again and again I DO, I DO!

And if you have any other pet peeves against any of the poor, mangled, confused, backward looking, tunnel visioned Pakistanis please come forward now. I am in a happily obliging mood.
Will confess to any crime, even, where the statutory limit has expired.

every so obligingly,
yours humbly,

temporal

Ref Temporal # 60

[Any thoughts how this can be achieved without trading off sovereignity]

I had posted the answer as I see it in my Manifesto of the Millenium at # 443 in Again, Desperate Times board. I didn´t get many comments though one was that I was a coward and another friend said I was in danger of being branded an Indian agent. Would appreciate your views.

Rgds.

In reply to Temporal, #60, how to reduce Pakistan`s defence budget without trading off on sovereignity :

Good India-China relations are in Pakistan`s interest IF good relations lead to a reduction in India`s defence budget. Pakistan can then commensurately reduce its defence budget.

As the recent Kargil conflict shows, reliance on China to back Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is going to be disappointing. The China card has not trumped India yet.

A three-way reapproachment (Pakistan, India, China) with the goal of lower level of armaments and not necessarily involving a final solution to Kashmir is in all our interests. Again, to keep China from arming up, a China-US dialog on East Asian security needs to be pushed for.

-arun gupta

Let us see if this gets past the Chowk censors. They refused to print it as an article.

(Let me try the mantra again: TNT, TNT! Take that, you Pakis! Nyah, nyah, nyah!)

A Radical Proposal for Pakistan’s Salvation

One of the problems that Pakistan has faced from the outset is the challenge of living with a giant, hostile neighbor. Pakistan has reacted by trying for parity with India in the few areas where parity might be achievable.

The troubles with India over Kashmir has convinced Pakistan that it is in its best interests to enlarge its army and enhance its effectiveness through modern equipment. Pakistan is thus locked into an arms race with India, a race that it can ill afford. The most recent manifestations of this attempt at parity are the development of missiles and the nuclear weapons tests.

Pakistan does not have serious disputes with Iran or China, two of its neighbors. Pakistan has a forward foreign policy with regard to Afghanistan, carrying on the British tradition of trying to place a friendly government in power there and has finally succeeded in doing so. The issue with India is related to two areas: the Siachen glacier in Kashmir and Sir Creek in Kutch. There is a well-defined front in Siachen which essentially defines the border in an area which was left undefined. The trouble over Sir Creek is that the creek has changed its course and the dispute is over whether the border is the middle of the creek’s current course or earlier course. While visions of sugar plums dance in both countries` heads (in the form of oil and gas deposits that may or may not be present in the area), the fact is that this is an otherwise worthless salt marsh barely fit for grazing donkeys.

Pakistan has been a foreign policy state. By this I mean that Pakistan has spent an inordinate amount of time in the international arena. This of course feeds its ego and also counteracts India which has, since its independence, tried to assert an independent approach in the world, aligning with neither of the first two worlds and trying to create a third world group and trying to arrogate to itself a leadership role there. Pakistan has counteracted this by its alignment with the US when and where it was convenient to do so, which is most of the time. The fact that this alignment had a strong military dimension was all the more welcome since it enabled Pakistan to build up an armed force much larger than its economy could be expected to support.

But as peace has broken out over most of the world and the larger countries believe that it is better to engage in peaceful trade rather than war, we now suddenly find a peace momentum all over the world. It is because of this that the Kargil affair drew such strong condemnation from the world and Pakistan was left without friends.

Pakistan’s outward focus has left it no time to concentrate on internal development. It took several years to draw up a constitution which was then thrown out when the Army took over. The large army also eats up a huge portion of the national budget estimated at 35% or more. In addition, there is the clandestine budget for nuclear weapons. Thus Pakistan has not much money left for internal development.

The remedies that have been suggested are a reduction in tension along the border with India, a non-aggression or no-war pact, and simultaneous reduction in the armed forces of both India and Pakistan. The previous Pakistani attempts at maintaining parity with India have come back to haunt it because parity is still desired, though at lower force levels.

Thus the radical proposal. Instead of maintaining some sort of disproportionate parity with India, Pakistan should simply abolish its armed forces. Park the tanks and fighter jets in the middle of the Baluchi desert in plain view of the spy satellites. Demobilize the army, sell off the submarines and destroyers of the navy, send off the air force pilots on loan to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East sheikdoms so that they keep their flying skills. Convert a couple of army divisions to a National Guard armed only with APCs. Get on with the task of disarming the mobsters roaming the country. Get a handle on the illegal drug trade. Convert a small force of Navy personnel into a Coast Guard to guard Pakistan’s coast line and to provide maritime rescue services.

This will free up the money that goes toward maintaining the armed forces for other productive purposes. It has been estimated that in Pakistan there are 564 teachers for every 1000 soldiers whereas the South Asian average is 1500 teachers. The literacy rate in Pakistan is around 39%, the female literacy rate is much lower overall and as low as 3% in Baluchistan. The money that is saved by abolishing the army should be spent on adult literacy campaigns, schools for regular school-age children, agricultural and other infrastructure development and the like.

What happens if India invades? Of course India cannot invade. These are the people who have been proclaiming from the rooftops to anyone who will listen their commitment to peace and non-aggression. They have already fenced parts of the Punjab and Rajasthan border and plan to do so in Kargil and other Kashmir sectors, thus demarcating the border on the ground. How would they look if they invade a defenseless country? What will be the justification for the invasion? India will be eating its words of the last half-century. Fling those words at India daily and watch India squirm.

Pakistan should get a commitment from the US to monitor the Indo-Pak border in return for the only carrot it has: signing the CTBT. The US can monitor the border through on-ground sensors and satellites and pay for demarcating and if necessary fencing the rest of the border. Thus Pakistan’s territorial integrity is safe despite total disarmament.

What about the larger issue of Kashmir? I think Pakistan should offer the solution of making the Kashmir valley into another Bhutan. It will become nominally independent, will have its own flag and representation in the UN but will leave defense, external affairs and communications to India. India gets rid of the headache of maintaining peace, gets transit rights for its army to go to Ladakh to defend the border with China and Pakistan would have fulfilled its commitment of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Everybody wins and nobody loses face. In return, Pakistan has to make sure that unemployed Talibanists, be they Pakistanis or Afghans, don’t come into the valley to stir up trouble.

Exile all current and former generals. Get rid of the pirs and the feudals, if necessary by buying up their lands with some of the money saved by eliminating the army. Let them move to greener pastures elsewhere. Spend the next 20 years changing the outlook of the next generation of Pakistanis. Create some sort of National Service so that every Pakistani spends a year after high school working on public works projects. This will foster a sense of unity among the various provinces and will teach a trade to those who do not have the aptitude for academics. The public works projects can do what the Works Projects Administration did in the US in the 30s: build roads to remote areas, create parks, re-plant forests, etc.

But the real advantage is that no army, no coup. There is finally some chance of uninterrupted experimentation with democracy so that people get used to the idea that they have to wait for the next elections if they want a change in government and democracy starts putting down deep roots.

Will Pakistan rise to the challenge?

Ref Assad_K #: 55

You ask {You weren`t `Tsouhu`, were you?}

Don`t we use handles to be anonymous? Anyway, since you ask, the answer is `No`. I was PTwithNuclearTeeth. Some Indians interpreted PT to mean Paki Terrorist. I leave it to dedicated political scientists to figure out what it is!

Now that I have opened up the kimono, were you ConPak?

alireza,

No sir I never slander any one, no un-parlimentary words, no morons and bigots, no value judgements on people, occasional show of admiration for the few on chowk.

I only interpret the collective, interpret it in terms of TNT, religion and other specifics, they are provocative, but should not be offensive to the inteligent.

I dont focus on the specific, when the honour killing is not condemned by the senate, every one has to talke note, when deaths in Kashmir are reported day in and day out in the internet edition of dawn, every one has to take note, these relate to the collective of what is pakistan today. Every individual is an exception, but the collective is manifest in these, this collective guide the destiny of nations, if any one is interested, then should influence the collective.

Regards

Jay

I had submited the following article for publication on chowk sometime in early november but it hasn´t appeared so far. I´ll reproduce it here just in case some friends find it of interest.

IMF - Friend or Foe ?

International Monetary Fund is perceived as a saviour and a meddling dictator, interestingly both at the same time. We eagerly await release of tranches of money from them while cursing them simultaneously. There are accusations on Governments of extending the begging bowls to them ; sacrificing national pride ; compromising fiscal priorities ; and endangering democracy by accepting mandates of politically unpopular steps like removal of subsidies on essential items ; while not realizing that IMF doesn`t invite any nation to borrow from it! It`s the Governments that go running to IMF when they run out of reserves.

How did this come to be? How did the IMF attain the power where one cannot live with it but cannot live without it either? The favourite punching bag of third-world nations but called upon to bail out economies and it happily obliges!

The answer lies in the punjabi proverb `` Chor noon kyah chori karo tey Thaneydar noon kyah pharr lao `` (asking the thief to steal and telling the policeman to nab him) ; a carefully worked out strategy of divide and rule by financial means which proved to be so lethally effective in the Far-Eastern and Russian currency crises of 1997.

After the devastation of the Second World War, there was a rush towards accelerated growth to rebuild the economies. It was widely accepted that accelerated growth cannot be achieved without creation of ``paper money`` i.e. deficit financing, so that is what was preached to the developing nations. A new economic doctrine of borrow and spend ; or spend what doesn`t exist ; was established to appease the worldwide scramble to create national wealth through consumption, financed by government spending on major infrastructural projects. The doctrine did work by creating demand, which spurred industrialization thus boosting per capita incomes (demand-pull).

However, continued deficit financing also created inflation thus putting pressure on currencies. With creeping devaluation in the developing countries eating into their foreign exchange reserves, these countries were advised by the multilateral lenders to open up their economies for foreign investment; both direct in industries as well as portfolio investments in their stock markets ; and to make their currencies convertible on the capital account , i.e. float their currencies fully in order to benefit from resources available abroad in order to close their budgetary gaps. All the recent victims of the crisis of 1997, i.e. South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand fell into the trap. Russia did too in an unparalleled haste.

By opening up their economies and floating their currencies, no more tanks and naval vessels were required to colonize. Institutional speculators emptied the vaults of the central banks while the monetary authorities sought in vain to prop up their currencies. In 1997, more than 100 billion dollars of Asia`s hard currency reserves had been transferred in a matter of months into private financial hands. In the wake of the currency devaluation, real earnings and employment plummeted virtually overnight leading to mass poverty in countries, which had in the post-war period registered significant economic and social progress.

Under repeated speculative assaults, Asian central banks had entered into multi-billion dollar contracts in the forward foreign exchange market in a vain attempt to protect their currency. With the total depletion of their hard currency reserves, the monetary authorities were forced to borrow large amounts of money under the IMF bailout agreement. Following a scheme devised during the Mexican crisis of 1994-95, the bailout money, however, is not intended ``to rescue the country``. In fact the money never entered Korea, Thailand or Indonesia; it was earmarked to reimburse the institutional speculators, to ensure that they would be able to collect their money owed in hard currency.

In the words of renowned currency speculator George Soros (who made 1.6 billion dollars of speculative gains in the dramatic crash of the British pound in 1992) ``extending the market mechanism to all domains has the potential of destroying society``. In the late twentieth century, the outright conquest of nations can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate boardroom, a computer terminal, or a cell phone. In the words of Malaysia`s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad: ``This deliberate devaluation of the currency of a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of the rights of independent nations``.

Where does the money come from to finance these multi-billion dollar operations? Only a small portion of the money comes from IMF resources. The US Treasury was called upon to make a large contribution to IMF sponsored rescue operations. The treasury issued US public debt to finance the same. Interestingly this issue was underwritten and guaranteed by the Wall Street merchant banks involved in the speculative assaults in the first place. In other words, those who raised the bailout money were those who were the ultimate recipients of it.

Pakistan has been resisting pressure to make it`s currency convertible so far but for how long? When partial convertibility was allowed and the stock markets opened up to foreign portfolio investment, it boosted the markets temporarily but then resulted in wild fluctuations leaving the small investors holding the bucket every time. We have been seeing the creeping devaluation since decades. A nation of 140 million people has to suffer humiliation for $ 280 million which is probably equal to any respectably-sized fund manager`s portfolio in Hicksville USA. We may curse the IMF but we simply don`t have the money ourselves - Period!

The lesson to be learnt from all of above is self-reliance. We cannot blame the East India Company for colonizing the sub-continent before we search into our own wasteful Mughal souls. It`s easy to blame foreigners but not so easy to look within and blame our own selves. The world is competitive and there aren`t any free lunches. The foreign armies will come to colonize, now armed with financial weapons, if we ourselves are weak.

The practical answer in the context of Pakistan; amongst all the clichés, lies in first formulating and then amalgamating fresh doctrines of economy and defense. Both are inextricably entwined. The budget cannot be balanced without cutting non-productive expenditure, which in the most part means Defense expenditure; both visible, that is allocated in the budget as well as invisible which is never revealed. Military hardware purchases and maintenance place demands on foreign exchange resources that are unsustainable. All other economic concerns are secondary to this primary factor and are dependent upon its rationalization. If we continue the love/hate relationship with multi-lateral donors like IMF to fund what we don`t need and can much less afford, we`ll soon fall into either a terminal debt spiral or hyperinflation or both.

The friendship of IMF is like that of a bear. Its embrace can kill you.

Zeemax

Debt and Dependency

In a survey of foreign aid to Pakistan, Jamil Rashid demonstrates how foreign aid has added to the misery of an overwhelming majority of the people of Pakistan (see Hasan Gardezi and Jamil Rashid, 1983, ``Pakistan: The Roots of Dictatorship. The Political Economy of a Praetorian State`` London: Zed Press. Pages: 173-191). I want to quote a few excerpt from this piece with a note that our decision-makers and ruling elite were told about the consequences of the so-called foreign aid (at least as early as 1983):

``[Foreign aid] has, at best, helped to create a small business-cum-industrialist class with its own vested interests. Military aid has created an elite army which has ruled the country. . . .`` (p. 67).

``Aid is not a free grant -- it has a high cost. Because of its debt liabilities, Pakistan will be a mortgaged country for many years to come. The Pakistani aid experience is analogous to credit buying in the Western countries. . . . Once the ocuntry has incurred credit liability, there is no way of repaying but to take further loans, in order to at least pay the unpaid balances. There are institutions at the international level willing to give aid in order to help the creditors collect interest, and thus, a vicious circle of debt sets in`` (p. 67).

``It follows from the ``two-gap`` theory that Pakistan needs foreign exchange aid to fill the gap between import and export deficits. Of course, a simple solution to the ``two-gap`` problem is to have an investment programme within one`s own means and to have a balanced foreign trade, where the country imports to the extent of its export capacity. China (until 1979) and a number of other countries have followed this model of self-reliance, but Pakistan has chosen the path of accepting foreign loans, disguised as ``aid`` (p. 174).

``If Pakistan continues to depend on foreign aid and loans for the economic development of the country, then the future looks bleak. Landed in the 1960s as model of rapid economic growth, Pakistan now provides a model of a country deeply trapped in debt, with limited prospects of getting out. Pakistan`s debt burden grows more serious every year. It was once glamorous to see new machinery imported, new buildings constructed and few bright students going abroad under aid programmes, but Pakistan has to pay a heavy price for these short-term gains. As many more debt mature in the 1980s, short-term credit will be necessary to get short-term relief from the payment of large sums`` (p. 190).

In conclusion the author (Jamil Rashid) suggests the following options to break free of the debt trap: (1) phenomenal increase in export earnings; (2) drastic reduction in imports; (3) turn foreign aid into pure grants; and (4) repudiate foreign debt (which means self-reliance). Now let us look at Musharraf`s speech in light of the information provided here.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Jay says : ``I am heartened by hamidm`s post, I wish him well as a Lashker and may he have all the glories. If my post has helped him to identify his innermost longings, dissolved the pretensions of civility and hypocrisy, may. be that is a profound achievement of chowk.``

Try as I might, it is difficult not to reply to this typical self-serving, moralizing, rife-with-putrid-rectitude, holier-than-thou and downright deceitful reply so typical of the whisky-soda-sipping intelligenstia from the wrong side of the border, who love to get up on their soap-boxes and preach international ettiquette to us shameful offspring of Iskander Harappa and Reza Hyder !

Phew ! I feel better now that I have that out of my system. All of us, the semi-liberated, farangi-educated, twice-a-year-namazi and often-inebriated Pakistanis, live , like Sofia Zenobia, with the collective shame of belonging to a marginally-civilized, one-step-forward-two-backward nation-wannabe that seems to be slowly slipping into the hands of the regressive Maulanas who - and we know this - will Oneday tumble mud walls on us................BUT we still do not want our pesky worse-off-than-us neighbours from the New Hindu Empire reminding us of our predicament. I know misery loves company, but please leave us alone - go pick on Sri Lanka !

Gymnosophist re:49

You weren`t `Tsouhu`, were you?

Of Feudals and Serfs :

bashir ahmed abid # 35

Thank you for your reiteration of cliche´s re feudalism in Pakistan. However the term `` feudalism`` has never been defined in the context of Pakistan and remains a populist slogan to be parroted for self-serving political interests; in order to befool the masses and to get cheap marks by fanning class conflict, just as the current junta is doing.

Feudalism was what existed in China before the Maoist revolution and in Russia before the Bolsheviks. Those socieities consisted of virtual mini-kingdoms of large land owning families with private armies enslaving the tenant peasants, who would work all day in the fields for a bowl of rice. That kind of feudalism does not exist anywhere in Pakistan except perhaps to a limited extent in remote areas of Baluchistan.

The key to successful agricultural production is a viable size of farmland per unit for the purpose of mechanised farming. For example, in the United States a farm of less than 500 acres is not considered economically efficient as it cannot be mechanised. You cannot have combine harvestors for a farmland of, say 50 acres. Small farms will continue to be tilled by traditional ploughs and per acre yield will continue to plummet as it has in Pakistan after successive land reforms. In China after the collapse of feudalism, collective farming in large chunks of land was introduced for this very reason. Agriculture needs to be viewed as any other industry employing land, labour and capital and with the same demands placed on the agricultarist as any industrialist for the sake of feasibility, rather than knocked as something evil sucking the blood of society.

Pakistan was supposed to be an agri-based economy to begin with, however more land has been going out of cultivation each year since the 70`s than has been brought into it. Part of the reason is water-logging and salinity but the major reason is that it`s just not worthwhile to be an agriculturist. The notion that agriculture is tax-free is also erroneous since there exists a fixed capacity tax on agricultural holdings, besides debilitating `` aabiyana`` levies by provincial govts for provision of water.

Above has resulted in the fact that we need to import huge quantities of wheat from USA each year when Punjab was the bread basket of the whole of undivided India before partition.

As for the vote bank of the so-called feudals, you may recall that the biggest landowners of them all e.g. Mustafa Jatoi, Mumtaz Bhutto, Mustafa Khar, and even Pir of Pagara were all defeated summarily in the first general elections after Zia-ul-Haq. Since then the foregoing stopped contesting themselves but even their nominees couldn´t win the later two elections.

The feudal is no more than a fictional bogeyman to scare children aka the Pakistani nation into behaving and going to sleep when it´s bedtime.

Rgds

Re: Jay #43

(``alirezas is an example of solidified TNT, ... damn all religions including hinduism.``)

Much as you are a constant source of entertainment to myself and many other readers in these columns, as you`ll painfully note by some other responses, you do need to sharpen up on your reading skills.

For the record, and as mentioned in my previous note: I have nothing against Hinduism. (Please read carefully how I mention that I respect all other religions). I do, however, have a lot against anybody slandering Islam with such idiotic and unnecessary comments like calling Prophets illiterate (although not defining what literacy meant in those days, in view of which one could stupidly ask: do you think Krishna had a PhD?)

ELITES VENEER OF CIVILITY

In the posts on chowk Pakistanis have shown remarkable knowledge about events in India, particularly relating to the Muslims, selective history of Babri masjid, various ratios in Kashmir and of course the daily score card in the internet editions of all of Pak news papers about the good work of the Lashkars in Kashmir.

What is in general lacking is a self criticism of Pakistan, either in chowk or in any of the Pak newspapers. Even on chowk by the so called `well read`, the criticism reduces to blaming corruption, illiteracy and at times historic injustice, all that Pakistan got is one Mangarams biscuit factory. The incisive criticism, which can be freely indulged on chowk, has not been made use of by the chowkirdars. The reproduced article by Kuldip Nayyar about Kashmir is good example of a self criticism, completely unheard of in Pakistan, venomously attacked on Chowk.

Some semblance of understanding and self knowledge can only come from provocative writing, exchanging of references even with ISBN will not help much. What influence us profoundly are thoughts with an emotional tag to it, the so called intellectual rarified, multiple edited posts are of no use unless it is ones profession.

I am heartened by hamidm`s post, I wish him well as a Lashker and may he have all the glories. If my post has helped him to identify his innermost longings, dissolved the pretensions of civility and hypocrisy, may. be that is a profound achievement of chowk.

Ever since the inception, I had been on the chowk, I have learned a lot from it, there are many well read and honest people there, some have even come to some kind of solution to Kashmir. I have been accused of the TNT mania. Never ever have I seen a Pakistani post which says unconditionally that MUSLIMS CAN LIVE WITH THE HINDUS IN PEACE IN INDIA.

There are a lot of educated Pakistanis, Pakistanis with `foreign` passports, no one dares to say that. May be the peace loving Indians and Pakistanis can ponder this, and in that process you will find my posts illuminating through the labyrinths of innermost thoughts, into the culdesacs of genetically transmitted world views.

In respose to Zeemax (Reply #: 48)

Dear Zeemax:

Your statement: ``Hmmm .. interesting .. so what are YOUR conclusions Mr. Ahmad ?``

Comment: I have often argued for the need of a vision and a sense of direction. I think, Pakistan has passed through a phase of, what public choice theorists call, government failure. We have, I think, entered a phase where the multiplier effect of governmental failure has set a deep-rooted crisis of civil society and a long-term crisis of economy. Musharraf`s economic and financial experts are engaged in a quick fix that is supported by the threat of danda. Danda has never worked. It has failed to bring desirable effects.

In 1993, I had to rush to the hospital (a top-class facility in my town in the US) due to angina (not heart attack). Patients in my situation normally leave the hospital within a weak (after angioplasty). In my case, some complications unnecessarily developed due to negligence in the intensive care unit. When the Surgeon came to see me, I said something to the effect that specialization has its costs (and in my case the costs were very serious). The surgeon said nothing and left me with a feeling as if I had said something silly. What most people fail to recognize is that the whole is not merely the sum of parts, and sometimes even small problems can lead to serious consequences (if unattended).

The problem of the present regime is somewhat similar. Army by its nature is coercive. We need more persuasion and less danda, not vice versa.

We cannot make nations with coercion and taxation only. In his poorly written speech, General Musharraf said: ``As in most other developing countries throughout the world, General Sales Tax is the major source of revenues. It is an equitable tax that discourages consumption and encourages savings.`` My little understanding of elementary public finance suggests that the sales tax is a regressive measure. How could a regressive tax be equitable? May be there is a typo in the speech and the word ``equitable`` should have been ``inequitable.`` Moreover, conspicuous consumption is a major problem in Pakistan. We have developed this problem at least during the past 52 years. In such a situation, we need to pay greater attention upon increasing production (productivity) and reducing the gap between the rich and poor by gradually uplifting the conditions of our poor masses. I think, the empowerment of common people is a necessary prerequisite for such a change in our society.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Musharraf Regime: A Sense of Direction?

Ayaz Amir developed a strong critique of Musharraf`s recent speech (Dawn, 17th December, 1999). Amir writes: ``what the general`s speech seemed to confirm was the most serious charge yet laid against his regime: that born in the darkness of the night it still does not have a sense of direction.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Ref Assad_K #: 47

You ask (Ah, so you`ve seen the Yahoo message board, have you? Heck, Pakistan comes out looking good because the couple of prize Pakistani specimens are simply swamped in terms of numbers and posts by the Indian `intellectuals` there)

I have even stopped posting there. The current crop of Indians there seem to be escapees from lunatic asylums who manage to swear a blue streak.

Try soc.culture.pakistan. That has been taken over by Indians too! I feel sorry for the Pakistanis: the cybersquatters from India are not allowing them any space of their own.

baahmad # 36

Hmmm .. interesting .. so what are YOUR conclusions Mr. Ahmad ?

Rgds

Gymnosophist re:38

Ah, so you`ve seen the Yahoo message board, have you? Heck, Pakistan comes out looking good because the couple of prize Pakistani specimens are simply swamped in terms of numbers and posts by the Indian `intellectuals` there.

In response to Amit (Reply # 44)

Dear Amit:

Well said!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Your choice of word Jihad for War seems somewhat inappropriate. The word Jihad has a very specific meaning. It entails a sense of holy (moral) cause, cyber war fails to pass this test. As a matter of conviction, I do not consider any (particularly offensive) war as holy and/or just. In my view, a war is a failure of human capacity to find a peaceful way to resolve conflict(s).

Re:Hamidm#31

There is a tendency among some desis, Indians and Pakistanis, to relentlessly score points against the other side. In other words, they are fighting a cyber jihad. What they don`t realize is that it is a big turn off, since no one like to be lectured. Constant criticism leaves people numb and resentful.

This typically happens to folks who have little personal experience with people from the other side. Most people in India and Pakistan grow up without knowing anyone from the other side and they internalize the government lines. Once they come abroad, they have a chance to change and develop a balanced viewpoint if they meet and socialize with the other side. They may realize that neither side is 100% right or wrong. If they do not, they continue in their old ways.

So, hang in there my friend!! Don`t let Jay drive you into the hands of the Lashkars !!

Re: The Chowk Staff

Well, another one of my post has been shot down by you. I`ve no clue why. The only reason I can think of is that it involved Jay, your favorite bigot. To make it clear, my post had no nasty words and, as compared to Jay`s post, it was quite civilized.

Liberal you may be, but fair, objective and wise? I think not.

For reasons that only you know, it appears that you want me out of Chowk. I`m going to honor that.

So long and good luck.

To hamidm, elireza and sac,

`` The elders of the west drank, partied, rebelled, blasphemed, f_cked around, had a lot of fun, dared to think different and were generally immoral, dissolute and decadent so today they all headed towards ``hell`` leaving their children with a world that belongs to them.``

The above is from a post by `solitude`, an iconoclast of the first rate. May be there is an element of truth in it, people in the land of the pure following the religious dictates, from non-drinking to jihad, are lining up to heaven while their children are left in /s/it/ and debt.

alirezas is an example of solidified TNT, his response is only a diatribe against india and hinduism, is simply irrelevant if I say that I am a Thai and a Budhist. Sorry my friend, you have some work to do, now go and read up on Budhism and Thailand, or simply think for yourself on the above quote from `solitude`. You have just woken up from the warm comfort of conventions and stereo typed thinking prevalent in Pakistan, ignore india, damn all religions including hinduism.

sac, percentage measure is an indication of the capacity of the country/individual etc, absolute measures do not give any indication. To give an extreme example, US is the most indebted country in the world, at the last count, it was more than a trillion dollars, no one talks about it because of the capacity to service, that is as a percentage of the GDP it is less than 10%. Pakistan with 30 billion dollars is in trouble because it is almost 100% of the GDP. A rabbit cannot /s/it/ like an elephant, if you compare in absolute terms. May be many in pakistan believe in absolute terms as you do, and the alarms didnt ring when the debts were going up, they were trying to catch up with india.

Re: hamidm # 31

I second Ras Siddiqi`s suggestion. Your posts have been fantastic. Your description of Bari Imam and Islamabad on ``A Case for De jure.....`` brought me back the sweet memories of my past. I almost felt like being there. Well If you have Quaid-e-Azam University connection, Bari Imam is just about 10-15 minutes walk from the University and once in a while police would force us to run towards Bari Imam, not for the sake of wine and houris but for conveyance to Aab Para. Hope to keep hearing from you.

Actually, Israel and Pakistan have more in common than one might think.

Israel and Pakistan:Strange Bedfellows or Natural Allies?

http://www.idsa-india.org/an-sep9-2.html

-arun gupta

#31

Pakistan is a free country, no one from across the border is asking you to refrain from doing anything. Any action you choose to take is your decision, don`t blame it on someone else. Each person ought to bear the responsibility of his own choices and his own ignorance.

http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/art2dec-17.html

The Frontier Post DECEMBER 17, 1999 FRIDAY

Articles

Extending frontiers of self-help

Brig (R) Usman Khalid

Excerpts:

``The whole world ganged up to portray the relationship between East and West Pakistan as imperial. Why? Was it because it was feared that Pakistan`s success in holding together ethnically diverse peoples but with common faith could form the basis of wider Muslim unity? Was it because the prejudice against Islam is so strong that it was hard to resist the temptation of an opportunity to inflict defeat on the notion of Muslim solidarity? Is it not strange that those who expressed doubts about Pakistan`s viability as a nation-state see no reason for ethnically more diverse and caste-ridden India engaged in brutal suppression of several national movements to face no threat of violent implosion? Truth is mute; propaganda is loud; subversion works.``

...

``Pakistan is the product of the efforts of 400 million Muslims in South Asia (Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) and has a duty to safeguard their lives, freedoms and honour. India treats them as hostages to blackmail the rest of the Muslim world with. In view of the demonisation of Muslims that has gone on for decades, no one cares for these 400 million muted souls terrorised by India. Pakistan is alone in shouldering the huge responsibility``

...

``A mujahid is a soldier subject to international rules of war but he is not subject to the authority of the state. He derives his legitimacy from the existence of oppression, its methods and its victims. When the methods are warlike and Muslims are the targets, Jihad becomes the duty of every Muslim individual and every Muslim state. But the Muslim state has often been denied freedom of action to support Jihad by the application of economic and political pressure or subversion of the leadership.``

...

``Al-Ansaar has been a movement to conquer fear of national will being subverted and legitimate aspirations being compromised by external political and economic pressure by ``Extending the Frontiers of Self-Help`` to defence, diplomacy and politics. Al-Ansaar would henceforth also be a political party of Pakistan with three objectives - the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir, union with Afghanistan, and presidential form of government. I commend the three objectives and urge the formation of Chapters wherever twenty to one hundred supporters can be found.``

Feel inspired?

My pulverizing response to your verbal excrement did not make it past the Chowk censors and did not get posted. In a sense I am happy, because on second thoughts I did not want to play that dirty. However, you need to work on your ability to gauge people and not make too many assumptions.

The Pakistanis on this forum seem to be accusing Indians of a holier-than-thou attitude failing to see that such an attitude on the part of the Muslim leadership was the root cause of all problems in the sub continent. Superficially the religious conflicts seem to be only that, but deep inside it is a mix of racial and religious ingredients. Many Pakistanis believe they are racially superior to the other co-inhabitants of the sub continent. It is a documented fact that Pakistani generals in the `65 war believed that the inferior Hindus would not put up a brave fight. The poor Bengali Muslims who cast in their lot with Jinnah at partition were shoed off to inferior status by the West Pakistanis because of no other reason but racism - this holier than thou attitude you are accusing Indians of. Jinnah`s TNT flounders and drops to the floor begging forgiveness when you think of the Mohajirs.

Within India racism is alive and well, but at least there is a concerted effort to pull together, to unite and to celebrate the diversity. The only forces still working to undo that are the Pakistani influenced Muslims who are hoping that by joining Pakistan they will regain their racial and religious superiority.

Why is it hard for people to see that in the modern world it is more important to pull together than apart. Nobody is superior to another, every human being is capable of producing the same standards of success if he/she is given the opportunity. The forces that work towards exclusiveness at any level - be it race, religion, etc. are WRONG. It is wrong to claim a land for yourself because of religion. It is wrong to say we are a `ISLAMIC state` and everybody else out. Education! Education!

Ref hamidm #: 31

You ask {Or, are you trying to point out that Pakistan, the illegitimate creation of the tri-nitro-toluene theory...}

Why doesn`t Chowk mention the TNT in the abstract of every article, thus taking the wind out of the sails of certain people?

You say {What is really irritating is that Indians of a certain ilk bring out the worst in this secular, almost-heretic, but not yet-wajib-ul-qatl Pakistani.}

You haven`t tried soc.culture.pakistan, have you? Or the Yahoo message board on India`s nuclear tests? Those will have you foaming at the mouth!

You say {A few more encounters with holier-than-thou Indian ignoramuses and I will have to give up my decadent ways and head to Mansura or Raiwind to join the bearded Lashkars eager to march into Sirinagar .... you never know

they might be on to something. If there is any truth to their version of what awaits the Shaheed - houris and vintage wines - it might be worth the gamble.}

Whoa, whoa! Hold it right there! You would be shocked to learn about the true nature of the houris! And why forget the ghilmans? I wonder how the mullahs explain the ghilmans to the shaheed-wannabes.

Anyway, after a little thought, I have come to the conclusion that if these lashkar types spend a week with the girls of Hira Mandi while imbibing stong wine and then are told about the true nature of the houris (see my reply #79 in The Case for De Jure Legalization), they might decide to forget about the jihad! That would be the way to de-fuse any jihadi fervor. Might even break the hold of the mullahs over the masses!

As for holier-than-thou, I don`t think much can be done... after all, these guys have the birthplaces of Ram and Krishna and Buddha whereas you guys can only come up with Multan, the place where Narsingh appeared on the scene. 3-to-1 wins any day, be it baseball or religion!

Hamidm:

I am anil of message #8. Please do not loose your balance. It is this freedom of speech that allows Jay to say what he says. Such thoughts and people thrive on the attention. The best way to counter is by not giving any attention and by bringing out your viewpoints more forcefully.

Good luck. BTW Srinagar is already full of hatred, one more hatred would not gain credence. Send positive thinking and fresh approach.

Musharraf`s Speech: Rhetoric and Reality?

In his recent speech Musharraf said: ``About sixty days ago I had identified areas of critical importance adversely affecting the very foundation of Pakistan. Three of the most vital areas were the dismal state of the economy bordering on bankruptcy, inter-provincial disharmony striking at the roots of national integration and poor governance. Or, rather, mere absence of governance.``

I did a word search/count of his speech published in the New International (December 16, 1999). Here are the results (the number of times a particular word appeared in the text):

Democracy (0)

Grassroots (0)

Protest (0)

Politics (0)

Political (0) Autonomy (0)

Freedom (0)

Liberty (0)

Peace(ful) (1)

(Dis)harmony (1)

Just(ice) (2) Fairness (0)

Equality (0)

Rights (0)

Property Rights (1) Decentralization (0)

Devolution (0)

Local (0)

District (0) Regional (0)

Province/Provincial (11) Nation(al) (19)

Rural (2)

Urban (2)

Economy (10) Economic (12)

Economical(ly) (0) Economist (0)

Education (1)

Health (1)

Welfare (2) Defence Spending (1)

India (0)

Islam(ic) (1)

Muslim (0)

Arab (0)

Tax(es) (41) Governance (6)

Foreign Policy (0)

Foreign Investment (3)

Based on these results you may draw you own conclusions, share them with other Chowkwallas (and perhaps General Musharraf).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RE: Reply #: 31, hamidm

You should write more often on CHOWK.

Ras

RULING ELITES:

The ruling elite in Pakistan is fragmented into special elite components. A case in point is communications mafia residing inside the Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation. Notable features of this group of corrupt engineers and administrators down to linemen is extreme inefficiency dishonesty and inability to move with the times. PTC is reputed to be far more corrupt than Wapda or the Railways. Its corruption is hidden by the fact that, being a monopoly, it generates large revenues for the State. Procurement seems to be the largest area of personal enrichment. Invariably substandard equipment and technology is bought. The advance of the internet is being resisted by PTC as new net based voice technologies will limit the monopoly. The military regime is simply incapable of going beyond issuing policy statements as long as the communications monopoly of PTC is brought down by legislative and constitutional change.

Jay -

I really don`t understand what India`s relationship with Israel has to do with this article. Are you trying to suggest that India is magnanimous, civilized, progressive and better-than-Pakistan by doing what Pakistan hasn`t done ? Or, are you trying to point out that Pakistan, the illegitimate creation of the tri-nitro-toluene theory, should do the same with India, give up its claim to Kashmir and kowtow to the poverty-stricken but nuclear-armed world-power-wannabe ?

What is really irritating is that Indians of a certain ilk bring out the worst in this secular, almost-heretic, but not yet-wajib-ul-qatl Pakistani. A few more encounters with holier-than-thou Indian ignoramuses and I will have to give up my decadent ways and head to Mansura or Raiwind to join the bearded Lashkars eager to march into Sirinagar .... you never know they might be on to something. If there is any truth to their version of what awaits the Shaheed - houris and vintage wines - it might be worth the gamble.

As much as Pakistanis may squabble amongst themselves, it takes one smart-ass Indian with his silly quips about TNT, to unite them. Most of us realize that inspite of all that is wrong with Pakistan, it still is better than living in the resurgent Hindu Empire. Astaghfirullah - now that just rolled off the tongue - a religious incantation only used to ward off the evil spirits residing on the wrong side of the border !

To break away from the tedium that this discussion has degenerated into, let me point out a story done by the NYT today on an entrepreneur in Bangalore, India. Here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/121699india-capitalism.html

This guy may be unassuming but believe me, he`s truly superhuman to have achieved this much success against the establishment in India. I have done business there and let me tell you, by the time you accomplish a fraction of what he has done after overcoming all the obstacles put in front of you, either you have been corrupted, give up, come down from your starting ideals drastically or have your hair turn white. He, along with his colleagues has truly created the Microsoft of India with even the humble canteen worker now able to afford a house of his own from the company stock proceeds while the company maintains standards on par with the rest of the world.

Why am I posting this information here? Well, I firmly believe that the sub-continent has incredible innate talent and if the people are only given a chance they will find a way of bettering themselves despite the rotten people who govern them. Let`s wish ourselves a little luck.

Regards

tvarad: ``Well, I firmly believe that the sub-continent has incredible innate talent and if the people are only given a chance they will find a way of bettering themselves despite the rotten people who govern them. Let`s wish ourselves a little luck.``

I definitely agree. On a level playing field (like Silicon Valley), the people of South Asia have proven themselves to be more succesful than 90% of the other communities (paraphrasing Clinton).

I am in the process of hiring around ten software engineers, and more than likely 60% of them will be Indian. I think soon a concept of reverse discrimination will set into the engineering circles of Silicon Valley, i.e. people from India, China (and to a smaller scale Pakistan) will be assumed better engineers than the local Americans.

PEACE INITIATIVE.

At last india is normalising relations with israel, a country that has pioneered the way to contain jihadic forces and eventually to arrive at some semblence of peace. There are a lot to learn from the israelis, especially a heightened sense of security threat in every day life.

Jaswant to visit Israel for `normalisation` of relations

JYOTI MALHOTRA



NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 15: Barely three weeks into the new millennium, Jaswant Singh will break new ground as India`s first ever External Affairs Minister to visit Israel.

The path-breaking visit is really a culmination of a steadily growing bilateral relationship, albeit more often than not in the shadows, since former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao allowed the formal establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992.

The central message of Singh`s visit is the ``normalisation`` of ties between New Delhi and Jerusalem, which even after the end of the Cold War a decade ago, seemed sometimes hostage to a Cold War mentality.

Re: jay ``the fingers`` #23

I rest my case.

I can`t laugh and type at the same time.

Re: JR #24

Please read very carefully the first line of my last reply: ``Every once in a while, I come across an uneducated moron who makes personaly charged opinions like yours without any researched information to back it up.``

I will attempt to answer your apparent frustrations of attention disorder as best as I can.

Firstly, I`m haven`t drawn out my Islamic sword, as entertainingly outdated your metaphor is. I simply replied to a senseless message, using relevant facts, if only at all to correct the person. If this seems to fit the myopic image of jehad that propaganda has filtered into your head, then I hope you`re happy with it. I do not have a problem with any religion myself.

(``the basis of Pakistan`s origin is vested in the false notion that people of the same race cannot coexist if their religious orientations are different``)

The basis of Gandhi`s movement was non-violence. Do you think India has lived up to that with their upcoming nuclear arsenal? If our beliefs were false, then simply: we wouldn`t have survived this long. (``In six months, Pakistan will come crawling back on its knees to rejoin India`` - Nehru, 1947).

Besides which, it`s ironically hilarious that there you sit talking about the wrongs of religous intelorance, when you yourself are at it.

(``Only Islam has this nose-in-the-air exclusiveness about it.``)

Obviously a master of world history, you have never heard of the State of Israel. And I think it`s beginner geography class in the third grade where they teach you that not all of Africa is Islamic.

Needless to say, your description of Islamic history certainly reeks of ignorance, but as everybody has a right to their opinion, sadly you do as well. However, being a god-fearing aethiest myself, and in the spirit of respecting the various beliefs and faiths that millions of people out there hold dear for the countless reasons that they are aware of and I am not, I would say that no religion really preaches you to conduct evil. Quite the opposite. It`s that simple.

And in any case, to point out your exquisitely crafted prose, which only holds second to it your level of intelligence, aren`t lenses supposed to help you see better?

Maybe the self-styled elite isnt so elite after all. Scum can rise to the top as well as cream. And we have more than our share of scum rising to the top.

Jay # 19

I was only talking about setting the priorities right in my post ( #1) while you are unnecessarily going after religion. Please read my post carefully and see the difference.

Alireza and Sac:

It is not surprising that your memory and understanding of `Kargil` are quite limited and of course fettered by the domineering influences of your Islamic environs. Can you for a moment think that the basis of Pakistan`s origin is vested in the false notion that people of the same race cannot coexist if their religious orientations are different (TNT?). Only Islam has this nose-in-the-air exclusiveness about it. Everywhere, it is about self-claimed exclusive lands - just for Muslims. This is not self determination, it should be called ISLAMIC determination - Kashmir, Kosovo, Dagestan, the Entire Middle east, Africa, East Asia, South East Asia. The list goes on.

No Sirs, Kargil was about ISLAM!

When are you going to get educated enough to realize that all religions are equal in that they are man-made. No sirs, God did not dictate the poetic and voluminous Quoran to an illiterate in a cave 1400 years ago. All modern secular evidence point to the Koran being a collection of works from various periods, borrowing heavily from Jewish and Christian ideology. It was designed to take moral and spiritual control away from the common bedouin and place it squarely in the hands of the rulers and lawgivers. This is a simple truth that is readily accessible to anyone who can just put away those really thick lenses and look at it with the simple intelligence that God has given. Don`t worry Allah will not be offended. He will be happy that you are finally using your own intelligence and not being led by some one else.

I have assumed a lot of things about you. But, so have you about Jay when you drew out your Islamic swords to do battle.

Jay:

Sameer has presented his argument with finesse and polished it with a clever dose of sophistry and will thus be rebuffed later :-). I’d like to deal with you first.

1)``Give the poor white man a break, no one other than the TNT forced pakistan to spend 50% of budget on military``.

Read my earlier reply with regard to percentage numbers to realize the absurdity of this statement.

2)``none other than religion ensured the subjugation and illiteracy of woemen``.

Women’s lot in general all over the developed world(and Pakistan is no exception) is worse than their male counterparts. The contribution of religion to that end is a matter of conjecture. Monotheistic religions like Islam and christianity have not been fair in their edicts with regard to the sexes. An obvious example will be absence of women priests according to mainstream christian dogma. Just as it would be wrong to subscribe the ceremony of “suttee” to Hindusim alone, it would be wrong to blame religion for the relative plight of the female population in the developing world. And how would you explain the lower rates of literacy for women in the scandinivian world(arguably some of the most ``irreligous`` societies around)?

3) ``none other than islam ensured the astronomical birth rate``

Once again all monotheistic religions are against birth prevention measures. Granted the breeding practices of Muslims leave a lot to be desired, very few countries in the world have achieved stable population renewal rates. Countries like Japan and various European countries have populations that are declining. Even the US population growth would actually be in the red were it not for the massive immigration of the past few decades. Would you contribute the high population growth rate of India(more than 1.7% if I remember correctly) to Hinduism? Muslims are definitely not to be blamed for that since they are only 10% of the total population of India.

4)``none other than koran united the tribals of afghanistan with the pak army to create taliban``

Taliban are not a creation of the Pakistani army. They are probably the only stabilising force in a largely tribal and savage culture which has resisted any outside influence for centuries. Sometimes the Pakistani army is given too much credit. It is actually not a fanatic, maniacally well-disciplined fighting machine as it is sometimes portrayed to be. Most army officers are definitely not the cream of the crop and incapable of coming up with ``practical`` grand designs to rule the world using the koran or by any other means.

5)``none other than the grandois illusions led to economic sanctiona following the bomb``

Please read my earlier reply. Pakistan is and will continue to suffer from the economic fallout after exploding the bomb and may eventually disintegrate under the burden. Notwithstanding the so-called “doves” from both sides of the border, reality is that you cannot deal from a position of disparity. Any cursory reading of world politics and conflicts in the past will reveal that a balance of power is essential to maintain peace between two(or more) powers that don’t particularly like each other. The only recourse otherwise is for the ``weaker`` entity to agree(implicitly or explicitly) to become a satellite of the stronger entity(witness Burma and the Maldives!!). Please notice that I haven’t brought up the issue of whether India was right or wrong in exploding the bomb. My contention is simply that Pakistani actions were entirely justified to maintain the ``status-quo``.

6)``none other than islam created the jihadic forces and kargil``

Please read my assertions in 5 and 6.

7)``Pl give a break to the white man``

Put that question to a black man older than 40 or to somebody who crossed over to the opposing side during the partition or better yet read the letters written by the ``natives`` during the mutiny.

Regards

-sac

alireza,

You are unfortunately influenced by the style. I was only pointing in a direction, unfortunately you are looking at the fingers. My good friend look in the direction, dont look at the fingers.

Dont look at india, look into pakistan. The original article looked at the actions of the white man, you are looking at india. There is probably a third option. Or if you choose read the first post by Sameer, again look in the direction that is pointed out, dont look at the fingers.

Re: jay # 3

Every once in a while, I come across an uneducated moron who makes personaly charged opinions like yours without any researched information to back it up. In case you haven`t noticed, these discussion groups are meant to be informative and cultured, and not a dump site for any senseless internal waste that you might be harboring.

To counter your slings, do look up on the following:

• Very very recently, the defense spending churned out by the Indian government on buying latest military technology RELATIVE to the amount of aid supplied to Orrisa victims.

• How Hindusim played a part in the major international controversy folowed by even Amnesty behind the practise of Sati.

• India is facing a severe birth rate problem as well.

• The Koran can also be found in practically every other part of the world, including India. And if you knew anything about the Koran (even the number of ways to spell it), you`d know that what you are referring to are hardcore fundamentalists who manipulate Koranic teachings to serve their own purposes, a situation which can be found in all major and minor religions on this planet as we know it.

• Economic sanctions after the bomb were always expected. What you should be asking is, what forced the testing of the bomb itself? Come now, guess the country responsible for starting an arms race in the subcontinent...

• Kargil is not entirely an Islamic problem. It is a geopolitical issue that has been left unresolved thanks to our colonizers. The area where Islam DOES come into play is that that region is the only muslim-majority state in India and coincidentaly is striving for seperatism, and that speaks for itself and your comment on TNT.

Next time, please think a bit before writing.

Re: The Chowk Staff

Why is it that those who attack Islam, Pakistan and Jinnah on Chowk mercilessly and quite offensively get away with theirs posts (Jay, #3, for example), but a fitting reply (mine, to Jay`s, for example) is stopped from publishing on Chowk? I`d add that my reply was a lot less offensive than the Jay`s.

Why the double standard? Why is it tolerable for the Chowk Staff to publish posts offensive to Islam but not a fitting reply to those posts?

I`m dissapointed, not because you choose to put offensive posts, but because you choose not to put a fitting reply.

sac,

By a remarkable coincidence, the contents of my post are almost identical to that of Sameer JB, eventhough the style is very different. You may choose to refute the last para of Sameers post.

sac: 17: Nicely stated.

Moez:

(You seem very dissecting when it comes to the prose but why find faults in the written when the intention is to present the facts.)

Thanks for your comments. You have rightly pointed out at the small things in life that irritate us no end. I have been accused before of counting the trees and ignoring the forest.

The way I see it writen words are used here/elsewhere with one primary intention: to communicate. In my book, if one communicates it must be effective. And to communicate effectively, one must respect words. When an author writes shoddily, he is conveying his disrespect for the word ---- the holy, almighty word-----and in the process insults not only his own ideas and presentation but also the readers` intelligence. Please note: I am confining my views on published pieces only. The interacts are beyond the scope of this articulation.

An infant cries. That cry is to convey hunger, pain or dicomfort. The adults are there to decipher the cry. This author, really anyone who indulges in writing for publication, has come a long way since infancy. I`d rather not hold hand and decipher him/her/them.

To over simplify I believe in Substance + Style. And lament the absence of the latter whenever moved. But in this case, I thought I made it abundantly clear this piece fails on both counts.

rgds

t

The fixation by ``educated`` people on both sides of the divide to quote percentage numbers spent by Pakistan on defence or debt servicing escapes me. 50% of 10 is still 5 no matter how you slice and dice it. If Pakistan thinks that it needs to spend x amount of dollars to retain parity with India the percentage comparisons are meaningless. In the long run, it may cause Pakistan`s ruin just as it happened to Russia in the case of the cold war but then who can predict the future? Depsite India`s seemingly technical and intellectual prowess, it might fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions with regard to its secular facade.

This reminds me of the discussions related to the enormous amounts of money being spent by internet companies on advertising. Once again in percentage terms, it may be a large number but in the grand scheme of things it is a pittance compared to the amount spent on advertising by more ``established`` companies. Its David vesus Goliath in many cases but as we all know the final outcome is sometimes very surprising.

RE: # (Temporal)

You seem very dissecting when it comes to the prose but why find faults in the written when the intention is to present the facts.

Cheers,

Moez Momin

Re: PM #9

Sorry, I meant a slightly more sophisticated debate than the usual posts I`ve seen on Chowk. Although, in all fairness, I haven`t read all the articles and all of the posts. I was referring to the mindlessness on both sides of the democracy debate: either ``dismissed jarnaile should be hung`` or the `` we only understand the danda.`` I must confess, though, if forced to choose, I would probably opt for the latter.

Regards.

[The author is the Chief Editor of Kuwait Television English News and correspondent of Dawn, Karachi in Kuwait... written a book on Pakistan`s politics ... Islamic Pakistan: Illusions & Reality...300-page book is available on internet ... pulished in 1996 but on internet the book was updated in August 1999. He has written another book, `Islam in the Post-Cold War Era`] blah .. blah ..

Dear Mr. Ghazali,

With all your credentials, I wish you had done better than reproducing from an elementary level text book and making conjectures which every 5 year old is able to make. Please come up with something new ..

Rgds

Reply to # 4 Re: Temporal

You are full of venom and unappreciative of Ghazali`s article. I have yet to see an equally challenging article by you. ......

I respect your views. Article has been thoroughly researched.

Regarding Jay`s reply:

I don`t know if you had too much to drink last nite or the eternal Indian angst and inferiority complex is manifesting itself here. I can refute each one of your assertions in the last paragraph but i just want to make sure you really mean everything you said.

Regards

-Sac

The title of Mr. Ghazali`s article seems to suggest something interesting. In scholarly works, hegemony means dominance with consent, while autocracy means dominance without hegemony (Ranajit Guha, 1997. Dominance without Hegemony). Rather than establishing hegemony, the ruling elite in Pakistan were successful only in establishing several predominantly autocratic regimes where coercion generally outweighed persuasion.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Fuzair,

you say (in #1) ``, lets ...see if we can generate any debate on the broader issue of democracy.``

er.. just wondering... which planet were you visiting the past couple o` months? :)

Oh c`mon.. not another debate on the appicability of democracy on this forum!

regards,

PM

The articles that I have read on this issue all miss a fundamental point. The reality is that after all these years, Pakistan`s owners now spend about 54% of its real annual GDP in debt service to foreign institutions; 33% is spent on its chowkidars (defense); probably 10% leaks through corrpution by its naukers (public servants and politicians). Thus each year, meagre 3% is left for the real owners (Pakistani Citizens).

Just imagine what would you do as the homeowner, if this is what was happening to your home. I am confident, there would certainly be a bagawat among the owners (family members). You can color this bagawat by calling it Talibanism or jehadis or plain thievery of politicians and civil servants, or highhandedness of the Army.

In such a scenario, the structural corrections to the economy are daunting task. The necessary corrections would be controversial, as they would hit everyone. A task, dictatorship - benevolent or not - has never achieved in modern history. This can only be done through a slow process of inclusion and participation, of not just foreigners, chowkidars and naukers, but more importantly owners. This can be done Iran-style or I may dare say Indian-style. These are two models - however imperfect or unappealing for the owners (its citizens).

In October 1999, there was a fight between the chowkidars and naukers of Pakistan to retain their shares. I assert this, because neither chowkidars nor naukers can solve the problem alone. The chowkidars won, while the foreigners are ready to make some adjustments and accept some delays in receiving their 54% of the present economic pie. It is yet to be seen whether chowkidars and naukers would accept cuts in their shares of the present pie.

In my view, nothing will work, until the owners demand and create real economic growth and increase the pie. Neither chowkidars nor naukers would voluntarily take serious cuts in their piece of the pie, because doing so, would make them poorer, like the owners. Interestingly, history tells us that foreigners always get their share from the nation-state sooner or later.

On the political seen, an important point that is ignored is that Punjabi Muslim (70M) is the single largest ethnic group from Iran border to the gates of the Red Fort in Delhi. This group must at all times be part of the stabilization force and not destabilization force. Otherwise this group shall cause instability not only in Pakistan but also in India too.

Currently, Pakistani Army is perceived to be the only stabilization force in Pakistan. This is, because it is only through this institution 70M Punjabi Muslims find their way in and around the home which is Pakistan.

Recently PML (N) and Pakistani Army competed for the mindshare of Punjabi Muslims and power. Obvisously Army won, and PML (N) lost. This was a sad development, because Pakistani democracy - however corrupt - was never able to find an alternative and viable way, which given the time a democratic set up would have eventually found.

There is another unfortunate part to this equation too, because 70M Punjabi Muslims are the single largest ethnic group from Iran-border to the gates of Red Fort. This part is India, the enemy. For the past 52-years Pakistan Army (the chowkidars of Pakistan) and Pakistani Citizens (the owners of Pakistan) have been fed a constant message, that only a strong chowkidar can keep the enemy India away and at the same can also get Kashmir too.

A reality check on this parameter is quite different, while a strong chowkidar may have in the past, and may in the future also could keep enemy India away, but there is not evidence of strong chowkidar getting the Kashmir. Despite this reality, very little progress has been made to find an alternative solution.

This India, the enemy factor complicates the economic and political scene even further.

Fuzair:

Wish I had read your reply before I posted mine. You are a generous man,``This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though-----.``

Ususally I find that sooner or later these discussions fizzle out. After the initial probings are over the participants fortify and then stalemate; punctuated by little skirmishes and forays into the other`s territory.

cynically

t

Fuzair:

Wish I had read your reply before I posted mine. You are a generous man,``This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though-----.``

Ususally I find that sooner or later these discussions fizzle out. After the initial probings are over the participant fortify and then stalemate punctuated by little skirmishes and forays into the other`s territory.

cynically

t

Abdus Sattar Ghazali:

There was nothing new, exceptional, or worth repeating in this article. I would not have even commented on it. But something caught my eye. The postscript informs me about who you are. So here goes------

With sentences like these:

---- In October 1958, General Ayub Khan extinguished a limping democracy, imposed martial and also abrogated the constitution.

----- The increasing concentrating of powers in the federal list under the 1973 Constitution has reduced the provinces almost to nonentities, whereas the centre now enjoys powers to legislate in as many as 114 subjects.

---There is some truth in the observed of Roy Olivier......,

---Asabiya, in the Khaldunian sense, refers not only to those primordial feelings which are embedded in the natural ties of kinship and blood relations, but also to those primordial feelings which are embedded in the natural ties of kinship and blood relations, but also to the broader context of group cohesion, affiliation and common concerns.

---The modern asabiya are recompositions of the esprit de corps based on the fact of the state and the globalization of economic and financial networks; they are translations of a traditional relationship of solidarity into the modern realm.

---Neither is Pakistan capable of earning the respect ``ITS`` people deserved unless the region and the world sees it as a healthy and functioning democracy. (throughout the article you are going haywire with the tenses.)

As I was saying, with sentences like those quoted above from your article, I wonder about the state of journalism in Kuwait.

Sir, to give you and Kuwait English Television the benefit of doubt, this may be good enough for you and them; but definitely not good enough for Chowk.



And while I am at it looks incredulous you are commenting on ``asabia`` while ensconced in Kuwait.

t

I think I have to agree with SameerJB here. This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though--is that democracy is not suited to the genius of the Pakistani people. Field Marshall Ayub was absolutely correct when he said this and we (and the rest of the Third and Fourth Worlds) prove this over and over again. The alternatives are of course dictatorship of one sort or the other.

There is a school of thought in economics (political economy actually, I suppose) which holds that democracy is not a viable option in any country that has a per capita GDP under $5,000 (in real terms). Lower than this, people have neither the education nor the disposable income nor the sophistication to take part in the ``democratic process.`` So education is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful democracy.

The pathologies of ``democracy`` in poor countries is why Farid Zakaria wrote his thought provoking article on ``illiberal democracy`` in Foreign Affairs. If you look at the history of the successful democracies in the West (US, UK, etc.) democracy there was a phased-in process. The masses did not get the vote overnight but over the process of many, many decades.

This is essentially what the late Field Marshall Ayub had in mind when he instituted his ``Basic Democracies`` scheme in Pakistan. Do we need to revert back to such undemocratic means? While military rule in Pakistan has been a failure, has democracy done any better?

I`m sure that I will be severely criticized for being elitist and what not. OK, lets take the insults and personal attacks as a given and see if we can generate any debate on the broader issue of democracy.

Regards.

``However, times are gone when the common man in the Third World did not understand the motives and designs of the neo-colonial powers. The purpose is to keep a stranglehold on former colonies by weakening them economically and politically so that they remain subdued and economically dependent upon the West and its allies.``



Nobody wants a strangle hold on pakistan, it is the pakistani people who have borrowed beyond their m,eans, accumulated all the debts and now accusing the west of economic colonisation.

Give the poor white man a break, no one other than the TNT forced pakistan to spend 50% of budget on military, none other than religion ensured the subjugation and illiteracy of woemen, none other than islam ensured the astronomical birth rate, none other than koran united the tribals of afghanistan with the pak army to create taliban, none other than the grandois illusions led to economic sanctiona following the bomb, none other than islam created the jihadic forces and kargill. Pl give a break to the white man.

`

The author does not make any particular point in his article. He appears to be favoring the current military takeover by sun burnt Syed Pervez Musharraf Dehlvi because BB and NS did not perform as well as they should have, without mentioning the debt payments/ defense spending and the remote control effect on their performance.

The statement, ``However, times are gone when the common man in the Third World did not understand the motives and designs of the neo-colonial powers. The purpose is to keep a stranglehold on former colonies by weakening them economically and politically so that they remain subdued and economically dependent upon the West and its allies`` has been heard many times before. It is always convenient to blame ``others`` for your own shortcomings. The time has not come yet when the common man in the Muslim world would understand that they need to control their population explosion; they need to built highways and buy yellow cabs; they need to make peace and not war, they need to give equal rights to women including voting rights; they need enlightened heroes instead of blinds and royal highnesses; they need more freedom and less religion and they need democracy.

I am sure the discussion on this thread will soon turn to something better.

On the question of identity : South Asaian or the Ummah ? An excellant article in Dawn. I´m reproducing it here instead of the link because it´ll be archived in a day.

[Conflict vs Cooperation

By Kunwar Idris

By publishing on January 1, 2000, a thick and versatile special report on South Asia, Dawn has done well to remind us of the region in which our roots lie and where we must seek our future.

By sheer chance the paper`s nostalgic box ``50 Years Ago Today`` of the following day (Jan 2) reinforced that very reminder. That day independent Indonesia`s first prime minister, Dr Mohammad Hatta, passed through Karachi. Asked by the pressmen whether ``Islamism`` would form the basis of Indonesia`s relations with Pakistan, Dr Hatta`s reply was Pakistan`s Asiatic rather than Islamic character would be the basis of the future relations between the two countries.

Such reminders, or counsels, kept coming at intervals. Some ten years ago when Central Asia broke away from the Soviet Union, the head of one of its republics came to Pakistan. At the state banquet President Ghulam Ishaq Khan harangued him with great passion on the revival of the common religious and cultural heritage that was suppressed under communism. It touched no emotional chord. The visiting head on his turn said his country had just emerged out of an ideological maze after 70 years. His host should not lead him into another. His sole concern now was to raise the living standards of his people. And that is what had brought him to Pakistan seeking trade and economic cooperation not reliving history.

His message in 1990 was lost as was Dr Hatta`s in 1950. Central Asia with its vast potential trades elsewhere leaving us alone with our nostalgia.

The Muslims of the subcontinent had to assert their religious identity to carve out a country of their own. In that fervour, and the estrangement it had created, the country lost its economic and social bearings in the region of which it was a part, without becoming part of another.

The alienation within South Asia and hostility with India has left Pakistan mauled and diminished. The price we have paid for ignoring realities in pursuit of a romance is a broken country steeped in poverty, ignorance, violence and debt.

Tragically, all attempts to strike out of our own region to forge economic relations elsewhere based on shared faith and religion have met with failure. The long-standing pacts with Iran and Turkey, embracing in more recent times some Central Asian countries, have generated little trade or investment. Nor have bilateral pacts with the other Muslim states.

A dispatch from Saudi Arabia in this paper the other day brought out the poignant fact that Pakistan`s share in Saudi Arabia`s 30 billion dollar a year imports was just about a quarter of one per cent, and constantly going down. India`s exports to Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, are rising by 20 per cent a year heading toward a billion dollars. Leaving the other reasons aside, the Saudi taste changing to Indian rice remains a mystery. The price not being a material consideration in Saudi Arabia, it should give the rice producers and exporters here some anxious moments.

Saudi Arabia practically has no investment in Pakistan. It is considerable in India and growing especially in oil sector. For the establishment of a refinery a MoU was signed with Iran eight years ago. It still remains a MoU. The plans over a period of time to lay gas pipelines from Qatar, Iran or Turkmenistan have foundered over the hesitation to sell it onward to India in the event we discovered enough of our own. Meanwhile, we continue to import large quantities of dirty fuel oil for industry and power generation.

Whatever the economic experts or tricksters might pledge or try, the hope for Pakistan`s economy lies only in its being member of a South Asian economic association notwithstanding the political conflicts, Kashmir above all, which infest the region.

In an atmosphere charged with suspicion and hostility, Kashmir has been drifting away from solution over the past 52 years. It cannot be resolved through another war as it wasn`t in the past three or four. No one should understand it better than the present military leadership. For it to assert that there can be no peace, hence no economic development, till Kashmir dispute is resolved is sheer jingoism. If there is a hope for Kashmir it lies only in peace and prosperity of South Asia.

Pakistan has greater stake both in Kashmir and in peace than the other countries of the region. Even in the presence of Kashmir dispute and other insurgences, investment and growth are taking place in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka but not in Pakistan. Their social indicators are also better and improving faster. India claims two million Europeans and a million Americans are seeking residence permits to tend their investments or plan new ones. Our businessmen have to go to Dubai or Singapore to talk to the potential investors who are too scared to come here.

Contrary to the pronouncements of the military leadership, an end to the Kashmir dispute and the agony of its people is to be found in economic cooperation not in war. There appears no other option even on the distant horizon. If religion emerges as the predominant sentiment, 400 million Muslims inhabiting the region would constitute a force more formidable than Pakistan confronting India alone. ]

Umairr #192

[`The big problem is with missiles. Countries seem to go berserk when the name missile. Pakistan seems to be countering India, in the name game. Pakistan has an advantage here because historically Muslim rulers/invaders/kings (pre-British days) generally were able to beat up on the local Indian generals, etc. in the Sub-Continent. So everytime India names a missile after one of the historic Hindu generals, Pakistan names its new product after the Muslim general who defeated the corresponding Hindu general. I think India has realized this, and has now changed its naming scheme to names like, `Nag` etc]

what else could one expect from the one-track, confrontational , reactive and unimaginative pakistani establishment.

agni, prithvi, akash, trishul, nag, sagarika and surya

you (and pakistani establishment) perhaps do not know the meaning of these words.

Decolonize Our Minds, Bodies, and Spirits

In a letter to the Editor, Arif Qamar Khan has given another call for the establishment of grassroots level democracy in Pakistan. I also support the dececentralization of power and the empowerment of the people, but we (the people) are not used to such a luxury. Common people have long lost their freedom at the hands of the rich and powerful. They minds, bodies, and spirits were colonized by the ethos of the rich and power. At present, the people are neither confident nor prepared to take charge in their own hand. It is, therefore, imperative that we build the confidence of our people slowly, gradually, and unceasingly. For this, our educated masses need to play the role of, what Gramsci calls, organic intellectuals.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Who is Arif Qamar Khan? Does anyone know him personally?

Dawn Internet Edition

January 7, 2000

Democracy through decentralization

At the outset of a new millennium, much can be said about the deplorable gap between an ideal Pakistan and reality. As the Chief Executive put it in one of his earlier press conferences, the government is faced with such an ocean of troubles, it is difficult for it to decide where to begin.

Countries that have a long tradition of democracy do not depend on the central government to sort out every problem. People help themselves, collecting taxes, establishing their own schools, hospitals, and utilities, building their own roads, even growing their own food, etc., at district level. As opposed to this, what we have in our country, is an extension of the British bureaucracy, which was never intended or structured to enable people to rule themselves. It was the instrument of a colonial force that had every interest in discouraging and retarding local self-governance.

Apart from being undemocratic, such a system is unsustainable, considering Pakistan`s burgeoning population and its economic plight. If the government wants to develop the country, it simply must shift responsibility to the people. It cannot take care of everything for everyone. Helpless dependence on the government must go, and a vigorous attitude of self-help must be firmly entrenched at the grassroots level.

The government must also learn to let go. Let each district appoint its own chief of police, judges, and magistrates for more efficient maintenance of law and order and dispensation of justice. Let us bring in the jury system so people have a say. Let them collect their own common revenue and let them spend it as they deem best.

The government has done well to accord a high priority to decentralization of power. This is the only way to democracy. Limit federal rule to defence, overall regulations, and maintaining a healthy macro-economy. Never again should a situation arise where one set of men and women sit down to unravel the problems of an entire nation.

ARIF QAMAR KHAN

Islamabad

Sameer 190: Actually, I was not 100% sure about the word, ``Mushaak.`` That is why I stated, I ``believed`` it to mean trainer. Mushaak is a trainer aircraft. I think its actual spelling should be, ``Mushaaq.`` from the word, ``Mushq`` which I believe means excercise or to train. For some reason the last alphabet used by the PAF in the name is a, ``k.``

I think most, if not all, of the Naval ships have reasonable names, as well. I believe most of them are named after cities, like PNS Dhaka etc. The army seems to have started using Islamic names for equipment, like the Al-Khalid tank (I assume it is named after Khalid-Bin-Waleed), and the Anza, shoulder launched missile (I think named after Prophet Muhammad`s spear). I am not sure whether this is wrong or right. After all, one of the biggest motivating factors of the Pakistan military men is the Islamic concept of Shahadat. Then again, perhaps we should name things after our home-grown Pakistani heroes. Who knows?

The big problem is with missiles. Countries seem to go berserk when the name missile. Pakistan seems to be countering India, in the name game. Pakistan has an advantage here because historically Muslim rulers/invaders/kings (pre-British days) generally were able to beat up on the local Indian generals, etc. in the Sub-Continent. So everytime India names a missile after one of the historic Hindu generals, Pakistan names its new product after the Muslim general who defeated the corresponding Hindu general. I think India has realized this, and has now changed its naming scheme to names like, ``Nag`` etc.

But before people declare all South Asians to be caught up in this strange battle of names, I would like to remind everyone that the US actually has an ICBM named, ``Peacekeeper.`` Now that is what I call ridiculous :)

bahmad #187

Dear Bilal,

I was asking Chowkwallahs for my own information who wields the most moral authority in Pakistan. I didnot exactly mean political power, I meant people who are widely respected and trusted for a much longer period than the last few months. I thought it may be a learned cleric or elder politician or academic. I am not sure its very easy to choose the same in India, being a huge and diverse country. The head of government is always a strong contender, I agree.

Sadhana

Dear Umairr (#189): Thanks for sharing the information and letting me know the meaning of Mashaak. I consider myself quite literate in urdu language and its vocabulary but did not know the meaning of Mashaak. I suppose gone are days of naming Rani and Sherni for big cannons. The one square mile each sectors of Islamabad have beautiful names like Ramna( a Bengali word), shalimar, kohsar and bolan and there must be plenty more reasonable names.

Actually I am very hopeful about the future of Pakistan. Pakistan is full of honest, hard working and intelligent people. Unfortunately, at present, they are not empowered enough to contribute to the best of their capabilities.

I am impressed with your remarkable civility in the middle of very heated debate at ``invisible`` thread. Eid Mubarak.

Sincerely,

Sameer

Sameer 166:``There is absolutely no logic or any sort of consensus in making this or other decisions regarding naming missiles, planes, cities, roads and parks etc.`` This is an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I cannot comment on the thought process that has gone into naming missiles, cities, roads, and parks, but I do have a pretty good understanding of how airplanes have been named.

Before anyone loses all hope for Pakistan, let me boost your moral by saying that, as far as I know, the airplanes in Pakistan have been named with quite a bit of intelligence and logic.

The Pakistan Air Force generally buys aircraft from USA, France, and China, with a few types built locally. The American planes usually retain their alpha-numeric designations, and names (like F-16, C-130 and Falcon, Hercules respectively). The Chinese aircraft, when purchased, carry Russian designations (like Mig-19, Mig-21 etc.). These have been changed by Pakistan to F-6, F-7 respectively, to bring their designations in line with the American aircraft being operated by Pakistan. The names used for these planes normally are the ones used by NATO like Farmer, Fishbed, Foxtrot etc. The French Aircraft (like Mirage III, Mirage IV) keep their French names and designations.

The two aircraft manufactured locally are designated MFI-17 and called Mushaak (I believe meaning trainer), and K-8 called Karakoram.

So don`t lose heart, there is still some hope (at least as far as airplanes go) :)

Chowk Staff:

Shaheen Sehbai`s article should be on the front page.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Chowkwalla, until this article appears on the front page, go to search and type: Fat Cats or Who Will. You may also retrieve it through an author search, type: Shaheen or Sehbai.

In response to sadna (Reply # 72) From another forum

Dear Sadhana:

If by the ``currently-living most respected person in Pakistan`` you mean General Musharraf, I have already answered this question several weeks ago. I have no doubt that he would win. Pakistani people are very simple and tolerant when it comes to the myth (and reality) of national interest. The bulk of opposition to the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie alliance generally starts from the smaller provinces.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Those who blame the electrorate forthe failure of deomcracy are misguided. If we analyze the results of 1997 elections that people voted out of their free will they rejected Benazir and the so called Mr Clean (the establishment boy). Nawaz Sharif would have met the same fate, what was the need of this martial law.

Anyhow we must keep one thing in mind that this country was result of a political movement and military had contributed nothing towards that.

I am quoting here from the PML`s petition (drawn by Khalid Anwar) for those who keep on lecturing us about what true democracy is actually about

``it is being contended that the democracy being enjoyed by the people of Pakistan was not a genuine democracy but a sham one. It has further been contended that what was being practiced in Pakistan was only the label of democracy. The question, however, is not one of labels. It is also not as to what is the best form of democratic governance which should exist in Pakistan. It is a more basic one. It is who is to decide? Are the people of Pakistan to decide the form of democracy through the ballot box or is it to be someone else? Should this decision be made in accordance with the Constitution and the law, or should it be a decision which is imposed on the nation. This is the core issue which requires to be addressed.``

For those sitting in their cozy drawing rooms passing remarks(insulting) about the ordinary Pakistani voter I again quote from PML`s Petition

``That an attempt is some times made to cast a miasma of suspicion over the political process by pointing to corruption within the different institutions of the state. There can be little doubt about the fact of corruption. There are numerous people alive in this country who can personally testify to the fact that in the pre-1947 era there was far less corruption in the government and other organs of the State; that there was a greater level of efficiency; that there was a higher level of probity and integrity in public servants; that the common man had a greater chance of obtaining justice in a court of law; and that the level of violence in society was exponentially less than it is today. But is any one prepared to argue on this premise that the any one prepared to argue on this premise that the country should revert to colonial rule? Should we once again hand back our destiny into foreign hands merely because they may be more competent or more honest? There can be only one answer to this. Every nation, every country, and every people has to decide its own destiny. It has to move forward and not backward. The solution to combating corruption is not to remove the institutional checks and balances on the exercise of arbitrary power but to strengthen them. It is not to place implicit or blind faith in one man but to empower the nation as a whole. It is to recognize that corruption is a fact of life not merely in this country but even the most advanced countries in the world. There is no country in the world which is immune to the virus of graft and illegal practices. Last month the Finance Minister of one of the leading powers of Europe resigned under a cloud. Before that the entire European Commission (the highest body of the European Union) was forced to resign because of serious financial malpractices which were unearthed by the press. A former prime minister of a major European power has recently faced trial for murder, corruption etc. What has been the response of those societies to these challenges to the integrity of the political process? It has not been to condemn the system as a whole but instead to seek to reform it. Not to condemn the constitution but those who misused it. And what is wrong with that approach? It should also be noted, incidentally, that some of the most advanced European countries have not merely tolerated corruption by their companies in developing countries but have actually tacitly encouraged it by allowing bribes paid to officials of such countries to be tax deductible. It is only as recently as the last two years that a movement has built up in Europe to prevent and reform this highly deleterious and unethical state of affairs.``

Nobody can justify this action of the Army and we better codemn it before its too late.

I once again would like to draw your attention toward a recent article by Mr. Shaheen Sehbai, a Washington, D.C. based Pakistan journalist. In this article, he has called for the accountability of journalists.

Temporal, Zeemax, Raja Amir Janjua, and myself have already contributed. I am pleased with two responses, one each by Zeemax and Temporal. Raja Janujua has supported Sehbai`s stand. Tempral, Zeemax, and myself are concerned about the freedom of press. Most other respondents have supported Sehbai (normal routine kind of responses). Husain Haqqani and Khalid Hasan have tried to explain their positions and viewpoints. Sehbai has added his response to these two gentlemen. Nayyar Zaidi has written three responses. Aamir Sehbai, Webmaster, has registered his polite rebuttal. Zaidi`s response to Aamir is a little harsh. The tone of Zaidi`s three responses is blended with frustration, anger, and a kind of threat of legal action. On the whole, the journalist community seems to have neglected this article. I once again invite all Chowkwallas to register their views. For the article and discussion, please visit:

www.dawn-usa.com/pakistan.shtm#nation

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

It’s entirely ridiculous to blame NS for the military takeover. Dynasties have ruled in India, Sri Lanka has ever Army stepped in there. Military is the most corrupt institution in our country, which is kept alive by continuously lying to people and maligning politicians. It’s indeed sad when we say that 1988-1998 was a decade of democracy. Both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir were puppets and now when one of the puppets tried to break free and tried to mend fences with India he was over thrown. That’s the only reason for NS ouster every thing else is rubbish.

Dear Layman (#181): I believe Markhor is mountanous ram or ewe, found at the higher altitudes of arid mountains. The deodar, I guess is a pine species and chakor is a desert grouse species.

Dear Gymnosophist: Let me acccept your philosophy, for the sake of amusement to temporal and other chowk readers, and extend the ramifications of cow beig the national animal of Pakistan. Pakistan will decide to change the name to Industan or Sakistan( Gandasa of soc.culture.pakistan will be a national hero instead of Ch. Rehmat Ali who proposed the name Pakistan). The modern day descendants of sakas, the gujjars (this is a fact) of Swat, Hazara, Gujrat, Gujranwala of Industan as well as gujjus of Indian state of Gujrat will demand a return to the power. In addition to a migrant from Gujrat, Abdus Sattar Edhi, Industan will also consider, Mahatma Gandhi (another saka) to be a national hero and some journalist will write an article, titled, ``Hegemony of Ruling Sakas in Industan``.

Cheers!

Sameer

Oh, BTW the Degree of Freedom is a function of data points on a cartesian XY plot and defined as (n-1) where `n` is the number of data points. I suppose, philosophy, religions and cows are not bound by mathematical terminology.

SameerJB et al,

Pardon my ignorance (of Urdu?), but what is Markhor?

Thanks.

Raj

Ref SameerJB #: 177

You say {You have made very interesting linear extrapolation based on only one data point and zero degree of freedom in your post.}

Zero degree of freedom? ZERO? No way! Like all good philosophers, I left the extrapolations as exercises to disciples. Obviously, you have chosen NOT to do your homework!

Let us look at the sociological side of the equation. The Brahmins, unaccustomed to eating meat, will attempt to swallow 8 oz. portions of prime rib offered during the Vedic sacrifices rather than chew them, and choke to death. With the wholesale death of the Brahmins, the Dalits will take power in India completely changing the sociological and political make-up of the country.

Economics. As soon as the villages of India lose cow dung patties as a source of domestic fuel, where will they turn to natural gas? India will have to import it from the Baloch gas fields and from Bangladesh! India will soon be in debt to Pakistan and Bangladesh!

Religion. The Hindus of India will realize that the Vedas only mention Agni, Varuna, Indra and Surya as their gods. The result is that Ram will be forgotten, the Ram Janam Bhoomi movement in Ayodhya will fizzle out, Hindus will actually move out of Ayodhya ashamed to be even associated with an interloper like Ram, and the Babri Masjid will be re-erected by Indian Muslims with the assistance of Saudi money.

All over India, Hindus will start demolishing temples dedicated to Shiva and the various incarnations of Vishnu and in their place build temples to Agni (Fire). Hindus will become indistinguishable from Zorastrians.

Indian Politics. The party with the election symbol of the cow will be denounced as Pakistani agents and lose soundly.

Regional Politics. India will attack Nepal to eliminate archaic forms of Hinduism still practiced there. Hindus will demolish temples in Nepal too, Indian history books will be re-written and all Muslim invaders will be glorified for the destruction of Hindu temples. Mahmud of Ghazni and of Ghauri will be held up as reformers of Hindu religion as opposed to invaders who broke down idols and looted temples.

Pakistan will have to search for new heroes. Pakistanis will discover Sindhi, Punjabi and Rajput warriors of the pre-Islamic era. Pakistan will have to rename its missiles. With Ghauri no longer acceptable because he is a hero to Hindus, Pakistan will have to re-name its missiles, and will choose to honor Prithvi Raj Chauhan by naming its missile Prithvi.

India will be deeply in debt to Pakistan because of natural gas imports. Pakistan will be flush with cash and spend money on guns AND butter. India will not be able to maintain its bloated army. India will offer Kashmir to Pakistan in return for debt forgiveness. Thus, the Kashmir problem will be solved.

Transportation. There will be cows wandering around in the airfields in Pakistan rendering aircraft movements hazardous. Indian airports, on the other hand, will no longer have cows wandering onto the runways. PIA will use Amritsar as its sole landing point for all flights to Pakistan and high-speed transit systems between Amritsar and Lahore, Islamabad and Rawalpindi will be built. The Punjab border will disappear in due course with the massive and continuous movements of international passengers across the border.

Regarding the minor issue of buffalo meat versus beef, aren’t South Asians the most accomplished adulterators? As if the vegetarians could tell the difference between USDA Prime and the tough stringy beef and buffalo meat of India!

So, my dear Sameer, all you need is imagination to see where cow protection can take you. So, declare the cow to be the National Animal of Pakistan and protect it. It will truly change the future of South Asia.

Class dismissed!

Dear Gymnosophist ( #175): Good to see you back. You have made very interesting linear extrapolation based on only one data point and zero degree of freedom in your post. When I wrote about cow as the national symbol( #166), I was not thinking about far reaching consequences but merely suggesting cow to be the most recognizable animal for most Pakistanis and therefore a consensus choice as opposed to the personal choice of Markhor by someone in the decision making position. Although I believe that your post meant more of a cheerful and amusing perspective, let me also make few comments in the same amusing way unless few find some interesting information here.

There are two types of national symbols: 1) Those which are kept in high esteem by the people, e.g., flags, constitution and monuments like Taj Mahal, Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Borbuddur etc. 2) Those which are found in abundance and play a significant role in the culture and identity of the people, e.g., cotton for Uzbekistan, rice for Thailand and, yes, mango pickles for Andhara Pardesh. The symbolic cow belongs to the later class.

Let me share few other observations about cows. They have been important symbols in Egyptian Civilization as well as bull in Mithraism in the Roman Empire. The domesticated animals have been important since the earliest civilization and people of Eurasia developed immunity to cow-bearing diseases to which native Americans have no immunity and the resulting decimation of native Americans by small pox and other diseases when they came in contact with Europeans. The cows have played very important role in the history of mankind( BTW, one of the best books of last three years is “ Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jarred Diamond deals with the issues of wealth and poverty of nations from nature and anthropomorphic point of view including “cow effect” and is much better reading than “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” by David Landes). So here is my defense of bovine legalization.

The cow dung used in the sub-continent for energy comes