Open Letter to General Musharraf

Sigalph235 #48 :

An average bangladeshi is ``cool`` with the average pakistani even though the representatives of the same pakistanis treated the bangladeshis as second class citizens.

Also the pakistani army was the ``finest fighting force`` even though the same pakistani army is accused of killing 300000-3 million bangladeshis.

Whereas bangladeshis have deep suspicions about india. Rapacious loot by the indian troops of pakistani tanks to jute mills` machinery can not be forgotten.

Maybe you can explain a little bit more about what those suspicions are.

Mr Faruqi

You indeed bring about great concerns that need to be addressed. The reason for Military to intervene in civil matters is not because the military is overstaffed but because the military is well-trained, honest, and efficient. I also live in California, and i was born in Pakistan. My father was a high-ranking officer in Pakistan. My father served the military well, and being known for his honesty, and integrity my father was incharge of all the trade between Pakistan and China. from personal experience i can very easily claim that the military is good for Pakistan. YES, there is an internal problem in Pakistan, but that does not make the person who wants to correct the basic stages of the problems a DICTATOR. I agree with you in some matters of state, where as i do not agree that military should only be consumed with everyday issues concerning national security or threats from the enemy. India in the past and in the present will be determined to destroy pakistan. if you do not believe me, ask for yourself to any hindu you may know, and in a friendly manner they will say that british just carved up india into pieces. There was no india before 1947, there were just territories that fell victim to foreign conquests. Your a PHD, and I am only just finishing my BS this year but I am very interested in Pakistani politics and for the sake of its prosperity I wish to see pakistanis proud of Pakistan and try to make it better. if your a pakistani who lives in the US than you have no right to go by articles in the newspapers, and magazines to analyze what conditions are more productive for Pakistan. You are not contributing, and you are not involved in any sense, so i suggest you should either call your-self american or anything you want to label yourself as. you can also just be like me, who loves Pakistan and is determined to help pakistan achieve prosperity. present to the world a positive image of Pakistan; i think if you were to be proud of Pakistan, i can than proudly use you as an example of successful Pakistani`s in the US.

Lets help Pakistan become a prosperous country and shed no light on its negativity.

Preserve our knowledge so we can achieve a natural growth in develoment.

sincerely

Mohammad Arshad Rashid

sonofrashid@prodigy.net

Re: Ferozk #50

Not to be defending ``Tiger`` Niazi but he did not do that bad a job of defending E. Pakistan. Certainly he was no Kesselring or Heinrici, but then, how many have there been?

The Pakistani army, by most conventional estimates, needed something like 250,000 men to ``hold`` E. Pakistan. We certainly did not have 250,000 men to spare for this. The initial troop deployment was the exact opposite of what you say it was. The men were used to guard virtually every inch of the border since the early intelligence estimation was that India would use the Mukhti Bahini (or more likely BSF troops disguised as Mukhti Bahini) to ``liberate`` a few square miles of E. Pakistan, declare Banglades, the Indians and the world would recognize it as the ``legitimate`` government and then where would we be?

The troops fought well and denied the insurgents any safe areas to set up a provisional government. It was the complete defeat of the insurgent movement by the end of October that prompted the Indians to escalate their involvement in the fighting. Hence the brigade level clashes with the Indians in November 1971.

Also, 20,000+ combatants out of 75,000 or so uniformed soldiers in E. Pakistan? Our tooth to tail ratio is not a stupidly ridiculous one like the Americans. I think you need to recheck your figures.

Phase two of the Pakistani plan, in the case of an actual Indian invasion, was to retreat to Dacca and some other of the larger towns and hold them until relief came. Who would be stupid enough to come to our aid is another matter.

In any case, Niazi`s biggest mistake, for which he along with idiots like Mitha, Umar, Shahid Hamid and co., should be court martialled and shot, was that he did not defend Dacca. Given that no relief was forthcoming and the offensive in the West, where for the first and last time we had near parity with the Indians, had bogged down (we also did not commit our entire armour strength to the offensive--the strategic reserve was held in reserve--for a rainy day?), the defense of Dacca was simply a prolongation of the inevitable.

I am not advocating that the Pakistan Army in the East should have done a Camerone on a mass scale but the prospect of having to fight to take Dacca, and the other large towns, street by street, house by house, might have been enough to persuade the Indians to negotiate a surrender. Anything would have been better than the humiliation of the Dacca Racecourse.

There was actually a plan to shoot Niazi and Rao Farman Ali and some others and make Nazar Hussain Shah (I believe it was him) the GOC Eastern Command. Like most Pakistani coup/mutiny plans by junior officers, it came to naught and the Army duly surrendered.

Regards.

Pakistan’s Religious Debate, And Peace

http://www.stratfor.com/asia/commentary/0005180010.htm

Facing opposition from religious leaders, Pakistan’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf withdrew a proposal on May 16 that would have overhauled the country’s laws against blasphemy, reported the Dawn on May 17. While technically a defeat, Musharraf may have used the amendment to distract the body of religious leaders, known as the Ulema, from a larger issue – his efforts to suppress the war in Afghanistan.

Under the government’s proposal, a citizen complaining of blasphemy would have to register a complaint with a district commissioner, rather than a local policeman. Musharraf argued that the process should be more difficult to abuse; the charge of blasphemy is often leveled to settle personal grudges. By placing more power in federal hands, Musharraf’s plan would have protected government officials from potential challenges by religious authorities.

But several factors suggest that Musharraf is using this issue to distract potential opponents from a larger concern, the war in neighboring Afghanistan. First, a change in the law won’t necessarily protect him from a religious challenge: It’s unlikely that the scores of district commissioners in the country are loyal to the general. Second, Musharraf has been cavalier about scrapping the proposal, simply announcing after a trip to Turkmenistan that he would drop the proposal due to opposition from the Ulema. Military dictators rarely cave in to public opinion – and they never admit it.

Tellingly, Musharraf only proposed the changes a month ago – while he was heavily involved in suppressing the war in Afghanistan. Envoys from Pakistan and Iran have traveled around Central Asia for the last six months trying to negotiate an end to the Afghan conflict. These efforts came to a head this week, when Pakistan and Turkmenistan drew up plans to lay a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan – a project that Pakistan desperately needs, but one that is contingent upon a semblance of calm in Afghanistan.

Many of Pakistan’s religious leaders have supported the war and the fundamentalist Sunni beliefs espoused by the Taliban. Some Pakistani conservative religious schools are hotbeds of Taliban recruitment. It makes no sense for Musharraf to force two unpopular proposals upon the Ulema at the same time. But he may have set up the blasphemy law debate as a sacrificial lamb. Rescinding the proposal satisfies the Ulema, while Musharraf continues to try to contain the war.

I am no admirer of Gen. PM, but what prevents him from making a weekly/bi-weekly radio/TV address to his nation?(You-know-who and his opposition do it every week on radio in the US)

Sadhana

Re: Sigalph # 48

Interesting comments/suggestions/perceptions on the issue. I think in the past 30yrs, a lot of water has flown under the bridge and there is a new generation, in both the lands, to whom 1971 is just another historic memory.

The last week or so, I have been doing some research on this topic for an article to Chowk to be titled ``A Sunset In The East`` and I am getting a whole new perspective on the issue. 1971 was in many ways a coming of age for both the people in the east and west, but the lessons which should have been learned from that mistake were overlooked and now, we in the Paksitan, are on the threshold of repeating them again. 1971 was an umitigated disaster for Pakistan and to this day, it has not recovered from the amputation of its eastern half.

The foremost lesson, which most Pakistanis still do not admit to, was that 1971 was the result of a political crisis; West Pakistan`s refusal to acknowledge equal representation for the Bengalis in the East Pakistan and it should have been settled through a political process and not through the employment of the Pakistani Army to enforce Islamabad`s diktat in Dacca.

Other than that, the role of Bhutto in the whole crisis, as determined by his political opportunism, was highly interesting. In the sense that Bhutto, as an unoffical leader of the feudals in Pakistan, could not suffer the idea that a commoner from the East, Mujib-ur-Rehman, could be his prime minister. Basically, the mandate, for a lack of a better word, denied to Rehman was an attempt by the landed aristocracy in West Pakistan to keep the reins of power unto themselves.

Another interesting facet of the crisis was the role of the Pakistani Army. General Niazi`s tacticl deployments in East Pakistan could be best described as elementary. Contary to the popular myth, the actual fighting strenght of the Pakistan Army was around 20000 men. The rest were logistical supports and combined this total came to about 85-90000. The fact that the army was isolated in the east and was getting no instructions from the GHQ in Rawalpindi, Niazi should have deployed his forces according to the terrain and should not have bottled them in and around Dacca. It would have been the height of stupidity to expect the Pakistani Army to fight on in the east without any logistical support and the end result was a foregone conclusion.

After the war in 1971, the political scene in Pakistan makes for some very interesting introspection. This was especially true concerning the division of the external debt of Pakistan, which in 1971 was around 3.8 billion dollars. In all of this, the post-1971 environment presented the rump state of Pakistan with certain ill defined paths, and its choice in treading them are still haunting it to this day politically.

One of the more perverse ironies of the 1971 war was/is the Pakistani notion that it was engineered by India. India did not engineer the situation in East Pakistan as much as she exploited the internal contradictions and flaws in Islamabad`s raison d`etat for East Pakistan.
If seen in its true historic perspective, the crisis in the east started in the late 1950s and continued to simmer throughout the 1960s. It was the impragmatic refusal of Islamabad to share political power, with the Bengalis, that allowed the problem to fester and break out in a broil symbolized by the final events of 1971. The roots of the problem did not lie in India, they lay in Islamabad and they were not nourished by New Delhi, but were watered by Islamabad itself.

Having said that, it is high time that Pakistan owns up to its conduct in that war and cleans up its accountibility books with the Bangladeshis vis a vis its conduct in that war.

Ciao!

go for it, take bihar, we will even build a land corridor for you!!!, should sort out the biharis in bangladesh as well! I dont think indians would have ANY problems with bihar seceding. :-)

re

``What do the Bangladeshis consider the main cause of the creation of Bangladesh? How does the average Bengali view the average Pakistani now? How does the average Bengali view India? Do the Bengalis feel that India supported them in 1971, becuase it was genuinely intersted in stopping Pakistan`s human rights violations in E. Pakistan, or do they feel India`s main aim was to split Pakistan, i.e. it was not concerned about the Bengalis one way or the other? What is the view of the average Bengali regarding the independence of Pakistan (both E. and W.) in 1947? How is W. Pakistan portrayed in Bangladesh`s history books? What is the view of the average Bengali about the struggle of the Kashmiris for self-determination? Do they consider the Kashmiri struggle similar to the struggle for Bangladesh?``

I can only give you my individual observations in a compact form. With the exception of Mujib`s Awami League die-hards, the average Bangladeshi, while feeling normal gratitude for Indian help in 1971, tends to view India with deep suspicion. He knows that far more than mere altruism was involved in the healping hand by India. Nor have we forgotten the rapacious loot of the withdrawing Indian troops in 1971-72 when they spares nothing from our legitimate war booty of captured Pakistani tanks to machinery in abandoned jute mills. Any visit to a cricket or hockey match between India and Pakistan will tell you volumes where the things stand. The telling comment was made by the Pakistan`s vice captain Kaleemullah after the Indo-Pak final of the 1986 Asia Hockey Cup in Dhaka: ``This is just like home ground crowd.`` My point is that apparently the average Bangladeshi is ``cool`` with the average Paksitani.

That doesn`t take away from the fact that most Bangladeshis still have serious misgivings about Pakistan in the 1971 imbroglio. Pakistan would do wonders if it were to amicably settle the Bihari and the assett issues.

Kashmir has only recently begun to register on the mental map of the Bengali. Again, with the exception of the Indian stooges, most people who know about it tend to sympathise with the Kahmiri struggle. That sympathy is in no small measure due to the memories of our War of Independence. History books have been recently ``revised`` by the Awami League government to reflect a more anti-Pakistan bias. Until this, the books were fairly rational in goinig through the history of the people without maligning any nationality in particular.

The older generation, even those who actively participated in the War of Independence, have fond memories of 1947 followed closely by a dream betrayed. My late grandfather was an active participant in both freedom movements. He lamented the loss of a united Pakistan bitterly and fought for our Independence too; his rationale was that Pakistan had to be split to keep freedom alive and that the Pakistan of 1971 was not the one he had sacrificed so mush for in 1946-7. Bengalis, in spite of Awami League brainwashing, can hardly forget that they were the pioneers of the Pakistan movement.

All said, I trust most Bangladeshis believe the core cause of the split of Pakistan to be their perception, a reality if you ask me, that they were being treated as second class citizens.

On an aside, I thank Bilal Ahmed for his clarification. Most Pakistanis I know have only the warmest wishes for Bangladesh and the feeling is well reciprocated. If England and America can be best friends after their history, there is no reason that Bangladesh and Pakistan cannot be.

To Thakur who demands respect for the Pakistan Army, I am all with him. Except that respect must be commanded from within not demanded from without. And yes, I am all too familiar with the jawans who guard the borders at Sargodha and Sialkot. These were the boys, who short on equipment, got down with bombs tied to their bodies under Indian tanks to stop them in 1965. They were the men of 1st and 2nd East Bengal Regiments, the latter commanded by a breveted officer and Kakul named Ziaur Rahman. But my friend, armies get moth-eaten, bloated, corrupted and emasculated when, instead of guarding borders, they run secretariats. That is what has happened to the one of the world`s finest fighting force, the Pakistan Army. The Bangladesh Army is only now regaining its lost glory for similar reasons.

The parting of ways between Pakistan and Bangladesh was painful to say the least. But it is well said by a poet that parting is,

``all we need of hell/and all we know of heaven``

Kant#43

Umair might come to respond you.

We cannot send half of our forces to kill our own countrymen in tens of thousands.

As simple as that.

RE: Reply #45 (SameerJB)

Sameer,

The last twenty years of Indian politics has seen an inexorable movement towards regional politics. Some Pakistanis may be happy to hear that India is ``virtually`` breaking up, i.e. states are increasingly making their own decisions and setting their own goals and direction. Many Indians viewed this drive for autonomy with alarm thinking that it would eventually mean independent countries and a weakening of India. But this has obviously not happened and in fact, the federal structure of India has been strenghthened. I merely presented the idea of Sindh and other Pakistani states joining the Indian federation under this context since Pakistan has made virtually no headway in solving or evolving it`s federal/constitutional setup. I, of course, never factored in the feudal politics of Pakistan and wouldn`t know how to bell that cat so I`ll let it rest! As they say, be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Regarding exchanging the Kashmir valley for some other territory, I have an even better idea. How about you guys annexing Bihar in exchange for all of Kashmir? It`s Wild West nature seems to be aptly suited for Pakistani style politics. Lalloo Prasad will make an admirable foil to Nawaz Sharif since they are very comfortable counting their loot in the billions (when they are not counting bars, that is) and Kulsoom could get a few pointers from Rabri about running a government from the kitchen while her husband is in jail. Best part is all the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh can then walk over into Pakistan!

Regarding 700000 military personnel in Kashmir as you know, life is not worth much in the sub-continent. And believe me, Pakistan will run out of cannon fodder long before India does. Being 1 billion strong does have it`s advantages.

I agree with you about the TNT on most points but also for a different reason. Put simply, Partition staved off certain civil war and it`s horrifying consequences. The irony is that the heartland of Indian Muslims in UP stayed with India while those areas which were ambivalent about partition became Pakistan. Pakistan is still grappling with this lack of identiy today.

tvarad (#41): There is no chance for Sindhi nationalist leaders to be pro-Indian. Some of them might look at India as a friend based on ``enemy of my enemy is my friend``. Some of their grieviences stem from the immigration of Punjabis, Pathans and Mohajir and share of Indus water. They are not stupid to think that they can get more Indus water as part of India than as part of Pakistan. They either want Independence or provincial autonomy but in election fare as bad as mullahs. They will not have huge land holdings, bonded laborers, private jails and private militia, if they were ever to be part of India. But if it is your dream, I guess dreaming is natural.

However, here is a real deal for you. How about Pakistan offering two district, Tharparker and Mirpur Khas to India in return for Kashmir valley (excluding Jammu). Indian government can sell it to Indians as safeguarding the Hindu minorities of Pakistan by incorporating Rajputs and Bhels to Rajhistan and Gujrat. Pakistani government can sell it as safeguarding the Kashmiri Muslim interests. Mullah will be happy to see Muslim population of Pakistan gone up another notch. It will free 700,000 Indian military personnel so that they can have a normal life without fear and with the loved ones. Pakistan might throw in Rann of Kutch also as a sweetner. A win-win situation.

Forget about NWFP or Punjab. You are not thinking about the long term implications of a united Punjab boardering on the outskirts of Delhi. Even a faint move for Independence will send shock waves through all of India. Believe me, you are better off without too many Pathans and Punjabis.

Sometimes I laugh reading so many Indians criticizing or ridiculing TNT without realizing that it has benefited them more than Pakistan. It can be argued either way if people of Pakistan would have been better or worse off, being part off India. But a united India would not have survived by now. A secular federation or confederation of northwestern states would have definitely emerged based on historical facts as well as the power of supplying at least half of all the military. Not only India would have been unable to stop this fissure, but the northwestern alliance would have included HP, Haryana and KAshmir as well. Sikhs would have been happy for being 10% of the population than previously miniscule 2% of united India. You should be thankful for TNT that you have now to face only Nagaland, Mizoram and other insignificant uprisings.

ALIENATING THE BUSINESS CLASS:

The need for reform not withstanding Gen. Musharraf`s regime has with great speed alienated large sectors of the Pakistani society involved in trade, commerce and industry. This robust section of our society has for 50 years given the military a carte blanche. You can spend any amount as long as the country remains physically secure and you get us Kashmir. Gen Musharraf by toadying up the world bank and citibank has destroyed that consensus. The murder of a trader in the sales tax commissioner has finally shown the face of the regime. The announcement that followed the murder was cynical in the extreme. Musharraf is supporting the IMF and world bank exit program to close industrial companies in trouble with their banks. The influx of inexperienced highly employeees after the complete lobotomy of Pakistani financial sector has revealed how removed from reality the regime is. Incidenly can a chowkwala find out what Shaukat Azix, our flaky foreign minister, discussed with Mr James Rubin. A new scam ??

The news media is active reporting the bactracking of the procedural change of reporting the blasphemy laws violation. It is reported that the reversal is due to the muscle power (a threat is a better word!) of the mullahs( what you call them Ulemma?). I am sure Umairr and other similar view holding Chowkwallas still will argue that in Pakistan religious parties have no representations. Now if you have proxies taking care of your agenda, why would you go through electioneering, all that buchwash and expense that goes with it, nay! By the way does anybody know when is the next human-rights conference scheduled? I would certainly like to hear about the developments from all those chest-thumping humanists that were singing sweet songs of praise for the Pirsahib of MilitaryShariff after the last conference. Anybody there? Umairr, Swink, Bina? BB was cricised for not doing anything for blasphemy laws or honor-killing or hadood, zina, etc. Had no guts, no balls(this, one can understand). But hey! the big brute general? the knight in shining armour? the one and only with the supreme national interests? No balls!!!

Interesting article from Reddif:

``Pak does not care much for politicians: Gallup

Most Pakistani parents want their sons to be army men, their sons-in-law businessmen and their immediate neighbours doctors, according to the Pakistan Gallup Poll.

Conversely, they did not care much for politicians, policemen and journalists.

The poll, reported by the Urdu daily Jang, found that hardly anybody wants his son or son-in-law from these three professions.

Of the 1000 men and women interviewed (it does not specify whether in Punjab or throughout Pakistan), nine per cent did not mind having a policeman as their neighbour, but only five per cent said they would have no objection if a politician was their neighbour.

Journalists occupied the lowest rung of preference. Only four per cent said they had no objection to having a journalist as their neighbour.

The people selected for the survey were asked only three questions: (i) what do you want your son or younger brother to be, (ii) what profession will you prefer for your son-in-law, and (iii) if there is a house vacant in your neighbourhood whom will you like to be the new occupant.

Gallup Pakistan is the local chapter of Gallup International.``

(Reddif, India)

RE: #35 Asfand

``The question is: Why does military keeps coming back and take over the contry?

Answer: Democracy kept producing corrupt governments.

Asfand Siddiqui

Sacramento CA``

The Army is the most corrupt institution in Pakistan since it gobbles up the majority of resources, albeit legally. This negates the endeavor of any democratic government to implement the social agenda since there is no money left after the military bill and debt bill have been paid. Is it any wonder then that no democratic government can function in Pakistan? Also, the military has time and again sold out Pakistan to the highest bidder which is why Pakistan has no respect. It is also why Clinton humiliated Pakistan on national TV. Pakistan would never have been treated so badly if a democratic government was in place, however corrupt it may have been.

I think the time has come for India to help those Pakistanis who would like to see a progressive Pakistan in tune with the rest of the world. For starters, it should invite Sindh province to join the Indian federation as an equal partner. India should ask Sindh leaders to tour the states to see how power has effectively devolved over the years from the center, a concept which is alien to Islamabad. It should showcase the incredible changes taking place in cities like Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Mumbai which are striving to be world-class and tell them that there is no reason why Karachi (which was Mumbai`s twin before independence) should not be the same instead of the killing field it is now. Benazir has already reasoned that Kashmir is like a bone stuck in Pakistan`s throat which is slowly choking it to death so I am sure she would be amenable to reason. Over time, this offer should be extended to Punjab, NWFP and the rest of Pakistan.

Re: Tibor #38

Actually, Tibor, you have about half a point. The Army is sacred to Pakistani society. We are something like Prussia in the 19th century: a society where the status of the Army is almost beyond question. Unlike Prussia, we really don`t have much of a professional Junker class and the Pakistani Army cannot have been said to have built a society the same way that Prussia was the creation of the Hohenzollern`s and their army.

According to my uncle, who did serve in the Army for many years, the Pakistani Army is more like the old Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Army: an Army without a country. So you see, all the brutality of the Army notwithstanding, the equation:

Army = Punjab = Pakistan

(and two districts of the NWFP included as honorary Punjabis!)

holds true. This equation has a cerain element of truth to it inspite of the fact that like all stylized facts it is a gross generalization.

Now, you could argue that the fissiparious tendencies of the nation were exacerbated by Army rule. Maybe. Maybe not. Don`t forget, the first crack in the Pakistan facade, the language riots of 1948 and the anti-Ahmadi riots of 1954(?) occurred before military rule.