Defend the Country, not its Government

cbb #84



I agree the UN resolution on Kashmir is dead for all practical matters. We have to look for a solution with today`s realities.

Keeping that in mind I am not sure a peaceful solution is possible.

I am well aware of What Altaf Hussain and S. Hassina have to say about Pakistan. This is basically a Pakistani site and I don`t

feel like rubbing salt on their wounds

ahmadb #85

Your Comment: `` Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and the US were once natural allies? ``

We know that very well. We have learnt a lesson from the Jews here, that is why Indians are contributing so heavily to the us

political process.

Regards,

Faruk

Ahmed B#

Can you elaborate further.

The best we can do is to take care of our family in a better way and write on this board.

What is the solution.

Faruk #83

Oh! the pious prophet where were you hiding so far.

Israelis need you badly.

Bilal: ``Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and the US were once natural allies?``

No. Never came across that one. But if you think that they were natural allies, can you tell me why? Thank you.

Ylh believes that Gandhi is partly responsible for Sikh massacre at the Bagh because he inspired people to disobey the law and peacefully demonstrate-at the same time he admire Jinnah because he would have fought tooth and nail.

I AM CLEAR AS MUD.

In response to krashid (Reply #: 81)

Dear Rashid:

Your statement: ``It looks like General is sincere, but is being guided by same people who guided Laghari, GI Khan and Zia-ul-Haque. He may be sincere, but what is put in practice matters. Sincerity alone is not the solution.``

Comment: You are right that it is not the sincerity but the capacity to perform well that needs to be stressed.

Did it ever occur to you why the same ``kind`` of people keep on advising various Pakistani governments (elected or otherwise)?

Loyalty in Pakistan often revolves around the crumbs. Who so ever is able to assure the crumb will win the support of the so-called loyalist Pakistanis who work in the so-called national interest. Do you think that the whole ideology of loyalty and national interest, as preached and practiced has any merit? In my case, I have strong suspicions based upon my understanding of the Pakistani politics (within its social context). Pakistani ruling elite need to find some more creative strategies to deal with the socially constructed tension between the survival of the people of Pakistan and the security of the nation-state. Are these two categories mutually exclusive? Of course, not.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In to sb (Reply # 82)

Dear sb:

Your statement: ``Ever wonder why India and US call themselves natural allies?``

Comment: Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and the US were once natural allies?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Faruk #83

That was a really long post.

Even so, I could not find a single line explaining why Pakistan failed to vacate POK. After all, India was only obliged to conduct plebicite when Pakistan vacated POK. Forget about vacating it, Pakistan even gave a big Kashmir chunk to China. So why you do not say that Pakistan violated the UN Resolution first and is still violating ?

Regarding other matters of your post, I wish you were present in Altaf`s (of MQM fame!) press conf. in London last September. That would have answered many of you questions first hand.

If you find time, please go thru what he says and what S. Hassina of Bangaldesh says.

Syed Ahmed #: 75

I will try and answer your post ``Well India`s morality is subject to India`s hegemonistic interests.`` point by point

1. 1948- The Forced Annexation and invasion of Junagdh - the

Muslim ruler had signed for Pakistan. - in flagrant violation of the

States treaty.

Reply : We were building a nation.

2. The Indian invasion and subsequent annexation of Hyderabad

State - 1948 and forcing the ruler - literally on gunpoint to acceede

to India.

Reply : Same as above. We were building a nation. These states are better

off within the Indian Union than as independent states subjected to

the whims and fancies of their army and powerful few.

3. Indian Invasion of Goa in 1962 - I wonder if a plebiscite was held

in Goa, the Goans would have voted for India.

Reply : Well the Portuguese weren`t giving it up. Goan`s fought for their

freedom and now have ruled themselves for nearly forty years.

I don`t think Goan`s can say they are badly off.

4 Indian annexation of French pondichery...

Reply : It was an Indian territory that was colonized by the french. We liberated it

and like the Goanese they are doing fairly well.

5. Indian supression of THe Naga Insurgency fro the 60`s

onwards...

Reply : Naga`s elect the govt. too. Some people can`t win elections and choose

other means.

6. Indian supression of Assamese Sepratists in the 80`s.



Reply : Assamese Separatists or the AGP signed a deal with the central govt. and

now AGP is a major political party of that part of the country. They have

ruled Assam at least twice if my memory serve`s me right.

7. INdian supression of Kashmiris, flagrant violations of the UN

resolutions - refusal to hold plebscite for the bast 50 yrs.. and they

want a seat on the UN Security council. 1948 onwards

Reply : The UN resolution had another component, Pakistan had to vacate POK.

that was never done. But that point aside that resolution was superseded

by the shimla accord.

Apart from all this, the problem in Kashmir is that both India and Pakistan

want it. One of us will get it. As an Indian I hope it will be India.

8. India support of insurgent elements in te erstwhile E. Pakistan

and a subsequent full blown invasion.

Reply : We weren`t responsible for the mess you created there. We had the enemy on two

borders we got a chance and we took it. You can`t blame us for that. You would

do the same if you got a chance.

9. Indian genocide in state of Punjab - Ruthless

and genocidal murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Reply : ``civilians`` ? Terrorists don`t wear uniforms .You are talking

about KPS Gill`s solution to the Punjab problem. It was his

solution and at that time it was the only part of the world where

a terrorist problem had been solved albeit at a high cost.

10. Systematic State Sponsored elimination of The Sikhs civilian

population in Delhi - post Indira

assasination.

Reply : Not quite elimination, but that was one of the lowest moments in

our history. Indian courts have managed to convict some of the guilty,

but a good number got away.

11. Tactic involvement in Sri Lanka by armed support of the Tamil

insurgency circa 80`s ... present.

Reply : They aren`t supported any more, we burnt our fingers there.

12. Indian annexation of Sikkim - sikkim was never a part of India -

historically or otherwise.....

Reply : Hey! we did have a plebiscite in sikkim.

11. Complete Indian hegemony over the state of Bhutan - probable

annexation in the future...

Reply : Bhutan gets a lot of goodies from India, free electricity, tax free goods (no excise duty),

access to all Indian educational institutions, lots of Indian govt. scholarships. If this is

hegemony I would love to be at the receiving end.

India is one of the few countries in the world that has had conflicts

with all of its neighbors..

1. Wars skirmishes with Pakistan 48, 62, 65, 72, 98..

Reply : Pakistan was responsible for all of them except probably 71 which is debatable

2. Tamil Insurgency in Sri Lanka

Reply : we did not start it. But we did end up fighting on the Sri Lankan side.

3. War with China 1962..



Reply : China attacked us.

4. Conflict with Bangladesh over Water Rights - the bangladeshis

are wary of their erstwhile liberators ...

Reply : Problems exist and the two govt. are trying to sort it out. Such problems exist

between states in India eg. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

5. Indian hegemony in the Maldives .....

Reply : Is preventing a bunch of terrorists from taking over a country hegemony. I believe

the people of Maldives were very thankful for that.

In short te India of Mahatma gandhi behaves more like the US of

the Johnson era, - we are a democracy - come into our fold

forcefully or else...

Reply : or else you might become another Pakistan/Afganistan ! ha ha.....

Faruk

Syed Ahmed #75: ``In short te India of Mahatma gandhi behaves more like the US of the Johnson era, - we are a democracy - come into our fold forcefully or else...``

Ever wonder why India and US call themselves natural allies? Take it easy!

Shankar #72: If the past record is anything to go by, any `explanation` will be even more obtuse, or will be another pathetic attempt at humor.

AhmedB#62

It looks like General is sincere, but is being guided by same people who guided Laghari, GI Khan and Zia-ul-Haque.

He may be sincere, but what is put in practice matters. Sincerity alone is not the solution. His sincerity needs only one bullet, but his practice will make a difference for a long time.

The news is from Jang, most likely on 12th of October, 2000. Actually the number approaches 800 with 300+ from Sind, 200+ from Punjab and rest from other parts.

America`s Worst Nightmare

Pakistan is America`s Worst Nightmare

Pakistan Is Engaging In Nuclear Standoff With India

Could Pakistani Extremists End Up Controlling Nuclear Arsenal?

Militants There Support Terrorist Osama Bin Laden

Oct. 13, 2000



AP

(CBS) Pakistan may be competing for the title of America`s worst nightmare, according to 60 Minutes.

The elected prime minister is in jail. The generals who seized power are beholden to Islamic radicals, and militant fundamentalists could end up controlling nuclear weapons.

John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists says Pakistan`s nuclear program is further along than Washington has publicly acknowledged.

He estimates in an interview to air Sunday, Oct. 15, with 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft that Pakistan has 25 to 35 nuclear bombs - enough for a major nuclear war.

Pakistan is engaged in a nuclear standoff with neighboring India and claims its bomb is for self defense to keep India from invading. But the Pakistanis are also building long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching every major city in India.

General Pervez Musharraf, who took over Pakistan last October in a military coup, says those weapons are ``extremely secure,`` and he doesn`t believe his country would fall into the hands of religious fanatics.

But the most recent State Department report on terrorism concludes that ``Pakistan`s government has supported groups that engage in violence in Kashmir and it has provided indirect support for terrorists in Afghanistan.`` Also, ``the government has tolerated terrorists living and moving freely within its territory,`` it states.

And Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, outgoing commander of U.S. forces in South Asia told Kroft he believes it is ``very possible`` that nuclear weapons in Pakistan could wind up in the hands of extremist religious leaders.

There`s no other country in the world where 100,000 well-armed militant fundamentalists could end up controlling nuclear weapons - what some people might call the Islamic bomb.

Samiul Haq, one of Pakistan`s most revered and radical leaders, runs a religious school whose students openly praise Osama bin Laden, the man the United States believes is responsible for bombing two U.S. embassies, and whose graduates are now bin Laden`s protectors.

He told Kroft: ``We were hurt when we heard this term, the Islamic bomb. If we religious leaders have nuclear bombs in our hands, it would promote peace and security in the region.``

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,241115-412,00.shtml

Sameer JB!

Although you posted a good article, but your initial remarks that he is not Nawaz Sharif man is very awkward.

Do you think people think because they are for Nawaz Sharif. Or they think because they have some faith in Nawaz Sharif.

karakoram #71
You are right, we will go in endless circles. When you say `that India refuses to talk let alone find a solution (and this is even before we had the current Army rule in Pakistan or the Lahore declaration)`` frankly, I don`t know what you are talking about. You also don`t seem to be aware that Gen PM has said more than once that he has no use for the Lahore or Simla agreements.

While I agree with you about need for dialogue, we may fundamentally disagree on what should be on the table which India should be willing to negotiate with Pakistan. What India is willing to negotiate I suspect will always be termed inadequate (or a`refusal`, `obduracy`) unless some territory changes hands. The LOC was never an acceptable demarcation, I`m guessing.

For the rest, if Pakistan keeps offering up excuses like Kargil for the Indian government to dig their feet in, well, why would they not milk these to the maximum? Its international politics, some use some instruments of leverage, some use others.
Check this out, the writer is a former Ambassador to Pakistan.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/12gp.htm
The private, personal thoughts of Pervez Musharraf

Sadhana

I just could not resist to edit and paste on Friday, the 13th. The nightmare continues. This is the article Bilal Ahmad referred to in his post #60. I have previously read some of the material by Prof. Aziz-Ud-Din Ahmad and assure y`all that he is not a Nawaz Sharif supporter.

October 12

Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad

Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf has blamed those who criticize his policies for spreading despondency in the country. According to him, these people ignore the positive work that has been undertaken by the military government. It will be in place, therefore, to take stock of what has or has not been achieved during one year of the government`s tenure.

A number of questions need to be answered while evaluating the record of the military government. Is the common man better off today than a year before? Does he feel more secure while at home or when moving around? Is there more social harmony in the country? Are there fewer complaints from the smaller provinces? Does the country command more respect in the community of nations? Is the defense of the country more secure than before? One point of view is that the common man is worse off in a number of ways than last year. The Punjab Governor made off hand remark that the man in the street is hardly affected by the devaluation of national currency or by the rise in the price of gasoline. It would remind one of the French Queen Marie-Antoinette, who on being told that people could no longer afford bread, had promptly observed ``Why don`t they eat cake then?`` Let us confront reality. The rupee has fallen four times during the last one year with the result that the purchasing power of the population has been considerably reduced. With the rise in petroleum prices, the rates of everything, which has to be transported to the market, have registered an increase. There being little investor confidence in the policies of the government, national industry has failed to expand. There are reports of billions of dollars having been taken out by immigrants with them. New jobs are, consequently, not being created. The large-scale downsizing has, in the meanwhile, added to the already large pool of the unemployed.

This has resulted in marked rise in the crime rate. Recently there has been a let-up in the sectarian and ethnic killings but terrorist attacks, reportedly foreign inspired and of a retaliatory nature, have multiplied. These are no more restricted to border areas as they used to be once. Terrorists have struck with impunity inside cities like Islamabad and Lahore. The increase in crime and the failure of the police to check it is forcing more and more well to do people to hire private guards. Neighborhoods that can afford it are putting up gates manned by personnel provided by private firms. Those who cannot, have to fend for themselves. The situation has generated a widespread sense of insecurity.

Among the promises the military government had made when it took over was that it would remove the grievances of the smaller provinces. But has it? The numerous public protests from smaller provinces, particularly Sindh, would testify that grievances have in fact multiplied during the last one year. Two provincial governors have resigned in the midst of rumors that they were unhappy with interference from Islamabad. One of them went public regarding his province having been allegedly deprived of its share in Indus water. Even after a new governor has been brought in, Sindh government continues to protest against the high-handedness of Wapda, while the NWFP government is dissatisfied with the capping of its share of power revenues.

Among the biggest causes of frustration in the smaller provinces is the devolution plan, the centerpiece of the military government`s policies. Instead of enhancing provincial autonomy, the plan is perceived as gross interference on the part of Islamabad in the turf of the provinces. The government is determined to go full steam ahead with the plan despite its having been rejected by smaller provinces.

There is hardly any section of society that feels enthusiastic about the government`s performance. The rise in the price of kitchen items, particularly bread, combined with the increase in utility charges and transport fares, is making life unbearable for the working class and the urban poor. The trading community is more dissatisfied than ever. Rickshaw drivers, small time vendors, porters, and a host of other sub-sections of society have had their earnings drastically reduced on account of continuous recession in the trading and industrial activity.

Similarly, the agriculturists are unhappy with the bad management by government agencies of bumper crops, particularly those of cotton and rice, leading depression in their prices. The cut in the interest rates has hit those depending on their life long savings, especially pensioners and widows. The minorities are unhappy over the joint electorate and what they regard as discriminatory policies. Except for a few NGOs which have been co-opted by the government, the rest are resentful of the military rule and a number of policy initiatives undertaken by the government.

Internationally the country is more isolated than ever. Military rule in general is looked at with disfavor in the civilized world today. A number of important states have, therefore, refused to have business as usual with Islamabad unless democracy is introduced. Whenever the country`s delegations visit major capitals, the treatment they receive is less than cordial. The military government`s word is not given credence by international monetary agencies which demand prior fulfillment of conditionalities before Islamabad`s request for a bail-out is taken up for consideration.

With the alienation of a number of states which provided moral, financial, and military aid to us in the past, the country has to face external threats on its own. None of these countries which inter-alia include US, Turkey, and Iran would be ready to extend a helping hand in case a war is imposed on the country.

Under the circumstances, the army leadership should have given its full and undivided attention to its real responsibility, that is, looking after the defense of the country. With the army high command having taken up the full time responsibility of running the country - the CE looking after the country as a whole and the Corp Commanders involved in the affairs of the provinces – worrying many about the defense of the country.

The government has taken a number of positive steps no doubt, but the tactics adopted to implement these have created new problems. Documentation of the economy, if taken to its logical end, will help the government collect more finances and reduce the quantum of the black economy. But had the army encouraged previous governments to take the measure, and supported them from side lives, its direct involvement and an unhappy confrontation with a section of population could have been avoided.

It is for the first time that so many powerful people have been subjected to accountability. But again, the whole process is being perceived as being partial and one-sided rather than even handed on account of the army and judiciary not being included in it.

The government has claimed that the downslide of the economy has been stopped, the exports have increased and the agricultural sector has provided surplus. The exports have no doubt increased, but better performance in the textile sector is in fact the result of bumper crops this year, particularly the cotton crop. Claiming credit for what is in fact an outcome of the vagaries of nature, the crucial factor in Pakistan vis-a-vis agricultural yields, would beg many questions. As far as the government`s performance in managing agricultural surpluses is concerned, it has been by no means exemplary, be it the case of cotton, wheat or rice.

Further, what the government might have gained by better export performance, it has lost on account of increased government expenditure.

The government can maintain that the time at its disposal is actually too small. One year, or for that matter three years allotted by the Supreme Court, are not enough to produce concrete results. But this is the argument adduced by all previous governments to cover up their shortcomings. Every government in its turn has claimed that if given more time it would turn Pakistan into a country flowing with milk and honey. But all governments have a limited time to produce results. Neither of the two parties that ruled Pakistan after 1988, was allowed to complete its tenure. But that has not stopped people from passing judgment on their performance.

What happened in the countries in the past has no relevance to Pakistan in the 21st century. Again landreforms were used as a political tool to try and gain support from those whom it would supposedly benefit. Besides do you know what the limit of land holding is in those countries. I will bet you anything its not the 25-50 acres that land reform proponents in Pakistan want to carve up. Anyways, Your whole argument is flawed because most of it is contrary to the facts. I will address your comments point by point.

1. I agree the vast majority of land holdings are not small, if they were the land holder would never survive. You are absolutely wrong in your second point. The majority of land holding is by medium sized farmers owning between 500-2000 acres, most of which as I have mentioned before has been purchased. I presume the small farmers you talk about are haris who are being enslaved by their “feudal masters”. The majority of the inputs, over which mind you there are no price controls such as fertilizer, are provided by the land owner, the hari works on the land either for a fixed wage plus a share of crop or 50% of the total yields. Trust me he earns a lot more than your average factory worker in Pakistan. There is no “rent” charged by the land owner.

2. You are absolutely wrong on this one. Haris are not beholden to any particular land owner, in fact a lot of land owners have trouble finding good labor during the peak seasons. The stories of landlord jails that you might be referring too, some are genuine just like labor abuses in many industries, others have been proven in courts to be fabricated by haris because of financial disputes with their employer. The landowners who do detain haris do so because of sums advanced by the landowner to the hari after which the hari refuses to work on the land as per the agreement. The detentions are wrong no doubt but in a country like Pakistan until there are proper courts of law abuses like these will continue.

3. Apparantly you did not read my earlier post when I said agriculture is the most taxed sector of the economy in Pakistan right now. There are a total of 7 different kind of taxes on it which includes Income tax which was added last year. Another deliberate ignorance of the facts.

4. Wrong. That may have been true earlier in the days when the majority of the population lived in rural areas. Now a lot of politicians belong to the urban areas and are mostly industrialists. Our recently removed PM was of a non land owning background. Politicians, in case you havent noticed in all democracies, come from well to do established backgrounds, mainly because it is an expensive business. In rural areas landowners are elected because he has the resources to campaign or play this dirty game. In urban areas it is usually the industrialist or big business man. Similarly in the U.S. people who get elected are almost always from well to do backgrounds.

5. Please, landowners pay a good tax on water and power. Wapda’s problems are internal corruption and power theft which occurs in every segment of Pakistani society.

6. Wrong. Most land owners are have as I said have medium sized landholdings and are scraping to survive let alone invest in urban areas. The people you talk about are the 200 or so politician landowners who using there political connections get loans to set up businesses in urban areas.

7. Did you see the lists of defaulters published in all major newspapers last year?. The overwhelming majority of them were industrialists who defaulted on industrial loans. I wish ADBP gave out the kind of loans you mention. Most landowners have to go through hell to get a couple of lakhs out of them and that too the funds are given after they are no longer needed. Loans are made to that same bunch of political land owners who may or may not default I am not defending that bunch anyways.

8. I don’t know what the hell you are trying to say here. Would you rather pay the exorbitant prices from overseas than the price controlled item your government gifts you? All countries strive to be self sufficient in agriculture you seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

9. You are right the U.S. does practice price controls. However they don’t fix a ceiling, they only intervene when farmers get a very low price in order to ensure their survival. The Pakistani government’s policy is the opposite. Price controls are to keep prices from reaching their market value, when was the last time we had a surplus in Pakistan anyways? Oh yeah contrary to the official laws, if market values drop below the price controls the grower gets the market price from the mills and factories, there is no intervention on the growers side by the government, that’s the reality of life out in the field something an urbanite would never know.

10. What competition do you expect to exist when the government is fixing prices of your end product? What incentive do you have to compete? The reason Pakistan may have a low yeild is because there is no scientific support from the government or any effective inputs or seeds. The farmer only puts in what he can afford because the prices of inputs have been sky rocketing every year.

11. What the hell are u talking about over here Pushtuns are the biggest agricultural land owners in Balochistan. The fertile Quetta valley is almost exclusively theirs besides many other areas. Similarly what migrant workers from North Punjab come to Sindh? The local punjabi land lords in Sindh are doing very well there.

12. Did you read Dawn a few days ago Mr Ahmad? There was an article about a plan by the ministry of agriculture to allow cotton growers in Pakistan direct access to world markets so that they can get a fair price for their product. There was an immediate protest by the cotton mills association of pakistan, the CE was summoned to an emergency meeting and after a few hours the plan was scrapped. Land owners have long asked for what you have mentioned but the special interests of the industrialists are in direct confrontation with it. They will no longer be able to get rich off the backs of Land owners like they used to if that happened. I mean if they can sell their sugar cane in the world market they wont have to wait for 4 or 5 years to collect their money, if they get any at all, from the Pakistani sugar mills. In fact the agriculture minister Mr. Jamote resigned today, I wonder why.

13. Taking away someone elses property is communism Mr Ahmad. It is a system that has failed miserably over the years. In the end it gets tiring to argue with a person who bases his argument from what they read in the opinion section of a newspaper or sees on a PTV drama. People like you become frustrated at what you see in society, which is the doing of all segments of society not just the land owner, and then you need a scape goat. Tell me how many times have you visited the rural areas or spent some time there. Oh yeah there is this poor family that lives in a hut near my street. I think they deserve a house of their own you wouldn’t mind sparing a couple of rooms in your place would you? And sharing half of your salary or business with them too. Until your answer is yes to those questions dont talk about land reforms to me this is what communists like you are asking land owners to do. Dude I say to you again get up from your arm chair and go and spend some time or atleast make an effort to educate yourself about the facts. This is my last post on this because im tired of arguing with ignorant urbanite communists.