Should Pakistan Honor the Lahore Resolution?

POSTSCRIPT (To my last post)

Dear Prem:

Thanks for bringing Kuhn into the picture. In the second edition of his enormously influential ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,`` T. S. Kuhn provides two main meanings of the notion of ``paradigm``: (1) the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community (a disciplinary matrix); and (2) one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science (i.e. an examplar). Example of latter are contributions of Newton or Dalton which provide the paradigms for work of normal science in the elaboration and development of the disciplinary tradition. Kuhn maintains that a period of revolutionary science begins after every new round of crisis.

Prem, I hope you won`t mind this brief explanation that I have provided for those who are not aware of T. S. Kuhn. In my case, however, I don`t stop at the point where Kuhn actually stopped (but this is an issue that deserves another article).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Uncle Bilal,

It has been brought to my attention that Jinnah close to his death was toying with the idea of devolution of power. I am not sure how true that is because I believe Jinnah was following the centralized Turkish National Model.

Any comments ?

Yasser Hamdani

Prem

With all due respect to Bilal Sahib, I wonder if you mean what you just said. Unfortunately your question was on different lines.

``Will our nations have more nationalists or defeatists ?`` is the question you just asked.

I am not suggesting that Bilal Ahmad is not nationalistic and I am casting any doubt on his loyalty ... but the truth is that we need a balance between intellectualism and Nationalism ..and care should be taken not to let intellectualism turn into defeatism.

Yasser Hamdani

Re: Umairr # 344

``If anyone has any solutions (practical solutions, not, ``feel good`` solutions like India will never attack an unarmed Pakistan because both of us appreciate Lata`s songs) for decreasing the defense budget``

That was funny! We need some humor here! But seriously, Umairr, you did not answer why you think that the `military can take out the jehadists anytime`. If they could, then why did they back off on:

- deweaponization?

- blasphemy law?

- citing Kemal Ataturk after the jehadists cried foul?

Do you not think that these instances are indicative of the unwillingness/inability of the military regime to take on the jehadists? And if allowed to grow, they may one day threaten the state of Pakistan (as presently constituted) one day?

DEAR CHOWKWALLAS:

The discussion has taken another twist after my deliberate desire to divert attention toward the issue of national integration which I consider close to the focus of my article(refer to my five consecutive posts). I am, however, thankful to the authors of various posts. Mateen, I am glad that you finally decided to break your silence. Umair`s post is very persuasive on its own merit.

I won`t be on my desk for a couple of days. I will write more detailed responses when I get back. In the meantime, I think, the discussion will continue. keep the fire burning. Some discussion is better than no discussion.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I have followed all the posts on this board. Kudos to Bilal for keeping this a rational discussion.

A couple of events which helps us judge our founding fathers` attitudes to federal parliamentary democracy:

Jinnah became the Governor-General of Pakistan and was the one running the affairs of the government. In comparison, in India, Gandhi decided to stay away from governmental office and Nehru became the Prime Minister.

Jinnah`s action was probably based on the model of the Viceroy in British India while Nehru`s on the tenets of parliamentary democracy.

According to Ziring [1],

``In assuming the Governor-General`s office, Jinnah perpetuated a vicegeral tradition that had dominated the Indian scene during the age of the viecroys.``

Also, in the 1st 2 years of Pakistan, the central government dismissed the provincial governments in NWFP (1947), Sind (1948) and Punjab (?).

Regards

Zakaria

I have been following the exchange between Bilal and Umairr with interest.

I am increasingly convinced that Kuhn got it right. Any real change will never come from our convincing others. It will come when people dominating our national lives at one point in time are REPLACED wholesale by other people with very different set of beliefs, ideas, and concerns.

So we may talk till we are blue in the face, but the crux of the matter is this:

Umairrs of the world have dominated Pakistan and India since 1947. Will they ever be replaced by Bilals of the world? Are our nations today producing more Bilals than Umairrs?

If not, can we ever look forward to economic and cultural progress? Will our nations even exist as they are 25 years from now?

May be I am being just too pessimistic today...

Regards,

Prem

Urstruly

You say,``It should be a matter of great pride for all Pakistanis that Pakistan is one of the biggest manufacturer and exporter of the conventional weapons in Asia-second only to China (not counting Russia)-and the biggest in the Islamic world.``

Well! this is contrary to what I know. As far as I know Pakistan literally doesn`t manufacture anything save some small parts and assembling the parts borrowed from other countries. Would you care to provide a link to buttress your argument. And dont give a Pakistani defence journal link because they are completely useless and give fake info in my opinion. And would you also care to elaborate where India stands in Asia in this field.

RE: Sameer, Bilal, Rashid, and Fairdinkum

Sameer JB# 338

Your post is an excellent starting point to look at the issue of provincialism as related to revenue generation and consumption more objectively. That is the way we should be discussing this issue. Please allow me to add on the subject of defense expenditure. One should not overlook the role of Ordnance Factories, Heavy Rebuild Complexes, and Aircraft Manufacturing Industry in Pakistan. It should be a matter of great pride for all Pakistanis that Pakistan is one of the biggest manufacturer and exporter of the conventional weapons in Asia-second only to China (not counting Russia)-and the biggest in the Islamic world. The estimated figures of revenue are shown in various defense journals from time to time. GOP doesn’t release this information for the obvious reasons. It shouldn’t be too hard to see how much this revenue is contributed towards defense spending.

This is one of the proudest accomplishments of Pakistanis since independence when we were given a country with absolutely no industrial infrastructure. According to a Labor Department (Pak) statistics, which I read in 1991-92 there were only 6000 industrial units in both wings of the country-that included hand looms set up as cottage industry too. In year 1991 there were over 6000 operational industrial units (I am not talking about cottage industry this time) in various Industrial estates in Karachi alone.

Krashid # 281

Thanks Rashid for finally bringing in some objectivity in this discussion. I am sorry I wont be able to respond to it in detail, got really busy with my work lately, however, Sameer’s, above referred post may answer some of your questions, if not, then it may at least point you in the right direction.

Fairdinkum#288

I am sorry for not responding to your post-because of the above stated reasons. You don’t need to apologize for anything because you have not said anything. However, it feels really good to grant an apology to someone- so jao moaaf kia, kia yaad karo gay :)

Bilal # 327

Don’t you worry about me being upset because I am not. I am however little concerned that you should have opened the can of worms with a little homework done beforehand-whereas the references in the parentheses and the little bibliography at the end of your article beguiled me. There are absolutely no hard feelings.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women of POFs who risk their lives everyday and work hard to keep the smoke coming out of chimneys 24 hours a day and to make Pakistan strong and prosperous. I, especially, would like to thank the lady at one of the POFs who taught me how to work on a multi-spindle lathe machine, a mighty complex monster of a machine, while I was an intern during one of my semester break. That lady was near retirement at that time and was quite a slave driver. She would really get upset whenever she found out that I was not taking notes of her instructions. Despite her arrogance I could see the paternal affection in her eyes. Unfortunately, I have forgotten her name. Yep, that is what we do-we forget what our motherland has offered us.

Bilal,

A.O.A.

This article has posed a quintessential paradox that may stay confined to the realms of discussion only. Not for want of intent or direction, though.

At the outset may I recommend a reading of Lawrence Ziring’s, ‘Pakistan: The Enigma of Political Development’? It generally answer’s the dilemma posed by your question on the complexities of Pakistan’s formative stages.

I beg to differ on your contention that the structure of Pakistan (and, by implication, that of the State-in-being with its constituent elements: nation[s], territory, administration, intra- and inter- state issues et al) needs to be reviewed. That is what I infer from your lead question – and the various inputs posted.

One can easily take the path of least resistance and plead a simplistic stance: the Pakistan Resolution of 1940 and amended version are in essence the same. PONAM and other confederalists (Mumtaz Bhutto in the forefront!) could be faulted for stretching a point: the basic demand was for a division of the ‘South Asian Subcontinent’ (RAS is correct: it became so on 14th August 1947) into “confederating states”. Fine. But the underlying theme, perhaps the only valid one, was that of creating two states out of the Union to provide for the independence of TWO nations.

Bangladesh is a creation of circumstances and, deep down, it remains part and parcel of the independence that accrued due to the vision and struggle of many, over a period of 100 years. Mohammad Ali Jinnah concretized that vision and struggle through the sheer forcefulness and forthrightness of his personality. That is why he is the Quaid-e-Azam; we revere him.

But, you are right, he had his faults that are subject to discussion and opinion. YLH and others are also right: did those faults have a bearing on the main thrust of the confederalists’ demands? Were those personality traits responsible for G.M.Syed’s change of stance? Or Bhashani’s? Ghaffar Khan’s Congress views?

Later down the twisted road of Pakistan’s history to date, we find smaller minds suddenly getting all the attention on their quixotic queries and theatrical farce of posing to be ‘leaders’!

Now, a rejoinder on the oft-repeated charge that the Pakistan Army is mostly responsible for all the miseries besetting our country.

If I’m not mistaken, Hasan Askari Rizvi and Ayesha Jalal were amongst the first of many intellectuals who had propagated this credo in their books/writings and lapped up by the elitist circles; filtering down to the ‘jiyalas’ and ‘piyalas’ of the various parties (Qazi Amir Hussain has become a recent critique, forgetting the JI’s “Na Kafiristan” yelling of pre-partition!) ‘The State of Martial Rule’ and ‘The Military and State in Pakistan’ are must readings to understand this slant of many years of partisan thinking and belief.

I do agree with SHAMMI, though. The Army may be the only Institution (or ‘force’, if you must!) that can perhaps quell the ‘jihadists’ (I have reservations on the use of this term, as also ‘fundamentalists’, but will go along insofar as it identifies certain group[s]) However, I am not so certain of his premise on the Chief Executive’s reasons for not reigning in these ‘jihadists’ or using the Army for that purpose. Can we not think of ‘pragmatic acceptance of ground realities’ and the bogey of ‘Islam in danger’ that arouses the wrath of uneducated masses, which have been fed distorted understanding of Islam and the Faith by the various self-styled guardians? Get real, Mr. SHAMMI!

As far as the Ideology of Pakistan is concerned: I have sent a short article to CHOWK. I don’t know when and if they post it. But, a reading of ‘The Objectives Resolution’ would certainly answer the confused Altaf Hussain’s questions. And perhaps he can yet be redeemed!

The problem is that successive Governments have failed to set forth ‘national aims’ and ‘national goals’. The Chief Executive has attempted to do so in the 7-points he enunciated in the speech on 14th October 1999 – he seems to be getting undeserved flak and criticism on that too!!

This is another subject, Bilal. Maybe you can pen your thoughts on this as an adjunct to this article?

“Empty hands are for playing, vacant minds are for dreams”

- A sentence from ‘The Sound and Light Show’ presentation at the Acropolis in Athens, June1995.

Keep us enlightened and thinking.

Regards,

Mateen

shammi/bahmad: ````But none of this can happen if Pakistan continues to devote an estimated 30 percent of its national budget to defense.``

Comment; This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. I want a national policy of demilitarization and peace to be developed such that we gradually reduce the burden of the so-called defense. If India and Russia can sign a no-war pact, why shouldn`t India and Pakistan.``

The guns vs. butter debate is one of the first topics touched in economics 101. It is useless to argue a country should spend as little as possible on its military. This is obvious to everyone. It is understood by even the greenest of economists. In my opinion, Pakistan should not need a military, or a police force, or even a judicial system. All these are expenditures that do not produce anything in return. However, if Pakistan were to stop spending any money on defense, its police force, judiciary, or any other, ``uneconomical`` area, would it be better off or worse off, than it is right now. In a utopian society, with no domestic crime and no external threat, it would definitely be better off. However, what would the effects in the realistic situation that Pakistan is currently in?

It is unfortunate to see people arguing for a decrease in defense budget without discussing its after-effects. In my opinion, anyone who blames Pakistan`s defense budget for all its economic problems, without understanding Pakistan`s security needs, has a very simplistic view to a very complex problem. Unfortunately, it has become a pastime in Pakistan, to blame other groups and institutions for problems, without understanding the problem completely or accepting any blame for it one`s self.

What people fail to realize is that Pakistani soldiers are Pakistanis, as well. In fact, I have yet to meet any Pakistani group that is more dedicated to Pakistan than its soldiers (including most generals). The amount of the budget that ends up in their pockets is far less than what they would make as civilians. While they’re maybe many problems in the Pakistani military, getting more money than the services provided, is definitely not one of them. The salary and perks of a military officer would have to be tripled to bring them in line with that of his equally qualified Pakistani civilian counterpart. A PIA pilot makes eight times as much as a PAF pilot. A merchant mariner`s salary is much higher than a Navy sailor`s. So the argument the military budget should be reduced because soldiers are getting too much, is an extremely uninformed one.

What about the money spent on equipment? Can that be reduced? The military budget of a country has to be a function of the combination of the threat perception of a country, and the economic condition of a country. Unfortunately, reducing the defense budget does not reduce external threats to the country. Pakistan currently is in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the world; perhaps the toughest, after Israel. India has a military 4.5 times the size of the Pakistan military. Despite this, it is still stockpiling Pakistan specific offensive weapons (the recent T-90 tank and Su-series of aircraft deal with Russia is just one example). Soon, this advantage will grow to 5 to 1, and will continue growing. Why exactly is it spending billions buying weapons, which can only be used to attack Pakistan (not to defend India), and not China, when it is one of the poorest countries in the world? The obvious reason is to intimidate Pakistan, and to harm it in some way, if Pakistan lets its guard down (if there are any other reasons, I would appreciate it if someone would let me know). In none of the resolutions, treaties, etc. has India ever indicated that it will decrease its purchase of offensive weapons, which can only be used in the plains of Punjab and Sind. Would India get rid of its Pakistan specific weapons, if Pakistan made peace with India? I highly doubt it. The tri-platform nuclear doctrine of India makes interesting reading. To make a long story short, the arms race in the Sub-Continent is, and has always been, in India`s control. And India has no intention of taking its foot off the accelerator, regardless of what Pakistan does. The above points need to be kept in mind when pointing out a reduction in Pakistan`s defense budget.

Is the current Pakistan defense budget too large with respect to its threat perception? The simple answer is no. A country needs a 1:3 ratio to fight even a defensive battle. Currently, Pakistan`s ratio with respect to India is 1:4.5, and getting worse, due to India`s recent gigantic increase in its defense budget. If anything, Pakistan`s defense budget is too small to defend itself against India.

A reduction in Pakistan`s defense budget has to be preceded by a reduction in the threat facing the country. Not the other way around. So the first discussion needs to center around threat reduction. Pakistan has always offered India a no-war pact (recently by Musharraf in the current UN convention), however India has never accepted it. For the simple reason that it is in India`s interest to keep the arms race going in South Asia. India needs to keep its option of attacking Pakistan across internationally recognized borders of Sind and Punjab open, because it know it will always be at a disadvantage at the LOC in Kashmir. In any case, the true offensive intentions of a country are not indicated by the pieces of papers it signs, but by the weaponary it purchases. Even though India already has many times the weaponary it needs to attack Pakistan, it is continuing to purchase more and more. Why? Each increase in Pakistan`s defense budget has been a result of earlier increases in India`s defense budget.

The somewhat odd solution presented by many inter-actors is that Pakistan should reduce its defense budget, however Pakistan should not accept India`s hegemony in the region. This is not possible. Pakistan can do one or the other, not both. Suppose Pakistan reduces its defense budget by 1 billion dollars. This would give India a 1:7 ratio in military size. It is impossible for a country to defend itself against such odds. At that point, Pakistan will be at the mercy of India. India will be able to dictate to it, like it can dictate to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. If this is acceptable to Pakistan, then a unilateral defense budget reduction is the answer.

Another action that Pakistan could take is to make complete peace with India. India has clearly indicated that it will only make peace on its own terms, i.e. Pakistan should accept the LOC as the border, and violence in Kashmir needs to be stopped, etc. etc. Pakistan can do the former, however it cannot guarantee the later, because the Kashmir uprising is indigenous, and will not stop even if Pakistan stops supporting it. But lets assume that Pakistan reduces its defense budget after carrying out all of India`s demands. Will India then reduce its budget to an amount, which removes its threat to Pakistan? India has never indicated that it will do so. Once again, Pakistan will be in a situation, where its security will depend on the goodwill of India. Back to square one.

So, Pakistanis need to accept one of two options: they can have a reduced defense budget, and accept India`s domination in the region, or they can maintain the defense budget and not let India dictate foreign and even domestic policy. This is the choice that most supporters of a decreased defense budget refuse to acknowledge or accept. They continue to argue that the cause of all of Pakistan`s problems are its defense budget, without giving any solutions for getting out of the above mentioned dilemma.

There are many other aspects of the above discussion (and perhaps some solutions also), e.g. will an injection of 1 billion dollars in the Pakistan economy actually solve anything? More than this amount has been injected into the Pakistan economy annually, on a regular basis, through loans, remittances etc. But nothing has improved, because the main problem is corruption (not expenditure), which does not allow the money to be utilized.

So stating that Pakistan should reduce its defense budget, without letting India dictate to it, is an unrealistic approach to a complex problem. It is synonymous to stating that in order to win a hockey match, the Pakistani team should score the most goals, i.e. it highlights what needs to be done, without pointing out how it should be done.

I would be very interested in finding out whether the proponents of a reduction in the defense budget have thought through the details of the after effects of their suggestions. If they haven`t thought it through, then I am afraid they are just passing Pakistan`s problems, in a biased manner, on to the military personnel. This is no different than people of one ethnic group blaming people of another ethnic group for the problems of the country. It is a divisive solution to a cohesive problem, i.e. I am worse off because of you (without looking at the services you are providing to me).

In my opinion, Pakistanis have two choices regarding their defense budget: accept India`s hegemony in South Asia, reduce the defense budget, hope this improves the economy (I doubt $1 billion/year will have a significant effect until the corruption level is lowered), and hope India does not start controlling Pakistan`s foreign and domestic policy. Or maintain the defense budget, match India`s increases in some proportion (thereby not allowing India to dictate to Pakistan), and hope that Pakistan can grow its economy to a level where a $2.8 billion defense budget becomes a much smaller percentage of the total budget and/or the country doesn`t go bankrupt in the process. Take your pick.

If anyone has any solutions (practical solutions, not, ``feel good`` solutions like India will never attack an unarmed Pakistan because both of us appreciate Lata`s songs) for decreasing the defense budget, while simultaneously countering the billions of dollars of anti-Pakistan weapons India is piling up, I am all ears. Such a solution would solve many of Pakistan`s problems.

In response to shankar (Reply # 342)
Dear Shankar:

Pakistan’s foreign and military policy is based mainly upon a historical understanding and interpretation of our mutual adversarial relations. The issue of Kashmir is a long lasting bone of contention between the two countries. However, in the case of Pakistan, the situation is further complicated by Pakistan’s security threat perception.

Although Pakistani-Bengali nationalism was constructed domestically since the early days of Pakistan’s existence, most Pakistanis believe that the Indian government had played a significant role in it and in the eventual dismemberment of (East) Pakistan. Most Pakistanis to date believe that the Indian government will utilize every feasible opportunity to further disintegrate Pakistan.

A well-known American political geographer once showed his great excitement to me over the expected prospects of the so-called bus diplomacy. Given my cynicism that no such attempt will bring any fruitful result unless other necessary confidence-building measures are taken over time, I failed to share his optimism. As we know, the bus diplomacy actually exploded at the very moment when Bajpai landed in Pakistan and Musharraf failed to receive him. Remember, I believe that the army controls Pakistan directly or indirectly. However, around this time, the army wanted to go ahead with the Kargil plan with or without Nawaz Sharif’s consent. I suspect that Nawaz Sharif gave a green light (even if it was given with reluctance). Why he did so? We can provide only plausible answers.

I am opposed to militarism on at least two counts. First, I am a pacifist (by choice and conviction). Second, I believe, that a policy of militarism is bound to create short- and long-term problems for both countries. I am glad that you approve the need for a national policy of demilitarization. It seems that both India and Pakistan want to become important producers and exporters of arms and ammunition. This desire, in my view, is unethical. I know, any prospective producer/exporter of arms and ammunition will not adopt a sensible course as long as other countries remain in business.

I don’t know why India and Russia have signed a no-war pact. If there is no particular (covert) reason, then why make such a pact when a war is not likely to become a reality in the foreseeable future. Perhaps this pact is only symbolic.

If both India and Pakistan do not have a genuine desire to solve their problems peacefully and amicably, then there is no point in talking about demilitarization and no-war pact.

I propose that both India and Pakistan should announce a 5-10 year moratorium on military action against each other (including the territories of Jammu and Kashmir). For this India may have to give unconditional amnesty to all so-call freedom fighters or terrorists (depending upon each other’s position). For enforcement, they should seek military help from the SAARC and a few other countries. In return, both countries could offer some trade concessions and/or payments in kind. In the meantime, both countries should adopt clear-cut confidence building measures, and start the process for an honorable resolution of the Kashmir problem, that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir. I further propose that the actual formal talks between the two countries should be televised. I know this is wishful thinking, and I could visualize many smiling faces.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilalji,

Re post #333

{{This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. I want a national policy of demilitarization and peace to be developed such that we gradually reduce the burden of the so-called defense. If India and Russia can sign a no-war pact, why shouldn`t India and Pakistan.}}

While I agree that demilitarization is vital for the betterment of both India & Pakistan, a no war pact is not worth the paper its written on .If memory serves me, didnt Hitler & Stalin sign some sort of no-war pact during the early phases of WW11? Besides, whats the big deal about India & Russia signing a no war pact? A possibility of war between those 2 countries has been remote, if not non existent.

What India & Pakistan should do is start taking measures, step by step, to start trusting each other. I was very dissapointed the the Indian PM`s trip to Lahore was followed by Kargil. At least it was a start of a process that in any case will take a very long time. By now our two countries should have been sending cultural artists, sporting teams, academics & tourists to each other`s country.

When both Indians & Pakistanis realise that they share the same hopes, dreams & prayers for their families & countries, they will some day see the futility of having huge defense budgets.

Bilal Ahmed #

I think, the question should not be whether quota system is right or wrong? or whether there should be one province or 100?.

The question should be how can we carry the majority of population for nation building and delivering the fruit of prosperity to majority.

There are some indication that current regime is going to involve political parties in local bodies election. The current invitation of politicians to NADRA appears to be such exercise.

Also a while back Pervez Musharraf told the political parties to clean their house for participation in elections. If it happens, I am hopeful that our political process will turn in the right direction.

As far as quota system is concerned,it is good and bad. In the context of Pakistan it has led to inefficiency and undue influence of feudal lords and has failed to fulfil its aim of upliftment of underpriviledged parts of Pakistan. It needs an ingenious solution to provide for quota cum merit with at least a minimum standard for the job with full transparency. And quota system might be tied to some social services. Like a person has to serve the area for at least a minimum period of time from where he/she is selected. At the individual level it is some sacrifice or price to be paid. At the community level it will have very positive effect. Other ways can be found without socialized principles. But we need to address it. Leaving behind the underpriviledged is not the solution.

I am also ambivalent about need for further provinces at this stage. In proposing a solution, we have not only to look at the future, but also the past and present. No amount of word mincing is going to change the perceptions of people, except once they start seeing the result in their personal lives. Once that situation arises, provinces may or may not be abrogated altogether, without any consequence. We have not only to see the future of how to accomplish National integeration, but also how to redress past injustices. Because without redressing past injustices, people would not be ready to believe in future.

Another article on Jihad and what it is costing Pakistan

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

The high cost of jihad

By Irfan Husain

I HAVE before me a pamphlet issued by a leading jihadi organization; on the last page is an appeal for donations to finance the struggle in Kashmir. The price of a Kalashnikov is given as Rs 20,000; a bullet is Rs 35; and a ``Kenwood wireless`` is listed at Rs 28,000. The total ``launching fee`` for a mujahid, inclusive of training, arms and transportation is a cool Rs 140,000.

Contd.

shammi #331-33: You have asked a lot of questions. I will attempt to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

First of all, and once again, I would like to point out that I think the military should only be the last resort for running a country. So when you point out its shortcomings and failures while running the country, I can only agree with you, because you are right. However, I still believe the current regime, under the present circumstances, is the best of the choices available. If for no other reason, then the mere fact that they maybe able to keep the traditional power brokers out of power (and in jail) long enough, to allow newer leadership to make inroads into the Pakistani political system. Also because, even if they aren`t adding to the Pakistani kitty, they certainly aren`t looting it either. That is something we should all be thankful for.

Finally, I think it is unfair to hold Musharraf (or the whole military) responsible for what Zia or Ayub may have done. One must judge his regime for what it is doing. Otherwise, under this argument, Pakistan should not have any Sindhi or Punjabi Prime Ministers because of what BB and NS have done to the country, respectively.

It is true that in the long run, most military regimes/civilian dictators aren`t good for a country. However, it is has also been proven that elected civilians, who are products of elections in feudal societies like Pakistan’s, are equally bad. So it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. In these situations, in my opinion, the best thing to do for the time being, is to just look at the performance of the leader, without worrying too much about how he/she got to the position. In fact benevolent dictators have been quite successful in getting third world countries like Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia into the first world. How many opposition party candidates ever get elected in Singapore? This still does not justify military rule, however it does highlight the fact that there are other issues besides elections alone that need to be taken into account, when deciding the, ``goodness`` or ``badness`` of leadership.

Answers to other questions in subsequent re