An Eulogy For The Hawks

Very impressive analysis!

I happen to think that India should not be bailing out Musharraf. Keerthik goes a step further and says that india, in its own self interest, should not bail out pakistan. An arguable, but nevertheless a valid, point! Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that? A looser, federal structure would be good for india as well. Methinks in a loosely federated pakistan, the military`s role might be curtailed and the scope for peaceful relationship is stronger. Keerthik is also right, i think, to point out that the current crop of pak military officers may be more strongly hostile towards india. Musharraf represents the cusp of the trasition from the old-style to the new-style military thinking there.

You raise a lot of important points, Keerthik!

ps: the title, i think, is slapped on by the Chowk editors. There are a few typos and the language a little strained, but overall, the article makes its point well.

urstruly #34 . . . pl replace Muslim with, say, desi?

blood

Re: Jay, #14

India`s approach to Kashmir ``problem`` in adapting Israel`s strategy of force and contempt towards the Palestenians will, in my opinion, be counterproductive to the South Asian region in the long term.

Culminating the jihadis is as bad for Pakistan`s well being and its future as it is for India. The only way to get rid of the curse of the jihadis from Pakistan`s face is to turn Pakistan, and India, into economically prosperous region instilled with liberal values. The strategy of eliminating the jihadis will only work through satisfying the basic needs and necessities of general populous that includes a majority of the population, say, at a minimum of 60 percent.

I know that may sound like a pipe-dream but an evolution towards that goal must begin somewhere. Musharraf and Vajpayee seem to understand that.

Re: Romair, #31

An excellent article by Irfan Husain. Thank you for posting it.

``Romair`` sounds like the name of a cheap, discount airline. Fitting name I suppose, given how enamored this guy is with militaries running governments.

Asif 33,

Poor old asif turning a pacifist, you have forgotten the book or what, started forming opinions based on interactions. Being a religious scholar of some kind, you have to think of the lasting influence of some religious concepts.

The one who follows the religius path are usually rewarded, in every religion, a grand prize, usually after death. In islam this grand prize is assured only for the Shaheen. Now tell me what impact that will have on the masses, and tell me whether it has got anything to do with events in kashmir and the larger indo- pak relations.

When madarasies in their thousands pump out the young with this notion, you know asif, the seeds of hatred are spouting in the thousands.

re: Humsab # 38

HA HA!!

Reading about all those moons, suns, and jupitars sent my mind into outerspace doublequick.

Pervez`s kundali gives him 2 yrs

By K N Rao

Musharraf will visit India in a dark lunar fortnight - July 14 - which will be ashadha Krishna ashtami till midday and then begins navami. The yoga will be sukarma, which means doing good. If he visits the Taj on July 15, the moon will have less sheen which can be made up by neon lights. If the visit is during the day, a clouded sun of a rainy day will shed a mild solar lustre on the Taj marbles.

Birth data: Taking his birth date as August 11, 1943, Delhi, as given in the official website of Pakistan, it can be seen that he and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will get along well on a personal level as both have the same Moon sign which is Vrischika or Scorpio. His horoscope, if made for the day of his birth with karka lagna, will give him the image of an impulsive dictator with no Hitler like streaks or even the doggedness of his Israeli contemporary Ariel Sharon. Aspect of Mars on his lagna, Jupiter and Rahu give him strong streaks of fundamentalism. His Kargil misadventure must have been the result of such inerasable traits of fanaticism. In classical Hindu astrology it is known as guru chandal yoga, which finds expression in devastating iconoclasm in which, and not in distinguished military achievements, he will find his métier. Musharraf is visiting India in his Moon-Sun period in vimshottari mahadasha, both luminaries aspected by Mars, the planet of aggression and in his case, adventurism. Sun as his second lord of finance can lead to fruitful discussions on economic problems facing both countries in the wake of both signing the WTO agreements.





Danger to him: But then a cataclysmic traumatic failure in his own country can put an end to his career sooner than one expects. It can be less than two years. His self-appointment as president of Pakistan can only give him a surreal tenure. The dasha to follow his present Moon is that of Mars, in the tenth, which can make him more powerful than he is, but not without serious opposition. The aspect of Mars on his lagna can mean provocation by someone to make a bid on his life.

Present transit: The present transit of Jupiter and the future transit of Saturn show how heavy is the sword that hangs on the head of this self-appointed president.

The oath: Sinister however is the chart of the oath-taking ceremony of General Musharraf, which was 4/15 pm on June 20, a day before an eclipse. At the time of the oath, there should have already been a well-hatched plot to throw him out in a violent way. It can happen anytime now, in any case in less than two years. A very bad eighth house and an afflicted Moon in this chart is the surest indicator of a violent overthrow of Musharraf. Pakistan`s history may then have to record that the CEO who came to power on October 12, 1999 had a better and longer tenure than the self-appointed president. At the time talks will be on, Jupiter the planet of wisdom and dignity is in an unhelpful eighth house from the Moon of both Vajpayee and Musharraf, aspecting the second house which will again emphasise finance and nothing of greater significance in the context of serious tensions on the Jammu and Kashmir front. Mr Vajpayee was born in a dark fortnight, Pausa Krishna Chaturdashi ( December 25, 1924) in vrischika lagna as recorded in his biography. Many astrologers have given him a wrong lagna and reeled off incorrect guesses as predictions which is why political astrology is often misleading and wrong. Mr Vajpayee is passing through a period of idealism, promoting Jupiter which is combust and, therefore, powerless. Musharraf is passing through dasha of a weak moon aspected by Mars but fortunately Jupiter too. Thus, talks will be more sober than useful, less provocative than gainful for either side. Nothing substantial will be achieved on the political or Kashmir issues with Mars and Saturn opposing each other these days which is not auspicious for India and Pakistan. In Pakistan`s Independence chart, it is the mahadasha of Ketu in the intrigues-ridden eighth house. If Musharraf desires and deserves to see the Taj on a poornima (full moon), he should come around September 2 because the Moon does not oblige dictators.

- The writer is advisor, institute of Astrology Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, New Delhi, and retd Director General, Indian Audit and Accounts Service.

re: Asif Naqshbandi # 33

bechara! :)

Asif bhai, I have a solution for you. Everytime you run into a sasidharan, just take someone like Hamid Gul out of your left pocket and look at him hard for thirty nine seconds. This exercise will achieve two goals. One, you will feel better; two, the scared Hinood will run for its pathetic life.

You just can`t lose.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Having consoled Asif bhai thus, let us recognize that there a LOT of people in both India and Pakistan who share the mindset underlying this article. It does no good to quibble over where such people have a greater hold - India or Pakistan. For, hold they do have. These are people in power, people who have kept us warring for half a century. We can not wish them away. we can not ignore them.

But these people are NOT our enemies. Hamid Guls and ISI chiefs and their counterparts in India are GOOD, DECENT people committed to honorably serving their nations.

It is IDEAS that come in the way of peace and aman. We need to understand and deal with these IDEAS that continuously regenerate, and thus perpetuate the conflict between two peoples who have absolutely no God-mandated reason to fight together like dogs, all the time.

So, more seriously, asif bhai, dont focus too much on the evil hinood. Take up the more difficult challenge. Focus on creating new ideas that enable you and others to live together.

Can you do that?

Re: Romair # 29

Romair, please rectify your comments!

Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan. His nephew, the Governor of Sindh, is a far better person for the job Elahi Bux Soomro.

You seem to be an intelligent person, so I will excuse your comments as a lapse of reason and I hope that it is a lapse of reason, otherwise I have serious doubts about you!

Ciao

KHOTAY DA SIR

The plan is simple.

The rebels in Muslim majority province of China, Sinkiang, will be trained and given weapons by India. The pretext that will be used in Western and Indian press would be of Palkistan and Ossama Bin Laden. The Indian agents will accelerate the violence in Sinkiang and will bring it at a stage where the situation will be irreversible.

One must be very careful to analyze the news that US Army`s special units are going to ``get`` training from Indian Army in the region near Nepal`s border in July. Whereas one may anticipate a secret ``training`` mission in the Laddakh region. The purpose of such excercises is to explore the possibility of transferring men and material into the Sinkiang province. One must also keep in mind the undertones that International (and US) strategic analysts have started using these days.

Once the rebel ``movement`` will get into full swing, Ossama will be used to provide and smuggle men and material into Sinkiang. There definitely will be loss of life of the people of Sinkiang which will be used to exploit the general public opinion in Muslim countries against China.

It is quite obvious that US and China will not let a chaos create in China like that of USSR. However, it will be used to get more access to get into the Chinese markets and negotiate better prices on trade with China. Whereas India will be reined and kept under control using the threat of Pakistan in Kashmir.

NET RESULT:

- China will thus be brought under control, and its voice will be muzzled that it usally raises for an equitable system of trade and Global society, condemning Neo-colonial aspirations of the West and US.

- Muslim blood keep on spilling in Sinkiang and Kashmir while stressing that Muslims are actually terrorits.

- And what will India and Pakisatn will get in return for all this- Khotay Da Sir, as usual.

THe plan is simple.

Romair #29

``He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person.``

Did you read Ayaz Amir`s column?

Being nice is not the point

By Ayaz Amir

Nothing is so calculated to make one want to run one`s thumb over the edge of a sharp knife than the line heard so often this past year and a half that Musharraf is a nice guy: clean, transparent and honest, someone who talks straight and has the good of the country at heart.

If politics was about likeability and personal attractiveness we should not have had any problems in the first place. All the generalissimos who have strutted on the national stage were attractive figures. To look at photographs of Iskander Mirza, Ayub, and Yahya in their prime or at the height of their power is to be reminded of the bearing and personality for which they were once praised. Even Zia did not fail to impress visitors with his humility and good nature.

Of our democrats Bhutto had a great personality but that did not save him from his walk to the gallows. Most other politicians who rose to high office look like dry sticks compared to their military counterparts. Who would have wanted to spend an evening with Junejo? Or with Nawaz Sharif for that matter? Benazir, with her ready wit and gift for one-liners, could be the epitome of charm. But by harping on her righteousness and never admitting to any wrong (traits which have not deserted her) she could also be insufferable. By all accounts, Asif Zardari is a friend`s friend, a boon companion, and an easy person to get along with. But this exactly is the point. If being nice was all there was to politics, Zardari should have been the answer to Pakistan`s problems.

Musharraf`s military predecessors were unmitigated disasters not because they lacked charisma and charm. They failed and left Pakistan worse than before because the institution which was the source of their power was at once their biggest strength and greatest handicap. Their thinking and vision were shaped by this institution. Their prejudices were a product of their military training. They were thus pre-programmed to see things in a certain light and brought up to believe that the military was the repository of all the virtues, politics was a deceitful game and politicians were venal and corrupt figures who deserved nothing better than to be handled with a stick.

And since, for all their outward impressiveness, the generals who ruled Pakistan were essentially pedestrian figures, with little imagination and no vision, they could never go beyond the limitations of the army mind. This is not to say that Pakistan`s military saviours have not played small games of deception, have not said one thing and done another, or have not been devious in other ways. They have indeed and often more so than their civilian peers. But this kind of cleverness does not translate into great leadership. Pakistan`s military rulers have all been clever without being intelligent. Beginning by reviling politicians, they often proved more adept at politics than regular professionals. But this is what they remained right till the end, even when the shadows began closing in on them: clever jugglers. None could make the grade to anything resembling statesmanship.

Why? Two factors, I think, account for this failure. Firstly, for some reason the intellectual tradition has never been very strong in the ranks of the Pakistani general staff, intellectual brilliance being the exception not the norm. Secondly, the Pakistan army is a deeply conservative institution, intrinsically oriented to the preservation of the status quo, and therefore averse to any profound or radical altering of the socio-economic foundations of Pakistani society.

The expectation of radical steps on its part is therefore wholly misplaced. Whenever the military steps into the political arena it will always do what comes the readiest to it: installing streetlights, terrorizing the sanitary staff of municipal organizations, starting anti-encroachment drives and in the process making life difficult for street-sellers and cart-vendors. And at a bigger level talking loudly about accountability and recovering looted money. This is all. This is what it was like under previous military governments. This is what it has been like under Musharraf. Beating empty drums, glorifying the small and petty: trust the army always to do this and then to describe its efforts as nation-building.

This is not deliberate deception. To think so is to get the whole thing wrong. The army as an institution is incapable of anything better. To the pursuit of the small and ephemeral it brings a vast amount of zeal and enthusiasm. Even when grappling with municipal drains and streetlights, an endeavour which ends by leaving army units exhausted, the army thinks it is reordering the fundamentals of society. Meanwhile the Chief - Yahya, Zia or Musharraf - becomes a jack of all trades. He devotes some time to the army and some to the civil administration. Since he is neither Napoleon nor superman he ends up being part-time army chief and part-time administrator, beholden to his generals for the smooth running of the army and to his civilian technocrats for running the government.

Small wonder and contrary to popular belief, the worst excesses of nepotism and cronyism in Pakistan take place under military regimes, with generals and bureaucrats being promoted and kept in office long past their usefulness simply because the General-in-chief has had so many favours to return. In every military government favourites emerge whose power is less a reflection of outstanding merit as of their services to the ruler of the day. On a broader level, the privileged status of the higher echelons of the Pakistan army is not a fortuitous development. It is a direct outcome of the need felt by successive generalissimos to keep their core constituency happy.

So wherein lies the fault? Not in the qualities or defects of character of Pakistan`s military rulers but in the structural and intellectual limitations of their rule. It is not that one-man rule or autocracy is always and everywhere bad. England apart, the Europe that we see today is a product of various forms of kingship and authoritarianism. Democracy made a late arrival in much of the continent. East Asian prosperity, including China`s emergence as an economic powerhouse, is based upon the politics of authoritarianism. It is just that the same solution does not fit every situation. The Pakistani model of authoritarianism which derives its legitimacy and currency from the army is flawed because the instrument at hand, the Pakistan army, is not equipped to deliver the wages of good administration (the necessary condition for economic prosperity).

The Pak Army is not the Kuomintang of Taiwan. It is not the Communist Party or People`s Liberation Army of China. It is not the British civil service of Hong Kong nor the army of South Korea. It can only produce the figures it has done; it can produce no Lee Kuan Yews. This is not to say it has no strengths. It has them indeed and they are not to be scoffed at. But among these strengths, as the history of the last 50 years has demonstrated, lies not the art of government or administration. The Pakistan army can do many things and it can do them better than the armies of many other countries. But it simply lacks the ethos or grounding to bring about a social revolution or lay the foundations of an enduring political order.

This is what makes Musharraf`s assumption of the presidency such a sad event. For in laying bare his ambition, and perhaps that of his closest generals, this move reveals, as nothing else could, that we have learned nothing from the past. That Musharraf at a personal level may be a very nice soul is an irrelevant circumstance. He has embarked upon a course that can only spell disaster for the country. For the continuity of which reforms is he so concerned? What reforms has his government brought about? If anything, the last year and a half has added to the sum of national suffering and confusion. So, apart from the prompting of a paranoid ambition, what justification is there for the emerging Suhartoization of Pakistan? In Asia there are bad authoritarian models and good and we seem to be going for the worst of the lot.

Pakistan came into being as the result of a democratic process. Let no confusion surround this central truth. Authoritarianism of the military kind fits nowhere into its founding principles. This kind of rule fails also the test of pragmatism for it has brought nothing but disaster for Pakistan. The conclusion is obvious. The only service Musharraf can do Pakistan is to return it to democracy. That the Benazirs and Nawaz Sharifs of democracy may have been corrupt and inept figures is a matter of detail. It takes away nothing from the substance of the argument that time and again the military model has failed in Pakistan and, nice strongman or not, will fail again. Jaded as the refrain may sound, the only experiments we can afford to make are on the democratic plane.

Why is it that every time I start thinking that peace with India might actually be possible and desirable--normally based on most Indians i meet in real life who on the whole tend to be educated and decent people who actually think we have more in common than against and who generally want peaceful coexistence--some Shrii Ramdaas or whatever comes crawling out of the woodwork and re-asserts the doubts and suspicions about the hinood?

*shaking his head.... * *

Pakistani journalist, whenever they have the opportunity to write freely, criticize greatly any and every Pakistani leader. Perhaps its cynicism, or perhaps all of the leaders deserved to criticized. So the worth of a Pakistani leader can be judged in Pakistan, not by how highly the journalists speak of him/her, but by how little criticism he/she receives. Based on that, I would have to say that Musharraf, though not praised greatly, has received far less criticism from the Pakistani press than any leader in my lifetime.

An excellent analysis of Pakistan`s current political scenario. I specifically agree with the last paragraph:

``The end of politics?

By Irfan Husain

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Frances Fukuyama, an American political scientist, wrote a paper with the provocative title ``The end of history.`` The thrust of his thesis was that with the global triumph of the free economy, liberal-democratic model, there was no longer any countervailing ideology left to serve as an antithesis.

Fukyama argued that without any opposition, the dominant western juggernaut would prevail and effectively end the conflict and friction that generate historical events and shape the flow of history. Understandably, this thesis caused a furore in academia as well as the media, and a decade later, it stands largely discredited.

Whatever the fate of the Fukuyama paper, it is possible to argue that in Pakistan today, we are witnessing ``the end of politics.`` Consider the facts: on the eve of a crucial and possibly historic summit meeting between the leaders of India and Pakistan, the two biggest political parties have decided to boycott the pre-summit consultative process initiated by General Pervez Musharraf. The PPP leadership says it is doing so because Benazir Bhutto has been sentenced in absentia. Nawaz Sharif`s faction of the Muslim League (how many factions are there, for God`s sake?) says that to attend a meeting with Musharraf would imply acceptance of his accession to the presidency.

The only other significant component of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) is the Awami National Party (ANP), and its leadership has sensibly endorsed the talks and sent its representative to meet the president in the face of much carping and cribbing from its ARD partners. But the fact is that Pakistan today is a two-party state and the leaders of both parties are sulking for their own reasons. At a time when a domestic consensus would strengthen General Musharraf`s hand in Agra, Pakistan`s two biggest parties have no input to offer. Benazir Bhutto has gone to the extent of criticising the Indian government for having extended the invitation to begin with. We have not heard from Nawaz Sharif yet as his voice has been effectively stifled by his Saudi hosts, but it is doubtful if he would have contributed anything of note.

This is just one example of the irrelevance of our political parties. Caught up in the short-term compulsions of their corrupt leaders, they have become so much an integral part of the problem that they cannot possibly be part of the solution. Their supporters are so fed up of the antics of these exposed politicians that they will not come out into the streets for them. Unable to mount any pressure on the military government, the PPP and PML leaders are reduced to mumbling hollow threats. Whenever they offer sensible criticism, their arguments lose their force because of their own record while in office.

The third biggest political party, the MQM, has effectively marginalized itself by boycotting the local body elections in its stronghold of urban Sindh. The reasons for this decision - as for most MQM decisions - are murky: from his comfortable exile in London, Altaf Hussain makes Delphic pronouncements that might make sense to him, but to nobody else. But what is more amazing is that his followers accept these bizarre declarations without even a murmur of protest. In any case, the MQM has by now so thoroughly alienated all parties and centres of power that despite its support, it is largely irrelevant except when it shuts down Karachi by implicit threats of violence against anybody who does not pull down his shutters when it calls its periodic ``strikes.``

The religious parties with their fundamentalist agenda want to drag the country back into medieval times, and their action plan consists of abolishing interest, support of the Taliban, confrontation with India and a rejection of rational thought and modern concepts. In every sense they are irrelevant to Pakistan and its need to modernize and progress. Indeed, by their words and actions they are acting as a major hurdle to investment.

The scary part is that these people are the best we have in politics: the few intelligent and honest politicians in the ring are kept at arm`s length by their leaders, lest they become popular in their own right. In any case, politics in Pakistan is such a dirty business that very few upright and capable people are tempted to take the plunge. What we are left with is a class of unproductive drones who fatten themselves when in power, and are the source of endless intrigues when they are out of office. Small wonder that there are hardly any idealists in the ranks of professional politicians. Among their priorities, serving the people is very low down on the list.

The army`s attempt to induct another breed of politicians through the local body elections being held under the grand ``devolution plan`` has failed as familiar families and faces are being elected in droves. How these freshly minted local democrats will fare when hostile provincial and national governments are formed next year remains to be seen. But it can safely be predicted that the cohabitation is likely to be uneasy.

Having talked of the irrelevance of our politicians, can we honestly say that the generals are any more relevant? The past record of military governments is anything but reassuring. Zia`s era has saddled us with a large proportion of the foreign loans that are like a deadweight pulling down the economy; he unleashed fundamentalism and a tidal wave of drugs and guns; and he was instrumental in formulating the foreign policy that has so isolated us.

Strictly speaking, the relevance of generals lies in the field of defence and not in politics. However, given our peculiar and convoluted history, the army has become Pakistan`s most powerful political party. But the record of our generals in politics is very poor, and it would be a brave man who predicts that the current crop will fare any better.

So what is the answer? We must face the fact that sooner or later (and preferably sooner), Pakistan must return to the democratic path. And I do not mean the `guided` variety so dear to the generals. There are no short-cuts, no magic wands to suddenly clean up the system. And as we know to our cost, the longer a military government hangs on to power, the more disastrous the results. The most we can hope for from General Musharraf is a brief interregnum in which extremism is curbed; the economy stabilized and relations with India improved.

One knows this is a tall order, but if he can pull it off, he can live in the presidency for as long as he wants. (DAWN, Pakistan)

Interesting little note from the Sind budget:

``A significant move has come in the form of extension of free education from primary to government-run secondary schools as the minister announced the abolition of tuition fees to achieve what he declared the objective of providing access to education to the maximum number of citizens. Sindh has thus become the first province to declare the secondary education free.`` (NEWS, Pakistan)

SameerJB #19: ``Since he can not openly go against Islam and major political parties against him, he would be backing a JI-JUP-like minded PML-Tahir ul Qadri alliance during next election. In this way, he will be able to keep PML (N), PPP and MQM away from power and pleasing to USA simultaneously by distancing from JUI-Jehadis-deobandi-SSP militaristic Islamic alliance.``

This is quite interesting. I would have to say I disagree with a portion of it. I have done some research on Musharraf, through colleagues who know him in the military. This is what I have been told:

He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person. Based on that, the last thing I see him doing is supporting any kind of a religious party, anywhere. He is the only leader in the last twenty years to not seek the support of religious parties (Zia-ul-Haq`s parallel legal system, Nawaz`s Shariah Bill etc.). He is the first leader to openly criticize them and attmept to tame the extremists amongst them. Considering the fact that he called Qazi Hussain an unbalanced person, I cannot see him seeking their support.

He definitely does not want the PPP, PML and MQM in power. So you are correct on that point. Considering the fact, that these three parties together have destroyed Pakistan thoroughly, I don`t blame him. I don`t want any of these parties in power either. However, this is where his hands are tied, since the feudal base of these parties will get them elected again and again (MQM`s ethnic base). And there are still, ``lovers of democracy`` educated Pakistanis around who will support a convicted killer as their leader, even if he/she is the product of a basketcase election system.

So Musharraf has to make a deal with them. The deal he will/has made is to get/force them to get Mian Azhar and Soomro onto the forefront. He dislikes Zia-ul-Haq, and has thus not given Ejaz-ul-Haq too much importance. According to Ayaz Amir, Mian Azhar is the best amongst this lot. And according to Cowasjee, Soomro is pretty good (Soomro`s nephew (I think) is the governor of Sind, and his son is/was the president of a major Pakistani bank under the current govt.). I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.

My feeling is that Musharraf wants Imran Khan or Asghar Khan to be the next Prime Minister. The two best candidates amongst whomever is available, in my opinion. Asghar Khan`s son (a philantrapist and head of an NGO) is in his cabinet. And Razzaq Dawood (the current industries minister) is on the board of Imran Khan`s cancer hospital. However, neither Imran Khan nor Asghar Khan have a shot in the feudally dominated Pakistani politics (although I have a feeling, this time around Imran Khan`s party will win a few seats in the urban areas).

Based on the above, I think Musharraf is going to completely sideline the religious parties. He is attempting to do that, though somewhat unsuccessfully, already (no other leader has ever even attempted it). He will support Mian Azhar or Soomro as the Prime Minister candidate through the breakaway faction of PML, and will get them to give Imran Khan`s PTI an important position in the govt.

The NSC will keep an eye over the govt. for five years (it is a well-proven fact that someone needs to keep an eye over Pakistani politicians, until the feudal system is broken, and true free and fair elections can be held. The Pakistani Supreme Court has proven too cowardly to fullfill this responsibility). After that, he will leave the post of the President.

After seeing the way, from an Indian perspective, how Vajpayee handled/is handling Kargil, Kashmir, and his own borderline fanatic Hindu nationalist party, I would have to say I am quite impressed by him (my opinion could be incorrect, since I do not know too much about Indian politics). He is quite the politician, and seems to be a realist on the above mentioned issues. Doesn`t seem to quite fit into the BJP model Prime Minister mold.

Based on that, I think he is too intelligent to follow the advice in this letter. However, if he does, it would be great for Pakistan. India has historically been following the advice in this letter, and that is why it is placed in the same group as a much smaller Pakistan, and not in the group with China, where it should be placed due to its large size.

I still cannot figure out whether this letter is supposed to be encouraging the Indian hawks or is actually making fun of them. Perhaps the author could enlighten us.