An International Failure

ylh #175/177: I have nothing against Ata-Turk. When I use the term, ``Ata-Turk,`` I use it in a slang sense, and not in reference to the person himself. Just like people use the term, ``Jehadi`` in slang. Even though an actual term Jehadi has nothing to do with the slang context it which it is used.

I have not read much on Ata-Turk, so I neither admire not dislike him, since I don`t have enough information. I do know that Jinnah liked him. As do a lot of Turks. As does Musharraf, who lived in Turkey, as a child. As long as the Turks like him, that makes him a great Turkish leader (Turkish being the key word).

The Pakistani society needs to find its own medium, and its own heroes. This medium has to be based on the desires of the Pakistani people, alongwith the points you have mentioned. Who knows where that medium maybe. It maybe something like Turkey, or it maybe something like present-day Iran. But it has to be home-grown, not a copy of another society, and not implemented forcefully by a secular or religious minority in Pakistan. The direction of a country must be inline with the wishes of a majority of its people. Otherwise, the system will not work, even if it is the correct system.

My guess is that a majority of Pakistan wants a very moderate Islamic society, relying on a combination of Islam for its religious direction, and its local provincial cultures for its cultural direction. People want some religion in their public life, however they don`t want it shoved down their throats. I don`t think a purely secular system will work in Pakistan (even if it is the best possible system). It would result in a backlash scenario like India, where the constitution is secular, however the people regularly vote for a religious party.

Within Pakistan, there are certain organizations which have been tradionally secular, and would not fit into a non-secular system. This includes the military, and the beaurecracy (I don`t have too much knowledge about the beurecracy). The medium of the military is British military secular traditions. It should not be forced out of them, because that will create an imbalance in these organizations.

Perhaps a moderately Islamic civilian society, with a secular military, beurecracy and legal system, is the way to go for Pakistan. That is what seems to me to be the majority medium for Pakistan. That is where Pakistan was until Bhutto started pandering to the religious right, and before Zia attempted to impose his personality on the Pakistani society.

The points you have mentioned can be implemented in any society, and under any system. I cannot see anywhere that Islam contradicts your points. The successful secular societies do not contradict it either.

YLH 175 or anybody else who cares to answer:

I find the word ``secular`` extremely confusing - it is most elastic, more so it`s use. Originally, it developed from the religious wras of of Europe and meant the removal of territory from the control of the Church, follwed by free from domination of Church teachings - What exactly does secular mean or how exactly are using it in your post 175?

For instance, I understand it to mean the separation or the specialization of the Institutions of governance and religion - That is to say that they operate or specialize in different, yet intersecting ``realms`` - They intersect because their areas of concern are parts of a larger institution, society.

When you use terms such the ``secular state`` are you refering to the above definition or some other definition?

Re: Ferozk #180

``...Democracy in Pakistan has nothing to do with peace with India...``

I think that you are mistaken. A fellow Pakistani, Tahmed321, will disagree with you. Infact, he once expressed an opinion, with some justification, that Indian politicians` lack of statesmenship incited the militarists in Pakistan, who responded by seizing power, which in turn was bad for Indo-Pak relations. There is good reason to believe that the confrontation with India has given the Pakistani military the justification to usurp power, and civil rule. It also allows the Pakistani military to play a larger role in civil affairs than would have otherwise been the case.

Romair #174

``India needs to allow the international press and Amnesty International into all areas where it claims Pakistan is instigating actions against it``

I think that you do not understand the fact that sovereign countries do not take dictation on how to respond to crime and terrorism. What happened at the Parliament House was not a political act, it was a criminal act. You seem to be demanding that a political process, rather than a legal process solve a crime and bring offenders to justice. You are also demanding that India surrender sovereignty to a private organization, Amnesty International (AI), over matters of ordinary criminal prosecution. There are well established, international mechanisms for bringing criminals, the accused and absconders to justice through due process. Interpol is one such international organization for nabbing criminals, and it has a due process for pressing charges, extradition, etc. AI does not play any role in those matters, or has no locus-standi on these matters. AI is a private organization and has no legal jurisdiction anywhere to do anything. On the other hand, when Interpol alerts have been issued for various absconders from the law, and who seek a safe haven in Pakistan, Pakistan refuses to play by the established rules. That is a political decision, not one of law enforcement. One significant case, amongst many, is that of Dawood Ibrahim (a smuggler accused of the Bombay blasts) who now lives in Karachi. In that particular case, Pakistan is obliged to extradite, however it gets around this legally binding international obligation by claiming that Ibrahim is `not in Pakistan`. That rationale allows Pakistan to sidestep a legal obligation, which it otherwise could not if Ibrahim`s presence in Pakistan was proven.

The obstacle to his extradition is political, not one legal. Pakistan does not have the political will to take action against anyone who uses its territory to make threats against India. For example, when LeT functionaries from their offices in Lahore openly and undeniably call for suicide attacks against the PMO or the Red Fort a number of measures could have been taken against them:

a) extradition and trial in India

b) trial in Pakistan under Pakistani laws

In neither case is AI necessary as a mediator. Do you think that the AI has any official role in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague? Do you think that if the UN International Court of Criminal Justice is established, Pakistan will bring the accused to stand trial in front of it?

However, what we do know is that when a political decision to obstruct justice is made by a sovereign country, there are political ramifications. It is a conscious decision by a country to allow `war to be waged` from its soil on another country. Deterioration of relations is an almost automatic consequence. And this is what will happen.

``Was India responsible for the attacks against Pakistani Christians in Bahawalpur?``

What do you think? Does India have private organizations claiming and conducting acts of violence against Pakistan?

Your lack of ability to distinguish between such issues is a disturbing indication that your moral compass is different than mine.

re: Ferozek

``I do not believe in miracles and I do not believe that there will ever be peace between India and Pakistan.``

unfortunately, you are right...and furthermore, the lack of peace is going to lead to destruction on a mass scale...it is inevitable...

To: Yahuda Goldsteen

The Yahuda Goldsteen character is becoming boring. Would you please improve it by spicing your posts with Hebrew words (eg dovka) and fergawdsake some intelligent humour?

Jo bhi kaho, ``aap`` ke desh ke log aise buddhu tho nahin hothe hain.

Zafar

re: ylh

``The Objectives resolution I quoted is part of the Pakistani constitution.``

the constitution that has been sitting in the trash can?

``By the way, on Urstruly`s board did you really think `yeah whatever` reply made you look cool?``

i AM cool ... i don`t need to LOOK cool

Reply #: 177

ylh

``Zia brought us Economic prosperity but he also brought neverending misery to millions of Pakistanis... which exists till today.``

Your dictators have only brought unmitigated disaster on your country. They seem to live in their own world, often believing they can manipulate events to their advantage. They also seem to highly underestimate India`s resolve. India may be slow and lethargic but like the elephant its kick will be powerful and decisive. The recent attack on Indian parliament by Mushy`s cronies will not be forgotten. If i were you kid, i will pray for your country.

``Economic prosperity is important but it is no substitute for `Democracy, freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of press etc` ...``.

Thank God, 50 years of living near India has taught you guys something.

Let us see how many Pakis on this chowk condemn this attack on Indian parliament.

Sridhar

Ferozk #180
``peace is a state of mind, which does not exist in either nation.``

I think such a equivalence can be made only the day after Musharraf`s palace is attacked with bombs, grenades and AK-47s.

Re: Sadna

I do not believe in miracles and I do not believe that there will ever be peace between India and Pakistan.

Re: Shammi

Democracy in Pakistan has nothing to do with peace with India; peace is a state of mind, which does not exist in either nation.

Ciao

Re: Romair #120

What could the US have done to Pakistan if it did not cooperate with the US, you ask? You know as much about economics as I know about flying a fighter. Given how much foreign aid Pakistan needs--look at the pathetic state of our economy--all the US had to do was to turn off the aid tap. I figure Pakistan would have lasted a few months before it melted down completely. See the pictures on TV about the rioting in Argentina last December? And compared to Pakistan, the Argentines actually have something that, from a distance, could pass for a real economy!

For the 1/3 of Pakistanis (is that the latest figure? probably closer to 45-50% by now) living below the poverty line, it really wouldn`t have made much of a difference but for most of the urban middle-class and lower-middle class, it would be a total catastrophe. Under this set of circumstances, I can well see a rise to power of the Islamic whackos as an extreme case. More likely, I would expect to see Musharraf resigning for ``health reasons`` (come to think of it, he actually hasn`t been looking all that well lately...) and Gen. Yousaf or some other general taking over, but one who has a much more hardline position than does Musharraf. In this particular case--complete economic meltdown--no Pakistani leader would have any choice but to keep playing the religion card as hard and as often as he can.

I assume that the US would not be sitting idly by watching this saying, ``Damn! Our job`s just became impossible! Some whacko, errrr, excuse me, Mard e Momin, is now in charge of Pakistan and controls nukes, guarded by the mighty PAF. We should call off operations in Afghanistan, allow the Taliban to `try` OBL, and when he is found `not guilty,` tell the American public that we thought we had the culprit identified but turns out he was innocent. We are now going to investigate why 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9-11. This clearly points to the Mossad`s hand in this. BUT, Mossad lacks the logistics to implement this operation, so it must have had RAW help. QED. We start bombing Tel Aviv and New Delhi in 15 minutes.``

Somehow, I don`t see this particular scenario coming about. What is more likely is that the Pentagon`s planners will finally get a chance to implement one of their what-if scenarios and try to either take control of Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal or, more likely, take it out completely. How this is going to play out, God alone knows. Maybe we will have a Pakistani missile launch or two--use `em or lose `em, remember? Who knows the final outcome? Want to start gambling on it? I don`t. I still have family in Pakistan.

BTW, what do you think the Indians will be doing in all this? Why wouldn`t they take the opportunity to attack across the LoC and destroy the various mujahideen camps we have there? Or will they be smart for a change and let the US do all their work for them and then go in and mop up the remnants.

Alternatively we could have remained strictly neutral, denied the US bases and overflight rights (though if the US did overfly Pakistani air space, what could the PAF have done about it? How long would it last against the USAF? One day or two? Any takers for three?)

One could go on further but I hope you get the picture. You and Ayaz Amir and Co. go on endlessly about how Pakistan should have refused to kowtow to the US. Fine. What are the alternatives? Ever look at them?

Iran and Iraq survived the wrath of full US economic sanctions BUT they have oil (i.e., ready source of income) and we don`t. And as far as Iraq goes, its people pay the price while Saddam happily goes on building his palaces and keeping the Republican Guard fat and happy. As far as Iran goes, the rest of the world wasn`t completely happy with how the US was handling these countries and was happily willing to defy US economic sanctions.

Now, you can criticize Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and Co. for not holding out longer for a better price but there is really only so much bluffing you can do when all you hold in your hand is a pair of deuces.

So, tell me again how Pakistan could have defied the US. Maybe I missed something.

I will come back to the free trade issue soon ..

Romair,

You said Economic prosperity somehow is a more important issue than Democracy rights etc. Whereas this is a fact, it is a sad one. In the 1980s we substituted our freedom, the lofty ideals of our constitution, and the very basis of Pakistan for Economic prosperity. Zia brought us Economic prosperity but he also brought neverending misery to millions of Pakistanis... which exists till today.

Economic prosperity is important but it is no substitute for `Democracy, freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of press etc` ... it is definitely no substitute for Equality fraternity and justice, the three corner stones of Pakistan`s basic existence, which we abandoned slowly but steadily.

Sincerely

YLH

Rsaxena

The Objectives resolution I quoted is part of the Pakistani constitution. I`d like to see it implemented. Is that a crime... The truth is that you`d rather see Pakistan in a quagmire that Zia put us in... for it gives you some sadistic satisfaction for I fear that the final solution to Pakistan India problem in your opinion is the destruction of Pakistan ...

By the way, on Urstruly`s board did you really think `yeah whatever` reply made you look cool?

Sincerely

YLH

Romair,

Now that we are in agreement, I hope you will read the history of the Turkish revolution as well. Kemal Ataturk did not start off as an aggressive secularist... he perhaps tried for the longest time to integrate a modernist progressive version of Islam into his modernization agenda for Turkey. However the opposition that he received from the Mullahs made him wash his hands with religion. A clear example of this is his statements in Erzurum Jamia in 1919... where he actually led the prayer and read the Khutba in which he stated ...

`Islam is a progressive and rational religion completely compatible with reason and progress. Everything that is good for the nation is good for religion and God`.

Perhaps the greatest injustice that has been done by the Mullahs is the unnecessary propaganda against Turkey and Kemal Ataturk, a great Muslim Nation and a great Muslim Hero of which all of the Islamic world was proud.... Kindly read Allama Iqbal`s `Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam` and please pay close attention to his references to Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish Revolution.

Furthermore, secularism to me has always meant equality for all people regardless of religion caste or creed, and the separation of the clergy from Politics, a principle undoubtedly present with in some of the Muslim states of the Middle Ages. I am still unable to understand how a state can be secular without accepting the realities I had mentioned.... and how it wont be secular if it does?

Maybe we are at odds on definitions and facts.

Sincerely

YLH

shammi #173: Was India responsible for the attacks against Pakistani Christians in Bahawalpur? If one follows your logic, then trade between India and Pakistan should have been finished at that time. Wouldn`t you agree?

India needs to do what I have been suggesting, all along. It needs to allow the international press and Amnesty International into all areas where it claims Pakistan is instigating actions against it, through terrorism. It has done exactly the opposite. It has banned international organizations from all such areas. Within Pakistan, these organizations are allowed to freely roam around anywhere they want. We have all seen the religious protests, against the Pakistan govt., shown on international media, that are occuring in Pakistan.

Until and unless India makes such a decision, your remarks and polls carry no weight. If you are so convinced you are right about Pakistan`s support for terrorism in India, then why are you so against allowing the international organizations to give an objective opinion on it? It doesn`t make sense to me.

If Amnesty International and the UN and credible international organizations blame Pakistan, I will be the first to accept their claims. However, it is very difficult for Pakistanis to consider Indians` views to be objective, when they conitinue to ban these organizations from Indo-Pak conflicts. That is why despite all of India`s efforts, not a single country in the world has listened to its calls of declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. If Amnesty International would make one such claim, the whole world would listen.