Deja Vu

Ali1

I don`t think you have read my posts. I have made it abundantly clear that I consider Musharraf to be illegal ruler... and unlike Ataturk, he overthrew a Democracy not a Monarchy.

Dear Hobbyty

I am sorry I am unable to respond in detail to your post at this moment...

``It suggests that Islam inherently cannot deal with a concept such as Pluralism of religion and Pluralism of Salvation. And of course that would be a gross destortion of understanding Islam. The High Church, Shiah, Sunni arguments, similarly, miss the mark.``

I staunchly believe Islam does deal with concept of pluralism. But the problem is that this is My belief and yours... so if we put the word `Islam` in the constitution, like Great parliamentarian, asked who is going to define `Islam`? You and I? or the Mullahs?

That is since you and I agree that Islam does allow for pluralism, it is better to have pluralism without the use of the word `Islam` so that it is guaranteed without hinderance.

As for Islam`s civil and social structure.. it will assert itself given that we are 98% Muslim and no Muslim would legislate against Islam right?

-YLH

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Romair

``...Because a strong Pakistan is a huge deterent to India attempting to dominate the SAARC region...``

I guess you are implying `hegemony`. You may be surprised to learn that many Indians will gladly trade in cordial relations for `hegemony`. The examples are just next door -- Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal. India does not `dominate` any of these countries.

``...hy are so many Indians opposers of the partition....``

The nuanced opinion is that Parition was bad because it was Gujarat multiplied 10,000 times. It is the violence that is an anathema, not the creation of Pakistan.

Musharraf may stay even if he loses vote (Reuters)

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020416/64/1lotj.html

Re: Romair

addendum to previous post

``...The second factor to note is that many Indians (including so many on this board), invariably, keep doubting the partition, and for some strange reason, want Pakistan to willingly merge back with India. ..``

The reasons are not `strange`. Partition has created a never-ending bitterness and Indo-Pak rivalry. It has led to 4 wars, countless lives lost, and no communications/exchanges between people who at one time lived together. It has not delivered jannat to Pakistanis -- they still reside under a dictator`s thumb with sovereignty being bartered to the World Bank/IMF instead of to the Crown. India has suffered as well. The abandoned Muslims of India face the ire of the Hindutva forces, who have been strenghtened by Partition (as have the Islamists in Pakistan). Countless millions were killed. In an age of globalization, cutting off trade between contiguous regions has left both countries poorer. The roots of Bangladesh, Kashmir lie in Partition. This may not pain you, but it pains me.

Most Indians do not want the undoing of Partition (scrambled eggs cannot be unscrambled) -- they would be happy with a normalization of ties (a la Indo-Bangladesh).

YLH

You misunderstand me - I am not arguing any particular position, but exploring the matter to be more clear in my mind.

On Democracy, you caught on to my point about it`s potential weakness, the tyranny of a majority, the rule of the mob - and this raises a more difficult question for me: You have said that we must not allow such a tyranny. Doesn`t this mean that a majority can be very wrong? Then WHere does sovergnty lie? Who is to be our final arbitar? We have been to the people, to their representatives, who may be just as tyrannical as the people (witness the events Palestine and India), We go to the so called wise man, a man of conscience, of responsibility (witness Mr. Musharraf), but he may be tyrant as well! Can we conclude that all these options present us with the potential for misrule? After all, we are not angels, how can we expect rule or governance without misrule? But since we are not about chuck away concepts such as rule of law or equality before the law, or the protection of the weak and injured - what options are we left with? Do you think it is a realistic course to accept the possibility of misrule, but to plan to minimize such a possibility and it`s consequences? How might we do that? As you are person of conscience, a person of integrity and a seeker of knowledge -would you agree that where ever possible in the body of the law, that we make a conscious effort to correct imbalances? That the possibility of misrule is diminished if government were to be concieved of, as consisting of seperate but equal centers of power? That is to say, each element sovegrn in it`s realm and by necessity cooperative with the other parts of government? But how do we do this? It may not be efficient but if it is best to be free, must we not think along these lines? Are there other options?

Would I vote for Mush?..No..why, because as a dictator he will never get legitimacy from a referendum, what would have legittmised him would have been massive improvement in govt machinery, and a balanced accountability process, neither has happened. Billions from the West won`t help unless there is some serious radical reforms, his showdown with the Mullahs has been halted, instituitions like the Council for Islamic idealogy and the Shriat court still exist, teh Judiciary remains controlled, and overloaded with cases. The bureacracy hasn`t been tamed, and is bitter at the sweeping level of Army influence in civilain instituitions. Musharraf is using people like Chaudry Shujaat to rally support for him in the Punjab, Sherpao in the frontier..says a lot for his choice of friends..by the way who is financing the canvassing mush is doing?. Resta ssured witha split in the PML, the PPP is gonna be back with a bang, not a sweep but a sure win if elections are clean. Let`s not forget Mush`ys boys subtle working of the press, Shaheen Sehbais resignation..and what if Sindh and Baluchistan vote against a referendum, or boycott successfully..while the other 2 provinces dont..wouldn`t that deprive Mush of that fabled legitimacy?

To many questions, to many problems, and I still see people desperate to flee Pakistan...has Mush made some bold decisions?..Yes ..is he a Inqalabi..man of change?..No, ..will he win the referendum?..Yes..but so did Zia, and Ayub won his elections as well.

romair i have one quesiton what is pakistan`s military capablitiy rank in the muslim world i guess there are different ways to judge who has the best muslim army but i want to know specifically 3 things

1) which muslim army is considered the most professional

2) which muslim country do the arabs think that has the best army and where other muslims go for training do any foreign cadets enroll in PMA

3) has pakistan trained any forgein army

4) what is pakistan rank among the nonmsulim world

5) how is air force really compared to the muslim and nonmuslim world

re: ylh # 68

A very good post.

Why even bother with a referendum?

CNN:Musharraf won`t quit army chief role

`General Pervez Musharraf plans on remaining a key power in Pakistan regardless of the outcome on a referendum this month designed to bolster his position following parliamentary elections set for October`

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/04/16/pakistan.musharraf/index.html

Arjun_M on Romair

`Just last month you claimed that south indians werent that bad but they needed paki management and leadership skills.`

That was a good one -- I had almost forgotten it. Thanks for reminding us. Romair, quit meandering in your beliefs -- there is a simple word for rock-solid principles: integrity

From Dawn April 17, 2002


Not the straight path

By Roedad Khan


The die is cast. A referendum is to decide whether President Musharraf`s rule is to be extended by another five years or not. Chatham once famously remarked: ``I know that I can save this country and that no one else can``. President Musharraf`s exhilaration comes from a similar inner conviction although it has a ring of deja vu about it.

When I heard this announcement, my mind went back to July 6, 1947 when, as a young subordinate judge at Swabi, I presided over that historic referendum held to decide whether the people of the North-West Frontier Province wanted to join Hindustan or Pakistan. Both Mr. Gandhi and Abdul Ghaffar Khan apprehended large-scale disturbances and bloodshed.

Pandit Nehru thought otherwise and supported the referendum. In order to ensure peaceful conditions, British troops were deployed all over Swabi. At the insistence of the Congress, Governor Sir Olaf Caroe was retired. The conduct of referendum was placed in the hands of Sir Rob Lockhart, the Chief of the Southern Command of the Indian Army. He replaced Caroe as the governor of the NWFP.

The result was a foregone conclusion. The atmosphere of pro-Pakistan frenzy, which had engulfed the rest of Muslim India, now prevailed all over the Frontier. Both Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad believed that the referendum results were a definite indication of the waning of the influence of the Khan brothers in the Frontier province. This was my first direct exposure to the referendum process - one of the most powerful tools in democratic politics.

The question of political legitimacy has plagued the Muslim world since the death of the Holy Prophet in AD 632. The Holy Quran is silent beyond saying that the Muslims should settle their affairs by mutual consultation. The Prophet had abstained from nominating a successor or laying down any rules of political succession. In actual practice, the question of succession was decided by the length of the contender`s sword and the sharpness of its blade. Ex-post facto recognition was always granted by the Caliph in Baghdad - a role now played by the Supreme Court in Pakistan.

President Ayub faced the same dilemma: How was his rule to acquire legitimacy? He resorted to a national referendum. The question he had formulated and put to the members of the electoral college on February 25, 1960 was: ``Have you confidence in the President, Field Marshall Muhammad Ayub Khan, Hilal-I-Pakistan, Hilal-I-Jurat``? Like all military dictators, Zia also had a legitimacy problem. He was conscious of the fact that he derived his power, not from the people, but from the barrel of a gun, and was desperately trying to gain public approval for retaining power.

With this in view, he decided to hold a referendum on December 19, 1984. The question put to the voters was: `Do you endorse the process initiated by President of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, for bringing the laws of Pakistan in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and for the preservation of the ideology of Pakistan, and are you in favour of the continuation and further consolidation of the process and for the smooth and orderly transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people`? Every voter was required to answer `Yes` or `No`.

On December 1, 1984, Zia had said ``if the majority of the electorate respond to the question in `Yes` it will be taken to mean that the people of Pakistan have expressed confidence in the present government, have endorsed its policies and have elected General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq as President for the next five years``.

The turn-out for the referendum was embarrassingly low. Accompanied by the Director Intelligence Bureau, I visited a number of polling stations in and around Rawalpindi. They were all deserted. At a ladies polling station in Lalazar, I complimented the presiding officer and her staff on the quick and efficient disposal of voters in record time as I saw no voters waiting to cast their ballot papers.

On hearing this, they all said with one voice that they had not seen a single voter since early morning and had been sitting idle. The fraud practised on the people of Pakistan in both cases fooled nobody and the subterfuge backfired. If Zia thought that the referendum would provide him with a popular mandate for another five years, he was sadly mistaken.

What is a referendum? It is the right of the citizens in a democracy to force a binding vote of the people on legislation passed by the legislators. I prefer to quote Jefferson rather than anybody else on this topic regarding him as the most powerful apostle of democracy that has ever been. ``At the dawn of a new nation``, Thomas Jefferson declared, ``I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society, but the people themselves``.

Jefferson was a strong and vocal advocate of the referendum process. Whereas the King of England spoke of the Divine Right of Kings and of his power to govern being decreed from God, Jefferson knew that even those chosen to represent the citizenry were only empowered by the people and exercised delegated authority. Nothing comes closer to this Jeffersonian ideal of ``power to the people`` than the initiative and referendum (I & R) process, which allows voters to enact new laws that their elected members - for whatever reason - won`t, and to repeal bad laws that run counter to the needs of the people.

For hundred years, Americans of every political stripe have used the initiative and referendum process to foster debate and change the powers and priorities of their governments, and for hundred years the process has been a testament to the strength, intelligence, and passion for freedom, inherent in the American spirit.

Both Madison and Jefferson knew too well the possibility that those chosen to rule can and would, on occasion, become consumed with their power and take actions not consistent with the Constitution - actions that represented their self-interest and not the interest of the people. For this reason, a series of checks and balances were placed in the Constitution in order to right the errors caused when elected representatives chose to rule unconstitutionally or in their own self-interest.

In America and Switzerland, citizens have the ability to adopt laws, or amend the Constitution through the initiative process. They also have the ability through the process of referendum to reject laws or amendments proposed by the legislators. These are tools placed by written Constitutions in democratic countries in the hands of the citizens to rectify the acts of omission and commission of their representatives.

Initiative is the means by which voters can correct legislative sins of omission and referendum is the means of correcting sins of commission. Both are a great complement to the representative government. Not a replacement, but a complement: when representative government fails the people, the I & R process is there to help them. When the I & R process fails the people, a representative government is there to help them. They are perfect complements - each designed to help the people - and both carefully constructed to balance the weaknesses of one with the strengths of the other.

Neither initiative nor referendum can be delinked from the democratic system and have no meaning or relevance and make no sense when the country is under military rule, the Constitution is held in abeyance, and the parliament dissolved. How can a credible referendum be held in such an undemocratic environment? Referendum is not a power placed by the Constitution in the hands of a ruler to legitimize or perpetuate his rule or impose his will on the citizens. It is inconceivable that in any democratic country, the referendum process will ever be used by any ruler to circumvent the provisions of the Constitution in order to get himself elected.

Almost 55 years after I cast my vote for Pakistan, the country is, for the fourth time, under military rule, has no Constitution, no parliament, no elected government. And the quest for a stable political order remains as elusive as ever. The tragedy of Pakistan is that our rulers, like the Bourbons of France, don`t learn from history and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again in the expectation that it would produce a different result.

We have gone through the valley of the shadows before. Do we have to go through it again? How can such a highly controversial referendum lead to the restoration of a stable, genuinely democratic political order? How can it stop the political pendulum from swinging from one extreme to the other as has been the case throughout our troubled history? How can such a dubious referendum of doubtful value help President Musharraf acquire moral legitimacy? How can we raise a strong, stable, democratic superstructure on such a shaky foundation?

General Musharraf`s first address to the nation was a welcome relief to a people torn apart by corrupt, inept leadership, rising crime, insecurity of person, property and honour. His quiet dignity and lack of pretence provided exactly the stabilizing force that people sought. We thought he was a crusader against high level corruption, a tribune of the people who would bring about an egalitarian social and economic order. We hoped he would help the nation recover its elan vital, lance the poisoned carbuncle, clean the country of its mess, give the country the lift of a driving dream, stitch the country back together and drag the nation to its feet again.

We didn`t think he came to fiddle with the controls. We thought he came to change the direction of the ship, untangle the mess and restore Jinnah`s legacy. He grasped the helm a little less then three years ago, but the country still doesn`t know whether he has an inner compass or a course to steer or a port to seek. An aching sense of disappointment hangs over his presidency today although I would still prefer him to both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. But that is not saying much.

``Men by their nature``, Jefferson once remarked, ``are naturally divided into two camps. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all power from them into their hands, and those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them the safest and most honest, if always the wisest repository of the public interest. These two camps exist in every country, and wherever men are free to think, speak and write, they will identify themselves``.

Why not trust the people? Why fear and distrust them? Why not have confidence in them? Why not follow the straight constitutional path back to democracy? Why must President Musharraf follow in the footsteps of his military predecessors? Why follow this tortuous, devious, circuitous road back to the abyss?

I too am somewhat troubled by the `referendum` in so far as it is not a true vote of confidence in Musharraf or Army rule. Given all that I have seen--Zia, BB, NS and now PM--I would still `vote` for PM as being by far the best of a bad lot. Those who are `good` are not `legitimate` and those who are `legitimate` are not `good.` So do we do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons? Any philosopher want to answer this?

However, would it be better--more legitimate? a real `mandate?`--if Musharraf allowed others to run against him? Or, better yet, put Benazir`s or Nawaz Sharif`s name on the ballot as well? So we can let the great unwashed choose between `legitimate` failed leaders or an `illegitimate` successful one?

re: fawad79 # 76

fawad79 mian, Pakistan is one of the largest nations in the world. It has acquired nuclear weapons. It is deploying missiles. So, why not develop global aspirations? Why not visualize Pakistan as one of the leading, most prosperous and most progressive nations in the entire world? Why this compulsive need to narrow yourself down to only the ``Muslim world``? What will Pakistan get by raising the largest military in the ``Muslim world`` were the entire ``Muslim world`` going down the toilet (it is not, but you get my point)?

I will share a thought with you. Justified or not, we Indians truly think we are the best in the world. We might criticize ourselves among our own, but when it comes to any muffakka outside (I was trying to imitate the inimitable DRUMZ there), we are a very very proud people. And we are proud of the fact that we are a proud people.

There is absolutely no reason why Pakistanis can not be equally proud/ambitious people. By being proud I do not mean deriving pleasure in putting others down, but developing inner self-respect and confidence that says you are second to none - white, yellow, pink, or green.

As a Pakistani, you inhabit a land that has been the cradle of ancient, most highly developed civilizations. You have produced a Nobel prize winner. You are blessed with fertile land, creative people, and a capable workforce. You can aim to be one of the world leaders. Why not aim high? If you aim high, you may or may not make it all the way up...but if you aim low, low is where you will be.

So stop obsessing with the Muslim world. Let`s beat the Germans and the Chinese!