The April Fool Referendum

Pay asma jehangir ten lac (like the leaders of the tenants association in okara did) and you can get her to champion any cause.......so she should be the money rights chairperson as welll.


raza

Asma laments the low voter turnout and rigging.

Voter turnout in many democratic European countries has been less than 30% for decades.

Rigging? does anyone remember the massive rigging in Florida during the last US elections, the bastion of democracy?

People need good governance not inffective democracies.

Noor Ahmed

re: Shiekh Progressive
``Kanjar is as much a trade as a b/itch is a female dog or a lapdog a canine.It is the socalled representatives and socalled maadern-types who have added new metaphors to the lingo.``

Brother, what nonsense...the Hindu/Zionist/Christian aka Satan nexxus has fed you this nonsense. Kanjar is a tribe of people like I pointed out. It is an old indigenous tribe of Dravidian stock (did you go to google.com and search for ``kanjar tribe`` like I asked you to). IN the name of Allah, please do so and liberate yourself from this ignorance (one ignorant factoid at a time - praise be to Allah the merciful)

An interesting interview with Dr. Arif Alvi, the head of the Sind faction of Pakistan`s Tehrik-e-Insaf. Anyone interested in an alternative from military regimes, and from the PPP-PML feudals, should consider TI as an option:

``Dr Arif Alvi, Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf, was recently interviewed by Dr. Ismat Kamal on behalf of Pakistan Link in Karachi. A founding member of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf, Dr. Alvi is currently the party’s Vice Chairman. He has had a distinguished career as a leading dental surgeon and is currently Dean of the Faculty of Orthodontics, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan. Following in the footsteps of his philanthropist father, Dr. Alvi is involved in the management of three charitable trusts that provide free healthcare and subsidized education to the poor in Pakistan. In this frank and lucid interview, he provides an insight into the rationale underlying Imran Khan’s movement to provide clean, honest and dynamic leadership in Pakistan.

PL: What attracted you to Tehreek-e-Insaaf?

Ans. I was disillusioned by Jamat-e-Islami although my years spent with them molded my character and I would forever remain indebted to my JI friends. I believe that their narrow-minded political approach is not a solution to the problems of the country. I think the direction of the country or the ideology can be Islamic but the day-to-day problems are secular. It is difficult to explain in a short interview like this the reasons why I feel the JI approach and those of religious parties will not succeed in politics. They may succeed in keeping the people inclined towards religion in their private lives, but beyond that I think they will not find the people responding to them.

When Mr. Imran Khan decided to enter politics I approached him because I felt that here was a man who had first contributed towards his country in two major fields. In cricket he led the country well, culminating in the World Cup Win and then afterwards he spent more than 90 % of his wealth which was more than a million dollars in establishing the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital. He still manages to collect about 6 million dollars every year for the same cause......

PL: There are rumors that the PPP and PML may join hands in the forthcoming elections. For the common man, this could mean that instead of plunder and loot by turn, there would be plunder and loot in unison. Does the PTI have any plans to collaborate with other “clean hands” parties, such as that of Omar Asghar Khan?

Ans: Yes we do have a plan to align all the political parties which are honest to fight the combined scourge of PPP-PML politics. They have come together already and have said that they will fight the elections in an alliance. I have met a number of clean politicians in this regard. My discussions with Air Marshal Asghar Khan are based on tremendous respect for him; similarly I have met others and so has Mr. Imran Khan. As the elections come closer I am sure all these political parties will come together......

PL: How would you rate your party’s chances in the coming elections?

The chances of our party in the coming elections are very good. Though it is difficult to fight the political investor who puts in 10 million rupees and reaps a harvest of a hundred million in a year, we feel people want a change. We are offering a vision to Pakistan, a vision of hope, prosperity, and dignity where the life and liberty of every man, woman and child is protected, where investment is safe and where there are equal opportunities for all without consideration of sex, race, linguistic background, and religion. We hope that the oversees Pakistanis will play a major role as of yesterday. To them the country owes a lot and they too owe their country. Throughout the developing world, especially in the Far East, the expatriates have contributed in lifting their countries and putting them strongly on the road to development and prosperity. The same is expected of overseas Pakistanis and people of Pakistani origin. I assure you we can make it and so will Pakistan but not without them. Tehreek-e-Insaf welcomes any role they can think of. The world has shrunk. They can sit on the internet and help. If anyone needs to contact me my email address is arifalvi@cyber.net.pk Mr. Imran Khan can be contacted at pti@isb.comsats.net.pk Our website is www.insaaf.com.``

Complete interview at http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2002/May/10/03.html

RanaRanasher:22

Kanjar is as much a trade as a b/itch is a female dog or a lapdog a canine.It is the socalled representatives and socalled maadern-types who have added new metaphors to the lingo.

The 95% of the population is Muslim & a very proud & honourable.In Hindustaan it is the same story ---but that is not my business,it is yours.

The idea is not to make you jump with joy but to step on a few sleeping tails at home.Please do not cross the border....even at chowk.

This is how we treat our heroes.Deatils at:

http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/15/top15.htm

``I am deeply shocked that such a humiliating treatment will be meted out to my family while I was preparing for the Qul of my late mother who had sacrificed everything for the sake of Pakistan and for the ideals of Quaid-i-Azam.``

Asma Jehangir pushes her political agenda in the guise of championing Human Rights and like all 3rd rate Pakistani politicians, she has inherited her agenda from her father at whose house the infamous 6 points of Awami League were drafted... the agenda is none other than the weakening and the eventual destruction of the Federation of Pakistan.

Sheikh Progressive
I take objection to your proposing the name ``Kanjiristan`` for Terroristan !!!!

How could a ``caste gaali`` (kanjar is a tribe - of people in North and North West India and present day Pakistan - hence used as a derogatory term by some - many of these tribes were enslaved into prostitution, etc.) like Kanjar figure in the name of the ``Islamic Republic of Terroristan`` ?(search ``kanjar tribe derogatory`` on google.com and read, if you have any more questions)

Sir, It would be ``un-islamic``, though ironic, yet non ``progressive``, to say the least.

Happy Jihad to all Terroristanis.
We in India eagerly await your Jihadi Nukes to cleanse us of our Karma (sins - present and past) and give us moksh once and for all. Hope you grab this oppurtunity to get your ``booze and chicks in heaven`` (36 virgin houris and wine) and make it a fidayeen (suicide) Nuke attack.

Allah O Akbar


Hope you enjoy the following piece. ....kyonKi tumhaare pyaar meiN dilDaar kyaa hai meraa haal-e-yaar, koi dekhe yaa naa dekhe Allah dekh rahaa hai ....
Musharraf brought region to brink of nuclear war


TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002 1:26:29 PM ]

WASHINGTON: Amid renewed tension in the subcontinent, aggravated by yet another terrorist massacre in Jammu and Kashmir, a gripping account of the 1999 Kargil episode by a key Clinton aide shows the Pakistan military to be a trigger-happy rogue outfit that deployed nuclear weapons for possible use against India.



A reckless Pervez Musharraf, a feckless Nawaz Sharif, a resolute Vajpayee and a principled Bill Clinton are central characters in an unusual policy paper titled ``American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House,`` by former White House official Bruce Riedel. The paper, presented at the University of Pennsylvania`s Center for Advanced Studies of India, reads more like a fast paced film script than a foreign policy critique.



Riedel`s account of the Kargil episode portrays Pakistan as an extremely unstable country where the military was at odds with the political and civilian leadership and it was not clear who was calling the shots. But the narrative suggests that the architect of Pakistan`s reckless adventurism at that time was none other than its current ruler Pervez Musharraf, who comes across as a war-mongering general who brought the region to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe.



``Prime Minister Sharif had seemed genuinely interested in pursuing the Lahore process when he met with Vajpayee and he had argued eloquently with a series of American guests... that he wanted an end to the fifty year old quarrel with India. His military chief, General Pervez Musharraf, seemed to be in a different mold. He was said to be a hardliner on Kashmir, a man some feared was determined to humble India once and for all,`` writes Riedel.



According to Riedel, US intelligence had information that the Pakistani military, then led by Musharraf, was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible use in a wider war arising from the Kargil clash, most likely without the knowledge of Sharif.



When Sharif pleaded with Washington to save Pakistan from rout following a determined Indian response to the Kargil incursion, Riedel says he recommended to President Clinton that he use the information about Pakistani nuclear readiness only when Sharif was without his aides, especially Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad, who was known to be very close to the ISI.



When Clinton later reveals the extent of Islamabad`s nuclear preparedness, Sharif ``seemed taken aback and said only that India was probably doing the same,`` says Riedel, who was asked to stay behind as a notes-taker by the US President despite Sharif`s plea that they have a one-on one. Clinton then berates Sharif, asking ``did he know how crazy that (getting nuclear missiles ready) was?``



An angry Clinton goes on to hector Sharif, reminding him that Pakistan is playing fast and loose with terrorism. He (Clinton) had asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice from Afghanistan. Sharif had promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead the ISI worked with Bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorism, Riedel discloses Clinton as telling Sharif. (More recent reports say Musharraf sabotaged a CIA project to train Pakistanis commandos to catch Bin Laden).



Clinton finally gets Sharif to sign the Kargil withdrawal agreement by threatening to release a draft statement that would pin all the blame for the Kargil crisis on Pakistan the same night if he did not back down. The US would also release statement that would mention Pakistan`s role in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and India.



Reidel reveals that a statement to that effect had been readied by the administration, confirming the widespread belief that the US is fully cognisant of Pakistan`s role in sponsoring terrorism but for a variety of reasons keeps protecting its client state.



In relating the build-up that led to the Kargil war, Riedel also exposes the lies that Musharraf has consistently peddled – that no Pakistani troops were involved in the incursions and it was the mujaheedin who infiltrated Kargil.



In fact, Riedel writes, Pakistan`s regular army and the Kashmir militants it backs were involved in ``cheating`` on a tradition under which the two countries -- India and Pakistan -- left forward posts unmanned in winter.



``Pakistan denied its troops were involved, claiming that only Kashmiri militants were doing the fighting -- a claim not taken seriously anywhere,`` says Riedel. Musharraf has also been accused of compulsively lying about other issues such as the presence of Pakistani troops and advisors in Taliban-time Afghanistan and the activities of US forces in Pakistan.



In fact, Riedel suggests that Sharif was so scared of the Musharraf that he came to Washington with his wife and children fearing that he may not be able to go back. The Pakistani prime minister tells Clinton that unless the US gives him some face-saving formula for withdrawing from Kargil, the fundamentalists back home will gun for him and this might be his last meeting with the US President.



``It was a possible indication that he was afraid he might not be able to go home if the summit failed or that the military was telling him to leave. At a minimum, Sharif seemed to be hedging his bet on whether this would be a round trip,`` writes Riedel.



Riedel`s narrative reveals such a chilling picture of Pakistani power dynamic and rampant militarism that Indian officials who are familiar with the situation rued the Bush administration`s current wisdom in enlisting the military regime as an ally in the war against terrorism.



``They (the Bush administration) have created this grand fiction of the Pakistani military being an ally when it has been the source of so much trouble and terrorism in the region,`` one official said. ``This will come back to haunt them.``



Riedel himself was uniquely placed to record what he describes as ``one of the most sensitive diplomatic high wire acts of any administration`` that averted a possible nuclear war. A career intelligence analyst with the CIA, he was at that time a Senior Director at the National Security Council and Special Assistant to Clinton on South Asia.



Although the CIA is said to be institutionally inimical to India because of its Cold War-era socialistic orientation, Riedel consistently pushed for better US ties with New Delhi throughout the 1990s and was a key player in changing the dynamics between the two countries during that time.



Riedel`s paper also suggests that Washington increasingly respected India`s restraint and consulted New Delhi in real-time as it turned the screws on Pakistan, a system that the current administration also appears to follow. Although, US officials unfailingly speak of phone calls and talks with Indian and Pakistani leaders in the same breath, the nature and tone of the exchanges are entirely different as is revealed during the Kargil crisis.



Riedel says shortly after Sharif called Clinton pleading for American intervention, the US President phoned Vajpayee to apprise him of the developments. The President sought to reassure Vajpayee that he would not countenance Pakistani aggression, not reward them for violating the LoC and that he stood by the US commitment that direct talks between India and Pakistan were the only solution to Kashmir, not third party intervention.



Later, during a break in the talks on July 4, Clinton again puts through a short call to New Delhi just to tell Vajpayee that he was holding firm on demanding the withdrawal to the LoC.



``Vajpayee had little to say, even asking the President `what do you want me to say?``` recalls Riedel. ``There was no give in New Delhi and none was asked for.``



When the talks resume, Clinton presents Sharif with a statement in which the key sentence reads Pakistan ``has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the LoC.`` The statement also calls for a ceasefire once the withdrawal is completed and restoration of the Lahore process.



``The President was clear and firm. Sharif had a choice, withdraw behind the LoC and the moral compass would tilt back toward Pakistan or stay and fight a wider and dangerous war with India without American sympathy,`` writes Riedel.



Sharif reads the statement several times quietly and asks to talk with his team. After a few minutes, he returns with the good news. The statement was acceptable with one addition. He wants a sentence added that would say ``the President would take personal interest to encourage an expeditious resumption and intensification of the bilateral efforts (i.e. Lahore) once the sanctity of the LoC had been fully restored.``



Clinton has no problem with that as long as it is understood that the overall language meant a Pakistani withdrawal first and did not imply a quid pro quo. Attempts by Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed, the ISI frontman, to reopen the language is curtly brushed aside by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger who tells him that Sharif has okayed it. The President then calls Vajpayee a third time to preview the statement.



When Sharif goes to the White House early the next morning for a photo op with his family and the President, Riedel says his mood was glum and he was not looking forward to the trip home.



``The Prime Minister knew he had done the right thing for Pakistan and the world, but he was not sure his army would see it that way,`` he writes.



But he lives up to his word and withdraws Pakistani forces from Kargil. Clinton too lives up to his word, says Riedel. As soon as the Pakistani forces were back across the LoC he pressed India for a cease-fire in the Kargil sector.



After this occurred Clinton privately invites Sharif to send a senior trusted official to Washington to begin discreet discussions on how to follow up on his ``personal commitment`` to the Lahore process. But Sharif does not get back on that, indicating that all was not well with the political-military equation in Islamabad.



Finally in September 1999, Sharif sends his brother Shahbaz. But all that Shahbaz wants to discuss is what the US could do to help his brother stay in power.



``He all but said that they knew a military coup was coming,`` recalls Riedel. It did, a few weeks later, when Musharraf toppled Sharif.



According to Riedel, the most important strategic result of Kargil and the July 4 summit was its impact on Indo-US relations. The clarity of the American position on Kargil and its refusal to give Pakistan any reward for its aggression had an immediate and dynamic impact on the relationship.



``Doors opened in New Delhi to Americans that had been shut for years. The Indian elite -- including the military -- and the Indian public began to shed long held negative perceptions of the US,`` writes Riedel, saying the Bush administration has accelerated and intensified the process of US-India rapprochement.

DullaBhatti: I heard Gen. Yusuf Khan is even better than Musharraf. Why not give him a chance when it is law of the jungle; and perhaps some other General could easily claim to be better than both Musharraf and Yusuf. It is absolutely nonsense to think that no other General could be better than Musharraf. So let the ball rolling or better let the 111 brigade rolling out of Westridge towards Islamabad every time a General thinks himself to be the messiah.

Second point that is so difficult for Musharraf supporters to understand is that pushing the dirt under the rug and cosmetic changes propagated by most military dictators back fire in the long tun with ytrmrndous recoil. Afterall, the economy did reasonably well during some years of Zia rule but the long term consequences of his rule will continue to be felt for quite sometime.

The reason for it is real agenda for these dictators. All the changes are meant to keep himself in power as long as possible and when the ultimate cause disappears, whole country is left to cope with the shards of the charade.

Dullah Bhatti & Jay:14 & 15

Your ``criticism`` is always sincere and despite its acerbic tone(Jay) always right from the core of your transparent hearts.

Someone said about the faithless Pakis that they would sell their moms for much less(Can`t remember the sum) and recently a UK minister was charitable when she said that one could buy a Paki for ten a penny.It is not the mujahid or mullahs they talk about,it is the baigharat immoral secularist/humanist/atheist looters in or out of uniform & their ardent supporters that they are talking about.The muslims have more friends in UK & US than the Pimpistaanis can even imagine.

From hereon calling it Pimpistaan & Kanjiristaan would not be bending the reality---and I for one wouldn`t mind this truth serum to expiate the poison from the cadaverous ``advanced`` & ``literate`` Pakis.

...But election in so called largest democracy in the world is rigged also .Every election particularly in north ,cow belt u.p. bihar ,m.p. rajasthan ,if not all but booth capturing ,freigtening the opposition vote by muscle not to vote, unholy alliance of secular with fundamentalists all happen in DEMokeracy too!!!!!!!!!!!

Open question, mainly for Pakistanis on this board:

Given a choice, what kind of governance would you like:

- A `benign` military rule headed by someone like Musharraf

- Bangladeshi style democracy: two party rule, alternating in power, but the opposition is always undermining the govt, calling for bandhs every other day

- Indian style democracy: coalition rule, but with all kinds of conflicting parties - communalists, casteists, secularists - held together by the acceptability of one man.

Take your pick.

Keep doing what you`re doing Asma Jehangir.

Somebody has to speak up for the rights of

ALL Pakistanis.


Ras

progressive #11 you once again dare to talk of yourself as a muslim? I have explained to you in my posts on other boards (that you have chosen to ignore) why you clearly cannot be considered a muslim since you so easily ridicule Quranic injunctions concerning respect for other religions.

In this life you obviously grew up in the gutters, judging from your filthy language (``kanjars``, obviously the langauge you heard at home when growing up). In the next life, you will have a lot to answer for, judging from the ease with with you ridicule Quranic injunctions and refuse, when reminded, to mend your evil ways.

GIVE SOME CREDIT,

The last time zia had a referundum, he promised basic democracy. Now by rigging elections mushy is experimenting with another form of democracy, democracy to stisfy uncle sam, democracy for vassel states. All of the previous rulers of pakistan have been declared corrupt by the masses, that included the military and the political rulers. At last mushy has made the lection process itself so pakistani, so corrupt and that is some achievement. Asma, look forward to the forthcoming election, and it can be no different. This is some progress for the country, at last it is making its institutions true to its own true nature. Give some credit to the honest man.