Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan

My post #122 was in reply to Romair #119

Contd
``The only independent forces are the small(er) urban parties, and one would have to say the religious parties (I don`t like them, but they are the most democratic and independent). And these urban and religious parties hate the feudals with a passion.``

By groups with independent sources of power, I meant parties/groups which can win elections without explicit or implicit Army support.

Why is it important for the Army to negotiate/reach consensus with these parties/groups about constitutional changes BEFORE the elections?

Well, imagine PPP/PML/etc continue to be `persona nongrata` with Musharraf and still win a significant number of seats each in the National Assembly.

The untouchable leaders may manage to win enough seats collectively to get together and form a post-election anti-Musharraf alliance with each other. They are very likely to seek numerical support from religious parties which are currently angry with Musharraf for his pro-West/anti-Taliban stance, similar to how Khalida Zia sought support of the Bangladeshi JI to make up the anti-Hasina numbers.

The PPP/PML/etc/angry religious parties will have nothing to lose in allying against Musharraf, because he has exiled/jailed/banned their leaders and refused to reach agreement with them about the future set up.

Such an alliance could be strong enough to challenge the constitutional changes, Musharraf`s position as President, and perhaps bribe the judiciary. Having the support of the religious parties, an anti-Musharraf alliance may even get sympathy and support from Islamist-sympathisers in the Army.

Consequence: Musharraf will be weaker after the elections since he cannot prevent each one of his declared opponents from winning. His constitutional changes to safeguard his role will be put at risk, and he may even have to dismiss the Assembly to save his job.

Given this possible scenario, its best Musharraf reach consensus with all sections of the political spectrum now.

Hi Ali Zaidi..You coudn`t have said better..brilliant analyses..however you have been diplomatically polite as well...my way of looking is to scrapp the MOHMADAN DOCTRINE in tototality...Fake Prophet--Fake Book ..And then there might be a slimmer of hope of turnaround

Azad,

Ref: reply 118.

You say `..We have the resources. Many countries don`t. If Muslim countries use these resources, there is no reason why they cannot do quite well for themselves. What do Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (for example) have that Muslims don`t?`

Is it possible that the very resources that you think are an asset is in fact the bane of Muslim countries? Let me elaborate. The countries that have the oil, have the mullah, are more interested in enjoying it than spending it to uplift the poorer members of the Ummah. This means the gold bathroom fixtures, and the latest in luxury cars. Their kids go to the western universities, but have no intension of studying. They are there to enjoy what is forbidden in their home countries.

These moneymen dole out some of the goodies to their poor brethren, just enough to keep them on the string, but not too much that would make them independent. Also this dole comes with strings like the wahabism, which pushes the donee countries towards the dark ages.

There is nothing in this world that kills the initiative more than free money. All the energies of the donee countries are used in kissing up to the donor, to get more free dole. It is degrading and degenerating.

If the Arabs had the goodwill of Pakistanis at their heart, their money would have gone to build schools to educate people for jobs and factories to bring in the prosperity, instead of mosques and madrasas, whose only product is a jihadi who is intent on killing the non-believers and die in the process. Ditto in Palestine.

Why Japan, Korea and other, have made rapid progess, is entirely a different subject and beyond the scope of this reply.

SameerJB #115 While you may think it is funny to joke about the low levels of literacy among pathans (i.e. when you write of hamidm being the only BA from his area), I think it merely reflects your own ethnic prejudices. And for anyone, sitting comfortably in the US, to sniff about the poverty stricken illiterate people anywhere in the subcontinent reflects poor taste to say the least.

For once I agree with Romair on this.

RE: Reply #: 119 Romair

``I don`t have the time to explain the structure of the Pakistani Army to you. Rest assured, it now has no feudal representation.``

Then who or what exactly does the Pakistani Army represent?

Re: Solitude (#42): You asked for list of political or related books I`ve read recently. Here`s what I can remember of the ones that I`ve read in the past year or am currently reading. (I haven`t finished all of them yet. Some of them I don`t intend to.)

As I write this, it strikes me that there`s only book in here directly regarding Pakistan. I would be interested in people recommending any books regarding the recent history (mostly the last century) of any part of the Indian Subcontinent.

Diclaimer: I don`t agree with all the views expressed in these books, but I think it`s informative to read what conflicting authors have to say.

1. ``The Bush Dyslexicon`` by Mark Crispin Miller

2. ``Fateful Triangle``, ``The new military humanism [Kosovo]``, ``9-11`` and others by Noam Chomsky (This man has written more books than any sane person can read in a short period of time.)

3. ``Fighting Terrorim``, Binyamin Netenyahu

4. ``Stupid White Men``, Michael Moore

5. ``Taliban``, Ahmed Rashid

6. Various writings of Edward W. Said, including ``The Question of Palestine``

7. ``Guns, germs and steel`` by Jared Diamond

8. The Quran

9. ``A history of the Arab peoples`` by Albert Hourani

10. ``Modern varities of Judaism`` by Joseph L. Blau

11. ``Jew vs. Jew`` by Samuel Freedman

12. ``Conversion to Judaism`` by Lawrence J. Epstein

13. ``A journey to disillusionment`` by Sherbaz Khan Mazari

14. ``God is verb``, Rabbi David Cooper

15. Various works on Sufism, Hinduism, Yoga, Lamaist Buddhism and Jewish mysticism (including the one mentioned above)

16. Various writings of Arundhati Roy

17. The Mahabharta, Bhagvad-Gita and Vedic writings

18. The Torah, Nviem and Khtviem (also known as the TNK, pronounced ``Tanakh``)

19. Nahj ul Balagha, the collected writings of Ali ibne Abi Talib

20. The I-Ching

``While your interest in Pakistani politics is appreciated, your knowledge of it quite limited``

Very true, but that hasnot stopped me from expressing myself.

`` The Army had other motivations. ``
What were those?

`` Everyone in Pakistan hates the feudals. `` ``All these individuals are highly tied into status quo feudal based politics of Pakistan.``

If there is such a consensus against feudals, why didn`t the military institute land reforms in these 3 years? Who are the leaders and alliances it is talking with these days?

Your argument seems to be that a number of people must be excluded from the political process for the country`s good. Who is most fit to decide who must be left out?


``It was however the Pakistani feudals, who made sure that the Awami League was not allowed to form the govt.`` ``The Army is to be blamed for a lot of things, but not being incohoots with the feudals.``

The relative number of seats won by PPP were 81/300(20% of popular vote), Awami League won 160/300(38% of popular vote), other parties won 43/300(35% of popular vote). Bhutto was not in power, the military was, and it was upto the military alone to determine when and how to hand over power.

Sisson and Rose, ``War and Seccession Pakistan, India and the Creation of Bangladesh`` provide a lot of detail about the Army-Awami League-PPP negotiations which amply support their conclusions about the bias/MO of decisionmaking of the military at that time.

``Shared distrust of the Awami League and fear that their core interests could not be assured under a Awami League regime encouraged the development of what was in essence an informal alliance between the military government and the PPP, which ultimately resulted in the government assuming the role of principal negotiator in the final negotiations. Given the distrust of Awami League assurances and without a vehicle for controlling its actions once in pwoer, there was an expanding consensus among influential general officers that military interests would be placed in jeopardy under a Awami League government.``

`` The government`s assurances on prior agreement on constitutional design and its decision to postpone convening the NA provided Bhutto with the power of veto in the transfer of power both in principle and in fact..``.

``..The government was also unable to maintain its autonomy in the larger decision-making process, which was both symptom and cause of its incapacity to engage in long-range political planning. Core decision makers were not buffered from political intrusion; there was no autonomous group of decisionmakers charged with development of government policy and strategy. Political intelligence was unrefined and that from the government and martial law authorities in East Pakistan was progressively discarded by those in Rawalpindi as suspect.

The government tended to treat political advocacy as technical advice similar to that received from civil servants on less fundamentally important questions; it was not used as information to be weighed, [rocessed, and incorporated in development of policy alternatives. Bhutto was seen as an `expert`` in the field of politics, just as, for example, M M Ahmed was sen as an expert in the area of economic planning and Gen. Hamid Khan as an expert in military operations. Selected position papers aside, a government position with respect to constitutional matters was never developed, and neither were areas of consensus and difference worked out with respect to the six points prior to the Dhaka negotiations, in which they were approached on an ad hoc basis. Increasingly the government itself became an exponent of a limited interest, with a single option, acting in informal coalition with a single interested party, the PPP, and ultimately serving as its proxy. Instead of remaining a neutral umpire or arbiter, the government became a partisan participant..``

30 years later, the military MO seems the same, in a different context, only with a different set of good guys and bad guys. For example, consensus for constitutional changes is not being developed among various organisations, various political positions are not being taken note of during constitutional changes, only `experts` are being consulted. BB and NS or their nominees are not being consulted as representatives of the two largest political organisations, which the military has designated as adversarie. If any of these two parties wins the next election with any strength, the military will be unprepared for the fall out.

SameerJB #115: You just cannot control your urge of making fun of religion(s). Any particular reason?

Do you make fun of people who follow all religions, or just Islam? If just Islam, then why not make fun of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.?

Do you think making fun of religion(s), ethnicities, races etc. is a good idea, or a bad idea? Do you think it amounts to racism?

Most racists I know, do not realize that they are racists. They just consider some race, religion, ethnicity to be inferior and wrong, and just humiliate it. Usually, due to some childhood trauma or due to influence from some source which keeps telling them that such and such religion, race etc. is bad.

I would be interested in your comments and motivations on why you enjoy making fun of Islam and the people who follow it.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular people (with facts) who do something in a particular manner which you may not approve of. But to make fun of Islam and Muslims (or any other religion), as a whole, is racism and hate-mongering. It is no different than telling Nigger jokes or Jewish racism or labeling females, etc.

sadna #110: While your interest in Pakistani politics is appreciated, your knowledge of it quite limited (just like mine of Indian politics is limited). Primarily because you have never been involved in Pakistani politics. And may never have even lived in Pakistan.

``If the Pakistani Army had not denied Awami League power in 1970-71, the stranglehold of the W Pakistani feudals would have been broken once and for all. Why the heck did the Pakistani Army throw away such a valuable chance?``

This is partially correct. The correct part is that the Awami League should have been allowed to form the govt (though I am no fan of Mujib). And if it had been allowed, the power of feudals may have been reduced.

It was however the Pakistani feudals, who made sure that the Awami League was not allowed to form the govt. Led by our illustrious leader, Z. Bhutto. Please read his comments, on breaking the legs of certain individuals. Why?

Exactly due to the reason, you have mentioned. The feudals would have lost power. Hence, the feudals played their card, under the leadership of Bhutto, and won. The Army is to be blamed for a lot of things, but not being incohoots with the feudals. The Army had other motivations.

I don`t have the time to explain the structure of the Pakistani Army to you. Rest assured, it now has no feudal representation. It doesn`t pay enough of a salary. Feudals do marry into the kids of Generals, now and then; but that is getting rarer now. The Army is now lower middle and middle class individuals. Rich people don`t join in anymore. However, the feudal kids are still in politics.

In 1971, the Army did have feudal reps, i.e. kids of feudals in it. However, how many of them were in power in 1971. I am not sure. You seem to be sure, so could you let me know. Was Yahya Khan from a feudal family? Were any of his advisor Generals? I would be interested in this info.

``that of `feudals` today are only excuses used by the Pakistani Army to deny legitimacy and political space to groups of Pakistanis capable of challenging the Army`s absolute hold on power.``

This is contradictory to your initial statement. First you say, the Army was incohoots with the feudals. Now you say, they are casting doubts on the feudals.

Everyone in Pakistan hates the feudals. Except the feudal`s own off-spring, a few people who receive benefits from the status quo, and apparently a few Indians (including yourself). Find one other group that doesn`t hate them. The problem hasn`t been that the Army is casting doubts on them. If you read my replies, you will notice, that the problem has been that not enough doubts have been cast on the feudals, by the Army, during Martial Laws. Ayub`s family joined the feudal parties. And Zia`s son is a member of the feudal party, PML. Luckily Musharraf`s family hasn`t been influenced by it. Knock on wood.

I am a member of a political party that is trying to change the stats quo, in Pakistani politics. I know the hurdles. If you really think that the feudal parties (PPP and PML) want a change in the status quo, then I am afraid, you are extremely mistaken. Why would PPP and PML want to change the status quo. 62% of the seats go to feudals. If these two feudal parties change the status quo, they will lose their own seats. Infact, they are scared s//itless that the status quo will change, after this elections. That is why their leaders are running from pillar to post, trying to, ``fight`` for democracy.

Non-feudal parties (other than MQM) still have no shot in Pakistan. I am a member of one, and I know how impossible it is to break the status quo of Pakistani feudals, without using, ``non-democratic`` authoritative steps, like land reforms, by a dictator. It is infact the two feudal parties (PPP, PML) which are blocking the other progressive parties. PPP and PML don`t even hold elections within there own parties. They are only doing so now, due to dictatorial steps taken by the current govt. BB is the Chairperson for Life of her party.

Kindly take a look at the portfolios of the feudal members of Pakistan`s parties, and inform me which one of them you consider, ``independent sources of power.`` I would be interested in the list.

Is it Khar, Khosa, Leghari, Makhdoom, Fahim, Fakhr, Abida, Bugti, Jogazai, Junejo, Gillani, Jatoi, Wattoo, Bhutto, Zardari, Saifullah, Achakzai, Hayat.......?

Should I go on? All these individuals are highly tied into status quo feudal based politics of Pakistan. How can they be independent forces? They only independent forces are the small(er) urban parties, and one would have to say the religious parties (I don`t like them, but they are the most democratic and independent). And these urban and religious parties hate the feudals with a passion.

I would be highly interested in info from you to back up your arguments....

Ras - I just recently started reading the replies on this board, and saw your post asking if the author is the same Asad Zaidi from the Progressive days. I can tell you that it is not the same Asad - I was with Asad today and he (emphatically) wanted to pass on the info to you. If you can post an email I will pass on his phone number and email info to you (plus a flyer on a lecture he is organizing for Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmad on ``The Rise of Fundamentalism in South Asia``. So here is a `hello` from Asad.

Thanks for all the well-argued replies. The criticisms are, by and large, well-taken. (The praise is even more well-taken! :P ) I agree with many of the criticisms. I will respond briefly to what seem to be the main points.

(Some of the criticisms were perhaps too deep for me to understand on first reading. I didn`t quite get them. Unless there are multiple people using the same username, some people seemed to both praise the article and then decry it a few posts later as nonsense.)

a) ``Ummah? What Ummah?`` - Yes, the Muslim Ummah is theoretical construct with little grounding in reality. I guess it wasn`t clear enough in the article. I supposed the emotionally charged nature of the article obscured my skewering of this notion. That said, I do think that the notion is not entirely empty. The oft-quoted examples of India and Europe are good examples of people with diverse cultures coming together on common interests. This does not mean all Muslim nations should unite to form a single country. However, there is precedent for cooperation among Muslim countries. The EU spent 20+ years trying to get its act together and is still arguably in that process. The simple fact that many non-Muslims paint Muslims with a broad, largely negative brush should provide enough common ground for Muslims to at least stop shooting each other. If Turkey, Israel and the US can get along on so famously, it is so inconceivable that (for example) Turkey, Iran and Pakistan resurrect their regional economic cooperation agreements? Cooperation among Muslim countries does not preclude their sane interaction with non-Muslim countries. I see no reason why they must make a choice between the two.

b) ``What about the poor, oppressed women?`` - Unfortunately, Muslims screw up in so many ways that I left some out by way of forgetfulness and constraints of column length. :)

c) ``Muslim renaissance?! What a joke!`` - When I said we are ``on [its] very doorstep``, I was (I admit) being rather melodramatic. What I meant was that a Muslim resurgence is more than possible if Muslims put their minds to it. Not merely a fantasy resurgence of the Ummah, but of individual countries and, if they choose to cooperate, the lot collectively. We have the resources. Many countries don`t. If Muslim countries use these resources, there is no reason why they cannot do quite well for themselves. What do Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (for example) have that Muslims don`t? The unpleasant truth is: a disciplined and hard-working populace. (Yes, I am overgeneralizing...)

d) ``2 billion Muslims? If you`re counting bearded ones twice, maybe.`` - I got this from a UN population report. The report said 1.6 bil a while ago, 1.9 projected for 2002. Surprised me to no end.

e) ``You are falling into the traps you point out yourself: A siege mentality! Us versus them.`` - I can see why one would say this. Most the article talks about things Muslims should do or don`t do, and how they can work together. I think I will cop out and say that I had great difficulty trying to balance generality with specific issues in the space constraints of a single article. I did not mean to imply that Muslims should erect a Great Hejab of China around themselves or anything of the sort. Personally, I seek to work with Muslim, Jewish and secular organizations on issues which I agree with. If I have the good fortune to meet other groups who wish to work together for positive goals (benefitting anyone, not merely Muslims), I am more than happy to do so.

f) ``Gang rape is bad. Sign this petition.`` - I agree wholeheartedly and have signed said petition (signature # 725). I hope the Pakistani government takes this opportunity to sort out the tribal wildlands of the north. If they want to turn it over to Afghanistan, get it over with. Otherwise, take responsibility for this officially lawless area.

--Asad

Just a thought: Isn`t it better to have democratic dictatorships (a la Sharif)? They at least have the advantage of being removable after 5 years. Its own dictatorship, that the army is pushing through in Pakistan, is designed to be pretty much permanent.

I think the general consensus is that the army has been the major player, directly or indirectly, in running Pakistan since its independence. In that time Pakistan has gone through three (and a half?) wars, lost half its territory, had all its institutions destroyed, its economy laid low, witnessed rising poverty, illiteracy and worsening human development indices, and is now facing a growing crisis of governance. How does its previous track record commend the army`s desire to have a permanent say in running Pakistan?

-narain

-narain

I say, this business of only graduates being allowed to stand for Elections seems to have hit both India and Pakistan at about the same time along the same lines . . . so let me ask the good folks from Pakistan here:- isn`t it easy enough to buy a degree in Pakistan, any degree any old sort?

hamidm was visiting Pakistan and went to tribal area to visit his relatives. Now they are not letting him come back. No no! Not because he can help capture Al-Qaida fugitives; because he is the only person with BA or higher degree in that area. They see in him the only possibility of somebody getting elected to National Assembly - unopposed!!!

He is also approached by a match-maker for an excellent proposal for his chowk nemesis. The proposal comes from a very pious, Islamic, traditional, honest and respectful family. The family has produced several martyrs for the cause of Islam in Afghanistan and Kashmir. They don`t even dream about raping any girl and detest the very idea even when ordered by local jirga. Munde da apna ``wood and charcoal`` da karobar ae.

re my own # 81

``It is apparently also the only `Muslim` country that will allow a Sunni mosque to be built in its capital. ``

Please read it as

``It is apparently also the only `Muslim` country that will NOT allow a Sunni mosque to be built in its capital.``

Sorry.

Arjun-m

As long as Muslims are coming from mexico wearing shirts with paki flag on them, they will be ok. You don`t need to loose sleep over it. Relax.