Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan

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.

``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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Re: Reply #: 126, hari inder

| Is it possible that the very resources that you

| think are an asset is in fact the bane of

| Muslim countries?

I prefer not to view it in those terms. I think the problem is the manner in which those resources are used, not the resources themselves. The idea that a nation must be forced into resource-less penury in order for them to develop character and right the ills of their society is, in my opinion, needlessly harsh. If one presumes that a nation will abuse and misuse whatever resource are available to it, the argument is over before it even begins.

ON GANG RAPE,

The pakistanis are very upset by this report. It is more than likely that the jirga has given this type of punishment before, but now because of the fbi and others crawling around, it got reported. If this is the first ever, at least the jirga is trying new modes of punishemnt, is progressive, exploring new ways and have to be commended.

One aspect not mentioned at all is the hoodood ordinance. Even when the culprits are brought to book, the law requires that two men will have to testify to the rape.

It is pathetic that no pakistani wants to address the fundamental issue, the hoodood ordinance that sustains rape.

Azad, Reg:

` think the problem is the manner in which those resources are used, not the resources themselves. The idea that a nation must be forced into resource-less penury in order for them to develop character and right the ills of their society is, in my opinion, needlessly harsh`

What you took from my post is not what I meant. Perhaps I did not explain it very well. There is nothing wrong with the resource. The problem is the entity handling the resource.

There is a punjabi adadge that goes like this:

``Dumme hath katora aya pani pee pee dhid phulaya``

The gist of my post was that the resourse has been used more towards consumption and useless glorification projects than for productive enterprises.

sadna #122: Pakistan`s political history is marked by errors, excesses and corruption of the ambitious military leaders and the ambitious feudal class. I will be the first to state that. And have stated in regularly.

I have seen the regimes of Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, NS, BB, and now Musharraf. And a few others like Yahya, Junejo etc., who came for short moments. Of these, I was too young to remember anything about Ayub and Yahya (but have read enough about it). The rest I am aware of.

I oppose(d) Bhutto, NS, BB and Zia.

- Having read about Ayub, I support his economic reforms and oppose his political interventions (I am not sure whether to put his govt. in the good or bad category. It made Pakistan the fastest rising economy of South Asia, but introduced too many social and political problems). As a person, I cannot support Ayub, because his family, through him, ended up heavily intertwined into the feudal based politics.

- As for the rest, Bhutto, being the most capable and intelligent and misguidedly ambitious, committed the biggest faults. He encouraged Pakistan into 65 and 71 wars, and then jumped ship right at the end, and started opposing the same regimes that he had supported (like a VP deliberating getting his company into trouble, so he can take the CEO`s position). Most of all, his nationalisation of a fast growing economy (Pakistan at one point, was ahead of Korea, Singapore etc.), was the biggest crime ever committed against Pakistan. He did have some virtues, as well, though. He was not (too) corrupt, from what I have heard. And he introduced Pakistan`s first post-Jinnah massive political movement (unfortunately, he ended up giving more importance to his feudal instincts, than his patriotic political ones).

- Zia was too narrow-minded, and too clever, to become a leader. He was too narrow-minded to lead Pakistan, and too clever to be removed. He would not have become even COAS, had Bhutto not personally picked him through nepotism. I opposed Zia, even though I was in the military. Not too many people in the military like him. I can clearly remember the day he held his referendum. I was on a parade ground in Sargodha, and remember the disgust on the officers` and soldiers` face, when they were told to vote.

Zia brought back economic growth to 6% (through good luck due to UAE expatriate money and US aid). But he destroyed Pakistan`s society. He bifurcated into into two parts, Shariah and non-Shariah, and introduced way too much religion.

Zia did fight the Soviets and kept them out of Pakistan. Which was an achievement. And though some people say he was very corrupt, most people I have talked to say he was personally financially relatively honest (though dishonest in his statements and actions).

But most of all, Zia committed the cardinal sin of Martial Laws, i.e. he introduced Martial Law, thereby stunting the political process, and did not solve any major problems. And his next generation is now also part of Pakistan`s feudal PML.

- BB and NS had absolutely no interest in Pakistan. They were out to make a fast buck; plain and simple. Both of them were representatives of Pakistan`s feudal parties (even though, Sharifs were urbanites). There is no need to go into the details of their massive financial and social corruption. This is well-documented, even in Indian papers.

Uptil the late 80s, Pakistan despite all its problems, had at least been able to support its 6% rate of economic growth. Within the 90s, BB and NS introduced a corruptive free-for-all, that resulted in all the previous problems, plus a growth rate of 3%. No international financial instititution was even willing to give Pakistan a loan.

Unlike Bhutto and Zia and Ayub, I don`t think NS and BB had any virtues, and did not do anything for Pakistan. They were, and are, just robbers.

There have been two points when I thought Pakistan was finished. The first was when the Soviets launched a full fledged assault into Afghanistan, with an intention of going into Pakistan. I was in the military at that time, and have first hand knowledge of the counter-measures Pakistan had to take to handle the Soviet incursions.

The second point was towards the end of NS`s last term, before the recent coup. NS and his cronies had brought Pakistan to a failed state point. By this time, my family was actively involved with Imran Khan`s political party, and I had a rude awakening to Pakistan`s politics and the various thugs and mafia that dominate it, under the garb of, ``Democracy.``

Then the coup occured, and I thanked God. People had tried to paint Musharraf as a religious extremist and a dishonest man. I had worked with enough Generals to know, that he is honest and a liberal progressive minded person. I have supported him for a three year Martial Law.

In that sense, in my whole lifetime, the only Pakistani leader I have supported is Musharraf. I opposed every other, for one reason or another. Primarily, because I felt they were all personally dishonest, either financially or in their intentions. I don`t agree with everything Musharrafs` govt. has done, but I think even his harshest impartial critics agree that he is progressive, honest and patriotic. In essence, he is the better choice out of NS, BB, Altaf Hussain, and Qazi. Ideally, I would like to see someone like a democratically elected Imran Khan, Omar Asghar Khan (now dead) as the heads of Pakistan, i.e. honest, philanthrapic very educated people.

Now to your questions:

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

Please go ahead and express yourself. That is what this site is for.

``What were those?``

More on this later. It is too detailed to cover here. And you need to realize that the current Pakistani military is different from that in 71. 99.9% of the current soldiers wasn`t in the Army in 71.

``If there is such a consensus against feudals, why didn`t the military institute land reforms in these 3 years?``

This is the million dollar question. And I wish I had the answer. I don`t know why. Musharraf has taken on evey status quo group in Pakistan. That is why they are all united against him (to me, this is a compliment to him).

He has taken on the maulvi brigade (which no one in the history of Pakistan has done, including the most liberal noise-makers on this site, and in Pakistan). Infact, I wouldn`t be surprised if Musharraf is assasinated someday, by one of them.

He has completely defanged Pakistan all-powerful beaurecracy. Their hundred year power, derived from British law, is gone.

He has taken on Pakistan`s powerful business groups. Many of the big ones, with corruption charges, are in jail. And the small non-tax paying ones are now being forced to pay taxes. Even their refusals to invest in local industry, hasn`t stopped his efforts.

He has stood up to India successufully (in my opinion), even though India has larger forces threatening Pakistan, than ever before in its history. Pakistan`s position vis-a-vis India is a lot stronger than it was when he carried out the coup. I had suggested at the time of the coup, that it was the perfect opportunity for India to corner Pakistan, and negotiate some sort of a Kashmir setlement, since Pakistan was at its weakest. India would have had to only give up a little bit, and would have gained a lot. I think India lost a golden oppourtunity.

He has even taken on his own Generals. And has retired some of the ones, who helped him carry out the coup. Nearly, all of Pakistan`s new Lt. Gens. and Maj. Gens. have now been appointed by him. And I have it from my friends in the military, that Pakistan`s military is going back to its British traditions (their was some deviation during Zia`s rules), i.e. gora officers (like Musharraf and Asif Nawaz) are being preferred over maulvi officers (like Zia and Hameed Gul).

But he has not taken on the feudals, as a whole. He has defanged them constituitonally, and has kicked out and jailed and disqualified many of their top members. He has taken away their executive power at the National level, by devolving power to the lowest level.

But no land reforms. I don`t know why. Maybe he will do it through an elected Assembly. Maybe it is just too difficult. I don`t know....

The problem isn`t just land reforms. The feudal lands weren`t even taxed. Can you believe that. An agricultural country, not taxing feudal lands. That is another reason, feudals want to keep the status quo.

``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?``

This is difficult to answer. In a democracy, it should be the voters and the Supreme Court who decide who should be in or out. But what to do in a country, where a person, in feudal lands, can be adbucted and raped, at the whims of a feudal MNA. And a Supreme Court can be stormed by the hooligans of an elected PM, and then be too scared to give a decision against the same hooligans. Instead, the Supreme Court ends up firing its own Chief Justice.

Who should decide, in a country, in which the pre-requisites of democracy haven`t even been established (I think Indian politics has progressed to a point, where the pre-requisites are filled, buy Pakistani politics never will until the feudals are de-feudalized). And the elected feudal MNAs and MPAs want to make sure these pre-requisites don`t get established. That is their sole purpose of being in politics. Otherwise, they would be in agriculture.

Your guess is as good as mine on who should decide. My guess is an honest progressive dictator, or a union of all the urban political parties in Pakistan maybe able to do it. I am hoping Musharraf fits the first bill, and Tehrik, MQM, etc. fit the second bill (nearly all the urban parties, generally support the current govt).

Let`s see what happens. Hope that answers some of your questions.

Re: Romair #132

An excellent summary of the demi-gods,who have ruled Pakistan for most of its existence. I agree with your thoughts and I second your observations. I also support Musharraf, because he a progressive, liberal and a far sighted leader. Even more than that, he not an average Pakistani leader, who is governed by his/her emotions and convinced by his/her personal prejudices in taking a certain decision. Musharraf is honest, because in the three years that he has remained in power, there has been no scandal of embezzlement associated with him.

Musharraf`s Achilles` Heel is the people who surround him and who advice him. Musharraf`s problem, in the Pakistani political lexicon, is not that his intentions are flawed, but that the changes he is seeking to implement are resisted since they undermine the traditional interests, in Pakistan, who have mis-governed the nation.

Musharraf needs time to effect the policy changes he wants to, but the Pakistani public, disappointed by the last 55 years of false promises, is impatient to wait. Therein lie the problem. Pakistani public supported Musharraf in October 12, 1999 because it felt that things would change for the better; three years later, having heard more offical pronouncements, but seeing no difference in the reality, they are suffering from an actue case of perception-expectation angst.

Musharraf`s latest manuevoer - the graduation requirement, is aimed at lessening the hold of the feudals. This is the second part of the plan, which was annouced nearly two years ago. In that plan,there was a reference that the rural areas would be urbanized. Since feudalism holds sway based on its power to dominate the land,the rate of urbanization will lessen the feudal hold on power and the educational requirement will mean that the new candidates will be urban based and not rural oriented ones.

The new generation of the feudals is highly educated, but they are ``urban feudals`` and have a less of a connection with the land than their forefathers. The idea is to break the monopoly of the rural feudals and give the power to urbanites, where the educated feudals will have to, for the first time, compete to win elections and will no longer be able to win elections from the so-called ``safe family seats``.

Getting rid of feudalism in Pakistan is difficult, because in its heart Pakistan is a feudal based culture. The previvious land reforms in Pakistan failed, because these reforms were undertaken by assemblies composed of feudals and these reforms were intended to consolidate their political-economic hold on the land, though the guise of land reforms.

Musharraf is the only Pakistani leader, who does not need the support of the feudals to rule, because his base is the army. In that sense, he is indebted to Zia-ul-Haq, who filled ranks of the army with Urdu speaking people with middle class backgrounds and broke the tradtional dominance of Punjab in the army. The Pakistan army is a middle class institution and its strenght, in the officer corps, is from the non-feudal segment of the Pakistani society.

In Pakistan, the traditional trokia of power has always been the military, the bureaucracy and the feudals. A combination of two of these groups, against the third, would dominate the politics of the nation. In the past, it was normally the army (feudal based) with the bureaucracy. This was the case throughout Ayub Khan`s One Unit experiment and it lasted all the way through the Zia`s Dark Ages. In the so-called decade of democracy in Pakistan, it was army plus the bureaucracy, with the legislative assemblies heavily dominated by the feudal class.

In the present situation, Musharraf has disorganized the bureaucracy and it is more interested in protecting its traditional role in Pakistani politics than seek new confrontations with the army. Since the army is now exclusively non-feudal, it is targeting the last bastion of political power in Pakistan and is seeking to undermine it via consitutional methods.

Sadna, rest assured, the feudals in Pakistan are on the army`s ``threat perception radar`` and they will be tackled. The cautionary afterthought is that since Pakistan is an agricultural nation, a direct attack on its basic economic foundation could be dangerous. Hence, the army is moving carefully against the feudals.

Ciao

Ferozk #133, Romair #132
How will Musharraf prevent either PPP/PML from winning a large number of seats in the coming elections? How is he going to ensure that the majority of MNAs will not be his opponents supporters?

The sole source of his power, the Army, is not putting up candidates for election, but a whole range of political parties he has declared adversaries, will be doing so.

IMO, its a mistake to base the success and durability of Musharraf and his constitutional changes solely on his person, his personality, his good intentions and his position as army chief. After all, he too came into power through a coup and many may be tempted to think that he too can similarly be displaced.

Romair,

#132

Informative post. I think you give Zia too much credit for thwarting the Soviet Union. The Russians had no designs on Pakistan, otherwise they would`nt have sent their ``second string`` central Asian troops to Afghanistan.

Pakistan thinks it played a DECISIVE role in crumbling the Soviet empire. The Soviet Empire crumbled because of its own internal inefficiency, not some great Reagenesque or Pakistani policy. The real rot had begun to take place long time before. The Afghan misdaventure was just something that tipped the scales.

During Gorbachev`s era, it came out that the decision to move into Afghanistan was made by just the select few octogenerians in the highest echelons of the Soviet Politburo, who were in complete denial of what the real state of affairs in the country was. It took the ``younger Gorbachev`s`` generation of Soviet communists by complete surprise (& shock). That was one of the reasons why Gorbachev wanted ``glasnost``. Its because leadership is vulnerable to believe its own bs propaganda.

NOBODY, but NOBODY predicted that the Soviets would collapse like a house of cards.

You continue to harp on the 6% economic growth of Pakistan. Yes, Ayub`s policy was correct. But from then on, that 6% is DEPENDANT on 2 factors...US aid & Gulf jobs. Thats NOT sound economic policy! Its largely true even now! Why do you think Pakistan CANNOT formulate an independant foreign policy & is constantly held by its ear & dragged by the US, wherever Uncle Sam wants it to go...not to mention the Arabs? Thats an awful big price to pay, if you ask me...

If Pakistan wants to return to its golden pre 65 economic age..cant you learn something that is STARING AT YOU?...leave INDIA ALONE!! put a Berlin Wall between the 2 countries...have NOTHING to do with India...& Pakistan will thrive:)))

ref: Ferozek #133

Dear Feroze,

Even if one agrees that Musharraf is the greatest thing to ever happen to Pakistan, it may be good to remember that he will not last forever, but the system he is creating will. Thus arguments for or against his proposed constitutional amendments should be based on how well they will secure the people`s democratic rights and sovereignity, if for eg. Zia or Ayub rose from the grave and became President.

In any case, the army has already sown the seeds of discontent and discord in Pakistan for many years to come. What remains to be seen is only how bad things will actually get.

-narain