The Day Of All Days

Ref arjun_m #38
[Ah..what`s this i read? Ahmadiya muslims being discriminated against in the Islamic republic?]
Ah! Ahmadiyyas are NOT Muslims according to Pakistan law. Calling themselves Muslims, calling their place of worship a mosque or reciting the kalima can all lead to charges of blasphemy.

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

Re: Urstruly # 44

Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB amended the constituion to give him powers at the expense of the national assembly in 1973? Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB refused to hold elections and forced the riots, which finally led to ``Operation Fairplay`` on July 5, 1977 in Pakistan? Where was the sovereignity of the Pakistani people, when ZAB refused to share power with Mujib-ur-Rehman in 1960s and caused the breakup of Pakistan?

Where was the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan in all these noble and selfish acts of ZAB? When, and where, was ZAB really interested in the sovereignity of the pakistani people?

Where was the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan, when ZAB was jailing, killing and intimidating his political opponents, who also were representing the sovereignity of the people of Pakistan?

Would you agree that since 1947, Pakistani people had no sovereignity and if they were under colonial subjugation, as you claimed, then what sovereignity of the Pakistani people was represented by ZAB?

Can you please give an example?

Please correct me, but I am of the opinion that Pakistan always had a flawed dictatorship and a flawed democracy since 1947. After partition, we adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as our consitution; a document more designed to supress than reprsent, in your words, ``the sovereignity of the people.`` Pakistani civilian goverments were dismissed under its stipulations and democracy was never allowed to take root long before Ayub Khan arrived with his first martial law.

You mentioned that democratic institutions of the government already exist. Could you please identify those democratic institutions of Pakistan?

You also mentioned that it was the failure of the corrupt people, and not the institutes themselves. Granted. I will accept that argument.

What does that imply? If the institutes are fine, but it is the politicans and the bureaucrats responsible for the mess in Pakistan, then what should happen? Do we let them contest the elections and repeat and complete their rot of Pakistan? If these politicans are guilty of ruining the political/democratic institutions of Pakistan by their corrupt practices, should we restrict them from competing the elections or we should let democracy prevail and let them continue with their past practices?

If the sovereign people of Pakistan elect them, then who is finally responsible and who should be held accountable for future misdeeds?

The politicans or the sovereign people of Pakistan for the mess the nation is in?

If the sovereign people of Pakistan elect them and they end up by not representing the sovereign rights of the sovereign people of the sovereign state of Pakistan, who should, then, the noble, blameless sovereign citizens of Pakistan blame for a lack of their sovereign rights of representation?

Who is against the system of checks and balances in Pakistan?

It is the politicans, who do not want any restraint on their power; it is the political and democratic institutions of Pakistan, which think they are the successor of the British Raj and are not accountable to the people; it is the bureaucracy that wants to rule over Pakistan without being accountable to the ruled and does not like its power challenged by a system of checks and balances. It is the military, who considers itself as the self appointed savior of Pakistan and does not wish to be checked in its messanic authority over Pakistan.

Who in Pakistan, pray tell, wants their power checked and be held accountable to some one?

Urstruly, anarchy was the issue, when this regime took over. Corruption became a cause celebre later. Ending corruption was never a major concern of this government, because if it was then why is corruption still striving in Pakistan?


Urstruly, how is democracy in Pakistan supposed to check corruption, when there has been no real democracy in Pakistan in the first place?

As a clarification, do you consider the tenures of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shairf as ``true democracy in Pakistan?``

Urstruly, since you know so much about true democracy in Pakistan and have all the right answers to Pakistan`s problems, you should seriously think about running for elections in Pakistan and help in the process of bringing true democracy in Pakistan. You insights and suggestion on how to make Pakistan democratic would be invaluble to the sovereign people of Pakistan, whose sovereign rights you will serve beyond any measure. The sovereign people of Pakistan will owe to a debt of gratitude if you would stand up for elections. I will vote for you!

Ciao




There has to be an accountability in Pakistan.

urstruly #44, Well said!

[I wouldn`t lose hope in Mushy. The democrat that he is, he has soundly denounced indian elections in J&K as rigged. It`s only a matter of time before he likewise discovers what a sham the october elections are... ]

You cannot be serious!!!!!!!!!

You said:

As to your reply, I would have to disgree with you on your comments about Z. A. Bhutto`s rule in Pakistan. ZAB did more to damage Pakistan than the combined period of the military rule, when he nationalized the economy of Pakistan. That was the worst coup d` etat in the history of Pakistan and it has never recovered from it!

Reply:

The issue under discussion wrt Bhutto was the sovereignty of people of Pakistan and not his economical policies. The setbacks that we endured due to his policies are independent of the influence of colonial powers.

You said:

Secondly, I agree with you that Pakistan needs to create a political framework/process to resolve its political problems. The only question is how? Realizing that there is no subsitute for democracy, the problem is how do we, as a nation, get to that point in our national-political institutional development?

Reply:

This is one of the most arrogant responses I hear from the apologists of this despot. The institutions of democratic institutions of government already exist. We do not need to create new ones. If there is ever a need to create new institutions then as a matter of principle we should let democracy create new democratic institutions.

You said:

Do we work with a system that is malfunctioning and attempt to make it workable, or we simply replace it with a new system? What happens in the interim? What happens if we get rid of the old system and new system does not work, or we get rid of the old only to discover that there is no feasible replacement for it?

Reply:

The pretext under which this regime took over was not that the democratic institutions have failed but the corruption of the people who run those institutions. We do not cut our heads off because we get headaches. We try to cure the headache. Among the people of Paksitan and the politicians, the system of governance has never been an issue, the issue always have been to install proper system of check and balances. Even the debate on federation versus confederation exists because there are not proper system of check and balances in place. I give you an example. Suppose you have a property and you appoint a person to look after it- would you rather create a system to keep a check on your curator or you just appoint another person to keep an eye on that person- what if you need another person to keep an eye on both……that is how at least military regimes think and political governments in Paksitan do. Military wants it because it thinks that because it is at the end of the chain and it is not answerable to anyone. Military governments therefore love it. In civilized democratic societies, instead of appointing watchdog after watchdog people try to cure the system and only watchdog is the people themselves.

You said:

Prudence and caution would suggest that we work with the old and existing system instead of pinning our hopes on an utopian ideal. Also, do we reform the system or the politicans? Shall we break the mirror, because we do not like the image it is reflecting?

Reply:

We just discussed that above.

You said:

With a strong believe in the idea that there is no subsitute for democracy, I would opt for anarchy and simply let the system iron out its wrinkles in Pakistan. In a real sense, politically, that option might not work, because though politics is generally akin to a state of controlled anarchy, it is considered to be better than anarchy without any control. Hence, the paradox of politics in Pakistan and an oxymoronic state of our present political situation. The biggest hurdle in this is the politicans, who like a framework of rules and a lack of rule unverves them, because they are not sure of their own political interests or the direction and limits of their own political powers.

Reply:

Anarchy was never ever an issue when this regime took over, corruption was. Anarchy and corruption are two different things. Corruption may create anarchy but it didn’t. Corruption did lead to the anarchy when NS attacked Supreme Court. But he did have to bear the political consequences then. Democratic system keeps both anarchy and corruption in check. Absolute authority doesn’t. Absolute authority corrupts absolutely instead.

You said:

This is what Musharraf is trying to do, with his reconstituted plans for Pakistan and why everyone is neverous; the rules have changed and the players are confused!

Reply:

What Musharaf is trying to implement is a permanent role for autocracy, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. And that is what making people nervous. In this day and age there is no place for such things in any society. If it is a path to ``true democracy`` then US and Western colonial powers should try it in their countries first.

You said:

Lastly, what happened in Iran had more to do with the economic disparities than it had to do with the violent nature of Shah`s regime.

Reply:

Please re-think your answer. Do murder of Dr. Musaddiq by CIA and adventures of Savak ring any bells.

Re: Urstruly # 39

As to your reply, I would have to disgree with you on your comments about Z. A. Bhutto`s rule in Pakistan. ZAB did more to damage Pakistan than the combined period of the military rule, when he nationalized the economy of Pakistan. That was the worst coup d` etat in the history of Pakistan and it has never recovered from it!

Secondly, I agree with you that Pakistan needs to create a political framework/process to resolve its political problems. The only question is how? Realizing that there is no subsitute for democracy, the problem is how do we, as a nation, get to that point in our national-political institutional development?

Do we work with a system that is malfunctioning and attempt to make it workable, or we simply replace it with a new system? What happens in the interim? What happens if we get rid of the old system and new system does not work, or we get rid of the old only to discover that there is no feasible replacement for it?

Prudence and caution would suggest that we work with the old and existing system instead of pinning our hopes on an utopian ideal. Also, do we reform the system or the politicans? Shall we break the mirror, because we do not like the image it is reflecting?

With a strong believe in the idea that there is no subsitute for democracy, I would opt for anarchy and simply let the system iron out its wrinkles in Pakistan. In a real sense, politically, that option might not work, because though politics is generally akin to a state of controlled anarchy, it is considered to be better than anarchy without any control. Hence, the paradox of politics in Pakistan and an oxymoronic state of our present political situation. The biggest hurdle in this is the politicans, who like a framework of rules and a lack of rule unverves them, because they are not sure of their own political interests or the direction and limits of their own political powers.

This is what Musharraf is trying to do, with his reconstituted plans for Pakistan and why everyone is neverous; the rules have changed and the players are confused!

Lastly, what happened in Iran had more to do with the economic disparities than it had to do with the violent nature of Shah`s regime.

Ciao

I wouldn`t lose hope in Mushy. The democrat that he is, he has soundly denounced indian elections in J&K as rigged. It`s only a matter of time before he likewise discovers what a sham the october elections are...

[Pakistan in its life has been free only twice. First time it was in `70s during Bhutto era, when we were walking on our own legs free of the crutches of colonial powers and second time from October 1999 to the time when Musharaf took over the office of President of Pakistan. ]
mujhe kuch kehna hai...mujhe bhi kuch kehna hai...pehle tum, pehle tum, pehle tum, pehle tum...oof bahut ho gaya ye, kuch kaha nahin ja raha hai, aisi baat ka jawab kaise doon. Chalo, choRRh deti hoon, nahin ek chota sa observation...bus ek. Yehi na, ke free is a relative term? O naiyo papa ji...ye nahin...ooooof...ye `free` wali baat mere samajh se door hai...chalo, inko apne haal par choRRh dau, tum bhago. . .

asif Naqshbandi: It is foregone conclusion that Sarkari League will be pronounced winner in elections. Don`t you see that writing on the wall? Before 9/11, Musharraf toyed with the idea of Tahir-Ul-Qadri, Imran Khan, Leghari, Soomro, Chaudhry alliance but Chaudhrys turned out to be a group not falling in line behind minor leaders and past losers. They promised more in exchange for getting more, simple. Without Chaudhrys, Sarkari league is no bigger than Leghari or Imran Khan parties. You know how poular Musharrah is? People line up both sides of the roads with garlands and flowers in their hands in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad whenever he walks or rides on the streets of these cities. Haha! Recently farmers in Okara were so anxious to see him that they have to be fired upon. Whenever he visits Lahore, all the businesses shutter their shops to celebrate and welcome the arrival of this Ranjha to their Takht Hazara. His motorcade of 12 Mercedes has to maneuvor through the well-wishers, loving and celebrating masses with great difficulty everywhere he goes. Just recently he wanted a gallon of milk and all the cows from all over the country lined up to have the honor of providing milk to his excellency.
All he has to do is to nod for Sarkarl League and people will be lining up to vote for them as they did on April 30, 2002 during referendum. Haha....now heeeeeeeeere comes field marshal!

Ferozk

You said:

``Would you like the looters and plunders of Pakistan back in power if that saves your noble constitution? ``

Reply:

This is not only a threat but a shameless blackmail that this despot and his chamchas are using nonstop against people of Paksitan. What they don`t want to tell people is that, with a constitution they had a choice to choose the lesser evil; and with the rape of constitution they are stuck with one and the only the greatest of evils for an undetermined period of time.

You said:

``Do you really consider Pakistan as an independent sovereign nation with a debt of nearly 38 billion dollars and its economic, military and foreign policy directed and dictated from Washington?``

Reply:

Pakistan in its life has been free only twice. First time it was in `70s during Bhutto era, when we were walking on our own legs free of the crutches of colonial powers and second time from October 1999 to the time when Musharaf took over the office of President of Pakistan. Which proves that we can live and prosper independently without crutches. And that is the reason Bhutto is a Shaheed and Musharaf is a schmuck.

You said:

Pakistan has merely exchanged its British masters for American ones, when Ayub Khan agreed to support CENTO and SEATO. Pakistan is a colony of the United States.

Reply:

I have been saying that for ages only if someone listens to it. But it does not mean that we accept our subjugation. Neither a man nor an animal likes a cage. Those who do are below man and animals.

You said:

Musharraf had offered hope and now it seems that hope was just a mirage and it is now business as usual.

Reply:

The hope was not a mirage. Someone had to kick our ass to get us to stand on our own feet.

You said:

Temperoal was right, when he said it nearly four years ago that ``the whole rotten structure needs to be torn down and burned and a new one created...``

Reply:

Temporal`s wishes have come true. Paksitan is being broken down to create a new one. But this change is not good. Countries are not like pajamas, you tore off old ones, and get new ones. Institutions of a country grow up with time if they are let exist.

You said:

Maybe, you are disappointed, because the Talibanization of Pakistan was halted by the events of September 2001. Are you? Are you still waiting for Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Ladin to led a Wahhabi indoctorinated revolution in Pakistan and make Pakistan a theocratic state? Were you disappointed that your self-resurrected emperor Nawaz Sharif could not enforce his 15 amendement? Maybe, you yearn for Zia and his dream to make Pakistan a pure state existing between the heretic state of Iran, and the devious Hindus and the infidels of west? Maybe, you were born 1400 years too late?

Reply:

This is where you and your ilk is wrong. Violence against people is the sure way to Talibanization. Don’t you know what happened in Iran? Violence is being used to solve political issues. Violence begets violence. If ideologies could be ``killed`` by violence the world would have been a really boring place with one creed, one religion, and one ideology. It is not in the nature of man to accept the tyranny of other. Only a political process is a sure guarantee to curb extremism whether it is religious one or one that wears a garb of ``reforms``.

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

Here`s a question to those who know more about pakistani politics than I do:

In the event that the religious parties` alliance (chaired by Mawlana Noorani sahib damatbarkaatahum) or the other religious party of Tahir ul Qadri sahib gets the most votes and wins--what then? Will Pres Busharraf allow it to form the govt or not? Or will he do a Turkey and force it out of power (like happened with the Refah party)?

Pankaj

Here is a little story from the columns of Cowasjee in Dawn that will educate some people about the relationship between the Army and the state.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Let us take the attitude of another army man, a man from our neighbour India, a fellow Zoroastrian, the highly respected Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw. When in Delhi last year I had the privilege of meeting him.

Now almost ninety, he stands as straight as an arrow, and like a good soldier can look down over a belt that does not sag, over a flat stomach, and see his shoelaces. And, like a good soldier he does not dye his hair or his bristling moustache. They have grown into a natural, distinguished and becoming grey.

Over lunch at his charming daughter`s flat, I asked him whether in his experience as a soldier there had ever been any danger of the army stepping in to take over the government of India. He laughed and said, never - it could never happen. But, there was one odd occasion when he was heading the army and Indira Gandhi was prime minister, when matters in India were not going too well, there was much unrest, and Indira was apprehensive that the army may step in.

So one day, she asked if she could call upon him at his headquarters. When he naturally said she should not, and that he would come to her, she put her foot firmly down and insisted that it would be she who would go to him.

Her problem was that she had heard on the grapevine that the field marshal was contemplating stepping in to sort out the messy political situation. She asked him whether there was any truth in the rumour. His answer to her : ``Little girl, I have a big and long nose, as do you. You keep your nose out of the affairs of my army and I will keep my nose out of the affairs of your government. Now run along, and try and sort things out.``

Re: Urstruly # 33

Would you like the looters and plunders of Pakistan back in power if that saves your noble constitution?

Do you really consider Pakistan as an independent sovereign nation with a debt of nearly 38 billion dollars and its economic, military and foreign policy directed and dictated from Washington?

Pakistan has merely exchanged its British masters for American ones, when Ayub Khan agreed to support CENTO and SEATO. Pakistan is a colony of the United States.

Musharraf had offered hope and now it seems that hope was just a mirage and it is now business as usual.

Temperoal was right, when he said it nearly four years ago that ``the whole rotten structure needs to be torn down and burned and a new one created...``

Maybe, you are disappointed, because the Talibanization of Pakistan was halted by the events of September 2001. Are you? Are you still waiting for Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Ladin to led a Wahhabi indoctorinated revolution in Pakistan and make Pakistan a theocratic state? Were you disappointed that your self-resurrected emperor Nawaz Sharif could not enforce his 15 amendement? Maybe, you yearn for Zia and his dream to make Pakistan a pure state existing between the heretic state of Iran, and the devious Hindus and the infidels of west? Maybe, you were born 1400 years too late?

Ciao

SameerJB:
You got it right. The people of Pakistan through their elected representatives are the masters of their own destiny. The military is a paid servant of the people. Any misunderstandings and conflicts between the two have to resolved in favor of the people. It is quite simple.