Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

``I would say that Musharaf is the worst leader this country has ever had. this is down right opportunism of the worst kind.``(rozaiba)

rozaiba:

u r 100% right -- the man is a great DIVIDER and a Political Pimp -- blatantly engaged in governmental prostitution to further his own personal career --

he has destroyed the political cohesiveness of a stable two party system in Pakistan -- first by fragmenting the powerful PML before the election -- now by fragmenting another national level Party -- the PPP -- all to keep his illigetimate hold on the government for another 5 years.

The job of a true Redeemer and a real MENTOR is to UNITE and HEAL the Fragmented Country --

not this man --

he will ROB his own country and CUT it into bits and pieces to further his and his chamcha`s agenda to keep him robbing it for another 5 years--

a “Myopic Megalomaniac” -- he is in fact -- a Selfish, Conniving, Devious, Power Hungry, -- FRAGMENTOR Creep.

Imran Khan`s latest Interview
Nooo I am not a Imran Khan fan...but this is the first in depth interview since he was elected and with every vote mattering in the game of horse trading this is worth a read

By Javed Akhtar & K.S. Ramkumar
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=20382


JEDDAH, 15 November 2002 — The United States’ pro-Israel, anti-Iraq policy is responsible for creating extremism in the Muslim world, a top Pakistani politician alleged here yesterday. “Both the United States and Israel are using threat as a pretext to attack Iraq,” Imran Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party said in an exclusive interview with Arab News. “Iraq is no longer a threat to anyone, not to its neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The United States pursues its policy against Iraq only to capture its oil. However, this will have far-reaching consequences and create hatred against the superpower. It will also create more hatred against Israel as it is crushing Palestinians and indulging in unprecedented violation of human rights and sovereignty,” said the cricketer-turned-politician who was elected to the National Assembly recently.

Imran, who performed Umrah earlier in the day, said: “It’s evident that the Middle Eastern policy of the superpower is made in Israel. The policy is almost dictated by Israel to the United States. It will only result in more attacks against the US citizens worldwide. This is unfortunate because the US will then turn its anger against the Muslim world.”

Imran, who answered questions on wide-ranging issues including Pakistan’s relations with India and the threat of a revival of martial law in his country, described the Kashmir tangle as a problem of the Indian leadership. “No Indian leadership has taken steps to resolve the question by allowing Kashmiri people to decide their own destiny in spite of the UN resolution and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s assurance to that effect.

“I don’t see any solution to the Kashmir problem. The Indian leadership could start by giving them more autonomy and then move toward awarding full sovereign rights...,” he said.

He also feels there is no likelihood of fresh elections being called in the country. Imran also thinks the military rulers will not impose martial law because Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime has suffered a severe loss of credibility owing to certain unpopular deeds in the recent past.

Imran, who performed Umrah yesterday, spoke to Arab News in an exclusive interview and dwelt on a variety of subjects.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q: What do you think of the outcome of the recent elections with no party getting a clear-cut mandate from the people?

A. Unfortunately, like most elections in Pakistan since 1988, there was a lot of interference by the establishment and whenever such things happened the results were distorted. In this situation, the results were distorted more than usual. The general demand of the public was for a change. People did not want to vote for traditional main parties. The mood in the country was to vote for new faces. But, unfortunately, the establishment preferred to defeat (former prime ministers) Nawaz Sharif and Benazir (Bhutto) rather than do a cleanup and allow a natural change to take place. By cleanup, I mean, cleaning up of big crooks in Pakistani politics, which is the need of the hour. Because people have a lot of money made through corruption and used in the elections, this sort of money used in the elections keeps out the honest politicians or people who have made money through legal means. So, rather than allowing this process of change to take place, the establishment manufactured the King’s Party (PML-Q) and then went all out to make sure that they won the elections. The establishment did not expect a hung parliament as has happened.

Q: What was the surprise packet of the elections?

A: Firstly, the establishment did not cater for the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. This religious party was the one that surprised everyone. The reason why the religious party rose in the frontier in Baluchistan and Karachi was that for people they represented change. And they had a very good organization to cash in on that change. Parties like ours were destroyed in prepoll rigging. All the good electable people were pushed into the King’s Party, and no one, no candidate, wanted to fight against the King’s Party. Because no one wanted to spend so much money and then find oneself up against the government.

Q: You mean you lost your own party people to the King’s Party or they did not want to fight.

A. People didn’t want to fight against the King’s Party, in Punjab especially. No one has ever beaten the establishment. Whoever has backed the establishment has won. After 1988, the party that backed the establishment has won the election. No one wanted to fight the establishment so it was difficult to get good candidates.

Q: What about the rules of qualification?

A: The (requirement of) graduation did not make much of a difference. Reducing the age to 18 was a positive electoral change.

Q: In fact, you yourself said earlier that corrupt people should be eliminated.

A: Yes, but the accountability process was flawed. The accountability process was such that it actually helped the corrupt. Because once they were exempted from the accountability, all the anti-government corrupt politicians....in the public eyes corruption ceased to be an issue so it helped the corrupt people. It helped people like Benazir once corruption ceased to be an issue.

Q: Corruption was also the issue raised by your party, wasn’t it?

A: Corruption is Pakistan’s No. 1 issue. It is also the Third World’s No. 1 issue. The Third World is Third World because of corruption. We don’t have institutions to fight corruption in the Third World. (Our) judiciary cannot eliminate corruption. It could not stop corrupt politicians from competing. Our election commission cannot stop the corrupt politicians from competing. So it was the hope of the people that General Musharraf’s government would not allow crooks to participate but unfortunately some of the biggest crooks joined the government party.

Q: Why has there been such a delay in convening the Parliament?

A: Because the government could not get the necessary numbers. There was prepoll rigging, then there was polling day rigging in selected constituencies. Then there was post-election rigging...horse trading and breaking politicians, making sure that the King’s Party gets majority.

Q: Do you think a stable government will be formed under these circumstances?

A: Stability comes when you have parties with a common manifesto and a common objective. With the marriage of convenience that is being planned now, it’s difficult to have stability. Parties get together only on the basis of common self-interest as opposed to common national objective. It’s very difficult to treat parties together because common self-interest changes...one party’s interest might clash with another party’s interest. There might be squabbling over ministerships. So it’s not an easy situation. Pakistan is not going to have stability by the looks of it.

Q: To begin with there is a problem of the prime minister. Fazlur Rahman (of MMA) wants the post. Who do you think will be the likely prime minister?

A: Well, the scenario is complicated because Fazlur Rahman wants to become the prime minister, yet MMA is a minority party. In other words people have not given his party the mandate. Chaudhry Shujaat who is the head of the parliamentary party of PML-Q does not want a Punjabi prime minister because they want to control Punjab through Chaudhry Pervez Elahi. Then there is the People’s Party (chaired by Benazir) where Benazir is bargaining purely on getting herself and her husband (Asif Ali Zardari) off corruption charges. So her bargain is not for any national interest. None of the things going on are of national interest. That’s why it is very disappointing for the public. And they are playing into the hands of the establishment which wants the politicians to be discredited.

Q: Do you think there is change in the establishment’s attitude toward Benazir and her husband? There is talk that he will probably be released from jail.

A: That’s what the bargaining is going on. It’s purely on getting off the corruption charges.

Q: What do you think has happened to General Musharraf. You supported him when he came in the first place and then has his role changed in the country’s present scenario?

A: General Musharraf’s advisers have got the general in a fix right now. The general has all the right attitudes, right instincts. He was personally clean, but unfortunately his close advisers have got him stuck by making a fundamental mistake — that of keeping Benazir and Nawaz Sharif out — rather than cleaning up the political scene and allowing clean politicians to come up. They, in fact, set up the King’s Party. As long as someone was electable, they did not mind how crooked he was. And this was the fundamental mistake, which actually discredited the current government as well as allow corrupt politicians like Benazir to be revived.

Q: Do you think the present role of the general is in the larger interest of the country?

A: Having made the first fundamental mistake of making a King’s Party with some of the biggest crooks inducted in it, the government has no other choice but to go along the way. In midway Gen. Musharraf can’t change the course. Now it’s going to go all the way to try and make them win.

Q: There was a call that the general should quit his army post if he wanted to continue as president.

A: My party is very clear that the 1973 constitution should be used. The moment the National Assembly convenes, it should be as per the 1973 constitution. Any amendments made to that constitution have to be made by the National Assembly of elected people. It’s their right. It’s the only democratic way of making amendments to the constitution. I’m afraid, the 1973 constitution is very clear about the election of the president, it’s very clear the way amendments are supposed to be made and that’s how it should be done.

Q: But much has changed since 1973. The constitution has undergone so many amendments. Is it possible to go so far back in time and history?

A: The constitutional amendments were made by the (National) Assembly — the Parliament. There is a way shown in the constitution how to make amendments. Unless they are approved by an elected Parliament, they cannot become part of law.

Q: You said, your party candidates were not willing to fight government-backed candidates. What other reasons were there for your party not doing well in the elections?

A: You see, Pakistani politics has become a money game. You have to have on an average at least five million rupees to fight an election. It can go up to 10 million rupees. So in certain rural constituencies which are very big, very few people can afford this money. Most of the people who fight elections, who have access to this amount of money, (are) people who have made money through crooked means. Therefore, for our party to find electable candidates who can afford to spend that sort of money, it became very difficult once the King’s Party was formed. Once the King’s Party was formed everyone knew who would be backed by the establishment.

So good candidates were just not willing to come forward because they felt their money would be wasted. Despite that we had enough candidates in the provincial and national assemblies who have come forward, fought elections, got reasonable amount of votes in a very short space of time, in very difficult circumstances. Our party candidates, from now onward, will work in their constituencies. And, the public is already moving toward change and our party is poised that whenever the next election takes place we already have a core of candidates working in the constituencies.

Q: What election lessons you think you have learned from this so that your party can do better in the future?

A: Basically, the problem our party faces is finance. You see, you are up against people who have been in power. There is a huge amount of money once they have been in power and to fight these people you have to have money. You need money for your political organization, candidates need money to fight the elections and unless you have resources you cannot compete against these crooks. Normally, in true democracies such people would not be allowed to fight elections. In those countries the election commission would not allow people who have criminal records or corruption charges to fight elections. In Pakistan the Election Commission is totally subservient to the whims of the establishment.

Q: What were the reasons for the Islamic parties to do so well in the elections?

A: Three reasons. One, powerful anti-American feeling in Pakistan since the Sept. 11 (events), secondly, genuine desire of people seeking change. They did not want to vote for parties tried and tested twice, and, thirdly, they were organized enough...they have excellent political organizations to cash in on that unlike our party which did not have that organization. You need three things to win an election — popularity, electable candidates who have money or you need a very strong political organization. If you have two of the three, you can win. But you cannot be popular and not have candidates or organization.

Q: Do you expect another election soon, the outcome of the last election being what it is?

A: The public perception is the setup will not last long. I cannot say how long this setup will go on. But I don’t foresee elections in the next two years.

Q: Is there a fear of martial law being enforced?

A: Martial law will be disastrous for Pakistan. If the current government had become popular, and if it had made sweeping reforms and improved the lot of the common man then there was a chance that the people would not have minded the military government coming back. But, unfortunately, the government has become very unpopular for setting up the King’s Party and losing credibility.

Before the King’s Party was the referendum where the government lost the moral authority and then in setting up the King’s Party and conducting the elections the way they were done. The selective accountability that took place rather than strengthening institutions like the Election Commission, the judicial system, actually ended up weakening them. Finally, under the economic reforms we might have built up $7 billion in reserve and we might have had more fiscal responsibility but the problem is that poverty has risen under the IMF program.

Utilities prices went up, the subsidies to the poor people...whatever benefit they had, and the poor man has been crushed today in Pakistan. So with rising poverty and huge unemployment, the government does not enjoy popularity anymore. So for military government to try and come back again will be disastrous for Pakistan.

Q: From hind sight, do you think siding with America in Afghanistan was a correct policy?

A: Up to a point it was correct. Pakistan was under tremendous pressure from India (as it wanted) to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state after Sept. 11. Just like Ariel Sharon used Sept. 11 to crush the Palestinians, the Indian government used Sept. 11 to try and crush the Kashmiri freedom movement as well as paint Pakistan as a terrorist state and therefore siding with America at that time was crucial for Pakistan. However, I do feel that Pakistan should have gradually had a more independent stance from the United States.

They should have been told to remove the bases from Pakistan as well as not allow the FBI to operate within Pakistan like picking up Dr. Amir Aziz. Dr. Aziz, a renowned surgeon has been picked up, abducted rather, without anything being known about his whereabouts. Imagine a situation in Pakistan with the mother of the surgeon begging the US government rather than the Pakistan government to return her son. The present government is now perceived to be an American stooge by the people.

Therefore, the anti-American feeling has also gone against the government. This has come to mean that anti-American sentiment has also become anti-government.

And secondly, extreme elements in Pakistan have benefited from this government policy of such close association with America, which has future consequences for Pakistan. The number one reason for MMA’s victory is because of Musharraf government’s close support to America and MMA has captured the popular anti-American sentiment. Also we have had a spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, which have been disastrous for foreign investment. It has scared away all the investments from Pakistan. There is no investment coming into the country and that’s because if the government is closely identified with the Americans then the terrorists will attack the Pakistani government and in turn affect the economic situation in Pakistan.

Q: What about the monetary benefits that came through America in the form of debt relief and some kind of assistance. Was that enough compensation or reward for Pakistan?

A: In a short term, of course, debt rescheduling has been a bit of relief but in the long term if such extremism spreads in Pakistan, if extremists prosper in Pakistan, if there is more terrorism in Pakistan then there will be a net loss in the future.

A lot of exports from Pakistan have now gone to India. Pakistan’s exports have suffered a loss. In the long term if the specter of terrorism against Westerners continues, Pakistan will lose. If someone is to do a cost-benefit analysis and find out how much we have gained and how much we have lost, my indication is we are now beginning to lose.

Q. With President Musharraf reserving the right to dismiss the elected government if it is found to be against the interests of Pakistan and with no political party gaining absolute majority in the election, do you think the present situation is beneficial to him?

A: So far, it is not accepted. Both PPP and MMA are insisting that they do not accept the legal framework order (LFO) and the LFO includes Article 52 under which he can dismiss the (elected) government. This is one of the issues and this is how it should be. Unless the Parliament accepts it, unless these amendments are accepted by two-thirds of Parliament, they cannot become law according to the constitution.

To say whether Gen. Musharraf has become stronger or weaker, I think the government’s position is very weak. It’s weak because what you can do today is get either PPP or MMA to join the King’s Party. Now both of them have demands that they do not accept the LFO. Both of them want concessions. If Benazir is cleared of all corruption charges and Zardari is let out of jail, it will further destroy the credibility of the government.

The MMA’s demand is that Gen. Musharraf can only become the president if he takes off the uniform and comes into the assembly. Both these demands are going to weaken the position of this government. Its position is not that strong as it was before the election or before the referendum.

Q: Pakistan’s relations with India have been a constant problem because of Kashmir. What should both India and Pakistan do to solve this problem?

A: Unfortunately, we are stuck because of the leadership in India and Pakistan. This is actually a problem of the Indian leadership. Which Indian leadership will allow the Kashmiri people to decide their own destiny?

So far I don’t see any Indian leadership to have the capacity to allow them the right that was given by the UN, promised to them by (then Prime Minister) Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948. Which Indian government is going to allow that to happen? Unless that happens, I don’t see any solution to the Kashmir problem. They could go in steps. They could start by giving them more autonomy and then move toward full sovereign rights. But I don’t see that happening on such an issue with the Indian establishment. Now, with the right wing Hindu parties dominating in the Indian political scene, I cannot see that happening. So I see the ongoing problem there.

Q: What do you think will happen to Iraq, especially when the US is virtually bulldozing through the UN and international community a proposal to attack?

A: It’s a strong right wing US government which pursues an aggressive policy on Iraq. This has nothing to do with Iraq being a threat for anyone. Everyone knows Iraq is not a threat. Neighboring countries, which are supposed to be frightened of Iraq like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., know that Iraq is no longer a threat. This is all about oil. The US is determined to capture Iraqi oil supplies.

The other interested party is Israel, which does not want any potential threat. Therefore, they are just using threat as a pretext to attack Iraq. This will have far-reaching consequences and create hatred against the United States. It will create more hatred against Israel, especially what it is doing against the Palestinians amounting to unprecedented violation of human rights and sovereignty.

Q: What do you think of international inaction on Israeli atrocities?

A: The US is the sole superpower now. It’s clearly evident that its Middle Eastern policy is made in Israel. It is almost dictated by Israel. And the United States will face more future attacks against its citizens abroad, which is more unfortunate because the US will turn its anger against the Muslims and the Muslim world, which has nothing to do with it but is just watching the alarming scenario. Basically the US foreign policy against Iraq and pro-Israel is actually creating extremism in the Muslim world.

Q: What expansion plans do you have for the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Center in Lahore?

A: We cannot cope with the huge influx of patients at the Shaukat Khanum. We have to turn back the patients who can be cured, whose cancer in early stages is curable. We cannot cope with the rush because one hospital is not enough. It’s an 80-bed cancer hospital, with 90 percent treatment given to outpatients. We have plans to set up a hospital in Karachi. We cannot do that until we have an enough endowment fund, which will then give us the cushion of coping with the huge deficit we incur every year for treating 75 to 80 percent patients free. It’s a huge deficit of 400 million rupees, which we have to collect every year. We have $8 million in the endowment fund now. We hope to have enough money in the endowment fund so that income from that fund could cope with the deficit and then we will build a hospital in Karachi. We have already acquired land in Karachi but we are not in a position to proceed further.

Nice try Shahzad Kazi,
but sometimes when something stinks its
better to find the source of the problem than just the persons who smell.

Ras

Nawaid

Sitting in the assemblies before a compromise is reached on LFO, illegal constitutional ammendments done by the despot, and 58(2)B will mean that these changes are accepted when the oath will take place. Oath means allegiance. Only the opportunist fuks as rozaiba puts it will pledge such allegiance.

As far Nawabzada sahib is concerned, I am unable to comment on his politics in Zia era except that it was nawabzada who managed to beat zia in his own game, why do you think zia fired jonejo. But all that aside, I do not support personalities, I support principles. By God, now, even if a four legged, flea infested bitch with nine breasts and eczema says that she stands for paksitan, its constitution and its sovereignity I will kiss her mouth.

And regarding Nawabzada Mansoor, may I ask is he an adult? If he is an adult why his papa is responsible for his actions?

Ghalib Zaman

Hardest battles are yet to come. Remember, united we stand.

nasah:

you`ve got to hand to the beardos. there may be some correlation between guts and beards. further studies are needed though.

just when you think the fauji fuks won`t screw around more, they outdo themselves. sure the PPP leadership has to take the blame, but if punjabi Piplyas are scrapped out of PPP, I would say that Musharaf is the worst leader this country has ever had. this is down right opportunism of the worst kind. and these punjabi dogs have shown that are willing to take any bait.

re: nawaid

{Pakistan never had true democracy, i dont want to compare with USA or UK, India has democratic system in last 55 years but if you go to common man life........}

...democracy alone is not enough...india`s problems have nothing to do with democracy, and in fact, without democracy they would be worse...at india`s size, even if 100 people are brought out of poverty, there are still a thousand remaining...but india is making progress, albeit at a painfully slow pace...there are constraints in a country with a billion people and a democratic system where labor reforms cannot be implemented by rolling tanks over striking workers (a key benefit china has)...parliament cannot pass laws that are beneficial for the country in the long-term even if they hurt voters in the near-term...no one likes to lose an election...another benefit china has - if hu jintao says it`s law, it`s law...

URSTRULY

Never the one to call the poison-potion by a candy name, you are a super guy indeed.

We always knew we were the winners. Pakistan IS Islam & muslim. Rest is just to serve and provide for that purpose. Technology, Science and matter-movements (secularism) are our servants and are meant to serve the nation of Islam`s objectives. Abdul Qadir Khan must be brought back and every opportunity used to rub the American nose in their own vomit. It is important to embolden and strenghten the average muslims` resolve across the world.

Poor Secularists,& other related ists/isms, or non-muslimists are not even a subject anymore. They are not worth even to be noticed.

Events are increasingly making it evident that the Western juggernaut is termite-ridden and moth-eaten.The family unit is being replaced by deviants & freaks biding satan`s commands under the guise of dogoodism. The muslim nation across the world must be prepared to take on the coming responsibilties.

ZAKK # 18

Thank you very very much for the Jack Straw confession on behalf of the British Colonisers. The reaction of their educated Paki lapdogs would certainly be worth watching.
Et tu Brutus!

Re West Asia, Jack Straw zindabad.

#19 by Urstruly

why they are fighting on LFO outside assemblies, why not go to assemblies and discuss all the ammendments and get rid which they dont like.Except 58.2(b) and NSC whats wrong with other ammendments? if those are correct then endorse it in parliament , if dont think those right then cancel. They didnt bycott the election which held under LFO.? It means they want restoration of democracy, so start the parliament, review all ammnedments then decide. Everybody is shouting from outside saying parliament is a supreme, then go into parliament and make it supreme.



[Nawabzada Sahib is rightfully the conscience of Paksitan and one day he will be revered as the earliest pioneer who sacrificed everything for the cause of democracy in Paksitan. And those days are not far when his life and work will be a permanent subject in the Political Science courses in Paksitani educational institutionals]

is this correct that Nawabzada Sahib`s party was a part of Zia ul Haq govt in early days of his martial law, when Nawabzada wanted three ministeries but Zia only manage to give him two ministries? as stated in many books.

When his efforts will come in Political Science courses, Whether he will ask his son Nawab Mansoor to read those courses so next time the son dont have to present fake graduation degree to Election Commission?

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

We made mistakes in India, Pak: Straw
RASHMEE Z AHMED
http://203.199.93.7/cms.dll/xml/comp/articleshow?artid=28378387
TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2002 06:43:56 PM ]

LONDON: In an extraordinary and controversial attempt at righting the wrongs of history by wordplay, British foreign secretary Jack Straw has blamed 200 years of imperialism for the worst world crises of the 21st-century, including British complacency over ``what happened in Kashmir``.


``India, Pakistan - we made some quite serious mistakes,`` Straw said, lamenting the complacency of publishing the ``boundaries two days after (Indian) independence. Bad story for us, the consequences are still there``.


Using words that appalled British commentators said could easily have issued from the mouths of Third World student activists rather than the foreign secretary of a country that formerly ruled half the world, Straw said the Kashmir issue, Afghanistan, most West Asian crises including the now-controversial, British-drawn boundaries of Iraq were the result of British involvement.


His words have stirred up a hornet’s nest of angry political debate, with some opposition politicians accusing Straw’s Labour government of ``old-fashioned Left-wing guilt`` of the sort that prompted another Labour government to grant India its independence.


Straw also pointedly rejected the controversial new doctrine of ``liberal (Western) imperialism`` recently offered by Prime Minister Blair’s former foreign policy advisor, by means of which the developed West would be emboldened to intervene in developing world disputes.


``I’m not a liberal imperialist,`` he said, ``...there`s a lot wrong with imperialism. A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past.``


Still more unusually, he appeared even to offer empathy and understanding to Britain’s arch-enemy, Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe, who continues to dispossess white farmers of their land. ``...the early (British) colonisers were all about taking land,`` Straw admitted.


The interview, which forms the cover feature of the latest left-liberal New Statesman magazine, has caused great excitement and prompted confusion about why a British foreign secretary should eschew more traditional ``gunboat diplomacy`` for the ``tea and tears, sweet-talk and sympathy`` model of foreign policy.


The magazine told TNN that the interview had attracted ``great interest``. Though some commentators suggested it was a devious ploy, Straw’s frank words appear to have been taken at face value by that leading conservative barometer of British opinion, The Daily Telegraph. In a scathing editorial comment, it said Straw’s views were ``maundering self-pity``, which would ``weaken Britain’s position internationally``.


In his comments on West Asia, the magazine says Straw began by saying ``There`s hardly a country . . . ``, before checking himself and going on: ``The odd lines for Iraq`s borders were drawn by Brits. The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.``

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure? What failure? The stand that Nawab zada Nasurullah khan Sahib and MMA has stood on the issues of LFO, constitutional ammendments, and 58(2)B, has restored my confidence in people of Paksitan and democracy. Nawabzada Sahib is rightfully the conscience of Paksitan and one day he will be revered as the earliest pioneer who sacrificed everything for the cause of democracy in Paksitan. And those days are not far when his life and work will be a permanent subject in the Political Science courses in Paksitani educational institutionals.

The role of MMA is also commendable. I will take this opportunity to thank all the ullema of Paksitan for taking the stand against tyranny and naked aggression. They have lived upto their past performance for standing upto the challenges of tyrranny of all times whether it was the curse of deen-e-ilahi of Akbar, or colonial aggression of British, or their cronnies hindus and so called Muslims, they are the one who faught and sacrificed their lives to keep the union of East and West Paksitan together, they are the one who saved us from Russian aggression, they are the one who has stood upto the neocolonialism now and they are the one who have challenged the tyrrany of the secular pimps of that neocolonialism. Thank you.

United we stand.

bharatvaasi: That article you posted from Friday Times clearly shows the hypocrisy of not just elites but more so of the journalist who wrote that article.
1. It excluded the biggest family in the current election, the Chaudhrys of Gujrat who have extended netwrok through intermarriages with other politicians and feudals of same caste (Jati). Their relatives have more than 20 seats in this election.
2. All the names mentioned in this article do not account to even 10 seats out of 272 contested elections. It also excludes the centuries old hostilities between Khosa and Leghari more dominating that occasional intermarraiges.
3. It also avoids the most common factor in intermarraiges; rich marrying rich of same jati. The reason of intermarriages is not necessarily to gain political power in once ina while manipulated elections.
4. The feudals most inclined to marry with in jati are actually Syeds, Makhdooms and Shahs. These are gaddi nasheens and sajjada nasheens of Sufis/ pirs shrines. They have been intermarrying for hundreds of years, including the original Sufis/ pir themselves to keep themselves Najeeb-Ul-Tarfain Syeds safequarding their pure Arab genes while preaching equality, love etc. While rest of feudals rely on their jat to get vote and favors and to some extent taking care of their tenants/ tillers and people of same jati, the Makhdoom/ Syed/ Shah group relies on religion because the masses under their control are not from the same jati. While a Jat or Rajput feudal has to sweat or coerce his jati people to vote for him, a Syed feudal has to just appear in front of his ancestral shrine and rest is history.
Basically the mullahs/ Jehadis/ Islamists/ Fundamentalists are one side of Islamic politics and Sufi/ Pir/ Gaddi Nasheens feudals are the other. One will strip you off everything else by force and other politely after hypnotic Sufi shrines politics. [BTW, guess who are in the forfront of forward block of PPPP?] You will be ripped off either way with Islam in Pakistan. What little is saved from Islam`s rip off, military will as they have been doing it most of Pakistani history. This is not just directly chewing up more than one third of national budget or conquering Islamabad at will but through military industrial complexes too who are stifling all competition in selective businesses.

akhanusa 4,

You said the pakistanis are corrupt. Here is one more for you from another pakistani, all pakistanis are perverts. from dawn of today


Abolition of co-education



This is with reference to the letters by Asfandyar Farokh (Nov 7) and Naela Hasan (Nov 12) about co-education.

In a society like ours, where modernism means simply aping the West, co-education only adds fuel to the fire of our inherent perversions.

We are a people not attuned to anything that gives us a modicum of freedom and its corollaries.

Although warped minds will always conjure up things to get around the system, once you restrict access, the chances of abuse becomes minimal.

In spite of being educated in a Western environment, and having spent a few years in the `free` West, I still endorse the abolishment of co-education.

Interaction with women comes very much lower in the list of priorities. There is much else to be done before we can think of leaping into the next millennium.

ARSALAAN AHMED SIDDIQI

Karachi

well people what are your thoughts on the following taken from Friday Times. It is interesting in that the military dictator could not change things. Pakistan is in the hock to the feudal, whatever be the colour of the party. Nothing will change unless there is a sea change in Pakistan.


An article in Jang explained how the big feudal-political families were either split on elections or were fielding candidates in opposed parties to stay in power. In Dera Ghazi Khan, Farooq Leghari was an old winner but his cousin Maqsood Leghari put forward his son Muhammad Khan Leghari against him after aligning with the Khosa clan representing PML(N). Zulfiqar Khosa was once a part of Farooq’s family but fell out and became enemy. Sardar Nasrullah Dareshak’s politics was been against the Mazaris of Rajanpur, but this time his close relative Hafizur Rehman deserted him and joined Balakh Sher Mazari’s group. The niece of famous politician Mumtaz Daultana, Tehmina Daultana, is a staunch PML(N) leader while Mumtaz Dualtana’s daughter Shahida Daultana was a candidate for PPP. Shahida is married to the son of Ayub Khuro in Sindh and her sister-in-law is opposed to PPP. Another Khuro politician, Nisar Khuro is a PPP leader in Larkana. Mumtaz Daultana’s sister was married to the powerful Saeed Qureshi clan in Sargodha. Saeed Qureshi’s son, Aziz Qureshi, once a member of Pir Pagaro’s Functional League was in jail under NAB inquiry. He is now with PML(N) but his relative Mazhar Qureshi is with PML(Q). Makhdoom Ahmad Mahmood of Jamaldinwali is with PML(Q) while his relative Yusuf Raza Gilani is with PPP. Yusuf’s uncle Hamid Raza Gilani is with PPP while his son is with PML(Q). Yusuf and Ahmad Mahmood are related by marriage to Pir Pagaro. General Ayub’s son Gauhar Ayub is with PML(Q) and his son had the PML(Q) ticket from Abbottabad, but his nephew Yusuf Ayub had a ticket from PML(N). Gauhar is related to the Bilours of ANP. Gauhar was married into the Khataks, whose representatives, the Saifullahs, are with PML(Q). General Zia’s sons Ijazul Haq and Anwarul Haq have deserted PML(Q) and made a party of their own and their brother-in-law Faiz Raheem (General Raheem’s son) has left PML(N). Faiz Raheem’s relative Humayun Akhtar (General Akhtar Abdur Rehman’s son) is with PML(Q). Ijazul Haq’s other relative Mian Abdul Waheed has also left PML(N) and joined PML(Q). Imran Khan is standing in Mianwali but his cousin Inamullah Niazi represents PML(N) there. Farooq Leghari’s niece Samera Malik is also a niece of Nawab of Kalabagh, Asad Khan, and had ticket from Millet Party, but the Nawab supported PML(Q). She contested successfully against her brother-in-law, the son of Malik Naeem. But Malik Naeem’s brother General (Retd) Salimullah fielded his brother-in-law for PML(N) from Jauharabad. The Wali Khan family is in ANP but their close relative Saranjam Khan is a PML(N) leader. Ghulam Mustafa Khar of Muzaffargarh failed to get a PPP ticket (and could not contest because of lack of educational qualification) but his brothers had tickets from PML(Q). In Shah Jewna in Jhang two fighting cousins represented opposed parties, Syeda Abida Hussain from PML(Q) and Faisal Saleh Hayat (PPP). Both exchanged hot words while entering their papers for elections. Faisal Saleh’s uncle Khalid Kharal was on PPP ticket but his father-in-law’s family was with PML(Q).

nasah
#6

That was a beautiful analogy, sir...& right on the money. I highly recommend you read Owen Bennett Jones`s new book; Pakistan, Eye of the Storm.

Or maybe you shouldnt read it!:) cos OBJ says the very same thing, but presents his facts in a...ummm...``Romairian`` way. However, the difference between OBJ & the Field Marshall is that the former, generally, doesnt spin facts, IMO.