Khaki wisdom -- One-way ticket to Hell

Credibility, Dictatorship and Isolation
By Hussain Askari

Like most dictators, General Musharraf has been steadily cutting the branch on which he is perched.

On October 12, 1999, there were many who believed that Pakistan`s fortunes had turned for the better with a straight-talking general ousting a badly discredited elected government through a military coup. Three years down the road, the number of such optimists seems to have dwindled substantially. In fact, as the year draws to a close, even his most ardent supporters are beginning to concede that in the ultimate analysis, General Musharraf`s tenure may prove to be more detrimental for the nation and its institutions than that of any of his predecessors.

Even though his grip on government remains as strong as ever despite the elections, the moral high ground that he claimed on October 12, 1999, seems to have been washed away completely. And not without reason. The road that he has travelled from being a self-proclaimed savior to an outright adventurist, is pock-marked with many distinct measures that were taken only to preserve him in power, irrespective of their cost to the nation. For many, the speed at which he has frittered away his goodwill is matched only by that of the PPP leader Benazir Bhutto.

Monthly Herald
Karachi
January, 2003

Khaki Wisdom : Winning a war Quixotic-style

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/100103/editor/opi5.htm

``It is not unusual to see President General Pervez Musharraf blow his own trumpet. On December 30 last he did it again. He claimed that the Indian government had pulled back its troops because he had it conveyed to Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, that if a war was imposed on Pakistan it would not remain a conventional one.
``

Zafar,

I do remember some allusions to Urstruly being a resident of the Motor City....and his ability to reach high notes audible to only certain canine species would put him in the RuPaul/Mariah Carey school of drag...but I think he means to be a drag in the no fun way....and are you suggesting that his Sancho Panza, Gulab Jamun Sahib lives somewhere else? If GZ lives in the United Shaitaniat of America, that would be quite interesting...

Reply Saminashah

``And you [Urstruly] still haven`t answered the question; where exactly do you and your worse self Gulab Jamun live?``

Er...I think in Detroit...as in Pink Flamingos (and the incredible singing...HEY! I think that`s pretty good proof...)

Please take your time out to check the attached editorial of the Weekly Independent, Lahore, for this week. A heart-breaking reading, indeed.
http://www.weeklyindependent.com/editorial.htm

``Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has secured the vote of confidence which his patrons had worked for overtime during the past few weeks. He bagged 188 votes, 12 more than what he had obtained originally to become the prime minister. To ensure that Jamali stayed in power, the establishment had to stoop to machinations that would have made any civilian practitioner of the realpolitik blush. A chapter has thus been added to Pakistan`s political history that can only be described as inglorious.
The General Pervez Musharraf-led Jamali government`s power-sharing deal with the Altaf Hussain-led Muttahida Qaumi Movement will in particular question the integrity of the mighty military establishment. Not long ago, Musharraf`s interior minister Lt-Gen Moinuddin Haider (retd) was mulling the option of getting Altaf repatriated and tried on charges of conspiring against the state. In August 2001, interior secretary Tasneem Noorani called on London to stop Altaf from making telephonic addresses and indulging in undesirable activities. He even hinted at banning the ethnic outfit.
These statements had come in the wake of violent strikes organised by the MQM in collaboration with the Sindhi separatist group Jiye Sindh Qaumi Mahaz -- the organisation which had caused suspension of activity in Karachi and Hyderabad and led to widespread violence. In September 2001, Altaf called into question the two-nation theory and declared the partition of the subcontinent in 1947 as the biggest folly in the history of mankind. A three-member delegation of the MQM, headed by one Mohammad Anwer, later travelled to India where it addressed gatherings, calling on the Vajpayee government to come to the rescue of the `persecuted` Mohajirs. In June 2001 Altaf warned of raising a Mohajir Bahini on the pattern of the Mukti Bahini, which was created, funded and trained by New Delhi in 1972. By May 2002, MQM activists continued to be arrested and illegal weapons recovered from them.
Since 1988 the military establishment has accused the MQM of being anti-state. In 1992, Karachi corps commander instituted operation cleanup without consulting prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The media were provided pictures of torture cells avowedly run by the ethnic outfit which was also accused of extorting money. Lists of the MQM activists undergoing military training in India were provided to a section of the media by the Inter-Services Intelligence. A map of Jinnahpur was made available by the agencies to prove that the Muttahida wanted to carve out a separate country out of Pakistan with foreign help.
Then the MQM Haqiqi was created by the agencies to keep the Muttahida under check. Retired generals Naseerullah Khan Babar and Moeenuddin Haider were closely associated with the crackdown on the MQM during the Pakistan People`s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz governments. The action had the full support of the security agencies. The Muttahida was indicted for the torture and killing of army personnel and high profile murders of Hakim Muhammad Saeed, Zuhair Akram Nadeem, Shahid Hamid and Muhammad Salahuddin. Cases were instituted at the instance of establishment against a number of the MQM leaders, including Dr Ishratul Ibad. If the charges preferred by the establishment were correct, why have the cases been withdrawn against Dr Ibad and others? If the charges were false, why are those who levelled the same not being proceeded against?
Since it suits General Musharraf, the MQM which has 41 seats in the 168-member Sindh Assembly has been given half the ministries in the provincial cabinet. A number of the party activists charged with heinous crimes have been freed through the courts. The new Sindh governor has promised to review the cases of other activists and use the governor`s discretion on cases against `Altaf Bhai`. To please the Muttahida, the Sindh Assembly session was kept prorogued until an understanding was worked out with the MQM. When the assembly was finally called to session, it was put under siege to arrest Younus Khan, the sole MPA of the rival MQM Haqiqi faction. Therefore, there are many who think that in its keenness to keep the Jamali government in power, the establishment has put aside all considerations of the rule of law and the integrity and security of the country. ``

Well, i dont think that we can disagree with the author of the article. No doubt, Pakistan is doomed -- primarily due to swine in khakis. Came across another nice article in the Dawn. Here comes some excerpts.

>>After years of observing and writing about the antics of our military and political rulers, I have reached the somewhat cynical conclusion that no matter who is in charge, some things will never change. The reality of power in Pakistan is that the army has controlled the destiny of the nation for most of its existence, and is likely to continue doing so in the foreseeable future. The invisible `agencies` have huge, unaudited budgets and manipulate and malign politicians and control sections of the press. Incidentally, all this is a matter of public record: names of politicians and journalists who have received cash handouts from the exchequer have been published many times without any action being taken against those making the payments and those receiving them.

One major problem with the army`s role is that as an institution, it is convinced that its interest is identical to the national interest which it has defined without any semblance of a public debate. This leads to the conclusion that to justify our bloated defence budget, Pakistan needs an enemy. In our case, this means India. The logical inference to be drawn from this line of reasoning is that the Kashmir issue will never be resolved.

Another reason the army will never voluntarily loosen its grip on power is that the officer class is too accustomed to all the perks that go with running the country. Currently, literally hundreds of civilian jobs here and in our missions abroad are manned by serving and retired military personnel.

Housing estates and agricultural lands across the country have been parcelled out to officers as a matter of routine. Above all, they are virtually exempt from any sort of prosecution on charges of corruption. Every class has its own set of demands and requirements and normally, these are mediated with the state and some compromise is reached. In the army`s case, there is no mediation because it controls the levers of power.
Had the army`s monopoly on power meant simply the usurpation and waste of resources, we could have gritted our teeth and got on with life. Unfortunately, the assumption that GHQ is the source of all wisdom has many implications: for instance, when there is complicit relationship between religious extremists and the `agencies`, it is not possible for the enfeebled state to control the former. Their violent methods in Afghanistan and Kashmir cannot be switched on and off at will, and the result is the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and bloodletting we have grown so accustomed to.

Modern societies function on the basis of a compact between the state and the citizens in which the former has an absolute monopoly on the means of coercion and uses it to safeguard national borders and keep the peace internally. In Pakistan, various groups have broken this monopoly: gun-toting tribals flout the law at will; religious and ethnic parties have established armed wings; feudals keep gunmen to enforce their writ on their estates; and dacoits armed to the teeth operate pretty much at will <<

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
04 January 2003

Faruk #56
Bhutto and Mujiber Rehman were among others who were able to `create` and `lead` a people`s consensus(there were others earlier). Unfortunately, not once but multiple times any such consensus has been frittered away by personal megalomania of those at the top.

For instance, after the 1970 elections, Bhutto`s PPP won only a minority of the total seats and most political parties including those in W Pakistan opposed Bhutto`s uncompromising personal veto on the future setup. However since Bhutto was cohabiting with establishment, even that consensus didnot work and civil war ensued.

After 1971, because he didnot want to share power, Bhutto turned on even those with whose help he had come to power on the socialist platform including trade unions, and other people`s movements and did great harm to the future of such movements. He was the most cruel and brutal towards those who had been his own allies and former colleagues.

``No value for the utility of consensus and megalomaniacal belief in eternal immutability of personal power`` is the self-repeating story of Pakistani politics in a nutshell.

Ref Saminasha #54

[harimau,

Dont get so worked up indeed...remember, only some of us can whine about victimization and seek to perpetuate it by trying to define the rest of the world as immoral.... ]

Normally I have a smile on my face when I type in my posts as I imagine the reactions of Urstruly, YLH, etc.

But your response brought out a guffaw from me.

Thanks for helping start my day in such a beautiful frame of mind.

Ref arjun_m #55

[So how is the paki registration under NSEER not a result of the jihadi policy in Kashmir? ..........

Those who have served in the armed forces may be asked about the training they received, why they left the service and may face questions aimed at determining their religious leanings.]

Do you think Chowk`s one-and-only Field Marshal will be exempt from this because of his high rank?

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

Urstruly # 50
I stand corrected, there have been mass movements in Pakistan. I am not sure that the movement against Ayub Khan was for democracy. It was definitely anti Ayub but it died when the dictator was replaced by Yaya another dictator. Whatever I have read about that movement is that it was lead by a bunch of feudal leaders who wanted to replace Ayub’s rule with their rule, when that did not work they ran back to the army for the next best thing.
The East Pakistani movement that followed that was definitely a ethnic movement. The Bengali’s or now Bangladeshi’s wanted recognition of their language and culture. India used this to dismember Pakistan with the active and enthusiastic help of the Pakistani army.
I don’t think the movement against Musharaf that you mentioned is for democracy either. As you mentioned its lead by the Ulema and all they want is to be in power and above the law. There is no movement for equality, justice, the rule of law and the values that the rest of the world holds dear. Do you know why ?

Regards,

Faruk

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

harimau,

Dont get so worked up indeed...remember, only some of us can whine about victimization and seek to perpetuate it by trying to define the rest of the world as immoral....

Please, allow me to quote the following for those eulogozing khakis in Pakistan and bashing civil society.

... ``The fact is, there are no perfect societies and if Pakistan has imperfections, that is not sufficient reason to run it as a cross between a medieval monarchy and a praetorian state. Musharraf only focused on the election of not-so-good politicians to Parliament as the major imperfection. Not once did he pause to consider that the real cause of Pakistan’s backwardness might lie with the absence of institutional balance, which in turn is attributable to the overwhelming role of the Pakistani military in national life.

Take the economy: is it alleged loot and plunder or over five decades of unsustainable military expenditure that has prevented investment in infrastructure? Can there be investment in a country where legitimacy of governments is constantly under question and the investor welcomed by one regime is imprisoned by the next? Is economic growth attainable in the midst of conflict and militancy? How can the public sector be productive when it is managed mostly by Generals trained in the art of warfare? Where in the world from Latin America to Myanmar to Nigeria to Indonesia has military rule been able to generate self-sustaining economic growth, notwithstanding the temporary fulfillment of IMF criteria?

Moreover, what did imperfections of Pakistani society have to do with the military adventurism of 1965, the debacle of 1971 or the strategic delusions of the last two decades that made Pakistan the patron of Afghanistan’s Taliban? How are ordinary Pakistanis to blame for the consistent fallacy of periodically joining the United States in its global plans as a means of maintaining military balance with India?
....

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan06_12_03/opinion_haqqani.htm

Oye, Gulab Jamin,

Where are your 100% pure ghee ratings on the Death fiction board?

Coward.

#47:harimau

That ,too, is part of your history. Please feel free to condemn whatever was done by YOUR sultans, kings, and rajas to YOUR own people.

There is no need to get so worked up.

Ghalib Zaman

One of the greatest regret that I have after coming here is that I am stripped of the opportunity to access to our knowledge base. There are so many books I wont be able to read now. I don`t remember reading the book you mentioned but I do remember something similar about the struggle of both Deobandi and Brelvi Ulemma aginst British and Sikhs. I can`t remember the title or author`s name.


Faruk

First of all your assumption is wrong that there never had been mass movements in Paksitan for the cause of Democracy. Ayub Khan was removed through a mass movement if you remember. The movement in East Paksitan was a mass movement for Democracy which ultimately turned into civil war and resulted in its separation after the naked aggression of India. There was a mass movement to remove Bhutto, who played the same tricks as that of I Ghandi; but that movement was hijacked by Army. Then there were several movemnets against Zia, both violent militant ones and democratic ones. Movement for Restroation of Democarcy MRD was one such movement - people were flogged publically and several were extra-judicially murdered to crush that movement. There is a movement against Musharaf also this time lead by Ullema and this is a democratic movement. Western propaganda does not chnage the meaning of what it is.

Your comparison of Paksitan with pre-revolution France is correct. But Paksitan is not France, times have also changed. The nature of struggles have also changed. What has not changed is man`s yearning for freedom, self-determination, and self-respect. Struggle will continue. We will win. People always win.

hari 40
ok Feudal and neo feudal class

Regards,

Faruk

Urstruly # 41
I think Pakistan was an agrarian society at the time of Independence, so was India. Even today 25% of Indian GDP is from agricultural income, but an industrial class did exist in India. I know a large number of educated middle class muslims, mohajirs migrated from India to Pakistan, what about them.

Why is it that there has never been a ground level movement against the ruling class. What you say about clan/tribal loyalties and Pakistani society is very similar to what was true of France just before the French revolution, why is there no Pakistani revolution?

In India when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency there was a movement to overthrow her she was forced to hold elections and she lost that election. In Pakistan it appears that the rulers establish a token democracy at the behest of foreign powers not the Pakistani’s. In my opinion these so called democratic govt.’s have no real power because they do not draw their power from the people. What do you think ?

Regards,

Faruk

Ref Gulab Jamun #46

[How the english & the sikhs as rulers tortured and butchered the muslim populace for almost one hundred years is enough to make any stonehearted one weep copiously.]

On the other hand, when for 1000 years the Sultans of Delhi murdered, raped, and plundered across Hindustan, they were only carrying out Allah`s orders and despatching the kaffirs to Hell!

Anil # 44

This might be of help to get translations of Abdul Halim Sharar

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/IDC622/

I also saw this book in New Yorks public library - check your local libraries first.

#38:Urstruly

I have been following this discussion with some interest. My salaams to you for your unique combination of ILM/ISHQUE.

Did you ever have a chance to read JaaNbaaz Mirzas` `` Angraiz kay dushman musalmaan`` vol. 1 & 2. One of the ahrars, but he has been able to encapsulate our colonised/slavery period very very well. How the english & the sikhs as rulers tortured and butchered the muslim populace for almost one hundred years is enough to make any stonehearted one weep copiously.

Urstruly (#39)

Dear Urstruly:

I also agree how much unbridled extremism open and feeble democratic societies should tolerate. Other than this, there is very little that you have said in this email with which I would disgree. I am well read about Hindu and British authors of India`s first war of Independence in 1857. I would certainly love to read what Muslim authors have to write about that period, if there is English translation of the writings available.

The very best for you.
ANIL KAPURIA

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

Again here, as usual, we find the BJP fundos jumping in on Paki-bashing the first chance they get. Since these nut jobs have nothing better to do(Im convinced, because of the inordinate number of postings) I will choose to talk to only Pakistanis here who want the betterment of Pakistan from the bottom of their heart.

No one says that rule by Army is perfect. It’s far from it. What Mushy has done as far as weakening the already destroyed legislature and Judiciary (thanks to Mian Sahab and Bibi) is not very good for Pakistan. If he truly wanted strong democratic institutions in Pakistan, he should have completely stepped out of the picture after the General Elections. He was truly supported by the majority of the Pakistanis when he took over, and although this support eroded slowly over the 3 years full of essential but unpopular reforms, he was still viewed in Pakistan as a Patriot. The referendum drama did the most damage to his reputation.

But other then those things, if one were to objectively look at how he governed Pakistan in the last three years, one can only appreciate the massive economic turn around. Anyone reading about Pakistan’s economic revitalization would know that its because of Shaukat Aziz and other economic managers that Mushy hired that Pakistan is in a strong economic position now. KSE is the highest its ever been, IMF and WB are both all praise for Pakistani economy (vis-à-vis 1993-1999 performance), External and Internal debts are down, the number of MAJOR infrastructure projects initiated and now continuing is amazing! I don’t think I need to even mention the massive reserves here. Even the worst of the Mushy critics are admitting to his awesome economic performance. And for those retarded enough here to think that nothing is going well till there are no poor left in the country, please, come back to planet earth! What Mushy was facing was a Herculean task. The analogy best used to describe is that it takes a lot of effort to stop a train from going in the wrong direction, and lots more to get it going fast enough in the right direction even from standstill. The major benefits of his reforms wont be clearly obvious for another 5-8 years time, when all the projects would have been completed and the benefits would be massive to the common man and economy. Till then, I guess we just have to put up with the “wolf” crying habitual critics.

In Pakistan, it seems, there are only two types of people. One is those who are hunky dory with anything and everything, and then the other type which is not satisfied with anything. This second type seems to be too rampant here on chowk, and thank God, they are not a very important part of Pakistani society and elite.

People who know business/economy in Pakistan are all praise for Musharraf. I am no Musharraf fan, but what he has done to the economy is simply miraculous. I know plenty of responses will be here to take the credit away from musharraf and give to “9/11” etc. Since I don’t have as much time as all the BJP Fundos here who constantly scan every single article here(could it be some obsession with Pakistan?), I will leave out all the sources. The facts are there for anyone who is unbiased and wants to know. Go visit World Bank website and check out the reports on Pakistan. Go visit other financial papers such as Business Recorder(brecorder.com), go read business section of all the major Paki papers for a few years and then you will see how step by step, one by one, things were corrected by Mushy and his wonder boy Shaukat Aziz.

The Good news is that Pakistan is on the fast road to economic recovery. Indians cant stand it. They know how Pakistan has historically grown its economy. So ignore what they say. If you truly care, go read for yourself with and open mind.

Faruk

Pakistan is a unique society. Even the cultural aspects of its four units are unique from each other. But basically all over it is an agrarian society. There are two basic components of agrarian societies - tribalism and feudalism. In other words the society is divided into clans, tribes and families etc. This phenomenon has a very strong influence on the mindset of the people. The structure of clans and and tribes is that of cooperative communes where loyalties of individuals are stronger within clans as compared to among clans. This sort of cultivates the ``in-breading`` of the leadership and thus hinders progressiveness. Whereas for a democratic society to flourish a certain degree of urbanization and industrialization is required. When Paskitan came into being hardly 10% of its population was urbanized, there was no urban industrial middle class at all. The leadership came from the feudal class and continued to reign strong for decades. It took five decades to create a visible urban middle class, which is still far behind in asserting its role in the national politics and break the influence of the tribalism and feudalism in politics.

I don`t have first hand experience of an Indian society but in my uneducated opinion, in India from the very beginning a viable industrial middle class already existed. The leadership belonged to this class so it was able to assert its political dominance over feudal and tribal class after independence.

#39 Faruk:

You mentioned ``feudals/Army`` as being separate in Pakistan. The diff ought to be getting blurred now. Kuldip Nayyar wrote a piece recently on his visit to Islamabad and said something to the effect that a
pakistani major general after getting appointed to lt.general gets something like 50 ACRES plus other perks(orderlies, etc)

So what it means that Army has replaced feudal landlords and ensured that the old feudals(old money) are either subservient or sent in exile (like sharif, bhutto, etc).

right?

Urstruly, Anil
Thank you for the energetic discussion. I am sure that the leaders at the time of Independence took the decisions that they thought were in their best interest and in the best interest of their constituents. I think some of those leaders took decision more in their interest than their constituents.

I have another question for Urstruly. You have blamed the privileged class in Pakistan (feudals/Generals) for its plight. You mentioned that they sold out Pakistani interests to stay in power or keep their privileges. But there is no movement against this class of Pakistani society in Pakistan. In India most of our politicians are from the lower middle class but in Pakistan they are all either Feudal or former generals or their progeny. Why is this the case?

Regards,

Faruk

Anil

Obviously, we (you & me) have different perspectives and our individual perspectives on things are also influenced by our contemporary world. So if you ask me whether I am happy for what our forefathers did prior to 1947, as an end result , I would say that everyday is a day of thanksgiving for me and they made the right decisions. We cannot change past but we can change future and the worst way to do it is to try to change past.

Personally, I don`t think of Jinah was a god incarnate or mahatama-equivalent; he was a political leader and only that; though I consider him great leader the Quaid-e-Azam. He did some mistakes e.g. he fired G.M. Syyed which I think was a political mistake for one. Of all the leaders of past and present I think of him as the most principled though he was in the busniess of politics and politics is the art of possible. This is not a comparison of him with Gandhi or Nehru or anyone else becasue I see them at their own merit.

2. Personally I do not beleive in banning any political entity be it RSS, VHP or Sipah-e-Sahaba or Nazi party.

3. Muslims were downtrodden after British snatched India from them. What British did to them must be understood through the writings of the people of pre-political era of late 1800s. I suggest one such name as Abdul Haleem Sharar. Ghalib`s letters are also excellent source to understand. And then there is a good amount of literature availble on post 1857 war of independence written about that time by Muslim, Hindu and British authors.

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

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

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

Ustruly,

1. ``sissification`` and ``faggotization`` are words only an ignorant person uses. M`ashallah, given your own country, you`d eclipse the current loony tune in Turkenmenistan...

2. What do you know of how I use my name? I know the concept of ``ethics`` is very slippery and confusing for you, but wrap your ittle bitty brain cells around the fact that I use my Pakistani maiden name.

3. And you still haven`t answered the question; where exactly do you and your worse self Gulab Jamun live?

well I agree that defense forces should not rule a state. But in Pakistan executive and judiciary are not strong enough and qualified enough in their work. So they give way to army to come in and grab the power.

this is not to say that army has credentials to rule a state but it is to say that executive and judiciary are weak. Army is strong institution, well managed and they have clear thinking what they want to do.

May I ask what credentials new PM of Pakistan has ? education wise, work wise ? can he talk in front of world leaders ? can he negotiate ? does he now spellings of FINANCE ? does he knows what problems Pakistan have ?

Now you give argument that let executive and judiciary flourish ? why is this a University where you admit politicians and judges to get TRAINING at the expense of people ?

My dear when you are weak at your work then your colleagues who are good at their work will come and replace you from your seat.

So don`t blame army (only institute left in Pakistan which is doing well) and tell executive and judiciary to get a character and will and then talk.

solve Kashmir dispute, make peace with India, get Pakistani people educated, do land reforms, build roads and army will not come again.

peace.

- bawaqoof

Khaki WISDOM anywhere usually is an oxymoron.

Abrar Akbar, I commend you for the footnote. Believe me, you are not alone when it comes to this request. But Musharraf did not go far enough in ``confessing`` the misdeeds of 1971.

Ras

Urstruly (#25)

Dear Urstuly:

I find your answers are certainly civilized and pertinent, and allow for a civil communication. BTW, I have been living for almost 30-years in the U.S., and far longer than in India. This has given me many opportunities to interact and meet with some of the finest South Asians (including Pakistanis). Indeed, I have read all the Brits (and more) you have mentioned. Brits had an axe to grind and present a biased politics to Indian leadership and masses. My point is that ML leadership believed Congress was the power, and forgot that electorate is the true power. My examples of Churchill to Indira Gandhi was to point out the power of electorate. Many Indian leaders contemporary to Jinnah would have related more to Jinnah than to Hindu fundamentalists.

You do not have to agree with me, but I see parties as mere mechanisms to accumulation and distribution of power in democracy. When Congress was going after Muslim supporters it had rightly recognized the power of electorate. Jinnah made a feeble attempt to go after schedule caste Hindus. The strategy did not work as it was divisionary rather than uniting into a competing block to Congress. All of my reading of Jinnah`s speeches post 1938 election indicate an emptiness toward such a creation. When Nehru was in power he also struggled to face electorate power first in Kerala and later elsewhere. Anyone who understood it too well, like it or not, was Gandhi. He successfully built his constituency and fed it very well by frequently visiting the masses and doing simple things that appealed the masses.

The attempt to organize electorate on religious ground by ML, according to my analysis and my readings, was playing into British hands. I have reprints of Jinnah and others old papers that suggest Brits tried to organize Muslim polity as separate electorate as early as 1900-1910. I have no doubt in my mind that from my analysis and readings if Jinnah had decided to keep India United, he would have been head of entire India, and South Asians, and not just Pakistani Muslims, would have been better off. Somewhere, somwhow Jinnah got hijacked, you and other Pakistanis may say it was Congress and Hindu fundamentalists. I would say that he failed to understand the power of electorate and electoral math. Do you know that one of the first acts of the government of India was to ban RSS and Hindu Mahasabha. ML until last year, could not ban the extremists in Pakistan. I am pointing these out to you to say that reactionary Hindus were banned in 1948, and the act shows differences in India among Hindus. Religion, according to me, is a personal choice and affair. I am also saying that Indians would find their own answers. A fuming Pakistani adds fuel to the fire of hatred in India. Hindu fundamentalist see fuming Pakistani as a sign of their victory. Forget about me, talk to Indian Muslims and you will get their feelings on this issue. Just remember how much African-African could help the cause of African-American. Do you know what helped African-American cause was Martin Luther King who could rise and make key people realize how abhoring the practice of racism was. It still has not died down, but even Bush distancing himself from Lott is reassuring to me that goodness always prevails over evil eventually.

I also disgaree with the notion that muslims were downtrodden. Muslims in fact were the rulers, african americans were downtrodden. Until Sir Syed Ahmad, Muslims ignored the value and importance of western education. You might already know that Benares Hindu University was organized after Aligarh Muslim University. Incidentally, if you are ready to see beyond the glasses of religion you will notice that only few community from few parts of India were chosen to be educated to feed the babu class, and few community, from few regions were chosen to be the cannon fodder and trained accordingly by the Brits. Similarly, the Brits chose only a few community from few regions to trade and prepared them for economy. I would leave it for you to research it out. You would then see the growth in India was not along the religious lines, it was on the lines Brits wanted for Rule Britannia.

Yes, I have read about Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and also heard him speak in Delhi in 1960`s. I have known about Wali Khan of National Awami Party, and G. M. Syyed of Sindh. I do not know much about the last two. Do you also know what happened to these, whereas you may realize that opponents of Gandhi did not end up in Jails, some go power.

Best regards.
ANIL KAPURIA

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

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

re:#7 by Urstruly
Mr Urstruly,
When are you ever going to keep faith with your titile?
When you say
``These clowns could not even dare point their weapons at us, the people of Paksitan, if they did not have a nod and wink from the so called ``champions of freedom and democracy``
you are being too simplistic.
Who put these clowns (the Army) on the high pedestel in the first place? The people, right?
Did US encourage Mushy to stage a coup after the Kargil fiasco? Why did i not hear about a single public rally protesting against the coup? Newspapers, general public welcomed Mushy as if he were a saviour. Today, we know he was saving his own position.
US is only taking advantage of the fact that Mushy is acting alike a ``whore`` to keep his position. It suits US. Ultimately, people of Pak have to decide what they want. If they want a dictator, that is what they will get. If they want a fundamentalist regime, that is what they will get.

Sridhar

Urstruly #20,

Other than you re-writing history, the only freedom Pakistanis have won is to be endlessly brutalized by the the Army and to periodically be sold to the highest bidder.

I wouldn`t wish that kind of freedom on my worst enemy.

Anil # 23

Would you not say that 1938 election was a clear rejection of separation by Muslim electorate, and that Jinnah and ML may have misread the results, and Lahore resolution of 1940 was a reaction to this loss?..............

Yes I would say that, and that is what I wrote in my last post. But you did not understand my point. My point was that it was not the result of the 1938 elections that changed the Muslim mind it was the way congress ran the government after 1938 elections. The longstanding Muslim allegations that Congress was representing Hindus only was voiced also by eminent British personalities, e.g. The Marquees of Lothian in April 1938 termed the Congress rule as a ``rising tide of Hindu rule``. Sir William Barton writing in ``National Review`` in June 1939 also termed the Congress rule as ``the rising tide of political Hinduism``. And when Congress Government was dissolved in 1939, Jinnah declared December 22, 1939, as a Day of Deliverance and thanks-giving in token of relief from the tyranny and oppression of the Congress rule.


You have every right to express that Pakistani Muslims can say their past leaders were right. No one can take that right away. However, according to my reading, ML leaders thought Congress was the power. Whereas the Congress was only a contestant to the power. ML forgot that in democracy parties are only mechanisms of power, and the real power is always with the electorate. Indira Gandhi found out in 1977, Winston Churchill ……..

Your point is irrelevant. It would have been relative had Indira Gandhi been a leader of Muslims in India or Churchill were a leader of Catholic Ireland. The point is that you have to look into the mindset of Muslims through the perspective of not just minority but the oppressed minority. Keep in mind that British took India from Muslims and they made sure that they be put in the right place (as compared to Hindus).


The differences among ``fearsome`` Hindus were very clear even before Jinnah passed away in 1948, when a Hindu zealot murdered Gandhi. Curiously, if Congress leadership could go after ``liberal and orthodox Muslims`` alike for support. Contemporaneously, ML could have done similarly. As the leader of ML, the first thing I would have done was to change its name from being identified as Muslims.

ML came into being to safeguard the interests of Muslim minority specifically. If it had done what you said, then ML and Congress would have been just redundant. It fails the purpose of having multi-party system.


As a reader of South Asia, I find that India limps along comfortably to the next stage in its growth - the economic development. Whereas, Pakistan struggles and learns to control its Military power. By 2010, for Indian economy, the cost of defending Kashmir would be no more than the cost of defending Watts Riots or Rodney King Riots in LA for the U.S. economy. This statement does not indicate that I support the Indian army controlling its own citizens in Kashmir. My statement certainly indicates that Indian leaders would not be rattled by sabre-rattling on Kashmir front. Kashmir and Kashmiris would certainly suffer from the impasse, but effect on Pakistani economy would be greater if it survives the prowling by a giant with 5,000 ton bombs and other high tech armaments next door in Afganistan.

I have all the best wishes for your country. However, I do not think that Kashmir is ever going to turn the way you suggested. And I would also say that, in Kashmir’s struggle for independence Paksitan has now become irrelevant. I also think that despite the fact that Paksitan has also found cost effective ways to keep up with India (militarily), the prospects of an armed conflict are diminishing and will disappear altogether in near future. Two of the Paksitani objectives (i) Politicize Kashmir issue and (ii) Internationalize the issue have been met. A military objective is and never was possible. I hope people of India will realize that soon.

You cannot look at today and thank the powers to be of the past. Fuming Pakistani of today looking at the abyssmal conditions of Muslims in India, is a feast to the eyes of ``Narendra Modi`` of India. This reaction only encourages more ``Modis``. Also by doing this you fall in the trap of glossing over the mistakes of your ``ancestors`` and inadvertantly demonstrate eagerness to thank God for a very human disease of hatred.

I don’t understand your convoluted logic in this argument. Modi and Modi-ism is your dragon to slay not ours. As human beings and not just Muslims it is not just our right but duty to condemn the genocide of Muslims in India. Are you suggesting that we should keep quite because that way you get bad governments and bad leaders? And it should somehow be our problem?

In India, you would certainly find enough critics of Gandhi, just as you would find the supporters. But how many critics of Jinnah would you find in Pakistan today? If the answer is not soul searching, then would you not say that Pakistani`s more than Indians have made their leader into a demi-god?

Reading through independent sources and interacting more with Paksitanis may help change your pre-conceived notions. There is no dearth of voices of dissent in Paksitan. To name a few, Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan, G.M. Syyed, Mehmood Achakzai, Mizari, and a whole cadre of fifth columnist former commies who now call themselves liberals are opposed to what Jinnah has done for us. As a matter of fact they have spared no opportunity to dismantle Paksitan. and by any stretch of imagination they are neither pygmies nor pariahs. Have you ever heard these names?

More Pakistani nuclear transfers

---
The Evil Behind the Axis?
A scientist who built Pakistan`s nuclear bomb may have helped alleged efforts by Iraq, Iran and North Korea to develop weapons.
By Maggie Farley and Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writers

January 5 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- If one man sits at the nuclear fulcrum of the three countries President Bush calls the ``axis of evil,`` it may well be Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The 66-year-old metallurgist is considered the father of Pakistan`s nuclear bomb. He is a national hero at home, where hospitals bear his name and children sing his praises. U.S. and other Western officials do not. They say Khan is the only scientist known to be linked to the alleged efforts of North Korea, Iraq and Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

``If the international community had a proliferation most-wanted list, A. Q. Khan would be most wanted on the list,`` said Robert J. Einhorn, who was assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation in the Clinton administration.

U.S. intelligence long has known of Khan`s activities. But the extent of his ties to all three ``axis`` nations became public only recently as North Korea admitted resuming its nuclear weapons effort, satellite photos showed that Iran may be conducting clandestine nuclear work and Khan`s name appeared in a letter offering to ``manufacture a nuclear weapon`` for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Pakistan denies giving nuclear assistance to other countries and insists that Khan has done no wrong. But under intense U.S. pressure, President Pervez Musharraf abruptly removed Khan as head of nuclear weapons development two years ago. Bush administration officials, wary of undermining a partner in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, publicly downplay concerns about Islamabad`s possible role in spreading nuclear knowledge.

Privately, U.S. officials have confronted Pakistani leaders in recent years with the suggestion that Islamabad might not have complete control over its nuclear scientists. However, some analysts and experts doubt that a maverick scientist working alone -- even one as senior as Khan -- could have engineered such sensitive deals with so many governments.

``We know he`s been [to North Korea] at least 13 times, perhaps more,`` Gaurav Kampani, a nuclear expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, said of Khan. ``It`s obviously been sanctioned by institutions within the Pakistani government.``

Khan, with graying wavy hair and a salt-and-pepper mustache, has shrugged off charges that he is a nuclear Johnny Appleseed. Instead, he portrays himself as a scientist, a patriot -- and a pacifist.

``Some people have the impression that because I built a nuclear bomb, I`m some sort of cruel person,`` he told a Pakistani journalist in 2001.

``That`s not the case. I built a weapon of peace, which seems hard to understand until you realize Pakistan`s nuclear capability is a deterrent to aggressors. There has not been a war in the last 30 years, and I don`t expect one in the future. The stakes are too high.``

Unlike two other senior Pakistani nuclear scientists who were questioned by U.S. and Pakistani authorities in 2001 after meetings with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, Khan is not an Islamic radical.

``He is not a fundamentalist, though he is nationalist -- and sometimes nationalism and religion get mixed up in Pakistan,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan`s capital. ``He has been in it for the power, the money and the glory.``

Khan has received all three. When he ran Pakistan`s bomb-building program, he reported directly to the nation`s leader and had free-flowing funds at his disposal. U.S. officials say Khan owns several palatial residences. And he is revered not only at home, where he is hailed for putting Pakistan on an equal nuclear footing with rival India, but also in much of the Muslim world, where he is lionized as the man who built the ``Islamic bomb.``

One-upmanship Begins

It began when India tested a nuclear device in 1974 and Pakistan immediately sought to catch up. Khan kick-started the country`s nuclear program the following year, allegedly providing copied plans for gas centrifuges from the Urenco uranium enrichment facility in the Netherlands, where he had worked. He also obtained a list of suppliers that would prove invaluable. Khan ultimately was tried for treason in absentia in the Netherlands, but the case was dropped when prosecutors failed to properly deliver a summons.

``He stole the blueprints,`` said David Kay, who headed nuclear weapons evaluation programs at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna from 1982 to 1992. ``But he`s not a cat burglar who snatched some plans. He`s a very good scientist.``

Khan took charge of Pakistan`s uranium enrichment program in 1976. Using the Urenco designs, his team secretly built gas centrifuges at the A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta, a heavily guarded complex near Islamabad. A separate agency, Pakistan`s Atomic Energy Organization, built the weapons using what U.S. officials believe were plans obtained from China.

Pakistan detonated its first nuclear devices underground in May 1998, shortly after India launched a second series of nuclear tests. But U.S. officials say Pakistan had produced its first nuclear weapon a decade earlier, thanks to Khan`s success at the hardest part of bomb-building: producing fissile material. Islamabad today is believed to have 30 to 60 nuclear weapons.

Khan has proudly recounted how his team procured key components openly from Western companies that were willing to help -- and by subterfuge when they weren`t. Khan said in an interview with Pakistan`s Defense Journal that Western governments tried to prevent his nation from developing nuclear weapons but were foiled by the greed of their own companies.

``Many suppliers approached us with the details of the machinery and with figures and numbers of instruments and materials,`` he said. ``They begged us to purchase their goods.``

For other items, the team used offshore front companies in nations such as Japan and Singapore, sometimes routing the goods through Jordan.

``I am not a madman or a nut,`` Khan told an interviewer in 2001. ``If making nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of safeguarding the existence, independence and sovereignty of your country could be termed madness or fanaticism, there are many thousands in other countries who should be awarded even bigger titles. I am proud of my work for my country. It has given Pakistanis a sense of pride, security, and has been a great scientific achievement.``

But international officials worry that Pakistan, through Khan, has spread that nuclear knowledge to other countries. The strongest evidence appears in North Korea.

U.S. officials say Khan initiated talks with the North Koreans in 1992 to obtain 10 to 12 medium-range Nodong ballistic missiles to help Pakistan boost its military profile against India. The Americans say the deal was finalized during a secret 1993 visit to North Korea by Benazir Bhutto, then Pakistan`s prime minister.

In April 1998, Pakistan test-fired a knockoff Nodong missile renamed the Ghauri I, which can carry a nuclear payload deep into India. A month later, North Koreans attended Pakistan`s first nuclear tests, according to European diplomats.

In exchange for the missiles, U.S. and other officials say, Pakistan gave North Korea designs for Khan`s gas centrifuges and other assistance needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. After a tense diplomatic standoff with the Clinton administration, North Korea promised to suspend its enrichment program in 1994. It recently admitted that it had broken that pledge, however, and said it would resume its effort to build nuclear weapons.

Khan has also played a notable role in Iran`s nuclear development.

In 1986, Pakistan and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement after Khan visited Bushehr, a nuclear power plant that Tehran is building with Russian help. After subsequent visits by Khan, Western intelligence reported that Iranian scientists received training in Pakistan in 1988 and that Pakistan was helping Iran build a nuclear reactor in 1990. The exchanges seemed to cease by 1993 when Pakistan and Iran became rivals over Afghanistan, said Ibrahim Marashi, a proliferation expert at the Monterey Institute.

Because Iran has abundant oil and other energy sources, U.S. officials long have suspected that Bushehr is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. Concerns increased last month when satellite photos showed construction at two other Iranian facilities, Arak and Natanz, that Iranian dissidents contend are being used for nuclear weapons development. Iran insists that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes only.

Khan`s role with Iraq is less clear. In October 1990, two months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, an intermediary claiming to represent Khan met agents from Baghdad`s secret service. A memo dated Oct. 6, 1990, from Section B-15 of Iraqi intelligence to Section S-15 of the Nuclear Weapons Directorate describes ``a proposal from Pakistani scientist Abd-el Qadeer Khan`` to help Iraq ``establish a project to enrich uranium and manufacture a nuclear weapon.``

The middleman said Khan ``was prepared to give us project designs for nuclear bombs,`` according to the memo. The middleman said he was based in Greece and would oversee shipments from Western Europe, using a company he claimed to own in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, according to sources who have studied the memo.

U.N. weapons inspectors found the memo in 1995 in a cache of documents hidden at a chicken farm near Baghdad. They determined that Iraq had rejected the middleman`s offer, but Iraq refused to identify him.

A letter from the International Atomic Energy Agency to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997 details interviews with agents from Mukhabarat, Baghdad`s secret service, who described Iraq`s clandestine nuclear program, code-named the Petrochemical-3 project. The agents said that ``PC-3 had adopted a policy of avoiding foreign assistance, believing that the risk of exposure (e.g. through `sting` operations) far outweighed the likely technical benefits.``

In 1998, Pakistan`s government investigated the middleman`s letter at the IAEA`s request and declared the offer a fraud. The nuclear agency concluded that charges of Pakistani proliferation were ``inconsistent with the information available,`` but it listed the memo as a key unresolved issue in a 1999 U.N. report on Iraq`s arms programs. Iraq`s recent 12,000-page arms declaration referred twice to the ``unsolicited offer.``

``The memo was taken quite seriously,`` said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq. ``There`s this pattern of leakage out of Pakistan. These people broke almost every country`s law to get their own nuclear components.``

Nuclear Chief`s Ouster

In March 2001, Musharraf removed Khan as head of Pakistan`s nuclear programs and named him a presidential advisor -- a move that nation`s nuclear hero heard about on television and at first refused to accept.

However, U.S. officials suspected that the exchanges with other nations continued, especially after U.S. spy satellites spotted Pakistani military cargo planes picking up missile parts in North Korea last July. The North told U.S. officials that the parts were for surface-to-air missiles, not for a missile that could deliver a nuclear weapon.

In June 2001, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage all but named Khan when he expressed concern that ``people who were employed by the nuclear agency and have retired`` might be spreading nuclear technology to North Korea.

After North Korea confessed last fall that it had resumed its nuclear weapons program, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell again confronted Pakistan`s president about illegal assistance.

``Musharraf assured me, as he has previously, that Pakistan is not doing anything of that nature,`` Powell said, though he noted that they did not speak of Pakistan`s past contacts with North Korea. ``The past is the past. I am more concerned about what is going on now. We have a new relationship with Pakistan.``

However, a senior U.S. official says the Bush administration keeps a wary eye on the retired scientist as he oversees philanthropic groups, runs seminars and feeds stray animals in his neighborhood.

``How can you stop the transfer of intellectual property?`` the official said. ``The potential for sharing is always there.``

Urstruly #20

Would you not say that 1938 election was a clear rejection of separation by Muslim electorate, and that Jinnah and ML may have misread the results, and Lahore resolution of 1940 was a reaction to this loss? Would you also not say that the Unionist Government in united Punjab was an example of functional democracy and the law of electoral math in post WW II politics of South Asia (I prefer to call it South Asia)? Was it also not a preview of result oriented compromises and how the democracy could have worked across the community and religious barriers in that part of the world?

You have every right to express that Pakistani Muslims can say their past leaders were right. No one can take that right away. However, according to my reading, ML leaders thought Congress was the power. Whereas the Congress was only a contestant to the power. ML forgot that in democracy parties are only mechanisms of power, and the real power is always with the electorate.

Indira Gandhi found out in 1977, Winston Churchill found out shortly after winning the war, and many leaders in democracies have similarly found out too. Nehru found out in Kerala in the second general election.

The differences among ``fearsome`` Hindus were very clear even before Jinnah passed away in 1948, when a Hindu zealot murdered Gandhi. Curiously, if Congress leadership could go after ``liberal and orthodox Muslims`` alike for support. Contemporaneously, ML could have done similarly. As the leader of ML, the first thing I would have done was to change its name from being identified as Muslims.

Within 10 years of installation of Indian constitution, Kerala became a good example of democracy and the power of minorities; and became a heartache for Nehru. This happened in less than three general elections in India after independence. In the fifth general election Congress lost Madras and Bengal, never to regain there again. In sixth general election, Indira Gandhi lost her power. Illiterate electorates of India showed the door to her, this was the best proof of the power of electoral votes and math in South Asia. Five years earlier, after the Bangladesh war, she was hailed as the Goddess.

While it is true that hindsight is 20/20, but for leaders the vision and not the hindsight is better.

As a reader of South Asia, I find that India limps along comfortably to the next stage in its growth - the economic development. Whereas, Pakistan struggles and learns to control its Military power. By 2010, for Indian economy, the cost of defending Kashmir would be no more than the cost of defending Watts Riots or Rodney King Riots in LA for the U.S. economy. This statement does not indicate that I support the Indian army controlling its own citizens in Kashmir. My statement certainly indicates that Indian leaders would not be rattled by sabre-rattling on Kashmir front. Kashmir and Kashmiris would certainly suffer from the impasse, but effect on Pakistani economy would be greater, if it survives the prowling by a giant with 5,000 ton bombs and other high tech armaments next door in Afganistan.

Indian system more than just leadership (and not just Muslim leadership) must deal with the abysmal condition of its people and their discriminatory tendencies.

You cannot look at today and thank the powers to be of the past. Fuming Pakistani of today looking at the abyssmal conditions of Muslims in India, is a feast to the eyes of ``Narendra Modi`` of India. This reaction only encourages more ``Modis``. Also by doing this you fall in the trap of glossing over the mistakes of your ``ancestors`` and inadvertantly demonstrate eagerness to thank God for a very human disease of hatred.

In India, you would certainly find enough critics of Gandhi, just as you would find the supporters. But how many critics of Jinnah would you find in Pakistan today? If the answer is not soul searching, then would you not say that Pakistani`s more than Indians have made their leader into a demi-god?

Best regards.
ANIL KAPURIA

Ahh the khakis:

The qaumi tarana of what was supposed to be Pakeeza should be:

``In hee logoN ney ley liyaa duppatta mairaa.

Humree naa maanoN ,---- sipahyaa sey poochoh,
jiss ney bajarvaa mein chheenaa duppatta meira.``

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in case the Hindians are playing the armpits:

This is for them:

``Sujj rahee kaisee meree ammaN sunehray gotay mein``
____________________________________________________________

Urstruly:

Thanks for a good laugh....`` kyaa voh dilli ma raataa``?

Anil # 15

No one leaves Paki Pakai Plate - no matter how stupid. Muslim religious leadership was well aware of this fact and hence opposed the creation of separate homeland - their contention was to have faith in the system if you can`t have faith in Hindus but what really broke camel`s back was the Congress dominated Government of 1938. That really made the case of unionists weak. It actually opened the eyes of Muslims and gave them the glimpse of future to come. That resulted in Lahore Resolution of 1940 where the case for a seprate Muslim homeland was approved by the majority. But keep in mind that it was not without dissent. In 1946 when Cabinet Mission Plan was put forth the case for a separate homeland was still in infantile stage but CMP posed a catch 22 situation. Congress was not ready to grant any more concessions to ML because they correctly assumed that in either case they - whether India is divided or not - they hold the royal flush; meaning that if India remains united being a majority they keep all the cards and if it is divided the new Muslim state would not survive past six months. On the Muslim side there was an experience of 1938 and other option was to take their chances. The genocide of Muslims in Bengal in 1946 left them with no option but to accept the formula of division as laid out by CMP.

The point is that anyone can be wise after the fact, the real test is how you decide at the time. And now when after the fact we are wise and we can see the abyssmal condition of Muslim in India we thank God that our ancestors made the right decision.

As far as going to the ``colonial powers`` for aid is concerned, I think that at the time Muslim leadership made the right decision. We must look at it through the perspective of post Second World War era international politics and how world was rapidly changing to bipolar blocks. What chances a fragile state had when it also had to face the openly hostile and sworn enemy of a neighbor.

But now times have changed. A time has finally come when Paksitan can claim its freedom. Freedom comes with a cost - we will pay.

Urstruly #13

I disagree with Usruly that India had better institutions in 1947.

Most of the Indian states did not exist until 1956-1960. There was no Gujurat - part of the Bombay Presidency There was no Tamilnadu - part of the Madras Presidency.

India had a higher population density and more ethnic diversity. In 1947 Punjab had the best irrigation system in India. It is still better than the irrigation system in some Indian states.

If there was any advantage that existed in India it was political leadership. whatever their shortcomings Nehru, Sardar Patel ... were a notch or two above the pygmies that ruled Pakistan.

.... the mongols are reponsible for all this

........ yea .... ever since the mongol invasion and the fall of baghdad things have not been the same ...... and then there were the bloddy russians who took over central asia and the french who absolutely destroyed us in egypt - may the fleas of a thousand camels infest the armpits of napolean`s great grandsons ! .........and then there were the horrible british who set up all those factories in bombay and put sikander hayat in charge of punjab and introduces miswar to the pathans so that they could get stoned and chase the boys .......... and then there is the bania who stole the oil from our diyas and lighted up his mandirs ........ and the parsis who wouldn`t give us any money when we needed it ......... and the bohras and the khojas who were in cahoots with the british and the anglo-indians to keep the beralvis and the deobandis in servitude ......... and then there were the biharis who swamped karachi with their hindoo ways ........... and the dutch with nestles and the finns with nokia and the chinese with their chinsey tinker toys and bad mao suits and socialist ideas who corrupted our young and set bhutto on the wrong path ......... and they were followed by the nefarious south koreans and taiwanese with their cheap washing machines that turned the great industrial city of gujarat into a ghost town ..........

............ everyone and their nephew has worked hard to keep us down, and now it the americans with their stale bic macs and daisy cutters and promiscuous women ............. hoolywood and bollywood together with texaco and general motors is out to destroy us .........ever since the mongols invaded baghdad ............. there is only one way to save ourselves - we must start praying five times a day a............. yea, that`s it - if only we would pray five times a day ................

Arjunm

``....., are you planning to head across the border into canuckistan? ``


No actually I am planning to change my name like all others e.g. saminashah now calls herself Suddenly Susan and hamidm is planning on changing his name to Leroy Jackson. Whereas I think hamdim should change his name to Al Ben Dover; with this name and his pink pathan behind he can easily pass for a jew. And me......I am changing my name to Ganpat Roy. Next time when I will be waiting in security check up line at an American Airport with red paint on my forehead and a red neck immigration officer will yell my name in southern accent ``Gaand Putt Raa ayy?``, I with a smile on my lips will say in my heart ``not any more`` whereas my lips would say ``Yes SirI Ji Hazoor``.

Why is the Pakistani (military) establishment keeps denying anything/everything flat out and see their credibility go down even down?

Case in point:

1. Hot pursuit snipers who go and hide in tribal areas by US/Afghan forces. US says it has tacit ok; Rashid & company say to the public at large. there is no prev agreement.

On the internet, Wash post reports tacit ok even by Pakistani military.
Do the Pakistani military are so naive to think that people (even) in the tribal areas do not have access to the net?

2. North Korea nucl deal: again flat out denial. NY times reported that
as late as july 2002, US intell spotted a Pakistani (US made) cargo landing in North Korea.

3. Re Pakistani visiters registration: Pakistan flatly denying existance of
terrorism in Pakistan soil-so needs a ``bye`` on pakistani people. Give me a break. Post 9/11 Mush arrested 2000 odd taliban sympathiers and then released them quietly later on. The killer of Daniel Pearl was supposedly killed in that bomb-making factory but another Omar sheik is still in custody on the pearl charge with no extradiction. From US security point any of the visiters could be oneof those released!

4. Mush`s nuclear boast: he made the speech which was carried on TV and later said he was misquoted by Rashid again.

5. The letter to Iraq from a pakistani nucl scientist about possibility of selling nucl stuff, etc. Flat out denial from pak establishment.

6. Cross border terrorism(or LoC) : again flat out denial; not withstanding the open pronouncements from various jehadi outfits in
Muzafarbad(Pakistan control kashmir)

The US laws mostly run on a ``trust`` or ``honor`` system. if someone lies and admits it and says he will be careful in the future, there is sympathy for that person. But when there is flat-out denial when the whole world knows the obvious, then mushraff and his cronies look more like fools.

It is similar to taking a psychological testing(MMPC-i guess) where the test asks you personal questions (even about stealing, etc); if you answer truthfully, you come out ok. if you flatly deny anything negative about you, then it raises a red-flag for the person reviewing the results.

Mush doesn`t have efficient advisors who can give some straight talk. all he has is a bunch of ``yes sir`` men/women.

{#13 by Urstruly on Janauary 4, 2003 10:44am PT

Faruk

.......I like your commentry. It is true that both countries won freedom at the same time but both countries were extremely different from the beginning. paki pakai plate`. .....the only option that Paksitan had was to seek help from the very colonial powers it got its independence from. ......}

Dear Urstruly:

Don`t you think your logic is inconsistent, because: (a) it was Pakistani leadership of the time that forced its way out of the ``paki pakai plate``; (b) going back to ``very colonial powers`` probably reflects bankruptcy of idea? Also, the law of electoral math was not understood by the Pakistani leadership. Otherwise, according to your logic, the visionary leadership of Pakistan should have been working with the colonial powers (Brits) to keep them in the United India, instead of working toward ``moth eaten Pakistan``, or it should worked fiercely toward full and rapid democratization rather than seeking protection of rights, so that it could have used intra-hindu rivalries to secure rights for all minority rights. PROBABLY SICKENING GUJRAT WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

Forget India, and just consider, Vietnam was bombed, maimed and killed out of existence, and now it is the fastest growing economy in Asia. Pakistani Punjab had all the agricultural land (today`s East Punjab even has higher per acre production). Whereas Vietnamese land was all Napalmed, Mined, Agent Oranged and what not. And now, the ``very powers`` to be want their Nike shoes and clothes made there. Vietnamese also had to fight another war with China shortly after the U.S. too. Don`t you think the difference points to flawed logic and psyche of Pakistani leadership of the past and present?

Best regards.
ANIL KAPURIA

not all actions taken by the fourth reich are evil. too bad ms. jehangir who never misses an opportunity to criticize pakistan misses out on the opportunity to experience the joys of life under hindu yoke.

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2003/01/03/stories/2003010305010100.htm

Asma Jehangir denied visa

HYDERABAD Jan. 2. The Pakistan delegation to the Asian Social Forum here led by Asma Jehangir, leading women`s and human rights activist, has been denied visa by India. This was announced by Nirmala Deshpande, Gandhian and Sarvodaya leader, at the opening plenary of the ASF.

Faruk

I like your commentry. It is true that both countries won freedom at the same time but both countries were extremely different from the beginning. When Paksitan came into being the people in INdia (and even in Paksitan) used to bet when it would collapse. With all the beureaucratic, judicial, and governmental records left in India alongwith the funds Paksitan had to truely start everything from scratch - and that includes even the basic institutions. Paksitan comprised of those areas of united India where there were no Industry and the only area that was viable agriculture land was in Punjab. Whereas India inherited everything from British Empire as what is called `paki pakai plate`. So in this case situation when other Muslim countries were still struggling against colonial forces, the only option that Paksitan had was to seek help from the very colonial powers it got its independence from. The price was heavy. Paksitan actually did not win its freedom in 1947, it still hasn`t. As long as it is playing a role of a pawn in the hands of neo-colonial powers it never will. As long as people of Paksitan keep on tolerating the privileged class of society, which looks after the interests of foreign power in our land - intellectually, militarily, and financially - Pakistan will never be free.

#7 by Urstruly on Janauary 4, 2003 7:40am PT
I found your post amusing. You gained independence along with us and your army took control of your country. How is the US responsible for your plight?
Are you blaming the US for dealing with the de-facto ruler of Pakistan?

Regards,

Faruk

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

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

Military rule in Pakistan is a disease but the source of disease lies elsewhere. These clowns could not even dare point their weapons at us, the people of Paksitan, if they did not have a nod and wink from the so called ``champions of freedom and democracy``. It is time that we start putting the blame where it rightfully belongs.

...go tell that to trigger-happy-mush who was apparently ready to nuke india (as usual, now denies it) and wasn`t the least bit concerned that bakistan would`ve vanished from the map in the course of indian retaliation...

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

Jigar ka dard oopar say maloom hota hai
Jigar ka dard oopar say `hai` maloom hota hai

to modify a bit of wisdom from that masterpiece of overacting `amitabh in sharaabi `

as they say what is the use of burning your blood, we at chowk know all this about our great army.
saathi kuch aur bata na!

Why is Musharaff regime any worse than Gen Zia regime ? While he has a different outlook on Islam Musharaff is following the policies of Zia regime. The geopolitical situation has changed. Pakistan is economically worse off than under Zia.

Abrar,

It has been denied by mushy, denied by every one about the likely hood of nuclear exchange, but for the ilks of you, it is jihad under mushroom clouds. You all keep talking about nuclear war so that the india has no opton but to accept the attacks on red fort and parliment. The uncountables of pakistan, the jihadists whose numbers and deaths are never acknowledged by the educated pakistanis, continue to wreak heavoc in 9india.

The only option for india is the isreali approach, for each un-countable jihadist, a countable military person has to killed. The hoped for fortunes of the shahedd has to be replaced by the rubble of his house. That is the only approach to deal with jihadists.

BLASPHEMY IN KERALA

The controversy arose after the pictures of Mr. Abdulla sporting a `tilak` appeared in the print and electronic media.

The State Committee of the SYS had warned that Mr. Abdulla should not enter a mosque since he had applied a `tilak` which, according to them, is un-Islamic. Mr. Panakkad Syed Umerali Shihab Thangal had also asked Mr. Abdulla to offer proper repentance according to the tenets of Islam.

The priests of the Avala Math had applied `tilak` on the forehead of the Chief Minister, A.K. Antony, and the Local Administration Minister, Cherkalam Abdulla, during their visit to the spiritual leader last month. However, Mr. Abdulla clarified that he had not applied the `tilak` on his own.

The Indian National League (INL) had also sought a clarification from the IUML leadership on the conduct of the Minister.

Its youth wing, the National Youth League (NYL), even demanded the resignation of the IUML chief for protecting the Minister.

Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) State general secretary, K. Surendran, in a press release, condemned the reported statements of various Muslim organisations demanding the ouster of Mr. Abdulla from the Cabinet for wearing a `tilak` during his visit to the math in Kasaragod.

Pakistan Army has been plundering Pakistan for too long and no end is in sight. They have been at the helm of failed domestic and foreign policy initiatives. They have built a huge empire for themselves leaving Pakistan with crippling foreign and domestic debt. The biggest fraud in Pakistan is the current government, breaking all kind of fraud records. The illegitimacy of Mush at the helm is the biggest curse of all.

What a trick idiot generals have played on Pakistan!!!

These people should be habged on the street for leading to one failed Afghan policy, failed Kashmir policy, leading to an unnecessary war, overthrowing civilain government, insulting the constitution and criminally breaking the most sacred law of the land and almost leading to another disastrous war recently. Are they bitches or bastards or a mix of both?