Five Centuries Ago Tomorrow

ali87#59
You are abolutely right about the role played by the IIT alumnii, especially its diaspora. I dont think even the Chinese have anything like the successful IndUS group which has energised the Indian entrepreneurs. I believe the first company to start offshore operations in India was Texas Instrument (with Nadar?) which faced great challenges in getting a telephone line even after they had set up a satellite connection with their headquarters in Texas. I think there is a fascinating book to be written on how Bangalore gathered the critical mass to become a high-tech hotspot. If someone hasn`t already produced this work, I would seriously think of collaborating with someone on it.
You are right, too, about the difference between the hardware and software side of the computer business and how large companies failed in this sector in India even after collaborations with large MNCs (this sector is now dominated by the cottage industry doing mostly assembly work in one-room ``factories``). You have also diagnosed correctly the reason for its failure, which is the same as the reason for India`s lack of competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, with significant exceptions like automotive and chemical sectors. I am now beginning to think that, maybe, ten years from now, this might prove to be a blessing in disguise because it has forced India to become more competitive in the knowlege-based industries which are going to be the real engine of future global growth.

#58 Very interesting dost-mittar thanks for the information.

#58 by dost-mittar on April 7, 2003 7:19am PT

Dont forget the IIT Alumini. The Returning Alumini after a few years experinence in US were the first ones to venture out in the IT industry. Starting from NIIT/HCL Shiv Nadar in 1980 who started with selling Texas Insutment calculators. Perhaps because of the nature of people who entered the IT Industry they did not/could not lobby with the govt. Also the nature of the business where the demand is not in control of the Govt and no material resources being used which requires govt liceences, approvals. The main resource used by the IT industry is the communication facitlity here there was just nothign they could lobby for given their small revenue in earlier years. For computers they continued to pay the same rates in terms of customs duty etc. Margins being high this was not a factor which detered growth. However if you see the hardware sector being run by the some of the same companies which run the software sector (HCL, TATA, WIPRO etc) they havent been able to accomplish much as this involves many govt levies and permissions. Being manufacturing it involves high investements(cost and diffiuclty of raising capital depends on govt polices), High Taxes, Infrastructure (since things like captial goods, transport Infrastucture, Labour policies, Electrical Power, Land aqusition, Industrial regulatory rules are complex) are all controlled by govt policies which do not make Indian Manufactures cost compettive.

zakk#55
The success of the IT in India is as much due to a benign neglect by the govt. in its embryonic stage as to the later close cooperation between the industry and the govt. The govt. has generally gone along with the demands/recommendation of the industry in this sector, regardless of the govt. of the day. Moreover, the govt. policies are sector specific and not marred by favouritism of particular companies, unlike in other sectors. Also, the state govts. have proved a crucial role in this. Thus, IT is a growth industry in Karnataka and Andhra but not in Kerala with its left dominated politics even though Keralites are very active in the adjacant Karnataka.
The current IT minister in India is Arun Shourie. He is a prize-winning journalist turned into a politician. He is known to be hard working, intelligent and of highest integrity. He is from the famous St. Stephen`s College of New Delhi and the son of a life-long citizen`s rights activist, H. Shurie.
Until recently, the minister of IT was Pramod Mahajan. Although a BJP hack, he is considered to be one of their more dynamic, can-do ministers. He had no IT background (had never seen a computer until he became the Minister) but proved to be a fast learner. Unfortunately, he does not have a clean reputation and there are many stories about his being a wheeler-dealer. He, too, failed to win an election to the Lok Sabha and had to seek a nomination to the Rajya Sabha.
The winning of elections in India is not a function of money alone, although money is crucial. Manmohan Singh was a Congress candidate and did not lack funds. The main problem is the dirty mud-slinging that is part of the electoral process which, combined with the induction of criminal elements, makes it an unsavoury choice for any decent person to even contemplate fighting an election.

A little bit of cheer for you guys.

There is article in the Fortune which says that at the moment the the Paksitani stock exchange is giving the highest return. Many American Investors who wanted to invest could not get find the information as well as means.

Reportedly the stock exchange was giving 180% returns though this is atributed to a wild fluctations due to uncertainity.

Zakk:

I sincerely hope that I am wrong on my predicting the polarization. I believe it would be much better that if Islamists have to stay then they win all over Pakistan and not remain confined to the NWFP and Balochistan, thereby dividing the country along provincial lines as well. I sincerely hope that the situation in Afghanistan (resurgence of Talibans) does not ignite another wave of violent protests and extremism in Pakistani politics.

In any event, if I were eligible to vote in Pakistan, I would vote for modernism, continuity of policies and stability. I will not vote for Islamists, although I have a great respect for them in that if a situation like Iraq is thrusted upon Iran and/or Pakistan, it is their call that can get three nations united - Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan`s Pushtoons, Hazaras and Shia factions.

#53 Dost Mittar: Thanks for the info, just goes to show how expensive a jobfighting elections can be. I do appreciate one move by Musharaf`s the graduation degree restriction has raised the level of discourse. I am curious, though who is the Indian Minister linked with it`s IT projects? What is his background, the comparison would be interesting and probably relevant to this discussion.

#48 Yes it is the same Ayaz Amir, the journalist. His writing has gotten him in trouble before. But then his personal morality is between him and God. After all if we were to set moral standards for Pakistani politicians, I doubt most our former and present leaders would ever be able to hold office.

Ahmadzai: I accept your theory about the next elections showing a greater polarisation between political forces. But I don`t think the division will be as well defined as you have stated. There is a space for a moderate conservative party ( centre right) in Pakistani politics. that claim was formally held by the PML(N) and the PTI has attracted people with those inclinations. The problem with this polarisation is that since PErvaiz Musharraf has come to power, the power of the right wing has increased, in the sense that they have dropped aggressively extreme politics of idealogy because when ever you get into a position of political power in a democracy, you are forced to moderate. India is an excellent example of that, The BJP for the sake of power had moderated itself. Considering what it was capabe of in the early 90`s and what it coud have done in the states it controlled (if we use Gujarat as an example) they have come a long way. The reason is simple, they got used to power. Unfortunately, what you have mentioned could play out if, the establishment tries to manipulate the situation rather then let demoracy take root..by dismissing the Frontier governemnt or cracking down on the MMA. Then I feel the sympathy factor and the armed elements in the MMA could catapult it to a level most of it`s own leaders would b surprised by.

Zakk and Romair:

My observations to the two posts:

1. I have not said that in Pakistan the Ministers have been rubber stamps all along. Previously they were decision maker and therefore, looters too. Its only under the current Musharraf led administration that they are going to be rubber stamp Ministers for a very good reason that the actual policy has already been formulated.

2. The role of Ministers is supposed to be concept/product sellers to the people. In an organization, people who work their butts off are not necessarily the people who run marketing and advertising. Please recall that the revamping of Crysler Corp in the 80s is attributed to Lee Iacocca. However, the policy that is attributed to him for the success could have been attributed to at least 6 other people in the meeting of the senior management that had come up with that novel concept. However, Lee Iacocca was smart enough to send his publicity manager, Walter Murphy (if I recall the name correctly from an account) to disclose the policy as Lee`s in all the newspapers the very evening. The point is that the policy for respective areas have already been made by the Military Government. Now Ministers are being used to sell those.

3. In America, I believe that the media takes on the role of selling policy to the people (my various posts elsewhere). The Government, establishment and media works in tandem. I don`t know who is the controling body, but there definitely is one, perhaps Jewish Lobby or the corporates.

4. Romair, because of your last para, let me say once again that there would be a divide along conservative Islamists (call them Jamaatia, Jihadis, MMA, etc) and moderate Islamists (call them liberals / moderates / progressives for this is all verbosity in a Muslim Pakistan). While conservatives would like to hold on to pan-Islamism, Islamic economic system (i.e. the Islami nizam in broader sense), etc. and prove their worth through value addition in at least two provinces, the moderates would like to prove their worth through their deeds all across Pakistan. Under these circumstances, PML-N, PPP and PTI would be exceptionally lucky to carve their niche. I am sure PML-N will be wiped out. So will be PPP from its urban strongholds. I am sure PTI will disappear too. However, if it does not, I will be pleasantly surprised.

zakk, Romair:
You may find it interesting that none of arguably the most competent ministers in the Vajpayee cabinet - Arun Shourie, Arun Jaitley and Jaswant Singh- are from the directly elected Lok Sabha, but from the upper house called Rajya Sabha. This is no coincidence; India`s brightest find it almost impossible to win elections - witness the defeat of Manmohan Singh from the elite constituency of New Delhi at the hands of an old political hack, Vijay Malhotra.

Omair: We have seen in Pakistani history, that whenever a relatively strong civilian government comes into power. There appointments tend to be more technocratic while at the same time being more focussed on loyalty to the boss over all else. The best examples of that are the last Nawaz givernment and the first PPP govt in the 70`s. I don`t think either of those governments were superiorin performance then any others, the only thing that happened was the power of the cabinet was reduced and no longer a check on the Prime Minister. While I agree it is very sad to see Ministers who don`t have a clue being made in charge of certain Ministries. At the same time, the present government in India is also made of a coalition, it also has an enormous number of political appointees as ministers. That hasn`t stopped the IT sector from undergoing an enormous boom. And You should remember Ministers in India have greater access to the public sector corproations because teh size of the public sector is much more. (although I agree, the principal source of corruption for politicans at the federal level is Public Sector Corporations, while at the provincial it would be Police, Education, C&W)

The Senate in Pakistan does reserve seats for technocrats;

ahmadzai/Zakk: In the US, the ministers do not have to be members of Congress. I don`t have the statistics, but I think a majority aren`t. In Pakistan, it is exactly the opposite: the ministers have to be either in the NA or Senate.

I fail to see what Presidential or Parliamentary govt. concepts have to do with this. Who cares how England and Australia do it. They have different societies at different levels of sophistication than Pakistan. In my opinion, in Pakistan, the rules should be exactly the opposite, i.e one should not be allowed to be a Minister and a MNA/Senator. Be one or the other.

The job of a minister is to run a major department of the whole country. He should run it like an efficient private company. Politics should have absolutely nothing to do with it. He should find the problems in his ministry`s area, and present various different solutions to the PM. It should be the PM`s job to then discuss it with his MNAs and look at the political aspects, and make the appropriate decision, taking into account the politics (presented by the elected MNAs) and the technical aspects (presented by the ministry).

Ministers are not rubber-stamps. If they were, then every MNA would not be aspiring for these positions. Pakistan, with an economy not even a fraction of the USA, usually has two to three times the no. of total ministers. The MNAs are far more concerned about ministries than their constituencies or even their own parties. Notice the defection of the PPPP members, having been bribed by ministries.

MNAs want to be ministers because it gives them access to a whole dept. of the country. Since Pakistani industry is still under govt. control, it gives them control over huge govt. organizations like PIA, Ghee plants, car making plants etc. They get a great number of personal benefits through this. Most of all, they get a chance to stuff these organizations with their own unqualified voters, through jobs, at the expense of Pakistan.

That is why it doesn`t really matter what the qualification of the MNA maybe, he/she just wants a ministry. - any ministry A minister has the power to give a telecom agency to his best friend, thereby bringing down the wireless industry of the whole country. So on and so forth. The PM cannot do anything about it, because the minister may represent an internal voting bloc of five to ten MNAs. How does Pakistan benefit from this?

A non-MNA minsiter would have none of these issues, as was seen in Musharraf`s cabinet. By keeping ministries and NA/Senate separate, it will ensure that professionals (hardly any of whom can get elected) will run them, and the elected politicians will concentrate on what their voters elected them for, i.e. working in their own constituencies. Pakistan is doing exactly the opposite.

2. I am not actually actively involved in politics, at all. My family is a PTI supporter, so I get info through them. Living in the USA and Pakistan, has not been as much of an education, as living in urban and feudal Pakistan. I think all city-dwellers should live in feudal lands to see what the PPP and PML type politicians actually do in their lands - even the ones who sent their own daughters to modelling agencies and to the Ivy league. It will turn half of them towards the MMA, believe me. Mansooras of JI are liberal thriving metropolises in comparision to what goes on in the feudal lands of Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan. Maulvis put their women under veils and burqas, feudals rape theirs.

It will be very dangerous if Pakistan is divided along religious and secular/liberal lines. Countries do not progress if they are liberal, and they do not progress if ther are religious and conservative. These two points are almost immaterial. People giving too much importance to religion, from opposing directions, are usually be biggest advocates of these two points.

Countries progress due to good economic policy, good education policies, and most of all, due to honest dedicated leadership. It will not make too much of a difference if the leadership is religious or liberal. The US is easily the most conservative and religious society in the Western world, yet it is by a huge margin the most powerful.

When people start using religionism and liberalism as the main criteria for voting, they end up destroying a country. A person voting for a corrupt feudal just because she appears liberal is as lost as a person voting for an ignorant mullah because he seems more religious. Both groups of voters, are unfortunately, too narrow-minded to realize their lack of vision. Each is fanatically convinced that the other is wrong, and hence convinced they are right.

People need to get out of looking at each party through religious or secular goggles. They need to look at how well the party raises the economic and human rights standards of the poorest and weakest Pakistani (not that of the richest Pakistani). In the process, the party`s encouragement of co-education or separate education, no cable or more cable, though interesting, is, in the big picture, immaterial.

Pakistan needs political parties that appeal to all provinces and people of all levels or religious persuasions (i.e maulvi to secular). Only such a party can bring everyone together. Such a party will have to stop looking for its roots in the USA or Saudi Arabia. It will have to try to feel the pulse of the average Pakistani and follow that.

In my opinion, the average Pakistani is not secular, and he/she is not religious to the extent of being a Jamaatia. He wants some religion in his public life, but does not want it shoved down his throat. Whether commentators like this or not, is immaterial. I think the pulse of Pakistan is a very moderate version of Islam. I suppose one could call it liberal Islamism (though not secularism). This is about where PTI places itself. The reason it is voting with MMA is because there is no liberal party worth its salt to vote with. The PPP and PML being proven corrupt failiures.

The reason the PPP and PML are now becoming more Islamist is because they have no credibility. They have nothing to stand on. They have done nothing for Pakistan, other than rob it, MNA by MNA. The peopole have given such parties fifty years of opportunity, waiting for them to do something. Now, they are going to the only other alternative, MMA. An alternative they didn`t chose as their first choice. If you were to take the feudals (who own their complete constituencies, and thus win the elections) out of the PPP and PML, the parties would be left with nothing, since they have no credibility in the non-feudal areas.

I think due to the above, the PPP and PML will lose out in urban Punjab soon. They have already lost urban Sind, urban NWFP and Baluchistan. Who will replace them, is anyone`s guess. It could be MMA or it could be PTI.

What the average Pakistani wants, is what he should get - specially in a democracy. Due to this secular crowd needs to become more religious and the religious crowd needs to become more secular. Otherwise they will pull the country apart.

Zakk and Romair:

First of all I thank both of you for caring to get involved in an informative discussion.

Romair: Since you are involved in politics (to great extent) and have lived in the two countries, you would know that the USA`s and Pakistan`s Governments work differently. In America you would like to have an educated and skilled technocrat put at the top of a Ministry/ Department, because of the Presidential system of elections. In Pakistan and many other countries, we have to have elected reps as Ministers and handling the Ministries.

However, this time around its a bit different in Pakistan too. The main policy of each ministry will be formulated and run by technocrats (or IMF)and the Ministers will only act as sellers. They will be used to obtain the buy-in of local and foreign parties. Now you can call it bad by claiming that our ministers are going to be rubber stamp authorities or you can call it good since this ensures continuity of policies being pursued since October 1999.

In view of the above, I don`t think that the son of Farooq Leghari will be doing anything of his own accord. Ideally, Pakistanis should have elected donkeys. These then could have been made ministers to run the policy of technocrats. At this critical juncture, we do not need sudden shifts in policies on whims of the elected persons. We need continuity for giving economic stability to the country. I hope I have made my point clear.

Zakk mentioned, ``Lastly, to your first prediction, the polarisation you speak off between the secularists and Islamists in Pakistan is almost disappearing, even among former leftists parties like the PPP, there is a strong feeling of support for Iraq and pan Islamism. The MMA has regained the centre right vote stolen from them in the mid 1990`s by nawaz Sharif and with the Iraq war won support from across the field effectively dominating public discourse, and the once huge divide between secularists and Islamists has collapsed with that. It seems when you look at the mood, that the Islamists have won. ``

To this, I would say that you and I are talking about the same thing from two angles. See even PPP had to play Pan-Islamist and you are also confirming that Islamists have won.

In the light of the foregoing, in my last post you may replace ``It will be Islamists versus Government backed liberals. Whoever misses one of these two boats misses out altogether. For example, it would be a straight contest between issues like Islami Nizam to bring equality in the world, free dom to Afghanistan, Chechniya, Iraq, etc. versus who gave you Gwadar port, new roads, expansion in steel mill therefore, more jobs, etc. People like Imran Khan would not be able to find their niche between these two agendas.``

to the following:

`It would be Pan Islamists versus Musharraf/Military/Government backed liberals.`

If the Islamists remain united, then it would be very difficult to beat them by individual parties. Also people like Imran Khan will find it very difficult to find a niche between the two positions (right versus extreme right). Nearer the next elections, parties will have to join behind either of these two banners.

At a personal level Romair, I don`t dislike Imran. I used to like him a lot, but then I figured out that he is too arrogant and dictatorial. I have been observing his gestures and body language on TV shows and I don`t think that he is democratic inherently. He has very strong views and this could be bad (Bhutto, BB and Nawaz) or good (Quaid-e-Azam).

If I were to vote, I would vote for continuity of policy for economic stability (the 4 point agenda of the Government), no matter who commits to that.

#26 by Pankaj on April 2, 2003 4:18pm PT
Thanks, despite our differnces we should keep our language respectful.

Bad language also shows that our a_slave_with_new_master ran out of arguments.

#44 by Zakkk on April 4, 2003 1:35pm PT

I dont know much about pakistani politics but if you are talking about Ayaz Amir the journalist.

I wonder how he survived in politics with articles like this in Outlook India.

Even Indian politicans will not be able to brush of this kind of behaviour easily, at least not openly.

http://outlookindia.com/diary.asp?fodname=20000214&fname=delhi%5Fdiary%2Ehtm&sid=1


Here are some excerpts.


``The bar here is called, rather too obviously I thought, the Patiala Peg, which during the three days I was in Delhi became my favourite watering-hole. This despite the fact that faulty ventilation makes it quite stuffy even on a wintry day. With the Patiala fairly deserted in the afternoons and I the only customer it was easy to fall into conversation with the bartenders, especially after my second Kingfisher was down the hatch.``

``On an earlier visit many moons ago I had entered, with a sense of foreboding, the famous Rajdoot hotel where I found rundown surroundings, an air of lurking sin, girls (some quite pretty) and no booze, a combination that was perhaps Delhi municipal authorities` idea of fun. But I gave the place a miss this time-maybe because there wasn`t enough time or maybe because I felt I was not that young any more. ``

``But it`s in one cultural artefact Delhi lags behind Lahore, the Pakistani city to which it can best be compared, and that is in its quality of red-light areas. Lahore`s Shahi Mohallah, or Hira Mandi as it is also called, retains even in these austere times a bright and cheerful aspect. G.B. Road, off Ajmeri Gate, is tacky and dirty by comparison``


I used to respect this man earlier. But the way he describes his visit to Delhi almost exclusively about drinking and prostituion that he indulged in. It is almost as if he found nothing else to write about Delhi indicates his foucs on these two acctivtes that to the places he describes are some of the most seedier locations and establisments of Delhi which also points to his complete lack of taste.


A lesson perhaps to me not to depend on media Images to conclude about the personality, ethics and standards of a person.

I don’t have any interest or disinterest in Ottoman but the following excerpts forced me to make a comparison.

++ And thus it was just about two years ago, when Usama Bin Laden stated that the September 11th attacks were in retaliation for what the West had done to the Ottoman Empire eighty-some years ago; that is, for the West’s dismemberment of what was, admittedly, a collapsed state incapable of defending itself. ++
++ We must bring the Ottomans back. ++

Osama can justify the Sept 11 as a retaliation to what West had done long time ago.
Which means, people and communities don’t forget easily. The wounds don’t heal. Then why does anyone expect India to forget what the foreigners did to its religions.

India was a glorious civilization for thousands for years. But it was invaded and looted by outsiders, its local culture attacked, its people converted, its religious places destroyed. It lost its old glory. And now its people (some more than others) carry the wounds till today.

And they too justify what they do by saying “ We must bring our religion back to its glorious days”

Omair: The appointment of technocrats to posts like the State Bank andHigher Education Commissions,attorney General, is an understood practice in all forms of Democracy, those are technocratic posts by intent. A side point by the way according to Law in the US supreme Court Judges do not neccessarily have to be lawyers. In fact Bill Clinton at one time was considering the appointment of former New York Mayor Cuomo(sp?).

I understand your anger at the appointment of Leghari`s son as Federal Minister (I am curious why they specifically targetted S&T it is not a post which could help Dera Ghazi Khan much?). And I agree with you, in areas like S&T and other`s the posts shoud not be turned into political bribes. However a graduation condition does not provide leadership; if thatw as true this present Assembly would be the most brilliant in the country. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a graduate, actvists like Ghaffar Khan were not graduates either.

In the US from what I understand, you have a non Military person as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, according to your logic, the post should go to a Military person. Similarly you have senators and Congresssman with little experience in the field in charge of powerful select committes Chair`s which control funding and have strong oversight powers. That`s the brilliant world of siasat!

Zakk/Ahmadzai: Education is not the only criteria for leadership. However, it is definitely an important criteria for leadership. This has been recognized by voters in advanced countries. In any mature political system (US, UK etc.) nearly all the political leaders are educated. They may not all be Ph.Ds, but an extremely high percentage are at least Bachelor degree holders. This is not a coincidence.

Even more importantly, when it comes to cabinet positions related to technocratic posts (finance ministry, science and technology etc.), and political appointments/nominations to important technical positions (State Bank governor, candidates for Supreme Court, etc.), the appointees are almost always, if not always, experienced people in those areas, usually with a good education. Allan Greenspan, Janet Reno, Robert Rubin, Ashcroft, Paul O`Neil etc.) have all distinguished themselves academically and/or professionally in their respective fields, before they were appointed. Infact they were appointed due to their previous successes.

For example, Rubin is a Harvard/Yale graduate and more importantly was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. He was not the son of a feudal, who just graduated from college - and that too with a degree that has nothing to do with his field.

The people who are appointed ministers to, ``technical`` ministries have to first be able to run their ministries technically. Being a politician is a secondary issue. Their main job is to advise the Prime Minister of the issues and solutions related to their speciality. It is the PM`s job, alongwith the key party leaders, to then take the political situation and votebanks etc. into account.

If a minister basis his decisions on political opportunism, then I am afraid his/her ministry has had it. Which is exactly what happens in Pakistan. Unqualified individuals become ministers. They cannot even understand the issues, much less give solutions. And they stuff their ministries, and its related govt. departments, with their own political cronies.

The minister of S&T needs, ``S&T vision,`` not, ``political vision.`` If he wants to concentrate on political vision, he should aspire for the seat of the Prime Minister, or work in his/her constituency to solidify his/her position. Or he should try for a non-technical position like Information or Religious Ministry, where all he has to do is talk. Not force his lack of knowledge upon the fledgling IT industry of Pakistan.

Ahmadzai and Omair: Interesting points by both of you. My post may also be long!

First off to Omair: I agree with Ahmadzai`s comments; education is no criterion for ``leadership`` (if it was the World would be ld by PH.D`s, in fact some of Pakistan`s biggest criminals are white collar criminals). Politics means a person from a non IT background CAN become a Minister of S&T, the pre requisite is either politcal opportunism appointment or the fact that the man appointed has some ``political vision`` technocrats may be able to administer things well, but they lack an understanding of complex political issues and very little compassion for the people they govern. Many of the decisions made by Shaukat Aziz would be very difficult for an elected government.

It is my understanding of the PTI, that it has no provincial leaders who are as you say Middle class (I maybe wrong on this point). I also see no sign of the PTI sweeping Lahore, unless Imran went the ZAB or Nawaz way (when in power give one dramatic speech against your leader and then quit). His vote bank seems to have stabilised at something over 300,000 votes (per the 60 National seats he contested). With reference to Umer Asghar Khan and Ayaz Amir, Umer Asghar Khan`s death was most unfortunate and tragic, but his performance as a Minister left much to be desired, and considering the sympathy factor his brother should have polled much more votes if he had any chance of winning( i think he only managed 6-7 thousand votes from the NA seat in Abboatabad), with regard to Ayaz Amir, he is a good man, he rightfully should have won his seat in Chakwal (by the way he polled as many votes Imran did in Mianwali) .

Ahmadzai: The PML(Q)`s policy towards the Iraq war and towards the MMA is ambivalent at best. Sheikh rashid Ahmad and the PMl(Q) government is playing a carrot and stick game with the MMA, to pressurise the Jamaat Islami(because of Qazi hussain`s anti govt policy), they suddenly spread the story of the JI being a terrorist organisation with links to Al Qaeda. There has been some debate about the number of Federal Ministries they are willing to offer the parties (specifically excluding the JI and Noorani, and targetting the Deobandi parties) and also warning them if they didn`t play ball the Frontier government would be sacked. Mind you the MMA has gotten used to power pretty fast in the Frontier, their rhetoric about turning the governors house into a Womens University has vanished. In the Iraq case, many of the PML leaders, were those who sat in the famous cabinet meeting with Nawaz Sharif when he decided to test Nuclear Weapons despite the offer of a huge aid package (far more then what is being given to Pakistan now). In any case the pro Iraq sentiment is asically an opposition tactic to build popular support. Lastly, to your first prediction, the polarisation you speak off between the secularists and Islamists in Pakistan is almost disappearing, even among former leftists parties like the PPP, there is a strong feeling of support for Iraq and pan Islamism. The MMA has regained the centre right vote stolen from them in the mid 1990`s by nawaz Sharif and with the Iraq war won support from across the field effectively dominating public discourse, and the once huge divide between secularists and Islamists has collapsed with that. It seems when you look at the mood, that the Islamists have won.

Romair & Zakk:

Red Alert: Long Post.

Few observations:

1. Politicians all over the world are not the best technicians, architects, doctors, agriculturalists, etc. One may be 100 times better than them in his or her field of work, yet politicians have their own competencies that make them just that.

2. I am predicting that nearer the next elections Islamists, if they are able to keep united, will become a formidable force. This would be less because of their own credentials and much more because of what emotional Pakistanis would see happening all over the world to ``Ummah``. When I hear Pakistani TV channels, I get sick to my stomach when our people and leaders (except PML Q ones) talk about such unrealities like Pakistan should ask the Muslim countries to get united and declare Jihad against the USA, Pakistan should call the emergency session of the UN, OIC, NAM to get this or that done, Ummah is being persecuted and Pakistani Government should take a stand, etc. Taking the people calling in from Pakistan and also from UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Middle East and the responses being given to them by our ``experts`` as a representative sample, I am sure that Pakistanis will vote heavily for MMA in the next elections.

3. If you agree with me to the points that (1) Pakistan is not anywhere near of being even accepted as a leader to speak on behalf of Ummah (2) We are incapable of defending ourselves adequately if attacked by the might of the US much less defending any other nation, (3) We do not have any tactical or strategic interests in talking about attacking ``Ummah`s Dushmans`` at this time (4) Ghaiby imdads in the form of Ababeels do not come to help weak nations anymore, then you must agree that the stance being taken by MMA, PML N, PPP and Imran Khan are all wrong. Imran Khan on ARY Digital speaking against the Government states that, ``I don`t know why this Government is so scared of challenging the USA, why does not our Government frankly tells USA that they are wrong in Iraq, etc.?`` I only wanted to advise him what does he think the Government is not doing in the above respect and that he should travel to the middle eastern countries and tell their leaders too to do the same. Obviously, Imran wants to win popular support at this critical juncture.

4. The voices of sanity come only from PML Q (although I am not eligible to vote in Pakistan, if given a choice I would definitely use it for them). Dr. Hameeda Khoro, the light-hearted politician from Sindh, always gets entangled with MMA reps on channels. She tells them planely, ``you are people living in history and in the books, you have no knowledge of the reality.`` Or its Shaikh Rasheed who tells his audience that as people and as opposition you can slander any foreign Government as Kafirs, Islam Dushmans, etc. and burn their flags and effigies, but in the Government we have to use diplomatic language. Or the Baloch PM himself says that it would be difficult for Pakistan to support the USA on its war on Iraq. Or consider the FM Kasoori, who goes at legal lengths to prove his points to the Americans.

Which approach is better? MMA`s or PML Q`s? Let PML Q be the King` s party, but what do our faculties of reasoning and logic tell us?

5. Most importantly, going back to my first prediction, if MMA gains in popularity, a united front will have to develop by itself or artificially to defend their onslaught. I am further predicting that it would be very very difficult for PPP, PML N, TI, MQM, and other parties to find a niche in the divide. It will be Islamists versus Government backed liberals. Whoever misses one of these two boats misses out altogether.

For example, it would be a straight contest between issues like Islami Nizam to bring equality in the world, free dom to Afghanistan, Chechniya, Iraq, etc. versus who gave you Gwadar port, new roads, expansion in steel mill therefore, more jobs, etc. People like Imran Khan would not be able to find their niche between these two agendas.

Your views please?

what sheer nonsense. what was so good about ottomans rule which is relevant to modern times. it was just another medieval emipe. on one hand you people complain about the emerging u.s. imperialistic designs but on the other hand imperialism by muslims was/is just fine. forget about the greeks and the other europeans, even the arabs hate their former rulers (the ottoman turks) - no one likes to be ruled by others. in the olden days that`s how things were - but in the post-WWII era its now considered unacceptable and hence the opposition of many to the u.s. invasion of iraq - and you want to revert back to it - an empire?

Ahmadzai/Zakk: Interesting points.

Politics and votes are a very fluid phenomenon - at least in the urban areas in Pakistan. As I stated earlier, people come in with a bang, after lying in the shadows for a long time. Like the MMA just did.

Imran Khan has matured greatly as a politician. He is no longer the naive man who started out a few years ago. He understands the game. But he is not in it for personal benefits. He is married to one of the wealthiest women in England. He himself is perhaps the best known international figure of South Asia. Politics can only ruin his image, it cannot help it. And it has ruined his image. Yet he is in it. One must admire that.

PTI could have formed an alliance with PML(N) a few years ago, and won around 25 seats, when PML swept. PTI would then have been a major political force now. Also, I am quite sure Musharraf was ready to somehow or the other, make Imran Khan the head of the coalition he was putting together. Musharraf is quite fond of him, though Imran is no longer fond of Musharraf.

These were not stupid mistakes, they were deliberate actions. PTI is a young party, and its leader`s goal is to go into power solo, as a leading party and not a following one. That is the only way to bring change. Otherwise if the aim was to just get into power, there have been plenty of opportunities.

In my opinion, PTI can only win the urban vote, and that too in NWFP and Punjab. Lahore is the key. It needs to win Lahore like MQM used to win Karachi. That will give it the foothold it needs.

PTI candidates are non-electable, because they are educated upper-middle class professionals in many cases. The leaders are dentitsts, doctors, lawyers, retired military and beaurecrats, etc. They are not feudals, pirs, baridari leaders, etc. Pakistan`s real politics is in the rural areas, even though all the commentary on politics comes from writers who live in Lahore and Karachi.

At the expense of sounding biased, my father would have been far better for his constituency than the people who have been running it. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If for no other reason, then the PML and PPP winners, over the past thirty years, have done nothing. Zilch. But what chance does he have of winning. Very little. He, himself knows he has no chance of winning in the short term. Yet he wants to improve the area where he grew up (60% of my family is in Kashmir, 40% moved to Punjab). What else can he do, but join some party like PTI, since PML and PPP are proven looters. The other option is to join MMA, but he (and I) have ideological differences with MMA. I like my MTV and so does he, while MMA does not. (Having said that, after seeing the looting of PML and PPP, 2 times out of 3, I would prefer MMA over PPP and PML. The MMA may kill the patient (probably will kill), but the other two have proven that they will definitely kill the patient. )

Most of the IT professionals participating on Chowk (including me) are far more qualified than the 31 year politics graduate who is currently the Minister of S&T in Pakistan. He could barely get an entry level jobs in a companies that we work for or run. Yet he is Leghari`s son, so he becomes an MNA (after completing his BA from a mediocre US university) and then becomes a minister. Such is Pakistani politics. How does one fight that?

The first step is for the leader to get elected. This has happened. Then people start taking the party seriously. They realize that it can maybe protect them against the police and opposition badmashes. Pakistani political parties are nothing more than the leader`s name. Everyone has to cling to a strong leader to win. Bhutto, Nawaz, Wali Khan, Imran, Asghar Khan, Altaf Hussain (to a smaller extent), etc.

What happens from there, is anyone`s guess. What I do know is that I follow two politicians in Pakistan. One is Imran Khan and the other is Omar Asghar Khan. The later would have succeeded where his father didin`t and was definitely very good Prime Minister material - better than even Imran Khan.

One has to be a bit idealistic in such situations, and at least be thankful that there are decent Pakistanis, who are big time philanthrapists, highly educated, with progressive views, who are at least willing to enter politics and fight it out against all odds (unlike the rest of us, who just talk). Politics is extremely frustrating and financially damaging, if one does not at least win one out of every two elections. It requires a lot of conviction. One has to make deals with the devil to succeed. And if one doesn`t, then one may not succeed. But if one does succeed, without making deals, one comes to power with his/her integrity intact.

Ayaz Amir is another politician that I respect. He was an MPA from Nawaz`s party in Chakwal. He voluntarily resigned, while NS was in power, since he got sick of the PML, and the influence of the PML MNAs in his area. This time he competed again, but from the same party (PML-N), while the previous PML MNA(s) from Chakwal, jumped ship and joined PML(Q). I hate Nawaz Sharif, but I would have voted for Ayaz Amir.

Ahmadzai and Omair: Interetsig points both of you have put across. I would not be averse to see Tehrik-e-iNsaf grow into a political third force in Pakistan, or in fact any group which represents a more positive, representative class of Pakistani society(many would argue the MMA is in fact that third force having combined the pashtun vote and made inroads into urban Punjab and Sindh).

Some of my own personal coments though about PTI: In NWFP, Imran Khan polled 3rd in Swat and Karak National Assembly seats with a decent number of votes in each constituency. Not a bad performance considering both opponents were contesting from alliance platforms. In some provincial constituencies they polled enough votes to have swung the seat to another party if they had been in alliance. It is important to remember few parties would consider an alliance with Imran Khan because they did not think he had any electoral potential.

In Punjab, the party came across the full power of the PML(Q) and the ``establishment`` Punjab tends to vote pro establishment in any case, and in Lahore the PML(N) protest vote swept the city. There is a book about electoral politics in Punjab between 1988-1997 which is an interesting read about the dynamics of electoral politics in Punjab.
Omair is most definitely right when he says the Urban voters vote for the winners, but if that was totally true, Tahirul Qadri would not have won from Lahore. On the flip side I found it very encouraging that an outsider could win from Mianwali, considering the force of his opponent and the fact that Imran had little connection with his families home town.

In Baluchistan, the PTI didn`t stand a chance. Generally the PML doesnt win any seats but the independant sardars tend to join it after the election.

Sind was interesting again, if I remember right in dadu and in Karachi Tehrik e insaf provincial candidates on 2 seats were leading at one point.
So the theory of ethnic or feudal voting doesn`t always hold true. In the end it`s a question of professionalsim. Imran Khan doesn`t seem to be able to manage the party professionally, whether that`s because of his own ego centric style of running the party or otherwise. But as long as he doesn`t run it better it will end up becoming a person centred, party like the PML(Q)

Ona final note, Ahmadzai, I would imagine Imran would ally himself with the MMA, while Omair is right Imrans been offered quite a bit and refused, whether that was because of ambition or principle remains to be seen. I personally think Imran would have more in common with the PML(N)...in his focus appealin to the centre right vote.

Haroon Mughal--brother I agree with you 100%. Pan-Islamic unity based on some model is the only hope left for the Muslim nations of the world whether it is based on the Ottoman Model which was ruled by a mixture of Hanafi fiqh and Qanun-i-Sultani or another Islamic model.

Bring back the great Ottomans indeed! Interestingly I think that the next real Islamic power will actually be in Turkey...

dost-mittar: The whole idea of falling back to the fantasized history in order to corrct the problems of the present is rubbish. Why stop at Muslim Empires and not going all the way back to hunter gatherer societies solving most of the modern world problems - no alcoholism, no DWI, no WMD, no environmental problems, no urban problems, no banking and therefore no interest on savings etc etc.

Time and again in modern world and in the current war also have we seen the superiority of science and technology and modern organizations over theoretical philosophical concepts based on assumptions. Anybody who thinks to solve world problems using old religious manuscripts is a stupid, the least.

The religious toleration was seldom practiced in the history of the world. Both Muslims and Christians have a history of demolishing or scavenging the local cultural and religious places. It is forgotton once majority accepts the new religion. There were religions in Europe and America before Christianity too and many Christian churches were built over the previous worship places and Muslims did the same to wherever they went.

We are entitled to our fantasies, howsoever delusionary they might be. In the meantime, it would be a good idea for the Arab League, if not the OIC, to show some spine.
I think the tolerant nature of the Ottomans/Turks is overrated. I recently visited both Vienna and Budapest. Both cities have strong and unpleasant memories of the Turkish rule. In Budapest, the holiest church (St. Stephen`s Bassilica) was converted into a mosque when the Turks captured the city. The place has been reconverted into a church but a part of the inside wall still has an Islamic architecture.

Romair & Zakk:

I had couple of opportunities to listen to Imran Khan while canvassing in the NWFP. Last elections were bad for Imran for the following developments:

1. The Pushtoon belt had decided to vote for MMA because of their anti-American stance.

2. In Punjab, PML Q had open and not so open support of Military Government. PML Q had simple agenda - ground reality. They would like to have democracy again, yet not confront the Military Government head-on.

3. In the rural Punjab and Sindh and in Balochistan, feudals are too strong to be challenged by parties like TI.

4. I agree with you that people saw Imran as an honest man, but they also recognized that with TI, his agenda (Change and Insaaf) was undeliverable.

IMHO, Imran does not stand a chance in future. MMA/Islamists would be so strong that a combined front of progressive liberal parties will have to be put up so that the USA does not have any misgivings about our political set-up. If the liberal parties do not unite then MMA will be a sure winner. My guess is that if Imran would like his TI to participate in any future elections, he too will have to join a front. My further guess is that he will rather unite behind MMA than PML.

I also see that in case MMA/Islamists win the next elections due to rifts in our liberal parties (i.e. all factions of PML, NA and PPP) then for the elections after that all the liberal parties will have to unite or there will be only one liberal party left to challenge Islamists.

What I am suggesting is that nearer next elections, we will be witnessing a closer 2 party or rather 2 united front elections system - Islamists versus liberals. All parties will have to decide which of these two ways to go.

Zakk #33: The article you have quoted is, one the whole, quite accurate. Also, you are correct about the Lahore result. I had confused Imran Khan`s seat with Mian Azhar`s. I thought Imran was standing against Hafiz Salman, where the result was 25,000 to 21,000. However, Imran was from a different Lahore seat.

I had stated in pre-election replies that if PTI got 5-8 seats, it would be a good start. And Imran Khan had himself stated, for the previous elections, that 3 seats was the most PTI could get (it ended up getting zero).

The article does miss out one point, i.e. the background under which elections in Pakistan are fought. Uptil this election, and the success of the MMA, 2/3rd of the seats go to feudals. PTI only has an odd feudal. Hence it only competes for the 1/3rd urban seats.

Even on those seats, with an educated electorate, and limited baradari votes, people only vote for people whom they think can win. This was a surprising revelation to me, i.e. people do not vote for the person whom they know to be the most honest and most capable. They will admit the person is the best, but will not vote for him/her. They try to get on the bandwagon of the successful candidate. The logic being that Pakistan is a society where badmashes rule. And one must protect one`s self against the other person`s badmash. And it is better to vote for an electable badmash, who will at least protect you from the other badmash, even if he destroys, your city, then to vote for a good person, who may not get elected.

Any party would love to have Imran Khan as a member. They would offer him the Presidentship, Senate Chairmanship type position. Zia wanted him to be a Senator. Nawaz offered PTI thirty or more seats when PML swept. And I think Musharraf wanted him to become the leader of a joint coalition in the govt. He refused all three. This would be considered political suicide by anyone.

I think his aim is for his party to come into power as a main party, and not on the coattails of others, who it is very critical of. Pakistani political parties are nothing but their main leaders, If you go to any of their websites, they just promote their leader. PPP is Bhutto, PML is Nawaz Sharif, and PTI is Imran. MMA is one of the only ones, which is somewhat above its leaders.

So the first step is for the leader to get elected. If he cannot get elected, by hook or by crook, then people will continue to vote for their normal badmashes, and no other candidate in his party has a chance. If he gets elected, then people start thinking, ``Well maybe these guys do have some staying power.`` Once the leader is in, then anything can happen. Things change in waves. PPP, MQM and now MMA came into power with a bang, with complete succcesses in one election, i.e from no seats to a huge number of seats.

This is what I am hoping for for PTI. If it doesn`t happen, then what alternatives does Pakistan have: PML/PPP feudals (who are all related to each other across parties, and thus one and the same). MQM thugs who discriminate ethnically. And MMA maulvis who want to move back to the 8th century.......

Ne Afghanem wa na Turk wa Tatreem
Chaman Zadeem wa Az Yak i Shahsarim
Tameez i Rang O boo Bar ma Haram Asat
Ke ma parwrda i Yak no baharaim

I think its undesrible and impractical to revive Ottoman style monacrchy. Something on the pattern of European Union ( Base must be Touheed and not money ) can be a practical solution.

ROmair: Just an observation; Imran Khan lost his Lahore seat by a fairly big margin, there was this interesting article posted in the Nation sometime back about Tehrik-e-insaf. The party seems sadly lacking any level of professionalism. On another note, I was surprised that PTI didn`t win at the very elast a provincial seat from Mianwali!:

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/mar-.../EDITOR/op3.asp
Imran Khan`s dilemma
Asghar Butt
Mr Imran Khan was being interviewed a few days back on a TV channel catering to a Pakistani audience. He offered a detailed explanation for the failure of his Tehrik-i-Insaf to secure more than one seat in the National Assembly. Without going into the merits of his case, another explanation of what may have happened is being offered.
Imran Khan, whose fame primarily rests on his cricketing achievements and secondarily on his untiring efforts to build a Cancer Hospital, has had a less than fortunate innings in politics. After two general elections, in the first of which the Tehrik-i-Insaf, could not win even a single seat, and in the second, he won only his own seat from Mianwali, he and his party are nowhere. Why? He has many assets. His name is a household word. He is young, energetic and goodlooking. He is very popular among the younger people. He is known to have courage and an unblemished record in money matters. That compares favourably with many in and out of power today. And yet on polling day these assets could not be encashed. Ironically, reward came not for his services to the country but from the Niazi biradri of his ancestral district of Mianwali.
Imran, during his political campaigns past and present, had urged voters not to elect those whose appeal lay in their money, biradari or glib talk of doing everything for everybody, but for the honest and the upright. That appeal did not work in Lahore, from where he contested a city seat. Would it have worked even in Mianwali had he not been a Niazi? It did not work for any of his party`s candidates anywhere. So was his appeal for electing the honest and the upright wrong? Not necessarily. The problem with that appeal is that not just the Tehrik is making it, it comes from many other platforms, including those of all the religious parties. The advantage that other parties had over the Tehrik was that depending on the audience, additional popular slogans were added . In NWFP and Balochistan, religion and anti-American slogans were added to the claim of honesty by the religious parties.
Apart from that, the real challenge before Imran was to break into the strongholds of the two mainstream parties, the PPP and the PML which had by turn been in power before the military takeover. Had either been in power at election time, its record could be attacked and its mis-steps exploited by a newcomer to attract the voters` attention. With both having been out of power, their challenger had nothing to nail them down. Indeed, their political adversity gave them both an aura of martyrdom. As for the PML(Q), the `King`s party` label foisted on it by its detractors did not inflict too much damage because of a strange anomaly. The anomaly being that while most voters were against the military rule the PML(Q) seemingly condoned, they were not averse to the political, economic and social reforms the military had introduced. By owning them as part of their agenda, some PML(Q) candidates actually managed to sail on the military`s coattails. And, of course, many PML(Q) politicians had personal constituencies where they had worked for long. All these factors combined to hinder a newcomer from encroaching on rival turf. That was aggravated by an untested candidate`s not readily earning the voters` confidence.
That is part of the problem for a newcomer, though not really an insurmountable one. The real problem lies with the message of a new party. Most Pakistani parties, including the Tehrik, have similar programmes. So there is not much of a choice for a voter, except for the capability and resolve of the party leaderships to deliver on the promises made to the electorate. In the Tehrik`s case, a voter may well have asked whether the party had anything different or special to offer. The answer probably was that the party would ensure Insaf in society. Injustices between haves and have-nots, and rich and poor, are common enough. Therefore Imran`s slogan ought to have gone home. It did not. Probably because the common man associates the system of justice with the police and the courts, about both of which he is deeply sceptical. But even if he has no scepticism and believes in the ability of a party like the Tehrik to reform the police and the courts, he may have asked himself whether the foremost need of his life is justice. The majority of our people have very little contact with the police and the courts. Their needs and priorities are likely to be different.
Bhutto swept the polls some decades back on the slogan of Roti Kapra aur Makan. Similarly, Indira Gandhi revived her political fortunes in India on the slogan of Gharibi Hatao. These slogans seemed to have touched a chord in the people`s hearts and pointedly answered their needs, which neither the slogan of Air Marshal Asghar Khan`s Tehrik-i-Istiqlal, nor Imran`s Tehrik-i-Insaf did in October. Yet no candidate can afford to go overboard promising things. To tell the electorate there would be jobs for everyone and no one will sleep hungry at night, is nice but hardly deliverable. Keeping within the realm of the possible and yet addressing the masses` basic needs, a suitable party slogan can be very helpful, provided the party has an infrastructure, including a well-organised network of offices. That has to be followed up by door-to-door canvassing by the party workers and candidates. Ideally there should be a membership recruitment drive and when a sufficient number of members have been recruited, election to party offices should be held. All these are elementary things known to politicians but one wonders if Imran paid them any attention.
In my constituency in Lahore, there was a cloth banner of the Tehrik-i-Insaf candidate during the elections but nothing else. No one called seeking votes. No pamphlet, letter or any other material was mailed to us. Others I spoke to had the same story to tell. I was even told of Imran once deliberately avoiding meeting a group of workers. He may be shy personally, and mixing with the commoners may not be one of his strong points, but such traits detract from a leader`s mass appeal.
With a relatively weak slogan and a programme that does not inspire, to start with, with less than vigorous candidates, with an organisation weak in manpower and finances, how far could Imran or his party go? His sincerity and resolve to set things right, added to his other assets can move matters a little, but can hardly create the momentum needed for a new party to make its mark.
E-mail queries and comments to: asgharbutt@nation.com.pk

Pankaj

Sir, will you keep your advice to yourself. We are dealing with laton ke bhoot.

The future looks kind of bleak at the moment.....

Ras

Haroon

You have really vetted my appitite for history. Our history books are not worth the paper they are written on. Please correct me on the following:

(a) The Ottoman Empire was a liberal secular empire.

(b) After its break up, it were the Saudi`s who propagated the radical Wahabism and fuelled it by the oil money and spread its theme to other countries such as Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt etc. Saudi tribal culture came to be associated with Islam.

(c) Iraq remained liberal secular state because of its origins. Ghaus-e-Azam and Sufism with its base in Baghdad.

(d) In Iraq, the Shias and Sunnis have no problem with each other. But Saudi Arabia continues to have problems with Iran.

(e) Is Iraq, therefore, a true descendant of the Ottoman Empire.

Perhaps, we need another article by you on this theme.

............ this is really pathetic !.......... now that the taliban have had their sordid religious behinds whopped, and the iraqi regime is getting its secular posterior kicked in line, the ummah is pinning its hopes on the resurgent house of othman ..........and some military and IT geniuses are waiting for imran khan and his party of one to usher in the new caliphate in islamabad......... what idiocy!...... the fact of the matter is that this is a battle between civilization and primitivism and, guess what - the primitives are bound to loose .......... lets face it, while the rest of the world has accepted the general prnciples of civilization, which include democracy, rock and roll, the rule of law, pre-marital sex, an independent judiciary and symphony orchestra, the arabs and arab-wannabes are stuck in the sands of seventh century superstition ............

..........so forget it - it is not going to happen .........nothing will change until we cure this sickness of the mind and stop talking about the silly concept of the ummah............nothing will change until we get rid of the night gowns and towels on our heads and start wearing two legged pants like regular people ............ (and please don`t use gandhi`s example - that half naked faqir was a laughable disgrace)

Interesting article in Business Week:

``Pakistan: It Pays to Be Uncle Sam`s Pal
U.S. aid--and reform--are improving the country`s fortunes fast

It looks like a recipe for economic disaster. Twice in the past year, Pakistan has come to the brink of war with neighboring India. Its commercial capital, Karachi, has been plagued with sectarian killings and violence against foreigners. And its farmers are reeling from a three-year drought. So why is Pakistan`s economy looking healthier than ever? (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_14/b3827118_mz033.htm)

ahmadzai #16: Huntington places Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Egypt as potential Muslim core states. Before reading his book, I remember stating that the above five, alongwith Malaysia, can be potential Muslim leader states. I received a lot of flak from a group that though Bangladesh should be on that list.

I don`t know why Huntington doesn`t put Malaysia on that list. Perhaps because it has a large non-Muslim population. It is the only Muslim state, which has made it out of the third world, on its own efforts. However, Huntington states, that none of the above actually have shown that they are going to be core states. He is specially hard on Turkey, calling it a, ``torn`` state. I agree.

Call me an optimist, but I have always had a lot of faith in Pakistan. I don`t know why. Perhaps because in the two professions I have been involved in (military and IT), I have seen Pakistanis blow away most countries in individual competitions. Or perhaps it is due to the lack of Indian Muslim IT students and professionals one sees in the USA, in comparison to Pakistani Muslim professionals. Perhaps because the love of the land is brainwashed into one`s mind when one is in the military, and one loses sight of reality. But I will always remain optimistic.

...paiwasta rah shajar say, umeed-i-bahar rakh......

There were two situations when I thought Pakistan had had it. One was when the Soviets and Indians had their armies piled on Pakistan`s borders during the Afghanistan invasion of 80s. The other was towards the last stages of Nawaz Sharif`s govt.

However, when people were writing Pakistan off as a failed state, I had stated that Pakistan has always had a great amount of resilience, and always makes it out of tough situations (then goes back into them - but that is a different story). And lo and behold, the coup occured, and Pakistan, for all its problems, is no longer considered a potential failed state.

I think if Ayub`s economic reforms had continued, regardless of type of govt., Pakistan would definitely be the Muslim core state. In the 60`s Pakistan economy was more powerful than Turkey`s, Malaysia`s and a few other countries combined.

The problems with Pakistan have been discussed all over the place, in detail. Hence no point in restating them. Pakistan needs to stay out of conflicts. It needs to avoid them, rather than try to win them. At the same time, Pakistan needs to develop some internal character and stand up for things it believes in.

As Kennedy said, ``.....Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate....``

As for Imran Khan and his party: My family has been involved with PTI since nearly its inception. My father was offered an MNA ticket by PTI in the recent election. He didn`t take it, but we still work for the party. I am not an active member, but I do get the info through my family. If I ever return to Pakistan, I plan to get involved actively with PTI and see what I can do.

Imran Khan is a good man. By Pakistani standards, a very good man. And by Pakistani politicians` standards, a potentially great man. Those of us who know the sincerity and almost fanatical conviction with which he built his cancer hospital will always have faith in his leadership and intentions.

Everyone in Pakistan is an armchair revolutionary. However, very few people have the guts to jump into the dirty arena of politics - specially when they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. He is a doer, and not a talker like the rest of us. That alone makes him a better person than the talkers. Roosevelt`s following words are some of my favorite, and they apply to Imran Khan and his party:

``It is not the critic who counts;
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood,
who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again;
because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed;
who knows the great enthusiasm,
the great devotion,
who spends himself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement
and who at the worst, if he fails,
at least he fails while daring greatly.

So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
who know neither victory nor defeat.``

I only started to understand Pakistani politics through my father, when he actively worked in the election before last. It is a dirty business. Almost impossible for a clean person and party to win. Yet Imran Khan has won his seat.

The odds are against him. Other than the maulvis (and Army), his party is the only group that the status quo politicos are afraid of. Believe me, the PPP and PML feudals etc. are sh//t scared of him. If he ever comes intop power, he will hang them by their balls (seriously speaking). And they know that. They is why they (PML(Q) and PPP) put up a combined candidate against him in Mianwali. And PML and MMA put up a combined candidate against him in Lahore. He almost won Lahore also.

PTI has not joined MMA. It is voting with them. There is a huge difference. One has to vote with a block in the assemblies. I would also vote with MMA. They are bad, but better than PPP and PML. There is no fourth option at the moment. If you are interested in what the PTI is thinking and its orientation, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you (though I am often out of touch). It is different from you are perceiving it to be.

no_more_a_slave

Sir, you will do everybody a favor by not using crude and abusive language. Thanks.

Pankaj @ # 21:

Are you suggesting that this is perhaps because he sells paans and beeris as full time profession. In his spare time, he contributes on this website, thereby proving to be the most IT skilled paan farosh from southern India-Northern Pakistan chain of paan and beeri khokas. Come to think of it, if he could sell Paans under the trade name `Pak-India tikaoo dushmani paan aur masala` that would be great.

A niswaar version of the same will be a sure hit in the NWFP and Eastern Afghanistan.

ha ha ha ;)

ali87

oye arab ki gandee aulad, I don`t sing the songs of any amreekan lout for god nor am I so brainwashed as to go on jihad for amreekees. Only slaves like you do.

Sameerjb,

Here is an even better write up. To understand these facts however one needs open eyes and intelligence. Haroom Moghul has neither.

Letter to the editor by Major A. H. Amin

EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE OR RED OR BLUE;
THERE ARE SHADES IN BETWEEN TOO !

Sir ,

I have seen a large number of articles about Pan Islamic themes in various issues of DJ . I was however propelled to write this letter once I saw a letter by a reader chiding Iran with lethargy and indifference about Chechen Muslims ! I share the writers concern about the plight of Chechens but feel with considerable conviction that ignorance of history and extreme fervour has induced the writer to make some sweeping statements. This is no fault of the author but a common occurrence in Pakistan where a lot of lip service is paid to abstract concepts of Pan Islamism etc; while many ground realities are ignored. In addition history is not taught in a manner in schools or colleges which may enable a future adult to have a broader perspective of events. The fault lies in our educational system! Take Ahmad Shah Abdali for example. The man was a soldier of fortune who looted the Muslims of Delhi and Punjab indiscriminately but later was extolled by Iqbal as a great Muslim hero . Read Waris Shah and other Punjabi Muslim poets of 18th century Punjab and you find out that this Abdali was the worst kind of looter ! Take Aurangzeb again eulogised by Iqbal as a Muslim hero .The fact is that the man alienated all communities in India. He chastised the Pathans alienating them by punitive expeditions against tribes, making the Yusufzai fight the Khattak as a result of which Pathans stopped joining the Mughal Army at a time when the Mughals needed them the most in the Maratha insurgency (Refers pages-239 & 240-Cambridge History of India-Volume Four).

The same Aurangzeb was more keen to destroy the southern Muslim Shia kingdoms as a result of which the Mughals subsequently got involved in the Maratha war which became the Mughals Spanish Ulcer and the principal reason of decline and fall of the Mughal Empire! By removing the Shia Kingdoms Aurangzeb got inextricably involved with the Marathas who inhabited the area of the Shia Kingdoms . These Marathas found Aurangzeb`s Sunni fanaticism intolerable and waged a brilliant guerrilla war under Sivaji which laid a blue print of a guerrilla war imitated or re practised much later in Spain against Napoleon , in Vietnam against USA and much later in Afghanistan .In all cases guerrilla forces triumphed over conventional forces; whether guerrillas were Marataha Hindu , Catholic Spanish , Communist Atheist Vietnamese or Muslim Pathan or Tajik .Today these Pan Islamists think that it was triumph of Islam over Communism ! A typical case of Pan Islamic confusion! To come back to the point the problem with Pan Islamism is that many realities of history are ignored once Pan Islamists talk about Islam at an international level.

Geography, ethnicity and historical background are ignored by Pan Islamists . Take Iran`s case as an example . Iran is a Shia Muslim national state. It has defied USA successfully since 1979 more successfully than any other modern Muslim state without selling national honour as done by Pakistani governments since 1950 or by blundering into a trap like Kuwait War in case of Iraq! It is prosperous cohesive and has clear national goals. Now take Iran in relation to its neighbours. On one side is Turkey . An Islamic state if this confused label can be applied to a state which has a defence pact with Israel . Turkey has historically tried to dismember or damage Iran and the same is true for Iran`s attitude with Turkey ! In 1724 Turkey concluded an agreement with Tsarist Christian Russia to dismember and divide Muslim Iran ! (Refers-page-237 to page-238-History of Persia-Volume Two-Brigadier General Percy Sykes-London-Macmillan and Company Limited-Saint Martin`s Press-New York-1958) . Turkish Iranian rivalry which was a natural result of the fact that the two states were different ethnically and dynastically weakened both and played a major role in ensuring that Ottoman Turkey`s forces were divided between Europe and Asia. Iran also remained weak since it was engaged in a series of wars with Turkey from the sixteenth to the 19th century . Pan Islamists may cite this as a case of Islamic disunity but that is absurd ! The same was true for Christian France allying with Muslim Turkey against Christian Austria or France allying with Muslim ruled Mysore against English East India Company. Religion, alas despite all lip service to the idea remains a weak basis for statehood barring Pakistan and Israel with European Jews dominating Israel and Punjabi Muslims dominating Pakistan after having finally sucessfully getting rid of the Muslim majority province of East Bengal ! Even the first Muslim state which in reality was an Arab dominated state was basically a family affair; the first four caliphs being from Quraish and later the the Bannu Ummaya fighting the Ali-ides or the Banni Abbas fighting the Banni Ummaya. If the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) wanted he would have left clear guidelines ; about his successor; another legal issue which divides Muslims! History of Islam was in reality the history of Arab Muslims with all power concentrated in the hands of one clan ; a total negation of the concept of democracy as practised by the Holy Prophet ! The Arab dynasties were followed by Turkish Berber Fatimid dynasties all conveniently employing religion as a tool ; an opium to drug the masses ! The Ottoman Empire was a tyranny as far as the Arab Muslims was concerned;Muslim in name Turk in reality !The Mughals were Muslims in name following the policy of divide and rule using Hindu Generals against Pathan Muslims or Hindu Rajput generals against Maratha Hindus ! This was not a negation of Pan Islamism . Islam was good as a slogan but the Mughals had to deal with a larger number of non Muslims. The Pakistan idea emerged only after the Muslims feared persecution from a Hindu majority. But even religion failed once the Bengali Muslims felt that they were being fooled in the name of Islam by the West Pakistani ruling elite ! The Punjabi Muslim politicians raised the slogan of parity to safeguard West Pakistani/Punjabi Muslim interests against possible Bengali Muslim domination ! Exactly in the same manner as done by the Muslim League to escape Hindu majority`s domination ! Now we have PONAM BNM ANP MQM STTP etc. The reason is not that these are traitors but because ethnicity is also important . Mere religion is no panacea of all evils ! If it was not so there would be no quota system!

Pan Islamism was picked up by Jamal Afghani in second half of 19th century . It`s a good slogan but overlooks certain concrete historical facts . How could for example Indian Muslims support Egyptian Muslims once Alexandria was bombarded in 1882 or once the British fought the Second Afghan War in 1878-80 . The Egyptians had no link with India apart from a common religion ! The Afghans had systematically looted Indian Muslims independently or as mercenaries of Persia from 1739 to 1799 ! Ahmad Shah Abdali warned the Muslim Pathans of Rohailkhand and Upper Doab to be more careful with Shia Oudh than against Marathas ! About 13 years later Shia Muslim Oudh hired a British East India Company brigade to destroy Pathan Muslim Rohailkhand ! Sir Syed Ahmad Khan rightly advised the Indian Muslims not to think the Turkish Khalifa as Khalifa of India ! The Arabs knew much better about the Turk`s Islamic fervour ! The British were the de facto rulers of India ! The fact was forgotten by the Indian Muslims much later and the Khilafat movement however heroic damaged the cause of Indian Muslims. The Turks under Kemal the `Grey Wolf` of Anatolia proved wiser and kicked out the ridiculous Khalifa !

Now to come back to Iran :- (1) How could Iran sell out to the Russians in 1979 when it was itself in the middle of a traumatic revolution and confronting USA which the Pakistani leadership since 1951 has shamelessly wooed, only be kicked once Pakistan needed crucial US help in 1965 and 1971! Zia on the other hand sold Pakistan to the US once the Russians occupied Afghanistan in order to preserve his seat! The military regime was isolated internally as well as externally! Internally, it had reneged on a promise of elections within 90 days, and externally, it had no support! Russian intervention in Afghanistan gave it a golden excuse to stay in power and to get US aid! The Afghans were helped not because of Islam but because they were a good means to get dollars from the US and Saudi Arabia! So much for the Islamic fervour! Pakistan got billions of dollars of US aid most of which was pilfered by Zia and his generals and air marshals! The evidence of this can be seen in the assets of many Jullundhri Pathans or Hindustani generals as held today or those of their sons who are not corrupt politicians by any definition since they are general`s sons! (2) What happened in Afghanistan? The US financed a large number of groups, Pathan, Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, Persian speaking to fight a proxy war. All these groups were Muslim in name but in reality Pathan, Tajik or Uzbek. The Afghan war was a much smaller affair than Vietnam. While about 60,000 Americans died in Vietnam only 14000 Russians died in Afghanistan, an average of 1200 per year. A very insignificant figure in Russian military history keeping in view the fact that about 1,700,000 (Refers-pages-986 and 987 -Hitler and Stalin- Alan Bullock-Alfred. A.Knopf-New York-1992) Russians died in WW One and 13 ,600,000 in WW Two!

Compare Afghanistan with Vietnam in terms of ethnicity versus religion. I think that the best thing about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was the fact that the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras who had been third rate citizens in a Pathan dominated Afghanistan since 1799 became first rate citizens ! A fact which even today is very irritating and unpleasant for the Taliban which is a deadly anti Shia and essentially Pathan Sunni Group! The Vietnamese were one race and had one ideology. Vietnam is stable and prosperous today without being Muslim or Christian! The Afghans are disunited and in much worse shape in 2000 than in 1988 when the last Russian soldier left its soil ! What is Hekmatyar without US or ISI aid ! Where is his Islamic fervour now ! More was at stake than Islam! CIA dollars in millions were stashed by CIA and ISI operatives or generals and air marshals in Chase Manhattan or Bank of Cheats and Crooks (BCCI)! The only genuine man was Ahmad Shah Masud who did not become a tool of foreign intelligence agencies and is still fighting not based in a Madarssa financed by an Arab anti Shia state or intelligence agency of a foreign country but by virtue of being a man of substance ! Who are the Taliban ! How have they suddenly replaced so-called charismatic Mujahideen commanders like Hekmatyar, Khaliq Abdul Haq etc ! The change proves that Afghanistan was a manipulated affair ! The controls were elsewhere ! The problem is that one country cannot manipulate another endlessly! As the conditions in Afghanistan stabilise, it will be more and more difficult for external powers to manipulate the country! Either there will be a sellout in 2000 or Pakistan will suffer the ravages of a low intensity limited or full war in case adventurism in intelligence agencies is not curbed ! The Afghan Jehad a misnomer was in reality a CIA Jehad and that is why the Afghans are in the shape they are today ! Their leaders in league with Pakistan`s military junta gobbled millions of US dollars and now they talk of confrontation with US ! My knowledge of Pathan history tells me that there will be a sellout in 2000 ! So much for the Taliban and the Osama business ! (3) Few people know that in 1982 at the height of Iran Iraq war General Zia despatched a military advisory group to Iraq ! These people were not there to teach the Iraqi`s harmless first aid tactics but were dealing with Iraqi armour and infantry officers fighting a war with another Islamic country! So much for Pakistan`s solidarity with Iran! (3) Now coming to Iran`s dealings with Russia. Iran at the moment is moving towards close cooperation with Russia. Russia is transferring nuclear technology and also supplying military hardware to Iran. This is most essential for Iran since today`s world with a unipolar scenario is far more insecure for smaller states. Muslim, Christian or Atheist than before 1989 ! Why should Iran antagonise the Russians! This is not a sellout. The Iranians are pursuing their national interests, just like Pakistan`s usurpers were following their personal interests once they sold Pakistan albeit cheaply and without achieving much to the USA in 1950s or in 1977-88 ! Now coming straight to Chechnya . I have visited Russia twice in 1995 and 1996. Till 1996 the Chechens were doming well in Russia ! They were prominent in Moscow, dominating the Mafia at least marginally and the General Manager of Hotel Raddisson where I was staying was a Chechen! I discussed Chechnya in great detail with this gentleman and many Chechens! The issue is more complicated than we in Pakistan know. The Chechens were happy with the semi independent political status they had achieved in 1996. Only the radical Islamists who were a marginal although well organised group were unhappy. They wanted to export their brand of Islamic radicalism to Daghestan a more liberal and peaceful Muslim state! The present trouble into which Chechnya got into is the result of the absurd and nut headed approach of these Chechen Muslim radicals. Sending guerrillas to Daghestan. Planting bombs in civilian flats in Moscow! These were the acts that provoked the Russian government to attack Chechnya ! The Russians were unhappy when their government attacked Chechnya in 1995 or in 1979-88 when they attacked Afghanistan. They regarded these wars as adventurism. Now the situation is different. Now the average Russian regards the present war as a just war! Russian public opinion is solidly behind Russian government. It is not the question of Islam versus Christianity as is being made out in Pakistan! The Russians are a people with a barbarian past ! They were ruled by Tartar Muslims, oppressive Romanovs and the totalitarian Bolsheviks. More Russians have died fighting each other than Muslims against Russians. In the Russian Civil War fought in 1917-22 almost ten million people died! A number much larger than the total population of Chechnya ! Chechnya houses some of Russia`s largest oil and gas reserves ! It is not Afghanistan which was many hundred miles away from mainland Russia. Its possession is vital to Russia . The Russians can easily conduct military operations unlike Afghanistan where logistic cost of supplying or sustaining military operations was the principal cause of Russian withdrawal! Its just like Balochistan which the Pakistani government would not allow to secede; not because for any special love for the Baloch Muslims; but simply because the province houses Pakistan`s largest gas reserves and is geopolitically essential for Pakistan`s security! East Pakistan was lost because of geography but Balochistan`s geography condemns it to be a province of a larger federal state !

The Afghanistan analogy is not applicable to Chechnya. The Russians withdrew from Afghanistan not because they were militarily defeated but because Gorbachev rightly assessed that staying on was not cost effective (Pages-207 & 208- Out of Afghanistan-Cordovez and Harrison-Oxford-1995). Chechnya is an altogether different case because Russian presence there is cost effective because of Chechen oil! The political situation in Russia is once again stabilising. The Communists are once again regaining strength while Putin is likely to emerge as a strong statesman. No amount of statements from the OIC can change the situation. If the Russians are ignoring the OSCE and USA why should they bother about OIC! Why should Iran surrounded by three hostile or potentially hostile neighbours and one super power which every year allocates funds to destabilise Iran antagonise the Russians ; their only trustworthy ally!

Where is Islam in case of Kurds! How many Kurds have died fighting Iranian Iraqi and Turkish armies since the last one hundred years! I think ten times more than total number of Chechens killed from January 1999! Where is the Islam of the Islamic Contact Group in case of Kurds who are condemned for eternity to be subjects of Iran, Iraq and Turkey. The first modern Chemical Warfare attack was carried out against the Iraqi Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war! Where was Islam when genocide was committed in 1971 by a Muslim (a misconceived misnomer!) Army against the Bengali Muslims! Religion, ideology etc is nothing but cheap tools employed by the ruling elite to galvanise and drug the masses! The middle class and the feudal clique of UP and Punjab became interested in Muslim separatism only once their class interests were threatened with competitive examinations and concepts of British democracy! The same was true for the Hindu middle and business classes that joined the congress! They thought that they would succeed the British Viceroys in ruling entire India! Hinduism was only a slogan, just as was the case with the Muslim elite! Religion is a good slogan but only a slogan! Democracy ends immediately when Muslims leave the Mosque! Lip service is paid but that is where Islam ends!

It will be good for our intellectual health if we forget about Pan Islamism and try to set our own house in order! So far we have miserably failed even to stay as one nation in case of East Pakistan! Today we have the smaller ethnic group`s issue which is intricate as well as genuine and demands good statesmanship which is sadly lacking both in India and Pakistan ! Both have been termed as `failed states` by political scientists ! Both have a history of using coercive power of a modern state against smaller ethnic groups e.g. Kashmir 1989-2000, East Pakistan-1971 , Balochistan 1958-64, Balochistan 1974-77 etc etc. Both the states have been steadily involved in an arms race that will end only once a war limited or total is finally fought . A dispassionate study of history proves that men are but victims of currents of history and cannot change the tide of history! Europe learned its lesson after two world wars and is saner ! China learned its lesson from 1911-1949 and is now saner ! Unfortunately Pakistan and India have fought small wars ; petty skirmishes by western standards in which total casualties of each side was less than 10,000 killed. That is why both have hawks; theoretical hawks I would say; arm chair strategists; Don Quixote`s who think that Kashmir can we won (Pakistan) or retained (India)! The motivation of the ruling elite on both sides is ulterior! Its not ideology Islam or secularism but ego, powers, lusts for glory! Bismarck`s does not lead them or Churchill`s but myopic men with limited vision, short-term goals and personal agendas advised by dark horse adventist intelligence agencies! Sundarji called them blind men of Hindustan ; a better name may be `Blind men of Hind-o-Pak`! These are shortsighted men who have not understood what General Sherman said at Atlanta after the US Civil War i.e. `there are many a boys here who think of war as glory, but it is hell!` As a soldier I wish that both the countries should either fight it out so that we at least discover (I would say rediscover or confirm as far as ex soldiers are concerned!) The qualitative efficiency of our general officers or arrive at a settlement! Otherwise it`s a never-ending game of musical chairs, which the ruling elite of both the countries is making the common man play! The qualities of generalship and mediocrity in higher ranks on both sides have been well proved in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971! 2000 if it proves decisive will inshaallah prove as no exception.

And lastly Pan Islamism is dangerous . It is better if we concentrate on setting our own house in order.

Major A.H Amin

#17 by no_more_a_slave on April 2, 2003 6:25am PT

you and Sageer sahab protest too much. What if the Indoenasians wear arab like dress and sport their mannerisms.

Dont you wear western clothes and think and write in a western language also you philoshopy that you follow is western the books that you read are western the movies that you see is western.

--------
The new and old settlements of Muslim population around the world have created ghettos in almost every country , which stemmed from their the refusal to integrate socially-----

Integrate with whom??

As I recall there is no racial discrimination in Islam either did the west invent this concept of no racial discrimination. as late as a couple of decades the paragons of Western culture were defending and doing business with the Apartheid Regime in South Africa, Playing cricket matches etc. How come they did not fit it right to bomb the white regime in South Africa?

Perhaps you should change the your name to now_with_a_new_master.

There is country which says that its intrests in a country thousands of miles away are more important than the intersts of the people living in those countries.

A defeated people in world war 1 had no chance to develop. At the time of defeat remember what was the state of race policy in United States.

From that defeat onwards various regimes were propped up. Interference in process of finding new paths to development and stability has bought the worst among the people to power. Who suppourts the Military in Turkey which interferes in the democratic wishes of the people. who props up the regimes in Saudi, Baharian, muscat, Egypt, Jordan, Sirya Pakistan burma algeria ealrlier who propped up the Islamic fighters against the communist and socialists in Afghanistan, Who props the dictators right now in Azerbeijan, and a clutch of central asian republics?

on one had people point out that the largest military in the world is the US and bieing bigger than the next nine powers, Europe and US consist of 70% of the worlds economic output. What chance do the people hav to remove the puppets backed by this sheer eonomic and military might.

It is not as if the muslims rejected Democracy.

Im taking an exceprpt out of Prof Shahid Alam`s aritcle.

``Muhammad Ali of Egypt appointed his first advisory council in 1824, consisting mostly of elected members.

In 1881, the Egyptian nationalist movement succeeded in convening an elected parliament, but this was aborted only a year later by British occupation.

Tunisia had promulgated a constitution in 1860, setting up a Supreme Council purporting to limit the powers of the monarchy. But this was suspended in 1864 when the French discovered that it interfered with their ambitions.

Turkey elected its first parliament in 1877, though it was dissolved a year later by the Caliph; a second parliament was convened in 1908.

Iran`s progress was more dramatic. It started with protests against a British tobacco monopoly in the 1890s, and quickly led to an elected parliament in 1906, with powers to confirm the cabinet. A year later, however, the British and Russians carved up Iran into their spheres of influence, a development that would lead to the dissolution of the parliament in 1910. Nevertheless, the constitutional movement persisted until it was suppressed in 1931 by a new dynasty brought to power by the British.``

------

On attempts at Industrialisation.


``An early and deter-mined Egyptian effort to industrialize - initiated in 1810 - was dismantled by the British and French in 1840. When the Egyptians mobilized again in the 1870s, it led to their colonization in 1882. Britain, France and Israel mounted another invasion of Egypt as recently as 1956.

This suggests some sobering reflections for those who would blame the present troubles on Islam`s antipathy to modernity. Imagine if the Egyptian bid to industrialize had not been dismantled by imperialist Britain and France; it is then likely that an industrialized Egypt would eventually have led the entire region to industrial growth, prosperity and power. This thought experiment explains why Egypt`s industrial drive had to be aborted. An industrialized Middle East may have renewed the old threat of Islam to Europe.``

Now, now post #20 by Sameer is what I call the most informartive post on this board. His attention to the details is praiseworthy and the gamut of knowledge about paans and their different South Asian varieties, if accurate is impressive :-)

nazarhayatkhan:
[Our future must lie in South Asia - A secular SAARC `economic` federation]

Absolutley. Totally agree with you.

no-more-a-slave:

What is the source of that fantastic article by Mohd. Sageer. His name sounds like a Bengali Muslim. Please post the source, if possible.

Veeresh:

Islamabad is not known for fancy paan shops like Karachi or few in Lahore. most of them are small stalls like we see for paan and calling cards in Jackson Heights,