Hypocrisy of Musharraf Lovers

A traitor according to the costitution is a traitor anyway one looks at it. Musharraf is a traitor. He commit a crime which is punishable by death. Sure now he is law unto himself, so he stays in power. No matter what else he does is secondary.

Basically there is no comparison between BB and NS with him. They might be bad administrator, corrupt, inept etc but not traitors. They were elected lawfully whereas Musharraf is illegitimate ruler of Paikistan.

It is hypocrisy for him to ask people to obey law; he does not have legal or moral right to even asking sectarian terrorists and other jehadi terrorists to not break the law. He should be acquited first from the treason charges by independent judiciary, then get himself elected through lawful means to have the right to rule.

By the way both BB and NS governments were better than this asshole administration and provincial governments were decidedly better than the current set up as well as earlier military governors. The only question in my mind is that why do people object to calling him a bitch when he is a criminal - a traitor, and thriving because of power. It is not me alone who considers him a traitor. Just read what supreme court abd high court bar associations are saying.

Arjun # 34

If Musharraf had not been a coward and had defied the Americans, then he may have been living with the OBL in the caves, but Pakistan would have received billions of dollars of aid instead of a conditional paltry 3 billion. Also it would be on the way to real democracy.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-10-2003_pg3_3

Daily Times, Pakistan
Monday, October 20, 2003

Is there any hope for democracy?
By Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

..... The quality of democracy is poor because the current political arrangements provide for power sharing between the army top commanders and the civilian leaders on terms set out by the former. The civilian institutions have given no indication during the last one year that they will be able to break out of this subordinate mould.

Two major factors undermine the prospects for autonomous and viable civilian political institutions. First, President Musharraf and his top army advisors have concluded that they are strategic to internal coherence and stability, and, given the troubled track record of the political leaders, the latter cannot be given a free hand in managing state policy at the highest level.

Second, the military, especially the army, has expanded its corporate interests to such an extent that it is now present in all major sectors of state and the society. This is manifested through induction of mostly, but not exclusively, retired military personnel in important state and semi-state institutions. The other strategy for enhancing the military`s influence is the phenomenal expansion of the undertakings of four charitable foundations established by the three services. Now, some of the paramilitary forces are also planning to set up charitable foundations for generating material resources for their personnel.

The military`s business, commercial and industrial interests have expanded so much that they have stakes in all major domestic state policies. These developments have practically overwhelmed large civilian sectors. As a matter of fact, there is hardly any exclusively civilian sector left.

When the military`s presence in civilian sectors becomes so overwhelming, autonomous civilian political institutions cannot grow. This undermines the prospects of a sustainable civilian political order and democracy. If democratic institutions and processes do not show signs of improvement in their performance and are unable to command voluntary loyalty of the major political forces, these can run aground completely. .....

http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/15/op.htm#3

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 October 2003 Wednesday 18 Shaban 1424

Khakis` inroad into civilian sector
By Zubeida Mustafa

The dichotomy in Pakistan`s state and society is amply manifested in
the take-over of civilian positions in the public sector by men in
uniform. The militarization of civil society has emerged in the last
two decades further widening the gulf between the haves and the
have-nots. .....

..... During the 1999-2002 period, 1027 army, navy and air force
personnel - retired and serving - were inducted into the
administration and corporations on posts meant for civilians. .....

..... According to information released by the Cabinet Division, it
seems the floodgates were opened in October 1999 when General
Musharraf took over the reins of the government. This propensity of
the khakis to encroach upon the civilian sector is being accepted as
the norm. This is the outcome of the military`s growing inroad into
politics. When the president of the country can be a man in uniform,
one could well ask, then why not the heads of departments,
ambassadors, and so on?

Why is this practice being increasingly resented? There are two
reasons for it. First, it is seen as a method of making the military`s
presence in the power structure more visible and consolidating its
hold on every sector of public life. Secondly, as the size of the
economic cake shrinks, those denied a share in it find it difficult to
swallow what they perceive as injustice to them. The trend began under
General Ziaul Haq when 211 armed forces officers were inducted in the
Central Superior Services in 1980-85. Compare this to the whopping
number now under discussion.

The reaction of the civilian officers is understandable. Many of them
have to work hard to pass examinations and undergo special (at times
rigorous) training to qualify for the job to which they are posted.
When these are taken away from them and handed out on a silver platter
to men who were originally recruited and trained for a job of an
entirely different nature, the civilians naturally feel cheated. It is
significant that the Cabinet Division has also mentioned that at the
time of the induction of the 1000 plus army men there were nearly 700
``unabsorbed surplus civilian employees`` in the government cadre. .....

..... With such large numbers of armed forces officers - both serving
and retired - available for secondment to civilian duties one wonders
at the rationale underlying the recruitment policy of the three
forces. Their strength has expanded rapidly in recent years. But they
have also become top-heavy. As a result there is the growing pressure
to take care of the senior ranks by providing them with lucrative jobs
especially when most of them cannot be retained in active service for
too long a period and retire at a younger age than their civilian
colleagues, given their service structure.

By providing them with employment, the military leadership has managed
to create a growing constituency whose allegiance is assured. Awarded
not just jobs but also land grants, contracts, industrial permits, etc
the servicemen act as anchors of stability in the system.

Large chunks of retired servicemen have been made quiescent by giving
the armed forces a large share in the economy through the foundations
which have been set up (Fauji, Bahria and Shaheen). They have
virtually emerged as big industrial/commercial empires with assets and
investments said to be to the tune of at least $5 billion. They
provide 18,000 jobs to the retired and serving servicemen and
constitute a substantial part of the national economy by operating
over 40 enterprises ranging from airlines, banks, industries, security
services, leasing companies to bakeries.

According to senior defence analyst, Dr Ayesha Siddiqua, many of these
ventures are suffering losses that are covered by financial injections
from the defence budget or other public sector enterprises. In her
paper, ``Soldiers in business`` she writes that this practice opens up
opportunities for corruption as these enterprises are exempted from
accountability.

Other projects which were set up essentially to serve the needs of the
armed forces but have grown are the National Logistics Cell, the
Frontier Works Organization and the Army Welfare Trust. With the
patronage and injection of funds of the government, these agencies
have expanded into the civilian economy and have squeezed out the
private competitors. At times the government`s own enterprises have
suffered. For instance the NLC has actually hit the Pakistan Railways
by diverting its freight to the road.

Another method to keep the servicemen happy has been to concentrate on
facilities for health and education provided to them. It is not
strange that the best schools, universities, hospitals and housing in
the public sector are the ones operated by the armed forces for the
servicemen to meet their needs for education for their children,
health care and houses for their family. This would have been welcomed
generally - and one must remember that many of these facilities
trickle down to the civilians too - but for the fact that the social
sectors in Pakistan are doing so badly for the common man.

All this has serious political implications. The infiltration of the
servicemen into the civilian administration amounts to tightening the
military`s grip on the power structure. The army`s presence in
politics is already a controversial issue. But when members of the
armed forces begin to control key posts in the administration the
army`s hold on society as a whole becomes stronger. Furthermore, the
division between the haves and the have-nots tends to deepen as a
neo-military class enjoying better privileges comes to the fore. This
militarization of the country`s administration will eventually destroy
the traditions espoused by civil society. .....

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

Bizarre Anomalies

General Pervez Musharraf (GPM): Anyone having any objection can approach the Supreme Court.
Sure, but why didn’t he himself take this decent and civilized path when prematurely (and in his point of view illegally) retired by a democratically elected Prime Minister.

GPM: Nawaz Sharif (NS) accumulated all power in himself.
Oh, yeah, would GPM like to show a hat he didn’t wear during his three years of overt rule?

GPM: There are rules and regulations to release even a peon.
Sure, is this sound and humble principle applicable when kicking out the civilian President, elected Prime Minister, legislative assemblies?

GPM: The General himself is on record to have said that if he had not been dismissed as Army chief there would have been no coup. Or, if NS had not tried to sack the COAS, he would still have been prime minister now. So, what about the authenticity of the litany of charges of hijacking, corruption and so on, against him?

GPM: No one is indispensable.
Is it valid for the gentleman himself as well?

GPM: It is politicians who drag the army chief into politics.
Well, now politicians are begging the army chief to leave. What is the hitch?

GPM: Institutions were destroyed.
May we see an institution that is still recognizable?

GPM: The Supreme Court was disgraced.
When a petty captain held the Chief Justice of Pakistan hostage at his residence, what was that?

GPM: Is it really possible that we don’t have leaders except those two in the population of 140 million.
How come that in the population of 140 million GPM is so indispensable for the country?

GPM: I don’t accept that civilian governments didn’t have enough time to deliver.
GPM: I need seven years to eradicate baradarism from the society.

GPM: I will keep on playing my role so long the democracy has not taken firm roots.
GPM sahib fear that day; democracy entails putting you on trail for high treason.

GPM: There is no corruption at the top.
Is it naivety or hypocrisy? If Saleh Hayat, Chaudaries of Gujrat, Aftaf Sherpao are not corrupt than who else can be?

And now little more in free text

Gen Musharraf vehemently criticized the Nawaz government for failing to deliver despite the heavy mandate it enjoyed for two and a half years. Therefore, it would not be unfair to ask what have been the accomplishments of the Musharraf regime to improve the political culture and traditions and the economy with the super heavy military mandate it enjoyed during its three-year rule?

Gen Musharraf arranged his own oath-taking as the president for five years under the 1973 Constitution. Interestingly, when the validity of the referendum was challenged before the Supreme Court, the government had admitted that the exercise was being held under the PCO and not the Constitution. So, how could Gen Musharraf be given oath under the 1973 Constitution when his election through the referendum was not under the Constitution?

In Sindh all records were broken. Earlier, the official line was that because the PML(Q) was the largest party at the centre, it had the right to form government. But, in Sindh PPP`s right as the largest party was ignored and through the worst form of horse-trading, a forward bloc was created and a deal with the MQM was brokered clearing the way for its nominee, an absconder in exile, to become governor of the province. As part of the reward and system, the Jamali government announced that each MNA would be given a development grant of Rs 10 million. The new CM of Punjab announced that jobs will be filled on the recommendations of MPAs, and he has inducted over a 30-member cabinet with more ministers to be inducted.

``If I were to lay down a date, a future date of a year or two years or three years, whatever, people start counting down that date, a countdown starts, which is terrible from all points of view,`` Musharraf told the Star in an interview at Army House, the official residence he still keeps as armed forces chief, before leaving for North America.

All I can say``, he assured a television interviewer in January 2000, ``is that I am not going to perpetuate myself... I can`t give any certificate on it but my word of honour. I will not perpetuate myself``.

arjun # 34

Yes Pakistan was threatened with acute violence if it did not foot the american imperial agenda and these so called Mosharaf Lovers tell us that America is doing us a favor. I have yet to meet a person who does me a favor by pointing a loaded gun at my temple.

Ahmadzai & Feroz

I will reply your posts shortly.

Those people who credit Musharaf with freedom of speech are fooling themselves. This credit goes only and only to the first BB government who set the wheel in irreversible motion. In next 8-10 years when Musharaf took over he had no choice. Even if he wanted to impose restrictions he couldn`t ban satellite which has reached a considerable numebr of urban population. And with internet what choices did he have. Besides, gone are the days when press could shake the thrones from under the feet of demigods or those who were in power power also had a bit of shame in them. It was considered principled to resign had a scandal emerged. And now a days, leadres of the word stand in front of the cameras and lie without blinking their eyes. Take for example, Bush and Blair, who made chutia out of their fellow countrymen and still insist that they did the right thing. Mushsraf kis bagh ki mooli hay.

Although I`ve never been a supporter of Musharraf but the credit should be given to him where it`s due. Pakistan stands at 128th position in the world press freedom ranking. The press is enjoying greater freedom in Pakistan than ever before.

Second world press freedom ranking

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

Point of the matter is... Musharraf has Musharraf lovers. No other national leader has stayed popular after he got elected... especially not after 3 years in power.

So it ends your entire argument right then and there: Musharraf IS popular and IS loved. You burn because of it? tough man... ``DWI``... oh.. that means.. Deal with it.

#27 by tahmed32
Tahmedbhai sorry for spelling mistakes. But what can I do? but you have to
read my massage not grammar. may be you can arrange some English teaching for me in other forum.

Stuka at # 25:

LOL.

``Indians hating OBL and Hafiz Saeed.``

Would that be sibling rivalry?

;-)

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

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

While the article is very creatively written and I enjoyed reading it, here are some positive things in favor of President Musharraf and his Government. These are some of his feats that following Governments (BB, Nawaz, whoever) will be measured against.

1. Women empowerment: He has empowered Pakistani women. The LFO mandates 6 out of 19 provincial seats for women (plus more as women can contest on open seats as well). 72 women out of 340 or so members of the NA are mandated to be women (plus more as they can contest on open seats). Our assemblies are much more colorful now. Besides, women are being encouraged to make decisions on matters concerning them directly. With the passage of time, these women parliamentarians are expected to bring revolutionary changes in the matters adversely impacting them like Hudood Ordinance. But because of our culture, this will take time. Now honestly speaking answer this: Who do you think will be a major resistance to wiping out such ordinances? President Musharraf and his team or Mullas?

2. Water: Pakistanis need water reservoirs at every cost. Previous Governments did not take any action on the matter under their populist agenda. They would not take on any opposition, whereas in the prime national interest a decision for building water reservoirs has to be made. Its President Musharraf and his Government that has made the decision.

3. Good export performance. Check out:

http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/4/7/40522074.html
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/002d11d002feb7b5c1256d0b0053d1b3?OpenDocument
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030829/4/13myb.html

4. Freedom of expression: This is still debatable, but it took President Musharraf (``a dictator``) and his Government to open up media. Ideally, this should have come from democratically elected leaders. Consequently, we see a plethora of private channels being beamed all over the world.

5. Education Policy:The current Government is implementing new education policy. For example, its the Jamiat Goons who were once and are now again bent upon bringing the standard of education down. The new educational policy requires no student politics on campus.

6. Curbing Extremism:President Musharraf has spoken many times against curbing extremism. All the moderate Sunni Muslims, minority Muslim sects and other minorities are with him. Who is resisting him? MMA, PML N, and PPP. He is taking concrete measures to revamp our Madressa system.

As I said, these are indicators. I am convinced. People have their right to form opinion. No one can extrapolate any thing. Perhaps when the next Government comes, we will find that every thing with this Government was wrong ;-)