Hypocrisy of Musharraf Lovers

#122 by ballukhan

``Your references justifies your thesis``

Yes, it certainly does. Thanks ballukhan.

# 109 by His Excellency

``You are relying on Altaf Gauhar`s opinions about two dictators who ruled 30-36 years ago... then flashing forward to the year 2003``

No, I am not. Please refer to my post #100.

This was an excerpt from an Altaf Gauhar write-up ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` written in the immeditae aftermath of the Kargil fiasco. Altaf Gauhar wrote very pointedly:

``The point is that all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,” as a general rule Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.” (Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler, page 328). ``

Altaf Gauhar makes no bones that General Pervez Musharraf was egged on to his Kargil misadventure in 1999 by the same asinine belief that had egged on ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan to launch his 1965 ``Operation Gibraltar``.

Thanks NAKHOK!! Your references justifies your thesis.

#108 by nakhok on October 24, 2003 6:43pm PT
#107 by nakhok on October 24, 2003 6:43pm PT


WE need to get these guys under the civil authority as in India. THese khurafaatis have to be in sync with the civil authorities and not the other way around.

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

#91 by HisExcellency on October 24, 2003 9:16am PT
As far as the Logic of un-furling a flag on the REd Fort is concerned- the logic can easily be established by an Islamist in the Pakistan Army to make that as a part of its agenda. What is important that we should keep the army Generals out of politics and the forces in the barracks and let the peace-time continue indefinitely...

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

#117 by arjun_m

++
You can have the 6 million Kashmiris...and any other Indian who wants to leave.
++

Why don`t you set an example by first migrating to America/Europe/Africa along with your friends, and all Hindu co-nationalists... leaving all your possessions behind for the Kashmiris? That is the only way Pakistan will agree to your notion of majority-migration...

An interesting development this week. Pakistan to Buy Iranian Gas: Jamali

Pakistan has accepted the Iranian proposal of laying a gas pipeline between the two countries. This project will save Pakistan $1bn and will go ahead even if India declined to be involved. Iran and Pakistan also inch closer on Pakistan`s Kashmir stance and agree to cement bilateral ties further.

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

#111 by RationalFaith

I find the analysis of Hassan Askari Rizvi, Col.(retd) Abdul Qayyum, Hamza Alvi, Najam Sethi, Hamid Gul and Lt.Gen.Salahuddin Tirmizi much more accurate than that of Mr.A.H.Amin. These analysts believe the Pakistan Army is the only national, professional, nonsectarian and disciplined institution in Pakistan. Ever since the ouster of ZAB in 1979, the Army has religiously resisted attempts by politicians to politicize it or misuse it against political opponents.

There are of course a few individuals who don`t follow the military`s code of ethics. The general whose family was stopped because of tinted car windows is one such individual. Rumour has it that the rest of the 9 corps commanders have complained to Musharraf in strong words to ``sort out`` this non-issue threatens to snowball into a major embarassment.

Another unscrupulous individual is Tauqir Zia. His reputation within the military circles has taken a nose-dive after Aamer Sohail included his son (Junaid Zia) in the national cricket team`s series against Bangladesh. Now this son has been appointed Vice-Captain of Pakistan`s Under-23 team.

However, it would be a wild stretch of imagination to generalize from the behavior of a few individuals. To date, I don`t know of a single mainstream reputable Pakistani journalist who has resorted to mud-slinging at the entire institution.

#113 by arjun_m

++
India, on the other hand, is not willing to meet Pakistan half-way down the road on Kashmir. Unless that happens, no leader in Pakistan can ``peace with its eastern neighbour``.
++

No that`s Pakistani open declaration of support for Kashmir freedom struggle and an invitation to settle the issue through talks. The contours of the final settlement need not be discussed openly, but at least in principle Pakistan will never cede its right to raise this issue on every diplomatic forum.

++
Not having peace with Pakistan isn`t stopping India from advancing economically
++

Not having peace with India isn`t stopping Pakistan from advancing economically either, as the IMF and World Bank are quick to point out. The pragmatic business, political and military leadership of India doesn`t subscribe to your ``India-doesnt-need-peace-with-Pakistan`` theory. No sensible politician wants to endanger the lives of over 1.3 billion people just for the sake of 6 million Kashmiris who don`t want to stay in India anyway.

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

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

HE

You should read some articles by A.H. Amin. No writer provides a closer view of the cultural mindset of Pakistani military than he does.

A professional, capable military could still operate on archaic assumptions about the society, itself, and others. Many people believe that that is the problem with Pakistani military.

FYI, the Agra meet failed because while Musharraf was happy to accept the concessions Vajpayee was making, he refused to accept any mention of cross-border infiltration.

Musharraf fails because he does not have the ability to see in long-term strategic ways. He spoils his own considerable efforts by trying to be, first, too clever by half and then, being too confident of making his own half-baked ideas work.

IMO, those attributes are very desirable in a soldier, but not in a general, let alone in someone who rules over a country.

#108 by nakhok

Ayaz Amir not discussing the army specifically. He is talking about an entire section of society that believes in an ``existential conflict`` between India and Pakistan. I agree with AA that this too is an out-dated idea.

But I fail to see how AA`s post reinforces your claim that the present-day Pakistani general believe in ``martial race theory`` or ``conquest of Red Fort``. Perhaps you got a little carried away when you wrote that post.

However, I disagree with AA`s comments on Musharraf when he writes:

Musharraf had the opportunity of changing Pakistan`s course and putting it firmly on the path of what I can only call `modernism`. But he has squandered it. The baggage of Afghanistan the Americans helped him to jettison. So it is no thanks to him that we got rid of the Taliban. In other respects the Pakistani state under him remains what it was: not democracy-friendly and not at peace with its eastern neighbour. In some respects it is even worse with the mullas now a power in the land in a way they never were before.

As they say, it takes two to tango. In August 2001, Musharraf and Vajpayee came close to a joint declaration at Agra but the invisible hands of Advani/M.M.Joshi thwarted it. However, both parties had agreed to continue the process in Islamabad later that year. However, 9/11 changed India`s mood. Musharraf still adopted a friendly approach toward India but it was India that refused dialog on one pretext or the other. (The December 13 incident still appears staged from this side of the border).

Thereafter, it was India that refused to talk, not Pakistan. Even after Musharraf`s policy speech on Jan 12, 2002, India refused to reciprocate and tried to pressurize Pakistan further. That is what hardened Musharraf`s stance (and rightly so). Ayaz Amir is overestimating Musharraf`s maneuverability on Kashmir when he says that ``Musharraf had the opportunity of changing Pakistan`s course``.

American reciprocity (debt relief, revival of military supplies, diplomatic benefits) softened the U-turn made on Afghanistan policy (which BTW was already unpopular in Pakistan before 9/11). India, on the other hand, is not willing to meet Pakistan half-way down the road on Kashmir. Unless that happens, no leader in Pakistan can ``peace with its eastern neighbour``.

Difficult political problems can only be solved through a process of give-and-take. Musharraf can`t give much to the Indians, unless he takes something valuable from Indians to show to the Pakistani public.

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

There is an attempt to propound a history that India-Pakistan never lived in peace, that India and Pakistan were always decapitating each other`s soldiers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Until 1965, the citizens of the two countries did not see each other primarily as enemies. Kashmir was peaceful. (Kashmir was peaceful till late 1980s, when Zia came to rule over Pakistani people, and Afghanistani soldiers became available to him after the Russians left Afghanistan).

1965 came, and we became enemies. 1971 made India-Pakistan sworn enemies. Some trust begun to return after 30 years when Kargil conflict made Indians finally wake up to what they were dealing with.

Currently, Pakistan as a nation and Pakistani people still evoke some fondness in India. There is no desire in India to take over Pakistan. However, the Indian people have given up on Pakistani military. It`s difficult to see how the role of this institution could be pared down to the level it should be in any society. It seems that Pakistani people and India are stuck with an institution that insists upon ruling over its own people, and will do anything to perpetuate this rule.

IMO, Musharraf`s reign is as good as it can get under the military rule.

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

What`s the worth of a General in Pakistan? Here`s a write-up from DAWN that gives us some idea:

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421

The worth of a general
by M. SALEEM, Lahore

..... regarding some details of the assets owned by most of the generals. Generals of the Zia and post-Zia era would normally possess a choice residential and a choice commercial plot both in the defence housing societies in Karachi and Lahore. Various other schemes would also benefit a general by at least two more plots.

Before a general`s retirement, he is also allotted approximately a two-kanal plot of land for building a house in the most expensive area of any cantonment (like Sarwar Road in Lahore Cantt).

In addition to the urban property, a general is also allotted 50 acres of agricultural land. This practice is not new, it started soon after independence and became more and more widespread with the passage of time. These are the visible assets. Far bigger are the invisible assets depending upon one being at the right place and at the right time.

The biggest source of corruption are the internal and external defence procurement deals. Whether the armed forces would ever be able to eliminate corruption in civil departments can be judged from the level of corruption prevailing in the MES and in defence purchases. What is the worth of a general? All the assets put together, a general is worth close to Rs100 million.

Just compare it with the assets of a much more qualified university professor with a doctorate who would own not more than Rs5 million at the time of retirement. If anyone is in doubt, he should remember the seven plots of land declared by the CE himself. One also wonders what sort of taxes do they pay as hardly anyone declares his rental income or pays the wealth tax. If they are somehow made to reveal their income tax/wealth tax returns for the last five years, unbelievable facts would come to light.

# 91 by His Excellency:

``As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. ``

Here`s a Pakistani journlist (and an ex military officer to boot!) who faults his compatriots for the widespread belief that on the battlefield one Muslim equals twn Hindus:

---

www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
03 January 2003 Friday 29 Shawwal 1423

The correct method of waging war
By Ayaz Amir

.....That India is not reconciled to the existence of Pakistan is a tenet whose day is done. Even the leading guardians of the `ideology of Pakistan` blush a little while mentioning it. Similarly, the sun has set on the belief cherished once upon a time by many Pakistanis that Pakistan could settle scores with India on the battlefield and that one Muslim was equal to ten Hindus.

We live in altogether more realistic times. Why then cling to some of the old rhetoric? Other countries have disputes too.....

---

The reason the military clings to those inane rhetorics, because it has a vested interest to do so.

And in the same article, Ayaz Amir issues a dire warning to his compatriots who remain obsessed with ``finishing the unfinished business of partition`` in Kashmir:

---

www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
03 January 2003 Friday 29 Shawwal 1423

The correct method of waging war
By Ayaz Amir

..... Let us beware of another danger. If by a miracle Kashmir falls into Pakistan`s lap tomorrow, the forces of militarism and fundamentalism in Pakistan will be strengthened, not anything to do with democracy and tolerance. We have enough fundamentalists of our own. Can we afford to take in any more?

In any event, at stake is not the future of Kashmir but that of Pakistan. What direction do we want it to take? Forward or back? What do we want to make of it? A forward-looking country or a tinpot semi-dictatorship sinking under its problems?

Musharraf had the opportunity of changing Pakistan`s course and putting it firmly on the path of what I can only call `modernism`. But he has squandered it. The baggage of Afghanistan the Americans helped him to jettison. So it is no thanks to him that we got rid of the Taliban. In other respects the Pakistani state under him remains what it was: not democracy-friendly and not at peace with its eastern neighbour. In some respects it is even worse with the mullas now a power in the land in a way they never were before.

---

#86 by nakhok
++++
When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that it will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,
++++

and #102 by nakhok

++++
Altaf Gauhar, in a series of articles, had written how ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan had become victim of the racist view within Pakistan`s army that one [West] Pakistani soldier was more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. Fortified by this racist belief, the ``Field Marshal`` had put into motion the ``Operation Gibralatar`` in 1965. It was a foolhardy deed that would unleash a chain of events that would ultimately lead to his own overthrow in 1969 and the surrender of the Pakistani army in Dhaka on 16th December of 1971.
++++


Do you notice something funny here? You are relying on Altaf Gauhar`s opinions about two dictators who ruled 30-36 years ago... then flashing forward to the year 2003... and imputing those out-dated ideas to a leadership about which you don`t know anything. It seems to me that you are making a giant leap of faith by relying on Mr.Gauhar`s narratives. In forming my opinion of Pakistani (or for that matter, Indian) generals, I would rather rely on contemporary analyses.

As I said earlier, you need to update you compass because your current one is pointing to the wrong decade.

Ahmadzai:

``Under the emotional propaganda of the Mullas, people can make unintelligent decisions that will lead to their own destruction. ``

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you and India fundamentally disagrees with Pakistan. It seems we have more faith in our people then you do.

There is no doubt that people make emotional and unintelligent decisions sometimes, but they learn. The average middle class Indian is more confident today then 40 years ago because he/she has experienced power consistently as a voter. No doubt your democracy was imperfect, so was and IS ours. But, no impartial observer can deny that India;s institutuins are much stronger then Pakistan`s. I do not deny that the problem in Pakistani institution making is not of Musharaff`s making. HE has pointed out the supreme court storming etc. But, every military rule only postpones the day of reckoning and does not eliminate it.

he,

[...The military posture of Pak Army is defensive, not offensive...]

the `defensive posture` hasn`t prevented it from initiating offensive actions on more than one occasion, though.

Janab Mukhlis sahib -- no use enumeratingl these -- too obvious, too numerous to enumerate -- powerful arguments -- in such a civilized rational way --

bin bulaiy mehmaan -- musharraf sahib ki enayatein etnee haiN our etnee obvious haiN ke -- unka beyaan sooruj ko cherag dikhlana huaa....

kurna unkee enaayatoN ka beyaN
maikudey meiN khumaar ki baateiN

instead of your learned discourse -- aap sirf dou bund likh daitay -- huzrat-e Daagh jahaN baith gaye baith gaye....doosre bund ke liye Chowk ki ejaazut maaNg leiN....

# 91 by His Excellency:

``As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. ``

That`s precisely what I would hope from a professional army!! But even its only ``Field Marshal`` has been quoted to be less than professional. Altaf Gauhar (editor of DAWN, information secretary to the ``Field Marshal``), in a series of articles, had written how Ayub Khan had become victim of the racist view within Pakistan`s army that one [West] Pakistani soldier was more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. Fortified by this racist belief, the ``Field Marshal`` had put into motion the ``Operation Gibralatar`` in 1965.

But some Pak Generals have to be smart enough to know better. But they too continue to swear by the ``martial race theory`` because they have a vested interest to do so. As I have explained in #86, these Generals do so not because they believe in it, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats. It allows the Kakul kleptocrats to reamin the ultimate arbiter of who gets to steal in Pakistan and how much. When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.

Those that had preached, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan,`` on the morrow of independence, those that continue to preach, ``One Pakistani soldier is more than ten ``Hindu`` soldiers,`` will not change their tune or stance even if Jammu & Kashmir is handed over to them on a platter. They have a strong need to have India as an enemy country to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for themselves.

Pakistan`s military lobby was strong enough to force the break-away of the majority of Pakistanis in 1971 in order to preserve its own interest in the rest of the country. Today, it is just as determined to perpetuate conflict with India and for the very same reason. Jammu & Kashmir is merely the most convenient excuse at the moment. But, in its absence, it won`t take long for Pakistan`s military to find yet another excuse.

Pakistan`s ruling elite ought to ponder over the fact that there is a limit to what the people will tolerate. When the Kakul kleptocrats exhausted the patience of the long suffering ordinary citizens of Pakistan, the Tsunami of their wrath did not spare even the Ayub Khans and the Yahya Khans. It will not spare Pervez Musharraf either.

Last but not the least, anyone can see that Pakistan`s professional military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armoe who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.

# 91 by His Excellency:

``As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. ``

Pakistani writers themselves have faulted Pakistan`s ``professional`` army for such out-dated ideas. As an example, here are some excerpts from an Altaf Gauhar article written right after the Kargil misadventure under the fearless leader General Pervez Musharraf:

The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)

Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar

..... In our fifty-two year history we have fought two fully fledged wars with India and engaged in two military episodes: the 1948 tribal adventure and the current Kargil misadventure.

The latter military episodes, were both launched under civilian governments, but the 1965 and 1971 wars were fought by military rulers, Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan, without any consultation with the people or their representatives.

The point is that all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,”as a general rule Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.” (Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler, page 328).

# 91 by His Excellency:

``As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. ``

Here are a couple of more quotes from Altaf Gauhar on a ``professional`` army that thought it fit to believe in ``out-dated ideas``:

---

This country deserves me
By Altaf Gauhar

The Nation Lahore
Sunday Nov 14,1999

..... What were Yahya`s assumptions when he ordered military action in East Pakistan? His first assumption was that the Bengalis would not have the guts to face the tall, muscular, West Pakistani jawans. His associates would recall how Ikhtiaruddin conquered Bengal with only 17 Muslim soldiers in 1203-1204 A.D.`` .....

---

Pakistan Today
Friday, October 22, 1999

1965 war: cease-fire
By: Altaf Gauhar

..... The directive issued by Ayub bore the title: `Political aim for struggle in Kashmir.` The aim was `to take such action that will defreeze the Kashmir problem, weaken Indian resolve, and bring her to the conference table without provoking a general war. However the element of escalation is always present in such struggles. So whilst confining our action to the Kashmir area we must not be unmindful that India may in desperation involve us in a general war or violate Pakistan territory where we are weak. We must, therefore, be prepared for such a contingency. To expect quick results in this struggle, when India has much larger forces than us, would be unrealistic. Therefore, our action should be such that can be sustained over a long period. As a general rule Hindu morale would not sustain more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place. Such opportunities should, therefore, be sought and exploited.` .....

Pakistan`s army officers had a vested interest to swear utmost faith in the British propounded theory of ``martial races.`` Even in the early years of Pakistan, these officers would proclaim, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan`` and openly proclaim their belief that the Pakistan flag will get to be raised by them atop the Red Fort in Delhi. And ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan had made no secret of his disdain for Bengalis in his ghost-written auto-biography, ``Friends, Not Masters.``

It was the general view of the army officers, that the people of East Pakistan were not even good Muslims and, obviously, by implication, that it was the divine-ordained duty of Pakistan`s military officers to do everything possible (including murder and rape) to turn East Pakistanis into good Muslims.

Altaf Gauhar, in a series of articles, had written how ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan had become victim of the racist view within Pakistan`s army that one [West] Pakistani soldier was more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. Fortified by this racist belief, the ``Field Marshal`` had put into motion the ``Operation Gibralatar`` in 1965. It was a foolhardy deed that would unleash a chain of events that would ultimately lead to his own overthrow in 1969 and the surrender of the Pakistani army in Dhaka on 16th December of 1971.

The Shah of Iran could have never used his army to perpetuate the perks and privileges of Iran`s ruling elite because ordinary Iranian soldiers were not willing to turn on the common people of Iran on the orders of the Shah. Unfortunately, in Pakistan in 1971, the situation was very different. From 1947 thru 1971, ordinary soldiers of Pakistan had been brainwashed into believing in the British propounded ``martial races`` theory, and into believing that East Pakistanis belonged to an inferior race. The ordinary soldiers had been persuaded to believe by their officers that it was their sacred duty to punish East Pakistanis because the East Pakistanis were not good Muslims!

Pakistan`s army officers had institutionalized racism to the point where the soldiers were willing to believe that they were engaged in rape and murder to save Islam in East Pakistan. Veteran Pakistani journalist Z.A. Suleri (father of writer Sarah Suleri) has written how shocked he was in 1971 to find Pakistan army officers nonchalantly joking about the on-going rapes in East Pakistan as a service to the Bengalis to improve their genes! Much the same story was confirmed in accounts of DAWN correspondent Anthony Mascarenhas.

#94 by arjun_m

++
You`ve got as much of a chance at grabbing Indian Kashmir as you do of grabbing the red fort...
++

And your point is....?

``US army`s belief that Iraqi soldiers will throw their arms and run away at the sight of a Yankee soldier.``

That belief seemed to have been rather accurate in 1991 and this year, no?

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

Stuka 79 and 80:

My criteria is simple. Performance against military, economic and social objectives. I was originally responding to anti-MLs. I support Musharraf not only because of his performance, but also because I believe that we need controled democracy in Pakistan for the time. Under the emotional propaganda of the Mullas, people can make unintelligent decisions that will lead to their own destruction.

Also, I don`t think Jamat-e-Islami would be as innocent if it comes to power as it looks now. Two things are important to it: (1) If in Government, it will surely go for Jihad in Kashmir and (2) If in Government, it will surely go for Jihad against foreign army in Afghanistan. This will expand to other central Asian countries and to other parts of India, much more than it was during Talibans.

RationalFaith at # 81:

Your deduction of my humble submissions is not rational at all.

:-)

#86 by nakhok

+++
When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that it will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,
+++

The advent of fighter jets, missiles, tanks and long-range guns has changed the rules of war. The martial race theory applied to wars of the 18th and 19th centuries when soldiers fought on horseback with swords, bayonnets and rifles. As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. You need to update your compass.

All armies motivate their soldiers by inflating their sense of strength, and depicting the enemy as weak. The 1 Pakistani=10 Hindu soldiers slogan is no different from the US army`s belief that Iraqi soldiers will throw their arms and run away at the sight of a Yankee soldier.

As for Red Fort, I don`t think Pak Army`s mission statement include conquest of any Indian territory. Its mission statement is limited to defense of Pakistan and liberation of Kashmir (which BTW, is a dispute territory unlike the Red Fort). The military posture of Pak Army is defensive, not offensive.

I really don`t understand you guys complaining about grants of land to Pak Army officers.

If ALL the land in Pakistan is owned by Army officers, then there can be no question about whether the Army owns Pakistan or not; nor will statements like ``Pakistan is an Army with a country, not a country with an army`` arise.

Also, the Pak Army is doing its best to reform land ownership.

Viewed in this positive light, the Pak Army is doing the average Pakistani a FAVOR when it allocates land to its officers.

Be grateful, you ingrates.

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

One dictator had desperately tried to change Pakistan into a pure islamic state, where the laws of Allah and his prophet were supposed to rule ( as he often procalimed in his speeches``jahaN Allah aur us ke Rasul ke Qanoon ki hukumrani ho gii``). This dictator wants to make Pakistan a secular islamic state, heck I have no idea what a secular islamic state is . It is a bitter reality that Musharraf, like his predecessor Zia, is just a puppent of the USA and he will remain in power as long as he serves america`s interests in this region. And when his Plane falls from the sky Pakistan will find itself again in the same utter chaos in which it was after the death of Zia. Democracy is the only form of government which is somehow functioning in this world, the rest is bilge-water.

#76 by ballukhan

You are most welcome.

Here are excerpts from an Irfan Husain write-up that brings out the essence of the situation:

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

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
04 January 2003 Saturday 30 Shawwal 1423

Looking ahead, darkly
By Irfan Husain

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

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

Housing estates and agricultural lands across the country have been parcelled out to officers as a matter of routine. Above all, they are virtually exempt from any sort of prosecution on charges of corruption. Every class has its own set of demands and requirements and normally, these are mediated with the state and some compromise is
reached. In the army`s case, there is no mediation because it controls the levers of power.

Had the army`s monopoly on power meant simply the usurpation and waste of resources, we could have gritted our teeth and got on with life. Unfortunately, the assumption that GHQ is the source of all wisdom has many implications: for instance, when there is complicit relationship between religious extremists and the `agencies`, it is not possible for the enfeebled state to control the former. Their violent methods in Afghanistan and Kashmir cannot be switched on and off at will, and the result is the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and bloodletting we have grown so accustomed to.....

When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that it will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,

it does so, not because it believes in what it says, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.

In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan
is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armoe who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.

When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.

What happens tomorrow if the Prime Minister orders the establishment secretary to cancel the contracts of all retired military officers serving in the government as well as public sector corporations, and to send all serving officers back to the barracks? Musharraf keeps saying that the Prime Minister has a free hand, but is he free to purge the administration of military brass?

Ahmadzai #77

``Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real.``

This is completely bizarre !! You create a potentially unstable situation and then it is
the US/West`s responsibility to restore order ? Leaving aside issues of self-respect,
juvenile blackmailing is an asinine way of conducting foreign policy - how long would
an artificially propped-up Musharraf last ?

``Why should not we stay with certainty offered by the present times? In other words, why gamble?``

What certainty ? From your previous paragraph, the ``certainty`` seems very fragile.

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

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

Stuka #80

LOL

You know Ahmadzai`s favorite theory. It goes like this.

Pathans are the brave, ferocious people of the subcontinent (or may be the middle east, or middle kingdom, or something like that).

They love Islam.

Indians better give Pakistan what Pakistanis have been asking for.

Else these ferocious ancestors of Ahmadzai (or their progeny, not that it matters) will overrun Pakistan and India.

That will be so very bad for Indians.

So better do what Pakistan wants.

After this we are supposed to quake with fear.

Wasn`t Romair at that level of maturity a couple of years ago? :)

I want to address this seperately.

``Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real. ``

Iif the people democratically elect Jamaat (chances of Hafiz, Masood Azhar are non existant) or the MMA, then it should come to power. The ``chaos`` theory of Islamic fundamentalists has been disproved in Iran.

Ahmadzai:

It was in good humor. Ii think that one should elect leader based on positive emotions, not on negative.

Not just Musharraf, all Faujis who have taken power, have done so on the basis of other person`s bad performance rather then their own good performance. Anyways, if you seriously believe it to be true that he is the best for Pakistan, then that is fine.

The only thing you should consider is..what happens when he goes? And how will he go? Ten years of economic growth is worth nothing if it ends in instability at the macro level.

Thanks for the info!!
#55 by HisExcellency on October 22, 2003 7:59am PT

I always thought that since military career also provides avenues to branch into other careers such as civil services, public sector institutes, sports administration etc. because of the army`s role and priviledges in Pakistan`s government it must be a better or perhaps the best career option for the educated youths.
But I am still puzzled at this phenomenon.

Re : nakhok

Thanks for the posts.

Stuka at # 63:

In response to your same questioned now asked twice (although I think it is humor in good spirit to correct my stance), I have the following to say:

1. While over-focusing on my second point that Pakistanis should have President Musharraf, because Indians hate him, you are not paying attention to my first point i.e. his economic performance. Good economic performance, political stability, acceptability by the world community, etc. would be mandatory.

2. Now you may say that Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Azhar may give us good economic performance as well, if made President/PM. To this I will say what I suggested to Tauheed on another matter. Why should Pakistanis settle for uncertainty by having these two as their Presidents/PMs, who are hated by Indians alright, but are hated by the entire world too and the economic prosperity will be a question mark? Why should not we stay with certainty offered by the present times? In other words, why gamble?

3. Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real.

Mukhlis at # 57:

Thumbs up.

:-)

Mukhlis makes some very accurate observations here BUT...

Mush must stay around to clean up a mess that the Khakis themselves have created

with the help of their benefactors (who have decided to finally change their tune).

The argument goes like this: Will the uniforms listen to a civilian to change course?

On 9-12-2001 had there been a Politician at the helm in Pakistan (BB or Nawaz)

would the 180 on the Taliban have been possible?

The future will be dictated by the benefactor, that is certain.

Let us prepare for the ride....

stuka #72 ``Saala, discussion board kee bhund maar dee hai. ``

Agreed. nakhok beta, soon liya?

Abey yaar, cut and paste links instead of articles. If we are interested we will go and read. Saala, discussion board kee bhund maar dee hai.

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
August 15-21, 2003

EDITORIAL
Okara peasants, military and national interest
by Najam Sethi

THERE IS A NEW TWIST IN THE unending and sordid saga of the plight of the tenants of Okara Military Farms (OMF) in Punjab: General Pervez Musharraf has taken it upon himself to defend the army`s honour and conduct which has been denounced by human rights organisations at home and abroad. ..... by rushing to premeditated judgment in favour of his own boys, he is guilty of putting the army`s corporate interests above the national interest. (Incidentally, it doesn`t always occur to stupid civilians that the army`s interest = the national interest.) .....

..... the arrogance of the OMF (Okara Military Farms) can be gauged from the text of some letters written by senior officials to relatives of the allegedly offending tenants threatening them in clearly unlawful terms. We are in possession of two letters sent to the OMF ``employees``, dated Aug 26, 2002, and Jan 24, 2003, by the farm officer, a major. These show the mindset of the military authorities towards the Okara tenancy issue in particular and civil-military relations in general. In one of the letters, the major writes in English: ``It has come to our notice that your parents/relatives living in chaks of Mil Farms are involved in anti-state activities. You are directed to motivate your parents/relatives to desist from anti-state activities and to co-op with the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Rangers. If you will not do this for the state, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against you.`` .....

..... With Okara still under some sort of military siege, and several resisting tenants killed during protests against paramilitary forces in the last two years since the dispute has been brewing, what sort of ``disciplinary action`` is the OMF thinking of taking against its hapless ``employees`` and their relatives/parents? .....

..... in the case of the tenants of the OMF, there is a history of organised peasant resistance to displacement and there is a military force that wants to speedily claim its capitalist ``rights``. Hence the violence and the negative publicity attached to the case. In fact, if a multinational corporate enterprise had been in the shoes of the OMF, we dare say that the judiciary, far from studiously dragging its feet on the issue, might even have come out in support of the tenants! .....

..... the employment of feudals as junior partners under martial law regimes has introduced a feudal streak into the military mind as well. How about it, General Musharraf? Can you be bigger than the chief of the army?

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

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
25 July 2003 Friday 24 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1424

..... Did anyone hear the Karachi corps commander, Lt Gen Wasim Ghazi, declaiming on Geo TV about the wonders of the Defence Housing Authority`s new beach-side development?

I have heard hyperbole in my time but this one really went over the top. For a moment I thought the excited general was talking of some new blitzkrieg technique or a new howitzer invented by the army. But here, instead of anything to do with his duties as corps commander, he was waxing lyrical about a housing estate by the sea.And then senior army officers get red in the face, their military honour touched to the quick, if you tell them that far from anything to do with the profession of arms their true vocation seems to lie in the setting up of newer and more lavish housing estates.

---

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2003-daily/09-08-2003/oped/o4.htm

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Saturday August 09, 2003-- Jamadi-us-Sani 10, 1424 A.H

A candid talk
by Mir Jamilur Rahman
mirjrahman@hotmail.com

..... President Musharraf expressed his deep concern over the anti-armed forces propaganda in the national media. He detailed the misperceptions created by the negative reporting. President Musharraf should not get unduly perturbed on this trend. It is the natural and logical outcome of overexposure of the armed forces in the public affairs. Never before in the history of Pakistan the military personnel have occupied so many public offices. Its omnipresence in every sphere of public life and its omniscient attitude has not endeared it to the people. It has replaced the bureaucrat as the perennial target of public scorn. It has forgotten the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt. It is now the armed forces personnel who run the public utilities, supervise the sports, regulate the utility tariffs, and catch the thieves under NAB, head the postal department, the universities and research institutes. With a public exposure of this magnitude the criticism would not only continue to flow but become intense too.

President Musharraf assured his audience of newsmen that every penny of the defence budget is spent with great care and there are several tiers of checks on all spending. True, that defence budget is only 17 percent of the federal budget and yet at the GDP ratio of 6 percent it is nearly the highest in the world. Despite all the checks Admiral Mansoorul Haq could manage a hefty commission on the deal of Augusta submarines. It was a newspaper of Karachi that exposed the Admiral and not some vigilant committee of the government. The defence budget and spending cannot attain full transparency until it was opened to the public debate. .....

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-6-2003_pg3_3

Land allotments and the military
by Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi

[The author, Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, is a renowned political and
defence analyst. He holds PhD in International Relations and Political
Science from the University of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at
Columbia University, New York, Heidelberg University, Germany, and the
University of the Punjab,Lahore]

Land allotments to military personnel are not viewed in Pakistani
society as an isolated development. These represent a broader
phenomenon of the military gradually overwhelming most sectors of
state and society

Some of Pakistan`s national dailies carried a news item on June
24 that the Punjab Board of Revenue informed the Lahore High Court
that 62 senior and 56 junior Army officers were allotted agricultural
lands in Cholistan and other district of the Punjab under various
schemes in 1981, 1982, 1994, 1999 and 2000. These allotments were made
under instructions of the Army headquarters and the details of these
allotments could be made public only by the Army headquarters.

The allotment of agricultural land to serving and retired military
personnel is an old and well established practice going back to the
period of British rule in India. No detailed data is available on such
allotments since the establishment of Pakistan because the military
authorities are not willing to release the names of the beneficiaries
of this policy and the civilian governments (when in power) do not
want to alienate the military by making detailed data available to
public. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Punjab Board of
Revenue did not provide the list of officers who were allotted
agricultural land in Cholistan and other districts of the Punjab in
the specified years.

However, limited data is released from time to time by the government,
mainly to answer questions in various assemblies. The available data
shows clearly that the military personnel (in many cases the
bureaucrats as well) were accommodated liberally whenever agricultural
land became available under various land development schemes. At
times, newspapers and weeklies have published unauthenticated list of
civil servants and military officers who were allotted agricultural
land in Sindh and the Punjab. Several political parties and citizens
groups have periodically taken exception to this policy but their
protests are not known to have produced any significant impact on the
land allotment policy for military personnel.

The British adopted the policy of granting agricultural land to
military personnel in the Punjab in order to encourage recruitment to
the Army. This helped to improve the socio-economic status of army
personnel in an agricultural society. Some influential people were
granted land for helping the British in army recruitment or for
pursuing Army-related assignments, i.e. ``ghori pal``
scheme.

The British could adopt this policy because large tracts of
agricultural land became available as they started building canals in
the Punjab from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The land
in these ``canal colonies`` was distributed mainly to build
support for the British government and for rewarding Army personnel
which encouraged army recruitment in the Punjab. A detailed study of
how the British used the land in the canal colonies in the Punjab for
popularising Army service can be found in Imran Ali`s book
``The Punjab Under Imperialism, 1885-1947`` (Princeton
University Press, 1988).

In the post-independence period, land in the Thal desert was assigned
to the military for settling ex-service personnel. Land was also
allotted to ex-service personnel in various schemes in different
barrage areas in Sindh and the Punjab. These barrages included Ghulam
Muhammad, Gudu and Taunsa. Local servicemen were given land in
Campbellpur, Jhelum, Kohat, Rawalpindi and Hazara districts which was
developed with the help of the Army. Agricultural land was allotted to
service personnel on the Pakistan-India border in the Punjab.

Initially, agricultural land was also granted with gallantry awards.
Later, cash rewards replaced land allocations. Some useful historical
data on the policy of land allotments to the military in the early
years of independence can be found in Major General (retd) Fazal
Muqeem`s book ``The Story of the Pakistan Army``
(Oxford University Press, 1963); for the later period see Hasan Askari
Rizvi`s book ``Military, State and Society in
Pakistan`` (St Martin`s Press, New York, 2000).

The practice of agricultural land grants continued on a limited scale
in the eighties and the nineties. The Punjab Provincial Assembly was
informed in January 1988 that the Punjab Government allotted about
450,000 acres of land to 5,538 military personnel during 1977-85. Land
was also allotted to military personnel, bureaucrats and influential
people in other provinces, especially in Sindh, but the government did
not release the data about these allotments.

The practice of granting plots of land to military personnel in
various housing schemes in cantonments and other urban centres is by
now well-established. Most service personnel can get more than one
residential or commercial plot in different housing schemes at a price
less than the market rate and then sell their extra plots, mostly to
civilians, at exorbitant market rates.

A reference may also be made to the ongoing controversy about the
Okara Military Farms. This farm involves about 20,156 acres of land
spread over 22 villages which is controlled and managed by the Army
under a renewable 20 year lease agreement with the Punjab Government
going back to 1912-13. The lease agreement allows the Army to acquire
its proprietary rights. This has not happened and the Army continues
with the lease arrangement. The dispute with the tenants of three or
four out of 22 villages started when the Army decided to change the
original arrangement for sharing the produce of this land.

The demand of the tenants for ownership of the land has no legal basis
because no Pakistani law permits the tenants to become owners of the
land by virtue of having been tenants over a long period of time. The
coercion used by state agencies against these tenants has provoked
some NGOs and human rights groups to take up the cause of the tenants.
Furthermore, civil society groups want to highlight the broader issue
of the military`s expanding role in all sectors of state and
society.

Land allotments to military personnel are not viewed in Pakistani
society as an isolated development. These represent a broader
phenomenon of the military gradually overwhelming most sectors of
state and society. The related developments that add to concern about
the nature and direction of the society include the induction of
military personnel into the top posts in the government and
semi-government institutions and organisations, and the fast expanding
commercial, business and industrial interests of the military being
pursued through four welfare foundation.

On top of all this is the military exercises power directly from time
to time, and, when it is not in power, its top brass use their pivotal
position to assert their role in the decision making process at the
highest level. Politicisation of the role of the military and its
penetration into most sectors of state and society is leading to
political controversies.

A person or an institution cannot engage in politics without being
questioned by competing political and societal interests. The military
may justify its position on land allotments, material rewards to its
personnel, its economic interests, and the control of the Okara farms
on purely legal grounds. However, it will continue to be questioned on
political grounds and with reference to the attempts of civil society
groups to protect the autonomy of civilian institutions and processes.

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

Mukhlis,

Sorry for taking up your space.

To those interested: Please go to the `publish and discuss articles on social and cultural issues` board for further details on Hudood Laws.

Thank you.
Umer M.

The Pakistan military has been claiming that Pakistan will self-destruct if the military has to operate under democratically elected civilian authority. Needless to say, this is a blatantly self-serving argument.

While respected journalists have been writing about army corruption for quite some time, so have been foreign journalists even after General Pervez Musharraf reversed the military`s policy on the Taliban in the wake of 9/11 (more for self-preservation than for any genuine change in philosophy on terrorism).

---

A recent article in Washington Post (Pakistanis Question Perks of Power, Many Say Military Confuses National Interest With Its Own By John Lancaster) is a good example. See the following URL for the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23614-2002Nov21.html

The article was published in Washington Post of 21 November, 2002.
Here are some excerpts:

.....

``Some critics go a step further, accusing the military of deliberately stoking tensions with India, particularly over Kashmir, to justify its hold on resources and power. ``Peace would be a disaster for the military,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.``

.....

``There is no denying the military`s dominant role in Pakistan. The military owns the best farmland and several of the largest industrial conglomerates. Retired or active-duty military officers run the ports, postal service, electric utilities, sports federations, telecommunications authority, culture ministry, mineral development agency, anti-drug police, railroads, civil aviation authority, national shipping company and Pakistan`s biggest steel mill. They hold top administrative posts at the best universities. Many ambassadors are retired officers.``

.....

``Under an arcane point-based system that dates to the British Raj, the military also rewards its senior officers by allowing them to purchase agricultural and urban land from the army`s vast inventory of real estate at prices far below market value. A number of these properties are grouped into ``defense societies`` in tony suburbs of Karachi and other major cities. The societies are administered by the Defense Housing Authority, which ensures the provision of municipal services. Officers who acquire such land often develop it as rental property or sell it for hefty profits.``

......

``One of Pakistan`s most coveted addresses, for example, is the blandly named Army Housing Scheme II, which is built on the site of an old antiaircraft battery in the upscale Karachi suburb of Clifton. A gated community protected by paramilitary troops, the development consists of spacious, Mediterranean-style villas grouped around a playground and an elaborately landscaped Japanese-style garden. Nearby are clothing boutiques, jewelry stores, restaurants and a yoga studio.``

.....

``Installing men in uniform in civilian businesses and institutions did not begin with Musharraf. In 1980, Zia established a 10 percent quota for military personnel in civilian government jobs. But Musharraf, by all accounts, has taken the process further than his uniformed predecessors, dispatching military ``monitoring teams`` to key civilian agencies and replacing top officials with senior officers.``

.....

The military has been milking the civilian sector with impunity. Readers will find the following reference book to be very informative & educational:

Military, State and Society in Pakistan
by Hasan Askari Rizvi
St.Martin`s Press, New York

The author, Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, is a renowned political and defence analyst. He holds PhD in International Relations and Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at Columbia University, New York, Heidelberg University, Germany, and the University of the Punjab,Lahore.

Dr. Hasan Rizvi has pointed out that the induction of military personnel to civilian jobs has been institutionalized in a manner that led to what British Professor S E Finer describes as the ``military colonisation of other institutions`` whereby ``the military acts as a reservoir or core of personnel for the sensitive institutions of the state``.

In fact, even the universities haven`t been able to resist this colonisation! I am not surprised that General Pervez Musharraf has been commenting with authority and impunity on the educational qualifications of Benazir Bhutto even as he spreads the word on his own educational qualifications thru his minions. Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, has pointed out:

``Six civilian universities had retired Army officers as their Vice Chancellors. The University of Balochistan was headed by a retired Brigadier in the eighties. In 2001, a retired Brigadier was appointed Pro-Vice Chancellor of Balochistan University. A Major General served as Vice Chancellor of Peshawar University for a brief period in 1993. A Lt General worked as Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University in 1993-97. The government`s plan to appoint another Lt General as his successor was scuttled by the boycott threat of the faculty and negative editorials in some newspapers. However, in September 1999, the Punjab`s civilian government appointed a retired Lt General as Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University.

The PU faculty went on strike as protest against this appointment. However, after the military assumed power by dislodging the civilian government in October 12, 1999, the PU faculty had to call off the strike. Several key administrative posts of the Punjab University are also held by retired Army officers. A Lt. General was appointed Vice Chancellor of the Engineering University, Lahore, in 1998. The Vice Chancellor of Engineering University Peshawar, is also a retired senior military officer. The Vice Chancellor of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, is both retired Army officer and former senior bureaucrat. Some Brigadiers were given academic appointments in Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, in the eighties by changing the university rules.``

---

Military has been calling the shots in Pakistan for much of its history. General Pervez Musharraf`s goal has been to do everything possible to perpetuate the military`s primacy in every sector of Pakistan.

The military is trained to defend the country`s frontiers, and even extend them. But Pakistan`s military has extended its reach far beyond what it receives training for. Needless to say, Pakistan is the loser.

Pakistan`s military has been the defacto rulers of the country for most of its history. It has established itself as the mafia that decides who gets to steal in Pakistan and how much. And needless to say, it is the Kakul kleptocrats that are the biggest beneficiaries of the institutionalized stealing.

Readers will find the following book very fascinating:

---

DRUGS IN SOUTH ASIA: FROM THE OPIUM TRADE TO THE PRESENT DAY by M. Emdad-ul-Haq; MacMillan Press; Distributed by Vanguard Books Lahore; Pp319; Price UKP45

---

The author is a professor of political science at Chittagong University.

The book chronicles how the military caused Pakistan`s ruination in its single-minded zeal to line its own pocket. It is the military that has held a monopoly over the drug trade and gun running in Pakistan. When General Ziaul Haq came to power there were practically no heroin addicts in Pakistan. By the time he died, the heroin addicts in Pakistan numbered over a million. Today`s secterian killings and Kalashnikov culture are a direct byproduct of the military`s gun running.

Khaled Ahmed wrote a review for the book in The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan dated 6-13 September, 2001. Here`s a quotation from that book review:

---

``Almost all our beloved retired generals who are today busy saving the country from India and the United States in league with the weaponised clergy are named as heroin-dealers in the book. And the author has played safe by constantly referring to published sources in the West, research journals devoted to the elimination of narcotics internationally. What can we say except that we trust our generals more than we trust the West. May Allah inflict palsy on the hands that compile such painful research. Our retired generals are rich beyond
count because of Allah`s barakah.``

---

Ahmadzai:

The main reason you support Mush is because Indians don`t like him. So you should be happy that Indians are giving him gaalis. It validates his presidency even more. But I don`t know why you don`t make Hafiz Saaed of leT or the Maulana Massod Azhar Head of Jaish e Mohamad the President. After all, they have given more fingers up our asses then Musharraf ever will.

Right?

#56 by Mukhlis

+++
We let Musharraf get away with an arm & a leg but demand the severest of punishments for the Gawalmandi guy or the Larkana BB.
+++

There is a crucial difference between Musharraf, the Gawalmandi guy (Nawaz) and Larkana BB.

The Gawalmandi guy now owns the largest steel mill in the world. Before he came to power, he had just 6 industrial units. At the end of his first tenure, he had kicked out his cousins from those units and added another 28 to his name. Nawaz Sharif`s crime is that he indulged in corruption at a time when Pakistan was suffering its worst recession since 1947. If he had controlled his greed and been a patient man, he could have ruled for another 15 years and made much more money. But he was in a hurry... at the wrong time.

Nawaz was an average guy so nobody had high expectations from him. But BB was the political heir to ZAB`s legacy and boasted of spectacular skills acquired at Harvard/Oxford. Upon her return from exile in 1986, she received the largest public reception in the history of Pakistan. People never forgot the courageous and dignified manner in which Bhutto had faced his trial and execution. After Benazir`s solitary confinement and assassination of Shahnawaz Bhutto, the common Pakistani identified with the pain of Bhuttos. She was the perfect candidate to champion the cause of the poor and politically oppressed.

How ironic that 10 years later when her second govt was dismissed, even PPP workers refused to mourn her ouster. Instead of delivering justice to the common man, BB played Russian roulette with the Judiciary by appointing ad-hoc judges who were perennially insecure about their future (and hence couldn`t stand up to Zardari). From power contracts to Mirage-2000 deal, her record was chequered with kickbacks.

At the end of the day, the debit side of Benazir`s balance sheet appears even slimmer than that of Nawaz Sharif (who was, by far, a novice in politics/leadership).

Larkana`s BB and Gawalmandi`s Nawaz got not one, but two chances each to turn the country around. They both failed. But failure is a lesser crime than graft in an economic recession.

Musharraf`s failures appear trivial in comparison to those of BB and Nawaz precisely because he improved the economy. As long as he outperforms BB and Nawaz on the economic front, people will ignore his mistakes. However, his failures will not be forgotten. These failures will return to haunt him when he is in a politically fragile position. The very people who are singing praises of him (including myself), will then turn against him.

This is how the beast of Politics treats losers. When you laugh, the world laughs with you. When you weep, you weep alone.

#54 by ahmadzai on October 22, 2003 7:13am PT
...early morning... ...i dont know how early... ....ahmadzai is worshipping Mushi....
... 99% of the remaining time that he is awake!!! he is swearing at the Hawks in India.. and the horrible hindoos!!!.....
and
...talking of fingers... ...politely let me remind you.... ....History speaks...

>>>We have a tendency to become super prejudiced when supporting our favorites and that clouds our judgments

That is true, but in an international context... not on a local context in pakistan, because I seriously dont see a significant number of BB or NW supporters around... if they are, then they are hiding under stones or something because you seriously can NOT support *ANY* leader who ruins the country and loots its citizens so. Mushy hasn`t done so, in fact he has improved our lives and the economy of the people of Pakistan ``in general``. Pun intended!

Now, the point I am trying to make is that the writer`s arguement is absolutely rubbish because he wants an ``equality`` of judgement on nawaz and benazir! Those two quite simply put, are looters and theives. ``bandits``...

You can NOT say that we should judge them the same way we love Musharraf.

Think about it, it is like saying we should judge George Washington the same way we judges Benedict Arnold... this rationale does NOT apply with those two leaders. Quite simply put, those two DID make the country suffer, they DID ruin our economies, they DID loot the people, they WERE and ARE corrupt and therefore they deserve nothing but our distaste and the swift arms of justice clamping down on their slimy hides.

#48 by rsridhar

+++
If he liked the press that much, what does he have against the SA Tribune. Because the latter regularly unmasks him and shows the world his real face.
+++

Apparently, you are unaware of the background for Sehbai`s harrassment. He claims that he had uncovered evidence that suggests ISI didn`t want Americans to deal directly with Mullah Umar. The Mullah was (according to Sehbai) prepared to hand over Osama to the Americans. This would have rendered Pakistan redundant to the Americans. So ISI threatened Sehbai with dire consequences if he pursued the matter further. Sehbai resisted and the govt turned nasty against him.

Even if we believe Sehbai`s outrageous allegations, this only proves that Musharraf is a patriot and didn`t threaten Sehbai for personal reasons (like Nawaz and Benazir did). His reasons were patriotic, not selfish. Realpolitik demands that some times governments indulge in unfair practices for the larger national interest. Dean Acheson, Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger built a career out of such tactics. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Sardar Patel and V.K.Menon were themselves guilty of the same ``patriotic crimes``. Thus, in principle we can`t condemn Musharraf for hounding Sehbai for the putated reason (assuming of course, that Sehbai`s allegations are true).

However, Cowasjee and Najam Sethi also don`t regard Sehbai in good light. He is considered an opportunist and some even allege that he has been on Asif Zardari`s payroll since 1993.

Maybe, these allegations against Sehbai are just part of a campaign to discredit an honest journalist. But Najam Sethi and Cowasjee have been bigger thorns in the side of govts. Yet we never hear any allegations against Sethi and Cowasjee. Why are these allegations being leveled against Sehbai alone? Can there be smoke without fire?

I used to read Sehbai`s SA Tribune very eagerly. However, I soon realized that this man is concocting scandals sitting in Washington DC. He is too far removed from the Pakistani scene to have any genuine insights. In journalism, on site is insight.

I sadly have to comment that SA Tribune has ended up as a tabloid magazine. I have no problem with Sehbai`s hatred for Musharraf, provided it is for the right reasons. Unfortunately, the SA Tribune never gives tells us the right reasons.

#47 by rsridhar

+++
Remember, Mushy is a dictator. Once you have absolute power, you can afford to project yourself to be benign, even democratic
+++

In theory, you are right. But in practice, this has not happened. Mushy has allowed the Press much more freedom than BB and Nawaz could ever fathom... just to prove his democratic credentials. His referendum was flawed, no doubt. But his media policy, local bodies elections and style of governance are much more transparent.

Even in daily administration, the civilian government does not face consistent interference from the Army any more. The nine corps commanders are forbidden by Mushy to interfere with the district and provincial administration. This is in sharp contrast to BB and Nawaz govts, when Zardari and Nawaz used to appoint their own men in every department.

I remember a conversation with the Chief Secretary of Punjab during Benazir`s govt in mid-1996. He was complaining that he had received 3 different orders: one from his Chief Minister (Arif Nakai), one from Asif Zardari via telephone; and one from the Provincial Minister (Mushtaq Awan). In the end, he decided to do nothing. And saved his job!

#18 ferozk

``The article points that Musharraf is wrong, because he simply did what all others like Bhutto or Sharif did before him and there is a point to that, but does that excuse Sharif or Bhutto or their acts?``

No, it does not excuse either Sharif or BB from the excesses & crimes that they committed. I never once said that in my article neither do I believe in such logics.

``This article is nothing more than a pathetic exuse for glossing over the crimes of Sharif and Bhutto by placing the mea culpa on Musharraf``

This article might be pathetic. So be it. But do not label this article what it is not. It is definitely not making any excuses for Sharif`s and BB`s crimes by saying that Musharraf did the same. If possible, go through the article again and point to me where I have used any logic of the sort that you are blaming me for. I will gladly accept my fault.

#35 Bandit

``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.``

DWI or no DWI :-), Do you even know what the argument is?


To all readers,

It seems that some readers are taking the article`s message in the wrong context or- may be in their haste- are missing the whole theme. So in a few sentences, this is what I am trying to say:

Forget the leaders and let us first look at our own behaviours. Let us be fair. Fair when we are showering adulations as well as when we are criticising, be it Nawaz, BB or Musharraf. We have a tendency to become super prejudiced when supporting our favorites and that clouds our judgments to the extent that we forget right from wrong. We forget that we have to be fair even if we (for some reason or the other) like the person ruling the country. We, the educated Pakistanis, should not condone our favorites to the point of becoming dishonest and untruthful to ourselves.

The arguments that I have put forth in the article are just to show how we change our points of view based upon our personal likes and dislikes for an individual. We let Musharraf get away with an arm & a leg but demand the severest of punishments for the Gawalmandi guy or the Larkana BB. I have made these observations while talking to and discussing with educated Pakistanis the past few years and was keen on knowing if Chowkies have made the same observations.

#54 ahmadzai

I second that :-)

#53 by ballukhan

+++
Could anyone inform me what is the order of preference for a miltary career compared to other careers amongst the educated youths in Pakistan presently
+++

Owning a business is naturally the highest preference.

After that, the preferred career option is a private sector job. Within this realm, people prefer banks, multinationals, software firms, accounting firms, NGOs and law firms, usually in that order.

Medicine is the next option because unlike private sector jobs, doctors usually don`t make good money for the first 5-8 years of their practice.

Public sector jobs are usually the third preference. But even in this category, people would prefer Police, District Management Group, Customs Service, Revenue Service, etc.

Military career is usually the last option. Salary is very low. You don`t get any plots of land until you get very senior. In addition, there is a risk of getting superseded at the lower levels. Postings are usually in far flung areas. However, those who can survive 20-30 years of this, end up with a lot of priveleges and power.

Could anyone inform me what is the order of preference for a miltary career compared to other careers amongst the educated youths in Pakistan presently.

Looking at the posts of extremist Indians on Chowk, my humble suggestion to them would be that although Musharraf might have fingered them up their as*es, its better they deal with their extremist Advanis, Modis and Joshis, the killers of innocent Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in India. They should focus on things they can control.