Pakistan under its Ethnic Shadows

#48 by HisExcellency on November 18, 2003 3:09pm PT

`` Yugoslavia was a basket case even before it became a nation in 1940s because of intense religious rivalries between Serbs and the rest. The centrifugal forces in Yugoslavia were so strong that even democracy couldn`t hold them together. Tito`s socialism and benign dictatorship backed by a powerful military proved more successful than democracy in keeping the country together. This only proves that there are some states in this world, that can only be kept intact with force and dictatorship. Democracy does not work in such states.``

Yugoslavia failed for an important reason. The European Union was an excellent successful example of individual states in a political and economic union. One reason Pakistan could fail if the non-Punjabi groups see India, Iran or Afghanistan as an success story. A moderate Afghanistan with an empowered Pusthun majority is the biggest threat to Pakistani control over NWFP and Baluchistan. This is the biggest factor behind the Pakistani (Punjabi) elite`s support for the Taliban elements.

Re; #12

Rozaiba writes:

``More likely, this mumbo jumbo about `authentic nationhood` is usually appealing to expatriates who think Pakistan`s evolutionary process should have achieved in 50 years, what it took America or Britain or any other mature democracy over 200 years to achieve. ``

This is the standard line of indoctrination at the GHQ staff college - Unfortunately it as much fiction as the much touted martial races theory - good for NCO morale only.....

If chronological maturity was the only Standard - Greece and Rome would have been models of democracy for ages _ remember democracy was invented in the city states and The Romans practiced limited democracy for centuries before the Caesarian coup...( both achieved democracy post ww-2 - Greece perhaps in the early 70s) ..... Unfortunately there is a thing called regression - often practiced in Pakistan (and by Pakistanis on the Chowk) and starkly evident in Afghanistan........

Democracy is neither new nor modern - it took over 2000 years before the American founding fathers acquired the requisite quorum for sane and rational behavior of self government. The US constitution is hardly an original document - it borrows heavily from the Greeks, Romans and the French philosophers...- The fact that it is a working solution is a testament to the framers ingenuity.....

Restrictive democracy has been practised in Malaysia since 57 - with astounding results - and I think nobody can claim that the Malay tribes had a democratic tradition older than the last bastion of servitude to the mighty British empire

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Nov-2003/19/EDITOR/op2.asp

The Nation, Pakistan
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Musharraf’s four years
ASLAM MINHAS

..... A military ruler is always a divider instead of a uniter of a nation and Musharraf is no exception. Ayub and Yahya with their fissiparous policies split the country in 1971. Zia divided the country criss-cross along so many lines, linguistic, ethnic, sectarian and political, that we are still picking up the pieces today. .....

# 48 His Excellency


Excerpt #1:

---

..... there are some states in this world, that can only be kept intact with force and dictatorship.

---

Such states are not viable nations. Sooner or later they will implode.


Excerpt #2:

---

If there are irreconcilable religious differences between ethnic/religious groups in a country, even democracy will fail to hold them together.

---

The key word is ``even``. His Excellency is tacitly (though reluctantly) acknowledging that democracy is the best bet to create a nation out of a federation of disparate groups.

---

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Nov-2003/19/EDITOR/op2.asp

The Nation, Pakistan
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Musharraf’s four years
ASLAM MINHAS

..... A military ruler is always a divider instead of a uniter of a nation and Musharraf is no exception. Ayub and Yahya with their fissiparous policies split the country in 1971. Zia divided the country criss-cross along so many lines, linguistic, ethnic, sectarian and political, that we are still picking up the pieces today. .....

---

I see you cleaverly skirted the Dawood issue.

We Pakistanis should only work under worst case scenario, but always hoping for the best.

Worst Case Scenario:

Lot of people in Pakistan believe that ``post 9/11, it was Pakistan that was the target of the USA/Israeli/Indian lobby. However, a classic u-turn saved our butts. The West wants Pakistan to be destabilized through Afghanistan so that its faces ethnic rifts between Talibani supporters i.e Pakhtoons and non-Pakhtoons. ``

Current situation:

Surprisingly, all ethnic groups of Pakistan have shown unity at a philosophical level with respect to the recent international events.

1. All ethnic groups feel sympathy for Afghan Pashtoons and for Talibans as the representatives of the Pashtoons. Although most of us hate Talibani leadership and its extreme version of Islam.

2. All ethnic groups resent how the West is treating Muslims these days. For those who live and travel to the West, this may only be a perception far from reality. But it is the ones living in Pakistan who count and they are united in their resentment.

3. All ethnic groups of Pakistan resented the way USA moved on Iraq and threatens Iran.

4. All ethnic groups in Pakistan hate India`s extremist and destroy Pakistan policies.

Source of information: Audience views on interactive programmes on Indus TV, GEO, ARY Digital and in newspapers.

However, on the other hand, the differences in India are such that if their hostilities with Pakistan end today, huge differences between North and South and Hindus and non-Hindus will surface from tomorrow. Already the religious divide is showing.

#53 by bongdongs

++
I see you cleaverly skirted the Dawood issue.
++

This is a tricky issue.

Pakistan can neither appear too soft, nor too hard on this issue.

India is still engaged in a bitter diplomatic campaign to smear Pakistan, portray Kashmir as terrorism, refuse to talk about the core issue, block Pakistan`s re-entry into Commonwealth and ARF, etc. If Pakistan makes any unilateral concessions to India at this point, it will send the wrong message to the Indian leadership.

On the other hand, Pakistan also can`t appear too hard because this will shift international pressure from India to Pakistan. At present, Pakistan has managed to portray itself as eager for peace in South Asia by dropping pre-conditions for talks and being flexible about the format of talks (bilateral, trilateral, multilateral, etc). In continuation of this policy, Pakistan needs to be open-minded about Dawood issue, yet non-committal until India reciprocates on issues that are important for Pakistan.

If 2002 was the year of belligerent posturing, 2003 is a year of diplomatic tap-dancing. 2004 may be the year of socio-cultural tap-dancing (cricket, people-2-people contact, etc). The real issues (political talks, Dawood, Kashmir, Siachen) will perhaps not begin until 2005.

cheese

{pakistan has to do no such thing. comparisons such as these reside in the minds of sad, obsessive little indians like yourself and little place else }


....you can see many pakis desperately trying to find an identity by apeing arabs and iranians....it has everything to do with finding an identity....get real

#52 by nakhok

In Pakistan`s context, few people today oppose democracy in principle. Most want democracy in the longer run but are willing to tolerate Musharraf`s semi-democratic setup for a few more years for the following reasons:

(a) Pakistan`s economy needs a bunch of unpopular but pragmatic decisions. In the last 4 years, Musharraf has taken some very pragmatic decisions (e.g. General Sales Tax, agricultural tax, reduction in defence budget, decrease in budget deficit, etc).

Some of these decisions could never have been made by Benazir or Nawaz because of their political compulsions. PPP is a feudal-dominated party with very little representation among the traders, business community, etc. When Benazir tried to impose General Sales Tax in 1994, all traders rose against her and brought Karachi/Lahore/Faisalabad/Peshawer to a grinding halt. Her GST was seen as an attack by feudals on business community. Because of this opposition, the PPP govt failed to impose GST and increase government revenues.

On GST issue, PPP was willing but unable to impose the tax. But on agricultural tax issue, PPP was not even willing to impose it. This tax would have reduced the incomes of Sindhi/southern-Punjabi feudals. Thus, PPP had to resort to mini-budgets and increase in petrol prices, electricity surcharge and a host of indirect taxes to generate revenue. Indirect taxes always hurt the consumer more than the producer because their burden can be passed on easily.

Nawaz Sharif had similar problems with GST. He couldn`t impose GST because it would hurt his constituency (traders, retailers, business community). He tried to impose agricultural tax but this was fiercely resisted by PPP. Thus economic decisions were politicized.

A military govt has no such complication. It is neither beholden to feudals, nor dependent on the business community for its survival. It therefore makes sense to delay restoration of full-democracy until the present economic reforms are complete.

(b) The reputations of Asif Zardari (Mr.Ten-Percent) and Nawaz Sharif (Mr. Bank Default) made it very difficult to attract remittances and investment from Pakistanis living abroad. Althouth Nawaz Sharif`s foreign exchange liberalization scheme flooded the Pakistani market with dollars in 1991... between 1995 and 1999 there was an alarming flight of capital from Pakistan.

With Rs.9 billion of willful loan default under his name, Nawaz Sharif was single handedly responsible for wrecking Pakistan`s banking sector. Without capital, no economy can expand. Today, Musharraf has reversed the situation. Banks have more money to lend than borrowers applying for loans. Raising capital is not a problem today.

In 1996, I was working as an intern for ``The News`` magazine and assisted a senior journalist in preparing the transcripts of his interviews. We did an interview with Munir Sheikh, who was the President of Federation of Pakistani Chamber of Commerce & Industry (FPCCI) in 1996. He was asked why his FPCCI was opposing GST and documentation of the economy. His reply was candid. The business community didn`t want Zardari to know how much money they were making. . (Incidentally, when Govt-FPCCI negotiations broke down 6 weeks later, Munir Sheikh was arrested and tortured in Police custody for 3 days. This has always been the problem with PPP. It is a feudal party that approaches intricate problems with brutal feudal tactics.)

In India, perhaps businessmen and industrialists might tolerate a corrupt government. In Pakistan, they would instead put their money in Swiss banks or Dubai. Pakistan`s business community trusts Musharraf more than it ever trusted Benazir and Nawaz. (However, Musharraf also made one crucial mistake of hounding Lakhanis and Saigols during NAB`s loan recovery drive in 1999).

(c) No civilian leader can take on Madrassahs, the way Musharraf does. No civilian leader can even lecture them the way Musharraf does. No civilian leader can continue the ``War on Terror`` against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, the way Musharraf does.

In 1998, when the Americans fired missiles at OBL`s camps in Afghanistan, their missiles had to cross Pakistan`s airspace. Nawaz Sharif faced intense criticism at home for allowing this. Later when Clinton asked Pakistan to assist with kidnapping of Osama in 1999, Nawaz politely refused.

Could Benazir and Nawaz make the abrupt U-turn on Afghanistan in September 2001? I seriously doubt that. Since Musharraf is not a politician, he can take hard decisions in the national interests without caring two hoots for Mullah nuissance. Musharraf is the most capable leader today in Pakistan to reverse Talibanization. (However, sometimes his goals and tactics are not in synch. In my opinion, Musharraf should have set aside his personal hatred of Benazir and formed an alliance with PPP after Oct 2002 elections. Ideologically, both Benazir and Musharraf are natural allies.)

Pakistan should continue with controlled democracy for another 1-2 years. During this period, madrassahs should be regulated and economic reforms should continue. Musharraf should stay as head of govt and then full-democracy should be restored in 2005 or 2006... with Musharraf as nominal head.

#52 by nakhok

If you read my previous posts, I have already expressed an admiration for democracy as a strong centripetal force. My only contention is that democracy is sometimes not enough, especially in situations like Iraq or Afghanistan. You also need some binding ideology to keep sworn enemies together.

In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance represents 45% of the Afghan nation (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras) whereas the Taliban represent the remaining 55% (Pashtuns). Ideally, a coalition of Taliban and Northern Alliance elements would be best for Afghanistan since it would result in equitable power sharing.

In a maturer country like Pakistan, pragmatism would prevail and rival parties would tone down their ideological differences to form a coalition. For example, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were bitter rivals from 1988 till 1999. Since 1999, they are allies. Another example: the Mullahs are ideologically opposed to PPP but they are still cooperating with PPP on the LFO issue against Musharraf. Such political alliances and compromises are possible in Pakistan because the political parties don`t have blood on their hands.

In countries like Afghanistan, the rivals didn`t just oppose each other ideologically. They actually fought each other with rocket launchers, fighter jets and armies for years. Democracy in such societies usually becomes a zero-sum game. Taliban will not sit in the same room as Northern Alliance; the latter will shoot first and shake hands later. Pashtuns will not vote for NA; Tajiks & Uzbeks will not vote for Taliban. NA wants a secular Afghanistan; Taliban want an ultraorthodox Shariah that even the most rabid Muslims find too harsh and restrictive.

In such a polarized society with irreconcilable differences, you need danda, fauji power, strong central authority and perhaps controlled democracy to keep the country together.

Perhaps if Afghanistan had had regular elections in the last 25 years, such a polarization may not have occurred. But then elections can only be held when you have peace in the country. Afghanistan has not had peace since 1979! In such war-torn nations, democracy cannot spring into action immediately.

Could anyone inform me what Musharaff was doing when his army was bowing before the Indians!!!!

Firstly, ISI is a professional organization comprising serving military officers-- not a militia of volunteer Jehadis. It has a charter and discipline of its own.
+++++
Thanks for educating on the great professionalism of ISI. Even the Chicago mafiaso were the most professional in their killings- even so, to be professional is to stick to your job dispassionately- but the ISI and army has always exceeded its brief by overthrowing the civilian rule in Pakistan- infact ISI is a state within a state- it is actually the central command of Pakistan -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1750265.stm
ISI `dictates policy`

``It is a state within a state,`` says Wajid Shamsul Hasan, a former Pakistani High Commissioner in Britain who is close to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

``Pakistan`s foreign policy has been run by the ISI rather than the foreign office,`` he said
+++++++++++
Secondly, the ISI is not actually growing in size. In Spring 2002, Musharraf shut down the Kashmir Cell of ISI and brought down ISI`s total strength down from 20,000 agents to 12,000 agents. This was reported in the international press as well.
+++++++++++
Mush has made ISI more focussed in its recruitment and operations- it has upgraded its technology and provides better logistic support to the jehadi outfits- the strategy is to let the jehadis do the dirty operational work (of assasinations etc) while letting the ISI officials improve the logistic support to these operational units- it has improved the jehadi manuals, the communication part and the training as well.
To be more precise he has cut the flab in ISI- and has made it even more dangerous and effective in running COVERT global jehadi operations.
++++++++++++++
Thirdly, the presence of rogue elements within ISI does not necessarily mean that the entire organization is Jehadi.. or that these rogue elements are powerful enough to have a say in policy making/implementation. A major or colonel does not have the same power as a 1-star or 2-star general. Policies are made by the latter.
+++++++++++++++
It is a myth regarding the FEW rogue elements within ISI- infact one of the greatest ROGUES is the GENERAL MUSHARRAF himself and he has ensured that the ROGUES get their due place in the ISI, army and the civilian administration. So nobody can save PAkistan now from its assured destruction!!!!
++++++++
Fourthly, the linkage between sectarian outfits like SeS/LeJ/SeM and the ISI/Army is rather flimsy and imaginary. At best it is a conspiracy theory.
+++++++
Every ISI and army officer acknowledges that they were actively involved in supporting the Taliban- rest of the jehadi outfits were break way splinter groupf of the Talibani outfits

---

remember what Mush said in the height of Kargil about the jehadis - that he holds them by their scruff-

``Parvez Musharaff- ....On this logic, we gave the suggestion that there was no such fear as the scruff (tooti) of their (militants) neck is in our hands, whenever you want, we could regulate it. Ch Zafar Saheb coped very well. He gave a very good presentation of our viewpoint. He said we had briefed the PM earlier & given an assessment. AFter this, we played the tape of Tauqir. Then he said that what we are seeing, that was our assessment, and those very stages of the military situation were being seen, which it would not be a problem for us to handle. Rest, it was for your guidance how to deal with the political & diplomatic aspects. We told him there is no reason of alarm & panic. Then he said that when I came to know seven days back, when Corps Commanders were told. The entire reason of the success of this oepration was this total secrecy.``

http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/tapes1.html

also see ..........

At the helm of rogue army

http://meadev.nic.in/OPn/2001oct/11pio1.htm

So dear, shouting ``Conspiracy theory`` does not turn the Devil into an Angel.

Knickerwallah!! HA!! You are the PUREST , most NATURAL and most ORIGINAL religious moron I have seen on the board who lives the PUREST life derived from the ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES of Islam and with PUREST filth running in his veins.etc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hope you also get the boot when Mush is thrown out from his dictatorship.

tahmed32

``but then: if being a pakistani basically means no more and no less than being a citizen of pakistan, that implies that there are no particular values that are uniquely pakistani. no particular structure of government that we can say should apply to pakistan and to no other country.``

True... but I feel there is a sense of belonging that is ours... I believe ultimately humanity will organize itself into an International Republic... where nationstates would become the constituents... or bricks ... what kind of a brick are we going to be?

The answer to that question is what drives me into what others might term `nationalism`.

-YLH

After ROmair its been a long time since we saw someone who represents the true voice of the Pakistani elite. lets pay close attention guys.

#61

So you imply that we too need to collect a few bargaining chips before 2005. Lets see now...