The Great Turn-On

nazarhayatkhan #42: ``While you are not clearly siding with Shaekh Rashid, your posts give an impression of glorifying him or , at worst, an indifference towards him as a politician.``

I am not siding with Shiekh Rashid. I don`t even know what he stands for. I am just presenting the information I have on him, since he was the topic under discussion, in this article. And I am quoting a major Pakistani PPP owned newspaper, describing him as unbeatable. As long as the information I have presented is factual, it should not be considered glorification.

``What Stuka is trying to imply, or I am trying to say, is that educated persons like you should not accept cheap baviour from the politicians. In fact, should condone it.``

Cheapness is the behavior of Pakistani politics - specifically Punjabi politics. Politicians abuse each other. Just the other day, I read there was a fist fight in the Punjab Assembly. Someone told me that during the days of Benazir, Zardari, and Murtaza Bhutto feuds, Murtaza`s men abducted Zardari, shaved his head and shaved half his mustache (a form of Sindhi insult).

One can either reject politics, completely, or one can point out what everyone does; not just what one person does. Anyone rejecting this kind of, ``cheap`` behavior, should then reject most of the major politicians of major political parties of Pakistan, including Benazir, Nawaz Sharif etc.

I think as long as people keep their attacks to verbal abuse, as wrong as it is, it is still more tolerable than other physical attacks. Benazir locked up NS father. She tried to bring down his whole foundries business. Both her and NS would not allow Imran Khan to show ads for his Cancer hospital. NS put Zardari in jail. NS locked up Najam Sethi and attacked the Supreme Court. So on and so forth.

Compared to this, making a cheap vulgar Punjabi comment about someone is chicken feed. Once again I am not defending such comments; just pointing out that this is Pakistani politics. And I would much rather prefer them abusing each other in Punjabi, now and then, then attacking Supreme Courts. The former is a much smaller and excusable crime. The later is not.

``OK. Some old politicians were a part of the military government - but should we continue to accept this practice on the basis of past precedents. I think, NO.``

Not, ``some old politicians.`` Nearly every political party has sided with the Army or with maulvis, i.e the two groups that are disliked by many on this site. You are correct that we should not accept this on a basis of precedent. But we should agree and point out that it isn`t limited to one politician. And we should point out that politicians who have sided with the military, haven`t been history. They have actually, rightly or wrongly, prospored. This is the point I was highlighting, i.e. your claim about S Rashid being history is not correct. Maybe he should be history, but he is not.

``We continue to curse the Army & its damaging effects. But shouldn`t the present lot of politicians siding with the Army be equally blamed.``

Maybe. Maybe not.

Politics is grabbing opportunities, when they come up. I do blame people in siding with the military, but I blame them with siding with a lot of other groups also. I blame them for siding with the feudals. I blame them for siding with the maulvis. I blame them for siding with the beaurecrats. I blame them for siding with opportunistic ethnic groups. I blame for siding with corrupt secular forces, etc.

Once you apply this criteria of blame, you will discover that there will not be a single politician left, in Pakistani politics, who is not guilty of any of the above. The only person whom I can think of, who has deliberately given up such opportunities, is Imran Khan. Including a chance of become a PM, had he remained with Musharraf`s coalition. And a chance for 30 seats under Nawaz Sharif govt. And a chance to be a Senator under Zia ul Haq.

We should reject Bhutto family, for siding with Ayub. We should reject Benazir for siding with JUI, appointing Fazl ur Rahman the head of foreign affairs, and their jointly forming the Taliban (read Ahmad Rashid`s book). We should reject all of PML, including Sharif family, Javed Hashmi etc., for siding with Zia. Nawaz Sharif considers him his political mentor. We should reject all of MMA for siding with Zia. They were ministers in Zia`s cabinet. We should reject MQM for siding with Musharraf.

Who will be left in politics? No one, except the party I support PTI. Which is one of the reasons I support it.

The other option is to let all the parties side with whomever they want. And let the people decide whom they want, and how happy they are with the party (assuming the people have a right to vote independently, which they do in urban Pakistan).

``An elected parliament of 320 members exists. They can do whatever they like with the Constitution or with the Army. But for the 50% of them who are siding with Musharaf - for selfish reasins, fear, whatever?

``So we, at least the educated class, needs to hold these politicians equally responsible for letting the Army make; and continue to make inroads into the Pakistani politics.``

Once again, if you use this criteria (which is a good criteria, and one of the ones I agree with) there will only be one or two parties left. PPP, PML, MMA, MQM etc. will fail in this criteria. All of these parties were founded by opportunistic leaders who sided heavily with the military, and were/are ministers in military govts.

``That is the least we can do. And, in the next elections, leave our comfortable homes and vote for a liberal secular party.``

I don`t use, ``liberal and secular`` as my criteria for voting. Religion and Secularism is way down on my list. I look for honesty, integrity, human rights, economic progress, patriotism, lack of feudal backing, candidates who have genuine support in their own constituency (and not supported because they are the local pir or makhdoom, or tribal chief or feudal), people who have advanced their own constituencies (Benazir and Jamali fail on this account, Shahbaz Sharif gets high marks), etc.

If we just look for secularism, then all our votes should go to PPP or ANP or MQM. They are the most secular big parties. However, the constituency base of PPP leaders (rural Sind) is amongst the most backwards in the world, with the lowest literacy rates for women, and the least human rights. Even though the feudals of those areas are very secular. Jamaat-i-Islami`s Mansoora`s have higher literacy rates for women than Benazir`s Larkanas and Amin Fahim`s Halas and Jamali`s Baluchistan.

Based on all of this, people like Sheikh Rashid (again I do not support him, I am just looking at his politics) are far more democratic than the Jamalis and the Bhuttos. They have to earn their vote in an urban constituency. And as indicated by the rejection of his nephew, their voters hold them accountable. Do you think if Benazir or Jamali had nominated their nephews in their feudal consituencies, they would lost? No. They could nominate their pet dog and it would win.

This is why I prefer urban style of politics (even with its Punjabi vulgarities) over the normal feudal politics of Pakistan. And while I agree with your point of rejecting people who side with Army, but yI feel ou should apply that rule to every party and every leader.

You will then be left with Imran Khan`s party, and a few others. And Imran Khan`s party, openly declares itself to be non-secular. So he would get rejected by your criteria of voting for secular parties only. There would, thus, be no one left in Pakistani politics.

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

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

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

Ref Romair on #36

[Once Benazir put him in jail because he had to say this about her in a public speech``Eik hafta Zardari, Eik hafta Khoawri, Eik hafta Sarkari, Eik hafta Mahwari``.

Transalation - ``One week for Zardari (husband), one week for roaming around, one week for official work, one week for mensuration``.`` ]

I have heard that Benazir Bhutto owns thousands of acres of land in Sindh and so one week a month may in fact be necessary for mensuration.

From Merriam-Webster:

men·su·ra·tion
Pronunciation: ``men(t)-s&-`rA-sh&n, -sh&-
Function: noun
Date: 1571
1 : the act of measuring : MEASUREMENT
2 : geometry applied to the computation of lengths, areas, or volumes from given dimensions or angles

Yours in the interest of correct English usage,

Harimau
Chowk`s Self-appointed Linguist

...all i know is poverty levels in india are decreasing while those in pakistan are increasing...on a net basis, who has their priorities screwed up?...

Ordinary is right. I guess the it must be cultural. The commonality between the PML Nawaz and the army is that the leadership of both these ``political parties`` hails from the Punjab province. Like Romair mentioned that one of the factors in Punjab politics is that vulgarity appeals to the masses.

``That doesn`t surprise me. He is known for this kind of stuff. As are others, by the way. That is how Pakistani politics seems to work - specifically Punjabi politics. Punjabi, is as, you know, one of the most flowerly vulgar languages in the world.``

The other factor of course is that the top leadership of the ANP and the PP is more educated and comes from more established families with long political histories.

It is true that many politicians in Pakistan have been in positions of power because of the army`s support or have been elected because of the army`s manipulations. However, this is rather unfortunate for the nation. During Zial ul Haq`s rule, General Rafaqat was made a joint secretary in the Federal government and was put in charge of the election cell to ensure ``positive results``. Most Pakistani`s are aware that in order to come into power, a civilian needs the army`s support.

As long as the army continues to hold the reigns of power directly or in the background, this state of affairs will continue.

After All they Are guardian of US(Indian Muslims)


By Samin Shah

During the Agra Summit, India and Pakistan were about to sign a joint declaration. President Pervez Musharraf got so terribly excited that he broke into a sweat and had to rush in to change his clothes. When he returned, it was all over. This is the coitus interrupts version of his minister. With such an errand boy, Pakistan can stake its claim to monarchy – it has its own royal butler with a taste for truth, telling us that he has not lied in the past six or seven years. This silly stance has taken away from the larger accepted truth that it was political pressure from one group within the Indian government that stalled the effort. .how sad. Unfortunately we had democracy so generally democratically elected PM
Had heard to lot of ppl. very good happened if agra declaration was signed. then there is no chance of scrapping this declaration the way simla(winner’s document) and lahor.very sad for peace loving country like Pakistan.
Mr. Ahmed is either terribly canny or just cuckoo. He said at a meeting, “If you talk Kargil, I will talk Siachen.” Is it any wonder that most of the top-ranking militant leaders in Kashmir have either taken ill or left on important business before the iftaar party at the Pakistani High Commission? Does he know that he sounds like a percussionist without drums when he says that Article 370, the Ram Mandir and the uniform civil code affect Pakistan? How? “They have to do with Muslims.
Of course Pakistani foreign minister had every right to speak for we Indian Muslims. he had
Lot of tears, mercy and love for us.After all Pakistan was came to being for homeland of Indian Muslims where we can live peacefully, without any fear and at path to progressed with the mercy of Allah.
. After all it is dream of great Jinnah (very few ppl can change coerce of history. some of them can changes geography of nations. And rare one found new nation and jinnah get all three)
How much Jinnah was true when 2000 Muslims massacred by fanatic Hindus. yes
there is some problems in Pakistan some one argue.
Systematically killing of shiya or ahmediya by our gr8 Pakistani brethrens or our Pakistani bothers had to teach some tough lessons to bad Bengali brothers who where trapped by filthy
,conning Hindus. No matter our Pakistani brothers give them some lesions and jus killed 2.5 millions of them (very wrong figures by Hindu Indian media or bad brothers Bangladeshis or Jews driven foreign media.haaan).
Even our Pakistani brothers are sol guardian of our Kashmiri
Brethrens ,Palestine or Chechen jambaj(title given by PTV).Even our Pakistani brethrens send some 600 brothers to free holiday to geontamo bay Without any investigation (of
course stay and lunch donner included) which cant be happens in India. Of course we Indian Muslims had no problems to kill by other Muslims brothers or blown up in mosque after all they kill us kindly. But shame on us to killed by fanatic, cowardice Hindus. Of course our Pakistan brethrens had every moral right to speak on behalf of Indian or Kashmiri
Muslims. They couldn’t keep east Pakistan just because of Hindu conspiracy and bad Muslim brothers. no problem they don’t give right to vote to our Pakistani brothers after all democracy is anti Islamic thought.. Only mullah and military have divine right to rule.
In diplomacy there is no room for cock-teasing. Pakistani had every right to talk about Kashmir.But this fanatic Indian had no right to talk about Kashmir .haan Kashmir is core issue but ask Hindu pandit(killed by our bothers),ladakhi,congrassi,bjp,leftiest ,armi jawans or 1 billion Indian they simply don’t buy
this arguments. They are simply brainwashed by fanatic rss,bjp.
They simply said if so called “ cross border terrorism “ is stopped they is no Kashmir issue for India. how fanatism penetrated in Indians.
after all Kashmir is jugular vain of our Pakistani brothers. But what chanakya or bismark or disaraily or mechiavaly say only national interest is supreme and there is no room of emotions in foreign affairs. may be this fanatic Hindus stick to this ideas. So this Indians don’t understand demand of our Kashmiri or Pakistani brothers.
If they are confident of their position and their hold over the Valley they had to give right of self determination to kashmiries.And this bjp is try to convert democracy in majoritarian
Democracy. This is only patent of us. If we are under 50% the secularism is best suited for us.
But when we cross magical 50% then we demand right of self-determination. We demand Islamic country because majority had every right to were to lead country in democracy. After all we had every right to do so when we are in majority.how convenient and beautifull.

Is Seeing through Indian grand design ..and its REAL modus operandi a wishful dream..

...No the fact is....
indian have taken to a well though out strategy.... where as Pakistanis they have none....they simply react to the indian actions and that too on AD_HOC basis like they are running their country...on AD_HOC basis for the past 55 years...

...Indians have effectively ..let say divided Kashmir problem into three areas of concern...

1 the population on the extreme borders ...which really does not matters in over all context..


2- the HIndu and Kashmiris Pandit population they are 100% pro indians...

3 that leaves the thrid Muslim population....

which at the moment is divided three ways...
1- Pro indian have you ever though why the so called elected personel in Indian Kashmir are always Muslim..???

2- pro Pakistani.....which are diminishing day by day....and except for lip services from APHC in which they state a tripartriate dialouge ....involving Pakistan India and Kashmiris ..... just becuse of their long standing historical stand....
on which indian are really working.. they have invited APHC for a dailogue just recently......and they have feebly objected to the exclusion of Pakistan...

3- the Pro independence group....which want nothing from India and Pakistan at all


it is the 3rd and to some extent the second group which is the real issue in front of Indian stategeists....

and they day they will think that thay have solved this problem.....I again tell you they will be the first to go to the UN again. for a plebiscite...


...As far Pakistan role is concerned.....its has taken a great setup especially after 911

.....and Bush ...had choice in the early stage of either Indiia or Pakistan.....and due to more practical concerns.....he opted for Musharaff Not Pakistan...

and the day Musharaf seems to have completed the JOB he will be eliminated just Like
Liaqat Ali Khan and Zia-ul-Haq for which they even sacrificed their own Ambassador...


....and this is not wishwill thinking...

...the only Person who could have effectivly dealt with Indians was ironically Nawaz Shariff.......he could do the same somersualt as indians..... which were even historically recorded by Mountbatten while dealing with Gandhi....


the gust of which is.......They say Something..... Mean something else....and then Do something different..... a rare quality which only Nawaz Sharif matched...

Great turn on

``India and Pakistan were about to sign a joint declaration. President Pervez Musharraf got so terribly excited that he broke into a sweat and had to rush in to change his clothes. ``

President Pervez Musharraf???.

FV. So honest...Actually so Muslim.

Every one knows you are biased. Every Muslim is. But even in Ramadan??? Gosh..Eat 20 Kgs of food. And go on lie lie lie. As long as it is for Muslims and against Hindoos.

President. Whose... FV. yours not mine. This thalee main khana usimain thookna. Normal.

The guy, PM, should have been made the wag the dog like he does every day for the Real Pres Bush.

But hey ...Rudalee we pay for you....


Yogiraj

nazarhayatkhan, Romair , Stuka

It seems unfair to blame politicians in general for those filthy slogans. Correct me if I am wrong but neither Benazir nor Wali Khan have ever made such statements against others.

If what I know of Pakistan is right, then both ANP and PPP are less likely to descend to this level than are other parties. For the most part, such statements will come from those who have the strong backing of the Military, the Mullah, or both.

People should avoid giving all politicians a bad name unless you are fully determined to never let democracy return to the country.

Farzana

Agra episode brought out our greatest weakness - giving in to totally unrealistic expectations.

Anybody could have predicted that Musharraf will never acknowledge Pakistani infiltration of terrorists across the line of control, no matter what concessions Vajpayee was willing to make. It was foolish of Vajpayee to even entertain such a thought.

Musharraf did what he was expected to do - refused to have any mention of terrorist infiltration, and strode back to Pakistan, blaming India once again.

So long as Vajpayee is in office, India will continue to lurch from one such blunder to another in its dealings with the Pakistani military.

Where are the peaceniks and the insaaniyat upholders just when you need them? It is safe to assume that those who have read this article have pretty much liked it. And for some to admit that is a huge problem.

And so we have the mandatory swipes…
[What consensus? Farzana doesn`t agree with the the view of the majority and so there is no national consensus. ..that`s that...now let FV get back to her 80Rs a cup sea lounge coffee..
Pointing out the majority view will only be met with a reference to the babri masjid, 84 riots etc...]

You cannot equate the two. In one we are talking about a people’s right to their land and the circumstances that have made it controversial; in the other the System subjugating a group that is very much a part of it. It is sad that we want to forget these two episodes in recent history and bringing them up is seen as a ‘reaction’. It is a reality.

PS: My coffee is a tad more expensive since I like it with a dash of Irish Bailey’s cream or English toffee…

[First Angana Chatterjee, now Farzana bibi. As they say in Hindi ``soney pe suhaga``.
There is nothing much that stands out in this article. The same old whine. Nothing that impresses you as unique or fresh.
India and Pak discord is as old as the age of these 2 nations. Ms Versey does not offer any solutions. She has only a lot of complaints. She has balanced her criticisms well to please both Paki and Indian interctors. For this, she needs to be complimented.]

Please quote instances of whining and complaints…true, the Indo-Pak discord is old-hat; I have stated it and believe that this is what it will always be…let us remain enemies politically, while the people get on with their lives…this is my solution.
Re. trying to please both Pakistani and Indian interactors, well you have not been pleased. I am sure had anyone else written this, it would have been deemed a fair piece, even an objective one. (Incidentally, I do not write to please anyone, often even not myself.)

A digression:
arjun_m and rsridhar…the problem with the two of you is that even when I write something you agree with (the Pope article and my view on Jogger’s Park, a film), you think of it as unusual and say so. I think it is ridiculous. This is personal animosity, not what I write…I wish you would feel just a bit silly sometimes.

#2 by stuka:

True, the aid arrived, but there was resistance. And a hundred questions. However, I did not intend to mislead with the comment. I promise.

Re. Agra, if they found a loophole that late in the day, it speaks volumes about how our government rules. I think my statement about being prepared before getting to the table stands.

[As far as talking about Hindus and Sikhs are concerned, or for that matter Muslims, Pakistan does not have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of India. That is an obvious truth. It may suggest as a friendly country, but right now we are not at that stage of being friends.]

I agree that they cannot do so politically, but surely commentators can say what they want? Don’t we write about their honour killings, their hudood ordinance, their sunni-shia riots, their madrassas?

[So, what is the point of the narrative? Kashmir is an issue, India does not deny that. Just because it is an issue does not mean that we will agree to their point of view. We have our own point of view and there is a national consensus on it. The problem is not in talking to Ppakistan about Kashmir. Tthe problem is legitimizing the Jehadi struggle their and the lack of any common ground for a solution.]

The fact is that L.K.Advani has been chosen to talk to the Hurriyat. We are not agreeing to Pakistan’s point of view, but they do have a point of view that they have a right to express. A part of Kashmir is theirs. As for jehadi struggle, Kashmir has been struggling on its own even without a jehad. That is the common voice.

[Not one country outside Pakistan has asked India to hold a plebiscite or transfer territory. The solution that Ppakistan wants is what a victorious country imposes to the loser in a war. And we have not lost a war to Pakistan yet.]

How does any other country come into the picture? Regarding plebiscite, the Kashmiris did want it. The problem is that we have begun to see the Kashmir struggle from the Pakistani perspective and use counter arguments to that, rather than to the core issue.

#6 by khotasikka:

[We can run much faster economically if the Pakistan ball was not tied to our feet. Thats the point of this article. However, we also cannot give in to terrorism or nuclear blackmail. That even the Pakistanis will realize. No matter what the cost, people in the subcontinent will go to any insane level to preseve what they perceive as izzat.]

Lekin maine tau aisa nahin kahaa tha…agree with the latter part though.

[But my concern is that since Pakistan is on the losing side, they will choose to escalate terrorism. Today we arent concerned too much because bombs dont go off in say Mumbai or Bangalore. And eventually they will get around to doing just that.]

Oh, do you know that the Telgi fake stamp paper scam in which our top police officials and politicians have been indicted is a clear case of corruption and misuse of power, but I heard in the news that they are suspecting that the ISI could be behind this! When you do not get evidence and want to save your izzat, blame the enemy.

#8 by Romair and #19 by Ras:
When that event takes place, it will happen zor-shor se…I am touched that you people will rush from the West just for that…and yet you say that Pakistanis are better looking…

And Ras, until then you will have to make do with this sort of “entertaining” ;)

#21 by nazarhayatkhan:
Why is it that I increasingly feel you are the only one who understands the true purpose of my writing?

#26 by cipram:
I did not understand the Abida Hussein reference…what does it have to do with this article? Am I missing something?

The comment about modernist jehadi mindset, all I can say is that if one means a contemporary fight between right and wrong, and wanting to underline the diffused nature of it in today’s society, then I am a jehadi.

Romair , Stuka #38 & # 39

Romair - While you are not clearly siding with Shaekh Rashid, your posts give an impression of glorifying him or , at worst, an indifference towards him as a politician.

What Stuka is trying to imply, or I am trying to say, is that educated persons like you should not accept cheap baviour from the politicians. In fact, should condone it.

OK. Some old politicians were a part of the military government - but should we continue to accept this practice on the basis of past precedents. I think, NO.

We continue to curse the Army & its damaging effects. But shouldn`t the present lot of politicians siding with the Army be equally blamed.

An elected parliament of 320 members exists. They can do whatever they like with the Constitution or with the Army. But for the 50% of them who are siding with Musharaf - for selfish reasins, fear, whatever?

So we, at least the educated class, needs to hold these politicians equally responsible for letting the Army make; and continue to make inroads into the Pakistani politics.

That is the least we can do. And, in the next elections, leave our comfortable homes and vote for a liberal secular party.