Seducing The Devil

The Pakistan Muslim League died with the death of Jinnah. Today it is just a number of small factions that use the name and the army tries to prop it up as a political party time and again.

If one were to look at what the two major political parties stand for, we would not be able to differentiate between the politics of the PPP and the PML. The PPP of the seventies had socialist leanings and was a totally different animal compared to the PPP of today.

The two major parties would not have gained much by aligning themselves with the army leadership, while the MMA result was probably due to support from the government.

PS : Will like to discuss this Hyderabad Junagadh and Kashmir once and for all ... and who are these others ... I have Hodson`s book again.. and I really don`t understand what you keep going on about.

Will like to discuss this finally once and for all.

Harimau,

I find it sad that nothing but abject surrender and complete denial of my own self and views will satisfy you. Believe me you are not going to get that satisfaction.

I am well aware of the book you are talking about, and I find it amazing that you choose to deduce what you seem to be deducing. You are welcome ofcourse to your own interpretations. Alan Campbell Johnson also exhibits grudging admiration for Jinnah... and the bias is also very apparent. In any event I read an interview where he likedned Jinnah to De gaulle not that I think De Gaulle was all that. While every man has faults, I find nothing in any book I have come across so far to re evaluate my position radically. Perhaps you Indians really did need to re evaluate Gandhi and the politics of partition... so I congratulate you on that... that is probably why on average one book comes out annually on the life and times of Mohammed Ali Jinnah from the renowned scholars of your country. The youth of India is more worldy wise, and if the stupid armymen in Pakistan don`t sabotage peace efforts Pakistan and India need not be enemies.

As for Cabinet Mission plan ... I refer you to the American Ambassador`s reports to the state department (1946) in which he clearly takes the line of argument that Ayesha Jalal has taken. It can be verified in Dennis Kux`s book `United States and Pakistan; Disenchanted Allies`. I suppose one can read into or oppose according one`s bias. I quote the American Ambassador because you seem to hold the gori chamri`s view of the time to infallible. For other gori chamri views... read Beverley Nichols` `Verdict on India`... that too is a very British view don`t you think? Waisay I suggest you read KK Aziz`s `Britain and Muslim India`.

Thank you for your wishes on my marriage... as for saarc... lets not dream pipe dreams. Saarc is nothing but utter stupidity.

-YLH

1985 all over again. The PPP & MRD boycott Zia-ul-Haq`s partyless polls and leave the field to Jamat-e-Islami, MQM and assorted Zia Lackeys.

Ref Yasser # 35

Well, finally I got my hands on ``Mission With Mountbatten`` by Alan Campbell-Johnson, a book that was rather difficult to find. It is interesting to read the British perspective on Jinnah.

It is written as a day-by-day account from Mountbatten`s arrival to his departure, presumably from the daily diary maintained by the author.

There is nothing to suggest that Jinnah was trying to save the Cabinet Mission Plan as claimed by Ayesha Jalal. Campbell-Johnson confirms everything written by others, including the history of events in Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad.... meaning the history you hear in Pakistan is sheer propaganda.

I will give you another few years and you will go through a re-appraisal of Jinnah that Mahatma Gandhi himself has undergone at the hands of Indians. Maybe you will even change your opinion at that time.

As a wise marketing man once said, ``Don`t believe your own sh!t doesn`t stink!``

Regards. Happy New Year. And a wonderful start to a happy married life! And let us hope something comes out of the SAARC meeting that sets our two countries on a path of reconciliation, friendship and peace.

I find it sad that some of our Indian friends occasionally get bouts of a disease which compels them to needlessly and without any logic, rhyme or reason slander the founder of Pakistan, Mr Jinnah. Previously I thought the only way to counter this was to hit back at their antecedents, but I soon realized that it was not the way of the great man in whose name I was acting so passionately.

For those of you who are concerned... martial law was a cruel joke for Jinnah`s legacy ... during that eventful first year , a group of Pakistan Army officers had gone to Jinnah and complained against the government`s policy of giving command to British officers ... Jinnah was very stern with them and had told them that in Pakistan civilian authority was supreme and if they felt otherwise they should leave Pakistan. Among those in attendance was a young Ayub Khan.

The Army never wanted partition, and from the beginning it was hostile to Pakistan`s civil authority but it was also in awe of Jinnah`s towering stature and popularity. It didn`t dare speak up against the man but it also learnt a valuable lesson not to allow popular politicians get too strong... hence one lost a rigged election, was hanged, one was called corrupt and her husband was put in jail and one lives in exile in Saudi Arabia..

-YLH

Ilmoon buss kreen O yaar. tr: shut-up you anglicised educated-ones . Your histrionics will soon be history. Time to lock; stay in--or lock; and leave.
Uncle Sam is respected only by the westernised khakis or suits.

The `masses` are no more servile.


harimou:24

I wouldn`t be surprised to learn that Pakistan was hijacked by its Army on Aug 15, 1947. In fact, I suspect that is the case. Jinnah, for all his talk of ``I will give the orders and my Prime Minister will obey me`` bravado was probably a prisoner of the Pakistan Army till he died.

Very astute observation indeed.

Never occured before, but I believe this continuation of the love-fest by CHERRY-BLOSSOMs (tan, brown, and blacks) with their former masters is represented by the low-class anglicised west-loving `elites`. These are the ones holding the masses for ransom, trying to ``moderatise`` islam (trans: must have fun & fcuk publicly, and be applauded & greeted with respect for it --the height of achievement & progress)

Cherry blossom: a trade-name for boot-polish. good for shining & licking boots.. khaki-types are phDs in BOOTLICKING in Pakistan. Most Khakis are from an area which, instead of feeling shame & guilt, takes pride in ALWAYS, indiscriminately, being on the masters side.

Thanks for providing this angle to the actions of the naa-paak class in Pakistan.

re: SameerJB # 32

Interesting conclusions.

re: hossp # 28

MQM`s power base is in urban Karachi and the vacuum it is occupying is in Karachi. Had the PPP made the deal with the army, MQM would not have ended up with the governship of Sindh.

Ciao

A very thought provoking logic presented in the following article.

Unelected Presidency ‘Constitutional’?

DR FAROOQ HASSAN

On the advent of the New Year, 2004, Pervez Musharraf, went through the apparent “juridical” exercise of having the five Elected Assemblies of the Federation and the constituent Provinces repose “confidence in him to remain as President” until 2007. He had on the previous date, December 31, 2003 signed into effect the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

It is trite knowledge that he wasted a year of the nation’s precious time and immense resources of the republic to gain a tailor-made document through which he could feign, howsoever feebly, that he was the President of the Republic when dealing with the world community. The timing of this move was blatantly linked especially keeping in mind the SAARC conference in Islamabad between the 4th to the 6th January 2004.

There cannot be any gainsaying the simple fact that Musharraf manifestly manipulates the entire operation for his own benefit. However, in the process there has occurred the continued misuse of the funds and resources of the State. A few comments from a political and constitutional perspective may be appropriate at this stage.

First and foremost, it is borne out by facts and the Supreme Court Case against the Referendum which I argued in which it was clearly held that not only (1) the Referendum through which “Presidency” is initially claimed lacked all constitutional validity and only rested on the military based edict displacing the Constitution of October 12, 1999, the matter had to (2) be decided by the appropriate forum. Only a naively foolish interpretation of the known constitutional jurisprudence doctrines would deny that the Presidents of Republics are “elected” by the “people” of the country and not be “fictions’ or “deeming clauses” or by “purported indirect approval of Courts”.

There has never been any election to the Office of the President of Pakistan since December 1997. As such there is no doubt that factually no election has been ever held in which Musharraf got elected to any office, let alone that of the President. No election has factually occurred to give even the feigned appearance of any contest.

Whether it is the Referendum or the purported vote of confidence or a judgment of any court, no one ever contested any such electoral prize. As such no amount of belaboured sophistry can hide the fact that Musharraf remains today, as he was when he unlawfully took office of the Chief Executive in October 1999, a military usurper who has imposed personalized dictatorship through legal instrumentalities based on medieval legal conceptions. If tomorrow’s historian asks who did Mushaaraf beat in his bid for Presidency of Pakistan, the answer is “Nobody” except perhaps for the helpless Constitution and the impoverished people of Pakistan.

That this manoeuvre is also patently undemocratic can hardly be disputed by any sane or reasonable interpretation. If now, for example, the Commonwealth still does not accept Pakistan’s credentials for being a “democracy” it would be entirely because of this regrettable personalized ambition of a single person. It is nevertheless quite humorous when one sees repeated comments such as “now Pakistan has gained complete democracy” of both Musharraf and Prime Minister Jamali of the last week of December on the approval of the MMA and the Government accord on the 17th Amendment, since that is exactly what they were loudly proclaiming since the last thirteen months!

As the Voting of Confidence of 1st January 2004 and through it Musahharf’s presidency may well be challenged before courts, I do not want to analyze this point in much depth. But two points need a comment as they are of a general nature. First the Confidence Vote is ex post facto ratification of an already “elected” office holder.

Since Musharraf never contested any election, it is impossible to legally contend that his vote affirms anything legally tenable as such. Secondly, under the Parliamentary system, which even Parliament cannot change under existing pronouncements of the Pakistani Supreme Court, the President does not require any such modality for being accorded his Constitutional position. No amount of legal jugglery can give this fake colouring of pretense of validity through this process to a Presidential office bearer. As such this “vote of Confidence” is utterly useless in a constitutional sense.

But equally important is the political message of this vote. Out of the total vote cast in the Federal Parliament, Musharraf only obtained 56 percent of the vote suggesting that his alleged landslide showing during the Referendum was entirely farcical and false. Secondly, he lost the majority vote in both the Frontier and Baluchistan Provinces.

He therefore does not represent the Unity or the Symbol of the Federation, which is a constitutional requirement under Article 41 of the Constitution. In the Federal Assembly he barely got the needed majority by gaining 191 voted which is one less than obtained by Prime Mister Jamali at the time of his confidence vote.

Overall by proportionate calculations the formula of which is contained in the Second Schedule of the Constitution Musharraf only got 53.28 percent of the vote. So with all the arm-twisting, bribery and straight forward duress that the Pakistani governments are infamous for historically for the self perpetuation of an incumbent administration or office holder, Musharraf showing is terrible and embarrassing for him.

As such I have little doubt that the constitutional dressings that Musharraf is desperately giving his Presidency lacks all foundations of political propriety and constitutionalism.

The recent damaging accounts of Musharraf’s alleged “triumph” in continuing in office in New York Times and Washington Post are thus indicative that despite what is being maintained by Musharraf, no one really believes that he has what it takes to continue to be useful to Washington. This should really worry Musharraf more than his lack of political base in Pakistan since he has evidently come to believe that only Washington can keep him in office as President and not the people of Pakistan.

There is thus little substance in Musharaf claiming to be a ‘constitutional” President. I therefore hope for the good of the people of Pakistan that when this matter is raised in a contested litigation, the courts would do what the traditions of genuine democracy would wish for.

Lastly a word of reality about Pakistani power dynamics in the context of Subcontinental politico. Whatever may be said about India, it cannot be denied that it has elected a Muslim intellectual to be the Republic’s President.

On the other hand though we accept the nicest accolades for Musharraf’s abilities and achievements, we should be still quite embarrassed that Pakistan, arguably the most important Islamic nation, has, thanks to Musharraf, a non-elected military chief of army staff as the country’s President!

Therein lies the biggest difference between these two nuclear status rivals. Believe me, no one misses this point when the relative merits of the systems and policies of the two countries are examined by nations abroad.

It is not a good idea to provide/engage/assign etc. military personnel to civilian duties. There are two ways that this is done. The first is when the govt. assigns military personnel on assignments, which the military personnel do not really want. The second is when the military personnel use the military to get civilian assignments, after retirement.

The first should be avoided because it corrupts the military. And I know of very few soldiers of junior ranks, who actually want to do these assignments. Captains don`t want to work in Wapda, nor do Flt. Lts. want to administer polling booths or assist the police in tracking down MQM, also. Or track down ghost schools, as ordered by Shahbaz Sharif.

It is, however, the second kind of assignments, which create the real problems, and ill-will between the civilians and the military. These are created to look after the military officers, even after they retire. These are generally availed by senior officers, generally Col and above. And they are all carried out at the expense of civilians.

These include the following:

- Placements into the military`s civilian businesses, like Fauji Foundation, Shaheen Foundations, etc.
- Direct placement, straight into Civil Services positions like Foreign Ministry, etc.
- Placement into PIA as administrators and pilots, etc. (and even CEO) at a senior age, without having to apply as a civilian and compete against 25 year old pilots
- Placements into other organizations like highway authorities etc.

These are all lucrative and coveted positions and many individuals greatly benefit from them. In fact they make far more money in these positions than they ever did in the military.

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

Ref nazarhayatkhan #23

[SAFTA

After wasting 4 years of the country, following Agra, Musharraf has made another U-turn namely CBMs - and even beyond SAFTA. And have called single currency & economic union as good ideas!]

I don`t understand why we have to wait till Jan 2006 for SAFTA.

My feeling is that India should unilaterally lift all barriers to imports from Pakistan; it can be for select items in which Pakistan has some advantage and it can even be timebound so that Pakistan has to respond within that timeframe to lift trade barriers against Indian goods. Simultaneously, Indian markets should be thrown open to ALL goods manufactured in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Burma unilaterally. Prove to these countries -- and drive home the point to Pakistan -- that trade with India can be beneficial to them and that the billion-strong market of India is the growth engine for South Asia.

$5 - $10 billion in unfavorable trade balance for India, if it ever comes to that, will be more than offset by joint ventures in South Asia that will start proliferating when customs barriers come crashing down.

Yusuf Khan will be retiring in September and Musharraf is not likely to quit COAS position by then. The chance of recently promoted Lt. Gen are brighter for COAS position than Yusuf Khan...Somebody named Siddiqui or Syed?

Musharraf is a liar and a cheater, so possibly he can refuse to follow up verbal committment with MMA, he can create another post in the military above COAS for himself or promote himself to Field Marshal and so on..

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

Mr. Khan your off-handed assertion that the MQM is busy occupying the space left open by the PPP begs some more elaboration.

“This suggests that MQM has smelled the weakness of PML-N and PPP and is adroitly maneuvering itself to occupy the political space left by these two parties”- Khan

The MQM, the PPP and the PML (N) are three different kinds of parties. The PPP has it support in the rural areas of Punjab and Sindh and PML (N) has support in urban areas of Punjab.
The PPP support in the rural areas has resulted in lots of Zamindar/Feudal in both Sindh and Punjab still hanging out with the party though their real interests lay with the PML (Q) types. The MQM practically has nothing to offer to the rural voters in Pakistan let alone the urban voters in Punjab.
If you think that MQM’s alliance with a group of Sindhi nationalist, would allow it to attract some influence in rural Sindh, then sir that is a huge fallacy in your analysis.
The nationalists in Sindh do provide intellectual leadership; still have failed to translate that into political support. Most of the nationalists in Sindh are Sindhi urbanites and even they are not in tune with Sindhi peasants. How the MQM can piggyback with nationalist to take up the ‘space’ in Sindh, must make an interesting and thought provoking analysis.
It must be an MQM project, which will mature in another 100 years from now. To credit MQM for sponsoring such a long-term project, I must say that Rome was not built in one day either!

If you look at the situation in Punjab, the MQM has no presence at all, nor does it offer any thing to people of Punjab. How will the MQM occupy the space(?) in Punjab, must be a pipe dream that only MQM types can conjure up.

If the MQM had not supported the Army last year, it would have become part of the history very quickly.
True the MQM has loyal following in urban areas in Sindh right now. Nevertheless, it has no succession plan or a long-term plan that can keep it propelled politically in the end.

SAFTA

After wasting 4 years of the country, following Agra, Musharraf has made another U-turn namely CBMs - and even beyond SAFTA. And have called single currency & economic union as good ideas!

Why we need to be consistantly compelled to make U-turns by the force of circumstances - The Military mindset is incapable of looking 40-50 years into the future?

When the BB & NS were aiming for the same moves years back, the military pronounced them traitors!