The Constipated Faujiz

CoolAL #168 Excellent, factual analysis of the events that led to the nuclearization in the subcontinent. I agree with it fully, and note also that your reference to april 6 1998 correct an error of omission i had made in my discussion below - certainly the ghauri test on april 6 by pakistan must have factored in the indian decision to test 5 nukes in may 1998, although it was not the only factor or, quite likely, even the most important factor - that factor being the BJP election pledge that you point to as well.

#168

Yaar forget it, you cant wake up people who are pretending to sleep.

Folks, the key to what happened on May 13 1998 lies in what happened on April 6th 1998. In fact, the event that occured on that day precipitated what happened on May 13.

Secondly, comments by Advani and George Fernandez were essential to ensure Pakistan would jump into the dark hole. Had Nawaz Sherief resisted -- which every one were certain that he would not be able to -- the temptation to test, India would have been in deep, deep trouble. Our guys calculated that by making Pakistan test in a tit-for-tat manner, the imminent sanctions that would be applied would harm them disproportionately worse than us. Based on the position India is in today, the strategists were on the money.

Please, everyone and their brother knew that Pakistan had Nukes where is the surprise? AQK and BB have openly claimed and what is more, Yakub Khan openly threatened VP Singh. All that happened in the late 80`s and early 90`s. So why did India wait till 1998 to test its Nukes? It is not like India did not have the technology. They tested in 1974 and the R&D never stopped.

India tested its nukes because the window to test was rapidly closing regardless of the fact that India had not signed the CTBT. India tested because the BJP openly claimed in its election manifesto that it would. And finally, India tested because of what happened on April 6th. On that day, Pakistan really did cross the rubicon.

ahmedzai #164 Given that Pakistan needs to maintain an adequate defense until peace and goodwill are well established with India, I think there is no question that we need to maintain nukes/missiles. And it seems the current india-pakistan talks are focussed on preventing accidental nuclear exchange, not eliminating these weapons.

Thus what you are referring to becomes relevant only as and when India is no longer seen a threat. The question then would need to be seen within the global framework for security, and this makes it a much bigger question. The current global security framework is clearly best characterized as Pax Americana, with much thought being given around the world towards the next step in its evolution: e.g. an extended NATO (with Pakistan and India part of it as well) vs. a UN Security Unit with a standing army ready to intervene when and where needed around the world); nuclear disarmament on a global basis (indian and pakistani nukes are chicken feed when compared to the US and russian and even chinese arsenals); the changing art of war, with the networked battlefield (practiced with spectacular success by the US in Iraq) as well as new weapons (e.g. ``death ray`` laser beams, as already tested successfully by the US) making nukes and missiles largely obsolete.

I dont have any answers to the above issues that come into play in response to your question, but certainly such consderations would become relevant to Pakistan a few years down the road as and when the need for nukes/missiles to protect against an indian attack disappears due to entrenchment of lasting peace with India.

hossp #165 i agree with you and rozaiba that one should not have illusions of dictatorship of any kind. All I am saying is that mushy seems to be quite consciously laying the seeds for the elimination of dictatorship in pakistan - elected officials at the local level replacing federally appointed deputy commissioners; free press; free opposition (mullah fazloo was calling for mushy`s neck just a couple of years ago, and yet mushy struck the LFO deal with him in the spirit of compromise). Now he is clearly pulling the rug from under the military itself by embarking on a peace process with India.

Thus, i base my views on mushy on demonstrated actions he has taken and the logical implications of these actions a few years down the road. Far be it from me to simply take mushy or any other politician/general at his word. :-)

Tauheed at # 148:

When I was referring to developing our nuclear capabilities and missile system, I did not have India in my mind. I was proposing regardless of peace moves with India. The development does not mean that we don`t have peace with India. My proposal is with a view to cement Pakistan`s firm belief in the nuclear and missile programs over the West. If we keep on the defensive then the world will nail us to the wall. If we are on the offensive (meaning develping our capabilities), the world will accept the reality.

You are right that Pakistan as an economically and socially developed country will change the perception.

tahmad and Rozaiba,

I happened to follow the side discussions you were having about Musharaf and the dictatorships. It appears to me that tahmad is invoking the concept of “Benevolent Dictator” for Musharaf. If I remember correctly Ayub Khan’s cabinet members originally promoted this concept. I was just too young to know all the details but I have read and especially when I got hold of the book “Friends, Not Master” from a used book shop, I realized, since Ayub khan was not involved in physical suppression of the population at a large scale he was deemed to be a benevolent dictator.

The whole thing changed as soon as the first signs of dissent and opposition appeared in East and West Pakistan. The university hostels, political meetings, etc., were forcibly attacked by the security agencies especially in East Pakistan. People like us who lived in West Pakistan had no idea what was taken place in the eastern wing due to total control of the media by the Pakistan army.

Another benevolent dictator Yahya Khan went on to annihilate millions of Pakistanis and turned the whole half of the country a foreign land. Zia ul haq before becoming the benevolent dictator indiscriminately arrested or lashed political workers and finally ended up hanging a legit Prime minister of Pakistan. In the 1980s the same Zia ul haq in demonstrating his benevolence actually took an army action in Sindh and Karachi. (Suppression of MRD)

When I look at Musharaf, I too feel that he is a nice guy but by looking at the history of benevolent dictators in Pakistan I also know that as soon as the opposition becomes vocal and organized all the benevolence and nice guy posture would be washed down the drain.
The lashes would be out and the physical crushing of political opposition would start.

tahmad believes that since we don’t have an option we need to work with what we have and attempt to change the system from within. tamhad in his good intentions is falling in the web most dictators’ spin. The idea is to crush or destroy all the opposition and then claim that since there is nobody to provide the leadership to the country, the dictator is the only National Leader and people are forced to follow dictators’ skewed logic that eventually hurts a country.

Musharaf has pretty much sent the legit leadership away from Pakistan. He has effectively promoted the MMA to counter the liberal and true political leadership of the country and now he is claiming that he is the only person who can guide/ lead the country to prosperity.

Every dictator claims that if he were not around, the country would have gone to dogs. Nevertheless, when dictator departs people find out that he was the person responsible for sending the country to the dogs. This is a common thread amongst all dictators, which have been mentioned by Rozaiba and tahmad.

We know what press freedom the country has, when Musharaf goes on to scold the press on AQK issue and soon enough the whole tune in Pakistani media changes to the pro-govt line.

I feel that if tahmad, who is an educated and a somewhat clear head political analyst, falls for the same old game of the dictators, other less educated and less knowledgeable about the political process are much more likely to follow suit.

rozaiba #162 If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade. ;-)

well, tahmed, all i can say is that i`m amazed at the amount of faith you put in musharaf. :)

arjun #159 As I said, the views of a lowlife like you are of no interest to me. Go back to your shrieking about ``paki this`` and ``paki that`` from the safety of the internet.

I am not surprised any more- atleast Romair had some meat in his argument. This is sheer jingoism!!!-
``spirit of democracy``. ``road map to democracy``, ``major contribution to democracy``, ``evolving foundations``- Mush would be real happy!!

hossp #154 So, to summarize, I think we both agree on the need for better relations between Pakistan and India. There are of course always going to be individuals in both countries who would consider any peace deal to be a sell-out, or who would be actually opposed to any move towards improved relations.

We disagree on at least some aspects of the causal link between the events I listed as Steps 1, 2 and 3.

In other words, what we agree upon is where things are (or at least, where they should be) headed in the future. And where we disagree is how India-Pakistan relations evolved in the past. Since the future is (as I once heard the shimon peres say at a graduation address) where we will be spending the rest of our lives in, while the past is water under the bridge, what we agree upon is more important than what we disagree upon.

So, on that optimistic note, we can I think both wish God-speed to the fellows meeting in Islamabad nowadays. And wish vajpayee and musharaff continue to demonstrate more wisdom than many of their constituents.

rozaiba #1155 aap phir wohee baat kar rahay haiN!! :-)

As i said, the best is the enemy of the good. Let us thank God for small mercies rather than crying for why things are not perfect. Despite the military coups, undemocratic minded elected leaders, there is no doubt that the foundations for a democratic society have steadily evolved in Pakistan. And musharaff has no doubt already made major contributions to such institution building by introducing elected nazims at the local level and by permitting the free press to flourish. At the national level, he has introduced a spirit of compromise by arriving at a road map to democracy with the MMA.

I too wish we had a great democracy in Pakistan, where the will of the people was not diffused by religious obscurantists and militarists. But these things dont happen overnight, except in dreams.

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

tahmed, Romair and ex-fauzi Co.

In case the fauzis and ex-fauzis have flocked around to save and serve their likes in Pakistan- as an outsider I can only say - ``best of luck`` to the citizens. (fauzi to waise he mauj kar rahe hain. Unko to sirf baddua hi lag sakti hai.) .

I`m glad you brought up the issue of institutions. It highlights the fallacy of the assumption that Musharaf is actually a capable leader.

institutions cannot form when they are not allowed to operate independently thereby as only with independence can they demarcated their realm of influence. when these faujiz are installed in every place from cricket boards, pia, wapda and just about all institutions including the presidency of the country, i don`t think anyone would be foolish enough to claim that institutions will be built up. institutions have never developed like this so lets not hold our breathe.

As far as the political parties are concerned, under the tutilege of Musharaf, we have the most corrupt and filthiest politicians ruling the country. And on top of that, not a single one of them is a leader at a national level.

The faujiz will remain in power and do good at macro-managing some things as long as America is supportive. Once faujiz are kicked out or ar no longer needed, we`ll be back to square one at best. Then we can start all over again- as we`ve always been doing.