The Constipated Faujiz

plats @ # 123:

``Eloquent defence of democracy, indeed !! Please explain to us how this
is different from, let`s say, dictatorship. ``

Very different since Malaysians accepted Mahatir as their elected leader for over 20 years. He led Malaysia to one of the most economically developed nations of the world.

``First axiom of democracy - everybody agrees to disagree, as long as the
ground rules of disagreement are agreed upon as well.``

Ground rules for disagreement were laid out in Malaysia in late 60s after much political and ethnic strife.

Mahatir was referring to a situation where his former deputy was trying to encourage Muslims of Malaysia to come on roads against him. Understanding the situation, the Chinese and Indian community sided with him and subsequently the Muslims too refrained from putting up any oposition in the greater national interest.

``Mahathir`s Malaysia is not the great beacon of democracy that you are looking for.``

This could be a personal opinion at best. Some Muslims may claim that France`s democracy has come out in true colors after the imposition of ban on head scarfs. Otoh, I would think that Indian democracy, where the killers of innocent Hindus and Muslims have been elevated into higher echelons of power, is not a great beacon of democarcy too.

But we are talking of world`s norms, where all the above are termed democratic states.

ballukhan!

You are barking up the wrong tree. Most of these pseudo intellectuals have no political training or even have an understanding of how the army works. If a COAS can be a national leader than National leadership must be a hoax. These same people called Gen. Zia a national leader and a hero.

How on the earth can an army that has sabotaged civilian govts. at every opportunity be a bulwark of democracy?

Saying that the army will lead the country to democracy is like saying the crocodile would deliver the sheep safely. The problem is that all reasons fell to deaf ears when the knowledge to understand the reasons is skewed.

Pakistan has never in the last 55 years seen an unfiltered democracy. Pakistan intermittently had civilian govts; because for that particular period, the Army was unable to be in the front though it still was in the driver seat.

The great ZA Bhutto was compromising with Army right after the 1971 defeat. The army approved his cabinet. It did not take long for the army to hang him once he was not needed.

NS and BB both had civilian govts. If the army were so committed to the democracy, it would have helped NS and BB instead of creating problems at every turn. Twice the army under some pretense or the other removed both.

The corruption of NS or BB has not been proven but they are not in the country. Mushy has accepted the corruption of AQK on National TV but he is still a hero and He can keep his ill-gotten money.

The situation in Pakistanis as such that it is not the commitment to Pakistan nationalism or the so-called Islam that is keeping that country together. It is the army and the corps commanders that have the country by the balls. That is what the army always wanted to do. So now it is the sole reason for Pakistan survival. The sword that is hanging on the people of Pakistan is that once the army is removed, Pakistan would crumble down due to lack of any cohesion in Pakistan as a nation.

ballukhan/hossp: seems like you missed the basic point i made`` ``After all - the Indian government did not seek peace with Pakistan until it woke up to the fact in 1998 that developing nuclear weapons was not an Indian monopoly in the subcontinent. ``

Truth hurts. But it is good for you. Try it sometimes.

ballukhan at # 122:

``Those who make war and then talk of peace are not ``great leaders`` of peace! Those who take over civilian rule through the power of their gun barrels and then hand the power back through LFO cannot by any strech of imagination become great democrats.``

Although your post is directed at Tauheed and he might have responded to it, I would humbly question the sagacity of your thoughts here. It would mean that democratic elected people like Sharon can never become great democrats for their crimes in Sabrah and Shatilla. Similarly, people like Advani, Joshi and Modi, responsible for killing of thousands of innocent Christians, Hindus and Muslims, will never become great democrats although elected by their people to the highest echelons of power.

It is gross injustice to Mahatir Mohammad to compare him to the likes of Musharaf. Musharaf at best `reacts` to events. I don`t know which world you fauji-lovers romanticize in.

There are many dictatorial leaders who took their countries somewhere. These leaders had vision and a sense of direction. They can be admired for this leadership quality. But why be dishonest and compare Musharaf to them?

Till date, Musharaf has never taken a pro-active visionary decision. He has always taken U-turns when constipating- he had no chioce and so had to go against the policy he dearly desired. There is absolutely nothing `leadership`-like in him and that is why he is more of a puppet than anything else.

First of all, Mahatir Mohammed, unlike other visionary leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, was elected. When he was recenly iin Pakistan, he made a telling statement of Pakistan`s military-based policies- something to the effect that you don`t make weapons to not go to war, you make weapons to go to war. I guess a sort of anti-deterrant argument. One may disagree with him, but Mahatir was justified in saying it as his sole ambition for Malaysia was development and it was not to join in arms races, or spend over half the government revenues on defense. There are so many fundamental differences.

So please give the fauji-loving imagination a rest.

However, to help ease the imagination of who Musharaf is most like, let me help you. Here is a list of candidates closely resembling Musharaf:

1) Pinochet- Chile
2) Batista- Cuba
3) Mobutu- Zaire
4) Idi Amin – Uganda

But even these had SOME vision albeit retarded. Musharaf is more like a pawn.

Ahmadzai #129

``He led Malaysia to one of the most economically developed nations of the world.``

So did Lee Kuan Yew. That doesn`t make him a model democrat. I have to run
now, but just wanted to point out that Mahathir has treated Malaysia much like his
fiefdom. Not for financial benefits, perhaps. At best, he is a benevolent quasi-dictator
with a vision (which is perfectly okay, as long as one knows what he is).

One of the offsprings of a successful democracy is the emergence of robust
institutions, which Malaysia seemingly lacks (other people more familiar with the
country can correct me - Harimau ?).

rozaiba #133 While agreed that mushy is no mahatir (although he may surprise us yet - the economy has picked up a bit past couple of years, and who knows maybe we will get a peace dividend as well in the form encouraging investors), but he is none of the other types you listed either.

1) Pinochet: Pinochet`s death squads killed anyone opposed to the government. Under mushy, the press has a field day lashing out at him, as do the politicians. Pinochet overthrew a popular democratic leader, mushy overthrew a loser.

2) Batista: Member of the Cuban aristocracy. Mushy came up through the ranks.

3) Mobutu: Amassed 3-4 billion dollars. No smoke of corruption (yet) from mushy, and the free press and active political opposition keeps him in check.

4) Idi Amin: Mass murderer and torturer on a scale that does not begin to compare with anythng we have seen in Pakistan. Also, a certified nutcase (e.g. once came to state ceremony lifted on a throne carried by four white men).

So, lets not get carried away with this criticism.

#132 tahmad32.

``ballukhan/hossp: seems like you missed the basic point i made`` ``After all - the Indian government did not seek peace with Pakistan until it woke up to the fact in 1998 that developing nuclear weapons was not an Indian monopoly in the subcontinent. `` –tahmad32

tahmad, I have great respect for your thoughts, and often you show a good understanding of what is happening in Pakistan. Sometimes you do come up with some totally lame statements such as the one above.

The knowledge that Pakistan had the nuke expertise or even the nukes themselves was not something that was not known for some time. All that happened in 1998 was, that Pakistan came out from the closet so to speak. Therefore, the consideration that nukes were not Indian monopoly any more did not exist at all. I would not venture into Pakistan nuke program as it has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere, I would still just mentioned that Pakistan was working on nuke program since 1976 and if the Indian agencies or the US agencies did not know that Pak has the ability to make the nukes then, those two agencies should really be disbanded forthwith.

The question is who was seeking peace from whom in 1998? If you believe that India sought peace because it was scared of Pakistani nukes then this argument can play against Pakistan too. As India actually had nukes way before Pakistan ever did.

No two countries can have peace under the threatening conditions. There are steps, which need to be taken before two countries, with such a contentious history can have peace. If India initiated a process to reach Pakistan then I should really command India for that. Better still, why should I believe that India approached Pakistan for peace and it is not vice versa?

Unless, you have some concrete proof that India actually sought peace because of Pak nukes.
I don’t see any proof in your post or in the recent history. So, I believe that it is just an unmerited assertion by you.

``India didnot make peace with Pakistan until 1998 when India discovered Pakistan has a bomb, which means nuclear deterrence works`` - a quote from this thread.

``Pakistan went to war with India in 1999 though it knew India had a bomb, which means nuclear deterrence doesnot work when one is dealing with donkeys(gadhas). It is not a question of `if` but a question of `when` India is to be attacked with nukes by gadhas.`` - you can quote me on this.

[After the nuke attack on India, Musharraf will say plaintively then( in the few minutes of his life left before being vaporized), like he is saying about Khan now, ``oh that retired brigadier who was supposed to keep watch didnot report anything untoward to me, I don`t know how it happened. `` ]

Sorry, rozaiba, pls. carry on.

hossp #134 thanks for your kind words. On the subject of the nukes as peacemakers (a subject we have been beating to death over the past couple of weeks on chowk), you wanted ``some concrete proof that India actually sought peace because of Pak nukes. ``

Here is the evidence I base my judgement on is the following sequence of events we have all lived through and seen for ourselves just a few years ago:

Step 1: Agressive behavior by BJP: BJP started off blasting 5 nukes, followed up with threats to Pakistan by Advani. There was dancing in the streets of delhi, Advani and Vajpayee exchanged sweets (a sad sight, i would add, as two old men feed each other cholestrol-dripping laddoos with their grubby hands - but that is btw). Clearly Advani and co. were not expecting Pakistan to respond, and were assuming that Pakistan`s nuclear program was a bluff.

Step 2: Pakistan`s response: Pakistan responded in kind. Based on newspaper accounts of the time, this came as a clear surprise to the indian government: a hasty meeting was called, with ministers being pulled out of the lok sabha. It clearly dawned on Advani and co that Pakistan`s program was a clear match for the Indian program.

btw: If such a dumb strategic mistake had been made in the US, all hell would have broken lose (the fuss over Iraqi intelligence would have been nothing compared to this). I am appalled that in the largest democracy in the world, BJP got away without anyone being bothered by what will no doubt count as one of the greatest follies in history.

Step 3: Peace Initiatives by India: Vajpayee came to lahore, visited the Pakistan memorial and said Pakistan was here to stay.

As for Pakistan being ``forced`` to come out in the open, as you say, I find it incredible that you should say that, and for the following reasons:

a. Prior to 1998, Pakistan was under great international pressure to quit its nuclear program. The poor performance of the Pakistan economy in the 1990`2 was no doubt partly the result of the economic sanctions against it. After 1998, US policy towards Pakistan took a 180 degree turn for the better: the Pressler amendment was lifted, and the policy was one of ensuring economic development and stability in Pakistan.

b. Pakistani governments never made bones about their nuclear program: From ZAB (who famously announced in 1971 that Pakistanis would eat grass rather than submit to Indian bullying) down to Musharaff (who has openly stated pakistan`s first strike nuclear policy in case it faced being overrun by India). The Indian government on the other hand has been remarkably hypocritical about it: Indira Gandhi assured the world that the Indian nuclear program was a ``peaceful one``, and the peaceful sounding phrase ``the buddha is smiling`` was used in conjunction with that first explosion.

I am not saying the Pakistan governments are perfect and Indian governments are not: what I am saying is that difference is not black and white, as many indian posters seem to think.

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

#137 by tahmed32 on February 16, 2004 9:30pm PT

I do not know what fears of yours lead you to go to such absurd limits!!!!!

ballukhan #140 Just issuing a denial, ignoring the specifics I wrote, is your prerogative. That does not change the simple, factual sequence of events that I noted in my post below. You can deny reality, but that will not change reality.

arjun #139 If you think that Pakistan`s response did not come as a surprise to the Indian government, let alone stop all their celebrations dead in their tracks, then you are deluded beyond redemption. I find it a waste of time to interact with you, let alone go and finding links for you as you grandly suggest I do for you.

And the views of a cheapster like you who routinely posts insults to pakistanis from the safety of the internet are of no interest to me anyway.

#142, TAhmed

Whatever man, just believe whatever you choose to believe. Just remember perception is ``reality``.

Plats8 at # 136:

I think that you, like another good interactor named babu who comes on Chowk seldom, tend to move off topic. Btw, I respect your views and we can agree to disagree.

However, my original point was that democracy teaches tolerance and therefore, we Pakistanis should also be tolerant of opposition. Opposition is always good for it keeps Government under check and in pressure for doing good. However, if part of opposition gets out of control and instead of taking parliamentary means to sort out differences, goes for jalaao and ghairaow that damage the country economically, then it is the responsibility of the saner elements in political arena (both government and other factions of opposition) to smother such moves. I am yet to see a Government in a country, no matter how democratic it is in nature, to allow opposition resort to jalaow and ghairaow without ant restraint.

Towards my above view, I quoted Mahatir on a situation where his political opponent was trying to encourage his supporters resort to violence. BBC`s interviewer seemed to imply that violence should also be condoned. To that, Mahatir`s response was 100% on the target.

Btw, I travel to Malaysia almost every year. I was there in August last summer. Economic development of Malaysia was my University (in the USA) thesis as well. Malaysia is my field of interest. Although its democracy is not 100% perfect, but democracies all over the world have some weaknesses. It is the overwhelming good associated with it that we cite democracy as a preferred mode of rule.