Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth
Mubashir Akram August 19, 2004
#49 Posted by rahul_capri on August 25, 2004 6:15:25 pm
ikonoklast #47
Your last question - doable steps-this is the first step-to realize the value of democracy.I dont know very much about Pakistani politics but if the majority of people want democracy,and want it bad enough,How can Musharraf continue?
Sameer says that only 5% of people have Mush as the first ]second choice.But I sense a complacency regarding his rule,defeatist arguments like what would have become if he had not come to power etc. etc.
Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.
Let us assume that the politicians are thiefs.In most of the cases they are.When you and I dont care about the country,why should they? But when they realize that they cannot continue their positions of power and their robbery when the people see a better alternative,sooner or later they will behave.They will still rob,but not that much that people kick their asses in the next election.
Now to the question of different ethnicities.In this respect,Pakistan is not comparable to India at all,because as I have come to know,Punjab is larger than the rest of Pakistan put together.There has to be a long term solution to Punjabi hegemony. I dont know,you guys would know better.I can only give the example of the various splintered groups and coalition politics in India.Earlier,when the domination of Congress finished,and the BJP rose as a viable national alternative,the value of splintered groups became very important in the polity.Chandrasekhar became prime minister with the support of a handful of MPs.Governments rose and fell at the behest of regional party leaders like Mayawati,Mulayam,Jayalalita,Naidu etc etc. The parliament was never seen to be likely to complete a full term.But afterwards,coalition politics has matured under BJP and there is something like a two party system,though even the smallest regional group cannot be ignored.
India has problems like Far East,Kashmir etc. people mfrom where have been marginalized, but these problems are more likely to be solved under a democracy than a dictatorship.Because of the size of Punjab,it can probably dominate a democratic government,but is that enough to lose faith in democracy?
Your last question - doable steps-this is the first step-to realize the value of democracy.I dont know very much about Pakistani politics but if the majority of people want democracy,and want it bad enough,How can Musharraf continue?
Sameer says that only 5% of people have Mush as the first ]second choice.But I sense a complacency regarding his rule,defeatist arguments like what would have become if he had not come to power etc. etc.
Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.
Let us assume that the politicians are thiefs.In most of the cases they are.When you and I dont care about the country,why should they? But when they realize that they cannot continue their positions of power and their robbery when the people see a better alternative,sooner or later they will behave.They will still rob,but not that much that people kick their asses in the next election.
Now to the question of different ethnicities.In this respect,Pakistan is not comparable to India at all,because as I have come to know,Punjab is larger than the rest of Pakistan put together.There has to be a long term solution to Punjabi hegemony. I dont know,you guys would know better.I can only give the example of the various splintered groups and coalition politics in India.Earlier,when the domination of Congress finished,and the BJP rose as a viable national alternative,the value of splintered groups became very important in the polity.Chandrasekhar became prime minister with the support of a handful of MPs.Governments rose and fell at the behest of regional party leaders like Mayawati,Mulayam,Jayalalita,Naidu etc etc. The parliament was never seen to be likely to complete a full term.But afterwards,coalition politics has matured under BJP and there is something like a two party system,though even the smallest regional group cannot be ignored.
India has problems like Far East,Kashmir etc. people mfrom where have been marginalized, but these problems are more likely to be solved under a democracy than a dictatorship.Because of the size of Punjab,it can probably dominate a democratic government,but is that enough to lose faith in democracy?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#48 Posted by SameerJB on August 25, 2004 3:53:15 pm
No major political party for right of center politicians ezisted during Zia rule. His opposition meant joinging hands with PPP and Benazir Bhutto, althought many smaller parties were included in ARD. All center right politicains, Islamists and newcomers joined Zia. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask for banning politicians who supported Zia. At least NS and PML (N) now do not enjoy military backing; they are on their own. In a fair election, the issue of them supporting military dictators should be raised and PPP candidates have been very vocal about pointing this out to constituents. It is upto people who they vote.
The fact is that in the absence of Musharraf and military interference, PML (N) and NS would either win or more likely come out as the main opposition party in cae PPP wins. The current QML would have to ally with none other than religious parties to some out at third place. MMA is an ally to the government. The alliance making, winning two provinces and large number of NA seats all owe it to Musharraf and military intelligence. They never had this good and they know it. They have supported Musharraf`s constitutional amendment. So it is not right to label MMA as now in opposition and once with Zia. Mullah, Islamists and MMA are with military because that is the only force which can give importance to MMA; in fair elections they would be the biggest disappointment as usual and they know it.
During Musharraf`s rule, the situation for center right politicians is not the same as it was in Zia era. Now they have major political party as PML (N). The point I am making is that NS was/ is able to stand without military with sizable popular support. The Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhrys and MMA are nothing without military and Musharraf.
On party basis, Pakistani vote bank is mostly owned by PPP, PML (N) , ANP, BNP, JUI, JI and MQM; QML does not have vote bank on party basis except for Musharraf supporters, perhaps 5 percent people, mostly Urdu speaking mohajirs, for whom Musharraf is either second (after MQM or JI) or first choice.
#47 Posted by ikonoclast on August 25, 2004 9:53:17 am
Various mails
We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.
Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.
By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.
We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?
So Long
We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.
Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.
By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.
We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?
So Long
#46 Posted by ikonoclast on August 25, 2004 9:53:17 am
Various mails
We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.
Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.
By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.
We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?
So Long
We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.
Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.
By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.
We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?
So Long
#45 Posted by zuq7 on August 23, 2004 6:24:29 am
I am not against what the writer thinks of the situation of Pakistan. We Pakistanis always had a problem of unstable minds. There are a handful of people who can think straight and appreciate all situations. There is a difference between positive critism and critisizing for the sake of ones petty gains. We may appreciate that, most of us critisize for our own gains. You need to know how a govt functions to be able to understand to write all that you have written. Dont you know that Jamali turned out to be a non deliverer. Dont you know it is better to have an intelligent enemy then to have a foolish friend and so on and so forth. I am sure if you try to see you will again find good indicators for all that you have discredited the govt for.
#44 Posted by arjun_m on August 23, 2004 6:24:14 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#43 Posted by kkkandk on August 23, 2004 6:24:13 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#42 Posted by kkkandk on August 23, 2004 6:24:13 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#41 Posted by mubakr on August 22, 2004 9:45:04 pm
WHY the discussion and reaction on the articles on chowk lose their seriousness some 15-20 reactions down the road? :( I was wondering if people could be nice to eachother other even in mud-slinging and as they say ``polite but firm.`` Trust me friends, coming down to the level of someone who`s not been nice, makes you what the other person is. And even ignoring bad comments strengthens one`s personality from within.
Just a thought thou!
Now my reactions to few comments...:
# 5 Ikonoclast:
I agree with you when you hold the political class equally responsible for the state of limbo this country is in but then again, who makes them behave that way? Secondly, this vicious circle of atrocities against democracy needs to be ended now and frankly, the worst of the democracies even tend to take care of the nations unlike dictators and army rules. People in Pakistan usually refer to the great De Gualle and Mahatir Muhammad and try to prove their case that onemanship is the best mode of development. BUT which they tend to forget is that although it was onemanship but a majority of the state institutions were free to work their way. We also must not forget what the great De Gualle said when his cronies pushed him against Sartre: “How can I arrest France for Sartre is France.” And here we have dictators meddling in everything from family planning to policy planning!
# 6 Rozaiba:
Thanks for the comments. They were really encouraging!
# 11 nikki7777
I am Mubashir Akram for my father’s name is Akram J No other reason. Trust me, I can even quote my address and phone number and it’s not that I wish to remain concealed. I would only live once…better in grace than in disgrace!
# 13 kkkandk
Very good comments Mr. Tripple K but honestly, none can live in the past. We live in the present to have a better future and that’s all we could do about it. Our political history is one of the most shameful ones in the South Asian countries but the point is: where do we go from here? My pangs of pain for the civilian rule and supremacy were for a better future, freedom and civil liberties…
Just a thought thou!
Now my reactions to few comments...:
# 5 Ikonoclast:
I agree with you when you hold the political class equally responsible for the state of limbo this country is in but then again, who makes them behave that way? Secondly, this vicious circle of atrocities against democracy needs to be ended now and frankly, the worst of the democracies even tend to take care of the nations unlike dictators and army rules. People in Pakistan usually refer to the great De Gualle and Mahatir Muhammad and try to prove their case that onemanship is the best mode of development. BUT which they tend to forget is that although it was onemanship but a majority of the state institutions were free to work their way. We also must not forget what the great De Gualle said when his cronies pushed him against Sartre: “How can I arrest France for Sartre is France.” And here we have dictators meddling in everything from family planning to policy planning!
# 6 Rozaiba:
Thanks for the comments. They were really encouraging!
# 11 nikki7777
I am Mubashir Akram for my father’s name is Akram J No other reason. Trust me, I can even quote my address and phone number and it’s not that I wish to remain concealed. I would only live once…better in grace than in disgrace!
# 13 kkkandk
Very good comments Mr. Tripple K but honestly, none can live in the past. We live in the present to have a better future and that’s all we could do about it. Our political history is one of the most shameful ones in the South Asian countries but the point is: where do we go from here? My pangs of pain for the civilian rule and supremacy were for a better future, freedom and civil liberties…
#40 Posted by rahul_capri on August 22, 2004 9:45:04 pm
HP 33 I understand when you say that there is no money in that debate.
I will ask one more question,why do most Pakistani posters here perceive NS as a free loader and there is a definite polarisation among people who favor the army and people who favor him?
Furthermore,is this the biggest hurdle to democracy,that a significant number of people do not share the vision of people like Feroz -``Democracy at all costs``?
I will ask one more question,why do most Pakistani posters here perceive NS as a free loader and there is a definite polarisation among people who favor the army and people who favor him?
Furthermore,is this the biggest hurdle to democracy,that a significant number of people do not share the vision of people like Feroz -``Democracy at all costs``?
#39 Posted by ferozk on August 22, 2004 8:25:59 pm
re: HP & Rahul _Capri (various posts)
Sorry to abut into your discussions, but I just wanted to clarify a few points.
HP, your observations are correct that I favor a federation, but not with strong central powers. I favor the present federated structure but only as first step towards moving to the idea of the federation in the Constitution of 1973, with its concurrant list of powers between the center and the provinces. Over a period of time, I would really like to see a devolution of power to the provinces and even to the districts.
Given Pakistan`s historic experience, one option is to create a dyarchy and to share power, but how we get there or even get to decentralized power is the critical question. There has to be a evolution towards what you seem to favor; decentralized power.
Ciao
Sorry to abut into your discussions, but I just wanted to clarify a few points.
HP, your observations are correct that I favor a federation, but not with strong central powers. I favor the present federated structure but only as first step towards moving to the idea of the federation in the Constitution of 1973, with its concurrant list of powers between the center and the provinces. Over a period of time, I would really like to see a devolution of power to the provinces and even to the districts.
Given Pakistan`s historic experience, one option is to create a dyarchy and to share power, but how we get there or even get to decentralized power is the critical question. There has to be a evolution towards what you seem to favor; decentralized power.
Ciao
#38 Posted by SameerJB on August 22, 2004 7:46:42 pm
#33 HP:
I also prefer decentralization over federalism because I feel that democracy suits more to Pakistan than highly centralized federation. I haven`t followed your vision in detail but I have presented my thoughts here many times during the discussion of division of power and division of existing provinces.
I do not support strong center but I do not support strong provinces either. I wish to see equal amount of power transfered from center to provinces and from provinces to districts. Given the diversity of Pakistan, I wish to see district governments most important from public point of view with full control over education and cultural matters. Dividing Punjab or Sindh is nto the solution to multiethnic Pakistan. Pakistan is in fact much more multiethnic than 4, 7 or 8 units. Additionally unlike isolation in mountaneous areas (for example kafirs of Chitral, Balti of northern areas etc), various ethnic groups of Pakistan live in mixed environment. Strong district government is the key to create harmony in Pakistan.
Its downside is small compared to upside. Downside is the bickering among districts over water distribution etc but upside is not putting all your eggs in one basket. Strong district governments to the level of current provincial governments make army taking over more problematic. Army garrisons can not move to every district to take over the government in few hours. With media outlets from districts, army takeover of Islamanad, Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar can be resisted much longer. Secondly a poor central or provincial government would have less effect on the governance of all districts. Possibly many district governments could perform well despite crooks running central government.
All of Pakistan should not suffer due to poor quality of democratic government in the center and provincial capitals. Historically united Punjab`s fate was decided in one battle in Panipat or Lahore and often lost. Before that invaders have to fight their way from Bhalwal to Shahpur to Lahore, fighting with Gakkhars and then with Jats and others. People have more affiliation at local level than provincial or national level and that attachment to local level can be used towards better governance, development, prosperity, justice and peace.
#37 Posted by mohar11 on August 22, 2004 4:45:23 pm
HP
Take it easy pal - my intention was not to upset your blood pressure. For an outsider - I know as much as anybody else - about paki history and various twists and turns in its politics. My knowledge may not be as exhaustive as yours ( of course ) but I think I know enough to put up a counter argument to your assertion that ``Pakistan people have fought battles against Mushy .... blah ....blah``.
Since his 1999 coup - I haven`t really observed any ``battles`` that has been fought against Mushy`s military regime. If you think otherwise - then enlighten us.
If you don`t want to answer - that`s fine too. Just don`t boil over!!!
Take it easy pal - my intention was not to upset your blood pressure. For an outsider - I know as much as anybody else - about paki history and various twists and turns in its politics. My knowledge may not be as exhaustive as yours ( of course ) but I think I know enough to put up a counter argument to your assertion that ``Pakistan people have fought battles against Mushy .... blah ....blah``.
Since his 1999 coup - I haven`t really observed any ``battles`` that has been fought against Mushy`s military regime. If you think otherwise - then enlighten us.
If you don`t want to answer - that`s fine too. Just don`t boil over!!!
#36 Posted by mohar11 on August 22, 2004 4:45:23 pm
HP
//...Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics...//
Thanks for imparting the secret wisdom. Now - let`s take War of 99. Mushy planned that war ... Mushy fought the war ... mushy lost the war .. mushy took over the country ... mushy is ruling it for 5 years now, un-hindered, un-challenged ... he is the undisputed king.
So in this sitcom, which episode shows us the ``battle for democracy`` ?
//...Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics...//
Thanks for imparting the secret wisdom. Now - let`s take War of 99. Mushy planned that war ... Mushy fought the war ... mushy lost the war .. mushy took over the country ... mushy is ruling it for 5 years now, un-hindered, un-challenged ... he is the undisputed king.
So in this sitcom, which episode shows us the ``battle for democracy`` ?
#35 Posted by HP on August 22, 2004 3:41:06 pm
Rahul,
While Feroz and I both feel that democracy is the way to go for Pakistan, we differ in the system itself. Feroz appears to favor federalism and more centralized system and I favor maximum decentralization of powers in Pakistan. In other words, I feel that less powers the center has, there are more chances for democracy to survive in Pakistan. There is no money in it that debate now. We both agree that somehow Pakistan has to get to democracy first or at least the civilian rule for starter and even that would take some doing.
NS did not take paid vacation. He is not a feudal. He did make a compromise and I think it was okay for him do that at that time.
#34 Posted by HP on August 22, 2004 3:41:06 pm
#30 by mohar11
Mohar,
one can be a cynical bast-rd or a gullible fool. You can’t be both.
It would be better to find and read history before writing something only a gullible fool can write. Once you gain more knowledge about struggle for democracy in Pakistan, you will know what people of Pakistan have done for democracy. Or take a cue from Rahul. He wanted to know something and he showed sincerity and purposefulness.
With your current style, you will always get this answer or no answer.
Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics.
Mohar,
one can be a cynical bast-rd or a gullible fool. You can’t be both.
It would be better to find and read history before writing something only a gullible fool can write. Once you gain more knowledge about struggle for democracy in Pakistan, you will know what people of Pakistan have done for democracy. Or take a cue from Rahul. He wanted to know something and he showed sincerity and purposefulness.
With your current style, you will always get this answer or no answer.
Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masanamuthu: 1.I dubt that there... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 693 buba..... Russia will... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- majumdar: Kaal bhai, 1.I doubt that... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: Back to 2001 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/india.attacks/index.html CNN)... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 673 masadi... indians... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- Eklavya: "refrain from drawing chut!ya... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: #678.... GF Yeh, sometimes brothers misunderstand... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- harish_hyd: And yaar GF, these... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
