Change of the Praetorian Guard

Feroz Sahib, HP Sahib,

Thanks for all the information. I have never discounted the possibilty of a few individuals standing up against the anti-democracy forces, whether it is the Army or individuals. Even so, one would have liked to see a enduring struggle, motivated and led by a stong-willed and uncompromising individual and sustained by the masses, who could then take the movement to its logical conclusion. Wonder why that hasn`t happened in Pakistan?

Even normally straightforward guys like Najam Sethi have to sugar coat their writings with stuff like, ``he has been the most tolerant of all dictators`` etc. A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. He has unlawfully taken over the reins of the country. How does it matter if he is tolerant or otherwise?

re: Harish-Hyd


Khalid Chaudhry was a journalist jailed by Zia-ul-Haq for writing pro-democracy articles. Javaid Ashraf was a politican killed in the early days of the Musharraf rule for protesting against the coup. As I find out names, I will list them.

Ciao

re: HP # 30

Thanks for the correction! :)

No, I do not know the name of the person killed in 1958.

Ciao

#29 by ferozk on October 15, 2004 6:48am PT
re: harish_hyd # 28
“…assassination was the father of our present foreign minister”

Feroz,

That was another Qasuri. Khursheed Qasuri’s father was Mehmood Ali Qasuri, who was for some time a Law Minister in ZAB cabinet. He died of natural causes. Mehmood Ali Qasuri was a Gen. secretary of the NAP before he joined the PPP in 1969. Ahmed Raza Qasuri’s father was killed. Ahmed Raza was an MNA during the ZAB PMship.

Harish,
As feroz mentioned Pakistan has a strong history of struggle for democracy. It is unfortunate that most of this struggle took place in provinces other than Punjab. As feroz said the struggle in East Pakistan was not for separation but for the democratic right of the majority to rule the country. The army was not willing to give up the power until India came in between and helped Bengalis.

In Balochistan, when the army and Bhutto upended the duly elected government in 1973, people struggled to get their rights back and an army action followed there too. In Sindh, the struggle for democracy has many martyrs. ZAB and now Benazir hijacked that struggle but the reason Benazir’s strong support in Sindh is not because she is ZAB’s daughter alone, but also represents the desire for democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan. From 1979 to 1984, Sindh was a battleground for democracy and the Army had to resort to violent actions to bring that protest down.

True, there is no high profile leader who is the symbol for democracy, but if you look at bits and pieces that have been gathering up for democracy or civilian rule in Pakistan, you will realize that a bigger desire for democracy exists and it is only the expected violent reaction from the army that holds people back.

Living under the military rule is different than living under a civilian rule. Military would not allow even the slightest agitation or even a public statement of people’s rights.

Just for your info, the first civilian killed by the army, after the 1958 coup, was an immigrant from Hyderabad Deccan and he was killed in the Lahore fort by the army interrogators.

Let see if Feroz knows his name.:)

re: harish_hyd # 28

I remember women protesting in Lahore and being killed by police fire in the mid 1970s during Bhutto years prior to 1977 coup. People protesting Ayub Khan`s rule were also killed. East Pakistanis were killed while demanding their rightful share of democracy from a West Pakistani establishment.

However, if it is names you wish, I will certainly find out and list them here.

Names should not matter and it is not that the fight for democracy should be judged on the worth what a person`s name was who was killed. I think that people who were killed were ordinary people and I do not remember a single well known politican who died fighting for democracy in Pakistan. The only politican, who I can remember being a target of assassination was the father of our present foreign minister, who was against the policies of Bhutto. My recollection is that he survived but a friend of his was killed in the shooting.

Ordinary people who were killed are not remembered in this nation and for those who died protesting injustice, I do not think that anyone outside of their immediate familes might know their names. However, to suggest that no one has died for demanding democracy in Pakistan is a very insensitive thing to suggest.

Still, I will find out the names.

Ciao

#27 by ferozk

[There are people in Pakistan, who have died for the cause of democracy. Beneath the surface, there is a struggle going on and it has been going on for awhile. In your eyes, we might not have fought hard enough, but that is a matter of perception and perception is subjective.]

I`ll be most glad if you can cite a few names. The military rule in Myanmar brought forth Aung Sun Su Kyi, the mass movement Emergency was spearheaded by Jayaprakash Narayan. In contrast, has there been a leader worth his salt who has mobilized people against miltary rule in Pakistan?

Again, this is a chicken and egg story. If there is no mass support, no leader can emerge, and if there is no leader who can mobilize people, there can be no mass support. Unfortunately, in Pakistan`s case, that has been the case.

re: harish_hyd # 24

There are people in Pakistan, who have died for the cause of democracy. Beneath the surface, there is a struggle going on and it has been going on for awhile. In your eyes, we might not have fought hard enough, but that is a matter of perception and perception is subjective.

Ciao

#25, jang:
You wont understand what tooth and nail means in democratic terms. Pakistanis fight by asssassinations and muders, in India, fair elections are held. Whatever were the reasons for the election loss, Indira Gandhi abode by the election decision. Can you understand that??????!!!!!!!!!!!

harish

``In contrast, Indira Gandhi`s emergency was fought against by the average Indian tooth and nail, until she gave up.``

that is total bull-crap. no, masses did not fight it. she just jailed some politicians in comfy jails, some RSS folks in non-comfy jails and painted the buses with slogans. news-papers were very silent, and she did not give it up. she lost an election. i saw noone fighting with any tooth or nail, and many were happy that buses ran on time and there were no strikes.

so, while emergency did not endear her, she was not fought. and she lost erection due to her forcible ``Nasbandi`` (male-sterlization) campaign.

#23 by ferozk

[Given the choice, a Pakistani would select democracy.]

Feroz Sahib, my main complaint against the Pakistani public is that they haven`t fought hard enough to secure democracy. Given a choice, everyone on this Earth would want democracy. But democracy comes only to those who have the will to die to fight for and preserve it. Unfortunately, in this respect, the Pakistani public has failed miserably.

[The really despressing reality is that there is very little hope in our politicans delivering democracy to us. Consquently, an average Pakistani is not going to hold his/her breath till the blessed day dawns, but is more interested in making the most out of a poor situation. Democracy is important to Pakistanis, but on the list of concerns they have to deal with on a daily basis, it does not rank too high.]

Agreed, the average politician, of whom there are aplenty in the subcontinent, is corrupt, but there is a democratic way of doing things. Nawaz Sharif`s fall was welcomed by the average Pakistani with joy and celebration. In contrast, Indira Gandhi`s emergency was fought against by the average Indian tooth and nail, until she gave up. That, I believe has made the difference.

re: harish_hyd # 17

Given the choice, a Pakistani would select democracy. The reason for a lack of interest in politics is that s/he realizes that the choice will never offered in good faith. A Pakistani is more intrested in reality than utopia and in the case of Pakistan, democracy is a distant dream. It does not mean that we have settled for less, as you seem to imply, but that we are not waiting for a messiah to deliver democracy to us, because s/he is claiming to give us democracy.

The really despressing reality is that there is very little hope in our politicans delivering democracy to us. Consquently, an average Pakistani is not going to hold his/her breath till the blessed day dawns, but is more interested in making the most out of a poor situation. Democracy is important to Pakistanis, but on the list of concerns they have to deal with on a daily basis, it does not rank too high.

Ciao

#21 by whiteorchid

there must be some other options surely.

Naeem, if I have 2 packages for you, as following :
1.A Total $4.0 billion in direct cash remittance to Pakistan in three years and a lot of loans would be forgiven; the army would be refurbished with spare parts and new weapons; an augmentation of financial, commercial and technological inputs into pakistani economy; “political stability”; being the supreme centre of the Pakistani power structure; supporting America’s anti-terorrism campaign and against Iraq. ….and

2.The economic and military sanctions; the closures of Pakistani export of nuclear technology; becoming poor country; unstable nation; going back to Jihad fi sabilillah; heaven (InshaAllah).

Which one do you like?

#17 harish hydrababdi

well, franckly, the pakis are just not that impressed with our ``largest democracy in the world``. they want their fair due, but will settle for something like singapure.

(this applies to chowki pakis, which are mostly upper class).

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

Reading the comments here, I recalled a mail I had sent to Chowk editors to be published on Civic Center but somehow they didn`t carry it. I am copying it here as it is related to the issue:

After ‘law of necessity’ comes ‘lie of necessity’

Zia-ul-‘Baatil’ was an avid liar too – actually a compulsive one at that. He made many promises only to break them – he did all that with much ease – feeling no remorse – and even having a wry smile on that hypocrite face of his.

Our present dictator is not much far behind either. He may have lied on some occasions as many mortals do but Mush would certainly earn an unenviable distinction of being a ‘proclaimed liar’ if he decided to keep the uniform after 31st of December, 2004 as by doing so he would be reneging on a public solemn pledge that he had made to the people of Pakistan only 9 months ago.

In his radio/television address on 24th December last year after his agreement with MMA, he had said: ``After giving it serious thought, I have decided to give up my uniform before Dec 31, 2004, for creating political harmony in the country. I will select the date myself within this period.``

Now he says the circumstances have changed since then and he may have to eat his words. If that were the case then there would be no more any sanctity of one’s word, a pledge or a promise. Any body would say something one day and change his/her position the next day citing the ‘change of circumstances’. There would be no honor in keeping one’s word and no shame in breaking one!

That is exactly the kind of rulers and role models the country of 150 million people is bestowed with! No wonder we are where we are - and what we are – a people without much honor and self-respect -- even less so in the eyes of the world!

Well, well. So far we have been suffering under A K Brohi’s ‘law of necessity’ now Musharrafian ‘lie of necessity’ will additionally torment us, haunt us, shackle us and make us lose whatever little self-esteem some of us may still have left deep inside our souls. What would psychoanalysts say of such citizenry? And what would be the fate of a country populated by wooden men, lowly creatures and corpuses ruled by dictators and despots?

May not be that hard to figure out!

Regards