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

So many apologists for Mushy/Paki Army?! I’m now convinced Pakis can kiss democracy goodbye for a long time to come.

Some folks here are disgusted over what BB/Nawaz did during their respective tenures, but let me assure you, Indian politicians (Laloo Yadav for instance) can beat them hands down any day, and yet, that hasn’t prevented democracy from flourishing in India.

The fact that Pakis are willing to settle for “roti, kapda, aur makaan” (#6 by ferozk) in exchange for political freedom attests to how less Pakis are willing to settle for. I think long periods of military rule have brought Pakis to a stage where they have to be thankful for even small mercies like the right to earn a decent living, something that is taken for granted everywhere else.

Like everything, democracies take time to mature too. If after 57 years of democracy, we still can have corrupt politicians like Laloo (he is the Union Railway Minister, can you believe it?) and a system that is by no means perfect, you can only imagine what it would be like in Pakistan, where rampant takeovers by the Army has all but reduced the system to a farce. But then, unless ordinary Pakis are convinced of the merits of having a democratic polity, Pakistan will continue to alternate between short bouts of civilian rule and long spells of military rule.

Fascist is as Fascist does. The fact of the matter is that by breaking his (written) promise to doff his uniform in December, General deGaul`s left testicle has put a lot of people in uncomfortable position including himself. The people who are most effected by this dicision are the moulvis who gave him a carte blache on a silver platter and thus giving him formidable ``constitutional`` powers. Musharaf made this promise basically with moulvis and now if he breaks the promise and moulvis do not protest on streets, that will be akin to the political death of moulvis. No one can recuperate from what has happened to moulvis. Dhobi ke kutte ghar ke na ghat ke. Even if we give benefit of doubt to moulvis that they went into an agreement over 17th ammendment fairly and with good intentions, they should have foresight to realize that musharaf is out there to finish off the very institution of moulvi-ism at all costs because his foreign masters have desired so. He used moulvis first to get them to agree on 17th ammendment, then caused their political death by breaking his promise that he will doff the uniform. Now the moulvis are left with only one option - street agitation. ISI and CIA are working overtime to counter that eventuality. The recent explosion in shia and sunni mosques is one of the counter-measures. It serves two purposes. It causes a rift between shia-sunni alliance in the MMA, and also it gives an impression to the people to stay away from crowded gatherings such as political agitations. In my opinion if moulvis decide to show their street power after Ramadan, as they are planning, then most likely ``terrorists`` will strike the first such rally. The era of politics has effectively been ended in Pakistan when moulvis let 17th go thru smoothly. Now there is no hope.

First, in my view, General Musharaf represents Pakistan Army, so whatever he is doing, whole Pakistan Army is responsible for that. Twenty years back, Pakistan Army Islamized the country and imported Afghan war to support the Americans against the Soviets. At that time, General Zia tried his every best to become the champion of Islam. Now, the same institution, i.e., Pakistan Army is busy in de-Islamizing the nation, and Bush’s War against terror is fought in Waziristan. Would Paksitan Army ever realize her guilt?

Though he keeps talking about making us strong the problem that i feel still exists is no role of the masses in what happens. We do all have opinions and we do all feel strongly but is it just enough to sit on the sidelines and comment on what he is doing, or rather try to take some sort of responsibility and follow it up with our own choices. If it was the so called democartic froces which were playing havoc with the country then it is now Military in the guise of civialians that are now weilding the danda. Is that alll we are good for as a neation. To be told what to do and not be able to decide anything for ourselves. They say Nations get leaders who refelct them then who are we to question or point fingers at Musharraf`s stance of taking dictation from USA are we not happy to just sit and take dictation from who so ever assumes power.

Aren`t we trying to read more into the shuffle in the army top brass than there actually is.

The point noteworthy in all this is that, since before the partition of India, after WWII, when it had become palpably evident that partition had become inevitable, there evolved a clique of Muslim Officers of the British Indian Army, who were committed not to allow civilian rule, civil authority and civil society to function in the the yet to be created Pakistan.

Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf are all different manifestations of that commitment.

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

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

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

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-9-2004_pg3_2

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Monday, September 27, 2004

By Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

..... The Musharraf era stands out as a turning point in civil-military relations for three major reasons:

First, the senior Army commanders are no longer willing to protect their professional and corporate interests from the sidelines. Perhaps they do not trust civilian political leaders and processes any longer. They want to share decision-making power at the highest level.

Second, there has been a generous induction of retired and serving officers in lucrative
civilian jobs and a phenomenal growth in military`s non-professional activities, especially in business sector. No previous military regime had taken so many measures to accommodate retired and serving military personnel and build the military`s financial assets.

Third, a legal cover has been provided to the military`s role in governance and political management. .....

---

http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/08/letted.htm#4

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2004 Wednesday 22 Rajab 1425

Role of military
By GUL ZAMAN, Peshawar

..... a retired general and the serving head of Pakistan`s biggest steel mill, stated that the cream of Pakistan went to the army where they were trained and groomed for two years.

I am afraid that the cream of Pakistan goes to its medical and engineering universities, to institutions like GIK, LUMS and IBA. The best of them proceed to become PhDs and end up serving under mediocrity.

If what the honourable general said was to be assumed to be the gospel truth, then why has the developed world not acquired the services of its uniformed bureaucracy?

We live in a world where specialists alone, having been trained and educated in their specific fields, are expected to deliver. There is no room for those who consider themselves to be jack of all trades. In the developed world there is rule of law.

Their professors, scientists, doctors, engineers, lawyers and others are the highest paid and get the best perks. The Third World instead is ruled by mediocre people who unfortunately consider themselves to be the cream. That is our dilemma - being ruled by dictators and self-imposed emperors and kings.

The world`s most advanced and powerful army is commanded by its elected president and not by a uniformed general. The president of the US is the supreme commander of all US forces. The strength of the developed world lies in its technological superiority and the economic boost that accrues from it. .....

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-8-2004_pg3_3

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Saturday, August 28, 2004

Defence businesses and civilians
By Shaukat Qadir

President Gen Pervez Musharaf has gone on record in defence of the defence housing societies in our major cities. He has pointed out that they are run by retired officers and run more efficiently than most such ventures. As a result civilians, too, want to get in. This results in escalation of prices that end up looking exorbitant. He did not mention that they were also considered more prestigious and that this was an additional reason for the escalation in prices. He said he did not understand why some people resented this. .....

..... Criticism of the army`s business ventures stems from two causes:

First; the army, which is meant to be anything but a business, has become — through the Fauji Foundation, the Army Welfare Trust, the Fauji Fertilisers, the Fauji Cement, etc and the defence housing societies/ authorities — the largest business consortium in the country. The other two services are now trying to follow suit and catch up.

Second, retired army officers are getting, as a consequence, far more of an opportunity to enrich themselves than their civilian counterparts. .....

..... I had tried to point out that the distance between the civilian and the soldier as well as that between ranks and the officers was increasing. It is no more the army I joined and very proudly served for many years. An outspoken friend among relatively younger officers once pointed out to me that perhaps it was already changing then. Perhaps, he said, we, the officers then in service, were unable to do enough to ``stem the rot``. I must admit to some truth in the charge. Perhaps if I were still serving, I might still refuse to see it.

Perhaps it is only visible from the outside. I do not resent those who have made better use of the opportunities that I wasted and ended up wealthier than myself. I write this in the vain hope that someone who reads this recognises the looming threat of dividing the society not only between the elite and the common, but also between a super military elite and the rest.

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-8-2004_pg3_1

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Tuesday, August 24, 2004

EDITORIAL
Tongues that wag with reason

General Pervez Musharraf wants to know why ``pseudo-intellectuals`` are inclined to criticise the defence housing societies that are an ubiquitous feature of the urban landscape in Pakistan. He reasons that these societies constitute top residential areas in Pakistan, are very well kept and run efficiently. Speaking at the Karachi DHA, he said that he was pressing this point because the detractors kept questioning the military`s involvement in everything. The military is not involved in running these housing estates. These societies, he said, are run by retired army officers and civilians. Warming to his sophistry, General Musharraf then went on to argue that there was no need for anyone to feel ‘jealous` if the land was acquired cheap, then developed and sold at higher prices. Taking this logic further he also mentioned the Army Welfare Trust and Fauji Foundation — organisations involved in banking, real estate development and industry — and said that while retired army officers were the bosses in these organisations, they were generating employment ``which is essential because military officers here are retired at a very young age``.

We understand General Musharraf`s unease at attempts by ``pseudo intellectuals`` to point to the military`s ``corporate`` interests. But while the military can argue its political role on the basis of peoples` disenchantment with political parties and leaders and is not particularly bothered about ``pseudo-analyses`` that criticise it, its ``corporate`` interests seem to be a different ballgame altogether. The pinch comes when people begin to talk about money matters and how the military has been able to protect and enhance its financial affairs by virtue of being the most powerfully entrenched institution in the country. But the fact is that too many stories exist about how the military is wont to conduct its financial affairs by manipulating the system in its favour. These take away the sheen the military has put on itself. Hence General Musharraf`s unease and his urge to use pejorative terms like ``pseudo intellectuals`` for those that are not swayed by the outward polish.

But things need to be put in the proper perspective. Why should the military be the only institution that can get cheap land for development through official means and then sell it off at exorbitant prices? The argument that the military defends the country and therefore should be treated with deference is fine, but it shouldn`t be stretched too far. After all, our military is still an all-volunteer army, isn`t it? This means that no one in Pakistan can be forced into military service. This also means that those who choose of their own volition to join the military should not expect to be treated royally or more favourably than other segments of society. Of course, if Pakistan had a people`s army and lands and other perks were awarded to people at large for rendering high services, that would be OK. But that is not the case here, is it?

The military is also the major political power in Pakistan. It has advanced its corporate interests by using its political clout, including getting businesses for its organisation, sometimes having undue access to sources of public money with which to keep them afloat and making laws to legalise this activity. How is this different from a political party getting into power and then using its position to advance party interests? Yet political leaders are tainted when accountability bureau slap references on them for ‘misusing` official positions. In other words, when chief ministers or prime ministers allot plots to party favourites or civil servants, they are deemed to be corrupt by indulging in cronyism or patronage. But when army officers get plots from GHQ for services rendered, that is perfectly in order. When the land acquisition act is used by governments to buy land below market prices from its civilian owners and then sell or lease it out to the military for a song for its housing societies — which go on to make huge profits — that is in order. But when civilian governments do the same thing for their voters or party workers, it is out of order definitely. Come, come, sir, the tongues are not wagging without reason.

---

Leave the poor guy alone. He will do as he pleases, your articles only prove that you are a loser my friend. Musharraf is his own man, he wont ask anyone`s permission before he decides what to do - so shut your face.

the occupying army is bad for the nation`s collective health...why?....because it impedes the growth of politicians and real national institutions...as i said a few threads below:

k(h)akistocracy*
whether he dons or sheds
he symbolizes
the occupying army

* Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

rgds,

t

Interesting article.

After reading it, I was tempted to call Mike Moore and Stone of JFK fame, with a new twist on an old conspiracy theory. :)

There is nothing new about senior generals being ignored. Musharraf was picked by Nawaz Sharif over senior officers and so was Zia-ul-Haq by Bhutto. If Musharraf has indeed secured his base, then it is a good news because he needs his base secured to deal with the myriad problems of Pakistan. Musharraf does not need Bush or a Kerry as much as he needs the geo-political situation which arises from a war on terror to secure his place in the Pakistani political constellation.

Besides, people of Pakistan are least concerned about what Musharraf does or does not say and this can be seen in their total lack of interests in the uniform issue/controversy. Life after many a dark age is getting better and the average person has a little bit of money to enjoy the budding commercialism in Pakistan. In resturants and other places, people do not talk about democracy or the ``wardi`` but have a good laugh and are more busy enjoying and getting on with life. There is feeling in the nation that the future is getting better all the time and there is an economic confidence in the nation, which is really delightful to see.

Talk to a daily wage earner and he is a happy that there are plazas mushrooming all over Lahore, because he has work and the money to feed, clothe and shelter his family, as best as he can. These days, a Lahori is working hard at day and having fun at night and there are more smiling faces in Lahore than they are faces ruing a lack of political freedom. The wage level is increasing and the periphery of a middle class, which was slipping away from so many people, is now within grasp once more.

Then there is the icing on the cake. No one is interested to come out on the streets and protest against Musharraf. It seems that people have made a social contract with Musharraf; bread and the money to buy it instead of political rights. Musharraf might not give democracy to Pakistanis, but he seems to be giving them something, which the democrats of Pakistan did not and that is - economic empowerment. There might be a timocracy in Pakistan, but atleast it is not plutocracy!

It has been a long time since the people of Pakistan laughed and had good time and this time, they want the party to continue! :)

Ciao

epiphany
Mukhlis
I have not propounded any conspiracy theory; but just tried to analyse the facts and particularly the change in the top military heirarchy. Its not a conspiracy theory but a perversion (for a lack of a better word)that despite erecting a parlimentary system, the locus of power resides in the persona of an illegitimate president. Not only that, but in the true durbari style the same parliment has the audacity to table a bill under the stewardship of our yuppie prime minister to enact legislation so that in a blatant travesty of constitution, Musharraf could concurrently hold two jobs. This is an insult to our collective intelligence. Mushrraf and his coterie shoulfd at least have the guts to call a dictatorship a dictatorship; whom is he hoodwinking?
I must confess that I have yet to reconcile with the fact that a so-called elected parliment, professing to adhere to democratic norms is actually calling for the ``president`` to retain the position of COAS.
Coming to the much touted $12 bn forex reserves, notwithstanding the macro-economic indicators (a load of statistical garbage at best) what good has it done to the common people? Poverty has in fact increased despite the $12 bn. And lest we forget this aggretation of forex is basically due to the largesse of Uncle Sam.
Talking about resignations, the Punjab CM should have resigned in the aftermath of twin tragedies at Sialkot and Multan. But, then following the anology of Musharraf, as explained by Mukhlis, the CM has all the more reasons to stick around rather then to resign.

The following government statement has got to be the joke of the month:

``The government said because of worsening law and order in the country President Musharraf can stay as the Army chief till the time he himself decides to take off his uniform.``*

Hmmm...Just change Musharraf with Nawaz or BB and imagine what the reaction of the intellectual crowd wouldv`e had been to this type of logic.

Worsening law & order situation is supposed to be a reason to resign for elected reps. but is an opportunity for Generals to prolong their rule.... amazing.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario.. Which doesn`t seem very far fetched from reality considering the type of clownish statements the government is now generating.

Assalam Alaikum... This is PTV 9 0` Clock News. We regret to inform our viewers that there has been a train accident and 300 people have been killed. In view of the tragedy, the honorable Railway minister has declared that he will not resign and will remain the railway minister for at least another 5 years in view of the increasing number of railway accidents happening in the country.

*Taken from Rauf Klasra`s report titled ``Bill on uniform tabled in NA`` in yesterday`s (Oct. 09) The News online version.

Some other gems from the same report:

``The government also said it was important for Gen Musharraf to stay as the Army chief beyond 2004 to save Pakistan from disintegration.``
I thought it was the other way around. Musharraf has to quit if Pakistan is to be saved from disintegration.

``The bill has made it clear that only Gen Pervez Musharraf as President of Pakistan could hold two offices at a time. No future president would keep two offices of profit at a time.``
Sure.. and who`s going to stop any other future unifromed warrior COAS President from enacting similar legislation??

abdul naeem,

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is not by any means not surrounded by conspiracy theories that are concentrically revolving around and pointing at him.

He in accused of selling state owned properties to foreign firms at a double digit fraction figures with a `zero` on the left of the decimal point. He is also accused of directing the army`s `slush fund`, amassed by the sales of nukes to `terrorist` states, towards the fattening of the foreign exchange reserve. Though the biggest and most fundamental weighing stone that counters his position as a leader of a country is that he is an active military general who is leading a civilian government.

I have my doubts, but they are marginalized by the fact that Pakistan`s currency has gained Rs. 7-00 to the green back since 1998. Our foreign exchange reserves stood at USD12.10 billion in August 2004 compared with USD2.5 billion in 1998. Interest rates for loans granted to exporters under the export refinancing scheme have transitionally dropped from 13% in 1998 to 2.5% in 2004. The government is putting leakage caps on the Income tax, sales tax coffers to counter the erosion of these by rogue crooks of businessmen, among other policy and legislative implentations.

I believe we are headed in the right direction. May Allah (SWT) bless and guide us as a nation.

Peace!

I know the son of Lt. Gen. Ehsan ul Haq. He just finished his studies in US. A ``recommendation`` came from Pakistan to the Pakistani CEO of a California based company that does off-shore software development in Pakistan to hire him. He was immediately hired.

I suppose when you are doing business in Pakistan, you can`t turn down a `request` from ISI chief.

Tadbeer kunad banda, Taqdeer zanad khanda.