Altaf Hussain Visits India: His Keynote Speech

Yaseer,
Yaar aab tau bataa do ki yeh ``talaq`` ka kissa kya hai? Ramzaan bhi aab tau ho chuka..
Veeresh comes to Lahore. And you just go bonkers. What happeed during that visit? Did you see him with his pants down too? You must have seen lot of guys with pants down....

Love

Oye Manto,
I forgot to give you a very friendly feedback. Did someone tell you that you behave like a girl?

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

friend,

My solitary post to Veeresh has somehow qualified for an obsession?

How about the fact that every time you raise your snakehead on chowk you only have something to say about me, or quote from the only book you ever read... need I remind you which one?

Your posts are lame and played out....

Please come up with fresh new insults.

Thankyou

Yasser

HP...

It is amazing how chowk staff only makes these mistakes when Sadna gets involved... this is not the first time something like this has happened.... I can personally quote several different incidents ... maybe this chowk associate nonsense is just not working out... Meanwhile friend was caught with his pants down... and yet no response from the chowk staff.

Chowk Staff,

I can see that you are losing it big time. #110 was not my post to begin with. So you are first posting something on my behalf and then deleting it. Thats really cool!

I am not going to protest your removing of my earlier post. That post did not violate any chowk policy and but it seems that you are trying to curry favors with some people. It is your site go ahaed and do whatever you like.

Are old indian lahoris buying property in Lahore?
...an astounding column by Mazdak in Dawn, Extract:

An interesting theory I heard about the resilience of Lahore`s property boom was based on a major speculator`s view that prices would stay high because of Indian interest. Many Indians retain an enormous emotional attachment to Lahore, and apparently, some of them would be happy to own property there. It seems that several benami or anonymous transactions have already taken place.

The military is the biggest single land owner in and around Lahore, and has developed housing schemes extending close to the border. The biggest single group to benefit from the property boom are serving and retired military officers. But booms can only be sustained in peacetime. Talk of war sends the markets tumbling overnight, and billions in paper profits are wiped out.

Apart from real estate, the army also owns and controls the largest industrial empire in the country through its Fauji Foundation. This welfare organization has expanded steadily over the years and employs hundreds of retired officers.

It has done so well because it has no problems in getting approvals and licences of all kinds, and does not have to pay kickbacks as the rest of the private sector does.

Thus, it becomes clear that the military`s corporate interests lie in peace with India, rather than a state of confrontation. Earlier, conventional wisdom held that only a situation of no-war, no-peace suited the army as a settlement of outstanding disputes would lead to a reduction in our defence budget.

This thesis no longer holds good because in the current `war on terror`, there can be no question of trimming our defence forces. For the first time, the GHQ can contemplate peace with India without facing a demand for reduced defence spending.

And in this changed scenario, our national interests become realigned with the army`s. The bottom line is that peace suits all groups except, perhaps, the right-wing religious parties and their jihadi extensions.

Earlier, the military`s need to protect its corporate interests came at the cost of national interests which lay in increasing trade with India while reining in the jihadis.

This could not be done as these elements were being used by the establishment to further its own agenda. Now, with the on- going realignment in the military`s perceptions, a crucial component in the effort to make peace has fallen into place.

Earlier analyses of Musharraf`s true intentions and motives of wanting peace with India had examined the more obvious factors. For starters, there was the constant pressure from the Bush administration that did not want to be distracted in its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by a sideshow between India and Pakistan.

Then there was the growing realization that we simply could not afford to maintain a credible conventional defence posture in the face of the rapid strides being made by the Indian economy.

But what has really tipped the balance is the knowledge of the direct financial loss that would be incurred by tens of thousands of serving and retired officers across the country, specially in Punjab, in case of renewed tension on the border. While this view might strike some as being overly cynical, in reality it is a very healthy and welcome attitude.

According to received wisdom, no democracy attacks another. Perhaps a case can be made for the theory which holds that no prosperous middle class attacks another. For some time now, businessmen in India have been exerting quiet pressure on their government to reduce tension on the border.

In the last few months that have seen better relations, a number of business delegations have travelled back and forth, examining the prospects of trade and industry. There is talk of all kinds of deals. Once peace does break out, the markets will surge on both sides of the border.

I have long maintained that Pakistan can only become a normal country once it sheds its fixation with Kashmir. This single event would reduce the appeal of the religious militants, even if it doesn`t immediately reduce defence spending. But if the prospect of war recedes, the stranglehold the military currently has on the polity of Pakistan would gradually loosen.

Perhaps all this is wishful thinking, and the army will maintain its grip. Maybe, like Burma`s generals, ours will cling to power indefinitely. But experience shows us that prosperity follows democracy, and if our military elite pays its usual attention to the bottom line, there is hope for all of us yet.

nakhok carefull excluded the beginning portion of the essay, however I do give him credit for providing the link.

A love-hate relationship


By Ayaz Amir

The Muttahida (formerly Mohajir) Qaumi Movement (MQM) has had a love-hate relationship with the army.

There is enough anecdotal evidence to show that General Ziaul Haq and the ``agencies`` - the catchall word most commonly used in Pakistan to denote the grim underworld of army intelligence - had a powerful hand in the birth of the MQM, the purpose of this benign exercise being to build, in Sindh, a counterweight to the Pakistan Peoples` Party.

Did the agencies know what they were doing, what genie they were letting out of the bottle? Outstripping the goals of its mentors, the MQM soon grew into a powerful organization in its own right, the uncontested voice of the Mohajir under-privileged in Karachi and Hyderabad.

The MQM`s theme, with its echoes of fascism: the victimhood of the Mohajir under-class. The MQM`s message: emancipation through collective self-assertion. Its leader: a firebrand orator, Altaf Hussain (soon a Pir to his followers), possessing to an uncanny degree the power to whip up the passions and frenzy of his followers.

In a famous speech, Altaf Hussain called upon the party faithful to sell their TV sets and buy guns instead. Mass mobilization and tactics aimed at instilling fear in the hearts of opponents - I am choosing my words carefully - became hallmarks of the MQM`s politics.

From 1990 when Nawaz Sharif became prime minister for the first time, until mid-1995 when Benazir Bhutto`s interior minister Naseerullah Babar launched a vicious crackdown against the MQM, Karachi remained in the grip of a reign of terror, far more sinister and all-embracing than any terror generated by any martial law. Dissidents went in fear of their lives. Armed gangs collected protection money across Karachi. Newspapers, including the most well-established, bowed before the prevailing winds.

General Aslam Beg, who became army chief on General Zia`s death, had an unmistakable soft corner for the MQM. Well-founded rumour had it that he helped pitch the MQM into the ranks of the opposition to then prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

General Asif Nawaz who stepped into Beg`s shoes had other ideas. Not long after his installation he decided to crack down on the MQM. Marked by half-measures, this move came to nothing, the MQM bruised but by no means incapacitated. In any event, the situation was sufficiently fraught to persuade Pir Altaf Hussain to leave Pakistan and take up self-exile in the United Kingdom.

As part of the anti-MQM campaign, the ubiquitous agencies, encouraged a splinter faction to break away from the parent body and challenge Altaf Hussain`s leadership. This splinter faction was known as the Haqiqis, or the real ones.

Naseerullah Babar`s mid-1995 crackdown, marked by a spree of extra-judicial killings of important MQM workers by the police (workers suspected of terrorism but convicted by no court of the crime) brought the organization to its knees. The Haqiqis ruled Karachi`s urban sprawl unchallenged.

This state of affairs continued until General Pervez Musharraf`s political requirements, allied perhaps with his intrinsic sympathies, brought about another turn of the wheel. At the time of the celebrated referendum in 2002 - an event famous for its long lines of phantom voters, voters spotted miraculously by no one except the eagle-eyed Chief Election Commissioner, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan - and the general elections in October the same year, in which the clear military interest was to manufacture a pro-Musharraf majority - Gen Musharraf needed all the political support he could get. One of the sources of that support was the MQM and its mercurial chief in London.

The basics of a deal settled, the rest fell into place swiftly. Overnight the agencies abandoned the Haqiqis, leaving them to their fate, while shifting their fickle favour once more to the mainstream MQM. The police and other security agencies helped physically evict the Haqiqis from their strongholds in Landhi, Korangi, etc. This change of favourites was carried out with all the ruthlessness and lack of sentiment typical of such turnarounds

The MQM`s share in the federal cabinet, and Ishratul Ibad`s appointment as Sindh governor, are part of this (informal) deal between the MQM and the powers that be.
.... continue on #108 nakhok

*** This response removed for violating chowk interact guidelines. ***

Chowk Staff

HP #103: My comment about Sindhis (and others) having biases seems to have made you a bit emotional :-) That was not my intention. One need not get emotional over such comments. Perhaps you are not biased. I know the rest of us do have biases. And I think most people would accept the fact that Sindhis, in general, do not like Muhajirs, the military or Punjabis. I think there is quite a bit of legitimacy in their dislikes, and they have good reason to dislike the above-mentioned.

Having said that, I don`t think one should base one`s analyses solely on biases or dislikes (even legitimate ones). For example, if someone dislikes Indians, as a whole, they will see India as the problem in everything. Ditto for other dislikes. One cannot view Muhajirs, or military or Punjabis as one entity. They all have their faults and assets.

In addition one may end up in a situation where one`s dislikes contradict each. Many people disliked the Army and maulvis. This worked fine, when Zia and maulvis were aligned. But now the Army, under Musharraf, has taken on the maulvis and has defanged them. Now those individuals don`t know what to do. Do they still hate the Army, in which case, the become pro-maulvi. Or do they hate the mauvli and side with the Army. Similarly if one dislikes Altaf and the Army, then where does one stand when Army is taking on Altaf.

You seem to have admired Altaf Hussain`s ability to take on the Army. And have sided with him, after highlighting so many faults in him, due to this reason. I don`t think it is correct to blanketly oppose the Army or anyone else. One has to see what it is doing. If it is taking on Altaf for the right reasons, then it should be supported. If, for the wrong reasons, then it should be opposed. Same with Muhajirs and Punjabis. Otherwise all your arguments will be dictated solely by your dislikes and not by actual facts. It is very difficult to remain objective in such circumstances.

``you are swinging all over the place. What you wanna hit at?``

I don`t think I am hitting all over the place. I have just stated the following, again and again: I think Muhajirs are the most progressive and successful community in Pakistan. And that Altaf Hussain and the MQM have done far more harm to this community than good. At the same time, MQM is a true middle-class party and would become an asset to Pakistan, if it had a different leadership and discarded its ethnic biases.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 November 2004 Friday 28 Ramazan 1425

A love-hate relationship
By Ayaz Amir

..... The chequered history of MQM-military relations ..... makes for interesting reading: the MQM mid-wifed by one army chief, General Ziaul Haq; awarded medals of patriotism by another, Gen Beg; pursued and hunted by yet another, Gen Asif Nawaz; and in the pantheon of patriotism rehabilitated once again by another military benefactor, Gen Musharraf. Viewed from any angle, Altaf Hussain owes a lot to Gen Musharraf.

Which makes it all the more remarkable that he should have chosen to air views and utter sentiments during his recent trip to India which can only confuse and alarm many of his countrymen. Any individual is entitled to his views and if Altaf Hussain questions the wisdom of partition or the continued relevance of the two-nation theory as an individual it is nothing extraordinary. Not long ago, such views would have unleashed a firestorm in Pakistan. Not any more, perhaps because we are more blase about such talk than we used to be. Or perhaps as a nation we have become more mature, at ease discussing questions and propositions once considered heretical.

But Altaf Hussain is not just an individual. He is the head of a major political organization which, for good or ill, also happens to be a coalition partner of the military-dominated government. Any controversy he ignites, especially one which questions the very basis of the creation of Pakistan, is bound to rub off on his military patrons.

The military prides itself on being the guardian of the country`s ideological frontiers (never mind its less than complete success in safeguarding the country`s geographical frontiers). And here a leader basking in the warmth of military favour, pours honey and balm into the ears of his Delhi listeners by scoffing at the very idea of Pakistan.

There is already enough confusion in Pakistan, much of it spawned by the politics of this military government (its civilian facade no more than a facade). The nation probably can do without more confusion. Pakistan-scepticism on the part of habitual Pakistan detractors is one thing. But emanating from the heart of one of Musharraf`s core constituencies, it is bound to sow misgivings in the minds of ordinary Pakistanis. Where are we headed? they are likely to ask.

In this mounting confusion, it is relevant to ask: after five years of Musharraf-inspired nation-building, where does the nation stand? At the crossroads of violence, terrorism, the rise of mullah power, the squeezing of the mainstream parties which for all their failings and blunders represent the cause of democracy, and now, from an important quarter, doubts about the basis of Pakistan.

To crown everything is the insistence on the president continuing also as army chief, the implication being that otherwise events are likely to spin out of control. This is not a very flattering impression of Pakistan and fostering it is no service to the nation.

veeresh #99
``The whole interact has, to a large extent, moved from whether what Altaf said was worthwhile to whether he should be allowed to say something. ``

Both are linked. Ideally, politicians of India and Pakistan(and Bangladesh and Nepal, etc) would talk and know each other, literary personalities and artists ditto, businessmen ditto, other groups ditto- a bit like the cricketers do. That sort of acquaintaince is part of how civilised countries coexist.

Here the various politicians in Pakistan(and perhaps to some extent Bangladesh) are unable to find ways to even coexist with each other. Do you think the major leaders in either of these countries can even sit together in one gathering and listen to each other speak? I sort of doubt it.

Mantoram #101
Oh ya ya, I am Harsh, and I am Veeresh and I am also Sadna. I am everyone and everyone is an instance of me. That is what Krishna says in Gita.

But let us leave philosophy aside..

Your thumkas and the way you squirm and wriggle is what makes even straight guys want to make you a ``chowkra`` or whatever our Bihari bhai call it.. Accept that offer..

BTW, you didn`t come back on why you are so obsessed with ``talaq`` of Veeresh..

http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/22/top15.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
22 June 2000 Thursday 18 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1421

Two-Nation theory was wrong, says Altaf

LONDON, June 21: Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain has said that the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 proves that the Two-Nation Theory of Pakistan`s founders was a ``farce`` and ``it was the biggest fraud played with the Muslims of India.``

``Events after the creation of Pakistan have proved that it was a wrong theory,`` he said, adding that if the theory was correct, he would be convinced only when the government agreed to open borders and allow Indian Muslims to settle in Pakistan and repatriated stranded Pakistanis living in Bangladeshi camps.

Talking to a delegation of intellectuals and professors from the Sub-continent, which visited the MQM International Secretariat, Mr Hussain claimed that history had proved that the Two-Nation Theory was wrong.

No name of the delegation members, or from which city they had come, was mentioned in a press release issued on Wednesday from the MQM International Secretariat.

Saying that there was no future of Pakistan, which was disintegrated in 1971 and whose remaining part is ``on the verge of catastrophe,`` the MQM chief said that East Bengal was the first to support the creation of Pakistan based on the Two-Nation Theory.

But the same part rectified its mistake by separating itself in 1971 thus ``proving that the theory was a farce``.

He said the supporters of the theory were now asking the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh to opt for Bangladeshi citizenship or settle in any Muslim country instead of inviting them back to Pakistan.

``On what ideological basis are you offering such an advice to the stranded Pakistanis? Does this advice relate to the concept of the Two-Nation Theory or does it negate the very concept?,`` he asked.

He said that if we analyse the history of the Pakistan Movement, it emerged that virtually all Muslim majority provinces of the present-day Pakistan had opposed the creation of Pakistan. He said only the Sindh Assembly had supported the creation of Pakistan and that too with a majority of only one vote.

Mr Hussain said that all those who had supported the concept of the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan, including Mr GM Syed, had been labelled as ``traitors`` in Pakistan.

``Mr Fazl-i-Haq, the Lion of Bengal, who had presented the Pakistan Resolution, was labelled as a ``traitor,`` the Sindhis were labelled as ``traitors``, the Balochs were labelled as ``traitors``; and now the Mohajirs have also been labelled as ``traitors,`` he said.

The MQM chief said that the Pakistan army had forced the people of East Pakistan to separate by carrying out their massacre in 1970 and raping their women. Similarly, he said, the army had marched against Balochs and Sindhis and now it had been targeting Mohajirs for last eight years.

``The army operation against Mohajirs, which commenced on June 19, 1992, was also a negation of the Two-Nation Theory,`` he said.

Mr Hussain also said that the formation of a nation on the basis of religion was fundamentally wrong because if the religion was the basis for nationhood then more than 45 independent and sovereign Muslim states would not have been the members of the United Nations as separate and independent states.

He said though it was claimed that Pakistan was being created for 100 million Muslims of India, it became the homeland of Muslims of the Muslim majority provinces only.

``Today, if we compare the population of Muslims living in Pakistan with that of the Muslims living in India then we see that the population of Muslims in India is much more than the total Muslim population of Pakistan.

It means that the Two-Nation Theory has failed to provide protection and security to the majority of Muslims of the Sub-continent because the number of Muslims living in India is greater than the total Muslims of Pakistan,`` he said. ``If the Muslims of India were to remain under the Hindu majority then why were they taught the doctrine of the Pakistan Movement and the Two-Nation Theory,?`` he asked.

``The Golden Rule: Any group or party or institution with lifetime Presidents will eventually decline......``

Thus spake romair. Now please tell this to Musharaff.

salim#100:
A few times that I have interjected is when indecent remarks are made regarding women. Actually, I dont think that I should even then but I do it despite myself.