Desperately Seeking Dictators and Dissenters

Salaam All! Especially to Dost-Mittarji and Stuka and Saminashah, all three of whom I owe correspondence and probably apologies.

Farzanaben, I am v briefly in Bombay/Pune and have foolishly forgotten your contact details in Sydney. Please (please, please) email me at zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com.

Salaam again. (Over and out.)

Avenger:

``Pakistanis are not normal people. They have an irrational hatred for India which characterises them , and drives them to do some really wild stuff. ``

Dude, why don`t you visit Pakistan for yourself and see how much of that ``irrartional hatred`` actually exists amongst the common people? I visited Pakistan and inspite of knowing Pakistanis for many years, discovered that I had many misconceptions myself.

``Kargil-1999 for instance , was a product of this irrational hatred.``

Not really. Kargil as a military move was rationalized not by hatred but by a tactical move which the Indians had initated in Siachen. The irrational part was the lack of an exit strategy as well as a complete lack of understanding of the opponent`s reaction. Kinda akin to 1965. The common people in Pak did not even know of Siachen till it was too late.

re: Dost-Mittar # 113

I agree, but Punjabi nationalism is more closely identified with Pakistan and there is a peculiar mindset to the province, which makes it think that it is the ``heart of Pakistan``.

Ciao

ferozk:

``Pakistan does not have a dominant power group though the army is the most organized and heirarchical in its politics and thus, the most successful.``

I think that you could have added that the army is also perhaps the most representative of the economic cross-section of the Pakistani society, except in Sindh, which would explain the lack of support for it in that province.

``I personally find the argument and reasoning that Punjab is a defacto Pakistan alarming and that Punjabi nationalism is a subsitute for Pakistani nationalism to be disconcerting.``

True, but I think that the opposite is also true, namely, that the pride in Panjabi or Sindhi language/culture is not an enemy of Pakistani nationalism.

Re: # 111

Ferozk, Thank you for a revealing post about the triumvirate that runs Pakistan - army, feudals, and bureaucracy. Also, you stated that it takes consensus among them to reach decisions. Then, were the stranded Pakis in Bangladesh so despised that all three bastions of power in Pakistan agreed not to let them back in? While you may lose ``some pride`` because of their plight, they are losing everything - lives, self-esteem, faith, hope, livelihood, and children. Some will make it back to Pakistan on their own, bribing Indians along the way and depositing some daughters in the brothels of India. I bet that will really make them lose their pride and maybe their faith in Pakistan. I have lost my faith in a country that doesn`t care for its own and a people who don`t rise up in their shame and demand that the government do the right thing.
Thanks again.

Re: kardesh # 109

I am not making any justifications for Punjab and for the record, I hold Punjab to be as guilty for the problems in Pakistan as any other province. Punjab has a lot to answer for its actions over the past 58 years of Pakistan. I personally find the argument and reasoning that Punjab is a defacto Pakistan alarming and that Punjabi nationalism is a subsitute for Pakistani nationalism to be disconcerting. I will agree with you, because I have stated this before, that Pakistan has no moral claim to be the guardian of Muslim plight internationally and its conduct in the matter of Biharis is not one to be proud.

However, I have to disagree with you on one point. What you consider as justifications, about the nature of feudal power, is quite real in Pakistan and the army is not willing to move against the feudals for a varity of reasons. One of them is that army is the biggest feudal power in Pakistan itself, due to the lands it controls directly or indirectly and is in the process of gaining and gains each year. Sindhi feudals are not the real power structure in Pakistan, because Pakistan in practice is a tri-archy of political interests. Feudals are one part of it and have to work within a consensus and thus, cannot dominate the army.

The feudals and the army and the civilian bureaucracy are the major power players and to this, one can add the religious parties as spoilers to the equation. Pakistan does not have a dominant power group though the army is the most organized and heirarchical in its politics and thus, the most successful. Policy in Pakistan is often based on a consensus of these groups and any such policy reflects a compromise; not an overt policy domination.

Ciao

Re: # 68
you did not answer to my other post-

But why are you so desperately seeking a Dictator in your life??

freozk #107, {``Sindhi feudals do not like the non-feudal nature of the Biharis and Mujhairs and their well developed political acuteness and are against the idea of losing their powers to them and hence, are against both groups in Sindh``}

Thank you for addressing the issue of stranded Pakis in BD and that there are powerful forces in Pakistan who are obstructing the return for over 34 years. If the feudals in Sindh don`t want these Muhajir Pakis (including Biharis) to come to Pakistan and they can impose their will over the mighty Punjabi-dominated power establishment, then are we saying that the real power structure in Pakistan is not the army, but the Sindhi feudals.

Please, don`t make excuses for the Punjoo establishment. We are not so naive. If they wanted to, they could bring the stranded Pakis home anytime. Saudi Arabia was willing to fund the repatriation expenses. Even then, the heartless and cruel Punjoo-dominated government of Pakistan never caved in. And they cry about Muslims in Kashmir and Gujarat - what evil hypocrites!

HP #106, {``Why do you continue to write about something that you have no knowledge about?
The opposition to bring Biharis back from Bangladesh was from Sindh and NOT Punjab! ``}

Fantastic! HP, thank you for admitting that at least someone has been against bringing Paki citiziens back to Pakistan. OK, I agree that the oppostion has always been primarily from Sindhis. Funny, how obedient the Punjabi power structure has become to Sindhi demands? Zia, a Punjoo dictator, can hang ZAB, a popular Sindhi politician, but was so afraid of Sindhi reprisals that he couldn`t do the ``Islamic`` thing to bring back stranded Muslim Pakis from BD. How convenient? Yes, blame the Sindhi opposition, what can the poor powerless Punjus do? Talk about Pontius Pilate ...

You guys are disgusting when you make excuses for pathetic, prejudiced, and insensitive Paki politicians and dictators.

re: HP # 106

Bravo, for setting the record straight!

My own understanding and knowledge, which is not as refined as yours on matter, is that most Sindhis consider the Biharis and Mujhairs (sp?) as the same and that too as a threat to the Sindhi demographic-political power equations. Sindhi feudals do not like the non-feudal nature of the Biharis and Mujhairs and their well developed political acuteness and are against the idea of losing their powers to them and hence, are against both groups in Sindh, which also explains the violent nature of Sindhi politics to some extent.

This is, ironically, the same issue which is fermenting problems in Baluchistan and the issue is one about the power of feudals. The feudals never accepted the idea of Pakistan and were against it, because the idealism of Pakistan was against the traditions of feudalism itself. Once, they could not stop Pakistan from happening, they did the next best thing, which was to dominate the new government of Pakistan and prevent it from addressing the issue of land reforms and getting rid of the institutionalism of feudalism.

Ciao

#105 by kardesh

“What Pakistan wants everyone to forget are the hundreds of thousands of its own citizens who have been languishing in refugee camps in Bangladesh since `71. Because they don`t hail from Punjab”

Why do you continue to write about something that you have no knowledge about?

The opposition to bring Biharis back from Bangladesh was from Sindh and NOT Punjab!

In fact, Punjab was willing to accept all Biharis and many biharis were initially settled in Punjab. The fear in Sindh was that all Biharis would come and settle in karchi disrupting the population equation in that province.
Now I am not going to write the whole history of the issue but to let you know that huge political movements were launched throughout the 70s in Sindh to stop Biharis from coming to Pakistan. In Sindh, the opposition to Bihari migration is still strong.

Thousands of Biharis made it to Pakistan on their own, mostly, via India or Burma in the early 70s. They were accommodated in several areas in Punjab along with agriculture lands and in some jobs too. Almost all of them moved to Karachi in just a few months and that resulted in huge protests in Sindh.
If you have ever lived in Karachi, you would have been aware of a slogan “Bihari na Khappan”.

Farzana,
Regardless of whether Pakistan is really a failed state or not, it certainly should seem that way to the hundreds of thousands of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh.

The rationale for Pakistan started to fade away with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. It was fatally proven that Islam does not a country make. That year saw the abrogation of the TNT. The stub Pakistan has limped along for another three decades - alternating between authoritarian civilian ``democratic`` regimes and relatively benign military ``dictatorships.`` After the `71 defeat, Pakistan campaigned almost on a daily basis to bring back the cowardly do-or-die soldiers who raped, killed, and surrendered in that order.

What Pakistan wants everyone to forget are the hundreds of thousands of its own citizens who have been languishing in refugee camps in Bangladesh since `71. Because they don`t hail from Punjab, unlike the defeated Paki soldiers, these poor stranded citizens of Pakistan and their descendants are at the mercy of the UN, the government and people of Bangladesh, and various Christian missionary organizations.

How can a country profess to carry on a struggle for Kashmiri ``Muslim brethren`` when it ignores the plight of those who were already Pakistani ``Muslim brethren?`` Is it that all Pakistan cares for is the land in Kashmir and control over the vital rivers that carry water to the lands of Punjab?

Salim Ahmed Chauhan

In order to transition Pakistan into a functioning democracy, you need to instill the importance, firm belief, and a sense of sanctity about democracy into people`s thinking. Just as Ataturk Mustafa Kemal Pasha had done for Turkey, Musharraf is dictating democracy to Pakistan. How well he accomplishes this immense task will be determined by key challenges in the future. In Pakistan winning a national election means ``capital punishment`` for the losers. The winners go for revenge and the losers attempt an immediate comeback, even through violence. Then there are vested interests such as landlords, ``industrialists,`` Punjabi hegemony proponents, Mullahs fantasizing about Islami Nizam, and the armed forces looking for an enemy they can defeat. These forces want to make sure that their voices are all paramount, regardless of what the public really wants.

Salim Ahmed Chauhan

nasah #101: What I am trying to point out is that Lee Kuan Yu and Musharraf are both dictators. And that both and their parties have been endorsed by a Constitution. Albeit in twisted versions.

A father running a country, then passing it on to his son, with a daughter-in-law running a huge govt. owned compnay. The whole country being run by one party, since its inception, with currently only two members of opposition in the parliament?

Is that not dictatorship in your book? Had Yu been an economic failure, him and his govt. etc. would have been put in the same league as those of Asad, Mubarak etc. The reason he is considered a success story is because of his economic successes.

This is my whole point. I am not saying Musharraf is Yu. What I am saying is that Yu is a dictatory; albeit it a very good one. And that if Musharraf`s economic policies take off, no one is going to give a crap about how he got into power and stayed there. Much like no one bothers about Yu and son, dominating Singapore politically.........

Anyone can be a dictator. Jinnah could have been one. Infact, he seemed to have started centralizing power much like Yu did, after independence of Pakistan..............Yu, in a dictatorial mode, is the best thing that ever happened to Singapore. Just like Muhathir in the same mode is the best thing that happened to Malaysia.............

If people oppose dictatorships, on principal, then they should oppose what Yu and Muhathir have done, politically, in their countries also..........

FV,

The laws of supply and demand continue to rule the world.

Dictators come and go, but the quest for general (no pun intended)

improvement in the lives of the masses remains the permanent goal.

Pakistan has many problems to address. A bad image is just one.

India has a good image but it has many more problems to face.

And as the loaded dice are rolled in Washington, Dictators

become either holy messengers or end up Holi (pun intended).

Ras

``Neither Musharraf nor Lee Kuan Yu are despots. But are the absolute rulers. Yes they are, as are their parties, thereby, making them both dictators.

People should keep in mind that both Musharraf and Yu are (were) in power, on the basis of a Constitution. Albeit, a twisted version of it.``(Romair)

to include Musharraf -- with Lee Kuan -- whose life-time of political struggle deservedly calls him the Father of Modern Singapore -- as ``both`` -- reminds me of the story of a donkey rider standing at Delhi Gate at mid night -- with 4 Mughal horsemen of Mughal Cavalry -- to enter the city -- ``who is there`` -- the gate gaurd shouted -- before the cavalry guys could answer the donkey rider shot back -- `` hum haiN PanchoN Sawar``......

meray Aziz Bhai Romair mian -- are you trying to rewrite history as a revisionist historian?

...are you telling us ``to keep in mind`` -- that Musharraf came to power on the basis of an already ``twisted`` Constitution -- not by Pistol-Whipping an elected government in broad day light -- and THEN -- by personally mutilating a Constitution?.......are you...:-)