Homecoming of Zardari

HP (#14)
I have seen you make funny (and sometimes not so funny) comments on so many topics that it is a pleasant surprise to learn that you have a serious side – at least on this issue. (I am sorry if I said anything (in jest) to miff you at any time. (I also humbly withdraw the wisecrack I made earlier about you being a relative of Benazir. It somehow appeared funny when I wrote it, but does not seem so anymore.) Seriously, although you do have some set beliefs which are probably very inflexible, you also maintain humor most of the time and perhaps should not be lumped in with the league of the “stronger” characters here.)

You are right that I do not have any training in political science. However, one need not have one to make a judgment call on some very simple facts: (1) the army’s occupation is illegal, (2) politicians have helped mess things up, (3) Z.A. Bhutto had a golden opportunity to have made a real positive difference to the life of his people but instead chose to focus only on personal gains (ill-serving the nation in the process), and (4) although you throw a lot of “political science” terms at us, you are not suggesting any new solutions, just more of the same.

In fairness, the article does not suggest any solutions either, but it is a satire and like all satires it can invoke angry reactions. I think it is okay to make fun of political leaders (you have done so yourself many times).

After some thinking, I DO see your point about PPP. In fact, it is probably the most legitimate political entity and has had a good track record of improving ties with India. (If only they could get away from the “worship the personality) cult!

[The author is still wet behind the ears ….]
I don’t know enough on that. Generally speaking, one ought to ENCOURAGE those who are new to a field rather than attempt to “put them in place”.

BeeJay,

I like to have a couple of straight shots before I open this site in the evening. (I hate Gin and Tonic it is too dry. I don’t know how Hamidm handles that…) some of my posts may appear rambling but I look at the political process differently.
I hope this post would clarify what my thought process is and respond to post #16.

Long post but someone has to do it!

#16.
None of the five principles are a prerequisite for an independent state. On the morning of Aug 15th, both Pakistan and India had none of that. They continued with India act of 1935.
Constitution is a compromise document between different school of thoughts, economic interests, and social influences in a country. When a consensus is achieved on an issue outside of the constitution, constitution is amended to reflect that. Constitution is a requirement of the modern state. Before Magna Carta and Industrial revolution no country had a constitution but most of them were independent.
I am not going to go in details but I will give you enough to research for yourself. The Chinese constitution was adopted on December 4, 1982. China was a fully sovereign and independent country before that and it still is. The elected nature of the Chinese government is debatable. There are many examples of that and a Google search on constitution history of many courtiers would help you make a decision.

“At best, Pakistan is like Castro`s state.”
Castro state is an independent country and so far no one has claimed any legal rights over that country, the US propaganda notwithstanding.

“Pakistani Establishment = Pak. Army + their cohorts in business and land owning class who masquerade as ``Politicians``
There is no country in this world at this point of time in history that is being ruled by a non property owning class and Pakistan is no exception. Why would it be held against Pakistan and not against the US or even India for that matter? All property owners or their reps masquerade as “politicians” again Pakistan is no exception.

“when army needs them are in the league of genocides based on what they did”

While nobody condones what the Pak army did in East Pakistan, the US army has been involved in two massacres in Iraq and that too against an independent country. Before you make a big deal out of this try and understand the point here.

The Pak army sits on top of the political pyramid in Pakistan and all political parties in Pakistan and all neighbors or other international agencies have to deal with it as the current representative of Pakistan. In Pakistani internal politics, there are two ways to remove the army. 1. Use the force and 2. Use the changing international and internal Pakistani situation to create an atmosphere for political parties to become an alternate for the army if and when situation presents itself.
The first option is pretty much not doable. The second option requires strategic thinking and planning. The US is pushing the Pak army to first liberalize Pakistan, and second to improve relations with India.

I don’t care what the Kashmir solution is; it may stay with India, it may go to Pakistan or may become an independent state. From my point of view only thing that matters is that this conflict is off the table. As long as the Kashmir conflict is alive, democracy will never take roots in Pakistan and this sword will continue to hang over the forces of liberalism and modernism in Pakistan.

The Pak army like the US army or the Soviet army in Afghanistan or many other imperialist armies of the world had been used to quash political oppositions, struggles for political rights. But in no instance in the modern history the US was shunned because its army massacred Iraqi. No one ever shunned the Soviet Union. No one ever shunned the British after the Jilainwala bagh in the British India.

The Pak army will pay for its crime only when Pak political parties show enough maturity to appear as a viable alternate and get full support and the confidence of the people of Pakistan along with the International forces such as the US and India.

Right now the liberalization and relations with India need support from all. The Pak army has to be continually pressed for both endeavors. Political parties don’t have to do it by joining the army but they can do it by supporting the process from the outside.

Beejay,

Why this author never tried to ridicule Gen. Musharaf or Gen Zia? Why only the civilians are a target of ridicule? I am all for encouraging people and I often do it. But I also see the motives behind an article.
Btw, He is not new; his other articles show a pattern.

#16 by Raw_Dust on May 3, 2005 5:02pm PT
A-
My def. of a free and independent State consists of the following Concrete points:

1 - State has a constitution sanctioned by an electoral body
2 - State is governed by an electoral college constitued through an adult franchise which empowers persons/ministers to exercise authotiy on their behalf.
3 - There is a well-defined succession principle approved by the electorate and enacted through constitution.
4 - Independent Judiciary.
5 - Independent Press.

---

Thank you for describing India in five points.I couldn`t have asked for a better description.And, we are a billion people, with any number of religions and races.What is pakistan`s excuse?.

Mr. Zardari`s achievements are well known to most Pakistanis, if not all. The writeup above presents him and his cohorts, including his foes, in an entertaining manner. Humor is important to prevent myopia and it keeps a mind thinking :-)~~

Thank you Nauman!

The Interacts
Both HP and BeeJay are correct for the most part. However, we need to maintain a realistic perspective when it comes to solution.

Given the fact both the army and the political parties have plundered the country equally in term of tangibles, by virtue of its identity the latter has done more harm overall to destroy the political process. In other words, while most of us resent the army rulers, they seem lesser evil than the BBs and NSs. Starting from ZAB, instead of firmly establishing the judiciary, law enforcement, education, and other critical institutions the political parties, as well as the army, have destroyed it for personal gains.

With all due respect to HP, the following appears very Chalabi-esque:

The Pak army will pay for its crime only when Pak political parties show enough maturity to appear as a viable alternate and get full support and the confidence of the people of Pakistan along with the International forces such as the US and India.

Secondly, why should the US and India help stabilize Pakistan? What do they stand to gain?

As far as I can see, they will be negatively affected to varying degrees if and when Pakistan stabilizes and prospers. US will not be able maintain as much hegemony as it enjoys now to gain control over the Central Asian resources, as well as keep Iran and China in check. A stable Pakistan will make it more difficult for them. India will not be able to exploit a stable Pakistan as much either, as well as lose some portion of the market share in terms of economics. Therefore, it would be only a wishful thinking to expect any other country to help stabilize Pakistan in the post WTO quota free environment.

At the end of the day, it`s all about economics and control over resources. Everyone of the people, parties, and countries mentioned here only care about amassing wealth, and do it the best way they know how. People never have mattered for them, neither will they ever.

While the concept of Modern ``Democracy`` is to have alternate opinion, in the US and UK, people generally agree on one thing. Lately the geo-political misadventures of the few financially driven individuals and parties have driven the people apart and the divide is growing rapidly.

Communism, Capitalism, Modern Democracy and all other man-made systems have brought only short term gains to the countries, but then they all fizzle away. US is in that very process now.

I wish I could accept your solution(s), but your straight shots have impaired your thinking. As many problem as Pakistan suffers from, none of the above systems can rebuild the country for the long haul. That goal can only be achieved with implementation of Islam in its truest form.

It always happens when human with his limited knowledge messes around with nature. Muslims enjoyed the superpower status longer than any current or recent superpower, because the system they used is made by the Entity Who Created this earth and all its inhabitants. Allah devised it according to strenghts and weaknesses of everything on this planet. Unfortunately, the selfishness of individuals and tempering with the nature brought the Muslims down to the condition they`re in today. But then, throughout the history of mankind Islam is the only system that has brought about justice and prosperity through the messengers of Allah (pbut). Probably things will have to get much worse, before True Islam makes a resurgence. Until then the more we wiggle to get out the swamp into the ``Democracy``, we`ll sink in deeper. It is the nature of this mortal world. This is how nature keeps it going and regains control. Therefore, Islam being the one and only natural system is the one and only solution.

Our ``enlightened`` and ``politically scientific`` will have to give up the straight shots and Gin and Tonic, before they could be taken seriously, even if they say the right things. Just like in a court of law a witnesses is not allowed to be intoxicated at all during his/her testimony, becuase one or more individual`s life depends on it. Here we`re discussing the future of an entire nation. And if experienced elders can`t fathom this minor but critical factor, then one cannot expect the younger generation to produce any viable result with their meager experience and knowledge.

Ironically, even the Indians (Hindus), who had been ruled by outsiders for at least a millennium until 50+ years ago, are ``claiming`` to be better people. At this point in time they may very well be, though it has yet to be proven.

#18
I agree with the overall focus of what you wrote though i disagree on independence bit, you were describing sanctity of international borders more than anything, anyway. The US gov. is one of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses but i dont see how it is relevant to Pak. Army`s illustrious record.

I would just say this: I donot think Army as we know it in Pakistan cannot go so far as to make a regression back to its Constitutional (`73) role whenever that much hoped for godess of liberal-democracy will descend on Islamabad. This is just my impression.

Re: # 21

Ironically, even the Indians (Hindus), who had been ruled by outsiders for at least a millennium until 50+ years ago, are ``claiming`` to be better people. At this point in time they may very well be, though it has yet to be proven.


Tsk.Tsk.Indians are hindus, muslims, christians,buddhists, parsis, jews,jains and communists belonging to distinct anthropological races , from the Negrito to the proto-Australoid, Dolichocephalic to the Sarasvati-Sindhu (often called Indus valley or Mohenjodaro) ,Alpo-Dinarian to the proto-Nordic (dolicho-)mesocephalic ,Indic asian to the Mongoloid.We are a better people for our unity in diversity, our tolerance and now our determined and collective effort at hard work and industriousness.Which would not be possible if we weren`t united.And, therefore our unity is our strength, not only in numbers but also in purpose.

I really appreciate the comments posted so far.

I understand that it is difficult to take a mainstream approach to some of the op-ed pieces. Due to their inherent nature, they are supposed to stir up controversy and that may not sit well, all the time with all the readers.

Chowkies are a tough crowd which includes a diverse bunch with different strengths, backgrounds, mindsets and/or established political affiliations. There are some who would praise you and then some who would slaughter you. You take your chances once you are out in the open.

I regard all of them highly and love them equally without any reservations.

P.S: With regard to interact # 19: I did point a finger towards army in my previous article ``Pakistan Political Roulette” of March 24, 2005. So I should be absolved of my sins for ridiculing only the civilians.

Nauman Nisar.

ntsyed #21

`` Secondly, why should the US and India help stabilize Pakistan? What do they stand to gain? ``

I do not know what India gains with an unstable Pakistan ? Especially one with nuclear weapons.

`` As far as I can see, they will be negatively affected to varying degrees if and when Pakistan stabilizes and prospers. US will not be able maintain as much hegemony as it enjoys now to gain control over the Central Asian resources, as well as keep Iran and China in check. A stable Pakistan will make it more difficult for them. India will not be able to exploit a stable Pakistan as much either, as well as lose some portion of the market share in terms of economics. Therefore, it would be only a wishful thinking to expect any other country to help stabilize Pakistan in the post WTO quota free environment. ``

Pakistani armchair strategists make it sound like the Central Asian republics have an infinite amount of natural resources. You have less than 100 billion barrels of oil. That might sound like $5 trillion. Except when you factor in the costs of drilling and transportation of the hydrocarbons it might not amount to much.

`` Communism, Capitalism, Modern Democracy and all other man-made systems have brought only short term gains to the countries, but then they all fizzle away. US is in that very process now. ``

The people of Western Europe have enjoyed peace, prosperity on a scale unseen in history. If you want to call 50 years as short term I suppose that is subjective.

`` It always happens when human with his limited knowledge messes around with nature. Muslims enjoyed the superpower status longer than any current or recent superpower, because the system they used is made by the Entity Who Created this earth and all its inhabitants. Allah devised it according to strenghts and weaknesses of everything on this planet. Unfortunately, the selfishness of individuals and tempering with the nature brought the Muslims down to the condition they`re in today. ``

A lot of contradictions in the above statements -
When did Muslims exactly enjoy superpower status ?

If Allah designed the system (your claim) he did a poor job of designing the system. The system has not withstood the passage of time.

`` But then, throughout the history of mankind Islam is the only system that has brought about justice and prosperity through the messengers of Allah (pbut). Probably things will have to get much worse, before True Islam makes a resurgence. Until then the more we wiggle to get out the swamp into the ``Democracy``, we`ll sink in deeper. It is the nature of this mortal world. This is how nature keeps it going and regains control. Therefore, Islam being the one and only natural system is the one and only solution.``

A lot of lofty claims !!!

Define some of these terms for lesser mortals like me - ``true Islam``, justice, prosperity

What is unislamic about democracy? Other than the fact the majority could decide to be un-Islamic !!!

`` Ironically, even the Indians (Hindus), who had been ruled by outsiders for at least a millennium until 50+ years ago, are ``claiming`` to be better people. At this point in time they may very well be, though it has yet to be proven. ``

When you say Hindus were ruled by outsiders for 1000 years you make it sound like every Hindu has been living under a Muslim ruler for 1000 years. It looks like some people have never heard of Raja of Mysore, Raja of Travancore, Marathas, Rajput kings, Raja of Kashmir etc.

All work and no play makes jack a dull boy indeed.One should be grateful to india`s planners that they have clearly developed each region of the country acc. to its` strengths.Some zoned exclusively for industrial areas, and some for recreation, like Goa, Kovalam et al for beach lovers, the myriad hill stations for scenery people,some for resorts like coorg etc., the north east (Aizawl, Kohima, Gangtok) for mountain climbing and trekkers,Himachal Pradesh for almost everything due to its` beautiful climate, apart from the big cities and towns which are the driving force of the new india!!!.Here is a cut-and-paste link to one of india`s main playgrounds, Goa.A lot of planning has gone into making it india`s answer to south beach/miami of the US.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=203226&page=1&pp=20

Good governance, rule of constitution and law, a powerful presidential figure who acts as the moral authority for the nation, good/strong and capable executive(PM), powerful party bosses(Sonia, Advani, Karat,Ibrahim e.g.), organized poltical party cadres and grassroots panchayat(people`s voice) are all fundamental requirements of a body politic.They take years and concerted efforts by all parties to develop.India is reaping the rewards of sticking with the basic common objective over 50 years.

Re: # 26

I do not know what India gains with an unstable Pakistan ? Especially one with nuclear weapons.

Thank you for your agreement :-)~~

Pakistani armchair strategists make it sound like the Central Asian republics have an infinite amount of natural resources. You have less than 100 billion barrels of oil. That might sound like $5 trillion. Except when you factor in the costs of drilling and transportation of the hydrocarbons it might not amount to much.

That`s your perception that you`re entitled to. Besides, this is only one of the factors driving the American/Western hegemony in this region. I`m sure you can figure out the rest on your own, as I`m not about to take on another tangent here.

The people of Western Europe have enjoyed peace, prosperity on a scale unseen in history. If you want to call 50 years as short term I suppose that is subjective.

Again, it`s your perspective that you`re entitled to. When commenting on civilizations and long-term, most prominent historians consider 50 years even less than short-term and use terms like ``in just 50 short years...``

When did Muslims exactly enjoy superpower status ?

Just a few clues for you: The Mughal dynasty, the Ottoman Empire. If you include 700+ years of ruling most of Spain, plus the hegemony in Africa, Balkans, etc... I`m sure you get the picture.

If Allah designed the system (your claim) he did a poor job of designing the system. The system has not withstood the passage of time.

Apparently you missed the last part of the paragraph: Unfortunately, the selfishness of individuals and tempering with the nature brought the Muslims down to the condition they`re in today. Suffice it to say, it`s only a matter of time before the stark reality of whether Allah designed the system poorly and it hasn`t ``withstood the passage of time`` hits us in the face. The current geo-political trends beyond the headline news and anti-propaganda will give you a good clue if you care to look there.

Define some of these terms for lesser mortals like me - ``true Islam``, justice, prosperity

This is not a one-line item. I could sit here for hours on end and define the whole thing to you, but your own study of Islam as per Quran and Traditions of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) will educate you much more than I ever could. The operative word here is study - through reading and observations, impartial analysis, and what have you.

What is unislamic about democracy? Other than the fact the majority could decide to be un-Islamic !!!

Again, democracy is big issue. Even the people in the West who invented/innovated this system don`t comprehend it as it should be, except perhaps for a few legislators and political strategists. It is not restricted to merely casting ballots, which is not entirely unislamic.

In theory, it is just as good as Marxism, Communism, and every other man-made system. But just like every other system, may it be social, technological, astronomical, etc, there are always prerequisites, conditions, consequences and everything else in the package. Secondly, there`s always a price to pay for everything. Last but not least, responsibility should only be put upon the entity (humans, animals, machines, or anything) based on the entity`s capabilities. The western democracy does a poor job of it in terms of overall society.

The majority can always become ``un-Islamic``. Again, the question rises how and with what should they replace and ``Islamic`` system. Mind you, the current Pakistani system not representative of an Islamic system per se.

When you say Hindus were ruled by outsiders for 1000 years you make it sound like every Hindu has been living under a Muslim ruler for 1000 years. It looks like some people have never heard of Raja of Mysore, Raja of Travancore, Marathas, Rajput kings, Raja of Kashmir etc.

Dear friend, I`m sorry if I hurt your nationalistic pride, that was not the intent. I know there were Rajas and Maha Rajas during the Mughal empire. However, just like the former, along with Muslims Nawabs, could not claim sovereignty and independence from Britain during the latter`s rule; the few you`ve named remained in the auspecies of the Muslim Mughal emporers. Look at the big picture my friend before you indulge in the finer details.

Re: #23 & 26

We are a better people for our unity in diversity, our tolerance and now our determined and collective effort at hard work and industriousness.Which would not be possible if we weren`t united.And, therefore our unity is our strength, not only in numbers but also in purpose.

Like I said:
At this point in time they may very well be, though it has yet to be proven. As you may have already read in this reponse, 50+ years is infinitesimal in terms of history. Success is not merely taking the lead, but to maintain it till the end...and the end does not come until Lata sings again ;-)~~ (just kidding)

``unity in diversity, our tolerance and now our determined and collective effort at hard work and industriousness``: these are highly debatable topics. Let`s not go there, lest we corrupt the current amicable enviroment.

Ciao