The Meaning of Pakistan

Pakistan, A Failed State

Syed Ahmed Tariq Mir, Member of the Central Co-ordination Committee, MQM, said in the SAPRA conference, that the effects of partition are visible in Pakistan even after 53 years of independence. He said Pakistan is ruled by 46 families and that the Mohajir population of over 30 million is being kept hostage by the Punjabi dominated Pakistani establishment

A government will be considered a failure if it does not do all it can to serve its people with all the resources at its disposal. Problems arise when governments of the poorer countries fail to serve their people due to lack of direction, self-interest, corruption and incompetence. Naturally, a country as a whole is dubbed a failed nation when its people are not served.

Pakistan is one such failed state. The reasons for this failure are buried deep in history, which we must examine and diagnose and come up with a cure. After 53 years of independence, Pakistan continues to be ruled by 46 families, which keep a population of over 130 million in bondage. It is no use treating the symptoms alone and ignoring the root cause of the problem. It was in this context that the MQM (Muttahida Quami Movement) founder and leader, Mr. Altaf Hussain, made his historic comment on 17th September 2000: ``The partition of India was the biggest blunder of mankind``. This was not a casual remark but a reflection of many years of experience, study and pain on the part of Mr. Hussain and many of his companions. He was referring to the root cause of the problems of Pakistan when he made this remark. He called it the biggest error of mankind because of the magnitude of people affected by it both in terms of life and property in India as well as in Pakistan. The effects of this division are visible in Pakistan even today. Whether it was a plot by the colonial powers, or a short sighted, emotionally motivated decision by the leadership of the Muslim League and the All India Congress is an open question. As we all know, that with the exception of Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad almost all the leaders of undivided India succumbed to the idea of division. Driven by emotion carefully injected by foreign masters our forefathers opted for the division of India. They did not stop to think what calamity, death and destruction it would bring upon the people of India and destroy the way of life of millions of its citizens particularly of the Muslims of India. What a great power an undivided India would have been today! How much it could have achieved in terms of social and economic development. There would not have been such a colossal wasteful expenditure on armaments. Instead of exploring nuclear devices to destroy life we would have been using that knowledge to alleviate starvation and poverty. Undivided India had the resources to become a superpower.

However, the die is now cast and the clock cannot be turned back. We have to live with the blunders of the past without indulging in emotionalism. Whereas, the founding leaders of India lived long enough to provide it with political stability, Pakistan ended its march to progress abruptly with the murder of its first Prime Minister Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, in 1951. The country soon fell into the clutches of feudal corruption and had to rely upon military force to provide a modicum of governance. With feudal and military power in control, there was not even an attempt to transform the state of Pakistan into a progressive enlightened country. From the very early days of British Raj, the military, hailing predominantly from the Punjab province, began to run the country autocratically as opposed to their prime function of defending the borders. With limited resources available in the country, the military swallowed most of it, leaving other provinces hugely deprived and disgruntled. East Bengal could not stomach it for long and broke away from the federation in 1971. The rest is history vividly described in the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report recently published in India.

When the Baloch, Pakhtoons and Sindhis demanded their rights and fair share in the resources of the country they were mercilessly crushed by Punjabi forces. When the Mohajirs (immigrants from India) under the leadership of Altaf Hussain raised their voice in the Sindh province against the Punjabi establishment, they were targeted by the ISI - Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan. Finally, a full blown army operation was launched on 19th June 1992 against Mohajirs and their representative political party, the MQM. These atrocities are continuing till today in one form or another.

The appetite of the Punjabi establishment to usurp the resources of the smaller provinces is insatiable. This is creating instability in the country. Smaller provinces want to see an economically stronger and prosperous Pakistan, where all provinces are treated in equal footing and their rights respected. With this in mind, the MQM along with Baloch, Pakhtoon and Sindhi leaders have formulated a 12-point resolution for the solidarity and well-being of the country. The leaders of smaller provinces want to see this resolution put into practice. But there are odds against it, as the situation is not completely in the control of the present military government.

Since the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the regional political situation has significantly changed. Pakistan`s involvement in the Afghan crisis since 1978 has opened a pandora`s box of corruption and deceit within the ISI hierarchy. It has led to a massive influx of weapons and drugs into Pakistan. Western powers turned a blind eye to the blatant exploitation by the Punjabi establishment. When peace could not be restored in Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal, the Taliban were introduced through the ISI to control ``The Cockpit of Asia``. An Indian columnist has echoed my sentiments by saying that, ``Feudalism and fundamentalism have fashioned in Pakistan, a culture which rationalises dictation and defends obedience. Over the years they have stopped differentiating between what is right and what is wrong``.

Like drugs and Kalashnikovs, the smaller provinces are now faced with the influx of Taliban style fanatic fundamentalism. This is a major destabilising factor in Pakistan and has unpleasant implications for the region. The MQM, being a tolerant party of ordinary people, is the only movement that can restore democratic values in the country and bring about progress. For this to happen, it must be allowed to work freely throughout the country.

But if that does not happen, which is more than likely, then India cannot afford to sit idly with an unstable Pakistan at its doorsteps. No neighbouring country can expect to remain insulated from another. To think that western powers can wave a magic wand to make the evil forces disappear is absurd. The western powers have only their interests to protect, no more no less. They are least concerned whether the Haris in Balochistan or Rajasthan die of malnutrition or are vaporised by a nuclear holocaust. It is us, both Indians and Pakistanis, who have to think and come up with a solution to the problem faced by the region as a whole. We have to think out a pragmatic plan of action for the future without repeating the blunders of the past.

Author: Syed Ahmed Tariq Mir

http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/regional/regional20001001d.html

Pakistan - Futile crusades of a failed state

By Lal Khan, editor of Jeddo Judh (``Class Struggle``)

July 2000

Fifty-three years after its inception the Pakistani state is teetering on the brink. The fissures opening up expose the internal decay of its rotting structures. The economy is in a shambles, society is in disarray and its domestic and foreign policies have hit rock bottom. Successive rulers are forced to admit this but are unable to avert the rapid decline of the state and society. All their efforts only further exacerbate the contradictions and intensity of the problems faced by a bewildered and shocked population.

This pathetic condition arises right back from the origins of the state. Pakistan came into being in the aftermath of one of the most turbulent periods of modern history. After World War II there was a huge wave of revolutionary upheavals all around the world. There was a massive upsurge of the colonial peoples, only comparable to the mass upheavals of populations at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. In the Indian sub-continent the movement of the people against the British Raj took a new momentum in 1945-46. This movement of national liberation took a revolutionary turn and posed a direct threat not just to the British colonial rule but to the very existence of the capitalist - feudal system.

Due to historical crimes of the leadership and lack of a revolutionary party, the revolutionary movement was derailed. The Pakistani and Indian states were built on the bones of more than 2.7 million human beings. They were the victims of the ethnic and religious frenzy unleashed due to the failure of the revolution to succeed.

Half a century later all the dreams of the ``Muslim`` ruling class of Pakistan, to build a modern society have been shattered. Entering belatedly on the arena of history they were handicapped by the strangehold of Imperialism on one hand and their own integral weakness as a depleted class. They were not able to solve a single problem or complete a single task of the national democratic revolution. There was some development due to the spin off effects of the boom (1948-73) in the West. But this development was of a combined and uneven character. It further exaggerated the contradictions rather than solving them.

This contradiction of the Industrial development and lack of parallel social development exploded into the revolution of 1968-69. The virgin Pakistani proletariat mounted on the stage of history and moved forward with a revolutionary zeal to change their destiny. However once again the historical tragedy of humankind, the lack of a revolutionary leadership came to the fore and this revolution ended up in the war of 1971. This war resulted in the break up of Pakistan and what was East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

The post war revolutionary tide in West Pakistan, was diverted by ``democracy`` and radical reforms of state capitalism. The failure of these reforms to salvage society from its morass further exposed the incapability of the ruling elite to build a modern bourgeois state. Feudalism persisted in a vulgar fashion. The social and physical infrastructural base is far from adequate. It is nowhere near the basic prerequisites of building a modern Industry upon it. The national oppression in its present complicated and virulent form has further aggravated the crisis by undermining the modern national state. With exceptions of the interregnums of anarchic, corrupt and cosmetic phases of ` parliamentary democracy`` the ruling class has had to resort to direct military rule, in most of Pakistan`s chequered history. The new millennium has dawned on Pakistan under military rule yet again. Although it is very fragile and beleaguered, its weakness is its most dangerous aspect. With the aggravating crisis and a rising tide of mass revolt it can turn to severe repression and brutality. From its inception it has lurched from one crisis to another. Its policies have oscillated from appeasing US imperialism on one hand to bowing before the Islamic fundamentalists on the other. It has viciously promulgated the dictates of the I.M.F. There has been a spate of mass redundancies. The downsizing policy will end up with job losses of about 250,000 workers from various state and semi state institutions by the end of this year. This will have catastrophic implications on the society where 800,000 enter the labour market every year. Very few can get real jobs. Hence they become raw fodder for the huge informal (black) economy, fundamentalist and other reactionary organisations, violence, drug trade and other criminal activities, rampant in this turbulent society. The regime`s crusade to retrieve usurped money from the ruling elite, to overcome the massive deficits and debts have hit a dead end. The reality is that the real ruling elite does not keep its loot within the confines of Pakistan. They have stashed away more than $88 billion dollars in the vaults of European and American Banks. This amount is more than the total GNP of $67bn and total domestic and foreign debt of $82bn. This proves how much they trust the country they rule. Hence the only class the regime can get to cough up some money is the middle class or the Pakistani migrant workers who have deposited their hard -earned savings in Pakistan. They have been duped with the idea that their money sent home might help in the country`s economic revival.

The Afghan conflict

Historically and socially being a weak class, the petty bourgeoisie could not launch a viable resistance and the trader`s strike ultimately faded out. This was the longest shut-down strike of the shopkeepers and traders yet it could not achieve its aims. But the other main obstacle in the retraction of the tax evaded and `` illegal`` money holdings is the extreme corruption of the state apparatus itself. The Pakistani ruling class could not set up a profitable Industry. Hence instead of feeding the state with revenues, they plundered the state. On the other hand they were involved in illegal activities like smuggling and drug -trade. To achieve this the connivance of the state agencies and institutions was necessary. This situation gave an extra leverage to the state specially the military to dominate relatively more, in the affairs of the state and society. The classical balance of the ruling classes controlling the state apparatus was disturbed to some extent. This was mainly due to the historical, financial, technological and social weaknesses of the Pakistani elite. This process was further aggravated by the exceptional geo-political situation of Pakistan. It played the role of bulwark of US imperialism in the Afghan conflict during the 80s in the cold war era. It was the biggest covert operation the CIA had ever launched.

The Americans, the Saudis and the reactionary Gulf states pumped in billions of dollars. This money was poured in to support the counter revolutionary fundamentalist civil war to destabilize the left wing regime in Kabul. The Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen were further prompted by the CIA to increase the cultivation of opium and production of heroin to raise funds for this reactionary war. The modus operandi in all this process was the Pakistani state and its rouge agencies mainly the I.S.I. (Inter Services Intelligence) under the regime of dictator Zia-ul-Haq. A large chunk of these billions of dollars made its way to the coffers of the Pakistani generals, intelligence officers and a whole network of individuals of the state apparatus. The Najibullah regime in Afghanistan collapsed due to internal dissent rather than the `` struggle`` of the fundamentalists. But ever since then this process has continued. The Americans have backed out from the fear of the Frankenstein they had created in the form of these fundamentalist lunatics and now Pakistan has to face the burnt. A massive black economy dominates every sector of political, social and economic fabric of the society. The informal (black) economy is three times the size of the formal (white) economy. But its most significant aspect is its penetration in the state apparatus gravely denting the discipline, co-ordination and control of the structures of the state. This process had made Pakistan more and more un-governable. How can a corrupt state apparatus so dependent on black money, extract that money to kick start the main stream economy. This is another IMF recipe which will fail to rescue Pakistan`s economy from its rapid decline.

But even if the regime gets its targets of about RS 200 billion from the defaulters and sells of all its assets through privatisation, still it will be nowhere near the balance of payment deficit of US $ 11.3 billion by February 2001. All the assets put up for privatisation won`t fetch more than $5bn. This means the country is very rapidly moving towards default. The Imperialists are extremely worried about its consequences. An IMF delegation is due in early July to find some solution. In spite of their hue and cry about democracy and hypocritic lectures on human rights this military regime is the last straw left for them. They are relying on it and openly asking the regime to be more repressive. Not just on the traders and the petty bourgeoisie, but mainly to aggressively carry through attacks on the working people by implementing the IMF recipes. This will mean further increase in the prices of gas (27% by Sept.), petroleum products, electricity, water and other utilities. Ironically this fourth Military dictatorship has come at a juncture where the economic morass is horrendous, the social fabric is in tatters and the social processes are rapidly spinning out of the control of the state apparatus. To inflict repression by a state suffering internal decay is totally a different story. The first two military regimes came at a time (50s-60s) when there were spin off effects of the boom in the West and growth rate touched 9%. The third vicious dictatorship of Zia-ul-Haq came in the 80s when the Afghan operation was in full swing. Not only that the Afghan operation benefited the Zia Dictatorship but it had enormous income from remittances of Pakistani migrant workers abroad. This sum amounted to ($3.2bn per annum) and the economy had a growth rate of an average of 6.9%. These were some of the factors that led to the prolongation of the brutal Zia rule for 11 long and painful years.

Economy in tatters

At this juncture the economy is in tatters. The foreign remittances have gone down drastically. Between 1995-2000 the growth rate in large-scale manufacturing has been Zero (0%) according to the official figures. In reality it was negative mainly due to the closure of 6000 industrial units in this period. The overall growth rate of the economy has declined to just 2.4% by the end of the 90s and the population growth has been around 3% yearly. The foreign investment has been declining from $2bn in the early 90s to about $418 million this year. But this foreign investment has been mainly in privatization bids and in services sector. This means it is mainly the replacement of domestic capital investment by foreign capital with no increase in real and new industrial investment. The investment in utilities, mainly in the power generation sector has dealt a crushing blow to living standards. The high cost of electricity generation has meant the rise in prices in all sectors of economy and having cataclysmic consequences of further deepening the ongoing recession in Pakistan`s economy. This stagnation has lead to stagflation that shows the decline in the economic activity of the country.

This has lead to increased poverty during the 90s. Between 1990 and 2000 the population that has fallen below the poverty line has increased from 17.2% to 35%. This means the population ``living`` below the poverty line has doubled in the last 10 years. And these are official figures. The real situation is much worse.

Health services have deteriorated rapidly. Now more than 77% of the population has to resort to some sort of private health services. The vast majority are forced to seek medication from quacks, unqualified ``doctors`` and medieval forms of treatment. Every year 1,35,000 women die during childbirth due to lack of proper medical facilities. The regime spends only 0.7% of the GDP on health which does not even fulfil the salaries of the personnel employed in the rotting state health sector. Only 22% have access to clean drinking water and 15% have sanitation facilities. Seventy percent of diseases are diseases of poverty. Infant mortality rate, still birth and other health indicators are some of the highest in the world.

The condition of education is pathetic. Less than 50% of children manage to get to the primary level. Less than 1.5% of the students are able to enter a university campus. The present regime in continuation of the policies of the previous regime is treading on the discourse of rapid privatisation of educational institutions. The NGOs are providing all sorts of statistical and analytical data support to the regime to destroy the already dying educational system. This means that health and education are fast becoming a luxury while about half of the population is striving for minimum physical existence.

Ironically the biggest intrusion in the health and education sector has been of black money. Due to the character of this pernicious capital it can not go into long-term investment like setting up Industries. Here it can become too exposed and be traced. Hence it goes into health, education, transport, real estate, retail business and services sectors. This black economy is like a cancer on the body of Pakistani capitalist economy. But still it is the product of capitalism and depicts the severe diseased nature of the system. In an economy where 65.5% of the GDP goes into debt servicing and 40% on defence the fiscal year starts with a negative balance. Hence the growth of black economy becomes inevitable. Although this has been a buffer for the Pakistan`s debilitated economy, its role has speeded up the failure and disintegration of the Pakistani state. The pressures arising from below also have had an impact on the ruling state itself. The turmoil and turbulence resulting from immense poverty, unemployment, disease, illiteracy, crime, violence and bloodshed in society have opened up cracks within the institutions of the state and the armed forces. These were not only exposed during the October 1999 coup but are constantly making themselves felt in the policies, statements, retractions and oscillations in the actions and policies of the present military regime. The lower officers of the present military ranks are deeply perturbed not just by what is going on around them but they also feel the dragon of socio-economic crisis is coming closer to their lives. Although corruption gives a basis to the present economy yet everybody even in the state apparatus can not thrive on it to solve their problems. Hence there is severe anxiety and disenchantment with the present set-up. This can result in disastrous consequences for the state. In the higher echelons of power these contradictions are reflected in the form of these generals and the red tape representing different factions of finance black capital. The representatives of black money want to protect the structures of the nation state which shields the interests of these drug barons, money launderers and Mafia capitalists.

Fundamentalist coup?

On the other hand those sections of the generals and the ruling elite who have had their billions stashed in the Western banks are obliged to carry through the dictates of the Imperialist Institutions. This conflict between the `Black` and `White` Economies is erupting through the organs of the state and society. Its superficial political configuration comes in the form of a conflict between `liberalism` and `fundamentalism`. In reality they are the two sides of the same coin of the corruption bungling and plunder. They have originated from the same womb of paralytic cancerous capitalism that has evolved in the last decades. There are contradictory positions being taken by the regime on fundamentalism, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Kashmir, Secularism and other issues. These are the reflections of the conflicts taking place behind the scenes between different sections of the state apparatus and the military hierarchy. These conflicts are bound to explode and another coup may take place. The only obstacle to such a development, at the present juncture, is the mutual fear of all the factions. They are afraid on the one hand of each other and at the same time of stumbling into a civil war that will spell the demise of the whole structure from which they gain their power perks and privileges. But all those processes that have brought matters to this pass are still raging vigorously in society. Above all they are beyond the control of this ruling caste. Sooner or later these contradictions are bound to explode into an open clash. Even if another coup takes place and it is able to avert a civil war then what possibilities the leaders of that coup will have? If it is lead by pro-fundamentalist generals what solution can they provide? None!

A conflagration erupted in Pakistan would have dire geo-political consequences also for the imperialist interests in this whole region. The threat of a nuclear holocaust will be posed if India and Pakistan go to another war. Even if there is no direct war between India and Pakistan the already raging proxy wars will further escalate leading to further anarchy, chaos, disintegration and bloody fragmentation in the whole region.

So the imperialists will try to contain the hostilities and maintain status quo. They will probably make concessions to the Musharraf regime and IMF will try to release its latest tranche of $1.25bn to resuscitate the economy. There is a targeted growth from around 4.5% to 6% this year, depending on a number of factors. The bumper cotton and wheat crops this year, purely due to climatic reasons, will perhaps help the slight increase in growth rate. Yet it won`t sole anything and in reality exacerbate the contradictions in society.

The main political parties are in disarray. The Muslims League is splitting to pieces, the ANP (mainly a Pushtun based party) has splintered, while other nationalist parties are in tatters. The Islamic fundamentalist parties are howling at the top of their voices but they are neither being heard nor getting an echo. They are still a threat. Their prominence is the result of a lull in the society and the vacuum created by the collapse of the Stalinist left. But they lack a mass base in society and they represent temporary phenomena of the reactionary situation prevailing at the present time. The power and support they have, is being consciously exaggerated by the media and the Western imperialist pundits. It is also to give a justification and legitimacy to the present set up. The Stalinists and the left reformists are also using them as an alibi to justify the rotten alliances with the reactionary bourgeoisie leaders and parties. A large section of the ex-Stalinist left is trying to get solace in the lap of Western sponsored NGOs and recuperate from the wounds of their ideological defeat with the collapse of Stalinism in Russia and China. In the process they have become tools of preserving the status quo. It is hardly possible to differentiate their policies from those of Imperialism. The leadership of the PPP humiliated from the corruption scandals during their two stints in power is making odd and confused noises from the safe haven in London. But there is enormous ferment within the PPP. There are resurgent left currents in the lower ranks of the PPP. These could take on a crucial role in the next period. There are new stirrings in the trade unions. There are several strikes amongst the workers although sporadic and isolated at the moment. The youth are in a dilemma. They are fed up with the present situation. Yet they are looking out for an alternate devoid of corruption, vandalism and lumpenisation, which has besieged youth and students politics for almost a generation. Still the youth and students movement is showing signs of a new revival. The political and trade union leadership has failed to deliver. This has created a situation of general scepticism, apathy and cynicism amongst the masses. This has led to confusion and a certain level of disillusionment and demoralisation.

A socialist revolution is needed

The regime till now has faced no serious resistance. Still it is fragile, dithering and jittery. When the real resistance comes it is not sure that it will be able to exercise repression of the scale that the previous military dictatorships had inflicted. The regime is not sure of itself and the apparatus it rests upon. It is treading a very thorny path. Any major incident or event can explode into a stormy movement. With a slight improvement in the economy this possibility will increase. Rather than any stability an increased growth rate will bring more turmoil.

Faced with a challenge from below the regime will initially try to go for repression Perhaps it will declare martial law. But for the people direct rule in military uniform is not very different from martial law. That psychological barrier has already been passed. With the failure of repressive tactics the regime might lurch towards a ``democratic`` set up. It might yet try to use Imran Khan for this purpose. They are already promoting and pampering him as a new political icon. But in the turbulent times ahead he does not stand much chance to fulfil the task of saving this status quo. He will be a temporary and pathetic figure in this whole saga. He has nothing to offer and remains an arrogant disciple of Capitalism-feudalism. The media to fill up the vacuum would portray all sorts of flimsy and demagogic characters. These accidental and murky characters would be just petty impostors. If the movement begins on the industrial plane and on the real issues of unemployment, poverty, privatisation, price hike and attacks on the working class these demands would rapidly attain a political character. It would enter the political plane and then the whole system will be threatened. Initially the majority of the youth and workers would take the traditional path of PPP. But any move of the PPP leadership to divert the party on to reformist lines yet again will face with a crushing rebuttal not only from the workers but also from the new generation which would enter the ranks of the PPP in a changed situation. Such an upheaval can actually lead to a real break up of the party on class lines. The connotations, arguments and wranglings on the ideological debate reverberating in the PPP, are precursor of the events in the party that impend in the near future.

This whole process will unravel in ebbs and flows. The masses will learn through the experiences and the rapidly changing objective situation. All sorts of peculiar gadgets, gimmicks and episodes will clutter the political horizon of society. But the revolutionary storm of a mass upsurge will wash them away. From fundamentalism to left and right reformism, from nationalism to sectarianism all sorts of peculiar phenomena will be blown up to deviate the movement from its ultimate destiny of overthrowing this rotten system and its protectorate the decayed state scrap.

The oppressed masses of Pakistan have suffered through this ordeal of ``democracies`` and dictatorships. These are political super structures of an outdated, exploitative and rapacious socio economic system. Under the dictatorship the masses fought for democracy. Their leaders had given them the delusion that through democracy all their problems would be solved. But it was all loot and plunder. Their miseries intensified. With the sufferings they have also learnt from the hard school of experience. They are quiet but their eyes and ears are open. And they are thinking - developing a new consciousness - a revolutionary one. They are waiting and they shall rise. This is the verdict of history, it is the universal law of class society. Tyranny can prolong it can not endure.

Once they rise there is nothing to stop them. If a genuine Marxist organisation rapidly developing into a party is there- before the advent of masses on to the arena of history to change their destiny- then a Socialist Revolution in Pakistan is entirely possible with in the next few years. A Socialist Revolution in Pakistan will change the geography, economy, sociology, psychology not only of Pakistan but the whole South Asian sub-continent. Still its repercussions will not stop at the frontiers of Asia but will spread througout the world.

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/asia/indiapakistan/pakistan_futile_crusades_20000700.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/28/features/features7.html

May 28,2001

A rogue with his finger on the nuclear trigger

The influence of Islamic extremists in Musharaf`s Pakistan creates little cause for optimism about peace talks with India, writes Amin Saikal.

The Indian Government has been bold in inviting Pakistan`s military ruler, General Pervez Musharaf, for peace talks. While the move is welcome, it should not raise expectations too high: Musharaf has so far proved no more inspiring than any other military dictator.

While Pakistan continues to suffer from serious domestic and foreign policy problems, he has focused much of his energy on how to engineer the country`s return to a civilian rule in such a way that he can take over the presidency and the military can preserve its central role in the country`s politics.

Musharaf toppled the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999, promising to restore economic and social stability, and to return Pakistan to a workable democracy. He also hoped to end its international isolation over its nuclear weapons dispute with India and its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Initially he refused to put a time limit on military rule, but subsequently accepted a Supreme Court decision to terminate his rule by the end of next year. But halfway through his ``term``, the general has little to boast about.

The economy continues in the doldrums, and all the major indicators show that the threat of national bankruptcy still looms large. If not for IMF bailouts, Pakistan would have already been declared bankrupt. Social divisions and communal and sectarian conflicts, which have cost hundreds of lives over the past 18 months, have persisted with no relief in sight. The port city of Karachi, Pakistan`s industrial base, has born the brunt of the disorder, making it a no-go zone for most foreign investors.

On average, a bomb has exploded every two weeks in some part of the country. Ethnic relations between Pakistan`s main national groups - the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Baluchis and Mahajirs - have remained as tense as ever. While Musharaf is a Mahajir, Punjabi generals have remained dominant in the military and the bureaucracy.

There has been no noticeable reduction in the corruption which has permeated every layer of the society. The problem is not confined to lower levels but is also rampant at the very top, involving the leaders of the military and military intelligence (ISI).

In addition, drug trafficking and addiction have reached crisis proportions.

Musharaf has likened himself to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: a reformist nationalist. But he has done little to curb the growing influence of Islamic extremists, with links to the Taliban. Islamic radicals have penetrated the armed forces, particularly at lower and middle levels.

As public discontent has grown over Musharaf`s economic, social and law and order failures, he has become increasingly dependent on the support of the military and Islamic groups. He has found it expedient to leave the growing Talibanisation of Pakistan virtually unchecked.

He has been ruthless against his political opponents, clearly trying to destroy the parties of exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

However, he has let the Islamic extremists campaign freely. He and many of his close associates have publicly confirmed Pakistan`s support in the name of ``national security`` for the Taliban and Kashmiri militants fighting for independence from India. He allowed the Islamic extremists to hold their biggest public gathering ever in April in Peshawar on the border with Afghanistan where Taliban leader Mullah Omer and his protected ``guest``, Saudi dissident and America`s most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden, urged the world`s Muslims to unite behind the Taliban for a wider Jihad (holy war).

Meanwhile, he has done little to reduce tension with India. He has allowed to go on unabated the ISI tutelage of Kashmiri Islamic militants and the Taliban in reinforcing one another. He has responded positively to the invitation for peace talks, but only on the proviso that India meet the independence demand of the Pakistan-backed Kashmiri combatants.

As many Pakistanis begin to question Musharaf`s policies, the US, Britain and the European Union have also stepped up their public criticism. The US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, recently hinted that Pakistan is a potentially ``rogue state``.

In response, Musharaf has declared that while he may hold a partyless general election before the end of next year, he would want to assume the post of president. Musharaf is poised to prove once again that military dictators generally can`t deliver democracy.

Pakistan constitutes a serious danger to regional stability: it is not only a nuclear power under military rule, but also a failed state.

The world has reason to be deeply concerned.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

Toadies, and toady intellectuals ...

Call Pakistan failed or whatever... it is here and it is here to stay... as far as Sindh is concerned and the World Sindh association is concerned... let there be no mistake about it, if they can show their muscle we will let them have a plebiscite and choose their own way... but Sindh wants to be the part of Pakistan.

-Pakistan Zindabad

Pakistan — a failed state?

IS it appropriate to speak of a state as having failed? Ordinarily no. A state emerges historically to its particular identity as an evolutionary process. A sense grows gradually of fellow feeling in a group of persons that inhabit a particular area or territory continually until a common identity comes to be assumed naturally. Common aspirations surface without reflection, a common concern for social and national security crystallises, the feeling of a distinctive home-country takes root in the mind, and a common cultural gesture of thoughts tends to take definite shape. In such a state, where individuals in society have a context of historical growth in togetherness through triumphs and vicissitudes, it would not seem appropriate or valid to speak of a state as having failed.

It may not, however, seem inappropriate to speak of a state having failed if it has not evolved to its present distinct character but has been created artificially. In southern Europe, Yugoslavia was for example created artificially. It could not stay. It has broken up into the ethnically compact and homogeneous regions of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia etc. Yugoslavia might aptly be described as a failed state.

There are two artificially-created states in South Asia — Afghanistan and Pakistan. They may not be in the process of coming apart — though East Pakistan’s separation as Bangladesh, for reasons of lingo-cultural differences which defied linkage of a common Islamic religion on which Pakistan’s creation was based, was, and in the prevailing conditions remains, ominous.

Afghanistan was created in the second half of the 19th century as a part of the Russo-British Great Game. The last part of the creation was the agreement negotiated on the Durand Line, which separated British India from the Kingdom of Afghanistan. The kingdom was created by bringing together various consolidated tribes and ethnic groups to form a single state — Tajiks in the north-east, Uzbeks in the north, Pushtoons in the east and south-east, Persian-speaking Khorasanis in the west, Shiaite Hazaras in the central highlands, Baluchis in the south-western corner etc.

The question of compatibility among them was not considered. The situation that prevails today in that unhappy country may well be rooted in the artificial manner of its creation. Afghanistan did not evolve to become a state. Similarly, Pakistan was also created artificially by tearing it out of an India that had evolved and consolidated into a state with a definite and identifiable character under the British rule. An Islamic party, the Muslim League, was favoured, even nurtured, by British policy-makers to not merely counter the Indian National Congress. The purpose also was, obviously, to create a friendly state in South Asia where the British might continue to have a foothold after they left the sub-continent.

The British attitude became eventually clear enough in the way that British army officers instigated revolt by the Gilgit Scouts against the J & K Maharaja’s forces on the eve of the Pakistani invasion of Jammu & Kashmir, which started on October 20, 1947. Major Brown led the revolt. Prof F. M. Hassnain has provided a graphic account in his Gilgit — The Northern Gate of India, which appeared in 1978 when he was Director of Archives, Jammu and Kashmir.

Subsequently, when the UN considered the Indian complaint against Pakistan’s invasion — the Cold War had got into stride — this attitude of strategic self-interest marked the approach jointly of the British and the US governments. In due course Pakistan came to be patronised by the American-led West.

It became a member of various West-backed treaties and groupings, such as the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation and the Baghdad Pact and was made member of an economic grouping along with Iran and Turkey — that was essentially a pro-West group with a role in the Cold War, and which eventually broke up because of culturo-economic incompatibility.

The driving force behind Pakistan’s policy moves and alliances was and is hostility towards India. This hostility seems an unspoken, possibly unconscious, attempt to find a Pakistani national identity, which nevertheless remains elusive.

The attempt seemed necessary because Pakistan’s history and culture are the part of India. Its official language is Indian in origin. India also has a sizable Islamic population — the bulk of the pre-1947 Muslim population did not migrate to Pakistan.

Down the years, as part of this attempt, Pakistan has seemed to welcome a kind of British-US—later almost exclusively US — patronage in spite of its not quite coinciding with the independence of action in Islamabad. But it did help to keep Pakistan politically as well as financially afloat. Then, even while Pakistan was part of the various Western treaties and groupings for containment of Soviet and Chinese Communism, it walked into close friendship with Beijing, after China’s border war with India put the seal on Delhi-Beijing hostility. On March 2, 1963, it actually signed an agreement with Beijing illegally ceding a part of Jammu & Kashmir to China even though the

J&K issue was under UN consideration. Curiously, all this did not seem to disconcert too much the Americans and their allies. About a decade later, Henry Kissinger, as Nixon’s Secretary of State, flew on an ice-breaking visit to Beijing from Pakistan.

In 1954 the USA introduced Pakistan to the nuclear world by sending the Atoms for Peace exhibition to tour that country. American scientists helped set up Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission, and also the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology.

Possibly, the USA did not have exact measure of Pakistani nuclear ambitions. China did. It gave Pakistan nuclear technology and missiles. Washington was disturbed and resorted eventually to cut-offs in aid under various legislative restrictions amendment.

These were waived and aid resumed from 1981 when Pakistan helped the USA by organising Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan against invading Soviet forces. Meanwhile, Pakistani friendship with China thrived because Islamabad became a model instrument for Chinese strategic interests. One of the purposes was to keep India in check. Another seemingly was to influence, and to some extent control, fundamentalist forces. Its connection with the Afghan Mujahideen is said to date back to the Soviet-invasion days.

Two years ago, Chinese received unexploded American missiles from the Taliban in that country. Last September, it is said, Chinese technologists set up Chinese electricity-generating and communications systems for Taliban. If the Chinese can influence and control Taliban in Afghanistan, is it not likely that their influence and control extends to Pakistan-based fundamentalist Islamic and jehaadi groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed?

Today, Islamabad seems to move and act almost entirely on Beijing’s advice. With conditions as they seem to be developing in China, it is the People’s Liberation Army that seems calling the shots in Beijing. The advice that moves the military regime in Islamabad may therefore essentially be from the PLA. How far does the Musharraf’s regimes writ run? Does it control the Inter-Services Intelligence? What is Musharraf’s relationship with the Generals who put him in power at the time of the coup? What is the Musharraf regime’s relationship with the fundamentalist Islamic and jehadi groups?

In the midst of all this, there are the economic and the sectarian or separatist problems. It has been pointed out that some 80 per cent of Pakistan’s external national debt of $ 37 billion is rooted in its military endeavours. A former Pakistani Finance Minister, Mr S. Babar Ali, has gone on record saying that “Pakistan cannot afford further escalation of defence expenditure, we need to focus on strengthening our economy.” In Pakistan’s sectarian troubles, the problem is not merely Shia-Sunni and other similar differences. There are also some pronounced separatist tendencies.

Recently, Munawar Laghari, director of the World Sindhi Institute in Washington, said during an interview that Sindh has a much longer history than Pakistan’s. As against Sindhu Desh, Pakistan is an accident of history.

Last September, at a meeting in London of Pakistani opposition leaders of Sindh, Baluchistan, the NWFP and of the Urdu-speaking Muttahida Qaumi Movement, the MQM leader declared that the division of the sub-continent into Pakistan and India was the biggest blunder in modern history — the Titanic of the Islamic umma is now sinking… We did not want to hear the truth in 1971 (when Bangladesh won independence from Pakistan), and Pakistan broke up. Then, according to a report in The Economic Times, he even sang the first line of Saare Jehaan Se Achha Hindustan Hamaara.

Would it be right, then, to describe Pakistan as a failed state? (Asia Features)

You people have to get the last word dont you .. well too bad

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2001/Apr/06/03.html

By Syed Osman Sher Toronto, Canada

This refers to ‘The Plight of Indian Muslims’ by Gulafshan K. Alavi in Pakistan Link of March 23. Hearing various good reports, the writer was intrigued that if Indian Muslims ‘don’t have a bad deal’, why ‘did we fight for a separate country? And why don’t we become one again?’ The writer was, however, ‘able to see things for myself on a recent trip to India.’

The writer first met some well-to-do Muslims, and found them ‘thoroughly patriotic Indians,…They were exactly like us, they had the freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit, with the proviso that they had much more freedom and much more fun than we have here in Pakistan’. Gulafshan Alavi then made a tour of the areas of Muslim concentration and found those places a ‘mini-Pakistan’, where the Muslims were

adoring Pakistani cricket heroes instead of the Indian ones, listening to Nusrat Fateh Ali on loudspeaker, denying that India was their country (“Aap tau hamaray mulk say aye hain”), and flying Pakistani flags within their homes.

Still not satisfied, the writer got the desired answer from a ‘local Muslim family who were frightened of the hatred they felt which was building up in India’s underbelly against Muslims.’ They complained of such facts as Indian films showing Muslim heroines with Hindu heroes, film icons like Dilip Kumar and Madhubala changing their Muslim names, and Muslim girls eloping with, or marrying, Hindu boys (it may be

the other way round, too). When the writer got this desired answer, he/she felt that ‘the few success stories that there are of Muslim bureaucrats, politicians, cricketers and film stars, are projected to the world as Indian secularism in practice’.

We usually try to find faults in others and connive at the stupidity of those whom we call ‘us’. Are the scenes of ‘mini-Pakistan’ shown above by the writer not a demonstration of the graciousness of India’s liberal and secular policies? Are the Indian Muslims not the same people who were once demanding division of India and creation of Pakistan without any intention of living in the new country? Still, after losing the moral rights to be in that country, are they not still prospering in India? In this regard the letter of C.K.Chalekode of Michigan in the same issue of Pakistan Link may be seen.

It does not mean that India is free of discrimination and not perpetrating excesses on the Muslims. But, in which country the minorities are not mistreated? Stray cases of discrimination and atrocities do not merit generalization.

Pakistan has come into existence on the basis of the ideology of two-nation. If this ideology has a substance, so be it! It is enough. Whenever we discuss the creation of Pakistan, do we need to be apologetic and defensive by accusing India of mistreating Muslims?

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010409/benazir.shtml

INDIA TODAY

Exile and Benazir Bhutto are no strangers to each other. Prime minister of Pakistan for two terms, she has also been forced out of Pakistan on two different occasions. First by General Zia-ul-Haq after her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s execution in 1979, and again since 1998, after her rivalry with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif assumed epic proportions. Sharif himself is today in exile but the military government of General Pervez Musharraf shows no desire to have her return home to Clifton in Karachi.

With husband Asif Zardari languishing in jail on corruption charges, the 49-year-old Benazir shuttles between Dubai

and London. Dubai is where her two children go to school and where she spends time with her ailing mother Nusrat.

But London is where she gets active politically, fulfilling her responsibilities as chairperson of the Pakistan People`s Party (PPP) by telephone and e-mail. In an interview to Aaj Tak, she spoke to INDIA TODAY Editor Prabhu Chawla at her sister Samna`s spacious third floor flat in Queensgate, Kensington.

Q. Do you think you can dethrone Pervez Musharraf?

A. Many generals came and were dethroned-Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Ayub Khan. Today Musharraf saheb is in power. But ultimately Pakistan as envisioned by Mohammed Ali Jinnah will succeed, which is a democratic Pakistan, a Pakistan in which the poor will be treated with respect.

Q. From its very birth, democracy in Pakistan has suffered. Why? Do politicians there have no credibility?

A. Is it a question of credibility or of a consensus which did not evolve? In India there are serious differences among political leaders but all the groups agree that India should have democracy, an independent election commission, free judiciary and a free press. It is the opposite in Pakistan. For example, when my government was removed undemocratically, no one raised a voice to say the President should not have such powers.

Q. There have been two types of regimes there. One elected, the other comprising the ISI and the army establishment. Is this true?

A. Yes, we have two regimes. One which is visible and the other which is not. This has caused much damage to our country because the political interests of the invisible regime have been opposed to those of the people. This is also why Pakistan broke up. Now it is being said there should be a legal structure for these invisible forces so that they act within the law.

Q. This seems impossible. Nawaz Sharif who had a two-thirds majority and tried to control this invisible regime was dismissed.

A. This is one perception. The other perception is that Sharif was himself the product of the invisible regime. So the majority which he had was not of the people. If a group of democratic parties gets a majority then I think changes can be brought in the structure so that there is a revolution in the country.

Q. Do you think the gun overrules the vote in Pakistan?

A. It has been so until now. But we are fighting to strengthen the politics of vote. This is not easy but if one has conviction and commitment, as the PPP and its supporters have for democracy, then one has to fight.

Q. In the type of jehad being practised there, arms are being used in the name of religion.

A. Religious groups have been given a free hand there. And after the Afghan jehad, a new jehad has started. When I say jehad I mean a political movement. In the Islamic world there are some groups which say that they have to resort to arms to rule over the world. There also are those who say that the meaning of Musalman is you to your own religion and I to my own.

Q. What do you believe in?

A. I believe that Islam is a call for peace, for tolerance.

Q. Do you support border intrusions in the name of Islam?

A. The Kashmir movement is of two types. One is a political movement, which is under the All Party Hurriyat Conference. We support them. The other is of Lashkar-e-Toiba and armed groups. We oppose them.

Q. Do you think that there is any solution to the Kashmir issue in the light of what is going on there?

A. No solution has come up in the past 50 years and it will not come up in the next 50 years if the people of India, Pakistan and Kashmir follow the path they have followed till now. Both countries have their own perceptions. Pakistan says the right to self-determination should be given.

Q. To whom?

A. To the people of Kashmir.

Q. Which Kashmir? Both of them?

A. Pakistan`s intention is that one Kashmir should be given this right. But if you people exert pressure then both Kashmirs can be included.

Q. Do you agree that both Kashmirs should vote on whether they want to live with India or Pakistan?

A. If India proposes this Pakistan will definitely agree.

Q. But the Simla Agreement ...

A. I think you people are not ready for this.

Q. In the Simla Agreement it was decided that we should respect the LOC.

A. It`s the Indian interpretation. Pakistan`s view is that it will be resolved bilaterally. If it fails we will go to the UN.

Q. What do you think of Vajpayee`s peace initiatives?

A. After Rajiv, Vajpayee is the first leader with farsightedness. He has taken some courageous steps. Pakistan is missing out on this window of opportunity.

Q. The UN is not going to interfere in this issue. Can there be an agreement on the LOC?

A. I think India wants the LOC to be made the international border. But Pakistan wants to politically support insurgency so that a referendum is carried out there. There can be no agreement between these opposing views. We should acknowledge there are differing viewpoints. One should undertake confidence building for that.

Q. This has been tried so many times-the Simla Agreement, Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s bus journey, your talks with Rajiv Gandhi, the contents of which are still secret.

A. We talked about Siachen and East Punjab. At that time East Punjab was a big problem for your people.

Q. It is the perception in India that you people were supporting, arming and financing them.

A. There is a perception that you people were doing the same in Karachi. Maybe we were doing that but we should now talk about our differences. We should build confidence for an open border. Then the new generation will distance itself from bloodshed and hatred.

Q. Vajpayee went by bus but what did he get? Kargil, guns ... A. It was wrong. But he was dealing with an undemocratic leadership.

Q. But it was an elected leadership.

A. How? Farooque Leghari established a biased regime and said, ``I will not allow Benazir to come back.`` We felt the 1997 election was a farce and boycotted it. Only 16 per cent of the electorate voted. The Election Commission of Pakistan claimed that 50 per cent had voted. All your newspapers rightly said that 16 per cent voted.

Q. It seems that votes are polled somewhere else in your country.

A. Yes. There are all sorts of rigging. So there was an insecure leadership. It wanted to please India, please the world, please the army. In Lahore, Vajpayee was being felicitated and the army was being told to take positions. General Musharraf said recently he would go anywhere and talk to India. I think if a military ruler says he is ready to talk then you must understand that our people want peace.

Q. You seem to have a lot of faith in General Musharraf.

A. I have differences with him. He has said that he will use the army against me and will stop me.

Q. When you were dismissed the first time, you said Osama bin Laden had been behind the move and that he had spent money.

A. In 1989, there was a no-confidence vote against me. Bin Laden gave $10 million to remove me. During Zia-ul-Haq`s rule the Afghan jehad had started in Pakistan. Madarsas were established and the children of the poor were recruited and promised clothes, etc.

Q. Were you against that?

A. Certainly. Members of the PPP are not allowed to take up arms. Then why should the mullahs be permitted to do so? This dual law goes against the Constitution.

Q. But did you compromise so that continuity was ensured?

A. Certainly. I did try.

Eklavya,

I was not aware of that. I ll take your word for it.

Thanks

Yasser

ylh # 866

Here is the relevant information from http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/pakistan/ind99b_pakistan_ca.htm.

Voting Rights

5.3.6 The 1973 Constitution guarantees religious minorities the right to vote in general elections as full citizens in a joint electorate. The 1974 Constitutional amendment, which declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, led to a change in their voting status. Article 106(3) of the 1973 Constitution, which provided for the special representation of religious minorities, was amended to include Ahmadis. In 1978 two separate electorates - one for Muslims and one for religious minorities - were created for the National and Provincial Assemblies. [3]

5.3.7 The last five elections (1985, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997) have been held under the separate electoral system. Under this system, the different religious groupings are compartmentalised: Muslims are allowed to vote only for Muslim candidates, and minorities for minority candidates. The minority groups are guaranteed a number of seats (Christians four; Hindus four; Ahmadis one; [27a] and other non-Muslims (Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis) one. [11]

5.3.8 Each of the four categories is maintained on a separate electoral roll, and minorities cannot cast votes for the Muslim constituency seats. Under Article 106 of the Constitution, seats in the provincial assemblies are reserved for minorities. Under this system, minorities vote for reserved at-large seats, not for non-minority candidates who represent actual constituencies. Because of this, local parliamentary representatives have little incentive to promote their minority constituents` interests. Many Christian activists state that these ``separate electorates`` are the greatest obstacle to the attainment of Christian religious and civil liberties. Ahmadi leaders encourage their followers not to register as ``non-Muslims,`` so most Ahmadis are completely un-represented. [2] Ahmadis do not accept the official designation of themselves as non-Muslims and so refuse to take up the seats allocated to them in the National and Provincial elections. [3]

5.3.9 The 1997 general election report states that each Christian NA member represents 327,606 persons; each Hindu and scheduled castes NA member, 319,029; the Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi and other non-Muslim member, 112,801; and the Ahmadi member 104,244. These figures significantly understate the population of most of the minority groups because they are based on 1981 census figures. The 1998 census figures for religious minorities have not yet been published. [2]

I have seen my christian teachers and Ahmadi relatives vote in elections as late as 1990 or even 1993 ... I am almost sure, seperate electorates were not introduced in the 1970s... maybe in 1993.

http://www.newsline.com.pk/html/impressions.html

Indian Spring

- By Sairah Irshad Khan

A Muslim Indian explained why. ``Traditionally, the Indian Muslim has displayed a visible arrogance towards the Hindu faith. He has mocked his deities, shunned his beliefs and adopted the high moral ground in relation to the Hindu lifestyle. If this is the Indian Muslim, who has coexisted with the Hindu forever, it is presumed, naturally, that the Muslim from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be far more intolerant. The arrival of seven Pakistanis for the Kumbh and their obvious respect for Hindu customs, has therefore, made for a pleasant surprise. And this really is how we can build bridges, gulf the divide.``

Said an Indian Muslim businessman with a Pakistani wife and a large branch of his family on our side of the border, ``There used to be a time when Pakistanis would visit their relatives in India and speak of the quality of life they enjoyed in Pakistan as first-class citizens. The Indian Muslim would then bemoan his lot, and wonder whether he`d taken the right decision at Partition. But over the years, things changed. Between the Middle East, India`s economic boom, their own initiative, the Muslims have done better. Then along come the `mohajirs` from Pakistan with their tales of oppression and injustice, and suddenly the Indian Muslim thinks, `we`re not so badly off after all.``` He added that Kashmir has created another problem for the Indian Muslim. ``Always hard-pressed to prove his loyalty to his country, every time the Kashmir issue flares up, the loyalties of Muslims in India come under suspicion. Recently, I heard a group of Indian Muslims discussing the situation, and one of them turned around and said the Pakistanis are not interested in Muslims – only Kashmir. If they were, they`d worry about what happens to the huge Muslim community in India every time they instigate trouble in Kashmir.``

Yasser:

you write: ``Now, if you have information to the contrary [about the intriduction of Searate Electorates] present it but dont ridicule me.``

Jeez brother! If that`s all it takes for you to feel ridiculed, you`re in the running for my ``Supersensitive Guy of the Year`` award. But don`t worry, the girls love sensitivity. Just don`t mention it really means touchiness.

Now, if you`ve not miffed yet, please consider that you need to learn a bit about knowing who is on your side... and you`d do well to note that those with gallery tickets pumping up your (and otheres`) jazbaati level for some vicarious pleasure of their own do not necessarily have *your * best interest in mind. They are voyeurs of the most shameless kind, getting their thrills from egging you on to realize all the fantasies they themselves could not, dared not, or simply would not, take the trouble to realize themselves.

Who was it who said you should be wary of those you praise you too much?

Now, getting back to what I wrote, I was really surprised that you took it in a negative way. Or did u miss the Smiley face thingy at the end? And , anyway, between coursework and the chowk, how much time do you really spend out anyway??

None of my business of course, but I ask it (rhetorically) with `saaf neeyat`.

And yes, I *am * surprised that with all your reading of the Polictal scene in Pakistan, you are not aware that Separate Electorates was introduced (I think) in Bhutto`s time. I certainly know that when I went wanted to vote in `90 (91?) the naive 20-yo that I was, I was happy that seats for Minorities were `guaranteed`.

rgds,

PM

http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/dinia.htm

URL of a site on Chaudhari Rahmat Ali

IT is time to realize that we, the non-Indian nations, who comprise the Muslims, Dravidians, Akhoots (Untouchables), Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis, are, and ever have been, the victims of ``The Myth of Indianism``. That is the Myth which teaches that India is the country of ``India,`` i.e., the exclusive domain of Caste Hinduism and Caste Hindoos and which has been built up by the Caste Hindoos, buttressed by the British and, thanks to our own folly, believed by the world.

YLH

``The only Pea brained people in the subcontinent are your people, which evident in the quality of

Computer Engineers you fools are churning out.``

Ha ha ha!

Aisha

Info Chaudhari Rahmat Ali who coined the name PAKISTAN also called the True Hero of Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/2001/03/26/op.htm#4

By Khalid Hasan

EVERY now and then someone calls for bringing back the remains of the man who invented the name Pakistan back in 1933 while a student at Cambridge. Calls go out for honouring the true hero of the Pakistan movement and to bury him at least next to the Quaid-i-Azam.

A Chaudhari Rahmat Ali day is also observed here and there. For some years at least, a ceremonial wreath was placed on his grave by a group in England who believed that the state their hero had conceived had denied him his due place. These sentiments are expressed out of a sense of patriotism and love for Pakistan and one should take them in that light. However, were any of the devotees of Choudhari Rahmat Ali only to be aware of what he wrote about the establishment of Pakistan and Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, they would change their opinion.

Born in 1897, Rahmat Ali went to Lahore`s Islamia College and from there to Cambridge where in 1918 he co-authored a pamphlet called `Now or Never` with two other students, one of whom was Aslam Khattak who claims to this day that it was he and not Rahmat Ali who came up with the name Pakistan.

Rahmat Ali was highly critical of Iqbal for having proposed an Indian federation as he argued that this would reduce the Muslims to a minority in a united India and, further, that the administrative provinces proposed by Iqbal would lack autonomy. Rahmat Ali was not one for moderate language, always choosing the most lethal epithets to denounce those he thought were betraying the Millat or had already done so. He considered them to be ``quislings`` of the ``British-Bania alliance``. He castigated every Muslim leader who did not share his confused, emotional vision of a Muslim kingdom reigning over India and adjacent regions as a camp follower of British imperialism and an agent of caste-Hindu nationalism.

Rahmat Ali saw any Muslim politician who advocated an Indian federation as having succumbed to ``careerism``. He also denounced the Round Table Conferences as having been inspired by the ``British-Bania alliance``. Any Muslim who tried to extract concessions for the community from Whitehall as a traitor. That included practically the entire recognized Muslim leadership, including Iqbal and the Quaid.

He declared grandly that they had all failed and ``Allah had assigned that fateful task to me, that He commanded me to do it, that he wanted me to challenge the mighty, to oppose the Indian federation, to propose the Islamic federation. Once the feeling came, it possessed me; it governed my life; it directed my activities. Inspired by that divine mission, I came to the conclusion that it was now or never.``

Rahmat Ali`s concept of Pakistan was nebulous, fantasy-ridden, impractical and unattainable. His ideal Muslim homeland consisted of the entire North-western India, the Kathiawar peninsula and Kutch, several enclaves deep inside the modern-day Uttar Pradesh, including the Palanpur Agency and the cities of Delhi and Lucknow. He called for the establishment of three independent Muslim states in India: Bangistan, made up of undivided Bengal and Assam , Osmanistan, the present-day Andhra Pradesh, and Pakistan in the north-west. His scheme also included as part of this Muslim kingdom 243 smaller princely states and principalities that he wanted to be Pakistan`s tributaries, as if Pakistan was going to be an imperial power exercising absolute authority over the entire Indian subcontinent.

As for the Hindu majority, Rahmat Ali divided it into two categories: caste Hindus and others, but both to be herded together and pushed into a ghetto he called Hanoodia. The Sikhs were to be placed in a concentration camp called Sikhia. As for other religions and races, they were all to live in a territory called Hanadika. All these religions and races were to remain subservient to the master race he called The Paks. However, if any Muslims were to be found living in the three non-Muslim enclaves, they were to be gifted six regions across the mainland. For some reason, Rahmat Ali did not want them to come to the three Muslim states already in existence. Nowhere did he explain how precisely he was going to carve up India and turn its non-Muslim majority into slaves and chattels. India, he renamed Dinia. Rahmat Ali had quite an imagination when it came to names.

Rahmat Ali`s abusive denunciation of the Quaid-i-Azam came exactly six days after the Muslim League`s acceptance of the June 3 Plan. In a statement - later a pamphlet called `The Great Betrayal` - he castigated the Quaid and the League as ``having written the most shameful and the most treacherous page in the annals of the Millat``. He called for the rejection of the Plan in favour of his Pak Plan. He attacked the Quaid for being responsible for the ``greatest betrayal of the Millat in all her history``, charging that the ``blackest treachery`` had been committed by Jinnah who had re-enacted the fall of Muslim Spain in India.

Rahmat Ali wrote, ``To his crying shame, the consuming agony of the Millat and to the contemptuous joy of the British-Bania alliance``, Jinnah has accepted a Plan that ``spells peril to Islam``, having ``acted the Judas and betrayed, bartered and dismembered the Millat animated by ambition for recognition as the Quisling-i-Azam of Pakistan and Bangistan``. He called him ``far worse a traitor than Mir Jaffer in 1757 and the Muslim aristocracy in 1857``. He accused the founder of Pakistan of having ``shattered the foundations of Muslim nationhood and sabotaged the future of 100 million Muslims living in the continent of Dinia and its dependencies``. He called on all Muslims to rise against Jinnah and ``repudiate and nullify his treacherous plan``.

Rahmat Ali said Jinnah had dealt six deadly blows to the Millat that included the division of Bengal and Assam, and abandonment of Muslim forts and citadels, including the cities of Delhi, Agra and Lucknow. He said the Quaid had turned past Muslim victories into defeats and ``perverted the verdict of history`` and was now making ``desperate attempts to whitewash the betrayal``. He was asking Muslims to celebrate ``Marg-i-Millat as Jashn-i-Jinnah``, adding the ``smear of shame to the sorrow of disaster``. Jinnah had not accepted Pakistan but ``Pastan``, the shadow of Pakistan, having done Hindu and British bidding being a ``loyal, glorified servant of the King of Britain`` who was ``witless, powerless, weaponless``.

Rahmat Ali came to Pakistan and as the late Dr Ashiq Hussain Batalvi used to tell me in London, he used to rant and rave against the Quaid all day and inflict the vilest abuse on him. Finally, this bitter and lonely man returned to England, a country that he expressed such contempt for. He died in Cambridge in 1951 where he now lies buried, finally at peace.