The Pattern of Violence

Prem #20 Actually, I was whining about the loose use of terminology, not about any dire predictions about Pakistan. Most of the problems we see in the world would disappear if people spoke clearly.

To use this example: ``Pakistan wont survive`` is a meaningless phrase and conveys nothing other than vague forebodings on the part of the writer. It would be better to say for example that ``Pakistan will split into a number of smaller states`` if that is what the Godot fears. That was the point of my post. Socrates used to ask people to define their terms all the time, and I think he was on to something...

re: tahmed321 # 16

Godot (#5) appeared to be venting his frustration rather than articulating a belief. On odd days I myself have given in to some similar frustrations about India. So I know where he is coming from.

Regards.

My honest opinion is the US doesnot give a damn what Musharraf does to Muslim extremists, democracy, reforms or how many people jihadis kill in Kashmir. If he only helps the US pursue Al Qaeda, there would be no outbursts like these.

In fact, in that case the US would even put a good spin on any number of massacres in Kashmir (we have already heard Ari Flescher term the recent attack `occasional violence`)or Musharraf burning every existing copy of the Pakistan constitution if he so chose.

The equation is simple, to maintain jihadi killings in Kashmir and any domestic policy of your choice without US objecting, you have to help them hunt down Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17470-2002May14.html

The General`s Broken Promise


Wednesday, May 15, 2002; Page A26

LAST JANUARY Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf delivered a highly promoted television address in which he promised to lead his divided and impoverished country in an entirely new direction. His aim, he said, was to create a modern, prosperous and democratic ``Islamic welfare state``; to do that, he would purge the country of the Islamic extremism that had infected its politics, its schools and its armed forces. Terrorism, Mr. Musharraf declared, would no longer be tolerated, and militant groups that had waged war against India and its rule of Muslim Kashmir would no longer be supported. In the days after the speech, as police rounded up some 2,000 militants from five newly banned organizations, it seemed that Mr. Musharraf might really be determined to transform his country, defuse a mounting confrontation with India and turn a short-term alliance with the United States in Afghanistan into a long-term partnership.

Four months later, that hopeful prospect has largely dissipated. Most of the militants Mr. Musharraf had arrested are back on the streets, and there has been a string of sensational terrorist attacks against Westerners in Pakistani cities. Extremist religious schools are still operating. Guerrillas are once again infiltrating from Pakistan into Kashmir, prompting renewed talk of war between two nuclear-armed states that between them have 1 million troops deployed along their border. Mr. Musharraf may even be scaling back his cooperation with the U.S. military; according to a report in The Post by Thomas E. Ricks and Kamran Khan, Pakistan has refused to launch operations against concentrations of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who have taken refuge in its western provinces.

Rather than pursue the courageous agenda he outlined, Mr. Musharraf has recently devoted himself to a counterproductive effort to consolidate power at the expense of Pakistani democracy. Last month he staged a one-sided referendum to extend his term as president for five years, an initiative that served to weaken rather than confirm his political authority. Now he is talking about imposing a military-dominated national security council to oversee future civilian governments. Pakistan`s normally fractious political parties, media and civil society have united in opposition to these measures, virtually ensuring that Mr. Musharraf will be locked in a power struggle for the foreseeable future, not with Muslim extremists but with the very Pakistanis who most support a secular and democratic society.

Perhaps Mr. Musharraf believes he must strengthen his position before carrying out the promised reforms; more likely he finds it easier to take on journalists, civilian politicians and India than the Muslim extremists or those in his own military who insist on promoting an insurgency in Kashmir. In any case, his present course risks not only the ruin of his promise of reform but even greater disasters, including the resurgence of al Qaeda inside Pakistan, or war with India. The Bush administration embraced Mr. Musharraf last year after he pledged his support for the military campaign in Afghanistan; it showered him with economic aid and overlooked his bogus referendum. But it cannot continue to cling to him if he is to lead his regime over a cliff. Once again, as it did after Sept. 11, the administration must present the Pakistani president with a stark choice: Either he must act decisively against the extremists of al Qaeda and Kashmir, and implement the domestic reforms he promised, or lose the support of the United States.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Godot #5 ``gave Pakistan about 15 years max to survive.``

I am intrigued by the frequent comment (over the past few decades now) that Pakistan will not survive. What happens if Pakistan does not survive? Will there be a sudden flash and a hole will appear on the ground where there used to be Pakistan? Or maybe there will be 8-10 different countries where there used to be one, some with nuclear bombs, some without. And each with it`s own little petty tyrant. Altaf ``torture cell`` Bhai in Karachistan, some Sindhi Wadera in Sindhistan, half-brain Nawaz Sharif the MardiMomin in the Lahoristan, Bacha Saqa in Peshawar, Mullah Omar in Baluchistan, and so on. Or perhaps India will try to exert control, only to find itself fighting a guerilla war that will make Afghanistan war against the Russians seem like a petty skirmish.

Or perhaps (at least as likely as the other scenarios) maybe there will be a flash - a flash of a nuclear bomb going off - a first in a a series of flashes in BOTH India and in Pakistan. And then only the unlucky (the ones doomed to die of radiation poisoning or it`s other longer term effects) will survive in both countries.

So, I am not sure what people mean when they say Pakistan wont survive. And why they have been saying this ever since I can remember - as I recall this was in fact a prediction Nehru made in 1947.

Samina Shah,

So her work is not belligerantly nationalistic drivel? Amazing...

I could have sworn that given the similarities of what Beena is saying and what I have been saying all along, you would have thought all of this was some `Nationalist myth`...

Or wait.. well never mind!

Urstruly Sahib,

You incorrectly imply that state’s “zero tolerance of intolerance” is self-contradictory …

Executing a murderer does not make the state a murderer. Locking up thieves in prisons does not make the state an oppressor. Similarly, by cracking down on the militant religious elements, the state itself does not become an intolerant militant institution.

In a state there should be room for (almost) all ideologies … except those that advocate, and forcefully carry out … violence against the innocents. Such behavior, combined with political arm-twisting, has largely defined the modus operandi of the religious right in Pakistan’s political arena. The state is therefore largely justified in swift actions aimed at shutting down day-to-day activities of these “religious” institutions.

You mullahs need to go back to the drawing board and try to figure out where you went wrong. Your problem is not the USA … not the Ahmadis … not the Jews … rather your own delusions and a fake sense of righteousness that you go around imposing on others.

Romair #6:

``When the French realized that Le-Pin has a remote shot at becoming the President, all of them, from the extreme left to the right, united under one flag, and carried out some of the biggest protests in post WWII French history. They then overwhelmingly voted for Chirac (a man whom most of them disliked). They voted for him because he was the best available option in comparison to Le-Pen (the same reason why I still support Musharraf, in comparison to BB and NS).

``Until Pakistanis stop whining, and actually come out into the streets to take on the extreme religious right in a show of power, any govt. will obviously be hesitant to take on the religious right, also. It can only take them on if it sees the masses supporting it in real (as the French did) and not merely in newspapers.``

That is why democracy is important for Pakistan, so that the 5% religious parties are shown their place. In the absence of democracy, one who shouts loudest wins, while loser whines about `silent majority`.

On a lighter note, TV channels have fashed pictures of Omar Saeed from different periods of his life, there seems to be a discongruence, his picture from his teen oe early twenties shows him with a snub nose.More recent pictures have him with a perfect nose, did ISI do a nose job on its most favored agent?

Some excellent writing here.

Ms. Sarwar wrote:

``What is needed in Pakistan is `zero tolerance of intolerance`.``

All that I can add is Amen

Oh sorry : AAMEEN

Ras

re: t # 1

``Anachronism...``

That pretty much sums it up. The answers to any nation`s problems lie in its people, not its #

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

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

Its like this:
1. You are told that its OK to kill Indians anywhere in India, including Kashmiri civilians and the more the better
2. You are sheltered after hijacking an airplane, killing a passenger and getting your associates released.
3. Your CEO covers up for you in international summits and refuses to acknowledge your existence much less bring you to justice.

4. Over and above that, until Oct 9 2002, you were encouraged and supported for 5-7 years when you decided to risk your life and help kill off fellow Muslims of a different ethnicity in Afghanistan.


After all this, its no surprise that its hard for you to understand some English-speaking types now telling you its wrong to kill your enemies and that its especially bad to kill those with white skin.

The malaise is not just in the religio-political parties. They are merely unsure whether its worth changing their business model or its only a temproary recession and it will be business as usual after a short while.

Beena Sarwar

The only segment I agree in your thesis is this:

``There are no two ways about it: what`s needed to prevent the rise of religious extremism is political will and determination - always sadly lacking here.``

The rest of your thesis, unfortunately is self-contradictory. It can be summarized in one sentence that you wrote ``What is needed in Pakistan is `zero tolerance of intolerance`.``

That is like trying to make a right through two wrongs. This is the perfect recipe for the coming anarchy that temporal has very intelligently pointed out to.

I always consider the 9/11 the greatest event in the history, not because of its clamity but because of its aftermath. It has opened up all the covers, lifted all the facades, and we (all including, and especially western colonial powers)are literally naked in this Public bath. Personally, I think a time has come in Paksitan, finally, that the colonial powers and people of Paksitan are standing face to face. Unfortunately, the Paksitan Army whom the very people have been feeding with their blood and sweat has chosen the other side. War is a very fluid situation and nothing is more uncertain than anarchy. One thing that history has always told us, and it has come true through all tests of time is that people always win.

There is something I have never been able to figure out about us Pakistanis. We keep saying that religious parties do not have any political or electoral support. We keep saying that they are destructive. Then why in the world do they have so much influence on govt. policy.

The answer is quite simple. They stand up for what they believein , in many cases violently. If someone makes a minor change in the blasphemy law, within seconds tens of thousands of people who don`t believe the change should be made, are mobilized and carrying out protests.

However, when the change is taken back, none of the people who claim that maulvis never win more than 5% of the seats in any assembly (which they don`t) do anything. They write a few articles, and whine by blaming the govt.

What the hell is the govt. supposed to do? Not only the present govt. but any govt. If it sees tens of thousands of people protesting for the blasphemy law and none protesting against it, it will take it back; even a military govt.. That is how govts. work.

When the French realized that Le-Pin has a remote shot at becoming the President, all of them, from the extreme left to the right, united under one flag, and carried out some of the biggest protests in post WWII French history. They then overwhelmingly voted for Chirac (a man whom most of them disliked). They voted for him because he was the best available option in comparison to Le-Pen (the same reason why I still support Musharraf, in comparison to BB and NS).

Until Pakistanis stop whining, and actually come out into the streets to take on the extreme religious right in a show of power, any govt. will obviously be hesitant to take on the religious right, also. It can only take them on if it sees the masses supporting it in real (as the French did) and not merely in newspapers.

It`s about time us Pakistanis stopped blaming govts. and started blaming themselves every now and then also. The maulvis, as much as many people may hate them, at least believe in their convictions strongly enough to put their money where their mouth is.

Good to see an article from Beena Sarwar after a long time. There is hardly any point to argue against your identification of the problem. It is all about the questions of coping and reversing these trends that need to be discussed. Even a government with two third majority in the National Assembly was helpless to act against these tendencies, a man with, perhaps, 5 percent or less popular support is not expected to achieve anything.

The opiate of the masses used to be a slowly infecting disease during last 2000 years - before that it was almost benign. With higher level of interdependence of the modern societies, it has become very infectious and spreads like black plague. Certain derivatives of this amphetamine, developed more recently, are much more potent than the original concoction.

:))I think the development of these potent derivatives of Islam is a zionist/ Hindu conspiracy and only Imran Khan, Musharraf on high ground (Presidency in Islamabad is on high ground) and the end of feudalism could eliminate this scourge. Islam was a peaceful religion in both temporal and eternal senses until Zionists, Trilaterals, Free Masons and Builderbergers infiltrated, forging the doctrine and dogma. If you do not believe me, just wait for few posts!!!