Pervez Musharraf Vs. George Orwell

#18
In contrast, your wife writes about Musharraf`s writing style:

`` I noticed that Pervez Musharraf steers clear from George Orwell’s most cautioned malaise – Lack of Clarity.

Musharraf has seemed to remedy with his clear, crisp and honest language the very nature of political language which Orwell says is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

Musharraf labels rot as rot, and if his story is to be believed he never would be a dictator, nor does he support the interference of the military into politics, as he explains at length, for the right reasons too.``
``

``Any learned American inspired by the Jeffersonian ethic will like this book, so will a solider, a republican or a democrat with a commitment to minority rights. Refreshingly though, the book isn’t written for the American, as much as it resonates with the nationalist Pakistani with the Jinnahist ethic – the secular democratic Pakistan that is successfully liberal because of its culturally Islamic background rather than despite it.``


That is why I said you and your wife need to talk, but feel free not to.

No other man except you or another fellow rabid Paki would attack an unknown woman from another country for the book written by a military dictator of your own country. Aisha Sarwari has my sympathies.

Dear Sadna...

There is no misdirection.

I stand by my comments on that thread.

Let me quote the ``abuse``...

is that I want to ask Sadna if she has ghost-written the book for the General... the similarity of the writing style is unmistakable. Even the typos are the same...

It displays the same control freakery, dishonest crookery, twisting of facts and materials, narrowminded focus and same lay man approach to government, constitution, politics that is the hallmark of Sadna.... Albeit ... unlike Sadna whose efforts are aimed at changing now accepted facts of history which have become all the more obvious in recent years... Musharraf`s effort seems to prop himself up in the mould of the greatest reformist dictator ....

A match made in heaven indeed.


There is no abuse... simply an apt description of General sahab`s book and your writing style.

#16
Typical misdirection - noone was questioning your wife`s freedom to disagree with you. The issue is your thread about me and Musharraf`s book. If Ms Sarwari`s husband is a weird person who was abusing a woman on the web for Musharraf`s book, that is her misfortune.

I recommend a rabies vaccine not for disagreeing with her but for your thread about me and Musharraf`s book. But as someone said, it is too late.

Look Sadna.. I admit it. I posted it. I stand by it. I disagree with Aisha on Musharraf`s book... Please tell me what the crime in all of this is? Can`t a husband and a wife disagree on a dictator`s book?

Not every family has the same equation as you Guptas man..

#13
You can`t shift focus away from your own thread which you yourself posted to anyone else. The person forcing his view on women is you, who abuse unknown women on the web for a book Musharraf wrote. I call upon anyone to name any another man they know who does that.

Dear Sadna...

Lets go over the contents of 11 again... I am not distancing myself from these comments. I stand by them. Aisha has the right to have her opinion on the book....

I am merely questioning your claim that every South Asian male is like your brother a rabid fascist who forces his views down the throats of the women in his life.

#11
You are the one who gratuitously attacked me and abused Musharraf (and me) for his book and I am just quoting you. So there is no point in hitting out at me for what you yourself wrote. Take responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming an anonymous person like me for your own rabid behaviour.

Addendum to #11

The word ``views`` in the last line between ``his`` and ``down your throat``.

#8 and 10

Spoken like a true fascist haven`t you... I know you won`t dare disagree with that rabid brother of yours.... who foams at the mouth every time he hears the words Pakistan.... have you administered rabies vaccine to him?

However in our household... people are allowed to hold different opinions. Aisha and I disagree on the Musharraf book and I am certainly not going to impose my views on her like your brother forces his down your throat.

#9
That is why I said that Ms Sarwari needs to talk to her husband. Hopefully in their discussion about their President Musharraf and his book, they will display some minimum honesty to each other and a wholly unconnected person like myself will not be dragged in dishonestly he did.

#8 Sadna

Perhaps the author and mian Manto each read a different page from the book and came up with differing conclusions?!!

From

http://www.chowk.com/show_forum_topic_post_list.cgi?tid=00033493

My impression of the Musharraf book...

Started by Mantolives on September 25, 2006 9:43pm PT

... is that I want to ask Sadna if she has ghost-written the book for the General... the similarity of the writing style is unmistakable. Even the typos are the same...

It displays the same control freakery, dishonest crookery, twisting of facts and materials, narrowminded focus and same lay man approach to government, constitution, politics that is the hallmark of Sadna.... Albeit ... unlike Sadna whose efforts are aimed at changing now accepted facts of history which have become all the more obvious in recent years... Musharraf`s effort seems to prop himself up in the mould of the greatest reformist dictator ....

A match made in heaven indeed.


--

The author needs to have a word with her husband. If she wants to administer the rabies vaccine to him without his agreement, that ought to be fine too.

here`s how to write a review of a book (not an opinion piece - thank you BJKumar) and perhaps better inform Mantolives` little woman, the indominatble Mrs. Aisha hamdani,

from the economist http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7997005

General Pervez Musharraf

Military misjudgment
Oct 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The Pakistani leader`s memoir may be a bestseller, but it does him little justice



AFP
THERE are good things to be said about General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan`s president and army chief, and he is, as he might put it, proud and unstinting in his resolution to say them, over and over, in his cliché-ridden and boringly boastful autobiography, “In the Line of Fire”.

General Musharraf—and there are enough phrases familiar to those who have followed his career to prove that he wrote quite a lot of it—comes across as humourless, vain and insecure. Sentences as smug as, “My career was now well on course, given all my qualifications and achievements”, are spattered across almost every page. There are many references to the president`s (allegedly) fine musculature. Any less than glorious event in his life, after at least a refreshingly sinful youth, is blamed on some less worthy individual, a dull superior or jealous peer, whom the author is all too happy to name. And yet, painful though it is to read, this is a quite remarkable book, about dramatic events and, as the occasional sentence lets slip, an interesting and impressive man.

For a start, the book`s timing is remarkable. It is unusual for serving heads-of-state to publish memoirs, for good reason. General Musharraf denigrates Pakistan`s chief ally, America, for the bullying way in which it manages its foreign policy and for failing to live up to its promises. He is also bafflingly rude about India, given that he has staked his name on making peace with it. Of India`s leader, he says: “The initial signs of sincerity and flexibility that I sensed in Manmohan Singh seem to be withering away.” He suggests that Osama bin Laden is not, as often supposed, in Pakistan`s wild northern areas, but in eastern Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan`s leader, whom General Musharraf accused of resembling an ostrich last week at a bad-tempered summit in Washington, DC, is not pleased by the book. Neither is almost anyone in Pakistan, although it is selling briskly there (see article). General Musharraf scorns most of the country`s civilian politicians—tactless, if justifiable—including some of his supporters.

Insults aside, the book does not tell us much that is new. Most interesting are the details of events leading to the arrest in Pakistan of several top terrorists, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the attacks on the twin towers, and other al-Qaeda members; General Musharraf says 689 al-Qaeda members have been arrested, of whom 369 have been handed over to America. That is a testament to the efficiency of Pakistan`s security services, even though Mr Musharraf accuses America of having failed to provide the technical kit it promised.

Such digs at the superpower may be for the benefit of Pakistanis, many of whom find General Musharraf too quick to leap to its bidding. But the book is meant for a Western audience, by whom, it is clear, General Musharraf considers himself ill judged. It contains bold treatises on the political and economic reforms he has overseen since stealing power in his 1999 coup. These include a messy, but promising, effort to devolve power to the local level, and the creation of elected councils with fixed quotas for women representatives. There are also quotas for women in provincial and national assemblies. General Musharraf has given a boost to female emancipation in Pakistan, although the full impact of the changes he has introduced will not be felt soon. Even better, he has delivered broad structural improvements to Pakistan`s economy, which had been in a desperate way. This was not, as he suggests, the result of his own genius. He is economically semi-literate. But he can take credit for appointing wise technocrats.

In short, heaven forbid that anyone unfamiliar with Pakistan should wholly trust this book. General Musharraf is as partial as any campaigning politician. One monstrous example is his account of a short war with India at Kargil in 1999, when he was merely army chief. It began when Pakistani state-sponsored jihadist militants attacked across the front-line in contested Kashmir, drawing a ferocious Indian response. General Musharraf calls this an over-reaction—but if it were, it was understandable—and he says that India`s army came off worse in the fray, even to the point where the military ran out of coffins for their dead. Yet he omits to mention the hundreds—some say thousands—of Pakistani fighters who were slaughtered in a humiliating retreat.

Disingenuously, he says the war at Kargil was an important catalyst in the peace process that followed: if that is true, it is because Pakistan, not India, was forced to the table by the drubbing it took there.

An election is due in Pakistan next year, and General Musharraf is increasingly unpopular. This is because of a litany of perceived failures, including a muddle-headed war he has prosecuted in the northern areas, and rising inflation. It is also because, despite their appalling experiences of civilian leadership, and their acquiescence in his coup, Pakistanis have tired of army rule.

The bad news in this book is that General Musharraf refuses to recognise this truth: “The Pakistan Army has always been held in high esteem as the only powerful stabilising factor in the nation,” he insists. He does not seem to show any inclination to quit his twin role, as he is constitutionally obliged to do.

I must say, I was rather surprised with this review. quoting the essay by the Orwell was a real downer. (as an aside I would say his 1984 was a better book - and given the nature of things a better book to quote and use as a back drop of the review).

I have read the book - was one of the first to buy the damn book here. And I must admit, Ms. Sarwari, has done a political arselickinjob on the book. Indeed her review falls into exactly the same category od Orwells`s political speech and writing. Utterly and totally feckless.

Where I work this essay/critique would not cross a c grade! Neverthelss, as I said earlier its a good political boot licking exercise, and manto has trained his little woman Mrs. Hamdani well and I commend him for that.

In the end would you guys pay heed to a review in the economist, NYT , WP etc or little Miss Fontleroy who is the mouthpiece for a political arselickerinwaiting!

Re: # 6

Oops - I seem to have missed out a few words - 1984 was in reference to animal Farm!

Still doesnot change much...

Aisha, you really don’t talk too much about the contents of the book here, mostly you discuss your (preexisting) feelings on various issues concerning Pakistan. This piece can be called an opinion piece but calling it a review is an absolute misnomer and falsity.

Even if you had not read the book, 99% of this write-up could have been easily written by you and would stay exactly the same! And the comparison with George Orwell - who after all wrote FICTION - is rather weak!

It is highly ironic that you are able to see in Mushy the “ability to give India a bloody nose” – considering that he is the ONLY commander in chief of Pakistan who actually (a) lacked the guts to accord Pakistani soldiers their basic right of recognition when they were killed, and (b) who lied on this issue countless number of times and perhaps continues to do so in the book. Statements like these do not bail out the general – they can only make the neutral reader doubt your own motives for trying to “restore” the general!