Musharraf's Options: Time Running Out

Actually more was done for women rights and freedom of speech in Mushy's time than in either BB or NS times.

The democratically elected kuttay were afraid of mullahs and did not want to amend or repeal the hudood laws, so called foundation of Shariah. The hypocrites were busy lining thier pockets.

Mushy's term actually saw hudood laws amended (he was afraid to repeal them totally as well, but at least he had the courage to amend them).

The problem right now in Pakistan is one of fundamentalism sweeping the extremeties and moving towards the center.

Mushy is not well equipped to handle that as a great portion of his army supports the fundamentalism.

However BB and NS are non-starters against this threat.

So some of the people calling on the resignation of the so called cantonement kutta, are doing so under false pretenses. What kind of a democracy is it when it resembles more of a monarch with the bhuttos and the nawaz sharif (prodigal son of Zia).

Unless there is a third option, a new leader, (and please don't mention Cosmo Khan turned Conservative muslim), there is little hope of turning the tide around.

Hang on...the next decade or so is going to be very turbulent.

A matter of shame really, Pakistanis running all the time to the Saudi or some other Arabs to sort out their internal troubles, is this a sovereign republic or what? Why this so called round table cannot be convened in Islamabad, if all concerned are really keen on resolving the imbroglio? Strange! This time you sort it out in SA, have a new PM/Prez, another strongman seizes power, sends the incumbent in exile, obviously to Saudia. Have the Pakistanis pawned their soveignty to the Arabs? And one wonders is sending an incumbent PM/Prez in exile permitted in the Constitution?

Another budget item for the pak army

...ransom payments to kidnappers

Another Tiger Niazi in the making, two entire companies surrendered, i understand including a few colonels.. repeat of
bangladesh, this time in the west.

Slogan of the pak army, we surrender in the eats, we surrender in the west, we surrender anywhere.

There used to be a chowk interactor romair who was an officer in the pak army, where is he now when we need him to explain the valor of pak army

Re: # 19

jayp,

........stop wandering over to the right side of the border if you don't want to end up as a kabob ..... have you applied yet ?

"Indian border guards are photographing cows in villages in the eastern state of West Bengal and issuing them with identity cards, officials say. "

p.s. i hate to point this out, but you are beginning to smell like masadi and the wrong end of a cow ...... get a job

Minhas saheb, you seem to be someone with real inside knowledge. However, I doubt that Nawaz will, at this point, agree to any conference in Gulf or London. He has been sounding increasingly self-assured and is in no mood to compromise, especially with those who dethroned him. He thinks that he is going to win, whether as ghazi (triumphant entrace to Punjab)or as shaheed (imprisoned on entry). If he comes to power, he would most likely try Musharraf for treason, that is if Musharraf still remains in Pakistan.

thinkingstorm#17:

You are right. I think that Musharraf as a dictator was quite successful, his downfall started when he started to crave democratic acceptance and called his referendum in 2002. He would have won the referendum at that time anyway, but compromised his reputation by rigging it. It has been a steady downfall since then. The moral of the story is that dictators should not try to be politicians.

DostMittar: you write "his (musharraf's) downfall started when he started to crave democratic acceptance"

Musharraf's downfall started the day he exposed his lack of integrity in holding the sham referendum, and continued as more and more people realized what a characterless man he is. Had he gone the way you recommend for dictators - that is to be ruthless with opposition, he would have discovered what Zia discovered when he tried this rout: that Pakistanis may not be loudmouthed self-promoters as is common among Indians, but they are no cowards or fools either as you assume. Thus: when Zia tried your route and started flogging journalists and putting loudspeakers in their faces (so the crowd may be intimidated by their cries of agony), the journalists shouted "Zia murdabad" instead. When Zia tried to implement his scheme to cut off hands of "thieves", he totally failed due to opposition from the medical community among others.

Read Ambassador Kux's book on Pakistan where he explains that having failed to implement his dictatorship behind the facade of Islam, Zia turned his attention to Afghanistan instead and created the Taliban.

#22 Posted by tahmed32 on September 3, 2007 8:47:46 am

prophetboy...pakiland has been ruled by the military for 33 of 60 years...even when it wasn't ruled by the military, the military pretty much called the shots...

there's paki-delusions..and there's reality..

NA-PAK FOUJ & PAK POLICE NO MORE DARE COME IN THE PUBLIC IN THEIR UNIFORMS:

http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20070903/Sub_Images/1100255 317-1.jpg

SURRENDER MONKEYS

http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20070903/Sub_Images/110025529 2-2.gif

THE REASON THERE IS NO HOPE IN A "POLITICAL PROCESS" IN PAKISTAN. THE REASON WHY IT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO INVEST IN THE BUSINESS OF GUILOTINE MANUFACTURING:


http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/sep2007-daily/03-09-2007/col 9.htm

#22 kya bat hain...how about the day he did bagal mein churi kargil when navaz sharif had moonh menin ram?

or when he conquered the TV station ..you distributed laddoos on the chowk?

tahmed32:

The point was very simple, and it had nothing to do with Pakistan, India or Inglistan (you should give up your habit of bringing India-Pak thingy on every issue). It is that a dictator's power arises out of complete control, which he can use for either good or bad. Since you brought India into the picture anyway, let me give an example from there: Indira Gandhi actually did something good during Emergency, enforced birth control on people against their will; even though it was in their own best interest, this was perhaps the single most important factor why Nathu Ram and Abdul Karim threw her out of her chair as soon as she decided to go democrat again and asked them for their approval.

dost_mittar.

re: musharraf's downfall when he sought democratic legitimacy

Well said.

#29 "well said"

You mean - you like to hear that. Musharraf's downfall started the day he made a mockery of the democratic process.

dost-mittar & almost every:

Is the ability to suffer fools inherent, acquired or a strategy to keep the fool on a long leash till he does himself in.
Is there an IQ test which can deteremine if a person is below even the minimum? ..Would that person understand what he is being tested for & therefore would it not be a "test" in the first place?

You ever noticed that most stupid people are invariably "polite" as well & and also have a simple staright forward sense of humour.

dost mittar #29. Your point of not bringing up India-Pakistan bs is valid and I'll try to avoid that with a reasonable individual like you (with unreasonable individuals, of course, one does not need to bother trying to be reasonable if one chooses to waste time commenting on something they wrote). :-)

I still think you are unrealistic when it comes to recognizing the power of legitimacy vs the power of the gun. How long do you think Indira Gandhi could have held on if she tried to use force? In case of Musharraf - he would have used force if he thought he could get away with it. He tried that when he tried to bully the chief justice in giving him a rubber stamp "re-election", and failed. He tried again on May 12 and failed. If he tries to use it again in future, all bets are off on the results. So, maybe Musharraf knows something that you need to realize - brute force isnt going to keep him in power. Some form of legitimacy will - and that is why he is shuttling from islamabad to dubai trying to cut deals.

The ancient chinese sage realized this when he mentioned that rulers have a "mandate from heaven" - and that mandate is ultimately the voice of the people, the voice of God. And the holy prophet understood this when he said that the pen is mightier than the sword.