Musharraf the Out-smarter

shishapa: do you have a fever as well?

These loosers had no clue about what to do
with the state. All these bigots wanted was
to get rid of Hindus and Sikhs. That they
did very effectively. And then they started
groping in the dark, they are still doing
and will continue to do for quite some time.

Your Excellency:

First get to KNOW your enemy and then hold forth for all you want to:

1. Naxalites have not been Colonized (duh, what does that mean anyway?). The naxalites are fighting the Indian State.

2. You should like the Hindutva guys. Vajpayee was the first to address the dictator as "Mr. President".

3. BJP went about 'making peace' with Pakistan because they thought (rightly or wrongly) that it would 'buy' them the Muslim vote (apart from other reasons). Turns out that it did not work.

4. Pakistanis need not fear Hindu hegemony. A lot of us Indians fear it and so we shall take care of it. Your good wishes are welcome but we do not want help from your kind, thank you.

5. Pakistanis should fear the Indian state. Indians should fear the Pakistani state. And both Pakistanis and Indians should fear their respective states.

6. We Indians will someday be able to (largely) protect ourselves from our state. I wish you Pakistanis can do the same. We have something called the army JUST to protect ourselves from the Pakistani (and other foreign) states. We have been able to do so in the past to reasonabe satisfaction. I can't say the same for Pakistanis. I hope you guys can do much better in the future. But for that you need the army to specialize in what it is meant to do, not run 'Family Planning' units.

Besides, how is "Hindu hegemony" countered by the likes of Riaz Jafri getting Murabbas of land which is stolen from the people of Pakistan?

"I fail to see the logic here. Hindu hegemony is a perception as there is no Hindu hegemony now in Pakistan or in South Asia. So it is a non issue to begin with. Under what circumstances would it become an issue for common man in Pakistan?
You are a victim of the propaganda that creates a strawman and then claims that the Pak army stands to prevent it (Hindu hegemony) from becoming an issue."

The logic is this

- there is no hindu hegemony at present in Pakistan

- there is the Kashmir issue, which proves India desire for Hindu hegemony.

- Since the desire for Hindu hegemony exists, so does the potential.

- the Pak Fouj is the Bulwark against that potential Hindu hegemony; never mind that India can barely hegemoniz half its own states.

- Hence, Pakistani civillians must give up a larger proportion of national resources so that Pak Fouj can continue to go against the potential of Hindu hegemony.

As a son of an India Fauji, I have nothing but sheer contempt for the Pakistani Fauji Officer class. They are parasite who want Pakistan to exist for their benefit rather than the other way round. I am specifically talking about the Pakistan Army; I am not sure of the Air Force and Navy in Pakistan are similar or not. I am also not talking about enlisted personnel. The Indian Army and Pak Army are the same when it comes to measuring salaries and benefits for Soldiers but very different for Officers. It is surprising that Pakistani, who compare to India in eveything else, have not done a salary / bonus / perks comparison of Indian and Pakistani generals.

Your other mistake is that u are confusing HP as a victim of Fauji propaganda whereas he is actually a beneficiary.

Re: # 64

So Afghanistan needs to have nukes so Pakistan will
stay clear off of it, perhaps cough up the occupied
Afganistan (NWFP)?

Re: # 67

Array bhai, Nepal does not border Pakistan or
Bangladesh. If India gets vanquished tomorrow,
I have no doubt Nepal would not survive.
Ek taraf Chinese aur doosaray taraf Pakistani musalmans, baap re baap, unko koi bhagwan bacha
nahi sakata.

re: #58

Why doesn't Hindu Nepal face the same jihad that India does?
Hint: Nepali sena didn't colonize other people like the Bharati sena colonized Kashmiris and Naxalites.

#62 Posted by HisExcellency

You are just taking the discussion to a different area. Let us stick with the Pakistan army and why should it be stripped of power and who would skin that fox.

“Why couldn't Mujib show some statesmanship and compromise on a few of his impossible demands after West Pakistani politicians agreed to most of them anyway???”

Who said that he was not willing to compromise? He was talking with the army when the army was planning an action in East Pakistan and that included the arrest of all awami league leadership including Mujib.

You need to read the history again. Those elections were for the constitution making assembly and he had the right to push his political agenda forward. Did the Pakistan army allow him to come to the assembly and present his demands as the basis for the new constitution? He represented the majority and despite the fact that his 6 points would have led to separation in a few years down the line, he still had to get them through the assembly and the political process itself would have taken the edges and the controversial issues out of his proposals.

East Pakistanis were not against Pakistan and they would have forced Mujib to bargain with political parties in Pakistan. But, we had an army which was trying to secure its position in the Pakistani politics. In fact, the army was trying to ensure that army gets to keep the control of the country.

I think from that point on it was conclusively clear that Pakistan army was and still is working against Pakistan.

You guys are still on mile 0.
60 years ago, you broke a country saying Hindu hegemony
Hindu hegnemony.
After 60 years, you are still chanting and scared of
Hindu hegemony, Hindu hegemony.
And after another 60 years, you will be doing the same. There is no dobut.

re: HP

"Why do you think a nuke powered India could possibly invoke a Hindu hegemony in the area?"

Power leads to arrogance and greed, my friend. That's politics 101. In international relations, that means an attempt to appropriate the resources (territory, water, fossil fuels, etc) of your neighbours and/or dictate their foreign & trade policies.

As it is, what is the big deal about Pakistan?
It was not there 60 years ago, it will not remain
60 years later. Who the heck and why the heck
should one regret if anybody breaks it apart?
It is not as if it has tried to break other countries
apart!
You guys will remain Muslim, if that is what you
are scared of, Pakistan or no Pakistan.
So chill, if someone breaks Pakistan, let them.

Aur waisay bhi kya bade teer maa rahe ho Pakistan
banakar?

re: #56 HP

What makes you think Indian interference began in 1971? The crisis began much earlier with Mujib's Six Point agenda (which were drafted by Indira Gandhi). Which country can pull together with two currencies and state banks??

Why couldn't Mujib show some statesmanship and compromise on a few of his impossible demands after West Pakistani politicians agreed to most of them anyway???

India's role in precipitating the crisis and encouraging Mujib to take an unreasonably rigid stance is well documented. India could do that in 1971 because Pakistan Army did not have enough cantontments in East Pakistan and most of its airforce was based in West Pakistan.

The 1971 episode further elaborates the fact that only a balance of power preserves peace.

Re: # 56

I would trust that immature policitian much much
more than some erudite ether/cyber ponga pundits here.
They are much rooted in the ground than some hot
air baloons.

The author writes "The anti-government (read Musharraf) element has fielded their own candidate in the exalted person of Justice Wajih ud Din to oppose the General in the ensuing Presidential Elections to be held on 6th October 2007"

A very weak article that is just as unsuccessful in its "ulterior motive" that of supporting the dictator, as the dictator is in outsmarting those that want him gone. "Pakistan First" was not introduced by Musharraf. Every single leader that has come in Pakistan has talked the "people" talk, the "nation is at risk" talk and this is more of the same. The acts of this ruler tell us that he has put America first on all occassions and when he was made to fail by bigger peons, and got too big for his boots, the crisis started because he had fallen out of favor with his masters. That was the origin of the "black coats" protest, and were the military (the others for fear of whom the dictator does not want to give up the uniform, once he does he is not different politically than a rat that can be eliminated at will)not supporting the "black coats" they would have amounted to nothing.

Now the fool thinks that he can outsmart the Americans who want him gone for a stop gap period of the BB & Co, until the new general can depose of her at the heels of the Iran war. The Americans are well versed in de-skinning (their previously supported) rats, so they will take his uniform off. It is his choice whether he wants to take it off in private (the idea behind the BB/Musharraf negotiations) or they will strip him in public (by a hellfire aimed for his a$$).

Now, in all the ramblings of Aitezaz Ahsan today, all he wanted to get across (which he was having a hard time doing) was that the 17th Amendment allows the President(1) to be army chief till end of his term in November but says nothing about the Army Chief (1) being able to become President(2)- The constitutional requirements of Army Chief exclude him from Presidency, both are logically different and this is a good point.

So, based on what I have written above the decision will, in fulfilling what America desires (whose desires are reflected by the military to whom the SC is subservient, read your history) require Musharraf to take the uniform off. If he does not, he will be removed by the Americans shortly....Regarding the Wajih ud Din nomination, that is mere distraction to fool the people of this country, trying to capitalize on a manufactured CJ crisis (that as you might recall, was manufactured by the Americans with full backing of their occupation force, the Pak Army).

Hindu hegemony and threat is very real and must be dealt with. However, I do beleive that as the Kashmir is liberated by Indians, Pakistan can have very coordial and mutually beneficial relationship with Hindus. But unfortunately kashmir is not only a terretorial issue but an ideological one too - hence a win win solution at this time is impossible.