Musharraf the Out-smarter

#46 Posted by HisExcellency

“There is fighting in Waziristan (and not all of NWFP). And these fighters don't threaten Pakistan's national security like India's Hindu army does.”

You are seriously mistaken if you think these guys are not a threat to Pakistan’s security. They are fighting for Independent Tribal area and nothing else. They see their future working with or being a part of Afghanistan. The tribes in Pakistan no longer control the opium trade in Afghanistan. Their heroine factories are closed as their rival the Karzai alliance controls the most lucrative business out there. That is the business that made several millionaires in the tribal areas.
You are taken in by the Islamic non sense. It is just a cover to protect their interest in opium, drugs and arms trade.

I am sure a majority of the tribes are not traitors but their leaders certainly are and they are security threat. Anyone from the settled areas, who supports these criminals is anti Pakistan.

re: #37 HP

"Hindu hegemony...has never been an issue in Pakistan"

Please read my post again. I never said Hindu hegemony is an "issue" in Pakistan. A strong Pak Army has ensured that external aggression from India does not become an issue for the common Pakistani.

#48 Posted by Urstruly
“The only moulvis who support military are sirkari moulvis.”

Hahaha! Name ten moulvis in Pakistan who are currently not sirkari maulvi or were not sarkari in the recent past.

Every political maulvi in Pakistan whether he is from NWFP or Punjab or in Sindh has ISI money circulating in his body as blood! And it is yellow!

re: #HP

"So the question of Hindu hegemony in Pakistan is just a fabrication created by the army"

That's classic Indian BS, my friend. Did the army also fabricated an Indian invasion in Dec 1971 to justify its political ambitions? What about India's nuclear testing and subsequent threats to Pakistan? That must have been engineered by the generals too, right?

#50 Posted by HisExcellency

“Please read my post again. I never said Hindu hegemony is an "issue" in Pakistan. A strong Pak Army has ensured that external aggression from India does not become an issue for the common Pakistani.”

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 only thing that could be detrimental to Pakistan would be Indian economic and to a certain extent military hegemony in the area. However, first that hegemony does not equate to being a hindu hegemony and second the army cannot counter those two aspects of possible Indian hegemony in the area by itself or by the arms it has.

Pakistan needs civilian political leadership to find solutions to that future issue though I don’t believe that Indian hegemony would be a threat to Pakistan’s existence.

Nothing out there suggests that Indian hegemony would be bad for the area but it does open up the possibilities when radical rightwing Indians take over that country. However, even then it will take a civilian leadership with a vote of confidence from the people of Pakistan to deal with that distantly relevant issue.

Wah, dispossed mughals made this country for themselves, mughali hi to chal rahi hai (all these
intrigues, lawlessness, jailing, infigting for
crown). People expected they would rule themselves?
Ha Ha.
You will have to beg Hindus to rule you, will have
all the things like rule of law, land reforms,
electoral reforms, elections, peaceful transfer
of power, and a chance to make a difference.
Otherwise there is no chance for awam.

re: #40 shishapa

We don't need to brainwash anyone. Indian Army has done a commendable job of turning thousands of Kashmiris, Sikhs and Naxalites into militants. And where they have failed, politicians like Narendra Modi have stepped in.

#52 Posted by HisExcellency

“That's classic Indian BS, my friend. Did the army also fabricated an Indian invasion in Dec 1971 to justify its political ambitions? What about India's nuclear testing and subsequent threats to Pakistan? That must have been engineered by the generals too, right?”

If I were of age in 1971, I would have supported the Indian army for doing what it did in East Pakistan. Pakistan army was not on the right side on that issue. Bengalis imo, had every right to ask for international help in view of an armed and a potentially devastating blow to the Bengali nation and the people of that area.

I don’t believe in the stories about large scale genocide in East Pakistan as it never happened but whatever military action the Pak army took in that province against the wishes of the people of Bengal was not justified. Human rights don’t end where Pakistani border starts.

I have written many posts on the nuclear issue and wouldn’t like to go back to that debate. It was a major mistake by some immature Indian politicians and now India is paying a price for that by being subjected to almost slave like conditions to meet its genuine power needs.

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

shishapa is an example of the rightwing Indians that I talked about in my earlier posts but that is a dying breed. Their hatred is not based on facts but on larglely childish emotions that they display in their posts aplenty.

re: #53 HP

"Hindu hegemony is a perception"

I guess invasion of Hyderabad & Kashmir, three wars with Pakistan and introducing nuclear weapons into non-nuclear south asia must be perceptions too :) Remember India has gone to war with China once, but thrice with Pakistan. If this is not a larger neighbor attempting to impose its will on the smaller, I believe we are talking on totally different planes of logic.

Re: # 55

You do not need any reason, you would have fabricated
one if you did not have, and as it is, being Hindu
is good enough a reason to send after.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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: 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.