The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics

#350 Posted by ferozk
“In 1998, COAS General Karamat said that the same and was forced to resign by Nawaz Sharif paving the way for Musharraf. Musharraf goes on a PR campaign with India and i the process reverses Pakistan's traditional policy on Kashmir, which had been the root cause of all its wars with India.�

Gen. Karamat was proposing a supreme body above the constitution, above the parliament and under the army control to rule over Pakistan. That bastard was legitimizing the army role in Pakistan. He went about it over the Parliament and the PM. He had already believed that he and the army were above the law and the constitution. It was a courageous act by a civilian PM to fire him. That was an act of grave insubordination and he was duly punished for that. What makes you think Karamat was not planning to takeover?

His proposal showed he had completely disregarded the constitution and the civilian setup. Not knowing the army would lead to a simple conclusion that his firing paved the way for Mush takeover. That is naïve to even think that the army was going to respect the constitution and had stopped, if the Karamat incident had not taken place.

A PM, no matter how he reached the power, had the ability to see the consequences of the Karamat proposal and again had the guts to dismiss him and again dismiss another COAS when it was clear that the army was getting ready for another coup.

Pakistan may rethink its Kashmir policy but there is nothing to suggest that the army is ready to reverse that. What people of Pakistan want and what the army wants are two different things. There is no evidence that the army has ever respected people of Pakistan.

Going to India and opening the borders along Kashmir are not enough to prove that the army is about ready to reverse that policy. I am sure If Asif and NS have their way, we certainly will see some material changes in the Pak policy towards India. It is too early to go to discuss that now.

Zee,
Haqiqi is nothing more then the splinter group of MQM which separated. Its history. I had personally supervised one operation at Shah Faisal Coloney against a mini-no-go area of Haqiqi where we found a load of ammunition dump (mostly local stuff). Most of the Haqiqi boys have moved to Sunni-Tahreek.

Feroz bhai,
Army is an institution, a team with a proper chain of command. HP Sian has rightly claimed that Army’s role in politics could never stop – they still call the stops. Army minus Mushraff does not effect Army’s thinking and approach.
Army is in firm control of following to this date:
a) Foreign Policy of Pakistan
b) Nuclear Command Authority and Issues relating to Dr.Qadeer Khan

Army has a huge stake in economics of Pakistan and Army can not afford to ignore an iota of her interests in civil affairs because that would be destroying there retirement and provident funds. Anyone who thinks post-28 Feb Pakistan is a changed Pakistan is living in a ‘limbo’.

#333 Posted by ferozk
“I never said that Pakistani army's orientation has changed, but that it is in the process of changing. It has been undergoing a change ever since Pakistan realized that it is no longer in a position to fight a war with India.�

I never implied that either. I mentioned that they need tools to make the shift, whenever that happens. Here is from my post.
“It takes years to change the orientations from the external threat to internal threats. The Pak army has no tools to implement this neither would it change the existing orientation for the simple reason that any change would require it to drop its current arsenal and reduce the army size for swift actions that are required for dealing with the internal threats. There is nothing that suggests that the Pak army has the intellectual capital and the tools to make these changes. Armies don’t change their orientations in a matter of days. It is a process that requires meticulous planning, resources and the political will.�

“It has been undergoing a change ever since Pakistan realized that it is no longer in a position to fight a war with India. Your view of the Pakistani army is a very traditional one, but the mindset of the Pakistani army is�

That is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Pakistan army will not fight India but what you fail to see clearly is that the army has not changed anything to back that up. The army still wants a large budget, they still want more arms, and they still compare their arsenal with that of India. The missiles, the kind of planes and tanks they ask for show the current and the future orientation. The deeds on the ground are different than the spoken words. Not fighting a war with India does not by any stretch of imagination imply that they will not use the perceived threat from India for the army’s benefit. Is there any evidence that the army has closed any base near the Indian border, where I can find any material that shows that Pakistan has reduced the army presence on the Kashmir borders? I cannot find the material because there is none.

“Please read the speeches of its leadership since the early 1990s and read some of the in-house journals. They all point to a re-think within the army and as to the American advisors; they will come regardless of what you and I think. If this war in FATA continues, then we will a new generation of officers, moulded in COIN operations assuming the leadership of the army in the next 10-20 years.�

Double speak is part of the elaborated deception that army has designed to hide its true position. I would have believed them, if I can match that with actions on the ground. As I mentioned above, where is the evidence that proves what they say? Why Pakistan needs long range missiles, if it is in the process of changing orientation?
At this point I am losing faith in you to even understand how the military doctrines and how the long term planning work.
For the operations like FATA, all they need is a special force such as the one the US has. They don’t have to turn the whole army upside down to fight in FATA where they are not expected to fight a regular army.

“the Pakistani army is not same army it was before Kiyani took over and it is certainly a different army after February 28 elections.�

I am practically dumbfounded to read something like this from a politically conscious person and a historian too. I had quoted you a few examples to show how the army’s interference in the State affairs still continues and you are telling me that overnight the army changed because PMLq lost elections? An institution that had controlled the state for the last 8 years, behind the scenes for 12 years prior to that, and another ten years of direct rule before that, has just had a huge change of heart just because Kiyani says so? You must believe in miracles to believe in something like that.

The post is pretty long already but let me show you again what the civilians still can’t do without the army approval. Btw, when was the last time the army respected any constitutional provisions? The removal of 58(2)b, is to restrict the civilian President. No law in Pakistan can stop the army not even the threat of hanging or treason.
Think about these:
Release of Baloch leaders and workers require army’s approval.
Removing the army from Baluchistan or and stopping the army action going on there- I doubt the civilians would even go there for another year or so.
The Judges issues…Even though it is not such a big issue that the army would hold this up for long.
The US influence in the army and army advocating and supporting the US pov in Pakistani politics.
They can’t even touch Dr. Qadeer w/o the Army okay.
The Jihadi set up under the army guidance and in active control. And the so-called wot that the army is fighting on US behalf.
Pakistan’s foreign policy, if there is any, is under the army control.

I can go on and on but I will save that for another post.

BTW any comments on lifting of the ban on 'Haqiqi'?

tahmed, you forgot one … which in turn may cause you some consternation:

Which country attacked Iraq, based on conveniently flawed intelligence? The US.

You forgot this one, perhaps since you yourself badly fell for it ...

+++

DM (#347), valid points ...

dm sahib: i know this will cause great consternation to many august personages like yourself on chowk, but..far from being a vast right-wing conspiracy to delude the public, the US is in fact is the world leader in promoting free speech.

If this sounds outrageous - let me bring to your attention the chowk itself..

q: what makes chowk possible? a: the internet
q: who invented the internet? a: the US department of defense
q: who remains in charge of the backbone of the internet? a: the US government
q: where does ALL internet traffic (even communication between, e.g., Xian, China and Hong Kong, China)? a: computers located in the US.
q: which country stands in the way of dictators seeking to control free speech on the internet? a: the US.

hope this helps.

#326 Posted by IB

Well then Balochistan has a significant portion of Pashtoons too – probably more then the Baloch themselves; why not ask them?

Of-course the Baluchi Pushtoons are Baluchis too (approx 50/50). They make a clear distinction with the NWFP Pushtoons. And they are very well represented in assemblies - so any decision will be not without their consent.

... following are the demands of MQM.

a) separate Karachi, Hyderabad from Sindh and make it a different province

And what about Khairpur? Are you willing to give it up or envisage an exchange of populations? Of-course every single Mohajir in Rural Sind will then migrate to the two cities you mentioned because of the added opportunities.

b) full provincial autonomy

This is in the constitution and should be implemented. But I suppose this demand is conditional to (a) above in case of MQM. Otherwise not.

c) end of quota system in government jobs, state university seats

This is affirmative action and quite justified.

In any case, do let me know whether or not the Urban quota is already far more than the actual percentage of Mohajir population in Sind? The quota is 60 percent rural and 40 percent urban - when Urdu speakers make up just 13%?

None of the above demands is genuine. This is what 'Jinnahpur' means my friend.

re:dost_mittar # 347

Dostji, please consider this hypothesis. After the nuclear blasts of 1998, a conventional style war between India and Pakistan became highly unlikely. After 1998, Pakistani army basically accepted this proposition that a war with India was not practical.

If the Pakistani army is not going to fight India, then what role will it have?

In 1998, COAS General Karamat said that the same and was forced to resign by Nawaz Sharif paving the way for Musharraf. Musharraf goes on a PR campaign with India and i the process reverses Pakistan's traditional policy on Kashmir, which had been the root cause of all its wars with India.

Would such a policy alteration would have been possible without the consent and the consensus of the Pakistani army's corps commanders, who make up the executive decision making body of the Pakistani army and ipso fact of the Pakistani armed itself?

There has been a re-think in the army over Kashmir and even after Asif Zardari's interview, Kiyani simply stated the obvivious without elaborating Pakistani army's views on Kashmir. The talking-discussionj space allowed on the Kashmir issue is indicative of this; otherwise the army would have not allowed the deviance from the offical script.

Dostji, it is always more educational in Pakistani politics to pay attention to the silence than the loud noises. The silence is more deafening and more instructional about the intentions of the people than their actions mimicking their intentions.

Incidently, how is my old adopted home town? I miss the canal in the winter months. :)

Ciao

#348 Posted by zeemax:

"I see that the new alliances being formed and the isolation of the hamidm2s haven't escaped your attention"

How could it? The same thing has been going on from Vedic/Biblical times. Only names change ... the basic remains the same .... but does it have to? :)

#346 Posted by GT,

I see that the new alliances being formed and the isolation of the hamidm2s haven't escaped your attention :)

On the US media.

Let me be the Massadi here. I think that the reporting of the US media becomes quite easy to explain if you are willing to accept that it is controlled by the pro-israeli lobby in the US. Everyone thinks that the US actions in Iraq have been a disaster and they are a disaster FOR the US and the rest of the world but NOT for Israel. It was in the Israeli interests to get rid of not only Saddam but also break Iraq which was the only Arab country capable of causing it trouble besides Egypt which had already been pacified. So, it suited the media owned/controlled by this lobby not to question WMD or Saddam's connection with Al Qaeda. It also suited its purpose to dismantle the Iraqi state after Saddam was defeated and to prevent a smooth transition to another regime. Once this task was accomplished, it is now in the interest of this same lobby for the US to get out of Iraq and let them have a full fledged civil war. This is why the Thomas Friedmans of the media who were cheerleading the march to Baghdad are now seeking an early withdrawal. Unfortunately for them, their interests now diverge from their earlier ally, the Oil lobby whose interests are not to leave Iraq until a friendly regime is in place.

On groups of roving bandits and Chowk:

The state is a complex institution. Let us try to understand it simply. Here I borrow from Mancur Olson.

Consider agricultural communities which store their harvest for sowing in the future as well as to insure its members from future weather shocks. A roving group of bandits plunder these communities stealing what they can and burning the rest. Burning is done to intimidate. What happens? Well, some of these communities dissapear (die away) as there is not enough seeds to plant in the future. The bandits realize soon enough that if they continue in this way there would be nothing to steal. So they come to an arrangement with the communities.

Nothing will be burned from now on as long as the communities pay a certain "tax". The bandits can also become "benevolent", providing crop insurance (i.e. subsidies to languishing communities) across communities. They also provide "protecion" against other groups of roving bandits. Things start looking dandy, and the bandits' empire spreads. With the "empire" growing, monitoring becomes difficult. Communities start "cheating" on their taxes. Moving from one community of "thieves" to another to burn their villages becomes "costly" for the bandits. They hit on an idea.

The bandit army splits into smaller groups. Each group now takes charge of a community. Recruitment, if needed, is made from the local community. Let us call the leading bandits of these groups IB, zeemax, urstruly and tahmed. The original bandit leader hamidm-1 becomes the Chief. Things go on nicely for quite some time.

One day, urstruly is approached by a guy from "his community" called GT, who suggests that he urstruly can control more "territory" than he does. But for that he needs to co-operate with zeemax. Pepped up, urstruly gets together with Zeemax, attacks hamidm-1 and kills him and banishes the prince hamidm-2 to a place called chowk. GT proclaims urstruly the "True Chief". With one chief less, communities now have to pay lower taxes and everything becomes "better" for the unwashed. GT notices this and is scared.

If things become better with the removal of a "chief", wouldn't other "chiefs" try to get rid of urstruly? Yes, he concludes. But then he figures out the following (i) urstruly was able to defeat hamidm-1 only by colluding with Zeemax; (ii) their armies were manned not by the original bandits but by people from the local communities. So GT gets into his "eureka" mode and advises urstruly as follows: "O, son of God Pluto, beware of tahmed, IB and Zeemax. For they will readily get together and kill you. To avoid this, O Lord of Lords, teach each of their communities to speak a different language so that they bable and are unable to get together and co-ordinate an attack against you. Then you shall verily rule". Urstruly follows GT's advise, he and his descendents rule fo ever.

The descendents of hamidm2 organize riff-raffs from all communities to vent in chowk even today. This helps, for after letting off steam riff-raffs calm down. Furthermore, no sane member in each community pays any attention. The discourse in chowk is lead by a person called Masadi. They have given a derogatory name to GT - "Chanakya". As per the advise of Chanakya, the descendents of urstruly still pay the operating cost of Chowk. And as per GT's edicts Chowk is also called the "Free Press". Now, don't ask me what it means.

hamidm #343 while no individual news source can be considered to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - the rich mix of news sources now available gives you a better picture of current events than you would get by coming up with preconceived notions.

I have taken pains to explain to you this simple point in #343/#343.

If you were not a lota, instead of dreaming about failure of the democratic government, you would be wishing it god speed in fulfilling the mandate handed to it in the last elections. But being a lota, you wouldnt understand ... :-)

Good discussion between HP and ferozk. Here are some common sense observations by an outsider.

Although Pakistani politicians came together to oust Musharraf, in their guts, they hate each other more than they hate army. All of them are willing to make deals with the army to have an upper hand over their opponents. If Nawaz Sharif seems to be principled, it is only because he has a personal score to settle with Musharraf; tomorrow, if Musharraf is gone, he will have no problem either in dealing with the army.

As for the changed orientation of the Pakistani army from external threat to internal security, I would like to think it is so but have a difficult time believing this to be true. Until the army generals have a blood transfusion, Kashmir will continue to be their permanent preoccupation and at least some of the generals must be thinking that the present internal security probelems are only an aberration from their more permanent goal.

At a more basic level, I think that the problem in Pakistan is its civil society which, in its thinking, is not much different from the "unwashed" awaam. It stands for law and order but when push comes to shove, it prefers order over law. Already at chowk, we see Pakistanis criticisng politicians for being unprincipled (where in the world are politicians principled?). At chowk, except for Urstruly and JBSameer (May Lord Buddha bless him wherever he is), I do not remember any Pakistani chowki who was not rooting for Musharraf back in 2000.

I personally sympathise with that view; as I have frequently said at this forum, the quality of governance is more important than its form and democracy is just another form of governance. Hinndians happen to be more patient and are willing to put up with a lot more chaos and anarchy than Muslims who are always inspired by the example of the four pious caliphs. Would any Pakistani have put up with the "unwashed" Mayawatis, Mulayams or Lalus ruling over them?

Re: # 341

tahmed,

wolf blitzer and tim russert are right-wing ? .... okay, how about chris matthews and obermann - do you think they are objective ?

.... mian ji, i think you are terribly gullible and in for a rude awakening one of these days ....

.... if i were musharraf i would have resigned a year ago and taken over the leadership of the pml-q instead of messing around with the droopy eyed cj ... but the man, like all of us is a paki .......if it makes you feel any better, there is not a lot of qualitative difference between the washed and unwashed ...... in any case, he can stil do it and win big in the next election after the present government falls apart - i just don't see how they can hold together ......... hp gives them six months, i will give them a year ......

one more thing on #341: and dont forget the internet itself where even terrorists get a chance to make their views known - and all they can talk about is "kill, kill" or play the victim card.

So - if the "mainstream ideas" of the rule of law are prevalent around the world today - it is not because of lack of opportunity for the lawless (whether al qaeda or musharraf) to make their case or present previously unknown facts.