The Quest for Power
Mushahid Hussain June 26, 2001
#127 Posted by krashid on July 7, 2001 12:10:27 am
Nasah #126
I think Bapu`s advise is right.
Those people are in no way intellectuals. But sadly they are the sole commentators on situation in Pakistan. They can at most be called opinion makers. And their analysis is related to who to favor and who to oppose.
You can take it as chowk on a larger scale. My wishes and my thoughts are analysis of the situation.
Although there is some good trend developing. Like renowned politicians, present and past ministers etc. writing about the situation.
I have read few columns of Nasim Zehra. And I agree with you wholeheartedly.
We have not yet decided about anything.
For example a weak Afghanistan is in Pakistan favor. So Taliban are our best friend. Abdul Ghani (Lone) or (Bhatt) was recently lamenting that Pakistan is deserting them. And they probably might think that Kashmiris were fighting the proxy war for Pakistan rather than war for their self determination. In Bangladesh, the people who supported Pakistan are still languishing in Bangladesh.
People of Sind and Baluchistan seriously think that they have been deceived about Pakistan resolution.
The only good thing is that International powers for now are not in favor of disintegeration of Pakistan much to the chagrin of Indians and Pakistanis alike.
Otherwise a country invaded repeatedly by its armed forces. Where police and rangers treat its own population as colonized people. Where basic rights are remote, even basic amenities for survival are not available. Where majority of population lives below poverty line, has no access to clean water, education and food shortages even in cities like Karachi.
If a country can prosper by newspaper columns and columnists then Pakistan has a very very bright future. If not then Pakistan is what the statistics show and what the reality depicts.
TO BE CONTINUED.
I think Bapu`s advise is right.
Those people are in no way intellectuals. But sadly they are the sole commentators on situation in Pakistan. They can at most be called opinion makers. And their analysis is related to who to favor and who to oppose.
You can take it as chowk on a larger scale. My wishes and my thoughts are analysis of the situation.
Although there is some good trend developing. Like renowned politicians, present and past ministers etc. writing about the situation.
I have read few columns of Nasim Zehra. And I agree with you wholeheartedly.
We have not yet decided about anything.
For example a weak Afghanistan is in Pakistan favor. So Taliban are our best friend. Abdul Ghani (Lone) or (Bhatt) was recently lamenting that Pakistan is deserting them. And they probably might think that Kashmiris were fighting the proxy war for Pakistan rather than war for their self determination. In Bangladesh, the people who supported Pakistan are still languishing in Bangladesh.
People of Sind and Baluchistan seriously think that they have been deceived about Pakistan resolution.
The only good thing is that International powers for now are not in favor of disintegeration of Pakistan much to the chagrin of Indians and Pakistanis alike.
Otherwise a country invaded repeatedly by its armed forces. Where police and rangers treat its own population as colonized people. Where basic rights are remote, even basic amenities for survival are not available. Where majority of population lives below poverty line, has no access to clean water, education and food shortages even in cities like Karachi.
If a country can prosper by newspaper columns and columnists then Pakistan has a very very bright future. If not then Pakistan is what the statistics show and what the reality depicts.
TO BE CONTINUED.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#126 Posted by krashid on July 7, 2001 12:10:27 am
Bapu #128
That is definitely not a news for you, but for me.
Azad (I think you are talking about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) was a non practicing Muslim.
I am going to burn all history books in favor of history written by BJP.The only authentic version.
That is definitely not a news for you, but for me.
Azad (I think you are talking about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) was a non practicing Muslim.
I am going to burn all history books in favor of history written by BJP.The only authentic version.
#125 Posted by Bapu on July 6, 2001 6:33:45 pm
#126
[Nasah
``If Pakistan would only listen to its own intellectuals like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Khalid Hasan, Kunwer Idris, Mr. Bhandara, Najm Sethi, and Mr. Afridi -- it would not have to seek the foreigners to prescribe the medicine for its ailments.`` ]
Journalists are professional of there craft,Plz .dont confuse them as INTELLECTUALS.If Tendulkar can play cricket doesnt mean he can lead too.Most of these journalists are coward,gutless,spineless weasel,to stand for anything.
On another note your friend Bhartiye Mussalman,criticised Jinnah for being not practicing muslim,neither was Nehru ,nor Azad mnor Patel nor Gandhi practicing of any religion Hindu or muslims.And Dr.Asghar Ali who is dignosing Jinnahs aid why didnt he Dx it before 82 when the first dignosed case of AIDS was first published in JAMA & BMJ.
[Nasah
``If Pakistan would only listen to its own intellectuals like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Khalid Hasan, Kunwer Idris, Mr. Bhandara, Najm Sethi, and Mr. Afridi -- it would not have to seek the foreigners to prescribe the medicine for its ailments.`` ]
Journalists are professional of there craft,Plz .dont confuse them as INTELLECTUALS.If Tendulkar can play cricket doesnt mean he can lead too.Most of these journalists are coward,gutless,spineless weasel,to stand for anything.
On another note your friend Bhartiye Mussalman,criticised Jinnah for being not practicing muslim,neither was Nehru ,nor Azad mnor Patel nor Gandhi practicing of any religion Hindu or muslims.And Dr.Asghar Ali who is dignosing Jinnahs aid why didnt he Dx it before 82 when the first dignosed case of AIDS was first published in JAMA & BMJ.
#124 Posted by hobbyty on July 6, 2001 6:33:45 pm
Nasah 126
You say you do not know for a fact that Mr. Afridi has been framed - Yet, you insist that ``Dal main Kala hai`` - We have remained open to listen to evidence, even possible evidence that Mr Afridi is innocent - None was offered. And yet, the tone of post suggest that we are a closed minded bunch - Is that fair? To make an accusation without evidence does not seem fair to me. It does not require the invocation of self criticism and self doubt.
We are agreed that self criticism and self analysis is a general good, we are even agreed that the counsel of well wishers is a also a good. We disagree on that, all criticism is good, we disagree, that self doubt is a general good. Constructive criticism is good, debate not doubt, is good. Knowing where one stands and why is a good. Allow me to give you what I think is a very difficult, problematic example, while most Pakistanis will agree that the Taliban are regressive and obscuritanist, few Pakistanis will agree that in Afghanistan a government hostile to Pakistan and Pakistani interest is a good. No amount of pressure, self criticism or self doubt, can positively effect the situation, unless Pakistani interests are recognized and seen to protected.
Another problematic example is the ``demand`` that Pakistan follow a ``Westminster`` model - Is Pakistan England? Does Pakistan have the same history as England? Does it have the same problems, that we can apply the one size fits all solution? - These are questions Pakistanis will answer, preferably, in the context of Pakistan`s history, it`s cultures and by and within competition within it`s citizenry.
As for ``glorious Arab past`` - You give yourself away - No! it`s our glorious Hindu past we should be affirming - right? doctor?
Our neighbors, the Indians, seem to relish in the rejection and rewriting of history of India/Hindustan - Islam offered them little, it humiliated them, it`s alien, foreign - and not to be left out of the victimization ideology - the concept of the Hindu holocaust - with which to hammer those who seek an non Hindu identity -
OK - That the choice of Indians - Reap as you sow!
No self crticism?, no self doubt? no self analysis? When these are applied to those who would be our ``doctors``, then their claims of the offer of ``friendly advice`` will certainly be more credible.
Be patient with us ``doctor``, - as we have been with you!
#123 Posted by nasah on July 6, 2001 2:21:58 pm
Dear Iris, hobbyty and Shah:
It is difficult to believe that an editor of a daringly progressive newspaper in Pakistan is a drug dealer – but then anything is possible in Pakistan.
Of course I don’t know what is the real truth. But this much I know -- the crooked police and dishonest DEA agents in Mexico, in Turkey, in Spain, in Thailand, in Malaysia, in India, in Pakistan and in the United States as well, do frame up innocent people by planting the stuff while searching the vehicles and premises – it’s an old trick and the easiest one, no big deal – done for money, political or personal vendettas
I hope you guys have been an eyewitness to that crime. What we see from here is a pattern. Mr. Afridi’s paper opposed NS and opposed PM. His printing press stands gutted, his offices vadalized by a mob, burned down to ashes while the police watched the show as spectators, his two papers Maidan and Frontier Post, shut down, the staff arrested and put in jail -- and then the guy gets the guillotine. What else is there to conclude. What are we supposed to conclude -- all this happened to a newspaper man and his papers because he is a drug dealer?
Regarding the long rambling article by Nasim Zehra talking about that uncool “derivative mind” the only thing I would say that the road to salvation lies with self criticism and self analysis, self doubt and self questioning – not by blind faith, hiding the dirty linen in the closet and sweeping the garbage under the rug, and declaring themselves holier than thou, never sinning saints,– something that Pakistan’s fundamentalists to “English-reading-elite” have been doing for the past 5 decades.
Only recently Pakistani intellectuals have begun to wake up, look around and realize as to what is happening outside Pakistan and what has happened inside Pakistan -- how the world is moving ahead fast and how Pakistan is left out and left way behind, happily dreaming about its “glorious Arab past”.
If Pakistan would only listen to its own intellectuals like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Khalid Hasan, Kunwer Idris, Mr. Bhandara, Najm Sethi, and Mr. Afridi -- it would not have to seek the foreigners to prescribe the medicine for its ailments.
If someone cannot diagnose ones own ailment he or she may benefit by listening to an outsider as to what is wrong with ones system -- called sometimes -- the doctor. And when that stranger tells you what’s wrong with you and what you have to do to get better – an intelligent person with a discriminating mind (as to what is good and what is bad for him/her), without being accused of having a “derivative mind” – usually follows the doctor’s advice -- and gets well – in the interest of self preservation.
These are interesting times. In these days of globalization of world economy the world becoming a global village with continually shrinking distances on the information highway -- everybody’s “internal affair ” is everybody else’s headache. Let`s not forget that. No country can crawl into its cocoon, forget about the world opinion and survive economically.
By the way Nasim Zehra “derivative mind” as well, got the very idea of writing about he “derivative minds”, when a western diplomat in New York pointed to her about the “second hand” minds of the unoriginal Pakistanis – who always criticize their own country, and look towards West for solutions of their “indigenous” problems.
And yet the ‘original’, the ‘ first hander’, Nasim Zehra, could not help end her own English column as a desi intellectual -- without quoting someone from the West. She had to quote a foreign writer, Ann Rynd and her book -- The Fountain -- in support of her thesis against the “derivative minds” of the Anglicized, colonial, “second hand” self-hating Muslim critics of Pakistan. How ironic!
Self analysis and self criticism have never hurt a person or a country,folks.
It is difficult to believe that an editor of a daringly progressive newspaper in Pakistan is a drug dealer – but then anything is possible in Pakistan.
Of course I don’t know what is the real truth. But this much I know -- the crooked police and dishonest DEA agents in Mexico, in Turkey, in Spain, in Thailand, in Malaysia, in India, in Pakistan and in the United States as well, do frame up innocent people by planting the stuff while searching the vehicles and premises – it’s an old trick and the easiest one, no big deal – done for money, political or personal vendettas
I hope you guys have been an eyewitness to that crime. What we see from here is a pattern. Mr. Afridi’s paper opposed NS and opposed PM. His printing press stands gutted, his offices vadalized by a mob, burned down to ashes while the police watched the show as spectators, his two papers Maidan and Frontier Post, shut down, the staff arrested and put in jail -- and then the guy gets the guillotine. What else is there to conclude. What are we supposed to conclude -- all this happened to a newspaper man and his papers because he is a drug dealer?
Regarding the long rambling article by Nasim Zehra talking about that uncool “derivative mind” the only thing I would say that the road to salvation lies with self criticism and self analysis, self doubt and self questioning – not by blind faith, hiding the dirty linen in the closet and sweeping the garbage under the rug, and declaring themselves holier than thou, never sinning saints,– something that Pakistan’s fundamentalists to “English-reading-elite” have been doing for the past 5 decades.
Only recently Pakistani intellectuals have begun to wake up, look around and realize as to what is happening outside Pakistan and what has happened inside Pakistan -- how the world is moving ahead fast and how Pakistan is left out and left way behind, happily dreaming about its “glorious Arab past”.
If Pakistan would only listen to its own intellectuals like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, Khalid Hasan, Kunwer Idris, Mr. Bhandara, Najm Sethi, and Mr. Afridi -- it would not have to seek the foreigners to prescribe the medicine for its ailments.
If someone cannot diagnose ones own ailment he or she may benefit by listening to an outsider as to what is wrong with ones system -- called sometimes -- the doctor. And when that stranger tells you what’s wrong with you and what you have to do to get better – an intelligent person with a discriminating mind (as to what is good and what is bad for him/her), without being accused of having a “derivative mind” – usually follows the doctor’s advice -- and gets well – in the interest of self preservation.
These are interesting times. In these days of globalization of world economy the world becoming a global village with continually shrinking distances on the information highway -- everybody’s “internal affair ” is everybody else’s headache. Let`s not forget that. No country can crawl into its cocoon, forget about the world opinion and survive economically.
By the way Nasim Zehra “derivative mind” as well, got the very idea of writing about he “derivative minds”, when a western diplomat in New York pointed to her about the “second hand” minds of the unoriginal Pakistanis – who always criticize their own country, and look towards West for solutions of their “indigenous” problems.
And yet the ‘original’, the ‘ first hander’, Nasim Zehra, could not help end her own English column as a desi intellectual -- without quoting someone from the West. She had to quote a foreign writer, Ann Rynd and her book -- The Fountain -- in support of her thesis against the “derivative minds” of the Anglicized, colonial, “second hand” self-hating Muslim critics of Pakistan. How ironic!
Self analysis and self criticism have never hurt a person or a country,folks.
#122 Posted by nasah on July 6, 2001 4:00:44 am
Dear Ras:
Yes, this is indeed Kuldip Nayar.
Only one point. I don’t think Mushahid Hussain mentioned Gujral saying that he accepted Kashmir as disputed territory -- in his column ``Talking to Vajpayee`` he attributes this statement to Vajpayee. So Mr. Nayar instead of asking Gujral should have asked Vajpayee if he accepted Kashmir as a disputed territory.
I don’t know why India insists on Kashmir not being a disputed territory. If something walks like a duck and quacks like it is a duck. Kashmir is a disputed territory and that’s why the negotiations.
Accepting the obvious does not mean that India has to hand over the territory to Pakistan. It can still negotiate not to hand over the territory but for some form of accommodation of aspirations and concerns of all parties in the two regions -- may be -- in the form of total internal autonomy in a democratic, secular framework, with equal rights for the minorities, and right of return for refugees to their respective regions -- with foreign affairs, and defense, managed by the two countries in their respective areas of control – accompanied by total demilitarization of both regions connected to each other by a wide open LOC.
Yes, this is indeed Kuldip Nayar.
Only one point. I don’t think Mushahid Hussain mentioned Gujral saying that he accepted Kashmir as disputed territory -- in his column ``Talking to Vajpayee`` he attributes this statement to Vajpayee. So Mr. Nayar instead of asking Gujral should have asked Vajpayee if he accepted Kashmir as a disputed territory.
I don’t know why India insists on Kashmir not being a disputed territory. If something walks like a duck and quacks like it is a duck. Kashmir is a disputed territory and that’s why the negotiations.
Accepting the obvious does not mean that India has to hand over the territory to Pakistan. It can still negotiate not to hand over the territory but for some form of accommodation of aspirations and concerns of all parties in the two regions -- may be -- in the form of total internal autonomy in a democratic, secular framework, with equal rights for the minorities, and right of return for refugees to their respective regions -- with foreign affairs, and defense, managed by the two countries in their respective areas of control – accompanied by total demilitarization of both regions connected to each other by a wide open LOC.
#121 Posted by Shah on July 6, 2001 4:00:44 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#120 Posted by hobbyty on July 6, 2001 4:00:44 am
Iris 118
Thank you for posting the article by Nasim Zehra, ``Pakistan`s second hander`s``
A terrific article all those Pakistanis who, incredibly, seem eager to criticize Pakistan, it`s evolving culture and Pakistan`s security policies. It is clear that such Pakistanis think that by joining with those hostile to us, they fulfill their responsibilities towards their fellow citizens. They do seem to view Pakistani imperatives from the point of view of those who are hostile towards Pakistani culture, Pakistani aspirations and the Pakistani state.
Pakistan and Pakistanis have created a lot of problems for ourselves, but in the end we are Pakistanis and we should affirm what are our imperatives are, not only to ourselves, but to the world, without hostility but with resolution; without references to ideas and States hostile towards Pakistan.
Rejoice, Pakistanis, Rejoice! We are living through one of the worst times in our history, we are battered, but our ship has weathered storms before and will do so again. Pakistan is special, she is the message of redemption and the triumph of the human spirit, and if we will believe and struggle together, Pakistan shall become a beacon for her citizens and others who struggle with the same problems that we do. So rejoice! We have overcome the forces of chaos and despair within us. Rejoice! A bright future awaits those who would sacrifice today for the promise of tomorrow.
#119 Posted by sadna on July 5, 2001 11:39:28 pm
Stuka #130
There is a lot to be said on the subject of how suitable is the presidential form of government to India. India is not the US, it is 4-5 times bigger to begin with, with different religious/ethnic/historical/political realities. But thats a discussion for another time.
Secondly, I donot say the Constitution needs to be absolutely unchanging. I personally find Advani`s advocacy of particular changes rather suspicious, time will tell whether there was basis for this.
Thirdly, the fall of the government on one vote is not a matter of shame to me. If we could have avoided another election, by requiring that another grouping have show a majority while bringing in no-confidence, that`s something for those looking into amending the Constitution to think about.
By the way, a single senator in the US, by leaving the Republican party has turned the power equation in the Senate upside down, and due to this there is a drastic difference in how the US Supreme Court will look in coming years and what bills will be considered(and for instance whether the power crisis in California will be the subject of investigation or not). All because of one guy with a constituency of a a few hundred thousand people, and we donot see them rushing to amend the Consitution.
There is a lot to be said on the subject of how suitable is the presidential form of government to India. India is not the US, it is 4-5 times bigger to begin with, with different religious/ethnic/historical/political realities. But thats a discussion for another time.
Secondly, I donot say the Constitution needs to be absolutely unchanging. I personally find Advani`s advocacy of particular changes rather suspicious, time will tell whether there was basis for this.
Thirdly, the fall of the government on one vote is not a matter of shame to me. If we could have avoided another election, by requiring that another grouping have show a majority while bringing in no-confidence, that`s something for those looking into amending the Constitution to think about.
By the way, a single senator in the US, by leaving the Republican party has turned the power equation in the Senate upside down, and due to this there is a drastic difference in how the US Supreme Court will look in coming years and what bills will be considered(and for instance whether the power crisis in California will be the subject of investigation or not). All because of one guy with a constituency of a a few hundred thousand people, and we donot see them rushing to amend the Consitution.
#118 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on July 5, 2001 9:36:17 pm
Now this is Kuldip Nayar......
From The Kashmir Times today:
Column
By Kuldip Nayar
To cut the Gordian knot
I have covered all the summits between Indian and Pakistan from the one held at Tashkent in 1966 to that at Lahore in 1999. All of them, around six, failed because both sides were seeking different things. New Delhi wanted Islamabad to eschew violence in settling Indo-Pakistan differences while Islamabad demanded a solution of its liking on Kashmir before responding to appeals for peace.
At every summit, the Indian Prime Minister made it clear that Kashmir was not negotiable. And every time Pakistan did not implement the agreement reached because it had made no headway with Kashmir.
Take the Tashkent conference. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri kept on emphasising on Pakistan President General Mohammad Ayub Khan to give an undertaking on renunciation of force. But Ayub went on linking it with the settlement on Kashmir. The talks practically failed. Soviet Prime Minister Kosygin, the conciliator, brought them together for a ‘final’ session.
At that meeting Ayub brought a four-line draft which he hoped would satisfy Shastri on the question of renunciation of force. The draft contained only a general statement on the efficacy of finding a solution to Indo-Pakistan problems through peace. Shastri was not satisfied and suggested an amendment which Ayub accepted. And in his own hand the Pakistan President made the necessary changes, including the phrase ``Without resort to arms``.
But when India asked for an official confirmation of the amended draft, Pakistan said that there was never any draft. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, apparently had his way because he was against giving any assurance on peace without having something on Kashmir. He threatened to go back to Pakistan and ``take the nation into confidence`` on what had happened. Ayub gave in because he could not take any chances. He had emerged weaker from the 1965 conflict with India.
It was not Ayub but Bhutto who rang up Shastri’s dacha to explain that Ayub had agreed to put in the phrase, ``without resort to arms`` on the promise of Indian ``concessions`` on Kashmir. An innocuous kind of statement, saying that further efforts would be made to solve India-Pakistan differences, was prepared.
It was Kosygin who saved the situation. He used all his persuasion-as well as pressure-to make Shastri not to insist on a specific reference to renunciation of force in the proposed peace agreement. On his part, the Soviet leader gave an assurance that his country would support India if ever Pakistan tried to take Kashmir by force. Kosygin also worked on Ayub to agree to the pledge of renunciation of force indirectly by reaffirming in the proposed agreement that under the UN Charter the parties concerned were obliged to adopt peaceful means to settle differences.
Bhutto told me later: ``Shastri took Ayub for a ride. I don’t know whether you saw the way he disarmed (Ayub)-‘I am a poor man, a parliamentarian, I don’t have your courage, I don’t have your strength, your stature’, and the man started twirling his moustaches and Shastri at that time streaked off``.
Ultimately, Shastri and Ayub signed a declaration to settle disputes through peaceful means and to consider steps to restore economic, trade and cultural relations as well as communications. However, Shastri made it clear to Kosygin that Kashmir’s accession to India was irrevocable.
The exercise at Shimla was not much different. India submitted its draft, captioned ``Agreement on Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan``. It said: ``The Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote the resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of the people``.
The draft emphasised the need for adoption of a policy of ensuring peace, friendship and cooperation and settlement of disputes by peaceful means. It was laid down that the two countries ``shall always respect each other’s national unity, territorial integrity, political independence, sovereignty and equality``.
But Pakistan brought in Kashmir and said that the problem had to be solved in accordance with the UN resolution on the subject. P.N. Haksar, Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Principal Secretary, then leading the talks, said that what India understood from these resolutions was different from what Pakistan did. In fact, the entire Kashmir was India’s, including the portion under Pakistan’s occupation. Aziz Ahmad, leader of the Pakistan delegation, argued that the people in Pakistan were very suspicious, ``even if we were to discuss its (the Kashmir question) preliminaries``, the impression would go around that there was a ``sell-out`` at Shimla.
The same point was made by Bhutto-by then Pakistan’s Prime Minister-to Indira Gandhi when officials on both sides reported failure of their efforts. He said that he was not in a position to discuss Kashmir because the whole peace agreement would be suspect in the eyes of Pakistanis who would imagine some ‘secret clause`` on Kashmir. ``My back is to wall; I can’t make any more concessions``, Bhutto said. He suggested that the discussion on Kashmir be postponed to some other time. ``Why hurry on these matters? I think haste sometimes ruins these problems. Then why should it be incumbent on us to sole all problems?``
Bhutto might have made a promise to get back the territory which India had won in West Pakistan during the Bangladesh war. He might have even tried to sell the proposal on return to Pakistan from Shimla. But he could not have pursued it because the mood in Pakistan at that time was nasty. After Pakistan’s losing the Bangladesh war, Bhutto’s promise would have been taken by the Pakistanis as the Versailles Treaty which the Allies had imposed on Germany after its defeat in the First World War.
Still Bhutto agreed to respect ``the Line of Control resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971``. However, after the meeting, he wrote in his own hand in the draft agreement ``without prejudice to the recognised position of either side``. India agreed to that.
At Male, Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistan Prime Minister, admitted before Inder Gujral, the then Indian Prime Minister, that he was now convinced that India was not willing to part with its side of Kashmir and the Pakistan had to recognise it. In a recent article in a Pakistani daily, Mushahid Hussain, Sharif’s Information Minister, has said that Gujral conceded Kashmir was a ‘dispute``. Checking with Gujral, I find it is not true. He says: ``How could I agree to our territory being a disputed one?``
Mushahid, who was a Minister-in-waiting when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Lahore, has also said in one of his articles that the timeframe fixed for the solution on Kashmir was 15 months. I have not checked this with Vajpayee. But there is no doubt that the two sides were getting closer to some solution because the Kargil operation, conceived by General Musharraf, was meant to sabotage whatever was taking shape. Vajpayee has also reportedly said: ``We were nearing the solution``.
Musharraf, now the Pakistan President, might have to give the Lahore Declaration the name of Agra Declaration. He might have to pick up the thread from where the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif left off. It will be an irony. But it will also be the way towards a solution, which is a must to bring normalcy in the region.
#117 Posted by nasah on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
``What about their rights?
Dawn`s editorial
Threats held out by religious extremists against women in parts of the NWFP seem to have borne fruit. According to the Election Commission (EC), not a single female vote was cast in Dir - an area with about 137,000 registered women voters.
The same unfortunate story was repeated in Malakand where threats uttered by several religious groups meant that women could not exercise their right to vote. Such utterances were made quite publicly for several weeks prior to the fourth phase of the election without eliciting any response from either the NWFP government or the Election Commission. Probably the decision to keep silent and ignore the matter emboldened these elements to carry on with their intimidating tactics. The National Commission on the Status of Women, headed by an NWFP minister, could not do much either beyond making a formal request to the EC to take some action against elements out to terrorize women against voting.
The Election Commission said that it could not do anything because a petition had been filed in the Peshawar High Court by parties affected and since the matter was sub judice no action in the matter could be taken. However, this is not all that the EC did. It went ahead and responded specifically to the issue of women not being allowed to vote, saying that while women did have the right to cast their vote, they could not be ``compelled`` to come out on election day to exercise this right.
This is only one side of the coin, the other side being that, by the same token, nobody had any right to ``compel`` women not to vote. Perhaps, this sort of quibbling and legal hair-splitting has more to do with expediency and the sensitive nature of law and order in Dir and Malakand and less with logic and questions of basic rights. In any case, this is just one more example of the contradictory nature of Pakistani society. Our leaders often say that the country suffers from an image problem overseas, that everyone thinks of Pakistan as being a country afflicted with religious bigotry and extremism. But when it comes to reining in these forces, no one is willing to take the initiative. Sooner or later someone in the innermost sanctums of high officialdom will have to take a stand.``
And this is the country that wants to to take charge of the IOK Muslim women???.....No way...
Where you Mr. ``noble and progressive`` Musharraf?
Dawn`s editorial
Threats held out by religious extremists against women in parts of the NWFP seem to have borne fruit. According to the Election Commission (EC), not a single female vote was cast in Dir - an area with about 137,000 registered women voters.
The same unfortunate story was repeated in Malakand where threats uttered by several religious groups meant that women could not exercise their right to vote. Such utterances were made quite publicly for several weeks prior to the fourth phase of the election without eliciting any response from either the NWFP government or the Election Commission. Probably the decision to keep silent and ignore the matter emboldened these elements to carry on with their intimidating tactics. The National Commission on the Status of Women, headed by an NWFP minister, could not do much either beyond making a formal request to the EC to take some action against elements out to terrorize women against voting.
The Election Commission said that it could not do anything because a petition had been filed in the Peshawar High Court by parties affected and since the matter was sub judice no action in the matter could be taken. However, this is not all that the EC did. It went ahead and responded specifically to the issue of women not being allowed to vote, saying that while women did have the right to cast their vote, they could not be ``compelled`` to come out on election day to exercise this right.
This is only one side of the coin, the other side being that, by the same token, nobody had any right to ``compel`` women not to vote. Perhaps, this sort of quibbling and legal hair-splitting has more to do with expediency and the sensitive nature of law and order in Dir and Malakand and less with logic and questions of basic rights. In any case, this is just one more example of the contradictory nature of Pakistani society. Our leaders often say that the country suffers from an image problem overseas, that everyone thinks of Pakistan as being a country afflicted with religious bigotry and extremism. But when it comes to reining in these forces, no one is willing to take the initiative. Sooner or later someone in the innermost sanctums of high officialdom will have to take a stand.``
And this is the country that wants to to take charge of the IOK Muslim women???.....No way...
Where you Mr. ``noble and progressive`` Musharraf?
#116 Posted by krashid on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
Feroz K #112
Sir Your approval is a reward.
Thanks and regards.
Sir Your approval is a reward.
Thanks and regards.
#115 Posted by Iris on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
Nasah: Where are you coming up with the thesis that the editor of a newspaper cannot be hanged. Look at the facts: The guy was caught over two years ago (by a previous administration) with a car-load of drugs and disclosed whereabouts of other consignments (see BBC report I have posted some messages back). What on earth are you talking about...just `cause he was a newspaper editor does not qualify him to go murdering people on the streets! There is no connection with press freedom in this particlular case...the guy has been sitting in jail for over two years... only the court proceedings have concluded now! The guy got a trial..as fair as it gets in Pakistani courts. NS`s government had arrested him, the courts have now completed the proceedings. If he was innocent, there appears to be no link or motive for this government to sentence him unjustly. Just being the editor of a newspaper does not excuse him from heinous crimes or make him a victim of press-influence by the state, every time he is prosecuted. I understand that hhistory has been different...but look at the facts. The guy is clearly using his `profession` as a lever to put international/ journalistic pressure to overturn the judgement in the form of a presidential pardon. Though I have not read anything in the local newspapers that is recommending a pardon for him. The local news editors (the majority of whom are purely independent...and comfortably write against the government`s policies) would be up in arms if that were the case!
Today`s ``The News``: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/
Thursday, July 05, 2001
Pakistan`s second handers
by Nasim Zehra
Looking somewhat perplexed and having lunch at a New York restaurant she
said ``you must explain to me why my Pakistani journalist friends are willing
to believe the worst about Pakistan, in fact much sooner than anyone even
outside of Pakistan!`` She had spent many years as the South Asia
correspondent of New York`s largest daily newspaper. A week later in
Washington during a conversation a former State Department official leaned
towards me to say`` You know Pakistan should say this is the bottom-line,
people respect you when you draw the line and speak with confidence. Why
doesn`t Pakistan do it? Pakistanis too should say this is our national
interest.``
In Islamabad a western diplomat wonders why he doesn`t hear his Pakistani
friends say something good about Pakistan. ``They are remarkably comfortable
criticizing Pakistan with us, I have never seen this phenomenon in any of
the other seven countries I have served in.`` Less than a week ago at a
reception when a newly positioned development head of a western embassy was
customarily asked, ``how do you view the workings here `` he proceeded to talk
about the Agra summit. Politely he was told that that was a matter that we
could take care of ourselves but could you talk of issues closer to your own
job. Just then a very senior government official joined in to remind the
western official diplomat of the question he wanted him to answer. Happily
he repeated his question which was ``what is it that irritates you most about
Pakistan?`` Indeed a strange question for an official to ask of another about
your country.
Such anecdotes can be endless. In Pakistan we have become very comfortable
with embracing which is perhaps the most damaging trait that any nation can
develop. That of being derivative in our thought process, in our mind work.
A derivative thought process is an antidote to autonomous and contextually
linked thinking, reflection and analysis. A derivative mindset is one that
does not observe, collect and interpret facts and issues with reference to
the realities of its own context. For example the issue of aid, of gender,
of our Kashmir policy, etc are often not viewed primarily from our own
context. A derivative mind bases its functioning in the concerns,
perceptions and analysis of those it has unwittingly adopted as its patrons.
Reasons to adopt patrons can be numerous, being uncomfortable with ones
ownself, a sense of inadequacy, lack of self-confidence, lack of
self-respect, eagerness to please one from whom some advantages are sought,
etc. The main `hub` of mind work then is located outside our own reality. In
someone else`s reality.
Our facts, our information are then processed in another`s reality. The
story is our, the lessons are someone else`s. For example the violence and
intolerance is ours the statement of the problem and solution is someone
else`s, the madrassas are our own but the madrassa problem is someone
else`s, breakdown of law is our own crisis but the statement and the
solution of the problem is someone else`s. Kashmir is our own problem, we
are a party to the issue but we see it through someone else`s lens. For
Pakistan escaping this disease of the intellect could not have been easy. In
the post-seventies era Pakistan has found itself located centrally in the
ideological and strategic battles that many players have fought.
Today our problems overlap indeed with genuine problems that many other
nations face. But Pakistan`s solutions must be homegrown flowing not from a
derivative but a rooted intellect. One that can fully understand our own
realities. Hence the observing of an issue, negative that analyse and is not
located in our own realities, our own structures, sensitivities and dynamics
it cannot let us think independently. Without harbouring the point too much
the derivative mindset produces a derivative view of everything. It frames
our reality within someone else`s framework. In Pakistan those closer to our
reality reject the framing outright. We use for them the label that was
printed abroad: reactionaries and even fundamentalists. Others who accept
the externally framed reality can seldom evolve and successfully implement
any solution to our problems. Self-examination, criticism and the urge to
improve are the key to any reformation effort. Provided it is intellectually
rooted in one`s own context.
There is a critical level, the broad defining level which those with power
influence, at which we have not yet come `into our own.` We don`t allow
ourselves our own dreams, our own joys and our own sorrows. We don`t define
internal sources of pride and of prestige. Pitifully we stand and receive
what other capitals say about democracy, about Pak-India summit, about
political challenges, about our role in Afghanistan. Our datelines from
Washington tell us what Islamabad will discuss or not discuss at an
important meeting. A junior official in Washington often manages a
front-page headline for the most inane statement he makes. That`s the
reflection of how large the external reality looms in our minds. That we
have come to this pass is the collective responsibility of Pakistan`s ruling
elite and the English language opinion-makers.
The Chief Justice of our country funded by the Asia Foundation travels to
the United States, Islamabad-based junior embassy officials seek access to
none other than the head of the Foreign Office, opinion is sought of
ambassadors especially the US and other western ones, on how they view
Pakistan`s domestic dilemmas, ministers do not mind interacting with junior
diplomats, there is a constant keenness to please the `other` as if the
master. Servile mindsets produce bravado-packed statements and actions
steeped in meek behaviour. The problem is not with the `other`, it is with
us. The problem is the inability to root ourselves our own realities,
however difficult and hard. The origins of this problem can be traced back
to the Indian Muslim community`s response to the colonial experience.
Unfortunately since independence minimal effort has been made to cleanse
ourselves of the dependency syndrome that many of our ancestors may have
suffered from. Ironically for a country that was created through the power
of a principled dialogue and peoples support, its ruling elite has
perpetually sought - that of the only Muslim community since independence to
the author of such a problem is naturally the ruling elite supported to a
great extent by the English speaking opinion makers.
It will be a hard find. We, Pakistan`s English speaking elite, are perhaps
unique in its willingness to hear, repeat and accept the worst about
ourselves and by extension about our country. The issue is not about look at
our problems straight in the eye, acknowledge them and then develop the
resolve to solve them. It is in fact seeing us within the context of our own
realities, our own dynamics, and our own history to then build our own
vision about our future.
Perhaps what best illustrates the damage a derivative national intellect can
do to a nation`s growth is an excerpt from Ann Rynd`s book, The Fountain
Head. The hero moans the derivative mindset, which he calls second-hander,
of the novel`s tragic figure. He describes the pain and irony of the figure
that loses all his happiness and respect while living life according to
other`s standards.
The hero says, ``he`s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling
himself that he`s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there
ever been a self? Greatness in other people`s eyes. Fame, admiration, and
envy - all that which comes from others. Other dictated his convictions,
which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held
them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn`t want to
be great, but to be thought great. He borrowed from others in order to make
an impression on others. Isn`t that the root of every despicable action? Not
selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self.... This is the deadliness
of second-handers. They have no concern for facts,
ideas, work. They`re concerned only with people. They don`t ask: `Is this
true?` They ask: `Is this what others think is true?` Not to judge, but to
repeat. Not creation, but
show. Not merit, but pull. When you suspend your independent judgment, you
suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers
have no sense of reality.``
Pakistan`s own `second-handers`, both inside and outside the power circles,
need to end suspension of independent judgment. We need to reject the deadly
derivative mindsets, which perpetuate the tragedies of all second-handers
collectively on the Pakistani state and society. Derivative thinking
strengthens the angry, bitter and the reactive within society shrinking
space available to the state to enforce rule of law.
Today`s ``The News``: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/
Thursday, July 05, 2001
Pakistan`s second handers
by Nasim Zehra
Looking somewhat perplexed and having lunch at a New York restaurant she
said ``you must explain to me why my Pakistani journalist friends are willing
to believe the worst about Pakistan, in fact much sooner than anyone even
outside of Pakistan!`` She had spent many years as the South Asia
correspondent of New York`s largest daily newspaper. A week later in
Washington during a conversation a former State Department official leaned
towards me to say`` You know Pakistan should say this is the bottom-line,
people respect you when you draw the line and speak with confidence. Why
doesn`t Pakistan do it? Pakistanis too should say this is our national
interest.``
In Islamabad a western diplomat wonders why he doesn`t hear his Pakistani
friends say something good about Pakistan. ``They are remarkably comfortable
criticizing Pakistan with us, I have never seen this phenomenon in any of
the other seven countries I have served in.`` Less than a week ago at a
reception when a newly positioned development head of a western embassy was
customarily asked, ``how do you view the workings here `` he proceeded to talk
about the Agra summit. Politely he was told that that was a matter that we
could take care of ourselves but could you talk of issues closer to your own
job. Just then a very senior government official joined in to remind the
western official diplomat of the question he wanted him to answer. Happily
he repeated his question which was ``what is it that irritates you most about
Pakistan?`` Indeed a strange question for an official to ask of another about
your country.
Such anecdotes can be endless. In Pakistan we have become very comfortable
with embracing which is perhaps the most damaging trait that any nation can
develop. That of being derivative in our thought process, in our mind work.
A derivative thought process is an antidote to autonomous and contextually
linked thinking, reflection and analysis. A derivative mindset is one that
does not observe, collect and interpret facts and issues with reference to
the realities of its own context. For example the issue of aid, of gender,
of our Kashmir policy, etc are often not viewed primarily from our own
context. A derivative mind bases its functioning in the concerns,
perceptions and analysis of those it has unwittingly adopted as its patrons.
Reasons to adopt patrons can be numerous, being uncomfortable with ones
ownself, a sense of inadequacy, lack of self-confidence, lack of
self-respect, eagerness to please one from whom some advantages are sought,
etc. The main `hub` of mind work then is located outside our own reality. In
someone else`s reality.
Our facts, our information are then processed in another`s reality. The
story is our, the lessons are someone else`s. For example the violence and
intolerance is ours the statement of the problem and solution is someone
else`s, the madrassas are our own but the madrassa problem is someone
else`s, breakdown of law is our own crisis but the statement and the
solution of the problem is someone else`s. Kashmir is our own problem, we
are a party to the issue but we see it through someone else`s lens. For
Pakistan escaping this disease of the intellect could not have been easy. In
the post-seventies era Pakistan has found itself located centrally in the
ideological and strategic battles that many players have fought.
Today our problems overlap indeed with genuine problems that many other
nations face. But Pakistan`s solutions must be homegrown flowing not from a
derivative but a rooted intellect. One that can fully understand our own
realities. Hence the observing of an issue, negative that analyse and is not
located in our own realities, our own structures, sensitivities and dynamics
it cannot let us think independently. Without harbouring the point too much
the derivative mindset produces a derivative view of everything. It frames
our reality within someone else`s framework. In Pakistan those closer to our
reality reject the framing outright. We use for them the label that was
printed abroad: reactionaries and even fundamentalists. Others who accept
the externally framed reality can seldom evolve and successfully implement
any solution to our problems. Self-examination, criticism and the urge to
improve are the key to any reformation effort. Provided it is intellectually
rooted in one`s own context.
There is a critical level, the broad defining level which those with power
influence, at which we have not yet come `into our own.` We don`t allow
ourselves our own dreams, our own joys and our own sorrows. We don`t define
internal sources of pride and of prestige. Pitifully we stand and receive
what other capitals say about democracy, about Pak-India summit, about
political challenges, about our role in Afghanistan. Our datelines from
Washington tell us what Islamabad will discuss or not discuss at an
important meeting. A junior official in Washington often manages a
front-page headline for the most inane statement he makes. That`s the
reflection of how large the external reality looms in our minds. That we
have come to this pass is the collective responsibility of Pakistan`s ruling
elite and the English language opinion-makers.
The Chief Justice of our country funded by the Asia Foundation travels to
the United States, Islamabad-based junior embassy officials seek access to
none other than the head of the Foreign Office, opinion is sought of
ambassadors especially the US and other western ones, on how they view
Pakistan`s domestic dilemmas, ministers do not mind interacting with junior
diplomats, there is a constant keenness to please the `other` as if the
master. Servile mindsets produce bravado-packed statements and actions
steeped in meek behaviour. The problem is not with the `other`, it is with
us. The problem is the inability to root ourselves our own realities,
however difficult and hard. The origins of this problem can be traced back
to the Indian Muslim community`s response to the colonial experience.
Unfortunately since independence minimal effort has been made to cleanse
ourselves of the dependency syndrome that many of our ancestors may have
suffered from. Ironically for a country that was created through the power
of a principled dialogue and peoples support, its ruling elite has
perpetually sought - that of the only Muslim community since independence to
the author of such a problem is naturally the ruling elite supported to a
great extent by the English speaking opinion makers.
It will be a hard find. We, Pakistan`s English speaking elite, are perhaps
unique in its willingness to hear, repeat and accept the worst about
ourselves and by extension about our country. The issue is not about look at
our problems straight in the eye, acknowledge them and then develop the
resolve to solve them. It is in fact seeing us within the context of our own
realities, our own dynamics, and our own history to then build our own
vision about our future.
Perhaps what best illustrates the damage a derivative national intellect can
do to a nation`s growth is an excerpt from Ann Rynd`s book, The Fountain
Head. The hero moans the derivative mindset, which he calls second-hander,
of the novel`s tragic figure. He describes the pain and irony of the figure
that loses all his happiness and respect while living life according to
other`s standards.
The hero says, ``he`s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling
himself that he`s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there
ever been a self? Greatness in other people`s eyes. Fame, admiration, and
envy - all that which comes from others. Other dictated his convictions,
which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held
them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn`t want to
be great, but to be thought great. He borrowed from others in order to make
an impression on others. Isn`t that the root of every despicable action? Not
selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self.... This is the deadliness
of second-handers. They have no concern for facts,
ideas, work. They`re concerned only with people. They don`t ask: `Is this
true?` They ask: `Is this what others think is true?` Not to judge, but to
repeat. Not creation, but
show. Not merit, but pull. When you suspend your independent judgment, you
suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers
have no sense of reality.``
Pakistan`s own `second-handers`, both inside and outside the power circles,
need to end suspension of independent judgment. We need to reject the deadly
derivative mindsets, which perpetuate the tragedies of all second-handers
collectively on the Pakistani state and society. Derivative thinking
strengthens the angry, bitter and the reactive within society shrinking
space available to the state to enforce rule of law.
#114 Posted by Iris on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
Nasah: Where are you coming up with the thesis that the editor of a newspaper cannot be hanged. Look at the facts: The guy was caught over two years ago (by a previous administration) with a car-load of drugs and disclosed whereabouts of other consignments (see BBC report I have posted some messages back). What on earth are you talking about...just `cause he was a newspaper editor does not qualify him to go murdering people on the streets! There is no connection with press freedom in this particlular case...the guy has been sitting in jail for over two years... only the court proceedings have concluded now! The guy got a trial..as fair as it gets in Pakistani courts. NS`s government had arrested him, the courts have now completed the proceedings. If he was innocent, there appears to be no link or motive for this government to sentence him unjustly. Just being the editor of a newspaper does not excuse him from heinous crimes or make him a victim of press-influence by the state, every time he is prosecuted. I understand that hhistory has been different...but look at the facts. The guy is clearly using his `profession` as a lever to put international/ journalistic pressure to overturn the judgement in the form of a presidential pardon. Though I have not read anything in the local newspapers that is recommending a pardon for him. The local news editors (the majority of whom are purely independent...and comfortably write against the government`s policies) would be up in arms if that were the case!
Source: Today`s ``The News``: Thursday, July 05, 2001
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/
Nation with low self-esteem
by Shireen M Mazari
The author is Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies,
Islamabad
Perhaps because the forthcoming Musharraf-Vajpayee Summit has absorbed
everyone`s attention, we have tended to ignore the abuse heaped upon
Pakistan by all manner of external sources, at various levels. At least one
hopes this is the reason for a lack of a strong response, and not because we
have now been reduced to having zero self-esteem.
Surely a muted reaction - if there was even that - to US Ambassador Milam`s
speech in Lahore on June 27 can only be a case of being preoccupied
elsewhere. Otherwise how could any self-respecting Pakistani swallow the
vice-regal tone of his farewell diatribe against present day Pakistan.
Trying to equate tolerance with
secularism, he asserted that the religious elements in Pakistan were the
ones who had led Pakistan away from Jinnah`s vision. Of course, he chose to
ignore the reality that it has been the successive leaders of the country
and the rampant corruption that has dimmed the Quaid`s vision - and so far
no religious party has ruled this country!
Also, why Milam should find it a contradiction to Jinnah`s vision to project
Pakistan as a beacon for the Muslim Ummah. In fact, if Pakistan gets closer
to its founder`s vision, then Pakistan will and should see itself as a
beacon for the Muslim Ummah - a state that protects the democratic and human
rights of all citizens regardless of caste or creed, and the only Muslim
state that is there in the select group of nuclear states despite all odds.
And Pakistan has and should, rightfully, oppose the repression of Muslims
anywhere in the world. After all, the Christian bias in the policies of the
West does not preclude their assertion of their ``secular`` identity! In any
event, it is for the people of Pakistan to decide whether, once the
electoral process is restored, they wish to bring to power religious groups
or the mainstream heterogeneous parties. Equally, it is for the people of
Pakistan to decide how they wish to deal with the issue of populist Islam
and the problems brought about by obscurantism and sectarianism.
It would have served Milam better if he had stuck to the theme of how states
like the US have strayed from the vision of their founding fathers as he
laid it out - since we would not presume to tell his country that the
founding fathers built a state on the blood of the native Indians! As for
the notion of Manifest Destiny, it continues to dominate US global policies,
albeit by different names. But that is not our concern except where it
impacts directly on us - as in cases where there is intervention in our
internal affairs, or where it results in the murder of members of the Ummah
- as happened in the unprovoked shooting down of the Iranian civilian
airliner by the US naval cruiser Vincennes in 1988 in the port of Bandar
Abbas. No wonder the US refuses to support the International Criminal Court
- after all, such acts of murder would surely be cases for an international
tribunal to adjudicate!
If, as we are led to believe, that the world is now interlinked and
interdependent and no state can function in isolation, then it is
inexplicable why we as a nation have failed to protest to the US over the
use of US-supplied weapons by Israel in the massacre of innocent
Palestinians. Equally surprising and disappointing has been the silence of
our religious parties and human rights activists over the persecution of
Muslims in Europe. Just last month a mosque was burned in France, a Muslim
teacher was denied her right to wear a headscarf in Germany and the Serbs
continued to prevent the Bosnian Muslims from rebuilding a mosque destroyed
by Serbs in the Bosnian Serb republic - Republika Srpska. Nor have we been
vocal on the issue of the race riots in Britain.
In fact, one recent instance of our low self-esteem was the manner in which
we all indulged in self-flagellation over the sports hooliganism witnessed
in England during the cricket matches involving Pakistan. While the British
barely need an opportunity to launch their vitriol against Pakistan, it was
distressing to see the Pakistanis accuse themselves of a display of
hooliganism. The fact of the matter is that the hooligans were British -
perhaps primarily of Asian descent - citizens and were reflecting what is
now an integral part of British sports culture. Football all over Europe has
been plagued by threats of British hooligans as is football in Britain
itself. So it was only a matter of time before this British disease reached
other sports also. Additionally, these Asian youth are alienated and
disgruntled because the British state has marginalised them. That is why
Britain is also beset with race riots these days. So, while no one wishes to
condone hooliganism, let us be clear about the identity of those who
perpetrate such acts. That some British citizens of Asian descent choose to
support Pakistan does not strip them of their legal identity!
However, coming back to the main issue, of course our own human rights
record is dismal, but so is that of many other states including Russia - and
all pass vocal judgments on events and incidences in countries like ours.
Neither is the record of the US and Europe on religious tolerance and human
rights without large blemishes so the self-righteous tone of their leaders
is unwarranted - especially when they are so selective in their
condemnations. For instance, the Chechens and Kashmiris in Indian-held
Kashmir have all but been forgotten in the context of genocide and human
rights. And Mr Milam knows that if the Pakistani leadership accommodated
India and disowned the Taliban, all protests about human rights and
democracy would be forgotten! After all, the US has historically had much
better relations with non-democratic states in the non-white world and Mr
Bush`s militaristic global agenda - which, apart from NMD, also seeks the
right to rapidly deploy American forces anywhere in the world that the US
sees fit - hardly reflects a democratic or global consensual spirit. America
is all prepared to ``go-it-alone`` - it already does not subscribe to the
spirit of international UN peacekeeping because it does not allow its
military personnel to serve under foreign commanders. Such an example is a
threat to the interdependent world that is emerging - but the threat is
especially grave for the resurgence of populist Islam since the US needs a
new bogey to keep sustaining its military forces as well as its military
alliances like NATO. In such a scenario, Pakistan needs to serve as a beacon
for the rest of the Muslim Ummah - which is why it needs to set its own
house in order, based upon national compulsions not international
histrionics.
Source: Today`s ``The News``: Thursday, July 05, 2001
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/
Nation with low self-esteem
by Shireen M Mazari
The author is Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies,
Islamabad
Perhaps because the forthcoming Musharraf-Vajpayee Summit has absorbed
everyone`s attention, we have tended to ignore the abuse heaped upon
Pakistan by all manner of external sources, at various levels. At least one
hopes this is the reason for a lack of a strong response, and not because we
have now been reduced to having zero self-esteem.
Surely a muted reaction - if there was even that - to US Ambassador Milam`s
speech in Lahore on June 27 can only be a case of being preoccupied
elsewhere. Otherwise how could any self-respecting Pakistani swallow the
vice-regal tone of his farewell diatribe against present day Pakistan.
Trying to equate tolerance with
secularism, he asserted that the religious elements in Pakistan were the
ones who had led Pakistan away from Jinnah`s vision. Of course, he chose to
ignore the reality that it has been the successive leaders of the country
and the rampant corruption that has dimmed the Quaid`s vision - and so far
no religious party has ruled this country!
Also, why Milam should find it a contradiction to Jinnah`s vision to project
Pakistan as a beacon for the Muslim Ummah. In fact, if Pakistan gets closer
to its founder`s vision, then Pakistan will and should see itself as a
beacon for the Muslim Ummah - a state that protects the democratic and human
rights of all citizens regardless of caste or creed, and the only Muslim
state that is there in the select group of nuclear states despite all odds.
And Pakistan has and should, rightfully, oppose the repression of Muslims
anywhere in the world. After all, the Christian bias in the policies of the
West does not preclude their assertion of their ``secular`` identity! In any
event, it is for the people of Pakistan to decide whether, once the
electoral process is restored, they wish to bring to power religious groups
or the mainstream heterogeneous parties. Equally, it is for the people of
Pakistan to decide how they wish to deal with the issue of populist Islam
and the problems brought about by obscurantism and sectarianism.
It would have served Milam better if he had stuck to the theme of how states
like the US have strayed from the vision of their founding fathers as he
laid it out - since we would not presume to tell his country that the
founding fathers built a state on the blood of the native Indians! As for
the notion of Manifest Destiny, it continues to dominate US global policies,
albeit by different names. But that is not our concern except where it
impacts directly on us - as in cases where there is intervention in our
internal affairs, or where it results in the murder of members of the Ummah
- as happened in the unprovoked shooting down of the Iranian civilian
airliner by the US naval cruiser Vincennes in 1988 in the port of Bandar
Abbas. No wonder the US refuses to support the International Criminal Court
- after all, such acts of murder would surely be cases for an international
tribunal to adjudicate!
If, as we are led to believe, that the world is now interlinked and
interdependent and no state can function in isolation, then it is
inexplicable why we as a nation have failed to protest to the US over the
use of US-supplied weapons by Israel in the massacre of innocent
Palestinians. Equally surprising and disappointing has been the silence of
our religious parties and human rights activists over the persecution of
Muslims in Europe. Just last month a mosque was burned in France, a Muslim
teacher was denied her right to wear a headscarf in Germany and the Serbs
continued to prevent the Bosnian Muslims from rebuilding a mosque destroyed
by Serbs in the Bosnian Serb republic - Republika Srpska. Nor have we been
vocal on the issue of the race riots in Britain.
In fact, one recent instance of our low self-esteem was the manner in which
we all indulged in self-flagellation over the sports hooliganism witnessed
in England during the cricket matches involving Pakistan. While the British
barely need an opportunity to launch their vitriol against Pakistan, it was
distressing to see the Pakistanis accuse themselves of a display of
hooliganism. The fact of the matter is that the hooligans were British -
perhaps primarily of Asian descent - citizens and were reflecting what is
now an integral part of British sports culture. Football all over Europe has
been plagued by threats of British hooligans as is football in Britain
itself. So it was only a matter of time before this British disease reached
other sports also. Additionally, these Asian youth are alienated and
disgruntled because the British state has marginalised them. That is why
Britain is also beset with race riots these days. So, while no one wishes to
condone hooliganism, let us be clear about the identity of those who
perpetrate such acts. That some British citizens of Asian descent choose to
support Pakistan does not strip them of their legal identity!
However, coming back to the main issue, of course our own human rights
record is dismal, but so is that of many other states including Russia - and
all pass vocal judgments on events and incidences in countries like ours.
Neither is the record of the US and Europe on religious tolerance and human
rights without large blemishes so the self-righteous tone of their leaders
is unwarranted - especially when they are so selective in their
condemnations. For instance, the Chechens and Kashmiris in Indian-held
Kashmir have all but been forgotten in the context of genocide and human
rights. And Mr Milam knows that if the Pakistani leadership accommodated
India and disowned the Taliban, all protests about human rights and
democracy would be forgotten! After all, the US has historically had much
better relations with non-democratic states in the non-white world and Mr
Bush`s militaristic global agenda - which, apart from NMD, also seeks the
right to rapidly deploy American forces anywhere in the world that the US
sees fit - hardly reflects a democratic or global consensual spirit. America
is all prepared to ``go-it-alone`` - it already does not subscribe to the
spirit of international UN peacekeeping because it does not allow its
military personnel to serve under foreign commanders. Such an example is a
threat to the interdependent world that is emerging - but the threat is
especially grave for the resurgence of populist Islam since the US needs a
new bogey to keep sustaining its military forces as well as its military
alliances like NATO. In such a scenario, Pakistan needs to serve as a beacon
for the rest of the Muslim Ummah - which is why it needs to set its own
house in order, based upon national compulsions not international
histrionics.
#113 Posted by anNy on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
i forgot this
and furthermore...you think its gutsy or brave to write articles critisizing the military government while its in power? you silly man...standing upto nawaz sharif on his power crazy trip instead of being in cahoots with him would have made things easier for your grandchildren and your conscience..but then youd have to have a conscience for that...forget about what mortals will think of you sir..what in gods name, will you say to allah mian when u die? im sorry???
god help you
and furthermore...you think its gutsy or brave to write articles critisizing the military government while its in power? you silly man...standing upto nawaz sharif on his power crazy trip instead of being in cahoots with him would have made things easier for your grandchildren and your conscience..but then youd have to have a conscience for that...forget about what mortals will think of you sir..what in gods name, will you say to allah mian when u die? im sorry???
god help you
#112 Posted by anNy on July 5, 2001 8:26:37 pm
nasah:
((``Dear anNy:
``if there is truth to Mr.Afridis dealings with drugs then the man should be punished.. his being an editor of a newspaper is irrelevent...``
That is a big IF considering what Mr. Nawaz Sharif did to another editor Najm Sethi...Mushahis Husain please take note..``))
yes mr.hussain plz take note..may i mention to you mr.coward that when the entire sethi debacle was taking place i wished quite a few bad things upon you...its incredible how you have the audacity to write all this while you yourself deserve to be hung by your eyelashes and toenails..simultaneously...and may i also tell you that it is because of big fat horrible lieing cheating spineless men like you that pakistan is in the state it is in today...i hold you responsible..entirely for a lot of what is wrong with my country..but do you care? ofcourse not..you just keep submitting article after article without having the guts to respond..you sure as hell have nothing to say..
goodbye
anNy
*deep breathe *
((``Dear anNy:
``if there is truth to Mr.Afridis dealings with drugs then the man should be punished.. his being an editor of a newspaper is irrelevent...``
That is a big IF considering what Mr. Nawaz Sharif did to another editor Najm Sethi...Mushahis Husain please take note..``))
yes mr.hussain plz take note..may i mention to you mr.coward that when the entire sethi debacle was taking place i wished quite a few bad things upon you...its incredible how you have the audacity to write all this while you yourself deserve to be hung by your eyelashes and toenails..simultaneously...and may i also tell you that it is because of big fat horrible lieing cheating spineless men like you that pakistan is in the state it is in today...i hold you responsible..entirely for a lot of what is wrong with my country..but do you care? ofcourse not..you just keep submitting article after article without having the guts to respond..you sure as hell have nothing to say..
goodbye
anNy
*deep breathe *
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: hamidm: i am not... US Commando Strike in
- tahmed32: #157 thanks for your... US Commando Strike in
- Cobra: Ironic thing is B'deshi... Is Mumbai a hub
- quest: Re: # 5 one extreme... Dr Afia Siddiqui's Case
- Dinaric: Re: # 4 Loha The... Is Mumbai a hub
- iron_mask: okay Uppal, tell us... Is Mumbai a hub
- chaltahai: uppal yaar, this article... Is Mumbai a hub
- mike195879: #5 hamidm2, you are... Dr Afia Siddiqui's Case
