The Quest for Power

``Ex-chief justice to head Bangladesh caretaker government

A neutral caretaker government headed by former chief justice Latifur Rahman will take power by July 15 to organise Bangladesh`s general elections, sources said today. ``Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed will meet the president and ask him to dissolve the parliament on July 12. The handing-over ceremony to the caretaker government will take place by July 15 as the Prime Minister does not want to delay the process,``

If someone in high position in Pakistan really wants to know what “real” democracy is -- this is it -- this is the REAL democracy in full play in the Eastern wing of the OLD Pakistan.

My question: How come it`s NOT GOOD for the Western wing of the NEW Pakistan.

``Mushahid Hussain is a Syndicated Columnist for The Nation (Lahore) and Khaleej Times (Dubai). He is a graduate of Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Class of `75 from 1982 to 1987 he was the editor of The Muslim (Islamabad).``

The Chowk staff in their psycophantic praise for this ``mercenary buffoon``, omitted one vital piece of description. He is a hypocrite par excellence. I resent the unmitigated temerity with which he is now criticising the current establishment given the fact that he and his cronies, destroyed the very fabric of this moribund country when his ``God`` NawazSahib was in power. Lord Acton`s prophecy about Absolute power stands reaffirmed perhaps for the umpteenth time in the context of the deploreable Pakistani democracy, in the hands of such people as this unworthy, dual-dealing Mushahid Hussain, who is nothing more than a callous hyena in disguise of a civilised person`s clothing.

Indeed,``Power tends to corrupt; Absolute Power corrupts absolutely``. Mushahid Hussain`s carefully worded pleas for sympathy should not be heeded, as he himself was the power broker for a corrupt and highly dismal repressive regime, not too long ago. It would appear that his own remnant conscience is still enagaged in a reverie, as he writes this article, in full defiance of any norm of honesty, integrity and moral uprightness.

One may have delusions of being educated by virtue of possessing a piece of paper from a western University; Its ultimately one`s actions which demonstrate the learning and integrity one achieves as a virtue of that education. Sad to say, Mr Mushahid`s privileged education has conferred nothing to his personal develeopmnet as an honourable person. His facade of civility is too easy to look past, and his inner demons too easy to diagnose to determine the raison de etre of what is it that makes this excuse of an ex-minister look so pathetic to BBC interviwers, and his populace at large.

More power to the general in bringing out the termites of this debilitated society. Its only when such jetsam and flotsam, and their very feudal masters are carefully preened away from the fabric that we can hope to stat afresh.

Sincerely

Asim

I don`t know if this news is correct that Muslims of India have burned the flag of Pakistan.

I don`t know if this news is also correct that our Jarri Jawan have a plan to direct Atom bomb towards all big cities of Pakistan after Vajpayee and Musharraf will become Dodh Shareek Bhai (after drinking the milk of same goat).

I don`t know if this news is also correct that our Jarri Jawan after subjugating rest of Pakistan are about to conquer Karachi which is under siege for many years.

Mr Mushahid,its good to know that you have started writing again.Well I have one Question to ask,What were the state of things when you were in Power.Did these things alarm you then or you were also like others to compromise over these issues with your saluting master Mian Nawaz Shareef(the Biggest Gooffy on Earth).I wish you had raised the voice then,may be then your articles would have some weigth.May be an issue where you can concentrate to think about.Best wishes

Re: tahmed321 # 76

Agreed!

I think that you have put your finger on the pulse by stating the implicit; the UN is an American facade. The United Nations was founded on the ideals of Wilsonian diplomacy, but the strategic interests of the United States are more in line with Bismarckian politics and it is these interests, which influence the United Nations` policies. Hence, the conflict of opinions in the United States on its foreign policy interests and how to pursue them.

Ciao

Ferozk #70 I think the heart of the difference between Truman and MacArthur was on who called the final shots on US military decisions in Korea. While technically it was the UN force in Korea, it was basically a US show anyway. There has no doubt been a rising tension between nation-states (with the lone superpower being the most prominent) and international agencies since then. This tension reflects, I think, a sea change taking place, with the nation-states (even the lone superpower) slowly but steadily losing power and influence to the latter. Just like the fiefdoms lost out to the kingships and to emperors a few hundred years ago. The War Crimes Tribunal`s forthcoming trial of a former Head of State is just the latest milestone in this long road towards the unification of the entire planet, and is dictated by economic and technological change whether we like it or not.

KHOTAY DA SIR

The plan is simple.

The rebels in Muslim majority province of China, Sinkiang, will be trained and given weapons by India. The pretext that will be used in Western and Indian press would be of Palkistan and Ossama Bin Laden. The Indian agents will accelerate the violence in Sinkiang and will bring it at a stage where the situation will be irreversible.

One must be very careful to analyze the news that US Army`s special units are going to ``get`` training from Indian Army in the region near Nepal`s border in July. Whereas one may anticipate a secret ``training`` mission in the Laddakh region. The purpose of such excercises is to explore the possibility of transferring men and material into the Sinkiang province. One must also keep in mind the undertones that International (and US) strategic analysts have started using these days.

Once the rebel ``movement`` will get into full swing, Ossama will be used to provide and smuggle men and material into Sinkiang. There definitely will be loss of life of the people of Sinkiang which will be used to exploit the general public opinion in Muslim countries against China.

It is quite obvious that US and China will not let a chaos create in China like that of USSR. However, it will be used to get more access to get into the Chinese markets and negotiate better prices on trade with China. Whereas India will be reined and kept under control using the threat of Pakistan in Kashmir.

NET RESULT:

- China will thus be brought under control, and its voice will be muzzled that it usally raises for an equitable system of trade and Global society, condemning Neo-colonial aspirations of the West and US.

- Muslim blood keep on spilling in Sinkiang and Kashmir while stressing that Muslims are actually terrorits.

- And what will India and Pakisatn will get in return for all this- Khotay Da Sir, as usual.

THe plan is simple.

actually i dont even care who has the power anymore...and i think that the majority of people in pakistan are just tired and dont give a damn about who is in power.Journalists can criticize the govt as much as they want to...our two major political parties and other parties can do the same...but what good will come out of it?everyone just wants the FEEL of power...and every GOVT will do the same be it military or others ... be it martial law or democracy...we`ll still be the puppets doing whatever America wants us to do.There will be no changes.and that is the reason why most of the pakistanis have lost interest in their political and economic condition.

Reply #: 71 drcheema

i agree with you.Mushahid sahab is talking about how and what changes musharraf is going to make...what good will he do for pakistan...and criticizing him when he himself was the right-hand man of Nawaz Sharif... who corrupted the country and brought it to the point of bankruptcy.

I printed this on the wrong thread by mistake:

Pakistani journalist, whenever they have the opportunity to write freely, criticize greatly any and every Pakistani leader. Perhaps its cynicism, or perhaps all of the leaders deserved to criticized. So the worth of a Pakistani leader can be judged in Pakistan, not by how highly the journalists speak of him/her, but by how little criticism he/she receives. Based on that, I would have to say that Musharraf, though not praised greatly, has received far less criticism from the Pakistani press than any leader in my lifetime.

An excellent analysis of Pakistan`s current political scenario. I specifically agree with the last paragraph:

``The end of politics?

By Irfan Husain

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Frances Fukuyama, an American political scientist, wrote a paper with the provocative title ``The end of history.`` The thrust of his thesis was that with the global triumph of the free economy, liberal-democratic model, there was no longer any countervailing ideology left to serve as an antithesis.

Fukyama argued that without any opposition, the dominant western juggernaut would prevail and effectively end the conflict and friction that generate historical events and shape the flow of history. Understandably, this thesis caused a furore in academia as well as the media, and a decade later, it stands largely discredited.

Whatever the fate of the Fukuyama paper, it is possible to argue that in Pakistan today, we are witnessing ``the end of politics.`` Consider the facts: on the eve of a crucial and possibly historic summit meeting between the leaders of India and Pakistan, the two biggest political parties have decided to boycott the pre-summit consultative process initiated by General Pervez Musharraf. The PPP leadership says it is doing so because Benazir Bhutto has been sentenced in absentia. Nawaz Sharif`s faction of the Muslim League (how many factions are there, for God`s sake?) says that to attend a meeting with Musharraf would imply acceptance of his accession to the presidency.

The only other significant component of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) is the Awami National Party (ANP), and its leadership has sensibly endorsed the talks and sent its representative to meet the president in the face of much carping and cribbing from its ARD partners. But the fact is that Pakistan today is a two-party state and the leaders of both parties are sulking for their own reasons. At a time when a domestic consensus would strengthen General Musharraf`s hand in Agra, Pakistan`s two biggest parties have no input to offer. Benazir Bhutto has gone to the extent of criticising the Indian government for having extended the invitation to begin with. We have not heard from Nawaz Sharif yet as his voice has been effectively stifled by his Saudi hosts, but it is doubtful if he would have contributed anything of note.

This is just one example of the irrelevance of our political parties. Caught up in the short-term compulsions of their corrupt leaders, they have become so much an integral part of the problem that they cannot possibly be part of the solution. Their supporters are so fed up of the antics of these exposed politicians that they will not come out into the streets for them. Unable to mount any pressure on the military government, the PPP and PML leaders are reduced to mumbling hollow threats. Whenever they offer sensible criticism, their arguments lose their force because of their own record while in office.

The third biggest political party, the MQM, has effectively marginalized itself by boycotting the local body elections in its stronghold of urban Sindh. The reasons for this decision - as for most MQM decisions - are murky: from his comfortable exile in London, Altaf Hussain makes Delphic pronouncements that might make sense to him, but to nobody else. But what is more amazing is that his followers accept these bizarre declarations without even a murmur of protest. In any case, the MQM has by now so thoroughly alienated all parties and centres of power that despite its support, it is largely irrelevant except when it shuts down Karachi by implicit threats of violence against anybody who does not pull down his shutters when it calls its periodic ``strikes.``

The religious parties with their fundamentalist agenda want to drag the country back into medieval times, and their action plan consists of abolishing interest, support of the Taliban, confrontation with India and a rejection of rational thought and modern concepts. In every sense they are irrelevant to Pakistan and its need to modernize and progress. Indeed, by their words and actions they are acting as a major hurdle to investment.

The scary part is that these people are the best we have in politics: the few intelligent and honest politicians in the ring are kept at arm`s length by their leaders, lest they become popular in their own right. In any case, politics in Pakistan is such a dirty business that very few upright and capable people are tempted to take the plunge. What we are left with is a class of unproductive drones who fatten themselves when in power, and are the source of endless intrigues when they are out of office. Small wonder that there are hardly any idealists in the ranks of professional politicians. Among their priorities, serving the people is very low down on the list.

The army`s attempt to induct another breed of politicians through the local body elections being held under the grand ``devolution plan`` has failed as familiar families and faces are being elected in droves. How these freshly minted local democrats will fare when hostile provincial and national governments are formed next year remains to be seen. But it can safely be predicted that the cohabitation is likely to be uneasy.

Having talked of the irrelevance of our politicians, can we honestly say that the generals are any more relevant? The past record of military governments is anything but reassuring. Zia`s era has saddled us with a large proportion of the foreign loans that are like a deadweight pulling down the economy; he unleashed fundamentalism and a tidal wave of drugs and guns; and he was instrumental in formulating the foreign policy that has so isolated us.

Strictly speaking, the relevance of generals lies in the field of defence and not in politics. However, given our peculiar and convoluted history, the army has become Pakistan`s most powerful political party. But the record of our generals in politics is very poor, and it would be a brave man who predicts that the current crop will fare any better.

So what is the answer? We must face the fact that sooner or later (and preferably sooner), Pakistan must return to the democratic path. And I do not mean the `guided` variety so dear to the generals. There are no short-cuts, no magic wands to suddenly clean up the system. And as we know to our cost, the longer a military government hangs on to power, the more disastrous the results. The most we can hope for from General Musharraf is a brief interregnum in which extremism is curbed; the economy stabilized and relations with India improved.

One knows this is a tall order, but if he can pull it off, he can live in the presidency for as long as he wants. (DAWN, Pakistan)

I would be interested in finding out why Mushahid Hussain`s party is refusing to back talks with India by Musharraf?

Dear Mushahid:

Your thoughts are no different than any of the rulers and their cronies who have been in power in Pakistan.

I may say that Possibly you achieved new heights of hypocicy.If i may not forget, you are tha man who advised Nawaz Sharif in conducting his sham democracy and gave new meanings to `Lafafa` journalism. Where were your democratic values when you voted in the parliment for all the constitutional amendments where a member of parliment could be unseated for dissent? Why were you silent when Sharif and his cronies were plundering and looting the nation?

You think you are educated elite from Ivy league? I think you are worse than any of the illetrate villager in Pakistan, at least they stick to their morals inspite of their poverty and lack of education.

Please stop lecturing us on values of democracy, now that you are out power.It is an irony that people like you who claim high moral ground are the worst offenders. We have no sympaathy for turncoats like you. All that has gone wrong is because of people like you. You should own your responsibility and SHUT UP.

Re: Tahmed321 # 68

Point well taken!

As to Musharraf, most Pakistanis are too burdened with poverty and depression to think about Musharraf and give a damn. Most Pakistanis care more about the rains ending the drought than they do about Musharraf going to India.

I have a news flash for you. When Americans debate whether to put American forces under the authority of the UN, they are reviving the very debate between Truman and MacArthur asking the question if the US should be subordinated to the United Nations in its policies or not.

So you see, 280 million people do think about MacArthur and give a damn!

Ciao

Dear Shammi

I am so relieved that the piece was not written by Kuldip Nayar. My apology to KN.

Did you read Keerthik`s trash? What is your reaction.

Regards

Ferozk #67 ``it matters how spell the name of a general, whose very name divides American between those you love the name ``MacArthur`` and those who detest it!``

This is probably more true of Gen. MacMusharraf in Pakistan than for macArthur of whom it would be more accurate if you had written ``whose very name divides Americans between those who love the name ``MacArthur`` (ten people) and those who detest it (ten people)... and those who go through life without thinking twice about him (two hundred and fifty million people).`` Cheers.

Re: hobbyty

The correct name of the general is spelled as MacArthur and not as McArthur. It may seem like an inconsequential detail to you, but to a student of the Second World War, it matters how spell the name of a general, whose very name divides American between those you love the name ``MacArthur`` and those who detest it!

Ciao

Whatever consensus Mr. Musharraf was trying to build as the CE, at home and abroad, before going to Delhi, that consensus stands shattered after Mr. Musharraf anointed himself as the President of Pakistan in such an imperious manner.

The eager gentleman was in such a hurry that he did not even bother to inform his own Foreign Minister. Specially at a time when his FM was engaged in some very sensitive diplomacy with the major benefactor of Pakistan, and Super power of the world - the United States.

Did Mr. Musharraf need to poke the hornet nest of the politicians with this unconstitutional stick at home -- and solicit rebukes from EU, UK and USA as well – at such a crucial juncture?

Should we be surprised if the PPP and Muslim League (N), the chief components of a two party systems in Pakistan, have refused to meet him?

Mr. Musharraf has drawn too much attention upon himself at a time when everybody should have been focussing on the real issues between India and Pakistan.

Now Mr. Musharraf will see Vajpayee and get his much coveted 21 gun salute, no doubt, but will sit with him much weakened, unable to make any real deals as the President in too much limelight -- than he could have -- as the `unobtrusive` CE.

However, if my friend Ahmed Faraz (we had once an all night mushaira marathon at my residence) says that Mr. Musharraf is a ``noble and progressive`` soul, (let`s see if he frees editor Afridi from the gallows – a journalist-hanging weird Pakistan, what is wrong with you Pakistan!!) one will have to put ones criticism of Mr. Musharraf on hold and wish him well on his trip to his birthplace --in the interest of Indo-Pak reconciliation – a dream that one would like to see realized before one dies.