The Quest for Power

Nasah

Good News - Mr. Afridi`s sentence may not stand up to appeal process and related judicial review. Some time as a guest of the State may be more the kind of thing he may end up with.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nasah 136

Please, there is no need to fly off the handle!

And please do not give up! Perhaps you are right that Mr. Afridi has been framed. And if he has been framed, shame on those who did plot and effect such a conspiracy. If you should give up and Mr. Afridi does turn out to have been framed, an advocate and a person of goodwill, will have been lost to him and us.

Journalists, editors and publishers, are just people. They are no better or worse because of their vocation. It is absurd to suggest that such persons are above the Law and do form a new category of ``sacred cow`` or ``untouchables``.

Awarding a punishment of death is very serious business, I feel assured that most persons in Pakistan do take it rather seriously and also be mindful that the process of appeal has not been exhausted.

It is a caricature that nothing in Pakistan works, or that a inhuman thirst for blood has taken root in Pakistan.

Indus civilization (whatever that means - because it requires a great deal more study) - As a student of the study of that civilization, I suggest that those who seek to make connections between the Indus civilzation and present day cultural entities or ideological presentations in Pakistan or India, are seriously misinformed.

(The presence of Cave painting in southern France does not suggest a cultural connection or a source of pride, for the French - That would be ridiculous, would it not? - It`s significance is as a source of study and understanding for all mankind, that it exists in present geographical boundries of France - can we deduce then, that the French and the cave dwellers are culturally related? And, some famous painters and movements within the Arts also began in France -Would it not be shallow to make such connections?

And should we deny any connection to those may have effected the dissolution of the Indus civilization? Or those who came after?

Perhaps, answers will be even more complex than the questions and ofcourse we will have hundreds of millions of answers - and perhaps, it is right that we do!

I share with you the conviction, that, Pakistan is special, destined to be a beacon, provided we discredit the ideas that seek equate Islam with magic, that promote social, confessional and gender biases, and that seek to obscure the rationality, free debate, free consciounce, and free choices that form the core values of Islam.

Aamir #132

You are definitely mistaken.

There is no doubt about scholarship of Maulana.

I never knew that ``this Panj waqta Mullah`` would be drinking behind closed doors.

Better were Bhutto and Jinnah who at least drank openly.

Nasah #137

Let me quote Kahlil Jibran from book by ``Roedad Khan`` ``Pakistan-a dream gone sour``

Pity the nation which has beliefs, but no religion.

Pity the nation who thinks every oppressor as brave and who sees every shining conqueror, beautiful.

Pity a nation who raises its voice when walking behind a coffin or when rope is hung in its neck.

Pity a nation whose intellectuals become quiet due to circumstances of time and whose brave people are still in their infancy.

Pity a nation which is divided into pieces, and each piece thinks itself a nation.

(We also don`t mess up with PAKISTANIS.

A good lesson for you.)

Nasah 3139

There is no doubt that some journalists in Pakistan have courage.

But this courage started after 1971. Before that our most PRESTIGIOUS journalists were paid or in some cases unpaid agents.

The movement of left in Pakistan particularly, but also some rightist elements have given the breed of Journalist in the form of Herald, The Muslim etc (Takbir, Ausaf etc are brave journalism of a different kind:-)).

Lets hope this last institution stands on its feet.

Mugar Aasaar Acche Nazar Nahin Aate.

Second thing is objectivity and analysis. That is lacking in most part. Journalism is basically journalism meaning reporting and analysis with some preconceived notions.

The example of curbing of Journalism can be clearly seen in 1971 break up of Pakistan. The few people who have written on such a big event is minimal. It has been given much more attention by non Pakistani non south asian journalists.

Any way. Regards and Salaam.

Dear krashid: #130,131

You’re a very positive, levelheaded, optimistic, person, and I share your optimism about Pakistan. With so much less social, and cultural baggage than the neighboring India -- Pakistan -- with the pride and joy of its Indus Valley Culture (when most of the world, including Europe, except Egypt, was the abode of barbarians) – always had the potential of becoming a great trail blazer among the nations of the world, in general -- and for the Muslim countries, in particular.

We all hope one day a democratic, progressive and secular Pakistan will take its rightful place among the civilized nations of the world.

For now, hopefully, Mr. Musharraf will do something for editor Afridi. It will give Mr. Musharraf lot of mileage in respectability and soften his harsh image as the DODO of Pakistan, (Destroyer Of Democracy Of Pakistan), all around the world. Nobody hangs their newspaper editors these days.

I wish you would agree more with Binnifer than with Bapu jee regarding the excellence and the superlative courage of your journalists and intellectuals. Please don’t demean them. They stand out shoulder to shoulder with any of their contemporaries in the Western or Eastern media world.

My dear Pakistani friends:

Ok, ok, I give up. Don’t get upset. Go ahead and hang your journalist Mr. Afridi, excuse me, Mr. Afridi the drug dealer. Give him a true Islamic justice – chop off his head in a public square in Islamabad

You hang your prime ministers -- now this is only a lowly, “coward, gutless, spineless weasel” worthless journalist. What the heck. By all means go ahead, do it.

With its already tattered image abroad Pakistan does need a face-lift and this will certainly do it.

A Amir Ref 132

AAmir cool it man. You are getting carried away.

Talking about Maulana Azad. Maulana is only a title here that does not mean he has to be a mullah or has only to live by Koran. He was a fine Muslim. Just as Pandit Nehru or Giani Zail Singh, does not mean priest Nehru or Zail Singh. Maulan is a title `a learned one`. Don`t bring Koran in everything, you fanatic, narrow minded, tunnel visioned, biased, bafooned pimp.

Reply #: 133

binifer

``Najam Sethi and Khalid Hassan are some of the nice people that there are in pakistani print media right now.Their writings have some credibility unlike Mr.mushahid hussain whose board we are on.``

The fact that Najm Sethi has not been killed is b/c he himself represents the establishment of Pakistan-the few,the rich & the feudals.

He with his wife were all over Public Television after Musharaffs take over ,we havent heard from him since then.Najm Sethi is investing his money wisely in democracy b/c America would back him for it.Likes of Najam Sethi couldnt stand for anything on principle ,fior such creatures of comfort & previliged lives do not breed revolutionaries.

((``Most of these journalists are coward,gutless,spineless weasel,to stand for anything.``))

Yeeeeeeeep.Just that. Thats why these spineless wimps i mean weasels risk everything they hold precious by speaking against those in power in a country like ours where you can get anyone kiled for less than a hundred and twelve rupees and sometimes for free.So who do you suggest mr. bapu we go for? Intellectuals like mushahid hussain who sell out at the first chance they get or Mr. yellow teeth reading out news on ptv whose name I`m forgetting?

Najam Sethi and Khalid Hassan are some of the nice people that there are in pakistani print media right now.Their writings have some credibility unlike Mr.mushahid hussain whose board we are on.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nasah #126

The matter of Afridi will be decided by Government and not courts.

In its recent decision, Lahore High Court ruled that since there is no constitution so any act by Pervez Musharraf is valid whether it is against constitution does not matter.

Supreme Court of Pakistan in its decision of ``Law of necessity`` for justifying the Musharraf takeover of Government clearly gave Musharraf three years. With the stipulation that although constitution is in abeyance, but Musharraf will not take any decision which is against the constitution.

Musharraf Government is taking big decisions which directly go against constitution. For example the election of local bodies is strictly a provincial issue. But the elections are done under orders of Central Government.

For president to be elected, it is through both houses of Parliament and need to be retired from Government Service for at least two years. And president cannot be eliminated except by certain procedures.

Now CEO had all the powers to do whatever he liked. But for this unconstitutional act, the oath of president was taken by none other than Chief Justice of Supreme Court.

So in the matter of Afridi the question is not that whether he is a culprit or not. The question is whether he will be punished for his crimes or for taking a stand against Governemnt.

In this regard the interesting example is Nawaz Sharif. He was punished for life in prison. And while still having cases against him leading to possibly death sentence, his whole family was flown to Saudi Arabia.

I am looking towards God. For God has his own ways of dealing with things.

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.

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.

#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 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!

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.

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.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

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.

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.

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.

``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?

Feroz K #112

Sir Your approval is a reward.

Thanks and regards.

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.

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.

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

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..

Irfan Hussein

`` The most we can expect...``

As if these are not achievements to be proud of. Afterall, is there anybody else who has had the courage to deliver ``the most we can expect``.

Give Mr. Musharraf, his team and those Pakistanis whom they represent, the due they deserve.

It took a great deal of political courage to stabilize the economy and set it on a growth pattern. It took a great deal of courage to tell the Ulema that Islamic values do not include the use of verbal, written, or physical terror against those who disagree with their positions. And ofcourse, the political and personal courage and the moral fiber to seek a just and lasting peace in Kashmir.

If Mr. Musharraf and his team succeed in the restructuring of the State and Economy of Pakistan, creating greater direct participation in their own governance, easier, greater, fair access to participation in the economy, controlling terror and setting Pakistan on a path of regional peace - are these not great accomplishment, worthy of praise and support?

Re: Krashid # 108

You said it brother!

Ciao

nasah #2103 ``You`re right. Pakistan is not a failed state and will never be one. ``

After 1971 it became fashionable to term Pakistan a failed state. I still remember an Economist article back in 1971 that on the one hand lamented the humiliation of surrender by a ``fine martial race`` in Dacca on the one hand, and on the other quoted someone as saying that Pakistan was a drowning dog whose head would in a few years be pushed underwater. Thirty years later the ``martial race`` is getting a bit tired of being martial, and would prefer to be a ``civilian race``, and the ``drowning dog`` seems to be a world-class paddler that keeps on going despite the best efforts of it`s rulers as well as of the religious and ethnic chauvinists. So much for the ability of anyone, even the fine Economist journalists, to foretell the future.

You write: ``One day it WILL become a democratic, progressive, and SECULAR state of the subcontinent.Inshallah.``

Ameen. There are too many good people like you in Pakistan to be anything else. I have in a past post on chowk referred to Pakistan as the ``ugly duckling`` of South Asia that will one day turn into a beautiful swan (as in the children`s storybook).

Nasah # 103

((Let`s see when the ``noble and progressive`` --(according to Ahmad Faraz, the poet laureat of Pakistan and India) -- Mr.Musharraf releases editor AFRIDI of Frontier Post as another magnanimous gesture towards press freedom and political dissent. No civilized country hangs editors of newspapers, any more, these days))

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...

((One day it WILL become a democratic,progressive, and SECULAR state of the subcontinent.Inshallah.))

inshaAllah :0)

Re: Nasah #69

I do not know who you are referring to as `Keerthik`. I have been away from the Web for about a week. Apologies for a delayed response

Nasah #103

I think Irfan Hussain is too optimistic in his hope.

Army particularly, but Beaureucracy are moving slowly, but surely in one direction. To consolidate their grip.

The improvement in economy, to curb the corruption and improving relations with India just shows that they;

1- Are in no position to confront India.

2- They want to rectify the situation, so that state and as a corollary they also survive.

But this in no way should be taken to mean that they have any plan for power sharing.

They are doing it out of necessity, otherwise their own survival is at stake. They have absolutely no concern with people and their aspirations.

Urstruly #101

My thinking on this matter is that Center will try to consolidate its position on administration and armed forces through proposed National Security Council and directly controlling the districts. In this regard the current revelation of politically very weak position of elected Nazim and Naib Nazim should be an eye opener.

It will be rule of military and beaureucracy in its full form with all advantages accruing to them. For the simple reason. They will be UNELECTED dictators or mafia and not answerable to people. With such a powerful Center, provinces will be crushed.

Will it lead to consolidation of Pakistan?

I highly doubt that? With no choice left, and deteriorating economic condition, people will take up arms. This will further lead to worsening of situation as far as economic prospects are concerned.

Although PPP under Benazir is trying to blunt the struggle of people, instead of taking bold stand.

But I doubt that our ruling elite realize the importance of power sharing with people.

Another important aspect is sinceerity. Current dispensation can probably work, if sinceerity of rulers is beyond doubt. But as absolute power corrupts absolutely, there is no guarantee that sincere Musharraf will be sincere all along. Or he will live for ever.

In the long run, it will result in huge powers in the hands of unelected representatives,and that it will lead to absolute corruption on unprecedented scale.

I would rather suggest that if current dispensation is in the minds of military (particularly National Security Council), Then At least President as also the president of National Security Council and Gevernors should be directly elected by people. That will be an effective check on the power of National Security Council.

The saga of Benazir and Laghari clearly shows that even if President and Prime minister are from same party, their differing outlook on National issues can lead to betterment of system.

What will the parliament do then? Basically the job of parliament will be restricted to making laws within very limited parameters.

Considering my experience in life (however meagre), I foresee a big struggle in Pakistan in future for people to assert their rights. As I can predict that military and civil beareucracy do not have a desire to involve people in governace. The other scenario can be living dead people. Considering the political awareness in hard struggle, I highly doubt the other scenario.

When assesing any dispensation, it is important to see the power and power sharing.

All the ``Haqooq`` will be restricted to ruling elite. All the ``Faraiz`` will be restricted to people.

Urstruly #101

The participation in election at 45 to 50% (Excluding Karachi and Hyderabad where it was 20-25%) does not in any way reflect the confidence of people in system.

The people talking big, about system and system don`t even know that the so called system is still in bag and will come out on 14th of august.

There is only hope and hope given to people that they will have a better future with the current exercise.

Only this is causing the downtrodden and poor people to vote. They want an end to their misery. Each new system since the inception of Pakistan brings them new hope, which are shattered within few years. Musharraf and co. told in the beginning that it will be two years when people will start feeling the benefit. With the rising gas prices, rising cost of living, increase in unemployment, they now say three to five more years.

Although it is true that if the situation is reversed somehow and common man start to feel benefit of it, the sentiments of people will calm down and will move in favor of Government. But, I cannot understand how can they do it without involving the people.

To be continued

Feroze 102

Most Interesting - And absolutely right! But, can you elaborate:

``I am indebted to Gen. Pervez Musharraf for releasing my son and I sincerely pray to God for the success of the Indo-Pak summit which has come as a blessing in disguise for us,`` said an elated Dr. Surendra Singh.``

Let`s see when the ``noble and progressive`` --(according to Ahmad Faraz, the poet laureat of Pakistan and India) -- Mr.Musharraf releases editor AFRIDI of Frontier Post as another magnanimous gesture towards press freedom and political dissent.

No civilized country hangs editors of newspapers, any more, these days.

Dear krashid:

In the word of Irfan Husain:

``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.``



You write: ``Am I pessimistic. No.``

You`re right. Pakistan is not a failed state and will never be one.

One day it WILL become a democratic, progressive, and SECULAR state of the subcontinent.Inshallah.

Re: hobbyty # 98

Yes, I am in agreement with you on the economic reasons for a lack of tolerance in Pakistan. You are right that changes need to be made, but the question still is, why tinker with the consitution when you can create a new one?

Pakistan needs a new begining.

Ciao

Iris:

You`re right. Let`s not be cynic and try to ignore the fact that Zia won the refrendum by 95% vote-and also the current ``elections`` have nothing to do with traditional behavorial patterns of the voters.

WE must, however, concentrate on the fact that:

The new system is basically good-BUT

1. The people, who are actuallly, preservers and keepers of the (new) system are not adequately informed and educated on what this system can do for them.

2. People have not been made aware of the philosophical bases of a grassroot democracy.

3. The system does not address the issues like the generation of revenue from local resources and its distribution of it within the constituencies. So basically what is done is that to break the bigger baskets into smaller ones. One must keep in mind that the subject of revenue, its generation, and its distribution is the main catalyst that triggers any change towards a democratic community. Now people are still looking upward for the meagre resources, with smaller baskets.

4. The new system ignores a hard reality that is in our face-it is in peoples psyche to vote for a party- since the time elections started happening in the subcontinent. So it is unnatural and forced. Why not make changes that will force parties to hold ``general and comprehensive`` elections with in themselves first before they start claiming people`s representation. And it cannot happen unless people are trained and educated about it first. If 20 years of Zia and Ayub are not a lesson then what is.

5. Basically, it (grassroot thing) is an unconsented trade between current regime and people that people will get their electricity, water, sewage system, and probably education for their children IF they keep shut up and do not interfere in the political aspirations of current regime.

Now this is the most pathetic blackmail I have ever seen-what do you think, how long people will allow this.

Nasah #93

It is not related to abrogation of constitution.

Gandhara Industries of Major (I think) Gohar Ayub Khan was the tip of iceburg in Ayub`s regime.

Our Generals instead of fighting in East Pakistan were smuggling Paan during Yahya era.

In Zia era not only culture of Klashinkov and drug were introduced , but lot of Generals and their sons made huge money out of this trade. Governor Fazl-e-Haq and Humatyun Akhtar Khan are popular but are just the tip of iceburg. The process of corruption in politics by presenting brief cases full of money and Pajeros was in full form at the time of Zia. And the same breed of politicans groomed by army to take care of their business ultimately revolted against their mentors.

Is there hope for Pakistan. As far as elite are concerned there is lot of hope. As far as common man is concerned. None.

The number of beggars in Karachi (the richest city) is 200,000 out of unofficial figure of roughly 10 million. Meaning 2%. I quoted recently about Aunty in Lahore, who is hiring girls from poor areas to please our Generals and beaureucrats.

I don`t see any change in situation. This is just institutionalization of above mentioned facets. With the help of our highly patriotic middle class.

If you want to see the behaviour. See the behaviour of these same people in supporting Zia and welcoming Nawaz Sharif when it was due.

In breaking the legacy of Z.A. Bhutto they have shattered Pakistan, but are still unable to break the legacy.

Alas.

Am I pessimistic. No.

What will happen to our middle class is anybody`s guess. But the situation is getting worse everyday for the so called middle class of Pakistan and are joining the ranks of poor. Only people in a little better position are people who have migrated.

The only solution is political process. Without it people will go to extreme. And Jihad will take new meaning.

In fact our elite are furthering their interest at the expense of people of Pakistan. People of Pakistan should realize and also middle class, that destiny of nation is in their hands. Once political process is completely eliminated our ruling elite will join hands with International capital to further their interest. And poor people will have no problem. They are used to live like this. It will be the middle class which will suffer most.

So it should realize that it should not hinder political process. It is not in its own interest.

In fact it was the political process at the time of Bhutto and later for people of Karachi by MQM which caused poor people and lower middle class people to migrate and have a better standard of living.

Re Urstruly #89:

If you consider an average 45% and in some cases (such as Lahore city district) over 50% turnout `pathetic`, some serious re-evaluation is needed. My conclusion of the same figures was positive...compared to the 13% voter turnout in previous elections...this jump appears to be substantial. When NS won a 2/3 majority...the average voter turnout across the country was supposed to be below 20%.

Draw your own conclusions about what is pathetic and what constitutes people`s confidence. Though even if you look at the average 45% figure as negative (by no accounts can it be considered pathetic)...what do you expect...a people that have been looted of their rights for as long as many of their concsciences have existed, cannot be expected to blindly follow a `plan` that has not even taken root or shown results.

People`s cyncisim however (if you want to look at the glass half-empty through the remaining 5%`s perspectives) is understandable at this juncture, but not necessarily justified. This plan really makes an effort to reach out to the common man... to date most rational human beings that take the time out to research the plan, do not speak against it (other than minor criticism of adjustments that should be made or doofus politicians/ feudals whom such a plan does not suit). I have also not read any counter-argument as to a better alternate option for empowering people in such a direct manner. I highly suggest visiting the nrb.org website to better undertand what the plan entails. I was thoroughly shocked to read the details, as someone else had finally penned down thoughts and discussion one has grown up with or conclusions one had personally drawn, on what changes are essential for Pakistan to move forward.

If you want to look at the glass half-full, however, the same 45% turnout figure looks positive...especially if you compare it with previous voter turnout ratios or even turnout rates of more developed democracies of the world. Also, look at the thousands of candidates that have participated from far-flung areas (including women), many of whom are not politically connected/ backed... how are you drawing your conclusions? Try to fill your half empty glass with some encouraging facts.

Mr. Burki says:

``I will argue below, is precisely what should now happen in Pakistan and why I think President Musharraf may have procured for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong politically in Pakistan`` (Shahid Javed Burki)

There are two problems with the army apologist Mr. Shahid Javed Burki: first, he is not only an intellectual gymnast/contortionist, he is an intellectual soothsayer/palm-reader as well - and secondly his voluminous verbosity. It is almost impossible for Mr. Burki to describe even a hackneyed point in fewer words.

Sure, every 5 year an army dictator appears on the political horizon of Pakistan, the dictator, according to Mr. Burki, always ``procures for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong politically in Pakistan``.

At my age, a person who has heard this SONG so many times before -- I would like to `SING` a couplet of MINE -- for Mr. Burki`s pleasure.

``dekhe meree rindi ne hain mai khaney bahut sey

mai aik hee payee meley paimaney bahut sey``

Feroze

The important question is why does a spirit of tolerance not exist in Pakistani politics? Does it have do with how the State and Economy is constructed?

Concensus does not exist because competing groups within the State do not percieve the creation of wealth and the delivery of services as a necessary condition for their existence. They compete over exactly the same thing over and over again, that is to gain control of the State apparatus and then to drain the public treasury.

A economy where in the politician is the voice of interests within their constituency, is the demand of the public. A politician that delivers using the tools of opinion making and legislation has never existed in Pakistan. This is so because of the very structure of the State and Economy.

The State feels little need to be genuinely responsive as it control the major economic determinants of the citizens lives and is the provider of services, basic amenities. This is a wholly abnormal, perverse situation. This has also resulted in the theft of private property (Nationalization) and the erosion of the Private economy, additionally the State relies not a fair, wide and low tax structure but rather punitively taxes, economic activity itself. The public economy and the State as provider(Loss making State enterprizes as jobs schemes, loss making State services). The citizen is reduced to a virtual slave of the State. The result of this structure of the State and Economy is devastating and completely out of tune with both the demand of the domestic public and international economy. Political consensus cannot be developed if we fail to increase the national ``pie``, so to speak; and the politicians will continue towards the enslavement of the citizen, because it gives them levers of patronage and power over lives, they in no represent. Please consider why ``Accountablity`` is so popular, I`m not arguing that it is fair, but it is very, very popular among those segments of the population that feel least powerful, ie, represented. Tolerance cannot exist in an meliu where large groups compete for ever smaller resources. For purposes of this argument, Imagine having one toilet for every 10,000 persons, can one reasonably expect tolerance in such a situation? Especially when there is absolutely no reason for such a shortage, unless it State monopoly and State disincentives for the building of such.



You will notice that in addition to the local govt setup, there are also ideas such as the enlargement of the Senate, and NSC, being reviewed. Additionally the ``checks and balances`` especially in regard to the powers of the Premier and the President are also being reviewed.

If these reviews do result in a larger Senate, NSC and Checks and Balances bewteen the two executives (Premier and President) and the Judiciary, Pakistan will have a much more stable political scene.

How can ``checks and balances`` be arrived at without constitutional ``tinckering``? How can larger numbers of persons find representation within government? Please review the kinds of authority the local Nizams have, you will note that restructuring of our economic life and the role of the State, is precisely what they intend. Why would anybody want to invest in Pakistan without a guarantee that the State will not disposess them?

Re: hobbyty #95

Pakistan does not need more tinkering with the consitution; it needs tolerance in its politics.

The history of Pakistani politics has been a study in the development of egalitarian ideals and the failure of democracy, because Pakistani politics have been intolerant of opposing opinions.

The hazardous nature of Pakistani politics, where power swings between interregnums of military rule punctuated with experiments in civilian rule is not related to a lack of dissent, but to an institutional failure in Pakistani politics. This institutional failure originates from a need to insure the transfer of political power in an orderly and efficient manner.

It has been the tragedy of the Pakistani politics that it could not develop a meaningful system of “checks and balances” to make sure that there exists a separation of powers and no branch of the government can usurp power for its own ends at the expense of other branches of the government.

There is dissent in the Pakistani politics, but not in the sense of the western democratic tradition. The major difference between Pakistani politics and their western counterparts is in the levels of institutional moderation in their politics. Whereas, western democratic traditions are based on the premise of trouble free transfers of political power through consensus, Pakistani politics are notorious for their lack of consensus in peacefully transferring power from one political group to another.

This drawback of the Pakistani politics breeds an inability to encourage consensus, in the political discourse, and eventually leads to a situation in, which politics become confrontational and inflexible to the idea of a compromise. It is at this stage that Pakistan’s failure to improvise a system, which ensures a smooth transfer of power from one entity to another, becomes its most brilliant political disappointment.

Consequently, the lack of democratic ideals in Pakistan is not due to a denial of political dissent, but because of a need for a democratic mechanism to institutionalize dissent in Pakistani politics.

Ciao

krashid#92

``Under which Army Government there was no corruption. Tell me one name.``

Good question.

BB and NS may be epitome of corruption -- but there is no denying also -- that an illegal, armed hijacking of an elected government by a fired army general - just to save his job -- is the MOTHER OF ALL CORRUPTIONS.

In his most recent article S.J. Burki has suggested that the cause of the political instability in Pakistan is the unwillingness of the feudal elite to share power with other competing groups within Pakistan. Does this mean that constitutional changes are required to ensure political and economic space for competing groups that have thus far been generally excluded from any form of self governing? If the devolution of power plan is a step in this direction, should we not expect the structure of the State itself to evolve at higher levels?

Is democracy as we have known it in Pakistan really a workable solution for the problems we face? There is consencus that will not happen again. There is also concensus that Pakistan will evolve a ``Hybrid`` State. That is it will ensure Republican, representative government at all levels of government, enlarge institutions what constitutionally will allow for greater stablity, similarly constutional remedies will be availed to ensure the representation and enhancement of strategic security.

For a discussion of the future of democracy and the need for ``Hybrid`` states, interested persons can use the following site:

www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm

Musharraf or Politicians? - Is Musharraf too timid or too heavy handed? This is a flawed debate. Every Pakistani will agree that ideally a democratic, civilian set up within which all groups or interests that want to participate, can do so freely and in a fair, transparent and orderly manner. Sadly this not the experience under civilian ``democratic`` governments in Pakistan. Is this not true? The usual answer is that these civilians were subverted. Subverted by whom? All of those whom the civilian democrats sought to marginalize? Result the economy has suffered - And each time the economy has suffered, the armed forces have intervened. The problem in Pakistan is not the debate of Armed forces or civilians, rather it is about a structure of the State and of the Economy that seeks to provide political and economic space to the competing interests within a fair and orderly constitutional envirnonment (new rules of the game). Can one honestly say that their experience of elected government was one of representative government? Why does ``Accountablity`` resonate not only in Pakistan but around the world? What does this imply about what citizens want the role of the State to be?

If we should become fixated on what has passed for democracy in Pakistan as a model for the future, we shall lose the chance to restructure, remodel the State and Economy for the benefit of the large majority of Pakistani citizens.

This of course a complicated debate, but a measure of clarity is offered by J.S. Burki below:

``Democracy & development

By Shahid Javed Burki

Is democracy good for economic development? Or, conversely, does democracy inhibit strong and resolute state actions when they are required to promote economic development? Most economists have ducked these questions. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning Indian economist, is one outstanding exception to this general rule. Among modern economists, he has been the most outspoken advocate of democracy and the contribution it makes to development.

Sen`s case for democracy is based on a simple premise. Democracy, supported by freedom of the press, prevents arbitrary and capricious behaviour on the part of those who hold power. He has applied this belief to a study of famines- a subject for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He has argued convincingly that famines don`t normally occur under democratic rule. They are not necessarily the result of food shortages. More often than not, they occur when state action or inaction by the state causes food prices to rise thereby making it difficult for the poor to feed themselves. Such anomalies don`t occur in democracies. Any serious price escalation not strictly justified on economic grounds will be noticed by the press and democratically elected leaders will be forced to act to correct the distortions. If they don`t they will not be able to preserve themselves in power.

These questions and the line of thinking advanced by people such as Sen has now acquired considerable salience in Pakistan with the further consolidation of political power in the hands of President Pervez Musharraf. On June 20, the general shed the pretence that he was merely a chief executive implementing rather than making policies. Now he is president with no legislative authority waiting in the wings. The only checks on him for the exercise of power are his good conscience, the limits implicitly imposed on him by senior military commanders and, of course, the Supreme Court judgement that requires him to hold national elections by October 2002.

General Musharraf`s decision to elevate himself produced a great deal of critical comment outside Pakistan. The US deputy secretary of state told Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, who was visiting Washington when Musharraf became president, that his administration was ``distressed`` by this development. Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth secretary-general was considerably more explicit in his comment. ``I consider these steps to be unfortunate,`` he said. ``Sattar`s discussions with me last week implied that the Musharraf regime would be moving towards the restoration of democracy. What we have seen instead are steps that signal the consolidation of military rule.``

The western press was not particularly pleased either. ``It is difficult to see how anything that could be recognized as real democracy can develop under an indirectly elected president who is unanswerable to any institution in the land,`` wrote The Economist. That, I will argue below, is precisely what should now happen in Pakistan and why I think President Musharraf may have procured for himself an opportunity to rectify a great deal that went wrong political