An Eulogy For The Hawks
Keerthik Sasidharan June 29, 2001
#33 Posted by nasah on June 30, 2001 9:35:00 pm
Romair #29
``He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person.``
Did you read Ayaz Amir`s column?
Being nice is not the point
By Ayaz Amir
Nothing is so calculated to make one want to run one`s thumb over the edge of a sharp knife than the line heard so often this past year and a half that Musharraf is a nice guy: clean, transparent and honest, someone who talks straight and has the good of the country at heart.
If politics was about likeability and personal attractiveness we should not have had any problems in the first place. All the generalissimos who have strutted on the national stage were attractive figures. To look at photographs of Iskander Mirza, Ayub, and Yahya in their prime or at the height of their power is to be reminded of the bearing and personality for which they were once praised. Even Zia did not fail to impress visitors with his humility and good nature.
Of our democrats Bhutto had a great personality but that did not save him from his walk to the gallows. Most other politicians who rose to high office look like dry sticks compared to their military counterparts. Who would have wanted to spend an evening with Junejo? Or with Nawaz Sharif for that matter? Benazir, with her ready wit and gift for one-liners, could be the epitome of charm. But by harping on her righteousness and never admitting to any wrong (traits which have not deserted her) she could also be insufferable. By all accounts, Asif Zardari is a friend`s friend, a boon companion, and an easy person to get along with. But this exactly is the point. If being nice was all there was to politics, Zardari should have been the answer to Pakistan`s problems.
Musharraf`s military predecessors were unmitigated disasters not because they lacked charisma and charm. They failed and left Pakistan worse than before because the institution which was the source of their power was at once their biggest strength and greatest handicap. Their thinking and vision were shaped by this institution. Their prejudices were a product of their military training. They were thus pre-programmed to see things in a certain light and brought up to believe that the military was the repository of all the virtues, politics was a deceitful game and politicians were venal and corrupt figures who deserved nothing better than to be handled with a stick.
And since, for all their outward impressiveness, the generals who ruled Pakistan were essentially pedestrian figures, with little imagination and no vision, they could never go beyond the limitations of the army mind. This is not to say that Pakistan`s military saviours have not played small games of deception, have not said one thing and done another, or have not been devious in other ways. They have indeed and often more so than their civilian peers. But this kind of cleverness does not translate into great leadership. Pakistan`s military rulers have all been clever without being intelligent. Beginning by reviling politicians, they often proved more adept at politics than regular professionals. But this is what they remained right till the end, even when the shadows began closing in on them: clever jugglers. None could make the grade to anything resembling statesmanship.
Why? Two factors, I think, account for this failure. Firstly, for some reason the intellectual tradition has never been very strong in the ranks of the Pakistani general staff, intellectual brilliance being the exception not the norm. Secondly, the Pakistan army is a deeply conservative institution, intrinsically oriented to the preservation of the status quo, and therefore averse to any profound or radical altering of the socio-economic foundations of Pakistani society.
The expectation of radical steps on its part is therefore wholly misplaced. Whenever the military steps into the political arena it will always do what comes the readiest to it: installing streetlights, terrorizing the sanitary staff of municipal organizations, starting anti-encroachment drives and in the process making life difficult for street-sellers and cart-vendors. And at a bigger level talking loudly about accountability and recovering looted money. This is all. This is what it was like under previous military governments. This is what it has been like under Musharraf. Beating empty drums, glorifying the small and petty: trust the army always to do this and then to describe its efforts as nation-building.
This is not deliberate deception. To think so is to get the whole thing wrong. The army as an institution is incapable of anything better. To the pursuit of the small and ephemeral it brings a vast amount of zeal and enthusiasm. Even when grappling with municipal drains and streetlights, an endeavour which ends by leaving army units exhausted, the army thinks it is reordering the fundamentals of society. Meanwhile the Chief - Yahya, Zia or Musharraf - becomes a jack of all trades. He devotes some time to the army and some to the civil administration. Since he is neither Napoleon nor superman he ends up being part-time army chief and part-time administrator, beholden to his generals for the smooth running of the army and to his civilian technocrats for running the government.
Small wonder and contrary to popular belief, the worst excesses of nepotism and cronyism in Pakistan take place under military regimes, with generals and bureaucrats being promoted and kept in office long past their usefulness simply because the General-in-chief has had so many favours to return. In every military government favourites emerge whose power is less a reflection of outstanding merit as of their services to the ruler of the day. On a broader level, the privileged status of the higher echelons of the Pakistan army is not a fortuitous development. It is a direct outcome of the need felt by successive generalissimos to keep their core constituency happy.
So wherein lies the fault? Not in the qualities or defects of character of Pakistan`s military rulers but in the structural and intellectual limitations of their rule. It is not that one-man rule or autocracy is always and everywhere bad. England apart, the Europe that we see today is a product of various forms of kingship and authoritarianism. Democracy made a late arrival in much of the continent. East Asian prosperity, including China`s emergence as an economic powerhouse, is based upon the politics of authoritarianism. It is just that the same solution does not fit every situation. The Pakistani model of authoritarianism which derives its legitimacy and currency from the army is flawed because the instrument at hand, the Pakistan army, is not equipped to deliver the wages of good administration (the necessary condition for economic prosperity).
The Pak Army is not the Kuomintang of Taiwan. It is not the Communist Party or People`s Liberation Army of China. It is not the British civil service of Hong Kong nor the army of South Korea. It can only produce the figures it has done; it can produce no Lee Kuan Yews. This is not to say it has no strengths. It has them indeed and they are not to be scoffed at. But among these strengths, as the history of the last 50 years has demonstrated, lies not the art of government or administration. The Pakistan army can do many things and it can do them better than the armies of many other countries. But it simply lacks the ethos or grounding to bring about a social revolution or lay the foundations of an enduring political order.
This is what makes Musharraf`s assumption of the presidency such a sad event. For in laying bare his ambition, and perhaps that of his closest generals, this move reveals, as nothing else could, that we have learned nothing from the past. That Musharraf at a personal level may be a very nice soul is an irrelevant circumstance. He has embarked upon a course that can only spell disaster for the country. For the continuity of which reforms is he so concerned? What reforms has his government brought about? If anything, the last year and a half has added to the sum of national suffering and confusion. So, apart from the prompting of a paranoid ambition, what justification is there for the emerging Suhartoization of Pakistan? In Asia there are bad authoritarian models and good and we seem to be going for the worst of the lot.
Pakistan came into being as the result of a democratic process. Let no confusion surround this central truth. Authoritarianism of the military kind fits nowhere into its founding principles. This kind of rule fails also the test of pragmatism for it has brought nothing but disaster for Pakistan. The conclusion is obvious. The only service Musharraf can do Pakistan is to return it to democracy. That the Benazirs and Nawaz Sharifs of democracy may have been corrupt and inept figures is a matter of detail. It takes away nothing from the substance of the argument that time and again the military model has failed in Pakistan and, nice strongman or not, will fail again. Jaded as the refrain may sound, the only experiments we can afford to make are on the democratic plane.
``He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person.``
Did you read Ayaz Amir`s column?
Being nice is not the point
By Ayaz Amir
Nothing is so calculated to make one want to run one`s thumb over the edge of a sharp knife than the line heard so often this past year and a half that Musharraf is a nice guy: clean, transparent and honest, someone who talks straight and has the good of the country at heart.
If politics was about likeability and personal attractiveness we should not have had any problems in the first place. All the generalissimos who have strutted on the national stage were attractive figures. To look at photographs of Iskander Mirza, Ayub, and Yahya in their prime or at the height of their power is to be reminded of the bearing and personality for which they were once praised. Even Zia did not fail to impress visitors with his humility and good nature.
Of our democrats Bhutto had a great personality but that did not save him from his walk to the gallows. Most other politicians who rose to high office look like dry sticks compared to their military counterparts. Who would have wanted to spend an evening with Junejo? Or with Nawaz Sharif for that matter? Benazir, with her ready wit and gift for one-liners, could be the epitome of charm. But by harping on her righteousness and never admitting to any wrong (traits which have not deserted her) she could also be insufferable. By all accounts, Asif Zardari is a friend`s friend, a boon companion, and an easy person to get along with. But this exactly is the point. If being nice was all there was to politics, Zardari should have been the answer to Pakistan`s problems.
Musharraf`s military predecessors were unmitigated disasters not because they lacked charisma and charm. They failed and left Pakistan worse than before because the institution which was the source of their power was at once their biggest strength and greatest handicap. Their thinking and vision were shaped by this institution. Their prejudices were a product of their military training. They were thus pre-programmed to see things in a certain light and brought up to believe that the military was the repository of all the virtues, politics was a deceitful game and politicians were venal and corrupt figures who deserved nothing better than to be handled with a stick.
And since, for all their outward impressiveness, the generals who ruled Pakistan were essentially pedestrian figures, with little imagination and no vision, they could never go beyond the limitations of the army mind. This is not to say that Pakistan`s military saviours have not played small games of deception, have not said one thing and done another, or have not been devious in other ways. They have indeed and often more so than their civilian peers. But this kind of cleverness does not translate into great leadership. Pakistan`s military rulers have all been clever without being intelligent. Beginning by reviling politicians, they often proved more adept at politics than regular professionals. But this is what they remained right till the end, even when the shadows began closing in on them: clever jugglers. None could make the grade to anything resembling statesmanship.
Why? Two factors, I think, account for this failure. Firstly, for some reason the intellectual tradition has never been very strong in the ranks of the Pakistani general staff, intellectual brilliance being the exception not the norm. Secondly, the Pakistan army is a deeply conservative institution, intrinsically oriented to the preservation of the status quo, and therefore averse to any profound or radical altering of the socio-economic foundations of Pakistani society.
The expectation of radical steps on its part is therefore wholly misplaced. Whenever the military steps into the political arena it will always do what comes the readiest to it: installing streetlights, terrorizing the sanitary staff of municipal organizations, starting anti-encroachment drives and in the process making life difficult for street-sellers and cart-vendors. And at a bigger level talking loudly about accountability and recovering looted money. This is all. This is what it was like under previous military governments. This is what it has been like under Musharraf. Beating empty drums, glorifying the small and petty: trust the army always to do this and then to describe its efforts as nation-building.
This is not deliberate deception. To think so is to get the whole thing wrong. The army as an institution is incapable of anything better. To the pursuit of the small and ephemeral it brings a vast amount of zeal and enthusiasm. Even when grappling with municipal drains and streetlights, an endeavour which ends by leaving army units exhausted, the army thinks it is reordering the fundamentals of society. Meanwhile the Chief - Yahya, Zia or Musharraf - becomes a jack of all trades. He devotes some time to the army and some to the civil administration. Since he is neither Napoleon nor superman he ends up being part-time army chief and part-time administrator, beholden to his generals for the smooth running of the army and to his civilian technocrats for running the government.
Small wonder and contrary to popular belief, the worst excesses of nepotism and cronyism in Pakistan take place under military regimes, with generals and bureaucrats being promoted and kept in office long past their usefulness simply because the General-in-chief has had so many favours to return. In every military government favourites emerge whose power is less a reflection of outstanding merit as of their services to the ruler of the day. On a broader level, the privileged status of the higher echelons of the Pakistan army is not a fortuitous development. It is a direct outcome of the need felt by successive generalissimos to keep their core constituency happy.
So wherein lies the fault? Not in the qualities or defects of character of Pakistan`s military rulers but in the structural and intellectual limitations of their rule. It is not that one-man rule or autocracy is always and everywhere bad. England apart, the Europe that we see today is a product of various forms of kingship and authoritarianism. Democracy made a late arrival in much of the continent. East Asian prosperity, including China`s emergence as an economic powerhouse, is based upon the politics of authoritarianism. It is just that the same solution does not fit every situation. The Pakistani model of authoritarianism which derives its legitimacy and currency from the army is flawed because the instrument at hand, the Pakistan army, is not equipped to deliver the wages of good administration (the necessary condition for economic prosperity).
The Pak Army is not the Kuomintang of Taiwan. It is not the Communist Party or People`s Liberation Army of China. It is not the British civil service of Hong Kong nor the army of South Korea. It can only produce the figures it has done; it can produce no Lee Kuan Yews. This is not to say it has no strengths. It has them indeed and they are not to be scoffed at. But among these strengths, as the history of the last 50 years has demonstrated, lies not the art of government or administration. The Pakistan army can do many things and it can do them better than the armies of many other countries. But it simply lacks the ethos or grounding to bring about a social revolution or lay the foundations of an enduring political order.
This is what makes Musharraf`s assumption of the presidency such a sad event. For in laying bare his ambition, and perhaps that of his closest generals, this move reveals, as nothing else could, that we have learned nothing from the past. That Musharraf at a personal level may be a very nice soul is an irrelevant circumstance. He has embarked upon a course that can only spell disaster for the country. For the continuity of which reforms is he so concerned? What reforms has his government brought about? If anything, the last year and a half has added to the sum of national suffering and confusion. So, apart from the prompting of a paranoid ambition, what justification is there for the emerging Suhartoization of Pakistan? In Asia there are bad authoritarian models and good and we seem to be going for the worst of the lot.
Pakistan came into being as the result of a democratic process. Let no confusion surround this central truth. Authoritarianism of the military kind fits nowhere into its founding principles. This kind of rule fails also the test of pragmatism for it has brought nothing but disaster for Pakistan. The conclusion is obvious. The only service Musharraf can do Pakistan is to return it to democracy. That the Benazirs and Nawaz Sharifs of democracy may have been corrupt and inept figures is a matter of detail. It takes away nothing from the substance of the argument that time and again the military model has failed in Pakistan and, nice strongman or not, will fail again. Jaded as the refrain may sound, the only experiments we can afford to make are on the democratic plane.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by Urstruly on June 30, 2001 10:42:11 pm
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.
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.
#35 Posted by ferozk on July 1, 2001 2:09:20 am
Re: Romair # 29
Romair, please rectify your comments!
Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan. His nephew, the Governor of Sindh, is a far better person for the job Elahi Bux Soomro.
You seem to be an intelligent person, so I will excuse your comments as a lapse of reason and I hope that it is a lapse of reason, otherwise I have serious doubts about you!
Ciao
Romair, please rectify your comments!
Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan. His nephew, the Governor of Sindh, is a far better person for the job Elahi Bux Soomro.
You seem to be an intelligent person, so I will excuse your comments as a lapse of reason and I hope that it is a lapse of reason, otherwise I have serious doubts about you!
Ciao
#36 Posted by Eklavya on July 1, 2001 3:01:14 am
re: Asif Naqshbandi # 33
bechara! :)
Asif bhai, I have a solution for you. Everytime you run into a sasidharan, just take someone like Hamid Gul out of your left pocket and look at him hard for thirty nine seconds. This exercise will achieve two goals. One, you will feel better; two, the scared Hinood will run for its pathetic life.
You just can`t lose.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Having consoled Asif bhai thus, let us recognize that there a LOT of people in both India and Pakistan who share the mindset underlying this article. It does no good to quibble over where such people have a greater hold - India or Pakistan. For, hold they do have. These are people in power, people who have kept us warring for half a century. We can not wish them away. we can not ignore them.
But these people are NOT our enemies. Hamid Guls and ISI chiefs and their counterparts in India are GOOD, DECENT people committed to honorably serving their nations.
It is IDEAS that come in the way of peace and aman. We need to understand and deal with these IDEAS that continuously regenerate, and thus perpetuate the conflict between two peoples who have absolutely no God-mandated reason to fight together like dogs, all the time.
So, more seriously, asif bhai, dont focus too much on the evil hinood. Take up the more difficult challenge. Focus on creating new ideas that enable you and others to live together.
Can you do that?
bechara! :)
Asif bhai, I have a solution for you. Everytime you run into a sasidharan, just take someone like Hamid Gul out of your left pocket and look at him hard for thirty nine seconds. This exercise will achieve two goals. One, you will feel better; two, the scared Hinood will run for its pathetic life.
You just can`t lose.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Having consoled Asif bhai thus, let us recognize that there a LOT of people in both India and Pakistan who share the mindset underlying this article. It does no good to quibble over where such people have a greater hold - India or Pakistan. For, hold they do have. These are people in power, people who have kept us warring for half a century. We can not wish them away. we can not ignore them.
But these people are NOT our enemies. Hamid Guls and ISI chiefs and their counterparts in India are GOOD, DECENT people committed to honorably serving their nations.
It is IDEAS that come in the way of peace and aman. We need to understand and deal with these IDEAS that continuously regenerate, and thus perpetuate the conflict between two peoples who have absolutely no God-mandated reason to fight together like dogs, all the time.
So, more seriously, asif bhai, dont focus too much on the evil hinood. Take up the more difficult challenge. Focus on creating new ideas that enable you and others to live together.
Can you do that?
#37 Posted by Humsab on July 1, 2001 3:01:14 am
Pervez`s kundali gives him 2 yrs
By K N Rao
Musharraf will visit India in a dark lunar fortnight - July 14 - which will be ashadha Krishna ashtami till midday and then begins navami. The yoga will be sukarma, which means doing good. If he visits the Taj on July 15, the moon will have less sheen which can be made up by neon lights. If the visit is during the day, a clouded sun of a rainy day will shed a mild solar lustre on the Taj marbles.
Birth data: Taking his birth date as August 11, 1943, Delhi, as given in the official website of Pakistan, it can be seen that he and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will get along well on a personal level as both have the same Moon sign which is Vrischika or Scorpio. His horoscope, if made for the day of his birth with karka lagna, will give him the image of an impulsive dictator with no Hitler like streaks or even the doggedness of his Israeli contemporary Ariel Sharon. Aspect of Mars on his lagna, Jupiter and Rahu give him strong streaks of fundamentalism. His Kargil misadventure must have been the result of such inerasable traits of fanaticism. In classical Hindu astrology it is known as guru chandal yoga, which finds expression in devastating iconoclasm in which, and not in distinguished military achievements, he will find his métier. Musharraf is visiting India in his Moon-Sun period in vimshottari mahadasha, both luminaries aspected by Mars, the planet of aggression and in his case, adventurism. Sun as his second lord of finance can lead to fruitful discussions on economic problems facing both countries in the wake of both signing the WTO agreements.
Danger to him: But then a cataclysmic traumatic failure in his own country can put an end to his career sooner than one expects. It can be less than two years. His self-appointment as president of Pakistan can only give him a surreal tenure. The dasha to follow his present Moon is that of Mars, in the tenth, which can make him more powerful than he is, but not without serious opposition. The aspect of Mars on his lagna can mean provocation by someone to make a bid on his life.
Present transit: The present transit of Jupiter and the future transit of Saturn show how heavy is the sword that hangs on the head of this self-appointed president.
The oath: Sinister however is the chart of the oath-taking ceremony of General Musharraf, which was 4/15 pm on June 20, a day before an eclipse. At the time of the oath, there should have already been a well-hatched plot to throw him out in a violent way. It can happen anytime now, in any case in less than two years. A very bad eighth house and an afflicted Moon in this chart is the surest indicator of a violent overthrow of Musharraf. Pakistan`s history may then have to record that the CEO who came to power on October 12, 1999 had a better and longer tenure than the self-appointed president. At the time talks will be on, Jupiter the planet of wisdom and dignity is in an unhelpful eighth house from the Moon of both Vajpayee and Musharraf, aspecting the second house which will again emphasise finance and nothing of greater significance in the context of serious tensions on the Jammu and Kashmir front. Mr Vajpayee was born in a dark fortnight, Pausa Krishna Chaturdashi ( December 25, 1924) in vrischika lagna as recorded in his biography. Many astrologers have given him a wrong lagna and reeled off incorrect guesses as predictions which is why political astrology is often misleading and wrong. Mr Vajpayee is passing through a period of idealism, promoting Jupiter which is combust and, therefore, powerless. Musharraf is passing through dasha of a weak moon aspected by Mars but fortunately Jupiter too. Thus, talks will be more sober than useful, less provocative than gainful for either side. Nothing substantial will be achieved on the political or Kashmir issues with Mars and Saturn opposing each other these days which is not auspicious for India and Pakistan. In Pakistan`s Independence chart, it is the mahadasha of Ketu in the intrigues-ridden eighth house. If Musharraf desires and deserves to see the Taj on a poornima (full moon), he should come around September 2 because the Moon does not oblige dictators.
- The writer is advisor, institute of Astrology Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, New Delhi, and retd Director General, Indian Audit and Accounts Service.
By K N Rao
Musharraf will visit India in a dark lunar fortnight - July 14 - which will be ashadha Krishna ashtami till midday and then begins navami. The yoga will be sukarma, which means doing good. If he visits the Taj on July 15, the moon will have less sheen which can be made up by neon lights. If the visit is during the day, a clouded sun of a rainy day will shed a mild solar lustre on the Taj marbles.
Birth data: Taking his birth date as August 11, 1943, Delhi, as given in the official website of Pakistan, it can be seen that he and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will get along well on a personal level as both have the same Moon sign which is Vrischika or Scorpio. His horoscope, if made for the day of his birth with karka lagna, will give him the image of an impulsive dictator with no Hitler like streaks or even the doggedness of his Israeli contemporary Ariel Sharon. Aspect of Mars on his lagna, Jupiter and Rahu give him strong streaks of fundamentalism. His Kargil misadventure must have been the result of such inerasable traits of fanaticism. In classical Hindu astrology it is known as guru chandal yoga, which finds expression in devastating iconoclasm in which, and not in distinguished military achievements, he will find his métier. Musharraf is visiting India in his Moon-Sun period in vimshottari mahadasha, both luminaries aspected by Mars, the planet of aggression and in his case, adventurism. Sun as his second lord of finance can lead to fruitful discussions on economic problems facing both countries in the wake of both signing the WTO agreements.
Danger to him: But then a cataclysmic traumatic failure in his own country can put an end to his career sooner than one expects. It can be less than two years. His self-appointment as president of Pakistan can only give him a surreal tenure. The dasha to follow his present Moon is that of Mars, in the tenth, which can make him more powerful than he is, but not without serious opposition. The aspect of Mars on his lagna can mean provocation by someone to make a bid on his life.
Present transit: The present transit of Jupiter and the future transit of Saturn show how heavy is the sword that hangs on the head of this self-appointed president.
The oath: Sinister however is the chart of the oath-taking ceremony of General Musharraf, which was 4/15 pm on June 20, a day before an eclipse. At the time of the oath, there should have already been a well-hatched plot to throw him out in a violent way. It can happen anytime now, in any case in less than two years. A very bad eighth house and an afflicted Moon in this chart is the surest indicator of a violent overthrow of Musharraf. Pakistan`s history may then have to record that the CEO who came to power on October 12, 1999 had a better and longer tenure than the self-appointed president. At the time talks will be on, Jupiter the planet of wisdom and dignity is in an unhelpful eighth house from the Moon of both Vajpayee and Musharraf, aspecting the second house which will again emphasise finance and nothing of greater significance in the context of serious tensions on the Jammu and Kashmir front. Mr Vajpayee was born in a dark fortnight, Pausa Krishna Chaturdashi ( December 25, 1924) in vrischika lagna as recorded in his biography. Many astrologers have given him a wrong lagna and reeled off incorrect guesses as predictions which is why political astrology is often misleading and wrong. Mr Vajpayee is passing through a period of idealism, promoting Jupiter which is combust and, therefore, powerless. Musharraf is passing through dasha of a weak moon aspected by Mars but fortunately Jupiter too. Thus, talks will be more sober than useful, less provocative than gainful for either side. Nothing substantial will be achieved on the political or Kashmir issues with Mars and Saturn opposing each other these days which is not auspicious for India and Pakistan. In Pakistan`s Independence chart, it is the mahadasha of Ketu in the intrigues-ridden eighth house. If Musharraf desires and deserves to see the Taj on a poornima (full moon), he should come around September 2 because the Moon does not oblige dictators.
- The writer is advisor, institute of Astrology Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, New Delhi, and retd Director General, Indian Audit and Accounts Service.
#38 Posted by Eklavya on July 1, 2001 11:16:01 am
re: Humsab # 38
HA HA!!
Reading about all those moons, suns, and jupitars sent my mind into outerspace doublequick.
HA HA!!
Reading about all those moons, suns, and jupitars sent my mind into outerspace doublequick.
#39 Posted by jay on July 1, 2001 11:16:01 am
Asif 33,
Poor old asif turning a pacifist, you have forgotten the book or what, started forming opinions based on interactions. Being a religious scholar of some kind, you have to think of the lasting influence of some religious concepts.
The one who follows the religius path are usually rewarded, in every religion, a grand prize, usually after death. In islam this grand prize is assured only for the Shaheen. Now tell me what impact that will have on the masses, and tell me whether it has got anything to do with events in kashmir and the larger indo- pak relations.
When madarasies in their thousands pump out the young with this notion, you know asif, the seeds of hatred are spouting in the thousands.
Poor old asif turning a pacifist, you have forgotten the book or what, started forming opinions based on interactions. Being a religious scholar of some kind, you have to think of the lasting influence of some religious concepts.
The one who follows the religius path are usually rewarded, in every religion, a grand prize, usually after death. In islam this grand prize is assured only for the Shaheen. Now tell me what impact that will have on the masses, and tell me whether it has got anything to do with events in kashmir and the larger indo- pak relations.
When madarasies in their thousands pump out the young with this notion, you know asif, the seeds of hatred are spouting in the thousands.
#40 Posted by rsaxena on July 1, 2001 11:16:01 am
``Romair`` sounds like the name of a cheap, discount airline. Fitting name I suppose, given how enamored this guy is with militaries running governments.
#41 Posted by Godot on July 1, 2001 11:16:01 am
Re: Jay, #14
India`s approach to Kashmir ``problem`` in adapting Israel`s strategy of force and contempt towards the Palestenians will, in my opinion, be counterproductive to the South Asian region in the long term.
Culminating the jihadis is as bad for Pakistan`s well being and its future as it is for India. The only way to get rid of the curse of the jihadis from Pakistan`s face is to turn Pakistan, and India, into economically prosperous region instilled with liberal values. The strategy of eliminating the jihadis will only work through satisfying the basic needs and necessities of general populous that includes a majority of the population, say, at a minimum of 60 percent.
I know that may sound like a pipe-dream but an evolution towards that goal must begin somewhere. Musharraf and Vajpayee seem to understand that.
Re: Romair, #31
An excellent article by Irfan Husain. Thank you for posting it.
India`s approach to Kashmir ``problem`` in adapting Israel`s strategy of force and contempt towards the Palestenians will, in my opinion, be counterproductive to the South Asian region in the long term.
Culminating the jihadis is as bad for Pakistan`s well being and its future as it is for India. The only way to get rid of the curse of the jihadis from Pakistan`s face is to turn Pakistan, and India, into economically prosperous region instilled with liberal values. The strategy of eliminating the jihadis will only work through satisfying the basic needs and necessities of general populous that includes a majority of the population, say, at a minimum of 60 percent.
I know that may sound like a pipe-dream but an evolution towards that goal must begin somewhere. Musharraf and Vajpayee seem to understand that.
Re: Romair, #31
An excellent article by Irfan Husain. Thank you for posting it.
#42 Posted by veeresh on July 1, 2001 2:30:24 pm
urstruly #34 . . . pl replace Muslim with, say, desi?
blood
blood
#43 Posted by soysauce on July 1, 2001 5:54:35 pm
Very impressive analysis!
I happen to think that India should not be bailing out Musharraf. Keerthik goes a step further and says that india, in its own self interest, should not bail out pakistan. An arguable, but nevertheless a valid, point! Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that? A looser, federal structure would be good for india as well. Methinks in a loosely federated pakistan, the military`s role might be curtailed and the scope for peaceful relationship is stronger. Keerthik is also right, i think, to point out that the current crop of pak military officers may be more strongly hostile towards india. Musharraf represents the cusp of the trasition from the old-style to the new-style military thinking there.
You raise a lot of important points, Keerthik!
ps: the title, i think, is slapped on by the Chowk editors. There are a few typos and the language a little strained, but overall, the article makes its point well.
I happen to think that India should not be bailing out Musharraf. Keerthik goes a step further and says that india, in its own self interest, should not bail out pakistan. An arguable, but nevertheless a valid, point! Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that? A looser, federal structure would be good for india as well. Methinks in a loosely federated pakistan, the military`s role might be curtailed and the scope for peaceful relationship is stronger. Keerthik is also right, i think, to point out that the current crop of pak military officers may be more strongly hostile towards india. Musharraf represents the cusp of the trasition from the old-style to the new-style military thinking there.
You raise a lot of important points, Keerthik!
ps: the title, i think, is slapped on by the Chowk editors. There are a few typos and the language a little strained, but overall, the article makes its point well.
#44 Posted by Romair on July 1, 2001 5:54:35 pm
Ferozek #35: ``Romair, please rectify your comments...Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan.``
Perhaps you did not read my complete post. I stated the following:
``According to Ayaz Amir, Mian Azhar is the best amongst this lot. And according to Cowasjee, Soomro is pretty good (Soomro`s nephew (I think) is the governor of Sind, and his son is/was the president of a major Pakistani bank under the current govt.). I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.``
I have no information on either of these two personalities. That is why I stated, ``I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.`` But the two journalists I mentioned seem to consider these two men better than the other lot available in PML.
``Education of the military
By Ayaz Amir
The political space it vacates can be filled with the `clean` figures of military mythology - people like Mian Azhar who, among a descending order of scoundrels and charlatans, are the least tainted by the shenanigans of the past 15 years......
The Eighth Amendment model of a powerful president and a representative prime minister served only to spread strife in the political arena. It`s time to move on to something more stable and enduring. With someone safe like Mian Azhar as prime minister, how about General Pervez Musharraf as the country`s first Gaullist president?
Will this be a perfect democracy? Of course not. But then this hybrid solution is the only thing allowed by the prevailing circumstances.`` (DAWN, Pakistan)
I was unable to find the reference to Soomro by Cowasjee, but it is out there somewhere.
Perhaps you did not read my complete post. I stated the following:
``According to Ayaz Amir, Mian Azhar is the best amongst this lot. And according to Cowasjee, Soomro is pretty good (Soomro`s nephew (I think) is the governor of Sind, and his son is/was the president of a major Pakistani bank under the current govt.). I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.``
I have no information on either of these two personalities. That is why I stated, ``I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.`` But the two journalists I mentioned seem to consider these two men better than the other lot available in PML.
``Education of the military
By Ayaz Amir
The political space it vacates can be filled with the `clean` figures of military mythology - people like Mian Azhar who, among a descending order of scoundrels and charlatans, are the least tainted by the shenanigans of the past 15 years......
The Eighth Amendment model of a powerful president and a representative prime minister served only to spread strife in the political arena. It`s time to move on to something more stable and enduring. With someone safe like Mian Azhar as prime minister, how about General Pervez Musharraf as the country`s first Gaullist president?
Will this be a perfect democracy? Of course not. But then this hybrid solution is the only thing allowed by the prevailing circumstances.`` (DAWN, Pakistan)
I was unable to find the reference to Soomro by Cowasjee, but it is out there somewhere.
#45 Posted by nasah on July 1, 2001 6:53:02 pm
Soyasauce#45
``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``
Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on balance beam.
And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?
There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.
Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...
And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.
``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``
Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on balance beam.
And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?
There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.
Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...
And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.
#46 Posted by nasah on July 1, 2001 6:53:02 pm
Soyasauce#45
``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``
Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on a balance beam.
And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against it. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?
There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.
Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...
And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.
``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``
Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on a balance beam.
And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against it. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?
There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.
Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...
And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.
#47 Posted by soysauce on July 1, 2001 7:52:16 pm
nasah #47
How was this fascistic?
Did you read the article? He makes the point that Pakistan will, in time, can only up the ante and take advantage of india`s problems. In other words, pak will continue to throw stones at india (to use your metaphor) and, therefore, it cannot get any worse if india does the same with respect to pakistan. It might even be to india`s advantage. What aspects of this do you disagree with? That pak has already been fishing in troubled waters (punjab, kashmir) and will continue to do so? Are you arguing morality? Please clarify.
I suspect you did not read the ``crummy analysis`` and are outraged because you are confusing realpolitik with individual morality. Do i have it about right?
I may not agree with all the approaches that Keerthik outlines. However, as with most indians, i share his suspicion of Musharraf`s trustworthiness. It would be very nice to walk the ``high road of peace in the interests of our peoples`` but that is not gonna happen with the military stranglehold over pakistan. Vajpayee will only end up legitimizing the pak miliatry`s authority which is not good for india in the long run.
Over to you.
How was this fascistic?
Did you read the article? He makes the point that Pakistan will, in time, can only up the ante and take advantage of india`s problems. In other words, pak will continue to throw stones at india (to use your metaphor) and, therefore, it cannot get any worse if india does the same with respect to pakistan. It might even be to india`s advantage. What aspects of this do you disagree with? That pak has already been fishing in troubled waters (punjab, kashmir) and will continue to do so? Are you arguing morality? Please clarify.
I suspect you did not read the ``crummy analysis`` and are outraged because you are confusing realpolitik with individual morality. Do i have it about right?
I may not agree with all the approaches that Keerthik outlines. However, as with most indians, i share his suspicion of Musharraf`s trustworthiness. It would be very nice to walk the ``high road of peace in the interests of our peoples`` but that is not gonna happen with the military stranglehold over pakistan. Vajpayee will only end up legitimizing the pak miliatry`s authority which is not good for india in the long run.
Over to you.
#48 Posted by ferozk on July 2, 2001 3:33:37 am
Re: Romair
Yaar, I have known the Soomro family for the past 30 years and I can tell you personally, if there is a choice between Soomro and suicide, I will gladly commit suicide.
Ciao
Yaar, I have known the Soomro family for the past 30 years and I can tell you personally, if there is a choice between Soomro and suicide, I will gladly commit suicide.
Ciao
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Shah2: We gave you one... An Indian Muslim
- nkg: Re: # 202 Parde... If some... An Indian Muslim
- nkg: Re: # 178 zeena(h)... "Both India... An Indian Muslim
- Eklavya: Pardesi and salimbro Ms Dawa... An Indian Muslim
- nkg: live as nuicense creator... An Indian Muslim
- nkg: Re: # 197 beduin32... ....or leave... An Indian Muslim
- Pardesi: #150 Salim I dont think... An Indian Muslim
- tahmed32: #200 you can "bear... An Indian Muslim
