The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney

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

the most interesting part of this article (and others you`ve recently written) is how you take it all back to zia`s years and your growing up under that.
it really gives a feeling to the simplemindedness and hollowness of the such supposedly weighty words.

lovely work.

z.rizvi.

Very good point. Still I see Pakistanis blame America as if Pakistanis were sheep. Truth is Pakistanis were playing their own strategic game as America playing its own game. All help all weapons to Afghanistan went through Pakistan army. ISI got billions may be. Nobody complained then. Arms could be used against India. Very good.

Like today Pakistanis are happily supporting Musharraf waiting for American money. After few years they take all money, buy all weapons, again they will be cursing that America was only helping Musharraf.

Blame America for everything. If America helps, blame America. If America doesnt help, blame America. Never blame yourself. Forget all help, just curse. Such people are called haramkhor.

Rehan,

I. H. Burney was many things. But in the case of Bhutto, he was also wrong.

Whatever the past, we have to look at the future of Pakistan today.

Never did I think that I would be supportive of a Military General ruling Pakistan. Today I am
doing that to a certain degree. Wonder what Burney
Sahib would have said about that?

Anyway, you are on a writer`s roll these days.
I`m beginning to enjoy your pieces for both their
content and their artistic value. Especially these
last two writings.

Ras

I see no reason why Pakistan could not have supported the Afghans to drive out the Soviets, used US $$$ to build roads, schools, hospitals and housing and kept a close watch on the Afghans to prevent heroin, Ak-47 crap from getting into Pakistani society.

But no ... How could the state do all those things when all those miserable wretchs living in Pakistani cities did not know how to practise Islam. Of course you can add Kashmir Valley and East Punjab to it.

I came to the United States in the summer of 1995.

If I remember correctly, that was Benazir`s second term in power. I met quite a few Pakistanis, predominantly Punjabi, a couple of Kashmiris, and they all praised Zia.

To the man, they agreed that Zia was a disciplinarian, a patriot, and Benazir was going to bring the party to ruin. These were all rich people, yes, part of the elite. I also speak from personal experience, and have no statistics to back me up. What I fail to understand is that why did nobody in the Pakistani elite criticize Zia, even in the years following his death.

Benazir came to power, and the masses were with her. But neither was the army, nor the beureaucrats. The people who matter in Pakistan never denounced Zia. Why is the man blamed now for every evil? He did not bring a completely new ideology to Pakistan, merely capitulated on existing and maybe latent feelings of the popular will. He made no radical changes to the Pakistani body politic, and definitely much less so than what Pervez Musharraf is doing now.

Another similarity between then and now. America made no promises to Pakistan in 1979. It did not say that it was involved in the long haul. The Pakistani government under Zia lined up with the US, so they could upgrade the conventional weapons. They also promised the Americans, and broke the promise, that the weaponry would be used in case of a Soviet attack on Pakistan and not be placed on the Eastern borders.

Similarly, the United States is now approaching Pakistan, and isn`t making specific promises. Pakistan has made it`s demands or rather expectations clear, especially with regards to the waiver of debt and a solution to Kashmir. The United States has not publicly assented on Pakistan`s demands. Not yet, and it is unlikely they will, especially in the case of Kashmir.

So when this war is over, and the Americans don`t deliver on what they didn`t even promise to deliver in the first place, would they get blamed? After Mussharaf is gone, would he still be praised, or would he be reviled, depending on the situation of the country then, much as Zia is reviled now?

Dear Rehan:

Are you implying that -- like Zia stayed for ten year and ISLAMIZED Pakistan -- Musharraf will be on the scene for another ten years and SECULARIZE the country -- before being blown into pieces?

``I was talking to an Indian friend about how American influence can overwhelm. I don`t think any Indian has experienced the transformation of their city under American money.``

We haven`t even IMAGINED it Rehan.

``To the Indian I was trying to convey that if New Delhi wanted American attention, and sure that can mean money for some Indians, be warned. Imagine someone like Zia ul Haq and his values underwritten by the Americans.``

Our self perceived ``elite`` has been naive enough to think that it could participate in this ``Amreeka`s Ally`` business essentially on its own terms and with no blow back. I have NEVER read an editorial in the Indian press which looks at the potential social consequences of this ``rishta``. (Including Arundhati and Co.`s very literate contributions.)

Have we ever stopped to wonder which elements of its developing country client states the US consistently establishes a relationship with, and why? Always a part of the Right, and always with a narrow enough internal power base that it remains dependent.

OK, so it was Zia next door. And if we think that being a democracy puts us in a different category, what about Chile?

Gawd, abh yeh sabh Chomsky jaisa kitkit ne mera mood spoil kar diya. Thanks a LOT Rehan - especially for demonstrating (again?) that there is so much Indians and Pakistanis have to learn from each others` experience, if only we listen.

Zafar

PS Your writing definitely makes me jealous.

``Imagine someone like Zia ul Haq and his values underwritten by the Americans``

-Imagine someone like Thackeray bankrolled by the Americans. That really made me think Rehan. What Pakistan has received in blowback from its ``frontline`` and ``most favoured ally`` status during the 1980`s should be thought upon by Indians deeply. Clearly the extraneous factors (not Indian!) in much of Pakistans woes are large.

Stuka,

I`ll back up your observation, even today most Pakistani`s I know swear by Zia.

Hobbyty, Studebaker, Farzana, launch a jihad against Pakistan.

All this news from the horses mouth (Dawn) shows that muslims dont enjoy the freedom to express their opinion in jahilya also called Pakistan. Pakistan is torturing muslims, accusing them of sedition, suspecing them of disloyalty just because of sympathizing for dear Taliban brothers and mulla Omar. Muslims being tortured, imprisoned in Pakistan only want to help the courageous holy warriors of Islam in Afghanistan who put to holy sword without pity or mercy thousands of kafir shia women, children, and old men who couldn`t run in Hazara and Mazaresharif for the holy glory of holy Islam.

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/09/welcome.htm

Police on streets of Karachi ahead of Friday prayers: KARACHI, Nov 9: Thousands of troops are patrolling the streets of Karachi today as religious parties ordered a nationwide strike to protest US strikes against Afghanistan. Police and paramilitary troops were deployed outside the US consulate and other diplomatic missions in Karachi as part of preventive security ordered by the authorities. No violence was reported, but the real test for the authorities will come after Friday prayers when the religious groups have planned demonstrations. (AFP) (Posted @ 10:40 PST)



More than 500 arrests in Pakistan ahead of protests: ISLAMABAD, Nov 9: Police have detained more than 500 activists of various religious parties to ward off threats of violence and disturbance to civic activities, an interior ministry official told AFP. Around 250 people were detained in Peshawar, he said. Another 150 were held in Karachi and about 70 in Lahore. About 50 were taken into custody in Rawalpindi near Islamabad. (AFP) (Posted @ 10:40 PST)



Musharraf has warned radicals as protests launched: ISLAMABAD, Nov 9: President Pervez Musharraf warned the nation today of the government`s determination to ensure stability as the opposition launched a day of protests against the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan. The authorities have ordered reinforced security and Musharraf, who is on a visit to the United Nations in New York, issued a special message, saying everything would be done to ``keep Pakistan peaceful, stable and secure.`` (AFP) (Posted @ 10:00 PST)

HeHeHeHeHeHeHe.I am the sharpblade.Death to every Paki.

Thank you very much Rehan Ansrisahib for wrting. but i have problom. You are being anti army ok.You are opposed FM Ayub,Yah.khan,Zia,GeneralSahib. Fauji did job (thankless) to protect Jinnah Pakistan ok but you crtical of fauj leaders not good.all(most) expak attack military rulers. I no like at all.Wyhy you expak did no capture power? you loose election ok.Election get misery.Election got to loose E.Pakistan ok.Election all indeciplane ok. Chin man Mao said power comes from barel of gun. (not by fasting ok).He is righte.It is easy critic fauj leaders from uk usa forn lands.Without fauj there will troubles ok. you know it. all election leaders corrpupt all,ok.zab killed people he was hanged why you cry?. It was death hang given by supreme cort not by zia ok. ruler has to carry justice of cort ok.zia was great he killed russia ok .You people smoke drug, blame zia. people kill each other blame zia.this is nonsense.In our hotel bai-botl-drug everything go but madani does not toch ok.Zia never told to smoke kill Shias or nobody. you blame zia. wrong , wrong wrong ok. stop blaming by expak.All expak gargabe, too much talk but put mony in pak. Hotel and all suffer is usa putting mony not expak. why not by stok in karachi stok market.Madani in trouble as you critical of fauji supremo, and busiess down. Come karachi enjoy beach, nice weather ok. No critical of usa ok. They give mony we waste/ is not folt of usa ok its our fault.Usa no give drug/ we use drug. even in posh area like defense colony drug and drink used. stop blaming zia or usa. If all think like that and usa stops who will mony,dollars to pak.not expak ok, not your soshalist type country ot even muslim ummah. we stop this democracy tamasha once for all. let strong rule. lion rules jungle kingdom not goat ok. its natural. i beleve in nature law. lion (like fauj) bring order in jungle and keeps foxes away. you make goat king you have problem. same nature in pakistan. we shuld ban elsction farse once for all. let strong rule pakistan. Now usa understans better than expak. they said Generalsahib is good. what you can do,nothing. when fauj chief support by usa, minimum run is 10 years ok. so you cry ok. by stop critics of army rule. ok bye

Stuka #6: Us Pakistanis suffer from the disease of blaming regimes which consist of people not like us, for the failiures of regimes which consist of people like us.

If you have a religious motivation, then Zia was a good guy, and everyone before and after him was not. Since he has been the only religiously oriented leader in the history of Pakistan.

If you are not of the religious motivation, then Zia was a bad guy, and Benazir is great because she presents a liberal image in Podunk, Arkansas.

Everyone keeps criticising Pakistan`s Afghan policy of the 80s. Many of these same critics supported Pakistan`s joining with the liberal US govt. during those days. Just like they are supporting the current Pakistani alliance. What options did Pakistan have apart from not supporting the Afghans in the 80s? The Soviets` ultimate aim was to get to Gwadar and Karachi, not to Kabul and Kandahar. In a sense, the Afghanis fought a war for the survival of Pakistan, as much as vice-versa. Klashnikovs and heroine can be controlled, regardless of circumstances, if their are dedicated govts. to do so. One cannot blame that on the Afghan war.

What choice does Pakistan have in the current conflict against Afghanistan? If it does not support the US, India certainly will, ``gyrate its hips.`` And when this war is done and over with, Pakistan maybe back to square one (although this time around the US will need Pakistan for the long run). So Pakistan must get prepared for that, instead of blaming other again.

The above is not to state that the US is some model of morality. It has still, in my opinion backed by statistics, killed directly and indirectly the most innocent people in the world, like most historical superpowers. However, Pakistan has to take responsibilities for its own faults and virtues.

The elite in Pakistan doesn`t speak out against any regime. Why should they? They are quite happy and well-off. Their lively hood is not threatened by any of the regimes. Islamabad is still a better place to live than San Francisco, if you ask me. And the Pakistani elite has a better lifestyle than most Franciscans.

At the same time, I don`t think Zia is as popular as you have stated. He traced his heritage back to the same area as Dilip Kumar, i.e. the hindko speaking part of NWFP, and not to Punjab. People did not care for his shoving of religion down Pakistan`s throat. He was not popular in the Army, either. But when the benchmark of leadership is Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, anyone can look good.

I think once Musharraf holds elections, things will be different. He will become one of the only dictators in history, to leave power volutarily. At that time, the criteria for comparing leaders will go up by quite a bit. People will realize that all Generals are not evil. And that their are other Pakistani alternatives for leadership than people whose last name must start with Bh.

Behram/Urstruly #16xx:

- Saudi Arabia is a place I avoid whenever I travel internationally. They are no more than a wealthier version of the Taliban. The only time I will, or have, visited it is due to religious reasons. That`s it. If there is one country that should be on the axis of evil, it is Saudi Arabia. It is the center of all the Muslim problems in the world.

Saudis hate Pakistanis. Infact, they don`t hate Pakistanis. To hate someone, one has to consider him/her equivalent to one`s self. Saudis consider Pakistanis not human enough to be hated. There is no country in the world which legally and socially discriminates against Pakistanis, as much as Saudi Arabia (and some other Arab countries).

Interestingly, Saudis need Pakistan also. There used to be a whole division (I believe) of Pakistan Army in Saudi Arabia. However, the Royal family said it did not want Pakistan Shia soldiers, so the Pakistani Army withdrew the whole div, instead of listening to this ridiculous demand. Saudis also need Pakistan`s manpower, and potentially its nuclear weapons. So at a govt. level, they are allied with Pakistan. And we need oil on cheap terms. However, that does not give them to right to discriminate.

I hope someday, America (or someone; maybe Pakistan) bombs the s/ */it out of the Saudis (not including the religious places). I will definitely put on my uniform again, and volunteer for a mission.

- Iran, in my opinion, is potentially completely the opposite. To me, it (along with Malaysia, and hopefully Pakistan) is the great hope of the Muslim world. Iranis have gone through their extremist revolution, and are now moving towards a moderate middle. They have an extremely sophisticated culture, and now have a very high rate of literacy for men and women. Hopefully, Iranis, after tasting both extremes, the Western extreme under the Shah, and the religious extreme under Khomeini, will someday become the first Muslim country to find a happy middle.

- Any concept of a union of countries to help each other should be encouraged. Based on this, the concept of a worldwide Muslim Ummah is a noble, strong and practical concept. That is assuming the countries implementing it are noble, strong and practical. Currently, it is impractical. Primarily, because the wealthier Muslim countries, and their citizens, don`t care much about anything except their own countries. Infact, they just care about their own authoritarian hold on power.

They definitely don`t care about Pakistani Muslims, or any other South Asian Muslim. Go and discuss Pakistan`s problems with any Arab, and he will have no clue. Talk to them about what is going on in Kashmir and Gujrat, and they could care less. Why would they care about someone whom they consider a third rate group to begin with?

Pakistan(is) need to realize this fact, and stop trying to be holier than thou. Yasir Arafat sent a delegation to the BJP, immdiately after Gujrat, and while India has its troops parked on Pakistan`s border, ready to attack. Do you think the Arabs would de-recognize India? India has already started bombing across the LOC from today. Has any Arab leader said anything?

Isn`t that enough to prove that none of these countries (not only their govts., but their people also) cares about Pakistan, or any kind of Ummah? Why in the world are we so bent upon creating enemies for ourselves out of the USA and Israel, by supporting the Arab causes unconditionally? Are Kashmiri or Gujrati Muslims less valuable than Arab Muslims? They are apparently less valuable to the Arabs.

Pan-Islamism is a two way street. Pakistan is just going to destroy itself furthur and furthur, if it keeps trying to support this concept, when no other Muslim country really cares much about Pakistan. We don`t even have enough resources to take care of our own problems.

- The American involvement in the creation of extremist religious organizations is well understood. However, we need to stop blaming the Americans for everything. Any country that has power uses other countries. Didn`t we do the same to Afghanistan by unleashing the Taliban on them (courtesy Benazir and Fazl-ur-Rahman, according to Ahmad Rashid). Americans assisted in increasing the problem, but they are not the main cause.

The main cause are these wacko double-speaking hypocrite religious leaders of Pakistan. I have nothing against religious parties, provided they don`t have hypocrite leaders. Hypocricy is bad, but hypocricy by using religion is beyond bad. People who send their own kids to the USA, live there, and then make a career out of criticizing the US domestic policy are hypocrites. And people who don`t send their own kids to fight in Kashmir, nor do they fight there themselves, yet become the champion of this cause to furthur their own influence and careers, are even bigger hypocrites. The blood of the freedom fighters in Kashmir is on the shirtsleeves of such people. I was trained and ready to fight in Kashmir at a moment`s notice, as were people like Musharraf etc. (who did actually fight). Name one prominent politico-relgious leader who has ever fought there. Why do they then blow so much hot air?

Pakistan`s traditional Sufi and tolerant version of Islamic society is being hijacked by this double-speaking maulvi brigade, which gets its funding from even more narrow minded and suppressive and very wealthy religious leadership in Saudi Arabia (and their counterparts in Iran).

Who the hell appointed the Qazi Hussains and Fazl-ur-Rahman`s to become the spokespersons for Islam? I will listen to their welfare rhetoric when they build a cancer hospital in Pakistan. And I will listen to their military rhetoric when they go and stand in front of Indian bullets (like many of my military colleagues are doing right now; may God bless them).

But the biggest religious hypocrites is the Saudi royalty. Their whole existence is hypocritically based on an un-Islamic concept of heridatory transfer of power. This is why they call themselves Khadim-ul-Hurmain-Al-Sharif, rather than what they actually are, i.e. Kings. How in the world can someone declare himself to be the, ``Protector of Hurmain,`` when Prophet Muhammad would not have recognized their mode of getting into power, in the first place?

This, in a nutshell is the tragedy of Islam, specifically in Pakistan. Windbag religiously inclined leaders (and individuals) who enjoy the luxuries of the USA, while criticizing these luxuries. They then attempt to increase their own, ``Mujahid`` stature by becoming defenders of Kashmir etc., while being too chicken to go there and fight.

Pakistan needs to put Pan-Islamism on hold, until the Islamic countries start supporting Paksitani causes, also. Pakistan needs to ban all political parties that get any financing from Saudi Arabia (or Iran). And Pakistan needs to expose the hypocricy of its politico-religous leaders (assign them to six months at Siachen or on the Sialkot border, and only then allow them to make noises about defending Islam and Pakistan against India and against USA and Israel).

Osama Bin Laden is a misguided terrorist, and going by all the current evidence available, a killer. But, unlike the people mentioned above, he is not a hypocrite. He openly says he hates the Americans, and then makes sure he does not himself enjoy the luxuries of America, either. He believes (incorrectly) in a militant version of Islam, but then goes out and fights himself, also. That`s more than what I can say for the politico-relgious hypocrite leaders in Pakistan.

Having said that, if Qazi, BB and Nawaz were the only three people left in the world, and I had a gun to my head to vote, I would vote for Qazi. BB and Nawaz are not only hypocrites, they are massively corrupt hypocrites.

Until Imran Khan types have a shot at winning seats, Musharraf Zindabad (no more referendums please, however), as far as I am concerned. Otherwise its the feudals and/or the beards (damned if you do, damned if you don`t).

What the f *uck is that?!!! I DID NOT write # 12, # 13! Chowk managers, please put a stop to this immediately.

I swear, whosoever is behind it, THIS IS NOT FUNNY! Take your psycho behavior elsewhere, SOB.