An Indian salute for President Musharraf

Dost-mittar # 485

``The correlation between female literacy and lower birth rate has been proved in country after country and in state after state in India. But let`s not overplay the emancipation of Chinese women: Large numbers of female babies are abandoned by Chinese couples (to qualify for another pregnancy) who end up in adoption houses.``



A comment on the centrality of women`s emancipation to falling birthrates (I know this is a digression from a digression, so my apologies).

The persistence of the preference for sons in today`s China of the `one-child policy`, is at least as likely to be the result of individual economic calculation, as of tradition; or, more precisely, a consequence of the feedback between economic calculation and tradition, and of the time-delay to reach a new societal equilibrium when external inputs change. In the traditional setup, it was the primary responsibility of sons to till ancestral land and provide and care for parents in their old age. Female emancipation, industrialization, and a mechanized society are together likely to greatly expand womens` economic opportunities while at the same time greatly reducing the premium on brute physical strength; in these conditions daughters may be as well-placed to provide for their aging parents as sons. However, tradition typically lags changed economic circumstances by a generation or more; while both female emancipation and mechanization are probably least advanced in the countryside. Thus a rural Chinese couple - however emancipated - may not be willing to chance their wellbeing in their old age on the future earning power of their daughter and the uncertain generosity of a future son-in-law, preferring to rely on the traditional filial piety enjoined on sons. I`ll wager that the one-child policy is least strictly enforced, most often violated and faces the stiffest opposition in the Chinese countryside, rather than cities; for reasons of sound calculation far more than blind adherence to outworn tradition.

If my reasoning is correct, it also indicates some additional steps that can be taken to reduce popular resistance to population control. Female emancipation is the right way to go, as long as provisions are made to ensure that sonless couples aren`t left in the lurch.

Jat #483: Thanks for ``quote of the day``.

[The objective assessment of reality is mediated through the subjective experience of the humans as moderated by their learning process to the extend that subjective perceptions can be objectified by an intellectual process, which are to some extend have no objective basis. ]

The influence of subjective experience does not necessarily lead to its logical conclusion. Even private or personal subjective experiences have to take natural human instincts, basic human goodness and acquired knowledge into account when assessing reality objectively. The outlet mode for internalized or individual subjective experiences in the form of collective is not logical conclusion. Two opposite subjective experiences by two different individuals will lead to a clash if externalized, with each objectively assessing reality in terms of his experiences. It is upto society and state to have effective means to check externalization of the diverse and often competing forms of internalized freedom of conscience.

Re: Harimau

Having noticed how you quietly dropped out of the `Mansarovar` debate, I could not but help notice this as well:

``...Every minister in Singapore is a multi-millionaire....``

Heck, every minister in India is also probably a millionaire -- the difference being that Singapore, with a population less than that of Delhi has a GDP higher than that of India!! Swallow that.

Re: Romair

``...Countries with powerful religious parties (like India, Iran) have been able to establish democracy...``

So, you are in one breath crediting the RSS with promoting democracy in India, and equating Indian democracy with Iran`s? That just lent a lot of credibility to your analysis -- you must submit it to a publication like Foreign Affairs or The New Yorker...

hamid,

The objective assessment of reality is mediated through the subjective experience of the humans as moderated by their learning process to the extend that sucjective perceptions can be objectified by an intelectual process, which are to some extend have no objective basis. It is this confusion about the subject and the object that is the kernal of our world view and the pain and suffering emnating from it can be solved only by an understanding of the maya, which by definition cannot be illusion which connotates to a non reality, a perceptual aberration, the very strength of the hindoos whome you deparaging call as horrible hindoos which causes me so much o pain and suffering that has resulted me in casting a spell on you so that you will never understand any of the above and the pioneering works of pro hobbyty, which are published in the international journal of gobbledygook. Hamidm, hope this helps your understanding.

Ras H. Siddiqui on tehelka.com :-)

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/commentary/2002/jan/11/com011102india.htm

Reply Dost-Mittar # 468

“Here I agree with you to a certain extent. I think that Turkey has been under authoritarianism long enough that it should begin to ease up step by step (just as China is doing). I think that they tried to do this wrt religion 20 years ago but got scared when the daughters of skirt-wearing mothers started wearing hijab following the Iranian revolution.”

Dost-Mittarji –

This approach seems to boil down to: I will allow you the right to dissent at that point in time when you begin to agree with me. There is a logical contradiction here.

“And I agree with you that the Indian democracy has been able to accommodate differences much better, causing a lot of heartburns to some of our ``well-wishers`` from us-par.”

The question is: WHY has Indian democracy been able to accommodate differences better than Turkey has? OK – we started off with an advantage re: a pluralist definition of the country, but what has allowed India to be flexible while keeping the Turkish State locked in conflict with significant segments of its own people?

Further: is the reason India has in the past lagged in economic development that India is a democracy, or that India followed a somewhat misguided combination of Nehruvian socialism? Is there a connection?

“Re. Kurds, all countries with Kurd minorities have a genuine reason to be concerned because the Kurds have a genuine problem - they are a nation without a state, just like the Jews of yesteryears.”

Countries which traditionally have included Kurdish speaking populations are:Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. (There are little pockets elsewhere as well, but these are the major population centres.)

Of these Turkey has experienced (in the long run) the strongest level of Kurdish separatism and separatist violence. (Iraq`s Kurdish violence is relatively recent, compared to this, I think.) Iran has experienced essentially none – in fact so little that many people are surprised to hear that there are Kurds in Iran. This was the case even when Iran was utterly totalitarian (eg )under the Shah, and continues today when representative democracy in that country is fairly limited.

I think this is because Iran has never had a problem with Iranians whose first language is not Farsi – 20% of the population speaks Azeri Turkish, there are Arabic speakers near the Gulf, Armenian speakers in Tehran, and….Kurdish speakers in the Kurdish areas in the West of the country.

Contrast this with the Turkish definition of Turkishness. Turkey is as linguistically diverse as Iran in fact, yet the State (read Army) refuses to recognise that – and in fact refuses to allow its politicians to modify definitions of the State to fit the evolving aspirations and understandings of the people. (People get jailed for suggesting that use of the Kurdish language should be institutionalised. A similar issue exists wrt religion’s role – look at how they cope with MPs who show up at Parliament with their head covered.)

“…Pahlavis failed, I believe, because they did not provide for the safety valve for legitimate dissent to anyone EXcept Islam, and consequently paid a heavy price. Maybe, Turkey was watching and learning the right lessons.”

The Pahlavis provided no avenues for legitimate dissent at all. All dissent was seen as a threat to the State. Including the Mullahs. Hence Khomeini’s exile in Iraq and then Paris.

Re: The Lion City

“I am scared of advocates like you, people who through the sheer brilliance of their presentation can make a bad case look so good.”

Arrey Mr Dost-Mittar. Yeh tho badi nainsaafi hui.

The reasons for Singapore’s economic success when compared to India are several – and not all of them are related to method of Government. The population of Singapore is essentially made up of immigrants and their descendents. These populations tend to be more flexible and more educated than those living in their “traditional homelands”. (Compare the present condition of Punjabi refugees and their descendants in Delhi with that of traditional Dillivaalaas. See my point?)

Also – while Singapore was part of the British Empire, like India, it inherited no feudal elites. There were no entrenched (over generations) vested interests who found that keeping the country under-developed was in their best interest. The elite in Singapore benefited immediately from the country’s development, and lost nothing. This is still not the case across India.

So there’s more to Singapore’s success than totalitarianism. And more to India’s failure (oops, did I use that word about India on chowk?) than democracy.

Finally I have to agree with Harimau – if the people want it a certain way in India (shown by how they vote), then that’s how it should be. Nobody else has the right to decide for them. More practically, if you tried to limit the franchise in India, the people would not take it quietly. I’m not saying that the resulting violence would be a good thing, but it’s certainly something to take into account. And a question: why would people be willing to do violence for something whose economic record is so debatable? Are economic indicators the only thing they assign value to?

Zafar

re shah 460

``THEN I DONT CARE WHAT THERE SCRIPTURES SAY .``

You should, if you claim to be a Muslim. Did you never learn, as a kid, that profession of faith which went, in part, `wa kutubihi, wa rusuluhi, wa youm-il akhiri``? A self-proclaimed, real Muslim does NOT have the option of NOT believing in ``THEIR`` scriptures. So, don` go about lecturing me on which scripture to believe though I am honored by your claim that the fate of the Ummah rests on my believing 1/2 of the Quran.

``BE THE MOST VERSATILE STATESMAN?]``

To the list of others, I also add Lord Edwin Montague (the only member of Balfour`s cabinet who opposed that famous resolution), Senator Joe Lieberman, Leon Trotsky.

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

Harimau #477:

Yes, Gujarat still has prohibition. Being perhaps the most conservative state in India that it is, there is no overt movement or considerable support for abolishing prohibition. There were murmurs a few years back as to why prohibition should be abolished, but they were backed more by reasons such as lost revenue for the state than any violation of the citizens` personal liberties.

Ref dost-mittar #: 468

[harimou re. Singapore:

You have pointed out to the several weaknesses of the Singapore state. I do not deny your facts. But these are essentially what I had said were the trade-offs that the State has decided are worthwhile for a rapid transformation of a multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-ethnic society from a backward third-world to the front ranks of the first world.]

You need to read up a little on Singapore to find out what kind of a fascist society it is.

Lee Kwan Yew came to power on a left-wing platform. After the failure of the merger with Malasia, Singapore had to go on its own without a hinterland. The first thing LKY did was to jail all the left-wing people. The distinction of having the longest-serving political prisoner after Nelson Mandela goes to Singapore where one leftist was held in jail for close to 25 years. By the way, this person was held in an island and for a very long time of those 25 years was in practically solitary confinement since there were no other political prisoners with him. All others were released after years in custody if they signed a statement promising not to engage in politics ever. This particular person never did. His name was never mentioned in public and he ceased to exist as far as the average Singaporean was concerned.

LKY also banned all strikes. Thus organized labor was brought under control. The NTUC (National Trades Union Congress) was formed as a confederation of various unions. A cabbie once told me what NTUC stood for: Never Trust Union Chief!

LKY has made sure that the only leaders of public opinion are completely sidelined. In the past, leadership positions in the labor movement, in Law and in the Universities were all held by Indians. The Chinese were never good at public cpeaking and gladly let the Indians lead them. LKY manuevered evry single Indian out of these leadership positions and has ensured that all of them are in the hands of Chinese loyal to him. The token Malay and Indian ministers and MPs are totally subservient to LKY because they know that all their privileges will be lost if they don`t toe the line. Devan Nair used to be the labor union chief and was elevated to the Presidency just to get a Chinese as the labor leader.

There have been enough scandals in the LKY administration but they have all been buried. One minister took bribes in the construction business: 90% of housing in Singapore is government-owned housing. When the matter was brought to LKY`s notice with proof, the concerned minister was given a choice: commit suicide or face trial. He committed suicide and none of the dark deeds about bribery came to public light.

The government owns 33% of the Straits Times, the local newspaper. When the afternoon paper, the Singapore Monitor, showed signs of not toeing the government line, the government forced the merger of the two papers. Now what you read in the press is nothing but government propaganda.

One of the NTUC chiefs absconded to Australia with a couple of million dollars. He was never extradited back, it is rumored, because he threatened to tell tales of corruption in high places.

LKY`s wife is a high-priced lawyer. She makes millions of dollars. Don`t tell me she doesn`t get business because of who she is.

LKY purchased two flats and got a 10% discount on the price. When somebody questioned it, he said he merely had good negotiating skills! Nobody else got a discount.

Every minister in Singapore is a multi-millionaire. Do you think they don`t know what investments to make? They make the decisions so they know how to make money. This would be considered insider trading in any other country.

For all the modernity that you see, Singapore Chinese haven`t lost their fears, prejudices and/or traditional behavior patterns. When LKY`s daughter-in-law gave birth to an albino baby, she committed suicide because, according to the Chinese, you bear an albino baby through marital infidelity. This story was completely hushed up and the local press merely reported that she had died. The Chinese language press reported that there was a gunshot heard near LKY`s residence. How did Lee Hsien-loong`s wife die? Was it through a gunshot? Where did she get a gun in a society where having a bullet alone without the means to fire it is punishable by death? The baby was shipped off to a Taiwanese orphanage. There has never been any mention of the baby.

[I am a strong believer in following what works. If I were to start my own ideology, I would call it the proof-in-the-pudding school of thought. At the time of India`s independence, Singapore was a sleepy backwater colony of the Indian colony, somewhere in the Far East, where Indian babus ran the government and Indian rupee was the popular currency; where people like Somerset Maugham would go to get away from the madding crowd; Calcutta, on the other hand, was a bustling metropolis, home of multinational corporations, a financial center, a busy port and the most modern city east of Aden. Now, look at the two: Singapore is right there in the twenty-first century while Calcutta`s best and the brightest are still fighting the battles of Trotsky, Stalin and Rosa Luxemburg in the tea-houses of Kolkotta.]

There was one time when strikes were banned in India. It was the time of the Emergency. Would you want to go back to the Emergency? If you ban strikes in India, productivity will improve dramatically. Are you willing or able to do that, unless you are also able to suppress political dissent?

If Calcutta was ruined, it is by the damned Communists. If the idiotic Bengalis want to get ahead economically, they should throw out the Communists. They haven`t done that in 35 years. And don`t tell me about the intellectual vitality of Calcutta. Bombay has got an equally vibrant theater scene which explores social problems but has the good sense to let people make money. Even Bombay doesn`t look like Singapore, I grant you, in terms of cleanliness, but anytime somebody tries to clean up Bombay`s encroachments, the politicians intervene.

[... what about the millions of ``dridra-narayans`` of India, people who do not have enough to fill their bellies, not a roof over their heads and who are born, grow up, marry, reproduce and die without ever leaving a trace of their identity...let alone a life properly lived? Wouldn`t they gladly accept slight discrimination in favour of a particular group or a slight restriction on shooting off their mouth in return for a square meal in their thaalis and a roof over their heads?]

Ask the people. Every form of censorship or restriction on personal liberty has been thrown out by the people of India. Even prohibition has ceased to be enforced. (Does Gujarat still have prohibition?) So, if the people would rather starve but keep all their rights, who are we to argue against it?

Regards.

Romair,

V.P. Singh was a real feudal, but he implemented some of the most ambitious changes in India`s social policy...

shankar/dost-mittar #464/464: I think feudalism in Pakistan is different from feudalism in India; even though I am not an expert on Indian feudalism. What constitutes India today, has always been much more urban than what constitutes Pakistan. Pakistan was the boondocks of the British empire. Illiterate, feudal and tribal. I believe there was one university in all of Pakistan at the time of partition. Even after the partition, the only educated class in Pakistan consisted of the Muhajirs that had migrated from what is now India.

Due to the large urban population (at least in comparison to Pakistan) and maybe leadership of Nehru, there was (must have been) a counter to the landed feudals in India. In Pakistan, nothing of the sort existed. The only person who could have put the feudals in their place was Jinnah. And he died too soon. After that the feudals swooped in, and dominated politics.

I do not think India has the same ratio of feudals in its parliament as Pakistan. I cannot imagine it is 60-65%, like Pakistan`s. Due to this, feudals by themselves cannot decide India`s political future. In case of Pakistan, you can look at any election, and any law, it will have the distinct mark of feudalims on it.

Just take a look at the two most powerful parties in Pakistan, PML and PPP. They are filled with wall to wall feudals. Look at the most powerful politicians in Pakistan, Z. Bhutto, Benazir, Abida Hussain, Leghari, Khar, Bugti, Junejo, Jatoi, Amin Fahim, Pir Pagara etc. are all feudals. The only ones to have broken the mold are Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain (both were nobodys until they were propped up by Zia`s martial law) and a few others. To the best of my knowledge, Vajpayee, Advani, Rajiv, VP Singh, Gujral etc. were not feudals.

The only parties besides feudal based ones that get some seats are the ethnic parties like MQM in urban Sindh and ANP (which also contains feudals) in NWFP. So the only electable purely non-feudal party in the whole country is the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (another basketcase, due to different reasons) which wins 13 seats every time in Karachi and Hyderabad.

Imran Khan`s party won the third of fourth highest number of votes nation wide in the last elections. Yet it could not win a single seat. This time around, it may win a seat or two in some urban centers like Lahore. But it has no say in 2/3rd of Pakistan (the feudal part). Hopefully, I will be in Pakistan supporting his candidates in the coming elections. But I can tell you right now, we don`t have a shot in hell to win much,due to the non-feudal orientation.

There are nice feudals also. Nice, as people that is. Many of their kids probably visit Chowk, and work for NGOs, etc. I don`t have anything against them personally. I just despise the political concept they support. They, along with the Army, are the only two groups which cannot be voted out of power. They have to be toppled.

Pakistani city politics has gone through many changes of parties and individuals. PPP used to dominate Lahore. Now PML owns Lahore. Tomorrow Imran Khan`s PTI may emerge as a power in Lahore. Jamaat-i-Islami used to dominate Karachi, now MQM owns it. But the fedual areas remain constant. It is always one of the two competing feudals who gets elected. And then their kids get elected and then their grand kids. I can make a bet with you that Benazir`s little kid Bilawal, will be a minister in Pakistan in ten years.

The current feudals were never JCOs in the Army. Their great great grandfathers probably were. And were given vast amounts of land for selling themselves to the British. Religious parties, ethnic parties, national parties etc. can all be voted out of power. They do not own the land on which their voting populace lives, and thus do not control their constituent`s livelihood. But the feudals cannot be voted out. Just look at any election. The reason is that their peasants are completely dependent on them. The feudals legally own the livelihood of their constituents. If someone votes against them, they can kick him off their land. Where can that uneducated poor person go from there? The feudals make sure they appoint their own man as the Superintendant Police and Assistant Commissioner in their areas. They dispense judicial decisions in their areas. In many cases, the feudals have their own jails, and even small armies. The most backward areas of Pakistan have the most powerful feudals ruling over them. This is not a coincidence.

So the reason they keep getting elected again and again is not due to corruption in the election process. They get elected legally, because their peasant constituents have no option but to vote for them. And since the feudals always control nearly 2/3rd of the National Assemblies, no law can ever be passed to dilute their power. It is the classical Catch-22 situation.

Why do feudals go into politics to begin with? Why not go into another profession? Why not just sit on their lands and enjoy themselves? They go to the US, get a degree, and in their mid twenties are candidates for various political positions. They never do any other kind of job. The only job Benazir has ever had in her life is that of Prime Minister. She was never even an entry level teacher, clerk etc. Ditto for her dad. And will be ditto for her son, I can bet. They go into politics to ensure their feudal powers are not taken away from them. That is the answer.

Countries with powerful religious parties (like India, Iran) have been able to establish democracy, countries with ambitious generals have been able to establish democracy, countries with corrupt businessman have been able to establish democracy. But I do not know of any country, dominated by feudals, that has been able to establish true democracy. True democracy will automatically mean the end of feudalism due to the liberation of the peasants. And the feudals will never voluntarily allow that in Pakistan. Since Pakistan is 2/3rd feudal, what happens in the cities is really immaterial, and thus currently there is no political counterweight to the feudals.

Unfortunately the feudals are not weak like the extremist religious parties, and thus Musharraf cannot get rid of them with one speech. I wish he could.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/691105.asp

Pakistan’s Striving Son

His mom says Pervez Musharraf was never much of a student, but he’s always been a leader. Now he’s in charge of a nuclear power and wants to set a new course for the Muslim world. Can he do it?



By Rod Nordland and Zahid Hussain

NEWSWEEK





Jan. 28 issue — The course of history can seem very arbitrary—a messy procession of near misses and unexpected tragedies. When the family of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf gets together to reminisce about his rise to power, for instance, talk turns to bad airplane moments. So it was one night last week when Musharraf entertained visitors at Army House, the official residence of Pakistan’s Army commander, where Musharraf has remained since seizing power in 1999. In a large living room carpeted with Persian and Chinese rugs, family and friends traded tales as uniformed servants, wearing golden turbans with tall green combs, delivered tea and Lebanese sweets.















MUSHARRAF HIMSELF, DRESSED in an Armani suit and nestled in a sofa, recalled a trip in a Fokker that ran into a thunderstorm over Pakistan’s Karakoram mountains as his worst flight ever. (“It was jerking about like anything,” he says.) But for his wife, Sehba, the scariest moment came aboard a Pakistan International Airways flight returning from Sri Lanka in 1999. Musharraf was Army commander at the time, and the civilian prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, had dismissed him and then ordered his plane not to land. Sehba was “screaming silently” with her face in her hands, she recalls, after her husband explained what was going on. (“He said I had to stay calm so I wouldn’t panic the passengers,” she says.) Musharraf used the cockpit radio to contact fellow generals, and orchestrated a coup. With only seven minutes of fuel left, Musharraf directed the PIA pilot to land at Karachi, where soldiers loyal to him had taken over the airport. Sharif was ushered to prison, and Musharraf took charge, becoming Pakistan’s first military ruler in 11 years.

Newsweek On Air

MUSHARRAF: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT



Inevitably, the family conversation about airplane scares and politics turns to September 11. It was 6 p.m. in Islamabad when Qaeda hijackers slammed their planes into the World Trade Center. Within four hours Musharraf announced on national television that his government would abandon its longstanding alliance with Taliban rulers in Afghanistan who had sheltered Osama bin Laden—and join America’s coalition. Only later did Musharraf consult his advisers and fellow officers. “I took a fast decision. But I did think about it—very carefully,” he says now. “I keep to Napoleon’s view that two thirds of the decision-making process is based on analysis and information, and one third is always a leap in the dark.”

Nobody has taken greater political risks in the last four months than Musharraf. Joining the war on terror and supporting the United States was just the beginning. Last week his government launched a series of dramatic policies that, if successful, will mean a real about-face for Pakistan. They will be the biggest changes since President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq in 1981 turned the country into an Islamic republic, with Sharia courts and limited civil rights for women.







Beyond The Raj: Pervez Musharraf grew into a modernizing general

1943: Born in Delhi to a prosperous Muslim family. Four years later, they flee to Paki-stan during the religious riots that follow the end of British rule.

1949-56: His diplomat father is posted to Turkey, Islam’s most secular state. Pervez learns Turkish, admires Ataturk, the great modernizer.

1964: After attending a Jesuit school and military academy, he is commissioned in the artillery. He serves in two losing wars with India.

1968: An arranged marriage to Sehba Farid. They have an untraditional family: daughter Ayla is an architect, son Bilal an actuary now in Boston. They even keep pet dogs—taboo to traditional Muslims.

1999: After rising to chief of staff, he masterminds a surprise attack at Kargil in disputed Kashmir. When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tries to fire him, he stages a bloodless coup, becoming Pakistan`s ``chief executive.``

June 2001: Names himself president, ending speculation he will be only a caretaker until elections in October, 2002. After the Sept.11 attacks, he supports the United States against the Taliban. “I made the decision alone,” he says.

Dec. 2001: Pro-Pakistani suicide attackers kill nine people at the Indian Parliament causing a crisis between nuclear-armed neighbors.

Jan. 2002: Drops support for militants fighting India in Kashmir. He also cracks down on extremists inside Pakistan; about 2,000 are arrested.



Source: Newsweek

Printable version

Not only does Musharraf want to move Pakistan away from its long and troubled drift into theocracy, but he says he hopes to set an example that other Islamic countries with fundamentalist undercurrents will follow. In the past week he has banned all extremist and terrorist groups and arrested 1,900 activists. He announced elections next October for a National Assembly that would guarantee women at least a fifth of the seats. He granted non-Muslims full voting rights for the first time since 1978. He also says he’s determined to make peace with India and solve the dispute over Kashmir that has pushed them yet again to the verge of war.

Web-exclusive interview with Musharraf

Colin Powell visited both countries last week to try to ease the tensions. “I don’t think there can be war—unless there’s some mad action,” Musharraf told NEWSWEEK after the Powell visit. But, he added, “that’s always a possibility.” India has deployed the bulk of its forces along the border in a high state of alert, furious over a Kashmiri suicide attack on its Parliament on Dec. 13. Both countries have nuclear weapons, and Musharraf admits that Kashmir makes the Subcontinent the world’s most worrisome nuclear face-off.

Supporters and opponents alike have compared Musharraf to Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian leader who made peace with Israel and later was assassinated. Musharraf exhibits similar daring and vision, and also similar hubris. Many Pakistanis fear, and some of them wish, that he may yet meet Sadat’s bloody fate. “He is the leader who can deliver,” says his son, Bilal, an actuary in Boston. “Like any Pakistani, I am concerned about his safety and security.”









Competing power centers and Islamic extremism make Pakistan the most unstable nuclear power in the world.

Click a category above to learn more.

INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE

Pakistan`s secretive intelligence agency, known as the ISI, has been described as a “state within a state,” answering to no one, including military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The ISI has channeled money and weapons to the Taliban for years, seeking to create a government friendly toward Pakistan -- and a headache for rival India. U.S. intelligence agencies fear factions within it may be aligned with Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaida, an alleged terrorist network.

MILITARY

Military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf toppled the democratically elected but corrupt government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999. Musharraf, viewed as a liberal within his own hard-line ranks, has promised elections. Many believe the ISI was the power behind Musharraf`s coup, the first-ever successful one within a nation with nuclear weapons.

ISLAMIC LEADERS

The heads of Pakistan`s powerful religious schools, where Taliban members trained, have the ability to paralyze Pakistan with strikes. Although their battle cries are louder than their popular appeal, a U.S. strike against Afghanistan would enhance the position of Pakistan`s mullahs and muftis.

AFGHAN REFUGEES

An influx of up to 2 million Afghans fleeing possible U.S. action against the Taliban adds to a refugee population that had already numbered 3 million. The huge numbers strain Pakistan’s fragile social services. Thousands are streaming into frontier towns like Quetta, a heavily armed city with a wracked economy and ethnic tensions of its own. There is significant support for Osama bin Laden in Quetta, and Pakistani officials fear militants will infiltrate the country with the huge stream of refugees.

KASHMIR

India accuses Pakistan of supporting Islamic extremists who wage war on Indian military and civilian targets in Kashmir. Pakistan denies links to the armed groups, though U.S. intelligence officials tend to side with India. Indeed, President Bush cited one group, Harakat ul-Mujahedeen, in his list of 27 banned groups just after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Other separatist groups in Pakistan include the All Party Hurriyat Alliance, which includes 23 groups; Hizbul Mujahedeen; the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

PARTY POLITICS

Pakistan`s on-again, off-again attempts at democracy have been hampered by the corruption of its political parties, often so blatant that the coups that oust them command majority support. The last democratically elected prime minister was Nawaz Sharif, who was overthrown by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 1999. Sharif`s party, the Pakistan Muslim League, is now in disarray and he lives in exile. His predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, leads the Pakistan People’s Party but she, too, is in exile after charges of corruption leveled at her and her husband. A third large party, the Muttahida Qami Movement, represents the huge population of Urdu-speaking Pakistanis whose families migrated from India. Altaf Hussain, founder and leader, has offered unconditional support to the world community for the prevention of terrorism.



Source: MSNBC research

Printable version

Does Musharraf have the charisma and political smarts to hold Pakistan together while following through on his plans? Two NEWSWEEK correspondents and a photographer spent three days with him in Islamabad last week—at work and at home—to explore that question. Security precautions were daunting, with commandos in every hallway and an elaborate shell game of three separate presidential motorcades whenever he sallied out. Many of his aides were shocked at having journalists around so much, but the president himself was approachable and easygoing. He enjoyed the limelight—as you might expect from a second son who, his own mother says, was never quite as smart as his elder brother.

Pervez was the second of three sons in a middle-class family that fled to Pakistan during India’s partition in 1947. (He’s the first Pakistani president to come from the ranks of the mohajir , or Muslim refugees from India, rather than from natives like the Punjabis who dominate Pakistan’s military.) His father was a diplomat who died in 2000, and his mother, Zohra, was a rarity for her era, an educated woman from a Muslim Indian family. She had a long career herself as an official in the International Labor Organization, retiring in the 1980s. “His mother is his main inspiration,” says Javed Jabbar, a personal friend and former cabinet minister.





It’s clear that Zohra, who lives at Army House with Pervez and Sehba, is a powerful influence still. Asked if it were true that she pushed Pervez toward the military because his brothers were much stronger academically, she agrees with a laugh. “Never in my wildest of dreams did I imagine him president,” she says. Pervez seems shocked at first by his mother’s comments. “I wouldn’t call myself bad in studies,” he starts to say. His mom cuts him off: “You were average!” When the president counters that he “used to be third or fourth in my class,” his mother looks at him quizzically—and for a moment a small boy seems to shine through. “My grades went down in university—too much extracurricular activity,” he says, sparking knowing laughter around the room.

The young Pervez had a lot to live up to. His older brother, Javed, was a Rhodes scholar who went on to work at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. “I was a year behind him at college and the teachers were always saying, ‘You’re the brother of Javed Musharraf, [and yet] you can’t answer the question—what’s wrong?’ ” the president recalls now. “So sometimes I used to get hold of his old essays and I would [rewrite] one and get very good marks.” His younger brother, Naveed, was very bright, too, and later became an anesthesiologist; he practices today in the United States.

The future president “had the quality of leadership with him all the time,” says his mother. “Even as a child, his friends would always wait for him before starting anything. He is still my favorite; he always was.” Musharraf smiles with embarrassed pleasure, then gets a last word in on his academic prowess. He was “very good in mathematics,” he insists, and still is quick with numbers. Asked what 67 times 73 is, he thinks only a moment before responding: “4,891.”

This Time It’s Personal

Sehba likes to tell the story of her long engagement to the dashing young captain. His first present during their courtship was a hair dryer, and she still laughs about it. “What’s wrong with that?” he says in a defensive but good-natured way. “It was a pistol-grip type. In those days they were very unusual.” Although their marriage was a traditional one, arranged by their parents, Pervez and Sehba come across as a relatively modern couple. “The Quran,” she says, “guarantees women equal rights.” She herself worked for 10 years as a teacher, and even now she’s a little apologetic that she had to give that up to raise their two children. “Someone had to stay home, and it was me.”

By dint of seniority, Musharraf was one of three generals eligible for promotion to chief of Army staff when Prime Minister Sharif forced out his Army commander in 1999. The other two contenders had powerful political backers, however, and Sharif chose Musharraf as a compromise. As Army chief, Musharraf’s routine didn’t change much; the squash and badminton courts in his backyard got plenty of use, and there was still lots of time for friends. Then came his decision to invade Indian-held Kashmiri territory in Kargil. It was, says a fellow general and friend, “tactically brilliant,” but strategically it was “poorly thought out.” The Indians suffered a severe setback, but international reaction was firmly with India, and Sharif felt compelled to order a humiliating pullout. In doing so, he infuriated the military by blaming them for acting unilaterally; the military says Sharif was in on the decision to invade. To placate the generals, Sharif assured Musharraf he would keep him on. But just in case Sharif reneged, Musharraf quietly prepared a contingency plan for a coup. “We used to say the previous Army chief had brains but no balls, and the one before him had balls but no brains,” says a retired general. “Finally, this was someone who had both.”

















Musharraf also has a sense of destiny. (His wife says it comes with surviving plane mishaps.) Musharraf himself says he had laid plans to steer Pakistan in a new direction from the moment he took office, and had been nudging it that way when September 11 happened. Within a few weeks of the attacks, he swept aside Taliban supporters in the Pakistani government, including five of his 13 top generals. “The critical elements of strategy are timing, space and strength,” he says. No democratically elected government, he adds, could have moved so quickly.

Musharraf, formerly spurned as a military dictator, quickly became a valued friend to the West. American sanctions, imposed because of Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998, were lifted. Last week Musharraf made a surprise telephone call to the White House. “Mr. President,” he said, “I’m concerned about your fall.” (He was referring to Bush’s pretzel-induced fainting spell.) The two went on to discuss Indian-Pakistani tensions, and the steps Musharraf had announced to halt terror attacks. The White House tentatively expects Musharraf to visit next month. “He’s made the hard decisions,” says a Bush aide. “But there is a lot to do, and the problems are enormous.”

Will the same sort of esteem he enjoys abroad hold at home? Musharraf has made his share of missteps since taking power. Proud of his fluent Turkish—which he learned as a child, when his father was a diplomat in Ankara—he provoked an uproar when he seemed to praise Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey’s military-guided secular society, as his own role model. He does admire Ataturk, he says, but Pakistan is a much more Muslim-minded society than Turkey. He says his real role model is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder, who envisaged a modern, secular Muslim state. Yet last year, when Musharraf tried to overturn Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws, often used by Muslim fundamentalists to silence liberals, he had to back down. “Yes, I backtracked on it, because I want to bring economic stability and didn’t want to open too many fronts,” he says. “These are very, very sensitive issues.”













Musharraf is touchy when his democratic credentials are challenged. He pledges to hold parliamentary elections in October, but also plans to remain in place as president. “I have to do it not just for my sake, but for the sake of the nation,” he says (echoing a line dear to many a dictator). He says the corruption-plagued civilian governments that preceded his were not “correct democracy,” which is what he hopes to nurture. Many Pakistanis agree that the Sharif regime, and before that the government of Benazir Bhutto, were disastrous. And Musharraf’s autocracy comes with many of the trappings of democracy: a free press, wide-ranging debate and a great degree of government transparency. But when asked about future elections for the presidency, he seems genuinely taken aback. “It’s right that I’m there, that I remain there,” he says.

Musharraf is clearly a man of many qualities. But he’ll have to be careful not to overestimate himself. (“What’s the difference between God and Musharraf?” goes a Pakistani joke. “God doesn’t think he’s Musharraf.”) Cooling down after a tennis match on his klieg-lit clay courts, he gestures with a sweep of his arm to point out the servants standing around. “They all told me that ‘You said a very right thing’ [after his speech announcing the crackdown on militants]. They understand, all of them, my drivers, my waiters, they understand.” Well, yes, of course they do. But pulling the rest of his country along will be tougher. He’ll need his balls, his brains and, most of all, perhaps, he’ll need his willingness to laugh at his own foibles.





With Scott Johnson in Islamabad and Roy Gutman in Washington

© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.

Re: Shankar

``...If these feudals are so oppressive, why do these peasants keep voting for them again & again?...``

Shankar, why are you asking such inconvenient questions in a public forum?

Re: Veeresh

``...The Vaishno Devi Trust is now controlled by the Govt., ...``

Horror of horrors! The Govt. gets its messy fingers into everything, even religious institutes. Ah well, we all know what a fine job it has done of entities like Air India, SAIL, etc.

In short, I am not impressed when the govt. controls secular institutions, and even more so when it pokes its fingers into religious ones.