Deja Vu

RE Prem # 168

``I have no idea why the phuck Indians had to get involved in Sri Lanka (other than giving in to pressure from some folks in Tamil Nadu). .........

May be there were some broader geopoliitical objectives. But we got hammered. And thank God for that. ``

The primary reason were that the Indian forces went to ensure the implementation of the agreement of July 1987, not to fight the Tamils or the Sinhalese. It was the LTTE that created a situation that resulted in the Indian army having to fight them. But lets keep aside the reasons for meddling in Sri Lanka and concentrate on the ``hammering``. This perception is mostly due to the circumtances in which the IPKF was made to withdraw. And of course the fact that the entire IPKF operations were politically guided and intelligence oriented with the armed forces having little or no say. In fact the common viewpoint was the army was made to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

The IPKF successfully eliminated the middle order leadership of the LTTE and broke their stronghold over the Jaffna peninsula. The LTTE was forced to take refuge in the jungles of the North and East. The Elephant Pass was open for the first time after the LTTE had taken control of the Jaffna. Resumption of trading was made possible after a long period of time.

The humiliation also had to do with how IPKF was asked to leave. After Jayewardane stepped down, Premadasa took over, he had always opposed the agreement and wanted IPKF to leave, in fact many said this was strangely as a result of a collaboration between the LTTE and the Lankan government.

Subroto

From the Daily Dawn April 24, 2002

Bleak prospects for `real` democracy

By Mahir Ali

KARACHI resembled a ghost town on December 19, 1984. In broad daylight, there was hardly a soul to be seen. That was unheard of, even for a public holiday. And it wasn`t an organized protest. There was a simple reason for the absence of humanity from the streets of the metropolis: It was Referendum Day, and after seven and a half years of General Zia-ul-Haq`s perverse rule, almost no one had any interest in encouraging him to remain at the helm.

Zia had been too clever by half. The question posed on the ballot paper asked whether the country should stick with, and reinforce, Islamic laws. Very few people, the wily general reasoned, would be willing to respond in the negative. He may have been right. But everyone knew that a yes vote would be considered as an endorsement of Zia`s misrule, so most people took the easy way out: they did not bother to go anywhere near a polling booth.

Karachi`s negligible turnout wasn`t echoed everywhere across the nation, but almost nowhere did it exceed the 20 per cent mark, and in most places it was considerably lower. Yet according to the official results, both the turnout and the positive response were in the high nineties. Zia had been speaking at orchestrated rallies all over the country in the run-up to the referendum, usually attired in an `achkan`. When he addressed the nation on television on the night after the test of strength, he appeared in full military regalia. And he looked shaken.

His periodic claims of popular support never carried any weight after that. So why did he do it? Did he actually believe that he and his policies had endeared themselves to the populace? Such delusions are not uncommon when rulers are cut off from the ruled - a phenomenon that has posed a perennial problem in Pakistan under all forms of governance. But Zia`s primary motivation was pressure from his patron-in-chief. Although double standards are par for the course as far as the US foreign policy is concerned, Washington found its favorite South Asian client`s utter lack of legitimacy a tad embarrassing, and recommended that the problem be redressed.

Not long after Zia`s referendum - and notwithstanding the fiasco it represented - another regional military dictator adopted exactly the same strategy in the hope of legitimizing his misrule. It did not do Bangladesh`s General Hossain Muhammad Ershad much good either in the long run. Now it may well be General Pervez Musharraf`s turn to find out that seeking popular endorsement of dictatorship involves going down a slippery path - and, at that, a path that was not featured in his roadmap to democracy.

Musharraf`s desire to remain at the helm for a further five years could have been fulfilled by other means. Indefinitely postponing the electoral exercise planned for October and simply staying put would have been a deplorable but less devious way of going about it.

There is not much that the ARD or anyone else could have done about it, nor is the formality of a judicial nod likely to have posed a problem. But Uncle Sam would have faced a dilemma: much as it wants Musharraf to stay on, it would have found it all but impossible to openly maintain a deep and meaningful relationship with a regime determined to flout its promise of a return to democracy. Hence, evidently, this deviation from the roadmap. And hence the reluctance of the Anglo-American axis to unequivocally condemn next week`s referendum.

For better or for worse, however, what suits the US and British interests isn`t necessarily good for Pakistan. It`s invariably quite the reverse, in fact, and Musharraf`s ploy is clearly a case in point. Once the general assumes his presidency to have been popularly endorsed - as he inevitably will from May Day - the October elections will become something of an academic exercise. He has made it clear that he believes in a unitary chain of command, which isn`t particularly surprising in view of his profession. Should any disputes arise between parliament and the commander-in-chief, the elected representatives will obviously be at a disadvantage.

Musharraf may not have employed Zia`s favourite term, but he is clearly keen on ``positive results``. Yet the Junejo experience suggests that even a relatively toothless and compliant parliament can find cohabitation with a military ruler uncomfortable and eventually untenable.

It would have been braver of Musharraf to discard his uniform and seek election as president after the assemblies were in place; the Constitution could have been amended to enable his candidature. But the option evidently did not cross his mind - and if it did, he wasn`t prepared to take the risk. Which suggests he realizes that his primary constituency is the army. One wonders, though, whether he also realizes the damage his political tactics are bound to inflict on Pakistan`s enfeebled institutions.

Musharraf is no Zia. Although a clever tactician on occasion, the latter was also a monster of depravity on some levels and a complete moron on others. The incumbent had until recently steered clear, by and large, of the sort of monumental follies associated with his predecessor. Which makes the sense of deja vu evoked by some of his actions and utterances all the more alarming. The rent-a-crowd rallies, the gratuitous denigration of most politicians, the curbs on any sort of mobilization by the opposition, the false humility - could it all be a case of farce repeating itself as tragedy?

Even the relative freedom of the press, which has hitherto brought credit to the regime, now appears to be under threat. It would be hard to believe that Punjab governor Khalid Maqbool`s vituperative outburst against journalists in Faisalabad the other day was not sanctioned by the president, who has of late grown noticeably less tolerant of criticism. It must fervently be wished that his relations with the press do not degenerate into the acrimony of the Zia era - and that he does not hope to encourage the sort of obsequiousness demanded by Ayub Khan.

And then there is the American connection. Falling in line in the wake of September 11 may have been the only logical course of action at the time and Musharraf may be excused for attempting to disguise the fact that the assault against Afghanistan was being carried out largely from bases in Pakistan. But what now, and what next? A suspicious degree of opacity surrounds joint security and intelligence operations on Pakistani territory. The fight against Al Qaeda may require a certain amount of secrecy, but is there any guarantee that such actions will not impinge upon Pakistan`s sovereignty? History shows that those enraptured by Uncle Sam`s embrace often find themselves unable to wriggle out when it changes into a stranglehold.

History also shows that Pakistan`s military rulers never know when to beat a retreat. Self-proclaimed saviours, one and all, they sooner or later begin to consider themselves indispensable to national well-being. They have in the past all been proved wrong. Yet each other`s foibles and failures are not a subject they are comfortable with.

When Yahya Khan died in 1980, Zia described him as ``a great soldier``. Musharraf has never acknowledged that militant Islamic fundamentalism as well as the heroin and Kalashnikov culture are Zia`s legacies. He has proved himself willing, on the other hand, to organize a copycat referendum. And let`s not forget that the Kargil folly was reminiscent of the misadventure that led to the 1965 war.

The apparent absence of corruption in the upper echelons of government is undoubtedly a healthy development, but not in itself a sufficient excuse for absolutism. And however sincere Musharraf may be in his desire to diminish poverty, ignorance, unemployment and inflation, he does not have a magic wand. Nor a mandate, regardless of the result on April 30. Prescriptions from US-dominated international financial institutions are not particularly useful, because they tend to deepen rather than heal divisions in society.

As for instituting ``true`` democracy - if the general has a recipe for that, he should be persuaded to share it with the rest of the world (especially with his well-wisher George W. Bush, who is apparently unconcerned about having been picked as president by a panel of judges rather than American voters). On the other hand, if he naively assumes that popular representation and dictatorship can somehow coexist, that would suggest he has a lot to learn. Lesson number one: when Lord Acton coined his adage about the corruptibility of power, unfair pecuniary benefits wasn`t all that he had on his mind.

One has to cast one`s mind back some 30 years to conjure up a period when Pakistan`s prospects appeared less than bleak. All those who have ruled us in the interim - regardless of whether their sartorial preferences tended towards awami suits or camouflage gear - stand indicted. As do many of those whose inability to acquire power ought not to blind us to their failure to offer viable alternatives.

Would democracy win? One would like to think so. But it is not an option for the time being. And starting from scratch a few years down the line may well involve an action replay of the depressing Benazir Bhutto-Nawaz Sharif phase. Beyond that, who`s to say whether crude representative rule will be allowed to evolve into a more palatable polity? Chances are that another would-be savior in khaki will step in to take charge. After all these years, do we remain incapable of recognizing a vicious circle when we see one?

The referendum to be held on April 30 has got a lengthy question for

which people has to answer yes or no.

It reads as, ``do you want to elect Pervez Musharraf as President of

Pakistan for the next five years for survival of local government

system, for restoration of democracy, for continuity and stability of

reforms, for stamping out extremism and sectarianism, and for

accomplishment of concept of Quaid-e-Azam (Muhammad Ali Jinnah)``.

Fuzair # 158

Strictly speaking Indians are guilty of terrorism in Sri Lanka and in East Pakistan in 1971. A few differences are to be noted.

As far as the LTTE goes it is a disciplined ruthless military style organization. The Al Qaida is a loose collection of motley groups with no real authority. Bin Laden lacks the means to discipline traitors, over zealous characters etc.

Other than Rajiv Gandhi assassination all of LTTE military operations were confined to Sri Lanka. If the Taleban/Al Qaida confined their operations to Afghanistan I will give them the benefit of doubt. They had to go around attacking American targets worldwide.

All LTTE cadres are Sri Lankan Tamils. I don`t know of any Indian Tamils fighting in Sri Lanka along side the LTTE. What are Arabs, Chechens, Punjabi Muslims doing fighting in Afghanistan ? I will make an exception for Pakistani Pathans who happen to be an unruly lot.

I presume supporting armed groups during the Cold War was acceptable. The Americans, Soviets, Chinese all did it. Since the cold war ended in 1990, all the big powers have stopped support for armed groups in Central America, Angola, Ethoipia, Cambodia, PLO etc. Since the Indian support to LTTE ended in 1988 I presume India followed suit with the other big powers. Whether you like it or not the big boys set the rules of the global system.

On a final note I don`t think any major political or religious entity in Tamilnadu has been supporting the LTTE. Most of LTTE`s financial support is from Tamil expatriates all over the world. Since they don`t kill Westerners they operate beneath the radar screen of law enforcement.

fawad

{

hamdani again look for me upstairs in coolege ave student center in the study area thing or in food court when u come for lunch

}

fawad, are you a pathan?

hamdani again look for me upstairs in coolege ave student center in the study area thing or in food court when u come for lunch

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

shammi # 170

``I wish you guys luck. My personal choice would be somebody other than Altaf -- he seems to be too much of an opportunist and a street thug. Not a person who appears to have a lot of personal integrity.``

He has as much integrity as Musharraf or Nawaz or BB.On the other hand he may not have the same expertise in street `thuginess` like Modi,Advani

or Thakray. Just my 2 bit.

Regards.

#168 Prem

India (more precisely Rajiv) got involved because he could not ignore tamil nadu which was a big part of his constituency. Indian military has an ``interesting`` approach in fighting insurgencies and guerilla movements. It sends the gurkha and madras regiments to kashmir, rajasthanis to the northeast and sikhs to the tamil areas of Srilanka. A cynic might say that it`s the old divide&rule. The sikhs had no clue as to who was friend or foe in a tamil speaking area but of course the madras regiment could not be trusted to operate there because who knows what awful virus they might bring back to tamil nadu. It was criminal the way the soldiers were sacrificed there. To be fair to the tamils, the indian force was accused of highhandedness and criminal conduct.

Following are some quotes, from 1984, from an interesting site regarding Pakistan:

``December 19: A referendum is held to determine the people`s will. The question: do the people of Pakistan endorse the process initiated by General Zia to bring all laws in conformity with the injunctions of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, and do they support the continuation of that process for the smooth and orderly transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people?

A positive vote will provide General Zia with a mandate to remain president for the next 5 years. The MRD appeals for a boycott of the proceedings, while the Jamaat-e-Islami supports the move.`` (http://pakistanspace.tripod.com/1984.htm)

Interestingly, the Jamaat-e-Islami is now the biggest opposer of the current referendum. I am waiting for them to declare it not only un-Constitutional (which it is, unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise), but also un-Islamic.

Following is an interesting article on Bhutto, by Cowasjee, who is one of Pakistan`s most respected writers:

``Referendum 2002-II

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

My dear Sir

Only a few lines to let you know that I am discharging my responsibilities here to the best of my ability. I shall write you a detailed report of my work on my return to Pakistan and I am sure you will be satisfied with the manner in which I have done my humble best to serve the interests of my country and my president.

I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you of my imperishable and devoted loyalty to you. Exactly four months before the death of my late father, he had advised me to remain steadfastly loyal to you, as you were `not an individual but an institution`. For the greater good of my own country, I feel that your services to Pakistan are indispensable. When the history of our country is written... your name will be placed even before that of Mr. Jinnah. Sir, I say this because I mean it and not because you are the president of my country.

If I have the conviction and the courage to enter into a dispute with a former prime minister, I do not think I could be found guilty of the charge of flattery.

If you and the Begum Sahiba require anything from here, please do not hesitate to order me for it.

``With profound respects both to you and to the Begum Sahiba...``.

Gross flattery, or subtle flattery? This is how the champion of Pakistan`s democracy, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, began his political life - on the Persian axis, thanks to an alliance between two well-meaning wives of Irani descent married to two ambitious men. Bhutto undoubtedly was duly grateful to his own wife for having secured his entry to Iskander Mirza`s darbar and thus onto the bottom rung of his chosen slippery ladder.

His first public appointment was as leader of our delegation to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva. To Mirza, the young, highly educated `brilliant` up-and-coming barrister was a fitting choice and it was from Geneva, in April 1958, that he addressed his letter to `my president`.

When Bhutto returned from Europe bearing gifts for his president, Mirza decided to reward him and early in October of that same year, after the first imposition of martial law, he was appointed a cabinet minister. During that fateful October, Bhutto endeared himself to the army commander-in-chief and defence minister, General Ayub Khan by his willingness, shrewdness, flair and efficiency, and was thus suitably rewarded when Ayub turfed out Mirza and mounted the tiger. Bhutto was then appointed foreign minister and proved himself both abroad and at home.

On the home front, as secretary general of Ayub`s Convention Muslim League, he excelled himself by masterminding his military master`s triumphant victory against the democratic forces of the Madar-i-Millat in the 1964 elections.

It was somewhere around this period of his career that he was heard to mutter: `The only way to get rid of a general is to take him to war and make him lose it.` And that was precisely what he did, ably assisted by a handful of fellow patriots. No matter that the 1965 war was lost; it served its purpose.

It gave rise to the non-existent `Tashkent secret`, and it successfully killed his love affair with Ayub, leaving Bhutto free to move on his own. He managed his sacking by his 1966 bid for power, and he then managed to get into jail - the place from where `heros` emerge. His dismissal and imprisonment sparked off riots, revolts and demonstrations and Ayub, ill and tired, dismounted and handed over the reins to Yahya Khan.

To Zulfikar`s credit must go the fact that it is he who is responsible for our army having produced, so far, one field marshal, his role in the elevation being a closely guarded secret until revealed by him in 1976 when he made an honest admission in a note he addressed to his foreign secretary and chief of army staff:

``I will tell you how Ayub Khan became a field marshal..... He told me in Nathiagali in 1959....(www.dawn.com)

Isn`t it a bit hypocritical for the PPP, PML (there current chief opposer of referendum, Raja Zafar-ul-Haq, was the, ``opening batsman`` of Zia`s cabinet) and JI to support military regimes and oppose them, whenever it suits their purpose. What principle are they following? It is a well-known rumor now that BB tried hard to get the current govt. to drop the cases against her (which ironically were started by her now ally, Nawaz Sharif). It is only when she realized that the current govt. wasn`t going to let her back in, that she jumped on the anti-govt. campaign.

The JI is the same. It is opposing Musharraf because his govt. is going after them. Plain and simple.

Interestingly, Imran Khan was offered a Senator position during Zia`s days, and he didn`t take it. Then his party was offered somewhere around 30 seats in the previous assembly elections by NS`s party, and TI didn`t take those either. He is now openly supporting Musharraf.

All of the PPP, PML and JI crap has nothing to do with democracy and Constitution, etc. People who support the Constitution at all costs theory, do so, ``at all costs.`` They don`t jump back and forth whenever it suits them.

Re: Romair, Zakkk

Thanks for the lowdown -- I wish you guys luck. My personal choice would be somebody other than Altaf -- he seems to be too much of an opportunist and a street thug. Not a person who appears to have a lot of personal integrity.

Re: Prem

``...May be there were some broader geopoliitical objectives...``

I have heard various explainations -- (i) Indira Gandhi`s visceral distrust of the US presence in Diego Garcia and the imminent leasing of a naval base by Sri Lanka to the US/Israel compelled her to meddle in Sri Lanka`s affairs, and (ii) that President Premdasa (with whom Rajiv Gandhi signed the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord with the agreement of LTTE, and who was later assasinated by the LTTE -- same fate as Rajiv) fooled the inexperienced Rajiv by secretly collaborating with the LTTE to ensure the failure of IPKF. Ofcourse, the LTTE had the last laugh because it assassinated both Premdasa and Rajiv.

Fuzair #160
Its not exactly a question of moral upperground, its a question of rational objective.

The costs of supporting insurgencies/armed movements (while disowning them) as opposed to the benefits need to be brought into the calculation somewhere. India learnt the hard way and made its exit, and has since repeatedly refused both the Sri Lankan and LTTE`s appeals to get involved again.

Pakistan has thought fit to keep the jihadi nest egg warm with no `exit` strategy except denials to deal with whatever adverse keeps hatching : attacks on Indian Parliament and J&K Assembly, exposure of Al Qaeda`s links with Harkat ul Mujahiddeen and Jaish-e-Mohammad, Daniel Pearl, deployment of the Indian Army at the border.

Ordinary newspaper readers/TV viewers in the US knew of Al Qaeda much before Sept 11 because they watched Bin Laden give interviews to ABC as far back as 1995 for example, the investigations of the first WTC attacks(in `93), the African embassy attacks, the Cole bombing were also given wide coverage. They listened to Clinton speak repeatedly about the threat from Al Qaeda, esp to justify his missile attacks on Sudan and through Pakistani airspace on Khost, Afghanistan in which some Pakistanis were also killed. It will be hard for readers (and potential investors) to believe Rashid Qureshi that if THEY knew about Al Qaeda, Rashid Qureshi and Musharraf didnot.

Wonder whether Pakistan thinks it viable to keep the jihad option open both for dealing with Afghanistan and Kashmir and hence thinks it beneficial to maintain continuity in its denials to the point of absurdity, or indeed a break has been made with the past and Rashid Qureshi is an idiot.

Shammi & others interested in Pakistani politics: Looking for legitimate leaders in Pakistani politics is a losing effort. There aren`t any. If there were some available, Pakistan`s political system would not be in the mess it is in now. Let me rephrase that; amongst the ones who are electable, there aren`t any good honest ones. The deck is stacked so high against the honest leaders, that they have no shot of getting elected. In a card game, filled with cheating, the honest player has zero chance of winning, regardless of how good a player he/she maybe.

At the same time, Pakistan has to function in some political context, i.e. it needs political leaders. In such a scenario, one has to chose the best amongst the worst. Most importantly, one has to look a the ethos are orientations of the parties and electorate these leaders represent, and support the most progressive electorate. The other option is to support Martial Laws indefinitely (this is an even more dangerous option, because every CMLA will not be a honest progressive Musharraf (even his greatest critics agree his govt. is extremely honest and quite progressive in its views); many will be Zias or worse).

Personally speaking, I support Imran Khan`s TI. Imran Khan, and his party, consists of good honest men/women. They have now slowly learnt the political ropes. They also support my orientation of Pakistan society, requiring neither pure religionism nor pure secularism to be successful. Their agenda is a very moderate form of religion (not pure secularism), which I think is inline with what most Pakistanis want (pure religionism or pure secularism will not work in Pakistan, just like it has not worked in India. These concepts, if implemented will result in massive opposing backlashes, as has occured in India and Iran, etc.) Unfortunately, his party is too honest and straighforward, and thus has not been able to win a single seat in its fledgeling career.

I was a great supporter of the MQM when it started in the 80s. It was the first urban, grassroots, very middle class, non-religous movement in Pakistan, in what is by far Pakistan`s most educated and progressive city. It is true that it was supported (and maybe even initiated by) by Zia, as a counter to rural Sindhi separatist politics. But the way it spread was due to its popularity amongst all social sections of Karachi. To see the biggest feudals coming to meet urban doctors, engineers in their middle class Karachi homes, was a dream come true for me. I belive (not sure) the MQM once nominated a rickshaw driver for a provincial seat, and he won.

I (naively) felt that the MQM would spread to all other Pakistani urban centers, and finally Pakistan`s politics would shift from feudal upper class to urban middle and upper middle class. Unfortunately that was not to be.

The MQM suffered the same problem all movements/people with potential etc. (like Ayub Khan and Z. Bhutto) seem to suffer when they join Pakistani politics. Its leadership became part of the system, instead of changing it. I don`t know why. Its militant wing got out of control, and literally took over urban Sind (like the dons in Indian movies). Its leadership proved too immature (they had just graduated out of student politics) and turned everything into a vendetta. Altaf Hussain and some of his leadership are now wanted criminals (and in some cases wanted murderes), and for good reason.

Added to this, in political desparation, Altaf Hussain turned the MQM purely into an ethnic organization. Instead of turning it into a nationwide Muttahida Qaumi Movement, it became even more Muhajir in its outlook, as time passed. Its agenda shifted from Karachi needing its own representation (which it did) against a legally biased, though economically backwards, Sindhi rural system, led by feudals. Instead the MQM agenda turned purely into an anti-Sindhi and an even more aggressively anti-Punjabi and anti-Punjabi Army agenda. It was originally formed to protect Muhajirs against ethnic racism, yet it turned itself into a anti-Punjabi racist organization.

Karachi is, by a gigantic margin, the most literate and advanced and wealthiest and multi-ethnic city in Pakistan (for example, it has the largest population of Pathans, in any city, in Pakistan, now). It is also the most ethincally divided. And even within the MQM, there are two factions, which (used to) reguarly attack each other militarily, turning a once peaceful Karachi (the city of my birth) into the killing fields. Despite all this, the original MQM still wins their by the highest margins of any party in Pakistan. Even the feudals do not win by such margins.

Having said this, I still consider the MQM a great hope for Pakistani politics.

Altaf Hussein is now in exile, and is wanted in even more serious crimes than BB and NS. If he returns to Pakistan, I think his rival Muhajir group will kill him, so he may never return (I have met soft-spoken Muhajir middle class housewives in their twenties, who want to kill him, because his faction of the MQM abducted their brother, etc.). He is extremely loved and extremely hated in Karachi (I am not a Muhajir, but I put him in the extremely hated category). He is also considered a security risk by the govt. There are rumors that India funds him, etc. He is disliked greatly in Punjab and rural Sind for all the racist propoganda he has generated (much of which is overboard nonsense). Though he still has a huge following, but he is probably the most hated politician in Pakistan (and in Karachi) also. People hate BB and NS for all their corruption. They want them in jail, but not killed. There are many people who want Altaf Bhai dead however. A different kind of hate. Needless to say, he is not nearly the power he once was.

Added to this, his biggest drawback is that Musharraf himself is a Muhajir. And Musharraf is well-respected in all Punjabi urban areas (once the referendum hoopla is finished, he will again be in the good books of the journalists), and in many rural areas. Only the feudals (most, not all) and maulvis and their supporters hate him. Hence Altaf Hussein`s anti-Punjabi rhetoric is not valid anymore, and I think most Muhajirs are now begining to see past it.

Another event occuring is that the MQM is now forming alliances with small Sindhi rural parties. And I believe is actually thinking of nominating Sindhi MQM candidates from urban Sindh. I believe Altaf Hussein married a Sindhi lady (not sure). This is a good indication that it has realized that it needs to spread out. Now it is slowly projecting itself as an all Sindhi party, rather than a Muhajir party. Initially it was formed to counter the Sindhi parties. So it has turned 180 degrees.

Why do I consider the MQM (outside its current leadership) a big hope for Pakistani politics? Primarily due to the reasons described above. For a country to progress politically, its politics have to be in the control of its urban middle class. This class has a built-in desire for the country to progress, while the feudal class has a built-in advantage, if the country remains backwards. As do the mullahs (though that is debatable, because the mullahs have never really had a chance to run an Islamic country, other than Iran and Afghanistan; they did terribly in Afghanistan, and are doing well in Iran, if you ask me).

Urban politics also have built-in mechanisms for change, i.e. election after election will clean up urban politics, while it will never clean up feudal politics. This is because, urban areas consist of educated electorates, who do not owe their livelihood to the politicians (i.e. politicians do not own the land). And because urban politics consists of all kinds of classes (lower, middle, upper etc), while fedual politics is 99% lower class, and 1% upper class.

Urban Sindh is the only area in Pakistan, where urban politics has completely dominated feudal politics. In Lahore, Pindi, and to a smaller extent in Peshawar, it is still the urban representatives of feudal PPP and PML parties, who win all the seats. I am hoping, against hope, that in the next elections, the party I support (Tehrek-i-Insaaf) will sweep Lahore and Pindi, and thus replace fedual reps in these cities also. While Omer Asghar Khan`s party will win in non-Pukhtun NWFP (even a bigger hope against hope). Interestingly, Omer Asghar and Imran Khan, are internationally recogized and respected philanthripists, and very strong supporters of Musharraf, and his new system of govt.

Sooner or later, the urban Sind electorate will start cleansing the MQM leadership, through election after election. I think it is already happening. Karachi has a very high literacy rate (I think 79%), and educated people living in wealthy cities, with a chance to vote, usually end up with good leaderships. Added to this is the fact, that urban Sindhis have seen that the rest of Pakistan (specifically Punjabis) does not hate Muhajirs, and is more than willing to accept and support them (Musharraf, and his group of generals, who were nearly all Muhajirs, ousted a nearly 100% Punjabi govt. of NS, and people in Punjab actually celebrated).

Also, the MQM is slowly realizing that if it does not provide good governance, people will vote it out. Interestingly, in the last elections, the PML Muhajir candidates won two seats in urban Sind, from the MQM. No one thought this could ever happen, but it did. I know (of) one of those PML candidates, and he is an honest self-made Muhajir millionaire.

The PPP used to dominate Lahore. Now it is owned by PML (hopefully to be owned by TI soon :)). PPP used to have a good representation in Peshawar, now it is owned by ANP and PML. So urban politics do result in change.

Based on this, I think the best thing for Pakistan is to have its politics controlled by purely urban parties. If a few of these parties are currently dominated by militant thugs (who interestingly are all urban medical doctors, engineers etc.; Altaf Hussein is a pharmicist, with a US green card and a British passport), even then they are still the best of the worst. Primarily because their leadership will eventually get cleansed out, due to a powerful educated urban electorate, i.e. BB`s son has far more chance of becoming the head of PPP, then Altaf Husseins` off-spring have of being the head of MQM).

It is incorrect to state that Musharraf is being followed by all the immoral politicians. Quite the opposite, in most cases. The hypocritical religious leaders are all against him. The corrupt BB and NS and cronies are all against him.

He is strongly followed by people like Imran Khan, Umer Asghar Khan, and the Sufi parties and the religious minorities. Women organizations support him as well, since his plan gives them 1/3rd representation. The secualar Pathan ANP has supported him throughout. Even amongst the feudals, the more upright (though still evil; all feudals are evil in my book) ones like Fakhar Imam and Leghari (not counting his corruption scandal) support him.

The wild card in all of this, as usual, is the MQM. MQM, itself, is never large enough to form the govt. in Pakistan. However, whichever side it tilts towards ends up winning, since the MQM is always the third biggest elected party in Pakistan`s Assembly. Added to this is the fact, that it can literally bring Karachi (and thus Pakistan) to its knees, if it wants.

I think, once again, whomever gets the support of the MQM is going to come out on top in this battle with the PPP/PML feudals + maulvi parties vs. all urban NWFP/Punjab political parties (generally never win) + smaller feudal parties + Musharraf on the other side. With the MQM now throwing its weight behind Musharraf, and the inherent dislike of Pakistani liberals of the maulvis (the idealistic democrats never complain, and actually celebrate, when a maulvi`s Consitituional rights are violated, and he is put in jail, yet they always talk about the Constituion) I think Musharraf has his adversaries on the run.

I think the MQM, sans Altaf Bhai, will feature prominantly in the next govt. As will PTI, ANP and Millat Party. It will be led by the urban faction of the PML turncoats like Mian Azhar (once the referendum is over, I can bet a lot of the remaining PML members will join Musharraf also), who will be kept in line by the President. The opposition will be an alliance of the PPP minus BB (representing feudal Pakistani opposition) + and maulvi parties (representing urban Pakistani opposition).

I think and hope, this will occur. It will be a gigantic shift of politics from feudal Pakistan to urban Pakistan. And that should always be encouraged. It will also bring Pakistan`s relgious minorities (Christians, Parsis, Hindus; they are Musharraf`s biggest supporters) into the mainstream. It will also bring women into the mainstream. It will sideline the hypocritical maulvis and the enslaving feudals. All of these are positive actions.

And if it takes an unelected dictator who is violating the Constitution left and right, for this to occur. Then all I can say is God bless him, if he can do this. Because the feudal parties themselves would never do it.

re: Fuzair # 160

Your post makes perfect sense. I have no idea why the phuck Indians had to get involved in Sri Lanka (other than giving in to pressure from some folks in Tamil Nadu). May be there were some broader geopoliitical objectives. But we got hammered. And thank God for that. Now, Indians are doubly careful before sticking their fingers there.

While not being a Sindhi/Mohajir, and having little love for the MQM for what it did to Pashtuns in Karachi in the 80`s, I also do not believe the MQM represents anything other then a political grouping, nor do I think Mohajirs are an ethnic group.

The fact is though, inspite of my own dislike of them, they are a middle class party and their political elected leaders are generally a clean lot (look at the NAB arrests, the fewest arrested besides the Presidentially protected hum Khyalis, were the MQM, JI, ANP)..this comes to the million dollar question, which is worse?..Corrupt robber barons who pledge allegiance to Pakistan while looting it dry or people with separatist tendencies, who inspite of their beliefs are generally less corrupt and are also willing to contest democratic elections?

The next time we criticise parties like the MQM, we need to answer that question.

Prem #154 Thanks for pulling audio-video`s plug - he has to be the among the lowest watt posters on chowk, imho.