Dislodging a Dictator

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

...ylh makes some sense here....romair keeps peddling same old military nonsense....yet pakis here are jumping on ylh...i don`t get it...

Yasser

``As institutions get stronger, personality cults would vanish.

Jinnah was a human being who had his virtues and his flaws. His flaws don`t merit a total denial of the man and his legacy which remains the most secular and liberal we`ve had in this country. While I make no secret of my admiration of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, that doesn`t mean I agree with everything he did (it is quite possible to do so, look at A G Noorani in India, he is as anti-Two nation theory as it gets but follows Jinnah down to the last personal detail religiously). My admiration is more for the idealistic lawyer and legislator of the pre-1937 era, the liberal progressive who stood up for what he believed in and defended Bhagat Singh against all opposition not just from the Government but also the Congress leadership. ``


Excellent Yasser. It was not for nothing Nehru called Jinnah ``head and shoulders`` above the rest in Muslim League. Unfortunately, the Indian Muslim community could not provide Jinnah a peer or a second line of leaders to shape Pakistan according to Jinnah`s ideals after the independence. So the military stepped in to fill the leadership vacuum. It is my belief that had Jinnah lived for 10 more years, he would have focussed on ``institution-building`` in Pakistan. I am of the opinion that the so-called ``autocratic`` tendencies of Jinnah during 1947-48 were not due to his personal ambition to control all the power but because he was only too acutely aware of the fact that he had a deck of bad cards ( ``counterfeit coins``) right from the start. Unlike Indian National Congress, Muslim league had no credible second line of leadership.

As far as your ideals are concerned, I do not think majority of Indians could disagree with it barring some trivial disagreements (mostly ego problems and knee jerk reactions). I hope there are more people in Pakistan belonging to your school of thought. And that is why you should consider joining politics :-)

I think people tend to get carried away, in trying to portray PPP as the progressive alternative to Pakistan. In its constitution, it is progressive, but not in the characteristics of its leaders. Feudals dominate the PPP, and feudals are the most regressive force in Pakistan. More regressive than maulvis.

Moreover, everyone knows where maulvis stand. They say it out loud. Feudals say one thing, while they do another. Following is from an article from Cowasjee, regarding the, “progressiveness” of Amin Fahim. If it is true, then I am afraid the PPP has a far more regressive leader than any in MMA. How in the world will such a person be, “liberal” and progressive towards women, or towards anyone else in Pakistan?

“The temporary leader of Zardari`s party has also been the subject of comment via e-mail from another citizen of Pakistan who also does not wish to reveal his identity as what he relates is hearsay. However, having had confirmation of the hearsay from various members of the Sindhi fraternity who say the practice is common and widespread, the message is worth a quote, as if it is a fact, it is a dread warning to us all of the mindset of the leadership of what is supposed to be the most `progressive` party of the country.

``I have heard that Mr Amin Faheem`s four sisters are married to the Quran - the custom that waderas have in Sindh by which they refuse to marry off their women in order to keep family wealth intact. If true, it is appalling. It indicates the sick mindset typical of such waderas. How can we expect a man like this to be able to make progressive policies for the poor womenfolk of our country who desperately need uplifting? People need to know this. It is very disheartening to see the parade of illiterate bigots on our television channels, day and night, vying for slots in the government, each for his own agenda.``” (Cowasjee, http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20021117.htm)

Has anyone ever seen the wife of Amin Fahim? I certainly haven’t. What about his daughters? If he has any. I have seen the daughter of Qazi Hussain. She is an MNA, and doing a Ph.D. She keeps her face covered, but does do things and participates in TV debates.

Who then is more regressive? Amin Fahim or Qazi Hussain? Both, if you ask me. And both need to be pulled into the 21st century. However, going by the above, Qazi, less so than Amin.

And we haven’t even got to the Sher-e-Punjab of the PPP, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar. He is, of course, a symbol of a progressive person, who personifies how women should be treated. He, alone, has had more wives, than the leadership of the MMA, combined.

So how in the world can people portray a feudal dominated PPP leadership as a, “progressive” alternative to anyone? Has anyone ever been to rural Sind, where the PPP rules. Is it progressive? Or is it the epitome of regressiveness? It is far less progressive than Jamaat-I-Islami’s Mansoora(s). That I can say for sure. JI maulvis try to force their female constituents to wear a veil when they go to school. PPP/PML feudals support panchayats, under which their female constituents are gang-raped. Who is worse?

Amin Fahim, the appointed head of PPP and possible leader of the opposition (if the maulvis join the govt.) gets elected hands down from his constituency. As does Benazir. As does Zardari, whenever he participates in elections. They are the three most powerful individuals in PPP. Two international thieves and a regressive feudal are considered the flagships of liberalism in Pakistan, by some people.

How sad…..

The PPP feudals and maulvis are not an either/or situation. Both need to be thrown out. Amongst the two, the feudals are far more powerful and far more dangerous (not to mention, more regressive).

umm...that last post 56 should be read in conjunction with post 50 to avoid any confusion or misapprehension. Also it should not be taken as my condoning of autocratic civilian rule, be it by FDR or Mohammed Ali Jinnah ...

-Manto

Stuka wrote:

``Let Mush stand for election. If he gets 51% of the vote he will have more legitimacy than 97% of referendum. ``

I have nothing against this formula. But Fauji lovers will NEVER agree to this for the simple reason that Musharaf won`t even manage one percent of the vote. Fauji lovers cannot accept what the free ballot is bound to reveal. They know Pakistani Military men are highly incompetent. Sadly, Pakistan (with a few honorable exceptions) has always been deprived of inspiring Generals and commanders like those available in Latin America who have the confidence of what they believe in and can rally the masses.

Current examples being Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and and Lucio Guiterrez of Ecuador- both armed commanders who overthrew their goverments in a coup and were kicked out of the army, jailed, but came back as POPULIST leaders to win a free election - Guiterrez beat the country`s incumbent who was a banana Billionaire!!!

Pakistan`s generals are only good at backstabbing and commiting highway robbery of the grandest scale. What BB did or Zardari did is NOTHING compared to what these fags have indulged in and are indulging in.

It`s amazing. fauji lovers don`t like democracy because they can`t stomach the outcome!!

I will of course vote for Imran Khan`s PTI. But that`s besides the point. We ALL know, BB would once again make a phenomenol come back to power! These educated reading writing type fauji lovers be damned!!

`aadmi hai benazir`...:) :)

My def of civilian rule: A rule which is instituted legally under some constitutional process. Hence successor governments, elected governments and interim governments are all included in this definition.

Only a civilian Government is a legitimate government.

arjunm,

I hope you realize that it is a meaningless question you ask. Not the kind an educated Ivy leaguer would I ask ... Nationalism is an imagined concept... it can change or evolve with time. The plan for the creation of sovereign state in Bengal was hinted to in the Lahore Resolution which forms the basis of Pakistan. It was expected for the longest time that Bangladesh and Pakistan would be two republics as early as 1947 with a confederal alliance.

There creation of Bangladesh has no real implications on the ideological or nationalistic points of view (it would have serious implications if Bangladesh had rejoined India), whether one nation, two nation or multi nation theories... infact if anything it proved that both the one nation theory and two nation theory were false and that the multi nation theory was accurate.. that Suhrawardy`s plan in 1947 for a United Bengal Republic should have been accepted. Bengalis were in the forefront of the creation of Pakistan and that is precisely why they felt most left out and opted for another partition.


-Manto

``Umm...he was able to break ``long set convention`` because he was voted in by the people``

My point exactly. Therefore civilian rulers can be autocratic yet legitimate. It is the military rulers who are illegitimate, even if they pretend to be democratic.

Legally speaking, All India Muslim League which had won the polls of 1946 in Pakistan region and won referendums in the assemblies of Pakistan territories, as the successor Government and future majority Parliamentary party had nominated its President Mohammed Ali Jinnah as the Governor General to the crown of England. Representative of the King in form, Jinnah wielded power by the virtue of Muslim League`s mandate in the 1946 elections.

-Manto

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

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

``Perhaps now we should focus on building institutions, instead of building personalities. If Musharraf can help the Pakistani institutions like Parliament, Judiciary, Press, Army, Election Commission, State Bank, Provincial Ombudsmen, National Accountability Bureau, National Reconstruction Bureau, etc become stronger, transparent and efficient... it will be a great achievement in itself. ``

Impossible. A dictator ruling on the cult of personality cannot develop institutions. Having followed the discussion so far, the Presidential form of Gov`t sounds good. Let Mush stand for election. If he gets 51% of the vote he will have more legitimacy than 97% of referendum.

Roohi:

``Wow you guys don`t get dumped on for using a word like ``bhangi`` ... ? In India it`s like sayng the N word for black people - you`d get nailed to the wall by the PC brigade !!! ``

Really?? So what vernacular term do you use for Bhangis? In Punjabi at least, the words chooda, chamar and bhangi are perfectly acceptable. In English we would use the term Scheduled Castes.

Ferozek,

Reading your post 43, I am sure you`ve read K.B.Sayeed`s `Formative Phase`. What a good book that is... FDR, the greatest American president to date, is attacked by all Political science teachers for being too autocratic. I mean he even broke the long set convention of 2 presidential terms, running for office 4 times. Soon after his death through a constitutional amendment that was rectified. However does it mean that America should deny him? Should they stop minting his image on 10 cent coin? No ... they rectified the abuse of convention, but they retained all that was good about him. The fact is that when there will be politics and politicians, there will be those with a strong personality and they will tend to dominate others, and sometimes personalize their rule. But the difference is that they are legitimate civilian rulers ... and not there by the virtue of a military coup. As institutions get stronger, personality cults would vanish.

Jinnah was a human being who had his virtues and his flaws. His flaws don`t merit a total denial of the man and his legacy which remains the most secular and liberal we`ve had in this country. While I make no secret of my admiration of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, that doesn`t mean I agree with everything he did (it is quite possible to do so, look at A G Noorani in India, he is as anti-Two nation theory as it gets but follows Jinnah down to the last personal detail religiously). My admiration is more for the idealistic lawyer and legislator of the pre-1937 era, the liberal progressive who stood up for what he believed in and defended Bhagat Singh against all opposition not just from the Government but also the Congress leadership. Quaid-e-Azam who led the Pakistan movement has far less importance for me. The reason I invoke Jinnah speeches from the Pakistan Movement and Pakistan era is as I have said before to prove that Pakistan was not meant to be an ideological state. As for identity without Jinnah, that is impossible for Pakistan since he is the founder of Pakistan after all, but what can be done is to present a holistic view.. to learn from his mistakes and emulate his strong points. India has rectified all the mistakes made by Nehru, but it has not done that by denying Nehru`s era. I agree that had Jinnah made Liaqat the Governor General and become the Prime Minister instead, it would have been better for Pakistani Politics. His concern, I think was, was the Government of India Act 1935 which vested most of the powers, he required to mould the nation but he was unable to do so. There are views contrary to yours however expressed by Ayesha Jalal in her book `The state of Martial rule`. Remember one of Jinnah`s fondest aspiration had been to `modernise Indian Muslims` much the same way as `Ataturk`.

Though there can be debate about Jinnah`s autocratic rule, I think Jinnah was wrong in insisting to preside over every single cabinet meeting from December 1947-July 1948, which he did obviously because he thought that he had `counterfeit coins in his pocket`. He had by then had a falling out with Prime Minister and he didn`t seem to trust him on anything. Jinnah as the founder of the nation had a different status. He was in the literal sense the father of the nation, and not part of it. Ataturk, De Gaulle, and even Washington have had to play that role... The problem is clearly that when other politicians also start aspiring to be the father of the nation for clearly there is only of them. What should be stressed is that Jinnah held such huge powers because of the will of the masses... (he could muster up total public support for his sister even 17 years after his death). He had indicated his desire to retire from politics in June 1947 but was convinced otherwise... he didn`t become the Governor General, King Emperor, and Quaid e Azam of Pakistan through a military coup... Yes he can be blamed for the autocratic actions of say Ghulam Muhammad, Iskandar Mirza, Bhutto, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, but these people don`t compare to the mess created by the Military Dictators ... The story goes that once in a meeting with the Governor General Jinnah, a few Pakistani Military officers complained vociferously about the appointment of British officers over them. Jinnah replied equally forcefuly that in Pakistan civilian authority would have to be supreme and that if an officer felt that he can`t obey the civilian authority he should leave Pakistan. A dashing Pakistani officer called Mohammed Ayub Khan was also present at the meeting. He seems to have taken that snub to heart.

Pakistan`s most well known historian KK Aziz in his book `Remembering Great men` and also `Britain and Muslim India` absolves Jinnah of any blame for the destruction of Pakistani democracy. Similarly Mcgrath doesn`t attach the blame to Jinnah either in his book `the Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` but instead chooses Ghulam Muhammad and Justice Munir. I obviously feel that Democracy would have taken care of any personality cults.. that it was Military intervention of 1958 alone which destroyed Pakistan`s democracy.



Romair,

I suggest you cease and desist with personal attacks. I don`t appreciate you getting personal with me. As for the deal between Musharraf and the PPP, the details are these: Musharraf and BB agreed that a number of PPP MNAs would break and join the government to keep the MMA out. The bulk of PPP was always to sit in the opposition. Don`t come up with scenarios you know little of.

Also please when you speak of Meraj Khalid, I hope you will choose your words carefuly and don`t go on to claim something he didn`t believe in, because I have known his family very closely. When he was under house arrest, and I was little kid, I spent many an afternoon at his Hall Road residence. I am more than aware of the shabby treatment meted to him by Benazir Bhutto ...With the death of Meraj Khalid a guiding light went out ... ideally he should have succeeded Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Here was a leader who I am sure would have set the ideal precedent for the future generations.

-Manto

Its unbelivable sad that Benazir is being propped up as the model of the Pakistani politician. Has Pakistan really fallen so low that Benazir is the saviour?

A lot of people have harped about the lack of democracy in Pakistan. I think that is exactly what we need. No democracy. Democracy in itself, without the proper checks and balances, is a failed institution. It allows the majority to totally supress the minority. It requires an infrastructure of educated public (and I don`t mean college grads, I mean people who read the paper). In a country like Pakistan, with the majority of people being the politically unaware masses, driven to blind rage or sheepish obedience by their mullah masters, we need a system of government that can protect the minorities. Musharraf (or any other dictator) is that kind of government. Ofcourse there need be some checks and balances on the dictator himself so that he does not turn out to be another Saddam or Zia. But a ruler whose actions can ignore the general public opinion (for we all know that in reality public opinion is driven and directed by the powerful few) can actually lead Pakistan out of the dark hole it is in now (and I speak politically, financially and socially).

The things I would like Musharraf to do is to end the feudal system of government we enjoy so much. Disposess the large land owners and make all such land government owned. Eventually the land should be divided and sold to the tenants (for extremely low prices ofcouse). By attacking the power base of people like Zardari and Benazir, I think he (Mush) can set up the foundations of a better Pakistan. If he does that and nothing else in his entire stay in power, I will be satisfied with him.

Perhaps now we should focus on building institutions, instead of building personalities. If Musharraf can help the Pakistani institutions like Parliament, Judiciary, Press, Army, Election Commission, State Bank, Provincial Ombudsmen, National Accountability Bureau, National Reconstruction Bureau, etc become stronger, transparent and efficient... it will be a great achievement in itself.

Becoming the Prime Minister in a country of 150 million is a great achievement and honor. Most politicians never achieve this feat after a lifetime of politics. Yet Benazir got this chance not once, but twice.

What did she do while in office? Can anybody cite one significant achievement of PPP governments (1988-90 and 1993-96)?

She had everything at her disposal... Oxford and Harvard education... a disciplined political party with loyal workers... a charismatic last name... family wealth... respect in the Western world... and the legacy of Z.A.Bhutto, a giant among South Asian politicians.

When she returned from exile in 1986, a sea of people greeted her at Lahore airport. A grand entourage escorted her to Islamabad. I was driving with my family on the Islamabad-Lahore highway that day. Normally, the journey takes 4 hours. But that day we were stuck in traffic for 18 hours! The scared Zia-ul-Haq didn`t want PTV to even mention that there was a grand reception for Benazir.

I became a PPP-wallah that day. And remain to this day. But the PPP deserves a better leader than Benazir. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s PPP treated ideological and progressive people like family members. But Benazir`s PPP is run like a fiefdom in which even loyalists are treated like serfs. Staunch PPP-wallahs like Farooq Leghari, Meraj Khalid, Iftikhar Gilani, Rao Rashid and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi were left with no option but to leave the PPP because of Benazir`s obsession with power, wealth and lack of principles.