Hypocrisy of Musharraf Lovers

#122 by ballukhan

``Your references justifies your thesis``

Yes, it certainly does. Thanks ballukhan.

# 109 by His Excellency

``You are relying on Altaf Gauhar`s opinions about two dictators who ruled 30-36 years ago... then flashing forward to the year 2003``

No, I am not. Please refer to my post #100.

This was an excerpt from an Altaf Gauhar write-up ``Four Wars, one Assumption`` written in the immeditae aftermath of the Kargil fiasco. Altaf Gauhar wrote very pointedly:

``The point is that all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,” as a general rule Hindu morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place.” (Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler, page 328). ``

Altaf Gauhar makes no bones that General Pervez Musharraf was egged on to his Kargil misadventure in 1999 by the same asinine belief that had egged on ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan to launch his 1965 ``Operation Gibraltar``.

Thanks NAKHOK!! Your references justifies your thesis.

#108 by nakhok on October 24, 2003 6:43pm PT
#107 by nakhok on October 24, 2003 6:43pm PT


WE need to get these guys under the civil authority as in India. THese khurafaatis have to be in sync with the civil authorities and not the other way around.

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

#91 by HisExcellency on October 24, 2003 9:16am PT
As far as the Logic of un-furling a flag on the REd Fort is concerned- the logic can easily be established by an Islamist in the Pakistan Army to make that as a part of its agenda. What is important that we should keep the army Generals out of politics and the forces in the barracks and let the peace-time continue indefinitely...

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

#117 by arjun_m

++
You can have the 6 million Kashmiris...and any other Indian who wants to leave.
++

Why don`t you set an example by first migrating to America/Europe/Africa along with your friends, and all Hindu co-nationalists... leaving all your possessions behind for the Kashmiris? That is the only way Pakistan will agree to your notion of majority-migration...

An interesting development this week. Pakistan to Buy Iranian Gas: Jamali

Pakistan has accepted the Iranian proposal of laying a gas pipeline between the two countries. This project will save Pakistan $1bn and will go ahead even if India declined to be involved. Iran and Pakistan also inch closer on Pakistan`s Kashmir stance and agree to cement bilateral ties further.

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

#111 by RationalFaith

I find the analysis of Hassan Askari Rizvi, Col.(retd) Abdul Qayyum, Hamza Alvi, Najam Sethi, Hamid Gul and Lt.Gen.Salahuddin Tirmizi much more accurate than that of Mr.A.H.Amin. These analysts believe the Pakistan Army is the only national, professional, nonsectarian and disciplined institution in Pakistan. Ever since the ouster of ZAB in 1979, the Army has religiously resisted attempts by politicians to politicize it or misuse it against political opponents.

There are of course a few individuals who don`t follow the military`s code of ethics. The general whose family was stopped because of tinted car windows is one such individual. Rumour has it that the rest of the 9 corps commanders have complained to Musharraf in strong words to ``sort out`` this non-issue threatens to snowball into a major embarassment.

Another unscrupulous individual is Tauqir Zia. His reputation within the military circles has taken a nose-dive after Aamer Sohail included his son (Junaid Zia) in the national cricket team`s series against Bangladesh. Now this son has been appointed Vice-Captain of Pakistan`s Under-23 team.

However, it would be a wild stretch of imagination to generalize from the behavior of a few individuals. To date, I don`t know of a single mainstream reputable Pakistani journalist who has resorted to mud-slinging at the entire institution.

#113 by arjun_m

++
India, on the other hand, is not willing to meet Pakistan half-way down the road on Kashmir. Unless that happens, no leader in Pakistan can ``peace with its eastern neighbour``.
++

No that`s Pakistani open declaration of support for Kashmir freedom struggle and an invitation to settle the issue through talks. The contours of the final settlement need not be discussed openly, but at least in principle Pakistan will never cede its right to raise this issue on every diplomatic forum.

++
Not having peace with Pakistan isn`t stopping India from advancing economically
++

Not having peace with India isn`t stopping Pakistan from advancing economically either, as the IMF and World Bank are quick to point out. The pragmatic business, political and military leadership of India doesn`t subscribe to your ``India-doesnt-need-peace-with-Pakistan`` theory. No sensible politician wants to endanger the lives of over 1.3 billion people just for the sake of 6 million Kashmiris who don`t want to stay in India anyway.

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

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

HE

You should read some articles by A.H. Amin. No writer provides a closer view of the cultural mindset of Pakistani military than he does.

A professional, capable military could still operate on archaic assumptions about the society, itself, and others. Many people believe that that is the problem with Pakistani military.

FYI, the Agra meet failed because while Musharraf was happy to accept the concessions Vajpayee was making, he refused to accept any mention of cross-border infiltration.

Musharraf fails because he does not have the ability to see in long-term strategic ways. He spoils his own considerable efforts by trying to be, first, too clever by half and then, being too confident of making his own half-baked ideas work.

IMO, those attributes are very desirable in a soldier, but not in a general, let alone in someone who rules over a country.

#108 by nakhok

Ayaz Amir not discussing the army specifically. He is talking about an entire section of society that believes in an ``existential conflict`` between India and Pakistan. I agree with AA that this too is an out-dated idea.

But I fail to see how AA`s post reinforces your claim that the present-day Pakistani general believe in ``martial race theory`` or ``conquest of Red Fort``. Perhaps you got a little carried away when you wrote that post.

However, I disagree with AA`s comments on Musharraf when he writes:

Musharraf had the opportunity of changing Pakistan`s course and putting it firmly on the path of what I can only call `modernism`. But he has squandered it. The baggage of Afghanistan the Americans helped him to jettison. So it is no thanks to him that we got rid of the Taliban. In other respects the Pakistani state under him remains what it was: not democracy-friendly and not at peace with its eastern neighbour. In some respects it is even worse with the mullas now a power in the land in a way they never were before.

As they say, it takes two to tango. In August 2001, Musharraf and Vajpayee came close to a joint declaration at Agra but the invisible hands of Advani/M.M.Joshi thwarted it. However, both parties had agreed to continue the process in Islamabad later that year. However, 9/11 changed India`s mood. Musharraf still adopted a friendly approach toward India but it was India that refused dialog on one pretext or the other. (The December 13 incident still appears staged from this side of the border).

Thereafter, it was India that refused to talk, not Pakistan. Even after Musharraf`s policy speech on Jan 12, 2002, India refused to reciprocate and tried to pressurize Pakistan further. That is what hardened Musharraf`s stance (and rightly so). Ayaz Amir is overestimating Musharraf`s maneuverability on Kashmir when he says that ``Musharraf had the opportunity of changing Pakistan`s course``.

American reciprocity (debt relief, revival of military supplies, diplomatic benefits) softened the U-turn made on Afghanistan policy (which BTW was already unpopular in Pakistan before 9/11). India, on the other hand, is not willing to meet Pakistan half-way down the road on Kashmir. Unless that happens, no leader in Pakistan can ``peace with its eastern neighbour``.

Difficult political problems can only be solved through a process of give-and-take. Musharraf can`t give much to the Indians, unless he takes something valuable from Indians to show to the Pakistani public.

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

There is an attempt to propound a history that India-Pakistan never lived in peace, that India and Pakistan were always decapitating each other`s soldiers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Until 1965, the citizens of the two countries did not see each other primarily as enemies. Kashmir was peaceful. (Kashmir was peaceful till late 1980s, when Zia came to rule over Pakistani people, and Afghanistani soldiers became available to him after the Russians left Afghanistan).

1965 came, and we became enemies. 1971 made India-Pakistan sworn enemies. Some trust begun to return after 30 years when Kargil conflict made Indians finally wake up to what they were dealing with.

Currently, Pakistan as a nation and Pakistani people still evoke some fondness in India. There is no desire in India to take over Pakistan. However, the Indian people have given up on Pakistani military. It`s difficult to see how the role of this institution could be pared down to the level it should be in any society. It seems that Pakistani people and India are stuck with an institution that insists upon ruling over its own people, and will do anything to perpetuate this rule.

IMO, Musharraf`s reign is as good as it can get under the military rule.