Open Letter to Prime Minister Jamali

#19 by chowk-staff on June 26, 2004 4:56pm PT
Ref #18, 17, 15

The article ``Police Protecting The Army`` wll be reposted as soon as the writers correct name is verified. We removed the article because Che Guevarra is not acceptable as a name for a writer. The original Che is a very well known personality and has numerous web references. The original posting was in error. Chowk apologizes for the inconvenience.

Urstruly,

Thanks. Chowk condemns censorship just as strongly.

Unflinching Idealism is not an easy goal. Even we as rational facilitators of dialogue are tested with some hard decisions. Just because we can control the flow of information does not mean that we should take positions and sides - we dont. Sometimes we are in error but we do remain prepared to learn as and when needed. Chowk will not bend to any ideology or use of force - to the best of our ability.

Chowk-Staff


what nonsense -- everybody ends up taking sides -- what is good that as an editor you should at least be aware of this fact instead of pretending that you are being objective -- you can try to be objective but will never be completely because there probably isnt a (a la platonic) ideal of objectivity -- your editorial decision to print or not print something has to be based on certain parameters -- for some reason everyone on this site seems to confuse editorial discretion with censorship -- and by the way the very fact that you are in a position to control the flow of information on this site puts you in an inherentlty privileged position vis a vis the interactors -- and there is nothing wrong with that because how else will a media organization or any organization work for that matter -- unless of course the aim in anarchy in which case power neednt be centralized

arjun_M: As an aside: kudos on running a great website.. -- wow u seem in a good mood -- prob kudos because its provides such a happy hunting ground for paki bashers like u arjun --

and nikki what a joke you are .....

Daily Times

EDITORIAL: Dispensing with poor Mr Jamali

Someone is giving General Pervez Musharraf bad advice. Yesterday, even as Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali’s words that ‘I’m going nowhere’ were reverberating, news came in that he had been nudged to resign. This newspaper had already reported in its June 26 issue that Mr Jamali would resign the same day. But we are not happy to be proved right because we have consistently opposed this move for many reasons. But now that this has happened, let us see why it happened and what may lie in store for General Musharraf’s ‘democracy’.

Mr Jamali’s sacking will certainly breed uncertainty and may even lead to instability. We shall have an interim prime minister in Chaudhry Shujaat and then General Musharraf will move heaven and earth to get Shaukat Aziz elected from a ‘safe’ National Assembly seat so that he can become prime minister and dance to General Musharraf’s tune. Meanwhile, the opposition will join hands to thwart this move and allegations of ‘rigging’ will rent the air and boycotts will follow in the assembly. In the end we shall have not one (General Musharraf) but two ‘leaders’ who will have been thrust on the nation by reason of the brute force that General Musharraf enjoys because Mr Aziz will be even more of a party ‘loner’ than Mr Jamali ever was.

We hear that General Musharraf was unhappy with Mr Jamali’s inability to deliver and reduce the level of political opposition to him. If this is true then we are surprised at General Musharraf’s reasoning. First, he created a system where the prime minister is less than even a figurehead; then he handpicked Mr Jamali because the latter was thought to be most pliable; now he was peeved at Mr Jamali’s seeming inability to deliver. And pray, how might Mr Aziz be better at delivering General Musharraf’s political agenda where Mr Jamali failed because General Musharraf was not prepared to give to the prime minister what is due him in a parliamentary system?

Take a look at a whole range of issues from the negotiations on the Legal Framework Order to the peace process with India. Did anyone see Mr Jamali’s imprimatur on anything? He was there simply to do as the ‘boss’ wished and he did this admirably. Then how can his ‘performance’ or the ‘lack of it’ be used to indict him?

But there may be another perspective to this whole affair. General Musharraf seems disinclined to honour his legal and constitutional commitment to shed his uniform by December this year. That is clear by now even though he has tried to be circuitous on the issue every time the question has been put to him. It seems that he thinks, or has been made to think, that this would require a re-booting of the system. Seen from this perspective, Mr Jamali’s sacking should merely be the first step towards ‘other’ measures that might follow.

The foremost opposition to General Musharraf on the issue of the uniform will come from the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal with whom he made the commitment as part of the deal on the LFO. Now, while General Musharraf has made it clear that he does not think he is beholden to the MMA because the alliance has not kept its end of the bargain by opposing the NSC, the fact is that General Musharraf’s commitment is now legal and he cannot simply shrug it off without precipitating a constitutional crisis. The MMA has already refused to participate in the proceedings of the NSC and the only way, going by this logic, would be to decapitate its government in the NWFP and, by extension, the alliance itself. The move itself would entail sacking the NWFP government, ordering re-elections in that province and ensuring that the MMA does not win by playing on the internal fissures of the alliance and rigging the rest.

But the question is: Since much of this is to be done by General Musharraf himself, why get rid of Mr Jamali? The only answer that makes sense is that Mr Jamali was not 100 percent with General Musharraf on the schemes that the latter might want to hatch, from the NSC to the issue of the uniform. General Musharraf likes to clear the decks before the battle and it would make sense from his point of view to pack off anyone who was not fully with him.

But does all this add up to something? For a start it shows how General Musharraf’s much-flaunted system is both arbitrary and frail. He has been in the driver’s seat for over five years now. He has exercised unfettered powers to do as he wished. He has tempered with the system as he pleased. He had all the time in the world to tailor-make it for himself, which is exactly what he has done. In doing this he has put down political opposition and shown complete disregard for legal-normative criteria. But to what end, we may ask?

The system remains riven with inconsistencies and contradictions. The irony is that no matter how much more General Musharraf may try to make it work, it won’t. Why? Because no political system can be made to work without allowing the real and natural political actors to play their role unhampered. The desire to oversee the conduct of the politicians and monitor and corral the political parties simply does not work.

In the event, we cannot help but suspect that there may be a larger and longer-term agenda at stake. Is Mr Shaukat Aziz going to be groomed as General Pervez Musharraf’s ‘running mate’ in a new round of select provincial or general elections next year in which the Muslim League under General Musharraf’s helmsmanship is going to try and whip up a two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution radically and manufacture a hybrid presidential system that fits General Musharraf like a glove? Two clichés come to mind: there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip; and the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. *

#28 by Romair on June 26, 2004 6:29pm PT

[The good part is that it is about time that waderas and feudals and tribals stopped becoming Prime Ministers. They have nothing to do with democracy.]

You know what a democracy is? It is an arrangement where there is a place for ALL, be they feudals or serfs. But how will you know? World over, armies are known for not encouraging rational thinking amongst their rank and file.

#46 by malang

[Mr. Romair has more than 2000 replies on this forum – without having any degree in essay writing.]

ROTFL!!!!

#75 by Salazar

Third question: Is Shaukat Aziz an alien?

*X-Files theme music in the background*

Salzar

My neighbor swears that begum sehba musharaf is a quadiani. She was his neighbor at Hyderabad and was a schoolteacher when Mushsraf proposed.

Irfanhamid # 41, Manto # 40

(It is not upto his staff to make decisions for him, their job is to provide him with options, the ultimate choices should be his. If he does not know anything about S&T then he is like an 18 year old)

A minister needs a political touch - after all he is the representative of the people. The actual practice is that Parlimentarians having backround in the area are considered for the ministerial posts. A background in a specific area is good enough qualification to understand what is going on. He need not be a 100% technically qualified expert - that was the essance of my Post. (Laloo was an extreme example - although Laloo fully understands what railway is about)

Manto # 40

MQM & MMA

You will agree both are politically well knit entities. We are not discussing their good or bad.

Both have been able to extract maximum political advantage from the military Government. MMA supports the Government because it wants to keep system going. For the first time, they have gotten so many seats. It is in their interest that they remain in power in NWFP. It is understood that their agenda is neither democracy nor Pakistan. It is some kind of pan-islamism to which I disagree.

Despite its past skeletons, MQM is now a much reformed party with a clear vision. It has supported Government in a clear quid-pro-que fashion - getting in return what it wanted. It knows its position of strength and without it, the Government could fall. I like MQM`s present Manifesto on both Domestic and foreign policies.

In essance, both MMA & MQM are political entities the Government could not ignore.

These could have be conveniently ignored if PPP was brought into the fold - a sensible course of action. But the Military is perenially scared of PPP - the only populist party that could challenge it. Keeping PPP & PML (N) out is atificially tempering the political forces which is detrimental to the state as has been proved in the past.

Two questions:

1. Is Shaukat Aziz a Qadiani?

2. Is he a US citizen?

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

arjunm

Even if this guy was just cleaning the toilets of crusaders, this despot and na-pak fauj shouldn`t have send him there. As if we didn`t have enough enemies already.

HP #69
Read my post again. Musharraf needs an ORGANISED popular base to keep the peace. The majority might support him but are not organised and hence cannot keep the peace.

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

``The hostage, who said he was a driver named as Amjad, urged Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to close the Pakistani Embassy in Iraq and to ban all Pakistanis from coming to Iraq.

He appealed to his countrymen not to come to Iraq because “there are no work opportunities here.”

The hostage, who knelt before the armed gunmen and bowed his head, insisted that his life would not be spared because he was a Muslim.

“I’m also Muslim, but despite this they didn’t release me,” he said. “They are going to cut the head off any person regardless of whether he is a Muslim or not.”

---

so much for the Umma Business in Pakistan -- hopefully Mooshruff Babu is listening -- no Pakistani Sepoys for -- Chotaa Bush Sahib -- in `Eyerock`....please

It is a common knowledge that this fukking despot has been sending Pakistani mercenaries into Iraq thru illegally operating recruiting centers in all major cities, to protect his masters in Iraq. And now he is gonna give head. Anything for the masters.


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3126186

H-Ikram # 62 - well said ! The only thing the occupation army seems to be good at is suppressing our people and surrounding and killing our villagers. Here is a force that takes away 40% of our national budget but has yet to win a foreign war!

The only thing it has become good at is to kill the civilians it swore to protect under the auspices of incompetent generals. THAT is where 40% of our national defense budget is being spent.