Open Letter to Prime Minister Jamali

Feroz:

Sorry for the late reply. Hadn`t checked out the posts on this thread for some time.

I totally agree that a bad system in reality is better than a good system in theory. And even a BAD system needs the assurance of time and space to evolve. Parliamentary system hasn`t lived up to expecations in Pakistan because those kicking out regimes were Faujiz and NOT the people.

But when you say there is no alternative to the presidential system, that is where I disagree. Supposing we are talking about the same presidential form of system, I still have no heard HOW that will be any better.

With regards to separations of power- between legilative and executive. With regards to who controls the finances of the country. Keeping in mind that the Pakistani population has been fragmented and votes along `tribal` lines solely due to the divisive politics of the Army, how will a presidential system assuage the fears of the smaller groups?

Outside the argument that Pakistan has historically been a de facto presidential system (which it really wasn`t as it wasn`t a `system` at all as a `system` needs a legitimate process) I`ve seen NOTHING on the ground that shows how the presidential system will be a better alternative in coping with the dynamics of this country`s heterogeneous mix.

My final and oft stated argument is that no matter what system you have in place, as long as the faujiz are meddling, it won`t work.

re: Rozaiba

The answer, to your question, was in the conclusions of my last post. I had left them open-ended for you to draw your own conclusions. Pakistan has existed, for better or worse, under a presidential system, as a result of which the parliament was never allowed to evolve and had it, we in Pakistan would not to suffer the politics of personalities.

My dilemma is that Pakistan was never intended to be a presidential system and even though the constitution of 1956 made it into a republic, the majority of the powers were still vested with the prime minister. Ayub Khan changed and to this day, we have not been able to divert the powers back to the prime minister and the parliament. If Pakistan were a true parliamentary system, would it not make sense for the prime ministers to nominate the presidents and not the other way around?

Going back to a true parliamentary form of government in Pakistan is risky. I am not of the opinion that we should create the Westminister model, because I do not think that it will work. Even in Great Britain today, there is avery interesting debate raging that the government of Tony Blair has brought about a presidential form of rule in England. Blair has a solid majority in parliament, just as Nawaz Sharif once did in Pakistan, and there is nothing wrong with it. The only caveat being, that parliamentary democracy thrives on a plurality of opinions and what you would call populism and not absolutism of power.

A true parliamentary democracy, in which there is a marked degree of different opinions and the government operates on the basis of the political consensus, of other parties, only exists today in India and not even in Great Britain. Parliamentary governments, are generally speaking, made of coalition governments and even when they are majority governments, they are so by handful of seats, which can easily tilt the balance in a vote of no confidence. Blair has such absolute majority that he can safely ignore the parliament and carry out, what amounts to a specific party platform, which is often presented as a national mandate. Nawaz Sharif used his ``heavy mandate`` to pass the 15th amendment, which would have enforced Islamic sharia law in Pakistan under the same pretextual arguments. Parliaments with overwhelming majorites tend to ignore political discussion or plurality of disagreements and pass laws, which are not agreed to by a parliamentary consensus, through their majorities. In a parliamentary democracy, laws are made on the basis of consensus, with other political parties, and not imposed through the law of over bearing percentages.

Ask yourself this question. Has any civilian government or its prime minister, ever allowed the parliament to express an opinion, which was against the party in government in Pakistan?

It is not that I favor a presidential form of government; it is because I see no alternative to it. I would much rather see a process, which transforms this presidential form of government, to what was envisaged in the 1956 constitution than see any more political experimentations in Pakistan. Let us take the system, as dysfunctional as we have, and make some sense out it instead of always debating, which system we should have in Pakistan. In all of this debate over a prime ministerial or a presidential system, a political vacuum has been created and it is being filled with ideas of extra-constitutionalisms. Any system is better than no system and a bad system in reality is better than a good system in theory.

I know that you will disagree with the last sentence, and I am expecting that disagreement from you. Pakistan cannot exist for ever as a class project in a remedial political science class 099, where we debate day in and night out, what political system we should have in this nation.

Another thing, which you will disagree with me is that regardless of any system, we might end up with it, it will always be undermined by the presence and the influence of the military in the politics. The disagreement comes from the fact, that the role of the military in Pakistani politics might be lessened, but it will not be removed. The military will always be a part of Pakistani politics and no amount of wishing otherwise is going to scare it away. The system, which will emerge in Pakistan, will be the one under which the military has been able to institutionalize its presence in Pakistani politics in a constitutional sense and that is, what the emerging reality in Pakistani politics todays seems to hint. We are seeing the mutatation of Pakistani politics into and along the lines of the Turkish politics, with a similar minded role for the armed forces in Pakistan; as one of a major political party.

Ciao

dost-mittar #193: I am not sure. I just watched the Indian channel, and they said, at 26, Bains was the youngest.

Some information to clear your fears, a bit. My previous views are based on the limited information I have experienced, during the campaign. It turns out that the Indian community did support Wajid. They came to the fund-raising dinner etc., and supported him as a Liberal. It is just that amongst the campaign workers, there was a clear division amongst Indians and Pakistanis. Apparently, amongst the voters there may not have been. Will have to do more research....

Ruby Dhallah is an attractive lady. She speaks well, also. She was born and bred in Canada. She recently became a chiropractor in 1999. So she is probably around 30 or so.

Bains speaks well also. Seems like a reasonable guy. I didn`t even know he wore a kirpan, until I read the article you posted. I watched some of his debates. The issue of kirpan never came up. It was all around health care, Paul Martin etc. etc. Quite an achievement to be an MP at 26. I think he may have been born and bred here.

Wajid was a military pilot. A few years ahead of NHK, probably. He was a POW in India during 71 also. I thought he was a Sargodha college grad, but apparently wasn`t. He has the biggest Mazda car dealerships in Canada......His wife is actually a practicing pathologist at a local hospital. He has sponsored quite few scholarships for retraining immigrant engineers...

If Dhullah is a Punjabi name, then four out of the eight MPs of the area speak Punjabi. And a fifth depends on the support of Punjabis. This was the worst time for Liberals politically, yet all these guys won. So I don`t think they will be losing their seat for a while........

Romair:
I thought that the youngest MP is the Ottawa tory (Pollivier?) who defeated the Defense Minister David Pratt.
Ruby Dhalla will at least add some much needed glamour on the Hill if nothing else!

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

dost-mittar: Some more info about the elections, if you are interested.

The Sikh guy with the kirpan, is the youngest MP in Canada now. He is only 26 years old. Similarly, Ruby, a South Asian lady elected from here, is now the youngest female MP in Canada.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

good one Aisha. Now I can say lucky Yasser.:)

Dullahbhatti:

If Jinnah were alive, I really wouldn`t be asking Yasser out, would I?

(Couldn`t resist this when I heard about your comment :) )

Aisha Sarwari

note: #186 was for dost-mittar.....forgot to mention his name.....

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

I think I may have over-emphasised the ethnic nature of the elections, since the discussion started when you posted an article highlighting the fact that so many Punjabis had been elected.

There is definitely a strong ethnic basis in the elections. No doubt about it. Desis will vote for desis, just because the candidate is desi. Indians will vote for Indians, Pakistanis for Pakistanis, Sardarjis for Sardarjis, and will cross partylines to do so. I would have to honestly say, that I would probably do so myself (assuming there was nothing drastically wrong with the candidate).

However, this is a common phenomenon for communities that are trying to establish themselves in a society. It is not unique to desis. Jews would strictly vote for Jewish candidates, till a stage reached where enough Jewish candidates were elected where they could start voting along partylines, again. Blacks would do the same, until enough Blacks got elected. If tomorrow Colin Powell participated in a Presidential election, don’t you think a large portion of Blacks would cross over to the Republican side to vote for him? They would continue to do so, until enough Blacks got into position, where it became common for them to become President. Jews would do so, for a Jewish candidate. And so on.

However, Irish and Italian Canadians will not vote across party lines, because there are enough candidates representing them on both sides. One can see that with the Sikh community, in this area. They have been established here the longest. And now one can see Sikhs competing for nominations in multiple parties. So now Sikhs will stop voting across party lines, i.e if both parties have Sikh candidates, or both parties court the Sikhs, they will stop worrying about the fact that they candidate is Sikh or not.

In our case, we supported a Liberal candidate, which is a party whom the desis always support. He got the nomination from the Liberal party, not because he was a Pakistani. But because he appealed to all the Liberal voters, The Pakistani group in the locality is large, but still not nearly as large as the combined gora group. The area where Pakistanis helped our candidate was, infact, not through votes. We did an analysis of individuals who voted, and found out that very few Pakistanis actually came out and vote. Where the Pakistanis helped was in running the campaign. The came from all corners of GTA to help run the campaign.

The only oddity was the fact that Hindu Indians, all supported the Conservative candidate. Even though they are mostly Liberals, themselves. They specifically supported her, because she was of Indian origin. They were supporting Liberal candidates everywhere else. I don’t think they supported her because they did not want a Pakistani as an MP. They just want more and more individuals of their community in the Parliament.

I don’t see anything wrong with this, at the moment. This is a natural way of evolution. People vote for communities, until the communities get empowered enough to join the mainstream. Then the vote along partylines, completely.

Just to make you feel better, Mississauga is one of the fastest growing and wealthiest communities in Canada. It probably has the top five highest housing prices. The average household income in our riding is 86,000 dollars. Very high. It is also the safest city in Canada, and the sixth biggest in size, and third biggest financial district. It has the country headquarters of Microsoft and Oracle. Brampton has the international headquarters of the largest company in Canada, i.e. Nortel. i.e these areas are not desi ghettos.

So the areas are doing well. Keeping this in mind, in the recent mayor elections, the opposition candidate was a Pakistani. The incumbent was an 85 year old gori lady, who has been a mayor for decades. She got 92% (or some similar number) of the vote. This means all the desis, including Pakistanis, voted for her also. In this case, I would have voted for her, as well. Because, as a mayor, one requires good admin skills. While as an MP, one requires the ability to articulate and highlight and present the interests of a group. The grandma mayor is an excellent administrator. But she has allegedly been called a racist. So while I like her as a mayor, I am not sure how much access she would give to me as an MP. For that position, I would vote for someone, who gives me access.

Romair:
Your response, instead of reassuring me, makes me even more sick. I am wondering what has Canada done to deserve the dredge of the world like us. It started a policy of multiculturalism, hoping, that every group will bring in the best of its culture and add to the beauty of the Canadian mosaic. The formulators of that policy didn`t reckon on us desis bringing the worst of our stinking baggage, our prejudices and religious-gender biases to pollute the atmosphere here.
Why should south asians vote even for another south asian? Some of these elected yo-yos make Laloo Yadav look like a polished statesman and are just going to sit in the parliament and not even open their mouths (and I can only hope that they dont open their kirpans); one of them has been reelected for a third term and his sole contribution was to make the parliament hill available for celebrating baisakhi. We came to this country because we liked it, not to turn it into the wretched places we came from.
Even the process through which we have become candidates of established parties is sickening. Ten years ago, a desi Liberal went to the nomination meeting of his riding and found that there were only a handful of members present to elect their nominee; so the brilliant idea came to him that all he had to do was sign up a hundred or so members of the party, maybe even pay for their membership, and get himself elected the next time round. Voila, a winning formula was found. Now, that the practice is well-known, it takes more than a thousand to accomplish the same task, but the process is still the same - no respect for the party ideology/program, etc. - people even buy multiple memberships with the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of the nominating meeting. They have alienated the long-term party members who have been active in their parties for all their life, and even for generations. I hope that the parties wake up and try to do something about these `members of convenience` which is no different from `marriage of convenience` or `refugees of convenience`.
God save Canada form us - but I dont think God stands much chance agaisnt the followers of allah, ishwar and wahe guru!
In the meantime, Happy Canada Day. The fireworks were beautiful!

If dullabhatti and Romair can post here then ....

Who is this Pakistani? Take a guess!

“Never mind. The press really didn’t mind while this pathetic charade was going on. Chalabi’s spokesman here in London, a Pakistani, still frequents chic dinner parties accompanied by his American social-climbing art-dealer blonde, and no one raises a plucked eyebrow.”

1-Mantolives
2-Malik99
3-Romair
4-Stuka

Dullah

Nahin yaar ... not any more than you would marry dullah bhatti... I don`t think you will appreciate some false information about your hero... or at the very least you will try and correct the misnomer.

The problem here is that in the 1960s Ayub Khan invented a story to justify his dictatorship... Like I said in my last post... no scholar of any repute ever put it like this... even Wolpert who is taken to journalese rumor mongering doesn`t say this. My other hero... the Great Kemal Ataturk was a dictator... but Jinnah was not. He had actually prepared a constitution modelled after the French constitution of 1946 (4th Republic) but he couldn`t even impose that on the Pakistan Constitutent Assembly.


Sincerely

YLH

swear God..I bet you guys if Jinnah was alive today Manto would have dumped beautiful Aisha in seconds to marry Jinnah...Aisha is lucky(or not :-)) that Jinnah sahib is dead and no competition.:)

more mishri de bol...

``P.S. if one really thinks about, voting jointly along desi lines (Hindus + Pakistanis + Sardarjis), for a desi candidate, is also not correct. But that is what minorities do, until they get large. ``

since Romair moved to Toronto, minorities are already having problems in CANADA...:)

Canada beware of Romair...he is already using phrases like ``our side`` , ``our victory party`` etc....HAHAHAHA......dude you don`t even have a vote yet.

sardarjis come out to be better lot from your posts...they were present in all three parties...they were divided in 3 ways....did ever occur to you that that is normal? that is the way it should be?

Dear Canadians...welcome to the communal politics of desiland.:)

more gems of wisdom from Romair:

``As an example, most of the time, I would vote for a Sardarji who can speak Punjabi, over a non-desi who could not. For the simple reason, that former could probably understand my issues better than others. People would vote for their own brother and sister, regardless of party affiliations. ``

wah..an educated businessman who can speak and write fluent English needs a Punjabi speaking representative to listen to his problem in CANADA but illiterate Punjabis living in Pakistan need an Urdu educated leader to listen to their problems and represent and guard their interests...wah ji wah...ehnu kehnday ne..laa`h lai ay loyee te ki karooga koi.

soon (at that point, I think all Canadian Punjabis in these ridings, should start a freedom struggle and fight for an independent country, like Quebec, called Can-Punjabistan. It would become the only country in the world with Punjabi as the official language).

---

hahahahaha wah bai wah....ajjay te Canada pairr vi nai lagge te Romair ne apnay rang wikhaane shuru kar dittay....I say Romair will be moving to Norway very soon.:)

Re: ferozk, roziba
Did you have a presidential / de-facto presidential system in
Pakistan or a dictatorial system? There is a big difference

Regards,

Faruk

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

Ferozk,

See how you have opened the pandora`s box? Amazing.


Romair

You didn`t quite get my point about the stature... Jinnah`s reasons for being the Governor General was not stature or higher protocol... but that the post of Governor General got a higher stature in the eyes of Pakistanis because Jinnah chose to be the constitutional governor general instead of the Prime Minister.


I suggest you read Ayesha Jalal or Alan Mcgrath`s views on this. They are first rate scholars and don`t ascribe to this view. Jinnah exercised his prescribed authority as per the Government of India Act 1935. He didn`t even use it as much as Mountbatten who played an active role in the troop movements in Kashmir ( Read Alastair Campbell`s `Incomplete Partition`)... The argument is not whether he violated the constitution... it never was. The issue was whether he should have chosen the office of the Prime Minister or the Governor General ... Whichever one he would have chosen would have naturally been the the office of choice for the future generations... In Jinnah`s case he chose Governor General... In India Nehru chose Prime Minister... so that post was venerated.


I have gone through the Jinnah Papers, and believe me there is no such indication of a dictatorship. Jinnah, the so called dictator, wasn`t even able to prevail over Mamdot or Daultana... how could he be a dictator ? Ghaffar Khan and Khan Sahab came to Karachi and organized an opposition under his nose. Jinnah couldn`t even stop Qayyum Khan from acting against the Khudai Khidmatgars ...


Jinnah only exercised those powers that were given to the Governor General under the Government of India Act 1935... that legislation was obviously suited for British India and was not westminster style Parliamentary system. Under this act ... the Governor General was the executive authority who was to act on the advice of the Prime Minister in matters relating to 1) Foreign Affairs 2) Defence 3) Signing of the parliament bills 4) Rehabilitation of refugees. The Cabinet and the Ministers held their posts at the King`s pleasure, and Governor General was his nominee. If one reads the Jinnah papers, it is clear that the Prime Minister of Pakistan i.e. Liaqat Ali Khan is fully in charge of the Cabinet as per the constitution though as a person he is over shadowed by Jinnah.


I prescribe 5 books... that are held to be the authority on the matter.


1) Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy by Alan Mcgrath

2) The State of Martial Rule by Ayesha Jalal

3) Incomplete Partition by Alastair Campbell

4) Pakistan The Formative Phase by Khalid Bin Sayeed

5) Liaqat Ali Khan by M. Reza Kazimi


Also it is good to read Jinnah Papers... and see it first hand.



Jinnah actually as the Governor General did not meddle with the affairs of the Prime Minister. Quite the contrary, the Prime Minister throughout gained more and more authority. When I say the issue was of stature... it is like Feroz said ... Jinnah overshadowed Liaqat by the force of personality. In this way he embodied the nation.
So I must respectfuly ask you to point out the instances of where Jinnah went beyond the constitutional powers of the Governor General... may I remind you that in the GOIA 1935 the executive power was with GG.



A better way to word this would have been `` The Government of India Act did not envisage a parliamentary form of Government``


or ``Jinnah`s choice of the office of Governor General made the evolution of a British style Parliamentary form of Government hard``


Ofcourse I don`t agree with the second one... but atleast the second one would be an interpretation and not a white washing of facts.

-YLH

Well, no more T-shirts with the Pakistani flag on them for our Canadian immigrant. Sigh.....

Airports on alert for Pakistanis with `rope burns`

By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Inspectors at six of the nation`s busiest airports, including Washington Dulles International, are on alert for travelers of Pakistani descent — including U.S. citizens — with ``rope burns, unusual bruises or scars`` that could have been received at terrorist camps run by Islamic extremists.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspectors, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security bulletin, have been warned that potential terrorists who trained at camps in Pakistan may seek to return to the United States between now and the November presidential elections to carry out new attacks.

Law enforcement authorities confirmed yesterday that the bulletin directs ``increased scrutiny`` of passengers at Dulles, John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Newark`s Liberty International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport, O`Hare International Airport in Chicago and Los Angeles International Airport.

A Homeland Security official yesterday downplayed the alert, saying it was a ``regular`` memo to inspectors at six airports and the 22nd such memo this year.

``It basically told them to be on the lookout for passengers that may have had certain activities or lack thereof when travelling to and from Pakistan. This is a regular occurrence and there is no specific threat associated with it. At the same time, we asked inspectors to look at certain activities of travellers coming into the U.S.,`` the official said.

CBP officials declined comment.

The June 17 bulletin, according to authorities, directs federal inspectors to focus on foreign travelers, naturalized U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of Pakistani descent ``who exhibit evidence of suspicious travel, including short trips to Pakistan not related to family or business.``

The suspicious travelers are to be directed by primary inspectors at the six airports to secondary inspections, where more detailed checks are made.

The bulletin noted, authorities said, that persons who trained at terrorist camps may exhibit certain features the inspectors might be able to readily identify, including rope burns on the arms and legs from rappelling training, unusual bruises from obstacle courses, and wounds or scars that may have occurred during firearm or explosives training.

U.S. intelligence officials are concerned, according to the bulletin, that persons trained in the Pakistani camps could be intent on ``committing illegal activities in the United States.``

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security announced this week a dozen commercial airline pilots and crew members from foreign countries were banned from flying into the United States after background checks showed suspected ties to terrorists or other criminal activity.

Homeland Security officials scrutinized 450,000 crew members who have flown into the U.S. since March and found nine pilots with suspected terrorist ties, two crew members carrying fake passports and a third with an arrest record for assaulting a police officer.

The officials said the countries of origin of the flight crew members could not be released because of legal concerns. Government officials also inspected 2.7 million truckers licensed to carry hazardous materials and flagged 29 drivers with suspected links to terrorist operations.

``This reflects a new capability of the Department of Homeland Security,`` said Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security.

With the Fourth of July weekend approaching, federal and airline officials are stepping up security but will not raise the national security alert level, which remains at Code Yellow, or elevated.

Also, pilots trained to carry guns to protect their aircraft against terrorists can now travel with their weapons when they commute from one airport to another as passengers, instead of checking them with luggage carried in the plane`s belly.

The change in policy was a result of hundreds of reported incidents that weapons packed in lockboxes had been mishandled, lost or sent to baggage claim. At least one gun has never been recovered.

Feroz:

Thanks for the post. I agree with what`s happened in Pakistan the past 57 years. That is not in dispute. You`d mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that:

``If Pakistan is truly headed for a presidental form of system, I am really optimistic because Pakistan had no future under a parliamentary form of government.``

And this is why I asked why a Presidential system would be a better alternative. Presenting a factual historical analysis indicating that there has been a `de facto` presidential system already does not really allow one to conclude that indeed a `truly` Presidential system would be better than a `de facto` one.

Anyhow, a `presidential system` doesn`t make me optimistic as the President we are to have is no Lee Kuan Yew or a Deng Xiaoping. More importantly, not that anythings improved (it`s only gotten worse), I no longer find hearing `yahaan ka system hee hai kharaab` entertaining as it used to be when a teenager.

We can discuss this further at our next Chowkie gathering with the theme `Celebration of Liberalism` (`and fundocide` as a fellow chowkie wants to include).

Hello everyone. Gone Jinnah, good-bye. Is now all you people la Pakistani, some vouchers some bad one but global contract for repair Pakistan. Please not to try the times waste. Please the work improves the class class average. Repair to repair not only the speeches speech.

The speech is inexpensive.

Ferozk,

The events of this afternoon must have abundantly shown you how true your remark about Jinnah`s centrality is in the imagination of an average Pakistani.

-YLH

Ferozek # good points.

I think one should really go into the details of how Jinnah centralized the power into his own hands. It is quite interesting. People tend to skip over that, due to Jinnah`s stature, itself. But it wasn`t merely due to his being the Gov. General, for higher protocol. It was based on his efforts of being the Gov. General, thereby getting the protocol, while still wanting to excercise the powers that did not belong to a Gov. General, in a parliamentary system.

Jinnah was infact, Pakistan`s first civilian dictator. Not due to stature alone, but due to centralization of Constitutional power.

Having said that, I think he did it for all the right reasons (having said that, this is what all individuals, including Musharraf say, when they centralize power), and I would have supported him in such centralization of power, had I been alive. Pakistan needed a Lee Kuan Yu, at the time. It needed a civilian elected individual, who then could make unhindered decisions. That could only happen if power was centralized in an unbalanced manner.

I sitll think a civilan elected dictator, who centralizes power for the right reasons, and then delivers economically, is the best (and maybe only) way for Pakistan to progress. Unfortunately, every leader, after Jinnah - civilian or otherwise, as you have explained, has been a dictator, but for the wrong reasons.

I am still waiting to see how the Musharraf-Aziz combo will turn out, once Musharraf takes off his uniform. The moment he takes it off, as per Army tradition, he will lose all power over the Army, as an institution. Which will, from that point onwards, follow the new Chief. Power will thus be decentralized back to the trioka, you have mentioned (bureacracy, feudal, military). I think maulvis need to be added to this now, and it should be turned into a quadoka (?). It will still not be in the control of the people, but it will no longer be with one person.

Amongst this quadoka, the Army and the bureacracy cannot be disbanded. Every country has and needs these two institutions (though not in politics). However, they will continue to influence power, as long as the people are fed up with the elected officials. Hence they will not move outside the quadroka, voluntarily, just because the elitist chattering classes yell at them. They will only do so, when their elected political opposition has the support of the people.

This leaves the maulvis and the feudals. They cannot all be deported to Mecca and Dubai. So their powerbase has to be removed. Maulvis don`t own land, or industries. Nor do Generals and beaurecrats marry their daughters into maulvi families. So in case of the maulvis, there powerbase is an appeal to God. And one cannot get rid of God. One can only hope that people don`t buy the ideas of the maulvis.

The feudals are mostly secularly inclined, and hence do not appeal to God. They physically control the livelihood of their voter by owning his land, who is thus forced to vote for them, because he has a gun to his head. So they only way for the system to be re-organized, in my opinion, is:,

1. As a first step, the feudal lands be taken away from feudals (like it was done in many other countries). This will kick them out of the quadroka, automatically. The maulvis will try to fill this vacuum. But I don`t think Pakistan is a maulvi country, hence they will not succeed. Unlike Iran, Pakistan does have a non-maulvi middle class and upper middle class progressive urban political leadership. It cannot come up to the top, because it`s space in the quadroka is taken by the feudals. This class will then move in a fill the feudal vacuum.

2. This middle class leadership will eventually defeat the maulvi and occupy his space also, since Pakistan is not, by its nature, a theocratic populace. The maulvis only win, because the feudals are even worse.

At this point, the civilian political space will be occupied fully by the new leadership, which will have real backing of the population. Not a backing, based on a fear of God or ownership of land.

4. I don`t think there is any way the military or the bureacracy could then take on such a political force. They would be unable to do so, because unlike with feudal leaderships, the common would support this leadership.

For all this to be initiated, the catalyst has to be a removal of the power of the feudal. This is exactly why Pakistan is one of the only countries in the world, whose civilian politics is dominated by feudals, and not by lawyers, businessmen and labor leaders (like most established democracies). Why are feudals so interested in politics? Shouldn`t they be more interested in agriculture? It is the only profession in Pakistan, where everyone is a politician. Very few big doctor, comp. sci, industrialist, labor leader, lawyer, cricket player, expat, maulvi etc. in Pakistan are into politics. Yet every big feudal is?

Why?

Specifically because they know that it is only the current screwed-up, ``democratic`` system that can protect their powerbase. That is why they lead every movement for, ``democracy.`` Are Bhutto, Fahim, Leghari, Jatoi, etc. and each and every one of their relatives in politics for public service? Obviously not. Are they in it for money. No (if they just developed their lands and sold them for housing, they could make much more money than they do through shady deals with Swiss companies).

They are in there to keep their powerbase. So that Abida Hussain and her husband both become ministers. If not them, then their nephew, Faisal Saleh. And their daughter fights elections only against her own cousins and becomes a minister in the Punjab assembly.

This is why they want election after elections, so that they can control this system from the inside. Why in the world would they want elections after elections, if they felt it would strengthen democracy, thereby removing their own power? This is a clear indication, that elections within the current system, only strengthens the feudal. Thus the whole system needs to be changed.

Who will make this change? Who will bell the cat? Who can tame the feudal? One would think a military dictatorship, if it were well-intentioned. However, for some strange reason, military dictatorships have never touched the feudal. In two cases, Ayub and Zia, their off-spring have joined the status quo feudals. The beauracracy cannot tame the feudal, because it has a direct symbiotic relationship with him. And it doesn`t have guns, nor people power, even if it wanted to remove the feudal.

This leaves the dreaded mullah, as the only member of the quadroka who can take on the feudal. Primarily because he appeals to a higher power than landownership, i.e. God, i.e. the only entity which scares the poor peasant feudal voter more than his feudal master. This is also why feudals and tribals try to remain in the secular sphere, becasue they don`t want to be crushed from both sides. This is also why feudals give into mulllahs, on religious issues, because they are afraid of the dedicated comman-person street power the mullah comamnds (which the feudals do not have).

But mullahs have their own issues. No country in the world, ruled by feudals has advanced. However, no country in the world ruled by mullahs has advanced either. Some countries ruled by short term effective army and beurecracy govts. have advanced, and some haven`t. And all countries ruled by genuine middle class elected leaderships have advanced.

The only solution I see out of this is economic porgess. If the society can get to a stage, where the feudal voters` family has a brother with a good job in the city (or abroad), so that he can afford to take a stand against the feudal; thereby bringing him down. This will set into sequence, a set of events (as explained above), which will eventually disband the quadroka, in Pakistan.

The other solution is to keep yelling and screaming, for it to disband, volutarily. Or to live in a fairyland, which assumes that elections after elections, all of which are supported by the feudals, specifically because they see them as the best way of staying in power, will change the system.......It won`t.....

dost-mittar #166:``So, when is Mississauga going to be divided between Hindustan, Pakistan and Khalistan? Or are you saying that it has already happened? (I am feeling sick!)``

I am not sure when it will happen. But I don`t think this will happen, though. However, one has to accept the fact that people do vote this way. And certainly in our riding, the workers and voters were clearly divided along these lines. Obviously, I didn`t see the actual votes, but the supporters and campaign team were clearly visible - Indian Hindus on one side (Conservative; most of whom were actually and normally probably Liberal), Pakistanis on the other side, and Sardajis divided in two or three groups. There were sardarjis at our victory party, but I did not notice a single non-sardarji Indian.

I don`t think it was a question of voting against Pakistanis or Hindus or Sikhs. It is just a question of supporting your own community, regardless of who is the opposition. Pakistanis did not support the Pakistani guy, because he was standing against the Indian candidate. They would have supported him regardless. Similarly, Indians did not support the Indian lady because the other guy was Pakistani. They supported her because they wanted another Indian in the parliament, etc.

South Asians are still not a large enough community, to move away from their background and vote simply along party lines. They want someone from their own community in the parliament, because they feel they are not 100% in the mainstream yet (which is true).

Pakistanis, in this election, voted Liberal, as they always do. So one does not know what they would have done, had the Pakistani candidate been non-Liberal (probably voted non-Liberal). Another Pakistani had an NDP seat, from a neighborhood, and I don`t think she got too many votes. Similarly, the Sardarjis who won big, were Liberal. As well as the Hindu Indians (mostly).

I am not sick, regarding this. It just goes to show that the baradari system is alive and well, everywhere, including Canada. This is how minorities always behave. Jews will vote for a Jewish candidate over a non-Jewish one, regardless of party. Iranis, Arabs and Chinese will vote for their own candidates. I heard that the NDP got a lot of the Chinese vote, because the wife of its head (Layton) is Chinese.

As an example, most of the time, I would vote for a Sardarji who can speak Punjabi, over a non-desi who could not. For the simple reason, that former could probably understand my issues better than others. People would vote for their own brother and sister, regardless of party affiliations.

I would only start worrying, if Pakistanis, Hindu Indians, and Sardarjis started deliberately voting against each other, even if there was one desi Liberal candidate. That is not going to happen. In fact, quite the contrary. As I stated, a desi Liberal, with a non-desi opposition, is undefeatable in this area, because he gets all the combined desi vote.

P.S. if one really thinks about, voting jointly along desi lines (Hindus + Pakistanis + Sardarjis), for a desi candidate, is also not correct. But that is what minorities do, until they get large. They start from their inner circle, and grow outwards - family, originating country, language, culture, religion, party etc.

re: Mantolives # 167

You have made a very salient point.

However, the issue is not only of stature, but it is also one of perception and how we wish to see the distinction; meaning the role played by Jinnah in the early years of Pakistan as a politican in comparsion to the other politicans in Pakistan. In the end, the legacy left behind by Jinnah has been a source of inspiration for all the politicans and military leaders, who followed him into politics. We can disagree on the legacy of Jinnah, but we cannot disagree as to the centrality of his place in Pakistani politics, which according to his biographer Stanley Wolpert and I am paraphrasing Wolpert here, towered over all of his comtempories.

Ciao

Ferozk,

The issue was simply of stature... Jinnah, for reasons well explained by Alan Mcgrath, Ayesha Jalal, and Khalid Bin Sayeed... chose the position of Governor General instead of the Prime Minister. Whether that leads us to believe in a presidential system is a different issue... but there is nothing inherently wrong or unconstitutional about this. Jinnah didn`t use his power anymore than mountbatten... but ofcourse Mountbatten didn`t have the stature in India, that Jinnah had in Pakistan.

Romair:
``This split the desi vote. All the Pakistanis and Muslims, regardless of party affiliations, voted for the Liberals. All the Hindu Indians, regarless of party affiliations, voted for the Conservative candidate. The Sikh vote got split into three parts. The NDP candidate got it because he was Sikh(?).``

So, when is Mississauga going to be divided between Hindustan, Pakistan and Khalistan? Or are you saying that it has already happened? (I am feeling sick!)

re: Rozaiba

In your last post, which was a reply to mine, you mentioned that I made no arguments to convince you about the nature or the value of a presidential system in Pakistan. My dear friend, I have no wish to convince you. I can only convince a person, who is willing to be convinced. I have no arguments to offer you, because I have no theory, which can act as a solution to Pakistan`s problems. I can only share with you my own experiences, which suggests that in order to understand Pakistan, one needs to step off the boat of theory and onto the shore of reality.

To understand the Byzantine nature of Pakistani politics, you have to appreciate the nuances, which influence the politics. There is no dicotomy of good and evil; secularism or theocracy; democracy or lack of it in Pakistani politics, because it all about hypocrisy. The hypocricy, whose paradigms circumvent Pakistani politics is based on the propostition that Pakistani politics are all about the manipulation of the reality to deny the truth from being spoken.

I mentioned that Pakistan is headed towards a presidential system, because that is what our past has bequeated to us and Pakistani politics never displayed a parliamentary color but were always dominated by the questions of the distribution of power. Starting from Jinnah in 1947, Pakistan never experienced a parliamentary form of governance, as Jinnah arrogated more powers to his office at the expense of making the prime minister into a non-entity. From 1948 to 1958, the burning question in Pakistani politics was, which office would be more powerful; the governor-general`s or the prime minister`s. It was the lack of an answer to this question, which saw governments being formed and dismissed in Pakistan and re-created not by elections, but through ordinances. From 1947 to 1958, Pakistan saw multiple governements take office, but they were all non-elected.

The nature of politics from 1948 to 1958 imposed a reality that Pakistan was to be ruled as an administrative state and not as a democracy. In this sense, the bureaucracy was always partial to a rule in the mode of the British Raj and thus, it ruled Pakistan not as a sovereign state, but as a fief of the administration. The bureaucracy in Pakistan has always favored military rules over civilian rules, because it harks to its tradition of being an instrument of enforcing the Raj. In this equation, once you add the sum of the evolving nature of politics in Pakistan, you will realize that it was timocratic. Timocracy is a Greek word, which means that political power is commeasurate with the amount of personal wealth and the land owned. The tradition of Pakistani politics, or accurately the tradition of regional politics of what became the western wing of Pakistan, was always feudal based. The feudals were favored by the British not to proffer political rights to the natives, but to ensure the continunity of the British rule. When these feudals came to power, as parliamentarians, they found a natural nexus, with the bureaucracy and in a symbiotic relationship continued to rule Pakistan as an administrative responsibilty.

This was the nature of politics, which Ayub Khan gained upon taking power in 1958. Ayub Khan totally cranked this system out of synchronization, when he embarked on this devolution of power idea and the creation of an electorate college made up of about 80,000 basic democrats. In this sense, there developed a better understanding between the bureaucracy and the military, but there was a falling from grace between the feudals and the bureaucracy. It was at this time, that face of the traditional troika in Pakistani politics, which would influence it later was finalized. The troika of power in Pakistan has remained as a combination of the bureaucracy, the military and the feudals. It is usually the confluence of two out of three, which governs Pakistan and the combinations keep changing, but the basic nature of power has remained the same. To this reality, Musharraf is adding the fourth leg known as the industrialists, but in reality the industrialists are the same as the feudals, who have sold lands for new factories. Hence, even if the feudals are replaced by the industrialists, the reality of the troika will not be altered.

The point being made is, that Pakistani politics never had any plurality of opinion to challenge this troika and when it did, it was brutally crushed. The crisis in East Pakistan, to a degree originated against this troika, dominated by West Pakistani bureaucracy, military and feudal politicans and this troika was a reason, among many which saw the disememberment of Pakistan in 1971. This troika ruled Pakistan not as a democracy, but more as a timocracy. In other words, Pakistan was the property and it was ruled as the feudals ruled their personal lands, with absolute power. In this scheme of things, parliament was a fig leave to lie that Pakistan was in reality a personal holding of the trokia, whose members were related by marriages and family connections. Again, we are seeing the contours of a political system, which was more geared towards an oligarchic form of government than a democracy. This system was dominated by one person and that person was Ayub Khan and from this experience, Pakistan was being pushed towards a presidential form of government, much in vouge of Jinnah`s legacy of vice-regalism.

Now let us divert our attention from this aspect to the nature of politics, as they evolved after the breakup of Pakistan in 1971 and their influence on the form of parliamentary government. Z. A. Bhutto took power as the president of Pakistan and later became the prime minister of Pakistan on the basis of results of the 1970 elections. This was, one of many slaps in the face of democracy in Pakistan, because Bhutto had had lost that election to Mujib-ur-Rehman and was in fact, an illegitimate prime minister. The 1970 election was for the entire nation; east and west, and it was the results of this very elections, whose lack of acceptance by the troika in West Pakistan led Mujib-ur-Rehman to break free from West Pakistan and declare the independence of Bangladesh. When Pakistan broke up in 1971, those election results were nullified and were no longer applicable. The democratic and logical thing would have been for Bhutto to call another elections and to win a majority from those elections to form a government after the break up of Pakistan in 1971.

Hence, when Bhutto became the prime minister, on the basis of the election of 1970, he had already destroyed the institutional freedom of the parliament by foisting an illegal government upon it. Bhutto was made president of Pakistan and thence, a prime minister not by an election result but by a military ordinance, which bestowed upon him the authority of a martial law administrator, after Yahya Khan had resigned as a martial law administator. People claim that Bhutto was elected as a result of the most free elections in Pakistan, but those elections were for Pakistan that existed from 1947 to 1971 and were not for the Pakistan, which existed from 1972 onwards. The irony is that Bhutto was elected as the president and later, as a prime minister of Pakistan without an election. This created the precedent, that a prime minister need not be elected to power and this tradition has, sadly, continued to the present.

Once in power, Bhutto was more interested in the political powers of the president and it is no suprise, that when he became the prime minister, he kept majority of the powers with him. This made sure that the parliament was a rubber stamp to Bhutto`s dictums and as a prime minister, Bhutto was always increasing his power at the expense of the parliament. Bhutto was an absolutist politican and he marginalized the parliament and it was one reasons, why there was an opposition against his absolutism in Pakistan. Bhutto was responsible, to varying degree, for creating the political conditions that allowed the military to intervene and impose another martial law in Pakistan in 1977. The outcry against Bhutto stemmed from the fact that in the elections of 1976, Bhutto wanted a parliamentary majority, which would have allowed him to impose a presidential form of government in Pakistan. To ensure this eventuality, he rigged the elections, but his satraps in their zeal did such a good job, that he won an overwhelming majority and this raised the hackles of the opposition. (lol)

Had Bhutto favored a true parliamentary form of government, he would have not rigged the election to win a majority to create a presidential form of government and Pakistan would not had to suffer the eleven years of Zia-ul-Haq! Hence, the steps towards a presidential system were already underway, when Zia took over and he simply went on solidfy the obvious.

This brings the development of the process, for a presidential system, to tenures of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Both of these personalities wanted to rule Pakistan with an absolute power. Benazir wanted to rule, much as her father did and that meant, she was not willing to tolerate an independent parliament, which could act as check on her ambition. Nawaz Sharif wanted a solid majority to rule Pakistan as the last of the forgotten Mughal emperors, with no opposition and his rhetoric for winning a heavy mandate was not feather in the democratic cap, but a blow for his own agrandizment of power. In all of their political differences, both Benazir and Nawaz agreed on a basic idea and that was to make sure that parliament was never in a position to challege them and they were systematically denuding parliament of its powers.

The reason, why their governments were aborted by the presidents, in concordance with the military, was that had they succeeded, they would have radically changed the balance of power within the troika, away from the military-bureaucratic nexus that governed Pakistan. In this changed nature of governance, the power would have not ended up with the parliament, but to the person who was the prime minister, to weild it as a personal extention of his/her right to rule Pakistan.

Hence, when I say that Pakistan is headed towards a presidential system, I say this with the knowledge of the past that suggests that parliaments have been institutionally ruined in Pakistan and as a result, there is no parliamentary government in Pakistan. We should accept the fact that Pakistan, has been and always will remain, as an administrative state in the guise of a presidential system, which derives its inspiration from the politics of Jinnah`s vice-regalism.

Ciao

P.S.: I am really sorry for this long post. Again, these are not agruments in favor of a presidential form of government, but an acceptance of what past history of Pakistani political experience has taught me. Please feel free to disagree with me and you can easily deny this post, as being factually incorrect, but you cannot deny the past 57 years of Pakistani existence. :) (lol)

romair..
[(at that point, I think all Canadian Punjabis in these ridings, should start a freedom struggle and fight for an independent country, like Quebec, called Can-Punjabistan. It would become the only country in the world with Punjabi as the official language).]

... i won`t comment on your political expertise...it must have been a sad day for pak army to let you go. you are it`s brightest star...

Malik99...

Manto`s letters to uncle Sam are widely read and show his political foresight. He knew in 1954 that Mullahs were being bought and sold by America...

To each his own... I personally found nothing pornographic in Manto`s writings... I became interested in him when I came across his work which is perhaps the best tribute to M. A. Jinnah written in any language ... `Mera Sahab`... it must be remembered that Manto was not a gung ho Pakistani, so his tribute was perhaps the most unbiased and realistic that I have come across. I also read many of his stories on partition etc... but it was his letters to uncle sam which really caught my attention after that.


Sad that you`ve treated the great writer`s work as mere pornography. His Mullah Bashing is much more important.

-YLH

Malik99:

``Although my father was a POW as a result of that war...``

Really? If you don`t mind saying this, what was your father`s opinion on his stay in India, they way he was treated etc?

dost-mittar #151: ``...more on canada elections and panjabis:``

I had submitted an article relating to differences between US and Canada. However, I have recently been quite critical of various aspects of Chowk, so I am not sure whether I am in Chowk Staffs` (Staff`s ?) good books, any longer :-) So, unlike your long list of articles, I don`t know whether mine will get published.....If it does, then that may be a good area to get a discussion going on Canadian politics.

``if Wajid is a panjabi, then add another to the panjabi list.``

http://www.mississauga.com/mi/elections/story/2037012p-2357170c.html

Wajid looks like (and is named like) a Pathan. But he is a Punjabi, from Lahore, and speaks fluent Punjabi. He spoke it regularly during his campaign. My guess his is a Pathan family that migrated to Punjab, sometime back (like Imran Khan`s).

I don`t have exact statistics, but based on the, political ``gup shup`` during the campaign, the Western suburbs of Toronto are now Desiland. Mississauga has four ridings, (and a fifth that is shared with adjacent Brampton) out of which two are heavily influenced by Pakistani votes. The real Pakistani base is not in Wajid`s riding. It is in an adjacent riding. That riding elected Carolin Parish, who had recently made the famous comment about, ``Americans being b@stards.`` It was criticized heavily, but she still won by a landslide, even bigger than Wajid`s. I guess she knew what she was doing when she made the comment. Perhaps appealing to the Pakistani votebase.

Brampton has two ridings, (and the additional one that it shares with Mississauga). It is Sardarji country, who won two out of the three seats - including a complete landslide by the Liberal Sardarji who had joined hands with our campaign. He had the largest landslide in the area. This is the guy with the kirpan, and he completely blew away his opponent. I guess he knew what he was doing also, kirpan and all, much like Parish.

So, basically out of the eight ridings, three elected Punjabis. And a fourth is in control of Pakistani voters (primarily Punjabis). I have a feeling, that if India-Pakistan settle their differences, then a desi Liberal candidate may be undefeatable in all eight of these ridings, pretty soon (at that point, I think all Canadian Punjabis in these ridings, should start a freedom struggle and fight for an independent country, like Quebec, called Can-Punjabistan. It would become the only country in the world with Punjabi as the official language).

The desi vote seems to consist of three groups, with some overlaps, depending on the ethnicity of the candidate. Desis are primarily Liberal party voters. The are divided into the Pakistani/Muslim vote, Sardarji/Punjabi vote, Indian/Hindu vote.

If the candidate is Liberal and desi, and the opposing candidate is non-desi, then all desis vote for that candidate together. Thus, it is pretty much impossible for a desi Liberal candidate, with a non-desi opposition, to lose in much of this area. To counter this, the non-Liberal parties have also started nominating desis, from different ethnic communities, (and sometimes even from the same community), to counter and divide the Liberal desi votebank.

So it is now common to see both (or even three) candidates being desi. In our cases, the Liberals nominated Wajid - a Pakistani Muslim in a riding with a prominent Pakistani + Muslim (Arabs etc.) votebase. The Conservative party, to split the desi vote, nominated an India-origin Hindu (though not born in India) candidate. The NDP nominated a Sikh guy (not sure if he was Sikh or Hindu).

This split the desi vote. All the Pakistanis and Muslims, regardless of party affiliations, voted for the Liberals. All the Hindu Indians, regarless of party affiliations, voted for the Conservative candidate. The Sikh vote got split into three parts. The NDP candidate got it because he was Sikh(?). The Conservative candidate got it because she was of Indian origin. And the Liberal candidate got it, because he was Punjabi, and because Sikhs normally vote Liberal.

So the no 1, 2, and 3 (Liberal, Conservative and NDP) positions in our riding went to desis. Two out of three of whom, I believe were Punjabis. The two gora candidates were fourth and fifth, and got nothing. I think (seriously) I could have gotten more votes than these two.

Anyways, since you have the inside track to Chowk Staff, maybe you can write something on Canadian politics, until I am out of their bad books :-)

mantolives #157 - you write ``I agree that Manto was a logical person... that is why he was the most brilliant mullah-basher amongst other things.``

He made his name in writing FICTION !!!!

Besides, he sounded pretty logical to me in those long teenage winter nights in Pakistan when i could hide in my bed and read his novels to gratify my surging hormones. Many of my friends swear to this day that Manto`s writings were responsible for ushering in their puberty sooner than what nature had intended.

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

Malik99,

``I have read Manto. Manto was a pretty logical person.``

First thing I agree with you on...

I agree that Manto was a logical person... that is why he was the most brilliant mullah-basher amongst other things. May I recommend his Letters to Uncle Sam... in which he warns us against America`s successful purchase of the Mullahs as early as 1951...


To quote from Manto`s third letter to Uncle Sam:

``I think the only purpose of this Military aid is to arm the Mullahs... if this gang of mullahs is armed in the American style, the Soviet Union that hawks Communism and Socialism in our country will have to shut shop. I can visualize the mullahs, their hair trimmed with American scissors and their pyjamas stiched with American machines in strict conformity with the Sharia The stones they use after drops of you know what will be American, untouched by Human hand, and their prayer mats would be American too. ``

Third Letter to Uncle Sam... Dated 21st Feb 1954



I knew you would see the light.

-YLH

``I found a lot of factual errors. On page 43 and 44, Crile refers to the Hall of Fame football player, Mike Ditka, as a linebacker. Ditka played tight end``

Mike Ditka was a Defensive LineBacker from 1958-60 at University of Pittsburgh (Panthers), but was drafted by the Chicago Bears in the first round of the 1961 NFL Draft with the fifth overall pick as a TightEnd.

Mantolives - you wrote ``Errors aside it gives us a good view of what the Americans were upto against the communists``

``errors aside``?????? Back to your broad brush ways? What if I say ``their un-islamic practices aside, mullahs are pretty good for islam`` ? How is that for a tit-for-tat logic?

I seriously think you should change your nick. I have read Manto. Manto was a pretty logical person. And you are no body to remind us that he lives. In fact I have heard through grapevine that demons in hell are torturing him by repeatedly making him listen to your arguments.

ferozk#149 - you wrote ``In my view, the Indians did us a huge favor by throughly discrediting the army in 1971 and after that, for once the Pakistani army had relearned the charms of the barrack life. I will always give the devil his due, but in this case I personally hold Z. A. Bhutto responsible for bringing the army back into politics, when he dispatched it to Baluchistan in early 1970s.``

Although my father was a POW as a result of that war, I very much agree with you. Army has been corrupted and abused by its own leadership. Army is supposed to protect its civilians from outside forces and not itself become a monster to them. From 1971, to siachin glacier conflict to the kargil debacle, army has taken a drubbing from our neighbour, yet its our own civilians who end up becoming its victims time and time again.

#9 by rozaiba

+++
It seems that what to watch out for now is WHO gets unseated from a Punjab constituency
+++

Most probably it will be Rao Sikander Iqbal`s seat from Okara (NA-144). The rumour is that Rao Sikander will resign as Defence Minister and replace Lt.Gen. Khalid Maqbool as Governor of Punjab.

Shaukat Aziz will contest from Rao`s vacant seat and will easily win because of PML-Q and Rao Sikander`s support. The NA will then elect him as Prime Minister within 50 days.

ferozk,

that was a good post. and i agree with much that you have to say.

n~

Malik99,

Thrilling tom clancy novel style or not... there is no denying that as a US Congressman Charlie Wilson was actively involved in Afghan War. Errors aside it gives us a good view of what the Americans were upto against the communists, and how Mullahs sold their souls to the devil. I am not a fan of Charlie Wilson, but I have no reason to doubt his version as it is confirmed by many sources in our own government.

Clearly you have no argument... affirmations from your friends aside. The point was simple that Mullahs are sell outs ready to sell Pakistan off for their own benefits. You are hell bent on drawing tangents just to prove your point... case in point... the waste of bit space on the issue of Mike Bikta`s Position on the American football field. That has no bearing on the point that is being made here. It just goes to show that you will latch onto to prove your point, though it is unclear what your point is.


-YLH

...more on canada elections and panjabis:

[if Wajid is a panjabi, then add another to the panjabi list. BTW the list does not include Rahim Jaffar or Deepak Obhrai who are from Uganda, although Obhrai sounds like a panjabi khatri name. I am personally not enthused with the spectacle of MPs with kirpans dangling from their sides!]


Now, Punjabis storm Canadian parliament
GUR KIRPAL SINGH ASHK

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2004 11:03:54 PM ]

PATIALA: Trust Punjabis to be in the thick of political action. And not just the usual Badals and Amarinders.

A Bains, a Grewal and a Malhi are among eight Punjabis who have managed to secure a seat in the 308-member Canadian Parliament.

In a startling reflection on the changing demographic profile of the north American country, three candidates from the state of Ontario actually triumphed over other Punjabis.

Gurbakhash Malhi from Bramalea-Gore-Malton beat Ravinder Gill, Ruby Dhalla bagged the Brampton-Springdale seat against Sulakhan Hundal while Navdeep Singh Bains won the Mississauga Brampton South seat defeating Parvinder Sandhu. All the winners were backed by the Liberal Party.

Malhi, who hails from Kishanpura village of Moga district, was the first turbaned man to enter the Canadian Parliament back in 1993. His performance has seen him return four times.

Bains, on the other hand, would be the first Sikh MP slinging a kirpan. ``I have campaigned hard to get elected. People don`t have any problem with me wearing a kirpan. I don`t see any problem arising on the issue,`` he told TNN from Toronto.

Three Punjabi candidates won from British Columbia: Ujjal Dosanjh, and the husband-wife duo of Nina and Gurmant Grewal. Gurmant belongs to Ludhiana and is a former student of Punjab Agricultural University.

It`s quite ironic that Ujjal Dosanjh`s grandfather was one of the passengers of Kamagatamaru which was not allowed to dock in British Columbia. He, in turn, became the first Indo-Canadian premier of British Columbia. A close confidant of Canadian prime minister Paul Martin, he is expected to be inducted into the Cabinet.

mantolives - About the book ``Charlie Wilson`s Wars`` that you keep harping about - I read it when it came out last year. And I find it a Texan tall tale perspective of history written in the style and thrill of a Tom Clancy novel. The inflated role of Joana Herring, her alleged affair with Zia, as well as Charlie Wilson have not been corroborated by other books on the similar topic. It has some good analysis, some interesting details on the inside workings of congress, a lot of imagery thrown in with good measure of accurate facts. It was timed to release when americans were once again busy in Afghanistan. Not a bad recipe to sell a book. But it did pretty badly, even in the circles with direct interest in Afghanistan.

I found a lot of factual errors. On page 43 and 44, Crile refers to the Hall of Fame football player, Mike Ditka, as a linebacker. Ditka played tight end. Although this mistake does not change the point the author was trying to make. But what happened to the ``check every fact before using it in your story`` lesson taught in the same journalism class?

As a reader put it ``I know a little about football; I know nothing about CIA Appropriations or the Mujahideen. Why should I believe Crile`s reporting is any more credible?``

Not a serious read for a person looking for objective, accurate and serious analysis of the afghan cnflict of 80s. But perhaps a VERY interesting read for someone who craves tabloid style ``elvis is alive`` kind of news.

re: HP # 93

My understanding of Pakistani politics comes from bitter personal experience. I know when the daggers come out and I know, how the daggers are used with faces that smile all time. I look at the politics from an outsider`s eye and not as a Pakistani with a direct stake in politics. If I am objective, it might be due to the fact that I have no faith in our elected or non-elected representives who govern over us. I grew up in a time (yes, there was a such time in Pakistan once) when politics was not personalized and politicans would be best of friends and would curse each other during the day and drink whisky and laugh together at night.

I agree with you that we are nothing more than a mutual debating society in Pakistan and we have always placed our narrow self interests before the nation. My idealism died a long time ago. Still I have a very high level of admiration and respect for people like Rozaiba and others, who believe in Pakistan. Rozaiba and I will always disagree on this issue, but I still wish all the best.

In my view, the Indians did us a huge favor by throughly discrediting the army in 1971 and after that, for once the Pakistani army had relearned the charms of the barrack life. I will always give the devil his due, but in this case I personally hold Z. A. Bhutto responsible for bringing the army back into politics, when he dispatched it to Baluchistan in early 1970s. I have talked to a few people, who were in the army and each has talked about the lack of will in the army to get reinvolved in politics. Thanks to the generals, who brought Bhutto to power by out maneuvering Yahya Khan, the army ended up in Baluchistan and regained its taste for politics. Bhutto wanted a pliant military COAS and he chose Zia-ul-Haq, but he was willing to tolerate Zia`s submissive nature even though Zia had started to drum up the role of religion in the army.

There is a reason, why the bureaucracy of the that time called Zia a ``regimental mullah``. The wife of a bureaucrat, who later became a defense secretary and profitted from the sale of military contacts to a Gulf nation, once remarked that Zia looked like the British actor Terry Thomas when he first appeared on PTV in July 1977. Her husband`s remarks were, ``...for God`s sake shut up!``

Pakistan has been ruled by the issuance of ordinances for most its life and it makes no difference as to whose conduct is more awful; the military or the civilians. The facile comparision, which many engage in, is as futile as comparing two cancers. It makes no difference, which is less of an evil, because in the end, neither are really good for your health.

Pakistani liberals can wrest all the power they wish from the military and it will make no difference, because the liberals in Pakistan do not have the benefit of any principles. The liberals in Pakistan, will always end up losing the debate and the struggle, because they have failed in their basic task of articulating their stance in Pakistani politics. The liberals, for reasons which only they know best, left the field open to the clery. The liberals have still not been able to refute the allegation that secularism is akin to athesism and as long as they are afraid to bravely define secularism and be willing to be identified with it, there is no hope for any liberalized nature of goverance in Pakistan. Pakistan`s so-called secular and mainstream parties have always jumped into bed, with the mullahs when it suited their unholy urges and in the end, outcome of this unnatural act of copluation was a political bastard that mocks Pakistan to this day.

When so-called secular liberal parties of Pakistan and the so devout clery are ready to forego their principles and sin for sake of a political gratification, the result is not politics but the mannerism of a whorehouse, which takes precedence over everything else.

There is nothing for me to be cheerful about in Pakistan.

Ciao

Well! to lighten up this thread and talk about Canada at the same time…

“An elderly woman lived on a small farm in Canada, just yards away from the North Dakota border. Their land had been the subject of a minor dispute between the United States and Canada for years. The, now widowed, woman lived on the farm with her son and three grandchildren.
One day, her son came into her room holding a letter. ``I just got some news, Mom,`` he said.
``The government has come to an agreement with the people in North Dakota. They`ve decided that our land is really part of the United States. We have the right to approve or disapprove of the agreement. What do you think?``
``What do I think?`` his mother said.
``Sign it! Call them right now and tell them we accept. I don`t think I could stand another one of those Canadian winters!``

Nikki ...

``a mad islamist could knife you while crying ``allah-o-akbar` or something like that man........``

Yaar... Tell it to the Mullah supporters who think Mullahs are harmless walking down to the parliament and engaging in Bhook hartal. As if Blasphemy issue never happened in Pakistan... if women wearing jeans or going out to vote in NWFP are not slapped in Public... as if there is no sectarian violence in Pakistan.


These Mullah supporters live in denial...

-YLH

Malik99

Once again... I did not run out of arguments... there was no point about bringing in the rich people. We know their crimes... very well...The issue was of the purchaseability of the Mullah and I think it is settled that the Mullah (i.e. the religious parties of Pakistan) is the biggest sell out in Pakistan. Using the term broad again and again will not prove your point or Huma Mir`s.

Thanks for informing me about what a US professor will or will not do... though I was never thrown out of any of my classes... thankfuly... nor did any of my political science professors walk out on me... or the logic professor for that matter.


But thanks anyway...


-YLH

dost-mittar #119: ``Congratulations on Wajid`s victory. (btw, it`s vive le canada!)``

Thanks. He ended up getting more than 50% of the total vote. So I think this area may be his for a while. I am still shaky on the French....

``The senator is Mobin Jaffer``

I assume you are talking about Mobina Jaffer. I knew about her. Didn`t know about the elected guy. Thanks for the info.

Ijaz_gul #122: ``Good! Well done!!
Your expression in the post reflects your joy and glee. Do you know Azmat Hayat Khan an ex aeronautical engineer living in Canada?``

Thanks. It was well worth the effort. Though, my contribution was minor. I just did labor type work, for a few days. The real credit goes to his team, which had been working and planning his campaign for a long time. The working atmosphere was great. Rang barange loog. He talked with me a couple of times. My first impression of him and his wife is quite positive.

I do not recall Azmat Hayat. But I could probably track him down, if I can get more info.

Mantolives #117: ``So secularism is working perfectly in Canada... isn`t it?``

Yes, secularism is working well in Canada (though not so well in some countries also), and suits the country well, since it is based on solid human rights here. However this victory had more to do with many factors, other than secularism (Pakistanis, by virtue of their voting power alone are now a force in the area and should now be able to get two or more seats in the future).

``I join you Romair... in saying Viva Le Canada!``

Canada is truly a unique place. No doubt about it. I am now fully convinced that my initial hunches about the place were correct.USA is a secular country also. Pakistanis are getting screened unnecessarily there and are on the defensive, while they are getting to the highest offices in Canada. I cannot imagine any Pakistani reaching this level in the USA in the next twenty-five to fifty or more years. I doubt this guy could have even have come close to winning in Pakistan, had he run against the Jamalis and the Bhuttos and the Legharis, etc. Yet here he is, sitting in the highest offices of a G-8 country.

We are waiting to see whether he gets a ministry. My guess is he should have a chance. He is a very presentable Muslim figure, with a strong vote-bank and a cultural background that is needed by any Western govt. Not to mention, apparently a close friend of the current PM (who actually visited the campaign three or four days ago).

Mantolives - I just read your ilog where you called me a ``piece of shit`` and ``asswipe``. hmmm...sounds like you ran out of arguments. I suggest that you take lessons on logic and public speaking from some mullah, ANY mullah. That way you will become just as successful as they are in convincing people of your stance.

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

Huma Mir...

I have neither the inclination nor the time to continue this debate... especially when it will now become personal with insults flying all over... now that Khamkhwa is joining in. l I can say is that you chaps have deliberately drawn this tangent... I don`t care about American Muslims ... or their travails beyond my own family that lives there... and thankfuly none of them have ever felt the burden of the patriot act... mashallah all of them are doing very well... and I wish them all the best.


I already explained in my post what I mean by Mullahs... but in any event I have no respect for people who sell Islam professionally... as a Muslim it is my religious belief that Islam does not allow for any clergy... and very existence of the Mullah is aberration. These Mullahs are disgusting creatures whose very existence is the anti-thesis of the ideology of Islam. I hate the Mullahs because I am an extremely intolerant Muslim... so there... now you know of my bigotry. I am proud of it.


As my hero (I am sure you all know who that is by now) said once `Every Muslim is his own priest` ... His favorite phrase for the Mullahs was `These Mad Mullahs...`

I agree! Damn these Mad Mullahs...


Enough said...


-YLH

mantolive - you wrote ``you brought in the rich people because you mistakenly thought I was filthy rich.``

Not really. I brought in rich people simply to make as generalized a statement as you had made and to elicit the infuriated response. My objective was pretty simple - to show you that when you paint others with broad brush, others will paint you back with the same broad brush. Thats all.

And the kind of BROOOOAAAAADDDD logic that you use, if you were to use similar tactics in a political science class in US, either the professor will walk out on you or he will ask you to leave the class room. In fact he might just go beyond it and make a call to the College administration and have you banned from campus. And he will not stop at that. And I only shudder with horror as to what next steps he may take. ~shudders~

Khamkhwa ki museebat...

I would imagine the amount a$$ whooping you get on a regular basis from every single Chowkie on Unplugged would have made you learn your lesson... but clearly you are incurable, or maybe `Ab to adat see ho gayee hai tujh ko` ...

Anyway have a nice day...

Later

-YLH

Manto yaar, let the Mullahs actually come to power once. You will be proven right for all time to come within a few months.

The Mullahs talk big when they are in opposition. They don`t do shit when they are in power.

I would love to see Mullahs come to power and stand up to US, take Kashmir by force from India, repress their own populations as per their rule in NWFP and still make Pakistan a success story.

malik99,huma_mir and rest of ylh bashers...

you should be considerate where ylh is concerned..the poor guy is half ahmadi-half shia-half arab-half persian...and all these halves have confused the lil baba...who is best at bleating... ;)

Mog...

Somehow that was not the case 55-60 years ago... when all of our Mullahs were in Congress Party`s pocket... especially the Ahrar party... who was the biggest Islamist movement of its kind ... which ironically was accusing the Muslim League of being Kemalist but was amazingly allied with the Secular Congress Party... something was wrong there. Especially how after 1947... the same Congress supporting Mullahs who wanted a United India i.e. Ahrar and Khaksars came to Pakistan and started to demand an Islamic theocracy... The Mullahs are sell outs... and you people are their oldest clients... shall I go back to the Khilafat movement?


Malik99...

I don`t wish to continue my discussion with an expat who wants to obfuscate ... I will say this.. you brought in the rich people because you mistakenly thought I was filthy rich... wealth was never an issue... what was on trial was how purchaseable the Mullahs are...

There is no denying that the fact that the MMA leadership has been bought and sold more times anyone else in our history. Denying it is only denying history...


Have fun in New Jersey or whereever ... it is easy to support Mullahs when you don`t have to endure them on a daily basis.

-YLH

Mantolives writes ``I lived in the US for four years till 2002 for my College Education ... I didn`t find the discrimination people like you keep harping on about. Nor was I target of any hate crimes... If you don`t act suspicious ... I don`t see why you would be accused of anything``

I too don`t see any reason either why one should be accused of anything if he does not ``look`` suspicious. But hundred of american muslims who were put behind bars without trial, thousands who were deported, tens of thousands who were finger printed, and millions who continue to live under the shadow of the draconian Patriot Act may, just mayyyyy, disagree with you a tad bit.

I really think you should reflect upon the way you debate. You have once again made this broad, unqualified statement about american muslims which does not hold any water. And calling me ``mama`` or saying ``mullahs are rich`` and ``mullahs drive landcruisers`` are the kind or arguments I don`t find enticing enough to engage in. Sincerely.