The Door To The Barracks

re: romair # 90
“And his corps commanders scare the sh*t out of every Minister, even when they are not running the country.”

Exactly when was the army not running Pakistan?

Faruk

I dont know.. but somehow Musharraf doesnt fit the stereotype of a power crazed authoritarian dictator

he seems to be an idealist and wants to hasten globalization in pak using whatever means he can.. democracy and democratic institution building is not high on the agenda for the moment. all that ideological stuff of bleeding india by a thousand cuts.. is that passe?

maybe he has picked up some pointers from Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore ?

besides the lopsided wealth ownership and distribution of power across provinces, I think a real problem in pak has to do with the judiciary.. how do they go along with pretty much anything? if not for the fact that pak is nuclear, I honestly dont think it would have attracted half as much attention.. besides the small matter of osama

in a way partition hurt india and indian muslims as many of the talented and educated muslims left for pak. I see that brain drain reversing once travel and work restrictions become freer.

re: romair #90

“Musharraf-Aziz combo is, in fact, the only combo that has the most in common with the Chowk crowd. Both are accomplished urbanites, with a world vision and an international standing. They are progressive, with a lot of exposure to the West. They are scrouplusly honest, financially ( I don`t think Aziz is taknig a salary as a govt. employee). Musharraf is from a family that matches those on Chowk. One brother is a Rhodes Scholar. Another a surgeon in USA. His son is working in USA. And his son-in-law (not sure) is into music production (or something). Even his mother was a career woman.

………….
………..

I think Pakistan deserves leaders who are, at least, willing to show their wives in public - unlike Qazi/Fazl/Amin/Jamali - all four of whom are unwilling to show their wives in public. And can converse intelligently with the rest of the world.”

Is that necessary and sufficient qualification to run Pakistan? You are essentially making a case for English speaking urban Pakistanis should be the only ones running Pakistan. I see a parallel here with what the mullas want to do. They want complete control too. Both of you don’t want to share power. Nor does the army.

Regards,

Faruk

re: ferozk # 92

“The tragedy of our past experience is that both the politicans and the military have seen political institutions as a threat to their powers and have been more than happy to join hands and dismantle them.”

Isn’t that their role? The political institutions are there to check the people in power. The tragedy is that the Pakistani people stood by and let the politicians and the Army dismantle them.

Regards,

Faruk

if musharraf-aziz combo brings peace stability and milk+honey to pakistan, there will be deamnd for such an approach for india and eventually the US as well. hmm

``.........The only reason people have a hard time swallowing this combo is because Musharraf has an Army background. Hence they will oppose eveything he says, here.``

Argumentum ad-hominum!!

Yes, finally it all boils down to the plain old jealousy thing- What crap!!!! I did not know that one can get so crude in supporting a dictator.

Sometimes I think what has military and mulahism in common- the concept of a ``benevolent dictator``!!

Come on Romair! Were you having a bad hair day? A little sarcasm by Dost Mittar riled you up so bad!

I thought you found this discussion interesting and wanted to discuss small provinces and the army but in the very next post you took off about Mullah and feudal and what not. I guess I am guilty as charged in pointing to you that you are going off track. I debunk your land reform theories and all you do is take off on me!

I never implied you support the army because you have had some connections there. There was nothing personal when I said that you need to present your argument in favor of the army. Why would you take it so personally?

“amongst Pakistan’s historical problems, is the domination of Punjab.” –Romair #86

All I said was: it is not Punjab, it is the army and that upsets you.
In fact, you prove that by pointing out that there were many army generals that were not Punjabi and that is exactly my point that it is the institution and not the people and faces that should bear the blame.

“What I am trying to do is to place blame evenly, and on everyone, based on facts.”

Do tell us how do you place the blame evenly on every one? That would be a tall order and I am all ears.

re: Dost-Mittar # 87

The elites are a problem in the sense that they cannot decide, what they want in Pakistan. This sort of behavior does not only exist with the elites, but also exists within the average person. The question is if the people of Pakistan think that military rule is bad, then why in the name of God, were they distributing sweets and dancing in the streets on the night of October 12, 1999 when Musharraf took over power in Pakistan? When one compares this behavior to the one after Pakistan exploded its nuclear weapons and there was celebration in the streets, the impression an outsider get is one of irrationality. It is this irrationality, which oscillates between supporting military and then supporting a return to a civilian rule and then, once more asking the military to kick out the civilians.

I agree with your comments that Pakistan has to work its work towards a true democratic system after a process of tampering, but the question is whether the military or the politicans are capable of exhibiting that kind of required patience for the curtain to fall on the final act? I am not sure, given the irrationality of Pakistani politics and the indecision of its elites and common people. I think, in this sense, HP`s comment was insightful and that we must first decide, what sort of government or a system of government we want in Pakistan. The majority of the problem is from a tussle between the creation of a presidential or prime ministerial system to rule Pakistan. In this, I support a presidential system, but not as it is being crafted right now in Pakistan.

This is what I had suggested in my article; that a process of political bargaining has to take place and the military has to be gradually shorned off its powers in a constitutional sense. Romair is correct, because despite all my personal feelings about the nature of a military rule, I see Pakistan as a quasi-democratic state with military in the dominance for a long period of time. In the end, things might improve, but I hope that your assessment of Musharraf-Aziz team is correct. I am not so sure. Aziz`s reforms might bring about an economic empowerment, which then translates into political rights, but in the begining those reforms will not benefit the middle classes as much as the rich, given the flawed notions of trickle down theory of Musharraf`s economic team. If the average, lower income, Pakistani sees no tangible benefits, given his impatient nature, he will once more act in an irrational sense.

As I once wrote, that I have faith in the individual Pakistani to succeed, but I dispair when I think of Pakistanis in a collective sense. It is the collective response to these reforms, over a period of time, that is a cause for a major worry.

What scares me is that these reforms will be still-born and are only good as long as Musharraf stays in power. Pakistan has a very disgusting habit of reversing the economic policies from one leader`s tenure to another and there is no certainity that after Musharraf, the fates will any different. The indecision and the constant changing of economic policies creates a very insecure business climate in the nation and to a good degree scares away the foreign capital. No one wishes to invest in Pakistan, because the CEOs of the major business are not stupid to rely on Musharraf`s continued existence as the gurantee for their investments. What happens after Musharraf does not only unnerve Pakistanis; it worries the rest of the world too.

Pakistan needs an infrastructure of institutions in the worst sort of way possible and the question is, how do we get those institutions to work, but more importantly prevent the politics from undermining them? In this military must also accept the blame for its misdeeds just as Nawaz Sharif`s actions of assulting the Supreme Court did not help the idea of institutional independence from politics. The tragedy of our past experience is that both the politicans and the military have seen political institutions as a threat to their powers and have been more than happy to join hands and dismantle them.

Pakistan should indeed end up where you have suggested, but how it gets there scare me!

Ciao

``The only reason people have a hard time swallowing this combo is because Musharraf has an Army background.`` (Romair)

....``Musharraf has an Army background.`` -- a delightfully understated understatement....:-)

don`t u wish.......Pakistan was as urban and `urbane` as Chowk is.......then who would have needed that Citi Dwelling Army Background -- Duo...

dost-mittar #87: ``So, I agree with Romair. Give Musharraf-Aziz five more years and let them gradually proceed from managed elections and democracy to a free-wheeling one, exactly what the Chinese are doing in China.``

Thank God, someone agrees with me!!!!

I was getting a bit tired of everyone associating some sort of conspiracy theories, on my clandestine love affairs and relations with the Army. Even though I never spent a day in the Army. And don`t have any association with it now, nor ever before.

I think Pakistanis need to get out of pigeon-holing poeple, solely on professions they like or dislike. And concentrate on what those inviduals have delivered. If a mullah delivers and turns Pakistan into Singapore, should we hate him just because we hate mullahs.

The Army in Pakistan does have a certain agenda, which I will highlight. However, it is not a monolithic entity, with every member having identical views. General Asif Nawaz and Musharraf (two COAS) are more gora than any of us here. I met Asif Nawaz. He spoke Urdu with a British accent. They are exactly the opposite of Zia. And of the newer version of Aslam Beg.

The Army in Pakistan has certain business interests it wants to protect. This is why, it keeps its influence in politics. This includes housing schemes, fertilizer companies, banks, etc. It runs everything from Askari computers to Askari bank to Fauji corn flakes. Most of all, the military, as a whole, wants influence in the civilian sector, so it can place retired officers into cushy jobs, like PIA, Civil Services, Wapda, Foreign office, etc.

Miltiary officers really hit it big, when the retire and end up in places like civil services, PIA etc., through military placement. That is where they make the big bucks (or if they become Generals and get plots). They are nobodys and paupers as serving Colonels and Majors. Their whole financial survival is based upon, retiring, and joining PIA etc., or getting some land as Generals. I could go on and on about this, but don`t have the time.

This is the reason the Army keeps influence in the civilian sector. It doesn`t have much to do with supporting mullahs or running the country, as a President (as many people keep stating incorrectly). The COAS is the most powerful man in the country, with or without being the President. And his corps commanders scare the sh*t out of every Minister, even when they are not running the country. I can give you exact stories, if you want. Karamat, himself stated, he could have gotten rid of Nawaz, had he wanted to. So being the President, isn`t as attractive for a COAS as people make it out to be. He is already extremely powerful.

The above is unfortunate, but it is the ground reality. It has caused many problems, no doubt. But, there is no way, that I know of, to reduce the power of the Army (in any country) other than having a strong political counter force that has the support of the people. However, the political forces in Pakistan, themselves, turn into lotas, or spend most of their time bringing each other`s govt. down.

Hence the Army, since it has strong institutional unity internally at the corp commander level, rules......Pretty simple......

Now to Musharraf-Aziz.

Musharraf-Aziz combo is, in fact, the only combo that has the most in common with the Chowk crowd. Both are accomplished urbanites, with a world vision and an international standing. They are progressive, with a lot of exposure to the West. They are scrouplusly honest, financially ( I don`t think Aziz is taknig a salary as a govt. employee). Musharraf is from a family that matches those on Chowk. One brother is a Rhodes Scholar. Another a surgeon in USA. His son is working in USA. And his son-in-law (not sure) is into music production (or something). Even his mother was a career woman.

Aziz is a self-made super multi-millionaire, amongst the Who`s Who of the West, with an MBA, from Karachi.

The only reason people have a hard time swallowing this combo is because Musharraf has an Army background. Hence they will oppose eveything he says, here. Perhaps the same reason people have difficulty accepting any argument I present. Even though, according to a Pew Research poll, he has a very high approval rating amongst Pakistanis.

I think Musharraf should have left after three years. But since he has no intention of leaving, one can only compare him with other alternatives. What are the other combos available? The Qazi-Fazl combo, which has nothing in common with Chowk. The Amin Fahim/Jamali feudal combo, which also has nothing in common with anyone on Chowk, either.

There is no one else........

I think Pakistan deserves leaders who are, at least, willing to show their wives in public - unlike Qazi/Fazl/Amin/Jamali - all four of whom are unwilling to show their wives in public. And can converse intelligently with the rest of the world. If one happens to be from the Army, that is a negative in his column, as a politician. But, he won`t be from the Army forever. He will retire in a few months.......Aam khanay say kaam hay, ya pair ginnany say.................

Imran Khan-Shaukut Aziz combo would have been ideal, with the ideal democratic credentials, but honest politicians have a chance in hell of getting elected.........So make do with what is available, and accept the fact that Musharraf is not Zia, and Amin Fahim and BB are not Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and Qazi and Fazl are not Martin Luther or Joan of Arc..............

HP #88: ``If you wanna use history to defend the Mullah or just take the discussion off track then it is fine.``

I am not defending the mullah. Nor am I taking the discussion off track. I have no love-loss for the mullah. My lifestyle has nothing in common with that of a mullah. In fact, most mullahs would not approve of it. What I am trying to do is to place blame evenly, and on everyone, based on facts. Rather than basing it on rhetoric. If someone loves or hates the mullah is immaterial. Blame him for what is his fault. And blame others for what is there fault. Do not throw everything his way, as his fault, just to hide the other issues. This is my point.

The reason I highlighted the mullah in this particular case, was because, on this site, invariably, all the criticism is thrown his way. When much of it belongs elsewhere.

``The new generations of Nationalists are not anti-Pakistan but they are anti-everything the federal government throws at them including the Islamic ideology or mullahism that is backed by the army.``

This part I partially agree with. I don`t think the mullahism is backed by the Army, any more than it is backed by anyone else. The closest Pakistan has come to mullahism is the passge of the Shariah Bill, under Nawaz Sharif. He was kicked out, as was the Shariah Bill. If your statement is true, then the Army, under Musharraf should have implemented the Shariah Bill. As I stated, arguments should be based on facts, not on personal dislikes or likes.......In fact, I have always felt that the Army and the military, due to its British traditions is less mullahised than the general Pakistani society. Other than Zia, all the COAS have been non-mullah or anti-mullah. And even Zia would not have become the COAS had Bhutto not appointed him, to suit his (Bhutto`s) own ambitions......

``Your stab at separating the army from Punjab and then pushing the blame on Punjab is actually a support of the army in Pakistan. I can understand that. Some Nationalists also blame Punjab. In reality, the resources are being used by the army and Punjabis are getting benefits because they dominate the army. In my book, the onus should be on the army instead of blanket condemnation of Punjab.``

This is partially true also. I did not separate the Army from Punjab. Quite the contrary. I actually stated that this is a part of Punjab. However it is not all of Punjab. And the Army has been run by COAS from different provinces (Ayub from NWFP, Musa from Baluchistan, Kakar from Baluchistan?, Beg and Musharraf from Karachi, Zia a Hindko speaker, Yahya Khan from NWFP (though born in Chakwal) etc.). Just recently a group of Muhajir generals kicked out a Punjabi govt. I am sure you cannot just ignore this. In fact, every Martial Law in Pakistan has been carried out by a non-Punjabi speakign General (Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf).

Having said this, the Army definitely is dominated by Punjabis. But it cannot solely be considered the cause of the domination of Punjab, when all the CMLAs it has produced have been non-Punjabis. It is one of the means through which Punjab dominates. Not the primary means. There must be, and are, other areas within Punjab where the powerbase comes from.

For example, how can Punjab dominate through the Army today, when the COAS is a Muhajir, who is also the President? Could you highlight?

The easy solution to this is to just ignore the facts, and label anyone who is trying to point out the facts. By doing so, I am afraid you will be doing what so many other people do, on this site i.e. not look at facts that go against what you have always believed. The hard solution is to face the facts and provide counter-arguments. In my opinion, the main problem is the size of Punjab, vis-a-vis other provinces.

``How much influence Mullah actually has is undeterminable as they don’t control any segment of establishment in Pakistan. They do have a nuisance value but that too is due to the support they have in the army.``

I am not sure whether this is true, now. Mullah is running two provinces. He is in fact the biggest reprsentatives of smaller provinces, now. And has been elected democratically. And mullah parties are the only parties that did not lose a single lota. While all other non-mullah parties did lose many lotas. I think Pakistanis have to accept the arrival of the mullah on the political scene, now. Doesnt` matter if they hate or like him. They have to see the facts on the ground.

``The army is the source of problem in Pakistan and if you would like to support the army, and that is fine, you would have to find arguments to support it instead of moving the debate to inconsequential topics. ``

Once again, you are moving away from the facts. And pointing towards me, pesonally. I am not sure why. What motivation do I have of supporting or not supporting anyone. I have more to do with Punjab, than with the Army. I have never been in the Army. My family is heavily married into Punjab. My wife is half Punjabi, half-Pathan. I have lived in Punjab most of life. I speak Punjabi.

Yet I am critiquing Punjab (and I am critiquing the Army. And the feudal). The Army`s involvement in politics is one of the causes of the problems in Pakistan. As is the mullah. There are many other causes. Let`s bring them all out of the closet........

You have stated certain things in favor of feudals. I think feudals are the biggest problem. The easiest thing for me to do would be to state, ``You are moving the debate away from teh point, and you just love the feudals, and hence are unwilling to blame them, because you are related to them.`` What good would that do. The logical thing to do would be to consider your points and see whether they are based on facts, or not, and support or oppose them.

Unfortunately, this site contains too many arguments that are based solely on personal likes and dislikes. And too few that are based on logic and facts. And anyone who tries to point this out, is labelled immediately.

So a request to you: lets debate the facts. Without trying to read people`s minds, and becoming a detective. Let`s not assume that just because someone is not supporting your (or my) view is because they inherently are in love with someone or something.......

Romair,
If you wanna use history to defend the Mullah or just take the discussion off track then it is fine.
My attempt was to show a bias that smaller provinces already have against Pakistan and every time the issue of resources distribution and manipulation is raised, the establishment –mostly the army- starts calling protesters from the smaller provinces anti- Pakistan and the issue is mired in irrelevant controversy. The new generations of Nationalists are not anti-Pakistan but they are anti-everything the federal government throws at them including the Islamic ideology or mullahism that is backed by the army.
Your stab at separating the army from Punjab and then pushing the blame on Punjab is actually a support of the army in Pakistan. I can understand that. Some Nationalists also blame Punjab. In reality, the resources are being used by the army and Punjabis are getting benefits because they dominate the army. In my book, the onus should be on the army instead of blanket condemnation of Punjab.
What happened before 1947 is now a historical debate. The reality is that now Punjabis are more Pakistanis than the rest.
There are now three main sources of power in Pakistan. First, the army obviously, the second is the capitalist in Punjab and Karachi, who is behind NS and the Sindhi Nationalist that are behind BB. Yes! The PPP in Sindh is a nationalist party. You take out BB and there is no connection between the PPP and rest of the Pakistan. Mullah is currently propelled by the Army. How much influence Mullah actually has is undeterminable as they don’t control any segment of establishment in Pakistan. They do have a nuisance value but that too is due to the support they have in the army.
Often people blame feudal and then claim that land reforms would change things in Pakistan. Feudal in Pakistan are nothing more than fellow travelers of whosoever is in power. Its power base is fake elections. In fair elections most of them would lose their pants.
Land reforms were a good political tool in the yore years of socialism. How much Land reforms helped the Soviet Union? It was part of their class struggle and they ousted the enemy class and shifted all lands to huge farms and there were always food shortages and corruption all around. In India Bihar, UP and AP are the examples of bad results from the land reforms. In Indian Punjab and Hiryana land reforms were minimal but mechanization was the way to go and we see the results.
The issue is: after you take away the lands from the feudal or big landowners, what do you do with that land? Distribute it amongst the landless? Landless have no experience of managing the lands nor do they have any capital to cultivate those lands. In a year or two lands would be back to where they originally were. Even if a few survive, they will lose the land in their next generation due to inheritance and fragmentation. In Pakistan, pretty much all big, small and medium size landowners owe tons to bank and have all their holdings mortgaged. Have the banks call all the loans. There will not be any feudal left in Pakistan. But banks will be holding lands that they would have no idea what to do with. Most of the true feudal families are already in business and the rest are living off government hand outs and pay it back by supporting the party in power.
Feudal’s undeniably have social and cultural influences and that will not go away by Land reforms alone. Feudalism is a mindset and that would change with education. Most of the jobless we find in Sindh and other provinces are sons and daughters of small to mid-size landowners and they realize that their lands alone would not support all expanding family.

The army is the source of problem in Pakistan and if you would like to support the army, and that is fine, you would have to find arguments to support it instead of moving the debate to inconsequential topics.


Urstruly, That is right but they are very small in numbers, mostly in Jhudo a tehsil in Mirpurkhas district.

To an outsider looking in, the political instability of Pakistan could be attributed to the impatience and `harjaipan` of its elite. Whenever the politicians misbehave, they applaud the men in khaki for rescuing them from the clutches of the corrupt politicians; when the khakis have been in the saddle for a while, they start clamouring for a return of the politicians.
I think that the Musharraf-Aziz team is doing a great job for Pakistan. The press has never been freer, the electronic media provides varied entertainment and views. The mullahs have been both co-opted and contained. The harsh medicine administered by Aziz in the earlier years is paying off, alongwith Musharraf`s shrewd partial cooperation with the US while carefully balancing Pakistan`s own interests. For the first time, Pakistan has good relations with the soviets who are selling weapons to Pakistan. People are enjoying arts and culture and the non-religious domain of life is expanding.
So, I agree with Romair. Give Musharraf-Aziz five more years and let them gradually proceed from managed elections and democracy to a free-wheeling one, exactly what the Chinese are doing in China.

FerozeK/HP/ahmadmadani:

I think this is an interesting and important discussion and should continue. If there are ten articles on the Chowk frontpage, highlighting the issues of Pakistan, one should be on feudalism, one on the institutionalized role of the Army in politics and business, one on intermarriages amongst the ruling elite, one on the mullah, one on the domination of Punjab, one on the elitist upper-class, one on how secular parties have traditionally screwed Pakistan etc. This will put things into a better perspective.

This is the area where Chowk lets everyone down, in my opinion. Unfortunately, one only sees articles on two topics: seven out of ten are on mullahs. And the remaining three are on the Army. This is because most of the pieces are written by the same group of five to ten people, who are either too young (twenties) to know much about Pakistan, since they have not seen much of outside their own urban neighborhoods, or by people who have had certain unfavorable personal experiences with religion, and are now bent upon seeing it as the problem everywhere.

One’s main aim should be to stick to facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Not to only highlight the facts which support one’s own point of view, while discarding those that oppose it.

Close to the top of this list, in my opinion, amongst Pakistan’s historical problems, is the domination of Punjab. This is somewhat of a self critique, since more than 50% of my family is married into Punjab, and I speak Punjabi as a first language. However, it is, in my opinion, a factual critique. Within Punjab, one cannot just isolate the Army or the maulvi either. One has to look at Punjab as a whole. Any institution in which Punjab dominates – politics, Army, beurecracy, sectarianism, etc. – will dominate Pakistan.

One of the most interesting comments, one sees regularly, on this site, relates to the fact that maulvi leaders and parties did not support the creation of Pakistan. This is a fact (though some did support it, while some opposed it). People keep repeating this, again and again.

Interestingly, no one seems to highlight the stance of the Punjabi leadership at the time of the creation of Pakistan. It was a secular leadership. What was its stance? Did the Punjabi leadership and parties support Jinnah or did they oppose his idea of Pakistan? Did Jinnah have to bring them into Pakistan kicking and screaming, or were the lined up as patriotic future Pakistanis?

The historical facts are right there for everyone to see. Muslim League could barely win two seats in Punjab elections, at one stage. The Punjab leadership was dead set against Pakistan, and created all sorts of obstacles for Jinnah. To quote Wolpert, the Punjab leadership wanted Jinnah in their, “pockets.” The British also sided with the Punjab leadership, since it was against Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan. Hence the Punjab secular leaderships were the ultimate Uncle Toms. Had it been a weaker personality than Jinnah, the Punjab leadership would have gotten its way.

It is true, as HP has pointed out, that smaller provinces came into Pakistan at a later stage. However, they did accept the idea before Punjab did. I believe the sequence was, as follows: Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab, NWFP. So, if circa 1940, someone were to ask Jinnah if the all-India religious maulvi leadership was trying to torpedo his idea of Pakistan more, or whether the secular Punjab leadership was the main culprit, what would he have said? I am sure he would have pointed towards Punjab, because the maulvi leadership could not have stopped Pakistan, while the Punjab leadership almost did.

Based on this, isn’t it an ironic hypocrisy that individuals representing, “secular Punjab” today, including many on this site, are at the forefront of pointing out the opposition of maulvis towards the creation of Pakistan. Shouldn’t they first handle their own skeletons in their own historical Punjab closets?

Interestingly, the biggest supporters of Pakistan were Bengali and UP Muslim. Neither of whom are a part of Pakistan. If you were to ask a Bengali, whom he considered responsible for the breakup of Pakistan – Punjab or maulvis – I can make a bet nine out of ten will say Punjab. If you asked those out of UP who have made it to Pakistan as Muhajirs, whom they consider a bigger nuisance – maulvis or Punjab – I can bet again it will be Punjab. In fact, if you were to ask the intelligentsia of any ethnicity in Pakistan who dominates them more, Punjab or mauvlis, all of them, except the Punjabi intellegentsia (and Kashmir intelligentsia) will say Punjab.

Yet this site is filled with articles (primarily from Punjabis) highlighting the mullah as the main evil (or the Army, while never accepting the fact that Punjab sits at the heart of Army).

I don’t think the main cause of the problem is the domination of Punjabis in the military or beurecracy. Non-Punjabis do, and have come to the top of these organizations, thereby controlling them fully. A group of Muhajir generals, under Musharraf kicking out a completely Punjabi govt. under Nawaz, being a good example.

The main problem is the dominance of Punjab in politics. While non-Punjabis can reach the top and control a primarily Punjabi military and beurecracy on occasion, no non-Punjabi can control Punjab’s politics. Is there any other country in the world, where one province/unit/state can single-handedly block bills presented in union by the remaining provinces of the country?

USSR under Russia, and Yugoslavia under Serbia, come to mind. Look what happened over there. Should they blame the Serbian and Russian Army and maulvis, exclusively, or does the blame go on all Russians and Serbians, regardless of profession. I vote for the later.

It is thus not a coincidence that Nawaz Sharif chose becoming the Chief Minister of Punjab over being the leader of opposition in the center. And the Chaudhry family preferred the Chief Ministership of Punjab over the Prime Ministership of the country. Leaders from smaller provinces, like Amin Fahim/Fazl etc. do not make such decisions.

Anyways, I think all these issues and their negative impact on Pakistan (secularism, Punjab, feudalism, tribal leaders, etc.) need to be highlighted, along with mullahs and Army and anything else. However, discussions should not be allowed to be hijacked by the agenda of a small set of interactors……………

HP

I agree with your analysis. However, I disagree with your point on migration of farm workers to Sindh. It is true that there was a huge land grab in sindh by military generals in 60s and ever since and they did bring non-sindhi workers from outside of sindh but it is also true that a significantly large part of non-sindhi migrant farm workers came in due to early 40s land reforms before Paksitan. GM Syed himself went to Huryana to convince punjabi farmers to migrate to sindh giving them an incentive of owning the leased land and to cultivate it. But in general I agree that Sindhis are short-changed in either case and military has made the matters worst then ever for also disenfranchising them.