Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth

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

``Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.``

Well said Rahul! Very well said. An uninterrupted process is the key for democracy.

#48 sameer ``The point I am making is that NS was/ is able to stand without military with sizable popular support. The Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhrys and MMA are nothing without military and Musharraf. ``

Are you for real, bro? Without the the support of his fauji political and spiritual fathers Nawaz Sharif was wiped out in the last election. The referendem was a joke, yes, but no one disputes that the elections were fair and free. MMA won on the basis of Islam and PML-Q on the basis of biradariism. Islam and biradariism - the only two vote winners in Pakistan. Someone like you should know that.

The Sharif family is history. Next in the firing line, the Bhuttos. This is a much tougher job. Unlike the Sharifs they really do have a constituency of their own.

Why do we blame others for what has happened! The fact is that by the quietly smuggling theocratic foundations in the constitution of Pakistan it became a piece of junk in the hands of Ulemas and all the powerful elites willing to consort with them!!

Read this-


The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya

On the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly

March 12, 1949


``Now as for the first paragraph:

``Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust``.

This part of the Resolution, I think, ought to be deleted. All powers, in my opinion, rest with the people and they exercise their power through the agency of the State. State is merely their spokesman. The Resolution makes the State the sole authority received from God Almighty through the instrumentality of people – Nemittamatrona, ``Merely instruments of the State``. People have no power or authority, they are merely post boxes according to this Resolution. The State will exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Him (God). What are those limits, who will interpret them? Dr. Qureshi or my respected Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani? In case of difference, who will interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis XIV may come and say ``I am the State, anointed by the Almighty`` thus paving the way for advent Divine Right of Kings of afresh. Instead of State being the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion. To me voice of people is the voice of God, ``Jatra jiba tatra shiva.`` The people are the manifestation of God.

In my conception of State where people of different religion live there is no place for religion in the State. Its position must be neutral: no bias for any religion. If necessary, it should help all the religions equally. No question of concession or tolerance to any religion. It smacks of inferiority complex. The State must respect all religions: no smiling face for one and askance look to the other. The state religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are sufficient to warn us not to repeat the blunder. We know people were burnt alive in the name of religion. Therefore, my conception is that the sovereignty must rest with the people and not with any body else.``

........................
``I have stated about this Resolution. Now what will be the result of this Resolution? I sadly remind myself of the great words of the Quaid-I-Azam that in state affairs the Hindus will cease to be a Hindu; the Muslim shall cease to be a Muslim. But alas, so soon after his demise what you do is that you virtually declare a State religion! You are determined to create a Herrenvolk. It was perhaps bound to be so, when unlike the Quaid-I-Azam – with whom I was privileged to be associated for a great many years in the Indian National Congress – you felt your incapacity to separate politics from religion, which the modern world so universally does. You could not get over the old world way of thinking. What I hear in this Resolution not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-I-Azam (may his soul rest in peace), nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Honourable Mr Liaquat Ali Khan but of the Ulemas of the land.``

I think recruits of Pakistan Army are not coming from heaven, they are the product of our society, which unfortunately has forgotton almost all values of being normal people. We should fist correct all our systems such as education system, social system etc........... Even, we should look into our common thoughts as we see each others, our friends, our neighbours, our relatives, our nationals..................

Lets correct ourselves as an individual..............Iqbal said.........``Har fard hai millat kay muqaddar ka sittarra....................``

Pakistan Army saved the country on political as well as on war fronts. The War of bangladesh was a political failure.........started before even 1947 (when Urdu & bangaly war started) and peaked when Mr. Bhutto was Prime Minister( ...........he was great leader one should not blame him for this..........he was unfortunate that all this escaleted in his times)...........

Tauqeer

``20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against. ``

Why are some people eager to enforce consensus amongst civilians as if it is a monolithic entity like military?? In India we only care about agreeing to work on issues on which ``some`` consensus can be obtained- there could be hundreds of issues on which there may be disagreements but there are always another thousand issues on which all agree- and that is how Indian coalitions have worked since last two decades!! All those issues where their cannot be any consensus amongst the political representatives is consigned to the back burners. And Pakistan should try to become a truly multi representative democracy by encouraging coalitions rathar than trying to put some as benevolent kings and enforcing consensus down the throats of the civilians!

I agree that Pakistan cannot function under an imported model of democracy. It has to create a new one ... which, although, should have been done in the time of 57 years which is ample enough. But, it is better late than never.

Well, the military intervention has not let other institutions grow; but ironic is the fact that only the military of Pakistan can be labeled as an organized institution in this country.

What would be interesting is a question that what do chowkies have in mind about ``the perfect model of democracy`` in Pakistan....I think the present one has loopholes but it is the only one which after resurrection can be deemed fit. Comments? ?

re: rahul_capri # 49

Just a point of clarification, Rahul. Punjab is the not the largest province in Pakistan. The largest province in Pakistan is Baluchistan. Punjab`s hegemony of Pakistan comes from its dominance of the economic resources of Pakistan and its overt influence in the military and the bureaucracy of Pakistan.

re: ikonoclast # 47

An excellent summary of the issues/questions facing Pakistan and I agree, with most of your observations. You are right; Pakistan has to fashion its own version of democracy and it should not rely on an ``imported model``.

Ciao

ikonoklast #47
Your last question - doable steps-this is the first step-to realize the value of democracy.I dont know very much about Pakistani politics but if the majority of people want democracy,and want it bad enough,How can Musharraf continue?
Sameer says that only 5% of people have Mush as the first ]second choice.But I sense a complacency regarding his rule,defeatist arguments like what would have become if he had not come to power etc. etc.
Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.
Let us assume that the politicians are thiefs.In most of the cases they are.When you and I dont care about the country,why should they? But when they realize that they cannot continue their positions of power and their robbery when the people see a better alternative,sooner or later they will behave.They will still rob,but not that much that people kick their asses in the next election.
Now to the question of different ethnicities.In this respect,Pakistan is not comparable to India at all,because as I have come to know,Punjab is larger than the rest of Pakistan put together.There has to be a long term solution to Punjabi hegemony. I dont know,you guys would know better.I can only give the example of the various splintered groups and coalition politics in India.Earlier,when the domination of Congress finished,and the BJP rose as a viable national alternative,the value of splintered groups became very important in the polity.Chandrasekhar became prime minister with the support of a handful of MPs.Governments rose and fell at the behest of regional party leaders like Mayawati,Mulayam,Jayalalita,Naidu etc etc. The parliament was never seen to be likely to complete a full term.But afterwards,coalition politics has matured under BJP and there is something like a two party system,though even the smallest regional group cannot be ignored.
India has problems like Far East,Kashmir etc. people mfrom where have been marginalized, but these problems are more likely to be solved under a democracy than a dictatorship.Because of the size of Punjab,it can probably dominate a democratic government,but is that enough to lose faith in democracy?

No major political party for right of center politicians ezisted during Zia rule. His opposition meant joinging hands with PPP and Benazir Bhutto, althought many smaller parties were included in ARD. All center right politicains, Islamists and newcomers joined Zia. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask for banning politicians who supported Zia. At least NS and PML (N) now do not enjoy military backing; they are on their own. In a fair election, the issue of them supporting military dictators should be raised and PPP candidates have been very vocal about pointing this out to constituents. It is upto people who they vote.

The fact is that in the absence of Musharraf and military interference, PML (N) and NS would either win or more likely come out as the main opposition party in cae PPP wins. The current QML would have to ally with none other than religious parties to some out at third place. MMA is an ally to the government. The alliance making, winning two provinces and large number of NA seats all owe it to Musharraf and military intelligence. They never had this good and they know it. They have supported Musharraf`s constitutional amendment. So it is not right to label MMA as now in opposition and once with Zia. Mullah, Islamists and MMA are with military because that is the only force which can give importance to MMA; in fair elections they would be the biggest disappointment as usual and they know it.

During Musharraf`s rule, the situation for center right politicians is not the same as it was in Zia era. Now they have major political party as PML (N). The point I am making is that NS was/ is able to stand without military with sizable popular support. The Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhrys and MMA are nothing without military and Musharraf.

On party basis, Pakistani vote bank is mostly owned by PPP, PML (N) , ANP, BNP, JUI, JI and MQM; QML does not have vote bank on party basis except for Musharraf supporters, perhaps 5 percent people, mostly Urdu speaking mohajirs, for whom Musharraf is either second (after MQM or JI) or first choice.

Various mails

We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.

Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.

By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.

We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?

So Long

Various mails

We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.

Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.

By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.

We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?

So Long

I am not against what the writer thinks of the situation of Pakistan. We Pakistanis always had a problem of unstable minds. There are a handful of people who can think straight and appreciate all situations. There is a difference between positive critism and critisizing for the sake of ones petty gains. We may appreciate that, most of us critisize for our own gains. You need to know how a govt functions to be able to understand to write all that you have written. Dont you know that Jamali turned out to be a non deliverer. Dont you know it is better to have an intelligent enemy then to have a foolish friend and so on and so forth. I am sure if you try to see you will again find good indicators for all that you have discredited the govt for.

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

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

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

WHY the discussion and reaction on the articles on chowk lose their seriousness some 15-20 reactions down the road? :( I was wondering if people could be nice to eachother other even in mud-slinging and as they say ``polite but firm.`` Trust me friends, coming down to the level of someone who`s not been nice, makes you what the other person is. And even ignoring bad comments strengthens one`s personality from within.

Just a thought thou!

Now my reactions to few comments...:


# 5 Ikonoclast:

I agree with you when you hold the political class equally responsible for the state of limbo this country is in but then again, who makes them behave that way? Secondly, this vicious circle of atrocities against democracy needs to be ended now and frankly, the worst of the democracies even tend to take care of the nations unlike dictators and army rules. People in Pakistan usually refer to the great De Gualle and Mahatir Muhammad and try to prove their case that onemanship is the best mode of development. BUT which they tend to forget is that although it was onemanship but a majority of the state institutions were free to work their way. We also must not forget what the great De Gualle said when his cronies pushed him against Sartre: “How can I arrest France for Sartre is France.” And here we have dictators meddling in everything from family planning to policy planning!

# 6 Rozaiba:

Thanks for the comments. They were really encouraging!

# 11 nikki7777

I am Mubashir Akram for my father’s name is Akram J No other reason. Trust me, I can even quote my address and phone number and it’s not that I wish to remain concealed. I would only live once…better in grace than in disgrace!

# 13 kkkandk

Very good comments Mr. Tripple K but honestly, none can live in the past. We live in the present to have a better future and that’s all we could do about it. Our political history is one of the most shameful ones in the South Asian countries but the point is: where do we go from here? My pangs of pain for the civilian rule and supremacy were for a better future, freedom and civil liberties…

HP 33 I understand when you say that there is no money in that debate.
I will ask one more question,why do most Pakistani posters here perceive NS as a free loader and there is a definite polarisation among people who favor the army and people who favor him?
Furthermore,is this the biggest hurdle to democracy,that a significant number of people do not share the vision of people like Feroz -``Democracy at all costs``?

re: HP & Rahul _Capri (various posts)

Sorry to abut into your discussions, but I just wanted to clarify a few points.

HP, your observations are correct that I favor a federation, but not with strong central powers. I favor the present federated structure but only as first step towards moving to the idea of the federation in the Constitution of 1973, with its concurrant list of powers between the center and the provinces. Over a period of time, I would really like to see a devolution of power to the provinces and even to the districts.

Given Pakistan`s historic experience, one option is to create a dyarchy and to share power, but how we get there or even get to decentralized power is the critical question. There has to be a evolution towards what you seem to favor; decentralized power.

Ciao

#33 HP:

I also prefer decentralization over federalism because I feel that democracy suits more to Pakistan than highly centralized federation. I haven`t followed your vision in detail but I have presented my thoughts here many times during the discussion of division of power and division of existing provinces.

I do not support strong center but I do not support strong provinces either. I wish to see equal amount of power transfered from center to provinces and from provinces to districts. Given the diversity of Pakistan, I wish to see district governments most important from public point of view with full control over education and cultural matters. Dividing Punjab or Sindh is nto the solution to multiethnic Pakistan. Pakistan is in fact much more multiethnic than 4, 7 or 8 units. Additionally unlike isolation in mountaneous areas (for example kafirs of Chitral, Balti of northern areas etc), various ethnic groups of Pakistan live in mixed environment. Strong district government is the key to create harmony in Pakistan.

Its downside is small compared to upside. Downside is the bickering among districts over water distribution etc but upside is not putting all your eggs in one basket. Strong district governments to the level of current provincial governments make army taking over more problematic. Army garrisons can not move to every district to take over the government in few hours. With media outlets from districts, army takeover of Islamanad, Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar can be resisted much longer. Secondly a poor central or provincial government would have less effect on the governance of all districts. Possibly many district governments could perform well despite crooks running central government.


All of Pakistan should not suffer due to poor quality of democratic government in the center and provincial capitals. Historically united Punjab`s fate was decided in one battle in Panipat or Lahore and often lost. Before that invaders have to fight their way from Bhalwal to Shahpur to Lahore, fighting with Gakkhars and then with Jats and others. People have more affiliation at local level than provincial or national level and that attachment to local level can be used towards better governance, development, prosperity, justice and peace.

HP

Take it easy pal - my intention was not to upset your blood pressure. For an outsider - I know as much as anybody else - about paki history and various twists and turns in its politics. My knowledge may not be as exhaustive as yours ( of course ) but I think I know enough to put up a counter argument to your assertion that ``Pakistan people have fought battles against Mushy .... blah ....blah``.

Since his 1999 coup - I haven`t really observed any ``battles`` that has been fought against Mushy`s military regime. If you think otherwise - then enlighten us.

If you don`t want to answer - that`s fine too. Just don`t boil over!!!

HP
//...Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics...//

Thanks for imparting the secret wisdom. Now - let`s take War of 99. Mushy planned that war ... Mushy fought the war ... mushy lost the war .. mushy took over the country ... mushy is ruling it for 5 years now, un-hindered, un-challenged ... he is the undisputed king.

So in this sitcom, which episode shows us the ``battle for democracy`` ?

Rahul,

While Feroz and I both feel that democracy is the way to go for Pakistan, we differ in the system itself. Feroz appears to favor federalism and more centralized system and I favor maximum decentralization of powers in Pakistan. In other words, I feel that less powers the center has, there are more chances for democracy to survive in Pakistan. There is no money in it that debate now. We both agree that somehow Pakistan has to get to democracy first or at least the civilian rule for starter and even that would take some doing.

NS did not take paid vacation. He is not a feudal. He did make a compromise and I think it was okay for him do that at that time.

#30 by mohar11

Mohar,

one can be a cynical bast-rd or a gullible fool. You can’t be both.

It would be better to find and read history before writing something only a gullible fool can write. Once you gain more knowledge about struggle for democracy in Pakistan, you will know what people of Pakistan have done for democracy. Or take a cue from Rahul. He wanted to know something and he showed sincerity and purposefulness.

With your current style, you will always get this answer or no answer.
Just a hint for you, all wars between Pakistan and India 65, 71 or Kargil happened because of domestic Pakistani politics.

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

HP
//....Nobody should underestimate people of Pakistan though. They have fought battles with the army and at least ensured that Pakistan army is forced to create a façade of civilian structure and the army despite dozens of amendments is unable to rescind the constitution fully. ..//

The civilian facade is for international consumption. I don`t think people of pakistan really give a sh!t about that. They have danced in the street when mush took over and his approval rating is still high. So I don`t know what ``battles`` people of pakistan have fought against the army.

The constitution in pakistan is another facade - nobody in pakistan really considers it anything but a joke. If and when army feels that mere amendments won`t do the trick - mush is going rescind it. Except for some little storms in the elite tea cups - nobody in pakistan will give a damn.

In fact - Faujis have literally got away with murder, many times - nobody in pakistan has held them to anything. Constitution is no big deal.

HP
//...The Kargil was designed to bring army’s prestige back and make it reassert itslef in Pakistan’s politics again. ...//

I have never understood this one. Kargil ended up as a miserable defeat for Paki Army - both in military and political terms. And yet - it somehow ``brought Army`s prestige back`` and made them even more powerful. Mushy, the architect of that fiasco, actually claimed the throne, based on that mis-adventure.

I mean - what are we missing here? Even banana republics will hang their head in shame.

HP,that was an insightful post.I surmise that whatever it was regards to NS, the desire for more power or doing service to wishes of Pakistani people ,he did try to take on the army by dismissing COAS.Though it is another matter,that after being dismissed himself,he chose to take a paid vacation somewhere and not go to jail.After all,feudal habits die hard.
Feroz, I agree with you that Pakistan should have its own version of democracy.
I am going by an assumption that some sort of currency from the people is required and it is also obvious from some interactors that they dont wholly buy any alternatives to the army.Also, I assume that NS though a stooge of the army and USA would ultimately have worked against the army and the US interests if he had more curremcy from the people.
But in that case question is would that have resulted in a theocratic government more aligned with the Middle East than with America?
Observing the hatred of America among Pakistanis in this forum I think that position would be bought by the Pakistani people.Also would such a state be better for the development of the country?
I would think that the ideal position would be a non radical or a neutral position,in which the demcratic head(probably of a theocratic democracy) gives US enough sops like Al Qaeda ,so that it keeps from mobilising the army .The only problem in a theocratic state is that it might not be possible to keep away from the Arab fundoo politics and that might result in more deterioration with relationship with India and may result in even more Kargils.The rise of fundoo forces on both sides of the border is bad for both countries because it takes us away from the real problems that face us. So, assuming that a theocratic feudal govt is the only alternative to go from here,can such a government take a non radical position on issues like Kashmir and Middle East?

Daily Times editorial

EDITORIAL: Tongues that wag with reason

General Pervez Musharraf wants to know why “pseudo-intellectuals” are inclined to criticise the defence housing societies that are an ubiquitous feature of the urban landscape in Pakistan. He reasons that these societies constitute top residential areas in Pakistan, are very well kept and run efficiently. Speaking at the Karachi DHA, he said that he was pressing this point because the detractors kept questioning the military’s involvement in everything. The military is not involved in running these housing estates. These societies, he said, are run by retired army officers and civilians. Warming to his sophistry, General Musharraf then went on to argue that there was no need for anyone to feel ‘jealous’ if the land was acquired cheap, then developed and sold at higher prices. Taking this logic further he also mentioned the Army Welfare Trust and Fauji Foundation — organisations involved in banking, real estate development and industry — and said that while retired army officers were the bosses in these organisations, they were generating employment “which is essential because military officers here are retired at a very young age”.

We understand General Musharraf’s unease at attempts by “pseudo intellectuals” to point to the military’s “corporate” interests. But while the military can argue its political role on the basis of peoples’ disenchantment with political parties and leaders and is not particularly bothered about “pseudo-analyses” that criticise it, its “corporate” interests seem to be a different ballgame altogether. The pinch comes when people begin to talk about money matters and how the military has been able to protect and enhance its financial affairs by virtue of being the most powerfully entrenched institution in the country. But the fact is that too many stories exist about how the military is wont to conduct its financial affairs by manipulating the system in its favour. These take away the sheen the military has put on itself. Hence General Musharraf’s unease and his urge to use pejorative terms like “pseudo intellectuals” for those that are not swayed by the outward polish.

But things need to be put in the proper perspective. Why should the military be the only institution that can get cheap land for development through official means and then sell it off at exorbitant prices? The argument that the military defends the country and therefore should be treated with deference is fine, but it shouldn’t be stretched too far. After all, our military is still an all-volunteer army, isn’t it? This means that no one in Pakistan can be forced into military service. This also means that those who choose of their own volition to join the military should not expect to be treated royally or more favourably than other segments of society. Of course, if Pakistan had a people’s army and lands and other perks were awarded to people at large for rendering high services, that would be OK. But that is not the case here, is it?

The military is also the major political power in Pakistan. It has advanced its corporate interests by using its political clout, including getting businesses for its organisation, sometimes having undue access to sources of public money with which to keep them afloat and making laws to legalise this activity. How is this different from a political party getting into power and then using its position to advance party interests? Yet political leaders are tainted when accountability bureau slap references on them for ‘misusing’ official positions. In other words, when chief ministers or prime ministers allot plots to party favourites or civil servants, they are deemed to be corrupt by indulging in cronyism or patronage. But when army officers get plots from GHQ for services rendered, that is perfectly in order. When the land acquisition act is used by governments to buy land below market prices from its civilian owners and then sell or lease it out to the military for a song for its housing societies — which go on to make huge profits — that is in order. But when civilian governments do the same thing for their voters or party workers, it is out of order definitely. Come, come, sir, the tongues are not wagging without reason.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-8-2004_pg3_1

re: Fuzair # 17

I will try to answer your questions.

First of all, in my opinion there is no substitute to a democratic form of government. I have this bias in favor of a democratic form of government, because past experience of having lived under a military rule has convinced that it offers no viable solutions for the long term. Military rule, by its nature, is illegitimate and when military rulers try to legitimize their rule, they invaribly make bargains, which end up harming the national interests. Zia`s process of Islamization of Pakistani society was one such example and it had everything to do with prolonging his rule and had nothing to do with instituting Islam. The end result was the radicalization of politics and the civil society in Pakistan and the unchartered increases in the levels of social, political and cultural intolerances that marred the Pakistani society. The rising guise of terrorism and the governmental support for terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan created a situation, which systematically whittled away Pakistan`s sovereign writ.

Ayub Khan`s martial law did not fare any better in its long term implications on the Pakistani society either. The process of industrialization undertaken by Ayub, and touted by many as his crowning achievement, mutated an emergent capitalism into open mechanism and excuse for national robbery. The riggings of the 1964 elections destroyed the last remaining vestiges of electoral democracy in Pakistan. The experiments with the Basic Democracy started a process of tinkering with Pakistan`s Westminister style of government and ushered the nation onto a path of presidential politics, whose lack of resolution still makes it impossible to arrive at consensus on the form of national goverance best suited for Pakistani needs.

Granted that the martial laws are better over a democracy, theoretically, but they can not answer the question of how to sustain the long term developments of the nation. Martial laws hinder the evolution of normal politics, because nations are run on the wits of politics and not on the whims of military fiats. Politics, if allowed to run their own evolutionary course, will chart their own maxims of political institutionalism and over a period of time, this natural growth of political institutionalism is a better option to a more tolerant politics.

The fact remains; under a military rule, a nation is not free and no matter how enlightened the military despot might be, he still remains a despot foisted upon the people against their will. Fuzair, lets say hypothetically speaking that you are jailed and over a period of time, the jailer becomes your best friend. Despite all the laughs and the good times you will share with him, nothing will erase the fact that he will still be your jailer and you will still be inside a jail and he will be still be guarding you. You can deny the apprent reality of your limitations, but denial does alter the limitations of your situation.

Please do not confuse my support for democracy in Pakistan with the international grund norms of democracy. Democracy in Pakistan will have to find its own rationale given our checkered historic experience of gaining and losing democratic governments. The democracy in India, for example, might offer a more realistic model for democracy in Pakistan, but will not offer the solution for a real, long lasting democractic government in Pakistan. Pakistan will have to create its own version of a democracy, which addresses the basic questions of its citizenery and those questions are about an access to social justice, economic empowerment and a lack of societal discrimination.

In this sense, I am in favor of a presidential form of government and not because I am against the Westminister style of politics, but because since our early days, Pakistani politics is heading towards a presidential style of politics. Whether we like it or not, our politics has assumed a presidential format and now we must simply balance out the powers between the executive and legislative and make this system work. The system may be bad and it may be worse than awful, but it has to be allowed to finish one complete political incarnation before it is aborted by a military coup d` état. The system must be allowed to iron out its own wrinkles naturally without any forced political engineerings.

In this sense, I favor the present national assembly to finish its present term and then have new elections in 2006 or even 2007 but not before 2006. Pakistani politicans and politics must disabuse itself of the idea that elections every 18 months is good for democracy. Democracy and democratic governments are not about elections; they are about the peaceful transfer of power from one political group to another.

I do not support the argument that a remedy to bad democracy should be more democracy. I support the argument that the remedy to bad democracy is not to lose hope in the democractic process itself. We can debate the values of democracy and what version of democracy is best suited for Pakistan, but we not should never question its overall effacy in Pakistan`s political evolution as a muture political state capable of identifying and asnwering the needs of its population.

I do not think there was any democracy under Nawaz Sharif and do not think that the next elections under Sharif would have been fair and free. Despite the systematic flaws, the polity must be given the chance to correct its own mistakes and over a period of time, the problems of this particular nature would have resolved itself. Democracy is not a perfect system of governance and it is flawed and prone to mishaps, but it does require faith in the judgement of the electorate to decide for itself what is best and what is wrong. It took nearly 200 years for democracy to establish itself in England and the English were as corrupt and inclined to abuse power as the Pakistani politicans, but they trusted the good judgement of the people and did not make new laws; but better implemented good laws already existing to make an even better goverance for the people.

Give democracy a chance and I promise you, it will not disappoint you!

Ciao

sameer JB
Romair
You raise some interesting and vital points, I would like to comment on them as soon as I get my feet on terra cotta:) But for the interim, suffice it to say, like I said earlier elsewhere on this forum, that Mush didnnt takeover due to any altruistic reasons. It was a classic case of saving ass-his. Regarding your reference about the army supporting NS against GIK and later Legari, it was just an internal turf fight among the power elites; afterall the so-called establishment is made-up of the military, the bureaucrats (although with an eroding power-base) and the feudal/politicos. And never forget that heavy mandate or no, NS was a stooge of the establishment, who got too big for his shoes and had started having delusions of grandeurs.

Romair, you are right that in the absence of Mush`s coup, we could have been a theorocratic state, but thats a different arguement altogather. Mush didnt topple NS to avert the shariah per se !
So Long

Rahul, Sameer, Romair-

Rahul,
your post gave me the opening that I was looking for. The saga of democracy or non democracy cannot be fully understood w/o accurately following the make up of the Pak army.
Pak army is an out of control institution and it really does not matter who the commander is, this institution would always work for its benefits like any other business corporations. With a difference, those business corporations don’t have killing machine in their hands. They have to work within the system to make the profit. The Pak army also works for its interests and sometime it uses mere diplomacy and sometimes brute force to get to what it wants.
To know the army, the first thing we need to realize that this army was made potent by CIA and the US military intelligence when Pakistan signed up with the US in anti-communist alliances. Before that this was a ragtag outfit that relied on second hand ammo from the former brit army.
The Cento and Seato were not mere military alliances, they were complete political alliances and the army was trained to infiltrate and sabotage initially communist outfits in Pakistan and later all shades of politicians in Pakistan. The Army is still following that script. The ISI and the MI wings of Pakistan army are set up on the US model and they still get training in the US. (With a few years of exception).
The US army and intelligence services are the biggest lobbyist for the Pak army and as long as the US has interests in that area, the Pak army would remain the most important ally for them.
CIA with the help of this army launched an effective campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan and probably would use it again to destabilize Iran in near future.

(BTW, I think the army bases in Balochistan are part of the US plans and the Army is just doing what it needs to do and most of the Baloch Sardars would eventually go with the army lots of smoke screens there.)

In the last 50 years, the army has penetrated all walks of Pakistani life. From the educational institutions to the Judiciary, Media, Newspaper and politics, the army in Pakistan has claws and teeth everywhere. Sameer named a few politicians and I can also name many more that have active alliance with the army. In fact, my assessment of the current Pakistan is that one will not find a single top or second tier politician that is beyond the army approach. That includes NS and BB both.

So when this army can penetrate and effectively create the afghan resistance, it can penetrate and hijack legitimate Kashmir opposition and even make inroads in India, how hard it would be for the army to penetrate Pakistani politicians and business leaders who have to rely on favors from the army to survive?
Nobody should underestimate people of Pakistan though. They have fought battles with the army and at least ensured that Pakistan army is forced to create a façade of civilian structure and the army despite dozens of amendments is unable to rescind the constitution fully.
Please read Sameer’s reference to Kargil carefully. For the first time in Pakistan’s history the army was on the receiving end. A civilian PM nurtured and created by the Army was able to dismiss a COAS, a huge slap on the face of the arrogant army.
The reason for all that: The US had lost interests in Pakistan temporarily and the army was unsure of itself. NS figured that out or somebody prompted him, he dismissed one and almost dismissed the second COAS within two years.

The Kargil was designed to bring army’s prestige back and make it reassert itslef in Pakistan’s politics again.

The army generals and leaders like Zia, Mush, Yahya and Ayub were of mediocre intelligence but an all powerfull institution helped them lead Pakistan for decades.

sameer,HP-
Reading the article and the interacts,I have some questions.
What keeps the army so united? Such rallying behind a person is striking,at the cost of the welfare of the nation.Even if it is believed that the army men are too selfish and do not care abt the average Pakistani,still it is amazing that one man is allowed his free will. Considerations of hunger for power,ethinicity etc. may have come into play,I would have assumed.
Secondly,it appears that army has been destabilising democracy.Why would they need covert tactics? Why do they need to make a case for coup?Do they need the moral support of Pakistani people and or international community?
Thirdly, Why is it the case of feudals vs army?Cant they have a cozy little pact and run a sham democracy? why does one of them get over ambitious?
Romair
If militiary is better than the feudals,do you think the change required is more social than political,on lines of the russian revolution ?

Romair:

You are comparing apples with oranges here. Musharraf on the throne is not at all due to the bad actions of Nawaz Sharif you outlined. You should have added the refusal of senate to debate, let alone pass, a bill condeming honor killing, hadood ordinance, creation of Shariah courts and council of Islamic ideology which predate nawaz Sharif government.

Musharraf has not even once publically spoken against Shariah or Shariah bill because he knows that it is political suicide to go against Islam in Pakistan.

The storming of Supreme court predates elevation of Musharraf to the COAS position and previous COAS chose not to take action on this bais. Before that military establishment actually supported Nawaz Sharif against both Ghulam Ishaq Khan and later Farooq Leghari. If he was so corrupt, then why did military supported him instead of getting rid of him with the help of Presidents? Most of the people who wer going to vote for Shariah bill are now in QML and sitting in the Assembly.

The shariah Bill, if I am not mistaken also predates Musharraf. Anyway, when Shariah bill was moving through the National Assembly, Musharraf was actually buddy-buddy with Nawaz Sharif. Nobody can deny it.

If NS committed blunder by letting his supporters storm the supreme court, Musharrad did worse humiliation by making it rubber stamp Supreme court through excecutive orders to retake oath. The people who participated in storming the supreme court, except Khawaja Asif, are in QML and some even ministers under Musharraf.

Talk about honor killing. Why blame NS only when Musharraf had two chances, one as CE and other now, to condemn it by law and set the punishment? He did not do it. He did not even change qasas law, eliminating Shahriah courts, Hudood ordinance or Blasphemy law, when he had free and easy authority under Supreme court for 3 years as CE and now with hand-picked civilian set-up to overturn draconian laws.

He made 40-50 changes in the constitution through constitutional amendment but none of them deal with the above mentioned issues you are so fond of presenting over and over. He does not have the balls to do it and bascally interested in prolonging his hold on power. Tying cat around camel`s neck is common practice world over in politics. All the draconian laws could have been attached to the package of LFO easily.

So, please quit presenting bad apples as the reason for bad oranges. Musharraf did not come to power because of them. He came due to power hunger and paved the way in that direction by creating wedge between civilian and military establishments starting with Kargil operation.

I guess according to your logic, India would have avoided Gujrat riots, if military had taken over, overthrowing hindutva BJP government. With such a forsight, you ought to be a consultant for some Indian think tank.

Wouldn`t Pakistan have been a theocratic state by now, had the coup not occured? I would have to say the answer is 100% yes. The Shariah Bill had passed through the Assembly. And due to the PML`s overwhelming majority, it would have easily passed through the Senate. After that Pakistan, for the first time in its history, would officially be run under an Islamic Shariah. Following are some interesting points of the Shariah Bill:

``The Federal Government shall be under an obligation to take steps to enforce the Shariah, to establish salat, to administer zakat, to promote......``

`` Bill to amend the Constitution providing for the removal of any impediment in the enforcement of any matter relating to Shariah and the implementation of the Injunctions of Islam may originate in either House and shall, if it is passed by a majority of the members voting in the House in which it originated, be transmitted to the other House; and if the Bill is passed without amendment by the majority of the members voting in the other House also, it shall be presented to the President for assent.``

So, the govt. could pass Shariah laws, based on simple majorty. And any law could be kicked out, if it did not fall under Shariah interpretation by an unelected body of maulvis, to interpret the, ``Shariah``-ness of a bill. To make a long story short, NS would have been the amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan, and anything he did not like could be declared un-Shariah. He could, for all practical purposes, declare elections to be un-Shariah also.

This is where Pakistan would have been today. A bankrupt, isolated Shariah-based country, being ruled by the interpretations of unelected maulvis. The govt. had stormed the Supreme Court, fired a Chief Justice, appointed the PM`s best friend and maulvi judge (who helped in getting the Chief Justice fired) as the President. And appointed the PM`s personal accoutant as the finance minister. However, the Prime Minister, running this whole show, would have been elected through an election, thereby satisfying the traditional democracy argument.

People cannot have it both ways. If they want to support NS and, ``elections at all costs`` argument, then they must support the Shariah Bill, because it was perfectly legal, being carried out by an elected govt. Pakistan`s natural evolution would thus have resulted in a theocratic country, under such an arrangement.

Yet one never hears this side. If one is going to support NS`s elections, one has to support, in principle, Pakistan becoming a Shariah country (even if one dislikes Shariah personally). The 15th amendment was, infact, the biggest change that the NS was to bring in Pakistan.

I can respect those who argue that Pakistan should have been allowed to become a theocratic country, as long as an elected govt. was doing it. The people I cannot respect are the ones who on the one hand keep arguing against theocracy and maulvis, and on the other hand keep supporting elections at all costs............

#17 fuzair

Whatever I wrote in my post has been mentioned in the print and electronic media of Pakistan over the years. Even without mentioning any of it and following HP`s general assertion leads to the same conclusion that military is a contributor in not letting the situation improve. The best argument, though not related to democracy is military spending. Somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 billion dollars from a total of 12.6 billion dollars government revenues per year are spent on military leaving much less for education, infrastructure and other developmental programs. How can then military not be resposible for creating the bad situation? Is this also a conspiracy theory that military`s industrial complex involves in unfair business practices and undermines competition? Is this also a conspiracy that billions of rupees collected from the selling of sick industrial unit by privatization commission were siphoned off to fauji foundation and other sick military institutions? Why dont they sell fauji foundation to the highest bidder like other sick industrial units?

kkkandk#20
fuzair #17,

Before thanking you must realize that Mush did nt topple NS to save the country; it was a desperate act ofself-preservation. Because after the Kargil debale it was either Mush`s ass or NS`; they both instituted measures to checkmate each other. In the event the boot had the upper hand.
Secondly NS was not the product of a democratic milieu, he was the creature of the military establishment, particularly Zia and Jilani. So no tears there. One should also examine the shennanigans of NS: he sundered and compromised the high judiciary; screwed a president; made an army chief resign; passed a constitutional amendment regarding floor-crossing to muzzle political debate and dissent and was trying to ram in the 16 th amendment to impose the so-called sharia law. So how could expect democracy coming from the womb of such a dictatorship? Politicians elevated to high office are compromised due to their associaytion with the military. Therefore such a system is inherently incapable to promote democracy.
A genuine democracy is only possible if fair and open elections are held. But under the present dispensation, thats a chimera.
The pathetic apathy of our nation only help feed authoritariansm. We are even too far in point in time even from the illiberal democracy of Zakaria.

#17 by fuzair
#15 Sameer,

”That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!”

Which part of Sameer’s post is conspiracy Theory? I am little short of time right now but would also like to add my 2 cents to what Sameer has put down.

The comparison with NS or BB is not accurate as they never got into power without army’s blessings. More on this later but please read my posts on Feroz’s “The Barrack” (#145 by HP and more) board where I have argued that both NS and BB are not democrats and would be happy to share power with the army. Their aspirations to be PM for life or the Chairperson for life are ridiculous but their roles in Pakistan have not been as destructive as the army role has been for the last 50 years.
Thanks.

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

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

#15 Sameer,

That is quite a conspiracy theory you have going! Wow! IF only the powers of the military could be turned to good!

Sameer and Feroz:

But seriously, what do you do with a ``bad`` democracy? A civilian who is determined to turn himself into ``President for Life,`` as was the case with Nkrumah of Ghana and is the case with Mugabe of Zimbabwe? And don`t forget, that is exactly what Nawaz Sharif wanted: to be PM for life (or at least 20 years or so, and then his son would have taken over)?

It is very well for Clinton and people like you to say that the only remedy for bad democracy is more democracy but where is this ``more`` democracy going to come from? How are you going to get rid of a ``bad`` civilian ruler? Notice it hasn`t exactly been easy to get rid of Mugabe.

OR do you seriously think that, if NS had remained as PM, the next general elections would have been ``free and fair`` and the people would have been allowed to throw NS out given the pathetic state the Pakistani economy would have been in then?

NS is a prime example of Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument. As Zakaria says, there is nothing good about democracy per se, it is only a liberal democracy that is desirable. And how liberal was Nawaz Sharif and Co?

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

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

Only Indians can be so hungry…

Worry about your backyard stupid cunnilingus!

..drought-flood scenario in various parts of the country, leading to disruption in supplies and providing play to speculators. The prices of several essential commodities, including fruits and vegetables, have almost doubled. Much also depends on the proposed truckers strike from tomorrow on the service tax issue.
The Government has announced another fiscal measure in an effort to dampen the inflationary pressures. Effective today, the customs duty on non-alloy steel (other than seconds and defectives) under specified customs tariff headings have been reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent. The five per cent customs duty on melting scrap of iron and steel (other than stainless steel or heat resisting steel) has been withdrawn and the customs duty on ships for breaking up reduced from 15 per cent to five per cent.

This is a good piece of writing without relying on emotionalism associated with the topic invoved. The case for democracy is made as simple as idiot`s guide to anything found these days in the bookstores. I would have, though, liked a rebuttal right after the statement of Musharraf, “military intervention 15 years down the road if situation does not improve”. The rebuttal of this statement is very easy which nobody here can refuse.

In all four cases of military takeovers, army establishment played from significant to decisive roles in destabilizing the situation. So it is false and cheap statement rgarding improving the situatioin.

Army`s role in pavingt he way to Iskander Mirza and later Ayub Khan`s coup are well documented and can found in number of books and articles. Similarly even seemingly playboyish and dumb Yahya Khan systematically paved the way for his takeover from Ayub Khan. This is also well-documented that despite Ayub Khan`s inclination to negotiate with Sheikh Mujb Ur Rehman about his famous six points, army establishment under direction from Yahya Khan vetoed the proposal to make any link with Sheikh Mujib, precisely in order to destabilize Ayub Khan by creating an impression of ultranationalism and conservatism of the establishment. Zia Ul Haq followed Yahya Khan exactly and destablized Z. A. Bhutto while constantly showing his loyalty to Bhutto. Army intelligence role in uniting the opposition to PNA movement was backed and handled by military intelligence. Additionally Saudis also contributed either in support of mullahs or as middlemen for Kissinger and US intelligence. And this guy, Musharraf did the worst. The Kargil operation was part of a plan to destabilize and overthrow NS government. Their proxies in religious parties and Jihadi organizations wer given green light and in at least two instances, the arrested sectarian terrorists were helped escape from prison. The situation was so obvious that one of their proxies Qazi Hussein Ahmed, in his infinte wisdom, predicted the exact timeframe in which NS government was to be eliminated. The operation was to be taken 2 weeks before but Abbaji (father of NS) and some common friends mediated (read bribed) many in the army establishment and offered sweetened deals to stop it from happening. The date was forwarded and operation was to be taken as soon as Musharraf coming back from Sri Lanka. Rest is well-known.

Musharraf and his buddies created the situation more than the alleged and almost certain corruption, storming the Supreme Court and Shariah bill. They even bugged prime minister house with the help of their man in his cabinet, Ch. Shujaat who was then interior minister. Two other military agents, Sheikh Rashid and Mushahid Hussain not only kept military establishment informed of the NS planning but Mushahid Hussein actually suggested to divert flight coming to Karachi to make justification for takeover. NS trusted Mushahid too much knowing well where the loyalties of this Bihari bhayya lied but hoped to make him double agent or switch loyalties to him.

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

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

Ali_1

Well said. As a matter of fact the recent overnight change of faith of hindu journalists just as their government nodded and winked, was spectacular. They turned their pubes grey demonizing Islam and Paksitan for years and how they have shed their snake skin now in just one second is amazing - laholwila quwwat.

Here is a gem from Ustaad Daaman about our hindu friends:

mahatma ji de falsafay de charchay
Enj naiN vich jahan ho gayay

taupaaN uttay dhandorchi shaanti de
kade mantri, kade pardhaan ho gayay.

aidhoN wadh keh moaujaza haur ki hona
Daaman jay diloN musalmaan ho gayay.

#8 by amit on August 20, 2004 8:28am PT
It is interesting to see that Pakistanis are finally realizing the futility and impotence of military rule

And its so frikking irritating to read pompous, condescending Indian fags constantly vax about the perceived shortcomings of Pakistani people. Please remember that Pakistanis have given their lives fighting against Martial Laws of Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq, and Pakistani journalists have been flogged for demanding freedom of speech, unlike the Indian eunuchs who wouldn`t even whimper during the emergency. Who said about Indian journalists, ``They were asked to bend over and they started crawling``. Thousand year old habits die hard, don`t they?

P.S. Dude, have you been sniffing Hino bus exhausts in Lahore with Veeresh Malik?

It is interesting to see that Pakistanis are finally realizing the futility and impotence of military rule to deliver anything for their nation. The military establishment may have good intentions for Pakistan. But as the saying goes, the path to hell is lined with good intentions. When you don`t have accountability, you are subject to the whims and fancies of an individual or his cronies. Even if that person starts out as a decent person, power corrupts people and makes them ineffective. Sooner or later, they become complacent and start taking the people for granted. As a result, there is no premium on performance and the status quo continues forever.

Take a look at India. When the recent elections were held and the BJP lost power, a lot of people were behaving as if the world was coming to an end. Posters on chowk were making dire predictions about the economy, some were asking people to leave India, the stock market was crashing and everyone was lamenting that Sonia would become PM. If it were Pakistan, the military would have stepped in right away to ``correct`` the situation. But notice how things finally shaped up. Dr. Manmohan Singh took over with Chidambaram as Finance Minister. The situation calmed down, people`s anxieties about the economy were taken care of, the stock market went back to normal and things are looking good again. As a result of this exercise, Modi and other thugs will face prosecution for the Gujrat riots and the poor farmers in AP and elsewhere are getting relief. The BJP has been forced to rethink its policies and become more competitive. The Congress has got power but it has also learnt the tough lesson that the people can boot them out for non-performance. So overall, it is a sobering lesson for everyone that no one can be complacent and you have to perform. All this without firing a shot or dealing with any so-called messiah.

This is the best socio-political piece concerning Pakistan put up by chowk this year! Shabaash! You did not make any apologetic arguments for military take-overs and that really strengthened the article.

This is the best socio-political piece concerning Pakistan put up by chowk this year! Shabaash! You did not make any apologetic arguments for military take-overs and that really strengthened the article.

Let me state from the on-set that I hold no brief for Mushrraf or his junta; but the views expressed by the writer are generalized and one-sided. True Mush and co are the main culprits of the present imbroglio, but what about the feckless, lotas and turncoat politicians? Just take one example: most of the lumanaries of the Nawaz government are today merrily holding the coat-tails of Mush. The bellicose, vociferous and incessantly pontificating Mullah-Brigade is cutting deals with Mush ( rem LFO?).
By the way the ``heavy-mandated`` Nawaz was the creature of the army, and his mandate was secured by heavy rigging courtesy of the intelligence agencies and the presidency of GIK.
Did Jamali resist the humiliation meted out to him? Why did he join a dictatorial dispensation? What about the feckless and gutless judiciary?
You article could have been more objective had you named all the culprits.

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

``Jamali came with a smile and left with the same smile on his face. Between his two smiles nation lost some 19 months. Who should the people hold accountable for that?``

Themselves.

so true FerozK. it`s the attitude but as the great dulla bhatti once said when his party was ambushed and he was at the verge of losing his freedome fight: ``resistance wherever possible.`` now, tell me how many people know the names of the people who ambushed him or his people while we all know the great dulla!

even the dog will have his day! we are human beings!!

``...freedom for the state (read civilian) institutions to evolve with a freedom to make mistakes and learn from them in complete absence of any kind of dictation``

This is the problem! There are people in Pakistan who have a ``father knows best`` syndrome and they are not willing to allow for mistakes to be made. Once the the powers of Pakistan realize that democracy is the right to make a mistake and then have the option to correct it later, things will improve.

Ciao