You Failed Us Mr. President

#36 by hassansiddiqi

``....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it. ``

well this is not as easy as ``left-right, Peeche Mud``. are we not forgetting about the root-cause thingy. remember, there is a root cause behing the radicals and therefore getting rid of them is not seen as constructive by about a billion people

For its own ends, then army will embrace anybody, anybody. . .

hassansiddiqi

You are enitled to your opinion and have as much right to defend it as I have to differ with it.

I differ.

That said, I still hold that the GHQ has no locus standi to rule Pakistan.

So far as Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are concerned, I am no friend of either.

And it was the same Azam Tariq of Sipah-e-Sahaba , vehemently condemned and disowned by MMA, Musharraf tagged up with- just to gain a political advantage of one NA seat. what a demagouge!

Musharraf is same as he was in `99, infact we have got disillusioned.

hassansiddiqui


Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both have just had two ``turns`` each at ruling Pakistan. It is also common knowledge that they did not have a free hand.

The army has had four ``turns`` at it. And do remember, that it is the army which institutionalized corruption in the first instance, during the first Martial Law.

#35 Arjun, #34 &# 33 Siddiqua, #32 Harish

You all have basically one message and that is that the ISI and the military had a big role to play in creating radicals in Pakistan. This is what I agree with and I have said this in my very first interact message for this article.

Don`t get me wrong. I don`t think that the Pakistani army and ISI are all saints. Far from it. However, what is happening right now is that the same ISI and the same Pakistani army are fighting the radicals....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it.

There is no way in which I can support democracy if Benazir or Nawaz Sharif come back into power. These two people have had their turn and they didn`t produce results.

Siddiqua, you asked the question that we all know this and what should we do? The answer in my opinion is that we need to support Musharraf because he is doing the right thing by eliminating radicals and shoring up support among the ulema for eliminating sectarianism. Sure the ISI created these monsters but now Musharraf is leading the way to eliminate them too. Hence he deserves our support.

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

hassansiddiqi


On a different plane:

You are trying put across a totally patent fallacy, that ``Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires.``

Not all bombings in Pakistan have been suicide attacks. That said, even suicide attacks are the result of highly organised, coordinated effort. In the first instance, there is the recruiter; nowadays most often a mullah. As in the army, from the recruitment center down to the ``engagement`` zone, there is a sequence of events, and more important, a chain of command, that oversees and directs all activities.

The suicide attacker, it would appear, has almost nothing to do with the execution of the task, except of course blow himself up and as many others as he possiblcan to kingdom come.

The traget is staked out, identified and decided upon by others. The explovies and the means of detonation are provided by others. Almost everything, apart from the actual detonation of the device is done by forces external to the suicide attacker. This has been established by studies in criminology.

Recruiting such volunteers, training them in various acts of subversion, sabotage, and terror was taught by the army and the ISI to the mullahs during the so-called Afghan jihad. Having learnt well, they plied and still ply their trade against civilians in Pakistan today, and some of them even against the army, and its most prominent manifestation, Musharraf.

Considering Pakistan`s peculiar situation, it may even be possible that the attacks dubbed as ``suicide bombings`` may not be just so. They could very well be instances where unsuspecting people are simply used. It could be easy for someone to ask a trusting individual to ostensibly deliver a package to a nonexistent somebody at a pre-decfined target and remotely detonate that package.


This much we all know. The appropriate question is can something be done about it? What? How? Who ought to do it?

#31 by Hassan

[..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance.]

And pray tell us, who has been responsible for the decay of democratic institutions in Pakistan? The Army and its baby, the ISI.

[We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.]

When for the major part of 57 years, the Army has ruled Pakistan, naturally it has to take the major share of the blame. And don`t forget that Islamization and the arming of radicals was undertaken by the ISI under Gen. Zia`s rule.

[Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper.]

More than the radicals, I think it is the Army and feudals who wouldn`t want to see democracy prosper in Pakistan.

First, let us not lump lemons and melons together.

Broadly speaking Pakistan is facing two very distinct types of terrorist situations.

On the one hand are the politically motivated attacks, such as those on the Sheraton that killed many guest French Naval Engineers, the bombing outside the US Consulate in Karachi, the attacks of Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz.

On the other hand there are the targetted sectarian killings and attacks on Mosques, Imambarghas, churches and religious observances/congregations etc.

There have been instances where a few politically motivated attacks have been prevented, and there are cases where perpetrators [real or alleged] of some such attacks have been apprehended and/or killed.

In the case of the sectrain terrorism, the numbers of cases where investigations have yielded and suspects, arrests and/or convictions is far too few as compared to the total number of attacks that have happened.

In Pakistan it is a very widely held view that at least sectarian organization, the Anjuman Sipahe Sahaba, which later changed its named to Sipahe Sahaba Pakistan [due probably to the acronym thrown up by the initials of its former name] was created by Pakistan`s intelligence agencies, chief among them the ISI, during the army rule fronted by Zia.

It is also a substantiated fact, substantiated by no less personages than intelligence chiefs and army generals themselves, on solemn oath, in courts of law, that tPakistan`s inteligence agencies have been dishing out money to and coercing various groups and parties to join hands and present a united electoral front against Benazir Bhutto`s Pakistan People Party.

The Sipahe Sahaba later spawned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which, still later spawned at least three other splinter groups.

The slogan ``Shia Kafir hain`` is perhaps the Sipahe Sahaba`s greatest contribution to Pakistan society. It is teresting that such organizations can function and are part and parcel of Pakistan`s mainstream politics.

Harish #19

``Except for the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, when have you ever seen a terrorist attack on US soil? I bet never. That, my friend is what a good intelligence serivce can do. It is next to impossible to prevent 100% of attacks, for terrorists will always find newer/better ways of doing their thing, but with better intelligence, you can always reduce their chances of succeeding.``

The United States has maintained not just good intelligence agencies. They also have an excellent law and order situation where justice is served not by corrupt officials but by public servants. In other words, United States has not had a lot of terrorist attacks..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance. By having all these things, they help eliminate reasons for people to terrorize the nation.

The trouble with Pakistan, is that we have never had sustainable democracy, we don`t have corruption free institutions and we dont have a good judiciary. By not having all of this, we have frustrated people, who can`t get justice unless they have connections. We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.

The point is that in order to maintain a terrorism free environment, not only you need good intelligence agencies, you also need the elimination of reasons for people to do anything violent.

In conclusion, I still think Pakistan has excellent intelligence agencies. Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires. So it is extremely difficult for any intelligence agency to prevent such attacks. Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper. That, my friend is the real reason for so many attacks in Pakistan.

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

http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/peace-detail.php?aid=2335&pg=1



John Kerry talks to Vibes Editor-in-Chief Aisha F. Sarwari about the Patriot Act, the change in policy his administration intends to enforce and his sentiments about the larger Muslim world.




Kerry as US President?



We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never, ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.





Naseeb Vibes is committed to bringing information and analysis to its readers though a consortium of articles in our Voting Kit (link) for the US Election 2004 which is now updated with a Vibes Exclusive of John Kerry`s Interview. John Kerry is running for President to make America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He has a plan to restore the values that have always made America a leader in the world.

VIBES: Do you still feel the war on Iraq was justified? Has it served the policy objectives as stated by the United States Government i.e. dismantling of the WMDs, a free Iraq, and democratization of the region? If not what will you do differently?

JOHN KERRY: Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it. The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq. And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace.

Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don`t take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. The President also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. ``Last resort.`` You`ve got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, ``I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. I don`t believe the United States did that.

VIBES: American Muslims feel betrayed by the Republican Party after the announcement of the Patriot Act, the succession of cluster bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq, the violation of the Geneva

As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended.



conventions in Guantanamo Bay, and the recent Abu Gharaib Prison scandal. What reasons do they have to trust that your party can give them the security they deserve as patriotic Americans who happen to be Muslims?

JOHN KERRY: As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended. Diversity is one of America`s greatest strengths and respect for it - one of our most important values.

My Administration will safeguard civil rights and defend civil liberties. We will not tolerate targeting of Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. We cannot fight the war on terrorism at the expense of our principles and the rule of law.

VIBES: What will be your level of engagement in the Muslim world, especially those countries that have at great peril to themselves come out on the American side in the war on terrorism i.e. Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt etc. Will you engage the democratic forces in these countries who may differ with your policies or will you continue to back the despots as long as they are loyal to you?

JOHN KERRY: Edwards and I understand that fighting terrorism in America and abroad is not a fight against Muslims and it is not a fight against Arabs. It is a fight against fanaticism. It is a fight of the majority for progress against the primitive fears of the few.

As president, I will put in place a strong and smart strategy to win the war on terror - an approach that recognizes the complexity of the challenge and uses all the tools at our disposal. I understand that the path to victory will be found in the company of others, not walking alone.

We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never,

We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.



ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.

We recognize that victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American might, diplomacy, skill, and determination. We must also maximize international cooperation.

VIBES: The Bush Administration has made ads that insinuate your party has a racial bias against people from Middle Eastern origin. What effect would this have on your Muslim supporters, and how crucial is the American Muslim vote for your election as President?

JOHN KERRY: We recognize the many contributions that Muslim Americans and Arab Americans have made to our nation and will work to protect and defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Muslim Americans and Arab Americans.

They support rigorous enforcement of our nation’s civil rights laws so that all Americans, including Muslims and Arabs, can live, work, learn, worship, and gather without fear or discrimination. We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.

VIBES: The readers of Vibes will like to know your vision for the Mid East. While looking for a viable and defensible Israel, will you see to it that the Palestinians find an equally viable state of their own?

JOHN KERRY: Both of us believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state.

In our administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. We will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that

Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism.



is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people.

We will also work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.

VIBES: It was an American President from the Democrat party who gave the world the idea of the right of self determination through his famous 14 points. Do you believe that the people have the right to determine their own future? What is your position on the UN Security council Resolutions asking for the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people which has been constantly and consistently denied to them?

JOHN KERRY: Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism. I believe the United States has the unique ability to help this process along, and as President I intend to take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.

Pakistan’s support is important to operations in Afghanistan. Yet it is my hope that Pakistan will always remember that our goal is to have free nations with open societies in which there is no place for terror or the support of terror. Pakistan has much to gain from internal reform, and I stand eager to foster and support this process.

VIBES: What is your vision for America? Where do you want to see it stand 10 years from now?

JOHN KERRY: We will stand up for America`s values and have a plan to build an America that is strong at home and respected in the world. We believe we can have a strong economy focused on good-paying jobs, a health care plan that reduces costs, an energy plan that frees us from Mideast oil, and they believe we can strengthen our military and lead strong alliances that keep America safe and secure.


The opinions expressed in this article are of the author and not necessarily of Naseeb Vibes

Gullibility seems to be a national trait among us Pakistanis, and even more so in the post 70s generation.

Youth, particularly urban, educated youth, bear the burden of guiding nations to higher levels of achievement. Talking about Pakistan, this translates into righting wrongs done by preceding generations of rulers.

The history of Pakistan is replete with wrongs, and the majority of these wrongs can trace their paternity to the army.

Then how come, we attach expectations to an armyman to right things for us.


Saeen aabaad rakhkay!

Kerry vs Bush

Which candidate was better on the issues?

10.8%
Bush (2022 responses)

89.2%
Kerry (16637 responses)

18659 total responses

Which candidate handled the audience the best?

11.9%
Bush (2223 responses)

88.1%
Kerry (16402 responses)

18625 total responses

Which candidate came across as a better leader?

11.1%
Bush (2069 responses)

88.9%
Kerry (16559 responses)

18628 total responses

Regardless of your thoughts about the issues, which candidate do you think performed better during the debate?

10.9%
Bush (2027 responses)

89.1%
Kerry (16629 responses)

18656 total responses

Which candidate was the most credible?

11.0%
Bush (2062 responses)

89.0%
Kerry (16647 responses)

18709 total responses

(Newsday)

# 20 Kaurasach:

sir/ma`am: my response was NOT about the functioning of democracy and its strength. it was about the usually over emphasized ``people`s power`` to do things miraculously and quick. i thoroughly understand and appreciate your point but i think it was slightly out of the context to what i earlier wrote.

summarizing it in one sentence: a few of the very people who elected modi might not have liked wha happened in gujrat but they were ``powerless`` during the process.

# 17 Jang:

thanks for calling me pompous and conceited. i already said that the personality remarks speak about a certain intellectual level. rest; i better leave it uncommented.

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

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

Butt

Had you cared about Pakistan and its people you wouldn`t have addressed him as Mr. President. He is neither President nor General, he is a usurper, a lier and a thug. What did you expect other than thugie and lies in five years? It is too late to play innocent now - now it is a crime against a nation.

18
//...Why is that every Indian and his fukking dog has an opinion on Pakistani matters ...//

As a hegemonic power, Indians reserve the right to have an opinion in Paki matters. It`s our allah-given rights. There is nothing you can do about it :D . Just grin and deal with it.

#18 by dionysus on October 13, 2004 7:55am PT
``Why is that every Indian and his fukking dog has an opinion on Pakistani matters when no Pak gives a fukkk about India`s internal affairs? ``

heh heh heh, ..except the diputed territories offcourse. have you not heard of ``Akhand Bharat``?

Why is that every Indian and his fukking dog has an opinion on Pakistani matters when no Pak gives a fukkk about India`s internal affairs?


Did somebody just say ``mad obsession``??

#3 by hassansiddiqi

[When United States, with all its military powers and intelligence agencies could not stop Timothy McViegh from bombing a government building, when they could not stop 2 planes crashing into the WTC, when they could not stop an attack on the Pentagon.....how can you expect Pakistani intelligence to counter these suicide bomb attacks?]

Except for the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, when have you ever seen a terrorist attack on US soil? I bet never. That, my friend is what a good intelligence serivce can do. It is next to impossible to prevent 100% of attacks, for terrorists will always find newer/better ways of doing their thing, but with better intelligence, you can always reduce their chances of succeeding.

In a difficult country like Pakistan, maybe the intelligence services have to cope with problems too many terrorist elements, but then, is there a single instance of an incident being averted? At least I haven`t heard of any.

For a country like Pakistan, where a major share of the budget is allocated to defense, they ought to do better really.

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

14
//... What exactly has he achieved to make him the army chief? //

You just answered your own question. Mushy achieved nothing. That`s exactly why he was made the Army chief. Nawaz Sharif thought this good-for-nothing jacka$$ will make a good obedient Army Chief. Little did he know :))

Anyway - for pakis it don`t really matter. Even if you dress up a donkey in army uniform and say this is the Paki Army Chief - pakis will believe you. Immediately they would start ``pining hopes`` on the brave soldier, put him on the pdestal as their saviour. ...... And five years later they will wake up and start crying that the donkey didn`t do sh!t for them.

I mean when mushy took over in 1999 - this exactly we all told these incorrigible pakis - guys, don`t do it - don`t pin your hopes on this guy. He is the army chief - he is good for nothing, like all other paki army chiefs. Learn from your own history, from your own mistakes. But pakis never listen - they never learn.

#10 by mubakr

``it`s my concerted learning that people who indulge in personal-based commentary lack the intellectual depth.``

Oh yeah? That is not true. Its just that you are pompous anc conceited ;-)

10
//..what`s the harm of pinning hopes on personalities?...//

What`s this - a trick question? After multiple rounds of rules by tinpots - it should have already been very clear to you.

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

Where does this disillusion go back to? Post 14 August 1947, the early days of Pakistan? To Liaquat Ali Khan`s de facto dictatorship after JInnah`s demise and his betrayal of the people`s hopes and aspirations? To Nazimuddin`s premiership, to ....

Civilian politicians, even if they belonged to the dregs of the mughal and british created aristcracy like Liaquat and Nazimuddin, and those that followed them, had at least one locus standi.

They did represent, at least, one section, some of the people.

Ayub, Yahya, Zia, and Musharraf represent the GHQ.

The GHQ has no locus standi at all to rule Pakistan.

October 1, Sialkot: 31 people killed in a bomb blast in a Shiite mosque.
October 7, Multan: 40 people killed in a car bomb blast in a Sunni congregation.


Aren’t they reflections of what is happening in Waziristan? Why Pakistan Army is onto destroy the training camps which were created by her predecessors during Zia-Ul-Haq’s regime? And, lastly, why the so many mujahadeen training camps were created along the Durand line?

During cold war, Americans required Jehadis to fight against Russia, and Pakistan Army was commanded to organize/train the Jehadis. When Jehadis foresaw America as the next rival of Islam, Pakistan Army was again commanded to rip them off. Democracy in the world has been on the top of American agenda, but only a dictator can fulfill American demands. Would a Prime-Minister elected by a parliament ever dare to promise unconditional cooperation with Americans upon their first call?

``We had hopes on Musharraf – when he addressed us on October 17, 1999. We welcomed him as our savior.......We relied on him for his apparent honesty and clear demeanor but he foiled and fizzled out on every single front...``(the author)

..........like the one before him -- like the one before that one -- like the one before that one ...and the one before that one.........they ALL -- ``foiled and fizzled out on every single front.``.....yet....``when he addressed us on October 17, 1999. We welcomed him as our savior``....

it reminds me of Faiz Ahemed Faiz classic poem Intazaar-e Democracy.......phir koi aya dil-e zaar naheeN koiee naheeN -- koiee Ayub thaa Yahya thaa Zia thaa koiee.....yeh Musharraf bhi ussee turha chalaa jayega....yet.........phir koiee ayaa aray yaar -- naheen koiee naheeN....(Faiz murhoom (PBUH) se maazrut ke sath)

......chaltaa hooN thoRee dooor hur ek raah rau ke saath -- puh chaanta naheeN hooN abhi raahbur ko meiN.........it is Democracy that Pakistan needs -- not that Dumbo-crazy from Crawford Texas....

ALL:

interesting interactions i must say.

i wont mention the names who called our hopes as pathetic and ``why are you crying now;`` but just a thought that idealism can only act on a mass scale and military is acting upon the classic british strategy of divide and rule. the union of cause among the people is missing and junta is taking advantage of that. and on a human level, tell me my critiques, what`s the harm of pinning hopes on personalities? it happenes when the institutional system of governance has collapsed - and collapesed it has. trust me, i am not responsible for that. try seeing this hope from another angle: we had hopes on him and now we had the courage of admitting it and criticizing him too.

secondly, i would rather appreciate educated and academic exercise that is beyond the personal involvement of arguments as i mentioned in the beginning. it`s my concerted learning that people who indulge in personal-based commentary lack the intellectual depth. i have outgrown my habit of personality remarks and i would encourage all doing that too.

AND for my dear Indian friends: i do not mean to mud sling AT ALL but how did they feel when ``people elected`` mr. moodi blew the wind out of the great secular and plularistic image of huge inidan democracy? people are not that powerful in some situations and yes, people later voted BJP out but could this be the remedy to the victims of gujrat? would this bring the honor of raped women and lives of the dead people back? no. and i am sure, indian people didnt feel good what was happening in gujrat but they were helpless to watch it going on in front of their eyes. trust me, people are not powerful at times. so please try understanding the same very fact for the your pakistani neighbors.

FINALLY: hope is not wrong; blind following is!

There is no sense crying, because the writing on the wall was quite clear, what was going to happen in Pakistan. Pakistan is presently caught up in a religious civil war, which it created in 1956 and now that war has enveloped its society. It is a war based on the ideals of religious nihilism and a cultural nihilism, which abhors a progessive, tolerant and secular civic polity.

Mullah may have been a creature of pity, but the mullah cannot be blamed for all, which is rotten in Pakistan. A mullah`s mind set in Pakistan is not geared to the dissemination of scriptures, but towards the act of opportunism. The mullah and his brand of Islam was brought into the main stream by the civilian politicans, after the death of Jinnah, to mask their own sense of political illegitimacy. Mullah might have had the dream to take power or enforce Sharia in Pakistan, but he did not posess the political intelligence to achieve it. Political power and political legitimacy was handed over to the clerics by the so-called secular politicans of Pakistan on a golden platter of appeasement. Politicans and military generals, eager, to cling to power by their finger nails, were always too happy to co-opt the mullah to retain power.

The failure of Pakistan cannot be blamed exclusively on the military or a lack of political institutions or the lack of a parliamentary democracy or the rise of religion in politics. The failure of Pakistan lies in the failure of the imagination of its so called educated elites and their idealism. It was the foolish and mistaken believe of the educated and secular leadership of Pakistan that they could pull the strings of influence and make the mullah dance to their song, which saw them being out witted and out manuevered by the mullah. There is nothing in Pakistan, which the mullah enjoys which he earned because all was given to him in exchange for a few crumbs of political power.

The secular elites of Pakistan still cling to a discredited theory that the mullah wants a theocracy in Pakistan. This is a flawed impression, because what the organized clergy wants in Pakistan is political power wrapped in the quise of a theocracy. It was the secular leadership of Pakistan, which gave the mullah political power and then gift wrapped the religious argument on to it, courtsey the preambale to the constitution, and marginalized its own political space in the process. Pakistan is now caught up in a political game of religious brinkmanship. The non-religious political actors do not have the courage to grapple with the increasingly rising challenge of the clergy, because the clergy has cleverly arrogated to itself the rubric of a religious argument, which the secular politicans to Pakistan do not unterstand and thus, are incapble of defeating it.

The curse of Pakistani politics is that be it the military or the civilian politicans, they all hunger for religion to balm their lack of political legitimacy and will readily pander to religion to maintain their autocratic hold on power. The civilian government of Nawaz Sharif was not too concerned about the decorum of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan, when it was determined to push through the Fifteenth Amendment, which would have made Pakistan into a theocratic state, which would be similar to the intolerance practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia. Benazir Bhutto, mindful of her gender and western background, catered to the mullahs in order to be considered as a ``good muslim`` ruler of a Islamic nation. Zia-ul-Haq bend his kness to the mullah, because the god of political power was more important to him than Allah and as a result, he burned for his sins over the skies of Punjab. Z. A. Bhutto whetted the mullahs lust for power and tried to wield the stick of religion to beat away his political opponents but died in the process, when that stick was used to club him to death.

It is the decayed Pakistani mind, which is still in awe of its feudal inferiority complex, which hankers for the ``man on the horse back`` and pins all its hopes on the man. This is a far worse sin in Pakistan and simply blaming Musharraf or Bhutto or Zia for Pakistan`s problems misses this central point, which is - the fault lies in our own personalities and not in our stars. We will suffer and we will cry and moan and whine and never learn till we admit to ourselves that it is our own follies of subsituting reason with idle wishful thinking, which lands us into the pit of dispair periodically. The future of Pakistan does not rest on the shoulders of its leadership, elected or not, but it resides in the moral character of its citizens because it is out of these very people that our leaders come. The litmus test of a leadership lies in its reflection of the common sentiment and leaders take their inspiration from the people and more often, they will reflect the true worth of their nations. Leaders do not make nations; people make nations and leaders are nothing more than servants of the peoples` aspiration.

In case of Pakistan, we get what we deserve and this article, like so many before it and after it, simply seeks sympathy for the misfortune state of Pakistan. There can be no sympathy in, or for, Pakistan till Pakistanis develop an acute sense of political apathy and realize that the problems of Pakistan are a painful reflection of their own character`s lack of morality and ethical virtues.

Ciao

Well done Mr. Mubashir! I belong to the generation which struggled for and saw Pakistan coming into being. It was Quaide Azam`s Pakistan where the Mullah was just a pitiable fringe. It was the land for the Muslims, free from all shackles, sun-bathing under benign leadership. Then came the `Pragmatists` who always followed the line of least resistence interested only in keeping themselves in power. It was Bhutto, once the hope of the people, who turned the tide and made Pakistan heaven for the extremist mullah by converting the Constitution of Pakistan into a `Fatwa`, providing a bare sword in the hand of the obscurantists. A line of `Hajies` followed which climaxed in the shape of Shoukat Aziz whoes first priority was to perform Umra to show him bowing before the `black stone` and then offering `Nimaze istisqa` in Masjide Nabvi for making rain in Pakistan, all this in a dupe Doolah like fashion performing marriage ceremonies. All this he was obliged to do perhaps to allay the rumors that he was a Qadiani as though his simple declaration that he ws a Sunni was not enough. This is the climax, the end of the Quaide Azam`s Pakistan. What a heartbreak for my generation at its fag end.

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

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

//..Musharraf was a brave man with a clear and focused vision about Pakistan when he came to power in 1999. ...//

He came to power??? How did he do that, Mr Butt - was he elected by people?

It was a coup - albeit a bloodless one. Musharraf illegally captured the power, deposing an elected gov`t and subverting the law of the land. It was crime agains the state and the country. He should be in Jail now.

Jeez - when are you pakis going to recognize jokers masquerading as ``brave men``? What was so brave about trashing the constition of your own country?

//...Young people exactly of the ages of their own sons were readied and prepared to sacrifice their lives in the ruthless and barren mountains of Afghanistan while their own sons studied and worked in Europe, America and UAE. ...//

And also Mushy`s children had petting zoos in their schools - did you know that?

But the question is - where was the outrage then? Where were the protests? Were there any rallies or million-man marches against such blatant exploitation? What was the paki elite doing at that time? Did they condemn blatant misuse of islam for ``strategic`` wet dreams? Did they denounce when ``freedom fighters`` were murdering flocks of innocent hindus and muslims in Kashmir?

Of course not! At that time - you folks were wet-dreaming about Kashmir - the ripe fruit which was about to fall into your laps. Entire paki nation was in throws of self-induced oraga$m - the brave mujahideen were going to kill hindoos by thousand-cuts.

At that time - you folks were oganizing million-man rallies to collect donations for jihad in kashmir. Parents were bringing in sons to sign up for the holy duty. Mothers were on record sending of their wards to fight evil hindus. Allah, Army and America were three idols being worshipped in every nook and corner of the land of pure.

Well - why are you crying now Mr Butt! Why are you surprised about 50 sunnis dead in multan or 32 shias dead in sialkot?? This is the blowback for you. This is a well-deserved payback in exact same coin.

Good luck!

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

Mr. Butt,

``The events in quick succession in Sialkot and Multan have jolted the whole nation who is now practically waiting for a ruthless messiah and have lost hope in what the golden words of Musharraf had been. These events speak about the total incompetence of our intelligence and security agencies, which eat up a bigger chunk of our national income and that too without any public audit.``

We agree on the fact that radicals should be eliminated. However, you call these attacks a failure of the intelligence agencies, something that I don`t agree with.

When United States, with all its military powers and intelligence agencies could not stop Timothy McViegh from bombing a government building, when they could not stop 2 planes crashing into the WTC, when they could not stop an attack on the Pentagon.....how can you expect Pakistani intelligence to counter these suicide bomb attacks?

These attacks require a bomb, a human and a fanatical state of mind. So its not something that requires extreme planning and co-ordination.The intelligence agencies are not omnipresent and its impossible to stop every attack. So please stop blaming Musharraf for failing to stop these attacks. Instead, I urge you to support the most tolerant, progressive president of Pakistan.

Second, you say ``Such a religious fervor was systematically cultivated by Zia’s military rule that a certain sect was supported and formalized all around the country and the NWFP Governor Gen. Fazl-e-Haq openly supported and financed this sectarian outfit. Gen. Haq was later assassinated. ``

I agree with your implication that the military financed and supported religious fanaticism in Pakistan during the Zia years. My question is this: Why didn`t Benazir and Nawaz Sharif did anything about them when they were elected TWICE in Pakistan? It is only Musharraf that has the guts to go after the monster of radicalism that was created by his own military. We should commend him for that. Instead, we are focusing more on the fact that he is unelected or undemocratic.

Pakistan has suffered more than most countries from terrorism, long before 911 and much more after it. Our president needs support from writers like you because he has the conviction and leadership to make Pakistan free from extremists.

[Musharraf was a brave man with a clear and focused vision about Pakistan when he came to power in 1999. ]

You must be dreaming! His only vision was seeing himself on the throne.

[We had hopes on Musharraf – when he addressed us on October 17, 1999. ]

Only fools and naive believed in him and most of those who did still do. because they were disappointed by BB and NS for various reasons. There were always people who rejoiced at his burglary in 1999 and Ayub, Yahaya and Zia thefts before.