You Failed Us Mr. President

[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.

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.

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

//...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!

//..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?

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

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

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.

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

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!

``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....

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?

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.

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

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.

#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 ;-)