Khaki wisdom -- One-way ticket to Hell

Credibility, Dictatorship and Isolation
By Hussain Askari

Like most dictators, General Musharraf has been steadily cutting the branch on which he is perched.

On October 12, 1999, there were many who believed that Pakistan`s fortunes had turned for the better with a straight-talking general ousting a badly discredited elected government through a military coup. Three years down the road, the number of such optimists seems to have dwindled substantially. In fact, as the year draws to a close, even his most ardent supporters are beginning to concede that in the ultimate analysis, General Musharraf`s tenure may prove to be more detrimental for the nation and its institutions than that of any of his predecessors.

Even though his grip on government remains as strong as ever despite the elections, the moral high ground that he claimed on October 12, 1999, seems to have been washed away completely. And not without reason. The road that he has travelled from being a self-proclaimed savior to an outright adventurist, is pock-marked with many distinct measures that were taken only to preserve him in power, irrespective of their cost to the nation. For many, the speed at which he has frittered away his goodwill is matched only by that of the PPP leader Benazir Bhutto.

Monthly Herald
Karachi
January, 2003

Khaki Wisdom : Winning a war Quixotic-style

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/100103/editor/opi5.htm

``It is not unusual to see President General Pervez Musharraf blow his own trumpet. On December 30 last he did it again. He claimed that the Indian government had pulled back its troops because he had it conveyed to Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, that if a war was imposed on Pakistan it would not remain a conventional one.
``

Zafar,

I do remember some allusions to Urstruly being a resident of the Motor City....and his ability to reach high notes audible to only certain canine species would put him in the RuPaul/Mariah Carey school of drag...but I think he means to be a drag in the no fun way....and are you suggesting that his Sancho Panza, Gulab Jamun Sahib lives somewhere else? If GZ lives in the United Shaitaniat of America, that would be quite interesting...

Reply Saminashah

``And you [Urstruly] still haven`t answered the question; where exactly do you and your worse self Gulab Jamun live?``

Er...I think in Detroit...as in Pink Flamingos (and the incredible singing...HEY! I think that`s pretty good proof...)

Please take your time out to check the attached editorial of the Weekly Independent, Lahore, for this week. A heart-breaking reading, indeed.
http://www.weeklyindependent.com/editorial.htm

``Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has secured the vote of confidence which his patrons had worked for overtime during the past few weeks. He bagged 188 votes, 12 more than what he had obtained originally to become the prime minister. To ensure that Jamali stayed in power, the establishment had to stoop to machinations that would have made any civilian practitioner of the realpolitik blush. A chapter has thus been added to Pakistan`s political history that can only be described as inglorious.
The General Pervez Musharraf-led Jamali government`s power-sharing deal with the Altaf Hussain-led Muttahida Qaumi Movement will in particular question the integrity of the mighty military establishment. Not long ago, Musharraf`s interior minister Lt-Gen Moinuddin Haider (retd) was mulling the option of getting Altaf repatriated and tried on charges of conspiring against the state. In August 2001, interior secretary Tasneem Noorani called on London to stop Altaf from making telephonic addresses and indulging in undesirable activities. He even hinted at banning the ethnic outfit.
These statements had come in the wake of violent strikes organised by the MQM in collaboration with the Sindhi separatist group Jiye Sindh Qaumi Mahaz -- the organisation which had caused suspension of activity in Karachi and Hyderabad and led to widespread violence. In September 2001, Altaf called into question the two-nation theory and declared the partition of the subcontinent in 1947 as the biggest folly in the history of mankind. A three-member delegation of the MQM, headed by one Mohammad Anwer, later travelled to India where it addressed gatherings, calling on the Vajpayee government to come to the rescue of the `persecuted` Mohajirs. In June 2001 Altaf warned of raising a Mohajir Bahini on the pattern of the Mukti Bahini, which was created, funded and trained by New Delhi in 1972. By May 2002, MQM activists continued to be arrested and illegal weapons recovered from them.
Since 1988 the military establishment has accused the MQM of being anti-state. In 1992, Karachi corps commander instituted operation cleanup without consulting prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The media were provided pictures of torture cells avowedly run by the ethnic outfit which was also accused of extorting money. Lists of the MQM activists undergoing military training in India were provided to a section of the media by the Inter-Services Intelligence. A map of Jinnahpur was made available by the agencies to prove that the Muttahida wanted to carve out a separate country out of Pakistan with foreign help.
Then the MQM Haqiqi was created by the agencies to keep the Muttahida under check. Retired generals Naseerullah Khan Babar and Moeenuddin Haider were closely associated with the crackdown on the MQM during the Pakistan People`s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz governments. The action had the full support of the security agencies. The Muttahida was indicted for the torture and killing of army personnel and high profile murders of Hakim Muhammad Saeed, Zuhair Akram Nadeem, Shahid Hamid and Muhammad Salahuddin. Cases were instituted at the instance of establishment against a number of the MQM leaders, including Dr Ishratul Ibad. If the charges preferred by the establishment were correct, why have the cases been withdrawn against Dr Ibad and others? If the charges were false, why are those who levelled the same not being proceeded against?
Since it suits General Musharraf, the MQM which has 41 seats in the 168-member Sindh Assembly has been given half the ministries in the provincial cabinet. A number of the party activists charged with heinous crimes have been freed through the courts. The new Sindh governor has promised to review the cases of other activists and use the governor`s discretion on cases against `Altaf Bhai`. To please the Muttahida, the Sindh Assembly session was kept prorogued until an understanding was worked out with the MQM. When the assembly was finally called to session, it was put under siege to arrest Younus Khan, the sole MPA of the rival MQM Haqiqi faction. Therefore, there are many who think that in its keenness to keep the Jamali government in power, the establishment has put aside all considerations of the rule of law and the integrity and security of the country. ``

Well, i dont think that we can disagree with the author of the article. No doubt, Pakistan is doomed -- primarily due to swine in khakis. Came across another nice article in the Dawn. Here comes some excerpts.

>>After years of observing and writing about the antics of our military and political rulers, I have reached the somewhat cynical conclusion that no matter who is in charge, some things will never change. The reality of power in Pakistan is that the army has controlled the destiny of the nation for most of its existence, and is likely to continue doing so in the foreseeable future. The invisible `agencies` have huge, unaudited budgets and manipulate and malign politicians and control sections of the press. Incidentally, all this is a matter of public record: names of politicians and journalists who have received cash handouts from the exchequer have been published many times without any action being taken against those making the payments and those receiving them.

One major problem with the army`s role is that as an institution, it is convinced that its interest is identical to the national interest which it has defined without any semblance of a public debate. This leads to the conclusion that to justify our bloated defence budget, Pakistan needs an enemy. In our case, this means India. The logical inference to be drawn from this line of reasoning is that the Kashmir issue will never be resolved.

Another reason the army will never voluntarily loosen its grip on power is that the officer class is too accustomed to all the perks that go with running the country. Currently, literally hundreds of civilian jobs here and in our missions abroad are manned by serving and retired military personnel.

Housing estates and agricultural lands across the country have been parcelled out to officers as a matter of routine. Above all, they are virtually exempt from any sort of prosecution on charges of corruption. Every class has its own set of demands and requirements and normally, these are mediated with the state and some compromise is reached. In the army`s case, there is no mediation because it controls the levers of power.
Had the army`s monopoly on power meant simply the usurpation and waste of resources, we could have gritted our teeth and got on with life. Unfortunately, the assumption that GHQ is the source of all wisdom has many implications: for instance, when there is complicit relationship between religious extremists and the `agencies`, it is not possible for the enfeebled state to control the former. Their violent methods in Afghanistan and Kashmir cannot be switched on and off at will, and the result is the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and bloodletting we have grown so accustomed to.

Modern societies function on the basis of a compact between the state and the citizens in which the former has an absolute monopoly on the means of coercion and uses it to safeguard national borders and keep the peace internally. In Pakistan, various groups have broken this monopoly: gun-toting tribals flout the law at will; religious and ethnic parties have established armed wings; feudals keep gunmen to enforce their writ on their estates; and dacoits armed to the teeth operate pretty much at will <<

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
04 January 2003

Faruk #56
Bhutto and Mujiber Rehman were among others who were able to `create` and `lead` a people`s consensus(there were others earlier). Unfortunately, not once but multiple times any such consensus has been frittered away by personal megalomania of those at the top.

For instance, after the 1970 elections, Bhutto`s PPP won only a minority of the total seats and most political parties including those in W Pakistan opposed Bhutto`s uncompromising personal veto on the future setup. However since Bhutto was cohabiting with establishment, even that consensus didnot work and civil war ensued.

After 1971, because he didnot want to share power, Bhutto turned on even those with whose help he had come to power on the socialist platform including trade unions, and other people`s movements and did great harm to the future of such movements. He was the most cruel and brutal towards those who had been his own allies and former colleagues.

``No value for the utility of consensus and megalomaniacal belief in eternal immutability of personal power`` is the self-repeating story of Pakistani politics in a nutshell.

Ref Saminasha #54

[harimau,

Dont get so worked up indeed...remember, only some of us can whine about victimization and seek to perpetuate it by trying to define the rest of the world as immoral.... ]

Normally I have a smile on my face when I type in my posts as I imagine the reactions of Urstruly, YLH, etc.

But your response brought out a guffaw from me.

Thanks for helping start my day in such a beautiful frame of mind.

Ref arjun_m #55

[So how is the paki registration under NSEER not a result of the jihadi policy in Kashmir? ..........

Those who have served in the armed forces may be asked about the training they received, why they left the service and may face questions aimed at determining their religious leanings.]

Do you think Chowk`s one-and-only Field Marshal will be exempt from this because of his high rank?

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

Urstruly # 50
I stand corrected, there have been mass movements in Pakistan. I am not sure that the movement against Ayub Khan was for democracy. It was definitely anti Ayub but it died when the dictator was replaced by Yaya another dictator. Whatever I have read about that movement is that it was lead by a bunch of feudal leaders who wanted to replace Ayub’s rule with their rule, when that did not work they ran back to the army for the next best thing.
The East Pakistani movement that followed that was definitely a ethnic movement. The Bengali’s or now Bangladeshi’s wanted recognition of their language and culture. India used this to dismember Pakistan with the active and enthusiastic help of the Pakistani army.
I don’t think the movement against Musharaf that you mentioned is for democracy either. As you mentioned its lead by the Ulema and all they want is to be in power and above the law. There is no movement for equality, justice, the rule of law and the values that the rest of the world holds dear. Do you know why ?

Regards,

Faruk

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

harimau,

Dont get so worked up indeed...remember, only some of us can whine about victimization and seek to perpetuate it by trying to define the rest of the world as immoral....

Please, allow me to quote the following for those eulogozing khakis in Pakistan and bashing civil society.

... ``The fact is, there are no perfect societies and if Pakistan has imperfections, that is not sufficient reason to run it as a cross between a medieval monarchy and a praetorian state. Musharraf only focused on the election of not-so-good politicians to Parliament as the major imperfection. Not once did he pause to consider that the real cause of Pakistan’s backwardness might lie with the absence of institutional balance, which in turn is attributable to the overwhelming role of the Pakistani military in national life.

Take the economy: is it alleged loot and plunder or over five decades of unsustainable military expenditure that has prevented investment in infrastructure? Can there be investment in a country where legitimacy of governments is constantly under question and the investor welcomed by one regime is imprisoned by the next? Is economic growth attainable in the midst of conflict and militancy? How can the public sector be productive when it is managed mostly by Generals trained in the art of warfare? Where in the world from Latin America to Myanmar to Nigeria to Indonesia has military rule been able to generate self-sustaining economic growth, notwithstanding the temporary fulfillment of IMF criteria?

Moreover, what did imperfections of Pakistani society have to do with the military adventurism of 1965, the debacle of 1971 or the strategic delusions of the last two decades that made Pakistan the patron of Afghanistan’s Taliban? How are ordinary Pakistanis to blame for the consistent fallacy of periodically joining the United States in its global plans as a means of maintaining military balance with India?
....

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan06_12_03/opinion_haqqani.htm

Oye, Gulab Jamin,

Where are your 100% pure ghee ratings on the Death fiction board?

Coward.

#47:harimau

That ,too, is part of your history. Please feel free to condemn whatever was done by YOUR sultans, kings, and rajas to YOUR own people.

There is no need to get so worked up.