Poor Pervez. Too much pressure!
Two or three of the four London bombers may have visited Pakistan last year. Musharraf’s response? Blame the UK and tell it to get it’s own house in order. Problem solved!
But the Little General didn’t get even one moment to rest. After Saturday’s bombings, the Egyptians started to look for six Pakistanis and things got uncomfortable again. Even after the Egyptians stated that the Pakistanis are not suspected of the bomb attack (it’s a “routine security check”) it still left a bad taste.
So “Our Man in Pakistan” decided to settle the matter once and for all. He called a press conference and told the world that “Al-Qaeda does not exist in Pakistan any more.”
Got that? Stop blaming Pakistan! No more hatin’!
Pakistan has destroyed al-Qaeda’s ability to operate on its soil, President Pervez Musharraf has said. He said the network could not have orchestrated deadly bombings in London, Egypt or elsewhere from his country. President Musharraf said al-Qaeda “sanctuaries” in Pakistan had been over-run, and that Pakistani security forces had arrested 700 of the movement’s fighters.“We have shattered and eliminated their command system there,” he said. Al-Qaeda’s communications system had been reduced to a “courier network”.
“Is it possible in this situation that an al-Qaeda man sitting here, no matter who he is, may control things in London, Sharm al-Sheikh, Istanbul or Africa? This is absolutely wrong,” the president said. [cite]
I feel so much safer now that he’s clarified all of this. Don’t you?
UPDATE: Radio Open Source has a show “at bat” on this subject, so you should check out their entry …
Aslam_Bagdadi
So you support suicide-bombers in London? I like people like you who are honest about your fascism and murderousness – there are many who prance about like popinjays pretending to not agree with murdering suicide-bombers – but you construct your ideology with pride – fascist, I salute you!
Pervez Uncle – this is embarassing!
Am allowed to call the general that, because I know the Musharraf Junior.
That sounds like moving the goal post to me. So, is it ok for one to selectively kill people who voted for Bush or Blair? Is it ok for me to kill only people who supported the war? We can go ad infinitum breaking the entire populace of a democracy into smaller groups to dodge the blame. Besides, its not just the votes; you pay taxes that finance occupations abroad. And, perhaps, you can do more to prevent your conutries from going to war – can the armies not refuse to serve, can the people not refuse to pay taxes; why wont these happen? you will not do them because you disagree but not enough to bear the consequences; hence, become complicit with those who seek the war.
The question here is: who do you hold responsible in a democracy? If it is a shared responsibility, how much share do you each of you have? Is the soldier who pulled the trigger responsible? The General who planned the operation? The President who started the war? The people who elected him? Please explain to me, how it breaks down – If a crime has been committed, revenge or forgiveness only begin if I can identify who the criminal is. Otherwise, all I hear you saying is – “It was none of us alone. But somehow we all came together are became responsible”.
OK. I will agree with you that we somehow share mostly common notion of what is moral and say that “revenge” and “spreading democracy” are not equivalent. And say, the Islamic Extermists are trying to “spread umma” and US/UK are trying to “spread democracy”. Now, the merits of which system of organizing a society is better, and what metrics one uses to make this assesment is a seperate discussion. But, it comes down to fighting over mindspace between two memes, each trying to conquer regions its not popular in. So now, are we the same?
I am not pointing to the Iraq war as a justification for other acts of Islamist terrorism. Far from it. I merely say that they are doing their bidding, and in it lies my bidding (if I assume that the entire populace of democracy can be held responsible for the actions of its army). OK, if merely that agreement makes me accountable for their actions, I do not see a problem how you (because of your taxes), and people who supposted the war (for their idealogy) cannot be held responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
Still, I fail to see a significant difference in the methods of the terrorists to achieve “umma” and that of the US/UK to achive “democracy”, other than the fact that one meme is popular in the West while the other is not.
Also, asking Pakistan to close down Madrasas and prevent hate, is to limit their freedom of speech, for you goals. Again, you place yourself and the security of your societies above ours, and yet speak of “equality”. Can this be justified?
MD, I think the better question to ask is why are there millions of starving people in Pakistan. I think the problem for Pakistanis is their abject poverty and not lack of democracy. Have you noticed that millions of poor Indians and Phillipinos (from stable democracies) will give an arm and a leg to go to and work in Saudi Arabia even though Saudi Arabia is at the bottom of the world in terms of religious freedom and democratic deficit. Along with North Korea, the Saudis might possibly be the most repressive regime in the world.
Likewise there is no movement of Gulfies to India even though Gulf states are totalitarian, while India is liberal and democratic. Tens of millions of Indians do leave the democratic shores of India to seek a BETTER life in Non Democratic authoritatian Gulf states.
At the end of the day, its about qualify of life for the average citizen. Pakistan has a done a piss poor job of providing a decent standard of living for its citizens. That is why the Pakistani state is a failure. If Musharraf can reform the society, I personally dont care much and neither will millions of poor Pakistanis about a democratic deficit. Authoritarian Capitalism has brought out of hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia all had authoritarian capitalism for a while before they became democracies.
Continuation….
The reason I have mentioned China, South Korea and Singapore is because Musharraf is looking at these countries (especially South Korea and Singapore) to adopt the same system of authoritarian capitalism that the South East Asians nations had in the 70’s and 80’s. If Musharraf is successful in pulling out Pakistanis from miserable poverty, I dont think anyone would care that Pakistan has a democratic deficit. I am going to wait and give Musharraf a chance and see whether he delivers or not before I demand his head.
Al Muhajid, good points. I can’t help thinking that the poverty of food and clothing is related to the poverty of democracy, in this instance….
So, the ‘umma’ is the same as ‘democracy’ eh? Can we have a vote on that?
MD, Why don’t you read the post carefully before saying something so carelessly obtuse like that?
Bagdadi is saying that the concept of “SPREADING IDEALOGY” is the mutual trait that both the Western world and the “Islamic World” share.
Both warring civilizations, to borrow Huntington, are attempting to spread their own idealogy onto foreign soils.
There is nothing in that post saying that umma and democracy is the same. Without attempting to speak on his behalf, I’m betting he’s talking about the entire concept of trying to impose a foreign idealogy on other peoples as the crux of the problem.
Aslam makes a very good argument. Kudos.
Aslam_bagdadi,
By your own reasoning, you and your socio-economic support of the Hussein administration are to blame for Iraq invading Kuwait in August of 1990, rendering my father a hostage and my family nationless for close to two years. I suppose that I should attribute all of our family’s psychological issues and other problems to you.
No, you’re not to blame as an Iraqi. Neither am I as an American (who, incidentally, does not support my nation’s war in your country and prays everyday for peace there). I’m trying to make it through my day as best as I can in much the same way as you are – with the least amount of problems as possible. So, please, let’s not make this any worse by pointing fingers where they don’t belong. Let’s just agree to be civilized human beings who do away with identified horror-mongers regardless of their nationality.
On my part, I offer my condolences to your family. A loss like that is horrible.
Which is where, since it needs to be spelled out to you, he explains that we can discuss which idealogy is better in another thread, but the point remains that both cultures are bent on spreading their respective idealogy to the other.
Baloney, indomitus. By saying that they are both trying to spread ideologies Aslam is essentially drawing an equivalence between the two. To not see that is being obtuse.
And excuse me: since when are elections ‘imposing’ an ideology on anyone? If people consent to vote, they essentially consent to the ideology behind the vote, which is democracy. Please explain to me how one imposes a democracy? That is a contradiction in terms.
I shall be brief. I’m sorry, I really can’t fathom the logic. Saying I didn’t vote for Blair isn’t moving the goalposts at all; I was about to say what Maitri said, by the same rationale you are to blame for Saddam Hussein’s misdeeds. Yes I pay taxes, along with 60 million other Brits. Those of us who don’t agree with the government’s policies can’t opt not to pay, nor can we jump ship for Switzerland. You are equating citizenship to towing the party line. Labour only received 32 seats over the necessary amount to win, a large amount of British people did not vote for Tony Blair.
Secondly, whilst you may gain satisfaction from the actions of the bombers because these attacks took place after the invasion of Iraq, did you support all the attacks that took place before?
Perhaps I can concede that two sides are trying to spread their ideologies onto other nations. So I shall close by being perfectly frank and honest – the simple fact why I have no qualms about asking Pakistan to curb extremism in its madrassahs or by the West trying to catch fanatics is simply because I believe one ideology is superior to the other. I believe democracy is superior to ummah. What is criminal is that the pattern of the West’s involvement on foreign shores. Like Hussein being targetted and not Mugabe, for instance.
Aslam_bagdadi,
Let me ask you, do you think that Kashmir justifies extremists’ attack in India. Kashmir, where the Muslim majority has driven out Hindu minority, has seen relentless violence from Islamic extremists.
Inspite of successive Indian govt. going out of their way and offering talks (which is unthinkable to the US/UK democracy spreaders) the terrorism has continued.
You may have noticed from my tone that I dont have high regard for “democracy spreading”, but at the same time I dont approve of Jihadism thats going on in Kashmir, which has ethnically cleansed Kashmir of Hindus. How do you explain that??
bagdadi is a troll
Al Mujahid & MD,
Don’t blame Pakistani poverty. India & Pakistan both started out with nearly the same per capita income. Pakistan’s was the first to increase I believe. And Pakistan has held the lead till 1996! It ain’t the money.
Given near identical economic starts one country has remained a democracy while one hasn’t.
Is it perhaps that their “cultures” are different? Btw, just to make it clear I don’t think it is due to religion. For example, Malaysia does better than both.
Indian female literacy rate is nearly 50% while Pakistan’s is around 30%. And female literacy is always a good indicator of other things.
Their are several theories why Pakistan has failed. The one that makes most sense to me is that the society is too feudal.
There is an interesting theory that India has reamained a democracy because there are so many competing “groups”. Bongs, Punjus, Tams, Gujjus & etc. And it is in all of their best interests that power doesn’t rest with only one of them.
(Bangladesh is finally catching up to Pakistan and may soon overtake it.)
Drawing a moral equivalence between two abominable actions (U.S invasion of Iraq and the London bombings) is a waste of time. The only morally clear cut way for me to look at this is to put all the vicitms under one class and the perpetrators in another. If you just compare the perpetrators, there are far too many disproportional elements – power, motive, scale, … they are not even comparable.
So I shall close by being perfectly frank and honest – the simple fact why I have no qualms about asking Pakistan to curb extremism in its madrassahs or by the West trying to catch fanatics is simply because I believe one ideology is superior to the other. I believe democracy is superior to ummah. What is criminal is that the pattern of the West’s involvement on foreign shores. Like Hussein being targetted and not Mugabe, for instance.
Well said!! It is indisputable that freedom & democracy is the superior ideology but unfortunately the current methods used by the West as well as their collusion with tin pot dictators around the world when it suits their interests robs them of the moral high ground. That, however, still does not make the ideology itself anywhere nearly equivalent to the tyranny of an ummah run under a barbaric, uncivilized sharia legal code imported from the 6th century. One only needs to look at the dystopia of Saudi Arabia to catch a glimpse of how horrible the world would be under ummah, starting with breaking Ganesha murtis with hammoers and tearing up Geeta and Bible at the airport upon entering the country.
The one thing Pakistan throws up too recklessly is that they will use nukes at a drop of a hat, if India intrudes their territory to root out the jehadi camps. I hate that india has been defensive and the war has been in their territory. Why not take up Pakistan on their gamble. Send Covert operation and blow up a few of these jehadis camps. Don’t take responsibility for it and leave some leaflet for some obscure organization…Hindu liberation organization (HLO) LOL….or worse, Liberators of Liberty (LOL).
There never going to be peace between India and Pakistan, unless Pakistan’s economy improves. That’s not going to happen No one wants to invest there. The worl’ds sentiment is against pakistan now. The time to destroy this menace is now
Thank you Maitri.
You are right. I was child then, but in principle you are right. I have been complicit in that, and I was a subject in a regime which did atrocious things. And I wonder everyday, if we had somehow got rid of Saddam before the U.S. invasion, we would have done away with this carnage. But, I want to know why you do not feel right about putting blame on me? Is it because the political systems that people create for themselves are incomplete representatives of people’s will ? But, i want to know – who do you blame? Saddam Hussein… why do you stop there?
From that prespective, who is responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Just, Bush?
You begin with the assumption that all people are equal, and when they have equal share in deciding their leaders, there is nothing being imposed. The idea begin imposed is “people having equal share”. One could concieve of systems, where everybody is not equal; I for example, believe that the kafirs should not have the same say in the matters of how a society ought to be governed … that could be a basis of a different system, and hence democracry can be imposed. I might believe people are too fickle to govern themselves, and best society for people is a society that is governed by a religious head. Desiring to give people a voice, saying that they are indeed capable of governing themselves, and that they know whats good for them, is imposing an idealogy.
I realize that you accept human rights, and equality of all men as an apriori principle like most people in liberal democracies (perhaps because of the norms in your society), but by no means it is universal. Perhaps, the appeal of my ideas is decreasing dramatically comapred to yours, but it is not universal. Personally, I think, eventually, democrarcies shall crumble because the way I see – it is impossible to sustaint he idea that all people are equal, while every one is constantly trying to be more equal than the other. Everybody constantly trying to prosper necessarily at the expense of the other (perhaps, this other might be in some far off country), but still. It is a big hypocrisy that will eventually crumble.
However, this point is not relevant to the discussion here; I think the merits of democracy is completly different topic.
No, I did not. I did not care much about all these things.
I can respect you as a adversary, and may be you are right. But, what is the price of democracy? Life under Saddam’s regime was not paradise, but if there are a few things I dont do and dont indulge in, I could lead a relatively decent life. But, now, it is all different. It is so hard even to go outside. We have a democracy now, and may be things will be better in 10 or 20 years. But, is democracy worth the price?
My anger is that, nobody asked what Iraqi people want… we are just pawns. Bush decides he does not like Saddam and decided we must be invaded and liberated! What he is really saying is that, I know the price, and I will make you pay for my agenda. I dont really trust him with wanting to spread democracy to my country. People here give different reasons why he did what he did but … I dont know… I wonder is this democracry worth the price? If it is I dont think, I can justify so many deaths for what we will gain in my lifetime (next 50 years).
I dont know a lot about Kashmir, but if the Hindu minority has subjugated the Muslims, or done other things to them, I can understand how other muslims derive satisfaction from the retaliation of Islam Extremists. But, I dont know the whole picture, so I could be wrong.
So who are the perpetuators of the Iraq War? Is it just Bush and Blair ? Or can anybody else also be labelled as “perpatuators” ?
Quick summary on Kashmir situation. Hindu king of Kashmir secedes to India after Pakistani jehadi attack. India comes in and goes to UN to get Pakistan out of the territorry they occupy. UN says Pakistan should pull out of Kashmir and election should be held. Pakistan does not pull out knowing the prime minister of Kashmir, sheikh Abdullah would vote to join India. So status quo.
Life normal in Kashmir…but fast forward to 1989. Pakistan has a nuke and they start sending terrorist to kashmir to create havoc. India army comes down hard, and locals get caught in the crossfire. Bottom line, if pakistani quits sending jehadis, no need for army to clamp down, or to even be there like prior to 1989.
However, pakistani general cannot have that. If he cannot divert attention to Kashmir, there would be no need for the Army, and people would actually realize the amount of misgovernance.
Bagdadi- If you take our friend Vic’s contrite explanation of Kashmir’s history at face value – well, you’re better off not learning at all about the situation. Do your own research, dont take notes from a guy who says:
“The time to destroy this menace is now”
Talk about chanelling Dick Cheney and Rumsfield. You need a serious reality check before you start talking about nuking a country out of existence, or anything even CLOSE to what you are suggesting.
The trouble with a lot of the Indian diaspora is that they are neither happy with Pervez Musharraf nor are they willing to understand the concept that Musharraf is currently your best option.
Without him, there is a very real possibility of Islamic fundamentalists wresting control of the nation. I’m sure you all won’t want to have that on your borders.
I share Bagdadi’s perspective on Iraq and I think people can use it as an analogy of what could be in Pakistan, though in a different scale:
If you were a average Mohammed in Baghdad, a coffee-store owner, during Saddam’s time, you lived under the well known guidelines of his regime. You don’t do certain things, heck you don’t even think about them, and you get to keep your livelihood, and your family.
In present day Baghdad, you are an average Mohammed, a coffee-store owner, and you could be libertarian, democratic socialist, Shia, Catholic, atheist, communist, Sunni or authoritarian, heck you could even have your own coffee bean religion, you would go to work one day and someone would drive a car-bomb into your store.
Despite all the liberties and choices that democracy brings, nothing beats being able to stay alive.
Similarly in Pakistan, while people incessantly mock Musharraf, without his guidance, there would immense instability in the nation. Instability in a nuclear capable nation…there are too many bad scenarios there.
I wished we lived in an ideal world too, but you have to live with your neighbors no matter who they are. The simple truth is that there are NO viable alternatives (at least not palatable to the Indians) to the current Pakistani leadership.
Support Musharraf. He’s all you got.
This bullshit story is exactly what every Pakistani dictator has peddled (to both the populace and the U.S.) from the dawn of Pakistan: support me, or else the boogie man!
Resolve Kashmir, and a lot of the Pakistani army’s power melts away.
Aslam,
I can’t really engage in this conversation right now, but I also want to offer my condolences for the losses you’ve described and, in fact, my apologies that they occurred in my name –or even in the name of my Republic– by any metric. That’s not taking nearly the amount of responsibility that you would have me take, but it is a sincere expression of sorrow that such things have happen. I think you’d be surprised at how many Americans are losing sleep every night precisely because of these horrors.
I’m not sure I can say enough times how strongly I disagree with the substance of what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are not, in fact, a troll (I suppose only the Admins can tell us if you are in, fact, in Iraq) and that you are being sincere in your desire to speak with “us”, and that the hostility you first expressed is more a measure of your grief than of actual hostility. I would, actually, like to sincerely, in turn, respond to the points you’ve made, but it would take far more time than I have right now. I will try in a couple days; let us hope the Admins don’t have to close the comment thread before then.
Manish,
This bullshit story is exactly what every Pakistani dictator has peddled (to both the populace and the U.S.) from the dawn of Pakistan: support me, or else the boogie man! Resolve Kashmir, and a lot of the Pakistani army’s power melts away.
Maybe you’re right. I detest Mussharraf’s double dealings, and my intuition is that Pakistan–which should be a hotbed of prosperity!!–has decayed precisely because a corrupt leadership has fed its people on a poison diet of fake-jihads, and that corrupt leadership is now reaping the fruit of so much bad faith in the form of forces it cannot quite control. But I’d like to see an alternative name advanced and a real political theory of Pakistan explained. No where here have I seen that. That’s exactly the problem, and it speaks to my discussion with Saurav. We’re one of the most educated, motivated slices of America around, and we’re particularly motivated and qualified to read up on Pakistani politics. (If ever South Asian meant something, it means something in the context of geopolitical strategy and linguistics!!!) I mean, if South Asian Americans have a unique contribution to make to American political life, at least part of that is being uniquely qualified to read up on and understand South Asia.
Yet even we cannot have a coherent, sensible, sophisticated discussion about what our American relationship with Pakistan should be, and when we even try people moan and groan about scholarly journals and complex models. Is it any wonder that we citizens of the Republic have let our foreign policy and national security get almost entirely out of our hands? Hey, I’m totally guilty too. But aieeeeeeeee! We have to do something about this.
I’m just whining, Manish, I know you’re way more on top of these things than most people. But it’s all so very miserable.
Saurav,
functionally speaking and given the constraints on all parties involved, what’s happening in Pakistan is of more relevance than the choices that the U.S. government and its allies made in how to respond to the attacks in 2001.
functionally speaking? đ I doubt very much either of us will ever be able to write down
Number of Terrorist Acts N = a*x1 + bx2 where x1 = corruptness of Pakistani government and x2 = incompetence of American Admin, and a > b or b > a. đ
Seriously, dude. Go through the history of terrorist incidents. Just count the times Pakistan comes up. It’s a mess. Maybe it’s not a mess on purpose, but it’s a big freakin’ mess. There is something rotten in the land of the pure.
Aslam_Bagdadi,
On one hand you support the subjugation of unbelievers/Kafirs in muslim lands
But on the other, you demand equal rights and special privilages for muslims in Kafir lands
Your argument about not shutting down extremist madrassas in the name of free speech faces the same problem.
Madrassas preach a doctrine that opposes most forms of freedom of expression, speech, and religion, it would be hypocritical for them to say that they are justified to teach that doctrine based on the very principles that they oppose.
On a side note: I believe Islamism and Liberalism are completely incompatible. I don’t get why a more western liberals don’t oppose islamism when almost all oppose christian fundamentalism.
epoch
Because fascists like Aslam Bag Daddy have used weasel words and double-speak to ingratiate their fascist and murderous ideology to liberals in the West – using the rhetoric of ‘anti-imperialism’ and other canards – to seek to mainstream and legitimise their fascist dogma in the political discourse. Liberals fall for it because some of them are half-wits and saps without an ounce of sense or critical perspective, some of them sympathise and get sublimated thrills at the sight of anyone with a bomb and an agenda (the lunatic left who despise democracy themselves – in the old days the extremist Marxist morons) – and act as ‘Useful Idiots’ to Islamism – Lenin’s term for those journalists and intellectuals in the West who would act as apologists for Bolshevism.
You have to also factor in the prevalence of stupidity amongst some people in the Left, those without spine or morality who are willing to sup with anti-semites, woman beaters, suicide-bombers and homosexual murderers because it might assuage their sense of ‘colonial’ guilt.
So there are many reasons for this phenomenon of Liberals romanticising and excusing theocratic-fascism and terrorism – these are just a few I have touched on.
Thankfully, people like you and me exist to pull the mask off the face of this suicide-bomber creed and expose it for what it is – fascism.
It would seem that people are waking up to the intellectual decrepitude of this snake-oil salesmanship amongst the liberal left too these days and we are able to describe it for what it is. Which is a good thing. It is why the protests and squeals of these fascists grow ever more tendentious and shrill.
In the interests of light entertainment after such a serious post, here is a photograph of Bipasha Basu in blue jeans and a bikini bra – frontal and side angle views.
AlMujahid — I see no reason to Musharraf the benefit fo any doubt. Pakistan needs democracy. It needs it now, before anythign else.
MD is right the Pk elites oppose democracy. In that, they are no different from other South Asian elites. Educated and land-owning Biharis have contempt for Laloo Prasad Yadav — they’d take a military dictatorship with a hardline anti-Naxalite stance any day. Secular cosmopolitan Fareed Zakaria opposes democracy in Maharashtra — calling it, and India, an illiberal democracy. the elites in Nepal opposed democracy as well, and appluded the King’s overthrow of the elected government.
Desi elites hate democracy becuase it gives power to what Zakaria calls ‘the great unwashed’. The unwashed elect Shiv Sena and the MMA. They re-elect Narendra Mod. They vote for the MQM. You can’t trust them the way you can trust technocrats and the army.
But the army is not the solution to PKs problesm, it is the cause of its problems. Sharif was an idiot, but he was also going to cut a deal on Kashmir before Musharraf couped him in Kargil. And the running sore of Kashmir is a source of weakness, not strength, for PK.
IN any case, I don’t want to make this an endless essay. Suffice it to say taht I support democracy in PK (before anything else) and see the US admin as the biggest obstacle to democracy. Blame Christina Rocca.
This type of reasoning is why dictators thrive everywhere in the world. Like Reagan once said (I think about Nicaragua situation) “He is an SOB but he is our SOB”. The same thinking is employed in Iraq today.
“We are there now. So we have to stay”
The presence of US in Iraq is a major part of the insurgency, so how can the above thinking make any sense. But thats the prevailing political situation. Anti-War movement is DEAD. Its a shame. At least Rahul Mahajan is trying to give life to the anti-war movement. Where are others??
Yup, they sound like fascists to me.
Anna wrote:
Yet even we cannot have a coherent, sensible, sophisticated discussion about what our American relationship with Pakistan should be
and
If ever South Asian meant something, it means something in the context of geopolitical strategy and linguistics
And there’s the rub. “South Asian”, as a admirable sentiment, means quite a lot. But as an intellectual reality, it falls short. SM commentors cannot have a sophisticated conversation of PK because there are not enough people who have a sophisticated understanding of PK. (And SM bloggers themselves have some role in this).
You guys have guest bloggers this summer. That can go some way to solving the problem.
Brilliant idea, Ikram. Yo Leaders of the Mutiny — can we have a Pakistan-savvy guestblogger please?
peace
AND
I like how I become a dictator lover now. It’s like you are both supporting Bush in his stance of removing dictators and opposing what he did in Iraq.
Both of you give the same weak answer, without giving an alternative. WHERE is the alternative? Sure, we’d like to hope that in a few years down the line, perhaps a decade or so, democracy finally takes root there. But right now, in 2005, and indeed for the near future (unless Perv was actually telling the truth about stamping out Al Qaeda) with the world stage as it is, and the Islamist fundamentalists gaining ever more support because of their President’s heavy-handedness, there are no standout political alternatives to assume Pakistani leadership responsibilities.
If you can offer alternatives, REALISTIC alternatives, to Musharraf, I’m all ears. A lot of us are; Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans alike.
Do you have a leader in Pakistan you trust? Do you trust the democratic process? Even if it were fair and balanced, are you so sure that the Islamists wouldn’t gain a majority given the vast support they have at the grass roots level.
If you really want democracy in Pakistan, you have to come to terms with the fact that the people who will assume power at this moment are not going to be the ones you want.(I won’t even get into people want to export democracy but want “their” party to win.)
Moreover, what are the realistic options of implementing the democratic process in Pakistan at this moment? Having the United States exert pressure on Musharraf to implement these reforms? Given how unpopular he is amongst his own people, he will not choose this moment to shoot himself in the proverbial foot.
Additionally, if Pervez decides he doesn’t like the pressure from the United States, then he can start pandering to the Islamists, which sets everyone back.
If the U.S. chooses to remove their support of Musharraf, then there is a real danger of Musharraf being assasinated/couped out of power. There are no sensible liberal democrats pushing for a coup in Pakistan, only rabid fundamentalists. And yes I am sure there are tons of liberal democrats in Pakistan, but I’m also sure none of them are willing to do what the Islamists will do, namely kill or topple Musharraf.
To be glib, we are between Iraq and a hard place.
Now turning to the Bush administrations policy on Iraq: “We are there now. So we have to stay”
Again, the Pakistan analogy comes into play. While the current situation may be deplorable, in the absence of any real alternatives ( AND PLEASE DON’T JUST SAY THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES…OFFER THEM!) the geopolitical situation would only get worse if something drastic were to be done.
As someone who marched against the Iraq war in NYC, I was opposed to being there in the first place.
However, now that the administration has created this mess, and moreover, that it has managed to alienate any real possibility of an international force to keep the peace, we are, like it or not, pretty much stuck.
To pull U.S. troops now would do a couple of things:
1) Allow the Iraqi civil war to possibly spiral out of control. 2) Allow immigrant terrorists who came to fight the U.S. a convinient base of operations a la Afghanistan. (The Iraqi Security Forces are nowhere near ready to remove these guys). 3) Allow strong foreign influences, both political and military, from Iran and Syria.
This is in addition to the moral guilt of invading a nation and then just leaving it to hang out to dry. Finish what you started.
In conclusion, while we would all LOVE to see the Saddams, Pervezs, Robert Mugabes and Kim Jong Ils of the world out of power, we cannot (as proven by the Bush administration) go willy nilly around the world throwing them out of power without:
A) establishing what serious and realistic political alternatives there are to the current.
B) establishing whether the “regime change” will result in instability in the nation or the region that may be catastrophic (Pakistan, N. Korea)
C) establishing a strong base of support that shares the ideals of those about to enforce/spread democracy/implement the regime change.
Far be it from me to give guidelines on invading nations. I’m just trying to illustrate that while it is indeed MONUMENTALLY frustrating for certain people to have Pervs in power, I have yet to hear any realistic options to resolve this frustration.
And you need to a British-Punjabi perspectives too! And a British-Punjabi guest blogger too! Or else its racism and marginalisation and everything else too and etc etc etc! You defintely need one of them!
I cry at night too when I think of all the dictators in the world.
What do you advocate though? We invade Zimbabwe, North Korea, half a dozen Central Asian nations, Pakistan, another half a dozen African nations?
Injustice is terrible. But live in the world you were given, don’t take to flights of fantasies. There are many things you can do to fight this injustice, sadly most involving mundane but important efforts like non-profits, Red Cross and Medicin Sans Frontiers. Unfortunately, outright tossing them out of power isn’t going to happen outside of an invasion.
So, let’s hear some alternatives. I’m sure we can think of something.
Well, lessee. In ’99 he seized power in a coup. Reverse that, go back to a democracy.
Outside the NWFP, yes.
If the U.S. chooses to push for democracy as it did in Haiti, there is a real danger of Pakistan reverting to one đ
Great points Ikram, especially about the general desi elite hatred of democracy (though I will disagree with your oversimplification of Zakaria’s thesis). In India there was enough support for democracy among elites in the formative years that allowed it to take deep roots – one extremely important way in which India diverged from Pakistan in the early years after independence is that Nehru and other Indian political elites forced through land reform measures in Northern India that broke the back of feudalism, or at least its political strength. There has never been a similar concerted move to break feudalism’s back in Pakistan (not unsurprising when one considers that support for the idea of Pakistan among the upper class Muslims elite was predicated in large part on the desire to protect precisely such feudal interests) and this accounts in large part for the democracy deficit in Pakistan today…
In addition to sneering at Laloo (and never voting), you see the veneer of support for democracy in India crack among elites most when discussion turns to the inevitable comparision with China (“Beta they have a good, strong government”)…
A little off news but good to know:
In New York: police officers ordering tourists to put their hands up, bomb-sniffing dogs climbing aboard the bus, and five men who appeared to be South Asian winding up handcuffed and lined up in a row on their knees. They were questioned and then released.
Does anybody else other than me feel that Kashmir was a huge fuck-up that could have been totally avoided? I mean, at the time of Partition, Kashmir was as muslim-majority as Sindh or any other region that was given to Pakistan, right? WHy couldnt Patel/Nehru just have given it to Pakistan? We would be rid of ages of tension and blood-letting, then. Just because it had a Hindu king. Oh yeah I know, it’s sacrilege to say this now – it’s a prestige issue for us now. But still – do we really miss Sindh or Baluchistan? WOuld we miss Kashmir if it had just been given away in ’47? I think not. It’s not only Kashmir that had Hindus, right? There were Hindus/Sikhs in other Pak regions too. They were displaced/ hounded out. Same as Muslims were displaced/hounded out of India into Pak. In ’47 , it would have been the order of the day, sad as it is. So , if only that stupid Hari Singh/Abdulla heeded the voice of the majority of the people…..
I agree with Ikram and Siddharth. It would be a good idea to get some other South Asians who are not Indian Americans as guest bloggers here for the summer. I am sure there are some fine Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Bangladeshi bloggers around. Maybe a British Asian blogger could be invited too who could give a different perspective on the London bombings.
Also how about a poll on the profile (age, location, religion – if any, national origin) of the commenters and visitors to Sepia Mutiny ?
Punjabi Bwoyeee and myself have been putting forward our thoughts! Although I realise technically neither of us have blogs…and have nothing that useful to say…and are pretty much illiterate, but I’m sure he won’t mind me volunteering our services as the token Brits!
I quite like your other idea too Al Mujahid.
Juve
a) The Indian Union was put together by making deals with princely states who gave up rights to their kingdoms in exchange for compensation. This compensation was eventually stopped by Indira Gandhi. Certain princely city states (Jamnagar and Hyderabad) who had muslim kings that wished to join Pakistan or supported it were simply taken over later on (I am certain about Hyderabad, not Jamnagar though)
b) Since India was put together, mostly through consensus, it was a UNION, not unlike the United States. Pakistan was carved out based upon religion. India was to be a secular state.
c) The Kashmiri king (as well as Kashmiris) wanted to stay independent. In 1947, Kashmir wasn’t a part of either country. Pakistan attacked, and the King excecuted his choice and joined the Indian Union. Indians could have taken the high ground and say, we’ll help you out as a friend, but they used their leverage and gained more territory for the Union.
d) A few wars later, status quo along the LOC exists and India fouls up. In 1987, elections were conducted in a very undemocratic fashion with centrally controlled Congress railroading local opinion. Seeds of local discontent are sown.
e) Early in the insurgency, most fighting occured with seperatist groups within Indian territory. Primarily JKLF. Pakistan saw this as an opportunity to take it to India. As the insurgency progressed through the 90’s JKLF took a backseat and Jihadi groups from Pakistan took the forefront. They are the primary fighting factions now.
f) India was built on the back of a union, consensus, etc. India fears that after digging its heel in, letting Kashmir go its own way would trigger a break up of the Union. Each state seperated upon its linguistic and local cultural differences would want its own country. There are some that may push for such solutions if the precedent is set (North eastern states). From an Indian viewpoint, if elections are free and fair, why is there a problem? This is where the wicked cycle repeats itself. Now it is the insurgents and thugs who won’t let free and fair elections happpen because they see that as a direct threat to their power.
Just a bit of history, if I’m off, please someone correct me.
I concur with GujuDude’s account of Kashmiri History since 1947.
I guess I’m flattered to be mistaken for the lovely Anna, but we are, in fact not the same. I realize all girls look alike, but the huge levenstien edit distance might be a clue.
When the good general jails/exiles most of the people who remotely come close to threatening his political power, getting names can be hard to come by without inside info. So the alternatives are probably languishing in some Pak jail.
To all those saying that Musharraf’s coup should just be reversed, and Pak should go back to democracy – its not that simple.
Please read A Political Journey through Pakistan by Emma Duncan to see why “democracy” is nothing more than tribalism and nepotism legitimized.
Also, please name 5 Prime Ministeral Candidates that could possibly hold their ground in the National Assembly. Bhutto and Sharif are automatically disqualified for being the corrupt bastards that they are.
Oh, how cute. Yeah, hang on, let me just get in my time machine here and go back to the democratic government that newspapers like the Guardian called “corrupt and inefficient”.
Yeah, the democratic government that loved its people so much that when Musharraf came to power he: ĂâĂâŚpushed to enact a law reserving 30 percent of the seats in Parliament and local government for women, and he helped to return voting rights to non-Muslims in Pakistan.Ăâ
But you know, it doesnĂât matter if Mother Teresa and her holy nuns were the democratic government before Musharraf, because the time machine isnĂât working Manish.
I ask for a REALISTIC alternative and you ask to go back in time to a basketcase excuse for a government. YouĂâll notice there arenĂât any ĂâBring Back Nawaz SharifĂâ marches going on in Islamabad.
And now to the most famous assertion that you are confident in the peace-loving secular nature of the Pakistani populace.
IĂâm surprised you are so naĂÂŻve as to think the Islamists influence is that small. Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a six party alliance of Islamic parties, controls not only the NWFP, but Baluchistan and Sindh. Their popularity grows in the urban sprawls of Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi, fertile breeding grounds for fundamentalists. They are positioning themselves for the 2007 general elections, and are already a force to be reckoned with the parliament/
ĂâMusharraf has engineered splits within the secular, mainstream democratic parties (Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and Nawaz Sharif’s wing of the Muslim League), leaving the PML and the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, or MMA, a six-party alliance of Islamist parties, as the most powerful forces in the Parliament.Ăâ
Lest we think the MMA as moderate, or even sane, its good to know what the MMA views as ideal governance: The MMA is already well on its way to Talibanizing NWFP, enacting the Hasba Bill which basically sets up a theocratic, sharia type government in the province:
Also:
ĂâAmongst the MMA’s achievements, what stands out is its astute move of getting the Hasba Bill passed through the Provincial Assembly. This poses a dilemma for the Musharraf regime: it is damned if it takes strong action against the MMA ministry. In that case, the MMA will claim that it is a victim of non Islamic forces that are in power. Its leaders will call for popular support. The expectation is they will get a lot of votes in the local government elections next month as well as position themselves for a better showing in the 2007 general election. The regime would also be damned if it does not take any strong action against MMA government. Musharraf’s supporters abroad will blame him and may withhold some of their cooperation and acceptance for not having taken any firm action. Meantime, the MMA will claim victory and can be expected to go from strength to strength. That too will not please the friends of the regime, both at home and abroad. There is little doubt that the MMA will project itself as a doughty fighter for Islam. More importantly many people are likely to believe this.Ăâ
At this juncture, given the increasing hostility from Westerners as a result of the London bombings, MusharrafĂâs well established pro-Western image is particularly useful towards recruiting young minds to the Islamist cause.
ĂâThis is an incredibly young country, with 70 per cent of people under 30, a quarter of the population under 15. It is this demographic cohort, comprising tens of millions of people, that the contesting strands are fighting for. It is not clear which way Pakistan’s youth will go.Ăâ
In the face of that much uncertainty on where the undecided portion of the population will go, and the well-established fact that the single most powerful political force in Pakistan at this time are pro-Islamist and quite possibly fundamentalist, do we still want to go ahead and remove Musharraf?
I canĂât believe I wasted so much time doing research into something I thought would be blatantly obvious to even the layman: The Islamists in Pakistan are enjoying a huge upswing in popularity, and have shown themselves particularly capable of influencing young minds (London). That they control 3 provinces, a majority in an ineffective parliament and lots of grass roots support amongst the impressionable youth (misguided though it may be), should be pause enough to anyone advocating of giving that same parliament more powers.
Finally, there still lies the most complex problem of all, which is how you go about implementing the democracy in the first place.
You guys complain ad nauseam about Musharraf, but you offer NOTHING on how to remove him from power and implement your beautiful, civil, peacenik democracy. Haiti? You really want to experiment with sending U.S. troops into Islamabad? Or more correctly, do you think any U.S. politician would be insane enough to send the Marines into Islamabad?
Any solution to removing Musharraf from power requires one to have a healthy appetite for the unknown. There will inevitably be a power vacuum and instability in MusharrafĂâs wake. Do you really want to chance that in a nuclear state? Where there are Islamists actively looking to get their hands on the technology if not the bomb itself?
Many Indians criticize Musharraf endlessly without accepting the fact that his predecessors were inefficient (you think there were no madrassas or ISI during the fabled democratic period of Pakistan?) and that any of his predictable successors would be miles from moderate.
In the end, I think itĂâs just second nature for us South Asians to criticize our neighborĂâs government no matter who is in power.
I am not sure why we are arguing with Aslam Beg. Personally, I would rather he be arrested.
The Iraq war was idiotic but so is the lack of common sense inherent in many of our civil liberty laws.
Indomitus- Islamists in Egypt also enjoyed a huge upswing in popularity when democracy was suppressed in that country
If democracy is going back in time, what’s the Iraq invasion? What’s the U.S.? What’s India?
The first step is always a democracy. The second step is reforming it.
The MMA has grown powerful as opposition to the dictatorship, not because its astringent philosophy is popular. Remove the dictator and you dramatically weaken the MMA.
Aristide was just removed with U.S. pressure without any troops whatsoever.
We’ve already lived through it with the USSR collapse and the Iraq invasion (or so we thought). Both the U.S. and India have backup plans for securing the nukes.
You could hardly find find a more active proliferator to the bad guys than the current Pakistani government.
No, we’re all aware Pakistan’s gov’ts have sucked. But a dictator is worse than a democracy. If the U.S. was really going to make the commitment to solving terrorism, it would have started with pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Instead it chose to secure its oil supplies.
GujuDude missed the HUGE part of 1947 when Pakistan side using irregulars attacked Kashmir and at the time King of Kashmir requested help from India. India agreed to help and King agreed to join Indian Union. Indian Air force took care of the invaders. But Nehru being from Kashmir wanted a special status for Kashmir. From that the fiasco of going to UN occured. Article 370 of constitution occured as a result.
For those who are unaware, article 370 makes it illegal for any non-kasmiri to be able to buy property in Kashmir. (OPPOSITE of what happened in Occupied territory of Palestine .. Thats why comparison of Kashmir to Palestine is FALSE)
Due to lack of firm leadership Kashmir degenerated into “special” status.
Otherwise Hyderabad in South India also had a somewhat similar situation but stern leadership from Sardar Patel resolved it.
BTW, any KP’s who read this .. How come I have never heared of another “Nehru” last name in the KP community??