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 …
“Aristide was just removed with U.S. pressure without any troops whatsoever.”
Not quite. There were U.S troops holding guns when Aristide was escorted out – U.S says they were there for security, but Aristide said he was intimidated by the U.S troops to leave the place.
I believe I made a reference to it here, but did not mention it was an irregular army that attacked. I did miss the UN resolution part though.
Where has Aslam Bag Daddy gone?
Saheli — All chicks do not look alike. And all SM chicks are intelligent, beautiful and talented in their own unique way. Sorry for the confusion. And congrats to SM for having gender balance — so uncommon among blogs.
Indomitus — Your research explainn exactly why Musharraf has to go. He ahs engineered splits in the PPP and PML. He weakens his secular opponenets (like Benazir and Nawaz), stregthening the MMA.
And the upsurge in MMA popularity is due to the actions of the beloved dog-owning liberal autocrat. As you say, Musharraf, and the weakness of the PPP and PML, is why kids who want to change the status quo go Islamist.
The longer Musharraf stays in power, the stronger and more united the MMA will become.
Arguments about a power vacuum are false. The army and the civil service are, and always will be, the two pillars of stability in PK. But the countyr needs political parties to compelte the three legged stool.
What can Mushman do?
Allow Benazir and Nawaz to return home and run in free elections. Free political prisoners.Stop vote rigging Drop the exit control list.
In any case, its clear that the upcoming local body elections will strengthen the opposition (the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy) and weaken Musharraf. With a little pressure from the US, Musharraf could be made to retreat to the barracks.
And finally, you said:
In the end, I think itÂ’s just second nature for us South Asians to criticize our neighborÂ’s government no matter who is in power
Ok. I give up. If ‘South Asian’ is just going to be used as a synonym for ‘Indian, then we shouldn’t use it. To this ‘South Asian’, India, not Pakistan, is the neighbour.
Sepia Mutiny Overlords: Since there’s a clamor for Pakistan-experts, allow me to humbly request that you also add someone with expertise on Kashmir, say, a Kashmiri Pandit. And, no, I am not volunteering.
Ikram: The Bihari elite doesn’t constitute all of the Indian elite. In any case, the support for democracy is quite strong among the English-language media elite, certainly. And that elite amounts to a significant majority of the Indian elite. I think the Emergency has had a chastening effect on those Indians who pine for the ‘Great Leader’. In the English-language elite, anyway, I think the authoritarian nostalgists are a minority.
I agree with you about the necessity and feasibility of the the Pakistani army going back to the barracks. While I’m not quite so certain that the two legs of your three-legged stool are quite so firmly in place already, I do think it a misreading of Pakistan to think that only the jihadis are left if Mr. Musharraf leaves office.
On Kashmir (not directed to you Ikram, just a response to other commenters): I’m glad Partition didn’t work out in the Valley, as one commenter wished–we (Kashmiri Pandits) would have been erased from Kashmir. While others are free to contemplate that sort of thing with equaniminity, I fear that’s well beyond my ‘parochial’ sensibility.
In any case, it’s pointless to rehash the past–I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many versions of Kashmir’s past as there are Kashmiris. Certainly, I don’t agree with everything in the various brief takes on Kashmir’s history that have been posted so far.
It’s far more important to keep in mind that Kashmir has a complicated ethno-religious makeup. While religion is an important divide, the fissures in Kashmir run within as well as between religious communities. And it’s further complicated by regional divisions and urban vs rural divisions. Not to mention occupation: nomadic communities vs. non-nomadic.
All this is to say that any ‘resolution’ of Kashmir must not erase this complexity. Not surprisingly, I think the framework of the Indian constitution–with appropriate adjustments–can accomodate this sort of diversity. There are lots of ways to go about this. One way is to implement autonomy ‘all the way down’, from the state govt. to the panchayats along with ‘soft borders’. This sort of solution has surprisingly many takers among the supporters of Kashmiri secessionism, if some unpublished (for sec’y reasons) polls are to be believed.
However, I know that the very diversity I cherish makes a ‘resolution’ to everyone’s full satisfaction quite difficult. Until then, at the least, Pakistan must stop exporting jihadis in the (vain) hope of forcing their ‘solution’ to be implemented.
On the Nehru surname: I know a few Nehru’s not related to the famous JN. But I can’t provide you with stats until I get a hold of the KP directory or my dad (equally authoritative sources of info) 😉
Kumar
Sir,
I must question you KP cred : ) Nehru’s family name is actually Kaul I believe, I believe “Nehru” comes from the name of a “river” in UP which ran along the Nehru house.
Read it in some book about the Nehrus. Forget the name but I think “dynasty” is in the title. Anyway the most interesting tidbit was that Indira Ghandi was considering opening a Bed n’ Breakfast in London a few years prior to becoming the Prime Minister.
Thank you, Saheli.
I do not. What I said was:
That is a far cry from subjugation. Why do you automatically assume that Ummah will subjugate kafirs? Perhaps, you concieve of the Ummah very differently.
Just like in your society, you use certain metrics you exclude some people and groups from voting, I suggest, I support a different metric to selectively give rights to some groups, while not to others in my kind of society.
Kafirs have lived in past in peace with their neighbours in muslim kingdoms in the past, they continue to live in relative peace in some modern day muslim dominated countries (e.g., Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia). And it is not inconcievable that such a state will be viable in the future.
I agree that there are Muslim dominated countries that show religious intolerance, but I think we can debate (in another discussion) if the intolerance is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the passive, implict discrimination experienced my Muslim’s in lands where there are minorities. As long as there are differnces in people, there will biases.
It appears to me that you have your pre-conceptions, and perhaps you automatically assume that I am a sword brandishing maniac waiting in the trenches to slaughter the first person I come across. If that is what you concieved, I am sorry to disappoint you; just because you are reckless with lives and dreams in my county, does not mean that I endorse that in your country. Of course, I also cannot lie and say that I do not see the deaths in your countries as Allah’s retribution – you reap what you sow.
I will repeat what I said earlier: You begin with the assumption that all people are equal and should have equal rights. It is undesrtandable that you hold these beliefs considering that prevailing norms in your society. You have to suspend that belief for a second, and look at what principles I begin with to understand what I say. Therefore, it is not hypocritical.
Also, we must first deciede the context in which one says “madrasas should be free to say what they want”. In a democracy (atleast a liberal one) that should not be a problem. In the Umma, that should not be a problem there either.
But again, we are talking about the political framework of different political systems, which is not my immideate concern here.
The hallmark of liberalism is the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. Islamism is a pretty vaguely define construct primarily used by the west, but it is not particualrly hard to reconcile this principle of liberalism with the Ummah. Certain things will certainly be dogmatic while there will lot of space to dissent in some principles. What distinguishes the Ummah from most democracies of the west is that these two entities will be dogamtic about different things.
Nothing in the framework of democracies ensures a set of fixed rights independent of the times we live in; most laws are meant to be dynamically adjusted to the times (some are not); And hence, even in your socities you might be relaxed about things you might once be dogmatic about (like legality of gay sex), but more dogmatic about things that you were erstwhile relaxed about (like the new hate laws in UK). You might take issue with the things the Ummah might be dogmatic about, just like I take issue with say, legality of gay sex; but in principle we are doing the samethings: decieding which things are permissible and which are not.
The things we exclude and include do not have any inherent value in of themselves; we attribute it to them, based on what beliefs we begin with apriori. Perhaps, your apriori beliefs of what a political system constitutes might include equality of all people, equality of all religions, etc. etc. Mine might include principles antithetical to yours – but you cannot logically discount my basis because both our beliefs of what a political system must include are apriori.
You should realize that the word fasict is as empty a word today as it was in the 50’s. I presume you use it is a political hyperbole, and I will leave you to your shallow merriment.
Perhaps, it will help you be more tolerant if you realize that:
Just like every person who drinks is not a drunk and batters his spouse, not every person who thinks that the Ummah is a superior political system than democracy is a blood-mongering lunatic.
Yes, have me arrested. Then put on a mask on my head and electrocute me. Perhaps, then I will realize the elusive metaphysical concept called democracy.
tef:
“…”Nehru” comes from the name of a “river” in UP…”
Heh, now I can tell my friends that their surname really isn’t Koshur 😉
Kumar
Bag Daddy
No. I use it as accurate definition for you and your deeply fascistic political creed. Dont be upset or put out about it – embrace it and be proud – I will respect you then (as much as I can respect a dirty fascist – not very much – but more than I do respect those apologists who pretend to be something they are not)
And there is nothing wrong with being shallow – even though I am not – I am really deep maaaan – but look at where depths have taken you – right into the black heart of the fascists soul.
Some of you even talk about “removing Musharaff or keeping him in power”; you implicitly assume that you have power and will to do it if necessary – And, thats not imperialism? I wonder when was the last time a Pakistani or Iraqi discussion had sentences like, “Well..what do you think, should be remove Bush or keep him?”. Of course, I can understand your preference to have a certain person in power in Pakistan, but your nonchalance about changing the heads of state is amazing.
I assume most of you support democracries. So, would you still support a democractically elected religious party in Pakistan…or do you dilly-dally and say “hmm… Its better for us to have a dictator.” Its about a democracy alright, your democracy. How much do you care very little about other democracies, when a democracy in another country means enhanced chances of casualities in your country.. you hesitate. That is this hypocrisy you bring to Iraq, as well.
Inspite of your explanantions and criticisms, none of you have answered the question:
yes. of course.
just as algeria would have been saved ten years of civil war if the 1992 (date?) elections had not been called off by the generals when they saw the f.i.s. was going to win.
just as erdogan’s party was democratically elected in turkey.
if a religious party is elected in actual free/fair elections in pakistan, i say welcome to government, and good luck to them.
peace
Wikipedia defines Fascism as:
Now, that may describe the Umma that does not exist yet, but I wonder, which country would most people in the world think of, given the above charecteristics… hmmm.
If it is all Fascism, then I prefer my Fascism to yours; But, you are welcome to venerate yours.
So, if we can please refrain from unnecessary sarcasm, I think, the discussion would be more productive.
tef, I had heared that too. That is the reason I asked the question.
Kumar, I would request you to ask your father about this. Your father for sure would be able to tell if Nehru is a real surname one assumed later. Because I have seen Kaul, Bhan, Dhar and other Kashmiri Pandit surnames, never Nehru. This is just my curiosity .. no other reason.
Aslam Bagdadi — Musharraf has stayed in power because of his parasitic relationship with the USA. He isn’t some pre-existing artifact of PK society.
We cannot pretend that US influence, for good or ill, doesn’t exist over Pakistan, or Iraq, or Panama, or a bunch of togher countries. That ‘garden of eden’ before US intervention never existed. Small countries operate in an environment of big power politics.
Imperialism exists, and always has. The question is how to manage it.
Aslam_Bagdadi,
I am quite surprised that not many of the articulate commentators in Sepia Mutiny have responded to your comments. FWIW, here’s mine.
Consider a thought experiment. In this Ummah, the kafirs will have to pay jizya (if I am right about what I read). If the number of kafirs increase compared to the number of believers and they decide to not pay jizya because of their superior numbers, what will the Ummah do? If it doesn’t do anything, it goes against what Koran says and if it takes some action against the Kafirs, then that is subjugation, no?
I don’t really know why I am going to such great lengths to prove that Islamic rule will subjugate a lot of people. Will the Ummah allow a christian to preach (which is a duty of a believer in christ)? Isn’t that subjugation?
There are many examples of subjugation of kafirs under muslim rule, but you just brush them away as aberrations. Nice.
And finally, you asked who shares responsibility in a democracy. I will pose you a counter question.
In an islamic country, a woman is convicted of committing adultery. The woman is then stoned to death by hundreds of people. It later turns out that the woman did not actually commit adultery. Her brother seeks vengeance. Who does he kill? The judge? The accuser? All the people who stoned her? People who stood by and just watched? If you think it’s fair that all of them should be killed, well, good luck trying.
I would have no problem with religious party coming to power in Pakistan. The religious party just might throw away the bagage of Kashmir (I dont know .. guessing)
Bag Daddy
Gosh you fascists are terribly sensitive these days.
You are a fascist – stop whining about it – there is nothing worse than a whining fascist – oh hold on yes there is – a suicide-bomber is worse than a whining fascist – but for the time being you should accept you are what you are and stop complaining about the accurate description -you son of fascist Qutb and fascist Maudoooodi –
Eswaran, thank you for your criticism. But, thats not the entire picture:
Of course, there are varied interpretations of the humnaity of non-muslims under muslim rule ranging from complete acceptance to humiliation. Regardless, even in a democracy inevitably groups of people will be disenfranchised perhaps on the basis of race or wealth or whatever else.
The idea of treating different people differently is not unique to the Umma. It is what all liberal, social democrarcies with different economic systems with tend towards. Disparity is the natural state, and I am very skeptical that any system can effectively remedy that.
However, I do not want to discuss, if democracy is a superior idealogy to umma or not. The answer is not very important, and I willing to concede that democracy could be a better system, if that is the case.
My question was not rhetoric. And, I am sincerely trying to understand where the line needs to be drawn. I want to know where you people (living in democracies) think the line ought to be drawn?
I want to include the electorate in the actions of a nation because they seem to have the choice… but thats just me. I also acknowledge that there is a not unique criteria that can be used to deciede where to draw the line.
So, I appreciate it if some of you can elobrate on where you feel the line ought to be drawn, and if there is more than one culprit in the chain of responsibility, who do you assign who gets what share of the blame?
rc:
Your wish was my command 😉 My dad says that Nehru is, indeed, a genuine Koshur surname. The surname derives from the fact that the ancestral Nehru’s live/lived near a canal/river or ‘Nahr’ in J&K. So you (or tef ?) are partially correct that it derives from living near a river–it’s just that the canal/nahr was in J&k.
kumar
Kumar, Thanks, So its settled.
Aslam, when you refer to those of “us” who talk about democracy or dictatorship in Pakistan and which one would suit “us” better, I assume you are picking up on my arguments on behalf of Musharraf.
Don’t confuse my language as sympathies with “them”. I was merely trying to highlight to those who keep shouting for change in other people’s countries to stop for a second and think about what would follow that change.
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I would like to get in touch with you. You neglected (rightfully so, I’m sure you would have been spammed to no end by some) an email address… contact me if you wish. I do not agree with all of your ideas, but at least you attempt to discuss them thoughtfully rather than bark brainlessly…
There are other forums where people from every side are more versed and more patient in their discussions and see little point in name calling; moreover they realize the opportunity to have a civil discussion with someone from a completely different idealogical foundation as a treat and not something to avoid stubbornly.
With all this bullsh** about “winning the hearts and minds”, and acheiving “a dialogue between the West and Islam” and all your other choice media soundbites, when someone actually steps out from the “other” side to discuss, a large number of people automatically have a kneejerk “OMG Fascist towelhead” reaction.
Don’t waste your time here, Aslam_Bagdadi.
Don’t confuse ‘islamism’ with ‘muslim dominated countries’.There are many muslims who favour secular democarcies. And none of the countries you mentioned have Islamist governments places like Turkey, Tunisia and Morrocco are extremely poor examples.
Anyways if you want to look for islamist governments look at places where full shaira law has been enacted look at Iran (shia), or Afganistan in the late ninties.
Again I don’t see why you can’t understand why Ummah/Islamism (totalitarionism by any other name…) isn’t compatible with liberalism.
The hallmark of Liberalism is the ability to dissent from orthodox tennants only because the ideal of liberalism is individual liberty and freedom.
Compare this to Islamism which is a totalitarian system that supresses dissent or deviation from the existing views laid out in the quran and the hadits, anyone who disagrees is automatically subjugated and is barred from sharing their beliefs with others (not allowed to proselytize).
Therefore the two systems are are completely irreconcilable.
You claim to live in Iraq, if so, you are living in a democracy also.
So to answer your own question consider this, if an iraqi government soilder mistakenly kills a visiting Canadian civilian ( I live in Canada , the canadian government never supported the war on Iraq) should we start teaching our kids to go out into iraq and start blowing themselves up and killing people ?
I note that the British military forces in southern Iraq have been accused by Iranian government ministers of actively infiltrating Khuzestan an promoting an insurgency there. So, what does Khuzestan have, apart from more troublesome Arabs, that the British might be interested in? Oil.