I love the ACLU. I believe that a person shouldn’t be allowed to run for President of the United States unless they are a card-carrying member (as opposed to our current system where you have to be a member of the NRA). Likewise, I think that Human Rights Watch rocks and that any government that questions their findings or calls them inaccurate are doing so mostly because they are annoyed at being caught doing something pretty heinous. However, unlike some of my co-bloggers, I also think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being. Why? Because countries like Iraq (and a few others I can think of) have taught the world a very important lesson in recent years. Insisting that they quickly transition to a democracy because its what we (sitting in our stable homes) are fortunate enough to enjoy, doesn’t always result in the best outcome for them or us. History has repeatedly shown that a weak central government is sometimes much worse for everyone than a dictator who, despite curtailing personal freedoms, provides stability for the vast majority. The key is that a path to an eventual transition or succession be clearly defined.
The fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble.
What was it that went wrong in Iraq? We foolishly believed (and by we I really mean those Neocons) that a community of exiled intellectuals could pick up where a brutal strongman (Hussein) left off. We learned the hard way that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses and will end up fighting amongst themselves while emptying the state coffers. Hussein, just like Hitler and Kim Jong Il, was a very bad man responsible for the death of thousands of his own people. That isn’t why we invaded Iraq or decided that they needed to be democratized though. We invaded Iraq in the expectation that we’d bring about greater long-term stability for us (and for them as a secondary benefit). Nobody would suggest that Musharraf is anywhere near as bad as Hussein and the stability he has been providing is not bad, all things considered. And let’s not forget the reason he seized power in the first place and has been popular in Pakistan for most of his tenure:
Nawaz Sharif was also involved in corruption at the highest level during his tenure which brought further mistrust of the people towards his government. The Nawaz government launched a scheme called “Karz utaro, Mulk savaro” whose intent was to pay off debt of the nation through the Pakistani people’s pockets. Pakistanis took part aggressively and emotionally to help Pakistan pay off the debt. Many Pakistanis living abroad took part in this scheme extensively and sent millions (maybe billions) to help pay off the debt. Even the poor living in the country helped, to the extent that women sold their jewellery to help the cause, but to no avail. As of this date, it is not known what happened to the funds and the national debt never decreased. It is widely believed that the scheme was to benefit Nawaz Sharif & family, and not to pay off the country’s debt. [Link]
<
p>Look who we currently have protesting in the streets of Pakistan: lawyers, intellectuals (exiled and in-country), and Islamists. To be clear, I do not condone the jailing of lawyers and judges but Pakistan is not ready for the type of democracy they currently protest in favor of. There is not one shred of proof pointing to a better outcome if elections were to take place, nor a single candidate that one could point to as a competent successor to Musharraf, one likely to provide stability in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the contrary, Bhutto was almost assassinated within a day of returning. The division of power following an election in Pakistan would be a huge blow against America’s “War on Terror” as well as Pakistan’s continuing effort (although not at 100%) of curtailing the activities of insurgents within its borders and in bringing about a better life for its people. A democratically elected weak central government will benefit nobody except for the well-educated lawyers who may run for office and empty some of those state coffers. I think Musharraf knows that and its why he can’t accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.
American foreign policy experts are not blind to what I am writing here. They were hoping that Musharraf would be able to hold power by at least making a show at democracy. They now have to weakly condemn him because of America’s stated “principles:”
Even before Saturday’s crackdown, U.S. State Department officials said they had struggled with what to do if Musharraf went through with his threat. They didn’t know then, and they don’t know now.
“Frankly, it ain’t easy,” one official said. “We are looking at our options, and none of them are good.”
The United States has pushed for Musharraf to shed his army uniform and hold elections by January. And it repeatedly has told him that his cooperation in the war on terror is not a replacement for democratic reforms…<
p>But officials acknowledge any U.S. response will boil down to one thing: al Qaeda. [Link]
<
p>The situation in Pakistan will now come down to one thing: the common people. If the lawyers can convince the masses that instant democracy is better for them than stability then Musharraf’s days are numbered. If he overreacts or commits violence on a large scale against the protestors, then there is a chance the common people will turn against him. His best short-term strategy now is to maintain stability and normality by keeping a low profile. The longer that he maintains stability the greater the chance he will retain power. In the long-term he must devise and publicize a means for succession, even if it means diverting a bit of his attention away from his obligations to the U.S.
And so I will not yet support an uprising by “the people” in Pakistan against Musharraf. I think it is best to study and understand the situation some more before displaying the same hubris we have in other areas of the world. The past decade has taught us all about the soft naivete of high expectations. Democracy doesn’t just sprout from a seed. You need to keep turning over the soil for a long time and sometimes pray for rain.
That’s garbage. The instability in Pakistan was there before Musharraf came to power and likely will be there for years to come. With the current alternatives being (a) military coup, (b) Bhutto/Sharif, or (c) “democracy” without stability, Musharraf’s actions appear to be better in the long term for the Pakistani people.
Is this a serious opinion or an attempted parody??. I was checking to see if this is posted under fun section..
You could equally well argue that democracy is bad for the US of A too, that it allows a dangerous maverick like Bush to wage world war over oil contracts. My opinion is that Sharief is better than Bush. Of course, the suggestion that a country run by whites should be saved from its own choices may seem outrageous to you.
Keep the faith, Abhi. Democracy looks bad, but is like God in that it often works in mysterious ways, the rationale of which is understandable after many years.
Abhi gets 0/10 for this post.
I’m leaning to this conclusion as well — this is depressing. Granted there are nuances and complexities I’m ignorant of, but it seems like if this was such an existential crisis for pakistan he’d focus on the real issue at hand. His dictatorial instincts are overshadowing a more level-headed approach that would tackle the extremist issue first. Alas, he’s a flawed human, and whatever glimmer of level-headed reformist people may have seen in the past, has seemingly been subsumed by issues of power and ego. Inevitable I suppose..
43 · GujuDude said:
Don’t you kind of need a free press for stuff like this to happen? The right to assemble? The right to free speech? The right to free movement? Protection of life and liberty? Equal rights for all citizens before law and equal legal protection? The right of detainees to be informed of their offense and given access to lawyers? Because according to Tash @ 14 and the Huffington Post, those rights are all suspended.
If Mush can quote Lincoln I can get away with Churchill:
Democracy excists as the better form of government till we found a better system and can only trive well in a.. better system. Any desi can tell how dramatically chaotic and corrupt it is on the South-Asian subcontinent!
Eventhough his action are very Maoish – zero tolerance towards diffrent thinking, religious and academic people – I support Mussharaf regime for Pakistan has nukes (I know cliche, cliche)and I have some faith, because he still talks to the west and tried to explain his actions (which to me indicates a certain level of consideration towards the West), that they won’t accidentally hit Indian soil.
If there are free elections who knows what kind of person/party will rule the country, under what circumstances and with what result. At least he keeps the dialoge with the rest of the world alive. The last thing Pakistan (and it’s neighbours)needs is isolation from international politics. We all know that nobody wins in that situation.
how the hell are they exiled “intellectuals”?
While I agree that a democratically weak state benefits no one, I believe that is what the US already has in Pakistan. The overall problem is US credibility. The US cannot claim to support democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq while denying it in Pakistan. In fact Musharraf seems to be fueling more violence and radicalizing Islamists more than he is stopping it. News reports show the insurgency is gaining strength along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately this situation is bad no matter what happens, but I believe if Musharraf remains in power the politics will grow more extreme and anti-Western. That is the last thing the US needs, a radicalized nation in possession of a nuclear weapon.
I get Abhi’s point. I cant really get outraged by Musharaff because the alternative doesnt give you a vibrant democracy either. The ISI controls the country anyway. Now, do I prefer they be democratic regardless of all the corruption? Sure. But it really registers very low on my outrage meter. What bothers me more is the junta in Burma when you have a MUCH superior alternative of a Democracy with leadership ready to take over.
American Footprints, A foreign policy blog has an interesting take:
Can anyone substantiate the alleged yeoman’s work that Musharraf has done for advancing US security? I do remember a few drone-assisted assassinations, but outside of that, where has the $1 billion+ per year in aid money gone and to what constructive and valuable end?
I agree that immediate democracy in Pakistan wouldn’t lead to a necessarily better outcome than musharraf, but what exactly has he done to merit our approval as a dictator who can quiet the masses, maintain strict control over all areas of the country, provide useful and timely intelligence to the US? IMO, he hasn’t been able to do any of those things and if he hasn’t fulfilled his reason for being where he is, why do we need to persist with a proven failure? A strong-man may be needed, but is it Musharaff who should be doing the strong-arming?
He has blamed, in his apparently more lucid moments, the judiciary and press for his apparent inability to control terrorism and terrorism-related activities–are you seriously signing on, Abhi, to this fairly madcap notion? That Iftikhar Choudhry and a few newspaper editors were running willy-nilly throughout the country, doling out the time and date of gov’t raids and making the $1bn in US aid as effective as a few coins thrown in a claw-crab machine?
Imprisoning all those who don’t agree with you publicly, including public servants, is an integral part of this Emergency Rule and I don’t honestly see how this eases the way for democracy in the future. Those who are wronged now will not easily forget their treatment at the hands of Musharraf’s goons and a truth and reconciliation commission will not work in Pakistan (arguably it hasn’t worked in S. Africa either). Musharraf may be able to cow the population into a semblance of peace, but without decades of such unnatural political and social repression it is unlikely that any future generation will accept this as the status quo and move on to being prosperous (decades of autocratic rule by essentially one family in Singapore produced a system in which many people accept limited social and political freedoms for substantial economic benefits) democrats. In Iraq, the decades of dictatorial rule did not result in a populace ready-made for US-style democracy.
Can anyone come up with an example (other than Singapore obviously) where this fairytale became true?
No. I don’t think he’s a great guy nor do I believe all the things he claims to justify staying in power. I don’t think that he’s helped in Iraq and Afghanistan nearly as much as he could have (although he has helped). I don’t believe that it is ever right to detain innocent people. Most of all though, I don’t believe that those who expect to see any sort of reasonable democracy in Pakistan (and an associated good outcome for America because of it) in the near term know what they are talking about. I don’t mind if some of the more naive idealists out there think I’ve suddenly sold out for saying so. The last thing the world needs is more instability in that region, regardless of who is ultimately to blame for it.
this is what i’m apparently not getting–what packets of salted peanuts has the US received from it’s investment in Air Musharraf?
I hope you are not lumping me in with this population. I’m neither naive nor ignorant but I will cop to an unfailing weakness for macro details–i.e. how would such a dictatorship work and how would it be of benefit to both the pakistani population and the US. Also i think this is becoming somewhat of a straw man as when pressed on the question, even those who disagreed with the spirit of your post, would agree that a lack of Musharraf and the subsequent “democracy” it might create would probably be worse than the state of martial law.
How long can he realistically press his iron thumb before someone or some institution finds enough wiggle room to destabilize the whole country?
Wow. To quote another commentor on another blog, I’d expect this post from an utterly uninformed redneck Gora writing about Paky-stan, but a supposed Mutineer?!
Let’s stick to factual mistakes in the post.
1). “fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in … Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble.”
Abhi, outline for me exactly what measures Pakistan has taken to help the US war in Iraq.
2) “that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses “
I think that’s the first time in history Nawaz Sharif has been called an intellectual. Was it the hair-plugs that made him smarter? Bhutto (a university drop-out) is no genius either. What both of them are is politicians with a significant mass base, as the success of their political parties in the last elections showed.
3)”I do not condone the jailing of lawyers and judges but Pakistan is not ready for the type of democracy they currently protest in favor of. “
Abhi — do you even know what the protests are about?! What triggered them? This isn’t about democracy. Musharraf has agreed to hold Parliamnetary election in January, as promised. What he won’t do is choose between being army chief and President (“take off the Uniform”, as Condi whispers to him a night). You sound like you’re poorly informed about Pakistan.
4) “a single candidate that one could point to as a competent successor to Musharraf, one likely to provide stability in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan and Iraq”
Do I need to send the Mutiny a map? Have you gotten lost? How is stability in Iraq an extension of stability in Pakistan?!
5)” I think Musharraf knows that and its why he can’t accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
Name the ruling, Abhi. Again, you sound like you don’t know what you’re talkinga bout. The court has ruled on corruption in the privatization of the steel mill, and on illegal disappearances. Neither of these is the excuse for the emergency.
I wasn’t
What makes one mutinous is not that they always think what people expect them to think and say what they are expected to say. Its that you think for yourself and express your opinion without caring who judges you (a redneck) for it.
Abhi writes:
I fell off the chair, spilt my coffee on the kybrd and hit the ceiling, all at the same time while rubbing my eyes in disbelief. I looked out of the window – no – the sun did not rise from the west.
This is truly mutinous.
M. Nam
Ikram, I have to get to work so I will have to dismantle you later. Peace out everyone. No SM at work.
Now I’m waiting for Abhi’s post proposing an amendment in the US constitution to give Bush 4 more years to fight the terrorists. The Dems are too sissy. 🙂
Abhi wrote: I don’t believe that those who expect to see any sort of reasonable democracy in Pakistan (and an associated good outcome for America because of it) in the near term know what they are talking about
That’s quite rich, coming from you. But it hits the heart of the problem with this post, and the problem with some Pakistan blogging here at SM.
I read SM to get a “insiders” view of Desi issues (and a desi view of American issues). I read because the people who post here know the difference between a Somosa and a Paan, are vaguely familar with Akbar and Aurangzeb, and don’t need a detailed explanation if I use the word Ayodhya. (And at the same time, understand American culture).
But the Abhi’s post above is utterly clueless about Pakistan. It’s an outsiders perspective of Pakistan. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’d love to read Abhi’s posts on Pakistan at his new group blog, “The Gora mutiny”. But my SepiaMutiny should have sepia posts.
And I’m not talking about the viewpoint here. Many Pakistanis (and Indians) could write cogent defenses of Musharraf’s rule (although not in the past two days), but not one would call Nawaz Sharif an out of touch intellectual!
My point: accept that this Mutiny stops at the Radcliffe line, find people who can write less goofy posts about Pakistna, or, at the very least, don’t disparage people better informed than you by saying they don’t “know what they are talking about”.
Shoot. I just read Amardeep”S (as usual) excellent post. I take my cracks about SM the blog back. But I mean everything i say about Abhi’s post. Great job Amardeeop.
good post abhi!
it is not completely clear what the full implications of this situation are, but it is a more predictable situation than if pakistan descended into chaos. i would also guess that from india’s—and the regular pakistan guy—point of view, today, this is probably better. thanks to musharraf being forced to rein in terror groups in pakistan at the behest of US, terrorism in kashmir and the rest of india has come down the last year.
it is very easy for many of you to speak of democracy in pakistan—for all the fuss people in the west make, terrorism is not a constant threat as in india and pakistan. more people die of terrorism every year, both in pakistan and india than 9/11. islamization under zia has made pakistan into a terror base for military islam, and it is difficult to see how “quick fix democracy” will change that better than musharraf. and until islamization of pakistan is not undone, true democracy has no chance either.
I agree with you Abhi. For the moment, I think Pakistan is better off under Musharraf’s benign dictatorship than any of the other alternatives.
T
I agree with Abhi. Musharraf is unfortunately the best person for the job at the moment. On a side note Bush 41 resigned from his NRA life membership (after his presidency) and Clinton and the NRA couldn’t stand one another.
I read Pakistan posts here for Ikram’s comments.
Abhi has said what needed to be said about “democracy”.
Interstingly Musharraf spent some time living in Turkey as a son of a diplomat.
Ikram, How do you explain the support that Pakistan’s middle and upper middle class people seem to have??
I am surprised that with this amount of thought you have not shown up on cable TV as a Pakistan expert. They seem to be dime a dozen these days.
So you are sitting here in democratic amrica enjoying all the freedom and rights and telling people that loosing their freedom and rights in pakistan is not really that bad…atleast for the moment! Forgive mushraff who did this to you and don’t protest….just listen!
Not really. Take the freedom movement in the subcontinent from the British for example. Leaders who continually challenged the system with strong ground roots support rose to galvanize the opposition against the British Empire. Without talented and honest leaders fronting the movement for democracy, it’ll only fizzle out. Then again, I nor do many of us live in Pakistan. As I said earlier in one of my comments – there could be a young leader being forged right now as we speak. More power to him/her if they can manage what others have failed at. But I’m not too optimistic about such a scenario. I won’t tell people not to protest or demand their government take better care of them. After all, the role of leaders in government aren’t that of a king where the masses serve you, rather a true leader is a steward of the people. Taking a look at current Pakistani leadership, it doesn’t look too bright (sadly). Will a freely elected democratic leader have enough support to protect him/herself against fundamentalist islamists or the military? Musharraf has barely escaped assasination a few times with the massive military protecting him.
It needs to be the middle class who have the numbers, yet are silent to rise up and fight the tide, but it’ll take a talented, charismatic, and honest leader to slowly build such support and convince often burned Pakistanis that he/she is indeed a different breed of politician.
Between Abhi and Amardeep’s posts, IMHO, it covers the difficult situation (and opinions) with Pakistan. The options aren’t easy here and many, many, fear the consequences of a disruption in the status quo can be extremely harsh.
I know abhi’s defense of the dictator sounds horrible, but this is not a country that has civilian’s trusted enough to take the reigns. Sharif and Bhutto created the enviornment in which a dictator such as Musharraf was warmly welcomed in 1999. Democracy has not been developed in Pakistan and it will take a man, such as the Musharraf of 1999, to be respected by the populace to then develop the foundations of democracy. However, instead of using the respect he garnered from the populace to bring a stable democracy about, one in which he could run for President, Musharraf kept his dual role and further eroded the civilian institutions of power through bogus referendums and deals with Islamist parties. The sad aspect of this is that the Musharraf of today seems unwilling to do anything for democracy, cutting deals with one former corrupt leader and deporting the other out due to personal grievances.(neither of them should be considred intellectuals)
I understand his hand’s were tied in the previous years due to 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, but Musharraf has wasted an opportunity to have been a great leader of South Asia, one who successfully brought democracy to Pakistan. With the jettisoning of the Supreme Court and the house arrest human rights leaders such as Asma Jehangir, what is Musharraf trying to do besides firm his grasp on power? He reminds me more of a militant Andrew Jackson than an Abraham Lincoln.
I don’t think its accurate to say that Pakistan isn’t ready for democracy. This is nothing like Iraq or other places that may not be ready for straight up liberal democracy. There is a democratic tradition in Pakistan and institutions are already in place to function as the machinery of that democracy. Most Pakistanis understand the responsibilities of the citizen in a democracy and are moderates who don’t want any sort of theocracy (I think the same could be said for Iraqis on this point). And there is no dominant ethnic or religious divide- most Pakistanis are Sunni (although I don’t think this means that Pakistanis are necissarily compassionate to others unlike them- Pakistan has not been kind to ethnic and religious minorities, which is probably why it is more homogenous).
The main problem, which you point out, is that there is no real viable candidate to replace P-Mush. Sharif and Bhutto, are not exactly the smartest folks around, and have shown to be power hungry and corrupt in the past. They aren’t entering the fray with any ideas, but rather, just on name recognition.
But the problem is circular. Because there was no democracy for the last 8 years, and opposition leaders were muted, no other leaders have been able to come to the fore. This problem isn’t gonna be solved unless democracy returns.
ah yes, poor mushy bears the great brown man’s burden in shepherding an ignorant populace towards the beacon of freedom. hope he does not descend into the heart of darkness.
personally, i find the democrats completely ineffectual – what has their congress achieved, and what vision do they provide? i do hope cheney becomes our great eternal leader and will willingly abrogate my freedoms in service of this ideal. onwards! upwards!
A judiciary willing to take on a dictator is another point in favor of Pakistan being ready for democracy. I get the feeling America is not ready for democracy…in Pakistan.
–> The difference between them is that dictatorship has no legitimacy for the power it exercises other than claim ‘I said so'(I am assuming you are using government synonymous with democratically elected government). Weak central governments are not bad by themselves. They are bad when they stick to power to the detriment of their effectiveness. Which is a better situation than a dictator who overstays his welcome because he/she doesnt have any motivation to pull back from disastrous policies. At least, a weak central government has the threat of elections to pull them back. Would emergency under Indira in 1970s have the same reasoning you are putting forth ? Daddy(or in case of Indira, Amma) knows best ???? I am not sure history shows what you are claiming. Could you please share some examples ?
–> And, Pakistan Army Inc. doesnt line its pockets at the expense of the country ?
–> As opposed to well educated army officers in the current dictatorship ? Musharraf knows his power grab is more important than democracy and solidifies his position and is willing to take steps towards that.
–> Why would he develop a plan for succession other than to save his own skin ? His success in this emergency thing will make it clear to him stability and normality is paramount for pakistanis than democracy and human rights. Once he has succeeded, what motivation is there for him to shed his uniform ? General Pervez Musharraf a.k.a Pakistani Buddha ?
–> Using your analogy, democracy sprouts from seeds(leaders) in soil that has been turned over(other institutions with clearly defined succession rules) and has had rain at regular intervals(elections). It doesnt sprout from a seed(dictator) that knows what is best in the future for the users(pakistani population) of its fruits(democracy). And what if the seed overestimates its fruitfulness ? It might have been fruitful over the past 6 years but it might be facing the end of its shelf life ? How does one replace the seed ? Apply DDT(US) ?
There is a good article in the Christian Science Monitor with some interesting tid-bits:
Abhi, I may be misunderstanding you, but if you mean to be saying that the anti-Musharraf movements are seeking “instant democracy” — and those are your words — then I think you may be misunderstanding this situation rather fundamentally. I doubt many Pakistani citizens are under the illusion that civilian rule in the 1990s was perfect or that dumping Musharraf would be a panacea. (Certainly no more or less than, say, citizens of Bihar have illusions about their government.) For starters, read the thoughts of Asma Jahangir from the summer:
(Those protests, by the way, were supported by large numbers of the “common people” you celebrate — while Bhutto and Sharif weren’t even in the country. Go back and look in the news archives from before this week.)
I’m also not sure I understand this:
What supports such a charitable view? Musharraf has been systematically undermining the very institutions — courts, lawyers, independent media, civil society organizations — that are preconditions for the kind of “succession” I assume you favor. This has nothing to do with him being too busy helping the U.S. fight its war on terror. It’s about him viewing himself as indispensable — hardly surprising, given that he’s been hearing that from his Iagos in Washington for a long time now.
One final set of comments by Asma Jehangir — this time from an email sent this week:
Whether or not her specific formula is the right one isn’t the point. The point is that you are painting a crude and misleading picture with a very broad brush. I agree with you that it’s important to guard against an overly simplistic and misplaced view of democracy’s promise. However, to the extent that you’re accusing the anti-Musharraf movements in Pakistan of doing that — and painting such a rosy picture of Musharraf himself — then you seem to be embracing a view of reality that is equally simplistic and misplaced.
I’m not accusing the anti-Musharraf folks of doing anything. I have simply made an educated decision for myself that there isn’t a better alternative right now to the stability he provides. Others in this thread as well as other posts today have agreed. I’m not sure I want the type of democracy in Pakistan that would currently materialize if Musharraf was booted out. Anyone can feel free to disagree with me if their educated view of the situation differs. If calling me names or trying to sound self-righteous makes people feel better (see Ikram’s pompous comments above) so be it.
educated ?
True. Not in the immediate future.
See, that’s what I’m saying. Besides insults and hating on America with every comment, what else you got? Don’t take the easy way out. That’s what the far right does and why we get annoyed at them for it.
OK – need to back track. Mate, I love America and it is a force for good in the world. I would shudder to live in a world without USA. I was not hating America – just stating the truth without sugar coating.
Just some context – in Oz one would call an opponent a bit of a sore loser. A best friend, a totally worthless bastard.
For those who do launch ad-hominem attacks against an author (like Abhi) for reading a position that does not agree with one’s world view, Mr. Robert Greene has a nice blog post about setting up false arguments. He writes the following:
Bon courage, Abhi. I deeply appreciate the fact that you took an unpopular position which drew out the nagging, uncomfortable feeling I’ve had all week that all the Mushie-bashing is just too simplistic, and that the guy has acted in his country’s best interests on many occasions.
Abhi: I disagree with some of your views. However I will defend your right – to my death – to disagree with me. Isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about? Remember what King Henry said about “Beckett”? Something like this: He is without doubt the most intellegent man in my kingdom, I cannot live without him, and yet he is against me!! Abhi, if you need extra glove – borrow from Coach Diesel.
Unpopular position. I thought it was the popular position. Obviously our social circles are widely different. 😉
… while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble…
thanks for the laugh
Your independence in not jumping on top of the pro-democracy bandwagon and your subsequent condemnation by otherwise friendly commenters attest to the ‘mutinous’ nature of this post. It also shows you how many on the left are just as unreasonably emotional as those on the right. I can’t help but highlight this intelligent statement scooped from what is mostly an outburst by Tash: It’s sad because underneath arguments like that is the concept that people in countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Aghanistan can only be ruled by brutish junta or military commanders. What I don’t get is why people don’t stop to think…
So Tash do you know who actually agrees with you on this and who disagrees? One of the most dishonest means of discrediting the other side is to associate it with its more extreme variation. For example idiots on the right will lump the mostly reasonable people on the left together with a vocal minority of 9/11 truthers. The conviction that all the different people of the world are united in their desire to live in free, democratic societies was at the centre of the originally idealistic Bush doctrine inspired among others by Sharansky. But that thinking on the right was conflated with that of the countless right wing radio hosts, bloggers whose belief in those ideals was only fake and who just wanted military intervention in the Middle East to teach the Muslims a lesson. The notion that Muslims are not ready for democracy actually has had much more currency in leftist circles. Even smart bloggers like Amardeep sometimes fall prey to such conflation. In the aftermath of the feisty discussion on the Tehelka post, Amardeep reduced all his opponents to ‘ Hindutvawadis ‘ who think Godhra was OK because of what the Muslims did to Hindus ‘ 800 years ago ‘. I read that thread and even the most obnoxious ‘ Hindutvawadi ‘ was implying that Hindu extremism is a delayed reaction to unabated Islamic fundamentalism in post-independence India – a sentiment validated in the current issue of The Economist.
Chachaji I agree with you that Musharraf is more progressive, probably more articulate and definitely less corrupt than either Bhutto or Sharif. And yes he has presided over a Pakistan with much more media and press freedom than any of his democratically elected predecessors. And that media relentlessly lampoons and chides him. Also you are right that lathi charge is far from torture in a South Asian context. But Musharraf has had eight years to fix Pakistan and things have only gone from bad to worse for Pakistan. As for America I find it incredible that it hasn’t done a quarterly return on investment audit. What has Musharraf delivered for the billions he got for Pakistan? There’s only so much namak harami that the Americans can take. But then when I see how easily the ragtag militants humiliate Pakistan’s well-trained military I doubt if he could have done much even if he wanted to.
Also chachaji unlike you I can’t vouch for the superiority of contemporary Pakistani TV over similar Indian programming. But yes when I did have a chance to compare the two several years ago while growing up in India, I didn’t have any doubt that Pakistani TV dramas like Tanhaiyan, Ankahi e.t.c were so much better than anything offered on Indian TV. Pakistan has immense talent, be it in sports, culture or business. It could make a very successful nation. I just doubt the ability of its people to confront radical Islam. I was watching the film Mr and Mrs Iyer last night. Hindus in India can stand up to Hindu extremism, for example by making thought provoking art. Ditto for Americans fighting right wingers here but I just don’t see any resistance among Muslims to much more lethal Islamic extremism. And I wonder if in the long run they’ll come around to appreciate outside help and not see it as imperialism. Or should we just let them be? Even if you want people to decide what is good for themselves how can you accept eradication of girls’ education for example?
I, as a Pakistani, and one who has lived there most of my life completely agree with Mr. Abhi’s intrepretation of the events unfolding in Pakistan. I am of course very hesitant to support the kinds of actions taken by Musharaff but at the same time there is no other options. Both Nawaz and Sharif would be much weaker heads of state and would in my opinion only bring Pakistan closer to widespread civil unrest.
I find it sad for people to think that democracy can flourish in India, but somehow we Pakistanis are not up to it and therefore need a dictator to call the shots (which is exactly what this guy does). It is so short-sighted, whatever the failings of Pakistani political leaders. Abhi is not a smart commentator. To me, whenever people disparage democracy in a country, there is usually a tinge of racism behind it, as if those people are not up to it. I too will stay away from this blog for a while.
Besides the fact that this declaration carries all the import of, “nanny nanny boo boo”, I’m disappointed that people (Ahmad, my friend, you’re not the only one) would stop reading a site because they disagree with what some of the bloggers are posting regarding Pakistan. I understand that this is a huge, significant, life-altering-for-many event, but if you leave, you are also choosing to ignore the bloggers who are in agreement with you.
It’s probably due to the wee nature of my brain, but that makes no sense.
Okay Anna, you are right. It is just such a stupid post, to conflate Pakistan with Iraq and see everything through US eyes on a so-called mutinuous blog. I’ll relapse, no doubt.