Pakistan's Military Inc.
nkdatta8839
25-31 January, 2002
AWT - Pak Army's white elephant
by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha
[The author says AWT is a burden on the exchequer and needs to be
managed properly]
The Army Welfare Trust (AWT), a foundation operated by the Pakistan
Army, is reported to be looking for a Rs 5.4 bn bailout from the
ministry of finance and is crumbling under a Rs 15 bn deficit.
The Friday Times reported in its issue of December 14-20 ( Vested
khaki interests and double standards of business accountability ) that
the finance ministry's reluctance to bail out AWT has made some
khakis quite unhappy. What is AWT and why should it exist?
The Pakistan military is heavily entrenched in commercial operations,
an activity not part of its operational mandate. It justifies its
commercial ventures on the pretext of contributing towards national
socio-economic development. But independent research into the area
fails to support this contention. The AWT is part of the
military's commercial interests. Moreover, as opposed to the
other three foundations, the army controls the AWT directly.
Interestingly, despite the Fauji Foundation, the army chose to set up
another organisation - the AWT - in 1971. The Trust was
originally registered as a a 'society' under the Societies
Registration Act of 1860 with an endowment of Rs 0.7 million. The army
chief acts, ex officio, as the head of its governing board and is
assisted by all of his senior staff officers. The organisation is
divided under two heads: AWT and Askari Operations. The greater
private sector investment or share holding is placed under Askari.
The army justifies setting up AWT on the grounds that Fauji
Foundation's capacity to accommodate retired army officers and
soldiers is not sufficient. The FF provides jobs to approximately
5,000 ex-servicemen. Also, it was felt that being the largest service
with a higher annual retirement rate, the army needed more funds to
provide for the welfare of its retired personnel.
While civil societies, especially in states faced with an external
threat, are forced to pay a price for national security - paying
for the welfare of forcess' personnel as part of this compulsion
- non-profitability and non-essential costs can still not be
justified. Like the other three foundations, the AWT's
commercial ventures are part of the country's formal economy.
Evidently, any burden of unprofitable commercial ventures tends to
have a negative impact on the economy. And there is ample evidence
that most of these ventures are unprofitable and are bailed out by
throwing good money after bad just because the army wants to exercise
different standards of business accountability when it comes to
dealing with its own.
The example of the Askari Housing Schemes is a case in point. These
are heavily subsidized housing projects developed for retired military
personnel. The services sell these ready-built houses/flats to retired
officers at discounted rates. The service also retains the money. But
this is not the only loss to the exchequer. These housing schemes are
built on official land, which deprives the government of valuable
financial resources.
For instance, in Lahore Cantonment alone, about 568.68 acres of
'A-1' land (according to CLA rules 1937, such land is
specified purely for military use), was misappropriated for
construction of housing projects at only Rs 17 million. The financial
estimates are fairly conservative and much less than the market value.
Retired officials are not fully charged for the price of the land. The
cost of construction which they pay is also subsidized. Moreover,
government auditors are not allowed to audit the Housing Scheme
Project, which is administered from a cell in the GHQ. The books
cannot even be audited by the Central Military Accounts branch, and
any auditing is done "internally".
As mentioned, the AWT's business operations can be catagorized
into two parts: those controlled purely by retired personnel; and
others that give a greater share to experts from the private sector.
In most cases there is a tendency to leave the actual management of an
operation to the private sector partners. It is worthwhile to note
that there is a thin line separating the public sector from the
private sector controlled ventures. For instance, companies like
Askari Information Service and others use official telephone
connections and the bills and connection-charges for them are either
waived or paid by different sources. The personal contacts and
relations of most of the AIS management with senior or middle-ranking
military officers are conspicuous.
A similar problem can be found in the large number of patrol/gas
stations operated by the AWT. In the city of Lahore alone, the Trust
operates about 80 such stations. Reportedly, a number of serving
soldiers serve at these stations with pay and allowances drawn from
the national exchequer. The poor management skill of the top
management manifests itself in the form of duplication of activities.
There are also instances when businesses were started by the army to
accommodate individuals or to expand the organizational network
without giving much thought to the need for a new set-up.
Askari Aviation, for example, was established in 1995 to provide job
opportunities for the army's retired helicopter pilots. The
actual service started in 1999. The company offers helicopter service
for the promotion of tourism in the country, transportation of
critical and sensitive cargo, evacuation of casualties and rescue
missions in the northern areas of the country, including Azad Kashmir.
It plans to start commercial services with its small fleet of 2-3
helicopters and 15-20 retired army personnel.
The Company has a monopoly in the market and has indirectly stopped
the entry of other private sector interested parties. Its management
was of the view that it also had access to the helicopters in the
service of the army that could be requisitioned if the need arose. One
wonders if such transfers would be made transparent. Needless to say,
a better idea might have been to place the service under the aegis of
the already existing Shaheen Airlines than to set it up as a
stand-alone unit.
Other financial ventures include the Askari Bank that is rated as the
"top" private bank in the country. With a pre-tax profit
of Rs 854 million, deposits totalling Rs 23.4 billion, investments of
Rs 13.9 billion, assets worth Rs 28.7 billion, and net worth of Rs
2.98 billion, the bank is ahead of all the private banks in the
country. But banking sources say this is because of the business and
help it gets from the armed forces.
Although the Bank's management denies this, the Managing
Director of the Shaheen Foundation, for instance, admitted that his
organization did business through the Askari Bank. There are others as
well who remarked that the army used its resources for bolstering the
business of the bank.
Experts like Peter Lock, who has done much research on the business
activities of various militaries in the world, are of the view that
some of such banks are established mainly for money laundering. The
history of the operations of the militaries of some Latin and South
American states indicates this linkage.
The Askari Bank doesn't do any such thing, of course, but it is
one of the major resource pools for the AWT, which has 4.91 percent
stakes in the Bank. A Board of Directors, dominated by the AWT,
however, controls the Bank. Another 39.67 percent shares are owned by
its various directors, who are mostly retired military personnel.
These retired generals have personal financial stakes as well.
However, banking experts do not consider Askari's banking
operations as being terribly efficient in a competitive sense since
the ground is not level for all competitive parties. In their view,
the Bank was unable to carry out profitable and efficient investments
and lacks good investment plans.
One of the favourite areas of activity for at least three foundations
is private security services. The AWT has its independent security
agency. This provides security services in the form of security
systems and armed guards to the public and the corporate sector. This
is, in fact, the only part of the business that caters to the well
being of the JCOs, NCOs and other ranks. Additionally, it runs its
recruiting agencies to help petty officers find jobs in the foreign
markets.
Despite all the concessions it enjoys, however the profitability of
the AWT remains doubtful. This is because retired personnel lack
knowledge of business management. Therefore, it is not surprising that
the AWT had to ask the federal government for a Rs 5 billion loan.
"Perhaps, it's time that the government should ask retired
generals to wind up some operations of the AWT", says an
insider.
=============================================================
=============================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
18-24 January, 2002
Power, perks, prestige and privileges of Pak military's
commercial ventures
by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha
[The author introduces the issue of the Pakistan military's
commercial interests and says the government should take an immediate
decision to stop the invisible and visible state subsidization of many
of these companies]
While the political and administrative influence of Pakistan's
military is a generally known fact, there is little public knowledge
of the organisation's corporate interests. With assets and
investments worth about Rs 200 billion, the four foundations of the
armed forces - Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, Shaheen
Foundation and Bahria Foundation - represent the biggest
business and industrial conglomerate in the country with hardly any
trace of public accountability.
Interestingly, the 1973 Constitution limits the role of the defense
forces to external security. Yet, over the years and because of a host
of factors, the military has managed to expand its role to meddle into
political, administrative and business spheres. The four Foundations
were set up ostensibly to provide for the welfare of retired military
personnel. But that role has since long taken a back seat. The growth
and mode of operations of these foundations now indicate an urge at
empire building and providing perks and privileges for senior rank
officers. ( see TFT; "Army Welfare Trust: Vested Khaki interests
and double standards of business accountability"; p- 3; Dec
14-20, 2001 )
While most militaries around the world undertake welfare activities
for their personnel, the extent - and nature - of these
activities is a good benchmark to judge the political influence
wielded by the armed forces. For example, welfare activities in the US
or other countries, where militaries represent the liberal model of
professionalism, are limited in scope. This is done to avoid
additional burden on the exchequer and civil society. Contrarily,
praetorian militaries - those given to periodic interventions
into the political sphere, overtly or covertly - expand their
mandate to include multifarious activities, especially commercial
ventures in the name of welfare. This process is underpinned by the
military's self-acquired role as the engine for socioeconomic
and political growth.
This pattern is visible in most Latin American and a number of South
East Asian countries. However, military's involvement in
commercial ventures not only represents a needless over-extension of
its mandate, but is a pattern visible in societies with weak
democratic political cultures.
The entire formal structure of military business in Pakistan is highly
complex. Although most of the business ventures are supposed to be in
the private sector, the operations tend to cross-cut through the two
sectors. This makes it very difficult to ascertain the source of
funding or any form of financial accountability. Most of these
foundations were started with initial funding from the public sector.
This included direct grants from the government, though not directly
out of the defense budget.
For instance, the Fauji Foundation - first of the four
foundations - inherited funds and assets left by the British
under the welfare scheme for soldiers. In Bahria's case, the
seed money came from the Navy's welfare budget. Similarly,
certain costs - personnel, investment and other costs -
are paid for by the government and the funds in such cases are
appropriated from the annual defense budget. It is, therefore,
difficult to trace the net financial burden due to the general lack of
transparency of the defense budget.
However, these four foundations do not represent the extent of the Pak
military's business initiatives. The military uses multiple
channels for furthering its moneymaking objectives by operating both
in the public and private sectors. The public sector is represented by
ventures such as the National Logistic Cell (NLC) and the Frontier
Works Organization (FWO). The NLC, set up in 1978, has emerged as a
trucking and transportation giant. Although the government claims that
the NLC works under the direction of the Federal Planning Commission,
it is actually entirely controlled by the Army GHQ. Its total strength
is 6,578, including 2,442 serving army officers and 4,136 retired
officers. The Cell has a fleet of 2000 vehicles, and its assets are
estimated at about Rs 5 billion.
Similarly, the FWO, an establishment that existed prior to the 1980s,
was given the responsibility of road construction and civil works on a
profit-making basis. Moreover, these organizations continue to get
financial injections from the public sector. For instance, in 1993/94,
NLC received about Rs 245 million for investment in stocks and bonds.
In Pakistan, this role developed gradually since the first foundation
was established in the early 1960s. The political leadership allowed
such expansion as a political bribe to win the military's
support. The military leadership, on the other hand, considers this
role as perfectly logical and sees it as its contribution towards
national socioeconomic development. However, this claim is without
substance. One of the findings of a detailed research on the subject
was that most of these business ventures were found to be making
losses. In fact, certain business operations posed a burden on the
public sector by drawing funds from the annual defense budget. This
budgetary encumbrance was more pronounced in ventures solely managed
by retired military personnel than those running with private-sector
partnership. Much of the administrative cost of these ventures,
including those run with private partnership, is borne by the public
sector, primarily the defense budget.
There are many instances when government auditors raised objections to
financial discrepancies, but the objections were dropped after
intervention from the highest official levels. Some of the operations
have created a monopoly situation and are found harmful for the
private-sector. This is especially evident in the construction and
transportation businesses where major private companies have had to
quit because of competition from military-run operations at special
advantage. The ability of firms like the NLC and the FWO to grab huge
business contracts from the government through the influence of the
military has forced companies like Gammon, for example, out of
business.
Moreover, the rank and file of the armed forces has been kept away
from such corporate ventures. The entry to the foundations is
restricted to a limited number of retired personnel, mainly from the
higher and middle management ranks. It is primarily senior retired
officers or personnel on the verge of retirement and a limited number
of middle- and lower-ranking officers that have traditionally
participated in these corporate activities. These Foundations, in one
respect, have the aura of a special cadre where jobs are obtained as a
reward or lost as a punishment. The manipulation of these Foundations
for political and institutional purposes allegedly began during
General Zia-ul-Haq's regime. Zia used the top positions in the
Foundations both to reward officers after retirement for their
exceptional obedience towards him while in service or to sideline
those in service who posed a potential threat to him or to his system.
Officers serving in the top managerial positions enjoy all perks and
privileges that they would in their military positions.
Then there are those retired personnel who desire jobs in these
foundations because of the inherent discomfort of working within a
purely civilian organization. In their view, the military control of
these corporate organizations helps sustain a disciplined environment
similar to that in the armed forces. A 3-year job in one of the
foundations, hence, saves them from the immediate shock of working in
the private sector or under a purely civilian administration.
These concerns, of course, are taken on board while making the
decision of whether or not to establish or expand the military's
business ventures. For instance, in order to accommodate helicopter
pilots from the service, who otherwise would not get a job in the
private sector, the Army decided to set up Askari Aviation. The
company now employs five to six helicopter pilots from the service. A
feature peculiar to a number of cases is that the ventures were not
started on the basis of any feasibility study but on the whims of the
top management to accommodate certain high-ranking officers. In any
case, the prime interest of the military in these foundations is the
employment opportunities and benefits provided to senior officers.
Indubitably, lower ranking officials and soldiers are not the cause
for the growth of this business empire. Senior military officials view
it as an opportunity to squeeze the last advantage that they possibly
can from the public sector.
Unfortunately, the top management of all these organizations, which
mostly comprises retired military officers, is not trained to manage
corporate ventures resulting in wastage of resources. The
profitability of most of these organizations is questionable. The
Foundations have also caused indirect financial loss to the exchequer
in the form of non-payment of taxes, wangling loans or through paying
lower taxes.
Prior to 1991, the government also lost a lot of money on account of
taxes which the foundations did not pay. Under the Charitable
Endowments Act 1889, all welfare foundations were exempted from paying
taxes. This rule was changed in 1991, but the taxes imposed on these
foundations differed. Shaheen and Bahria Foundations pay 33 percent
tax, whereas AWT and FF are taxed at 20 percent. A senior official of
SF has attributed this to the Army's clout of "influencing
such decision-making".
Given the current state of the national economy, it is vital for the
present government to evaluate these activities and contribute towards
economic development through cutting costs and visible and invisible
state subsidies incurred by such public-cum-private ventures.
QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid
ventures like real estate holdings etc.
"nkdatta8839" <nkdat...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:bed799d9.02012...@posting.google.com...
> While civil services with its small fleet of 2-3
> helicopters and 15-20 retired army personnel.
>
>
> Despite all the concessions it enjoys, however the profitability of
> the AWT remains doubtful. This is because retired personnel lack
> knowledge of business management. Therefore, it is not surprising that
> the AWT had to ask the federal government for a Rs 5 billion loan.
> "Perhaps, it's time that the government should ask retired
> generals to wind up some operations of the AWT", says an
> insider.
Not sure what the point is here. Many Army retired officers have transformed
themselves into good and savy businessman. It happens everywhere, not just
Pakistan.
--
QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid
Accolades:
Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer
still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited
with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.
nkdatta8839
> Not sure what the point here is. Pentagon also has a number of commercial
> ventures like real estate holdings etc.
>
Pakistan's army, unlike the Pentagon, is not subject to civilian
supervision.
This has allowed the army in Pakistan to turn into the nation's
largest body of organized crime and corruption.
Here are a few more interesting articles on the topic:
===============================================================
The Friday Times
2-8 February, 2001
Pakistani rulers who sold heroin on the side
Khaled Ahmed
BOOK REVIEW
DRUGS IN SOUTH ASIA: FROM THE OPIUM TRADE TO THE PRESENT DAY
by M. Emdad-ul-Haq
MacMillan Press; Distributed by Vanguard Books Lahore; Pp319; Price
UKP45
Prof Haq who teaches political science at Chittagong University has
produced an excellent but shocking book on the racket of narcotics in
South Asia, in particular Pakistan where the state and government have
been deeply criminalised by heroin. The book gives a history of poppy
and other narcotic herb cultivation and export in the region of South
Asia and brings up the record by talking about heroin-making and
smuggling in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the recent times. By
far
the most hair-raising section is about Pakistan because the war
Pakistan was fighting in Afghanistan on behalf of the US gave it a
kind
of exemption from the American laws directed at stamping out the
export
of heroin into the US.
In 1986 when President Reagan announced that an anti-narcotic drive
will be a part of America's foreign policy, heroin was being
manufactured in factories ten kilometers inside the Pakistan territory
on the Afghan border, and poppy was being cultivated in the border
tribal areas of Pakistan and inside the mujahideen-controlled areas of
Afghanistan. The US government looked the other way and gave Pakistan
an aid package worth 4 billion dollars. The generals got involved in
the lucrative 'other' trade with a friendly United States. General
Fazle Haq, governor and chief minister of the NWFP for eight years,
was
known as 'Pakistani Noriega'. In 1985 he declared heroin a 'mineral'
at
Wana in Waziristan. International narcotics publications called him
the 'poppy general', but somehow this negative publicity did not faze
General Zia who reappointed him chief minister after he resigned as
governor in the wake of his son's conviction in New York as a
trafficker.
Journalist Lifschultz's famous article revealed that General Zia
himself was doing heroin through Hamid Hasnain, chief executive of
Habib Bank in Islamabad, who was found in possession of General Zia's
personal documents like cheque books. The man was nabbed after his
agent was arrested in Oslo in 1983. General Zia's wife Shafiqa tried
to
interfere in the court case against Hamid Hasnain but was effectively
prevented by the government of Norway. Western sources named ten
Noriegas in Pakistan. Air force chief Anwar Shamim, very close to
General Zia, was refused as Zia's ambassador by Canada because his
heroin connection. In 1986, two army officers were arrested in Karachi
with 900 kilos of heroin on them worth $4 billion. Major Zahooruddin
was taken from police custody to a military base from where
he 'miraculously' escaped; Flight Lieutenant Rehman feigned illness
and
escaped equally 'miraculously' from the hospital. In all, 14 officers
were arrested for heroin in 1989. In 1987, squadron leader Farooq
Ahmad
Khan was arrested in New York with two kilos of heroin on him and
within a week squadron leader Qassim was arrested in Karachi.
The officers used army-owned NLC trucks to smuggle heroin (in one case
10 metric tons) across Pakistan to outlets, including National
Shipping
Corporation, to be later white-washed by the BCCI which laundered $4
billion for its Pakistani patrons. Gadoon Area near Peshawar was used
for poppy growing, supported by NWFP politicians. The PPP government,
pushed by the US, pretended to move against Ayub Afridi of Landi Kotal
and Mirza Iqbal Baig of Lahore. Baig was arrested in 1989 linking him
to a Japanese courier caught in Amsterdam with 17.5 kilos of heroin in
1988. This was also a General Zia connection, But the Lahore High
Court
freed Baig 'for lack of evidence'. Ayub Afridi kept dodging arrest by
moving around, in which he was 'helped' by the authorities.
Ayub 'financed' a number of PPP leaders win election. Benazir however
fired General Hameed Gul 'who was controversial for his alleged
involvement in drug trade under the Zia regime', and arrested General
Fazle Haq, fired Brigadier Imtiaz for alleged drug trade connections,
which offended the GHQ top brass. The army put together the IJI
against
the PPP, comprising most of the pro-heroin elements who began bribing
the PPP members. Benazir offered a PPP ticket to Malik Waris Khan
Afridi of the Khyber Agency, making him state minister and member of
her cabinet. Other heroin peddlers whom the PPP took in its fold were
Amanullah Gichki, Muhammad Ali Rind (a former Zia connection) from
Balochistan and Malik Moin Khan Afridi who was elected to the 1988
National Assembly. Later, Zardari was reported to have run a heroin
smuggling network to enrich himself.
The PML of Nawaz Sharif went the same way after first expressing its
resolve to stamp out heroin trafficking. His party contained known
drug
barons. Ayub Afridi, on the run from Benazir, allegedly funded the
setting up of General Hameed Gul's IJI and paid Rs 50,000 for each
vote
to become an MNA from Khyber Agency. Nawaz Sharif quashed his
warrants.
In 1993, he freed a known trafficker from a hospital in D.I. Khan
under
the influence of six MNAs, one Senator and three provincial ministers
who were into heroin smuggling. In 1993, PIA was caught spreading the
racket at the Heathrow airport in the UK. The book also quotes
American
newspapers berating the Administration for pardoning the son and
son-in-
law of a Pakistani high-up after he had been convicted in the US for
heroin smuggling and sentenced to 50 years in jail. You can guess who
this was.
Almost all our beloved retired generals who are today busy saving the
country from India and the United States in league with the weaponised
clergy are named as heroin-dealers in the book. And the author has
played safe by constantly referring to published sources in the West,
research journals devoted to the elimination of narcotics
internationally. What can we say except that we trust our generals
more
than we trust the West. May Allah inflict palsy on the hands that
compile such painful research. Our retired generals are rich beyond
count because of Allah's barakah.
===========
The News International, Karachi, Pakistan
Saturday, January 20, 2001 -- Shawal 24,1421
Pastures new
Hafizur Rahman
A dear friend, retired from the army, was dilating on faith and
discipline as the uppermost concerns of Pakistan's armed forces. In
his
opinion one factor leading to the weakening of both was the ever-
growing tendency among top military brass towards a comfortable life
and the pursuit of luxury. Their juniors like to walk in their
footsteps and emulate their example to the best of their financial
ability.
For example, he said, there was a time when no army officer (with very
few exceptions of course) could dream of buying a car from his own
savings and bank loan till he was a major, and most of the captains
and
lieutenants took it for granted that a scooter was all that they could
have till better times enabled them to invest in a motor car. No one
thought it was infra dig for the wife to be seated on the pillion. A
correct and rational attitude prevailed towards material acquisitions.
My friend could be right. Maybe that is why hundreds of officers of
the
middle rank--colonels and majors and even captains--are waiting in the
wings today to be transferred somewhere in the superior civil
services.
This is not secret, since the news has appeared officially in the
press, that the military government is following a plan to induct
quite
a number of retired and serving officers into the civilian set-up.
I was talking about this with a senior bureaucrat the other day and he
told me that three agencies: the police, the FIA and the Intelligence
Bureau, which, according to him, were on the brink of collapse as a
result of politicisation by the deposed PML government and its
predecessor regimes, had been particularly chosen for this purpose so
that their effectiveness and performance could be improved with the
infusion of fresh blood.
Before I comment on the proposal, let me say that the police, the
civilian intelligence agencies and the FIA are nowhere near the brink
of collapse. They never will be, for they merely help to take the
country to that brink and step aside with agility when the avalanche
threatens to push them into the chasm. You have only to look at the
smug faces of their senior staff to see the truth of my apparently
facetious remark.
The trouble in their case lies with the use made of their special
expertise by successive political governments. These agencies are no
doubt essential for the country, and that is precisely how they have
been misused. I don't have anything to add about the police to what
the
superior courts say about it almost every day. It was too much
involved
in the dirty work of past ruling regimes to have any credibility left
as the force responsible for promoting law and order and for providing
peace of mind to the ordinary citizen.
Similarly, the intelligence agencies, which should be protecting
Pakistan's security from subversion from within and without, were
better known for their hatchet work against the ruling regime's
opponents. Same was the case with the FIA which, more often than not,
came into decisive action only when the regime wanted to settle scores
with persons, mostly politicians, it didn't like.
Is it these three departments with bleak records to which bright,
devoted, disciplined and, in many cases, idealistic young officers are
proposed to be sent from the army? I can bet my life they will end up
becoming as unprincipled and heartless as the bad lot in these
agencies
instead of bringing about any improvement by way of investing them
with
a reasonable standard of honesty and efficiency. Let us not forget
that
these agencies are not intrinsically evil-minded or useless but
because
governments in Pakistan, with malicious intent, have turned them into
images of Frankenstein.
As for the keenness of military officers to be transferred to the
civil, just look at the tempting difference. An Assistant Commissioner
rules over a small empire and is virtually a king in respect of powers
and panoply. He may be receiving personal calls from the President or
the Prime Minister to do this or that (or not do this or that), and
there can be nothing more potent for his ego, vanity and pride than a
personal message from the two top men in the country. Compared to his
clout and prestige what has, say, a brigadier to show, except to boss
over a few thousand men in an extremely limited field of activity of
no
social and political importance whatsoever? He can't even drive a tank
home to show it off to his family.
How many industrialists, big businessmen and feudal lords (or even
drug
barons) want their sons to go into the military? And how many of them
will relish an army captain or major as son-in-law? They look for
bright young men in the superior services who can be useful to them in
their public and political life, and help to extricate them from
dangerous situations which all rich men in Pakistan are likely to face
at every step in their pursuit of wealth and property.
No wonder therefore (and I quote two examples to substantiate my
point)
that when Mian Nawaz Sharif got an army officer as son-in-law during
his first tenure as Prime Minister, what immediately happened was the
young man's release from the army and simultaneous absorption in the
DMG, the most prized civil service. (It is different matter that today
he finds himself in exile along with his wife's family. That is one of
the hazards of the game.) Similarly, Lt-General Majeed Malik, himself
a
whole-time PML politician after retirement, had his army officer son
transplanted into the same service.
Once upon a time, and not so long ago, this was not so. The change has
been brought about by the increasing accent on material gain, which,
we
are told, is a world-wide phenomenon and has resulted in drastic re-
moulding of people's perceptions about values and the gradual
extinction of the young man with ideals. In the case of Pakistan's
armed forces there is also the aspect that it is no longer the
established prosperous families which feed them with sons but the
rising middle class whose scions are money-wise more ambitious. In any
case, one hopes for the sake of the country's security that the
yearning to quit military service is not endemic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Nation, Pakistan
Rajab 28, 1421 - Friday, October 27, 2000
Last update 6:30 GMT - 11:30 PST
Asfand asks generals to justify their assets
LAHORE(By Nazir Bhatti)-Senior Vice President, Grand Democratic
Alliance and President, Awami National Party, Asfandyar Wali has
challenged the army generals asking them to justify their assets and
make them public.
"Being a political leader, I believe that I am answerable to the
people
and as such I offer first to make my assets public. The army generals
should also make their assets public and justify them on media",
Asfandyar Wali said while speaking at Leadership Lecture Series at
Hameed Nizami Hall on Thursday.
Other ANP leaders including Haji Adeel, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, and Ehsan
Wyne, were alsp present on this occasion.
The ANP chief spoke on different political issues in the country
except
the controversial issue of Kalabagh Dam which was raised later in
question-answer session.
However, Kalabagh Dam issue came under discussion in question and
answer session raised by the audience.
Asfandyar Wali deplored that only politicians had been held
accountable
while no general was asked about his assets.
He said the impression was being given that the country could not
survive without Chief Executive Gen Pervez Musharraf. He said by
discrediting liberal, moderate and democratic forces, a vacuum had
been
created which, Asfandyar feared would be filled by the hardliners and
separatists.
Why and how the CE did obtain a plot in Gawadar?, he questioned. "I
reject the NAB Ordinance, the courts established under this and their
judgments. It is draconian law which has been challenged by the GDA
leadership in the apex court," he said. As the NAB ordinance has been
challenged in apex court, so we don't accept them, the judgments being
given under the Ordinance.
Stressing the provincial autonomy, the ANP chief said," we should
review and decide whether we want a strong Centre or a strong
Pakistan.
The ANP does not demand sovereign states but full autonomy to the
federating units, he maintained.
He asserted the ANP did not believe in the 1940 Resolution and
confederation of the country.
He also regretted that Punjab was given priority over other provinces
recalling that during Nawaz Sharif's first term, all 528 villages
which
were provided electricity facility belonged to Punjab.
The GDA leader also criticised devolution of power plan of the
government and termed it as violation of the provincial autonomy. He
said the local bodies is provincial subject regretting that under the
plan all powers have been given to federal government.
He apprised that ANP, in its recent Central Working Committee meeting
had decided to join hands with all democratic forces on one-point
agenda of ouster of the present military government.
By involving itself in politics, Asfandyar Wali said the army has lost
honour and respect it enjoyed in the past.
To a question, he said only a group in Punjab was against the
provincial autonomy.
We demand our rights, the Punjab should not have any objection, he
said. The provincial autonomy not only will benefit other federating
units but also the Punjab as it has more resources than other
provinces, he maintained.
When reminded by one participant that Punjab too had been deprived of
the provincial autonomy and so by criticising the Punjab with
reference
to autonomy, the ANP is only weakening its own case, Asfandyar Wali
said that out of 217 members of the suspended National Assembly, 115
from Punjab opposed resolution which favours other federating units.
To
another question, he said that 1973 Constitution was unanimous but it
did not mean that nobody could change it afterwards. He demanded that
the powers which come under concurrent list should be given to the
provinces. He said that the present undemocratic set-up was nothing
other than martial law and observed that Nawaz Sharif was becoming
more
and more popular.
Responding to a question about Kalabagh Dam issue, he said that three
provinces unanimously adopted resolutions against the dam but still
the
establishment was insisting on its construction. He said that Kalabagh
Dam was a technical issue which, subsequently became a political
issue.
Accepting that the country needs reservoirs, Asfandyar offered to hold
seminar on Kalabagh Dam wherein he would come with documents to plead
his party's stance on the issue.
However, he called upon the construction of Bhasha Dam which according
to him was more economical than the Kalabagh Dam.
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421
Letter To The Editor
by M. SALEEM, Lahore
The worth of a general
THIS is with in reference to Humayun Gauhar's and Maj (R) Ishtiaq's
arguments regarding some details of the assets owned by most of the
generals. Generals of the Zia and post-Zia era would normally possess
a
choice residential and a choice commercial plot both in the defence
housing societies in Karachi and Lahore. Various other schemes would
also benefit a general by at least two more plots.
Before a general's retirement, he is also allotted approximately a
two-
kanal plot of land for building a house in the most expensive area of
any cantonment (like Sarwar Road in Lahore Cantt).
In addition to the urban property, a general is also allotted 50 acres
of agricultural land. This practice is not new, it started soon after
independence and became more and more widespread with the passage of
time. These are the visible assets. Far bigger are the invisible
assets
depending upon one being at the right place and at the right time. The
biggest source of corruption are the internal and external defence
procurement deals. Whether the armed forces would ever be able to
eliminate corruption in civil departments can be judged from the level
of corruption prevailing in the MES and in defence purchases. What is
the worth of a general? All the assets put together, a general is
worth
close to Rs100 million.
Just compare it with the assets of a much more qualified university
professor with a doctorate who would own not more than Rs5 million at
the time of retirement. If anyone is in doubt, he should remember the
seven plots of land declared by the CE himself. One also wonders what
sort of taxes do they pay as hardly anyone declares his rental income
or pays the wealth tax. If they are somehow made to reveal their
income
tax/wealth tax returns for the last five years, unbelievable facts
would come to light.
M. SALEEM
Lahore
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DAWN, Pakistan, Karachi
17 September 2000 Sunday 18 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421
PML wants corrupt in armed forces exposed
Bureau Report
ISLAMABAD, Sept 16: The Pakistan Muslim League on Saturday asked the
military government to immediately publish the names of those corrupt
top officials of the armed forces who had pocketed billions of rupees
in commissions and kickbacks in defence deals.
In a statement issued here, a party spokesman said it was an open
secret that a file pertaining to the corruption of 20 high officials
of
the armed forces was pending with the National Accountability Bureau
and awaiting a go-ahead from the top military command.
But the military government was reluctant to take action against them.
He demanded publication of the names of top officials of the armed
forces who were involved in corruption and deterrent punishment to
them
besides cancelling their citizenship.
He said when the military government leaders were asked to bring the
serving and the retired armed forces' top brass in its accountability
net, they came with the lame excuse that the armed forces had their
own "air-tight" system of accountability.
He said if the armed forces had such a foolproof system of
accountability then how did scores of corrupt military officials
escape
it and were now running their businesses with the ill-gotten wealth.
Taking exception to the statement of Gen Musharraf's Press Adviser
Maj-
Gen Rashid Qureshi that the government was conducting accountability
of
the corrupt officers of the armed forces but their names could not be
published because of what he claimed to be national interest and
security reasons, the spokesman said that if this was the case then
why
this formula was not applied to politicians and bureaucrats.
"Does the government think that national interest is concerned with
the
armed forces' officers only?" he questioned.
The spokesman said that a criminal was a criminal in the eye of the
law
whether he was a soldier, a bureaucrat, a politician or a common man.
Therefore, he said, the question of keeping the names of corrupt armed
forces' officers secret did not arise specially when the military
government was claiming to be trying to purge the country of all
corrupt elements.
He demanded of the military government to conduct an across-the-board
ruthless, fair and impartial accountability of all the people, and
warned that if it continued the present style of accountability it
would tarnish its image beyond repair with possible eruption of
violent
street protests and demonstrations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The News International, Pakistan
Wednesday, September 20, 2000 -- Jamadi-us-Sani 21,1421 A.H
Self-accountability devised by generals a farce: Nawaz
By our correspondent
LAHORE: Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif said here on Tuesday that
the self-accountability system devised by the generals for themselves,
was a farce and an eye wash. "I can say this for sure and with
authority that the military generals have always been involved in
kickbacks and commissions in defence deals. The hard-earned money of
the people, which was meant to strengthen the defence of the country,
was plundered by these generals and deposited in their offshore
accounts.
"Politicians and bureaucrats were being subjected to media trials. It
were actually the generals who had always been involved in
corruption,"
he said while talking to his wife, Begum Kulsoom Nawaz, at Attock
Fort.
He said for the last 53 years civil governments and politicians had
been hiding corruption of the generals, and not a single general was
made answerable to any one.
He said during the last 11 months of military rule, corruption of
politicians and bureaucrats was publicised but, "I want to know why a
single case has not been brought forward and a reference filed." He
said the people would like to know the names of the personnels of the
armed forces involved in massive kickbacks in defence deals worth
millions of dollars. Despite hurdles, he said, the national press had
carried a number of scandals detailing submarine and tank deals.
"It is not possible for a general, who gets Rs 20,000 per month to
send
his children abroad for higher studies. How can he talk about
accountability?" "I ask the retired generals that how did they
accumulate assets worth Rs 200 million when they had no business or
industrial background. Had they money when they joined the armed
forces? What was the source of their wealth? Where are their plots and
how did they send their children to the United States for expensive
studies."
Nawaz asked whether a court or a judge could take notice of such
corruption. Could the culprits be sent to the Sarwar Road police
station, Lahore on a physical remand? Has NAB the powers to
investigate
the matter? Reacting to a statement of General Musharraf, he said it
was a challenge for the 140 million Pakistanis and especially for the
politicians and the bureaucrats.
He revealed that the former Naval chief Admiral Mansoor ul Haq, who is
in hiding at the moment, was held responsible for corruption by his
government, but the then Army chief telephoned him and supported his
colleague. "He (the then Army chief) also sent me a message to end any
investigation into the matter despite the fact that the French
government had collected all the evidence against the culprit." He
said
this was the way these generals supported each other.
Nawaz said that he knew a general who got allotted a plot from CDA,
Islamabad for Rs 3.4 million and sold it for Rs 12.5 million. "This
plot was in addition to others the gentleman had got allotted in other
cities of the country." Nawaz claimed he had evidence that a military
general bought the most expensive tanks and received kickback. "The
general ignored a report of his colleagues that the tanks did not suit
our climate and could not be used in combat. But he did go ahead with
the purchase to earn his commission. I myself studied the dissenting
note of the generals who opposed the deal."
Similarly, till date, 90 per cent of the duty free cars imported by
the
military generals were sold to earn money despite the fact that they
were not authorised to sell these cars and in case of a sale the
payment duty was mandatory. "How come, a Rs 3 lac flat allotted to a
personnel of armed forces in Askari Scheme Defence Karachi, is sold
for
Rs 3.3 million."
Nawaz said it was due to the tireless efforts of a politician which
culminated in creation of this country. "All the political parties of
the country are unanimous that only an elected government could
safeguard the country's solidarity and integrity. The prevailing
pessimism and uncertainty in the country would continue unless
democracy was restored, " he added.
He said no oppressor could deprive the people of their right for long,
adding the masses would have to launch a movement to oust the present
regime. He said the rulers were openly telling the nation to forget
the
East Pakistan debacle in an effort to save the skin of the retired
generals who were responsible for the dismemberment of the
country. "Why the nation should forget the debacle. Does the list of
culprits contain the names of some generals who actually betrayed
their
profession," he added. Nawaz said the NAB had not been able to unearth
a single scandal of financial embezzlement against him since the coup
despite hectic efforts adding he had a clear conscience.
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpt from:
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
1 October, 2000
Sycophancy, plots and holy wars
By Kunwar Idris
"Ejazul Haq, now widely considered as the choice of the regime as well
as of the Nawaz dissidents to be the next prime minister, has offered
himself for accountability and hanging by a public post if found
guilty. That offer should be taken up.
Ejazul Haq's father was proud of his humble, puritan origin. In the
course of his military and political career spanning 40 or more years,
starting as a subaltern and ending up as president, his gross earning
in the pay scales of the time could not have been more than a few
million rupees. Let Ejaz add his own savings to that of his father and
explain his and family's opulent leisure, numerous properties here and
abroad and extended sojourns to Europe and America. It surely needs
more than just plots.Ejazul Haq's exposure to accountability should
confirm, or dispel, the widely-held belief that the 10-billion dollar
Afghan war his father ran for 10 years was less for the love of Islam
or hate of the Soviets but more for his own and his cohorts' benefit.
The war has securely entrenched the Zia clan in politics and riches
but
embroiled the Afghans in an unending fratricide and left the people of
Pakistan to contend with a legacy of guns and drugs, intolerance and
instability.
By inquiring afresh into the East Pakistan civil war and the emergence
of Bangladesh or by publishing the Hamoodur Rahman report, as is being
demanded by some, we may only learn some lessons. By investigating the
motives and justification for involvement in the Afghan civil war we
might avert another impending disaster. Ejazul Haq's accountability,
which he says he would welcome, might prove a starting point for an
extended investigation of this kind."
QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid
news:<a2u8ir$rvt$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > Not sure what the point here is. Pentagon also has a number of
commercial
> > ventures like real estate holdings etc.
> >
>
> Pakistan's army, unlike the Pentagon, is not subject to civilian
> supervision.
It's same everywhere. only a few member of a committee are usually allowed
to view and are always required to keep everything confidential.
Also the most a 5-10 years experienced military officer can afford is rent a
2-3 bedroom house in a city like Islamabad. This is what my observation has
been (Unless things have drastically changed in the last 3 weeks). Houses
are a bit larger (lot and square footage) if the officers accept
accommodation at the base but even that's not out of ordinary compared to
other countries.
>
> Here are a few more interesting articles on the topic:
>
nkdatta8839
> > "QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid" <maji...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:<a2u8ir$rvt$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > Not sure what the point here is. Pentagon also has a number of
> commercial
> > > ventures like real estate holdings etc.
> > >
> >
> > Pakistan's army, unlike the Pentagon, is not subject to civilian
> > supervision.
>
> It's same everywhere. only a few member of a committee are usually allowed
> to view and are always required to keep everything confidential.
>
> Also the most a 5-10 years experienced military officer can afford is rent a
> 2-3 bedroom house in a city like Islamabad. This is what my observation has
> been (Unless things have drastically changed in the last 3 weeks). Houses
> are a bit larger (lot and square footage) if the officers accept
> accommodation at the base but even that's not out of ordinary compared to
> other countries.
>
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
M. SALEEM
Lahore
======================================
Reference:
The News International, Karachi, Pakistan
Thursday, April 19, 2001 -- Moharram Ul Harram 24,1422 A.H
A partial list of properties owned by Pakistan's
former Naval Chief Admiral (Retd.) Mansoor-ul-Haq:
1.House on plot No. A-2, Naval Housing Scheme,Zamzama, DHA Karachi
This
property is in the name of Mrs. Najma Mansoor,w/o Admiral (R)
Mansoor-ul-Haq.
2. Plot No. 62 at Khayaban-e-Babar, Phase 8, DHA, Karachi.
3. Plot No.C-19, ML&C, at Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad.
This plot
is also in the name of Najma Mansoor,w/o Admiral (R) Mansoor-ul-Haq.
4.Plot No.C-21, ML&C, also at Cooperative Housing Society,
Hyderabad.Najma
Mansoor w/o Admiral (R) Mansoor-ul-Haq, is the occupant of this plot..
5.House No. 4/II,in Khyaban-e-Tanzim, Phase 5, DHA, Karachi.This
property is
in the name of Ms Huma,d/o Admiral (R) Mansoor-ul-Haq.
6.Plot No.4, also at Khayaban-e-Tanzim, Phase-5, DHA, Karachi.
7.Plot No.338-D, St.17, Phase 8, DHA, Karachi.
8.Plot No.28,-B, National Highway Phase-1, DHA, Karachi.
9.Plot No.31, Sector-D, Army Welfare Housing Scheme, Morgah,
Rawalpindi.
10. Plot No.1, St.1, Block-B, PN Housing Scheme, Sihala,Islamabad.
11.Plot No. 17, Circular Avenue, Fizaya Housing Scheme, Islamabad.
12. Plot No. 17, Circular Avenue, Fizaya Housing Scheme, Islamabad.
12.Two Kanals of land in the name of Admiral (R) Mansoor-ul-Haq
allotted to
him by Greater Lahore Cooperative Society
13.Plot No. 18/1,at Khayaban-e-Muhafiz, Phase-6, DHA, Karachi.
14.Plot No.4, at Karachi Port Trust Housing Society.
15. Mercedes Benz car Model No. S32OL, registered no. AAX-6678.
> >
>
> > Here are a few more interesting articles on the topic:
> >
===============================================================
BOOK REVIEW
the son and son-in-law of a Pakistani high-up after he had been
===========
Pastures new
Hafizur Rahman
been misused. I don't have anything to add about the police to what
the superior courts say about it almost every day. It was too much
point)that when Mian Nawaz Sharif got an army officer as son-in-law
QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid
news:<a3221d$e99$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > "QA, MAJ.. The CyberQuaid" <maji...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:<a2u8ir$rvt$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > Not sure what the point here is. Pentagon also has a number of
> > commercial
> > > > ventures like real estate holdings etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pakistan's army, unlike the Pentagon, is not subject to civilian
> > > supervision.
> >
> > It's same everywhere. only a few member of a committee are usually
allowed
> > to view and are always required to keep everything confidential.
> >
> > Also the most a 5-10 years experienced military officer can afford is
rent a
> > 2-3 bedroom house in a city like Islamabad. This is what my observation
has
> > been (Unless things have drastically changed in the last 3 weeks).
Houses
> > are a bit larger (lot and square footage) if the officers accept
> > accommodation at the base but even that's not out of ordinary compared
to
> > other countries.
> >
>
> DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
> 08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421
>
I posted what I actually observed. That's more reliable for me and everyone
will agree.
Nusrat Rizvi
<maji...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Not sure what the point here is. Pentagon also has a number of commercial
>ventures like real estate holdings etc.
>
US Govt by law can not partake in any business venture so whoever told
you Pentagon has number of commercial venture must be the same guy who
also believed Paindoo army can fight.
Furthermore US is a very rich country which can afford both bread
butter and guns, Pakistan being dirt poor can not.
nkdatta8839
Looks like his observations were extremely selective!
Pakistan's military embodies institutionalized crime.
In fact, Pakistan's military represents the nation's
largest body of organized corruption & crime. National
newspapres like DAWN have reported on it. A lot of
books have been published on it.
========================================
BOOK REVIEW
==================================================
Excerpt from:
===================================================
=========================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421
Letter To The Editor
by M. SALEEM, Lahore
M. SALEEM
Lahore
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
nkdatta8839
Musharraf. As a part of a plea bargain, the Navy will take over his
house (property #1 in list), at Zamzama, Karachi and duty free
Mercedez car (property #15 in list). But the admiral will get to keep
the rest of his billions. And, of course, any jail term is out of the
question!
Wednesday January 30, 2002-- Zeqa'ad 15,1422 A.H.
President withdraws military awards of Mansur
ISLAMABAD: President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has withdrawn the rank of
Admiral from former chief of the Pakistan Navy Mansurul Haq.
The action was taken after settlement of plea-bargain deal with ex
Naval Chief arrested on corruption charges.
Chairman NAB, Lt. General Muneer Hafeez told at a news briefing that
the action was taken on the recommendations of the Naval Headquarters.
He said as a consequence of being proved guilty, the President has
withdrawn the rank of Admiral from Mansurul Haq. Gen. Hafeez said all
military awards and decorations of former Naval Chief have been
forfeited, his entire pension and all accompanying benefits suspended
and his name removed from the retired list of Naval Officers.
In addition, the Navy has taken over his house at Zamzama, Karachi and
duty free Mercedez car.
nkdatta8839
Elections in a "soft" state
by Kamran Shafi
ksh...@yahoo.com.uk
....Finally, the scoundrel Mansur. The treatment the man got at the
hands of the Americans will serve as more of a lesson to others who
might steal Pakistani money and hide in the US, than the "soft"
treatment he got at the hands of our "soft" country. At least the
Americans put him into bright yellow prison dungarees, and chained him
hand and foot in manacles and shackles. We just let him go free after
striking a distasteful "plea-bargain" with him, to enjoy his huge
riches on some palm-bedecked tropical island....
nkdatta8839
PAF's hand in the till
by Ayesha Siddiqa Agha
[ The author says no politician has ever challenged the military's
intervention in business; indeed most have tended to encourage it]
Like other business ventures run by the military in Pakistan, Shaheen
Foundation, operated by the Pakistan Air Force, is a story of
mismanagement, poor priorities and shady deals.
Fauji Foundation was supposed to have a tri-service character. But the
Army dominated the FF, leaving job quotas of only 5 and 2 percent,
respectively, for the other two services. The navy and the air force
did not like that and lobbied for their own independent organisations.
The idea of the other two services setting up their own welfare
organisations was mooted at a JCSC (Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee)
meeting and approved in 1977. The first to respond was the PAF and it
set up the Shaheen Foundation in 1977 under the Charitable Endowments
Act, 1889, with an investment of Rs 5 million. Half of this amount was
donated by the PAF while the remainder came from the federal
government. Presently, the Foundation claims to have an annual
turnover of Rs 600 million.
This figure, however, does not necessarily represent profits. It is
not known whether the SF deducts its huge overheads before calculating
the profit. Reportedly, 10-20 percent of the annual profits is spent
on welfare activities. The Foundation employs about 200 ex-servicemen
and its annual intake of retired personnel is about 40 (5-6 officers
and 30-35 technicians).
The Foundation based its business strategy on three principles. It
planned to open commercial operations in areas where the PAF's
resources could be tapped. It started ventures where the management
could draw upon available expertise from the parent service, and
finally it tapped into the pool of personal contacts in the private
sector to begin operations it had no knowledge of with the support of
private entrepreneurs.
The first strategy resulted in the establishment of companies like
Shaheen Airlines, Aerotraders, Knitwear, Airport Services and
Insurance. Today, the SF has about 10 projects (Shaheen Air
International (airline), Shaheen Complex (two), Shaheen Air Cargo,
Shaheen Pay TV, Shaheen Airport Services, FM-100 Radio Channel,
Shaheen Aerotraders, Shaheen Systems (IT), Shaheen Insurance, and
Shaheen Knitwear. The SF's board of directors is headed by the
Air Chief. The Chief of Air Staff's principal staff officers and
the managing director of the Foundation are its members.
Following the first principle, SF established its businesses for
knitwear production and supply of spares and components for aircraft.
The Air Force had a big budget for these items and decided to utilise
it for the benefit of starting a venture. No assessment was made about
the future of the business or the possibility that the PAF's
funding sources might one day seem inadequate. Reportedly, it soon
terminated knitwear production for local consumption and got involved
in knitwear exports. A similar approach was used for Shaheen
Aerotraders. The management claimed that its annual turnover was about
Rs 40-50 million. This venture was completely geared to provide for
the PAF's need of spares and components and thus minimised the
share of private contractors engaged in such operations.
There also seemed to be a strategic reason behind the decision. After
the Pressler Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act, the PAF was
forced to buy spares for its F-16s through commercial channels at
market-rates. Shaheen Aerotraders' involvement, therefore,
helped control and manage such transfers. What is noticeable in both
these businesses is that the SF pushed out private entrepreneurs from
the business.
The opening of Shaheen Airlines was based on the same concept. The SF
and the PAF management believed that the airline could use the pool of
retired pilots and senior officers to operate it. Their experience of
running an air force or flying fighter jets was considered sufficient
to operate an airline venture. In fact, from a financial standpoint,
the airline is the Foundation's biggest project. However, the
venture was mismanaged due to the highly bureaucratic policies of the
SF management. As a result the Airline lost about Rs 60 million during
December 1999-May 2000. This was in addition to the Rs 70 million it
owed to the Civil Aviation Authority for services the CAA provided
during this period. The situation in the initial days of the
Airline's operations was even worse. Some sources attribute this
to the mismanagement of the fare discount facility provided by SAI to
retired and serving military officers. But the management says this is
not true because such traffic is insignificant. The Airline provides
50 percent discount to retired and serving military officers. Anyway,
what constantly added to the cost of operations was the fact that the
aircraft, which are on a 'wet' lease, are limited in
number. The airline has three leased aircraft. Having a limited number
of aircraft tends to increase costs incurred through technical
problems, flight delays and other related factors.
If one looks at the airline business, which is highly complex, it is
difficult to assume that an independent airline can be based on the
flying or limited management experience of retired air force officers.
Airline business experts are of the view that if an airline cannot pay
an amount of Rs 110 million, it cannot be treated as a successful
operation. It is noteworthy that due to the influence of the PAF, the
SF has a share in PIA's monopoly. The MoD (Ministry of Defence)
tends to give preference to Shaheen over other private airlines in
allocating schedule and routes.
Shaheen International Airlines, in fact, was managed earlier by a
local partner with 40 percent stakes in the company. The domestic
partner, however, was thrown out after being accused of mishandling
the company' affairs. The SF bought out his shares. There is no
information available about where the funds came to buy these shares.
It is doubtful that the finances came from the Airline's own
earnings since at the time it was running in deficit.
The Shaheen Airport Services is the only venture that has shown a
break-even position. The SAS was established in 1982 and operates at
the four main airports in the country: Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and
Peshawar. A number of international airlines opt for SAS instead of
its competitors like PIA and Gerry's. This is because of the
lower rates offered by SAS.
The SF founded the insurance business in 1995 and established a
partnership with a South African insurance company named Hollard
Insurance Ltd. The partnership was finally worked out in 1997 with
Hollard owning 30 percent shares in the operation. The South African
Company, however, was disappointed by the results. According to the
company's director, Miles Jasphet, whom I interviewed,
Hollard's management considered corruption in Pakistan a big
problem. They estimated that while the country has a lot of potential,
the element of corruption has dampened business prospects. It is
interesting to note that the deal was brokered by an Air Force officer
who landed a job in the company after retirement. The South Africans
asserted that the deal was negotiated on a one-to-one-basis with the
officer involved.
The SF has on occasion been accused of corrupt practices in collusion
with the political leadership. The most prominent case in this regard
pertains to its radio channel FM-100 and satellite television, SB
Pay-TV. In these cases, some close aides of Mr Asif Zardari, husband
of former premier, Benazir Bhutto, were found to have wangled major
shares.
Interestingly, the SF has repeatedly ventured into areas where it had
no expertise at all. The radio channel is just one case in point. The
Foundation's only advantage was the PAF's control of
frequency allocation. But it was a dubious deal and resulted in losses
to the SF. The Foundation finally took the case to the Securities &
Exchange Commission under section 263 of the Companies Act against the
major shareholder, accusing him of violating the basic rules of the
agreement. The case is still under legal review.
During the course of writing my June 2000 study of military's
business ventures - "Power, Perks, Prestige, Privileges:
Military's Economic Activities in Pakistan" - I
found it most interesting that no politician was prepared to either
challenge or rationalise the role of the armed forces. When I
interviewed former premier, Ms Benazir Bhutto, she confessed her
inability to check these business ventures. Indeed, my study showed
that she positively encouraged the militaryy's business
activities and overall political involvement in order to curry favour
with the armed forces.
However, she said that she had allowed the Shaheen Foundation to
operate only in certain areas. Bhutto, however, did not comment on the
business links between the Air Force and her husband who was accused
of establishing the radio and satellite television channel with the
Shaheen Foundation. While accusing the military of undermining the
political leadership, she again skirted the question of whether her
encouragement of military's business operations was a sweetener
to win support from the armed forces. The Jama'at i Islami,
another party contacted for this research, was equally complacent
about the military's business ventures. In fact, it saw this as
part of the armed forces "development" or "nation
building" role.
The study shows clearly that Pakistan military has created corporate
and political space for itself on the pretext of participating in the
national development agenda. One wonders, however, if a degree of
accountability can be introduced to check excesses and stop these
foundations from overreaching their resources.
=======================================================
=======================================================
While civil societies, especially in states faced with an external
It plans to start commercial services with its small fleet of 2-3
helicopters and 15-20 retired army personnel.
The Company has a monopoly in the market and has indirectly stopped
Despite all the concessions it enjoys, however the profitability of
the AWT remains doubtful. This is because retired personnel lack
knowledge of business management. Therefore, it is not surprising that
the AWT had to ask the federal government for a Rs 5 billion loan.
"Perhaps, it's time that the government should ask retired
generals to wind up some operations of the AWT", says an
insider.
=============================================================
nkdatta8839
=======================================================
=======================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
25-31 January, 2002
While civil societies, especially in states faced with an external
It plans to start commercial services with its small fleet of 2-3
helicopters and 15-20 retired army personnel.
The Company has a monopoly in the market and has indirectly stopped
Despite all the concessions it enjoys, however the profitability of
the AWT remains doubtful. This is because retired personnel lack
knowledge of business management. Therefore, it is not surprising that
the AWT had to ask the federal government for a Rs 5 billion loan.
"Perhaps, it's time that the government should ask retired
generals to wind up some operations of the AWT", says an
insider.
=============================================================
nkdatta8839
=======================================================
=======================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
25-31 January, 2002
While civil societies, especially in states faced with an external
It plans to start commercial services with its small fleet of 2-3
helicopters and 15-20 retired army personnel.
The Company has a monopoly in the market and has indirectly stopped
Despite all the concessions it enjoys, however the profitability of
the AWT remains doubtful. This is because retired personnel lack
knowledge of business management. Therefore, it is not surprising that
the AWT had to ask the federal government for a Rs 5 billion loan.
"Perhaps, it's time that the government should ask retired
generals to wind up some operations of the AWT", says an
insider.
=============================================================
nkdatta8839
01 March 2002 Friday 16 Zilhaj 1422
How many generals can a country afford?
By Ayaz Amir
If other sectors of national life are stagnating, one by the grace of
Allah is flourishing: the assembly line which produces the military's
higher officers. This year, to no one's surprise, 27 brigadiers -
including three from the Army Medical Corps - have been approved for
promotion to the rank of major general. Last year 22 entered this
charmed circle. Of glistening hardware we may have a shortage but of
potential Napoleons we obviously have none.
Once upon a time (how long ago it seems) generals were a rarity in the
Pakistan army, figures of awe and not a little mystique. Nowadays, as
the long line of cars streaming out of General Headquarters in
Rawalpindi at close of day so eloquently testifies, they are close to
becoming a demographic wonder. How many are they in all?
Of four-star generals, the heaviest artillery going, the Pakistan army
has three: the Chief himself, Gen Aziz and Gen Yousaf. Lieutenant
generals, over 25 (at last count 29, including several doctors). Major
generals, over a hundred. No doubt some retire but like the national
birthrate is more than the economic growth rate, promotions outstrip
retirements.
Moreover, since soldiers never die, and in Pakistan they do not even
fade away, a general's retirement does not mean his being put out to
grass. A hundred sinecures ensure his profitable re-employment. A look
into the masonic underworld of retired generals holding grimly on to
top positions in government and semi-government organizations would
make a fascinating subject for a doctoral thesis.
Of course a large body of troops requires an adequate number of
commanders. If my counting is correct we have 14 armoured brigades and
19 infantry divisions. Which makes for a large army. Even so, a
hundred and twenty generals of all stripes would beggar any military
force, no matter how large. How many generals did Hitler have? How
many the Red Army? Proportion-wise I am sure we beat both these
examples hollow.
The air force and navy do not lag behind in this respect. At one time
the air force was happy with one air marshal (Asghar Khan) and
Pakistan Airlines with another (Nur Khan). In Ayub Khan's time the
navy got by with a rear admiral (A. R. Khan). Nowadays getting an
accurate count of all the air marshals, air vice marshals, admirals
and rear admirals strutting about in uniform would qualify as a major
undertaking.
Real command positions being few, it is no wonder if more and more
senior officers on the active list are looking for lucrative jobs in
other government organizations. For the past three years Wapda is
being run by what is virtually a corps formation. The boss is a lieut
gen (a genial and helpful man but that is beside the point). The
various sectors are under the command of brigadiers. Ogdc is the
same--serving officers filling the most important jobs. Indeed serving
and retired military officers are everywhere including the Federal
Public Service Commission and the Punjab Public Service Commission,
both headed by retired military officers. The Railways have not been
spared. Nor the hapless Post Office, one of the last remaining success
stories of Pakistan, which has passed into the care of a retired maj
gen.
Even the fresh list of major generals makes for instructive reading.
Of the 15 who have so far received posting orders, nearly half have
got command appointments in the fighting arms while the rest have been
posted in such places as Military Land and Cantonments, the
Accountability Bureau, the Research Wing of the National Defence
College and, yes, the real centre of power, the Chief Executive's
Secretariat. An army of course needs desk jobs but the impression here
is of excuses being found to accommodate an ever-increasing mass of
brass. Who is serving whom? The military serving the country or the
country at the service of the military?
No doubt all bureaucracies are greedy and tenacious, their instinct
being to proliferate and suck life out of other organisms. But the
bureaucratization of the military leaves even the earlier exploits of
the CSP cadre in the shade. No longer is the military relying on the
bureaucracy for advice and the implementation of policy. It is doing
everything itself, both macro and micro-management (apart from
financial matters which it does not understand). As a result, the old
mandarin-military coalition which dominated Pakistan's skyline lies
broken. With the babus eclipsed (and good riddance to them) the
military is sole arbiter of national affairs.
From this hegemony three questions arise. First, what makes the
military think it has a monopoly on wisdom and competence? History
certainly lends no support to this illusion, major disasters having
struck the country during military rule. Nor is this fiction supported
by current performance.
Speed and decisiveness are the only things that justify military rule.
Steps which slow-moving civilian rulers balk at, a military strongman
takes. This is the theory. This the example of Alexander who when told
at Delphi that he who 'untied' the Gordian Knot would rule the world,
simply 'slashed' it with his sword.
In two-and-a-half years Napoleon had reformed the administration of
France and conquered half of Europe. In two and a half years Ataturk
had expelled the Greek army from Turkish soil and laid the foundations
of modern Turkey. In two and a half years Hitler's armies stood at the
gates of Moscow and Leningrad. In two and a half years what have
Pakistan's lieutenant and major generals - all one hundred and twenty
of them--accomplished?
Rhetoric of reform aside, Pakistan is much the same place as General
Musharraf discovered when he seized power. Little has changed: not the
judicial system, not the legal system, the police system or the
education and health systems. To be sure, the foreign policy agenda
has shifted, mainly because of external pressure. But the life of the
ordinary Pakistani remains much as before, living on hope and feeding
on false promises. What does the government then have to show for the
time it has been in power?
The second question has to do with the military's effectiveness as a
fighting force. Do officers who get a taste of civilian life, with its
perks and privileges, remain fit to command troops in the field? Does
their fighting spirit remain unimpaired? Soldiering is a hard
profession which requires single-minded devotion. Nothing blunts it so
much as civilian distractions. Just as a conflict of interest leads to
bad ethics, a conflict of purpose leads to bad soldiering.
So many generals on the active list, a battalion of generals on the
retired list, serving and retired officers seeking jobs and good
housing: this is a vast system of perks and privileges. A poor nation
cannot afford this. If it affords this, it must forgo other things,
usually education and health for the masses. The necessity of an
effective fighting force is not in question. A predatory neighbourhood
leaves us with no other choice. The point is altogether different: can
we afford a cake whose icing is heavier than the rest of the cake?
Can the frontiers of military privilege be rolled back? Can military
expenses come under public scrutiny? It seems unlikely because no
class likes losing its privileges, least of all a class holding a
monopoly of coercive power. So the third question arises which relates
to democracy. Can democracy survive, let alone prosper, in such a
climate? A strong and growing military caste jealously guarding its
privileges and a vibrant, self-confident democracy are antithetical
concepts.
That is why it takes no clairvoyant to see that what we are headed for
is an experiment in Indonesian democracy: where the president,
anchored firmly in his military constituency, calls the shots while
prime minister and parliament walk dutifully in his shadow. We have
been here before. Since we are again preparing to revisit familiar
haunts, these are not happy tidings for the future.
=====================================================
=====================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
8 - 14 March, 2002
Blame it on Mr Bhutto…
by Aqil Shah
[The author challenges the politicians and the educated elites to sit
up and take notice of what the military is doing to the civil society]
Ask any serving or retired member of the establishment or the state
“priviligentsia,” barring a few exceptions, about the
causes of the 1965 War, the 1971 dismemberment of Pakistan and almost
everything else that is wrong with Pakistan, and the three-word answer
will be: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Ask them again about the reasons for the
country’s pathetic foreign image, its bankrupt coffers and the
institutional decay that besets it and the answer invariably will be:
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif! Is it historical amnesia or an
institutionalised attempt to scapegoat everything political? In all
likelihood, it is the latter.
The issue is not that politics is clean business. Far from it. In
fact, it is the murky world of opportunistic give and take,
compromise, shifting loyalties, corruption, backstabbing – all
things disgusting to the ‘socially engineered’ morality of
the Pakistani urban-educated elite. But can the military deliver?
Unfortunately, empirical evidence belies the notion that the
military’s simplistic view of Pakistan’s growing crisis of
governance, can, or has, fared better than the sham democracy or
corrupt politicians. In fact, history bears witness to the unmitigated
disasters that have visited Pakistan as a consequence of the
military’s ill-advised experiments with the political and
constitutional edifice of this country. It is, therefore, critical to
look at the history of the systematic defamation of Pakistan’s
first popularly elected leader, as well as those who followed him, to
situate the current regime’s manipulation of the political
process in the broader context of a persistent praetorianism that
abhors representative political rule.
The establishment’s unmistakable scapegoat, Z A Bhutto, for all
his flaws, had for the first time successfully managed to shake a
largely dormant society out of its political coma. People rose up to
mount a challenge to the traditional hegemony of the civil-military
bureaucracy and the landed elite. This alone was anathema to the
garrison’s view of how Pakistan should be governed. In one sweep
of selective national amnesia, we have conveniently forgotten that the
man was responsible for the release of 90, 000 Pakistani prisoners of
war, for striking a bilateral agreement with India even as he was on a
very weak wicket, and is singularly responsible for making Pakistan a
nuclear-weapon state (a capability the Pakistan’s military never
tires of flaunting). Historical contestation and the flaws in
Bhutto’s subsequent stint in power notwithstanding, he did not
single-handedly start the 1965 war, or instigate the
“Bengalis” to secede. For how could a “bloody
civilian” mess with what is rightfully the military’s
calling? Was Ayub Khan not a self-styled Field Marshal? Did he need Mr
Bhutto’s advice to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Indian
Army or indeed required a politician’s estimate of the likely
response by the adversary to a military threat? And if he did, it is
proof enough that generals in power tend to lose the ability to do the
job they are required to do – guard the physical frontiers.
Let’s face it. Bhutto was an ambitious politician hungry for
power – an occupational hazard – and was not averse to
making statements that can be picked out of context and made the basis
for running him down. He did that in 1971 also. But was that the cause
of Bengali nationalism? Does anyone in their right mind think the
downslide began because of those statements? Was it Bhutto who had
forcefully excluded “downtrodden, hinduized” Bengalis from
the spoils of political and administrative power for over two decades,
driving them to separatism? Or was it the exclusionary, racist
politics of a largely Punjabi military and bureaucratic establishment?
Almost in the same vein, Kargil is blamed on Nawaz Sharif while
Benazir Bhutto stands accused of handing over the names of Sikh
separatists to New Delhi not to speak of the legendary tales of
corruption spun at the expense of political society. None of them is
an angel; but none of them is any different from politicians around
the world, including those found next door, in the White House or on
Capitol Hill. Visiting Americans scholars and officials do not tire of
telling us what a bunch of jokers Pakistani politicians are. But the
fact is that the Enron scandal itself is bigger and murkier in scale
than anything the Bhutto-Nawaz duo could be accused of together.
There is need for the Pakistani educated classes to seek answers to
these and other crucial national issues and shake off the coma induced
on our critical senses by a constant harping on the banality of
politics through state-controlled media. It is against this backdrop
that the military regime’s campaign of defaming politicians has
to be assessed. From the arm-twisting tactics of the NAB to the
pathetic TV drama serials invoking the inherently “venal”
image of the politician, beating it, recycling it in the public
psyche, the military derives its political dominance of state and
society, coupling it cleverly with an anti-India siege mentality. The
images are then perpetuated through a clever dialectic of symbols,
rituals, texts and the fiction of military bravado. All this is
clearly part and parcel of Pakistan’s political economy of
martial rule, to borrow from Ayesha Jalal, not the rumblings of a few
individuals.
It is now up to the “political society” which has
squandered the few opportunities given it to rectify this grossly
self-serving reduction of political complexities. Hoping against all
hope, let us see if this time round the country’s politicos can
do something about their self-image, and more importantly, fight
against the manipulation for praetorian ends.
=====================================================
=====================================================
BOOK REVIEW
===========
Pastures new
Hafizur Rahman
been misused. I don't have anything to add about the police to what
the
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 September 2000 Friday 09 Jamadi-us-Saani 1421
Letter To The Editor
by M. SALEEM, Lahore
M. SALEEM
Lahore
nkdatta8839
8 - 14 March, 2002
Indian military capability and Pakistan's concerns
by Ejaz Haider
[The author says Pakistan is facing a difficult situation and the
military needs to rethink its role]
During his trip to the United States last month, General Pervez
Musharraf's greatest disappointment was the refusal by
Washington to sell arms to Pakistan. The only agreements on the
military side that materialised during that visit were the resumption
of the IMET (International Military Education and Training) Programme
and the dialogue on nuclear safety issues, besides the
re-establishment of the Defence Consultative Group between the two
countries.
What makes it worse from Pakistan's point of view is that
Washington seems quite eager to sell arms to India. Reports indicate
the US departments of state and defence have cleared a list of 21
weapons systems for sale to India. Russia, too, continues to provide
India with new weapons systems. Meanwhile, India has increased its
defence spending by about 13% to US$13.4 billion for fiscal 2001-02. A
report in the Jane's Defence Weekly says even after adjusting
against inflation the increase will amount to about 7.9 percent,
taking the defence budget to 2.5 percent of the GDP. At least a third
of the money will be spent on buying new weapons systems. Funds will
also be diverted towards developing a nuclear deterrent on the basis
of India's draft nuclear doctrine. The doctrine envisages
building the deterrent based on a triad of air, land and sea-based
assets.
The army will receive about 60.4 percent of the budget, the IAF 24
percent while the IN will get around 15 percent of the defence pie.
The Jane's report says the increase will allow the Indian army
to close the deal with Israel for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and
"artillery-locating radar and surveillance devices for use along
the border with China and Pakistan". The money with the IAF will
allow the service to purchase new aircraft and engines. Besides, the
allocation will help the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to begin
upgrading the first of the 125 MiG-21s "with Russian, French and
Israeli help in a project expected to cost $500 million-$700
million". Similarly, the Indian Navy is in the process of
finalising the acquisition of the Admiral Gorshkov, the 44,500-tonne
former Soviet carrier at US$700 million, which is the price of its
refit.
The IN is also planning to acquire 40 carrier-based MiG-29K fighters
at a cost of US$1.2 billion and is negotiating with France for six
submarines. Besides, it is planning to lease a Russian nuclear-powered
submarine and is "awaiting government approval to revive its own
submarine-building facilities".
The Jane's report says that while there is no specific provision
in the budget for expenditure on India's nuclear deterrent
- estimated to be around US$500 million annually - some
Indian defence analysts says the costs are "cleverly
hidden". The Jane's report quotes some official sources as
saying that the "capital expenditure of Rs 82.46 billion on
unspecified 'other equipment' for the services, with the
army getting Rs 47.36 billion" is an indication of that
allocation.
This is of course a very sketchy overview of India's defence
expenditure. What is clear is that India is embarked on an ambitious
plan to modernise its military and enhance its conventional and
nuclear capabilities. This is a situation of grave concern to
Pakistan, especially in light of the continuing standoff between the
two countries. The US response makes it evident that enhancing
Pakistan's military capability is not high on Washington's
agenda. In fact, post-9/11, Pakistan-US relations have undergone a
major change. Pakistan is not a US ally in the sense that it was
during the cold war even discounting the various downers during that
period. Today, the US sees Pakistan as an under-developed state
teetering on the brink that needs a firm hand and a stern master to
keep it steady and on course.
It is significant to note the sudden interest US interest in
Pakistan's educational system. While Washington is prepared to
give funds for streamlining the seminaries, it is not convinced that
Pakistan needs military sales to at least retain a ratio of one to
four against India. Bluntly put, this means that Washington wants
Pakistan to grow steadily weaker in comparison to India militarily. It
is instructive to note that the United States has not shown much
concern over prospective Israeli sales to India of the Phalcon radar
system (Airborne Early Warning platform). The acquisition of this AEW
platform will dramatically advance India's operational
capability. Interestingly, Washington forced Tel Aviv last year to
call off a 1996 deal with Beijing for the Phalcon AEW system.
Meanwhile, India is also deeply interested in acquiring the Israeli
Arrow TMD (theatre missile defence) system, which has been jointly
developed by Israel and the United States. If India does succeed in
purchasing the Arrow system, Pakistan's missile capability will
be badly degraded.
However, specifics aside, the obvious question is: What can Pakistan
do? Politically, it is in a very difficult situation. Economically,
the kitty is empty. Its defence budget in real terms has been sliding
down for the last three years. This year, too, while voicing its deep
concern over the hike in the Indian defence budget, the government
has, nevertheless, decided to not increase defence spending. Yet,
purely in conventional terms, Pakistan needs a powerful military
capacity than ever before.
The first thing the military has to do is to review its role. Pakistan
cannot realise its full potential until the military learns to
subordinate itself to the civilian authority. The difficult situation
in which the country finds itself today is the military's doing.
Its desire to raise its status from the implementer of policy to being
its maker is what has created the structural imbalances in the
national security policy and created problems for Pakistan. It must
give it a rethink.
Secondly, Pakistan must use this period to take a pause and review the
national security policy. In fact, it can turn the situation to its
advantage if it can redirect resources to developing education and its
human resource potential. At the end of the day, human resource is
what underpins the long-term development of a state, including its
military prowess.
Thirdly, the military must cut own on its fat to find money to spend
on acquisition of critical weapons systems and R&D (research and
development). It is important to create priorities in this regard and
to ensure that only those systems are acquired that fit into the logic
of Pakistan's war-fighting strategy. Pakistan's economy
has taken much battering in the past decade but studies have shown
that the military can find money from its present resources if it
makes a genuine effort to cut down on wastage and non-developmental
expenditure. Finally, progress requires national will and the ability
to harmonize and put to effective use the resources and potential of
both the military and the civil society. The military must heed that
lesson.
==============================================
==============================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 February 2002 Friday 2 Zilhaj 1422
Pakistan's American fallacy
By Ayaz Amir
Such is the air of unreality which grips our governing classes that
every Pakistani leader who goes to Washington carries with him the
hope that from there he will receive the kiss of life or the seal of
immortality.
Why this hope should at all be entertained is somewhat hard to
understand. The United States has considerable influence in Pakistan,
no doubt about it because we have a habit of sucking up to foreigners.
Nevertheless, Pakistani leaders have stood or fallen on the strength
of their own performances.
The US may have been happy to see Bhutto go and indeed its agents may
have speeded his departure. Yet the US was not the author of his
misfortunes. Bhutto mishandled the domestic scene and raised enemies
all around. It was this which did him in rather than any international
conspiracy.
The US did not destroy Yahya Khan. Yahya and his team of generals
destroyed themselves. In fact, Nixon's sympathies were on Pakistan's
side and not India's. He even sent parts of the Seventh Fleet for an
ineffectual display of gunboat diplomacy. But what could he do if the
gods themselves had abandoned an incompetent junta?
Benazir Bhutto was the darling of the West and the western media,
getting the kind of attention and coverage no Pakistani leader has
ever had (not even Musharraf).
On her first trip to Washington, with the honourable Zardari all
togged out in Balochi headgear, she got to address the US Congress and
made the then famous remark that it was a time for miracles in
Pakistan. We know the miracles she and her husband wrought.
When her time was up, and Ishaq and General Beg moved in for the kill,
none of her American support could save her. The same was true of
Nawaz Sharif. To all appearances Clinton seemed genuinely fond of him.
When Sharif's relations with the army command came under strain after
Kargil, the US issued a strong declaration of support for Sharif. But
when the army moved on October 12, it sought no American approval for
its action.
On his five-hour visit to Pakistan a year later Clinton got his own
back by giving a tongue-lashing on TV to Pakistan's military rulers by
pointing out how Pakistan was out of step with the modern world. But
his performance did not change the complexion of the government in
Islamabad. Nor could it have been of much consolation to the then
imprisoned Sharif.
Now the wheel having come full circle it is Musharraf's turn to seek
solace and absolution at American hands. He has earned warm praise
from the American president by bending before the wind and being
helpful to the US in its war on Afghanistan. But like others before
him he too needs to keep things in perspective.
The cries from the Pakistani side about enduring friendship and about
being abandoned by the Americans in the eighties are misplaced.
We should have made the most of our opportunities when the Americans
needed us against their fight against the Soviet presence in
Afghanistan. If we didn't, the US is not to blame.
Enduring friendship is a chimera and is not to be found in the real
world. Friendships are based on mutual convenience, advantage and
interests and last while these conditions last. When these change, the
best friendships wither.
The US is ruthless in the pursuit of its interests. We should be the
same with ours. The US bent us to its will post-September 11. If we
were afraid and settled for peanuts, the only thing to be said is that
the Americans were strong enough to pursue a good bargain while we
were weak enough to settle for a bad one. There is a strong body of
opinion which says we had no choice. Perhaps. But then a no-choice
position is hardly a strong foundation for enduring friendship.
The warmth from Washington is not because of General Musharraf's
outstanding personality (although the president's admirers would like
to believe otherwise) but because of our sepoy status in South-West
Asia: our willingness to toe the American line.
Consider regional geography. For the first time in fifty years a cool
breeze is blowing between Riyadh and Washington. Iraq and Iran top
America's list of enemies. Up north are the Central Asian states whose
hidden oil wealth is the prize in this emerging game.
Alone of all the states in the region, Pakistan, stretching from the
Himalayas to the Arabian Sea, is eager to turn itself into a permanent
tool of American interests. This then is what we want, not enduring
friendship but permanent employment on current wages. We don't want to
be cast adrift by the US again. We want our yearly handout to balance
our accounts and we want hardware for our military. And we don't want
to be pressed too hard for past loans. This is it, this the definition
of enduring friendship. Nor is this reason for gloom because client
states are in no position to seek anything more.
As for Kashmir, we need to stop deluding ourselves over it. The US
wouldn't like India and Pakistan to go to war because this doesn't
serve its interests. It would like India and Pakistan to talk their
differences over, this being the common sense approach to their
problems. But the US is not desperate to press India towards a Kashmir
solution.
It will not be a mediator because India will not ask for it. So why
say, as President Musharraf has, that bilateralism is dead? We may
find the Indian attitude cussed and India may think us to be
needlessly provocative, but experience tells us that India and
Pakistan must themselves find the wisdom to settle their problems. The
US will not go out of its way to bestir itself in this matter.
So whether we like it or not, bilateralism is the only way forward.
This is also the logic of the past. We shouldn't have started the 1965
war because the only thing it resulted in was an inconclusive end. We
shouldn't have lost the '71 war because it is our defeat in that
conflict which condemns us to bilateralism.
The Shimla Accord was no devil's plot. It merely enshrined in words
something that had already happened on the ground.
There is another reason, however, for the strong verbal line we are
now taking on Kashmir. When the armed struggle was going strong, we
could afford to be soft in our words.
Now that for all practical purposes we have quarantined our warriors
and bid a farewell to arms, the only way to salve wounded national
pride is to go hard on our rhetoric.
When innocence is lost it is only natural to protest too much.
We must look to the causes of things. General Musharraf can be feted
at the White House every six months and hit Newsweek's cover again,
and Pakistan get three times the amount of money it is now getting
from the US, but we will remain a dependent, debt-ridden country
unless we learn to mend our ways. Money without grit and dignity gets
nothing. It got Indonesia and Nigeria (both oil-rich) nothing. If we
remain slaves in thought it will get us nothing.
Washington will not discover political stability for us. It has used
Pakistani leaders before and will do so again. It is for us to see the
poison and avoid it. It is for us to seek the Holy Grail and create
lasting political institutions. No one else will do it for us.
So let us stop the unseemly refrain of the US having abandoned us in
the past. We abandoned ourselves because we had no eye for our
long-term interests.
Even now all this talk of turning Pakistan into a modern state will
remain meaningless unless the army forswears its taste for political
intervention and learns to cultivate some respect for democracy - the
real kind and not the variety being thrust down the nation's throat by
Gen Naqvi.
Season of errors: Last week another error crept into my Diary. When
Benazir Bhutto chose Leghari as her presidential nominee, the army
chief was Waheed Kakar. I was wrong therefore to put the sin of
Leghari's elevation at General Karamat's door. But for the rest of my
broadside I stand. Karamat could have kept Leghari in check in 1996
but did not.
==============================================
==============================================
=====================================================
=====================================================
by Aqil Shah
[The author challenges the politicians and the educated elites to sit
up and take notice of what the military is doing to the civil society]
Ask any serving or retired member of the establishment or the state
"priviligentsia," barring a few exceptions, about the
causes of the 1965 War, the 1971 dismemberment of Pakistan and almost
everything else that is wrong with Pakistan, and the three-word answer
will be: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Ask them again about the reasons for the
country's pathetic foreign image, its bankrupt coffers and the
institutional decay that besets it and the answer invariably will be:
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif! Is it historical amnesia or an
institutionalised attempt to scapegoat everything political? In all
likelihood, it is the latter.
The issue is not that politics is clean business. Far from it. In
fact, it is the murky world of opportunistic give and take,
compromise, shifting loyalties, corruption, backstabbing - all
things disgusting to the "socially engineered" morality of
the Pakistani urban-educated elite. But can the military deliver?
Unfortunately, empirical evidence belies the notion that the
military's simplistic view of Pakistan's growing crisis of
governance, can, or has, fared better than the sham democracy or
corrupt politicians. In fact, history bears witness to the unmitigated
disasters that have visited Pakistan as a consequence of the
military's ill-advised experiments with the political and
constitutional edifice of this country. It is, therefore, critical to
look at the history of the systematic defamation of Pakistan's
first popularly elected leader, as well as those who followed him, to
situate the current regime's manipulation of the political
process in the broader context of a persistent praetorianism that
abhors representative political rule.
The establishment's unmistakable scapegoat, Z A Bhutto, for all
his flaws, had for the first time successfully managed to shake a
largely dormant society out of its political coma. People rose up to
mount a challenge to the traditional hegemony of the civil-military
bureaucracy and the landed elite. This alone was anathema to the
garrison&'s view of how Pakistan should be governed. In one sweep
of selective national amnesia, we have conveniently forgotten that the
man was responsible for the release of 90, 000 Pakistani prisoners of
war, for striking a bilateral agreement with India even as he was on a
very weak wicket, and is singularly responsible for making Pakistan a
nuclear-weapon state (a capability the Pakistan's military never
tires of flaunting). Historical contestation and the flaws in
Bhutto's subsequent stint in power notwithstanding, he did not
single-handedly start the 1965 war, or instigate the
Bengalis to secede. For how could a "bloody
civilian" mess with what is rightfully the military's
calling? Was Ayub Khan not a self-styled Field Marshal? Did he need Mr
Bhutto's advice to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Indian
Army or indeed required a politician's estimate of the likely
response by the adversary to a military threat? And if he did, it is
proof enough that generals in power tend to lose the ability to do the
job they are required to do - guard the physical frontiers.
Let's face it. Bhutto was an ambitious politician hungry for
power - an occupational hazard - and was not averse to
making statements that can be picked out of context and made the basis
for running him down. He did that in 1971 also. But was that the cause
of Bengali nationalism? Does anyone in their right mind think the
downslide began because of those statements? Was it Bhutto who had
forcefully excluded "downtrodden, hinduized" Bengalis from
the spoils of political and administrative power for over two decades,
driving them to separatism? Or was it the exclusionary, racist
politics of a largely Punjabi military and bureaucratic establishment?
Almost in the same vein, Kargil is blamed on Nawaz Sharif while
Benazir Bhutto stands accused of handing over the names of Sikh
separatists to New Delhi not to speak of the legendary tales of
corruption spun at the expense of political society. None of them is
an angel; but none of them is any different from politicians around
the world, including those found next door, in the White House or on
Capitol Hill. Visiting Americans scholars and officials do not tire of
telling us what a bunch of jokers Pakistani politicians are. But the
fact is that the Enron scandal itself is bigger and murkier in scale
than anything the Bhutto-Nawaz duo could be accused of together.
There is need for the Pakistani educated classes to seek answers to
these and other crucial national issues and shake off the coma induced
on our critical senses by a constant harping on the banality of
politics through state-controlled media. It is against this backdrop
that the military regime's campaign of defaming politicians has
to be assessed. From the arm-twisting tactics of the NAB to the
pathetic TV drama serials invoking the inherently "venal"
image of the politician, beating it, recycling it in the public
psyche, the military derives its political dominance of state and
society, coupling it cleverly with an anti-India siege mentality. The
images are then perpetuated through a clever dialectic of symbols,
rituals, texts and the fiction of military bravado. All this is
clearly part and parcel of Pakistan's political economy of
martial rule, to borrow from Ayesha Jalal, not the rumblings of a few
individuals.
It is now up to the "political society" which has
squandered the few opportunities given it to rectify this grossly
self-serving reduction of political complexities. Hoping against all
hope, let us see if this time round the country's politicos can
nkdatta8839
March 25, 2002
EDITORIAL
General Musharraf's Travails
New leaders have a tougher balancing act these days than Gen. Pervez
Musharraf of Pakistan. Since January, he has built an impressive
record of going after groups linked to terrorism. But because of the
continuing ability of terrorists to strike back with such actions as
the recent attack on a Protestant church in Islamabad and the murder
of Daniel Pearl, General Musharraf sometimes appears not to be doing
enough. President Bush continues to support the general and credit his
efforts. For now, that backing seems justified. But the United States
must be alert to possible backsliding and keep pressure on the general
to return democracy to Pakistan.
General Musharraf's plan to try to legitimize his military rule with a
referendum this year is unacceptable and should be discouraged by
Washington. He needs to hold free and fair elections.
Since its independence and partition with India in 1947, Pakistan has
been ruled mostly by military dictatorships. As a result, its
political system has never been allowed to mature. Instead, it has
been corrupted by organized criminal groups, extremist Islamic
organizations financed from overseas and a powerful but covert
military organization known as the Inter-Services Intelligence agency,
or I.S.I. In the 1980's, the United States did business with all these
groups, as the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia poured
billions of dollars through Pakistan into the anti-Russian rebellion
in neighboring Afghanistan. In some respects, the United States is now
facing deformities in Pakistan that it helped create.
After the Russians left Afghanistan, the United States had a falling
out with Pakistan over its covert nuclear program and its willingness
to harbor extremist groups, including some that have crossed the
border into India and fomented the Islamic uprising in the northern
Indian state of Kashmir. General Musharraf's overthrow of a civilian
government in 1999 did not help, but the turnaround of the last six
months has been remarkable. Without assistance from Pakistani military
intelligence, the United States would not have been able to win the
war against the Taliban as quickly as it did. General Musharraf has
arrested 2,000 militants, and Pakistani and American law enforcement
officials appear to be cooperating in the investigation of the
kidnapping and murder of Mr. Pearl.
Nevertheless, General Musharraf must accelerate his efforts to purge
the I.S.I. of links with militant groups operating in Afghanistan,
Kashmir and within Pakistan. Acting against these groups is likely to
generate opposition to General Musharraf within the army and, some
say, could endanger his life. He has no choice but to change the
direction of his troubled nation and its military establishment.
Dissident elements of the I.S.I. have to be rooted out, and the agency
has to end its support of Islamic insurgents in Kashmir and cease
intimidating Pakistani civilian politicians.
President Bush has bolstered General Musharraf's regime by relieving
Pakistan of some debts and opening American markets for Pakistani
textile exports. An urgent order of business is to equip Pakistan's
law enforcement agencies with computers and other tools to keep track
of extremists. General Musharraf should also be encouraged to fulfill
his promise to hold parliamentary elections this October. Standing
with Pakistan now is the best way for the United States to root out
terrorist groups and bring stability to the nation and the region.
=======================================================
=======================================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
15 March 2002 Friday 30 Zilhaj 1422
The saviours of Pakistan
By Ayaz Amir
I still have an old copy of the Illustrated Weekly of Pakistan (bound
with so many others) carrying a remarkable series of photographs. On
the first page Iqbal with the caption underneath saying: the thinker.
On the next page Jinnah with the caption, the founder. On the third
page Ayub Khan, resplendent in field marshal's uniform, a field
marshal's baton in his hand, and carrying the description: the saviour
of Pakistan.
The 'thinker' and the 'founder' remain the same, although what we may
have done with the thought of the one and the handiwork of the other
is a different story. The problem arises with the third leg of the
tripod. So many have been our saviours that every few years we have
had to change the billboards and paint a fresh portrait in martial
colours in place of the old.
After Ayub, Pakistan's next saviour was Yahya. What may have been said
before, bears repeating. The people of Bangladesh should honour Yahya
as their national hero. But for him they might not have achieved
independence so soon. Or with such confounding ease. It was not the
skill or bravery of Indian arms which triumphed in 1971. It was the
skill of our army high command which made the Indian triumph possible.
A mere seven years later another saviour, a general's baton in his
hand, a pope's ceremonial robes on his shoulders, came marching in.
General Zia saved Pakistan for eleven and a half years and we are
still living with the consequences.
It might have been supposed that after all these trysts with destiny,
Pakistan had had enough of saving. But it is being saved again, this
time by another figure resplendent in uniform, General Pervez
Musharraf, one who, moreover, claims divine sanction and the support
of the 'silent majority', the phantom body on whose shoulders every
saviour has raised his head above the castle walls.
After two and a half years in the saddle have Gen Musharraf's saviour
instincts deadened? They are sharper than ever. Grimly truthful, he
says he is going nowhere because the country needs him, his 'reforms'
(whatever these might be) needing protection and because the Lord of
All Things has elevated him to his present position. His spirit of
self-sacrifice also shines through. If he has a role to play, he says,
he will play it (Tokyo being the most recent stage where these famous
lines have been uttered). Which means he will not shirk the duty of
staying on at the helm. If everyone's sense of duty was as strong we
would be a different people.
Consider the plight of the Pakistani nation. It has applauded
dictators, but only after their seizures of power. Before the event,
it has never clamoured to be saved, only asked to be left alone.
Indeed, at the hands of its saviours it has even stopped dreaming
whether of green pastures or sunny uplands where rivers of plenty
flow. But its saviours have been relentless. At the slightest
provocation they have assumed the burden of saving and in the process,
much to their own mystification, have landed the nation in one
disaster after another.
How often can one recount the achievements of the military mode of
thinking? The futile wars Pakistan has been dragged into, the
unnecessary adventures that have sown confusion in their wake? Yet the
business of saving continues, no one willing to learn anything. No
wonder, Pakistan represents nothing so much as a laboratory where the
same experiments are repeated endlessly. This is a scientific
nightmare for there is no surer way to make anyone go mad.
The fig-leafs of course change. If under Zia we were raising the
banner of Islam in Afghanistan, under Musharraf we are entering an era
of modernism. In both cases, under the shifting labels, the substance
remains the same: dancing to foreign tunes, to the cracking of foreign
whips the Pakistani lion jumping from stool to stool.
In all of Pakistan's saviour periods one thing has remained constant,
the strengthening of the American connection. Pakistanis of all
stripes take readily to foreign tutelage. But for some strange reason,
impressive men resplendent in uniform do so more readily than others.
Is it something to do with our climate? Or with our history which has
resounded to the hoof beats of one conquering army after another? A
strange phenomenon indeed which turns the military from fixed granite
at home to melting wax abroad.
And what about Pakistan's democrats, the leading pillars of its
political class? In a series of articles Mr Irshad Ahmed Haqqani has
been shedding light on their dismal antics over the years. When
Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad dismissed Khawaja Nazimuddin as prime
minister in 1953 (something in law that he had no power to do) three
of his ministers including Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar were dismissed
with him. But the remaining six, including Chaudry Muhammad Ali, found
no burden on their consciences in serving under the new prime
minister, Muhammad Ali Bogra, specifically imported for the purpose
from Washington where he was serving as ambassador.
Five months later - that is, in September 1953 - Ghulam Muhammad went
a step further and dismissed the Constituent Assembly. But Bogra found
no problem in continuing to remain prime minister. When the Sindh High
Court held the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly to be illegal,
the Federal Court with the brilliant Justice Munir at its head
overturned that judgment and upheld the decision of the Governor
General.
As Mr Haqqani amply illustrates, in the dark annals of Pakistani
history no section of the governing class can claim honour for itself.
Judges, mandarins, politicos and men in uniform have drunk from the
same turbid waters. No one is in a position to cast stones at anyone
else.
We are still at the same games. Another set of generals are saving the
country. The judiciary has once again been helpful. The political
cadres, as anxious as ever to get a share of power, are again proving
willing accessories to the military's political plans.
The Sarkari League led by Mian Azhar and Ch Shujaat is all aflame with
the desire to serve Gen Musharraf in whatever capacity he chooses to
employ it. The PPP, its leader desperate to come in from the cold,
would settle for any compromise if only the military would accept its
repeated offers of cooperation. Meanwhile, the country is experiencing
a glut of hopeful prime ministers, every charlatan in sight thinking
himself to be the most qualified for the job.
What job and to what purpose? Caesar's anointing is not in question.
Gen Musharraf has already made himself plain on this score. How will
the anointing take place, by referendum or recourse to the future
cardboard assembly? This is the only point which remains to be
settled. The prime minister's job will be to carry Caesar's cloak and
walk in his shadow.
Those who think that any prime minister, no matter how malleable at
first, will rise to become another Junejo are in all probability
mistaken. This government is unlikely to repeat the mistake made by
Zia in 1985. Through constitutional fiat, an indulgence granted to Gen
Musharraf by the Supreme Court, the prime minister will be a toothless
figure, a dental job on him being performed well in advance. If we
lack an eye for the larger picture, no such handicap afflicts us when
it comes to smaller things. At these we are quite clever.
Hands and feet bound, body strapped to the operating table, what can
the nation do? Never strong at the best of times, the power of
resistance has been drained from its body completely. Meekly,
therefore, it is preparing to submit itself to the new experiment for
which the instruments are already being prepared.
Not that any calamity is likely to ensue. Let us not forsake measured
words. Having suffered other things, Pakistan can well endure an
extended Musharraf presidency. The only problem is with its aftermath.
Once this presidency loses steam, as in the nature of things it must,
and once the shadows close in on it, as on all mortal things conceived
in expediency they must, the country will once again find itself at
the beginning, clearing away the rubble of another experiment fallen
to the ground.
This has been our history, this the promise of the political schemes
currently being hatched. The question is, how many false starts can
any nation endure?
=======================================================
=======================================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
22 March 2002 Friday 07 Muharram 1423
Old ghosts march again
By Ayaz Amir
Is there no invention in us, nothing remotely akin to imagination in
the power corridors of the Islamic Republic? These are not irrelevant
questions considering our national propensity to walk, every five or
ten years, the same paths that have been trodden so often before.
Can the nation not be spared the referendum whose finer points are
currently being considered? It's not a very original idea. In varying
forms of absurdity it was tried by those two 'avatars' of Pakistani
nationhood: FM Ayub and Gen Zia.
As legitimacy-conferring devices referendums are beloved of military
strongmen. So easy to fix, their great virtue lies in their
one-sidedness. An affirmative answer to a question trickily worded
means a mandate for the strongman in question.
The 1984 referendum conducted by Gen Zia was in a class of its own. An
affirmative question regarding Islam meant that you were supporting
Zia as president for the next five years. More embarrassing than the
loaded question, however, was the dismal turnout. When Gen Zia
appeared on television to thank the nation for the trust reposed in
him (some joke this), he had to reach more than once for his
handkerchief to wipe his nose, the first time he appeared so nervous
on camera.
Gen Musharraf's wizards want to spare their hero the same
embarrassment. So, from what one hears, they are trying to word the
questions to be asked more intelligently. Do you support the action
against extremism? Are you for stabilizing the economy and protecting
the 'reforms' already initiated? If you do, Gen Musharraf will be
president for so many years. So much for our powers of invention.
Nothing of course will affect the main chance. Barring divine
intervention, Gen Musharraf is going to be around as president for as
long as he fancies. Or for as long as the winds hold up for him. This
much we know, this much has been declared, by none other than the
Generalissimo himself. The only thing remaining to be settled is
regarding details and methodology. How to make the referendum exercise
look respectable and not the farce to which it could so easily
descend?
The will of the Pakistani people is not being consulted. It is being
anticipated. Anything less that a 97% 'yes' turnout is unlikely. So
here's a safe bet: if and when a referendum is held - assuming of
course that better sense does not prevail - Gen Musharraf will touch
the same heights of popularity President Hosni Mobarak of Egypt
regularly does in his elections.
This was the man - Gen Musharraf, that is - who was considered without
ambition when his loyal generals, now scattered here and there and no
doubt thinking wanly of the vicissitudes of fortune, seized power for
him on that action-filled evening of October 12, 1999,(how long ago
that seems). To anyone who cared to listen, his aides would say that
the General would depart at the appointed time. But what is the
appointed time? Not long ago it was three years, thanks to the
indulgence granted by the Supreme Court. Now with the knives being
sharpened for the referendum it appears to be stretching into the
remote distance.
But if not Musharraf, ask the middle classes, who else? Surely not a
return, they exclaim in horror, to those inept titans, Benazir Bhutto
and Nawaz Sharif? On these middle class guardians of the national
interest, the institutional argument is wholly lost.
Gen Musharraf's person is not the point. Although a dictator, he is a
relaxed person who has presided over a relatively benign dispensation.
The canard being spread by some Pakistani newspersons in the United
States that his regime is preparing to tighten the screws on the press
is based on no evidence. The press has been more free under Musharraf
than at any time during the last 40 years. While being critical of
what is wrong, we should not be stinted in our praise of what is
right.
Pakistan's predicament centres around the failure to preserve or
create enduring institutions. Every five or ten years we find our
political system derailed. Then we have to begin from the beginning,
preparing for a journey that never seems to start.
This is Pakistan's special curse, immobility, remaining fixed to the
same spot. Ayub's problems 40 years ago, those of Yahya and Zia later,
are the same problems which haunt Gen Musharraf today. How to acquire
the fig-leaf of democratic legality? How to hold 'safe' elections
without the outcome spinning out of control? How to make democratic
form co-exist with authoritarian substance? Times have changed, the
world has raced ahead, but Pakistan remains stuck in the past, the
same ghosts sitting at its table.
Not that Pakistan itself is a benighted place, condemned to confusion
and darkness. In many respects (the odd church incident
notwithstanding) we are better off than most countries around us,
including the country with which we compare ourselves the most: India.
There is poverty here but compare it with the poverty to be found in
India and Bangladesh and if we are not totally bereft of heart or
judgement we'll be grateful for the land we have, with all its
headaches and problems. We are carrying the burden of over two million
Afghans, many of whom have merged seamlessly into our society.
Bangladeshis come here to seek employment. And while millions of our
compatriots in their turn have gone abroad to seek greener pastures,
for them home will forever remain Pakistan.
If there be people who are inclined to question the genesis of
Pakistan, let them take a fresh look at the communal carnage in Indian
Gujarat. If anything puts fresh emphasis on the two-nation theory it
is the organized massacre of Muslims there.
Secularism is a concept bandied about by the Indian elite. It has done
nothing to eliminate the atavistic passions which lie close to the
surface of Indian life and which led Muslims to kill Hindus and Hindus
to kill Muslims at the time of partition in 1947. Of course there are
Muslims who have made it big in Indian cinema and the other arts. But
for every Ustad Amjad Ali Khan there are a thousand if not more
Muslims who live daily with the reality of communal animosity.
Leaders and intellectuals talk big. But their opinions do not affect
the passions of the mob or of the lumpen elements who make up the
crudity of any nation - western or eastern. More horrifying than the
images of the actual carnage in Gujarat were the faces of individuals
caught on camera spreading death and destruction. Study those images
carefully and you will be struck by their sub-human - or, if this be
too emotive a word, their under-class - quality, the dregs of humanity
intoxicated by a momentary feeling of power. If such passions are on
the loose, high-sounding ideals spouted by the elite classes make not
the slightest difference.
Every country has its sub-human categories. But where the weight of
civilization is heavy, these categories are kept in check and allowed
to vent their fury in beer-drinking, football and occasional
vandalism. India's misfortune is two-fold: (1) its veneer of
civilization is thin, and (2) given its numbers, it has the largest
lumpen population in the world. Hinduism and Hindutva are just
excuses. As long as that huge lumpen mass with its prejudices and
narrowness remains, any spark will start a fire.
So let us be grateful for the country we have. It is not
resource-rich, this being a myth we keep repeating, but it has a few
assets - principally, land, water and a people inured to privation and
hard labour. If put to good use these can enable us to stand up and,
in time, smash the begging bowl whose making has been thus far our
most striking achievement.
No, Pakistan is not a failed state. It is its leaders who have failed
it: a succession of figures who would not seem out of place in a
rogues' gallery.
The sad thing is that if Gen Musharraf's referendum idea is any guide,
our leaders still seem hell-bent on repeating history and putting a
fresh gloss on the disasters of the past.
nkdatta8839
Wednesday April 03, 2002-- Muharram 19, 1423 A.H.
Wanderers in wilderness
by M B Naqvi
mbn...@cyber.net.pk
Yet another March 23 came and went, abounding in meaningless clichés.
People, confused and uncertain, are endlessly wandering in a desolate
wasteland; they know not what to do. Some say elections are coming.
But people have no place in politics; only some politicians may
address public gatherings while the rest may speak through the press.
Friends of the government say personal freedoms of the silent majority
have not been circumscribed by the current military strongman. Yes,
that is so. Shouldn't the people be rewarded for their silence?
Controversy is raging about a referendum to be held to confer
legitimacy on Gen Pervez Musharraf's presidency two-and-a-half years
after having seized power. He intends to stay on in the top job for
five more years and there being no countervailing power, and with
America backing him, he will win. The referendum can only be a charade
with no one challenging, as the two previous ones by the peacetime
field marshal and that great soldier of Islam were. Did those 97 and
98 percent gave legitimacy to those generals? But even a legal fiction
of having won in a referendum will do.
There was excitement among some liberal minded that President
Musharraf would contain Islamic extremists and Taliban-supporting
sectarian terrorists. He spoke so eloquently and firmly. But look
around. Watch PTV and listen to Radio Pakistan. Notice who has been
released and who is being wooed? ARD may not hold a meeting at Mochi
Gate but JI chief can in Rawalpindi's traditional Company Bagh. Whose
help, in addition to the Like Minded worthies, is Musharraf seeking?
Well, isn't blood thicker than water? Aren't religious parties,
especially if they can be persuaded to wear the clothing of
moderation, the long-standing and 'natural' allies of the Army?
Free polls are said to be scheduled for October. Some say this tryst
with destiny will be kept; forget about procedural requirements.
Everything can be telescoped and procedures can be changed. What is
the big deal? Perhaps, but one had thought that, with the election of
the president not being involved in the outcome of the election, the
electoral exercise can afford to stick to regular procedures and be
actually transparent.
More so the president will have determined in the meantime the
political framework under which the polls will be held and under which
the new assemblies will have to function. In which case, how can it
matter which party or faction gets more seats in the National or
Provincial assemblies. It seems one was wrong. It does seem to matter
because the president and the new National Assembly have to coexist
and if the latter is dominated by difficult people, things can become
unpleasant.
The human rights are not being infringed too much, to be sure--except
their rights regarding engaging in politics. But even this limitation
is supposed to be withdrawn when full electioneering is allowed. Will
free electioneering be restored in all its implications? That depends
on the shape of the political framework after the political
engineering being done by the teams of Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada and
Gen Tanvir Naqvi and on the consensus between the president, as
advised by 12 uniformed wisemen, and the CEC. Why count the chickens
before they are hatched?
The question of tinkering with the Constitution is important. Many
want it to be venerated as the basic law that must remain inviolate,
which involves no individual tampering with it to suit his expediency.
Well, individuals have indulged in skulduggery with the Constitution.
But this is a reality.
To begin with, this benighted land has seen many a head of state,
playing ducks and drakes with both Constitution of the day and elected
governments and parliaments. These games began in 1953-54 have
continued at intervals since. After 1958 most heads of state rode out
of the GHQ on a white charger or the generals sometimes put a civilian
dummy on the presidential chair as has happened regularly since 1970s
except now when GHQ thought it best to take matters directly into its
own hands. Army chiefs never had any respect for Constitution or law
after what they saw Ghulam Mohammad and Iskandar Mirza do with
constitutions and parliaments. As Zia put it, Constitution is a book
of a few pages and he can tear it whenever he liked. He dictated
drastic amendments in it, which, under successive presidents, enabled
the Army chief to call all the shots without taking any responsibility
for his actions. This tally of five dismissed PMs and parliaments
reminds that the Army regards itself as Praetorian Guards, if not a
Regency.
That is Pakistan's Problem No 1. The tragedy is that the Army does not
trust the people to elect their sovereign governments. It usurped
power in the land long long ago; democratic interludes are only a
matter of its expediency, as in 1971 or 1988. On those occasions it
chose to go to the background, in one case to reconcile itself and in
the other to do backseat driving. By 1999 it was tired of pretending
to obey a civilian PM. Which is where we are.
Few can make the mistake of thinking that it will be satisfied with
anything less than its predetermined changes in the Constitution, with
a view to bringing in a civilian government that is obedient to the
president. How free the new government will be can be gauged by the
fact that President Musharraf has declared that he wants to remain in
office only to ensure that no future government can change his
"reforms". No matter how transparent the October polls may be, they
cannot usher in a government that can change Musharraf's policies.
Constitutional changes will ensure that. The Army is sure to get what
it wants.
What are democrats to do? They see around them politicians of various
hues demanding other changes in the Constitution. Most regional
nationalists say if Musharraf can impose Army-preferred amendments,
they too can propagate their chosen amendments of giving provinces
autonomy in terms of 1940 Pakistan Resolution. While Musharraf will
get what he wants, the others will wait for the time when they will
not be so powerless. Meantime they will make their ideas popular and
cultivate or create a countervailing power that will help them.
But this is on the assumption that no new factor will intervene to
affect the outcome. Well, elections generate new forces. In 1964, the
best-laid plans of Ayub Khan's Nauratans went awry and an ineluctable
new factor emerged. It is useless to talk of 1970 polls and how
dictator Yahya Khan was defeated in every field he fought. Times may
not have greatly changed in Pakistan, given its laid back populace.
But a spark often wakes them up. True, there is no certainty that such
a spark will occur.
This has made some "mellow" liberals to advocate realism. The Army is
there; it has all the power; it is useless to challenge it; and it is
sure to impose its will regarding Constitution, political system, even
perhaps personnel of the next government. Why remain perpetual
outsiders? Agree to the Army's terms and take what share of power is
proffered. It seems this advice is addressed to opposition parties and
certain purist individuals who have always been out in the wilderness.
It sounds ostensible in Pakistan's conditions.
Such seemingly independent advisors are not attorneys of powers that
be. It is true what the Army has offered, or can offer, is a share in
its power--for the sake of keeping the outside world off its back and
to keep the people distracted by appearances of so many offices being
open to their representatives. But can anyone guarantee that the share
offered by generals today will not be whittled down tomorrow, say
after another coup? Retreats can all too frequently become routes. A
respected intellectual has reviewed the national situation and come to
the conclusion that there is no option for the people of Pakistan but
to accept a partnership in power with the generals. It is inevitable.
If the people do not legitimise Gen Musharraf, dire things will happen
to him, to the people and to the state. If they refuse the offered
share in power, the generals will still carry on through their
stooges. But can the generals just carry on merrily without something
dire happening.
True, it seems so. But some say the mills of God grind slowly, but
when they do, they grind exceedingly fine. If so, the millstones are
the people who suffer. The generals in power too pay in two ways:
first, having blocked peaceful succession, they become vulnerable to
violent overthrow. Wasn't the father figure of Pak Army actually
overthrown by Yahya Khan? Wasn't Yahya Khan ousted by other generals?
As for Gen Zia, fate acted when Mirza Aslam Beg dared not do what had
become inevitable.
But this is nothing compared to what a military dictatorship does to
the state's unity, security and stability. Who disagrees now that the
cost of the successive rule by Iskandar Mirza, Ayub and Yahya Khans
was civil war, military defeat and dismemberment? The cost of Zia
years is all around us in the shape of a failed Afghan policy,
Klashnikov and heroin culture, high crime rates, sectarian terrorism
and multiple disunities and a threatened federation. The only reply
the people give to generals is a bad name after they are gone.
Occasionally, and only occasionally, have the people risen in what
looked like a slaves' revolt.
The social cost to Pakistan of a military regime has been steadily
rising. But given the generals' ability to see facts only during the
post-mortem of a tragedy. Think again about what is prudent for the
military, and what is necessary for the populace for which the former
leaves no active role. People can do little now. They are sure to be
overtaken by events before too long. Mills of God...
nkdatta8839
Saturday April 06, 2002-- Muharram 22, 1423 A.H.
Civilian jobs and military
Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi
h...@nexlinx.net.pk
[The writer is a renowned political and defence analyst. He holds PhD
in International Relations and Political Science from the University
of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at Columbia University, New York,
Heidelberg University, Germany, and the University of the Punjab,
Lahore]
The military has become a ladder for lucrative civilian jobs in almost
all states that have experienced the military's rise to power.
Pakistan is no exception. Ayub Khan adopted the policy of
accommodating senior military officers, mostly retired, in senior
civilian jobs with high salaries and perks in the government and
semi-government corporations or autonomous bodies. Some of them were
given ambassadorial appointments. The private sector also hired them
in order to make use of their connections with the government. In
1960, a system of their regular induction in the CSP cadre of federal
civil services was introduced. Fourteen Army and Navy officers were
inducted into the CSP during 1960-63; eight of them had had close
connections with the top echelons of the military. Though this
practice was terminated in 1963, contractual appointment and rehiring
of military personnel for government and semi-government jobs
continued.
Yayha Khan continued with the policy of appointing serving or retired
officers to senior civilian jobs and diplomatic positions. Zia-ul-Haq
distributed the rewards of power more consistently and extensively
because, unable to develop alternate source of support, his regime had
to rely heavily on the military. He institutionalised the induction of
military personnel to civilian jobs in a manner that the succeeding
civilian regimes could not reverse these policies. This has led to
what British Professor S E Finer describes as the "military
colonisation of other institutions" whereby "the military acts as a
reservoir or core of personnel for the sensitive institutions of the
state".
In 1980, a 10 per cent minimum quota was fixed for military personnel
in civilian jobs, which provided a basis for their induction into all
government and semi-government services. Three major methods are
adopted for appointment of military personnel to the civilian jobs.
First, a number of serving officers are given prize government jobs or
top assignments in semi-government corporations and agencies (i.e.
Wapda, PIA, National Shipping Corporation, Karachi Port Trust) for a
special period after which they return to their parent service.
Second, retired military officers are recommended by the service
headquarters to the government for re-employment. They are also given
diplomatic assignments abroad. At times, the governments on their own
appoint military officers to senior jobs, a practice discouraged by
service headquarters. For the lower level jobs, various government
departments and semi-government institutions are directed to make
arrangements for appointment of ex-service personnel by reserving some
posts for them or by giving them some credit for military service when
they compete with civilians. In case of the lowest and lower middle
level jobs (Service Grades 1 to 15), the government has periodically
increased quota for ex-servicemen. Third, young officers up to the age
of 32 years are inducted permanently in the elite cadres of the
Central Superior Services (CSS) on the recommendation of a military
selection board. They join the combined training of the CSS
probationers and get the advantage of their military service in
seniority; the service cadres generally preferred by them include
District Management Group (DMG), Foreign Service, and Police Service.
Since 1980, six to eleven officers are inducted every year under this
arrangement. A large number of them are blood relations of the senior
commanders or have served them as their ADCs. In a few cases,
connections with the privileged political elite have also helped. For
example, Nawaz Sharif's son-in-law, a Captain in the Army, was
inducted in the DMG. In 1985, a serving Major General was appointed
Director General of the Intelligence Bureau for the first time. In
1982-83, eighteen out of forty-two ambassadors posted abroad came from
the military. Two of the elite research institutes -- Strategic
Studies and Regional Studies -- have traditionally remained under the
tutelage of retired senior military officers or senior bureaucrats.
The third reputed institute -- Pakistan Institute of International
Affairs -- was headed by retired Major General for some time.
Six civilian universities had retired Army officers as their Vice
Chancellors. The University of Balochistan was headed by a retired
Brigadier in the eighties. In 2001, a retired Brigadier was appointed
Pro-Vice Chancellor of Balochistan University. A Major General served
as Vice Chancellor of Peshawar University for a brief period in 1993.
A Lt General worked as Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University in
1993-97. The government's plan to appoint another Lt General as his
successor was scuttled by the boycott threat of the faculty and
negative editorials in some newspapers. However, in September 1999,
the Punjab's civilian government appointed a retired Lt General as
Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University.
The PU faculty went on strike as protest against this appointment.
However, after the military assumed power by dislodging the civilian
government in October 12, 1999, the PU faculty had to call off the
strike. Several key administrative posts of the Punjab University are
also held by retired Army officers. A Lt. General was appointed Vice
Chancellor of the Engineering University, Lahore, in 1998. The Vice
Chancellor of Engineering University Peshawar, is also a retired
senior military officer. The Vice Chancellor of Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad, is both retired Army officer and former senior
bureaucrat. Some Brigadiers were given academic appointments in
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, in the eighties by changing the
university rules.
Civilian governments that succeeded the Zia rule continued with the
policy of inducting some retired officers to key civilian jobs, mostly
on the recommendation of service headquarters. In 1992-93, half of the
members of Federal Public Service Commission were Army officers and,
during 1995-96, three out of four provincial governors had Army
background. The practice of inducting serving and retired officers to
civilian intelligence agencies was strengthened during 1996-97. A plan
was prepared in 1997 to appoint Army officers between the ranks of
Captain and Colonel to the Police, the FIA and the IB. It was also
decided in 1998 to induct the retired personnel of the Special
Services Group (SSG) into the newly created 'Special Force' of the
Police Department. The second Nawaz government (1997-99) gave more
civilian assignments to the military than any previous civilian
government.
The present military regime has inducted more military (mainly Army)
to civilian assignments than any previous military government. Some
senior officers were retired prematurely to take up civilian/political
appointment while others got such appointments immediately after
retirement. A list of such appointments was published in News on March
29, 2002.
The Pakistan military authorities continued with the British practice
of allotment of agricultural land to service personnel as a reward for
military service. Military personnel were given land in the Thal area
under the colonisation scheme of the Punjab government. Similarly,
land was given to service personnel in various schemes in different
barrage areas in Sindh and the Punjab, i.e., Ghulam Mohammad, Gudu,
and Taunsa. The government gave land in Campbellpur, Jhelum, Kohat,
Rawalpindi and Hazara districts to local ex-servicemen who developed
this with the help of the Army.
Land was also allotted to them along India-Pakistan border in the
Punjab. The Government of the Punjab allotted about 450,000 acres of
land to 5,538 service personnel during 1977-1985. Agricultural land
was also awarded for gallantry. Various military decorations entitled
the officers or other ranks to land (later cash rewards). As late as
1992, the Punjab government admitted that some land was given under
the gallantry scheme. In Khanewal district alone, 19,342 kanals were
allotted to 150 retired and in-service army personnel. Agricultural
land was also allotted to the military personnel and bureaucrats in
Sindh.
A number of senior officers benefited from the military government's
decision to allow the Presidents, Governors, Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Committee, Chiefs and Vice Chiefs of the three
services to import one high priced luxury car each free of custom
duty, other taxes and surcharges. 27 Army offices (Generals 13 Lt.
Generals 10, Major Generals 2, Brigadiers 2), 10 Navy officers
(Admirals 7 Vice Admirals 3) and 6 Air Force officers (Air Chief
Marshals 4, Air Marshals 2) took advantage of this facility during
1977-1997. They are: The Army -- Generals: Mohammad Shariff, Mohammad
Iqbal Khan, Mohammad Musa, Tikka Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Rahimuddin Khan,
Sawar Khan, Akhtar Abdul Rahman, K M Arif, Mirza Aslam Beg, widow of
Asif Nawaz Janjua, Abdul Waheed Kaker, and Jehangir Karamat. Lt.
Generals: Fazle Haq, Ghulam Jilani Khan, S M Abbasi, Gul Hassan Khan,
Jahandad Khan, Abdul Hamid Khan, K.K. Afridi, Muhammad Iqbal,
Imranullah Khan, and Raja Saroop Khan. Major Generals: Khurshid Ali
Khan, and Abdur Rahman Khan (President Azad Kashmir). Brigadiers: Amir
Gulistan Janjua, and Sardar A. Rahim Durrani. The Navy -- Admirals:
Karamat Rahman Niazi, Mohammad Sharif, Tariq Kamal Khan, Iftikhar
Ahmed Sirohi, Yastural Haq Malik, Saeed Mohammad Khan, and Mansoorul
Haq. Vice Admirals: A.R. Khan, H.M.S. Choudri, and Muzaffar Hassan.
The Air Force -- Air Chief Marshals: Jamal Ahmed Khan, Hakimullah,
Farooq Feroze Khan, and Muhammad Abbas Khattak. Air Marshals: Nur Khan
and Rahim Khan. They invariably imported different models of Mercedes
Benz; custom duty and other taxes on such cars at the 1997 rates
ranged from six to ten million Rupees. In the post-martial law period,
some civilians also imported duty-free luxury cars. In September 1997,
the National Assembly revoked this facility. (Adapted from Military,
State and Society in Pakistan by Hasan Askari Rizvi, New York: St.
Martin's Press)
[The writer is a renowned political and defence analyst. He holds PhD
in International Relations and Political Science from the University
of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at Columbia University, New York,
Heidelberg University, Germany, and the University of the Punjab,
Lahore]
> by Aqil Shah
>
> [The author challenges the politicians and the educated elites to sit
> up and take notice of what the military is doing to the civil society]
>
> Ask any serving or retired member of the establishment or the state
> "priviligentsia," barring a few exceptions, about the
> causes of the 1965 War, the 1971 dismemberment of Pakistan and almost
> everything else that is wrong with Pakistan, and the three-word answer
> will be: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Ask them again about the reasons for the
> country's pathetic foreign image, its bankrupt coffers and the
> institutional decay that besets it and the answer invariably will be:
> Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif! Is it historical amnesia or an
> institutionalised attempt to scapegoat everything political? In all
> likelihood, it is the latter.
>
> The issue is not that politics is clean business. Far from it. In
> fact, it is the murky world of opportunistic give and take,
> compromise, shifting loyalties, corruption, backstabbing - all
> things disgusting to the "socially engineered" morality of
> the Pakistani urban-educated elite. But can the military deliver?
> Unfortunately, empirical evidence belies the notion that the
> military's simplistic view of Pakistan's growing crisis of
> governance, can, or has, fared better than the sham democracy or
> corrupt politicians. In fact, history bears witness to the unmitigated
> disasters that have visited Pakistan as a consequence of the
> military's ill-advised experiments with the political and
> constitutional edifice of this country. It is, therefore, critical to
> look at the history of the systematic defamation of Pakistan's
> first popularly elected leader, as well as those who followed him, to
> situate the current regime's manipulation of the political
> process in the broader context of a persistent praetorianism that
> abhors representative political rule.
>
> The establishment's unmistakable scapegoat, Z A Bhutto, for all
> his flaws, had for the first time successfully managed to shake a
> largely dormant society out of its political coma. People rose up to
> mount a challenge to the traditional hegemony of the civil-military
> bureaucracy and the landed elite. This alone was anathema to the
> garrison's view of how Pakistan should be governed. In one sweep
> of selective national amnesia, we have conveniently forgotten that the
> man was responsible for the release of 90, 000 Pakistani prisoners of
> war, for striking a bilateral agreement with India even as he was on a
> very weak wicket, and is singularly responsible for making Pakistan a
> nuclear-weapon state (a capability the Pakistan's military never
> tires of flaunting). Historical contestation and the flaws in
> Bhutto's subsequent stint in power notwithstanding, he did not
> single-handedly start the 1965 war, or instigate the
> "Bengalis" to secede. For how could a "bloody
> civilian" mess with what is rightfully the military's
> calling? Was Ayub Khan not a self-styled Field Marshal? Did he need Mr
> Bhutto's advice to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Indian
> Army or indeed required a politician's estimate of the likely
> response by the adversary to a military threat? And if he did, it is
> proof enough that generals in power tend to lose the ability to do the
> job they are required to do - guard the physical frontiers.
>
> Let's face it. Bhutto was an ambitious politician hungry for
> power - an occupational hazard - and was not averse to
> making statements that can be picked out of context and made the basis
> for running him down. He did that in 1971 also. But was that the cause
> of Bengali nationalism? Does anyone in their right mind think the
> downslide began because of those statements? Was it Bhutto who had
> forcefully excluded "downtrodden, hinduized" Bengalis from
> the spoils of political and administrative power for over two decades,
> driving them to separatism? Or was it the exclusionary, racist
> politics of a largely Punjabi military and bureaucratic establishment?
> Almost in the same vein, Kargil is blamed on Nawaz Sharif while
> Benazir Bhutto stands accused of handing over the names of Sikh
> separatists to New Delhi not to speak of the legendary tales of
> corruption spun at the expense of political society. None of them is
> an angel; but none of them is any different from politicians around
> the world, including those found next door, in the White House or on
> Capitol Hill. Visiting Americans scholars and officials do not tire of
> telling us what a bunch of jokers Pakistani politicians are. But the
> fact is that the Enron scandal itself is bigger and murkier in scale
> than anything the Bhutto-Nawaz duo could be accused of together.
>
> There is need for the Pakistani educated classes to seek answers to
> these and other crucial national issues and shake off the coma induced
> on our critical senses by a constant harping on the banality of
> politics through state-controlled media. It is against this backdrop
> that the military regime's campaign of defaming politicians has
> to be assessed. From the arm-twisting tactics of the NAB to the
> pathetic TV drama serials invoking the inherently "venal"
> image of the politician, beating it, recycling it in the public
> psyche, the military derives its political dominance of state and
> society, coupling it cleverly with an anti-India siege mentality. The
> images are then perpetuated through a clever dialectic of symbols,
> rituals, texts and the fiction of military bravado. All this is
> clearly part and parcel of Pakistan's political economy of
> martial rule, to borrow from Ayesha Jalal, not the rumblings of a few
> individuals.
>
> It is now up to the "political society" which has
> squandered the few opportunities given it to rectify this grossly
> self-serving reduction of political complexities. Hoping against all
> hope, let us see if this time round the country's politicos can
nkdatta8839
14 April 2002 Sunday 30 Muharram 1423
Letter To The Editor
If only he had believed in us
by ZAHID F. EBRAHIM, Karachi
To continue beyond the three-year term bestowed by the Supreme Court
of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf has called a referendum under
Article 48(6) of the Constitution.
Article 48(6) says that if "the President... considers that it is
desirable that any matter of national importance should be referred to
a referendum, the President may cause the matter to be referred to a
referendum in the form of a question that is capable of being answered
either by 'Yes' or 'No'." Even the most elementary student of the
Constitution knows that the 'yes' or 'no' answer in a referendum is
not for electing a President.
Under the Constitution, the only method of electing the President is
set forth in Article 41(3) which provides that "the President... shall
be elected in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule by
the members of an electoral college consisting of (a) the members of
both Houses; and (b) the members of the Provincial Assemblies."
Moreover, under the Constitution, a sitting COAS is even otherwise
disqualified from contesting the election for the office of the
President.
However, barring a few lawyers, students and journalists, no one
really is bothered by such legal necessities. As Ayaz Amir eloquently
writes in the Dawn of April 5: "Only fools will waste breath upon
legalities. General Musharraf's referendum has as much basis in the
Constitution as his coup d'etat. Lord of the jungle, it is up to him
whether he lay an egg or deliver a child."
I only wish General Musharraf had also realized the realities of Ayaz
Amir's last sentence instead of wasting valuable time and public money
in crying hoarse that the forthcoming referendum is constitutional. We
could have been spared the disturbing images of our man of hope,
wearing a commando's uniform but being introduced by convicts like
Tariq Aziz and being applauded by plunderers of the Zia era who packed
the front rows of his Lahore rally. We would have been spared the
distressing news reports that the police had to resort to baton charge
to ensure people did not leave the public rally before the President's
arrival.
General Musharraf would have done us all proud had he turned in his
uniform, rolled up his sleeves and contested a real election. The vast
majority of Pakistanis believed in the leadership of General Pervez
Musharraf, if only he too had believed in us.
nkdatta8839
MUSH & BUSH
Bush: Rrrring, rrrring.
Mush: "Thank you for calling GHQ. This is a recorded message.
I'm sorry but the entire General Staff are busy with Juma
prayers at the moment.
"If you are a foreign head of state and want our assistance,
please leave a message with your name, rank, serial number, country
and sum specifying the amount you are prepared to pay for our
services. If you are not a military dictator just leave your name,
country and the sum. As you know, we are the finest fighting force in
the entire world. We have fought three wars and won none. As soon as
we have sorted out India, finished our rounds of golf, grabbed enough
land in Defence Housing Authorities and in the rural areas and driven
the people of Pakistan into Paradise at the point of a bayonet, we
will return your call. Please speak after the tone, or if you require
more options, please listen to the following instructions: if you are
looking for Osama bin Laden, press 2 for the Tribal Areas Telephone
Exchange because that's probably where he is and our writ
doesn't run there as in the rest of Pakistan where we
can't do anything much either. If you require intelligence about
bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda, press 'hash' for
the ISI. Please note this service is not available after 1600 hrs or
at prayer times. If you are interested in selling more weapons to our
bloated arsenal, press 3, but if the weapons come without kickbacks
and commissions, don't bother. You may put the phone down. If
the weapons come with kickbacks and commissions, press 4, and you will
hear a recorded recitation of a numbered account where you will
deposit the money before we agree to buy your weapons. If you have any
other queries, please stay on line and your call will be transferred
to a megalomaniac retired general who thinks he knows it all. Have a
nice day".
Bush: What the!?!! Hello? Hello?
Mush: Oh hello, Mr President, I've just come into my office. I
hope you didn't get the answering machine.
Bush: I most certainly did. And I didn't enjoy it, I can tellya.
I'm mortified to learn that you're considering buying noo
weapons.
Mush: Certainly!
Bush: How're you gonna pay for them? With suitcases of hash?
Deficit spending? And you ain't cosyin' up to them fundos
again are ya?
Mush: Certainly not.
Bush: Cos if that's the case general, you should go far, and the
sooner you start the better!
==================================================================
==================================================================
===============================================================
===============================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
8 - 14 March, 2002
Indian military capability and Pakistan's concerns
by Ejaz Haider
==============================================
==============================================
==============================================
==============================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
=====================================================
=====================================================
garrison&'s view of how Pakistan should be governed. In one sweep
=====================================================
=====================================================
The News, Karachi, Pakistan
============================================
============================================
The Friday Times
18-24 January, 2002
===============================================
===============================================
==========================================
==========================================
=======================================================
=======================================================
nkdatta8839
The politics of corruption
by Aqil Shah
[The author says sustained institutional reforms require coalition
building and compromise, qualities unknown to the martial mind]
General Musharraf's state-subsidized referendum campaign carries
a distinct air of deja vu. His indefatigable capacity to discredit the
two mainstream political parties and its leaders for their moral
bankruptcy is nothing new. Harping on the theme of corruption of
politicians is a lesson khaki saviours learn very early on in their
careers. Whenever "divine sanction" necessitates that they
save Pakistan from inept civilians, the generals rarely tire of
systematically defaming politics to legitimize their rule. The
inevitable result has been a widespread, and now deeply embedded,
public perception that elected governments are inherently venal,
whereas military rule is clean.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no doubt that
corruption and misuse of official power had assumed phenomenal
proportions during elected rule in the 1990s. But corruption is by no
means limited to politics. State institutions in Pakistan, both civil
and military, are invariably afflicted by systematic corruption at all
levels.
The military gets a lion's share of the national budget which is
conveniently excluded from public oversight under the garb of national
security considerations. Press reports in the last few years have
blown the lid on massive corruption in defence deals, besides
revealing the financial rot within army-run organizations like the
Army Welfare Trust. These and other widely reported incidents of
corruption and mismanagement provide ample proof of the
military's managerial inefficiency as well as the myth of its
honesty.
The pathology of political corruption goes back to General Zia, who
generously doled out state largesse to members of the provincial and
national assemblies to keep politics under his firm control. Nawaz
Sharif's meteoric rise to industrial stardom through the 1980s
too was the handiwork of the garrison. His blatant money politics and
open defiance of the PPP central government as chief minister of
Punjab under khaki auspices, the ISI's now established role in
financing the IJI in the 1988 elections, and the NAB's
witch-hunts are but a few indications of the military's
purported "holiness."
The corruption card has been the military's time-tested alibi
for removing non-compliant elected governments. Zia used it against
Junejo, a politician with an impeccable reputation, after the latter
tried to assert his prime ministerial authority, differing with his
mentor on the Geneva accords and ordering an inquiry into the Ojhri
Camp disaster. Benazir Bhutto's removal from power in 1990 as
well as Nawaz Sharif's last ouster were hardly motivated by the
love of the country either. The overriding concern was to protect the
army's jealously guarded internal autonomy and corporate
interests.
For over fifty years, the military establishment's misdirected
national security policies have largely determined the priorities of
government in Pakistan. Pakistan's worst political and military
failures too have occurred under the military, not
"rotten" politicians. Shifting blame to the poor quality
of the political leadership almost instinctively, the military has
often used the perverse logic of saving democracy by destroying it,
then reconstructing it in its own image. If only the country's
political realities were as monolithic as the pristine simplicity of
running a military unit, the military would have cleansed our
political and administrative mess several decades ago. But with each
intervention, the garrison has only further aggravated
Pakistan's social and political fragmentation. Pakistan's
depressing political history shows clearly that generals, and
Musharraf is no exception, once in power have a notorious tendency to
develop their own political designs and hang onto power ad nauseaum to
the clear detriment of civilian authority. Military rulers,
desperately seeking political legitimacy, have used pro-military
political and sectarian forces to suppress the moderate political
opposition, thereby creating new political divisions in society.
Let's not delude ourselves. Countries around the world are
afflicted by varying levels of political corruption. Some of the most
dynamic economies of the world including the US, South Korea, Japan
and Germany have had recent scandals involving the heads of state. But
institutional checks and balances, as well as civil and political
liberties, evolved over a long time, ensure that no public figure is
let off the hook easily. It should be clear to General Musharraf that
deriding Bhutto or Sharif will achieve little. Zia's relentless
efforts to undermine the PPP for almost eleven years didn't
really pay off. It was eleven years of "sham" democracy
during which the corruption of elected leaders, from both the PPP and
PML-N, was exposed, whetting the public appetite for frying the big
fish. Only a political process can cleanse politics, not the martial
logic of "liquidating the enemy.'
Unfortunately for Pakistan, the reigns of power are firmly in the
hands of an institution that is smug in the self-serving belief that
it enjoys a virtual monopoly over what is best for Pakistan. General
Musharraf's recent public statements leave little doubt that
absolute authoritarian power can lead to blinding arrogance. In the
long run, this is a recipe for disaster.
Pakistan's educated elite and the international community should
make no mistake in recognizing that sole reliance on the
general's presumably noble intentions is a poor substitute for a
representative political system, however imperfect, in a country
engaged in a dangerous conflict with a nuclear armed rival several
time its size.
Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
it is self-evident that Pakistan's stability as well as any
chances of meaningful structural reforms rest on an uninterrupted
political process. Sustained institutional reforms require coalition
building and compromise, qualities unknown to the martial mind. It is
the interplay, though often conflictual, between the governing and
opposition parties, that tends to set the ‘rules of the
game,' thereby making the institutionalization of tolerance and
other democratic rights possible.
Arindam Banerjee
> The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
> April 26 - May 2, 2002
>
> The politics of corruption
> by Aqil Shah
>
> [The author says sustained institutional reforms require coalition
> building and compromise, qualities unknown to the martial mind]
>
> General Musharraf's state-subsidized referendum campaign carries
> a distinct air of deja vu. His indefatigable capacity to discredit the
> two mainstream political parties and its leaders for their moral
> bankruptcy is nothing new. Harping on the theme of corruption of
> politicians is a lesson khaki saviours learn very early on in their
> careers. Whenever "divine sanction" necessitates that they
> save Pakistan from inept civilians, the generals rarely tire of
> systematically defaming politics to legitimize their rule. The
> inevitable result has been a widespread, and now deeply embedded,
> public perception that elected governments are inherently venal,
> whereas military rule is clean.
So what was clean about any elected government in Pakistan? Whether
Bhutto or his daughter, they were never free from taint. With such
politicians in power, they had to be more anti-Indian, just to please
the people. Hopefully a military ruler will be more self-confident,
and not depend upon rabble-rousing to stay in power.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no doubt that
> corruption and misuse of official power had assumed phenomenal
> proportions during elected rule in the 1990s. But corruption is by no
> means limited to politics. State institutions in Pakistan, both civil
> and military, are invariably afflicted by systematic corruption at all
> levels.
So what was the point of creating Pakistan, if it only lead to
corruption and nothing else? Looks like Western secular democracy is
not suitable for Pakistan.
> The military gets a lion's share of the national budget which is
> conveniently excluded from public oversight under the garb of national
> security considerations. Press reports in the last few years have
> blown the lid on massive corruption in defence deals, besides
> revealing the financial rot within army-run organizations like the
> Army Welfare Trust. These and other widely reported incidents of
> corruption and mismanagement provide ample proof of the
> military's managerial inefficiency as well as the myth of its
> honesty.
Bad news. So how does anyone control the military? The short answer
is that throughout Islamic history, there has been no difference
between political, military and theological power. They were all in
the scope of the ruler, who could be removed only by assassination,
overthrow or decease. When Gen M declares himself to be the supreme
theological ruler (in addition to being the military and political
boss) he will be the leader of a truly Islamic state. At the moment,
he has got 2/3.
> The pathology of political corruption goes back to General Zia, who
> generously doled out state largesse to members of the provincial and
> national assemblies to keep politics under his firm control.
Yes, but under Zia we did not have any war with Pakistan. The moment
politicians are in power, they have the tendency to use their armed
forces to attack India. Bhutto was responsible for both 1965 and
1971, and Nawaz Sharif was there for Kargil. The main problem is, the
politicians have to pander to the anti-Indian prejudice to remain in
power. The military does not have to do that, and unless Pakistani
politicians and the Pakistani public become more responsible, Indians
should support the Pakistani Army Rule.
> Nawaz
> Sharif's meteoric rise to industrial stardom through the 1980s
> too was the handiwork of the garrison. His blatant money politics and
> open defiance of the PPP central government as chief minister of
> Punjab under khaki auspices, the ISI's now established role in
> financing the IJI in the 1988 elections, and the NAB's
> witch-hunts are but a few indications of the military's
> purported "holiness."
The military is at least more secular in its orientation, and that
could be the saving for Pakistan. Make it more like Turkey.
> The corruption card has been the military's time-tested alibi
> for removing non-compliant elected governments. Zia used it against
> Junejo, a politician with an impeccable reputation, after the latter
> tried to assert his prime ministerial authority, differing with his
> mentor on the Geneva accords and ordering an inquiry into the Ojhri
> Camp disaster. Benazir Bhutto's removal from power in 1990 as
> well as Nawaz Sharif's last ouster were hardly motivated by the
> love of the country either. The overriding concern was to protect the
> army's jealously guarded internal autonomy and corporate
> interests.
Let them run their interests efficiently, in co-operation with Indian
interests. Why should anyone bother about the lying and corrupt
Pakistani politicians?
> For over fifty years, the military establishment's misdirected
> national security policies have largely determined the priorities of
> government in Pakistan. Pakistan's worst political and military
> failures too have occurred under the military, not
> "rotten" politicians.
But Pakistani politicians are very rotten. They are rotten to the
core. They lie about India, they pander to the basest feelings of
Pakistanis, and as the Pakistanis themselves say, they are corrupt and
selfish to the core.
> Shifting blame to the poor quality
> of the political leadership almost instinctively, the military has
> often used the perverse logic of saving democracy by destroying it,
> then reconstructing it in its own image. If only the country's
> political realities were as monolithic as the pristine simplicity of
> running a military unit, the military would have cleansed our
> political and administrative mess several decades ago.
They should have done that, if they were really Islamic. There is
nothing secular, modern, or progressive about Islam. They are
religious, time and custom fixed and dogmatic. And while they do
stress upon equality and democracy, in practice that amounts to mere
disorganisation under absolute despotism.
If they want to be Islamic, they should be Islamic. They should be
ruled by an absolute despot who does not care a hoot about Westminster
principles.
> But with each
> intervention, the garrison has only further aggravated
> Pakistan's social and political fragmentation. Pakistan's
> depressing political history shows clearly that generals, and
> Musharraf is no exception,
Gen M is not corrupt, as such standards go in Pakistan.
> once in power have a notorious tendency to
> develop their own political designs and hang onto power ad nauseaum to
> the clear detriment of civilian authority. Military rulers,
> desperately seeking political legitimacy, have used pro-military
> political and sectarian forces to suppress the moderate political
> opposition, thereby creating new political divisions in society.
No need for that, if they have the courage to be totally Islamic and
go in for absolute despotism over the masses. They will succeed, so
long as they follow the true spirit and not the letter of Islam.
Maybe they can even provide a worthy alternative to the modern
democratic political systems.
> Let's not delude ourselves. Countries around the world are
> afflicted by varying levels of political corruption. Some of the most
> dynamic economies of the world including the US, South Korea, Japan
> and Germany have had recent scandals involving the heads of state. But
> institutional checks and balances, as well as civil and political
> liberties, evolved over a long time,
If we are talking of time, absolute despotism existed for much longer
periods of time than modern institutional checks and balances.
> ensure that no public figure is
> let off the hook easily. It should be clear to General Musharraf that
> deriding Bhutto or Sharif will achieve little. Zia's relentless
> efforts to undermine the PPP for almost eleven years didn't
> really pay off. It was eleven years of "sham" democracy
> during which the corruption of elected leaders, from both the PPP and
> PML-N, was exposed, whetting the public appetite for frying the big
> fish. Only a political process can cleanse politics, not the martial
> logic of "liquidating the enemy.'
Quite, so let us see Mushy become the head mullah of Pakistan as well
as head of everything. Let us see what happens, so long as he is
allowed to have a head.
> Unfortunately for Pakistan, the reigns of power are firmly in the
> hands of an institution that is smug in the self-serving belief that
> it enjoys a virtual monopoly over what is best for Pakistan.
Well, what's bad about that? Any ruling entity enjoys monopoly over
what is best for what it rules.
> General
> Musharraf's recent public statements leave little doubt that
> absolute authoritarian power can lead to blinding arrogance. In the
> long run, this is a recipe for disaster.
What could be more disastrous than Pakistan under various Bhuttos?
What did the subcontinent get from Pakistani politicians other than
lies and wars? Who talked about fighting for a thousand years -
Bhutto or any Pakistani general?
> Pakistan's educated elite and the international community should
> make no mistake in recognizing that sole reliance on the
> general's presumably noble intentions is a poor substitute for a
> representative political system, however imperfect, in a country
> engaged in a dangerous conflict with a nuclear armed rival several
> time its size.
Their representative political system, being thereby representative of
stupid and ignorant fanatics fed on a diet of unreason and wrong
expectation, must always be far worse than mere imperfection. Only
benevolent absolute dicatorship can do lasting good for Pakistan, by
improving the mental and moral quality of the people of Pakistan.
> Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
Rubbish - the military has kept Pakistan afloat. Without the
military, Pakistan would have been swallowed up by India, or broken up
into a number of smaller states.
> it is self-evident that Pakistan's stability as well as any
> chances of meaningful structural reforms rest on an uninterrupted
> political process. Sustained institutional reforms require coalition
> building and compromise, qualities unknown to the martial mind. It is
> the interplay, though often conflictual, between the governing and
> opposition parties, that tends to set the ‘rules of the
> game,' thereby making the institutionalization of tolerance and
> other democratic rights possible.
It is not self-evident. We do not want uninterrupted political
processes by total scum in the subcontinent, we want uninterrupted
principled processes by capable people. Proper institutionalised
reforms require principles, not politics (lying and thieving and
swindling, that is).
Arindam Banerjee
mystic_rajan
>
> Their representative political system, being thereby representative of
> stupid and ignorant fanatics fed on a diet of unreason and wrong
> expectation, must always be far worse than mere imperfection. Only
> benevolent absolute dicatorship can do lasting good for Pakistan, by
> improving the mental and moral quality of the people of Pakistan.
>
> > Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
>
> Rubbish - the military has kept Pakistan afloat. Without the
> military, Pakistan would have been swallowed up by India, or broken up
> into a number of smaller states.
The primary role of a country's army is to prevent the
swallowing up of the country by foreign powers. This is
what the military is for. I won't give too much credit to
Pakistan's army for this.
However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
up Pakistan.
In my view, the issue is not of mere military conquest
of Pakistan. That is the easier part. The more important
question is how India administers Pakistan after it's
conquered.
Would Pakistan provinces become Indian states
with as much rights as the existing Indian states enjoy
or would Pakistan - the most precious jewel in India's
crown - be governed by Indian Parliament through a Governor
General?
As an aside -- what would the victorious Indian army do
with the unused nuclear weapons of Pakistan? Would they
be disposed off or would they be brought to the Indian
ammunition dumps for use during future conquests? I am
sure the international community will be quite worried
about them falling into the wrong hands.
>
> Arindam Banerjee
nkdatta8839
26 April 2002 Friday 12 Safar 1423
Military pretensions & middle class illusions
By Ayaz Amir
I have nothing against dictatorship. In fact in front of my bathroom
mirror I am a bit of a dictator myself, trying to look like a Caesar
about to address the Senate or walk into the Forum.
What gets my goat, and indeed would get the goat of anyone in his
right senses, is the tinpot variety which has flourished in these
parts for so long and which received a fresh lease of life when the
tides of history swept us into the Musharraf era.
Every time a strutting Napoleon comes on the Pakistani stage there is
no shortage of people who applaud him. Not only the usual flatterers
who pay homage to power no matter what its colour but also decent
people who are bamboozled into thinking that reform and redemption are
finally at hand. In the fullness of time these patriots stand
disillusioned but not before they have done their bit to confuse the
national landscape.
So we need to get certain things straight and the first is that the
army is a deeply conservative institution without the capacity or the
vision to carry out any kind of political reform. It is not a question
of this or that individual. Apart from the sly Zia, most of our
military autocrats have been convivial figures fond of a tipple in the
evenings. But what of that? It is their political wisdom and ability
we are talking about. In this they were woefully deficient for their
alma mater, the military, was never fertile soil for the nurturing of
these qualities.
Nor was this any great loss because democracy and political liberalism
were ideas we inherited from our colonial experience (let us never
forget this debt). Our armies therefore were under no necessity to
play the role of political and social reformers. Indeed the British
saw to it that the army and bureaucracy stuck to their professional
jobs and kept away from politics, a tradition largely preserved in
India but knocked to bits in the great halls of the Islamic Republic.
But despite repeated political interventions the army remains a
prisoner of its limitations. Whatever its pretensions, it is not
equipped to clean the political stables. Each intervention has
aggravated the country's problems. Each strongman has left a greater
mess behind him. But strangely enough, instead of being chastened by
this experience, the army's confidence in its ability to fix things it
knows little about has grown in proportion to the extent of its
failures.
Yes, the nineties were no golden period in the country's history. Yes,
Benazir and Nawaz made a hash of things. But this is a justification
for more democracy, for elections at regular intervals to turf out the
crooked and the incompetent. This is no argument for military rule. In
any case, Gen Musharraf came riding into the arena not to save the
country. The reasons for his coup, as we all know, were altogether
different.
Of course the argument can be made that whatever the original impulse
behind the coup, Musharraf must be judged on his subsequent
performance. True enough, but falsehood and flattery apart, to what
miracles over the last two and a half years can his government lay
claim? Do we have better schools and colleges, better hospitals? Does
the national administration run more smoothly? Has our quality of life
improved? Are we richer in pocket, with more to spend? Have our famous
courts become founts of justice? Is the promised kingdom near at hand?
Yes, the country's foreign exchange reserves have grown. Tremendous
news but can we move on to the next item please? The nation is going
deaf with the drum-beating that is accompanying the referendum. But
beneath the din what's the substance? What can this military
government truly claim as its own?
The one radical thing it has done was the rapid switch to the American
camp after September 11. We have proved America's most dutiful ally,
providing airbases for attacks on Afghanistan, surrendering the
surveillance sovereignty of our airports to prying American eyes,
catching Afghans and Arabs and delivering them over to Guantanamo
justice, and allowing the FBI a free run of the country. But strange
that not much has been heard of these achievements in the referendum
speeches. Is there then a shamefaced quality to these wages which
makes us thus reluctant to trumpet them?
So the question is not about dictatorship but about a dictatorship
which has precious little to show for itself. This is the greatest
argument against militarism Pakistani style. It has never delivered in
the past, bringing only ruin to the country. It cannot deliver
anything now or in the future not because sincerity and good
intentions will be lacking but because the military, even with all the
goodwill in the world, can give us a Burmese or an Indonesian
Pakistan. It cannot lay the foundations of national growth and
renewal. The sooner we take this lesson to heart the better for our
collective sanity.
Time was when during the Zia era the religious right sided with the
army, considering it to be the key to national salvation. Having
learnt their lesson the maulvis are singing a different tune. It is
the turn of the liberati and the English-speaking chattering classes
to be enamoured of the military solution as the means to rid Pakistan
of its evils.
True, some of the more sensitive of the liberati have professed to be
shocked by the referendum and the organisational excesses accompanying
it. They feel the hero whom they had earlier extolled to the skies has
somehow betrayed them. My friend Irfan Hussain of this very newspaper
is a case in point. He has announced that he will not be voting for
the President which I am sure is a serious blow to the Musharraf camp.
But others of the same persuasion are still issuing certificates of
approval--'he means well', being the most common--to the object of
their undiminished admiration. Which leads one to conclude that it
will be some time before the education of the liberati is complete and
they too come round to where Pakistan's maulvis stand, licking their
shattered illusions.
Musharraf has betrayed no one, least of all the liberati. He is hewn
from the same rock as his predecessors. If the liberati chose to
invest him with qualities that never existed, it is not the General
who is to be blamed. It's his drum-beating admirers who got it wrong.
Just as they are getting it wrong about the strange political theories
now circulating in the country. Who ever heard of a balance between
the powers of the president, the prime minister and the chief of army
staff? What has the army chief to do in this tripod?
Far from showing Gen Musharraf in a favourable light, the layers of
constitutional protection he is seeking make him look weak as if he
walks in dread of the future. Macbeth was not so much in awe of
Banquo's ghost as Gen Musharraf seems to be of the dwindled spectres
of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif? What is he afraid of? What is he
seeking to protect, his so-called 'reforms' or his impressive person
in commando uniform?
The referendum has reopened settled wounds. The people of Pakistan
were resigned to a Musharraf presidency. No one had consulted their
wishes when Musharraf and his generals seized power. They wouldn't
have considered it amiss if they were not consulted about the future.
But far from being a consultation, the referendum is an act of double
homage. Not only are the people of Pakistan being asked to acquiesce
in a Musharraf presidency, which they have already done, but also to
go a step further and applaud it. This amounts to insulting their
intelligence, a risk that need not have been taken.
kgazi
itself wriggles with worms of corruption, vote-rigging and criminally
accused party-leaders (like Benazir and Nawaz). Democracy worked in USA and
other nations, with a big promise from the very onset of their constitution.
But here, after 52 years of flirting around with "democracy" and "military
rule" - when will the consummation to democracy really occur??? after
another 52 years??? Before TRUE democracy really matures itself - does the
nation have the luxury to wait that long - or will it turn into another
desert before? Musharraf's promise has been to reduce that time to near
future, after the nation recovers from its current calamity - so that "a
true democracy" may be ensued when he leaves.
The writer asks "What is [Musharraf] afraid of? What is he seeking to
protect, his so-called 'reforms' or his impressive person in commando
uniform?" and I believe the answer is quite clear - he is probably assured
that a free reign in election would result in a repeat victory of Benazir or
Nawaz !! - the same individuals who sucked the nation dry not once but
twice. The popularity of dynasty-politics of the region, in any election
(rigged or not) will result in the SELECTION of Benazir or Nawaz - and if
"elections at regular intervals to turf out the crooked and the incompetent"
are to be held - then these twice-deposed accused individuals must somehow
be disqualified, so that they do not re-enter the much-hailed drum-beats of
"democracy", after the people (innocently) elect them again!!
It doesnt matter whether the ruler is military or civilian - each has to be
judged by his own merit, esp when the nation is desperate for honest
leadership, and economic/leadership crisis. The writer questions Musharraf's
achievemnts but not Benazir and Nawaz's - one cannot be so blind for
"democracy" that corrupt thiefdom must be prefered. Referendum or not - my
suggestion to Musharraf will be to have full elections in October - but with
Nawaz and Benazir withdrawn for criminal charges.
"nkdatta8839" <nkdat...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:c62ede76.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Military pretensions & middle class illusions
> By Ayaz Amir
.....
> Yes, the nineties were no golden period in the country's history. Yes,
> Benazir and Nawaz made a hash of things. But this is a justification
> for more democracy, for elections at regular intervals to turf out the
> crooked and the incompetent. This is no argument for military rule. In
> any case, Gen Musharraf came riding into the arena not to save the
> country. The reasons for his coup, as we all know, were altogether
> different.
> .......
kgazi
itself wriggles with worms of corruption, vote-rigging and criminally
accused party-leaders (like Benazir and Nawaz). Democracy worked in USA and
other nations, with a big promise from the very onset of their constitution.
But here, after 52 years of flirting around with "democracy" and "military
rule" - when will the consummation to democracy really occur??? after
another 52 years??? Before TRUE democracy really matures itself - does the
nation have the luxury to wait that long - or will it turn into another
desert before? Musharraf's promise has been to reduce that time to near
future, after the nation recovers from its current calamity - so that "a
true democracy" may be ensued when he leaves.
The writer asks "What is [Musharraf] afraid of? What is he seeking to
protect, his so-called 'reforms' or his impressive person in commando
uniform?" and I believe the answer is quite clear - he is probably assured
that a free reign in election would result in a repeat victory of Benazir or
Nawaz !! - the same individuals who sucked the nation dry not once but
twice. The popularity of dynasty-politics of the region, in any election
(rigged or not) will result in the SELECTION of Benazir or Nawaz - and if
"elections at regular intervals to turf out the crooked and the incompetent"
are to be held - then these twice-deposed accused individuals must somehow
be disqualified, so that they do not re-enter the much-hailed drum-beats of
"democracy", after the people (innocently) elect them again!!
It doesnt matter whether the ruler is military or civilian - each has to be
judged by his own merit, esp when the nation is desperate for honest
leadership, and economic/leadership crisis. The writer questions Musharraf's
achievemnts but not Benazir and Nawaz's - one cannot be so blind for
"democracy" that corrupt thiefdom must be prefered. Referendum or not - my
suggestion to Musharraf will be to have full elections in October - but with
Nawaz and Benazir withdrawn for criminal charges.
"nkdatta8839" <nkdat...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:c62ede76.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Military pretensions & middle class illusions
> By Ayaz Amir
.....
> Yes, the nineties were no golden period in the country's history. Yes,
> Benazir and Nawaz made a hash of things. But this is a justification
> for more democracy, for elections at regular intervals to turf out the
> crooked and the incompetent. This is no argument for military rule. In
> any case, Gen Musharraf came riding into the arena not to save the
> country. The reasons for his coup, as we all know, were altogether
> different.
> .......
M. Ranjit Mathews
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote ...
> >
> > Their representative political system, being thereby representative of
> > stupid and ignorant fanatics fed on a diet of unreason and wrong
> > expectation, must always be far worse than mere imperfection. Only
> > benevolent absolute dicatorship can do lasting good for Pakistan, by
> > improving the mental and moral quality of the people of Pakistan.
> >
> > > Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
> >
> > Rubbish - the military has kept Pakistan afloat. Without the
> > military, Pakistan would have been swallowed up by India, or broken up
> > into a number of smaller states.
>
> The primary role of a country's army is to prevent the
> swallowing up of the country by foreign powers. This is
> what the military is for. I won't give too much credit to
> Pakistan's army for this.
>
> However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> up Pakistan.
>
> In my view, the issue is not of mere military conquest
> of Pakistan. That is the easier part. The more important
> question is how India administers Pakistan after it's
> conquered.
>
> Would Pakistan provinces become Indian states
West Punjab and the NorthWest frontier excluding Kashmir would become
Khalistan, ruled by Maharaja Mystic Singh. Karachi would become the
Union territory of Muhajiristan, governed by Altaf Hussein. Other
parts would become states of India.
> with as much rights as the existing Indian states enjoy
In Khalistan, it would depend on what rights Maharaja Mystic Singh is
capable of instituting in Khalistan. In other parts, it is left to be
seen.
> or would Pakistan - the most precious jewel in India's
> crown - be governed by Indian Parliament through a Governor
> General?
> As an aside -- what would the victorious Indian army do
> with the unused nuclear weapons of Pakistan? Would they
> be disposed off or would they be brought to the Indian
> ammunition dumps for use during future conquests? I am
> sure the international community will be quite worried
> about them falling into the wrong hands.
They would return these arms to China, or more precisely, to Uighurs
in Xinjiang.
Gulshan Khan
dreaming of a dragon....
On 26 Apr 2002 16:52:16 -0700, ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit
Nusrat Rizvi
wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee
Unfortunately the Dumb Bunyas in New Delhi have already decided that
it is in the best interest of India that Pakistan remain a viable
country. The morons in New Delhi fear that a further break up of
Pakistan would only invite more anarchy, India therefore can not
afford anymore Somalia or Afghanistan.
Nusrat Rizvi
wrote:
>Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
>dreaming of a dragon....
Are you Paindoos in control of your biggest city, Karachi?
Gulshan Khan
<rizv...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:20:08 -0400, Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
>>dreaming of a dragon....
>
>Are you Paindoos in control of your biggest city, Karachi?
>
Still Hallucinating pimp boy!! Why, are u itching for more killings of
ur type.
Gulshan Khan
Retard like you could have put it simply "angoor khatey hain"
SmoothLander
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:20:08 -0400, Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
> >dreaming of a dragon....
>
I dont see a 700,000 army presence trying to control it do you ??????
koolfire_ro
> Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
> dreaming of a dragon....
hey mr dragon...where is east pakistan which was left in your
care...dont act like apaper dragon.
Gulshan Khan
wrote:
>Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com> wrote in message news:<q4vjcu0nrsvajjv5i...@4ax.com>...
>> Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
>> dreaming of a dragon....
>
>
>hey mr dragon...where is east pakistan which was left in your
>care...dont act like apaper dragon.
>
heheh what happened to Akhand BahRAT you dumb pimp
DarkFire666
Akhand Bharat IS a concept. Pakistan WAS a nation...(Now it's called
"West Pakistan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
koolfire_ro
chuthia madherchod no wonder you are only fit for pimping for your
mum/wife/sis.how about letting me hump them in a row.
SmoothLander
> Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com> wrote in message news:<q4vjcu0nrsvajjv5i...@4ax.com>...
> > Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
> > dreaming of a dragon....
> hey mr dragon...where is east pakistan which was left in your
> care...dont act like apaper dragon.
so what is stopping you to repeat your performance of '71.
Ar'nt affairs of Kashmir ample reason for India to declare war on
Pakistan ?
It is not 1971 today is it, you may not admit so but your army sure
does. It very well Know its limit. thats why it is sitting on Border,
because thats all the courage it can muster up to face pakistan. Same
was true for Kargill.
Pakistan had declared a war, moved its infantry inside India, Yet
India sat inside its border and adopted a defensive position. It was
only when vajpayee "begged" Clinton and clinton mediated that Pak
withdrew. Same was the position in 1962. Nehru "Begged" president
kennedy to bomb China . China after
humiliating india withdrew.
Arindam Banerjee
"mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
>
> >
> > Their representative political system, being thereby representative of
> > stupid and ignorant fanatics fed on a diet of unreason and wrong
> > expectation, must always be far worse than mere imperfection. Only
> > benevolent absolute dicatorship can do lasting good for Pakistan, by
> > improving the mental and moral quality of the people of Pakistan.
> >
> > > Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
> >
> > Rubbish - the military has kept Pakistan afloat. Without the
> > military, Pakistan would have been swallowed up by India, or broken up
> > into a number of smaller states.
>
> The primary role of a country's army is to prevent the
> swallowing up of the country by foreign powers. This is
> what the military is for. I won't give too much credit to
> Pakistan's army for this.
Okay, they lost the Eastern half, but the Western part is still intact.
> However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> up Pakistan.
To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis. Good
conditions in Pakistan will improve conditions in India, and bad conditions
in Pakistan will worsen conditions in India. The question of swallowing up
Pakistan only arises when misery there becomes of such a high order that
political
change enforced from outside becomes a moral imperative.
> In my view, the issue is not of mere military conquest
> of Pakistan. That is the easier part. The more important
> question is how India administers Pakistan after it's
> conquered.
It is not a question of conquering - it is a question of responding to
requests
for assistance in managing their affairs. Military conquests are so
old-fashioned.
> Would Pakistan provinces become Indian states
> with as much rights as the existing Indian states enjoy
> or would Pakistan - the most precious jewel in India's
> crown - be governed by Indian Parliament through a Governor
> General?
If the colonial vision is so employed, Pakistan will then be not the most
precious jewel but the biggest and most expensive pain in the wrong
part of the body.
> As an aside -- what would the victorious Indian army do
> with the unused nuclear weapons of Pakistan?
Dismantle them, I should think. And use the uranium for peaceful purposes.
> Would they
> be disposed off or would they be brought to the Indian
> ammunition dumps for use during future conquests? I am
> sure the international community will be quite worried
> about them falling into the wrong hands.
No doubt.
Arindam Banerjee
Habshi
ALL peaks and was about to cross the border when Sharif rushed to
Clinton uninvited and begged him to order him to withdraw so
Pakistan's defeat would not be noticed . It was the Pakistani cabinet
and generals who were shown glum face two weeks into the war and the
Indians who were smiling .
In fact Gen Mush had said Pakistan will not withdraw and then
did . Why not try it again ?
On 28 Apr 2002 06:50:26 -0700, chal...@yahoo.com (SmoothLander)
wrote:
Gulshan Khan
wrote:
>r_man...@hotmail.com (koolfire_ro) wrote in message news:<d53283dc.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>> Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com> wrote in message news:<q4vjcu0nrsvajjv5i...@4ax.com>...
>> > Pigs do fly!! Only in India............. can't control tiny IOK but
>> > dreaming of a dragon....
>
>
>> hey mr dragon...where is east pakistan which was left in your
>> care...dont act like apaper dragon.
>
>so what is stopping you to repeat your performance of '71.
>Ar'nt affairs of Kashmir ample reason for India to declare war on
>Pakistan ?
Without Bengalis and Russkie masters its another wet dream.
koolfire_ro
the same question is what you should be asking yourself,if you feel
kashmmir should go to you,and you know we will never part with it,so
go and get it,india is not asking for some land from yu...yu want it
yu have to fight for it...you have been asking for dialogue for at
anytime,anylevel at any place...the answer will be the same,go fly a
kite anywhere at anylevel and at anyplace....yeah yeah paki declared
war and moved to kargill....it was your ex pm of paki, who went to usa
crying at white house which we saw, or which the world saw...you came
up with moral support story, and never took back bodies of nli men
still rotting in india somewhere.....maybe you should go and ask nawaz
sheriff what he is doing in exile in saudi arabia....hehehe you want
us to believe he was exiled because he won kargil conflict against
india...we are not like pakis...one paki equals 12 hindus etc
etc...and next minute 900000 surrender half your nation, and fall at
our feet with everything in your hands...its very clear to us be it
71,98,2002 or 03, if a army collectively surrenders half its nation
without a fight,where yard stick, in all armies all over the world,
for good courageous warriories, is not to concede even an inch to your
enemy,you surrendered half your nation,no one with iota of shame will
call pakis brave or strong,it a army of hijidas with big mouth and
empty words,, after all that big boast,you will have the same quality
of men at any given time,save the false hype and bravado...you will
throw up your hands at sight of a fight...from ranjith sing to
musharaff..we all know.
Arindam Banerjee
> 26 April 2002 Friday 12 Safar 1423
>
> Military pretensions & middle class illusions
> By Ayaz Amir
>
> I have nothing against dictatorship. In fact in front of my bathroom
> mirror I am a bit of a dictator myself, trying to look like a Caesar
> about to address the Senate or walk into the Forum.
>
> What gets my goat, and indeed would get the goat of anyone in his
> right senses, is the tinpot variety which has flourished in these
> parts for so long and which received a fresh lease of life when the
> tides of history swept us into the Musharraf era.
Come on, Akbar, Babar, Aurangzeb et al were by no means tinpot
dictators. Looks like South America has spoiled the world's
perception of absolute despotism.
> Every time a strutting Napoleon comes on the Pakistani stage there is
> no shortage of people who applaud him. Not only the usual flatterers
> who pay homage to power no matter what its colour but also decent
> people who are bamboozled into thinking that reform and redemption are
> finally at hand. In the fullness of time these patriots stand
> disillusioned but not before they have done their bit to confuse the
> national landscape.
>
> So we need to get certain things straight and the first is that the
> army is a deeply conservative institution without the capacity or the
> vision to carry out any kind of political reform.
This does not rule out the possibility that the self-confident
military despot can carry out the necessary political reforms, without
compromising the conservative nature of the Army. If he has
Napoleonic ability, he will do just that. Napoleon was much more than
a military commander - he was also responsible for drafting laws.
> It is not a question
> of this or that individual.
Actually, it is entirely a question relating to the individual - is
the despot a Napoleon-type or a South American tinpot-type?
> Apart from the sly Zia, most of our
> military autocrats have been convivial figures fond of a tipple in the
> evenings.
This is unfair to Zia - if he is a good Muslim and so does not drink,
then why should be called sly just for that? The writer presents us
with a no-win situation for the Pakistani military despot - he is
either a sly teetotaler like Zia, or a stupid boozer (like Yahya).
> But what of that? It is their political wisdom and ability
> we are talking about. In this they were woefully deficient for their
> alma mater, the military, was never fertile soil for the nurturing of
> these qualities.
Actually they have a lot of leisure time in the military, and thus
there is scope for fruition of Napoleonic ability.
> Nor was this any great loss because democracy and political liberalism
> were ideas we inherited from our colonial experience (let us never
> forget this debt).
But they were unIslamic! As an Islamic state Pakistan should have an
absolute despot as its head. Democracy and slimy political liberalism
was good for the looting colonialists - who had negative need for
principles and principled leadership embodied by the absolute despot.
> Our armies therefore were under no necessity to
> play the role of political and social reformers. Indeed the British
> saw to it that the army and bureaucracy stuck to their professional
> jobs and kept away from politics, a tradition largely preserved in
> India but knocked to bits in the great halls of the Islamic Republic.
It is not Islamic enough, actually. It is so only in the wrong way.
> But despite repeated political interventions the army remains a
> prisoner of its limitations. Whatever its pretensions, it is not
> equipped to clean the political stables. Each intervention has
> aggravated the country's problems. Each strongman has left a greater
> mess behind him. But strangely enough, instead of being chastened by
> this experience, the army's confidence in its ability to fix things it
> knows little about has grown in proportion to the extent of its
> failures.
That is what comes of having the South American tinpot as your model,
and not learning from the marvellous illiterate managerial style of
Akbar.
> Yes, the nineties were no golden period in the country's history. Yes,
> Benazir and Nawaz made a hash of things. But this is a justification
> for more democracy, for elections at regular intervals to turf out the
> crooked and the incompetent.
So that the more crooked and more incompetent may come to power.
> This is no argument for military rule. In
> any case, Gen Musharraf came riding into the arena not to save the
> country. The reasons for his coup, as we all know, were altogether
> different.
We all have our reasons.
> Of course the argument can be made that whatever the original impulse
> behind the coup, Musharraf must be judged on his subsequent
> performance. True enough, but falsehood and flattery apart, to what
> miracles over the last two and a half years can his government lay
> claim? Do we have better schools and colleges, better hospitals? Does
> the national administration run more smoothly? Has our quality of life
> improved? Are we richer in pocket, with more to spend? Have our famous
> courts become founts of justice? Is the promised kingdom near at hand?
Stupid questions. Is Musharraf a magician or a ruler? Thing is, he
has held the country together, against the results of past mischiefs
by unscrupulous politicians like Bhutto who wanted a 1000-yr war with
India.
> Yes, the country's foreign exchange reserves have grown.
Now, isn't that great?
> Tremendous
> news but can we move on to the next item please? The nation is going
> deaf with the drum-beating that is accompanying the referendum. But
> beneath the din what's the substance? What can this military
> government truly claim as its own?
Some people can never be satisfied. What about Musharraf's personal
integrity?
> The one radical thing it has done was the rapid switch to the American
> camp after September 11. We have proved America's most dutiful ally,
> providing airbases for attacks on Afghanistan, surrendering the
> surveillance sovereignty of our airports to prying American eyes,
> catching Afghans and Arabs and delivering them over to Guantanamo
> justice, and allowing the FBI a free run of the country. But strange
> that not much has been heard of these achievements in the referendum
> speeches. Is there then a shamefaced quality to these wages which
> makes us thus reluctant to trumpet them?
See, Musharraf is quite clever. He shuts up about issues he should
shut up about.
> So the question is not about dictatorship but about a dictatorship
> which has precious little to show for itself. This is the greatest
> argument against militarism Pakistani style. It has never delivered in
> the past, bringing only ruin to the country.
Ruin was brought by Bhutto's efforts in 1965 and 1971, and the
negative attitudes of Pakistan towards India fostered by all shades of
politicians. The Pakistani Army is the only Pakistani institution
worthy of regard.
> It cannot deliver
> anything now or in the future not because sincerity and good
> intentions will be lacking but because the military, even with all the
> goodwill in the world, can give us a Burmese or an Indonesian
> Pakistan. It cannot lay the foundations of national growth and
> renewal. The sooner we take this lesson to heart the better for our
> collective sanity.
If you believe in Bhutto-thoughts after all they have done, then you
are insane.
> Time was when during the Zia era the religious right sided with the
> army, considering it to be the key to national salvation. Having
> learnt their lesson the maulvis are singing a different tune. It is
> the turn of the liberati and the English-speaking chattering classes
> to be enamoured of the military solution as the means to rid Pakistan
> of its evils.
Good, good. They seem to be coming to their senses.
> True, some of the more sensitive of the liberati have professed to be
> shocked by the referendum and the organisational excesses accompanying
> it. They feel the hero whom they had earlier extolled to the skies has
> somehow betrayed them. My friend Irfan Hussain of this very newspaper
> is a case in point. He has announced that he will not be voting for
> the President which I am sure is a serious blow to the Musharraf camp.
> But others of the same persuasion are still issuing certificates of
> approval--'he means well', being the most common--to the object of
> their undiminished admiration. Which leads one to conclude that it
> will be some time before the education of the liberati is complete and
> they too come round to where Pakistan's maulvis stand, licking their
> shattered illusions.
Musharraf should declare himself the head mullah of Pakistan, and go
on from that to be called Amir or Sultan or Burra Nawab or Jahanpana
or somesuch. This firangi General title is too low for him. (Like
Napoleon, he should place the crown on his own head.)
> Musharraf has betrayed no one, least of all the liberati. He is hewn
> from the same rock as his predecessors. If the liberati chose to
> invest him with qualities that never existed, it is not the General
> who is to be blamed. It's his drum-beating admirers who got it wrong.
Or they may have got it right. Let them dress in Mughal style now, we
should see a costume play in action. That will be such a welcome
change.
> Just as they are getting it wrong about the strange political theories
> now circulating in the country. Who ever heard of a balance between
> the powers of the president, the prime minister and the chief of army
> staff? What has the army chief to do in this tripod?
Indeed. Let us now have vazirs, naibs, etc. Bring back the
mansabdari system, and reduce interest rates to zero.
> Far from showing Gen Musharraf in a favourable light, the layers of
> constitutional protection he is seeking make him look weak as if he
> walks in dread of the future.
The constitutional procedure is just a ladder to the top. One has to
be mindful of world opinion, you see - especially when they are
bailing you out.
> Macbeth was not so much in awe of
> Banquo's ghost as Gen Musharraf seems to be of the dwindled spectres
> of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif? What is he afraid of? What is he
> seeking to protect, his so-called 'reforms' or his impressive person
> in commando uniform?
He is seeking a fig leaf. Once he gets his cloaks of ermine and
sable, he will not need fig leaves any more.
> The referendum has reopened settled wounds. The people of Pakistan
> were resigned to a Musharraf presidency. No one had consulted their
> wishes when Musharraf and his generals seized power.
So who cares for the people of Pakistan anyway? (Except me, of
course, since I am writing so much about my thoughts for their
welfare.)
> They wouldn't
> have considered it amiss if they were not consulted about the future.
> But far from being a consultation, the referendum is an act of double
> homage.
Come, come, you can abstain from it, or say no.
> Not only are the people of Pakistan being asked to acquiesce
> in a Musharraf presidency, which they have already done, but also to
> go a step further and applaud it. This amounts to insulting their
> intelligence, a risk that need not have been taken.
If they had more intelligence, they would not have been on such bad
terms with India. As things are, Musharraf is just what they need.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > Their representative political system, being thereby representative of
> > > stupid and ignorant fanatics fed on a diet of unreason and wrong
> > > expectation, must always be far worse than mere imperfection. Only
> > > benevolent absolute dicatorship can do lasting good for Pakistan, by
> > > improving the mental and moral quality of the people of Pakistan.
> > >
> > > > Given the almost definitive failure of previous military experiments,
> > >
> > > Rubbish - the military has kept Pakistan afloat. Without the
> > > military, Pakistan would have been swallowed up by India, or broken up
> > > into a number of smaller states.
> >
> > The primary role of a country's army is to prevent the
> > swallowing up of the country by foreign powers. This is
> > what the military is for. I won't give too much credit to
> > Pakistan's army for this.
>
> Okay, they lost the Eastern half, but the Western part is still intact.
I guess it depends on how one looks at the circumstances
leading to the creation of Bangladesh.
In my view the creation of Bangladesh corrected one of the
abberations of Gandhi-Jinnah mindset and sooner or later it's
going to inspire the rest of the Bangla population and others
to strive for a more natural and equitable state of affairs.
Defeating the human urge to be free is an extremely
daunting task even for the most powerful armies. The
lethal weapons of the armies are no match for the moral
force behind popular uprisings.
History teaches us this important lesson - French
Revolution, American War of Independence, Russian
Revolution, Palestinian Struggle, Kashmiri Struggle for
Independence - again and again.
Unfortunately both India and Pakistan refuse to
learn this lesson.
>
> Arindam Banerjee
Chacha Chaudri
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:20:14 GMT, Nusrat Rizvi
> <rizv...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Apr 2002 08:46:30 -0700, mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan)
> >wrote:
> >>adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
>
> >>ammunition dumps for use during future conquests? I am
> >>sure the international community will be quite worried
> >>about them falling into the wrong hands.
>
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >
> >Unfortunately the Dumb Bunyas in New Delhi have already decided that
> >it is in the best interest of India that Pakistan remain a viable
> >country.
>
> Retard like you could have put it simply "angoor khatey hain"
Pimp like you should not be wasting time on the net. You should be
keeping the shutters of your family Randi-khana open 24 hours. How
else would your sisters and mothers support your expensive habit of
paying your pathans lovers ?
mystic_rajan
> news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> >
> > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > up Pakistan.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis.
It's politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
single uniform monolithic entities.
The caste wars in Bihar are quite common. There are no caste
wars in the neighbouring Bengal.
There was a carnage of Sikhs in 1984 in Congress-ruled states.
Nothing happened in non-congress-ruled states.
Foul-mouthed hooligans from BJP ruled states travelled ticketless
to Ayodhya to disturb peace. Hooligans from non-BJP ruled states
didn't disturb peace.
The practice of Sati has strong appeal in the villages of Rajashtan.
The practice of Sati doesn't have strong appeal in the villages of
neighbouring Punjab.
There are thousands of dowry deaths every year in Delhi but there
are virtually no dowry deaths in Kerala.
Punjab wants to have peace and open borders with Pakistan and other
countries. UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
There are endless examples of this kind to show that it's
politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
single uniform monolithic entities.
>
> Arindam Banerjee
nkdatta8839
> "Democracy" cannot be the saviour of ANY nation, when the democratic machine
> itself wriggles with worms of corruption, vote-rigging and criminally
> accused party-leaders (like Benazir and Nawaz).
This is a self-serving logic, especially in view of the
fact that democracy has never been given a chance in
Pakistan for the last quarter of a century. It was the
military that rigged elections. Civilian politicians
came into / went out of office whenever they became
"inconvenient" for the Kakul kleptocrats. Professor Gul
Agha, for example, has pointed out how Benazir Bhutto
was not allowed to raise expenditure on education from
a measly 2% to a still measly 3.5% lest it makes a dent
on the 70% expenditure on the military.
> Democracy worked in USA and
> other nations, with a big promise from the very onset of their constitution.
> But here, after 52 years of flirting around with "democracy" and "military
> rule" - when will the consummation to democracy really occur???
The military has a vested interest to prevent democray
from taking root in Pakistan. The Kakul kleptocrats have
done everything necessary to remain unchallenged at their
game of being the largest thieves of the nation and remaining
the final arbiters in Pakistan of who gets to steal and how
much.
Democracy is obviously very inconvenient for the Kakul
kleptocrats - they cannot allow ordinary citizens to
gain the power of electing the leaders of the government
and of throwing them out if they don't perform.
> after
> another 52 years??? Before TRUE democracy really matures itself - does the
> nation have the luxury to wait that long - or will it turn into another
> desert before? Musharraf's promise has been to reduce that time to near
> future, after the nation recovers from its current calamity - so that "a
> true democracy" may be ensued when he leaves.
>
General Pervez Musharraf's "October Revolution" was
a revolution for the status quo. Pakistans Generals
mounted the coup d'etat not because they had anything
against corruption but because they wanted to preserve the
status of Pakistan's army as the nation's largest body
of organized larceny and of the Kakul kleptocrats as
the biggest thieves of the nation.
>
> The writer asks "What is [Musharraf] afraid of? What is he seeking to
> protect, his so-called 'reforms' or his impressive person in commando
> uniform?" and I believe the answer is quite clear - he is probably assured
> that a free reign in election would result in a repeat victory of Benazir or
> Nawaz !! - the same individuals who sucked the nation dry not once but
> twice.
No civilian politician had any such power in the last
quarter of a century. The military has been quite zealous
about preserving its monopoly over who gets to steal and
how much.
Mr. Ras Hafiz Siddiqui has it right.
The military, as always, is passing the buck.
And this, in spite of the fact, that the buck
has stopped at Pakistan's Military High Command
for a very very long time. General Musharraf
is being too clever by a half in pointing fingers
at civilians. It is nothing but a red herring.
"Field Marshal" Ayub Khan had EBDOed 700 politicians
(many times more than General Pervez Musharraf).
Yes, the "Field Marshal" pointed his finger at
politicians like Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Haq and
H.S Surhawardy and called them thieves. He had them
barred from ever again standing in elections, and,
in fact, from ever again voting! But whatever be
his prtensions, the "Field Marshal" did so not
because he had anything agaist stealing but because
he wanted to establish the power of the military to
be the final arbiter of who gets to steal in Pakistan
and how much. And to that end, he branded the
"inconvenient" politicians as thieves and had them
surgically removed from Pakistan's public life.
General Pervez Musharraf came to power not
because he had anything against corruption.
He came to power because the Kakul kleptocrats
were determined to preserve their status as the
biggest thieves of the nation. In other words,
General Musharraf is in power because the Kakul
kleptocrats believe that he will preserve the
status quo.
The Kakul kleptocrats have nothing against stealing
as long as they remain the biggest thieves of the
nation and they remain the final arbiter of who
gets to steal and how much.
Not surprisingly, serving military officers are off
limits to NAB (de jure). And so are the pliant
politicians (de facto). NAB has been directed to
go against only the "inconvenient" politicians.
Asif Zardari has been in jail for over 6 years. He is
yet to be convicted on a single charge. A retired
Naval Chief, on the other hand, was administered a
slap on the wrist by the Musharraf regime and allowed
to retire on his ill-gottens billions.
The Kakul kleptocrats have been just as zealous under
General Musharraf (no surprise there) as they have
been in the previous quarter of a century in preserving
their stake in the lucrative drug trade. General
Musharraf has made a horrible example out of the editor
of Frontier Post for daring to publish on the involvement
and control of the drug trade by the Kakul kleptocrats.
>
>> Excerpt from "Deja Vu" by R.H.Siddiqui:
>>
>> "The leaders of Pakistan's two main political parties Benazir
>> Bhutto of the PPP and Nawaz Sharif of the PML, both former Prime
>> Ministers, have been blamed for most of the ills currently facing that
>> country. But this game of "passing the buck" is not going
>> to last. Every Pakistani and many outsiders already know that the buck
>> in Pakistan stops at the Military High Command. And it has been so
>> since 1958 (except for the 1973 to 1977 Bhutto period)."
>>
>> =====================================
>>
>> The News, Karachi, Pakistan
>> Sunday April 28, 2002-- Safar 14, 1423 A.H.
>>
>> Marooned again
>> by Masood Hasan
>> masoo...@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> ...Had the big R [referundum] been on the right path, there would have
>> been widespread joy the moment it was announced. This has not
>> happened, not because the people love Mian and BB and want them back
>> at any cost but because they know the army cannot solve the problems
>> of Pakistan in any long-term sense. It is not a question of whether
>> they are more competent than the civilians, but because only systems
>> and institutions can solve problems. We have had far too many Messiahs
>> who have promised much and delivered little. We are now looking at
>> more of the same. What is despairing is that no longer can the blame
>> be put on anyone else. The armed forces have held sway over Pakistan
>> from the word go and have directly ruled more than everyone else put
>> together. For over two years they have had absolute power but little
>> in the way of tangible achievements. On April 30, the result will be
>> inevitable and we will be told that at last we are now embarked on the
>> golden road to prosperity and progress, but we should understand that
>> we are still at the crossroads where we always were and where, given
>> the winds that blow here, we always will be.
>>
>
> The popularity of dynasty-politics of the region, in any election
> (rigged or not) will result in the SELECTION of Benazir or Nawaz
No civilian politician has ever come to/ thrown out of power
unless the military willed it. Nawaz Sharif was a creation
of the military itself to keep Benazir Bhutto was under control.
Anytime a politician got to big for his/her britches, he/she was
unceremonously shown the door and branded a thief in the bargain.
The Kakul kleptocrats have created a situation whereby the
people has had no power to do anyting about corruption. That
is just not what the military wants to allow.
People can make mistakes in an election. But one
cannot fool all the people all the time. Democracy
allows the people to rectify their mistake at the
next opportunity.
Such is not the case with entrenched thieves like the
Kakul kleptocrats. People are stuck with them. Pakistan
will be better off to trade the Kakul kleptocrats, even
for corrupt politicians, who must seek people's approval
at regular intervals to remain in power.
General Musharraf is leading the country in the wrong
direction by instituionalizing the stranglehold of the
Kakul kleptocrats over the country. And, of course, he
knows better than to trust the people to look after the
interests of the Kakul kleptocrats. That is why, he is
hanging on as the COAS even after arranging to get
"elected" as the President.
> - and if
> "elections at regular intervals to turf out the crooked and the incompetent"
> are to be held - then these twice-deposed accused individuals must somehow
> be disqualified, so that they do not re-enter the much-hailed drum-beats of
> "democracy", after the people (innocently) elect them again!!
>
> It doesnt matter whether the ruler is military or civilian
It does matter. A military ruler is in power
because of the monopoly of his powerbase over
the guns of the country. The people have no choice
in such a situation. They can only grin and bear
the thieving rulers.
Pakistan would be better off with a civilian politican
at the helm who must face elections (without manipulation
by the military) periodically to remain in power. Pakistan
hasn't been allowed this right at least for the last quarter
of a century. The military has ruled the roost at least
since the 1958 "October Revolution" if not since 1954 when
"Field Marshal" Ayub Khan became the defence minister.
mystic_rajan
$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> >
> > >
>
> > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > up Pakistan.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis. Good
> conditions in Pakistan will improve conditions in India, and bad conditions
> in Pakistan will worsen conditions in India.
> The question of swallowing up Pakistan only arises when misery there
> becomes of such a high order that political change enforced from
> outside becomes a moral imperative.
Sri Lanka has a high order of misery for nearly two decades.
Tibet has a high order of misery for nearly five decades.
Bangladesh has a high order of misery for a couple of decades.
Afghanistan has a high order of misery for two decades.
What role, if any, has India played in alleviating the misery
at these places?
If India is unable to play any role in the affairs of small
countries such as Sri Lanka, Nepal etc., how can we be
confident that it can play a role to enforce change in
Pakistan?
In fact India itself has suffered a high order of misery
for nearly 20 centuries and it hasn't been able to
do much on its home turf with its own citizens. How can we
be confident that it can make a difference in a hostile
environment of Pakistan? Who listens to India?
Can a sick person on its death bed make someone else
healthy?
>
> Arindam Banerjee
Gulshan Khan
Chaudri) wrote:
And Aurengzeb-de-Sutt like you must rein your behen before she gets
fertilized by another passing sulla. But then pimp like you should
keep the till busy like your half sulla ancestors.
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<scTy8.50873$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> > >
>
> > > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > > up Pakistan.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> > up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis.
>
> It's politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
> single uniform monolithic entities.
It is a single political entity, representing diverse groups, and
uniting for common gain. This unity gives peace within the entity,
and increased prosperity and happiness through internal trade and
sharing of culture.
> The caste wars in Bihar are quite common. There are no caste
> wars in the neighbouring Bengal.
The former gives some spice to life to folks in Bihar. In Bengal they
may not have caste wars, but ideological battles that often turn out
to be violent.
> There was a carnage of Sikhs in 1984 in Congress-ruled states.
> Nothing happened in non-congress-ruled states.
We must all learn. India is a new entity, and has much to develop.
The minorities should learn that it does not pay to tacitly support
the killing of totally innocent members of the majority, and the
majority must not indulge in revenge. We should learn to decide
matters through proper legal processes.
> Foul-mouthed hooligans from BJP ruled states travelled ticketless
> to Ayodhya to disturb peace. Hooligans from non-BJP ruled states
> didn't disturb peace.
Travelling ticketless in India is not a big deal, unfortunately.
Whether the Godhra victims were ticketless or not cannot be known, as
they were all burnt to death by totally criminal and absolutely wicked
monsters.
> The practice of Sati has strong appeal in the villages of Rajashtan.
> The practice of Sati doesn't have strong appeal in the villages of
> neighbouring Punjab.
This is not a big issue for the majority, but it still remains a vital
one for Hindu-haters.
> There are thousands of dowry deaths every year in Delhi but there
> are virtually no dowry deaths in Kerala.
Not thousands, only a few hundred at most. But there are also few
hundreds of thousands of successful marriages taking place in Delhi
every year. In every society there will be greedy and criminal
elements. From a statistical point of view, it is not abnormal by
Western standards - that's followed in Delhi - of criminality, though
it is certainly very high by the normal Indian standards met in Kerala
and Bangla. I think that over the years strong police work has
reduced the dowry deaths in Delhi. On the other hand, we should note
that most Delhi women are self-confident and hard-working. Their
achievements cannot be brushed away with talk of dowry deaths.
> Punjab wants to have peace and open borders with Pakistan and other
> countries. UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
We all want peace with Pakistan, but the Pakistani rulers train
terrorists to kill innocent Indians. Apart from some rogue
Khalistanis, Punjabis do not want open borders with Pakistan - that
will involve more terrorists coming to India.
> Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
> Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
It is true that the ruling CP(M) govt. of WB likes to have open
borders with Bangladesh, and has been doing its best to get
Bangladeshis to come to West Bengal so that they could remain in power
with their votes. We have to remember that the CP(M) is basically a
Bangladeshi party - the Hindu "refugees" from Bangladesh turned
communist in order to prey more effectively upon their gullible West
Bengali hosts. I put the word refugees in inverted commas, because
they were in fact mostly economic opportunists with only feigned
hatred for the Bangladeshi Muslims who were supposed to have driven
them out. Yes, many atrocities did take place, and a lot of better-off
Hindus in Bangladesh did suffer. But - as a Bangladeshi Hindu told me
here in Australia - the majority of refugees from Bangladesh were
useless people with no jobs and no assets in East Bengal. But after
coming to India they pretended to have lost everything! They took to
politics, and under CP(M) and gained a lot, and are still ruling the
roost, for all time to come, apparently. One would have thought them
to hate Bangladeshi Muslims if they really had lost as much as they
claimed, but their pro-Bangladeshi attitude indicates that they are
only liars and hypocrites affecting liberality. It is interesting to
note how much those Hindus who actually lost everything hate the
Muslims of Bangladesh! However, in the recent past, they are
re-examining their ties to Bangladesh - the Islamic fundamentalism in
the border areas is becoming a worry even for them.
Yes, there is always talk of making one whole Bangla, but over the
last few years I have seen the enthusiasm decline. The differences
are simply too much, now.
> There are endless examples of this kind to show that it's
> politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
> single uniform monolithic entities.
Nobody made that claim in the first place. India is a geographical
and political definition, primarily. Most Indians are Hindus, who get
along, on the whole, very well with each other, since they know how to
live with differences in thinking and customs. Non-Hindu Indians who
share this attitude often find life in India more satisfying as
compared to the dogmatic and rigid mindsets in other countries.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<scTy8.50873$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> > > >
>
> > > > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > > > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > > > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > > > up Pakistan.
> > >
> > > To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> > > up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis.
> >
> > It's politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
> > single uniform monolithic entities.
>
> It is a single political entity, representing diverse groups, and
> uniting for common gain.
> This unity gives peace within the entity,
> and increased prosperity and happiness through internal trade and
> sharing of culture.
Astonishingly, the verifiable news reports in dozens of newspapers
on a daily basis contradict the picture painted by Mr. Banerjee.
In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
I have always given Mr. Banerjee a lot of credit for being
a thinker even when I strongly disagree with you.
But we get into the realm of absurdity when the thinking
becomes completely detached from the verifiable existing
reality.
> Arindam Banerjee.
SmoothLander
> the same question is what you should be asking yourself
you cant answer my question with another question.
pls answer my question first, then i will answer yours.
koolfire_ro
maybe if your question is sensible that applies,kashmir is a integral
part of india, start a war with pakistan and do what,if we are to
declare war on pakistan as per your assumption, the situation needs a
war,it will end with having a war for every situation,i dont think
international diplomacy is conducted this way,war is a waste of human
lives,and india has no reason to loose its soldiers lives, without
sufficient cause,whereas pakistan has a motive and cause, defeat and
loss of half of your nation,claim of kasmir,which you claim is central
to pakistans cause,you have more than enough reason to prove
yourself,but ironically paki guns and war machinery never
operate,except exhausting your empty lung power, with fancy stories
and fables of assumed and non-existant bravery,which we never got to
see, to this very second.....we do not have any territorial designs on
pakistan,if that was the case we would have annexed e.pakistan after
its liberation, morever its pakistan, behind the facade of kashmiri
independence, is looking to annexe kashmir claming all muslims are one
or some such bogus theory.
mystic_rajan
news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message >
> > The caste wars in Bihar are quite common. There are no caste
> > wars in the neighbouring Bengal.
>
> The former gives some spice to life to folks in Bihar. In Bengal they
> may not have caste wars, but ideological battles that often turn out
> to be violent.
>
> > There was a carnage of Sikhs in 1984 in Congress-ruled states.
> > Nothing happened in non-congress-ruled states.
>
> We must all learn. India is a new entity, and has much to develop.
> The minorities should learn that it does not pay to tacitly support
> the killing of totally innocent members of the majority, and the
> majority must not indulge in revenge. We should learn to decide
> matters through proper legal processes.
Sir, you make a superb point here. But learning is
very hard. With due respect let me explain what
I mean.
Mr. Banerjee is a very smart person. He has many scinetific
theories to his credit. He is so smart that he
has challenged the Theory of Relativity when 99.9% of
the world doesn't understand what relativity is.
When Mr. Banerjee was a child/teenager, he came to
believe that India was a land of unity, peace, happiness
and culture. This is fine because our early years
are formative years. We form many opinions during this
time that we later reject when we are more mature
and we have more information. But the problem is Mr.
Banerjee is not willing to change his earlier views no matter
what. There are numerous sources that contradict his
belief system on a daily basis but he is determined not to
let anything dilute what he started believing in his
early life.
And here lies the root cause of the problem.
If an open minded person with a proven scientific temperament
isn't ready to update his views in the light of existing
reality, how can we expect the uneducated masses, not known
to be open-minded with a scientific temperament, to learn
and change themselves.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
>
> news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<scTy8.50873$uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > > "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> > > > >
>
> > > > > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > > > > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > > > > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > > > > up Pakistan.
> > > >
> > > > To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> > > > up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis.
> > >
> > > It's politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
> > > single uniform monolithic entities.
> >
> > It is a single political entity, representing diverse groups, and
> > uniting for common gain.
>
> > This unity gives peace within the entity,
> > and increased prosperity and happiness through internal trade and
> > sharing of culture.
>
> Astonishingly, the verifiable news reports in dozens of newspapers
> on a daily basis contradict the picture painted by Mr. Banerjee.
Who believes in newspaper reports? They only seek sensation, and the
English media has always been in the hands of foreigners and their
Indian quislings who seek to project India in the most negative manner
possible. Not believing in the Indian-English media is the first step
to true intellectual independence.
> In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
> dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
And who cares for them? You care far more about them than Indians do,
I assure you. No Indian I know cares a hoot about any Indian
politician, though in the recent past Mamata Banerjee had raised some
hopes. That is why, a favourite theme of mine is to throw out the
present constitution, and replace it with a concise and powerful one,
which should give rise to a better class of politicians.
> I have always given Mr. Banerjee a lot of credit for being
> a thinker even when I strongly disagree with you.
>
> But we get into the realm of absurdity when the thinking
> becomes completely detached from the verifiable existing
> reality.
Your "verifiable existing reality" drawn from newspaper reports and
politicians' utterances does not cut much ice with me. I depend upon
my own experiences, and that of the many people I trust, along with
undisputed facts, to draw my picture of existing reality. So, having
been born, brought up, educated and worked in India, I have my
perspectives which are different from the projections of the
Indian-English media directed by their foreign masters.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
>
> news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message >
>
>
> > > The caste wars in Bihar are quite common. There are no caste
> > > wars in the neighbouring Bengal.
> >
> > The former gives some spice to life to folks in Bihar. In Bengal they
> > may not have caste wars, but ideological battles that often turn out
> > to be violent.
> >
> > > There was a carnage of Sikhs in 1984 in Congress-ruled states.
> > > Nothing happened in non-congress-ruled states.
> >
> > We must all learn. India is a new entity, and has much to develop.
> > The minorities should learn that it does not pay to tacitly support
> > the killing of totally innocent members of the majority, and the
> > majority must not indulge in revenge. We should learn to decide
> > matters through proper legal processes.
>
> Sir, you make a superb point here. But learning is
> very hard.
Yes, if biases are very strong. But having a good teacher helps.
> With due respect let me explain what
> I mean.
>
> Mr. Banerjee is a very smart person. He has many scinetific
> theories to his credit. He is so smart that he
> has challenged the Theory of Relativity when 99.9% of
> the world doesn't understand what relativity is.
As a matter of fact, my scientific theories are restricted to the
Usenet and the Internet. They have not been accepted in any place of
renown. I have had rather better luck with my engineering
achievements over the last 24 years in the top institutions of India
and Australia, but for reasons of confidentiality I cannot talk about
them.
As for the Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, I have pointed out
that the equation e=mcc depends for its derivation upon the assumption
that masses become infinte, and lengths become zero, upon reaching the
speed of light, which thus becomes an insurmountable barrier. Without
making this assumption, this equation - said to be the source of all
the energy we get from suns, and the atomic explosions - cannot be
derived. This was well known. My criticism - to the best of my
knowledge, it is original - is why a body (say a large rocket) cannot
reach the speed of light if it continually accelerates at 10m per sec
per sec for 12 months, following Newtonian mechanics v=at, with a=10,
and t=6*30*24*3600, we get v=10*12*30*24*3600=311040000m/s which is
higher than the speed of light.
Essentially Einstein's theory is a non-issue for me; I am actually
keen on making internal force engines producing unlimited power, that
would create vimans or ships that would move without need for any sort
of fuel. I have written about all that in detail in a book with
diagrams in my website:
www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/index.htm
> When Mr. Banerjee was a child/teenager, he came to
> believe that India was a land of unity, peace, happiness
> and culture.
Yes, Calcutta was such a wonderful place in the late fifties and early
sixties. However there was a lot more poverty, then. These days
Calcutta has lost out on such beauty and culture, but has far less
beggars. More or less the same thing has happened, all over India.
> This is fine because our early years
> are formative years. We form many opinions during this
> time that we later reject when we are more mature
> and we have more information. But the problem is Mr.
> Banerjee is not willing to change his earlier views no matter
> what. There are numerous sources that contradict his
> belief system on a daily basis but he is determined not to
> let anything dilute what he started believing in his
> early life.
This is not true. I am just not keen on believing what the
Indian-English media projects, that is all. In another post on this
thread, I made this point more clearly.
It is quite the reverse, really! In my childhood, they taught me
about Aryan invasion, the horridness of Hinduism with its evil sati
and caste system, then Alexander defeating Porus!, Einstein's theory
of relativity, some aspects of Christianity, how Islam saved low caste
Hindus, Ramayana and Mahabharata being drug-inspired fiction... I
sort of believed them, because I was too young to do otherwise. But
with passage of years, and with such experiences and researches and
experiments that I have done, I have managed to overcome the effects
of the secular and non-Hindu indoctrinations.
> And here lies the root cause of the problem.
> If an open minded person with a proven scientific temperament
> isn't ready to update his views in the light of existing
> reality, how can we expect the uneducated masses, not known
> to be open-minded with a scientific temperament, to learn
> and change themselves.
Try harder with the media - get more convincing liars.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<scTy8.50873
>
> $uR5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
> > >
> > > >
>
> > > However, Mr. Banerjee has raised an important issue and it'd
> > > be interesting to see the response of Pakistani nettors to
> > > the idea of being a part of India after India has swallowed
> > > up Pakistan.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, India and Indians do not wish to swallow
> > up Pakistan. They want good relations on a honourable basis. Good
> > conditions in Pakistan will improve conditions in India, and bad conditions
> > in Pakistan will worsen conditions in India.
>
>
> > The question of swallowing up Pakistan only arises when misery there
> > becomes of such a high order that political change enforced from
> > outside becomes a moral imperative.
>
>
> Sri Lanka has a high order of misery for nearly two decades.
> Tibet has a high order of misery for nearly five decades.
> Bangladesh has a high order of misery for a couple of decades.
> Afghanistan has a high order of misery for two decades.
>
> What role, if any, has India played in alleviating the misery
> at these places?
For Sri Lanka, the record has been disastrous, since our well-meant
attempt with the IPKF was a failure, not least because we had a rather
stupid person for the post of Prime Minister. The problem in Sri
Lanka is very deep and complicated - India simply cannot do anything.
All our efforts have failed.
For Tibet, our support for the Dalai Lama has been very costly. We
have forsaken peace and trade with China as a consequence, we also had
a totally unnecessary war in 1962, and we are still hosting many
Tibetan refugees. The best we can do is to defend our territory, and
come to a peaceful understanding with China over the issue of Tibet.
It was a moral imperative for India to rid Bangladesh of the huge
misery inflicted by the genocidal Pakistani regime which had driven
out ten million Bangladeshis as refugees to India, and conducted
unknown numbers of rapes and murders. That military operation was
successfully carried out - with many losses to Indian lives, and at
much expense - without any financial or territorial consideration, and
without even any wishful thought of ensuing gratitude from the people
of Bangladesh. This altruistic "invasion" is thus unique in the annals
of modern history.
India's major troubles in the past have come from Afghanistan and
beyond,lands which have produced the most aggressive invaders and
bandits (Ghazni, Abdali). Nevertheless, India has been supportive of
the progressive elements there. We have had to fight against the
terrorists sponsored by the fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, in Kashmir and elsewhere.
So let's say, India has done what it could, given India's meagre
resources and the hostility India is held by the ruling circles in the
neighbouring countries.
> If India is unable to play any role in the affairs of small
> countries such as Sri Lanka, Nepal etc., how can we be
> confident that it can play a role to enforce change in
> Pakistan?
India does not want to play a role to enforce change in neighbouring
countries - only in rare cases (such as the creation of Bangladesh)
does India exert her military might in an aggressive manner. Despite
great provocation by Pakistani terrorists, India has not launched a
fitting military retaliation. It remains to be seen how long this
attitude will continue.
> In fact India itself has suffered a high order of misery
> for nearly 20 centuries and it hasn't been able to
> do much on its home turf with its own citizens.
Not much, but still something. Beggary is much less, and deaths from
famines and natural disasters have decreased drastically. So the
overall life expectancy has gone up, also helped by hygiene and
medical attention. Indians are a pretty happy-go-lucky lot, and so,
they do not waste time being miserable.
> How can we
> be confident that it can make a difference in a hostile
> environment of Pakistan? Who listens to India?
I think that these days Indians don't think they can make much
difference to the way the world thinks, and behaves, for they do not
control the world media, and they have no big bombs and no big money.
They do not particularly care, either.
> Can a sick person on its death bed make someone else
> healthy?
Oh yes, he can, if he wills him all his money.
Arindam Banerjee.
SmoothLander
> maybe if your question is sensible .
my question arises when you put your 35 divisions out of 37 on pakistan border.
and push for a war, diplomacy does not result from war mongering.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
> As for the Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, I have pointed out
> that the equation e=mcc depends for its derivation upon the assumption
> that masses become infinte, and lengths become zero, upon reaching the
> speed of light, which thus becomes an insurmountable barrier. Without
> making this assumption, this equation - said to be the source of all
> the energy we get from suns, and the atomic explosions - cannot be
> derived. This was well known.
> My criticism - to the best of my
> knowledge, it is original - is why a body (say a large rocket) cannot
> reach the speed of light if it continually accelerates at 10m per sec
> per sec for 12 months, following Newtonian mechanics v=at, with a=10,
> and t=6*30*24*3600, we get v=10*12*30*24*3600=311040000m/s which is
> higher than the speed of light.
I think a high school physics book should have the
answers to your criticism.
Firstly, it's not possible to continually have an acceleration of
10 m/s^2. With increasing speeds, the mass of the rocket also
increases and from the simple Grade 10 equation F=m*a, we can see
that the forces required to maintain a constant acceleration of
10 m/s^2 for an ever increasing mass will also be ever increasing
and we don't have a way to propel rockets with that kind of forces.
Secondly, why should we use the Newtonian mechanics relation v=a*t
where t is a measure of time with respect to the solar calendar?
What happened to the old-fashioned concept of time/length
dilation/contraction with speed?
>
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Nothing happened in non-congress-ruled states.
>
> We must all learn. India is a new entity, and has much to develop.
> The minorities should learn that it does not pay to tacitly support
> the killing of totally innocent members of the majority, and the
> majority must not indulge in revenge. We should learn to decide
> matters through proper legal processes.
>
> > Foul-mouthed hooligans from BJP ruled states travelled ticketless
> > to Ayodhya to disturb peace. Hooligans from non-BJP ruled states
> > didn't disturb peace.
>
> Travelling ticketless in India is not a big deal, unfortunately.
> Whether the Godhra victims were ticketless or not cannot be known, as
> they were all burnt to death by totally criminal and absolutely wicked
> monsters.
Whether Godhra victims and other foul-mouthed hooligans who
travelled to Ayodhya were ticketless or not can be known.
In case we don't trust the news reports, we can employ advanced
scientific techniques involving statistical inference to
ascertain with a high degree of confidence whether these
people had bought the tickets or not.
If we don't trust the scientific techniques involving statistical
inference, we can use some indigenous Indian technique
to find out the truth.
One such indigenous technique would be to get hold of a few
dozen foul-mouthed karsevaks or their supporters, smear a bit
of Sadhu-ash from Ayodhya on their buttocks and leave them in
Pakistan/Afghanistan till they provide us with valuable
empirical data for our experiment. If the karsevaks don't feel
like travelling to a foreign country, we can leave them in Bihar
or Bengal. There is no reason why we can't obtain reliable
experimental data from within India.
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
>
> > The practice of Sati has strong appeal in the villages of Rajashtan.
> > The practice of Sati doesn't have strong appeal in the villages of
> > neighbouring Punjab.
>
> This is not a big issue for the majority, but it still remains a vital
> one for Hindu-haters.
>
Why is the burning alive of women and the glorification/worship
of such women in several dozen temples not a big issue for
the majority?
Does the majority consist of heartless, cruel, barbaric
savages?
> Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.02043...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
>
> > As for the Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, I have pointed out
> > that the equation e=mcc depends for its derivation upon the assumption
> > that masses become infinte, and lengths become zero, upon reaching the
> > speed of light, which thus becomes an insurmountable barrier. Without
> > making this assumption, this equation - said to be the source of all
> > the energy we get from suns, and the atomic explosions - cannot be
> > derived. This was well known.
>
> > My criticism - to the best of my
> > knowledge, it is original - is why a body (say a large rocket) cannot
> > reach the speed of light if it continually accelerates at 10m per sec
> > per sec for 12 months, following Newtonian mechanics v=at, with a=10,
> > and t=6*30*24*3600, we get v=10*12*30*24*3600=311040000m/s which is
> > higher than the speed of light.
>
> I think a high school physics book should have the
> answers to your criticism.
No, nor engineering books either.
> Firstly, it's not possible to continually have an acceleration of
> 10 m/s^2.
Let us say it is. In science, we begin my making assumptions. e=mcc
is based on such assumptions as I said. So, if a body can accelerate
constantly at g for 1 year, by Newtonian mechanics it can exceed the
speed of light.
> With increasing speeds, the mass of the rocket also
> increases and from the simple Grade 10 equation F=m*a, we can see
> that the forces required to maintain a constant acceleration of
> 10 m/s^2 for an ever increasing mass will also be ever increasing
> and we don't have a way to propel rockets with that kind of forces.
Let us talk of a really large rocket which loses mass at the rate
necessary to propel the payload at a constant g for 1 year. So it may
have the size of the moon or the sun to begin with, ultimately after 1
year it could be the size of a football or so, having given up the
remaining mass to reach such a speed.
Let us try with Newton's second law, dealing with the defintion of
force as the rate of change of momentum. Now this is used in rockets
- in the vimans of my design, f=ma is good enough since there is no
loss of mass, and so my earlier derivation. Let us see what sort of
sizes are we talking about, when we don't have vimans, to go to a star
at superlight speed - only going there mind at that speed, not slowing
down to stop, forget any chance of return!
Now by the law of conservation of linear momentum, when a body of mass
m is ejected from a body of mass M with speed v in some inertial
reference frame - all this, btw is high school physics - then the mass
M gets a velocity V of magnitude mv/M and in the direction opposite to
v.
Using this basic approach, let us have:
a large rocket with a payload pointing at a star to which it must go;
an engine which ejects bodies (gases, whatever) at a constant velocity
V in the opposite direction of travel of the rocket;
the bodies ejected decrease in mass at a proportionate rate, say at r
percent with every ejection.
Then we have for the first ejection: M(1-r)v=rMV, or v=rV/(1-r).
After this the rocket of mass M(1-r) will move at velocity v,
indefinitely.
Let it now throw out a mass r(1-r)M out at speed V.
Then the mass will be M(1-r) - r(1-r)M, or M(1-r)(1-r)
Then, with respect to the rocket's earlier speed, that is v, the speed
of the rocket will increase by r(1-r)MV/M(1-r)(1-r) or the same amount
as earlier, namely rV/(1-r).
After two ejections, the mass of the rocket is (1-r)^2*M; after N
ejections it will be (1-r)^N. And the speed will be Nv.
Now c/v, (c is the speed of light) is the value of N, that is, the
number of mass ejections required for the payload to reach light
speed.
So the mass of the rocket,which was M at zero speed with respect to
the star it wanted to reach, at light speed will be (1-r) raised to
the power of (c/v) times M.
Very simple, isn't it? Just follows the basics, as taught in high
schools.
Now let us do some sums.
Let V be 3000 m/sec, r = 0.01, so then v=30m/sec, and c/v=10^7.
Let the payload we want to send to light speed by 10000 Kgs.
Then the mass of the rocket will be (1-0.01)^(-10^7)*10000Kgs
or, ah, a pretty large number. Let someone do the final calculation!
> Secondly, why should we use the Newtonian mechanics relation v=a*t
> where t is a measure of time with respect to the solar calendar?
Don't worry, good old HMT watch will suffice to track time. Or some
atomic clock if you are finicky.
> What happened to the old-fashioned concept of time/length
> dilation/contraction with speed?
That is not old-fashioned, that is new-fashioned Einsteinian thinking,
which is used to derive e=mcc. If you want to debunk e=mcc, why
should you have any use for that sort of thinking? Time and length
dilation, from the "mind experiments" provided by Einstein, are
nothing but shonky ideas relating to faulty perception in
experimentation. Time and length actually do not dilate so far as the
chap on the move is concerned - they only *appear* to dilate to the
stationary observer. Now Einstein converted such appearances to
reality, to derive e=mcc.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message >
> > Punjab wants to have peace and open borders with Pakistan and other
> > countries. UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
>
> We all want peace with Pakistan, but the Pakistani rulers train
> terrorists to kill innocent Indians.
> Apart from some rogue Khalistanis, Punjabis do not want open
> borders with Pakistan - that will involve more terrorists coming
> to India.
Not too long after the partition of 1947, a new paragraph
was added to the daily Sikh prayer. In this paragraph
Sikhs pray for an open border with Pakistan so that they
have a free, unrestricted access to their holy places
of worship. This prayer is used in thousands of gurdwaras
worldwide everyday.
Are you saying that people who have been saying this prayer
for nearly 50 years are rogue Khalistanis?
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
>
> > Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
> > Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
>
> It is true that the ruling CP(M) govt. of WB likes to have open
> borders with Bangladesh, and has been doing its best to get
> Bangladeshis to come to West Bengal so that they could remain in power
> with their votes. We have to remember that the CP(M) is basically a
> Bangladeshi party - the Hindu "refugees" from Bangladesh turned
> communist in order to prey more effectively upon their gullible West
> Bengali hosts.
The name of the party you are talking about is CPI(M) and
not CP(M).
How can CPI(M) be a Bangladeshi party when the party was
formed before the birth of Bangladesh?
Does the Indian constitution allow parties from foreign
countries to contest elections in India.
How come nobody has challenged their illegal rule of 25 years
over West Bengal in a court of law?
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
>
> > Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
> > Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
>
> But - as a Bangladeshi Hindu told me
> here in Australia - the majority of refugees from Bangladesh were
> useless people with no jobs and no assets in East Bengal. But after
> coming to India they pretended to have lost everything! They took to
> politics, and under CP(M) and gained a lot, and are still ruling the
> roost, for all time to come, apparently.
Why are people who have no job and no assets due to some tragic
circumstances in life useless? How about the Ayodhya Sadhu Mandal
of BJP ? No one in the families of these sadhus (those who have
families and are not illegitimate) have had a job for many hundred
years and I don't think the situation is going to be any different
in coming centuries.
Are these sadhus useless?
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
>
> But - as a Bangladeshi Hindu told me
> here in Australia - the majority of refugees from Bangladesh were
> useless people with no jobs and no assets in East Bengal. But after
> coming to India they pretended to have lost everything! They took to
> politics, and under CP(M) and gained a lot, and are still ruling the
> roost, for all time to come, apparently.
> One would have thought them
> to hate Bangladeshi Muslims if they really had lost as much as they
> claimed, but their pro-Bangladeshi attitude indicates that they are
> only liars and hypocrites affecting liberality.
OK so we have a new kind of exquisite logic here.
If the Sikhs of Delhi don't hate Indian Hindus and
still have a pro-India attitude -- it means they
didn't lose anything during 1984 riots and they
are only liars and hypocrites affecting liberality.
Thank you sir for presenting a unique and original
perspective on human behaviour.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
Chacha Chaudri
> On 29 Apr 2002 06:44:39 -0700, chacha_...@yahoo.com (Chacha
> Chaudri) wrote:
>
> >> Retard like you could have put it simply "angoor khatey hain"
> >
> >Pimp like you should not be wasting time on the net. You should be
> >keeping the shutters of your family Randi-khana open 24 hours. How
> >else would your sisters and mothers support your expensive habit of
> >paying your pathans lovers ?
>
>
> And Aurengzeb-de-Sutt like you
and I have told you a thousand times...I am not a muslim and have pure
hindu blood in me. You on th other hand are a raped product. You have
49% sikh blood, and 50% hindu-converted to muslim blood and 1%
persian/arab-rapist blood.
> must rein your behen before she gets
> fertilized by another passing sulla.
She does not live in Lahore...so that risk does not exist
> But then pimp like you
Can anyone compete with punjabi-muslim pimps like you willing to sell
their sisters and mothers ....
Gulshan Khan
Chaudri) wrote:
>>
>>
>> And Aurengzeb-de-Sutt like you
>
>and I have told you a thousand times...I am not a muslim and have pure
>hindu blood in me. You on th other hand are a raped product. You have
>49% sikh blood, and 50% hindu-converted to muslim blood and 1%
>persian/arab-rapist blood.
I know you can't be a trule blue sulla coz your mother retained sulla
genes and passed on hindu. Thats why you are a retard pimp a half
sulla sikh.
>
>
>> must rein your behen before she gets
>> fertilized by another passing sulla.
>
>She does not live in Lahore...so that risk does not exist
In Lahore she will be teh sperm bank of few million sullas in
hijrastan aka hindustan she will only serve few dozen sulla ka lulla.
>
>> But then pimp like you
>
>Can anyone compete with punjabi-muslim pimps like you willing to sell
>their sisters and mothers ....
Hindu /Sikhs did for 1000 years, offered their daughters to every
Islamic invader right from Delhi to Maysor
Chacha Chaudri
..and the bastardized progeny from that unholy union turned out to be
the ancestors of Pakistan.
Pakistan is a raped child of India
koolfire_ro
hey pimp what is maysor...your mothers or wife ghand yu
madherchod...you are resident pimp of sci,dont forget
Gulshan Khan
wrote:
Its the place where Tipu fertilized your grand mama...
Gulshan Khan
Chaudri) wrote:
>Gulshan Khan <Kha...@deja.com> wrote in message news:<p7c3dugu93hof2r2s...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 May 2002 13:21:45 -0700, chacha_...@yahoo.com (Chacha
>> Chaudri) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And Aurengzeb-de-Sutt like you
>
>
>..and the bastardized progeny from that unholy union turned out to be
>the ancestors of Pakistan.
>Pakistan is a raped child of India
>
The haramzadi progeny was left in India specially the one who started
copying their sulla papas by wearing turbans and growing beards.
Once a sulla de sutt always a sulla de sutt nothing can change that.
koolfire_ro
guess you did not go to school madherchod gully,but why must pimp go
to school,trade is passed on from gullys pimp father to him...now go
and parade your women gulshan time for buisness...hehehe gulshan alias
chura 123,i have made you the most abused and disgraced characters in
the history of sci,scp,anyother guy in your shoes would have commited
sucide,rather than live this dogs life hehhehe..also you are the guy
who has been instrumental in having pakistan,islam and its women
honour getting shafted/fucked out of contention,i am happy that i have
made you instrumental in getting all things pakistani fucked,you must
be rueing the day when you crossed my path,hehehe serves you right
donkey...more than hindus who fuck pakistan in all spheres and in the
battlefield ex bdesh,madherchod gulshan khan,you are the person
responseable for pakistan/islam getting fucked to the maximum...pat,
pat,wah koolfire you are great :))
koolfire_ro
now stop yapping pimp...bring your sis/mom/didi out for a hump chuthia
chinaal...and lisen to what chacha sab is talking to you
madherchod,otherwise he will tear your moms ghand like bangladesh got
torn from pakistan,if he gets angry..chinaal what will you do for a
living...beg like your fellow pakistanis...ghandu,and before chacha
takes yur mom let me have a quicke,god knows what condition she will
be after he shafts...run gully run.
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > > Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
> > > Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
> >
> > It is true that the ruling CP(M) govt. of WB likes to have open
> > borders with Bangladesh, and has been doing its best to get
> > Bangladeshis to come to West Bengal so that they could remain in power
> > with their votes. We have to remember that the CP(M) is basically a
> > Bangladeshi party - the Hindu "refugees" from Bangladesh turned
> > communist in order to prey more effectively upon their gullible West
> > Bengali hosts.
>
> The name of the party you are talking about is CPI(M) and
> not CP(M).
True. There is however nothing Indian about that entity, nor is it a
party (it is a well-run mafia), and it is neither Marxist nor
Communist (most of the ruling hoodlums don't know anything about
Communism and Marxism, and even less regarding how to apply them to
the people).
> How can CPI(M) be a Bangladeshi party when the party was
> formed before the birth of Bangladesh?
How can there be Khalistanis when there is no such political entity as
Khalistan? :)
> Does the Indian constitution allow parties from foreign
> countries to contest elections in India.
Sadly, yes. That's why the Congress Party (a leftover from the
British Raj) is still with us, along with various Communist parties.
We are a young and immature democracy, recovering from the impacts of
centuries of alien rule, and are still impressed therefore by
unsuitable foreign ways and ideas.
> How come nobody has challenged their illegal rule of 25 years
> over West Bengal in a court of law?
Their rule is regrettable, but not illegal. When that entity is
declared illegal through some democratic process, then only can their
rule be illegal.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > > Bengal wants to have peace with Pakistan and open borders with
> > > Bangladesh, UP Bhaiyas don't want that.
> >
>
> > But - as a Bangladeshi Hindu told me
> > here in Australia - the majority of refugees from Bangladesh were
> > useless people with no jobs and no assets in East Bengal. But after
> > coming to India they pretended to have lost everything! They took to
> > politics, and under CP(M) and gained a lot, and are still ruling the
> > roost, for all time to come, apparently.
>
> Why are people who have no job and no assets due to some tragic
> circumstances in life useless?
Because they were of no use to anyone or anything in East Pakistan,
evidently. There are always surplus non-working populations in any
stagnant society, and they are potentially troublesome. In a rich
country like Australia, they survive on the dole. In poor countries,
they manage somehow.
> How about the Ayodhya Sadhu Mandal
> of BJP ?
I don't know about them.
> No one in the families of these sadhus (those who have
> families and are not illegitimate) have had a job for many hundred
> years and I don't think the situation is going to be any different
> in coming centuries.
>
> Are these sadhus useless?
No, from my Hindu point of view. Without them, there would be no
visible presence to practical Hinduism. These people do not want very
much, and they can live on very little. They represent an alternative
way of life, which is suitable for those who cannot live the life of a
householder.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
I would say that most Sikhs are learning that it does not pay to give
tacit support to murderers of innocent Hindus. The liars and
hypocrites are the Bhindranwale types, those who condemned the
killings publicly and supported the killers privately.
> Thank you sir for presenting a unique and original
> perspective on human behaviour.
I hope you learn it, sir, in the spirit imparted.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > There are endless examples of this kind to show that it's
> > politically immature to consider "India" and "Indians" as
> > single uniform monolithic entities.
>
> Nobody made that claim in the first place. India is a geographical
> and political definition, primarily. Most Indians are Hindus, who get
> along, on the whole, very well with each other, since they know how to
> live with differences in thinking and customs.
Most Indians aren't Hindus. The lower-caste Indians
don't consider themselves Hindus.
> Non-Hindu Indians who share this attitude often find life in
> India more satisfying as compared to the dogmatic and rigid
> mindsets in other countries.
Even Indians who are not non-Hindus don't find life in India
satisfying. This is the reason why pretty much everybody at IITs,
(Institutions of higher learning for the upper-caste Indians)
wants to leave India for a foreign country.
Most Indians (Hindus or non-Hindus) prefer to live in a
dogmatic and rigid environment of foreign countries than in a
free, liberal and satisfying environment of their own country.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > This unity gives peace within the entity,
> > > and increased prosperity and happiness through internal trade and
> > > sharing of culture.
> >
> > Astonishingly, the verifiable news reports in dozens of newspapers
> > on a daily basis contradict the picture painted by Mr. Banerjee.
>
> Who believes in newspaper reports?
Logically speaking, you should do. If I remember correctily, a while
ago when we were discussing the Punjab issue, most of your arguments
were based on newspaper reports.
> They only seek sensation, and the English media has always been in
> the hands of foreigners and their Indian quislings who seek to project
> India in the most negative manner possible.
OK let us agree that we shouldn't depend on only one
source to find out the truth.
Since you say you don't trust the English media on Indian
unity, peace, progress and happiness - it's fair to look for
other sources.
How about Panjabi, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Orriya,
Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannadd media? Do we get a picture
of India being united, peaceful and happy from these sources?
> Not believing in the Indian-English media is the first step
> to true intellectual independence.
How valuable is the intellectual independence of crackpots?
Should intellectual independence defy commonsense?
> Arindam Banerjee.
Habshi
fact Hinduism is the original African religion of India
On 6 May 2002 10:36:54 -0700, mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan)
wrote:
Arindam Banerjee
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.02043...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > > > This unity gives peace within the entity,
> > > > and increased prosperity and happiness through internal trade and
> > > > sharing of culture.
> > >
> > > Astonishingly, the verifiable news reports in dozens of newspapers
> > > on a daily basis contradict the picture painted by Mr. Banerjee.
> >
> > Who believes in newspaper reports?
>
> Logically speaking, you should do. If I remember correctily, a while
> ago when we were discussing the Punjab issue, most of your arguments
> were based on newspaper reports.
So it is you, Mr Kulbir Singh, that I have the honour of addressing?
How are you these days? I hope you are keeping well. Why this
"mystic rajan" business?
My point - let me make it clear - is that one cannot just believe
newspaper reports, simply because they represent just one point of
view, that of the people running the paper. One should read them to
find out not the truth, but the "truth" the people running the
paper/magazine want us to know. To come near the truth, one should
see the points of view of the other side, and note whether the
intersection set rings true, or not.
I really do not remember what I wrote about the Punjab issue - that's
a while back now.
> > They only seek sensation, and the English media has always been in
> > the hands of foreigners and their Indian quislings who seek to project
> > India in the most negative manner possible.
>
> OK let us agree that we shouldn't depend on only one
> source to find out the truth.
Exactly, Mr Singh.
> Since you say you don't trust the English media on Indian
> unity, peace, progress and happiness - it's fair to look for
> other sources.
Certainly.
> How about Panjabi, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Orriya,
> Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannadd media?
Yes, yes.
> Do we get a picture
> of India being united, peaceful and happy from these sources?
Don't we? Here in Melbourne, I see a great deal of unity, peace and
happiness among the members of the Punjabi, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi,
Bengali, etc. communities. By and large we manage our own affairs
independently, but often we have large-scale cultural programs
(including food festivals) that span all the sections.
The very purpose of media is to point out the inadequacies of the
existing system - the English media does that in a negative way, to
undermine Indian self-confidence, by maintaining the
colonialist/imperialist Sonia-Rushdie-types; vernacular media does the
opposite.
> > Not believing in the Indian-English media is the first step
> > to true intellectual independence.
>
> How valuable is the intellectual independence of crackpots?
Very. Please remember that the ruling vested interests dismiss
intellectual challengers as crackpots, to maintain their eminence. It
is so much easier to call one a crackpot, and dismiss him accordingly,
rather that investigate and discuss new ideas. Sometimes truly
crackpot ideas are widely accepted - such as Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity - with disastrous results.
> Should intellectual independence defy commonsense?
They should raise commonsense to a higher plane. With just
commonsense we would still be hunting and gathering. Not that that
was anything wrong or bad about that - we just cannot do that, with
our huge populations, these days.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arya Raychaudhuri
As some physicists have pointed out that the physical
universe is getting increasinly chaotic, it is a good idea to learn to
reconcile with chaos,
which is somewhat futuristic That's why, probably many hindus do not
change to more
well-defined orders. Otherwise, it is still a mystery to me why lower
caste hindus have not
converted out of hinduism.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> > and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
>
> And who cares for them? You care far more about them than Indians do,
> I assure you.
This is not true. The Indian people care for the politicians
that is why they vote the politicians to office so that they
can provide a fair and just administration, solve their problems.
The Indian people also give the politicians control of their huge
resources which btw include deadly nuclear weapons. So the actions
and pronouncements of Indian politicians has a direct impact on
the life of Indians and non-Indians.
The fact that there have been worldwide condemnations of Indian
policies in Gujarat show that even the international community cares
a great deal about Indian politicians.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
> > dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> > and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
>
> No Indian I know cares a hoot about any Indian politician, though
> in the recent past Mamata Banerjee had raised some
> hopes.
Actually Mamata Banerjee's dog Jerry has more potential than
Mamata Banerjee.
For one thing Jerry is very loyal and has never
switched his master.
Also, it's said that Jerry is an instant hit with all
the female dogs in the neighbourhood. The female dogs
become ecstatic with joy when they pass by the urine marks left
by Jerry during their regular walks.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> > In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
> > dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> > and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
>
> That is why, a favourite theme of mine is to throw out the
> present constitution, and replace it with a concise and powerful one,
> which should give rise to a better class of politicians.
Why this fixation with a powerful constitution? Would Newton
Modis behave differently under a more powerful constitution?
Can losers be trusted with power?
And why have only one constitution? Why not have 25 powerful
constitutions?
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I have always given Mr. Banerjee a lot of credit for being
> > a thinker even when I strongly disagree with you.
> >
> > But we get into the realm of absurdity when the thinking
> > becomes completely detached from the verifiable existing
> > reality.
>
> Your "verifiable existing reality" drawn from newspaper reports and
> politicians' utterances does not cut much ice with me.
> I depend upon
> my own experiences, and that of the many people I trust, along with
> undisputed facts, to draw my picture of existing reality.
How about the undisputed fact that Mamata Banerjee's
dog Jerry has more potential than Mamata Banerjee?
> So, having
> been born, brought up, educated and worked in India, I have my
> perspectives which are different from the projections of the
> Indian-English media directed by their foreign masters.
>
The aforementioned undisputed fact didn't appear in the
Indian-English media.
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > The name of the party you are talking about is CPI(M) and
> > not CP(M).
>
> True. There is however nothing Indian about that entity, nor is it a
> party (it is a well-run mafia), and it is neither Marxist nor
> Communist (most of the ruling hoodlums don't know anything about
> Communism and Marxism, and even less regarding how to apply them to
> the people).
But this kind of criticism can very well be applied to all
the Indian political parties. Why single out CPI(M).
What is Bharatiya about Bharatiya Janata Party? This party
may well be named Pakistan Janata Party or Bharatiya Bandar
Party or The Party of Foul-mouthed Anti-national Criminal Thugs
or something.
When all the Indian provinces have seen political turmoil,
social strife and uncertainty, CPI(M) has provided the most
stable government to West Bengal for 25 years. And West Bengal
isn't an ordinary province. It's a province with the highest
per capita copnsumption of fish, a food item rich in nitrogen
compounds that are good for human brain.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > How can CPI(M) be a Bangladeshi party when the party was
> > formed before the birth of Bangladesh?
>
> How can there be Khalistanis when there is no such political entity as
> Khalistan? :)
>
Well, if have to discuss philosophy instead of politics,
there are other questions that need to be addressed.
For instance, why BJP supporters have turned out to be
Bandars when their is no irrefutable evidence that the
copulation that took place to produce them was between
any species other than humans ?
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > How come nobody has challenged their illegal rule of 25 years
> > over West Bengal in a court of law?
>
> Their rule is regrettable, but not illegal. When that entity is
> declared illegal through some democratic process, then only can their
> rule be illegal.
But cross-species breeding is illegal. For instance
copulation between humans to produce bandars or copulation
between a human and a bandar to produce another bandar
is not permitted under the democratic procedures of
parliamentary form of democracy.
Shouldn't that make the bandar rule illegal?
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
-snip-
> Otherwise, it is still a mystery to me why lower
> caste hindus have not
> converted out of hinduism.
I don't see any mystery - they follow the early forms of Hinduism,
that remain valid not only for them, but for the rest. Thus, Makar
Sankranti is a major festival for the tribals, and we who live with
them in their area also join in. In the same vein, I paid my homage
to Bunjil, the aboriginal god of the Grampians in Victoria, Australia.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > No one in the families of these sadhus (those who have
> > families and are not illegitimate) have had a job for many hundred
> > years and I don't think the situation is going to be any different
> > in coming centuries.
> >
> > Are these sadhus useless?
>
> No, from my Hindu point of view. Without them, there would be no
> visible presence to practical Hinduism. These people do not want very
> much, and they can live on very little. They represent an alternative
> way of life, which is suitable for those who cannot live the life of a
> householder.
Producing illegitimate offspring without being a householder is not
merely an alternative way of life, but it's also illegal and against
the democratic procedures of parliamentary form of government.
It's hard to believe that any religion, let alone an advanced
religion such as Hinduism teaches people to perform undemocratic
illegal acts of producing illegitimate children.
>
> Arindam Banerjee.
Arya Raychaudhuri
adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.02050...@posting.google.com>...mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...No one in the families of these sadhus (those who have
families and are not illegitimate) have had a job for many hundred
years and I don't think the situation is going to be any different
in coming centuries.
Are these sadhus useless?No, from my Hindu point of view. Without them, there would be no
visible presence to practical Hinduism. These people do not want very
much, and they can live on very little. They represent an alternative
way of life, which is suitable for those who cannot live the life of a
householder.
Producing illegitimate offspring without being a householder is not
merely an alternative way of life, but it's also illegal and against
the democratic procedures of parliamentary form of government.
In the US, I have seen news where individuals claim (from time to time)
that one of the early american
statesmen was their forefather! Also, recently, there was a big hoopla about the love-child
of a prominent african-american politician. Less noise is made when stars and musicians
are seen to be in a similar situation (for example, the recent news of a major Indian musician's
love-child).
Even the sadhus do that!? Amazing!
But, not amazing, since I recently read a news item that says that some european women
are smuggling out sperms from India.
Arjoe
Arindam Banerjee
"mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com...
> adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message
news:<890e65ea.02050...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
news:<48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > >
> > > The name of the party you are talking about is CPI(M) and
> > > not CP(M).
> >
> > True. There is however nothing Indian about that entity, nor is it a
> > party (it is a well-run mafia), and it is neither Marxist nor
> > Communist (most of the ruling hoodlums don't know anything about
> > Communism and Marxism, and even less regarding how to apply them to
> > the people).
>
> But this kind of criticism can very well be applied to all
> the Indian political parties. Why single out CPI(M).
Because that related to the earlier context, of open borders with
Bangladesh.
> What is Bharatiya about Bharatiya Janata Party? This party
> may well be named Pakistan Janata Party or Bharatiya Bandar
> Party or The Party of Foul-mouthed Anti-national Criminal Thugs
> or something.
This is a question for BJP supporters. As far as I am concerned they are
a bunch of fanatics expressing lip worship for Hinduism, and spoiling the
image.
> When all the Indian provinces have seen political turmoil,
> social strife and uncertainty, CPI(M) has provided the most
> stable government to West Bengal for 25 years.
True. But stability is not everything. The USSR was similarly stable for
over 75 years, but today they are in a sad condition.
> And West Bengal
> isn't an ordinary province. It's a province with the highest
> per capita copnsumption of fish, a food item rich in nitrogen
> compounds that are good for human brain.
Then try same in increasing proportions, Mr Singh.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
A BJP bandar is hardly such a dangerous monster as we find in this world
of ours, Mr Singh. Give him a banana, and he will be happy, and you
will be safe.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
> > > over West Bengal in a court of law?
> >
> > Their rule is regrettable, but not illegal. When that entity is
> > declared illegal through some democratic process, then only can their
> > rule be illegal.
>
> But cross-species breeding is illegal. For instance
> copulation between humans to produce bandars or copulation
> between a human and a bandar to produce another bandar
> is not permitted under the democratic procedures of
> parliamentary form of democracy.
It is also not possible.
The product of two different species is not capable of reproduction:
eg, mule.
> Shouldn't that make the bandar rule illegal?
But who will enforce the laws, Mr Singh? Your solitary howling does not
show any sense of direction or purpose.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
news:<890e65ea.02043...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > > I have always given Mr. Banerjee a lot of credit for being
> > > a thinker even when I strongly disagree with you.
> > >
> > > But we get into the realm of absurdity when the thinking
> > > becomes completely detached from the verifiable existing
> > > reality.
> >
> > Your "verifiable existing reality" drawn from newspaper reports and
> > politicians' utterances does not cut much ice with me.
>
>
> > I depend upon
> > my own experiences, and that of the many people I trust, along with
> > undisputed facts, to draw my picture of existing reality.
>
> How about the undisputed fact that Mamata Banerjee's
> dog Jerry has more potential than Mamata Banerjee?
That "fact" exists only in your own mind, Mr Singh. Not, as far as is known,
in any other mind.
> > So, having
> > been born, brought up, educated and worked in India, I have my
> > perspectives which are different from the projections of the
> > Indian-English media directed by their foreign masters.
> >
>
> The aforementioned undisputed fact didn't appear in the
> Indian-English media.
Naturally. They eat more fish than you, Mr Singh.
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
news:<890e65ea.02043...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
> > > dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> > > and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
> >
> > And who cares for them? You care far more about them than Indians do,
> > I assure you.
>
> This is not true. The Indian people care for the politicians
> that is why they vote the politicians to office so that they
> can provide a fair and just administration, solve their problems.
Wonderful. I will be so glad to be wrong on this issue. If people care for
the
politicians they vote for, if they really do their job properly, then why
any
howls at all?
> The Indian people also give the politicians control of their huge
> resources which btw include deadly nuclear weapons. So the actions
> and pronouncements of Indian politicians has a direct impact on
> the life of Indians and non-Indians.
Not as direct as the murders committed by anti-India terrorists, and our
own hoodlums.
> The fact that there have been worldwide condemnations of Indian
> policies in Gujarat show that even the international community cares
> a great deal about Indian politicians.
Yes, one can expect them to do that!
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
news:<890e65ea.02043...@posting.google.com>...
> > mystic...@yahoo.com (mystic_rajan) wrote in message
news:<48b40c3.02042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > In fact scores of Indian political leaders in recent weeks have given
> > > dire warnings about the supposed unity, peace, prosperity, happiness
> > > and sharing of culture as described by Mr. Banerjee.
> >
> > That is why, a favourite theme of mine is to throw out the
> > present constitution, and replace it with a concise and powerful one,
> > which should give rise to a better class of politicians.
>
> Why this fixation with a powerful constitution?
Because it is the source of good laws and proper political behaviour.
> Would Newton
> Modis behave differently under a more powerful constitution?
Events like Godhra and its backlash would have far less chance of
taking place with a proper constitution.
> Can losers be trusted with power?
In a democratic system the question does not arise. Only the winners
are trusted with power.
> And why have only one constitution? Why not have 25 powerful
> constitutions?
One constitution for the whole country, 25 or more for the different states,
250 or more for regions, 2500 or more for institutions... It is all
possible,
with thoughful design taking into account different and non-conflicting
needs.
Arindam Banerjee.
mystic_rajan
> "mystic_rajan" <mystic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:48b40c3.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > When all the Indian provinces have seen political turmoil,
> > social strife and uncertainty, CPI(M) has provided the most
> > stable government to West Bengal for 25 years.
>
> True. But stability is not everything. The USSR was similarly stable for
> over 75 years, but today they are in a sad condition.
There is a strong reason why Brahminists of all hues passionately
hate CPI(M) rule in West Bengal.
West Bengal under CPI(M) is the only province in Indian union where
ideology is more important than caste and religion. When caste
and religion are removed from the decision making equation,
Brahmanists lose their age old advantage. This upsets them a
great deal.
> Arindam Banerjee.