September 21, 2006
Life in the Stone Age wasn't easyNews
This Sunday evening CBS’s 60 Minutes has what is promising to be an explosive interview with President Pervez Musharraf. Check out the tidbit they have leaked early:
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan tells Steve Kroft that after 9/11, the U.S. threatened to bomb his country if it didn’t help America’s war on terrorism.
Kroft’s interview with the Pakistani leader, in which he also discusses his embarrassment over his country’s nuclear secrets getting into the hands of other nations, will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 24, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Musharraf says the threat came from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was delivered to Musharraf’s intelligence director.
“The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,’ ” recalls Musharraf. It was insulting, he says. “I think it was a very rude remark.” But he reacted to it in a responsible way, he tells Kroft. “One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that’s what I did…” [Link]
Geez. That Armitage seems to have a big mouth. I’m sure we all figured that Pakistan was strong-armed into turning on the Taliban (as well they should have been), but hearing that such stark language was used is almost as surprising as hearing Musharraf admit it. I’m not sure how this will go over with some in the home crowd. Musharraf also admits to his most embarrassing moment as President:
“(Tenet) took his briefcase out, passed me some papers. It was a centrifuge design with all its numbers and signatures of Pakistan. It was the most embarrassing moment,” Musharraf reveals. He learned then, he says, that not only were blueprints being given to Iran and North Korea, but the centrifuges themselves — the crucial technology needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade — were being passed to them. “(Khan) gave them centrifuge designs. He gave them centrifuge parts. He gave them centrifuges.”
Despite the fact that the military was guarding Khan’s nuclear facilities and the total amount of secret material sent from the lab was more than 18 tons, Musharraf denies anyone in the government or military had to know. [Link]
Incidentally, Mr. Musharraf is stateside right now and just attended a conference with the likes of Bill Clinton and Laura Bush.
Mr. Musharraf took the lead as news-making head of state. He said “a lot of tensions in the Muslim world” were caused by the furor involving Pope Benedict XVI’s citation of a medieval text saying some of Muhammad’s teachings were “evil and inhuman.” Mr. Musharraf added that the pope’s remarks “were most unwarranted.”
“It is a time for interfaith harmony,” Mr. Musharraf said later in the conference session. No one has the right, he continued, “to hurt anybody else’s feelings, least of all at this time.”
Referring to Muslims, Mr. Musharraf added: “The world thinks that we don’t believe in democracy, we don’t believe in modernization, we don’t believe in secularism. Let me assure this house that Islam in theory believes in all of them.”
Mr. Musharraf also said the continued presence of American troops in Afghanistan was contributing to the resurgence of the Taliban and was intensifying instability there.
“They are coming back because of the presence of foreign troops,” he said. “There certainly is an antipathy to foreign presence in Afghanistan.”
The Pakistani leader emphasized that in his view, the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian governments remained the greatest threat to security and political stability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon.
“It lies at the core of everything,” he said. “We must not open new fronts — we must start closing fronts…” [Link]
Those are some wise words that he ends with.
abhi on September 21, 2006 04:31 PM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
A Hindi idiom describes Mushy's interview quite aptly - "Sau-sau chuhe khaker billi Haj ko Chali". It means that after feasting on hundreds of rats, the cat is now going to the Haj for penance. What more can I say?
Regards,
Aninda
If terrorism was a movie, Pakistan is the director and Saudi Arabia is the executive producer.
I'm glad Islam like democracy. I knew Islam back in University (Islam Khan). He seemed like the typical deis engineer-idiot, mostly drinking, partying, and studying. Good for Islam. But does what does Pervez Musharraf think of democracy? Not much, it seems.
Musharraf on the Daily Show should be interesting, though Stewart has a tendency to suck up to political guests.
Nice one Ikram. Sometimes when I watch Musharraf, I think Mel Brooks is going to appear and yell "Cut.."
An excellent op-ed piece appreared in the WSJ yesterday --see below
MUSHARRAFISTAN
by Mansoor Ijaz
Wall Street Journal Online
September 20, 2006
A client state for sale to the highest bidder
Mr. Ijaz is a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry
Gen. Pervez Musharraf will speak tomorrow at the Clinton Global Initiative's plenary session on "Urgent Issues and Innovative Solutions" -- an apt title for a talk by the Pakistani ruler given the urgency and array of problems he faces at home. Pakistan needs not just innovative solutions for its difficulties, but a leader with ideas to frame them and the guts to implement them. Increasingly, Gen. Musharraf does not appear to be that man.
His Pakistan has become a sad story of contradictions. Islamabad is propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars to be the frontline ally in America's war against extremists, yet Gen. Musharraf has repeatedly appeased radicals for political gain while al Qaeda leaders actively use his soil to plan attacks around the world. The British transatlantic jumbo-jet terror plot last month was a case in point -- Pakistan's arrests of militants in Karachi, Lahore and along the Afghan border may have helped expose the plan, but British nationals of Pakistani origin visited the country to meet al Qaeda co-conspirators and allegedly issued the "Go" instruction from Pakistani soil.
Another example emerged in late August, when the Musharraf regime signed a peace treaty with restless tribal chieftains in the northern frontiers along the border with Afghanistan that effectively ended the hunt for Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man. The northern tribal areas are now left unattended to become a state within the state that offers haven to the civilized world's worst enemies. The irony could not be more complete -- America's staunchest ally presides over the breeding grounds of the very people who seek to kill as many Americans as they can, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.
* * *
There are other disturbing hypocrisies. Gen. Musharraf's regime manages to pour billions into plutonium processing plants and, soon, into Chinese nuclear reactors, but cannot find enough money to feed or educate Pakistan's children -- many of whom are growing up to be tomorrow's extremists. Rogue elements inside Islamabad's nuclear program are permitted to arm dangerously unstable governments with nuclear technology and know-how in pursuit of ill-gotten gains -- and some misguided notion of an Islamist panacea. But science and math are off the curriculum at the nation's radicalized, Saudi-funded madrassahs. And Pakistan's economic potential remains locked in a feudal past, where land and labor are the bane of corrupt barons who pander to an army that no longer acts as guardian of the state, but as if it is the state.
Neighborly relations are equally dismal despite recent attempts to shore them up. Gen. Musharraf continues to court Tehran's mullahs, raising Washington's ire, in hopes of building an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could fund a revival of the Kashmiris' militant insurgency against India, and keep his restive Inter-Services Intelligence minders happy. His peace overtures to New Delhi, including his recent commitment to restart stalled peace talks at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Cuba, ring hollow after evidence seems to prove time and again that Pakistani soil -- and resources made available from Pakistan -- are being used to back terrorist attacks against India.
Gen. Musharraf's recent trip to Kabul, made under heavy pressure from Washington, was little more than an exercise in damage control. A resurgent Taliban has successfully used its northern Pakistani sanctuary to launch attacks on Hamid Karzai's government while bringing down U.S. helicopters with shoulder-fired missiles. Anywhere else, such actions would be sufficient to disqualify a head of state from remaining in government.
Pakistan has lost its identity. It is a client state for sale to the highest bidder for the purpose that suits the moment: to the U.S. after 9/11 as the staging grounds for hunting down terrorists; to Saudi Arabia since the Iranian revolution so that Wahhabist Islam could flourish next door to Shiite Iran; and to China as a strategic counterbalance to India's growing power. While this short-sighted strategy may help ward off complete state failure, it does not provide fertile ground for imaginative plans to realize the country's potential. Gen. Musharraf must stop being all things to all people, and gather the resolve to tackle what is wrong with Pakistan -- or step down from power. He, or his successor, needs to do the following, and fast:
End the hypocritical alliance with jihadist parties and Islamist activists. Pakistan in the 1970s tolerated student-protest movements, trade unions and serf cooperatives. Political thinking thrived. But Gen. Musharraf's power grab in October 1999 resulted in the death of Pakistan's political class and the institutions that sustain democratic rule. Political necessity and the realities of a post-9/11 world forced him to make a devil's bargain with religious zealots that destroyed what was left of Pakistan's polity. Islamists, however, want the "one man, one vote, one time" version of democracy, not constitutionally assured electoral continuity.
Pakistan's next leader needs to rebuild the foundations of self-rule by bringing back debate, permitting protest and reviving analytical thinking as the cornerstones of a functioning polity. Democratic institutions and protections are rights and privileges no single man has the authority to deprive a nation of.
Change the direction of the nuclear program. Pakistan's next leader needs to radically rethink its nuclear policy. The army has enough bombs in storage to blow up the world, so why build expensive plutonium plants that only churn out less detectable, easily transportable bomb-making material that will force the world to spend excessive resources in policing an indeterminate threat? Why not make the nuclear program transparent -- and remote from fanatics -- by inviting international teams to man its nuclear facilities? That way, Pakistan could soon serve as a global processing center to handle nuclear materials for a wide array of countries under a new non-proliferation regime. That is the path India is likely to choose when its reactors are refurbished under the new U.S.-India nuclear pact. Safe, civilian nuclear energy available to Pakistan's citizenry and one day, to the rest of the world, is the best use of Pakistan's nuclear talents.
Build a real economy that integrates Pakistan into the world. Pakistanis are a most industrious and intelligent workforce; expatriate income is a cornerstone of Pakistan's economy. Just witness Dubai's construction-boom riches flowing into the country unabated. Yet Pakistan's feudal class has stifled domestic growth and crippled the economy at home by manipulating industrial output, failing to reinvest in business and indulging corruption on the grandest of scales.
The next leader needs to formulate an imaginative proposal to wean the country off the dependencies that define feudal politics, and give the landowning class a stake in a modern, industrial economy. Land barons can profit from letting land to large, agrarian multinational businesses with modern technology that improves productivity, as opposed to taxing their serfs into oblivion.
Construct real peace, not mirages that mask tension. Pakistan's neighbors no longer have cause to want to destabilize it, and, in fact, would prefer a strong and stable country on their borders. India is busy building a world-class economy; making peace with Pakistan over disputed Kashmir is an important priority in that effort. Meetings and dialogue between the leaders of both countries are important, but it's time to end the talk and walk the walk. Jihadists are not the solution for Kashmir, a fact that Pakistan's next leader must recognize from the outset. Wresting Kashmir from India by force is not possible, and militarily not prudent. Furthermore, a Pakistan at peace with India would no longer require "strategic depth" by controlling or manipulating affairs in Afghanistan.
The leader of Pakistan will speak tomorrow about innovative solutions for urgent issues. Indeed, Pakistan needs imaginative leaders to formulate creative solutions for its many problems. The world needs a strong Pakistan that puts its brilliant minds to good use for the betterment of its people so the country can fulfill its promise. It's time for Pervez Musharraf to either deliver on that promise -- or step aside, and let those who can take on the job.
i wouldn't trust musharraf with a 1,000-foot pole, but i have to admit one thing: when it comes to slick pr and selling himself to the western media and getting his viewpoint across, he leaves most indian politicians in the dust.
Sometimes I think Karl Rove and Cheney just threatened him or somehow persuaded him to take the fault for the Plame leak so they their asses would be covered. It's just a bit too conveninent that after such a long investigation, Armitage comes out and say "Oops, I did that" and now we're supposed to forgive all the others in this case. Don't think so.
Pakistani politicians have always been much better than Indians in sucking up to the USA. Benazir Bhutto was far better than Rajiv G, or the various brown men that followed him (PV what?). Even Zia had a style that (bizarrely) appealed to western oriental tropes (big punjabi mustache...). Mushman is better than Manmohan. And can you imagine Vajpayee on the Daily Show?!
It's probably because Pakistani politics (including its military adjunct), is still controlled by the elite westernized class. In India, Laloo (my hero!), Mayawati, and others have a chance at leading, but they can't relate to the Americans.
Msuhman is quite good when it comes to PR etc.
But in the end Mushman gets the brownie points..while Manmohan gets the real treat.
what gets me his Mushy thought he was being 'rude'. LOL!!!
if some dude called me and said that... come on.
Novak's recent comments :
in theory
nice.
I think Musharraf should be commended for saving his nation from being bombed back to the stone age.
When is Mushie on at the Daily Show?
On sept 26. As for commended, he did well with the weak hand he was dealt, but he can do far less than an elected leader with real legitimacy. No PK dictator has lasted longer than ten years -- too much turns to shit by then -- Musharraf should bow out gracefully.
Also -- would be nice is while he was in the US, someone brought up the Woman's Prtection bill currently stuck in Parliament. Eteraz' blog has more details.
actually i think rajiv gandhi was pretty effective. he was telegenic and had that boyish charm. i remember when he once dared to take on the iron lady herself, thatcher, at a commonwealth heads of government meeting. of course she was no pushover herself and sort of dismissed him in a benign grandmotherly way. but he made big waves at that conference. but other indian politicians who are part of the westernized elite, and manmohan singh is moreso than vajpayee in this context, somehow either don't want to or are less effective at utilizing the western media. and perhaps, as you said, the closer historical political relationship between pakistan and the u.s. partially accounts for this.
"But in the end Mushman gets the brownie points..while Manmohan gets the real treat."
sometimes the public doesn't really understand the difference. i remember an american saying some years ago "why is india being so mean to musharaff?" although i think it's harder these days for musharraf pr-wise.
As for commended, he did well with the weak hand he was dealt, but he can do far less than an elected leader with real legitimacy.
True, but I am not sure whether a democratically elected Pakistani government would have been able to support the US invasion of Afghanistan. There were a lot of forces in Pakistan trying to keep Pakistan atleast neutral in the US invasion of Afghanistan and it was rather courageous of Musharraf to take them on (correctly IMO) and support the US invasion anyway. He has almost paid with his life for that decision and if not for good fortune he would have almost certainly died in one of the 2 assasination attempts against him by the salafist jihadis.
I just watched Karzai interviewed two days ago, I can't remember who interviewed him, maybe Wolf Blitzer? (I've been watching the news constantly because of the circus acts at the UN) He was declaring that Musharraf knew, and still knows, where top leaders of Al Qaeda and Taliban are hiding in Pakistan. Moreover, when Karzai's government located them in Pakistan, and actually informed Musharraf of the addresses, he claimed that they were old addresses, that they had moved. So in terms of his effectiveness at playing "America's ally" in the region, I think Musharraf might want to put some actions to his words, especially if Karzai is calling him out on CNN.
no pun intended?
I have to agree with Ikram that Pakistani leaders are more palatable/ saleable than Indian ones in West. It is because what people holds the power - Benazir was a Harvard-Radcliff-Oxford graduate.
Except Nehru. Even, Indira Gandhi was quite polarizing in West.
On the other hand, I think Laloos of India desevere their chance - after all, they are elected by the people.
I once went to Benazir Bhutto's talk at Cornell. The auditorium was completely filled, and everyone went ga-ga, all the American girls wanted to be Pinky (Benazir's well-known nickname). She spoke very well.
I also think Pakistani wonks, lobbyists, and well wishers are more erudite - they are not running around in confused "South Asian" brouhaha or being Pankaj Mishra.
Back to the topic, Musharraf is in a mess that is not going to be cleaned overnight.
Ikram (#8):
Well said! It really irritates me when Indian elites look down on their elected, populist and popular leaders like Laloo, Mayawati, Jayalalitha or Vajpayee. Their embarassment is pathetic and short-sighted. These are the same folks that yearn for the days of the Emergency when things "ran on time" ("bhai ek baat to manna padega, trains ghadi par to chali" et. al).
Desi elites are the BIGGEST opponents of democracy on the subcontinent.
It's inconceivable that Musharaff or senior people in the Army establishment did not know what AQ Khan was doing.
democracy works - warts and all.
I like the way Musharaff play's the apres moi le deluge card, one hand pointing out how Pakistan is a moderate stable country and then subtly telling people how the next guy may be a wild-eyed fanatic.
ManMohan should say "Make your deals with me now, atlest you understand where I come from, after me there's Lalu with 30 years experience in Bihar politics".
here's how b-schools do the read. Laloo is the CEO who led the turnaround of a $4.4Billion company - with possibly the top-50 employee headcount, top-50 markt cap, ... in the country.
following up to #24
I like the way Musharaff play's the apres moi le deluge card, one hand pointing out how Pakistan is a moderate stable country and then subtly telling people how the next guy may be a wild-eyed fanatic.
Strobe Talbott said it best in Engaging India (I paraphrase): Pakistan is like the mugger that threatens to blow HIS OWN brains out if you don't give him your wallet.
sorry.. i meant "the world" rather than "the country"... i changed the sentence at eh last mo' trying to make it more impactful
Just like they did in Italy under Mussolini, right? Sorry, I know that one's getting tired.
Quite a few people seem to think Yadav is just the peachiest guy ever. I think he's a bit more complex than all that. Yes, he's done wonders for the railway system. But the guy's so corrupt that when he ordered a committee to investigate where the funds were going, they traced it back to him. And even to them, the committee members themselves! Yeesh.
This is democracy "working?" The guy didn't do all that much for Bihar, either. Let's not get all carried away.
Well everything works...now and then. C'mon, what Laloo did to Bihar over 15 years is forgotten by one IIM case study? And what do you think of all the 'history-sheeter' criminals in Parliament? Democracy does works in mysterious ways.
I agree there could be worse options to democracy in India, but this is getting positively maudlin here.
Can't we just say Indian leaders and diplomats are lagging on the PR front, without pinning the blame on some unrelated cause without any substantiation.
I wasn't casting my net on Indian leaders and diplomats only but also the larger diaspora. My beef is with nonchalance, vague ideas (cold war frame of mind, nonaligned ideaology in post-USSR world, summer of South Asian love), and subtle disassociation. Pakistanis leaders and their spokepersons have never been sidetracked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To contrdict myself, I will give five stars (*****) to Indian Silicon Valley types along with Azim Premjis in India for being part of the catalyst for Indian economy. Regarding PR, I think the small fraction of new crowd is up to the mark.
In past also, they have been brilliant spokesperson of India - a few of them - like MC Chagla for India in UN.
There is also new crop of MPs (Sachin Pilot, Milind Deora, etc.) in India who are promising but with no real clout yet.
In some ways, I am also fascinated by Laloo and his staying power or Jaya Amma. Yes, he is being studied in B-school.
ok i dont know about all this other stuff... but really... turning around a $4b company is not a cakewalk... and that's what i was applauding... not excusing corruption... it does indicate a problem with the system that the leader of such an organization needs to pad his pocket.
out here, even among public corporations (Ontario hydro comes to mind) they get a pretty sweet package... but we're mixing sambhar with rasmalai here.
He was one of the mail accused in the $200 million so-called 'fodder scam', so its not like he needed the money.
But he must be credited with carving a space for the oppressed castes, in Bihar's political landscape. But the cost for Bihar has been staggering.
#33. Wait on one hand we are told that SA bloc is tiny & insignificant and on other hand they are partly responsible for our PR debacles. But I am satisfied with your self-contradiction ;)
As for commended, he did well with the weak hand he was dealt, but he can do far less than an elected leader with real legitimacy.
No civilian leader ever had real authority over army. Benazir Bhutto came to know about the nuclear program from the americans and not through her intelligence sources. Pakistan is supposed to be defined the three AAA(Army,Allah,America) and democracy is not one of them. Musharraf is responsible for the predicament he finds himself in today. He organised the kargil fiasco & coup against sharif for making peace with India. Only to walk down the same road after coup. He wasn't dealt a weak hand. He is paying for the consequences of his actions.
who cares about laloo in the context of this thread? can we please keep on topic.
Voiceinthehead:
Mush: Hello....is this AAA roadside assistance ?
Operator: Yes
Mush: I was driving down the interstate and my country broke down. Can you please send some help ? I'll prefer any of the the threee A's.
Yeah there is no question that Pakistan throws up suave grandees who know how to talk the talk in diplomatic circles, and they're usually handsome to boot - they also come from the same twenty families. As the old quip goes, there are two things always understimated in South Asia: Pakistani dilpomacy and the the Indian Army.
India has an anglicized grandee class too (busy being progressive South Asians...sorry, I just had to:) , but the populist politicians have marginalized them somehwat over the past twenty years. Mayavati, Vajpayee, Uma Bharati, Jayalalitha etc, have been (or are) the people's choices, and that's the way it should be.
Well from wiki, Pakistan's motto is FUD..
link
That reminds me of the usage of FUD in the high-tech world..
link
Pakistanis (esp. the rulers) have excelled in FUD from day one.. starting from Jinnah :-)
Well the grandees do get their way occasionally (Manmohan) ...
In retrospect(97-99), Mush + Sharif was the best possible combination to bring a turnaround in Pak. Sharif won elections on peace with India plank and he eased out an army chief(karamat) from office. Unconditional American support was waning due to end of cold war. Mush was not an islamist, though he is cool with using them as a tool against India. Nukes have bought some pragmatism among strategic community. Working in tandem they could have bought institutional changes necessary to de-radicalise pak and bring army under civilian control. But then kargil happened and then 9/11. Mush is reaping what he sowed.
India has an anglicized grandee class too (busy being progressive South Asians...sorry, I just had to:)
This is the reason, why I keep saying ToI is not an aberration, but indicative of larger disease. Making wild claims/allegations without facts and then complain of bias. I shall henceforth call such people "ToI fans" ;)
Mayavati, Vajpayee, Uma Bharati, Jayalalitha etc, have been (or are) the people's choices, and that's the way it should be.
Reminds me of the bachelor and his women(all spinsters btw) trouble. I miss the drama, not the actors. The
Interesting stuff.
I'm not badly biased against Pakistan, but this blog entry kind of hit home about the hypocrisy of the NeoCon points for invasion.
One thing about the chart though is that while Iran isn't a military dictatorship, and I don't see the relevance of it being in the chart(which the author acknowledges), it is mostly a theocractic one.
Musharraf is too shrewd to make such a remark without careful planning. If I had to guess, I'd say he's realized that the Americans are running out of patience with him (he's tried the "we've almost got them - we're close to capturing a Big Fish" line one too many times in the last few months), and his inability to control Waziristan and the army's effective withdrawal from the area have shown the Americans that he wasn't really capable of delivering what he promised. So now, after playing the "it's me or the Islamists" card with America, he's playing the "if you Americans try to do it yourself you'll provoke anti-American sentiment" card. Perhaps he's also realizing that the Americans aren't going to bail him out forever and he may have to make nice with the domestic opposition too. Any Pakistanis on here care to comment?
Comment #43 isn't by me, in case there is any confusion about the matter (although it does make some good points).
*************************
Musharraf's disclosure of the threat levelled at him post-9/11 is quite timely, considering that George W. Bush has also just stated that he is prepared to send US troops into Pakistan if there is credible intelligence of Osama bin Laden being located there.
I also think Pakistani wonks, lobbyists, and well wishers are more erudite - they are not running around in confused "South Asian" brouhaha or being Pankaj Mishra.
You dont like Pankaj Mishra's writing style? I have read this one and I actually liked it.
Politics is about compromise; samjhauta. India's leaders understand that very well just as their counterparts in the US and other mature democracies do. So while the suited booted glitterati and chatterati clink glasses and hog the limelight the tedious job of crafting a modus vivendi goes on out of sight and earshot. Lalloo would make a great negotiator and I can see him hitting it off with the people from the heartland be it the Yorkshire Downs, Mississippi, Western China, or Patagonia. And that's why he was the star of the show when the Indian MPs were in Pakistan, where I have no doubt he would win the polls hands down in any constituency. He certainly has left Bihar a poorer place and has been uncaring about the State's many crises; but his ability to do good far outweighs his talent for mischief. Although he has become a successful Railways Minister by simply well alone; he is capable of much much more. Jayalalita is a very different sort. She is articulate, polished, and would make a great spokesperson for India. She's got the smarts to outdo any talkshow host including Jon Stewart. Apart from English she is fluent in Hindi and 1/2 a dozen Indian languages and is reasonably conversant in French (Indu spoke French very well; and the late RaoGaru spoke four European languages). We work with who we are and what we have. Borrowed feathers seldom glitter. Indian politicians and diplomats whatever their appearance may be have performed when it matters. And that is why unlikely combinations have worked so well. Like the time when Vajpayee (a cowbeltwallah) and Salman Khursheed (a Stephanian) successfully staved off a resolution brought by Benazir 'Pinky' Bhutto at the UN to censure India. Read Stanley Wolpert's bio of Bhutto for his account of the Tashkent talks in 1966 when according to im Lal Bahadur Shastri (a 4' 10 sparrow of a man) wore down Sandhurst educated F/M Ayub Khan leaving Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto speechless. India's politicians take care of their own. Behind all the vituperation and backbiting there exists a bonhomie across party lines that defies wisdom. When Lalloo's daughters went to study in Rajasthan they were looked after very well by the then BJP CM; and the current Vice President BS Shekhawat. Take an early morning flight out of the domestic airport in Delhi and you will see politicians of every stripe; North, South, East or West; Left or Right; talking together cordially. The Indian political class is surely venal, irresponsible, selfish, and leaves much to be desired in terms of its competence. Do I wish India had better politicians? Sure! And yeah, I wish I had a beachfront home in the Mediterranean.
Mushy - The world thinks that we dont believe in democracy, we dont believe in modernization, we dont believe in secularism. Let me assure this house that Islam in theory believes in all of them.
Esp, as we all know, Secularism, which by the way is sanctified by the Pakistani constitution (sic), in the much loved and respected, Hudood ordinance.
Mushy ki jai ho, long live the General for Life of Terroristan.
I wish the White House would put pressure on Musharraf to amend the Hadood laws.
Al Mujahid,
Yep, the same dude who complained that there was no English newspaper available at a small town, north Indian bus stand (Butter Chicken in Ludhiana).
I like his style, but his world view seems a bit strange at times.
Amfd - While I agree, the white house and everbody else, should pressure Pakistan on the dreaded Hudood ordinance, it would be much better if change came from within.
At times like these, I wonder, whither the Pakistani left? and, If may I ask without offending anybody - where is the Muslim left?
p.s. an ahmediya friend of mine cannot travel out of Pakistan, without denouncing his faith and accepting the prophet Muhammad as the last prophet.
Kritc, Al-mujahid -- are you all not paying any attnetion to PK news?! Go read this, and this. Then come back.
Kritic wrote:
At times like these, I wonder, whither the Pakistani left? and, If may I ask without offending anybody - where is the Muslim left?
These kinds of questrions aren't offensive, if meant well. But they are offensive if the questioner hasn't made the least effort to be well-informed. Simple googling (or just reading newspapers) will give you a lot of your answers -- like the above links. Don't be a lazy "kritic" -- be an intelligent one.
ok... that hudood link is scary...
but is it practiced because that would mean that those who stole the centrifuge design should have their hands cut off.
Musharaff seems to follow the George Costanza logic "It's not a lie if you believe it." So, chances are good that America did warn Pakistan that it would be in its interest to abandon the Taliban and support the U.S. They probably did not go into specifics, but since Musharaff is a military man, and views all matters through such a viewpoint, he feared a military action by the U.S.
Pakistani diplomats do seem more polished than Indians - but as has been posted, that may be due to Pakistan being run by the same landowning/military oligorachy. In democracies, dimplomats are put forth that represent the viewpoints of its constituents. That applies to America too - Jesse Helms was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and actually introduced Benazir Bhutto as the PM of India.
Thankfully, India is being judged more by the skills of its private sector than the clumsiness of its political class.
Ikram - An "Eteraz" here and an op-ed there, does not a left (movement ) make.
When I query, I ask about a movement and, not individuals. The fact that discrimination against non-Muslims is legally sanctioned in Pakistan and yet, life goes on for the Pakistani intelligentia, speaks volumes.
Ikram - since you urge me to research, I too would urger you to reaearch the gaping difference between the responses to the Gujarat progrom and the ethnic cleansing of the non-Muslim minority from Kashmir. Very revealing, to say the least.
Musharaff's statement also has the effect of putting the White House on the defensive. They might have planned to spend the weekend applying pressure on Pakistan. Instead, they will be playing down Musharaff's comments. The comment seems to be telling Bush and Co. "Don't push me too hard." But hey, coming on the heels of shaking hands with Singh in havana, only 2 months after 200 Indians were killed in Bombay - the man know how to work the systems for his own ends.
Kritc, Al-mujahid -- are you all not paying any attnetion to PK news?!
I plead guilty! I know I should be reading up more on Pakistan. Just havnt got around to doing it. I dont really get into the whole India-Pakistan Kashmir thing. It doesnt interest me that much.
kritic,
Muslim left is behind the move to repel of Hudood ordinance ? I thought it was religious scholars, feminists and lawyers. The move to repel them has wide support. From Ikrams' second link "Council of Islamic Ideology" doesn't seem like left.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=geo+TV++hudood&btnG=Search
Please don't bring unrelated stuff (gujarat, kashmir) in a discussion about move to pakistan womens right bill. What does your Ahmadiya friend think about Hudood ordinance ?
You're probably right, KXB. Or he's trying to stir up some anti-US sentiment in Pak. Why, though? I don't get it. I mean, I can only easily understand him trying to portray himself as an alternative to anti-US Pakistanis. But being seen as stirring up that sentiment?
Kurma,
Self-preservation is the name of the game for Musharaff. If he portrays the U.S. as a bully, that will improve his standing in Pakistan. This may come in handy if they ever get around to having elections.
Unfortunately the comments here are starting to sound like an echo chamber. To represent the opposing point of view, Musharaff is extremely popular among the expat-Pakistani community. From anecdotal evidence, among Pakistani-American's I would not be surprised if his approval rating is is in the 90+% range. Some reasons I can think of is his personal moderation, desire to maintain strong relations with the US, economic stability and the corresponding huge real-estate boom in Pakistan, etc etc.
I would appreciate it if Pakistani's who read this blog could explain further why Musharaff rates so highly among expat Pakistani's.
i just wanted to say that those who are critical of musharraf should not let their criticism get in the way of activism on behalf of the women's protection bill. i have here provide instructions on how to pressure musharraf
thanks
frankly i've been dismayed by the lack of activism on the part of american leftists
to the commentator above who claims there is no pakistani left and there are no activists within pakistan, i encourage looking around before making such baseless claims.
here is a muslim scholar risking his life for repealing the ordinance
here is an email from an activist on the ground - you will find him reacting against the pakistani left here
here is an op ed that appeared shortly before musharraf got here
finally activists have also used this opportunity to try and make pro-democracy and pro-procedure moves against musharraf
so please, it is patently unfair to say it is just an 'eteraz' here and there.
also, it is also advisable to avoid getting caught up in the PR campaigns (daily show and npr propaganda) and to focus on the immediate issues
Preznit Bush says he was "unaware" of the bomb threat against Pakistan.
Not that he was "unaware." He's not saying it didn't happen, he's saying things have been arranged in such a way that he can plausibly deny that his handlers informed him.
#62.
I am sorry if my comments seems like Musharaff hating. I only want to point out that some his troubles are his own making. And of course there is more that he could do, like act on Womens Protection Bill( for which there is considerable popular support) and not genuflect needlessly to extremists.
We could take Subodhs suggestion on macacca thread and write to Jon Stewart(thedailyshow@comedycentral.com) and NPR and ask them to raise this issue with Musharraf.
As a journalist, Im interested in precision. Thus, just a note to correct Kritics point:
Not entirely true. I am an Ahmadi Muslim (of Pakistani origin, though I am American). Ahmadi Muslims are labeled as Non-Muslim on their Pakistani passports. They are allowed to travel outside of Pakistan (else none of my many relatives would have visited me here in the US), but they are clearly labeled with that distinction. They cannot, however, perform Hajj in Saudi Arabia, for examplebecause they are considered Non-Muslim and their passport clearly says so.
As for the Pakistani left or lack thereof, I believe it exists but is silenced by the mullahs, who wield great political power despite that the majority of educated Pakistani society could care less about them. Its true many of Pakistans institutionalized discrimination against minorities is atrocious. I have experienced it firsthand. But until the mullahs grip is loosened on Pakistani society, not much will be done.
Thankfully, India is being judged more by the skills of its private sector than the clumsiness of its political class.
India's political class leaves a lot to be desired but things ain't ALL bad. I'm quite proud of the intellectual capital of the central-Govt BJP for instance, though they seem to be defunct these days (Jaitley, Shourie, Y Sinha, J Singh, Vajpayee, hell even Advani - these are some serious and seasoned politicians that did plenty of good for India).
Even India's private sector today explicitly makes common cause with politicians, not just for political favors but because they clearly see common goals (politicians are no longer simply feared or despised) - e.g. the Ambanis hobnobbing with UP politicians, the confluence of private and public figures at Davos, Mittal and the Singh government, India Inc. etc.
Point isn't that Indian politicans still couldn't vastly improve. The point is that the increasing mania over "image" among Indians (at home and in the diaspora) is really quite odd.
But until the mullahs grip is loosened on Pakistani society, not much will be done.
Isn't this a slight oversimplification? In my experience, even secular Pakistanis who despise mullahs have very strong feelings about their religion as an ethnic identity, which has to be protected from the tyrannical giant next door. The mullahs weren't the ones that made Pakistan a homeland for Muslims.
Thanks KXB. Like others pointed out earlier, how come he admitted it freely? You provided a very good answer to that. But with all his new talk, he'll have to go home and take strong anti-US stance to keep the pride of the people. Maybe he's trying to feed Pakistan some realism as well. Like - "We ARE the US's bitch/dog. You folks better recognize. They can do anything with us. Matter of fact, they threatened to bomb us. We can't really take them on. I put our nation's well being above our honor and cooperated with them. I didn't do it to survive myself. I did it so we can all survive. I even cooperated with the killing of our friends in Afghanistan. Unlike what you think, I hated to do it, but it was them or us." Maybe...
bongdongs,
Mushy is definitely good for expat Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans. No wonder they support him. Is he good for Pakistan, though?
Sorry, I meant to say- OR maybe Maybe he's trying to feed Pakistan some realism while putting the US on the defensive like you suggest.
Armitage says there was no threat made. We all know Preznit Musharraf never lies...
Of course Armitage and the administration don't lie either, right? *cough* Plame *cough*
I'm rather surprised to see all the nice nicknames that Musharraf is given here "Mushy, Mushman," etc. Is this b/c of the anti-Pak sentiment here? I'm sure many of you would not be cool with "Singhee, Mammoth Sing," and would quite markedly voice those views. It's hard reading viewpoints
and taking them seriouslyfrom those commenters, even if I agree with their statements.No one here or in India ever called Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif by any "nice" nickname. Zia-ul-Haque and Musharraf, on the other hand, have many. Couldn't it be because they are dictators? Any reason why you think people here are "anti-Pak" as in, they hate Pakistan or it's people?
Kurma, If the shoe fits.........
Eteraz -
As SMR pointed out, Mullahs have not been in power throughout your history and yet, the minorities have been treated reprehensibly since August 14th 1947. To wit; The perpetrators of the Bangladeshi genocide (Tikka Khan, et al ) went on to live in prosperity. The hindu population of Pakistan declined from close to 15% in 1947 to less than 2% today.
Kritic -- The 15% figure is for east and west pakistan. The proportion of non-Muslims in west PK afeter partition was about 3%. It is now about 3%. (look it up on this old comment thread) There are important issues regarding minority rights in PK, but your arguments work better if you make the minimal effort to inform yourself.
The hindu population of Pakistan declined from close to 15% in 1947 to less than 2% today.
Kritic as you are well aware, there was a massive population transfer between 1947 and late 1950s. Stating the above figures are highly misleading. Its like stating the percentage of Muslims in Indian side of Punjab in 1947 as compared to percentage of Muslims in Indian side of Punjab today.
What was the Hindu population of Pakistan in 1960?
Ikram: They get these numbers from extreme right wing hindu nationalist websites which are no different from the jihadi websites. I have tried to slay this beast before here
Martha Nussbaum has done some great work on the pathology of these groups. Another favorite obsession of these people is the sexuality of the desi Muslims. Here is an analysis of Martha Nussbaum on the obsession of the hinduvta crowd with the sexuality of desi Muslim women and Gujarat riots.
No party in this case of "did too, did not" has got the best reputation with respect to honesty. And Musharraf has a book to sell... this week. Interesting timing to stir up some controversy...
And Musharraf has a book to sell... this week. Interesting timing to stir up some controversy...
I agree.
If you think this is about books to sell, there's a bridge in Gurgoan (is there a bridge in Gurgoan) I'd like to sell you. This is international politics, a book deal is small change compared to that
Oh I'm sure Musharraf doesn't need the money... he just wants the ego boost that he has written a popular book about himself. Just like Chomsky is basking in the boost from the free Chavez plug.
Al_mujahid at #79: Your comments about extreme right wing hindu nationalists and that link to Nussbaum's article have to be the MOTHER OF ALL NON-SEQUITURS. But never mind that. Here's a question for you - Would you rather be a Muslim in India or a Hindu in Pakistan? Or forget Muslim even. Would you rather be a Christian in India or a Christian in Pakistan?
The question isn't facetious because in my experience different people tend to answer differently. Those who favor a certain kind of stability in their politics at the cost of "mattering" in the slightest to a nation (because whether 3% or 15%, minorities DO NOT MATTER in Pakistan), favor the latter. Those who'd sacrifice a little of that stability for a greater role in their nation (actualized in multiple ways) favor the former.
India's failings in its treatment of minorities appear more stark precisely because it chose a more ambitious idea for itself. You can post all the links you want to show that the number of Hindus in Pakistan has remained stable since 1950. But that would be a colossal misunderstanding of the point being made - minorities matter less and less to the idea of Pakistan.
In some ways, communal violence in India is almost a positive sign - violence usually occurs when facts on the ground have to be changed to match an ideology. Hence the frustration of VHP types - Hindu rashtra is still eons away. Why would there be violence against Hindus in Pakistan anyway? They sit quietly and dare not be uppity like Muslims in India.
Please note our comment policy. This is the sort of garbage we erase and ban for. Thanks.
Sigh. I was unclear - it isn't a "good" thing but it shows minorities haven't been beaten into submission.
On some small level it may be an ego boost, but we're talking about dudes who preside over countries. They're supposed to be psyched that somebody bought a book?
please excuse him as he was disturbed that we had gone 83 responses into a thread on sepiamutiny without any mention of godhra. thats quite a feat for this website, and the fact that godhra has no relevance to this thread is not really a matter of concern
Bill Clinton got a book deal reportedly in excess of $10 million for his autobiography after running a superpower for 8 years. Just because they are/were presidents/dictators, doesn't mean that they don't have the desire for any additional financial gain or ego stroking.
I think all it would take to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age is a M-80 firecracker so that isnt much of a threat in my opinon.
And seriouly how stupid is this musharaofff, or however you spell his name, guy?
"UMMMMM, my country hates me, the people riot for the sake of riotting, and people are always trying to kill me. I know Ill write a book telling everyone how America bullied me into the war. That will show my people how strong I am."
I see a whole lot of people dying in the coming weeks because this douchebag has to make a buck or 2 by wrtiting this stuff now.
Ikram-
Do you blog anywhere? You should. You'd be surprised how many indian nationalist types (such as myself) are interested in hearing the pro-democracy pakistani point of view. As it stands I think the discourse on subcontinental politics is dominated by indian liberals, doing a favor to no one, imo.
SMR: No, I don't blog. When I did, it was mostly on a topic I know well -- Canadian politics and Canadian identity. I don't know enough about PK to blog on it (you don't need to know anything to comment on it, as this thread illustrates).
I'm afraid I can't even refer you somewhere -- all I know I get from reading the Dawn and listening to increasingly elderly uncles endelssly redebate partition. Sorry.
As it stands I think the discourse on subcontinental politics is dominated by indian liberals,
Yes. This blog should be the antidote (south asia in da house). But it isn't -- a topic for another day.
Al_mujahid at #79: Your comments about extreme right wing hindu nationalists and that link to Nussbaum's article have to be the MOTHER OF ALL NON-SEQUITURS. But never mind that. Here's a question for you - Would you rather be a Muslim in India or a Hindu in Pakistan? Or forget Muslim even. Would you rather be a Christian in India or a Christian in Pakistan?
I did not post that link to bolster my argument. I was pointing out to Ikram that the people who post these numbers of diminishing Hindu population usually have extreme right wing Indian groups as their source who also happen to obsess with the sexuality of desi Muslim women.
As for living in Pakistan as a Hindu or a Christian, I would live in the country where my life, property and liberty were better protected. I know there are some Hindu enclaves in Sindh and as far as I can tell their life and property are not under any serious threat though their liberty interests might be seriously compromised. So would I rather be a Sindhi Hindu in Sindh or a Muslim in India would depend on where I get to live in India and whether my interests in life, property and liberty were better protected or not.
I am not a big fan of modern day Pakistan so I am not going to defend Pakistan. I am not going to live in Pakistan either because it is poor, chaotic, corrupt, too religious and generally a place where I would not like to stay for more than a month or two. I do understand that there are some serious issues with the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan and work needs to be done towards fixing the situation. Making fallacious arguments about dramatically diminishing Hindu population takes away from the issue at hand and discredits the messenger.
I'm afraid I can't even refer you somewhere -- all I know I get from reading the Dawn and listening to increasingly elderly uncles endelssly redebate partition. Sorry.
Elderly uncles have mostly ridiculous things to say about partition and related issues. I just love the dynamics of Indian and Pakistani Muslims dueling it out in North America. Most of the desi Muslims I know are either Indian urdu speakers or Muhajir Pakistanis and theres too much bonhomie between these people for good fireworks. Add in a Kashmiri Muslim or a Bengali Muslim or a Punjabi Muslim and the fireworks start.
Ikram: Out of curiosity, do you identify more as an Indian or a Pakistani? If I remember correctly, one of your parent is Indian and the other one Pakistani. I guess you are the real South Asian ;)
Cowasjee
Ayaz Amir
Irfan Hussain
Dude AMFD, that was way too overboard.
Regarding the number of Hindus in Pakistan or Bangladesh, people can quote reliable statistics (say from the Govt. of Pakistan/Bnagladesh). A lot of people would be interested in finding it out. Indian census takes religion into account and Muslims have grown from 8% in 1951 (I think) to 13.4% in 2001. I'd be very much surprised if the minorities (Hindus/Christians) have increased in Pakistan and Bangladesh like in India.. Ofcourse Pakistan created new minorities like Ahmediyas, but that is a different issue.
Idea of India is different than the idea of Pakistan / Bangladesh. One can argue that Indians have not fully realised the idea. Ignoring the differences in vision statements of India and Pakistan/Bangladesh and trying to rate them on the same scale is incorrect.. A typical retort for this argument from the 'secular'/'liberal' 'South asians' is that this is a Hindutvadi argument.
I should have clarified. I was referring to the attitudes of the people who are the source of these numbers and not SM commenters.
But trying the point further, these right wingers seem to be obsessed with Muslim women. Muslim women are ofcourse fair skinned and I would rather have them. Did I tell you my love for Priyanka Gandhi ;)
Like I meantioned before Minorities have decreased in Bangladesh and Pakistan because they migrated into India. The latest figures on illegal Bangladeshis in India are 20 million which is only about 2% of our total population. But the right wingers like their counterparts in the US like to raise hue and cry over the immigrants because they are muslims
But trying the point further, these right wingers seem to be obsessed with Muslim women. Muslim women are ofcourse fair skinned and I would rather have them. Did I tell you my love for Priyanka Gandhi ;)
Dont be so freaking lame and change you god damn moniker!
SM INTERN: Please ask this guy/gal to change the id so as not to create confusion with my id.
Amfd (the original) -
Very unfair allegation in # 79.
I have requested a Pakistani academic friend of mine to provide me with the numbers on Hindus in Pakistan and, of course, a report on their lot. Shall keep you posted.
Interim, here are some very revealing and, in my opinion, indefensible, not to mention, despicable tid bits. Quotes are from wikipedia. Link below.
"Hindus as a minority in Pakistan have had considerably fewer privileges, rights and protections in comparison to minorities in India, which constitutionally avows itself secular and giving of equal rights to its religious minorities including the Muslim, Christian and Sikh communities"
"Hindus are allotted separate electorates (in pakistan) to vote by, but their political importance is virtually nil."
"The intense religious conservatism and politically charged environment in Pakistani Punjab offers limited freedoms for Hindus."
"The increasing Islamization of Pakistan and antagonisation against a majority Hindu India has forced many Hindus to leave Hinduism and convert to other faiths such as Buddhism and Christianity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan
p.s. if i am not mistaken, the much quoted Pakistani newspaper, the dawn has a circulation of less than fifty thousand. just to put it in context.
Nearly sixty years later, a Hindu allowed to join the Pakistani Army.
And, If he converts to Islam, maybe they will promote him.
Kritic -- I hope your "Pakistani academic friend" comes through with the 1951 census data, but if not, you can find secondary sources extremely easily on the web. For example, this bharat-rakshak paper gives the % of non-Muslims in West PK as 3.56% in 1951. According to the Population Association of Pakistan, it was 3.48% in 1998 (not including Ahmadi Muslims, to maintain comparability). That only took 10 seconds of googling.
Also, your wiki quote is incorrect in stating there are separate electorates for minorities -- these were abolished in 2002. (Now all voters have an equally useless vote).
As for the Dawn, it is what is claims to be, "Pakistan's most widely-circulated English language newspaper". Founded by Jinnah, its never been a mass paper -- English literacy rates are very low. (I thought circulation was about 150K -- where did you get your lower number?). I used to like The Herald magazine too. It's not available on the net, but you could ask your academic friend to help you get it from a good library.