a new law was passed to stop the media from making fun of the President or his friends in government

Ennis, I think you might be in trubs....

whoa, NYT sure took a while covering this. Anyways, a journalist friend of mine in Lahore summarized the advisory they have got form the Government as

no photographs of suicide bombers, bomb blasts, etc., can be published. Nothing against Mushy, the army, the big-shots can be said. Fine upto Rs 10 million and a 1 year imprisonment for the editor/publisher/distributor/writer... etc, etc.

Greetings.

In response to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf's declaration of martial law and illegal dismissal of a Pakistani Supreme Court Justice, I am encouraging all bloggers out there who want true democratic rule for Pakistan's 165 million people to unite in opposition.

From now on, I am asking bloggers to consistantly refer to Musharraf as "Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf" consistantly linking back to a post I made explaining this idea in greater detail.

The post allows threaded comments, so that those opposed to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf can start discussing ways that we can organize and unite in opposition to his dictatorial actions.

My hope is that a consistant message of opposition to martial law and support for democracy in Pakistan can help to influence the media away from legitimizing the Musharraf regime by referring to him as a President. By definition, he cannot be a President if he refuses the right for his government's Supreme Court to decide whether his running for office is legal or not.

Please drop by the post, leave a comment as to what ideas you have on how we can best unite in opposition to martial law, and please do consider using the phrase "Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf", linking back to the post.

Thank you,
Mark Kraft

I am encouraging all bloggers out there who want true democratic rule for Pakistan's 165 million people

Democracy would be nice but if the options are a corrupt BB or a just as bad Nawaz Sharif, what's that going to really change. Especially if the situation does go back to status quo of a few weeks back vis a vis Mushy.

Ali Eteraz has written a very decent piece "Musharraf's mini-martial law" for The Guardian.

It was on Sepia Mutiny's news tab, but I guess someone removed it few hours ago.

He … quoted Abraham Lincoln, saying that America’s 16th president had broken laws, violated the Constitution and trampled on individual liberties to keep the country together during the Civil War.

Yes, I deeply resent Lincoln's trampling individual liberties. Who did he think he was, just barging in and stamping all over poor humble slave-owners' birthright to keep slaves?

Judging from the fact that Pervez "The Perv" Musharraf seems to think of himself as a modern day Abe Lincoln, was he another of Doc 420's patients?

the comparison to lincoln is apt. Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, did act tyrannically and against the constitution and against the democratic will of the nation (not just southern states-- new york too! A whole lot of people that never owned slaves had an interest in letting those particular terrorists gain traction). Lincoln imprisoned sympathizers with the opposition, including northerners, thousands of them. He mobilized the military against that opposition as it armed. And when he got a 44 bullet in his skull, his killer said, "thus ever to tyrants." He tends to look okay now. I think it's easy to condemn Musharaff on a kneejerk and superficial basis. I don't think his actions are without merit.

ithout that particular military leader, that entire monster of a military goes up for grabs to the group with the most guns. His group with the most guns seems the sanest of the groups with guns.

Yes, I deeply resent Lincoln's trampling individual liberties. Who did he think he was, just barging in and stamping all over poor humble slave-owners' birthright to keep slaves?

Yeah, it's true actually, that Lincoln, posthumously, was at the losing end of a Supreme Court case (Ex Parte Milligan) about habeas corpus and military tribunals--point is this precedent is probably more relevant to Bush than to Musharraf ;)

I think it's easy to condemn Musharaff on a kneejerk and superficial basis. I don't think his actions are without merit.

What merit do they have? :) All he's doing is engaging in a power play with the judiciary and making the country more unstable in the process.

ping pong

its silly to think that the abridgment of liberties was in any way connected to the moral issue of slavery.

if the south were seceding for other reasons (and actually the civil war was far more complex than just slavery)--for example tariffs, lack of protection, etc Lincoln would still have likely carried out all his orders to preserve the union. His decisions were done precisely to win a war and preserve the union, not to make some grandiose point about slavery

notably, musharraf also could have cited the oft praised FDR as precedence for his meddling with the makeup of the supreme court--court packing is often given a brush aside from historians who have glorified FDR, but was one of the most overt and substantial attempts to weaken the separation of powers, and a tyrannical one if any

So hey, Pez is just taking the best out of our best presidents--Lincoln and FDR

Rajeev has "reproduced" a guest column by General Musharraf. Here.

Here's a quick quote: "I am Pakistan's Lincoln. He suspended habeas corpus, I suspended the whole constitution. Same difference. I am Pakistan's Gandhi. He disobeyed laws that he considered unjust and so do I. I am Pakistan's Savior. Jesus Christ was a victim of Judicial Activism by the Pontius Pilate. So am I the victim of extreme Judicial Activism by one Chaudhary."

Forget about criticizing Army in all Pakistan based blogs as comments are being held for approval and then disappearing in thin air.

I’m telling you guys for sure calls to Pakistan won’t be fun anymore as I can’t talk politics on it. Authorities call tapping is so bad that you can hear them chewing a pan.

last week's newsweek had a very interesting cover story re the politial factions involved in the situation in pakistan. they painted mushy in a rather benevolent light, potraying him as 'stuck' between eradicating terrorism yet fearful of pissing off the population that supports islamic militancy.

fearful of pissing off the population that supports islamic militancy.

Gen. Mushy isn't fearful of the poor public he had to deal with the Islamic extremism within his government and Army. His two political allies Ejaz ul Haq (Gen. Zia’s son) and Chaudry Shujaat are two of his allies in government and they are pretty close to extremists. Remember Lal Mosque, it took security forces months to invade because his government aides were against it as that siege could be over in days by cutting off power and electricity. Someone supplied them arms in that fort called Islamabad.

"The orders prohibit coverage that 'brings into ridicule or disrepute' General Musharraf": somewhat brings to mind the legislation in Zimbabwe at the beginning of the 1980s that criminalised laughter at the president's name: he was of course Canaan Banana. Possibly this isn't exactly what General Musharraf has in mind, however.

Or the President of Malawi's prohibition on the playing of the Simon and Garfunkle's song "Cecilia". His mistress was named Cecilia, and he hated the part where the singer says that he's down on his knees, begging her please to come home ...

lincoln seems to be a popular object of comparison these days. bush somewhat compared himself to lincoln, his republican supporters compared him to lincoln, and obama compared himself to lincoln. so musharraf is in good company.

By making the Lincoln analogy, Dictator Musharraf is admitting that Pakistan is undergoing a civil war.
A war that could very well lead to a second dismemberment of Pakistan, once again, like Bangladesh, a result borne of their own designs.

Or the President of Malawi's prohibition on ... the part where the singer says that he's down on his knees, begging her please to come home ...": he is on Banded knee? Hastings Banded knee, that is?

Latest update:

As narrated by a current LUMS senior:

It has now been almost 8 hours since dozens of peaceful protestors were arrested from outside the HRCP (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan) building. The arrested individuals - who, apart from LUMS Faculty (Dr. Ali Cheema and Mr. Bilal Minto), also include more than 10 females - have been kept in unlawful detention all this while. There is a huge group of people outside the police station ( Model Town A Block Police Station) to inquire after the detained protestors.

The police have, however, refused to give out any information about
the detainees, including their present condition and when they will be
released. We simply have NO way of finding out what has happened to
them. We can only hope that they are safe.

I have just received further information to the effect that the
detainees are being moved right now to prison cells. Women police
officers have been called in to take charge of the female detainees.
The police still remain tight-lipped otherwise, though they have
started roughing up the people gathered outside the station who demand
to know what is going on. Police officers are verbally threatening and
abusing the people and trying to barricade the police station so it
can no longer be easily approached by the crowd.

Being a LUMS alumni I am completely shocked by this. While Bilal Minto (Law professor) and Asim Sajjad (Outspoken social science professot, active communist and heavily involved in Kissan (farmer) welfare) have always been active protestors and attracted trouble, the fact that Dr. Ali Cheema has also been arrested is shocking. Dr. Ali, a PhD from Cambridge and head of economics department at LUMS is amongst the most reasonable, well spoken and universally respected people in Pakistan. Its like arresting Stiglitz in the US or Amartya Sen in India (As in, in Pakistani Economic circles he carries similar weight)

somewhat brings to mind the legislation in Zimbabwe at the beginning of the 1980s that criminalised laughter at the president's name: he was of course Canaan Banana.

This is true. I was reminded of the same thing when I read the post, and tracked down the article where I first read it: an Economist piece on humor and how it is perceived in different countries, "You Think That's Funny?", Dec 18, 1997, reprinted here. Includes Zimbabwe, Kenya, Japan, North Korea, UK & US.

I'm not sure why I should care so much as an Indian with all of my extended family in India. The new "wisdom" being spouted by people like Reza Aslan to the Western media is that democracy wouldn't bring fundamentalists into power. It depends what you mean by fundamentalist....someone who wants to see a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of the West(80% of Pak population). So maybe an election would not be disastrous for the West but please explain to me how things would get better wrto Indian security with a popularly elected Pakistani government ?

someone who wants to see a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of the West(80% of Pak population)

Bigot alert.

Abhi: I didn't copy my comment into the response box as I had typed it. Here it is as it should have appeared:

I'm not sure why I should care so much as an Indian with all of my extended family in India. The new "wisdom" being spouted by people like Reza Aslan to the Western media is that democracy wouldn't bring fundamentalists into power. It depends what you mean by fundamentalist....someone who wants to see a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of the West (

So if you still want to dismiss me as a bigot for stating fact, i.e. that even Pakistani moderates feel entitled to Kashmir on the basis of the Two Nation theory, go right ahead

I'm still having trouble with the comment tool, maybe due to my use of percent signs and parentheses. The point I was trying to make is that while only 10 percent of the population may support the global aspirations of the AQ type fundamentalist, over 80 percent of the pop supports the idea of the Two Nation theory in Indian Kashmir. So in light of that what difference does it make to an Indian wrto security whether or not there is democracy in Pakistan

I just want to make sure you weren't trying to say that 80% of Pakistanis want to see the destruction of the West.

I just want to make sure you weren't trying to say that 80% of Pakistanis want to see the destruction of the West.

Absolutely not. I think it's the greater than and less than signs the comment tool has difficulty with BTW, forgot that it is used for blockquotes

That being said for the reasons I mention I am not sure how Pakistani democracy can be seen as a positive from the Indian perspective. I am not sure how great democracy is in the case of Gujurat where murderers get a popular mandate. And here in the US I am pretty sure the country would still be be segregated had the question been left to popular will

Hey guys,
You can listen to an interview with the editor of Tehelka, with a Canadian radio show host tomorrow on Radio India in Vancouver.
Radio India livestreams on the internet, and the show is from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. PACIFIC STANDARD TIME. The editor is going to reveal the details of the sting. This is a great opportunity for people in North America, who haven't been able watch the television news, to hear some information directly from the source.
Hope that you have a chance to tune in!

Oh sorry, I didn't read the heading carefully enough and I thought y'all were still talking about Modi. I keep getting my crazed politicians confused.
Anyway, I hope my post is okay!

lookingaskance #26,

Democracy is not to be blamed for situations like the Gujarat riots. If anything, military rulers have time and again whipped up hatred just so they can remain in power.

Wars - there aren't very many examples of two democratic nations going to war. Indo-Pak wars were, for instance, always with a military leader in Pak (except 1999 in Pak, when Mushy as a general is believed to have carried out the incursion into India without the elected PM's approval)

Segregation was not ended in the US by military coup. It was through democratic and constitutional means, although not by elections.

A Sting Without Venom
'Tehelka's multi-million enterprise has been greeted with circumspection bordering on derision' ......
Chandan Mitra
Outlook

Sting is suddenly a suspect, if not dirty, word. But till even just a few months ago this controversial method of procuring information was celebrated as the harbinger of a bold era, the defining characteristic of "new journalism". After the infamous Delhi schoolteacher episode, which turned out to be concocted, there is palpable discomfort with this genre. Sadly, for Tehelka's multi-million enterprise aimed at exposing Narendra Modi's alleged involvement in the 2002 post-Godhra riots, even their venture has been greeted with circumspection bordering on derision. Congress, the prime beneficiary of sting operations mounted by Tehelka, its offshoots and other copycats, has issued fervent disclaimers about its alleged sponsorship of the operation, privately suggesting this may have been funded by Modi! A failed sting is like a military coup gone awry: it is an orphan.

Why did Tehelka, the original promoter of this dubious genre of journalism, get it so horribly wrong this time? First, the timing of its public release was so transparently pegged to the Gujarat assembly polls that even breast-beating secular fundamentalists found it hard to defend. Having self-confessedly collected evidence over six months, the 'stingers' failed to convincingly explain why they waited for the poll dates to be announced and the Election Commission's model code of conduct to be operationalised. "Politically motivated" is a phrase routinely brandished by Indian politicians at the receiving end of adverse media publicity. But for once, this cliche hit the bull's eye.

Second, did the so-called sting establish anything that was not already in the domain of public knowledge? That certain bestial people on the Hindutva fringe indulged in gruesome forms of torture and murder was well-known and widely condemned. The bizarre, much-publicised twists in the Best Bakery case were sufficient to drive the point home. Significantly, however, the secular fundamentalists continue to pointedly ignore the fact that the poster boy of the Gujarat riot industry, the Muslim tailor photographed begging for his life with folded hands during the violence, has returned to his home state after a stint in 'secular' West Bengal, complaining of exploitation by CPI(M) for political gains. He now avoids publicity like the plague, saying he has no desire to play the role scripted for him by Gujarat-bashers.

Third, that TV channels, which reportedly paid a packet to Tehelka for telecast rights, ran disclaimers saying they were not responsible for the claims made by those interviewed, carries its own tale. Small-time, small-town politicians are known to exaggerate their importance given half a chance. That was my personal experience while conducting interviews in remote UP and Bihar districts with survivors of the Quit India Movement for my doctoral thesis for Oxford University. Their claims had to be routinely cross-checked to eliminate self-mythification. Talking to a reporter who posed as a Hindutva champion researching for a book on the saffron surge in Gujarat, these persons could well have given free rein to their grotesque fantasies.

But what is the worth of these "confessions"? Can they stand even cursory scrutiny in a court of law? So what did Tehelka aim at? As veterans of the burgeoning sting industry, having supplied call girls and Scotch to lubricate the wagging tongues of army officers in the defence expose, surely they knew that only a political motive could be served by their unsuccessful attempt to find a smoking gun in Narendra Modi's hand?

Fourth, did they find anything against Modi? After sending out lakhs of sms alerts for three days hyping the suspect end product, thus benefiting mobile service providers and the marketing departments of select TV channels, they couldn't find even a concealed revolver in Modi's pocket, leave alone a smoking gun.Modi never visited Naroda Patiya, site of a horrifying carnage, and thus the question of his garlanding the alleged mass murderers there simply did not arise. The post-mortem report said Congress ex-MP Ehsan Jafri died of three bullets lodged in his body. No limbs were cut one after another; neither was his torso "toasted", contrary to a chilling assertion by a prominent rioter. "Modi gave us three days," claimed yet another braggart. Self-righteous secularists argue: Modi is a demon, so whatever is said against him is true and if you want proof you are a communalist neo-Nazi!

Tehelka's disastrous misadventure doesn't need further elaboration. I can only feel sorry because they tried to be too clever by half and fell flat. Nothing justifies the burning alive of 52 kar sevaks at Godhra, and the retribution that followed. But just as Delhi recovered from the Congress-supervised anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984, so much so that Punjab twice elected that party to power in the state, so has Gujarat. This time, there is no trace of a communal cloud overhanging the forthcoming election. The only issue is Gujarat's spectacular economic development despite the devastating earthquake and the shocking riots. It is for the people of Gujarat to judge who are guilty of re-injecting the virus of communalism into the state's politics; who are friends of Muslims and who are their (hidden camera-carrying) enemies.

If the dictator of Pakistan really thinks of himself as an "Abraham Lincoln":

"But apart from that, Mrs. Musharraf, how was the play?"

so here's something that's puzzling.. or perhaps not so puzzling, and I'm just naive/ignorant of Pakistan's political scene:

Musharaff cited the mess in the NWFP/Swat etc. but then goes ahead and arrests a lot of lawyers (who have been a thorn in his side for some time now) but also takes out/arrests secular folks like Asma Jahangir. So is he just using the security situation to take out *all* political opposition? Even those that are not necessarily related to the security situation? I mean, least it seems to me that secular progressive opponents are not likely allied with the islamists. Is this purely about that?

I am sympathetic to the notion and concern of Pakistan's survival being at stake with all these horrific attacks and militancy spilling out of the border regions. But, so much of these recent events seem to be only indirectly related to that grave crisis, and far more about the constitutional squabbling between the executive and judiciary. These two separate issues are linked, insofar as 'stability' is concerned I suppose.. but that seems dubious. So I guess the question is.. will he take care of the mess out west? Can he? Because if he can't, then this is ENTIRELY about getting rid of opponents, even those that might be inclined to support him in taking on more extreme elements. He's presumably selling this to the US/UK by arguing that it's purely about the security situation.. but it's awfully convenient to get rid of some mostly unrelated annoyances/threats. I do hope they recognize this detail; they probably do but seem willing to let it slide.

Sigh, wrapping my head around Pakistani politics is hard -- loyalties are confused and shifting, with the military's ertswhile courting/support of the islamists (and likely continued support from some elements within it) making things such a mess. Any thoughts?

"But apart from that, Mrs. Musharraf, how was the play?"

He he! But here's an alternate version of Lincoln.

This is all mostly irrelevant for India. Just protect ourselves and keep Pakistanis at bay and out of our country like we mutually agreed in 1947, and let's plod on improving the lot of our people - we have a looooong way to go.

Also noted for Indians are the close American alliances with brutal dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while foaming at the mouth about democracy for Iraq. Can you say: hyp.. oil?

Oh, and just so I'm not misunderstood:

- I'm with the democracy protestors in Pakistan in full spirit. Democracy will be good for their country. Just that it's irrelevant to India who's in pwoer in Pakistan - it's all the same.
- I'm sorry for American loss of life for no reason.

Musharaff cited the mess in the NWFP/Swat etc. but then goes ahead and arrests a lot of lawyers (who have been a thorn in his side for some time now) but also takes out/arrests secular folks like Asma Jahangir. So is he just using the security situation to take out *all* political opposition?

As I see it, the main reason for the coup was to consolidate the government/army to tackle the extremists (intehaa-pasand) and the terrorists (daishat-gard) both in NWFP/Swat/Waziristan and their symapthizers elsewhere in the country. Musharraf saw the Chief Justice and Judiciary plus civil society as just being in the way, and so they were removed/sequestered/arrested. He had his marching orders vis-a-vis the extremists/terrorists; but he would also have accomodated the lawyers/Judiciary/civil society people like Asma Jehangir as well as politicians like Benazir and the PML-Q - provided he remained in charge and had a free hand to put down the extremists. But with the most recent incidents at Sargodha and Rawalpindi, he thought he just couldn't afford a sideshow and distraction while he was going after them. So the coup, aimed first at putting away the Judiciary, which was otherwise moving to nullify his recent re-election.

Sargodha, where a major terror incident occured last week, is Pakistan's largest airbase, and the bus carrying flight crew to or from the base was attacked. If he was not seen as really going after the terrorists after this, he could have had serious disaffection within the officer ranks. The other incident of a bomber blowing himself up outside the official residence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (a figurehead in Pakistan's set-up, but still) - was similarly a huge deal. So these appear to have been the immediate provocation, but the Judiciary was a sideshow that he felt had to be stopped first.

And BTW, many of the political arrests were carried out in full view of the media, who not only filmed it but also broadcast it - Asma Jehangir was under house arrest, but was interviewed through the peephole in her gate, with the cops actually holding the peephole open for the mike. She has given several interviews both to the BBC and to Pakistani channels over the weekend. Same with Imran Khan, and many others. So I see the political 'repression' as being rather light, certainly by South Asian standards, and including a comic touch, with many of the leaders leaving smiling in the police vans showing a 'V' sign. Maybe without Western pressure it would have been worse.

It's the same with the media - print or electronic - they are not exactly being shut down (except for the initial blackout on Friday night). In this respect the contrast with the Indian Emergency of 1975 (which was also aimed at neutering and heading off a judicial verdict on Mrs. Gandhi's election) is very sharp. The political repression and the media clampdown then was quite real. Perhaps in thirty years, South Asian politico-civic sensibilities have moved so far forward that even in a military dictatorship such repression is no longer easy, and technologically, no longer possible.

chachaji, That was a nice apology for Musharaf's military rule and his emergency declaration!!!

26 · lookingaskance said:

And here in the US I am pretty sure the country would still be be segregated had the question been left to popular will

Democracy is more than just elections--elections are just the most visible culmination of democracy. Press, legislature, judiciary, civil service, you need all that, and free from corruption. (I'd say that big money is too heavily invested in the US press and legislature, but that's a different topic.)