Pakistan: Yet Another Historic Choice

tarek · 10-12-2006, 02:28 AM

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Defeat extremists at next year’s elections:

Quaid’s Pakistan dead if we don’t win: Musharraf

By Rana Qaisar

ISLAMABAD: President General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday urged the nation to vote for moderates in next year’s general elections.

“I would like that the moderates win and the extremists are defeated. If the extremists are not defeated and the moderates do not win, Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan is gone,” Musharraf said at an iftar he hosted for journalists. “Are you on the extremists’ side or with the moderates?” he asked the media representatives. “I’m a moderate and I am not saying it for myself. I mean nothing ... individuals come and go. The greater objective is the Pakistan which will continue.”

He said Pakistan was passing through a critical stage. “We are facing a host of accusations. I have tried to convince the world leaders that we are not a rouge state but now we have to prove by our actions that we are not extremists and we don’t support terrorists.” He said the Ummah must also choose between confrontation and conciliation. “If we choose the course of confrontation with a view to conquer the world, we are mistaken ... The only way out is the conciliatory course.”

He said there was an understanding now in world capitals that political disputes involving Muslim nations must be solved. “The powers-that-be want to move forward towards resolution of disputes and this is the time we can draw an advantage for the Ummah by shunning extremism.”

The president said the peace deal with tribal elders in North Waziristan was aimed at fighting the Taliban. “It (the deal) does not mean that the military action five years before was wrong. We are dealing with this problem administratively, politically and militarily. The world has understood this strategy.”

He rejected media reports that NATO had differences with Pakistan. “There are no differences and no one comes to confront me. We are a strong country ... The NATO commander agreed with our strategy ... and I’m not under any pressure.” Asked if the government was in contact with Benazir Bhutto, he said: “I would not like to comment. Political issues are clear. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif will not participate in 2007 elections.”

He said he would not let anyone challenge thegovernment’s writ in Balochistan. “Here again the choice is between action and expediency. I will take action and crush those who challenge the writ of the government.” He agreed that there was discontent in the province, but said the government was carrying out development work of Rs 135 billion and to ease this discontent. He also supported provincial autonomy and said he would back efforts in this regard.

On Kashmir, he said a resolution was possible only if both sides agreed to step back from the their stated positions for a compromise. He said the issues of Siachen and Sir Creek could be resolved immediately and hoped that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan would be substantive. He denied a working group had been formed to prepare a roadmap for a Kashmir solution. He said India had not provided any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai blasts.

The president said the gang behind the blast in Ayub Park and that had planted rockets in Islamabad had been busted. He added that he was not the target. “I’m not an easy target.”

He reiterated that the army and government were not involved in the proliferation activities of Dr AQ Khan. He also dismissed the notion that Dr Khan’s activities had allowed North Korea to test a nuclear device. “This bomb (N Korea’s) is a plutonium bomb. We don’t have a plutonium bomb. We are following a uranium route.”

He said the money generated from his book would be used to set up a trust fund for the poor. He would not comment on how long he intended to stay in power, but felt his biggest achievement to date was turning around Pakistan’s economy.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.a...-10-2006_pg1_1

Akshay · 10-12-2006, 08:03 AM

It is more like Mushy's election speech.

Ray · 10-12-2006, 13:36 PM

Quote:

He said the money generated from his book would be used to set up a trust fund for the poor. He would not comment on how long he intended to stay in power,

Musharraf is stingy with the truth.

Here is what appeared in the Internation The News, a Pakistani newspaper.

Quote:

Ali Kuli Khan issues rejoinder to ‘In the Line of Fire’

ISLAMABAD: Like the two sides of a coin, there is inevitably, more than one to contend with, especially in matters of rivalry.

President General Pervez Musharraf's recently launched memoir In The Line of Fire has grabbed unprecedented public attention both at home and abroad. The impact could be gauged from reactions to the work, ranging from the highly favourable to unabashed scorn.

While it was predictable there would be a political dimension to the debate over contents in the memoir, some of these relate to individuals and issues that have necessarily triggered reactions for purposes of clarity -- the right to one's opinion, for instance.

The News offers this platform, without fear and favour, to anyone, particularly those who find a mention in the memoir, who wish to present their views, without ascribing to the same. Hereunder, we present a rejoinder issued by General (retired) Ali Kuli Khan Tuesday in response to Musharraf's references to him In The Line of Fire.

Ali Kuli resigned after he and Lt-General Khalid Nawaz were superseded by Musharraf for the post of chief of army staff. The appointment was made by then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Ali Kuli says:

I have recently read General Musharraf's book In The Line Of Fire and like many others, I also have discovered its numerous lies, half truths and misleading statements. Lies do good to no-one, least of all a person who claims to be the democratically elected President of Pakistan and quite readily arrogates to himself the leadership of the Ummah. Also disappointing was the discovery of the self serving, motivated and false aspersions against my person. One had hoped that with the passage of time and with exposure to high positions, he would have shed his complexes, but this is obviously not so.

Given below are some details to support my assertions:-

* On Page 41: It is written "I was one of four candidates short-listed to go to Sandhurst, England, to complete my training ...."

Comments: This is patently untrue; the five Cadets selected by the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) and sent for interview/final selection to GHQ did not include Cadet Pervez Musharraf. The five Cadets selected by PMA for interview at GHQ were Shabbir Sharif, Afzal Malik, Khalid Nawaz, Zahur Afridi and Ali Kuli.

May I (without undue modesty) add that Ali Kuli was finally selected and did exceptionally well and was the first Pakistani Cadet to be made a Senior Under Officer at Sandhurst; an achievement which remains unequalled till date. I was also declared the Best Overseas Cadet and by dint of my performance was placed at the top of 29th PMA Long Course; General Pervez Musharraf was placed 11th in the Order of Merit.

On Page 79: "....Yet instead of me, he selected Lieutenant General Ali Kuli Khan Khattak, who I felt was a mediocre Officer. I must confess I was quite surprised and disappointed."

Comments: This pertains to my appointment as CGS and is an untruthful remark; Gen Musharraf knows fully well that my career record was far better than his in every respect. I will not labour on this futile point too long, because the professional prowess of both of us is well known. Suffice to say that had my record not been better, given all the connections elaborated upon by General Musharraf in the earlier part of the paragraph under reference, General Karamat would surely have preferred him over me. Actually there is not one single year or facet of our careers in which his record was better than mine.

On Page 85 of the book; General Musharraf gives an account of how he learnt of his elevation to COAS and a mention is made of my conversation with him on this subject. Regrettably even this innocuous encounter is misreported and a proselytising attitude adopted. The true sequence of events were as follows:-

-- I learnt of General Musharraf's appointment on PTV. I immediately rang him in the Armour Mess and I said "PM congratulations and best of luck"; I added further, "I will not be going to GHQ and will be leaving for Peshawar in the morning". I suspect I was probably one of the earlier people to congratulate him when he reached the Armour Mess and I admit that I was not exactly thrilled at the developments! During this conversation, General Musharraf said nothing more than "OK thanks"; there was also no display of magnanimity nor were there any conciliatory remarks from the newly appointed COAS who had superceded two senior colleagues; two days later, on return from Peshawar and in line with the time honoured tradition of the Army, I resigned. If General Musharraf is disappointed at my not having celebrated his elevation with greater gusto, then so be it, because I am much happier to be known for what I truly am and felt at the time.

-- As far as the remarks of "not speaking" or "not attending his dinners" are concerned, I again find them inaccurate. It is also true I did not attend the First Course Reunion after his elevation yet it is conveniently forgotten that I subsequently visited him twice at the Army House. Firstly, when I condoled with him on the passing away of his late father and Secondly when I was invited to the Army House along with Dr Nasim Ashraf's Human Development Organization. Also conveniently forgotten is the fact that I have attended numerous Annual Course Reunions, including some at The Presidency where Gen Musharraf was a gracious host and I sat on the same table with him! Apart from the above mentioned events we have met briefly at many marriages and social occasions.

Finally, we all know that friendship is a two-way street whose success depends on both individuals. Since this is a season for complaining I am also taking the liberty of making some of my own. Why did General Musharraf not have the courtesy to reply to the Note I sent after the second attempt on his life near Jhanda? The note contained only suggestions to improve his security arrangements and a response of a simple THANK YOU was all that it required.

On Page 79. "....I was third in seniority of Lieutenant Generals, though this happened because of some manipulation by the former Army Chief General Waheed Kakar to give advantage of first position to Ali Kuli ...."

Comments: This is another of General Musharraf's unending conspiracy theories! I wanted to ignore this remark because I know that the common reader is not interested in our career rivalries but I have chosen to respond briefly because General Musharraf has tried to malign a respected soldier who is unlikely to respond.

In his remarks General Musharraf is probably alluding to extensions of service granted to Officers during General Waheed's tenure as COAS. In order to understand the reasons why these extensions were given, it is necessary to keep in perspective the situation at the time of General Waheed's appointment. In January 1993, the late General Asif Nawaz died rather suddenly because of cardiac arrest when he had barely completed one out of his three years tenure. This sudden demise of the COAS understandably disturbed the seniority system in Pak Army. In order to reduce the impact of the unexpected death of his predecessor General Waheed was gracious enough to request two of his course mates (whom he had superceded) to continue serving; both of them agreed and served on. Similarly, a couple of other officers, in accordance with a well discussed and declared GHQ policy and approval of the Government, were given extensions of a year or so, so as to ensure that Defence Officers do not retire too young. Finally, during General Waheed's tenure, two Lieutenant Generals were retired prematurely, which had impacted the promotional structure.

How General Musharraf considers this as a manipulation to deny him the position of being the senior most Lt General at the time of selection of the COAS defies logic. If this allegation were true, then General Waheed from day one would have to know not only that his superceded course mates would agree to serve on but also that he had decided to prematurely retire two other Lieutenant Generals.

These are surely the workings of an obsessive mind. In fact, not only are they baseless and illogical but what is particularly galling is that they have been made against a noble person known for his honesty and integrity.

On pages 82 to 85 in this book there are extensive references to General Ali Kuli with the accusations that, in numerous conferences at GHQ, I was a self-serving hawk who because of my self-promotion wanted to oust Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and continuously pushed for an Army takeover. The evidence for these allegations comes from four conferences in Pindi, in two of which the great Gen Musharraf was not even present, but my misdeeds were dutifully reported to him.

My comments on these allegations are very simple. These conferences were never held to discuss whether the Army should take over or not and as such the question of recommending it never arose. What I did say always was that the Army must maintain a firm and fair posture and I stand by this even today. Geeral Karamat's aversion (as indeed that of his predecessor) to an Army takeover was well-known and is supported by his actions.

But what is incongruous is the fact that a person who was such a strong supporter of democracy suddenly flipped when his own person was involved. Suddenly democracy became sham and we now have a messiah who will lead us to his version of promised true democracy in accordance with his own oft modified programme. It also suggests the presence of a private intelligence system which reported happenings at GHQ and makes one wonder whether such reporting went even higher?

Kargil: In Chapter 11 of this rather controversial book the author decides to step into the biggest minefield when he brazenly refers to the Kargil Operations as "considered purely, in military terms, the Kargil Operations were a landmark in the history of Pakistan Army". I am totally amazed at such ostrich-like behaviour when the whole world considers Kargil to be the worst debacle in Pakistan's history and where countless innocent young lives were lost for nothing. Absolutely nothing!

In this book, a totally futile debate is started by making allegations against the political leadership. Allegations can only be made against others when one's own work is above par and not when there are gaping holes in it. I regret to say that the conception and planning at the highest level had been poor; in fact so poor that the only word which can adequately describe it is unprofessional. We all know that the main duty of the high command is to ensure that with their meticulous planning they create conditions whereby their junior combatants can fight easy. This was certainly not done at Kargil.

It is also fairly obvious that the Kargil Operations were not conceived in its totality, with the result that apart from bringing ignominy to Pakistan it also caused unnecessary misery to a lot of innocent people. The account of General Musharraf regarding Kargil is inconsistent and has raised more questions than it has answered! We must have a full blown independent inquiry into the Kargil debacle.

In the end, I would like to state that I am not prone to any discourse which casts aspersions on others But, at the same time, I am not one who will present the other cheek! Unfortunately, in this sordid affair a stone was cast by someone and unless I responded, many who do not know us, would have taken it for the truth and hence the need of this rebuttal.

I served for 37 years in the Pakistan Army and retired in October 1998, as the Chief of General Staff (CGS). Interestingly enough, immediately prior to being the CGS, I had been Commander 10 Corps and Director General Military Intelligence and as such was privy to most events which have been discussed. I could say a great deal more on most of these subjects but, since it goes against the spirit of national security, the whole issue needs to be put to rest.

I have read his book 'In the Line of Fire'.

On Page 108, he writes, "As I walked to the car waiting for me on the tarmac, I wondered, 'God, what have I landed into?' ".

Rather an odd sentence for a person who 'would not comment on how long he intended to stay in power'!

If one reads through the book, one will realise how he undertakes a ruination of the actual and the truth.

In fact, what hits you is that when he was the Chief of the Army, had all the important posts which endured his coup with his cronies and relatives (the Director General Military Operations is one). He mocks General Ziauddin (the person who was to replace Musharaf as the Chief as a 'loyal Kashmiri' (Page 139) and a pliant General.

In his book he has demeaned all who opposed him and even retired some who were a threat including Lieutenant General Tariq Pervez because he was an "ill disciplined soldier". It is worth noting that an indisciplined officer can rise to be a Lt Gen in the Pakistan Army! It is insulting for the Pakistani Army that Musharraf should use his personal vendetta to disgrace the professional profile of the Pakistani Army.

He who is disloyal to his salt i.e. Pakistani Army is hardly a person to believe.

And anyway, Lt Gen Ali Kuli Khan Khattak has proved that Musharraf is prone to fantasy and not telling the truth!

Jay · 10-12-2006, 14:43 PM

Jinnah's Pakistan is long dead, I dont think Jinnah envisioned a failed Army General capturing Presidency thro a coup and changing Pakistan's constitution by a whim.

Honestly, Jinnah's so called secular Pakistan for muslims died a painful death when it became Islamic republic of Pakistan. Secular Pakistan is just a dead corpse and Mushy is trying to play with people's sentiments to win the election.

tarek · 10-13-2006, 01:14 AM

Friday, October 13, 2006

EDITORIAL: Mind the gap between Musharraf’s words and deeds

On the eve of the 7th anniversary of his coup — after he promised he would go at the end of 2004 — President-General Pervez Musharraf says he wants every Pakistani to embrace “moderation” like him. He says the nation should choose the ruling party he favours if they want an end to extremism and if they want the Pakistan of Mohammad Ali Jinnah to survive. He says the ummah must also choose between confrontation and conciliation: “If we choose the course of confrontation with a view to conquering the world, we are mistaken. The only way out is the conciliatory course”.

As if to provide an example of how “moderation” works, he refers to the crisis in Balochistan and says he won’t let anyone challenge the government’s “writ” there. Conciliation and compromise is clearly not the recipe here even though the “problem” of Balochistan is of long standing and has not yielded to aggressive imposition of the writ of the centre in the past. Indeed, his recipe for Kashmir — a resolution is possible only if both sides agree to step back from their stated positions for a compromise — does not apply to Balochistan which is just a matter of imposing the “writ” of the state. It doesn’t occur to him that the state may be perceived as being “illegal and unconstitutional”, hence the opposition to its writ.

Therefore, we are within our rights in asking: after seven years of “moderation” and “enlightenment” hyped by President-General Musharraf, what is the scorecard? One’s credibility depends on concrete actions and concrete achievements, rather than claims and assertions. There is no dearth of verbal formulations based on the wisdom of the ages, but to translate concepts into actual practice through governance one has to go beyond just words. Leaders who move societies in the right direction are called great whereas the common run of them merely complete their tenures and let the verdict of time push them into oblivion.

Pakistan has been promised a lot of things by its leaders; they have either failed to achieve them or what they achieved has turned out to be no good for the common man. The environment of extremism that characterises Pakistan today is also the consequence of the promised idylls that went wrong. Out of all the dreams held out by our leaders — from the decade of development of General Ayub Khan to the state-run roti-kapra-makan of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto — nothing has gone more horribly wrong than the Islamic utopia of General Zia-ul Haq.

The extremism we face today in Pakistan is the fallout from the Islamic idyll of General Zia and the military establishment. Ironically, the religion that is often identified with a middle-of-the-road choice of “peaceful options” has been made the vehicle of a harshness that Muslims can hardly endure. The religious state was supposed to exclude the non-Muslims but it is today excluding Muslims and no one is willing to listen to reason. General Musharraf was a part of the military set-up that emerged from Zia’s Islamisation. Those who have read his biography can see where the old Musharraf interfaces with the new post-9/11 “moderate” Musharraf.

After seven years in power, with his popularity slipping, he has not even scratched the surface of his pledge to create a new Pakistan. What he promised was not something that he had to construct anew, he simply had to roll back something unnatural that had been superimposed on a fledgling civil society. He had to rid us of jihad — the deniable unannounced interference across the border — that actually strikes at the foundations of Pakistan and destroys the writ of the state. He has not rolled back the jihad that only he as the army chief was equipped to do. Civilian rulers long ago realised that jihad militated against governance, but could not put an end to the militias because of the military establishment that nurtured them.In this context, President Musharraf has failed abysmally.

He has not been able to regulate and reform the madrassas where extremism is actually incubated in an environment of isolation and rejectionism. Despite the fact that he had some plus points on his side that the civilian leaders did not have — like the mandate of quick surgical operations and a quick withdrawal from the scene so that post-operation palliatives could be applied — he didn’t use the mandate of his uniform to good effect. The justification for this mandate came from his decision not to confront the world after 9/11 but to offer a supple and flexible response. He also needed popular politicians on his side who believed in his view of the transformation of the country from a warrior state to a trading nation, but he made the opportunist error of partnering with those who will not stop forestalling any self-correction in this regard.

He is outspoken but his words often fill his audience with despair in advance because his core achievements are hollow. Indeed, his words have the unfortunate effect of provoking people to treat profoundly important concepts like moderation and enlightenment as a joke, as if extremism and ignorance are worthy aims to strive for. After seven years, his problem number one is credibility at home and abroad.

One community that has offered General Musharraf its sincere support is the business community. As the economy lifted off after 9/11 they were promised an end to the law and order nightmare brought about by extremism, sectarianism and “Islamisation” that scares their partners in the international trading and investing community. They thought that a military officer was promising space for commerce instead of jihad and annexation of territories, and they liked what he was doing in the economic sector. But the sustainable and reformist changes they expected from the government have got lost in General Musharraf’s politics. His peace process with India has got bogged down despite his “out-of-the-box” thinking and his trouble with Afghanistan has grown into a dangerous endgame with Pakistan’s borderlands declaring themselves “emirates” of Talibanisation. The economy’s growth rate has dipped significantly, inflation is high, the trade deficit is alarming and new IPOs (initial public offerings) are few and far between.

President Musharraf could have done a few things of permanent value for Pakistan in his seven years in power. In fact, the mere fact that he was not “ideological” gave Pakistan a respite. But when he got engaged in the political process he got it horribly wrong because of a lack of vision and good principled advice. Now Pakistan is back into the groove of repeating past mistakes. That is why more and more people are becoming convinced even among his original supporters that the target-neutral cumulative process of democracy is after all what we need, making mistakes and learning from them incrementally without fear of military takeovers.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.a...-10-2006_pg3_1

Ray · 10-13-2006, 12:39 PM

A powerful editorial from The Daily Times.

An honest apprisal.

I liked Musharraf and possibly still feel he is the best bet.

However, his book leaves me uncomfortable.

He portrays the country as in a state of anarchy and he is the Saviour and he leaves one to believe that the Army is supreme even when there is a democracy functioning in the country!

I can't believe that!

But if one believes what Musharraf has written, then there is no one who can really run the country apart from him and the way he has put the issues in his book, it appears he is right. But, one wonders.

A military cannot and should not be supreme over the civil govt nor be the arbiter of a country's destiny.

It is only another cog in the govt machinery and not the govt itself!

Hari_Om · 10-14-2006, 00:59 AM

This extremist versus moderate business is a smokescreen.

The battle in Pakistan today, plagiarizing Ayatollah Khomeini, is between those urging a Vilayat-e-Faqih and those urging a Vilayat-e-Fauji

.

Neither side is “enlightened” or “moderate”.

tarek · 10-14-2006, 02:47 AM

Choice between "Vilayat-e-Faqih and those urging a Vilayat-e-Fauji"

I like that, very nicely done.

So, Faqih or Fauji? God forbid we get both in one.

Draconion · 10-14-2006, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ab041937

It is more like Mushy's election speech.

i thought dictators didnt need a election speech, even if the dictator was a pseudo democratist...

Srirangan · 10-14-2006, 04:50 AM

Not when you have Bush with a Danda in a galaxy not so far away ..

tarek · 10-14-2006, 06:48 AM

Faqih, Fauji and pauji as well, hell no!!

From Today's Business Recorder

Musharraf's call to the electorate

EDITORIAL (October 14 2006): In an extended interaction with representatives of the national media on the occasion of an Iftar dinner he hosted in Islamabad, President Musharraf has urged the nation to elect moderates in the forthcoming election if "the Quaid's Pakistan" is to be saved.

The occasion marked the completion of his seven years in power after the October 12 military coup. It was probably the most forceful defence of his government's policies on a host of issues, ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, to religious and tribal militancy in Waziristan and Balochistan, and from domestic politics to the causes of Pakistan's uneasy relations with India.

He also fielded a number of probing questions from the media persons, in defence of the dispensation he has headed for seven long years. The President, however, made one thing clear: while promising transparent elections he emphasised the participation of all parties but it will be without "the two individuals", ie, former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, despite recent news reports, and his subtle admission later, about backdoor contacts with the former.

He not only talked about the worst case scenario if religious extremists managed to stage a comeback in sizeable strength through the electoral process, but also indirectly hinted at possible convergence between liberal and moderate political forces, including the PPP, to meet the challenge.

In addition, he defended the peace deal with North Waziristan's tribal elders, but reportedly took a tough position against those involved in Balochistan insurgency.

Further, the President promised more provincial autonomy to the federating units, and said that if the four chief ministers so desired he would be willing to improve the terms of the Finance Commission Award. Answering a question, he admitted that Pakistan and India are engaged in secret talks on Kashmir to find a mutually acceptable solution.

He was unhappy that most of those arrested for religious militancy or terrorism in other countries were somehow found to have some link with individuals or groups in Pakistan.

President Musharraf's meeting with media persons was as important for its content as it was for its timing. His recent US visit and the tripartite talks he held there with President Bush and President Hamid Karzai amidst Kabul's allegations of Islamabad's involvement in Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, followed soon after by Nato commander General Richard's Islamabad visit the other day, form crucial strands of the same puzzle that was sought to be explained.

Washington's mounting troubles in Iraq, North Korea's recent nuclear test and the un-allayed US-Iran stand-off obviously extend the grim backdrop. Mounting Indian pressure on Islamabad with their allegations of Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai train blasts, which nearly derailed the composite dialogue, too forms a part of the unsightly mosaic.

Meanwhile, the most pressing issue on the internal front is the opposition's demand that the President take off his uniform and effect army's disengagement from politics. The two sides are apparently locked in a tug-of-war, with the ultimate outcome being far from obscure.

The US State Department spokesman's remarks the other day that Pakistan has made the strategic decision to align itself with those promoting freedom and democracy, and that it is transitioning to its "own form of democracy" may be seen in pro-government circles as Washington's endorsement of the present political dispensation in Pakistan.

Viewed in hindsight, the post-9/11 abrupt policy turnaround was in the best interest of the country, as President Musharraf has also asserted on numerous occasions. However, viewed from a larger perspective, it also constituted a shrewd move by the Musharraf government to shoo away the pigeons coming home to roost, in which we were quite successful.

While nobody in his senses can or should disagree with President Musharraf's call to the people to elect "moderates" in the 2007 election, it is politically indefensible for him to make such a call. First, being a serving army chief and hence a government servant, he is not expected under the law to make any such electoral exhortation. Second, he has exposed himself to the charge of "pre-poll" rigging, which the opposition may exploit to the hilt when electioneering starts.

Third, the call may be construed as yet another attempt by the military-led government to pit political forces against each other in order to prolong its hold on power. Remember the cobbling together of MMA to seek constitutional legitimacy by pushing through LFO and the alliance's overnight transformation into a formidable political force?

Then, playing ball with ARD for some time interspersed with distractionary manoeuvres to rope in the PML(N), followed by (current) attempts to woo PPP leadership once again?

Another angle to the President's call to the people to elect "moderates" seems to be the West's growing impatience with Islamabad for not doing enough to rein in the "fundamentalists." With Iraq rapidly sliding into total anarchy, Afghanistan becoming a tough nut to crack for Nato, and India's quietly threatening our eastern flank, a way out of the predicament has to be found.

Isn't it time the government restored unadulterated parliamentary democracy in the country, and let people's elected representatives run the country? It is true that the Musharraf government has indeed effected an impressive economic turnaround, but instead of passively waiting for its benefits to "trickle down" to the masses, it should initiate proactive steps to ensure that this happens at the earliest.

Secondly, instead of making unwarranted exhortations, the President should trust the common sense of the voters, the majority of whom are anyway moderates. Thirdly, being the head of state, the President should be seen to be staying above electoral politics. Let each voter make his/her informed choice, in keeping with the principles of parliamentary democracy because "guided democracy" has not worked in Pakistan so far, and nor is it likely to work in future, being foreign to the genius of the people at large.

Ray · 10-14-2006, 11:51 AM

As I had written earlier that having read his book 'In the Line of Fire', my respect for Musharraf has dimmed somewhat since he rubbishes almost everyone without adequate justification penned for the reader to accept the same.

Yet, I am sure he is aware that unless the Zia type of element is harnessed, he can do very little.

Is this the reason why Musharraf has to compromise?

He has to do a tight highwire walk!

Given the environment (as can be gleaned from the media, and who knows if they are reporting honestly), the radical elements seem to be holding the sway amongst the less educated voters and in the tribal and feudal belts.

tarek · 10-16-2006, 00:09 AM

Date:16/10/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/10/16/s...1603271100.htm

Opinion - News Analysis

Seven years and counting

Nirupama Subramanian

On October 12, Pervez Musharraf celebrated seven years in power in Pakistan. But what does the future hold for him and his country?

ON HIS recent three-week four-nation trip, President Pervez Musharraf told the media contingent accompanying him that he was relaxed and confident, which was why he could take so much time off from running the country.

As he began his eighth year in power, President Musharraf looked every bit as relaxed and confident as he said he was. At an expansive press conference on the eve of the seventh anniversary of his coup, that began with an iftaar feast at a five-star hotel and continued over the next four hours, he wore the pressures of leading Pakistan lightly.

He was chatty, laughed and joked about his book, and even admitted to failures, comparing his seven years to "a glass, half full and half empty, the successes are the full part, and the failures the empty part."

He did show an alarmingly inadequate grasp of history and a tendency for inappropriate analogy when he brought up Operation Bluestar to illustrate "what countries do" to enforce the writ of the government while talking about Balochistan. He also ticked off a journalist for not keeping the national interest in mind when she asked how A.Q. Khan could have carried out his proliferation racket without the knowledge of anyone else in the government or the army. "Do you want to get Pakistan declared a rogue state?" was his reply.

At no point did he look like a leader who faces questions of credibility at home and abroad. His unruffled reply to a questioner who wanted to know how long his "hukumrani" (a pejorative Urdu word for rule) would continue, was that he would desist from commenting on this.

The confidence has been evident since his return from the foreign tour. When he left, Pakistan was churning. The Opposition's apparent unity, the Bugti killing, even his government's failed attempt to make changes to the Hudood laws as it succumbed to blackmailing by religious parties made the regime look directionless and lost. The rumours of a coup against him, that many believed so quickly, made it all look even worse. Since 9/11, he has walked a tightrope between American interests in the region and mainly Islamist-propelled anti-American sentiment at home, and many in Pakistan thought that he was looking his shakiest.

Something has since changed and it is not just the success of the book, even though the author of "the first best-selling book from Pakistan" seems quite chuffed by what he described as his debut "luck." Political observers in Pakistan have put down the spring in his stride to the rumoured good wishes of the Bush administration to him on his recent visit for another innings in power as the next presidential elections approach.

President Musharraf began his eighth year in power with an appeal to moderate forces in the country to join hands with him to fulfil the vision of its founding father of Pakistan as a modern Muslim nation. He emphasised how important it was to win the struggle against extremists if Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's vision was to be fulfilled. And he stressed his own importance in this struggle in unique style.

"Wherever I went, whoever I met, without exception, has said that Pakistan is the breeding ground of extremism, of terrorism, that the ISI supports this. But somehow they believe me. It's a strange dichotomy. Maybe they think I'm the only fellow here who is all right in Pakistan," he said.

But the question his moderate critics are asking is, if he is so "all right" what prevented President Musharraf from doing anything for this vision in these last seven years. After all, he first spoke of enlightened moderation six years ago. If in this time, religious extremist forces have gained political power, it is thanks to his sidelining of mainstream political parties, and the backlash from the decision to unquestioningly back the U.S. `war on terror.' They are asking why, if he claims to be a champion of moderation, did he succumb just last month to Islamist forces that opposed amending the anti-women Hudood ordinances. And why, as the Daily Times, asked in an editorial, does he continue to retain jihadi options in Kashmir and Afghanistan?

Speculation is rife in Pakistan, despite daily denials from the Pakistan People's Party, that part of President Musharraf's current confidence owes to an impending "arrangement" with Benazir Bhutto for government formation after the 2007 general elections. It is unclear if this deal, reportedly at American prodding, includes her return to Pakistan.

At the press conference, the President said she and Nawaz Sharif would not be allowed to contest the elections, although all political parties would be permitted to participate. Despite such strings to the promised "free and fair elections," it is thought that if an alliance does come through, it would help shore up his "moderate" credentials.

But the question is how successful the "moderate Pakistan" project can be, even if moderate forces join hands with President Musharraf, as long as the army continues to rule over Pakistan. His critics point out that a truly moderate nation can come about only with a full democracy, not through deals between political parties and the military for the next elections, however "enlightened" the aim.

As the Dawn pointed out, "If the President has truly converted to the cause of moderation, it is inevitable that the moderates will find themselves in the same camp as he. But does he realise that moderation and liberalism do not simply mean confronting the extremists? They also mean upholding political, economic, and judicial principles a democracy society stands for."

The crucial question for those who want a truly moderate Pakistan is whether General Musharraf can make the transition to plain Mr. Musharraf before the next elections — in other words, shed his uniform and contest the elections on a political platform without the backing of the military. This, they believe, is not only the necessary condition for the next elections to be free and fair, but also the only way to provide a natural and strong foundation for building a moderate nation. India too will be watching closely. The future political shape of Pakistan has important implications for both countries.

Tronic · 10-16-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarek

“I would like that the moderates win and the extremists are defeated. If the extremists are not defeated and the moderates do not win, Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan is gone,”

Quaid-i-Azam's Pakistan was dead the day he died... Pakistan has come more then 50 years down the extremist line... Its sort of hard to backtrack all the way to Jinnah's moderate Pakistan by simply electing Mushy... although I have to say, it is a very attractive election stand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarek

"Wherever I went, whoever I met, without exception, has said that Pakistan is the breeding ground of extremism, of terrorism, that the ISI supports this. But somehow they believe me. It's a strange dichotomy. Maybe they think I'm the only fellow here who is all right in Pakistan," he said.

lol... does he actually think they believe him??? or are they just patting him on the back to keep him on their side...

Archer · 10-17-2006, 17:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tronic

Quaid-i-Azam's Pakistan was dead the day he died... Pakistan has come more then 50 years down the extremist line... Its sort of hard to backtrack all the way to Jinnah's moderate Pakistan by simply electing Mushy... although I have to say, it is a very attractive election stand...

Jinnah created Pakistan partly on an ego trip. He also ensured that no committed second line leadership remained, after his death, disaster was but one step away. A nation built on an idealogy of partisanship and loathing of its idealogically defined "other", ie non Muslims, is an exercise in futility. To move forward one needs to look towards progress and development, not just constantly define yourself as anti-India. All that money poured into the military and now the military runs the state, the ordinary pakistanis have to kiss the ground musharraf walks on, and they are still wondering where they went wrong.

Quote:

lol... does he actually think they believe him??? or are they just patting him on the back to keep him on their side...

Nice doggy, nice, you wag your tail pretty! Heres a bone! Dont bark at the neighbour now, your bone is free and better than his.

10-12-2006, 02:28 AM	#1 (permalink)
tarek *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-06-03 Posts: 996	Pakistan: Yet Another Historic Choice Thursday, October 12, 2006 Defeat extremists at next year’s elections: Quaid’s Pakistan dead if we don’t win: Musharraf By Rana Qaisar ISLAMABAD: President General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday urged the nation to vote for moderates in next year’s general elections. “I would like that the moderates win and the extremists are defeated. If the extremists are not defeated and the moderates do not win, Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan is gone,” Musharraf said at an iftar he hosted for journalists. “Are you on the extremists’ side or with the moderates?” he asked the media representatives. “I’m a moderate and I am not saying it for myself. I mean nothing ... individuals come and go. The greater objective is the Pakistan which will continue.” He said Pakistan was passing through a critical stage. “We are facing a host of accusations. I have tried to convince the world leaders that we are not a rouge state but now we have to prove by our actions that we are not extremists and we don’t support terrorists.” He said the Ummah must also choose between confrontation and conciliation. “If we choose the course of confrontation with a view to conquer the world, we are mistaken ... The only way out is the conciliatory course.” He said there was an understanding now in world capitals that political disputes involving Muslim nations must be solved. “The powers-that-be want to move forward towards resolution of disputes and this is the time we can draw an advantage for the Ummah by shunning extremism.” The president said the peace deal with tribal elders in North Waziristan was aimed at fighting the Taliban. “It (the deal) does not mean that the military action five years before was wrong. We are dealing with this problem administratively, politically and militarily. The world has understood this strategy.” He rejected media reports that NATO had differences with Pakistan. “There are no differences and no one comes to confront me. We are a strong country ... The NATO commander agreed with our strategy ... and I’m not under any pressure.” Asked if the government was in contact with Benazir Bhutto, he said: “I would not like to comment. Political issues are clear. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif will not participate in 2007 elections.” He said he would not let anyone challenge thegovernment’s writ in Balochistan. “Here again the choice is between action and expediency. I will take action and crush those who challenge the writ of the government.” He agreed that there was discontent in the province, but said the government was carrying out development work of Rs 135 billion and to ease this discontent. He also supported provincial autonomy and said he would back efforts in this regard. On Kashmir, he said a resolution was possible only if both sides agreed to step back from the their stated positions for a compromise. He said the issues of Siachen and Sir Creek could be resolved immediately and hoped that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan would be substantive. He denied a working group had been formed to prepare a roadmap for a Kashmir solution. He said India had not provided any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai blasts. The president said the gang behind the blast in Ayub Park and that had planted rockets in Islamabad had been busted. He added that he was not the target. “I’m not an easy target.” He reiterated that the army and government were not involved in the proliferation activities of Dr AQ Khan. He also dismissed the notion that Dr Khan’s activities had allowed North Korea to test a nuclear device. “This bomb (N Korea’s) is a plutonium bomb. We don’t have a plutonium bomb. We are following a uranium route.” He said the money generated from his book would be used to set up a trust fund for the poor. He would not comment on how long he intended to stay in power, but felt his biggest achievement to date was turning around Pakistan’s economy. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.a...-10-2006_pg1_1 __________________ _____________________ when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality

10-12-2006, 08:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
Akshay formerly ab041937 *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-27-05 Posts: 1,523 Country:	It is more like Mushy's election speech. __________________ If at first you don't succeed, call it v1.0!

10-12-2006, 14:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 6,339 Country:	Jinnah's Pakistan is long dead, I dont think Jinnah envisioned a failed Army General capturing Presidency thro a coup and changing Pakistan's constitution by a whim. Honestly, Jinnah's so called secular Pakistan for muslims died a painful death when it became Islamic republic of Pakistan. Secular Pakistan is just a dead corpse and Mushy is trying to play with people's sentiments to win the election. __________________ A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

10-13-2006, 01:14 AM	#5 (permalink)
tarek *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-06-03 Posts: 996	Friday, October 13, 2006 EDITORIAL: Mind the gap between Musharraf’s words and deeds On the eve of the 7th anniversary of his coup — after he promised he would go at the end of 2004 — President-General Pervez Musharraf says he wants every Pakistani to embrace “moderation” like him. He says the nation should choose the ruling party he favours if they want an end to extremism and if they want the Pakistan of Mohammad Ali Jinnah to survive. He says the ummah must also choose between confrontation and conciliation: “If we choose the course of confrontation with a view to conquering the world, we are mistaken. The only way out is the conciliatory course”. As if to provide an example of how “moderation” works, he refers to the crisis in Balochistan and says he won’t let anyone challenge the government’s “writ” there. Conciliation and compromise is clearly not the recipe here even though the “problem” of Balochistan is of long standing and has not yielded to aggressive imposition of the writ of the centre in the past. Indeed, his recipe for Kashmir — a resolution is possible only if both sides agree to step back from their stated positions for a compromise — does not apply to Balochistan which is just a matter of imposing the “writ” of the state. It doesn’t occur to him that the state may be perceived as being “illegal and unconstitutional”, hence the opposition to its writ. Therefore, we are within our rights in asking: after seven years of “moderation” and “enlightenment” hyped by President-General Musharraf, what is the scorecard? One’s credibility depends on concrete actions and concrete achievements, rather than claims and assertions. There is no dearth of verbal formulations based on the wisdom of the ages, but to translate concepts into actual practice through governance one has to go beyond just words. Leaders who move societies in the right direction are called great whereas the common run of them merely complete their tenures and let the verdict of time push them into oblivion. Pakistan has been promised a lot of things by its leaders; they have either failed to achieve them or what they achieved has turned out to be no good for the common man. The environment of extremism that characterises Pakistan today is also the consequence of the promised idylls that went wrong. Out of all the dreams held out by our leaders — from the decade of development of General Ayub Khan to the state-run roti-kapra-makan of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto — nothing has gone more horribly wrong than the Islamic utopia of General Zia-ul Haq. The extremism we face today in Pakistan is the fallout from the Islamic idyll of General Zia and the military establishment. Ironically, the religion that is often identified with a middle-of-the-road choice of “peaceful options” has been made the vehicle of a harshness that Muslims can hardly endure. The religious state was supposed to exclude the non-Muslims but it is today excluding Muslims and no one is willing to listen to reason. General Musharraf was a part of the military set-up that emerged from Zia’s Islamisation. Those who have read his biography can see where the old Musharraf interfaces with the new post-9/11 “moderate” Musharraf. After seven years in power, with his popularity slipping, he has not even scratched the surface of his pledge to create a new Pakistan. What he promised was not something that he had to construct anew, he simply had to roll back something unnatural that had been superimposed on a fledgling civil society. He had to rid us of jihad — the deniable unannounced interference across the border — that actually strikes at the foundations of Pakistan and destroys the writ of the state. He has not rolled back the jihad that only he as the army chief was equipped to do. Civilian rulers long ago realised that jihad militated against governance, but could not put an end to the militias because of the military establishment that nurtured them.In this context, President Musharraf has failed abysmally. He has not been able to regulate and reform the madrassas where extremism is actually incubated in an environment of isolation and rejectionism. Despite the fact that he had some plus points on his side that the civilian leaders did not have — like the mandate of quick surgical operations and a quick withdrawal from the scene so that post-operation palliatives could be applied — he didn’t use the mandate of his uniform to good effect. The justification for this mandate came from his decision not to confront the world after 9/11 but to offer a supple and flexible response. He also needed popular politicians on his side who believed in his view of the transformation of the country from a warrior state to a trading nation, but he made the opportunist error of partnering with those who will not stop forestalling any self-correction in this regard. He is outspoken but his words often fill his audience with despair in advance because his core achievements are hollow. Indeed, his words have the unfortunate effect of provoking people to treat profoundly important concepts like moderation and enlightenment as a joke, as if extremism and ignorance are worthy aims to strive for. After seven years, his problem number one is credibility at home and abroad. One community that has offered General Musharraf its sincere support is the business community. As the economy lifted off after 9/11 they were promised an end to the law and order nightmare brought about by extremism, sectarianism and “Islamisation” that scares their partners in the international trading and investing community. They thought that a military officer was promising space for commerce instead of jihad and annexation of territories, and they liked what he was doing in the economic sector. But the sustainable and reformist changes they expected from the government have got lost in General Musharraf’s politics. His peace process with India has got bogged down despite his “out-of-the-box” thinking and his trouble with Afghanistan has grown into a dangerous endgame with Pakistan’s borderlands declaring themselves “emirates” of Talibanisation. The economy’s growth rate has dipped significantly, inflation is high, the trade deficit is alarming and new IPOs (initial public offerings) are few and far between. President Musharraf could have done a few things of permanent value for Pakistan in his seven years in power. In fact, the mere fact that he was not “ideological” gave Pakistan a respite. But when he got engaged in the political process he got it horribly wrong because of a lack of vision and good principled advice. Now Pakistan is back into the groove of repeating past mistakes. That is why more and more people are becoming convinced even among his original supporters that the target-neutral cumulative process of democracy is after all what we need, making mistakes and learning from them incrementally without fear of military takeovers. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.a...-10-2006_pg3_1 Last edited by tarek : 10-13-2006 at 01:17 AM.

10-13-2006, 12:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,117 Country:	A powerful editorial from The Daily Times. An honest apprisal. I liked Musharraf and possibly still feel he is the best bet. However, his book leaves me uncomfortable. He portrays the country as in a state of anarchy and he is the Saviour and he leaves one to believe that the Army is supreme even when there is a democracy functioning in the country! I can't believe that! But if one believes what Musharraf has written, then there is no one who can really run the country apart from him and the way he has put the issues in his book, it appears he is right. But, one wonders. A military cannot and should not be supreme over the civil govt nor be the arbiter of a country's destiny. It is only another cog in the govt machinery and not the govt itself! Last edited by Ray : 10-13-2006 at 12:56 PM.

10-14-2006, 00:59 AM	#7 (permalink)
Hari_Om Banished Join Date: 09-30-04 Posts: 1,049 Country:	This extremist versus moderate business is a smokescreen. The battle in Pakistan today, plagiarizing Ayatollah Khomeini, is between those urging a Vilayat-e-Faqih and those urging a Vilayat-e-Fauji . Neither side is “enlightened” or “moderate”.

10-14-2006, 02:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
tarek *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-06-03 Posts: 996	Choice between "Vilayat-e-Faqih and those urging a Vilayat-e-Fauji" I like that, very nicely done. So, Faqih or Fauji? God forbid we get both in one.

10-14-2006, 04:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
Srirangan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-04 Location: New Delhi Posts: 3,030 Country:	Not when you have Bush with a Danda in a galaxy not so far away ..

10-14-2006, 06:48 AM	#11 (permalink)
tarek *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-06-03 Posts: 996	Faqih, Fauji and pauji as well, hell no!! From Today's Business Recorder Musharraf's call to the electorate EDITORIAL (October 14 2006): In an extended interaction with representatives of the national media on the occasion of an Iftar dinner he hosted in Islamabad, President Musharraf has urged the nation to elect moderates in the forthcoming election if "the Quaid's Pakistan" is to be saved. The occasion marked the completion of his seven years in power after the October 12 military coup. It was probably the most forceful defence of his government's policies on a host of issues, ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, to religious and tribal militancy in Waziristan and Balochistan, and from domestic politics to the causes of Pakistan's uneasy relations with India. He also fielded a number of probing questions from the media persons, in defence of the dispensation he has headed for seven long years. The President, however, made one thing clear: while promising transparent elections he emphasised the participation of all parties but it will be without "the two individuals", ie, former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, despite recent news reports, and his subtle admission later, about backdoor contacts with the former. He not only talked about the worst case scenario if religious extremists managed to stage a comeback in sizeable strength through the electoral process, but also indirectly hinted at possible convergence between liberal and moderate political forces, including the PPP, to meet the challenge. In addition, he defended the peace deal with North Waziristan's tribal elders, but reportedly took a tough position against those involved in Balochistan insurgency. Further, the President promised more provincial autonomy to the federating units, and said that if the four chief ministers so desired he would be willing to improve the terms of the Finance Commission Award. Answering a question, he admitted that Pakistan and India are engaged in secret talks on Kashmir to find a mutually acceptable solution. He was unhappy that most of those arrested for religious militancy or terrorism in other countries were somehow found to have some link with individuals or groups in Pakistan. President Musharraf's meeting with media persons was as important for its content as it was for its timing. His recent US visit and the tripartite talks he held there with President Bush and President Hamid Karzai amidst Kabul's allegations of Islamabad's involvement in Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, followed soon after by Nato commander General Richard's Islamabad visit the other day, form crucial strands of the same puzzle that was sought to be explained. Washington's mounting troubles in Iraq, North Korea's recent nuclear test and the un-allayed US-Iran stand-off obviously extend the grim backdrop. Mounting Indian pressure on Islamabad with their allegations of Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai train blasts, which nearly derailed the composite dialogue, too forms a part of the unsightly mosaic. Meanwhile, the most pressing issue on the internal front is the opposition's demand that the President take off his uniform and effect army's disengagement from politics. The two sides are apparently locked in a tug-of-war, with the ultimate outcome being far from obscure. The US State Department spokesman's remarks the other day that Pakistan has made the strategic decision to align itself with those promoting freedom and democracy, and that it is transitioning to its "own form of democracy" may be seen in pro-government circles as Washington's endorsement of the present political dispensation in Pakistan. Viewed in hindsight, the post-9/11 abrupt policy turnaround was in the best interest of the country, as President Musharraf has also asserted on numerous occasions. However, viewed from a larger perspective, it also constituted a shrewd move by the Musharraf government to shoo away the pigeons coming home to roost, in which we were quite successful. While nobody in his senses can or should disagree with President Musharraf's call to the people to elect "moderates" in the 2007 election, it is politically indefensible for him to make such a call. First, being a serving army chief and hence a government servant, he is not expected under the law to make any such electoral exhortation. Second, he has exposed himself to the charge of "pre-poll" rigging, which the opposition may exploit to the hilt when electioneering starts. Third, the call may be construed as yet another attempt by the military-led government to pit political forces against each other in order to prolong its hold on power. Remember the cobbling together of MMA to seek constitutional legitimacy by pushing through LFO and the alliance's overnight transformation into a formidable political force? Then, playing ball with ARD for some time interspersed with distractionary manoeuvres to rope in the PML(N), followed by (current) attempts to woo PPP leadership once again? Another angle to the President's call to the people to elect "moderates" seems to be the West's growing impatience with Islamabad for not doing enough to rein in the "fundamentalists." With Iraq rapidly sliding into total anarchy, Afghanistan becoming a tough nut to crack for Nato, and India's quietly threatening our eastern flank, a way out of the predicament has to be found. Isn't it time the government restored unadulterated parliamentary democracy in the country, and let people's elected representatives run the country? It is true that the Musharraf government has indeed effected an impressive economic turnaround, but instead of passively waiting for its benefits to "trickle down" to the masses, it should initiate proactive steps to ensure that this happens at the earliest. Secondly, instead of making unwarranted exhortations, the President should trust the common sense of the voters, the majority of whom are anyway moderates. Thirdly, being the head of state, the President should be seen to be staying above electoral politics. Let each voter make his/her informed choice, in keeping with the principles of parliamentary democracy because "guided democracy" has not worked in Pakistan so far, and nor is it likely to work in future, being foreign to the genius of the people at large.

10-14-2006, 11:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 27,117 Country:	As I had written earlier that having read his book 'In the Line of Fire', my respect for Musharraf has dimmed somewhat since he rubbishes almost everyone without adequate justification penned for the reader to accept the same. Yet, I am sure he is aware that unless the Zia type of element is harnessed, he can do very little. Is this the reason why Musharraf has to compromise? He has to do a tight highwire walk! Given the environment (as can be gleaned from the media, and who knows if they are reporting honestly), the radical elements seem to be holding the sway amongst the less educated voters and in the tribal and feudal belts. Last edited by Ray : 10-14-2006 at 11:53 AM.

10-16-2006, 00:09 AM	#13 (permalink)
tarek *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-06-03 Posts: 996	Date:16/10/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/10/16/s...1603271100.htm Opinion - News Analysis Seven years and counting Nirupama Subramanian On October 12, Pervez Musharraf celebrated seven years in power in Pakistan. But what does the future hold for him and his country? ON HIS recent three-week four-nation trip, President Pervez Musharraf told the media contingent accompanying him that he was relaxed and confident, which was why he could take so much time off from running the country. As he began his eighth year in power, President Musharraf looked every bit as relaxed and confident as he said he was. At an expansive press conference on the eve of the seventh anniversary of his coup, that began with an iftaar feast at a five-star hotel and continued over the next four hours, he wore the pressures of leading Pakistan lightly. He was chatty, laughed and joked about his book, and even admitted to failures, comparing his seven years to "a glass, half full and half empty, the successes are the full part, and the failures the empty part." He did show an alarmingly inadequate grasp of history and a tendency for inappropriate analogy when he brought up Operation Bluestar to illustrate "what countries do" to enforce the writ of the government while talking about Balochistan. He also ticked off a journalist for not keeping the national interest in mind when she asked how A.Q. Khan could have carried out his proliferation racket without the knowledge of anyone else in the government or the army. "Do you want to get Pakistan declared a rogue state?" was his reply. At no point did he look like a leader who faces questions of credibility at home and abroad. His unruffled reply to a questioner who wanted to know how long his "hukumrani" (a pejorative Urdu word for rule) would continue, was that he would desist from commenting on this. The confidence has been evident since his return from the foreign tour. When he left, Pakistan was churning. The Opposition's apparent unity, the Bugti killing, even his government's failed attempt to make changes to the Hudood laws as it succumbed to blackmailing by religious parties made the regime look directionless and lost. The rumours of a coup against him, that many believed so quickly, made it all look even worse. Since 9/11, he has walked a tightrope between American interests in the region and mainly Islamist-propelled anti-American sentiment at home, and many in Pakistan thought that he was looking his shakiest. Something has since changed and it is not just the success of the book, even though the author of "the first best-selling book from Pakistan" seems quite chuffed by what he described as his debut "luck." Political observers in Pakistan have put down the spring in his stride to the rumoured good wishes of the Bush administration to him on his recent visit for another innings in power as the next presidential elections approach. President Musharraf began his eighth year in power with an appeal to moderate forces in the country to join hands with him to fulfil the vision of its founding father of Pakistan as a modern Muslim nation. He emphasised how important it was to win the struggle against extremists if Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's vision was to be fulfilled. And he stressed his own importance in this struggle in unique style. "Wherever I went, whoever I met, without exception, has said that Pakistan is the breeding ground of extremism, of terrorism, that the ISI supports this. But somehow they believe me. It's a strange dichotomy. Maybe they think I'm the only fellow here who is all right in Pakistan," he said. But the question his moderate critics are asking is, if he is so "all right" what prevented President Musharraf from doing anything for this vision in these last seven years. After all, he first spoke of enlightened moderation six years ago. If in this time, religious extremist forces have gained political power, it is thanks to his sidelining of mainstream political parties, and the backlash from the decision to unquestioningly back the U.S. `war on terror.' They are asking why, if he claims to be a champion of moderation, did he succumb just last month to Islamist forces that opposed amending the anti-women Hudood ordinances. And why, as the Daily Times, asked in an editorial, does he continue to retain jihadi options in Kashmir and Afghanistan? Speculation is rife in Pakistan, despite daily denials from the Pakistan People's Party, that part of President Musharraf's current confidence owes to an impending "arrangement" with Benazir Bhutto for government formation after the 2007 general elections. It is unclear if this deal, reportedly at American prodding, includes her return to Pakistan. At the press conference, the President said she and Nawaz Sharif would not be allowed to contest the elections, although all political parties would be permitted to participate. Despite such strings to the promised "free and fair elections," it is thought that if an alliance does come through, it would help shore up his "moderate" credentials. But the question is how successful the "moderate Pakistan" project can be, even if moderate forces join hands with President Musharraf, as long as the army continues to rule over Pakistan. His critics point out that a truly moderate nation can come about only with a full democracy, not through deals between political parties and the military for the next elections, however "enlightened" the aim. As the Dawn pointed out, "If the President has truly converted to the cause of moderation, it is inevitable that the moderates will find themselves in the same camp as he. But does he realise that moderation and liberalism do not simply mean confronting the extremists? They also mean upholding political, economic, and judicial principles a democracy society stands for." The crucial question for those who want a truly moderate Pakistan is whether General Musharraf can make the transition to plain Mr. Musharraf before the next elections — in other words, shed his uniform and contest the elections on a political platform without the backing of the military. This, they believe, is not only the necessary condition for the next elections to be free and fair, but also the only way to provide a natural and strong foundation for building a moderate nation. *India too will be watching closely. The future political shape of Pakistan has important implications for both countries*.