Pakistan’s ruling systems idealogical defenders promote one of the most aggressive “with us or against us” philosophies of any south asian nation. Personally I dislike it when I hear government functionaries often hypocritically declare this or that group as anti Pakistani or a security risk. At a personal level I dislike it because one of my uncles lost his job after he refused to help a planned assasination attempt of a man who was at that time in the '70’s, a card carrying member of the National Awami Party.
Not so long ago Nawaz Sharif was the best thing since sliced bread, now he is a “security risk”, worse still he is called a risk by many people who were his own colleagues. The hypocrisy of it all disturbs me, who judges who has the right to judge who is a “good Pakistani” and who is a “bad Pakistani”? I mean the Army was ruling when we lost half the country in 1971, does that make the Army at that time Anti Pakistani?
Let’s not forget the big element of discrimination which is made when deciding who is “Pakistani” and “Anti Pakistani”. The Bengalis were often criticised for being contaminated with “Hindu culture”, while ethnic Nationalist leaders used to be arrested for suggesting the government reverse it’s policy of supporting groups like the Taliban. Similarly suggesting a change to a confederal system is considered treason but unilateral amendments to the constitution imposed by Military dictators is considered both legal and right.
Why this culture of hypocrisy? Why are some people better Pakistanis and others not?
However much I like Musharraf as a leader, the fact that the military retains the final say in all political decisions has not created a healthy state of affairs. Army should stick to what it does best and butt out of politics, sport, finishing schools and the rest.
Who else other than army can control our nation, atleast army's leader is adequately knowledgeable and definitely educated (more than an average pakistani). Not that army does the best job but instead you cannot have a democracy with 27% litrecay rate? Even if the literacy rate was 50%. How can you have democracy? in other words would you let labors of your company vote for the CEO?
As for good pakistani and bad pakistani, social politics cannot be described in one line or one thread for that matter. A suggestion though, why look at the past? I mean Pakistan could really use ideas about tomorrow. Instead of crying about who did what and why? How come pakistans section is filled with history discussions? Why can we not talk about lets say even what should be next location for a school?
i was always told learn from the history but think/discuss the future and live today!
Kiyani I disagree with that assumption, India does not have 100% literacy yet is successful Democracy. In fact there are many countries which do not have high levels of literacy yet have neen successful socities. The problem with Pakistani society is not that we talk a lot about history it's that we don't learn from it..
Anyway we are going off topic...my point is more a question of why we have such a narrow definition of patriotism. You can be a corrupt unprincipled lota but if you support the government in power you are a "patriot".
I think the problem is that the democratic system is very immature in pakistan..partially due to military intervention every few years, and partially due to the corrupt leaders, who were elected but teh elected govt did nto practice democracy..that was just a mechanism for them to get in power. Corruption is a huge issue ..not that corruption does not exist anywhere else..but here personal interests go way way above national interests.
so the ill run democratic system, and military intervention..its a chicken and egg scenario innit?
btw u did mention the loss of 71, the issues behind it were due to democratically elected..and defeated leaders looking for own power rather than the nation.
We cannot discard democracy on the basis that our leaders are corrupt. The leaders in other South Asian or far Eastern Asian countries aren’t any better. In fact, corruption in those countries is even worse. Though, by sticking to the track of "people's choice" they have slowly moved forward. Sometimes political leaders have made dynasties and have ruled almost like dictators but at least the process is there and no one can say that they are moving backwards! So, why have we given up?
And to blame loss of 71 war on selfish politicians is not well placed. They played their roll in the failure but we as a nation failed. Some might blame army for all the evils and Army certainly has a role to play as Rahman report clearly pointed out but we as a nation are responsible for the differences that we ourselves created with our brothers across the sea.
I agree '71 was a collective failure, many average pakistanis supported the Martial Law administrators "crackdown" in East Pakistan. Again there are other examples of this double standard, the MQM was considered an Anti state Party, yet barely a year ago an MQM man was sworn in as Governor of Sindh.. I don't want to discuss the merits behind what the MQM did but it is a recent example. Another recent example is about AQ Khan, the slightest criticism of the man was considered treason. Even though many people knew of his "rich living", you still had urdu newspapers publishing stories about the patriot and his supposedly humble lifestyle just before the whole N Transfer episode broke out.
Political parties like the PPP have traditionally been kept at an arms length because of their supposed anti state politics. I mean Benazir wasn't allowed to visit Kahuta!!
the point is not to "discard" democracy, but to note what is wrong. If there are issues with military rule, so are there with this topi drama of bhuttos jatois chaudhrys and what nots. one can not move forward without atleast factoring in the issues.
as far as corruption goes, yes there are other countries with massive corruption problems who have done better than us, but those are few and far between. in those cases you will see the private sector being the backbone of the country moving forward.
If our private sector is not as developed due to the minisucle middle class, some super rich and many poor, how are things going to change.
the political process and situation being messed up could be balanced by private sector and industry.. where is that?
Imdad Ali
I agree with you 100% but will take it one step farther. Substitute the word "leaders" for army. I dont see many examples of leaders..elected or military who are not above the democratic process. The massive vote riggings that go on esnure that.
Fraud, I disagree, Pakistan's private sector and political parties do the same, after all before the 1970's Pakistan was dominated by the private sector..but things were very similar. Politicians have done the same, as soon they were selected or elected to power they used the same tactics as their predeccessors of vicymising their opponents and labelling them anti state or worse still agents of the CIA or RAW or supporters of the Hindu-Zionist lobby.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Politicians have done the same, as soon they were selected or elected to power they used the same tactics as their predeccessors of vicymising their opponents and labelling them anti state or worse still agents of the CIA or RAW or supporters of the Hindu-Zionist lobby.
[/QUOTE]
Well that happens in all democracies Zakk. Politicians always try and defame the opposition, name me one democracy where it doesn't happen?
I am not sure what we are disagreeing with, my point was that avay ka ava is bigra hua which means its a mess everywhere.
The point of private sector was brought up because in these other countries private sector helped raise the standard of life for people where they were not out ion the street everytime soemoent said we will reverse your misfortunes.. we get a govt elected..a nd its not just the military that does not give them a chance, it is the population too. The want to see revolutionary change, which can only happen if people leading teh change are not the same ol same ol, whether its military, mullahs or big name politicians..its the same deal. so if someone is trying to make a change, the change has to be evolutionalry.
we have situations where one party is in power, other starts creating hue and cry about how teh govt is not doing anything..boom, u have people out in the street because they dont see a change, even if the wheels of change are in motion..how many elected leaders have we gone through, compare that to some other countries and then let me know...how many of the leaders were changed by military and how many by ppl
Fraudz i kinda disagree with you here, you get people out on the streets in well-established democracies as well. Just look back on the lorry drivers strike in the UK last year.
If Pakistan hasn't got a developed democracy it's probably because the military has stepped in every time to prevent that from happening.
Xtremo: Pakistan is particularly vicious compared to most countries. Political parties being banned ..PM's hanged..and in particular peoples patriotism constantly questioned. It's a very paranoid culture in Islamabad.
but even though people are in the street it does not end governments left right and center, yes you have early elections and what nots, but givce the elected govt its time to do its work.
My view is that we should set term limits for leaders, and also when a govt is formed, let it function. The no confidence moves which change govts may work in places like Uk where the system is established, but in Pakistan it just creates a ruckus.
Maybe we should be following a US type of system rather than a parliamentary system.
it just appears to me that the opposition parties are not looking out for the people, but for their own power, and the ruling party just tries to stay in power by hook or crook.
some places like US have a problem with too few political parties, pakistan has an issue with too many parties..and their splinter groups.
I feel strongly about this issue too. It really bothers me when people from certain schools of thought assume a self-righteous air of patriotism and if someone else has a different opinion then (s)he is labelled anti-pakistani by them.
Its the same thing with religion in fact. People constanly label others as kafirs and less religious, as if they were given the right to judge by the Creator Himself.
By Zaffar Abbas http://dawn.com/herald/
A journalist colleague from one of the leading Urdu newspapers called me the other day, asking for help in highlighting a matter of public interest. It was about the immense difficulties the people of Rawalpindi were facing on account of the marked increase in President Pervez Musharraf’s security. Since the last assassination attempt on the president, he bemoaned, the road leading to his official residence, the Army House, had been closed for ‘unauthorised’ persons, which has caused serious problems for those living in the vicinity. According to him, whenever the president’s motorcade passed through the busy Murree road, it had to be cordoned off. In fact, even pedestrians were not allowed in the area. The last time it happened, he claimed, three of his senior editors were prevented from walking up to the office that was located nearby. In his opinion, if the issue was flagged through the international media it would help improve the situation.
My initial reaction was that such strict measures, irrespective of how inconvenient they were for the people, can be justified by the authorities because of the serious threat to the president’s life. But I was more inquisitive to find out why my journalist friend wanted my help, especially when he himself had not published the story in his newspaper. The response was a telling statement on the present state of media freedom. “You are talking about my paper,” he said. “None of the local newspapers could publish it.” According to him, the ‘advice’ to the press was to stay clear of such reports as they would not be in the “national interest”.
When Z. Bhutto came into power, my Nana immediately lost his position as ambassador because he wasn’t perceived of as being loyal enough to the new government, i.e., not Pakistani enough. There were many little things that Nana did that rubbed wrongly - he had a policy of sending all bribes back to their sources. It was a policy in his office and his house never to accept any bribes. The incoming govt. of Z Bhutto had judged him not Pakistani enough because he would not do certain things a certain way - which makes me all the more prouder of him.
>>The hypocrisy of it all disturbs me, who judges who has the right to judge who is a “good Pakistani” and who is a “bad Pakistani”? <<
i am so glad someone raised this issue in this Forum, finally. Great job, Zakk.
^Nadia..patriotism has always been the last refuge of the scoundrel
Bhutto was by instinct a Feudal, stories of his vindictiveness were legendary. But, it was not restricted to him..the present government has bought the most corrupt and unprincipled elements who supported Benazir and Nawaz Sharif over to it's side. The politciians who are targetted nowadays are the ones who speak their mind ( whether they are right or wrong is another matter)