'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

I just hope each day that all those commenting on it, criticizing it, analyzing it and often writing about it, should dare and have the courage, patience and integrity to read it once.

Many of the arguments against Musharraf or the book (prior to the release as well as those formed post release) are same to the extent of appearing as copy-paste reviews. Ironically, all issues are answered in the book wide and clear. But then again, if one would only read...and read without bias...

[QUOTE]
comes across as humourless, vain and insecure.

[/QUOTE]

For just a tiny and simple example from among many, anyone having read the book with an open mind and without bias and prejudice would highly protest to this above statement.
Given the grave siuations he faces, the General has appeared very humorous.
Honestly is he or his job vain of all things!?
He is the farthest thing from appearing i*nsecure*. He appears constantly as a very confident, bold and yet humble individual. A rare combination, but not a non-existant one. No leader has had these qualities. Like it or not, this is the truth.

[QUOTE]
An election is due in Pakistan next year, and General Musharraf is increasingly unpopular...Pakistanis have tired of army rule
[/QUOTE]

Only someone exteremely confident about the ground reality at the grass root in Pakistan and Pakistani society can claim so. It's my challenge to whoever, come here, we'd go to the street together and talk randomly to ppl from all walks of life. And we'd see...
The ppl may be bothered by the army's political status in some cases, but ask them what then!? and see how quicky they come back to, Army Zindabad!

[QUOTE]
General Musharraf is as partial as any campaigning politician.
[/QUOTE]

And btw, the only thing he's partial about is Pakistan.

[QUOTE]
there are enough phrases familiar to those who have followed his career to prove that he wrote quite a lot of it
[/QUOTE]

Atleast they make one fair point. It's true, the language is his own, and that confirms there was lesser role for the alleged "ghost writers".

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

http://dawn.com/2006/10/22/top2.htm

The Urdu version was released on Saturday. The title is not “goliyon ki barish mein” or “aag ka rasta” like the Hindi version was translated too literally into “Agnipath”.
The Urdu version is called “Sab sey pehle Pakistan”. And it sounds good and relevant for consumption of the masses in Pakistan.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

And once again Cowasjee writes brilliantly, and looks more impressive every other week.

The Book & the environment

  • By Ardeshir Cowasjee*

** RECENT conversations I had with good friends, all well schooled in life, and all naturally moaners and groaners (difficult to be anything else in this stifling environment) follow the same pattern — largely because of the recent launch of The Book followed by its sale and distribution.

The ‘she’ friends are normally somewhat superior in their practicality, outlook on life and acumen, but they differ little in their thinking on one particular subject to that of the ‘he’ friends. Well, I tell them all, after having heard a protracted moan, ‘tell me who would you prefer as Top Gun right now — Musharraf or Nawaz, Musharraf or BiBi?’

The answer invariably has been ‘That duo, good lord, no, Musharraf any day.’ To Musharraf or Mullah Whoever — are you joking? To Musharraf or the London Pir — ‘Have you lost your mind?’ To Musharraf or one of our heavily bearded generals — ‘No, no, save our souls!’ And as a last desperate throw I ask, Musharraf or the Chaudhry of Gujrat — ‘For heaven’s sake, not that blabbering storto!’

Musharraf or who is the question. There must be replacements other than those already cited — but who can name them? To the few literates, and maybe to many illiterates, President General Pervez Musharraf, despite his multiple shortcomings, despite blunders and backtracking, remains the best and the safest of a dicey lot.

In this fast changing mercurial world bullied by Jungle ka Badshah George Dubya Bush, or now by little tyrant Big Leader who struts above the 38th parallel, we need a Top Gun who can do a 180 degree turn within the space of ten seconds. The problem lies with the pygmies who surround him, to whom he is prone to listen when not dealing with matters of survival. When it comes to local politics, local laws and law and order, he lends his ear far too easily — to the nation’s detriment. He could do better, much better, were he more selective in his close entourage and were he to remember the old truth: when it comes to politics and leadership there are no friends.

For the past three weeks we have firstly heard and then we have read about what US Deputy Secretary of state Richard Armitage did or did not say in Washington to the chief of the ISI just after 9/11 which was conveyed back to Boss Musharraf in Islamabad. We can be sure that whatever was said was said rudely and bluntly, as the circumstances demanded, and successfully induced Musharraf to turn as he swiftly did, and with confidence. He should rightly be given full marks for doing so. Has anyone really considered what would have happened to the moth-eaten remnant of Jinnah’s Pakistan in the alternative?**

That’s the good news, now on a downward path to a ‘core issue’ that affects the great city of Karachi, now on a fast declining slope. The environment we live in has fallen into the hands of pygmies and is at risk. Recommended reading on the fates of societies which treat their environment with scorn is the book ‘Collapse : How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’ written by Jared Diamond (also the author of the 1997 Pulitzer Prize winner ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel : the Fates of Human Societies), which has been around since early 2005, more copies of which have been sold than the best-seller ‘In the Line of Fire.’

One reviewer of ‘Collapse’ has written : “If ‘Guns’ venerated the role that geographic chance played in societal development, Diamond’s ‘Collapse’ restores human agency to the picture. Through a grab bag of case studies that range from the Mayan Empire to modern China, Diamond tries to distil a unified theory about why societies fail or succeed. He identifies five factors that contribute to collapse : climate change, hostile neighbours, trade partners (that is, alternative sources of essential goods), environmental problems, and, finally, a society’s response to its environmental problems. The first four may or may not prove significant in each society’s demise, Diamond claims, but the fifth always does. The salient point, of course, is that a society’s response to environmental problems is completely within its control, which is not always true of the other factors. In other words, as his subtitle puts it, a society can ‘choose to fail’.”

It is clear that Pakistan has chosen to fail.

Last week’s column related how the members of that badly supported, highly caring NGO, Shehri-CBE, which works its butt off trying and saving the environment not only of Karachi but of other areas too, had filed a public interest petition in the Sindh High Court concerning the unlawful construction of a desalination plant by the masters of the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), always commanded by a retired or soon to retire officer of the Pakistan Army (often ‘topchis’ and sometimes ‘paidals’ as opposed to qualified men from the corps of engineers).

The petition was filed in April 2005. The other side, the government, huffed and puffed and procrastinated until the honourable judges were requested to order that the construction of the plant be suspended. Exasperated, they obliged. This had the desired result, and DHA’s counsel, the learned Attorney- General of Pakistan (a skilled lawyer in his own right who really should not have agreed to take on the job) was in attendance on the next date of hearing, the case proceeded, and a judgment was handed down early this month.

Worthy of appeal, Shehri scrounged around, naturally unsuccessfully, for funds and for a high-flying legal eagle willing to represent it for free, or almost free, in the Supreme Court. They were too late as the worthy attorney-general in Islamabad, on October 16, sent notice of his intent to appeal, as required by law, to Shehri’s lawyer in Karachi. Before the notice arrived on October 18, the attorney-general was heard in the Supreme Court on October 17. Ex parte? The Supreme Court has suspended the execution of the High Court judgment. However the SC judgment has yet to be signed, which we presume it will be as soon as the judges have stopped wishing their brethren Eid Mubarak. Nil desperandum?

E-mail: [[email protected]]

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

I am now halfway through the book. General Ali Kuli Khan's claims are now understandable - Musharraf explicitly describes General Khan as being, and I quote, a "mediocre officer".

General Khan must nnow try and discredit Musharraf's words; for if people believe that Musharraf is telling the truth, then they will believe that General Khan is mediocre. His reputation is on the line and the only way he can defend it is to persuade people that Musharraf is lying.

In other words, he is now biased and far from neutral.

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

Maddy hope youre enjoying the book :k:
how do you like the overall feel of the book and Mush’s stance?

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

On a interview to GEOTV in Jawab deyh with Iftikhar Ahmed yesterday he again stood by his claim and said, "I was Ali Kuli's intructor (at the NDC) when he came for the war course, I know his calibre...".
About the shortlisted cadets for Sandhurst Mush said, "Ali Kuli's memory seems to be weak, anyone should know that there are records at GHQ and PMA, they can be checked too!"
About Ali Kuli's being Farooq Leghari's class mate and friend in College Mush admitted he had made a mistake and Leghari told him he was a years senior to Ali Kuli. That though, does not change the fact that they were college fellows and friends.

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

Musharraf amends ‘bounty’ portion: Urdu translation of autobiography
http://dawn.com/2006/10/23/top6.htm

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

It seems that the Liar In Chief still can't get over the fact that Ali Khan Khattak and not him was selected for training in Sandhurst, he was sent to Sandhurst as the top cadet on PMA Kakul. 'Mediocre cadets' are not sent to Sandhurst for training.

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

Musharraf never said that Ali Khan Khattak was a ‘mediocre cadet’. He describes him as a ‘mediocre officer’, meaning that later in life Khattak became mediocre.

Incidentally, General Khattak as Chief of General Staff was due to become Army Chief, but Musharraf was selected instead of him. After that General Khattak cut all personal ties with Musharraf and spurned all attempts by Musharraf to stay on friendly terms with him.

Again showing that General Khattak’s word is extremely biased - Musharraf got the job that General Khattak coveted.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

Mediocre cadets become mediocre officers, and some of those mediocre officers become martial law administrators or chief excecutives, with some luck and a lot of tricks, lies and deceits. Zia and Mushy are a prime example of this saga.

What kind of an army it is where Sandhurst graduated mediocre officers become CGS? No wonder you people lose every war you fight.

Either the whole world is lying or the self-anointed president and now the author of 'A pack of lies'.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

And Musharraf could never become the COAS if the two generals senior to him were not rejected for political reasons.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

Yes, I know. You didn't get the gist.

Wanted to say that mediocre cadets like Mushy are not sent to Sandhurst. got it now?

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

why coveted??? It was his right to become the COAS. Ali Khan was next in line for promotion when Gen. Karamat was called on to resign and the second candidate was Gen. Malik. But unfoutunately these both ware rejected for political reasons.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

^^
Since when this ‘Right of seniority’ concept became binding reason for promotion to COAS post in Pakistan army (or for that matter, anywhere in the world army)? You wrote as if Ali Khan or anyone had right over others because of seniority. It seems, you do not know how many seniors Ali Khan or any other general in the Pakistan army passes before reaching the post of General.

What I know is that, promotion in the army after Major is not on seniority but usually on merit and occasionally on personal like/dislike of the army chief along with merit. After post of Brigadier, promotions are mostly on recommendations based on merit. For promotion to the chief of army, again the basis is merit and personal like/dislike of the Prime minister and/or President.

If Prime minister of that time (NS) thought that Ali Khan does not deserved to be COAS, then that itself disqualify him from the post of COAS, and do not deserve shedding tears.

Prime minister (or promoting authority) decision is final and appropriate regardless of it being right or wrong.

It is just like, electing prime minister is right of voters. Now, if voters vote for a candidate in election then that candidate becomes prime minister even if decision to vote that person was wrong and candidate turn out to be thug (as what happened when Pakistanis voted NS and BB).

Now when thug start trying to become stronger then what that thug is and take laws in his own hand, those stronger than thug can kick that thug out (even if that stronger person was appointed by the thug). The reason being that thug (PA) is not King and whomever thug appoints as COAS, the appointee (COAS) becomes employee of Pakistan and not employee of thug that appointed. Thus, the COAS should not show undue loyalty to the thug (PM), but his loyalty should be for the country. If COAS shows loyalty to the Prime Minister then certainly that COAS does not deserve key posts like COAS. Loyalty (for both) should be for Pakistan and relationship between COAS and PM should be business like.

If voters were upset that their elected thug (NS) was kicked and they did not wanted him to get kicked, they should have came out on the road in masses (15 to 20 million in the population of 150 million on the road would have brought NS back). Since few if any came out, one should not feel sorry for the kicked thug too.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

Note to anyone posting links to illegal copies of the book: Copyright violation is not permitted on Gupshup.

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

Musharraf may not have been academically astute or most disciplined cadet at PMA but he did shine in the war of 1965 when it mattered the most, during the biggest tank battle fought after WWII.

Mediocre Officers are also not selected and sent to Royal College Of Defence Studies in UK. Mush as a brigadier was selected and sent for a one year cours in 1990.

http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/RCDSReport.aspx
http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/Biography.aspx#

A comment from his performance report was, “a capable, articulate and extremely personable officer, who made a most valuable impact here. His country is fortunate to have the services of a man of his undeniable quality”.

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

Shawaiz, do read the responses to your criticsim carefully, you will understand what you refuse to understand.

Re: ‘In The Line Of Fire’ (Merged)

It’s not just Cowasajee, but also Ayaz Amir (one of the bitterest critics of Musharraf) who is recognising that Pakistan under General sahib is a lot, lot freer than it ever was under our touted democrats.

ISLAMABAD DIARY: Second thoughts

By Ayaz Amir

“Among mortals second thoughts are always best.” (Forgive me Euripides for quoting you again.) OUR history is replete with events that should not have happened: plots, coups, conspiracies, one or two high-profile assassinations, open season for charlatans and adventurers of every hue and description. Against the backdrop of this legacy, a head of state writing his memoirs “while in office” hardly qualifies as the most cardinal of sins. Of course this is not the done thing. When you are supposed to be guarding the nation’s secrets you can’t bare all and if you do, you violate your oath of office. These arguments have been rehearsed and indeed done to death since the unveiling of Gen Musharraf’s (ghost-written) ‘In the Line of Fire’. But if memoir-writing “while in office” was the worst thing that could happen in Pakistan, we would count ourselves a lucky people. The book has been accused of selectivity regarding the life and times of our current saviour (three having preceded him). From its pages emerges less mortal Musharraf than Superman Musharraf, always right, invariably courageous, omniscient and infallible. But in the field of scholarship if freedom reigns, there is no great harm in selective history, or even the writing of fairy tales, provided there is opportunity for giving the other side of the story. Beloved Leader Kim Jong Il writing his memoirs is one thing. Gen Musharraf doing the same is a different matter. If he has presented himself as superman everyone, including aunts and uncles, have been busy trashing him — contributing to book sales no doubt. The only thing worse than being talked about, as Wilde put it, is not being talked about. Musharraf’s disparaging remarks about Lt Gen (retd) Ali Quli Khan are perhaps reprehensible. But they would have been inexcusable if Ali Quli had no chance to rebut them. But he has issued a rebuttal at length (and it’s a good one too) which makes the score even. Self-glorification unchecked may be an unqualified pain but if it can be debunked and even ridiculed, our understanding of the issues involved is heightened.

I can’t imagine the same kind of open and sustained criticism of Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s ‘Friends Not Masters’. Tongue-in-cheek raillery perhaps but none of the heavy bombardment we have seen in this case. In Gen Zia’s days Begum Zia went on a visit abroad and the Frontier Post (since defunct I think) had a small front-page story saying that the begum had taken about forty pieces of onboard luggage with her and had been allowed so much (I forget the exact figure) foreign exchange. All hell broke loose and intelligence spooks, much more of a nuisance in those days, were all over the newspaper. If memory serves, there was even a sacking or two. By which I do not mean to say that our troubles are behind us and we have entered the Promised Land. But we should be able to see things relatively — contrasting one thing with another — and then determining gains and losses.

**Whatever else may have gone wrong, and much (alas) has, it has been a good time for the media — newspapers free to write what they want, their own incompetence (where present) their harshest liability, and television facing a situation where there are more channels than competent anchors available. True, there is outright tripe being served on most of the channels. But that’s hardly the fault of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). **Why aren’t the TV channels producing good documentaries? Why aren’t they coming up with good probing stories? Because they are lazy, an endearing national quality, and they like easy money — paltry investment, huge profits. It has to be handed to this generation of the army that it has learned to be tolerant of criticism. This is a good thing and may it never be reversed. Indeed, lesser satraps have shown themselves to be far less tolerant. We know what happened to a particular TV channel when in one of its talk shows there was an adverse remark about the Punjab chief minister, or one of his sons. Cable operators throughout the province were pressured to stop its transmissions.

Musharraf has taken a lot of criticism on his chin but he has not shown himself as thin-skinned as Pervez Ellahi. Perhaps the funniest remark in Musharraf’s book: “The Chaudry cousins (Pervaiz Ellahi and Shujaat Hussain) had been victims of some mudslinging, but they were good men.” You would have to take this one with a fistful of salt.** Not that military-allowed glasnost hasn’t paid dividends. We have a dictatorship in which one man calls the shots and all roads lead to Army House. But it is a slightly funny dictatorship where all things can be said by all men (and women). Opposition leaders get hoarse inveighing against the government all the time. In public they thunder, in private they are not averse to talking to the military government. **This has led to a double-faced crisis of credibility. No one believes the government. No one, sadly, believes Gen Musharraf. And no one believes the opposition parties, especially the holy fathers of the MMA whose credibility is several degrees below zero. There is justified criticism of the army — senior ranks, that is — entering every nook and cranny of the administrative services. All military saviours have looked after their constituency but none more so than Musharraf. We now have a ‘corporate’ military, more into things commercial, especially real estate, than anything as dull and prosaic as mere soldiering and fighting. A good thing too because, whatever the other consequences of this fast-moving trend, this is a guarantee we won’t get embroiled in futile adventures such as the ‘65 war and Kargil.

Indeed, the model the Pakistan army seems to be unconsciously pursuing is that of the Thai or Indonesian armies, useful for the occasional coup — to keep the political class in check, among other matters — but keeping well away from anything as foolish as war. We have had too much of jihad, too much of fire-breathing nonsense. Time to pull down the curtains, finally, on the Zia period with its legacy of guns, drugs and God knows what else. But even as we do this, we have to learn one thing — not to be pushed around too much by the Yanks. How we took the decision to side with the United States post-Sep 11 is now history. We should move on and be more concerned about the present.
If we were less confident about ourselves then, and more in awe of American power, we should have the eyes to see that the situation today is radically different. Thanks to Iraq, and also now increasingly to Afghanistan where anti-American resistance is gaining strength, the US is a more chastened power. If the American people have their wits about them — in the political field one can never be certain that they do, or what explains the choosing of such a leader as George Bush? — the Republican party should undergo a reality check in the mid-term congressional elections in November. That should encourage a little more humility. We should thus be setting down stricter parameters for our American relationship. We shouldn’t rupture this relationship — no reason to do so — but we should be curbing some of our excessive zeal for collaboration. And we should learn to keep our lips stitched about our nuclear programme. We have been sufficiently crazy about this already, talking of nuclear proliferation as if it was the proliferation of some wild plant in Islamabad. The golden rule to observe from now on — starting with the president who has a well-diagnosed problem of verbosity to contend with (we should be talking of a serious cure here): not a word in public about Dr A. Q. Khan or our nuke capability. Our loquacity has already caused much damage. Give the Americans an inch and they won’t be satisfied until they do a Qadhafi to our entire nuke programme. A word in praise of the putative writer behind Gen Musharraf’s book: political sage and counselor, Humayun Gauhar, who has followed hallowed family tradition in that his father, Altaf Gauhar, was said to be the brains behind Ayub Khan’s luckless ‘Friends Not Masters’. One of Humayun’s talented daughters is said to have been involved with him in the writing of ‘In the Line of Fire’, which makes it three generations of Gauhars in the service of the higher national interest as personified by our various military rulers.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20060610.htm

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

lessons learned (hopefully) for the future PMs
If you don't follow merit you will be stuck with liars and
unprofessional, power hungry dictators

Re: 'In The Line Of Fire' (Merged)

I have just completed the book and i believe that Gen Musharraf had not been honest with Gen Ali Quli. Whatever it may takes neither Musharraf nor Ali Quli were mediocre as far as their careers are concerned (about abilities i am not sure of either). If Gen Musharraf went as DGMO than Ali Quli went as Commandant Staff College an equally prestigious appointment as major general. If Musharraf has RCDS to his credit defintely Ali Quli must have some other foreign course to his credit.