Romeo: You are right..mostly..I mean people often say how lucky we are that Mushy was around when 9/11 happened...but nobody can honestly tell me Benazir or Nawaz would have done anything different..the second thing pro Mush people say is how he "cleaned" up Pakistani politics..Considering his entire civilian crew consists of ex BB and NS supporters ..most of whom have dubious records and that he has transformed the religious parties from annoying nuisances into people who can make a claim on the top spot ..does little for his credibility...
The only consistent thing about Mushy is that he is inconsistent...as such at least I admire his lack of scruples ...he is far better at politics then as an army leader (and i mean politics in the worst possible sense)
What we are doing here is brooding a culture and mentality of quick fixes. Short term gains. Micro benefits. It's disturbing to see that people would view military intevention profitable just because the guy did some good things. He's not freaking doing any ehsan on us. We're not some kinda bhaiR bakri kay jee we get few good things out of a military dictator and now we're under the great weight of greatfulness and let's return him the favor by opting to let him stay forever.
He is also not some kinda miseeha that has come to save us. His actions before and after are way different. This is exactly the kind of mentality cooking up for decades. Settling down for few good deeds and let the culprit reap on all the rest. Lazing down on few good times just 'cause it has been havoc for years. It's not about doing a thing here or there. It's about motives and intentions and what this all means in the long run.
There is a price to pay for all this. Collateral damange. By ullu kay pathays like Benazir and Nawaz Sharifs of Pakistan who may be elected by people and would do damage, one in finacial terms and other on ethnic grounds but that's a price to pay for sure. You think you can avoid it after decades of totalitarian rule? No way. You cannot change people's way of thinking in few elections. People have to get hurt by the virtue of their own choice over and over again before wising up. The only way that's possible is to keep the military out of it.
All the problems and finger pointing at pakistan after 9/11, was only because of Army.
They started the Afghan Jehad, They started the Kashmir jehad.
After 9/11, they acted like if Pakistani ppl were involved in both. "We are not supporting Talibans". "We r not supporting Kashmiris militants".
And Musharraf can not say he was not involved in Amry's interventionist policies in neighbouring countries. He started Kargil. His statements about "strategic depth" in pro taliban afghan policy r on the record.
Despite the fact that we all love Liaqat Ali Khan, its true that even Jinnah stopped trusting him after a stunt he pulled, by holding a meeting by himself before the creation of Pakistan. The Pakistani bandwagon was strong before partition, but after creation and the death of the Quiad, it was just crippled with poor leadership. So many PMs came and went that Nehru said ‘Meri dhoti se zyada tu Pakistan apney Wazeer-e-Azam badaltah hai’.
You quoted some really weak examples, Ghulam Mohammad kicked another Pakistani Band-wagon pioneer out of office and put forth his own man, bogra.
You may be right about Mohajirs being more able rulers, but u just backed it with some poor examples.
yeah and he is pretty darn good…mussharraf zindabad.. a lot better then our nawaz sharifs, benazirs bhuttos, altaf hussains, and all those mullah leaders…
musharaf is not an elected representative of pakistan. he is in power by force and thus is not representing pakistani nation simple as that. good or no good is not of major concern here. he is putting interests that are directly linked to benefit his own leadership and that just might get him more approval from USA to stay in power even after 2007. now where exactly is democracy that USA sooooo strongly edvocates? its all about interests. musharaf is no different from any other corrupt politician we've had in the past. pakistan is in a sorry state of affairs and bring the head of state, he is as much responsible as any other politician. poverty, crime, injustice, corruption, killings, terrorism etc is on the rise. all these problems were there aswell when benazir and nawaz were in power. the only difference now is that country is divided bcos of musharaf's stance towards USA. how will this affect pakistan in the long run? only time will tell.
Lajawab Bhai,
With no disrespect intended: Pak history Kaafee kamzor hai…
Governor Generals of Pakistan:
M A Jinnah-Sindh (Bombay)
Khwaja Nazimuddin-Bengal
Ghulam Mohammed-Punjab
Iskander Mirza-Bengal
Field Marshall Ayub Khan
Early day politics of Pakistan suffered with the advent of Ghulam Mohd (guy was literally crazy) as the Gov General, replacing Kh Nazim Uddin, a simple, pious man who fell into their trap.
There is no simple answer to why things went bad for Pakistan, niether can we attribute success or failure to a single ethnic component.
the cartoon Faisal posted show how calmly the dog is waving the tail!!!
The only period Pakistan wasnt under the influence was 1973-77 under Z A Bhutto.. other periods of so called calmness were just tail wagging for USA..
Soon after its inception- Pakistan willingly undermined itself by playing second fiddle to the United States. Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, refused to go to Soviet Union and instead went to USA..In 1954 under Liaqat Ali Khan - Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO - the US-led defense alliance against the Soviet Union although Pakistan had no dispute with the USSR!!
From 1979 to 1988 Pakistan fought the American cold war - knowing full well that the Afghan crisis of the late 1980s could have destructive consequences for Pakistan- Zia became willing instrument of the Americans. This resulted in Pakistan’s becoming a centre of illegal arms and heroin.
So the so-called period of calmness were just self - pity and degradation.. and shamefulness..
GM was a medically declared looney bin…kismet saadi
LAK decision to side with the amerikee’s, well its eazee to judge his decision now in hind sight, but u need to put yourself in his position then at the creation of Pakistan, huge refugee influx, belligerent neighbour with socialist policies, no help from the brits or the indies, what does a leader do to keep the ship afloat? Ask fr help from those who are willing to assist…
Iam not sure really, jury is still out on LAK decision. but we have to be fair to the deceased cause he was honest to the core and we dont find such leaders anymore. Better to cherish those who served well so others can follow
