Unfortunately you need to sign up to view this New York Times article but signup is free. It’s look at Pakistan and it would be interesting to hear what the natives think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magazine/07PAKISTAN.html?pagewanted=1
Here's a copy paste for the benefit of those who wouldn't want to register.
**M*aulana Azam Tariq's assassins were of the thorough sort, firing 30 or 40 bullets into their victim, aiming especially at the head and neck. The Sunni cleric died along with his driver and three bodyguards, murdered near a tollbooth in a high-security area of Islamabad, the rich, spacious and usually sedate capital of a poor, crowded and deeply tumultuous country: Pakistan.
Azam Tariq was considered an extreme man even in a nation abundant with extremists. Often accused of ordering the deaths of innocent Shiites, he made his home in Jhang, a robust city in the vast plains of central Punjab. It is a relatively prosperous area, with an occasional tractor to share beastly burdens with the water buffalo. But the greatest portion of the wealth remains with feudal landlords, most of whom are Shiites. Resentment of these landlords helped provoke years of spasmodic sectarian violence. This reciprocal bloodshed joined the other centrifugal forces that always seem to be flinging Pakistan toward bedlam: the religious fanaticism, the ethnic separatism, the political corruption, the four military takeovers, the three wars with India, the two wars in Afghanistan, the inconstant friendship of America.
As it happened, I interviewed Azam Tariq two days before he was gunned down. ''Anyone will know how to find me,'' he had promised in lieu of directions. And indeed, people in Jhang confidently pointed the way through the curvy and narrow lanes of an old neighborhood, where an automobile seemed a clumsy machine amid motor scooters and donkey carts. Maulana is a term of respect for a scholar, one dutifully applied by Azam Tariq's thousands of followers. That morning, the maulana was busy at his small compound, encircled in his office by dozens of supplicants needing help with their unpaid bills and unresolved quarrels. A bespectacled man with a henna tint to his stiff beard, Azam Tariq, 41, was wearing a turban, its long tail hanging over the front of his white linen shalwar kameez. He sat patiently on the floor behind a cloth-covered table, his ministrations repeatedly disrupted by phone calls. Outside were young sentries with machine guns. A closed-circuit TV monitored the mosque across the street.
When Azam Tariq saw he had guests, he excused himself from the office and led my translator and me to a simply furnished guest room. An aide was sent to fetch bottles of 7Up and a plate of cookies. Then, unprompted by questions, the maulana began an enthusiastic self-defense, portraying himself as a reasonable man of virtuous restraint. Rather than killing Shiites, he said, they ''should merely be declared non-Muslims'' and jailed for 10 or 15 years. ''We have never called for violence against anyone.''
These were lies, which was to be expected. Pakistan is a great hub of duplicity, and the maulana was just one of the many chameleon characters who seemed able to operate at both its center and fringe, something like the nation itself, which is one of America's essential allies in the war against terrorism and also one of terrorism's essential incubators in its war against the West. Each time I visit the country, I hope for some blossom of understanding but return with the wilt of confusion. This is a nation of confounding murkiness, where every kind of deception, collusion and outright sham are recurring motifs in the political theater. Rumors and conspiracy theories are as commonly exchanged as rupee notes, the information -- some of it even true -- then twisted, inflated and endlessly rearranged. Much of the trickery is institutionalized. The I.S.I. -- the shorthand name for the military intelligence agencies -- is widely presumed to be an expert puppet master, the great Oz of a manipulated society.
Rumors were the reason I wanted a word with the maulana. I'd heard that he had cut a deal with the military a year ago to spring himself from jail.
Since Pakistan's most recent military coup, in October 1999, the country has been run by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, an often brash former commando. From the first, he professed a devotion to democracy and a loathing for the nation's ample supply of knavish politicians. His deepest belief, however, seems to be in his own indispensability, and he has connived to hold on to power even after allowing national elections. His patriotic campaigns against corruption and extremism have most often given way to the more pressing priorities of mundane self-interest.
*
Edit: This is just the first page.. utd pointed out the article is 10 pages!!
I read this article yesterday with gloomy fascination. I don't know how many Pakistanis here will take the trouble of reading it and analysing it.
The article starts off with 4 points (available only in the printed version) which are -
Pakistan is-
a terrorist spawning ground
the next Islamic theocracy
a volatile nucleur power
a crucial American ally
and then concludes with -
But if elected governments have been disappointing, military ones have been disastrous. And the eventual bridge to cross is more than Musharraf. It is the army itself -- and its dominance, whether onstage or behind the scenes. Some way or another, Musharraf's time will pass. The great fear in the West has been that the next general will be much harder to deal with, someone with a long beard and no taste for whisky. But the greater likelihood is that after Musharraf simply comes another Musharraf, a slightly different model but still a man with the same loyalty to military pre-eminence.
Idealists in the world believe there is no substitute for democracy. It may be hard work, but it must be tried, and if it fails, it must be tried again. The will of the people should not be forsaken for expedience, the body politic not sacrificed for Realpolitik.
Such sentiments have rarely been better expressed than in an eloquent address last month at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The main topic was democracy and Islam, and President Bush said, ''The daily work of democracy itself is the path to progress.'' For emphasis, he repeated the thought with new phrasing. ''It is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy.''
Bush singled out two recalcitrant Muslim allies: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Pakistan went unmentioned.
Does the common man in Pakistan want democracy?
Does the common man in Pakistan believe in democracy?
Is he prepared to fight for it?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by karina: *
....
Does the common man in Pakistan **want* democracy?
Does the common man in Pakistan believe in democracy?
Is he prepared to fight for it?
[/QUOTE]
I didn't read the article, but its easy to answer these questions.
Democracy? what is that? Does it mean Benazir-cracy or Nawaz-cracy then "NO", even though people will still vote for them as there is no provision on "ballot paper" to write name of person they want.
"Fight" yes, we will fight for good food, house, life.... even if it comes via "Kingdom" or anyother way.
I read the article and it was interesting. The author gave a prespective from both sides of the story. He understood [from Pakistanis point of view] on how they felt the muslims are being treated throughout the world and disagreed on some of the issues that were of extremist or fudamentalist nature.
Interesting article.
It does really show that no-one can tell what direction Pakistan is heading towards - there are just too many variables.
And, as the articles concludes towards the end, any kind of externally applied pressure on Pakistan could have dramatically undesirable effects.
Since if I say anything the overzelous mod here deletes my post, I will simply use excerpts from the NYTimes pakistan is artice. enjoy:
"Rather than killing Shiites, he (Azam Tariq) said, they ''should merely be declared non-Muslims'' and jailed for 10 or 15 years. ''We have never called for violence against anyone.''
"Pakistan is a great hub of duplicity, and the maulana was just one of the many chameleon characters who seemed able to operate at both its center and fringe, something like the nation itself,"
"The I.S.I. -- the shorthand name for the military intelligence agencies -- is widely presumed to be an expert puppet master, the great Oz of a manipulated society."
"Rather, what greatly alarms me is Pakistan as a potential meltdown, a nuclear power with too many combustibles in the national mix. "
"Religion alone proved insufficient glue."
"Significant numbers of the present citizenry feel their greater bond is to ethnicity -- be it Pashtun or Baluchi or Sindhi -- and would rather not be part of Pakistan at all."
I read the article as well. I had heard similar things as well three weeks ago, however brushed them aside as personal ideas. Barry Bareak validated them as true. People of Pakistan should address the Judiciary system first as a piece to a jigsaw puzzle of good governance.
Dividing Pakistan based on ethnicity will be disastrous to the local economies specially in lieu where most countries are forming economic unions to compete in global economy.
The Pakistani politicians that I have spoken to agree that dividing Pakistan on ethnic grounds is ludicrous. The same politicians agree that a legal framework guarding Constitution must be in place. Military involvement in politics should be separated if not limited. Unfortunately these same politicians never make it to the office becasue they are either overrun by the vote buying power of feudal landlords or killed in the process.
Pakistan Politicians minus the MMA guys are also right about MMA. This mixture / alliance of military with mullah is a witches brew engineered by ISI.
^ that's true. We're beginning to see a number of proposals surfacing from the alliance detractors (some still in active service!). Biggest problem at the moment is to sort out which are the genuine ones and which are the plants.
There are at least 4 distinct proposals (amongst a total of a dozen 'credibles') that put many assets comprehensively on the table. Too bad there isn't one that puts the full inventory on eBay.
I am offended by outsiders trying define what "Pakistan is" for them. Although they have a right to their opinions and thoughts, it is based on ignorance of the people and a limited (biased?) exposure to the country. True enough, Pakistan has its share of problems, much like many other third world countries..But why do a 10 page profile? Because it SCARES Americans just like it scares Indians. The US knows and understands that this is nuclear armed nation created under an Islamic ideology, although the people are not fundamentalists and sectarian relations are frayed, push coming to a shove EVERY Muslim Pakistani would step up to defend his/her faith. In a similar vein, India too sees Pakistan as the only thorn in its side in South Asia. The Indian establishment, seeing itself as a direct competitor to China, is dismayed that Pakistan hasn't been crushed and indeed is creating problems for the Indian aspirations for leadership. If you knock out an Oil fiefdom like Iraq or a basketcase like Afghanistan, theres very little to fear, other than a low intensity guerilla campaign. However with Pakistan, the aggressors understand that their not dealing with a joke. Pakistan is here to stay and if God forbid, it being wiped off of the face of the earth, you BETTER believe that the US, India and many others will FEEL the effects, and I mean it in a bad way.
Until then I'll let these armchair speculators continue on with their word pollution.
Pakistan is fairly unique, on initial appearence it seems superficially simple, but the more you dig into the history the more you find how amazingly diverse it is in it's structure. Writers like Christina Lamb and Emma Duncan were able to figure that out, apparently the writer of this piece can't...Certain areas of the country are highly feudalistic, and yet Feudals can't win their own seats as easily as they used too. The Army is dominated by two ethnic groups and yet it supported the present president who is from neither. It has very strong ethnic movements, and yet it has not had a seccessionist movement for over a decade, unlike it's neighbours.
Despite a major backlash to siding with America once again (as one former ambassador said, Pakistan wants a Nikah with the US, but the US is only interested in a mu'tah) ..the MMA only polled 15% of the vote, which is far less than the combined tally of the religo-political parties in the 1970 elections. Azam Tariq's electoral victory has more to do with the nature of Jhang politics, rather than any widespread appeal.
Intelligence agencies in Pakistan are not only represented by the ISI, so the "evil tentacles of the ISI" theory is a bit half baked as far as Pakistani society is concerned the main worry is only one section of the ISI "the political Cell"..which is used by civilians and Military politicians alike, that needs to be addressed.
Pakistan has many problems structurally, it is not fair in it's distribution of resources and power to all ethnic groups or administraive units. It also borders a regional power which seems obsessed with flexing it's muscles in the sub continent and has global delusions of grandeur.
RF, you're getting emotional about ethnicity and defending faith.
The article is not about war with India or anyone else, it's about Pakistan and where it's heading.
Bush say's, ''It is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy.''
Being from a democratic country (pls this thread is not about India's 'failed democracy' as so many here put it) I cannot fathom how anyone in the region would not want a similar set up. Even Bangladesh seems to have a grip on democratic values.
I am not commenting on what the writer says about Pashtuns or mullahs taking over, I am curious how many Pakistanis believe in the idealistic thought 'there is no substitute for democracy'.
Its hurts to find out that we are viewed as a bunch of hypocrites.
Part of the reason is that people want things so easily. Democracy is a right..you have to fight for it. You have to go through pains. US is still changing and still going to through the democratic revolution even after 200 yrs. Experiments are done, best practices adopted. Thereis no model...because the world is ever changing. It is not a monolith.
Just because you had a couple of bad governments which were elected, you should do away with the system? BB and Nawaz were crooks, fine! It doesn't mean that the system should be done away with?
people cry lack of education...it is a feeble argument. People maynot be able to read and write, but they do understand what governance is.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Its hurts to find out that we are viewed as a bunch of hypocrites.
[/QUOTE]
And we're not alone in the club of hypocrites.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Part of the reason is that people want things so easily. Democracy is a right..you have to fight for it. You have to go through pains. US is still changing and still going to through the democratic revolution even after 200 yrs. Experiments are done, best practices adopted. Thereis no model...because the world is ever changing. It is not a monolith.
Just because you had a couple of bad governments which were elected, you should do away with the system? BB and Nawaz were crooks, fine! It doesn't mean that the system should be done away with?
people cry lack of education...it is a feeble argument. People maynot be able to read and write, but they do understand what governance is.
[/QUOTE]
I am afraid you can not look at lack of education in isolation. Majority of our population still lives in the rural areas. The feudal lords in these areas don't want their people to get educated because with education they can earn a decent living without having to put any lives as collatoral, move out to the cities for a better life thus reducing the writ of the jagirdar, and raise their voice when they oppose something. Having an effective control over their lives means larger vote bank (the situation might have improved in some areas but for the most parts the practise continues in Balochsitan, inner Sindh & Punjab) therefore, these jagirdars go out of their way to make sure that education does not reach these poors. So unless the govt. takes effective land reforms, and educational reforms, the situation will more or less remain the same. But the irony is that Pakistani politics is run by the people I mentioned above. And unless a reformer with the will comes in, I am kind of hopeless. So I think one needs to look at the situation in the broader sense rather than education in isolation.
This is also one of the reasons I was disappointed to not find a single CBM b/w India Pakistan in the field of education. We have one of your Indian professors (C.P. Mohan from J.L. nehru Uni) in the country nowadays and he looks like a very reasonable man. I dont know why our govts don't take steps to exchange teachers like him, if not studetns.
[QUOTE]
I am not commenting on what the writer says about Pashtuns or mullahs taking over, I am curious how many Pakistanis believe in the idealistic thought 'there is no substitute for democracy'.
[/QUOTE]
Karina: Most of the politicians that I have spoken with, all agree that there is NO SUBSTITUTE for Democracy. In other words Democracy is a MUST HAVE. I think the problem in Pakistan is that we never really let anyone finish a term. But as far as democratic principles are concerned no matter how flawed they might be they do exist.
On the same token it also depends on who you talk to, If I would have asked the question on democracy to a Maulana Sahib he might agree on a theocratic govt? So at the end it really depends who you talk to.
[QUOTE]
Just because you had a couple of bad governments which were elected, you should do away with the system? BB and Nawaz were crooks, fine! It doesn't mean that the system should be done away with?
[/QUOTE]
Matsui: Name one good government that waslected democratically in which people and economy thrived and was there relative calm? Just Curious.
RF: Why are you so angry? Calm down take a deep breath. Chill. There was nothing wrong with the article it was quite a subjective article merely stating facts (based on people he spoke with). I BTW did validate what the author stated and Barry Bearak is quite accurate in capturing the curent affairs in Pakistan.
I don't agree with this verbose article in its entirety.
Nothing is more dangerous for Pakistan than military's intervention in the politics and its enigmatic relations with uncle sam.
New York Times attacks Pakistan again
WASHINGTON: Pakistan has been described as “a nation of confounding murkiness, where every kind of deception, collusion and outright sham are recurring motifs in the political theatre. Rumours and conspiracy theories are as commonly exchanged as rupee notes, the information — some of it even true — then twisted, inflated and endlessly rearranged. Much of the trickery is institutionalised.”.”
Writing in the New York Times’s Sunday magazine, Barry Bearak says, “Since Pakistan’s most recent military coup, in October 1999, the country has been run by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. From the first, he professed a devotion to democracy and a loathing for the nation’s ample supply of knavish politicians. His deepest belief, however, seems to be in his own indispensability, and he has connived to hold on to power even after allowing national elections. His patriotic campaigns against corruption and extremism have most often given way to the more pressing priorities of mundane self-interest.”
Bearak who has visited Pakistan many times, met Maulana Azam Tariq two days before his assassination. He admits that “almost always I’ve found the people warm and generous and protective. Rather, what greatly alarms me is Pakistan as a potential meltdown, a nuclear power with too many combustibles in the national mix. I am hardly alone in my fears — and yet this nation rarely finds itself under the American magnifying glass.”
He quotes Richard Hass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations as saying, ‘‘Pakistan is an incredibly important country, but I don’t think there’s an awareness of that in the United States. If you’d ask most people what are the biggest issues in the world, they’d say the Middle East, Iraq, North Korea, perhaps Afghanistan, a long list. But not a lot of people would say Pakistan.’’
Bearak alleges that for more than a decade, the military has trained and financed civilian jihadis who cross into the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir to create havoc. This guerrilla combat, he says, had started as an entirely indigenous Kashmiri rebellion against New Delhi before Pakistan “hijacked” it. “Radical groups supplied much of the manpower, often enlisting students eager to enter paradise through the golden door of a martyr’s death. The relentless havoc has time and again nudged the two new nuclear powers close to war. Loyalties are now confused, and many Pakistanis wonder whether fundamentalist elements in the army’s officer corps are more sympathetic to the jihadis than to their own superiors.”
The American correspondent writes that he spent time in the early days with General. Pervez Musharraf whom he calls “a forceful man who expresses himself with such common sense and seeming candour that it is hard to imagine a word being untrue. He favours declarations like ‘It’s high time we face facts!’’ And yet for most Pakistanis, the General has been a disappointment. Anticorruption campaigns gave way, once again, to political vendettas.” He quotes former NAB prosecutor Farouk Adam Khan as saying, ‘‘Pervez Musharraf had a great opportunity, but he lost it in the pursuit of power.’’
Bearak also describes a meeting he had with Sen Mushahid Hussain whom he calls “a crafty political operator” with a “very agile mind, capable of elaborate spin moves.” Once freed, he notes, Mushahid joined “Musharraf’s party” and is now serving in Parliament’s upper house. “By his reckoning, the MMA’s strong showing owed more to the other parties’ disarray and the mullahs’ savvy use of anti-Americanism. ‘India-bashing has been replaced by America-bashing,’ he said. We chatted for about an hour, but what I recall most was a friendly warning as I left his house. ‘Let me know if you want to talk anything over, but not on the phone,’ the former information minister told me. ‘Remember, all the phones are bugged.’” —Khalid Hasan
Loaded with some very big suppositions on Pakistan and using the favourite buzz words of Pak-bashers (terrorism-nukes-out of control)..the article was partially redeemed by one quote which summed up what I feel about Mush:
*‘‘Pervez Musharraf had a great opportunity, but he lost it in the pursuit of power.’’ *