Musharraf is far better as a ruler.
Doesnt matter if he's a dictator or a democratic leader.
He's been playing cards well and has done alot to get rid of the mess that we were in due to our so called ''democratic'' leaders.
And that's all that matters.
well, what do u think is better ?
a stpuid/corrupted democrat leader ?
or a well educated/sincere dictator ?
Other options arent available for us pakistanis right now.
chao!
Musharraf's heart is in the right place, but he still doesn't get it. It seems he is asking for more money from the West. Money will not solve this problem, it may help it, but the root cause of terrorism is not poverty.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Haris Zuberi: *
all the ppl who think or say "seized power" make me wanna cry, for i cant bear them talking on politics when they fail to retain some imp FACT from just 4-5 years ago!
Musharraf DID NOT TOPPLE THE FREEAKING GOVT!
[/QUOTE]
You are right. His cronies toppled the government. He did not himself.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Badayuni: *
You are right. His cronies toppled the government. He did not himself.
[/QUOTE]
im afraid i'll have to disagree with the phrase per se.
yes his loyal commanders did it for him and there was good, very genuine reason for them to do what they did. they just played the pacer fired at them with the perfect stroke and hit a much awaited sixer against the traitor of the ppl of pakistan NS.
So, we have to remember everytime, it was the man NS himself who made it all happen...
yes, military rule has never been the long term solution, but evert 2 yrs, as you say, the conditions of the country were made so panicy by the rulers that miltary had to take over. and lets not fortget its always the civil opposition that encourages the army chief to take such measures. and with mush, it was all a game of luck! he didnt plan the coup, it happend! and happend at the right time and ppl welcomed it.
Have you not often labeled the people of Pakistan as idiots in the past and now proclaiming how they welcomed the coup. I cannot accept that Musharraf never had a plan of coup in his mind. He must have one in his mind but might be not for that time when it was really conducted.
**
and about the punishing of NS. yes, i think NS should have hanged! or atleats should have been put in jail for a 100 yrs. Mush could have easily done that. NS tried to kill him and few 100 oithers. **
Why he should have been hanged or put into jail for 100 years? Does the law demand it or it is only your personal wish?
By the way NS didn't try to kill him, it is only a propaganda of the army. The government diverted his plane from Karachi to Nawab Shah only to avoid a military coup, that Karachi is a big militry base and Musharraf could get assistance in Karachi.
**
he used his powers illegally. **
Who used his power illegally, Nawaz? I think it is a very constitutional right of a prime minister to dismiss the Army Chief. Am i wrong here?
**
his actions could have lead to civil war etc and so he can be sentenced for treason.
**
How did you come to this conclusion?
**
there wre a 100 ways for Mush to punish NS and his loyalists. but i bet had he done any of the above mentioned, ppl would have condemned him like they condemn Ziauulhaq for hanging Bhutto for the Murder of Kasuri. ppl would have said Mush punished NS for his personal grudge. look how every one thinks Javed hashmi is the most innocent man to ever wal;k pakistans soil. NS and co. had been in jail for a year before the saudis rescued them in turn for aid to Pakistan. Mush made the right choice. however i do think he should send them into exile for 50 yrs. nopt just 10. same goes for BB.**
I said it in an earlier post that Musharraf had an opportunity to punish a prime minister for his wrongdoings. But not that he should have taken the law in his own hand but he could arrange a fair and open trial in the court. The way Javed Hashmi has been tried is a shame for this country.
Who would people condemn Musharraf if a person is tried in open court?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Haris Zuberi: *
im afraid i'll have to disagree with the phrase per se.
yes his loyal commanders did it for him and there was good, very genuine reason for them to do what they did. they just played the pacer fired at them with the perfect stroke and hit a much awaited sixer against the traitor of the ppl of pakistan NS.
So, we have to remember everytime, it was the man NS himself who made it all happen...
[/QUOTE]
His loyal commaders were not loyal to the constituion of Pakistan. We call this treason in the West.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
Who used his power illegally, Nawaz? I think it is a very constitutional right of a prime minister to dismiss the Army Chief. Am i wrong here?
[/QUOTE]
It's funny how people always think that Nawaz's dismissal of Musharraf was illegal, but never tell us why it is illegal for an elected PM to dismiss his COAS.
mad_scientist:
Only economically Pakistan is doing better today than in the late 90s and all of us know the reasons. What are the other ways?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Badayuni: *
His loyal commaders were not loyal to the constituion of Pakistan. We call this treason in the West.
[/QUOTE]
so should they have waited for their commander in chief to land so that he could either be jailed, fired most insultingly, or perhaps die in an aircrash since the plane carrying him wasnt allowed to land at khi and wasnt even allowed to land at nawabshah? should they have allowed a PM who was crossing all boundaries to carry on the madness, hire his own chief and then play the same drama again? since he had done exactly the same with Gen Jehangir karamat (the COAS before Mush) who was forced to retire. and lets not forget the problems pakistan was facing in 99. it was most reqd.
do read my posts above for a flashbackk on events.
and Shahwaiz,
well not just economically, i say in every respect Pakistan is a better place today than it was in the past! just look around. you will find a lot things.
^ Would you care to tell us in which aspects? Politically Pakistan has stuck in a mayhem created by Musharraf. Don't you see it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
^ Would you care to tell us in which aspects? Politically Pakistan has stuck in a mayhem created by Musharraf. Don't you see it?
[/QUOTE]
Shawaiz,
i do see it! and thats why ask others to open their eyes and realize and recognize what they see.
im not sure how you think or take it, but i think Pakstan today under gen Mush has more stable institutions, financial ones aside, the police is lees corrupt with checks and balances, the relations with India are at an all time best. did any other premier, pres ever take such bold steps? it doesnt matter what everyone says they wouuld have done had they remained in power 1yr or 1 month more, whats matters is the way they ravaged our motherland when they had power. as a general feeling among the masses, ppl today have a better snese of security when they walk out theeir homes, lets keep some cases aside which are extreme examples and cant be controlled with simple means. and were commonm occurences in older regimes too. the media is free! writers, reporters, channels write and air all sorts of views which are too often absurd and would have lead to the editors, producers deaths or imprisonment in BB, NS or even ZiaulHaqs regimes. remember how NS kidnapped Njam Sethi. ppl even attack the Pre personally, but he says nothing. though he IS the MOST powerful man to lead pakistan ever since creeation. talk aboput being in power and then being able to control yoursels and using it properly. he can impose martial law and put all the baboons in jail or in exile, he doesnt. hes ready to cooperate but no one else is.
^Which institutions are stable today, care to enlighten us? Generalissimo has made a mockery of parliament, judiciary and senate and you're telling us here they are more stable than ever. Police is less corrupt! Where did you read it? Has an article been published in a newspaper about it or it is just your imagination?
here is why bro:
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/09/top6.htm
Today’s Dawn which points out how quickly Mush throws out Pakistan’s supreme court decision if it does not suit him.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
^Which institutions are stable today, care to enlighten us? Generalissimo has made a mockery of parliament, judiciary and senate and you're telling us here they are more stable than ever. Police is less corrupt! Where did you read it? Has an article been published in a newspaper about it or it is just your imagination?
[/QUOTE]
what mnakes you think every thing comes from someone elses views or from smthng in print? thats the problem with us pakistanis, we just dont have analysis of our own.
what i claimed was from my own experience ans from what the general public perception is. im noit sure where you live but i get e feeling you live someplace dominated by pro NS and BB ppl. where i live we have pro pakistan ppl. and hence their views regarding Mush and his actions being the best.
Musharraf Isn’t Practicing What He Preaches
Apparently his article on enlightened mdoeration has had some real harsh responses.
By Samina Ahmed and John Norris
Tuesday, June 15, 2004; Page A23
Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, recently made a broad and seemingly heartfelt call for Muslims to raise themselves up through what he terms “enlightened moderation” [op-ed, June 1]. Decrying the influence of militants, extremists and terrorists, Musharraf insisted that political injustice lay at the heart of the vast suffering of Muslims around the globe. His path forward is for Muslims to disavow extremism in favor of socioeconomic progress and for the United States to take on a much bolder role in resolving political disputes in the Muslim world, particularly in places such as Palestine and Kashmir.
The words sound good, and such language from the leader of a nuclear nation on the front lines of the war against terrorism should be reassuring. But sadly, to most people who follow Pakistan closely, Musharraf’s comments come across as dangerously close to farce. While advocating enlightened moderation abroad, Pakistan’s leader is content to practice enlightenment in extreme moderation at home.
First and foremost, he continues to avoid handing real power back to democratically elected officials. While the Bush administration repeatedly holds up Iraq as a nation that could serve as a shining example of Islamic democracy in action, it continues to offer a blank check to a Pakistani government in which all power resides in the military. Curbs on democratic freedoms in Pakistan remain draconian. To discourage domestic dissent, the government has sentenced Javed Hashmi, leader of Musharraf’s main political opposition, to 23 years in prison for daring to offer criticism. And it deported an exiled opposition leader, Shahbaz Sharif, when he had the temerity to attempt to return home after the Supreme Court confirmed the right of all citizens to actually reside in Pakistan.
In the same vein, Musharraf’s domestic reforms are primarily aimed at strengthening military rule. For example, he promoted a recent plan for a devolution of power to local officials as a means to “empower the impoverished” and strengthen local government. Instead, it has undercut mainstream moderate political parties, left widespread corruption unchecked and shifted power away from the provinces as a means to bolster military rule.
U.S. officials are rightly beginning to grumble that they are not getting what they are paying for with billions of dollars of economic and military aid. In high-profile pledges two years ago, Musharraf vowed to crack down on madrassas, the religious schools where many Pakistani children receive their education and which have often been a wellspring of extremism. Pakistan has failed to deliver on those pledges; most madrassas remain unregistered, their finances unregulated, and the government has yet to remove the jihadist and sectarian content in their curricula.
The Pakistani government has taken a similar approach to jihadist organizations. The growth of jihadist networks continues to threaten both domestic and international security. After declaring that no group would be allowed to engage in terrorist activities in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the government ordered a number of extremist groups to do little more than change their name. One extremist leader was allowed to run for parliament, and won, even though he had been charged with more than 20 violent crimes. The leaders of other banned groups, designated as terrorist organizations by the United States, continue to preach freely their sectarian and anti-Western jihad. Pakistan has also notably failed to adequately address important issues such as terrorist financing, including money laundering, making the country a favorite base of operation for all too many extremist organizations.
Indeed, escalating sectarian violence in Karachi, deplored by the U.N. secretary general, painfully underscores the government’s failure to tackle extremists within its own borders. This failure was also shown in the government’s halting and contradictory statements after cordon and search operations in northwest Pakistan designed to apprehend al Qaeda operatives and Taliban militants. After initially trumpeting that the arrest of “high value” suspects was imminent, the government sheepishly had to admit that any such suspects had escaped as it engaged in negotiations with local tribesmen to free a number of captured Pakistani soldiers.
Pakistan could serve as the force of moderation and enlightenment espoused by Musharraf, but it will require enlightened leadership on his part. Pakistan’s military needs to return to the sidelines of political life and give its moderate political parties – which have always done reasonably well in keeping a lid on extremism – a chance to function. While the military has done a good job in using the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to strengthen its position, military governments across the globe have demonstrated that they usually do not stand the test of time or enlightenment.
Samina Ahmed is South Asia project director and John Norris is special adviser to the president of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that specializes in conflict resolution.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Washington Post