Almost all indians ive ever met have great hatred of musharaf. Now, I am not the biggest fan of musharaf but he must be doing something right to have so many indians pissed at him. Or is it cuz of Kargil?
Anyways Pakistan zindabad - Musharaf zindabad 
well only indians ?
he is not supported by a very large number of people in pakistan
i was also his big supporter when he took over but now i have grown up and no more. i hate him like any thing
but has good presentation skills i must admit
indians see him as crude and untrustworthy, which i doubt many pakistanis themselves would disagree with.
however, i guarantee that the vast majority of indians would prefer musharraf over some mullah zealot. musharraf would allow a brighter future for both pakistan and the subcontinent in general.
A small man thrust into a big role by accident of history.
Well...I am an Indian....and I dislike Musharaff for two reasons ....
(1) he having masterminded the Kargil misdaventure and then lying blatantly about Pak having nothing to do with it (domestic uprising et al)....
(2) his dislodging a democratically elected govt in a COUP.
Both of the above means he has a scheming personality and cannot be trusted.
Thousands of people(civilians included) died on either side of the border during Kargil and what was achieved in the end...NOTHING. Neither Pak nor India gained anything from it....but at least India did not start it.
Having said all of the above, I feel Musharaff still presents a very good opportunity to resolve Indo-Pak disputes because he can make tough and possibly unpopular policy changes....since he rules the country with a big dandaa...and it will be easy for him to make the populace tow his line...something a democratically elected Head of State cannot do.
A strong and stable Pak is in India's interest. God Forbid, but if anything unfortunate were to happen to Musharaff, Pak could very well plunge into choas creating an open season for Jihadists and more problems for India.
After capturing power Musharraf has done everything whatever India needs him to do. I remember his Feb 2002 (I think it was in Feb 2002) speech. That was the greatest drama speech. He agreed to everything whatever USA and India wanted, and at the same time he kept his mustache high to befool the citizens of Pakistan.
Could a democratic leader like Nawab Sharif check the hard core Madrisas? Pakistan had become a poisonous religious integrity by that time. So, Musharraf has played a big role. I will not wonder if one day Musharraf succeeds in making Pakistan surrendering the Kashmir issue. So far he has to use it as a trump card for fueling his power game.
It does not matter what he was before he captured power, a mentor of terrorism, an anti India general, creator of Kargil, but after coup he has been a puppet, a role which citizens of Pakistan have to be matured to understand.
If we pay attention, wherever he was, at Agra, in USA or at Lahore while making speech he always addresses his constituency that is Pakistan.
In Indian news papers sometime back there was an article about this role of Musharraf, and I think many in India understand his utilization.
I agree, Musharraf - despite his past, will be favorable for India. This is because, Musharraf will do anything asked by the US and by India thru the US, as long as he can deny it publicly and save face.
He has set in motion certain things which will be good for India in the long run.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Talwar: *
A small man thrust into a big role by accident of history.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by small man?
He was a general and chief of Army staff of the strong Pakistan army.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Talwar: *
I agree, Musharraf - despite his past, will be favorable for India. This is because, Musharraf will do anything asked by the US and by India thru the US, as long as he can deny it publicly and save face.
He has set in motion certain things which will be good for India in the long run.
[/QUOTE]
And what exactly are those things?
Re: Why do indians hate musharaf so much?
Musharraf is a very strong general. He has huge support in the military, and that is why he is still in power.
I remember that before he came into power, most of Indian media and all the Indian members on this forum were saying that Pakistan would go bancrupt any day. I guess they are all disappointed that it did not happen.
As far as Kargil is concerned, it was not his plan only. It shows the intelligence of the people that planned a war in which a few hundred soldiers caused the mobilization of 6 Indian army divisions and use of airforce. The whole issue of kashmir was brought in front during kargil and also the weaknesses of Indian military.
Pakistan learned alot from it too. I think Kargil was something that started the process that eventually lead to Musharraf comming in power.
As far as I am concerned, i dont aggree with everything he has done and everything he is doing, but in general he has been handling everything well.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by proudpakistani: *
And what exactly are those things?
[/QUOTE]
Admitting that Pakistan has proliferated nuclear weapons officially. Even though his govt was not blamed, the fact is on the record now for future use. Pakistan will be safe until Musharraf stays alive and in power, but that fact will be used down the line.
Admitting that Pakistani jihadi groups affiliated with Kashmir are terrorists and banning them, even though the ban is largely cosmetic. We are unlikely to ever see Pakistan sponsor those groups again as it did before 2002. Those groups are forever discredited.
Giving FBI, DIA, CIA etc full access to Pakistan to eavesdrop, record conversations and arrest anyone at any time. This means that the jihadi-ISI link will be constantly monitored and the ISI will be kept in check.
Officially giving up on the plebiscite claim. Now it will be hard for any Pakistani leader to go back to it, regardless of any reason.
Giving into US pressure and allowing a largely peaceful conduct of Afghanistan elections. The Taliban are forever marginalized now and "strategic depth" has sunk.
Giving US full say in the promotion of Pak army officers, thereby marginalizing the fundos who are likely to use nukes in a fit of rage.
Essentially, the US is lavishing praise on Musharraf publicly but have privately kept him in a straightjacket and made him slowly give up to one demand after another.
In the long run, this works well for India, even if Musharraf gets tareef all the time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by proudpakistani: *
What do you mean by small man?
He was a general and chief of Army staff of the strong Pakistan army.
[/QUOTE]
Yahya Khan was also that. You don't become great because of who you work for but what you do with your post.
Musharraf has essentially no convictions but has done whatever is conventient.
In 1999, he did Kargil but when $hit hit the fan, he abandoned his own troops and forced Nawaz to negotiate a face saving withdrawal.
In 2000, he publicly announced support for Jihad by the Taliban and foreign mujahideen in Kashmir and Afghanistan. But when 9/11 happened he dumped his erstwhile buddies after 1 phone call.
After the parliament attack in 2001, he defended LeT, JeM etc but banned them after India sent troops, thereby giving up on a Kashmir policy that he himself framed and supported.
I could go on and on. Zia, for all his faults, had one conviction and stuck to his hard line Islamic beliefs. Musharraf sways with the wind and generally says and does anything if he feels he can come off as a hero.
I would definitely aggree to some of the stuff that you have said.
But just some clarifications.
He never accepted that Pakistan proliferated nuclear weapons. He accepted that one pakistani scientist proliferated nuclear weapons. There is a big difference if you think about it. Atleast he cleared names of some generals that might have been involved in it.
You are yourself saying that the ban on jihad groups is cosmetic and then you say that these groups will not be supported by Pakistan. First of all i dont think he banned all the groups. He banned only those ones that were against him. Secondly the ban was that they cannot use Pakistani soil. That does not mean that their support which comes from locals will be finished.
I have seen alot of people talk about FBI and CIA and all that stuff in Pakistan. I think its overblown by Hizb-ul-Tehrir. ISI cannot be kept under check that easily. But that is just something i think. You might be right on that.
As far as the plebiside claim goes, I dont think it helped India in any way as the situation did not change after that. Any next president can come back with that claim. Even though he said some stuff, but at the same time we all know that India will never accept what he is asking for.
I dont think Taliban are gone. I feel that they are just hiding. If they were forever gone we would have seen the capturing of Usama and Mullah Umar and all of them.
Seriously telling you, i feel that even though he has done alot of wrong things, he has done some great things for Pakistan at whatever cost. Even though he is accepting alot of what US is saying, he is getting alot out of US also. You are now about to see a big military purchase by Pakistan. You are also seeing alot of money going into Pakistan from US. You will also be seeing Pakistan buy planes that we could not do for the longest time. And also the way you put it, it seems like he has accepted everything US said. If that was the case then he would have sent Army to Iraq. Even though US was pushing sooo hard, it still did not happen. The Wana operations are over and even the military observing post is being removed. Now we can claim that there are no "terrorists" here. Other then some deaths (which is not good at all) we did not see anything happening in Wana operations that would make US happy. It seemed more like a drama than anything else.
If he was not in power Pakistan would have probably gone bancrupt and would not have been able to buy any weapons. i think that would have been more better for India than a stable Pakistan with good economy and weapons.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Talwar: *
Yahya Khan was also that. You don't become great because of who you work for but what you do with your post.
Musharraf has essentially no convictions but has done whatever is conventient.
In 1999, he did Kargil but when $hit hit the fan, he abandoned his own troops and forced Nawaz to negotiate a face saving withdrawal.
[/QUOTE]
He abandoned his troops? what are you talking about. Him and the military was upset with Nawaz Sharif for doing that. and he sent Nawaz Sharif to negotiate? you must me joking. Nawaz Sharif was called by big daddy because your FM went and cried there that those Pakistanis are killing us like anything.
Heh heh.
Read what Gen. Anthony Zinni, Musharraf’s best friend in America said in his autobiography.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040603-072219-7816r.htm
The book, which was published in the United States last week, dispels the general impression that it was the civilian leadership in Pakistan that sought Washington’s help in arranging a respectable withdrawal from Kargil.
Instead, the general says, the civilian leadership was worried that the withdrawal could cause them a loss of face, and to allay their fears President Bill Clinton offered a plan that could have arranged a respectable withdrawal.
**But even at this stage, according to Zinni, Sharif and his civilian colleagues appeared reluctant to endorse a withdrawal.
“That got Musharraf’s attention, and he encouraged Prime Minister Sharif to hear me out,” writes Zinni.**
Nawaz Sharif was hell bent on not withdrawing, but it was Mush who forced him to go to Washington. Musharraf did not want to lose face, so he forced Sharif to go.
BTW, When Clinton called Vajpayee, Indian PM refused to even negotiate. India never asked for US meidation, but Musharraf did.
This is acknowledged by ALL US officials, Clinton’s STaff, STrobe Talbott, Bruce Reidel and now Anthony Zinni.
But luckily for Mushy, he got history rewritten and blamed it all on Sharif.
Do you think a civilian leader has the power in Pakistan to order the army to do something it doesn’t want to? You must be really gullible. :hehe:
Talwar, i never knew about it. In my view, pulling out of Kargil was not a very good decision. We were in a very strong position there, and one of the objectives that we were looking for was just a couple of months away. Either we should have not gone into Kargil or we should have stayed committed there. In my view, Nawaz Sharif, under the pressure from Clinton, decided to pull out. I didnt even imagine that it was Musharraf that came under pressure of Gen. Zinni. Regardless of who ever was weak at that time, the fact remains that it was pressure from US that caused the pull out. I seriously cannot believe it was Musharraf though. Even though I never realized why Musharraf didnt remove Nawaz Sharif at that time and stayed in Kargil and today you have answered that question, but you opened soo many other questions in my mind too.
But still, even with this one BIG thing, he has been good for Pakistan in many other ways. I always believed that he is not the best one for Pakistan, but definitely better one among the choices we have.
That said, there is one thing that still bothers me though. If it was Musharraf that decided to pull out the troops, then why did Nawaz Sharif never come in public and said it? Alot of people in Pakistan were upset with him for pulling out troops. There were pictures of him in the news papers where he was having a drink with Clinton with captions against him. The whole country was shocked. And he never came in public and said, It wasnt me; it was him?
When I read the pak fantasy about Kargil, one thing I can never understand.
Why they rejected to pick up the dead bodies of their martyrs at the battlefield?
Re: Re: Why do indians hate musharaf so much?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by proudpakistani: *
Musharraf is a very strong general. He has huge support in the military, and that is why he is still in power.
[/QUOTE]
*I am not too sure if he really have big support in military. *
And I also have concerns over his faith as soon as he is separated from the power and that is i guess sole reason he dont want to transfer power.
A very good thing was said by a politician the other day that a solider take oath that he wont get into politics. How can some one who can disown his oath be trusted.?
I dont think indians dislike him any more.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
When I read the pak fantasy about Kargil, one thing I can never understand.
Why they rejected to pick up the dead bodies of their martyrs at the battlefield?
[/QUOTE]
You probably know what I mean when i say that you are always saying things that have nothing to do with discussion at hand. And then you blame me on changing topics.