Hard hitting, even if you allow for the author to be a rabid Pak-bashing Indian

Khaleej Times Junta versus Janata
BY SHEKHAR GUPTA  9 January 2008  PAKISTANIS surely coin more colorful political slogan than us. They are also less subtle. So, the next time you see visuals of a PPP protest rally on your TV screens following Benazir's assassination, strain your ears a bit to catch a most telling slogan: Amreeka ne kutta paala, vardi waala, vardi waala.  

It would lose much flavor in transliteration, but the meaning would not be lost on even a non-Hindi speaker. Now when was the last time you had the army called a dog, and that too an American poodle, on Pakistan's streets? And this is a Pakistan under an almighty (lately, former) general who has the power to declare and suspend emergency in televised speeches, the power to make 36 (or thereabouts) amendments in his "constitution" at a Press conference, and whose ability to take the biggest decisions on the spot is the envy, often, of the Indian politician, and has been a cause for admiration among India's chattering classes.  

How many times, since he came on his first visit for the Agra summit, have we heard fellow Indians, including serious, knowledgeable people, talk of him with a sense of awe? See, how confident he looks, how well he speaks, the swagger, so impressive, knows his mind, is so fit and energetic, so much in control, so macho, can-do and so on. The sub-text was, view this is total contrast with our own political class: overweight, badly dressed, clumsy, evasive in their answers, indecisive, inarticulate and, horror of horrors, not even able to speak any English.  

And then came Shaukat Aziz, on secondment from Citibank. So smart, articulate, in his smartly cut suits, blah, blah and blah. And what kind of people did we have holding the same job in India? Gowda, who slept in Parliament. Vajpayee, who never seems to answer any question. Gujral who only uttered diplomatic platitudes that meant nothing. And Narasimha Rao, who mostly pretended he had not even heard the question.  

Now let me tell you a few stories. Not necessarily connected either by timing or context, but yielding an interesting conclusion, nevertheless. One of the great untold stories of the Agra summit is how challenging it was for both Vajpayee and Musharraf to deal with each other. One thought he had the answer even before a question had been asked. The other would think for ever, and often tire out his interlocutor. Apparently at one of the mid-day review sessions Musharraf shared his exasperation with his aides. He said something like, I know you guys told me he takes time responding to anything, but how do I deal with somebody who takes so long and then says nothing? A bit like John McEnroe tossing his racket in exasperation while playing Ramesh Krishnan and screaming: How do I play this guy? He serves at five miles per hour! One of his aides tried to suggest that Vajpayee takes so long because he is processing Musharraf's question in his wise, old head. Musharraf was still irritated and somebody senior in his inner council said, with humor laced with disdain: to unka processor Pentium nahin, 286 hoga (then his processor must be a 286, not a Pentium).  

Now listen to the story from the other end. What exasperated Vajpayee most of all was Musharraf's cocky "decisiveness" . "You are the prime minister, I am the president, if we agree on something, let's sign," he would say, while at the same time making changes on the draft of a likely agreement and asking Vajpayee to okay it. He simply wouldn't buy Vajpayee's argument that he had a cabinet to go back to. "Par aap prime minister hain. Aap faisla keejiye (but you are the prime minister, you decide)," Musharraf would say. So when Vajpayee briefed his aides and fellow members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (who, barring George Fernandes, were in Agra), he said about his counterpart pretty much the opposite of what he said of him: "He is in such a hurry. Kuchch sochne ko taiyyar nahin hain. Sub kuch faisala abhi chahte hain, kaise samjhaoon bhai." Or words to that effect.  

In the main lounge of the Congress Centre at Davos, Switzerland, where all kinds from heads of state to global corporate leaders to rock stars to ordinary journalists congregate and rub shoulders during the World Economic Forum January meeting, I found my old friend, Pakistani journalist, part-time politician, now a full-time exile, Boston University professor and also an Indian Express columnist, Husain Haqqani. As we exchanged gossip, Shaukat Aziz walked past, accompanied by a couple of minders, perfectly cut suit, pompous, smug smile and all. Just that morning he had lectured many of us senior editors over breakfast, laying down the law for India: nothing would move, the gas pipeline, even the permission to Indian private airlines to fly to Pakistan unless the "core" issue was addressed. Again there was some admiration for his confidence and clarity even among the Indian contingent as he was "so unlike our bumbling politicians" .  

Haqqani's eyes were now lit up with mischief. He pointed his finger directly at Aziz and said: "You know what they say, Davos is the Disneyland of the mind. If that be so, there goes its Mickey Mouse."  

How have the relative fortunes of the two competing kinds of leaderships and nations under their charge evolved over these seven years? Musharraf now looks bumbling and unconvincing, an international joke, a pitiable, forlorn figure, hated by his countrymen, distrusted by the world and mentioned dismissively even by Barack Obama . Shaukat Aziz has disappeared from the scene, even losing out to an ordinary mortal - coincidentally from India - for the top job in his alma mater, Citi. Their country is a mess, their own army, for the first time, is seeing its credibility, power, its pre-eminent position in Pakistan's society and power structure questioned. Its political class is decimated, its institutions fatally wounded. How do people as proud as the Pakistanis feel when their dictator offers to salvage his credibility by summoning the Scotland Yard to investigate the assassination of their most prominent political leader? Nobody believes their election commission's intentions, motives or judgment in postponing their election.  

Vajpayee, on the other hand, sits at home, having lost power in an election, not in the pink of health, but satisfied at the way his country is moving. His successor, from the opposite side of the political fence, even comes to wish him on his birthday. His country has meanwhile had many more state elections and another general election within a year or so will give his successors in his own party another crack at power. Now, think, who finally won. The indecisive, inarticulate, ineffective slob who did not seem to have an answer to anything, or the macho, confident, smart, decisive, modern smartie who seemed to have an answer to everything?  

There are many interesting, and important conclusions to be drawn from this complex argument. But the most significant is this: a modern nation needs democracy and so it needs its politicians, however clumsy, corrupt, effete and power-crazed they may be. Because a military dictator can also be all of these things. The difference is, the political leader draws his power from the democratic process, so he has a stake in preserving that system, howsoever cynical he may be.  

The general draws his power by throttling the democratic system and its institutions and you can see the results of that in Pakistan. So, in a democracy, howsoever powerful a Lalu or Mayawati, they have to shut up and listen when the Supreme Court speaks. The election commission can publicly upbraid both Sonia Gandhi and Narendra Modi. We, the media, can question and curse who we want. It happens because the political class has the biggest stake in the democratic process, howsoever much it may wish to manipulate it. In contrast, a military dictator owes his power to the absence of institutions, of checks and balances. That is exactly what Musharraf has done to his judiciary, the election commission and even the media. That is why he has to summon the Scotland Yard to investigate Benazir's assassination.

Golden age of 'prosperity' ???

Just look at the following picture, "Golden Age of Prosperity"

These people are no doubt the reckless liars ... they don't have the idea about the 'ground realities' although our 'commando' keep on telling us about the 'ground realities' ... how come he missed that: there is no Electricity, there is no Gas, there is no Water, there is no Flour (Aata), there is no CNG, there is no Wheat, there is no Security, there is no Peace, there are no Jobs, there is neither Judiciary nor Justice.

And yet they say 'Its Golden Age of Prosperity'. Its no more important what they say because 'they' have lost their credibility (if there was any), so its important that what do you say ?

Farewell to wadi Bua

Source: Tehran Times

By Fatima Bhutto

LARKANA (The News) — My aunt (Benazir Bhutto) and I had a complicated relationship. That is the truth, the sad truth. The last fifteen years were not one we spent as friends or as relatives, that is also the truth. But this week, I too want to remember her differently. I want to remember her differently because I must. I can’t lose faith in this country, my home. I can’t believe that it was for nothing, that violence in its purest form is so cruel and so unforgiving. I can’t accept that this is what we have come to. So, I must offer a farewell. One that is written in tears and anger but one that comes from a place far away, from the realm of memory and forgiving –- a place where at another time, we might have all been safe. As a child, I used to call my aunt Wadi Bua, Sindhi for father’s older sister.

When I got the news, I was told that something had happened to Wadi Bua. It was an expression I hadn’t heard or used in a very long time, when I heard it said to me over the phone I remembered someone different.

We used to read children’s books together. We used to like exactly the same sweets –- sugared chestnuts and candied apples. We used to get the same ear infections, ear infections that tortured us and plagued us throughout the years.

I have never before written an article that seemed so impossible. We were very different. Though people liked to compare us, almost instinctively, because well, they could. It is difficult for me to write about two people, one in the present tense and one in the past, at the same time.

Especially when one person’s passing makes the other one wonder whether there is a cusp to things and whether or not there really is a past and present to life.

I never agreed with her politics. I never did. I never agreed with those she kept around her, the political opportunists, hanger-ons, them. They repulse me.

I never agreed with her version of events. Never. But in death, in death perhaps there is a moment to call for calm. To say, enough. We have had enough. We cannot, and we will not, take anymore madness.

I mourn because my family has had enough. I mourn for Bilawal, Bakhtawar, and Asifa. I mourn for them because I too lost a parent. I know what it feels like to be lost and left at sea, unanchored and afraid.

I mourn for the workers of the party, those who have been bereaved of their own loved ones in this tragedy.

When congregants gather in a church, temple, or mosque they offer prayers for those that reside beyond. The congregants sing to the heavens and they offer the divine their hymns of sadness and hope. There are no hymns consisting of frustration or anger –- this too shall pass, they say, remember that. What hymns do we sing now?

In those hymns, there is hope encapsulated in the sadness. There is a lingering sense that after darkness a dawn will rise. What then do we have to be hopeful for? And how do we proceed to wake the dawn?

I have always been honest with you, I promised that to you at the beginning. Honestly, I am at a loss. I am compounded in a state of shock.

I am in shock because I have yet to bury a loved one who has died from natural causes. Four. That’s the number of family members, immediate family members, whom we have laid to rest, all victims of senseless, senseless killing.

I was born three years after my grandfather, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s assassination. I was born into the void of his absence and for my father, Murtaza, I was a new chance at life. I grew up hearing my grandfather’s speeches, watching him on old black and white video cassettes, enamored at his every word. My father was a young man when his father was killed and it was something he carried with him every second, every minute for the rest of his life.

I was three when my uncle Shahnawaz was murdered. I remember Wadi Bua sitting with me and telling me stories while the rest of the family was with the police.

When I was fourteen, my life was ended. I lost my heart and soul, my father Murtaza. I am and have been since then a shell of the person I was. I suppose there are cusps in life, and thank God for that because that way we can stay in between.

And now at twenty five, Wadi. But this isn’t about me, it’s about those whom we have lost. It’s about the graveyard at Garhi Khuda Bux that is just too full.

I pray that this is the last, that from this moment onwards we will no longer have to bid farewell too quickly… Wadi, farewell.

Blogged with Flock

How to Reform the Government of Pakistan

By ASIF ALI ZARDARI

(InformPress.com) - Last week the world was shocked, and my life was shattered, by the murder of my beloved wife, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Benazir was willing to lay down her life for what she believed in - for the future of a democratic, moderate, progressive Pakistan. She stood up to dictators and fanatics, those who would distort and defy our Constitution and those who would defame Quran, the Islamic holy book, by violence and terrorism. My pain and the pain of our children is unimaginable. But I feel even worse for a world that will have to move forward without this extraordinary bridge between cultures, religions and traditions.

I married Benazir in 1987 but spent less than five years living with her in the Prime Minister's house over her two terms in office, which were interrupted by military interventions. I spent more than 11 years in Pakistani jails, imprisoned without a conviction on false charges that former Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf (who brought and pursued the charges) have now publicly acknowledged were politically motivated. Even before Benazir was first elected Prime Minister, in 1988, Pakistan's intelligence agencies began working to discredit her, targeting me and several of her friends. I was maliciously called "Mr. Ten Percent" by their hired guns in public relations, and the names of her friends abroad were besmirched with ridiculous charges that they headed the non-existent "Indo-Zionist" lobby.

This campaign of character assassination was possibly the first institutional application of the politics of personal destruction. Benazir was the target, and her husband and friends were the instruments. The purpose was to weaken the case for a democratic government. It is perhaps easier to block the path of democracy by discrediting democratic politicians.

During the years of my wife's governments, she was constrained by a hostile Establishment - an interventionist military leadership, a treacherous intelligence network, a fragile coalition government and a presidential sword of Damocles - constantly threatening to dismiss Parliament. Despite all of this, she was able to introduce free media, make Pakistan one of the 10 most important emerging capital markets in the world, build over 46,000 schools and bring electricity to many villages in our large country. She changed the lives of women in Pakistan and drew attention to the cause of women's rights in the Muslim World. It was a record that she was rightly proud of.

Her murder does not end her vision and must not be allowed to empower her assassins. Those responsible - within and outside of the Pakistan Government - must be held accountable. I call on the United Nations to commence a thorough investigation of the circumstances, facts and coverup of my wife's murder, modeled on the investigation into the
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. I also call on the friends of democracy in the West, in particular the United States and Britain, to endorse the call for such an international, independent investigation. An investigation conducted by the Government of Pakistan will have no credibility in my country or anywhere else. One does not put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

But it is also time to look forward. In profound sadness, the torch of leadership in the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) has been passed to a new generation, to our son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. I will work with him and support him and protect him to the extent possible in the trying times ahead. The Bhutto family has given more than anyone can imagine to the service of our nation, and in these difficult days it is critical that the party remain unified and focused. My wife, always prescient and wise, understood that. Knowing that the future was unpredictable, she recommended that the family keep the party together for the sake of Pakistan. This is what we aim to do.

The Musharraf regime has postponed the parliamentary elections scheduled for 8 January 2008, not because of any ogistical problems but because Musharraf and his "King's Party" (PML-Q) know that they were going to be thoroughly rejected at the polls and that the PPP and other pro-democracy parties would win a majority. Real civilian democracy in Pakistan can be established, and extremism and fanaticism contained, only if the elections, when they are held, are free, fair and credible.

To that end, the people of Pakistan must be guaranteed elections that are (1) conducted under new, neutral caretaker cabinets, free of cronies from Musharraf's party; (2) supervised by an independent and autonomous election commission formed in consultation with the major political parties; (3) monitored by trained international observers who have unfettered access to all polling stations as well as the right to conduct exit polling to verify results; (4) covered by electronic and print media who must be granted all new, internationally recognized press freedoms, which the Pakistani media needs after illegal Martial Law was once again imposed on 3 November 2007; and (5) arbitrated by an independent judiciary as provided for in the Constitution. The new independent judiciary must consist of Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, all deposed justices of the Supreme Court and all dismissed judges of the provincial high courts of Pakistan, who must be reinstated immediately by the Government of Pakistan. In addition, all political activists, lawyers and judges being detained must be released.

The enemies of democracy and tolerance - who took the life of my wife and killed many other innocent Pakistanis on Thursday, 27 December 2007 in Liaqat Bagh, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and murdered a great leader of the world - can and must be exposed and brought to justice. Dictatorship and fanaticism have always been rejected by the people of Pakistan. If free and fair elections are held, then those evil forces will be defeated again on 18 February 2008. On that day, the vision and indefatigable spirit of Ms. Benazir Bhutto will burn brightly, and, in the words of John F. Kennedy, "the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

[Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, a former Senator and ex-Minister, is Co-Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) based in Karachi, Pakistan. PPP Website: http://www.ppp.org.pk ]

Corrupt Tyrant Mush Must Resign Immediately

By MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF

(InformPress.com) - There is no law and certainly no order in my country. What happened this past week has shaken every Pakistani. Ms. Benazir Bhutto was no ordinary person. She served as Prime Minister twice and had returned to Pakistan in an effort to restore our country to the path of democracy. With her assassination I have lost a friend and a partner in democracy.

It is not too early to blame anybody for her death. One thing, however, is beyond any doubt: The country is paying a very heavy price for the many unpardonable actions of only one tyrant - Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf alone is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan. Over the past eight years he has assiduously worked at demolishing institutions, subverting the Constitution, dismantling the judiciary and gagging the media. Pakistan today is a tyrannical military-police state in which a former Prime Minister can be gunned down in broad daylight. One of my own political rallies was fired upon by PML-Q terrorists on Thursday, 27 December 2007, the day PPP Chairwoman Ms. Benazir Bhutto was killed in Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi, near the Pakistan Army GHQ.

These are the darkest days in Pakistan's history and such are the wages of dictatorship. There is widespread disillusionment. At all the election rallies I have addressed, people have asked a simple question: Criminals are punished for breaking laws, so why should those who subvert the Constitution not be punished? Those who killed Ms. Benazir Bhutto are the evil forces of darkness and authoritarianism. They are the ones who prefer rifles to reason.

Ms. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and my own Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) have traditionally been political rivals. We fought each other through elections. We won some. We lost some. That is what democracy is all about. Whoever has the majority rules. Ms. Bhutto and I both realized while in exile that rivalry among democrats has made the task of manipulation easier for undemocratic forces. We therefore decided not to allow such nefarious games by the Establishment.

I fondly remember meeting with Ms. Benazir Bhutto in February 2005. She was kind enough to visit me in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where I lived after Musharraf forced me into exile. We realized that we were fighting for the same thing: Real Civil Democracy. She, too, believed in the rule of law and rule of the people. A key point of the Charter of Democracy that we signed in May 2006 was that everyone should respect the mandate of the people and not allow the Establishment to play dirty politics and subvert the will of the people. After the Jeddah meeting we regularly consulted each other on issues of national and international importance. On many occasions we tried tosynchronize our strategies. We had agreements and disagreements, but we both wanted to pull Pakistan back from the brink of disaster.

While the PPP may have been our traditional rival, it is a national asset whose leadership has inspired many Pakistanis. Political parties form part of the basis on which the entire edifice of democracy rests. If our country is to move forward, we need an independent judiciary, a sovereign Parliament and strong political parties that are accountable to the people. Without political parties, there will be hopelessness and authoritarianism will thrive. Dictators fear the power of the
people. That is why they pit parties against each other and then try to destroy those parties - to further their own agenda. This is what has happened in Pakistan in recent years.

So, what is the way out of the depths to which Pakistan has been plunged? First, Musharraf should go immediately. He is the primary and principal source of discord. Second, an interim, broad-based, national unity government should be immediately installed to heal the wounds of this bruised nation. Third, the Constitution should be restored to what it was in 1973. The judiciary should be restored to its condition before 3 November 2007 - countering the boneheaded steps Musharraf took under the garb of illegal "Emergency" rule. All curbs on the media-press should be removed. Finally, free, fair and impartial elections should be held in a friendly and peaceful environment under such a national government so that the people are able to choose their representatives for a Parliament and government that can be trusted to rebuild the country rather than serve the agenda of a dictator.

These are the only steps that will give the country a semblance of stability. If Musharraf continues to illegally rule as he has for the past eight years (1999-2008), then we are doing nothing but waiting for another doomsday.

The world must realize that Musharraf's policies have neither limited nor curbed terrorism. In fact, terrorism is stronger than ever, with far more sinister aspects, and as long as Musharraf remains, there remains the threat of more terror. The people of Pakistan should not be antagonized any further for the sake of only one dictator. It is time for the international community to join hands in support of true civilian democracy, human rights, civil liberties, freedom, equal justice and the rule of just & fair laws in Pakistan. The answer to my country's problems is a democratic process that promotes justice, peace, harmony and tolerance, and hence can play an effective role in promoting moderation. Under the ruling corrupt tyranny, there is no future for economic development, family prosperity and business progress in Pakistan.

[Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, a former twice-elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, is Chief of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) based in Lahore, Pakistan. PML-N Website: http://www.pmln.org.pk ]

Blogged with Flock

Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people

Kristof is distressed that the Democratic Party leadership is too supportive of the State of Israel. He says that he prefers the view of U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Barak Obama who recently stated, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” for which he says Obama was “scolded.”
Kristof blames Israel for all the troubles of the Mideast citing the speech of King Abdullah of Jordan as proof. The King stated, “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.”
Kristof denounces President Bush for treating Israel as an ally. He writes that he would prefer the relationship that existed before the Bush administration with the U.S. role as “an honest broker in the Middle East” and having a “tradition of balance.”

Barak Obama and ISALAM

Barak Obama's exposure to Islam is a positive point for this Democratic presidential candidate. His exposure was in Indonesia, a country where there's a more moderate Islam than the Bush and Cheney allies in Saudi Arabia.
A candidate who is intelligent and worldly is appealing! That he must prove he is a Christian is so much less important than understanding others in this world, than respecting others, than knowing how to communicate and work with others in the international sphere.
Obama has proven his willingness to be a public servant in the national sphere, and has attributes that make him valuable in the international sphere.
Why Obama's campaign aides want to downplay his exposure to Islam and emphasize his strong Christian beliefs says something negative about what the people of this country may be looking for.
Certainly what matters most is intellect, caring and an ability to reach out to others of different cultural backgrounds throughout the world, especially with today's globalization and threats of terrorism.

A matter of 'Likeability'

We like to think Presidential campaigns are fought over issues, but in the final analysis the deciding factor is often the personality of the candidate. Voters have a basic need to feel comfortable with their President therefore the likeability factor of the candidates often trumps other considerations.
Ronald Reagan had the highest likeability factor of any recent President, and in some quarters the same can be said for Bill Clinton. Both attracted votes from people who disagreed with their policies -- sometimes strongly -- but who simply felt more at ease with them personally.
As the 2008 campaign gathers steam, however, the shoe may be on the other foot. The biggest complaint among the conservative base of the Republican Party at the moment is the unsuitability of the three leading contenders for the nomination: U.S. Sen. John McCain; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Conservatives can, and do, poke holes in the record of all three front runners and have been consigned to hoping a second tier candidate will break through to the top of the pack, or trying to decide which of the top contenders is the least offensive. There appears to be little of the enthusiasm that animated the GOP ranks during Reagan's campaigns, or even those mounted by the current President Bush.
Republicans, as were the Democrats of 2004, are now united by hatred and fear of the other party's probably nominee, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton is possessed of little of the charm that carried her president husband so far, and is in fact facing an unexpectedly strong challenge from Illinois Sen. Barak Obama. The fear of a possible Hillary Clinton presidency is motivating many otherwise disillusioned conservatives to action.
The worst-case scenario for Republicans is that one of the current three front-runners ends up with the nomination, and either Obama or former North Carolina Senator John Edwards upsets Clinton for the Democrat nomination. Both Obama and Edwards vastly outpace Hillary in likeability and could put Republicans in exactly the same predicament they themselves were in in 2004.