*********************
What's Pakistan's future: Egypt or Turkey?
The EU is changing Turkey. Turkey is doing things because of the EU, things that Turkey hasn’t done in fifty years...Egypt, however, continues to be a repressive state..What’s Pakistan’s future? Egypt or Turkey?
*********************
Friday, August 29, 2008
Pakistan latest boob-job hotspot for British born Pakistani Women
A growing number of well-educated British-born Pakistani women in their 20s are combining their annual visits to their ancestral homeland along with
a trip to the plastic surgeon for cut-price, nip-and-tuckoperations.
A growing number of well-educated British-born Pakistani women in their 20s are combining their annual visits to their ancestral homeland along witha trip to the plastic surgeon for cut-price, nip-and-tuckoperations.
Hundreds of Pakistani Britons are booking cheap
plastic surgery in Pakistan's main cities, three times the number
just four years ago. Nose jobs, tummy tucks, liposuction and breast
enlargements are the favored treatments for many who feel "pressure
to have Western features" but who want to pay only a fraction of
what they would be charged in Britain.
The women are mostly middle-class professionals who take a week to ten days out of their
hectic schedule in Pakistan to visit Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi
where almost all the country's 70 registered plastic surgeons are
based.
plastic surgery in Pakistan's main cities, three times the number
just four years ago. Nose jobs, tummy tucks, liposuction and breast
enlargements are the favored treatments for many who feel "pressure
to have Western features" but who want to pay only a fraction of
what they would be charged in Britain.
The women are mostly middle-class professionals who take a week to ten days out of their
hectic schedule in Pakistan to visit Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi
where almost all the country's 70 registered plastic surgeons are
based.
Dr Abdul Hameed, the president of the Pakistani Association of Plastic Surgeons, said the trend began four years ago when doctors noticed "waves of British clients" coming during the summer and winter holiday seasons.
About 400 women were visiting the country for cosmetic surgery every year."These women are mostly educated, with 70 per cent who work and earn independently.
Only this week, a woman from Maida Vale in west London came to me for a nose job. She was in Pakistan attending a marriage ceremony.
The women know that the waiting lists for good cosmetic surgery in London is maybe three months long. In Pakistan, there is no waiting list.
Only this week, a woman from Maida Vale in west London came to me for a nose job. She was in Pakistan attending a marriage ceremony.
The women know that the waiting lists for good cosmetic surgery in London is maybe three months long. In Pakistan, there is no waiting list.
Pakistan: Fashion
Pakistani Designer's Top Wins Paris Contest
Pakistan's promising student fashion designer, Hassan Ashraf Butt studying at the Pakistan School of Fashion Design (PSFD), won the ‘Country Prize’ at a fashion designers’ competition in France. Fashion designers studying at various fashion institutes
around the world participate in the competition each year.
Top U.S. and Pakistan military officials talk strategy
Top U.S. and Pakistani military officials met this week on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean to discuss the presence of militant safe havens in Pakistan and their role in Afghan violence, officials said on Thursday.
But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down any expectation that the day-long meeting aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on Tuesday would lead quickly to progress against militants operating in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.
"It's just going to take some time," Mullen told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. "Expectations for instantaneous results I think are probably a little bit too high."
But he said: "I came away from the meeting very encouraged that the focus is where it needs to be."
The meeting at sea was the fifth between Mullen and Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and took place amid mounting U.S. concern about insurgent violence in Afghanistan following last week's suicide bomb attacks on a major U.S. military base in the southeast and the combat deaths of 10 French elite troops.
Top U.S. and Pakistani military officials met this week on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean to discuss the presence of militant safe havens in Pakistan and their role in Afghan violence, officials said on Thursday.
But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down any expectation that the day-long meeting aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on Tuesday would lead quickly to progress against militants operating in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.
"It's just going to take some time," Mullen told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. "Expectations for instantaneous results I think are probably a little bit too high."
But he said: "I came away from the meeting very encouraged that the focus is where it needs to be."
The meeting at sea was the fifth between Mullen and Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and took place amid mounting U.S. concern about insurgent violence in Afghanistan following last week's suicide bomb attacks on a major U.S. military base in the southeast and the combat deaths of 10 French elite troops.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
UN should declare India a terrorist state
Claiming itself to be a democracy, the largest one at that, India sets standards for the world to follow in the domains of democracy, secularism and patriotism.
Indian strategists believe that by aligning with India even USA and Israel could benefit enormously. India seeks to make their regular killing of innocent Kashmiris as a yard-stick to meassure Indian hatred for Islam and Muslms.
Loud talk of democracy and secularism in Indian streets are taken quite seriously by its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Bangladesh and their media, at least some of them, shower praises effortlessly on Indian system. Even though it made strides in all walks of life until recently, Pakistan joined the world chorus of "resurrecting democracy" which means rampant corruption and nepotism, state terrorism and anti-Islamism and combating Islam. As a result, Pakistan is gradually becoming a weak nation.
Loud talk of democracy and secularism in Indian streets are taken quite seriously by its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Bangladesh and their media, at least some of them, shower praises effortlessly on Indian system. Even though it made strides in all walks of life until recently, Pakistan joined the world chorus of "resurrecting democracy" which means rampant corruption and nepotism, state terrorism and anti-Islamism and combating Islam. As a result, Pakistan is gradually becoming a weak nation.
Poverty of Weapons?
Armed with latest weapons, "democratic" India occupies Kashmir forcefully, killing thousands of Kashmiri Muslims. Not only India glorifies terrorism, but it also finances it by paying huge sums to those who have got medals for exhibiting the terrorist skills like shooting and boxing in the just concluded 2008 Beijing Olympics. A whopping Rs. 50 lakhs to the shooting medal holder has been announced by central government without any audit objections. Provincial states also would announce equal amounts to the player who got a medal by playing for just a couple of minutes, while millions of poor toil for hours together every day without being able to meet both their ends. Known for its poverty record apart from criminal and state terrorist records, India wastes huge resources on conventional-cum-nuclear weaponization of the country.
Greed for prizes, praises and awards
Any foreigner observing the Indian media both print and electronic would detect a strange phenomenon. Indians crave for fame, praise, prizes and awards and very badly. Lust for money is one thing that West has influenced the East about, but the neo-ambitions for prizes and awards at any cost is making a mockery of Indian mind-set. The way the media went about showering prizes on a person who got a gold medal at Olympics displaying his shooting ability, needed for terrorist activities, is nothing but amazing. Indian president made a special mention of it in her Independence day address to nation
A Word
It is high time India realizes the crude fact that sovereignty, independence and freedom are the birth rights of every human being and nation. Kashmiris do have the same right. And any kind of misinformation about the freedom fighting Kashmiris will not work in favor of India, rather it will work against India and its global interests. By branding the freedom fighting Kashmiris whom Indian terrorist forces have killed in thousands, as "terrorists, and calling them as "separatists", India, its intelligence, its media lords and leaders are not going to retain Kashmir under its nasty military boots. Daily murders are a common sight in Kashmir. What has been going on in Kashmir for the last two weeks is result of outburst of common people against Indian occupation and India has to vacate Kashmir earlier than later.
It is time UN declred India a state terrorist torturing and killing Muslims in India and Kashmir and encourage, through various ways, destruction of Jammu Kashmir and destabilzation of its neigbors.
Pakistan: Feature
Family Rules in Pakistani Politics
In line with most of the countries in South Asia, Pakistan has a type of politics that revolves around a few powerful families. These families have been ruling the only nuclear Islamic state for the last 60 years.
Except for a few cosmopolitan cities, most of the constituencies are inherited by prominent families since August 14, 1947, the day this South Asian Islamic state obtained its independence from the British rule. In 1985, former Pakistani finance minister Dr. Mahbub-ul-Haq revealed in a detailed study that Pakistan was being ruled by merely 22 big families since 1947.
These families enjoy more influence in Punjab (the most populous province and the power base of the country's politics), Sindh (the second largest province), and Balochistan, which borders Iran and Afghanistan.
However, the family-oriented politics has considerably eroded in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), which touches the war-torn Afghanistan, with the incursion of politicians belonging to a middle-income bracket into politics, especially after 9/11. According to Dr. Mahbub-ul-Haq, these families consider their respective constituencies their states and never allow middle- or lower-middle-class politicians to emerge as a threat to their political domination.
...............................................................
A detailed study revealed that Pakistan has been ruled by merely 22 big families since 1947. Most of the constituencies are inherited by them.
...............................................................
Up to the 1980s, some of these families opposed opening schools and colleges in their respective constituencies, fearing the emergence of an educated class that might challenge their domination. This feudal influence is more evident in Pakistan's rural politics. These families control the hearts and minds of the local population through the huge lands they own.
Farmers and growers who work in their lands are not merely their employees but also their voters as well as their workers in the electoral campaigns. In return, the feudal families provide livelihood to these poor people in the form of wheat, rice, sugar, and other essential commodities on annual basis.
Although some of the famous feudal names were marginalized after the independence, the feudal dominance endured as these feudal individuals have been only replaced by other powerful families.
...............................................
Some of these families opposed opening schools and colleges in their constituencies fearing the emergence of an educated class that might challenge their domination.
...............................................
Ironically, all the major political and religious parties, with a couple of exceptions, are run on a family basis. After the death of the father or mother, there are no elections for the next party leader. This is true even in the religious parties. There is always a nomination. A son or a daughter is nominated as the party head after his or her father's or mother's death.
The glaring example of this trend is the nomination of Bilawal Zardari, the 19-year-old son of Pakistan's slain prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated on December 27, 2007, in the garrison city of Rawalpindi at a public meeting. The Bhuttos are just one of many other families that dominate the Pakistani political scene.
Bhutto Family, Sharif Family, Mian Family, Chaudhry family, Rashdi Family (Pir Sahib Pagara), Bhatti family, Syeds, Qureshi Family, Gillani Family, Awan or Malik Family, Khosa Family, Jatoi Family, Legharis.
In line with most of the countries in South Asia, Pakistan has a type of politics that revolves around a few powerful families. These families have been ruling the only nuclear Islamic state for the last 60 years.
Except for a few cosmopolitan cities, most of the constituencies are inherited by prominent families since August 14, 1947, the day this South Asian Islamic state obtained its independence from the British rule. In 1985, former Pakistani finance minister Dr. Mahbub-ul-Haq revealed in a detailed study that Pakistan was being ruled by merely 22 big families since 1947.
These families enjoy more influence in Punjab (the most populous province and the power base of the country's politics), Sindh (the second largest province), and Balochistan, which borders Iran and Afghanistan.
However, the family-oriented politics has considerably eroded in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), which touches the war-torn Afghanistan, with the incursion of politicians belonging to a middle-income bracket into politics, especially after 9/11. According to Dr. Mahbub-ul-Haq, these families consider their respective constituencies their states and never allow middle- or lower-middle-class politicians to emerge as a threat to their political domination.
...............................................................
A detailed study revealed that Pakistan has been ruled by merely 22 big families since 1947. Most of the constituencies are inherited by them.
...............................................................
Up to the 1980s, some of these families opposed opening schools and colleges in their respective constituencies, fearing the emergence of an educated class that might challenge their domination. This feudal influence is more evident in Pakistan's rural politics. These families control the hearts and minds of the local population through the huge lands they own.
Farmers and growers who work in their lands are not merely their employees but also their voters as well as their workers in the electoral campaigns. In return, the feudal families provide livelihood to these poor people in the form of wheat, rice, sugar, and other essential commodities on annual basis.
Although some of the famous feudal names were marginalized after the independence, the feudal dominance endured as these feudal individuals have been only replaced by other powerful families.
...............................................
Some of these families opposed opening schools and colleges in their constituencies fearing the emergence of an educated class that might challenge their domination.
...............................................
Ironically, all the major political and religious parties, with a couple of exceptions, are run on a family basis. After the death of the father or mother, there are no elections for the next party leader. This is true even in the religious parties. There is always a nomination. A son or a daughter is nominated as the party head after his or her father's or mother's death.
The glaring example of this trend is the nomination of Bilawal Zardari, the 19-year-old son of Pakistan's slain prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated on December 27, 2007, in the garrison city of Rawalpindi at a public meeting. The Bhuttos are just one of many other families that dominate the Pakistani political scene.
Bhutto Family, Sharif Family, Mian Family, Chaudhry family, Rashdi Family (Pir Sahib Pagara), Bhatti family, Syeds, Qureshi Family, Gillani Family, Awan or Malik Family, Khosa Family, Jatoi Family, Legharis.
General Parvez Musharraf came to power through a military coup in 1999 and there were celebrations on the streets in Pakistan. His coup was seen as a coup against Washington, and his arrival piggy- backed on latent anti-Americanism in Pakistan. He has now resigned to avoid impeachment and once again there are celebrations in the streets, and his departure is seen as another coup against America and a triumph for Pakistan's not seething anti-Americanism. The end of Musharraf, I suspect, is just the beginning of a dangerous turn that Pakistan has now taken. Musharraf's departure does not solve any of Pakistan's myriad problems; it just adds to them.
Pakistanis do not realize this and many of Pakistani intellectuals disagree with this idea, but I am convinced that in the past twenty years Taliban have slowly colonized Pakistan. Taliban forces and leaders are not only well ensconced in North Western Pakistan but they actually govern the region in alliance with their tribal hosts and to the exclusion of the Pakistani state and military. Taliban's ideas about Islam and politics are slowly being adopted by various other Islamic movements in Pakistan. We can see the effect of the Talibanization of Pakistan even among Pakistani diasporas in the US and especially in Britain. The geopolitical analysis of US foreign policy and the global order advanced by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is now widely shared among non-Islamist non-religious Pakistanis.
"Islamic Emirate of Waziristan"
...................................................
As extremism rises, international mobility of Pakistanis will become more and more difficult further undermining prospects for trade and growth
...................................................
Unless the Pakistani people make a concerted effort to take back Pakistan and put it back on its foundational track — a democratic Muslim homeland — it is in danger of becoming one big Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban are no more an instrument of Pakistani geopolitical machinations, they are independent, more confident, stronger, meaner and with a lot of public support and leverage inside Pakistan.
Pakistan is not just their home away from home; it is now their playground, factory and "the base". Pakistan's economy remains in trouble and the rupee is at its lowest against a dollar which itself is not in the peak of its health. As political uncertainties persist, there will be barriers to international investment and trade. And as extremism rises, international mobility of Pakistanis will become more and more difficult further undermining prospects for trade and growth. As Pakistani policies become less consistent with US demands – Pakistani elite wish to negotiate their way out of the mess, while the US wants them to bomb their way out – US aid will dry up and put more stress on the economy.
Pakistan is not just their home away from home; it is now their playground, factory and "the base". Pakistan's economy remains in trouble and the rupee is at its lowest against a dollar which itself is not in the peak of its health. As political uncertainties persist, there will be barriers to international investment and trade. And as extremism rises, international mobility of Pakistanis will become more and more difficult further undermining prospects for trade and growth. As Pakistani policies become less consistent with US demands – Pakistani elite wish to negotiate their way out of the mess, while the US wants them to bomb their way out – US aid will dry up and put more stress on the economy.
US Dilemmas on Afghan-Pakistan Theater
............................................................
Now with Musharraf gone, the US is without an ally and without a policy, for its policy in the region was Musharraf.
....................................................
Parvez Musharraf was crucial to the US war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. For a few billion dollars, he brought an army, an intelligence service, special insights into Islamist groups in the area and the freedom to operate in and from Pakistan. The Pakistani military not only suffered over 2500 deaths in the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban in its border provinces, it also took part of the blame for the civilians killed in the process.Without Musharraf, the US will have to engage in such military operations, suffer similar casualties and also shoulder blame for the civilians killed. Without the cooperation of the governments in Kabul and Islamabad, the US cannot operate in the area. Even with their support, it has not achieved its goals in seven years. Now with Musharraf gone, the US is without an ally and without a policy, for its policy in the region was Musharraf. Musharraf's resignation is a big blow to the US. The US will have to negotiate with various political parties and the army separately and no one is in position to provide the same degree of cooperation to the US. Unlike Musharraf, the current leadership is wary and suspicious of the US and because it enjoys democratic legitimacy, it is in a better position to reject many of the American demands.
The US task of keeping Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror has increased manifold. The Pakistani leadership is now in fundamental disagreement with US' methods. They feel that Pakistan's extremism problem cannot be done away with by use of force. They also feel that the US is part of the problem. US policies in the region fuel extremism and the heavy handed use of force further alienates those who are not radicalized. The resolution, they feel, will come slowly through peaceful means and through compromise. Basically they are pursuing accommodation while the US is seeking elimination. Unless the US agrees to play ball on Pakistani terms, it will have to pursue its goals without any active help from Islamabad, and perhaps with covert and active opposition from Pakistani intelligence and military. From the outset, the US policy of reliance on Musharraf and force was an unwise strategy. It has failed completely. Bin Laden is still free and Al-Qaeda is strong and active.
Taliban are still there and much stronger now and chipping away at NATO's resolve. Pakistan, a nuclear state and a longtime US ally, is now partially a failed state, no more friendly, but heavily radicalized. Unless Washington acknowledges its errors and adopts a new policy — one made in consultation with Islamabad and sensible voices in America, which neocons hate — NATO, the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all in for really tough times ahead.
The US task of keeping Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror has increased manifold. The Pakistani leadership is now in fundamental disagreement with US' methods. They feel that Pakistan's extremism problem cannot be done away with by use of force. They also feel that the US is part of the problem. US policies in the region fuel extremism and the heavy handed use of force further alienates those who are not radicalized. The resolution, they feel, will come slowly through peaceful means and through compromise. Basically they are pursuing accommodation while the US is seeking elimination. Unless the US agrees to play ball on Pakistani terms, it will have to pursue its goals without any active help from Islamabad, and perhaps with covert and active opposition from Pakistani intelligence and military. From the outset, the US policy of reliance on Musharraf and force was an unwise strategy. It has failed completely. Bin Laden is still free and Al-Qaeda is strong and active.
Taliban are still there and much stronger now and chipping away at NATO's resolve. Pakistan, a nuclear state and a longtime US ally, is now partially a failed state, no more friendly, but heavily radicalized. Unless Washington acknowledges its errors and adopts a new policy — one made in consultation with Islamabad and sensible voices in America, which neocons hate — NATO, the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all in for really tough times ahead.
Bush bets Pakistan will become South Korea, not Iran
Even before Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation on Aug. 18, President Bush cut loose his old ally in hopes that Pakistan will end up a stable democratic ally like South Korea or the Philippines.
But Pakistan also could go the way of Iran after President Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah in 1979.
The stakes could not be higher. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. It is a central front in the war on terror. And it is besieged by Islamic extremists who already have a secure operating base in the country.
Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in 1999, was President Bush’s friend and anti-terrorist ally — rather like Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and South Korea’s Chun Doo-hwan were anticommunist allies of Ronald Reagan.
In 1986, Marcos stole his last election and created a civic crisis. Reagan, influenced by then Assistant Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy, Scooter Libby, decided to abandon Marcos and make a bet that democracy was a surer way to fight communism. The bet paid off.
The following year, in South Korea, military rulers Chun and Roh Tae-woo gave way to popular demands for democratic elections. Reagan supported the move after the fact, but it was driven more by the threat that Korea would lose the 1988 Olympics. But that bet on democracy paid off magnificently, too.
Now, Bush is making a similar wager in Pakistan. There’s not much else he could have done, given Musharraf’s unpopularity, and Bush did it reluctantly. First, he tried to organize a power-sharing arrangement leaving Musharraf in the presidency while a new democratic coalition ran the government. Now that doesn’t matter, as the two ruling parties have won Musharraf’s ouster by forcing his resignation.
In June, the White House announced Bush had spoken on the phone with Musharraf and urged him to stay in the presidency. This week, with his position crumbling, Musharraf tried to call Bush at least twice, according to Pakistani sources. Bush did not take the calls.
Pakistan presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari
'suffering from severe mental problems'.
Mr Zardari, co-chair of the Pakistan People's Party, was diagnosed with a range of psychiatric illnesses, including dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The illnesses were said to be linked to the fact that he has spent 11 of the past 20 years in Pakistani prisons fighting charges of corruption. He claims to have been tort
ured during his incarceration.In March 2007 New York psychiatrist Philip Saltiel found that Mr Zardari's time in detention left him with severe "emotional instability", memory loss and concentration problems, according to court documents seen by the Financial Times.
"I do not see any improvement in these issues for at least a year," he wrote.
Stephen Reich, a psychiatrist from New York State, said Mr Zardari was unable to recall the birthdays of his wife and children and had thought about suicide.
Mr Zardari used the medical reports to successfully fight a now defunct English High Court case in which the Pakistan government sought to sue him over alleged corruption. The case was dropped in March.
Mr Zardari was not available to comment on the documents, but Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the Pakistan high commissioner to London said he was now fit and well.
Mr Zardari is his party's candidate to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of the nuclear-armed country.
However, his coalition government with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, fell apart yesterday after Mr Sharif withdrew his party, the The Pakistan Muslim League-N.
Asif Zardari, Mr. 10 Percent and President of Pakistan? Embezzling Pakistan's Presidency: Pakistan's Asif Ali Zardari, husband of the late Benazir Bhutto, was known as "Mr. Ten Percent" for his long trail of kickbacks and corruption. Now he's in line to be Pakistan's next president.
In his youth as the son of a rich landowner, Pakistan's Asif Ali Zardari was known as a polo-playing playboy who had his own disco built on his father's property. After wedding Benazir Bhutto in an arranged marriage, his illustriously corrupt career began: He was charged with the attempted murder of a British developer, on whose leg he and an accomplice were accused to have strapped a remote-controlled bomb before sending the guy into a bank to force him to withdraw $800,000.Zardari was imprisoned for almost three years then released in time to become an investment minister in his wife's cabinet, a post Bhutto created just for him, and a post both used to immense personal profit. Among the spoils: An $8 million, 355-acre estate in Surrrey, England, where Zardari frequented a pub he loved so much that, when he couldn't buy it, had an identical replica built in the mansion's basement. The property included an indoor swimming pool, a helipad, a stud farm, 220 acres of pasture and nine bedrooms Zardari decorated, for $1.5 million, with the help of two British interior decorators. That little deal pales in comparison with a promised $200 million payoff from Dassault Aviation, the French jet fighter manufacturer of Mirages, in exchange for a $4 billion deal with the Pakistani air force. Unfortunately for Zardari and Bhutto, that deal fell apart when, in 1996, Bhutto was booted out of government, twice, for corruption, and he was imprisoned again, for nine years, on charges including the murder of Bhutto's brother. In all Pakistani authorities the Bhutto-Zardari axis managed to embezzle somewhere in the range of $1.5 billion.
But Zardari's nickname stuck: "Mr. 10 Percent," for his reputation as an exacting reaper of kickbacks.
The delicate balance of power in the wake of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation took a heavy blow Monday, as the ruling political coalition collapsed. Merely one week after Mr. Musharraf was forced out as leader of Pakistan, the coalition that was united in its dislike of the military leader fell apart over how to deal with the courts. Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister who had been overthrown by Mr. Musharraf, announced Monday that he was pulling his party out of the coalition because it failed to restore judges fired by Mr. Musharraf or agree to a neutral replacement for the ousted president.Mr. Musharraf purged more than 60 judges last November in an effort to consolidate his support. With their common foe gone, the coalition that drove him from office has frayed over unkept promises to restore the judges and Mr. Zardari's decision to seek the presidency.The announcement came shortly after Asif Ali Zardari, the coalition leader and widower of the slain premier Benazir Bhutto, announced his candidacy in the election to replace Mr. Musharraf. "We have been forced to leave the coalition," Mr. Sharif said in Islamabad. "We joined the coalition with full sincerity for the restoration of democracy. Unfortunately all the promises were not honored."Mr. Sharif vowed to play a "constructive" role while in the opposition.
__________________
Legendary Urdu poet Ahmed Faraz, a passionate proponent of progress and democracy in Pakistan, has died after a prolonged illness at the age of 77.
Faraz, who was suffering from a kidney disease and had returned to Pakistan from the US after falling seriously ill there last month, died in a private hospital here late on Monday night. He is survived by wife and two sons.
Outspoken on political issues, Faraz went into self-imposed exile during the rule of military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq.
He was also arrested during that period for reciting poems critical of military rule. He stayed for three years in Britain, Canada and Europe before returning to Pakistan.
Faraz, considered one of the best poets of Pakistan, was born in Nowshera on January 14, 1931. His real name was Syed Ahmed Shah.
The Pashto-speaking Faraz learned and studied Persian and Urdu at the Peshawar University, where he also taught later.
He also served as chairman of the Academy of Letters and headed the Islamabad-based National Book Foundation for several years.
The recipient of many national and international awards, he was inspired by Pakistan People's Party founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In 2004, he was awarded the 'Hilal-e-Imtiaz' in recognition of his literary achievements.
However, he criticised the government of the day and its policies and returned the award in 2006.
__________________
__________________
Legendary Urdu poet Ahmed Faraz, a passionate proponent of progress and democracy in Pakistan, has died after a prolonged illness at the age of 77.
Faraz, who was suffering from a kidney disease and had returned to Pakistan from the US after falling seriously ill there last month, died in a private hospital here late on Monday night. He is survived by wife and two sons.
Outspoken on political issues, Faraz went into self-imposed exile during the rule of military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq.
He was also arrested during that period for reciting poems critical of military rule. He stayed for three years in Britain, Canada and Europe before returning to Pakistan.
Faraz, considered one of the best poets of Pakistan, was born in Nowshera on January 14, 1931. His real name was Syed Ahmed Shah.
The Pashto-speaking Faraz learned and studied Persian and Urdu at the Peshawar University, where he also taught later.
He also served as chairman of the Academy of Letters and headed the Islamabad-based National Book Foundation for several years.
The recipient of many national and international awards, he was inspired by Pakistan People's Party founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In 2004, he was awarded the 'Hilal-e-Imtiaz' in recognition of his literary achievements.
However, he criticised the government of the day and its policies and returned the award in 2006.
__________________
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Olympic flag has been handed to London after a spectacular ceremony ended the Beijing Games.
Beijing Hands Olympics To London
China was hosting a party for the world... The opening ceremony set a gold standard that London will find difficult to reach.Sky's China correspondent Peter Sharp
An impressively choreographed display featuring thousands of dancers and performers in brightly coloured costumes was followed by the entry of most of the athletes who had taken part in the Games.
Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, officially declared the Games closed, and thanked the people of China for contributing to their success.
The Union Jack was then raised as the national anthem was played and sung by a choir.
London then became the Olympic city for 2012.
Beijing Hands Olympics To London
China was hosting a party for the world... The opening ceremony set a gold standard that London will find difficult to reach.Sky's China correspondent Peter Sharp
An impressively choreographed display featuring thousands of dancers and performers in brightly coloured costumes was followed by the entry of most of the athletes who had taken part in the Games.Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, officially declared the Games closed, and thanked the people of China for contributing to their success.
The Union Jack was then raised as the national anthem was played and sung by a choir.
London then became the Olympic city for 2012.
ICC postpones Champions Trophy in Pakistan
..........................................................
The International Cricket Council has postponed next month's Champions Trophy in Pakistan (ICC) until October 2009.
The eight-team tournament was scheduled to take place in Pakistan from September 12-28, but South Africa had already pulled out on Friday because of security fears. England, Australia and New Zealand had also expressed doubts about playing in Pakistan at the present time.
David Morgan, the ICC president, said there was "complete support and sympathy" for the Pakistan Cricket Board.
"However, there was also a realisation that, under the current circumstances, some of the teams due to compete had reservations about touring there which could not be removed.
The ICC continuously declared Pakistan as safe to host the Trophy and earlier this month confined the tournament to two venues - Lahore and Karachi - dropping Rawalpindi as security could not be assessed in the city.
Pakistan successfully staged the six-nation Asia Cup with India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and the hosts competing in June-July this year to press claims to stage the Champions Trophy.
However since then a suicide bombing in Islamabad, a series of blasts in Karachi and twin blasts at an arms manufacturing factory near Islamabad on Thursday killed more than 100 people in all and sealed the fate of the tournament.
The ICC last month announced it would keep the Champions Trophy in Pakistan despite security fears and appointed an eight-man task team to convince the reluctant teams.
..........................................................
The International Cricket Council has postponed next month's Champions Trophy in Pakistan (ICC) until October 2009.
The eight-team tournament was scheduled to take place in Pakistan from September 12-28, but South Africa had already pulled out on Friday because of security fears. England, Australia and New Zealand had also expressed doubts about playing in Pakistan at the present time.
David Morgan, the ICC president, said there was "complete support and sympathy" for the Pakistan Cricket Board.
"However, there was also a realisation that, under the current circumstances, some of the teams due to compete had reservations about touring there which could not be removed.
The ICC continuously declared Pakistan as safe to host the Trophy and earlier this month confined the tournament to two venues - Lahore and Karachi - dropping Rawalpindi as security could not be assessed in the city.
Pakistan successfully staged the six-nation Asia Cup with India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and the hosts competing in June-July this year to press claims to stage the Champions Trophy.
However since then a suicide bombing in Islamabad, a series of blasts in Karachi and twin blasts at an arms manufacturing factory near Islamabad on Thursday killed more than 100 people in all and sealed the fate of the tournament.
The ICC last month announced it would keep the Champions Trophy in Pakistan despite security fears and appointed an eight-man task team to convince the reluctant teams.
Why Zardari wants to be president ?
The PPP’s coalition partner, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, has shown itself to be completely inflexible on a whole range of issues. General (retd) Pervez Musharraf is gone but the judges’ issue still hangs fire. Mr Sharif thinks that he has effectively coerced Mr Zardari into getting rid of Gen Musharraf and can repeat the performance on the restoration of the judges.
This may be a miscalculation if we read the situation in conjunction with Mr Zardari’s intention to become president.
It was easier to get rid of Gen Musharraf; he had become controversial and at some point had to be expended. If one looks at where Mr Zardari’s stakes lay in relation to the two issues that underpinned Mr Sharif’s intransigence, it should be clear that he would have sacrificed Gen Musharraf to get Mr Sharif to fall in line on the judges’ issue.Ridding Gen Musharraf only required an assurance from the army that the GHQ would not intervene if the general were given a safe exit. Once that became clear, Mr Zardari could own up to Mr Sharif’s cause and get on with the business of putting the squeeze on the general. On that score we know what has happened.
But what about the judges? That is a whole lot different, not just because of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, but also because of the ever-present possibility of the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan forcing the government to come to a grinding halt. Mr Zardari knows now that Mr Sharif will continue to be relentless. Mr Sharif wants the judges restored with an executive order before the coalition can get down to amending the Constitution to cleanse it of its anomalies. Mr Zardari wants the judges restored as part of the Constitutional amendment. This is the point at which realpolitik trumps democratic rhetoric.Mr Zardari can capitulate and let Mr Sharif emerge from all this drama as the custodian of democracy; or, he can ensure that Mr Sharif makes shipwreck on the rocks of realpolitik.If it is accepted that Mr Zardari assigns a higher value to not restoring the judges; and if it is also accepted that Mr Sharif will not climb down and let the issue be handled through a broader Constitutional amendment, then one course open to Mr Zardari is to allow the Constitutional anomalies to remain where they are — not only that, but to keep everyone in line, elevate himself as president and use those powers to his advantage.
This goes against the grain of what the PPP has been saying so far but it also underlines the tension built into the coalition. Moreover, if Mr Zardari does go ahead with his plan to become president, it shows how little has really changed despite the democracy rhetoric.Insiders know that Mr Sharif has demanded that the current Punjab governor be changed and in his stead a leading light of the lawyers’ movement be placed in the Governor’s House. If true, it proves the argument about the simmering nature of relations between the two major parties. The current governor, Salmaan Taseer, addressed a press conference Thursday calling upon Mr Zardari to become the president.The coalition is thus headed towards a collision. If Mr Sharif doesn’t bite, Mr Zardari will try to outflank him through this move.
As president, Mr Zardari will be within his constitutional right (Article 89, Clause 1) to promulgate an ordinance upholding the NRO; as ruling party, the PPP has the numbers to turn any such ordinance into law. The PPP could also link up with other parties to isolate the PMLN. This could also spell trouble in the Punjab where the PPP might want to upstage the PMLN, though if the PMLQ forward bloc were to join up with the PMLN, that move may prove abortive.
At the minimum, we could see a repeat of Ms Benazir Bhutto’s first tenure when the Centre and the Punjab clashed. If things really hot up, Mr Zardari could use his power to wrap up the system. Whether that would lead to a more stable system is anybody’s guess.
The PPP’s coalition partner, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, has shown itself to be completely inflexible on a whole range of issues. General (retd) Pervez Musharraf is gone but the judges’ issue still hangs fire. Mr Sharif thinks that he has effectively coerced Mr Zardari into getting rid of Gen Musharraf and can repeat the performance on the restoration of the judges.
This may be a miscalculation if we read the situation in conjunction with Mr Zardari’s intention to become president.
It was easier to get rid of Gen Musharraf; he had become controversial and at some point had to be expended. If one looks at where Mr Zardari’s stakes lay in relation to the two issues that underpinned Mr Sharif’s intransigence, it should be clear that he would have sacrificed Gen Musharraf to get Mr Sharif to fall in line on the judges’ issue.Ridding Gen Musharraf only required an assurance from the army that the GHQ would not intervene if the general were given a safe exit. Once that became clear, Mr Zardari could own up to Mr Sharif’s cause and get on with the business of putting the squeeze on the general. On that score we know what has happened.
But what about the judges? That is a whole lot different, not just because of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, but also because of the ever-present possibility of the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan forcing the government to come to a grinding halt. Mr Zardari knows now that Mr Sharif will continue to be relentless. Mr Sharif wants the judges restored with an executive order before the coalition can get down to amending the Constitution to cleanse it of its anomalies. Mr Zardari wants the judges restored as part of the Constitutional amendment. This is the point at which realpolitik trumps democratic rhetoric.Mr Zardari can capitulate and let Mr Sharif emerge from all this drama as the custodian of democracy; or, he can ensure that Mr Sharif makes shipwreck on the rocks of realpolitik.If it is accepted that Mr Zardari assigns a higher value to not restoring the judges; and if it is also accepted that Mr Sharif will not climb down and let the issue be handled through a broader Constitutional amendment, then one course open to Mr Zardari is to allow the Constitutional anomalies to remain where they are — not only that, but to keep everyone in line, elevate himself as president and use those powers to his advantage.
This goes against the grain of what the PPP has been saying so far but it also underlines the tension built into the coalition. Moreover, if Mr Zardari does go ahead with his plan to become president, it shows how little has really changed despite the democracy rhetoric.Insiders know that Mr Sharif has demanded that the current Punjab governor be changed and in his stead a leading light of the lawyers’ movement be placed in the Governor’s House. If true, it proves the argument about the simmering nature of relations between the two major parties. The current governor, Salmaan Taseer, addressed a press conference Thursday calling upon Mr Zardari to become the president.The coalition is thus headed towards a collision. If Mr Sharif doesn’t bite, Mr Zardari will try to outflank him through this move.
As president, Mr Zardari will be within his constitutional right (Article 89, Clause 1) to promulgate an ordinance upholding the NRO; as ruling party, the PPP has the numbers to turn any such ordinance into law. The PPP could also link up with other parties to isolate the PMLN. This could also spell trouble in the Punjab where the PPP might want to upstage the PMLN, though if the PMLQ forward bloc were to join up with the PMLN, that move may prove abortive.
At the minimum, we could see a repeat of Ms Benazir Bhutto’s first tenure when the Centre and the Punjab clashed. If things really hot up, Mr Zardari could use his power to wrap up the system. Whether that would lead to a more stable system is anybody’s guess.
...........................................................
Next month's Champions Trophy in Pakistan will be cancelled rather than relocated if security and safety conditions deteriorate significantly, International Cricket Council chief executive Haroon Lorgat said
...........................................................
Pakistan to boycott CT if relocated to some other nation
With threat looming large over the relocation of Champions Trophy to some other nation, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has issued a veiled warning to the ICC of a possible boycott of the event if it is taken away from them.PCB Chief Operating Officer, Shafqat Naghmi admitted that after South Africa officially withdrew from the eight-nation tournament, there lies a strong possibility of Australia, England and New Zealand doing the same at the crucial ICC teleconference today.
He added that if the ICC today decides to relocate the biennial tournament, Pakistan also reserves the right to boycott the event."We are prepared for this and we are expecting a formal announcement at the teleconference," he said.All the four countries have said they have got advice from their independent security consultants and from their government not to travel to Pakistan at this stage because of the security conditions in the country.
The countries have pointed out to the ICC that since January this year around 21 suicide bomb and planted bomb attacks have been taken place in Pakistan leaving over 400 people dead and scores injured.The last one came at Wah Cantt, some 30 kilometres outside Islamabad two days ago in which around 70 people were killed.However, Naghmi insisted that the scenario was no different in other countries.
Next month's Champions Trophy in Pakistan will be cancelled rather than relocated if security and safety conditions deteriorate significantly, International Cricket Council chief executive Haroon Lorgat said
...........................................................
Pakistan to boycott CT if relocated to some other nation
With threat looming large over the relocation of Champions Trophy to some other nation, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has issued a veiled warning to the ICC of a possible boycott of the event if it is taken away from them.PCB Chief Operating Officer, Shafqat Naghmi admitted that after South Africa officially withdrew from the eight-nation tournament, there lies a strong possibility of Australia, England and New Zealand doing the same at the crucial ICC teleconference today.
He added that if the ICC today decides to relocate the biennial tournament, Pakistan also reserves the right to boycott the event."We are prepared for this and we are expecting a formal announcement at the teleconference," he said.All the four countries have said they have got advice from their independent security consultants and from their government not to travel to Pakistan at this stage because of the security conditions in the country.
The countries have pointed out to the ICC that since January this year around 21 suicide bomb and planted bomb attacks have been taken place in Pakistan leaving over 400 people dead and scores injured.The last one came at Wah Cantt, some 30 kilometres outside Islamabad two days ago in which around 70 people were killed.However, Naghmi insisted that the scenario was no different in other countries.
Pak-India hockey officials ponder to resume series
The officials of Pak-India hockey Federations have showed inclination to resumebilateral series to revive the game in the sub-continent, once known as ‘powerhouse of hockey’.
The proposal came under discussion at a dinner hosted by Indian Olympics Committee Chief, Suresh Kalmadi along with Aslam Khan, Secretary, adhoc committee of Indian hockey federation in the honour of President Pakistan Hockey Federation Mir Zafarullah Jamali and Secretary Muhammad Asif Bajwa in Beijing during the ongoing Olympics, according to the information made available here on Tuesday. During their informal talks both PHF President and the Secretary discussed with the Indian officials about resuming hockey ties between the two former giants of the game, now a plae shadow of their glittering past. Both the countries showed keenness in resuming suspended bilateral series to lift the sagging fortunate of the game in their respective countries. Pakistan, who are playing at the Beijing Olympics currently, are struggling to return in the top echelon while India have already been ousted from the Olympics for the first time in eighty years. Pak-India played a couple of successful bilateral series in past, with each country.Saturday, August 23, 2008
Pakistan's terrorists are now celebrating Musharraf's departure with a bombing spree.
Modern states built on
mud and sand
A country in Pakistan's position -- domestic insurrection, angry neighbours, economic fragility, deep corruption -- needs a strong government with a clear view of the realities. Ex-president Pervez Musharraf tried to provide this, and failed. He was, to my view, one of the better Third-World military dictators, with what appeared an honest, patriotic commitment to steering his country towards safety and a legitimate constitutional order.
But in the end he either could not or would not take the ruthless measures necessary to defeat the Islamist insurgencies in the North-West Frontier and Baluchistan, resolve the Kashmir issue with India, remove restraints on enterprise, and defeat bureaucratic pilfering.
Let history judge, and in the meanwhile I think the answer is probably, "could not." Musharraf could neither command the unambiguous loyalty of the country's only truly national institution -- the army -- nor persuade his countrymen, and the self-serving political elites, of the urgency of the crises Pakistan is facing. "Could not" because Pakistan cannot be unified around any principle other than the Islamic identity with which she set out from her founding; and because the military is progressively abandoning its own balancing secular ideals, and is now infiltrated with officers who think the Shariah provides all the answers.
But if "could not" is the answer, Pakistan is doomed. The corrupt politicians, playing to their respective ethnic constituencies, failed to provide any national direction before; and the current party leaders are by no means a new generation. Nawaz Sharif could manage nothing beyond nuclear brinkmanship and economic fiasco, in his previous terms as prime minister; and Asif Zardari -- the widower of Benazir Bhutto, and "Mister Ten Percent" in her own last corrupt administration -- makes Mr. Sharif look almost competent and respectable.
They are both now principally concerned with the complicated business of reinstating Supreme Court judges who had been dismissed by Musharraf for political grandstanding -- in such a way as to prevent either party leader from having to face the consequences of previous criminal convictions. It is their only remaining common interest.
For the last few months they had had one more -- getting rid of Musharraf, by orchestrating some kind of impeachment proceeding. They seemed genuinely surprised when the unpopular Musharraf resigned, and are now scrambling to appoint a new president who will agree to ignore the extraordinary powers that Musharraf had arrogated to the office. And there's the rub: for both would ideally like to have that power.
"Democracy" is of course a very pretty thing, in the abstract, but in Pakistan as in so many other countries lacking constitutional continuities (including several in Europe), it easily degenerates into clan warfare. Which would be well if the country had nothing better to do than watch a (potentially violent) soap opera unfold.
Pakistan's case is, in an especially advanced form, also that of other Muslim countries whose boundaries were drawn by the retreating European powers, a couple of generations ago. They share, in that sense, the problem of sub-Saharan Africa; they are "modern" nation states erected on alien European principles over foundations of mud or sand, lacking the bond of tribal homogeneity.
What makes the Muslim countries different, besides the presence of vast oil fields under several of them, is the siren call of Islam from a mostly imagined past. For peoples suddenly yanked from ancient customary arrangements of village and tribe into the squalid urban glitz of contemporary Mammon, the craving for moral order is very powerful. But Islam can provide no historical model for a modern nation state, only empires; and when it does try, we get the Taliban.
The only alternative to this appears to be the slow, soul-destroying slog towards a secular and deracinated modernity. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, have made that leap in stages; but they had the benefit of ethnic homogeneity. India, more remarkably, seems to be making it without. Pakistan has the disadvantage of having rejected the Indian model, without having a workable alternative.
Meanwhile we, in the West, have a serious problem with international Islamist terrorism, and as we discovered on Sept. 11, 2001, it requires that we intrude into the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda, in the remotest ungovernable districts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir. We cannot simply leave that problem to resolve itself, nor practically hope of any success without the active cooperation of every regional government.
If Pakistan cannot hold together, our problem must necessarily grow very large. Predictably, Pakistan's terrorists are now celebrating Musharraf's departure with a bombing spree.
Modern states built on
mud and sand
A country in Pakistan's position -- domestic insurrection, angry neighbours, economic fragility, deep corruption -- needs a strong government with a clear view of the realities. Ex-president Pervez Musharraf tried to provide this, and failed. He was, to my view, one of the better Third-World military dictators, with what appeared an honest, patriotic commitment to steering his country towards safety and a legitimate constitutional order.
But in the end he either could not or would not take the ruthless measures necessary to defeat the Islamist insurgencies in the North-West Frontier and Baluchistan, resolve the Kashmir issue with India, remove restraints on enterprise, and defeat bureaucratic pilfering.
Let history judge, and in the meanwhile I think the answer is probably, "could not." Musharraf could neither command the unambiguous loyalty of the country's only truly national institution -- the army -- nor persuade his countrymen, and the self-serving political elites, of the urgency of the crises Pakistan is facing. "Could not" because Pakistan cannot be unified around any principle other than the Islamic identity with which she set out from her founding; and because the military is progressively abandoning its own balancing secular ideals, and is now infiltrated with officers who think the Shariah provides all the answers.
But if "could not" is the answer, Pakistan is doomed. The corrupt politicians, playing to their respective ethnic constituencies, failed to provide any national direction before; and the current party leaders are by no means a new generation. Nawaz Sharif could manage nothing beyond nuclear brinkmanship and economic fiasco, in his previous terms as prime minister; and Asif Zardari -- the widower of Benazir Bhutto, and "Mister Ten Percent" in her own last corrupt administration -- makes Mr. Sharif look almost competent and respectable.
They are both now principally concerned with the complicated business of reinstating Supreme Court judges who had been dismissed by Musharraf for political grandstanding -- in such a way as to prevent either party leader from having to face the consequences of previous criminal convictions. It is their only remaining common interest.
For the last few months they had had one more -- getting rid of Musharraf, by orchestrating some kind of impeachment proceeding. They seemed genuinely surprised when the unpopular Musharraf resigned, and are now scrambling to appoint a new president who will agree to ignore the extraordinary powers that Musharraf had arrogated to the office. And there's the rub: for both would ideally like to have that power.
"Democracy" is of course a very pretty thing, in the abstract, but in Pakistan as in so many other countries lacking constitutional continuities (including several in Europe), it easily degenerates into clan warfare. Which would be well if the country had nothing better to do than watch a (potentially violent) soap opera unfold.
Pakistan's case is, in an especially advanced form, also that of other Muslim countries whose boundaries were drawn by the retreating European powers, a couple of generations ago. They share, in that sense, the problem of sub-Saharan Africa; they are "modern" nation states erected on alien European principles over foundations of mud or sand, lacking the bond of tribal homogeneity.
What makes the Muslim countries different, besides the presence of vast oil fields under several of them, is the siren call of Islam from a mostly imagined past. For peoples suddenly yanked from ancient customary arrangements of village and tribe into the squalid urban glitz of contemporary Mammon, the craving for moral order is very powerful. But Islam can provide no historical model for a modern nation state, only empires; and when it does try, we get the Taliban.
The only alternative to this appears to be the slow, soul-destroying slog towards a secular and deracinated modernity. Nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, have made that leap in stages; but they had the benefit of ethnic homogeneity. India, more remarkably, seems to be making it without. Pakistan has the disadvantage of having rejected the Indian model, without having a workable alternative.
Meanwhile we, in the West, have a serious problem with international Islamist terrorism, and as we discovered on Sept. 11, 2001, it requires that we intrude into the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda, in the remotest ungovernable districts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir. We cannot simply leave that problem to resolve itself, nor practically hope of any success without the active cooperation of every regional government.
If Pakistan cannot hold together, our problem must necessarily grow very large. Predictably, Pakistan's terrorists are now celebrating Musharraf's departure with a bombing spree.
why was India a democracy and Pakistan an autocracy?
History of democray in the subcontinent.
Third World countries do not generally become stable democracies. India is an exception. India's democracy and Pakistan's autocracy have deep roots in history.
India's nationalist movement was older and more widespread. Millions of ordinary Indians were drawn in by Mahatma Gandhi. Muslim nationalism emerged later and did not become a mass movement - Jinnah was more comfortable in the drawing room rather than the 'dusty road'.
While Indians prepared for democracy over three generations, Pakistanis-to-be got the itch only a couple of years before independence. After independence, Pakistan's politicians performed abysmally. The Muslim League Party disintegrated; there were nine governments in 10 years and the army under Ayub Khan seized power in 1958.
Jinnah's great error was to impose Urdu as the national language when only 8% of Pakistanis spoke Urdu and 55% spoke Bengali. Thus, he sowed the seeds of Bangladesh. Sri Lanka made the same tragic mistake. India did not succumb to this anti-democratic temptation by imposing Hindi. This is how India gave space for sub-identities to flourish, allowed the rise of peoples' leaders from linguistic states, and deepened democracy.
Although his slogan in the 1945-46 elections in undivided India was 'Islam is in danger', Jinnah wanted to build a modern nation. Even though General Zia-ul-Haq reinforced theological priority, i do not believe Islam prevents Pakistan from being democratic. The rise of Islamism does tear the ordinary Pakistani's loyalty between the brotherhood and the state, but the maulvi is not Pakistan's natural leader as in Iran. The chief obstacle to democracy is the army. Hence, i am relieved that Musharraf is gone. It does create a vacuum that might be filled by extremists, but in the longer term the best thing for India is to have a democratic Pakistan.
For a brief moment in the mid-1970s the two nations seemed to converge. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto began to steer Pakistan towards genuine democracy while Indira Gandhi took India on the path of dictatorship. The paths diverged after 1977 as Mrs Gandhi called an election and Bhutto was executed by Zia in 1979. India returned to the path of democracy, whose binding glue is the liberal notion that all Indians are equal citizens before the law, owing loyalty to the Constitution. This is a British legacy. Before that indians were a collection of communities and kingdoms. Although indians still feel loyal to our caste or community, we are different from the tragic Pakistanis whose land has been hijacked by the military. Once there is military rule you get a state within a state. You are powerless to stop your secret service from creating monsters like the Taliban and before you know it your country has become the world's top university for terrorists.
History of democray in the subcontinent.
Third World countries do not generally become stable democracies. India is an exception. India's democracy and Pakistan's autocracy have deep roots in history.
India's nationalist movement was older and more widespread. Millions of ordinary Indians were drawn in by Mahatma Gandhi. Muslim nationalism emerged later and did not become a mass movement - Jinnah was more comfortable in the drawing room rather than the 'dusty road'.
While Indians prepared for democracy over three generations, Pakistanis-to-be got the itch only a couple of years before independence. After independence, Pakistan's politicians performed abysmally. The Muslim League Party disintegrated; there were nine governments in 10 years and the army under Ayub Khan seized power in 1958.
Jinnah's great error was to impose Urdu as the national language when only 8% of Pakistanis spoke Urdu and 55% spoke Bengali. Thus, he sowed the seeds of Bangladesh. Sri Lanka made the same tragic mistake. India did not succumb to this anti-democratic temptation by imposing Hindi. This is how India gave space for sub-identities to flourish, allowed the rise of peoples' leaders from linguistic states, and deepened democracy.
Although his slogan in the 1945-46 elections in undivided India was 'Islam is in danger', Jinnah wanted to build a modern nation. Even though General Zia-ul-Haq reinforced theological priority, i do not believe Islam prevents Pakistan from being democratic. The rise of Islamism does tear the ordinary Pakistani's loyalty between the brotherhood and the state, but the maulvi is not Pakistan's natural leader as in Iran. The chief obstacle to democracy is the army. Hence, i am relieved that Musharraf is gone. It does create a vacuum that might be filled by extremists, but in the longer term the best thing for India is to have a democratic Pakistan.
For a brief moment in the mid-1970s the two nations seemed to converge. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto began to steer Pakistan towards genuine democracy while Indira Gandhi took India on the path of dictatorship. The paths diverged after 1977 as Mrs Gandhi called an election and Bhutto was executed by Zia in 1979. India returned to the path of democracy, whose binding glue is the liberal notion that all Indians are equal citizens before the law, owing loyalty to the Constitution. This is a British legacy. Before that indians were a collection of communities and kingdoms. Although indians still feel loyal to our caste or community, we are different from the tragic Pakistanis whose land has been hijacked by the military. Once there is military rule you get a state within a state. You are powerless to stop your secret service from creating monsters like the Taliban and before you know it your country has become the world's top university for terrorists.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Pakistan B2 rating faces forex reserves risk
Pakistan is in danger of a further downgrade of its “B2” sovereign credit rating as its foreign exchange reserves are being rapidly depleted, Moody’s Investors Service.
The ratings agency said the success of structural reforms would be vital to allay foreign investors’ concern, noting that the resignation of General (r) Pervez Musharraf from the presidency would help heal domestic political divisions. “If the government remains unable to govern effectively, then discordant policies and their weak implementation could further set back investor confidence,” Moody’s said in a statement. This would, in turn, damage Pakistan’s balance of payments stability as well as the government’s fiscal financing prospects, it added. “Delays in the ability of its fiscal authorities to wean themselves away from central bank financing of the budget deficit also represent a formidable obstacle for improving inflationary expectations and reducing pressure on the Pakistani rupee.” Moody’s cut Pakistan’s rating to “B2” from “B1” in May. “If, in coming months, Moody’s concludes that a deterioration in Pakistan’s credit fundamentals is becoming irreversible, then negative rating actions may follow,” Moody’s said. reuters
Pakistan is in danger of a further downgrade of its “B2” sovereign credit rating as its foreign exchange reserves are being rapidly depleted, Moody’s Investors Service.
The ratings agency said the success of structural reforms would be vital to allay foreign investors’ concern, noting that the resignation of General (r) Pervez Musharraf from the presidency would help heal domestic political divisions. “If the government remains unable to govern effectively, then discordant policies and their weak implementation could further set back investor confidence,” Moody’s said in a statement. This would, in turn, damage Pakistan’s balance of payments stability as well as the government’s fiscal financing prospects, it added. “Delays in the ability of its fiscal authorities to wean themselves away from central bank financing of the budget deficit also represent a formidable obstacle for improving inflationary expectations and reducing pressure on the Pakistani rupee.” Moody’s cut Pakistan’s rating to “B2” from “B1” in May. “If, in coming months, Moody’s concludes that a deterioration in Pakistan’s credit fundamentals is becoming irreversible, then negative rating actions may follow,” Moody’s said. reuters
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Musharraf unwinds with tennis after resigning
Much speculation on whether ex-president will face treason, other charges
Much speculation on whether ex-president will face treason, other charges
Human rights groups insist Pervez Musharraf must face justice over the alleged disappearance of hundreds of terrorist suspects into the custody of Pakistan's shadowy intelligence services.
Pakistan - Ousted from Pakistan's presidency, Pervez Musharraf has been unwinding with friends and admirers and on the tennis court. He's building a roomy farmhouse on the edge of the capital.
But his critics may not be finished with him yet: Musharraf faces an array of possible legal complaints, including treason charges, that some speculate could force him into exile.
On Tuesday, a day after he resigned as head of state and nearly nine years after he seized power in a military coup, Musharraf played tennis and relaxed with friends and family at his army-guarded residence.
But his critics may not be finished with him yet: Musharraf faces an array of possible legal complaints, including treason charges, that some speculate could force him into exile.
On Tuesday, a day after he resigned as head of state and nearly nine years after he seized power in a military coup, Musharraf played tennis and relaxed with friends and family at his army-guarded residence.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
New Reasons to Avoid Mixing Juice and Medicine
Patients often are warned against taking certain pills with grapefruit juice, which can turn normal doses of a drug into a toxic overdose. Now, researchers have raised a new concern: grapefruit, orange and apple juices may also block the effects of some drugs, wiping out any potential benefit to patients, according to a new study.
So far, the investigators have found that grapefruit, orange and apple juices reduce absorption of the anticancer drug etoposide; certain beta blockers used to treat high blood pressure; cyclosporine, used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs; and certain antibiotics. Additional drugs are likely to be added to the list, said David G. Bailey, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m sure we’ll find more and more drugs that are affected
Patients often are warned against taking certain pills with grapefruit juice, which can turn normal doses of a drug into a toxic overdose. Now, researchers have raised a new concern: grapefruit, orange and apple juices may also block the effects of some drugs, wiping out any potential benefit to patients, according to a new study.
So far, the investigators have found that grapefruit, orange and apple juices reduce absorption of the anticancer drug etoposide; certain beta blockers used to treat high blood pressure; cyclosporine, used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs; and certain antibiotics. Additional drugs are likely to be added to the list, said David G. Bailey, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario.“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m sure we’ll find more and more drugs that are affected
Pakistan coalition may-split post-Musharraf: analysts
"The glue that was holding the coalition partners together was Mr Musharraf. Now that punching bag has gone," said Rashid Rehman, a former newspaper editor and analyst.
Deadlock between Pakistan's coalition partners over the restoration of deposed judges has raised questions about the survival of the government that forced President Pervez Musharraf's resignation.
Musharraf, the former army chief and key ally of the United States in its campaign against terrorism, resigned as president of nuclear-armed Pakistan on Monday to avoid impeachment by the coalition government.
But the two main coalition partners, the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and that of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, are unnatural allies.
Bitter rivals during the 1990s, when Bhutto and Sharif alternated as prime minister, the parties were thrown together by their opposition to Musharraf. His departure could undermine the logic of their alliance, analysts said.
"The only thing that's a surprise is how quickly it has happened after Musharraf left. They've hardly had time to savor their victory," Rehman said.
Investors are watching nervously.
"The glue that was holding the coalition partners together was Mr Musharraf. Now that punching bag has gone," said Rashid Rehman, a former newspaper editor and analyst.
Deadlock between Pakistan's coalition partners over the restoration of deposed judges has raised questions about the survival of the government that forced President Pervez Musharraf's resignation.
Musharraf, the former army chief and key ally of the United States in its campaign against terrorism, resigned as president of nuclear-armed Pakistan on Monday to avoid impeachment by the coalition government.
But the two main coalition partners, the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and that of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, are unnatural allies.
Bitter rivals during the 1990s, when Bhutto and Sharif alternated as prime minister, the parties were thrown together by their opposition to Musharraf. His departure could undermine the logic of their alliance, analysts said.
"The only thing that's a surprise is how quickly it has happened after Musharraf left. They've hardly had time to savor their victory," Rehman said.
Investors are watching nervously.
Mystery of General Zia’s death
...............................
President Zia-ul-Haq, who died in a plane crash in 1988. It is said the Americans had become unhappy with the man who had served them so well and had come to regard him as a petty client grown too big for his boots, pretty much as they are said to have come to regard Musharraf now.
...............................
In an appearance on ARY TV channel on the 17th August anniversary of General Zia-ul Haq’s death in an air crash in 1988, his son, Ijaz-ul Haq, once again raised the question of “wilful neglect” of investigation into his father’s death. He spoke of the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission, whose damning report came out in 1993 complaining that the then army chief, General Aslam Beg, had acted in a strange manner after the air crash in Bahawalpur.
He referred to the now-secret Shafiur Rehman Commission Report — whose copy was quietly sent to him by a member of the Commission — and pointed to instances of a “cover-up” that could not have been mounted without the consent of the military high command.The same TV discussion had two other inputs.
The ex-ISI chief General (Retd) Hamid Gul was of the opinion that the Americans killed Zia after they had “used him” and because he was going to set up a true shariat-based Islamic state in Pakistan. He said the Americans killed off leaders after using them and referred in this context to the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto. The other input came from an officer who was not ready to speak in the programme but wanted to see Mr Haq separately to tell him what had actually transpired on August 17, 1988.
The Shafiur Rehman Commission Report is today classified as secret but when it was submitted to the government in 1993 a copy of it was received in some newspapers too and at least one newspaper published an Urdu translation of it.
The contents bear out what Mr Ijaz-ul Haq says. The Commission called its work “inconclusive” because it was not allowed by the army to investigate the Bahawalpur crash fully. It was convinced that the air-crash was an act of sabotage. It noted that the evidence was destroyed by the quick removal of debris and by an equally quick burial of the dead bodies without post mortem. The army refused to hand over the back door of the aircraft which had a hole in it.
(This door was noted in the photographs that were appended to an earlier Air Force inquiry.) The Commission complained bitterly about the fact that army loaders, who had placed some special cargo in the cockpit, were allowed to appear before it only after great resistance and that during their appearance in the court they were accompanied by army officers as “minders” who obstructed testimony by their presence.Mr Haq also referred to the efforts made by army chief General Asif Nawaz to get at the truth but he was soon embroiled in a tussle with some sacked ISI officers like Brig Imtiaz Billa employed in the Nawaz Sharif government and died of a heart attack. Mr Haq also referred to a much more incriminating investigation that appeared or was planted in weekly Takbeer whose editor had presented a copy of his journal to the Shafiur Rehman Commission. The editor was later assassinated.
The Commission considered the allegation that the Americans had killed Zia and ended up actually praising the US for holding an inquiry in the Senate while Pakistan had failed to do so.As for the allegation that the US kills people it has used who are no longer useful, one has to consider the fact that Zia was America’s man in the tussle that was emerging next door to Pakistan between the Arabs and Revolutionary Iran.
He was deeply indebted to Saudi Arabia for the assistance he had received at a time when the coffers in Islamabad were empty. The sectarian war that was relocated to Pakistan as a result of this rivalry found the state standing behind the Saudi-mandated madrassa-based, zakat-financed Islamic order. But there was an anti-American element in the military secretariat of General Zia and the central player in it was General Aslam Beg, his vice chief of staff.
In a dossier on Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in 2007, it was found that Dr AQ Khan showed a tendency to proliferate in favour of those states that defied the United States in particular and the West in general. Other sources report a close relationship between Dr Khan and Gen Zia’s then vice chief, Gen Aslam Beg. General Zia had reprimanded Dr Khan for boasting about his enrichment activity in 1984 and 1987. The IISS dossier says that Dr Khan made his first sale of nuclear documents to Iran in 1987 in Dubai and that General Zia was about to be informed about it in 1988. After his death, General Beg as army chief went to Iran and negotiated a deal there on “nuclear cooperation” without informing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, about which the latter complained publicly.
The case continues to be murky and Mr Ijaz-ul Haq is certainly justified in his plaint that his father’s death was not properly investigated. This was borne out again this year in the book on the Pakistan army, Crossed Swords: Pakistan its Army and Wars within by Shuja Nawaz, a brother of General Asif Nawaz, who writes that the Bahawalpur corps commander commented on Gen Zia’s death in a most suspicious manner after the crash on his watch. *Second Editorial: For and against “safe exit”Most people celebrating the ouster of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf insist that he should be given no “safe exit”, meaning that he should stand trial and be punished, which could even be death under Article 6 of the Constitution. They mourn the fact that no military ruler was ever punished and they want to begin with General (retd) Musharraf.
They say he should be made an “example” so that there will be no military dictator in the future.They also allude to the fact that those who don’t want this to happen want the Taliban terrorists to be dealt with an iron hand, implying an inconsistency in the argument against punishment.Both arguments are plain wrong. The former argument of exacting General (retd) Musharraf’s head is not likely to deter another army takeover in the future because army coup-makers are guided by compulsions and ambitions and situations that are not deterred by personal considerations of safety. Indeed, personal safety rarely matters to soldiers who are trained to risk their life where the nation’s interest in their opinion is concerned. The only thing such blood letting ensures is more blood letting.
Indeed, if there had been a tradition of putting coup-making generals to the sword in Pakistan, then coup-making generals would have struck first and put politicians to the sword instead of arresting them and giving them A class facilities or exiling them to palaces in Saudi Arabia or Dubai or London. In fact, General Zia’s execution of Z A Bhutto still haunts this country just as the execution of a Turkish prime minister by the Turkish military many years ago haunts it.
It should also be recalled that there is much hypocrisy in the demand by the PMLN to lynch President (retd) Musharraf. After all, General Zia-ul Haq was also given indemnity by parliament and his 8th Amendment was supported by politicians like the Sharifs who propped him up in power and didn’t dislike too much what he had done to the country.The second argument is stupid. It can be countered by asking why those who want to punish General (retd) Musharraf remain the biggest sympathisers of the Lal Masjid terrorists and are constantly advocating peace deals and truce with the Taliban who are killing innocent people and security forces with impunity in the tribal areas. In fact this argument of being hard on generals and soft on terrorists is designed to undermine the state and play into the hands of the anti-Pakistan forces. *
...............................
President Zia-ul-Haq, who died in a plane crash in 1988. It is said the Americans had become unhappy with the man who had served them so well and had come to regard him as a petty client grown too big for his boots, pretty much as they are said to have come to regard Musharraf now.
...............................
In an appearance on ARY TV channel on the 17th August anniversary of General Zia-ul Haq’s death in an air crash in 1988, his son, Ijaz-ul Haq, once again raised the question of “wilful neglect” of investigation into his father’s death. He spoke of the Justice Shafiur Rehman Commission, whose damning report came out in 1993 complaining that the then army chief, General Aslam Beg, had acted in a strange manner after the air crash in Bahawalpur.He referred to the now-secret Shafiur Rehman Commission Report — whose copy was quietly sent to him by a member of the Commission — and pointed to instances of a “cover-up” that could not have been mounted without the consent of the military high command.The same TV discussion had two other inputs.
The ex-ISI chief General (Retd) Hamid Gul was of the opinion that the Americans killed Zia after they had “used him” and because he was going to set up a true shariat-based Islamic state in Pakistan. He said the Americans killed off leaders after using them and referred in this context to the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto. The other input came from an officer who was not ready to speak in the programme but wanted to see Mr Haq separately to tell him what had actually transpired on August 17, 1988.
The Shafiur Rehman Commission Report is today classified as secret but when it was submitted to the government in 1993 a copy of it was received in some newspapers too and at least one newspaper published an Urdu translation of it.
The contents bear out what Mr Ijaz-ul Haq says. The Commission called its work “inconclusive” because it was not allowed by the army to investigate the Bahawalpur crash fully. It was convinced that the air-crash was an act of sabotage. It noted that the evidence was destroyed by the quick removal of debris and by an equally quick burial of the dead bodies without post mortem. The army refused to hand over the back door of the aircraft which had a hole in it.
(This door was noted in the photographs that were appended to an earlier Air Force inquiry.) The Commission complained bitterly about the fact that army loaders, who had placed some special cargo in the cockpit, were allowed to appear before it only after great resistance and that during their appearance in the court they were accompanied by army officers as “minders” who obstructed testimony by their presence.Mr Haq also referred to the efforts made by army chief General Asif Nawaz to get at the truth but he was soon embroiled in a tussle with some sacked ISI officers like Brig Imtiaz Billa employed in the Nawaz Sharif government and died of a heart attack. Mr Haq also referred to a much more incriminating investigation that appeared or was planted in weekly Takbeer whose editor had presented a copy of his journal to the Shafiur Rehman Commission. The editor was later assassinated.
The Commission considered the allegation that the Americans had killed Zia and ended up actually praising the US for holding an inquiry in the Senate while Pakistan had failed to do so.As for the allegation that the US kills people it has used who are no longer useful, one has to consider the fact that Zia was America’s man in the tussle that was emerging next door to Pakistan between the Arabs and Revolutionary Iran.
He was deeply indebted to Saudi Arabia for the assistance he had received at a time when the coffers in Islamabad were empty. The sectarian war that was relocated to Pakistan as a result of this rivalry found the state standing behind the Saudi-mandated madrassa-based, zakat-financed Islamic order. But there was an anti-American element in the military secretariat of General Zia and the central player in it was General Aslam Beg, his vice chief of staff.
In a dossier on Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in 2007, it was found that Dr AQ Khan showed a tendency to proliferate in favour of those states that defied the United States in particular and the West in general. Other sources report a close relationship between Dr Khan and Gen Zia’s then vice chief, Gen Aslam Beg. General Zia had reprimanded Dr Khan for boasting about his enrichment activity in 1984 and 1987. The IISS dossier says that Dr Khan made his first sale of nuclear documents to Iran in 1987 in Dubai and that General Zia was about to be informed about it in 1988. After his death, General Beg as army chief went to Iran and negotiated a deal there on “nuclear cooperation” without informing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, about which the latter complained publicly.
The case continues to be murky and Mr Ijaz-ul Haq is certainly justified in his plaint that his father’s death was not properly investigated. This was borne out again this year in the book on the Pakistan army, Crossed Swords: Pakistan its Army and Wars within by Shuja Nawaz, a brother of General Asif Nawaz, who writes that the Bahawalpur corps commander commented on Gen Zia’s death in a most suspicious manner after the crash on his watch. *Second Editorial: For and against “safe exit”Most people celebrating the ouster of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf insist that he should be given no “safe exit”, meaning that he should stand trial and be punished, which could even be death under Article 6 of the Constitution. They mourn the fact that no military ruler was ever punished and they want to begin with General (retd) Musharraf.
They say he should be made an “example” so that there will be no military dictator in the future.They also allude to the fact that those who don’t want this to happen want the Taliban terrorists to be dealt with an iron hand, implying an inconsistency in the argument against punishment.Both arguments are plain wrong. The former argument of exacting General (retd) Musharraf’s head is not likely to deter another army takeover in the future because army coup-makers are guided by compulsions and ambitions and situations that are not deterred by personal considerations of safety. Indeed, personal safety rarely matters to soldiers who are trained to risk their life where the nation’s interest in their opinion is concerned. The only thing such blood letting ensures is more blood letting.
Indeed, if there had been a tradition of putting coup-making generals to the sword in Pakistan, then coup-making generals would have struck first and put politicians to the sword instead of arresting them and giving them A class facilities or exiling them to palaces in Saudi Arabia or Dubai or London. In fact, General Zia’s execution of Z A Bhutto still haunts this country just as the execution of a Turkish prime minister by the Turkish military many years ago haunts it.
It should also be recalled that there is much hypocrisy in the demand by the PMLN to lynch President (retd) Musharraf. After all, General Zia-ul Haq was also given indemnity by parliament and his 8th Amendment was supported by politicians like the Sharifs who propped him up in power and didn’t dislike too much what he had done to the country.The second argument is stupid. It can be countered by asking why those who want to punish General (retd) Musharraf remain the biggest sympathisers of the Lal Masjid terrorists and are constantly advocating peace deals and truce with the Taliban who are killing innocent people and security forces with impunity in the tribal areas. In fact this argument of being hard on generals and soft on terrorists is designed to undermine the state and play into the hands of the anti-Pakistan forces. *
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Musharraf resigns:
What now for Pakistan?
The world's media focus on Washington's 'propping-up' of Musharraf and wonder what will happen now to US-Pakistan relations.
Pervez Musharraf's resignation as president of Pakistan provokes much discussion in today's papers about the volatile country's future in today's newspapers.
The authoritarian leader - who after 9/11 was seen by the west as a key ally in the so-called war on terror - had become a busted flush even to his keenest international supporters as he lost legitimacy at home.
"The US was like a partner that has been cheated on for years and refuses to see the reality," Frederic Grare, a Pakistan specialist at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, tells the Financial Times.
In its editorial, the New York Times says Washington must provide "more effective and realistic support for Pakistan's fragile democracy" with substantial increases in economic assistance and tighter monitoring of military aid.
For seven years, the Bush administration enabled Mr Musharraf - believing that he was the best ally for the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He never delivered on that promise. And Pakistan's people deeply resent Washington for propping-up the dictator in Pakistan, the English-speaking newspaper Dawn urges the four-party coalition to address the "most pressing problems" facing the nation.
Determining what the priorities ought to be is not difficult: militancy, the economy and relations with India and Afghanistan need to be addressed urgently. Solutions, however, may prove more elusive. Indeed, the very nature of the problems is such that they may get worse before they get better The Guardian says the coalition that unseated Musharraf with the plan to impeach him is unlikely to last long, but "if the Pakistan People's party and Nawaz Sharif [the main players in the coalition] cannot be meaningful allies, at least they can learn to be responsible adversaries."
*This is an extract from the Wrap, guardian.co.uk's daily digest of the best of the papers and online media
Afghanistan happy with Musharraf's resignation
The U.S.-backed Afghan government welcomed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday, saying he "was not someone good for Afghanistan" and his departure will have a positive effect on the region.
Afghanistan has accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency of being behind an April assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai and the July bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed more than 60 people. Karzai's spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada, reiterated a standing Afghan government demand that Pakistan's military intelligence service cease its activities in Afghanistan.
In Pakistan's historic rival India, there were concerns that Musharraf's departure will leave a power vacuum. Officials have recently said they are worried Pakistan's new civilian government does not have enough control over hawkish elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency and that Pakistan-based militant groups will have freer rein with Musharraf gone.
Fact box of Musharraf's resignation
Nuclear-armed Pakistan's beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday in the face of an impending impeachment motion by the ruling coalition government. Musharraf, 65, came to power in a 1999 coup and has anchored Pakistan's alliance with the United States, especially since Pakistan signed up for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
He promoted an investor-friendly environment and oversaw good growth and surging stocks until this year.
Following are some of the political, economic and diplomatic implications of his resignation.
INTERNAL POLITICS
* Opposition to Musharraf has bonded rival parties in the coalition government. His departure could see them drift apart.
* The Pakistan People's Party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto leads the coalition, with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) its chief partner. The two main civilian parties are old rivals and despite recent cooperation, will compete in the next election.
SECURITY
* The coalition government has vowed full commitment to the campaign against violent militancy. Despite questions over its policy of trying to negotiate with militants, recent operations in the northwest should have reassured Washington and other allies the government will match Musharraf's security efforts.
* The military plays a dominant role in security policy, and its cooperation with the new government has been smooth.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
* The United States, apparently resigned to Musharraf's exit, said Pakistan's leadership was a Pakistani matter. Ties between the new government and Washington are good and should remain so as long as the latter is satisfied the government is doing enough to stop militancy, in particular attacks into Afghanistan.
* India has enjoyed some of its best diplomatic relations with Pakistan in decades under Musharraf. While the new government is committed to the peace process with India, launched under Musharraf in 2004, India's fear is that a weak civilian government in Islamabad will not have the same muscle Musharraf had over the army and the powerful military spy agency, which India suspects has a hand in most attacks on its soil.
ECONOMY
* The government has vowed to turn its attention to economic problems after Musharraf leaves. Inflation is at its highest in years, and trade and fiscal deficits are widening. High oil prices have depleted foreign reserves while the rupee has lost about a quarter of its value this year.
An end to the uncertainty over Musharraf eased investor worries and the main stock index gained more than 4 percent on the resignation announcement. The rupee strengthened slightly against the dollar, snapping five consecutive sessions of record lows.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT
* Who becomes next president could depend on the powers the position retains. Musharraf had authority to dismiss parliament and make top military and judicial appointments. Coalition partners vow to strip the presidency of those powers and make it a largely ceremonial post.
However, analysts say Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, might want the job, in which case he will want to keep the powers. Zardari has also suggested the next president might be a woman. Newspapers have speculated an ethnic Pashtun leader, Asfandayr Wali Khan, whose liberal party is part of the coalition, could get the job. The president is elected by the four provincial assemblies and the national parliament.
Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Bhutto's son and co-chairman of her Pakistan People's Party, back in Pakistan from studies in Britain to visit his mother's grave, told reporters in Karachi: "I'm sure it will be somebody from the Pakistan People's Party".
The U.S.-backed Afghan government welcomed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday, saying he "was not someone good for Afghanistan" and his departure will have a positive effect on the region.Afghanistan has accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency of being behind an April assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai and the July bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed more than 60 people. Karzai's spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada, reiterated a standing Afghan government demand that Pakistan's military intelligence service cease its activities in Afghanistan.
In Pakistan's historic rival India, there were concerns that Musharraf's departure will leave a power vacuum. Officials have recently said they are worried Pakistan's new civilian government does not have enough control over hawkish elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency and that Pakistan-based militant groups will have freer rein with Musharraf gone.
Fact box of Musharraf's resignation
Nuclear-armed Pakistan's beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday in the face of an impending impeachment motion by the ruling coalition government. Musharraf, 65, came to power in a 1999 coup and has anchored Pakistan's alliance with the United States, especially since Pakistan signed up for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism after the September 11, 2001, attacks.He promoted an investor-friendly environment and oversaw good growth and surging stocks until this year.
Following are some of the political, economic and diplomatic implications of his resignation.
INTERNAL POLITICS
* Opposition to Musharraf has bonded rival parties in the coalition government. His departure could see them drift apart.
* The Pakistan People's Party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto leads the coalition, with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) its chief partner. The two main civilian parties are old rivals and despite recent cooperation, will compete in the next election.
SECURITY
* The coalition government has vowed full commitment to the campaign against violent militancy. Despite questions over its policy of trying to negotiate with militants, recent operations in the northwest should have reassured Washington and other allies the government will match Musharraf's security efforts.
* The military plays a dominant role in security policy, and its cooperation with the new government has been smooth.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
* The United States, apparently resigned to Musharraf's exit, said Pakistan's leadership was a Pakistani matter. Ties between the new government and Washington are good and should remain so as long as the latter is satisfied the government is doing enough to stop militancy, in particular attacks into Afghanistan.
* India has enjoyed some of its best diplomatic relations with Pakistan in decades under Musharraf. While the new government is committed to the peace process with India, launched under Musharraf in 2004, India's fear is that a weak civilian government in Islamabad will not have the same muscle Musharraf had over the army and the powerful military spy agency, which India suspects has a hand in most attacks on its soil.
ECONOMY
* The government has vowed to turn its attention to economic problems after Musharraf leaves. Inflation is at its highest in years, and trade and fiscal deficits are widening. High oil prices have depleted foreign reserves while the rupee has lost about a quarter of its value this year.
An end to the uncertainty over Musharraf eased investor worries and the main stock index gained more than 4 percent on the resignation announcement. The rupee strengthened slightly against the dollar, snapping five consecutive sessions of record lows.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT
* Who becomes next president could depend on the powers the position retains. Musharraf had authority to dismiss parliament and make top military and judicial appointments. Coalition partners vow to strip the presidency of those powers and make it a largely ceremonial post.
However, analysts say Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, might want the job, in which case he will want to keep the powers. Zardari has also suggested the next president might be a woman. Newspapers have speculated an ethnic Pashtun leader, Asfandayr Wali Khan, whose liberal party is part of the coalition, could get the job. The president is elected by the four provincial assemblies and the national parliament.
Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Bhutto's son and co-chairman of her Pakistan People's Party, back in Pakistan from studies in Britain to visit his mother's grave, told reporters in Karachi: "I'm sure it will be somebody from the Pakistan People's Party".
Going, Going, Gone......................................
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf quit office on Monday to avoid impeachment charges, nearly nine years after the key U.S. ally in its campaign against terrorism took power in a coup.
Speculation the former army chief would resign had mounted since the fractious coalition government, led by the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said this month it planned to impeach him.
"Whether I win or lose, the nation will lose," Musharraf, 65, said of the impeachment process in an hour-long televised address in which he passionately defended his record.
"The honour and dignity of the country will be affected and in my view, the honour of the office of president will also be affected."
Prolonged jockeying and uncertainty over Musharraf's position had hurt financial markets in the nuclear-armed country of 165 million people, and raised concerns in Washington and elsewhere that it was distracting from efforts to tackle militancy.
Coalition officials had said earlier Musharraf had sought immunity from prosecution but he said in his speech he was asking for nothing.
"I don't want anything from anybody. I have no interest. I leave my future in the hands of the nation and people," he said.
One of the main coalition parties, that of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in 1999, has been insisting he face trial for treason. Bhutto's party has said parliament should decide.
Musharraf ended his final address as president with the words: "May God protect Pakistan, may God protect you all. Long Live Pakistan forever."
Pakistani stocks jumped 4 percent on the news and the rupee, which had lost a quarter of its value this year, began strengthening.
"It eliminates all the uncertainty in the market," said Asad Iqbal, managing director at Ismail Iqbal Securities.
"The government will hopefully start concentrating on the economy. From an economic point of view, they have no excuses now and they have to perform."
Musharraf has been isolated since his allies lost parliamentary elections in February. But in his speech he defiantly lambasted the coalition for what he described as failed economic policies, and said he had brought prosperity.
The powerful army, which has ruled for more than half the country's 61-year history, has publicly kept out of the controversy over its old boss, and no protests over the Musharraf decision were expected.
Indeed, celebrations broke out across the country after the announcement, with people dancing and handing out sweets.
"Thank God he's resigned. The country will do much better now," said Mohammad Ilyas, 30, in Karachi.
"VICTORY FOR BENAZIR"
The United States, apparently resigned to Musharraf's exit, had said earlier Pakistan's leadership was a Pakistani issue.
Old rival India reacted cautiously, also saying it was an internal Pakistani matter. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters: "India will continue to have an amicable relation with Pakistan in the days to come".
While the new Pakistani government is committed to a peace process with India, launched under Musharraf in 2004, India's fear is that a weak civilian government will not have the same muscle Musharraf had over the army and the military spy agency, which India suspects has a hand in most attacks on its soil.
It was not clear who the next president would be. According to the constitution, the chairman of the Senate will become acting president until a new one is elected within 30 days.
Traditionally Pakistan's president has been a figurehead, although under Musharraf the office was much more powerful.
Ruling coalition parties, which had prepared impeachment charges against Musharraf focusing on alleged violations of the constitution, welcomed the resignation.
"It's victory for Benazir Bhutto and all those who sacrificed their lives for democracy," said a senior Bhutto party official.
Bhutto was assassinated on December 27 while campaigning. The government said an al Qaeda-linked militant was responsible.
A career army officer, Musharraf became a close U.S. ally in the war against terror and narrowly survived several al Qaeda-inspired assassination attempts.
Critics say Musharraf suffered from a "saviour complex" and believed he was indispensable. He promised to return Pakistan to democracy, but opponents say he stifled political freedom.
A 2002 general election was widely seen as rigged.
As challenges mounted, Musharraf reverted to autocratic ways. His downfall will be traced back to March 9, 2007, when he tried to force Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to resign.
..............................
Pakistan's Musharraf
announces resignation
..............................................................................
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf quit office on Monday to avoid impeachment charges, nearly nine years after the key U.S. ally in its campaign against terrorism took power in a coup. Speculation the former army chief would resign had mounted since the fractious coalition government, led by the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said this month it planned to impeach him.
"Whether I win or lose, the nation will lose," Musharraf, 65, said of the impeachment process in an hour-long televised address in which he passionately defended his record.
"The honour and dignity of the country will be affected and in my view, the honour of the office of president will also be affected."
Prolonged jockeying and uncertainty over Musharraf's position had hurt financial markets in the nuclear-armed country of 165 million people, and raised concerns in Washington and elsewhere that it was distracting from efforts to tackle militancy.
Coalition officials had said earlier Musharraf had sought immunity from prosecution but he said in his speech he was asking for nothing.
"I don't want anything from anybody. I have no interest. I leave my future in the hands of the nation and people," he said.
One of the main coalition parties, that of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf ousted in 1999, has been insisting he face trial for treason. Bhutto's party has said parliament should decide.
Musharraf ended his final address as president with the words: "May God protect Pakistan, may God protect you all. Long Live Pakistan forever."
Pakistani stocks jumped 4 percent on the news and the rupee, which had lost a quarter of its value this year, began strengthening.
"It eliminates all the uncertainty in the market," said Asad Iqbal, managing director at Ismail Iqbal Securities.
"The government will hopefully start concentrating on the economy. From an economic point of view, they have no excuses now and they have to perform."
Musharraf has been isolated since his allies lost parliamentary elections in February. But in his speech he defiantly lambasted the coalition for what he described as failed economic policies, and said he had brought prosperity.
The powerful army, which has ruled for more than half the country's 61-year history, has publicly kept out of the controversy over its old boss, and no protests over the Musharraf decision were expected.
Indeed, celebrations broke out across the country after the announcement, with people dancing and handing out sweets.
"Thank God he's resigned. The country will do much better now," said Mohammad Ilyas, 30, in Karachi.
"VICTORY FOR BENAZIR"
The United States, apparently resigned to Musharraf's exit, had said earlier Pakistan's leadership was a Pakistani issue.
Old rival India reacted cautiously, also saying it was an internal Pakistani matter. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters: "India will continue to have an amicable relation with Pakistan in the days to come".
While the new Pakistani government is committed to a peace process with India, launched under Musharraf in 2004, India's fear is that a weak civilian government will not have the same muscle Musharraf had over the army and the military spy agency, which India suspects has a hand in most attacks on its soil.
It was not clear who the next president would be. According to the constitution, the chairman of the Senate will become acting president until a new one is elected within 30 days.
Traditionally Pakistan's president has been a figurehead, although under Musharraf the office was much more powerful.
Ruling coalition parties, which had prepared impeachment charges against Musharraf focusing on alleged violations of the constitution, welcomed the resignation.
"It's victory for Benazir Bhutto and all those who sacrificed their lives for democracy," said a senior Bhutto party official.
Bhutto was assassinated on December 27 while campaigning. The government said an al Qaeda-linked militant was responsible.
A career army officer, Musharraf became a close U.S. ally in the war against terror and narrowly survived several al Qaeda-inspired assassination attempts.
Critics say Musharraf suffered from a "saviour complex" and believed he was indispensable. He promised to return Pakistan to democracy, but opponents say he stifled political freedom.
A 2002 general election was widely seen as rigged.
As challenges mounted, Musharraf reverted to autocratic ways. His downfall will be traced back to March 9, 2007, when he tried to force Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to resign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)