« Previous Post | Next Post »

Guest Voice

Pakistan Politics on the Brink Again

By Shuja Nawaz

As Pakistan lurches into another paroxysm of power politics with the threatened impeachment and expected resignation of President Pervez Musharraf, the post-Musharraf picture is not as clear or rosy as the authors of this move may want it to be. The unelected leaders of the coalition government of the Pakistan Peoples' Party and the Pakistan Muslim League (N), Messrs. Asif Ali Zardari and M. Nawaz Sharif respectively may yet find themselves facing a political mess even after Musharraf is gone. There is much that may yet split their on-again, off-again alliance and bring the country to the edge of a new political crisis. In the meantime, the country is sliding into economic chaos and there is no sign that the government has a credible strategy to cope with the impending disaster.

After two weeks of travel and conversations with citizens, civil leaders, military officials, and journalists in Pakistan, a complex picture emerges: a country beset by serious economic woes, a growing insurgency, and a fractured polity. In the shadows sits the powerful Pakistan army, the historical arbiter of Pakistani politics, headed by a publicly inscrutable but privately engaged and engaging new chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

The open-ended impeachment threat by Zardari and Sharif ran counter to the expected 48-hour call for Musharraf to step down or be impeached by a joint session of the National Assembly and the Senate. Despite the public posturing that followed, it was not so much the political pressure as the absence of support from the army that spelled Musharraf's doom.

Talking to army officers of all ranks in the field (in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas near Afghanistan and the Swat sector) and at headquarters in Rawalpindi, one thing was clear: they would rather not be drawn into the current political squabble. They want to give the civilians the "time and space" to operate government as best as they can. Their ideal is a constitutional process that would allow Musharraf to depart without fear of retributive action. All other options were seen to carry severe costs for the polity and the teetering economy.

The public in Pakistan has been pummeled by double digit inflation, especially by a more than 30% jump in food prices. For the poorest, food costs account for up to half their earnings and expenditures. Both food and energy shortages have forced families to spend an inordinate amount of their time and effort searching for both. Hyperinflation may be in the cards, with its attendant societal upheaval. Major business houses are fearful of the future and of heavy handed tactics to subjugate them for political purposes. The cancellation of privatization plans crafted by the previous government may have cost the economy some $5 billion of foreign exchange reserves. Those reserves, according to international economists, are hemorrhaging at the rate of $1 billion a month and effectively are exhausted now. They dropped from a high of $16 billion under Musharraf to $9 billion recently. Of these over $5 billion are in foreign currency deposits, meaning they are not available to the government, whose only source of immediate financing is now the printing press that comes under the State Bank. Use of that press adds to inflation. Compounding the woes of the country is a sliding stock market, down from 16,000 to 9,000 points, and a drop in the Rupee exchange rate from Rs. 65 to Rs. 74 to the U.S. dollar.

The power games being played out in Islamabad keep the politicians and the television pundits occupied day and night. Meanwhile torrential rains and floods have inundated or affected nearly one third of the country. Except for the intrepid chief minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif (Nawaz Sharif's younger brother), no one in the government or even the presidency was seen visiting the affected people. In the absence of civilian disaster management, as usual, the army has been helping with relief efforts.

If the impeachment drama launched last week ends quickly with Musharraf's resignation, the fledgling government may yet be able to turn its mind to the economy and the flood ravaged countryside. If it becomes drawn out, the wrath of the people may turn against the new rulers. And the patience of the army may be tested. No one wants the army to upend the political system again. But time may be running out for the coalition government to restore stability to Pakistan's shaky polity in a post-Musharraf Pakistan. If it fails, there is talk in Pakistan of another cycle of military intervention in the offing, this time on the Bangladesh model: of a longer duration, and using a civilian facade to restore the country's economic health. Yet again democracy will be the loser.

Shuja Nawaz is the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford University Press, 2008). He has just returned from a two-week visit to Pakistan and can be reached at www.shujanawaz.com.

Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

Comments (80)

Tuxie:

Hmm...lets see now -
Bhutto becomes PM, robs the country blind (along with hubby, Mr.10%), gets kicked out of power and flees into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Nawaz Sharif as their saviour.

N.Sharif becomes PM, robs the country blind (infact, he makes Mr.10% look like an amateur), gets kicked out of power and flees into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Pervez Musharraf as their saviour.

Mush becomes president, doesn't rob Pakistan blind (not that there was anything left to rob after the other two were through), gets kicked out of power and is shortly expected to flee into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Mr.10% and Nawaz Sharif as their saviours.
Deja vu.
Does anyone see a pattern? Why don't I feel very optimistic?
Why do I get the feeling Pakistan is gonna get it in the shorts, only this time, it will be twice as hard?

GoDamn:

Hmm...lets see now -
Bhutto becomes PM, robs the country blind (along with hubby, Mr.10%), gets kicked out of power and flees into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Nawaz Sharif as their saviour.

N.Sharif becomes PM, robs the country blind (infact, he makes Mr.10% look like an amateur), gets kicked out of power and flees into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Pervez Musharraf as their saviour.

Mush becomes president, doesn't rob Pakistan blind (not that there was anything left to rob after the other two were through), gets kicked out of power and is shortly expected to flee into exile, causing Pakistanis to celebrate, dance and distribute sweets, they hail Mr.10% and Nawaz Sharif as their saviours.
Deja vu.
Does anyone see a pattern? Why don't I feel very optimistic?
Why do I get the feeling Pakistan is gonna get it in the shorts, only this time, it will be twice as hard?

Zain:

Muthuswamy:

Since you presented nothing other than a half baked conspiracy theory about 'taking over India', so hardly the person to be talking about 'backing up with data'.

M. Muthuswamy:

Zain wrote: "If independence is chosen by the Kashmiris, both sides lose a minuscule amount of territory, but the gains in terms of normalizing the relationship between India and Pakistan, and initiating a new era of trust in cooperation in South Asia are infinite."

Oh well, your wishful thinking is not backed up data.

Pakistan, aided by Saudi Arabia is embarking on a violent Islamic conquest of India. The escalating terror inside in India is a symptom of that.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5C2AF0F9-9FDD-4595-89BA-308CC5C8549A

Moorthy Muthuswamy:

Zain wrote: "If independence is chosen by the Kashmiris, both sides lose a minuscule amount of territory, but the gains in terms of normalizing the relationship between India and Pakistan, and initiating a new era of trust in cooperation in South Asia are infinite."

Oh well, your wishful thinking is not backed up data.

Pakistan, aided by Saudi Arabia is embarking on a genocidal Islamic conquest of India. The escalating terror inside in India is a symptom of that.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5C2AF0F9-9FDD-4595-89BA-308CC5C8549A

Zain:

However, arguing over separatist movements and India's 'benevolence' at not exploiting them (ignoring that she did just that in 1971), was the intention of post directed at Deb - it was to point out the pettiness and falsehood of her position in attributing to Pakistan a desire for 'destroying India' contrary to the evidence that it has been India's leadership that has displayed that sentiment, and her xenophobic comments about 'Muslim in India showing their true colors.

Zain:

Pakistan may have to be thankful to the West for pumping in much needed funds, but it has little to thank either the GoA or India for, who have continued to provide sanctuary for Baluch rebels.

Barring the BLA, there is no 'powerful seperatist group'. The PPP rules in Sindh and a close second in NWFP, the secular ANP with its now pro-federation manifesto in the NWFP.

Rattling off 'so many powerful seperatist groups are waiting for their chance' on your keyboard does not make the statement a reality. The only way these seperatist groups have a chance, and the only reason the Baluch separatists are able to do what they are, is due to external sanctuaries in Afghanistan and support from India and the GoA.

Anonymous:

//Zain wrote: Indira Gandhi, a year before her governments decision to support violent militants in East Pakistan to take advantage of the unrest there and break it apart, stated in a speech that 'India and her leadership have never accepted the artificial creation of Pakistan'. //

It will be so easy to breakup current Pakistan into its various sub constituencies.

Pakistan is a nuclear power, but that does not preclude the possibility that Pakistan is immune to breakup. In fact during the regimes of Zia-ul-Haq (the murderer of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and Parvez Musharraf, there have been plenty of opportunities to instigate instability in Pakistan.

There are plenty of powerful Pakistani separatists groups waiting on the sidelines to make their move.

The Pakistani army is disfunctional at best and may not be in a position to manage a separatist movement, if it were to begin.

Pakistan should be thankful to its allies and India that it is still in one piece.

simple simon:

Musharraf has resigned in time and given Zardari-Sharif government a chance to turn its mind to economy and flood ravaged country side as Mr. Shuja Nawaz was hoping for. Does it mean that Democracy will be an ultimate winner in Pakistan as Mr. Nawaz claims? Of course not. With Musharraf no more around to kick, it won't be long before this marriage of convenience between Zardari and Sharif falls apart. And with equally corrupt politicians having been elected as people's representatives, it won't be long either before Army will be back at the helm to rule Pakistan's unruly Islamic fundamentalist society. Of course that won't solve US problems in Afghanistan. Pakistan will always be running with the hare while hunting with the hounds, regardless of whether it has a civilian government or a military one.

Zain:

Deb,

Pakistan has no 'end game' of destroying India. It woudl be wise to look back at history top realize that it was British Officials and the leadership of the newly created Indian state in 1947 who were so sure that Pakistan would not last long and 'return to the fold' of Akhand Bharat.

Indira Gandhi, a year before her governments decision to support violent militants in East Pakistan to take advantage of the unrest there and break it apart, stated in a speech that 'India and her leadership have never accepted the artificial creation of Pakistan'.

So lets not indulge in this horse puckey of 'Pakistan's endgame is to destroy India' - when the historical evidence clearly indicates that it has been India and her leadership who have never accepted Pakistan.

On the question of intellectuals in India advocating secession of Kashmir on the basis of a referendum as outlined by the UN, they are the pragmatic ones, ones with an eye on a prosperous future for the peoples of South Asia once they break free of the straitjacket of Kashmir. Common markets, lower military spending, cultural and scientific exchanges and cooperation - the list is endless.

What Vir Sanghvi, ROy and others have advocated is a plan that goes beyind merely handing J&K to Pakistan - the suggestions are more along the lines of Jammu and Laddakh staying with India, teh Northern Areas with Pakistan, and the much smaller Kashmir valley (Indian control) and Azad Kashmir (Pakistani control) being allowed to have a referendum to determine their future.

If independence is chosen by the Kashmiris, both sides lose a minuscule amount of territory, but the gains in terms of normalizing the relationship between India and Pakistan, and initiating a new era of trust in cooperation in South Asia are infinite.

Only those preferring petty braggadocio over statesmanship and the good of a billion and a half people would refuse to see the opportunities such a resolution offers.

Subhash Dhuliya:

Democracy in Pakistan is a myth being perpetuated by interested parties. Pakistan is devoid of democratic institutions. Elections fought in the moment of heat in the wake of assassination of Benazir Bhutto are not a real democratic verdict and popularity of its leaders is yet to be tested. The new government has not presented any vision on the burning issues that Pakistan is confronting and has all along been focusing on ousting Musharraf and now he is gone what is the agenda of the government? In the history of Pakistan civilian governments has been failing and army use to take over. This time the possibility is more potential as the government is led by leaders’ not adequate mass base.
Subhash Dhuliya

Babur:

Guys,

Asian Countries does not know how to respect their leaders and that shows their intellect. One can say what if the are not good leaders but then comes the question why they chose these sort of people people again and again. They have some problem with the criteria they have to choose their leaders.

Sorry to say but look at the West Mr.. Bush regardless of his legacy will not be so much disgraced after the presidency and even President Nixon was forgiven. Regardless this is Pakistan or India or any other Asian country except Japan
I may say we don't have respect either for ourselves or for other people in our society.

I don't know why one want to be leader there anyway. After all the good he has done when something go wrong people will shout for his head. I don't want to lecture but I will conclude with this Honor and respect are the most miss used words in Asian countries for last 200 years.

Babur:


Guys,

Asian Countries does not know how to respect their leaders and that shows their intellect. One can say what if the are not good leaders but then comes the question why they chose these sort of people people again and again. They have some problem with the criteria they have to choose their leaders.

Sorry to say but look at the West Mr.. Bush regardless of his legacy will not be so much disgraced after the presidency and even President Nixon was forgiven. Regardless this is Pakistan or India or any other Asian country except Japan
I may say we don't have respect either for ourselves or for other people in our society.

I don't know why one want to be leader there anyway. After all the good he has done when something go wrong people will shout for his head. I don't want to lecture but I will conclude with this Honor and respect are the most miss used words in Asian countries for last 200 years.

simple simon:

Musharraf has resigned in time and given Zardari-Sharif government a chance to turn its mind to economy and flood ravaged country side as Mr. Shuja Nawaz was hoping for. Does it mean that Democracy will be an ultimate winner in Pakistan as Mr. Nawaz claims? Of course not. With Musharraf no more around to kick, it won’t be long before this marriage of convenience between Zardari and Sharif falls apart. And with equally corrupt politicians having been elected as people’s representatives, it won’t be long either before Army will be back at the helm to rule Pakistan’s unruly Islamic fundamentalist society. Of course that won’t solve US problems in Afghanistan. Pakistan will always be running with the hare while hunting with the hounds, regardless of whether it has a civilian government or a military one.

simple simon:

Musharraf has resigned in time and given Zardari-Sharif government a chance to turn its mind to economy and flood ravaged country side as Mr. Shuja Nawaz was hoping for. Does it mean that Democracy will be an ultimate winner in Pakistan as Mr. Nawaz claims? Of course not. With Musharraf no more around to kick, it won’t be long before this marriage of convenience between Zardari and Sharif falls apart. And with equally corrupt politicians having been elected as people’s representatives, it won’t be long either before Army will be back at the helm to rule Pakistan’s unruly Islamic fundamentalist society. Of course that won’t solve US problems in Afghanistan. Pakistan will always be running with the hare while hunting with the hounds, regardless of whether it has a civilian government or a military one.

simple simon:

Musharraf has resigned in time and given Zardari-Sharif government a chance to turn its mind to economy and flood ravaged country side as Mr. Shuja Nawaz was hoping for. Does it mean that Democracy will be an ultimate winner in Pakistan as Mr. Nawaz claims? Of course not. With Musharraf no more around to kick, it won’t be long before this marriage of convenience between Zardari and Sharif falls apart. And with equally corrupt politicians having been elected as people’s representatives, it won’t be long either before Army will be back at the helm to rule Pakistan’s unruly Islamic fundamentalist society. Of course that won’t solve US problems in Afghanistan. Pakistan will always be running with the hare while hunting with the hounds, regardless of whether it has a civilian government or a military one.

Deb Chatterjee:

Actually I am somewhat concerned. This hardliner Geelani has whipped up passions for "azadi" and has equated that to mean "merger with Pakistan". If the scenario plays out, with SIMI wanting to create and Islamic State in India, then I am sure that other parts of India where Muslims are in majority would also call for secession.

Arundhati Roy (Pulitzer novelist) has supported secession of Kashmir from India. Most Indian intellectuals (leftists) want secession. Shabana Azmi, the so-called moderate, has stated that "secular" India does not appreciate Islam. She has come up with some personal allegations of being unable to buy an apartment in Mumbai.

So, most Indian Muslims are now showing their true colors - allegiance to Islam to the extent of destroying the map of India through calls of secession and liberal use of threat of terror as ordained in Islam.

What shall happen ? Pakistan's endgame of destroying India coming into fruition with the help of UPA at the center ?

ANONYMOUS:

Whay do men snooze after sex?

jimbo:

musharraf has tried his best for pakistan he dont deserve what the word is throwing at him.

Rajni:

Pakis and Islam have only contributed intolerance and violence to the world

Rajni:

This country and their religion's biggest contribution (and only) to humanity has been intolerance and violence.

FreedomFighter:

Pakistan, another fine mess made by BUSH. Everything the EVIL BUSH touches turns to CRAP!

FreedomFighter:

Pakistan, another fine mess made by BUSH. Everything the EVIL BUSH touches turns to CRAP!

paki:

Amjed Saleem Alvi

"Mr. Nawaz Shareef was sacked by another General, Pervez Musharraf, in 1999"

Why was Sharif sacked? If you answered because he tried to kill the Army Chief, you are right. But you won't answer that because you have memory lapses.

You forget that Pakistani people celebrated by distributing sweets when Sharif was kicked out. You also forget that Sharif was propped-up by a religious zealot Army dictator, or that Sharif is sympathetic to the Talibans, or that Sharif tried to get rid of the Supreme Court judge by letting his goons attack the Supreme Court.

Your memory is as weak as the rest of Pakistani population. But Pakistani people can be forgiven because they don't have food to eat and that affects their memory. What's your excuse?

Zenhead:

Pakistani chaos won't be good for anyone.
I suspect the Army will send a signal of a quid pro quo to the new government, and, to Musharraf: we won't get involved unless absolutely necessary: YOU politicians don't get involved in what some of us are doing with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and any activities in Kashmir.
The Army may not be actively involved ... yet ... but there's no way they'll stay uninvolved if the Pakistani government bows down to American pressure on involvement with fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan itself.

Amjed Saleem Alvi:

Why Pakistan reached this horrifying stage? Because civilian rule was replaced with the army dictatorship. Please note, that when ever there is army rule in Pakistan, powers like United States, IMF, World Bank,they start pouring money in Pakistan. America fought two wars in Afghanistan, one in 80's and 2nd in the current decade, and what a co incident, that two years before the commencemet of these two wars, two popular civilian democraticaly elected prime ministers were replaced by army Generals. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and popular govt, of Mr. Bhutto was replaced by Genral Zia's autocratic rule in 1977. Twin towers of New York were raided in 2001, and civilian prime minister Mr. Nawaz Shareef was sacked by another General, Pervez Musharraf, in 1999. And both the military rulers had full backing of government of United States. Pakistan is 61 years old. During these 61 years, Generals ruled our country for 33 years. Pakistan was very peaceful, very liberal and modern country before General Zia came to power. And it was only through the help of Mr. Musharraf that Mullahs of MMA ruled our troubled province bordering Afghanistan for five long years. Generals are responsible for fanatcism in my country. Muslims in general are liberal and modern people.

Riaz Khan:

Sorry for re-posting again & again since the message popped up that try again!

Corrupt Leaders like Asif Zardari & Nawaz Sharif will destroy Pakistan! President Pervez Musharraf is a sincere, honest & dedicated leader of Pakistan. Pakistanis do not understand democracy due to lack of education & they sell their votes for $2 on the election day! How can you expect that they can elect honest & clean leaders. Sooner US realizes this better for Pakistan and for the world.

Riaz Khan:

Corrupt Leaders like Asif Zardari & Nawaz Sharif will destroy Pakistan! President Pervez Musharraf is a sincere, honest & dedicated leader of Pakistan. Pakistanis do not understand democracy due to lack of education & they sell their votes for $2 on the election day! How can you expect that they can elect honest & clean leaders. Sooner US realizes this better for Pakistan and for the world.

Mariano Patalinjug:

Yonkers, New York
17 August 2008

After several weeks in the saddle in Pakistan, the coalition government of the two political parties led by Asif Ali Zardari and M. Nawaz Sharif has shown itself incapable of governing the country--not at all.

These two leaders are preoccupied with threatening Pervez Musharraf with impeachment if he does not resign.

It is clear that what they are doing is nothing more than a ploy to distract the attention of Pakistan's more than 160 million population away from the stark reality that Pakistan is already descending into anarchy and chaos.

If General Musharraf is smart--and he should be because he was able to govern Pakistan with some semblance of authority and competence for several years--he should go "quietly into the night" by resigning.

In the event, Messrs. Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif may only regret that they wish for.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

dv:

Pakistan needs to change its philosophy to Live and Let Live. It must give up its policy of 'direct action' of 1946. Unchecked violence and corrupt leadership has destroyed every good thing. Instead of being a shiny star of Islamic world, it has become an insult to Islam. You need a Constitution where the rule of the Country goes into the hands of HONEST people. You need to have a closer look at your Constitution and change where necessary. During British days the old India had one thing for sure. It was rule of law. Today it is missing both from present India and Pakistan. THe common man has become a destitute. I am not going to believe that Pakistan lacks honest people. There are plenty of the there. It is time they are allowed to control the Country. It hurts to see that pakistan is surviving on foreign aid.

Hayes:

NPR and AP reported that 100 girl's schools in the Swat Valley have been burned by the Taliban in the last few weeks. I do not see that included in this story. These girls are the real victims. Who will stand up for them? I do not thing it will be the US Army or US nongovernmental organization such as the American Red Cross. We try and help in these places and it makes no difference or possibly even worsens their plight. Perhaps the wealthy Muslim nations and their leaders in Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other places can take a break from counting their money and prepare some type of assistance for their fellow Muslims. Is that asking too much?

Hayes:

NPR and the AP reported that Taliban led forces have burned 100 girl's schools in the Swat Valley in the last few weeks. They are the real victims of today in Pakistan and I do not see them mentioned in this story. Where is the Muslim outrage? Who will stand up for these girls? I do not think it will be the US Army or US based nongovernmental organizations. Does the world expect Christian men to defend them? If they are going to be helped at all it will need to come from wealthy Muslim nations/leaders, perhaps those in Dubai or Qatar or Saudi Arabia can pause for a moment, build one less skyscraper or resort and stand up to the Taliban cowards who victimize young girls.

FARFALLE:

Danish-Your response is quite quite superficial. You see, Pres. Musharraf IS NOT A SINDH, AND THEREFORE, HE'S TO BE SCORNED AS NOT ONE OF THE RULING TRIBES IN PAKISTAN.

IT WAS PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF, AND NOT BHUTTO, WHO SIGNED THE HUDOOD LAW IN 2006, MAKING RAPE A CRIME AND A PROSECUTABLE OFFENSE-IT SURE AS HELL WASN'T DEAR BENAZIR, WHO COULDN'T HAVE GIVEN A TOSS ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS-TOO INTERESTED IN SKIMMING MILLIONS FROM THE TREASURY!

PRES. MUSHARRAF HAS BEEN THE THIN BLUE LINE BETWEEN PAKISTAN TURNING SOLELY INTO A HAVEN FOR AL-QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN-THOUSANDS OF PAKISTANI SOLDIERS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES FIGHTING IN THE TRIBAL REGIONS, TRYING TO ROOT OUT THE TERRORISM.

PRES. MUSHARRAF IS THE BEST THING EVER TO HAPPEN TO PAKISTAN, BUT HE ISN'T A SINDH, AND HE'S NOT AN ISLAMIST, UNLIKE THE AL-QAEDA FRIEND AND ISLAMIST NUT NAWAZ SHARIF, WHO WANTS TO INSTITUTE SHARI'A LAW IN PAKISTAN, AND NOT TO MENTION THE PPP-WHICH IS SO UTTERLY CORRUPT AND FULL OF ITSELF, UNABLE TO GET ANYTHING DONE THAT IT'S JUST DARKLY DARKLY FUNNY.

MUSHARRAF, THE SON OF PUBLIC SERVANTS, SOMEONE WHO BUILT THE PAKISTANI ARMY INTO A FIRST RATE PROFESSIONAL CORPS-WHO HAS GIVEN HIS LIFE TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY WITHOUT TAKING A DIME FROM THE TREASURY IS ETHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE PAKISTANI TRIBAL DEVILS-THE ONES WITH THE OXBRIDGE ACCENTED ENGLISH-YOU SEE, BY PUTTING SOME OF THOSE CORRUPT SINDH JUDGES OUT OF BUSINESS, THAT JUST HAD TO BE AVENGED-IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGES WERE REMOVED-THAT'S THE REALLY REALLY FUNNY PART TO THIS IMPEACHMENT-THE JUDGES HAVE STILL NOT BEEN REINSTATED! STILL NOT REINSTATED, BY THE PPP BECAUSE YOU SEE, THEY HAVE TO IMPEACH MUSHARRAF FOR HAVING REMOVED THEM-BUT THEY'RE NOT IN ANY HURRY TO BRING THEM BACK! HA HA HA! THAT SHOWS YOU ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY THE SINDHS ARE SO UTTERLY CORRUPT MORALLY AND IN EVERY OTHER WAY-THEY ARE DEVILS, VERY VERY EVIL DEVILS.

NO, I THINK THE GREATEST TRIBUTE TO MUSHARRAF ODDLY CAME FROM THE NUMBER 2 PERSON IN AL-QAEDA TODAY, ZAWAHIRI, WHO SAID THIS:

Qaeda's Zawahiri slams Musharraf as 'enemy of Islam'

08-16-2008, 16h00
DUBAI (AFP)

Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri, seen here in a video that was posted on the Internet in 2006, has slammed Pakistan's embattled President Pervez Musharraf as an enemy of Islam.
(AFP/File)
Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri slammed Pakistan's embattled President Pervez Musharraf as an enemy of Islam, in a first audio message in English posted online on Saturday.

In the message, excerpts of which were aired by Pakistan's ARY One television last week, Zawahiri also dismissed the Pakistani army as a "band of mercenaries" controlled by the US administration.

"Pervez (Musharraf) has proven himself to be one of the biggest enemies of Islam, if the not the biggest," Zawahiri said in the purported message, which was posted on a website usually used by Islamist militant groups.

He chided Musharraf for offering "all support to topple the Muslim emirate in Afghanistan," referring to the US-led war which defeated the Taliban regime in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States."

YES, ZAWAHIRI, MUSHARRAF IS INDEED AN ENEMY OF YOUR EVIL BRAND OF ISLAM AND IF HE LEAVES, YOU AND BIN-LADEN CAN REJOICE-BECAUSE PAKISTAN WILL MOST ASSUREDLY BE YOUR PLAYGROUND TO MOVE AROUND FREELY-BUT BE ADVISED, IT WILL HAVE TO BE SHORT-LIVED-WITH MUSHARRAF GONE, PAKISTAN'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED, I SEE NO FUTURE FOR THIS COUNTRY WHATSOEVER EXCEPT ANNEXATION AND BEING OCCUPIED-TO INDIA.

SO THE DEVILS OF THE PPP AND SHARIF'S ISLAMISTS WILL ALL BE IN A HELL UNIQUELY OF THEIR OWN MAKING-AND NO ONE COULD DESERVE IT MORE THAN THEY!

rh mayo:

what happened to the billions of dollars in aid since 9/11. Is there not enough money left to handle the current financial problems of the country??? maybe an accounting by the Bush white house will unravel the fiction of the aid they gave to pakistan

ANON:

Can a country following the law laid down by a pedophile (one who raped a six year old), in which honor rapings and killings are legal, survive? The fate of Pakistan will be story of every Fukyoustan and Upyourstan in the middle east, once the oil runs out ....

Anonymous:

Somali

"I notice whenn you post on this site, the posts disapear without trace. Where do they go?"

In Osama's behind to join you.

Yeah, sure, blame all of Muslims misery to the U.S. Osama is a CIA agent...blah, blah, blah...

You are not very smart, are you? What's your IQ? 70? Or is that too high a number for you?

Somali:

Something is wrong. I notice whenn you post on this site, the posts disapear without trace.

Where do they go?????

paki:

Amjed Saleem Alvi

“What a tragedy that we put all the blame on politicians. Sir, Pakistan came into being through the struggle of the politicians.”

Sir, it would do you a good to explore the track record of Amir-ul-momanin when he was PM, or of Mr. 10% when his wife was. Wake up and smell your chai. This is 2008, not 1947.


Somali

“I notice that this Pakistani man has NOOOOOT said a word about what brought Pakistan to this sorry pass. Why don't you talk about the role of the white War Criminals, Terorists and Mass Murderers from america and what they are doing to the people of Pakistan?”

Take your head out of Osama’s behind and see the reality under the sun. The U.S. is NOT behind Pakistan’s screw-up (pun intended). It’s your boss Osama, his group the Talibans, and Pakistan’s politicians.

Amjed Saleem Alvi:

What a tragedy that we put all the blame on politicians. Sir, Pakistan came into being through the struggle of the politicians. Then the generals, like Ayub Khan, yehyah khan and Zia ul Haq were serving the foreign masters in the British Indian Army. They continued to do the same, and maligned our politicians. Azad kashmir was liberated when politicians were in power(1948). Kargil was lost in 1965, during period of GENERAL Ayub Khan. Pakistan was dismembered when GENERAL Yehyah Khan was in powere, but we regain control of Lipa Valley, in May 1972, when ZAB was PM. Eastern Command surrundered when GENERALS were ruling the country, and we brought back our POW's during civilian rule. Siachen went to Indian hands, and GENERAL Zia said, there is no grass there. GENERAL Musharraf's adventure in Kargil humiliated us, and our civilian PM had to go to Washington to save our Army. No sir, civilians are not bad. Those, who abuse our civilian rulers, infact abuse our civilian Father of the Nation.

Amjed Saleem Alvi:

What a tragedy that we put all the blame on politicians. Sir, Pakistan came into being through the struggle of the politicians. Then the generals, like Ayub Khan, yehyah khan and Zia ul Haq were serving the foreign masters in the British Indian Army. They continued to do the same, and maligned our politicians. Azad kashmir was liberated when politicians were in power(1948). Kargil was lost in 1965, during period of GENERAL Ayub Khan. Pakistan was dismembered when GENERAL Yehyah Khan was in powere, but we regain control of Lipa Valley, in May 1972, when ZAB was PM. Eastern Command surrundered when GENERALS were ruling the country, and we brought back our POW's during civilian rule. Siachen went to Indian hands, and GENERAL Zia said, there is no grass there. GENERAL Musharraf's adventure in Kargil humiliated us, and our civilian PM had to go to Washington to save our Army. No sir, civilians are not bad. Those, who abuse our civilian rulers, infact abuse our civilian Father of the Nation.

paki:

If you hate Pakistan, you'd love to see Pakistan ruled by an orangutan like Nawaz Sharif, a pig like Asif Zardari, and to top it all, a baffoon for a prime minister.

Stanley:

Pakistan's politics never permitted it to gell into real country and it remains but a bunch of tribes superficially glued by Islam and its hatred of other faiths, particularly Hindu. Come to think of it, who needs a strong, united Pakistan anyway. It just might be more dangerous to the world than it is now.

Jack:

Those of us outsiders who wish the best to Pakistan are a bit stymied by the present situation. We'd like to help, but don't see what we could do to help. So, we sit and watch.

paki:

A country of 170 million cannot produce a credible leader. Yesterday's money-sucker ignoramus are acting like messiahs. Nawaz Sharif is not only extremely stupid, he is also blind (no vision). Only thing he understand is nihari. What a pity. How outrageous.

Pakistan is so screwed-up that one doesn't even know where to begin explaining this pitiful country.

Arsie:

Please dont distort the facts!
Nawaz Sharif wasnt allowed to contest elections by mushis puppet judges & Zardari prefered to stay away to avoid criticism of influencing the Prime Minister.

So callin them 'unelected' and giving the impression that both are undemocratic is unfair!

They have the support of majority pakistanis as prooven by Feb 18 elections unlike Mushi DOG

PRAR:

It is high time that the Pakistani leadership shows some statesmanship and stand up to the challenges and lead a great nation, rather they are busy in filling their own coffers to no end.

The only people to blame are the people and leadership of Pakistan for their failures.

Why should one be influenced by outside pressure. It is fashionable to adopt all the bad things from the west and then blame them for everything negative in the society. However we fail to adopt the positives from the west which have helped the west in the 19th century to achieve what they have today and continue to do so.

My point is without integrity and self repect one cannot be Khud Kafil (self reliant), so if we want to salvage Pakistan from the current economic turmoil we need to work towards this common goal.

Tahirn:

THE ARMY AND ITS BLOOD SUCKING CORRUPT GENERALS HAVE BEEN BLEEDING THE COUNTRY DRY. THE CIVILIAN AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEARN FROM THE IRANIANS BY PURGING ALL THE TOP GENERALS AND TEACHING A LESSON TO THE ARMY THAT THEY WILL NOT EVER FORGET AND WILL NEVER DARE TO BECOME DICTATORS.

ALL THE CHOICE LANDS THAT HAVE BEEN GRABBED BY THE GENERALS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE AND ALL THE MILLIONS THAT THE GENERALS HAVE STASHED AWAY SHOULD BE TRACKED AND TAKEN BACK.

KAYANI SHOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO BE REMOVED AFTER THEY DO AWAY WITH MAD DOG MUSSHARRAF.

alam:

Shuja Nawaz has smoken something.

Political games are played in all countries. But ppl there dont raise the possibility og Army intervention. Whats happening in Pak is completely constitutional and legal. Parties have all the right to do this to presdient.

vkguptan:

Pakistani people gave a clear cut mandate to PPP and PML-N to clear whatever mess Mushraff has done during his rule. Instead of sitting down to govern both the parties were busy having their private agendas. In particular Sharif with his personal vendetta against Mushraff. The parties should have bothered about setting right whatever according to them Mushraff has done wrong. Punishing him for his wrong doing is not the primary concern.
Theirs was a marriage of convenience which can broke at any time. If army is not showing any interest in politics it only because the bickerring politicians are sure to hand over the country to the army in a platter. Why then try to snatch it and get a bad name?

vkguptan:

The alliance of PPP and PML-N was just a marriage of convenience. It was bound to split in no time. Still they should have started to govern the country when they got very good mandate from the people. But PML-N's foremost agenda was vendetta, to see that Mushraff is punished. They should have concentrated on whatever wrong Mushraff has done and rectify them.
History will repeat once again. Army will take over. If the army is sitting quiet without interefering it is because they are sure to get the country in a platter shortly. Then why bother to snatch it and get a bad name.

vkguptan:

When PPP and PML-N got a sufficient majority of seats they should have started to govern instead of having ones personal vendetta. People of Pakistan elected them to have a good government. Correct whatever wrongs were done by the previous government. Punishing the wrong doers is not the primary aim. It can wait if at all. Set right the things.
History is going to repeat once again.

Jay:

Pakistan has itself been a root cause of sectarianism on the subcontinent. As far as Muslim security is concerned, ask Shia how secure they feel in Pakistan. And when Pakistan has exported jihadism and nuclear tech to other parts of the world, then is this Pakistani security to be framed at the expense of the security of the world?

Rahman:

Even if we make the completely 100% subjective claim that Pakistan is a failed state, that does not mean there was no purpose to its existence. It was created because of the enmity between Muslims and Hindus. The enmity would have worse reverberating effects for society had Pakistan not become a country although the aftereffects for Muslims in India today are resultantly deplorable. The basis for Pakistan as a state came under the impression of societal differences too great to allow for political coexistence. Socially speaking, and the social aspect of life is most important in the sub-continent, the idea of egalatarianism in theory was too different from the hierarchical caste system as was the practices and basis for religion by two groups who are deeply affected by religion. Now the problem with Pakistan lies not in the lack of necessity for creation but rather a lack of willing and able leadership. The basic structure of society is neglected and the basis of organization is the military because of reason's drawn from the conflicts with India but also because of the idea of governmental self preservation being rooted in strong man dictatorship. That is not to say that Pakistan never had any hope for improvement. Pakistan's economy for a long time was resilient in the face of sanctions from and "American ally." The overarching problem with Pakistan is that the people are uneducated and the structure of bureaucracy is overwhelmingly corrupt. Pakistan is at a crossroads that they may yet recover from supposing there is at least limited competent leadership and resilience to terrorist ideology. So these bigoted comments that Pakistan was not meant to exist or that because they are Islamic they will fail, are all wrong and show a lack of understanding on the part of the posters.

Rahman:

Even if we make the completely 100% subjective claim that Pakistan is a failed state, that does not mean there was no purpose to its existence. It was created because of the enmity between Muslims and Hindus. The enmity would have worse reverberating effects for society had Pakistan not become a country although the aftereffects for Muslims in India today are resultantly deplorable. The basis for Pakistan as a state came under the impression of societal differences too great to allow for political coexistence. Socially speaking, and the social aspect of life is most important in the sub-continent, the idea of egalatarianism in theory was too different from the hierarchical caste system as was the practices and basis for religion by two groups who are deeply affected by religion. Now the problem with Pakistan lies not in the lack of necessity for creation but rather a lack of willing and able leadership. The basic structure of society is neglected and the basis of organization is the military because of reason's drawn from the conflicts with India but also because of the idea of governmental self preservation being rooted in strong man dictatorship. That is not to say that Pakistan never had any hope for improvement. Pakistan's economy for a long time was resilient in the face of sanctions from and "American ally." The overarching problem with Pakistan is that the people are uneducated and the structure of bureaucracy is overwhelmingly corrupt. Pakistan is at a crossroads that they may yet recover from supposing there is at least limited competent leadership and resilience to terrorist ideology. So these bigoted comments that Pakistan was not meant to exist or that because they are Islamic they will fail, are all wrong and show a lack of understanding on the part of the posters.

Muhammad Zafrullah:

DJ wrote:
"Sorry Mohammad, but your comments would never ever come to reality. The same thing is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and all other Muslim countries. They love to kill each other. Either they try to kill non-muslims. If not they try find Ahmadis, or even muslims (Some form of divide they try to find)"

Thanks for your concern DJ! But I do not see the situation as hopeless as you seem to see. If the Muslims start listening to the Holy Prophet and stop depending upon others to explain Islam and Quran to them the situation will improve.
Muhammad

Anonymous:

DJ wrote:
"Sorry Mohammad, but your comments would never ever come to reality. The same thing is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and all other Muslim countries. They love to kill each other. Either they try to kill non-muslims. If not they try find Ahmadis, or even muslims (Some form of divide they try to find)"

Thanks for your concern DJ! But I do not see the situation as hopeless as you seem to see. If the Muslims start listening to the Holy Prophet and stop depending upon others to explain Islam and Quran to them the situation will improve.
Muhammad

Muhammad Zafrullah:

DJ wrote:
"Sorry Mohammad, but your comments would never ever come to reality. The same thing is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and all other Muslim countries. They love to kill each other. Either they try to kill non-muslims. If not they try find Ahmadis, or even muslims (Some form of divide they try to find)"
Thanks for your concern DJ! I do not see the situation as hopeless as you seem to see. If Muslims start listening to the Prophet and stop depending upon someone else to explain the Quran to them, things would improve.
Muhammad

Nikos Retsos:

Sorry, Nawaz, but if this report was an emperor, he would have been naked. This report is totally devoid of the effect the U.S. policy has on the malaise of Pakistan's social ills. I honestly see it like an analysis of the situation in Darfur, but without any mention of Omar Bashir and his murderous militias that turned Darfur into a scorched wasteland, or like describing the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Gaza
without mentioning Israel's blockade of its borders.

The Pakistani people used to reserve 100% of their hatred for one enemy: India. Now their hatred is split at about 80% against the U.S. and
20% toward India. And what happens in Pakistan is
affected 80% by the U.S., and 20% by Pakistanis.
[I know this may not sound patriotic, but, unless
we are objective, people will not accept half the cake as a whole story]. It is clear, therefore, that this article fails to apportion any blame on the U.S. as it should. The turmoil in the Pakistani society is not all the fault of Pakistanis.

Sure we can look back on Pakistan's history and see the up an down of dictators, like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zia U-Haq, the hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto, the conviction for corruption of Benazir
Bhutto, as well as her husband Asif Zardari -also known as Mr.10% [bribes for government contracts], and even alleged corruption for Nawaz Sharif. But no one of them sold the country to an outside power like Pervez Musharraf did, and his
slide to the level of scoundrel also means that
the Pakistanis see the U.S. as the scourge
of their problems.

It may be that you like Bush's foreign policy, and you feel that the U.S. spends a lot of money there, but the Pakistanis mishandle it. Sure, but we give the money to those who allow us to bomb Pakistani villages with inpunity. And Nawaz Sharif doesn't see that kind of help as something that benefits either the Pakistani economy, or the average Pakistani who is caught in the middle. Nikos Retsos, retired
professor of history and government.

Nikos Retsos:

Sorry, Nawaz, but if this report was an emperor, he would have been naked. This report is totally devoid of the effect the U.S. policy has on the malaise of Pakistan's social ills. I honestly see it like an analysis of the situation in Darfur, but without any mention of Omar Bashir and his murderous militias that turned Darfur into a scorched wasteland, or like describing the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Gaza
without mentioning Israel's blockade of its borders.

The Pakistani people used to reserve 100% of their hatred for one enemy: India. Now their hatred is split at about 80% against the U.S. and
20% toward India. And what happens in Pakistan is
affected 80% by the U.S., and 20% by Pakistanis.
[I know this may not sound patriotic, but, unless
we are objective, people will not accept half the cake as a whole story]. It is clear, therefore, that this article fails to apportion any blame on the U.S. as it should. The turmoil in the Pakistani society is not all the fault of Pakistanis.

Sure we can look back on Pakistan's history and see the up an down of dictators, like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zia U-Haq, the hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto, the conviction for corruption of Benazir
Bhutto, as well as her husband Asif Zardari -also known as Mr.10% [bribes for government contracts], and even alleged corruption for Nawaz Sharif. But no one of them sold the country to an outside power like Pervez Musharraf did, and his
slide to the level of scoundrel also means that
the Pakistanis see the U.S. as the scourge
of their problems.

It may be that you like Bush's foreign policy, and you feel that the U.S. spends a lot of money there, but the Pakistanis mishandle it. Sure, but we give the money to those who allow us to bomb Pakistani villages with inpunity. And Nawaz Sharif doesn't see that kind of help as something that benefits either the Pakistani economy, or the average Pakistani who is caught in the middle. Nikos Retsos, retired
professor of history and government.

Nikos Retsos:

Sorry, Nawaz, but if this report was an emperor, he would have been naked. This report is totally devoid of the effect the U.S. policy has on the malaise of Pakistan's social ills. I honestly see it like an analysis of the situation in Darfur, but without any mention of Omar Bashir and his murderous militias that turned Darfur into a scorched wasteland, or like describing the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Gaza
without mentioning Israel's blockade of its borders.

The Pakistani people used to reserve 100% of their hatred for one enemy: India. Now their hatred is split at about 80% against the U.S. and
20% toward India. And what happens in Pakistan is
affected 80% by the U.S., and 20% by Pakistanis.
[I know this may not sound patriotic, but, unless
we are objective, people will not accept half the cake as a whole story]. It is clear, therefore, that this article fails to apportion any blame on the U.S. as it should. The turmoil in the Pakistani society is not all the fault of Pakistanis.

Sure we can look back on Pakistan's history and see the up an down of dictators, like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zia U-Haq, the hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto, the conviction for corruption of Benazir
Bhutto, as well as her husband Asif Zardari -also known as Mr.10% [bribes for government contracts], and even alleged corruption for Nawaz Sharif. But no one of them sold the country to an outside power like Pervez Musharraf did, and his
slide to the level of scoundrel also means that
the Pakistanis see the U.S. as the scourge
of their problems.

It may be that you like Bush's foreign policy, and you feel that the U.S. spends a lot of money there, but the Pakistanis mishandle it. Sure, but we give the money to those who allow us to bomb Pakistani villages with inpunity. And Nawaz Sharif doesn't see that kind of help as something that benefits either the Pakistani economy, or the average Pakistani who is caught in the middle. Nikos Retsos, retired
professor of history and government.

Nikos Retsos:

Sorry, Nawaz, but if this report was an emperor, he would have been naked. This report is totally devoid of the effect the U.S. policy has on the malaise of Pakistan's social ills. I honestly see it like an analysis of the situation in Darfur, but without any mention of Omar Bashir and his murderous militias that turned Darfur into a scorched wasteland, or like describing the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Gaza
without mentioning Israel's blockade of its borders.

The Pakistani people used to reserve 100% of their hatred for one enemy: India. Now their hatred is split at about 80% against the U.S. and
20% toward India. And what happens in Pakistan is
affected 80% by the U.S., and 20% by Pakistanis.
[I know this may not sound patriotic, but, unless
we are objective, people will not accept half the cake as a whole story]. It is clear, therefore, that this article fails to apportion any blame on the U.S. as it should. The turmoil in the Pakistani society is not all the fault of Pakistanis.

Sure we can look back on Pakistan's history and see the up an down of dictators, like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zia U-Haq, the hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto, the conviction for corruption of Benazir
Bhutto, as well as her husband Asif Zardari -also known as Mr.10% [bribes for government contracts], and even alleged corruption for Nawaz Sharif. But no one of them sold the country to an outside power like Pervez Musharraf did, and his
slide to the level of scoundrel also means that
the Pakistanis see the U.S. as the scourge
of their problems.

It may be that you like Bush's foreign policy, and you feel that the U.S. spends a lot of money there, but the Pakistanis mishandle it. Sure, but we give the money to those who allow us to bomb Pakistani villages with inpunity. And Nawaz Sharif doesn't see that kind of help as something that benefits either the Pakistani economy, or the average Pakistani who is caught in the middle. Nikos Retsos, retired
professor of history and government.

Nikos Retsos:

Sorry, Nawaz, but if this report was an emperor, he would have been naked. This report is totally devoid of the effect the U.S. policy has on the malaise of Pakistan's social ills. I honestly see it like an analysis of the situation in Darfur, but without any mention of Omar Bashir and his murderous militias that turned Darfur into a scorched wasteland, or like describing the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Gaza
without mentioning Israel's blockade of its borders.

The Pakistani people used to reserve 100% of their hatred for one enemy: India. Now their hatred is split at about 80% against the U.S. and
20% toward India. And what happens in Pakistan is
affected 80% by the U.S., and 20% by Pakistanis.
[I know this may not sound patriotic, but, unless
we are objective, people will not accept half the cake as a whole story]. It is clear, therefore, that this article fails to apportion any blame on the U.S. as it should. The turmoil in the Pakistani society is not all the fault of Pakistanis.

Sure we can look back on Pakistan's history and see the up an down of dictators, like Ayub Khan, Yahia Khan, Zia U-Haq, the hanging of Zulfikar Bhutto, the conviction for corruption of Benazir
Bhutto, as well as her husband Asif Zardari -also known as Mr.10% [bribes for government contracts], and even alleged corruption for Nawaz Sharif. But no one of them sold the country to an outside power like Pervez Musharraf did, and his
slide to the level of scoundrel also means that
the Pakistanis see the U.S. as the scourge
of their problems.

It may be that you like Bush's foreign policy, and you feel that the U.S. spends a lot of money there, but the Pakistanis mishandle it. Sure, but we give the money to those who allow us to bomb Pakistani villages with inpunity. And Nawaz Sharif doesn't see that kind of help as something that benefits either the Pakistani economy, or the average Pakistani who is caught in the middle. Nikos Retsos, retired
professor of history and government.

Raja:

I am anti Musharaf but I support Amir's view that he should resign to bring the country out of instability. Then we will see how politicans manage the country. I really think Sharif was a good choice for Pakistan but his revenge politics may hurt Pakistan economy badly. Also as long as America plays role in Pakistan politics Pakistan would never be able to stablize itself.

Dj:

Sorry Mohammad, but your comments would never ever come to reality. The same thing is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and all other Muslim countries. They love to kill each other. Either they try to kill non-muslims. If not they try find Ahmadis, or even muslims (Some form of divide they try to find)

Muhammad Zafrullah:

The article details the current situation avoiding the real reason behind the disaster that is Pakistan today. Hate and greed are the two main ingredients of the mess that is brewing in Pakistan. A Pakistani is betraying and undermining another Pakistani, for frivolous reasons such as religious beliefs, language, and culture. A "devout sunni Muslim" will gladly blow himself to pieces to give a shia congregation a taste of their blood. The person who prepared the man for this heinous act was doing it for money and influence. The same is being repeated in other circles with varying degrees of violence. The trouble with hate is it limits your vision and keeps it from distinguishing a friend from foe.
For years now we hear that educated elite, doctors, teachers, engineers etc., are being killed for one or two of the hateful reasons. If Pakistan is to stay a viable country the people of Pakistan will have to learn to love every Pakistani and they would have to regard every Pakistani as a prized asset.
Muhammad

Freedom:

Pakistan cannot survive without huge amounts of foreign aid. Maybe it should merge with Afghanistan and figure out a way to be financially independent.

chhoung:

Mr. Musharraf has sold out Pakistan to the West for Billions of dollars and tons of weapons to feed his powerful military, so that he could remind in power. Mr. Musharraf never thought of his poor countries men, he deployed all kinds of means to silence them, included jailing, killing if necessary. He betrayed his people, when he collaborated with the U.S to bomb villages and killing innocent people, he allowed the extremist roaming freely and blew up Mosques, and robbed civilians. He lies, when he said that he would step down when the people voices were heard and they did vote him out. He is clinging to power as if he were born with it. I am so shameful that my Government is continuing support Mr. Musharraf, in exchange with many fake captured Al Qaeda; we are spending billions of dollars.

DJ:

Your question is "Was Pakistan a good Idea"?
Let me tell you. The idea itself was flawed. it was flawed because the root problem was the Muslim religion. If Pakistan was formed on the basis of some growth, economic or any other factor, then it was a good idea.
But when you that religion which is false and which forces people to kill innocents, you are nothing but doomed

Danish I.:

Time to Question If Pakistan Was a Good Idea

With over 60 years of "independence" now under it's belt, it really is appropriate to wonder out loud whether Pakistan was ever a good idea to begin with. Carved out of the Indian subcontinent that had offered Muslims and Hindus a largely peaceful co-existence by Jinnah and his British enablers, Pakistan is and has always been a failed state. The myths about Pakistan being created solely because Muslims needed a safe place to call home must be confronted if Pakistanis are to come to true grips and try to move forward. The British imperalist machine sought to split India on the one hand to weaken it and one the other hand to punish Indian nationalists that would not comply with their requests for military assistance against the rising Soviet monster. It has since shifted from heavy British influence to being a sort of American proxy state with American Senators on hand to monitor elections. While democracy is, of course, preferable, what does democracy even mean in a largely illiterate country with massive feudalism problems and mind-numbing corruption where votes are many times purchased with cold cash? The fake economic gains that Pakistan made recently were only due to an influx of foreign capital at the urging of Shaukat Aziz which has largely now left with him or shortly behind him.

Danish I.:

Time to Question If Pakistan Was a Good Idea

With over 60 years of "independence" now under it's belt, it really is appropriate to wonder out loud whether Pakistan was ever a good idea to begin with. Carved out of the Indian subcontinent that had offered Muslims and Hindus a largely peaceful co-existence by Jinnah and his British enablers, Pakistan is and has always been a failed state. The myths about Pakistan being created solely because Muslims needed a safe place to call home must be confronted if Pakistanis are to come to true grips and try to move forward. The British imperalist machine sought to split India on the one hand to weaken it and one the other hand to punish Indian nationalists that would not comply with their requests for military assistance against the rising Soviet monster. It has since shifted from heavy British influence to being a sort of American proxy state with American Senators on hand to monitor elections. While democracy is, of course, preferable, what does democracy even mean in a largely illiterate country with massive feudalism problems and mind-numbing corruption where votes are many times purchased with cold cash? The fake economic gains that Pakistan made recently were only due to an influx of foreign capital at the urging of Shaukat Aziz which has largely now left with him or shortly behind him.

With Pakistan projected to be the 4th most populated country in the world in 2050, one has to really start to wonder if it can survive as an entity at all. The best line I ever heard about Pakistan was that as opposed to most countries which have a military, Pakistan is a military which has a country. Yet, even the military is heavily flawed. Despite being the best funded, most organized organization in the nation, it produces dictators that cannot root out extremist elements on it's own soil. This, even with the financial and military backing of the world's sole superpower. It created a dictator that couldn't muscle through a much needed dam in a country with massive power shortages. It created a dictator who did dictatorial things like shutting down media outlets and yet cowered at confronting real challenges like extremism that has crippled the country and essentially made it a joke in an Asia that is fast rising. I guess I could go on and on, but Pakistan really is a sad, sad example of how wrong it is to simply create countries where there was no natural need to create one.

Danish I.:

Time to Question If Pakistan Was a Good Idea

With over 60 years of "independence" now under it's belt, it really is appropriate to wonder out loud whether Pakistan was ever a good idea to begin with. Carved out of the Indian subcontinent that had offered Muslims and Hindus a largely peaceful co-existence by Jinnah and his British enablers, Pakistan is and has always been a failed state. The myths about Pakistan being created solely because Muslims needed a safe place to call home must be confronted if Pakistanis are to come to true grips and try to move forward. The British imperalist machine sought to split India on the one hand to weaken it and one the other hand to punish Indian nationalists that would not comply with their requests for military assistance against the rising Soviet monster. It has since shifted from heavy British influence to being a sort of American proxy state with American Senators on hand to monitor elections. While democracy is, of course, preferable, what does democracy even mean in a largely illiterate country with massive feudalism problems and mind-numbing corruption where votes are many times purchased with cold cash? The fake economic gains that Pakistan made recently were only due to an influx of foreign capital at the urging of Shaukat Aziz which has largely now left with him or shortly behind him.

With Pakistan projected to be the 4th most populated country in the world in 2050, one has to really start to wonder if it can survive as an entity at all. The best line I ever heard about Pakistan was that as opposed to most countries which have a military, Pakistan is a military which has a country. Yet, even the military is heavily flawed. Despite being the best funded, most organized organization in the nation, it produces dictators that cannot root out extremist elements on it's own soil. This, even with the financial and military backing of the world's sole superpower. It created a dictator that couldn't muscle through a much needed dam in a country with massive power shortages. It created a dictator who did dictatorial things like shutting down media outlets and yet cowered at confronting real challenges like extremism that has crippled the country and essentially made it a joke in an Asia that is fast rising. I guess I could go on and on, but Pakistan really is a sad, sad example of how wrong it is to simply create countries where there was no natural need to create one.

Danish I.:

Time to Question If Pakistan Was a Good Idea

With over 60 years of "independence" now under it's belt, it really is appropriate to wonder out loud whether Pakistan was ever a good idea to begin with. Carved out of the Indian subcontinent that had offered Muslims and Hindus a largely peaceful co-existence by Jinnah and his British enablers, Pakistan is and has always been a failed state. The myths about Pakistan being created solely because Muslims needed a safe place to call home must be confronted if Pakistanis are to come to true grips and try to move forward. The British imperalist machine sought to split India on the one hand to weaken it and one the other hand to punish Indian nationalists that would not comply with their requests for military assistance against the rising Soviet monster. It has since shifted from heavy British influence to being a sort of American proxy state with American Senators on hand to monitor elections. While democracy is, of course, preferable, what does democracy even mean in a largely illiterate country with massive feudalism problems and mind-numbing corruption where votes are many times purchased with cold cash? The fake economic gains that Pakistan made recently were only due to an influx of foreign capital at the urging of Shaukat Aziz which has largely now left with him or shortly behind him.

With Pakistan projected to be the 4th most populated country in the world in 2050, one has to really start to wonder if it can survive as an entity at all. The best line I ever heard about Pakistan was that as opposed to most countries which have a military, Pakistan is a military which has a country. Yet, even the military is heavily flawed. Despite being the best funded, most organized organization in the nation, it produces dictators that cannot root out extremist elements on it's own soil. This, even with the financial and military backing of the world's sole superpower. It created a dictator that couldn't muscle through a much needed dam in a country with massive power shortages. It created a dictator who did dictatorial things like shutting down media outlets and yet cowered at confronting real challenges like extremism that has crippled the country and essentially made it a joke in an Asia that is fast rising. I guess I could go on and on, but Pakistan really is a sad, sad example of how wrong it is to simply create countries where there was no natural need to create one.

DJ:

It is not not about Ahmedi or something. The religion has a problem. They do not know tolerance and they just hate non-Muslims

Anser:

If you want stability, you will have to stop persecuting Ahmadi's in Pakistan.

Otherwise the country will continue to see the wrath of Allah.

Don Jon Jay:

The problem with these called "Islamic Republics ", is the leaders are power crazy. They use the religion to their advantage. These people can never ever improve, whatsoever they do. They are doomed.
Look at countries from Syria, to Iran head east to Malaysia. These countries who are ruled by mullahs and "Islamic leaders" do not allow any civilian tolerance.
Once again, no solution ....

DJ:

The problem with these called "Islamic Republics ", is the leaders are power crazy. They use the religion to their advantage. These people can never ever improve, whatsoever they do. They are doomed.
Look at countries from Syria, to Iran head east to Malaysia. These countries who are ruled by mullahs and "Islamic leaders" do not allow any civilian tolerance.
Once again, no solution ....

shah:

Musharaff needs to go .he is selfish self centerd .
he has no integrity.
not sincere to country.
coutry economy is suffering because of him.

Ashraf:

By comparison Mushrraf is far better than other politician, democracy in Pakisan doesnot mean anything because of the fedalism and it is illetracy that is causing the problem and no one want to provide basic education to the masses

mohdemes:

The justice demands that the truth about Parvez Musharraf's rule be examined. If this man has broken the law then let him be impeached and tried.

Making a deal and sweeping everything under the carpet is not the way to progress.

This writer beliefs that Musharraf has violated the laws of Pakistan and therefore must have his day in court. The people of Pakistan cannot continue to set aside justice for the sake of Democracy or stability or peace.

If Musharraf is allowed to get away with his crimes against the people of Pakistan and retire on his farm then future such dictators and law breakers will have no respect for the law.

Since justice is paramount let the past activities of Asif Zardari be also examined.

No justice no peace!

Aamir Ali:

I am a Musharraf supporter, but I think that Mr Musharraf serves no role in Pakistan today except as a scapegoat for the politicians incompetence. If he is being offered immunity from prosecution and physical security, he should take it. It is time to expose Pakistani politicians and remove the cushion of blaming Mr. Musharraf.

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.