This is in reponse to the comments of Venket published on June,7,2007.
In his comments he has attacked not only the sanctity of Islam but any religion in the world.
Any society with out rekigion is considered like an animal with out lasso.
The very word Islam means peace,love,tranquality and calmness but what is the agony of the Muslim world is that it is deprived of honst leadership and that is a stigma on the forehead of the muslim world.
Let suppose if a computer set is too much effective and fruitfull but the operator is not skilled one who is the faulty one computer or the operator.
I mean to say is that let to see the obverse of the coin and that is that Islam teaches tolerance and love towards humanity.
Is there any society which is able to show an example that thier heads of state take thier offices with out swearing and showing thier allegiance.
Nay, even those who teaches to say adiu to religion are the followers of reliogion take example of West and America.
There also religion play a vital role it is another matter that they never follow it in practices which is the very act of hypocricy to teach others not to follow religion but for taking office they are bound to show thier allegiances with churchs even some times they change thier sect while crossing the river Twied.
It is a famous maxim that spectators hits the bull's eye, so it is easy to comment from far away the actual need of the day is to pave religious abhorence, class difference, fanning extrimism under the pretext of religion.
Rather Islam has delivered its message in these words fourteen hundred-year back " lets to be one brotherhood" and now the West is calling us for inter religions dialogue today.
Accordin to my envisagess if there would have been no religion in the wolrd there would and must have been and its name must have been "Humananity" and who believe in humanity, I think, is serving Allah the Creator of the universe in true sense irrespective creed and caste.
Here a question arise that the so called peace-flag-bearers provide us the remedy of abolishig Islam from our lives while Zoinism is appreciated for the bloodshed of the innocent Palistenians. Why Pope and Chrch is regarded in so a high esteem?
Here I am not pleading the case of Hamas or Fatah.
But it is shochking and a melonchaly of the innocent women, children and the hapless citizens who dont partake in the game of blood-bath stil they are multilated but the world community is mute. Here in this wolrd it is a psycholigical need that from individual to countries every body hides or tries to hilde its weakneses then why the islamists feel pride in decapitating the journalisnts who are also human beings and have the same blood as others have but the reality is that delibrately Islam is stigmatsing.

And here in the case of Pakistan religion was adopted as a politacal salogan for the acqusition of Pakisatn so then why we are considerd as intolrant, reactionalry and parochial despite it that here is libery of fashio and desighn, films and drama arts, and no body is dragged to the worship places by force which a clear indication that we know how to flow with the flowing water.
Who were the originators of the Idea of Pkistan it is pertinent to mention here all of them were moderator in true sense why Deobandis opposed the Idea of Pakistan? on this very fact that the modrenist were yearning to see a modern Islam on the soil of Pakistan and now we see that here is nothing reactionary and here is not a strong hold of the clirics.
So why then these fears and hews and cries against Pakistan?

ISLAM is the problem with Pakistan. Root it out and everything will fall into place. Otherwise why do you think every Islamic society is mirror image of the one it replaces. Dont get didactial on trivial issues. Lets address how to get rid of these cults.

Don't worry about the other rabid desert cult, it's blind unthinking follwoers have started to think and may soon desert it in hordes.

o jugal kishore
have you forgot the separation of east pakistan,the backward policy of pakistan to face indian military,the water resources location of pakistan,the strategic positionn of pakistan in central asian entry point.these are threatening the exixtance of pakistan.

o jugal kishore
have you forgot the separation of east pakistan,the backward policy of pakistan to face indian military,the water resources location of pakistan,the strategic positionn of pakistan in central asian entry point.these are threatening the exixtance of pakistan.

The solution to Pakistan problem is to let the illiterate mullahs to take over, and let the real islamic republic be created there. Let the so called moderates and apologists see what the Sharia would bring for them, like in Iran. After some 20/30 years they will come to their senses. All the West and India should do is to keep their hands off of Pakistan, with a stiff warning don't $%@# with us and we wont *&)# you. You live on your own island. You want to deal with us we will deal with you at arms length. Trade is ok, no cultural stuff. I will tell you the mullahs, each one of them will be slaughtered when they cannot feed the population with the ayats from holy koran.

Mr. Ravi Menon,

I appreciate your analysis, which no doubt is very thoughtful, constructive and, above all realist -- you DO see clearly that Pakistan becoming a failed state will be catastrophic for EVERYONE in South Asia. There is no point in gloating that Pakistanis will suffer most, because, as you rightly say, others will suffer as well.

The only weak point I see in your argument is a certain amount of contradiction. You write : " Jaish-e-mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba operate still, under same or different names, unfettered and indeed PROBABLY aided by Pakistani intelligence agencies. Same with Harkat ul Ansar and Hizbul Mujahideen. Truth is that these elements are far too powerful for Musharaf to even contemplate moving effectively against them."
Now, you say PROBABLY aided by Pakistan. You don't know for sure yourself, but let us assume that you could have asserted with certainty that LeT, Hizbul etc ARE aided by Pakistan. Then the following sentence does not make sense that they are too powerful for Musharraf to even contemplate moving effectively against them.
The fact is that Musharraf has moved against them to the extent that he can without triggering an all-out clerics/traditional leader assult agsint his regime that would have toppled his government. He has also modernised the economy, initiated bold education reforms, and reprioritized social spending despite a devastating earthquake (he cancelled asquisition of F16s), he brought to heel Bugti and his secessionist movement in Balochistan/WFP.

Yes, he became head-heavy with the dubious successes which he trumpeted to Bush and the West, and he made the mistake of pushing his luck too far by avoiding the necessary severage of his links with the army, cracking downb of Chief Justice Chaudhry, and now muzzling the press.

As you say, he can still make the right alliances and prepare to ease himself out by end-2008 before meeting with an unnatural death. All players of good will not just in the South Asia region, but even in the West and in the Muslim world should use all manner of persuasion and even pressure possibel to secure such a retreat from the brink of failed state status.

I diagree with my south korian friend.Modernisation under dictators is short lived.Look at Turkey.Is it modernisation which ignores or is afraid of the wishes and aspirations of its people.Isnt it right that each and every nation should go through its natural course to modernise in the framework of its cultural values rather than having imported modernisation.

Pakitan,feudal or religious,needs a government put in place by its people.The West are friends if they refuse to cooperate with the illegal rule imposed by Generals.If they make them welcome,surely the people of Pakistan will never forgive them.

It was a fallacy to think that Musharaf is a man oriented towards secularism or modernism. The main reason for the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif govt. was the Kargil conflict. There in the heights of Kashmir Musharaf had already demonstrated his capability to deceive both Sharif, the elected PM of Pakistan, and also India. If you remember, Musharaf then had utilised Islamic terrorists and the Pakistan army in a clandestine and unprovoked and more importantly unsanctioned (by his own elected govt.) attack against India.
A man who was in bed with terrorists and fundamentalists in both Kashmir and Afghanistan, suddenly, after 9/11 becomes a moderniser and poster boy for secularism. Woe to anyone who believed it.
As to his promise to close Madrasas and expel foreign terrorists from Pakistan and another promise of his to crack down on jehadists - does anyone even remember them now? Jaish-e-mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba operate stil, under same or different names, unfettered and indeed probably aided by Pakistani intelligence agencies. Same with Harkat ul Ansar and Hizbul Mujahideen.
Truth is that these elements are far too powerful for Musharaf to even contemplate moving effectively against them. He might have made the right noises but had no intention of following up. Indeed they were helpful in maintaining his power base both in Pakistan and in America.
For Pakistan to be a truly functioning nation it has to move against these elements with the public truly behind the government. For that the govt. will have to do some peoper governing first, earn the trust of people, change laws to empower women, improve the education system to wean the young away from the madrasas and return power to elected officials.
Tall order indeed, but it is not too late for Musharaf to include popular politicians and bring in a coalition ministry and then gradually restore general elections which are truly fair.
If he does not seize this last chance future will be dark not only for Pakistan, but also for all of South Asia. Not to mention an unstable nation which has nuclear weapons and in which Jehadists and fundamentalists will be the dominant force. In fact a Wahabbi Iran with proven nuclear weapons with the most powerful elements openly admiring and hiding Osama bin Laden.
This is the worst case scenario, but I suspect what will happen is Musharaf will limp on till he loses all credibility and then will be replaced by another general or a unholy alliance of military and some of the Islamic parties favoured by the current ruling establishment or even the PML.

The United States has been accused of propping up Musharraf so that he has become corrupt and dependent on American handouts. But how should the Untied States deal with countries such as Pakistan?

If Pakistan is considered very important, in the scheme of American strategic interests, what choice does the United States have, but to deal with the government that operates in Pakistan? Should the United States intervene to change the Pakistani government, before dealing with Pakistan? Should the United States be like the Roman Empire, and approve the legitimacy of every foreign power, not under its direct control? Or should each country be left to itself, to work out its own system?

I agree, President Musharraf is in a difficult position; he is a free-floating dictator, meaning, he has the reigns of power, but there is no basis for his legiticmacy, no way to transition to something less autocratic, no way even to jump from him to another dictator, but it will just happen as a rock slide tumbles down a moutainside, just, everyone, try to scatter out of the way, so few people get hurt.

President Musharraf holds onto power like a man holds onto the ears of a wolf; how do you let go, and escape to safety? you cannot; you must hold on; but eventually, sooner or later, the man must let go.

Pakistan is reaping the fruits of years of support to terrorism by its governments - military as well as democratic. Musharraf and Osama bin Laden are two peas of the same pod. Nawaz Sharif had received 500 million Pakistani rupees from Osama bin Laden to fight an election. Pakistani government facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan. 25 million dollars offered by US for Osama are peanuts compared to billions that Pakistan can milk from Uncle Sam. Musharraf knows that all too well and so continues to provide sanctuary to Osama. Richard Armitage forced Musharraf to joing US fight against terror. But Musharraf facilitated election of Islamic funfamentalists so that US is forced to support his military dictatorship fearing fundamentalist takeover of Pakistan. Even now Musharraf continues to support Taliban and Al Qaeda on its soil. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword and that is the fate of Pakistan.

mohammad allam:

you say "50 years pakistan waging its war of existance"...

you mean the way Israel is threatened by the Islamic world calling for its removal from map?

Who exactly threatened Pakistan's existence?

I think that the psyche of Pakistan has been like a monkey who was given a double edged sword (freedom) but which it used to hurt itself and the world at large.

mohammad allam:

you say "50 years pakistan waging its war of existance"...

you mean the way Israel is threatened by the Islamic world calling for its removal from map?

Who exactly threatened Pakistan's existence?

i would like to say froom 50 years pakistan waging its war of existance.see how many wars it fought and in howmnay it was involved directly or indirectly.for development peace and resouces are two thing and pakistan never got time to get peace and capital accumlation.
other thing about modernisation is that non muslim writers do not know the real aim of islamic society and goverment and how religion play a role to shape both these.they always talk in term of separation of religion and state that is not possible in islamic countries.
in pakistan the secualr movement could not develope so fast as predictaed by you.see the religious phobia of afghansitan war is not yet over.the people are still looking islaimc jihad like aghnaistan.and also see the position of musharaff of pakistan who is muhajir from india.
the question of democarcy is not workable in feudal society .and you will find that the elit of pakistan is indian migrated feudal who worked fro pakistan and later came and ruled pakistan.
how they can accept musharraf the middle man and other hand the punjab elit is main stay in pakistan goverment.you can say that in pakistan the presnet war is not of two but karachi and punjab which represnets the muhajir and paki.
the question of military rule is concerend then we have to see the economic and polictical condition of pakistan.aerica giving money to not pakistan econoic development but for fighting war against own people who was trained by saudia,america and pakistan.
these difference must be in mind while analysisng pakistan and unfortunatley all western writer commit mistake by analysing muslim society on western model.

What follows next? ... Good question, but unfortunately the answer remains the same: yet another autocratic Army general, if Pakistanis lose their guts to fight the dictatorship - being displayed by them now.

If Pakistanis are really yearning for change for better, then they will have to vote for sustainable Democracy. For this, however, the pre-requisite is to keep religion and Army out of Pakistan's politics.

Pakistan needs to learn a lot from the successful functional Democracy in India which has ensured sustainable socio-economical growth and development and empowerment for its citizens.

Musharraf is not going to survive, he will go down in disgrace. He has played with all the institutions of Pakistan which anyway were weak.
His mindset is amply relected in boastful and pompous biography of his own. He thinks high of himself as leader and man of immense intellect.
Basically, he is a dictator surviving on American support. Bush may chide Putin for lack of democracy. How can they support Musharraf, this is a man who has sent past prime ministers to exile.
Pakistan civil society has woken up and is yearning for democracy.
It's on civil society to be unrelenting in there crusade.
This is their last chance, Pakistan may disintegrate again unless democracy comes back and give adequate empowerment to all provinces, particularly Baluchistan

a good analysis, but pakistan is not a real country and could not be governed, by god himself.

a good analysis, but pakistan is not a real country and could not be governed, by god himself.

I guess its time for the international body to intervene and take up administration of Pakistan. This international administration will focus on basic infrastructure, education, agriculture, and economic growth and roll back all the devastating 'strategic depth' initiatives that ruined Pakistan, such as negative India centric policies, meddling in Kashmir, Afganistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Srilanka.

Show them how to run the country with common sense and take dangerous nuke-toys out of their hands, before they nuke India out of frustration out of envy of its growth.

Pakistan's Military leaders have proven track record of focussing on short term gains but instead get long term pains for Pakistan's people.

The military establishment who have show little regard for its own people , how can they be trusted to be a responsible member of the international community. Its a open secret that Pakistani military establishment was hand in glove with nuclear proliferator AK Khan.

To prevent Pakistan from becoming a failed state, the military should give up control to an international-run administration. Period.

To: Mohamed MALLECK

Mr. Jae Hoon's analysis is quite correct.

Mr. Malleck ... you have a point ... but things might not be as grim as you have described. In the short term, the people of Pakistan should be given a chance ... under an impartial Judiciary, independent Eleciton Commission and a neutral Caretaker Setup.

For a change, let the peoples' power speak for itself and have faith that they would make the right decision for themselves. Every political party (whether old, new or in works) will be under extreme pressure to deliver this time. Let the people decide who they think is most dependable to bet on.

That was a pretty accurate and intelligent analysis of the situation in Pakistan.

Military dictators, including Musharaf, have always ruled like kings and Pak has remained economically backward nation at the mercy of rich Moslem nations like Saudis who support Madrassas. Many countries like China and western nations have manipulated Pak's inherent hate towards India and helped retain military regimes. With this historical background, like China, Pak has an obligation to get bi-lateral trade agreements with nearby countries without making Islam and Kashmir as an issue. If Indians can do business in Middle Eastern countries, they can help establish infrastructure and viable financial system in Pak. Border security and elimination of cross-border terrorism should be the priority framework for transitioning towards democracy for Pakistan. Musharaf is now caught between Rock and hard place. He will lose election to Pak People's Party or be eliminated by his countrymen.

Military dictators, including Musharaf, have always ruled like kings and Pak has remained economically backward nation at the mercy of rich Moslem nations like Saudis who support Madrassas. Many countries like China and western nations have manipulated Pak's inherent hate towards India and helped retain military regimes. With this historical background, like China, Pak has an obligation to get bi-lateral trade agreements with nearby countries without making Islam and Kashmir as an issue. If Indians can do business in Middle Eastern countries, they can help establish infrastructure and viable financial system in Pak. Border security and elimination of cross-border terrorism should be the priority framework for transitioning towards democracy for Pakistan. Musharaf is now caught between Rock and hard place. He will lose election to Pak People's Party or be eliminated by his countrymen.

To: JRLR

"Modernization? For whom?"

For starters, let us say, for women. And after that, let us say for all minorities, and people who are not and cannot be, by nature, religious zealots and who do not wish to live under the tyranny of relgious zealotry, but who seek education, enlightnment, and admittance into the international culture and free exchange of political and philosophical ideas. How can you find any good in keepping the masses of people living in feudal squalor and ignorance, simply because the word "modern" clashes with your simple-minded ideas on religion?

You write: "It has been observed in several countries that a military-based authoritarian system can sometimes be effective in pursuing modernization (consider the examples of Turkey, South Korea, even Japan at one phase of its recent history). But it is never capable of providing regime stability ad infinitum."

Modernization? For whom? And at what human cost? Modernization is no absolute, no unchallengeable human "virtue".

In this connection, we should be reminded, again and again, of Talleyrand's remark to Napoleon: "It is a marvel, Sire, all you can accomplish with bayonets. Alas, not even you can sit on them."

I had a brief exchange of views with you on this same subject on PostGlobal a few weeks back (before the Justice Chaudhry episode, and before the press crackdown), Mr. Shim Jai Hoon, and you agreed with me that Musharraf has been a secularising force albeit authoritarian and outright dictatorial, and it would not be wise for the people of Pakistan or for foreign powers to jump horses in the middle of the race.

Things have changed now, agreed. Both recent moves (confronting Justice Chaudhry and gagging the press have been near-suicidal, where, already when he tackled Bugti in NWP, Musharraf was tottering on the brink), but is the wiser alternative now, for Paksitanis and for the rest of the world, to jump horses? You evade the question by looking into the medium-term rather than the very near short term.

The only less-than-utterly-catastrophic course of action in the very short term is to engineer, in what ever way possible, a rapprochement between Benazir and Musharraf whereby the latter becomes President (with ties to military greatly curtailed) and the former Prime Minister. That would give all a reprieve of 12 to 18 months to see how the key actors (military, legislative, judiciary, tribal/clerical leaders, provincial opinion leaders, and the more moderate civil society/intelligentsia) react and expres their preferences to avoid Pakistan becoming an undeniable failed state.
Thereafter, two alternative outomes are possible. If the moderate civil society/intelligentsia and military/legislative/tribal leaders are reasonable and can agree, Musharraf could be forced out maybe into exile an Benazir could become a wisened Prime Minister with an Asif Zardari whose influence is reduced to nil. That would pave the way to a Pakistan that fulfills its destiny as a worthy brother-nation to its eastern neighbour India. If, on the contrary, a military-tribal leader imbroglio develops that alternate between cooperation and confrontation, there will be a no-holds-barred power struggle among Musharraf/Military, Benazir/Asif, Legislative/Judiciary/Civil Society, in which the latter will come out the greatest loser, and Musharraf meeting an unnatural death, and Benazir once again forced into exile, with a new military strongman presiding over a definitively failed state.
But, salvation is still possible if reason prevails.