Nawaz Sharif

[bhangra12345]

I had to run to class so I couldn't respond to everything in my last post.

I believe we have a philosophical difference over the role of political parties and their responsibilities and what their priorities should be. So I'll try to generalize the point I am trying to make.

Democracy, Communism etc are but systems or methods to achieve the ultimate goal of improving the State - It is the improvement or change which is important. If a communist state or a monarchy is able to fulfill the needs of its citizens, then all power to those systems of government. You can argue over which system is better, but like I said before, for people living in the conditions that the residents of South Asia are in, slogans about intangibles like freedom and democracy mean little - it is all about what you can deliver, and hence the lack of tears for NS and euphoria upon the assumption of power by Musharraf.

You are telling the truth, we do have fundamental differences.
For me democracy, communism are not simply systems of governance, they differ mainly in the way they give voice to people. Democracy will never allow the great leap forward of china where 3 million estimated died. and if you feel this dying is intangible, I guess lets agree to disagree.

So when a reform agenda was unveiled, one that was in sync with the vision of a moderate, progressive Pakistan, I view the lack of support from a party such as the PPP as disloyalty to their ultimate goal of serving the people. You obviously place their loyalty to the system (democracy) over their loyalty to the goal of improving the lives of those the system is designed to serve - and to use your own argument "the opposition does not govern", by choosing to remain in the opposition, they played traitor to their own "roti, kapra makaan".

PPP could have easily doubted his commitment to his reforms. As you can see, their choice that Mushy did not had a commitment to the modern secular growth of Pakistan was proved the moment he joined MMA.

I similarly strongly disagree with the Cuban American community's policy to isolate and punish Fidel Castro, and therefore Cuba and the Cuban people, in order that they may have their "perfect system". How many years of sanction have passed? How many Cubans have suffered because of this "loyalty to system"? Castro is still there. Even after he dies there is no guarantee that his brother or some other strongman will not take charge - and so continues the saga of despair for the Cubans, brought on and perpetuated with strong support from their own kith and kin across the ocean.

Now you are talking about relations between two countries which by nature differ from the relations inside a country. I do not see how you can connect the two.

The alternate is to be pragmatic and realistic about the situation on the ground, and remember that a decision to not participate in whatever system or process exists, takes away your opportunity for affecting change in your nation and for its citizens.

and also see what happens in the long run, help only those which help in long run- not because one day Mushy got on left side of bed and wanted to do something correct on that day, You support Mushy only when you believe he consistently will be able to deliver, which Mushy has proved thoroughly incapable of.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are telling the truth, we do have fundamental differences.
For me democracy, communism are not simply systems of governance, they differ mainly in the way they give voice to people. Democracy will never allow the great leap forward of china where 3 million estimated died. and if you feel this dying is intangible, I guess lets agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree indeed, and just to clarify, I am not arguing about which system is better, just that the end goal, and only goal (IMO), is the citizens well being - accomplish it however you may.

PPP could have easily doubted his commitment to his reforms. As you can see, their choice that Mushy did not had a commitment to the modern secular growth of Pakistan was proved the moment he joined MMA.

It is quite possible that they doubted his commitment to reform, but this was not a "contract with the devil" they could not get out of - in fact, what better way to ensure that he stick to his reform agenda than to help him form his government? All of Musharraf's reforms have gone through the parliament and according to the constitution - they needed to, in order to be permanent. The PPP would have had the power to enact legislation to further its cause and vision.

Musharraf needed politicians to join him to provide continuity and validity to his reforms, why on earth would he care to invite the PPP to join him if he didn't? Why bother with the whole "charade" of consensus building and political participation? If they didn't trust him, then shouldn't they have expected that he would rig the elections and give his hand picked people an absolute majority anyway? So by refusing to join him, for that reason, they essentially "handed the wolf the keys to the hen house". So I don't buy the argument that they didn't join him for lack of trust. If they had joined him then, Mushy's popularity at the time would have ensured a thumping victory. But it was always about BB, not Pakistan, and it is still about BB.

By bringing up the MMA deal, you have essentially put the "cart before the horse" - the MMA deal was the "effect" of the refusal of the PPP, the "cause", to join Musharaf. It boiled down once again to implementing some of his reforms, rather than none, and I believe he was let down quite badly by the PML-Q which turned out to be quite a bit more conservative than anyone thought. The decision to go with those parties was because of the PPP's refusal.

Now you are talking about relations between two countries which by nature differ from the relations inside a country. I do not see how you can connect the two.

I am specifically referring to the Cuban American community's efforts to perpetuate sanctions against Cuba until their demands for their "ideal system" are implemented. Their lobbying efforts against normalization play a large role in US policy towards Cuba by virtue of their electoral clout. In essence they are a "party", that has placed loyalty towards "democracy" over loyalty towards their own families and countrymen who are bearing the brunt of their self righteousness.

and also see what happens in the long run, help only those which help in long run- not because one day Mushy got on left side of bed and wanted to do something correct on that day, You support Mushy only when you believe he consistently will be able to deliver, which Mushy has proved thoroughly incapable of.

I support Mushy because he has delivered. In his eight years we have seen social reform (admittedly not as much as I would like) and unprecedented economic growth. We have seen a huge expansion of the middle class. This from a position where we were but a hairs width from becoming a failed state and being gobbled up in a recession. Nowhere close to perfect, but when measured relative to where we were before Mushy, huge leaps indeed. Will he be able to continue that trend? Like you suggested, only time will tell.

 

[Neo]

Saudis in the dock ​

By Ijaz Hussain

Did the Saudis ever give it a thought that Sharif, who they have humiliated through their role in his deportation and who is their virtual prisoner, could one day return to power carrying a grudge against them?

Pakistanis have reacted sharply to the Saudi role in the deportation of Nawaz Sharif on September 10. For example, accusing the Saudi government of supporting “a military dictator against the wishes of 160 million Pakistanis”, the APDM warned that, it “will not tolerate Saudi interference in Pakistan’s internal matters”. It did not restrict its criticism to a mere statement and boycotted the Saudi reception held soon after. Apart from the APDM, religious scholars, khateebs and political commentators also denounced the Saudi role. The criticism during some of the TV talk shows was so scathing that the Pakistani government had to warn independent channels against airing such criticism failing which, it threatened to take action against them under the PEMRA rules. Was the criticism against Saudi Arabia justified? How do we explain the proactive role of the Saudis?

It is undeniable that Saudi Arabia is no ordinary friend of Pakistan. It has a special place for Pakistanis because of the location of Islam’s holiest places on its soil, its help at critical junctures in Pakistan’s history and for providing employment to about 1.5 million Pakistanis. The relationship between the two countries is so unique that the Pakistani government or the opposition has from time to time sought Saudi help to sort out political disputes.

This was the case in 1977 during the PNA movement against the government and then again in 2000 following Sharif’s conviction in the plane hijacking case. These examples prove that the Saudis did not involve themselves in Pakistan’s domestic politics uninvited; and that they did so at the request of the parties involved. Hence they cannot be accused of interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.

The “not guilty” verdict, however, cannot be passed against them in the case of Sharif’s deportation. This is so because as opposed to the past when all the parties in dispute were on board, in the present situation one of the parties, namely Sharif, was not consenting. The argument that the Saudis had a locus standi in the case by virtue of the “deal” is inconsequential because for all practical purposes in the absence of Sharif’s consent, the Saudi involvement amounted to interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs. Incidentally, the “deal” that provided the pretext for the Saudi interference has no place in the eyes of law because, being a unilateral undertaking, it fails to fulfil the essential condition of an agreement. Nor can international law take cognisance of it because, being at best an agreement between a state and a private citizen, it lacks international character. It can at the most be described as a “gentleman’s agreement” with an undoubted moral value but unenforceable under law.

There is another dimension to the Sharif affair that made critics subject the desert kingdom to criticism. It relates to Saudi violation of the order of the Pakistan Supreme Court that had asked the Pakistan government not to prevent Sharif from returning to Pakistan because it was an inalienable right that could not be contracted away. The Musharraf government shamelessly violated the SC order by abducting and deporting Sharif. The Saudis became an accomplice in this disgraceful transgression when their intelligence chief refused to accept the SC judgment and urged Sharif not to come to Pakistan, in addition to the Saudi king’s reported letter to the Pakistan government asking for Sharif’s return. The way the Saudis conducted themselves showed that they looked upon Pakistan as their fiefdom.

Why did the Saudis, who are worldly wise and discreet in their dealings, undertake a mission that was utterly impervious to the sensitivities of Pakistanis? The Saudi apologists explain it in terms of the place that a given word has in the Saudi tribal setup and their desire to see to it that the “deal” they had struck with Sharif was implemented in letter and spirit. It is true that a given word is sacrosanct in Saudi society but the argument applies to Saudi subjects and cannot be stretched to cover recalcitrant foreigners such as Sharif. The Saudis are clever enough to know this fact yet they ignored it, which signifies that the argument based on the sanctity of a given word does not hold and we need to look elsewhere for an adequate answer.

The Saudi intelligence chief provided the answer to this conundrum during his Islamabad press conference when he justified Sharif’s staying in exile for the sake of the “stability” of Pakistan. Now what is the meaning of this cryptic remark? Its significance becomes clear when we view the whole episode in the context of the existential struggle in which Pakistan is at present engaged. The country is threatened by forces of extremism that are increasingly gaining ground and if not checked now could overwhelm it. If that happens, it would be an unmitigated disaster not only for a nuclear Pakistan but also for the region and the world at large. The House of Saud, already under attack from Al Qaeda that is bent on its elimination, seems to share this threat as testified by its use of the Imam of Kaaba as a trouble-shooter during the Lal Masjid crisis.

The “stability” argument has an American dimension that needs to be kept in mind. The Bush Administration, paranoid about the “terror”, wants the continuation in power of President Musharraf who, in its reckoning, is the best man to deal with the extremist threat in Pakistan. Additionally, it wants moderate forces, particularly Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party, to lend a helping hand in this battle. Sharif does not figure in the script because in the American eyes, his credentials are suspect. The Bush Administration, therefore, views his presence in Pakistan as a stumbling block in achieving the desired goal. Since the Saudi and American DNA in the matter apparently matches, the House of Saud decided to play an overt and proactive role in Sharif’s deportation.

The Nawaz Sharif affair raises the critical question of the wisdom of letting foreign powers get involved in our domestic affairs. Some analysts condone the Saudi interference on the ground of their “generosity” towards us at critical junctures in our history. Now it is true that Saudis have been “generous” to us for which we should be grateful to them. However, it does not mean that this traffic is one-way and that we have nothing to offer in return. The fact is that Pakistan offers a lot in return. For example, the House of Saud knows that in case of an existential threat to it or Saudi Arabia, the one country on which it can absolutely count on is Pakistan. Pakistan’s nuclear programme is also on the firing line because of our intimate links with Saudi Arabia, giving rise to fears in the West that we may one day transfer nuclear technology to it. Finally, the Saudi “generosity” has bought them enormous influence that has been utterly unhealthy for Pakistan.

In the end, a word about what this affair has cost the Saudis. They had heretofore enjoyed blind support from Pakistanis. However, their blatant interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs (with their intelligence chief acting like a super-cop) seems to have lowered their prestige in the public’s eyes. This is evident from the way Pakistanis, not only the liberals but also the religious right, have severely criticised the Saudi role.

Did the Saudis ever give it a thought that Sharif, who they have humiliated through their role in his deportation and who is their virtual prisoner, could one day return to power carrying a grudge against them? Did they give it a thought that their action was utterly contrary to the aspirations of the people of Pakistan? If the Saudis persist in their present behaviour, they will squander the goodwill that they have earned in Pakistan and may soon compete for the unpopularity medal with the US.

The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[niaz]

One can condone emotive response from the die hard NS supporters. But I am really saddened at the critcism of Saudi Arabia by Pakistani intelligentia at large. More and more it appear we are exhibiting extreme ingratitude and proving that as a nation we lack moral fibre and have very short memory.

Unlike most Pakistanis, to an Arab a promise means something. When the Saudi King put his personal weight behind NS release, it is a matter of prestige for him to ensure that NS honours his pledge. I am old, and belive in old time values. These days the whole nation seems to have lost the idea of what is right or what is wrong. Just look at JI leader Qazi Hussein Ahmed. He demonstrates for the honour of Supreme Court and barely a month later insults Supreme Court by demanding the their decision should reflect will of the people ( meaning what Qazi sahib and JI want). Is this our national charracter that we only accept the decision if it is our favour ??

IMO people who criticize the country which bailed us out when our economy was at the point of default by giving $1-billion worth oil on very easy terms, because they hate Musharraf, are enemies of the state. Neither Musharraf nor Nawaz Sharif is greater than Pakistan and any one who attacks a friend of Pakistan for the sake of any individual is being extremely short sighted.

 

[BATMAN]

I feel his biggest contribution to Pakistan was to save Pak army from the humiliation they had to face in Kargil. NS gave our army a chance for face saving but this thank less army did not regard that man

Kargil ceasefire at Musharraf's insistence: Sharif
The Hindu News Update Service

New Delhi, Sept. 23 (PTI): Former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif has claimed that he called for a ceasefire to end the Kargil war in 1999 after Army chief Pervez Musharraf "begged" him to do so.

Sharif, in an interview for a book "Gaddar Kaun", also scoffed at the "pull-out" by the Pakistani troops from Kargil saying they had "lost everything."

He admitted Pakistan made a "request" to militants to withdraw from Kargil only to "show to the world" that Pakistani troops had not occupied the icy heights in Jammu and Kashmir.

"The fact is that when Musharraf's misadventure failed miserably, this commando general came to me to get the war ceased at any cost," Sharif told author Suhail Warraich in an interview for an updated edition of the book which was released in Pakistan on Friday.

The former premier said that US General Anthony Zinni's book "verifies this claim of mine". "His testimony clearly says that it was the army chief and not the prime minister, who wanted the ceasefire," Sharif said.

Sharif refuted Musharraf's claims that international pressure over Kargil had demoralised him. "It is an interesting claim ... I was not demoralised by the international pressure.... first, he begged me for a ceasefire and then bade me farewell at the Chaklala Airport for Washington," the then premier said.

Sharif claims that after the first phase of his meeting with the then US President Bill Clinton, he came to know that India had recaptured Tiger Hill from Pakistani troops.

"You have lost everything already, now what should I talk about," Sharif claims to have told Musharraf during a telephone conversation from Washington.

Sharif said that he made the announcement asking the mujahideen to withdraw from the occupied heights at the advise of his military secretary to show the world that it were they who had captured the Karil peaks.

When the mujahideen were formally requested to pull out from the peaks at a meeting called by the ISI, a militant commander asked "where this Kargil was. This triggered laughter," Sharif said.

The former premier said that he appointed Musharraf as the army chief on the advise of defence secretary Iftikhar Ali Khan. "... Khan told me that Musharraf worshipped me as his hero. He advised me to appoint Musharraf as the army chief," Sharif said.

Dear LPG,
Would you like to clarify the difference in this news and your claim.

 

[Lahori paa jee]

Batman the article says exactly the same thing that i mentioned. Kargil was a misadventure and Musharraf begged NS to bail him out.

 

[Keysersoze]

Batman the article says exactly the same thing that i mentioned. Kargil was a misadventure and Musharraf begged NS to bail him out.

Still waiting for the list of achievements by the "great" NS.......

I am wondering what it cost him to buy you..........

 

[aziz raza]

Not at all

 

[BATMAN]

Kargil was a misadventure and Musharraf begged NS to bail him out.

And you consider N. Sharif's testemants as devine verses.

 

[Keysersoze]

Still waiting for the list of achievements by the "great" NS.......

I am wondering what it cost him to buy you..........

I for one would like a answer for the above questions.......I somehow think I will be waiting a long time..........

 

[BATMAN]

I had to recollect my memories from my life in Lahore and than I will try to list how I remember Nawaz rule.

For the time being another characteristic approach of N.Sharif.
I came across this news yesterday :

Nawaz offers "immediate APDM leadership " to Benazir

Pakistan News Service - PakTribune

LONDON: Renowned leader of PML-N, Ghous Ali Shah has held a very important meeting with PPP-P chairperson Benazir Bhutto, and has conveyed an important message of Mian Nawaz Sharif to her.

Sources have disclosed that the theme of the message centers around Mina Sahib’s "offer to Benazir for heading the newly formed APDM (All-Pakistan Democratic Movement)" so as to help stem the "menacing tide of Presidential elections", approaching fast.

However Benazir has expressed her doubts, since APDM is also participated by the religious minded Alliance of MMA, which is an anathema for Benazir’s taste, and besides the MMA alliance also opposes her leadership.

Sources have also revealed that Ghous Sahib has given Benazir concrete assurances that he would be able to convince MMA about accepting her leadership.

Mian Sahib has also conveyed in his message that APDM was "an effective conglomerate of 37 odd parties" which can "manage to give Musharraf a tough time, should PPPP consent to join the ranks".

 

[Awesome]

APDM ka koi deen imaan nahi hai.

 

[blain2]

Nawaz offers "immediate APDM leadership " to Benazir


Hmm..offer of Leadership of APDM vs. chance of Leadership of Pakistan........I am sure the two are in the same league..

 

[Rain Forest]