View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Blog Entries
Musharraf Touring US
I went to see former president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. I figured I could probably give a more detailed presentation of the actual discussion than the soundbites you might catch on the news, so without further ado, here's a summary of much of the things he talked about:
- Concerning the issue of missing person's, the former President suggested that these people weren't systematically killed or interred but that they had themselves disappeared to join the Mujahideen in Kashmir. He says that of a list of 100 missing persons, they verified (supposedly) that only 12 were unaccounted for and the rest were fighting for Kashmir. He even mentioned that some of his close friends had lost their own children due to this fight where the children would get "brainwashed" by the Mujahideen. This doesn't really address the issues raised by his opponents highlighting the holes in such over-generalizations of all the people that have disappeared.
- When he had barely begun to speak about secularization, many members of the crowd began to clap enthusiastically (and rather presumptively). But much to their dismay, he reiterated that Pakistan is an Islamic republic, that the values by which it ought to be governed are Muslim ones. He also highlighted though much of what he had done to benefit the minorities in Pakistan and highlighted that it was in accord with the ideas of Iqbal (rah) concerning the other religions.
- In justifying his alliance with the West and assuaging claims of his being a poodle for the Western governments, he argued that he had in fact not bent over backwards for all their claims. Soon after 9/11, it was demanded of him to allow the use of all of Pakistan's airspace, the air bases and the naval bases [albeit this being a rather common political tactic in dialogue actually]. That he had only relented by giving a very narrow corridor of airspace and two isolated air-bases, and that he felt he had no other option. He said that had he the chance to do this once again, he would go right ahead and repeat it. The negotiations before he finally gave in last for five days, he suggests.
- He spoke against the various groups in Afghanistan (and even Pakistan) as being un-Islamic. He argued that they can't consider their deeds as jihad because (a) suicide is haram in Islaam and (b) in order for their fight to be considered a jihad - they require the mandate of a ruler over some land which they don't possess. In effect, he stressed that these groups are un-Islamic.
- He spoke extensively of Pakistan's opposition to the Taliban and the "Taliban culture" in spite of the cordial relations between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan during the Soviet era war. During this part of his talk, he mentioned that there are some who are concerned over the Muslims, the Pakistanis, killed during his tenure. In response to their question he poses another question. Do you support Taliban culture in Pakistan? If not, than there is no choice but to have firm resolve and keep killing them. If you do, well than, what more can be said?
- He suggests, also in justifying his alliance, that during the war with the Soviets, than too Pakistan was on the same side as the West. Nobody back than accused Pakistan of merely being the puppet of the West. Rather, what the leadership did was in the benefit of Pakistan and it merely happened to be mutually beneficial to the West - the intention of Pakistan though was to preserve her own national integrity. This shouldn't be seen any other light, he argues. He said that Pakistan called it a jihad to drive Mujahideen to the country to come fight for it (he specificlly said "called it a Jihad so that..." as if to imply that it actually wasn't and that these people were merely being used as pawns for Pakistan's sake). He mentioned to this effect a gift given to the head of ISI, a piece of the Berlin wall with words etched on it yet preserved in the former President's memory, "to the ones who struck the first blow".
- He highlighted the incompetence of Nawaz Sharif and suggested that the man was incapable of working with anybody. He also highlighted how Benazzir Bhutto had reneged on their agreement when she returned by entering the public lime light, and that she was unfortunately killed.
- He suggested that to-date, nothing has been done to make the Pakhtuns of Afghanistan feel accommodated. As they are the vast majority ethnic group of their country, they can't be alienated. But Musharraf strongly disagrees with those in the West who've called for dialogue with so-called "moderate Taliban". The former President suggests that there is no such thing as "moderate Taliban" but that there is a such thing as Talibanized Pakthun and non-Taliban Pakhtun, and that the non-Taliban Pakhtun should be reached out to.
- He suggests that there is no corruption in the (upper levels of) the military and that corruption is not actually the biggest problem facing Pakistan.
- Concerning the issue of bijlee (electricity), he argued that during his tenure, much was done to ensure the increase in Pakistan's energy output but that even than it wasn't matching the budding economy which he claims a result of his own policies. He mentioned the gas pipeline with Iran that seems to have never gone through. He suggests that the alternatives to Pakistan will naturally be coal, and nuclear as usual but that Pakistan should also look towards energy from the sun and wind, two things Pakistan has a lot of (chuckle).
- Some woman suggested that if we really want peace, that Pakistan should secularize more and just give up Kashmir to India. Musharraf retorted that India should just give back Kashmir to Pakistan if our problems were really that simple. Rather, it seems that Pakistan will always be a thorn in the side of India and that India's issue isn't merely over Kashmir, but over the existence of Pakistan as a whole.
- Highlighting his peace efforts and building of bridges with the Indians, Musharraf mentioned how he had first approached the Indian prime minister. He initially tried to go in from the rear but than he thought about it, "what if he turns the other way" and so on. So after much strategic deliberation, to be expected of an army man and a general at that, he came at the Indian prime minister from the front leaving him no chance to escape and this demonstrates where the initiative for the rebuilding of bridges between the two countries drew it's impetus from.
- He mentioned the military might of Pakistan, that the conventional military might is enough to keep the Indians at bay (considering how the Indians did eventually back down after the post 9/11 standoff and that it wasn't Pakistan who blinked) and the unconventional ability (being one of 7 nuclear nation-states).
- He would not go "into detail" about the NRO and it's contradiction to his own stated opinions, but it was the only thing about which he suggested that if he had another shot, he would "maybe" re-think it. He said though, addressing the concern about it, that in spite of the corruption of these people, the Pakistanis still see them as our leaders and that therefore there is no reason to be opposed to it. That the courts don't pursue their cases, drop their cases, and in one Swiss case, have been ongoing for over 10 years without any veritable progress (he joked that the Swiss court had outdone even the Pakistani courts).
- One of the questioners asked him about whether or not he intended to return to power. He suggested that at present he has no legitimacy in the eyes of the populace but that he wanted to leave things open, and that if he were to return, he would not want to do it barely winning but winning the absolute majority in a real democratic election (read: as soon as things start getting really sour, as they ought to under the present line-up of corrupt and tried candidates - *hint* those strengthed by the amnesty of NRO... */hint*, and we realize that he is really our only reputable viable option - he'll be back in action).
Unfortunately, and to the dismay of the people who protested or supported them, some of the most important questions were never actually raised or answered. As for the protesters outside, I would hazard to guess that they weren't less at their peak (when I was arriving) than the number of people inside - they just didn't pay the $50-$1000+ dollars it would've cost them to come enjoy the dinner and possibly have one of their questions/concerns answered. It seems to be a recurring theme that when controversial personalities come by, the people who oppose them never actually lend an ear, and the people who support them never actually open an eye to anything beyond flattery, and the figures themselves don't go out of their way to reach out to the opposing demographic. We all go seem to go back with what we came, no new information and no real change of ideas.
http://mohammadmufti.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by caravan of martyrs
?
Bookmarks