| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Meet the most hated man in Pakistan |
| 2006-02-28 |
| February proved that US President George W Bush is the most hated man in Pakistan. Thousands of Pakistanis descended on the roads of Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi and other cities to protest the publication of blasphemous caricatures of their Holy Prophet Mohammed by a newspaper in Denmark. Significantly, the protesters raised more slogans against Bush than against Denmark, indicating that many Pakistanis believe Bush is a crusader who refused to apologise for the desecration of the Holy Quran at the Guantanamo Bay and Kandahar prisons by American soldiers in the summer of 2005. Many observers in Islamabad were surprised when a few thousand students of English medium schools and colleges attacked the heavily guarded diplomatic enclave in front of the ministry of foreign affairs. Young boys did not pelt stones at the Indian high commission, but they damaged the embassy of Egypt, an Islamic country. Why? Because they believe Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a ruthless dictator, and that Bush is protecting dictators all over the Muslim world. The anti-Bush slogans raised by the new generation of moderate Pakistanis in the federal capital is a matter of great concern for many Western diplomats. Cricket legend Imran Khan, who initially stayed aloof from the anti-caricature rallies which began in the second week of February, now plans to lead a big anti-Bush rally from Rawalpindi to Islamabad on March 3, the day President Bush is expected to arrive in Pakistan. When Jamaat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussein Ahmad offered to join his rally, Imran replied: 'Please stay away from me. I am going to march against Bush with boys in jeans and beautiful girls without headscarves. I will prove that not only Mullahs but majority of liberal Pakistanis thinks that Bush is the biggest terrorist on earth who killed thousands of innocent people from Iraq to Afghanistan and now he is planning to invade Iran in the name of war against terror.' Another question doing the rounds in Islamabad is why Bush took the risk to say that 'America supports a solution that is acceptable to Indians, Pakistani as well as the citizens of Kashmir.' Many Pakistani officials are very happy about the statement, thinking that Bush, aware of the burning hatred against him in the minds and hearts of common Pakistanis, is trying to make amends by issuing the most supportive statement of Pakistan's position on Kashmir ever made by any American president. But some analysts think that by using the words 'citizens of Kashmir,' Bush actually supported the idea of Independent Kashmir, which is not acceptable to either India or Pakistan. It is also believed by many in Pakistan that Bush is using the Kashmir card to achieve some of his own objectives. On one side he is giving an impression that the 'citizens of Kashmir' are not citizens of India. On the other hand he told Doordarshan in an interview 'on my trip to Pakistan, I will, of course, talk about the terrorist activities, the need to dismantle terrorist training camps and to protect innocent life.' Is he trying to blackmail both India and Pakistan? What could be his objective behind using the Kashmir card? Bush wants India to sign a nuclear deal on the terms and conditions laid down by Washington. Many security experts in Pakistan are 'happy,' believing that Washington is trying to penetrate India's nuclear weapons programme. But some experts in Islamabad expressed fear that after conquering the Indian nuclear installations, America would also like to track Pakistan's nuclear programme in the name of 'peaceful cooperation.' Bush is also trying get Indian and Pakistani support for his adventure in Iran. The removal of Mani Shankar Aiyar as India's petroleum minister led many Pakistanis to believe that the 'biggest democracy' in the world is now taking dictation from America. Aiyar, like Pakistani Senator Mushahid Hussein, secretary general of the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League, is know to be anti-American. It is not a secret in Islamabad that a major group in the Pakistan Muslim League wants to remove Senator Hussein from the office of secretary general because of his criticism of America and the West. Both Aiyar and Hussein are also avid supporters of the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project which is opposed by the Bush administration. Why did Bush announce that he would bring up terrorist training camps with Musharraf? Actually he is pressurizing Islamabad to do more against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The visits of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Commonwealth Secretary General Don MacKinnon to Islamabad a few days before Bush's arrival are seen as pressure tactics from Washington by many in Islamabad. Karzai claimed in Islamabad that Al Qaeda does not exist in Afghanistan, while MacKinnon said Musharraf had to remove his military uniform by 2007. Most Pakistanis have no doubt that the Commonwealth will not raise any objection to Musharraf's uniform if Islamabad hands over a big Al Qaeda fish to Washington in coming weeks. There is no denying America did a lot in the earthquake-affected areas of Pakistan after October 8. So why are most Pakistanis unwilling to trust America? Why do they still think that Bush is not sincere in solving the Kashmir dispute? The answer is the current situation in Balochistan. Pakistan helped America to dislodge the Taliban from Kabul in December 2001. Hamid Karzai was installed there as the new ruler, but he never protected Pakistani interests. There were at least two major attacks on the Pakistani embassy in Kabul after the fall of the Taliban. Now Pakistani officials openly complain that the recent terrorist activities in Balochistan are being organised and financed from Afghanistan, a country that is controlled by a pro-Washington administration. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but has been unable to produce even a single such weapon from Iraq since then. So how can he be trusted? To establish his credibility in this part of the world, he needs to do a lot more. First, he must resolve the Palestine problem. He must accept the democratically elected government of Hamas in Palestine. Only after that will he be in a position to speak on the issue of Kashmir. Hamid Mir is Bureau Chief, Geo TV, Islamabad |
| Posted by:john |
| #17 Didn't Mushy launch the Kargill War (another humiliating Pak defeat) 6 months after the "Peace Summit" with India? He can be trusted as far as Bush could spit against a hurricane. |
| Posted by: Listen To Dogs 2006-02-28 22:27 |
| #16 Great, informative posts, John! This is why I love Rantburg: well-informed opinions that cut through diplomatic sugar-coating and confusing media-spin. Thank you for your contributions. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2006-02-28 17:37 |
| #15 More evidence that there is no M³. Looking for them is futile. They don't exist. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-02-28 14:30 |
| #14 I think I spend far too much time reading Pak newspaper columns... |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 13:35 |
| #13 john, have you started on your book yet? Or is it already written? I'd gladly buy a dozen copies. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-02-28 13:26 |
| #12 Which is not to say that they are not religious.. Many are. Islam is the defining part of the Pak identity. What, then, was partition all about? But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that. So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India? The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory. |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 13:16 |
| #11 The moderate Pakistani is like Yahya Khan or like Mohhamed Ali Jinnah. Jinnah loved his bacon and his whisky but thratened the British with jihad.. the first time since 1857 mutiny that muslims had challenged the Raj. Yahya loved his mistresses, and really loved his whiskey. Whiskey driking, clean shaven officers are a dime a dozen in the Pak army. They represent the Pak elite. You need to understand which muslims backed the creation of Pakistan. The Deobandi Ulema, the Jammaat-Islami-Hind etc did not back Pakistan. They called it the work of the devil. The poor muslim Bengalis did. Many hoped to be free of Hindi landlords. The Punjabi feudal class did. They were afraid of the land reform promised by Ghandi, Nehru and the Congress party. They didn't want to lose their serfs. The muslim civil service did. They had special quotas under the British with various priviledges and did not want to lose them in an independent India. The Pak feudal elite that man the civil service and officer corps of the army use islam to maintain their power over their co-religionists. |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 13:11 |
| #10 So, a MODERATE Pakistani is like Siegfrid and Roy having a FRIENDLY CUTE WHITE TIGER? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-28 12:54 |
| #9 After Perv is another General, after him is another. There may be the facade of a civilian PM but the real power will be the army. It takes most of the Pak budget, is above criticism, its veterer foundations control a sizeable chuk of the Pak economy and the Pak property market. Pak is essentially a praetorian state. The Pak army will slaughter everyone who presents a real challenge to their power. They are ruthless. To quote a former Pak Military dictator - Yahya Khan - "Kill three million of them and the rest will fall into line" |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 12:52 |
| #8 You're falling for the "Apres moi, le deluge" extortion strategy that Pakistan has used for decades. The very first Pak PM, Liqiat Khan used this to pressure India into concessions.. after him was supposed to be the flood of bearded islamists. This was fifty years ago! And the Paks still use it, to great effect. Debunking the Myth of PakistanÂ’s Islamist Threat The fact is that religious political parties and militant organizations are manipulated by the Pakistani Army to achieve its own objectives, domestically and abroad. The army, not the Islamists, is the real source of insecurity on the subcontinent |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 12:47 |
| #7 Pakistan under Musharraf is much, much, preferable to the alternative. |
| Posted by: gromky 2006-02-28 12:31 |
| #6 "On one side he is giving an impression that the 'citizens of Kashmir' are not citizens of India. On the other hand he told Doordarshan in an interview 'on my trip to Pakistan, I will, of course, talk about the terrorist activities, the need to dismantle terrorist training camps and to protect innocent life.' Is he trying to blackmail both India and Pakistan? What could be his objective behind using the Kashmir card?"This is a way to beat these idiot's. Say things that confuse them, they will think themselves to death. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2006-02-28 11:44 |
| #5 I think this calls for a big foam rubber #1 finger graphic. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-02-28 11:39 |
| #4 So much for goodwill from helping a nation with a major earthquake that would have killed thousands if we didn't help out. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2006-02-28 11:17 |
| #3 There is a group within the state department that believes that if Pakistan feels secure, it will assist more in the WoT. Look carefully at the US military assitance. 26 Jetranger helicopters 40 Cobra helicopters 6 C-130E Refurbished Hercules 5 Aerostat radars 6 AN/TPS-77 radars plus Command & Control software 8 P-3C Refurbished & Upgraded Orions 6 Phalanx CIWS, 2,000 TOW missiles, 60 Harpoon missiles, 300 Sidewinder missiles, Tactical Radios 100 155mm Howitzers 75 F-16s etc Each item is meant to address a weakness in the Pak defence and give it near parity with India. They are meant to neutralize any overt Indian military advantage. Tow missiles to destroy the Indian T-72 tank force, Harpoons to destroy Indian navy ships, 155mm artilery and weapon locating radar to respond to Indian gunners. Helicopters and transport aircraft to airlift commandos in case of war in Kashmir. Does this strategy actually make sense? Probably not, since whenever Pak has felt secure, it has attacked India. The Pak military doesn't expect to conquer India. They have a war fighting strategy where the fight lasts two weeks and they seize some Indian territory. Then the international community forces both countries to a ceasefire and Pak gets what it wants in negotiations because it holds parts of the Indian Punjab. Sound weird? That is Pak military logic. What this aid does is piss off India. Today the Indian Finance Minister Chindabaram (a leftist dove) unveiled the Indian budget. He raised the defence budget by 7 percent to twenty billion dollars, 42 percent of which is earmarked for new weapon purchases. |
| Posted by: john 2006-02-28 11:03 |
| #2 "to protest the publication of Hope everyone is shopping Danish products. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-02-28 10:57 |
| #1 So why is Bush giving billions of dollars to those who want to kill Americans? It was the Pakistani government who set up the Taliban, hosted Al Qaeda and the ISI head honcho who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta to fund the WTC and Pentagon/White House mass murders. Why isn't the American government explaining the depth of Pakistani involvement in the 9/11 atrocities, the depths of hatred Islam engenders and then systematically reducing Pakistan. Instead Bush gives them $40 billion and the first positive economic growth rate in years. In return, Americans get death threats and AQ and the Taliban get shelter. To those in charge in D.C., I say good job! |
| Posted by: ed 2006-02-28 10:43 |