

There, corrected.jamwal wrote:Badmash lacks the guts to hang Mushrat unless Kiynahi supports him. Judges can't do anything ifcivvies orarmy don't want them to
What makes this Yindoo dhoti shibber is Rahul Gandhi as Indian PM and Im the Dim as Paki PM at the same time.Gagan wrote: Now If NaMo wins in India, we will have Nawaz Sharif and NaMo (as opposed to ABV back in the day). Maybe things might move forward?
Leaving aside that this monkey Mahmood Qureshi said this, but is it not true that India did indeed blink by kissing up to TSP after saying no talks until TSP acts on 26/11? It was India that surrendered, did it not? Of course, I repeat, one does not have to take this Qureshi clown seriously.Anujan wrote:Do you remember the "India blinked first by talking to us" Shah Mahmood Qureshi?
The powerful nuclear Terrorist Army of Poakistan cant take care some machchars in the skyIn the first major Pakistani court ruling on the legality of the CIA’s drone campaign in the country, a Peshawar High Court judge said this morning that strikes are ‘criminal offences’. Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan ordered Pakistan’s government to ‘use force if need be’ to end drone attacks in the country’s tribal regions.
In the course of the Peshawar case, Dost Muhammad Khan also clarified that drone strikes were illegal even if – as has been rumoured – senior Pakistani officials secretly consent to strikes.
And he has a deal with TTP. Now how he deals with them would be interesting!Anujan wrote:India gave badmash a chance to get rid of mushy. Fellow botched it up. Fellow also owes his neck to US who urged bandicoot to commute his death sentence. Also owes Saudis who put him up for so many years.
The bottom line first: the elections scheduled for May 11 will not be a game changer. In the initial period Pakistan is likely to see a somewhat more efficient and less corrupt government, improved tax collection, and hopefully a tad less extremist violence as well. This will come as a relief to Pakistanis terrorised by daily bomb blasts and killings, and fed up of five years of serious misgovernance.
But shortly thereafter it will be business as usual. "Shortly" could mean six months, or a year. Longer is unlikely. I am basing this prediction on the assumption that a country's politics reflects the underlying social relations between its communities and the distribution of economic power. But nothing indicates that these fundamentals are about to change. Instead this election is surely just another round of musical chairs as various players jockey for personal power.
Unlike the 1970's election campaign of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto — who had made grand promises for land reform and redistribution of wealth that he never intended to fulfil — this time around such change is not even on the agenda. Imran Khan's vow to eliminate corruption in 90 days is typical of the shallow promises being made all around. No effort to create a more open and tolerant society is visible.
Minority Report
Pakistan's religious minorities have little reason to celebrate the elections. Several Islamic extremists are candidates themselves, and the mainstream secular parties have campaigned with radicals to garner their votes. The lack of public outrage against the Pakistani Taliban, who are openly taking credit for murdering whoever they deem secular or liberal, is worrying.
There is scarcely any public comment as they continue to blow up schools, and kill polio workers and teachers. The state stands as a silent spectator to the daily murder of its citizens just because their particular variant of Islam is not that of the majority. Shia neighbourhoods have been devastated by suicide attacks, and men identified by Shia names like Abbas and Jafri have been dragged out from buses and executed Gestapo style.
The police remain unconcerned when Ahmadis are murdered, or have their graveyards dug up and desecrated openly by the local powers-that-be. Although Sind was traditionally much more tolerant than Punjab, Hindus have fled Sind en masse. Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif have openly pandered to the extremists and so, unsurprisingly, their respective parties have been spared the dreadful attacks made on public rallies held by parties labelled as secular —the ANP, MQM and PPP.
Imran Khan gives the Taliban a boost by providing them with ideological space. He explains away their terrorism as an inevitable response to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Nawaz Sharif hosts active and well known Shia killers in his party. One wonders if the targeting of Shias, Hindus and Ahmadis will stop after the elections. Or if the frequent abduction, torture and killing of Baluch nationalists will cease. If this happens, then surely Pakistan will have gained much.
Money & Power
Will the elections be reasonably free and fair? "Reasonably", of course, involves a subjective assessment. In some parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa women have been forbidden to vote by the men; Sindhi serfs are being directed to vote for their masters; Ahmadis have been denied their right to vote since 1977; and elsewhere extreme physical violence has been unleashed against political opponents. On Thursday, the son of ex-prime minister Raza Gilani was abducted and his entourage attacked by gunmen.
uh how come Poaq Pandu has Para wings, hain ji?Jhujar wrote:Chhakke Pey Chhakka Poaquppa Thopaqqa
[youtube]PVDkTYmP-VM&feature=player_embedded#t=6s[/youtube]
FTFYabhijitm wrote:NS also has hard corner forindian(hindu)women. During his earlier tenure he was associated with an Indian "widow" whom he met in Delhi while on a diplomatic visit. Pak media was abuzz about the affair calling the lady 'the most beautiful Indian woman'.
FWIW Nawaz Sharif’s claimed current view on Kargil bearing in mind that he was a protégé of Military Dictator Gen. Zia Ul Haq who famously said to US President Ronald Reagan that “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause”Altair wrote:Last time we had NS, we had Kargil war and 'medium' weapons (Tactical bombs to hit bunkers) were actually used in the Indo-Pak theater of operations by IAF since 1971 war.
The loyal kuttas of Mush cannot be written off yet. PA is still a major stakeholder in India-Pakistan link.
From here:Karan Thapar: So you will carry out a credible investigation?
Nawaz Sharif: I think such situations certainly need an investigation including the one which happened in Kargil. I think an inquiry commission will also be held on Kargil as well.
Karan Thapar: To check into not just General Musharraf but all the other four generals whose name came up at that time for being responsible for Kashmir, that will also happen.
Nawaz Sharif: Obviously. Obviously.
Karan Thapar: So you will bring out the full truth of Kargil.
Nawaz Sharif: I think commissions will have to bring out the full truth.
Karan Thapar: And will you share it with the Indian government?
Nawaz Sharif: I think it will be an open secret
Over 2000 activists of the Tehreek-e-Minhajul Quran (TMQ) staged a protest sit-in against the elections on The Mall service lane near Masjid-e-Shuhda on the call of their leader Tahirul Qadri. The TMQ workers, including women and children, participated in the sit-in which started at 8am and concluded at 3pm led by Dr Rahiq Ahmad Abbasi. The protesters were carrying banners and placards inscribed with different slogans against the “corrupt” polling system.
Talking to the participants of the sit-in through video link, Tahirul Qadri accused the election commission of paving the way for bogus degree holders and corrupt people to reach assemblies. He asked how can the ECP which, he claimed, has been formed against the constitution ensure that the elections are free and fair. “When the results of corrupt electoral system are made public, the media will voice the public’s views and unveil the foul system,” he remarked.
So TTP gets the govt it wants at the center. Now what? Will NS govt turn a blind eye to TTP's activities?Is Nawaz Sharif’s victory really good news for India?
by Praveen Swami
It’s strange how soon it was forgotten, that autumn evening in 2008 when President Asif Ali Zardari danced with the angels and all was about to be well in the world. “India has never been a threat to Pakistan”,” he told the Wall Street Journal in his midtown Manhattan suite, “I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad”. He called the Islamist insurgents in Kashmir “terrorists. He spoke of a future where Pakistani factories would feed India’s huge cement needs, Pakistani ports helped decongest India’s clogged ones.
Muhammad Ajmal Kasaab and nine other Lashkar-e-Taiba were, we know from subsequent investigations, were at about that time making their preparations for 26/11.
Now, as Nawaz Sharif prepares to take office as Pakistan’s Prime Minister in the wake of a sweeping electoral triumph, New Delhi ought be reminding itself of this cautionary tale. In an interview to CNN-IBN’s Karan Thapar, Sharif has said everything Indians could hope for—and then some. He urged a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Kashmir, and promised that he would “make sure that the Pakistani soil is not used for any such [terrorist] designs against India”. He spoke of enhanced trade ties, said he would examine allegations ISI involvement in 26/11, and promised full disclosure on Kargil: enough to melt the most hardened cynic’s heart.
In geopolitics, as in life, there’s this good rule of thumb: if it looks too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Though we’re likely to get reams of gushing commentary from candle-waving enthusiasts in coming days, there’s reason for caution.
There’s this reason, for one: the last time Sharif was prime minister, things didn’t go so well. In February, 1999, he and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee signed the Lahore Declaration, committing both countries “to implementing the Shimla Agreement in letter and spirit”. Three months later, Indian and Pakistani troops were exchanging fire in Kargil.
Even as the Lahore agreement was being drafted, we now know, Pakistani troops were being trained to push their way across the Line of Control. From 26 May and 29 May, 1999 conversations between army chief General Pervez Musharraf and his chief of general staff, Lieutenant-General Muhammad Aziz, intercepted by the Research and Analysis Wing, we also know Sharif was briefed on the fighting. Sharif insists he was told of the operation only after the war began. Musharraf insists Sharif was briefed about it back in February, 1999, before the Lahore deal.
From an Indian point of view, it doesn’t matter either way: Pakistan’s army, not the politicians, clearly call the shots on India.
This isn’t going to change—which is the second reason for being cautious. The Pakistani defence analyst Ayesha Siddiqa notes that “a democratic transition does not mean the army is ready to surrender its control over security and foreign policies. Afghanistan (by extension Iran as well), India, the US and China are critical to the GHQ’s [General Head Quarters’] interests. These are non-negotiable areas”.
It’s true. In 2008, remember, Zardari ordered civilian control of Pakistan’s notorious Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, Less than two years on, he was ruefully conceding that “for the time being, this matter has been shelved”. For all of Zardari’s make-nice words, he couldn’t push through a deal on Kashmir, terrorism or even most-favoured nation status for India. General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani flatly said that “Pakistan army was an “India-centric institution”.
For those who doubt that the ISI still calls the political shots, watch this video, from around 10:10, in which a candidate for Imran Khan’s party happily admits that the intelligence service picked him to stand for election. This isn’t unusual: party lists are routinely submitted to the ISI’s political cell, maker and breaker of governments gone by, for clearance.
The third reason why we shouldn’t expect too much is this: Nawaz Sharif is beholden to the dregs of Pakistan’s jihadist movement, and the debt’s certain to be called in. In the election campaign, Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz allied with the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—responsible for the killings of hundreds of Pakistan’s Shi’a minority and a welter of terrorist strikes. Sharif’s cosy relationship with Islamists dates back to 2008, when the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan helped ensure the election of his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, from Bhakkar in South Punjab. Malik Ishaq, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi’s head, was received with garlands by PML-N workers on his release from prison in July, 2011. The Sharif have also had long-standing links with the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
There has been barely a peep of condemnation out of Sharif on the massacres of Shi’a in Pakistan, variously attributed to opportunism, ideological empathy—and fear.This shouldn’t surprise us: by one credible account, judges used to offer Ishaq tea and cookies during his criminal trials.
Ehsanullah Ehsan, the spokesperson of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, made clear the jihadists see Sharif as one of their own. In a statement, Ehsan stated the TTP’s reason for bombings and attacks on the Pakistan People’s Party, the Awami National party and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement “their secular doctrine”.
It’s possible some kind of confrontation will prove inevitable in the long run—tigers brought up the back-yard tend to eventually do damage to their masters—but Sharif’s immediate response is likely going to be appeasement of the powerful, and savage, forces which helped him win.
For Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, this ought be a moment to step back and introspect. The Prime Minister’s expansive pursuit of peace with Pakistan has been built on circumstances which are an historical anomaly. Following 9/11, the United States tempered Pakistan’s pursuit of its covert war strategies against India—fearful that a crisis that would compromise its position in Afghanistan. In 2001-2001, following the near-war between India and Pakistan, it persuaded then-President Pervez Musharraf to back down on support for Kashmir jihadist groups, and enter into a ceasefire with India. Pakistan, in turn, faced an escalating spiral of violence within the country—again diminishing its appetite for confrontation abroad.
These pressures facilitated a year-on-year fall of violence in Kashmir from 2002—and paved a way for diplomats Satinder Lambah and Tariq Aziz to formulate the outlines of a final-status deal on the dispute.
Now, as the United States prepares to leave the region, and Pakistan lurches ever-deeper into crisis, thee post-9/11 shackles will fall away. It’s entirely possible the Pakistan army will push for a hostile posture on India—hoping to attract the jihadists arrayed against it back into the fold. Sharif may have no choice but to comply. Let’s also remember that democratically-elected governments with a clear mandate don’t always have good outcomes: the last truly free and fair election in Pakistan, Shuja Nawaz points out, ended up splitting the country in two.
Ever since Kayani took office, notably, he has focussed on mending fences with jihadists. Fighting along the Line of Control has increased; the ISI, we know from the testimony of Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, actively backed 26/11. The Kashmir peace deal was buried.
For a decade, Prime Minister Singh worked towards a seamless South Asia, believing trade and people-to-people contact it will pave the way for a durable peace. The dream is a pleasant one, but historically ill-founded: Europe on the eve of 1914, after all, was more integrated than at any time in history. Prime Minister Singh may be tempted to revive his pursuit of a borderless world now Pakistan has a strong civilian government—but the real lesson emerging from the election is that India needs to start erecting robust fences, not dismantle them.
A dog catching its own tail is not a revolution? what are you talking about!!abhijitm wrote:Paki media is calling this a revolution! So going around 360 degree and coming back to the original point is a definition of paki revolution.
When the "independent judiciary" ordered Rental's arrest recently, online Pakis went crazy sharing a picture showing Karachi Stock Exchange index heading towards Mumbai. It was like they wanted to scream and tell the world that they too have a stock exchange. I mean does it really matter whether they have a stock exchange or not when their economy is being sustained from borrowed funds? This election is like that. Right now they want to tell the world that they too are a democracy! Only when you scratch the surface and go a little deep (like that P Swami's article) that the real picture emerges.abhijitm wrote:Paki media is calling this a revolution! So going around 360 degree and coming back to the original point is a definition of paki revolution.