Ashok K.JhaMusharraf now also referred as a ‘‘terrorist’’!
November 24th 2007 04:45
THE COMMONWEALTH on Thursday suspended Pakistan from the organisation until the return of democracy and the rule of law. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group decided to suspend Pakistan from the 53-nation bloc pending the return of the rule of law following the imposition of Emergency rule earlier this month.
Pervez Musharraf is a democrat, a visionary, and a loyal ally in the war on terror for the president George Bush but to an ever-widening phalanx of critics, he is a ’’thug, ’’ a ‘ power hungry dictator’’ and now, a ’’terrorist.’’ A California daily has referred to him as a ’’terrorist,’’ attributing the epithet to critics. Many analysts have been pointing his dark side of siding with extremists and fundamentalists at the expense of moderate forces, even as the administration certifies his indispensability in the war on terror. While US’ penchant for backing despots, have been criticized in the past, seldom has the language descended to this level. In fact, there are almost no takers now for the Bush policy of backing Pakistan’s military ruler. Even those believing that Pakistan’s military is a stabilising force are now concluding that Musharraf has outlived his promises and utility.
Barak Obama, a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States expressing concern about his country’s relationship with Pakistan said that if he becomes President he will order US forces to strike inside the Wazirastan, whether Musharraf approves of it or not. This statement caused a stir in Islamabad and his political rivals charged that his ’inexperience’ has prompted him to advocate precipitous military action because taking such action would fatally ’destabilise’ a country that already teeters on the brink of political disintegration.
Pakistan military has a long history of prioritising its economic empire that takes precedence over any ideological considerations. They and their civilian cohorts currently own almost half of the Pakistan economy and thus have a vested interest in maintaining their political and economic dominance by depicting themselves as the country’s indispensable political saviors. General Musharraf is in fact the latest in a long line of purported ’saviors’. He was preceded by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul Haq between 1959 and 1999, each of whom followed the same trajectory as Pervez Musharraf. That is, each seized power from allegedly incompetent civilian regimes, aborted the country’s democratic evolution, then in the end ran out of political gas as they gradually discovered that governing a country of Pakistan’s proportions through Islamic jingoism and fear of India, with no viable democratic political infrastructure and no popular mandate, was a non-starter in the long run. In each instance the generals ran out of ideas and legitimacy and grew increasingly corrupt while the public grew increasingly disillusioned with the military rule.
The Musharraf regime too is on the brink of going the way of its predecessors. Like his predecessors, Musharraf is flailing about trying to retain his mandate by tampering with the country’s judiciary, employing the gimmick of ’emergency rule’ is his latest attempt to govern Pakistan in the same old manner. Unfortunately with the United States government, as usual, acting as an enabler, as it seems to be what Obama also senses must come to an end.
Pervez Musharraf is a democrat, a visionary, and a loyal ally in the war on terror for the president George Bush but to an ever-widening phalanx of critics, he is a ’’thug, ’’ a ‘ power hungry dictator’’ and now, a ’’terrorist.’’ A California daily has referred to him as a ’’terrorist,’’ attributing the epithet to critics. Many analysts have been pointing his dark side of siding with extremists and fundamentalists at the expense of moderate forces, even as the administration certifies his indispensability in the war on terror. While US’ penchant for backing despots, have been criticized in the past, seldom has the language descended to this level. In fact, there are almost no takers now for the Bush policy of backing Pakistan’s military ruler. Even those believing that Pakistan’s military is a stabilising force are now concluding that Musharraf has outlived his promises and utility.
Barak Obama, a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States expressing concern about his country’s relationship with Pakistan said that if he becomes President he will order US forces to strike inside the Wazirastan, whether Musharraf approves of it or not. This statement caused a stir in Islamabad and his political rivals charged that his ’inexperience’ has prompted him to advocate precipitous military action because taking such action would fatally ’destabilise’ a country that already teeters on the brink of political disintegration.
Pakistan military has a long history of prioritising its economic empire that takes precedence over any ideological considerations. They and their civilian cohorts currently own almost half of the Pakistan economy and thus have a vested interest in maintaining their political and economic dominance by depicting themselves as the country’s indispensable political saviors. General Musharraf is in fact the latest in a long line of purported ’saviors’. He was preceded by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul Haq between 1959 and 1999, each of whom followed the same trajectory as Pervez Musharraf. That is, each seized power from allegedly incompetent civilian regimes, aborted the country’s democratic evolution, then in the end ran out of political gas as they gradually discovered that governing a country of Pakistan’s proportions through Islamic jingoism and fear of India, with no viable democratic political infrastructure and no popular mandate, was a non-starter in the long run. In each instance the generals ran out of ideas and legitimacy and grew increasingly corrupt while the public grew increasingly disillusioned with the military rule.
The Musharraf regime too is on the brink of going the way of its predecessors. Like his predecessors, Musharraf is flailing about trying to retain his mandate by tampering with the country’s judiciary, employing the gimmick of ’emergency rule’ is his latest attempt to govern Pakistan in the same old manner. Unfortunately with the United States government, as usual, acting as an enabler, as it seems to be what Obama also senses must come to an end.
| 60 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I do hate when terms get misused for emotional reason.
Thug and Dictator are fair enough but Terrorist is just sloppy thinking on the part of the Newspaper. It defines everything evil as terrorism and in doing so cheapens other forms of evil.
I do however believe that the expulsion from the Commonwealth will have the most impact on his power base.