What's new

Nation's Hero - Shah Mahmood Qureshi rejects Raymond Davis' immunity

But why was he sacked... cmon guys... give credit where credit is due!!!

Party politics.

He was sacked because he didn't wait for the party's decision and started leaking information regarding Davis. Mishandling of the case coupled with deviation from the party's stance resulted in his sacking. When he was finally sacked, he though of taking revenge rather than admitting his mistake. So he went on public saying that federal Govt wanted to release Davis and he opposed it. In a sense he tried to took credit while party was still trying to find a solution.

I know many people don't like Najam sethi but he has explained Qureshi very well in his programme. I also don't agree with him many times but i think he has explained this new found patriotism of Qureshi very well.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
AE, there is no difference in between working in Pakistan and overseas Pakistanis, their respect & love for country is same. Everybody contribute for good name of his country. Not important where he is, why and when.
This theory can be applied not only over Pakistanis but all other nations.
This is discussion and who applying taxes or working & where, not important.
.

residence i can't say but a "Citizen" "hell no". no way its "Treason"
what are you saying bro nop .... not good :nono: infact it's "Wrong"
see bro this is serious stuff. A "Citizenship" is an "Oath" a very strong one & it cannot be underestimated @ any time A Citizenship determines my true identity i believe in thoroughly things are never ever the same again when i took my oath it was loyalty to Her Majesty the "Queen Elizabeth" II & not to the respective gentlemen mr. jinnah or mr. mahatma gandhi . well i have feelings for some indian's but my loyalty belongs to Canada & canadian's only birthplace or mother land these thing does not matter my own team the "Team Canada" @ the respected the ICC Cricket 2011 World Cup was led by our team Captain mr. Ashish Bagai (he made me proud) led our team yesterday @ the opening ceremony in Bangladesh was actually born in New delhi India . Now say we are up against team India what should he do i tell you what he should exactly do & that is beat team India same goes for Team Pakistan or team Bangladesh be it anybody same things happen in "National" matter inthe domestic or international polity see i can never forget nor should i ever in my life that my Flag is the Canadian red & white "Maple leaf" the "Canadian Flag" & not the Indian or Pakistani Flags neither should i support them no never that's "Treason" as simple as it sounds.
 
The rise and fall of Shah Mahmood Qureshi



Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s performance at his press conference on February 16 deserved a curtain call. His vocation should have been the stage, rather than politics. The affected manner, the dramatic pauses, the contrived humility, letting his expression suggest what words cannot, the fact that he did not actually cry while he made his audience think that he was crying were all expressions of that neurotic impulse that actors develop for the stage. Perhaps if Qureshi really wants to be taken seriously, he should quit acting because that would be a sign of maturity.
On the Raymond Davis matter, he prevaricated when certainty was required; he kept quiet when he needed to speak out and then spoke out when it was best to be silent. What he should have done when he discovered that his take on the Raymond Davis matter differed from that of the leadership of his party — and indeed that they differed on politics and not only principles, because some were contemplating doctoring documents — was to resign and not wait to be booted out which, for all practical purposes, he was.
The trouble with Qureshi, like his icon Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, is that he, too, is a compulsive performer. All politicians are vain but like ZA Bhutto, Qureshi does not wear his vanity lightly. Moreover, he wraps himself up in the flag at the slightest opportunity. Ever the egotist, Qureshi has assumed the role of the wronged patriot much as ZA Bhutto did in 1966 by raising the Tashkent bogey. Faced with the prospect of having lost his job, Qureshi also lashed out at the regime to which he had sworn fealty, in which he had prospered and by which he had been rewarded with high office. But all that Qureshi has succeeded in achieving is to widen suspicion about his loyalty which had always been loitering in the minds of PPP stalwarts, from a chink into a veritable chasm. Needless to say, like Bhutto, who never disclosed the secret clauses of Tashkent — because there were none — we probably won’t ever know what further disclosures Qureshi has up his sleeve.
By exaggerating achievements of his nondescript and relatively brief tenure as foreign minister and laying on self-praise with a trowel, the impression he gave was exactly the opposite of what he intended. It made him sound much like a mother who talks about her own children. Or, better still, like the fly that sat on the axle wheel of the Roman chariot and said ‘see what dust I raise’.
However, while ZA Bhutto had several solid achievements to brag about during his long stint as foreign minister, Qureshi has none. If he stood tall, it is only because, like Gulliver, he served among Lilliputians. To claim, for example, that the mention of Kashmir in his speech at the UN was a singular contribution to the Kashmiri cause amounted to what one friend described kindly as “superfluity of excess,” which is longhand for lies. The brave Kashmiris are responsible for returning the Kashmir dispute to the forefront of the international agenda, not Qureshi’s prattling from the UN podium.
Qureshi’s other claim that, but for him, the India-Pakistan dialogue would not have resumed, was more revealing of the novice that he was, and remains, when it comes to foreign affairs. It is mostly to India’s advantage that talks resume with Pakistan. India is seeking support for her candidature for permanent membership of the Security Council and talks, even if only for the sake of talking, help to show India as being conciliatory. It deflects attention from Delhi’s depredations in Kashmir, which have aroused outrage in India and abroad. On the other hand, talks and their inevitably inconclusive outcome serve no purpose for Pakistan. Thanks to this government and the other preceding it, we no longer have an image that is worth our while to maintain.
Qureshi made much of the fact that he had refused to be pressurised by his own party leaders on Raymond Davis because he did not want to be a party to the killing of ‘innocent’ Pakistanis. Indeed, if the victims are found to be innocent, that would be justifiable cause for elation. However, at the time that he was ‘heroically’ resisting such pressure, and even now, it is by no means certain that the two motorcyclists were entirely innocent. When Qureshi declared them innocent, not even the police had made up their minds, what to speak of the court where the trial has yet to begin. Was he trying to say that he knew that Davis is a homicidal maniac because who else will kill people merely because they were hanging around his car?
As for the ‘consultations’ that Qureshi claims he had with ‘experts’ of other departments before arriving at his conclusions, two of those departments, the interior ministry and presumably the intelligence agencies, would have known next to nothing about the Vienna Conventions. As for the legal wing of the Foreign Office, if those manning it had been remotely competent, they would have made their living at the Bar.
Qureshi would have been better advised to have got expert advice not from his subordinates but from independent experts of repute. Had he done so, he would have realised that the entire matter of the status of Raymond Davis hinged on the fact of whether he was a member of the technical and administrative staff of the embassy, as the Americans claim, in which case he has blanket immunity, or whether he is a consular official attached to the US consulate, in which case he does not.
One should have been able to say with near certainty that Shah Mahmood Qureshi has burnt his boats with the PPP and that his open defiance of the party leadership is as transparent an effort as any that can be made to carve out a bloc of his own supporters within the party, or perhaps to leave it altogether. However, the PPP is now in the hands of people who are all ‘loyal’ to the party, but in their own fashion and only for the moment. The likes of them may well welcome him back when, in fact, he should be stiff armed into oblivion.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 20th, 2011.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
.
Please ignore the ignorant of Anagha till they do

personaly i feel nawaz's party is a bit more loyal to pakistan then ppp i am not a pakistani but from the look of it nawa sharif is less harmfull though not good a little less bad then other's imran khan is more on the good side but politics is not his cup of tea

Dear sir please come to Pakistan stay here for a while and then give a commentary, it will be more appropraite.

now as the syed affairs goes imran bhai all muslims are equal there is no such things as syed islam i grew up in jeddah been to makkah & madina many times i have never heard this syed philosophy actualy saudis/arabs dont believe in such things syed is mr eg kaif al haal syed it mean how are you mr
syed or non syed what makes ones better is deeds not titles

Syed is used as a common term of respect in Saudia, please tell what title is given to the progeny of Prophet peace and blessings, Ahle Baet? cause they are respected nevertheless.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom