Very Sad to see Pervez Musharraf

[Splurgenxs]

She was assassinated by the Taliban, AFAIK.

Affirmation bias.

The military establishment has an old score with the Bhutto family . More so after the 1947.
They did not like ZABs antics as well as his moves after.

Benazir Bhutto assassination: How Pakistan covered up killing
Forty years later, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s words still haunt Pakistan

 

[Death Professor]

Wasn't it Zia ul Haq who called the Pakistani Constitution a piece of paper which he can tear up at will ?

It was Musharraf who said constitution was piece of paper that can be thrown in a bin. Btw, though Mush did some good, he also did alot bad. His handling of Lal Masjid, his handling of bugti, him giving NRO, him staying silence against Indian aggression, just to name a few.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Pakistanis behaving wrongly with the one sensible ruler they had in decades.

Other than his four-point-formula for Kashmir I wish India had a leader like him to handle the right-wingers in India.

Be glad you never had a ruler like him, there's a reason your country has seen relatively better developed institutions, proper civilian supremacy and democratic transitions.

This guy overthrew a government, started a pointless war and lost it, damaged our international credibility, and set our system back to start from zero again in 2008. He trampled on the constitution that he had sworn an oath to, and he imprisoned some who rightly opposed him, forced judges to swear oaths to him and renounce the constitution.

He also oversaw short term stability that was mainly driven by good global macroeconomic conditions, and US aid making up a big chunk of the budget. Other than that, his era saw the start of large scale insurgency and terror in Pakistan, and also the ushering in of a new era of load shedding. He also started all sorts of trouble internally. And the financial crisis of 2008-09 which people blame the PPP for, was almost all set to happen under his watch. He did have a few positives, but nothing near the cost.

Best military leader Pakistan ever had..at least in my lifetime

I'd argue he was the worst, or at least one of the worst.

He recklessly started a war without taking either the government or the army itself in confidence, and he lost that conflict. And to cover up for his incompetence and to escape the incoming comeuppance, he used his institution to save his own skin, overthrew the system and trampled on the constitution which he swore an oath to.

Any Chief of Army Staff who more or less fulfilled his oath, and didn't break it, is technically better than this guy. Any COAS who didn't start a poorly planned war and lost, is also better than him.

 

[jamahir]

He trampled on the constitution that he had sworn an oath to, and he imprisoned some who rightly opposed him, forced judges to swear oaths to him and renounce the constitution.

And in present "democratically-governed" India some of those things are happening openly. For example, court cases against activists Umar Khalid and Safoora Zargar and against the women's collective Pinjra Tod on charges of "anti-national" activity. Not one case against Hindutvadis AFAIK.

It was Musharraf who said constitution was piece of paper that can be thrown in a bin.

Link please.

Btw, though Mush did some good, he also did alot bad. His handling of Lal Masjid

Why was that handling bad ? As I said, I would have liked very much if the Indian army would have raided the offices of the various right-wing groups in India.

 

[Jungibaaz]

And in present "democratically-governed" India some of those things are happening openly. For example, court cases against activists Umar Khalid and Safoora Zargar and against the women's collective Pinjra Tod on charges of "anti-national" activity. Not one case against Hindutvadis AFAIK.

Your country and its foundations are currently under violent assault by Hindutva types, no doubt.
But you have had in the past some semblance of continuity, democratic transitions, and civilian supremacy.

After Jinnah's death, we have been plagued by civilian dictators, governor generals, military dictators and their spawn, one after another, ad nauseam. It's hard to overstate just how important this unhappy circumstance has been for us, things might have been very different if we had leaders who were accountable to people, who had some respect and deference for the common man.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Link please.

Here it is, he was shameless enough to utter it in an interview:

As an example of his democratic credentials and to solidify his hold, he held a referendum in 2002 on whether to allow him to continue has president for another five years. And in utterly banana republic-esque fashion and rather comically, he won the referendum with 97-98% of the vote in favour.

Zia also said the same about the constitution which he also swore an oath to and trampled: "What is a constitution? It is a booklet with twelve or ten pages. I can tear them away and say that tomorrow we shall live under a different system." Incidentally, he also stayed on via referendum and proved his popularity by winning 98.5% of votes in favour.

 

[S.Y.A]

Here it is, he was shameless enough to utter it in an interview:

As an example of his democratic credentials and to solidify his hold, he held a referendum in 2002 on whether to allow him to continue has president for another five years. And in utterly banana republic-esque fashion and rather comically, he won the referendum with 97-98% of the vote in favour.

Zia also said the same about the constitution which he also swore an oath to and trampled: "What is a constitution? It is a booklet with twelve or ten pages. I can tear them away and say that tomorrow we shall live under a different system." Incidentally, he also stayed on via referendum and proved his popularity by winning 98.5% of votes in favour.

Technically both of them are/were right. Constitution ia nothing more than a piece of paper that some in power have decided upon, and have never bothered to ask the public about it. It severely flawed and should keep on changing.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Technically both of them are/were right. Constitution ia nothing more than a piece of paper that some in power have decided upon, and have never bothered to ask the public about it. It severely flawed and should keep on changing.

Disagree, they were both wrong, and they both violated it when it suited their personal and political ambitions, nothing more.

The constitution is literally there to uphold fairness and rule of law, and lend credibility and continuity to the state.

As for flaws in the constitution, sure, it does have flaws. Every constitution needs updates, additions, and tweaks. That's what amendments are for, as for "never bothering to ask the public", most constitutions are not written by the public, but if you live in a representative democracy, the representatives (parliamentarians etc.) draft it on behalf of the public. We don't operate Pakistan on the basis of referenda or direct democracy, parliament is the expression of the will of the people, similar systems exist everywhere in the world. If you want more direct democracy, sure that's a subject of discussion, but trampling over representative democracy by scoundrel dictators is not the answer, it's far worse.

Also, let's hear what sort of changes you'd like in the constitution, I'd be interesting in knowing your specific issues with it.

 

[litman]

Musharraf's Leaked Video on OBL Raid - Behind The News with Haleema Sadia @TAGTV - YouTube
For all those who call him a leader. You can call it a propaganda but no one can put words in his mouth.

 

[jamahir]

But you have had in the past some semblance of continuity, democratic transitions, and civilian supremacy.

That is true, technically, but that hasn't made India some harmonious welfare state system. Tragedies like 300,000 farmers committing suicide within a period of just ten years, people dying of illnesses not because there is no cure but because the ill don't have money to pay to the hospital, homelessness and hunger... Such problems exist here in open knowledge yet the civilian governments of the past did not do anything to resolve them. Even little Cuba, which is not as rich as India, doesn't allow people to die of hunger and curable illness.

After Jinnah's death, we have been plagued by civilian dictators, governor generals, military dictators and their spawn, one after another, ad nauseam. It's hard to overstate just how important this unhappy circumstance has been for us, things might have been very different if we had leaders who were accountable to people, who had some respect and deference for the common man.

Technically both of them are/were right. Constitution ia nothing more than a piece of paper that some in power have decided upon, and have never bothered to ask the public about it. It severely flawed and should keep on changing.

You are both right but for that the people, the citizens, should be enlightened.

We don't operate Pakistan on the basis of referenda or direct democracy, parliament is the expression of the will of the people, similar systems exist everywhere in the world. If you want more direct democracy, sure that's a subject of discussion, but trampling over representative democracy by scoundrel dictators is not the answer, it's far worse.

We should start with asking what does 'Democracy' mean. And you have made reference to direct democracy which is real democracy when guided by progressive thought. Please go through this thread and this related post.

 

[Jungibaaz]

We should start with asking what does 'Democracy' means. And you have made reference to direct democracy which is real democracy when guided by progressive thought. Please go through this thread and this related post.

I actually agree with you here, if you remember, we share similar opinions on direct democracy. I also had a similar discussion here. I have to be honest, although I have a preference for a direct democracy that works well, in practice if they both have their flaws, then I'm a little agnostic on the matter of direct vs representative democracy. As long as the latter comes with a helping of social justice and empowerment, along the usual balance of power lines of the troika. Representative democracy as we have seen can be captured and coerced by powerful and monied interests. Let's continue this discussion in your links if needed.

 

[krash]

Pakistanis behaving wrongly with the one sensible ruler they had in decades.

Well given the fact that he is the moron who first initiated Kargil with both hands deliberately tied behind his back, just for his personal glory, only to then let India build a fence on LOC during his rule while pulling all support from the Freedomfighters, again for his personal glory, I don't believe he was sensible at all. Add to that the fact that he usurped the country and deserves capital punishment, as per the constitution, I'd say that he is a traitor.

 

[pakpride00090]

People can shit on him all they want but the fact of the matter is he avoided total destruction of pakistan post-911

It was a difficult time to be a ruler at that time and all high and mighty people can criticize him in the hindsight but he did what was necessary. Far better than chor zardari , bhutto and nawaz

He also oversaw short term stability that was mainly driven by good global macroeconomic conditions, and US aid making up a big chunk of the budget. Other than that, his era saw the start of large scale insurgency and terror in Pakistan, and also the ushering in of a new era of load shedding. He also started all sorts of trouble internally. And the financial crisis of 2008-09 which people blame the PPP for, was almost all set to happen under his watch. He did have a few positives, but nothing near the cost.

That is technically incorrect as the amount of aid was almost the same post musharraf era. I wonder why Nawaz and Zardari couldn't replicate his economic performance

Large scale insurgency was bound to happen when sole superpower intervenes in your neighboring country that you do not have a fenced border with , coupled with how uneducated and lawless this county already was and is , it was not surprising ... We can't fault him for that...

Also , insurgency was pretty low .. Things got bad when he was about to leave and then worse after he left.
His period was the best when it came to economy and security. Even since then , it has been downhill.

 

[StormBreaker]

@PanzerKiel What a coincidence bro, Musharraf’s mother is buried just two rows beside my dad.

And my dad was in the same hospital and ICU Room as Musharraf when Musharraf was severely ill. Doctor who is urdu speaking guy, Told us this. (Dubai)

 

[Baibars_1260]

I was replying to my fellow Indian.
As I said earlier and can see from your reply, Pakistanis have a strange fascination with military dictators. They dont trust their own vote.
We dont vote for a candidate on the basis of what another nation thinks about him / her. If we had to follow based on US diktats, then we would have agreed with them to send our boots on the ground in Afghanistan. We have our own independent thought process.

Since we are in a mudsling contest:
Indians have a strange fascination for electing internationally designated fascists and criminals and skewing their judicial process and apex court. Even the murderers of their elected leaders are lauded as heroes and temples built to worship them as gods ( Link ) . Else where the kin of these murderers are elected as lawmakers solely on their "heroic" spouses. ( Link ) . A convicted accomplice of a suicide bomber that took out an elected Chief Minister is awaiting pardon on "humanitarian" grounds ( Link ) . A terrorist on trial is elected to parliament as a Hindu heroine ( Link ) .

Will take Parvez Musharraf over Pragya Thakur any day.

Please " elect " more Pragya Thakurs and Yogi Adityanaths