Re: Supreme Court Damns Gujarat Government Over Riot Case

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Syed) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>>> Yes you are right, it was Nawaz who sent those "goondas" including one
>>> minister or assembly  memeber who disrupted Supreme Court Session.
>>> Sorry for the mistake. it sure was Nawaz  Sharif and not Bay Nazeer
>>> but we know , she and her husband were no angels either. They all come
>>> on the name of democracy and next day, aristocracy sets in. Corruption
>>> starts and  the drama of sham democracy begins and then they want to
>>> wwatch and enjoy this fake show of democracy. 
>>
>>In a democracy, the "civilian aristocracy" must periodically 
>>win the voters' trust to continue in power. 
> 
> Though what you saying look politically right but what happens in
> India and Pakistan is this. Criminal but democratically elect "Modi "
> kills innocent Muslims and illiterate "junta" without knowing this man
> is not good for their future, re-elects the criminal  back in  office.

You can fool some of the people some of the time.
But you cannot fool all the people all the time. 
If Gujarat remains a haven of the criminal politicians,
then not just the victims, but ultimately, even the
apparent winners will turn against the government of 
the day. 

The federation, that is India, is getting more and
more competitive by the day. If a particular province 
becomes a haven of criminal politicians, then inevitably 
there will be a flight of capital and skilled labor to
provinces with better law and order situation, say, 
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. And when that happens, the 
criminal politicians will lose voters' confidence.

> And now by the time new elections will come by, businesses  ran  out
> of state, communal violence has killed , burned and maimed thousands
> on both sides, poverty has gone  through the roof but the process of
> democracy is there. 

In India, it is the rule rather than the exception (not only
at the stae level but even at the federal level) for changes 
in government through the ballot box.

Nothing hurts the voters more than what hurts the voters' 
pocketbook. Voters retribution is ineveitable if businesses 
"run out of state" and "poverty has gone through the roof".  

> And then may be thanks to ignorant Junta , Modi is
> elected back inoffice and by the time junta is matured , state is
> gone. 
>

And when the "state is gone", the votes will
go against the current incumbent. And the newly 
elected government must necessarily act to undo 
the causes of voters' ire. Or else, it too will
go the way of its predecessor.

But that's not how it works under a military junta.
In spite of all the finger pointing that the Pak Army 
has indulged in for decades, the buck has always stopped 
at the GHQ in Pakistan for at least since General Ziaul 
Haq's coup d'etat. The military has acted single-mindedly 
to remain the ultimate arbiter of who gets to steal in
Pakistan and how much. Needless to say, it is the
military that is Pakistan's largest body of organized
crime. The drug trafficking and the Kalashnikov culture,
for example, are the military's lasting legacy in Pakistan.

> 
> That is why I always say, for a healthy democracy, education is a
> pre-requisite. It can be accomplished by giving small courses in the
> evening in school yards by educating people how this sacred cow
> democracy works (first  educating teachers and then using them to
> educate junta) As otherwise you are running the risk, by the time
> democracy matures, nation is lost  in the process. 
> 
> it is like giving a knife to a one year kid on the pre-text that he
> will learn how to use  it for the benefit of family. Well by the time
> he grows enough to use it properly, he may cut his throat and gone
> with the wind. 
> 

In democracy, politicians must continue to enjoy
voters' faith to continue in power. No politician 
can fool all the people all the time. If he/she 
fails to deliver, sooner or later he loses a re-election 
bid.

The military doesn't have to deliver. It rules by virtue
of its monopoly over the guns. It rules for the benefit 
of itself and not for the people. There is absolutely
no incentive for it do otherwise.
 
>>The elections 
>>provide a safety valve for a population unhappy with its 
>>government.  
> 
> The elections  also provide chaos, hatred and lawlessness in immature
> nations. 
>

That's what the military junta would like to say. But it 
is no more than a self-serving argument. "Field Marshal" 
Ayub Khan introduced his "Basic Democracy" of 40000 
voters to avoid "chaos, hatred and lawlessness in an
immature nation" with a "mostly illiterate population". 
But the fauji-enforced stability merely served to muzzle 
the ordinary Pakistanis and allowed the ruling cabal to get 
progressively richer and more powerful. Inevitably, apres 
le "Field Marshal" came le deluge. 

Democracy, for all its inefficiencies and chaos, allows
the disinherited to be heard. And this prevents the 
type of deluge that follows the sudden overthrow of a
dictatorial government. 1971 would have been kinder to
Pakistan if the military hadn't intervened some dozen 
years before to avoid "chaos, hatred and lawlessness of 
an immature nation".

> 
> >
> >The "military aristocracy," on the other hand,  bolstered by 
> >its monopoly over the guns, insists on a perpetual hold on 
> >power. 
> 
> True

Glad we agree on this one. This is a key point.
This is what ultimately makes the "stability" under
military dictatorships so insidious and far worse than 
possible "chaos" under democracies. 

> 
> >When the armed forces enjoy supremacy, the military is 
> >responsible to no one but itself. "Military aristocracy" is 
> >necessarily a lot more oppressive than what a "civilian 
> >aristocracy", elected to power for a specific term, can 
> >ever be. 
> 
>  Might was always right and will always be right. 

It need not be right. And democracy is the world's 
best answer to that.

> True Indian army
> never took power but Indian politicians misused power, killed innocent
> people, deprived poor of their rights, starved people to death and
> even looted property and businesses. 

In a democracy, politicians have to compete for the
voters' confidence. The bottom line is that they
must deliver. And if they "starve people to death
and even loot property and business", not only would
they lose the votes of the victims, but ultimately
they would lose the votes of even the apparent winners
when the misdeeds of the ruling politicians leaves
the government with nothing to boast about at election 
time. As Mr. Syed has himself stated, "businesses 
"run out of state and poverty has gone through the roof". 
Voters retribution is ineveitable under the circumstances. 

A politician can fool only some of the people some of
the time. He might win an election or two by promoting 
hatred and chauvinism. But such a victory is necessarily 
pyrhic and short term . "Hatred and chauvinism" makes his
constituency less receptive to the type of infusion of
capital and skilled labor for which it must compete with 
other constituencies. If Gujarat fails to provide the
right environment, it will eventually lose out to provinces 
that can. And when that happens, even the apparent winners 
in Gujarat will start voting differently.

Democracy, unlike military dictarship, is a self-correcting
system. As Winston Churchill said (I paraphrase), "Democracy 
is the worst form of government, but it's the best we've got"  

> So what is the difference,
> military does it or politicians do it. Shouldn't we then go for the
> lesser evil?  

Military dictatorship is not the lesser evil. As Winston Churchill 
said (I paraphrase), "Democracy is the worst form of government, 
but it's the best we've got"

> Do not get this impression, that I am in favor of
> Military government but  I am realistic.  Pakistan military have
> corruption too

That's an understatement. For all the stories of corruption by
civilian politicians that are making the rounds in Pakistan,
it is Pakistan's Army that has institutionalized corruption.
It steals with the knowledge that people are helpless in the
face of its guns. The buck has always stopped at the GHQ in 
Pakistan at least since the days of General Ziaul Haq's time. 
The GHQ has remained steadfast over the years in its determination 
to remain the ultimate arbiter of who gets to steal in Pakistan 
and how much.

>( Indian generals took commission on arms sale also) but
> politicians took the trophy. 

Indian generals operate under civilian command. So, the buck 
really stops with the civilian government. "Commisions" 
and "trophies" should (and do) get debated in the Parliament 
when civilians in the government fail to take action against 
corruption in the military (Tehelka, Bofors etc.). The debate 
does affect voters' confidence. And outspoken politicians in the 
opposition do make gains by taking the government of the day to 
task for its acts of omissions and commissions. That is how 
V.P.Singh became India's Prime Minister. And, by the way, that
is why it took so long to finalize the massive jet-trainer deal 
with the British - successive governments were wary of getting 
blamed by opposition legislators and voters alike for 
"Commisions" and "trophies".  

> >
> >Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A 
> >nation is always a lot better off with its armed forces under 
> >the command of civilians elected to power for a specific term.
> 
> Only if the "Junta " is educated enough to select the right people.

That is the military junta's line. You can fool some of the
people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people
all the time. Subordination of the military to civilian
command is a cornerstone of democracy. Naturally, a military
junta would like people to believe otherwise.

As has been so aptly said:
"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in 
this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect 
or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst 
form of government, except for all the others that have been tried 
from time to time." 

> Otherwise before th term ends, nation may end or may be indebted so
> much that it will take years to recover out  of that financial
> massacre.

A military junta guards its perks so zealously that the
nation is not allowed to "recover out of that financial
massacre" at the expense of the military's vested interests.

Pakistan's army has been involved with drug trade
for a long time. An informative reference is the
following book by an academician from Chittagong 
University:

================================================================================
DRUGS IN SOUTH ASIA: FROM THE OPIUM TRADE TO THE PRESENT DAY
by M. Emdad-ul-Haq
MacMillan Press; Distributed by Vanguard Books Lahore; Pp319; Price
UKP45

BOOK REVIEW:

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
2-8 February, 2001

Pakistani rulers who sold heroin on the side
by Khaled Ahmed

Prof Haq who teaches political science at Chittagong University has
produced an excellent but shocking book on the racket of narcotics in
South Asia, in particular Pakistan where the state and government have
been deeply criminalised by heroin. The book gives a history of poppy
and other narcotic herb cultivation and export in the region of South
Asia and brings up the record by talking about heroin-making and
smuggling in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the recent times. By
far the most hair-raising section is about Pakistan because the war
Pakistan was fighting in Afghanistan on behalf of the US gave it a
kind of exemption from the American laws directed at stamping out the
export of heroin into the US.

In 1986 when President Reagan announced that an anti-narcotic drive
will be a part of America's foreign policy, heroin was being
manufactured in factories ten kilometers inside the Pakistan territory
on the Afghan border, and poppy was being cultivated in the border
tribal areas of Pakistan and inside the mujahideen-controlled areas of
Afghanistan. The US government looked the other way and gave Pakistan
an aid package worth 4 billion dollars. The generals got involved in
the lucrative 'other' trade with a friendly United States. General
Fazle Haq, governor and chief minister of the NWFP for eight years,
was known as 'Pakistani Noriega'. In 1985 he declared heroin a 'mineral'
at Wana in Waziristan. International narcotics publications called him
the 'poppy general', but somehow this negative publicity did not faze
General Zia who reappointed him chief minister after he resigned as
governor in the wake of his son's conviction in New York as a
trafficker.

Journalist Lifschultz's famous article revealed that General Zia
himself was doing heroin through Hamid Hasnain, chief executive of
Habib Bank in Islamabad, who was found in possession of General Zia's
personal documents like cheque books. The man was nabbed after his
agent was arrested in Oslo in 1983. General Zia's wife Shafiqa tried
to interfere in the court case against Hamid Hasnain but was effectively
prevented by the government of Norway. Western sources named ten
Noriegas in Pakistan. Air force chief Anwar Shamim, very close to
General Zia, was refused as Zia's ambassador by Canada because his
heroin connection. In 1986, two army officers were arrested in Karachi
with 900 kilos of heroin on them worth $4 billion. Major Zahooruddin
was taken from police custody to a military base from where
he 'miraculously' escaped; Flight Lieutenant Rehman feigned illness
and escaped equally 'miraculously' from the hospital. In all, 14 officers
were arrested for heroin in 1989. In 1987, squadron leader Farooq
Ahmad Khan was arrested in New York with two kilos of heroin on him and
within a week squadron leader Qassim was arrested in Karachi.

The officers used army-owned NLC trucks to smuggle heroin (in one case
10 metric tons) across Pakistan to outlets, including National
Shipping Corporation, to be later white-washed by the BCCI which laundered 
$4 billion for its Pakistani patrons. Gadoon Area near Peshawar was used
for poppy growing, supported by NWFP politicians. The PPP government,
pushed by the US, pretended to move against Ayub Afridi of Landi Kotal
and Mirza Iqbal Baig of Lahore. Baig was arrested in 1989 linking him
to a Japanese courier caught in Amsterdam with 17.5 kilos of heroin in
1988. This was also a General Zia connection, But the Lahore High
Court freed Baig 'for lack of evidence'. Ayub Afridi kept dodging arrest 
by moving around, in which he was 'helped' by the authorities.
Ayub 'financed' a number of PPP leaders win election. Benazir however
fired General Hameed Gul 'who was controversial for his alleged
involvement in drug trade under the Zia regime', and arrested General
Fazle Haq, fired Brigadier Imtiaz for alleged drug trade connections,
which offended the GHQ top brass. The army put together the IJI
against the PPP, comprising most of the pro-heroin elements who began 
bribing the PPP members. Benazir offered a PPP ticket to Malik Waris Khan
Afridi of the Khyber Agency, making him state minister and member of
her cabinet. Other heroin peddlers whom the PPP took in its fold were
Amanullah Gichki, Muhammad Ali Rind (a former Zia connection) from
Balochistan and Malik Moin Khan Afridi who was elected to the 1988
National Assembly. Later, Zardari was reported to have run a heroin
smuggling network to enrich himself.

The PML of Nawaz Sharif went the same way after first expressing its
resolve to stamp out heroin trafficking. His party contained known
drug barons. Ayub Afridi, on the run from Benazir, allegedly funded the
setting up of General Hameed Gul's IJI and paid Rs 50,000 for each
vote to become an MNA from Khyber Agency. Nawaz Sharif quashed his
warrants. In 1993, he freed a known trafficker from a hospital in D.I. Khan
under the influence of six MNAs, one Senator and three provincial ministers
who were into heroin smuggling. In 1993, PIA was caught spreading the
racket at the Heathrow airport in the UK. The book also quotes
American newspapers berating the Administration for pardoning the son and
son-in- law of a Pakistani high-up after he had been convicted in the US 
for heroin smuggling and sentenced to 50 years in jail. You can guess 
who this was.

Almost all our beloved retired generals who are today busy saving the
country from India and the United States in league with the weaponised
clergy are named as heroin-dealers in the book. And the author has
played safe by constantly referring to published sources in the West,
research journals devoted to the elimination of narcotics
internationally. What can we say except that we trust our generals
more than we trust the West. May Allah inflict palsy on the hands that
compile such painful research. Our retired generals are rich beyond
count because of Allah's barakah.