andyx1205 wrote:A lot of kids in Surrey wear Khalistan shirts but some of them probably drink alcohol. It doesn't make sense.

As you probably already know, our "Quiad-e-Azam" was a secular Muslim who drank and ate pork. He saw Indian Muslims as a nation, not just as Indians who followed a particular religion. Many of the more devout Muslims were dead against partition until after it happened. Now, the fundies are monopolizing Pakistani nationalism and much of the secular Left is regionalist or regional-nationalist at least in Balochistan, Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh.

This "Two Nation Theory" (that Hindus are a nation and Indian Muslims are a nation, not the smaller ethno-linguistic groups like Punjabis, Bengalis, Gujaratis and so on) is still unquestioned gospel in the Pakistani state, as much a part of the national mythology as the "American Dream" or "Manifest Destiny" is in the US. It clearly failed after Bangladesh's secession, but for some reason the Pak ultranationalists don't want to give in to the similar demands for autonomy and cultural recognition of the remaining nationalities of Pakistan.

When it comes to Pakistani politics, I'm a diehard regionalist; you Indians are lucky that you got a real federation divided into nationally-based units after the Telugu nationalist Potti Sreeramulu fasted to death rather than the centralizing and overextended central government of Pakistan.

I didn't know you had a Pakistani background! Curious, which area from Pakistan are you or your ancestors from, and ethnicity? More importantly, what's your conversion story? It'd be interesting to know.

Indeed I am aware that Jinnah was a secular Muslim. He saw "Islam" as a binding national/cultural identity more than a religious doctrine, very similar actually to Ataturk (one could argue both were "cultural" Muslims).

Indeed, religion was not able to unite all Pakistanis, that is, West and East, since the cultural (and linguistic, Urdu was to be the language of Indian Muslims and hence the national unity language) differences were more significant than any identity based on religion.

The two nation theory was simply debunked with the secession of Bangladesh. IMO, call me a nationalist, but I think the partition was a mistake. There are many Muslims in India and a lot of them have served the country well, in the sciences, the military, and political office (though of course there have been clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India). A strong, large Indian subcontinent based on a secular, federal Republic, would have been most preferable IMO (either that, or go further and cut all of these states into separate countries, of course it is too late for either to become a reality). We all, from different religions and ethnicities, came together to fight for independence. Surely we could have lived together as well, in one country that is. As an anarchist I also support regionalism or rather federated, de-centralized states. Look at Iraq today, Saddam held it together through force, through an iron-grip, but today the country is a disaster (the best solution would be three different countries with the realistic solution being a federal system with three autonomous regions).

It seems the two theory myth, that is, Islam as the base for national identity in Pakistan, is what one would call the "noble lie," a national myth propagated by an elite to maintain social order and harmony. This explains the strong anti-India stance of Pakistan when it comes to foreign policy, which has resulted in the several wars between the two countries (all of which were started by Pakistan unless I'm mistaken) as well as Pakistan's, as part of its "national security," support for the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to prevent an Indian client state on its other border (being trapped by both sides by the evil India). Ever since, Pakistan has maintained this position of making sure it controls Afghanistan to prevent an Indian client state, and it has gone very far in doing so. After 9/11, as a new player entered Afghanistan, that is, America and its allies, Pakistan switched to playing a double game with the West, pretending that it is fighting the war on terror while still keeping ties with the Taliban and even Osama Bin Laden (helping him escape from Tora Bora) in the hopes that it could "play their cards" in the future and use them as tools to prevent this evil India from surrounding it from both ends. For a long time Pakistan and India were engaged in a proxy-war in Afghanistan, and even after 9/11 when new players joined the game, the proxy war continues (as Michael Ware noted, Western troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan with reasons that had/have absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, but rather because Pakistan and India don't like each-other, that is, Pakistan perceives an Indian-client state on its other border as a threat to its national security). Why the West are in there is a completely different conversation since they're new players in Afghanistan but the Pakistan-India proxy war has been going on for almost 20 years. I'd strongly recommend Michael Ware, who's actually been over there and will tell you much more about conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq than most of the stuff you can read in the mainstream press.





Talk about paranoia...in regards to how far Pakistan is willing to go. Obviously India, with its largely growing economy, wants to expand its influence into Afghanistan and achieve a greater power status (in this sense, the American/NATO invasion was a god-send for India since for a long time it was losing the proxy war as the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan but today the Northern Alliance is the status quo), but I don't see how this "threatens" Pakistan. Does Pakistan think India is going to invade it or something? Pakistan itself heavily relies in China which has great interests in Pakistan and the Chinese clearly would want to curb Indian expansion but I don't see what Pakistan has to gain from blocking India's access to Afghanistan (besides the elites propagating the "noble lie" which is the supposed Indian threat that somehow threatens its national security even though India has never invaded Pakistan and initiated a war). I remember a Pakistani ISI member saying that while the Indians and others have money to spend, Pakistan doesn't...it simply has its crazies and so it will take advantage of those crazies.

Remember, Pakistan also supports many terrorist groups that have launched attacks in India. That famous gangster, Dawood Ibrahim, who...along with other associates (such as Tiger Memon) was behind the 1993 Mumbai attacks also most likely has connections with the ISI (either they helped him carry out the attack or allowed him to hide/live in Pakistan instead of cooperating with India to bring him to justice).

What confuses me is whether the Pakistani elite (the military oligarchs) actually believe in this highly exaggerated Indian threat and are willing to support terrorist groups and the Taliban (remember, there's the Taliban that it considers an important asset and Tehriki-i-Taliban which is a completely different group and is the one carrying out the insurgency in North-West Pakistan), or if they simply use this noble lie to help maintain national unity and social order so that they (the military elites who seem to be the real power players in Pakistan) can continue to keep their privileges. It's as if the Indian threat is the only thing that keeps them together, it is as the center of Pakistani foreign policy (maybe the Chinese are somewhere in the background but I don't see any direct evidence for that and it is only speculation).

Btw Saim you might be interested in this good interview of Tariq Ali (Pakistani atheist and leftist) who talks about Pakistan.


I was shocked to learn that 60% of Pakistani children are born stunted.

Zia-ul-Haq also left a lasting legacy on Pakistan with his Islamist conservatism. There are theories that the protests against Bhutto and the coup itself had the CIA playing a hand in it, with similarities to the CIA role in bringing Pinochet in power in Chile. Bhutto was, after all, a socialist...though his nationalist views were IMO a downside, especially his reaction to what happened in East Pakistan where the party from there should have rightfully formed the government after winning the majority of votes...but Bhutto insisted on having two PMs running West and East respectively which was ridiculous. Still, I think he was probably the only hope for Pakistan, and if the theories are correct, he was ousted by the CIA (if incorrect, then America still gave the green light for his execution).

Oh, regarding the topic at hand, I think he should say that the Sikhs misinterpreted what he meant to say. He didn't mean to make fun of Sikhs, he meant to make fun of Mitt Romney. But he's sorry that people thought if it that way. I mean, why not? It's not like they're rioting in the streets, and it's not like he was actually making fun of Sikhism (if either the latter was true, he should've held his ground).

andyx1205 wrote:I didn't know you had a Pakistani background! Curious, which area from Pakistan are you or your ancestors from, and ethnicity? More importantly, what's your conversion story? It'd be interesting to know.

My dad's side of the family are all Punjabis from Hafizabad district. He only speaks Urdu and English though (both with an American/Anglophone accent), because his father worked in the UN and so he grew up in the US and American-dominated expat communities in Switzerland and Malaysia (he left Pakistan when he was 7). I don't speak any Punjabi, although I've slowly been learning Urdu for the past year.

Interestingly enough, I don't personally have a conversion story. This is probably quite rare for people of Pakistani descent, but I come from a fairly long line of apostates. My grandfather was an atheist (he worked as a sociologist), my grandmother is a devout Sufi and my father was raised Muslim, became an atheist, and then converted to Ananda Marga, a Hindu-based new religious movement. Ironically, the main religious influence on my early life was much closer to Hinduism than Islam (well, besides all the exposure to Christianity I got from wider society). On my mother's side they're all ex-Yugoslav atheists. My great-great grandfather was even a Slovene (though my closer family's all Serb now) socialist revolutionary .

I started questioning the Islamic-Christian God idea of god when I was tiny. You know the drill, "if God made the world, then who made God?". I was inspired by the Gautam Buddha story when I was around 8 and started self-ientifying as a "Buddhist", even though most of the concrete theology of my belief system was lifted directly out of Ananda Marga. I became skeptical of "Buddhism" as such when a white Lamaist (Tibetan Buddhist) friend of mine started telling me about "Buddhist hell", which I thought was total rubbish. I thought I probably started questioning reincarnation/rebirth and karma as a whole (both as integral to Ananda Marga and Buddhism as to Hinduism) when I was about 10 or 11. I remember asking my dad some questions about it ("if when you are reborn you don't have your personality, how is it justice that you are now saddled with the karma of what is essentially someone else?", "if all souls come from previous souls, does that mean that the universe's population of organisms constantly stays static?", "how do animals become humans [i.e., get to better levels of existence] through reincarnation, if animals only act by instinct and not by any conscious ethics?") and not finding the answers satisfactory.

The first time I was exposed to the "New Atheism" was the "why doesn't god heal paraplegics?" video on the internet. I told an Ananda Margi "dada" (monk) that I was an atheist, and his response was "well, do you know if there is a god?". And I said, obviously, "well, no"; the response was: "well then you're agnostic!". I realized "atheism" wasn't a knowledge claim after reading Dawkins, and then back I was to being a self-described atheist. "Atheism" at first was defined mainly in opposition to the nonsense that had been "taught" to me in RE (religious "education") in primary school, which is a Christian indoctrination class. Pretty much, you had the option to hear some Christian lady make several contradictory assertions in a row, or go sit in the corner and do nothing. This was a public school by the way! Eventually though, I realized that the Indic tradition that I'd also been exposed to was flawed as well.

My father hasn't believed in a personal God since his Muslim upbringing, but he does believe in something close to the Hindu idea of "Brahman". In other words, god is a sort of 'cosmic consciousness' that you can tap into through meditation and the like; you have a 'higher self' that is in tune with God, and you need to engage in spiritual activities to activate that higher self. I never found any reason to believe that either, although it's certainly a better idea than the Christian or Muslim idea of a deity.

So yeah, I was been exposed to lots of different religions as a child (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Ananda Marga). All the better to see that they're all rubbish.

Indeed I am aware that Jinnah was a secular Muslim. He saw "Islam" as a binding national/cultural identity more than a religious doctrine, very similar actually to Ataturk (one could argue both were "cultural" Muslims).

Actually, that's a really good analogy. Jinnah's ideological descendents seem as dead against any Punjabi/Seraiki/Sindhi/etc. autonomy or native language-medium education as the Kemalists are against the Kurdish movement. I remember seeing one Pakistani nationalist on the internet accusing people who want Punjabis to be literate in their own language (rather than only in Urdu and/or English) of being "Indian agents". Everyone is an American or Indian agent to Pakistani nationalists, and to regionalists everyone is art of the ISI or the military.

,
Indeed, religion was not able to unite all Pakistanis, that is, West and East, since the cultural (and linguistic, Urdu was to be the language of Indian Muslims and hence the national unity language) differences were more significant than any identity based on religion.

Keep in mind that the linguistic differences have survived into West Pakistan. Regionalist movements are very strong in Balochistan, Pakhtunkhwa, south Punjab (Seraikistan), Karachi (Urdu-speaking Mohajirs) and Sindh, and also exist in the Punjabi and Hindko areas (though aren't nearly as popular). I've even read (Pakistani) Pashtun nationalists claiming that the Taliban is an ISI conspiracy, get this, not to maintain a balance against India, but just to fuck over the Pashtuns! I've read Balochi nationalists saying "pakistan mardabad" (death to Pakistan) instead of the usual "pakistan zindabad" (long live Pakistan). Pakistan has a much less united identity than India (altough both are pretty diverse), but yet Pakistan is trying much harder to impose a common identity.

The two nation theory was simply debunked with the secession of Bangladesh. IMO, call me a nationalist, but I think the partition was a mistake. There are many Muslims in India and a lot of them have served the country well, in the sciences, the military, and political office (though of course there have been clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India). A strong, large Indian subcontinent based on a secular, federal Republic, would have been most preferable IMO (either that, or go further and cut all of these states into separate countries, of course it is too late for either to become a reality). We all, from different religions and ethnicities, came together to fight for independence. Surely we could have lived together as well, in one country that is. As an anarchist I also support regionalism or rather federated, de-centralized states. Look at Iraq today, Saddam held it together through force, through an iron-grip, but today the country is a disaster (the best solution would be three different countries with the realistic solution being a federal system with three autonomous regions).

I agree. A South Asian federation made up of a state for each nationality (based on the Indian model rather than the centralizing and "nation-building" Pakistani model) would've been the best way to go. Now though, the only thing we can do is try and create more provinces in Pakistan, give more autonomy to the provinces, make sure people are literate in their native languages, and try and create greater ties with India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The only major nationality/ethnic group of Pakistan that doesn't have large populations in India or Afghanistan are the Hindkowans, and they're close to Punjabis anyway. I think these cross-border cultural traditions (like the Punjabi one) are great ways to build bridges between the different states of South Asia. I guess you could call me an "Indian agent" then.

It seems the two theory myth, that is, Islam as the base for national identity in Pakistan, is what one would call the "noble lie," a national myth propagated by an elite to maintain social order and harmony. This explains the strong anti-India stance of Pakistan when it comes to foreign policy, which has resulted in the several wars between the two countries (all of which were started by Pakistan unless I'm mistaken) as well as Pakistan's, as part of its "national security," support for the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to prevent an Indian client state on its other border (being trapped by both sides by the evil India). Ever since, Pakistan has maintained this position of making sure it controls Afghanistan to prevent an Indian client state, and it has gone very far in doing so. After 9/11, as a new player entered Afghanistan, that is, America and its allies, Pakistan switched to playing a double game with the West, pretending that it is fighting the war on terror while still keeping ties with the Taliban and even Osama Bin Laden (helping him escape from Tora Bora) in the hopes that it could "play their cards" in the future and use them as tools to prevent this evil India from surrounding it from both ends. For a long time Pakistan and India were engaged in a proxy-war in Afghanistan, and even after 9/11 when new players joined the game, the proxy war continues (as Michael Ware noted, Western troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan with reasons that had/have absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, but rather because Pakistan and India don't like each-other, that is, Pakistan perceives an Indian-client state on its other border as a threat to its national security). Why the West are in there is a completely different conversation since they're new players in Afghanistan but the Pakistan-India proxy war has been going on for almost 20 years. I'd strongly recommend Michael Ware, who's actually been over there and will tell you much more about conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq than most of the stuff you can read in the mainstream press.





Talk about paranoia...in regards to how far Pakistan is willing to go. Obviously India, with its largely growing economy, wants to expand its influence into Afghanistan and achieve a greater power status (in this sense, the American/NATO invasion was a god-send for India since for a long time it was losing the proxy war as the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan but today the Northern Alliance is the status quo), but I don't see how this "threatens" Pakistan. Does Pakistan think India is going to invade it or something? Pakistan itself heavily relies in China which has great interests in Pakistan and the Chinese clearly would want to curb Indian expansion but I don't see what Pakistan has to gain from blocking India's access to Afghanistan (besides the elites propagating the "noble lie" which is the supposed Indian threat that somehow threatens its national security even though India has never invaded Pakistan and initiated a war). I remember a Pakistani ISI member saying that while the Indians and others have money to spend, Pakistan doesn't...it simply has its crazies and so it will take advantage of those crazies.

Remember, Pakistan also supports many terrorist groups that have launched attacks in India. That famous gangster, Dawood Ibrahim, who...along with other associates (such as Tiger Memon) was behind the 1993 Mumbai attacks also most likely has connections with the ISI (either they helped him carry out the attack or allowed him to hide/live in Pakistan instead of cooperating with India to bring him to justice).

What confuses me is whether the Pakistani elite (the military oligarchs) actually believe in this highly exaggerated Indian threat and are willing to support terrorist groups and the Taliban (remember, there's the Taliban that it considers an important asset and Tehriki-i-Taliban which is a completely different group and is the one carrying out the insurgency in North-West Pakistan), or if they simply use this noble lie to help maintain national unity and social order so that they (the military elites who seem to be the real power players in Pakistan) can continue to keep their privileges. It's as if the Indian threat is the only thing that keeps them together, it is as the center of Pakistani foreign policy (maybe the Chinese are somewhere in the background but I don't see any direct evidence for that and it is only speculation).

Btw Saim you might be interested in this good interview of Tariq Ali (Pakistani atheist and leftist) who talks about Pakistan.


I was shocked to learn that 60% of Pakistani children are born stunted.

Zia-ul-Haq also left a lasting legacy on Pakistan with his Islamist conservatism. There are theories that the protests against Bhutto and the coup itself had the CIA playing a hand in it, with similarities to the CIA role in bringing Pinochet in power in Chile. Bhutto was, after all, a socialist...though his nationalist views were IMO a downside, especially his reaction to what happened in East Pakistan where the party from there should have rightfully formed the government after winning the majority of votes...but Bhutto insisted on having two PMs running West and East respectively which was ridiculous. Still, I think he was probably the only hope for Pakistan, and if the theories are correct, he was ousted by the CIA (if incorrect, then America still gave the green light for his execution).

1. Does Pakistan think India is going to invade it or something?. I would say "yes". Pakistanis are terrified of India. They think that they're locked in this eternal battle with India. Little do they know India doesn't really give a crap about Pakistani, they consider their real rival to be China. And then China's real rival is America. The only difference is that India and China are willing to learn from other countries, while Pakistan is stuck with a xenophobic outlook. In that sense, Pakistan is a lot like America.
2. It's as if the Indian threat is the only thing that keeps them together. Definitely. Remember, any regionalist is part of an Indo-American conspiracy to undermine the Pakistani state. I remember some American commentator suggested to split Pakistan into it's four constituent nations (as if there are only four constituent nations! As if the Mohajirs would want to live in a state with the Sindhis, or the Saraikis with the Punjabis, or the Hindkowans with the Pashtuns!) and then the Pakistani internet interpreted it as actual American policy and went into hysteria about it.

When I was asking people on my grandmother's street in Pakistan where they were from, one dude with an Islamist-esque beard said "but remember, we're all Muslims and Pakistanis first!". I wanted to say, well no, you should be humans first. That's how paranoid Pakistanis are about ethnic identity.

I also remember I was going to the gym and the lady at the desk was like "are you Muslim" randomly, and so did some other guy who was a friend of a relative's husband. I wanted to say to them both "well, I'm not really allowed not to be, so I guess I am". When I told the friend of the relative's husband that my mother was not Muslim, and was Serbian, he said "what the same Serbians that were killing Muslims in Bosnia?". I wanted so bad to tell him were he could stick his "Pakistan" bullshit.

The same "are you Muslim" bullshit happened when I was trying to practice Urdu on Livemocha with a Mohajir chick. She then made fun of my Urdu and insisted on chatitng in English.

3. I agree on General Zia vs. Bhutto. General Zia was a soowar ka bacca as they'd say in Pakistan.

And yes, I watched the video of Tariq Ali last time you posted it. It was indeed very interesting, and it's always nice to see other Pakistani atheists (even though obviously they're very common among academia).

Well it's good having this discussion with you regarding Pakistan. As much as I'd like to bring up such a topic with some Pakistani friends (not the ones born here but the ones that have come straight out of Pakistan) I don't want to end up offending them. All of them however seem to support Imran Khan and believe he's the only hope though they understand he will need to cozy up with the military and other corrupt politicians if he wants to work in the system.

Tariq Ali has a similar story as you. Interestingly his maternal grandfather was the P.M. of Punjab but his father was a communist and atheist also from a privileged family.

The question that interests me the most though is the one I previously asked, do the Pakistani elite (most of which are from the military) propagate the noble lie (two-nation theory, endless conflict with evil India to create domestic social unity with a common enemy) because they actually believe it or simply so they can hold onto their privileges? Perhaps it's a mixture of both.

Pakistan's history is just so damn tragic. The 1970 election was probably one of the most important points in Pakistani history, with a big hiccup as East Pakistan separated and the final blow with American favourite Zia-ul-Haq delivering the final blow (literally too lol).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_ ... tion,_1970

One can only wonder what a peaceful settlement from this election's results could have achieved. The Awami League, a secular-left party, Bhutto...who had secular left support (not centre-left but the real LEFT!), both unfortunately differed when it came to nationalism and federalism.

Though even if they did reach a deal or compromise, with Pakistan undergoing massive socialist reforms, in context of the Cold War I'm pretty sure the Americans would have supported a military coup or something (as they possibly did later on anyways). Who knows though...

Everyone talks about Iran having irrational leaders but IMO it's Pakistan that is the real cornerstone of irrationality when it comes to policies. Unfortunately Pakistanis get screwed over...they can't really do much either. For example, the "people's party" is run by Zardari who has a couple billion dollars in pocket money, and he's supposed to be fighting for the people, lol. And his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was like Thatcher. There really is no party to represent the people's interests, besides Imran Khan's it seems.

It seems like Pakistan's failures comes in its differences from India since independence, and I'm not talking about religion. Pakistan believed it could modernize and see progress (literacy,etc) under military rule yet India was also backwards but instead chose the path of democracy. Hence, from a political science point of view, the development of Pakistan's military institution meant that this institution would have a very large role to play in Pakistan, and the 2-nation theory (Muslim identity, anti-India) fit in with this military rule, as Tariq Ali explains. The first election was in 1970 and well that democratic experiment didn't really go too well since there was simply too much power entrenched in the military to have an actual transition to democracy. Got a problem to solve? The military will solve it and as Yahva Khan said, we'll kill 3 million Bengalis and then after that they can ask for us roti. The military came back in anyways under Zia.

I think the future of Pakistan is quite grim. Even if Imran Khan makes center stage, he can't change the existing institutions of Pakistan over night, and if he tries, time for another military coup!

I don't understand this Imran Khan fascination. The problems systemic, it doesn't have to do with the people there. They should be out on the streets like people were in India. Sure vote for reformists, but don't stop there. Imran Khan isn't really Left either, AFAIK. They should also be working within the major parties and without the major parties, and within and without the electoral process as well. You can't hinge the success of your country on one man.

The question that interests me the most though is the one I previously asked, do the Pakistani elite (most of which are from the military) propagate the noble lie (two-nation theory, endless conflict with evil India to create domestic social unity with a common enemy) because they actually believe it or simply so they can hold onto their privileges? Perhaps it's a mixture of both.

I would say so too. Although we can't really know for sure.

Regarding Imran Khan, you may be interested in this balanced article on him by Foreign Policy mag.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

Btw what do you think Musharraf? My friend says that while a lot of people criticize him, he was overall a good leader. Supposedly he's coming back to Pakistan to run for the Presidency in 2013.

andyx1205 wrote:Regarding Imran Khan, you may be interested in this balanced article on him by Foreign Policy mag.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

Btw what do you think Musharraf? My friend says that while a lot of people criticize him, he was overall a good leader. Supposedly he's coming back to Pakistan to run for the Presidency in 2013.

Well, he was certainly no Zia. But he was authoritarian, and I don't really like military leaders. I don't know that much about what he achieved under his reign though, I've only really been following much of Pakistani politics since he stepped down.

Regarding his 2013 presidential run, that's just lunatic. Not only is it just wrong, there's no way anyone would vote for him. His time as a politician is over.

Musharraf has many threats in Pakistan, he has got many people killed, like imran said in that other video link.

IMO Pakistan needs the type of grass-roots leftist movements like those under Zulfiqar Bhutto.

It didn't end too well for him though, you know, with the execution.

But times have changed. America is not going to get involved, I doubt Pakistanis will stand by as the military once again hijacks their democracy, especially since Imran Khan is a very populist figure. I mean...every Pakistani I speak to supports Imran Khan, believing that while he is too idealistic, he is the only hope.

Btw I like he said that he is close to the Left, he even mentioned his respect for Tariq Ali, an atheist, and that his views are close to his.

He reminds me a lot of Zulfiqar Bhutto, but a more modernized type since he is bringing together the various Pakistani ethnic groups.

that makes me fear for his life, the fact that he is foolishly showing off his new found support, he probably will get killed if he threatens too much or promises in putting people in jail.

Also, if he is just one man -army, then pakistan will lose again, it has to be a movement, a liberal movement something like the congress party which is group of all factions, fundamentalists to liberals. All, they will have to build democracy first for the next 20-30 yrs. Thats the most important thing.

Imran khan must immediately find successors who will stay united and not become dynastic, he should find build a party ideology first and foremost, because he probably will die.

Well he does have support from different political groups, which seems to be a good thing, he's non-partisan. But indeed he needs a strong grassroots movement behind him. I watched some videos of Zulfiqar Bhutto and he could easily rile up the people, the crowds that supported him...wow, they were massive! He had marxists, socialists, communists, democrats (this was the first election in Pakistan's history), liberals...everyone behind him. He was a nationalist socialist though, he started talking about Islam to gain more support and promote nationalism. Still, my point is that he had support, a lot of grassroots support. Yet look how easily he was toppled, most likely CIA orchestrated protests against him and then the military coup. But like I said, times have changed, so he has that on his side at least.

He is religious but this is a good thing because he has to unite the people, and he needs support of other groups as well such as religious conservatives or at least religious moderates/centrists. Like I said though, a religious fanatic would never say "while Tariq Ali is not religious my views are very close to his," Imran knows that Pakistan is a Muslim country and he has to identify with it (I'm sure he's genuine in his faith). Lets not kid ourselves, if you want to lead a Muslim country, you will have to give respect to the religion, of course.

He's also for ending the American drone attacks in Pakistan which he notes increases terrorism, this is true. He's also for having talks with the Taliban, which is a good thing since diplomacy is the way forward, but lets not kid ourselves, we already know the ISI and military have direct connections to the Taliban though maybe he was talking about Tehrik-i-Taliban, the Pakistan based Taliban (that is carrying out an insurgency in North-West Pakistan) which is different from the Afghan based one.

A man this popular is potentially very powerful and this is a threat to many privileged individuals, so he will of course need to be careful. Lets not forget how easily Benazir Bhutto was killed (to be honest the bitch deserved it, she was the leader of the traditionally democratic socialist party, yet she was like Margaret Thatcher in her clamp down on unions, deregulation, income inequality went up, poverty went up, the rich got richer). She was running a racket, stealing money from Pakistan and putting them in Swiss Banks and elsewhere. She said the attacks on her was political, yah, it was political alright, that's how her husband, the current President, became a billionaire, lol. He owns almost $2 billion, Mitt Romney ain't got shit on Zardari! Romney's got like $200 million, that's chump change for Zardari! Being a politician or top-military official is a racket in Pakistan.

Imran Khan's populism challenges the status quo and prevalent corruption in Pakistan. It will be a tough road for him, but he does need to, unfortunately, cozy to the military and praise them. He has been careful in his criticism of the military because he knows they can knock him off whenever they want. Over a long period of time maybe he can appoint some puppets to the top military positions that would obey him but until then he has to cooperate with the current military. It's just how the system works.

30yrs at the very least before civilian control really takes root.

Dal Khalsa have no idea what they're talking about. American comedians mock Christianity all the damn time.

andyx1205 wrote:But times have changed. America is not going to get involved, I doubt Pakistanis will stand by as the military once again hijacks their democracy, especially since Imran Khan is a very populist figure. I mean...every Pakistani I speak to supports Imran Khan, believing that while he is too idealistic, he is the only hope.

To me, that doesn't bode well for Pakistan. It should be about the idea and the movement, not the figure, as cavarka was saying.

I do agree.

Btw here's an interesting recent news video on him. What I hate is that the Western media calls him anti-American and that he has questionable views on the war of terrorism. How is it "questionable" to simply oppose the war on terrorism?



Unfortunately he's the only hope, but yes there should be more emphasis on the idea and the movement.

andyx1205 wrote:What I hate is that the Western media calls him anti-American and that he has questionable views on the war of terrorism. How is it "questionable" to simply oppose the war on terrorism?

It's really funny how in your video the anchor is like "he's anti-American" and then they promptly show a video of him refuting that idea. What shit journalism. And then they call him anti-American three more times after he refutes it!

Another thing you can see is the "follower" mentality of too many people.

"Imran Khan is good, he'll take over all the failing departments, and then Pakistan will rise and develop!"
"But surely you don't believe he'll end corruption in 90 days?"
"Of course he will he just said so!"

Effin hell, it's not about the people it's about the system. That said, Imran Khan talks a lot of sense and I think his party will be good for Pakistan. I don't want corruption to become a partisan issue, though.

i am now really beginning to fear for his life, he looks too good to let live. If he believes in disqualifying or punishing politicians or army, they will hack him. He should make secret deals with the army and politicians and promise them that they will be let off for keeping quiet and leaving power and keep a watch over them to see if they are going to honor any pacts if at all.

Even 5-15 yrs of just electoral democracy with basic socialism will be unbelievably great for pakistan as it is right now. No need of getting rid of top level corruption, bottom level corruption is what hurts people most, become more technology dependent for accessing basic facilities.

Interesting btw how I share many views with Imran Khan, yet in the West my views would be lunatic (anti-America, anti-war on terrorism, talking with so called terrorists instead of killing them which increases terrorism). Honest people like him have difficulty surviving in the world of politics, which is full of corruption and kickbacks and back door deal making.

Look at Zulfiqar Bhutto. It's like he was a messiah and by that I mean he was the only one who had the potential to make a real socialist party that could help the people. In order to consolidate power, he didn't tolerate dissent in his part or the country, which led to his increasing authoritarianism and persecution of opponents later on. No politician until him came and said they want to help the people. But well, you can't be dogmatic, and as a nationalist he was dogmatic, not willing to tolerate dissent from his views, cracking down on opposing leftist parties. It really shows how much support he lost since no one really came out to protest when he got executed.

If I was Imran Khan, I would try to persecute corrupt politicians like Zardari and others but I would make sure the military has my back, and allow them to keep their privileges. I might later on, after having experience, gradually replace the ranks of the military, but until then, the number one concern for Imran Khan in regards to support from the elites is to have the military on his side. A lot of the people in the military want Amerca's nanny tit to suck on, it's free cash flow, but a lot in the military also are nationalist and don't want to be the slaves of America.

For example, look at the recent outrage by the military when one of the guys was making contacts with Washington. The military was not happy at this because it was a disgraceful move.

I also like that Imran Khan in that video seems very friendly to India, he has many friends in India after all.

And oh, he's read Karl Marx, so he definitely has a progressive background in regards to ideology.

When it comes to idolization of him in Pakistan, remember that because Pakistan has had a history of many military rulers, for most of its history actually, Pakistanis are used to looking at figureheads.

Btw, Tariq Ali should go over there and get involved in Pakistani politics, though I guess that him being an atheist would make it hard for him to do so (the opposition would just call him an infidel).

Also is it just me or is it fucked up that Zardari became the President even though his poll numbers are at like 14%? He became President because his wife put him in (and his son) in her will to lead the party, so the Parliament elected him President. Lol.

In regards to all those jokes about Mitt Romney having like $200-300 million dollars and many homes, Zardari is even funnier. How many houses does this guy have? $2 billion for a corrupt Pakistani politician in a country where 60% of children are born stunted according to the UN Development Report is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari#Wealth

In 2005, Daily Pakistan reported he was the second richest man in Pakistan with an estimated net worth of $1.8 billion.[260] He amassed great wealth while his wife was Prime Minister.[20] In 2007, he received $60 million in his Swiss bank account through offshore companies under his name.[64] He was reported to have estates in Surrey, West End of London, Normandy, Manhattan, and Dubai,[7][20] as well as a 16th century chateau in Normandy.[234] In Britain, he used a common legal device—the purchase of property through nominees with no family link to the Bhuttos.[20] His homes in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad are called Bilawal House I,[261] Bilawal House II,[262] and Zardari House[263] respectively.
Surrey estate

He bought a 365-acre (148-hectare) 20-bedroom luxury estate in Rockwood, Surrey in 1995 through a chain of firms, trusts, and offshore companies in 1994.[4][39][44][264][265] The country home's refurbishment abruptly ended in October 1996, shortly before the end of his wife's second term.[265] He initially denied for eight years that he owned the property and no one paid the bills for the work on the unoccupied mansion.[44][264] Creditors forced a liquidation sale in 2004 and the Pakistani government claimed the proceeds because the home had been bought with money obtained through corruption.[44] However, he stepped in to claim that he actually was the beneficial owner.[7] As of November 2008, the proceeds were in a liquidator bank account while a civil case continues.[44]

The estate includes two farms, lodgings, staff accommodation, and a basement made into an imitation of a local pub.[4][264] The manor has nine bedrooms and an indoor swimming pool.[265]

He had sent large shipments from Karachi in the 1990s for the refurbishment of Surrey Palace.[44] He has faced allegations from various people, including the daughter of Laila Shahzada,[266] that he acquired stolen art to decorate the palace.[265] He earlier had plans for a helipad, a nine-hole golf course, and a polo pony paddock.[44]

What the fuck?!?!?!

andyx1205 wrote:Interesting btw how I share many views with Imran Khan, yet in the West my views would be lunatic (anti-America, anti-war on terrorism, talking with so called terrorists instead of killing them which increases terrorism). Honest people like him have difficulty surviving in the world of politics, which is full of corruption and kickbacks and back door deal making.

Look at Zulfiqar Bhutto. It's like he was a messiah and by that I mean he was the only one who had the potential to make a real socialist party that could help the people. In order to consolidate power, he didn't tolerate dissent in his part or the country, which led to his increasing authoritarianism and persecution of opponents later on. No politician until him came and said they want to help the people. But well, you can't be dogmatic, and as a nationalist he was dogmatic, not willing to tolerate dissent from his views, cracking down on opposing leftist parties. It really shows how much support he lost since no one really came out to protest when he got executed.

If I was Imran Khan, I would try to persecute corrupt politicians like Zardari and others but I would make sure the military has my back, and allow them to keep their privileges. I might later on, after having experience, gradually replace the ranks of the military, but until then, the number one concern for Imran Khan in regards to support from the elites is to have the military on his side. A lot of the people in the military want Amerca's nanny tit to suck on, it's free cash flow, but a lot in the military also are nationalist and don't want to be the slaves of America.

For example, look at the recent outrage by the military when one of the guys was making contacts with Washington. The military was not happy at this because it was a disgraceful move.

I also like that Imran Khan in that video seems very friendly to India, he has many friends in India after all.

And oh, he's read Karl Marx, so he definitely has a progressive background in regards to ideology.

When it comes to idolization of him in Pakistan, remember that because Pakistan has had a history of many military rulers, for most of its history actually, Pakistanis are used to looking at figureheads.

Btw, Tariq Ali should go over there and get involved in Pakistani politics, though I guess that him being an atheist would make it hard for him to do so (the opposition would just call him an infidel).

Also is it just me or is it fucked up that Zardari became the President even though his poll numbers are at like 14%? He became President because his wife put him in (and his son) in her will to lead the party, so the Parliament elected him President. Lol.

In regards to all those jokes about Mitt Romney having like $200-300 million dollars and many homes, Zardari is even funnier. How many houses does this guy have? $2 billion for a corrupt Pakistani politician in a country where 60% of children are born stunted according to the UN Development Report is fucked up.

very amateur plan andy with due respect of course, in that video, najam sethi (honest commentator) is saying that the army is backing imran, and I dont believe that imran khan is honest, i had to give bribes in my country being just an average person, when the society as a whole is corrupt, its practically impossible to be honest and more so at the top.

He shouldnt prosecute other politicians entirely, he must prosecute the smaller fishes, which cause more harm than the bigger ones in the society, but he shouldnt prosecute the bigger fish, he should give them a veiled threat, ask them to behave.
Because the army will not allow full power to imran, and if at all the army comes after him, he doesnt need opposition to join hands with the army either, so he needs to play a complex game, build a larger network of support, even with big corrupt opposition politicians and perhaps industrialists, especially them because they have a lot of influence and money.


I dont believe in messiahs, it is not the job of imran khan to get rid off every bad thing in his country, his job is of protecting and nurturing democracy even if it is not good. It is peoples job to get rid of corruption by electing honest people or by pressuring through civil societies.

So he needs to have his back covered by the army and the opposition, and do some good in critical areas affecting large voters and be seen to have done good which will keep his 'perception capital' amongst the people high enough to get another term and do it all over again.
It is not his job to be a hero, his job is to play a non-zero sum game.

Well in regards to prosecution, the judiciary in Pakistan does have some of the most honest people in the country. For example, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, and his courage under Mousharraf's rule. Zardari isn't popular anyways so locking him up would be very easy, the military despises him as well.

But yes I agree, in a system such as India's and even Pakistan's which is much more corrupt (with the political/military elite) it is necessary, when working in the system, to accept the corruption in the system, making deals, and so forth.

By messiah I was simply saying that messiahs are actually a negative because they are often dogmatic, from Zulfiqar Bhutto, Vladimir Lenin, Maxmilien Robespierre...all dogmatic idealists and authoritarians who had a vision but in order to try to achieve that vision, they crushed dissent. And after these messiahs fail, or even if they do good...they die, well shit goes downhill. Gamal Abdel Nasser was authoritarian but also a socialist, did a lot of great things for Egypt, but it all depended on him, after his death, shit went downhill under the western puppet Sadat and Egypt never recovered since. If he lived longer maybe he could've helped Egypt transition to democracy. Well, "because of Nasser's failure to create institutions, Egypt returned to the unstable political state it was in before his coming to power." If he lived longer maybe he could have created these institutions, there is evidence he wanted to do just that, develop the country enough to make it ready for democracy, but he died.

This is why grassroots movements are important. With top down socialism, it all depends on the guys on top, once they're gone, there's nothing. The ground always stays there, so even if the people on the top die, the people on the bottom are still there to keep the movement alive (hence as Saim said, the movement is more important than the leader).

The problems in Pakistan will take a decade, maybe more to fix, but Imran Khan, while unable to fix the country's problems, can put the country on a path towards fixing these problems and this is IMO the important part.