The Frontier Post
Commitment to Journalism



Prisoner of conscience
M Waqar NY, USA Khyberzalmee@comcast.net
I am extremely disturbed and upset by reading a news item in your newspaper about Editor in Chief of The Frontier Post ; I am surprised that he is still in prison, Rehmat Shah Afridi played a great role by publishing The Frontier Post from Peshawar, The Frontier Post was born during cruel regime of Zia, then I was student at Islamic college, Frontier Post did educate me. Mr. Afridi made Frontier Post voice of Pakhtuns and never hesitated to publish facts even during cruel dictator Zia regime. The Frontier Post is right to mention in news item that Mr Afridi was punished for his pen which he was using for his people against tyrant rulers. Any journalist who does not work for the official media, bourgeois, and elite; is considered to be an "enemy or criminal" and that happens in third world countries, its time for the new government in Pakhtunistan to release Mr. Afridi, I would like to ask all writers on this forum to write and mail letters to new government in Pakistan and write letters to amnesty international and CPJ (www.cpj.org), mention this on all blogs newspapers etc, and force government to release Mr. Afridi and all other journalists from prison. Mr. Afridi is imprisoned because of his peaceful expression of his beliefs. He is victim of an unfair trial. The Frontier Post had been targeted for some time for its investigative journalism; Rehmat Shah Afridi, was sentenced to death for drug offences for which the prosecution failed to produce any compelling evidence. If prosecution was unable to produce any evidence, then why he is still in prison? He is still in prison because he is Pakhtun??? He was arrested because his paper The Frontier Post documented official corruption. That was his job and duty as a journalist and his right to freedom of expression, which he exercised in the course of his work as a journalist. Third-world regimes are known to be intolerant of gutsy journalists and publishers. He published a story detailing how members of the ruling party, including Prime Minister Sharif himself, had through illegal and bizarre use of power and influence obtained massive loans from some public-sector banks, leading to the banks' failure. In USA water gate was exposed by a journalist but he was not send to prison, but in Pakistan corrupt regimes like to control media. He was tried and convicted solely for his journalistic work. He is in jail on cooked-up charges of possessing narcotics. What is the sin of Mr. Rehmat Shah Afridi? Nawaz government sentenced Mr Afridi just because he was the real critic of that regime and was a big hurdle for the enemies of the nation and the country. Did he kill innocent people? The only sin of Mr Rehmat Shah Afridi is that he is the prisoner of conscience; he criticized the government for its illegal acts; he raised voice against cruelty; corruption; he spoke against unfair justice; and he disclosed those who looted the country. Lets not forget that NAWAZ SHARIF afraid for his life and did not stay in prison for more then a year and made a deal with Mush Regime and ran out of country. Rehmat Shah Afridi was exposing the corrupt practices of Nawaz regime and educating people of Pakhtunistan through his newspaper, in this case he was a true journalist. Bourgious, Imperialists and their puppets are enemies of Pakhtun nation, today Pakhtun nation is victim and target of those elements who don't want to see Pakhtuns educated and advanced. Lame-Duck President Musharraf's drastic steps to silence news coverage make a mockery of his often repeated claims to have fostered free and open media. ''Reporters Without Borders'' believes Afridi was imprisoned, convicted and sentenced to death in June 2001 because of his journalistic activities as the head of the Peshawar-based Frontier Post, and not because of any involvement in drug trafficking. His newspaper had carried frequent reports of corruption within Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force, which was set up with US support. Journalists in Pakistan and throughout Central and South Asia face great risks. Journalism is the noblest profession around. I hope new government in Pakhtunistan take action for release of The Frontier Post chief and all other journalists.




Saved from: http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=le&nid=378&ad=06-04-200
Dated: Sunday, April 6, 2008, Rabi ul Awwal 28, 1429 A.H.

SALUTE TO Z A BHUTTO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Frontier Post
4.04.2008
Salute to Z A Bhutto!
M Waqar

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was executed on April 4, 1979, a darkest day in the history of Pakistan. Bhutto wrote a book from his death cell, Titled "If I am assassinated," its last pages contained a quote from Russian author Nikolai Dostoevsky: "Man's dearest possession is his life, and since it is given to him to live but once, he must so live as not to be scared with the shame of a cowardly and trivial past, so as not to be tortured for years without purpose, that dying he can say, 'All my life and my strength were given to the first cause in the world - the liberation of mankind.' " As death stared the Z.A Bhutto in the face, he stared back. His past has no shame of cowardice. His daughter, too, gave her life in courage. "If India builds the bomb we will eat grass or leaves, we will go hungry. But we will get one of our own." This statement by Zulfiar Ali Bhutto should open up our eyes and bring back the passion of patriotism, unity and love for each others for the sake of Pakistan. I would like to express that this man is and was hero of Pakistan. Historians, Retired Judges of the Superior Courts and eminent lawyers have now unanimously admitted that Mr. Z.A Bhutto was hanged by a military dictator General Zia-Ul Haq by orchestrating a judicial trial to get rid of a popular leader. He gave Pakistan its first constitution, nuclear programme, held peace talks with India and brought 90,000 POW who were in Indian prison and were going to face war crimes. He liberated the small farmers and peasants from the repression and cruelty of big landlords and banished the jagirdari and sardari system declaring that all citizens are born equal and must live with equal rights. Z.A Bhutto was a Legend, who lived and died like a hero with courage, determination and devotion to his principles, when cruel dictator Zia was going to kill him, Z.A Bhutto could sign few papers and could live in exile but he was a real man, he was not a coward. He too could have made a deal and lived to fight another day; but only great men with principles sacrifice their life for their cause. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto earned everlasting fame in the pantheon of leaders from the Third World in the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. He had the privilege of interacting with many of those leaders who played a great role in the epic struggle for national independence in the 20th Century including Mao Tse Tung, Soekarno, Chou-en Lai, and Gamal Abdel Nasser. He belonged to a category of anti-imperialist leaders who included Jamal Nasir of Egypt and Jawahir Lal Nehru of India. He was a brilliant Diplomat who negotiated some of Pakistan's most enduring diplomatic policies as well as bargaining from a position of weakness against Indira Gandhi in Simla. He was a great diplomat; there is a story that the American President John F. Kennedy was much impressed with then Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. When they met, Kennedy walked with him in the Rose Garden and said, "Bhutto, if you were an American, you would be in my Cabinet". To which Zulfikar Ali Bhutto smilingly replied, "No, Mr. President. If I were an American, you would be in my cabinet". A Pan Islamic socialist who weakened the Feudal and tribal system.. He also pushed through Pakistan's nuclear programme despite enormous International pressure. He was also a brilliant politician whose popularity and powerful speeches impressed even his worst opponents. It took a great man to get Pakistan out of the 71 trauma. A dynamic leader, who stood up against imperialism and looked to China and other progressive countries for an alliance. When he was Prime Minister, the country prospered and was set on a course of industrial and agricultural development. He gained popularity in villages and poor industrial areas. Bhutto was the only true leader in our history who gave us constitution, identity in international relations. You will be surprised to know when Bhutto became as Foreign Minister, at that time; we did not have ambassador level relations with so many big countries of the world like Indonesia etc. He empowers the poor of his country. Such people like Z.A BHUTTO are born rarely, who will forget his capabilities as an extempore speaker, as an writer, as an diplomat, as an leader and above all as lover of poor. On the day of his martyrdom his opponents called him as a culprit but same are now calling him as an innocent. The simple reason for this is that Zia tried his best to create divisions among people in order to finish the popularity of Bhutto. The irony is all those who hatched conspiracy against him are no more in this mortal world, all of them died a horrible death. Bhutto was the greatest leader we can think in the modern history. In his book "If I Am Assassinated", Bhutto clearly mentions his fear of 120 million Pakistanis under a defenseless sky in comparison to a nuclear India. What a vision! India could have swallowed Pakistan long ago if thanks to Bhutto we were not an atomic power. On the economic front Bhutto vision for nationalization was that Pakistanis will work hard like Chinese, but here Pakistanis failed him. The labor and the management of nationalized industry had no interest to take advantage of this opportunity. Using this as a golden opportunity, the industrialists, bureaucrats, and above all corrupt army declared him as an unsuccessful leader. Bhutto loved poor and poor loved Bhutto. This relationship is ever lasting. The first leader who legislated labor laws and enforced in Pakistan and nobody could do it till now. This is the reason of his popularity among labors. He tried to unite the Islamic world. The Pakistan is still under developing country because Bhutto is not alive. Z.A Bhutto is the first person in Pakistan who has given the voice to the common people. Z.A Bhutto was great charismatic leader, man of masses, top class negotiator, excellent communicator, a visionary, known for mercurial brilliance, wit and a highly well read person. He attracted mammoth crowds where ever he addressed public meetings even in remote regions of the country. He was a man of masses because of his personal charm and charisma and the one who spoke in the language of workers, laborers, peasants and the people in the streets. He would make the people feel that he was one of them, understood them, had solutions to their problems and give them roti, kapra aur makan. He might have given all these things to them if his government had not become target of the establishment's conspiracies. ZA Bhutto's Powerful Political Legacy Cannot be eliminated. In no time Bhutto had made a tremendous impact all around. As Minister for Fuel and Power, he had diverse explorers tapping into Pakistan's underground hidden energy resources. For the first time Russians were involved in oil and gas exploration. His time as Minister for Science and Technology was well spent. He could measure the advancements made by India in the atomic field. I can't help grieving the tragic death of a Hero who paid with his life to set an ultimate example of principled politics. I hope we honor Shaheed Bhutto by giving to the weak and less fortunate people of Pakistan the gift of unconditional empowerment through democracy and moral governance and not trade his dream for our illusions. Bourgeois battled Bhutto's populist economic and political enforcement, the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois became ready instruments in carrying out their social propaganda against Bhutto. He was the man behind introducing democracy in the country by kicking out the dictatorial rule and finally gave a consensus constitution of 1973 with guarantees to basic human rights under the supremacy of parliament. Cruel dictators like Zia and Musharraf are responsible for bringing fundamentalists into the corridor of power, Mush, who is now trumping against them just an eye wash. Political Leaders must posses' qualities of power, vision, ethics, courage, knowledge, decision making, integrity, enthusiasms and devotion and should have principles, Z.A BHUTTO had all those qualities. Mr. Bhutto lived consciously to make history and to leave a legacy in the form of the development of his nation. He is right credited with saving Pakistan at the darkest moment of its history, as French President Giscardd' Estaing said he was the man,'' who incarnated Pakistan at a dramatic hour of its history''. Z A BHUTTO was indeed a great leader, a leader we must salute today; who gave voice to the voiceless and helped them shape their own destiny. It was under his leadership that every Pakistani given the right to passport. Education was nationalized and made available to every child. Scores of Universities were built to turn the children of the discriminated and downtrodden into lawyers, doctors and engineers liberating them from a destiny of backwardness. Bhutto pushed politics out of the posh drawing rooms into real Pakistan-into the muddy lanes and villages of the poor. The ever-lasting contribution of Bhutto was to raise the consciousness of the people for democracy. He awakened the masses, making them realize they were the legitimate fountainhead of political power. He enlightened the peasants, the industrial workers, the students, the women and the rest of the common people of their importance and of their right of franchise, which is the definite means of bringing changes and improvement in the lives of the common people. He deeply cherished democracy and democratic values and in the end gave his life for the cause of freedom. In the case of Pakistan, he viewed military rule as a negation of the very genesis of the country that came into being as a result of a democratic process and a vote. Today as the Nation pays tribute to one of its greatest sons; it is destined to move forward in the spirit of Federalism, Democracy, Autonomy and Egalitarianism which he lit through his example of courage in the defense of principles and ideals. Z.A BHUTTO was a people leader, a legend and a poet and he remained so till the last breath in his body. He was a true revolutionary; his revolution was against imperialism, against bourgeois. He was a charismatic leader and his charisma still rules the nation. Z.A Bhutto ruled the hearts of people when he was alive and till date he rules their hearts. Z.A Bhutto was a principled friend to the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. He was fearless in his beliefs and refused to bow before any man or power other than the Almighty. His contributions to an impregnable Pakistan are seen in the Kamra Aeronautical factory, Heavy Mechanical Complex at Taxila, modernization of Karachi Shipyard, creation of precision engineering works, Pakistan Steel Mills, Port Qasim, Pakistan Automobile Corporation to name a few. By signing the Simla Accord of 1972 he negotiated longest peace between India and Pakistan. His social reforms laid the foundation of an egalitarian society, his non-aligned foreign policy earned Pakistan respect in the comity of nations. He lifted the nation drowning in a sea of despair to Himalayan heights. The death cell in which his killers kept him failed to break his will or his determination to challenge military rule and stand up as the leader of the people. Bhutto was a modernizer and saw nationalism as the key to unity. He rejected fanaticism. He gave pride to the poor. As leader of the Third World he spoke boldly against racism, colonialism and imperialism. He fearlessly defended the right of nations to independence. When the 1973 Ramadan War broke out, he sent Pakistan's military to defend the borders of the Muslim countries including the Golan Heights of Syria. Bhutto's short life of fifty years was spent in the service of many international, regional and national causes. Today Pakistan is at the crossroads. Its policies relating to Nuclear, Taliban, India, Militancy, Religious Parties, Democracy and Economy are in shambles. Shaheed Bhutto believed that the army could protect its institutional competence by keeping out of politics. He said, "Those soldiers who leave the barracks to move into Government mansions lose wars and become prisoners of war as happened in 1971; his words reverberate as a warning and a guide to the country to save its honor, respect, pride and position by reverting to the golden principles that gave it birth. April 4 falls at a time when Pakistan is faced with a critical situation. The dark shadow of military dictatorship clouds the political horizon and spawns fissiparous tendencies striking at the solidarity of the country. Rocket launchers and bomb blasts kill innocents while the military is involved in operations against its own people. The rise of the suicide bomber and armed struggle is reminiscent of an earlier military dictatorship. The tyranny of General Zia's military rule led to the Kalashnikov culture where young men picked up automatic weapons. That culture has reasserted itself under the military dictatorship of General Musharraf. Except that the weapons are more dangerous than the Kalashnikovs of yesterday. Every time a General ruled Pakistan, innocent people were being killed. Today many people in Pakistan must be scared as Mr. Zardari is shaking hands with MQM, let's not forget that Mr. Bhutto and Benazir were killed by two presidents,who supported MQM.As Asfand Wali Khan has some reservations about MQM,I agree with him. Z.A Bhutto was born in 1928. He was martyred in 1979. Yet he lives in the hearts and minds of the people still shining like a star that brightens the sky motivating those caught in the prisons of oppression. No doubt, the age of Bhutto was an age of revolution. At the time of his over throw; Bhutto was emerging as a spokesman of the world of Islam and the leader of the third world. Although his life and political career were cruelly terminated, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto will always be remembered as one of the great leaders who took part in the liberation of the third world from the yoke of Imperialism and Neo Colonialism during the twentieth century. "It is better to live like a lion for one day than to live like a jackal for a thousand." Z.A.BHUTTO''.
Long Live Bhuttoism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saved from: http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=196&ad=04-04-200
Dated: Friday, April 4, 2008, Rabi ul Awwal 26, 1429 A.H.

Putting blame on Pakistan won't? help the war on terror.

Blame Pakistan first for all evil on this planet. Increase the number of troops. More bombs, better arms, more control of borders. Profile all Muslims. More of the same has not worked. It has only exacerbated the security situation in Western Asia. Can someone turn the light on?
There is a dearth of clear vision and thinking in the $80 Billion think tank industry that seems to copy and paste the Neocon agenda and pawn it off as policy.
Bombs and more troops is not the answer.
What is needed is a new Marshall Plan for Pakistan, creation of massive economic opportunities and elimination of subsidies to cotton farmers in the US. The elimination of the cotton subsidy would allow Pakistani farmers to export about $12 Billion of cotton and cotton products. This would also provide additional employment to the youth who may have too much time on their hands.
America should build more roads, more schools and more hospitals in the NWFP, FATA, Wazirisitan and Pakistan. 100 new hospitals in the NWFP would evaporate any anti-Americanism. 100 new roads would eviscerate bigotry and illiteracy. 1000 new schools would eliminate any anti-Western animosity. Better seeds and increasing per hecter yields would put more money in the pockets of the farmers, who could then send their children to better schools. Pakistan need 50 new American Universities and 1000 internet ready libraries. She needs 50 million internet capable $100 laptops. An investment in Pakistan would reduce and eliminate the expenditure on GWOT (Global War on Terror).
Finally a word of sanity in the Canadian press.
Putting blame on Pakistan won’t help war on terror, March 05, 2008, Tariq Amin-Khan
The Harper government, with the support of the Liberals, appears set to extend Canadian troop deployment in Afghanistan beyond 2009. The question is: What are Canadian troops doing in Afghanistan, and by extending the mission will Canada be able to assist the U.S. and NATO in their objective to win the war on terror and eliminate Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the militant Islamists? A tall order to be sure, but is it achievable? The short answer to the question is no.
If the mission objectives are unattainable, then why are Canadian troops in Afghanistan? The situation gets murkier as we examine the rhetoric of security analysts who pin the blame squarely on Pakistan. They claim that the issue is not the insurgency in Afghanistan; the problem really is with Pakistan.
But it appears that the problem is neither in Afghanistan nor in Pakistan. Rather, there is a direct relationship between foreign military presence in Afghanistan and the rise of militant Islam. Furthermore, the absence of a democratic alternative gives militant Islam a free hand to operate in both of these states.
The foreign militaries occupying Afghanistan take the view that militants are on the run as NATO intensifies its military campaigns against them. The reality is otherwise.
Even a cursory look at the developments in Afghanistan, Iraq and even Pakistan (until recently) shows that militant Islamists have gained in strength, and have become bolder since the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban in Afghanistan have not been contained but have actually become stronger.
Militant Islam is a political movement and its aim is to capture state power. The U.S. played a significant role in the 1970s and 1980s to empower Islamists. The Taliban in Afghanistan took advantage of this nurturing environment to hone their political and military skills. They have had a taste of holding onto state power and are eager to return.
It is now becoming clearer that militant Islam cannot be defeated militarily. Every time overwhelming force has been used, NATO, Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani casualties have increased and Taliban, Iraqi and Pakistani militant Islamists have withdrawn and regrouped to relaunch their attacks another day. This has been the pattern.
All this raises the possibility that the war on terror is not a war to be won at all.
By all accounts, the Bush administration has crafted this war as the new permanent war, a “long war,” along the lines of forcing a stalemate as in the Cold War. This permanent war fuels not only the military-industrial complex, but now also the security-industrial complex all combined with the synergy that exists between Big Oil, the military and Western economies.
This idea of forcing a stalemate is also echoed by professor Janice Gross Stein in the recent book The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar. Her view, expressed in terms of Canada’s military strategy in Afghanistan, is that based on the U.S. Cold War policy of containment, the aim at best would be to attain a stalemate in the war on terror.
It is not possible here to discuss in any detail the fallacy of applying the logic of the Cold War in relation to militant Islam and the war on terror. But it can be said that this strategy of forcing a stalemate is ill-conceived against adversaries that are mobile and geographically untethered. These adversaries, in the heat of battle, can simply melt into the populace as NATO commanders are left to mull over their battle plans.
Blaming Pakistan for the war on terror going badly for NATO, therefore, does not help; it merely compounds the problem. The sobering fact is that Pakistan has very little to do with the war on terror being won or lost. But alienating Pakistan is an option that NATO takes at its own peril.
As to the support that militants in northwest Pakistan have provided the Taliban on the Afghan side, there is a need to understand the ground realities of the area. Southern Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan is a contiguous area inhabited by the same ethnic group, the Pashtuns, who have had historical kinship ties. The border, the Durand Line, is an arbitrary divide between Pakistan and Afghanistan established by British colonial rulers, and it has never been possible to effectively police it.
Consequently, the border has always been porous and an attack by an occupying force against Pashtuns on one side is seen as an attack against the other side as well. However, when you overlay religious ideology onto this ethnic solidarity, it becomes a potent combination that produces a resilient guerrilla force. A force that is able to take on the most sophisticated militaries within an inhospitable terrain against which standing armies and modern weaponry have not been very effective.
This reality of guerrilla warfare worked wonders for the U.S. when its Islamist proxies in Pakistan and Afghanistan were waging the jihad against “godless communism.” Ironically, now that the shoe is on the other foot, Pakistan is being blamed for the war on terror going badly for Canada, the U.S. and NATO.
The only way militant Islam can be contained, nay challenged, is for a democratic alternative to take root in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, it would be naive to assume that even if this shift comes about, the transition will be simple and painless because the democratic alternative will be resisted. But democracy will eventually deal with the militants.
In this context, the outcome of the Feb. 18 elections in Pakistan gives pause for hope. The outcome reinforces the position that the political and democratic alternative is the best antidote to check the rise of militant Islam. Just look at the rout the Islamist parties have suffered in these elections in the Northwest Frontier Province. A province where the Islamists had formed the government after the 2002 elections, and where people resoundingly said no to intimidation and suicide bombings.
This is the message that Stephen Harper also needs to hear. Even with additional troops, Canada will end up fighting for more stalemates. But what will this no-win situation mean in human terms - in lives lost for an objective that is neither clear nor within the mission’s grasp.
Tariq Amin-Khan is an assistant professor in the department of politics and public administration at Ryerson University.

Democracy is an attitude

Is China able to pursue democracy? Can the Communist Party of China (CPC) broaden democracy under the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC? Is democracy something solely defined by the West?
No political institution around the world could label itself perfect. Although the least defective mechanism in human history, democracy in every country is in process. Therefore, democracy is rather an attitude and something out of self perception.
Unlike the world's most modern democracies, the Chinese people were suppressed several times by outsiders with surpassingly sophisticated gunboats and cannons. The inward-inclined Chinese at that time, long feeling insecure and victimized, were understandably wary of any dose that Western countries attempted to feed us. Good idea and sincere behavior from outside may not always be seen as they are.
While one nation is evidently left over by the rest of its peers, the people would not easily take what others uphold, particularly when pushing democracy is used as a tool of penetration.
The economic miracle in the consecutive three decades empowers China to pursue political freedom with much more resources at hand. Aspiration for democracy is not what we use for make-up. Every country would have its uniqueness to develop democracy based on its own history, culture and conditions. The unique process of democratic advancement in various countries could hardly be oversimplified to a few modes. Even Western democracies have experienced agonizing unique processes.
Hu Jintao said at the 17th CPC National Congress to "deepen political restructuring," betraying the urgency sensed by the CPC that ossified political arrangements often impede further economic ambitions. Anyhow, few countries in the developed world had so many challenges as China does, a vast land, the world's biggest population with a substantive chunk of poor people and yet to be reached national unity, just name a few. China has a much shorter history of the modern republic and crammed into only three decades the industrial revolution on which both the United States and the United Kingdom spent over a century.
Considering the uniqueness of each democracy and the time-consuming process of breeding democracy, it's unwise to copy existing foreign democracies. Democratizing China in Western style is not a cure-all for problems in China. After China successfully integrated market economy into the socialist pattern, which in orthodox definition requires common ownership of the means of production, why don't we believe China could also create a new way leading to a successful socialist democracy?
Democracy should not be a political slogan for toppling something, and it is mundane and what people feel in their day-to-day life. Although still in rapid transformation, market economy is fervently embraced by the Chinese, most of whom now enjoy unprecedentedly decent livelihood. The government conceded from most aspects of people's life. People are free to travel and study abroad, purchase cars, own real estates, trade publicly-listed stocks, choose their jobs and lifestyle, and grumble on blogs, which was so incredible in a country where only a decade ago citizens were required to report their marriages, divorces and family plans to the government.
Consciously transforming its role from a strictly-knitted revolutionary organization to a competent ruling party, the CPC is now blazing trails in testing what the most effective method is in democratizing Chinese politics. The CPC proclaims it represents not only the working class but also all the outstanding forces, a significant drive to diversify itself to a cover-all plural one. Hu said to widen intra-Party democracy, which the CPC believes is a guarantee for a better application of democracy in the country. Increasingly enlarging loss margins have been introduced in various CPC elections, including the ongoing voting for the all-powerful CPC central committee this weekend. Multiple candidates and contested campaigns in direct elections are also being institutionalized at grassroots levels. All constituencies are now much better represented.
China was lagged far behind by leading economies in the contemporary time. The Chinese have to resort to a path which is different from conventional development. Among the defects Western democracies also have, the foresighted democratic principles designed by founding fathers could still not effectively prevent tiny but extremely powerful interests groups from trampling on the majority. While having a long way to go, the CPC is now trying to improve the democratic centralism, which has been proved, partly by the economic miracle gained by the nation, quite effective to enrich Chinese and keep the country on a stable track.
Modern Chinese are aspiring to achieve the biggest economic and social goals at the lowest cost. The Chinese-style democracy we are now promoting will have high chances to give an answer.

Editor: Song Shutao

GREEKS IN PAKHTUNKHWA

Daily Times - Site Edition
Friday, March 07, 2008
Footloose: Greeks in Pukhtunkhwa? —Salman Rashid
Watching from the rooftop that April afternoon many years ago, I could see a clear Greek connection here; a worship of Dionysus. A reading of the DNA test report mentioned last week in this space shows that to be true. While the Kalasha have no Greek strain, many tested Pukhtuns doThe DNA tests I mentioned in my column last week that showed there was no Greek strain in the Kalasha people of Chitral brought up an interesting proposition from correspondent Lubi Uzunovski. She writes that the test does indeed show a total lack of Greek genetic traces among the Kalasha. But has anyone tested them for a possible genetic link with the Macedonians?She goes on that a bulk of modern Greek population is as recent to the region as about one hundred and fifty years and that they were Christian migrants from Asia MinorWhat does one make of this then? Who then were the people who lived in, say, Sparta or Athens over two thousand years ago when the Macedonian prince set out for India? I find Uzunovski’s idea about all modern Greeks being outsiders absurd for that hints at an unpopulated Greece in the classical age. Her suggestion regarding re-testing to establish a Macedonian connection certainly makes sense, however.That having been said, I nevertheless still maintain that history shows us, not even in the vaguest terms, that Alexander never led his army across the great snow-draped ridges of the Hindu Kush Mountains in mid-winter. On the contrary, his itinerary across modern NWFP and the rest of Pakistan is now virtually with any doubt and in it Chitral features nowhere. Historians bent upon ‘proving’ that Alexander was in Chitral hang on to one place name — just one. And that is Nysa which fits nicely with the village of Nisa on the road from Chitral to Mastuj and nearer to the latter.From my memories of 1986, Nisa is a delightfully sylvan spot where huge and luscious peaches, succulent apricots and riotously sweet mulberries and plums abound. And Nisa is where the average landlord will accost you, firmly grasp you by the arm and lead you home to feed you a lavish meal followed by platters of fruit picked straight off his trees. But then, if truth be told, that is what the whole lot of Chitralis are — and not just the well off ones like my good friend Siraj ul Mulk and his charming wife Ghazala. Even the poorest Chitrali will never let a traveller by without feeding him.But I digress; so back to the main story. It is delightful Nisa that tells the charlatan that Alexander was in Chitral because in the context of his Swat campaign, Alexander’s histories do mention a place called Nysa. If anything, that is the flimsiest of grounds to base a whole theory on. A careful reading of the histories show that this Nysa would have been somewhere in the modern district of Dir. But the reference is always vague and one can scarcely assign it a proper location in modern geographical context.So I return to my primary premise that the Greeks (or the Macedonians) did not cross the high ridges into Chitral. We know that a hundred and fifty years after Alexander, another branch of the Greeks who were the progeny of Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander’s generals who inherited Syria and Persian after the passing of the conqueror, invaded Bactria (Balkh), Kabul and eventually overran Taxila. Indeed, their kingdom spread across all of modern Pakistan. Like Alexander, they too were not proper Greeks, but Macedonian. Scattered liberally across this great and wonderful land, they have left behind more than ample archaeological evidence of their long years here. In Chitral we have so far found no evidence of these latter Indo-Greeks.Back in 1999, I was in Bannu with my head full of descriptions of this wonderful, now sadly Talibanised, city left by Chinese pilgrims of the early Middle Ages. My guide, a local government official, initially failed to understand what it was I wanted to see. After several hours of bumbling about and one heated outburst between us, he drove me ten kilometres southwest of town to the village of Bhurt. There above the houses and amidst neatly parcelled farmland loomed a large clayey mound called Akra. I was eventually to learn that this was the remnant of a huge city that thrived from the 3rd century BCE (Indo-Greeks) through the Kushans, Parthians, Ghaznavides and into the time of Iyultimish. That is, this was a living city for a millennium and a half.Later that same evening I saw a spectacle in Bannu city. About sundown, Chowk Bazaar in the city started to fill up with lean-bodied young Pukhtun lads. Soon it was a milling, pressing multitude so my guide and I climbed the roof of a roadside build to witness the proceedings. Here were dancing processions complete with drummers and pipers each led by a beaming, glowing young man bedecked with garlands of marigold and rose with his friends on either side of and behind him. Pukhtuns being what they are, they sported their garlands over one shoulder and below the other crossing their chests with them, just as they would wear their bullet-studded bandoliers.The entire bazaar was virtually choked with such processions and the din of music and the roar of young, jubilant singing and talking was ear-splitting. Though there must have been nearly twenty such processions in that tight little bazaar, there was no harsh word, no scuffling. There was very palpable air of goodwill and merriment. If it got too crowded, arriving processions patiently waited their turn for room to be made before they entered with their own music and dance. And going around all this were copious (that is an understatement!) amounts of confectionary. Among much laughter and joshing, virtually tons of gulab jamun and barfi were forced by friends down each other’s gullets.The heavily flower-bedecked leader of each procession was the soon-to-be groom. For long years it had been tradition that the young groom would celebrate his impending wedding by leading his friends in a musical procession to let the world know that the big day had come for him. As I watched from the rooftop the orgies of gaiety, song, dance and eating, I suddenly saw in them undertones of a Dionysian revel from the distant past when Bannu occupied the now ruined and deserted mound of Akra by the village of Bhurt.When the Greeks were here, they would have indulged in similar revels to please their god Dionysus. Then there would have been bulging wine-skins, not mere cardboard boxes of confectionary. There would have been women also and all and sundry well and properly inebriated. But they all, every single one of them, would have been decked with garlands just as these jubilant Pukhtun lads were in the spring of 1999. Over the years the wine-skins may have given way to pitchers of bhung or perhaps vast quantities of hashish. But with the coming of the hypocritical dictatorship of the late 1970s, the Pukhtuns settled for confectionary — though it is another thing what they would consume in private.Watching from the rooftop that April afternoon many years ago, I could see a clear Greek connection here; a worship of Dionysus. A reading of the DNA test report mentioned last week in this space shows that to be true. While the Kalasha have no Greek strain, many tested Pukhtuns do.Salman Rashid is a travel writer and knows Pakistan like the back of his hand.

The Frontier Post
Marriage of convenience!!!
M Waqar USA
By observing on going political developments and melo-drama between Nawaz Sharif and Zardari, I hate to say that I don't trust Nawaz, he is the one who did not let BENAZIR BHUTTO to run her government properly, when she was prime minister, Mr. Nawaz is asking for restoration of judges but I am sure that nation has not forgotten that during his rule supreme court was attacked. In politics, yesterday enemies can be today's friends but it seems like Mr. Sharif is already creating problems, differences may split but its too scary and it will be another golden opportunity for any army general in Pakistan to overthrow the govt. Although I am sure he has learned the lessons in exile, After his return from exile, he has displayed restraint, tolerance and maturity in his speeches and actions and it was a great gesture that he went to the hospital when Benazir Bhutto was killed, progressive, liberal and democratic Pakistanis must be happy to see that cronies of Musharraf and religious mullah's parties defeated and they have great expectations from winners of 2008 election but I hope that these politicians don't indulge in dirty politics and dig their n graves. Nawaz Sharif is an autocrat with no relation to democratic norms and traditions. His each tenure in the helm of affairs was more dishonest than the previous one. His malpractices not only swayed away the economic structure of the state but also made the lives of poor disastrous. I am not saying that Mr. Zardari is an Angel but I think if Nawaz Sharif is sincere this time then he should fully cooperate with other politicians and let the new govt finish its job for five years and let the people of Pakistan to decide after five years. Nawaz Sharif is asking a lot from the new winners and his list of demands is growing every time I read a Pakistani newspaper on line. Mr. Zardari or his Prime Minister will have their reservations about some issues and if they fail to satisfy Mr.Sharif. I think there will be another political chaos in Pakistan. As Aitzaz Ahsan has termed the political consensus developed between Asif Ali Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif a good omen and has cautioned if both the leaders back out from this consensus people and lawyers will come out on the roads against them and that's what I am afraid of, because Nawaz Sharif will jeopardize this political process. Democracy kicking in now and Pakistanis sees a chance of peace and normal life, people don't want show downs now, Zardari may be a man of compromise and hope Nawaz can be like him too, politics of revenge will derail what the nation achieved through elections, Nawaz Sharif have to compromise, accommodate and not to confront and let the nation's parliament to decide and that will be consensus. We know that Zardari will run the show, Mr Musharraf will expect a Yes Man but that will be a real test and PPP, PML-N, ANP needs to stay strong and together and not let differences of political opinion mess up this new political process, and this all depends on Nawaz to cooperate, but will he??? Although, whenever a GENERAL rules Pakistan, he makes sure to destroy all the institutions of civilians and bring country to total chaos and collapse, therefore the idea of a national government should not be only about sharing power but also sharing responsibility, during past and present military regimes, people of pukhtoonistan and Balochistan suffered heavily, it should be responsibility of new govt to restore confidence among people of these two provinces, provincial autonomy is important issue according to the constitution and it is time to honor this compact, will Nawaz will agree to these issues??? If President Musharraf has any self respect, he must resign now; he can go to TURKEY and should study how ATTA-TURK changed Turkey. Anyhow, I was writing about Nawaz Sharif, I am not going to open can of worms but would love to see what other readers on this forum think???
Saved from: http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=le&nid=345&ad=06-03-200
Dated: Thursday, March 06, 2008, Safar 27, 1429 A.H.

BALKAN INTRIGUES

Balkan intrigues
Source: Pravda.Ru
The latest country to find its place on the map is sending shockwaves around the world.
Kosovo’s declaration of independence 17 February brings the number of statelets born out of the former Yugoslavia, population 23 million, to seven — Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and now Kosovo, which boasts an impressive two million.
Statistics are trotted out to justify independence from Serbia. Ninety per cent of residents are Albanian, it is said, though this excludes 250,000 Serbs who fled when the NATO invaded. Some 120,000 plucky Serbs remained and a brave 18,000 have trickled back in recent years — under armed escort — to hostile neighbourhoods, to reclaim homes seized by Albanian squatters when NATO troops occupied the province. But demographic shifts are no reason to dismember a country.
The province was the heartland of the Serbian Kingdom in the 13th century until conquered by the Ottomans in the 15th century, and only by the end of the 19th century did it have a slight majority of ethnic Albanians for the first time. It suffered mass population transfers of both Serbs and Albanians over the years and finally achieved quasi-state status within the Yugoslav Federation by the 1960s. In the 1970s, the demographic balance was 75-25 Albanian-Serbian. Milosevic owed his rise to the presidency to his defence of Serbs in Kosovo after the death of President Josip Broz Tito in 1980, whose motto was “a weak Serbia means a strong Yugoslavia.” Kosovo’s nationalists were demanding full republican status within the federation by then, and in 1990 its parliament even declared independence (only recognised by, surprise, Albania). This dissolving of the delicately balanced federation would have been suicide and the movement was suppressed, as similar movements have been in Spain, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and many, many other countries, with nary a whisper of protest by the “international community”.
Milosevic’s attempt in the 1990s to resettle Serbian refugees from civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia prompted the formation of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1995, a rag-tag rebel group financed by drug, arms and human trafficking, which made it to the US State Department’s prestigious list of international terrorist organisations in 1998 — Osama bin Laden made three visits to Kosovo 1994-96, but which the West nonetheless supported in the “liberation” of Kosovo in 1998-99. The denouement — Milosevic being served up to the International Criminal Court by Serbia’s current prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica — did nothing to reverse what was by now a clear policy by the West to carve a new, compliant state out of the remains of Yugoslavia.
As for who threatened who in the lead-up to the current declaration of independence, the 10,000 casualties of the upheaval of 1998-99 included Serbs, Albanians and Roma, with no one group faring much better than the other, and despite intensive efforts by NATO forces, no proof of mass murder of Albanians — the excuse used to justify the NATO bombing — was ever found. Eerily similar to the aftermath of the US pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. In any case, with the invasion, it was the Serbs who ended up fleeing rather than the Albanians. The last major outbreak of violence was in 2004 and was against the Serbs.
Kostunica argues that the Serbs should not be held to account for Milosevic’s supposed sins, that self-rule for Kosovo within a federation is an acceptable compromise, that creating such a statelet benefits no one, least of all ordinary Kosovars, and merely acts as a dangerous precedent on the world stage, but only Russia, China and a few others appear to be listening. He vowed the nation would never accept this “gross violation of international law” and angrily pointed the finger at the US, which was “ready to violate the international order for its own military interests”. Even pro-Western Serbian President Boris Tadic said, “I will never give up the fight for our Kosovo.” Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called for the United Nations to annul the move, demanding an emergency meeting of the Security Council 18 February. No resolution on Kosovo’s independence was made, with members China, Russia and Indonesia making it clear this was a stillborn child as far as they were concerned.
Western hypocrisy is so thick it can be cut with a knife: EU officials issued a statement acknowledging Kosovo’s independence declaration without explicitly endorsing it, thanks to Spain’s distaste. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the alliance would respond “swiftly and firmly against anyone who might resort to violence.” US President George W Bush in Tanzania produced his usual inimitable sound-byte: “The Serbian people can know that they have a friend in America.” The US was low-key, calling on all parties to “exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any provocative act”, though it provocatively proceeded to recognise the new republic, along with Britain and France.
But then, why bother to toot one’s horn? US Albanian immigrants did that in any case, streaming into Pristina to dance in frenzied jubilation. Beating drums, waving flags, shooting guns in the air and throwing firecrackers, they chanted: “Independence! Independence! We are free at last!” An outpouring of adulation for the US was evident everywhere, in sharp contrast to the despair, anger and disbelief that gripped Serbia and its ethnic enclaves in northern Kosovo.
Europe has been busy in the Balkans since it helped destroy the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Most recently it welcomed Slovenia to its fold in 2004 and promises Croatia membership next year. NATO has been flexing its muscles, too, having swallowed up Slovenia in 2004 and promising Croatia membership this year. The plan is to bribe Serbia into acquiescing to the loss of Kosovo by giving it a nice, wet Euro-kiss. While Serbia is wise to NATO, it is not clear if its wrecked economy and exhausted people will give in to the lure of euros. In addition to the 16,000 NATO troops, the EU has parachuted in 2000 police, judges and administrators into Kosovo, but insisted Kosovo’s independence will be severely circumscribed. A wise move, that, considering the KLA and Kosovo’s reputation for terrorism and all kinds of trafficking, and the new prime minister’s deep mafia connections. In a faux show of magnanimity, the KLA political leader and Kosovo’s Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, called on displaced Serbs living outside Kosovo to return, guaranteeing them full rights. Thaci was a founding member in 1993 of the Marxist-Leninist oriented People’s Movement of Kosovo, which advocates Pan-Albanianism; his sister just happens to be married to Sejdija Bajrush, the top Albanian mafioso.
The fallout from this latest chapter of Balkan intrigues is already accelerating. At least three shiny new border posts have been burned down and three bombs exploded near Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe offices in northern Kosovo. Demonstrators there demanded that the Serbian army mobilise to keep their territories, which make up 15 per cent of Kosovo, part of Serbia. The northern part of Kosovo already has parallel institutional structures and does not recognise the authority of the Kosovo government. Misha Glenny, an expert on the Balkans, warns, “Whatever the outcome of Kosovo’s independence, everyone knows we are heading for de facto partition. But no one is willing to admit it.” Serbian police officers have deserted the multi-ethnic Kosovo police force and given their allegiance to Belgrade.
Next door, Serbian separatists in the Muslim-Croat Federation have stepped up their threats to secede from Bosnia. Macedonia, which has the misfortune of bordering Kosovo, Albania and Serbia, and has a substantial restive Albanian minority to boot, will wait for at least 15 EU countries to recognise Kosovo first. Biljana Vankovska from the Institute for Peace and Defence Studies in Skopje said, “the perspectives of the Kosovo market are a cold comfort for Macedonia’s economy.” Serbian President Boris Tadic says that Serbia will recall its ambassadors from countries that recognise an independent Kosovo, which already include the US, UK, Germany and France. Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania are not planning to recognise Kosovo any time soon. Even Poland is having doubts.
Kosovo’s independence will inevitably lead to separatist efforts by other dissatisfied territories around the world. The very day of the declaration, presidents of two Georgian breakaway provinces — Abhazia’s President Sergei Begapsh and South Ossetia’s President Eduard Kokoity — met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and received a commitment for continued support. All residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were granted Russian citizenship after heavy-handed Georgian attempts to cow the independent-minded territories in the 1990s. “We are told all the time: Kosovo is a special case,” Putin said recently. “It is all lies. There is no special case and everybody understands it perfectly well.” After his official meeting with Lavrov, Bagapsh said, “Abkhazia will soon ask the Russian Federal Assembly and the UN Security Council to recognise its independence.”
Despite the tragedy of Chechnya, such enthusiasm to team up with Russia by Muslim border states suggests that religion is really not the issue here at all. There are also Trans-Dniester, sandwiched between Ukraine and Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh, the breakaway Armenian district in Azerbaijan, and farther afield, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, the Tamil Tigers, and many, many other would-be countries and terrorist groups all of which have gained a new lease on “independence” from this latest Balkan intrigue.
Eric Walberg For Pravda.ru

DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST REVENGE !!!!!!!!!!!!

Democracy is the best revenge
M Waqar USA
First of all I congratulate all democratic and liberal forces, who were united and voted against the arrogant and illegal regime of Musharraf. It is a great day of joy and relief, Democracy is the best revenge,” the well-said quote of Benazir Bhutto has been reinforced today. In her death, Benazir wreaked even greater havoc on Musharraf and company. On Monday, from her grave, she beat all the cronies and flunkies of Musharraf into oblivion. Her murder and the vow by the PPP to take revenge through democracy, have now been fulfilled. Today the so called champions of democracy and Islam, shoe- lickers of military dictator like, Pervaiz Elahi, Sheikh Rashid, Ejaz-ul-Haq, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain are hiding themselves behind the curtains of power as they have been known to do in when faced with true democracy. MQM, PML(Q), MMA has damaged Pakistan integrity by supporting Musharraf's undemocratic actions. Chaudhry Shujjat is such a cunning person that for winning election he was trying to get Lal Masjid imam Aziz out of prison, these Chaudhries of Punjab have very rude awakening now and I hope they realize that its not worthy to be a puppet of a military dictator. This election has also been a denunciation of agency-sponsored politics. The nation faces innumerable problems and the road ahead is not easy but Pakistan's journey forward would become much easier if Mr. Musharraf sees the writing on the wall and leaves. He must do the decent thing and quit. A silent revolution of the silent majority has struck Pakistan and the otherwise voiceless people have said a big but decisive “No” to the political parties loyal to Musharraf. To be frank, Musharraf has lost, who took power and claimed that he is a liberal, secular and loves ATTA_TURK, he took billions of dollars from USA but also supported militants or did not do anything against those in his Govt and military who were supporters of ignorant Taliban and other militants. I think Musharraf was a double agent, working with the US in the search for Bin Laden and working with Al Qaeda to keep Bin Laden and his company safe. I am sure that Mush knows who killed Benazir, who are responsible for suicide attacks, who is killing innocent Pukhtoons, it seems like his agencies are responsible for suicide attacks, if there were any real groups involve in these crimes against humanity then it would happen during elections too. Musharraf has brought the country to complete destruction and dismemberment. He has destroyed all democratic institutions, he shredded the constitution of the country with power grabbing amendments. he is following the policies of terrorists MQM. It is still time for Mr Musharraf to apologize to Mr. Justice Bhagwan Das and Mr Justice Iftikhar Chowdhry. Musharraf is a cunning untrusty individual who has no moral values and he has later declared martial law on Nov 3, 2007 in order to remove not only the supreme court chief justice but 3 other chief justices including 60 superior court judges. Musharraf needs to step down. He's lost the political capital to be effective. The Pakistani nation today proved to the world that they are a self-decisive and independent nation, they are liberals, they are not pro-talibans. Once Musharraf had said "Last blow will be mine" but he was wrong. The last blow he got today, and this blow was from people power, the power of people can’t be crushed by any strong Army, all those who won this election must prove their credibility. They should reject General culture, extremism, corruption, nepotism, VIP culture and all evils, which the whole nation is dressed in. They should show positive attitude to each other and should prove to the world that they are sensible and serious nation and they deserve to be democratic nation because nation has reached to this success after a very long struggle. Our politicians should not waste this opportunity again, if they loose this opportunity then remember people have other ways to take revenge and that revenge will be revolution and firing squads for failed politicians. Two important things education and getting rid of corruption must be on top of their agenda. Its time to educate people, The trusts and confidence reposed in the politicians by the people now demand from them to behave and behave democratically, move sensibly, focus on the issues positively, shun from politics of revenge and muster all of their efforts for rallying round all segments of the society and taking them together for the resolutions of the burning issues on top priority. I hope politicians like Nawaz and Zardari learned their lessons and they will not repeat the mistakes of past, true essence of democracy is the independence of judiciary, the legislative branch and the executive branch. Army should never be allowed to meddle in civilian affairs. I wonder which general will stage Pakistan's next coup... Democratic elections come and go but Pakistani generals are always ready to remove inconvenient civilians who have the temerity to think they are in charge, so winner of this election must get their acts together and work for the interests of country, keep in mind, Pakistan’s two neighbors China and India will be super powers by the year 2050, its up to people and politicians what they want to do, make Pakistan a super power or make it a country like Somalia or Kenya or break it in pieces. I salute to the people of great pukhtoonistan, who totally rejected militants, extremists and those mullahs who always support military dictators. I congratulate ANP and agree with the statement of its leader Asfandyar, that the Pashtuns, by electing the ANP, had given a clear message to the establishment and world powers that they were not extremists. “We will also try to give an impression that no one is slave or master but all four provinces are like four brothers in this country, I hope ANP make Pukhtoonistan the most educated, rich and advance place for whole world. Those who are involve in suicide attacks are not pushdowns but are agents of puktoon’s enemies. Media also played important role against the illegal policies of dictator Mush and his cronies. Frontier Post also kept its tradition of challenging dictators and printed news, articles and letters and kept readers well informed. I hope media will continue its positive coverage and new Govt in Islamabad should also remember that its 2008, now there are more media tools then just one govt run TV channel. If the elected politicians follow the path of corruption and arrogance they will never survive more than six month in power, the people are watching you closely if you stray you will be in dumps soon. If Nawaz Sharif and Zadari successfully form a coalition, then Pakistan will, at long last, have turned there corner and embarked on a new era, only if they are sincere this time and National Assembly will not become subzi mundi. Benazir Bhutto had sacrificed her life for paving way for democracy in Pakistan. This golden opportunity should not be wasted by the new leadership who should steer Pakistan from existing troubles and create friendly atmosphere with all countries and not waste money in fighting. The funds can be better utilized for the welfare of poor Pakistanis. All the best for the people of pakistan who had courageously voted in this election. These political parties also needs to have democratic elections within their own ranks and get rid of family owned political parties. Quote: ‘’Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. H L Mencken

PAKISTAN ELECTIONS

Musharraf Powerless, Islamists Defeated
What happened in the Pakistani elections?By Nicholas SchmidlePosted Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2008, at 6:36 PM ET
Heading into Monday's parliamentary elections, Pakistan desperately needed good news. Bombs, protests, and President Pervez Musharraf's authoritarian impulses have made almost daily headlines and created the impression of a country spiraling toward chaos. Last year, Islamic militants detonated, on average, one suicide bomb per week in Pakistan, including the attack that killed more than 140 people at Benazir Bhutto's homecoming in October and the one that assassinated her in December. As the pro-Taliban insurgency gathered strength this winter, a bloody Election Day seemed inevitable. But Monday's poll results, while consistent with Pakistan's recent history in their pure unpredictability, finally gave people a taste of good news. Besides being largely free of violence (two dozen died in isolated skirmishes, but suicide bombers stayed away), voters rejected the two players in Pakistani politics that scare—and confuse—Americans most: Musharraf and the Islamists.
The elections proved nearly everyone—including me—terribly wrong. They also illustrated the complexity and dynamism of Pakistani society. I lived in Pakistan for the last two years and watched the run-up to the elections closely, beginning with the suspension of the chief justice of the supreme court in March 2007, through the state of emergency in November, and the media restrictions that followed. After traveling to every province and speaking to hundreds of people, I grew convinced that a free and fair election was impossible. Musharraf simply couldn't afford to lose. And yet, without an institutional base of support in the army (he officially retired in late November) or a political base in his faction of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), he knew he would do just that in transparent polls.
The PML (Q) finished third, behind Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif's faction of the PML, making Musharraf effectively appear more powerless than ever. As president, he can still dissolve parliament whenever he wants, but the parliament also has the ability to impeach him. He is in a less than desirable position.
How could Musharraf have let this happen? It wasn't just lesser-known figures in his party who lost their seats; big personalities fell, too. Sheikh Rashid, the mustachioed, cigar-smoking Musharraf confidant who served as both minister of information and minister of railways during the last government, lost in Rawalpindi, the first defeat of his 30-year political career. Similarly, the president of the PML (Q) was defeated. "This election will come down to whether you are for or against Musharraf," a party worker told me at a PPP rally outside Islamabad in December. He couldn't have been more correct.
While the opposition parties campaigned on the shortcomings of Musharraf's regime (inflation, food shortages, deteriorating law and order), Musharraf's cronies weren't adept enough to recognize that public opinion had turned against them, and they continued to tell poor, hungry, downtrodden Pakistanis of all the good that Musharraf had done for them. According to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who was in Islamabad observing the elections, Musharraf admitted that "people have spoken, results are clear, and [I am] prepared to abide by and cooperate with whatever the ensuing coalition government comes forth with." That could eventually include a one-way ticket out of Pakistan.
Perhaps the most significant development of the election was the drubbing received by the Islamist parties. In 2002, a six-party coalition known as the Muttahida-Majles-e-Amal, or MMA, won more than 10 percent of the popular vote and grabbed more than 60 seats in the 342 National Assembly. The presence of the Islamists in parliament frightened Western governments, which feared that the mullahs would increase their share of power with each election. Monday's results showed that the MMA's rise was better understood as a political hiccup rather than the vanguard of a mass movement. As of late Tuesday, the MMA had won just five seats. Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the head of the Islamist alliance, lost in his hometown to a thirtysomething law school graduate from the PPP.
Does this mean the end of Islamism in Pakistan? Not quite. In fact, while the defeat of Musharraf's political allies in the PML (Q) signals a new political leadership in Islamabad, the defeat of the MMA could also signal a new political and religious leadership in the troubled areas along the border with Afghanistan. In the North West Frontier Province, where the MMA formed the provincial government last term, the Islamists' vote bank was a combination of die-hards who desired the creation of an Islamic state and those less ideologically driven who were attracted to the MMA's promises of justice, economic renewal, and security. This time around, the latter voted for the Awami National Party. The former, such as Iqbal Khan of the Swat Valley, joined the Taliban.
Last October, Khan invited me to his home for dinner, where he proudly displayed a bookcase full of al-Qaida paraphernalia—letters from Mullah Omar, video messages from Osama Bin Laden, and a backpack that Ayman al-Zawahiri apparently left behind after a visit. He, like all his neighbors in their remote village, voted for the MMA in 2002, hoping the Islamists in parliament would fulfill their pledge to implement sharia law. But when they not only failed to do that but were increasingly viewed as being just as corrupt as their predecessors, Khan and his cohorts withdrew their support from the politicians and shifted their allegiances to the militants.
Though Khan has since been arrested, hundreds of other pro-Taliban militants are still lurking inside the Tribal Areas and in the Swat Valley. On Feb. 6, 2008, the Pakistani government and the Taliban agreed to a cease-fire, which many believe explains the lack of twisted cars, bloody limbs, headless bodies, and other suicide bombing debris on Election Day. But what did the Taliban get in return? Their ambitions are, in many cases, confined to the establishment of Taliban-ruled enclaves. For, unlike in Afghanistan a decade ago, when the Taliban piled into pickup trucks and overran the government in Kabul, the Pakistani Taliban faces a significantly stronger army and state to conquer. Nawaz Sharif already announced that he favors dialogue, rather than confrontation, with the Taliban. None of the other candidates has offered a compelling counterinsurgency strategy.
Monday's election reminded observers that, besides being considered the "world's most dangerous country," Pakistan could also be described as the world's most unpredictable country. It remains to be seen how long it can ride this wave of good news. Nicholas Schmidle, a former fellow of the Institute of Current World Affairs, lived in Pakistan from 2006 through January 2008. He is writing a book about his experience in Pakistan.

SWAT…..TALIBANIZATION OF PARADISE.
Shaheen Buneri,
THE JERUSALEM POST

MINGORA, Pakistan - Until recently, the Swat Valley was peaceful and beautiful, a land of roses, gushing rivers and Buddhist stupas, an idyllic spot for glorious Pashtun traditions of love, peace and hospitality. Once a paradise on earth - all that is now lost.
"There was a time when women and girls from the valley traveled from Mingora town all the way by foot over the high and legendary Mountains of Elum to the mausoleum of the famous saint Pir Baba in downtown Buner, there to offer prayers for finding a sweetheart or to sing sad songs telling of separation. We were poor but happy then. God only knows who cast an evil eye on our land and turned it into hell," said Shaukat Sharar, a local intellectual from Mingora, capital of the Swat district in northern Pakistan.
TNSM-the first pro-Taliban movementThe Swat Valley, which fell to pro-Taliban fighters in July, was perhaps the most beautiful valley in South Asia. The people were liberal in attitude and in their way of life.
The people worked their orchards and rice fields, reaping enough corn and cash to live with honor, dignity and hope. There was Music Street, where beautiful Swati girls once danced to the tune of artistically rich Pashto music, to the delight of visitors. Even the former wali (ruler) of Swat State married a famous dancer to bless her community with respect for traditional Pashtun society.
Then in 1992, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, an extremist cleric, launched the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi Movement (Movement for the Enforcement of the Islamic Legal System, or TNSM) in the Malakand region.
His followers occupied government buildings and schools to pressure the government to accept their demands, blocked the main Peshawar-Mingora highway and killed a member of the provincial assembly and scores of people in adjoining districts.
In 1994, then-Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto's government curbed the movement, but to appease its followers, introduced the Nizam-e-Adal Regulation (an Islamic judicial system) in Malakand. However, TNSM leaders, suspicious of the government, persisted in their struggle to introduce "a true Islamic order" to the region.
On September 6, 1998, the TNSM threatened to attack American property and to abduct American citizens in Pakistan unless the United States apologized to the Muslim world for the August 1998 missile strikes on Afghanistan.
"When the US attacked the Taliban government in neighboring Afghanistan in 2001 the hardline clerics in the TNSM leadership started recruiting people for jihad against the infidels [the US and its allies] on Afghan soil. Some 10,000 people with old fashioned guns in their hands were taken to the border to fight the hi-tech war planes of the United States," recalled Shah Dauran, a local resident.
Qazi Ihsanullah, a TNSM spokesperson, said in Bajaur on October 27, 2001: "We will resist if the authorities try to stop us. The jihad will start here... Initially [Taliban leader] Mullah [Muhammad] Omar advised us to wait and come to Afghanistan only when necessary, but we have told them that we will stay in Afghanistan as a reserve force."
Muhammad Iqbal, a 40-year old leader of the movement, said that when Maulana Sufi Muhammad gave the call, supporters collected 60 truck-loads of food and clothes and 1.7 million rupees to give to senior Taliban commanders in Qandahar, Afghanistan.
But Sufi Muhammad's fighters were untrained and ignorant in the ways of modern warfare and most of them were killed or arrested by the Northern Alliance forces. With some other TNSM leaders, Maulana Sufi Muhammad was arrested by Pakistan security forces on January 15, 2002, and sent to jail. After seven years in prison he was released recently by the government and admitted to hospital in Peshawar for treatment of diabetes.
President Pervez Musharraf's government has also banned the movement, which it defines as a terrorist organization. Though TNSM has been dormant for the past seven years, its leadership formed another armed movement under the leadership of Maulana Fazlullah, Maulana Sufi Muhammad's son-in-law, who is a strong opponent of Western sociopolitical ideals.
From tourism to terrorismFollowing the arrest of his spiritual leader and father-in-law, Maulana Fazlullah, 31, gave the movement new impetus in a novel and effective manner. He launched a network of illegal FM radio channels throughout the Swat Valley and began broadcasting fiery speeches denouncing education for girls, prophylactic anti-polio drops, music shops, and the pro-American policies of Musharraf. In a June 2007 interview, the firebrand cleric told me that following his advice people had burned TV sets, VCRs and computers worth a million rupees. "This was the first blow to the region's liberal values and the first step toward obscurantism," Khurhsid Khan, coordinator of a local NGO, said.
The radio broadcasts gradually spread to a radius of 40 kilometers and thousands of people used to listen to it with great veneration after their night prayers. Harnessing the air waves like this brought change. Parents stopped sending their girls to school. The illiterate women of the region, who saw Maulana Fazlullah as a true leader of Islam, donated their gold jewelry to build Imam Dheri a religious seminary on the bank of the River Swat. The use of anti-polio vaccine for children was also accused of being "un-Islamic" by Maulana Fazlullah.
In October 2006, Pakistan's air strike on a religious seminary in Bajaur Tribal agency, which the locals believed was carried out by US forces, killed 82 people including its administrator Maulvi Liaqat Ali. Laiqat Ali was very close to Maulana Fazlullah. After the incident, Maulana Fazlullah embarked on a campaign arousing the people to join him fight the invading US forces.
"We will teach them a lesson. We will avenge them for killing our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Bajaur Agency," he said in one of his broadcasts straight after the incident.
In July 2007, when the Pakistan government launched Operation Silence against the Hafsa Seminary in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, Maulana Fazlullah seized it as an opportunity to strengthen his support base and called on the people to take arms and fight the US and its allies.
Bombs in girls' schools and shops selling CDs, and suicide attacks on police and security forces became the order of the day. Maulana Fazlullah's "Shaheen Force," commanded by Siraj-ud-Din and supported by foreign fighters, took over schools, hospitals and government offices in the upper Swat valley. The Pakistani flag was replaced by the black and white flag of the movement.
The caretaker government at the time dispatched 25,000 regular army forces to confront Maulana Fazlullah fighters in Swat. Central government officials said that prior to this the ruling six-party religious alliance of North West Frontier Province had opposed military action, but was now determined to fight until the valley was cleared of militancy.
Paradise lostIn the clash that followed the security forces suffered massive casualties and at least 13 Pakistani security personnel were beheaded in the Matta and Charbagh areas of the district. Of the valley's 1.5 million population some 400,000 were displaced by the fighting. Tellingly, in Jehandabad, the fighters blew up a 700 year-old statue of Buddha, symbol of peace and humanity.
Zahid Khan, president of the Swat Hotels Association, said that 1,200 hotels had closed down in the area with owners suffering losses of 4 billion rupees.
The government claimed the area had been cleared of rebels and the FM radio station of Maulana Fazlullah shut down. But, after a few days' break, Maulana Fazlullah was back to broadcasting, and threatened security forces with dire consequences for killing his men and occupying the seminary he had built at a cost of 8m. rupees.
"They say we are hiding. That is wrong. We are not hiding; this is just a war strategy. We will teach them a lesson as our brothers did to the forces of the USSR in Afghanistan," he announced in his new radio broadcasts.
The past five months of fighting between Pakistani security forces and the extremists have rendered the whole area a virtual hell, where fear prevails and the locals have serious reservations about the military action. They say the government has proved itself unable to nip the evil in the bud. "First they allowed Maulana Fazlullah to recruit and train people. He was a minor leader then, but the government allowed him to become a monster. Now they are not able to rein in him," said Sher Ali, a college professor in Mingora.
Zia-ud-Din, secretary of the Swat Private Schools Association, said thousands of students were not attending class due to the school closures. "They are frightened, lost and utterly confused. Many of the children are suffering from psychological trauma," he reported.
Local people want to see something positive come out of the military operation, which has led to the deaths of many civilians and destroyed the local infrastructure. However, realities on the ground indicate that this lyrical valley, home to the Gandahara civilization, is lost forever. The current wave of violence in other parts of the country is darkening the gloom still further.
Is the US planning to attack Pakistan?The spread of terrorism by pro-Taliban fighters from Waziristan to the Swat Valley has prompted the US to attack al-Qaida targets in Pakistan. In 2007, Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, told CNN that if the United States had "actionable targets, anywhere in the world," including in Pakistan, "we would pursue those targets."
"There are no options that are off the table," she said.
Responding to US officials' concerns about Pakistan nuclear installations and the spread of militancy, Musharraf warned in an interview that any unilateral attacks by the US against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in his country's tribal areas would be treated as an invasion.
Political analysts say that US attacks on al-Qaida targets in Pakistan would exacerbate the already volatile situation in the region and would send current opponents of militancy into al-Qaida's arms.
The religious political party alliance, Mutahida Majlas-e-Amal, won a landslide victory in the last elections by exploiting anti-American sentiments in Balochistan and North West Frontier Province.
"Any such act would further inflame the situation. It would destabilize the whole region. Peace efforts in Afghanistan would be derailed if the US attacks Pakistan," said Khadim Hussain Amir, a political analyst and professor at Bahria University in Islamabad.
Khadim Hussain added that the US has economic and strategic interests in the region and that the Pakistan military wished to protect these interests.
"President Bush says that al-Qaida's war is against American freedom and democracy while al-Qaida and Taliban say that the US war on terrorism is actually a war against Islam. On the other hand, nationalist forces think the aim of the current war is the genocide of the Pashtun [ethnic Afghan] people. These are the ideological foundations of the present crisis. In my view this war is against the people and their resources just to promote capitalist interests. Militancy and militarism both end in the large scale sufferings of the already marginalized people," said Khadim.
In Khadim's opinion, political parties, especially secular and progressive ones, can and must play a role to advance the peoples' agenda by creating the space for negotiation and dialogue among all stake holders - including the US.

WHEN WOMEN RULE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When Women Rule
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF(NYT)
While no woman has been president of the United States — yet — the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience with female leaders. And I have to acknowledge it: Their historical record puts men’s to shame.
A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. Granted, I’m neglecting the likes of Bloody Mary, but it’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate.
Research by political psychologists points to possible explanations. Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era? Margaret Thatcher was a transformative figure, but women have been mediocre prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Often, they haven’t even addressed the urgent needs of women in those countries.
I have a pet theory about what’s going on.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.
In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.
In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.
Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.
Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.
Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected. That seemed to result from simple prejudice. Professor Duflo asked villagers to listen to a speech, identical except that it was given by a man in some cases and by a woman in others. Villagers gave the speech much lower marks when it was given by a woman.
Such prejudices can be overridden after voters actually see female leaders in action. While the first ones received dismal evaluations, the second round of female leaders in the villages were rated the same as men. “Exposure reduces prejudice,” Professor Duflo suggested.
Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.

Pakistan....ON EDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'); // 19849
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

// CC18658
document.write(''); //

}

// -->

= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {

if(document.cookie.indexOf('LastPage=homepage') != -1 && 'yes' == 'yes') {
document.write(''); //
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

document.write(''); //

}

}
// -->



function getTitle()
{
return


'); // 19849
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

// CC18658
document.write(''); //

}

// -->

= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {

if(document.cookie.indexOf('LastPage=homepage') != -1 && 'yes' == 'yes') {
document.write(''); //
nowMilli = (-1*24*60*60*1000)+ new Date().valueOf();
tomorrow=new Date(nowMilli);
tomorrow.setHours(0);
tomorrow.setMinutes(0);
tomorrow.setSeconds(0);
tomorrow.setMilliseconds(0);
document.cookie = 'LastPage=other' +'; expires=' +tomorrow.toGMTString() +'; path=/; domain=.economist.com; ';
} else {

document.write(''); //

}

}
// -->



function getTitle()
{
return 'On edge';
}

function toggle(embed){
if(document.getElementById(embed).style.display == 'none'){
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'block';
}else{
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'none';
}
}

Pakistan On edge
Jan 31st 2008 | LAHORE From The Economist print editionIf he rigs, he may have to rig big
Get article background
THE army is battling a Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas of the Afghan border, in which hundreds have been killed in recent weeks. In the cities, activists shouting “Go, Musharraf, Go!” are up in arms about alleged pre-election rigging of the vote due on February 18th. Yet Pakistan's increasingly edgy president, Pervez Musharraf, went on a ten-day European jaunt to tell the West why he is still Pakistan's best bet in the “transition to democracy” and the “war against terror”.
In London he berated a respected Pakistani journalist who dared question his government's efficacy and sincerity in combating extremism. Later he said Pakistanis should thrash such journalists if necessary for being “unpatriotic”, triggering a spate of angry comments.
Mr Musharraf's war is not going well. The “Pakistani Taliban” have merged under Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord accused by the government of ordering the murder in December of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. The Pakistani authorities signed a controversial peace deal with Mr Mehsud in 2005. But he used the lull to expand his army of Taliban and suicide-bombers in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Late last year an allied Taliban faction tried to seize large tracts of the Swat valley in the North-West Frontier Province. Mr Musharraf sent the army into Swat and bombed Mr Mehsud's hideouts in Waziristan. Mr Mehsud's followers retaliated by seizing a small town, and cutting off the road to Waziristan. The army is now fighting “miscreants” all over the tribal areas.
Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the former home minister, admits that the government failed to take “swift and decisive action” against the Taliban. He says the Taliban are well-financed, organised and motivated, and stopping their rise needs the backing of “political parties, civil society, [and] religious leaders”.
This is just what Mr Musharraf does not have. He is hugely unpopular and all the opposition parties want him out. Most Pakistanis also see this as America's war. This has made it hard to yield to American pressure to put its own boots on the ground in Waziristan against the Taliban. The Americans are providing aerial intelligence, counter-insurgency training and weaponry. Only rarely do the Pakistanis ask for missile attacks from American drones on targets in the border regions.
Meanwhile, it is still not certain that the elections postponed to February 18th will be held. The government has warned political leaders that they are on extremist hit lists. So security worries are curbing campaigning. Most politicians are relying on the electronic media. But the channels are shackled by new gagging laws and cannot give proper coverage to opposition rallies and protests. The air is also thick with allegations of pre-election rigging. Mr Musharraf has refused to nominate a neutral election commission or suspend the progovernment local mayors, who wield enormous influence.
Indeed, with various polls showing the popularity of his party plummeting, everyone believes that Mr Musharraf will have to rig the elections in a big way. His nemeses are the slain Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, at the head of her party, which is riding a wave of sympathy, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister he overthrew in 1999. Last month Mr Musharraf told Pakistani newspaper editors that he foresaw a greater crisis after the elections—if the opposition parties did not accept the results, or ganged up on him in the new parliament. But unless he strikes a deal soon with one of his foes, one of these outcomes seems hard to avoid.
Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
document.write
(
''
)

var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');


var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');


var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('');










;
}

function toggle(embed){
if(document.getElementById(embed).style.display == 'none'){
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'block';
}else{
document.getElementById(embed).style.display = 'none';
}
}

Pakistan On edge
Jan 31st 2008 | LAHORE From The Economist print editionIf he rigs, he may have to rig big
Get article background
THE army is battling a Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas of the Afghan border, in which hundreds have been killed in recent weeks. In the cities, activists shouting “Go, Musharraf, Go!” are up in arms about alleged pre-election rigging of the vote due on February 18th. Yet Pakistan's increasingly edgy president, Pervez Musharraf, went on a ten-day European jaunt to tell the West why he is still Pakistan's best bet in the “transition to democracy” and the “war against terror”.
In London he berated a respected Pakistani journalist who dared question his government's efficacy and sincerity in combating extremism. Later he said Pakistanis should thrash such journalists if necessary for being “unpatriotic”, triggering a spate of angry comments.
Mr Musharraf's war is not going well. The “Pakistani Taliban” have merged under Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord accused by the government of ordering the murder in December of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. The Pakistani authorities signed a controversial peace deal with Mr Mehsud in 2005. But he used the lull to expand his army of Taliban and suicide-bombers in the tribal area of South Waziristan. Late last year an allied Taliban faction tried to seize large tracts of the Swat valley in the North-West Frontier Province. Mr Musharraf sent the army into Swat and bombed Mr Mehsud's hideouts in Waziristan. Mr Mehsud's followers retaliated by seizing a small town, and cutting off the road to Waziristan. The army is now fighting “miscreants” all over the tribal areas.
Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the former home minister, admits that the government failed to take “swift and decisive action” against the Taliban. He says the Taliban are well-financed, organised and motivated, and stopping their rise needs the backing of “political parties, civil society, [and] religious leaders”.
This is just what Mr Musharraf does not have. He is hugely unpopular and all the opposition parties want him out. Most Pakistanis also see this as America's war. This has made it hard to yield to American pressure to put its own boots on the ground in Waziristan against the Taliban. The Americans are providing aerial intelligence, counter-insurgency training and weaponry. Only rarely do the Pakistanis ask for missile attacks from American drones on targets in the border regions.
Meanwhile, it is still not certain that the elections postponed to February 18th will be held. The government has warned political leaders that they are on extremist hit lists. So security worries are curbing campaigning. Most politicians are relying on the electronic media. But the channels are shackled by new gagging laws and cannot give proper coverage to opposition rallies and protests. The air is also thick with allegations of pre-election rigging. Mr Musharraf has refused to nominate a neutral election commission or suspend the progovernment local mayors, who wield enormous influence.
Indeed, with various polls showing the popularity of his party plummeting, everyone believes that Mr Musharraf will have to rig the elections in a big way. His nemeses are the slain Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, at the head of her party, which is riding a wave of sympathy, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister he overthrew in 1999. Last month Mr Musharraf told Pakistani newspaper editors that he foresaw a greater crisis after the elections—if the opposition parties did not accept the results, or ganged up on him in the new parliament. But unless he strikes a deal soon with one of his foes, one of these outcomes seems hard to avoid.