Bhutto's Husband Is Pakistan's New President

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Ruvy

  Sep 08, 2008 at 10:47 am

  I found this to be an extremely interesting article, Dr. Qureshi.
  
  What you appear to be pointing to is the collapse of the society in Pakistan, and the distinct possibility that it will break up into its constituent states. I point you to these lines in your own article, and ask you to compare and contrast to an article in the Washington Post.
  
  From your own article:

  The people of Pakistan are getting restless and hopeless with the passage of every day as they see major leaders commuting to Dubai and London with their assets and families happily settled there and none of their problems being discussed in meetings or in the national assembly. The unwelcome attacks by NATO and US forces within Pakistan are making life harder for those who live in FATA (Federally administered areas) and elsewhere in the country. A general feeling of regret and anger has filled the nation that US forces and policies have criminally disregarded the sovereignty of Pakistan. Recent attacks by Americans have claimed the lives of children and women and the tribesmen of those areas are not going to sit comfortably on this tragic loss. The new president will have to do something on a very urgent basis if further anarchy in the country is to be avoided;

  
  
  From the Washington Post:

  As the housing crisis deepened this year and losses mounted at Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac], investors began to lose faith that the companies' debts would be safe. Across the government and financial world, there was a consensus that their failure could bring the economy and financial system to its knees. In July, Paulson asked for -- and got -- authority from Congress to infuse government money in the firms if he deemed it necessary.
  
  In the ensuing weeks, as Treasury officials, along with investment bankers they hired from Morgan Stanley and officials from other agencies, looked into the details of the companies' financial position, they didn't like what they saw.
  
  Sources familiar with the situation said the officials accepted phone calls from stakeholders who wanted to share financial analysis, offer ideas and discuss the possible ramifications of potential solutions.
  
  Treasury officials also have held informal conversations with leading buyers of Fannie and Freddie debt -- including the central banks of China, South Korea, India and Taiwan -- to reassure them that the mortgage companies remained viable and would receive U.S. government support. As recently as two weeks ago, according to a source close to the talks with China's central bank, Treasury officials told leaders of that central bank that a cash infusion in the companies was in the works.

  
  
  From the point of view of Americans and others watching to see if their economies will collapse when the American economy does, the action of taking over these crisis ridden mortgage guarantors in the United States looks like an act of desperation. But from the point of view of someone in India, it only confirms the American dependence on Indian good will and friendship - for the time being, at least - something that does not necessarily bode well for Pakistan, or even the idea of Pakistan.
  
  India is a country wracked by communal violence. But it appears that Pakistan is a country even more wracked by communal violence - with a crack-up that could be disastrous and cost millions of lives in fighting within the country. A possible solution out of that communal violence is the abandonment of the "idea of Pakistan" and rejoining with the Union of India to the east.
  
  This is not said out of hostility. I am a mere foreign observer from Israel who knows some people in Pakistan and India and who worries for them on both sides of the border.
  
  If Israeli society were as unstable as Pakistan appears to be (from your own eyes), I would be in favor of abandoning the idea of a Jewish state and starting over again somehow. But, unstable as this little country is, its society is more stable than that of the Arab societies around it. And mind you, you will not find a harsher critic of the stability of the "Jewish" state I live in writing for this magazine.
  
  I wish you only the best. May the new president of your country succeed in the mountainous endeavor he faces in saving Pakistan from the voracious wolves of history.

• 2 - Cannonshop

  Sep 08, 2008 at 10:58 am

  wow...he's got one HELL of a job ahead of him. I hope he's got the chops, and can do it without getting either a civil war, or a foreign war. Yikes.

• 3 - Afaq

  Sep 08, 2008 at 11:41 pm

  Mr. Ruvi the comparison is invalid and unjust. Though I agree there are some quarters, particularly from the extreme right wing Singh parties in India and elsewhere who have never welcomed the partition of India and still dream of "akhanda bharat". When Indira Gandhi started Operation Blue Star, it was a world wide reccomendation that India should split into its constituent states on the basis of language. On the other hand there are no separatist movements in Pakistan. Yes there are problems in the politial and economic arena. As front line ally of USA in the war against terror Pakistan has suffered greatly. The tribesmen of the north western areas are burning with revenge and anger against foreign invasion of their soil. They attack big cities also. But as such nobody ever said anything about an independent state. After sixty year of independence there has been a largely cohesive nation which takes pride in its multicultural and multilingual diversity. But if your argument is valid then the USA should split into Spanish speaking, English speaking, African Americans, German speaking... Its time to stop pondering and wishing for breakup of a Muslim state whose citizens respect their freedom and know how to preserve it.

• 4 - Qualittee

  Sep 08, 2008 at 11:52 pm

  It was the communal violence against Muslim minority which started the Paksitan movement in the subcontinent. Mr. Ruvvy if the wolves of history are the deciding factors how about going back to the Moghul empire. After all they were the legal rulers of all the Indo-Pakistan before the British murdered and exiled them to take control of India in 1857.

• 5 - Ruvy

  Sep 09, 2008 at 6:04 am

  You can call me Ruvy, Dr. Qureshi. If you feel my comparison is unjust, it is not for me to argue with you. You are writing with a far better pulse on your country than I possibly could. One of the things I insist on is that the man on the spot knows better than the foreign observer.
  
  You are the man on the spot.
  
  I bow to your knowledge, sir.
  
  Again, I wish you only the best, and wish your new president only success in trying to bring peace to your country.

• 6 - Ruvy

  Sep 09, 2008 at 6:51 am

  Qualitee,
  
  You write,
  if the wolves of history are the deciding factors how about going back to the Moghul empire. After all they were the legal rulers of all the Indo-Pakistan before the British murdered and exiled them to take control of India in 1857.
  
  So I have a question for you. Would the descendants of the Moghuls be able to hold on to Indian sub-continent if they had the opportunity to seize it?
  
  It would appear to me (and to most other reasonable people) that a corpse is best buried or burnt. It may well be that the British acted illegally in ousting the Moghuls in 1857. This is not for me to judge. The wolves of history then made a corpse of the Moghul legality, as they did of the "Empire of India" nine decades later. The Jewel of Empire is but a fading memory. Even the Rajpath has disappeared.
  
  It would only be a case of extreme chaos that should cause a people to doubt the nature of the regime ruling them, or the idea underlying their country. I believed Dr. Qureshi was painting such a picture of Pakistan in his article; he has been kind enough to show me that I misunderstood his picture.
  
  I would suggest that unless some kind of solidity could be brought to bear for a Moghul restoration of some kind, that it be left for writers of science fiction and alternative histories to contemplate. I know of a fellow who owns a music shop in Jerusalem. He is heir to the royal throne of one of the Balkan countries. He does not want to be bothered with contemplating that possibility and prefers to run his music shop in peace. The wolves of history have devoured the monarchy in his native land, and he is smart enough to allow the corpse to rot.
  
  Now, do understand that this rule is not iron-clad. Exceptions to it exist. Corpses of history have had life breathed into them and walk the earth today. The Irish Republic is one example. The State of Israel, where I reside, is a more dramatic one.
  
  Sometimes the wolves of history are beaten back and must whimper away to their lairs with their tails between their legs.

• 7 - qualittee

  Sep 09, 2008 at 8:27 am

  How convenient:)
  
  When it suits our inner most wishes and desires we reckon the wolves of history and when it challenges the basic ideas of our existence, we call them dead and / or whimpering. No further comments needed.

• 8 - Ruvy

  Sep 10, 2008 at 4:26 am

  Actually, Qualitee, one comment is necessary. Neither the Irish Republic nor the State of Israel are the figments of imagination they were 100 years ago. Had the efforts to create these two nations failed, the wolves of history would have permanently beaten these two peoples. But the efforts did not fail. They succeeded.
  
  uvdá - that's a fact (in a language that is supposed to have died out but is very much alive - Hebrew).
  
  One has to acknowledge that reality too. Sometimes, history's wolves are beaten back and made to whimper with their tales between their legs.