@ Khyber

Wa-alakum-Salam brother,

It is a fact that Quaid-e-Azam really did not find enough time during and after independence struggle to convey his detailed vision to Pakistanis. He died just one year after independence. Now it is only the fragments of his various speeches that are helpful in determining the vision of Quaid. There are differences in opinions among various writers of Pakistan's history, about Quaid's vision. Somethings we can say with certainty like Quaid was against the division of society in the name of religion or other reasons like ligual or provincialism etc. He had envisioned Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims so that Muslims may peacefully follow their religion and preserve and promote their culture. He had given surety of all the minority rights in the lands of Pakistan.

Our early leaders tried to eliminate the provincialism from West Pakistan more due to selfish reasons of politically equating West Paistan with relatively more populous East Pakistan, and less due to as per the injuctions of Quaid, by uniting all the four provinces of West Pakistan in the form of 'one unit'. This idea however flopped as people of different provinces happened to have stong ties with their regional provincial cultures and they could not be ready to leave their regional cultures. Similarly language problem also created many controversies. I have discussed these issues[URL="http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/identity-crises-of-pakistan/"]in this link.[/URL]

As regards minority issue; the early 1953 violations in Punjab were aimed at a minority sect of Muslims. The 1956 constitution then compulsorily required head of state to be Muslim. An Indian Muslim writer Dr. Abid Hussain has the complaint that this article of Pakistani constitution has created many problems for those Muslims who live in India as extremist Hindus of India now would justify their discrimination against Indian Muslims by referring to this discriminating article of Pakistan Constitution.

In addition Pakistan also have failed in promoting its image of a peaceful Nation.

Quaid-e-Azam had formed his vision about future of Pakistan on the basis of his study of undivided India and he could not find time to look into the depths of the composition and structure of sub-cultures of Pakistan. Nehru, on the other hand, had the clear vision of implementing Soicialistic philosophy of Marx in the divided India. He had starting taking steps towards the implementation of that ideology right after the division of India by abolishing the land ownership from the country. Secondly he had found the time of abour 17 years after independence, of looking after the affairs of government of India. In this way he successfully had conveyed his detailed vision to the future leaders of India.

For Pakistan, now there is need to re-establish our vision as to our future. I am supporter of Musharraf because he is also a visionary leader. At first instance, he had come up with a clear vision in the form of his seven points agenda. Secondly he is trying to establish our vision of becoming moderate and peaceful society.

And Gandhi opinion would become more clear to me with some modifications. I think that 'translation' or 'conversion' of a given vision into reality is the function of an Administrator or 'Manager'.

The role or function of 'leader' would be to 'create' that vision.

Secondly I do not believe in any fixed vision. Changing world scenario would create the need of creating new suitable vision.

Anyways,,, Thanks!

Did Musharaf come to power by our consent
 

Dear Fellows!
To me the question that whether we need Musharaf or not has two dimensions.
Ideally speaking, we do not need people like Musharaf, who come to power by using the state's authority and violating and manupulating the constitution for the sake of extending their regime's time period . Rather we should have a leadership which has its roots in the general populace and works for the betterment and uplift of the public's living standard and improvement in the quality of our civilization.
Realistically speaking, having an eye on the on ground realities, I believe that Musharaf has been successfull in providing good governance as compared to the Nawaz and Banazir.
Although Musharaf has not been all that bad, but he has managed things in the same way as traditional predecessors of the Quaid-e-Azam have done.
What we really need is a true leader who should take the state from where the Quaid left to where the Quaid wanted it to be.
Moreover, what we badly need is the involvement of KHAMOSH AKSARIAT in practical politics. Nothing can change till we actually try to change it!

@ Khyber

[quote]Dear brother, you have lost your dress, script, literature, language and eastern moral and religious values. Is it the soft and progressive image of Islam? we are merely duplicating the enlightened moderation of so called progressive Turkey.

One of my Indian's friends said, " i don't see any dissimilarity between Pakistani and Indian culture. Since pakistan was carved out as an islamic ideological state but neither there is any Islamic Ideology and nor has any outlook of islam" .
[/quote]

Actually I do not fully agree with Musharraf's vision or idea of 'Moderate Islam'... I have explained my opinions over this issue in [URL="http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/enlightened-moderation/"]this link.[/URL]

Here I have criticized the concept of 'Moderate' Islam and instead of it, have emphasized the need of 'Progressive' Islam.

Thanks!

[QUOTE=saim]salam! musharaf is not a bad choice coz we r not having any other genius man like him coz he kn0ows very well how 2 psychologically manipulate d others like bush n manmohan singh in havana that mr singh agreed 2 to restart peace process n even bush has praised him as a great leader but there r some weaknesses him as well he is a liar infact in some cases coz he promised 2 shed his uniform so many times but he has never done this but at d end i wana say that no 1 is perfect in this world.nothing is either good or bad but thinkings make it so but i agreee that musharaf is a hobson's choice coz at present moment we r not having any other smart man like to run d business of this state that is facing very hard challenges afs far a his book is concerned he is presenting d people of our own country in a bad manner this not agood practise it will effect our image in abroad that is already very bad altough he is narrating true events as d event of supreme court in 1997 but i think it is not a good practise to revear our own secrets 2 d others.[/QUOTE]

Wsalam

Musharaf is not a that bad choice in a sense. But if he is writing this sort of book, he must have some rationales behind that. He is not just leaping in the dark.

Dont judge people by what others say about him, but what opinion u make about them by ur best judgments.

Regards

[QUOTE=Khyber]AssalamOalikum,

Khurram Bhai Jan, you seem to be quite mature in your discussion. I am just diverting the discussion is some other dimension of leadership.

Mr.Ghandi ones beautifully stated,

[B]"Leadership is the capability of translation or conversion of your vision into reality".[/B]

Now, recall the all perspectives of Quaid's vision and visualize that how far it has taken a shape of reality ?

By quoting Mr.Ghandi, please don't assume me as pro-indian but i look at this world very unbiasedly and we should, of course, if we want to excel in this ever challanging world because "ostrich approach" can no longer help us in standing in the line of civilized and developed countries.

Looking forward to your valuable thoughts,

Kind Regards,
Your's Brother[/QUOTE]

Wsalam

I will really appreciate if u dont divert our attention from the main topic of the thread, [B]Do we need Musharaf or not ??? [/B] By quoting the sentence, u may discuss the leadership experties of Musharaf but it would be better to be confined to the topic.

Regards

[QUOTE=Khyber]Respected Nour, i absolutely agree with you and after reading your post it seems to me that you have given sufficient thought to your ideas and question but unfortunately your points were not answered in that way, which was desired.

Quote from Respected Khurram,



Dear brother, you have lost your dress, script, literature, language and eastern moral and religious values. Is it the soft and progressive image of Islam? we are merely duplicating the enlightened moderation of so called progressive Turkey.

One of my Indian's friends said, " i don't see any dissimilarity between Pakistani and Indian culture. Since pakistan was carved out as an islamic ideological state but neither there is any Islamic Ideology and nor has any outlook of islam" .[/QUOTE]

Pakistan came into being on the basis of Two nation theory, ur friend need to realize this fact. Indian culture adopted a lot many things frm Islamic one but Islamic culture is a specific one and cant be mixed wid any other one. yeah it may adopt good things coz Islam allows positive changes but negative changes of Indian culture are not allowed to be adopted at all.

I can elucidate it wid justifications but i would like to avoid off-topic discussion.

[QUOTE=Khyber]But it is very melancholic that we still fall in list of Top Failed States.

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4964934.stm[/url]

Kind Regards,[/QUOTE]

Well Musharaf alone is not involved in annihiliating Pakistan. There are many other factors which played a crucial role in making Pakistan a failed state. Musharaf, at times tried to ameliorate it and he did it. But he failed to make Pakistan a developed state coz of a lot many hurdles which exist in Pakistan since long.

We cant go back to change the past, but we can save our future by correcting our present in an appropriate manner.

Regards

[QUOTE=Khuram]@ Khyber

Wa-alakum-Salam brother,

It is a fact that Quaid-e-Azam really did not find enough time during and after independence struggle to convey his detailed vision to Pakistanis. He died just one year after independence. Now it is only the fragments of his various speeches that are helpful in determining the vision of Quaid. There are differences in opinions among various writers of Pakistan's history, about Quaid's vision. Somethings we can say with certainty like Quaid was against the division of society in the name of religion or other reasons like ligual or provincialism etc. He had envisioned Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims so that Muslims may peacefully follow their religion and preserve and promote their culture. He had given surety of all the minority rights in the lands of Pakistan.

Our early leaders tried to eliminate the provincialism from West Pakistan more due to selfish reasons of politically equating West Paistan with relatively more populous East Pakistan, and less due to as per the injuctions of Quaid, by uniting all the four provinces of West Pakistan in the form of 'one unit'. This idea however flopped as people of different provinces happened to have stong ties with their regional provincial cultures and they could not be ready to leave their regional cultures. Similarly language problem also created many controversies. I have discussed these issues[URL="http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/identity-crises-of-pakistan/"]in this link.[/URL]

As regards minority issue; the early 1953 violations in Punjab were aimed at a minority sect of Muslims. The 1956 constitution then compulsorily required head of state to be Muslim. An Indian Muslim writer Dr. Abid Hussain has the complaint that this article of Pakistani constitution has created many problems for those Muslims who live in India as extremist Hindus of India now would justify their discrimination against Indian Muslims by referring to this discriminating article of Pakistan Constitution.

In addition Pakistan also have failed in promoting its image of a peaceful Nation.

Quaid-e-Azam had formed his vision about future of Pakistan on the basis of his study of undivided India and he could not find time to look into the depths of the composition and structure of sub-cultures of Pakistan. Nehru, on the other hand, had the clear vision of implementing Soicialistic philosophy of Marx in the divided India. He had starting taking steps towards the implementation of that ideology right after the division of India by abolishing the land ownership from the country. Secondly he had found the time of abour 17 years after independence, of looking after the affairs of government of India. In this way he successfully had conveyed his detailed vision to the future leaders of India.

For Pakistan, now there is need to re-establish our vision as to our future. I am supporter of Musharraf because he is also a visionary leader. At first instance, he had come up with a clear vision in the form of his seven points agenda. Secondly he is trying to establish our vision of becoming moderate and peaceful society.

And Gandhi opinion would become more clear to me with some modifications. I think that 'translation' or 'conversion' of a given vision into reality is the function of an Administrator or 'Manager'.

The role or function of 'leader' would be to 'create' that vision.

Secondly I do not believe in any fixed vision. Changing world scenario would create the need of creating new suitable vision.

Anyways,,, Thanks![/QUOTE]

I agree wid u. Very nice elucidation of the topic but please avoid off-topic discussion.

[QUOTE=Shabab Khan]Dear Fellows!
To me the question that whether we need Musharaf or not has two dimensions.
Ideally speaking, we do not need people like Musharaf, who come to power by using the state's authority and violating and manupulating the constitution for the sake of extending their regime's time period . Rather we should have a leadership which has its roots in the general populace and works for the betterment and uplift of the public's living standard and improvement in the quality of our civilization.
Realistically speaking, having an eye on the on ground realities, I believe that Musharaf has been successfull in providing good governance as compared to the Nawaz and Banazir.
Although Musharaf has not been all that bad, but he has managed things in the same way as traditional predecessors of the Quaid-e-Azam have done.
What we really need is a true leader who should take the state from where the Quaid left to where the Quaid wanted it to be.
Moreover, what we badly need is the involvement of KHAMOSH AKSARIAT in practical politics. Nothing can change till we actually try to change it![/QUOTE]

Well u are right, we need him realistically but not ideally. someitmes, i believe hat we are still behaving like an infant state. We are standing on the place where we were in 1947. Albeit development has taken place but what sort of benefit it is paying us ??? It is invisible in a sense.

We are in dire need of a miracle to change the things to have a best but secure future for Pakistan.

Regards

[QUOTE=Khuram]@ Khyber



Actually I do not fully agree with Musharraf's vision or idea of 'Moderate Islam'... I have explained my opinions over this issue in [URL="http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/enlightened-moderation/"]this link.[/URL]

Here I have criticized the concept of 'Moderate' Islam and instead of it, have emphasized the need of 'Progressive' Islam.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

I admit that Musharaf is doing well for the sake of moderate Islamism. But my very question is about Hudood ordinance. What would u like to add if somebody considers [B]Musharaf and Islam in the light of Hudood ordinance???[/B]

Regards

I think, Pakistan would have been in the same conditions post 9/11 as it's today wether under the leadership of Musharaf or any other leader. I think for the sake of democracy and positive image of Pakistan, Pakistan would be better off without Musharaf under the leadership of some democratically elected president.