Desicritics Comments on Bhutto Assassinated: Victim of Suicide Attack

Comment by administrator

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:27:58 EST

This blog is about all of you. All your comments, likes, dislikes & everything you want to share with all

Comment by administrator

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:17:28 EST

This community is created for anyone who wish to join.

Comment by administrator

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:17:05 EST

This community is created for anyone who wish to join.

Comment by temporal

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:45:56 EST

the rioting and looting is unabated and poses a dilemma for both the occupying army and the lawyers/activists who struggled for the restoration of law and democracy if Musharraf Administration is unable to control it martial law will have to be imposed this means Mushy is out and Kiani in this means faces change this means the activists will have to seriously reconsider if they continue then chaos prevails if they give up they will suffer through more uncertain times under Khakistocrats

Comment by temporal

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:40:45 EST

sujai #44: (just a nod, a shake and a chuckle) ______________ #1, Temporal: I am not sure we are on the same page here..... the only thing one can agree is the specter of hatred that is engulfing and clouding policy makers and politicians... Temporal, my entire article is based on this theme alone

Comment by temporal

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:51:32 EST

an xray of the wound to benazir's head HERE

Comment by A. S. Mathew

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:40 EST

While reading some other news releases, Bhutto had a great desire to live in peace with India when she comes to power. In Dubai, 80% of her personal staff were from India. Her personal acupuncture Doctor who was from Kerala, and was very emotional while giving statements about her. Had she lived, she could have done greater things for Pakistan and also a better relationship with India. Her death was a terrible loss for everybody.

Comment by commonsenseforall77

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:13:48 EST

Kerty, For starters, why does anyone have to defend a Hindu/Muslim/Christian/Atheist whatever way of life? Who gave us or anyone else the right to speak for an imagined community? Why can't we get away from sectarianism? Otherwise, regardless of what we claim to do, we just end up apologising for an "X way of life" (fill in the bland with your pet hobby horse!). Why does an Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Martian, Lunar way of life have to be defended at all. Society is always in a flux, will change. Like that story about some over-zealous defenders claiming to defend a place of worship when God/deity/deities/non-deities they claim to defend, appears and screams "Who the FISH do you think you are. If you really worship me, I don't need to be defended...I can manage very well, thank you!". Ask yourself sincerely: is it more important to defend a so-called Islamic community, Hindu community, national community etc. So what if one so-called community is transformed or dies out and is replaced by something better? Isn't this the story of history, of continuous change that cannot be stopped, although it is attempted on pain of bloodshed and chauvinistic self-righteousness by Muslims, Hindus, Christians, various nationalisms etc. etc. etc....Isn't it time we put back these chauvinisms in their place and thought about humanity in general?

Comment by kerty

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:44:07 EST

Sujai, commonsense I thought you can do better than merely saying convoluted logic or sophistry. If you can't deal with the arguments, you can certainly evade them but they won't go away. Hindutva is a reaction of Hindus to real or perceived threat to hinduism, hindu way of life and hindu society. It need not be subscribed by all Hindus just as all Indians need not join Indian army. Pseudo Secularists have problems accepting the legitimacy of Hindutva because both are competing ideologies trying to occupy the same political space and are built on rejection of each other.

Comment by commonsenseforall77

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:51:04 EST

Sorry, I meant Kerty, not Lakshmikanth (from another thread), even though their views are almost identical...

Comment by commonsenseforall77

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:48:57 EST

Kerty 43: "If 'hatred' is bad, than 'hating the hatred' can not be morally equivellant even though 'hating the hatred' would appear just like hate to the naive minds. In cut and paste media, one can selectively focus on 'hating the hatred' reactions and project such reactions as the 'hatred' to whip up hatred of 'hating the hatred' and thereby totally invert the reality - but that has dangerous consequences - because you have just removed the only antidote that existed against the real 'hatred'. Media is playing same tricks against Hindutva. Hindus have framed Hindutva as an antidote to Jehadism while Psecular establishment in India has framed Jehadism as an antidote to Hindutva. Thus psecular establishment and Jehadism have created a political nexus to remove Hindutva as an antidote." Congratulations Lakshmikanth for a nearly successful but not unnoticed sophistry and sleight of hand...for equating Hindus with Hindutva and for a convoluted rationalization of hatred (just like the Muslim jehadis who use the same logic for justifying their henious crimes...if only this were true, the Hindutva-vadis, nor the Jehadis would not have to struggle so hard nor use violence to make their point.

Comment by Sujai

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:46:45 EST

kerty: If 'hatred' is bad, than 'hating the hatred' can not be morally equivellant even though 'hating the hatred' would appear just like hate to the naive minds. What convoluted logic! Whoever talked about 'hating the hatred'? Does the 'fight against poverty' translate to 'hating the poverty'? You know, lots of people wouldn't mind getting 'F' grade in your class. Hmm.. high hopes! ;-)

Comment by Sujai

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:37:37 EST

#1, Temporal: (borrowed from the other article) I am not sure we are on the same page here. I am not seeing Pakistan or its history in separate chapters, one disconnected from another. Instead I am seeing it as a one single theme. I see a common theme - as an undercurrent that seemed to have engulfed this nation from the beginning, though this nation or its people have never acknowledged it in the past. This was in 1990s, when I discussed it with a friend from Pakistan. When I pointed out their 'anti' policies, he could not clearly see it. I even urged, the way I urge in my blogs now about India, that such 'hatred' that they are fomenting and fostering is going to come back to haunt them. I cited many examples from history. He was not impressed. He said, quite confidently, the same way most Indians aver so confidently, that Pakistan is somehow immune to such consequences. He maintained that such fostering (which he termed 'patriotism') was only to create national heroes who would valiantly die for the cause of Pakistan and there is no reason to believe that they will ever turn their guns and bayonets inward. As again, I failed to reason with him, the way I fail so many times with my fellow Indians. I told him why it is so important to fight the element of 'hatred' when fighting your revolutions. When you include this element, it has far reaching consequences and you usually pay a heavy toll. Either it is French Revolution or 1917 Soviet, or formation of Israel, or the many other revolutions of Africa and Asia, the element of hatred was included in those revolutions. Hence, there was long lasting violence and the results are not as desirable. the time when the two government's polices were india-pakistan specific is water under the bridge... both countries have moved on ... That is a parochial way of looking at history. What Pakistan did to India might be a thing of the past, but what Pakistan created in its wake to rally the support and induct the 'soldiers' is a more or less long term phenomenon. The governments change, the countries can become friends, but what do you do to those manufactured soldiers and minds who were created with the sole purpose of annihilation based on irrationality, who cannot be reasoned, who have never learnt to reason? the only thing one can agree is the specter of hatred that is engulfing and clouding policy makers and politicians... Temporal, my entire article is based on this theme alone ;-)

Comment by Kerty

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:04:33 EST

Sujai.. Excellent commentary on state of affairs in Pakistan. However, your lessons for India are flawed. Same jehadism that has destablised pakistan has been at work in India too and hard Hindutva is a reaction to that. Jehadism can not be bad for Pakistan and good for India. Correct lesson for India is to fight the Jehadism if it does not want to become another Pakistan. Lesson you want to draw is that India should oppose those who oppose Jehadism, and rather appease jehadism in India, otherwise India will become like Pakistan. In a zeal to equate jehadism with hindutva, you are willing to gloss over qualitative differences between thesis and antithesis which they both represent. If 'hatred' is bad, than 'hating the hatred' can not be morally equivellant even though 'hating the hatred' would appear just like hate to the naive minds. In cut and paste media, one can selectively focus on 'hating the hatred' reactions and project such reactions as the 'hatred' to whip up hatred of 'hating the hatred' and thereby totally invert the reality - but that has dangerous consequences - because you have just removed the only antidote that existed against the real 'hatred'. Media is playing same tricks against Hindutva. Hindus have framed Hindutva as an antidote to Jehadism while Psecular establishment in India has framed Jehadism as an antidote to Hindutva. Thus psecular establishment and Jehadism have created a political nexus to remove Hindutva as an antidote. While history is littered with ravages of Jehadism and events like these come to us at fairly regular intervals to remind us of its clear and present dangers, we are given voodoo lessons to divert our attention to some imaginary phantoms - in this instance, very antidote that has been trying to hold jehadism in check in India. You know, lots of people wouldn't mind getting 'F' grade in your class.

Comment by temporal

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:14:45 EST

thank you sujai you threw a web of generalities and truths ... some stick...some do not... the time when the two government's polices were india-pakistan specific is water under the bridge kashmir is passe, the public no longer rallies behind the government when it cries wolf (read india or pakistan as applicable) both countries have moved on the only thing one can agree is the specter of hatred that is engulfing and clouding policy makers and politicians...this "hatred" can also masquerade as "fundamentalism" or "supra-nationalism" and is making inroads all over the world in political establishments and think tanks - this is the curse and cancer of 21st century

Comment by Sujai

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:32:54 EST

Sad, very sad! Unfortunate! Pakistan is good example of what goes wrong when a nation identifies itself on 'hatred'. From the beginning, Pakistan has identified itself on 'anti-India' stand which incorporates 'anti' as its core element. For many years, this element of 'anti-India' was handled at the state level, involving secret services, army and administration. It had not involved the general population. But after 1971, when India won the war decisively against Pakistan, the Pakistan had to drop its illusion that it could take on India in a conventional war. Using a previous experiment of 1965, the new warfare was designed to use incursion tactics (which resulted in Kargil, once again a failure). Meanwhile, another experiment was underway. USA had used Pakistan as a platform to fund mujahideen to kick out Soviet Union. That also led to Pakistan creating an apparatus of Islamization in the background to have an influence even after Soviet left. That led to Taliban in power. This experiment of using religious fervor and extremism, which again had some precedents in the past, was also fueled to use against India. Religious extremists were fawned upon as heroes who would win back Kashmir from India. Many experiments were created to 'bleed India'. Pakistan saw an opportunity to do a 'Bangladesh' against when Punjab flared up. That experiment failed too. Next came another opportunity in Kashmir when Indian government messed up its long standing equation of keeping peace. For a long time, it looked like it was succeeding. The dual advantage was clear- Islamic radicals can torment and control both Afghanistan issue and Indian issue. This led to a massive operationalization of madrasas which will create these radical elements. These are soldiers who would be created on one theme only – hatred. Their hatred will be so much that they will not stop till they kill or die. Their hatred was focused on achieving two goals. The control in Afghanistan, and getting back Kashmir from India. For a while, it looked like their strategy worked. There was an all round celebration and congratulations were abound. India was bleeding and the situation was getting 'internationalized'. Afghanistan was under control through a puppet regime. Post 9/11, USA topped Taliban and roped in Pakistan as a friend and mate to check the problem. Now, Pakistan couldn't do what it was doing anymore in Afghanistan. On the Indian side too, it was not working out. Massive Indian Army in the valley kept a check on the infiltration. Also, after Kargil Debacle, Pakistan could not think of another covert war with India. It had to ensure the trickling of infiltrators was kept to a minimum. What do you do with all the pent up hatred? It imploded. Pakistan is now reeling itself under consequences of their failed experiments. There are thousands of religious extremists who are trained to kill or die. And they will do that no matter what, if not against India or in Afghanistan, then in Pakistan. Benazir seems to one of the victims. Lessons for India: The glee and the celebration that amongst Indian Hindus its Hindutva forces are winning is momentary. It's ephemeral. Soon, the same guns will be targeted back at us, all of us, including the very Hindus who are celebrating now and soon these pent up forces, built on hatred, will seek an outlet. That usually involves killing and dying. Unfortunately.

Comment by S P Jaggi

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:57:18 EST

It was sad to read/hear/see the assassination of Benazir. She was expected to breathe a dose of fresh air in the staleness that was Pakistan's political atmospheric culture (besides of course being strong-boot militaristic).What a pity that her life was snuffed out and that,too, in that brutal fashion .The chance of a possible improvement in its people's lives has now been lost for the foreseeable future. As a comment from an Indian who has seen hundreds of incidents of the kind to its population --the aam admi as well as the 'naam' admi- I would just like to tell the Pakistanis that , TERROR BEGETS TERROR..Sorry, but that's the unpalalatable truth at times.

Comment by temporal

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:01:35 EST

links?

Comment by reader

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:29:27 EST

More updates--looks like prisioners burnt a jail and have escaped. Some 1000 hardcore criminals have escaped.

Comment by temporal

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:29:05 EST

thanks again very profound!

Comment by Ledzius

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:17:22 EST

All this political reshuffling hardly matters to the Al Qaeda. Civilian politicians, whoever they are, are easy fodder for them. To get the nukes in their possession, they would now go after the military brass, starting with Musharaff and Kiyani. Then the whole system there would collapse, and there are enough Taliban sympathisers within the ranks of the military and the ISI to make Al Qaeda's dream come true.

Comment by temporal

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:50:07 EST

in addition to #29: the infighting will begin after her burial at 2pm local time (if it has not begun already) asif zardari has reached pakistan with their three children... while benazir was in exile the affairs were handled by makhdoom amin fahim and others benazir, like most autocrats at heart, did not develop a hierarchy within her party ... she wrestled the chairmanship from her mother and awarded herself the coveted title for life another old PPP member who tops popularity polls in pakistan is aitezaz ahsan...a long time PPP member and in the fore front since march 09,2007 leading the case for former chief justice iftikhar chaudhry because of his immense popularity....it has been reported benazir gave him cold shoulder there are other provincial leaders sharpening their daggers **** to participate or not to there is also an intense debate going in within the second tier leadership - to participate or not to! (nawaz sharif has announced he will boycott the elections) if PPP decides to participate it would pose a dilemma for the GHQ-ISI...according to an analyst there are about 230 seats that are to be 'fought' for and the powers were debating how to divvy them between PML(N), PPP and PML(Q) so that they can play their divide and rule game if nawaz boycotts....and ...there is bound to be a strong sympathy vote for benazir's PPP....it would cause a dilemma for musharraf and the corps commanders

Comment by Sami

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:55:12 EST

No she is not the last still there are some more, two in Bangladesh, one of them is a guaranteed PM, when the next time elections are to be held.

Comment by razorMirage

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:30:05 EST

Can Islam World can get a woman leader again?? Is she the last woman politician in Islamic World? It is very bad for Pakistan (and India as well) as she is one democratic hope for that country. I am surprised to US politicians insisting on Mussaraf to continue with polls on Jan 8th. why because a volatile Pakistan is not good news for candidates of US Presidents !!!

Comment by commonsenseforall77@yahoo.com

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:03:50 EST

A dicey, volatile situation for sure. Apologies for stating the obvious!