What's new

When Nawaz Sharif used to talk of "Islamic welfare state" and "Taliban justice"

enkidu_

Local Club Captain
Joined
Nov 15, 2014
Runs
2,206
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], does that rhetoric remind you of someone ? I've also highlighted the Asma Jahangir reference for you. The only reason he changed his tune is because he was no more allowed to dance on his own terms.

Taken from (Hussain Haqqani's wife) Farahnaz Ispahani, "Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities", pp. 157-158 :

In May 1998, Pakistan conducted nuclear tests within a week of similar tests by India. Sharif took credit for leading Pakistan into the “nuclear club,” and the government encouraged hyper- nationalist sentiment over Pakistan’s emergence as the world’s only Islamic nuclear power. International sanctions following the nuclear tests created serious economic challenges. But the government decided to distract the public with doses of propaganda about economic hardship being a small price to pay for the glory of Islam and Pakistan. By August, Sharif was ready to amend Pakistan’s constitution “to create an Islamic order in Pakistan and establish a legal system based on the Quran.”

The country’s opposition, led by Benazir Bhutto, pointed out that further Islamization “would deepen strife in a country where religiously motivated violence has killed hundreds of people.” But Sharif insisted that his proposed new order would create a “true Islamic welfare state.” He said all laws would be based exclusively on the Quran and Sunnah. “Simple changes in laws are not enough,” he said in a televised address to the nation. “I want to implement complete Islamic laws where the Quran and Sunnah are supreme.” Under the amendment, the federal government would be “obliged” to enforce prayers five times a day and collect annual tithes as zakat.

This attempt at sweeping Islamization was similar to that undertaken by General Zia- ul- Haq, with one crucial difference. While Zia was a military dictator who lacked legitimacy, Sharif was an elected leader who was trying to move Pakistan further along the path toward theocracy through an act of Parliament. Like Zia, Sharif sought to assure minorities and women that the new Islamic laws would not violate their rights. But human rights advocates accused Sharif of using Islam to buttress his power at a time when he seemed globally isolated and embattled at home. “In the name of Islam, Nawaz Sharif is trying to perpetuate a fascist rule,” warned Asma Jahangir, a prominent human rights activist and lawyer. She also warned that militant Muslims will use the new law to impose their brand of Islam on the populace.

Sharif, however, was unmoved by the criticism. He declared at one point that he admired the Taliban and wanted the introduction of swift Islamic justice in Pakistan, including the hanging of rapists within twenty- four hours of being arrested. He said his “goal was a system of justice like that followed by the Taliban movement in Afghanistan,” which would “rid the country of crime and corruption.” Sharif told a public meeting that “in Afghanistan, crimes have virtually come to naught. I have heard that one can safely drive a vehicle full of gold at midnight without fear.” He added that he wanted the same kind of system in Pakistan where “justice will end oppression and bring prosperity.”

Other references to Sharif from the same book, here p. 139 :

The disputed 1990 elections resulted in Nawaz Sharif, now head of the Muslim League, becoming prime minister. The ISI had backed Sharif for the greater freedom that a Sharif- led government would afford it in encouraging jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. For his part, Sharif, a Punjabi businessman, was interested primarily in opening up the economy and advancing free enterprise. But both the ISI and Sharif depended heavily on Islamist factions for support in the streets, which ensured the preeminence of the Islamist agenda. Soon after Sharif’s election, it became apparent that the ISI would get its jihad and Sharif would be able to advance his economic agenda only if they conceded greater space to the Islamists. Further, they would have to allow the Islamists to continue their systematic marginalization of religious minorities.

Even during the 1990 election campaign, the minorities had expressed dismay at being left out of the national mainstream.

pp. 141-142 :

Critics saw Sharif as following in Zia’s footsteps in playing the Islamic card. Addressing a gathering of religious leaders at Islamabad, Sharif announced his resolve to amend the constitution to ensure the supremacy of the shariat as the law of the land, even though the National Assembly had already enacted the sharia bill. “The prime minister’s policy seemed to be ‘hunting with the hounds and running with the hare,’ ” commented Rais Khan, an academic.

p. 144 :

By the time of Sharif’s second year in power, attacks on religious minorities had become frequent and widespread. International human rights organizations listed several such attacks on Christians. Niamat Ahmer, a teacher, poet, and writer, was murdered by extremists in 1992. Bantu Masih, aged eighty, was stabbed and killed in the presence of the police in 1992. Apart from Ahmadis and Christians being victimized by blasphemy laws, violence against Shias also worsened. The army was called out in Gilgit and Quetta after attacks on Shias. But instead of clamping down on militant Islamists, the government announced an alloca- tion from zakat of 250 million rupees ($10 million) for Sunni madrasas, which were incubating the anti- Shia hatred. Dawn, Pakistan’s newspaper of record, editorially described these sectarian schools as “theological time capsules buried somewhere in the fifteenth century, out of which step young fanatics programmed to spread sectarian hatred.”

Also in 1992, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, candidates fielded by an openly militant sectarian group, Sipah- e- Sahaba Pakistan (Army of the Prophet’s Companions) (SSP), won by- elections in Jhang and won representation in both the National Assembly and the Punjab Assembly.

pp. 159-160 :

Sharif insisted he was motivated by his own strong beliefs. But some scholars, such as Lawrence Ziring, see Sharif’s moves for further Islamization as simply part of an effort to amass more power. Soon after his election for a second time, Sharif had thwarted efforts by Supreme Court Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah to hold him accountable by installing a new chief justice. Later he secured the resignation of the army chief general Jehangir Karamat and appointed a handpicked successor, General Pervez Musharraf, as commander. According to Ziring, this made Nawaz Sharif more powerful than any of his predecessors and gave full rein to Pakistan’s more extremist Islamist organizations. Sharif named his own election commissioner and strengthened his legitimacy by “surrounding himself with ultra- orthodox Islamic clerics.”

Through the Fifteenth Amendment to the constitution, Ziring wrote, Sharif “aimed to bypass the parliament, the judiciary, and the provincial governments by emphasizing the elevation of sharia above secular law.” He wanted to be unrestrained by the common law and “anticipated achieving maximum power as the leader of a Muslim people who were wholly subject to Islamic jurisprudence.” Ziring argues that Sharif “had his sights on transforming Pakistan into an Islamic state only slightly different from Afghanistan under the Taliban.”

[MENTION=142317]Loralai[/MENTION] [MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION] [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] :misbah3
 
Groundbreaking revelation: Nawaz Sharif was a protege of Zia, and was pro-military in the past.

Thank you for this thread, no one was aware of it in the past. In other news, Iskander Mirza was the first President of Pakistan and the sky is blue.
 
Groundbreaking revelation: Nawaz Sharif was a protege of Zia, and was pro-military in the past.

Thank you for this thread, no one was aware of it in the past. In other news, Iskander Mirza was the first President of Pakistan and the sky is blue.

And the hajj this year is in Adiala or Sihala ?

You dig the U-turn term, has there been one more strident in Pak's political history than Nawaz Sharif's sudden metamorphosis into the paragon of "anti Establishment" activism ?
 
Thanks for opening this new thread to focus on this debate in one single thread. Nawaz Sharif whenever he is in opposition become Pro Establishment to get their support and become Anti Establishment whenever he is in govt or in trouble.

There are many examples from 80s and 90s but most recent one is from 2008 to 2013 he was on bed with Army and Kayani was his buddy but after using them as launching pad to gain back power all of a sudden he becomes Anti Establishment.

Brilliant OP!
 
Thanks for opening this new thread to focus on this debate in one single thread. Nawaz Sharif whenever he is in opposition become Pro Establishment to get their support and become Anti Establishment whenever he is in govt or in trouble.

There are many examples from 80s and 90s but most recent one is from 2008 to 2013 he was on bed with Army and Kayani was his buddy but after using them as launching pad to gain back power all of a sudden he becomes Anti Establishment.

Brilliant OP!

Also remember when the judiciary was cool :

“After the conviction, Mr Gilani and his cabinet have no constitutional and legal status. Mr Gilani should take pity on this country, constitution, system and democracy and end his ‘illegal occupation’ of the office of prime minister,” Mr Sharif said at a press conference after a consultative meeting with senior leaders of his party.

He warned of ‘unexpected consequences’ if the prime minister failed to follow his advice. When asked what he meant by ‘unexpected consequences’, he said it meant all forms of protests. “All options are on the table. We’ll protest within and outside parliament and on roads. And if the government refuses to change its stance a long march can also be an option.”

To show that he meant business, Mr Sharif said if he and his party let the matter go unnoticed and allowed the government to act as it liked, he would have no right to remain in politics.

He urged ‘all patriotic’ people to come out to protect the independence and dignity of the judiciary. “The government has crossed all limits and now I can sacrifice the friendship and all relations for restoring the honour of judiciary,” he said.

https://www.dawn.com/news/713881
 
What is the point of the thread? That Nawaz Sharif cannot be anti establishment if he was pro in the past? Imran Khan was many things in the past ( some very shameful too), but look what a fine and upright leader he has transformed into. People should not be hung for their past if they have turned a new leaf in their life.
 
What is the point of the thread? That Nawaz Sharif cannot be anti establishment if he was pro in the past? Imran Khan was many things in the past ( some very shameful too), but look what a fine and upright leader he has transformed into. People should not be hung for their past if they have turned a new leaf in their life.

Only Imran Khan is allowed to take a u-turn.
 
As i said everything is good for mian sahab if it's in his favor including judges like saeed uz zaman and generals like jillani!

Just like how military is the only corruption free institute in the country, now that they are backing Imran Khan. Same Imran Khan was accusing them for rigging the 2013 elections in PML-N favor.
 
What is the point of the thread? That Nawaz Sharif cannot be anti establishment if he was pro in the past? Imran Khan was many things in the past ( some very shameful too), but look what a fine and upright leader he has transformed into. People should not be hung for their past if they have turned a new leaf in their life.

The point of this thread is that Nawaz Sharif turned "anti establishment" when the "establishment" stopped supporting him, while he was a total incarnation of the "establishment" for years at the beginning of his political career.

We're not here talking of Sharif's personal life, but his political ideology which switches following the direction of the breeze. If Imran Khan drastically changed his political ideology that way please do red-pill us.
 
Just like how military is the only corruption free institute in the country, now that they are backing Imran Khan. Same Imran Khan was accusing them for rigging the 2013 elections in PML-N favor.

I never said military is corruption free? There are currently 3 ex generals on ECL and being investigated in NAB
 
The point of this thread is that Nawaz Sharif turned "anti establishment" when the "establishment" stopped supporting him, while he was a total incarnation of the "establishment" for years at the beginning of his political career.

We're not here talking of Sharif's personal life, but his political ideology which switches following the direction of the breeze. If Imran Khan drastically changed his political ideology that way please do red-pill us.

Imran Khan on electables in 2013:

"These politicians are spend crores of rupees to buy votes and have not done anything for the country and the people in spite of being in power for years. PTI will give tickets to new people"

Imran Khan on electables in 2018:

"The political class of the country does not change. We have decided to give tickets to people who understand the science of winning elections". The people of Mecca didn't change, but Prophet Muhammad PBUH made them conquer empires with the power of Islam; when Mahathir took control of Malaysia, the politicians were the same, yet he brought change.

What would you call this if not a drastic change in political ideology? The idea that PTI will bring in new faces and will put an end to status quo politicians was the driving force behind PTI's manifesto and this is what the term "Naya Pakistan" initially stood for.

In 2013, Imran Khan did not intend to say that he will bring Naya Pakistan with puranay frauds like JT, Amir Liquat, Firdous Awan, SMQ, Sheikh Rasheed etc.
 
I never said military is corruption free? There are currently 3 ex generals on ECL and being investigated in NAB

That is what Imran Khan said. So it is wrong for Nawaz to change his stance on judiciary when it suited him, but is okay for Imran Khan to change his stance on the military when it suited him?
 
Imran Khan on electables in 2013:

"These politicians are spend crores of rupees to buy votes and have not done anything for the country and the people in spite of being in power for years. PTI will give tickets to new people"

Imran Khan on electables in 2018:

"The political class of the country does not change. We have decided to give tickets to people who understand the science of winning elections". The people of Mecca didn't change, but Prophet Muhammad PBUH made them conquer empires with the power of Islam; when Mahathir took control of Malaysia, the politicians were the same, yet he brought change.

What would you call this if not a drastic change in political ideology? The idea that PTI will bring in new faces and will put an end to status quo politicians was the driving force behind PTI's manifesto and this is what the term "Naya Pakistan" initially stood for.

In 2013, Imran Khan did not intend to say that he will bring Naya Pakistan with puranay frauds like JT, Amir Liquat, Firdous Awan, SMQ, Sheikh Rasheed etc.

That's not a change in political ideology but strategy. The ideology remains the same, but the ground situation in Pak is such that because of crypto feudalism you can't but use old players to set the new rules. Look at interior Sindh, they'll not accept "new faces" in at least 200 years, because their society is shaped as such. A change in ideology would be if, after bashing them for eons, tomorrow Imran Khan begins to talk nicely of the Sharif's/Zardari's, and many would jump off the PTI bandwagon, which otherwise would crash anyway.
 
That's not a change in political ideology but strategy. The ideology remains the same, but the ground situation in Pak is such that because of crypto feudalism you can't but use old players to set the new rules. Look at interior Sindh, they'll not accept "new faces" in at least 200 years, because their society is shaped as such. A change in ideology would be if, after bashing them for eons, tomorrow Imran Khan begins to talk nicely of the Sharif's/Zardari's, and many would jump off the PTI bandwagon, which otherwise would crash anyway.

Putting an end to status quo politicians and not giving tickets to the TTFs was part of PTI's ideology. If your strategy is in clear conflict with your ideology, then it is pretty clear that you are compromising your ideology to great extent.

How you can bring change when the people of your party do not represent change? Using arbitrary terms like ideology and strategy etc. does not change the fact that Imran has thrown his manifesto for a toss to come into power.

The common defense is that this is a necessary compromise, and once he comes in power, he will ensure that these people do not revert to their old ways. However, how do we know that the compromises and the change in strategies will stop here?

Five years ago, PTI supporters claimed that he will not compromise on electables. How far is he going to with these change in strategies?

Speaking of bashing someone for eons, Imran Khan stated on live tv that a man like Sheikh Rasheed will not even become his servant. Today, he is one of his stars of Naya Pakistan. Would you call this change of strategy as well?

Great leaders stand for what they believe in and that is why history remembers their sacrifices. Great leader do not change their strategies and give up their ideologies after one setback like Imran Khan did. He has proved to be a weak leader who only cares about personal glory or power. If he cared about the people, he would have never compromised on status quo politicians, even if it meant never coming into power.
 
Putting an end to status quo politicians and not giving tickets to the TTFs was part of PTI's ideology. If your strategy is in clear conflict with your ideology, then it is pretty clear that you are compromising your ideology to great extent.

How you can bring change when the people of your party do not represent change? Using arbitrary terms like ideology and strategy etc. does not change the fact that Imran has thrown his manifesto for a toss to come into power.

The common defense is that this is a necessary compromise, and once he comes in power, he will ensure that these people do not revert to their old ways. However, how do we know that the compromises and the change in strategies will stop here?

Five years ago, PTI supporters claimed that he will not compromise on electables. How far is he going to with these change in strategies?

Speaking of bashing someone for eons, Imran Khan stated on live tv that a man like Sheikh Rasheed will not even become his servant. Today, he is one of his stars of Naya Pakistan. Would you call this change of strategy as well?

Great leaders stand for what they believe in and that is why history remembers their sacrifices. Great leader do not change their strategies and give up their ideologies after one setback like Imran Khan did. He has proved to be a weak leader who only cares about personal glory or power. If he cared about the people, he would have never compromised on status quo politicians, even if it meant never coming into power.

A leader who never comes to power because he refuses to climb the dirty ladder isn't a leader anyway. Once you reach the summit you can effect change, if you never take that step, you are little more than a principled cripple capable of doing nothing more than blowing hot air.
 
Putting an end to status quo politicians and not giving tickets to the TTFs was part of PTI's ideology. If your strategy is in clear conflict with your ideology, then it is pretty clear that you are compromising your ideology to great extent.

How you can bring change when the people of your party do not represent change? Using arbitrary terms like ideology and strategy etc. does not change the fact that Imran has thrown his manifesto for a toss to come into power.

The common defense is that this is a necessary compromise, and once he comes in power, he will ensure that these people do not revert to their old ways. However, how do we know that the compromises and the change in strategies will stop here?

Five years ago, PTI supporters claimed that he will not compromise on electables. How far is he going to with these change in strategies?

Speaking of bashing someone for eons, Imran Khan stated on live tv that a man like Sheikh Rasheed will not even become his servant. Today, he is one of his stars of Naya Pakistan. Would you call this change of strategy as well?

Great leaders stand for what they believe in and that is why history remembers their sacrifices. Great leader do not change their strategies and give up their ideologies after one setback like Imran Khan did. He has proved to be a weak leader who only cares about personal glory or power. If he cared about the people, he would have never compromised on status quo politicians, even if it meant never coming into power.

Yes, that's a change of strategy, not ideology. Accepting "electables" or Sheikh Rasheed don't fluctuate his ideological stance at all. He just found out that Pak society is such that a normal democratic process is impossible, because there's not the political culture for it, which is itself due to the socio economic conditions of the country : Stalin knew that you can't transform Russian peasants into socialist heroes. In fact Marx/Engels thought that the communist revolution would happen ideally in England and surely not in Russia, because the latter was not industrialization ; so, following Lenin's suggestions, Stalin destroyed "traditional Russia" through hyper-industrialization with his dozen of five-year plans. That transformed the Soviet Union into an exporting powerhouse, to the point that Nazi Germany's war equipment/tanks/ships wouldn't function without the Soviets' metal ores ; those whose grandparents were illiterate peasants/serfs in Tsarist Russia were now scientists ready for space exploration, in a matter of one or two generations only. Mao Zedong did the same in China, adding the cultural revolution as well.

They all could destroy the "traditional" dynamics because they were "dictators".

But Imran Khan, sadly or not, evolves into a democratic set-up : he's blocked by the on-ground realities of a nation which doesn't have the urbane middle-class to create a "genuine" political culture, centered around ideas and manifesto's, like the one Jibran Nasir is playing with in Karachi. In the provinces of Pak this is impossible. Peoples have their own crypto-feudals ("electables"), and you have to deal with it.

Perhaps in the Pak of 2050 one could do "normal" politics, but as of now, it's a luxury that Imran Khan can't afford.
 
The point of this thread is that Nawaz Sharif turned "anti establishment" when the "establishment" stopped supporting him, while he was a total incarnation of the "establishment" for years at the beginning of his political career.

We're not here talking of Sharif's personal life, but his political ideology which switches following the direction of the breeze. If Imran Khan drastically changed his political ideology that way please do red-pill us.

The point is that one must not hold people hostage to their past. Imran Khan turned from a sinner, violating Islamic rules in the past, and now is a born again Muslim (and what a fine example, I must say). So people change their views ( it is obvious why you want to restrict the change only to political views), and that should not be held against them. Imran Khan is the Nawaz Sharif of the old ( minus the corruption of course).
 
The point is that one must not hold people hostage to their past. Imran Khan turned from a sinner, violating Islamic rules in the past, and now is a born again Muslim (and what a fine example, I must say). So people change their views ( it is obvious why you want to restrict the change only to political views), and that should not be held against them. Imran Khan is the Nawaz Sharif of the old ( minus the corruption of course).

The problem is, when Nawaz Sharif claims to have turned anti-establishment, many will not believe him. Seems more likely that the establishment decided to dump him for whatever reason. Maybe something to do with the Panama papers. The Sharif clan's preposterous defence against buying up property in London using money looted from the Pakistani exchequer makes it very hard to support his claims of innocence, even though I have a soft spot for the tubby former PM.
 
The point is that one must not hold people hostage to their past. Imran Khan turned from a sinner, violating Islamic rules in the past, and now is a born again Muslim (and what a fine example, I must say). So people change their views ( it is obvious why you want to restrict the change only to political views), and that should not be held against them. Imran Khan is the Nawaz Sharif of the old ( minus the corruption of course).

And it's obvious you wanted to take a jibe at his hectic lifestyle during his cricketing days with a hint of trolling. As I said it has no link with his politics/money of the masses, and it's open to speculation what others would have done being exposed to the same amount of fame and so on. We're not talking of the personal life of the other Sharif's either, which can also be open to passionate gossip, but their financial corruption and, in this particular case, a total ideological reversal from Mian sahab, because of one Shehbaz Sharif's latest mantra is to call Imran Khan the master of U-turn, and I found this one particular epic :

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f1VANX8YgHY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
A leader who never comes to power because he refuses to climb the dirty ladder isn't a leader anyway. Once you reach the summit you can effect change, if you never take that step, you are little more than a principled cripple capable of doing nothing more than blowing hot air.

Funny thing is that I recall Mamoon saying a similar thing a couple of years ago... he termed IK naive...

If i’m wrong (which I doubt) then i’ll Be happy to apologise...
 
And it's obvious you wanted to take a jibe at his hectic lifestyle during his cricketing days with a hint of trolling. As I said it has no link with his politics/money of the masses, and it's open to speculation what others would have done being exposed to the same amount of fame and so on. We're not talking of the personal life of the other Sharif's either, which can also be open to passionate gossip, but their financial corruption and, in this particular case, a total ideological reversal from Mian sahab, because of one Shehbaz Sharif's latest mantra is to call Imran Khan the master of U-turn, and I found this one particular epic :

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f1VANX8YgHY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why are you getting apologetic about Imran Khan's past. I am not taking a jibe at his past, in fact my point is that people should not be held hostage to their past beliefs and actions if they have turned over a new leaf. Everyone deserves a second chance.
 
The problem is, when Nawaz Sharif claims to have turned anti-establishment, many will not believe him. Seems more likely that the establishment decided to dump him for whatever reason. Maybe something to do with the Panama papers. The Sharif clan's preposterous defence against buying up property in London using money looted from the Pakistani exchequer makes it very hard to support his claims of innocence, even though I have a soft spot for the tubby former PM.

Nawaz Sahab doesn't deserve any sympathy for the Establishment dumping him. But him being corrupt shouldn't cover up that the Establishment operates beyond their jurisdiction and people should look at the elephant in the room too, not just his corruption. I think Pakistanis are projecting their guilt on him. They are not going to become law abiding tax paying citizens just because Nawaz Sb got his punishment.
 
Nawaz Sahab doesn't deserve any sympathy for the Establishment dumping him. But him being corrupt shouldn't cover up that the Establishment operates beyond their jurisdiction and people should look at the elephant in the room too, not just his corruption. I think Pakistanis are projecting their guilt on him. They are not going to become law abiding tax paying citizens just because Nawaz Sb got his punishment.

and that’s where understanding IK’s ideology comes into it.
 
I also recall the famous rant of Mr IK himself on the role of agencies in Politics, he actually explain it to the naive Pakistani public, how they are manipulated, in case you forget that one ;-)


Fundamental problem with Political ENV of Pakistan is that politicians play ping pong among themselves, but never go after the true culprit or mother of all evil, they only go after them once their political career is all but finish. In the beginning they do all they can to get into the good books of you know who...

This is not new for sub-contenient, we have seen same behavior among Congress and Muslim League before Pakistan, they were always going after each other on petty stuff, but never dare to fight the Brits, net result was during so called independence(which is not the right word for what happened in 1947), they kill each other and still fighting on petty things as before, never really focus on true issues. Non-violence ideology of Ghandi was a cop out, because they did not had balls to fight the Brits, Muslim League was filled with same crock blood line that have sold the country to Brits generation early on small personal gains...There blood line is what has ruled the Pakistan. This Lota and Military partnership is continuation of same blood line and political heritage of Pakistan and Naya Pakistan is building on that exact foundation :facepalm:


In Pakistan the Brits are truly replace by Military Establishment, most of the Pakistan is in piece with the fact that Military Raj is eternal reality, lets fight on low level gali/nali politics. Lets keep filling the internet forum and social media with same mentality. Who really wants to focus on fundamentals :facepalm:
 
and that’s where understanding IK’s ideology comes into it.

He deserves all the respect he gets. From wanton and immoral playboy celebrity sportsman, to a pious and pure philantropist, to an utopian leader, to a pragmatic politician for whom ends justify the means. He has come a long way.
 
Nawaz Sahab doesn't deserve any sympathy for the Establishment dumping him. But him being corrupt shouldn't cover up that the Establishment operates beyond their jurisdiction and people should look at the elephant in the room too, not just his corruption. I think Pakistanis are projecting their guilt on him. They are not going to become law abiding tax paying citizens just because Nawaz Sb got his punishment.

Definitely the establishment is the elephant in the room, but it is a complex situation. The military has too much input in Pakistani politics, I have said many times that democracy won't flourish until it is given time to develop naturally through trial and error. But for some reason the public in Pakistan trusts the military far more than the politicians, one of the reasons is probably the succession of leaders who have used office to line their pockets. I'm sure there will be plenty here who will say the army top brass has done the same, and maybe they have. But that doesn't seem to be the perception among the common folk in Pakistan.

If IK comes to power I will be interested to see how he operates within the parameters allegedly set by the Generals. I should add here, that the military do insist that since Musharraf stepped down they have taken a back seat. The truth of that is probably better known by other posters closer to the ground.
 
Back
Top