No announcement yet.

How Lahore declaration led to Nawaz's downfall.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How Lahore declaration led to Nawaz's downfall.

    This interview from 'The Friday Times' gives a good insight on how pakistani army has ruined all chances of peace in the subcontinent.
    Mir Hasil Bizenjo is the younger son of former governor of Balochistan, Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo. The younger Bizenjo was a member of the National Assembly until October 12, 1999 when the army took over and ousted Nawaz Sharif. Bizenjo's party, the Balochistan National Party (BNP) has been an alley of ousted premier Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League since 1992. Presently, he is a member of the joint committee constituted by the League to hold talks with the other political parties. TFT's Salman Hussain recently spoke with him on the political situation and the civil-military differences that led Sharif to try and remove General Pervez Musharraf, forcing the latter to seize power. Excerpts from his explosive interview:

    TFT: You were very close to ousted premier Nawaz Sharif. What led to his fall?

    MHB: It all started with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's Lahore visit in February 1999. I was at the Prime Minister's House when Minister Sartaj Aziz came and told the prime minister that the services chiefs had declined to receive Mr Vajpayee at Wagah. This created quite an embarrassing situation for the government since Sharif had extended the invitation to his Indian counterpart and protocol demanded that the service chiefs be present on the occasion. In the end, reception plans had to be rescheduled. The situation could probably have been saved if Sharif had taken General Musharraf into confidence before extending the invitation to Vajpayee.

    TFT: Why did Sharif replace General Jehangir Karamat and promoted General Musharraf as COAS?

    MHB: I do not know the details of the change but I believe Sharif was not happy with Karamat. As for preferring Musharraf over two other generals, who were senior to him, his reason was simple: Musharraf was not considered ambitious.

    TFT: What happened during and after Vajpayee's visit?

    MHB: Sharif was very unhappy with the attitude of the army chief. He felt insulted and believed the general had disobeyed his orders. He also suspected that certain agencies were used to arrange demonstrations during Vajpayee's visit. He was convinced that Jama'at-e-Islami (JI) was instigated into demonstrating and that is why their workers could evade the security cordon and access the route of Vajpayee's cavalcade. It was a conspiracy to discredit him. The arrested JI activists have been released by the present government. Sharif also felt the absence of the army chief strongly at the dinner at Lahore Fort. However, the army chief finally came to the Governor's House for a courtesy call; perhaps to defuse the tension between them.

    TFT: Was Sharif satisfied with Vajpayee's visit?

    MHB: He was more than happy. He was confident that he could resolve the Kashmir dispute. But he also informed us of Musharraf's strong reservations to the "Lahore declaration." He took us fully into confidence over the talks but expressed apprehensions about Musharraf. I believe the army wanted him to withdraw from the Declaration since they suspected that he might have reached some secret understanding with Vajpayee on American advice.

    TFT: Is this why Sharif blamed Musharraf for the Kargil crisis?

    MHB: Yes, he believed that Kargil was staged to sabotage the Lahore Declaration. It could have been tit for tat. Sharif thought Musharraf did not took him into confidence over Kargil because he did not take him into confidence on the Declaration and on talks with Vajpayee.

    TFT: So there was tension between Sharif and Musharraf since Vajpayye's visit?

    MHB: Yes. Some efforts were made to remove the differences but Sharif was not ready to accept the condition that he should withdraw from the Lahore Declaration. Even before going to the United States he had made up his mind to recall the mujahideen. In fact, he asked President Clinton to use his good offices to defuse the tension between him and the army and ensure implementation of the Lahore Declaration.

    TFT: This must have annoyed the General?

    MHB: I suppose so, as is clear from the way events unfolded.

    TFT: When did Sharif finally decide to sack Musharraf?

    MHB: He wanted to sack him first when he disobeyed him during Vajpayee's visit. Then he thought of sacking him after Kargil. However, at that time Sharif's choice was not General Khwaja Ziauddin Butt. In fact, Sharif was not happy with Zia and thought he had failed to apprise him of the real situation. However, each time he thought of sacking Musharraf, the former secretary of defence General (retd) Iftikhar and his brother Ch. Nisar Ali requested him to reconsider the decision. It was only because of them that Sharif promoted Musharraf as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. However, when Musharraf retired Lt-General Tariq Pervaiz, corps commander of Quetta following Tariq's meeting with Sharif, matters went out of hand. After that even Iftikhar and Nisar could not hold Sharif's hand.

    TFT: The army supported Musharraf?

    MHB: Yes, but then the choice of replacement made all the difference. I also suspect that General Ziauddin did not evaluate the situation objectively.

    TFT: Do you think it was all personal?

    MHB: Maybe. But it was also very much an issue of exercising authority. If you believe in the constitution and the authority of the chief executive then Musharraf had no right to say "no" to the premier. Sharif was an elected prime minister. He had appointed him by sacking Karamat. If Karamat's sacking was right and Musharraf accepted it as constitutional, what made his own sacking unconstitutional?

    Whats the use of peace? Hahahahahah

    Sarfraz Khan


      What else do you expect from any ally of a corrupt ruler, who delivered Kargil to India, hence the Indian tears for him.


        Point is, who is the ruler? Representative of people or army chief. And all along, in India-related matters, ruler has been army chief.

        here u have an army chief who gets into an armed adbventure without letting the civilian administration know about it. Then baffled civilkians try to get something out of it. They fail badly since they were not prepared about it. The bloke who does not know 'e' of economics and 'i' of international affiars takes over a few hills and wants to sell it as a great advance. The chief of a country which is begging from pillar to post for survival is unable to get money for conducting such adventures. And the people of Pakistan who want to believe that they were never defeated and always victorious lap up the myth.

        It was already militarily defeated, Nawaz tried to put the best face. But then it is always civilians which are responsible for army mistakes.

        What was delivered on platter was 30000 sq. miles in west Pakistan in 71' by Indira Gandhi when Bhutto wept at her feet telling army will catch him by throat. Your own post on Bhutto says that.


          Ah again miserable Indians..LOL

          They cannot solve their own problems at home and come here to talk about us rubbish.

          Sarfraz Khan


            GOOD!! Its not Sharif that lost everything on 12 October but the Indians! The Lahore proccess - tell me what did India promise to Pakistan???


              usual lack of logic. none is arguing if Nawaz is good or bad. One is saying that there were decisions he had no control on. Army controlled the decisions and civilian govts took the blame when it backfires. So here is a classic case of power without responsibility.


                The visible players of 1971 war plus their fates is as follows:

                ZA Bhutto: Hanged

                Indira Ghandi: Assassinated

                Sh Mujibur Rehman: Assassinated

                Gen Yahya Khan: Died reportedly on the night 17th of Ramzan peacefully while he slept

                Other hidden players, I cannot describe them now because I don't hava infos.

                Nawaz Sharif and Muslim League are history!

                Bill Clinton is history.

                Traitors of Kashmir are history!

                Jihad will be carried out at an unprecedented rate and amazing manner!

                Sarfraz Khan


                  could be of interest


                    It is good to see that somebody in Pakistan is actually coming up with an honest and sane conclusions regarding Kargill episode, unfortunately these kind of people are far and few, rest are happy to pretend that they have won each and every war.

                    [This message has been edited by Rani (edited April 29, 2000).]


                      Its good to see that the Indian's have set up a commission to see why they were defeated militarily in Kargil. And maybe Pakistan should set up a commission to examine how to carry out more Kargil-like victories??

                      The Indian's claiming victory at Kargil, is like the new revisionist Vietnam war thought in the states i.e the USA actually won the Vietnam war !, and that it was the South Vietnamese that were defeated in April 1975 -LOL!!!

                      According to Sonia, the Indian North-East has become a haven for the ISI. Well its great to hear that Pakistan's arm reaches so deep into India - 1500 miles from its borders!! How proud we should all be...


                        kmailik wrote:
                        >> Its good to see that the Indian's have set up a commission to see why they were defeated militarily in Kargil. And maybe Pakistan should set up a commission to examine how to carry out more Kargil-like victories?? <<

                        Note down friends, a new definition of victory :

                        A military force can be called as victors when they lose all the land they took for a short time-period of a war, not by choice, but because of high military pressure from their opponents.

                        There is no way to happiness.
                        Happiness is the way....


                          In any civil government....There is only one and one sourse of power..
                          The Constitution....
                          Functioning civil institutions ensure this. But it take time and dedication , in addition to single minded commitment and trust in them...


                            But civilian governments are corrupt, inept and ignorant. Constitution is just a formality! It only serves its purpose when some leaders power is threatened. Forget the stupid folks. Hahahahah

                            Sarfraz Khan


                              Originally posted by Atif Khan:
                              But civilian governments are corrupt, inept and ignorant. Constitution is just a formality! It only serves its purpose when some leaders power is threatened. Forget the stupid folks. Hahahahah

                              so u r telling that yahya, ayub, tikka, zia were better than civilian rulers. musharraf will not be any different. till now he has not seen to be.