Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musharraf's Achievements...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Musharraf's Achievements...

    hello ppl...

    through out this forum I've been hearing about Musharraf Acheivements, Musharraf did this and that..

    why dont we one by one, start counting his acheivements and his his action which are or will prove to be devestrated for Pakistan..

    Achievements question goes for all the fans of Mushy, and all anti Mushy guys tell me his fatal steps..

    lets see, how you ppl rate him... Every one is invited...

    ------------------
    Dont think "you can" know "you can"
    .::. ¢¼ ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ ¢¼ .::.

    #2
    hello anyone here?

    ------------------
    Dont think "you can" know "you can"
    .::. ¢¼ ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ ¢¼ .::.

    Comment


      #3
      Achievement number 1: He stopped the US from bombing Pakistan back to the stone age.

      If Musharraf was a stupid Mullah like the Taliban, he would have already signed Pakistan’s death warrant.

      Comment


        #4
        I don't give Musharraf high marks for Domestic perfrmance, but to give the devil his due. His performance Internationally has been quite imrpessive, his handling of the Nawaz Sharif case, not pushing for a death sentence when he could have(after all Nawaz Sharif did try to kill him)

        He also cleaned up the Canal system, which gave Pakistan it's first Wheat surplus in ages. He also made sure his Federal Cabinets and Provincial ones were both ethnically balanced and gender balanced. He's done a LOT for women's rights, probably more then Benazir has with the increase in womens seats. He also arrested people who were for all intents and purposes untouchable at one time. While many have been released after making deals with NAB, the sheer thought of them even going to jail was unbelievable at one time.

        There has been no major corruption scandal in the senior levels of giovernment, while there has been no major imporvement in givt efficency and incompetent people are all over the place, the country seems very much out of the red. He has managed to turn around some public sector corporations like Pakistan Railways, Steel Mill etc.

        He's not been afraid to meet politicans, and has left the Media very much alone, in fact the Newspapers are freer now then when Democrats like NS and BB were around (remember what NS did to Najam Sethi?)

        While he remains no revolutionary and many reforms effect has been minimal, he has the right ideas and is pushing em on inspite of considerable opposition. Push comes to shove, you have to give the devil his due
        How can a man die better than facing fearful odds for the ashes of his fathers and the Temple of his Gods?

        Comment


          #5
          zakk what do you think about his forign policy, specially the divertion towards US.

          will it be benificial for Pakistan in upcomming days ?

          ------------------
          Dont think "you can" know "you can"
          .::. ¢¼ ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ ¢¼ .::.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Badshah420:
            Achievement number 1: He stopped the US from bombing Pakistan back to the stone age.

            If Musharraf was a stupid Mullah like the Taliban, he would have already signed Pakistan’s death warrant.
            Badshah well that was a nice move, But now American forces are in Pakistan as like camel in the tent. What musharraf can do any thing abt this issue. America has never been so influential on Pakistan this now..

            I guess its more dangerous now. than getting bombed once and for all, rather than slow poisening..

            ------------------
            Dont think "you can" know "you can"
            .::. ¢¼ ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ ¢¼ .::.

            Comment


              #7
              I think this article speaks for itself, which is by the way written by an Indian (correct me if i'm wrong though). http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DB19Df02.html

              Musharraf: A leader in search of a new category
              By Ehsan Ahrari

              President Pervez Musharraf's beginning in politics was mediocre at best: he seized power by ousting the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on October 12, 1999. Since then, however, Pakistan's leader appears to be growing into a world-class statesman.

              Given that Pakistan has had a dismal record of nurturing a democratic form of government since its inception, the October 12 coup saddened and angered many outside observers of Pakistan. Inside that country, however, few shed tears over the demise of a corrupt and autocratic politician who was masquerading as a democrat.

              Musharraf's image was even more tainted vis-a-vis India, which, as a general rule, does not hold Pakistani officials in high regard. He was considered as the chief architect of the Kargil military operation of 1999, which summarily ended Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's systematic endeavors to build an environment of trust with Pakistan. Vajpayee believed, so say some Indian observers, that such an environment was necessary for both sides to seek a political solution of the obdurate Kashmir dispute. So, the general expectation was that Indo-Pakistan ties were in for a rough ride while Musharraf was at the helm in Pakistan, with little or no chance of dialogue over the resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

              The beginning of Musharraf's military rule also added additional layers of economic sanctions on Pakistan, whose economy had already been teetering on the brink of disaster since 1998 when Islamabad, in a "tit-for-tat" that is typical of Indo-Pakistan ties, conducted its own nuclear tests in response to India's. The domestic political environment of Pakistan was also in shambles. The jihadists were running rampant, terrorizing the Shia minority and constantly issuing shrill diatribes that the government of Pakistan was not sufficiently Islamic.

              Pakistani madrasas (religious schools) in the North West Frontier Province became "production lines" for preparing young, semi-educated, starry-eyed youngsters who were ready and willing to wage jihad (which had come to be regarded only as holy war, as opposed to its original multidimensional meaning of struggle against evil of all varieties) and die, rather than live, for their religion. Since the Pakistani government had been using the same type of group to fuel the fires of unending military skirmishes in Indian-administered Kashmir, it could not take earnest measures to suppress their activities, much less eliminate them.

              How poorly Pakistan rated in the eyes of the outside world was dramatized during president Bill Clinton's trip to South Asia in March 2000. After much soul-searching about whether to visit Pakistan at all, considering the unceremonious ousting of the elected government, Clinton visited Pakistan, but in a decoy aircraft. When his plane landed in Islamabad, the American Secret Service was gravely concerned about his safety. After all, Osama bin Laden was running rampant in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were presiding over a hellish rule, sadly in the name of Islam.

              There were no "photo-ops" with the dictator Musharraf. Clinton had a private session with him and his colleagues; then he appeared on Pakistani television to do some tongue-lashing. Pakistanis witnessed a new version of "white man's burden". This time, the "chief" white man was urging them to return to the fold of democracy. The majority of Pakistanis - who were no fans of military rule, but were strongly repelled by Nawaz Sharif's masquerade of democracy - deeply resented Clinton's supercilious and arrogant attitude.

              The September 11 attacks on the United States could not have altered the political fortunes of any country more radically than those of Pakistan. The United States made clear soon thereafter that it was determined to go after bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of those attacks. If the Taliban regime were to get in the way, President George W Bush unambiguously stated that it would be dismantled.

              Pakistani's political and logistical support was vital for America's military campaign against Afghanistan. The Bush administration approached Islamabad, and thence began the emergence of General Pervez Musharraf as a world-class leader.

              The greatness of any leader stems from a correct and quick reading of moments of monumental importance for the country, the resultant decision to capture those moments, and to make them work to the nation's advantage. The biographers of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle underscored this trait, but only with the advantage of hindsight.

              There is no attempt here to compare Musharraf with Churchill or de Gaulle. The point is that, despite the fact that there is not yet an advantage of hindsight, all indications are that Musharraf might have made some monumental judgments that will markedly improve the destiny of his nation. Thus, he might be well on his way to greatness.

              The United States, major European countries, and Japan have recognized his courage, and Pakistan's reintegration into the international community as a nation that stands for Islamic moderation has already begun. Pakistan seems to have started a new chapter of remaining loyal to its Islamic heritage, yet attempting to be seen as a friend of the United States at a time when Washington's other important friends - eg Egypt and Saudi Arabia - are apparently mulling over the option of how far they ought to go in terms of cooperating with an all-out "war" on terrorism.

              Musharraf did not stop at the decision to side with the United States in its war on transnational terrorism. He explained to his countrymen the gravity of Pakistan's position when the Bush administration approached him in September 2001. India was ready and eager to jump on the American bandwagon, and, in the process, do everything to make a "Nepal" - if not a "Sikkim" - out of Pakistan. Musharraf's countrymen bought his argument lock, stock and barrel.

              Then he made a clean break with the Taliban, under whose rule Afghanistan had become a "near vassal state" of Pakistan. Later, he took noteworthy measures to rid the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - Pakistan's intelligence agency - of jihadists and pro-Taliban elements, a heroic task by itself.

              Another significant decision of Musharraf - of a similar magnitude to the September decision to join the US's anti-terrorism coalition - was to crack down on the jihadists. Since the supporters of these groups are said to be around 6 percent of the total population (a fact reflected in the number of votes cast for the Islamist parties in general elections), Musharraf's decision to neutralize the Islamist groups promises to make his country a moderate Islamic polity once again.

              Defanging radical Islamist parties like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Sipah-e-Sahaba will significantly de-escalate, if not altogether eradicate, the outbreak of anti-Shia violence that had transformed Pakistan into a "Lebanon" (of the 1980s) of South Asia. Besides, the decision of the Pakistani government to regulate the madrasas will also eradicate the obscurantist tendencies that had become the sine qua non of the jihadist culture since the 1990s.

              Despite these numerous great leaps, Musharraf is not yet out of the woods. A great deal of his success depends upon the Bush administration's willingness to embrace his government by showering it with economic assistance, instituting major debt forgiveness programs, but, more importantly, promising guaranteed risk insurance to ensure mega-capital investments by Western corporations, especially in massive rebuilding of infrastructure. The foremost infrastructure requirement is the resuscitation of extant modern educational institutions and building new ones.

              The downside of Musharraf's courageous leadership is that it remains dependent on the whims and fancies of George W Bush, who has yet to demonstrate that he sufficiently comprehends the intricacies and gravity of Musharraf's stakes and concerns. Given the Islamist idiosyncrasies of his polity, Musharraf has gone further than he should. Besides, the very option of antagonizing the Islamists is a risky proposition, considering the fact that they are so prone to political violence and terrorist acts.

              Pervez Musharraf cannot be compared with Mikhael Gorbachev, for under Gorbachev's leadership the Soviet Union imploded. He cannot be compared to Anwar Sadat, equally courageous though his peace overtures were toward Israel in the 1970s, whose very name brings to mind tragic consequence. One can only hope that Musharraf can do as well as the man whom he most admires, Mustapha Kemal of Turkey.

              Mustapha Kemal wanted his country to be ultimately recognized as a "European" entity. Musharraf's goals are much more modest and reasonable. His promise to bring back democracy to his country serves as a glimmer of hope. He wants Pakistan to abide by one of the most favored traits of the Prophet of Islam, moderation in all realms. That is a tall order, given the extremist predilections of the jihadists in and around Pakistan. In that sense, Musharraf might be a leader seeking to create a leadership category of his own.

              Dr Ehsan Ahrari is a Norfolk, Virginia, US-based strategic analyst.

              Unity, Faith & Discipline....
              --Jinnah

              Comment


                #8
                ok guys...

                what about Musharraf policy of making pakistan a modern secular Islamic State..

                is secularism accepted in a country, whose foundation was laid to be an Ideal Islamic Welfare state?

                are we suppose to experiment yet another flop idea of secularism in our country, where we already have Sucessfull Islamic system, but which is not implemented.

                Musharraf is following the western/jews orders or what??

                i remember when a journalist raised an objection recently in one of the prss conference, about the opennes , and vulgarity shown on PTV in programs, dramas and music shows. He said, its choice of people to watch it or not. We will show what we think is right..

                In my opinion, Musharraf is not going to implement, or even support the idea of Islamization in Pakistan.

                what do u guys say ?

                ------------------
                Dont think "you can" know "you can"
                .::. ¢¼ ﷲ ﻼﺃ ﷲﺃ ﻶ ¢¼ .::.

                Comment


                  #9
                  why musharuff should follow proven failed
                  methods of zia. instead he should follow
                  jinah. all the problem faced by pakistan
                  is due zia's policy.wh6y pakistan even hangs
                  jinnah's picture everwhere if they dont belive in what he said.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by FlameZz:
                    ok guys...

                    what about Musharraf policy of making pakistan a modern secular Islamic State..

                    is secularism accepted in a country, whose foundation was laid to be an Ideal Islamic Welfare state?

                    are we suppose to experiment yet another flop idea of secularism in our country, where we already have Sucessfull Islamic system, but which is not implemented.

                    Musharraf is following the western/jews orders or what??
                    Where has Musharraf ever mentioned that he wants to make Pakistan secular? In fact, within the past month he has repeatedly stressed that Pakistan will not become secular.

                    Here Musharraf made it clear that Pakistan is supposed to be an Islamic state and not a secular state. His exact word are "No-one should even think this is a secular state".

                    Muslims are so good at dividing that they can divide the atom. If you see two Muslims, probably they belong to 3 parties.
                    Al-Ghazali

                    Comment


                      #11
                      you cant eat secular or non-secular.
                      would he create wealth?jobs? protecting people from sectarianisms.
                      would pakistanis hate to be like malasia?


                      [This message has been edited by rvikz (edited February 24, 2002).]

                      Comment


                        #12
                        President Musharaf has in my oppinion saved the country. Democracy was obviously not working, no institution in the world trusted the Nawaz Sharif Regime. President Musharafs take over of the govt was followed by sanctions from everywhere led by America. American bitterness towards the govt culminated in the Clinton visit, in which it made clear it disapproval and its preferance towards India.
                        But then, why the hell should we care what the Americans think, there policies are completely self serving. When they dont need dictators, they refuse to deal with them, showing the world that they are the true pillars of Democracy. But, when they do need them, dictators become men of vision.
                        As I see it, President Musharaf has done the best he can given the circumstances, his goals were ambitious to begin with but thats to be expected. He has brought credibility back to the govt. Brought back some investment that we lost after the nuke test, raised the foreign exchange, and built a system of institutions which, though still have some cracks, can be organzied to becme very efficient. Oh, and lets not forget that he has done more for minorities then anyone else, we may yet see a christian or Hindu in some high office.
                        As far as relations with India are concerned, I doubt anyone could have dealt with the senile vajapyee govt as well as he has. He is tactful and shrewed, no one else in Pakistan could make the Indian Media admit that their own highly experienced democraticly elected leader could be out done by a military dictator from Pakistan. Oh, and that infamouse hand shake. The look on Vajpyee'c face haaa haa...enough said.
                        Though he hasn't gotten anything from India except threats of war, I dont think he is to blame. Indian govt is belligerant and self contradicting at best. No leader of Pak could have avoided this tussle with India. In the end, we will remember him for his charisma and style. As for his reforms, we will have to wait and see.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          His Foreign Policy is different he's broken away from near total Isolationism which was happening earlier on, he's proven himself an Equal for World LEaders, and lal the atention hasn't gone to his head, most importantly Foreign Policy is no longer being dictated by a bunch of Idealogues in the ISI, and is back where it belongs, with the Leader of teh Country and the foreign Minister no small achievement.

                          Again I am not defending the whole govt, and I dont defend him for being anything other then a dictator, but the fact is he's done things which few others would do
                          How can a man die better than facing fearful odds for the ashes of his fathers and the Temple of his Gods?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            2 more things...
                            First the Ameircan presance.
                            I think it is good having Americans for a limited amount of time, we are charging them 60 million a month, thats not a small amount, and im sure it will go towards some good use. Also, it will provide Pakistan much needed attention, which i think will lead to more economic aid. Its also a deterant against India, I think that its clear that one of he reasons America put so much pressure was because there was a strong American presance in the region. Also there will be military exchanges between the countries if America is there, we really need this in lite of India, particularly now.
                            Lastly, someone mentioned their aversion towards a secular Pakistan.
                            I dont see what is wrong with a secular Pakistan, it will still be an Islamic country. No one can change the fact that we have over 140 million mulsims. Religion will still be protected, everything will still be the same, except the government will not openly state preferance for one religion over another. This does not mean that our leadership will be atheist or anti-Islam in any way. Infact, its clear that President Musharaf is secular, i mean he holds Kemal Ataturk in such high regard, but no one accuses him of being un-islamic. What difference would it make if Pakistan become just Pakistan rather that the Islamic Republic Of? There may be many advatages to secularism, i mean it works well for the West, why shouldn't it work in PakistaN?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by FlameZz:
                              Badshah well that was a nice move, But now American forces are in Pakistan as like camel in the tent. What musharraf can do any thing abt this issue. America has never been so influential on Pakistan this now..

                              I guess its more dangerous now. than getting bombed once and for all, rather than slow poisening..

                              I'd rather Pakistan be America's slave then ISI Mullah's slave. At least the Americans have some money to help us out with out. ISI Mullahs OTOH have bigotry and terrorism as their main accomplishment.

                              Down with ISI!



                              [This message has been edited by Badshah420 (edited February 24, 2002).]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X