Dear M. J. I. Chaudry, 

Since Mr. Rafi Aamer has withdrawn his posts from the discussion panel and has decided to remain silent on the subject; his agreement or disagreement with your opinion has no consequence. I will even add the you can very well claim that his silence indicates that he agrees to whatever you say as long as he does not open his mouth (or he writes) to make any objection.  

You and Mr J. Chaoudhry Virk are of the opinion that Mr. Pervez Musharraf should not be pushed out of his preset position and he should continue ruling the State of Pakistan. Both of you have your reasons and explanations. They may be different but lead to the same conclusion that Musharraf should stay.  

I have never said that Musharraf should be forced to leave. I know very well that he can not be ousted by any force (Uncle Sam included), as long as he has the support of the Army. Under this condition, it will be only a wishful thinking on my part to expect his departure. So, you two can claim a “de facto” agreement with your opinion of all those persons who do not declare to be against yours.. 

Mr. J. C. Virk, you presented a cute and simple    analogy between the State of Pakistan and a Farm with a single proprietor C. With the help of two employed farmers A and B, you obtain the simple solution that C may hand over to A the responsibility to till the earth. It is very simple and straight forward. Over all it sounds very logic. 

Only problem is that this simple model can not be applied to a complicated situation of Pakistan. Pakistan is not a simple piece of land (Farm), the property of a single owner. Pakistan is a State whose rightful owners are all Pakistanis and every Pakistani (Farmer) is working for this country. There are 160 million owners as well as farmers (and workers). Both A and B are not simple farmers but they are   elected representatives of the rightful owners to mange the State of Pakistan. Both of them have robbed the State. One day, as in American “Western” films, an armed gangster (D) with his gang arrives and chases B out of the country. He rules the county as a king and the rightful owners become simple hostages of this man and his gang. 

The solution of this complicated problem is very simple for you: that D should stay otherwise State will be ruined and the people will die of hunger. It is very far-sighted and clever solution for this complicated situation.  

It strikes me that the Chaudhries of Toronto and the Chaudhries of Gujrat have the same logic and same thinking. 

Dec 10, 07