Respected Jawaid Chaoudhry Virk Sahib 

 

With all due respect I have noted your remark.

“Your last letter leaves the impression that you have completely misunderstood me.”

I totally agree with you because I certainly do not have enough intelligence to understand every thing that goes beyond my mental limit. To my simple mind, in the present discussion both of you reach to the same conclusion (Maintaining Musharraf as the Head of the State) with different arguments. These different arguments may be very important to you two but to an impartial observer it is not necessary to explain in his observation all the tedious adventure to which you have gone through.

It is like going from a point A to a point B. Two friends C and D may walk together, hand in hand, taking a straight line path and reach B at the same time. It is also possible for the two to depart in opposite directions on a circular path and reach to the destination B at the same time. This circle should have the diameter AB and should pass through the points A and B. There are many other possibilities as well. These different paths may be important for C and D to continue their arguments, but an observer may find all this childish and inutile.

In my humble opinion to blame a reader that he missed a point is an excuse for the writer for not making his point clear.

“I apologize to you for not elaborating my Farmers A, B and C model. As you interpreted, I do not have farmer D in the model. Farm is Pakistan . Farmer C is Pakistanis. Farmer A is Musharraf [not the army] and Farmer B is the so called elected politicians all lumped as one. Thefarmer C certainly do not want the Farmer B, who will rob, and burn the farm and finish it off for ever.  The farmer A will also rob, but will not burn the farm. For future, Farmer C still has the time and the land to prevent the likes of A and B, even during the time when A is active in its farm. It can build the infrastructure to prevent future robberies. Farmer C has no future options while B is active. “

The above model is all yours. In a group of farmers all farmers are equal. So you can say that A=B= (Any member of C). It is only true if you consider them all doing the same work such as tilling the field and sowing the plants. But on a big cooperative farm some members (farmers) are doing something else than proper farming. There will  be a group of persons (farmers) who will be doing administrative jobs such as the management of the farm. The politician B will fall in this subgroup. So, B will be different than any other remaining member of C. This particular B politician/s that you are talking, he/they robbed and was/were corrupt but was/were constitutionally elected representative/s of the majority of the farmers (people). Your “so called elected politicians” remark is unjustified.  Now, your favourite farmer A is entirely different. He came to power (to take care of the farm) through illegal means whichh in legal term is called a treason. In this group presently, he is the only member. The past members are all dead. To say A=B is wrong.

I will gladly accept your wish of “long live Musharraf”, but please don not insist that I should also accept your fallacious arguments.

“One more thing Khan Sahib. I think discussions should be for mutual learning and positive contributions. In civilized discussions when educated people come down to insulting each other, then its time for me to respectfully exit. It makes me very sad to be put in the same category as the Chaudhrys’ of Gujrat.”

The Chaudhrys of Gujrat, as far as, I know are respectable and well know politicians in Pakistan . I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I will be careful in future. But, alas, I can not stop calling a spade a spade.

Again, I will beg your excuse and be sure that nothing was pre-planned or intentional.

With all due respect.

Yours,

Ahsan

 

Dec. 12, 2007.