Dear Ahsan,

Please see my remarks inline.

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 Rafi Aamer has withdrawn his posts from the discussion panel and has decided to remain silent on the subject; his agreement or disagreement with your opinion has no consequence.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.  "

Not so fast. :) No. I haven't found any point of agreement with Chaudry Sahibaan of Toronto. They want me to see the current picture in a manner that is totally detached from the history which I am not willing to do. They want me to agree that at times when principles aren't convenient, they should not come first. I think that principle matter ONLY when its inconvenient to stand by them. They have some way of knowing that Musharraf's steps will help Pakistan. I lack their insight so can't judge it that easily. For me to judge his acts, I have to go into history and see if these acts were carried out before and if they were, what was the result. But then Chaudry sahiban don't want me to refer to history. The facts, from history, are that Musharraf has done nothing new and the results of similar acts have had disastrous impact on Pakistan. The history also points out that the arguments presented by Chaudry Sahiban are not new either. Every dictator had had his supporters who have been advancing the same tired arguments for 50 years now.

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. 

I agree with your re-orientation of the oversimplified and [I'm sure not deliberately] misleading analogy by Virk sahib. I would just like to add one more thing to it. A and B did rob the state but A and B were able to rob the state blind because the armed gangster (D) and his predecessors had not allowed a genuine leadership to emerge and people like A and B were propped up by D's predecessors to give a false impression of a political process. Just like D has propped up a whole bunch of his own corrupt and incompetent class of pseudo-politicians like Durranis and Azims. Also, D loves to tell us that B was very corrupt but D has also said a number of times that corruption was not B's actual sin; it was B's abuse of his authority to dismiss D. D has said that hadn't B dared dismiss D, he would have continued to be the Prime Minister (B should have know that there is only one institution in Pakistan that is allowed to abuse its authority. The rest are not even allowed to practice theirs. See the Supreme Court of Pakistan for example). Actually, people like D have always encouraged the corruption of people like A and B because it gives D's class an opportunity to "save" the country again and again. And when they do, we start hearing oversimplified analogies like the one manufactured by Virk sahib.

Regards,

Rafi