In the west talented individuals rise through political parties to become leaders.

Reminds me W. and Hill C. He-he.

Please get a grip. It is intellectually lazy to accuse Vinod of what you are accusing him of. Don’t make an insulting statement and then say “that’s what he is saying.” Geez, I’m so tired of the lazy comments of people who disagree with this post.

But, as Caute remarks, these intellectuals would not, of course, trade their own life in a free country for life under the boot.

Am an admirer of Vinod and his work but an intellectual is not a compliment that I would pay him. But, I would agree that most of us who live in relative freedom and comfort would not choose to live in Pakistan.

Rule of law are laws written by the people or by duly elected representatives of the people. Rules imposed on from above is not a law – it is an arbitary misuse of wrongfully appropriated power.

It is a haven for terrorists, involved in nuclear proliferation (see Khan A Q)and last time I checked it was no capitalist mecca like Singapore.

Uh, the nuclear proliferation of the Khan network took place between 1989 and 2000, under Bhutto, Sharif, etc. As far as we know (and to be fair, there may well be plenty we don’t know), the proliferation stopped around the same time Musharraf came to power. That Khan was exposed and punished under Musharraf is, if anything, a recommendation of him over his predecessors, under whose watch all of the proliferation occurred.

And it’s not exactly like Pakistan didn’t have terrorist problems before Musharraf either…

The way I see it is that there are four power centers – (a) feudal, rich zamindars (b) military-intelligence agency bloc (c) islamists-radicals…

Of these three (a) feudal, rich zamindars and the (b) military-intelligence agency bloc are variants of the third the (c) islamists-radicals. The feudals are the creators and sustainers of the muslims-as-a-nation; while the military is a late entrant to the game, seeking to sustain an Islamic super-state with Pakistan in some sort of leadership role. The last – (c) islamists-radicals – all but reject the idea of nationhood or statehood supporting the idea of a global comity organised on religious lines. A few (by no means a majority, substantial though) among the “yuppie” westernised group, reject the feudals for their conservatism, and the Islamic radicals for their orthodoxy, but favour the military for its “western” veneer – its attire, use of modern technology, structured organization, international links, use of English, and the modern efficient country-within-a-country it operates – the cantonments, schools and colleges, clubs, businesses etc. A fifth group that you miss out is the miniscule community of almost-humanist scholars and intellectuals best typified by the likes of Dr. Hoodbhoy. I say almost because Hoodbhoy comes across as George Monbiot-if-not-Dawkins-type of free-thinker, who would rather not identify himself as an atheist in Pakistan for obvious reasons. But Dr. Hoodbhoy is the first to bring about a refreshing turn of thought in Pakistan and goes well beyond pseudo-liberals like Eqbal Ahmed, and is willing to accept the real and unsavoury motivations of the League managed movement that led to the creation of Pakistan, so well analysed by Ambedkar in one of his last papers. This is not say that it will take an atheist to turn Pakistan into a secular state, but only an atheist has a perspective radical enough to question the entire Pakistan movement. The creation of Pakistan lies in the past and the Indian subcontinent – as Ambedkar, Patel, and Rajaji rightly concluded – is the better for it.

And I am cynical of the view being put forth by this blog, and not for the first time that Musharraf is better (has been better) for Pakistan than its democratically elected leaders. Let me make it clear that I have no illusions about the political class in Pakistan being angelic but having to face the electorate every five years keeps them some what accountable. Whereas a dictator who also controls the armed forces has zero accountability. How can you assert with such certainty that he was better than the alternatives? How do you know that? Never has Pakistan’s reputation been worse than it has been under Musharraf. It is a haven for terrorists, involved in nuclear proliferation (see Khan A Q)and last time I checked it was no capitalist mecca like Singapore.