Video Of The Day

I think the words we're looking for are "oh" and "snap".

Nailing The "What Has All That U.S. Aid To Pakistan Really Bought?" Canard

Reading this tweet from Arif Rafiq -- yes, I have succumbed in that I read some tweeters (twitterers?) now; no, I have not gone so far as tweeting myself -- made me think of one very general point about the "What have all the billions of dollars of U.S. aid bought in Pakistan?" argument. The basic position of this argument is that the U.S. has given Pakistan in excess of $10 billion since 9/11, and yet many of the problems that the aid is designed to take care of (defeating the Taliban and dismantling militant networks on Pakistani soil) are still very much with us. This state of affairs then leads to a common set of complaints, that can be captured in one sentence: what is all that money buying us?

The seemingly obvious empirical observation that high doses of foreign aid are "not working" in Pakistan is plagued by selection bias. It should be fairly intuitive that, all else being equal, the biggest problems, whether for governments or firms or families or individuals, will attract the most money. And yet, because the biggest problems are so big, they need more than money to solve them.

If one runs a simple regression of effectiveness of foreign aid vs. amount of foreign aid, my best guess is that there will be a negative coefficient. That is, it will appear -- at first glance -- that the more money you give, the more likely you are to fail. However, this would be plainly due to selection bias: the most money is going to places where it is least likely to work. Think of it this way: no one complains about the billions of dollars spent to cure cancer by arguing that it only took $1.65 to figure out what to do about ankle sprains. Different problems, different requirements. If a lot of money is going somewhere, and the results aren't coming, it could just be that the problem is very hard to solve, and that while billions of dollars are a necessary condition for success, they are by no means a sufficient condition.

There are of course many reasons other than the selection-bias issue that the money the U.S. has sent has not resulted in more success. These include (1) a lack of close operational cooperation on the ground, until recently, between the U.S. and Pakistan despite the existence of a formal alliance; (2) the siphoning off of cash by the Pakistani military for armaments better aimed at India than non-state actors; (3) the inherent difficulties in winning guerrilla wars against multiple actors (which many analysts underestimate drastically); (4) the Pakistani military's relative weakness and lack of training in fighting a counterinsurgency; (5) the weak public support, until recently, to take the fight to the Taliban; (6) the ability of the Taliban to secure funding from disparate sources including drugs, local taxation, and kidnapping; (7) the deals and concessions granted to the Taliban at critical junctures which backfired considerably; and (8) a lack of organizational unity within Pakistan's military establishment on how (and who) to fight.

While each of these factors -- and others I have neglected to mention -- are surely important, it is useful to consider a more general assessment of what money can and cannot buy, and the conditions under which we should expect large flows of aid to secure politico-military gains on the ground. Treating all problems as relatively equal, and therefore expecting that greater inflows of cash will result in greater likelihood of success, is foolhardy.

Blogging Elsewhere Too

I'm having a mini-affair with the Afghanistan-Pakistan Channel blog on Foreign Policy's website (I refuse to call it AfPak in public, I'm sorry). Though Rs.5 remains my true love, I will occasionally post there. I'm still deciding whether or not I want to cross-post everything, but for now, go check out my first piece.

PML(N) Shows Its True Colours

I don’t like Nawaz Sharif or the PML(N). It wasn’t always so, during the last election I genuinely thought that the party through the induction of young, educated members had progressed admirably and that it may yet prove capable of tackling the challenges faced by Pakistan. I was dead wrong.

The PML(N) has not grown, it is a regional, ethnic party that has no connection with people outside Punjab, worst of all the party’s leaders don’t seem to mind this too much.

Take for example yesterday’s decision by the Punjab government to ban the outflow of wheat from Punjab to the other provinces and set the price at a grossly subsidized Rs. 10 / kg. As a result, a standard 20 kilo bag of wheat will now retail across Punjab for Rs. 200, the same bag of wheat costs Rs.600 in Quetta, and good quality wheat can cost in excess of Rs.700 / 20 kg in Karachi (or my mother just got ripped off!). In addition to this all Tandoors in Punjab have been directed to sell tandoori roti for Rs. 2, the same roti costs Rs. 6 in Karachi.

I'm pretty sure that this move is based on sound economic principles, but it will no doubt be popular with the voters. (Though it must be said that it would be more popular if the Sharif clan hadn't recently been publicly shamed for illegally importing two Siberian tigers and housing them in a special air-conditioned environment.)

Populist actions are typical of PML (N) governments, however what is surprising about this move is how polarizing it is. People in provinces not named Punjab are incredibly angry, the politicians in the other provinces are ticked off because they cant replicate the move and it makes them look bad, ordinary people are pissed off because they view this as another instance of Punjab screwing over the smaller provinces.

The PML(N) is perhaps trying to offset the grievance of the Punjab population over the energy crisis, Punjab has been particularly hard hit (serves them right for not paying electircity bills!). But nobody is holding the PML(N) singularly responsible for this and it's unliklely that the party is losing any support because of this situation – the PPP on the other hand certainly is losing support in Punjab over this issue. Maybe the PML(N) is attempting to court voters in Southern Punjab, but I’m not sure such a grand move is required considering the ineptness and corruption of Prime Minster Gillani and his cohorts in the Multan region. Once you factor in the anger of the other provinces by the antics of the Punjab government, such a move makes no sense.

This episode once again proves that Nawaz Sharif and his party are content with appealing to their party’s base and would rather seek political control nationally by entering into a coalition with minority partners from other provinces than expand their vote bank, an arrangement that will invariably be unstable.

This is highlighted by the PML(N)’s tepid response on various other issues that don’t directly impact Punjab. Pakistan can be a goldmine for opposition politicians, the country is perpetually in the midst of disaster and presents those not in power with plenty of opportunities to speak out and gain support. And even if this doesn’t win you seats it can win you respect, which would certainly help when it comes time to building a coalition.

Inevitably what worries me most about the PML(N) and the Sharifs in particular are their views on national security and religion. The party openly supports the imposition of a more stringent Islamic system of governance and has always been sympathetic to religious zealots, but it doesn’t seem to have realized just how much these religious forces have changed, and how dangerous they have become for the federation. In particular the PML(N) does not seem to view Islamist groups stationed in Punjab, such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi as state enemies, perhaps believing that these forces can be controlled and unleashed on India one day.

The most recent example of the PML(N)'s lax attitude towards religious extremists comes in form of Shahbaz Sharif’s response to the Gojra Riots. Shahbaz did not pay enough attention when news first started emerging of tension in the area and was late in mobilizing security forces. Once it had become clear what was happening he did issue statements of condemnation and stated that he would be going to the area as soon as possible, however he ended up delaying his visit and didn’t reach their till four days after the riots started (there were protests in Gojra specifically because the honourable CM postponed his visit). Most tellingly, a couple of weeks later Shahbaz Sharif held court with a delegation of ulemas, some of whom belonged to Toba Tekh Singh (the district where Gojra is situated) and stated that:

The whole nation will have to unite on a platform for the stability of the country and elimination of terrorism and extremism, foiling the nefarious designs of anti-Pakistan elements.

The promotion of solidarity and religious harmony was the need of the hour as the elements inimical to the country were bent upon creating confusion and chaos. He said the Ulema had always played an effective role in promoting peace and religious harmony and they would continue making such efforts in future as well. He was talking to a delegation of Ulema, led by the head of Jamiatul Muntazir Maulana Syed Niaz Hussain Naqvi, here on Friday.

Martin Luther King said that "the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." At a time when the country is faced with challenges that seem insurmountable and battles forces that seem unconquerable, the PML(N) has chosen to adopt a path that is the most comfortable and least controversial, it has chosen to pander to those who were responsible for atrocities against an entire community rather than confront them.

The Roots Of Pakistan's Democratic Deficit, And The False Promise Of The Lawyer's Movement

A question that has spawned a great deal of rumination amongst students of South Asian politics is why democracy has failed to take root in Pakistan. At a general level, why has Pakistan suffered from periods of military rule -- under four different generals, three of whom were in power for close to a decade or more -- and why has its periods of democratic rule been marked with tenuousness and instability?

Before we can answer that question, it is first necessary to understand just what we mean by democracy. Within the political science literature on democracy and democratization, there remains a significant divide between those who favor minimalist definitions of democracy and those that argue for a more holistic conception of the term. The former tend to equate democratic rule with the holding of free and fair elections in which populations have a real choice of candidates, and an ability to either directly or indirectly vote for their rulers. The second group thinks of this as much too limiting; it is concerned not just with the ways in which a government comes to power, but also with the ways in a government exercises its power. For them, the mere holding of elections is not enough to qualify a country as government. It must, instead, be liberal in nature -- guarantee freedoms of speech, press and association, for instance.

While these definitional debates are useful, they can also be unwieldy and ultimately lose the forest for the trees. At bottom, a democratic system of government should connote limits to power. In other words, it entails checks and balances; governments and people in power must be held back from excesses not by their own goodwill or strength of character, but by institutions and rules which are enforced. Where exactly those red lines are drawn differs from system to system, but reasonable people can safely distinguish between countries where legitimate checks exist and those where they exist in name only.

If one accepts the definition I have laid out for democracy -- that it speaks to limits to power -- then it becomes clear that the military is far from the only actor that should be held culpable for Pakistan's democratic deficit. Pakistan's civil society, especially its political parties, have aided in Pakistan's tortured relationship with democracy.

The military in Pakistan is a fair but easy target. Its position within Pakistani society and politics has been well-described and detailed; I will limit myself to the most obvious and patently true claims here. First, it secured for itself a position of guardian-of-the-state by amplifying both the (very real) military threat India posed in the formative years of statehood, as well as its ability to adequately deal with that threat -- for all its bluster about one Muslim being the equal of ten Hindus in combat, the Pakistani military has never actually beaten India's in a war. Second, it has entrenched itself in the political and social life of the state with housing cooperatives, business ventures, academic appointments and other areas where the military, as an institution, simply does not belong. Third and most obviously, it has taken it upon itself to remove elected leaders from office any time those elected leaders either pose a threat to the institutional interests of the military, or cross the circumscribed bounds of appropriate conduct for politicians -- bounds drawn, quite naturally, by the military itself.

For these and other reasons, many analyses of Pakistan's failure to become a truly democratic state start and end with the military. It has been the most obvious impediment to representative government, and as such affords an easy target.

It would be remiss, however, to neglect to mention other responsible parties for Pakistan's democratic deficit. Uninformed and Manichean views often treat Pakistan's political parties as Davids taking on Goliath, unable to change the course of politics only because the military stands in its way. Such views are heavily misguided; Pakistan's political parties, with some exceptions, are as interested in democracy as a system of government as the military itself.

First, Pakistani mainstream political parties are highly personalist -- they exist less as instruments of democratic spirit than objects to be owned and molded by chiefs and party heads. The Pakistan People's Party, almost universally regarded as the country's biggest party, is an apt example. Formed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, it has never been headed by someone not related to the former Prime Minister -- when Bhutto was hanged in 1979, the party was transferred to his wife, and then his daughter, who in turn was assassinated in 2007, upon which the party was handed to her husband and then nineteen year-old son. The MQM, an ethnic-based party in urban Sindh, is more democratic in its inner workings but still considers the word of its exiled leader Altaf Hussain as quite literally the word of God. In fact, it requires party-members to sign the following oath, one which appears truly bizarre to outsiders:

I,... believing that Allah is here and watching over me, swearing by His book and my mother, take oath that I shall remain loyal to the MQM and Altaf Hussain for my whole life. I will not take part in any conspiracy, planning or action against MQM or Altaf Hussain and I will not maintain any link with anyone who is involved in any of the acts mentioned above. I swear by my mother that if any conspiracy against MQM or Altaf Hussain or any act harmful to them come into my knowledge, I shall immediately inform Altaf Hussain or other main leaders, even if the conspirator be my brother, sister, mother, father, any relative or friend...I swear that I will keep every secret of my party and regard it more precious than my life. I swear that I shall accept Altaf Hussain's decision as final in any matter and obey all his decisions. If I disobey any of his decisions, I must be regarded as a traitor. I swear that I have and I will have blind trust in party leader Altaf Hussain...May God help me to remain firm and loyal to the MQM.

Few mainstream Pakistani political parties hold internal elections -- the Jamaat-e-Islami is one notable exception -- and most are identifiable by a personality more so than an agenda. This, then, is the first problem: when loyalty to personalities consumes political parties, it becomes hard to reconcile the contradiction between ostensible demands for democracy on the one hand, and unquestioned and unbridled internal power on the other. It is a strange experience to hear Kings and Queens talk about democracy, even if they are Kings and Queens of parties rather than countries.

The second point to be made about political parties is that all too often, they have been willing to make Faustian bargains with military rulers or their associates in the domestic intelligence communities, all for their self-interest and short-term access to power. Nawaz Sharif, the man who today speaks most vociferously and stridently in favor of democracy, began his political career as a protege (and pawn) of Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus, and helped destabilize Benazir Bhutto's first term in power in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Benazir herself was remarkably open to deals with autocrats, as long as she was guaranteed a fair sum of power in return. The MQM, as well as various religious parties, have all in past helped prop up military rule. In short, Pakistani political parties talk a good game about democracy, right up to the point where they can gain from not doing so; it takes very little arm-twisting for them to sacrifice principles for power.

Third, Pakistani political parties behave in highly undemocratic ways when in power. Recall our definition of democracy: a system of government with an involved set of checks and balances, and limits on power. In term after term, Pakistan's civilian leaders have attempted to dismantle any limits on power that may exist, and have attempted to centralize power in the executive. This is a truism applicable especially to those civilians elected in the post-1971 era, and especially to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The former made viable political competition in the country difficult at best, moved against trade unions (despite purportedly representing a left-of-center party) and other civil society organizations, clamped down on the press, and was perhaps the most megalomaniacal leader Pakistan has ever had (which is really saying something). Nawaz Sharif meanwhile, that champion of an independent judiciary, had his party's cadres storm the Supreme Court to obviate the apex court hearing a case against him in 1997. He also attempted to declare himself Ameer-ul-Momineen (leader of the faithful), which would have left him with de facto autocratic powers. Even today, President Asif Zardari has dragged his feet on a campaign promise to repeal laws that allow the executive to dissolve parliament at his discretion; it is unclear what factors, other than a desire for greater power, could be responsible for the delay.

In conjunction, these three factors -- the highly personalist and loyalty-based political processes within parties, the proclivity to cut deals with military governments for short-term gain, and undemocratic behavior even from nominal democrats in power -- have meant that Pakistan's military has had an able partner in its destruction of democratic institutions. Very few parties can claim to have not played a role in this destruction at some time or another. Political parties in Pakistan have become adept at using the word "democracy" as a stick to beat the authoritarian government du jour, and have used it as an instrument to paint themselves as guarantors of a liberal and democratic order, if only given the chance by Western backers (Benazir Bhutto, with her Harvard and Oxford education, turned lobbying and schmoozing in Washington, New York and London into an art-form).

The country's much-celebrated lawyers movement cannot escape these characterizations. Acknowledged both at home and abroad as a brave and peaceful movement for the rule of law that ultimately brought an end to Pervez Musharraf's tenure as Pakistan's leader, the lawyer's movement has shown an ugly side in recent weeks. For one thing, the leader of the movement, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, has shown that he too cannot respect institutional boundaries, and demonstrated an alarming tendency to meddle in political affairs that are neither his nor his court's concern.

Moreover, lawyers have been involved in acts of violence recently, hardly serving as exemplars of the rule of law for which their putatively fought for over two years. In incidents widely reported in the Pakistani media recently, they physically assaulted both journalists and police. While it would be unfair to paint with broad brushes and implicate the entire movement because of the actions of a few, cynical observers of Pakistani politics have not been disabused of the notion that the lawyers movement was nothing more than a segment of society acting out to secure its parochial interests (the judiciary and the lawyers), seized upon by opportunistic parties and stakeholders (the PML-N, Imran Khan) as a vehicle to launch an anti-regime movement. While its ends were noble in the sense that they called for an end to military dictatorship, one must be careful to not impute the lawyers with pure and snow-white motives. By their recent actions, the lawyers and the judiciary -- or at least some elements of it -- have shown that the spirit of democracy, limits to power and the rule of law are tactical tools, not non-negotiable ends. In this, they are hardly alone in Pakistan's civil society.

Oh, It's ON Now

Barack Obama is taking his fight on healthcare reform all the way to the NYT's op-ed page.

Israel Launches Airstrike on Swine Flu

I'm not even kidding. Israel really does need to develop some other solutions to its serious problems.



I would also like to point out the contemporary impossibility of getting a PIA plane filled entirely with wailing and screaming imams and mullahs, to fly over Pakistan. Primarily because the Americans are currently likely to shoot it down.

The Rabbi going nuts on the phone is the best. Also a big fat shout out to S for the link.

Celebrating Independence Day By Not Celebrating It

I looked at the my computer clock thingy on the bottom right hand side of my screen today and realized it's August 13, one day before independence day. For a second, I thought I should have a commemorative post on the blog but I didn't know quite what to say. Plus, I think "celebrating" independence day is kind of silly -- I've never really understood it. I mean, I understand why governments and political parties and organizations make a big show-and-tell about it. But I never understand why ordinary people bother putting up flags on their cars or houses or bicycles. I suppose the "day off work" thing is kind of cool, and the crazy bikers on Seaview have a reason to advertise the lack of silencers. But actually feeling pride or whatever else I'm supposed to feel on August 14? I just don't get it. It's just another day for me.

Anyway, for clues on what to say for the blog, I went through our archives (this blog officially became three years old on August 2). And it became quite apparent that our blog hasn't exactly marked this day with great fervor since its inception.

For instance, on August 14 2006, NB had a post. It was about Abdul Sattar Edhi's autobiography. The one throwaway line about independence day was "In my mind, he's the Pakistani who most deserves to be discussed on the 14th of August." Good one, NB. Nice segue. Seriously, well played.

In 2007, we didn't even bother with a post. None of us. Not one. Check the archives.

In 2008, we had a veritable orgy of posts on August 14 and 15 (I'm adding the 15 because we live across multiple time zones, and so a post we wrote on August 14 according to local time might show up as August 15 in the archives, not because we're secret RAW agents infiltrating the Pakistani blogosphere).

I posted a video of a PPP motorcade followed by extremely lame cop cars, a video taken by yours truly, and a quote by Sassi Palejo comparing Musharraf to Hitler. AKS posted a charming personal story about bigotry within the Jamaat-e-Islami. Bubs posted a thorough critique of an Amir Taheri column on the question of impeaching Musharraf. And NB posted on sex aunties Karachi defence horny (you have absolutely no idea how much this post has poisoned our search referral logs).

You will notice that none of these posts had anything to do with independence day.

Anyway, I think it's fair to see that us five rupee-ers treat August 14 like all people older than fifteen think of their birthday: unable to figure out what the fuss is about, but will take the merriment and distraction from everyday stuff. Not exactly bumper sticker material, but there you go.

Speaking of bumper stickers, I say we have a mini-competition. Try to sum up Pakistan in ten words or less. Here's my effort:

Hey, world! We're still here, despite our best efforts.

Happy independence day, everyone. And to those back home, enjoy the day off and the long weekend.

You Go, Girl

Rachel Maddow hits all the right notes here. I highly recommend watching this.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I don't think it's easy for people outside the U.S. right now to properly gauge just how absolutely crazy the hardcore base of the conservative movement is acting right now. From their media stars (Limbaugh, Beck) to irresponsible politicians (Palin, Cheney) to nutjob foot-soldiers, they have all coalesced around the idea that Barack Obama is dangerous, is a Nazi, is a Socialist (anyone remotely familiar with European history will find those characterizations going hand in hand quite funny), and is a threat -- a physical threat -- that must be countered. Combined with racist misgivings about his race...I don't even want to put in words what I'm thinking. You know what I'm talking about.

Quote Of The Day

Paul Krugman sums up the nutty portion (and it's quite sizable in my mind) of the American right:

Obama is a Kenyan-born Nazi Muslim planning to euthanize seniors while putting them in concentration camps.

Don't forget, he's also ashamed of his country, the one he's not actually a citizen of.

Poll Post

You can comment on this week's poll here.

Blog Recommendations

Three recommendations for you guys today.

Since the football season is set to begin, the Barca fans out there should check out The Offside: Barcelona blog as well as the Barca Transfer Zone. I've been reading the former for quite a while and recently started reading the latter. They're both excellent, check 'em out. Also, the Offside blog has a bunch of links to other team blogs run on a similar basis (i.e. The Offside: Real Madrid or The Offside: Chelsea or whatever), so if you're a fan of some other team (in any league), you should follow the link and you'll find where you need to go.

On the U.S. politics side, you guys should check out Ezra Klein. He's very wonkish (the type of person who reads think tank reports for fun) and has a very clear way of presenting complicated policy ideas. He's been particularly useful for me during this whole healthcare debate.

All three are being added to the blogroll on the right.

Five Fun Videos -- One For Every Rupee

It's been a while since I did one of these video collection posts.

A number of you might have already seen this clip of Ricky Gervais talking about Hitler and Nietzsche. In case you haven't, it's comedic gold.




Reader Wasay sent me the following video. I can't decide if it's the funniest thing I have ever seen, the scariest thing I have ever seen, or the craziest thing I have ever seen. You decide.





Since the football season is almost underway, I thought I'd put up a goal from Barcelona's campaign last season. It's from a fairly unlikely source (Keita) but I'm putting it up because it exemplifies Barca's season and style of play. 19 passes in all, and not one of them was a wasteful or silly or needless. Precision football at its finest.





Here's a completely bizarre video from Radiohead. The song is called "House of Cards" and the video was made without any cameras or lights. As the Youtube description tells it, "Instead, 3D plotting technologies collected information about the shapes and relative distances of objects. The video was created entirely with visualizations of that data." It's also aided by the fact that it's an absolutely kickass song.





Finally, this video is for the Sopranos fans out there. It's the one hit that remains etched in my memory more than the others, if only for the brilliance of the production of the scene. I don't know much about film, but this was a great sequence.

What about you, readers? Put your video recommendations in the comments below.

The Greatest Endorsement Aunty Disco Project Is Likely To Receive...Ever

So Aunty Disco Project, a band led by my good friend Oba, is having a concert in Karachi at Rangoonwala Hall on August 16 (for information on where to get tickets, click here). Aside from encouraging all of you Karachi readers to go watch them play live, I have an observation to make. Before we get to that, however, allow me to show you Oba's promotional video for the concert:




Uh, alright.

Anyway, aside from making weird promotional videos, Oba and his band happen to be pretty talented. So when I saw this promotional video, I decided to go back to Youtube and watch their video of my favorite song by them, called Sultanat.

When I did so, I was happily humming the tune to myself, before my eyes shifted to the right hand side of the page. I saw a quite curious looking description of the video, and chose to expand it. This is what resulted:


This is the complete description, for those who can't read off the image (which you can click for a bigger view):

Sultanat. A nice song I picked off somewhere.

Wake Up Pakistan. Start supporting your artists.

I dont understand why some motherfuckers are so crazy about bollywood shit? Shit from a nation that has always wanted us dead tore our territor in half using the disunity and squabbling of our bastard ghaddar power hungry leaders and Bhutto's half dick family.

Wake Up Pakistanis godamnit. This is your country and you are playing a hand in destroying it if you dont support your nation, your economy, industry and people.

Now, there are a number of issues that come straight to mind, but since it's 2 a.m. and I'm sleepy, I will concentrate on just three.

First, I am willing to bet any amount of money that Oba and ADP have never, ever, EVER received an endorsement quite like this.

Second, I consider myself intimately familiar with most insults and cuss-words -- I'm actually quite proud of my dirty-word vocabulary -- but I have to say, "half dick family" is a new one for me. What does that even mean? Does that mean that the entire family has half a dick between them? Or that each male in the family only has 50% of their natural endowment? Or, alternatively, that everyone in the family -- women included -- have half penises, as the family decided to share its quota of male genitalia equitably between all its members (no pun intended)?

Third, the person in charge of this delightful exhortation to support ADP and others like them has a very interesting Youtube profile. He is not actually that nutty, it's just that he has an interesting way of expressing himself. And some interesting historical theories. For instance, the first thing we are told when we click on their page is that

This is a Pakistani Nationalist Channel and one of the worst of its Kind. We are called supremacists in our circles and we believe that only Pakistani Nationalism can save Pakistan.

Which is sort of redundant when you consider that the background image to the page is a tiled set of pictures of a Ghauri missile test. We are also told that

Though I cannot talk of all of us but I believe it is the responsibility of every Pakistani to fix the issues that exist within our society. We have to remember that Pakistan is everything. Without Pakistan we have nothing. No identity, no path and absolutely no direction.

Which may not be completely true but also isn't complete nonsense when you think about it. The ADP fan gives us yet more advice when he says:

The current situation where disloyalty and being traitors seems to be the norm it is the duty of every citizen to correct the wrongs perpetuated by the corrupt government and our leaders, bought off terrorist bastards and criminals who steal for the leaders. We must eliminate corrupt animals and slay talibani dogs and criminals.

And as for the slaying talibani dogs and criminals bit, our ADP fan seems to practice what he preaches with this remarkable nugget:

Oh yes and i enjoy killing taliban and terrorists. I shot terrorist dead 2 bastards in Mingora, Swat like dogs. One of them begged me to spare him but i delivered my kalashnikov right in his brain for burning our schools. This is what Talibani traitors taking orders from Indian RAW and CIA deserve.

You will all die. You bastards and faggots. On top of corrupt governance we had to be gifted with brainless tribals.

Now, the homophobic comments were sort of needless, but you can't accuse this fellow of lacking passion, that's for sure. He also has a word for those who cling to religion tightly in this country of ours:

Another thing about me is I dont follow any religion. I am an athiest and strongly against Islam in Pakistan and it is only because of taliban and terrorists that it is so. There purpose was to drive away the people of Pakistan from Islam and they have been successful. I am so sick of the problems this Islam has caused for Pakistan that I am done with it. Congratulations terrorists!

You have to love the sarcasm, you really do. That "congratulations, terrorists!" line sounds eerily like something I would say (though, as you may have noted, I would have used the correct punctuation).

The final note (and it's actually called "Final Note" on his page) is as follows:

A day will come when every terrorist criminal and corrupt bastard will have to pay a very heavy price for betraying Pakistan. We want an absolute end to poverty in Pakistan. We want Pakistan to be the country that it deserves because in 47 we gave our lives for it. Pakistan deserves more from us.

Wake Up Oh Pakistan! Stop supporting the economy of foreign lands and raise the flag of your nation high. Eliminate corruption and crime and start supporting your industries and economy. We are betraying our country by listening to Indian music and watching their movies. Pakistanis must be more patriotic and must stop the nonsense that has been going on for 60 years and demand their right. South Korea got freedom at the time we got it and it was in much worse situation. In fact the Korean war left it devastated. But a government that wanted to develop the country changed that. A people who were strong willed and supported their own economy industry and people made the dream come true. We on the other hand dont even want to accept our basic right which is the right to love our nation beyond everything else and hold it higher than everything else.

All I can say to those corrupt criminal bastards and the terrorists is they are waiting for a genocide. They will suffer for betraying Pakistan. That is certain!

Now, tell me this, readers. Aren't you glad I surf the internet as much as I do? Aren't you happy I find stuff like this for you? Seriously, what would you do without me?

Jamie Foxx Is Mean

Here's another cringe-worthy video for your troubles. Wait for about the 1:35 mark -- it's like watching one of those Animal Planet videos as the lion circles the hyena. Poor Doug Williams has absolutely nowhere to hide.




Question for you guys: does this make Jamie Foxx more or less likable?

Quote Of The Day

Repeat quote-of-the-day award winner Jose Mourinho graces us once more, after Lazio beat his Inter side in a preseason friendly in China.

Lazio have the joy of winning, and we have the tranquility of having a team and a future.

Has this man ever lost graciously? Seriously -- has it ever happened?

I have to say, I sort of miss having Mourinho be part of my life. I mean, can you imagine the fall-out from last season's Champions League semi-final between Barcelona and Chelsea if Mourinho was still manager of Chelsea? I'm pretty sure Ballack's and Drogba's reactions would have paled in comparison to Mourinho's. Seriously, what do you think would have happened?

Will Someone Please Hand Bilawal A Spliff?

Dude needs to chill the fuck out.




Oh bhai, why are you so angry? Your crush de-friend you on Facebook? Got a C in "Readings on the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars"? PIA staff not deferential enough on your flight home? What happened?

At least he gave this speech in Urdu -- Urdu so terrible that it makes his mother sound like Ghalib, but Urdu nonetheless. But for high levels of unintentional comedy, please watch this video of another speech from a couple of weeks ago. He tries to deliver a populist speech in English, which is sort of like showing up to a funeral in a clown suit.




By the way, I sometimes feel a little bit of guilt in my mocking of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. After all, he's younger than me, and what sort of mean-spirited prick makes fun of people younger than him? Also, he lost his mother to a violent and public death, a pain none (or very few) of us will probably ever know.

But then I think: no. The injustice of him being handed, quite literally, the country's largest political party on a platter, while he hasn't even finished college, is a travesty. It is a slap in the face of every PPP stalwart who has put in years of service to the party, and it is a slap in the face to all Pakistanis -- educated and uneducated -- who should expect more from the party that claims to espouse liberal and secular values. What could be more illiberal than nepotism and the casting away of merit as a basis for leadership? The sense of entitlement that pervades the Bhutto family and its literal ownership of the PPP is nauseating.

And so I continue to make fun of him, because it is what he and his party deserve.

How Will Baitullah Mehsud's Death Affect Pakistan And Its War Against The Taliban?

It is worth considering in some detail the repercussions of Baitullah Mehsud's death. While I don't claim to have all the answers, I will attempt to highlight here what I consider to be the most important questions in the aftermath of this event.

1. How significant is the potential for a succession struggle?

Any time an organization has a leader to replace -- whether it be a terrorist organization or an investment bank or a law firm -- there exists the possibility of succession disputes and splintering. This is particularly true for organizations that are opaque and secretive in their business, such as insurgent organizations or mafia groups, because there is a greater probability that signals are missed, misinformation is spread, jealousy is improperly and violently channeled, and power struggles within the organization take precedence over the organization's external dealings. With teachers unions or modern democratic parties, for instance, all members are privy to the same information -- even if they don't share the same goals -- and as such there is less room for misperceptions leading to escalating internecine conflict. This is patently not the case for the TTP.

In the TTP's case, there have been three names bandied about: Waliur Rehman (who is said to be the favorite at this point), Hakeemullah Mehsud (think Sonny Corleone in terms of disposition and character) and Azmatullah Mehsud (the darkhorse). We don't know as yet how this will play out, but there is a chance that elements within the TTP turn on themselves. We must recall that the TTP, as it is presently constituted, is a very new entity -- it was formed no more than two years ago as an umbrella organization for the various factions and tribes that make up what we nominally refer to as the Pakistani (and Afghan) Taliban. It is widely acknowledged that Baitullah's forceful and charismatic leadership played an integral role in ensuring a fair degree of unity within the TTP's ranks; with his departure, it is unclear how strong the bonds that tie the many elements of the TTP together will be.

In short, though by no means overwhelmingly likely, there exists a fair possibility of short-term power struggles and splintering, even if the underlying reasons for the TTP's formation have not significantly changed.

2. How, if at all, will this affect the way Pakistan battles the Taliban?

The answer to this question is contingent on a number of other questions. For instance, if the TTP does splinter, then it makes Pakistan's ability to fight the war at once more difficult and easier. It becomes more difficult because instead of facing one centralized enemy, it could conceivably face attacks from various mini-organizations, concomitant with a compromised ability to gather information and intelligence about its foes. On the other hand, with splintering comes great opportunities for divide-and-conquer; in particular, Pakistan's leadership and military would have a greater likelihood of playing off various groups against each other -- which is how Pakistan, for better or worse, prefers to fight this war.

One must also consider the possiblities if there isn't an organizational reshuffle within the TTP. Suppose, for instance, that the TTP remains intact, exactly as before -- with the same capabilities to wreak destruction. What then? The answer depends on how Baitullah's death affects their intentions, or goals. Will Baitullah's death change what the TTP wants to do?

Maybe. One possible change that could occur is a greater focus on Afghanistan, which Arif Rafiq alludes to as well. Baitullah's geographic roots lie closer to Pakistan than Afghanistan; the region closer to the Afghan border is more under the control of the rival Waziri tribe than the Mehsuds. Combined with the various possibilities of a directional change in leadership, it could be the case that the TTP, in effect, sues for peace with Pakistan to direct its resources against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Such a change in organizational goals, it must be noted, would take a while to be instituted.

Conversely, the TTP could become more aggressive against the Pakistani state and its civilians. Consider that since the wide-ranging offensive undertaken against the Taliban began in May this year, the Taliban have been generally muted in their response. The levels of violence that Pakistani civilians have been subjected this year have been considerably lower than the highs of 2007 and 2008. The killing of their popular (popular to them, it must be emphasized) leader might lead the TTP to launch a series of reprisal attacks designed to intimidate the Pakistan military and sow the seeds of disunity amongst the public.

3. What will be the impact on public opinion?

One of the big foreign policy questions in Pakistan over the last eighteen months has been what role, if any, American drones should play in Pakistan's war against the Taliban. Under the rule of Presidents Musharraf and Bush -- removed from office five months apart -- CIA-operated drones were introduced but limited in the extent to which they were deployed. Under Presidents Zardari and Obama, the use of drones has increased precipitously, all the while maintaining a disingenuous public stance on their use (the Americans don't say anything about them, the Pakistanis publicly denounce them and privately back them). The controversy over the drones has been two-fold. First, they are accused of violating Pakistan's sovereignty. Second, their efficacy has been disputed; it is not at all clear that they don't create more terrorists with collateral damage than they actually kill.

The first issue, in my view, is overblown. As mentioned, the government of Pakistan has given the U.S. the green light to use the drones. As the freely and fairly elected representatives of the Pakistani population, it is fair to presume that the government speaks for the people in interactions with other states. In addition, the violation of Pakistan's sovereignty in the tribal areas was first committed by the Taliban. As I have mentioned before, sovereignty is like virginity: it can logically only be violated once. As soon as the Taliban set up shop and challenged the state in FATA, the state could no longer claim to exercise a monopoly on the legitimate use of force on its territory. Put differently, the state could no longer claim sovereignty in those areas.

The second issue is more worthy of consideration. With every innocent life lost, Pakistan's counter-insurgent strategy risked greater failure. Despite the fact that the drones promised (and, for the most part, delivered) greater accuracy, collateral damage is never completely avoidable when force is used. When combined with the rampant anti-Americanism in the country, the use of drones and their claiming of civilian life meant that Pakistan's leaders would have greater difficulties in convincing their population that this was "their" war, and a war worth fighting. In turn, this made it more difficult to fight the war at all, since any counter-insurgency war depends greatly on local and popular support.

Baitullah's death should help the government in this regard, if they use it correctly. The leadership must frame Baitullah's death as a success for Pakistan, not for the U.S. The government should mount an all-out informational regurgitating campaign, tying Baitullah to the death of thousands of Pakistanis, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. For once, Asif Zardari can prove useful to Pakistan. He must remind Pakistanis that it was his wife that was killed by Baitullah in the midst of a vicious campaign of violence to destabilize Pakistan in the years of 2007 and 2008. Him and his government must make the case, again and again over the next few days, that Baitullah was an enemy of Pakistan, and his death -- however unpopular the methods that brought it about may be -- is an unmitigated victory for Pakistanis.

Developing Story: Baitullah Mehsud Is Dead

The Pakistani media is reporting that Baitullah Mehsud was killed on Wednesday. ISPR is still confirming the reports but has verified that Baitullah Mehsud, his family and close associates were specfically targeted during the week. Interestingly, the ISPR is cryptic about who actually targeted him; my guess is that it was the Americans. The Pakistani army for reasons best known to them has shown little impetus to really go after Mehsud.

Reports are also coming in through media sources that the leaders of the Tehreeq-e-Taliban Pakistan are currently meeting to appoint a successor. They were all present at Mehsud's funeral and have confirmed his death to the media.

Update 1:

The NYT is reporting that a CIA missile strike targeted Mehsud. According to the report:

By Thursday evening, American officials said they were growing increasingly confident that the Taliban leader was dead. Still, they cautioned that it may be weeks before they are certain, and they may never gain access to the remote location in South Waziristan to perform DNA tests.

A Taliban spokesman while confirming Mehsud's death has also stated that an American drone was responsible.

If Mehsud is in fact dead then that is a very positive development, however I fear that in the short term we may be faced with reprisal attacks.

Rehman Malik gave a brief statement that the government was collecting evidence and still waiting for confirmation. He went on to say that Baituallah Mehsud was the number one target for the Pakistani government and the army had been specifically mobilized against him.

Update 2:

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has confirmed the death of Baitullah Mehsud.

DawnNews reports that a successor to Mehsud is likely to be announced by the TTP Shura today; the likeliest candidates are Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali-ur-Rehman Mehsud, both of whom were close aides of Baitullah Mehsud.

Videos And Pictures From Barcelona Vs. Seattle Sounders

I will have a full post on my trip to Seattle in a couple of days, but for now I thought you guys might like to see a couple of videos I took from the game (pretty boring actually, the videos that is, not the game) as well as the pictures of some of the players from up close and the game. The videos are embedded below, the pics are available by clicking here.

Poll Post

Open thread on this week's poll.

Pakistani Cops Aren't Just Idiots They're Assholes

In the last post Zeyd noticed that in the video that the cop strolling in the foyer is a fucking idiot for doing absolutely nothing to help the injured student.

Our cops are idiots, but more than that they are real assholes.

A few months ago I had a pretty nasty accident on Khy-e-Ittehad. It was a Saturday afternoon and there was hardly a car on the road, a motorcycle was trundling along on the far left side of the road and I could see him from afar, as I neared the motorcycle, the rider veered sharply too the right. A lot of screeching and braking later I was on the pavement on the other side of the road, having flown over the divider in a bid to avoid the motorcyclist.

My first thought was that I had killed the rider, thankfully I had only clipped the idiot and he and his bike were relatively okay (the same though could not be said about my car). As it so happens, it took thirty seconds for a huge group to accumulate, and interestingly they all knew more about what happened than either me or the rider, even more interesting is the fact that at the time there were no cars coming from the other side or anywhere behind or in front of us to actually be able to see what happened, nor were there more than five people on the road around us. It didn't take long for people to accuse me of driving really fast, one person claimed I was going at 140 (I was driving at around 80-90 kmph), the motorcyclist was accused of being an idiot (which he was), etc, etc.

I was simply relieved that I hadn't killed the man or injured him badly, which was a distinct possibility. And as pissed off as I was, I knew exactly why the motorcyclist took a blind turn (and this the motorcyclist admitted later). The road ahead bends to the right and its not possible to see around the corner until you reach the spot from where the motorcyclist took the right, incidentally that is also the last cut in the road and after that you have no option but to head straight on and around the bend. And that's where you will find them, the guardians of peace. They're always there, and they almost always stop motorcyclists. This particular man, a office assistant sent to drop off some documents, had seldom travelled on this road and seeing the cops he panciked and tried to turn to avoid going straight.

Getting back to the aftermath, the group had slowly increased though the people were dissapointed (I'm honestly not joking) once they realised that nobody was fighting, it is at this moment that almost everyone advised the motorcyclist to get out of there and me to call someone to lift the car; they wanted us to clear the area before the cops got there.

Unfortunately, five minutes later the cops (it took the fuckers 10-12 minutes after the accident to travel 200 meters from where they were stationed!) did arrive and started jostling us, shouting around and asking everyone what had happened. A few good Samaritans noticing that we were still a bit shook up stepped up to speak with the cops and told them that the matter had been resolved, the cops insisted that we should go to the police station with them so that the matter could be dealt with 'officially.' Thankfully for us the everyone ganged up on the cops and after a few minutes of convincing they left. Not once did they ask check to see if we needed medical attention, or even ask us if we were okay. The only thing they asked us was if we wished to lodge an F.I.R. against each other, and checked to see if we actually had resolved the matter.

Lastly, as mentioned the accident was caused because of the cops conducting 'checking' up ahead, apparently to make us safer. But in honesty this exercise has no impact on the crime rate. The police sit in the same spot each day, and everyone who wishes to avoid the cops knows not to pass through these specific points. The cops only achievement is that they ruin your day by being exceedingly rude and then getting some cash out of you. The criminals meanwhile take one of the many unmanned access roads and can go about doing their stuff, knowing full we that the cops are too busy guarding VIPs or making money off motorcyclists to bother with stopping crime.

P.S. By the way equally assholic were the people outside of whose my car finally rested and where the motorcyclist and I convened, the residents of the house watched us from the balcony but did offer any help whatsoever. Instead it was the attendant / gardener from a public park from across the house who got us some water and helped us out even after the crowd had dissipated.

Pakistani Student versus Electronic Door

I fear for this country's future.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does (Updated Below)

About a month ago, Bubs had a post on a person named Aslam Jinnah, who claimed to be the great-grandson of Pakistan's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Of course, it turned out to be a scam and much laughter ensued.

Well, I see your fake great-grandson, and raise you a fake associate.

Over in Mumbai, a 29-year old man named Aijaz Mehboob Khan claimed to be an associate of Gandhi. No, not the new ones. The original. The vinyl. Mahatma friggin Gandhi. Again, the dude is 29.

Anyway, after claiming that he was an associate of Gandhi's, he convinced people to give him money because he would invest it soundly in government contracts "for maintaining computers". Laypeople, interpreting Aijaz's close relationship to Gandhi as constituting evidence that this was a good idea, happily obliged and gave him a total of 50 lakh rupees between ten victims.

By the way, you may be wondering how a 29 year-old man managed to convince people that he was an associate of Gandhi's given, um, the age difference. Here's how: he showed people the picture below, and if the picture didn't do the job, the brilliant caption surely did.


In case you can't read the caption, it says "Mumbai: Congress President Mahatma Gandhi and the President of Azad Hind Party Aijaz Khan together in the rally at Mumbai Azad Maidan. And after the rally they went to meet General Bob for discussing about the arrest of Bhagat."

Ok, now for the obvious questions:

1. They were ten victims and 50 lakh rupees proferred (for Westerners, that's about $100,000). That means each victim was certainly not poor, and it probably means that they weren't uneducated. So I guess my question is: what are they teaching in Indian schools? And shouldn't their curricula now include Intro to Photoshop?

2. Um, what the fuck?

3. If you're going to set up a con like this, and insert a picture of yourself standing next to Gandhi despite the fact that you were born three decades after Gandhi died, shouldn't you at least try to make the caption grammatically correct?

4. No, seriously, what the fuck?

5. Are these the same people who respond to the bank account emails from Nigeria? If yes, how do they have money left to invest? If not, what is the difference between the two groups?

(link via India Uncut)

UPDATE: One additional question. Shouldn't residents of Mumbai know that in 1945, their city was called "Bombay"?

UPDATE II: Reader Tan suggested a photoshopping competition with the original image, which I'm reproducing below.


Now, I'm not very good with computer/technological stuff, but here's the best I could come up with:


If you want in on the competition, email me at fiverupeesadminATgooglegroupsDOTcom with your work and I'll put it up if it meets our high standards of photo doctoring. No viruses please, thanks.

UPDATE III: Here's Tan's work. It's a slightly more sophisticated attempt than mine.


Someone should try one with a fake headline like the Times of India thing by our friend Aijaz Mehboob Khan.

Here's an attempt by reader Arataster:


Here's NB's entry:
(Updated by NB): This one is by the Caffeinist. Oddly, I find Pam & Gandhi more unnervingthan Winehouse & Gandhi. With Winehouse, he comes across as as a faith healer at a press conference with a tough patient, whearas with Pam, he looks ecstatic with his score. Also, disturbingly, she's dressed herself up like a ship captain for him.


UPDATE IV: Tan is now just rubbing it in our faces, sending multiple entries to cement his position as King of the Gandhi Photoshop. Here's his second entry:


Here's an entry by reader llamapeople. By the way, I haven't had a haircut in a few months so I don't really look like this anymore.

The Beginnings Of Genius

Via the FC Barcelona blog, I saw this 25 minute documentary on the rise and rise of Lionel Messi, complete from his childhood in Rosario to his debut as a first-team Barcelona player. To get the subtitles, click the little triangle on the bottom right hand side of the Youtube window and then click on "turn on captions". Enjoy.








What a guy.