Talk:Pervez Musharraf

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

---

Kirgil 1999 war with India

Don't forget to mention that Musharraf was responsible for Pakistani involvement in Kashmir during 1999, specifically the Northern Light Infantry Division.

No conclusive or persuasive evidence that Musharraf was involved in nuclear proliferation

This article states that " Musharraf has denied knowledge of or participation by Pakistan's government or army in this proliferation." but then goes on on to say that that there is evidence to the contrary. It cites 4 links. But none of these links provide evidence that is persuasive or conclusive. Here are my comments on these links:

• [1] (http://spot.pcc.edu/~rwolf/nkorea_pak_nuke.htm)

NYT article dated November 24, 2002. This was well before the extent and independence of A.Q.Khan's rogue proliferation activities became known (in 2004.) North Korea had indeed received Pakistani nuclear technology, but not from the Pakistani government. Even in that NYT article, it says,

"Intelligence officials say they have seen no evidence of exchanges since Washington protested the July missile shipment. Even in that incident, they cannot determine if the C-130 that picked up missile parts in North Korea brought nuclear-related goods to North Korea.

But American and Asian officials are far from certain that Pakistan has cut off the relationship, or even whether General Musharraf is in control of the transactions. [emphasis mine]

• [2](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43573-2002Nov26&notFound=true,)

WaPo article date November 27, 2002, titled "Defector From N. Korea Creating a Stir in Japan." The defector claimed that Pakistan provided nuclear technology to North Korea. But again, the question - whether it was A. Q. Khan's organisation or the government of Pakistan - is not resolved. And the Japanese Foreign Ministry

"say his more sensational claims also cannot be proved -- and could complicate delicate diplomacy with North Korea.

"We just don't know for sure" about Aoyama, insisted a high-ranking official.

• [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/2339663.stm)

BBC news article dated 18 October, 2002. Again, this is before they found out that A.Q.Khan had been running a rogue operation.

"The Americans said that North Korea was trying to obtain large quantities of high-strength aluminium for centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium to provide bomb-making material.

"The Americans suspect that Pakistan has given North Korea critical help here - perhaps even the gas centrifuges themselves." As it turned out, A. Q. Khan did sell the centrifuges or parts thereof to N.Korea, but the parts were made in Malaysia and other places. This link is not relevant to the question of whether Musharraf knew about the provision of nuclear technology to N. Korea

• [4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/2/132757.shtml))

An article dated June 4, 2003. Another article that predates the revelations of the extent of A.Q.Khan's rogue network. By this time, it had become widely known that N.Korea had Pakistani uranium-enrichment technology. It had naturally been assumed that the government was involved. As it turned out, though, the nuclear technology that N.Korea had was provided by A.Q.Khan.

Common elements here are that (1) the links are old. (2)They mention North Korea's provision of missile technologies to Pakistan, which is not disputed. (3) They incorrectly point to N. Korean possession of Pakistani nuclear technology as evidence that the Pakistani government was involved, when in the evidence now available points to A. Q. Khan's independent nuclear-supply network, which operated almost exclusively outside of Pakistan. For this reason, I feel justified in removing these links.

This article is written by Musharraf's son

So much pro Musharraf !

If a CFO says he is unaware of accounting frauds, his ass will be kicked.

Musharraf, being self-assumed president and army chief says he was unaware of nuclear proiliferation by AQ, and this arcticle gives him an easy pass on that.

Similarly, on Kargil war, he was solely responsible. But clean sheet even there too

   I would like to know how you know he was solely responsible. Please do provide some citation or reference other than an opinion. I personally thought this article was a little anti-Musharrah as it constantly referred to Nawaz Sharif as the 'democratic' or 'constitutional' PM, even though mentioning it once is enough.Apermal 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf's family background

There seems to some confusion about the socioeconomic status of Musharraf's family. I believe the confusion comes from an article that describes Musharraf's father, Syed Musharraf-ud-Din, as a "cashier" in the Directorate General of Civil Supplies in India. In modern American usage, the term cashier is a person responsible for totaling the amount due for a purchase and then charging the consumer for that amount. In the British Raj, however, the word "cashier" meant "treasurer" or Comptroller. According to this report from Express India, his extended family lived in a 24,817 sq.ft. compound, suggesting that they were fairly well-off.

Does anybody know if this guy is Punjabi or an Urdu-Speaker?

This guy is a muhajir and is a urdu speaker. He has nothing to do with Punjab. By the way idleguy thinks this is not a family tree however why have his brother in the subject

His autobiography states that his parents were Urdu speakers, but that he had to learn the language in his mid-teens at his return from Turkey.

Conflicting Birthdates

1947 or 1943? It is written in his book that he was 4 years and 3 days old. That makes it 1943.

The article is neutral

Coming back to the issue of this being POV or neutral, wonder what those who are accusing it of being POV really want as neutrality? An extremist point of view perhaps or Musharraf according to the POV of Islamist parties? powerblue

What I'd like as neutrality is sources. I'm not even near being an "Islamist extremist" (save an Islamist even), so don't look at me that way. SushiGeek 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

'Wikipedia Fails Its Own Standards

I am amazed that you have not informed your readers that this article is not neutral anymore.

I have personally included at least fifteen times the details of Mushrraf making comments that women rape victims in Pakistan made allegations for the money they could get from doing so. He then subsequently denied making these malleegations and the Globe has since put up a transcript of this interview which proves him to have been lying. This and other infrmation such as Musharraf's alliance with the religious extremist Muttahida Alliance in Pakistans Parliament and his dismissal of Supreme Court Justice Taqi Usmani have all been continually been deleted and removed by Islamabad and its lackeys. It does your website a great disservice to not at leat mention that the neutrality of this article is severely disputed. (163.1.231.83 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

I have added his regreattable actions on women rape victims in Pakistan and will make sure that they are included in this page.

Siddiqui 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From User Dargay: Musharraf's government has made strident efforts to improve the lot of women in Pakistan. The Washington Post is simply interested in generating some controversy for which they ambushed Musharraf into making some comments about a particular rape case in Pakistan. I think we are all well aware of the desire of the Western press to attack high-profile targets and criticize. I do not think too much weight should be given to some comments made by Musharraf to the Washington Post.

This article is NOT NEUTRAL

The people who constantly remove a balanced view from this essay continue not to allow any mention of the fact that Musharraf is in an alliance with the Muttahida Majlis Amal, a collection of religious extremist parties in Pakistan which includes the Jamaat Islami. This groups website makes their radical connections clear and their leader has appeared on the BBC's hardtalk programme denying Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. Musharraf's alliance with this party has constantly been removed from this article because it contradicts the regimes desire to portray his liberal image. For our part we have not deleted the references to hsi liberalism but any opposing view has constantly been deleted. This alone makes this article biased and it should be advertised as such. (163.1.231.83 04:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Musharraf cannot pretend that the MMA does not exist and has no votebank. He has to deal with everyone in Pakistan. A foreigners sitting in the US may demand that the MMA be completely isolated, that is not possible inside Pakistan.

Neutrality challenged

The neutrality of this article has been challenged manya time and it is incumbent on wikipedia to restore confidence in their srvice by making this clear. on a related note, why is everyone trying to cover the fact that this is essentially an undemocratic government whose head has now given false statements about retiring from office more than once.

This is exactly correct. Its amazing that when it comes to pakistan, we cant simply state the amazing facts and let them speak for themselves. Fact is, the facts would be seriously harmful to the image certain pakistanis want to portray. I'd suggest they go back home and work to change those facts, rather than changing the wikipedia article on those facts.--71.251.57.160 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. If someone wants to include a well cited criticism section about his govt., show his his comparitive dispopularity or gradual decrease of national confidence in his rule, I don't think it would be inappropriate. omerlivesOmerlives 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with POV

The edit before my own contained the following sentences "According to the constitution of Pakistan 1973, any person overthrowing civilian government without constitutional authority commits high treason for which he or she will be punished with life imprisonment or death penalty. Musharraf has faced none of the above penalties!" in the "Coup d'etat and election" sub heading.

These sentences are blatantly POV. Whoever wrote this needs to keep their biases in check in factual parts of the article. If they have specific grievances against Musharraf, they may create a sub heading with a title like "Criticisms of Musharraf's rule/assumption of power" and detail them there. "Musharraf has faced none of the above penalties!" is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia.

More POV problems & references

    Role in Kargil Conflict
    From April to June, 1999, Pakistan and India were involved in the Kargil Conflict in which 
 Musharraf was Pakistan's Army chief. This conflict resulted in 'eventual mistrust 
between civil and military leaderships and this division ultimately saw the demise' of 
democratic system in Pakistan. Pakistan Army masterminded the Kargil War 'without any 
intimation' to the civilian government, causing a loss of over 5,000 Pakistani Army 
officers and soldiers. The heavy loss of life and the reactions to the same caused the Army 
to overthrow the elected government, 'all in order to protect the Generals from public 
humiliation.'

This is disgusting! POV and needs citations! I can't even read more off this article!

Ozzykhan 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 58.65.182.163 for removing parts of that section Ozzykhan 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that democracy should be restored in the country and once done it should formulate such Laws / regulations in the country which prevent military people to take over because it has only lead us to discontinuation of policies, irrespective of whatever shape and form they were. Above all military is, only, there to secure the borders of the country and not to rule it.

"war on terror" is inappropriate

Call the war on terror the war on terror - not, the "war on terror". Unlike the Vietnam war (which on Wikipedia is not surrounded by quotations) the war on terror has been declared by a near-unanimous vote in the US Congress. Therefore it is factually inaccurate and representative of a non-neutral POV to refer to the war as the "war on terror".

> The US Congress does not determine what is fact.

Use of the word un-Islamic.

I think that you will have to defend that word very carefully. I urge you to modify the text instead to reflect that Musharraf's perceived liberalism is viewed as un-Islamic by some in Pakistan and then to cite that statement. Without that, it cannot remain in the article. Hornplease 10:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for first reverting and then starting a discussion on the talk page. I think I should also revert it back and then reply, if this is the way to go? The section heading need to change and it should say "Anti-islamic according to Pakistanies". Then we could find references from News paper articles. I know there will be lot of references. People could see those article if they do not know what is meant from Anit-Islamic. The section need to rewriten too as it is not unislamic or anti-islamic to give son/daughter higher education but many other things that he had been trying to do. However, all this could be done only if you let it stay that way for sometime without stating a useless edit-war. --- ابراهيم 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahimfaisal (talk • contribs) .

Musharraf is the biggest terrorist. I dont know what his problem is life is. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indians-pakistanis-involved-in-mumbai-blasts/22876-3.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnopnIP (talk • contribs) .

Yes IBrahim that is the right way to go.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Musharraf's views considered AntiIslamic" - removed

I've removed these extremely POV couple of paragraphs from the article. They are poorly sourced and potentially libelous, in my opinion; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is the policy I've removed them according to. If anyone would like to give the text a NPOV and find it some reliable sources, that'd be fine, but in its current state it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Picaroon9288 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf

The Mush dab page has this line:

• Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf

Google search results show that this usage is very common. However, the article does not mention it. --Jtir 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Why is it that most of the sources of this article are from Indian based media such as Times of India etc?. Indian sources will obviously be not neutral. Readers: Caution!

≈ Derek Pringle Derekp 243 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Derek Pringle Does anyone check the sources for various claims and "facts" in this article. For example, the link which is supposed to support the fact that Musharraf had religious leaders arrested for saying he was Qadiani is actually a news item which says 11 religious leaders were arrested for preaching that the religion column should be kept in Pakistani passports and that Musharraf is too kind to Qadianis. It has nothing to do with Musharraf allegedly being one or anything of that nature. Also, the claims made about Pakistan's losses in the 1965 war are not in the sources given. I have not seen many neutral article yet dealing with Pakistan, it seems like many of them get loaded with opinions coming from rediff.com and other Indian news sites. Let's try to only use neutral sources and keep agendas out of this. Fkh82 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Transparency International sources

Recently there has been some edits by users - who incidentally have only done editing in mainly Musharraf related articles - that has put a spin on the TI score for Pakistan sometimes removing original links. This so called "clarification" itself has been misread, misquoted and as a leading Pakistani newspaper editorialised, it was a "a pathetic clarification".[1] The editorial clearly analyses even the clarification and notes that the % increase between the first and second term of Musharraf's regime has been lower than the predecessors, but that the first term corruption index for the dictator was quite higher. But in the end, Sharif's highest of 34%, Bhutto's 48% and Musharraf's 67% clearly indicate that the latter was perceived to be more corrupt. I just wanted to clarify this for the sake of the editors who may have misunderstood the stats. For details, read Daily Times editorial:here. Idleguy 04:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From the one who edited corruption section of article

First of all I would request my Indian friends to not presume that their Indian media presents them a balanced picture of affairs in Pakistan. I am a frequent follower of Indian media and have to say that when it is Pakistan, Indian media portrays an extremely distorted picture of Pakistan. And sometimes even blatant lies without any accountability.

I had following objections on the article.

1) From article,,, "In fact, according to a survey by Transparency International, Musharraf's regime is now perceived by many Pakistanis to be more corrupt than the previous democratic governments led by Ms. Bhutto and Sharif."

In the said survey, TI had asked respondents to compare governments in several ways.

One comparison was Musharraf government 99-02 (martial law) vs Musharraf govt 02-06 (elected government). It is results of THIS survey where 67.31% people perceived elected government of 02-06 as more corrupt than martial law government of 99-02 period.

Remember this is Musharraf vs Musharraf comparison. And realize that if you ask people about a Saint with just two options whether he was more corrupt in period x or more corrupt in period y, then at least 50% people would end up choosing one period of that Saint more corrupt than other (67.31 + 32.69 = 100, no third option).

Now on comparison of Musharraf vs Bhutto or Musharraf vs Sharif, the things were drastically different. Only 3.17% Pakistanis perceived Musharraf govt more corrupt when compared to Bhutto or Sharif govt. And that is true. We Pakistanis know that.

This is the reason Transparency International itself had to say that reports of President Musharraf’s government being more corrupt than the governments of Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif “are absolutely incorrect because they are based on a totally erroneous reading of the TI Survey”.

Now face this statement from a politically neutral institution who was the original source of information.

Face it and do not pollute the article by quoting politically biased media again and again.

2) From article,,, "Critics of his administration point to the fact that Pakistan, which was placed at 79 in the ranking 5 years back[18] is now ranked at 142[19] putting them at one of the most corrupt countries in the world."

a) Musharraf did not take office 5 years back. He took office 7 years back. In his first two years, when he had absolute executive powers, Pakistan’s ranking in corruption had improved. What is the reason of to not include those two years? (except distortion)

b) During these years number of countries in survey have become significantly large (from 91 countries in 2001 to 163 countries in 2006), which naturally leads countries below mean to shift further below mean. This component of shift because of larger size does not imply the country has more corrupt.

3) From article,,, “During his trip to the US to promote his book, he is accused by many in Pakistan to have costed the government exchequer up to $1 million, for which he was criticised by the opposition parties in Pakistan.”

Now this is another distortion "During his trip to the US to promote his book".

Like all heads of governments of all countries, he also goes to US to attend UN General Assembly session. During his last such visit he also participated in book promotion events organized by publisher of his book. It is extremely distortive to report that whole $1 million on that tour was for his book only and UNGA session did not cost anything.

Matter of fact, he mostly travels on regular commercial flights which makes his travels cheaper than travels of previous heads of governments who used to book chartered planes. What is the reason of hiding this fact? (except distortion)

4) From article,,, "Pakistan is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world"

Is the purpose of this article to objectively inform biography of a person, or to subjectively denigrate a country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyaseen (talk • contribs)

The last line was added by someone who decided to join this editing issue without fully reading it. I have removed the needless statement: "Pakistan is now...". Apart from that, you should try to read the sources and not snippets. Daily Times is a Pakistani publication, neither an Indian media nor a "politically biased media" as you believe otherwise. Regardless of all the permutations and combinations in the statistics, the end result remains that Musharraf's peak in the corruption index is more than the previous 2 PM's highest in the ranking. By giving reasons like "number of countries in survey have become significantly large", as the possible answers for his remarkedly high corruption perception, you are merely indulging in WP:OR, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. the 1 million issue was raised by opposition parties, not me. If you have an issue with it then u should blame them. Again you seem to be resorting to original research to explain how his travel costs are broken down. Not acceptable in Wikipedia. And, please use your WP:SIGNATURE in talk pages. tx Idleguy 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding why only the 2001 year was taken, is that Transparency International doesn't list Pakistan in 2000's survey and 1999 was mainly under Shariff's rule (Musharraf only took power late that year). Therefore it would not be a reflection of his rule. But interestingly, Pakistan was ranked 87 in 1999.[2] Idleguy 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Presidential succession box?

Why remove the presidential succession box when the rest of the article still states that Musharraf is the president of Pakistan? I'm reverting its removal (again). Further removals of the box without comment or explanation will be assumed to be vandalism. BigNate37_(T) 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a Presidential Box there already!--71.126.185.253 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's one in the infobox. They should probably both be in the same place though, that is the presidential one and the chiefs of army staff one. Do you think it would be better to remove the succession information from the infobox, or put the chiefs of army staff information at the top with the infobox? Or neither way? BigNate37_(T) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf family Background Punjabi

Is it true that Musharraf s family background is Punjabi . Delhi and the area of Shahajahanabad has had a thriving Punjabi Muslim Community . The community in India continues to be prosperous and prominent . Members of this community include doctors, teachers, engineers and advocates, however most are into business. Seee the link from The Hindu - Metro Plus Delhi Death no leveller in Capital cemetery. From all accounts of where Musharraf s family lived in Delhi there is reason to believe that Musharraf s background is from this community . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.8.126 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).