Using your phone's internet browser
go to:  qna.rediff.com
Click and drag this link to
the Home icon in your browser.
Q.

Was Pakistan safer under Musharraf's regime?

Asked by Maya Bolas, 01 Apr '09 09:27 am
  Invite a friend  |  
  Save  |  
 Earn 10 points for answering
Answer this question  Earn 10 points for answering    
4000 characters remaining  
  
    
Keep me signed inNew User? Sign up

Answers (29)

1.

Safer for Whom? A single person cannot administer any country but only make other percieve that they are doing so. A country is not a company which can be managed by a CEO.With financial and /or Military wizards at the helm animpression is created that countries can be managed by Money or Power .Pakistan can be safer democracyif others stop manipulating and manouvering it ,outsiders and insiders
Answered by DilipVishnu maydeo, 01 Apr '09 09:58 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (3)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
2.

No
Answered by harishanker, 01 Apr '09 09:13 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (3)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
3.

Safe means what??? geographically, politically, economically? A military dictator may only be concerned to proctect its borders but not the political institutions which has been damaged during his rule over Pakistan, the political will of the people also suppresed.
Answered by fayez hussaini, 01 Apr '09 09:01 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (3)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
4.

Yes, Because he was a strong Military man and in good terms with ISI, also he received aid to the extend of 1 billion $s from America and gave them nothing back, not even a cent. So a Perfect Pakistani Muslim in the eye of Pakis.
Answered by Mathu Venkat, 01 Apr '09 08:58 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (1)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
5.

Pakistan can not be safe under any single regime. I had written several times in the past that any government in Pakistan will be nothing other than a petticoat government. It is the feudal lords on the NW frontiers of that country, connecting with Afganistan, Iran, Russia and China, who decide the governance of Pakistan. The unfortunate part is that these feudal lords do not understand anything other than bullets, bombs etc. The only difference with Musharraf's government was that Gen. Mushraff could sail in many boats at the same time.
Answered by jai ghosh, 01 Apr '09 09:01 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
6.

Noooooooooooo
Answered by Sudipta Choudhury, 01 Apr '09 08:33 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
7.

No way........pak was bad , is bad , n wil remain bad.........whosoevr rules it.........its bad only
Answered by saloni lakhisarani, 01 Apr '09 08:31 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (2)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
8.

Those who digs for others eventually fall in it.The sayng is fit for PAkistan.This country beleives in LIVE BUT DON"T LET OTHERS LIVE.So what makes them think that by creating terror in the whole world they will be safe
Answered by trishha, 01 Apr '09 11:55 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
9.

Why bother about Pakistan.Afganistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka when we are not safe in India.
Answered by MrinalKant Chatterjee, 01 Apr '09 08:48 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
10.

Yes Pakistan was safe under the regime of Gen.Pervez Musharaf than what it is now.
Answered by manoj pillai, 01 Apr '09 08:23 pm

 
  
Report abuse
Useful
 (1)
Not Useful
 (0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
Previous

Ask a Question

Get answers from the community

600 characters remaining