Latest news with #Musharraf
Economic Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Economic Times
Why Adnan Sami left Pakistan despite owning property worth crores there? Pervez Musharraf slammed him for abandoning Pak, singer recalls
The Musharraf Letter Blocked from Attending His Mother's Funeral A New Beginning in India Legacy and Personal Losses Singer-composer Adnan Sami , who gave up his Pakistani citizenship and officially became an Indian citizen in 2016, has once again opened up about the many personal and professional reasons behind his decision. In a recent interview, Sami reflected on the challenges he faced in Pakistan—both in his career and personal life—and reiterated that financial gain had nothing to do with his move to in London to a Pakistani father who was a pilot and diplomat, Sami spent a large part of his early life between Pakistan and Canada before eventually settling in India. Despite hailing from a well-established background, he revealed that choosing to live and work in India came at a significant cost. 'I gave up properties worth crores in Pakistan,' he said, noting that material wealth was never his priority. 'Money wasn't my driving force.'During the interview, Sami also addressed the letter his father received in 2005 from the then-President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf . The letter criticized Adnan for allegedly abandoning Pakistan. Sami was still a Pakistani citizen at the time and said the accusation made no sense. He pointed out that the misinformation seemed to have come from multiple levels of government before reaching the top. 'There was no truth to that letter,' Sami said, expressing disappointment over the reaction from the authorities and the also shared that during that period, he had reached out to Musharraf for assistance as he was facing difficulties as a public figure with a Pakistani passport. However, instead of support, he felt disowned by the also revealed the pain of being denied the chance to attend his mother's funeral in 2024. After her sudden death, he quickly sought permission from Indian authorities to travel to Pakistan, which was granted without hesitation. But when he applied for a visa from Pakistan, his request was rejected—even after explaining the reason for his travel. Unable to visit in time, he had to witness her final rites over a WhatsApp video Sami credited legendary singer Asha Bhosle for helping him find his footing in India when he first arrived. At a time when the Pakistani music industry sidelined him, Bhosle encouraged him to move to Mumbai, saying that it was the true hub of Hindi music. Following her advice, Sami moved to India and stayed at the late R.D. Burman's house, which Bhosle had opened up for him. 'I was very lucky because it was like a music temple,' he in India, songs that didn't receive attention in Pakistan—such as Kabhi To Nazar Milao, Bheegi Bheegi Raaton Mein, and Lift Karadey—were promoted with full force and became major hits. Sami said the Indian audience gave him the love and respect he never expected, which was crucial for an artist's on the plight of legendary Pakistani artists like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Mehdi Hassan, and Reshma, Sami expressed sadness over how many of them ended their lives in poverty and neglect despite their global fame. He suggested that the authorities failed to support these icons, a fate he believes he might have shared had he Sami has faced heavy criticism from Pakistan since taking Indian citizenship , he remains resolute in his decision. His journey is marked by emotional sacrifice, cultural rebirth, and a determination to grow as an artist. 'An artist's nourishment is his audience,' Sami said, adding that India gave him the opportunity to start over—and thrive.
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
JUI-F announces drive against 'un-Islamic' child marriage law
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman on Sunday came out strongly against the recently enacted Islamabad Capital Territory Child Marriage Restraint Act 2025, announcing a nationwide protest campaign to "raise awareness" among the public. Speaking at a press conference in Peshawar, the JUI-F supremo categorically rejected the legislation, claiming it undermined Islamic values and societal norms by criminalising underage marriage while enabling extramarital relationships. "Pakistan is a strange country during the time of General Musharraf, a constitutional amendment was passed in the name of women's rights that decriminalised sexual intercourse outside of marriage," he said. "It took it out of the realm of sin." "Now, they are trying to ban the marriage of people under 18. The CII has already rejected this and all ulemas and their parties have agreed that it contradicts the Quran and sunnah," he added, accusing the government of trampling constitutional guarantees. Fazl announced that his party would launch a series of protest activities in response to the law, including rallies and a major public conference scheduled for June 29 in Hazara Division, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. "We will stage rallies, but they won't focus on one subject, like Al-Aqsa Mosque," he said. "Now, we will host rallies to create awareness about national sovereignty and Islamic governance." "God willing, we will present our stance to the world freely. Islam is a faith that moves with the world and can be beneficial." The law, which was signed by the president on May 27 following its passage through both houses of Parliament, aims to prohibit child marriage in Islamabad by outlawing marriages involving individuals under the age of 18.
NDTV
27-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
How Asif Ali Zardari Managed To Get Pervez Musharraf To Resign As Pak President
Islamabad: Pakistan's present President Asif Ali Zardari managed his first term by skilfully getting then incumbent Pervez Musharraf to resign in August 2008 by securing the backing of his successor as Army chief, and then, outmanoeuvring coalition ally Nawaz Sharif, his former aide has revealed. While Zardari's PPP and Nawaz Sharif's PML-N had sought to impeach erstwhile military ruler Musharraf in August 2008 after winning the February 2008 elections, it was getting Musharraf's handpicked successor as Army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on their side that did the trick, Zardari's then spokesperson Farhatullah Babar reports in his memoirs, the News reported. In "The Zardari Presidency", Babar says Zardari, who was then the PPP co-chair, broached the issue of the potential ousting of Musharraf with Kayani. Kayani, who was appointed the army vice chief in October 2007, setting the way for him to take over command when Musharraf, as long promised, shed his uniform in November that year, had no objections to the move. The then army chief even suggested PPP leader Aftab Shaban Mirani, who had served as Defence Minister in the second Benazir Bhutto government, as the next President, Babar wrote in his book. However, Zardari had his own eye on the Aiwan-e-Sadr. Having the army behind him, Zardari then told trusted party members to move resolutions in provincial Assemblies demanding Musharraf's impeachment, Babar said. Simultaneously, he conveyed a message through Major Gen Mahmud Ali Durrani (retd), urging Musharraf to resign or face impeachment. Musharraf initially dismissed the ultimatum but eventually resigned in mid-August 2018. However, according to Babar, Nawaz Sharif also sought to install himself as the President amid the PML-N and PPP alliance, where the latter was heading the government with its Yousaf Raza Gilani as the Prime Minister. "My party thinks that I should become the President," Sharif told Zardari in an informal chat, as per the book. "Zardari replied with a laugh, 'My party also thinks that I should become the President.' The discussion ended there." Eventually, Zardari managed his elevation in September 2008. Among other issues, Babar's book also mentions how military pressure was mounted for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry - whose sacking by Musharraf set in process a chain of crises that ended his rule. According to Babar, neither Benazir Bhutto nor Zardari held favourable views of Justice Chaudhry, whom Zardari believed operated under the guise of independence while serving other interests. During the long march from Lahore to demand Chaudhry's restoration, Zardari faced pressure from his ministers and even Prime Minister Gilani to reinstate him. However, he remained steadfast in his stand. Babar reports a "significant deployment" of the Triple One Brigade - the Rawalpindi-based army formation that has been involved in all the military coups of Pakistan - occurred inside the presidency on the night the march approached Islamabad. "The manoeuvre may have created a perception of a military takeover, but it was not. It was optics for exerting pressure on Zardari to reinstate Chaudhry," he wrote. Amid mounting pressure for Chaudhry's reinstatement, Zardari still held back, telling his advisers: "I know him inside and out. You people don't. He will accept anything as long as he knows that he will be reinstated. He has been sending me messages. I know it. None of you knows about it." Babar notes that Chaudhry even offered a signed resignation letter in advance should he renege on his commitment. Chaudhry's primary concern was his own reinstatement; he appeared indifferent to the reinstatement of other sacked judges, he wrote.
The Hindu
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Political Line newsletter: Old Boys and New Men: people in the India-Pakistan conflict
The fact that India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) were part of the same country until August 1947 has become so remote to most of the people living in these countries that many of them might even find it difficult to believe. These modern countries were formed as a result, at least partly, of British imperial policies which accentuated and aggravated social divisions. American scholar Jeffrey Sachs recently noted that several conflicts of the world currently — in South Asia, West Asia and East Asia (China and Taiwan) — are legacies of British and western imperialism. In the Indian subcontinent, the conflicts began as 'fraternal violence' — to borrow from historian Shruti Kapila. The long history and myth of violent fraternity goes all the way back to the Mahabharata in which the war was within the family. As of today, the rivalries have acquired a new edge that is sharper and more dangerous than in the past. A key factor in the current tone and character of this conflict is the generational shift in both countries. For the first time in history, India and Pakistan are led by people who were born after Independence and the Partition. Three generations — 78 years — have passed since the Partition. In 2014, Narendra Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to be born after Independence (1950). In Pakistan, this shift had happened seven years earlier. Pervez Musharraf was the last ruler/army chief of Pakistan who was born before the Partition. Ashfaq Kayani, who succeeded Musharraf, was born in 1952; The current army chief of Pakistan, Asim Munir, was born in 1968. Musharraf and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq — who tilted Pakistan irreversibly in the direction of radical Islamisation — were both born in Delhi, and both left the city in 1947. Musharraf as a four-year old and Haq as a graduate of St. Stephen's College. K. Natwar Singh, who joined St. Stephen's a year after Haq left, went to Islamabad as India's High Commissioner when the latter was the ruler of Pakistan. Singh later recounted how Haq would give his private jet to a group of students from St. Stephen's who went to Pakistan. This was not a one-sided affair — Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani were both born in what would later become Pakistan. Singh, as PM, would famously dream of a day when one could have 'breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul'. In 2005, Mr. Advani went to Pakistan, and also visited the St. Patrick's school in Karachi where he studied. He would nostalgically recall stories of his childhood. When Musharraf came to India, he visited his family's home in Old Delhi. Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto shared 'pedigree and degree', as a commentator put it; it was his mother and her father who signed the Simla Agreement. In her last book that she finished before her assassination in 2007, Benazir wrote that Pakistan's ISI suspected her to be an Indian asset and sabotaged her ties with Rajiv. The military leadership of both countries also had personal contacts in the early decades. In 1947, Sam Manekshaw was a Lieutenant Colonel and Yahya Khan was a Major in the British Indian Army. Military assets were partitioned — two-thirds of the personnel going to India and one-third going to Pakistan. Khan purchased from the future Field Marshal a red motorcycle but apparently did not pay the promised amount of ₹1,000 around the time of Partition. During the 1971 war, Manekshaw was the Indian Army chief and Yahya Khan was the President of Pakistan. As per an account by Pakistani columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee in 2008, Field Marshal Manekshaw said after the 1971 Bangladesh war, half in jest: 'I waited for 24 years for ₹1,000 which never came, but now he has paid with half of his country.' Even more dramatic is a slice of the story of the surrender of the Pakistani army in Dhaka. Lieutenant General Kuldip Singh Brar gave this account in an interview to an online news portal about the eventful day of December 16, 1971. Major General Gandharv S. Nagra was leading a contingent of Indian troops to Dhaka. He and Lieutenant General A.A.K. Niazi, the commander of Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, had gone to college together. There was no direct communication between the two armies. The Indian Army chief was asking the Pakistani troops to surrender, over a radio broadcast. Nagra's convoy approached an abandoned post of the Pakistani army near Dhaka, and used the phone there to connect to its command headquarters. Niazi was on the line. 'He (Nagra) said, 'Abdullah, this is Gandharv here' and General Niazi asked, 'Gandharv, where are you?' He said, 'I am at the gate of Dhaka and waiting for you to surrender.' General Niazi said, 'We are ready to surrender, but we don't know who to tell.' General Nagra said, 'We are here.' General Niazi said, 'I'm sending a few cars, you come into Dhaka and we'll work out the surrender terms.' We then went into Dhaka in Pakistani vehicles and saw the hospital, university, airfield en route. We arrived at the HQ, Pakistan Eastern Command. General Niazi came out and embraced General Nagra. They went into the office to talk. Meanwhile, we informed Calcutta that we were in Dhaka, and the Pakistan army was ready to surrender.' The rest of the formality followed. Even through wars, terrorism and continuing conflicts, leaders of both countries had some memories of these countries being one, and this was very personal too. Not only did they share the same country in their memories, all of them were also trained in the western education system. With the complete passing of those generations, the India-Pakistan conflict is in a new phase.
Express Tribune
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
India's Kargil moment
Listen to article After Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 in response to India's detonations, it was widely believed that the two countries would no longer engage in a war due to the fear of nuclear catastrophe. This belief led to a historic development when then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Lahore by bus, in a landmark visit aimed at opening a new chapter in the bilateral relations. During this visit, both sides agreed to resolve all outstanding issues, including the longstanding Kashmir dispute. Pakistan's decision to go nuclear appeared to have paid strategic dividends. India had realised that with Pakistan's nuclear capability, conventional war was no longer a viable option. This was seen as a significant strategic advantage for Pakistan. However, a few Generals led by then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf had different ideas. They believed that conventional war — whether limited or full-scale — was off the table due to Pakistan's nuclear deterrence. This flawed assumption led to the Kargil misadventure. Musharraf and his aides believed that Pakistani forces could occupy the Kargil peaks, overlooking a key highway connecting Srinagar with India, without provoking a strong response. They were under the illusion that India, fearing nuclear escalation, would not retaliate. That illusion was shattered when India launched a full military response. Within months, Pakistan had squandered the strategic advantage it once held. The Kargil episode broke the deterrence myth, proving that limited conflict under a nuclear overhang was indeed possible. One of Musharraf's close aides, Lt Gen Jamshed Gulzar Kiani later admitted that Kargil was a blunder. Fast forward 26 years, and the Modi government faced its own Kargil moment following the Pahalgam attack. In 1999, Pakistan had not only lost a strategic edge but also suffered international humiliation. India now appeared to have repeated the same mistake. Just as some Pakistani generals believed nuclear capability gave them the licence for reckless adventurism, India — boasting economic, military and diplomatic prowess — believed it could dominate Pakistan with impunity. True that India has made significant strides economically, becoming the world's fifth-largest economy. And Pakistan, in contrast, has been grappling with persistent crises: political instability, economic vulnerability and resurging terrorism. Its global standing diminished to the point where even close allies in the Muslim world began taking it for granted. Against this backdrop, India sought to set a new normal — conducting cross-border strikes under the pretext of targeting terror camps without facing a response from Pakistan. This miscalculation echoed the thinking of Pakistani generals in 1999. Put simply, it was a fight between a heavyweight and an underweight opponent. The heavyweight was expected to knock out the weaker opponent in the very first round. The heavyweight landed a slap, but the underdog punched back so hard that it broke the heavyweight's nose. That's how legends are born — when the underdog defies expectations. This is precisely what transpired in the four-day war between Pakistan and India. Pakistan prevailed on all three fronts — military, diplomatic and political. On the battlefield, Pakistan shot down six Indian fighter jets. On the diplomatic front, despite India's economic muscle and global influence, no major power explicitly backed New Delhi. In contrast, China, Turkey and Azerbaijan openly supported Pakistan, while the US, EU and the UK adopted a neutral stance. On the political front, India's belligerence unexpectedly became a blessing in disguise for Pakistan's current leadership. The military regained its lost popularity, national morale soared, and a renewed sense of resolve and unity took hold. Even countries that had started taking Pakistan for granted are now reassessing their stance. When even Christine Fair, one of the most vocal critics of Pakistan, admits that Islamabad came out on top in this confrontation, it should settle the debate over who won and who lost.
