A Critical Discourse Analysis of President Musharraf’s

Speech* †

,‡

past heroes

Keywords

*

†

‡

Zubair, Umaima ,

233

discourse by controlling people’s mind and beliefs and examines all

an Dijk’s socio

.

.

ideologies ‘indirectly influence the personal cognition of group

used to be useful to one’s own aim and overshadow the ben

Zubair, Umaima ,

234

on

on

Pak

’s

. Van Dijk’s

Wodak’s (2001) framework of analysis who argues that the first

.

Zubair, Umaima ,

235

‘

victim of terrorism’ (2006). This idea and assertion clarifies the

‘Let me make it clear that this fight

Pakistan’ (2004

‘The problem is that at the government level we are doing very well.

or they are not happy shall I say with the relationship with US.’

,

Zubair, Umaima ,

236

mentions in his interview that ‘

Osama’s information come up we will see how to deal with it’

o

that Pakistan’s integrity would be maintained at all costs.

In his 2001 address to the nation he says, ‘The religion of

misplaced’

2001, Musharraf says that ‘To fight the extremist, deprive him of his

suffer injustice and indignity’ (2001). This i

said that, ‘

to misuse the label of terrorists to keep the peoples’ aspirations

suppressed’ (2006). This is

Zubair, Umaima ,

237

,

image and it is also harmful for the war against terror. “The r

total misplaced” (Musharraf, 2001). He reiterated this stance at lots

Zubair, Umaima ,

238

that “Islam teaches

tolerance…not violence”. It is the doing of the few clerics and

against the religious leaders of the country. He claims that “I called

terrorism and extremism” (2006). Such statement also shows that

.

on.

“Our resources are

–

2004).”

“We have

with both your conduct and arguments”

The

overarching macro  structure  of  his  speeches was  that  “We  regard 

terrorism as an evil that  threatens  the  world  community” 

Zubair, Umaima ,

239

(Musharraf,  2001).  The  selection  of  this 

macrostructure/topic/theme  binds  him  with  the  people  not  just 

from Pakistan but  from the whole world. The showing of solidarity 

with the world by a leader is like penetrating into the very ideologies 

and identities and getting the favors. 

,

oun ‘us’ that stands for two major

his use of ‘we’ word signifies that he is part of the war on terror and

by ‘we’ he means all the allies who are working against terrorism all

world. Yet his second context of using the ‘we’ word is of

completely ‘misled’ and wrong. Another significant implication is

the use of the word ‘terrorism’ and ‘religion’ to which he h

clearly uses the word ‘we’ by saying that “we are with you on the

issue of terrorism”. Thus presupposing

people’s attention by touching upon the shared social practices and

Zubair, Umaima ,

240

.

ases like ‘interest of Pakistan

province’ ,

whole to justify the actions of ‘us’ a

Majority’s agreement on the war on terro

Zubair, Umaima ,

241

(1997). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’. In

258 284.

,

.

Comprehension

A. (1993). ‘Principles of critical discourse analysis’. In

283.

289.

3) ‘Critical discourse a

of Discourse Analysis’ Oxford: Blackwell.

‘Discourse and Power’. New York:

Van Dijk, T. A. (2009) ‘Critical Discourse Studies; Acognitive Approach’. In

(2001). ‘What CDA is about –

ts developments’. In Wodak, R. &

.