Please follow the links below.
program at: http://www.pakistanherald.com/prog_show.asp?prog_id=228
some comments at: http://pkpolitics.com/2008/11/21/kaltak-21-november-2008/
You can follow that with the discussion on PTI forum in which i participate under the alias Lincoln84
To reiterate my point of view from the discussion at PTI forum: I think Mr. Hamid represents what can be classified as political neo-conservatism (colloquially: right wingism) in Pakistan. Hence, I would group him with the Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh or the Karl Rove ideological mindset in America, which fosters on fear mongering at the continued behest of national security.
Up until now Pakistani politics has not forayed into the liberal vs conservative (left vs right) political dynamic as practiced in the West. Much of this can be attributed to lack of political grooming and continued malnutrition of the democratic forces at the hands of the military adventures ( or misadventures - take your pick).
Personally, I see both positives and negatives in what Zaid Hamid and like minded individuals bring to the table. Taking Pakistan as a case study, the positives of an existence of a Hawkish Right Wing mindset in a "true" democratic political setup would provide the people of Pakistan with the option of voting for a party or individuals, subscribing to such a school of thought. Perhaps such political forces will be inconspicuously backed by the military but at least they will provide a representation to the security state ideal in the political arena, much like Israel, and reduce chances of a military take over in the future because the military would have ultimately found a voice on the political front which pushes for a Security State agenda.
However, IMHO, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Pakistan was never meant to be a security state which would wage wars with its neighbors and create economic disparity amongst its provinces, largely owing to huge military budgets. This was never envisioned by Mr. Jinnah(QA).
Pakistan was also suppose to stay non-aligned in its infancy , rather camp itself with one super power and get the worst from a gang war between two heavy weights.
The Swedish Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Karl Gunnar Myrdal in his 1965 book the Asian Miracle, writes that "This State [Pakistan]..is on its way emulating the US State of California: thanks to plenty of natural resources, geographical advantages and rich cultural diversity amongst citizens". His thesis was that cultural diversity catalyzes economic growth (like in the US) and the state(s) of East and West Pakistan were in perfect shape to launch themselves as regional economic super powers (as long as they harness their potential). [ Myrdal is often quoted by Imran Khan in his television appearances]
Hence, when looking in context of ideology, this resourceful , culturally diverse and religiously uniform [NB: there is a catch here, religious uniformity is severely precluded and exponentially deteriorated (via injection of sectarian thought process) in absence of economic,educational judicial uniformity] state of Pakistan was meant to be setup solely to "set an example" for the rest of the Muslim world and in particular an example to the State of India, to demonstrate that Muslims of India , when given a chance to govern themselves will be able to setup a Welfare state with equal rights, justice, education and minimal economic disparity amongst its citizens as corner stones of their democracy. In essence making Pakistan an economic adversary of its neighbors mocking the the US-Canada setup.
So in light of all this, Mr. Hamid's view directly clash with those of our founding fathers as Pakistan can ill afford to stay the course and continue to expend itself fighting the "sazishy anasirs" as he repeatedly points out, without first looking inwards to begin a process of rectification in quest of achieving the high moral and economic ideals of its forefathers.