Defend the Country, not its Government

{``The sacred cow of our armed forces has an insatiable desire to eat our meager national resources.``}

Such ``fine`` rhetoric from you is rare and a bit surprising. If Pakistan disarms unilaterally, don’t you think it will lead to more Bangladeshes and Siachins?

sincerely

PS: Wasn`t this the pet peeve of Pakistani communists during the Afghan war?

Faruk#99

Bhai Iss Board pe Pehle Badbu Kum Hai key Ab Tum Bhi AA Gaye.

Lagta Hai Tumhari Badbu Sub Se Shadeed Ho Gi.

Poot Ke Pawoon Abhi Sey Nazar Aaa Rahein Hain.

Sameer JB!

I can argue otherway even on defense.

And I can argue on output also.

The parameter is progress of people. Bangladesh has 70% literacy rate, export of 8 Billion Dollars. (It started very low).

Our literacy rate was nearly 30% 15 years back and was decreasing and export are nearly same as Bangladesh. What are our other parameters of human progress. I think we are at the bottom of list at No# 136.

Majority of our population is hopeless of future. For majority it is difficult to meet ends. No education, no health, no opportunity for progress. Suicide is now a routine. Our output is not defense of country. But it is investment of all our resources on ruling class, rather than on the common man.

Just watched CBS`s segment ``America`s Worst Nightmare``--quite unnerving.

The segment says that eventhough the fundos have never had any hope to come to power democratically, Mushy isnt able to control them. Mushy, of course denied it. However, a few fundo leaders interviewed categorically stated that the Army could never control them.

My conclusions:

a) The Army has a lot of fundo sympathisers, who would join ranks with the mujahadeen & start a civil war. BTW, 60 mins concludes that. So no COAS would ever dare reign them in. It would be like grabbing the tiger by the tail.

b)If the Army couldnt control them ,then no civilian leader could hope to do so.

c)Just like the Nazis couldnt win in an election, but still landed up controlling the country & the army, why could`nt the fundos do it?. They certainly seem highly motivated, well organised & well armed.

d)They are waiting in the wings. If Mushy fails, they are waiting to take over.

I cant believe I`m saying this, but I hope to God Mushy succeeds!! If fundos take over Pakistan, not only will they destroy Pakistan, but take India down with her as well.

Please tell me I`m being unnecessarily alarmist!

RE: Further to post#103

May I suggest not to use Bus-Diplomacy argument to answer point#7 in the last post-because that will be countered by Country A`s moral delimma over the fate of People C.....and we will go nowhere again.

RE: Bilal, Shankar, and Subcontinental #52

I suggest that one should take a cursory look at the article and author’s interact #52 before he goes through the following: In the article the author(ess) poses a real word situation to her audience, whereas in her post she is implying that she wants to discuss a hypothetical situation. As someone has said that it is easier to be a creative analyst when everything has been said and done-it takes a real genius to assess something that still has to unfold. This dichotomy really casts shadow of doubt on her intentions as to which direction this argument would take.

The real world Kargil issue has been discussed many times and in the last two years most of the hidden corners have been exposed. The only unexposed part is Mr. Sharif’s role in it. I don’t think that any set of arguments or any set of “hard” evidence will settle this. Its nature will always be speculative. So go ahead argue yourself to death.

I don’t think that we can achieve anything by analyzing this issue as a black & white issue either. Let’s see what we have here:

1. Country A’s armed forces enter a disputed territory.

2. Country A’s heavily mandated elected government carried out this secret operation.

3. Should we prosecute Country A’s elected government for its failure to run a referendum before conducting this secretive operation?

4. War is a highly fluid situation-1/3rd of the war is fought by hiding your intentions or plans from the enemy, the other 1/3rd of the war is knowing what your enemy’s intentions/plans are, and the last 1/3rd is actual war which is fought with live guns and ammo. So should people be in a moral dilemma if its government did not disclose the composition of its armed forces as long as there was heat at the front.

5. A disputed territory is a disputed territory-It is not a sovereign territory, especially when a Union of Nations recognize it as a disputed territory. It is failure on part of Union of Nations if they failed to see the potential of a war there and they did not do anything about it. Is it their moral dilemma?

6. Logically a disputed territory belongs as much to Country A as it belongs to Country B or one may argue that unless the dispute is settled it belongs to none. I fail to see a moral dilemma here.

7. If Country A repeatedly requests Country B to settle the disputed issue amicably through bilateral talks and Country B refuses to talk-then is there a chance of another war? Whatever the outcome of the war might be who will bear the burden of morality?

Throughout the above discussion we ignored the People C, the residents of the disputed territory-because it is a hypothetical discussion. In black & white world we are blessed with the liberty to make anything disappear that we don’t like-don’t we?

sb #96 Actually, mankind has no natural enemies left - our ancestors beat the sabre-toothed tiger at hunting, and finished off woolly mamoths for breakfast. The only natural enemy of mankind are defective institutions like nations states. Think about it: if there were no nation-states, we would not need a foreign policy and no military. And, with technology, we are on the verge of prolonging lives indefinitely and of providing material goods as freely to anyone as air or water. So, we can live power politics to the scum-bag politicians and focus on something that has a future.

A nice article ``The feudal elite``by Mohammad Waseem in todays dawn http://www.dawn.com/2000/10/15/op.htm#2

Faruk

cbb # 94

Well why Pakistan keeps harping about the 48 UN resolution is best addressed to a Pakistani. As far as my opinion is concerned we should concentrate on liberating POK. We crushed the insurgency in punjab we can do it again in Kashmir.

About the Generals policy in Kashmir is a unique one. He wants to pik and choose the agreements that the various Pakistani govt.`s have signed with India. He does not accept any agreement signed after the 48 UN resolution. So what`s the guarantee that the next Pakistani ruler will accept and abide by the agreements he signs.



``The other day (last week), General was saying that India `` will have`` to cooperate with Pakistan on oil and gas sector.``

That comment really made me laugh. Pakistan will make $ 700 million per yr. from the Indo-Iran gas pipeline ($500 million in revenue from India and $200 million in savings) That is more than their total foreign currency reserves. India may have to deal with him but not necessarily across a table.

Faruk

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 97)

Dear Sameer:

I am glad that you are active on the Chowk once again. Your input-output approach is good, though the lack of transparency (in the midst of a politics of scarcity) is a major hurdle for evaluating the performance at various geographical scales from neighborhood to the nation at large.

The sacred cow of our armed forces has an insatiable desire to eat our meager national resources. It make it much worse since this desire is also burning among other members of our power elite (a lot of them have not worked hard to acquire their power). However, rather than commenting on the performance of Pakistan army, I am more interested in drawing attention toward the need for alternative ways of seeing and dealing with our problems. For example, we need to seriously discuss the benefits of peaceful coexistence or investment in human development vis a vis military spending. In this regard, even a simple and cursory input-output analysis is sufficient to help us understand our follies. Both long and short-term tolerance and patience are two essential prerequisites for developing trust and cordiality in our domestic as well as foreign relations.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Dear sb: I would still encourage you to read Gardezi`s article.

#95:

Dear Bilal: I was referring to the fact that India and US have been calling themselves natural allies suddenly lately. Given the sensitiveness of the audience, I should have reigned in my sarcasm in my post #82(even if its aimed at my own country), and avoided sending you on a wild goose chase.

Personally, I think that if the vision and spirit behind NAM and the economic policies are forgotten, we will burn, being `natural allies` with the super power notwithstanding.

#96: :-) Chill! There`s a saying that the world is a fighting ground. And in politics and IR one`s natural allies keep changing depending on one`s interests and causes.

Bilal Ahmad & K Rashid:

Re: Sincerity

It is easy to make a case for sincerity or against insincerity both for private citizens and public servants. In the case of public servants or government officials, sincerity is just one of the factors on input side. Other factors include capability, vision, planning, marketing, tarck record and so on. These are some of the qualities, people consider when they like, dislike, select or elect public servants. However, public interests and expectations are for the output. The desired output includes progress, prosperity, opportunites, just society, peace and so on. A well-organized and well-run system will produce input to output ratio close to unity whereas a poorly run system will result much less output despite great input. There were no shortages on input side in communist system, it was the output which killed it.

Also consider that all factors on input side do not contribute equally, some more some less. In Argentina, a morally, socially and politically corrupt Carlos Menem did good job for his country. In Indonesia, there is almost no difference in the output side between an extremely corrupt Suharto and honest and sincere Abdel Rehman Wahid. In Malaysia, most opposition and dissidents from Mahathir Muhammad`s party consider him very cunning and opportunist but he is judged on the basis of output of his government.

Similarly, Pakistan military gets good marks for defending the country because input (military spending over 53 year period) is not taken into consideration. On the other hand their input/ output ratio is considered very low when it comes to ruling the country, specifically including Yahya Khan and Zia-Ul-Haq eras.

In short, accomplishments and results should be the guiding principle when analyzing the performance of public servants and not the background and track record alone.

sb#83 writes: [[Bilal: ``Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and the US were once natural allies?``

No. Never came across that one. But if you think that they were natural allies, can you tell me why? Thank you.]]

Dear sb: We both fought Indians, that`s why.

In respone to sb (Reply # 88)

Dear sb:

Your statement: ``But if you think that they were natural allies, can you tell me why?``

Comment: After the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by Dr. Musaddeq in Iran (and the possibily expansion of Soviet socialism), the US needed Pakistan to protect her interests in the Middle East and for air bases on the Pakistani soil. Pakistan served the US on both counts. Did this alliance really helped Pakistan? (For details, see Hasan Nasir Gardezi`s article ``The Failure of Capitalism in Pakistan`` published in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol 28, 3 (1998)310-26).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Pakistan and the US very strong allies. As you could see I have substituted the word natural with strong.

Faruk #89

If you agree that UN resolutions option is practically dead, then why everybody in Pakistan, including Gen. Musharraf, is harping on solving the Kashmir issue on the basis of these resolutions while Pakistan itself has defaulted, and continues to default, on these very resolutions and has failed to provide pre-requisite set up under which India can proceed to discharge its obligations ?

There is another situation with General. In every forum, he never misses his offer to talk with India coupled with standard `` any where, any time, any place`` routine. In the same breath, he also advises world that he will continue to back Kashmir militancy. To this, if India responds by saying `` Look General, Kargil has clearly established that talks and insurgency do not go hand in hand``, then immediately he pounces on India, declaring it inflexible and obdurate while privately, there are suggestions by him that, sooner or later, India`` will have`` to sit and talk with Pakistan, given the Kashmir situation.

The other day (last week), General was saying that India `` will have`` to cooperate with Pakistan on oil and gas sector.

The key word again here is `` will have to`` ! General can make India do any thing he wants. He can also manipulate any body think any thing, whatever the facts may be !!

India may not be be so naive. In last ten or so years, when Kashmir situation has gone from bad to worse, who has suffered more? What was Pakistan ten years ago and what it is now?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/20001015/main1.htm#1

VHP lodges protest with Pak envoy

Tribune News Service

NEW DELHI, Oct 14 — The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has demanded restoration of temple and houses destroyed by a mob in an attack in the Dalbandhin area, 340 km from Quetta, on Wednesday.

In a letter to the High Commissioner of Pakistan, the VHP secretary-general Dr Pravin Togadiya, also demanded apology to the affected minority community and prevention of such incidents in future.

Lodging strong protest over the “inhuman and cowardly” act, the VHP said a mob of over 5,000 Muslim clerics put on fire a Hindu temple and torched several houses on Wednesday afternoon. The mob was reacting to an illiterate Hindu woman distributing “prasad” wrapped in a religious curriculum book called Deeniyat.