Rightsizing of the Armed Forces
Riffat Jahan February 6, 2003
#69 Posted by Romair on February 9, 2003 3:56:17 pm
Ahmadzai #68: You have made some good points.
I supported Musharraf`s coup for the three years time limit, because I felt the other options, (BB, NS) were dictators just on the verge of destroying Pakistan completely. An honest dictator is better than a dishonest one. I think in these three years, the economy has been stabilized, Pakistan is no longer internationally isolated, the press has been freed, and Pakistan is facing (most of) its skeletons in its closets.
At the same time, I wish Musharraf had gone after power groups like feudals, corrupt politicians etc., with the same zeal as he went after the maulvis and the beaurecracy. And I wish he had reorganized the military, in the lines I suggested in a previous reply (from what I have heard, he has done a great deal internally to de-mullah-fy the Army however). After doing that, he should have held elections and just retired into oblivion.
I agree if the current NA is given free reign, we will once again be back to the days of free-for-all loan defaults. So his presence is somewhat of a necessity now. However, it wouldn`t have been had he not allowed the same people into the elections, to begin with. Kind of a Catch-22 - such is the shortage of financially honest people in Pakistan. So he has himself (with the help of the Pakistani voter who keeps voting for the same people and then complains about the people he votes for) created kind of a situation where he is still needed.
I still think, for his own good, and for the reputation of the Army, he should now retire and put his name up for a civilian Presidentship through the NA. If they don`t elect him, well fine, he did whatever he could. He will leave with his credibility intact. And at the moment, Pakistan needs a leader who leaves while he is popular with credibility, far more than it even needs a good leader in power.
If Pakistanis want to support the maulvis and corrupt politicians, when they have (had) the choice of a leader, who for all his other faults, is scruplously honest financially and liberal, then it should be their choice. I dont think the country is now going off a cliff as it was in 1999, so military rule is no longer needed. In the end, Pakistanis will have themselves to give credit to or blame. From the referendum onwards, however, Musharraf`s popularity, due to his own double-mindedness has gone down and will continue to go down. If he doesn`t resign, people may respect him as a person, but not as a President - though they will still respect him more than the other clowns like BB, NS, Altaf etc.
As for the Mullahs: I think people are underestimating and not analyzying the surge in their popularity. I don`t think Pakistanis have voted for them due to religion or due to USA military presences. Pakistanis never vote for religion. They have voted for them because they have exhausted all other possibilities. The mullahs and the MQM are the only two parties which have candidates who are actaully, ``like`` the voters whom they represent. MMA has farmers, maulvis, shopkeepers etc. as its candidates. While MQM has pharmacists, taxi-drivers etc. as candidates.
The people have said that we will accept the mullahs ridiculous backwards shenanigans, in the hope that they may make us less poor and give us the facilitites that have been hounded by Pakistan`s upper class (which the ANP leaders and Baluchi tribal politicians belong to). It is no coincidence that Pakistan`s most educated and advnaced city, Karachi, now completely elects middle class and lower-middle class candidataes (MQM and MMA).
If the mullahs can help the poor villager, whose kids dont go to college (and hence could care less about co-education) and who does not have even electricity (what to talk of cable television), and who is already quite conservative, he could care less about the intense convservitism the MMA will bring to the cities it rules. He just wants more food on his plate. And if the mullahs are successful in this, their popularity is bound to spread into Punjab and Sind, much to the disgust of the English speaking, upper class, secular and Westernized population of the big cities - which most of us interactors on Chowk belong to (Anyone in Pakistan who can speak English and has Internet access is actully part of the upper-middle class, considering that 65% of the population lives in villages and only 1% has Internet access).
If the mullahs also fail in raising the living standard of poor Pathans and Baluchis (areas where they rule), then I am not quite sure where the next group of politicians will come from. I am hoping it will come from newer parties like PTI (which is by the way now aligned with the MMA).
If the currently elected mullahs outright win the next election, while the condition of the country remains the same, then I can see another coup occuring, with strong support of the USA (and ironically from the secualr Pakistanis), in around five to seven years time.
I supported Musharraf`s coup for the three years time limit, because I felt the other options, (BB, NS) were dictators just on the verge of destroying Pakistan completely. An honest dictator is better than a dishonest one. I think in these three years, the economy has been stabilized, Pakistan is no longer internationally isolated, the press has been freed, and Pakistan is facing (most of) its skeletons in its closets.
At the same time, I wish Musharraf had gone after power groups like feudals, corrupt politicians etc., with the same zeal as he went after the maulvis and the beaurecracy. And I wish he had reorganized the military, in the lines I suggested in a previous reply (from what I have heard, he has done a great deal internally to de-mullah-fy the Army however). After doing that, he should have held elections and just retired into oblivion.
I agree if the current NA is given free reign, we will once again be back to the days of free-for-all loan defaults. So his presence is somewhat of a necessity now. However, it wouldn`t have been had he not allowed the same people into the elections, to begin with. Kind of a Catch-22 - such is the shortage of financially honest people in Pakistan. So he has himself (with the help of the Pakistani voter who keeps voting for the same people and then complains about the people he votes for) created kind of a situation where he is still needed.
I still think, for his own good, and for the reputation of the Army, he should now retire and put his name up for a civilian Presidentship through the NA. If they don`t elect him, well fine, he did whatever he could. He will leave with his credibility intact. And at the moment, Pakistan needs a leader who leaves while he is popular with credibility, far more than it even needs a good leader in power.
If Pakistanis want to support the maulvis and corrupt politicians, when they have (had) the choice of a leader, who for all his other faults, is scruplously honest financially and liberal, then it should be their choice. I dont think the country is now going off a cliff as it was in 1999, so military rule is no longer needed. In the end, Pakistanis will have themselves to give credit to or blame. From the referendum onwards, however, Musharraf`s popularity, due to his own double-mindedness has gone down and will continue to go down. If he doesn`t resign, people may respect him as a person, but not as a President - though they will still respect him more than the other clowns like BB, NS, Altaf etc.
As for the Mullahs: I think people are underestimating and not analyzying the surge in their popularity. I don`t think Pakistanis have voted for them due to religion or due to USA military presences. Pakistanis never vote for religion. They have voted for them because they have exhausted all other possibilities. The mullahs and the MQM are the only two parties which have candidates who are actaully, ``like`` the voters whom they represent. MMA has farmers, maulvis, shopkeepers etc. as its candidates. While MQM has pharmacists, taxi-drivers etc. as candidates.
The people have said that we will accept the mullahs ridiculous backwards shenanigans, in the hope that they may make us less poor and give us the facilitites that have been hounded by Pakistan`s upper class (which the ANP leaders and Baluchi tribal politicians belong to). It is no coincidence that Pakistan`s most educated and advnaced city, Karachi, now completely elects middle class and lower-middle class candidataes (MQM and MMA).
If the mullahs can help the poor villager, whose kids dont go to college (and hence could care less about co-education) and who does not have even electricity (what to talk of cable television), and who is already quite conservative, he could care less about the intense convservitism the MMA will bring to the cities it rules. He just wants more food on his plate. And if the mullahs are successful in this, their popularity is bound to spread into Punjab and Sind, much to the disgust of the English speaking, upper class, secular and Westernized population of the big cities - which most of us interactors on Chowk belong to (Anyone in Pakistan who can speak English and has Internet access is actully part of the upper-middle class, considering that 65% of the population lives in villages and only 1% has Internet access).
If the mullahs also fail in raising the living standard of poor Pathans and Baluchis (areas where they rule), then I am not quite sure where the next group of politicians will come from. I am hoping it will come from newer parties like PTI (which is by the way now aligned with the MMA).
If the currently elected mullahs outright win the next election, while the condition of the country remains the same, then I can see another coup occuring, with strong support of the USA (and ironically from the secualr Pakistanis), in around five to seven years time.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#68 Posted by Ahmadzai on February 9, 2003 12:39:10 pm
Romair at # 67:
Although your post is addressed to Riffat, I would like to differ from you only on the action plan of the strategic mission of transition from pure military to pure democracy. I would reiterate that General Musharraf should continue till the time economic stability is not realized. A democratic government under its populist agenda would lead us to bankruptcy unless put on a leash (short or long does not matter) at least for few more years.
As to your last paragraph on the popularity of Mullas, they are raising non-issues and getting carried away by emotionalism. They have not raised a single issue yet, but are reaping a rich harvest. For example, people are much more prone to support Mullas when they raise the non-issue of American`s asking Pakistanis to register themselves in the USA. Not a single Mulla or his emotional follower would have an answer to the following question: Why would American listen to Pakistan on such small an issue like this one, when it is not listening to the entire world on Iraq? What I meant to suggest is that Pakistanis would not turn to Mullas on the grounds that Musharraf`s performance is bad.
Although your post is addressed to Riffat, I would like to differ from you only on the action plan of the strategic mission of transition from pure military to pure democracy. I would reiterate that General Musharraf should continue till the time economic stability is not realized. A democratic government under its populist agenda would lead us to bankruptcy unless put on a leash (short or long does not matter) at least for few more years.
As to your last paragraph on the popularity of Mullas, they are raising non-issues and getting carried away by emotionalism. They have not raised a single issue yet, but are reaping a rich harvest. For example, people are much more prone to support Mullas when they raise the non-issue of American`s asking Pakistanis to register themselves in the USA. Not a single Mulla or his emotional follower would have an answer to the following question: Why would American listen to Pakistan on such small an issue like this one, when it is not listening to the entire world on Iraq? What I meant to suggest is that Pakistanis would not turn to Mullas on the grounds that Musharraf`s performance is bad.
#67 Posted by Romair on February 9, 2003 12:04:06 pm
riffatj #48: ``Presumably, some of the readers don’t have an idea that today even ordinary people -- right from illiterate lower working class to apolitical housewives -- have started squarely blaming Army for the sordid mess in the country.``
This is true if you talk about the interventions of the military into politics.
Not true if you look at the people`s view of the average soldier, doing his job on the border, or in his unit. Specifically in rural Punjab and NWFP, where nearly every, ``apolitical housewives`` and, ``illeterate lower working class`` person has at least one relative who is a soldier, and has no relatives who are politicians, expatriates engineers, or can even write and speak English.
I would say, overwhelmingly, Pakistanis (inlcuding me) have disapproved of any leadership that Pakistan has had, military or civilian. I would consider Musharraf`s three year rule to be the most honest, amongst the past thirty years, but would not approve of military rule as a solution, in general. Very few people would. I think after completing three years, Musharraf should now retire and put his name up as a civilian President. This however does not mean people approve of the Nawaz Sharif or BB either. People want a third type of leadership - no military, no feudals, no PML, no PPP. That is why they are now giving the maulvis a chance. After the maulvis, they may go to other groups.
However, this is different from critiquing the military itself, for its defence roles. The only motivation to rightsize a military, cannot be to reduce its participation in politics. There are, and should be, other reasons also. I don`t see how rightsizing the Army by 25%, as you have suggested, from 450k to 320k will reduce the chances of a coup. It may make the Army more efficient, and save money, but how does that reduce the chances of a coup, when most coups barely require 1000 soldiers. Could you highlight?
If survey after survery indicates a high deal of respect of the military in Pakistan (which they do), that does not mean these surveys justify a role of the military in politics. These are too different issues. I think the average Pakistani:
-Thinks low of the peformance of the Army in politics.
-Thinks low of the performance of all civilian political leaderships also.
-Does not want the Army as a long term political solution
-Thinks very high of the soldiers themselves in their role as protectors of borders. You can look at the writing of any journalist (Urdu or English), to the views of any politician (including even BB and NS). They will criticize Generals, but will never ever criticize the sepoy standing on the border. This is what the surveys point to.
The above are my views as well. I have lived in a lot of rural areas also, and at a personal level, seen how I am treated now as a relatively well-off expatriate civilian and was treated as a low-paid soldier, by the average farmer, taxi-driver, shopkeeper, etc. The common folk of Pakistan maybe hostile towards Generals (as am I), but I cannot imagine them being hostile towards the common soldier. Infact, they think far more lowly of the rich expatriates living in rich neighborhoods of Pakistan, employing the poor class of Pakistan (many of whom are actually relatives of low-paid sepoys).
People need to evaluate the military in two different areas:
1) Should it be in politics, and what damage has that done, and how will rightsizing improve that
2) Is it required to protect the borders against India, which is arming itself to the teeth, and how should it be rightsized to make it more efficient.
People tend to take an, ``all or nothing`` approach to the above. Those who think the Army is needed for border protection and that soldiers are sacrificing their lives for it (which they are in places like Siachen) tend to think this justifies the Army`s role in politics also, i.e. politicians are stupid, hence military should rule. The ones at the other extreme, state that since the Army Generals have been as poor, if not more poor, at ruling the country in comparison to the civilians, hence the whole Army is an evil and unnecessary, and is the cause of all of Pakistan`s problems. In both cases, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.
In my opinion, the Army is necessary to protect the borders, but not in politics (unless it comes in to protect the storming of the Supreme Court or in situations like the violence in Gujrat, India, or if Pakistan has reached a stage where it cannot even pay the salaries of it employees. Even in such situations when Pakistan is completely going of a cliff, it should come in and be out very quickly). However, the only way it will stay out of politics is if the people have faith in the civilian politicians, and thus rise up when a coup occurs. Could you highlight any other practical way of avoiding coups?
I do not agree with the, ``people have too many day to day problems to rise up,`` that you have presented. People have even more day to day problems in India, since it has far more poor people. Yet I doubt they would accept a military rule. Primarily because they seem to have a lot more faith in their civilian politicians.
I think Pakistan will continue between civilian and military leaderships, until either an outstanding honest civilian leadership emerges, or until people finally decide in favor of one over the other (once and for all). Currently, people tend to favor civilian leaderships when they start, and then favor coups once the civilians disappoint. The coups are favored for a few years, and then they are disappointed with them as well, and want a civilian leadership, i.e. people like a leadership when it starts, but want it removed after about three years. Only a, ``relatively`` honest civilian leadership can break this cycle.
I am hoping people like Imran Khan and his party can fill this vacuum. But the way things are going, being fed up with military in politics and being fed-up with the PML and PPP and with ethnic parties like ANP and MQM, people are now tilting towards maulvis. If the maulvis end up improving the lot of the poor person in NWFP, regardless of their banning of co-education and cable TV, I have feeling they may start winning in Punjab as well.
This is true if you talk about the interventions of the military into politics.
Not true if you look at the people`s view of the average soldier, doing his job on the border, or in his unit. Specifically in rural Punjab and NWFP, where nearly every, ``apolitical housewives`` and, ``illeterate lower working class`` person has at least one relative who is a soldier, and has no relatives who are politicians, expatriates engineers, or can even write and speak English.
I would say, overwhelmingly, Pakistanis (inlcuding me) have disapproved of any leadership that Pakistan has had, military or civilian. I would consider Musharraf`s three year rule to be the most honest, amongst the past thirty years, but would not approve of military rule as a solution, in general. Very few people would. I think after completing three years, Musharraf should now retire and put his name up as a civilian President. This however does not mean people approve of the Nawaz Sharif or BB either. People want a third type of leadership - no military, no feudals, no PML, no PPP. That is why they are now giving the maulvis a chance. After the maulvis, they may go to other groups.
However, this is different from critiquing the military itself, for its defence roles. The only motivation to rightsize a military, cannot be to reduce its participation in politics. There are, and should be, other reasons also. I don`t see how rightsizing the Army by 25%, as you have suggested, from 450k to 320k will reduce the chances of a coup. It may make the Army more efficient, and save money, but how does that reduce the chances of a coup, when most coups barely require 1000 soldiers. Could you highlight?
If survey after survery indicates a high deal of respect of the military in Pakistan (which they do), that does not mean these surveys justify a role of the military in politics. These are too different issues. I think the average Pakistani:
-Thinks low of the peformance of the Army in politics.
-Thinks low of the performance of all civilian political leaderships also.
-Does not want the Army as a long term political solution
-Thinks very high of the soldiers themselves in their role as protectors of borders. You can look at the writing of any journalist (Urdu or English), to the views of any politician (including even BB and NS). They will criticize Generals, but will never ever criticize the sepoy standing on the border. This is what the surveys point to.
The above are my views as well. I have lived in a lot of rural areas also, and at a personal level, seen how I am treated now as a relatively well-off expatriate civilian and was treated as a low-paid soldier, by the average farmer, taxi-driver, shopkeeper, etc. The common folk of Pakistan maybe hostile towards Generals (as am I), but I cannot imagine them being hostile towards the common soldier. Infact, they think far more lowly of the rich expatriates living in rich neighborhoods of Pakistan, employing the poor class of Pakistan (many of whom are actually relatives of low-paid sepoys).
People need to evaluate the military in two different areas:
1) Should it be in politics, and what damage has that done, and how will rightsizing improve that
2) Is it required to protect the borders against India, which is arming itself to the teeth, and how should it be rightsized to make it more efficient.
People tend to take an, ``all or nothing`` approach to the above. Those who think the Army is needed for border protection and that soldiers are sacrificing their lives for it (which they are in places like Siachen) tend to think this justifies the Army`s role in politics also, i.e. politicians are stupid, hence military should rule. The ones at the other extreme, state that since the Army Generals have been as poor, if not more poor, at ruling the country in comparison to the civilians, hence the whole Army is an evil and unnecessary, and is the cause of all of Pakistan`s problems. In both cases, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.
In my opinion, the Army is necessary to protect the borders, but not in politics (unless it comes in to protect the storming of the Supreme Court or in situations like the violence in Gujrat, India, or if Pakistan has reached a stage where it cannot even pay the salaries of it employees. Even in such situations when Pakistan is completely going of a cliff, it should come in and be out very quickly). However, the only way it will stay out of politics is if the people have faith in the civilian politicians, and thus rise up when a coup occurs. Could you highlight any other practical way of avoiding coups?
I do not agree with the, ``people have too many day to day problems to rise up,`` that you have presented. People have even more day to day problems in India, since it has far more poor people. Yet I doubt they would accept a military rule. Primarily because they seem to have a lot more faith in their civilian politicians.
I think Pakistan will continue between civilian and military leaderships, until either an outstanding honest civilian leadership emerges, or until people finally decide in favor of one over the other (once and for all). Currently, people tend to favor civilian leaderships when they start, and then favor coups once the civilians disappoint. The coups are favored for a few years, and then they are disappointed with them as well, and want a civilian leadership, i.e. people like a leadership when it starts, but want it removed after about three years. Only a, ``relatively`` honest civilian leadership can break this cycle.
I am hoping people like Imran Khan and his party can fill this vacuum. But the way things are going, being fed up with military in politics and being fed-up with the PML and PPP and with ethnic parties like ANP and MQM, people are now tilting towards maulvis. If the maulvis end up improving the lot of the poor person in NWFP, regardless of their banning of co-education and cable TV, I have feeling they may start winning in Punjab as well.
#66 Posted by tahmed32 on February 9, 2003 10:04:22 am
Saima Shah #61 On India`s biggest enemy: T`aint China and t`aint Pakistan. It is poverty and ignorance and poverty and prejudice and poverty and poverty and poverty.
And this is Pakistan`s biggest enemy too. And China`s too.
And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Someday, when people come to their senses, they will realize this.
And this is Pakistan`s biggest enemy too. And China`s too.
And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Someday, when people come to their senses, they will realize this.
#65 Posted by arjun_m on February 9, 2003 10:04:21 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#64 Posted by Ahmadzai on February 9, 2003 7:36:01 am
Riffat & Saima:
In the past, the change of democratically elected govs boiled down to undoing the previous govs doings. The frequent 180 degree changes in policy lead to instability in the country. For example, our industrialists always complained about the frequent changes in SROs that adversely impacted the industrial performance.
I would strongly defend General Pervaiz Musharraf and his current set up to keep the continuity of policy till the time political and economic stability returns. Also, in the absence of the General and his army backing them up, the current democratic government will collapse against terrorists` backlash.
In the past, the change of democratically elected govs boiled down to undoing the previous govs doings. The frequent 180 degree changes in policy lead to instability in the country. For example, our industrialists always complained about the frequent changes in SROs that adversely impacted the industrial performance.
I would strongly defend General Pervaiz Musharraf and his current set up to keep the continuity of policy till the time political and economic stability returns. Also, in the absence of the General and his army backing them up, the current democratic government will collapse against terrorists` backlash.
#63 Posted by harimau on February 9, 2003 7:35:48 am
Ref SaimaShah #61
[then tell me, who or what is India`s biggest enemy? and who or what can save India from it?]
Today, India`s biggest enemy is China.
In the long run, it is the USA which wants to run the world as it sees fit.
So long as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar think they can play the China card against India, they will form temporary nuisances, not enemies.
[then tell me, who or what is India`s biggest enemy? and who or what can save India from it?]
Today, India`s biggest enemy is China.
In the long run, it is the USA which wants to run the world as it sees fit.
So long as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar think they can play the China card against India, they will form temporary nuisances, not enemies.
#62 Posted by jay on February 9, 2003 2:11:08 am
saima 61,
I think I have in a post to the most sane man on chowk, paagalinsaan has said that for most indians, the only interest in pakistan is because of kashmir terrorism. In a way, it had been good, the neglect of the forces since the 1970 war has been corrected, with the use of force coming to the forefront as in the case of iraq, kargill invasion was the best that happened to india.
Containing islam will remain the most importamnt topic for at least a few decades. Isolation of pakistan is next only to that of south korea and with the continuing attack on troops in afghanistan, the missing osama, it may be time for india to define pakistan as enemy.
I am not believer of the crapbeing said on chowk by the ilks of tahmed, ras etc that poverty is the enemy. No, with out a political system to suit it poverty cannot be removed. Pak poverty has increased in the last decade simply because of jihad. Now it is isolated simply because of jihad. First jihad has to be eliminated before poverty can be tackled. Poverty is a symptom, the cause is something else.
I think I have in a post to the most sane man on chowk, paagalinsaan has said that for most indians, the only interest in pakistan is because of kashmir terrorism. In a way, it had been good, the neglect of the forces since the 1970 war has been corrected, with the use of force coming to the forefront as in the case of iraq, kargill invasion was the best that happened to india.
Containing islam will remain the most importamnt topic for at least a few decades. Isolation of pakistan is next only to that of south korea and with the continuing attack on troops in afghanistan, the missing osama, it may be time for india to define pakistan as enemy.
I am not believer of the crapbeing said on chowk by the ilks of tahmed, ras etc that poverty is the enemy. No, with out a political system to suit it poverty cannot be removed. Pak poverty has increased in the last decade simply because of jihad. Now it is isolated simply because of jihad. First jihad has to be eliminated before poverty can be tackled. Poverty is a symptom, the cause is something else.
#61 Posted by SaimaShah on February 9, 2003 1:22:20 am
#59
Re: Jay
hello? I wasn`t being sarcastic at all. I sincerely meant it. You guys are great people. You keep criticizing. You keep bringing up the same issues: jihadis, narrow-minded Pakistanis, nutty muslims--so they maintain their priority on Chowk as topics--. I think everybody benefits from constructive criticism and some leg pulling is necessary. Yes, people in Pakistan have been racist, nationalistic, prejudiced and downright mean to minorities. Yes, the armed forces run the country. As for who or what will `save` Pakistan....firstly, let`s define the enemy. Who is Pakistan`s biggest enemy? And who or how will Pakistan be saved from it?
then tell me, who or what is India`s biggest enemy? and who or what can save India from it?
waiting for a response (especially since you know so much about geopolitical affairs in that conflict ridden part of the world)
sincerely
Saima Shah
Re: Jay
hello? I wasn`t being sarcastic at all. I sincerely meant it. You guys are great people. You keep criticizing. You keep bringing up the same issues: jihadis, narrow-minded Pakistanis, nutty muslims--so they maintain their priority on Chowk as topics--. I think everybody benefits from constructive criticism and some leg pulling is necessary. Yes, people in Pakistan have been racist, nationalistic, prejudiced and downright mean to minorities. Yes, the armed forces run the country. As for who or what will `save` Pakistan....firstly, let`s define the enemy. Who is Pakistan`s biggest enemy? And who or how will Pakistan be saved from it?
then tell me, who or what is India`s biggest enemy? and who or what can save India from it?
waiting for a response (especially since you know so much about geopolitical affairs in that conflict ridden part of the world)
sincerely
Saima Shah
#60 Posted by jay on February 9, 2003 1:05:35 am
ESCAPING QUICK SANDS,
Pakistan is trapped in the jihadic quick sands, and like the real quick sands, the only option is ti p--iss on it. This article is the first of its kind, the jihadists have been called the cannon fodder, the mercenaries. What is needed is more co-ordinated p-issing on the jihadists.
Saimasha, 57,
Instead of coming up with sarcasm, learn something out of our posts, learn what is criticism. It is not what the ilks of you do, ooh pak army is corrupt, the politicians are bad, the jihadists are not good. Tell the truth, for example tell the world that so many temples were destroyed in response to babri majid, do not let the jafir, PM to be the only person to say that. Tell YLH that there are no roads named after abdus salaam, do not leave ferzok to be the only person.
Saima, truth will save pakistan, and of course the indian army.
Pakistan is trapped in the jihadic quick sands, and like the real quick sands, the only option is ti p--iss on it. This article is the first of its kind, the jihadists have been called the cannon fodder, the mercenaries. What is needed is more co-ordinated p-issing on the jihadists.
Saimasha, 57,
Instead of coming up with sarcasm, learn something out of our posts, learn what is criticism. It is not what the ilks of you do, ooh pak army is corrupt, the politicians are bad, the jihadists are not good. Tell the truth, for example tell the world that so many temples were destroyed in response to babri majid, do not let the jafir, PM to be the only person to say that. Tell YLH that there are no roads named after abdus salaam, do not leave ferzok to be the only person.
Saima, truth will save pakistan, and of course the indian army.
#59 Posted by SaimaShah on February 9, 2003 1:05:35 am
ISLAMABAD, Feb 8: Pakistan has decided to reduce the share of defence expenditure in GDP to 3.6 per cent, thus reverting to a trend that aimed at keeping the defence budget constant in real terms over the medium term.
Informed sources told Dawn here on Saturday that Pakistan had informed the World Bank and the IMF that continued tension on the country`s eastern border was still hampering the government`s ability to create additional space for the much-needed increase in human development expenditure.
Nonetheless, both the international donors were assured that Pakistan`s defence expenditure will ``remain static`` despite provocations by India, which has increased its military budget manifold, particularly during the last three years.
The sources said Pakistan had been advised by both the international donors to continue discussions with them to assess the quality of current financial year`s Rs140 billion Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) and the Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) programmes.
The donors were also informed that district governments were executing their investment budgets in line with the needs and priorities of the community they administer.
The government was expecting that the devolution of investment expenditure to the elected local administrations will increase the effectiveness of such expenditure.
The sources said the World Bank and IMF were told that various reforms in government procurement policies, the restructuring of Water and Power Development Authority and Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation, and better monitoring and greater accountability of public enterprises will achieve the programmed reduction of quasi-fiscal activities and of explicit and hidden subsidies to public enterprises. Assurances were given particularly about Wapda that it will not require any further budgetary support from the next financial year.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/09/top7.htm
Informed sources told Dawn here on Saturday that Pakistan had informed the World Bank and the IMF that continued tension on the country`s eastern border was still hampering the government`s ability to create additional space for the much-needed increase in human development expenditure.
Nonetheless, both the international donors were assured that Pakistan`s defence expenditure will ``remain static`` despite provocations by India, which has increased its military budget manifold, particularly during the last three years.
The sources said Pakistan had been advised by both the international donors to continue discussions with them to assess the quality of current financial year`s Rs140 billion Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) and the Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) programmes.
The donors were also informed that district governments were executing their investment budgets in line with the needs and priorities of the community they administer.
The government was expecting that the devolution of investment expenditure to the elected local administrations will increase the effectiveness of such expenditure.
The sources said the World Bank and IMF were told that various reforms in government procurement policies, the restructuring of Water and Power Development Authority and Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation, and better monitoring and greater accountability of public enterprises will achieve the programmed reduction of quasi-fiscal activities and of explicit and hidden subsidies to public enterprises. Assurances were given particularly about Wapda that it will not require any further budgetary support from the next financial year.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/09/top7.htm
#58 Posted by mohar11 on February 8, 2003 9:05:09 pm
#55 by hamidm2 on February 8, 2003 8:25pm PT
//after reading the silly crowing comments of the horrible hindoos...i think we should double the defense budget with back-pay for our field marshall romair ...//
Good for Romair. As for Pakistan - it would accelerate towards insolvency at double speed. And horrible hondoos will crow even more.
//after reading the silly crowing comments of the horrible hindoos...i think we should double the defense budget with back-pay for our field marshall romair ...//
Good for Romair. As for Pakistan - it would accelerate towards insolvency at double speed. And horrible hondoos will crow even more.
#57 Posted by SaimaShah on February 8, 2003 8:36:25 pm
Re: Jay, Arjun M
I would like to sugges that Pakistan should give you honorary citizenship. People who can criticize Pakistani policy fallicies with such detail and knowledge--they should become MP`s there. Truly these are opposition leaders that can benefit Pakistan`s long term future. Hamidm2--don`t lose sight of the fact that the army`s size and power is ultimately making Pakistan weak not strong. Pakistanis should do the same--a strong critique of India` s weaknesses ultimately benefits the Indian people. Two strongly democratic and progressive countries don`t go to war.
I would like to sugges that Pakistan should give you honorary citizenship. People who can criticize Pakistani policy fallicies with such detail and knowledge--they should become MP`s there. Truly these are opposition leaders that can benefit Pakistan`s long term future. Hamidm2--don`t lose sight of the fact that the army`s size and power is ultimately making Pakistan weak not strong. Pakistanis should do the same--a strong critique of India` s weaknesses ultimately benefits the Indian people. Two strongly democratic and progressive countries don`t go to war.
#56 Posted by hamidm2 on February 8, 2003 8:25:20 pm
...... after reading the silly crowing comments of the horrible hindoos, i would like to retract my disparaging remarks about the pak army .......... as a matter of fact, i think we should double the defense budget with full back-pay for our field marshall romair ..........
#55 Posted by SameerJB on February 8, 2003 8:25:20 pm
Riffat Jahan # 48: You have precisely and objectively laid out the broader picture of our society. The nature of Pakistani society needs understanding with the help of history. I would not go into the details here but the net result of a number of factors is that our society lacks clear vision. The official version of Pakistaniness or pakistani identity is largely the concepts developed during independence movement. Public is very confused about it because the practices are widely vascillating on either side of the narrowly defined Pakistani society. Everybody wants progress, social justice and prosperity but the solutions in mind are extremely diverse. On one side, supremacy of religion is offered as a solution and secularism on the other; those who accept little bit of both have been in power and messing up big time because they follow appeasement of both extremes. Many in the diasporic Pakistani population are comfortable with this poutpouri of opposite extremes and justify military dictatorship for the lack of credible and honest political leadership.
Military (Army establishment) has been playing the game of divide and rule with the political leadership with always finding enough civilians to tow military line. The outcome of military interference have been devastating for Pakistani economy, internal cohesion and foreign policy matters. For example, military created Taliban but remained complacent about Taliban involvement in sectarian terrorism in Pakistan. Both BB and NS were so helpless in dealing with sectarian terrorists because of the `strategic depth` polices of military.
I recall pointing out surge in sectarian violence near the end of NS era and sudden drop in violence with his overthrow. The resident expert of military affairs at chowk was sooooo upset for even thinking that military could possibly be a party in the sectarian violence. Now every child on the street knows that sectarian terrorist, Taliban and Kashmiri mujahideen were interchangeable labels for same people.
It is impossible to think that military intelligence did not know that some of the best physicians and surgeons were treating OBL, his lieutenants and Talibans. Who are responsible for tranfering nuclear technology to N. Korea in exchange for rocket technology. Didn`t they consider its effect on relationships with east Asian countries and the USA.
What else is new? They have not changed. They manipulated the whole election process to bring down BB and NS in exchange for MMA. The military has not closed the books on supporting jihads and Islamic terrorism. Right now, it is safely tucked away in exchange for political power to mullahs. The MMA and Army establishment nexus can be revived within days once USA pressure eases. In the meantime, mullahs can be occupied with morality issues in NWFP and Balochistan.
The story of Musharraf taking personal interest in buying partially disabled satellite from Boing appeared in the press, including SA Tribune. Pakistan was made to lease it by a middleman in Chicage (where Boing is headquartered) when nobody in the region was interested in leasing it. I wonder who could be a middleman in Chicage with close access to Musharraf? Boing was not going to make any money on it this year for sure, but thanks to our expert in gorilla tactics, Boing will earn 40 million.
Pakistan and Russia has very litttle trade. Our Kargil mastermind goes to Russia with so much media propaganda that even China will not be pleased with such a move. Russia is not an ascending power to give so much importance.
So it is not just the military budget, unfair business practices of military industrial complex, squandering resources and plots grabbing; the major loss to Pakistanis is both bad policies and military-backed state sponsored indoctrination to create a Pakistani identity that focuses almost exclusively on ideological and political enemies much more than on progress, prosperity, native cultures and decent living.
Military (Army establishment) has been playing the game of divide and rule with the political leadership with always finding enough civilians to tow military line. The outcome of military interference have been devastating for Pakistani economy, internal cohesion and foreign policy matters. For example, military created Taliban but remained complacent about Taliban involvement in sectarian terrorism in Pakistan. Both BB and NS were so helpless in dealing with sectarian terrorists because of the `strategic depth` polices of military.
I recall pointing out surge in sectarian violence near the end of NS era and sudden drop in violence with his overthrow. The resident expert of military affairs at chowk was sooooo upset for even thinking that military could possibly be a party in the sectarian violence. Now every child on the street knows that sectarian terrorist, Taliban and Kashmiri mujahideen were interchangeable labels for same people.
It is impossible to think that military intelligence did not know that some of the best physicians and surgeons were treating OBL, his lieutenants and Talibans. Who are responsible for tranfering nuclear technology to N. Korea in exchange for rocket technology. Didn`t they consider its effect on relationships with east Asian countries and the USA.
What else is new? They have not changed. They manipulated the whole election process to bring down BB and NS in exchange for MMA. The military has not closed the books on supporting jihads and Islamic terrorism. Right now, it is safely tucked away in exchange for political power to mullahs. The MMA and Army establishment nexus can be revived within days once USA pressure eases. In the meantime, mullahs can be occupied with morality issues in NWFP and Balochistan.
The story of Musharraf taking personal interest in buying partially disabled satellite from Boing appeared in the press, including SA Tribune. Pakistan was made to lease it by a middleman in Chicage (where Boing is headquartered) when nobody in the region was interested in leasing it. I wonder who could be a middleman in Chicage with close access to Musharraf? Boing was not going to make any money on it this year for sure, but thanks to our expert in gorilla tactics, Boing will earn 40 million.
Pakistan and Russia has very litttle trade. Our Kargil mastermind goes to Russia with so much media propaganda that even China will not be pleased with such a move. Russia is not an ascending power to give so much importance.
So it is not just the military budget, unfair business practices of military industrial complex, squandering resources and plots grabbing; the major loss to Pakistanis is both bad policies and military-backed state sponsored indoctrination to create a Pakistani identity that focuses almost exclusively on ideological and political enemies much more than on progress, prosperity, native cultures and decent living.
#54 Posted by mohar11 on February 8, 2003 8:06:41 pm
#46 by arjun_m on February 8, 2003 11:58am PT
//..FBI seeking Pakistani man who entered U.S. illegally..//
It is a conspiracy hatched by FBI to justify INS registration of pakistanis and malign the reputation of Pakistan.
//..FBI seeking Pakistani man who entered U.S. illegally..//
It is a conspiracy hatched by FBI to justify INS registration of pakistanis and malign the reputation of Pakistan.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Massaddi Mian: Please show me... Why is Karachi Turning
- Ajeet: Now that Romair has... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- anil: Re: # 111 Kaal: "...they call... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- quin: Re: # 52 thanks... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I would like to... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: The hadith are the... Translation of a (Love)
- dost_mittar: Eklavya#118: "The other option is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Vedas(knoweldge of manifest) and... Dhokha and Being a
