Doctors or the Disease

I agree with Abrar`s views. Much debate has already taken place about Pakistan Army`s role in politics.

Some suggest that Army and Kashmir are two sides of the same coin. However, this is not entirely correct. The predominance of Pak Army in politics has more to do with the British Martial Races policy than the Kashmir issue. Even if a settlement is reached with India over Kashmir (with or without the facilitation of third-world powers), the Pak Army will continue to retain its position of dominance in Pakistan.

Sometimes this influence will be exercised overtly e.g. like the Ayub, Zia and Musharraf governments.

At other times, this influence will be exercised ``behind the scenes`` e.g. the role played by General Abdul Waheed in breaking the constitutional deadlock between Nawaz Sharif, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Manzoor Wattoo in 1993.

Military influence, in my opinion is necessary, to ensure the continuity of democratic process. However, this influence should always be exercised from behind the scenes. Musharraf`s concept of ``bringing the Army in, to keep it out`` will not work because it will permanently stunt the growth of democratic institutions.

Terminating military influence in Pakistan is virtually impossible and perhaps even unnecessary. The political parties in Pakistan should push for greater reform and transparency of the military. One way to accomplish this, is by forcing Musharraf into compromises that he doesn`t want to make.

For example, Musharraf insists on staying on as Army Chief and President simultaneously. The opposition should instead offer him 10 years of Presidency in return for taking his uniform off. Musharraf may be given the power of appointing the next Army Chief.

Full agreement with the Abrar`s views.

Army is itself the disease plaguing this poor country rather than the cure it never tires of repeating to the now stupified poeple of this nation.

Probably it does not want to solve the very problem for which it is advancing the theory of necessity.

For Kashmir we have wrecked our own country due to this doctrine of necessity and look where it has landed us.

Now we are in a position where even the Kashmiris don`t want to
accede to Pakistan.

But we are continuing with our self destruct mode of living.

All this for a small piece of land?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

INDIA THANKS MUSHY,

Kargill invasion is the best thing that happened to india. 25 years of peace, the lahore bus yatra and the idea of pecae had luuled the fools of delhi into a belief that india is not a jihadic frontier. Kargill invasion and the largest casuality in indo pak war has once and for all altered the indian mind set. It has prepared india for the pre-emptive doctrine, india is talking about a premtive strike, which would not have happened with out help from mushy. Now india has more thyan doubled the defence, military production is commercialised, india is going to emerge as a weapons exporter, at last gandi is dead and buried.

Aerial refueling, AWACS, aircraft carriers, cruise missile, drones, bubs, the missiles, the whole lot os abuzz and one has to thank mushy for this. At last india is realising that if nearly 10 percent of the GDP is not on defence, it will have no say in world affairs and hence in economic issues. This is a world where military might only matters, as shown by iraq, and thanks to mushy, india is ahead by at least for years.

One can well imagine, if it were not for kargill invasion, what would have been indias military position. India has to get the missile defence system, aerial refueling, over the horizon radar, and vajpaye is your uncle.

Indians are finally accepting that jihadic border can only be managed, the jihadists from 200000 madrassas have taken over pakistan. The election to power of MMA is the convergence, the extent to which mushy went to put them in power is the final jihadic convergence in pakistan.

Pakistan awaiting formal offer


By Qudssia Akhlaque

ISLAMABAD, April 25: Pakistan is awaiting a formal offer for dialogue from India after responding positively to Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee`s recent peace talks` offer.

``The Government of Pakistan is now awaiting a formal talks` offer from New Delhi after having responded positively and pro-actively to Prime Minister Vajpayee`s April 18 statement,`` a senior government official told Dawn on Friday.


///I hope it will be a very long wait. Tunnel visioned mushy is out foxed by the politicians. The first ststaement by mushy was that first the kashmir issue has to be solved, while india talked of composite dialogue and confidence building measures. Now the mushy is accepting the idea of composite dialogue, it will be talks and tlaks. May the bus to lahore will be the oiutcome of the talks.

After a long time, a balanced article regarding the sordid state of affairs in Pakistan.

… “One major problem with the army`s role is that as an institution, it is convinced that its interest is identical to the national interest which it has defined without any semblance of a public debate. This leads to the conclusion that to justify our bloated defence budget, Pakistan needs an enemy. In our case, this means India. The logical inference to be drawn from this line of reasoning is that the Kashmir issue will never be resolved.

Another reason the army will never voluntarily loosen its grip on power is that the officer class is too accustomed to all the perks that go with running the country. Currently, literally hundreds of civilian jobs here and in our missions abroad are manned by serving and retired military personnel.

Housing estates and agricultural lands across the country have been parcelled out to officers as a matter of routine. Above all, they are virtually exempt from any sort of prosecution on charges of corruption. Every class has its own set of demands and requirements and normally, these are mediated with the state and some compromise is reached. In the army`s case, there is no mediation because it controls the levers of power.

Had the army`s monopoly on power meant simply the usurpation and waste of resources, we could have gritted our teeth and got on with life. Unfortunately, the assumption that GHQ is the source of all wisdom has many implications: for instance, when there is complicit relationship between religious extremists and the `agencies`, it is not possible for the enfeebled state to control the former. Their violent methods in Afghanistan and Kashmir cannot be switched on and off at will, and the result is the kind of hate-filled rhetoric and bloodletting we have grown so accustomed to.”

… “According to NAB chief, NAB has recovered three times more money from retired defence officials than civilians. To be noted, this despite of the fact that NAB has persecuted or prosecuted 10 times more civilians than khakis? The links to Pakistani papers corroborating this statement can be provided, if that required. So who is eating whom?”

Lets readers decide.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I think there is a tendency to recycle the same very arguments hundred times over on Chowk. The same usual Indo-Pak tussle. The same very abuses keep on hurling back and forth.

Does this code of conduct serve any meaningful purpose?

Anyhow, this article is about the political role of the military in Pakistan? So are we better off due to khakis or heading towards disaster. I mean, in case if we are not already there.
What do we want? A decent civilian government, allowed to take policy decisions on its own and a political structure organically evolved or being dictated by the garrison?

I myself would like to the author or for that matter other worthy interactors:
If not military then who?

(i) MMA?
(ii) Benazir Bhutto and Zardari
(iii) Nawaz Sharif with Abba jee
(iv) Tahir Ul Qadri

And if none of these, as I suppose many would say then what’s wrong with the military? Could anyone dislodge NS in 1999 except army chief? Or anyone else who once succeeded in getting to the prime minister house?

Answers please.

Your statement of Ppakistani perspective of 1971 war reminds me of a story.

When VP Singh lost election in 1993, some reporter asked him about his opinion of the result. His response was that people have given Janata Dal a mandate to sit in the opposition. So, basically, he was converting a loss into a mandate ``for opposition``.

#28 by Studebaker on April 24, 2003 3:05pm PT

[Objectives of war is not always killing more than the enemy .Americans dies so few 60 thousands as oppoased to millins in Vietnam but American came back as LOSER nevetheless.]

Whichever way you look at it, be it the number of casualties, or the objectives of the war, it was Pakistan that lost in Kargil. You guys tried to grab land, a la Siachen Glacier, but failed miserably when your butts were handed over to you. As regards casualties, India lost about 500-odd soldiers whereas you guys lost around 1400 soldiers.

[In the same light none of the battles between India & pak has been unanimously discisive .Even when Bangladesh was ``lost`` Pakistan point of view is it went to previous E.Pak residents NOT to India.]

Another name for the so-called ``Pakistani point of view``: self-delusion.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Our political leaders do not have much of a chance against the

most organized political force in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army.

The rest as we say is history...

Ras

Please, welcome me.
I am a newcomer on chowk. Yeah, at least as an active member.

A multi-dimensional article covering several aspects of the military’s meddling of the state affairs and its impact. I liked the references in particular.

By the way where is chowk’s own Field Marshal with his expert opinion? I have read about him a lot.

A balanced article. A direct result of the Pak high command`s interference is the religious intolerance that is tearing the fabric of Pakistani society. While Nawaz Sharif and BB were discredited from the recent elections, a criminal with over a dozen cases (mostly murder and terrorism) pending against him was allowed to contest the elections and is now a member of Parliament.

Yes, Azam Tariq, leader of the Sipah-e-Sahaba (now renamed as Millat-e-Islamia) is once again free. If the Pakistani Generals were really concerned for the country, how did they allow this traversity of justice?
Either they are no longer calling the shots and their Frankenstein of religious extremism is wagging the country`s tail. Or this is just one of their latest experiments at the cost of continual damage to Pakistan`s institutions. After all, having extremist elements like the MMA and Azam Tariq in power serves their interest of obtaining leverage with the United States as the last ``bastion of moderation`` in a sea of extremism.

Reply # 19 Pankaj

I know I am thinking too far ahead. That is what our leaders should be doing instead of thinking in a time frame of 2-3 years. I exeggrate to drive the point home.

Leadership is not being led by the people but taking an unpleasant course in the national interest and getting the people to follow. Mine is just one voice but when many such voices combine, these become a crescendo and a national conciousness developes on the issue. Believe me a large part of Pakistani younger generation born after 1947 thinks on these lines.

… “Talking to reporters after addressing a convocation of the National College of Arts in Lahore, the general said he would ``address only a civilized assembly (parliament) because I do not want the world to develop a perception that we are an uncivilized people``. The president spoke in Urdu, but did use the English word ``civilized``. He probably meant ``civil`` or ``disorderly``, which would be closer to, and less offensive than, the Urdu ``ghair muhazzib``.

Opposition members in the National Assembly and the Senate have been disorderly in their protests and have made it impossible for the two houses to function normally. The protests have also been extremely personalized. They have been directed against the person of the president and diverted attention from the issues involved. To that extent, they reflect the opposition`s immaturity, and there is some irony in the fact that this should be happening in a parliament which, under the election rules laid down by the Musharraf government, is supposed to be stocked with graduates, who should be expected to behave more responsibly.

But equally if not more raucous scenes have been witnessed in parliaments all over the world, even in countries with established democratic traditions and institutions. The leaders of such countries have never implied that their legislatures were uncivilized.

The military and the establishment in Pakistan have already arrogated to themselves the right to decide what is patriotic and what is unpatriotic, they have defined the national interest according to their own lights, and they have laid down the ideological parameters within which policy has to be formulated. Are they now also going to tell us what is civilized and what is uncivilized? There is among the elite only a thinly disguised contempt for political processes and the din and noise of democracy; sometimes it shows.

Also, if parliamentary protests have become too personalized, it is because military rule often tends to be extremely personalized. The decisions that are encapsulated in the Legal Framework Order are after all the work of one person and his associates. It is inevitable that the agitation against the LFO should also be directed against that person.

However, let us give the president some latitude, and accept that he meant uncivil or disorderly when he said civilized and that, faced with daily attacks, he just blew his cool. No such allowance can be made for his other remarks on the same occasion. He made the categorical statement that the Legal Framework Order was part of the Constitution and would remain so. On the same day, Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali was telling reporters that the opposition would be formally invited for talks on the LFO in a day or two. The two statements do not square up. What is the point then in discussing the LFO when the president insists that it is an irrevocable part of the Constitution, the opposition may well ask.

The opposition is not asking for the LFO to be scrapped. It has already agreed to many of its provisions. It primarily objects to the LFO`s clauses relating to the president remaining in uniform while he passes himself off as a democratically elected president and to the establishment of a National Security Council. These are issues on which, sooner or later, a compromise will have to be reached if the political system is to function in a more or less normal way” …

http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/23/fea.htm#2

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Mr. nazarhayatkhan

You are far too ahead of time and your ideas are very radical in the present times. The days of SAARC political federation are definitely past. What may be considered feasible could be SAARC economic zone with sovereign countries participating in free trade on the lines of ASEAN. With free trade cultural exchanges follow automatically. This could also come with a political rider that no country in SAARC will ever try to intervene in the internal political matters of another country or provide shelter to the forces hostile to another country. I can elaborate on the idea but we perhaps ``know`` in our hearts that even this is a pipedream. The best we can hope for in the present circumstances is that the nuclear war does not break out. Anything short of war should actually be considered good news given the kind of distrust that prevails between us.

waqartalib #11 you write ``Oh God, I have been eagerly waiting for a piece of the sort for re-submitting a post of mine.``

You are right in resubmitting your post. Well said.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

An interactor asked about jihad. Here comes a reply.

It is hard to say who spawned whom. The power of the clergy and the paramountcy of the military were established almost simultaneously when the Pakistani politician decided that the new republic had to be Islamic and that India had to be taken on as the country’s eternal enemy. Both were opposed to the fundamental spirit of democracy but the army got its chance of ruling Pakistan first. In fact, when it was time for General Zia to rule Pakistan, he united the army and the clergy under the banner of “shariat”. The political party he fathered, the PML, doffed its secular vestments and became semi-ecclesiastical. The PPP was persecuted for being an ideological “security risk” and the nation was subjected to massive indoctrination. More clearly, the army spawned the jihadi militias to fight its deniable wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The militias in turn empowered the religious parties who then threatened the army itself when General Musharraf came on the scene. Tragically, however, after the war in Iraq, the nation seems to be thinking more on the lines dictated by the clergy than ever before in the past.

The army is now witnessing the whirlwind it sowed. The battle between Islam and “kufr” in Pakistan is manifest in many areas. A bad law and order situation and insipient sectarianism are two aspects of it. The madrasa culture is daily increasing the number of those who make intolerance a way of life. The minorities are under threat and there are terrorist actions that an indoctrinated state machinery is unable to cope with. In Karachi today, two entities created by the army are at each other’s throat. After an unprecedented outbreak of violence between the students wings of the Jama’at-e-Islami and the MQM, almost all the colleges and universities of the city have closed down.

Therefore General Musharraf is right when he bemoans the environment of religious intolerance in Pakistan and the violence that takes place in it. Indeed, no one can deny that Pakistan needs to improve its secular and pluralist credentials and climb out of poverty by shunning aggression of all variety. But General Musharraf must see it all in perspective.

General Musharraf behaved tentatively when he had the nation fully behind him. He did not disarm the militias and he gave up half way after beginning a drive against the Kalashnikov culture of the religious leaders. He also shrank from the madrasas after beginning a drive to register and monitor them for sectarianism and illegal funding. He allowed the loud-mouthed leaders of the defunct jihadi militias to fulminate in public for too long. They undermined his credibility and lured the public opinion away from his “reforms”. Today, we have the spectacle of a small PML-N leader bad-mouthing General Musharraf and getting mysteriously roughed up while the banned jihadi leaders are on the rampage saying unprintable things about General Musharraf with impunity. He willy-nilly continues to be a part of the theory in sections of the army that wants to boost religion in order to postpone democracy and fight wars that no longer suit the people. Now the army is on the verge of being upstaged. And all General Musharraf can do is wail about the misplaced battle between Islam and “kufr” and continue to remain aloof from the liberal and secular elements that should have been his proper constituency. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-4-2003_pg3_1

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: arjun

{Nope..The army gets its validation from the civilians dancing in the streets when the elected government is overthrown. }


...yup that`s the bottom line: a majority of pakis love dictators...that`s been evident for the past 50 years...

those who are organised are not civil and those who are civil are not organised.they are just playing hide an d seek since 1947

LFO impasse: a catch-22 situation
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: This is not fair. President General Musharraf should not have called parliamentarians as ``uncivilised``. He should also not have said that president`s address to the joint session of parliament is not a compulsion.

One feels perturbed over Musharraf`s remarks not because of one`s love for ``unscrupulous`` parliamentarians but because what the General said is a negation of his own commitment, an embarrassment for the electorate and adverse to the Constitution. History shows and people believe that in Pakistan promises by the rulers are made to break. However, those close to Musharraf had always been portraying him as a sincere man, who has the guts to fulfil his promises. But the time has shown and his latest statement endorses that he is no different from others. Just to remind the president that he had discarded old guard of politicians by dubbing them as looters and plunderers.

He had promised that as a result of the constitutional, legal and administrative reforms, which he had introduced, during his three years rule, neat and clean political leadership would emerge. He put the politicians through the sieve of his own choice and let only ``clean`` politicians to take part in the elections. They were not only ``clean`` but also educated. They all were ``graduates``, at least on the paper, if one goes by the piece of paper known as ``degree`` that they produced.

Later voters were given the right to select what they believed were the best among the sieved ones. It was bad luck for the General that his choice party/parties could not win enough seats to comfortably make a government. Rather the majority votes went to the parties that were allergic to Musharraf and his policies. Extraordinary conditions were created to make a choice government by allowing some ``consciousness`` elements belonging to parties including on the negative list, to join hands with the king`s parties. Consequently, a choice government was formed and a choice prime minister appointed.

Parliament is in place now. It comprises all ``graduates`` and all ``sieved`` ones. But it is still ``uncivilised``. It shows that Musharraf`s reforms have failed to produce desired class of politicians. It means that Musharraf could not fulfil his promise. It implies that Musharraf is just like any other ruler who promises but fails to fulfil it.

Musharraf`s remarks are unfair for the people of Pakistan on two accounts. Firstly, they have been once again betrayed by the one who was considered by them as a messiah.

Secondly, they feel embarrassed as their choice political leadership, which they elected through popular vote, is seen as uncivilised. The opposition parties, including the ``extremists`` and those led by ``corrupt`` and exiled leadership are united in rejecting the controversial Legal Framework Order (LFO). They are also not ready to accept a president, who got himself appointed through ``sham`` referendum and who is at the same time is the Army chief as well. The opposition has the demands that the LFO should be placed before parliament to make it a part of the Constitution and that General Musharraf should hang up his uniform and get himself elected by parliament.

The opposition is resorting to all sorts of protests to press for its demands. The government seems helpless to solve the riddle by convincing either the ``boss`` or the ``rigid`` opposition. While the ``boss`` as he spoke on Monday in Lahore, is not ready to retreat and had rather warned that any threat to LFO would threaten the democracy itself.

Article 56(3) of the Constitution makes it mandatory for the president to address joint sitting of parliament at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the National Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each parliamentary year. However, General Musharraf says that presidential address is not a ``compulsion by any means.``

It is really a catch-22 situation. Nothing goes as was envisaged. Who is to be blamed? Who is responsible for this situation? Will there be more scapegoats? Is the future of ``genuine democracy`` secure? Should not we trust the people and their choice instead of imposing our solution? There are many questions but no answer. Ironically the Tamasha continues.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2003-daily/23-04-2003/metro/i3.htm

President`s comment
Editorial
The News
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2003-daily/23-04-2003/oped/editorial.htm#1

President Pervez Musharraf`s latest outburst at opposition protesting against the Legal Framework Order (LFO) is unfortunate and comes close to compromising his role as non-partisan head of state who symbolises of unity of all federating units. The President told media persons in Lahore after addressing the convocation at the National College of Arts that he would only address a ``civilised assembly`` as he did not want the world to develop the perception that Pakistanis are not ``civilised`` people. Though he did not use the word ``uncivil`` for the Parliament, the assumption would be obvious.

It is understandable that the President is hesitant in addressing the joint session of the Parliament against the backdrop of a vociferous opposition which has virtually incapacitated the legislature till such time the government places the LFO before the house. The opposition also has serious reservations over the two caps of convenience the President is wearing, notwithstanding rejection of the crutches of referendum that he used to become a ``constitutional`` head of state. While the President and the government treat the LFO like a deus ex machina, a device to validate every change or amendment made over the last three years in the constitution, the opposition is justified in upholding the Constitution as it existed before the military coup. The President would have done well had he not supposed that the august Houses the people have elected were not civil. Perhaps he didn`t realise that an assembly -- ``uncivil`` or otherwise -- is the source of strength for the prime minister and the government and also the symbol of dignity and sovereignty of the country.

The President`s tone and tenor hinted of a general who is in no mood to give in to the demands of people`s representatives. He made it clear that LFO is part of the Constitution, which would not be changed. In fact, he left it to the detractors to reconcile with this reality. This raises serious doubts about the independence and capacity of the government of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to bargain any compromise deal with the opposition on the issue of LFO now that the two sides seem ready to discuss it inside as well as outside the parliament.

The President needs to appreciate that dissent is part of political process and discourse that only enrich democracy. A vigorous civil society draws its strength from the diversity of points of view that need to be respected, not be scorned. The country may appear more ``civil`` to the world if democracy is allowed to nurture and democratic institutions given the sovereign powers they deserve.

Oh God, I have been eagerly waiting for a piece of the sort for re-submitting a post of mine.

Since August 14, 1947, the day Pakistan came into being, more than 200000 Americans military personnel have embraced ‘martyrdom’ in the line of duty.
Compared to Pakistan the US has lost many times more of her sons in war, in proportion to the population.
Have those sacrifices translated into blanket “kabza” of the khakis in the US?? No. Absolutely not. Despite all this, defence secretary can sack the army chief on standing feet?
One more bizarre fact. For last 15 years at least 5 times more Pakistani civilians have laid down their lives fighting real/perceived enemy than that of regular forces of Pakistan. Lead: Kashmir and Afghanistan.

By the way, what does a soldier get paid/recruited for? To knit sweaters? Yeah, to fight, when and if the time comes. And ALL armed forces of the world do it, often valiantly. Without raping their own respective countries?
What the hell armed forces do extraordinary in Pakistan? If I may ask?

It is an undeniable fact that the military in general and army in particular has eaten up the very roots of this poor nation.
Dear Romair, there are some good exceptions. I agree. In PAF more, much more than army. But almost entire (over 90%) high command of the army, and 70 – 80% of the air force and navy are modern day looters in ceremonial dresses – squarely responsible for the destruction of the institutions.

All of them, together, have converted Pakistan into a giant brothel, where army pimps runs the show. Was it not here on chowk, a lady Nighat Yasmeen raised some very serious questions about the sordid state of affairs. And none could refute her assertions.

---------------------------------
405,399 Americans that lost their lives during World War II. 78,976 of them are Missing in Action.
The Department of Defense reports that 54,246 Americans service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War. This includes all losses world wide.
In Vietnam War, American casualties were: 109000. Out of which Battle deaths were 47410.

Sources:
Directorate For Information Operations and Reports
Department of Defence
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm
American Battle Monuments Commission
http://www.usabmc.com

With our experience of last 56 years, was partition of India really necessary?

It would have been a big self-sufficient country with some kind of a stable political system and all that money spent on defence by both countries could have been better utilized.

There would have been a freedom to go to a church, pub, mosque, bar, temple, Goa, Kashmir, K-2 and so on......

Now, let us make a SAARC Federation!

nazar hayat

Nice article. Good and relevant quotes.

The writer had been generous to the defenders of our geographical and ideological frontiers. In my humble opinion a more appropriate and better title for our khaki-clad messiahs should be “Murderers not Messiahs”. Let me give you one minor example in this regard:

An interesting point put forward by some Raja Ibrahim on the discussion forum of the SAT. “By the way how can one respect/like or not hate those who can ignite an ammunition depot in the middle of a city of 1 million to cover up their own loot. Yeah, I am talking about Ojhri Camp. See, India (and Pakistan too) avoided civilian targets during 1965 and 1971. But our own generals didn’t mind putting a big city on fire themselves.
And you still talk about everything else but not the real crooks and have the courage/guts to defend/condone them.
I am sad, extremely sad to observe this inexplicable callousness.”

Before some of gentlemen start their typical emotional blackmailing about soldiers defending the motherland, risking their lives and so on, I would like to pre-emptively add:

I have absolutely NOTHING against poor guys standing guard on our borders while we sleep. I SALUTE them. Actually, some people tend to forget the tragic facts that those who lay down their lives on the borders are not who get awards and plots. In some cases we don’t even accept their dead bodies (remember NLI and Kargil). Many true Shaheeds normally don’t even get proper burial.
As someone wrote on South Asia Tribune, begum of a general with aching back has much higher priority at a CMH than that of a hawaldar from the LOC with Indian bullet in his chest.
See, that hawaldar will be put in a stinking jawans’ ward, while civilian drunk teenager son of a general will get the best possible treatment in VIP awards. Can anyone deny?

In short, a handful of senior officers, those very individuals who are very fond of playing messiahs, are in reality the biggest curse for the nation.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

abrar:

brilliant article. faujiz ARE the disease. one of the best on this topic i`ve read. good concluding piece. Eqbal Ahmed`s quote reminds one of ML King`s quote: In the end what will be remembered are not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

since i had to keep a dictionary by my side when reading this, i learned many new words.

interesting article. yet nothing novel is being said. it seems with each passing day that the pakistanis are getting more and more disillusioned with this `government` and especially with busharaff.

It seems more and more likely to me that the only time pakistanis will truly have a representative govt will be when they all unite together and produce an inqilaab. It was the only way to get rid of the Shah in Iran and it`ll be the only way to get rid of the men in khakhi.

The problem is that things will have to get a lot worse before the common man rises up in unison with his compatriots. The other problem is that the iranians had khomeini (who despite his many faults) was a very charismatic leader; we do not have anyone like that yet. MAYBE Noorani Sahib or Qazi but I am not so sure...I USED to think Tahirul Qadri before during his `inqilab e Mustafawi` days but he`s turned out to be a self-seeking politician and cosy with whoever is in power. also most Sunnis have turned against him...

BUT someone will arise who will lead the masses against the leadership. Its just a matter of time before pakistan gets its Mustafawi Inqilaab...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Abrar,

Yet anotyer pathetic portrayal of the symptoms with out having the courage to look at the cause. Is there any non-repressive islamic country. Look at the posts of the educated on chowk, the likes of temporal tahmed etc..have they ever said that killing of kafirs is unislamic. They have laways stood by the islamic doctrine that the heaven belongs to shaheeds who indulge in killing of kafirs and in turn gets killed.

If this is the central core of the creation of pakistan, then it is only natural that military is the most effective govt that can deliver this killing mode of heaven seeking to the people. Military is formally trained to kill, and the products of 200,000 madrassas streaming out of paktstan are informally trained for the same task.

For the first time, one cannot talk of military budget in pakistan. Mushy the commander of the ramed forces is he paid from admin budget or the army one. How about the thousands of military men in wapda to the corn flakes factory, are they from the departmental budgets or from the ramy.

For the first time the entire pak society is a killing machine, the entire budget is devoted to this machine.
Abrar, no p[oint in talking about symptoms. are ready to say, the first pakistani ever, that jihad is not killing of kafirs. If you cannot do that join the club of tahmeds and temporals, the jihadists in jeans.

(warning: not meant for humour-impaired)

abrar:

...it is a pity we do not have oil...and a travesty that we do have nuclear weapons...othewise perhaps maaibap would have taken pity and burst the bubble of timocracy for us...for it is clear presently we are not capable of even doing this chore by ourselves...

..t