Hypocrisy of Musharraf Lovers

#86 by nakhok

+++
When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that it will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,
+++

The advent of fighter jets, missiles, tanks and long-range guns has changed the rules of war. The martial race theory applied to wars of the 18th and 19th centuries when soldiers fought on horseback with swords, bayonnets and rifles. As a professional army, the Pakistan Army does not believe in such out-dated ideas. You need to update your compass.

All armies motivate their soldiers by inflating their sense of strength, and depicting the enemy as weak. The 1 Pakistani=10 Hindu soldiers slogan is no different from the US army`s belief that Iraqi soldiers will throw their arms and run away at the sight of a Yankee soldier.

As for Red Fort, I don`t think Pak Army`s mission statement include conquest of any Indian territory. Its mission statement is limited to defense of Pakistan and liberation of Kashmir (which BTW, is a dispute territory unlike the Red Fort). The military posture of Pak Army is defensive, not offensive.

I really don`t understand you guys complaining about grants of land to Pak Army officers.

If ALL the land in Pakistan is owned by Army officers, then there can be no question about whether the Army owns Pakistan or not; nor will statements like ``Pakistan is an Army with a country, not a country with an army`` arise.

Also, the Pak Army is doing its best to reform land ownership.

Viewed in this positive light, the Pak Army is doing the average Pakistani a FAVOR when it allocates land to its officers.

Be grateful, you ingrates.

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

One dictator had desperately tried to change Pakistan into a pure islamic state, where the laws of Allah and his prophet were supposed to rule ( as he often procalimed in his speeches``jahaN Allah aur us ke Rasul ke Qanoon ki hukumrani ho gii``). This dictator wants to make Pakistan a secular islamic state, heck I have no idea what a secular islamic state is . It is a bitter reality that Musharraf, like his predecessor Zia, is just a puppent of the USA and he will remain in power as long as he serves america`s interests in this region. And when his Plane falls from the sky Pakistan will find itself again in the same utter chaos in which it was after the death of Zia. Democracy is the only form of government which is somehow functioning in this world, the rest is bilge-water.

#76 by ballukhan

You are most welcome.

Here are excerpts from an Irfan Husain write-up that brings out the essence of the situation:

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
04 January 2003 Saturday 30 Shawwal 1423

Looking ahead, darkly
By Irfan Husain

.....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.....

When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that it will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the Red Fort,

it does so, not because it believes in what it says, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.

In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan
is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armoe who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.

When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.

What happens tomorrow if the Prime Minister orders the establishment secretary to cancel the contracts of all retired military officers serving in the government as well as public sector corporations, and to send all serving officers back to the barracks? Musharraf keeps saying that the Prime Minister has a free hand, but is he free to purge the administration of military brass?

Ahmadzai #77

``Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real.``

This is completely bizarre !! You create a potentially unstable situation and then it is
the US/West`s responsibility to restore order ? Leaving aside issues of self-respect,
juvenile blackmailing is an asinine way of conducting foreign policy - how long would
an artificially propped-up Musharraf last ?

``Why should not we stay with certainty offered by the present times? In other words, why gamble?``

What certainty ? From your previous paragraph, the ``certainty`` seems very fragile.

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

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

Stuka #80

LOL

You know Ahmadzai`s favorite theory. It goes like this.

Pathans are the brave, ferocious people of the subcontinent (or may be the middle east, or middle kingdom, or something like that).

They love Islam.

Indians better give Pakistan what Pakistanis have been asking for.

Else these ferocious ancestors of Ahmadzai (or their progeny, not that it matters) will overrun Pakistan and India.

That will be so very bad for Indians.

So better do what Pakistan wants.

After this we are supposed to quake with fear.

Wasn`t Romair at that level of maturity a couple of years ago? :)

I want to address this seperately.

``Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real. ``

Iif the people democratically elect Jamaat (chances of Hafiz, Masood Azhar are non existant) or the MMA, then it should come to power. The ``chaos`` theory of Islamic fundamentalists has been disproved in Iran.

Ahmadzai:

It was in good humor. Ii think that one should elect leader based on positive emotions, not on negative.

Not just Musharraf, all Faujis who have taken power, have done so on the basis of other person`s bad performance rather then their own good performance. Anyways, if you seriously believe it to be true that he is the best for Pakistan, then that is fine.

The only thing you should consider is..what happens when he goes? And how will he go? Ten years of economic growth is worth nothing if it ends in instability at the macro level.

Thanks for the info!!
#55 by HisExcellency on October 22, 2003 7:59am PT

I always thought that since military career also provides avenues to branch into other careers such as civil services, public sector institutes, sports administration etc. because of the army`s role and priviledges in Pakistan`s government it must be a better or perhaps the best career option for the educated youths.
But I am still puzzled at this phenomenon.

Re : nakhok

Thanks for the posts.

Stuka at # 63:

In response to your same questioned now asked twice (although I think it is humor in good spirit to correct my stance), I have the following to say:

1. While over-focusing on my second point that Pakistanis should have President Musharraf, because Indians hate him, you are not paying attention to my first point i.e. his economic performance. Good economic performance, political stability, acceptability by the world community, etc. would be mandatory.

2. Now you may say that Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Azhar may give us good economic performance as well, if made President/PM. To this I will say what I suggested to Tauheed on another matter. Why should Pakistanis settle for uncertainty by having these two as their Presidents/PMs, who are hated by Indians alright, but are hated by the entire world too and the economic prosperity will be a question mark? Why should not we stay with certainty offered by the present times? In other words, why gamble?

3. Having said all of the above, I really believe that if the USA/West do not stay behind President Musharraf firmly, then Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar or any one from their ranks will take over the reigns of this country ultimately and send the entire region into chaos. The possibilities of an unstable south Asia are very real.