The Door To The Barracks

Re: #30

Hi Anil,

it was great to meet you too. We all appreciated your gesture very much.

The event report will be in Pakistan Link on Friday, July 30, 2004.

Ras

Thanks Mr. F.Khan for your article.
J B Sameer ( 43) you have written a good response, liked it. My work experience in Hospatality business taught me few things to improve. First catch and scold people for bad doing or not working and secondly praise people for being honest and for doing good. First is ineffective second is always success resultingin better things.
I always found you honest to fault and you write what you believe and sure must be following the axiom to believe is to act. I respect your defence and putting words for simple democracy and opposition to military take overs. I like you are not over read over educated fool.

Military take over is a social and cultural ethos , I feel. We as largest central asian country in population is fitting in former soviet ``stans``. Even after demise of soviet power all have turned into most autocratic and brutal ``kingdoms``. Even though we like indian movies all over overlords want to demark us from India. Culturally we are related to India than any other country in world but at heart we know we are divorced from India and India ethos. Our ears and eyes are tuned to India our hearts ache for great or more better things like music, literature will come from sands and deserts of Arabia, Iran, Turkstan, and all Stans(central asia) our spiritual . We hope old glorie will come back we hope for great just ruler kind of like ``Nizam E Mustafa``. We never urge for democracy as ``stans`` have no democracy. In sense we fit patterns of stans. Just like Soviet gone and stans revert to old rule same way when English departed we reverted to old good times.
In our country one think is lacking for all half century and where India is different is rise of ``Left`` power.
It is my humble feeling left wing democratic forces are required if democracy is to return to our country. Indian leftist have been in Indian politics for long time and INDIANS RESPOND TO THEM.Recently in my sickness ( anxity leading led depression, prozac and respiridon is helping to control) I read volumes on Indian politics of yester years.
Indian left got support from masses for their egalatarian message and created atmosphere conducive to future of democracy. It made ethos that masses count and need to be paid attention to poor people and their aspirations. After reading about indian left wing poliyicians felt they made great contribution to future of coming indian democracy. Most of all original founders of Indian left great sacrafices. One can read about S A Dange , Numbudripad, Ajay Ghosh , P C Joshi, Jayprakash Narayan ............hundreds ( all high caste, many brahmins also,Incredible but true). Invariably they spents decades in british jails. These were men of character and integrity. They sacraficied all. What great movements they started were great trade unions and they turned them into great instruments of schools of thoughts. They created ethos of democracy and idea of justice as a practical tool for action. That ethos has continued still. All political parties have their trade unions even center right parties like BJP has one of largesr trade union in India and they strike.
In our country left never found appreciation at all. All parties are rightist, PPP may consider itself left but it is joke to say its left party ( Its more like party of General Peron ). We have fire brand Jehadis but no body cares for trade union or workers. ( If workers are so helpless in urban areas then no point in talking about agricultural worker- they have no even ``animal`` rights).
Recently much has been said about indian change in govt. 62 leftists are elected to indian par.ment. That is quite impressive number and good for indioian democracy.They are 3rd largest group in their country. Contrary to this development here in our country political scene is tragic for left. The left wing democractic propoor power DOES NOT exist.There are few leftwing armchair politicians, little slogans but no contact with masses they live in seclusion in foreign countries and intelluctually barren and just try to interpreat social ,political and historical developmnts per old worn out artless marxian way. Its pathetic left without trade union power. They are worth nothing to hard working person. India poors are organised and and have voice due to democracy. Our poors are helpless no organization for poor and poverty is just used as slogans and after farce elections are over flushed immediately.
Even seculars are bunch of empty coats as they do not support left democratic forces of working people. Working people have no voice as working masses in our country is tragedy..
Till left wing powerful democratic forces do not get organised and do not demand real democracy there is no chance. Army will always rule some times overtly and then covertly.
Honestly no chance of army returning really in my life time and was born in 1948. Interested persons can calculate.

despite all this Brainy Brouhaha -- about a purely Brawny Problem -- of an Army habitually Muscling into Pakistan`s Governance -- every five years -- the Solution begs this famous proverbial Question:

.........in the LAND of -- scurrying Little Mice and a Big Fat Cat -- who will Bell the Cat... and How?

Re: urstruly # 31 & 39
I am impressed by your posts.

Regards,

Faruk

re: urstruly # 38

Your analysis was well said!

I think you have nailed the problem and the problem is the lack of social justice in our society, and the average frustration of a common person you have described is well real.

As to Punjab and its role; there is not much to say except that unless the power of this province is limited and is made equal to the rights of the other provinces, there will always be a lack of political justice in Pakistan. Sadly, the equation is that Punjab is province with a country, Pakistan, and not that Pakistan is a nation with a province called Punjab. Still, to disagree with you, I do not think that confederation is solution to the problem, because even a confederation does not gurantee a lessening of Punjabi dominance in any such confederated politics of Pakistan. A better method might be the multiplication of the provinces in Pakistan by breaking off the larger provinces into smaller ones and thus, really devolving power to the district levels. A even better answer might be the diffusion of power and ending the centralized nature of political power and its distributions to lower political levels in Pakistan.

In any case, the nature of the Pakistani federation needs to be re-examined and if possible, a dyarchy needs to be created; whereby the portfolios of foreign affairs, defense and finance need to be kept with the center, i.e. Islamabad and the rest need to be given to the provinces, with education, communications, health care and social services to be shared jointly. In the areas reserved for the provinces, law and order needs to be given to the district levels and any responsibility, which can be devolved further should be taken away from the provinces.

Law and order needs to be de-centralized, because effective law and order starts from the neighborhood level, because only a justice given at the ``door step`` level, will be tangible. Again, the problem of centralized power in Pakistan is that flawed idea of a trickle down theory, which is nothing more than a pet dream of the bureaucracy to arrogate more and more powers for itself. People have to be given economic rights, without which there is no sense discussing the concept of social justice and more importantly, the system of justice in Pakistan has to end its practice of being business orientated. Justice is supposed to be blind, but in Pakistan justice is also deaf to the poor of the society and the impression that justice can be bought has to end before any reforms be undertaken.

Ciao

Urstruly # 38 & 39

Well said & analysed.

re: HP # 40

I agree, with your suggestion that we need to define a goal first and work towards that end.

However, I have a few questions and please correct me, I seem to have drawn the wrong impressions.

The confrontation, which you imply with the army is supposed to have happen within or outside of the constitutional limits?

If the politicans in Pakistan have reached the conclusion that cooperation with the army is better than confrontation, then would it not be better to formalize such an arrangement within Pakistani politics?

If the second question has been accepted as the reality; political cooperation with the army, then can such a scenrio not be worked to take away power from the army?

I can understand the hallowness of the suggestion of charming power away from the army, but the given the present realities of political power in Pakistan, there is no organized body in Pakistan capable of confronting the army. The East Pakistan analogy will not work in Pakistan, because the politicans in Pakistan are not united enough to overlook their own petty interests and join forces in a common theme against the army. The recent example of ARD finding a common candidate against Shaukat Aziz proves and highlights this failure amply. This display of political disunity in Pakistani politics will exist as long as the civilian political parties in Pakistan are dominated by personalities, which prevent the growth of a party specific political platform for dealing with national issues.

Ciao

re: sameerJB # 43

The article was never intended to be the last word on the placement of political mal-actions in Pakistan, but rather as the first word in begining the end of this debate. I did not forget any thing, but I was limited by the scope of the article, which was intended to start a constructive debate on the issue. Since, you have been generous in your criticisms, I accept your comments with grace, because the intention was to learn and better understand the issues and I have learned much from your comments.

Now to answer your questions. I agree with your arguments on the role of the justice system in Pakistan and on the need for a comprehensive accountability. I do believe in morals, principles et al, but I also believe that Pakistani politicans, military or civilian, do not have too much faith in those ideals. You and I will always disagree on this issue, because because unlike you, I am not willing to condone the actions of the politicans despite all the provocations. This is simply unacceptable to you and in this vein, I respect your comments. The fact is that we will have to learn to disagree on this issue. This article is not about the military or the civilian politicans or about our individual politics, as much as it is about finding a consensus to our mutual problems. You and I have disagreed in the past and we disagree, in the present, on the placement of the blame, but we are in agreement over the need to evict the military from the national politics.

If you honestly feel that I have glossed over certain things in this article, please feel free to list them and I would even hope that you would article an article, based on your point of view, which further spurs the debate to a more consensusal point of understanding.

You mentioned, and I hope that you will not mind saying so, that you are ready to read this article if I fulfilled certain of your conditionalities. I do not have to call a spade a spade, because the constitution of Pakistan (1973) terms such an act as treason and there is no need for me to restate the obvivous. However, my classifications of the crime pale in comparsion to the role of the judicary in Pakistan, which seems to have a different interpretation of the consitutional definitions of treason. Instead of asking me to call a spade a spade and name treason by its own name, it would be more helpful if you could pose a similar question to the judicary in Pakistan!

Another point, which I need to stress is that the last time I checked, none of the members of the judicary were retired military personnel and hence, were and are civilians and yet, they have helped in prolongation of the military rule(s) in Pakistan. This is the point, which I was making and which you seem to ignore; that without the active participation of the civilian political institutions of Pakistan and its civilian political leadership, military rule would not be possible in Pakistan and the military would not feel the need to linger on civilian politics.

Ciao

re: anil # 30

Sir, I have have to applaud you!

The idea behind this article did, indeed, come from the Indian freedom struggle against the British and though Gandhi`s influence is present in this article, it has to do more with the issues of constitutionalism, which the politicans of India tried to iron out with the British. The kernel of this article is a suggestion to look at the power sharing arrangements before partition and if, it is possible, that a similar approach might work in removing the military from politics. In that sense, I feel that a non-violent political means of ending military rule are better than engaging in confrontational politics. I remember what Gandhi once said to a British general, when the general mocked him and asked him if the Indians did not cooperate, did Gandhi think that the British would simply pack up and leave India. Gandhi`s simple reply was, and I am paraphrasing, yes in the end the British would just do that - pack up and leave India.

As to the generational issue, I do not think that it will be a problem in the future. The generation of 1947 and along with it, the memories of partition are slowly slipping into their graves. In time, another generation to whom partition will be nothing more than a historic event will take power in Pakistan and once they do, they will not be chained by any personal memories or experience of partition. They might not be influenced by Gandhi`s politics of non-violence, as you and I may understand it, but they will be affected by the politics of globalization and the need to compete in an economic sense, where confrontational politics will have no utility. I once wrote an article on Chowk, ages ago, and in which I mentioned that the economic interests of the world will outweigh the political interests of India and Pakistan. To an extent, we can see that already happening as the agruments of oil, enegry grids and open markets are making Islamabad and New Delhi think outside of the ``box`` to solve their problems and in a similar sense, I am confident that one day the economic interests of a Pakistani citizen will outweigh the political interests of a politican in Pakistan.

However, where you have a point and where I tend to agree with your observations is that a bigger and more intractable problem seems to lie in the interpretations of Islam within Pakistani politics. Islam might be a more intrenched issue in this power sharing arrangement; more so than the principles of a non-violent political movement, because of the ethos of Pakistani society, which teaches not to openly question Islamic interpretations of a political nature. All popular movements are political in nature and that also includes religious movements and yes; Islam is capable of regenerating itself but such a change of heart will have to come from within the popular mind and not from a religious point of view. Islam is the expression of its followers and the problems of Islam are the character flaws of its adherents and the reformation in Islam is directly proportional to the changing value and ethical structures of its followers. The Muslims will have to learn and must have the courage to question the political interpretations of Islam and cleve an understanding of Islam within a secular definition and a theocratic one, realizing that both are parts of Islam, but are not necessarily complimentary of one and anther.

This statement is a contradiction, because it will not happen as long as the Muslims in the specific instance and the Pakistanis in this particular example, do not questions the political interpretations of Islam and as long as they meekly accept such interpretations, there is no hope.

Your other question can be answered in the affirmative, because Pakistan is capable of producing a leader of such magnitude as to fashion such a popular movement and I make this comment, because I believe in the individual capacity of a Pakistani to succeed against insurmountable odds. The citizens of Pakistan have survived and flourished despite the most ill intentions of its governments and once they realize their true strenghts and stop listening to the voices of fissures, they will discover such a leader from within their own ranks. Whether s/he will be of a similar stature as a Gandhi or more so does not matter as long as s/he is a Pakistani, because in the end, the problems of Pakistani will be solved by Pakistanis using their own wits more than singularly relying on a historic experience from across the borders.

I hope, I have answered your question and I would ask you to feel comfortable and comment upon this debate, because it is a topic you are quite familar with and also, I hope to learn from you and your insights in matter. In fact, this offer is extended to any Indian, who wishes to share his/her observations on the politics of pre-1947 India, because the idea is to learn from those politics in order to encourage the military to go back to the barracks.

Best Wishes!

Ciao

FerozK:

I suppose that you forgot to mention that military generals will be loaded with garlands of flowers, gifts and thank you cards upon returning to the barracks.

Sir, once you lay blame squarely on the steps of politicians, the objectivity of such articles evaporates in a split second. You become another romair who constantly bashes politicins for corruption, ineptitude, incompetency, selfishness and never sees same characteristics in military juntas plus more. To me, it is nonsensical to put the burden of entry and departure of military from politics on politicians. Basically it suggests military is compelled to take over in Pakistan. Here, generals have been planning step by step appraoch to take over government, including sacrificing 4000 of ttheir own on the rugged terrain of Kargil, creating law and order problems with the assistance of their supporters in religious groups, and an out-of-job person using his connections and networking able to remove civilian government (technically it can not be called a coup d`tat, because musharraf was no longer COAS, but a burglary).

And here you are telling us, that civilian politicans have to take steps 1-5 in order to send troops back to the barracks. Do you believe in morals, principles, crime and retribution etc?
The criminals, be they politicians or military generals must pay for their crimes. In the history of Pakistan, no general has happily transferred power to the civilian. Let us be fair. Lets us bring politicians and musharraf together to fair trail, politicans for corruption and stealing national wealth and musharraf for treason. Knowing Pakistani laws, guess who will be put to firing squad first, even if cases are brought in a third neutral country with fair judges? Sharifs, Bhutto etc might get their properties consfiscated, getting long-term jail punishments while musharraf will face firing squad and demotion of rank from the militry.
But with pimp judiciary in Pakistan, it is not possible.

The solution lies in judiciary, setting the record straight, interpreting the law fairly ad honestly, passing crimes to the culprits, be they politicians or generals. That is the solution to send military back to the barracks. The supreme court of Pakistan must come up with clear disapproval of steps taken by Zia and Musharraf, calling them treason and unlawful, calling their rules illegal thus automatically over-turning all the constitutional amendments and laws including Hudood, Sharia, Zakat and the rest. Most of the amendments to 1973 constitutions are to be made illegal with one strike of pen from the justices of supreme court. They have to over-turn the doctrine of necessity. The doctrine of necessity must be sought before the action and not after the action.

I am ready to read this article, if you call treason a treason along with corruption a corruption. Who said that politicans in Pakistan are great but generals are worse than politicians. There is no point for lambasting them for being feudal, corrupt, punjabi etc, if the culprits are sent back with garlands arond their neck instead of noose. The power hungry generals are the main culprits and like cat who can not be stopped from catching mouse, a general determined to overthrow can not be stopped from doing it. NS did the right thing to create history of trying to stop and humiliate him at the expense of his entire creer and possibly life as well. History will remember him as a civilian who actively tried to stop a power hungry COAS and Musharraf can never wash away from histtory that he was dismissed before he took over.

FerozK, you cant be objective of you dont call a spade a spade upfront. Nowhere in this article you mentioned that military actions against the civilian are unlawful and wrong and the only civilian action against COAS was lawful. If this article is not about principles but of practical steps, then army is not going back to barracks no matter what you say....until their asses kicked.

Urstruly:

Punjabi politician- like politicians elsewhere, are representative of a people. They don`t have the guts to stand up because there is no compulsion to do so from the people they represent. Thus, Punjabi populace at large is at fault for both not realizing the needs of the day (to stand up for a cause) and for not presenting their own case that much of the trumpeted Punjabi hegemony is a myth.

Aside from nefarious role of the Pakistan Army, how else do you see the usurpation of Pakistan by the Punjabis? What issues do you, and I`m sure there are others, that cause the minorities of the country to be oppressed or feel oppressed? Perhaps I may end up learning that Punjabi hegemony is not a myth.

Thus far, (aside from the Army’s usurpation of rights), I`ve seen provincialism being both the tool in the hands of the establishment as well as the big culprit in denying basic needs for people. Elimination of provincialism by giving power and responsibility to district governments elected on a PARTY basis as well directly handing them funding will go a long way in assuaging the fears of minority communities as well as destroying the myths of Punjabi hegemony.

The total failure of the state of Pakistan to formulate a cohesive country leaves one with little to be proud of.

However, a cohesive structure could happen. There is still hope. Seeing the condition in other third world countries, Pakistan is many years ahead.

Pakistan’s unity is not based on very many things. There are few forces of unity – force we can see other nation-states possess. Language is a fickle factor. In a globalizing world, there is no economic compulsion to remain a unified ‘Pakistan’. There is no Kalabagh Dam that will cause the various units of Pakistan to be dependent on each other. And of course, there is no CONSTITUTION. Instead, the force that does manifest itself very clearly is the destructive force of the Fauji.

However, one can identify those characteristics of society which reveal that there is possibility for a functional unity. Perhaps the biggest I see is the role of the Pakistan People’s Party- the only national party that exists. As much dislike as there is for feudals and BB, PPP’s continuing stance to remain a federal party despite all the devil-like role of the Faujiz to get rid of it, is reason enough for hope. When we speak of the events of Partition and East Pakistan, we can see then that there was no PPP to bring all types of people under one wing, to hear the voice of all. And PPP, not only carries Sindh, it can legitimately carry Punjab as well. (Could this characteristic of the Punjabis to actually vote for a non-Punjabi to be the leader of the country go to their credit in wanting to legitimately share power?) As long as PPP remains steady to the cause of Pakistan, there will always be hope.

The non-party based shams the Faujiz love to run only highlight the significance of PPP. Today, local elections are fought along tribal and caste lines and not on issues. Faujiz don’t want issues to take prominence.

It’s totally disappointing seeing how the political commentators or opinion writers have forgotten how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work and the crucial role of political parties. They all comment on the fuked up ‘restructuring’ and actually spend time pondering over the ‘positives’ of Fauji manipulations such as the ‘election’ of Shaukat Aziz. They are so impressed by macro-economic stability that they are willing to sell off their souls and forget about the necessity of power-sharing.

Anyhow, it is the role of Fauji manipulations that is pushing the people to the edge and the Punjabis by the sheer size of their population come into the firing light. The fauji connection may be enough to implicate the Punjabis in destroying the country’s national structure, but do present your other cases that show how Punjabis have screwed the foundations by usurping power. The awareness of the existence of such cases among Punjabis may convince the people to get their politicians to shape up. Perhaps.

Cheers!

#39 by Urstruly
//...Hindus, at least, at the constititutional level, after Partition have tried in best possible way to form a parity with Muslims, which I must admit that it should be a source of envy for every so- called Muslim country. ...//

Holy Sh!t! Whoever thought urstruly would say such nice things about hindoos!!

“if the politicians in Pakistan are capable of resisting the politics of divide and conquer as practiced by the military and are able to resist the seduction which political power promises. If the politicians of Pakistan can over come this flaw in their characters and are able to ignore the charms of political power and they can unite, they will be able to convince the military of the errors of its owns ways and make the military leave Pakistani politics on its own accord.”

Again and again political commentators reach the same conclusion that the civilian politicians have to mend their ways to make the army go back to the barracks. This is sort of reverse engineering and ignores the realities that exist in Pakistani political scene. In fact, if we continue this line of argument then we will continue to blame the politicians for all of Pakistan’s system problems.
Before that, we need to see what is the ultimate goal? Is it unfettered democracy a la India or a change from the current army rule to half way decent democracy? The pure solution to democracy vs. the army rule has gone down the drain in Pakistan a long time ago. The politicians a long time ago acknowledged that they may have to find some workable partnership agreements with the army to take part in governing Pakistan - Yes! The idea of serving Pakistan is still alien to both the army and the politicians in Pakistan- This realization makes whole lot sense for politicians and the army to work with each other in governance rather than serving.
Sometime in the 50s and 60s two most ideological parties in Pakistan i.e. JI and the communist party reached the same conclusion when they looked at their future goals in Pakistan Politics. JI concluded that it cannot be a part of the establishment until it finds a way to work with the army. The Communist Party also theorized that there is no way for it to get to the power w/o working with the army. (Both concluded that popular vote will never help them) The JI worked towards getting influence in the army and the communist Party looking at its core political philosophy and the appeal, felt that it does not have enough to share with the army and the CP decided to play the nationalist card that was the next best thing it could do to get a foothold in Pakistani politics and opposed the army in whatever way possible. The CP actively supported and created ideological grounds for the small provinces and East Pakistan Nationalists. In the East Pakistan the card worked, as the circumstances for a West Pakistan type army control were not there. The Army ended up giving up power in East Pakistan by getting rid of the main power contender nationality from Pakistan.
In the current Pakistan, the politicians outside of the JI and the CP also have finally come to the same conclusion especially after what they saw in 1979. So any wishful thinking that Pakistani politicians would mend their ways to sort of create a united front against the army is dead before it even takes off.
The conclusion that the politicians have to charm their way defies all logical and rational political thinking. You don’t charm the army. Either you play hardball with it or work with it. The logical course for the current group of politicians in Pakistan is to work with the army. Pakistani politicians are not ideologues or dreamers like some here are. Politicians look for the share in power now rather then unfettered right to rule sometime in the unforeseeable future.
We also need to pay attention to the grooming of politicians in Pakistan. They are not aware of any other model and like most of the Pakistanis are not fully familiar with the nuance of democracy in India or any other western country.
So otherwise a very good article reaches some conclusions that are beyond sanity and logic.

So many conditions have to mature at the same time to force the army in Pakistan to give up its overt and covert power that it is well nigh impossible to even think about it in the next 20 to 30 years. The course that would eventually work would be to create conditions for the army to clash with the nationalist forces in the smaller provinces in a violent way especially in Sindh and in Balochistan. That would create conditions for yet another international intervention in Pakistan and separation of a few more units of Pakistan from the secure political base of the army. Hopes of complete democracy in the current Pakistan are not tenable but chances of having democracy in smaller units of Pakistan look intense like it happened in East Pakistan. The incentive to clash with the army would come from some strong counter argument like nationalism etc. A mere democrat or liberal approach does not provide enough motivation to pick up bones with a superior and armed state power. We saw that in India when strong Indian nationalism forced the Brits to leave and in fact that was the only model against all colonial powers that was favored by politicians of the colonized countries. It worked in East Pakistan!

Rozaiba

Please do not forget that Hindustan was my country once. The progeny of the people who came as invaders is miniscule as compared to the sons of soil whose ancestors have been living here since the time began. But we partitioned our country because of our perceptions that the majority will not provide the minimum level of social justice. The Congressite government after the elections of 1938 and how they tried to shove the Ram Raj down our throat may enforce this perception but largely it was perception only. Neither Hindu nor Muslims were in power, the only power were the British who used the principle of ``Divide & Rule`` to rule over both. Hence, in my opinion a large blame for having such a perception goes to british and not Hindus. Hindus, at least, at the constititutional level, after Partition have tried in best possible way to form a parity with Muslims, which I must admit that it should be a source of envy for every so- called Muslim country.

We partitioned again in 1971, not because of our perception this time but because of the reality of the situation that one province of the country with its brute military power hegemonized the whole country. With a genocide we again Partitioned. All people wanted was a system of social justice where no one with its military power would have the authority to dictate others.

This time the problem is same - the lack of social justice and plight of disenfranchised people, who are brutalized and treated as conquered and humiliated people by a military outfit. But this time I am not suggesting Partition, I just want us to go at a distance where we are not too close for comfort for each other.

Throughout my student life I chased people from Jeye Sindh, BSF, PakhtoonSF and APMSO with a gun in my hand, dodging bullets from their Klasnikovs, thinking that they were really bad Muslims and human beings who did not wish to live together. But only now I have realized that, all they wanted was a system of social justice, equity in resources and power, and most of all equality. They were not the bad Muslims, I was. I was short-sighted and mean. It was never me whom they hated. It was the icon of hatered the oppressing military that they hated. They were not against the Federation, instead they were against the Federation that failed to recognize them.

The source of evil in our country is military. Just take a trip from Okara to Lahore to Gujranawala, to jehlum, to Rawalpindi, to Muree, to Abbotabad you will see a Pakistan with in Pakistan whose people do not look like rest of the country. Behind the awe-inspiring walls they have housing colonies, they have free hospitals, free schools, they have pensions, they have fringe benefits`and all that for doing nothing. And just ouside the walls of these well built fortresses there lies a sea of humanity which lives like dogs and which fights like dogs on every morsel that is thrown towards them from over these walls. If we are going to let this continue then don`t you think that with just the burden of pensions and other post-service benefits to these do-nothings the country will collapse on its knees. Who will support such a blackhole in our midst that is already sucking into itself whatever crosses its path. Where will it end.

Punjab is the only province that is least bothered with this sinkhole. Like all oppresors Punjab has become the elite privileged class in a sense because it is the class of dogs that gets the most morsels. Punjab is the Tikrit of this Saddam. But the dogs as they are, will never think of themselves as human beings and will never recognize that they also have a moral obligation to share the burden of other human beings. Never. There is not even a shred of feeling in Punjabi political class recognizing this responsibility. What have smaller provinces done to deserve this? As a Muslim it is our duty towards divinity to stop this tyrranny and oppression using all methods and force. At least that we can do is that we should side with the oppressed and speak out against the oppression. I as a human being and a Muslim reject this system of oppression. From today, I renounce my Punjabi citizenship. I know it is stuck with me like the scars of smallpox whether I want it or not. But no one can stop me to express my disgust. Punjab ka Pakistan Murdabad. Fauj murdabad.

Urstruly:

On the eve of the 57th anniversary of Pakistan, you come to the conclusion that a CONFEDERATION is what`s needed.

This `realization` and conversion has certain implications. That you are fully convinced Pakistan is a failed state and a Banana Republic.

Mujib-ur-Rehman wanted a confederation- but even he didn`t want one as loose as you`ve been converted to believe.

I agree that this is a failed state and an ideal Banana Republic. However, like many have pointed out, a way to break up the Punjabi hegemony in politics is to dismantle the provinces and give the powers directly to the district governments. Setting up a federation with that structure makes more sense as far as the `Pakistani` identity is concerned.

i think its important to understand that army strength in pakistan is organic to the national identity. given that its not necessarily bad as compared to civy rules, best bet is to legitimize it further formally and end this confusion. their is every indication that people of pakistan wont mind, and the international comunity wont mind. at most the commonwealth membership will be affected, so big deal. trading parteners dont care, US/EU/China dont care. neighbors dont mind as far as there is peace. so, the NSC etc is a good way, but you need more formal power sharing definitions.