Baloch Rights or Sardars’ Rights?

Before I had this run in with you, I thought you have some substance despite your army background. But you’re a typical pinhead paindoo.

You just keep putting foot in your mouth and in the process just proved my hypothetical situation right.

Ghaday you write, “Technically mutiny but no one in the Army thoght so (barring the naukari baaz chamchas who ran over to his house to congratulate him!).”

You accept that what corps commander did in Karachi in Oct 1999 was a mutiny and practically there was nobody to stop him as no one in the army thought that was a mutiny.
It proves that given a situation, the corps commander in Karachi can AGAIN mutiny and if the other officers in the army or even under his own command believe that the corps commander is right, they can ignore the legitimate COAS and may refuse to accept his orders.
The problem is that this treacherous army refuses to be under the civilian control and to follow the constitution.
what a bunch of horrible animals!

Are you really this stupid or just being deliberately obnoxious? I vote for stupidly obnoxious.

There is a difference between ``junior officers`` (btw, a Brigadier or a Major General is a ``junior officer`` as compared to a Corp Commander) and a JCO (Junior Commissioned Officer) in the army. Who do you think arrested Ziauddin and Nawaz Sharif`s Military Secretary (a Brigadier)? Pervez Musharraf himself? Or some Lt. Col. or Major sent out by the Commander 10 Corp?

``Legitimately appointed COAS?`` Technically, Ziauddin was ``legitimately appointed`` but as far as bulk of the Army was concerened, he wasn`t. Technically mutiny but no one in the Army thoght so (barring the naukari baaz chamchas who ran over to his house to congratulate him!). As far as removing Corp Commanders goes, Musharraf did just that with Lt. Gen. Tariq Pervez, Corp Commander Quetta, who was getting a little too big for his britches. I don`t recall Tariq Pervez ordering his troops to defy the COAS.

Anyway, trying to explain the facts of life to idiots is beginning to bore me and all correspondence on this topic will now cease. Remind me to add you to my ``ignore`` list.

#56 by fuzair

“upon orders from the COAS, his junior officers would arrest him and quickly ship him off to Attock Fort.”

I thought you were let go as JCO until I read this. It is obvious that either they bumped you in Kakul or you never made it to Kohat! You appear to be a groupie or the type of army junkies that are frequently found in some parts of Punjab.
The corps commander Karachi acted w/o informing the legitimately appointed COAS in Oct 1999 and you are so stupid that you are telling me that a JCO can strip a corps commander.
We are talking about an army that boasts of at least two COAS and many other senior Generals that can be legitimately hanged under the Pak constitution.
This bum is telling me that a JCO can strip a corps commander. I guess the COAS appointed by the legit government in October 1999, did not dare call any JCO in Karachi to stop the coup led by the Karachi Corps commander.
I wish you could buy something for the empty skull you carry over your shoulders.
What do you peddle in real life?
You are a canker. A sore that won`t go away.

Hypothetically speaking, what if some space aliens armed with phasers, force shields and photon torpedos decide to land in Karachi and take it over? What if they are renegades from Star Fleet who have gone bonkers? Who could stop them?

There are plausible hypotheticals and then there are stupid idiots like you. If you were really concerned about who would stop a ``bonkers`` corp commander, the answer is that, upon orders from the COAS, his junior officers would arrest him and quickly ship him off to Attock Fort. The 1999 case is not applicable to your hypothetical because no one in the Army (barring Ziauddin and the chootya MS to Nawaz Sharif) thought the action was against ``legitimate`` (i.e., what the Army considers legitimate) orders.

See, my use of ``creative fantasies`` show that I knew it was a ``hypothetical`` but it was still stupid. Now, go look up ``creative fantasy`` and see how that differs from a ``hypothetical.``

WHY don`t you get over having your stupidities pointed out and stick to writing something you know about? Assuming you know something after all, that is. I think I could spot you 50 IQ points and still beat you in a battle of wits, but its my policy never to fight the unarmed.

Bloody Civilians!

#53 by fuzair

Obviously, you lack the capacity to even understand what “Hypothetical” situation that I was referring to. The real situation is that the Corps commander Karachi pretty much owns Karachi. Is there a force in Karachi that can defy him?

We saw corps commander Karachi’s absolute powers when he took over the Karachi airport on Oct 12 1999, and he was even in the control tower on his own authority alone.
My hypothetical situation was if the corps commander Karachi goes “BONKERS” who would stop him.
When I referred to Army structure, I wrote Five “Main “corps. In my hypothetical situation, it did not matter how many corps the Army have.
That is the problem with many JCO former or current types, they absolutely cannot think straight and the level of education is so low that they can’t even think and discuss a hypothetical situation.
I recommend that you read my Post #30 twenty or more times until you get the point. Obviously, it takes a little hammering to get things in a thick former or current army head. There wasn’t much brain to start with and then the army destroyed what spaghetti was left there.
Btw, I will write whatever and whenever I want about the army. This is not some fkking officers’ mess here.
Get over it.

Romair:

There are fault lines within the Army. Have you never heard of the ``Janjua Net`` or the ``Pukh Pukh Net?`` As compared to the Civil, these are insignificant BUT they certainly do play a role in postings and desirable EREs, if not outright in promotions.

For JCOs/NCOs/ORs, the promotions within a unit are made on the basis of ethnicity if it is a mixed class unit, i.e., the senior most Pathan will get promoted or the senior most Sindhi will to keep the number of Pathan/Sindhi JCOs/NCOs even with the TOE. Same holds true for various Services within the Army. This does breed a certain amount of resentment as men with less service or worse service records get promoted over more meritorius candidates. Interestingly enough, the beneficiaries of this are almost always non-Punjabis since they are underrepresented in the Army!

As far as corruption goes, there is corruption at all levels within the Army. Its just that senior officers (multiple stars) get more opportunity for big time corruption. Have you ever seen what goes on in DGDP or DP(A)? Or the Air Force and Navy equivalents? In Local Purchase?

Back when I had closer contact with the Army, I recall a very interesting case where a couple of subalterns in Malir were running a dacoity ring out of their BOQs! I think they were all courtmartialled and sentenced to prison but I left before I found out what happened to them.

There are lots and lots of rotten eggs within the military BUT far fewer than in the Civil, most of whom are indeed ``bloody Civilians!``

Regards.

Re: HP #31 and other comments

IIRC, Pakistan has 9 corps:
I Corps (Mangla)
II Corps (Multan)
IV Corps (Lahore)
V Corps (Karachi)
X Corps (Rawalpindi)
XI Corps (Peshawar)
XII Corps (Quetta)
XXX Corps (Gujranwala)
XXXI Corps (Bahawalpur)

There are six infantry regiments (Punjab, Frontier Force, Baluch, Azad Kashmir, Sind and Northern Light Infantry) but these are purely administrative entities and have no operational responsibilities (other than to the extent of running their respective recruit training centers). I agree with Romair that your post indicated you know absolutely nothing at all about the Pakistan Army, its structure, or how it functions. The Corp Commander serves at the pleasure of the COAS and, in the past, many have been removed at a moment`s notice. Now, the COAS (except Zia in the last half of his rule who was absolute in the Army) is primus inter pares so easily outweighs any individual Corp Commander BUT it would be a very foolish COAS who would deliberately go against the Corp Commanders and Principal Staff Officers collectively. As far as I know, that has yet to happen but I am not privy to goings on at that level!

Might I suggest that in the future you refrain from talking about things you know nothing about? Or you at least run your creative fantasies by some one who knows how the Army functions?

Regards.

Ferozk:

Countries may not be exactly run and managed the way corporations do, but there are some lessons that can be learned from both successful and unsuccessful corporations. Having first hand experience with two of the organizations recognized for their managers, I would say that there were emotions involved when the lay of the land started taking a different shape - mergers and acquisitions. Wherever humans are involved, emotions will be part of the picture; but you cannot put logic and rationality on a back burner. They need to complement each other.

Re: # 46

Excellent post!

re: Zahra # 49

I will follow up on the reading, as you suggested and thanks for providing the link!

As to accountibility in IR, it is a good idea and it only happen when nations agree to allow themselves to be judged. I do not think that nations can be run like businesses, because some national issues are too emotional and refuse to be solved in a rational or a logical manner (for example, Kashmir and Palestine). It all boils down to a basic lack of trust and since each nation follows an egocentric set of policies, it very hard to hope for utopias in IR.

Ciao

Ferozk:

My intent was to introduce the concept of accountability. I understand the pros and cons of having a world council that takes over ultimately, in the event when a country displays gross negligence in running its affairs equitably. In order to give the ``negligent ones`` a chance, I thought of allowing the regions(neglected children) to return to their original source/parents only once. There are pros and cons in all scenarios and in all steps. Risks have to be taken to be anywhere; appropriate steps need to be introduced to mitigate those risks and so forth. If a strategy/model does not work then its ridiculous to keep on changing the players and not the chess board. That`s my way of seeing it. I am not saying that is the right approach or view but that`s a very valid perspective.

By the way, in today`s day and age the United States is playing that role in a less formal way. The difference is that the US is not taking over ``the neglected regions`` but is trying to assist them in getting rid of their internal oppressors. One cannot make a fair remark on how successful or unsuccessful that move is, till it is allowed enough time to prove itself. In general, Muslims do not need someone else to be their oppressor. An ideal example is how shias and sunnis are treating each other in Iraq. They can kill and bury each other alive without needing an outside power. It`s high time they realize the enemy within and not at the gates :)

If you get a chance, then do look into a Special Report on ``The Best and Worst Managers of the Year`` in the Business Week, Jan 10, 2005 Edition. Please read the strategies adopted by some of the visionary managers and the kind of risks they took to change the direction of their organizations. It`s an excellent issue. It highlights both the best and the worst managers and succinctly gives a reason or two behind the said designation. You can draw some parallels between the way organizations and countries are run.

Link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915601.htm

Happy Reading.

CHOWK STAFF:

I second Tahmed on this!
I think bbabu’s Interact Index was downgraded, when the bug/glitch had downgraded tahmed and Hamidm etc. 2/3 weeks ago. I think chowk should look into that.
I don’t agree with tahmed in removing the filter altogether. Posts should be monitored for quality. It takes a little while to get the system going. People should show patience with the new system.

CHOWK STAFF: While your filters are great, please be careful in applying them. You keep cutting bbabu out when he is in fact one of the most intelligent posters who has never written anything that violates your guidelines. On the other hand, echoboom (who tries to stamp out any discussion - as he did quite effectively on another here yesterday) by writing his lengthy posts that start with abuse towards posters who do not subscribe to his hate-filled agenda.

EITHER KEEP AN EYE ON THE FILTERS, OR GET RID OF THEM.

re :Zahra # 41

I have a few comments on your idea.

First of all, the last thing the world needs is another multilateral international organization, with its own self-duplicating bureaucracy. The urgent need at the present time is not to create new international organizations but to reform the ones, which already exist and make them more useful. Also, it is not necessary that an international organization is the key to the worlds problems and even an international organization is not much help, when it comes to the domestic policy failures of individual nations. The idea of a ``foster-nation`` is fraught with so many political liabilities that given the arguments of sovereign power, no state will agree to such a proposal. The only other option is then to use force to seek adherence to such a suggestion and if force is not always practical, then this idea will be nothing more than a very good debating point in international forums.

International politics does not need any more utopian ideas and it will resist such an idea, because the nature of international politics is based on the notion of a ``managed anarchy`` in the world. Futhermore, the international politics have a very limited record of imposing a global paradigm on the domestic politics of a nation. Generally speaking, international politics has traditionally ignored bad domestic politics or dictatorships as long as they do not too drastically imbalance the sphere of international power equations.

Lastly, this idea of an international council is too close to the idea of world government and for this purpose alone, it is highly doubtful that it will get much support. Even if such a scheme is workable, it will require the overwhemling consensus of nations and that would be problematic to say the least. Consensus in international politics is not easy and even the EU, with nearly 50 plus years of a common governmental framework, is still finding itself disagreeing on policies, which involve the questions of sovereignity.

However, assuming this idea floats beyond the conceptual stage, the questions of implementation take on largely political overtones, when the issues in the nomination process of the ``foster-nations`` are considered. The criteria, which will judge the ``foster-nation`` will be purely political and realpolitik based, even though the intention might be humanistic and altrustic. Consequently, before this stage is even realized, there will be a need for sustained CBMs to engender a degree of mutual trust between the nations and a lack of trust might, for all reasons, abort this process.

It is not to suggest that this is a non-operable idea, but it will work only if nations are willing to give away some measure of their national sovereignity and are able to compromise and thus, create a consensual political environment.

Ciao

Zahra,

The conflict that you are talking about very much exists. Do the elite really have a crooked view or are they capable to change, depend on what kind of situation they get into. The elite in any society reluctantly changes positions as the situation demands but we cannot deny that they (the elite) do have a role. They will continue to make efforts to survive in the society with maximum privileges they can retain.

I would point out that in a tribal society like Balochistan, changes are often difficult to initiate until the Sardar, or the chief of the tribe buys into them. The non-representative nature of the central govt. in Pakistan has also increased its dependence on the Sardars.

In Balochistan, there are about 300 to 400 small to big Sardars. Not all Sardars have the same kind of influence and if you look at the Balochistan map and the areas, you will notice that the pace of progress in the areas where the small Sardars dominate is much higher than the areas under the big Sardars. The three Sardars that I had discussed did play a role in political progress and national rights struggle of Balochistan. Now, they have nothing more to offer to the Baloch and a new leadership may emerge after the present standoff.

It would be incorrect to assume that Balochistan has not made progress. The pace may be slow but looking at the logistical nightmare that Balochistan is there are not many percentages you can add to that pace. You can open as many educational institutions as you may want but nobody would come to them unless there is an incentive of prosperity after the education.
I certainly am not averse to the idea that areas can be let go and peoples’ welfare is more important than any state. In Balochistan case, I just don’t see how it will benefit from the separation.
Natural Gas supplies to Pakistan from the Balochistan areas are only 22% of the total consumption and in the next few years, this number would go down even further. I would not discount Iran-Pakistan Gas pipeline deal that may reduce Pakistan’s dependence on Balochistan even further.
The better solution is to force the federal government to increase the share of profit to Balochistan and that money is exclusively used for economic projects, Sardars opposition notwithstanding.

Your post # 41 is interesting. I recommend that you look at some of the new trends in Europe where the economic planners and the governments have begun to talk about creating pools to reduce poverty and provide help with healthcare issues in poor countries. In reality, international agencies and the UN along with the US have been taking a more active role in situations where local governments have begun to collapse under the pressure of providing food to the population.

yahyajamil #42

`` I do not know what you want to prove, but when you say set them free, free from what? Are they in some sort of bondage? What is rthe penalty that we have imposed on them? No one is denying that a grievious wrong has been committed and that needs to be reversed. The point is that you have in-hospitable areas in all countries and and not necessarily be able to develop them. Even India has them, the USA (Alaska) has them, Russia has loads of them. Does that mean that it is offensive to refer to these areas as inhospitable. Does it mean that if you cannot develop all inhospitable areas you should hand them over to another country, that already has enough of them. Look at it rationally and you will realise that no country has enough resources to develop all its areas equitably. ``

Areas of India that have not seen an equitable share of development are not stable. North East India is a good example. There are plenty of militant spearatist movements.

Alaskans enjoy a great standard of living. They are happy with US govt. Russia is not a great example since they are in transistion from a communist regime to a more market oriented economy.

If Pakistani government cannot develop Baluchistan without Baluchis getting a fair share of the benefits of development I hate to say this -- Baluchistan is heading for prolonged unrest and possibly a separatist movement.

Pakistani military is going to have to surrender control over resources to other power centers. The more they delay it the more painful the end result will be.