The Door To The Barracks
Feroz R Khan July 22, 2004
#180 Posted by ferozk on August 18, 2004 6:18:40 pm
re: ikonoclast # 177
Yes, I would tend to agree with your post that the final solution (no pun intended) might indeed lie through an institutional and later, a constitutional approach to remove the military from politics. The problem is not the eventuality of a constitutional solution; the problem is what do in the mean time till the institutions are being crafted in Pakistani politics, which one day ease the military out of power.
My sense of realpolitik suggests that the civilian institutions are not in a position to challenge the military or seek its ouster directly from politics and it would be better to evolve some sort of a Faustian power sharing bargain. The National Security Council might be a bad a idea, but is it a step in the right direction? If Pakistan emulates the Turkish experience, then the means justify the end but we must never allow the end to justify the means in Pakistani politics. As to the Chinese tank driver, he had the good sense to stop and not roll over that lone man - the point being we cannot rely on the good nature of the miltiary to behave within rules. After all, politics is not a game of cricket; more like a game of mud wrestling. :)
Ciao
Yes, I would tend to agree with your post that the final solution (no pun intended) might indeed lie through an institutional and later, a constitutional approach to remove the military from politics. The problem is not the eventuality of a constitutional solution; the problem is what do in the mean time till the institutions are being crafted in Pakistani politics, which one day ease the military out of power.
My sense of realpolitik suggests that the civilian institutions are not in a position to challenge the military or seek its ouster directly from politics and it would be better to evolve some sort of a Faustian power sharing bargain. The National Security Council might be a bad a idea, but is it a step in the right direction? If Pakistan emulates the Turkish experience, then the means justify the end but we must never allow the end to justify the means in Pakistani politics. As to the Chinese tank driver, he had the good sense to stop and not roll over that lone man - the point being we cannot rely on the good nature of the miltiary to behave within rules. After all, politics is not a game of cricket; more like a game of mud wrestling. :)
Ciao
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#179 Posted by ferozk on August 18, 2004 6:09:10 pm
re: Fuzair # 178
Thanks for an insightful post. As to my cousin, there is much truth in what you say, but I also remember that a bunch of forward looking and progressive officers were shown the door under Zia. In fact, any one with a common sense that argued the usefulness of Zia`s policies was shown the exist. Zia was pre-occupied by religion but he was also shrewd enough to use religion for his political gains and that made him the worst of opportunist.
Musharraf`s liberalism will limited by the tolerances of his corps commanders and to Justice Das, I welcome that nomination. The officer corps of the Pakistani army might be liberal minded but can the same be said about the rank and file?
Ciao
Thanks for an insightful post. As to my cousin, there is much truth in what you say, but I also remember that a bunch of forward looking and progressive officers were shown the door under Zia. In fact, any one with a common sense that argued the usefulness of Zia`s policies was shown the exist. Zia was pre-occupied by religion but he was also shrewd enough to use religion for his political gains and that made him the worst of opportunist.
Musharraf`s liberalism will limited by the tolerances of his corps commanders and to Justice Das, I welcome that nomination. The officer corps of the Pakistani army might be liberal minded but can the same be said about the rank and file?
Ciao
#178 Posted by fuzair on August 18, 2004 12:14:06 pm
Feroz,
I was simply curious about how much first-hand experience you have with the Pakistani Army since you have written a great deal about it; and I was wondering just how much exposure you had had to the Army.
As far as overt discrimination in the Army goes, I will not say that it doesn`t exist (of course it does) but it is less there than in virtually any other sphere of Pakistani society. As far as your cousin goes, my guess would be that simply being a Parsi would not have been the cause of his being forced to retire as a Squadron Leader (i.e., major). The seniormost Parsi that I am aware of was Brig. Jal Golwala but he did retire a looooong time ago (i.e., well before Zia`s time). Believe it or not, there was also a very confused Hindu officer at the time of Partition who insisted on opting for Pakistan; he was some AMC colonel and I think he wound up going to India. Some Hindu officers from Peshawar/Abbotabad/Rawalpindi/etc did also opt for Pakistan but were told (by whom I`m not sure) that they had to choose India.
Under Zia, the seniormost Christian officer was Maj. Gen. Daniel Austin BUT he was denied command of a division and sent on promotion to DGDP or something of that sort. He did command a brigade though. Another Christian officer, Brig. Jivanandham, didn`t make Maj. Gen. because he didn`t have the necessary qualifications (Staff College and War College) but if he had, there is little doubt that he would have gotten his second star.
The unwritten rule is that no non-Muslim may go past Maj. Gen. or be given a division to command. BUT I am not sure that Musharraf would follow it. In his personal views/beliefs, he is extremely liberal (by ``normal`` Pakistani standards), as is shown by his appointment of Mr. Justice Bhagwan Das to the Supreme Court and sending two female athletes to the Olympics.
Romair:
Zia`s son has a very strong support base in Okara but I am not sure which city Zia`s family called ``home.``
Musa and his son-in-law are Hazaras, not exactly of Iranian origin but I think they are Farsi/Darri speaking. Hazaras (not to be confused with the Hazara district of NWFP) are are Mongol descendants who converted to Islam and stuck around. There were a series of IlKhan rulers of Persia who were Mongols but they didn`t last for too long.
Gen Baloch is an ethnic Baloch, the highest ranking one in the Army. There have been other high ranking officers (Pathans) from Baluchistan but he is the only Baluchi.
I was simply curious about how much first-hand experience you have with the Pakistani Army since you have written a great deal about it; and I was wondering just how much exposure you had had to the Army.
As far as overt discrimination in the Army goes, I will not say that it doesn`t exist (of course it does) but it is less there than in virtually any other sphere of Pakistani society. As far as your cousin goes, my guess would be that simply being a Parsi would not have been the cause of his being forced to retire as a Squadron Leader (i.e., major). The seniormost Parsi that I am aware of was Brig. Jal Golwala but he did retire a looooong time ago (i.e., well before Zia`s time). Believe it or not, there was also a very confused Hindu officer at the time of Partition who insisted on opting for Pakistan; he was some AMC colonel and I think he wound up going to India. Some Hindu officers from Peshawar/Abbotabad/Rawalpindi/etc did also opt for Pakistan but were told (by whom I`m not sure) that they had to choose India.
Under Zia, the seniormost Christian officer was Maj. Gen. Daniel Austin BUT he was denied command of a division and sent on promotion to DGDP or something of that sort. He did command a brigade though. Another Christian officer, Brig. Jivanandham, didn`t make Maj. Gen. because he didn`t have the necessary qualifications (Staff College and War College) but if he had, there is little doubt that he would have gotten his second star.
The unwritten rule is that no non-Muslim may go past Maj. Gen. or be given a division to command. BUT I am not sure that Musharraf would follow it. In his personal views/beliefs, he is extremely liberal (by ``normal`` Pakistani standards), as is shown by his appointment of Mr. Justice Bhagwan Das to the Supreme Court and sending two female athletes to the Olympics.
Romair:
Zia`s son has a very strong support base in Okara but I am not sure which city Zia`s family called ``home.``
Musa and his son-in-law are Hazaras, not exactly of Iranian origin but I think they are Farsi/Darri speaking. Hazaras (not to be confused with the Hazara district of NWFP) are are Mongol descendants who converted to Islam and stuck around. There were a series of IlKhan rulers of Persia who were Mongols but they didn`t last for too long.
Gen Baloch is an ethnic Baloch, the highest ranking one in the Army. There have been other high ranking officers (Pathans) from Baluchistan but he is the only Baluchi.
#177 Posted by ikonoclast on August 18, 2004 8:21:00 am
re:Ferozk# 175
First I would like to comment on your comments on Romair 173#
I concur absolutely with you that politics will pollute and corrupt the military; indeed it has done that; take it from someone who has the firsthand knowledge about it :) But it should not be surprising, because politics by function is a dirty game. Period.
Now about the various biases in the military: to a certain extent, there is meritocracy till the middle ranks; but its all politics in higher ranks. It is also germane to point here that, if you analyse the vocational set-up of the elite families, the military, feudals and politicians are cross-married. Than there is a certain tacit ``quota`` aystem in vogue at the top ranks. There was a definite bias against the Shia officers during the Zia period, as there is a bias against the bearded ones.
Coming to your views on my post, I am an ardent believer of pragmatism and realpolitik! The only peaceful means of getting the military to the barracks is by strengthening the civil institutions. It might look like an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one. Let me give a few recent examples:depite the fact that the military holds the gun, its periodic forays into politics have delibitated it. The days of military ukase of Ayub and Zia are over. There is an open criticism of the military atrocities for example at the Okara Farms; it was made possible because of the muscle, albeit a feeble one of the civil right groups and the press. Yesterday Turkey got its first civilian Secretary-General of its all-powerful NSC. If you observe the Turkish scene, you will notice that the pre-eminent power of the Turkish military is eroding day by day. It was only 2 years ago that the Turk COAS would issue regular and overt warnings to the civilian government and the parliment. One last example: Remember the photo-shot of an alone, fragile civilian standing in front of a column of Chinese tanks, during the days of Tianmen Square standoff in 1989?
Therefore my friend, there is hope, potent hope that given enough willpower, we can rollback the jaggernaut, though it will take time and immense effort.
Your thoughts on this?
So long!
First I would like to comment on your comments on Romair 173#
I concur absolutely with you that politics will pollute and corrupt the military; indeed it has done that; take it from someone who has the firsthand knowledge about it :) But it should not be surprising, because politics by function is a dirty game. Period.
Now about the various biases in the military: to a certain extent, there is meritocracy till the middle ranks; but its all politics in higher ranks. It is also germane to point here that, if you analyse the vocational set-up of the elite families, the military, feudals and politicians are cross-married. Than there is a certain tacit ``quota`` aystem in vogue at the top ranks. There was a definite bias against the Shia officers during the Zia period, as there is a bias against the bearded ones.
Coming to your views on my post, I am an ardent believer of pragmatism and realpolitik! The only peaceful means of getting the military to the barracks is by strengthening the civil institutions. It might look like an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one. Let me give a few recent examples:depite the fact that the military holds the gun, its periodic forays into politics have delibitated it. The days of military ukase of Ayub and Zia are over. There is an open criticism of the military atrocities for example at the Okara Farms; it was made possible because of the muscle, albeit a feeble one of the civil right groups and the press. Yesterday Turkey got its first civilian Secretary-General of its all-powerful NSC. If you observe the Turkish scene, you will notice that the pre-eminent power of the Turkish military is eroding day by day. It was only 2 years ago that the Turk COAS would issue regular and overt warnings to the civilian government and the parliment. One last example: Remember the photo-shot of an alone, fragile civilian standing in front of a column of Chinese tanks, during the days of Tianmen Square standoff in 1989?
Therefore my friend, there is hope, potent hope that given enough willpower, we can rollback the jaggernaut, though it will take time and immense effort.
Your thoughts on this?
So long!
#176 Posted by ikonoclast on August 18, 2004 8:07:03 am
re:Ferozk# 175
First I would like to comment on your comments on Romair 173#
I concur absolutely with you that politics will pollute and corrupt the military; indeed it has done that; take it from someone who has the firsthand knowledge about it :) But it should not be surprising, because politics by function is a dirty game. Period.
Now about the various biases in the military: to a certain extent, there is meritocracy till the middle ranks; but its all politics in higher ranks. It is also germane to point here that, if you analyse the vocational set-up of the elite families, the military, feudals and politicians are cross-married. Than there is a certain tacit ``quota`` aystem in vogue at the top ranks. There was a definite bias against the Shia officers during the Zia period, as there is a bias against the bearded ones.
Coming to your views on my post, I am an ardent believer of pragmatism and realpolitik! The only peaceful means of getting the military to the barracks is by strengthening the civil institutions. It might look like an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one. Let me give a few recent examples:depite the fact that the military holds the gun, its periodic forays into politics have delibitated it. The days of military ukase of Ayub and Zia are over. There is an open criticism of the military atrocities for example at the Okara Farms; it was made possible because of the muscle, albeit a feeble one of the civil right groups and the press. Yesterday Turkey got its first civilian Secretary-General of its all-powerful NSC. If you observe the Turkish scene, you will notice that the pre-eminent power of the Turkish military is eroding day by day. It was only 2 years ago that the Turk COAS would issue regular and overt warnings to the civilian government and the parliment. One last example: Remember the photo-shot of an alone, fragile civilian standing in front of a column of Chinese tanks, during the days of Tianmen Square standoff in 1989?
Therefore my friend, there is hope, potent hope that given enough willpower, we can rollback the jaggernaut, though it will take time and immense effort.
Your thoughts on this?
So long!
First I would like to comment on your comments on Romair 173#
I concur absolutely with you that politics will pollute and corrupt the military; indeed it has done that; take it from someone who has the firsthand knowledge about it :) But it should not be surprising, because politics by function is a dirty game. Period.
Now about the various biases in the military: to a certain extent, there is meritocracy till the middle ranks; but its all politics in higher ranks. It is also germane to point here that, if you analyse the vocational set-up of the elite families, the military, feudals and politicians are cross-married. Than there is a certain tacit ``quota`` aystem in vogue at the top ranks. There was a definite bias against the Shia officers during the Zia period, as there is a bias against the bearded ones.
Coming to your views on my post, I am an ardent believer of pragmatism and realpolitik! The only peaceful means of getting the military to the barracks is by strengthening the civil institutions. It might look like an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one. Let me give a few recent examples:depite the fact that the military holds the gun, its periodic forays into politics have delibitated it. The days of military ukase of Ayub and Zia are over. There is an open criticism of the military atrocities for example at the Okara Farms; it was made possible because of the muscle, albeit a feeble one of the civil right groups and the press. Yesterday Turkey got its first civilian Secretary-General of its all-powerful NSC. If you observe the Turkish scene, you will notice that the pre-eminent power of the Turkish military is eroding day by day. It was only 2 years ago that the Turk COAS would issue regular and overt warnings to the civilian government and the parliment. One last example: Remember the photo-shot of an alone, fragile civilian standing in front of a column of Chinese tanks, during the days of Tianmen Square standoff in 1989?
Therefore my friend, there is hope, potent hope that given enough willpower, we can rollback the jaggernaut, though it will take time and immense effort.
Your thoughts on this?
So long!
#175 Posted by ferozk on August 18, 2004 2:44:02 am
re: Romair # 173
Yes, I agree that the role of politics in military and how it influences the military seems to be a problem.
Regardless, if there is not an ethnic or a regional bias or a religious, there seems to be a reason to suspect a political bias in the military. The fact of the matter is that the military has been polluated by its links to politics and the more it stays in politics, the more it will represent the nation in its political biases. If it wants to avoid becoming like the politicans its yearns to loathe, then it should seriously think about leaving politics. The military`s involvment with politics has destroyed the process of politics in Pakistan and its continued role in politics will destory the military as an institution.
re: ikonoclast # 174
I agree with your assessment of the judges and their role in Pakistani coups, but the rest of your post is pure utopian. In an ideal world what you say may have any value but these sentiments have no value in Pakistan and they will be ignored. The question is how to translate the idealism and make it work within the limitations of Pakistan`s reality? Should we favor pragmatism or idealism in our efforts to solve Pakistan`s problems? Should we work within our limitations or should our reach exceed our grasp? The reality of Pakistan would disagree with your noble words. :)
Ciao
Yes, I agree that the role of politics in military and how it influences the military seems to be a problem.
Regardless, if there is not an ethnic or a regional bias or a religious, there seems to be a reason to suspect a political bias in the military. The fact of the matter is that the military has been polluated by its links to politics and the more it stays in politics, the more it will represent the nation in its political biases. If it wants to avoid becoming like the politicans its yearns to loathe, then it should seriously think about leaving politics. The military`s involvment with politics has destroyed the process of politics in Pakistan and its continued role in politics will destory the military as an institution.
re: ikonoclast # 174
I agree with your assessment of the judges and their role in Pakistani coups, but the rest of your post is pure utopian. In an ideal world what you say may have any value but these sentiments have no value in Pakistan and they will be ignored. The question is how to translate the idealism and make it work within the limitations of Pakistan`s reality? Should we favor pragmatism or idealism in our efforts to solve Pakistan`s problems? Should we work within our limitations or should our reach exceed our grasp? The reality of Pakistan would disagree with your noble words. :)
Ciao
#174 Posted by ikonoclast on August 17, 2004 11:31:39 pm
The writer`s point about having a consensual constitutional role is a non-starter, because the constitution accords the military no political rule. Military by definition is supposed to be an apolitical organization; also military being a state organ is requird to be subservient to the civilian political head of the country. And one should also remember that derailing a legitimate government by a coup is a treasonable offence. All military takeovers are in direct and explicit violation of the constitution. But here in Pakistan, the judiciary has always not only concurred in the military takeovers, but provided legitimacy and succour to it. to
Than there is the role of the political players. Take the case of the present ruling political coterie; they are the creatures of the military. Period. Therefore, a military rollback to the barracks will not be in their interest.
Civil society is not required to grant any gurantees of safeguarding the military`s political interests, because its a non sequiter. The only way out is to develop enough spine among the high preists of our judiciary; reasoning with army is futile.
Than there is the role of the political players. Take the case of the present ruling political coterie; they are the creatures of the military. Period. Therefore, a military rollback to the barracks will not be in their interest.
Civil society is not required to grant any gurantees of safeguarding the military`s political interests, because its a non sequiter. The only way out is to develop enough spine among the high preists of our judiciary; reasoning with army is futile.
#173 Posted by Romair on August 17, 2004 7:26:41 pm
Ferozek #172: There is little to no ethnic discrimination in the military. This can be seen by the diverse ethnicities of the individuals who have made it to Chief. In addition, if you notice, the person who tops as a cadet, ends up topping all the way through, most of the time. This also indicates there is very little discrimination in the military along financial lines.
The military is easily the biggest meritocracy I have seen in Pakistan. I have friends who topped their courses, and are from very poor families. Some from villages. And they are still on top of their courses, and will become Generals. In ciivlian competition, they would never have had the sifarish or burger skills to even get selected for good jobs.
There is religious discrimination in the miltiary. However, it does not exist due to the internals of the military, i.e. officers do not practice amongst each other. It has been introduced through the pressure of political forces. Zafar Chaudhry, an Ahmedi, was the Chief of Air Staff. And a Christian was acting Chief at one point. However, now a non-Shia or Sunni will not make it past Maj General. Not because of anything internal in the military, but due to political policies, practiced in Pakistan.
Zia was not very successful in Islamising the military. At least not as successful as he was in Islamising the rest of the society. I think military traditions are far too strong, and take a long time in changing. None of the Army cheifs after him were maulvis. Many were actually quite Westernised, like Musharraf and Asif Nawaz.
The US gave more free training to Pakistanis, during Zia`s days, than at anytime in the history of the country. Due to the Afghan war. Nearly everyone in the PAF went abroad, at least once. Sometimes on two week courses. I had a chance to attend a course in the USA, in my early twenties.
The military is easily the biggest meritocracy I have seen in Pakistan. I have friends who topped their courses, and are from very poor families. Some from villages. And they are still on top of their courses, and will become Generals. In ciivlian competition, they would never have had the sifarish or burger skills to even get selected for good jobs.
There is religious discrimination in the miltiary. However, it does not exist due to the internals of the military, i.e. officers do not practice amongst each other. It has been introduced through the pressure of political forces. Zafar Chaudhry, an Ahmedi, was the Chief of Air Staff. And a Christian was acting Chief at one point. However, now a non-Shia or Sunni will not make it past Maj General. Not because of anything internal in the military, but due to political policies, practiced in Pakistan.
Zia was not very successful in Islamising the military. At least not as successful as he was in Islamising the rest of the society. I think military traditions are far too strong, and take a long time in changing. None of the Army cheifs after him were maulvis. Many were actually quite Westernised, like Musharraf and Asif Nawaz.
The US gave more free training to Pakistanis, during Zia`s days, than at anytime in the history of the country. Due to the Afghan war. Nearly everyone in the PAF went abroad, at least once. Sometimes on two week courses. I had a chance to attend a course in the USA, in my early twenties.
#172 Posted by ferozk on August 17, 2004 5:56:51 pm
re: Romair # 171
Thanks for a very informative post. You do ask a pointed question, but if you had the choice yourself, how would you define the national representation in Pakistani military?
I think that you are correct to an extent that the military has no internal biases, but what about political biases based on the ethnicity of its officers or their particular religion?
One of my cousins, who happened to be a Parsi officer in the PAF was cashiered by Zia in the early 1980s and had to retire at the rank of squadron-leader, as further promotions were denied to him. Romair, where I disagree with you is on the issue that the military does have certain institutional biases and some times these biases are often a result of political considerations. If we look at the recent attempts on the life of Musharraf, even Musharraf mentioned the involvement of lowly tiered personnel from PAF and army. If that is a case, then there is a certain religious bias in the military, which seems to justify its existence within a political rubric.
There may be no ethnic biases as you mention, but is there a religious bias? The time period of Zia-ul-Haq and its process of Islamization greatly influenced the military. The majority of the present corps of officers all started out under Zia and soon will assume critical positions in the military. Musharraf is the last of the ``gin and tonic sahibs``. The United States` Pentagon just announced a program to encourage the cross-training of Pakistani officers with the American ones. Why? The answer was provided by Pentagon itself, when it said that the Pakistani military is an important institution in Pakistan. Are the Americans trying to influence Pakistan via its military to favor American policies? Will this end up harming the democratic process in Pakistan? Is MMA right after all, when it complains of the American influence in Pakistan and the military`s capitulation to it?
The point being, that the inner ethnic representation of the military will to a degree reflect the political realities of its core recruiting areas and if Pakistani politics have a bias, can we also assume that the military has them too?
Ciao
Thanks for a very informative post. You do ask a pointed question, but if you had the choice yourself, how would you define the national representation in Pakistani military?
I think that you are correct to an extent that the military has no internal biases, but what about political biases based on the ethnicity of its officers or their particular religion?
One of my cousins, who happened to be a Parsi officer in the PAF was cashiered by Zia in the early 1980s and had to retire at the rank of squadron-leader, as further promotions were denied to him. Romair, where I disagree with you is on the issue that the military does have certain institutional biases and some times these biases are often a result of political considerations. If we look at the recent attempts on the life of Musharraf, even Musharraf mentioned the involvement of lowly tiered personnel from PAF and army. If that is a case, then there is a certain religious bias in the military, which seems to justify its existence within a political rubric.
There may be no ethnic biases as you mention, but is there a religious bias? The time period of Zia-ul-Haq and its process of Islamization greatly influenced the military. The majority of the present corps of officers all started out under Zia and soon will assume critical positions in the military. Musharraf is the last of the ``gin and tonic sahibs``. The United States` Pentagon just announced a program to encourage the cross-training of Pakistani officers with the American ones. Why? The answer was provided by Pentagon itself, when it said that the Pakistani military is an important institution in Pakistan. Are the Americans trying to influence Pakistan via its military to favor American policies? Will this end up harming the democratic process in Pakistan? Is MMA right after all, when it complains of the American influence in Pakistan and the military`s capitulation to it?
The point being, that the inner ethnic representation of the military will to a degree reflect the political realities of its core recruiting areas and if Pakistani politics have a bias, can we also assume that the military has them too?
Ciao
#171 Posted by Romair on August 17, 2004 8:22:47 am
HP/Ferozek #various: Before we can talk about the national make-up of the Pakistani military (or any other organization in the country), we have to first define how the ethnic boundaries of Pakistan are drawn. Most individuals use provinces to define ethnic boudaries. However, provincial boundaries do not match ethnic boundaries in Pakistan.
These statistics are dated, by a few decades, but:
The number of Pathans in NWFP is quite a bit less than what people think. And the largest Pathan city in the country, is actually Karachi, not Peshawar. The most populous district in NWFP is Hindko speaking Hazara. And a majority of people in Peshawar and not Pathans.
Similarly, only 50%, or so, of the population of Baluchistan is actually Baluchi. It has large groups of Pathans. Nearly 30% of the population, or so, is Pathan.
Similarly, Sind has a large Baluchi population. In fact, there maybe be twice as many Sindhi speaking ethnic Baluchis in Sind than the total number of ethnic Baluchis in Baluchistan.
Punjab is an evern bigger hodge-podge. Southern Punjab is actually Sindhi. Multan used to be the capital of Sind. And a big portion of Punjab speaks Sariaki. Sariaki is spoken by almost as many people (10%) in Pakistan as Sindhi (12%). Infact, Sariaki is spoken by about as many people as Pushto (8%) and Baluchi (3%), combined.
Furthermore, the bordering areas of Punjab with Baluchistan, consist of Baluchi tribes. Farooq Leghari is the head of a Baluchi tribe, and is the most influential Baluchi politician in Pakistan. However, his contituency is in Punjab.
Kashmir is another dilema. Pakistani Kashmiris do not speak Kashmiri. They (not counting Northern Areas) speak Punjabi. In fact, they have more in common with Punjabis, than Sariaki speakers of southern Punjab (many of whom want a separate province, from Punjab) have in common with Punjabis.
So how exactly would you define the boundaries of Pakistan`s national army. If we go by linguistic boundaries, then only 15% of Pakistan (12% Sindhi speakers, and 3% Baluchi speakers) are not represented in the Army. The other 85% are represented. However, if we furthur go into literacy rates, then the literacy rate of Sindhi speakers (rual Sind) is around 20%??, and that of Baluchistan is around 11%???. This means roughly 15% of the Baluchis and Sindhis are even candidates for the military, to begin with. So 15% of 15% of the total population = 2.5% of the total population is not getting representation.
However, if you look at the boundaries geographically, Baluchistan and Sind constituted well over 50% of the landmass. So more than 50% of Pakistan is not getting representation.
One has to figure out how to define the boundaries, as well as the literate population available for recruitement.
These statistics are dated, by a few decades, but:
The number of Pathans in NWFP is quite a bit less than what people think. And the largest Pathan city in the country, is actually Karachi, not Peshawar. The most populous district in NWFP is Hindko speaking Hazara. And a majority of people in Peshawar and not Pathans.
Similarly, only 50%, or so, of the population of Baluchistan is actually Baluchi. It has large groups of Pathans. Nearly 30% of the population, or so, is Pathan.
Similarly, Sind has a large Baluchi population. In fact, there maybe be twice as many Sindhi speaking ethnic Baluchis in Sind than the total number of ethnic Baluchis in Baluchistan.
Punjab is an evern bigger hodge-podge. Southern Punjab is actually Sindhi. Multan used to be the capital of Sind. And a big portion of Punjab speaks Sariaki. Sariaki is spoken by almost as many people (10%) in Pakistan as Sindhi (12%). Infact, Sariaki is spoken by about as many people as Pushto (8%) and Baluchi (3%), combined.
Furthermore, the bordering areas of Punjab with Baluchistan, consist of Baluchi tribes. Farooq Leghari is the head of a Baluchi tribe, and is the most influential Baluchi politician in Pakistan. However, his contituency is in Punjab.
Kashmir is another dilema. Pakistani Kashmiris do not speak Kashmiri. They (not counting Northern Areas) speak Punjabi. In fact, they have more in common with Punjabis, than Sariaki speakers of southern Punjab (many of whom want a separate province, from Punjab) have in common with Punjabis.
So how exactly would you define the boundaries of Pakistan`s national army. If we go by linguistic boundaries, then only 15% of Pakistan (12% Sindhi speakers, and 3% Baluchi speakers) are not represented in the Army. The other 85% are represented. However, if we furthur go into literacy rates, then the literacy rate of Sindhi speakers (rual Sind) is around 20%??, and that of Baluchistan is around 11%???. This means roughly 15% of the Baluchis and Sindhis are even candidates for the military, to begin with. So 15% of 15% of the total population = 2.5% of the total population is not getting representation.
However, if you look at the boundaries geographically, Baluchistan and Sind constituted well over 50% of the landmass. So more than 50% of Pakistan is not getting representation.
One has to figure out how to define the boundaries, as well as the literate population available for recruitement.
#170 Posted by Romair on August 17, 2004 8:00:18 am
fuzair #163: I thought, after migrating from India, Zia considered Peshawar his hometown. What was his hometown in Pakistan?
The highest ranking individual from Baluchistan in the military, would have to be General Musa Khan. He was of Iranian origin, having settled in Quetta. The second highest would have to be his son-in-law, Changezi (who looks Chinese), who was a sword of honor winner and retired as Air Marshall. The highest ranking Sindhi, in the military, would be Air Marshall Daudpota. He is a true Sindhi. He was made head of PIA, under Benazir. He was also COAS of Zimbabwe Air Force. He was also appointed Governor of Sind by Musharraf. He is quite highly respected in the PAF circles.
All said and done, the Pakistan military is Punjabi and Pathan at the enlisted levels. And like all other institutions, Punjabi, Pathan and Muhajir at the officer level. Much more Muhajir than even most Muhajirs realize. However, with much fewer ethnic biases internally, than other organizations. It, however, does not isolate Baluchis and Sindhis, by design. It just reflects the demographics of Pakistan`s educated class.
The highest ranking individual from Baluchistan in the military, would have to be General Musa Khan. He was of Iranian origin, having settled in Quetta. The second highest would have to be his son-in-law, Changezi (who looks Chinese), who was a sword of honor winner and retired as Air Marshall. The highest ranking Sindhi, in the military, would be Air Marshall Daudpota. He is a true Sindhi. He was made head of PIA, under Benazir. He was also COAS of Zimbabwe Air Force. He was also appointed Governor of Sind by Musharraf. He is quite highly respected in the PAF circles.
All said and done, the Pakistan military is Punjabi and Pathan at the enlisted levels. And like all other institutions, Punjabi, Pathan and Muhajir at the officer level. Much more Muhajir than even most Muhajirs realize. However, with much fewer ethnic biases internally, than other organizations. It, however, does not isolate Baluchis and Sindhis, by design. It just reflects the demographics of Pakistan`s educated class.
#169 Posted by ferozk on August 16, 2004 11:52:37 pm
re: HP # 166
Yes, the quota system is present in each nation and yes; it is a debate for another time and place. :)
Ciao
Yes, the quota system is present in each nation and yes; it is a debate for another time and place. :)
Ciao
#168 Posted by ferozk on August 16, 2004 10:21:45 pm
re: fuzair # 167
My involvment with the military?
I have no direct involvment with the militaryand as to indirect involvment, I am not sure what you mean by that term. Fareed Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument is not one I support and though it makes sense, to me that amounts to an appeasement of the military, which is why I tend to reject it.
I have one thing to say to the generals of Pakistan. If you want democracy and claim democracy for Pakistan, then start by going back to the barracks as a first step. If you want to rule Pakistan as a fiefdom, then stop wasting your breath by talking lies about democracy and rule with iron fist, but you cannot have it both ways!
Ciao
My involvment with the military?
I have no direct involvment with the militaryand as to indirect involvment, I am not sure what you mean by that term. Fareed Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument is not one I support and though it makes sense, to me that amounts to an appeasement of the military, which is why I tend to reject it.
I have one thing to say to the generals of Pakistan. If you want democracy and claim democracy for Pakistan, then start by going back to the barracks as a first step. If you want to rule Pakistan as a fiefdom, then stop wasting your breath by talking lies about democracy and rule with iron fist, but you cannot have it both ways!
Ciao
#167 Posted by HP on August 16, 2004 11:36:06 am
Feroz,
About Sindh Regiment- It was just to illustrate that how a civilian supervision of the army could have made the army more sensitive to smaller provinces need for representation in National institutions.
All these issues have cropped up because the army would not let itself be supervised by the civilians. I think it is a case of looking down on people rather than fighting capabilities. Fighting capabilities is another can of worms and may be we will discuss that some other time.
The quota is another contentious issue. But pretty much all countries that have to deal with the under class or under developed classes in their society, find quotas are they way to alleviate some of the problems. This has nothing to with how advanced and industrialized a country is. India in our neighborhood has an active quota program. In the US affirmative action is nothing more than a quota program.
But all that some other time.
Thanks.
#166 Posted by fuzair on August 16, 2004 11:36:06 am
Feroz,
Just curious, what is your direct or indirect involvement with the Pakistani military? And, on a not unrelated note, have you read Fareed Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument?
Just curious, what is your direct or indirect involvement with the Pakistani military? And, on a not unrelated note, have you read Fareed Zakaria`s ``illiberal democracy`` argument?
#165 Posted by ferozk on August 16, 2004 3:06:35 am
re: Romair and HP
You have made some good observations about the nature and the role of the military in Pakistan. The basic fact is that the military is a representative of Pakistani society, and what ever the debate, the nation will more likely represent the military than the military will accurately represent the nation. A truly utopian outcome is not possible and whether it is certain or not is open to question. In the areas of politics and ruling Pakistan, the military is no better than the civilians it decries and to accept it to be otherwise might be a difficult proposition.
HP, if you say that the military has certain national aspirations to look up, you are right and the military does need to show case the national diversity. However, when talking about the army`s regiments, the question should be more focused on its fighting capabilities than on its quota of ehtnic representations. In Pakistan, this question is a moot one, because it is not the fighting ability of the army but it is political skills which matter more in Pakistan. Hence, should we measure the military as a military organization or a political organization? In the end, the national aspirations of the military will be determined by how we judge the military and if our aspirations are realistic in their judgement of it as an organization, but which organization or institution it is - political or a military one?
On the other hand, the system of ethnic quota system in the national politics or the national bureaucracy has not done a whit to improve the situation, so why should we expect that it will have a better result in the military? Incidently, why is Sindh and the Sindhis so pre-occupied with the idea of quotas? Will a Sindhi COAS will be less prone to instituting a martial law in Pakistan? If naming a regiment or the entire army as Sindhi help the matter, then by means please implement it. However the question is; will it help the matter? I do not think that it will help the matter.
Faruk (#164), the conclusion is open to debate and whether the army is the best medicine or not seems to pale in light of the fact that, good or bad, it seems to be the only medicine and that is simply unacceptable. Still the question is not to settle an argument on the goodness or the bad nature of the army, because in a nation wishing for democracy, the role of the military in politics cannot be appeased under any conditions. A more elusive question is how to remove the influence of the military from politics. There seems to be a consensus that the military is a part and parcel of politics in Pakistan, but why is there a consensus on this issue? The acceptance of the military as a consensual reality of Pakistani politics is a more vexing issue and then again, the question revolves around to who is really to be blamed for this state of affairs; the military which harms politics or the politicans who harm the political evolution by tolerating the military in politics?
In the final analysis, the military is not the best medicine for Pakistan. It should leave politics but the manner in which it will leave politics causes more fright than comfort for the process of demcoracy in Pakistan. If we keep the military in the folds of politics, then the harm will insidiously seep into the political institutionalism in Pakistan and continue to undermine the political process.
Ciao
You have made some good observations about the nature and the role of the military in Pakistan. The basic fact is that the military is a representative of Pakistani society, and what ever the debate, the nation will more likely represent the military than the military will accurately represent the nation. A truly utopian outcome is not possible and whether it is certain or not is open to question. In the areas of politics and ruling Pakistan, the military is no better than the civilians it decries and to accept it to be otherwise might be a difficult proposition.
HP, if you say that the military has certain national aspirations to look up, you are right and the military does need to show case the national diversity. However, when talking about the army`s regiments, the question should be more focused on its fighting capabilities than on its quota of ehtnic representations. In Pakistan, this question is a moot one, because it is not the fighting ability of the army but it is political skills which matter more in Pakistan. Hence, should we measure the military as a military organization or a political organization? In the end, the national aspirations of the military will be determined by how we judge the military and if our aspirations are realistic in their judgement of it as an organization, but which organization or institution it is - political or a military one?
On the other hand, the system of ethnic quota system in the national politics or the national bureaucracy has not done a whit to improve the situation, so why should we expect that it will have a better result in the military? Incidently, why is Sindh and the Sindhis so pre-occupied with the idea of quotas? Will a Sindhi COAS will be less prone to instituting a martial law in Pakistan? If naming a regiment or the entire army as Sindhi help the matter, then by means please implement it. However the question is; will it help the matter? I do not think that it will help the matter.
Faruk (#164), the conclusion is open to debate and whether the army is the best medicine or not seems to pale in light of the fact that, good or bad, it seems to be the only medicine and that is simply unacceptable. Still the question is not to settle an argument on the goodness or the bad nature of the army, because in a nation wishing for democracy, the role of the military in politics cannot be appeased under any conditions. A more elusive question is how to remove the influence of the military from politics. There seems to be a consensus that the military is a part and parcel of politics in Pakistan, but why is there a consensus on this issue? The acceptance of the military as a consensual reality of Pakistani politics is a more vexing issue and then again, the question revolves around to who is really to be blamed for this state of affairs; the military which harms politics or the politicans who harm the political evolution by tolerating the military in politics?
In the final analysis, the military is not the best medicine for Pakistan. It should leave politics but the manner in which it will leave politics causes more fright than comfort for the process of demcoracy in Pakistan. If we keep the military in the folds of politics, then the harm will insidiously seep into the political institutionalism in Pakistan and continue to undermine the political process.
Ciao
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: I have never seen... US Commando Strike in
- majumdar: Tahmed sahib, Afghans may scare... US Commando Strike in
- bubba: Re: # 29 {go back... US Commando Strike in
- eyecontact: There is a heavy... Why Zardari Should Be
- eyecontact: There is a heavy... Why Zardari Should Be
- CreateAlpha: LOL @ system! Hahahah What... Why Zardari Should Be
- adamkhan: If the Americans, with... US Commando Strike in
- tahmed32: hamidm: i guess you... Why Zardari Should Be
