General’s Dress Code Confusion

Q.Isa Daudpota sahib! nice to hear your views, what i would like to know though is , besides the dress what is your idea of the generals govrnance at the moment and who is the other best man to lead this nation in making?

stuka #46 I was not thinking of diplomts but of the chowk interactors (the india-pakistan warrior kind) - they are not here in the capacity of diplomats whose job requires them to toe the government line. Rather, they are like birds that live in a cage made by their own unthinking minds. So, they too toe the government line just as if they were timid government officials.

As for government policy formulation, this of course depends on the context. In dictatorships it is quite clear whose interest is first and foremost. Although even here, the victims themselves (the ordinary public) start equating the dictator`s self-interest with the national interest. And even in democracies, special interest groups often set the agenda for specific issues that are often counter to the broader interests of that society.

It all comes down to the question of ``Whose interest is being promoted?`` by a given government policy. A moments reflection would indicate that there is complete lack of clarity here. Clearly the interest should be of all individuals, living or as yet not born. The implication for government policy is to stick to legal and economic regulatory frameworks, and to channel tax resources to the one activity that provides the largest social benefits, namely education. Territorial disputes of the Kashmir kind will then become trivial issues since international borders would be no more significant to the individual than state or provincial borders are today.

``Thus, to my mind a Pakistani who talks about ``The right of self determination of Kashmiris`` or and Indian who talks about ``Kashmir is an integral part of Kashmir`` is merely an unthinking fellow who merely toes the government line. ``

Depends on who is saying it and in what capacity. A diplomat may have his private thoughts but he or she is not there to put across personal perspectives. Rather the job is to toe the government line. Your statement is correct wrt common people, but don`t or should not have a role to play in interstate relations.

Regarding the official line of the government, well that is sually not decided by an individual unless it is an absolute dictatorship. Even in a dictatorship there are are various centres of power and nationalinterest is or should be defined by consensus.

stuka #44 Agreed that interstate relations have nothing to do with individual interactions. Thus, to my mind a Pakistani who talks about ``The right of self determination of Kashmiris`` or and Indian who talks about ``Kashmir is an integral part of Kashmir`` is merely an unthinking fellow who merely toes the government line. Since both government positions are (as one can conclude with a few moments reflection) disingenuous.

I dont think there is any ``Pakistani mindset`` vs. an ``Indian mindset`` though. What we have are differences in the social, political, economic environment surrounding the respective decision-makers in each country. Generally, a guy who gets to be a decision maker is no dummy - its just that he is not selfless either, and sets national policy around is self interest (which may be enlightened, and he is thinking of future generations; or which may be short-sighted, as in case of our Zia for example, who gained a few years of power for himself, and an eternity of shame and disgrace for himself as well. And set back Pakistan by a generation). And that is why national decisions and positions generally have very little to do with the calibre of the people of that country.

TAhmed:

LOL

``Pakistanis and Chinese tend to get along very well individually as well. ``

So do Indians and Pakistanis at the individual level...which basically proves that inter-state relations have nothing to do with individual interactions.

In fact your post itself is a good example of the Ppakistani mindeset towards international relations. I think Pakistanis tend to view inter-state relations as an extension of individual friendships. The Chinese are the complete opposite. The Indians are in between, bouts of pragmatism liberally intersperesed with emotionalism. A good example..due to ``emotional ties`` India agreed to pay Russia, USSR`s successor state, outstanding loans of roubles as per a fixed dollar conversion ration rather then the market rate.

arjun: #41 You write ``Yada, yada, yada``. This explains what I have always suspected from your high pitched posts: that you are in fact a specimen of the Alouatta Palliata (aka the African Howling Monkey).

When I need to know more about the the AP family, I shall seek your input since you would know what you are talking about. Aside from that, your opinions are of no interest to me.

stuka #37 I think Pakistan is a good example of why war is too important to be left to the generals. Pakistan`s Afghan policy during the power vacuum following the Soviet retreat was primarily the creation of Zia, and his policies were primarily driven by cold calculations to stay in power. The ISI simply continued his legacy after he died. Thus, the moral is that while civilian politicians are beholden to some extent to the broad interest of the country (since they do have the next elections to worry about), generals do not. I look forward to the day when the military generals stop acting as if they have a right to set foreign policy for Pakistan.

The China Pakistan friendship is, as you indicate, an interesting case. While this may sound strange given their vastly different cultural backgrounds and linguistic barriers, Pakistanis and Chinese tend to get along very well individually as well. It is easy to see why: Chinese (the government officials who come to Pakistan at least - not the less educated ones small businessmen types in the US) tend to be really nice, civilized people. I once taught english to Chinese students in Pakistan, and it was a pleasure to see how dedicated and courteous they were. A similar rapport developed at higher levels in Pakistan all the way to Chou En Lai (I dont know how relations are with current leaders). My father once headed an international language institute in Pakistan with teachers from different countries, and he was always praising the Chinese for their dedication and undemanding nature (the persian guy, on the other hand e.g., came to work in a huge car, was demanding air conditioners and things all the time - he did have really cute neices though whom he left in my charge to get admitted at Panjab University, thus making me immediately popular with fellows I had never heard from before...but I guess I better stop rambling now).

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

faisaluno:

First of all, no one is accusing you of being a racist. Those who are prejudiced let people know in a subtle yet unmistakable manner, and they know who they are.

Second, I am not disagreeing with the use of force to straighten out Altaf and his goons. MQM had become too big for its shoes and had turned against the very people it was supposed to be representing. To that extent, I agree that someone had to use the danda mercilessly to cut them to their size. I, myself, never supported the MQM because I never believed in ethnic or sectarian divisions.

However, a lot more went on under this facade. A civilized society does not lock up an entire neighorhood just to nab a few culprits. Daily confiscations of cars by the Rangers, undue harassment by the police, fake encounters, rounding up of entire neighborhoods, etc. These are just a few examples of how the law exceeded its mandate.

If Babar was indeed the superheroe some folks are portraying him as, he would have turned his attention to the real source of civic unrest in Karachi - police brutality and corruption. But, then of course, its a lot easier to use the danda on poor hapless people than taking on a tyrannical ruler.

faisaluno #34 you write ``the dose of tough love handed out to us by gen. baber was good for us much in the same way as the medicine handed out by uncle sam to pushtoons who went to fight for taliban.``

While harsh in certain ways (particularly towards the poor), Pakistani society is, ironically, quite permissive when it comes to tolerating lawlessness. A strong ``law and order`` administration is equated not with the curbing of such lawlessness but with some form of ``colonial oppression``. And yet, law and order is essential to a civilized society. As such I basically agree with what you say here, even though I have no doubt that it will ruffle the feathers on some people on chowk.

Faisaluno:

``and to expect pak to stay out of afghanistan is akin to expecting americans to stay out cuba or israel.``

I disagree completely with that statement. Pakistan simply does not have the size or power to completely influence Afghanistan without expecting blowback. Besides, if Pakistan has the right, then so does Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc and by extension India.


``even then, i believe taliban could have been controlled (meaning their religious zealotry could have been reduced) had it not been for the noxious influence of afghan-arabs. ``

Disagree again. Taliban`s legitimacy was derived from religion and religion alone. I agree with your statement that the Taliban was spwned at a time when warlords were battling it out for self interest. But those warlords derived legitimacy from ethnic/tribal affiliation. The Taliban were Pashtun there ethnic loyalty was limited. Also, within the Pushtun, those who commanded tribal affililiations had no need for Babur. Therefore, if Babur was to create a new movement, he was pretty limited to using religion. He had no choice.

In hindsight, Pakistan was much better of with russian dominated communists in Kabul compared to what came later. Ofcourse that depends on your point of view of what constitutes ``better``.

TAhmed:

``Now why would such a guy support the Taliban badmaash?? I guess no one is perfect. ``

It is as unfair to blame Babar today for the creation of the Taliban as it is to blame America for creation of Al Qaeda when it was simply sending money/arms to Mujahideen. Babar created the Taliban when Afghanistan was a right royal mess. Problem was the tiger became too big.

Problem with Pakistani GHQ is that they are too rigid in policy implementation. Thinking is limited to immediate consequences rather than looking at complete strategic picture. A policy that makes sense in 1989 may not make sense in 1999 if the environment is changing. But that is the inherent weakness of Pakistani planning, the military mindset dominates and is unable to comprehend and internalize non military factors. If you look at China, they clearly objectify limited goals, and in cohesion, utilize economic military and traditional diplomacy to achieve goals. Also, they retain complete flexibility not only about the means but also the ends. Interesting to see that whereas China and Pakistan are good friends they are complete opposites in terms of national character. Pragmatism versus emotionalism.

Faisaluno:

``this also my criticism of gen musharrif. that he also a lot of talk and very little action. ``

I agree. Ideally, I do believe that there should be a democracy. But if there ain`t, then why the hell does Mush talk about ``pragmatism with the Choudharys of Gujrat`` , referendum etc. Go ahead and do what ou can do.

Here`s my take...Pakistan has never been a true dictatorship. OTOH, at non democratic times it has been an oligarchy. Even now, Mush rules, it is with the consent of the Corp commanders. So there are two possibilities, either the corp commanders do genuinely still hold some brief for policies that have officially been discredited by the Pak Army, or Mush is playing a double game...using America to pressure domestic opposition and using MMA and set ups like Gen Aziz to play the US.

BTW, if the Democrats win, Mush will actually have a much less understading recipient in the White House. The Republicans are more understanding of the domestic compulsions dicatators may face.

Faisaluno:

``kamran shafi is a poor man`s naseerullah baber.``

Hmm, I am quite familiar with Babar. But why compare him to Kamran Shafi? Isn`t Shafi just a columnist? Or does he hold an official position as well?

adnan-rafiq and aliya bibi:

not only am i a mohajir myself, but those neighborhood adnan mentions, i know them like the back of my hand cause i spent my childhood playing tape-ball cricket in those gullies. (my school report cards can back me up on this). so if anything, i should be accused of being an uncle tom rather than being a racist. and yet i will tell you that the dose of tough love handed out to us by gen. baber was good for us much in the same way as the medicine handed out by uncle sam to pushtoons who went to fight for taliban. our people, when they choose leaders like altaf bhai over other good alternatives need to be held accountable. and unfortunately sometimes, accountability necessitates use of danda. and btw my most of my family and friends who live in that part of town were grateful for the steps taken by gen. baber. and if you compare life in those localities at the height of insurgency (before army moved in) with life in those localities now, you will agree with their point of view. this is however not to hold paki state blameless. but i would rather see the use of danda in a ham-handed manner than not see the danda used at all.

re #32 arjun_m

I think its time for your medicine. Shaabaash, get your daily dose first and then come back here.