Re: ARY and GEO shut down [merged]
Don’t you know that it is public servants who arrest criminals, corrupts and thugs and put them into prison, Judge public and decides what punishments should be given to them, keep records of public properties, collect taxes and decides about public needs, make decisions for public, govern public and fight invaders to save the independence of country and see that no harm comes to country and public?
When public sends their representative to parliament, these representatives are suppose to serve public as their servants, and whatever policies and laws they make, all should be for public interest. Politicians get their votes (and posts) on condition that they would not do corruption. If after election, politicians start doing corruption then it becomes duty of public servants to throw them out of their office and punish them. Public servants should serve public's interest, and not politicians' interest, especially corrupt politicians.
Corruptions, nepotism, and misusing power in public office for personal gains is against the law and if politicians indulges in them than they lose the mandate to represent people. Corrupt politicians stop holding any legal posts even if they are PM (as corruption nullifies their representation) and it is duty of police to arrest such politicians and put them in prison.
Even in USA or UK, if President or Prime Minister breaks the law and misuses power, then police (public servant) arrest him and put him into prison. Such politician once found guilty loses his post. Police, judges, Intelligence agencies and army, all are public servants. In Pakistan, police and Judges are themselves dishonest or are scared of politicians, so army who are mostly honest and are not scared of these politicians does the job of police and judges.
I agree that every institution should do its own job. On the other hand you are saying that the army should run the country as the civilians are incapable of running it. You cannot have both. If the army is well-trained and funded that it is such an efficient organisation (debatable) then why are other institutions not as capable? Is the army being run by super humans? Where there is a will (at the top) there is a way. The army has run the country for more than half its existence and must take the blame if the civilian institutions are weak and remain weak. The judiciary was becoming a strong institution under the able leadership of CJ and started doing its job properly and guess what? the army did not like to be held accountable by a independent judiciary. Many people welcomed the army taking over and expected the politicians to be bought to book but instead they were offered immunity in return for supporting the dictator. The Joint Chief of Staff is supposed to be rotated or should go to the seniormost officer however it is the army that monopolises even that position. The other services do not get a chance. The army needs to be cut to size! It cannot run the country and do be a professional organisation at the same time. If the generals are so good at running the country then let them become politicians but we need an army that just focuses on its core role. We need a full-time army and not an army of part-timers.
[quote]
I don’t know what absurd and rubbish you are trying to write? Imposing martial law to saveguard his kursi? Well, Pakistan is under martial law since 1999, don’t you know that? Since some people in Pakistan became berserk (Judges, lawyers, Journalists, etc), Musharraf on 3rd November reminded them that he is still from the army and his power base is army.
[/quote]
Pakistan was not under martial law before the recent imposition of martial law, otherwise why would the dictator need to impose martial law again if one was in place since 1999. Being the coward that he is, he feared that the judges would rule against him as it was illegal for him to be a paid public servant and then also to run for the position of President. He feared an institution that was doing its job efficiently in accordance with the constitution. If you say that the army does the job of the Judges then they should have told him to get on his bike. They should have arrested him when he imposed martial law as his orders were ultra vires. The action is an offence of treason. The army should have not acted upon illegal orders. Since this has not happened it suggests that the army is being run more as a personal fiefdom than a national institution. If an army chief in Britain or America tried to impose a martial his fellow generals would laugh at him, think that he had gone mad and put him in a lunatic asylum. Having one general remain chief of the army stunts the progress of that institution as generals are appointed on loyalty to the dictator as opposed to merit. If the army needs to take power every few years then that is a reflection on their past rule, when they failed to strengthen the civil institutions.
**
[quote]
As for treason, the people that deserve to get charged of treason are politicians who took public office as public representatives. The condition of being in that office is to serve the people honestly. Pakistani politicians betray the trust of the people when they govern the country with dishonesty and harm the country when they do corruption and nepotism, etc.
[/quote]
**
[quote]
Politicians who betray the trust of the people and harm the country are traitors and should be charged of treason. **As for public servant (army) who saves the country from dishonest and corrupt politicians cannot be ***traitor as it is his duty to serve and save the country from all ills, including corrupt politicians.*
To me, only those public servants are traitor who act against honest and committed politicians, not dishonest and crooks. To me, dishonest politicians are traitor as they take vote to serve the country but harm the country.
[/quote]
I agree with you there however your beloved general has not taken any actions against the corrupt politicians and instead has used them and bought them in order to reamin in power.
**
[quote]
Just imagine (an example):
[/quote]
**
[quote]
You hired a lawyer as your representative. You employed a servant to help this lawyer to serve you.
[/quote]
[quote]
*This lawyer went to court to represent your case and your servant is with him. In court your servant finds that your lawyer is disloyal to you and is selling your case for his own benefit. There is nothing your servant can do except let the lawyer sell your case or kick your lawyer, grab the case and do whatever he can to the best of his ability. *
What would you expect from your servant? Should he keep helping the lawyer or kick him? If your servant acts against your lawyer, would you consider him traitor? *.
Link this example to Pakitan, where politicians are lawyers and army is servant. If you would do that, you will know who is traitor and who is not.
[/quote]
The correct analogy would be that the servant then uses the information in order to blackmail the lawyer. The servant is more corrupt than the lawyer. It serves the interests of the servant to encourage the lawyer to not do his job properly so that he can then use that to gain greater privileges. The servant aides and abettes the wrong doing, as the lawyer would have thought twice before committing the act if he knew that the servant would reamin faithful to his employer. The servant in this case is the army.
We are doing the country a disservice if we hold the army above criticism. The true patriots are the ones that attack it and in turn try to make it more efficient.
We need to move away from politics of personalities and instead strengthen our institutions, and here lies the salvation of the country. We need an independent media and judiciary to keep the politicians in check.*
(otherwise i would have remember the name of anchor and guest)
