Have we failed as a nation?

If yes than here is why. These are men responsible for it.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=80950

How generals come and goQuantum note
Friday, November 16, 2007
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

Born into a feudal family of Bengal, educated at Elphinstone College, trained by the colonisers at Sandhurst Academy, inducted into the British Indian army and awarded a prestigious military award for his loyalty to his overweening white masters, Major-General Iskander Mirza – Pakistan’s first military ruler – staged his daring entrance into the high offices of the state as the last governor-general of Pakistan in August 1955. He inaugurated an era of one-man rule and a form of dictatorship in guise by introducing the idea of “controlled democracy”. The racist premise behind this idea was that Pakistanis were not really ready for full democracy yet.

For all his military training and awards, however, he was a pseudo general – he had left the army in 1926 to join the Indian Political Service. At the time of partition, he was appointed as the first defence secretary of Pakistan. In May 1954, he became the governor of the troubled East Pakistan and within the first few days of his governorship, he ordered the arrest of hundreds of outspoken critics of the government and sowed the seeds of everlasting hatred towards the central government in the hearts of East Pakistanis.

Between October 1954 and August 1955, Iskander Mirza served as interior minister and when Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad became too ill to perform his duties, he became acting governor-general on August 7, 1955 – a position he would never relinquish, save to become the first president of Pakistan after the adoption of the 1956 Constitution.

A power-hungry psychopath, Mirza dominated all aspects of political life of the country and played the role of a kingmaker taking full advantage of the mutual mistrust of politicians. He was instrumental in splitting the Muslim League and creating a king’s party, the Republican Party. During his four years as the head of state, four prime ministers came and left. But even with all this, Mirza felt threatened by the reorganisation of the Muslim League and the alliance of the Awami League with Punjabi groups in 1958. As a last, desperate act to hold on to power, he abrogated the 1956 Constitution on October 7, 1958, dissolved the central and provincial assemblies and enforced the first martial law in the country, retaining presidency for himself but appointing Ayub Khan as martial law administrator and supreme commander of the armed forces. Thus entered a real general into the political scene – General Ayub Khan. This real general proved far smarter than Mirza and on October 27, 1958, he dispatched him to England where he would die on November 15, 1969, as a wretched outcast. Now began the real general’s rule.

This real general was, however, not content with remaining a mere general; he elevated himself to the rank of the president and gave himself the title of field marshal – his field of marshalling being none other than Pakistan itself. He introduced the idea of basic democracy and gave the country his own constitution in addition to holding elections to be re-elected as president. Despite all his ‘marshalling’, this general seems to be a gentleman when assessed by the standards set by those who followed him. It is said that he decided to quit on the very day when people brought a dog on the streets of Rawalpindi with his name written on it.

A heart-broken man, he simply disappeared from the national scene after installing his successor, another general, of course. His name was Yahya Khan. A heavy drinker and a womaniser, this general would not go without taking one-half of the country with him.

Then came a totally opposite character: a mullah-general-without-a-beard, who would not only experiment with yet another form of democracy for this not-ready-for-democracy nation, but also create hatred for Islam in the hearts of our enlightened liberals. But while the mullah-general-without-a-beard was busy enforcing his Islam on the civilians, a very different kind of general-to-be was quickly ascending the ranks and when he made his appearance on that fateful night of October 12, 1999, no one could predict that he would be the hardest of all generals to get rid of.

The high-handedness with which ordinary citizens of the country are being treated is simply astonishing. Pictures emerging in the international media show hefty men in plainclothes breaking spinal chords and wrist bones of protesters. Helicopter gunships are killing men, women and children in idyllic valleys of the north and jails are getting full all over the country. Media outlets have been taken off air and journalists, lawyers and judges are being manhandled. It seems that no code of honour is being left untrammelled. Generals come and generals go, but every departing general takes away with him a chunk of civility that never returns to this polity.

The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: [email protected]

Re: Have we failed as a nation?

So is that really all there is to it?
It's like saying a clap occurs just with one hand...

Re: Have we failed as a nation?

Pakistan has not failed as a nation. It is just a shame that it took an Army General's leadership to give Pakistan Unprecedented Economic Growth, Free Media, and Free Judiciary.

Re: Have we failed as a nation?

Why nations fail?

It is not that their armies do less!
Successful nations' armies do even more than Pakistani army.

Examples of successful" contemporary nations are:

Americans
Germans
French
British
Japanese
Chinese
Russians

and a "blast" from the past

Arabs
Ottomans
Romans
Greeks
Mogals etc.

Look at their histories, and they all had strong armies who at one or more times, went around and utterly destroyed internal resistance.

All these nations at one time or the other, had their bad apple anarchists. And on every such moment of anarchy, their armies got in the act and utterly and absolutely destroyed anyone deemed to be enemy of state.

The result was obvious: A strong and cohesive nation.

In Pakistan, our army is too democratic, that it continues to hope (against hope) that politicians will get their act together and gel this nation together.

Obviously our politicians are neither mature enough nor they have any need or urge to get this nation together where it goes beyond the petty internal differences.

And people in different areas are begging for the internal cohesion in the hands of strong entities. So far the strongest "local" entities are not poltical parties, they instead are militants. So people bow to such 2-bit militants all the time. Case in point: Waziris, Swatis, or some Balochis.

If Pakistan army goes in, and forcefully connects the region by building cantonments, and big highways to transport their ammo, you would see this nation getting itself together.

Peace and love to all

In the name of our slain soldiers and officers,

Pakistan Paindabaad.

Re: Have we failed as a nation?

I think we Pakistanis have somewhat so far failed as a nation.
**Pakistan **has not and will not fail as a nation.

Re: Have we failed as a nation?

You are so right. Actually phrase: 'Have we failed as a Nation' has some truth in that. Pakistan as a Nation always elected feudal and mega rich in parliament who do not represents them (average Pakistanis), and were mostly corrupts, selfish and traitors, and who instead of developing and progressing the country, did all sort of corruption, loot and plunder, leaving the country and poor in the country to suffer. These feudal politicians did not only looted and plundered the country, but did all to divide the country into ethnicity and played all dirty cards to fight each other.

Only when their mismanagement, corruption, plunder and loot went above limit, people from army came to power with guns, and as the background of these people were mostly middle, lower middle and lower class, being from the people, they did work for Nation and poor of the Nation, most of the time saving the country at crucial points.