Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

[Jolie]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

^^^ I asked name of few persons from past history (from few centuries back) who were not army trained and ruled the country. What I wrote is general and not exception ... so one may find some, none being eminent rulers, but nevertheless, one would find most eminent rulers in history who were capable of both governing the nation and commanding the forces. But you gave name of Quaid-e-Azam ... who is not from past history anyhow, as his appearance on political scene is much after this division of one 'governing the country' and other 'commanding the forces' has happened (that is after democracy got established in west).

Errr living in present century might help. Few centuries back, pigeons also did excellent job as postmen, so your point is? I can give you plenty of names of some of the best of the best civilian rulers from my country, but I genuinely want you to buy a good history book.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strength, I gave you the example of Jinnah for something else. Go figure.

[kakaballi]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

@Sa1eem

^^^ Well, Taliban is not creation of armed forces (though they may have facilitated their creation), but Taliban got created due to mentality many Pakistanis have.

sachhieee?

@Sa1eem

When we as Nation start appreciating Lal-Masjid Kharjee criminals, start calling fasad as Jihad, respect anyone who looks like rip-van-winkle, have religion defined by Mullah Umar and Munawar Hasan … when our youth tries to imitate 60 year old disco going playboy, turned politician, turned Alim-e-Islam … than that is what happens … we get 70 Taliban groups fighting and doing suicide to get hoors (remember, playboy turned politicians got his hoor from London’s disco love songs, but these retarded Taliban wants their hoor from songs of killing, suicide and fasad).

Aisey nai kahtay… Uncle Zia ul Haq naraz hon gey. Give some credit to him at least.

@Sa1eem

Thus, if civilian wants to govern the country without disturbance, than they would need to have high moral ground free from corruption, nepotism, mismanagement and misconduct, and also have to show competency and efficiency. County would also need independent, competent, efficient and incorruptible accountability system, judiciary system, bureaucracy system, and policing system…

I suppose India has been governed by angels all these years. And I suppose Chaudhry Shujaat and Pervez Elahi are the epitome of competency, efficiency and morality.

@Sa1eem

…As for earlier post: We have to know that it is recent development that one governs the country and other commands armed forces (trained to command armed forces from young age). In past, most of the time, both offices were held by same person. Anyhow, with this development (division of office), power got diluted, with additional requirement of one who governs the country (as he has no power of forces). …

It is well known that democracy did bring development and peace to most of the modern world where most of the countries are now governed by elected people instead of brainless soldiers.

BTW, now in most civilized countries, both offices (executive and commander of military) are still held by the same person who is normally an elected official. Commander-in-chief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for your reference. The chief of Army is a subordinate of elected officials.

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Verily, verily, verily, verily,
Life is but a dream

[Sa1eem]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

Errr living in present century might help. Few centuries back, pigeons also did excellent job as postmen, so your point is? I can give you plenty of names of some of the best of the best civilian rulers from my country, but I genuinely want you to buy a good history book.

Best of the best civilians rulers from my country (assuming that it is Pakistan), then I would not be surprised if your model be General Rani ruling the country behind the curtain. :)

Anyhow, it seems you have not read the post you are referring too. So, let me explain again.

No one is saying that job of army chief and ruler is not different in present day political system. What I wrote is that, historically both jobs (army chief and ruler) were held by same person, and that history is of days when western politics did not became norm.

I also wrote that this separation happened with many constraint on rulers, that is of being moral high, truthful, competent, efficient … and not one who do corruption, nepotism, misconduct and mismanagement … plus there are many other restraints too (for instance, there should be no conflict of interest and that means, one in power should not be doing business or work for someone).

Plus, for civilian to be ruler, country has to have strong, efficient, competent and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy and policing.

Else, whatever ruler do or try, they would be insecure from one commanding the forces.

[quote]
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strength, I gave you the example of Jinnah for something else. Go figure.
[/QUOTE]

Yea, and I did replied, that Quaid-e-Azam was not playboy and politician at the same time. As for being Alim-e-Deen (or behaving as Alim-e-deen, what Imran do regularly), Quaid-e-Azam never did that.

[Sa1eem]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

@kakaballi

sachhieee?

Sachiee …. Taliban not only recruits from Pakistani civilians, but they exists due to their supports.

Aisey nai kahtay… Uncle Zia ul Haq naraz hon gey. Give some credit to him at least.

No doubt Zia was catalyst that changed Islam in Pakistan from peaceful religion of Prophet (SAW) to Fisad of Kharjees. But still, fuel after this change was provided by Pakistani nation and petro-dollars.

I suppose India has been governed by angels all these years. And I suppose Chaudhry Shujaat and Pervez Elahi are the epitome of competency, efficiency and morality.

I do not think there is much difference between India and Pakistan, as both governments consist of corrupts (Pakistan rulers being more corrupt than India). Exception is that army has not taken over India government. Reason is that Indian army do not represent India as much as what Pakistani force do. If Pakistan armed forces would be 80 percentage Bolochs, Sindhis, and Kashmiris, and very few from Punjab and KP, then there would be no military takeover even if rulers of Pakistan sell the country to India or China.

It is well known that democracy did bring development and peace to most of the modern
world where most of the countries are now governed by elected people instead of brainless soldiers.

BTW, now in most civilized countries, both offices (executive and commander of military) are still held by the same person who is normally an elected official. Commander-in-chief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for your reference. The chief of Army is a subordinate of elected officials.

Anywhere we see developments under democracy, it happened where one can find strong, competent, efficient, and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy, and policing. Along with strong self-accountability in political parties and selection of candidates for election who have high moral grounds (according to the values of their country), plus no one in political office in these countries are secure or above law.

And yea, all this establishment of democracy in west happened after first military bringing strong accountability in the country.

So, please do not compare highly developed democracy of west with sham democracy of Pakistan.

[kakaballi]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

^ It is so very interesting that how you conveniently divide Pakistanis: one on side is corrupt, morally filthy and incompetent civilians, some of them being fasadi, khariji fundamentalists heavily influenced by an ex-playboy and on the other side are competent, honest and efficient military men who have nothing to do with evolution of fundamentalist mindset.

......I do not think there is much difference between India and Pakistan, as both governments consist of corrupts (Pakistan rulers being more corrupt than India). Exception is that army has not taken over India government. Reason is that Indian army do not represent India as much as what Pakistani force do. If Pakistan armed forces would be 80 percentage Bolochs, Sindhis, and Kashmiris, and very few from Punjab and KP, then there would be no military takeover even if rulers of Pakistan sell the country to India or China..

Doesn't make sense at all.

Anywhere we see developments under democracy, it happened where one can find strong, competent, efficient, and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy, and policing. Along with strong self-accountability in political parties and selection of candidates for election who have high moral grounds (according to the values of their country), plus no one in political office in these countries are secure or above law.

Perhaps you read the history backwards. Strong, competent, efficient, and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy, and policing are result of sustained democracy, not prerequisites.

And yea, all this establishment of democracy in west happened after first military bringing strong accountability in the country...

as in NRO? :D

BTW, can you provide specific example of western countries where military brought strong accountability, justice, policing and then democracy took over?

[Ali_Syed]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

^^^ Well, Taliban is not creation of armed forces (though they may have facilitated their creation), but Taliban got created due to mentality many Pakistanis have.

When we as Nation start appreciating Lal-Masjid Kharjee criminals, start calling fasad as Jihad, respect anyone who looks like rip-van-winkle, have religion defined by Mullah Umar and Munawar Hasan ... when our youth tries to imitate 60 year old disco going playboy, turned politician, turned Alim-e-Islam ... than that is what happens ... we get 70 Taliban groups fighting and doing suicide to get hoors (remember, playboy turned politicians got his hoor from London's disco love songs, but these retarded Taliban wants their hoor from songs of killing, suicide and fasad).

As for earlier post: We have to know that it is recent development that one governs the country and other commands armed forces (trained to command armed forces from young age). In past, most of the time, both offices were held by same person. Anyhow, with this development (division of office), power got diluted, with additional requirement of one who governs the country (as he has no power of forces).

That is, requirement of one who governs the country needs higher moral ground, and became too restricted under the observation and monitoring of effective and incorruptible accountability, bureaucracy, judiciary, and policing.

Thus, if civilian wants to govern the country without disturbance, than they would need to have high moral ground free from corruption, nepotism, mismanagement and misconduct, and also have to show competency and efficiency. County would also need independent, competent, efficient and incorruptible accountability system, judiciary system, bureaucracy system, and policing system.

Appreciation for taliban khwarijee didnt come overnight. Since 79 the military establishment was brainwashing people in the name of jihad through media, school curriculum and madrassahs. Taliban are good so we used to hear when Naseer ullah Babar brought various groups together in 96. Taliban have brought peace in Afghanistan and curbed Opium. This Taliban is good mantra was ingrained in the minds of people, when a uturn was taken after 911 some people couldnt follow the changed world. How can a group be good today and a villain tomorrow? This confusion still persists. Now you can blame people for this if you want to give benefit of doubt to the creators.

[kakaballi]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

........The merry-go-round goes 'round and 'round,
The children laughed and laughed and laughed,
So many were going 'round and 'round,
That the merry-go-round collapsed........

[Amal]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

A huge part of the problems we face today could be apportioned to unregulated religious seminaries and education in the country. Since we are Muslims by default and religion happens to be our native trait, we are ipso facto immune from any fallacy. Faith is always taken in good faith irrespective of who and whatever one preaches. State disbarred itself from the responsibility of overseeing the religion in the country which resulted in a void, gladly taken over by Mullahs who disseminated their own brand of the religion, falsifying anything which does not cater to their purpose.

This class also gladly offered its services for freelance jihad as it brought it closer to the powerful military establishment, unaccounted funds, greater clout and a huge sense of indispensable usability. There is no doubt that the military establishment today faces a Frankenstein's monster.

Nothing comes for free, not even sins. You have to pay for them in one way or the other.

[Jolie]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

Best of the best civilians rulers from my country (assuming that it is Pakistan), then I would not be surprised if your model be General Rani ruling the country behind the curtain. :)

Anyhow, it seems you have not read the post you are referring too. So, let me explain again.

No one is saying that job of army chief and ruler is not different in present day political system. What I wrote is that, historically both jobs (army chief and ruler) were held by same person, and that history is of days when western politics did not became norm.

I also wrote that this separation happened with many constraint on rulers, that is of being moral high, truthful, competent, efficient … and not one who do corruption, nepotism, misconduct and mismanagement … plus there are many other restraints too (for instance, there should be no conflict of interest and that means, one in power should not be doing business or work for someone).

Plus, for civilian to be ruler, country has to have strong, efficient, competent and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy and policing.

Else, whatever ruler do or try, they would be insecure from one commanding the forces.

Yea, and I did replied, that Quaid-e-Azam was not playboy and politician at the same time. As for being Alim-e-Deen (or behaving as Alim-e-deen, what Imran do regularly), Quaid-e-Azam never did that.

What's up these bunch of grown men on internt (I apologise if you are a woman) obsessing over Imran playboy image? You lot make Mulana Fazlu look 'liberal'.

Get over this Mullah policing, even Imran doesn't deny nor remotely act apologetic over his past, I wonder what pleasure you get from highlighting his colourful past? Does it really excites anyone here by any chance? It really is quite disturbing.

You seriously need to read a bit more on Jinnah, if you think Imran acts like Alim e Deen, I wonder what you have to say about Jinnah who suddenly at the age of 70 started using religion to create a country? Read a bit more about Jinnah's oh so British lifestyle in good old Imperial Britain.

Typical Mullah antics to associate profound level of religiosity with Jinnah.

[QUOTE]
assuming that it is Pakistan
[/QUOTE]

No it's not.

Give me some examples of how in West military rulers paved the way for "strong, competent, efficient, and incorruptible accountability, judiciary, bureaucracy, and policing"

[Sachaydino]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

Well if Nawaz sharif is trying to wrest back his powers, this should be appreciated. It is the federal government which should decide the internal security and foreign affairs and not a general.

If NS is confronting on these most important issues, he should not back out, even he has to lose his government. Let the remaining Pakistan be further disintegrated by these adventurers. na rahay been na bhajay bhansuri.

[Ajju]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

Folks, this thread is not about Imran Khan. What do you think about the idea that Nawaz Shareef is looking at these Taliban negotiation as a means to become Ameer ul Momineen as he tried before with his Shariat Bill? Isn't all about the power to rule? The same army that has nurtured the Jehadis for ages now oppose NS as they will be the biggest stake holder to lose power? Army has borne the brunt of the Taliban attacks and will suffer with the imposition of Talibani Sharia! During the Taliban rule in Swat, they did not accept the Qazis that the government nominated but insisted ontheir mullas to be Qazis. The question with Sharia implementation is not simply whose Shariah to implement but also who will be in power to interpret and implement the Sharia. Who the Amir ul Momineen will be and who will select him? Taliban would want all these powers for themselves and the party that has the most power in Pakistani state, i.e., the army stands the most to lose. They will not take this lying down, will they?

[Captain1]

Re: Is Army and civilian government headed for confrontation again?

@Sachaydino

If NS is confronting on these most important issues, he should not back out, even he has to lose his government. Let the remaining Pakistan be further disintegrated by these adventurers. na rahay been na bhajay bhansuri.

na rahay ga bans na bajay ge bansuri