Is this true?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Read it on a blog today..just wanted to check its authenticity:

:hmmm:

2

Re: Is this true?

It is only right that the battle to save Pakistan’s soul is being waged by lawyers — thousands and thousands of them protesting the destruction of its judicial system by its self-appointed general president. It is right because a lawyer created Pakistan, almost single-handedly, and because the army’s role has always been to destroy the country. First, it marched out of the barracks under the command of Ayub Khan to destroy democracy; it is still destroying it, under Musharraf’s command. Its claim always has been and still is that Pakistan is safe only under army command — the same army that lost half of the country when it faced its enemies.
What army rule has gained for Pakistan can be seen from a comparison with India, which never had its democracy “saved” by the army. It is, by universal consensus, moving into the big league while every American passing through Islamabad is still kicking us around.
India is strong because it has, ever since its birth, preserved its constitutional institutions while we sat by and did nothing when ours were destroyed.
Musharraf has no mandate from the people of Pakistan to dismiss even a civilian chaprasi, leave alone the country’s chief justice. We should not stand by now as if it does not concern us. We must be out on the road, before the Parliament building, the Supreme Court and all other places speaking up. Musharraf was appointed to guard the nation’s doors — not to occupy the master bedroom.

3

Re: Is this true?

mercenary, u have a very apt user name. well said. :k:

4

Re: Is this true?

Have you not seen Capital Talk of Thursday night...when Hamid Meer asked Justice Fakhruddin Jee Ibrahaim..avery well known judje and resigned 4 times for the superiority of the Constitution ...even from SC when he refused to take oath of Gen Zia ul Haq...under PCO....

Hamid Meer asked...Justice Ibraheem Gee...that whats the solution in nutshell to hole this problem.....

Justice replied...only 1...that is...army should go back to barracks...as soon as possible...free and fair election and at top most...Constitution at the evening of 12 October 1999...thats Constitution should be implemented ...he further said.....
Pakistan is for the people of pakistan...not for army generals..as it was made by a Lawyer..with the vote -power of 1945 46 elections under GB rule...and this election was on the basis of wheteher you decide a seperate country or not.....

he said that...Pakistan is not for generals...its for people..and let people decide..what they want.....army is civil servant of pakistan..not masters....

then Hamid Meer moved towards Justice Mahmood..one of the Lawyer of CJ Iftikhar.....

Justice Mahmood said...i will continue the talk of respectable JusticeIbraheem Jee...that...army is not civil servants...they are just servants...and be behave like a servant

and that was the climax point of Capital Talk ... :)

5

Re: Is this true?

Don’t know about this, but read in a article of Hamid Meer in Jang, i think yesterdays paper, that Ayub Khan had been striving to get a promotion which was halted by Quaid-e-Azam. People point fingers at Ayub about the mysterious death of Fatima Jinnah.

6

Re: Is this true?

i missed it last night. if anyone has recorded it, pls upload it =/

7

Re: Is this true?

no..according to my little knowledge..ayub wsasnot involved in it.....

infact..we should also realize that...what brings army time and again..these traitors politicianswho go to C in C to put Marshal Law..when they fail inn election and not willing to sit as opposition.....

what happened from 1947 to 1958...Nehru said that i do not change dhotis in a week than Pakistan PM's change...what a satire on our political system...the same root cause of Jageerdari system....thier gransons and daughters again are sitting in assemblies.....

so army was forced to indulge in this dirty game...although army generls also like that...but major part was ever played by these politicians...

regrding..whatever ayub wa...one thing is certain..his pure loyalty to pakistan...and his generous and polite and calm nature...when Mujeeb....made a plan with indian army...in 1966...ayub was most distressed ever seen in 8 years...
and in 1969...he refused to shake hands with him..that ..i will not welcome a traitor...when he called all parties meeting.....

the same was Zia ul haq......not talking about Yayha (a shia also bhutto was a shia ...and what they played..we all know that)......so Zia ul Haq..despite of his thirst of power.....his loyalty to Pakistan was above any question....and the same isthe ase of General Pervez Musharraf....

and politicians like..Bainazir..she provided list of sikh in Khalistan movement..and virtually stopped that whole movement....stopped the pay of A Q Khan,...Rolled Bck Pakistan Nuclear program...and just acted upon wst interests and agenda....made Pakistan ..the poorest cuntry...by billions of looting and Surrey palace.....

and such traitors are again in feet of US senetors to gain from Pakistan..which this poor country has left behind......

8

Re: Is this true?

So the point of view of small provinces including Ex East Pakistan vindicated? Keeping in view the comments of majority of the people here on the forum or the rallies of the lawyers?

9

Re: Is this true?

Flame of Life:

[quote]
Read it on a blog today..just wanted to check its authenticity:

[quote]

These days it is pertinent to recall that on the actual day of Independence, Mr Jinnah told a complaining Army Officer - Colonel (later General) Akbar Khan, of the subsequent Rawalpindi Conspiracy fame: "Never forget that you are the servants of the state. You do not make policy. It is we, the people’s representatives, who decide how the country is to be run. Your job is to only obey the decisions of your civilian masters."

[/quote]

[/quote]
From your post, it is obvious that Quaid-e-Azan used the word ‘We’. ‘We’ does not automatically means, present day politicians, as it seems you are trying to assume.

‘We’ means, honest, competant, incorruptible, respectable, popular, and sincere politician. When there would be such politicians in Pakistan, certainly no army or public servants could act, would act, or need to act against them.

Army or public servant ‘could not’ act against such ‘We’ politicians Quaid mentioned, because if they would act, people in the army and public servants, politicians in opposition, and population in general, would not accept that, and would oppose actively. Actually, ‘who could act’ themselves would have love and respect for such politicians and thus acting against such politicians would be impossible. No such ‘We’ politicians would give excuse and need for any one to act against them.

But, after the death of Quaid, especially since inception of Z A Bhutto (I do not know a lot of past politicians to say anything about them), people Pakistan have in politics are corrupt, incompetent, thugs, crooks, criminals, disloyal to the country, selfish, self-centered, and many such adjectives. These people are not politicians but using politics to come to power for loot and plunder. Such so-called politicians have no love and respect of anyone. When these so-called politicians get kicked, no one from 160 million people of Pakistan feel bad about that.

Bring that ‘We’ politicians Quaid mentioned, and believe me, no general, rather no one in Pakistan, would talk against them even in private. Actually none, not even army chief, would have that force or support even from people they rely, to kick such politicians out of power.

I doubt that any general or civil servant in Pakistan could have acted to throw Quaid from power. That is what Quaid meant when he used the word ‘We’ above. I neither anyone thinks that Quaid meant from ‘We’ incompetent, corrupt and thugs calling themselves politicians.

Thus, if army kicks these so-called corrupt and incompetent politicians and takes over power in Pakistan, fault and blame does not lie with army generals but fault lies with so-called politicians.

10

Re: Is this true?

and these generals u talk abt saleem…r they clean? I am just trying to get a full picture of ur views? :hmmm:

2 Likes
11

Re: Is this true?

off course they are clean just look at Ayub Khan’s and Zia’s family..they are poverty stricken people :hoonh:

Yes that quote is quite accurate, the Quaid (a brilliant kala coat) was very specific about the role of the Army. It was post 1971 that the ziaists in particular defined the role of the Army as defender of the ideological borders of Pakistan.

12

Re: Is this true?

I am in 100% agreement with what Quaid said. Military should not rule the country. I also agree that religion and state are seperate, and I suppose he also envisioned the elected leaders to do work for the people, and not for their own pockets

just like quaid wanted military to take orders from the elected leaders
he wanted the elected leaders to take orders from the people they represented

13

Re: Is this true?

Dawa

You need to read more widely on political history of Pakistan.

Ayub introduced the most un-democratic system in Pakistan. That of BD members and irony was that when he was forced to leave as President, when his own grandson was saying Ayub Kutta, instaed of sticking to his own system, he invited another general Yahya Khan to take over.

I think you will also not question the loyalty of atima Jinnah to Pakistan's welfare. Though i hate Mujib too, but its interesting to note that Mujib was favouring Fatima Jinnah in elections against Ayub Khan.

14

Re: Is this true?

Yup, it was only till the moderate Bengalis had been sidelined in the awami (originally awami muslim league) league because of their failure in getting a fair deal, that Mujib started pandering to the radicals.

Did you know they even attempted to smear Madar-e-millat by saying it was a US backed campaign! This from the first blindly pro US military leader in Pakistans history.

2 Likes
15

Re: Is this true?

Today a defense analyst was saying on GEO, a female i don't remember her name, said that real reason for downfall was that he promoted himself to field marshal and Yahya Khan became army chief, who then became the real leader of army. Zia learnt from this mistake and never left the post of chief of army staff. Another adjustment made s that vice chief of army staff and chairman joint chiefs are also 4 star generals and thus enjoy all those benfits that army chief does. Hence after Ayub, army ranks are more unified.

16

Re: Is this true?

She is Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa.

17

Re: Is this true?

Bhai, these generals are like any professional army men and are human as any human. No difference. You will not find in my post anywhere I mentioned that generals are clean or not, did I?

Brother, why generals take over, there is some reason for that. If you had read the post carefully, you would have got the answer to what you asked. Nahi tou, it would take a lot of writing to put the views straight. As you asked about full picture of my views, here it is some explanation (according to my understanding):

Army general do not come to power because he is doing anything illegal, as he deposed a politician out of power (that is something impossible). Army general comes to power, because the person ruling the country is not politician but thug and crook. Thugs and crooks cannot hold public office in any country legally, they are danger and risk to the country, hence if thugs and crooks hold any public office, they holds that office illegally.

Even if thug and crook comes to power through election, that is illegal. Remember, to contest election, a person could not be thug or crook, In Pakistan, that person should fulfil article 62 and 63 of constitution. It is not duty of voter to see that a candidate fulfil that requirement but government servants. Election commissioner should not let such person contest election.

If EC do that, does not mean that thug and crook is now allowed to take part in election legally. Anyone can contest if wrong is done, especially if they are strong enough to do that, and who could be stronger then an army chief? It is national duty of police, army, or whoever can, that if thugs and crooks do mange to take over public office, these people kick them out of office.

How we know that the person in office was crook and thug? Apart of all the reputation that crooks and thugs in such office gather, there is built in mechanism in democratic system to determine that.

If those holding public office were politicians, people would be behind them, including army. No army general ever in history is/was strong enough to depose a popular person out of office and succeeded, as such person has popularity amongst people and armed forces.

If any general would try, other army generals would not support. Rather, that army general without any support, would be charged of treason, and would get punished.

If by luck and circumstances, a general do manages to depose a politician (not crook and thug), then that general could not rule the country for even a day. Many things would follow against that army general:

One: When a general takes over a country, that general could not survive with few in army behind him, he needs support to rule the country. Army as a whole, and other army generals would not support that general. Army would move against him. Hence, that army general and few that supported him would be unsuccessful, they would get charged of treason, and would get punished.

Two: Suppose whole army behaves as one unit (impossible) or that majority in army supports the takeover (that is also impossible). Public would come out on the road, country would go into anarchy, eventually army would revolt and coup would fail. General in power would get deposed, tried of treason, and would get punished.

Hence this thing could not happen that an army general becomes so strong that he can depose a politician. Condition is that, the person in power is politician, not crook and thug.

Actually, most of the time even a crook and thug manages to keep ruling a country and keep looting and plundering. Reason being that most of the time country has incompetent person as army chief, person that does not care about the country but his 3 years in office. Thus, army chief if knows that prime minister is not politician but crook and thug, they keep quite, as the risk is high and chance of success is low (corrupt and thugs are shrewd and slowly place their own corrupt and thug partners on key posts (Nawaz tried by appointing Zia-ud-din as chief of army) and make sure that people do not know their true identity by having complete control over media in the country.

Hence a general would only take step if general is confident that the prime minister is crook and corrupt, it is best for country that prime minister get deposed, people and army (both with certainty) are not with the crook in office and would support (at least would not oppose) the takeover and it is worth to take risk with own life for the sake of the country (one should remember that risk of failure is too high for that general).

Many times take over does not happens even when crook rules, because of incompetence person occupying ‘chief of army’ office. An army general that could not assess the person in public office, mood of the people, and need of the country has to be incompetent. Just imagine a general that could not assess the prime minister, mood of people and army, or is not willing to take risk, how competent that general would be?

So, please do not cry on people that were not politician but were crooks and thugs. No honest person would like crooks and thugs hold public office and rule over them (if no choice is there, than also less corrupt is better then bigger corrupt).

We should hope that over time politicians (not crooks and thugs) comes up and lead the country, people that do not become rich overnight, people that do not have any source of earning except public purse, people that do not become news item as crooks and thugs all over the world media, people that do not have villas in foreign countries, people that do not have corruption cases in many world’s capital, people that are not wanted in many countries on corruption charges.

Well, people whom other countries do not discuss in senate to save their country from corruption and money laundary as Be-Nazeer and AA Zardari was discussed (2nd case in the report):** U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page**](U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page), people who are not involved in drug trade (CIA caught on record A A Zardari drug dealings, but American government stopped letting CIA pursue the case, as they did not wanted to destabilisation Pakistan – Sunday Times (UK) 23 February 1997)

Let hope that Pakistan finds a politician that serves the country, not famous people with title as most corrupt, Kidnapper, murderer, drug dealer, extortionist, Chooron kee malka, Mr 30 percent, Ganja sardar of hazaroon choor, etc. Pakistan needs honest and incorruptible politicians that no army general can depose but people love and give respect to that politician.

One should remember that politicians are not certain breed of people like landlords, industrialists, rich, lawyers, descendent of another politician, etc, but they can appear from all walks of life, including army, middle class, or poor. Unfortunate thing is that, for politician (not crooks and thugs) to appear, people need to have education and willing to pay for good leadership, in the form of intellectual, physical and financial support (all of them).

For such to happen, Pakistan also needs free media and honest journalism and not yellow journalists that sell their name in big news paper, writing lies for money and play major role in misguiding people. Until then, Pakistan would always going to have crook and thugs ruling the country or if lucky, some general who have kicked those crook and thugs out of power.

18

Re: Is this true?

This was also in Stan Wolpert's book on Jinnah. Close to the time of his demise, Jinnah was a little wary of some people in the military (which was alot different from what it is now).

19

Re: Is this true?

sir jee..i agree..no doubt about mistakes in Generals...but what politicians did...the whole plan of East Pakistan was made by Bhutto ar Larkana when Yaha came to have pig hunting there...known as Larkana Plan...for the thirst of power.....

what BB did in her first regime..for india...we all know that...even army did not allow this woman to enter Kahuta Plant...even when she was PM....
she rolled back the whole Pakistan Nuclear Program to 5 % ...from 95 %....

You say whatsoever...latter Bhutto initiated the Atomic Program..and it was Gen Zia which trickfully completed the whole program..and even USA ..did not know that fact...he initiated the Khalistan movement...and did it so well that india have to play attack on Amritsar..and latter killed by a sikh for the same reason....

Only NS and Junejo ..did for some country..rest all politicians were just crap....traitors and power hungry....

i am in support of politicians..but what they did..they invited the C in C everytime in 1977 PNA movement as letters written by Ghafoor Ahmed of MMA and Tehreekai Istaqlal leader....

20

Re: Is this true?

Atom bum banakay Pakistan nay kun sa bara karnama kur liya! Agar duniya may pheliy bar banaya hota to koi baat thi! Dunya kay bohat say mulk atom bana saktay hain pur nahee banay thay, kay iska koi fiada nahee!

Pakistani atom banay kay khush fehmi may mubtla hain. Same is for Indians!