Role Of Army

Sixty years are not a lot in the life of a nation but a span of sixty year is long enough to drag a nation out of its infancy, it should be enough to have imparted a direction in the political system of a country, should be long enough for the political intelligentsia to envision and establish systems that can support other limbs of a state, it should be long enough to grow out of political temper tantrums both for the political parties and for the masses supporting those political parties. Have we grown out of infancy?,

Out of sixty one years, more than half the time Army Generals have run the country like barrack of their own battalion, each time they played with the constitution like a toy and at the end got indemnity for all the crimes against the constitution and against the people of Pakistan. What is ridiculous rather anomalous about the endeavors of our Army Generals is that they always take over on the plea of political turmoil in the country, yet when they leave the country is in bigger political turmoil.

A universally accepted and perceived role of Army ,as an established institution, is to guard against threats to the “geographical boundaries” of the state leaving other organs of the state to run operations pertaining to functional goals, and leave sociopolitical and religious intelligentsia to guard against perceived “ideological threats” to the state.

We lost East Pakistan politically because of a long dictatorial rule of General Ayub Khan, a self proclaimed Filed Marshal, and then subsequently lost it completely at the battle filed during the era of another dictator Yahya Khan, Lost Siachen Glacier during Zia-ul-Haq, and now at the verge of loosing tribal areas because of brave soldier Musharaf who planned and got us humiliated at Kargil.

Constitution is just a piece of paper in the eyes of Generals, honorable judges of supreme court and high courts are just like sitting ducks for them, political leaders who otherwise can not win in elections are an easy target, in fact they welcome and join the khaki ranks in a flash. Armless masses divided among them selves are so immersed into a never ending quest to earn livelihood can hardly pose any meaningful resistance to the bayonets of a brigade.

How it is possible for the organs of state to assume only the responsibilities that constitution provides them, how is it possible for an armless political system to stop a general who is bent upon taking over the state affairs with military might. How is it possible for the constitution of Pakistan to manifest its strength that people of Pakistan have invested in that document to bring to justice one who abrogates its integrity?

If it is not possible at all then how can we legitimize the role of Army in political affairs of the country?

Re: Role Of Army

we should have peace pact with bordering countries every pakistani should be trained as soldier and pakistani and indian forces should be abolished
or put them to build road and bridges school or hospitals

The only bridge that our Army knows to build goes from GHQ to president house.

Re: Role Of Army

lols bud

Isn't not true, Army generals have never won a war outside their geographical boundaries, but have always triumphed when conquering their own country.

Re: Role Of Army

although im not a fan of army takeovers in particular but youve got to also wonder about the competence of democratic governments. a question has been posed recently in the media, what has the ppp achieved in its first year? who's job was it to investigate the falling foreign currency before the rumours first reached people such as myself? i wish the ppp all the best but i also know how woeful they have been

You are right one should not and can’t deny the incompetence of our political system, questionable credentials of the politicians and invidious power of decision on the matters uniquely important to the very existence if national integrity. However and having said that our measures to remedy and redress the situation has always proved counter productive not , perhaps, because of the intentions but because of the directions and ill conceived political wisdom behind the measures.

Democracy is accepted, conceived and has been established as the best available form of Gov. for its ingrained system of checks and balances, considering democracy just a system of political Gov. is denying the fact that democracy carries with it a philosophy, an ideology of acceptance and a culture of facing and negotiating the problems on a table rather than in a battle filed. It imparts in the stakeholders of the system a respect for the other organs of the state, establishes and strengthens the system and institutions.

Unfortunately, in our country democracy has never been given a chance to improve upon its mistakes, never been given a chance to grow out of infancy, as soon as politically elected representatives takes oath to the office, the mighty arm of civil and khaki establishment starts moving the pawns of the chess board to malign it, all those pseudo political forces that don’t have political support of the masses jump into the boat that can sail them to the land dictatorship, and all that happens under a pretext of “incompetence” of the political leadership.

Another misconception that servers the pretext of “incompetence” on the part of the political leadership is to draw synonimity between “elections” and “democracy”, the procedure of elections is, no doubt, first and foremost step towards achieving a system of “behavior” called democracy, an elected Gov. is by no means a democratic Gov., a continuous system of elections, however, would filter out a true leadership but only in the course of time.

In our case opportunist khaki establishment working in collusion with enslaved civil establishment has established a system that condemns ill educated, unrepresentative and divided political leadership soon after they acquire power, after two or three years of character assassination the stage is set to wrap the carpet of democracy altogether with a little or no resistance from the main stream masses. These political villains are then thrown into a very corrupt system of accountability behind the curtain in front of kangaroo courts that ultimately makes them “hero” again. So in essence our established political system is not even filtering and straining a true representative political leadership that is exactly why we see same faces over and over again, and if by the grace of Allah they die, their position is quickly filled by a family member.

This system of “democratic and dictatorial” whirlpool works well ,on one hand, for the so called political leadership that can not sustain to be a political leadership for long in true democratic system and on other hand for a corrupt Army General who gets ready to take his long term in the name of political instability.

Link???????????

Anyways! Such articls used to be written by Hindu-fundamentalists and socialists. Now Islamists have joined their wonderful company. These guys should probably be grouped as neo-Hindus. Are you one Mr. Phent?

Here is point by point rebuttal for you.

*1-A. 1971 and politicians vs. miltiary rule. *

It is time you get this thing out of the head that somehow democracy guarantees that there will be no separatist movement. Here are some eye-openers for you.

I. Indian-Punjab. Lot of democracy and still separatist movement. Guess what?democratic Indians used the same military style that Pakistan used in BDesh. What gives?

II. Canada - wealthy and democratic. Still Qubec is dying to leave. What gives? And if ever Qubecans start armed uprising against Ottawa, I guarantee that Canadians army will be on them like a pitbull on a juicy steak.

III. Northern Ireland - Calm only recently. Still the birthplace of modern democracy aka UK could not stop separatists.

IV. USA - back in 1860 had 100 years democracy, and one of the best known leader aka Abe Lincoln as the prez. Still the separatists fought one of the biggest battles ever. Americans lost 650,000 of their young men out of their total population of mere 31 million. Guess what? democratic USA used the same military style that Pakistan used in BDesh. What gives?

Do you need more, or your hate against Pakistan will ever end? Pakistan must fight on the internal anarchists aka Jihadists aka Islamists aka neo-Hindus.

1B. 1971- Ayub vs. Sh. Mujib

Sh. Mujib was no little fat chubby, cuddly little Santa Clause. He was a criminal to the core like any politician of the day.

Did you ever ask yourself Mr. Phent, why Bengalis killed Sh. Mujib, his kids, grand kids, uncles, and ants???

If Sh. Mujib was so much of an angel in your eyes, why did his own people utterly destroyed him and his seed. Only one daughter survived. And 60 years on, they are ruled by guess who? M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y!

Hello! Are you awake?

  1. Constitution - Yes it should be respected. But it should be respected by ALL. Blaming military is like blaming a surgeon who comes in to get rid of a tumor. And the likes of you start jumping up and down, doctor is letting the blood spill, the doctor is bad, very bad.

If us the civilians learn to live under constitution, and it won't remain a piece of paper. Anarchists don't care about constitution. They just use it to spread fasad and anarchy in Pakistan. And this article surely is written by a fasadi.

Re: Role Of Army

some excellent thoughts there intelli. the sysytem is going round in circles. its a complete muddle and the root of pakistan's troubles.

looking on wiki about ayub khan(the first military ruler) the article gives no sympathy to his cause whatsoever. again more recently musharraf himself sought no permission for kargil from the prime minister. so yes situations have been engineered for military coups.

i think its important to link regular military coups in the country to cultural and social aspects which aid this environment. examples such as the common sight of angry owners/maliks at small businesses smells of acceptability of tyrany at grassroot level, moderately well placed office workers having a tea boy. flexability, rigidness, luxery and desperation in overdose amounts lends a hand to create confusion and cause friction

so the new question is: is military meddling a symptom or cause of pakistans problems? is the cultural environment to blame?

the solutions are there if the country can pin point its problems

This is where the problem starts, character assassination, and that is exactly how some “burqaPosh” opportunist would grab the opportunity to start defaming any one who would utter a word against their masters or in favor of the rule of law, they would start spewing their gab in a most despicable way, leaving the drape of decency cuddling with the filth of their intentions. Although you are behind the veil, BourqaPosh, I can definitely identify who you share your ideological affinity with and at what price.

I am proud to be a Muslim and abhor borrowing and using words like “islamists”, spun by crusaders who found support for their ideology from within treacherous ruling oligarchy in countries like Pakistan, though I doubt you yourself have any thing to do with being loyal to Pakistan but you can disparagingly point your finger towards others, whose loyalty to Pakistan is beyond any doubt , right BPS?

Had you given any “reading” to what I was trying to say before jumping into the thread with your lame rebuttal and before start comparing personalities as oppose to systems, you might have noticed that I was not playing on your talking points. But again, talking logic to a monomaniac chauvinist or a dictator or for that matter to an agent of theirs is like playing opera in the congregation of pigs and still hoping for a standing ovation.

No where in my post I claim that there will be, guaranteed, no separatist movement if there is a democratic Gov in place, you probably dreamed about it, or you probably thought you can dope me with your obnoxious twist to soul of the discussion. However with that spelled out clearly I can still logically prove that the chances of a separatist movement when a dictatorial rule is in place are far more than during a true democratic rule in place, since an Army rule is widely accepted as “naked dictatorship”, every citation of the word “dictatorship” is a slap to anyone who share perks with dictatorial Generals in uniform without any realization that this world reflects a form of Gov. and an ideology rather than a personality on the helm of affairs. A civilian can very well be a dictator, just like Hitler and many others, so donot start jumping up and down like a savior to an Army dictator. Calm down

Your own words are working against your own spin, if Pakistan used force against the separatist movement in East Pakistan, and India did it too for East Punjab, then why, my dense friend, did Indian not suffer the loss of East Punjab just like Pakistan.

Canadian Army would do exactly what democratically elected Canadian Gov would ask it to do, but it would not take over the political affairs of the state, if it does that, it would probably not be able to crush the separatist rule. You probably forgot to come up with anything exemplary from the disintegration of Soviet Union, did they use any force, or from old Czechoslovakia, didn't Malosovitch use a lot of force?

This is too naïve to reiterate same logic that proves you wrong over and over again, during civil war of US, army didn’t acted upon itself , if you can’t distinguish this simple fact, you should not bother to spew here.
In our case, genius lady, Army is rogue, not because of foot and low rank soldiers but because of nutty generals, it considers itself above the constitution, it considers itself a sacred cow, a thing to worship and never to be questionable. And before fighting “internal anarchists” one must identify them, and the reasons for the anarchy. Violence against civilians would do no good to the integrity of the country.

Indeed, Sh Mujib was criminal, just like many other Balouch leaders are considered traitors today, because he raised his voice against one unit, he raised his voice against the rights of the people of East Pakistan, and what happen then that instead of talking to the leader of the biggest Party in the country, Military Mafia tried to crush its popularity with the help bayonet. Had the issue been dealt with wisdom and justice and on the table instead of GUNS we would have not lost East Pakistan.

To my wise PBS, its not job of Army to come and fix the constitution, there are other organs of the state like “supreme court” that can interpret the laws better, I am feeling so very humble to the divinity of exalted statement of yours that makes “army” a doctor of the “constitution”, nothing can be so misleading so divided from reality. Surgery that Army knows is different, their impressive rationale would insist upon chopping the arm instead of giving the patient a bandage.

Thanks, vroom, we will keep talking InshAllah, for now this BPS has really knocked me off the decency. he/she could have participated decently, there is absolutely nothing wrong in having different opinion but starting with an abuse for a poster is so sordid, so despicable.

O chanda, meray bhai, Mr. Phent please read up a bit on the key word "logistics" before grabbing hold of Islam and Pakistan.

Indian Punjab didn't separate because it is "contiguous" to the mainland.

FYI, in contiguous regions, the supply lines of food and fuel may be disrupted but cannot be stopped by the separatists. That is why India didn't suffer the "loss" of Punjab.

It is the same story with Kashmir. Kashmir will not separate as long the logistic lines are open for the Indian government. It doesn't matter if the Indian government is democratic or not.

In case of BDesh, Pakistani government had no way to send supplies and counter the separatists.

Just think how difficult it would have been for the UK government in Falklands, if they didn't have one of the best naval force in the world. Pakistan fought in BDesh like UK fought in Falklands.

BDesh separation wasn't possible if Pakistan had the resources to build a stronger navy.

Give us another 100 years and surely we'll have a pretty darn good navy. British didn't become power in a day and certainly not in 50 years.

Sh. Mujib was criminal in the "eyes of Bengalis" that's why THEY killed him.

FYI. Sh. Mujib may have been incarcerated few times, but he was still treated as a leader by us the Pakistanis.

He was allowed to participate in the elections by the Ayub Khan.

But as you know and we all know that the same Sh. Mujib + ALL his family was put under 6 feet of dirt in BDesh. This is how Bengalis treated their criminal warlord.

And now Bengalis themselves have chosen to live under M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y. Go blame this on Ayub khan too. Shabash go. chalo na yaar. blame karo phat phut Mr. Phent.

Only neo-Hindus and their lackeys would make a hero of Sh. Mujib when his own people utterly destroyed him.

It is not the words but your actions that will define who you are. So make sure your actions are not anti-Pakistan and do not result in maligning our history. If you act as neo-Hindus and say you are Muslim, then it will not work no matter how hard you try.

Re: Role Of Army

[quote]
O chanda, meray bhai, Mr. Phent please read up a bit on the key word "logistics" before grabbing hold of Islam and Pakistan.

Indian Punjab didn't separate because it is "contiguous" to the mainland.

FYI, in contiguous regions, the supply lines of food and fuel may be disrupted but cannot be stopped by the separatists. That is why India didn't suffer the "loss" of Punjab.

It is the same story with Kashmir. Kashmir will not separate as long the logistic lines are open for the Indian government. It doesn't matter if the Indian government is democratic or not.

In case of BDesh, Pakistani government had no way to send supplies and counter the separatists.

Just think how difficult it would have been for the UK government in Falklands, if they didn't have one of the best naval force in the world. Pakistan fought in BDesh like UK fought in Falklands.

BDesh separation wasn't possible if Pakistan had the resources to build a stronger navy.

Give us another 100 years and surely we'll have a pretty darn good navy. British didn't become power in a day and certainly not in 50 years.
[/quote]
**

H**eavens BPS, are you implying that no army can be defeated in a battle filed if the supply line for “food and fuel” is in tact, and I have every reason to believe you are then, dear BPS, there is a news for you, this kindergarten stuff is too shallow for me as a convincing argument, you don’t seem to have knowledge of even the basics of warfare strategy, the question of supply line comes into play when an Army is invading a territory of an enemy, it was rather a point to ponder for the Indian Army because , it was she who was invading East Pakistan. Just to remind you war started on December 3, 1971 and concluded on December 16, 1971, leaving 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as captives. This was an astonishingly quick defeat for an Army that was defending its own country, with around 100,000 troops on the ground with enough ammunition to hold an enemy of equal or more strength for around one month and, of course, no question of “food and supplies”.

As to the question of a philosophy of GHQ to defend East Pakistan from West Pakistan it was equally ill conceived as the philosophy of “Road from Kargil to SiriNagar”. Had General Shair Neyazi hold on to it for one more week, UN would had interfered and that could have saved us from the humiliation of the “DEFEAT OF THE CENTURY”, but unfortunately our wise generals can only plan against our own civilians, and can conquer our own capital and at any given time.

Now open your ears, clear the wax of stupidity and bias and listen carefully, we lost because we had lost the support of more than half the population of East Pakistan not because just mere propaganda of Indian media outlets, but because of a carnage of our own army that left around 50,000 people dead, and this is a very careful estimate. Those people were surprisingly called “terrorist”, sound familiar, just like the Fasadis, and Jihadis of tribal parts of Pakistan. I would encourage you to ask your masters to keep pressing on the gas paddle on the killing spree, we need to downsize the area of Pakistan to make it more manageable, in my humble opinion Punjab is sufficient, with a few voices of dissent among Siraikies, but we can stop them, we still have guns, don’t we?

Probably you didn’t pay any attention to my previous post, I mentioned Czechoslovakia, was that country not “contiguous”, and did its ruler not try to save its territorial integrity with the brutality that mere words can hardly depict, is it enough for you as an eye opener or should I start from the beginning of civilized world, or may be from the demise of Ottoman empire, how about fall of Andulus (Spain), let’s not go far and talk about fall of Delhi, all these countries were “contiguous” yet overrun by invaders whose “supply lines” were not secured. Listen my friend, Armies can win battles here and there, but no war has ever been won by an army without popular support of the masses, let alone a war against the masses.

[quote]
Sh. Mujib was criminal in the "eyes of Bengalis" that's why THEY killed him.

FYI. Sh. Mujib may have been incarcerated few times, but he was still treated as a leader by us the Pakistanis.

He was allowed to participate in the elections by the Ayub Khan.

But as you know and we all know that the same Sh. Mujib + ALL his family was put under 6 feet of dirt in BDesh. This is how Bengalis treated their criminal warlord.

And now Bengalis themselves have chosen to live under M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y. Go blame this on Ayub khan too. Shabash go. chalo na yaar. blame karo phat phut Mr. Phent.

Only neo-Hindus and their lackeys would make a hero of Sh. Mujib when his own people utterly destroyed him.
[/quote]
Sh. Mujib was murdered, no doubt about it, but how on earth can you take this as an argument to justify that he was not a leader of Bangali people, you left me aghast with the zaniness of your political insight, may you just reconsider your statement in the light of the political assassination of J.F Kennedy, or Abraham Lincoln, how about Gandhi, or Liaqua Ali Khan if you don’t want to hop around the word.

Bangladesh Army has inherited a culture of imposing “tyranny” from Pakistani Army; it also runs in the blood of their Army Generals more so a stupidity can not justify another stupidity

[quote]
It is not the words but your actions that will define who you are. So make sure your actions are not anti-Pakistan and do not result in maligning our history. If you act as neo-Hindus and say you are Muslim, then it will not work no matter how hard you try.

[/quote]
Indeed actions depict your intentions, but may I ask do “words” speak your conviction or not?, and what is that you are trying to prove with the tomfoolery of your posts. If speaking truth is maligning history to you, then I must feel sorry for you, because history speaks for itself and no one can dare mess with it.

hahhahah Mr. Phent. Now this is the hight of prejudice and and a clear indication of deranged thought process.

----- So in 1971, BDeshis get their Phareedom Mr. Phent, that's Pak army's fault.
----- Then shortly thereafter, BDeshis utterly destroy their Bandhu and his ENTIRE family. that's Pak army's fault.
----- Then 35 years on, this sonar Bangla is ruled by BDesh army, that again guys according to Mr. Phet is the fault of Pak army.

hahahah. Any other situation in any part of the world that you want to attribute to Pak army.

While we are at it, let's blame Pak army for hurricane Ketrina too. Yeah. Pak army is bery bery bad, bery bad.

p.s. Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated for sure and that was despicable crime. However no one went around to kill every single member of Liaqat's family. Sh. Mujib was erased from this world. No child or old were left alive. Only one daughter survived because she was OUT of fing country.

Re: Role Of Army

floods and cyclones in Bangladesh are pak navy fault , army has nothing to do with that

Re: Role Of Army

observing the fault line of borders and their boundry ness, has often skipped the better judgement of many self imposed armies around the world, of the mightier onto the less powerful.

but that does not mean that the ethics of armed forces' work will can be changed to accomodate the selfish motives and insensitive character of a given govt or country's armed force.

armed forces are to protect the country against intrusion, civil unrest, war with another country and that is it.

armed forces are not to become self imposed rule onto the country's nation, it is supposed to protect nor allow the intrusive other armed force/s to pillage the home country.

God Bless you BurqaPosh, all I can do is to pray for you. I don’t see any academic value in continuing this debate with you because you have, like many other professional like minded, a tendency to shy away from the core issue, give it a spin towards your talking points and try to dispute main personalities of the thread along with the habit of calling names to the post initiator. I will conclude my debate with a few things that can serve as a proper reply to your last post.

Army has its political and battle ground share in the fall of Dhaka, unfortunately this share is humongous as compared to any other party involved, it is part of history books and even the holiest water can not remove the stain of treacherous role that top brass of army played in the events that lead to demise of unified Pakistan. I am tempted to draw your attention towards excerpts of the Hamood-ur-rehman commission report only because you share an ideology of crushing people with different opinion with the military might, rather than winning them over at the table.

The Commission declared that military action could not have been substitute for a political settlement, which was feasible once law and order had been restored within a matter of few weeks after the military action. No serious effort was made to start a political dialogue with the elected representatives of the people of East Pakistan. Instead fraudulent and useless measures were adopted. The use of excessive force during the military action had only served to alienate the sympathies of the people of East Pakistan. The arbitrary methods adopted by the Martial Law Administration in dealing with respectable citizens of East Pakistan and their sudden disappearances made the situation worse. The attitude of the Army authorities towards the Hindu minority also resulted in a large-scale exodus to India.

Although General Yahya Khan was not totally unaware of the avowed intention of India to dismember Pakistan, he didn't realize the need for early political settlement with the political leaders of East Pakistan. “

For more than 8 years army was involved in political affairs of the country thus neglecting its prime responsibilities, following excerpt from the report may server as an eye opener as to why Army rule weakens the military strength of the country, rather than strengthening it.

“No rational explanation was available as to why General Yahya did not take the dispute to the Security Council immediately after the Indian invasion of East Pakistan on November 21, 1971. Nor was it possible to explain his refusal to accept the first Russian resolution, if indeed the situation in East Pakistan had become so critical that surrender was inevitable. The Army High Command did not carry out any in-depth study of the effect of these new factors, nor did it pay any attention to the growing disparity in war preparedness and capability between the armed forces of Pakistan and India as a result of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of August 1971.”

Sh Mujib was not an angel at all specially in the eyes of people of west Pakistan, however his political assassination during a military coup along with his family members is, by no means, a manifestation of the fact that he disgraced himself in the eyes of the majority of the masses of Bangla Desh, he was the political leader who got more votes than all the parties combined in the elections of 1971, which is, rather, a very strong manifestation of the fact that millions agreed with him at that time, and don’t forget that he contested election on the slogan of his famous six points. You must also remember that his surviving daughter took over Awami league and was elected Prime Minister of the country between 1996 and 2001. If I, somehow, accept your rationale about his murder, his daughter could have never become an elected PM and a leader of biggest party in the country.

Analysis of BD’s army take over is not a subject of this discussion but must you remember that general Moshtaq Ahmen Khndoker who imposed Martial Law on August 15, 1975 didn’t drop from heavens to became general in BD’s army, he shared same philosophy that our top military brass had at that time, more over during war of 1971, he was serving as a Pakistani general, can you join the dots that complete a picture of hatred.?

I respect Pakistan Army as much as any other loyal Pakistani would do, what I disagree is the behavior of a few top rank Generals with limited political insight and astonishing political interests, this roughness on the part of these generals has caused us a great harm in the past and will cause us again in future, if nothing substantial is done to prevent it. I guess I have said enough, with that I would stop responding to your posts, thanks for your share.

Re: Role Of Army

hello inteliphen i agree with you mostly

This is exactly my point but unfortunately this thread like many other threads was completely hijacked, was given a new direction and that too without strong logic behind the hijacker's rationale.

Re: Role Of Army

what really army or forces of pakistan could do to put some colorful life in dying pakistan to work hard atleast they could clean rivers and could be used for transportation from north to south and also save from floods