It’s not just about Musharraf. For almost 60 years, Pak Army generals and officers have been prospering at the cost of common people. They have firm control over Pakistan’s economy, and in order to ensure the continuity of this control, they keep meddling in national politics.
Do you guys think there is a way to free Pakistan from Army’s grip on economy and politics?
General Musharraf’s comrades in the military control Pakistan’s epaulette empire, a $US40 billion ($43 billion) sprawl of businesses. Controlling about 10 to 15 per cent of the economy, the military is the biggest single stakeholder in Pakistan’s booming economy. Property, tourism, construction, transport and telecoms, there is barely a business sector not tinted with some sort of brass hue. The generals even own a popular breakfast cereal brand, alongside bakeries, petrol stations, farms, banks and companies listed on Karachi’s soaring stock exchange.
Pakistanis grumble that other countries have a military but in Pakistan the military has a country. And General Musharraf’s eight-year rule has been party time for men in uniform.
Military Inc, a controversial new book by the respected writer and journalist Ayesha Siddiqa - banned from sale in Pakistan but widely available elsewhere - says that the average net worth of a general is now about $US2 million.
As a former analyst at navy headquarters, Siddiqa has seen Pakistan’s military-industrial complex from the inside. And she delves deeply into a mostly off-limits subject in a country that has spent more than half its 60-year history under military rule.
It’s not so much corruption, she says - although that is evident across the economy - it’s the large-scale cronified allegiance General Musharraf has bought by parachuting thousands of officers into well-paid private-sector sinecures, alongside their uniformed duties.
Actually a democracy that creates some fine leaders like Ahmdenejat should be our main focus.
The regime running Iranians is doing so much better in providing jobs to young Iranians, all the freedoms that closely match with Talibanic menace, and a "vibrant" economy even in the presence of that "cheap" oil are all hallmarks of non-military Jannat we all know as Iran.
Thanks Abbas Ji. This is how each country tries to deal with what cards it has. If Iranian cards are better, let me know.
Otherwise just leave us alone, we are doing just fine.
thats bcos army never lets any other institution become stable or well-establish namely democracy. since 1947, army have ruled the country while democratically elected governments had patchy chances that too were ruined by the army. bcos its not good for their moral. and now thanx to their own madman mushy, now army too is not as stable as it used to be. you dig holes for others and eventually you’ll dig one for urself aswell :halo:
why look at other leaders when we have our own madman mushy in power. we have a booming economy [even if on paper only], law and order is of highest standard…talebans are nowhere to be found/seens [except in mushy’s pockets], jobless rate amongst the young pakistanis is 0% and freedom to do/say/express nothing is at its best.
we pakistanis are living in a jannat which will make satan go red with shame.
Musharraf, dictator: The best thing in the world, regardless of what he does to country in name of fighting extremism.
Everything else: Everyone who opposes Musharraf has to be a Taliban sympathiser, support extremism, against world’s progress, against civilization etc.
Thank you for your continuous enlightennment antiobl :k:
thats bcos army never lets any other institution become stable or well-establish namely democracy.
Here is a quick MCQ for those who may know a tad bit about democracy.
Who forms the institutions of democracy? a) Mullahs b) Arabs c) Political parties
Who forms the Political parties? a) Ben Laden c) Yaser Arafat d) Political leaders
Political leaders who form political parties must be democratic. a) May be b) No c) yes.
How do political parties come to power? a) lottery b) Istikhara c) elections
What differentiates a political party from a personal fiefdom? a) Tonga (horse drawn carriage), b) bull or ox-cart c)internal democracy
What makes a political party strong? a) AK-47 b)suicider squad c) new leaders every 4 years
Political leaders who refuse to allow new leaders to come up are usually called a) Ayatullahs b) Talibans c) all of the above
Those civilians who create anarchy in Pakistan are called a)God's angels b) Mullahs c) Political leaders
Those who spread anarchy should be given a) 1 carore rupees b) 72 young virgins c) Exemplary punishment
Those politikos who blame army for their own lack of democratic values are called a) Merasis b)Bhands c) jokers d) all of the above
So dear guppies I am sure you all will score 100% being that you are all live in free world, with lots of money thanks to your hardwork, and association of Arabs.
Let's rather not comment on antiobl's obsession. He is only going to take away the topic of the thread.
When I was a kid, I wanted to join military, especially Air force. Then I met a friend who had many relatives in army. He advised me to stay away from them, and I agreed. Now I realize how good that decision was. Had I joined army, I would have thought of myself partly responsible for many woes inflicted by the generals on Pakistani people.
I hope future civilian democratic governments of Pakistan will slowly strip the generals of their powers. If British, Nepalese and Japanese kings can be made to give up their powers then why not the usurpers in uniform?
The reason army interferes in politics is to safeguard its investment in Pakistan’s economy. After all, they consider country and its people to be working for them. Aisha reached same conclusion.
“Why some militaries become key players in a country’s power politics is an issue that has puzzled many,” writes the Pakistani analyst Ayesha Siddiqa in “Military Inc.” (Pluto, $35). Her answer is that the brass is protecting its gold.
A military industrial complex can form a part of a regular economy, as in the United States or Britain, she says, but in some places, like Indonesia or Pakistan, military business operates in the shadows, broadly distorting values.
actually military rule has been the norm in most of modern asia and over the last couple years there have been military coups in thailand and bangledesh and both countries are still under military rule which does not seem to cause goras too much khujlee. moreover pak is also not unique when it comes to frequency and duration of military rule. countries like egypt, turkey, bangladesh, thailand, indonesia, philippines and south korea have gone through long periods of military rule. execption to military rule in asia have largely been totalitarian muslim regimes of arabistan and iran and i would argue that these countries would be better off under military rule than mullah rule. certailnly iranians would have more freedom if iranian military had stepped in after shahs fall and prevented mullahs from taking over.
one obvious exception to military rule is india. however when you compare india with the list of countries with history of military rule, india is worse off than all those countries with the exception of bangladesh.
so given that military has played such a crucial role in most asian countries, why is pakistani military painted as a villan by western media and their pujarees in pak? answer: westerners have been always regarded islamic power as a threat which is why pak or iranian nuclear weapons are seen as dangerous and indian and israeli nuclear programs are regarded as friendly. pak army does its own thing such as developing nuclear weapons and this cannot be tolerated by goras. so goras spread misinformation about pak military which gets repeated in pak press. spirit of mir jaffer lives in the offices of pakistani journalists.
That is the only reason Westerners don’t want a military rule? Dude, you are totally confused. Army is the one which is sort of ‘anti-Islamism’, western media/governments should be supporting army rule if they were worried about “Islamic power as threat”, just like they support army rule in Algiers, Turkey and what not.
dude, i will try again once i can get a sense of what you are trying to convey. i cant make a head or tail of what you have said in the paragraph above.
on aq khan, neither was he the one who initiated the nuclear program, nor did he fund the program out of his jaib. moreover nuclear bomb cannot be developed by one person. i am surprised that a grown up individual does not know this fact. as for aq khan, he was simply a metallurgist who was asked to work on the nuclear program by g.o.p. some very well respectable and highly regaded scientists were part of the nuclear program but not being publicity hounds, we know little about them. also if you read bb’s own comment, she herself says that army did not allow her to have full knowledege of the nuclear program.
Hence we should never try to have a democracy, freedom, justice system, accountability... we should learn to live under army's mercy.
pakistan is a free country so people can support whomever they want. i would rather live under army rule. you are welcome to support the likes of zardari and nawaz sharif if you believe these people can provide you with "freedom, justice and democracy". your choices make no difference to me. i have my own prefernce and i have not seen any arguments from you which force me to challange my own judgement.
This seems like kind of a Stockholm Syndrome of Pakistan politics where people start loving the dictator because they loose all hope of any kind of functional democratic setup.
dude, i will try again once i can get a sense of what you are trying to convey. i cant make a head or tail of what you have said in the paragraph above.
Let me write slowly :D
You said:
"why is pakistani military painted as a villan by western media and their pujarees in pak? answer: westerners have been always regarded islamic power as a threat which is why pak or iranian nuclear weapons are seen as dangerous and indian and israeli nuclear programs are regarded as friendly."
Now according to you westerners always regarded "Islamic power" as a threat hence they painted Pakistani military as villain. Now can you tell me why westerners keep pushing Pakistan for democracy? Actually army is the one which is "anti-Islamism" (atleast verbally) and is taking on "extremists". If army was pro-Islamic-power, they would've sided with Taliban and made Pakistan a Taliban state (official stance).
If westerners were worried about "Islamic power threat" they will more likely support army just like they did in Algiers, Turkey and other countries.
[quote]
on aq khan, neither was he the one who initiated the nuclear program, nor did he fund the program out of his jaib. moreover nuclear bomb cannot be developed by one person. i am surprised that a grown up individual does not know this fact. as for aq khan, he was simply a metallurgist who was asked to work on the nuclear program by g.o.p. some very well respectable and highly regaded scientists were part of the nuclear program but not being publicity hounds, we know little about them. also if you read bb's own comment, she herself says that army did not allow her to have full knowledege of the nuclear program.
[/quote]
I know nuke program is not a one man's job.... now pray tell me how army developed this nuke? Most scientists involved were civilians (don't know if there was any army scientist), nuke program was launched in civilian government (Bhutto).... so how does army come into play for taking credit for development of nuke program?
As for you Bibi's comment on nuke program, its because Army is responsible for protecting it and they thought that Bibi's tummy is very light and will reveal secrets outside (like list given to India).
first, your understanding of islam might tell you that taliban islam is proper islam. my reading of islam however is different and so was jinnah's. in my opinion taliban are a bunch of idiots who are the greatest danger to islamic world. therefore pak army's action against taliban are for the benefit of islamic world and not the other way around. moreover pak army's support for taliban in 90's, a policy which bb fully supported, was due to strategic reasons which had very little to do with imposition of islam. taliban's oppnents in afghanistan were hard core fundos as well.
second, western support of democracy is driven by a desire to see emergence of govts which in the long run will weaken muslim countries. this is why western countries dont push for elections in countries like egypt, jordan and morocco where opposition to western supported govts is driven by very credible islamic parties. the case of pakistan is a little different because islamic parties have no hope of coming to power. for goras, the best way to control pak is through an imposition of moderate alliance - a service which pakistani politicians like bb are eagerly willing to offer. western countries recognise that pak army is loose cannon which has to be tamed. if pak had an oppostion party like muslim brotherhood of egypt, western countries would not be calling for elections in pak.
Let me give you a hint right there… the Islam of Taliban was supported, funded trained by none other than our army/ISI.
Hint: I have condemned suicide bombings/beheadings etc in all threads…
Try again.
You mean democracy will weaken government/country in long run, is this correct?
Hint 2: They want army/puppets in countries where they think civilian governments will not listen to them as much.
Wrong yet again. They want Mushy to include BB in power as she has now “convinced” them that she is as good as Mushy for them (regardless of how bad for the country).
:halo:
we have a booming economy [even if on paper only], law and order is of highest standard…talebans are nowhere to be found/seens [except in mushy’s pockets], jobless rate amongst the young pakistanis is 0% and freedom to do/say/express nothing is at its best.
I didn’t know AQ Khan was a brigadier.