State of Corruption in South Asia 2000-01

re: Sammerjb # 22

Very impressive. Institutions, institutions, institutions, that`s what a society needs.

Musharraf should see his country through the current crisis. I hope he succeeds, and succeeds well. Then he should step away. In the long run, messy democracy is far better than the most elegant dictatorship of military men.

#16

``Corruption is part of all systems. From Germary to South Korea to

Italy, politicians have been found guilty of misuse of power and

financial misappropriations. But because these countries have

functioning institutions, constitutions that lay down the minimum

legal and systemic standards, corruption is minimal, detected and

punished. In countries like Pakistan, where the only law is Khaki,

where Supreme Court judges have to take an oath of loyalty to a

self-appointed President, where society is polarised along ethnic

and linguistic lines, where institutions are seen as employment

agencies for favoured groups, democracy is bound to run into

snags in the short to medium term. That does not in anyway mean

that the military should come marching in to save us from

corruption, when it is subject to zero accountability for its own

actions.``

Beautifully put! The last part relates to something i don`t understand- how the pakis living in the west sincerely believe that the military is above corruption or that it would clean up the polity.

It may be that the military, by being an equal opportunity employer, has a broader constituency than most politicians and corruption there will ``benefit`` a wider group of people and power, by being more widely distributed in this sense is more democratic. Pakis in general don`t seem to mind that subversion of power is more insidious than financial corruption. Army take over of power is part & parcel of pak history and not something you unduly worry over.

I still cannot get over the idea that someone could simply snatch power with force alone. It`s such a mideval notion..

#: 21

Zafar Al-Talib

Reply Arrested Development # 27

“I CAN TALK BENGALI ,I CAN WRITE BENGALI ,I CAN READ BENGALI ,BUT I WILL DERECOGNIZE ANY SEDITION AGAIN OF BENGALI .BENGALI IS NOT BISCUIT TO BE BROKEN CHEWED LIKE PAAN!!”

No point talking in any language unless you have something to say.



ZarafAl Tulba,

``Yarab na woh samjhe haine na samjhe ge mere baat

DE aur AQAL unko jo na de mujh ko zabaan aur ``

Now god only can give you few cells of neurones if you beg.

If you cant post in the RIGHT(CORRECT)place how much `magaz` do you have to understand?????He doesnt want 4 th time partition of Bengal.I bet you didnt even know that how many times Bengal under went partition after the British.If you are ignorent of History ,dont make FOOL of yourself.The only reason you have hindian applauding you b/c you sing there song .The day you change the tune ,all the applause will be dead silent as grave yard.

Zahra #19
``What lies beneath, has to be analyzed, reviewed and evaluated. ``
In the Pakistani context, Pakistanis can do that best.

Talking of institutions of governance, the author can answer best.

My own commonsense answers to your questions are like this:

``What is an institution? What`s an individual? Why does the individual lean on an institution? What is the purpose of an institution?``

Institutions of governance are norms of behaviour and modes of functioning for those making laws, spending public money and making policy decisions about national/regional affairs, on other words norms for settling matters between large numbers of people.

An individual in a society needs institutions of governance, to bring order and hence productivity into his own life, his relations with others and his surroundings. (Anarchists will tell you otherwise, they want to do way with goverment altogether).

``By creating institutions, do we create harmony?``

Stable institutions of governance can create harmony. The norms and modes of functioning must ensure that those making laws, spending public money and making public policy do so with ``public interest`` and ``public consent`` in mind, norms which individuals/groups pursuing their own legitimate/illegitimate interests cannot violate easily.

Once these norms and modes of functioning are firmly in place and are widely accepted, the peculiarities of the individuals/groups/interests operating within them, do not shake the order in society so much.

``By letting the individuals comply by the norms set by the institutions, do we create better individuals?``

The order brought about by norms can ``empower`` individuals and groups to participate in ``socially-constructive`` activity on their own/others behalf if the institution defines ``public interest`` widely enough to include the individuals`/groups` interests and if the institution defines ``public consent`` widely enough to allow the individual/group working to fulfil these in public.

A communist party member being allowed cast a vote in the erstwhile Soviet Communist Party wouldnot have done much good for the interests of the general Soviet public, for example.

Thanks Aqil, for making an excellent case for democracy in Pakistan. I am not sure about how long you have been following interactions at Chowk but most Pakistanis here are favorable to Mush. Many of them started favoring the day he took over Pakistan with the help of 111 brigade. The logic they used was a reverse logic, then. Because NS had low IQ, did not speak good English and considered corrupt; Mush could not be worse than NS. They failed to differentiate between individuals and institutions. When institution is strong, an average leader or even corrupt leadership is not detrimental to the outcome. A fair example would be Pakistan Army. As a strong institution it does not suffer much from good, average or below average COAS. Same is the case with democratic institutions. A military leader may be good with respect to his specialty or institution but that is actually a drawback for military governments for the reason you mentioned-the self-serving interest of the military institution.

The present government is pretty corrupt in the sense that its low-level honesty is coupled with high level ineptness. Syed Ahmed and you have pointed out some examples of corruption like filling up civilian positions with military personnel, raising defense budget by cheating, accumulating all positions in one hand and highly centralized government with negligible power of provinces, run by low level and almost unknown operatives. Here is a person who is supposed to be given a mandate by selective justices of Supreme Court (after kicking out possible opponents), exacting personal revenge from NS for firing him by granting him life imprisonment in absurdly fraudulent case, 22 foreign trips with absolutely no results before September 11, 2001- with about 15 of them relating to exiling NS to Saudi Arabia, talking big about devolution while accumulating all power in his own hand-absolutely no power to provinces (by appointing useless and inept governors and ministers) and on and on.

Somehow people do not understand that honesty or smartness in a respective field for individuals at decisive positions in governing is almost irrelevant to better governance. Better English speaking and perhaps honest head of state can just not substitute the demolition of democratic institutions. It reminds me an old joke that goes something like:

An African tribe announced end to cannibalism. A western Christian journalist went to interview the tribal chief and congratulated him on finally civilizing and converting to Christianity. At the end of interview, he asked the chief about the remaining cannibals who may still be practicing cannibalism. The chief replied proudly: We do not have any cannibals left here. We ate the last remaining one yesterday.

or craeting a sin-free world (Taliban style) by emptying the world of people.

A military general with a gun in hand, is standing on the dead body of democracy claiming honesty.

Please continue interacting at chowk. In a sea of interactions directed by passions and pre-conceived notions, reason and logic has been in short supply and small number of responses here attest clearly to the victory of faith over reason- as if Pakistan is meaningless without Islam and Kashmir. The desires of her 140 million people for a decent living do not matter. They are just a horde with no culture or history!!!

Thanks Romair about PIA. The point is that killing the patient is not a solution for infection. The best solution is to create immunity to corruption through strengthening institutions, liberalizing and privatizing sate run institutions and let the share holders decide the fate and direction of PIA, banks and other institutions. Incidentally, public is generally considered, sort of, share holders in the affairs of a nation. They must be asked as to how and by whom they would like to be ruled.

Reply Arrested Development # 27

“I CAN TALK BENGALI ,I CAN WRITE BENGALI ,I CAN READ BENGALI ,BUT I WILL DERECOGNIZE ANY SEDITION AGAIN OF BENGALI .BENGALI IS NOT BISCUIT TO BE BROKEN CHEWED LIKE PAAN!!”

No point talking in any language unless you have something to say.

Reply Aicha # 28

“Bengali - apart from this word ``buburushia`` none at all - but need to learn it anyways so this might be an excellent opportunity !!!”

Vaisai…mujhe bhi nahin aathi hai (but under no circumstances mention this to Dr Mr Sigalph Dada Esq, ok)

“ and ``in exile`` - my commiserations yeh kaise ho gayaa ??”

Yeh tho hamare late martyred Praydent Saheb, Dr Mr Latif Chappu III, ke zemane ki baath hai…

Zafar

Sadna:

You are too phurteelee(quick)in showering God`s choicest blessings on Mr.Shah :) But I must mention that you have extracted exactly the same lines that I have been contemplating on. On my end, I ``was`` swept away by:individuals are indispensable, whereas institutions aren`t.

I started writing on this fallacy[mistaken idea] twice, but I could not proceed any further. I guess I was way too charmed by the attractive words :D They are very impressive when you read them hur angle sae :) What lies beneath, has to be analyzed, reviewed and evaluated. What is an institution? What`s an individual? Why does the individual lean on an institution? What is the purpose of an institution? By creating institutions, do we create harmony? By letting the individuals comply by the norms set by the institutions, do we create better individuals?
I am not at ease to commend the writer for his succinct conclusion, despite having a very strong urge to applaud him. I`d rather withhold my applause.


- trying to come out of the charm of the succinct conclusion and be able to analyze and justify my thoughts!

Aqil #16
``So the choice is not between Zia, Bhutto or Ayub, it is between systems and individuals. Individuals are dispensable, institutions are not. ``
May God shower his choicest blessings on you!

Senor gowardhan(with a little g):

Glad to be of assistance :D

:)

Zahra

I like it. Military should be ruling Pakistan because they have a certain *strategic take on certain issues. * Very good.

Dear all,

I`ll try to respond to all the issues that have been raised, though Syed Ahmed`s reply should lay to rest any illusions held by Pakistanis of the transparency in the military/current regime.

I don’t for a second think that anyone who favours Musharraf is plainly brainwashed. Some of our leading intellectual lights share the same illusion. They say Musharraf is secular, honest and well meaning. He wants to reform Pakistan. No quabbles there. But it’s not about good or bad individuals. Musharraf heads Pakistan’s largest political party with clear corporate interests: strategic, financial and political. The military is right wing, conservative with a heavy stake in the status quo as it derives its legitimacy and influence in Pakistan from the existing alignment of political, social and economic forces. To expect an inherently conservative institution to do what a liberation army might is at best fallacious.

Secondly, no matter what the argument is against democracy, and how chaotic it was, which it wasn’t really, a professional army is in most civilised countries of the world under civilian control, no matter how feudal/corrupt the civilians are. The army`s job is to fight wars, use force, conquer territory. That is what they are trained for and paid for. If a civilian was appointed as a Corp Commander, I don’t doubt it will be an utter failure. This is as simple as that.

It is not fair to lay all the blame squarely at the military`s door though. Politicians are corrupt and self-serving just like most interest groups in society are including the military. But as I pointed out above, it is our continuing belief in individuals, as opposed to institutions, that leads to unending disappointment. We like BB one minute, NS the other, and when we are done with them, we wouldn`t mind courting a man who is trained to kill his enemy, not run the affairs of government. So the choice is not between Zia, Bhutto or Ayub, it is between systems and individuals. Individuals are dispensable, institutions are not. Countries with functioning democracies and institutions survive the death or loss of one leader, countries with Suhartos and Zias have no mechanisms for smooth transfers of power. In place of effective institutions that could outlast charismatic legacies, the hunt for another visionary begins every time. Just look at Pakistan`s history and you will understand the point I am trying to make.

Whether uneducated, feudal societies are fit for democracy is presumptuous to say the least. If you look at the results of elections 1988-1997, many feudal stalwarts lost. While this could be attributed to many factors, one major reason was the empowerment that the ballot brings. I am not claiming this to be a generalised truism but it`s a step in the right direction. If you compare data from 1985-1997, the composition of the National Assembly has gradually changed from overly feudalistic to feudal-cum-industrialist. Democracy is evolutionary, and if you think there is any other way of abolishing the feudal curse, please enlighten me. Our reformist military has been in power for more than half our independent history, why didn’t they institute land reforms? Why didn`t Musharraf do it? I`ll tell you why, some of Pakistan`s senior Khakis hold the largest tracts of land bestowed upon them by the state. According to a former finance minister, later sacked by the army, the land owned by the military in Lahore will fetch enough money to retire half of our internal public debt. I am not condoning feudalism in any way, but the democratic process, however flawed, has the ability to purge itself. Painfully slowly but surely.

I condemn what happened during our `sham` democracy. The attack on the Supreme Court, for instance in Sharif`s time was one of the darkest episodes of our history. But insecure civilian rulers in ``follower`` democracies ( a term I borrow from Princeton Political Scientist Atul Kohli) see existing institutions as a direct threat to his/her authority. These inevitably become the first targets of their power consolidation. There is no time limit on democracy. Could be ten years, could be a hundred. My point is this: if corrupt politicians can run a extremely diverse (religion, ethnicity, language) country like India (and I`m not saying that`s a perfect example) why cant they run Pakistan?

Corruption is part of all systems. From Germary to South Korea to Italy, politicians have been found guilty of misuse of power and financial misappropriations. But because these countries have functioning institutions, constitutions that lay down the minimum legal and systemic standards, corruption is minimal, detected and punished. In countries like Pakistan, where the only law is Khaki, where Supreme Court judges have to take an oath of loyalty to a self-appointed President, where society is polarised along ethnic and linguistic lines, where institutions are seen as employment agencies for favoured groups, democracy is bound to run into snags in the short to medium term. That does not in anyway mean that the military should come marching in to save us from corruption, when it is subject to zero accountability for its own actions. Was any General ever held responsible for the artocities, professional negligence and criminal activities in Bangladesh in 1971 despite the fact that the Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report is now in the public domain. General Mush as an ‘honest son of the soil’ should start cleaning the military’s stinking Augean stables before taking on civilians. After all, charity begins at home.

Dear Mr.Shah:

Thank you for a very educating, enlightening, well-put and josheelee post :) I really enjoyed reading it. Chowk is full of all kinds of writers and interactors; and everyone has his/her own style, but your flowing articulation was quite captivating!

[Secondly, the military in Pakistan is the problem to which it pretends to be the solution. For almost our entire history, this institution
had determined the dos and donts of how Pakistan should be run.]

What`s their interest? Power? Or what else? I cannot comprehend this.:(

[The siege mentality all Pakistanis grow up with is perpetuated in our minds through different transmission mechanisms (media, textbooks) the distribution/content of which is under the strict control of the establishment. That the military is honest, and civilians corrupt is something that we unfortunately take for granted.]

I have been following Chowk, on this point, for sometime now. Naive people think that if a person is writing in favor of the current regime that means zaroor iss kae chachae mamae will be in the armed forces. If it`s otherwise, then zaroor chacha mamas will be on the other end. This is so silly! What about if your family is mashallah big enough to be everywhere: armed forces, civil services, government services and private sector? I remembered when I wrote in favor of Musharraf after the coup, I read the same remarks, that you`ve come up with: text books, brain-washing and pata naheen kya kya.

Being from Lahore, I strongly feel that the democratic government added a very positive change to the map of Lahore. There were some great new developments underway in the area of IT in my university in Lahore. I am not sure what happened to them at the end, but I know now the students have access to the internet in their hostels and that`s excellento, aside from many other things!!! Also, UET, Lahore had a General, as the VC, way before the coup[as far as I remember].

On the other end, I feel the gallons/pints/litres of alcohol our army-men consume, if that`s sold outside, probably enough money will be generated to run some schools for the illiterates. But on second thoughts, that`s a gender based corruption; it has nothing to do with an institution? But, it is corruption? Isn`t it? Kind of, I guess?

With all said, when it comes to training and discipline, I feel these traits are only found amongst the armed forces and the civil servants. Every maja gama should not be allowed to come forth by paying money to their party-heads and occupying the seat to become Shae`hen`sha`e`Hind. That is very unfortunate! Ironically, that has been happening for a long time. Well, someone will come back with the argument: of course, we will select the rasheeds and badars as they are part of our community. Well, we also have eunuchs, criminals, and many others as significant chapters of our country`s book; why not allow them to come forth?

[That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels. There are more twists to this sordid tale though.]

No arguments! I agree!

[The military is hell-bent on engineering the political process to give us ``real`` democracy through some of the most corrupt, opportunistic political actors around.]

Can we have a govt with representatives from both, military and civilian side? Well, if you go for that, then you are again in trouble. The interests won`t match. OK. Then? Why do you need military, as part of your ruling clan? In my view, because of their strategic take on certain issues. In fact, I heard Musharraf the second time, while getting some groceries at a local Pakistani Store for a friend, yesterday. He was speaking to a congregation of journalists within Pakistan. Surprisingly, his verbiage on certain issues, was exactly what I had on my mind :) His mun`toar jawab daenaa kaa tareeqaa was also very amusing. I liked it! I have been away for almost 8 years now, and I do visit home once every year or every other year, but I do not follow any Pakistani Programs. So, it was a delight for me to watch and hear what I was hearing. Somehow, there was a sad point out there too, and I would come back to it later.

[I am willing to make the assumption that we can become fit through democracy, the we are not fit for democracy argument is the resort of those who think that it is a luxury illiterate Pakistanis can ill-afford. These are the same people who have brought Pakistan to ruins, whether they be khakis or civilians.]

I really liked your rationale! Specially, the way you`ve put it! :) I want to add more here, but I`d rather not. Out of sheer respect, I would skip my thoughts!

[As I emphasised earliear, all this takes time.]

Can we have some definitive time on the above, based on your research and studies? 5 years? 10 years? how many years? whole life?


[I ask all the readers, has the military ever allowed a govt to stay in power? have they every given democracy a chance for more than a few years before they have decided to come and take over in the `national interest`.]

From the perspective of discussing our social structure and its fabric, I agree with your above stance. But before the military took over, we had nothing, but chaos. Our institutions were being molested right and left. Now, you may come forth and say that the chaos should have been allowed to continue as it would have ``subsided`` with time.

Question:Should not we give the devil its due, when it deserves?

[On a traffic ``chowk`` yesterday, I saw a car sticker which said: ``We dont overtake, We take over. Pakistan Army.`` These seemingly benign words reflect a self-important, arrogant institutional mindset that has held us hostage to its vested interests for long enough.]

Indeed, the benign words had some malignancy, that could not be detected by the naked eye only.

[It was only when he crossed the lines drawn by the GHQ for civilian PMs, that he became unacceptable to the messianice guardians of our ideological frontiers.]

[Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or
a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.]

That`s a perspective! In fact, a strong opinion!

Aqil #11: ``Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.``

In case of Pakistan, it depends on who the one man happens to be. If it happens to be Musharraf, then I would prefer the former option. If it were someone like Zia, I would go for the later option. If it were Ayub, then it is a tough call. Five years ago, I would have opted for the later option, but now I am tilting more and more towards the former option.

AnyvPakistani who commits corruption, specially in a position of power, needs to be pointed out and sent to the slammer, be they in the military or civilian sectors. If people spent more time doing this, rather than attempting to get into a pissing contest to decide whether civilians are more corrupt than the Generals or vice versa, Pakistan would finally start progressing. No one holding a gun to BB and NS`s head or to a military leader`s head when they committed corruption. It`s about time, we put the blame on the people who committed these acts, rather than blaming, ``other forces.``

Pakistan is a feudal society. Until this feudalism is finished, there will never be democracy. Uptil that time, Pakistanis have to just hope that the military or civilian dictator (every Pakistani ruler in my lifetime has been an elected or non-elected dictator) that ends up ruling them, is personally honest and patriotic, and worldly wise. And when through some miracle, someone like that does show up, we should swallow our prejudices and likes and dislikes, thank our lucky stars, and wish him/her luck, and hope he/she can dismantle the feudal society, so we can for once have real democracy.

I am all for activism and rennaissance etc. But the last thing I will be active about is a pledge to let the likes of BB and NS back into power. I have and will be active for honest guys like Imran Khan and company. And the day, such people have even an iota of a chance of forming a govt. in Pakistan, I will become a full-fledged Pakistani lover of democracy.

The feudals, who still control approximately 66% of every election, must be laughing their pants off, when they hear educated Pakistanis wanting them back into power. Aaa bail, mujhay maar.

I just want a leader who can raise the living standard of the poorest Pakistani. For the time being, it makes no difference where the person originates from. If ABV was to resign as the PM of India, and show that he could do the above for Pakistan, I would even support him.

The oft repeated phrase, that elections after elections, will lead to democracy in Pakistan, has no meat in it. This rule only applies in non-feudal societies. And a National Assembly run by the feudals themselves will never reform this system. Just like Generals themselves will never reform the Army. And beaurecrats themselves will never reform the civil services.

Military Corruption in Pakistan:

Corruption under Musharraf …..

The Army declares it cut its budget by 7% as a cost cutting measure – Instead it moves its pensions ( retired personnel) into a civilian budget overhead…( Rs 26B) . In real terms the army increases its budget by about 11% even though the country is on the brink of Financial default. IN one of my earlier posts I had all the financial numbers.

Lt Gen Jahansher Gulzar Kiyani ( former X Corp Commander Pindi) uses strong arm tactics to replace key contenders for the Nazim’s position with a kinsman as the only exclusive candidate in Pindi. The Candidate wins the election…when all other candidates withdraw in his favor…. Musharraf later transfers Gen Kiyani to the administrative post of Adjutant General.

Under IMF pressure the Govt is forced to implement a tax on agriculture on the Books. The law is not enforced nor a re any taxes collected from the feudals.

The Military Govt hires Several advisers of huge salaries ( some in dollar amounts ) yto advise the various govt ministries – Most of these advisers are kinsmen of the Army staff. Upon criticism by the media many of the advisors were subsequently let go.


The NAB practices selective accountability using strong arm tactics which has resulted in custodial deaths. The pliant politicians - Saifullahs and the Chaudhries are hardly touched. Former Army beneficiaries who were declared to be US dollar billonaires ( ny the same regime) included Gohar Ayub, AsLam Beg, Humayun Abdur Rahman and Ijaz ul Haq have not been brought to justice.

To all respondents:

I will make a few general comments with regard to the replies I have read on my piece.

Let me make it very clear at the outset that the excerpt that appeared on chowk was from a Global Report which had regional reports with fixed TORs to cover trends, prospects in relation to the period June 2000-July 2001. Obviously, this approach had many flaws. Regional coverage disguised peculiar country developments/trends, the report was event driven and hence newsy/journalistic. The point: expecting a state of the corruption report to apportion blame or dissect the deep rooted causes of corruption

in South Asian countries is asking for too much.

Secondly, the military in Pakistan is the problem to which it pretends to be the solution. For almost our entire history, this institution

had determined the dos and donts of how Pakistan should be run. The siege mentality all Pakistanis grow up with is perpetuated in our minds through

different transmission mechanisms (media, textbooks) the distribution/content of which is under the strict control of the establishment. That the military is honest, and civilians corrupt is something that we unfortunately take for granted. That civilian politcians are corrupt is a moot point. If you compare the bank accounts/assets of some of our illustrious khakis who have made billions cranking the machinery of lucrative defence deals/contracts, civilians will come out as angels. There are more twists to this sordid tale though.

Who are these corrupt politicos? Who is NS? The product of the military`s direct political and financial patronage who was propped as a counter to the People`s party. History is repeating itself once again. The military is hell-bent on engineering the political process to give us ``real`` democracy through some of the most corrupt, opportunistic political actors around. In turn, when these politicians try to assert their control over govt, much like Nawaz Sharif`s India policy, they will be branded corrupt and send packing.

I am willing to make the assumption that we can become fit through democracy, the we are not fit for democracy argument is the resort of those who think that it is a luxury illiterate Pakistanis can ill-afford. These are the same people who have brought Pakistan to ruins, whether they be khakis or civilians.

On PIA and other public agencies, political processes, distorted by by repeated military interventions, will only result in the kind of patronage politics that politicians have to resort to. Insecure civilian govermments, pressed to the wall by defence and debt expenditures on the one hand, and political compulsions on the other, have simply got no choice but to dole out jobs. Dont forget that politics is an evolutionary process, and politicians

have the sole purpose, just like the generals or anyone else in the power game, to maximise their hold on power. This is as true for Pakistan as it is for the world`s so called established democracies. But in countries where the democratic process is allowed to operate, institutions take root. Political parties,

independent election commissions, so on and so forth. These checks and balances in return ensure that power is not monoploized by one institution/individual. As I emphasised earliear, all this takes time. I ask all the readers, has the military ever allowed a govt to stay in power? have they every given democracy a chance for more than a few years before they have decided to come and take over in the `national interest`. On a traffic ``chowk`` yesterday, I saw a car sticker which said:

``We dont overtake, We take over. Pakistan Army.`` These seemingly benign words reflect a self-important, arrogant institutional mindset that has held us hostage to its vested interests for long enough.

Corruption is a complex phenemona, in fact too complex for the black and white solutions conceived by the army. I know on good authority how govt deals are clinched these days, corruption has only been swept under the carpet.

A civilian defence ministry official known to me was transferred last week when he refused to approve a cement contract in favour of one of the military foundations (which pays no tax)as their bid was far higher. That particular foundation is down Rs 15 billion in debt, has been bailed out twice in the past three years by govt guarantees to private banks. Talk of corruption?

Would someone care to explain why they are offended by political cronies, when Musharraf has militarised each and every civilian institution by appointing his khaki cronies. Btw, how was the cabinet selected and under what authority?

The bogey of corruption, in my opinion, has been used by the military in tandem with the conservative religious right to undermine the political opposition. Would anyone care to tell me if Nawaz Sharif was less corrupt when the ISI

used millions (an affidavit to this effect by the then head of the ISI is still in the Supreme Court)to prop up the IJI against the the PPP.

Was Nawaz Sharif any less corrupt when he was catapulted to power with a ``heavy mandate``?

It was only when he crossed the lines drawn by the GHQ for civilian PMs, that he became unacceptable to the messianice guardians of our ideological frontiers. Would you rather live in a country hostage to the whims of one man appointed by the power of the gun to lead us into the new millenium?? or

a ``corrupt politician`` in a ``sham`` democracy. I would certainly opt for the latter.