Military Intervention vs. Institutions’ Growth

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.``

Well said Rahul! Very well said. An uninterrupted process is the key for democracy.

#48 sameer ``The point I am making is that NS was/ is able to stand without military with sizable popular support. The Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhrys and MMA are nothing without military and Musharraf. ``

Are you for real, bro? Without the the support of his fauji political and spiritual fathers Nawaz Sharif was wiped out in the last election. The referendem was a joke, yes, but no one disputes that the elections were fair and free. MMA won on the basis of Islam and PML-Q on the basis of biradariism. Islam and biradariism - the only two vote winners in Pakistan. Someone like you should know that.

The Sharif family is history. Next in the firing line, the Bhuttos. This is a much tougher job. Unlike the Sharifs they really do have a constituency of their own.

Why do we blame others for what has happened! The fact is that by the quietly smuggling theocratic foundations in the constitution of Pakistan it became a piece of junk in the hands of Ulemas and all the powerful elites willing to consort with them!!

Read this-


The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya

On the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly

March 12, 1949


``Now as for the first paragraph:

``Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust``.

This part of the Resolution, I think, ought to be deleted. All powers, in my opinion, rest with the people and they exercise their power through the agency of the State. State is merely their spokesman. The Resolution makes the State the sole authority received from God Almighty through the instrumentality of people – Nemittamatrona, ``Merely instruments of the State``. People have no power or authority, they are merely post boxes according to this Resolution. The State will exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Him (God). What are those limits, who will interpret them? Dr. Qureshi or my respected Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani? In case of difference, who will interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis XIV may come and say ``I am the State, anointed by the Almighty`` thus paving the way for advent Divine Right of Kings of afresh. Instead of State being the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion. To me voice of people is the voice of God, ``Jatra jiba tatra shiva.`` The people are the manifestation of God.

In my conception of State where people of different religion live there is no place for religion in the State. Its position must be neutral: no bias for any religion. If necessary, it should help all the religions equally. No question of concession or tolerance to any religion. It smacks of inferiority complex. The State must respect all religions: no smiling face for one and askance look to the other. The state religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are sufficient to warn us not to repeat the blunder. We know people were burnt alive in the name of religion. Therefore, my conception is that the sovereignty must rest with the people and not with any body else.``

........................
``I have stated about this Resolution. Now what will be the result of this Resolution? I sadly remind myself of the great words of the Quaid-I-Azam that in state affairs the Hindus will cease to be a Hindu; the Muslim shall cease to be a Muslim. But alas, so soon after his demise what you do is that you virtually declare a State religion! You are determined to create a Herrenvolk. It was perhaps bound to be so, when unlike the Quaid-I-Azam – with whom I was privileged to be associated for a great many years in the Indian National Congress – you felt your incapacity to separate politics from religion, which the modern world so universally does. You could not get over the old world way of thinking. What I hear in this Resolution not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan – the Quaid-I-Azam (may his soul rest in peace), nor even that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Honourable Mr Liaquat Ali Khan but of the Ulemas of the land.``

I think recruits of Pakistan Army are not coming from heaven, they are the product of our society, which unfortunately has forgotton almost all values of being normal people. We should fist correct all our systems such as education system, social system etc........... Even, we should look into our common thoughts as we see each others, our friends, our neighbours, our relatives, our nationals..................

Lets correct ourselves as an individual..............Iqbal said.........``Har fard hai millat kay muqaddar ka sittarra....................``

Pakistan Army saved the country on political as well as on war fronts. The War of bangladesh was a political failure.........started before even 1947 (when Urdu & bangaly war started) and peaked when Mr. Bhutto was Prime Minister( ...........he was great leader one should not blame him for this..........he was unfortunate that all this escaleted in his times)...........

Tauqeer

``20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against. ``

Why are some people eager to enforce consensus amongst civilians as if it is a monolithic entity like military?? In India we only care about agreeing to work on issues on which ``some`` consensus can be obtained- there could be hundreds of issues on which there may be disagreements but there are always another thousand issues on which all agree- and that is how Indian coalitions have worked since last two decades!! All those issues where their cannot be any consensus amongst the political representatives is consigned to the back burners. And Pakistan should try to become a truly multi representative democracy by encouraging coalitions rathar than trying to put some as benevolent kings and enforcing consensus down the throats of the civilians!

I agree that Pakistan cannot function under an imported model of democracy. It has to create a new one ... which, although, should have been done in the time of 57 years which is ample enough. But, it is better late than never.

Well, the military intervention has not let other institutions grow; but ironic is the fact that only the military of Pakistan can be labeled as an organized institution in this country.

What would be interesting is a question that what do chowkies have in mind about ``the perfect model of democracy`` in Pakistan....I think the present one has loopholes but it is the only one which after resurrection can be deemed fit. Comments? ?

re: rahul_capri # 49

Just a point of clarification, Rahul. Punjab is the not the largest province in Pakistan. The largest province in Pakistan is Baluchistan. Punjab`s hegemony of Pakistan comes from its dominance of the economic resources of Pakistan and its overt influence in the military and the bureaucracy of Pakistan.

re: ikonoclast # 47

An excellent summary of the issues/questions facing Pakistan and I agree, with most of your observations. You are right; Pakistan has to fashion its own version of democracy and it should not rely on an ``imported model``.

Ciao

ikonoklast #47
Your last question - doable steps-this is the first step-to realize the value of democracy.I dont know very much about Pakistani politics but if the majority of people want democracy,and want it bad enough,How can Musharraf continue?
Sameer says that only 5% of people have Mush as the first ]second choice.But I sense a complacency regarding his rule,defeatist arguments like what would have become if he had not come to power etc. etc.
Now to your question whether democracy is desirable.Maybe NS and BB were thiefs robbers whatever,but could they not be removed by the democratic process? If not,then the struggle should still continue.That does not mean endorsement of the army stepping in.Democracy is all about raising voice against injustice and keep raising it.It is not a destination,it is a journey.
Let us assume that the politicians are thiefs.In most of the cases they are.When you and I dont care about the country,why should they? But when they realize that they cannot continue their positions of power and their robbery when the people see a better alternative,sooner or later they will behave.They will still rob,but not that much that people kick their asses in the next election.
Now to the question of different ethnicities.In this respect,Pakistan is not comparable to India at all,because as I have come to know,Punjab is larger than the rest of Pakistan put together.There has to be a long term solution to Punjabi hegemony. I dont know,you guys would know better.I can only give the example of the various splintered groups and coalition politics in India.Earlier,when the domination of Congress finished,and the BJP rose as a viable national alternative,the value of splintered groups became very important in the polity.Chandrasekhar became prime minister with the support of a handful of MPs.Governments rose and fell at the behest of regional party leaders like Mayawati,Mulayam,Jayalalita,Naidu etc etc. The parliament was never seen to be likely to complete a full term.But afterwards,coalition politics has matured under BJP and there is something like a two party system,though even the smallest regional group cannot be ignored.
India has problems like Far East,Kashmir etc. people mfrom where have been marginalized, but these problems are more likely to be solved under a democracy than a dictatorship.Because of the size of Punjab,it can probably dominate a democratic government,but is that enough to lose faith in democracy?

No major political party for right of center politicians ezisted during Zia rule. His opposition meant joinging hands with PPP and Benazir Bhutto, althought many smaller parties were included in ARD. All center right politicains, Islamists and newcomers joined Zia. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask for banning politicians who supported Zia. At least NS and PML (N) now do not enjoy military backing; they are on their own. In a fair election, the issue of them supporting military dictators should be raised and PPP candidates have been very vocal about pointing this out to constituents. It is upto people who they vote.

The fact is that in the absence of Musharraf and military interference, PML (N) and NS would either win or more likely come out as the main opposition party in cae PPP wins. The current QML would have to ally with none other than religious parties to some out at third place. MMA is an ally to the government. The alliance making, winning two provinces and large number of NA seats all owe it to Musharraf and military intelligence. They never had this good and they know it. They have supported Musharraf`s constitutional amendment. So it is not right to label MMA as now in opposition and once with Zia. Mullah, Islamists and MMA are with military because that is the only force which can give importance to MMA; in fair elections they would be the biggest disappointment as usual and they know it.

During Musharraf`s rule, the situation for center right politicians is not the same as it was in Zia era. Now they have major political party as PML (N). The point I am making is that NS was/ is able to stand without military with sizable popular support. The Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhrys and MMA are nothing without military and Musharraf.

On party basis, Pakistani vote bank is mostly owned by PPP, PML (N) , ANP, BNP, JUI, JI and MQM; QML does not have vote bank on party basis except for Musharraf supporters, perhaps 5 percent people, mostly Urdu speaking mohajirs, for whom Musharraf is either second (after MQM or JI) or first choice.

Various mails

We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.

Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.

By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.

We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?

So Long

Various mails

We need to see the solution to our political and other problems keeping in perspective our own peculiar and specific situation. I would like the enlightened members to ponder on the following points:
1. Does unbridled democracy suits us at this stage of our socio-political development ( or lack of it )?
2. Will a hybrid of democracy-authoritarianism more suitable, as we progress to complete democracy? ( It should nt give you an idea that am not a democrat ! )
3.we must also examine the factors which brought the military to the fore-front. A prominent factor will be the feudal-politicians; the same genre which was being patronized by the Brits before independence.
4.Military deliberated retarded the development of institutions. Period. But the politicians did the same when they got a chance; remember Bhutto? And NS and his sharia law?
5. Zia was the chief architect of accelerating what is wrong with us now. He gave undue weightage to mullahs, for his own political requirements. And Mush instututionalized the mullah`s role.
6.Also keep in mind that the mullahs/ politicians who supported Zia and his insidious military rule are opposing Mush. Why? A falling among theives?
7. Someone has rightly pointed out that the jihadis/ miltant fundos were created by the military, this construct has given us untold miseries. We are reaping the blowback of those disastrous and myopic acts.
8.No one made a serious attempt to extirpate feudalism from the country. A comparision with India and the erstwhile East Pakistan would be instructive.
9. The (so) called Federation is breaking under centrifugral forces. There is no sense of national cohesion.
10. Was Islam the binding force between East and West Pakistan? History does nt bear it out. What is going to bind the federating units of Pakistan, whose one unit Balochistan was made to integrate under duress.
12. Should the state/ politics and religion be segregated?
13. How do we mobilize the forces of liberalism?
14. How could we strengthen the civil society?
15. Overtly or covertly the military has tasted power for the last 5 decades plus, how do we get them to abdicate it?
16. All the present political and social ``institutions`` and infrastructures are contaminated, how to replace them?
17.Which ever government is there, the same political dynasties are supporting it and getting a share of spoils.
18. In the face of entrenched feudalism and chronic illiteracy how do u see the advent of democracy?
19. NS and Benazir are not democrats but kleptomaniacs; and more over NS was a nbon-entity, a creature of the army.
20. If we say for the sake of arguement thsat tomorrow the army rolls up its circus and goes back to the barracks, what chances are there of arriving a consensus among the ``civilians`` left to their own devises? The factor of Punjabi domination will still have to be fended against.

Actually all these factors/ points are concentated.

By the way whatever were Ayub`s faults, and there were many; we must remember that whatever industrial infrastructure or dams we have now were constructed under his helmsmanship. Compared to the morons who came after him, he still stands as more enlightened than all of the rest of the yahoos put togather. And please do not forget the Families Law given by him; compare them with the Hudood Laws, which are so dear to the mullahs and their cohorts.

We are doing a lots of discussion here, but ever thought about any practical steps to reverse the situation and change the status quo? Lets move this discussion to the next stage and discuss some viable and doable options. Any one?

So Long

I am not against what the writer thinks of the situation of Pakistan. We Pakistanis always had a problem of unstable minds. There are a handful of people who can think straight and appreciate all situations. There is a difference between positive critism and critisizing for the sake of ones petty gains. We may appreciate that, most of us critisize for our own gains. You need to know how a govt functions to be able to understand to write all that you have written. Dont you know that Jamali turned out to be a non deliverer. Dont you know it is better to have an intelligent enemy then to have a foolish friend and so on and so forth. I am sure if you try to see you will again find good indicators for all that you have discredited the govt for.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts