Agnostic:
And that's not the response to my questions. I care less how officers save and buy plots. That's their personal matter. If they can do that, that's great.
I am only concerned alloting them up to 4 plots as stated in the parliament. Did you care to read that in my post? I would suggest that you go back and reat it again. Let's not beat about the bushes. You or any one can answer the following simple questions that I had asked in my earlier post and I will rest my case.
Whats wrong with four plots, depending upon how long ones career in the Army is and the rank one achieves? On its own it is not enough to merit criticism IMO, since it is part of the compensation package the Army has for its officers.
If parliament thinks the compensation is too much, it should try and adjust the rules accordingly.
1. Why an army officer has the need to be allotted up to 4 plots in housing societies and city centers? Is one plot not enough to quench his housing thirst?
I have asked you to be civil, and you insist on using inflammatory language. This WILL be your last warning. Don't make derogatory generalizations such as 'housing thirst, thirst for plots etc.' The rest of us are carrying on this discussion with civility, the least you can do is reciprocate.
The response to the question itself is the same as my first paragraph in this post.
2. If the plots were allotted to them for thier hosuing needs, then why did they sell them for millions of rupees to civilians?
They are at the end of the day 'compensation', whether used for their own housing or put up for sale. It is the prerogative of the recipients to do as they wish with their property.
3. Why the serving corps commanders are needed to execute the executive functionaries of the defense housing societies while drawing salaries from the public exchequer? Is that what they expect to do in case of war?
Can't comment on this since I do not know what tangible services the Corp's commanders render as 'executive functionaries of the defense housing societies'. You would have to provide some more information in terms of whether their position is largely ceremonial in this respect, or whether it poses a significant distraction from their military duties and responsibilities as Corp Commanders.
That's not the issue here and I had explained my position very clearly in my earlier post. If you really want to talk about on institutional level then following are the points for you to ponder from Nighat Yasmeen's post.
(i) How do you explain that a professor holding a Doctorate -- who started teaching at a public university 35 years back, before you joined the army -- is not entitled to a single residential plot whereas the property you have amassed-- squarely due to your military service -- is worth hundreds of millions rupees?
(ii) How come a brigadier in the army has more perks and privileges than the Chief Justice of Pakistan (his tamely churning out of order-made indemnifying verdicts notwithstanding).
(iii) Why a senior surgeon serving in a government hospital doesnt get a fraction of monetary rewards as compared to what a GOC grabs without doing anything productive at all?
(iv) What does a police officer get from the state, despite risking his life, putting up with abuses and curses of the public on daily basis (and quite often flouting the law at the behest of the junta), in relation to good-for-nothing military officers?
(v) Where in the world, a FA or at the most BA passed supervisor/foreman in a security firm is multi-millionaire, by default, on his retirement, entirely because of his job?
(vi) Which government service, irrespective of tenure, academic qualifications and/or assignments, in the entire region of South Asia, results in comparable amount of financial gains than that of military career in Pakistan? What extraordinary, the military of Pakistan accomplishes to deserve the amazing remunerations?
That is an issue that has also been explored - as I said before, a PhD in engineering will likely not earn anywhere close to what a Physician does.
Different fields, different organizations and different levels of remuneration. Perhaps one should ask the remaining institutions why they are not able to utilize their resources more effectively to offer better compensation to their top talent.
In addition, I do not agree that all of those who do make it to the highest level are equivalent to FA/BA pass, since military officers continue studies and take course both at home and abroad at defence colleges and institutions, along with continued education in the form of training with other forces and in other institutions.
More points to ponder from Irfan Hussein:
1. It can be argued that those serving in the armed forces should receive greater rewards since they risk their lives in defending the country. Perhaps one should just look at the facts: we have not fought a formal war for 33 years and yet we continue to support five soldiers versus only two policemen per 1,000 citizens.
The fact that we have not fought a formal war IMO is also due to the fact that we have a strong conventional and unconventional deterrent, and not because there is a lack of a threat. And even that conventional deterrent is accomplished at a fraction of the cost the opposing side expends. IH's logic here is confounding.
That said, while the external threat justifies the military, there is no question that there needs to be more investment in law enforcement along with reforms and accountability to make it more efficient. But that too is an issue that our civilian government has to take up, and at the moment is at least making the right noises about.
2. As far as laying down one`s life is concerned, the total number of men and officers killed in all three previous wars put together is less than the number of policemen killed in Karachi alone over the last 10 years.
A tragedy, but again, this is not a zero sum game and cannot be a zero sum game - the external threat (and now the internal one as well) is real, as is the need for more investment in local law enforcement.
3. The problem is also not merely of officers grabbing plots of land; the official system of salaries and rewards is intrinsically corrupt. The inspector-general of the Punjab police commanding more men than three corps put together gets a monthly uniform allowance of Rs250, whilst an army second lieutenant is paid Rs1,250 per month as kit allowance (in addition to ``disturbance pay`` for being married, a batman allowance, etc.)
Again, please keep in mind my warning about remaining civil in this discussion and refraining from inflammatory language about 'officers grabbing plots' and whatnot.
I do see the higher 'kit allowance' of a soldier as being reasonable, given that military 'kit' is somewhat more expansive than that of a police officer. Overall I think both are somewhat low, and should be increased. Again, the failure of the government to reform the police and provide the proper funding for it is not the fault of the Army. The current civilian government says that it understands the need to build up local law enforcement, and hopefully it shall do what it says and bring the quality of LEA up to that of the Military.
4. To give plots to military officers for building their own houses is a genuine welfare activity and no one would grudge it. But is the building of multi-billion integrated luxury homes with golf course townships in a posh locality in Lahore or the multi-billion dollar development of Karachi beach in association with foreign partnership also a legitimate welfare activity that should be undertaken by the military?
As long as it is legal, why not?
And lastly, it's not just me, article after article has been written on this issue in print media by both civilians and retired army officers.
yes, but they mostly seem rants, such as IH's first article you quoted, with some making sound arguments.
Note: No need to get itchy, this is my last post on this particular issue so feel relax.
Regards
So long as you heed the warnings about remaining civil and not flaming, I have no issues. There are certain lines of argument that have been shown to be a non-issue, so those should be dropped.