What's new

Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

First of all, I completely agree with Zob for highlighting the people in the media who are working against Pakistan's interests. As we are all aware, there is a certain class in Pakistan belonging to the elite that is trying to satisfy itself. They are those people who have nearly become Atheists and always believe in Secularism to promote a country's interests. They are the people who are ok with the mixing of cultures despite the religious boundaries. We need to understand that Quaid-e-Azam was no less of a classy aristocrat when he used to be amongst all the elites of the British. Yet, he was as pure as Pakistani as anyone would recall. However, when we try to find faults in the Army and try to turn things around to give up our nuclear assets. Then, we are indeed talking in the way our enemies want us to speak. Not everything in life is about wearing indian 'kurtis' ms. zaqra. I am sure you must be travelling to Delhi 3 times in a year to buy your jewellery. There is nothing wrong in that. But, please do not get influenced by the intellects of India. Take pride in your country as it is one of the greatest blessing today.

Time has come we need to sideline these people who believe that we did not succeed because of our Army. Our Army has not interfered in our daily lives. All top businessmen have no issues with the army. While many people and top businessmen are always fearing the political parties who take their ransom and fees for revenues.

Pakistan Zindabad!
 
zarqa javed is an elite who is speaking just like NAJAM SETHI....NAJAM sethi is the director of DAILYTIMES...im sure she is a spoilt girl from islamabad who meets and bumps into najam sethi the BIGGEST traitor of Pakistan in parties....him..this lady and AYESHA SIDDIQUI....are biggest traitors of pakistan always reporting against army and Pakistan....Najam had a bad time during Musharraf's era...and INDIA always supported his point of view...daily times is funded by outside people .. and imtiaz alam is also one of those f*cks funded by india .. he supports PPP and zardari and he is also a ghaddarr..so is this woman and so on....


a question i ask is if pakistan was not sees as a threat to the world then why so much attention given to it....and i can assure you the only reason india didn't attack in 2002 or in 2008 december is because of our ARMY & NUCLEAR detterant....so whoever tells me army and nuclear deterrant are not necessary....then he rather say it stright to my face that PAKISTAN is not necessary....

fine the elite of the army and political circles are corrupt...but the poor army soldier still keeps a watch on the COLD moutain of SIACHEN....so that you and i can sleep or have the luxury to sit here and debate such things....:tsk::tsk:

dude...why do we always end'p criticizing the writers?
surely you must have noticed the pseudo-autocratic nature of your armed forces...remember them dictators?
though the article might be a tad bit spiced up and sensationalized....we can discuss the ground realities...for it is a pakistani forum...and if criticizing pakistan would have been our sole aim...we Indians of this forum would have stuck to the indian forums rather...
 
dude...why do we always end'p criticizing the writers?
surely you must have noticed the pseudo-autocratic nature of your armed forces...remember them dictators?
though the article might be a tad bit spiced up and sensationalized....we can discuss the ground realities...for it is a pakistani forum...and if criticizing pakistan would have been our sole aim...we Indians of this forum would have stuck to the indian forums rather...

I completely disagree with your opinion. There is a reason why Pakistan Army always has to do what it has to do. I will give you a small example, and I hope you do not mind. The Pakistani Army works independently to maintain enough deterrence to defend itself against any aggression. They have their own mechanism in place at all times. Same way, we Pakistanis on this forum are also busy in working out our country issues. While, you are sitting in our forum trying to know what is going on Pakistan.

Now, you will not find a lot of Pakistanis sitting in the Indian forums. This just illustrates that Pakistan Army is doing its job really well. Pakistan Army Zindabad
 
actually the thing is that we cant risk to have a weak army. however it does take a significant portion of our budget. our total ravenue is around Rs 2(+)trillion per year out of which Rs300(+)bn goes to our defence. this makes it around 15% of our budget. y army ppl might be relatively better off, that is because of better management. however in civil institutions there are lots of leakages and obviously corruption. now if army is gud at managin her resources then its not their fault.
 
actually the thing is that we cant risk to have a weak army. however it does take a significant portion of our budget. our total ravenue is around Rs 2(+)trillion per year out of which Rs300(+)bn goes to our defence. this makes it around 15% of our budget. y army ppl might be relatively better off, that is because of better management. however in civil institutions there are lots of leakages and obviously corruption. now if army is gud at managin her resources then its not their fault.
and people somehow belive that perks and other things are only avaible to Army.Where as in reality 20/21 Grade Officers ( which is equal to General in Army) in Government institution get free car, free electricity and all sort of perks and the work is not very hard like Army work and it's much easier to become 20/21 Grade Officer then General in Army.
 
AoA
Army is a govt institution. So irrespective of it being better managed or not an armymen will make the same salary. The perks are there because of position and not because they are better managed. Also army is a reflection of the society we have in pakistan.There is corruption like any other institution.
 

Another massive effort at generalizing with the same old critique [mostly misplaced, arising out of this faulty belief that the Army is somehow the puppeteer and is behind all the machinations at the highest levels (political or financial)]. Quoting Ayesha Siddiqa's book is a fallacy in the argument itself. Everybody is touting her $10 billion of assets held by the PA as something factual even though in her book she states that almost 95% of these assets are owned by ex-servicemen's associations. Their business (milbus as she refers to it) has nothing to do with AHQ/GHQ or NHQ's budgets. The fact is that these associations do what others have failed to do in Pakistan, which is to watch over their own after they have served the nation. They are organized better and they provide more services to their employees (mostly ex-servicemen) and they tend to approach business like any other corporate entity would..expand where its feasible and profitable.

This article is another one of those in style in the west...since the PA and GoP are not beating the hell out of their own people, lets vilify the Army as inept since the charges of corruption really do not stick. :rolleyes:
 
AoA
Army is a govt institution. So irrespective of it being better managed or not an armymen will make the same salary. The perks are there because of position and not because they are better managed.

And how is that any different in any other entity, corporate or else?
 
Well ! A lot has been said, I wonder if someone can think on the lines of the judicial and social injustices that are prevailant in Pakisrtan. I dare correct the perception that it is not the cost of tanks that have produced jhuggis, rather the ones being guarded by the tanks have really done the job well, by perpetuating social injustice, intolerance topped with a legal system which failed to protect the best of us. For once just think what the people of SWAT are asking for....... is it money or jobs or electricity or gas.......... Lets be honest are'nt they are asking for a just judicial system?
People of Pakistan are sick of the PARCHI culture, they want their rights protected and they want their government to look after them.Parents love their children , feed them , protect them, remain just with all, provide education & health and the children in return love their parents. This is the basic win win formula for a family and it remains the same at the national level. The unfortunate part is that the government of Pakistan expects the Pakistanies to love it without fulfilling any of its obligations. ZARA NAM HO TO YEH MATI BARI ZARKHAIZ HAI SAQI. Case in point is the reaction of the nation to the disaster caused by the earthquake.
What the tanks did was that they held at bay an enemy 10 times more powerful for now 64 years. I really wonder had we made our choises in a reverse order ie development of JHUGGIES into multi story buildings insted of developmet of sinues of war to defend our motherland from external threats, then would even the JHUGGIES be existing today?
Pakistan Army too made a humble begining in 47, the case of the division of assects with India is too well known to be retold, but it did the hard work to transform into a vibrant and dynamic institution, which other departments of the civil government failed to do. Some cases in point Pakistan Railways, Pakistan Postal svc etc.
With this back drop now the choises are open for all government departments to follow the example of the development of the army into an institution or keep bickring. WHM
 
I thought this piece had some interesting views:


What Obama will not hear from Zardari

By Moazzam Husain
Monday, 04 May, 2009 | 01:36 AM PST
font-size small font-size largefont-sizeprintemail share
NOW that the tide of Pakistani public opinion appears to be turning against the Taliban and as the military scores a series of successes, Pakistan needs to be given an enabling environment to follow this process through to its logical conclusion.

The Obama administration and congressional policymakers may not hear this from President Zardari and the Pakistani delegation when they arrive in Washington this week. But policymakers in Washington would do well to approach policy formulation from the perspective of Pakistan’s overall military doctrine as it has evolved after 1971.

The defeat and dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 had left deep scars on both the military and society. The “1000-year war” with India that then President Z.A. Bhutto spoke of was a populist response as much as an early conception of a defensive people’s guerilla war against future Indian interventionism.

While on a visit to China, Bhutto had shared his dilemma with then Chinese premier Zhou En-lai: how does one reconcile a poor country and a strong army? The wise and soft-spoken Zhou answered with a one-liner: “Build a people’s army, like we did in China.” A subsequent communiqué to Tikka Khan, his commander-in-chief, perhaps best summarised Bhutto’s thinking in which he wrote: “There will no longer be an absence of clear thinking from our side. In the remotest of our villages, the humblest of our people possess self-confidence, a ready willingness to march forward into India — a spirit, the equivalent of which cannot be found on the other side.”

Even though at the time the army laughed off the proposition, the bug made its way into its doctrinal thinking — even as Pakistani officers at the Staff College in Quetta were being taught that only states with a strong ideological orientation and tight social solidarity like China and North Vietnam can have an effective people’s army. In the background, this strain was beginning to fuse with the tradition of American training of Pakistani Special Forces.

The synthesis when combined with the 1000-year tradition of tribal guerilla warfare that exists in the NWFP and Balochistan resulted in a new variant of the people’s war doctrine that said: “train and arm friendly populations in the territory of your enemy, tying him down in a hundred places”.

This doctrine was tested successfully against the Soviets in the 1980s and in Kashmir in the 1990s until problems arose due to two factors: its unacceptability post 9/11 and the induction of nuclear-capable, short-range tactical surface-to-surface missiles into the arsenals of India and Pakistan.

It is inevitable that the Pakistan Army, if not already, will soon begin to rethink and reformulate this doctrine. Changes to the military’s C3I (command, control, communications and intelligence) structure will not be far behind. In its logical extension it will also include large-scale screening of all officers and ranks for ideological orientation as well as military counter intelligence to watch for any sympathisers of Islamist rebels — as these elements can have a devastating effect on motivation, morale and discipline within the ranks.

In doing so, a relaxation in three binding constraints would significantly enlarge Pakistan’s menu of strategic choices. The constraints referred to are the question of the Durand Line, the alleged interference in Balochistan, and, most importantly, the question of the disputed territory of Kashmir.

The US with unifying support from the international community needs to help Pakistan and its neighbours resolve these, thereby giving Pakistan a large canvas on which to draw its new military doctrine. Without creating that room, no matter how many times you simulate this in game theory — a state with a weak economy, with unresolved boundaries and disputed territories — each time the Pakistani hawks will prevail. This will be by proving themselves right with cost-effective doctrines like “our people’s ready willingness to march into India” or the more successful “train and arm friendly populations in the territory of your enemy, tying him down in a hundred places”.

In a country where the military doctrine is central, Gen Petraeus for instance, would do well to spend a day with Pakistani generals and assess the following scenario: an Afghan National Army has been raised. Nato has pulled out except for a nominal presence in Kabul where an Afghan government hostile to Pakistan has come to power. With Gen Petraeus in the shoes of a Pakistani general, how does the situation look? Where are the separatist Baloch likely to be located? And which side of the line are the opponents to the new Afghan government to be found? As a commander, what are the military options? How does the scenario pan out from here?

Armed with such insights, Gen Petraeus would find himself better equipped to explain the realities to the Senate’s armed services committee. The reality of life in a rough, lawless neighbourhood. The reality of one neighbour laying claim to half your property and refusing to put a fence in between, another neighbour occupying what you think is half of your vegetable garden and then stealing water from your hosepipe by cutting a leak in it even while you’re looking. The reality of a long list of grievances of having been, at different times, wronged, robbed, roughed up, broken up and, as Hillary Clinton recently admitted, abandoned.

The key to peace in this region may lie with the Obama administration facilitating a negotiated settlement of the Durand Line as the final border between the two countries, by perhaps re-tasking Richard Boucher to put Kashmir high up on the international agenda of unresolved international disputes awaiting final settlement and by assisting in bringing the insurgency in Balochistan to an end.

Billions of dollars of aid money given to Egypt, to Pakistan, to Jordan, even to Palestine may have brought about temporary behavioural compliance. But the greenbacks alone did not change the way in which the public perceives the US in these countries. So in terms an additional payoff, a US that is seen to be helping end territorial disputes, settling borders and extinguishing fires will cast itself in a different light.

The halo will be seen from far and the ripples felt on the streets and ghettos of major cities in the Islamic world and across the Muslim diasporas beyond. This is a blank cheque the US will in effect be writing to itself.

moazzamhusain@yahoo.com.au
 
wtf - that is a hypothetical example that assumes the political parties did not offer development, and got votes based on 'we will get Kashmir' rhetoric.

This is in fact a common misconception promoted by Indians. While Kashmir remains an issue that no political party can offer unilateral concessions on (as it is in India), the political parties spend the majority of their time promising development, jobs, school progress.

OK I give up. I pointed to two studies, made a graph pointed to examples etc. to illustrate my case. In return you discount my opinion because it is "promoted by Indians".

India has similar situation with BJP being pro-security, Mayawati/Arjun Singh for pro-social-equality and Congress for economic development. Each of them will do a good job in other sectors too, but it will focus on one of them.We at least understand this.

Pakistan spends 15% of budget on defense and is borrowing money from IMF at the same time. Based on bond default rates (before IMF help) people were assuming 40% odds of Pakistan going bankrupt in a year. If none of this would convince you that a government cannot focus on economic development and military, I'll give up.
 
And how is that any different in any other entity, corporate or else?

No different. I was responding to ajpirzada point of armymen being better off because they are better managed which is not true.
 
OK I give up. I pointed to two studies, made a graph pointed to examples etc. to illustrate my case. In return you discount my opinion because it is "promoted by Indians".

India has similar situation with BJP being pro-security, Mayawati/Arjun Singh for pro-social-equality and Congress for economic development. Each of them will do a good job in other sectors too, but it will focus on one of them.We at least understand this.

Pakistan spends 15% of budget on defense and is borrowing money from IMF at the same time. Based on bond default rates (before IMF help) people were assuming 40% odds of Pakistan going bankrupt in a year. If none of this would convince you that a government cannot focus on economic development and military, I'll give up.

WTF - you have pointed out that development and prosperity in Pakistan is uneven, that Pakistan spends an equivalent amount of resources on defence as does India, that the polity has not engaged in development as it should due to vested interests.

However, you have not made the case that military expenses have been responsible for the lack of development. I will maintain that the resources Pakistan spends on the military are not significant enough to prevent the GoP from investing in the necessary socio-economic sectors and introduce reforms.

The major cause behind lack of development remains the ineptitude or unwillingness, or both, to implement the right policies and back them with the proper resources, which are available even after defence spending at current levels.
 
WTF - you have pointed out that development and prosperity in Pakistan is uneven, that Pakistan spends an equivalent amount of resources on defence as does India, that the polity has not engaged in development as it should due to vested interests.

However, you have not made the case that military expenses have been responsible for the lack of development. I will maintain that the resources Pakistan spends on the military are not significant enough to prevent the GoP from investing in the necessary socio-economic sectors and introduce reforms.

The major cause behind lack of development remains the ineptitude or unwillingness, or both, to implement the right policies and back them with the proper resources, which are available even after defence spending at current levels.

Sorry for bumping into a very interesting argument.

I agree that allocation for PA and IA is equivalent in percentage of GDP / Budget, but the difference lies in the size of the pie as well.

Another aspect which skews the equation is Army being in power for almost 55% of time since Independence. Under army rule defence has always been the primal focus for development and growth. Also since Army was calling all the shots, it will need to be answerable for development as well.

Also ignored so far has been the number of public and private sector corporations which are directly and indirectly under army control. Which are generally above auditing and are awarded contracts with no questions asked. This is a major deterrent in growth of nation if certain party (Army in this case) has unaccounted power and authority. PA has control of sevseral cement, construction and manufacturing industries. Even in Banking most of the senior positions are occupied by former army candidates.

the factors of " ineptitude or unwillingness, or both" will be more applicable on PA than civil leadership as they have been in a position of power for longer and have had more powers than any political leadership can ever imagine.
 
Sorry for bumping into a very interesting argument.

I agree that allocation for PA and IA is equivalent in percentage of GDP / Budget, but the difference lies in the size of the pie as well.
Yes, but the population of India, and therefore the needs, are also similarly greater.
Another aspect which skews the equation is Army being in power for almost 55% of time since Independence. Under army rule defence has always been the primal focus for development and growth. Also since Army was calling all the shots, it will need to be answerable for development as well.
No doubt Military rule has retarded the growth of institutions, which has had a negative impact in the long run, and the shortcomings have come to a head in the current civilian government, faced with multiple crises.

However, it is also true that there has been a tremendous amount of development and progress in Pakistan under military rule. You see this under Ayub Khan and recently under Musharraf. So while military rule has played a negative role, it has not necessarily retarded development directly, and there is an even weaker argument indicating a correlation between Military expenses and lack of development.
Also ignored so far has been the number of public and private sector corporations which are directly and indirectly under army control. Which are generally above auditing and are awarded contracts with no questions asked. This is a major deterrent in growth of nation if certain party (Army in this case) has unaccounted power and authority. PA has control of sevseral cement, construction and manufacturing industries. Even in Banking most of the senior positions are occupied by former army candidates.
I believe this has already been addressed, here an on other threads. Please follow Enigma's posts on this issue.

The commercial entities under the PA are audited, held accountable, and contribute a significant amount of taxes to the government.

I am unaware of any widespread or systematic issues with unfairly awarding contracts to these entities.
the factors of " ineptitude or unwillingness, or both" will be more applicable on PA than civil leadership as they have been in a position of power for longer and have had more powers than any political leadership can ever imagine.
Which is why I referred to the GoP and 'leadership' (which is meant to include both Civilian and military). Military rule has often relied on support from pliable political leadership, and in return the political leaders have extracted concessions.

But regardless of who controlled the country, my point was that I do not see defence expenditure as a significant retardant for development - poor policies and implementation of policies is primarily responsible.
 
Back
Top Bottom