What you fail to realize is that the institution you are propagating against is not an institution at all. It is the will and the pride of the people. I can understand that India is large country. I can understand that the majority have no affiliation with those that are serving. I can understand that your government sidelines your institutions, but in Pakistan this is not the case.
80% of our citizens are either army personnel or are affiliated to them. These people are not a separate entity, but a reflection of our nation. We think for ourselves as a unit, instead of whistling to your hegemonic tune.
Some generals may have implemented failed strategies, but their noble intentions were observed nonetheless.
With risk comes victory.
We are not deterred by the failure of our military, but are emboldened and inspired.
This is something that your old age and Victorian styled English will never grasp.
Heh. I wish a tenth of this enthusiasm and zeal were to go into thinking through positions taken, rather than into upholding hollow shams.
It is all very well for an institution to represent the will and pride of the people. That does not allow the people to abdicate responsibility. Whether it is a pet or a child or an institution, accountability does matter, and seeking accountability is not in any way a dilution of the will and pride that back those, pet, child or institution. Seeking accountability is in no way, for instance, an absence of affiliation, and asking for accountability does not amount to sidelining, whether we are speaking of an institution, or refusing to give in to our child's tantrums, or providing and encouraging the use of kitty litter.
Our government, unlike those of some other nations, are accountable, and therefore hold every institution accountable. It would not do to go to the country and state that we have no clue, as a government, of what our pride and joy has been doing, and that we will continue to have no clue as we do not wish to bruise their tender susceptibilities by asking them what they have been up to.
Some of your remarks make for very entertaining reading. for instance,
80% of our citizens are either army personnel or are affiliated to them. These people are not a separate entity, but a reflection of our nation. We think for ourselves as a unit, instead of whistling to your hegemonic
Every institution is a reflection of the nation - every one. You obviously think of the Supreme Court, for instance, as having dropped down from Mars; or the national government as being an import from Whitehall. They are not. They are obviously part and parcel of the nation of Pakistan. So saying that the armed forces are not a separate entity is plainly meaningless; the traffic constable may be one of the 80% of the population affiliated to the armed forces, but he still belongs to the police force, an entity by itself, and the armed forces are the armed forces, three entities by themselves. He does not rush off to the border in times of trouble - the border nowadays seemingly one that runs through your country - but does his job. He is of the people, too, but he is not the people; neither are the military the people, they are simply of the people.
It is these failures to separate your military from your national identity that have led to half your entire existence being under military dictatorship, a series of dictatorships which cost you heavily. Each of which was ultimately, behind all the protestations of national purpose, merely an exercise in self-indulgence by a series of self-indulgent men.
It is best that you stop thinking of yourself as a unit, as that thinking is merely hypocrisy. If you had truly thought of yourself as a unit, there would be no sectarian violence in your country, no ethnic violence in Karachi, no shootings of people dragged off a bus in Swat, as the question of one section of a unit battling another would not have arisen. Nor would you have had a succession of terrorist organizations victimizing citizens of the country, in flat defiance of whatever the military would like to see.
You spoke of generals who implemented failed strategies, and said that these were some generals. If you inspect the record with even cursory attention, you will find that Edwardian English would have served you better than your own version, and in fact, EVERY general has had strategies that failed, that there has not been even a single strategic victory won by any general.
Sadly, the generals took risks, sometimes foolhardy risks. Even more sadly for a nation that identifies itself so wholly with its military, and its military leaders, including the generals, none of these risks have led to victory; instead, they have led to defeat. Ultimately all that your last post amounts to can be summed up by a word used in Edwardian English, a rhodomontade. If failures do not deter you but embolden and inspire you, it is clear that you have discovered the secret of perpetual motion.
