Sir nice aeguments however i think i was unable to clarify my arguments in detail .. First of all the core issue is we are looking at things on it surface and not studying the poltics and the thought process at the depth of ocean ... Specially the case with indian members as they are influenced by indian media who is presenting pakistani army take over as the core of all issues ...
@The Accountant First of all, that bold highlighted part, I reciprocate it, indeed, it is freshening to find such an exhaustive and well laid out post as yours. Yes, that was my feeling too, that you were not able to clarify your point of view earlier. Hence, my post, was formulated as more of a questionnaire rather than any own perspective being put out. Thanks for taking the time to write an exhaustive reply to my post.
Au contraire you can discount the possibility of my view being from the Indian media, majority of who are dimwits by far and an excuse for journalists. Sadly, this is true for either side of the border. So, I assure you, my views are not reflective of Indian media briefs. Just an own understanding of things and learning from good members as yourself.
My one question to you ... What difference do you find on broader policy level between Musharaf erra and subsequent civilian gov ? There are some surface level differences but deep inside they are same ... Both wanted to use all the government machinery to achieve personal goals ...
My answer in this case is to refer you back to my earlier post. The need to have concretised
National Objectives. You have raised a valid question, albeit rhetorically, and answered it yourself. Your statement here, is self explanatory and could not be better answered by me.
Mushraf imposed emergency and remove judiciary ...
May I present this instance of yours as an instance of loyalty to Pakistan Army as an organisation and as it's leader (aligning own interest to organisation interest), and
not be read as a singular act of self interest alone?
Would you not consider the fact that Pakistan Army is a highly professional organisation and has an excellent Officer Cadre that owes loyalties to it's organisation primarily (and exclusively I may wager), and this act of Musharraf, who was the Chief of the organisation, was to mitigate the potential effect of blaming the Pakistan Army as a whole for the
Kargil Debacle by a
civil government led by Nawaz Sharif, which would have weakened the position and image of the Pakistan Army in the public domain?
I would rather take this as an instance wherein Nawaz Sharif was deftly removed and left being blamed for Pakistan's "debacle" thereby allowing Army to insulate itself from any public criticism. What followed, is exactly what I am alluding to. Indeed, over this very forum you will find many a members blaming him for rushing to US for de-escalation. Would it have been possible without the Chief's concurrence? What do you think?
This instance has exactly served to highlight what I have said earlier. A systematised approach to weaken the democratic and civil structure necessary for democracy and civil rule, instead of a military dictatorship. You have inadvertently (?) highlighted the very same aspect.
Back in 90s nawaz sharifs ghundas attacked judiciary ... Whereas zardari was not willing to restore judiciary ... In destroying pakistan military and politicians are two faces of same coin ... However earlier track record is good in reference to general public as middle and lower middle class grows at faster pace in military era ...
This, am unclear as to what you intend to portray/express. Sorry.
Lets go back to history ... Back in 60s Pakisan was progressing leaps and bounds ... What we achieved in first 2 decades is not even close to we done in later 45 years ... Some of the remarkable achievements of that time are ..
1) setting up industrial base . areas allocated to Pakistan were mainly of agriculture base and there were no industrial base at all . in first two decades we setup a base for industrial growth which includes banking industry textile industry fmcg products small scale industry and many more.
2 we setup one of the largest dams of Pakistan hence we secured energy and water.
3 we strengthen our railway network specially in southern west Pakistan as Karachi was the major trade hub.
4 we were diplomatically far ahead of india ...
Exactly. You were doing better, for the reason you had the support of the West. You got away in relative terms by portraying yourself as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in this part of the world, and especially were ably assisted by India's non-aligned stance. It was a sound
diplomatic posture. But, it also was an era wherein you had dictators, who personally consolidated their own hold over power and undercut the civil governance model to ensure a consolidated power base. You have ignored this aspect here.
Pakistan was known to be asian tiger . that was great achievement for a nation which had no administrative infrastructure and who lost her leadership at the very begining ...
Antithetical here. And Asian Tiger? That was first time used for tiger economies of SE Asia. So when was it an "Asian Tiger"? Not aware and very unsure about the veracity of this claim of yours.
You mentioned in your post that consistency of broader policies are necessary for progress of countries ... So thats where we made disaster ...
Glad we agree on this a bit.
With Bhutto taking over in70s took following actions
1: change in economic model from market economy to controlled economy ...
2: nationalization of all major industries.
3: moving more than 350 senior technical beaurecrates which were running the show to foreign diplomat roles and appointing new persons of his own choice in every dept to maintain his control
4 changes in rule of business. Before bhutto erra govt. Institutions were independent upto certain extent and minister did not had executive powers but they had policy making powers ... Bhutto took all executive powers from beaurcrates and gave the ultimate authorities to ministers ...
There are many more blunders ... But can you explain which country in the world do this within a span of a year .. Bhutto although civilian but was bigger dictator then generals ...
Can you elucidate on the circumstances and the time frame when these steps were undertaken?
Most interesting part is Pakistan did not keep on moving at controlled economy and subsequently shifts back to free economy slowly and gradually again mainly during civilian rule of Nawaz Sharif as his favourite mantra is privatisation ...
Am sure, you can collate that with the Soviet, Chinese and Capitalistic model.
Just let me give u my example ... I am member of one of the most reputed non.gov professional organization of Pakistan (not a trade association) ... We are considered as elite business intellectuals ... Before every budget we collect budget recommendations from all our members (most of our members are show runners in Pakistan's businesses and truly professionals) we submit those to government without any response from them ...
Who is at fault here? You are indeed exactly elaborating on points which I covered broadly ... the core
National Objectives and Aims. Thanks
In any sane country gov would have gone to such think tanks and should have request them to recommend a member to be part of budget committee ... But unfortunately they dont bother to even consider our recomendation untill and unless its political ...
That, is a problem in India too. What is the solution? It lies in becoming a part of the system, nay, joining it, to change it. Who will do that? I am sure, you shall agree, it is people like you, and many others on this very forum, who have to work to change what is not right. That is what I have said earlier too. The people have to work to make the country. It can only come about with people being determinant of their own futures.
1: there has to be a dedicated team of intellectuals who set thier life on the path of making things right...
That, is where the political leadership has to work. That is what Modi has done in PMO. He has chosen people of various political affiliations as a core team not necessarily the same member for the different teams that are needed in advisory capacity. The team members have been chosen on factors of performance and consistency in working for national aim, irrespective of own political beliefs. That is why you see a consistency in Indian policy irrespective of the charade there may be. Including with respect to Pakistan. Political posturing notwithstanding, the core policy is maintained. Am sure, if you analyse this part of Indian policy aspects, you will agree.
2 Pakistan is an ideoligical nation .. We came into being in the name of religion Islam ...
Will not agree with you here at all. Has been covered earlier too on this very forum, Pakistan was a secular nation as per
Quaid-i-Azam's wishes, it was your decision on basis of a few individuals to project yourself as an Islamic Nation. You are off here. Islamisation of your education institutions and introduction of mandatory Islamic studies as Education Policy was done under Gen Zia, another military dictator.
There is no common factor between all ethinicies of Pakistan ...
Really? I hope you understand that you have just raised the question over Pakistan as a nation. Is that your intent?
So we should infer all our laws and regultions as per Islam as to make a nation out of us ... And please indulge into shia sunni debate as its iran and saudi version of islam ... In real islam quran is the divine law and if intent is there all factions can be incorporated and live life as per islamic law ..
Is this sarcastically posted? Why have regulations as per Islam only? Do you not have non-Islamic Pakistanis too? Or are they not Pakistanis? And if you indeed have them, can't you have laws flexible enough to cater to all?
Our institutes are rotten from inside ... Just because of the mistake of bhutto all executive power are in the hand of minister which has no knowledge of business and who are there for max period of 5 years ...
Only Bhutto? Or of the whole nation? Why this propensity to blame only one individual and not the whole country and it's citizens for the rot that is the government as per you? I hope you realise that what exists in society is generally reflected in the institutions. Sadly, it is so in India, and I doubt Pakistan is any different, nay, am very sure.
Yes I do fall for poisoned pawns from time to time hehe.
