What's new

Towards a new & Improved Fauj

Let us focus on the present and future - the military has been condemned enough for its past forays into ruling the country.

Currently there is no military rule and we have an elected civilian government in charge - therefore, the onus is on these elected representatives to deliver on governance and reforms.

Again, in the present, how is the military, even if it is 'keeping the threat dangling like a Democles' Sword' preventing the elected representatives from governing properly and enacting reforms?

As I pointed out to Muse, since the military is not running the government currently, the blame and criticizm for failing to deliver on governance and socio-economic development lies on the elected civilian government, not the military. Criticizm of the military should remain (so long as the military does not impose military rule) in the domain the military is responsible for - the COIN campaign in FATA and Swat, training, acquisitions etc.

As long as you agree that the past conduct is indeed condemnable, then I am fine with moving on. However, this past conduct of the military is also responsible, in part, for the present weakness of the political process. So the burden cannot be totally on the polticians in the present. The military owes its active support to try to correct for its past wrongs.

To be positive, it can help by not accepting any extensions for its leadership, and gradually opening up its budgetary books to audit scrutiny. This will help create the impression that nobody is above the law. A policy to disengage the military from its lucrative monopolistic businesses in competition with private enterprise should be a longer term goal.


When the Taliban are blowing up schools, hospitals, bridges and roads, it is akin to putting the 'cart before the horse' by arguing that the State should not focus on building the capacity of the institutions responsible for eliminating these groups destroying the very infrastructure you wish the State to focus on.

The schools blown up by the Taliban are a TINY fraction of the overall number of schools countrywide crying out for teachers and basic amenities. The same goes for other infrastructure. I can turn your argument around as follows: Concentrating on education, judiciary, health and infrastructure is an important step in denying the Taliban the fertile ground of desperate disenfrachised citizenry upon which they are feeding presently, rather than trying to clean up the mess afterwards.


And as I pointed out, the State can fund both the COIN/Conventional preparedness of the Military, as well as significantly enhance development funding, by enacting the tax and other institutional reforms mentioned.

I agree with this point absolutely. However, the economy that is a requisite for this approach will take years to recover.


I fail to understand why so many of you are so loath to see the tax base in Pakistan expanded and the loss making PSE's costing us billions of dollars a year privatized/restructured, and instead continue to carp about 'small change' (comparatively speaking) available from cutting the defence budget, which would also end up making us weaker to both internal and external threats.

I have spoken openly about the need for taxing ALL income, including agricultural income, as well as being in agreement with the other steps that you mention. The overall situation is very complex indeed and it will take sustained efforts on many fronts to bring about the change that is already well past due.
 
..... However, this past conduct of the military is also responsible, in part, for the present weakness of the political process. So the burden cannot be totally on the polticians in the present. ......

Sir,

You are starting a chicken-n-Egg story here. Miltary took over because political system was weak, and politicians became weaker because military took over.

This is never ending discussion and you won't be able to resolve this. Logical deadlock. Dare I say.

peace.
 
Sir,

You are starting a chicken-n-Egg story here. Miltary took over because political system was weak, and politicians became weaker because military took over.

This is never ending discussion and you won't be able to resolve this. Logical deadlock. Dare I say.

peace.

Please pay attention to the entire comment and not just cherry picked phrases out of context:

As long as you agree that the past conduct is indeed condemnable, then I am fine with moving on. However, this past conduct of the military is also responsible, in part, for the present weakness of the political process. So the burden cannot be totally on the polticians in the present. The military owes its active support to try to correct for its past wrongs.
 
Please pay attention to the entire comment and not just cherry picked phrases out of context:

Military cannot help if politicians cannot support themselves by making the political system stronger.

Political parties are jagirs and fiefdoms. No new blood, no new leadership. Doesn't matter if a party represents educated ones from cities or illiterates from villages.

Altaf - party chair for life. His hold is so strong that he can get people killed with a bat of his eyelashes.

Imran - the Khalifa hayat wa khalifa marg of TI.

NS - CEO for life of the ML-Noon

PPP - Sindhi Jagir bhutto jagir

Chaudhry bros - Panjabi Jagir daars of ML- kaaf ghaaf wa hay

AnP #### -Wali khan -- political agent for life

Balochistan - same $hite.

and the list goes on.

There is no way out. One goes and his sperms replace him. no new ideas means death of the institution.

Hope you understand this.

Our political system is a dead horse. You can beat it for 100 years and it will not improve.

Were the US parties running the same way, their dhoom-cracy would have died back in 1887. And GW would have been the General-President.
 
Dear Sir Santro!

This comment of yours shows utter lack of historical knowledge. There are many many examples once you free yourself from germs and viruses that infected you with "anti-Pakistan army" disease.

1. BDesh - A country that was considered 1000 times more dhoom-cratic than the lowly West Pakistanis. Soon after "liberation" they turned into a pile of minced meat their Banga Buddhoo + every child + granpa + granny + uncles + Aunts, men women. Only one daughter survived because she was out of the f ing country. Sh. Mujeeb was a national leader in West Pakistan. Sometimes incarcerated but still a LEADER. In dhoom-cratic Sonar Bangla, he was quickly put into a meat grinder. And you still want to spread the stink of constipated conspiracy theories. Shameful. utterly shameful.

2. Indonesia. Significant number of years under military rule

3. Turkey. Multiple periods of army control.

and the list goes on and on.


Dear Sir, As I suggested in the first post on this vein, that you should be willing to get out of anti-Pak $hitehole, and smell the fresh air to do the fair and balanced analysis.

peace.

I agree sir.. I have never really paid attention to distorted and jingoistic history.
 
Xeric


There is no "demand" list because that's not what this is about - this thread is about exploring the need, if any, of the Pakistan army transitioning towards a new and improved Fauj - And so the transition is about making the fauj and leaner, meaner fighting machine, designed to hunt and kill Islamist insurgents that the genius Fauj itself manufactured.

We all agree that the government can do a much better job at managing state enterprises and collecting taxes, Etc., so we have no point of contention there - It seems you are not following that the net effect of the kinds of changes the AVM suggests is to also change the threat matrix to enable Pakistan and India to evolve normal relations.

Do you understand this? This isn't the pind brother man, where demands are to met or countered - this is a much deeper exercise but you may not realize how much you have given away by the reactionary and knee jerk positions you have offered -- all of them by the way about India -- So, really I would suggest we give up on playing the India card to justify the kind of Fauj we have created - In fact I think the notion that we can play a winning card by giving the Indian the enemy he wants (China) is a winning game for Pakistan - to allow us space to put Pakistan's economy on a more sond footing, an economy that can afford a meaner and more mobile, more technological, more lethal fighting force.

One cannot change the threat matrix by unilaterally reducing its capability to meet a known threat based on assumptions of likewise reciprocation, which is becoming more unlikely in my mind due to the power base increase of India while remaining hostile to Pakistan.

The unilateral threat matrix change is certainly the issue i have with this proposal. We now have two threats but that does not imply we focus on one and ignore the other one, it is much more logical to synergize the COIN and conventional war capabilities of Pakistan Army and not to focus on one alone.
It is criminal to ignore a threat which has been constant.
Do i want Pakistan and India to be at each other's throats, certainly not...However, i want Pakistan to be prepared and not make grand assumptions which impair its capability to meet a challenge effectively when the time comes.
So when we talk about changes in threat perception, we need normalization of ties with India first and then i would give it 5-10 years after establishing good terms with India before changing the threat matrix to a level that has direct and more pronounced impact on our Military posture and doctrine.

I have certainly no issues with retooling military in long term but purely on strategic, technical and economical merits, i do not see this as a short to mid term proposal for enhancing COIN capability...certainly not in the manner the opponents of mine, A.M.'s and Xeric's POV are suggesting.

The bottom line here is that you are going to reduce troops and increase mobility, but to what benefit?
It has two impacts as per our discussions on this thread, one on the economy and one on the military capability.
In my mind its net impact on the economy is not beneficial in the short to mid term, which is a critical phase of our ongoing COIN operations.
The military spending shall certainly not go down since extensively retooling and retraining 2-3 divisions would be much more expensive in short to mid term than maintaining current troops at current military capability, again i reiterate that short to mid term is critical stage of our COIN since right now our Army is heavily engaged in the clear and hold phase of COIN and the insurgents are not just of one creed/group, there are many different motives and different supporters (local, foreign) of the insurgents.
In this regards I think that we need to assess a post US scenario and maybe even experience the effect of US exodus from Afghanistan, before retooling our Army.
Maybe the situation becomes such that we need the manpower even more in future than what current situation demands.

Even if i assume that the cost of maintaining current manpower is same as of maintaining a reduced manpower with more mobility,i still have reservations.
The primary reservation is that of a need for trained/motivated manpower in COIN which can effectively deny space to the insurgents.
The lesser the impetus imparted by our Civilian Government and internal security apparatus to regain control and help the military in the hold and rebuild phase of the COIN, the more critical every additional military boot on ground becomes for us.
Had we seen lightning response of our Internal security apparatus with a clear cut and defined authorization given by Government to reestablish civilian control of the freed up areas, we would not be having this discussion right now.

So, not only does the military strategist reduce the capability to meet any challenge by a traditional enemy without any established trend/treaty to support normalization...We are also expecting him to assume that upon retooling his formations towards much more mobility, someone else will fill the boots adequately in denying space to insurgents.
The strategist has to take for granted that the Government will retool and retrain the internal security apparatus so that the loss of military footprint is more than compensated for by virtue of enhanced performance by internal security apparatus?
We have not even seen a reasonable performance by the internal security apparatus so far and i certainly hold the government responsible in this regards, since it is responsible to come up with some strategy in this regards.
So in such a new strategy even more burden shall be put on the internal security apparatus which cannot even adequately manage the current scope of work which falls in its domain, due to many reasons ofcourse.
How can we expect a strategist to take such huge risks and reduce the holding power of a capable military by putting his faith in the not so capable Police, Paramilitary etc?
What clear plan or intent is evident from our Government's internal/external policy to support such massive assumptions on part of the military/security planners?

Believe me Muse...
we (me, A.M., Xeric) all hate to see military rule and interference, and we certainly are not in pursuit of any agenda other than the interest of Pakistan.

However, i see that this strategy cannot be made in isolation of the State level strategy which includes internal security, foreign policy, economic policy etc.
In current scenario, we are doing the best we can and on the basis of our current relations with neighboring countries, it is a folly to assume goodwill and expose yourself, it is akin to painting a Bulls eye on our posterior and asking for trouble.
A perceived weakness of intent or capability has also led to many conflicts throughout history.

We need first to pursue a more coherent and well defined foreign policy, implement many long overdue police/security reforms and carry out economic reforms.
Only these steps shall bridge the gaps that Army has to plug in the current COIN scenario with its current manpower.
Reducing manpower right now without addressing these other critical areas via extensive reforms shall derail us even further from the ultimate objective of creating a stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan.
The situation on our eastern and western border cannot be improved till some major changes occur, we cannot assume such changes and make concrete changes to our military capability.
Reducing manpower at this stage will be counter productive.
To meet current spectrum of threats and keeping in view the deficiencies in other entities, we have more synergy with current military manpower/capability, in my humble opinion.

I really am enjoying this debate, however i think what we are trying to say is not being understood clearly.
 
One cannot change the threat matrix by unilaterally reducing its capability to meet a known threat based on assumptions of likewise reciprocation, ......

.....
Well Said! Thanks.


.....Believe me Muse...
we (me, A.M., Xeric) all hate to see military rule and interference, and we certainly are not in pursuit of any agenda other than the interest of Pakistan.
.....

Agreed!

The best option for Pakistan is to have "strong military" supporting and working in coherence with a stable and strong political system.

A stable Political system is beneficial for the military in many many ways. At the least a civilian government provides a "cover" or "parda" for the military to do its job within the country and outside the country.

Unfortunately the political system in Indi-Pak-BDesh is a "corrupted version" of British system. Why I say corrupted?

Well the polticial system in three countries is a maaee-baap ki jagir, a clanish tool in the hands of few.

BDesh is in the grips of two political families, Mujib and his nemesis General.

India is in the grip of Gandhi clan (no relation to MKG) and several state level clans including the infamous Lallu and Rabri cabal.

Pakistan too is in the hands of Altaf clan, Sharif clan, Bhutto clan, Wali khan clan, Mari clan, Chaudhry clan, Imran clan and the list goes on.

Since 1947 Pakistan being at the forefront of Afghan and Middle East wars was always MUCH more vulnerable and thus needed much more fair and equitable political system.

Unfortunately it was never meant to be. Liaqat lost his Jagir in Karnal, so he started a new jagir in Karachi, clobbered Islam for nefarious purposes, started quota system, and set up a war with Punjabi and Sindhi clans.

What a stupid thing to do back then. The resulting instability begged for military intervention. Had it not been for the military intervention, Pakistan was doomed from the get go.

But many people do not understand the clan dynamics of political systems in Pakistan, resulting weakness of the political system, and start terming Pak army as an enemy of the state even worse than Indians.

This is clearly wrong.

Pak army is one of the institutions in Pakistan. That we should respect and cherish. As not many countries are blessed with highly trained professional armies. It is not perfect as the people in Pak army are from amongst us.

They have similar weaknesses and strengths as us. However they belong to a good and strong institution.



Coming back to this thread, the ideas presented in the lead article are half-baked and ill-conceived.

And the poster of the lead article has done no further research beyond the lead article. As he has repeatedly failed to provide additional info on the details about how many tanks need to be mothballed, how many divisions need to be cut, and how many generals need be sent home with early retirement. Nothing concrete has been presented.

In the absence of such details, it becomes evident that OP just wanted to throw some $hite on Pak army while sitting 10000 of miles away from Pakistan.

And that is an utterly shameful and disgusting thing to do.

peace.
 
Military cannot help if politicians cannot support themselves by making the political system stronger.

Political parties are jagirs and fiefdoms. No new blood, no new leadership. Doesn't matter if a party represents educated ones from cities or illiterates from villages.

Altaf - party chair for life. His hold is so strong that he can get people killed with a bat of his eyelashes.

Imran - the Khalifa hayat wa khalifa marg of TI.

NS - CEO for life of the ML-Noon

PPP - Sindhi Jagir bhutto jagir

Chaudhry bros - Panjabi Jagir daars of ML- kaaf ghaaf wa hay

AnP #### -Wali khan -- political agent for life

Balochistan - same $hite.

and the list goes on.

There is no way out. One goes and his sperms replace him. no new ideas means death of the institution.

Hope you understand this.

Our political system is a dead horse. You can beat it for 100 years and it will not improve.

Were the US parties running the same way, their dhoom-cracy would have died back in 1887. And GW would have been the General-President.

That's the problem. Most people (rightfully) mock the Khilafat crowd for their naivete that the golden age will magically appear as soon as we have a Khalifa. But the democracy chant is just as silly. Unless we clean out the feudal rot dominating our politics, no civilian government will have much accountability.

It's the old story of repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting different results. I am absolutely certain that, unless the feudals go, Pakistan will be in exactly the same situation 60 years from now.

This is where I fault the military: it is the only institution in Pakistan strong enough to uproot the feudals and, rather than do the needful, the military has been in cahoots with these guys.
 
......

This is where I fault the military: it is the only institution in Pakistan strong enough to uproot the feudals and, rather than do the needful, the military has been in cahoots with these guys.

Dear Sir,

We have two kinds of feudals: Rural feudals, and urban feudals.

When military tried to counter the rural feudals (PPP), we ended up enslaved by the urban feudals (MQM). Altafs and Imrans aka urban feudals in some ways are less democratic and much more fasadis in their approach compared to the rural feudals.

So for us the masses in Pakistan it is very much like "out of the frying pan, into the blind and uncontrollable revolutionary fire".

So I guess the "Top down" approach by itself cannot and will not work.

People have to stand up and say enough is enough to all the feudals both the urban kind and the rural kind.

peace.
 
An off-topic comment from my side. Please excuse the one-off meander.

All this importance being given to the Pak Army at the expense of the inefficient civilian government plays very well, i feel, into Indian hands.

On the one hand we are opening back channels with tacit support from the Pakistan Army top brass. This means that we are allowing for lesser tension and fewer chances of military confrontation. With adequate CBMs in place, trade and opening of important routes is no more than a corollary. However we are continuously bolstering our formations in the Western front --- not alarmingly but enough to keep Pakistan off-balance. So our purpose gets solved --- keep Pakistan on tenterhooks while allowing ourselves to prosper. Will take longer time than fully friendly relations but this seems to be a price that the Indian government is willing to sustain.

The supposedly hostile and aggressive comments by our army brass seem to support this view. The only time when things like Cold Start are put into question is when the time for 'push to shove' never seems to materialise. There are arguments and counterarguments to this CS thing.

The net effect is that the common Pakistani has higher faith in the army.

Well till now the Pak army has never unleashed the true potential of Pakistan --- in fact far from it. So their performance as being the final seat of power is not worth talking about. Who knows if the civilian government is given adequate time --- in decades just like India --- they might start to perform. And weed away all extremist sentiments which seemed to prosper even when Pakistan was doing well during the Musharraf years and before that. And then Pakistan grows as should logically happen.

So we do our part, however small, to keep the military in the limelight while we continue to grow.

A loss of even a decade is huge when for some reason the eastern neighbour is growing fast. Just imagine --- in a 30 year period US goes from the only mighty superpower to one in decline --- faster than anyone anticipated...

The onus is on the most powerful organ of the state to change and enforce change --- just like it happened in China and India --- an entire concept of a Socialist driven economy is turned upside down. But given the comments of some informed members of the forum, the most normal thing --- resistance to change --- seems to be looming on the horizon.

This is what Muse and VCheng are speaking about.
 
.....

Well till now the Pak army has never unleashed the true potential of Pakistan --- in fact far from it. So their performance as being the final seat of power is not worth talking about.




The onus is on the most powerful organ of the state to change and enforce change --- just like it happened in China and India --- an entire concept of a Socialist driven economy is turned upside down. But given the comments of some informed members of the forum, the most normal thing --- resistance to change --- seems to be looming on the horizon.

This is what Muse and VCheng are speaking about.

Dear Sir,

What you are stating above (I deleted some of the lines, let me know if the missing lines were important).

Anyways, your suggestions are good and valid.

Pak army implemented these changes almost 50+ years ahead of India and China.

Our economy during Ayub Khan's time was vibrant, our society was liberal, and our industrialists alongwith our youth were pretty much like the youth of India/China today.

Who destroyed most of the things gained by the army regime.

Our dear elected leader Zulfi Bhutto. He nationalized every f ing bank, every f ing industry and every f ing school or college worth a dime and then filled all of them with union-bosses and other commies. The result was so severe that our iron/industrial regions from Lahore to Karachi became rust belts.

Since then PPP and other socialists (show-shaw-lists) have a sword of commie-ism hanging on the businessmen of Pakistan.

One can say that Indira Gandhi did the same to Indian factories. But the difference is that Indian business dynasties like Tatas had much deeper roots and even deeper pockets to sustain the commie-ness of Indira. While Pakistani businessmen were in their infancy compared to big name Indian business dynasties.

Even in recent years, Musharraf put in place several measures to rid the country from the commie show-shaw-list death grip, but the supreme court, and the other members of the society have consistently blunted those actions.

Mind you that Pak army is a saint when it comes to dictatorships ruling China or just deposed (or soon to be deposed) middle-eastern Pharoahs. So they would never shut down opposition like Chinese are doing.

I urge you and others to study the history and then bring in your proposals.

Otherwise you all will continue repeating falsehoods.

peace.
 
Dear Sir,

We have two kinds of feudals: Rural feudals, and urban feudals.

When military tried to counter the rural feudals (PPP), we ended up enslaved by the urban feudals (MQM). Altafs and Imrans aka urban feudals in some ways are less democratic and much more fasadis in their approach compared to the rural feudals.

So for us the masses in Pakistan it is very much like "out of the frying pan, into the blind and uncontrollable revolutionary fire".

So I guess the "Top down" approach by itself cannot and will not work.

People have to stand up and say enough is enough to all the feudals both the urban kind and the rural kind.

peace.

We seem to have different definitions of 'feudal'. I am using the word in the traditional sense of large landowners, and oligarchs in general, who have a vested interest in maintaining a subservient labor pool by keeping people uneducated, poor and divided. The middle class is anathema to these feudals, since it is the middle class which is the main driver for democracy and accountability.

Imran Khan, for all his faults of naivete and religious pandering, relies on the youth and middle class as his vote base. A bigger middle class is good for Imran Khan and good for Pakistan. It is a nightmare for the feudals.
 
We seem to have different definitions of 'feudal'. I am using the word in the traditional sense of large landowners, ..

Dear Sir,

Your definition has been used by the followers of now-defunct communism. I hope you are not one of them leftovers.

Holding large pieces of land is as bad or as good as holding large factories.

Both the large factory owners and the large farm owners need labor pools and subservient masses.

However in the process they create an order and stability in the society.

Socialists (show-shaw-lists) and communists hate both landowners and factory owners, and thus shout for revolutions.


.....

Imran Khan, for all his faults of naivete and religious pandering, relies on the youth and middle class as his vote base. A bigger middle class is good for Imran Khan and good for Pakistan. It is a nightmare for the feudals.

Urban feudals like Imran and Altaf are nightmare for the URBAN middle class.

How can these two clowns be nightmare for large farm owners? Large farm owners have enough force (political and physical) to protect their livelihood.

The only target of fake-revolutionaries like Imran and Altaf are the half-educated urban youth who want half-baked revolutions.

Such half-baked revolutions destroy stability in the cities like Karachi and start bhatta khori and other crimes including the target killings right in the middle of Karachi and other parts of the country.

thankfully the rural middle class is free from the clowns like Imran so they are OK.

So I urge you to avoid like plague, the show-shaw-list slogan-mongers like Imran and Altaf. They are nothing but the trouble for the URBAN middle class of Pakistan.

Such slogans have miserably failed in the fountainheads of commies aka Soviet Union, China, and even Cuba. How can they then succeed in Pak.



Peace.
 
In our earlier posts we argued that the kinds of transitions being discussed in the AVM's and the Brigadier's piece on the ISI, suggested to us that whether the Fauj approves or not, these transitions will come about and it's best to prepare for that landscape instead of arguing a more Catholic than pope position, about the Fauj and the emerging consensus (among politicians) -- below is an editorial, I think it's not a stretch to suggest it is in keeping with the suggestion that the Fauj will find herself and her autonomy in a circumstance she may have to get used to:


EDITORIAL: ISI in the crossfire

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has felt compelled to bat repeatedly in defence of the ISI in recent days. On Wednesday, he had to mount his third defence of the premier intelligence agency in the National Assembly in response to Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali’s continued hammering of the issue. The redoubtable Chaudhry has kept up his tirade over the last few days against the government for its alleged apathy on several issues, in particular the ISI, drone attacks and the Raymond Davis affair. Chaudhry Nisar demanded answers why the ISI chief’s recent visit to Washington was cut short to one day instead of the scheduled three, and whether this had contributed to the recent low ebb in ISI-CIA relations and the refusal by the CIA to halt drone attacks. The opposition leader claimed he had substantial evidence regarding the Davis case and who had facilitated his release. Stating that he was ready to share the evidence, he qualified it by saying he would not share it with the government but with the house, either in open session or in-camera. He ended by asking the government to summon officials of the country’s intelligence agencies in a session of parliament and ask them to clear their position in the Davis issue.

The prime minister, for the third time in as many days, reiterated his by now well known tune. He asserted that the ISI was under the control of the government, reports to the government, does nothing without the government’s knowledge or against the national interest, and has never ventured into any ‘project’ without proper governmental authorisation. In other words, and in short, the ISI was under the government’s instructions. The prime minister repeated these arguments in a public rally near Islamabad the same day. On the Davis affair, the prime minister stated in the house the usual argument about the case having been decided by an independent court, with no role played by the federal or provincial government.

After this ringing endorsement, lest we are lulled into a soporific confidence in everything being under the government’s total control, including the ISI, it may be useful to contemplate that in our history, rightly or wrongly, the ISI has acquired an unenviable reputation for straying beyond its mandate. Not only does this charge hinge on what critics allege is the ISI’s manipulation of national politics in the interests of the military establishment’s (permanent) agenda, the ISI has also figured centre-stage whenever the question of Afghanistan or domestic terrorism comes up. It may be argued that not all this notoriety is deserved, but the fact remains that inside the country, the region, and the world at large, the ISI has become too prominent for an intelligence agency expected to operate ‘quietly’. A parallel example may be culled from US history in the last gasps of the twentieth century, when the infamous CIA lost its sheen and was finally shackled by new oversight procedures to avoid illegal activities. We in Pakistan may not be at the stage of the kind of ‘glasnost and perestroika’ that struck the CIA in the post-Vietnam war period, but it would arguably be in the best interests of all state stakeholders to put their heads together and refigure, if not curtail, the ISI’s political role (acquired incrementally since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto set up the first political cell in the ISI in the 1970s) and return it to its original mandate: an internal services intelligence arm organised on highly professional lines and freed of the burden and accompanying calumny of being accused of interference in politics, internal and international.
 
Dear Sir,

Your definition has been used by the followers of now-defunct communism. I hope you are not one of them leftovers.

Holding large pieces of land is as bad or as good as holding large factories.

Both the large factory owners and the large farm owners need labor pools and subservient masses.

I am not a communist or a socialist, but neither am I a proponent of extreme laissez-faire capitalism, as we have in Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is one of the few countries in the world that still has the medieval system of landowners and indentured servitude. Even the bastion of capitalism, the USA, has more checks on employers and better laws to protect employee rights. Such a concept is nonexistent in Pakistan, especially in the rural strongholds of the feudal lords. They have their own police, their own jails, and are essentially a law unto themselves.

Pakistan needs a middle ground between socialism and feudalism.

However in the process they create an order and stability in the society.

This is exactly the same argument used by the Arab dictators to crush calls for democracy and accountability.

How ironic!

Socialists (show-shaw-lists) and communists hate both landowners and factory owners, and thus shout for revolutions.




Urban feudals like Imran and Altaf are nightmare for the URBAN middle class.

How can these two clowns be nightmare for large farm owners? Large farm owners have enough force (political and physical) to protect their livelihood.

The only target of fake-revolutionaries like Imran and Altaf are the half-educated urban youth who want half-baked revolutions.

Such half-baked revolutions destroy stability in the cities like Karachi and start bhatta khori and other crimes including the target killings right in the middle of Karachi and other parts of the country.

thankfully the rural middle class is free from the clowns like Imran so they are OK.

So I urge you to avoid like plague, the show-shaw-list slogan-mongers like Imran and Altaf. They are nothing but the trouble for the URBAN middle class of Pakistan.

Such slogans have miserably failed in the fountainheads of commies aka Soviet Union, China, and even Cuba. How can they then succeed in Pak.



Peace.

So, Imran Khan is a 'feudal communist'? As far as oxymorons go, this one is surely a gem.

I agree that change can be a messy business and revolutions are unpredictable: the Iranian revolution is a case in point. But we have been under the feudal yoke for 60+ years. It's time to shed the medieval system which enslaves a large part of our people. Pakistan doesn't have a rural middle class. That is the whole problem.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom