Featured What are we fighting for?

[VCheng]

Thank you. Error corrected. Gents can I have your reviews and advice soon. @VCheng perhaps you might also want to review the post and advise.

Whatever I am asked to do.

That's an excellent question, sir and my point exactly to the citizenry as well. For me it's simple to make Pakistan a better home for her people and by that I mean all her people whether we agree with them wholly or not.

The question I have posed many times here, meeting with hostility just about every time, is how can a State grant itself the role of enforcing one religion by force of law, and yet treat all its citizens equally? If yes, then how? If not, then what must change?

What are your thoughts on Post #15 .. No shame in admitting that we hardly agree on things but it will be good from strictly learning stand point to see what people who dislike or disagree with you think about your writings .

Please answer the questions I asked above.

 

[Sabretooth]

Simple and short answer is this.

We are fighting and struggling to establish "haq" (the truth) and vanquish "batil" (falsehood) and the purpose is to make this rock we call earth, a better place then it was yesterday.

 

[Joe Shearer]

When Iqbal Approach the Jinnah , Jinnah was a defeated man who was boo'ed out from congress by a more hard Line Hindu's, he must have realized that the secularism is just a cover up but deep in the roots of what Congress is looking is towards more Hindu dominant state after the British leave, but Jinnah must have realized that Muslims on contrary to Hindu are less educated, holds little to no power and holds less Govt'al Position , hence leading them through the mirror of a Strict Islamic view point will be hard and so hard that it can even shake the likes of Jinnah . Iqbal also realize that Jinnah is secular but his defeated dream of a secular India has put him in more precarious position where he has 2 options , 1) Stay in UK and become a world renounce Lawyer and 2) Take the leadership of Muslims, give them a state where they can live free with dignity, And We'all know which Option Jinnah picked . Here its very important to mentioned that the interaction between Jinnah and Iqbal was very limited, they were not associates for like decades where they understand the View point of other , hence When Iqbal approach Jinnah he must have given him a heads up about fundamental Islamic Ideology but its safe to assume that Jinnah was not a expert of either Quran or Hadeeth hence I will give him the benefit of doubt that why he was to some extend confused or maybe the people who decipher Jinnah make this mistake and Jinnah was clear in his actions.

This is the only bit I can respond to, and I have to say that you are mistaken about the situation then, as many of you are mistaken about the situation now.

The Congress was an elite group before Gandhi came back from South Africa. It fought for greater rights for Indians, all Indians, but through petition and the passing of resolutions in bodies that they sought to project to the British as credible and representative. In that phase, before 1920-22, there was hardly any question of secularism or of parochialism. In that phase, the Congress fought for space with the revolutionaries (to Indians or terrorists, to the British), those who belonged to Jugantar, or Anushilan; Bhagat Singh's group did not exist then. In that phase, the major issues were the hounding of Surendranath Bannerjee, who was expelled from the Civil Service, and, in 1905, the (first) Partition of Bengal. This is the first time when Muslims held back from the enthusiastic way they had participated earlier, and they held back because they could not help wondering if the additional development features promised to East Bengal after this partition would not after all help the Muslims to catch up. So, in 1907, in Dhaka, the Muslim League was founded; it did not, however, show up as a serious entity until the 20s and later.

When Gandhi returned, he engineered his own domination of the party (the Congress), and eased Gokhale and Gokhale's favourite, Jinnah. The consequent friction led to hostility of the Congress delegation towards Jinnah and towards his stormy exit from the meeting.

The second point is your detection of a false secularism within the Congress. This too, and also, your extrapolation of that to today's condition of India is not well-founded.

 

[YeBeWarned]

This is the only bit I can respond to, and I have to say that you are mistaken about the situation then, as many of you are mistaken about the situation now.

The Congress was an elite group before Gandhi came back from South Africa. It fought for greater rights for Indians, all Indians, but through petition and the passing of resolutions in bodies that they sought to project to the British as credible and representative. In that phase, before 1920-22, there was hardly any question of secularism or of parochialism. In that phase, the Congress fought for space with the revolutionaries (to Indians or terrorists, to the British), those who belonged to Jugantar, or Anushilan; Bhagat Singh's group did not exist then. In that phase, the major issues were the hounding of Surendranath Bannerjee, who was expelled from the Civil Service, and, in 1905, the (first) Partition of Bengal. This is the first time when Muslims held back from the enthusiastic way they had participated earlier, and they held back because they could not help wondering if the additional development features promised to East Bengal after this partition would not after all help the Muslims to catch up. So, in 1907, in Dhaka, the Muslim League was founded; it did not, however, show up as a serious entity until the 20s and later.

When Gandhi returned, he engineered his own domination of the party (the Congress), and eased Gokhale and Gokhale's favourite, Jinnah. The consequent friction led to hostility of the Congress delegation towards Jinnah and towards his stormy exit from the meeting.

The second point is your detection of a false secularism within the Congress. This too, and also, your extrapolation of that to today's condition of India is not well-founded.

Thanks for correction and adding it up, I was thinking about writing all the way up the current govt of Pakistan , and connect it with India by drawing a parallel lines between the both societies , but then i thought that one its way off topic, and second I am not qualified to talk much about India with my limited knowledge and understanding .

Please answer the questions I asked above.

Let me try..
So the Answer is definitely not simple but it depends on the way of Governance which a State decides to choose, Pakistan always had this conflict within itself over what kind of Governance they want, Zia's foundation of a more Pro Islamic Society might get some traction if not for the sudden rise of Islamic fundamentalism which comes in direct Confrontation with western Democracies after 9/11 .

Pakistan state and its people never for a long period gets on one side of the line by either adopting a secular Way neither a Islamic ones, one might argue on the aspects of both Ideologies and who will decide which interpretation will be accept throughout the Pakistan, setting Secularism Aside Islam in subcontinent itself was divide into many fractions such as Sunni , Shia , Ahmadi , Islamili , Bori etc .. Pakistan as majority Sunni country was bound to have a comity with a more Sunni representation which will definitely be opposed by the Shia's, hence the whole experiment of Zia's Islamic Governance falls flat within few years of his passing .

the only way Pakistan can progress itself is if we decide to pick up one side and style of Governance and than not just that but create a whole Nazriya-e-Zarrorat behind it, we did consider Islam to be a complete way of life but we are unable to implement it throughout Pakistan cause it was either taken over by the more Extremists elements such as Sufi Muhammad of SWAT, or much more Liberal/Secular type . There can not be a balance with both these Governing style, we tried and we failed , and it will be nothing less than stupidity to keep experimenting on this hoping for a better result .

Now, State has the right to determine the law under which its subjects will be ruled or Governed , but it has to be in the form of Constitution reforms not force , the Minorities living within the state although can and will enjoy their basic human rights but from a strict Religious POV, the State can not show itself to be weak by the demands of either minority or secular voices within itself, It can only happen from a strong Leadership and parliament . But of course its not very plausible because of external interventions of the countries, Power structures and Lobbies which is a topic itself .

The second part of your question which about Equality, we have to define the Equality and lets not fool ourselves with the more western Idea of Equality because now we know that Equality and Freedom is nothing but a fake wall of fog which is crumbling fast, the real faces of largest democracies are out in the open from the voices within and how citizens are treated differently based on their Race, color and religion . State can guarantee rights to its citizen, Guard their basic Human rights but eventually in a more microscopic level the people who are minority will and does suffer injustice and different treatment , No country on earth can call itself to treat all its citizens equally without holding a racial , religious or nationality bias . So why should we sweat on something which far greater, far more educated societies than us tried it and failed ? why not go back to the root of our existence and accept it for what it is ? yes Islam will not ensure individual freedom or rights over the rights and security of the Society in any terms , I don't see anything wrong with it in fact every society to some degree holds laws which are in place which sometimes withheld the individual freedom and right over the right and protection of the Society as a collective unit .

let me know if i miss anything ..

This is the only bit I can respond to, and I have to say that you are mistaken about the situation then, as many of you are mistaken about the situation now.

I think we'all have our own unique way of assessing the situation , sometimes history as well .. What happen and the minds of the people can only be understood to some degree and the rest they take it in their graves, my whole Idea about Pakistan and why its people , Govt and its institutions are confused about their own identity and which way is good or bad for them to govern its subjects has a history that goes all the way back to our Founding fathers and the people the interact with .

 

[jaibi]

Agreed. That's a question we all have to answer.

Whatever I am asked to do.



The question I have posed many times here, meeting with hostility just about every time, is how can a State grant itself the role of enforcing one religion by force of law, and yet treat all its citizens equally? If yes, then how? If not, then what must change?



Please answer the questions I asked above.

 

[Sabretooth]

The question I have posed many times here, meeting with hostility just about every time, is how can a State grant itself the role of enforcing one religion by force of law, and yet treat all its citizens equally? If yes, then how? If not, then what must change?
Please answer the questions I asked above.

"A state that treats all its citizens equally" No such state exists anywhere in the world. There always was and will be discrimination on some basis. If such state does exist please let me know so I can apply for immigration.

Now that this false notion is out of the way, let us start with a theoretical Islamic State which Pakistan currently strives to be. Since the Basis for creation is religion, we have to consider how that religion weighs in on equality between Muslim citizens (majority) and non-muslim citizens (minority).

Only all Muslims are equal in the eyes of Islam. This equality transcends the barriers of race, physical attributes, social class etc. The same goes for Muslim citizens in an Islamic State.

Muslim and non-muslim are not equal in the eyes of Islam. Islam has been clear on this. There is no contradiction in this. Those who are beating around the bush and says otherwise are part of the problem. The same goes for non-muslim minorities in an Islamic state but Islam is fair and therefore gives the same basic rights to non-Muslims such as protection of life and property, the safeguard of honour and dignity, peace of personal life, right to freedom of belief, protection of the places of worship etc. if they are living under the rule of an Islamic state.

So the question is not whether the minorities are being treated equally but fairly.

In a theoretical Islamic state living under the rule of Sharia, a non-muslim minority has the following choices.

A- If you want to be treated equally as Muslim citizens, convert to Islam.
B- If A doesn't work, there is no compulsion. Just observe if you are being treated fairly, if yes then obey the state law.
C- If you think both A and B does not work for you, feel free to leave.

So to answer your question, what must change. The answer is the constitution. The statement that all citizens are equal is inherently flawed and hypocritical therefore must be replaced with clear Islamic instruction about civil rights of both Muslims and non-muslims citizens so everyone knows what to expect from the state and put a stop to hue and cry about discrimination.

 

[I.R.A]

what are we fighting for?

In my opinion this question is secondary, the primary question is Who are we fighting with? Outsiders or our own and ourselves. If its the latter then why the fight remained incomplete? Fighting our own and with ourselves within our borders just doesn't happen and isn't something very common and acceptable ....... then why?

Again in my opinion because the system failed and failed big time in delivering and uplifting its people, the law and justice failed, the people entrusted with state affairs were unfortunately corrupt and petty individuals after their own interests. The place op calls civilization is built ignoring many, specially from troubled areas and regions .... what did the state ever do to bring those people to this civilisation and be part of it and be like it?

I, you or any other Pakistani could have been born in those troubled regions ........... civilised people don't fight for their rights and way of living only .... they first raise voice for the oppressed and ignored sections of populace ......... What did we ever do to help prevent this fight? We went to war .... but was that the only option in 70 years of history and performance?

My truth is, you fought because you were given orders ...... by the state that ignored that area and its people in first place. If the miscreants hadn't brought that war to our "civilisation" the state would never send you there to protect the helpless and oppressed of that region .......... then you remained there as hope for the people of that region ....... because this same state failed to show any administrative competence. Ask any common Pakistani be him / her from a well populated city (the place you call civilisation) or from a village remote area .... when that person blames IK, NS or any PM of Pakistan ...... it is the state that person is not happy with.

Is that infighting complete and won? The place you called civilisation ... is it really liberated? Is that really what civlisation is or should be?

 

[fatman17]

The Tide is turning
Fakir Syed Ayazuddin.

Imran Khan is now succeeding in putting his message across. The noose of accountability is drawing tighter, the shrill cries of the PML-N and PPP grow more hollow.

Corona is taking control and the most visible effect is the absence of support for PML-N or PPP leadership.

The crowds do not wish to be exposed to the virus and they feel that this is beyond the political cost that they should bear.

The Imran Khan policy of gentle persuasion is taking hold. The noisy crowds or supporters are melting away and the silence is deafening.

The main lesson that has been learned by the people of Pakistan is that robbing of the state is damaging to the populace. More importantly, slavery is not acceptable.

The allegations of Cynthia D. Ritchie are shocking as they are, and brought about a different dimension of sleaze at the highest political levels of PPP. Charges of rape of an American citizen are ominous for they do not have a time bar.

The most powerful person Harry Weinstein in Hollywood was convicted 35 years after the act and is serving time in an American prison.

His wealth and power could not save him. A People’s Party Minister is of no significance against such charges.

It may only add to the fury against obvious and deliberate misuse of power.

This will certainly add to the seriousness of the charges against them. The dreams of the politicians of unlimited power and protection from prosecution is now removed. This protection from prosecution enjoyed by many of the politicians from both sides is now adding to the fear being felt by politicians today.

The judiciary in Pakistan will watch carefully their own performance in their judgments here, which will be examined for bias by the international media and the world judiciary.

This will change us from a banana republic to a nation where justice can prevail.

These are the present achievements of The Imran Khan government without fanfare. Though facing criticism for the slow pace of accountability. This will happen even though there exists such a deeply rooted and powerful status quo against any such change.

A significant news item stated that Tareen has left Pakistan along with his family after the sugar paper was published. Secondly a news report was that of the Khan conducting a cabinet meeting with the air conditioners switched off. The sweating cabinet ministers were forced to sit through the session. Non dared to question the Khan.

This act of prudence has delighted the public at large. Who wish their rulers share the same tribulations as the people.
This indicates that the once closest ally, cofounder of the PTI who nurtured the party till it grew into a major political force taking the prime ministership, could not resist the temptation to benefit from his power and took advantage of his position.

He fled Pakistan assured of his guilt, and knew that there would be no sympathy from the Khan. He knew of the “No Mercy Trait” in Khan and the word mercy does not exist in the lexicon of the khan. He preferred to take his chances abroad rather then face indefensible charges that he will surely face in Pakistan.

The Khan is well known for his dislike of crime and this is probably his greatest asset. This then is a true reason for Tareen to decamp rather than stay and face the wrath of the Khan.

Imran Khan is managing to steer Pakistan through the sewer that is the politics of Pakistan.

His politics of clearness is finding support with the youth of Pakistan. The quick buck and political favour Is frowned upon. The political milliners are frowned upon with disdain by the public at large and will be dumped in the coming elections.

The judiciary is already distancing itself from the PML-N shadow. We may soon see judgements that will establish a new era of honesty and fair play.

As a famous line from the law books states that “The judges speak through their judgments” will show this trend towards honesty.

The influence of Khan as a leader is now being felt and honesty will soon become the way of life.

Crooked deals and politician crimes will become anathema to be abhorred and avoided.

They will be pointed out to children as the bogeyman to be avoided.

Imran has achieved this with no blood letting, this fact has not been lost upon his followers. They wanted blood and thunder, but they did not realise that it could and would have split the country apart. The forces were powerful and devising. Now the Zardaris and Sharifs will implode into their own sewage of their own creation and bring about a suitable ending.

From the sewers of Gawal Mandi they came and to the sewers they shall return. It is the same with the Borgias of Larkana who came with great fanfare and left a desolate city barren of any medical facilities whatsoever, no hospitals, and no dog bite serums with the highest rate of hydro phobia.
The greatest achievement of the Bhutto’s was a glittering spectacular mausoleum completely against the real conditions of the living.

 

[fatman17]

Accountability

The Tide is turning
Fakir Syed Ayazuddin.

Imran Khan is now succeeding in putting his message across. The noose of accountability is drawing tighter, the shrill cries of the PML-N and PPP grow more hollow.

Corona is taking control and the most visible effect is the absence of support for PML-N or PPP leadership.

The crowds do not wish to be exposed to the virus and they feel that this is beyond the political cost that they should bear.

The Imran Khan policy of gentle persuasion is taking hold. The noisy crowds or supporters are melting away and the silence is deafening.

The main lesson that has been learned by the people of Pakistan is that robbing of the state is damaging to the populace. More importantly, slavery is not acceptable.

The allegations of Cynthia D. Ritchie are shocking as they are, and brought about a different dimension of sleaze at the highest political levels of PPP. Charges of rape of an American citizen are ominous for they do not have a time bar.

The most powerful person Harry Weinstein in Hollywood was convicted 35 years after the act and is serving time in an American prison.

His wealth and power could not save him. A People’s Party Minister is of no significance against such charges.

It may only add to the fury against obvious and deliberate misuse of power.

This will certainly add to the seriousness of the charges against them. The dreams of the politicians of unlimited power and protection from prosecution is now removed. This protection from prosecution enjoyed by many of the politicians from both sides is now adding to the fear being felt by politicians today.

The judiciary in Pakistan will watch carefully their own performance in their judgments here, which will be examined for bias by the international media and the world judiciary.

This will change us from a banana republic to a nation where justice can prevail.

These are the present achievements of The Imran Khan government without fanfare. Though facing criticism for the slow pace of accountability. This will happen even though there exists such a deeply rooted and powerful status quo against any such change.

A significant news item stated that Tareen has left Pakistan along with his family after the sugar paper was published. Secondly a news report was that of the Khan conducting a cabinet meeting with the air conditioners switched off. The sweating cabinet ministers were forced to sit through the session. Non dared to question the Khan.

This act of prudence has delighted the public at large. Who wish their rulers share the same tribulations as the people.
This indicates that the once closest ally, cofounder of the PTI who nurtured the party till it grew into a major political force taking the prime ministership, could not resist the temptation to benefit from his power and took advantage of his position.

He fled Pakistan assured of his guilt, and knew that there would be no sympathy from the Khan. He knew of the “No Mercy Trait” in Khan and the word mercy does not exist in the lexicon of the khan. He preferred to take his chances abroad rather then face indefensible charges that he will surely face in Pakistan.

The Khan is well known for his dislike of crime and this is probably his greatest asset. This then is a true reason for Tareen to decamp rather than stay and face the wrath of the Khan.

Imran Khan is managing to steer Pakistan through the sewer that is the politics of Pakistan.

His politics of clearness is finding support with the youth of Pakistan. The quick buck and political favour Is frowned upon. The political milliners are frowned upon with disdain by the public at large and will be dumped in the coming elections.

The judiciary is already distancing itself from the PML-N shadow. We may soon see judgements that will establish a new era of honesty and fair play.

As a famous line from the law books states that “The judges speak through their judgments” will show this trend towards honesty.

The influence of Khan as a leader is now being felt and honesty will soon become the way of life.

Crooked deals and politician crimes will become anathema to be abhorred and avoided.

They will be pointed out to children as the bogeyman to be avoided.

Imran has achieved this with no blood letting, this fact has not been lost upon his followers. They wanted blood and thunder, but they did not realise that it could and would have split the country apart. The forces were powerful and devising. Now the Zardaris and Sharifs will implode into their own sewage of their own creation and bring about a suitable ending.

From the sewers of Gawal Mandi they came and to the sewers they shall return. It is the same with the Borgias of Larkana who came with great fanfare and left a desolate city barren of any medical facilities whatsoever, no hospitals, and no dog bite serums with the highest rate of hydro phobia.
The greatest achievement of the Bhutto’s was a glittering spectacular mausoleum completely against the real conditions of the living.

 

[VCheng]

Agreed. That's a question we all have to answer.

I will follow this thread to see what answers are offered, specially how equality for all before the law can be implemented for a diverse population while enforcing one religion at the same time.

The second part of your question which about Equality, we have to define the Equality

What I am referring to is equality of all citizens as a matter of law, not social equality.

"A state that treats all its citizens equally" No such state exists anywhere in the world.

Please see the above.

 

[Ivan]

@jaibi Sir your write-ups are a treat to eyes. Please keep on writing such diaries.
If possible, please also take pictures that you can publish later without jeopardizing anything because it would be a diary of a soldier that everyone would love to read! Yes, I see that best-seller potential in your expression. One wants to keep on reading!!

kanjar kisam ki chaye

Ahahahaha Sir please is chaaye k barey mein zaroor btaye ga Yes I am ready to introduce myself LOL

However, then the conversation turned bitter; it’s what you have heard all over: Army eats the budget, Pakistan’s problems are because the military doesn’t let democracy flourish, we’re fighting a military war to a political problem, all of us are millionaires just because of the uniform and it got vile.

It was such an amazing and adventurous experience that ended up listening to conspiracy theories.
My mood grew gloomy when I read this part. I can understand how everyone`s day was ruined.

My view actually comes from that perspective which he clarified; I did understand the students and the officers even if I didn’t agree with them. My point was simple: wars are always humanly costly affairs. I wish we lived in a world where it was never needed but that’s being idealistic. I asked the students how would they talk when just the way they dress and live is unacceptable to the people we’re fighting? They haven’t seen warfare and the toll it has on the population caught in the middle and I told them that those civilians choose to come to us and not them; do you really think they’re not making that choice by considerable deliberation? If we were with the people who’re fighting us then we wouldn’t be talking at all: the students would have a knife meet their jugular or a bullet in their head. There’re no arguments there.

Secondly, I asked my colleagues, why are fighting, sir? If we snub the right to verbalize complaints of our citizenry then how are we any different than those we’re fighting? We’re defending an ideal; we’re fighting to protect the rights of these students to study and explore the world. The fact they feel they can speak to us and this openly is precisely a marker of our victory and we need to respect that. That’s what we’re fighting for.

There was silence at the table as I sipped my tea (not as good as the one I got at our quarters but still good enough).

I asked the students to consider this that we’re not very different from them: just a few years ago we were sitting in institutions same as them. We are your army, not anyone else’s. When you speak to us like we’re strangers then it doesn’t resonate well with us. If we talk with a little more understanding you’d find that we aren’t really that different.

Agree with everything you have said. Bull`s eye!

That’s the question that I’d like to leave you with as well but with the consideration of being realistic when you try to answer that.

We Pakistanis are fighting for our survival since the inception of Pakistan.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Men must fight one another or die....

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know.".... [Sura El Bakara Ayet#30]

Strike Mehmed*! Hit that my fate wakes up
Let your Tekbir reach the Arsh
You are the Iman solidified into steel
Strike Mehmed!

For Hak, for Allah, for that “Ah” coming out of the Mazlum
You are the history, you are the victory, you are the flag, you are homeland
Strike Mehmed! Hit that the world gets ashamed

*A Turkish soldier is affectionately called Mehmed

 

[niaz]

Since the dawn of the pre-history, even before the tribal affiliations originated, Humans have been fighting among themselves for one reason or another. The motive was often to have something that you coveted but belonged to another or to stop others from taking your possession. With the advent of warlords and kings and city-states, even though most of the spoils went to warlord/king, and soldiers share was a minor one; fighting for economic gains /plunder or fighting to keep enjoying the economic benefits, remained the main motive for fighting along with some influence of the tribal loyalties. Often the war was a necessity because either due to overpopulation, there was no other way to survive, or the whole tribe/nation was pushed out of their homeland by the rival more powerful forces.

There can be no better example of the greed & plunder than of late Middle Age adventures such as Christopher Columbus or Captain Cook and the Conquistadors. Even though a very large portion of the riches was handed over to the king; individuals sailors also managed to enjoy substantial benefits.

Towards the end of the middle ages and the arrival of ‘Nation States, the ‘ Group Cohesion Theory’ came into play. Once the leaders decide to go to war for whatever reason, soldiers (often draftees) fight because their comrades in arms are fighting. “Esprit de corps’ is the technical term to describe the feeling of mutual loyalty and pride shared among the members of a group. Even in the expeditions ostensibly started exclusively for religion, such as the Crusades; in addition to the group, cohesion, plunder, and prestige played a great part.

For a volunteer army like Pakistan, the motivations are mixed. We may list many esoteric reasons such as, fighting for Islam & fighting for the motherland and fighting to safeguard our culture and our families, but these are only partly applicable. About 1-million men from the British Indian Empire served during WW1 with more than 70,000 dead. Another nearly 2.5-million men from the subcontinent fought for the British Army during WW2 with close to 90,0000 losing their lives. Earlier, volunteers from Bengal and other regions had been fighting for the East India Company often against their fellow countrymen & coreligionists. The first British expedition into Afghanistan had 12,000 soldiers from the subcontinent where the object was to install Shah Shuja on the Afghan throne. Naturally, fighting for the motherland and for the religion was never the in consideration.

In my opinion, in Pakistan as well in most armies, the majority of soldiers volunteer primarily to get employment, albeit the sense of adventurism also plays a part. According to my experience, at least in Punjab and especially so in the Potohar region; male members of the family surplus to the farming/agriculture needs are expected to join the armed services. This soldiering tradition is not new. Understand Punjab was known as the ‘Bazoo –ay shamsheer zan) meaning soldiering arm of the subcontinent in the pre-British era.

My conclusion is that Pakistani soldier volunteers primarily because armed services provide a good and stable source of employment. While he may be used to fight for Islam, if the political leadership so desires, but in reality, a Pakistani soldier is fighting for protecting the country’s borders from the hostile forces because he is paid to do so.

Undoubtedly, willing to put one's life on the line needs an inherently courageous and resilient person, hence I have great respect for all members of the Pakistan security services. Unlike many political leaders, I don’t begrudge privileges of the armed forces personnel and the large slice of national resources needed to finance the armed forces during peacetime; However, I expect them to actually lay down their lives in case of war and not surrender like the infamous Gen Niazi.

As far as ordinary Pakistanis are concerned, the poor man on the street spends most of his life fighting to provide a decent living for his family.

 

[jaibi]

Thanks, brother, I have been flirting with the idea of writing a memoir: maybe the first book of PDF Publications

@jaibi Sir your write-ups are a treat to eyes. Please keep on writing such diaries.
If possible, please also take pictures that you can publish later without jeopardizing anything because it would be a diary of a soldier that everyone would love to read! Yes, I see that best-seller potential in your expression. One wants to keep on reading!!

It's a secret of a regiment of the Pak Army, I'll reveal the info if Sir @PanzerKiel gives permission

Ahahahaha Sir please is chaaye k barey mein zaroor btaye ga Yes I am ready to introduce myself LOL

Isn't this everywhere in Pakistan? Even over here whatever you say we end up with this drama.

It was such an amazing and adventurous experience that ended up listening to conspiracy theories.
My mood grew gloomy when I read this part. I can understand how everyone`s day was ruined.

Thanks!

Agree with everything you have said. Bull`s eye!

Agreed.

We Pakistanis are fighting for our survival since the inception of Pakistan.

 

[I.R.A]

I will follow this thread to see what answers are offered, specially how equality for all before the law can be implemented for a diverse population while enforcing one religion at the same time.

Does that religion truly demands enforcement? Or implementation of its principles, a guiding framework to refer to while formulating laws of your state?

Clergy is not religion. Shariah is what (merit based selected) legislators of state agree upon and approve, and not words of someone with a confused large following.