Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think in every country the Army is capable of orchestrating a coup. So its not a question of the government being under the Army. These articles explain how the Army is being forced to intervene, reluctantly. Anyway, not been confirmed by multiple sources yet.wow So now the things are clear who is the king/ king maker. Interesting whether government is under army or army is under government?
I think in every country the Army is capable of orchestrating a coup. So its not a question of the government being under the Army. These articles explain how the Army is being forced to intervene, reluctantly. Anyway, not been confirmed by multiple sources yet.
can't disagree.Asim boss, but it clearly shows in how much shaky grounds the institutions are that armed forces have to do this job leaving the primary job
Asim boss, but it clearly shows in how much shaky grounds the institutions are that armed forces have to do this job leaving the primary job
AM boss, can't agree with you completely. Mr. Zardai is in the deat because PPP has selected them and those people where selected by people. So blaming only US for the mess will not be good.
Zardari would not be in power right now had the US not pressured Musharraf to give BB and him an amnesty and share power.
AM boss we both are on same page but the way we are saying is different. The people in power should take right decision which is better for the country not with external influence.
It is not important who will come to power, rather the important question is who will clean up the mess and bring order. It must be kept in mind that more than Israel, Pakistan's eastern neighbor is the actual threat to Pakistan's geographic and sovereign existence. Israel will cause serious damage to Pakistan's nuclear assets and military stations if Israel gets any opportunity, but Pakistan's eastern neighbor will swallow up the entire Pakistan to fulfill the imperialist vision of Akhanda Bharat, if the that enemy neighbor gets any opportunity. India follows the Kautilyan principles in its foreign policies and diplomatic relations with other countries. Do not forget to notice the Ashoka Chakra and the Ashoka Sthambha as the two important government symbols. Please do not forget the history. Why those two symbols are still relevant is a serious matter we need to understand. There were a number of Hindu kingdoms, the Guptas, the Cholas, the Senas, the Palas, the Kamrupas and many more. But why did Mauryan symbols get the relevancy in projecting the Indian statehood? It is because of the Kautilyan or Chankyan imperialist ideology that India wants to adopt in its foreign policies. And according to the Kautilyan principles of foreign relations a state should wage never-ending war against the enemy and the strong must capture the weak anytime anyhow. But when to attack? According to Kautilyan guidelines...
In Kautilya's view of the world, expansion by a prosperous kingdom was inevitable, natural, and good, and as a consequence, moral considerations did not enter into his deliberations, only what was for the good of the kingdom. If a king can win, then he should go to war. As Kangle says, the Arthasastra "preaches an ideal of conquest." But who should be attacked? This is not an ethical question. The decision takes only careful calculation and observes the principle that a king should attack weakness. Certain states are vulnerable. If a state is weakened from a poor economy, or if a state has experienced some kind of calamity ranging from fires to flood or famine, then a king "should make war and march." As Rajendra Prasad says, Kautilya believed that "whenever an enemy king is in trouble, and his subjects are disunited, he should be immediately attacked after one proclamation of war."
Every adjacent kingdom should be looked upon as an enemy and classified. If a kingdom is strong, Kautilya called it a "foe"; if a kingdom is suffering calamity, then it is "vulnerable"; if a kingdom has weak or no popular support, then "it is fit to be exterminated." Even if one cannot attack a strong neighbor or "foe," one can harass it silently and weaken it over time. What Kautilya called an enemy "fit to be exterminated" was an enemy with little or no popular support, an enemy whose subjects quite likely would desert to Kautilya's attacking army. And Kautilya argued, or perhaps assumed, that imperial expansion was the correct goal: "After conquering the enemy's territory, the conqueror should seek to seize the middle king, after succeeding over him, the neutral king. This is the first method of conquering the world. . . . And after conquering the world he should enjoy it divided into varnas . . . in accordance with his own duty."
To know more about Kautilya, go to the site...
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
So Pakistan must become stabilized by means of anything, be it militarily or democratically.
The political parties need to start acting like institutions as well.
Musharraf's government was already crumbling on account of internal strife, (primarily the CJ issue) the US had nothing to do with that. Supporting BB (the only other serious contender in the Pakistani democratic process) in light of the impending implosion of the Musharraf government was the most responsible thing to do. I don't think either her untimely assassination or Zardari's accidental ascent to power was expected, and the US certainly didn't play a role in any of that. Favoring BB or rigging elections would have been worthy of censure; but that clearly wasn't the case.Zardari would not be in power right now had the US not pressured Musharraf to give BB and him an amnesty and share power.