What's new

how to build a new Pakistan

No Offence, But I see most of Pakistani members are Busy in posting about Islam, ISI, Taliban, Drone, War, Nuke, etc. Does anyone care of Education Sector ? Health Sector ? Auto Sector ? No. - They Day everyone will feel like Pakistani and will give less importance to religion, Then that is Ultimate day for New Pakistan even for Whole South Asia.
 
.
1.Eradicating Taliban & Al Qaida
2.Eradicating organizations which use our land to harm others.
3.Increasing Tax base for collecting more
4.Spending more on health,education,police
5.restructuring our judicial system
6.taking advantages of natural resources.
How about adding: Eradicating organizations like the ISI?? :cheesy:
 
. . . . .
Its so heart warming that Indian friends care so much about Pakistan , the day our Prime Minister and politicians would start to act like our Indian friends , we will surely have

a) Funding for schools
b) Automotive
c) Hospitals
 
.
i dnt knw y my pakistani friends considering india as a threat, MAIN THREAT is ur govn itself. to get WoT AID they r playing vd civilians of pakistan.
 
.
Why not adding goal to destroy RAW ;)
Huh? Is RAW part of the Pakistani Establishment? :what: Give India the ISI and Pakistan can take RAW!! :cheesy: (RAW is a bunch of babus on a picnic. They suck!)
 
.
Going by the posts and in neutrality , there are vertain questions at the foundation level which needs to be addressed first . The first few questions for the New Pakistan would be


1. Will the new Republic of Pakistan be an Islamic Republic or a Democratic Republic ?

2. If the former ,will the governance be based on Islamic code or the hybrid democratic form being followed now.

3. If the former, will the Shariat be fully in place or a weak hybridised representation ?


4. If positive for the Shariat , would it encompass all Muslims of the State considering that the minorities would be catered for.


5. What about the existing constitution ? Will it be superseeded ?

6. How would Pakistan put to place in developing relationships with all its neighbours which is in strain in some form or the other -Iran,Afghanistan and India ?

Will all the questions raised above be based on a referundum or a council of ministers/civil representatives.
 
. .
Leadership and destiny of a nation
Posted on June 10, 2011
By Muhammad Jamil
Exclusive Article

The fact remains that the destiny of a nation depends on the determination of its people, but there has to be a leader with vision, courage and wisdom to inspire them to unite in their struggle for safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of their country. In Pakistan, the myriad political and religious parties, intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, or government and the opposition parties have variegated stances and perceptions about various issues and challenges facing the country. Yet, there appears to be a consensus that Pakistan is facing a multifaceted crisis, and it is the result of ruling elite’s lust for power and flawed decisions over half a century. In the turbulent period of 1930s and 1940s, Quaid-i-Azam happened to be there at the right time. He, with the support of the people, created a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Today, Pakistan needs leaders with vision, wisdom, tolerance and perseverance to pull the country out of quagmire it is in. After the sad demise of the Quaid and martyrdom of Liaquat Ali Khan, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Iskandar Mirza and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali took all important decisions. Though power has its own dynamics, the first martial law by General Ayub Khan was due to the failure of political leadership and civil bureaucracy.
According to Hegel, a leader has to be not only conversant with, but also in harmony with the spirit of the age. A real leader is a master strategist and a great tactician who blends pragmatism with idealism to achieve the desired objective of a better life for its people. Leadership is described as poetry; and its composition depends more on natural instincts and knowledge of an individual and less on his training. To understand as to how a leader can use the immutable laws of society and lead the masses to vitality and stability, one must look at the methodology of a botanist with his plants or an agricultural expert with an orchard. An agricultural scientist observes all the factors affecting the growth of the trees in an orchard, including the effect of laws of nature, climatic and environmental conditions, the culture and type of trees, and then using his knowledge, experience and expertise to use these laws for the benefit of the trees to grow fast and bear the best quality fruit. A conscientious leader with world vision and conscious of social, cultural and economic conditions of the people uses his wisdom and statesmanship to unite the people for an onward march towards progress and prosperity.
Pakistan, today, faces challenges to its internal and external security, and its economy is in dire straits. Though, its armed forces have cleared strongholds of terrorists in South Waziristan, Bajaur, Swat and Malakand, there are still remnants of militants’ groups that need to be eliminated. But the problem is that there are some political and religious parties that do not support the war against terrorism wholeheartedly; they do it with ifs and buts with the result that the nation stands divided over the issue. Otherwise also, Pakistan presents a picture of a divided house where ethnic and sectarian strife rears its head at times; terrorism is stalking the entire country; institutions are at loggerheads; and poverty, hunger and disease have created despondency and disillusionment among the masses. There is a perception that after the unilateral action by the US Special Forces in Abbottabad and the attack on Mehran Naval base, the CIA has sullied the image of Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies. In fact, it was a well thought-out American plan and conscious effort on the part of CIA to create doubts about Pakistan’s military in the minds of the people.
The US continues to exert pressure on Pakistan to do more, and extend operation to North Waziristan where it says that Al-Qaeda-backed Afghan Taliban fighters are holed in. At this point in time when unity is needed most, our leaders are point-scoring against each other. They are oblivious to the gravity of the situation and dangers ahead. Anyhow, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership should ponder over the looming threat of the US to secure its nukes on one pretext or another. In 2007, when General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was at the helm of affairs, a patriotic journalist and writer in his treatise under the caption The plan to topple Pakistan military had given detailed account of the sinister designs against the nation. He wrote: “This is about clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing the ISI, stirring ethnic unrest, and neutralising Pakistan’s nuclear programme.” The plan was contrived to sideline the military and install a pliant government in Islamabad. But the problem is that our major political parties are the fiefdoms of the top leaders, and are dynasties ruled by founders or their scions. This is one of the reasons that genuine leadership could not emerge.
It is true that in most developing countries, especially South Asian countries, people can only cast their votes, while a person even from the upper middle class cannot think of fielding himself as a candidate. Therefore, only the rich and those who amassed wealth using their position when in power could afford the luxury of elections. The fact of the matter is that the landed gentry wield power over the haris. Similarly, in a capitalist society, direct access to private property in the form of the means of production entails control over circumstances in which others are implicated and therefore have direct social power. The owners of property can borrow by hypothecating the assets and generate more means of production, thus enhancing their power over others in determining the nature and availability of jobs. In case of monopolies or cartels, they can fleece the consumers, especially if the owners are sitting in the cabinets and the assemblies. The sugar or cement scam is a case in point.
As stated above, members in the existing Assembly would not allow passage of the bill about dual nationality or wealth stashed abroad, it is therefore imperative that the electoral system be reformed in a manner that people from the middle class can field themselves as candidates. But this is a tall order.
During 1990s, the PPP and the PML-N had instituted cases of corruption and graft against each other’s leaders. Indeed, corruption is one of the most important factors responsible for having brought the country to the present pass. However, corruption can only be controlled and checked if the rulers have the moral authority, which means that they are honest, they pay the due taxes, and do not take advantage of their position in the government to multiply their wealth. But where the role models are the leaders we have, people in general would try to become rich overnight. The problem of corruption has also to be viewed from another angle. In a country where the government is committed to the welfare of the people; the poor are provided with free education and health facilities, and the state guarantees jobs to all able-bodied persons, the incidence of corruption and crime would be less. To take the country out of the present quagmire, there is need to reform the political parties and the government, so that genuine leadership could emerge and help solve the problems facing the country.

- The writer is a freelance columnist
 
.
Pakistan's General Problem

What is the last thing you say to your best general when ordering him into a do-or-die mission? A prayer maybe, if you are religiously inclined. A short lecture, underlining the importance of the mission, if you want to keep it businesslike. Or maybe you’ll wish him good luck accompanied by a clicking of the heels and a final salute.

On the night of 5 July 1977 as Operation Fair Play, meant to topple Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s elected government, was about to commence, then Army Chief General Zia ul Haq took aside his right-hand man and Corps Commander of 10th Corps Lieutenant General Faiz Ali Chishti and whispered to him: “Murshid, marwa na daina.” (Guru, don’t get us killed.)

General Zia was indulging in two of his favourite pastimes: spreading his paranoia amongst those around him and sucking up to a junior officer he needed to do his dirty work. General Zia had a talent for that; he could make his juniors feel as if they were indispensable to the running of this world. And he could make his seniors feel like proper gods, as Bhutto found out to his cost.

General Faiz Ali Chishti’s troops didn’t face any resistance that night; not a single shot was fired, and like all military coups in Pakistan, this was also dubbed a ‘bloodless coup’. There was a lot of bloodshed, though, in the following years—in military-managed dungeons, as pro-democracy students were butchered at Thori gate in interior Sindh, hundreds of shoppers were blown up in Karachi’s Bohri Bazar, in Rawalpindi people didn’t even have to leave their houses to get killed as the Army’s ammunition depot blew up raining missiles on a whole city, and finally at Basti Laal Kamal near Bahawalpur, where a plane exploded killing General Zia and most of the Pakistan Army’s high command. General Faiz Ali Chishti had nothing to do with this, of course. General Zia had managed to force his murshid into retirement soon after coming to power. Chishti had started to take that term of endearment—murshid—a bit too seriously and dictators can’t stand anyone who thinks of himself as a kingmaker.

Thirty-four years on, Pakistan is a society divided at many levels. There are those who insist on tracing our history to a certain September day in 2001, and there are those who insist that this country came into being the day the first Muslim landed on the Subcontinent. There are laptop jihadis, liberal fascist and fair-weather revolutionaries. There are Balochi freedom fighters up in the mountains and bullet-riddled bodies of young political activists in obscure Baloch towns. And, of course, there are the members of civil society with a permanent glow around their faces from all the candle-light vigils. All these factions may not agree on anything but there is consensus on one point: General Zia’s coup was a bad idea. When was the last time anyone heard Nawaz Sharif or any of Zia’s numerous protégés thump their chest and say, yes, we need another Zia? When did you see a Pakistan military commander who stood on Zia’s grave and vowed to continue his mission?

It might have taken Pakistanis 34 years to reach this consensus but we finally agree that General Zia’s domestic and foreign policies didn’t do us any good. It brought us automatic weapons, heroin and sectarianism; it also made fortunes for those who dealt in these commodities. And it turned Pakistan into an international jihadi tourist resort.

And yet, somehow, without ever publicly owning up to it, the Army has continued Zia’s mission. Successive Army commanders, despite their access to vast libraries and regular strategic reviews, have never actually acknowledged that the multinational, multicultural jihadi project they started during the Zia era was a mistake. Late Dr Eqbal Ahmed, the Pakistani teacher and activist, once said that the Pakistan Army is brilliant at collecting information but its ability to analyse this information is non-existent.

Looking back at the Zia years, the Pakistan Army seems like one of those mythical monsters that chops off its own head but then grows an identical one and continues on the only course it knows.

In 1999, two days after the Pakistan Army embarked on its Kargil misadventure, Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmed gave a ‘crisp and to the point’ briefing to a group of senior Army and Air Force officers. Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, who attended the meeting, later wrote that they were told that it was nothing more than a defensive manoeuvre and the Indian Air Force will not get involved at any stage. “Come October, we shall walk into Siachen—to mop up the dead bodies of hundreds of Indians left hungry, out in the cold,” General Mahmud told the meeting. “Perhaps it was the incredulousness of the whole thing that led Air Commodore Abid Rao to famously quip, ‘After this operation, it’s going to be either a Court Martial or Martial Law!’ as we walked out of the briefing room,” Air Commodore Tufail recalled in an essay.

If Rao Abid even contemplated a court martial, he probably lacked leadership qualities because there was only one way out of this mess—a humiliating military defeat, a world-class diplomatic disaster, followed by yet another martial law. The man who should have faced court martial for Kargil appointed himself Pakistan’s President for the next decade.

General Mahmud went on to command ISI, Rao Abid retired as air vice marshal, both went on to find lucrative work in the Army’s vast welfare empire, and Kargil was forgotten as if it was a game of dare between two juveniles who were now beyond caring about who had actually started the game. Nobody remembers that a lot of blood was shed on this pointless Kargil mission. The battles were fierce and some of the men and officers fought so valiantly that two were awarded Pakistan’s highest military honour, Nishan-e-Haidar. There were hundreds of others whose names never made it to any awards list, whose families consoled themselves by saying that their loved ones had been martyred while defending our nation’s borders against our enemy. Nobody pointed out the basic fact that there was no enemy on those mountains before some delusional generals decided that they would like to mop up hundreds of Indian soldiers after starving them to death.

The architect of this mission, the daring General Pervez Musharraf, who didn’t bother to consult his colleagues before ordering his soldiers to their slaughter, doesn’t even have the wits to face a sessions court judge in Pakistan, let alone a court martial. The only people he feels comfortable with are his Facebook friends and that too from the safety of his London apartment. During the whole episode, the nation was told that it wasn’t the regular army that was fighting in Kargil; it was the mujahideen. But those who received their loved ones’ flag-draped coffins had sent their sons and brothers to serve in a professional army, not a freelance lashkar.

The Pakistan Army’s biggest folly has been that under Zia it started outsourcing its basic job—soldiering—to these freelance militants. By blurring the line between a professional soldier—who, at least in theory, is always required to obey his officer, who in turn is governed by a set of laws—and a mujahid, who can pick and choose his cause and his commander depending on his mood, the Pakistan Army has caused immense confusion in its own ranks. Our soldiers are taught to shout Allah-o-Akbar when mocking an attack. In real life, they are ambushed by enemies who shout Allah-o-Akbar even louder. Can we blame them if they dither in their response? When the Pakistan Navy’s main aviation base in Karachi, PNS Mehran, was attacked, Navy Chief Admiral Nauman Bashir told us that the attackers were ‘very well trained’. We weren’t sure if he was giving us a lazy excuse or admiring the creation of his institution. When naval officials told journalists that the attackers were ‘as good as our own commandoes’ were they giving themselves a backhanded compliment?

In the wake of the attacks on PNS Mehran in Karachi, some TV channels have pulled out an old war anthem sung by late Madam Noor Jehan and have started to play it in the backdrop of images of young, hopeful faces of slain officers and men. Written by the legendary teacher and poet Sufi Tabassum, the anthem carries a clear and stark warning: Aiay puttar hatantay nahin wickday, na labhdi phir bazaar kuray (You can’t buy these brave sons from shops, don’t go looking for them in bazaars).

While Sindhis and Balochis have mostly composed songs of rebellion, Punjabi popular culture has often lionised its karnails and jarnails and even an odd dholsipahi. The Pakistan Army, throughout its history, has refused to take advice from politicians as well as thinking professionals from its own ranks. It has never listened to historians and sometimes ignored even the esteemed religious scholars it frequently uses to whip up public sentiments for its dirty wars. But the biggest strategic mistake it has made is that it has not even taken advice from the late Madam Noor Jehan, one of the Army’s most ardent fans in Pakistan’s history. You can probably ignore Dr Eqbal Ahmed’s advice and survive in this country but you ignore Madam at your own peril.

Since the Pakistan Army’s high command is dominated by Punjabi-speaking generals, it’s difficult to fathom what it is about this advice that they didn’t understand. Any which way you translate it, the message is loud and clear. And lyrical: soldiers are not to be bought and sold like a commodity. “Na awaian takran maar kuray” (That search is futile, like butting your head against a brick wall), Noor Jehan goes on to rhapsodise.

For decades, the Army has not only shopped for these private puttars in the bazaars, it also set up factories to manufacture them. It raised whole armies of them. When you raise Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish Mohammed, Sipahe Sahaba, Sipahe Mohammed, Lashker Jhangvi, Al- Badar Mujahideen, others encouraged by the thriving market place will go ahead and start outfits like Anjuman Tahuffuze Khatame Nabuwat and Anjuman Tahuffuze Namoos-e-Aiyasha. It’s not just Kashmir and Afghanistan and Chechnya they will want to liberate, they will also go back in time and seek revenge for a perceived slur that may or may not have been cast by someone more than 1,300 years ago in a country far far away.

As if the Army’s sprawling shopping mall of private puttars in Pakistan wasn’t enough, it actively encouraged import and export of these commodities, even branched out into providing rest and recreation facilities for the ones who wanted a break. The outsourcing of Pakistan’s military strategy has reached a point where mujahids have their own mujahids to do their job, and inevitably at the end of the supply chain are those faceless and poor teenagers with explosives strapped to their torsos regularly marched out to blow up other poor kids.

Two days before the Americans killed Osama bin Laden and took away his bullet-riddled body, General Kiyani addressed Army cadets at Kakul. After declaring a victory of sorts over the militants, he gave our nation a stark choice. And before the nation could even begin to weigh its pros and cons, he went ahead and decided for them: we shall never bargain our honour for prosperity. As things stand, most people in Pakistan have neither honour nor prosperity and will easily settle for their little world not blowing up every day.

The question people really want to ask General Kiyani is that if he and his Army officer colleagues can have both honour and prosperity, why can’t we the people have a tiny bit of both?

The Army and its advocates in the media often worry about Pakistan’s image, as if we are not suffering from a long-term serious illness but a seasonal bout of acne that just needs better skin care. The Pakistan Army, over the years, has cultivated this image of 180 million people with nuclear devices strapped to their collective body threatening to take the world down with it. We may not be able to take the world down with us; the world might defang us or try to calm us down by appealing to our imagined Sufi side. But the fact remains that Pakistan as a nation is paying the price for our generals’ insistence on acting, in Asma Jahangir’s frank but accurate description, like duffers.

And demanding medals and golf resorts for being such duffers consistently for such a long time.

What people really want to do at this point is put an arm around our military commanders’ shoulders, take them aside and whisper in their ears: “Murshid, marwa na daina.”

+++

Mohammed Hanif is the author of A Case of Exploding Mangoes (2008), his first novel, a satire on the death of General Zia ul Haq
 
.
Back
Top Bottom