Insulting armed forces should be legally banned in Pakistan

[Jungibaaz]

Nawaz Sharif in his first term was removed by Benazir and her countrywide protests.
Then she got removed by Nawaz Sharif conspiring with Ghulam Ishaq khan.
Only in 1998 Nawaz Sharif was truly removed by Army and rightly so.
Due to his love affair with India he cost us Kargil and the entire Kashmir.
If he had backed the military for kargil, the situation on Kashmir today had been very different.

The 90s were a mess, NS in addition to what you said was actually supported by the military establishment against BB. When the support that had been there was taken from him his government fell in your cited instance. Otherwise almost every removal of government in the 90s was the establishment’s doing. Whether that was through the president, political conspiring behind the scenes or otherwise removal of support.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Nawaz Sharif in his first term was removed by Benazir and her countrywide protests.
Then she got removed by Nawaz Sharif conspiring with Ghulam Ishaq khan.
Only in 1998 Nawaz Sharif was truly removed by Army and rightly so.
Due to his love affair with India he cost us Kargil and the entire Kashmir.
If he had backed the military for kargil, the situation on Kashmir today had been very different.

Your infinite capacity for self-deception and spinning alternative history out of imaginative options that were never on the cards is noteworthy.

If he had backed the military for Kargil, what exactly would the military have done different?

Are you not sounding a half-hearted note in failing to project what would have happened after the fall of Kashmir? Why not the Red Fort?

There is one kind of personality that asks "Why?" There is another that asks "Why not?" If I had been an enemy of Pakistan and of Pakistanis, I would have hoped that the second sort, having wreaked havoc already, should continue to dominate Pakistani military history.

 

[Safriz]

The 90s were a mess, NS in addition to what you said was actually supported by the military establishment against BB. When the support that had been there was taken from him his government fell in your cited instance. Otherwise almost every removal of government in the 90s was the establishment’s doing. Whether that was through the president, political conspiring behind the scenes or otherwise removal of support.

Yes because BB was supported by feudalism and the type of terrorism she unleashed on Karachi to demean Zia was not much different from what TTP did.
A counteracting force was needed.
Or the dodo brains of Pakistan had kept voting for BB.

 

[Philosopher]

This is a sensitive topic. Both sides for and against can raise very respectable arguments. But in my view, there really is not a right side here. What it all comes down to is what's perceived to provide the most practical and useful idea to be implement when governing societies. And it's not just about freedom of speech, these grey areas can refer to things such as abortion, capital punishment etc. When it comes to freedom of speech, you have to remember the moment you have started to put limitations on it, then it no longer represents "freedom of". I personally believe in freedom of speech, but remember, there are consequences for those speech. In other words, say what you want, but if you're preaching malign ideas, then you made your bed, now lie in it. The real complexity arises when you consider what speeches to punish or not.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a sensitive topic. Both sides for and against can raise very respectable arguments. But in my view, there really is not a right side here. What it all comes down to is what's perceived to provide the most practical and useful idea to be implement when governing societies. And it's not just about freedom of speech, these grey areas can refer to things such as abortion, capital punishment etc. When it comes to freedom of speech, you have to remember the moment you have started to put limitations on it, then it no longer represents "freedom of". I personally believe in freedom of speech, but remember, there are consequences for those speech. In other words, say what you want, but if you're preaching malign ideas, then you made your bed, now lie in it.

Perfectly correct.

However, for those preaching malign ideas to make their beds and then to lie in it, they have to be allowed to speak first.

 

[Philosopher]

they have to be allowed to speak first.

Agreed

 

[Jungibaaz]

Yes because BB was supported by feudalism and the type of terrorism she unleashed on Karachi to demean Zia was not much different from what TTP did.
A counteracting force was needed.
Or the dodo brains of Pakistan had kept voting for BB.

And of course Zia supported what exactly? Would you have preferred if Zia didn't meet a grisly end and stayed on as Lord dictator?

 

[Crusher]

.............. They are communist too.. I bet Soviet have swallowed entire sub continent if they had succeeded in Afghanistan.
@Joe Shearer

This was indeed a possibility, at least Soviet Union after succeeding in Afghanistan would have given a boost to the commie parties and movements spread all across Pakistan and other countries of south asia. The soviet commie propaganda was very strong. Even the modern BLA and other Baloch insurgent movements have their roots in communist ideology, all these people in Pakistan who now call themselves "liberals" used to call themselves "taraqqi pasand" which was another word for a "commie" in Pakistan until 80s. The national conference of Sheikh Abdullah and JKLF of Maqbool Butt based in Kashmir also had communist roots. ANP in KPK is also a Remanent of communist movement and all the Saraiki, Punjabi, Sindhi and Balochi nationalist movements in Pakistan have communist roots.

 

[Jungibaaz]

This is a sensitive topic. Both sides for and against can raise very respectable arguments. But in my view, there really is not a right side here. What it all comes down to is what's perceived to provide the most practical and useful idea to be implement when governing societies. And it's not just about freedom of speech, these grey areas can refer to things such as abortion, capital punishment etc. When it comes to freedom of speech, you have to remember the moment you have started to put limitations on it, then it no longer represents "freedom of". I personally believe in freedom of speech, but remember, there are consequences for those speech. In other words, say what you want, but if you're preaching malign ideas, then you made your bed, now lie in it. The real complexity arises when you consider what speeches to punish or not.

I agree with your analysis. But it needs to be contextualized within Pakistani political history. OP has gone far beyond the relevant concerns one might have on the morality of insulting the military, he is outright pro-military dictatorship. With that we arrive at the prime motivation to shut down speech against the military and also the prime consequences with stifling criticism or even just unacknowledgement of one's own historic record.

 

[Safriz]

And of course Zia supported what exactly? Would you have preferred if Zia didn't meet a grisly end and stayed on as Lord dictator?

I remember the entire tenure of Zia.
Best days of Pakistan.
Despite a raging war next doors , Pakistan was at peace. Everything was cheap and crimes were non existent.
And india was being kept at bay.
Then came democracy.

 

[Crusher]

It's another thing that you are equating banks and stock exchange or post office with Army.
None of whom lose lives and limbs for the country, only the army does.

Going by your argument the army also has every right to behave as just another government institution and soldiers have the right to behave as another federal government employee?
Same as PIA or steel mill or railway employees?
Take wages and do nothing?
Same as the employees of the federal institutions you named, the soldiers and officers of military are also grade 5 to 22 employee of federal government and should behave same as those other employees of those instructions you named?
Why die for the country?
Why fight for these people?
Take wages and go home.
Leave a scare crow in border post and go sleep home, same as thousands of government servants are doing.
Then what will happen?

Very funny and interesting post . Think about Army soldiers doing strikes against generals in front of GHQ or prime minister house to get a raise in their salaries and better meals in the army cafeterias and other shenanigans like this.

 

[Safriz]

Very funny and interesting post . Think about Army soldiers doing strikes against generals in front of GHQ or prime minister house to get a raise in their salaries and better meals in the army cafeterias and other shenanigans like this.

Or like lawyers attacking a news paper office or hospital, just because someone said something against them.
And that's my point.
Since soldiers don't do all that industrial actions and strikes , and army is the best performing institution of Pakistan.
They should be preferentially treated.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I remember the entire tenure of Zia.
Best days of Pakistan.
Despite a raging war next doors , Pakistan was at peace. Everything was cheap and crimes were non existent.
And india was being kept at bay.
Then came democracy.

Everything was cheap because the economy was stable, the economy was stable because dictators are better compared to an immature democracy suffering the added interference of traitor generals. Zia was illegitimate, a traitor and a murderer. He brought about some stability compared to the compromised nascent democracies because of the weak nature of them by design. His economy was also propped up by US aid. He also oversaw massive increases in drug trade, gun culture, deterioration of law and order, and subsequent battle we’ve have had with extremism was largely his doing.

You can’t call the 1990s democracy, not when Zia legacy presidents were removing elected PM, not while the army was busy undermining government and trying to overthrow it, only for it to openly declare dictatorship after Kargil. That’s not democracy, that’s traitor generals run amok.

 

[Philosopher]

I agree with your analysis. But it needs to be contextualized within Pakistani political history. OP has gone far beyond the relevant concerns one might have on the morality of insulting the military, he is outright pro-military dictatorship. With that we arrive at the prime motivation to shut down speech against the military and also the prime consequences with stifling criticism or even just unacknowledgement of one's own historic record.

I agree. You raise very good points. And of course you are correct. Context and the details (i.e social structures of particular nations, their culture, history etc) is always important when we're trying to determine what are the more sensitive topics to country when it comes to criticisms. But I believe in freedom of speech in its entirety. If we shut down freedom of speech toward a particular person, organisation, sector etc then of course we will also hide any valid criticisms. And of course this is dangerous, especially when we're talking about something as powerful as the military. A nation's military must be kept in check, like every other important player in a country.

 

[Safriz]

Everything was cheap because the economy was stable, the economy was stable because dictators are better compared to an immature democracy suffering the added interference of traitor generals. Zia was illegitimate, a traitor and a murderer. He brought about some stability compared to the compromised nascent democracies because of the weak nature of them by design. His economy was also propped up by US aid. He also oversaw massive increases in drug trade, gun culture, deterioration of law and order, and subsequent battle we’ve have had with extremism was largely his doing.

You can’t call the 1990s democracy, not when Zia legacy presidents were removing elected PM, not while the army was busy undermining government and trying to overthrow it, only for it to openly declare dictatorship after Kargil. That’s not democracy, that’s traitor generals run amok.

Democracy of Pakistan can be shoved where the sun doesn't shine as it does no good.

Also support your sweeping statements with proof.

Which general committed reason or committing treason? Or you are making assumptions?
The so called Democratically elected leader whom Zia removed , broke the country into two and caused millions of deaths due to his list for power.
It was good riddance that Zia hanged him and came to power.
I rather have illegitimate like Zia than legitimate like Zulfiqar Bhutto.