What's new

Motorway Police official & Army officers scuffle on the Motorway.

. .
What we actually need to see is the justice that ISPR promised.
Muk mukaa has been done. Side arms were pulled at each other over a traffic stop. The issue became one of inter-departmental tussle. So it had to be settled by the concerned officers on both sides. Had any one side been punished, it would have been considered an excess. Obviously the military has to be more careful about such things, that goes without saying.
 
.
Muk mukaa has been done. Side arms were pulled at each other over a traffic stop. The issue became one of inter-departmental tussle. So it had to be settled by the concerned officers on both sides. Had any one side been punished, it would have been considered an excess. Obviously the military has to be more careful about such things, that goes without saying.

So the ISPR's definition of justice is muk mukaa? Sadly typical, another opportunity for establishing rule of law lost.

The issue was never an interdepartmental tussle, but one of army officers establishing themselves as being above the law yet again, in this case, speed limits. Other, even more grave crimes, were also committed, but condoned also. It should not have been settled by the officers, but by demanding that the law rule supreme.

What may seem like a victory in battle to the lawbreakers will only hasten their losing the war in the long run.
 
.
You are entitled to your opinion. This isn't clearly a black or white case. Just because its a civilian vs. military tussle does not mean that the military is overbearing. But I stand by what I stated earlier, in the interest of good civilian-military relations, the army has to be more careful. I remember a specific case when I was in my military transport in Karachi heading to Lasbela a few decades ago, there was a bit of a noke-jhok with a bus driver on the road since his adhoc bus stop was blocking our path, the jawan from the unit in the jeep was about to step out and get physical but we specifically told him to cool it because of the way things are perceived in such cases. At least in one of the videos, I did hear one of the officers involved state the same that they told the Highway police to step aside and discuss this amicably but it unfortunately escalated. Point is, such things are an exception rather than the norm.
 
.
So the ISPR's definition of justice is muk mukaa? Sadly typical, another opportunity for establishing rule of law lost.

What may seem like a victory in battle to the lawbreakers will only hasten their losing the war in the long run.

For once, I totally agree with your post. Yes, you are correct. Law enforcers are for the common Public. Not for the military men, down to the last level of being mere soldiers. This needs to change in Pakistan and the law is for all. I can't see a US Marine or an Army person doing this in the US and not hitting the jail right away. At some point, people in Pakistan both civil and military have to realize that the law has to take over. Otherwise, it will continue to be the case, like it has been for decades. This is the fourth case in the past 10 years I know about. One out of the three others came out in the media and was squashed. This at-least made some headlines.
 
.
Yes but this is a gradual process. In a society where entitlement is the norm, it takes time for institutions and individuals to figure such things out.

I don't know the outcome of the inquiry, but such things adversely impact the officers involved with their ACRs getting tarnished. So there could be implications for those in uniform.
 
.
I'm glad that the final pages of this thread have seen some mature voices chime in, even if they disagree on specifics. This is why I joined this Forum.

Even if the Motorway Police overstepped their authority (which is currently unclear and apparently they did not), the correct course of action is to obey their instructions even if you are a General (let alone low-ranking officer) --- and later file a complaint with the relevant NHMP dept/HQ. This is the legal course of action. Even if for the PR war, this would have been the best course of action.

If everyone starts taking the law into their own hands, the difference between feudal thugs and elite spec ops will start diminishing...
 
.
I'm glad that the final pages of this thread have seen some mature voices chime in, even if they disagree on specifics. This is why I joined this Forum.

Even if the Motorway Police overstepped their authority (which is currently unclear and apparently they did not), the correct course of action is to obey their instructions even if you are a General (let alone low-ranking officer) --- and later file a complaint with the relevant NHMP dept/HQ. This is the legal course of action. Even if for the PR war, this would have been the best course of action.

If everyone starts taking the law into their own hands, the difference between feudal thugs and elite spec ops will start diminishing...

A very good review of the above thread.... Hats off...
 
.
You are entitled to your opinion. This isn't clearly a black or white case. Just because its a civilian vs. military tussle does not mean that the military is overbearing. But I stand by what I stated earlier, in the interest of good civilian-military relations, the army has to be more careful. I remember a specific case when I was in my military transport in Karachi heading to Lasbela a few decades ago, there was a bit of a noke-jhok with a bus driver on the road since his adhoc bus stop was blocking our path, the jawan from the unit in the jeep was about to step out and get physical but we specifically told him to cool it because of the way things are perceived in such cases. At least in one of the videos, I did hear one of the officers involved state the same that they told the Highway police to step aside and discuss this amicably but it unfortunately escalated. Point is, such things are an exception rather than the norm.

Such rationalizations are pretty pathetic Sir, to be honest. Just what is needed to issue a simple speeding ticket to an army officer breaking the law, let alone take other crimes like abduction seriously enough? Let us call it what it is: army officers behaving like ignominious thugs, and getting away with it, with muk mukaa being encouraged at the highest levels. Pathetic. And pitiful.
 
.
I am sorry to say but Syed Ali Haider has been saying since day one... that the army officers were at fault, they were the ones who stopped issuance of a ticket and then misbehaved and bullied the motorway police officers while all they did was say please, excuse me and offered a free lunch along with ice cream to the army Major.
One fails to understand his sources which have compelled him to even give this possibility a chance that there were some mistakes on part of both the parties and if lets assume that the major was at 100% fault even then they way PR war was started and continued is loathsome.
I support the analysis by R wing.
 
.
Normally Pakistani military is very professional and Pakistani police is famous in their own way [sarcasm intended]. It makes one wonder what the policeman / SSG did to warrant such escalation? I mean come on!!!, did the police guy ask for SSG's sister's hand in marriage or the policeman recognized SSG guy as the one who fled without paying the rent??
 
.
I am sorry to say but Syed Ali Haider has been saying since day one... that the army officers were at fault, they were the ones who stopped issuance of a ticket and then misbehaved and bullied the motorway police officers while all they did was say please, excuse me and offered a free lunch along with ice cream to the army Major.
One fails to understand his sources which have compelled him to even give this possibility a chance that there were some mistakes on part of both the parties and if lets assume that the major was at 100% fault even then they way PR war was started and continued is loathsome.
I support the analysis by R wing.

What is the motorway police supposed to do when they see a car exceeding the speed limit? Why and how were they prevented from issuing the speeding ticket? Let us start with these two basic questions, Sir.
 
.
sir i have gone on this path with you once before as well. you want us to repeat the same old mantra???
Even after those dozen or so messages if you still hell bent upon declaring a party pious and other sinful then what can i say....
offence of over speeding is one that is irrefutable... that's true.. no one has denied it, not even the major. what happened afterwards is what is debatable...
one party says that efforts were made to influence him, pressurize him, threaten him, he was handled physically and lastly when his team came to protect him all were man handled.
the other party says that he introduced himself, he was scolded, bad mouthed, his institution was insulted and when he protested and resisted further enforcement was called and he was man handled. In his self defence he sent a SOS signal who got involved into the brawl.

You sir, you are adamant that the first point of view is correct without having anything concrete in your hand, without being there at the spot and without having interviewed both or at the least either of the two parties.
If a compromise was reached then there is a strong chance that both parties were at fault.. even if its was at 70 -30 ratio. But then again this is my assumption and i am willing to question it myself and let others question it as well. I refuse to have a narrow minded approach and believe what is hearsay, i refuse to accept one side of the story, i refuse to blame one party without concrete proof and i surely refuse to not question or challenge what i believe happened. Like everyone I am a human and my interpretation of events can be wrong.
Forgive me for saying this but I am beginning to think that the problem with you is that you are one of those fellow countrymen who will believe anything which goes against army. Everything that is wrong with this country is either because of army or because of its policies. Army men are always above law and mentality like this. I hope i am wrong on this assumption.
 
.
if you still hell bent upon declaring a party pious and other sinful then what can i say....

Only one party is the lawbreaker here. And the other party was trying to enforce the law, until stopped by criminal activity. That is what needs to be said.

Please note that this is not a matter of being against the army or the police. It is a matter of placing the rule of law above all else. After all, if we try to rationalize one lawbreaker, then we lose the moral standing to object to any other lawbreaker too.

Just consider if tomorrow a sitting MNA or MPA does exactly what these army officers have done. What would the people trying rationalize criminal activity in this thread say then?
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom