Pakistan's Overbearing Army

[blain2]

Personally I think the future Pakistan Army should be reduced to 250 000 regulars...all very well trained, fully equipped and capable of handling all situations - ranging from conventional war-fighting to counter-insurgency to peace-keeping/occupation.

i would definately support this without the Zia-ist element since i have "lived" that culture!

I would support this number only after the Kashmir issue is resolved between Pakistan and India. Not before.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Yes, I know there has been a nominal Caliphate till the end of the WW-1. I also know that many within the Islamic world accorded no consequence to that including the Mughals in India (not sure if they paid token obeisance) and I am sure the same was true for the Muslims of SE Asia (Indonesia specifically). So that takes care of the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

There is enough literature on the characters of the Turkish Sultans who became Caliphs including their mental state, their drinking binges, their being locked away in walled rooms for years and years because of the threat of them assassinating the Sultan if they were let loose. I can go on....

The mere presence of Caliphate should not be enough I would guess. We have to see how it performed. When Muslims themselves claim that the ideal Islamic rule lasted no more than 40 years and Shias would raise a doubt about most of that 40 years, what are we talking of!

how muslims perceive the khilafa, give allegiance, or how caliphs spent their lives shouldn't really matter at all. no one said that khilafa will be perfect, actually the Prophet (SAWS) himself knew that shortly after his time, the khilafa will loose its islamic characteristics and instead become a monarchy.

"The Caliphate will remain in my nation after me for thirty years. Then, it will be a monarchy after that."

[Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others, Sahih Al-Jami` ' As-Saghir no. 3341].

However, having a khalifa rule over the majority of muslims is far more better for the muslim community, then to be separated through borders drawn up by imperialists. you, as a akhand bharat/hindutva maniac , would know a thing or two about that, wouldn't you?

anyways, back to the subject.

 

[Quwa]

Yes, I know there has been a nominal Caliphate till the end of the WW-1. I also know that many within the Islamic world accorded no consequence to that including the Mughals in India (not sure if they paid token obeisance) and I am sure the same was true for the Muslims of SE Asia (Indonesia specifically). So that takes care of the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

There is enough literature on the characters of the Turkish Sultans who became Caliphs including their mental state, their drinking binges, their being locked away in walled rooms for years and years because of the threat of them assassinating the Sultan if they were let loose. I can go on....

The mere presence of Caliphate should not be enough I would guess. We have to see how it performed. When Muslims themselves claim that the ideal Islamic rule lasted no more than 40 years and Shias would raise a doubt about most of that 40 years, what are we talking of!

The issue has less to do with the whole Muslim world paying allegience, than to in fact have a proper Islamic State. It stands as an obligatory measure for Muslims to work towards and subsequently pledge allegience to; now if some or many Muslims don't want to, that's their issue...Abrahamic history is full of the few versus the many within a single creed.

Secondly, the Islamic State is to be covered by the Quran, the Sunnah and the Sunnah of the first 4 Caliphs. The issues of the past are mistakes and need to be worked on and dealt with for the future. Thankfully today we have the advent of instant communication and the ability to debate ideas quicker and arguably more thoroughly and on the spot.

In any case, compared to what we have today, the Islamic State seems to have a better track record in all spheres.

 

[fatman17]

Thing is...Zia himself was from that old culture which gave birth to those who carried out 1971 and in some form supported the Waderas. Post-Zia elements I think are a lot more rational, I know a few who have been huge proponents of indigenous defence, not towing foreign lines as well as maintaining a strong but coherent counterinsurgency.

Zia's beginnings were modest at best. he was never a part of that culture and was not part of the "inner-ring" so to speak. he was a Lt.Col at that time.

 

[Quwa]

Zia's beginnings were modest at best. he was never a part of that culture and was not part of the "inner-ring" so to speak. he was a Lt.Col at that time.

...actually I meant he was from that era of time and was exposed to those circles more so than the officers after his days as CoAS & death.

Viewing the sorry state that Islam is in right now, and the racially profiling views of most arabs and their leaders, caliphate can only happen by divine intervention and nothing more. I will not support a global man made arab theocracy. When one speaks of caliphate the arabs will be the first to to grab the reins of power and choke you with it till you submit.

Screw them, I'll wait for Jesus.

Firstly, Allah guides who He Wills...it will only happen by Allah's will, and obviously Allah knows best. However the fact is that the Caliphate will be there at the time of Imam Mahdi - to inherit - and will be a World Nation during the time of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) Peace Be Upon Him.

Secondly, it might not be wise to wish for the return of Hazrat Isa, as that will entail the start of Dajjal...a huge trial for believers, in which the world will be plagued with remarkable suffering and trial. Only those who truly know they're strong in belief should take up such wishes, and I think for every Muslim, that is something we should not do...we're not at that level of belief.

Thirdly, the Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him said there will be 12 Just Caliphs from Quraysh...of which 4 or 5 have passed and one is Imam Mahdi...so we still have at least 6 Just Caliphs.

 

[blain2]

Zia's beginnings were modest at best. he was never a part of that culture and was not part of the "inner-ring" so to speak. he was a Lt.Col at that time.

I think he was a Brigadier around 1971. He was in deep crap over his role in Jordan. He was saved from a court martial by General Gul Hasan.

 

[Quwa]

Already here, not necessarily a person but more so a system.

A lot worse than today bro, a lot worse.

 

[RedBaron]

i would definately support this without the Zia-ist element since i have "lived" that culture!

Fatman17 sahib, I've seen media reports highlighting the fact that the next Pak GHQ will comprise of generals with jihadi leanings as these were the first batches of junior officers indoctrinated in that manner in the early days of the Zia regime.

In the below film, towards the end, a young Pak captain espouses "shahadat" but I'm not worried about this as "fighting ranks" would use jihadist principles to motivate their troops in battle.

However, when this captain becomes a general, he (and colleagues) would be appointed to manage Pak nuclear assets and that the decision to deploy these assets may be influenced by his (their) jihadist leanings...What is your personal opinion about it?

And if you don't mind my asking, what made you turn away from the Zia-ist model? Is it because its anti-western/backward looking, etc.? Or is it because this model could prove to be dangerous when critical decisions are made?

Thanks in advance

 

[Quwa]

If the decision to deploy nuclear weapons was based on Jihadist principles, then the Pakistani military would not plan to use nuclear weapons at all. "Jihad fi sibi-hillah" - Struggle in the Battlefield - strictly impedes on any tactics that could in someway harm civilians, regardless of their religion. In fact, following jihad would restrict the armed forces to attacking solely Indian military targets.

 

[omairhr]

I am risking a ban from these forums from 'patriotic expatriates' for asking these questions. But I need to ask anyways. And I hope I get some answers. I am desperate for some sensible answers!

1. Why is it that Pakistan military is involved in HUGE housing projects? (DHA and Askari). Are they trained for that?

2. Why is it that Pakistan military is involved in industries like fertilizers, chemicals, banking, insurance, airline etc?

3. Why it is that Pakistan military has a right to rule Pakistan whenever they want to? Do they come from some other planet? How do we know that they are no more corrupt than other Pakistanis? Are they trained for governance?

4. Why is that when we travel from Lahore to Rawalpindi on GT Road, we can cross at least 5 major cantonment areas and if we travel from Delhi to Jaipur (almost the same distance) we do not see any cantonment area?

5. Why is it that military personnel get huge discounts on travel through train or airplanes while the doctors serving in rural areas (serving the country at least equally) do not get this facility?

6. How come the Pakistan army has guest houses and messes in the most remote and picturesque parts of the country?

7. How come the most beautiful beaches around Karachi are reserved for Navy top brass and most of the social clubs are managed by military?

8. Why is it that USA is concerned about $6 billion sent to Pakistan for its ‘fight against terrorism’ while we do not account for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Pakistan military over the last 6 decades primarily securing US interests in the region?

9. Why is it that US ‘assistance’ to Pakistan only resumes when we have a military government? I thought US was pro democracy.

10. Why is it that doctors working for AMC get to have residence and other facilities while doctors working in similar positions in civilian hospitals do not?

11. Why is it that military personnel deserve huge remuneration in terms of land and facilities while other professionals working for government do not?

12. Why is it that the judiciary in Pakistan has always used "doctrine of necessity" only when dealing with military governments?

13. Why is it that despite being under military rule for most of its life, Pakistan is still in the bottom 15 of the list of most peaceful countries? Global Peace Index Rankings 2008 - Global Peace Index

14. If the politicians are corrupt, how come Pakistan did not fare well socially (including law and order) or economically during military regimes (except for Ayub Khan maybe)?

I do not ask these questions because I am not patriotic. I ask these questions because I am. Our children have gone without education and our mothers have gone without health care because we had to feed a large military. This can be easily seen through huge disparity between budgetary spending on defense vis a vis health or education over the last 6 decades.

I also ask these questions because I have a finance background and worry about ‘return on investment’. With apologies to my Bangladeshi brothers, the return on investment in military has been hugely negative. While we lost half of the country, the ‘Kashmir problem’ has remained as it was over the last 60 years.




References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=all

SPECIAL REPORT: America?s Undeclared War on Pakistan | Pakistan Daily

Ali, Imran. 2001a. ‘The Historical Lineages of Poverty and Exclusion in Pakistan’. Paper presented at Conference on Realm, Society and Nation in South Asia. National University of Singapore.

Ali, Imran. 2001b. ‘Business and Power in Pakistan’, in A.M. Weiss and S.Z. Gilani (eds), Power and Civil Society in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Ali, Imran. 2002. ‘Past and Present: The Making of the State in Pakistan’, in Imran Ali, S. Mumtaz and J.L. Racine (eds), Pakistan: The Contours of State and Society. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Looney, R.E. (1994) ‘Budgetary Dilemmas in Pakistan: Costs and Benefits of Sustained Defence Expenditures’, Asian Survey 34 (5).

Pakistani defense expenditures and the macroeconomy: Alternative strategies to the year 2000 Author: Robert E. Looney

IISS (1999) The Military Balance 1998/99. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Tellis, Ashley J.
U.S. Strategy: Assisting Pakistan's Transformation
The Washington Quarterly - Volume 28, Number 1, Winter 2004-05, pp. 97-116


www.ipcs.org/PakMedia03-UJul04.pdf

 

[roopesh]

First of all I am an Indian and dont have any idea about Pak military. But I thought i can give some idea before other senior members comeup with exact answer.

Pakistan had a idea to match Indian military from earlier days and its going on till today. Ofcourse India is in better shape to allocate more budget to military than pakistan. So pakistan had to match these strength. In the process military become so important. Later military ruled the country. It doenst mean just miliray head became president; he has to share the power with military officials to keep his chair. Once military gets into power they have money to invest everywhere.
No country can project their military system is corrupt or non patriotic. Its easy to hide the military scandles from public and its safer than politicians. If u see todays pakistan most influentual and powerful person is army head Kiyani and its not zardari.
And pakistan ppl believe that army is better than politicians.
In my words India is no better than this except military generals are replaced by politicians.
If you are an Indian u can think of laloo, jayalalitha, mayavathi as military generals. Thats it

 

[Black Stone]

I am risking a ban from these forums from 'patriotic expatriates' for asking these questions.

You don't have to be afraid of getting banned aslong you follow the forum rules...unless Neo is reading your post, then your in a unchartered territory.

Besides, if I'm not banned yet, your safe here.

 

[omairhr]

I want all the members to enter this discussion without mud-throwing.

I don't want to compare India and Pakistan. .......

And then you go on comparing India and Pakistan throughout your post

And I am sure if there is money going into 'Indian operations' it is a very small portion of what is allocated as defense expenditure. I am talking about the facilities Pakistan military enjoy within the country and asking whether they deserve it. Please keep to it.

 

[Rajkumar]

power corrupts all,its human nature,sooner or later it happens. military is not an exception from this phenomenon.
woh kahte hain na,kursi milne ke baad aasani se chutati nahin hai.
since military works so secretly,we don't hear much about corruption in military but its there,every military of world has it.

 

[niaz]

I am risking a ban from these forums from 'patriotic expatriates' for asking these questions. But I need to ask anyways. And I hope I get some answers. I am desperate for some sensible answers!

1. Why is it that Pakistan military is involved in HUGE housing projects? (DHA and Askari). Are they trained for that?

2. Why is it that Pakistan military is involved in industries like fertilizers, chemicals, banking, insurance, airline etc?

3. Why it is that Pakistan military has a right to rule Pakistan whenever they want to? Do they come from some other planet? How do we know that they are no more corrupt than other Pakistanis? Are they trained for governance?

4. Why is that when we travel from Lahore to Rawalpindi on GT Road, we can cross at least 5 major cantonment areas and if we travel from Delhi to Jaipur (almost the same distance) we do not see any cantonment area?

5. Why is it that military personnel get huge discounts on travel through train or airplanes while the doctors serving in rural areas (serving the country at least equally) do not get this facility?

6. How come the Pakistan army has guest houses and messes in the most remote and picturesque parts of the country?

7. How come the most beautiful beaches around Karachi are reserved for Navy top brass and most of the social clubs are managed by military?

8. Why is it that USA is concerned about $6 billion sent to Pakistan for its ‘fight against terrorism’ while we do not account for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Pakistan military over the last 6 decades primarily securing US interests in the region?

9. Why is it that US ‘assistance’ to Pakistan only resumes when we have a military government? I thought US was pro democracy.

10. Why is it that doctors working for AMC get to have residence and other facilities while doctors working in similar positions in civilian hospitals do not?

11. Why is it that military personnel deserve huge remuneration in terms of land and facilities while other professionals working for government do not?

12. Why is it that the judiciary in Pakistan has always used "doctrine of necessity" only when dealing with military governments?

13. Why is it that despite being under military rule for most of its life, Pakistan is still in the bottom 15 of the list of most peaceful countries? Global Peace Index Rankings 2008 - Global Peace Index

14. If the politicians are corrupt, how come Pakistan did not fare well socially (including law and order) or economically during military regimes (except for Ayub Khan maybe)?

I do not ask these questions because I am not patriotic. I ask these questions because I am. Our children have gone without education and our mothers have gone without health care because we had to feed a large military. This can be easily seen through huge disparity between budgetary spending on defense vis a vis health or education over the last 6 decades.

I also ask these questions because I have a finance background and worry about ‘return on investment’. With apologies to my Bangladeshi brothers, the return on investment in military has been hugely negative. While we lost half of the country, the ‘Kashmir problem’ has remained as it was over the last 60 years.




References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=all

SPECIAL REPORT: America?s Undeclared War on Pakistan | Pakistan Daily

Ali, Imran. 2001a. ‘The Historical Lineages of Poverty and Exclusion in Pakistan’. Paper presented at Conference on Realm, Society and Nation in South Asia. National University of Singapore.

Ali, Imran. 2001b. ‘Business and Power in Pakistan’, in A.M. Weiss and S.Z. Gilani (eds), Power and Civil Society in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Ali, Imran. 2002. ‘Past and Present: The Making of the State in Pakistan’, in Imran Ali, S. Mumtaz and J.L. Racine (eds), Pakistan: The Contours of State and Society. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Looney, R.E. (1994) ‘Budgetary Dilemmas in Pakistan: Costs and Benefits of Sustained Defence Expenditures’, Asian Survey 34 (5).

Pakistani defense expenditures and the macroeconomy: Alternative strategies to the year 2000 Author: Robert E. Looney

IISS (1999) The Military Balance 1998/99. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Tellis, Ashley J.
U.S. Strategy: Assisting Pakistan's Transformation
The Washington Quarterly - Volume 28, Number 1, Winter 2004-05, pp. 97-116


www.ipcs.org/PakMedia03-UJul04.pdf

Hon Sir,

Most of the questions you have raised in your post are based upon false assumptions. For example, nearly all senior civil officers including those of Railways are provided with generous bungalows and villas. Similarly Services doctors as well as those of Railways get official residence as a ‘perk’ but are not allowed to indulge in private practice, whereas nearly all the consultant surgeons in the civil hospitals have private practice to supplement their income.

Most of the dollars from the US are going towards attack helicopters, radars, SP guns; all part of the fight against terrorism.

First Martial Law in 1958 was proclaimed by then civilian president (Sikander Mirza), second Martial Law was a direct result of countrywide strikes and paralysis following massive rigging in the election by ZA Bhutto. Last Martial Law was also result of a hurried action by Nawaz Sharif when COAS was in the Air?

Finally, the Doctrine of Necessity was first used by then CJ Justice Munir in 1954, who favored the Gov. Gen. of Pakistan Ghulam Mohammad, a civilian, against Maulvi Tamizuddin, Speaker of the National Assembly. Once such a land mark judgment is made, it can used as precedent to justify later events.

You have every right to be anti military, just as I am anti mullah; only difference is that you are accepting incorrect views propagated in the media by hypocritical politicians. Did you know that first time ever in Pakistan’s history that mob attacked Supreme Court in session, happened during Nawaz Sharif 2nd term as PM, when his brother (CM of Punjab) brought buses full of goondas from Lahore to Islamabad for this very purpose? Now the same NS is a paragon of virtue and a stalwart supporter of the Supreme Court.

Pak Military is certainly no angel and has been exercising too much political power.
But your post puts every thing that is bad at the military’s doorstep. I am also a supporter of democracy, but I won’t base my accusations on heresy evidence.

I am not accusing you of being unpatriotic but of being extremely naïve and misguided.