If the masses are okay with it, who am I to complain? It is clear the ousted party wants more of the establishment's involvement to right the injustices done to them. Continuing to involve the military in politics to favor them or to stay on their side means rewarding them with even more benefits. If this is the way the nation and its representatives want to run the country then I am not sure what I can say.
Pakistan has implemented some of the very same measures as were taken in India but Pakistan's dynamics were/are different. As such doing the very same as in India wouldn't necessarily make sense here and in some cases, those measures are just not possible. Some of our bad habits will take longer to wean away. This will be a painful, slow process but such is the reality we face.It usually never happens from within — even if you might want it that way. Only extraordinary actions by the “civilians” can even hope to change your system now.
No one gives up power and wealth voluntarily. Lower ranks who are used to watching their higher-ups prosper will never give up their shot.
India would have ended up worse than pakistan today had it not been for Nehru.
“Prime minister Nehru believed that the new India needed to rethink the role of the army, and initiated a policy that would firmly subordinate it to the civilian authority. One of the first things that happened after Independence, for example, was that Teen Murti House, traditionally the grand residence of the army chief, was assigned instead to the prime minister: A small matter by itself, perhaps, but a clear indicator of the way the wind was blowing.
Next came a series of budget cuts (resulting, among other things, in hefty cuts in army officers’ generous Raj-era salaries). And when India’s first army chief, field marshal Cariappa, publicly criticised the government’s economic performance, he was immediately rapped on the knuckles, and told not to meddle in matters that did not concern him.
Over the years a systematic programme was pursued to ring-fence the armed forces, and their influence in Indian society—a programme that was given fresh urgency in 1958 by the military coup in next-door Pakistan (an occurrence that was worryingly praised by field marshal Cariappa, who had recently retired as army chief). A highlight—or, rather, lowlight—of that ring-fencing programme was the appointment of Krishna Menon, a powerful, abrasive, leftist intellectual, as defence minister. It was an attempt to put the armed forces unambiguously in their place. Unfortunately, it also had the unintended side effect of leading to the stinging defeat of 1962, but that is a different story.
By the 1970s, the Indian armed forces had finally been rendered ‘coup-proof’ by a comprehensive system of checks and balances that had been put in place. And that might be considered to be one of the major achievements of the Nehru era: Ensuring the durability of Indian democracy. It’s an achievement that is not sufficiently recognised; an achievement underscored by the fact that all our South Asian neighbours—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka—have experienced military coups, actual or attempted.
Wilkinson explains how this ‘coup-proofing’ was implemented, through a package of carefully thought-out measures, ranging from diversifying the ethnic composition of the armed forces to setting up rugged command and control structures, re-casting the order of precedence between civil and military authorities, paying close attention to promotions, disallowing army officers from making public statements, creating a counter-balancing paramilitary force, and topping off this entire effort with little touches like ensuring that retired chiefs of staff are usually sent off as ambassadors to faraway countries.”
Why India has never seen a military dictatorship
It’s an achievement that is not sufficiently recognised.qz.com
Send in the CTD and FC by all means.
One or more things are fundamentally wrong with one institution that needs addressing. That institution forced three martial laws on the country. Why not sister services and the same institution every time?
Yes, by diverting some of the resources from Army to other departments, we can develop healthy civilian institutions.
I don't think funds is the issue.
All institutes are so weak, dysfunctional and fragile that they will buckle. It is because they were kept weak, to be ruled, now giving all out freedom will collapse them. Army should give back control gradually.
That is the way. Army should support wherever it can to support Pak, not drop to politicians' level and start looting Pak.
At least for these 3 years.
That is hour of the need.
In a near bankrupt Pakistan funds is not the issue, we all believe you.
I didn’t ask you to believe me. Believe in God and read economics and history of Pakistan since you think this is the first time in history that Pakistan has reached the stage of bankruptcy and all is lost.
You can go at the edge of abyss and pull back a few times. Eventually your luck will run out and the abyss will swallow you.
You should hope that those institutions get run by people who have the potential to take them up above military standards and levels, which hardly occurs.
What military standards are you talking about?
I think Pakistan Army has been very careful this time. The Army Chief they wanted to make was deliberately kept hidden from public sight. World was focused on the 4 soldiers and would have tried building connections in advance, but General Asim Munir finally showed up as a surprise and shock to many.https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...ef-matters-far-beyond-its-borders-2022-11-17/
Explainer: Who Pakistan picks as army chief matters far beyond its borders
By Gibran Naiyyar Peshimam
Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa arrives to attend the Pakistan Day military parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 23, 2017. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood/Files
KARACHI, Pakistan, Nov 17 (Reuters) - Pakistan's nuclear armed military is set to get a new supremo later this month when General Qamar Javed Bajwa's tenure as Chief of Army Staff comes to an end.
The military is the most powerful institution in a nation seldom far from its next crisis and the appointment could have a crucial bearing on the future of Pakistan's fragile democracy, and whether relations with neighbouring India are allowed to improve.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report an ad
During the 75 years since independence and formation of Pakistan out of the Partition of India, the army has seized power three times and directly ruled the Islamic republic for more than three decades, fighting three wars with India along the way.
Even when a civilian government holds power, Pakistan's generals retain a dominant influence over security matters and foreign affairs. And the new chief could set the tone for the conduct of relations with the Hindu nationalist government in India, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and determine whether Pakistan tilts more toward China or the United States.
BAJWA'S LEGACY
Appointed chief in 2016, Bajwa sought to balance ties with China and the United States. While Islamabad moved closer to Beijing, Bajwa also worked to thaw relations with Washington, with whom he worked closely during the evacuation of Kabul in 2021 when western forces pulled out of Afghanistan.
Latest Updates
Bajwa also took an active interest in economic matters, as well he might given how much of the budget goes to the military.
- North Korea fires missile, vows 'fiercer' response to U.S., allies
- APEC host Thailand's budding marijuana industry faces backlash
- Asia must not become arena for 'big power contest', says China's Xi
- Floods isolate Australian wheatbelt towns; Singapore joins rescue efforts
He made highly-publicised visits to Beijing and the Middle East - helping to secure financial assistance for Pakistan. He also lobbied Washington to help strike a deal with the International Monetary Fund.
He even summoned Pakistan's top industrialists to a meeting at army headquarters to encourage them to pay more tax.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report an ad
During his tenure, India and Pakistan fought air skirmishes in 2019, but he was a public proponent of better ties and avoided escalation when tensions ran high, such as when an Indian missile accidentally crashed into Pakistan's territory this year.
In early 2021, Bajwa sanctioned a restoration of a ceasefire agreement with Delhi in the disputed region of Kashmir.
Domestically, he was accused of political meddling. Politicians said he helped former cricketer Imran Khan become prime minister in 2018. In an about-turn earlier this year, Khan accused Bajwa of playing a part in his downfall.
HOW IS A CHIEF APPOINTED?
The outgoing chief will give the prime minister a list of senior-most generals to choose from. Only on rare occasions has the baton been passed to someone outside the top four most senior officers in an army that, with just under a million personnel in 2019, was the sixth largest in the world.
An army chief's tenure is for three years, but they often obtain extensions, as did Bajwa. Despite assurances by the military that Bajwa will retire this time, there has been speculation that he could be given another extension due to the latest political and economic ructions in Pakistan.
The generals regarded as front-runners to replace Bajwa are Lieutenant-Generals Asim Munir, the army's quartermaster general and a former spy chief, Sahir Shamshad, commander of the Rawalpindi Corps, Azhar Abbas, the army's chief of general staff, and Nauman Mahmood, chief of the National Defence University.
WHY IT MATTERS GLOBALLY
Pakistan's army chief will play a key role in managing risks of conflict with nuclear-armed rival India on its eastern border, while dealing with potential instability and friction with Afghanistan on its western frontier.
Many world capitals, including Washington and Beijing, have direct ties with Pakistan's military, given the country's strategic location in a volatile neighbourhood, and a coastline close to major shipping lanes serving the oil-rich Gulf.
Foreign governments have periodically questioned the safety of a nuclear arsenal, that includes long-range missiles, in a country so frequently needing IMF bail outs and where anti-Western and anti-India militant groups have proliferated.
And internal security has been a near constant problem due to insurgencies in ethnic Pashtun and Baloch regions.
Despite all the risks, Pakistan and its military have dismissed foreigners' concerns over the command and control, and security of its nuclear weapons.
WHY IS THIS APPOINTMENT IMPORTANT DOMESTICALLY?
The military has long been accused of manipulating the democratic process to maintain its dominance. Nineteen of Pakistan's 30 prime ministers were elected, but not one of them completed their five year terms.
Having recently admitted to its past meddling in politics, the army has said it would no longer interfere. Whether the new chief stands by that commitment could be key to Pakistan's democratic evolution.
Pakistan is in the midst of another bout of political uncertainty as Khan has led country-wide protests in an attempt to force Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif into early elections.
The incoming army chief could potentially play a key role in lowering the political temperature as Pakistan attempts to survive an economic crisis and recover from historic floods.
