Pakistan Army is world's most accomplished force: Gen Raheel

[abdlsy]

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman NI (M)

Born in 1959, Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman received his intermediate and graduate education at PAF College, Sargodha. Subsequently, he joined Pakistan Air Force and graduated from PAF Academy in 1980. After completing Fighter and Operational Conversion Courses, he flew various types of fighter aircraft on PAF inventory including F-16s. As a distinguished fighter pilot and Combat Commander, he also evaluated fifth generation fighters like Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon. He has commanded a Fighter Squadron, Combat Commanders’ School, a Fighter Base and Central Air Command of the Pakistan Air Force. The Air Chief having vast experience of flying has a grand total of over 3000 fighter hrs to his credit. In staff appointments at Air Headquarters, the Air Chief Marshal has served as Director Plans, Director Operations, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Operations), Air Officer Commanding Central Air Command, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Training), and Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Operations). He is a graduate of PAF Air War College and Royal College of Defence Studies, UK. He also has Master’s degree in International Relations from Kings College, London. The Air Chief also has the unique honour of representing Pakistan at Harvard Kennedy School, USA on National and International Security Course. Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman assumed the Command of the PAF on 19 March, 2015. He is married and blessed with four Children. In recognition of his meritorious and exceptionally dedicated services, he has been decorated with Nishan-i-Imtiaz (Military), Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military), Sitara-i-Imtiaz (Military) and Tamgha-i-Imtiaz (Military).

 

[thinking]

Sir.Jee....pehlay Army ke puraney Gen ne Nawaz...Zardari.Altaf
Mullah. Diesel..Asfand.ke roop mien jo G..and Pakistan ko dia ha
us se Pakistan ki jaan chura..dein....yaheeh aik ehsan bohat bara
ho ga.ap ka Pakistan par..

 

[There is only 1]

ایک منتخب حکومت کو گرانا کبھی ٹھیک نہیں ہوتا ..جمہوریت میں تبدیلی ووٹ سے آتی ہے


اس وقت عوام اس لیے نہیں نکلی کیوںکہ شعور نہیں تھا ..یہ قوم تو بھٹو جیسے لیڈر کی پھانسی پر بھی نہیں نکلی


اور قوم نے دیکھا جب بھٹو گیا تو ایک آمر ضیاء مسلط ہوا جس نے ملک تباہ کیا


اور نواز شریف گیا تو پرویزی آمریت آئی اور ملک کی بنیادیں ہل گئی

جی ہاں منتحب حکومت کو گرانا واقعی ٹھیک نہیں ہوتا۔ اگر حکومت واقعی منتحب ہوئی ہو تو

آپ نے کہا کہ عوام میں شعور نہیں تھا ۔ آپ مزید وضاحت کریں کہ شعور اب آ گیا ہے یا نہیں۔ اگر آ گیا ہے تو کس چیز سے آپ کو ایسا لگ رہا ہے؟ اور یہ کہ کیسے فیصلہ کیا جائے کہ عوام با شعور ہیں یا نہیں
کیا نواز حکومت کو دوسری بار جب منتحب کیا گیا (آپ کے دعوے کے مطابق ) تو تب عوام با شعور تھی یا نہیں

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

جب فوج نے ٩٩ میں حکومت کو چلتا کیا تو عوام نے نواز حکومت کے حق میں ایک بھی جلسہ یا مظاہرہ نہیں کیا۔ بلکے عوام کی چھوڑیں خود نون لیگی بلوں کی طرف بھاگ رہے تھے ۔ جنرل مشرف تو نواز کو پھانسی لگانے والا تھا لیکن پھر سعودی عرب بیچ میں آ گیا
آج بھی اگر فوج آ جائے تو کسی سیاست دان کو چوں کرنے کی بھی ہمت نہ ہو کیوں کہ
ایمان دار آدمی کے سامنے بے ایمان کھڑا نہیں ہو سکتا ۔

ایماندار آدمی تاریخ کے آۂینے میں


جو بھاگ گیا وہ نیازی









​

 

[abdlsy]

Nawaz Sharif میاں محمد نواز شریف
Prime Minister of Pakistan

Serving as the Leader of the Opposition during Bhutto's second tenure, Sharif was re-elected Prime Minister with a historic two-thirds majority in parliament,[SUP][7][/SUP] after Benazir was again dismissed for corruption by new President Farooq Leghari.[SUP][7][/SUP] Sharif replaced Leghari with Rafiq Tarar as President, then stripped the Presidency of its powers by passing the Thirteenth Amendment. He also notably ordered Pakistan's first nuclear tests in response to neighbouring India'ssecond nuclear tests as part of the tit-for-tat policy.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] When Western countries suspended foreign aid, Sharif froze the country's foreign currency reserves to prevent further capital flight, but this only worsened economic conditions.
He successfully called for Musharraf's impeachment and the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

His family owns Ittefaq Group, a multimillion dollar steel conglomerate[SUP][20][/SUP] and Sharif Group, a conglomerate company with holdings in agriculture, transport and sugar mills.

Education: High school. But review official documents show BA.

He is married to Kalsoom Nawaz Sharif.[SUP][21][/SUP] His brother Shahbaz Sharif is the incumbent Chief Minister of Punjab province while his nephew Hamza Shahbaz Sharif is a member of the National Assembly as well as the Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab.[SUP][22][/SUP] His daughter Maryam Nawaz, apparently a housewife but sometimes active for her father's party, is currently the chairperson for Prime Minister's youth initiative.[SUP][23][/SUP] His other daughter, Asma Nawaz, is married to Ali Dar, who is a son of Ishaq Dar, the current finance minister of Pakistan.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] The personal residence of the Sharif family, Raiwind Palace, is located in Jati Umra, Raiwind on the outskirts of Lahore.[SUP][25][/SUP] He also has a residence in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia known as the Sharif Villa, where he lived during his years in exile.[SUP][26][/SUP]
His son, Hussain Nawaz Sharif, currently resides in the Jeddah house.[SUP][27][/SUP] He went to Saint Anthony High School. He graduated from the Government College University (GCU) with an art and business degree and then received a law degree from the Law College of Punjab University in Lahore.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP]

 

[abdlsy]

He was arrested on charges of corruption in late 1996, following the collapse of the Bhutto government. Although incarcerated, he nominally served in Parliament after being elected to the National Assembly in 1990 and Senate in 1997. He was released from jail in 2004. He subsequently went into self-exile in Dubai, but returned in December 2007 after Bhutto's assassination. As the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he led his party to victory in the 2008 general elections.


In March 2008, he claimed he had graduated from the London School of Business Studies with a bachelor of education degree in the early 1970s.[SUP][11][/SUP] Zardari's official biography states he also attended Pedinton School in Britain.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] His British education, however, has not been confirmed, and a search did not turn up any Pedinton School in London.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The issue of his diploma was contentious because a 2002 rule required candidates for Parliament to hold a college degree,[SUP][11][/SUP] but the rule was overturned by Pakistan's Supreme Court in April 2008.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][13]

[/SUP]He was arrested on 10 October 1990 on charges relating to kidnapping and extortion.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP] The charges alleged an extortion scheme that involved tying a supposed bomb to a British businessman's leg
A major report was published in January 1998 by The New York Times detailing Zardari's vast corruption and misuse of public funds.[SUP][36][/SUP] The report discussed $200 million in kickbacks to Zardari and a Pakistani partner for a $4 billion contract with French military contractor Dassault Aviation, in a deal that fell apart only when the Bhutto government was dismissed.[SUP][36][/SUP] It contained details of two payments of $5 million each by a gold bullion dealer in return for a monopoly on gold imports.[SUP][36][/SUP] It had information from Pakistani investigators that the Bhutto family had allegedly accrued more than $1.5 billion in illicit profits through kickbacks in virtually every sphere of government activity.[SUP][36][/SUP] It also reported Zardari's mid-1990s spending spree, which included hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on jewellery.[SUP][36][/SUP] The arrangements made by the Bhutto family for their wealth relied on Western property companies, Western lawyers, and a network of Western friends.[SUP][36][/SUP] The report described how Zardari had arranged secret contracts, painstaking negotiations, and the dismissal of anyone who objected to his dealings.[SUP][36][/SUP]
Citibank, already under fire for its private-banking practices, got into further trouble as a result of the report.[SUP][37][/SUP] Zardari's financial history was one case study in a 1999 U.S. Senate report on vulnerabilities in banking procedures.[SUP][38[/SUP]
In July 1998, he was indicted for corruption in Pakistan after the Swiss government handed over documents to Pakistani authorities relating to money laundering.[SUP][41][/SUP]The Swiss had also indicted him for money laundering.[SUP][41][/SUP] At the same time, in a separate case, he and 18 others were indicted for conspiracy to murder Murtaza Bhutto.[SUP][42][/SUP] After criminal prosecutions began, Citibank closed Zardari's account.[SUP][37][/SUP]
In April 1999, Bhutto and Zardari were convicted for receiving indemnities from a Swiss goods inspection company that was hired to end corruption in the collection of customs duties.[SUP][43][/SUP] The couple received a fine of $8.6 million.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] Both were also sentenced to five years imprisonment, but Bhutto could not be extradited back to Pakistan from her self-imposed exile.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] Zardari was already in jail awaiting trial on separate charges.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] The evidence used against them had been gathered by Swiss investigators and the Pakistani Bureau of Accountability.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
In May 1999, he was hospitalised after an alleged attempted suicide.[SUP][46][/SUP] He claimed it was a murder attempt by the police.[SUP][46][/SUP]
In August 2003, a Swiss judge convicted Bhutto and Zardari of money laundering and sentenced them to six months imprisonment and a fine of $50,000.[SUP][47][/SUP] In addition, they were required to return $11 million to the Pakistani government.[SUP][47][/SUP] The conviction involved charges relating to kickbacks from two Swiss firms in exchange for customs fraud.[SUP][48][/SUP] In France, Poland, and Switzerland, the couple faced additional allegations.[SUP][49][/SUP]
In November 2004, he was released on bail by court order.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP] A month later, he was unexpectedly arrested for failing to show up for a hearing on a murder case in Islamabad.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP] He was placed under house arrest in Karachi.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP] A day later, he was released on $5,000 bail.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP] His release, rearrest, and then release again was regarded as a sign of growing reconciliation between Musharraf's government and the PPP.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP] After his second release in late 2004, he left for exile in Dubai.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][53][/SUP]

 

[abdlsy]

In 1961, at age of 18,[SUP][23][/SUP] Musharraf entered the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] During his college years in PMA and initial joint military testings, Musharraf shared a room with PQ Mehdi of PAF and Abdul Aziz Mirza of Navy (both reached to four-star assignments and served with Musharraf later on) and after giving the exams and entrance interviews, all three cadets went to watch a world-acclaimed Urdu film, Savera (lit. Dawn), with his inter-services and college friends, Musharraf recalls, In the Line of Fire, published in 2006.[SUP][23][/SUP] With his friends, Musharraf passed the standardise, physical, psychological, and officer-training exams, he also took discussions involving the socioeconomics issues; all three were interviewed by joint military officers who were designated as Commandants.[SUP][23][/SUP] The next day, Musharraf along with PQ Mehdi and Mirza, reported to PMA and they were selected for their respective training in their arms of commission.[SUP][23][/SUP]
Finally in 1964, Musharraf graduated with a Bachelor's degree in his class of 29th PMA Long Course together with Ali Kuli Khan and his lifelong friend Abdul Aziz Mirza.[SUP][25][/SUP] He was commissioned in the artillery regiment as second lieutenant and posted near the Indo-Pakistan border.[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP] During this time in the artillery regiment, Musharraf maintained his close friendship and contact with Mirza through letters and telephones even in difficult times when Mirza, after joining the Navy Special Service Group, was stationed in East-Pakistan as a military advisor to East Pakistan Army.[SUP][23]

[/SUP]Musharraf was a lieutenant colonel in 1974;[SUP][17][/SUP] and a colonel in 1978.[SUP][29][/SUP] As staff officer in the 1980s, he studied political science at NDU, and then briefly tenured as assistant professor of war studies at the Command and Staff College and then assistant professor of political science also at the National Defense University.[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] One of his professor at NDU was general Jehangir Karamat who served Musharraf's guidance counselor and instructor who had significant influence on Musharraf's philosophy and critical thinking.[SUP][30][/SUP] He did not play any significant role in Pakistan's proxy war in the 1979–89 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[SUP][28][/SUP] In 1987, he became a brigade commander of a new brigade of the SSG near Siachen Glacier.[SUP][9][/SUP] He was personally chosen by then-President and Chief of Army Staff general Zia-ul-Haq for this assignment due to Musharraf's wide experience in mountain and arctic warfare.[SUP][31][/SUP] In September 1987, an assault was launched under the command of Musharraf at Bilafond La before being pushed back.[SUP][9][/SUP] In 1990–91, he studied at the Royal College of Defense Studies(RCDS) in Britain.[SUP][18][/SUP]Musharraf was a leading strategist behind the Kargil Conflict.[SUP][18][/SUP] From March to May 1999, he ordered the secret infiltration of Kashmiri forces in the Kargil district.[SUP][28][/SUP] After India discovered the infiltration, a fierce Indian offensive nearly led to a full-scale war.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP] However, Sharif withdrew support of the insurgents in the border conflict in July because of heightened international pressure.[SUP][28][/SUP] Sharif's decision antagonized the Pakistan Army and rumors of a possible coup began emerging soon afterward.[SUP][28][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] Sharif and Musharraf dispute on who was responsible for the Kargil conflict and Pakistan's withdrawal.[SUP][38]

[/SUP]Musharraf allied with the United States against the Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

His government increased reserved seats for women in assemblies, to increase women's representation and make their presence more effective. Compared with 1988 seats in the National Assembly were increased from 20 to 60. In provincial assemblies 128 seats were reserved for women. This situation has brought out increase participation of women for 1988 and 2008 elections.[SUP][114]


[/SUP]
On 9 March 2007, Musharraf suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and pressed corruption charges against him. He replaced him with ally Acting Chief Justice Javed Iqbal.
Musharraf's moves sparked protests among Pakistani lawyers.
On 3 November 2007 Musharraf declared emergency rule across Pakistan. He suspended the Constitution, imposed State of Emergency, and fired the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court again.[SUP][140][/SUP] In Islamabad, troops entered the Supreme Court building, arrested the judges and kept them under detention in their homes. Troops were deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels went off air. Public protests mounted against Musharraf.


[h=3]Academia and lectureship[edit][/h]After his resignation, Musharraf went to perform a holy pilgrimage to Makkah [Mecca]. He then went on a speaking and lectureship tour through the Middle East, Europe, and United States. Chicago-based Embark LLC was one of the international public-relations firms trying to land Musharraf as a highly paid keynote speaker.[SUP][151][/SUP] According to Embark President David B. Wheeler, the speaking fee for Musharraf would be in the $150,000–200,000 range for a day plus jet and other V.I.P. arrangements on the ground.[SUP][151][/SUP] In 2011, he also lectured at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peaceon politics and racism where he also authored and published a paper with George Perkvich.[SUP][152][/SUP]
The National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was a controversial ordinance issued by the former President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, on 5 October 2007.[SUP][1][/SUP] It granted amnesty to politicians, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between 1 January 1986, and 12 October 1999, the time between two states of martial law in Pakistan. It was declared unconstitutional by theSupreme Court of Pakistan on 16 December 2009, throwing the country into a political crisis.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3]

[/SUP]
The ordinance aimed at "promoting national reconciliation, fostering mutual trust and confidence amongst holders of public office and removing the vestiges of political vendetta and victimization, and to make the election process more transparent".[SUP][1][/SUP] The NRO states:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sub-section(1), the Federal Government or a Provincial Government may, before the judgment is pronounced by a trial court, withdraw from the prosecution of any person including an absconding accused who is found to be falsely involved for political reasons or through political victimization in any case initiated between 1st day of January, 1986 to 12th day of October, 1999 and upon such withdrawal clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall apply.

In 2002, the then government of Pakistan opened up new ways for the media industry of Pakistan by allowing private TV channels to operate openly even to telecast their own news and current affairs content. Prior to that the only private TV channel of the country NTM was not allowed to transmit its own news and current affairs programmings. Indus Vision (first ever private satellite channel of Pakistan). ARY Digital, Geo (this network gave a new shape & vision to News and Current affairs programming in Pakistan), Hum, and the phenomenon went on & on.

Musharaffs Govt:
National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) was established on March 10, 2000, by merging Directorate General of Registration Pakistan, a department created under the 1973 constitution, with the National Database Organization (NDO), an attached department under the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan created for the 1998 census. Nadra is an autonomous body to operate independently with the mandate to replace the old directorate general of Registration with a computrised system of registering 150 million citizens, NADRA launched the Multi-Biometric National Identity Card project developed in conformance with international security documentation issuance practices in the year 2000. The program replaced the paper based Personal Identity System of Pakistan that had been in use since 1973. To date, over 96 million citizens in Pakistan and abroad have utilized the system and its allied services to receive tamper-resistant ISO standard Identification Documents.

The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) was promoted by the government as an open media policy reform and was fortified with strong regulatory teeth. The establishment of PEMRA was initiated in 2000, during President Musharraf's term; through the formation of the Regulatory Authority for Media Broadcast Organisations (RAMBO) which was mandated to improve standards of information, education and entertainment; expand the choice available to the people of Pakistan in the media for news, current affairs, religions knowledge, art, culture, science, technology, economic development, social sector concerns, music, sport, drama and other subjects of public and national interest; facilitate the devolution of responsibility and power to grass roots by improving the access to mass media at the local and community level; and lastly, to ensure accountability, transparency and good governance by optimising the free flow of information.​

 

[abdlsy]

Imran Khan (Urdu: عِمران خان‎; born Imran Khan Niazi on 25 November 1952)[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] is a Pakistani politician and former cricketer. Khan played international cricket for two decades in the late twentieth century and, after retiring, entered politics. Besides his political activism, Khan is also a philanthropist, cricket commentator, chancellor of the University of Bradford and founding chairman of the Board of Governors of Shaukat Khanum Hospital. He also founded Namal College, Mianwali in 2008.

 

[abdlsy]

Mushahid Hussain Syed (Urdu: مشاہد حسین سید ‎; b. 1953), is a conservative journalist, political scientist, geostrategist, and a former media mogul, currently serving as the senator on a Pakistan Muslim League (Q) platform to Senate of Pakistan. As of current, he is the current Secretary-General of the Pakistan Muslim League, a centrist party.

He studied at the Forman Christian College University in Lahore, from where he received a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism. He holds a Master of Science in Political Science from the School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University. While studying in the United States, he was president of the Pakistan Students Association. He represented Georgetown University at the Student Conference on United States Affairs at the United States Military Academy atWest Point, the Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference at Annapolis and the United State Department's 'Crossroads' programme for foreign students.
He was also part of the international student group received by President Gerald Ford at the White House. He was awarded a Congressional Internship, rare for a foreign student, to work in the United States Congress in the summer of 1974. After completion of studies in the United States, he returned to Pakistan and became a member of directing staff at the country's prestigious training institution for civil servants, the Pakistan Administrative Staff College. He then joined Pakistan's oldest seat of learning, the Punjab University, as lecturer on international relations in the Political Science Department. He was among the four dissident teachers removed from the university in October 1979 for their campus activism during martial law.

 

[abdlsy]

Siraj was born in Ghauri family of Gujjars in Samarbagh village of the Lower Dir District, he got his early education from the local high school of the region and studied Political Science in the University of Peshawar. During the University political period, he was the Chief of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba from 1988 to 1991.[SUP][3][/SUP] He has been elected so many times as MPA from PK-95 constituency.

 

[abdlsy]

Karachi mian mqm our ppp to in kay qaboo mian hay nahi dushman ko kesy fatah kariangy?

Diplomacy was even done by our beloved prophet peace be upon him and his companions, thats why you r not a leader.

 

[abdlsy]

ایماندار آدمی تاریخ کے آۂینے میں


جو بھاگ گیا وہ نیازی









​

aik admee kee ghultee puree army pae zeemadaree orr shukk theek nahee, there are good n bad humans everywhere, tumharee puppo age kae saat maturity, logic, abstract rational thinking nahee aayaee, universally you people are called LOOSERS jahil. sorry Sir

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

aik admee kee ghultee puree army pae zeemadaree orr shukk theek nahee, there are good n bad humans everywhere, tumharee puppo age kae saat maturity, logic, abstract rational thinking nahee aayaee, universally you people are called LOOSERS jahil. sorry Sir

You need to change the defination of Imandar Adami if you think anyone who wears the Military uniform is imandar. The Corrupt Generals who end up selling their country will qualify for the title of Imandars. Niazi will get his green acres for running away and Malik Riyaz will keep building houses for the crooks to live in them. Pakistan Dyan Moojan Hi Moujan. Jithay deekho Foujan hi Foojan

 

[abdlsy]

You need to change the defination of Imandar Adami if you think anyone who wears the Military uniform is imandar. The Corrupt Generals who end up selling their country will qualify for the title of Imandars. Niazi will get his green acres for running away and Malik Riyaz will keep building houses for the crooks to live in them. Pakistan Dyan Moojan Hi Moujan. Jithay deekho Foujan hi Foojan

G, kubhee generalize nahee kurtae, who said every uniform officer is imaandaar, thats not true, there are good n bad in every entity, if u r pakistani and you live in Pakistan, beside allah, Pak army ONLY entity that is keeping PAKISTAN together.Please Jhoot khurein naa pehaloe Sir, it is wrong, allahtalah is watching us. Either way lets not argue more and do dua for Pakistan.

 

[abdlsy]

Why the existence of Pakistan is not in India’s interest[FONT=Arial !important]ByDr Amarjit Singh

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial !important]
IssueNet Edition| Date : 30 Oct , 2014


Pakistan has been a thorn in India’s left side for 65 years, and amazingly, India has tolerated its pain and irritation, against most odds of human nature. [/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]After four wars and multiple proxy wars waged by Pakistan, it still doesn’t count as much for India – a big elephant that is difficult to move.[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important] India’s Pakistan policy practices restraint and constraint against an enemy that hates it, that was born in conflict against India in brutal bloodshed, and even now hopes one day to overcome a weak India.

Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir.​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]Despite all the difficulties that Pakistan has faced and face[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]s – internal political turmoil and terrorist threats, external issues in Afghanistan, an economy that is on the verge of collapse, and being condemned around the world for its export of terrorism – Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir. Which concept of rationality in the modern world can accept Pakistan’s belligerent and incongruent worldview, at a time when the civilized world wishes peace and economic prosperity against a threatening climate, growing population, an oncoming oil crisis, and worldwide economic woes?By all facts and accounts, Pakistan has been sapping India’s productive and psychic energy every day for 65 years. It is somewhat true that Pakistan has been bleeding India by a thousand cuts. Look at the billions of hours of productive time and newspaper print and headlines wasted on a Pakistan that is an affliction for India and perhaps the world. None of the energy spent on Pakistan counts towards India’s GDP or improved industrial productivity, nor does it improve the economic position of India. [/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]The industrial production of India, creativeness of its engineers and thinkers, and ability to gain a foothold in the world has been compromised because a Pakistan exists that threatens war on the subcontinent, distracts national pursuits for excellence, and thereby diminishes foreign investment and confidence in India[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important].

For India to grow and have peace and confidence, it must get rid of the Pakistan that obstructs it in many ways, even standing against it in its quest for a rightful position on the permanent Security Council, and one that tried vehemently to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal.Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control. In fact, the USA must find merit in the argument that it can better contain the terrorists and Taliban with India controlling them than they themselves. While the USA realizes that Pakistan is duplicitous with its terrorists, the USA is unable to see through the haze that can only be seen by those who have lived with Pakistan and in Pakistan’s neighborhood forever, such as India. Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.

Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control.​

Once every few years, Pakistan feigns interest for diplomacy and negotiations (cricket diplomacy, bus diplomacy, this or that) and often brings up ethnic and language similarity with India to suit its temporary interests – only to back off at the last minute and plot new proxy wars or battles against India. This is of no use to India; in fact, it is a hindrance in India’s quest to be a self-confident power in and of itself. Pakistan presumably hates India and starts an anxiety disorder each time it realizes that Kashmir may slip from it is grip. Now, in another deceptive move, Pakistan recommends that India withdraw from Siachen – a mistake India can ill afford to make after the mistakes of Haji Pir and the return of 93,000 POW’s. Withdraw from Siachen for what? Only for Pakistan and China to occupy it in a sudden move before the onset of a future China-Pakistan joint invasion of Ladakh? None of the satellite monitoring or UN observation systems will be effective at that time, and China and Pakistan will be staring down at Leh and the valley of Ladakh in free sport. The sooner that India can realize it cannot ever trust Pakistan on anything, the healthier it is for India. In that vein, the dialogue and negotiation with Pakistan that is thrust on India by the USA, only helps to prolong the inevitable and the burning pain. The only way to put Pakistan in its place is to possibly have no truck with it, perhaps even not trade with it. One reason that India often enters into negotiations with Pakistan is because its diplomats need to generate work for themselves to justify their existence; also, the USA quite often exerts pressure on India in its usual patronizing attitude to negotiate with Pakistan. This is not healthy.Among the most feared aspects of a war with Pakistan is the nuclear element. Now that India has allowed Pakistan to move ahead in this department in the 1970s and 1980s, and failed to implement Operation Brasstacks into a fully fledged invasion of Pakistan, India has to bite the bullet on this score. Though Pakistan threatens India with nuclear retaliation in an all-out war, that too must not hold India back against trashing Pakistan. Whatever others may believe, my opinion is simply that it is better for India to brave a costly nuclear attack by Pakistan, and get it over with even at the cost of tens of millions of deaths, than suffer ignominy and pain day in and day out through a thousand cuts and wasted energy in unrealized potential. This is not to say that the objective can’t be achieved without a nuclear war. In this respect, India’s no-first strike policy stands it in very good stead. In fact the process objective must be to achieve the strategic objective through conventional war. Without the elimination of Pakistan, India may never become a secure nation where the mind is held high without fear, and cannot ever hope to attract the type of foreign investment it needs for its economic growth. In addition, the psychological boost that India will get by eliminating Pakistan is unequal in and of itself—one which can propel India into the status of a future, stable, democratic, competitive, responsible, and secular nation.

Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]Analysts tend to ask what will happen to a Pakistan if India defeats it in battle. The answer is not complicated at all: Baluchistan will become independent, but under Indian security arrangements; Kashmir will revert to India; Sindh and West Punjab will be de-weaponized and become special states under Indian protection; and the entire NWFP handed over to the Pathans for a Pakhtoonistan that includes Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important] This will have ramifications on Afghanistan, as well, which may then naturally divide into two for its own peace and stability; Afghanistan’s northern areas consisting of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras, need to form their own country because they have little in emotional and filial bond with the Pathans.

This whole reorganization will change the boundaries of the region, but one that has to be undertaken which will be a welcome change to the current bloodshed, turmoil, and export of terrorism. Very often, major change is needed to change the status quo when minor changes don’t succeed.Much of this is against formal Indian foreign and security policy. The United Nations might also tend to balk at the destruction of a nation member, though it is likely that the West may not shed tears at this. But, this article is not being written to agree with Indian policies, or to present a framework within those policies, or to appease those who worship the Indian mentality. Quite to the contrary, a reformation in Indian policies is presented, and perhaps indicated, one that can give confidence and bring esteem to its people. It is in this light that a new paradigm is advanced. For instance, for long, the Indian policy has been to not engage in cross-border attacks, especially since Prime Minister Inder Gujral passed an ordinance to that effect in the late 1990s. But, such instructions are counter-productive, and Pakistan has taken full advantage of that policy by increasing its own cross-border infiltration. It is to be pointed out that Indian security policies are nothing to be proud of simply for the sake of pride in government. Policies that trample on sustainable Indian pride must be dismantled. The writer feels that the implementation of this new paradigm is ripe for action at this current time where Pakistan is reeling under internal imbalances. If a boxer will not knock out his opponent when the opponent is dizzy and imbalanced, then other opportunities are only guesswork.

Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.​

Subsequently, India must realize that it has deep religious and philosophical opposition in countries beyond Pakistan to the West. Saudi Arabia finances and supports Pakistan in every way possible and depends on Pakistan for its nuclear shield; the Arab nations have deep links to Pakistan. Discussion on what India needs to do in countries west of Pakistan is best left to another article. However, it can be well understood that India needs to fully secure its western flank and neutralize all threats from the west in order to concentrate better on China and Tibet, and thus strengthen its hand on the eastern flank. Thus, India needs to confront the uncertain future boldly, be a force in the region, spread the message of humanitarian rights and equal opportunity, project itself in the interests of peace and equanimity in the region, and avail of opportunities long before it is itself divided and dismembered.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]Thus, the ideal planning option for India is to invest heavily on liberating Pakistan, invest massively in engineering enterprise and education that can advance indigenous armament production, and double or triple its ship building programs and shipyards in which it has exceptional expertise and capability; and it must plan this in ten years, for the plan to be effective to carry a punch[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]. These actions will ipso facto stimulate Indian industry, GDP growth, and bring employment and happiness to its people. Very few educated people understand that money printed but used for stimulating indigenous manufacturing industries actually stimulates the economy, while inflation is checked by means such as control of interest rates and free trade with South East Asian nations.

For India to throw its money into foreign nations for expensive defense procurement does not sound like wisdom in action, though one cannot deny that importing defense equipment may be necessary on occasion. India actually begs for enlightened leadership that has moral fiber and a spine to go with it. It is time for the politicians to stop squabbling, for the generals to relearn service in the name of the nation rather than being involved in corruption scandals, and for the nation to get its priorities right and initiate industrial, agricultural, and trade reform.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.[/FONT][FONT=Arial !important][/FONT][FONT=Arial !important]

[/FONT]rThe views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

Dr Amarjit Singh

Dr. Amarjit Singh is an independent security analyst.

 

[Zaidi Qasim]

G, kubhee generalize nahee kurtae, who said every uniform officer is imaandaar, thats not true, there are good n bad in every entity, if u r pakistani and you live in Pakistan, beside allah, Pak army ONLY entity that is keeping PAKISTAN together.Please Jhoot khurein naa pehaloe Sir, it is wrong, allahtalah is watching us. Either way lets not argue more and do dua for Pakistan.

Yep, Pakistan is run on duas only because corrupts are roaming freely without any accountability.

 

[abdlsy]

[h=2]India and Pakistan: A Thin Line Between War and Peace[/h]
George Perkovich, Toby Dalton
OP-ED JUNE 3, 2014NATIONAL INTEREST


SUMMARYThe challenge for Indians and Pakistanis—and for the U.S. government, which inevitably would be impelled to mediate a new conflict—is to take steps now to prevent major terrorist attacks on India and to prepare modalities to manage consequences if prevention fails.





An early dividend of Narendra Modi’s election as India’s prime minister appeared on May 26, when Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited New Delhi for the inauguration. In his winning election campaign last year, Sharif had declared, “If India takes one step for good relations, Pakistan will take two. We even want to put an end to visa requirements between the two countries...We want peace with India.” Now the two South Asian leaders are mutually pledged to resume a peace process that Sharif and then-Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had begun in 1999.

[h=5]George Perkovich[/h]VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDIES
More from this author...

• [h=6]Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal[/h]
• [h=6]Why Turkey Won’t Go Nuclear[/h]
• [h=6]The Benefits of Mutual Distrust[/h]
• [h=6]Carnegie Experts on Iran Framework Agreement[/h]

@PERKOVICHG


However, the hoped-for peace process could turn to war—with huge implications for the United States—if militant actors in Pakistan attack India in hopes of provoking Modi to overreact. Something like this happened in 1999. Then, Pervez Musharraf and several colleagues in the Pakistan Army launched a clandestine incursion into the Kargil region of Kashmir, which triggered a limited, hard-fought war that India won, with diplomatic assistance from Bill Clinton. Today, the likely instigators would be the Pakistani Taliban or other militant groups who wish to divert the Pakistani state from cracking down on them.Many Pakistanis loathe Modi as a belligerent anti-Muslim Hindu fundamentalist. What distinguishes the militants from other Pakistanis is an interest in provoking Modi into military action that would unite Pakistanis in a war against India instead of against the militants themselves. Given Modi’s reputation and self-image as a strongman, it is difficult to imagine he would not respond forcefully to violence emanating from Pakistan. As one of his top advisors put it recently, “Modi will have to respond to an attack or he will lose all his credibility.”
During the last major crisis following the November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militants, India’s leaders responded only with minimal political sanctions. This restraint was perhaps wise policy, as world and domestic opinion in Pakistan turned against the terrorists and their sponsors. But the lack of a cathartic military response left many Indians, including some senior figures in the armed forces, frustrated that the Pakistan Army did not suffer enough for harboring (if not authorizing) the terrorists.
These circumstances make it extremely difficult to see how another major terrorist attack on India would not escalate to war. And, if Modi did respond militarily, Pakistan Army leaders would feel that allowing him to “win” would reinforce the dangerous notion that Hindu belligerence pays, and that the already beleaguered Pakistan Army does not deserve the power and privileges it has long enjoyed. Humiliation would leave the Pakistani Army unable to claim the capability and authority to protect the country against its challengers abroad or at home. Facing such a prospect, the Army would feel hard-pressed to use every quiver in its arsenal, including its nuclear weapons.

[h=5]Toby Dalton[/h]CO-DIRECTOR
NUCLEAR POLICY PROGRAM
More from this author...

• [h=6]How South Korea Can Take Advantage of Nuclear Cooperation With the United States[/h]
• [h=6]The Future of U.S.-ROK Nuclear Cooperation[/h]
• [h=6]South Korea’s Search for Nuclear Sovereignty[/h]
• [h=6]Leadership Needed to Solve India-Pakistan Conflict[/h]

Fortunately, Modi and Sharif, along with their electorates, understand that both countries would be much better off if they could expand mutual trade and other forms of peaceful interaction. Both societies and governments recognize that the perpetrators of violence and perpetual conflict are a small minority that threatens the internal well-being of each country as well as security and prosperity between them.Thus, the challenge for Indians and Pakistanis—and for the U.S. government, which inevitably would be impelled to mediate a new conflict—is to take steps now to prevent major terrorist attacks on India and to prepare modalities to manage consequences if prevention fails.
The United States needs to be more forthcoming than it has been in the past in sharing intelligence with India on possible threats and holding Pakistan to account for its ambivalent counterterrorism performance concerning India. Indian leaders need to correct longstanding inadequacies in their intelligence and counterterrorism organizations, and prepare contingencies for responding to attacks that take full account of the risks of escalation. Pakistani leaders, especially in the Army and Inter-Services Intelligence, need to open genuine lines of communication with their Indian counterparts and demonstrate that they are doing everything they can to prevent future Mumbai-like attacks.
Cooperation like this must occur before an attack if there will be any chance of mitigating risks of escalation after one occurs. The stakes could not be higher. The United States cannot publicly orchestrate such cooperation, but it can (and should) work behind the scenes at high levels to facilitate it.




Read more at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/06/03/india-and-pakistan-thin-line-between-war-and-peace

 

[abdlsy]

Due to the historical development of Pakistan, over the years the Pakistans army has become a powerful government force and one of the actors in political life. But unlike political parties whose purpose is to become the head of the executive and legislative branches of government, generals of todays Pakistan are not creating such prospects. Maintaining stability and the rule of law is their primary task except for, of course, when the country is threatened by a collapse from internal or external threats.Over the course of nearly seventy years of the countrys history, the federal army has acted in support of the political processes occurring in Pakistan: Islamisation in the 1980s, in the 1990s protection of the interests of the democratically elected civilian government; in 1999, once again, as in the 50s-70s it supported the military coup and further, in the first decade of the 21st century, the military-civilian administration. From 2008 to the present, the army has been the guardian of societys democratic gains. Soldiers have always played a role in shaping the course of history of the state. This is the position of the Army Chief of Staff General R. Sharif. In other words, the army has stood for retaining the existing order in the country, supported and maintained the status quo existing at the time.For many decades, the army has been the main stabilising force of the state. This concept in Pakistans recipe, as stressed by the generals, consists of several components: repulsing external aggression, maintaining the internal security regime, setting and implementing national objectives and/or mitigating natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes, the army always lives by the aspirations or expectations of the nation.The constitution is one of several tools that are used by the army to build and strengthen democratic institutions and protect national interests. In 2008, Pakistan held parliamentary elections with the participation of leaders of all political parties in the country. And deputies elected by popular vote represented the transition from the civilian-military form of government of previous years to a democratically elected parliament. At that time, the army supported holding elections in accordance with the Constitution and refused to participate in the electoral process. In this way the generals stressed their commitment to Article 243 of Pakistans Constitution.In 2013 the general parliamentary elections witnessed the transfer of power from one civilian administration to another with the simultaneous change of political elites.In addition to the constitutional challenges set before the federal army to repel aggression or threats of war and protect territorial integrity, this state institution is also intended to effectively resolve the countrys domestic political challenges.First of all, this means countering centrifugal forces: religious conflicts, attempts to split the country along ethnic lines, the localisation of separatist movements, the struggle against local insurgents and foreign fighters in inland areas, etc.Secondly, maintaining a balance of power/responsibility between the army and the civil administration at the present stage.Thirdly, the army is a powerful business corporation in Pakistan.This raises the natural question of subjective and objective reasons for such colossal responsibility and national tasks assigned to Pakistans federal army. To date, this has been substantiated by a number of factors: weak institutions, fighting among ruling civilian elites, an amorphous multi-party system, the weakness of the opposition party in the legislature, peculiarities of the foreign policy situation in the region, etc.The thirteen-year war in neighbouring Afghanistan, the strengthening of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the geopolitical situation, and non-state actors recognised in the world, have put Pakistan in the spotlight, according to Army Chief of Staff General R. Sharif, they have brought with them many challenges This imposes a great burden of responsibility on the Pakistani army.Thus, in modern reality the army is the main state institution in Pakistan, which for a number of objective and subjective reasons is promptly and adequately responding to the challenges of our time. In our view, reversing the growing domestic dangers and maintaining the stability of the political situation in the country is the only way of saving the Pakistani state. And this task is performed by the army.In 2014, the army faced yet another domestic political challenge: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appealed to the generals for help in resolving the political crisis in the summer of this year. In other words, he called on the army to intervene openly in the political life of the country. It was an extremely attractive offer, given that a major period of Pakistans modern history has been spent under the reign of a military or military-civilian administrations. According to Article 245 of Pakistans Constitution, the Army is intended to assist the civilian government. However, the generals remained neutral, seeing no threat to either the territorial integrity or sovereignty of the country in the current crisis caused by the struggle among political parties.However, during a protest march in July August 2014 in Islamabad, organised by the political party Tehreek-e-Insaf (led by Imran Khan) even the police were powerless to stop the raging crowd from storming the television company. 1000 soldiers were urgently summoned to Islamabad. Later on their protection of the protest camp in the Red zone of the capital (where the government agencies and the diplomatic corps are located) facilitated a peaceful sit-in over the course of three months.Remaining de jure neutral, the generals, of course, pursued their own corporate interests. They thus strengthened (once again!) their political position at the expense of weakening the executive power of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.Natalia Zamarayeva, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow in the Pakistan Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/30/rus-pakistan-rol-armii-v-zhizni-strany/

 

[abdlsy]

[h=1]The role of the Pakistan Army[/h]Written by Lal Khan in LahoreTuesday, 22 July 2008

​

To look at the Pakistan Army solely as the instrument of the ruling class would mean ignoring the real contradictions that have developed within it. On the one hand an important wing of the top military brass are now involved directly in the economy, both the legal and the "black economy", including drug running. There is another contradiction, which is that between the top brass and the lower ranks who are more in touch with the mood of the masses.The army in Pakistan has played more of an overt than a covert role as a state institution in ruling the country. And the most organized and powerful institution of a state, like all capitalist states, has the fundamental role of preserving and protecting the assets, social status, privileges and economic exploitation of the local ruling classes and imperialism.

It plays a similar role as in India and other states ‑ albeit more covertly in these countries ‑ in crushing the toiling millions to perpetuate the rule of finance capital and a constantly increasing exploitation of labour. This prominence of the Army in Pakistan, however, has been subject to widespread criticism and several books have been written on the role of the Army.
But even the most left-wing of the intellectuals have only looked at the Army institution as one single bloc and have not bothered to delve into the nature of its structures and the mutual relationships, contradictions and conflicts between the different layers and sections of the army. This way of looking at the issue has been mainly the product of a mindset that is imbued with the theory of the "national democratic stage" of development as the solution to the impending crisis. With their preconceived prejudice of evolution they have limited their approach to a reformist outlook, i.e. to the idea of improving and reforming the army as an institution in order for it to play its "proper" defensive, supportive and assistive role for the "democratic, liberal and progressive bourgeoisie" to fulfil the tasks of the industrial revolution imposed traditionally by history on the capitalist class.
This whole notion and ideological outlook is flawed from beginning to the end. The army could only fulfil its role as an institution of a bourgeois state, as it did in the advanced capitalist countries in the past when the ruling classes, other institutions of the state and the economic system itself could play their progressive role in carrying out the national bourgeois revolutions. This is definitely not the case today in Pakistan.
The Pakistan ruling class, due to its late arrival on the scene of history, had to usurp the available resources and the surplus rather than create them. The nascent Pakistani bourgeoisie proved to be incapable of building up the necessary social and physical infrastructure and carrying out the tasks posed by history. It was this parasitic nature, of plundering the state and society to maintain its rates of profit, that created such a crisis that rocked the country right from its birth. It was to try to control the instability that flowed from all this that the army was forced to step in to halt the rapid deterioration, although it simply ended up by further aggravating this mess. The situation was moving towards such anarchic conditions that it could have fatally endangered the rule of capital itself.
To infer that such arguments are supportive of the military actions and the brutalities of Martial Law in Pakistan is not only absurd but expresses a preconceived idea that is shackled within the cage of the theory of two stages. It was and is the fundamental task of the army to preserve capitalist rule and when this becomes impossible through the "normal" bourgeois legal procedures, it tries to play out the same role with extraordinary methods, however brutal and vicious they may be. That is the function of the state and the army in bourgeois society.
Therefore, the notion of restricting the army to its "constitutional" role within a crisis ridden capitalist system is nothing but sheer utopia. The "rule of Law", "independence of the Judiciary", "Good governance", "Reforming the Institutions" and "smoothly functioning democracy" are all the product of wishful thinking that totally ignores the socio-economic realities and the horrendous crisis which Pakistani society is going through at this moment in time.
Lenin said long ago that, "politics is concentrated economics." In these conditions we have to see the social and economic factors that are the real cause of the military coups. But in Pakistan's history we also see how short the actual periods of direct military rule and repressive Martial Law have been. If we look more closely at the actual periods of direct and open repression through Martial Law, they are short stints within the longer periods of covert military rule in Pakistan. It appears clearly that the weapon of direct military repression gets blunted very rapidly once it is used on society in general. Hence there is a precarious haste of all military dictators to revert to civil administration, civil politicians and civil society representatives within the regime to perpetuate their rule.
The judiciary in normal circumstances is subservient to the army as an institution pertaining to the needs of the vested interests of the ruling classes. Hence these military dictators can easily manipulate the judiciary, constitutional experts, billionaire lawyers and the prevalent intelligentsia to become "civilian" presidents and heads of state themselves. Field Martial Ayub Khan was only able to force the Military to impose its direct despotic rule for less than two years. By 1960 he had fabricated a new constitution and became a civilian president. Even after the coup of 27th October 1958 he continued with the civilian cabinet that had been working under President Sikander Mirza whom he had deposed in a gentlemanly affair. Yahya Khan had a civilian cabinet throughout. Even Zia ul Haq, whose monstrous Martial Law was the most brutal and repressive, used civilian ministers, albeit all of them from the right-wing parties, especially the neo-fascist Jamaat-e-Islami.
These right-wing parties can never be absolved from the heinous crimes committed by the Zia dictatorship against the radical left-wing youth and the toiling masses of Pakistan, especially the genocide carried out in Sind during the 1983 uprising against the despotism of Zia ul Haq. He used "respected" and highly acknowledged legal experts like A.K. Brohi and Sharifud din Peerzada to manipulate the law according to the needs of his dictatorial rule. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was elected on a socialist programme, was assassinated on the gallows by the civilian courts, not through a military tribunal.
The Musharraf the dictator went farther than all his predecessors. He introduced firstly the basic, municipal democracies in 2000 on a non-party basis, as had Ayub Khan and Zia ul Haq. This was the first part, and all the political parties joined in in the sham electoral process that gave a certain basic legal justification and certain credibility to the Musharraf Regime.
Then he went ahead and held party elections in 2002. Most parties participated in those elections and that was the first parliament to complete its term in the history of Pakistan. In this period his carrot and stick tactics played a certain role, but the inability of the political parties, mainly the PPP (which is perhaps the only party that came from the masses during the 1968-69 revolution) was more due to ideological betrayal and the adoption of so-called pragmatism.
However, Musharraf's policies also aggravated another process that had been taking place within the institutions over the last five decades. The army's involvement in politics and society is a much-talked about and discussed phenomenon. This, however, was the reflection of a rapidly increasing involvement of the officer caste in the economy and finance capital.
During British rule it was mainly a question of allocation of agricultural land to the army personnel, the size depending upon rank. This sense of superiority even amongst the JCO's (Junior Commissioned Officers) and NCO's (Non Commissioned Officers) was palpable as they had greater tracts of land as compared to their fellow peasants, the class they had come from. Hence there was also a material aspect to the loyalty during military service. And this was not of secondary importance. The officer caste during British rule, almost all came from the families of the landed aristocracy. Hence the larger tracts of land awarded to the officer caste added to the already large estates of the rural gentry.
In fact feudalism on the Indian subcontinent was itself introduced by the British Raj to accentuate its hold and perpetuate its rule. It began in Bengal when Lord Palmerston presented the "Permanent Settlements Act" in the Bengal Assembly in 1793. This was to create a new class of landlords which would be obliged, and hence subservient, to the Raj. Bengal being in the vanguard of the resistance against the Raj, had to be tackled first. This class of new feudal lords was used to exploit, contain and repress the peasantry that rose in several revolts against the British. A religious content was also intermingled in creating this aristocracy and it, to some extent, coincided with the class interests created by this policy.
After the creation of Pakistan, the structures of the armed forces continued to exist and function as before. Even before the 1958 coup, the army elite continued to get these land allocations under each and every civilian government. After the beginning of direct military rule under Ayub Khan, apart from the intervention in the ownership of land in the agrarian rural sector, the Army officers were inducted into state institutions running industry, finance, commerce, construction and other sectors. Military officers started buying stocks and shares and a few became industrial entrepreneurs. But these were the exception rather than the norm. The majority of the retired middle and high-ranking officers were given high salaried jobs in running state enterprises and other civilian institutions. Although the army treaded to some extent into the economy and finance capital, this was quite limited. Still the main discipline and cohesion of the army as a fighting force was there with certain levels of nationalist fervour remaining. The chain of command inherited from the British was still very much functioning.
British imperialism had developed its military tactics during its long experience of colonial and intra-imperialist wars. The British sergeants and drillmasters had terrible reputations. They were abusive, insulting, arrogant and ruthless towards the soldiers and even the newly commissioned officers who were supposed to be commanding them after graduating from the military academies. Those sergeants that had the worst reputation for their ruthlessness were considered as the best. This was essential from the point of view of the British masters to build a strong disciplined army.
In all the old cities of the subcontinent there are two parts and two railway stations. One is the city and the other is the cantonment. The military barracks, exercises and installations were in the cantonment areas, totally cordoned off and secluded from the city populations. Most soldiers and young officers were strictly banned from leaving their quarters and going out of the cantonment perimeter. They needed a special night pass from the sergeants to go out and come in. There was very severe punishment for breaking this code of discipline. The punishment ranged from quarter guards, the lightest, to a court martial which was for acts like murder and treason. The disgrace was such that its scars stayed for life. These practices continued in the Indian and Pakistan Armies as the law and structures remained the same as practiced and devised by the British.
During wartime these acts and punishment were enhanced and magnified. However, with the semi-Americanisation and Islamisation of the Pakistan Army, and the rapidly increasing involvement of the Army in businesses, private enterprise encroached on the cantonments. Real estate business has flourished here because the cantonments were built in the best areas of the cities, with better approaches, better roads and infrastructure, etc. This has been an important factor in the erosion of the discipline of the bourgeois army in Pakistan. But war also had the effect of breaking these codes and disciplines. Especially in defeat, revolts were imminent. After the defeat of the Pakistan army in the 1971 war there was a big revolt against the red tape and the officer estate. Bhutto could easily remove the top 13 generals that would not have been possible in any other period. But that is all that he did. If he had implemented the clause of the 1970 PPP manifesto of dissolving the standing army and building a "people's militia" as an alternative for defence he could have done it. It was the preservation of the structures of the bourgeois state that ultimately led to his own demise.
This was in spite of the fact that from the 1950's advanced military training had started to shift from the British to the institutions in the United States like Fort Brag, Detroit, etc. During the 17-day 1965 war with India, the defeat was not so heavy and the state media was able to portray it as a victory. The other conflicts and the chronic issue of Kashmir left behind by British imperialism were continuously exploited and abused by the establishment and the official media. These conflicts were used to justify the hefty defence budgets and continuous rise in military spending. The main reason for the military spending advocated and propagated by the imperialists, ruling classes, the establishment and the chauvinist intelligentsia and media, was to prepare the armed forces more to curb internal dissent rather than to fight external wars. The performance of the Pakistani Army in the two major wars of 1967 and 1971 speaks volumes about its combat capabilities on the foreign fronts.
But it was under Zia's despotic regime that the character and role of the Pakistan army went through a drastic change. US imperialism, being the biggest sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism and religious terrorism, at that time fully backed the Islamisation of the Pakistan Army by Zia ul Haq. Although it was hypocritical and contradictory, with the help of forces like the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency and other western institutions involved in changing the ideological cause and basis of the Pakistan army, it could not have been otherwise.
The main venture in which the Pakistan Army was involved was the largest ever covert operation unleashed against the left-wing government in Afghanistan. This jihad which carried out some of the most brutal acts of terrorism, also involved huge amounts of dollars in aid. Initially this money came in from the generous coffers of the Saudi monarchy and American right wing, the Jewish lobby and the US Treasury itself. But soon the CIA set up advanced laboratories and techniques for refining high quality heroine from the poppy grown in the wastelands of war in Afghanistan and the areas along the 1500km long Pak-Afghan border that had no or nominal state control over the tribes and the mountainous terrain.
High ranking officers of the Pakistan army and intelligence agencies were involved in this CIA-sponsored operation but were actually carrying out most of its practical execution on the ground. They entered into this fray of squandering huge amounts of money generated from this drug trade set up by the CIA to finance the Afghan Jihad. Zia ul Haq's overtures to the Indians in the east and his bending over backwards to maintain peace with the traditional Hindu "enemy" were designed only to continue the Jihad and plunder in Afghanistan.
In this orgy of destruction and loot he and his coterie of generals amassed huge amounts of black money. But the military generals under Zia, in spite of the army being put on the ideological foundations of radical Islam with US patronage, were not content with the black capital coming from the drugs trade. They had to share this drug money with the different warlords, constantly changing loyalties, and the leaders of different Islamic fundamentalist parties and Islamic mercenary outfits involved in this reactionary insurgency. Hence, they also started smuggling the most advanced US weaponry for the jihad through the Pakistani supply lines under the auspices of the sections of the Pakistan Army involved in this CIA-planned operation.
They stored and smuggled large stockpiles of this ammunition and weaponry to the various jihad groups in other regions. These Islamists smuggled them onwards with even greater profit margins of. The Americans were shocked to discover this corruption when US helicopters were fired upon by US-made advanced sophisticated Stinger missiles by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf in the mid 1980s. When the plane carrying a US investigation team entered Pakistani air space in 1988, the largest ammunition dump in Pakistan, Ojri camp near Rawalpindi, where most of the US weaponry for the Afghan Jehad had been stored, was ignited. Thousands of rockets exploded and went in different directions. Hundreds were killed, thousands injured and hundreds of dwellings, mostly in Rawalpindi but some also in Islamabad, were destroyed. Those who were responsible for this "accident" have never been apprehended, not even by the Americans. How could they have been?
This massive influx of black capital plundered from the Afghan Jihad meteorically raised the stakes of the top military brass in the economy, industry and the services sector. The old officers, who had been allocated land holdings in the past, became financial pygmies in comparison with the officer cast that had filled their coffers with the black money from the Afghan Jihad. They became senior partners with the civilian entrepreneurs in the various business enterprises in Pakistan. Their ownership and stakes in the country's overall economy grew rapidly.
Apart from the Afghan Jihad, the other main military enterprise, through which the officials involved made huge fortunes, was Pakistan's nuclear programme. Although the Americans knew the details all along it is only now, mainly due to their growing conflict with Iran, that they are making a fuss about proliferation. Massive monetary gains were made by Pakistani military and semi military elite officers through the proliferation of this programme. But even before that, successive civilian and military regimes spent astronomical amounts from the treasury of a country with an impoverished and destitute population. It is really a tragedy for these teeming millions forced to live in terrible conditions, while their so-called political leaders and dominant political parties all have been fully protecting and supporting this madness of trying to be a nuclear power.
In the past it was the State and the private media that propagated the idea that the atom bomb would be a source of "formidable defence" of the "nation", and that this would drastically reduce the spending on the army and conventional military hardware. However, after the detonation of the nuclear devices in May 1998 at Chaghai, Baluchistan, the expenditure on conventional weaponry and the Armed forces has risen astronomically. Not just the military regimes but the civilian ‘democratic' governments have also upped even more this wasteful expenditure on these instruments of human destruction. In the last couple of years it seems that instead of the atom bombs defending them the whole nation is being asked to protect the atom bombs! Thousands of troops have been deployed and most advanced anti-war missiles have been installed around the nuclear installations to protect them being attacked from US or Indian or Israeli forces, or their being stolen by the fundamentalist Jihadis or other terrorist outfits.
The initial money laundering of black capital amassed mainly by the military elite, was carried out by the notorious BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International). There was even a shady CIA involvement in setting up this bank. Some of the most notorious swindlers involved in various bank scandals were involved in organising this money-laundering racket. However, it was the criminal charges levelled against most of its high officials that exposed the whole fraudulent process that led to the winding up of this bank. But ever since there have been several other individuals and companies involved in this sinister game, mainly diverting this capital into real estate, construction, manufacturing, stock exchange, services, electronic and print media and several other sectors of the economy. A huge portion of this black economy exists in Pakistan and the Gulf cities, mainly Dubai. This is the financial basis of the Taliban and other fundamentalist organisations.
The most important aspect of this financial involvement of the top military brass, over some decades now, has been the formation and consolidation of an "evil nexus" of Military Generals, Supreme and High Court judges, top lawyers, senior civilian bureaucrats, rich mullahs, senior former diplomats, top businessmen, entrepreneurs, the landed aristocracy and of course the media tycoons.
There are several layers of this nexus which externally can be seen in the form of top players of the so-called "civil society". And this evil nexus rules over Pakistan whatever the political structure of the regime in power. It is this nexus that controls the military, the state and all major political parties of the country. During the Musharraf period this nexus further consolidated itself and expanded its wealth. But all this has also given rise to greater contradictions within this nexus and they are now exploding in different forms and they are at each others' throats in their lust for plunder.
But, as we saw in the last months of 2007, whenever there is a threat from the masses the nexus rapidly reconciles. This nexus is all about loot and money. It is dominated by the Army and America. They need the Army to protect their loot and exploitation and US imperialism to allow them to be their commission agents in the much wider range of capital generation through the exploitation of labour and speculation of finance capital.
However, very frequently the contradictions within this nexus erupt into open conflicts. Sometimes they take the form of conflicts between different institutions of the state itself. In other cases their conflicts take the form of issues related only to their vested interests that clash due to the worsening crisis of Pakistani capitalism.
Hence, without understanding the complexities of this ruling nexus it is very difficult to define real issues, genuine movements with honest motives behind political manoeuvrings. However, this massive influx of finance capital into the upper structures of the armed forces has had the effect of aggravating the contradictions within these institutions.
To understand the real role of the army and to develop its perspectives it is necessary to understand the character of the period in which we are attempting to analyse the phenomenon. Secondly, it is also important to understand the class content within the army itself. The character of the army changes in the different conditions through which society is moving at any particular moment in time.
In normal conditions the army acts as a cohesive institution to carry out the dictates of the ruling class and protects their interests with all forms of brutality inflicted upon the working classes. This cohesion of the army, apart from other factors, is maintained through tradition, routine and involuntary enforced discipline. However, these factors only play a role in normal conditions, which are often prolonged in history.
In the last analysis the army comes from society itself and is the reflection of society. In these conditions it is not just the army but society as a whole that remains dormant, subdued and in a state of relative lull. The burden of tradition, the force of religion, the manipulation of the media, the school system, the syllabus, the dominating philosophies, intelligentsia, politics, etc., all impose the culture, habits, consciousness, and psychology of the ruling class and with it the reluctant acceptance of class oppression and subordination.
It is not just through the state, the army and the police that the ruling classes maintain their domination. Repression is only used by the ruling class when other methods of mass subjugation fail to keep their control over society. History is witness to the fact that these "normal" conditions don't prevail forever. More than often historical events shake mass consciousness so suddenly, that they dramatically change the whole situation. This gives rise to movements and mass uprisings that can often attain revolutionary proportions.
Such pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situations in society do infect the armed forces. Although the army is the last institution to join the revolution, when the class contradictions within the army sharpen and explode, the soldiers, lower ranks and young junior officers enter the revolutionary fray of the mass movement. This is a decisive phase in any revolution. From here onwards, in the presence of a Marxist party and a genuine revolutionary leadership, the task of socialist revolution races towards a victory.
In Pakistan we have striking examples of the revolutionary impact of the 1968-69 movement within the army. There was enormous ferment in the barracks. The restive mood amongst the soldiers was beginning to affect the officers. As the main target of the movement was made to be Field Martial Ayub Khan, even his loyal generals were showing open dissent. In early 1969 the British and American diplomats sent messages to Washington and London that young officers could carry out a military coup with a socialist doctrine if the situation were not retrieved. The Army had refused to impose Martial Law if Ayub retained the presidency. General Yahya Khan, the commander in chief, Ayub's close buddy, explained this reality to him in so many words.
Since 1958 the social background of the younger officers had changed. Industrial growth under Ayub had had a big social impact. Not only a large virgin proletariat had developed, but young people from a lower middle class background had joined the officer ranks of the army. The soldiers and these young officers were radicalised by the revolutionary mood of the workers and students in the cities. In the 1970 elections, which the PPP was contesting on a socialist programme, the vast majority of the electoral ballots from the barracks were cast for the PPP candidates. Such was the intensity of the threat of revolt from within the army and its breaking up along class lines that it became an important factor in the decision to wage the 1971 war with India. Thus, they opened up the western front to stave off this revolutionary wave that was threatening to overthrow capitalism through a socialist revolution.
However, due to the ebbing of the revolution, the failure of reformism under Bhutto again strengthened the control of the generals over the army. In the 1980s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the betrayal of the Chinese Stalinists and the disastrous decline of the Pakistani left, reaction started to dominate society. Religion and fundamentalism filled the vacuum of the left in decline. Zia ul Haq prolonged his treachery and tyranny.
However, once the movement erupts in the coming period it is bound to affect the consciousness within the army once more. There are reports that there is a burning hatred amongst the ranks of the army against the top brass amassing this mammoth wealth. Their perks, their privileges and their plunder have rekindled class hatred amongst the soldiers towards the officer caste.
The lower ranking officers are also in a desperate psychological state. The war being fought for US imperialism has led to a rapid rise in the number of desertions within the army. Morale is very low and it is not an accident that the Pakistani military outfits are losing their battles in the tribal areas. It is for these reasons that general Kayani has given wage rises and other privileges to the lower ranks and soldiers. They are rapidly withdrawing army officers from civilian posts where a lot of them had been deployed during the Musharraf regime.
According to Stratfor, the CIA's Texas based news intelligence and analysis service, the present set up is unravelling at a rapid pace. The "Musharraf regime has been replaced by a civil-military hybrid which lacks the willingness and/or the ability to take on the threat posed by extremism and militancy. The fact is that the civilian government and the country's military establishment appear to be losing control of the situation", the analysis maintains.
Stratfor writes that by opting to negotiate with the "jihadis" from a position of weakness, the Pakistani authorities are inadvertently sending a message to every armed non-state actor of any worth in the country that all the "jihadis" have to do to make the government more pliable is use their weapons. This signal has led to the spread of the Taliban in Pakistan. Any pause in militancy is not because the state has succeeded in containing the insurgency; rather, it is because the jihadis have made a tactical decision to pause in keeping with their strategy. While the jihadis are brimming with confidence, judging from the way Islamabad is randomly oscillating between negotiations and military operations, the government does not appear to have a discernable policy for dealing with this situation, according to the analysis.
The problem, Stratfor argues, is actually far larger than an intelligence failure. There are different bases of contradictions within the Pakistan army. They are between the nationalist and religious sections, fundamentalist and liberal elements and pro-China and pro-American officers. But the fundamental and the most decisive contradiction is the class contradiction. The poor soldiers and ranks have a seething hatred towards the top brass who have become billionaires as their women flaunt and exhibit this wealth with a repugnant vulgarity.
There always is a revolutionary side to the army. In the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, led by Lenin and Trotsky, the soldiers' soviets in the regiments and barracks played a decisive role in the revolutionary insurrection that led to its victory. There has never been a revolution in which the soldiers and ranks did not play an important role. Even in the subcontinent the first introduction to Bolshevism and communism was brought by the soldiers of the British Indian Army who were sent to annihilate the October revolution. Paradoxically they were the ones who brought the message of revolutionary Marxism to a mass level on their return home to the Indian subcontinent. This was an important factor that laid the foundations of the communist movement in the South Asian subcontinent.
In the coming revolutionary epoch, a mass movement will surpass the scale and intensity of that of 1968-69 in Pakistan, and so will be the response from within the army itself. In the last 40 years the class contradictions have been sharpened rather than diminished, and they will explode with a greater resonance and force. However, this time there should be and there shall be a Marxist organisation and leadership to organise the workers, youth, poor peasants, other oppressed sections of society, and of course the soldiers and young officers, into a revolutionary movement and party to carry out the tasks of the socialist transformation of society. In such a situation no force on the planet will be able to hinder or stop the overthrow of this rotten capitalist system through the victory of a revolutionary insurrection.