Army should disassociate itself from Corrupt Generals , rulers & politicians

Its true that young officers and soldiers of Pak Army render great sacrifices so that "We can live at peace". But few generals commit a heinous and un-pardonable crime by indulging in any type of corruption or misuse of authority, when caught try to take shelter behind the blood of martyrs, sacrifices of innocent military men. They should be ashamed of their deeds, a retired Lt.Gen gives an affidevet to get ambassadorial job in Germany. What a shame, this  country gives sufficient facilities to all officers to live a respectable life after retirement. Why these people sell themselves for petty gains. What Lt Gen Durrani did was purely for greed, no one has ever gone to the extent of committing his follies in writing to get a job. Can nation trust such people for sensitive assignments? Gen Keyani is himself party to the NRO and deal while he was DG ISI of Gen Musharaf. Now what haunts him is that next will be his turn when after his retirement some one will question his role. Keyani sahib has done many good things. However he should display his sinceririty, should take those Generals to task who plundered Army lands and resources while he is COAS. There are many internal scams in Amy like DHA Lahore, DHA Islamabad, well known to public. He has left all those rascals to getaway with their loot and closed his eyes. There are rumors all around about flourishing business of his brothers, which need to be investigated to crush the rumors with facts. He is right when he says that mere allegations should not become source of humiliation in media. But this is what is the norm, media does not spare any holy cow, it will take some time to get mature. We should put our own house in order, let the fair legal actions against corrupts be visible to people. Actions speak louder than hollow words. The rule of law and constitutionalism should prevail. Army should not seem to be protecting some corrupt generals or politicians

Gen Waheed Kakar set an example when he sent home a Maj Gen involved in moral corruption, within 24 hours. A clean person can do it without any fear. He is respected by civilians and soldiers alike.
We stand with Army but not few black sheeps. 
Pak Fauj Zindabad, Corruption Murdabad

Kayani’s words: myths and facts

Myth: The November 5 press release by the ISPR was a veiled warning to a targeted audience.

Fact: It had parts that were differently intended. The first three paragraphs addressed the serving military audience of the army chief’s talk and explained the evolutionary process of an attempt to seek a national consensus in a wide debate in the media that at times appeared scathing for the military. It emphasised the importance of such a process to create space in order to re-define Pakistan even as it struggles through a great transformative moment in its future direction, both as a state and as a society. This is particularly important in the background of terrorism and religious extremism, which threaten to tear the national fabric apart unless consensual re-direction is sought through honest introspection and readjustment of the fundamentals that have governed policy formulation in the decades since independence.

To the wider public it was an intimation of a recognition that institutions, including the military, have indeed made mistakes in the past and followed policies that have landed the country into dire straits. It also intimated that, while a process of reorientation of policies may appear slower than intended, such reorientation to meet the needs of a 21st century Pakistan is indeed in place. And that no more shall such a definition be the claim of just one institution, traditionally the military, but a composite and collaborative public effort evolved through discourse and debate.

Myth: The November 6 rebuttal by the chief justice in his remarks, while reviewing another case, indicates that the message was indeed intended for the Supreme Court in the wake of the trial and indictment of retired generals.

Fact: This couldn’t be further from the truth, since the statement by the ISPR quotes the army chief emphasising to his officers a national commitment to uphold the rule of law and to function within the parameters of the constitution. What might appear distasteful in the short run (such as seeing some retired senior officers of the army undergoing the ignominy of public trials), augurs well for the nation in the long run, when institutions are strengthened through the inimitable tradition of following the constitution and working within their constitutional domains. The chief justice’s remarks were a response to an overzealous attorney intending to clear the air of misperception between the court and the military, while pursuing an entirely unrelated case in the court – and hence misplaced.

Myth: If not the judiciary, the media for sure was under the spotlight.

Fact: There is significant truth in that, and it emerges from some ill-considered formulations in the debate in the media that are unable to correctly ascertain where must lie the limit on freedom of expression and where from begins the slippery slope of damaging the integrity of the institutions. The army chief, when referring to the gulf that wittingly or unwittingly is intended between the generals and the soldiers by remarks that own the army of the soldiers but ridicule the generals of the same army, indicates it as an insidious attempt to rupture institutional integrity. In legal parlance such an attempt is considered seditious. Also, such repeated insinuations against institutions – borne out of individual conduct – are firstly misplaced, and secondly yet to stand the test of trial and due process. Indictments must still become convictions before guilt is established through due process of law, which includes the right of defence. Broad-brush discolouration of an institution such as the military, which is critically dependent on favourable perceptions for public support, countervails the entire edifice on which such institutions are based. Our discourse must then be wary of such pitfalls as we learn to exercise the freedom of expression as a fundamental human right with a self imposed sense of fair responsibility. An attempt at weakening institutions is counter-intuitive to nation building.

Myth: The press release was intended to shelter the indicted retired generals from further process of trial and conviction.

Fact: In asking the question at the end of the statement, “have we not promoted law and the constitution?” the army chief suggests that, when so directed, the military brass has presented itself before the parliament and the Supreme Court in various cases. Retired generals, when asked, presented themselves before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and Generals Aslam Baig and Asad Durrani have fought their legal battles in the courts without assistance or cover by the army. When the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) established mala fide in the National Logistics Cell case, the army proceeded to act against the three generals through a court martial. There is absolutely no indication in cases of the eight generals that the army was seen to interfere with the process of law. This is reiterated by the army chief in the initial paragraphs of his address to the officers where he reinforces the primacy of law and the need to establish the tradition of respect for law.

In the question above and the following, “are we strengthening or weakening the institutions?” he indicates the huge distance that the military has covered in changing ‘mindsets’ for renewed credentials as an institution that has provided unquestioned support to the political process and other institutions, including the higher judiciary.

Myth: In mentioning ‘haste’, the army chief suggests desisting from hasty and frequent trial of the army generals.

Fact: While recognising mistakes that institutions (read army) have made over the years, the army chief implicitly suggests that time would be needed to turn around the huge ‘aircraft-carrier’ that the institution is, even as the change is already in place. In the meantime, however, if we continue to restrict the ambit of functioning of the traditional arms of governance as well as law enforcement, through court injunctions – as was done for Balochistan and Karachi – we may just find that we do not have any government agency to administer these critical regions.

As much as it is an honest admission of the errors in policy and the recognition of a need for reorientation in policy formulation, the army chief’s statement also identifies the need to keep the larger national interest of keeping the state and societal structures intact as Pakistan transforms through such a critical juncture.

The writer is a retired air-vice marshal of the Pakistan Air Force and served as its deputy chief of staff. Email:

Read more: Free-Books  <<Click here>>>

Popular posts from this blog

ووٹ کی شرعی حیثیت اور تبدیلی کی خواہش

عمران خان ، اسلام آباد لاک ڈاون سے یوم تشکراور سپریم کورٹ تک - پانامہ لیکس اپ ڈیٹ تجزیئے: Imran Khan -Lock Down toThanksgiving, Supreme Court - Panama Leaks Updates and Analysis

آپریشن ضرب عضب - اے راہ حق کے شھیدو Pakistan Army

Do Qomi Nazryah Pakistan دو قومی نظریہ پاکستان

دین ، سیاست ، شدت پسندی کا رجحان اور قرآن و سنت ؟

Shari'ah, Democracy, Khilafah - Conflict or Compatible ? خلافت

do qomi nezryah pakistan and quran دو قومی نظریہ پاکستان، نسل و قوم پرستی اور قرآن