No announcement yet.

CE's dangerous dismisal of the past

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    CE's dangerous dismisal of the past

    Having read the transcript of the CE's interview with the BBC, I was somewhat disturbed by his continual references about how he wishes to 'forget the past and look forward.' Whilst I am not advocating that Pakistan, or an individual for that matter of fact, live in the past - to ignore it, is to simply set a very dangerous precedent.

    History is what makes a person, a people and consequently a nation. It was perhaps somewhat ironic that during the CE's interview with the BBC he was asked by a caller how he compares himself to Vladimir Putin. Whilst the CE answered with a typically diplomatic response - Pakistan has a lot to learn from Russian history.

    Before the Crimean war Russia was ruled by a Tsarist system. In 1855 Alexander II became Tsar, in the middle of the Crimean war. An arguably inauspicious start to his reign was not to tarnish the courage and bravery the young Tsar would illustrated over the next 15 years in turning the backward and underdeveloped country of Russia into a major nation.

    The Crimea showed weaknesses in the Russian system. The Tsar set about destroying the climate of corruption and deviance prevailing in Russia. Consequently he raised the wages and prestige of the country's legal administrators. Judges were paid higher wages - to make bribery more difficult. A professional bar was also established at which lawyers would meet, and take pride in their work - these would later become the intellectual hotbeds from which further concessionary reforms were encouraged and driven. Furthermore, the police force was completely revamped with stiff penalties imposed for corrupt officials. For the first time in Russian history the public believed in and trusted their legal system. When was the last time a Pakistani had faith in the legal system of Pakistan?

    Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly the Tsar elevated and liberated the status of the masses. The attitude of the masses is imperative in any country. They are, after all, the backbones of otherwise spineless nations. The average Pakistani lives in appalling poverty, hardship - the future offers no incentive for them. With nothing to live for, other than the day and the next 'get rich quick scheme' how can we ever expect Pakistan to progress?

    Pakistan has many problems, least of which is the national attitude. Attitudes, are however, just that - they can be changed and altered. The CE would do well to employ advisors who have studied the evolution of other nation-states. The answers to Pakistanís problems are not always going to be found in the past of other countries - of course not. However parallels can be drawn and lessons learnt.

    Another quick example, lies in the 1848-1849 history of continental Europe. Most, if not all, major European countries experienced some form of active revolution. In France, the collapse of the Bourbon dynasty; In Germany, the revolt of southern states to join Prussia; In Italy, against draconian and authoritarian Austrian rule; In Hungary, also against Austrian rule. The examples are plentiful.

    The only major power not to experience revolution, in this period, was the United Kingdom. Whilst there are many historical debating points as to why this was the case - most historians will agree that Britainís 'Organic constitution' was a key factor. Pakistan must also adopt such a policy and continually allow her constitution to evolve in accordance with the wishes and needs of her people. Furthermore, another key factor was the strength of the leadership. Karl Marx once argued that 'For a revolution to succeed, a government must first lose the will to govern.' The British government at this time, illustrated everything that is so splendid about strong government. The CE must also adopt this policy and show strength and courage completely different to that already illustrated on the battle field. His war is now an altogether different one - he must show clear thought, determination and strength in pursuing unpopular courses of action - where he believes them to be in the best interests of the nation. He must illustrate an energy and drive, as yet unknown to Pakistani politics.

    By riding through the storm the CE must steer Pakistan into calm waters. Pakistan is on her own, unique, political evolution. By asking the CE to study closely the evolution of many modern European countries - I am not naive enough to believe that all our answers lie there. All I do, is ask the CE to kindly draw parallels between the experiences of those nations and our own. Where possible, we must learn from the lessons of history without which we shall be condemned to repeating it.

    Pakistan has the opportunity to learn from the experience of others, let us not dismiss so quickly all there is to be learnt from them.

    Respectfully Yours,

    The Godfather.

    They are learning a China tactics. When musharraf says, let us forget the past or let bygones be bygones, he eesentially wants to avoid uncomfortable questions about all past including yesterday afternoon. It is like a village rogue, who is discussing amount of ransom, does not entertain questions on his tactics.


      Mushraaf can say he wants to forget the past as many times as he likes.
      But the fact remains that he presides over a country whose existence turned out to be based on hatred for India.
      That is the only thing all Pakistanis seem to agree upon.


        I was not saying, that what Musharraf said was wrong - indeed I would be inclined to agree with him that we should let bygones be bygones and should look to the future. However whilst looking to the future we should not forget the many lessons that history has to teach us.

        I think ZZ got it right when he said that the CE was merely trying to avoid all the uncomfortable questions relating to the past which only ever serve to whip up a frenzied and irrational emotion for people on either side of the India, Pakistan divde.

        Respectfully Yours,

        The Godfather.


          >>I think ZZ got it right when he said that the CE was merely trying to avoid all the uncomfortable questions relating to the past which only ever serve to whip up a frenzied and irrational emotion for people on either side of the India, Pakistan divde.

          May be. All Pakistanis on this forum seem highly enthusiastic about your CE.

          My point is even his intenetions are sincere there is not much room for him to move forward because of the way the Pakistani society has developed, especially after the involvement in Afghanistan.
          Look at the way he backtracked on that blasphemy law



            CE is a military officer...short on history and stratetgy. His Kargil starategy failed miserably.

            Andhra is right ....Pakistan vision of the world is hate for India and without this they would be lost.

            Can you tell us of some other historical parallel of a country formed on the basis of religion has become economic success under military rule?


              Rani tell us what a country formed on the basis of secularlism and hatred of ALL its neighbours has achieved in terms of economic success in relation to its near neighbours?

              P.S. If Kargil was such a failure for our CE why are you guys still crying about it and are so scared of our great CE?



                Answer is England despite hostile France and Spain was very successful from 16th century onwards.

                Your turn....


                  ,alik kargil is great failure and humiliating
                  for pakistan. why then sharif has to meet clinton on the july 4 th . he could secretly
                  negotiated with india and avoided such
                  a humuliation. how come musharuff let this happen. but one thing good came out of this
                  sharif avoided nuclear war by pullint out


                    >>alik kargil is great failure and humiliating
                    for pakistan. why then sharif has to meet clinton on the july 4 th . he could secretly
                    negotiated with india and avoided such
                    a humuliation.

                    rvikz I don't know how many people on this forum agree with you that Kargil was a humiliation for Pakistan

                    As for talking with Indians rather than running to Americans, well Pakistan had 53 years in which to it


                      kargil proved simple fact pakistan is not ready for full scale war including nuclear
                      war for the sake of liberating kashmir.
                      pakistan will never scarifice punjab for


                        I'm back - yeah!!!
                        I was going to give myself a couple of days to get over the jet lag but i'm afraid that will not be possible as rani is off once again - did you miss me by any chance????
                        Lets discuss the topic at hand and not rani's warpped idea of the topic - are you sure you didn't miss me just a little bit???

                        Godfather, what the CE did was basic politics.
                        You don't hear of the arabs discussing the 73 and 65 wars now do you??
                        And you don't hear of the Russians openly discussing communism???
                        History is a thing from which you learn, live through and move on.
                        There is no reason to dig up the past or discuss it.
                        The world has more pressing problems in the present.

                        As for Pakistan, it is one of the two nations based on religion - the other being Isreal.
                        Pakistani's don't hate hindus - it is a unique occurance.
                        PAk and IND live in harmony in countries where there is little of each population like Hungary.
                        However when the issue of politics comes in to play they are mortal enemies.
                        Plus PAK and IND share a common language culture and heritage - it is very hard to have a deep hatred with so much in common.
                        Also most of the pakistani hatred for India stems from Kashmir.
                        So the solution of pak and ind troubles is settle the issue of kashmir.

                        Also Rani your answer to Mailiks question is weak.
                        France was going through so much turmoil during that time - heck they had 3 bloody revolutions during and post this period.
                        Also Spain had and always has had a weak navy nothing compared to the English.
                        England ruled the world from then on as all its enemies were to weak to do anything.
                        The answer to your question should be the USSR during stalins 5 year plans.
                        With the whole Nato, Cento, Seato crap.

                        rvikz - as you are the new kid on the block learn a few things about the kargil conflict before going and opening your mouth.
                        Kargil was a Zia-ul-Haq plan.
                        Second it was a political move by NS not a military move.
                        Third it was a way to distract the people from the economic down turn and unite the people behind NS as he was greatly losing power and popularity.
                        However he did not give the military full rein over the incident and then ran to clinton when there was to much political pressure.
                        If the military top brass had been involved the issue of kargil would be going on till this day.
                        As for the punjab comment - where did that crap come from???

                        CROIRE A L'INCROYABLE
                        You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!