The judiciary is considered a vital pillar of national strength. Justice is the fulcrum that keeps people contended and ensures the respectful image of any society. Pakistan’s bleak period of military rule from General Ayub Khan to General Pervez Musharraf is a saga of utter degradation of the apex court, which ‘legitimised’ ouster of the elected leaders on contrived pleas of corruption and inefficiency, and Parliament compliantly endorsed the judgments. The outgoing dictator, who was given a proper send-off under the civil government, as if he were a rightful ruler, was an act which shows how puerile is our political mind. A viable military is indeed a very important element of national power, but it must not transgress its obligation to remain glued to its professional acumen, and be in a state of constant readiness to take on the ‘enemy’, should it embark upon any adventure against Pakistan. The blunder Musharraf committed resulted in the Kargil fiasco.
I once had an opportunity to visit Sri Lanka to attend a Conference on Brahimi Commission Report on UN Peace Keeping Operation (2002), which was attended by top brass retired military officers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, besides some prominent foreign scholars. Other Pakistanis attending the conference were Lt Gen (Retd) Talat Masood and Maj Gen (Retd) Jamshed Ayaz. Often after dinner we would have interactional sessions with several Indian army officers. Discussions mainly converged on the Kashmir issue and the so-called crossborder terrorism on the part of Pakistan. What became clear was that Musharraf was the most “hated” among the Indian army personnel. It was only after he reneged from the historical UN Resolution on Kashmir and offered a so-called “out-of-box” approach; he became relatively acceptable to the Indian Establishment. This clearly highlights the dangers of the military or in fact any other institution, taking unilateral steps on sensitive issues. Each institution must carry out its own job diligently without interfering in the working of others
I once had an opportunity to visit Sri Lanka to attend a Conference on Brahimi Commission Report on UN Peace Keeping Operation (2002), which was attended by top brass retired military officers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, besides some prominent foreign scholars. Other Pakistanis attending the conference were Lt Gen (Retd) Talat Masood and Maj Gen (Retd) Jamshed Ayaz. Often after dinner we would have interactional sessions with several Indian army officers. Discussions mainly converged on the Kashmir issue and the so-called crossborder terrorism on the part of Pakistan. What became clear was that Musharraf was the most “hated” among the Indian army personnel. It was only after he reneged from the historical UN Resolution on Kashmir and offered a so-called “out-of-box” approach; he became relatively acceptable to the Indian Establishment. This clearly highlights the dangers of the military or in fact any other institution, taking unilateral steps on sensitive issues. Each institution must carry out its own job diligently without interfering in the working of others
No comments:
Post a Comment