Perception by Ayaz Fakir

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception

 

by

Ayaz Fakir

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Editor’s Note:
 
Pakistan’s Enemies may mis-read the Army’s bystander attitude towards Nawaz Sharif’s Tsunami of money laundering,transferring assets stolen from Pakistan to S.Arabia, UAE, UK, US, and EU.
 
 
 
 
The perception about the Army seems to have undergone a sea change in the last six months. From  revered saviours as they were seen by a huge majority, they are increasingly being viewed as “neutrals” as the state they are sworn to defend is being brought to its knees by just a few hundred people. And if things keep going the way they are, “neutral” will be the least offensive epithet to be slapped on the Army by the people of this country.
What if India attacks Pakistan today, and our Army adopts a position of neutrality? What should the Army be called then?? For what is happening today is unobstructed plunder of national wealth of a scale so frightening that the “enemy” will have done us in without the need to fire a single shot. And this corruption is surely reflected in our national debt whose figures cannot be denied, and which has put a lien on our sovereignty. How can the Army, the ultimate guardian of our state look impassively on, as the very foundations of the state are being eroded? What should the people, who sustain the Army, call such neutrality?
This is a strange scenario where the people who are destroying the country are hiding behind the Constitution, and where the Army which can bring about an end to this horror is also citing the same Constitution for its inaction and passivity.
Indeed, this was the very aim of this mangled Constitution i.e to give immunity to the robber barons of the land, while counting on the pusillanimity of those who lead its Army. This was the perfect legal recipe for the success of an operation designed to take down the state.
In states with a slightly higher quotient of patriotism, it is clearly understood that when it is a choice between the state and the constitution, it is for the state that a patriot stands. 
This is what Ataturk did not need being schooled about in 1919, while the German Generals of the Second World War needed to be schooled in a lot earlier than 20 July 1944.
When every solution for the salvaging of the state lies exhausted, and the last solution is the only one that remains, not resorting to this solution does not make one a “constitutionalist”, it makes one a deserter at a time when he was most needed by his country.

 

Indeed, this was the very aim of this mangled Constitution i.e to give immunity to the robber barons of the land, while counting on the pusillanimity of those who lead its Army. This was the perfect legal recipe for the success of an operation designed to take down the state.
In states with a slightly higher quotient of patriotism, it is clearly understood that when it is a choice between the state and the constitution, it is for the state that a patriot stands. 
This is what Ataturk did not need being schooled about in 1919, while the German Generals of the Second World War needed to be schooled in a lot earlier than 20 July 1944.
When every solution for the salvaging of the state lies exhausted, and the last solution is the only one that remains, not resorting to this solution does not make one a “constitutionalist”, it makes one a deserter at a time when he was most needed by his country.

, , , ,

Comments are closed.

(will not be published)



Skip to toolbar