A DEBATE
ON
Soldiers as politicians
Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi
“Salam,
Military involvement in politics is a sensitive subject in Pakistan. I have dared to share my two cents on the subject. Please do share your feedback and comments.
Every few years there is a wave of writings and opinions that the country is in trouble and one of the solution is the introduction of a technocratic government that can fix things through a magic wand. As soon as PPP started its tenure there was talk of the need for it which gained pace during the memogate scandal and later during the first long march of Dr. Tahir UL Qadri. Once again, there are writings from ex-servicemen and former bureaucrats that a technocrat government should be installed to introduce far reaching reforms. There is only one way this kind of arrangement can come to fruition, which is through the support of the military establishment since there is no such provision in the constitution. Political scientists term it as a soft coup or in other words a military rule in the disguise of a civilian garb. This raises a fundamental question whether soldiers are better politicians than civilians because only then they can embark on such political enterprise.
When we look at the history of our military rulers there are few things that stand out. First is that to gain legitimacy and appeal to the masses they had to embark on political experiments that failed in most cases. Field Marshal Ayub Khan introduced basic democrats and a new constitution in 1963. Both these experiments could not survive and died with the demise of its sponsor. General Zia UL Haq introduced a non-Party Majlis e Shura, which could only survive for one term and had to be reverted back to the party based parliament. General Musharraf assumed the role of a more civil sounding Chief Executive rather than Chief Martial Law Administrator. He instituted a National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) that recommended a reform agenda which was never implemented. General Musharraf had to ultimately create a kings party PML Q to have political and constitutional legitimacy.
Most political scientists call war as another form of politics. Most wars fought by the country were during the reign of military rulers. Our two major wars of 1965 and 1970 were during the tenure of Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya respectively. General Zia decided to make Pakistan a front line state to warm the cold war between US and Russia when the latter occupied Afghanistan. General Musharraf said yes to Secretary of State Collin Powel when he called him soon after 911 to once again make Pakistan a front line state, but this time to support a war on terror against the Taliban regime. This should not be surprising because a soldier is more expert in using weapons than pen or diplomacy to tackle a foreign policy issue.
Another important thing to consider is the performance of military as a professional force when Generals are actively engaged in politics which is not their forte by training. In 1970 we lost an Eastern wing of the country, regardless whether it was inevitable or not, as well as over 90000 POWs. Our engagement in Afghan war in 1980s resulted in infiltration of extremism, terrorism and drugs in the country which severely affected the security of the state. General Musharraf’s eight year reign weakened the professional focus of the army which resulted in weakening of both internal and external security of the state. We saw terrorist attacks on GHQ, Mehran Base, the US operation in Abbottabad to kill OBL, terrorists attempt to capture a navy frigate and drone infiltration inside our borders. This could not have happened if military remained focused on its primary professional function of securing the state. The success of recent military success in operation Zarb e Azb against militants can be termed as refocus by Generals on military professionalism and avoiding political adventurism.
Soldiering and politics are different lines of activities requiring a totally different set of skills. A politician has to be flexible, tireless negotiator, compromiser and fluid in his position because of a volatile public opinion. Soldiers on the other hand, are rigid, work in defining hierarchy and highly disciplined in carrying out orders regardless if they disagree with their superiors. Whenever a soldier tries to become a politician while wearing a uniform, it is difficult for him to balance these divergent needs to maintain his composure and posture. It is probably for this reason the military institution gets frustrated in their political role after a coup and want to return back to soldiering.
In all nations military establishment play a significant role in defining the parameters of national security policy through close collaboration with the civilian government. Ignoring this input is not in the national interest and no one can deny this. But soldiers involving themselves in politics, directly or indirectly, also creates risks to national security and that cannot be denied as well. Each has to work within their constitutional boundaries and develop a relationship of mutual respect. In times of crisis the relationship can feel the stress, even in highly developed countries. In the USA, military established has publicly agitated against President Obama’s policy to rely on air strikes to deal with ISIS in Iraq. The military feels boots on the ground will be necessary while civilian administration is hesitant to commit to it.
Here I am not implying that politicians have discharged their duty of serving the nation to the best of their ability. But rather that politics has to be allowed to evolve so that nation is able to weed out good from bad performing politicians. It takes time for a stable political order to emerge after a cycle of two or three successful completion of the terms and holding of fair and free elections so that a nation can choose capable leaders. Introduction of electronic and social media has greatly improved people’s ability to judge the performance of incumbent political parties and parliament. They are eager to throw out non-performing parliamentarians and give change to others. In 2013 elections PPP suffered heavy losses at the polls because they did not perform well in their tenure. Similar fate may befall PML N as their governance has not been up to par so far and governance has been weak.
The solution is not a technocrat government, which some call Bangladesh model, but the introduction of electoral reforms to ensure free & fair elections; creditable opposition to the sitting government to ensure balanced policy; elections for local government and institutionalization of political parties. Military as a leadership development institute produce good talent. These retired Generals should participate in politics by joining political parties. They can help political parties to become institutions through their organizational and training skills.
Nation building requires contributions from all stakeholders within the parameters of the constitution. Impatience by any stakeholder could create instability, uncertainty and weakening of institutions and must be avoided.
COMMENTS
From: Saeed Malik
There is a fundamental flaw in Kundi Sahib’s main argument i.e evolution will bring about improvement in the way our democracy functions, if this functioning is left alone to work out its wrinkles and warts etc. If this were true, each new elections should have brought forth better governance. But our experience is that quite the opposite is true. Each new elections saw a deterioration in governance.
This theory about governance/democracy improving if allowed to have a free run, harkens back to Adam Smith’s theory of free market capitalism i.e keep the markets free of regulation and this will ensure fair prices and the survival of the best and the fittest in the market, because the inefficient will be rooted out of the system. But this does not happen in practice because sooner or later the most efficient tend to club together, create a monopoly, and dictate prices, while ensuring no one else breaks into their charmed circle.
This is exactly what has happened in our politics as well. The two most corrupt and the most powerful political organizations in the country have clubbed together to form a monopoly which can now barely be challenged. Thus the most vital check and balance, which is the very soul of a democratic system has been undermined to create a monopoly of power, which can only destroy governance, increase the loot of national wealth, and assure immunity to the perpetrators.
When the people of the country hanker for the army to step in, it is never so because the army is more popular; it is because the army is the only check against the depradations of the politicians, and the people believe that no matter how bad army rule shall be, it surely can be no worse than the misrule of the politicians. Unfortunately for us, however, these hopes very early become dashed dreams, and the army disappoints them no less.
Be that as it may, but the argument that left alone to function without interference, our democracy will improve, has been no more than a mere truism in our experience. – SAEED MALIK
======================================================================================================================
NAEEM
Mr. Kundi certainly is a different genre of a politician, in as so far that, he is an educated one; as compared to the hordes of Gullu Butts-esque politicos. His narrative is thought-provoking but conventional in its import.
Before I comment on the author’s views; I would like to stipulate the following for the perusal of all;
a)Pakistan has been in perpetual crises – of our own making; it is only that a new dimension of the crises state is highlighted, after a few years.
b)Military rule is no panacea for our problems. It has always ended in regressing us in an even worse situation; then with the one we started with.
c)All the politicians since the last 60 years have been synthetic politicians; having being conceived in the military nurseries.
d)All four military coups have been inspired by personal/ military corporate interests/ambitions.
e)All our existential problems are the outcome of power-politics/ power plays by different factions/ institutions of the state.
f)The above jockeying for power started even before the partition/ independence.
a technocrat government should be installed to introduce far reaching reforms. There is only one way this kind of arrangement can come to fruition, which is through the support of the military establishment since there is no such provision in the constitution.
Of course there is no such provision of a technocratic government in the constitution; but there is also no provision in the constitution for mega-corruption; dynastic rule; loot and plunder of national resources; keeping the masses perpetually mired in abject poverty and illiteracy.
There is also no provision in the constitution for hijacking the people’s vote; buying judiciary, media and ECP to acquire a fake mandate. There is also no provision in the constitution; that despite the constitution criminals and thugs could be elected to the parliament.
Constitution also does not sanction killing scores of unarmed citizens to stop them from protesting. Neither does constitution allows that the progeny of a MNA of the ruling party, gang-rape an innocent young girl and go scot free.
The constitution also does not permit the perpetuation of the anachronistic, rapacious, exploitative and parasitical feudal system.
Mr. Kundi, the saga of 18th and the 19th Amendments and the marathon joint parliamentary session running for 18 days, did not spare a single second for the problems of the people. It is now well neigh impossible to make any change in the constitution to ameliorate the lot of the people; to provide justice or good governance; because the thugs sitting in the parliament would never allow it.
So Mr. Kundi, what should the people do? Anyway let me tell you what they do: they let powerful criminals rape them; they let the ruling idiots kill them through their killer police squads; they sell their kids, since they cannot buy a roti worth Rs. 10; and they sell their blood to pay the inflated electric bills.
Now Mr. Kundi, would you not like a rational being agree that such a non-constitutional constitution (which provides no relief to the masses); is not worth the paper it is written on? Call me an anarchist; but please take a pragmatic view, instead of an academic one.
Still, let us talk academics/ theory for a moment: technocratic governments can deliver; because their members will not be making their decisions contingent on the next elections or political imperatives. Their decisions will be based on merit, pure economic factors and pragmatism, unencumbered by the need to appease different elites. Since no/ minimal politics will be involved, governance and delivery; the Achilles heel of political governments, will be easy to deliver. Judiciary, independent of political influence shall be able to mete out justice.
The military could provide a secure ambience for such a government to function.
But I understand that as a politician, you would be wary of such a government; despite your intellect and education.
Ok, let us now view the practical dimension of a technocratic government:
Most of the Politburo members in China are engineers (6th Generation); 5th Generation were economists. Malaysian cabinet under Mathair had 70% PhDs; mostly engineers and economists. And both set of governments delivered, and delivered with a bang; despite the fact that Malaysia unlike China was a conventional polity.
Therefore, there is no need to be scared of technocrats.
The conflagration of anarchy on the periphery of our immediate geographic region instigated by the US and implemented through the barbarians of ISIS on one hand and the religious retrogressive Wahabi Saudi regime on the other hand; does not accord us much time to put our affairs/ home in order, in quick order.
A technocratic government supported by the military; as opposed to Martial Law could provide a quick and a pragmatic solution to our malaise.
This raises a fundamental question whether soldiers are better politicians than civilians because only then they can embark on such political enterprise.
Soldiers cannot be politicians, better or otherwise. But the current crop of criminals masquerading as politicians could be even trumped by the soldiers. But I am not by any means advocating solders stepping in the dirty arena of politics.
You are absolutely right that all political engineering by the military failed.
Clausewitz said: “war is continuation of policy by other means”; in the case of our coup-making generals, it was politics by other means.
You are right in a slightly different way: the 65 war was used by ZAB to gain political leverage over Ayub – reflect on the perfidy of ZAB and lack of professional acumen of Ayub.
Similarly, events were perpetuated to cause a civil war in Pakistan to gain power by Bhutto.
But in both the above cases, I hold Ayub and Yahya, primarily responsible for being at the helm of affairs.
Again it is correct that Zia and Musharraf used the Afghan Wars to gain international legitimacy for their respective coups.
a soldier is more expert in using weapons than pen or diplomacy to tackle a foreign policy issue.
The above state is incorrect, and a lot of historical examples belie its provenance.
Sahibzada Yakub Khan, De Gaulle, Eisenhower and Powell come to mind.
Empirical evidence supports the facts that an army loses it professional edge, once it dabbles in non-professional pursuits like politics.
I do not agree with Mr. Kundi that any change can materialize through this system; neither could any reforms be possible. I have dilated my views on this aspect in a separate, recent post.
And since no reforms are possible, the only alternative to anarchy or martial law is a technocratic government by honest, patriotic individuals sans political ambitions. Army stays in its barracks after installing such a government………NAEEM
========================================================================================
Honorable Gentlemen,
Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan Kundi is a special kind of politician who speaks his mind without any fear and favor. Some of our PTI guys find hard to adjust to his critique. Today, he circulated an excellent note on the sensitive issue of “Soldiers as Politicians” that I thought was worth to be brought to your notice for your kind feedback.
My view is very similar to a valuable saying of Charles R. Swindoll: “The past is over..forget it. The future holds hope…reach for it.”
In that spirit, with due permission from Kundi Sahib, I am forwarding his note for your comments.
======================================================================================================================
“
Soldiers as politicians : A Debate – Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi
Posted by admin in Commentary, OPINION:OP-ED on October 12th, 2014
A DEBATE
ON
Soldiers as politicians
Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi
“Salam,
Military involvement in politics is a sensitive subject in Pakistan. I have dared to share my two cents on the subject. Please do share your feedback and comments.
Every few years there is a wave of writings and opinions that the country is in trouble and one of the solution is the introduction of a technocratic government that can fix things through a magic wand. As soon as PPP started its tenure there was talk of the need for it which gained pace during the memogate scandal and later during the first long march of Dr. Tahir UL Qadri. Once again, there are writings from ex-servicemen and former bureaucrats that a technocrat government should be installed to introduce far reaching reforms. There is only one way this kind of arrangement can come to fruition, which is through the support of the military establishment since there is no such provision in the constitution. Political scientists term it as a soft coup or in other words a military rule in the disguise of a civilian garb. This raises a fundamental question whether soldiers are better politicians than civilians because only then they can embark on such political enterprise.
When we look at the history of our military rulers there are few things that stand out. First is that to gain legitimacy and appeal to the masses they had to embark on political experiments that failed in most cases. Field Marshal Ayub Khan introduced basic democrats and a new constitution in 1963. Both these experiments could not survive and died with the demise of its sponsor. General Zia UL Haq introduced a non-Party Majlis e Shura, which could only survive for one term and had to be reverted back to the party based parliament. General Musharraf assumed the role of a more civil sounding Chief Executive rather than Chief Martial Law Administrator. He instituted a National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) that recommended a reform agenda which was never implemented. General Musharraf had to ultimately create a kings party PML Q to have political and constitutional legitimacy.
Most political scientists call war as another form of politics. Most wars fought by the country were during the reign of military rulers. Our two major wars of 1965 and 1970 were during the tenure of Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya respectively. General Zia decided to make Pakistan a front line state to warm the cold war between US and Russia when the latter occupied Afghanistan. General Musharraf said yes to Secretary of State Collin Powel when he called him soon after 911 to once again make Pakistan a front line state, but this time to support a war on terror against the Taliban regime. This should not be surprising because a soldier is more expert in using weapons than pen or diplomacy to tackle a foreign policy issue.
Another important thing to consider is the performance of military as a professional force when Generals are actively engaged in politics which is not their forte by training. In 1970 we lost an Eastern wing of the country, regardless whether it was inevitable or not, as well as over 90000 POWs. Our engagement in Afghan war in 1980s resulted in infiltration of extremism, terrorism and drugs in the country which severely affected the security of the state. General Musharraf’s eight year reign weakened the professional focus of the army which resulted in weakening of both internal and external security of the state. We saw terrorist attacks on GHQ, Mehran Base, the US operation in Abbottabad to kill OBL, terrorists attempt to capture a navy frigate and drone infiltration inside our borders. This could not have happened if military remained focused on its primary professional function of securing the state. The success of recent military success in operation Zarb e Azb against militants can be termed as refocus by Generals on military professionalism and avoiding political adventurism.
Soldiering and politics are different lines of activities requiring a totally different set of skills. A politician has to be flexible, tireless negotiator, compromiser and fluid in his position because of a volatile public opinion. Soldiers on the other hand, are rigid, work in defining hierarchy and highly disciplined in carrying out orders regardless if they disagree with their superiors. Whenever a soldier tries to become a politician while wearing a uniform, it is difficult for him to balance these divergent needs to maintain his composure and posture. It is probably for this reason the military institution gets frustrated in their political role after a coup and want to return back to soldiering.
In all nations military establishment play a significant role in defining the parameters of national security policy through close collaboration with the civilian government. Ignoring this input is not in the national interest and no one can deny this. But soldiers involving themselves in politics, directly or indirectly, also creates risks to national security and that cannot be denied as well. Each has to work within their constitutional boundaries and develop a relationship of mutual respect. In times of crisis the relationship can feel the stress, even in highly developed countries. In the USA, military established has publicly agitated against President Obama’s policy to rely on air strikes to deal with ISIS in Iraq. The military feels boots on the ground will be necessary while civilian administration is hesitant to commit to it.
Here I am not implying that politicians have discharged their duty of serving the nation to the best of their ability. But rather that politics has to be allowed to evolve so that nation is able to weed out good from bad performing politicians. It takes time for a stable political order to emerge after a cycle of two or three successful completion of the terms and holding of fair and free elections so that a nation can choose capable leaders. Introduction of electronic and social media has greatly improved people’s ability to judge the performance of incumbent political parties and parliament. They are eager to throw out non-performing parliamentarians and give change to others. In 2013 elections PPP suffered heavy losses at the polls because they did not perform well in their tenure. Similar fate may befall PML N as their governance has not been up to par so far and governance has been weak.
The solution is not a technocrat government, which some call Bangladesh model, but the introduction of electoral reforms to ensure free & fair elections; creditable opposition to the sitting government to ensure balanced policy; elections for local government and institutionalization of political parties. Military as a leadership development institute produce good talent. These retired Generals should participate in politics by joining political parties. They can help political parties to become institutions through their organizational and training skills.
Nation building requires contributions from all stakeholders within the parameters of the constitution. Impatience by any stakeholder could create instability, uncertainty and weakening of institutions and must be avoided.
COMMENTS
From: Saeed Malik
There is a fundamental flaw in Kundi Sahib’s main argument i.e evolution will bring about improvement in the way our democracy functions, if this functioning is left alone to work out its wrinkles and warts etc. If this were true, each new elections should have brought forth better governance. But our experience is that quite the opposite is true. Each new elections saw a deterioration in governance.
This theory about governance/democracy improving if allowed to have a free run, harkens back to Adam Smith’s theory of free market capitalism i.e keep the markets free of regulation and this will ensure fair prices and the survival of the best and the fittest in the market, because the inefficient will be rooted out of the system. But this does not happen in practice because sooner or later the most efficient tend to club together, create a monopoly, and dictate prices, while ensuring no one else breaks into their charmed circle.
This is exactly what has happened in our politics as well. The two most corrupt and the most powerful political organizations in the country have clubbed together to form a monopoly which can now barely be challenged. Thus the most vital check and balance, which is the very soul of a democratic system has been undermined to create a monopoly of power, which can only destroy governance, increase the loot of national wealth, and assure immunity to the perpetrators.
When the people of the country hanker for the army to step in, it is never so because the army is more popular; it is because the army is the only check against the depradations of the politicians, and the people believe that no matter how bad army rule shall be, it surely can be no worse than the misrule of the politicians. Unfortunately for us, however, these hopes very early become dashed dreams, and the army disappoints them no less.
Be that as it may, but the argument that left alone to function without interference, our democracy will improve, has been no more than a mere truism in our experience. – SAEED MALIK
======================================================================================================================
NAEEM
Mr. Kundi certainly is a different genre of a politician, in as so far that, he is an educated one; as compared to the hordes of Gullu Butts-esque politicos. His narrative is thought-provoking but conventional in its import.
Before I comment on the author’s views; I would like to stipulate the following for the perusal of all;
a)Pakistan has been in perpetual crises – of our own making; it is only that a new dimension of the crises state is highlighted, after a few years.
b)Military rule is no panacea for our problems. It has always ended in regressing us in an even worse situation; then with the one we started with.
c)All the politicians since the last 60 years have been synthetic politicians; having being conceived in the military nurseries.
d)All four military coups have been inspired by personal/ military corporate interests/ambitions.
e)All our existential problems are the outcome of power-politics/ power plays by different factions/ institutions of the state.
f)The above jockeying for power started even before the partition/ independence.
a technocrat government should be installed to introduce far reaching reforms. There is only one way this kind of arrangement can come to fruition, which is through the support of the military establishment since there is no such provision in the constitution.
Of course there is no such provision of a technocratic government in the constitution; but there is also no provision in the constitution for mega-corruption; dynastic rule; loot and plunder of national resources; keeping the masses perpetually mired in abject poverty and illiteracy.
There is also no provision in the constitution for hijacking the people’s vote; buying judiciary, media and ECP to acquire a fake mandate. There is also no provision in the constitution; that despite the constitution criminals and thugs could be elected to the parliament.
Constitution also does not sanction killing scores of unarmed citizens to stop them from protesting. Neither does constitution allows that the progeny of a MNA of the ruling party, gang-rape an innocent young girl and go scot free.
The constitution also does not permit the perpetuation of the anachronistic, rapacious, exploitative and parasitical feudal system.
Mr. Kundi, the saga of 18th and the 19th Amendments and the marathon joint parliamentary session running for 18 days, did not spare a single second for the problems of the people. It is now well neigh impossible to make any change in the constitution to ameliorate the lot of the people; to provide justice or good governance; because the thugs sitting in the parliament would never allow it.
So Mr. Kundi, what should the people do? Anyway let me tell you what they do: they let powerful criminals rape them; they let the ruling idiots kill them through their killer police squads; they sell their kids, since they cannot buy a roti worth Rs. 10; and they sell their blood to pay the inflated electric bills.
Now Mr. Kundi, would you not like a rational being agree that such a non-constitutional constitution (which provides no relief to the masses); is not worth the paper it is written on? Call me an anarchist; but please take a pragmatic view, instead of an academic one.
Still, let us talk academics/ theory for a moment: technocratic governments can deliver; because their members will not be making their decisions contingent on the next elections or political imperatives. Their decisions will be based on merit, pure economic factors and pragmatism, unencumbered by the need to appease different elites. Since no/ minimal politics will be involved, governance and delivery; the Achilles heel of political governments, will be easy to deliver. Judiciary, independent of political influence shall be able to mete out justice.
The military could provide a secure ambience for such a government to function.
But I understand that as a politician, you would be wary of such a government; despite your intellect and education.
Ok, let us now view the practical dimension of a technocratic government:
Most of the Politburo members in China are engineers (6th Generation); 5th Generation were economists. Malaysian cabinet under Mathair had 70% PhDs; mostly engineers and economists. And both set of governments delivered, and delivered with a bang; despite the fact that Malaysia unlike China was a conventional polity.
Therefore, there is no need to be scared of technocrats.
The conflagration of anarchy on the periphery of our immediate geographic region instigated by the US and implemented through the barbarians of ISIS on one hand and the religious retrogressive Wahabi Saudi regime on the other hand; does not accord us much time to put our affairs/ home in order, in quick order.
A technocratic government supported by the military; as opposed to Martial Law could provide a quick and a pragmatic solution to our malaise.
This raises a fundamental question whether soldiers are better politicians than civilians because only then they can embark on such political enterprise.
Soldiers cannot be politicians, better or otherwise. But the current crop of criminals masquerading as politicians could be even trumped by the soldiers. But I am not by any means advocating solders stepping in the dirty arena of politics.
You are absolutely right that all political engineering by the military failed.
Clausewitz said: “war is continuation of policy by other means”; in the case of our coup-making generals, it was politics by other means.
You are right in a slightly different way: the 65 war was used by ZAB to gain political leverage over Ayub – reflect on the perfidy of ZAB and lack of professional acumen of Ayub.
Similarly, events were perpetuated to cause a civil war in Pakistan to gain power by Bhutto.
But in both the above cases, I hold Ayub and Yahya, primarily responsible for being at the helm of affairs.
Again it is correct that Zia and Musharraf used the Afghan Wars to gain international legitimacy for their respective coups.
a soldier is more expert in using weapons than pen or diplomacy to tackle a foreign policy issue.
The above state is incorrect, and a lot of historical examples belie its provenance.
Sahibzada Yakub Khan, De Gaulle, Eisenhower and Powell come to mind.
Empirical evidence supports the facts that an army loses it professional edge, once it dabbles in non-professional pursuits like politics.
I do not agree with Mr. Kundi that any change can materialize through this system; neither could any reforms be possible. I have dilated my views on this aspect in a separate, recent post.
And since no reforms are possible, the only alternative to anarchy or martial law is a technocratic government by honest, patriotic individuals sans political ambitions. Army stays in its barracks after installing such a government………NAEEM
========================================================================================
Honorable Gentlemen,
Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan Kundi is a special kind of politician who speaks his mind without any fear and favor. Some of our PTI guys find hard to adjust to his critique. Today, he circulated an excellent note on the sensitive issue of “Soldiers as Politicians” that I thought was worth to be brought to your notice for your kind feedback.
My view is very similar to a valuable saying of Charles R. Swindoll: “The past is over..forget it. The future holds hope…reach for it.”
In that spirit, with due permission from Kundi Sahib, I am forwarding his note for your comments.
======================================================================================================================
“
DEBATE, SOLDIERS AS POLITICIANS
No Comments