As an Indian, I am sure some Pakistanis will read my post with some skepticism, however if you read it with an open mind you may find something of value. I will say that [MENTION=26195]DW44[/MENTION] and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] have it right.
1)
You can search the history books and you will not find one example where a country has prospered under military rule. Pakistani military dominates the country getting the best of everything. Read the following Washington Post article and tell me where it is wrong?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062601826.html
"Active-duty or retired officers now occupy most key government jobs, including posts in education, agriculture and medicine that have little to do with defense. The military also dominates the corporate world; it reportedly runs a $20 billion portfolio of businesses from banks to real estate developers to bakeries."
"History in Pakistan is on the generals' side. They have ruled the country for more than half of the 60 years since independence. Even when civilians have ostensibly been in charge, they have had to bow to the military just to keep their jobs. Of the nation's past three civilian leaders, two are in exile and one was hanged."
"Yet the military's imprint is everywhere. It's by the side of the road, where men in orange jumpsuits labor for a military-run foundation that controls a huge share of the nation's construction industry. It's also present up and down the ranks of the civilian bureaucracy, where government workers answer to retired military men and complain that loyalty is consistently rewarded over hard work or competence. And it's in Riaz's health clinic, where his doctors say they take heat from army inspectors if they spend more than 10 minutes with a patient."
"For Pakistani professionals -- particularly highly trained lawyers, doctors and professors -- the movement has become a chance to decry intrusions in their fields by less educated military men. Civil society, they say, has badly atrophied during Musharraf's tenure."
"For Pakistani professionals -- particularly highly trained lawyers, doctors and professors -- the movement has become a chance to decry intrusions in their fields by less educated military men. Civil society, they say, has badly atrophied during Musharraf's tenure."
"In Rawalpindi, the teeming garrison town just down the road from Islamabad, retired and active-duty officers live in sparkling new gated communities that feature luxury homes, tree-lined streets and grassy parks. Mohammed Shafiq, a 36-year-old clerk, can see one such development from the weedy field in front of his old, squat brick home. "Before, people had good opinions of the army," he said. "Now they are afraid. If soldiers come, we think they are coming to take our land." Land is one of the military's most prized assets, distributed as a perk to top officers, with major generals getting at least 50 acres apiece."
Mind you, the above article is not written by an Indian. Neither is the entire world out to get the common Pakistani.
Do you want to go back to military rule?
2. Your best hope is that leaders are elected democratically. At least they know that if they improve the lot of the people economically, then they have a better chance of winning elections. Military leaders have no such incentives.
3. IK's agitation is basically the overthrow of a democratically elected government. If he wishes to help democracy grow in Pakistan he should wait till the next elections.
4. There is no point in having China as a model, just like there is no point for Indians to have China as a model. The Chinese Communist Party has enough patriots to have provided the country with pragmatic governance where corruption is low enough for economic growth to occur. Neither India nor Pakistan has such an organization.
