Guest dada_rocks Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 We shouted over elevation of Pratibah Patil who was morally guilty of creating coperative banks and passing amounts of crore to her brothers through that. In turn declaring the organization bankrupt thereby shielding her brothers from any liability of the loan taken. Well amount were in tunes of 40-50 crore a pittance in comparison to misappropriation of likes of laloo. Pakistan is about to get Zadari as their president. By all accounts he remains the most corrupt figure in history of Pakistan. His misappropriation of public funds runs in billions. World over case of monetary-fraud is on and this guy will get immunity from everything overnight once he gets elevated to presidentship.. Mubarak ho pakistani bhai log.. Aap log ak baar phir hamen pichhe chhod diye:--D Laloo's boast that he coud win election in pakistan easily now has some credence. I guess he fits in there with his myriad embezzlement.
DomainK Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 As far as corruption is considered, India was always bad, but Pakistan was always even worse.
Lurker Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 This would one way for an Indian citizen to understand why Pakistanis generally avoid Democracy like a plague. They relate to Army rule better because it doesnt throw up corrut and totally wretched humans like Zardari. Incidentally Zardari appears to be quite close to Sonia Gandhi, keeps singing hosanas about her in all his interviews.
suraj Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 This would one way for an Indian citizen to understand why Pakistanis generally avoid Democracy like a plague. They relate to Army rule better because it doesnt throw up corrut and totally wretched humans like Zardari. Incidentally Zardari appears to be quite close to Sonia Gandhi, keeps singing hosanas about her in all his interviews. This is an important fact- its a choice between the bad and the worst!!
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 This would one way for an Indian citizen to understand why Pakistanis generally avoid Democracy like a plague. They relate to Army rule better because it doesnt throw up corrut and totally wretched humans like Zardari. Incidentally Zardari appears to be quite close to Sonia Gandhi, keeps singing hosanas about her in all his interviews. Yes it props up cporrupt institution liek army.. no doubt one single person from army can't hold candle in matters of cprruption toZardari but army as insituttion beats everyone hands down in matters of corruption.. Go through the Army Inc of Ayesha Siddiqua you will appreciate it.... Moreover in my view Army never allowed civilan govt to function other than one term of Bhutto no civilan govt has completed its term...Army must let civilan govt screw things they will learn from it........ Actually Zardari has gone on to say he wants to play the role of Sonia Gandhi i.e. all power with no accountability
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 http://pkpolitics.com/2008/08/23/siyasi-log-23-august-2008/ Imran khan seems to be the only sane voice among vultures of pakistani politics
Lurker Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Yes it props up cporrupt institution liek army.. no doubt one single person from army can't hold candle in matters of cprruption toZardari but army as insituttion beats everyone hands down in matters of corruption.. Go through the Army Inc of Ayesha Siddiqua you will appreciate it.... Moreover in my view Army never allowed civilan govt to function other than one term of Bhutto no civilan govt has completed its term...Army must let civilan govt screw things they will learn from it........ Actually Zardari has gone on to say he wants to play the role of Sonia Gandhi i.e. all power with no accountability Yes I have read Ayesha Siddiqa. Quite good in what she does. I think you are mistaken in beleiving if civilian rule is given a long run people will learn from it. At best I would say it is worth a shot. At worst I will say it will never happen. Maybe it is the religious angle here. Islam beleives in democracy, where every human is equal etc, people elect their leader and all that. However they also as a group depend heavily on their leader. So the Caliphate system is more about a strong Caliphs and less about establishing institutions. I often wonder if this is why Imran Khan was a popular captain in Pakistan. Even with super cricketers like Miandad, Akram, Qadir, he would bring down the hammer regularly and show who was the top Dog. in India players wont behave that way. Even Sachin, Kapil, Sunny..none of these all time greats could afford to treat their peers like that. xxx
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Yes I have read Ayesha Siddiqa. Quite good in what she does. I think you are mistaken in beleiving if civilian rule is given a long run people will learn from it. At best I would say it is worth a shot. At worst I will say it will never happen. Maybe it is the religious angle here. Islam beleives in democracy, where every human is equal etc, people elect their leader and all that. However they also as a group depend heavily on their leader. So the Caliphate system is more about a strong Caliphs and less about establishing institutions. I often wonder if this is why Imran Khan was a popular captain in Pakistan. Even with super cricketers like Miandad, Akram, Qadir, he would bring down the hammer regularly and show who was the top Dog. in India players wont behave that way. Even Sachin, Kapil, Sunny..none of these all time greats could afford to treat their peers like that. xxx I formly believe you can't fool all the people all the time and hence democracy will always be better than army rule or communist regime.. In pakistan's 60 years of existance close to 40 years they have been under direct military command.. Even the inter-regnum of democracy inetrspesed between decades of continuous army rule was tampered by army intervention. Civilan government almost always keep looking behind their shoulders even when they are supposedly in power for the fears of army intervention. To me this is no way to run govt and certainly not enough for judging civilian rule. Army guys need to give civian set up at least three full terms of ininterrupted power then it can be judged. You can't compare cricket team wiht nations yaar. Imran Khan was popular because he gave results. BTW even imran khan has made himself leader of his party for life so in noway I am endorsing him totally but certainly comes of as someone with no axe to grind.
Recommended Posts