Lions Of Punjab
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 652
- Likes
- 926
PAKISTAN ARMY SLAMS ITS OWN GENERALS, PRAISES INDIAN BUREAUCRACY
From left: Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Pervez Musharraf
NEW DELHI: The much-maligned Indian bureaucracy got a pat on its back by its eternal rival, the Pakistan Army, which called their own babus and Generals “shady” and “inconsistent”. In its top-secret Green Book, the Pakistan Army slams its Generals-turned-rulers by calling Ayub Khan a “laissez-faire leader”, Yahya Khan an “impoverished leader” and Pervez Musharraf a general who couldn’t go beyond autocratic rule.
Comparing the Indian leadership structure with Pakistan’s, the Green Book says in India, “bureaucratic stream supports executive... In India, a combination of intellectuals, businessmen and hereditary leadership rules the masses. The democratic system has evolved and matured rapidly. Soon after Independence in 1947, politicians began to view the military with suspicion as the last supporters of the British Raj, so not only kept it isolated from influencing decisions and policies but also fully subordinated to political leadership and bureaucracy.”
While defining its own bureaucracy, the book says “it is shady”, leadership attribute is “inconsistent” and executive power is “vacillating”. It complimented the Indian leadership development, saying “it has been systematic” while in Pakistan, “it is informal with weak civil control”. Interestingly, the Green Book notes that “bureaucratic leadership has played a partisan role instead of standing up for principles”.
“Mistrust between the three streams—political, bureaucratic and military—has never been addressed by Pakistan. It still prevails and affects the desired harmonised efforts at the top tier,” it says.
The book says perception about public representative in India is very strong but in Pakistan, it is temporary. It also points out that the bureaucracy in Pakistan since Partition formed the core of civil services, which “paradoxically emerged as one of the most elite and privileged servants of state”.
In its top-secret Green Book, the Pakistan Army has slammed its Generals-turned-rulers and bureaucracy, and praised the Indian babus.
“The political structure of Pakistan could not take roots due to a host of reasons. Where political leadership was unable to charter a course for themselves, a more organised and trained military bureaucracy started filling in the gaps. This was by no means a sound arrangement but a need of the hour nevertheless,” the book says.
Although Pakistan praised Ayub Khan’s rule for long, Green Book criticises him for indifference and unwilling attitude: “Ayub Khan became a laissez-faire leader towards the end and missed the opportunity to fully exploit his position of power.”
“General Yahya was known to be a brilliant army officer but was unable to adapt to complexity of political leadership. He can best be described as an impoverished leader.”
Musharraf, a powerful military general and later ruler of Pakistan, also faced criticism by his army’s publication. It says that “Musharraf had potential to be a transformational leader but the Prince’s Choice of political expediency didn’t allow him to go beyond autocracy and consequent strategic haze.”
There is no love lost between Pakistan’s political establishment and army either. Green Book calls the political system immature, noting that the “political leadership has not been able to develop as other streams. Reason for the shortcomings of the political leadership has been the absence within the present political framework of any institutionalised system of checks and balances on the leadership”.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/the...ian-Bureaucracy/2016/03/27/article3347753.ece
From left: Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Pervez Musharraf
NEW DELHI: The much-maligned Indian bureaucracy got a pat on its back by its eternal rival, the Pakistan Army, which called their own babus and Generals “shady” and “inconsistent”. In its top-secret Green Book, the Pakistan Army slams its Generals-turned-rulers by calling Ayub Khan a “laissez-faire leader”, Yahya Khan an “impoverished leader” and Pervez Musharraf a general who couldn’t go beyond autocratic rule.
Comparing the Indian leadership structure with Pakistan’s, the Green Book says in India, “bureaucratic stream supports executive... In India, a combination of intellectuals, businessmen and hereditary leadership rules the masses. The democratic system has evolved and matured rapidly. Soon after Independence in 1947, politicians began to view the military with suspicion as the last supporters of the British Raj, so not only kept it isolated from influencing decisions and policies but also fully subordinated to political leadership and bureaucracy.”
While defining its own bureaucracy, the book says “it is shady”, leadership attribute is “inconsistent” and executive power is “vacillating”. It complimented the Indian leadership development, saying “it has been systematic” while in Pakistan, “it is informal with weak civil control”. Interestingly, the Green Book notes that “bureaucratic leadership has played a partisan role instead of standing up for principles”.
“Mistrust between the three streams—political, bureaucratic and military—has never been addressed by Pakistan. It still prevails and affects the desired harmonised efforts at the top tier,” it says.
The book says perception about public representative in India is very strong but in Pakistan, it is temporary. It also points out that the bureaucracy in Pakistan since Partition formed the core of civil services, which “paradoxically emerged as one of the most elite and privileged servants of state”.
In its top-secret Green Book, the Pakistan Army has slammed its Generals-turned-rulers and bureaucracy, and praised the Indian babus.
“The political structure of Pakistan could not take roots due to a host of reasons. Where political leadership was unable to charter a course for themselves, a more organised and trained military bureaucracy started filling in the gaps. This was by no means a sound arrangement but a need of the hour nevertheless,” the book says.
Although Pakistan praised Ayub Khan’s rule for long, Green Book criticises him for indifference and unwilling attitude: “Ayub Khan became a laissez-faire leader towards the end and missed the opportunity to fully exploit his position of power.”
“General Yahya was known to be a brilliant army officer but was unable to adapt to complexity of political leadership. He can best be described as an impoverished leader.”
Musharraf, a powerful military general and later ruler of Pakistan, also faced criticism by his army’s publication. It says that “Musharraf had potential to be a transformational leader but the Prince’s Choice of political expediency didn’t allow him to go beyond autocracy and consequent strategic haze.”
There is no love lost between Pakistan’s political establishment and army either. Green Book calls the political system immature, noting that the “political leadership has not been able to develop as other streams. Reason for the shortcomings of the political leadership has been the absence within the present political framework of any institutionalised system of checks and balances on the leadership”.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/the...ian-Bureaucracy/2016/03/27/article3347753.ece
