Quote:
Originally Posted by AnikaA
Hi everyone,
I'm currently covering the civil-military relationship topic in Pakistan affairs and I realized that a lot of issues the country is facing has to do with the involvement of military and non-state actors which slowed down the evolution of democracy in our country
However, I watched a lecture on CSS and the professor warned and said TO NEVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT THE MILITARY IN THE EXAMS.
However, my question is that when we are asked a question about political instability, democracy or economy, can we at least mention that the military involvemnt has has good and bad effects or no?
IM REALLY CONFUSED
Should we give bias answers or speak the truth as well in the exam
Thanks
|
You need sound diplomacy in your arguments. In case where you need to discuss effects of Military intervention, you need to give reference of who says military did this or that. For instance a recent statement given by Mr. Bizenjo and then in the later paragraphs, you need to present Military’s point of view on those statements like response of DG ISPR to that statement.
Afterwards comes your analysis where you take a position of a mediator/journalist who in a positive tone states that Constitution must be upheld, there needs to integration between institutions for better performance, every institution should uphold its responsibility so that none has an excuse for interference. In suggestion you can mention idea of Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa to make a Body of Governance that has a member from every key institution to participate/convey its observation/reservation et cetera. In addition, you can also listen the lecture of Sir Fareed on youtube that explains method of attempting questions of controversial nature. Hope this answer satisfies your query.
Charter of Governance*