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*

Thank you for this helpful reply

Also for example in reference Zias islamization policy

If a question asks the reasons for Pakistan's extremism or sectarian rift

Are we allowed to openly condemn Zia dictatorship , policies and overall the nature of military rule or do we again say that who says that and who advocates that Zias rule was bad?
Please help with a question on extremism which needs condemming of Zia policies
Or shoulf we blame USA for facilitating Zia?

Thanks

calling a spade a spade is not a bad thing that will hurt the examiner's feeling.
Regarding Zia's policies, everyone in/out of Pakistan lambaste Zia's policies that has made Pakistan a nursery of extremist and terrorist .
At that time, Pakistan wanted to pursue a Bhutto led nuclear program so Zia made a concurrence with the USA . In a quid pro quo , Pak peacefully built the nuclear while helped USA to fight with Soviets in Afg.
so, i think first criticizing the bhutto, who declared Ahmedi as non-muslim and shuttering the liberal touch of Pakistan, then Zia , who deem himself as Mard-e-momin and further banned women's liberation + incarcerated politicians +establishment of sharia courts etc to strengthen his rule got a nod from the USA as they wanted a mullahs to wage their war against red army.

Well, you need to quote a question from the past papers for me to explain you in a better way. Because there are no such questions that require you to take extreme position in the exam in the first place.
Furthermore, regarding issues of extremism and sectarianism, Zia regime is just one paragraph/argument that could be pointed out. But remember, for a Civil Servant “intellectual extremism” is not acceptable. Even if you consider Zia’s policies to be fatal, you will have to present it in a manner that even Zia would like to listen to. Also your opinion is presented when you present both sides of the story and then take a diplomatic position where you say extremism anywhere is fatal to social fabric of a society et cetera.
Hope you got the point.

No. No blame games. Every argument should have a reference. Your position must be academic. Analysis of a person who understands both sides of the story!