Source: ET
“The emperor Abul-Fath Jalaluddin Muhammad, king of kings, known since his childhood as Akbar, meaning “the great,” and latterly, in spite of the tautology of it, as Akbar the Great, the great great one, great in his greatness, doubly great, so great that the repetition in his title was not only appropriate but necessary in order to express the gloriousness of his glory — … absolute emperor, who seemed altogether too magnificent, too world-encompassing, and, in sum, too much to be a single human personage — this all-engulfing flood of a ruler, this swallower of worlds, this many-headed monster who referred to himself in the first person plural — had begun to meditate, during his long, tedious journey home, on which he was accompanied by the heads of his defeated enemies bobbing in their sealed earthen pickle-jars, about the disturbing possibilities of the first person singular — the “I”.” (The Enchantress of Florence — SR).
There are times when the distinction between the title and the individual ceases to exist, it is only the title. We have seen honourable judges refer to themselves as his Lordship, this does not come naturally to most of us, but then most of us are not their Lordships. The recent exchange between the two “Chiefs” is really about them being bigger than all of us, than the system itself.
The response to the statements is classic textbook ‘Stockholm syndrome’. The Army Chief has constantly been lauded for his commitment to democracy, which is a scared and polite way of saying that he has been kind enough not to impose martial law. This, of course, is perfect nonsense. The Army Chief is a government servant and is not supposed to impose martial law and take over governments. If he does so that is high treason. We do not have to thank everyone who has not committed a crime yet. He would have been fired in most other countries for speaking in this threatening tone of voice. The ISPR statement took more words to communicate to us the same message as a former intelligence chief said very concisely to a reporter on camera when he (the intelligence chief) said: “Shut up, idiot.” The subtext of the ISPR statement, which has also been voiced by many in the media and politicians is that taking too aggressive a stance on the conduct of retired army generals will somehow dampen the morale of the armed forces. I fail to see the force of this argument. All of us should and do dip our flags and salute our brave soldiers fighting the war of our survival and we remain indebted to them for their courage and sacrifices. However, it does not affect the resolve and intention to prosecute generals accused of financial corruption and rigging elections (which most probably is high treason). If anything, the “morale” of our troops will increase knowing that they have a leadership that is willing to uphold their oath and be loyal to the Constitution.
my dear sir, the street journalists roaming about with cameras and microphones, sneaking in the privacy of the people is also not acceptable in the the civilzed societies. When the ex general has declined to answer the bluntly asked question “kia aap tamgai jamhuriat wapis kardain gay?”, why did he follow him and repeated the same question time and again.