“If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.” – George Washington
Hi readers!
George Washington delivered this famous statement during his Fifth Annual Message to Congress on December 3, 1793. Today, however, the message remains clear for all of us including the Maulanas that peace can be secured only when a nation is prepared to defend itself.
The word Maulana comes from Arabic. It is a compound of Maula (meaning master, lord, protector, or friend) and the suffix na (meaning “our”). It translates to “our master” or “our protector.”
In the Holy Quran, the term is frequently used to address Allah as the Ultimate Protector and Lord, as in “Anta Maulana” meaning “You are our Protector.” When the Holy Quran uses this expression for Allah, we should reflect carefully before associating such a title with any human being.
Dear readers, think before using the word Maulana especially for those who seek public support while demanding privileges comparable to Bilawal House, Jati Umra, or Bani Gala. The hypocrisy of such people has contributed to bringing the country to its present condition.
Now let us come to the actual topic.
Defence and defence forces: which comes first?
Defence is the act of protecting someone or something from attack, harm, or criticism. The term takes on specialized meanings depending on the context. For example, in a general and national security context, defence refers to the military measures, resources, and strategies a country uses to protect itself against potential enemies or dangers.
Now let us focus not on someone or something in general, but on the country. In this context:
Attack refers to actions such as those conducted by our eastern neighbour during May 2025.
Harm means the damage and destruction inflicted through proxies and hostile financial support from outside forces.
Criticism refers to the sustained campaigns directed against the military, national security institutions, and defence forces. These three state institutions operate on behalf of a sovereign government and are responsible for defending the country against attack, harm, and destabilising narratives. Constantly undermining them weakens morale, damages public confidence, and projects an image of incapacity that may encourage hostile elements. Why are terrorists daily attacking various parts of the country and inflicting heavy losses of lives and infrastructure? Such attacks are meant to signal weakness and invite further aggression. During the Pak-India conflict in May 2026, some of the hostile social-media narratives even suggested that Indian forces would be welcomed inside Pakistan. Such language is deeply damaging and must be rejected.
Who will defend the country under these circumstances? Certainly, the defence forces. If they do not, betrayers and traitors (individuals whose actions deliberately aid the enemy or work against their own country) may tear apart the country.
What do you think, dear readers, our digital media and pressure groups are doing? Can this not be questioned?
The nexus between defence forces and the defence of a country is fundamental and interdependent. The armed forces serve as the operational instrument, while the defence of a country represents the broader strategic, political, and societal goal of safeguarding national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interests. No society can permit unrest, violence, and territorial division to be normalised.
Those who engage in such acts must be held accountable under the law. They should not be casually labelled as innocent or peaceful if their conduct directly threatens the state.
The connection between the military apparatus and a state’s overall defence strategy encompasses several critical dimensions, including
“The shield of sovereignty”. The defence forces, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, function as the physical deterrent against external aggression and internal destabilisation. Their operational capabilities, readiness, and strategic posture are the primary mechanisms through which the state protects its borders and deters adversaries. If our defence forces use these tools against hostile proxies, why should there be such hue and cry?
Does such opposition not risk aligning, intentionally or otherwise, with the objectives of those proxies?
Dear readers, look around and ask yourselves, who is engaging in such acts?
The “defence of a country” dictates the size, structure, and doctrine of its defence forces. Political leadership and institutions translate geopolitical challenges—such as regional strategic constraints and border disputes—into concrete defence policies that guide military operations and resource allocation.
Do you think our political leadership is capable enough to fulfil these expectations? In my view, it is not. Too many political actors remain preoccupied with personal gains, patronage, and protecting wrongdoing, thereby allowing corruption to seep into every sphere of public life, weakening institutions, and betraying the public mandate.
They assume that nobody can touch them and no law can inflict any harm to them. The burden then ultimately comes on the shoulders of the defence forces that use their operational capabilities, readiness, and strategic posture for course correction. As a result, the defence forces often become victims of negative propaganda intended to pressurise them and later question or prosecute their actions against destructive forces. I wish and pray that in a future constitutional amendment, the present democratic system may be reformed into a more effective presidential form of democracy, with clear priorities for national revival. For example:
All national resources—including land, water, minerals, gas, and
petroleum products—should be declared state assets.
All political blackmailing tools should be abandoned forthwith.
Water, gas, and petroleum storage infrastructure should be developed as a top priority.
CPEC should be completed against all odds come what may.
Karachi should be restored as the economic hub it once was.
Gwadar should be made fully functional, as present circumstances present a now-or-never opportunity.
The defence forces should be strengthened as the country’s last line of defence, because if they do not perform this duty, who else will?
The country faces many internal and external challenges. Hostile groups and their supporters exploit grievances, misinformation, and foreign funding to destabilise the state. It is only the defence forces that can foil such attempts with their blood, sweat, and sacrifice. They are entrusted with defending the country and, when necessary, embracing martyrdom in that cause. The defence forces understand these threats, possess the capacity to confront them, and must therefore be strengthened and equipped to deal with attack, harm, and criticism against all odds.
Help the defence forces defend the country. Beware, there is no other defence line after them. In my view therefore, defence forces come first. Whats your view dear readers?
See you again. Take care, Bye
