Pakistan Army Should
Not Expect Support for its Non-Military Adventures
By
Husain Haqqani
THE SOLDIERS OF any country have the justified expectation of
support from their compatriots in return for volunteering to lay
down their lives for the country in times of war. Pakistanis,
too, have supported their army through most of the country’s
checkered history. But of late the army’s status as a sacred
cow has come under fire even from many of its past supporters.
General Pervez Musharraf has reacted angrily to this questioning
of the army’s position and role. ARD leader Javed Hashmi
has been whisked away from the precincts of parliament, possibly
for a long incarceration, over "anti-army" statements.
Mr. Hashmi started his career in national politics as a minister
in the military regime of General Ziaul Haq. Now he stands accused
of sedition and trying to sow discord among the armed forces.
Like
Asif Zardari, who has completed seven years in prison without
being definitively convicted of any charge, Mr. Hashmi could also
end up as a victim of the military establishment’s self-righteousness.
Instead of reacting self-righteously, General Musharraf and his
colleagues must ask themselves why even past civilian allies of
the military are unable to support this national institution today.
Support for army usually stems from the feeling of gratitude of
civilians whom the army normally defends against external aggression.
When an army becomes involved in domestic politics, it forfeits
that special status as the nation’s defender and is reduced
to the position of just another contender of power. Mr. Zardari
and Mr. Hashmi may not be comparable to Aung San Suu Kyi but the
pattern of public opinion in Pakistan about the army is gradually
approximating that of Burma.
Repeated
military interventions in Pakistani politics, coupled with the
insistence of generals to give themselves privileges unavailable
to the rest of society have eroded the standing of the Pakistan
army. It is difficult for politicians and journalists, who represent
public opinion, to support the induction of military officers
in every sphere.
A
general commanding a division or corps may be deserving of civilian
support but how can anyone endorse the appointment of generals
as vice chancellors of universities, heads of public sector corporations,
diplomats, criminal investigators and much more. The practice
of rewarding military officers for their service with plots of
land also arouses anger and resentment among civilians who are
denied such perquisites of public service.
The
argument that this practice dates back to the days of the British
Raj sways no one. Did not General Musharraf do away with the time
worn system of civil administration in the name of administrative
reform on grounds that it was a colonial creation? Why must colonial
practices be retained only when they suit senior military officers
if they have to be done away with in other areas?
Just around the time that Mr. Hashmi was arrested, another case
hit the headlines – one relating to the persecution of a
simple constable in Lahore who had made the mistake of questioning
the family of a two-star general traveling in a car with tinted
windows. Constable Nazir simply did his duty by pointing out that
tinted glasses were against the law.
The
power of all the men and guns under the command of GOC Lahore
were lined against him for this simple "crime". Not
long ago, an Islamabad journalist was mysteriously kidnapped and
beaten up when he wrote an article and had an altercation with
a general heading the Cricket Control Board. There was also the
case reported by a national English daily on May 8 under the headline
" Multan: Martial Law Imposed on a cantonment Shop".
According to that particular newspaper report, Constable Liaquat
Ali had intercepted two men on a motorcycle breaking the law and
had demanded their license and registration documents. Instead
of producing the documents, the persons on the motorbike made
a phone call, which in turn resulted in the arrival of Military
Police on the scene. The riders, it seems, included Army Lt. Ali
Raj, who refused to submit to the authority of the lowly civilian
constable.
When
statements of eyewitnesses were recorded, the owner of a fabrics
shop refused to tailor his statement to the wishes of the Lieutenant.
He was subsequently charged under the maintenance of public order
ordinance (MPO) and Military Police was stationed outside his
shop with the sign ‘Out of Bounds for All Ranks’ to
force it out of business. The newspaper report also listed two
other incidents involving military officers and civilians. In
each case, vengeful military officers in Multan targeted civilians
doing their duty.
Earlier this year, the NWFP government appointed a new civilian
Director General of Health, only to discover that the outgoing
DG, Brigadier Habibur Rehman, refused to relinquish his charge.
The Brigadier argued that he could not leave his civilian post
as the GHQ had appointed him to it on a three-year secondment
from the army and there were still several days before the end
of the three-year period. Brigadier Habibur Rehman got away with
refusing to obey the orders of the civilian authorities though
we all know that many civilians’ tenures in office have
been cut short by military interventions.
Such
incidents cannot endear the army to the people. Instead of using
intimidation against politicians and journalists highlighting
the public’s disenchantment with military rule, it is time
for the armed forces to rectify the imbalance they have created
in Pakistan’s governance. If the army wants to be respected
as an institution, it should limit itself to its assigned function
of defending the country. Otherwise it must be prepared for institutional
criticism by civilians whom it judges collectively so often and
in so many ways.
The
responsibility for the army’s mistakes should be institutionally
accepted, be they in the form of the arrogance of a Lieutenant
or the refusal to obey the law by a major general’s family.
Just as the PPP and PML are held accountable for the actions of
all its past and present leaders, the army must collectively answer
for the sins of omission and commission under Field Marshal Ayub
Khan, General Yahya Khan, General Ziaul Haq and General Pervez
Musharraf.
Many
politicians, businessmen and civil servants have languished in
prison for crimes they were never convicted of in a judicious
trial. That the country’s politicians in uniform should
always be able to invoke their special status as the nation’s
defenders notwithstanding their crimes or errors is simply not
fair.
The Pakistani military would enjoy complete popular backing if
it performed the task that it exists for – the defence of
the realm. It cannot, and should not, expect the same support
for actions that are outside its institutional purview. When its
officers act as businessmen, as they do while running corporations,
they should be prepared to be treated like businessmen.
While
acting as investigators, as in the National Accountability Bureau
(NAB), they should expect no more respect than that available
to policemen. And as political actors, who they invariably become
while running the country, the army can expect no more support
than is traditionally available to politicians.
A
distinction must clearly be made between the army’s military
role and its non-military role. The latter cannot be free of criticism,
notwithstanding the protestations of the military’s PR machine
that such criticism undermines the army’s ability to defend
the nation.
The
building of an industrial empire by Captain Gohar Ayub Khan while
his father was President; the debauchery engaged in by General
Yahya and his close associates just before the fall of East Pakistan;
the unleashing of the Jihadi genie by General Ziaul Haq; the manipulation
of the democratic process by General Aslam Beg after General Zia’s
death; the channeling of Mehran Bank funds to anti-PPP politicians
during the 1990 elections; The dirty war in Karachi against the
MQM; The refusal by the army to protect the Supreme Court while
it was under attack in 1998; and the shenanigans of the present
regime including last year’s referendum and manipulated
election can hardly be described as actions relating to the country's
defence.
The
defence of Pakistan is certainly sacred. But to suggest that Defence
Officers’ Housing Societies, too, should be considered sacred
is asking for too much.
The
writer is a Carnegie Fellow in Washington DC and a known writer.
-Courtesy The Nation
