It is
widely believed that the world came closer to a nuclear exchange
during the recent standoff between India and Pakistan than at any
time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. As that fateful episode
from 1962 often serves as a benchmark while gauging the gravity
of military crisis of far-reaching global repercussions, it would
be highly appropriate to have some acquaintance with the subject
matter.
For
that purpose, an American movie “Thirteen Days” from
last year, featuring the Cuban missile 
crises
can be recommended as a convenient shortcut for laymen. The film,
not only depicts the momentous chain of events in an impressive
manner, it offers some frightening glimpses of the
standard military frame of mind as well. Amusingly,
its conclusions can also be aptly correlated to our own debacles/dilemmas,
right from the Operation Gibraltar, the East Pakistan tragedy and
the Kargil adventure down to the ongoing [vital] discussion in the
print media about the role of the armed forces in the political
configuration of Pakistan.
To
elaborate further, it would be pertinent to quote, for the readers
in general and the admirers of military governments in particular,
the following [thought-provoking and self-explanatory] excerpts
from the book:
Thirteen
days / A memoir of the Cuban missile crisis (1969)
By Robert F Kennedy
[Brother of the President J F Kennedy and a senior cabinet minister
in his government]
…“One
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, argued that we
could use nuclear weapons, on the basis that our adversaries would
use theirs against us in an attack. I thought, as I listened, of
the many times that I had heard the military take positions which,
if wrong, had the advantage that no one would be around at the end
to know.”
…
“ I remember an earlier meeting on Laos, in 1961, when the
military unanimously recommended sending in substantial numbers
of U.S. troops to stabilize the country. They were to be brought
in through two airports with limited capability. Someone questioned
what would we do if only a limited number landed and then the Communist
Pathet Lao knocked out the airports and proceeded to attack our
troops, limited in number and not completely equipped. The representatives
of the military said we would then have to destroy Hanoi and possibly
use nuclear weapons. President Kennedy did not send in the troops
and concentrated on diplomatic steps to protect our interests.”
…
“President Kennedy was disturbed by this inability to look
beyond the limited military field. When we talked about this later,
he said we have to remember that they were trained to fight and
to wage war – that was their life. Perhaps we would feel even
more concerned if they were always opposed to using arms or military
means – for if they would not b e willing, who would be? But
this experience pointed out for us all the importance of civilian
direction and control and the importance of raising probing questions
to military recommendations.”
Actually,
it doesn’t require much insight to deduce the horrendous cost
of the army’s supervening role in any civil society. The [perilous]
consequences of the complete absence of the final authority of the
political leadership in governing and/or veto power of the brass
on policy matters are abundantly obvious, provided one doesn’t
persist to deny the irrefutable realities. The views of Theodore
(Ted) Sorensen, a special counsel to John F. Kennedy, about the
film and the handling of the crisis [extracted from Newsweek’s
Web exclusive review] put it bluntly:
“A
clear lesson, in addition to all the other lessons that came out
of those 13 days, was the reminder of the importance of the tradition
of civilian supremacy in this country, of civilian control of the
military. If the military had had their way, I think it’s
quite clear now that there
would have been a nuclear war”.Thus,
one of the most extraordinary events of the cold war era vividly
illustrates that letting military independently determine the course
of action, even during war, is outright suicidal. [Perhaps a slight
solace: Pakistani top brass doesn’t outsmart its counterparts
in ludicrousness, the military officers are equally inane, the world
over.]
While
aspiring nations don’t allow the military to trespass the
political arena, thus minimizing their detrimental impact on the
society, Pakistan, on the other hand, is thoroughly shackled by
the self-styled, khaki-clad messiahs. In specific terms, the myopic
manipulation of the political
process, creating and discarding leaders by the army has done much
more harm to Pakistan than any other single factor. The absurd conviction
of the khakis to be able and (even worse) authorised to define and
dictate national interests has shattered the basics of the social
and political fabrics of the nation.
The
precarious misconception of the GHQ, since day one, that it can
single-handedly take care of all problems being faced by the country
has already brought about a total collapse of civic institutions.
And if that was not enough, the [lethal] insistence to enforce the
garrison’s
perceptions in all spheres of life will now definitely tear us apart
even socially, culturally and economically.
The
myth and fairy tales of army’s efficiency and (I am really
sorry to say) even divine patriotism must be laid to rest, once
for all. In fact, it was exactly this deadly blend of arrogance,
mala fide intent and ineptitude, of the military that led to the
disintegration of the country once.
Let
me clarify that every patriotic Pakistani wants armed forces to
be strong, capable of delivering formidable punishment to any aggressor.
Yeah, strong enough to defend the motherland – not stronger
than the state itself, always enticed to conquer those they are
meant to defend.
The
venom military itself have been injecting into the society for last
fifty years has poisoned the very roots of our social and political
life by now. This curse cannot be cured overnight, and least of
all through manipulation and deceit. Unconstitutional infringements
and ad-hoc measures might work for a while but can never be a panacea
for deep-rooted ills.
Our
great generals must try to appreciate the versatility of a democratic
set-up. Instead of pronouncing every deviating and dissenting element
traitor, security risk or Indian agent they should kindly mind their
own business and confine themselves to military affairs.
Far
greater service to this unfortunate nation will be if khakis allow
socio-political actors to nourish and flourish by their own without
any external meddling. No institution should be allowed to flout
the will of people and promote its own “patriotic” agenda
under the pretext “supreme
national interests” or “defending country’s geographical
as well as ideological frontiers”, at any cost.
Not
a single example where a nation achieved long-lasting prosperity
under military rule can be mentioned. How many pernicious experiments
and disastrous failures our grand army need to realise that instead
of serving the national interests they are playing havoc with the
country by their omnipotent attitude is anyone’s guess. Sorry
to say, it seems that moral courage and professional integrity to
admit the realities and confess one’s own shortcomings/ limits
are not the attributes appreciated in our martial-cum-palatial offices.
Trying
to transmute might and fire-power into right is absurd, to say the
least. Top brass should try to understand the growing disillusionment
among general public and feel the brewing revulsion against the
only remaining viable and respected organ of the state, before it
gets too late.
To
wind up, I am tempted to quote Mirabeau, one of the fathers of the
French revolution here: “Prussia is not a state with an army,
but an army with a state.” Alas, Pakistan is not too far from
that disconcerting distinction either. And it is our duty to find
the testicular fortitude to prevent it from happening.
The
writer is a student of Pakistani descent at the Royal Institute
of Technology (KTH)
Stockholm, Sweden.
Email Story | 
Discuss Story
