Words, statements and various kinds of writings can all be interpreted in different ways. This, indeed, is already happening in the context of the strong remarks made by army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani in his address to officers at the General Headquarters. But comments — particularly when they are as strong as these — need to be put into a proper context, and for Pakistan, the context consists of long periods of military rule, punctuated by civilian democracies, which, too, almost constantly experienced the hot breath of the men in khaki right over their shoulders. This chain of events has shaped our history and the realities we face today as a nation. Given this, the army chief’s words take on a more ominous tone and tenor.
General Kayani, in his rather unexpected speech, spoke of no single institution alone, having the authority to determine national interest or being its “ultimate arbiter”. However, it is important to note that it is accepted universally that in a parliamentary democracy, the people through their representatives in parliament, are the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes the national interest. The address contained few soft words and could be seen by many as a response from an institution increasingly finding itself cornered because of rising public scrutiny and criticism of various aspects of its performance and role, as mandated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Asghar Khan case that held the ISI and the then military chief responsible for the distribution of funds to political parties to rig the 1990 polls, does not seem to have gone down well in military circles. Neither have other actions by the court in cases of corruption involving military men. The army has, in certain instances, moved to protect its own — even reinducting retired officers into the service to ‘protect’ them. How this serves the ‘national interest’ that the military seems to be so attuned to speaking of is something to ponder upon.
The army chief confessed that mistakes had been made by the army in the past — which is certainly a positive aspect of the speech — but also warned against “weakening institutions” in any way or attempting to act against them. There is little room for doubt to be found between the tightly spaced words that this was, in fact, a response to the public reaction to the Asghar Khan case and perhaps, directly towards the Supreme Court, especially since there was a reference to institutions working within their constitutionally-defined boundaries. Despite General Kayani’s carefully posed stance as being ‘non-political’ and ‘pro-democracy’, it is clear that like many of his predecessors, he is not accustomed to a situation where the military is, in any fashion, taken to task or awkward questions raised about its actions. Certainly, the army chief must also have been under pressure to defend a force, which many feel, sees itself as being the only truly ‘patriotic’ entity in the country. Any nuance of criticism has been interpreted by the military as being a slap in the face and the Supreme Court’s actions may have come across as such to the military. This explains why the military has found them difficult to swallow.
So, do we have new lines of battle shaping up between key institutions? We certainly hope not. The chief justice, while hearing a petition pertaining to media criticism of the army, following the May 2011 raid to capture Osama bin Laden, has chosen to parry General Kayani’s lunge. He has said that today, tanks and missiles cannot guarantee national security. There is no denying this. Indeed, a democracy that functions smoothly can alone ensure this. We must hope then that calm will prevail. But if this is to happen, the military needs to step down from the pedestal onto which it has elevated itself and accept that it stands at the same rank as other institutions, with constitutionally-determined functions that it has to follow. The fact that it hits out whenever it perceives a provocation of any kind has been made is disturbing. If we are to achieve true stability, this mindset must change. Otherwise, our troubles will multiply.
General Kayani, in his rather unexpected speech, spoke of no single institution alone, having the authority to determine national interest or being its “ultimate arbiter”. However, it is important to note that it is accepted universally that in a parliamentary democracy, the people through their representatives in parliament, are the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes the national interest. The address contained few soft words and could be seen by many as a response from an institution increasingly finding itself cornered because of rising public scrutiny and criticism of various aspects of its performance and role, as mandated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Asghar Khan case that held the ISI and the then military chief responsible for the distribution of funds to political parties to rig the 1990 polls, does not seem to have gone down well in military circles. Neither have other actions by the court in cases of corruption involving military men. The army has, in certain instances, moved to protect its own — even reinducting retired officers into the service to ‘protect’ them. How this serves the ‘national interest’ that the military seems to be so attuned to speaking of is something to ponder upon.
The army chief confessed that mistakes had been made by the army in the past — which is certainly a positive aspect of the speech — but also warned against “weakening institutions” in any way or attempting to act against them. There is little room for doubt to be found between the tightly spaced words that this was, in fact, a response to the public reaction to the Asghar Khan case and perhaps, directly towards the Supreme Court, especially since there was a reference to institutions working within their constitutionally-defined boundaries. Despite General Kayani’s carefully posed stance as being ‘non-political’ and ‘pro-democracy’, it is clear that like many of his predecessors, he is not accustomed to a situation where the military is, in any fashion, taken to task or awkward questions raised about its actions. Certainly, the army chief must also have been under pressure to defend a force, which many feel, sees itself as being the only truly ‘patriotic’ entity in the country. Any nuance of criticism has been interpreted by the military as being a slap in the face and the Supreme Court’s actions may have come across as such to the military. This explains why the military has found them difficult to swallow.
So, do we have new lines of battle shaping up between key institutions? We certainly hope not. The chief justice, while hearing a petition pertaining to media criticism of the army, following the May 2011 raid to capture Osama bin Laden, has chosen to parry General Kayani’s lunge. He has said that today, tanks and missiles cannot guarantee national security. There is no denying this. Indeed, a democracy that functions smoothly can alone ensure this. We must hope then that calm will prevail. But if this is to happen, the military needs to step down from the pedestal onto which it has elevated itself and accept that it stands at the same rank as other institutions, with constitutionally-determined functions that it has to follow. The fact that it hits out whenever it perceives a provocation of any kind has been made is disturbing. If we are to achieve true stability, this mindset must change. Otherwise, our troubles will multiply.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment