Don’t Treat the Military as a Political Pawn by Usman Khalid

TV Anchors of Pakistani Channels who say that the control over policy has passed from Islamabad to the GHQ undermine Pakistan – its Government as well its Armed Forces

 

I am horrified that TV anchors of Pakistani channels mouth the same line of propaganda that has been the bread and butter of the Indian media. The line of India has been that ‘unlike most countries that have an Army, Pakistan has an Army which has a country’. The ‘Rogue Army’ title was not invented as a prelude to the ‘Strategic Dialogue’ between the USA and Pakistan; it was a part of the plan to defeat armed resistance in Jammu and Kashmir decades ago. The difference now is that the objective is not just to undermine the struggle for self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir but also to undermine US-Pakistan efforts to bring peace in Afghanistan. India is surprised that Pakistan is saying to the world that India is its enemy whose role is that of a regional trouble maker. India is peeved that its ‘friend’ Asif Zardari has allowed the Pakistan Army Chief to articulate that – something that even Nawaz Sharif had not dared do.

The argument that the Army Chief has been making is: 1) India has been inside Afghanistan for nine years while Pakistan out for the same length of time; 2) if the USA could not pacify the Afghans in nine years with Indian help what is the chance of India doing it by itself after the Americans and NATO troops leave? 3) India has used its presence in Afghanistan to create and sustain insurrection in Baluchistan and NWFP and to destabilise Pakistan. In the light of these ground realities, Pakistanis see America, which permitted India to use Afghanistan as a base for clandestine operations, as an enemy. If America persisted in that policy, it was made clear to the US, it was welcome but without Pakistan’s help.

Neither the argument nor the factual position that supports the argument is new. What is new is that Pakistan articulated its position for the first time on an official international forum. President Musharraf was content with minor deals that sustained suspicion rather than provided a strategy for success. It is the first time that Pakistan has made an endeavour to crystallise common objectives with America in South and Central Asia.

India is naturally unhappy at being transformed from a ‘strategic partner’ to ‘strategic liability’. But the idiots in the Pakistani media and members of the ruling coalition have come to India’s rescue. The line of the ‘idiots’ is that the rulers of Pakistan are too unconcerned or too incompetent to be able to articulate Pakistan’s interests; the Army has been drawn into the policy vacuum to fill it. That is utter nonsense. The speeches of the President and the Prime Minister are written by speech writers and briefs prepared by professionals of the Foreign Office. The ‘one liners’ to deal with impromptu questions are also drafted by professionals. Not even Yousaf Raza Geelani has any problem delivering the ‘one liners’. The question is: why was General Kiani drafted to be the spokesman of Pakistan in the real ‘strategic dialogue’? There are two reasons. One is the natural reluctance of the partners in the ruling coalition – all of who are pro-India - to mouth a line identifying India as the ‘enemy’ and ‘regional trouble maker’. Two: the more pressing need of America, India and their friends in Pakistan, is that the Army deals first with the resistance in Afghanistan.

The ruling coalition in Pakistan is neither so dim nor so patriotic that it has allowed the Army Chief to lead the articulation of national interests. They have done that in the hope that President Zardari would overcome his temporary difficulties with the judiciary and General Kiani, having overplayed his hand, would be justifiably retired by the end of the year.

The ‘idiots’, as well as the Indian and American media are all busy saying that General Kiani is the ‘real ruler of Pakistan’. The ‘idiots’ believe they are precluding a military take over and the others hope they are precipitating it.
I am reminded of 1977 when the military was used to put down a powerful agitation against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Administration. My dear friend – Late Major General Imtiaz Ali – was the Military Secretary to the Prime Minister at the time. The question many had asked him before I did was, “Why could he not do something to prevent or frustrate the military action which overthrew the Bhutto Government?” His answer was surprising. He said that meetings were held on daily basis on the ‘law and order’ situation and General Zia was present at all the meetings. After every meeting Prime Minister would look at Zia, smile and say, “and of course, there is always the military option”. Nobody asked what he meant but General Zia was surely drawing his conclusion. When General Imtiaz learnt of military at the gate of the Prime Ministers House, he quickly put on his uniform and rushed to the PM’s residence. When he got there he found Mr Bhutto talking to General Zia. The PM calmly told General Imtiaz that Zia had ‘exercised the military option’ and he asked General Imtiaz to accompany him on his journey to the PM House in Murree the next day. It was all so civilised that General Imtiaz thought it was all an arrangement. Mr Bhutto had his ADC attending his telephones and vetting visitors at the PM House in Murree.

That was until General Zia came to see him about eight weeks after the take over by him when he had announced fresh elections. The TV news – seen by all including Mr Bhutto – showed that support for Prime Minister Bhutto and condemnation of the PNA who had mounted the agitation the allegedly rigged elections, was increasing. He was sure to win even a bigger majority in fresh elections. General Zia asked if the PM was satisfied with the ‘result’ of the exercise of the ‘military option’ by him’. Mr Bhutto was furious at the suggestion that the military option was his choice. He warned Zia he had violated Article 6 of the Constitution and he should be ready to face the consequences. That interaction sealed Bhutto’s fate. We know what happened. Mr Bhutto ended up on the gallows despite being the most popular leader since Quaid e Azam.

When Zia understood what the game was, he was enraged at his own stupidity in not understanding what Mr Bhutto meant when he said, “there is always the military option”. It meant ‘heads I win, tails you lose’. Mian Nawaz Sharif tried to put the blame for Kargil debacle on Musharraf.

The truth was that it was more the result of political ineptitude of the PM rather than a failure of the military. Nawaz Sharif should have taken responsibility and ordered fresh elections. That he did not, resulted in him being tried and sentenced and eight years of Musharraf misrule.

Now that General Kiani is being ‘blamed’ in the media and by the politicians for ‘taking over policy formulation’, I worry. Instead of being given credit for articulating truthfully the national interests in the context the dire security situation, which is the role and the duty of the GHQ, he is being reviled.

The ‘idiots’ are undermining the security of Pakistan. If it is Zardari & Co who are playing games using the military as a pawn, they will regret it. If they hope they can go back to pleasing India ignoring the sacrifices of Kashmiris, undermining the objectives of the resistance in Afghanistan, and failing to secure the sources of water in Pakistan’s rivers, they have better think again.

If no political party takes over the role of articulating Pakistan’s national interests and the ‘idiots’ continue to masquerade as ‘political analysts’ on our TV screens, a new party would have to emerge. The alternation of ‘light weights’ and ‘enemy collaborators’ is no longer acceptable. If you corner someone with a gun, expect to be shot! ++

The writer is the Secretary General of Rifah Party of Pakistan