Re: Anti-Pakistan Army
Another good critism.
Should the military be above criticism?*** —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi***
The critics make a distinction between the military as a profession and an institution and the political role of the senior commanders and the non-professional activities of the military. The expanded non-professional role is expected to evoke controversies because it has implications for the civilians as well as for the nature and direction of the society and the political system
The official circles are perturbed by the growing criticism of role of the military, especially the top brass of the army, in politics and other non-professional fields. In their speeches, opposition members in the two houses of the parliament have targeted several aspects of the military’s expanded role. These include President General Pervez Musharraf’s decision to concurrently hold the presidency and the command of the army, appointment of serving and retired officers to lucrative civilian assignments, and the industrial, commercial and business activities of the three services of the armed forces. They have submitted questions, adjournment motions, and resolutions on these issues. Most of the questions and motions are disallowed by the chair on the ground that they deal with sensitive and security matters. Some questions get unsatisfactory responses. Newspapers and magazines, too, carry editorials and articles on the expanded role of the military.
The latest controversy began when some opposition members of the National Assembly took exception to President General Pervez Musharraf’s decision to preside over the meeting of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML) — although he does not hold any party office — while wearing the uniform of the army chief. The Speaker expunged the opposition remarks claiming that these “could damage the discipline of [the] armed forces” and “were tantamount to politicising a sensitive institution of the country”. He warned the National Assembly members that they could be disqualified “for passing derogatory remarks in parliament against the army, judiciary and the country’s sovereignty.”
On May 19, the president’s spokesperson reprimanded the minister of state for religious affairs, Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain, for making negative comments about the internal dynamics of the army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in an interview published in Daily Times on May 7.
Two weeks before these developments, Senator Farhatullah Baber and others of the PPP Parliamentarians submitted a resolution to the Senate secretariat for debating the business, commercial and real estate interests of the armed forces, proposing that these activities should be curtailed for the sake of military professionalism. The resolution is not expected to be on the Senate agenda.
In order to dissuade the political circles from criticising the expanded role of the military, the official circles are invoking a well-established tradition that the military should not be subjected to public criticism and humiliation. This tradition goes back to the British rule in India. The British also established legal norms to protect the military’s integrity, discipline and professionalism. Such laws exist in both Pakistan and India.
It may, however, be pointed out that the tradition of respecting the military as an institution developed in a specific military culture of British India that emphasised the primacy of the civil and the notion of limited functions of the military. The British Indian military performed four major functions: external defence, specified assignments of internal security, expeditions in service of the empire inside and outside of British India, and assistance to the civilian authorities at their request for the maintenance of law and order and for coping with natural calamities. These roles had political implications but the military commanders stayed away from day to day political affairs. They maintained a distance from civilian affairs and society.
The military culture that underpinned the tradition of not publicly criticising the military does not exist in Pakistan. The military has by now emerged as the most formidable political player. The president is not only the chief of army staff but he also functions as an effective chief executive at the cost of the prime minister, his cabinet and the parliament. Furthermore, the military has developed vast stakes in the non-professional civilian sectors. This has placed the civilians at a disadvantage in these sectors, causing resentment against and controversies about the expanded role of the military.
Most of the criticism focuses on the involvement of the retired and serving officers in governance and political management, their induction in lucrative civilian government and semi-official assignments, and the military’s growing activities in commercial, industrial, real estate development and related sectors. There is hardly any criticism of military profession or the military as an institution. As a matter of fact, military profession continues to enjoy respect in Pakistan. On all national days, glowing tributes are paid to the service personnel who sacrificed their lives in defence of the country. The people of all political and social orientations take part in such activities.
The critics make a distinction between the military as a profession and an institution and the political role of the senior commanders and the non-professional activities of the military. The expanded non-professional role of the military is expected to evoke controversies because it has implications for the civilians as well as for the nature and direction of the society and the political system.
The parliament in a democratic political dispensation has the right to discuss all institutions of the state, including the military. In the days of British rule, the Indian Legislative Assembly had no control over defence and defence expenditure. This did not stop the members from discussing the military affairs. The assemblies, set up under the Government of India Act, 1919, repeatedly asked for the assembly’s control over defence affairs and defence expenditure. They also demanded a speedy induction of Indians to the commissioned ranks of the army and other services. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah raised these issues on several occasions inside and outside the legislature.
The National Assembly Speaker may disqualify some members or expunge their remarks about the military’s expanded role and the government can invoke some laws to mute the criticism. But will this solve the problem? Any such action will cause more controversy and give a fillip to criticism of the military’s political role and its activities in the non-professional fields.
Since September 2001, a body of literature is available outside Pakistan that offers a critical appraisal of the role of the Pakistan army and the intelligence establishment, especially the ISI, in promoting Islamic militancy, their linkages with the Taliban, other Islamic hard-line groups and the insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir. The research has been carried out by American as well as Pakistani writers. One book published last year by a Pakistani author with some experience of the establishment has a lot of information on these issues. A new book by another Pakistani with a reasonably vast knowledge of how the Pakistani state functioned in the 1990s would be out in a couple of months. Similarly, data is now available in Pakistan and abroad on the military’s commercial and industrial activities. The same can be said about the military’s involvement in real estate development and housing schemes, including the sale and purchase of ‘files’ and the alleged money making by some officers.
Even if the government restricts the circulation of this material in Pakistan, the debate on these issues would not stop — in Pakistan or abroad. It is therefore, important for the military to understand the root causes of the growing criticism of its expanded role. The military cannot take refuge behind a tradition and laws whose supportive military culture and civil-military relations no longer exist in Pakistan.
If they see a need for moderation in the discourse of the political leaders on the military-related issues, the military authorities must undertake a dispassionate study of what has happened to their relations with the civil society and how the latter perceives this relationship. The military authorities may have to contain their political and other non-professional activities.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-5-2005_pg3_2
