Musharraf's Legacy

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

**Creeping Militarization of the Society

**With Musharraf perhaps on the verge of announcing a decision to retire from the Army, I went looking for some articles that best sum up his legacy. To me, it is a legacy of creeping militarization, destruction of institutions and insurgencies in FATA and Balochistan. On the economic front, there is a relatively robust GDP growth but its affects on the poor have been minimal. How do u think history will remember his era?

Musharraf’s Military Reaches Deep Into Pakistani Society****

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A12

DAULAT NAGAR, Pakistan – Nusrat Riaz, a doctor for 17 years, has spent the past three directing a clinic that provides care to thousands of poor patients in this remote, wheat-farming village on the plains of Punjab.
So Riaz was surprised this spring when he learned the government had appointed a monitor to look over his shoulder as he worked. He was even more surprised when he learned the man had no medical background, had no experience supervising doctors and was functionally illiterate.

But when Riaz learned the monitor was a retired Pakistani army officer, it all made sense. “This is part of the militarization of the entire country,” said Riaz, 46. “It is very insulting, and it is happening because of the man sitting at the top.”
That man, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president, has been Pakistan’s leader for almost eight years. In that time, the nuclear-armed military has quietly exerted its influence over nearly every segment of Pakistani society.
Active-duty or retired officers now occupy most key government jobs, including posts in education, agriculture and medicine that have little to do with defense. The military also dominates the corporate world; it reportedly runs a $20 billion portfolio of businesses from banks to real estate developers to bakeries. And everywhere lurks the hand of the feared military-led intelligence services.
Yet in a country where the military has long been immune from criticism, its extraordinary power is now drawing open contempt from civilians. A campaign against Musharraf that began three months ago, following his suspension of the chief justice, has exploded into a full-fledged movement to oust the armed services from civilian life and send the generals back to their barracks.
They are not expected to go easily, and the wealth and influence they have attained during the Musharraf era helps explain why.
“If the generals don’t recede, I fear a civil-military conflict,” said Zafarullah Khan, a leading Pakistani lawyer and opposition figure. “Ultimately the question is: Who gets to rule? Sixteen generals or 160 million people? Sooner or later we have to decide that once and for all.”
History in Pakistan is on the generals’ side. They have ruled the country for more than half of the 60 years since independence. Even when civilians have ostensibly been in charge, they have had to bow to the military just to keep their jobs. Of the nation’s past three civilian leaders, two are in exile and one was hanged.
Musharraf’s brand of military rule has been different from most. Since coming to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, he has not declared martial law. As army chief, he still wears his uniform, but just as often opts for a business suit or traditional shalwar kameez. For the most part, he eschews grand, strutting military parades. Soldiers are a rare sight on the nation’s streets.
Yet the military’s imprint is everywhere.
It’s by the side of the road, where men in orange jumpsuits labor for a military-run foundation that controls a huge share of the nation’s construction industry. It’s also present up and down the ranks of the civilian bureaucracy, where government workers answer to retired military men and complain that loyalty is consistently rewarded over hard work or competence. And it’s in Riaz’s health clinic, where his doctors say they take heat from army inspectors if they spend more than 10 minutes with a patient.

Continued…

](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\06\29\story_29-6-2007_pg7_9)****Ex-army officers train bureaucrats

By Azaz Syed

ISLAMABAD: Top training institutions for bureaucrats are headed by retired military officers, Daily Times has learnt.

A report has been submitted to the National Assembly Secretariat in reply to a question raised by MNA Dr Farid Ahmed Piracha. It has disclosed that Maj Gen (r) Sikandar Shami is the director general of the Civil Services Academy (SCA), Lahore. The SCA is a unique academy where all newly selected bureaucrats are trained.

National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA), where officers get training before being promoted from grade 18 to 19, is run by retired army officers, says the report.

Maj Gen (r) Khalid Naeem is the director general of NIPA Karachi, Air Commodore (r) Shaukat Haider director general of NIPA Quetta and Maj Gen (r) Akbar Saeed Awan is the director general of NIPA Peshawar.

Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) has also been run by retired military generals over the years. Currently, Lt Gen (r) Shahid Hamid is its chairman. The retired military officer is also the chairman of the Central Selection Board (CSB), which selects the officers of grade 19, 20 and 21 and recommends the promotion into grade 22.

Pakistan Administrative Staff College, Lahore, is the top training institute for the officers waiting for promotion from grade 21 to grade 22. This institution is headed by Lt Gen (r) Javed Hassan according to the report.

2

Re: Musharraf's Legacy

Fondly.

3

Re: Musharraf’s Legacy

**** As Pakistan’s Chief Looks Ahead, Army Holds the Cards**](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?ref=world)**

Memo From Islamabad
**As Pakistan’s Chief Looks Ahead, Army Holds the Cards **
By CARLOTTA GALL: New York Times, June 28, 2007

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Speculation has been rife in political circles recently that Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, may not survive his wrangle with the chief justice and hold on to power, but a great silence emanates from the one place that may count the most: the barracks and the mess halls of the armed forces, the other great part of Pakistan’s ruling equation.

What the army thinks about the political logjam, and what it decides to do in the event of continuing stalemate, instability or violence, will be the defining factor in General Musharraf’s future, most commentators agree.

If and when the army feels it is being damaged by its association with General Musharraf, and his insistence on retaining the dual posts of president and chief of army staff, they will act to safeguard the reputation of the army, they say.

Historians and columnists have been outlining the precedents, recalling how Pakistan’s three previous military rulers exited from power. None of the departures came in happy circumstances, and none bode well for General Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999.

The longest ruling general, Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977, died in 1988 in a plane crash, the cause of which still remains a mystery.

The strongest possibility is that the plane was brought down using a bomb. But according to one theory, the plane crashed after the crew was disabled by knockout gas hidden inside crates of mangoes — a gift that was put on board the presidential plane at the last minute. This being the mango season, the old story has gained a lot of currency lately. “He either goes the mango-crate way or he goes gracefully,” one military officer said.

Pakistan’s other two military dictators in its turbulent 60 years since independence were forced out by fellow officers. Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan, who ruled from 1958 to 1969, was isolated, unpopular and sick by the end, and after months of popular unrest was replaced by another military man, Gen. Yahya Khan.

General Yahya Khan promised a return to democracy and held probably the fairest elections Pakistan has ever seen. But after war and the breakup of Pakistan in 1971, when Bangladesh gained independence, his fellow officers forced him to resign and hand over rule of what remained of Pakistan to the civilian political leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

General Musharraf, the fourth military ruler of Pakistan, has already survived several attempts on his life, and with suicide bombing on the rise, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the hills, the possibility of assassination remains — even if he should step down.

But the general is showing no readiness to give up either of his posts, president or chief of army staff, though the terms for both jobs expire toward the end of the year. In a recent interview, he said that after a life in the army, his uniform was like a second skin to him.

But if his stubbornness is met with more demonstrations, challenges in the courts and possibly civil unrest, the army command will grow increasingly concerned.

Well aware of the importance of backing within the army, General Musharraf called a meeting of his corps commanders and principal military staff recently, apparently to ensure their support. The military public relations service issued an unusually long news release in that vein.

“The Corps Commanders and Principal Staff Officers of the Pakistan Army affirmed to stand committed for the security of their country under the leadership and guidance of the President and the COAS,” it read, referring to the chief of army staff.

Issuing such a statement is unusual and brings to mind the vote of confidence that often presages the end for a cabinet officer or, in sports, a manager or coach. In effect, several former members of the army said, such assurances only underscore the general’s insecurity.

The military officer said he had not seen a commander calling for such a statement of support in more than 30 years in the army. “The statement was a mistake,” he said.

“The army is not a political party,” he said. “People do not have to swear support for their leader.” An army officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not his commander, he added.

A veteran opposition politician, Enver Baig, was more definitive. “The military backing he had, has definitely eroded,” he said, speaking of General Musharraf. The discontent with General Musharraf is seeping into the lower ranks as well. “The midlevel officers are becoming restless,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, a military analyst and author of a recent book on the military’s enormous economic clout that has angered the military leadership.

In the North-West Frontier Province there is growing frustration among military and intelligence officials over the rising lawlessness of Taliban militants, and the president’s apparent lack of concern and direction, senior officials say.

The National Security Council, which considered the problem in early June, promised more police officers and resources. Meanwhile, military officers no longer feel comfortable going around Peshawar in uniform, said one former officer from the province.

Even in the capital, army officers say they can feel the changing mood. The military officer described driving in Islamabad and seeing someone holding up a placard showing a big army boot stamping on a map of Pakistan. “That is a very poor reflection,” he said. “It is hatred that is building in the civilian level against the army.”

Faced with such discontent, the mood in the military is not for another general to take over, but for the country to restore civilian rule, he and several former members of the military said.

But who will tell the general to go? After nearly eight years in power, General Musharraf has personally picked all the top military and intelligence leaders. He will remain secure as long as he retains the support of four or five of the nine corps commanders, Ms. Siddiqa said.

Military officers, especially senior ones coming up for promotion or retirement and eager to keep the privileges they have earned, will not speak out of line to the chief of army staff, the officer said.

The officer said he could sense growing dissatisfaction among fellow officers, but discipline was such that no one was voicing it. “They don’t say it,” he said. “From their eyes you can see it.”

Asked if the corps commanders might tell the general he had to go, he answered, “We may be coming to that stage.”

4

Re: Musharraf's Legacy

"one" military offcer said this
"a" military officer said that

ppl dont have names? :)
the sentiment must not be strong enough to stand by one's word
or must not have enough support for someone to think that they can openly oppose and not be impacted by it now, or in future. Military usually does not like officers giving their opinion against the military etc.

5

Re: Musharraf's Legacy

Musharrafs legacy is co incidental to his actions, the debate that has come from the collapse of the states core functions, has led to a paradigm shift in peoples perceptions of the Pak establishment. In brief

1) The role of paks intelligence agencies have been exposed internationally ina way that was unheard of even 10 years ago. I don't believe that was because he is such a enlightened person (sic), it's just the arrogance that comes with power.

2) the media was liberalised as long as the focus was on the past and ridiculing the opposition, but when it came to the crunch time suddenly they were challenging the national interest.

3)Mushy has neither been as brutal as Zia but neither is the state establishment as powerful as it was during Zias or Yahyas time. He has however been more brutal than Ayub, as I've said before more Pakistanis have died under Mushys time compared to anytime short of 1971.

All in all we have a legacy that ultimately will only be defended by the economic purists or the pro establishment people. Those who see pakistans problems as solely economic or by those who have contempt for the people and it's instituions and define themselves on superficial pan Islamism, anti India, political manipulation and rank opportunism.