Opinion

The Two Sacred Cows: The Judiciary and the Armed Forces
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburgh, CA

G. K Chesterton once said, “My country, right or wrong” is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober’, which, in simple words means that blind love and reverence is a dangerous proposition. Till recently, it was pronounced loud and clear that the judiciary and the armed forces of the country were above criticism.
Now, both are in triple-trouble: one, they are horn-locked against each other; second, both are under the microscopic scrutiny of a disillusioned people; both have deep fissures within their own columns. Both are engaged in a self-destructive game of affixing the blame. Those who once held them in their highest esteem, now appear so ready to pelt stones at them.
Hazrat Umer’s standing orders were that ‘armies of occupation’ were to be held aloof from the established urban centers as much as possible. He was much distressed once when he saw the softness and paleness spread wide on the faces of the troops that he had sent to conquer Iraq, and that was quartered in old Ctesiphon. He immediately ordered that ‘camps be placed in the open near the desert.’ And as we now know, later these camps grew into camp-cities in each of the newly won provinces, namely, Basra in lower Iraq, Kufah in central Iraq, Jabiyah in Syria, Ramlah in Palestine, and Fustat (Cairo) in Egypt, writes Sydney Nettleton fisher in his book “The Middle East”. And hence the birth of cantonments. After all there must have been some wisdom in stationing armed forces outside the urban cities of civil population, a practice followed by all the countries of the world till today.
The US Secretary of State Colin Powell in President Bush’s first term of Presidency once very wisely commented on Pakistan’s democracy, “Democracy in Pakistan is a complex issue”. And it is. The President attired in a General’s uniform addresses political gatherings advising people whom to vote to; and the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, suspended and humiliated publicly, can be spotted every day leading rallies. “When Adam delved and Eve span; who is then a gentleman?”
Wusut-ullah Khan of BBC in his June 3 column graphically depicts the past and present image of the armed forces. He quotes his father, “During the 1965 war a convoy of the armed forces passed through the city of Rahim Yar Khan. People gathered around and greeted the passing soldiers with slogans, ‘armed forces zindabad’. Some even brought with them live poultry and goats and sheep, insisting that the soldiers accept them, and began throwing them into the military trucks; the milk-men carrying milk in containers hanging on both sides of their bikes tried to offer it to the soldiers though much to their annoyance as they viewed it a breach of military discipline; fruit vendors emptied their hand-carts; a local tailor, Meher Din got so carried away by his emotions that he picked eight to ten poplin roles of cloth, ‘thans’, and insisted on offering them to the soldiers. When told that the cloth was of no use to them because they were on their way to the front-line, and not to a marriage party, he insisted, ‘Please take it’, and suggesting some ways they could use the cloth, said, “If nothing else, just make bandages, or rags of it and use them for cleaning the barrels of your rifles”. Bugga Malang, a beggar, thinking why should he be left behind in his love for the soldiers, made his way through the crowd. Picking up some twisted currency notes from his “Kushkool”, he attempted to stuff them into the pockets of the passing soldiers, and in glee showered the few coins he had on them, and then disappeared in the crowd, chanting, ‘Ya Ali Maddad.’ That was then, in an era when the culture of Defense Societies, Askari Banks; Askari Bakeries; Askari Water Minerals; Askari Dairy Farms; ISI; MI’s; Political Cells, and many more words and terms had not joined the common diction”.
What went wrong? Stephen Cohen in his book, “The Idea of Pakistan” in chapter three sums it up all beautifully, “One military intervention in fifty years could be seen as an incident and two as an aberration, but four spells of military rule indicate deeper systematic problems”. He calls the Army’s relationship with the political process as a five-step dance which keeps on repeating itself. First, the army warns what it regards as incompetent or foolish civilians. Second, a crisis leads to army intervention. Third, in its effort to “straighten-out” Pakistan, it often introduces major constitutional changes. Fourth, when confronted with growing civilian discontent, the army ‘allows’ civilians back into office. Fifth, the army reasserts itself behind a façade of civilian government, and the cycle repeats itself. Currently, Pakistan appears to be passing through the last stage of this five-step dance.
Hasan Askari Rizvi, author of ‘Military, State and Society in Pakistan’, expresses somewhat similar views, “The situation can be described as the colonization of civilian institutions by the military”. In his October, 2004 interview published in the Herald, he says, “There has been a subtle change in the military’s disposition towards politics under General Musharraf. Previously, the military was prepared to protect its professional and corporate interests from the sidelines. Now under Musharraf, the army views itself as being critical to internal stability in addition to its role in the management of Pakistan’s security and foreign policy. It believes that the politicians cannot be given a free hand and civilian institutions and forces must function under its tutelage. The corporate interests of the military have expanded so much under General Musharraf that the army is now overwhelming all the major sectors of the state, the economy and the society”. Remember Aysha Siddiqa’s recent book on the Military Inc.
The army high-ups want to swim without getting wet. It is not the army that is under fire; it is its meddling in the affairs that, by universal convention it is not supposed to fiddle with, that is earning it the public ire. Cohen puts forward four commonly held points behind any military intervention that has taken place in Pakistan.
First, the army remains acutely conscious that it is professionally more competent and trained than the incompetent and corrupt civilian sector.
Second, army officers stake a special claim to power because of their undeniable patriotism and their commitment to the people of Pakistan. Be it to stand in front of the bullets, or succor the calamity-stricken people, floods, or earthquakes, it is the army that pulls them out.
Third, officers also claim that they understand the ‘national interest’ better than civilians. They study history, geography, write papers, undergo training that prepares them better to understand the contemporary world strategic problems, than the civilians who just never grow in their jobs.
And lastly, the fourth reason for claiming the role of political watchdog by the military is that they mostly perceive the politicians in a negative light.
Cohen further says, “The army was for many years free of charges of corruption and often was described by foreigners and Pakistanis alike as the only organization that functions at an acceptable level of competence”. The alleged corruption of Ms. Benazir and Mian Nawaz Sharif gave credence to this belief.
Cohen, however, concludes by saying, “The military’s claim to efficiency and honesty is more apparent than real. The armed services are shielded from public scrutiny… vast and unaccountable system of military farms, factories, and foundations… many of these have routinely broken the law, and few have been brought to justice. The army’s reputation for honesty is coming under criticism, and the media, especially the English Press, are no longer wary of looking too closely at ‘sensitive’ subjects.”
Now that President Musharraf has formally demanded, and obtained, a formal role for the armed forces in all day-to-day decisions that affect a vaguely defined ‘national interest’, it is obvious that it would just be very hard, for him, or for his successor (unless he like the previous military regimes begins to think that it would be better to return to the barracks after a spell of military rule), to vaccinate the armed forces completely against all kinds of ‘malicious’ criticism. Stephen Cohen appears to be right when he says, “Pakistan is likely to be in for a long spell of direct and indirect military rule… looking to Pakistan’s near-term future, it is easier to say what the army will not do than what it will do”.
New controls on media imposed on Monday with the rationale “circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action”, in the words of Talat Hussein, the director of news for Aaj TV are akin to killing the messenger for the message he is carrying. The government is getting frustrated. Mr. Kabir Wasti, a senior vice president of the ruling Muslim League (Q), on Friday in his appearance on Dr. Shahid Masood’s program, “Merey Mutabik”, openly criticized the President, his advisers, suggesting that there are deep differences between what the President is doing and what the ruling PML (Q) is pursuing in relation to the case of the Chief Justice. He termed the statement the President got from his Corp Commanders as “a sign of his weakness”, rather than his strength, and described it as a dangerous move.
Pakistan, no doubt, is a complex country and its politics a mega complex issue. In this political Vanila ice cream, the recipe of which the military had invented in 1958, it is just not possible now for the military to separate the milk from the sugar and vanilla flavor. It has tasted good for the military rulers, current or past, for many years, but it, somehow, did not sit well with a public’s political health which became diabetic and remained on a controlled political diet.
There is no such thing as a sacred cow in any civil society. The military chose to immerse itself in the civil affairs; now it must be prepared to hear the music too. Winston Churchil was once asked why he got into politics. He replied, ‘Ambition, pure unadulterated ambition”. Then asked what made him stay in politics, he replied, “Anger, pure unadulterated anger”. Politicians and roosters crow loud. The best way to escape this noise is to stay away from them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------