Desecrating Military Uniform
By Rais Khan
Fremont , CA
A soldier's uniform is not simply a gear to clothe him or a distinguishing mark like that of a sportsman to be recognized in the field or public but it is much more than that. It carries with it certain impeccable traits that bestow on the soldier a unique status imbibed with dignity and honor earning him/her universal respect, more so in Pakistan.
These special attributes of a soldier include but are not limited to honesty, truthfulness, integrity and honoring commitments. A soldier is a soldier first and a soldier last and on no occasion should he/she compromise on the golden attributes attached to the soldier's uniform for that shall be regarded as profanation of uniform as well as abuse of soldering. And when someone tries to throw away the solemn pledges and attributes attached to the soldier's uniform, it is left to other soldiers-in-uniform to thrash the recalcitrant. Unfortunately there have been some mavericks amidst the highly professional men of dignity and character, who have desecrated their military uniforms and abused their positions without any qualms for mundane gains. Let's analyze the faux pas of one such wayward abuser.
Mr. Musharraf scattered some pearls of wisdom in the epilogue of his book, In the Line of Fire, that he has termed his Reflections. Attributing disparaging and pejorative misnomers to popular national leaders, he marveled into intellectual realm to reflect on some moral features. Like on Page-331 he turned to morality and character as, "Moral development forms your core personality. Honesty, truthfulness, contentment and humility are the most important qualities of character. First, I have seen for myself that honesty - even under adversity, even when it could lead to a negative outcome - always disarms the other person. Second truthfulness is a sine qua non of good character...."
It will be within the ambit of the subject matter to analyze his own words and deeds in the light of standards he has set for moral development and character
To begin with, let's examine Mr. Musharraf's reneging on his solemn commitment to the nation to vacate COAS office by the end of the year 2004. On page 177 of his book he refers to the matter in his own words: "I was serious when I announced that I would remove my army chief's hat by December 31, 2004. But events that soon began to unfold started putting doubts in my mind." He then enumerated some domestic affairs requiring political approach like MMA going back on its words, Waziristan insurgency, Dr. Qadeer's affairs and political thaw with India, nothing that needed to combine the office of Army's Chief with the President's office or nothing of military importance in essence. These were all subjects within the parameters of political domain and a political government or Musharraf himself being President could solve those problems. He further wrote in his book, "With all this facing Pakistan ... there was a dire need of unity of command in governance....I decided to go against my word"
India had about seven divisions forces in Kashmir but Vajpai held elections and lost the apex office. There had been change of command in the military hierarchy as well. Iran held elections and changed commands during eight years of war with Iraq. Military commanders also changed incumbencies. USA was fighting war in two countries but still elections were held as per schedule. Immediately after World War II, when the country was shattered and battered by prolong war and needed continuity of leadership, elections were held in Great Britain and Sir Winston Churchill lost premiership to Clement Attlee. The military leadership was also changed during the war.
Why couldn't Pakistan afford to do without Gen. Musharraf? What extra-ordinary martial traits did Gen. Musharraf enjoy that he could not be replaced even in peace time? Gen. Charles de Gaulle, veteran of World War-1 who as a young officer was wounded on the war front and escaped several times from enemy going back again and again to fight the enemy and who was not an arm-chair general ambushing his way to power through mid-night coupe but led his country in World War II to liberation, was a chain smoker. When he was asked to explain why announcing to everyone that he would stop his heavy smoking obliged him to quit forever, he is reported to have replied gravely, "De Gaulle cannot go back on his word." That was the commitment of a General and the consistency of his words. Commitment and consistency form together strong character in a person. Did Mr. Musharraf demonstrate his compliance to the twain by upholding his commitment made to the entire nation on the national TV? No, he proved want of these traits by walking away from his word on frivolous grounds. Did Mr. Bhutto whom he called "hypocrite" or Mr. Sharif whom he termed liar and characterless ,ever go back on their words given to the nation? Where do the fingers point to when these vices are discussed? Mr. Musharraf may well educate us whether or not honoring one's commitment can be construed to suggest a virtuous act of honesty and truthfulness enlisted by him in the development of morality?
Mr. Musharraf termed Mr.Sharif as one lacking in character. Lack of character means absence or deficiency of character which is commonly called characterless in daily life. On page165 of his book, Mr. Musharraf writes, " Benazir Bhutto had already run away from the country and absconded from the law during Nawaz Sharif's time. Later Nawaz Sharif and his family were happy to sign a deal with my government to go into voluntary exile in Saudi Arabia, a deal he now brazenly denies. Telling lies comes easily to these people. Both have chosen to avoid the rule of law by staying away..." These were the General's words but when Mr. Sharif's forcible expulsion from the country was challenged in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan (called My Government by Mr. Musharraf) was asked by the court to produce documentary proof of its assertion, it failed to produce any valid and legal document to substantiate what Mr. Musharraf claimed in his book. All it showed was an undertaking with a third external party but there was no agreement or commitment entered with Mr. Musharraf' Government as claimed by him. Was Mr. Musharraf so simpleton or naive as to fail to understand the difference between an agreement with the government legally entered into and an undertaking with a third party on a plain paper, is an enigma for all sound minded people. Who told lies to the people, Mr. Sharif or Mr. Musharraf? Again where does an impartial finger point to? Who desecrated a soldier's uniform and ridiculed the dignity of a soldier? Who went back on his pledge made to the 170 million of people? Who needs to be court-marshaled, Mr. Bhutto, Mr. Sharif or the former general Mr. Musharraf?
Earlier Gen. Zial-ul-Haq publicly pledged to hold elections within 90 days and transfer powers to the elected representatives of people. That pledge never saw the light of the day till the Providence chose to fulfill the General's promise by taking him away from the scene. He was officially called CMLA or Chief Martial Law Administrator but privately in public he was known as Cancel My Last Announcement." Zialulhaqqian Na Maar" was then a common joke among the people. Mr. Musharraf overtook Zia by not only going back on his pledge to the people but had to eat a humble pie by compromising with Ms. Benazir, a person whom he termed as liar and running away from the rule of law. Why didn't he take into account rule of law when he was contemplating to issue NRO to remain President of Pakistan? What sort of soldier he was to eschew his own spoken and written words? And was it befitting of a soldier to show two-fists to a lady parliamentarian in the Parliament House? Where is that two-fist General now? Will he dare to come back and hold a public meeting at Jinnah Park Quetta and show the valor of a two-fist general there? Let him face the militant Bugti-clan and the stubborn mullahs if he still retains some instincts of a soldier. He ought to replenish for the stigmata he has inflicted on the sanctity, honor and dignity of a soldier's uniform. How should he accomplish it is for his fellow soldiers-in-uniform to decide.
