COMMENT: The beast called the ‘army’

[fatman17]

COMMENT: The beast called the ‘army’ —Shahzad Chaudhry

The military remains the most robust national institution despite our plight of the recent years in all other matters of the state. We should refrain from weakening the institution by defamation, and uncalled for efforts to belittle its positive contributions

What do you do with such an entity? When the Swat-Malakand operation was launched in 2009, and there were some quick successes, the world began to take notice of those successes — far more efficient and effective than any that NATO/ISAF had been able to undertake in their nine-year long presence and when General Kayani began to be invited to high places in various capitals, there was this sudden and an almost impulsive concern within the Pakistani intelligentsia and political circles of the great eminence that the Pakistani military had once again begun to assume. Waziristan was an equally impressive undertaking. No US high official can complete his or her itinerary of visit to Pakistan without a formal, or preferably an informal, call on the army chief. It ruffled some feathers and it continues to do so with every such interaction. It has not slowed the army’s mission, which continues unabated.

Come the 2010 floods — unprecedented, devastating and ravaging and the army has again been in the forefront, reaching out to people, rescuing them, and providing relief while continuing to fight terrorism. The army’s effort has become more noticeable because of the absence of effective organs of state and society. These include the political elites, the moneyed elites and civil society in particular. Reaching out to the flood affectees in this period of monsoons is not easy; it is hot, excruciatingly humid, sweaty and dirty. A speaker on a channel recently said, “It involves dirtying your feet and taking off shoes and walking barefooted.” Those who have never done this can hardly bring themselves to do something as unsavoury as that. The elites have, therefore, chosen to stay behind.

They say it is because the nation has all these years fed the army, nourished it and helped it grow and glow, it is but incumbent on the military to do the squalid work on behalf of the government and the elites. It beats comprehension that the largest donors to the Flood Relief Fund are the Employees Old-age Benefits Institution (EOBI), workers and labour organisations. Where are our moneyed classes — business magnates, industrial owners, feudal landlords, carpetbaggers, hoarders, all the corporations, foundations and multinationals, who skim off the same poor and make life an unbearable burden? Pray, have they paid their taxes to add to the taxpayers’ money on which the military thrives? Is it not ironic that the textiles magnates have received duty drawbacks in the region of Rs 70 billion within the year? Have not heard a thing from the textile lobby on their combined contribution to the cause of the people who remain drowned in the deluge, and will be the first ones out to pluck cotton next season to keep the spinners going.

In actuality, it is a study in contrasts. Leadership, organisational efficiency and discipline, objective-oriented commitment, clear aims, and willingness to get your hands dirty make the military stand out against any other institution. General Kayani was out with his people, those whoSW worked to fulfil a given task at hand, to add a word of encouragement and appreciation for toiling in difficult conditions. Is Kayani competing against the political leadership for acclaim? That is what the chattering class will have you believe; they would rather desire that he not be seen.

The military is not a monolith; it has variations in tradition and culture, and sometime serious disagreements within can produce an intense turf war among them. But they all come imbued with a basic value system that is aimed at making them aware of a higher cause, where the person of one is relegated in the face of the mission or the calling of an esprit de corps. It is meant to be a noble life and a noble death. All this must not take away from the extra-constitutional deviations that are a part of Pakistan’s folklore and were committed by a few commanders at various times of our history, and how those might have pushed the country’s political system back. But, when all else is salubrious, supportive and willing to keep the system in place, why would a group of people not do what they are meant to do — govern? Why would they not build and strengthen institutions, remove distortions, eliminate waste and corruption, collect taxes, and create space to do well for their people who voted them in. It needs sincerity of purpose, a commitment to service, selflessness, and a sense of nobility to lead a composite group of people of various societal levels and social standing. It needs leaders, not merely politicians.

What we might do from here on is to learn from the military. Institutions are built not on the basis of what material inputs are made available to them, but also on a clear enunciation of agreed objectives, of equal opportunity, of sharing the load of the testing times and committed leadership. Let us build our national institutions on these lines. Institutions are also built by putting to good use what is made available to them as resources, not by frittering, pilfering or pocketing the allocations. Reportedly, between 60-70 percent of allocations to the Federal Flood Commission, a cumulative amount of billions over the years, got eaten up and never put to use for the purpose. Why would we end up being where we are if that was not the case?

The military has generally done well, markedly so in the last three years. It remains the most robust national institution despite our plight of the recent years in all other matters of the state. We should refrain from weakening the institution by defamation and uncalled for efforts to belittle its positive contributions. Military bashing is increasingly becoming the last resort of anyone without a sustainable argument. It is time we look at how to improve than to evade responsibility.

Shahzad Chaudhry is a defence and security analyst

 

[fatman17]

WASHINGTON DIARY: The men on horseback —Dr Manzur Ejaz

We can appreciate the military’s flood relief work but if this disaster is partly man-made, the military has to take responsibility because it has been ruling the country most of the time

The Pakistani military’s help during these devastating floods is appropriate but not outstanding because people have complained about its delayed response. The military’s flood relief work is not exceptional because no other institution in any country has such a large and organised force that it can take care of a disaster of the scale where one-fifth of the population is affected. Even the US had to bring in army engineers during Hurricane Katrina. The only difference is that in democratic countries, the civilian chief executive orders the military to help, but in Pakistan the military’s work is projected as the performance of an opposition party doing a better job than the civilians.

Despite such evaluation of the military’s flood work, I am willing to join the MQM and support Mr Altaf Hussain’s call for the military to take over and get rid of corrupt politicians. However, I have a few binding conditions that the next honest general has to fulfil:

1. The honest general will abolish feudalism, implement rigorous land reforms and end the rule of feudal families in every corner of Pakistan.

2. The military should assure the country that the military top brass will not be allotting itself agricultural or residential lands and joining the landed and urban aristocracy. This means no more lands in Punjab and Sindh and no more defence colonies. In addition, the military industry complex in Pakistan will not be given undue advantage over private industries and entrepreneurs.

3. The military will end corruption in every sector. The rich will pay their taxes and every government worker will perform his/her duties without bribes. Citizens will obey the law, including traffic rules.

4. The military agencies will not undertake foreign policy adventures and push the country into the superpower’s proxy wars. Furthermore, the military agencies will not promote ideological wars and/or produce private militias of any kind.

5. The military will reprioritise budget allocations, spending more money on education, health services and economic development and less on arms and other perks.

These are very simple conditions to fulfil if the ‘honest general’ means business when it comes to reforming Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s history does not indicate that the military is willing or capable of doing much of what we desire. As a matter of fact, the military has been the root cause of most of the problems we face today. Every military era led to a worsening of problems, more corruption and anarchy.

The Ayub Khan era is considered to be the best as for as governance is concerned. However, Ayub Khan, instead of abolishing feudalism, allotted free lands to military officials and transformed them into a landed aristocracy as well. He sowed the seeds of disunity in East Pakistan and prepared the ground for the 1971 civil war. It was Ayub Khan who undertook the misadventure of the 1965 war, stalling economic growth for decades to come. Yahya Khan took Ayub Khan’s misdeeds to their logical conclusion, splintering the country and injecting the steroids of religious extremism through purging the media and educational institutions.

After a brief spell of democracy during Bhutto’s government — a mixture of good and bad policies — Ziaul Haq triggered the most destructive era of Pakistan’s history, one that is haunting us even today. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, corruption and bribery became brazen — these ills were rare and random before. Ziaul Haq brought back a primitive type of feudalism freeing the ghosts of caste, sectarianism and hateful mullah shahi (domination of the clergy). He pushed the country into a superpower’s proxy war and started using the military’s secret agencies to undermine the politicians. He also started grooming private militias of so-called jihadis, which ultimately led to Taliban terrorism.

The military kept on calling the shots from 1988 to 1999 when Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif took turns as prime minister. Most of the key policy making institutions were monopolised by the military during this period. The civilian administrations, devoid of any real power, kept themselves busy in money making schemes, thus accelerating the process of corruption. However, the military men and their military-industrial complex did not miss the opportunity for money making either. Besides individual accumulation of wealth by many military men, their commercial entities and defence colonies kept on expanding.

General Pervez Musharraf’s era was marked by lawlessness, corruption and expansion of terrorist jihadi forces. Mindless printing of money and spreading consumerism through easy bank loans was an illusory economic success during his tenure. As a matter of fact, his government is responsible for the shortages of electricity and other essential goods. By handing people more household appliances and motor vehicles, the demand for more electricity and fossil fuels should have been anticipated. But, the general’s economic wizards were only keen for public relation campaigns, oblivious to future disasters.

We can appreciate the military’s flood relief work but if this disaster is partly man-made, the military has to take responsibility because it has been ruling the country most of the time. If the flood devastation has worsened because of a lack of water reservoirs or blockage of natural drains, then who else other than the military is to be blamed?

In short, most of the problems Pakistan is facing have been created during military rule. The continuation of feudalism, corruption, religious extremism and uneven distribution of national wealth has been overseen by the military. Therefore, asking the military to come back and clean the mess reminds one of Mir Taqi Mir’s famous verse:

“Mir sada hain keh bemar hoey jis ke sabab;

Usi attar ke londe se dawa mangte hain.”

(Mir is a simpleton. He is taking medicine from the chemist’s boy who caused the illness in the first place).

We know Altaf Hussain is not that simple. However, he possesses expertise in self-destruction. Every time his party builds some bases in Punjab and the other provinces, he undertakes a project to destroy the expansion of his party, the MQM. Therefore, neither Altaf Hussain is going to change nor the military.

Somehow, the military has maintained its organisational capacity. The military will be well advised to stay away from the governance of the country and perform its duties like the militaries of other democratic countries.

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com

 

[Vassnti]

A serious question and in no way any attempt to bismirch the honor of any Officer past or present of the Pakistan Army.

The honest general will abolish feudalism, implement rigorous land reforms and end the rule of feudal families in every corner of Pakistan.

How many of the senior Officers are from families that have "feudal" land holdings, it would be hard to turf you own family off the land they have owned for generations.
What were the restrictions that have prevented such land distributions during the previous times the military has been in power?