H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
Towards greater accountability
The writer is a social scientist and author of Military Inc. ayesha.siddiqa@tribune.com.pk
Thank God for some sharp opinion pieces like the one by Ejaz Haider, which drew attention to top military commanders and thus resulted in an equally sharp response in the form of a press release, issued after the 139th Corps Commanders Conference on June 9. According to the press release, the top generals were unhappy with the growing criticism of the military, which they thought came from circles that had a bias against the armed forces. In the same conference, the commanders agreed to call upon the US government to divert the Kerry-Lugar aid from military to economic development.
Later, former senior commander Jehangir Karamat translated the press release as an indicator of the armys acceptance of civilian supremacy. Both statements the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release and General Karamats article in The News underscored the issue of perceptual bias. It was sad to know that senior commanders are unwilling to engage with this criticism and understand the basis of what they consider negative perception. I remember being told by a former Director-General (DG) ISPR, Major-General Shaukat Sultan, that his staff would look at newspaper articles every day and leave aside all those that they thought were critical of the then military regime of former General Pervez Musharraf. Recently, the current DG-ISPR made a similar statement. In a recently sent SMS, which looked more like a bad effort at public relations, he mentioned the term predictable, in reference to media coverage, in the same manner as his predecessor.
It is a fact that the militarys image has changed drastically from the point when people felt proud of the armed forces, especially in mainland Pakistan (certainly Punjab) to a point when one of the top leaders of Punjab, Mian Nawaz Sharif, openly criticised the military.
Unfortunately, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the 1970s. We have seen the military as an institution being involved in the shooting of people in rural and urban Sindh (1980s and 1992/93) and conducting military operations in Balochistan. The military was involved in creating political parties and coalitions and then using any opportunity to take over the reins of the country.
If people complain, it is not out of jealousy or ill-will, as Musharraf would argue, but because people are generally concerned about the well-being of this institution. Jehangir Karamat wrote in his article that corps commanders are often referred to as core commanders. A lot of people also refer to corps commanders as crore commanders. What right does anyone have to call this bias, when the army corps have become centres of earning. The Karachi corps, for instance, has a monthly income of about Rs500 million raised from many sources including the lease and sale of state land. This particular corps earns money from as far as Cholistan in South Punjab.
Trying to send a signal regarding the military sacrificing its resources for the ordinary people by suggesting the diversion of American aid for economic development is too little too late. The generals know that the mood in the US does not favour military assistance to Pakistan, especially after the Abbottabad operation. It would have been nicer and kinder had the generals not resisted Kerry-Lugar in the beginning. But the fact of the matter is that senior commanders have encouraged an environment in the military of disrespecting all forms of civilians and insulting the political leadership.
It is not as if politicians are the only corrupt ones in the country. Various weapons deals and related kickbacks do not shed great light on the military leadership either. However, the issue is not about who is more corrupt. It is about developing mutual respect amongst institutions that will naturally strengthen the country. The military has always manoeuvred to keep itself above any questioning. Such lack of accountability is harmful institutionally. Disallowing accountability, in fact, turns the military mafia-like. Instead of using its clients like Maulana Fazlur Rahman to block the inquiry commission, the chief will be serving national interests if he were to allow a fair inquiry. Breeding accountability and equality amongst state institutions will go a long way.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 19th, 2011.
The writer is a social scientist and author of Military Inc. ayesha.siddiqa@tribune.com.pk
Thank God for some sharp opinion pieces like the one by Ejaz Haider, which drew attention to top military commanders and thus resulted in an equally sharp response in the form of a press release, issued after the 139th Corps Commanders Conference on June 9. According to the press release, the top generals were unhappy with the growing criticism of the military, which they thought came from circles that had a bias against the armed forces. In the same conference, the commanders agreed to call upon the US government to divert the Kerry-Lugar aid from military to economic development.
Later, former senior commander Jehangir Karamat translated the press release as an indicator of the armys acceptance of civilian supremacy. Both statements the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release and General Karamats article in The News underscored the issue of perceptual bias. It was sad to know that senior commanders are unwilling to engage with this criticism and understand the basis of what they consider negative perception. I remember being told by a former Director-General (DG) ISPR, Major-General Shaukat Sultan, that his staff would look at newspaper articles every day and leave aside all those that they thought were critical of the then military regime of former General Pervez Musharraf. Recently, the current DG-ISPR made a similar statement. In a recently sent SMS, which looked more like a bad effort at public relations, he mentioned the term predictable, in reference to media coverage, in the same manner as his predecessor.
It is a fact that the militarys image has changed drastically from the point when people felt proud of the armed forces, especially in mainland Pakistan (certainly Punjab) to a point when one of the top leaders of Punjab, Mian Nawaz Sharif, openly criticised the military.
Unfortunately, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the 1970s. We have seen the military as an institution being involved in the shooting of people in rural and urban Sindh (1980s and 1992/93) and conducting military operations in Balochistan. The military was involved in creating political parties and coalitions and then using any opportunity to take over the reins of the country.
If people complain, it is not out of jealousy or ill-will, as Musharraf would argue, but because people are generally concerned about the well-being of this institution. Jehangir Karamat wrote in his article that corps commanders are often referred to as core commanders. A lot of people also refer to corps commanders as crore commanders. What right does anyone have to call this bias, when the army corps have become centres of earning. The Karachi corps, for instance, has a monthly income of about Rs500 million raised from many sources including the lease and sale of state land. This particular corps earns money from as far as Cholistan in South Punjab.
Trying to send a signal regarding the military sacrificing its resources for the ordinary people by suggesting the diversion of American aid for economic development is too little too late. The generals know that the mood in the US does not favour military assistance to Pakistan, especially after the Abbottabad operation. It would have been nicer and kinder had the generals not resisted Kerry-Lugar in the beginning. But the fact of the matter is that senior commanders have encouraged an environment in the military of disrespecting all forms of civilians and insulting the political leadership.
It is not as if politicians are the only corrupt ones in the country. Various weapons deals and related kickbacks do not shed great light on the military leadership either. However, the issue is not about who is more corrupt. It is about developing mutual respect amongst institutions that will naturally strengthen the country. The military has always manoeuvred to keep itself above any questioning. Such lack of accountability is harmful institutionally. Disallowing accountability, in fact, turns the military mafia-like. Instead of using its clients like Maulana Fazlur Rahman to block the inquiry commission, the chief will be serving national interests if he were to allow a fair inquiry. Breeding accountability and equality amongst state institutions will go a long way.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 19th, 2011.
