Generals: A case study (I)

The essence of democracy is the right to pose tough questions at worst possible time. As Naomi Klien, the legendary author of “No Logo”, eloquently elucidated in the Guardian (March 14, 2002), “unlike strong brands, which are predictable and disciplined, democracy is messy and fractious, if not outright rebellious”. It follows that in a democratic set-up, discord is not akin to rebellion and chaos is not equal to anarchy by default.

For generals, on the other hand, any deviation from regimental loyalty and unquestioning obedience is sin. In their little isolated world, “unity of command” outweighs immense dividends of the diversity of opinion. Yes, during Corps Commanders’ conference, senior generals do debate issues back and forth but tolerance for dissent from outside this inner circle, let alone lower cadres, is almost non-existent.

Therefore, the khakis’ penchant to bash politicians and seeming complete ignorance of the dynamics of politics shouldn’t come as a surprise. It barely reflects typical garrison attitude towards everything that is out of their shooting range.

General Musharraf is no exception either. Ostensibly, he, along with the majority of his colleagues, simply believes that wisdom (of all sorts) not only starts at the entrance of the PMA and ends at the gates of the GHQ, it is also directly proportional to the weight of brass one wears on his shoulders. What these gentlemen are sadly unable to appreciate is that to be a (successful) politician is a far bigger feat than to be an adroit military officer. To persuade masses is a much more difficult task than issuing orders to juniors.

Recent events must have helped Musharraf & Co to somewhat realize how nerve-racking the uncertainty of political minefield is. Pulling the strings from behind the screen, without any responsibility, is a luxury. To be at the helm of affairs and facing the music oneself is quite different.

Albeit not very likely, but nothing can be more propitious for Pakistan if its dim-witted generals finally take the hint that to function in controlled environments, to command heavily indoctrinated bunch of soldiers is nothing as compared to represent even a small electoral constituency where almost every single individual has his/her own way of thinking, own priorities and own interests. To strike a balance among blurred aims, questionable loyalties and legal constraints is an art.

In any case, it would be pertinent to remind our omnipotent Generals that it is mainly due to the so-called “decade of sham democracy” that the GHQ is facing insurmountable difficulties in selling stooges as “leaders” today. Five successive civil governments, four elections, however flawed all that might be, have resulted into political awareness of the sort that it is no more an easy task to dupe the masses. As a consequence, it was an extremely wishful of grand connivers of the NRB to expect an easy ride for General Musharraf despite turning the entire political structure up and down.

Please, observe the difference: Many of politicians who used to crave for a wink from the “right quarters” are now not even willing to visit the General Headquarters for “consultations” – euphuism for dictated briefing. Approving remarks of the COAS, that used to be considered divine blessings, in not-so-distant past, have become liability for aspiring politicians. In short, the in-build filters of democracy can do wonders, if allowed to work.

In contrast, khaki’s manifested inability to look beyond tomorrow becomes palpably evident only by a cursory glance on the plethora of constitutional amendments they have (according to them) incorporated in the Constitution. Naively, they are offering disease as cure. Instead of suggesting devices to root out the fundamental cause for the morass -- the intervening role of the military -- they want to institutionalise the meddling of the top brass in purely civilian affairs.

Even otherwise, the so-called changes are, at the most, an inept attempt to mutate (mutilate would be a better word) the constitutional configuration only by taking existing variables into consideration. All this would become superfluous the moment political parameters change. And change they will, rest assured, sooner than later.

To sum up, these absurd proposals appear to have been framed with an ultimate aim to subdue the political control, once for all. The pathetic justifications presented for a continuing role of the military wear extremely thin. On the contrary, there are far more persuasive theoretical and empirical reasons for discarding these moves as totally counterproductive, if not altogether disastrous (and treacherous).

In fact, it can be convincingly argued that what to talk about multifaceted political issues even the crucial military matters ought not to be left on the discernment of the brass alone. Winston Churchill was not wrong when he famously declared, “war is too serious a matter, to be left to the generals”.

The average mental shrewdness of military commanders is almost equal and derisorily low (barring few examples) world over. Well that’s nothing unexpected or astonishing when taken in account that we are talking about a group, who enthusiastically opted, were meticulously selected and then attentively nurtured primarily to kill and to be killed.

Reasoning and analytical talent are not the traits they are recruited/famous for. Furthermore, parade square discipline in tandem with inculcation of the principle “do and die not to question why” can render even the brightest intellectual pearls incapable of grasping long-term results after a few years of drilling.

Examining the phenomenon of war can illuminate this assertion further. In simple words, war can be described as a tragic scenario when/where decent options have been exhausted to resolve a conflict. Or when partners resort to brute force and bloodletting after failing to negotiate a settlement for a contentious issue in a civilized manner. It means where civility ends, rationality ceases to function and military takes over from civilians: war starts. Now contemplate yourself for a moment about the brainpower of providers/administrators of this last solution.

In short, without any prejudice, one can contend that military officers generally lack the judiciousness and the sagacity to appreciate the delicate nature of complex socio-political equation. Well, conveniently predictable, corridors of power and political labyrinths are nothing but nasty quagmire for those trained and groomed for battlefield.

Thus allowing the rudimentary military mindset prevails is fraught with dreadful risks and doomed to result in grave humiliation with severely detrimental implications as had proved so many times before in our chequered history.

If some people still give army a benefit of doubt, it is simply due to the bizarre values of honesty, grotesque definition of patriotism, weird standards of achievements stemming from the lack of impartial information and army sponsored systematic media propaganda in Pakistan.

The absurd belief of the military high command that what is right for the army is right for the country is ruining us. It comes from a deep-seated conviction that there is only one standard of patriotism, the patriotism of khaki. This needs to be shunned as urgently and explicitly as possible.