Defend the Country, not its Government

For months, the Government of Pakistan had been trying to convince the world that the fighting in Kargil was being carried out by volunteer mujahideen not under its control. So it was somewhat of a shock to come across on October 4, 2000 a minor item in the daily Dawn entitled “Kin of Kargil martyrs get land.” The item read as follows:

“State land has been allotted to the families of the martyrs of Kargil in Bahawalpur division. The Punjab Board of Revenue has, under the instructions of Ministry of Defence and General Headquarters, allotted 500 acres in Chak No. 96/DB. Sources said … each family was given at least 12.5 acres…. [and] that 25 to 50 acres will be allotted to the families of army officers who laid down their lives at Kargil.”

This does not surprise a lot of people who doubted the claims of the Government in the first place. It only confirms that governments lie. Indeed, the present government of Pakistan has confirmed that the previous one lied to its creditors about the financial health of the country. In the Kargil case, it is only amusing that the Government cannot even succeed in being consistent. As ever, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

But this does bring up an important issue. What are the responsibilities of citizens when governments lie to them? Many patriotic persons feel obliged to defend their country in all situations and at any cost. But should such a defense translate into a knee jerk defense of the government of the day especially when one is convinced that the government is not telling the truth? Does such a defense serve the interest of the country?

Of course, this does not apply to Pakistan alone. It points to the need to make a distinction between the country and its government and further between the respective interests of the two. As an example, many people admire the boxer Mohammad Ali because he refused to fight a war which he believed was being waged unjustly by the government of his country. He represented a lot of people who remained loyal to their country while disagreeing with the policy of its government.

One often comes across statements equating a country and its government. On Chowk, as an example, one frequently reads that Pakistan did this or India did that. No, Pakistan or India did not do anything of the sort (they cannot, being inanimate land masses). Nor indeed did the people of the two countries (who are rarely consulted on matters of importance). Rather, the actions flowed from the actions of the respective governments.

In such a perspective, one has to look at the government as just another interest group. (This holds even when the government is a representative one. Thus it is claimed that the government of the U.S.A. is much more beholden to corporate interest groups than to low-income workers.) As a major interest group one can understand why the Pakistan army might want to derail the peace process initiated by the bus diplomacy with India by launching the Kargil operation. The Pakistan army is one of the largest in the world in proportion to national population and one which consumes an inordinate share of national resources to provide a high standard of living to its members in a very poor country. It would stand to lose its raison d’etre in the event of a peace with India.

Pakistan did not sabotage the prospects for peace. The Pakistani army could have done that. Now, of course, the army would like to convince people that what is good for the army is good for the country. But citizens of Pakistan can disagree without being disloyal to the country.

In order to make sure that its views prevail the army has taken over the government in Pakistan behind the façade of accountability. But should one look beyond the issue of corruption to see the bigger picture? Do Pakistanis need to think about whose interests the government represents? And do non-Pakistanis need to be sure they aim their criticisms at the right target - not Pakistan, not Pakistani people, but the Pakistani government and the interests it represents?