Defend the Country, not its Government

Re: Subcontinental #135

Was Kargil stupid? In retrospect, yes it was. It certainly was not, again in retrospect, in the Pakistani national interest. I still don`t understand L`affaire Kargil: what the heck was the point of it all?

There is one scenario that does put Kargil in perspective and that makes sense to me. The whole point of the Kargil incursion was to invite a large-scale Indian military response. Fighting would rapidly escalate and threaten to reach crisis (war) proportions. The West, especially the US, would be petrified at the thought of a full-scale war between two nuclear powers and intervene to force a cease-fire and compel India to the negotiating table over Kashmir. Pakistan would have achieved its `national interest` aim of internationalizing the Kashmir issue and all the main actors in the Pakistani government would come out looking good. ``We forced India to the negotiating table! Look at how great we are!`` Etc. Etc. Unfortunately, if this was the aim, it backfired miserably. The West backed India to the hilt, put Pakistan on the Crazies list and deepened our isolation.

The Pakistani aim of cutting off the supply route to Siachen was a pipe dream. We could have done it if we had reinforced the NLI in Kargil and escalated the level of support (air and artillery) that we gave the NLI but this would have meant all out war with India. We could have probably taken Siachen back and given the Indians a tremendous bloody nose in the region--finally avenging all the earlier disasters of the 1980s--but the cost would have been far too high. I cannot seriously think that any Pakistani general thought that India would not immediately escalate and attack Pakistan elsewhere. Alternatively, the Pakistanis thought that the nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent to an Indian cross-border attack but that is pretty much brinksmanship thinking.

An Indian cross-border attack was exactly what happened in 1965 in response to Pakistani advances in Kashmir. I believe the Kargil operation was first proposed to Gen. Zia back in the 1980s but was cancelled when Sahibzada Yaqub Khan pointed out that it would probably recover Siachen but at the cost of a full-scale war with India.

Kargil was only stupid because it failed. I think the Pakistani FO and GHQ made a serious miscalculation about the Western response. They thought that the West might play honest broker but, instead, it backed the Indians. When this became clear, GHQ immediately deescalated the fighting. Believe me, this was not a popular decision because the NLI was inflicting tremendous casualties on the Indians and it became clear that we were going to leave them to rot in Kargil. PM had to personally tour the troop formations to quiten the unrest.

To be continued...

Re: Friend #138

Again, I refer you to my earlier replies. If you will read them, you will realize that I never said that Kargil was in the Pakistani national interest. I simply said that governments refusing to tell the truth to journalists or other countries in foreign policy matters could be and should be defended on national interest grounds.

A government lying its head off about its actual foreign policy objecives does not, ipso facto, make it morally reprehensible to me. That is why I said that the Pakistani government lying about Pakistani troops in Kargil does not, IN AND OF ITSELF, cause me any concern. Many other things about Kargil do bother me but not that by itself.

I hope that I have clarified matters.

Regards.

Fuzair #136

Answer the basic question. Who decided that Kargil was in Pakistan`s interest and should be undertaken? Was it people of Pakistan? Why do you feel obligated to support responsible party (whether it was government or army)?

I have no obligation to defend Indian Captian, or for that matter, Indian adventure in Sri Lanka.

regards

Urstruly #134

``I am glad that you finally see my point. That is what Subcontinental is trying to pull-only with a little panache``

Sorry, I didn`t see your point. I agree with author of this article in that rather than blindly defending the action of governments of Party A or Party B, let us defend only the country. Governments of either side should be made responsible for any of their stupid and decietful actions.

regards

Re: Friend #133

I refer you to my earlier reply, #129. Since the captain`s actions were clearly criminal, the `national interest` argument cannot be legitimately invoked here. Actually, I would think that the criminal conviction would bolster India`s stand that it does abide by rule of law (never mind that it is only one conviction out of many such occurences).

The `national interest` argument refers to state actions which, in this particular instance, include officially sanctioned `lies` and `deceptions.`

Regards.

Fuzair #130

“I will repeat that it was not illegal, immoral or unethical for the Pakistani government to claim that its troops were not involved in Kargil.”

Let us assume that you are correct. I can only quote from Dagh Dehalvi:

“Khatir se ya lihaz se main maan to gaya

Jhooti qasam se aap ka eeman to gaya”

This kind of thing has really shot the credibility of the Pakistani government to smithereens. India, starting out with a very weak moral position on Kashmir, can now blatantly refuse to talk to Pakistan and has the rest of the world on its side.

I was tempted to say that even if it was not illegal, immoral or unethical, it was pretty stupid. But given the model of politics that we have agreed upon, it was only stupid from the point of view of the national interest but perfectly sensible from the point of view of the ruling power. So, if you agree that it was stupid from the point of view of the national interest, I presume you do not support the action?

And, killing civilians in the national interest? Can national interest ever override religious injunctions?

Let us turn this discussion to a more pertinent question. What exactly in your opinion is Pakistan’s national interest vis a vis Kashmir? And, how would one go about verifying that?

Thanks for pushing the discussion.

Friend# 132

I am glad that you finally see my point. That is what Subcontinental is trying to pull-only with a little panache.

Fuzair #130

``I will repeat that it was not illegal, immoral or unethical for the Pakistani government to claim that its troops were not involved in Kargil.``

Fuzair, auestion here is who decided that Kargil was in Pakistan`s interest?

An Indian Army captain was caught while raping a Kashmiri woman. This information can certainly be used by other countries against India in international forums. If Indian government suppresses this information in national interest, will you agree?

I certainly will not, because in long run this may happen to one of my own ``in national interest``.

Regards

Urstruly#121

``Sure hypothetically speaking you are right. Point#7 & 0 have a potential to lead the argument in that direction.

But, what if Country B utilizes this period of lull to quadruple its efforts to crush People C at an unprecedented level-whereas Country A is kept engaged in ``talks``. ...``

Don`t you think it was actually country A that utilized the period of lull to maximum while keeping country B engaged in talks. I must tell you that I was in that area during that time and could feel the euphoria about a possible settlement.

If we go by your circular logic, perhaps we will be making counter moves for next thousand years.

Regards

Two articles on Gen. Musharraf`s performance in his first year. The first is an editorial from the Washington Post,and the second by The Economist:

JUST A DICTATOR

ONE YEAR ago, a coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf extinguished Pakistan`s corrupt democracy. At the time, few lamented the takeover. Pakistan was descending into chaos; its democracy was neither representative nor effective; the military was said to be the only institution that could pull the country together. Besides, Gen. Musharraf lost no time in promising that he would rule only so long as was ``absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in the country.`` Sure, he would take a tough line against the cronies of the old order. But he would also uphold free speech, free association and media independence.

A year later, toughness is more visible than enlightened liberalism. The Orwellian ``National Accountability Ordinance,`` which allows government agents to detain opponents for up to 90 days without charge and places the burden of proof on defendants, is being used to purge the regime`s enemies. Any notion that this process would observe the niceties of legal fairness has been undone. Mushahid Hussain and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, two former government ministers, have been held since the day of the coup without being charged. Others have been tried in a special court inside an army fortress. In some intances, the government has used torture.

Meanwhile the government has responded to the threat of opposition rallies by forgetting its commitments to free expression. In March it banned all public protests and strikes. Political parties are being harassed and are forbidden to participate in December`s local elections. The next target may be the media. Last month an army team conducted a four-hour inspection of Dawn, a respected daily in Karachi that had fallen foul of the junta. Ironically, one of the offending articles had reported that the government was preparing new curbs on press freedom.

When the coup took place last year, many Pakistanis were willing to trade liberal freedoms for government that worked. But Gen. Musharraf has largely ducked the challenge of economic reform, though good harvests have boosted growth fortuitously. He has turned a blind eye to corruption within the military. He has failed to take a tough line against Islamic militants. He has done nothing to reduce the biggest danger to his country, which is a war with India. In sum, there is not much evidence that Pakistan`s strongman is any better at running the country than his elected predecessors. Gen. Musharraf is just another dictator.

PAKISTAN`S USELESS DICTATOR

One year after the coup that brought him to power in Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf faces mounting criticism at home and abroad

“THE perception is that we have not performed well, that the economy has not stabilised or recovered from recession, that people’s welfare has not improved, that Pakistan is isolated internationally, that there is a flight of capital and an exodus of entrepreneurs from the country.” Thus General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s latest dictator, summarised what his many critics feel about his first year in office, before denouncing such views as “malicious propaganda spread by external foes and internal vested interests”. If only it were so simple.

For almost half of the 53 years since independence, Pakistan has been ruled by the army. It seized power for the fourth time on October 12th 1999, after General Musharraf and a couple of top lieutenants had been sacked by the elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. Mr Sharif, his two brothers and a son are in prison, and the general’s record since then has been decidedly mixed.

In his defence this week, General Musharraf rattled off impressive statistics at machinegun speed—privatisation would yield $4 billion, tax revenues and exports were bang on target, 4,000 sick industries were about to be revived, action plans for the spread of information technology were steaming ahead. Meanwhile, the opposition declared October 12th a “black day”. About 100 of its members were arrested to forestall protests. The cover of the latest issue of Newsline magazine is headlined “General Discontent”.

It is true that, on some measures, the economy is looking a bit perkier than it did under Mr Sharif. Growth seems to be picking up, and could top 5% in the current fiscal year, though this is mostly due to a bumper cotton crop and a consequent boost to the textile industry, which accounts for 60% of Pakistan’s export earnings. The rice and wheat crops have also been excellent. Industrial output growth is down, though.

In other ways, Pakistan’s economic woes have not shown much improvement. Pakistan has failed to persuade the IMF to hand over any fresh money since April, and is unlikely to do so until the government comes up with a system for casting the tax net more widely. At the moment, barely 1% of the country’s population of 150m pay any tax at all. When the government tried to impose a 15% across-the-board sales tax, strikes by shopkeepers forced it to back down and amend much of the scheme. This same pattern of unwillingness to risk confrontation, perhaps surprising in a military regime, has produced a series of concessions to Islamic groups, including a recent climbdown on an attempt to repeal a blasphemy law.

But without the badge of approval conferred by a new IMF loan, Pakistan will be unable to persuade its creditors to reschedule its remaining debt, or to renew the existing moratorium on most of it, which is due to expire at the end of the year. If that happens, Pakistan could face repayments of $4.5 billion in 2001. Its available foreign-exchange reserves are only about $600m.

Probably no more urgent task was expected from the general than a crackdown on corruption. Here again the record is mixed. The National Accountability Bureau has extended its remit and taken on another 100-odd cases, securing about 40 convictions. But it has fought shy of tackling either the army or the judiciary, despite serious allegations of bribe-taking. One case before the bureau involves a former naval chief, but this was launched by Mr Sharif, and the man in question is, in any event, safely ensconced in America.

Besides, the bureau is itself of dubious standing: equipped with awesome powers, it has come under fire from human-rights organisations. So, however, has the government more widely. Human Rights Watch, based in New York, this week produced a highly critical report to mark General Musharraf’s anniversary, which concluded that in most respects humans rights have deteriorated in the past year. “Political opponents and suspected wrongdoers have been subjected to prolonged detention without charge, custodial ill-treatment, and even torture,” it said, noting that “the administration has also greatly augmented executive powers, curtailed the independence of the judiciary, and neutralised political parties.”

Most Pakistanis believe the general is sincere in wanting to right Pakistan. “What is doubtful is the validity of his black-and-white recipes for the complex job at hand,” says one of his own cabinet ministers. Indeed, many federal and provincial ministers claim that they have no say in the strategic decisions of the government. These are instead taken by a small coterie of extremely hawkish army generals, who belong to or have served in the shadowy Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), the outfit that most analysts believe really runs Pakistan.

General Musharraf’s chief of staff is General Ghulam Ahmed, who did a senior stint in the ISI last year. A former head of the ISI was pulled out of retirement and made General Musharraf’s defence secretary, while another former head of the ISI serves as communications minister. “This is the first time in Pakistani history that the ISI has taken over army headquarters and is running the government and country directly,” says a former service chief.

Even some of the army’s own think it has no place in politics. General Aslam Beg, a former army chief, this week denounced the generals. “The nation has to be prepared to make difficult decisions, and it is not the military government which can prepare the nation. It is a civilian government,” he said. More and more Pakistanis are inclined to agree.

Re: Subcontinental #128

In part, my reply to Kant Patel covers issues you have raised as well. I will repeat that it was not illegal, immoral or unethical for the Pakistani government to claim that its troops were not involved in Kargil.

Similarly, while on a moral level I would deplore any violence against civilians anywhere, I don`t think that you can make the case that RAW or the ISI exploding bombs in each other`s capitals while denying all responsibility is ipso facto against the respective national interests. It all depends upon the circumstances.

What is the international law, i.e., treaties accepted by both Pakistan and India, on terrorism? Would acts such as these be covered? Or, would they be OK if we declare war on each other first?

Regards.

Re: Kant Patel #127

I have to apologize. With the Saddam scenario, I chose a bad example--assasinations are clearly a criminal act in the US. However, with your bribery example, I would argue that Rao and Co. committed a clearly illegal act and thus the ``national interest`` argument does not and cannot enter into it. Existing national law covers bribery.

I should have said that the US CIA was arranging a coup against Saddam, which is not an illegal act in the US. Should Clinton then have spoken the truth about it?

However, there is no Pakistani law that says we cannot attack India. Neither is there any international law that says that since all states reserve the right to defend themselves, even if that means attacking others.

The way that politicians conflate their personal interests with those of the nation is why we need an impartial judiciary to keep them (relatively) honest. Rao cannot plead the national interest in this case (although I don`t think you say that HE did).

Regards.

Fuzair #124

Agreed that there is lying and there is lying. Your example of Saddam Hussein reminded me of a line from Macbeth (Act 3, Scene 4): “I am in blood stept in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

If the CIA and the US government have already decided to assassinate Saddam Hussein (or Castro or anyone else for that matter) in contravention of stated policy (“Its against US law for the CIA to do so”) and without public approval of such a change in policy, then acknowledging it on TV makes little sense. What we are discussing is whether the secret decision to assassinate an opponent, in violation of a country’s own laws (which have public approval), can be condoned if it is considered to be in the national interest (by whom)? Wouldn’t such an attitude let loose a Hobbesian war of all against all. What if some government decides that it is in its national interest to assassinate a US President? Indian and Pakistani agencies exploding bombs in each others cities killing innocent citizens while denying any such action is in the national interest? Does this assumption of national interest ever have to be validated?

Let’s leave aside the white lies (“No dear, you don’t look too fat in that``) and focus on those that have victims and welfare implications and those that violate a policy approved by the people in whose presumed interest the lie is being enacted. You wouldn’t tell your (hypothetical) daughter to embezzle funds from her employer to maximize the household wealth. Hopefully you will have a democratic discussion within the family to make sure such an action is in the family interest and the collective wisdom would decide otherwise.

Fuzair #116, Subcontinental #122,

The discussion in the subject posts raises some fundamental points, with particular implications in a democratic set up.One, do the interests of an elected govt. coincide or tentamount (a better term!) to the national interests? Second, who really is eligible, again in a democratic set up, to determine these `so-called` ``national interest(s)? In this context, let me site the case of bribery committed by the Congress govt. in India, under the then PM Narsinha Rao, to buy votes from a minority party to win a `No Confidence` vote in the Parliament. This led to the survival of the govt. in the midst of a certain defeat. (N. Rao and a then Cabinet minister Bhuta Singh have been recently sentenced to 3year jail terms for this criminal act.) Now, there is an argument being put forward in some quarters that it was the Rao govt. that opened up the Indian economy, released it from the chok-hold of the Nehruvian socialism and Permit-Raj, thereby unleasing the forces of growth. And, that, this was in the `national interest`. So, the question is was that a national interest? If yes, was the means to an end, i.e., the vote-buying, was justified, or was it in the national interest too? Secondly, can the govt. take it upon itself to define the national interest when it deliberately kept the vote-buying information secret from the electorate? Aren`t the electorates the ultimate judges and approvers in a democratic structure? This very dilemma is also applicable to the `national interest` arguments when applied to Pakistani issues, such as Kargil, 1971, frequent military take-overs, etc. I agree with S that the govt.-of-the-day`s-interests and the national interests are not necessarily congruent, especilly when those interests are not well defined or spelled out by the claimants and facts not submitted for the electorates to review. Bilal may provide more insight and his learned knowledge on this subject!

Kant.....

Folks, Sorry for the detour! This lady is seeking some help for a worthy endeavour. A letter from DAWN:

Information about Santanam

I am currently writing a book on my father, Pt. K. Santanam, who played a prominent role in the

political, legal and commercial life of Lahore and Punjab during the period 1910 to 1947. His name is

particularly associated with the alternative Inquiry Commission into the events of Jallianwala Bagh and

Martial Law in Punjab. He was also one of the founders of the Lakshmi Insurance Company and its

first Managing Director.

I would be grateful to receive any information by way of correspondence, reminiscences, published

material which may be in the possession of the readers.

I could be reached at the following address: 7, Amrita Shergill Marg New Delhi 110003, India email:

ashson@del6.vsnl.net.in

MADHURI S. SONDHI

New Delhi, India

Assad_K

Youre right, I stand corrected.