The Door To The Barracks

Politicians have to play their role to take out the country from this situation. Its the history when did army came to rule the politicians supported the army, if all the politicians be unite and decide that they will never support army to rule any further in any case I believe army cannot go any further. They actually can`t do without the support of these puppet politicians.
Every time army ruler found politicians to work like puppets and unfortunately they found always people they want and hence ruled.
Our politicians unfortunately are not unite at all but Army is, and they always played with them.
Our politicians have to think on it and they have to unite for this matter at least and this is not for the sake of their survival, but for Pakistan as well....

I think most amonst us are looking at military interventions from refracted perspectives. In our case there can be two theories for the military interventions in Pakistan.

``First, that the Army enjoys more prestige in society and thats why it is over bearing and undertakes interventions to preserve its own exclusivity and coporatism``. This theory has not stood the test of evaluation and rejected by sociologist such as Bilal and Syed. However for khaki bashers, it remains a good propaganda.

``Second, military interventions take place in Pakistan due to a political vaccum created by the politicians, and the military intervenes to fill it`` Though, this remains the most plausible explanation, the question remains that after the military exits, why does instability recreate itself creating yet another vacuum?The answer lies in the role of very powerful elites in bureaucracy, intelligence agencies and oportunist politicians who trade loyalties like a roadside whore. The issue thus has many connects and the article in question though thought provoking lacks in proper substance. Military sociologists like Raymond Aaron, Morris Jannowitz and Bilal Hashmi agree that Pakistan army despite interventions, in spirit still remains non preatorian. Especially, Morris sees these interventions more in the nature of nation- buliding than a desire within a power hungry military catorie to rule .

I feel that if the politicians decide that they will allow the party in power to complete its tenure, and not create problems and issues for the heck of it, two full parliamentary tenures would have matured the system. They also have to decide that they will not become pawns in the hands of the Babus and agencies and rather keep their link with the masses and the Parliament. If these people can show such character for ten years, military interventions would have become a tale of the past. Just look at what Bibi and Nawaz did to each other in 11 years. If they had made peace, Pakistan would have done better.

His Excellency, I tend to agree with your conspiracy theory. Rather I would reduce the time by at least ten days. As a Pakistani I pray and wish, that this never happens. We just cannot efford to lose a man who has to walk on the Razor`s Edge, jump obstacles, face daring assasination attempts and yet keep a smile on the face. If anything, he remains an inspiration in crises. The last Quarter are always testing times.

THE DOOR TO THE BARRACKS LIES IN THE RIGHTOUSNESS OF OUR POLITICIANS

Politicians have to play their role to take out the country from this situation. Its the history when did army came to rule the politicians supported the army, if all the politicians be unite and decide that they will never support army to rule any further in any case I believe army cannot go any further. They actually can`t do without the support of these puppet politicians.
Every time army ruler found politicians to work like puppets and unfortunately they found always people they want and hence ruled.
Our politicians unfortunately are not unite at all but Army is, and they always played with them.
Our politicians have to think on it and they have to unite for this matter at least and this is not for the sake of their survival, but for Pakistan as well....

#31, urstruly: It is a credit to your individuality that you can see the faults of your own group. But your desperation is pointless because any society has to be built on fairness and justice.

It took me three years to understand one basic concept.

Some three odd years ago, Late Prof. Bilal Ahamd wrote a thesis at Chowk arguing why a Confederal System suites best for Pakistan. At that time I was a die hard federalist and basically believed in the inherent goodness of the human beings. But now I am a convert. I beleive that human beings are the worst of God`s creation and expecting justice and peace from them by appealing to their sense of justice and fairness is unforgivable stupidity. The powerful will always oppress the weak and it is an apocalyptic struggle. Therefore, it is for this very reason figuring out ways to empower weak and disenfranchised is a job worthy of prophets. I think that any method that eventually empowers weak and disenfrachised is fair and lawful - because all laws are made by powerful to protect their self-interest. And hence anything that will clash with their self-interest would be ``unlawful``. The powerful will always make sacred cows of their self-interest and weak cannot be free untill he keeps on worshiping others sacred cows.

In Pakistan, the concept of a Federation, is the Holy Cow of the military establishment through which it oppresses and exploits the weak, unarmed, and disenfranchised people. And since the whole military is Punjabi, therefore, Punjabi nation has become the grand preists of Holy Cow of Federalism. Punjabis are the protectors and sustainers of this grand machinery of oppression which is sucking blood from disenfrachised Pakistanis like a remorseless vampire. Punjabis themselves are fully enfranchised because military machine protects their self-interest.

In the name of humanity and common human decency this system of oppression must end. It has been proven useless time and again to appeal to the good conscience of Punjabis to end this system of oppression. As a matter of fact Punjab has crushed all such voices of dissent thru brute force throughout the history. Punjab has committed the acts of genocide in East pakistan, Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan, and now in tribal areas to protect the self-interest of Punjabis. Punjabis willingly and knowingly have sanctioned this way of murder to protect their self-interest. One must ask this question that in the history of Paksiatn why military has never conducted any such ``operations`` in Punjab, not on a single occasion. Why it is always the other province. The reason is that Punjabis are in it fully. Their military is their strong arm. The Punjabis with their formidable army will NEVER withdraw their fangs from the juglars of Paksitan.

In order to counter this brute and remorseless power, the path of least resistance is the idea of Confederation where only economics, communication and currency are shared. Defence must not be included in this list. Punjab should be let to keep its prized military to itself.

This is an ideological struggle and must be done through political education of the disenfranchised people of the country. It is a long process, but it is the only way to abolish this remorseless system of oppression.

I am a convert and I thank Prof. Bilal for that.

Feroz:

Your write-up is educational for me, I did not feel comfortable to comment, but your response to Amit about ``non-cooperation non violent`` (= ahimsa) approach is credible and sensible and indeed very innovative. If Indian Independence and subsequent success of civil rights in the U.S., and ANC in South Africa are indications such non-violent movement is the only hope to throw the military yolk. The real question is: who and where are those ready to bell-the-military-cat in Pakistan. Do they have the courage to tell ``C.F. Andrews of Pakistani supporters`` that now the time has come for them to go to jail alone, because this movement must be Pakistani and led by Pakistanis alone.

There certainly is a lesson in Congress movement of Indian independence, but can it be seen as such by the Paksitanis? Also the hardest part would be to come up with a mass strategy inborn in Pakistan that does not let ``rejection of previous Pakistani generation`` of such a notion and Congress movement to obtain their separate country, be a deterrent and holds Pakistani future as the hostage.

A great visionary comment, and probably equally thought through comment. This will lead to a non-violent, non-cooperation movement of the modern times. I know it will be the first in the Islamic world, where ``Intefadah`` started with such a promise only to be hijacked later. That had started me to wonder if Islam itself must be singled out for its weaknesses and blamed for not allowing such movements to grow. I know that I do not believe in religious movements, but I do believe in human nature that ensures the good prevails over the evil in a society over a period of time.

My question for you is: do you think Pakistani society is capable to producing such a leader who in modern times must be more powerful yet similar to Gandhi? If it is possible then I believe, as a non-muslim belieber in human values, that this will lead to producing ``a Gandhi, or a Martin Luther King`` of Islamic world to help its opressed fight for the their rights.

Best regards.
Anil Kapuria

Ras: It was wonderful to meet you last week at the HDF function. I never thought of meeting a Chowkie there. I do wish that hope my modest contribution there helps start an avalanche in empowering Pakistani girls to secure a great Pakistani future in South Asia. I forgot to mention in my few words sopken there that Kerala in India, is an example of such empowerment in our part of the world. Empowered girls of yesteryears there bettered all social indicators of the first world for their families and socities. They even delivered gold medal hopefuls in Asian games and Olympics games. Hope to see you more often.

re: anarain # 4

If I remember my headlines correctly, it was the prime minister of Pakistan, a civilian politican, who said that there is no need for a commission of inquiry into Kargil. This is the very point, which I was making and which seems to have escaped your attention. The politicans have to stop giving the military rule a sense of legitimacy by proffering and supporting its arguments. Every time the politicans make such facile statements, they vacate the political power to the military and instead of the military bargaining for its share of power, they simply hand it over to it on a silver platter.

In this sense, I have more respect for Mohammad Khan Junejo, whose first question as a prime minister was to ask the military dictator, ``when are you leaving...`` than the present prime minister of Pakistan. I do not blame the politicans exclusively, and neither do I absolve them of their crimes in derailing democratic politics in Pakistan either. What we need in this country is accountability, which is across the entire spectrum of Pakistani politics and includes both the military and the civilian politicans.

The civilian society despite its periodic appeasement of the military rule, has grown disenchanted with the military and that can be seen in the loss of the legitimacy, which the military once enjoyed. It does not trust the political wisdom of the military to rule, but considers them more as a ``dhobi`` in national politics clearing the mess of the civilian politicans. Between the evil of a military rule and a civilian rule, the population favors the military not because it loves it, but because it has no faith in the political institutions of the nation to manage a peaceful transfer of political power. The idea, which should put the fear of God in all of is not whether the military is bad or the civilians are bad in the eyes of the people, but that the people of Pakistan have no faith in the politics of the nation as being capable of representing their interests!

As to the institutional destruction of the military itself, this is bound to happen if it continues in politics and as for evidence, look at the military rule from 1958-1971. The militarization of Pakistani politics led to the breakup of East Pakistan and the second period of military rule in Pakistan from 1977-1987 led to radicalization of Islam and the growth of religious influence within the military itself. A process that directly contributed to lessening the internal discipline of the army itself by allowing political minded officers to challange the ethos of the military itself. The first experiment with politics led the military to shun politics till it was reinvited into the arena by Z. A. Bhutto to quell political opposition in Baluchistan. The second experiment in political power divided the military, specifically the army, within a secular and a religious argument. Both limited the powers of the military in the sense that the army did not have the confidence it did prior to 1971 and it had even less confidence after 1987. The third experiment with political power (1999-?) has led to a growth of terrorism in Pakistan, break down in law and order and loss of Pakistani sovereignity, both internationally and domestically, and to add insult to serious insult, Pakistan being awarded the title of the ``best borrower`` by the Euromoney magazine! In orther words, Pakistan has been awarded a reward for digging its own grave!

Hence, history shows that military`s involvement in politics have always created a slippery slope for its interests and it has done more to harm them by intervening in politics. The history of Pakistani military`s involvement in politics is my evidence, which suggests that the its continued presence in politics, will eventually spell its own doom.

Ciao

re: Mantolives # 15

Lets hope this realization dawns on the army and to use its own phrase, ``trickles down`` to the lower tiers of its organization sooner rather than later.

Your insights are right. Kargil did play a significant role in the political thought process of the Pakistani army, because given the international outrage, the Pakistani military for the first time learned the limits of a military power within limits of a political policy. Prior to Kargil, the Pakistani military was in a habit of making military policy in isolation of political considerations and then asking the political policy to support a military policy. A good example of this flawed logic was examplified in the concept of ``strategic depth``, which would have worked if this policy was more politically motivated than it was military in its overall execution.

In this sense, the military has learned the limits of its policy making powers in an international sense and once a similar limit in the domestic politics is also achieved, constitutitionally, then the military will be checkmated in the domestic politics. Please consider this; international treaties are like a constitutional arrangement, which allows for the continuation of international politics through sharing power globally and once a nation disobeys them or seeks to upsurp power, it is retailated against as in the case of Iraq in 1990-91. Kargil taught Pakistani military the value of international treaties and their sacrosant nature and when it learns a similar lesson in a domestic constitutional sense, then politics in Pakistan will naturally grow as they were originally intended.

Ciao

re: amit # 16

Amit your point is well taken and I agree that agruments will not force the military out of politics. However, that was only a part of my suggestion. The other half of the suggestion was a statement, was that the civilian politicans have to stop cooperating with the military for their own ends and enlongating its rule.

The military might be large, organized and powerful as you have suggested, but you have also over estimated its capacity to manage Pakistan. The military is incapable of ruling or governing Pakistan without the effective complicity of the civil bureaucracy or the tacit appeasement of the Pakistani population. The military rule in Pakistan is only possible if the civilian society cooperates and if the civilian society resists and refuses to condone such a rule, the military will be incapable of governing Pakistan. Sadly, there has never been a popular resistence to the military rule in Pakistan due to a wrong set of perceptional values, which views the military and the politicans through a highly distorted prism.

Ciao

re: malik99 # 21

I am in agreement, with you.

There is a sense of optimism in this article, because I honestly do not see the military returning to its barracks through a show of force. The politicans of Pakistan are too divided and they distrust one another too much to to unite in order to force the military out of politics. The only way to remove the military, in my opinion and please correct me, if I am wrong, is to evolve a process of constitutional safe-guards that eases the military out of politics.

Constitutionalism, which creates a framework of sharing power seems to be one of the more viable options and over a period of time, as Mantolives has suggested, a legal-constitutional agreement that formalizes a power sharing arrangement, is the the safest bet. The idea is not only to remove the military from politics, but also to prevent its return to national politics. The latter half of the previous sentence is more crucial for the overall development of democratic politics than the former half in my opinion. In my view, the only feasible evolution of this process should mirror the Turkish experience, where the role of the Turkish military is being gradually limited through a process of constitutional checks and balances.

I agree with you that the article might seem utopian in its conclusions. However, there is an important reason behind my hypothesis and that is, I am more interested in creating and seeing a process of constitutional politics emerge in Pakistan, whereby political power is shared and is not hijacked periodically either through elections or coup d` etats. I seen enough of Pakistani history being made in my own life time that coupled, with what I have learned from history, it seems that the crux of the political problem in Pakistan has been invaribly the monopolization of power by one group at the expense of another group or groups.

I am sure there will be plenty of disagreements on this article and what it says and I welcome all such disagreements, because I hope, in the end, to better understand a means to evolve a sense of constitutional politics in Pakistan. I might be wrong, but the way out of our problem lies in a constitutional arrangement and not in the politics of opportunity or confrontation.

Ciao

It is pointless to blame the Army alone when the average Abdullah is equally responsible for the mess. I still vividly remember television images of that October night when Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif. There was song and dance, and Pakistanis everywhere were jumping with joy. No doubt Nawaz was corrupt, BUT he was the democratically elected leader of Pakistan. When the common man can show such disrespect for democratic traditions, I don’t think he deserves any better. India has equally or more corrupt politicians, but that hasn’t prevented it from enjoying almost 60 years of uninterrupted democracy (barring the Emergency). The fact is that Pakistanis have no respect for democracy. Democracy is chaotic, and often has some unpalatable aspects to it, like corruption. The Pakistani public equates democracy with corruption and the Army with honesty and discipline. That is where the problem lies. And unless that perception changes, the future of democracy in Pakistan will remain bleak.

The role and the influence of the armed forces in Pakistan have been exhaustively debated. . . . .

and are people here at chowk exhausted from `talking` about it as well?! ;)

This is a letter in the Pakistan newspaper, The News:

Help me

Zulfiqar Gul

I want to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Can someone vacate his set for me? I am waiting.

Swat

missing_in_action_10@hotmail.com

Why do Pakistani newspapers publish such garbage?? I regularly read this crap in The News and The Nation. Both are garbage newspapers, but this is just too much.

boy, modern nation building is a very difficult excercise. recent history seems littered with contradictions for several nation states.

feroz writes : ``Therefore, the argument needs to stress the point that only way, in which the military can protect its institutional interests, is to leave politics before the popular opinion mitigates against its continued presence in, or even existence within, the national politics. ``

feroz, although I am in complete agreement with the basic idea of your essay, that the military should go back to barracks, I am not sure I am clear on your approach you have suggested. What you seem to have suggested requires so much optimism and goodwill that it is a non-starter.

And when you talk about military behaving well due to the threat of ``popular opinion`` going sour, that is almost funny in a way. After all, militaries and dictatorships are not known to care much about popular opinion to begin with. Besides, the public`s hatred for Ayub, Yehya and Zia did not stop people from jumping with joy when Musharraf overthrew the illiterate Nawaz.

For the military`s influence that has seeped so deep into the society at large, i would tend to agree with an interactor on this board, that only a catastrophe or a foreign invasion would eliminate this influence. It is almost as if the society will have to be rebuilt from scratch for this influence to not be there.

Reminds me of the Turkish experience. Despite some vocal hatred for the army, i saw mothers, sisters, fathers and villagers coming out to the bus/train stations, and dancing on the traditional drums while seeing off young men for their 2 year mandatory duty in military.

Once a military has tasted political power, then you can take the military out of politics, but you can`t take politics out of military.