Open Letter to General Musharraf

Spring 2000

Dear General Musharraf,

In a recent editorial, the Economist indicates that you did not attend a course for military officers about civilian affairs. It suggests that had you attended the course, your achievements in the first four months would have been more tangible. Surely they must jest. It is highly unlikely that a single course can prepare anyone-- least of all an officer trained to command soldiers in battle-- to rule a country. Politics is the art of the possible, and involves an attitude of give and take. This is rightly at odds with the military way of thinking and making decisions.

The military has directly ruled Pakistan for half of its existence since independence from Britain. Superficially, one might argue that Pakistan's economic performance has been higher during periods of military rule than during periods of civilian rule. But that overlooks the fact that recurring bouts of military rule have crippled civilian institutions, and ravaged the combat effectiveness of the military. In your maiden speech to the nation you stated with great conviction that "the armed forces have never let you down." Yet it was the armed forces of Pakistan that surrendered half of the country to India in 1971, during a time when Pakistan was under military rule. As noted British historian John Keegan has observed, martial law is the canker of armies. Last year's adventures in Kargil that brought nuclear-armed Pakistan and India to the brink of full scale war, and resulted in a humiliating withdrawal for Pakistan, could not have been carried out without the military's consent.

Even though you have not declared martial law, as Chief Executive you are accountable to no one except perhaps to your corps commanders and other flag officers. Your cabinet is composed of military officers, bureaucrats, and technocrats. Regardless of their integrity and merits, none of them is accountable to the people of Pakistan.

The national security council made up of civilian and military individuals exists at your pleasure. The justices of the Supreme Court have had to pledge their loyalty to you, and those who did not wish to make such a pledge had to resign. Even the president of Pakistan reports to you. Where are the checks and balances in such a set up?

One of the ostensible reasons why you are continuing to rule without a people's mandate is that you want to deal with Pakistan's lingering malaise of corruption. However, with all the power that you now hold, how can we rest assured that Lord Acton's adage--power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely--does not apply to you?

Sir, what is most disturbing is that you have set no time limits for returning power back to the people. Even the dictators of ancient Rome were elected by the senate for a fixed term, usually to cope with a dire emergency. Anyone familiar with Pakistan's history knows that no one in your position has left the post voluntarily.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan was forced out of power after extensive rioting and protest over his attempts to celebrate a "decade of development" in the face of an economic downturn. As he turned over power to General Yahya Khan, he stated that he "did not want to preside over the destruction of Pakistan." That unfortunate task was left to General Yahya who was forced out of power when he presided over the ignominious loss of East Pakistan to India. He did not leave readily, and air force jets had to buzz the presidential palace before he yielded power. Finally, General Zia's eleven-year rule showed no sign of letting up when his plane went down in clear skies over the Punjab one August afternoon.

Over the past two decades, the myriad Latin American countries that were subject to Pakistan-like bouts of military rule have moved to democracy. Pakistan's Islamic neighbor to the West, Iran, has established a tradition of holding open and free elections.

In Pakistan, poverty and illiteracy are rampant, and the economy is in a shambles. Military spending continues to consume a very large portion of the federal budget, without any obvious contribution to national security. In fact, many have argued that excessive military spending is strategically myopic, and the cause of many of Pakistan's economic problems. Why does Pakistan that lost half of its population to India in 1971 now need an army that is twice as large?

In your administration, general officers are now responsible for a wide array of civilian functions ranging from management of the electric utility to husbanding agricultural resources to running the board for cricket. Yet you state that Pakistan stands ready to meet any threat from India. Something is missing here. If a large number of military officers can attend to civilian duties without compromising national security, then the military must have been overstaffed to begin with.

The poet-philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal is widely credited with conceiving the need for a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India. Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah brought this dream to fruition against almost impossible odds. It is inconceivable that either of these founding fathers envisaged a Pakistan that would not give its citizens the right of self-rule. Many Islamic scholars have stated that military rule is incompatible with Islamic law. Neither is it consistent with the constitution of the republic.

One wonders how Pakistan can ask for the right of self-determination for Kashmiris, when it does not itself give its own citizens the right to rule themselves.

Yours truly,

Ahmad Faruqui, Ph. D.

Economist

Danville, California

United States of America