Little Khaki Fables

Torture in Iraq & Pakistan

The anger generated by the graphic description of the plight of Iraqi detainees is not confined to any particular region or religion. The treatment meted to Iraqi prisoners by Americans is being condemned across the globe.

At the same time a brutal truth is that Iraqis were not tortured and humiliated for the first time - certainly not for the last time, either. Actually, one can safely assert that at any given moment much worse abuses are administered to manifold more Muslims, by their own national official machinery. To be fair, by any standard Muslims have endured much worse, more often, and seldom if ever getting any redress. Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular are seemly destined to undergo such humiliation on the hands of their squatting rulers – native and foreigners alike.

So why this huge hue and cry?

The explanation is simple. The forces that invaded Iraq in the name of democracy and were meant to ”liberate” Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein don’t have any margin of error in their code of conduct. Saviours are not expected to commit such heinous crimes. It is very natural that you demand a better set of values from a judge than from felons he/she passes judgements on. It is duplicitous and fatuous to preach from the moral high ground, when you yourself are as bad as anyone else.

Now let’s see the whole episode in a Pakistani background. Whenever one criticizes military in Pakistan, some military apologists start chanting the mantra of incompetence, dishonesty and immorality of the civilians in response. As if two wrongs make a right. They don’t understand that the messiahs must have higher standards than those they dispose of. Enumerating the countless shortcomings of the predecessors alone doesn’t justify self-assumed carte blanche.

When many people like me denounce the military for its intervening role or demand a bit better performance and nobler character from the top brass, it is not due to our ignorance of misdeeds of civilians or some sort of colour-blindness. In Pakistan as in Iraq, it is a pretty reasonable as well as a fully legitimate demand to ask for a better standard out of the self-righteous conquering forces than those they throw out declaring them wanton sinners.

The next difference is: in Iraq everyone right from George W Bush down to the brigadier in-charge of the prison is apologizing, and it is almost certain that if not Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself, some other big heads will definitely roll. In Pakistan it is not even probable that our liberators would ever confess any wrongdoing on their part let alone take miscreants amongst them to task.

Occupation of Iraq vs. conquest of Pakistan

Even a cursory study of the sordid state of affairs in Iraq and Pakistan highlights a number of weird parallels between American occupation of Iraq and Pakistan subjugated by Pakistani military. What I have discerned so far is as follows:

Both imperialistic militaries claim divine monopoly on righteousness while always behaving in a diametrically opposite manner. For both forces, the best mode for inducing true democracy is destruction of institutions and plunder of wealth [of the besieged nation].

Neo-con Christian evangelists run Bush administration; Musharraf regime derives its [dubious] legitimacy through pandering to Muslim fundamentalists of the MMA.

To subsist, American stooges both in Iraq and Pakistan need periodic and public assurances from Powell that the U.S. won’t support change of marionette regimes any time soon. You are patriot, enlightened, moderate if you extend unqualified support to hegemonic designs of these forces; traitor, fundamentalist, extremist and/or unlawful combatant destined to be nabbed dead or alive in case you happen to have the spine to defy their draconian plans.

The standard modus operandi favoured by both armoured messiahs is astonishingly analogous - occupation under the cover of liberation. Though with a couple of minor differences:

1. American liberation operations are [always] carried out beyond American frontiers; Pakistani forces primarily operate within their own borders.
2. In the U.S. it’s politicians who impose war on the nation and kick out generals who dare to dissent. The neo-con mafia of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith et.al. at the Pentagon taking the country to war in Iraq and the firing of US army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki on a slight discord is just one fresh instance. Whereas, in Pakistan, generals initiate war on their own and when the adventure goes awry, fire the duly elected prime minister.

Furthermore, if American military withdraws from Iraq today it would be an unprecedented humiliation for the world’s sole hyperpower and undoubtedly a victory for the freedom fighters of Iraq. If not, Vietnam would gradually look like a benign prologue to ‘The Real Iraq Quagmire’ in coming days. Musharraf doffs his uniform, as promised; he would be a sitting duck for nefarious Pakistani political conspirators. If he refuses, as he probably will, the price would be the loss of even the last few remaining traces of respect and legitimacy. ’ They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Finally comes the most interesting part of the story. Paradoxically, respective occupations bode extremely well for Iraqis as well as Pakistanis. It is a win-win situation for both peoples regardless of the eventual outcome.

What more can Iraqis ask for, if the US ultimately succeeds in transforming Iraq into a model thriving democracy? On the way, [hopefully] “dead-enders” would make the entire pre-emptive enterprise a rather expensive venture for Americans on all accounts -- absolutely no fault in clearing some long overdue debts. Likewise, every passing day, every new transit drama is depriving the military some of its potent manipulating tools by piercing its false image. Therefore, not impossible that Pakistan too may get something resembling democracy out of the current farce.

In case of failure, what do ordinary Iraqis or Pakistanis have to lose? Nothing. It cannot become much worse for them. Don’t worry, Iraq with world’s second largest known oil reserves will not be allowed to plunge in total chaos. Similarly, the international community has got to keep nuclear-armed Pakistan within manageable instability for avoiding Manhattan disappearing in mushroom cloud, if nothing else.

On top of it, in foreseeable future it is almost next to impossible that the US would dare to invade any other sovereign country on any pretext. Yankees would be thankful if they could evict themselves from the mess they are in right now. In the same manner, the complete evaporation of aura Pakistani military once enjoyed along with the naked exposure of its real intentions and deeds will steadily curtail his manoeuvrability if not penchant for messianic operations.

Deals: Civilian and Khaki Versions

Though Musharraf and his cronies have so far consistently failed to come up with any proof of that much-hyped exile deal with Sharif family. Let’s assume for a while that Sharifs did make an accord with Musharraf undertaking to stay out of the country for ten years.

A full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared in its recent judgement in an explicit and unambiguous manner that any contract, voluntary or imposed one, infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen has no legal value. Thereby rendering all such agreements, if they exist, void and null from the constitutional point of view. Coming back to your country of origin and residing over there, subject to the law of the country, is one such incontrovertible fundamental right. The concept of banishment is long antiquated and has no place in 21st century.

For the sake of discussion sake, even then let’s suppose that there is a deal, that’s too legally valid and binding. And Sharifs must be made to honour their commitments. Fair enough.

But, what about the deals our khaki saviours make with the nation every so often and then brazenly violate them - with impunity? A couple of examples out of infinitely many would suffice to epitomize the point. Did Musharraf and his uniformed colleagues not swear a solemn pledge – obligatory by every possible interpretation of the law, valid by any moral standard - with the nation while taking oath as military officers not to involve themselves in politics and protect the Constitution even at the peril of their lives?

Well, some military apologists would now claim that breech of the deal I am pointing to, was [once again] pardoned, validated and legalised by the Supreme Court. Though, deportation of Shahbaz Sharif clearly demonstrates the value, worth, sanctity and respect of the apex judicial venue sanctifying such transgressions, to an extent, a valid legal argument. We move on, fast forward to more contemporary deals.

Musharraf committed on prime-time TV that by the end of this year he would doff his uniform. A promise that was then solemnized by an amendment into the Constitution making it as legal as anything could ever become. Now Musharraf is not sure if “circumstances” allow him to do so. Where should we now deport Musharraf for dishonouring his promise?

Subsequently, my simple questions are: Do all legal restrictions and demands of propriety are applicable only on civilians? Is the military is beyond every legal, ethical, moral and civilized norm? Don’t generals need to fulfil any of their promises - ever? After such a blatant disgrace of the Supreme Court is there any door left for ordinary citizens without heavy guns on their disposal seeking justice to knock on?

Can Musharraf, who like his uniformed predecessors doesn’t get tired blaming civilians, show any civilian institution which has not been thoroughly crushed under military boots today, from the hapless Parliament to the superior judiciary? Would he like to remind us any decision by the Supreme Court that has ever disobeyed as shamelessly as this one before by any civilian?

If this is the promised nation building, good governance and sustainable democracy, thanks a lot. I don’t want it. May Allah Almighty save us from these miracles (Amen).