Babar Sattar December 6, 2003

Tags: military , pakistan

href="/tag/military">military finds it exceedingly difficult to retain direct control of the polity because of international impediments, domestic political considerations and professional concerns. Disengagement from politics poses a bigger challenge, and the military ends up being widely seen as a part of the problem rather than the solution to the country’s problems.

General Musharaf has been trying to prove conventional wisdom wrong for four years now. While the US war on terror has offered him some respite, domestic political intricacies and professional concerns of the military have now begun to haunt him seriously. His regime’s handling of the Javed Hashmi case proves just that.

Javed Hashmi, President of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) acting President of PML-N, and a sitting member of the Parliament, was arrested on October 29 on charges of sedition and abetting mutiny. Mr. Hashmi had exhibited rash courage in reading-out and distributing an unsigned letter, that he received anonymously, drafted on a GHQ letterhead at a press conference in Islamabad.

The letter sought the creation of a national inquiry commission to investigate the role of generals in the Kargil Operation, the military coup of 1999 and the Afghan war. All the lamentable persecutory practices of arbitrary arrest, harassment and denial of the right to be dealt in accordance with law and to consult an attorney were followed while arresting and detaining Hashmi.

The episode was not necessary or desirable, but did not transpire without reason. The message being sent out by the Musharaf regime is that the political opponents can continue to haggle over the General’s policies or his insistence on retaining the presidency and the office of the chief of army staff simultaneously. But dissenters who question the role of General Musharaf as head of the military, or put out a message that is likely to resonate with disgruntled elements within his fundamental power base - the Army - should only do so at their own peril.

In demonstrating his own toughness, General Musharaf has trampled over the law, violated the dignity and privilege of the Parliament and breached the rights of a citizen. But none of this is unprecedented. Military as well as civilian governments in Pakistan have routinely used the issue of national security and charges of treason, sedition and mutiny to rub the noses of political opponents in dirt. The charges of treason or sedition never stick, but while the legal processes grind along, the loutishness of the law enforcement agencies is sufficient to intimidate the critics of the regime in question.

The Javed Hashmi case and other similar cases highlight the institutional weakness of our political system on the one hand, and the indifference of masses in face of such injustice on the other. Public indifference is the easiest to explain. It springs from an overwhelming sense of helplessness as individual citizens feel violated everyday, but try and reconcile with the abuse of state authority as a fact of life in Pakistan. Consequently they do not feel outraged even when more prominent members of the society are caught up at the wrong end of the system.

The failure of our institutional checks and balances is more problematic. The willingness of the legislature and the judiciary to cede the right to exercise authority even within their prescribed constitutional jurisdiction is shocking. For example in the Javed Hashmi matter the Speaker of the National Assembly, Chaudhary Amir Hussain, never seemed to have realized that as custodian of the lower house of the Parliament he is under duty to protect the privilege of the Assembly and its members.

Parliamentary privileges are meant to protect parliamentarians not because they are VIPs, but in order to make the sanctity of Parliament inviolable. And by not standing up for the legal rights of a member, the Speaker undermined not only his own authority but also that of the Parliament.

The performance of the judiciary with regard to protecting citizens against the excesses of the military and the executive has been even more dismal. National security and all matters falling within its realm seem to be a self-proclaimed no-go area for judges. Even in cases of blatant procedural injustice, the judicature opts to give the state the benefit of the doubt or simply drag its feet to a stage where the persecutory objectives of the state stand served. The malfunctioning justice system reinforces the feeling among masses that constitutional rights hardly matter, particularly so in exigent times when they are most needed. And this further emboldens the executive as its excesses go unchecked.

The legislature and the judiciary are clearly to blame for failure of individual members to show the moral courage to do the right thing. But the balance of power between civilian and military institutions in Pakistan rests heavily in favor of the latter. And the ability of the military to penalize those who threaten to uphold their principles in defiance of the military view of things also explains, without justifying, the pusillanimous responses of civilian members of state institutions in face of military egregiousness

The Javed Hashmi case is a simple example of General Musharaf’s refusal to take criticism over issues that he believes fall within the exclusive domain of the military. But what was so objectionable about Hashmi’s press conference that the General decided to "sort him out" dictator-style?

Is it not a fact that Kargil was a military and foreign policy disaster that cost Pakistan its credibility in the eyes of international community as well as the lives of 100s of soldiers? Is it not true that a military coup is not constitutionally permitted and that no constitution of Pakistan has envisaged or legitimized a role for the military in politics? Why then did General Musharaf get so touchy about Hashmi’s remarks when he has remained oblivious to legitimate criticism in the past?

The problem with Hashmi’s disclosure was its insinuation that the military had its own legion of detractors of General Musharaf. And any such suggestion is very disturbing for the General, as losing grip over the military is his worse nightmare. This raises two additional questions. A, Was Hashmi within his right to disclose the contents of an anonymous letter that he supposedly received from a disgruntled military officer? And B, it is not possible that a section of the military admonishes the choices General Musharaf has made since 1999, including that of assuming direct control of the country, its governance and political processes?

Javed Hashmi did nothing wrong by distributing a letter that calls for holding the Generals answerable for their actions and accountable for the consequences of such actions. The constitution says that the military is not to be brought into disrepute, but it also says that the federal government shall have control over the military, and that the military is never to meddle in politics.

First of all, there is no rational basis for a law that prohibits criticism of the military. It is an institution of the state, like many others, and the country and its citizens should have every right to hold it accountable. And second, if the people of Pakistan are embittered and critical of their military today, it is because the Musharaf regime opted to indulge in power mischief and bears responsibility for making the military a target of public criticism.

General Musharaf cannot shrug responsibility for the consequences of his actions. He should not try to charge and punish political opponents for creating dissent within the military, just because sections of the military agree with the opposition’s criticism of the Musharaf regime. Afterall military men and women are also citizens of Pakistan and can be critical of the General in his role as the President of their country. It is not without reason that the military is prohibited from indulging in politics all over the democratic world. Such a role threatens to hurt the political process, but is even more detrimental for the military as an institution.

The military’s direct involvement in politics adversely affects its sense of professionalism. Indeed, the military’s politicization and continuous interaction with civilians can create disaffection within its ranks and compromise its security duties by undermining the core attributes of a soldier: discipline, espirit de corps, and the like. This is a lesson that Pakistan’s military should have learned from its earlier martial law experiences.

Pakistan’s military is very conscious of public opinion and makes special efforts to project itself as an apolitical institution - an instrument of national integration. But sustained engagement with political processes inevitably makes the military a target of public criticism and blemishes the image it guards so fiercely. Overt involvement in politics brings the integrity of the military high command into question, which in turn depresses the morale of the troops.

Military involvement in politics compromises the professionalism and image of the armed forces and civil liberties of the society, especially free speech. But shooting the messenger will not make substantive political problems faced by the Musharaf regime go away. Persecuting Javed Hashmi for his boldness will not help. President Harry Truman when once bitterly criticized by the US Congress and the press said, "if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen." General Musharaf should take heed.