After a consensus was reached in the Parliament that military operation should be conducted against terrorists and militants, Pakistan’s armed forces dismantled the infrastructure of the militants in Swat and Malakand, and now they are eliminating the remnants of local and foreign militants aided and abetted by Pakistan’s enemies.
It is due to the support of the parliamentarians, people from all strata of society and the will, conviction and determination of the armed forces that militants are on the run. But there are one or two political and religious parties that are opposing the military operation against terrorists and demand that negotiations should be held with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s leadership, knowing full well that they are not likely to wean away from acts of savagery. It is therefore imperative that the Parliament should re-asseverate its support to the armed forces and once again develop national consensus to take the operation to the logical conclusion. This will also give terrorists loud and clear message that the entire nation is behind the Armed Forces. Army indeed deserves accolades for the success, achievements and sacrifices made by it to restore peace in the country. But there are some pseudo-intellectuals, fifth-columnists in the media and a few self-styled leaders who are inclined to criticize the army. During TV talk shows and in the articles published in the print media, these elements try to prove that army still interferes in the matters of the state. It has to be mentioned that armed forces are the real protectors of the frontiers and it is their responsibility to ensure security, integrity and sovereignty of the country. In peace times, they are the ones who lay down their lives fighting terrorists and militants so that citizens could live without trepidation and fear. During war, they are prepared to give supreme sacrifice for safeguarding the frontiers of the country. And they are the ones who help save the victims of natural calamities like earthquake and floods. Secondly, every country, be it India, England or the US, military commanders and intelligence outfits have an important role, and it is on their recommendations that strategies are chalked out. In the US, Britain and even in India, political leaderships take decisions on the basis of the information provided by intelligence agencies and on the advice from the military leadership. For example, Rajiv Gandhi and late general Zia-ul-Haq had mutually agreed to withdraw from Siachin. After Zai-ul-Haq died in c-130 plane crash, agreement on Siachin was killed with it. Late Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi had in principle agreed to withdraw from Siachen but the Indian army prevailed upon the prime minister and convinced him that India would lose strategic advantage and Indian forces would be vulnerable if India withdrew from Siachen. US and NATO’s Admirals and Generals often address press conferences, issue statements and sometimes criticize their governments like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen did only a few months ago. In his essay, he was critical of government efforts regarding “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. One should dispassionately examine civil-military relationship in Pakistan and also understand how it works in other countries. There are no two opinions that every organ of the state should work within parameters provided in the Constitution, as overstepping into others’ domains in the name of activism be it judiciary, military and political leadership could result in confrontation between the organs of the state. Anyhow, successful civil-military relationship hinges on the mutual trust and respect for each other. According to the 1973 Constitution, appointments of chiefs of army, navy and air force were made by the chief executive – prime minister of Pakistan. Over the years, the Constitution has been changed beyond recognition by the military as well as civilian dictators, and at the present it is president’s prerogative to make these appointments. According to Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed by late Benazir Bhutto Chairperson of the PPP and Mian Nawaz Sharif PML-N Quaid, it was agreed that the Constitution will be amended to bring the country back to the system of parliamentary democracy. Last year, an effort was made to bring the ISI under the interior ministry on the pretext of bringing it under civilian control. The fact of the matter is that Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee is under the prime minister, which means that armed forces are under the civilian control. According to defence analysts, the MI’s mission is to collect information at tactical level in the enemy’s territory; whereas the ISI is said to be eyes and ears of the armed forces, and its job is to collect information at strategic level. And it caters to the three armed forces. In other words, these agencies are an integral part of the armed forces, and any effort to dissociate them from the military’s chain of command is tantamount to weaken the armed forces. The present government had issued a notification placing the ISI under the interior ministry, and was later withdrawn on resistance from the military leadership. It was a flawed decision because how can you put the highly professional personnel dealing with sensitive information under the people who are not professionally competent to do the job. It was true that in Pakistan some generals had in the past promulgated Martial Laws, but political leaders were to blame in equal measure as they were the ones who formed alliances and made one-point agendas to get rid of the elected governments. But it would be illogical to presume that the present COAS would interfere in civil matters or will overthrow the elected government, especially when he had withdrawn all military personnel from the civil departments. His conduct during and after the February 2008 election instructing the army personnel not to take sides was reflective of his desire to keep army aloof from civil matters. Those who want to belittle the importance of the armed forces and sideline them often say that Pakistan was created through the democratic struggle of the Muslims of the sub-continent under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam, which is true. But at the same time one should remember statements of Nehru and Vallabhbhi Patel that Pakistan would not survive for more than a few months. And they had not given Pakistan’s share of funds and arms and equipment. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it was the armed forces that saved the country and the nation owes to them for having retrieved Azad Kashmir. It is in this backdrop that army had assumed greater significance. Secondly, after the demise of Quaid-i-Azam and martyrdom of Liaquat Ali Khan, civil bureaucracy trained by the British Raj, started intrigues to sideline the politicians who appeared to be incompetent to run the affairs of the state. Anyhow, the political leadership has realized the objective realities and acknowledged the sacrifices by the armed forces’ personnel. Addressing at a newly-built campus of CMH Lahore Medical College, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said: “Besides rendering sacrifices to protect the territorial and ideological frontiers of our motherland both from internal and external threats, army is playing an active role in national building process especially in health and education fields”. President Asif Ali Zardari is also now on the right track, and started appreciating the role of the armed forces.
It is due to the support of the parliamentarians, people from all strata of society and the will, conviction and determination of the armed forces that militants are on the run. But there are one or two political and religious parties that are opposing the military operation against terrorists and demand that negotiations should be held with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s leadership, knowing full well that they are not likely to wean away from acts of savagery. It is therefore imperative that the Parliament should re-asseverate its support to the armed forces and once again develop national consensus to take the operation to the logical conclusion. This will also give terrorists loud and clear message that the entire nation is behind the Armed Forces. Army indeed deserves accolades for the success, achievements and sacrifices made by it to restore peace in the country. But there are some pseudo-intellectuals, fifth-columnists in the media and a few self-styled leaders who are inclined to criticize the army. During TV talk shows and in the articles published in the print media, these elements try to prove that army still interferes in the matters of the state. It has to be mentioned that armed forces are the real protectors of the frontiers and it is their responsibility to ensure security, integrity and sovereignty of the country. In peace times, they are the ones who lay down their lives fighting terrorists and militants so that citizens could live without trepidation and fear. During war, they are prepared to give supreme sacrifice for safeguarding the frontiers of the country. And they are the ones who help save the victims of natural calamities like earthquake and floods. Secondly, every country, be it India, England or the US, military commanders and intelligence outfits have an important role, and it is on their recommendations that strategies are chalked out. In the US, Britain and even in India, political leaderships take decisions on the basis of the information provided by intelligence agencies and on the advice from the military leadership. For example, Rajiv Gandhi and late general Zia-ul-Haq had mutually agreed to withdraw from Siachin. After Zai-ul-Haq died in c-130 plane crash, agreement on Siachin was killed with it. Late Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi had in principle agreed to withdraw from Siachen but the Indian army prevailed upon the prime minister and convinced him that India would lose strategic advantage and Indian forces would be vulnerable if India withdrew from Siachen. US and NATO’s Admirals and Generals often address press conferences, issue statements and sometimes criticize their governments like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen did only a few months ago. In his essay, he was critical of government efforts regarding “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. One should dispassionately examine civil-military relationship in Pakistan and also understand how it works in other countries. There are no two opinions that every organ of the state should work within parameters provided in the Constitution, as overstepping into others’ domains in the name of activism be it judiciary, military and political leadership could result in confrontation between the organs of the state. Anyhow, successful civil-military relationship hinges on the mutual trust and respect for each other. According to the 1973 Constitution, appointments of chiefs of army, navy and air force were made by the chief executive – prime minister of Pakistan. Over the years, the Constitution has been changed beyond recognition by the military as well as civilian dictators, and at the present it is president’s prerogative to make these appointments. According to Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed by late Benazir Bhutto Chairperson of the PPP and Mian Nawaz Sharif PML-N Quaid, it was agreed that the Constitution will be amended to bring the country back to the system of parliamentary democracy. Last year, an effort was made to bring the ISI under the interior ministry on the pretext of bringing it under civilian control. The fact of the matter is that Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee is under the prime minister, which means that armed forces are under the civilian control. According to defence analysts, the MI’s mission is to collect information at tactical level in the enemy’s territory; whereas the ISI is said to be eyes and ears of the armed forces, and its job is to collect information at strategic level. And it caters to the three armed forces. In other words, these agencies are an integral part of the armed forces, and any effort to dissociate them from the military’s chain of command is tantamount to weaken the armed forces. The present government had issued a notification placing the ISI under the interior ministry, and was later withdrawn on resistance from the military leadership. It was a flawed decision because how can you put the highly professional personnel dealing with sensitive information under the people who are not professionally competent to do the job. It was true that in Pakistan some generals had in the past promulgated Martial Laws, but political leaders were to blame in equal measure as they were the ones who formed alliances and made one-point agendas to get rid of the elected governments. But it would be illogical to presume that the present COAS would interfere in civil matters or will overthrow the elected government, especially when he had withdrawn all military personnel from the civil departments. His conduct during and after the February 2008 election instructing the army personnel not to take sides was reflective of his desire to keep army aloof from civil matters. Those who want to belittle the importance of the armed forces and sideline them often say that Pakistan was created through the democratic struggle of the Muslims of the sub-continent under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam, which is true. But at the same time one should remember statements of Nehru and Vallabhbhi Patel that Pakistan would not survive for more than a few months. And they had not given Pakistan’s share of funds and arms and equipment. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it was the armed forces that saved the country and the nation owes to them for having retrieved Azad Kashmir. It is in this backdrop that army had assumed greater significance. Secondly, after the demise of Quaid-i-Azam and martyrdom of Liaquat Ali Khan, civil bureaucracy trained by the British Raj, started intrigues to sideline the politicians who appeared to be incompetent to run the affairs of the state. Anyhow, the political leadership has realized the objective realities and acknowledged the sacrifices by the armed forces’ personnel. Addressing at a newly-built campus of CMH Lahore Medical College, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said: “Besides rendering sacrifices to protect the territorial and ideological frontiers of our motherland both from internal and external threats, army is playing an active role in national building process especially in health and education fields”. President Asif Ali Zardari is also now on the right track, and started appreciating the role of the armed forces.
Comments
Post a Comment