Military’s response to scathing criticism by Mohammad Jamil

In entrenched or firmly established democracies, parliamentarians and media have the right to criticize the security lapses or intelligence failures of the security institutions but the objective is only to remove the loopholes and weaknesses and not disgracing the military.

After 9/11 in America and 26/11 in India, commissions were formed that suggested measures to make security system foolproof. At least in America terrorists have not been successful to attack as they did on 9/11. However in those societies, elected representatives do not react angrily and reflexively to such incidents. In Pakistan, detractors of our military are not willing to listen to any argument, and continue to pass derogatory remarks against the military. They have to understand that if they can criticize the military, the later has the right to respond to their conjectures. After 139th Corps Commanders’ conference, a press release has been issued by the ISPR which stated that the commanders discussed at length various issues including broad contours of ‘renegotiated terms of engagement’ with the Americans.

The conference also took exception to the slandering by some politicians and media men stating: “The participants noted with regret that despite briefing the joint session of the Parliament and deferring the ultimate findings to the commission appointed by the government, some quarters, because of their perceptual biases, were trying to deliberately run down the Armed Forces; and the Army in particular.” It cautioned that the campaign against the army would be seen as an attempt to drive a wedge between the military, organs of the state and the nation. The military had the right to debunk charges against it, and they have used it. After America’s unilateral action in Abbottabad on 2nd May and terrorists’ attack on Mehran Naval base on 22nd May, military and the ISI are being subjected to scathing criticism by some anchorpersons and analysts who are blowing out of proportions the intelligence failure and security lapse in connection with the above incidents. After the ISPR’s press release, military is once again drawing flak on what the detractors say an attempt to interfere in the affairs of the government.

Some of them have been divisive and only on the basis of two incidents they say that armed forces’ performance has been disappointment despite spending 70 per cent of the budget on armed forces, which is travesty of the truth. In the budget for 2011-12 amounting to Rs. 2762 billion, a sum of Rs.495 has been earmarked for defence, which is less than 20 per cent of the total budget, and 25% of the tax revenue. America and its proponents and advocates have also been propagating that $13 billion was given to Pakistan military during the last ten years. Though belatedly, the military has now belied those claims in ISPR press release stating that American claim of giving $13 billion was not correct, as it got only $1.4 billion out of $8 billion remitted to Pakistan, and the rest was used for budgetary support. The military used its right by responding to the criticism by certain quarters. Those who is involved in the tirade against the military and also criticizing the contents of the ISPR’s press release, PML-N Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif tops the list.

Addressing a reference meeting held on Friday for journalist Salim Shezad who was murdered in mysterious circumstances, Mian Nawaz said: “There is no sacred cow in the country and none should try to become a sacred cow, and I won’t allow such an attempt.” While admitting that he committed mistakes in the past, he said he had learned from those mistakes and others should follow suit. It appears that he has not learned any lesson, and he is living in late 1990s when his party had two-third majority in the National Assembly. The position today is that the PML-N does not have the numbers to rule even Punjab. Because of his arrogance, he and his party stand isolated. His tirade against the military could either be out of sheer desperation because of his isolation, or he is trying to play this card to attract people of Punjab who are known for their love for rhetoric and loud talk. Anybody with keen interest in politics would understand that the people were not excited on his 10 points’ agenda, proposals or other proposals and ideas he tossed around. The fact remains that people do not pay any attention to his statements, and do not throng his public meetings as in the past, despite the fact that the people are not amused or impressed by the shenanigans of the PPP-led government also.

Anyhow, the debate is raging over press statement by ISPR issued after the 139th Corps Commanders’ conference, which has drawn sharp reaction from certain segments obsessively disposed towards the military. Their reaction may have its origin in pedantic idealism or patent self-righteousness, however the reason for Mian Nawaz Sharif’s antipathy or hostility has seemingly to do with three Martial Laws in the past, especially when his government was overthrown by General Pervez Musharraf. Nevertheless, if military power usurpations are hard facts, the political eminences’ role in tempting these interventions and even becoming part of them are inexorable realities too. Leave alone the irrefutable fact that some of our biggest political reputes had had their genesis in the garrison hatcheries. Even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto made his political debut under Sikandar Mirza’s autocracy and got the political grooming in military ruler Ayub Khan’s stables. Indeed, the Jamaat-e-Islami, Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan’s Pakistan Democratic Party and the Pakistan Muslim League were very much part of dictator Zia-ul-Haq’s cabinet that formally approved the hanging of Z.A. Bhutto.

Of course, Mian Nawaz Sharif was one of Zia’s staunchest loyalists and a creature of a Punjab satrap-general, who at the behest of Zia also dealt a shattering blow to a united Muslim League headed by Mohammad Khan Junejo by sacking him from the office of prime minister. The party got split, with a splinter group under the name and style of PML-N acted as Zia’s front organisation. Another faction of the PML led by the Chaudhrys of Gujarat fell in the lap of military ruler Pervez Musharraf. Admitted that the military must be subject to civilian rule, but the civilian leadership must have the caliber, wisdom and statesmanlike qualities to assert their power. As regards respect, both civil and military leaders should respect each other; it can’t be one-way traffic. However, it must be remembered that militaries the world over do have significant influence in the decision-making by the government in the realm of security and even America’s foreign policy. In neighbouring India too, particularly when it comes to its Pakistan policy. In the US, Britain and even in India - the largest democracy in the world - political leaderships take decisions on the basis of the information provided by intelligence agencies and advice of military leadership.

Mike Mullen, other US and NATO Generals have been writing articles and holding press conferences to warn about flawed decisions of the government. As regards surge and then draw down from Afghanistan, President Barack Obama was not in favour of putting more boots in Afghanistan, but military prevailed upon him to send at least 30000 additional troops. On exit strategy, President Obama wants a significant draw down whereas Generals say the figure would not be more than 5000 troops. It is matter of record that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had in principle agreed to withdraw from Siachen but the army convinced him that India would lose strategic advantage and Indian forces would be vulnerable if India withdrew from Siachen. A blistering assessment of British policy in Iraq from the country’s top soldier General Sir Richard Dannatt had left Tony Blair reeling in 2006 when he said that troops should come home within two years - contradicting the then Prime Minister’s policy that the military will stay “as long as it takes”. Mian Nawaz Sharif should understand the ground realities and abandon the self-destruct course.

Comments