Sunny
High: 26°C
Low: 15°C
Alerts
 
< >

Fire brigade or the triple-one!

Published: September 3, 2010

The writer served as director-general of the ISI from 1990-92 asad.durrani@tribune.com.pk

Mao’s famous dictum, political power flows through the barrel of a gun, has lost overtime much of its gloss in domestic politics — even in Turkey, despite its constitutional sanctions. Pakistan however is a unique place, where for all the right or wrong reasons – historical, strategic, societal, or geopolitical – the army, even when confined to barracks, remains the ultimate arbiter in politics. Paradoxically, it is when the country is under civilian rule that the people and at times even the presidents, prime-ministers and chief justices, call upon the military to broker power. No wonder that the wiser of the army chiefs avoid assuming direct control.

One day, one of them not only wise but apolitical to the core, looked rather worried. “The only way I can keep the army out is by pleading with the government not to take the country over the brink”; he loudly thought. His pleadings were too loud for the prime minister’s otherwise deaf ears, but he was certainly thinking on the right lines.

When commanding a brigade, I was once ordered to move troops to avert a sectarian clash. My initial reaction was that we were handed over the problem too early — before the civil administration had done its first line duties. It did not take us long to restore order which reinforced my misgivings. In due course, I came to the conclusion that the civilian timings were perfect. Any delay would have only exacerbated the conflict. More importantly, the army succeeded not because of our man-or-firepower but because of its standing amongst the people.

‘Call-in the fire brigade early otherwise the other one, the 111, might come to stay’, became for many of us the mantra to keep the military out of politics. (It predates another doctrine that was premised on the notion that the army was best kept out if it was already in.) Some of us from the pre-Pervez Musharraf era were therefore not too surprised when Altaf Hussain called upon the “patriotic generals” to come extinguish the fire before it went wild. One is a bit astonished though at the furore it has unleashed. Of course, the ones with vested interest in the status quo should be crying murder. Those who in principle oppose army’ dabbling in politics have indeed better grounds. I do, however, have a problem with the “save the system” brigade.

‘An uninterrupted democratic process will in due course cleanse itself’, is a myth that has run its course. Maybe it could, provided there were no structural flaws. Otherwise, it must get further skewed. When every election instead of filtering out the morass throws up a bit more and with every passing moment the system wobbles like never before, it was time this theory of evolution got another look — or else the props under our leaning tower would no longer withstand quakes and tsunamis.

In any case, if the idea was to keep the army out, the remedy is simple: mobilise the civil society against a takeover and the triple one would be held back. It is of course easier to activate the streets and have the fire alarm ringing. Altaf Hussain can do both and what he says therefore matters. What can you do, ladies and gentlemen of the sound and fury brigade?

The late president, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who had treaded the corridors of power for over half a century, used to say: “Don’t waste time advising the army or second-guessing its actions; these chaps don’t like either”. Some loud thinking was all the same in order. Even if the GHQ did respond to the clarion call, we still would not know what this time around would follow the triple one: a sanitary brigade to cleanse the system, or the engineers to demolish it.

Published in The Express Tribune September 3rd, 2010.

Reader Comments (23)

  • Sep 3, 2010 - 2:21AM

    Do share who the wise one was : One day, one of them not only wise but apolitical to the core, looked rather worried. Quite convenient that someone said something that fits nicely into your autobiographical analysis of the current reality that we live in. Who are these “some of us from the pre-Musharaf era”, you are making it sound as if you are offering insight into a fraternity. If you are going to write in public then please be open, this talk show analysis of hinting at something but then withholding details is ridiculous. And please stop acting as if the military is beyond or above the government, the government constitutionally and principally is an extension of and part of the government. Stop making it sound that every time the military does something for the benefit of the same citizens who foot the bill for the salaries and privileges of serviceman, they are being done a favour.Recommend

  • Talha
    Sep 3, 2010 - 2:25AM

    I too am pro military but I think that it is time to let a democratic system run for while and see it mature into something that is of satisfaction to us.

    General Ayub’s and General Musharraf’s time were good for Pakistan in retrospect but on the other hand General Zia’s rule wrecked the country and we are suffering today because of it.

    Many of the problems we face today have occurred not because of the democratic rule in our country but because of military rule. There are many such that I can point out but readers would know as to what I am referring to.

    Let the Armed forces concentrate on what they are supposed to but they should keep an eye on governance until its fit to govern the country.

    It might take a while but I am sure that the system would improve.Recommend

  • Sep 3, 2010 - 4:04AM

    Both Mao’s China and Ata Turk’s Turkey have been transforming themselves to the new realities of democracy flourishing around. Have you heard of Winston Churchill? Do you know what he said about democracy?
    You wrote: “Pakistan however is a unique place, where for all the right or wrong reasons – historical, strategic, societal, or geopolitical – the army, even when confined to barracks, remains the ultimate arbiter in politics”. That is true but the reasons you subsequently wrote belies your understanding of history. The military is called upon to broker power because the military meddles in the electoral affairs. The military rigs the elections to bring politicians of its choice and then expect from them to run the country – according to the military’s choice. In that situation, no politician who is ruling the rostrum gets ready to own the system and they start looking towards the military to seek support. By so doing politicians secure their next electoral win. What do you think what those guy named Ijaz ul Haq and Haroon Akhtar are doing around? Tell me what is Dollarization of politicians?

    By hurling curse on the Musharraf era discreetly, you cannot win the popular vote for your article. Was the IJI a natural democratic product? Only when the true representative comes to the Parliament, the political system will be owned. Have you heard how Altaf Hussain is being condemned for uttering the statement you referred to, despite the fact that his party, the MQM, is sharing power in Sindh? Did anyone condemn any such politician uttering such words before when you used to command a brigade? The answer is no. Altaf is criticized because now the political system is being owned both by politicians and people alike. The reason of which is in 2008 the army had to stay neutral – to attenuate the anti-Musharraf wrath.

    I think you have insulted democracy and democracy-loving people of Pakistan by writing: ‘An uninterrupted democratic process will in due course cleanse itself, is a myth’. Why don’t you believe in democracy? When has the military allowed the democratic process to get completed to conclude what you called a myth? Have you ever heard Sheikh Rashid what he says? Do you know how much faith Sheih Rashid used to have in the abilities of Corps Commander, Rawalpindi, to make Sheikh’s win possible? I assure you that the uninterrupted democratic process can cleanse itself in due course if the elections are not military-sponsored. Consider, the first casualty of the representative democracy is Sheikh Rashid. Don’t forget to console him.

    Now the parting shot: were the military not made possible the win of Imran Khan in the general elections of 2002, he would not have backed the selected part of Altaf’s statement regarding ‘patriot generals’ and ‘corrupt politicians’. Do you agree?Recommend

  • Waqas Al-Shafi
    Sep 3, 2010 - 6:54AM

    Well Talha, your notion or firm belief that army has always gorverned pakistan better then any democratic party is whether true or not is a separate issue. My question to you is that when has the democracy been given the chance to improve? Give Pakistan 3-4 Elections and I am dead sure, our nation will be clear on who to elect next time and this system would automatically filter out the theifs and robbers in our politics.Recommend

  • Sep 3, 2010 - 8:02AM

    “This guy (Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani) should be behind the bars but he has become an analyst,” this is what a senior journalist had said on a channel…Recommend

  • Sharjeel Jawaid
    Sep 3, 2010 - 9:33AM

    I am convinced that Army would never have stepped in Pakistani politics, had the Civilian dispensation was strong and principle centered. Not only that the generals were ambitious, the politicians were equally eager to seek their support against their adversaries.

    Every military takeover in Pakistan has been initially welcomed by the masses and a significant section of the political leadership. It is also on record that initial period of military rule in Pakistan has been much better than their civilian counterparts overall.

    Accountability is a corner stone of democracy which our politicians have conveniently chosen to forget. Each such regime has taken the license to rule according to their will and suiting their vested interest. In Pakistan, the masses have yet to see the positives of democracy, since it has never been practiced in its true letter and spirit.

    We should not be surprised if we have been hearing intermitent SOS Calls to patriotic generals throughout our history!Recommend

  • syma
    Sep 3, 2010 - 9:39AM

    I don’t know why Tribune publishes such ridiculous views. Calling the “uninterrupted democratic process” a myth, the retired general supports martial law…may be the old vulture will get a new job when the army chief conquers Islamabad. How selfish and idiotic….first “invisible soldiers of Islam” and now this….If this is the mental level of ISI chiefs, then its no wonder that our country is flooded with terrorism.Recommend

  • faraz
    Sep 3, 2010 - 10:05AM

    Exactly which uninterrupted democratic process are you talking about? Has the army allowed any government to complete its turn?Recommend

  • parvez
    Sep 3, 2010 - 10:58AM

    You are correct when you say that Pakistan is a unique place. The armed forces have built a unique position for themselves in this place but it has not played a responsible role over the years befitting that unique position.
    If the credibility of our so called elected leaders is next to zero and of the armed forces is not much better especially after Musharraf’s eight years when he had a chance to do good and squandered it.
    This time around individually neither the fire brigade nor triple one will work.
    A unique solution will have to be cobbled together which would have to simple, strict and
    no nonsense efficient, if we are to progress.Recommend

  • Sep 3, 2010 - 11:34AM

    asad:

    as i wrote in response to pervez’s column earlier, altaf’s call is a trial balloon for the bangladesh model

    army would remain in the background and do its work and let a unblemished group of civilians, headed possibly by retired justice clean up the mess and hold free and fair elections afterwards

    the present group of ‘elected’ politicians are clearly not up to the markRecommend

  • kamal khan
    Sep 3, 2010 - 12:52PM

    I totally agree with MR. Durani. The politician just forward one argument that let the democracy flourish or the military does not give enough time. These arguments hold some ground but what you as political representatives are doing to make the democracy flourish and mature. Can anyone point out a single policy of the government both provincial as well federal which give a blue print on the basic necessities like health, education etc. What they all are doing is just minting money. I was attaching a lot of expectations from Nawaz Sharif. But even his government in Punjab ditched us by not imposing agricultural tax as it is a provincial subject. I have a brother in Pak Army which makes our whole family proud of it. We always ask him to a good professional soldier at any cost. But can he become professional soldier when (God Forbid) this country disappears from the surface of the earth due these corrupt and inefficient politicians.Army will be there if Pakistan exists. The very presence of present lot of politicians is an existential threat to this country. I agree with Altaf Hussain when he says that the Army should come forward to change the rotten system of this country. A few steps may be taken in the regard are to establish an independent election commission, land reforms including the huge land farms owned by retired army generals, a uniform educational system for all rich and power, state control over mosques and madrassas. this may be done by establishing a facade of upright pakistanis like Edhi, Fakhruddin G Ibrahim, Nasir Aslam Zahid and many like them.Recommend

  • Rashid Saleem
    Sep 3, 2010 - 2:00PM

    Agreed that there have been flaws in the system but the primary reason is still the lack of consistency in it. Democracy must be given ample time to learn and grow from here.Recommend

  • Patriot
    Sep 3, 2010 - 2:07PM

    Good come back by Asad Durrani sb after the ISI article. I wonder where people get guts from saying let the system continue for 3-4 terms. The performance of this democratic government in 2.5 years makes me wonder if the country would survive for 15-20 years to fully embrace democracy. Turkey is finally experiencing democracy because Urdugan’s government has delivered. People are prosporus then they were during the times of true secular/military back governments. The day democracy brings prosperity, 111 will not dare entering the corridors of power!Recommend

  • Saad Duraiz
    Sep 3, 2010 - 11:10PM

    Faraz, why dont you stop crying in these comment boxes about the army not letting a democratic government complete its turn? It was CIVILIAN presidents of this country dismissing governments in the 1990s? Oh are you going to cry that the presidents were working hand-in-glove with the military now ?Recommend

  • Saad Duraiz
    Sep 3, 2010 - 11:12PM

    Nadir El-Edroos, you live and work in London, what taxpayers money do YOU keep harping about all the time? Leave the “taxpayers” issues to us, who pay taxes in THIS country!Recommend

  • Sep 4, 2010 - 12:21AM

    @Saad Duraiz. The problem is not post-election but pre-election. Kindly read my comments given above.Recommend

  • faraz
    Sep 4, 2010 - 3:36AM

    @Saad So you think Ghulam Ishaq khan and Musharraf were politicians? Ghulam Ishaq was chairman senate during Zia era and Musharraf was army chief !Recommend

  • Qazi
    Sep 4, 2010 - 10:30AM

    Pakistan however is a unique place, where for all the right or wrong reasons – historical, strategic, societal, or geopolitical – the army, even when confined to barracks, remains the ultimate arbiter in politics.

    The problem is generals have never confined their selves to barracks, as a professional solder does. They have rather been pretending to be the wisest creatures or should I say imposing their wisdom on politicians and Pakistani public. If this was not a case, Pakistan would have been a far better and peaceful place. Its federal credentials would have been far stronger. So it is time to take lessons from history and not repeat it again. I would appreciate the writer if he confines himself to ‘Alif Lailas’ of ISI, and not suggest the use of 111 brigade. It is time to win peoples’ hearts, and not the time to securing the state houses, and conquer Pakistan again. We should move on now.Recommend

  • Qazi
    Sep 4, 2010 - 11:02AM

    @Saad Duraiz:

    If we don’t pay taxes then who finances the military war games? How do generals afford such lavish living? Is it America or IMF? By the way who repays the loans from IMF? I don’t know what is so admirable about political role of army.Recommend

  • Saad Duraiz
    Sep 4, 2010 - 4:17PM

    @Faraz:

    Yes I was referring to Ghulam Ishaq khan and Farooq Leghari. Whatever he was in Zia’s govt, when he dismissed politically elected govts, we weren’t under military rule. Last I remember Farooq Leghari was a politician before becoming the president. Go re-read your history books.Recommend

  • Saad Duraiz
    Sep 4, 2010 - 4:28PM

    @Qazi:

    Qazi sahib, you’re missing the point. Yes it is OUR taxes paying for the military. OUR does not include people living and paying taxes in other countries.Recommend

  • faraz
    Sep 4, 2010 - 5:00PM

    @Saad Ghulam ishaq was a beurocrat, not a politician. How did he become the chairman senate if he had no suppport from the army? How did he become the president with the powers to dismiss governments? Its not that simple that Ishaq woke up in the morining and dismissed the government; do you think the civilian and military elite didnt want a change of government but was left helpless agains this one old man? And he single handedly dismissed 2 governments, was he an absolute monarach or what?Recommend

  • Sep 4, 2010 - 6:00PM

    The present equation is a bit disturbing. In principle, I would agree with what Mr. Durrani has written. If things go out of control, we have no option but to dial in to the 111 brigade. However, in the present equation, the balancing power on one side is PPP. On the other side, its Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

    Firstly, let us not forget that Gen Kayani was the Deputy Military Secretary to Benazir Bhutto during her last tenure as Prime Minister, which shows that to some extent, Gen Kayani is pro-PPP.

    Secondly, Gen Kayani also has the credit of being the DG ISI before becoming COAS under his belt. Now wasn’t it Gen Kayani who backed up the CJ to file a reference against the then President Mush? Was the CJ alone strong enough to have taken, let alone sustain such stern action against Musharraf? No, there was a hidden force supporting the CJ in his actions.

    Thirdly, Gen Kayani has clear objectives. By letting PPP stay in the ruling, he is re-building the image of the Pak Army for future, much worse times to come. He’s got an extension for 3 years, he’s better off as COAS than becoming a Martial Law Administrator or Chief Executive or the President. Being the COAS of the Pakistan Army is by the way, much more blissful and respectful than being the President of Pakistan. He has learned from his predecessors that Gen Ayub became “Kutta” on the streets, by the politics of Z A Bhutto. Musharraf lost everything by imposing himself unnecessarily for longer than needed. He won’t make the same mistake. The deal is clear, PPP stays in ruling, they let the Military dictate the foreign as well as internal security policies, and the Army doesn’t take over the so called “democratic” Govt. I don’t see why the Army would want to take up an extra headache while its already stretched on the Western border, and more than 50,000 troops are involved in rescue/relief efforts. The Pak Army’s got better things to do. Gen Kayani is a smart man, he knows Pakistan would accept his leadership with open arms after what the present Govt. has done to the people, yet he won’t take over until the ruling Party itself resigns, which won’t happen till this country has any wealth left. Altaf Hussain’s suggestions have neither made an influence in Pakistan in the past, nor will they effect the way things in Pakistan have to unfold in the near future. Altaf Hussain should let people assume he is a fool, instead of talking and confirming the notion.Recommend

More in Opinion

X