Pakistan was created as an Islamic state and not a Muslim state. All non-Muslims have equal rights in this country. All sects must refrain from criticising one another. The army belongs to the state and the country does not belong to the army alone. Thus, military takeovers are a heinous crime which must not go unpunished. Democracy has been uprooted too often and not allowed to reform itself through experience. Our public seems to be quite tolerant of corruption, poor law and order, inflation, poor health facilities, shortage of electricity and gas, bad education, lack of civic facilities, inadequate housing facilities, absence of clean drinking water and a host of other ills. However, they are extremely intolerant of beliefs and views of other sects and want to impose their own version of beliefs on others by force.
Pakistan’s security environment is a cause for serious concern. The size of India’s armed forces continues to grow. New inductions of weapons, equipment, aircraft and ships are continuing and cannot be ignored by Pakistan. The combat ratio of conventional forces vis-a-vis Pakistan’s armed forces is greatly in favour of India: the Indian Army is three times, the Indian Air Force five times and India’s navy seven times that of Pakistan — and the gaps are widening. Pakistan has enjoyed friendly relation with Afghanistan in the past, but of late, ties have deteriorated. The reason is the so-called ‘war on terror’ where Afghans have become implicated because of unwise policies of the Taliban government of the 1990s when it provided shelter to Osama bin Laden. The Afghans are now fed up with 30 years of war and blame foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan for their woes. Despite the fact that Pakistan has accommodated five million Afghan refugees for decades, the educated Afghan elite in Afghanistan and abroad put all the blame for their miseries on us. At present, Afghanistan is raising an army of around 400,000 soldiers, financed and equipped by America. Such a large force is out of proportion to the size of the country with a population of around 30 million. Since threat perception is based on capabilities and not intentions, such a large army on its western flank is a source of concern for Pakistan.
Today, the internal threat to Pakistan is far more serious and lethal than the external one. The so-called ‘war on terror’ has created a serious insurgency situation inside the country. The fight against terror cannot be termed war since it cannot be won by military force. It is basically a dialectic of ideas, beliefs, convictions and perceptions, which can best be countered by negotiations, discussions and arbitrations. Lack of communication between the antagonists draws them into an armed confrontation, which creates a climate of insurgency. Non-state actors are another internal threat who challenge the writ of the government. They operate as gangs, mafias and underground crime cartels. Karachi today is in the grip of such elements. There are other elements who take law into their hands in the name of religion. They are extremely lethal since they are highly motivated and go for the kill even at peril to their own lives. These are misguided youth who can be reformed through indoctrination. Other than that, the weak moral fibre of law-enforcement personnel, who are prone to accepting bribes for ignoring terrorist activities, also magnifies the internal threat. We must try to improve our ties with both Afghanistan and India. And as for Balochistan, the killers of Nawab Akbar Bugti should be tried, Quetta airport should be named after the Nawab and all missing persons must be traced, recovered and rehabilitated.
Dictators have not allowed Pakistan’s political institutions to mature. Repeated military takeovers and abrogation of constitutions by the army have been the bane of our times. The problem lies with the people who accept military hegemony and do not revolt against it. This may be due to poor awareness of the advantages of democracy. However, one cannot totally blame the public since the political leadership accepts military coups initially and welcomes dictators with open arms. It is only after the noose tightens around their necks that they start denouncing dictatorship. Once democracy is restored politicians become hyperactive. In their effort to grab power, they deride one another and don’t seem to care too much about the very important issue of law and order. Thus, a democratic rule leads to another military rule once the image of the democratic government is tarnished. Therefore, the blame for military takeovers is to be equally shared by the military and politicians and both must be made answerable to the public for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. The political opposition, for its part, also does not do its job properly. For instance, policy matters are not debated diligently by the opposition, nor are position papers written on economic, defence, diplomatic and financial policies. Pakistan’s enemies, from within and without, are taking advantage of this state of affairs. Clerics of different sects have no tolerance for one another’s views and are quick to label one another an ‘infidel’.
The way forward for Pakistan is that the civilian government should directly take charge of the ‘war on terror’ and appoint a committee of experts to direct the effort. The experts should be drawn from the general public but should have requisite experience and knowledge to be able to guide and steer the war effort. This war should have been fought as an intelligence operation with the military standing by as a force in being. The military should now gradually extricate itself and hand over operations to the intelligence agencies and paramilitary forces. The army, however, should be tasked to prevent infiltration from the Afghan side by maintaining a fence line 10 kilometres east of the Durand Line or as decided by the command. Fata should be declared a province and its administration handed over to elected representatives. Since we are a nuclear power, we must drastically reduce our defence expenditure and divert the resources freed up accordingly to other uses.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (29)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The General has compared the size of Indian armed forces and its infrastructure with Pakistan with common border of 2900 km but conveniently ignoring the fact that the same army strength has to defend 3500 km border with China as well whose military strength is one and half times that of India. Moreover, India has never waged war against Pakistan and therefore there is no external threat to Pakistan to match its military machinery with India at the cost of its economy which is on the brink. However, General's advice that war on terror should be under the control of Civilian govt is quite sound but that does not mean that army should be completely withdrawn. Pakistan should follow the Indian strategy of armed forces being kept under complete control of the civilian govt and joint operation carried by army, para-military forces and local police against the militants which has proved to be a great success in fighting militancy in India.
@abreez Too much "Pakistan studies" and too much kool-aid. Why just 1206 a.d...why not trace Pakistan's origin to 570 a.d? And what was Pakistan BEFORE these dates? Could it be...it was India???? Horrors!
You see, no amount of doctored history or backwriting history can stop you from learning the truth, IF you are intelligent enough. "Pakistan" would have been a natural entity if it was called "Indus-stan" or even "Punjab-stan." But Pakistan was an artificial coinage. Regarding Bosnia, the Bosnians have always been there regardless of the recent freedom by virtue of the River Bosna, hence Bosnian. So what are you people...Pakis? After what? I can accept you are Punjabis or Sindhis or Baloch....but Pakis??? No wonder it is seen as a pejorative.
Wish you the best in your search for the truth.
@Muneer: He has not advocated increasing the size of the armed forces even once in this article. In fact he makes a very logical approach to a call for reducing the armed forces. In my view he is stating the increasing Indian army size to indicate that an arms race is futile, and the western flank problems to indicate the very real security threats that befall us. The article is not meant to be a solution to all our problems. It's an analysis of what is currently the on-ground situation. Our problem is that we are so desperate for a solution, we tend to dismiss every bit of sense that comes our way by immediately disqualifying it if it's not the perfect solution, and the worst part is that the people who present criticisms of sensible articles like this, usually do so without presenting an in intelligent alternate.
@Shahzad:
Unless we have technocrats in Parliament, we will never have expert advices, this is how a mix is made up of in every democratic countries, because none of our MPs are expert in any technical field, that is why all the present goof-ups.Rather we have lowered our MPs education level from being graduates to lower level,hence, how do you think our present politicians have any vision or solutions to resolve issues of technical nature, in absence of which issues are twisted by these vested interest only to fill their pockets via their own planted people....
Abreez : Outsiders cannot dictate India or Pakistan whether to invest in arms or in education and welfare. It is the state's perception of its threats and security concerns. India's threats are China and Pakistan because both have initiated wars against India. Pakistan continues to use nonstate actors as its first line of offense against India. India has not initiated any war against any country overt or covert. So it is logical to conclude that India's defense forces are what they are meant for ie defense where as Pakistan's army and weaponry are for its offense. That is precisely what other commentators are trying to highlight. So it is upto Pakistan to go for wasteful offensive expenses or for its own development irrespective of what India does.
@Abreez: ha ha ha ha ha ha pakistan in 1206..OMG...u r an idiot..pakistan is founded on jinhas two state theory..means for muslims.when there is no islam before 1400 how came there will be muslims in 1206? u r using internet and still living in fools paradise..google history of indian subcontitent.
This writer was made Army Chief by former Prime Minister in 1999 hours before Musharraf''s coup and he was arrested by Musharraf cronies. Defence Ministary clearly issued the letter of his appointment and so whosever act upon Musharraf's order to stage coup and arrested him, even violated their own Army Act . I ahgree with whatever he says but differ with him that people of Pakistan intially welcome martial law, only few people from Punjab, which always love military rule, welcome Martial Law whereas smaller provinces consider military rule being directly ruled by Punjab and that's why military rule is dangerous thing for a hetrogenous country like Pakistan.
The author says,that,"...the size of India's armed forces continues to grow...and cannot be ignored".He also opined,that,"...threat perception is based on capibilities and not intentions,such a large army on its western flank (Afghanistan) is a source of concern for Pakistan".2) The conclusions drawn by the writer means,that, to counter the conventional threat on both flanks, Pakistan must maintain a minimum level of conventional forces which imply increasing the size of armed forces and of course more defence expenditure. 3)Yet,in the last paragraph,the writer opined,that," Since we are a nuclear power,we must drastically reduce our defence expenditure...". Does the writer wants to rely only on use of 'Nuclear power' to counter conventional threats on both eastern and western flanks?. The author's recipe seems to be a sure disaster and contradictory to his own conclusions.
India might be a secular country constitutionally, but not socially.
Bash Pakistan as much as you want and we may deserve it, but this is just shameful from the a country that claims to be secular.
No justification.
I wonder if the urge to talk with the Taliban comes from cowardice or the principled stand of talks being the cure to all.
Several questions come to mind if the answer is latter. 1) The talks in the past have failed and only strengthened the insurgency. Taliban today are more powerful than before. No major military action has been taken against them, so not taking action is taking its toll. Doesn't he know that any talks from a position of weakness is doomed to fail?
2) Why not try talks only approach with respect to Balochistan and India? Why did the Pakistani military resort to 2003 Parliamentary attack, Kargil misadventure and 2008 Mumbai attacks?
@Jim Pakistan was founded in 1206 only the name Pakistan we adapted in 1947. Read our achievements from 1206, most beautiful princesses of India were our queens, we gave India a name and all the beauties that today Indian government is earning from, you can fool some people in Pakistan but not the majority. Bosnia is a small country but what she did when the question of survival rose, India cannot buy her respect from money or from supporting terrorist in Pakistan. If today India stops investing in arms, Pakistani people ask their government to spend less in arms and more in development but if India continues then people of Pakistan know how to protect their honor and freedom and they’re not interested in facts and figures of someone who is aware with his own history.
Well written. Makes good sense.
good
Pakistan will never get out of its self-created mess until it gives up on trying equal-equal, trying to portray itself as an equal to India. India is a civilisational entity, 6000+ years old at least. Pakistan is a modern nation-state, created less than 70 years ago. Pakistan was PART of India; so it is an off-shoot or offspring. It is therefore one-seventh of India's size. India's population is also seven times larger and it's economy is currently ten times bigger and growing all the time while Pakistan's economy is either static or shriveling. India also has much more coastline and many more borders to take care of. Unless, Pakistan accepts the reality, it won't be able to formulate strategies to remain relevant. It's overreach is what is causing its collapse. Try dealing with reality, Generals, instead of fantasising about equal equal.
I think this guy talks sense!!
'Our public seems to be quite tolerant of corruption, poor law and order, inflation, poor health facilities, shortage of electricity and gas, bad education, lack of civic facilities, inadequate housing facilities, absence of clean drinking water and a host of other ills.' - they don't have any choice man.
'However, they are extremely intolerant of beliefs and views of other sects and want to impose their own version of beliefs on others by force.' - question is why? Is it the case from 1947-1980? or this thing happened afterward? It is state policies that shape people behaviours.
It is the age of the Islamists, with their totalitarian ideology and rigid adherence to supremecist, sectarian religious doctrine. They don't seem to be in the mood to compromise. In fact, they are religiously forbidden from compromising. Thoughts?
@Mirza: "Another point that we should not forget is the size of Indian economy. We have to stop competing with them in terms of army, navy and air force strength especially after developing a few hundred nuclear warheads. We can sell all our civilians and still not be able to win the mad arms race with such a huge economy."
You have provided 2 very good reasons (deterrent effect of Pakistan's nuclear warheads and India's larger economy) why Pakistan should not get into an arms race with India. Let me add a 3rd reason : India has NEVER attacked Pakistan. IT did not keep an inch of Bangladesh' land and vacated the country in record time in 1971. There has been no attempt to grab land from other neighbors with much smaller armies and with no nuclear warheads.
@Parvez: "Many of the points the author has made has merit and should not be ignored but I got the impression and I may be wrong, that the main thrust was to shift responsibility."
True. Unless he is implying that the armed forces should be under civilian control and thus such a decision could be taken by civilians. If the army continues to defy the civilian government, then it is unclear how the civilians can possibly be in charge of the WoT - surely the general saab is not pointing to armed civilian militias to take care of the problem?
Self serving dribble.
The ISI is arguably the root cause of your problems with Afghanistan, India, America and your "strategic assets".
@Mirza Ji : . You stated Another point that we should not forget is the size of Indian economy. We have to stop competing with them in terms of army, navy and air force strength especially after developing a few hundred nuclear warheads. We can sell all our civilians and still not be able to win the mad arms race with such a huge economy . Bravo!. You have hit the nail on the head. Once Pakistan stops trying to be Equal=Equal with India in terms of Military Paity / Size & Capability of Armed Forces we will see a marked Growth in Pakitan's Economy thereby reducing the "flow" of young men-women to join the Terrorist Organizations who will now be able to get jobs in Pakistan's Commerce and Industry. . Cheers
I like this man, he seems to say whatever is on his mind. I am sure he is a headache for a lot of people who would like men like him to only tow the "official" lines. I must say also, while its very nice to hear a Pakistani general talk sense, its a shame more haven't come out with similar lines of thought. The usual articles we see are no doubt fed by the khakis themselves, aggrandizing the army or slinging mud at the civilians, reminding them that they are only there because the men in uniform allow them to be there. Im sure its hard for the army to hear straight talk like this. Good job general!
. General (retd) Khwaja Ziauddin is quite right in stating "The combat ratio of conventional forces vis-a-vis Pakistan’s armed forces is greatly in favour of India: the Indian Army is three times, the Indian Air Force five times and India’s navy seven times that of Pakistan — and the gaps are widening." . This is due to the following facts : . India : Area : Total: 3,287,263 sq km - land: 2,973,193 sq km - water: 314,070 sq km Land Boundaries : India total: 14,103 km - Coastline : 7,000 km . Pakistan : total: 796,095 sq km - land: 770,875 sq km - water: 25,220 sq km Land Boundaries : total: 6,774 km - Coastline : 1,046 km . In addition India’s Population is about Seven Times that of Pakistan and the Indian Economy is about Eight to Nine Times that of Pakistan. . As such India is justified in having a proportionatly larger Defence Capability with India having on an average Seven Times the Defence Capability of Pakistan. . General (retd) Khwaja Ziauddin also states "At present, Afghanistan is raising an army of around 400,000 soldiers, financed and equipped by America. Such a large force is out of proportion to the size of the country with a population of around 30 million." . Thus if Pakistan can have a Large Force whcih is out of proportion to its Economy, Population and Size then General saab should not Afghanistan's Military Force! . Cheers
No worries, Pakistan's Erdogan, the tamer of generals, is coming to power and will clean up the cobwebs in all institutions. Bring it on Imran Khan!
It is an amazingly truthful Op Ed when considering the writer is a retired general. Thanks for being truthful even though too late. You said "Repeated military takeovers and abrogation of constitutions by the army have been the bane of our times. The problem lies with the people who accept military hegemony and do not revolt against it." The main reason for the successful army takeover has been the vitriol in the media against the elected leaders and the cooperation with the army of losing opposition leaders. Even before a leader shows any potential the "mafia" opens his/her file and a campaign of defamation against him/her in case they were elected. There is not a single politician in the country that is portrayed as clean. However, not a single general is ever tried or presented as corrupt even after multiple acts of high treason, stealing of money and elections. Another point that we should not forget is the size of Indian economy. We have to stop competing with them in terms of army, navy and air force strength especially after developing a few hundred nuclear warheads. We can sell all our civilians and still not be able to win the mad arms race with such a huge economy.
The Taliban shoot whoever disagrees with them so how exactly is this talks/negotations going to work ? Sounds to me like khakis want to shift war on terror to civilians and get back to moneymaking.
The law of natural justice says that ' he who let the genie out of the bottle should have the responsibility of putting it back into the bottle '. Many of the points the author has made has merit and should not be ignored but I got the impression and I may be wrong, that the main thrust was to shift responsibility.
its amazing how only retired generals speak up... what is wrong with you guys when you are actually in service?