It would not be out of place to have a look how Pakistan’s first army chief was appointed.
RAWALPINDI: In view of critical roles of past army chiefs, it would not be out of place to have a look how Pakistan’s first army chief was appointed. The present Army chief has served with dignity and top efficiency and has been able to satisfy all stakeholders: the prime minister, the president and the Americans. He has very effectively dealt with terrorist and miscreants.
It would, however, be interesting to recall the circumstances under which the first Pakistani army chief was appointed: and this was by a selection method, not on the basis of seniority.
At the time of Independence, I was serving in GHQ (I) as Staff Captain. The post-independence surviving officers of our group included Lt Col Gulzar Ahmed (Comd 7 Baloch Regt), Brig Muhammad Suleman (Signals), Maj Ghani (Ordnance), Navy Lt Maqbul Elahi Darwesh (Indian Navy later Ordnance) and Wing Cdr Muhammad Khan Janjua (PAF).
It may be interesting to note that in India, Jawaharlal Nehru had ordered that in the Indian army from the day of independence all command appointments from the commander-in-chief downwards must be held by Indian officers only, and that where any Indian officer felt lack of experience he could retain the British incumbent as his adviser but not as commander.
In Pakistan, unfortunately, our first prime minister, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, because of his experience of wavering senior Muslim officers, decided to retain British officers from the post of commander-in-chief down even to the level of unit commander. The command and control of our army thus remained virtually with the British and we had to pay very dearly for this folly when our British C-in-C refused to obey government orders to march troops into Kashmir. When the time came to appoint a Pakistani army chief, the prime minister chose Ayub Khan, who was not the seniormost officer then. Agha Raza was senior to him but was bypassed, just as MK Janjua was senior to Asghar Khan but the latter was made head of the air force.
Since the first army chief was appointed by selection it appears to have become the noram and, therefore, by and large all subsequent army chiefs were also appointed by selection. Since neither the first army chief nor any subsequent chief brought us any military marvel, one might then ask as to what has been the basis of these selections?
Apparently the selection is meant to ensure that the ablest person is selected; however, it is well known that behind the façade of ability it looked only for a “safer” person. Of the subsequent army chiefs, most of them usurped power by imposing martial law. This is hardly a commendable performance and we must, therefore, look for the weak links in our system. We might also examine the system followed by our neighbour India who inherited the same army system, organisation and traditions but did not face any martial law. As for the principle of seniority, if it is followed, it would ensure that only those generals are promoted to the post of corps commanders who in turn would be able to also head the army.
Brig (retd) Shamsul Haq Qazi
Published in The Express Tribune, September 16th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
