History’s verdict
Asghar Khan case must help us bury the myth that military intervention, political manipulation serve national interest
The decision by the Supreme Court in the Asghar Khan case is historic. It is a milestone and in many respects path-breaking. The decision deals with many fundamental, structural political issues, the political process and the role of different institutions that will continue to be debated for sometime. However, one issue tops all others in importance and that is the role of the military and intelligence agencies in politics. These two public institutions and those who have been leading them have done greater harm to democracy and to the will of the people than any other institution, person and force, external or internal.
It has taken decades of struggles, movements and political fights to get Pakistan on the rails. The people’s train, loaded with the energy of popular will, had a rough time moving forward on twisted rails, which was further blasted by constitutional landmines planted by martial leaders. Those who planned constitutional subversions and those who benefited from them justified this joke with one of the largest Muslim states, in the name of national interest. In all military takeovers and in subsequent interventions in the political process of the country from behind the scenes, there was always personal prejudice, partisanship and short-sighted, personalised understanding of the national interest.
We must salute Asghar Khan for holding his ground through these years and bringing before the courts, the nation and the world, the biggest national fraud ever committed in the form of rigging of the 1990 elections. This case, debated so much in the media during the past 16 years or so, should have occupied the apex Court earlier. We can celebrate it for what it says and consider it better late than never. The argument of national interest couldn’t be sold anymore to an independent judiciary unlike in the post-martial law packed courts. The history’s verdict is out, documented and on judicial paper. What is that? It is the rigging of elections, manipulating the political process, robbing financial institutions, twisting the roles of state institutions and bribing client politicians, who have served only in the special interests of individuals, and not that of Pakistan.
The story of ‘national interest’ and its embedded narratives in national security, ‘accountability’ and ‘true democracy’ had believers and takers in that particular constituency of the political class that tied up its political fortune with the military. This subordinate class of politicians formed parties, built up coalitions like the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad and secretively received funds to finance their campaigns. This class of politicians, using the instrument of power, has grown very strong pockets of strength in different parts to counter an organic growth of true representation of people.
What was the bargain between the client political class and the military? Simply put, it was the acquiring of power for serving the personal and group interests of the military leaders. Both enjoyed control over the state, economic resources and society. And while making money — tonnes of it — and allowing all friends and families to be in this political business, they were all defending, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What a joke.
Contradictions of these military leaders and those who supported them are quite obvious on two core issues: democracy and national security. Even a common rustic man on the street would know that a diverse society like Pakistan’s cannot make any progress on national integrity — which is the central point of security — without being ruled by representatives from different regions of the country. A selective co-optation of individuals by the military, in colonial fashion, only pushed the genuine representatives towards alienation, despondency and, in some cases, resistance. This remarkable judgment must help us bury the myth that military interventions and political manipulations serve national interest, security and the people. The actors in the plot did quite the contrary.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 23rd, 2012.
It has taken decades of struggles, movements and political fights to get Pakistan on the rails. The people’s train, loaded with the energy of popular will, had a rough time moving forward on twisted rails, which was further blasted by constitutional landmines planted by martial leaders. Those who planned constitutional subversions and those who benefited from them justified this joke with one of the largest Muslim states, in the name of national interest. In all military takeovers and in subsequent interventions in the political process of the country from behind the scenes, there was always personal prejudice, partisanship and short-sighted, personalised understanding of the national interest.
We must salute Asghar Khan for holding his ground through these years and bringing before the courts, the nation and the world, the biggest national fraud ever committed in the form of rigging of the 1990 elections. This case, debated so much in the media during the past 16 years or so, should have occupied the apex Court earlier. We can celebrate it for what it says and consider it better late than never. The argument of national interest couldn’t be sold anymore to an independent judiciary unlike in the post-martial law packed courts. The history’s verdict is out, documented and on judicial paper. What is that? It is the rigging of elections, manipulating the political process, robbing financial institutions, twisting the roles of state institutions and bribing client politicians, who have served only in the special interests of individuals, and not that of Pakistan.
The story of ‘national interest’ and its embedded narratives in national security, ‘accountability’ and ‘true democracy’ had believers and takers in that particular constituency of the political class that tied up its political fortune with the military. This subordinate class of politicians formed parties, built up coalitions like the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad and secretively received funds to finance their campaigns. This class of politicians, using the instrument of power, has grown very strong pockets of strength in different parts to counter an organic growth of true representation of people.
What was the bargain between the client political class and the military? Simply put, it was the acquiring of power for serving the personal and group interests of the military leaders. Both enjoyed control over the state, economic resources and society. And while making money — tonnes of it — and allowing all friends and families to be in this political business, they were all defending, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What a joke.
Contradictions of these military leaders and those who supported them are quite obvious on two core issues: democracy and national security. Even a common rustic man on the street would know that a diverse society like Pakistan’s cannot make any progress on national integrity — which is the central point of security — without being ruled by representatives from different regions of the country. A selective co-optation of individuals by the military, in colonial fashion, only pushed the genuine representatives towards alienation, despondency and, in some cases, resistance. This remarkable judgment must help us bury the myth that military interventions and political manipulations serve national interest, security and the people. The actors in the plot did quite the contrary.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 23rd, 2012.