The writer is a syndicated columnist and a former member of India’s Rajya Sabha
This was primarily because Kayani was considered ambitious. Moreover, it was believed that there might be another coup because such has been the practice in the past. But fortunately, Kayani had come out in the open on what his plans were. “I am grateful to the political leadership and the nation for reposing their trust in me and the Pakistan Army at this important juncture of our national history. However, I share the general opinion that institutions and traditions are stronger than individuals and must take precedence.”
The perception about Pakistan is that the army can walk in whenever it likes. The coups, first by General Mohammad Ayub, then by General Ziaul Haq and finally by General Pervez Musharraf, have given the impression that although the army goes back to the barracks, its influence does not wane.
This is true as well because even Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif, who has said that the PM is the ‘boss’, has been careful not to lessen the pre-eminence of the army. Since the PM, after election through a democratic process, was thrown out by General Musharraf, he is understandably respectful to the army chief. Both the PM and Kayani are reportedly discussing who should succeed Kayani, a job which in a democratic country is settled by the government. Most pictures I see in newspapers show Kayani by the side of Nawaz Sharif.
Therefore, there was surprise, as well as a sense of satisfaction, when there was a cryptic press release from the Inter-Services Public Relations that the chief of army staff would retire on November 29, when his extended tenure ends. In fact, when former PM Yousaf Raza Gilani gave Kayani an extension of three years, there were rumours that Gilani had no choice, as if the extension was at the point of gun. There was nothing like that. Gilani wanted a professional head to depoliticise the army, something which Musharraf had not done during the eight and a half years that he stayed in power.
Whether Kayani’s retirement in a regular manner is enough evidence to infer that there will never be a coup in Pakistan is not easy to say. But chances will lessen as the days go by because the people have more and more vested interest in the election process. I find the leading politicians of different parties going on record as saying that the people would come out on to the streets if ever the army tries to take over.
I wish this would be true. But my experience is different. When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto assumed power, he told me that “we have learnt from history” and that Pakistanis would revolt and hit the streets to stop the tanks if they ever came out. This was proved wrong when Musharraf took over.
I am intrigued by more or less the farewell statement that Kayani has made. He has said: “It is important that the military leadership in future also continue to play its unreserved role for strengthening of the democratic system in the country.” But Kayani’s use of words like military’s ‘unreserved role’ for strengthening of democratic system conveys it all. The ‘unreserved role’ means that the military is expected to act in a manner which is not written in any constitution, nor defined otherwise.
The army chief should know that the elected government has the final word. Most of Pakistan’s problems are the doings of the security establishment. The army chief should realise that democracy is not a gift, definitely not from the armed forces. What he was saying from experience is that Pakistanis are not prepared for another military rule. This has been the effect of Musharraf’s failure. It is a plus point for democracy in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 18th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@truthbetold
Mr, you may say what the matter, is but this is the plain truth. India, has been trying to force its hegemony in this region, and Subhan Allah, Pakistan has continued to repulse its evil, at each occasion. Your own army personnel has admitted that Mumbai, was done by India, and Ajmal Kasab, was not from Pakistan. Even look at his dying moments on the you tube, which is viral, now and he admits all his connections. Yet Pakistan was blamed. The parliament building blast in Delhi, was hatched by India, that almost triggered a disaster for the region. What about the Samjohta express which India, has officially admitted its guilt. I can present a thesis on India, and its evil, hence your rhetoric, or otherwise, will not help you defend your weak case. Hence might as well lay off our back, and beware of interfering in our internal matters, which is none of your business.
@Shahbaz Asif Tahir:
ET mods, please allow my post as retort to Tahir since he was allowed by ET to digress and bring India into this discussion.
"@ethicalman: and those who have democracy are not civilized either. Witness for instance the Gujarat riots, where Muslims, were massacred, and those that did all those atrocities are now trying to become Prime Minister"
You are conveniently omitting the fact that the Gujarat riots were started by a Muslim mob that torched and burned alive 70 Hindu pilgrims in a train. Not that it justifies the ensuing horrible pogrom in which 700 Muslims and 300 Hindus were massacred. Riots are difficult to control once it gets out of hand and spreads to large areas. The truth is that if that Muslim mob hadn't incited by burning alive those Hindu pilgrims, the larger Gujarat riots wouldn't have happened.
@Ajay:
I think Indians better mind your own business, and beware of interfering in our internal matters. Take that as a plain warning.
@Shahbaz Asif Tahir: You don't seem to understand sporadic infrequent incidents, with defined triggers, versus the systematic nonsense, that is also institutionalized that goes on in Pakistan.
@nadeem:
Incompetence is the one word to describe the History! And this is most likely to continue unless the structural reforms are undertaken in the institutions including the army and the judiciary. People have the ability to learn but are not provided with the opportunities, are resilient but have not the motivation to work, are creative but the lack of private industry or subsidy restricts them to invent new products. The European UnIon has the largest economy in the world with over 500 million people. What Pakistan needs is a 10 year marshal plan which should include the develoment of engineering workshops and heavy manufacturing. Mr Sharif could enter into joint manufacture of Bullet trains with the German republic and/or the chinese republic and so on...
There are no short cuts which the Asins always prefer and look for.
Rex Minor
We have experienced both "democratic rule" and "military rule" at different times in Pakistan. We seem to be singularly unlucky on both counts. Military rule was bad in as much as it deprived people of their right to choose, right to express and the right to participate in improvement of their own lives. Although the military rulers came under the pretext of ending corruption but they were not any less corrupt than the rulers they ousted. Then came the civilian democratically elected leaders, but almost always through rigged poles.They ruled through nepotism, corruption and incompetency as if they were never to go back to the poles. One wonders why any of our dictators could not be a Jamal Nasir or Mustafa Kamal Pasha who could at least transform us into a nation; and why we always had the misfortune of not electing anyone like Pandit Nehru or Muhatir Bin Muhammad. Every time we exercised our choice, we exercised it so badly and elected a leader who never came out of his personal interests and always compromised the public interests. By the time he or she was dismissed, no one mourned his or her dismissal. Is it a mere bad luck or there is something wrong with our choosing of leadership? What do we see while casting our vote?
Couldn't agree more with the observation that most of Pakistan's gravest problems are the result of Army generals' missteps which came about in the backdrop of unchecked ambition, greed and complete lack of accountability. Starting with the most serious tragedy to befall Pakistan - the separation of East Pakistan - the military has been responsible for cultivating the jihadi culture which to date has cost 50,000 lives. It used tax dollars of Pakistani and American taxpayers for this purpose. It has been in complete control of our foreign policy since at least July 1977, and has turned us into an international pariah. Power equals money in Pakistan, and so as the most powerful entity of our country since 1958, the military has amassed personal wealth and created a corporate empire. And finally, just like the CEO of a company has final responsibility for all that goes wrong in his company, the final responsibility for a million things big and small that went wrong in Pakistan falls in the Army's lap simply because it was - and still is - the overt and covert 'CEO' of this country.
@ethicalman:
and those who have democracy are not civilized either. Witness for instance the Gujarat riots, where Muslims, were massacred, and those that did all those atrocities are now trying to become Prime Minister.
Non sense. Pakistan's problems are mainly due to the corrupt, incompetent, inefficient, and greedy civilian government. Pakistan army is the only institution that has ensured that the country has survived multiple internal and external crises. Obviously the enemies of Islam, and Pakistan, wish to criticize the army, and ISI, only to try and destabilize Pakistan. Inshallah they will never succeed.
Very fair, very balanced and very sensible.
" I find the leading politicians of different parties going on record as saying that the people would come out on to the streets if ever the army tries to take over."
Of course they will... but in support of the army...
I say this with a heavy heart but I find Ejaaz's comment far more portentous than Mr. Nayar's article. There are disquieting signs that the last bastion of the state, the army, is at a crossroads - things are far from certain post the NATO troop withdrawal as there is much more of a groundswell of support for the Talibs in Pakistani populace and among its forces than across the border.
Politicians have to deliver on promises made to the people to solicit their votes. Generally, they forget the people after the election and get on with their shenanigans. This turn people off and make them wish for an administration that is efficient and produce results. That is why they have yearned for the military rule when politicians, elected with enthusiasm, indulged in corruption and nepotism. Probably after so much experience with the military rule or misrule the country will stick with democracy and wait patiently to vote for change if the government failed to deliver. Unfortunately , democracy is messy and at times inefficient. Chinese system, more like a big corporation, is quick in decision making and implementation. No wonder China has grown so much so fast. The freedom is curtailed. There are trade offs. May be the rule of technocrats supported by robust judicial system is better?
The civilians are about to have their heads handed to them by the Taliban and affiliated groups. PPP, ANP, and MQM have been essentially neutered. PML all varieties do not have the nerve to oppose the Mullahs. The present rulers will flee to England and USA where they have their families. Whether we like it or not, it is coming down to whether the army thinks it can oppose the Mullahs or wants to Join them and put a Mullah in charge. I expect that it is going to be the latter. The Sharifs are going to not complete their five years.
the only people who have a vested interest in the elction process-are the politicians bandits. we need to realise that what is more important,is good governance .Democracy is only one way towards it, there are others as well. It is not a blasphemy to remove a corrupt government by force,and not having to wait another 5 years.
An astute column by a seasoned analyst, columnist, and diplomat; and a friend of Pakistan, I may add. Mr. Nayyar has a rare insight and a vantage point over the affairs of Pakistan. I wish he would have also pointed out that the military rule is only possible when political institutions fail and the people willingly allow it. When the people send strong signals that they would not accept military rule, the military backs off. On another unrelated note, same goes for the American influence in Pakistan; it exists only when the people allow it.