Good General; Bad General

As we pass the anniversary of the darkest days of our history, July 5, 1977, it is useful to reflect on what we have learnt (or not) and how far we have moved (or not) since.  Ziaul Haq was a vile mad man, and there is no question about it. No one except, perhaps, his immediate family has or should have any inclination to defend him. However, with someone as thoroughly dislikable as Zia being the agent of the debacle, it sometimes has the consequence of overshadowing the culpability of his aiders and abettors, accomplices and beneficiaries. A political class was bred by him, a spineless judiciary that not only legitimised his illegal takeover but went far enough to murder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, ghosts from his era haunt the media still, retired generals and billionaire army kids, beneficiaries of his time sermonise inanities still. Zia deserves all the disrespect that comes his way posthumously; however, let us not pretend that he did it alone. Ziaul Haq could not impose a coup alone, neither could Ayub or Yahya or Musharraf.

The preferred refrain is that the military dictators were rotten apples, and one should not lower the morale of our troops by bringing the ‘Institution’ in it. Very well, if there are reports of significant resignations of serving generals when the usurpers took over, one must have missed them. The lone wolf, the army chief with the constitutional violating itch, who does it alone, is the theory, and that too is only presented when the delinquent general is gone.

Major General (retd.) Athar Abbas has always given the impression of being more articulate and reasonable than most of his contemporaries, and perhaps rightly so. Yet, why does the gallant general find it opportune to say what he said about General Kayani dithering about the Waziristan offensive now. Namely, because somewhat like the Taliban, the generals also come in two types; good and bad. The classification is simple, serving generals are always good, and surprise, surprise ‘soldier like’, while the retired can be either good or bad, however the top retired general is most likely to display some human follies which everybody seemed to have missed while he was in power. Like General Kayani, the great democrat, the benevolent soldier kind enough not to impose a coup and the rest of it. However the retired General K is the lone ranger, who dropped the ball on some issues. And the entire top brass of the army was helpless before the General K, as it was before Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. Moving stuff, is it not, the corps commanders clenching their teeth, having heart burns, fiercely fighting their conscience (refusing plots, dissenting notes or God forbid resignations would be a too much) yet obeying the Commander-in-Chief. Like, perhaps, General K had no input when Musharraf imposed the November 3 emergency, right? What goes around comes around.

Bravado displayed when the man with the stick is gone is always suspect, and here it is also dangerous. It is dangerous because finding one retired, old or dead general to dump all the ills of the period saves some faces for some time (essentially till the next time), while the institutional imbalance and impunity remains intact. The army owing to training and history acts with ‘institutional solidarity’ and protects its own; admittedly a tremendously admirable quality in the battlefield, not so much in supporting and sustaining military coups.

Military doctrines might be influenced by the individual at the top, yet to assume that they will be rewritten by one is naive or perhaps, simply hypocritical. Strategic depth, the good and bad Taliban and other such lovely ideas stem from Zia’s day in infamy, yet hardly any credible evidence exists that there were attempts to stop the stemming much.

It is not only the ‘Honourable Institution’, serving generals have more friends than they want, and retired generals sometimes have less than what they need. General K was bid farewell by the media as a democracy loving, Spartan - like leader. As the media welcomed the saviour General Musharraf into the building, averting disaster for the nation, gallant and ‘Soldier like’ (with the number of times the phrase is used to describe Generals, somebody should clarify what this quality entails, as opposed to what ‘dictator-in-waiting like’?) The Courts have an inglorious history on this front as well. From Ayub to Musharraf, everyone has been validated, exceptional times and exceptional measures, etc. Yahya was declared a ‘usurper’ when he was gone, and so was Musharraf. Good generals are saviours, bad ones are usurpers, and good generals often end up transitioning into the bad.

The condemnation of Zia, the trial of Musharraf and the criticism of General Kayani has one thing in common: abstracting the individual from the context, removing him from the Institution. Zia is the worst offender by far, and deserves a full accounting of his misdeeds and those who enabled him. It should begin by identifying the accomplices and at the very least making them publicly apologise. Same for Musharraf and if at some stage need be, the same for Kayani.

It should start with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Apologise for association with Zia, declare  July 5 a black day, so as to send the message loud and clear that he is against military coups in principle, and not only against those where he is a (potential) victim. Major General (retd.) Athar Abbas will do his institution more good if he engages in a conversation about institutional flaws and how to remedy them. The time for boldness against General K went with him.

We want all our generals, retired or serving, to be good generals, honourable generals in the true meaning of the word. However, for that to happen, it means that there is no provision for either usurpers or saviours.

To shield generals from all legitimate criticisms while serving does no one any good (particularly toxic to the institutional integrity of the army). For those who worry about the morale of our soldiers, don’t fret, they are made of sturdy stuff, those officers who are willing to and do lay down their lives in the fight for our survival, need the respect of not only the nation but of their own superiors by not violating the law. The soldiers on the frontlines do not have or need the armoured BMW’s, DHA plots or the revenues from the factories and bakeries; they survive, thrive and are martyred on integrity and courage alone. It is for us, the people, the political class, the media and the top military leadership to rise up to honour them, for starters by telling the truth when we should.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 6^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.