Civil-military relations
Each side must respect the space exclusive to the other
In the early 1970s, Indira Gandhi was in dire political straits, facing country-wide protests for massive rigging during the 1971 Indian elections. She was apprehensive about a possible army takeover. Her army chief, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, told her, “I won’t (take over). You let me do my job and I will let you do yours.”
That is the crux of civil-military relations. Apparently, it is not difficult to maintain the equation. But in Pakistan the situation is not that simple. The track record of the military — three major interventions in the past — has continued to haunt successive civilian governments. Though there is a genuine flip side to each military takeover, which will be impossible for a future historian to ignore, the fear sticks, the misgivings continue to linger and scepticism clouds perceptions. The result is silly behaviour, bad judgment, bad taste and ultimately bad blood. The fear may still be real, but we refuse to learn from history and very recent history at that.
On the face of it, the Mehran-gate scandal was an ugly conspiracy to rob Benazir Bhutto (BB) of a level playing field. The case needs to be brought to its logical conclusion unless the PPP has decided to bury the hatchet like in the case of BB shaheed’s murder case.
The Memogate affair was a misleading fantasy. In intent, it was traitorous as it sought foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan. Later in the day, the Zardari-Kayani love affair proved the futility of such a rash childish act.
The role of government during and after the saga related to the controversy surrounding a leading news channel smacked of connivance. The remarks of the information minister could be ignored for his characteristic muddle-headedness. The behaviour of the prime minister was regretfully highly unbecoming of a chief executive.
The military has no business to volunteer advice to the civilian government unless the matter becomes a security concern for Pakistan and its people. General (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s advice to former president Asif Ali Zardari in the wake of the lawyers’ movement to restore the judiciary saved the country from impending chaos. That is why it was so well received.
Each side must respect the space exclusive to the other. The military does not offer comments, for instance, on the prevailing economic conditions, political discontent or even elections. The government does not ask for a particular senior military officer to be given a particular assignment. That will lead to the politicising of the military, a phenomenon that has already destroyed the police force.
The government has the right to ask for military assistance in ‘the aid of civil power’ according to the relevant constitutional provisions covering all types of national calamities, natural or man-made. All established democracies accommodate military concerns in the formulation of important policies, especially foreign and internal security policies. It is well known that while the Indian government was quite willing to discuss Siachen with Pakistan, it was asked by the Indian military to abandon the idea. It did.
The ISI, despite all the technical, logistical and resource disadvantages, has successfully foiled major nefarious designs of most regional and some powerful foreign intelligence agencies. The military is engaged in a protracted war against terror, which does not promise a quick and total victory. It needs the whole-hearted support of the Pakistani people, which fortunately, it enjoys in abundance. It also needs unflinching support and patience of the government, which has just started to pour in, a promising omen indeed. We must remain focused on one point where all national endeavours must converge, and that is Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 4th, 2014.
That is the crux of civil-military relations. Apparently, it is not difficult to maintain the equation. But in Pakistan the situation is not that simple. The track record of the military — three major interventions in the past — has continued to haunt successive civilian governments. Though there is a genuine flip side to each military takeover, which will be impossible for a future historian to ignore, the fear sticks, the misgivings continue to linger and scepticism clouds perceptions. The result is silly behaviour, bad judgment, bad taste and ultimately bad blood. The fear may still be real, but we refuse to learn from history and very recent history at that.
On the face of it, the Mehran-gate scandal was an ugly conspiracy to rob Benazir Bhutto (BB) of a level playing field. The case needs to be brought to its logical conclusion unless the PPP has decided to bury the hatchet like in the case of BB shaheed’s murder case.
The Memogate affair was a misleading fantasy. In intent, it was traitorous as it sought foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan. Later in the day, the Zardari-Kayani love affair proved the futility of such a rash childish act.
The role of government during and after the saga related to the controversy surrounding a leading news channel smacked of connivance. The remarks of the information minister could be ignored for his characteristic muddle-headedness. The behaviour of the prime minister was regretfully highly unbecoming of a chief executive.
The military has no business to volunteer advice to the civilian government unless the matter becomes a security concern for Pakistan and its people. General (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s advice to former president Asif Ali Zardari in the wake of the lawyers’ movement to restore the judiciary saved the country from impending chaos. That is why it was so well received.
Each side must respect the space exclusive to the other. The military does not offer comments, for instance, on the prevailing economic conditions, political discontent or even elections. The government does not ask for a particular senior military officer to be given a particular assignment. That will lead to the politicising of the military, a phenomenon that has already destroyed the police force.
The government has the right to ask for military assistance in ‘the aid of civil power’ according to the relevant constitutional provisions covering all types of national calamities, natural or man-made. All established democracies accommodate military concerns in the formulation of important policies, especially foreign and internal security policies. It is well known that while the Indian government was quite willing to discuss Siachen with Pakistan, it was asked by the Indian military to abandon the idea. It did.
The ISI, despite all the technical, logistical and resource disadvantages, has successfully foiled major nefarious designs of most regional and some powerful foreign intelligence agencies. The military is engaged in a protracted war against terror, which does not promise a quick and total victory. It needs the whole-hearted support of the Pakistani people, which fortunately, it enjoys in abundance. It also needs unflinching support and patience of the government, which has just started to pour in, a promising omen indeed. We must remain focused on one point where all national endeavours must converge, and that is Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 4th, 2014.