The one-dimensional goalpost
Every state institution is looking through their narrow prism and seem convinced it is the way forward
The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and a former federal secretary. He has also served as chairman of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board
There is a major national failing that needs to be corrected if we are to move forward. Our leaders, instead of looking at national problems, holistically look at them through a single prism and somewhat superficially. For example, they ruminate about Jinnah’s vision but are unable to translate it into concrete terms. After all, what does Jinnah’s vision imply in concrete terms to be realised? Political parties and intellectuals interpret and extrapolate according to their beliefs and ideological leanings. However, a more honest and credible interpretation would be by deducing his thinking from the August 11, 1948 speech in which he visualises Pakistan as an inclusive, democratic and a modern state.
The religious parties profess of making Pakistan an Islamic state, going back 1,400 years and adopting a model of governance that was prevalent during the time of Caliphs. They profess laudable goals by claiming to establish a pristine state based on justice and fair play. Idolising the reign of Caliphs as a model is fine, but relating it to the objective realities of the 21st century is the real challenge. Otherwise, it turns out to be empty rhetoric. JI’s model of governance in K-P during Musharraf’s time — and now as a part of coalition with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — is anything but a remote reflection of their professed goals. At best, it is reflective of a dialectic between modernity versus traditionalism accompanied by mediocre governance.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sees Pakistan’s prosperity linked to infrastructural development — cities being crisscrossed by Metros, underpasses and flyovers. He sees economic prosperity in the form of modernisation of infrastructure with big-tag projects. His policy of broader and deeper engagement with China is surely in the best interests of both countries and enjoys a nationwide consensus. But what cannot be ignored is the stark reality that 48 per cent of the population cannot read or write. The question arises: can a country be economically viable and politically stable and earn an honourable place without a sound educational and scientific base? Moreover, is it feasible to sustain economic development in a globalised world without due emphasis on modern education. The fact that education comes under the purview of the provinces does not absolve national leaders of their collective and primary obligation.
We have been exploiting our geo-strategic leverage for years but not necessarily in a positive sense, although the potential is enormous, as we have now come to realise. Pakistan provides the shortest and most economical route between China and Middle East and between China and Africa. For Afghanistan, too, we are the shortest route to the Gulf and India. We threw away that advantage as it came with a heavy price in the form of militancy and extremism.
The responsibility of pursuing a more comprehensive approach essentially rests with the prime minister. But there are two major impediments that are coming his way. First, the military continues to dominate foreign, defence and security policies and leaves little space for the prime minister to operate. Second, his vision is focused on mega projects and has not shown any proclivity towards subjects like education, health and law and order. If security and foreign affairs are outsourced to the military, health, education and law and order are in any case provincial subjects with weak coordination at the federal level. In addition, the prime minister has been averse to using institutions of parliament, Cabinet, National Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs and Nacta. Cumulative impact of this is that the state authority is diffused and ineffective.
The army leadership wants Pakistan to be invincible with its nuclear capability and strong conventional force that acts as a bastion against Indian designs. It wants to engage in counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations until the last militant either surrenders or is killed. Ironically, even the militants are driven by their skewed ideology of reforming Pakistan. Every state institution is looking through their narrow prism and seem convinced it is the way forward. But this will not succeed and at best keep the country afloat and worse push it towards anarchy.
The military perhaps is the most autonomous among major key institutions. Problem arises when soldierly single-mindedness is brought to bear on national matters that fall in the civilian domain. The Pakistan army, currently in addition to its professional role, is engaged in matters of national policy and governance. It is important that Nawaz Sharif and General Sharif should not take decisions of national import between them without benefiting from the input of the appropriate national institutions. From hindsight it is apparent that conflicts with India could have been averted if critical national decisions were subjected to institutional scrutiny and oversight.
Clearly, the civilian leadership by largely abdicating its responsibility of defence and security to the military creates a major weakness in statecraft. Every time the COAS gives a statement on security matters relating to India, Afghanistan or the region it resonates both domestically and abroad. It also serves as a reminder of where the power lies in Pakistan. By treating it as a routine matter it is subconsciously accepted as normal. But has our national leadership, of all hues, given a serious thought that this imbalance in civil-military relations undermines Pakistan’s power potential significantly? Negative impact of it is evident while dealing with foreign powers and addressing domestic challenges pertaining to security, economy and politics. Prime Minister Modi subtly exploits Pakistan’s internal contradictions to the maximum, and so do other regional powers, albeit to a lesser degree. What is worrisome that we are not even conscious of the reality? And even more troublesome, how long will the civilian leadership, parliamentarians and military top brass keep Pakistan in a democratic nursery.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 10th, 2015.
The religious parties profess of making Pakistan an Islamic state, going back 1,400 years and adopting a model of governance that was prevalent during the time of Caliphs. They profess laudable goals by claiming to establish a pristine state based on justice and fair play. Idolising the reign of Caliphs as a model is fine, but relating it to the objective realities of the 21st century is the real challenge. Otherwise, it turns out to be empty rhetoric. JI’s model of governance in K-P during Musharraf’s time — and now as a part of coalition with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — is anything but a remote reflection of their professed goals. At best, it is reflective of a dialectic between modernity versus traditionalism accompanied by mediocre governance.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sees Pakistan’s prosperity linked to infrastructural development — cities being crisscrossed by Metros, underpasses and flyovers. He sees economic prosperity in the form of modernisation of infrastructure with big-tag projects. His policy of broader and deeper engagement with China is surely in the best interests of both countries and enjoys a nationwide consensus. But what cannot be ignored is the stark reality that 48 per cent of the population cannot read or write. The question arises: can a country be economically viable and politically stable and earn an honourable place without a sound educational and scientific base? Moreover, is it feasible to sustain economic development in a globalised world without due emphasis on modern education. The fact that education comes under the purview of the provinces does not absolve national leaders of their collective and primary obligation.
We have been exploiting our geo-strategic leverage for years but not necessarily in a positive sense, although the potential is enormous, as we have now come to realise. Pakistan provides the shortest and most economical route between China and Middle East and between China and Africa. For Afghanistan, too, we are the shortest route to the Gulf and India. We threw away that advantage as it came with a heavy price in the form of militancy and extremism.
The responsibility of pursuing a more comprehensive approach essentially rests with the prime minister. But there are two major impediments that are coming his way. First, the military continues to dominate foreign, defence and security policies and leaves little space for the prime minister to operate. Second, his vision is focused on mega projects and has not shown any proclivity towards subjects like education, health and law and order. If security and foreign affairs are outsourced to the military, health, education and law and order are in any case provincial subjects with weak coordination at the federal level. In addition, the prime minister has been averse to using institutions of parliament, Cabinet, National Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs and Nacta. Cumulative impact of this is that the state authority is diffused and ineffective.
The army leadership wants Pakistan to be invincible with its nuclear capability and strong conventional force that acts as a bastion against Indian designs. It wants to engage in counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations until the last militant either surrenders or is killed. Ironically, even the militants are driven by their skewed ideology of reforming Pakistan. Every state institution is looking through their narrow prism and seem convinced it is the way forward. But this will not succeed and at best keep the country afloat and worse push it towards anarchy.
The military perhaps is the most autonomous among major key institutions. Problem arises when soldierly single-mindedness is brought to bear on national matters that fall in the civilian domain. The Pakistan army, currently in addition to its professional role, is engaged in matters of national policy and governance. It is important that Nawaz Sharif and General Sharif should not take decisions of national import between them without benefiting from the input of the appropriate national institutions. From hindsight it is apparent that conflicts with India could have been averted if critical national decisions were subjected to institutional scrutiny and oversight.
Clearly, the civilian leadership by largely abdicating its responsibility of defence and security to the military creates a major weakness in statecraft. Every time the COAS gives a statement on security matters relating to India, Afghanistan or the region it resonates both domestically and abroad. It also serves as a reminder of where the power lies in Pakistan. By treating it as a routine matter it is subconsciously accepted as normal. But has our national leadership, of all hues, given a serious thought that this imbalance in civil-military relations undermines Pakistan’s power potential significantly? Negative impact of it is evident while dealing with foreign powers and addressing domestic challenges pertaining to security, economy and politics. Prime Minister Modi subtly exploits Pakistan’s internal contradictions to the maximum, and so do other regional powers, albeit to a lesser degree. What is worrisome that we are not even conscious of the reality? And even more troublesome, how long will the civilian leadership, parliamentarians and military top brass keep Pakistan in a democratic nursery.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 10th, 2015.