 |
| Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Shuja Pasha. |
Before the signing of the Iran nuclear deal last year, BBC’s
defense correspondent, Mark Urban, published a report [1] that
Pakistan’s military has made a clandestine deal with Saudi Arabia that in the
event of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Pakistan would provide ready-made
nuclear warheads along with delivery systems to Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, it should be remembered that Pakistan’s military
and Saudi Arabia have very deep and institutionalized links: thousands of
Pakistani retired and serving army officers work on deputations in the Gulf
states; furthermore, during the ‘80s Saudi Arabia lacked an efficient intelligence
set-up, and Pakistan’s ISI virtually played the role of Saudi Arabia’s foreign
intelligence service.
Additionally, in the recent years Pakistan’s defense
production industry, with Chinese assistance, has emerged as one of the most
sophisticated military-industrial complex in the region. Not only does it
provides state-of-the-art conventional weapons to the oil-rich Gulf States, but
according to a May 2014 AFP report [2],
Pakistan-made weapons were also used in large quantities in the Sri Lankan
Northern Offensive of 2008-09 against the Tamil Tigers.
Notwithstanding, from the massacres in Bangladesh in 1971 to
the training and arming of jihadists during the Soviet-Afghan war throughout
the ‘80s and ‘90s, and then launching ill-conceived military operations in Pakistan’s
tribal areas under American pressure, which led to the displacement of millions
of Pashtun tribesmen, the single biggest issue in Pakistan has been the
interference of army in politics. Unless we are able to establish civilian
supremacy in Pakistan, it would become a rogue state which will pose a threat
to the regional peace and its own citizenry.
Regarding the Kashmir dispute, there can be no two views
that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris must be respected; and I am
also of the opinion that Pakistan should lend its moral, political and
diplomatic support to the Kashmiri cause; but at the same time I am strongly
against the militarization of any dispute, not just Kashmir.
The insurgency in Kashmir erupted in the fateful year of
1984 of the Orwellian fame; when the Indian armed forces surreptitiously
occupied the whole of Siachen glacier, including the undemarcated Pakistani
portion. Now we must keep the context in mind: those were the heydays of the
Cold War and the Pakistan military’s proxies, the Afghan so-called “Mujahideen”
(freedom fighters) were winning battle after battle against the Red Army, and
the morale of the Pakistan army's top brass was touching the sky.
Moreover, Pakistan’s national security establishment also
wanted to inflict damage to the Indian armed forces to exact revenge for their
humiliation in the Bangladesh War of 1971, when India took 90,000 Pakistani
soldiers as prisoners of war. All they had to do was to divert a fraction of
their Afghan jihadist proxies towards Kashmir to light the fires of insurgency
in Kashmir.
Here we must keep in mind, however, that an insurgency cannot
succeed anywhere, unless the insurgents get some level of support from the
local population. For example: if a hostile force tries to foment insurgency in
Punjab, they wouldn’t succeed; because Punjabis don’t have any grievances
against Pakistan. On the other hand, if an adversary tries to incite insurgency
in the marginalized province of Balochistan and tribal areas, they will succeed
because the local Baloch and Pashtun population has grievances against the
heavy-handedness of Pakistan’s military.
Therefore, to put the blame squarely on the Pakistani side
for the Kashmir conflict would be unfair. Firstly, India treacherously
incorporated the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir into the Dominion of India
in 1947, knowing fully well that Kashmir had an overwhelming Muslim majority
and in accordance with the "Partition Principle" it should have
become a part of Pakistan.
Even now, if someone tries to instigate an insurgency in the
Pakistani part of Kashmir, I believe, that they wouldn’t succeed; because Kashmiri
Muslims identify with Pakistan. The Indian-occupied Kashmir has seen many waves
for independence since 1947, but not a single voice has been raised for
independence in the Pakistani part of Kashmir in our 68 years long history.
Secondly, India re-ignited the conflict by occupying the
strategically-placed Siachen glacier in 1984. Pakistan's stance on Kashmir has
been quite flexible and it has floated numerous proposals to resolve the
conflict. But India is now the new regional henchman of the US and also the
strategic partner of the latter against China; that's why, India’s stance, not
just on Kashmir but on all issues, has been quite rigid and haughty nowadays;
because it is negotiating from a position of strength. However, diplomacy
aside, the real victims of this intransigence and hubris on both sides have
been the Kashmiri people and a lot of innocent blood has been spilled for no
good reason.
Coming back to the topic, for the half of its 68 years long
history Pakistan was directly ruled by the army and for the remaining half the
security establishment kept dictating Pakistan’s foreign and security policy
from behind the scenes. The outcome of the first martial law (1958-71) was that
Bengalis were marginalized and alienated to an extent that it led to the
dismemberment of Pakistan; during the second decade-long martial law (1977-88)
our so-called “saviors” trained and armed their own nemesis, the Afghan and
Kashmiri jihadists; and during the third martial law (1999-2008) they made a
volte-face under American pressure and declared a war against their erstwhile
proxy jihadists that lit the fires of insurgency in the tribal areas of
Pakistan.
Although, many liberal political commentators in Pakistan
nowadays hold an Islamist general, Zia-ul-Haq, responsible for the jihadist
militancy in our tribal areas; however, it would be erroneous to assume that
nurturing militancy in Pakistan was the doing of an individual scapegoat named
Zia; all the army chiefs after Zia’s assassination, including Aslam Beg, Asif
Nawaz, Waheed Kakar, Jahangir Karamat and right up to General Musharraf, upheld
the same military doctrine of using jihadist proxies to destabilize the hostile
neighboring countries, like Afghanistan, India and Iran, throughout the ‘90s. A
strategic rethink in the Pakistan Army’s top brass took place only after 9/11,
when Richard Armitage threatened General Musharraf in so many words: “We will
send you back to the Stone Age.”
Thus, the deliberate promotion of Islamic radicalism and
militancy in the region was not the doing of an individual general; rather, it
was the well-thought-out military doctrine of a rogue institution. The military
mindset, training and institutional logic dictates a militarist and offensive
approach to the foreign and domestic affairs. Therefore, as a matter of
principle the khakis must be kept miles away from the top decision-making organs
of the state.
Regardless, the annual budgetary allocation for defense roughly
amounts to a quarter of the federal budget, but Pakistan army also operates its
own business empire: from myriads of industries like Fauji Fertilizers and
Askari bank and cement to the most lucrative real estate business carried out
by the Defense Housing Authority (DHA). All the major cities of Pakistan are
dotted with numerous sprawling military cantonments and DHA’s housing colonies
for the officers of the Pakistan armed forces.
The profits earned from this business empire are not included
in the aforementioned budgetary allocation. Apart from that, Pakistan army has
also been getting $1.2 billion every year from the American Coalition Support
Fund for the last decade or so, for its partnership with the US in the latter’s
dubious “war on terror” policy. If we add up all that, our East India Company
really is an unaffordable white elephant. And I don’t mean East India Company
in a metaphorical sense; they literally are Pakistan’s indigenous colonizers.
The army officers have their own separate barricaded housing
colonies and cantonments where the natives aren’t allowed to enter. They
operate their own network of schools, colleges and universities for the
children of the army officers. They also run their own hospitals like the
Combined Military Hospitals in all the major cities of Pakistan. The British
colonizers in India also established separate housing colonies and cantonments,
missionary schools and hospitals. In more than one ways Pakistan army is like the British
East India Company.
Finally, the rule of law, more than anything, implies the
supremacy of the law: that is, all the institutions must work within the ambit
of the constitution. The first casualty of the martial law, however, is
constitution itself, because it abrogates the supreme law of the land. All
other laws derive their authority from the constitution, and when the constitution
itself has been abrogated then only one law prevails: the law of the jungle. If
the armed forces of a country are entitled to abrogate “a piece of paper,” known
as the constitution under the barrel of a gun, then by the same logic thieves
and robbers are also entitled to question the legitimacy of civil and criminal
codes, which derive their authority from the constitution.
It’s high time that all the political forces and civil
society of Pakistan present a united front against the foreign and as well as
the domestic enemies. Pakistan
armed forces are the friends of Pakistan
within their constitutionally-ordained limits, but outside of those limits they
are the worst enemies of Pakistan .
Determining the domestic and foreign policy of Pakistan is the sole prerogative
of Pakistan’s elected representatives; and anyone who thinks that they can
redefine the national interest to suit their personal ambition, or
institutional interests, is a traitor who shall be judged harshly by the
history.
Sources and links:
[1] Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan: BBC’s
defense correspondent, Mark Urban.
[2] Pakistan-made arms were used against Tamils in Sri
Lanka:
No comments:
Post a Comment