Daily Times

There is no intention here to indulge in circular talk or place anyone in a state of ‘now you see, now you don’t’. As a matter of fact, generalities are not permanent as they tend to become in popular lore but have a temporary relevance and then fade away into the eternal haze of time. That is why a notion seems to have evolved with the thinking that generalities are not always a reliable measure of prejudging a people, race, region, community or a group of men for their responses to a particular situation repeated in history. Dictums are normally relevant to and are part of the context of contemporary times and the enabling environment within which they emerged. This context dilutes with the passage of time and so do the anticipated reactions modify themselves. Since human beings are ever so emotionally agile and adaptable, therefore, as a wise precaution the phrase has been suffixed by ‘including this one’. With this addition, the phrase becomes politically correct and more versatile than a piece of unassailable wisdom.
One came across this particular piece of literature quite some time ago and the first impression was that it was a cleverly crafted phrase to baffle an unsuspecting mind. However, a second and more deliberate look revealed an accommodative and built-in quality fairly rare in sweeping sayings like this one. A little more reflection and one was there where the author wanted you to be, at a sunny fork in the road. This fork is the essence of understanding and elective mental mobility.
The other day I saw how magically the whole thing works among those who have an open and receptive mind. There was a considered comment that went on to say something like the following about Pakistan and its army culture: “General Zia made the Pakistan army into a fanatical instrument of jihad. He changed its role to be the guardians of Pakistan’s ideological frontiers. Pakistan knows that, take out Islamic fundamentalism and the Pakistan army’s fanaticism after General Zia, and it will be a decent state to work with.”
This looked like a test case as it came from a disciplined, widely experienced and well-groomed mind. However, there was a glimmer of hope and anticipation visible beneath the apparently well-baked opinion so succinctly expressed. It was plain that the originator had prejudged to pigeonhole that General Zia’s nebulous Islamist interregnum went unquestioned in the Pakistan army and that it altogether was and continues to be an Islamic fundamentalism oriented, fanatical force safeguarding the ethereal ‘ideological frontiers’ of the country. Opportunity has arisen for a productive exchange of views here.
It was apparent that the author’s vast service experience and his exposure to the highest echelons and international forums provided him unique opportunities to see things first hand with clearer focus. At that level, one naturally hitches up a large reservoir of observations and inferences. However, opinions take time to mature as they have to pass through a continuous process of bench testing, modification and at times a complete overhaul. In order to proceed, it is prudent to pick up the thread from where he left it. The nuances so mentioned were rather antiquated and the context vanished a long time ago. As usual, we in both countries depend much on our mostly cliché-ridden, agenda-laden and opinionated media for updates regarding each other as contacts are few and far between. This remote sensing creates serious difficulty in perceptual objectivity and balance in views.
I was a fairly senior major at the time when the late General Zia propounded his ill-founded notion of the army as a guardian of ideological frontiers. Before that he had already rolled in various other dices of baroque Islamism. Most in the army could see through the smoke screen and knew it was yet another ruse to gain legitimacy for retaining power in uniform. Therefore, there were hardly any serious buyers of this unfortunate farce except those who suffered from dire professional deficiencies and wanted to rise in rank through this militarily incompatible short cut. After General Zia’s tragic demise in 1988 his unlikely camp followers were systematically marginalised and eventually shed but, regretfully, a lot of damage was already done. Most of us loathed intervention from the soles of our boots to our cap plumes, being so unexceptionable. Much against our inclinations, we had to devise not very delightful ways to slip the scent. The army’s time honoured and battle-proven culture was badly mutilated and needed major surgery.
The Pakistan army has since come a long way in recovering its proper military poise and hard professional moorings. Religion has been, by and large, brought back to its usual place as in the tradition of militaries: a personal matter and solace to those wounded in battle. That is why we had Parsi and Christian general officers, a number of Hindu, Sikh and other officers in fighting units who would in time rise to senior ranks. Except for General Zia’s perverse interregnum and a little after him, Pakistan’s armed forces, particularly the Pakistan army, has had nothing to do with how one prays but everything to do with how good a soldier one is.
It may be erroneous to form a hardened opinion as that presumes foreclosure of evolution of responses by the object entity. Fundamentalism and its twain fanaticism are a function of a sick and paranoid mind in any variety of its shades. It entails a pervasive state of frenzy and arrogant righteousness leading to dangerous rigidity and refusal to see alternative logic. In a business as serious as soldiering this kind of mental makeup means sure disaster. Therefore, we were quick to peel off this forced overlay as soon as opportunity arose.
In the history of nations many prototypes fell face first and many strong myths were not only shattered but also simply evaporated in thin air. What remains is the reality of balance between pulsating humanity and hard national interest. In relations between nations conventional wisdom works to a certain extent beyond which it becomes redundant and a millstone of flawed national policies. Pragmatism, an open logical mind and a vision of broader, healthier flows of history of regions can work better where there had once been stock reactions, habitually. It is quite ridiculous to oppose an entertainment show here and a group visit there, as these reflex and mainly obsessive reactions do not mask the sun but place the practitioner in darkness. There is a huge swath of humanity populating the subcontinent, which must be given a fair chance to prosper in peace and not perpetually live under the threat of war and destruction.
A historic paradigm change is taking place in our country’s military security calculus as a cumulative result of institutional introspections over a period of time. “A peaceful environment in and around Pakistan is the army’s top priority,” declared the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) addressing troops in Bahawalpur, recently.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army and can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com