Daily Times

On September 12, 2014, the Director General (DG) Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Asim Bajwa had to summon the media to give a press briefing on the ongoing military operation, Zarb-e-Azb, and – under this guise – on the (diminishing) role of the army in the prevalent political crisis at D-Chowk, Islamabad. Of both explicit and implicit objectives, the explanation on the latter was deficient in certain noticeable ways. In his press briefing, General Bajwa at least twice mentioned that the army believed in democracy and the constitution. To validate his point, General Bajwa alluded to an earlier address by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif delivered on Youm-e-Shuhada (Martyr’s Day) on April 30. General Sharif had said that the army believes in democracy and the constitution. However, on August 31, at the conclusion of a hurriedly convened corps commander conference, the ISPR’s press release declared the support of the (participants of the) conference to democracy only. The message was clear: in the name of democracy any action could be undertaken. Interestingly, August 31 was a date more reflective of the collective intent and will of the army. In his press briefing, what led Major General Bajwa to skip over ISPR’s press release on August 31 is not difficult to understand.

Related to the question is this: how did the journey from the importance of both democracy and the constitution on April 30 to the importance of only democracy on August 31 take place? In these four months, why did the constitution lose its significance? Even if it is not contested why was the word parliament also omitted on both occasions? Similarly, in his press briefing, when Major General Bajwa mentioned for the second time that the army believed in democracy and the constitution, another question arose: how did the journey from the importance of only democracy on August 31 to the importance of both democracy and the constitution on September 12 take place?

In these 12 days, why did the constitution gain importance once again, even if one does not question why the word parliament was again missing from the press briefing? The inclusion of the word “constitution” in the ISPR’s press briefing confers another credit on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) President Javed Hashmi for his audaciousness that he manifested by conducting a press conference in front of parliament on the evening of September 1. Hashmi’s utterances not only laid bare the inside story of the demonstration but also constrained Major General Bajwa to embrace the word “constitution” publicly. The shift repudiated the claim by Major General Bajwa (made in the same press briefing) that there was “speculation” about the army’s role behind the current demonstrations against the sitting government. The shift also highlighted that the statements issued by the ISPR in press releases should not be taken as final and conclusive.

Interestingly, the corps commander conference was scheduled originally for September 1 but it was convened in a hurry one day earlier. Though it can be argued that there was no relationship between the message of the conference conveyed through the ISPR’s press release on August 31 and the intention of the Supreme Court (SC) expressed on September 1 to take suo motu notice of the political crisis the following day, Hashmi’s press conference spoiled all plans. However, there is scant realisation that the constitution springs from parliament, which also needs to be mentioned. In principle, the ISPR should be giving regular briefings on Operation Zarb-e-Azb since its commencement on June 15. However, for the past two months, there has been no such briefing. If it took place fortnightly, reporters could have found an opportunity to ask questions not only on the prospects of the operation but also about speculation around the backing of the army for the joint demonstration staged by the PTI of Imran Khan and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) of Dr Tahirul Qadri in Islamabad. The arrival of about 400 ex-army men to apparently join the PAT’s sit-in speaks volumes for the kind of help available to the demonstration.

In his press briefing, Major General Bajwa also said that the army was of the public and hence its concerns were public. The question is: if the army or ex-army men were so keen to change the system, why did they make no similar effort during the eight year reign of General Pervez Musharraf? To introduce electoral reforms is a good idea but these reforms could have been introduced at that time easily. Secondly, if the army were so keen to curb corruption in the system, why did it let General Musharraf manoeuvre the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to continue the political make-and-break phenomenon instead of concluding corruption cases registered against politicians? In those eight years, the army kept on enjoying power. Both Khan and Dr Qadri, who remained part of the National Assembly (2002-2007), working under General Musharraf, also remained lackadaisical in their approaches. It was the 18th constitutional amendment that reformed the political system in 2010. If Khan’s party was not part of parliament then (owing to the party’s boycotting of the elections) and could not suggest reforms to its satisfaction, it is not other parties’ fault. Subsequent to Major General Bajwa’s press briefing, Khan had to announce publicly (on September 13) that neither the SC nor the army would come to his rescue. The question is this: why did Khan mention this point if he was not relying on them? Nevertheless, the positive in the briefing is that the ISPR tried to dissociate itself from this whole political mess. The SC has yet to do the same.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com