My political sensibilities matured in part during the late 1960s and the early 1970s. That was a time of turmoil the world over. The Cold War was at its height and the war in Vietnam seemed to be interminable. In Pakistan we had gone through the stalemate of a war with India and we had already spent more than a decade under a military government. The military action in what was then called East Pakistan was yet to come. By the time Pakistan lost badly to India and also lost the eastern half of the country, I was ‘safely’ in the US pursuing further medical training. Few people today remember that in 1971 recent medical graduates were being drafted into the Pakistan army, often against their wishes. I managed to leave the country before the army got to me, so for all practical purposes I was a draft evader. When I arrived in the US in late 1971, the Vietnam War was extremely unpopular among young men and being a draft evader was considered a badge of courage. So, my earliest attitudes were entirely unfavourable as far as armies and war were concerned. Over the next few decades what happened in the US and in Pakistan did little to make me feel better about war. After the humiliation of the Vietnam War, the US never recovered its moral high ground. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the martial law and government of Ziaul Haq must be accepted as the worst 11 years in Pakistani history. And, in retrospect, Pakistan did not win anything in its support for the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Afghanistan became a basket case and Pakistan descended into the hell of a Kalashnikov and heroin culture, Islamisation being an added nightmare. Much has been written about the concept of a just war. Most people who think about such things agree that the last ‘just’ war was World War II. It was just not because the allies were righteous but because the axis powers were so very horrible. The point of comparison is of course how the occupying allied forces treated Germany and Japan after the end of the war and how these two major axis powers treated countries they occupied during the war. There was a time when it was said, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” However, 9/11 has changed the vocabulary of modern warfare. Today, any non-state organisation fighting against the established authority is automatically labelled terrorist. This nomenclature is especially useful for occupying forces in places like Kashmir and Palestine. But there are terrorists in Pakistan who have killed thousands of Pakistanis over the last few years. And I have come around to accept that the present army action against these terrorists is indeed justified. And that is what the Pakistan army should concentrate on at this time. I totally believe that any democracy, however flawed, is better than the rule of a general even if cloaked in acceptance through a referendum and legitimisation by a subservient parliament or the judiciary. Democracy is messy and often chaotic but, if it is allowed to persist, eventually the people get a chance to determine who should rule them and also for how long. The idea that an election in Pakistan today assures a five-year government is entirely baseless. If a government does not function properly, the people have the right to change it. And most democratic’ governments resign if they are unable to govern effectively. Our problem in Pakistan, among other things, is that even after multiple elections we have not been able to develop a system where the elected representatives of the people actually behave as if they are representing the people who elected them. I have always believed that, once in power, most individuals do actually try and do some good things. Sadly, I have started to wonder whether this presumption on my part might be truly warranted as far as Pakistan is concerned. As I consider the two marches starting on our independence day, I keep asking myself whether the leaders of these marches want to make things better for the people of the country or if it is all just a game to get into a position of power. From my perspective it seems that the motives behind the marches are rather dubious. It is true that the PML-N has failed to address the problems of ordinary people and that the two brothers have run the country as a personal fiefdom but, at the same time, I believe that replacing the present government by force is not the right thing. The best thing that might come out of these marches would be if the PML-N realises that an electoral mandate can be evanescent and that democracy is a participatory activity. The most important thing being said is that if these marches create enough chaos, we just might see another military takeover. And that perhaps is what both Imran Khan and Allama Tahirul Qadri want, hoping that a military intervention might in some way or the other create a situation that could lead to a new government led by either of them. Frankly, I do not see how that could happen. But would a military intervention be all bad? An army takeover is essentially a government of the generals and they are as good or as bad as the politicians they replace. From past experience it is clear that a general running the country does not mean that things will get better. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is likely to happen. So I hope that nothing drastic happens over the next few days except that the PML-N learns that it must be more responsive to what the people of this country want and need. And the army should do what it does best: fight those who want to destroy this country from the inside. The writer has practiced and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com