Daily Times

The debate has been raging in the media before the retirement of General Raheel Sharif and appointment of new army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, whether the policy of military would change with the change of guard and relations between the military and the government would improve. In his address to soldiers, General Qamar Bajwa asked them to respond with full force to any ceasefire violations by India along the LoC. “Each violation of any kind must be responded to with full force in the most effective manner,” he said during a visit to the 10 Corps Rawalpindi and troops at forward locations along the Line of Control (LoC). Of course, the relations between the military and the government have been uneasy at times, but they are on the same page as far as the fight against terrorism is concerned. However, the military is the most organised institution, and decisions are made in the corps commanders meetings.

Therefore, General Qamar Bajwa is likely to carry General Sharif’s legacy forward. He is indeed a firm opponent of extremism and terrorism. It is true that military dictators in the past were contemptuous of the political leaders, and the politicians considered military personnel no more than chowkidars who had no right to interfere in security and foreign policy matters. In fact, after the sad demise of Quaid-e-Azam and first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, British trained bureaucracy – Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Chaudhry Mohammad Ali and Iskandar Mirza had been instrumental in forming and toppling the governments according to their whims and fancy. When the civilian bureaucracy failed to deliver, it asked then army chief Ayub Khan to impose Martial Law. Anyhow, when political parties were involved in internecine conflicts leading to chaos and anarchy, democracy was derailed through 58-2 (B), which was incorporated in the Constitution by late Zia-ul-Haq.

But the things had changed after the appointment of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in November 2007 by then president Pervez Musharraf who was forced to resign in August 2008. Of course, the transition after 2008 elections was smooth, and PPP came into power. However, in view of stories of corruption by the PPP government vis-à-vis Swiss case and Memogate scandal, there were rumours that military might overthrow the elected government. Some leaders and analysts had been writing the obituary of the PPP government during its five years. In 2013 elections, PML-N won, and Nawaz Sharif was elected as prime minister. He appointed General Raheel Sharif as army chief, and for some time relations between the civil and military leaderships remained in a positive trajectory. After anchorperson Hamid Mir was injured in an attack, the Geo had started a vilification campaign against then ISI chief General Zaheer-ul-Islam; and some analysts and politicians including the then information minister had criticised the establishment.

But nowhere in the world are the military and intelligence outfits maligned and discussed in a manner in which some people do it in Pakistan. At Ghazi Base, jawans, majors and colonels had invited the attention of the COAS Raheel Sharif towards the insults heaped on the military. It was in this backdrop that Raheel Sharif declared, “military would resolutely preserve its own dignity and its institutional pride.” Many an eyebrow were raised in his statement. If our politicians vow they would safeguard democracy; swear they would defend parliament’s supremacy at any rate; if the judges could proclaim not to allow judiciary’s independence to be compromised under any circumstances, what was wrong with the army chief’s vow? Did they want him to say that the army would throw itself in wholly prostrate to be freely and joyously pilloried, vilified and assailed left, right and centre?

Of course, there is no holy cow that cannot be touched or talked about, and fair criticism along with suggestions for improvements by defence analysts could help the army to become more fighting fit. But badmouthing the military and subjecting them to scathing criticism on a security lapse is not fair. In fact, a select group of media anchors in Pakistan not only holds prime time TV Talk Shows to promote skewed logic and opinions but also project views through print media, leaving no space for the unbiased elements to offer their comments on the quality of contents discussed during panel discussions. Resultantly, freedom of expression is repressed by media itself, as few anchors and media have monopolised the media market and have formed powerful syndicates to support each other while silencing the voice of reason.

To any rational observer, appointment of Lt. General (retd) Nasir Khan Janjua as National Security Advisor (NSA) in October 2015 was emblematic of understanding between political and military leadership in Pakistan. But some writers and analysts said that political space was shrinking around Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the semblance of PM Sharif’s control over security and foreign policy had all but vanished. What kind of freedom of expression is it, that they are giving such a blatant display of it so recklessly? Surely, freedom of expression is an open polity’s inviolable part; but in no event can this freedom be a license to undermine the security of Pakistan. According to Article 19 of the Constitution freedom of expression is not absolute. Certain sacrosanct limits have to be exercised in the civil politics, and universally accepted norms and standards have to be adhered to.

It is a matter of record that military did not support even former army chief and then president Pervez Musharraf, who had an unceremonious exit. The military had withdrawn its personnel on deputation in the civilian departments and had officially instructed them not to take sides during elections. Having that said, Prime Minister should keep vigil over his party leaders. During his second stint as prime minister, some hawks including the then information minister used to say: “Mian Sahib! Fix up some military generals to put them in their place.” The time to criticise and condemn a military adventurist is when he imposes Martial Law or wraps up the democratic setup. But when the civil and military leaderships have a good working relationship, there is no need to provoke military leadership through irresponsible statements or fabricating stories that could have a backlash.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com