By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja
Exclusive Article
Pakistan is a country which has been largely ruined at the cruel hands of civil and military dictators during last 65 years. They have enjoyed their terms one after another but the miserable lot of Pakistan remained unchanged. They had done number of experiences with it in the name of various reforms but everything looked destined to be failed. In a destabilized third world country, military is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either promising or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception.
Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people. Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India. It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.
Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.
This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British Empire. The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic Bonapartism. Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.
So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah did not live long and died after one year of the creation of Pakistan.
In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.
While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus.History of the dirty marshal laws of Pakistan started off back in 1958 with the intervention of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. He laid the ugly foundations of military rule in Pakistan whereas India, our neighbor and arch rival built its army for defence and the differences are quite obvious today.
He later on introduced the concept of basic democracy in Pakistan, which failed just within the flash of eyes. He then, contested the presidential elections against Fatima Jinnah and defeated her with the clear rigging as bureaucracy was standing shoulder
to shoulder with him.His junior Gen Aagha Yahya Khan made the second intervention into the political set up of Pakistan and cost it an irreparable damage. Due to his destructive policies, Pakistan lost its second wind the Eastern Pakistan in 1971.
Then came the poor administrator in the shape of Gen Zia-ul-Haq that killed the best ever politician of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto through court trials. It was the biggest loss our country has claimed so far but military dictatorship did not stop hence.
Gen Pervez Musharraf out threw the most powerful political government of Pakistan in 1999 and push Pakistan into an unnecessary and endless war of terrorism. The so-called war on terror has pushed our country into the depths of humiliations as we helped
the west to kill our friends and neighbours ruthlessly.
So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Can we break this hold of Khakis and can limit them to borders? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. What happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed?? Instead of having a united front, PPP was keen on creating a rift between army and PML-N for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And right now PML-N has actually gone to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment is targeting their supreme heads also and if democracy is derailed, they too will be loser.
We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. The role of Army is to restore order and to defend the country on borders. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts. What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.
-The writer is a freelance columnist and a regular contributor
Exclusive Article
Pakistan is a country which has been largely ruined at the cruel hands of civil and military dictators during last 65 years. They have enjoyed their terms one after another but the miserable lot of Pakistan remained unchanged. They had done number of experiences with it in the name of various reforms but everything looked destined to be failed. In a destabilized third world country, military is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either promising or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception.
Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people. Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India. It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.
Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.
This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British Empire. The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic Bonapartism. Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.
So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah did not live long and died after one year of the creation of Pakistan.
In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.
While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus.History of the dirty marshal laws of Pakistan started off back in 1958 with the intervention of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. He laid the ugly foundations of military rule in Pakistan whereas India, our neighbor and arch rival built its army for defence and the differences are quite obvious today.
He later on introduced the concept of basic democracy in Pakistan, which failed just within the flash of eyes. He then, contested the presidential elections against Fatima Jinnah and defeated her with the clear rigging as bureaucracy was standing shoulder
to shoulder with him.His junior Gen Aagha Yahya Khan made the second intervention into the political set up of Pakistan and cost it an irreparable damage. Due to his destructive policies, Pakistan lost its second wind the Eastern Pakistan in 1971.
Then came the poor administrator in the shape of Gen Zia-ul-Haq that killed the best ever politician of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto through court trials. It was the biggest loss our country has claimed so far but military dictatorship did not stop hence.
Gen Pervez Musharraf out threw the most powerful political government of Pakistan in 1999 and push Pakistan into an unnecessary and endless war of terrorism. The so-called war on terror has pushed our country into the depths of humiliations as we helped
the west to kill our friends and neighbours ruthlessly.
So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Can we break this hold of Khakis and can limit them to borders? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. What happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed?? Instead of having a united front, PPP was keen on creating a rift between army and PML-N for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And right now PML-N has actually gone to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment is targeting their supreme heads also and if democracy is derailed, they too will be loser.
We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. The role of Army is to restore order and to defend the country on borders. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts. What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.
-The writer is a freelance columnist and a regular contributor
