Khakis vs. Civilians

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

No Pains No Gains

By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja
Exclusive Article
Pakistan – US relations can be divided into three distinct phases: The Cold War period; the years of crisis in the relationship from 1990 to 1993; and the current phase of repairing, rebuilding and redefining relations. As rightly pointed out by Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, that; in the international politics, “there are neither permanent friends nor permanent foes of a state”. These are indeed, the convergences and divergences of national interests of states that make them friends or enemies to each other. National interests of states are not constant, but continue changing depending upon the emerging realities from time to time. National strategies are made on the principals of national interests’ not on emotions or on personnel liking or disliking of leadership or a particular factor.

In the current phase of Pak-US relationship which indeed started after the incident of 9/11, US needed Pakistan for active cooperation in its military operations against Taliban in Afghanistan. The militancy in FATA and other areas of Pakistan indeed is the fallout of this cooperation. Even during this phase there has been vicissitudes’ at the bilateral level and Pakistan was not fully trusted. Against the ground realities, it was equated with Afghanistan through the infamous Af-Pak policy. It is also true that Pak-US relationship is indeed a history of turbulent connections, and there is no harm in admitting that Islamabad’s ties with Washington were dictated by specific politico-military interests with no deep-rooted historical and ideological union. It was the national interest of US which dictated its relations with Pakistan.
In September 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that Pakistan’s intelligence agency had provided aid to the Haqqani network members who had attacked the American Embassy in Kabul the week before. In response, the Pakistani military’s high command has rallied the country’s civilian leadership to reject the U.S. ultimatum to end Islamabad’s relationship with the Haqqanis. Pakistan’s foreign minister warns that America risks “losing an ally”. American-Pakistani relations took a turn for the worse in late November 2011 when a NATOair attack killed 26 Pakistani soldiers in strikes against two military posts at the country’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. The death of Osama Bin Ladenand the circumstances that allowed him to reside quietly in a three-story house on the edge of the Pakistani town of Abbott Abad, which houses military garrisons, have sharply increased tensions between the American and Pakistani governments.
Pakistani compulsion and its geo-political location was well exploited by US for its own strategic needs. U.S otherwise needed a partner in South Asia, which could act as a counter weight against the spread of Communism. Indian refusal to become US ally in 1949 left US with no option, but to make Pakistan as its partner. Unfortunately, this strategic convergence of interests mostly benefited the United States. US got enough space for spying and limiting the activities of its ideological opponent, throughout during the period of cold war. During the entire duration of this partnership, the gains for Pakistan however, were less as compared to its sufferance. Now, once as a twist of history, there is a convergence of interests of both countries once again, let there be a realistic Pak-US partnership on the longer terms? This is only possible once both sides will respect each other’s interests on the basis of mutuality. The major partner will have to play the major role, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured that, this time US would not abandon Pakistan.
-The writer is a freelance columnist and a regular contributor

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them”

By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja
Exclusive Article
Pakistan was founded on the basis of religious nationalism. Its other two neighbors Iran and Afghanistan were never professed as hostile states. But India as non-Muslim neighbor with whom Pakistan had fought a war in beginning of its creation has become a constant threat towards the national security of Pakistan. A high degree of mistrust and insecurity had shaped the political relations between India and Pakistan.

Regarding the issue of national security, Pakistan has embarked upon the policy of arms race since its creation. 60 years of its independence are wasted in this race of national security. Pakistan priorities are defence related not development related. The ‘stated’ defence budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 is likely to be Rs495 billion, an increase of Rs53 billion or 12 per cent over the previous year’s ‘stated’ budget
Defence budgets have never been debated in Parliament and are always assumed to be a given during the presentation of the annual money bill. Why are we least concerned about debating our defense budget in Parliament?? Is there no need of discussing it?? Or this is the sacred testimonial which cannot be touched??? In the case of India, he is also doing the same. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, presenting the 2011-2012 budget to parliament, set the military budget at just over 1.64 trillion rupees ($36.28 billion), up from last year’s 1.47 trillion rupees. Last year the increase was about 4 percent in military budget. India considers China as his greatest rival. China is the real long-term challenge on the strategic horizon and India’s security planning is geared toward it. India is also worried and anxious about sino-pak relations. Pakistan is uncomfortable over India’s propinquity to Afghanistan.
So the relationship between the two neighboring and hostile countries owes a great deal of mistrust. Terrorism, Indus water treaty and Kashmir Issue are the commonly used issues which hinders in bilateral relations and stumbling peace process between the two countries. November 2008 attacks were across Mumbai, India’s largest city. The sole captured terrorist, Ajmal Kasab claimed the attackers were of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant organisation. Apart from other permanent issues including the thorny dispute of Kashmir which has always been used by India to malign and pressurize Pakistan, water of rivers has become a matter of life and death for every Pakistani as New Delhi has continuously been employing it as a tool of terrorism to blackmail Pakistan. Indian diplomacy of water terrorism could also be judged from a latest development. Reports suggest that India has secretly offered technical assistance to the Afghan government in order to construct a dam over Kabul River which is a main water contributor to Indus River. Pakistan has already been facing with a continued phenomenon of terrorism like suicide attacks, bomblasts etc., committed by the militants who enter our country from Afghanistan where Indian secret intelligence agency, RAW has established training centers for anti-Pakistan activities.

Now granting India MFN status signals a shift in Pakistani Policy towards India. Recent developments like Pakistan’s decision to grant Most Favoured Nation status to India, Islamabad’s appreciation of the Indian cooperation to secure a permanent UN seat, and releasing the Indian Army helicopter that flew across the Line of Control suggests a sense of geniality. The MFN designation means that Pakistan will not impose any special barriers on its trade with India and will treat India as it treats any other country. India has already granted Pakistan MFN status.
Residents of Kashmir are concerned that granting India MFN status will put the Kashmir problem in abeyance. But in this case, it is Pakistan who has to decide its pros and cons. Islamic ideology has to get out of Indo-Pak relations; else problems will continue for ever. What to talk of Hindus, not even a single Indian Muslim supports the so called Kashmir cause. Therefore it’s the will of 180 million Pakistanis verses 1.20 billion Indians. Critical mass of India is so large that she can withstand problems like Kashmir but not Pakistan. Similar size insurgency will rip apart Pakistan, but not India. Therefore in any Indo-Pak conflict it will Pakistan who will suffer the most. Tis best to weigh the enemy more mighty than he seems.

What if I don’t win

By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja
Oh my God, what if I don’t win?”
This is one of ours greatest fears while going to achieve something. Everything we do is to be successful but the fear of losing remains always the same. It grows big and becomes a monster one day and kills all our positive feelings regarding success. Those who take interest in playing Chess exactly know this that no one has ever won a game of chess by moving forward only, sometimes you have to move backward to get a better step forward. While reading one day about success I came across a saying of – Thomas J. Watson in which he beautifully explained the formula of success. I am sharing it with you people here.

 “Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It’s quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure. You are thinking of failure as the enemy of success. But it isn’t at all. You can be discouraged by failure or you can learn from it, so go ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can. Because remember that’s where you will find success.” .”
Formula of success is different for everyone. But the people around you will always look for the outcome. When someone looks at our success he or she thinks it very big but they forget to count those little victories on which our success rests upon. Success does not come at once. It involves thousands of sleepless nights and unlimited dreams and obviously your strong determination and will power which stands by with you in those hard times, when people says O, you lost again? Always remember a successful campaign riddled with troubles and failures. People think that to achieve certain goals is success but success is journey which never ends you keep on going and achieving little victories. For example a person worth talented wins marathon race, people will appreciate him only for his success at the moment they will no more interested in the struggle he made to win this game nor they will think about the hardships which he faced .All successful people had faced hard times in their lives but people will look at how it turned out for them, in the end. Dale Carnegie wrote a best-selling book titled How to Win Friends and Influence People. One of the key premises of this book was that everyone’s favorite subject is actually themselves and that the sweetest sound to their ears is the sound of their own name.
What we tend to do is confirm our greatest fears and then overcome them. To win a race, you don’t necessarily have to do your best – to win a race; you simply have to do better than everyone else.Things may not start too well but your hard work and continuous struggle will make the ending a memorable one because “Winning isn’t everything, but the will to win is.” There is not one path to success, but many. Choose one, stay on it, and you’ll eventually reach your destination. All you have to own yourself with all successes and failures, work hard, stick to your aim and be optimistic that your are a champion and one day you will rise and shine.