Confessions of a commander
Speaking at the Defence and Martyrs Day Ceremony at the GHQ in Rawalpindi, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) admitted that for seven decades, “Army had interfered in politics.” He termed this as an “unconstitutional act.” He also conceded that the military’s interference in politics has been extensive ranging from dismantling of civilian governments through coups to indirectly controlling weak dispensations. He also accused political leaders of readily ceding space to the military because of their weaknesses, thus allowing the institutional boundaries to be breached.
In possibly his last public appearance before the change of command, he reserved his sharpest criticism for the PTI and accused it of fabricating a “fake and false narrative” against the army. He also rejected the US conspiracy theory. He went on to say that “despite having the resources and opportunities to respond to the PTI’s criticism, the Army exercised restraint”. He further said that “I am ready to forgive this inappropriate attitude against me and the military and get past it because Pakistan is bigger than us”. He said that the fall of (former) East Pakistan was “not military, but a political failure”.
Starting with admitting the political role that the military has played spanning the last seven decades, General Bajwa covered a vast repertoire of subjects in his farewell address. Military’s ceaseless involvement in politics is a reality that everyone has been aware of, but never before an outgoing military commander had come out with a public confession. This has happened at a time when the security institution is subject to possibly the sharpest criticism ever for its alleged unconstitutional role in administering the affairs of the country.
As far as the conspiracy narrative is concerned, it is neither fake, nor false, nor inappropriate. Let’s first try to recount the facts. The cipher sent by the (then) Pakistani ambassador in the United States is a reality. The threat hurled by Donald Lu regarding removal of the (then) prime minister Imran Khan by moving a vote of no-confidence as, otherwise, there will be repercussions is a reality. The ambassador’s advice to serve a demarche to the United States over this inappropriate behaviour is a reality. The matter being discussed in the 37th National Security Committee (NSC) meeting which called it “blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan” is a reality. The NSC decision to serve a demarche to the US ambassador is a reality (which was duly executed). A discussion on the subject in the 38th NSC meeting, chaired by Shehbaz Sharif, which reaffirmed the decisions of the 37th NSC meeting, thus conceding that blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan had, indeed, taken place, is a reality.
Now, how does “blatant interference in the internal affairs of a country” take place? It does not happen by waving a magic wand. It begins by initiating a conversation regarding its need and the mechanism for its implementation. What would you call this pre-act phase which led to “blatant interference” in Pakistan’s internal affairs? In simple words, this would be called “planning” or “conspiring” to perform an operation. It clearly follows from there that removal of Khan as the prime minister of the country was the result of a foreign-dictated conspiracy which was executed with local collaboration, gory details of which are already available in the public domain. So, what is fake about it? What is false about it? What is inappropriate about it? The conspiracy is a reality as daylight is and all the actors who played a role in this will not only have to live with it, but also bear its horrendous consequences.
Calling (former) East Pakistan a political debacle is only telling half the truth. Yes, Bhutto played a sinister role in preventing the convening of a session of the Parliament in Dacca because it did not suit his rabid political ambitions. In an undivided Pakistan, he would never have become the prime minister, which is what he desperately wanted. That is why he strongly advocated a military solution, leading to the break-up of the country. But he was not the ultimate decision-maker. That authority and its consequent responsibility rested with General Yahya Khan who happened to be the president of the undivided Pakistan.
The choice between ceding the right of governance to Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, who had won an emphatic victory and had absolute majority to assume the charge as the prime minister of an undivided country, or launching a military operation rested solely with the person of Yahya Khan. May be under the influence of Bhutto, he opted for the latter which is what resulted in the bifurcation of the country. Yes, the soldiers and officers fought valiantly, many of them sacrificing their lives in defence of the country, but they were not the authors of a horrible decision. Now that some truth is filtering out regarding the military having interfered in the political affairs of the country, let us also face the reality of the (former) East Pakistan debacle. The responsibility for the crisis must rest with the one who ruled the country then. He took a horrendous decision in which he was aided and abetted by the likes of Bhutto and others in its execution. It is time we put the ghost of (former) East Pakistan to rest by apportioning responsibility where it actually belongs.
I would humbly like to ask a question of the outgoing chief which has continued to rankle my mind, as also of countless other patriotic citizens: what was the pressing need for inducting a cabal of convicts and criminals as the rulers of the country? Is Pakistan completely barren of decent people who would also have a sense of governance, or was the Sharif and Bhutto/Zardari clans the outcome of some behind-the-scenes bargains based on the use of exploitative tools? Can anyone gauge the unmitigated disaster that has afflicted Pakistan like pestilence ever since the criminal gang has been ceded the right to govern? Yes, they are the ones who have politicised every decision in the Machiavellian parlance to wash themselves clean of their crimes and corruption.
Conceding that the military has been guilty of political engineering is a good beginning. What remains to be seen is whether this favourite and deep-set penchant can be resisted effectively so that Pakistan could begin a remedial journey to wash away the sordidness of the past. That is the real challenge. As Faiz sahib said:
We shall see, we shall see
Incumbent it is that we shall see
The writer is a political and security strategist and the founder of the Regional Peace Institute