You can fight the enemy at the borders, but you can’t fight bewilderment that emanates from within a perplexed nation
During Field Martial Ayub Khan’s martial law, a Sufi said: “He who forcibly takes over the reigns of a country enacts laws for the perpetuation of his dubious rule.”
Ailing Field Martial Ayub Khan abdicated in favour of General Yahya Khan to run the affairs of Pakistan. With his departure withered his Basic Democracies, Union Councils and other enactments.
General Pervez Musharraf took control of the country on October 12, 1999, in the best interest of the people and Pakistan. Soon thereafter, he, in the best interest of the country, dismissed the civilian government, kept the constitution in abeyance, legalized his takeover of Pakistan, began drafting his own laws, rules and regulations; issued ordinances and ultimately appointed himself President of Pakistan. To give his rule a democratic cover, he gifted the people first with democracy at the grass-roots level and then held fair, fine and transparent general elections in the country, and revived the assemblies. The grateful graduate members of the National Assembly gave their verdict in the favour of the ordinances the general had issued from time to time during his four-year authoritarian rule. His ordinances became a part of our constitution.
Last week, the graduate MNAs and the Senators gave their approval to President General Pervez Musharraf’s brainchild, the National Security Council. Thus, National Security Council, too, became a part of our constitution. The overture augments the military’s constitutional role in the political affairs of the country.
The phrase ‘National Security’ has multiple meanings. In its common context, the security of a country is considered threatened when the enemy amasses armed forces at the threshold of its border. The security of a country smacks at stake when enemy agents infiltrate under multiple garbs, and indulge in clandestine terrorist activities without being caught. In identical situations, the security of the country is considered at risk. It is then that the armed forces, on implied instructions from the government, come into action to tackle the situation.
In broader context, the security of a country is threatened when ethnic, linguistic, religious and sectarian conflicts tear its social fabric to shreds. The ruling clique’s frequent interference in the curriculum with ulterior motives puts educational systems in disarray. A country without a firm educational structure is bound to succumb to confusion. Of all the silent killers, confusion is the most lethal annihilator for a country. Recurrent distortions in a country’s history leave generations after generations bewildered. You can fight the enemy at the borders of the country, but you can’t fight bewilderment that emanates from within a perplexed nation. In such situations (that no doubt we are faced with), what role is the NSC supposed to play? Poverty, unemployment, indebtedness and lawlessness pose more threat to national security than the armies of an enemy.
I am aware of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s amendment in the constitution whereby he made criticism of the armed forces a constitutional crime. Thereby, he segregated the armed forces from the national mainstream. He made them infallible, immune from human shortcomings and beyond scrutiny. In our country, each institution comes under analysis of press and public including the Prime Minister and the President of Pakistan, but not the armed forces. Aren’t the armed forces drawn from us, mortal men who are prone to committing mistakes? Was it a disguised revenge of Z.A. Bhutto on the armed forces to convert them into aliens in their own country? Instead that our armed forces should have interacted freely with the civilians, Bhutto made them keep a distance from us.
One can’t run away from comparison. In our neighbouring country, India, they frequently make films depicting lively characters from the armed forces. The characters from young, old and retired generals to majors, and lower ranks, appear as loving and caring characters bursting with wit and humour, even to the extent of slapstick comedy. Do we make films on the humane side of our soldiers as fathers, sons, brothers and lovers who, in the midst of death-defying duties, are capable of giving out hearty laughter? What is wrong in it? Indian films have integrated their armed forces with the people of their country. A general who takes over the country does not derive lesson from the end result of the orders, ordinances, amendments and contrived modes of governing the country devised by his predecessors. General Ayub Khan, after taking over the country, defended the One Unit, the united front of West Pakistani politicians against East Pakistan, for 10 years. His Himalayan blunder ultimately resulted in the disintegration of the country. The armed forces had to fight an embarrassing civil war in East Pakistan. I wonder what interest Field Martial Ayub Khan had in defending the One Unit, an evil political ploy of certain corrupt politicians that was vociferously rejected by the people of Pakistan.
Except for his infamous constitutional weapon in the hand of the President to stab democracy in the back, nothing else of General Ziaul Haq’s legacy has remained in vogue after his departure. I wonder how long General Pervez Musharraf’s LFO, and the National Security council, will last after his departure? Let me wind up with a Sufi saying: “He who arrives is preordained to leave someday.” Then, what is the purpose of undertaking futile exercises? Let each one of us do what we are supposed to do. Let doctors cure the sick, engineers devise, teachers teach, scientists invent and the soldiers defend the frontiers of the country.
