ARMY chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s in-camera Senate briefing session was described as a happy augury by the media as this was one of those rare occasions that the all-powerful head of an all-powerful institution has chosen to address the concerns of elected members.

One element of the in-camera briefing was the challenges facing the country and its balancing act in its relations with Muslim countries some of which are at loggerheads with one another. This was stated as the context for the chief’s visits to Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Very few details, if any, have emerged about the security-related briefing as both the military spokesman and the senators who spoke on or off the record remained tight-lipped about the threats from India and the changed and increasingly menacing tone of the US over Afghanistan in particular.

As democracy is still evolving in Pakistan, it would be foolish to expect a turbulence-free ride.

However, parts of the question-and-answer session that followed did find their way into the media.

What made headlines was the statement of the COAS that the army was not behind the Faizabad dharna by the TLYRA and only decided to mediate to stop the situation from spiralling out of control after police action led to mushrooming protests across the country.

That the army chief felt compelled to respond to suggestions that the military had something to do with the dharna to pile the pressure on the PML-N was indicative of the fact that nobody is comfortable being portrayed in the media in a rather unfavourable light.

There was a barrage of criticism once it emerged that the one-sided agreement — favouring the Faizabad sit-in organisers — with the government was facilitated by a reportedly senior ISI official. The channels showed the DG Rangers distributing money among the protesters while asking them: “Kiya hum aapke saath nahi hein? [are we not with you?]”. This also did the military’s image no favours.

It has been mentioned in these columns that any military chief must perform a high-wire act when faced with criticism to keep the morale high at a time when so many of his officers and troops are offering sacrifices in the war against the TTP and its offshoots.

When the military high command is rightly criticised on occasion for transgressing its constitutionally defined role, many of the younger officers see it as an attack on them and their comrades who are so valiantly fighting on the front lines.

The example of the so-called Dawn leaks and its aftermath serves as a perfect example. The former army chief and his top aides appeared to react in a manner that built up near-frenzy within the rank and file, and even the axing of cabinet members has not doused that particular fire.

There may have been many other factors for the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s reported friction with then army chief Gen Raheel Sharif but what was simmering for months exploded with the Dawn story.

Normally, a change in the military high command would have eased the tension in relations and that indeed seems to have happened with Gen Bajwa’s elevation as the COAS. But the ‘Dawn leaks’ issue continued to cast a shadow over the civil-military equation.

Perhaps the PML-N misjudged the situation as the ‘notification is rejected’ controversy morphed into ‘the tweet is withdrawn’. Some of its ministers continued to call for heads to roll for causing that controversy in meetings where some senior army officers were present.

The army leadership, it is understood, felt it was being pushed against the wall by such demands and perhaps acted as one is wont to when cornered. Flight was never an option so what followed sent shockwaves through the system.

The army chief who, according to people who know him well, supports democratic rule, regardless of the institutional pressure on him to do more, has decided not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as his Senate remarks suggest.

However, there still needs to be evidence of some of his other reported assertions such as that the agencies under his command do not ‘disappear’ people. He is reported to have said that only those people are picked up who are suspected of anti-state activities and in such arrests, the police are also in know.

One can cite a number of recent disappearances of social media activists and bloggers who cannot be described as anti-state or working for hostile foreign powers. That some of the disappeared were also accused through planted stories of having blasphemed was a travesty, a mockery of law and justice.

All that these people were guilty of was warning the military against possible involvement in politics or its support to certain militant groups, and, depending on your perspective, you can also see such a stance as absolutely patriotic, given the damage caused to the country by follies in the two areas.

They suffered torture before being released. Others have been less fortunate and are still missing. I can understand the argument that unusual circumstances such as the war against terrorism may call for unusual measures but there can be no justification for bypassing due process altogether.

As democracy is still evolving in Pakistan and all institutions are on a steep learning curve, it would be foolish to expect a turbulence-free ride. The onus of managing relations with other state institutions and good governance is mostly on elected politicians as it should be.

But their accountability should be left to the people to whom the politicians return every five years to seek a fresh mandate. Those who fail the people are often snubbed, even brushed aside contemptuously. And this is how it should be.

Institutions that hold forth endlessly about the need for accountability of elected politicians, while seemingly being immune to any such process themselves now need to step forward to offer their own for accountability. This will boost public confidence in them and create a level playing field for all.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, December 23rd, 2017