‘No general dare impose military rule in India’

“WE have marital law today”, I told Morarji Desai. “You will have it tomorrow. We share the same weaknesses. Indians are as good and as bad as we are”. Morarji reacted sharply. “No general [will] dare impose military rule in India”, he retorted. “And if he does, Morarji will be the first to face the Indian bullet”.

Morarji was visiting Pakistan as a guest of the government of Pakistan. I was escorting him to Utmanzai for a courtesy call on Bacha Khan. More than 40 years have passed since that thought-provoking conversation, but Morarji’s words still ring in my ears.

Three years ago I was digging up the treasure trove buried in the archives at the British record office when a very interesting paper on this very subject attracted my attention. It was a note dispatched by Major-General J. D. Lunt, the British defence adviser in Delhi, to the Foreign Office in London. Just before this paper was received in London, the British high commissioner had met General J.N. Chaudhry, the Chief of Army Staff, who revealed to the high commissioner that Mr. Chavan, the defence minister, had consulted him during March 1966 on the possibility that circumstances might exist in which the Indian army would seize power from the civil authority.

The COAS told the high commissioner that they had discussed this matter at some length and he had expressed the categorical view that such a possibility did not exist. General Chaudhry based his belief on:

a.) His view that there was a deep-seated respect in India for constitutional government at all levels in the country.

b.) The size of India and the degree of decentralization of its government machine. From this he argued that it would be administratively and operationally impracticable for the army to seize power from both the Union and the state governments in a single operation.

c.) If the army were to attempt a coup against the Union government without seizing power in the states simultaneously, the Congress machine would remain operational and the coup would almost certainly be ineffectual.

d.) If the coup were directed against one or more of the states, it would involve the same weaknesses as above in even greater measure. Moreover, the army commander who directed such a coup would place a critical strain on the loyalty of the army, since state loyalties and rivalries are a real factor in the army. In these circumstances, the organizer of a coup would find himself in a civil war situation.

e.) The COAS agreed that there would probably be no great difficulty if the Union government directed the army to take over a particular state or region — though even then he would require reasonable time to redeploy troops and assemble a select force whose loyalty would be strained as little as possible. The COAS agreed that there would probably be no great difficulty if in a situation of political and administrative chaos, the president of India might, independently of the Union government or even against its wishes, order the army to take over from the civil authority. If this ever happened, he would do his best to execute the order. He believed that presidential authority would be an adequate cover and that the operation could probably be carried out successfully. But he was thankful that there was no prospect of such an order being given before his retirement.

The fact that General J.N. Chaudhry was prepared to discuss such a delicate topic with the high commissioner shows that it was not so far below the surface in the minds of the government and of the army. This was confirmed by a speech made by Kamaraj, the Congress president, in Madras, in which he said that if violence continued on the scale recently seen in Punjab and Bengal, the military might conclude that democracy was unworkable and themselves take over the government.

In an accompanying note on the subject, the defence adviser summed up the position as under:

a.) The new generation of Indian officers is more deeply involved in politics than its predecessors were.

b.) The Indian army is badly paid. A large part of it is deployed in operational areas — Kashmir, Ladakh, Sikkim and NEFA where families are not permitted. Even in peace time garrisons, married accommodation is not easy to come by. Officers serving in New Delhi are particularly hard hit since rents are high and there are not enough quarters to go round.

c.) Pensions are absurdly meagre: a major can expect 500 rupees, and a general officer not much more than 1,000 rupees a month.

d.) It is said that senior officers, who have reached the highest ranks in the army, are so concerned during the last few years of their service with securing for themselves lucrative employment in the government or in business that they have little or no time to worry about their subordinates. On several occasions I have heard criticism levelled at General Chaudhry, the former Chief of Army Staff, as well as at others. Lack of confidence in the integrity of their senior officers had led to the undoing of many armies, and not only the Egyptian.

e.) The Indian army is finding it difficult to maintain officers’ messes as an economic proposition. f.) A marked lowering of the social status of the officers in a country such as India, where great emphasis is placed on “izzat”, could give rise to discontent. This will be even more the case if there is a great and growing difference between the facilities provided for the generals and those provided for junior officers. Perhaps nothing has struck me so forcefully than this general lowering in status and the widening of the gap between an army officer and his equivalent in business.

g.) Marriage of one’s daughter to an army officer is no longer sought after by ambitious parents. She would be far better wed to some up-and-coming young businessman. A former Chief of Army Staff is finding it extremely difficult to find a bride for his eldest son, a promising young captain in the army, whereas his youngest son was quickly snapped up by Burma-Shell.

A corollary to this is that well-to-do parents or those coming from army families, are no longer keen to put their sons into the army. Many young officers are trying to leave and join business firms. All this can have an effect on the nation’s view of the army and the army’s view of the nation.

h.) The Indian army inherited from the British the tradition that the army must always be subordinate to civil power and that officers should keep out of politics. Despite the example of the neighbours, Indian officers have so far managed to follow this admirable precept, although there are differing views on how much longer they will continue to do so. To some extent, they have been helped by the innate suspicion of the Indian politician for the soldier, who for nearly 200 years represented an army of occupation.

The Indian journalist is equally ignorant and equally despised by the soldier. Moreover, the Indian army is stationed mainly on the frontiers in awkward and uncomfortable garrisons which offer no inducements for visits by the politicians, and to this extent it is isolated from the main trends of political thought.

i.) I have been told that General Thimayya, the most popular and probably the most competent of all the Chiefs of Army Staff, who was forced to throw up the sponge, was urged in 1949 to head a coup but lack of support from the navy led to the abandonment of the plot.

In conclusion, the defence adviser wrote: “It is difficult to sum up a paper such as this and I am not going to attempt to do so. I hope I have not been unduly cynical in my approach, nor over-inclined to pour cold water on the optimist who regard the Indian army as the last bastion of democracy in Asia. It has survived the stresses and strains of past 48 years with remarkable success and in the course of doing so has developed its own personality. I feel certain that elements exist within it, which could set it off in pursuit of political power, as has been the case in Pakistan, but I would judge that conditions would have to be far worse than at present before it took the plunge”.

Fiftyfive years after independence, the Indian army remains bound by tight constitutional and political constraints. There has been no coup, no colonels’ or brigadiers’ conspiracy to seize power. The Indian army has not intervened in politics. De Tocqueville and other theorists have argued that democracy and a large standing army are incompatible, but India has managed both. Indian democracy has stood the test of time. The constitution has kept the country united, allowed its democracy to survive and kept the armed forces at bay. The structure of the Indian civil-military relationship is still intact, largely because the legitimacy of the political system remains high.

The lesson of history is that the only defence against a military coup in any country is strong political institutions and nothing else. A democratic government can be given to any people, but not every people can maintain it.

It is now abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot survive: i) except as a democratic state based on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. There is nothing intermediate between the sway of democracy and the yoke of a single man; ii) except under a constitution which reflects the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of one individual person; iii) except under a system based on the supremacy of civilian rule; iv) except as a federation based on the willing consent of all the federating units. v) if the rule of law gives way to the rule of man because the dykes of justice and law will then break and revolution will begin.

Pakistan cannot survive under military rule, with or without a civilian facade, because military rule lacks legitimacy and is an anachronism in a world of global markets, information and media.

Power to prime minister

THE legislatures, the cabinets and their chief executives have come into being but the big boys of Pakistan’s politics and establishment (a euphemism for the military and civil bureaucracies headed by the president) keep hectoring them.

President Musharraf has acquired this privilege through a series of amendments made in the Constitution via the Legal Framework Order, more particularly to the Articles relating to the dissolution of the National Assembly (58-2b), formation of the National Security Council (152A), senior military and judicial appointments (243-3) and expansion in the list of laws (sixth schedule) which cannot be “altered, repealed or amended” without the president’s previous sanction.

The governors, now being the nominees of the president (he may consult the prime minister but the decision will be all his own), will project the president’s authority into provincial sphere as well. The governors have gained in stature also because the new and controversial police and local government laws (though falling in the provincial legislative domain) cannot be repealed without the permission of the president which, obviously, would be forthcoming only if recommended by the governors. In the new dispensation the police force and district governments, though both an important and inseparable part of the provincial government, owe their allegiance and authority more to the federation than to the provinces.

The military commanders, out of necessity and sheer habit, get involved in civil administration at all levels and in all its facets. The age-old practice in which the civil authority decided when to call upon the military to come to its aid stands reversed. Now it would be for the military to decide when and for how long to come leaving the civil authority with no choice but to acquiesce in it.

Also gnawing at the authority of the cabinet and the prime minister at the centre and the chief ministers in the provinces are the party bosses who, because of their own choice or shortcomings or disability imposed by the military rulers, could not join the new set-up. Chaudhry Shujaat says the “government will be subservient to the party”. Frustrated by his exclusion from the power structure, what he wants to convey to his partymen is that the prime minister would always do his bidding. Altaf Husain and Maulana Fazlur Rahman may not have said it so explicitly but would surely be entertaining similar feelings. In this situation where the size and stature of the political parties has diminished, the centres of power have dispersed and more important leaders are outside the government than in it, intrigue and power-broking are tending to become a troublesome feature of Pakistan’s public life with uneasy forebodings of what lies ahead.

To let the parliament and the cabinets, the prime minister and the chief ministers come into full play, extraneous pressures on them and their administrations have to be removed. Toward that end the initiative should come from the president himself.

He should now play more golf which he promised and pined for, hold fewer official meetings and make still fewer appearances on the television or in public. In a situation of endemic hostility to India, renewed fighting on the border with Afghanistan and looming war in the region, the army command should leave him time just enough for ceremonies in the presidency.

In performing his presidential duties, or even when he chooses to go beyond that as he is said to have done in choosing the official candidates for the Senate, the president should go by the advice of the prime minister and his ministers and not of the agencies or the party bosses. Having played his role in politics, in whatever light it may be evaluated, he should turn his back on its rough and tumble now. If the president does not strengthen the prime minister he himself chose under his own system, who else will?

The governors, likewise, should play only that role in the provincial administrations which the laws envisage for them. Just because some among them are chosen for their personal qualities or bargaining power of the parties they represent should be no ground for encroaching on the executive authority of the cabinet and the chief minister. In fact, as soon as the new system stabilizes the governors politically neutral but occupying high station in public life should replace the present lot who have been used to exercising executive authority. To be loath to give it up is but human, as the president should be able to testify.

Political governments upon entering office find their familiar landscape radically altered in two ways. The rural councils and municipalities, now combined to constitute the district governments, have occupied the portals of influence and patronage that previously belonged to the members of the national and provincial assemblies, the advisers and ministers. Now their ranks have swelled but territory has shrunk. For once the truth of the old familiar saying that all politics is local and about jobs has come home even to the inventors of the local government plan. They are said to be scurrying for a solution to the satisfaction of the members and ministers.

For advice in solving the local problems and helping their constituents, the members and ministers looked up to the assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners and commissioners with their hierarchy of revenue and criminal courts. They have all been disbanded. The nazims are unable to replace them because they have their own interests and political affiliations to safeguard. The control over the rest of the departmental bureaucracy is divided between the nazims and the provincial government. The result is all-round discontent which is more pronounced among the legislators for whom the assembly membership loses all meaning if their voice is not heard in their own constituencies.

The previous government’s devolution plan covered the transfer of functions and funds only from the provinces to the districts when the provinces themselves possessed little to part with. The centre which had ample of both stayed out and handed down nothing at all.

The power base of the Jamali government will remain shaky if the members of the national and provincial assemblies continue to feel left out the local affairs. A military government at the centre could rule through the district nazims and the police but a political government cannot.

The prime minister — backed by the parliament and the provincial assemblies and, of course, with the blessings of the president — should constitute a commission to review the whole gamut of the state responsibilities and recommend the level — federal, provincial or district — at which each responsibility can be best discharged, and the financial and administrative resources required to discharge it. Besides checking the growing hostility between the members and the nazims, the commission may also come up with a more equitable formula on the provincial share in the federal revenues.

Iraq: western media bias

LAST Sunday’s CNN telecast in its “late edition” deserves a special mention in the context of the Iraqi crisis. Wolf Blitzer was there in all his glory. He was “breaking news.” The word “Iraq” in colour had already prepared his viewers for something big.

The entire setting was “crisisy” with martial music ending in a proper cadence. Millions of TV viewers held their breath as they prepared for what they thought would be earth-shaking news to justify the “breaking news” flash: perhaps a dozen nuclear weapons discovered in one of Saddam Hussein’s eight presidential palaces. Or worse, Saddam assassinated, or possibly overthrown. Or perhaps, donning the papal mantle, Donald Rumsfeld had re-launched the Crusades as Pope Urban II had done in 1097.

Nothing of the sort. Instead, the news that the CNN “broke” was that the UN arms inspectors were to submit their report to the Security Council “tomorrow” (January 27)!

Mind you, this January 27 deadline had been laid down in Security Council Resolution 1441, passed on November 7 last year. This means the CNN was “breaking news” to give its viewers a “scoop” which everyone knew 79 days in advance.

If the CNN had got an advance copy of the inspectors’ report and made it the lead story, that would have made some sense and would indeed have constituted a TV scoop and made the BBC editors green with envy. Instead, Blitzer’s bosses made him “break news” by telling his viewers what they already knew — that the inspectors’ report was due “tomorrow.”

The second lead, which, in fact, formed part of the “breaking news” late edition, was even more astonishing, for Blitzer told his viewers that President George Bush was getting ready for his State of the Union message “on Tuesday.” (The telecast was seen in Pakistan, the Middle East and South Asia on Sunday evening.)

No disrespect is meant to the US president or to the annual ritual of the State of the Union message. Most US presidents have done this, and the American people look forward to it each year with eagerness. In fact, it is an impressive sight to see Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the house giving a standing ovation to their president and cheering him repeatedly.

When posted in Washington as this paper’s correspondent, this writer watched these scenes at least three times and while doing so wondered why things back home could not be as disciplined and solemn as a Congress is when an American president delivers his State of the Union message. The spectacle shows the Americans’ ability to rise above party politics and support their president in crucial times.

It also testifies to the sophistication of the American political system. There were also times during the long history of US-Pakistan relations when Pakistan was mentioned in these speeches in positive terms. In fact, in President Bush’s State of the Union message in 2002, President Musharraf was the only foreign leader to whom he referred in glowing terms in the context of America’s war on terror.

But did it amount to “breaking news” to tell CNN watchers on a Sunday evening that Bush was preparing his State of the Union message to be delivered on Tuesday? Precisely at that moment — when Blitzer was “breaking news” about non-events — a slaughter was going on in the Gaza Strip in Palestine. Men, women and children were dying and flames had lit up the night sky as Israeli helicopters fired missiles on homes in what turned out to be one of Israel’s biggest military operations in Gaza in two years. For the CNN, that did not warrant a “breaking news” treatment. Instead, the CNN made its viewers wonder whether people at Atlanta had obfuscated the international news scene by unprofessionally altering the priority of news display.

The Gaza strip story was not blacked out by the CNN; it found its place way down in CNN telecasts. The sensationalization of “non-news” at the expense of hard news was indeed stupefying.

There is no denying the fact that the CNN is an electronic trail-blazer in on-spot reporting; other channels later copied it. To be sure, the CNN remains number one international channel so far as the speed of its coverage of world events, specially war reporting, is concerned. However, the slant it sometimes gives to the news makes one wonder if it is capable of upholding the ethics of journalism and presenting in an objective and unbiased manner world events as they unfold in relation to Israel and the US and their real or perceived enemies.

The standard of objectivity of some western wire services also deserves to be noted. A Reuters story, for instance, on the Gaza operation had this for an intro: “Israel killed 12 Palestinians on Sunday in its deepest thrust into Gaza City in two years of fighting, a show of strength underlining prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s tough security policy two days before an election.” The emphasis here is on “tough security policy” as a justification for murders, which constitute “a show of strength.” A journalistically appropriate intro would have had the sentence end with these words: “....two years of fighting.” Instead its continuation into “a show of strength...” makes the killings look like an understandable policy aim.

Another story gives the killings and Sharon’s “tough policy” a moral certificate by telling the readers about its approval by the Israeli public. The Reuters story said: “Israeli forces shot dead three Palestinians and unleashed air strikes on Friday after militants killed three soldiers four days before Israel’s general election. The army action was likely to boost rightist Likud Party Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Tuesday’s balloting. Israelis broadly back tough military action against a Palestinian uprising and shun his main rival’s softer line.”

In both stories, the killings are presented as incidental to a well-considered policy, and Sharon is shown in a favourable light as a leader who takes “tough” action — and “tough action” is what boosts his election chances. More important, he is a responsible and courageous leader because he responds to his people’s desire for “tough military action.”

There was also this BBC newscaster who was talking to his reporter on the spot when Israelis besieged Yasser Arafat’s headquarters after destroying all buildings in his Ramallah headquarters. The BBC man’s question was: “Don’t you think this constitutes Arafat’s humiliation?” A “do you,” instead of “don’t you,” would have been more in keeping with journalistic norms. However, the newscaster had already assumed Arafat’s humiliation and merely wanted its confirmation from the BBC man on the West Bank.

The truth is that it was Sharon who felt frustrated while a besieged and beleaguered Arafat remained unbowed. Abandoned by the Arab-Islamic world, and without an armed force of his own, Arafat, rifle in hand, peering out of a window and looking frail and worn out, refused to surrender. His enemies wanted him to come out of his shattered headquarters, hands raised, to surrender to Sharon’s wehrmacht. That he did not do that might have disappointed the BBC man but certainly not history nor freedom-loving people around the globe.

Al Jazeerah is a good beginning. More such ventures are needed. An international Islamic news agency or TV channel is unrealistic — as the fate of the IINA (international Islamic news agency) shows. What the Muslim world needs is the establishment of more TV channels and wire agencies having an international reach. Their combined output may go to correct the lack of balance that characterizes the western media’s pro-Israel tilt.

A big job for gene genies

TWO Italian scientists have discovered the gene connected to severe migraine headaches, which could be a real relief for millions if it helps counter the bodily mechanism igniting this debilitating pain.

But is this also another step down the path of reluctant realization that no matter how much we try to improve ourselves — running, walking, swimming, biking, bending, lifting, eating, not eating, not smoking, not chewing — we’re perpetual prisoners of our own genes? That virtually everything in our lives beyond birth has been determined for us before birth? And that all this self-improvement talk and sweat is designed solely to move the stocks of vitamins, health foods and ab machines through the shipping room?

On one level this would be terribly discouraging: We’re each on our individual Xtreme-Ride through life, and although each twist and plunge feels new, it’s all been laid out and waiting for years. So we should just give up and eat doughnuts, the ones with icing and nuts?

The idea of scientifically tweaking predetermined behaviour or traits is most intriguing if it’s aimed at the annoying behaviour of others. Migrainers could be treated in a lab, bringing relief to them and loved ones caught in their pain radiation zone. But what other annoying afflictions of modern life might be susceptible to gene jiggering?

Could gene therapy cause young drivers with mammoth sound systems blaring for blocks to be considerate, to keep the volume down? It might be asking a lot, but could gene adjustment suddenly create real judgment among those who try to muscle VW-sized suitcases into an airliner’s overhead bin? Would a little needle remind cell phone users to turn them off in the theatre? Prompt spouses to remember whether toilet seats go up or down? Stop hair from growing beyond a certain length? Or graying? Or calm movie award recipients?

How about grocery shoppers who don’t even look for their cheque-books until the last little item is rung up? Could a little goo inserted here or there speed them up a tad? Would gene tinkering among the genus called bank managers suddenly cause them to staff all eight teller slots, even at lunchtime?

—Los Angeles Times