By:Hashim bin Rashid Wednesday, 27 Mar 2013


“Talk against the military cannot be tolerated,” was the gist of statement made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday on the eve of election campaigning. A petitioner was contesting the military being given civil powers in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Someone has had the audacity to challenge the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011.
Back in the day, when the law was passed, observers criticised it as “providing legal cover for unlawful acts committed during military operations in both FATA and PATA”. Serious objections were also raised against the manner of military operations and recent incidents brought to light of innocent people being killed in military operations.

But then of course the military has responded to the SC petition in a succinct manner. 6,000 search operations were conducted in FATA and PATA with over 9,000 people having been killed since 2008 in a total of 237 suicide attacks, 9,257 rocket attacks and 4,256 bomb explosions. If anything, these are astonishing figures, and the lack of evidence against the military for in absence of any civilian monitor in the regions under attack perhaps opens up a line for the lack of accountability for the military.

Perhaps this is why the honourable SC judges stated: “We cannot tolerate such type of talk against the army. Strife-torn areas cannot be left at the mercy of terrorists. The special powers, including calling in the army, are assigned under specific situation as per the Constitution. Eighteen persons were targeted a day before. Where the situation will stand if the army returns from there? No military operation is being conducted in Balochistan and the dead bodies in gunny bags are being discovered daily. You say peace prevails therein. Please tell the court if peace was there from April 12, 2008, till now and we will order for the withdrawal of the army from there.”

So I suppose one must tow the line and sign a declaration stating the many things that the military must not be criticised for. Here is a draft of such a declaration. I am certain no one would disagree as to the contents:
I shall not criticise the military for any civilian casualties in FATA/PATA or anywhere else in the country. Innocent people are killed in a war against an enemy as dangerous as the Taliban. Collateral damage is merely an acceptable side cost that is merely a necessary inconvenience in a decade long battle. So what if there is no list of names provided when a press release declares 18 terrorists killed? Terrorists have no names and do not deserve to be documented.

I shall not criticise the military for any people who are reported missing. Even though there is a stack of evidence documenting that intelligence agency officials have picked up hundreds, if not over a thousand, people from Balochistan, Khyber Pakthunkhwa, Sindh and Punjab. The fact is that these were necessary measures against threats to the state. Those picked up are either terrorists or nationalists, both of whom reject the writ of the state and are weakening the country and working on foreign agendas. Let us not feel sympathy for those picked up, the processes of law are not reserved for the enemies of the state. The kill-and-dumps are too few if you ask me.
I shall not criticise the military for accepting money and dictation from the US to fight the ‘war on terror’. The fact is that it had two options: accept the billions of dollars on offer or be “sent into the stone ages”. It certainly does not matter that the US was the one who funded the creation of the very ‘terrorists’ we were now asked to fight. There is no contradiction. We sway where the funds sway us. We are a poor country. God-forbid had the military said no to the US offer, we would have been in a worse position. That there has been a bomb attack almost every day since the decision to join the US war on terror is only a minor cost and reminds us of the threat we have to face.

I shall not criticise the military for breeding Islamist militias and sectarian groups. When the Taliban were built up in the 1980s, General Zia took a courageous decision to fight Communist Russia. They would have come into Pakistan and filled the ‘land of the pure’ with objectionable literature and notions of justice that we cannot subscribe to. Therefore, it was essential to fill the ‘land of the pure’ up with Deobandi madrassas that breed hate against anyone who is not them. The Sipah Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) was needed to curb the possibility of an Iran-style revolution too. And of course the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hafiz Saeed are strategic assets to check against India’s evil designs against Pakistan.

I shall not criticise the military for inflaming relations with India, at various moments. One should always be wary of opening our arms and hands towards India in embrace: a Hindu will always stab you in the back. But our politicians are too feeble and do not understand that trade and people-to-people contact cannot resolve our hatred. The military is the guardian over the founding Two Nation Theory that pits us in conflict with the Hindu-state of India. Its evil designs against Pakistan are well known, it funds terrorism in Pakistan, and it has been hoping to take over us whenever the right moment comes. The decisions to send armed forces into Kashmir in 1948, sending proxy militias into India in 1965 and opening up the Kargil front in 1998 were all necessary operations, required despite civilian orders to the contrary. India needs to know we are ready to teach them a lesson and one of our jawans is equal to ten of their soldiers. Remember the Sialkot tank battle in 1965: surely the myth that our brave soldiers’ suicide bombed Indian tanks into retreat is true. And of course let us not ignore the fact that the military needs a raison d’taire if it is to continue to do all the good it does for Pakistan. ‘India as our eternal enemy’ as a logic shall do well to justify the one-third
of the budget which gets spent on the military.

I shall not criticise the army for fighting its own people at various points in our history. Taking over Kalat in 1948 was necessary for the survival of the country and so were all five military operations in Balochistan. Separatism is not tolerable. The 1971 war of secession in Bengal should be an example. So what if a hundred thousand or more Bengalis were killed? So what if military men raped Bengali women? Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s Awami Party was always a band of traitors and should not have been allowed to contest elections. The truth is that the only mistake the military made was that Yahya Khan decided to hold elections in 1970. A recipe for disaster they proved. If he had retained control, Pakistan would still not have broken. The Hyderabad operation, the operations against the Movement for Restoration of Democracy in the 1980s and the Karachi operations in the early 1990s were all also essential for national security. The fact that even now half the country, including Balochistan and most of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is undergoing military operations is merely necessary.

It should be quite clear that I shall not criticise the army for imposing martial law four times. It was the need of the hour and, if nothing, it is exhibiting remarkable patience now. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf were all great men who took over at the right moment and kept the country steady. The accumulation of wealth by a few in Ayub’s period, Bengal’s independence in the Yahya era, the Islamisation of Zia’s era and the rise of terrorism due to the war against terrorism and financial bubble of the Musharraf period were all necessary to solve internal contradictions that would have eaten up Pakistan. If anything, some military men have been too patient with civilian governments. For example, Jehangir Karamat should have taken over instead of resigning in his battle with Nawaz Sharif and General Kayani, as Hizbut Tehreer pamphlets continue to remind us, has been too nice to corrupt civilian rulers.

I shall certainly not criticise the military for land allotments, becoming property developers, running uncountable businesses, running coal mines in Balochistan, or producing Pacpads in airforce bases. If anything, they are contributing to a stale economy and regulating the unregulated property market. Who can deny that Defence Housing Authority, Bahria Town and Askari Housing Society represent the best of urban development? And who can argue against military officials receiving newly irrigated farmlands across Pakistan? Military men must be duly rewarded for the great services they have rendered for the country.

I can certainly not criticise the military when they call me a ‘bloody civilian’, nor when my ID is checked at checkposts outside all military cantonments. I have not taken an oath to defend the country and am a security threat. We civilians are definitely the inferior beings. Take for example our redundant civil courts system. It would not make sense for military officials to be tried outside the ultra efficient and secretive military court system. People would have criticised the military if the three retired generals who were found guilty of corruption in National Logistics Cell tenders were tried in civil courts. Criticism of the military cannot be afforded. We are a security state and face numerous threats internal and external.

So the SC is right and so is the constitution. I pledge not to criticise the military for anything, especially as, true to its legacy, it has pledged to ‘help’ the Caretaker Prime Minister Khoso in conducting ‘free-and-fair’ elections. I shall not criticise the military.

The writer is the general secretary (Lahore) of the Awami Workers Party. He is a journalist and a researcher. Contact: hashimbrashid@gmail.com

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013...-the-military/