How do you define a Pakistani liberal? Over and above the hotchpotch of theories from philosophical constructs, he or she is likely to make three dominating assertions: (a) an acute sensitivity to the military’s popular status in society, which the liberal perceives as contrived and an existential threat to democracy; (b) aversion to patriotism, which they link as an indigenous trait to the military and thus find it offensive to their sense of nationhood; and (c) the idea that the military overtly influences policy formulation in today’s Pakistan. There are more, like the dominating presence of religion in society and its integration in the constitution as a defining socio-political construct. But what stands out in the overarching formulation of liberal thought in today’s Pakistan – in the absence of any puritanical and largely practical manifestations – remains confined to three main pre-qualifications: anti-military, anti-patriotism, and anti social-political religious strains. The military’s intervening influence in policy is more a matter of process than an underlying philosophy. What irks the liberals’ sensibility in the short run? The army chief’s recent visit to the US, which to them dwarfs the PM’s visit three weeks earlier; and the continuing operation by the Rangers in Karachi that to them is akin to challenging the civilian authority despite being initiated under the express legal provisions supported by the political governments. When the prosecutor general of Sindh invited himself to the appearance of Dr Asim Hussain before a remanding magistrate in Karachi, and imposed his own conditions above those of the trial prosecutor, he brought into focus the diabolism that attaches itself to the perception of a corrupt and malgoverned political order in Sindh. Here he was after all attempting to defend and save a person, largely perceived as corrupt, from law and from any further test of investigation. He clearly stood on the wrong side of public opinion and public interest. However, to many among the pre-qualified liberals who hinge their relevance around the three qualifying criteria above, it was an act of manifest challenge to the Rangers authority and direction of the operation. Hence, a moment of celebration. This, without even a moment’s reflection on the effect such regression in the operation will have on the central intent to clear Karachi of target-killing, extortion and the funding terror and its various formulations, with or without political cover. The hate-military phenomenon blinds this vocal minority to the point of losing their focus from what is vital. Instead, they would rather have the military shelve its pervasive presence. Were the operation to be stunted around a lack of political will, the space that has been won away from the baddies will revert to them making Karachi yet again a hotbed of strife, instability and terror. In such an environment governance becomes impossible and malfeasance reigns supreme. Karachi may be lost forever choking the economic and social lifeline of Pakistan. It is true that under misplaced enthusiasm, cheered on by bystanders, the Rangers may have just exceeded their focus and instead delved into the domain of the ‘Office for the Promotion of Virtue’. The PPP has a certain record, or more appropriately some of its leaders have a record, but then who doesn’t in this land of the pure? It amounted to a target-excess, not a simple creep, when the Rangers took upon themselves to dispense retribution on behalf of the nation from a particularly maligned political party. Yes, if it had something to do with supporting or abetting terror, it was perfectly within its precinct to pursue those in the wrong, but then there is a very fine line that separates the wheat from the chaff, especially in a deviation. In this world of perception, the Rangers have surely found themselves painted differently. The office of NAB and the FIA are by law and qualification meant to pursue cases of corruption; this falls in the purview of the political governments, not the military. Similarly, the task for saving the land from all its ills is not the military’s alone but of the whole nation. And, if the people, or their representatives, wish it to be done differently, the military would be seen to be exceeding its mandate in attempting to provide redemption, however just and popular. Without a doubt, a state run along such laissez-faire lines ultimately hits at the foundational security of both state and society, but it is better to go slow in an environment that is loaded against institutional harmony. We remain a highly prejudiced society, not yet ready to rise above our jaundiced perceptions that parade as the perennial truth. Ditto for the army chief’s visit to the US. In the usual run of events it would surely be improbable for an army chief to visit America twice and for such durations as both his visits entailed. Perhaps his planned destination, Brazil, offered him a slight deviation in the neighbourhood where most Pakistanis retain some familial presence. It of course is another matter that at the state level, and at his level as the army chief who is intimately involved with a war against terror, and in matters closely related to peace and stability in Afghanistan, it offered an opportunity to talk the issue with the Americans who still retain the most imposing leverage in Afghanistan to unlock a viciously stagnated situation. Kabul has after all tied itself into too many gridlocks for its own good without the ability to break away from what is largely self-ordained. In that sense, one can be sure that the army chief spent his time well. But fearing that the visit just might tilt the scales a little further for an institution or a person that stands out for its popularity among people was a fear entirely unnecessary. He was not about to come back and take-over. The Americans are too spread out in their interest currently, from Syria to Ukraine to Crimea, Turkey and Russia. They are unlikely to trigger another problem by encouraging a coup in Pakistan, as is mostly alleged in a country perpetually fearful of a strong military. It though enabled a convenient week or two of venting some deep-held venom against the military by the usual suspects. Even if that meant further widening chasm and fissures in a civil-military relationship that is central to forging a more promising future. A little recourse to history would have helped. When General Kayani was the apple of America’s eye, Admiral Mullen would always find it opportune to make it for a tete-a-tete to wherever General Kayani was known to be visiting. It then was the American interest to stalk him. Till the time they realised that he was of little help, Admiral Mullen did not take a moment to launch a few broadsides at General Kayani, his military and practically everything else that went by that name. This was now America’s new interest. Americans know their toast and the need to butter it. They will never confuse the pursuit of their larger interest. At the moment it is the need for stability in this part of the world without any adventurism by anyone; and they are unlikely to blow that up regardless of how straight-talking or loveable General Sharif is to them. Anti-military sentiment among the liberals of Pakistan and the veneer of a civil-military dissonance is a perfect sham to cover what is not pretty to them or is inconvenient. It is so easy to demonise the ‘other’ when we have let such diabolism cloud the reality in an equation that has finally begun to find its own rhythm and balance; not a perfect, idealistic balance but a balance all the same. To live in the past and to rake demons that neither stand the test of the environment nor that of trend is a seriously deficient intellectual recourse. A little realism will help. A word for the military too and its recently acquired fetish for a blow-by-blow account of how the military might think. Some things are better said alone – and some left unsaid. Email: shhzdchdhry@yahoo.com The writer is a retired air-vice marshal, former ambassador and a security and political analyst.
