During my brief and happy army career as a junior officer, deployed on internal security and martial law duties in interior Sindh and Balochistan, in the mid to late 70's, we often came across many dyed-in-the-wool Sindhi Wadera's and Baloch Sardars, big and small.
Watching Musharraf's late night interview on a private TV network recently, I was amazed at the similarity of mannerisms, and his attempts at presenting an image of a simple, honest, down-to-earth, folksy guy. However, after every few minutes, the hint of latent arrogance would emerge, betraying the real tyrant underneath, who brutalised and wrecked the country, its institutions and it's people.
Similar to how our feudal and tribal leaders wreck havoc on their people and tribes, and yet, smugly don a holier-than-thou persona when one meets them in person.
His whole demeanour, perhaps the shalwar kameez or maybe the Chaudhry style shawl across the shoulders, a habit possibly acquired during his very close relationship with the Uncle and the Nephew, or perhaps the flippant manner in which he answered some questions, displayed an uncomfortable, underlying arrogance that comes from wielding unadulterated power, not the intellectual or spiritual kind, but in its pure, physical, cruel, form that allows the power wielder to physically brutalise others. Many of his post-March 9th, 2007 actions bear tragic testimony to this side of his nature.
If it was an attempt by spin doctors to present the "softer, gentler Musharraf", complete with an attractive interviewer, and no one is better versed now in this Goebbelian art of double speak, half speak, misspeak or even nospeak, than the Presidential spokesperson, then the whole attempt failed miserably. Neither Musharraf the person, nor Musharraf the President, came across as intended. What we saw was a broken man, trying to put up a brave face.
His face, mannerisms, expressions, body language and speech clearly showed a man who knows that he is not the second Jinnah that he thought he was or his cronies would have him believe, but a person in full knowledge of the terrible and stark reality of being summarily damned and judged in history as perhaps an even worse and a more vilified and hated military dictator than General Zia.
In the same interview he unintentionally showed, perhaps more ineptness than ever before. Whilst responding to a question about compulsory military conscription for all young men in Pakistan, he summarily dismissed the suggestion, responding that "we" have studied and rejected the idea as unworkable for Pakistan, because "we" believe that "we" cannot have a people's Army due to our Eastern border security threat, hence the need for a standing army, and because the scions of the wealthy, privileged and powerful would escape the duty'. Has General Sahib ever heard of Israel?
I was amazed at this response and wondered aloud in shock that we actually had had "this man", with such a simplistic logic, at the helm for nine years. I recalled, with increasing embarrassment, my tears of joy when he took over in 1999, hoping he was the saviour who would lead us to a greater, brighter future.
Many close friendships also ended at that time, as many could not accept my very public and forceful welcome of the unconstitutional removal of an elected and extremely ham-handed and poorly-advised Prime Minister, however corrupt, through a military take-over, when one of the major reasons that I had decided to leave the army was my disgust with General Zia's Martial Law.
Firstly, its not clear who this "we" is that the good General refers to. Is this the Military establishment? If so, then this "we" certainly does not have the right to decide how the nation's security concerns should be addressed, beyond offering limited operational professional advice, as a contributor, but not as the decider.
Or is this "we", the President and his glass fellows? If so, then the less said the better and if this "we" was his version of the enlightened and democratic government, al-la Shujaat and Co, and the snake oil salesmen then "we" the Nation certainly did not hear, see or read about any serious debate, discussion or consideration, inside or outside the Parliament or Senate, of this extremely crucial aspect of, not just of the national security, but of nation building.
Any person who has spent two years in the Pakistan Military Academy will swear by the positive changes in beliefs, thought and behaviour that it brings about in a person. Among the many good things acquired is the genuine acceptance, and tolerance, of all ethnic, religious and sectarian differences and diversity.
Another, is the true and genuine love for Pakistan, beyond our own 'biradaris', districts, tribes, cultures, ethnicity and narrow parochial interests. However, something very sinister also happens. This is the differentiation that emerges quickly and starkly between a "military person" and a "bloody civilian".
This mindset and patronising attitude of looking down at "bloody civilians" has had perhaps the most far-reaching and negative consequences for Pakistan and its politics. To illustrate this, here are some very common examples. The refrain "don't talk like a bloody civilian", means "stop babbling incoherently, dishonestly, illogically" or "don't stand like a civilian", which translates into a posture of standing on one leg with hands in the pockets, or the killer phrase "you are not a bloody civilian anymore, but being trained to become an officer in the Pakistan Army".
This across-the-board indictment of everything non-military (yes, including other "uniformed civilians" such as the police etc) has resulted in the belief that military officers and the institution is superior, to and is than, including better more honest, and more, perhaps exclusively, Pakistani than all others.
Imagine having this re-enforced at all levels and, finally, as an Army Chief, when one sees the "bloody civilian politicians" messing up things, it is a short walk by the 111 Brigade to the Presidency, the Prime Ministers House, TV, Radio and airports etc.
If there is one thing that can make each partner tolerant and understanding of the other, where the "bloody civilian" mindset can change to that of a "bloody good civilian" and the seeds of tolerance and understanding are firmly sown, it is through the "Compulsory Military Conscription" for a year or two, and if the rich and powerful escape it so be it.
Picture a nation where all able-bodied young men and women are put through the physical and emotional grinder of a Military Academy-type regimen, of developing a genuine love for the country, beyond their narrow, parochial, blinkered mindsets. Imagine a Pakistan where each Pakistani can relate to the other through this common bond. If someone can just dust the covers of Air Marshal Nur Khan's now long dead National Service Programme!
And, finally, in the same interview, one could see the dawning of the realisation that his legacy is perhaps nothing more than that of jackbooted hoodlums, throwing women like rag dolls into police vans. Of summarily dismissing and imprisoning 60 or so Judges of the Supreme and High Court in their homes, along with their spouses and children.
Consider the devastation on the institution of the Pakistan Army if 60 of its top generals are immediately, and summarily retired, which actually may not be such a bad idea after all. A legacy of trucking with perhaps the most miserable lot of political carpet beggars that this country has ever seen.
And of presiding over the complete vilification and destruction of our pride and reputation in the international arena, through his unconstitutional actions, lies, double speak and dictatorial and tyrannical actions.
Our heads were hung in shame, our pride torn to shreds when he went back on his public pledge to remove his uniform in December 2004. We cried tears of sorrow when he re-imposed Martial Law in November 2007, for call it what you may, it was Martial Law in its most brazen, brutal and naked form.
No General Sahib, it is not a Mukhtaran Mai nor an overzealous Pakistani reporter asking you an embarrassing question in London, or a private TV Channel, who is making a mockery of your foibles. It is through your actions, flashed across the globe in countless TV and Radio Channels, in banner headlines in newspapers in every nook and corner, that our image and reputation has been sullied and trampled into dust.
It is the impunity with which foreign ambassadors meet our politicians in broad daylight, telling them how to run our country, that humiliates me to the core of my patriotism. No Sir, it is your actions that make me ashamed of being a Pakistani.
Ultimately one ends this with a feeling of sadness that people and history would judge him so, for I do believe that when he took over he did intend good. Unfortunately, for him and more terribly for the country, he turned out to be a person who rose not just to the level of supreme commander, but to his own level of supreme incompetence. It is now clear that he just, plain and simply, did not have the intellectual capacity and capability, the moral fibre, the competence and, above all, the right people to accomplish the job that he had taken upon himself to perform.
Would you Sir, kindly spare this wretched nation the pleasure of your company, and gracefully resign and write your second book? Please do not listen to the sycophants surrounding you, who in their abject ignorance of statistical methods, advised you before the elections, that a poll of 2500 people, showing no support for you, is not representative of a nation of 160 million people. And how wrong they were!
After 9 years, you leave us in the hands of Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, who we fervently hope and pray, will now suffer from collective amnesia, and by some miracle, a re-programming of their ethical values. What can be a more damning indictment of your legacy than this? Bottom line. No National Security Council will stop military adventurism. Only Article 6 will.
Comments
Comments are closed.