Sorry to have disappointed you General Kayani

General Kayani is disappointed in us.


He has castigated the media and the nation for its ruthless criticism of the Army and ISI. 


First he started off with a history lesson saying:


“if you want to fight with history in this context, it’s your choice to do so. However, establishing institutions require a lot of hard work and the media should be careful … that their words do not undermine these [institutions].”


Well now, if only some politician had uttered these words someone would have been hauled before the Supreme Court for contempt, but not in this case. I only wish he had continued to explain who had scuttled the "hard work" of building institutions in the past and explained why they are so fragile today? 


On the other hand it was good to note that the COAS appreciated the power of words, for where coups, jumping over walls are not available as an option, words do count.


He is later quoted as saying:


Gen Kayani added that one should be careful that while criticising one must not undermine national institutions or organisations.

I mean, come on now, why would anyone think that organizations financed by the state and tax payers money and debt that will have to be financed by our grandchildren should be above criticism? How silly!

The COAS also said that only 47 people are missing in Balochistan. 

Only 47!

Why didnt someone tell me. Ill immediately retract my liberal fascist-RAW-CIA-Mossad funded blog posts. 

So how many people need to be added to the "missing persons" list before criticism will be acceptable without undermining national institutions?

Perhaps the following is my favourite quip:

“Even now, there are Baloch who have seen a 10 rupee currency note for the first time in their lives".

So is the Army, that is not present in Balochistan as stated earlier, in the business of distributing Rs. 10 notes? And why are there in this position to begin with? I mean, its not as if the region has suffered repeated military operations over the past 6 decades has it? Opps...

But thats not all. General Kayani is a keen follower of the foreign press. I mean he doesn't have anything better to do right?

Using the US as an example, the COAS said that the American army was not criticised by its people as harshly as the Pakistan Army was criticised by Pakistanis. The US media is careful in reporting events of US casualties in Afghanistan, for example. He said that the ruthless criticism of ISI in Pakistan was far higher than any criticism made on RAW, Mosad or the CIA in India, Israel or USA.

Wow! Justifying the ISI's actions by pointing to our supposed enemies equivalent organizations lack of public condemnation is just the way to go. Talk about setting really low standards!

Also in the US the military chiefs appear before congressional committees and have to justify their budgets, priorities and expenses. We dont even bother with the pretence. Three lines in the budget document is more than enough to satisfy the underlings.

What if President Zardari said the same thing: Even US, Israel and India don't criticise their Presidents as much as Pakistanis do.

What if an IG Police said: Even in US, Israel and India the media doesn't criticise their policeman to undermine them.

Would people expect to restrain their criticism?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people criticise the Pakistan Army or the ISI, they are not critical of policy choices made by generals not individual soldiers. The generals however, hide behind their institutions when defending their positions.

The individual is just a replaceable bureaucrat sitting in a chair for a while. The institution should always be bigger than the person who sits in it. Thats so that the individual can be hold accountable without tarnishing the image of the institution as a whole. In Pakistan however, the opposite is true. The generals equate any criticism of their performance to criticism of the rank and file soldier. If the person before whom the buck stops is not willing to take responsibility then who will? Using the efforts of jawans and junior officers to emotionally blackmail critics to justify their policies is hardly a testament to their leadership.

The good General made no effort to delve into explaining why people are criticising the Army or ISI and what he plans to do about it. Instead he began a compare and contrast exercise with other "agencies" to justify the status quo.

But why all the hallabalo? I mean is our military and ISI so fragile that a few comments by some liberal fascists who dont love Pakistan, will undermine it?   

Well actually they do. In an ongoing case the ISI responded by saying:

Therefore, the allegations leveled against ISI are baseless and aimed to demoralise its officials and defame the organization.

Denying accusations is one thing, but claiming that across the board, each and every person who is critical of the Army and ISI is out to demoralise them is the most overly simplistic propaganda around. The fact that it actually works is even more telling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another article recently appear in the DAWN titled: Braving "hell" to keep militants at bay. Such articles pop up now and then highlighting the true cost of perpestant violence, beyond the rhetoric. The theme is always very similar. Soldiers asking why the US thinks that Pakistan does not pulls its weight? Why have Pakistani security forces been targeted with lethal efficiency in cross border attacks by ISAF forces and rightly so!

Another common theme that comes up in such pieces, particularly this one and a previous one that was published some time back about injured and maimed soldiers recovering in MH Rawalpindi.

All shared the same sentiment that; 

Some Pakistani politicians may call it “America’s War,” but Tanvir disagreed.

“This is my country. I am a Pakistani. I don’t see that anyone who destroys our schools, our masjids (mosques), kills people, is good for my country,” he said. “… If they were working for a better Pakistan, we wouldn’t be sitting in this post. The people would be supporting them against us.”......

......“They are the enemy. They are not working for Pakistan. They are telling us that we have to do everything their way,” he said.

Now who exactly are these people who share these sentiments and dare disagree with a brave young officer manning a post on the border? 

Why are the political actions and affiliations of individuals with organizations that consort with militants and religious radicals and their wider supporters not considered agents whose aim is to "undermine" national institutions. 

They are not criticised because they fit in with the status quo which doesn't challenge the dominant position of the military and their interests. 

Once in a while (thankfully)I receive messages by individuals who usually prefer to stay "anonymous" who make alot of effort to write really long essays about the sacrifices of the Army and how their privileges is a small token of gratitude that we as a nation can pay, and words such as mine, which will be read by a handful of people, are treasonous. I am sure the people who write these emails feel that they have performed their patriotic duty, and if they feel they have then more power to them.

Now what constitutes patriotism or nationalism changes with the time. But I personally believe that is more patriotic to point out illegal acts, shortcomings in policy and demand individual accountability as patriotic, as this would help save lives and support those on the grounds. it 

Now what constitutes patriotism or nationalism changes with the time. But I personally believe that it is more patriotic to point out illegal acts, shortcomings in policy and demand individual accountability, as this would help save lives and support those on the grounds. 

The generals better get used to criticism, which I appreciate is tough, given decades spent, being told and made to believe that they are better than everyone else and are entitled to their positions of authority and privileges. 

So General Kayani and the senior high command, I believe as professional soldiers, a few words here and there wont bite. And if they start do, then perhaps look around and ask why the "ruthless criticism"is coming up? Even if its only a matter of 47 missing persons.

A first post and a confession from the past

As a quick first post, I am going to replug a previous piece I submitted to the Tribune Blogs when I first started contributing. The emails, calling me names, questioning my patriotism and threatening me the next time I arrived at Islamabad International really got me thinking how polarised Pakistan had become on the one hand, and how blindly follow an emotive, hyper nationalist, manufactured narratives. 


Anyways, I think that the following post will kind of give you an idea of what I am all about. Over the next few days I'll start populating this blog with some new stuff. Enjoy!


I confess, I am a traitor


My name is Syed Nadir El-Edroos and I am a traitor. For my actions, deeds and words I should receive an exemplary punishment so that no one ever dares repeat the treachery that I am responsible for.

I have received some emails in reference to my general comments on The Express Tribune and in particular to my article “Whose country is this anyways.” The authors of those emails have deemed me a traitor and an all round general sell-out or worse a Mossad-CIA plant, who has been inserted to “defame and malign Pakistan’s most disciplined institution.”

In short, the thrust of the accusations go something like this.

“How dare you question the benefits of Army officers? You no appreciation of the sacrifices they make, the love for Pakistan that they have in their hearts!”

One gentleman added that he would “starve his children so that the Pakistani Army can play its role to defend the nation.” How can anyone compete with such a strong sense of patriotism? Regardless of what I say and do, I will always come off as a traitor!

However, is this even patriotism? Is the relationship between the individual and the state limited to an outpouring of blind support for one institution? Or can someone be patriotic while also critical of the nations armed forces?

We like to present the “Army” as one monolithic institution. However, like any institution it is far from uniform. Present day actors have a monopoly over claiming the “Army” as their own, as it will continue to function long after they have passed on. The only individuals that can actually claim the Army as their own are the public at large, for it’s to protect their interests that the institution is funded and granted a monopoly in the use of arms.  Indeed the institution that they represent and the privileged position that society has granted high ranking military officers, should not be equated to the individual. The position of authority and the responsibility invested in the offices of the COAS or DG ISI should ideally be greater than the individual himself.

By extension, the institution is much larger than the individuals that inhabit it. Therefore, any criticism of the Army, is not necessarily a criticism of the institution, rather it’s a criticism of the policies implemented by the actors which happen to be in power at any given time. It seems to me that those in power are merely leveraging nationalism to justify their actions, equating property development and military land grabs with the security of Pakistan.

Likewise there is a big difference between criticising perks and privileges and equating such criticism with treachery.  Neither does such criticism take any thing away from supporting our troops who are fighting and dying for their country.

However, in an environment where fake degrees are being uncovered, the government of the day is busy politicking rather than governing, MNA’s and MPA’s are suffering from verbal diarrhea; the role of the military high command goes largely unquestioned.

Why are we hesitant to question or hold those who wield power and influence in the name of the country that we inhabit accountable? Is it because in our chaotic and somewhat dysfunctional state the military represents the only institution to be proud of? Is it because many people have relatives in the military and are hesitant to criticize them? Or is it because we are scared of the consequences of openly voicing criticism?

However, the most important question is why call for greater transparency and accountability of the military to begin with? After all, the plots, the benefits, the 10% quota in the civil service, the appointment as ambassadors and state position, the large military-industrial complex that helps retired officers to find plush jobs etc, is a small price to pay to individuals who lay their life on the line. But where do we draw the line? Where do we say enough is enough?

I was in Fairy Meadows, Nanga Parbat in 2005. On my final day, a military helicopter arrived with mess staff carrying main dishes, cutlery and tables. They promptly laid it out in the grounds of a privately owned hotel without the permission of the owner. Then a second helicopter landed, and this time a group of officers with their hunting rifles strode off to take there places amongst the pre-set feast. Ignoring the sign in the corner that stated hunting was not allowed in this region, the generals prepared themselves for the hunt. The local community was fuming with anger and resentment; however they had little choice but to facilitate their “guests”. Are the expenses incurred on public expense for a helicopter ride up to Fairy Meadows justified? Or what of the moral implication of hunting in an area declared a hunting free zone? Can we draw the line here or are such extravaganzas justified?

Then they are other examples, such as demolishing barracks in Lahore to construct a General’s colony, or the case of Chashma Goth (and here) where the military baton-charged the local community, or the case ofJangua Town or the case of DHA-Islamabad which has established a joint venture with Bharia Town, where both organizations have been accused of land grabbing. Or what of the conversion of land allocated for testing and camping into a housing scheme in Rawalpindi.  Or what off all the villagers who were the original inhabitants of DHA-Islamabad who have yet to receive compensation?

I have always been skeptical of those individual who demand respect rather than earn it. Whether generals, politicians or religious leaders. However, while questioning politicians is (rightly) considered socially acceptable, there seems to be some pact between the military and society that I seemed to have forgotten to sign up to, whereby regardless of the action, we patiently and obediently consider every decision that flows through the upper echelons of the military as correct, and our patriotic duty to support it.

How does not publishing the details of the military’s allocation of the budget serve Pakistan’s national security? One can be vague regarding sensitive programs, but the entire budget? Why does keeping the salary, perks and pension of the military high command a secret, make our country any safer? Why does the military get exemption from land taxes in cantonment areas? Is it not enough that the people of Pakistan, who pay their taxes and are indebted to the international community to the hilt, pay for their wages and perks, should also subsidize their local communities?

So why call for greater transparency and accountability? If the military in Pakistan considers itself as the nations most disciplined institution, then surely it must also accept that it must be held to a higher standards. By holding those in uniform accountable to a higher standard than other organs of the state, only then can it truly claim to be the nations “most disciplined institution”.  For those who serve their country, society owes them a debt of gratitude. However, we have to draw a line where those who extract benefit from the public’s purse appreciate the reality that surrounds them. I may be a traitor based on certain interpretations of patriotism, however, if the military wants respect,  then it should be seen to earn rather than demand it.

Originally posted on Tribune Blogs: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/606/i-confess-i-am-a-traitor/