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.

Honouring the victims of terror...or not!

The production of illegally detained, suspected terrorists in the Supreme Court should have been met with a sense of triumph. Instead, the last month has seen families of missing persons, who have joined the Amna Janjua led missing persons camp as sympathisers with terrorists and militants. Those who have hailed the Supreme Courts actions have been accused of neglecting the memory of the victims of terrorism and their families.

Things have changed quite swiftly over the past few months. Then, everyone seemed content with denying that anyone was actually “missing” or that the military and intelligence agencies had anything to do with their disappearance.

Today, many argue, quite openly that our intelligence agencies only “pick up” the guilty and if they do so, so what? After all its in the national interest!

A letter to the editor in this paper summarised the prevalent sentiment as follows:

And there are instances when those arrested have been found to be involved in attacks on members of the armed forces, military installations and on buildings owned by intelligence agencies. In such instances, cases were filed in the courts but those accused were acquitted.

It appears guilt is determined by the institutional affiliation of the accuser rather than the presumed actions of the accused.

A common criticism is that the courts and judges are incompetent or scared, or worse both. They are unwilling or unable to prosecute cases involving those accused of terrorism and are in majority of cases acquitted. Further, evidence gathered by extra judicial means cannot be submitted in court, further hampering the prosecutions case. 

However, is the solution to limited judicial capacity extra judicial murder and torture? Or is the provision of resources and improvements in the law, to convict criminals properly, a better long term solution?

Another line of criticism against those who have question the policy of enforced disappearances includes the sentiment that:

Instead of trying to understand this issue, our media does the opposite and makes a hue and cry over this, and in the end the terrorists benefit. This also lowers the morale of our armed forces who feel that while they are risking their lives to fight the militants, society in general is placing greater value on the rights of the militants.

I find it quite insulting that people believe that extra judicial actions; which are illegal according to the law of the land, which military personnel have taken an oath to uphold, will somehow improve the morale of the armed forces.

I assume that members of the armed forces are serving to uphold the law of the land, which clearly protects the rights of even the worst amongst us. Those who say that we should recall the sacrifices of our soldiers who are fighting terrorism by looking the other way while illegal disappearances continue do no service to the memory of the brave members of our armed forces.

Perhaps the worst interpretation of the judicial proceedings is the perception of the “rights of terrorists”, as if this is something that the Supreme Court has decided to bestow upon them. They are no rights “for” terrorists, these rights are universal and applicable upon all Pakistani citizens that cannot and should not be selectively applied.

Have we not criticised the United States for its confinement of detainees in Guantanamo bay and their policy of extraordinary rendition for the very same reasons? Do we not highlight the arbitrary confinement of Palestinians by Israel and Indian forces in Kashmir, accusing them of the very same acts that we justify domestically?

No one is campaigning for the guilty to be released unpunished. The constitution which enshrines certain rights to even murderers, rapists and terrorists, also aims to ensure that these very people face the full force of the law. That people arrested are duly processed, with their families made aware of their whereabouts and granted access to legal representation, does not diminish the states ability to hold them to account.

We as a nation should consider whether the memories of those who are victims of terrorism is honoured by brutal, illegal violence. Or do we as a nation rise above the actions of cowards and apply the law in word and spirit?

Unfortunately, we appear seduced by the appeal of raw and bloody justice, delivered swiftly, rather than making the effort to implement the hard decisions required to build the capacity of law enforcement and the judiciary.