On August 23, I wrote in this space about Prime Minister Imran Khan’s decision to grant a full-term extension to the current Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa. It was titled, The Sameness of Newness. I did something tongue-in-cheek, picking up para-graphs from an article I had written in 2010 and opening the article thus:
“There are two ways of approaching the full-term extension granted to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (sorry, General Qamar Javed Bajwa) by the current Pakistan Peo-ples Party government (correction, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government) — the democratic practice, which may also be deemed abstract in this republic; and the real, which may be termed contextual. Conclusions will differ, depending on the approach tak-en. Let’s consider both in that order.”
There were reasons for doing that: one, as I wrote, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (The more it changes, the more it remains the same), is the bane of this country and its cycles of instability; two, the “professional” reasons trotted out for such extensions that are, by any benchmark, essentially political and do not advance the pro-fessionalism of the institution (army) even by a millimetre.
To argue to the contrary would mean accepting the demonstrably absurd argument that the professionalism of the institution is somehow contingent on the personal-political gains for an individual, a coterie or, as happened in Latin America, a junta.
One could perhaps argue that such decisions do advance the political-praetorian interests of the institution, an argument that, one must concede, has more weight. But that’s precisely why I use the term ‘professional’ because the bulk of the army operates professionally and has no real interest in the political machinations of some at the top of the pyramid.
Now, as I write these lines, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken note of the government’s notification and suspended it. Its initial order on Tuesday begins with cer-tain technicalities about dates and the content/context of Regulation No. 255 of the Army Regulations (Rules) et cetera. Technicalities are important, but then it goes to the heart of the problem.
“iv) The stated purpose for the proposed re-appointment/extension in the term of office of the incumbent Chief of the [sic] Army Staff is ‘regional security environment’. The said words are quite vague and if at all there is any regional security threat then it is the gallant armed forces of the country as an institution which are to meet the said threat and an individual’s role in that regard may be minimal. If the said reason is held to be correct and valid then every person serving in the armed forces would claim re-appointment/extension in his service on the basis of the said reason.” (italics mine)
As I wrote in the August article cited above, “There is… [an] obvious problem with arguing the concept of continuity thus. It implies that other generals in the army, in line to be promoted, are lacking in professionalism or the understanding of higher strategy or, worse, both. One doesn’t need to belabour the point to demonstrate how poorly that as-sumption reflects on the army and the processes that produce its high command.”
It is a matter of grave concern — at least it should be for any thinking person — of why there’s been only one COAS in the past two decades who has retired on his appoint-ed time. And those of us who are not afflicted with short memories recall the tension in the run-up to General Raheel Sharif’s retirement, with the atmosphere ripe with all sorts of rumours. It is in light of this that one has to see the remarks of the Chief Justice of Pa-kistan when he said during the morning proceedings on Wednesday that “The matter of the period of army chief's tenure is very important. In the past, five or six generals have granted themselves extensions. We will look at this matter closely so that this does not happen in the future.”
This article has to be submitted before the SC can decide the matter. By the time these lines were written, the court had adjourned proceedings until Thursday. The matter is sub judice so it is up to the honourable court to decide the issue one way or another. But without prejudice to that process, and since these trying times cannot afford mealy-mouthedness and euphemisms, let’s get to the heart of it.
One, Pakistan Army chiefs, along with some of their close associates, continue to think that the institution has a political stake in the system because the civilians can’t op-erate without a guiding hand and their shoddy performance, if allowed to go unchecked, becomes a national security issue.
Two, it is in keeping with this thought that army chiefs refuse to stick to their pro-fessional remit. This has resulted in much headiness, a necessary upshot of being in the limelight as either the predominant person in the realm or at least being primus inter pares. At some point it becomes about personal glory more than even the political inter-ests of the institution — or, the supposed security interests of the country.
Corollary: the hard work and professionalism of officers and soldiers working day and night gets relegated to the background with the army chief(s) occupying the fore-ground. That also translates into the unfortunate image people have of the army. That to me is the most infelicitous outcome of these games. The real work of the army gets lost in the political smog.
Three, the two botched notifications by this government and then the speed with which they issued the third Tuesday evening after amending Rule 255 with a host of fed-eral ministers trying to defend this absurdity has nothing to do with any regional security imperatives. The entire crisis is created because the man who made it possible for the current lot to be where they are wants to continue to oversee his experiment. Else, when the SC suspended the government’s notification, he should simply have resigned rather than pushing everyone in a politico-legal cul de sac.
Four, flowing from three above, this government, far from being Naya (new) Paki-stan, carries within it the worst germs of a disease that has afflicted this country for the larger part of its existence. This government is a political front company for those who want to run the show. Sitting through the presser by the federal ministers Tuesday even-ing, I couldn’t help but recall the lines from Francis Bacon’s essay Of Great Place:
“The rising unto place is laborious; and by pains men come to greater pains; and it is sometimes base; and by indignities men come to dignities. The standing is slippery, and the regress is either a downfall, or at least an eclipse, which is a melancholy thing.”
Five, it is a welcome development that the SC has taken up this issue. I don’t know which way the decision will go and I shan’t say anything about the mood of the bench’s questioning and the judges’ obiter dicta, but the very fact that the issue has not been al-lowed to fly below the radar sets a healthy precedent: i.e., in future this personal-political practice will not be (a) taken for granted and (b) expected to sail through without making shipwreck on legal rocks.
Six, if the real interest is indeed the stability and security of this country, then we must re-examine the role of different institutions, their constitutional interplay, their remits and boundaries and get down to rearranging the constitutional compact that de-fines this state and society. Also, we need to close ranks rather than tearing apart this country because of personal-political ambitions and agendas masquerading as ‘national security’.
Finally, and most importantly, let’s stop insulting peoples’ intelligence. They can sift the grain of national security from the chaff of poppycock about it, thank you.
Thursday, the day after the deadline:
The Supreme Court took up the matter again and in exercising what it calls in its short order ‘judicial restraint’, found “it appropriate to leave the matter to the Parliament and the Federal Government to clearly specify the terms and conditions of service of the COAS through an Act of Parliament and to clarify the scope of Article 243 of the Constitu-tion in this regard.”
These lines must be read in conjunction with what comes before: “The learned At-torney-General has categorically assured the Court that this practice being followed is to be codified under the law and undertakes that the Federal Government shall initiate the process to carry out the necessary legislation in this regard and seeks a period of six months for getting the needful done.” (italics mine)
In other words, not only did the SC drop the most important question it raised in paragraph iv of its initial order (which I have cited above in this article), it has now left it open to the government and Parliament to codify “this practice” — i.e., granting exten-sions. Put another way, the SC has not asked the government specifically to fix the tenure of appointment of the COAS so we can get rid of the practice of extensions, but to remove the lacunae in the law which it talks about in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of its short order.
What does that mean? Essentially, that a practice which was whimsical and which the SC objected to in its initial order, going to the heart of the matter — namely, the why’s and wherefores of extensions — will now be codified with the court deciding to bypass the real issue altogether.
If this is not regression, I don’t know what is.
The writer is a former News Editor of The Friday Times. He likes his morning cup of tea and his comforts, so please don’t take the above seriously! He tweets @ejazhaider reluc-tantly.
“There are two ways of approaching the full-term extension granted to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (sorry, General Qamar Javed Bajwa) by the current Pakistan Peo-ples Party government (correction, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government) — the democratic practice, which may also be deemed abstract in this republic; and the real, which may be termed contextual. Conclusions will differ, depending on the approach tak-en. Let’s consider both in that order.”
There were reasons for doing that: one, as I wrote, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (The more it changes, the more it remains the same), is the bane of this country and its cycles of instability; two, the “professional” reasons trotted out for such extensions that are, by any benchmark, essentially political and do not advance the pro-fessionalism of the institution (army) even by a millimetre.
To argue to the contrary would mean accepting the demonstrably absurd argument that the professionalism of the institution is somehow contingent on the personal-political gains for an individual, a coterie or, as happened in Latin America, a junta.
One could perhaps argue that such decisions do advance the political-praetorian interests of the institution, an argument that, one must concede, has more weight. But that’s precisely why I use the term ‘professional’ because the bulk of the army operates professionally and has no real interest in the political machinations of some at the top of the pyramid.
Now, as I write these lines, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken note of the government’s notification and suspended it. Its initial order on Tuesday begins with cer-tain technicalities about dates and the content/context of Regulation No. 255 of the Army Regulations (Rules) et cetera. Technicalities are important, but then it goes to the heart of the problem.
“iv) The stated purpose for the proposed re-appointment/extension in the term of office of the incumbent Chief of the [sic] Army Staff is ‘regional security environment’. The said words are quite vague and if at all there is any regional security threat then it is the gallant armed forces of the country as an institution which are to meet the said threat and an individual’s role in that regard may be minimal. If the said reason is held to be correct and valid then every person serving in the armed forces would claim re-appointment/extension in his service on the basis of the said reason.” (italics mine)
As I wrote in the August article cited above, “There is… [an] obvious problem with arguing the concept of continuity thus. It implies that other generals in the army, in line to be promoted, are lacking in professionalism or the understanding of higher strategy or, worse, both. One doesn’t need to belabour the point to demonstrate how poorly that as-sumption reflects on the army and the processes that produce its high command.”
It is a matter of grave concern — at least it should be for any thinking person — of why there’s been only one COAS in the past two decades who has retired on his appoint-ed time. And those of us who are not afflicted with short memories recall the tension in the run-up to General Raheel Sharif’s retirement, with the atmosphere ripe with all sorts of rumours. It is in light of this that one has to see the remarks of the Chief Justice of Pa-kistan when he said during the morning proceedings on Wednesday that “The matter of the period of army chief's tenure is very important. In the past, five or six generals have granted themselves extensions. We will look at this matter closely so that this does not happen in the future.”
This article has to be submitted before the SC can decide the matter. By the time these lines were written, the court had adjourned proceedings until Thursday. The matter is sub judice so it is up to the honourable court to decide the issue one way or another. But without prejudice to that process, and since these trying times cannot afford mealy-mouthedness and euphemisms, let’s get to the heart of it.
One, Pakistan Army chiefs, along with some of their close associates, continue to think that the institution has a political stake in the system because the civilians can’t op-erate without a guiding hand and their shoddy performance, if allowed to go unchecked, becomes a national security issue.
Two, it is in keeping with this thought that army chiefs refuse to stick to their pro-fessional remit. This has resulted in much headiness, a necessary upshot of being in the limelight as either the predominant person in the realm or at least being primus inter pares. At some point it becomes about personal glory more than even the political inter-ests of the institution — or, the supposed security interests of the country.
Corollary: the hard work and professionalism of officers and soldiers working day and night gets relegated to the background with the army chief(s) occupying the fore-ground. That also translates into the unfortunate image people have of the army. That to me is the most infelicitous outcome of these games. The real work of the army gets lost in the political smog.
Three, the two botched notifications by this government and then the speed with which they issued the third Tuesday evening after amending Rule 255 with a host of fed-eral ministers trying to defend this absurdity has nothing to do with any regional security imperatives. The entire crisis is created because the man who made it possible for the current lot to be where they are wants to continue to oversee his experiment. Else, when the SC suspended the government’s notification, he should simply have resigned rather than pushing everyone in a politico-legal cul de sac.
Four, flowing from three above, this government, far from being Naya (new) Paki-stan, carries within it the worst germs of a disease that has afflicted this country for the larger part of its existence. This government is a political front company for those who want to run the show. Sitting through the presser by the federal ministers Tuesday even-ing, I couldn’t help but recall the lines from Francis Bacon’s essay Of Great Place:
“The rising unto place is laborious; and by pains men come to greater pains; and it is sometimes base; and by indignities men come to dignities. The standing is slippery, and the regress is either a downfall, or at least an eclipse, which is a melancholy thing.”
Five, it is a welcome development that the SC has taken up this issue. I don’t know which way the decision will go and I shan’t say anything about the mood of the bench’s questioning and the judges’ obiter dicta, but the very fact that the issue has not been al-lowed to fly below the radar sets a healthy precedent: i.e., in future this personal-political practice will not be (a) taken for granted and (b) expected to sail through without making shipwreck on legal rocks.
Six, if the real interest is indeed the stability and security of this country, then we must re-examine the role of different institutions, their constitutional interplay, their remits and boundaries and get down to rearranging the constitutional compact that de-fines this state and society. Also, we need to close ranks rather than tearing apart this country because of personal-political ambitions and agendas masquerading as ‘national security’.
Finally, and most importantly, let’s stop insulting peoples’ intelligence. They can sift the grain of national security from the chaff of poppycock about it, thank you.
Thursday, the day after the deadline:
The Supreme Court took up the matter again and in exercising what it calls in its short order ‘judicial restraint’, found “it appropriate to leave the matter to the Parliament and the Federal Government to clearly specify the terms and conditions of service of the COAS through an Act of Parliament and to clarify the scope of Article 243 of the Constitu-tion in this regard.”
These lines must be read in conjunction with what comes before: “The learned At-torney-General has categorically assured the Court that this practice being followed is to be codified under the law and undertakes that the Federal Government shall initiate the process to carry out the necessary legislation in this regard and seeks a period of six months for getting the needful done.” (italics mine)
In other words, not only did the SC drop the most important question it raised in paragraph iv of its initial order (which I have cited above in this article), it has now left it open to the government and Parliament to codify “this practice” — i.e., granting exten-sions. Put another way, the SC has not asked the government specifically to fix the tenure of appointment of the COAS so we can get rid of the practice of extensions, but to remove the lacunae in the law which it talks about in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of its short order.
What does that mean? Essentially, that a practice which was whimsical and which the SC objected to in its initial order, going to the heart of the matter — namely, the why’s and wherefores of extensions — will now be codified with the court deciding to bypass the real issue altogether.
If this is not regression, I don’t know what is.
The writer is a former News Editor of The Friday Times. He likes his morning cup of tea and his comforts, so please don’t take the above seriously! He tweets @ejazhaider reluc-tantly.