Pakistani Army on Constitutional mend?
Nasim Zehra

IN RECENT weeks, the new army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, has made noteworthy statements and taken meaningful actions. These have ranged from the issuance of Command Communiqués calling upon all officers to stay away from politics to an ISPR statement emphasising that the Election Commission, and not the army, is constitutionally mandated to “supervise” the elections. The army’s role in the elections, according to the Press release, will primarily deal with maintaining law and order which the Constitution allows in case a civilian government calls in the army to perform the task. The current army leadership is taking cognisance of the security situation and has recognised the relevance of the broader political and foreign policy context in which it must tackle the problem of terrorism.
To some extent, there is a sense of déjà vu. After long periods of military rule, the army’s prestige and popularity can take a dip. For example, the general’s attempt to resurrect the army’s image is no different from General Aslam Beg’s attempt to clear the army’s image in 1988. While in the next few years under Beg, the army dabbled in politics, in 1988 after Zia ul Haq, it did not prevent the country from getting back to civilian democracy. And 20 years later, in a different political and security context, the army’s image has taken a greater pounding.
Obviously, playing an effective role in tackling the internal security problem, the army needs to improve on its professionalism, salvage its controversial public image, return to playing its constitutional role and above all, detach itself from the current political power struggle. The army’s public image suffered because of several reasons. Firstly, it suffered owing to the high profile and direct involvement of uniformed individuals in politics. Secondly, there was the institutional power struggle. Thirdly, the image was battered, thanks to the induction of uniformed individuals in civilian institutions including the highly politicised ones like the National Accountability Bureau. Fourthly, the image suffered because of the sudden surge of lucrative defence housing schemes with the allegation of uniformed individuals being involved in land scams.
Also, the current crisis emanating from extreme violence in politics is generally viewed, among other reasons, as a result of militaristic foreign policy options pursued by military rulers. Specifically, this includes Pakistan’s Afghan policy of the eighties and its current policy on war on terrorism. While in both cases, the Pakistani involvement was necessary, the criticism revolved around the extent and the manner in which Pakistan chose to partner with the US on Afghanistan and the war on terror. Interestingly, the additional dimension to the criticism of Pakistan’s post 9/11 policy is that while it should have greatly banked on people’s support, across the board, the public bitterly criticised the policy. While Musharraf’s military regime’s Iraq policy and its handling of the AQ Khan nuclear crisis have been commendable, it is not a military-led regime that can claim it has done any better than elected governments of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Instead there is now a consensus that in going beyond their constitutional mandates and taking the country towards linear foreign policy prescriptions, often under Washington’s pressure or their own inability to fully comprehend the complexity of foreign affairs, military regimes and leaderships contribute to weakening the state and society.
All these factors have contributed to the further decline in the eighties of public respect that the army traditionally enjoyed. The high point of public resentment was perhaps the role played by the agencies in the removal of the Chief Justice and earlier in the extreme step taken in the killing of Nawaz Akbar Bugti. Musharraf, who in the past eight years ruled the country as an army chief with junior political and technocratic partners, has become extremely controversial. Despite having left the army, he is seen as an extension of the army. Meanwhile the present army chief is viewed by his former commander President Musharraf as both a competent commander but also as someone loyal to him. Reportedly in Davos during a January 25 session sponsored by Institutional Investor, he said, “His loyalty to me is personal.” The compulsions of personal loyalty are often washed away by the force of circumstances.
For Kayani, the healthy recovery of his institution must trump all other considerations. That is his constitutional mandate. The steps that he will require to take include withdrawing the army from civilian institutions. The army has already announced internal reforms including extending benefits to the jawans and their families housing and education schemes. Year 2008 has therefore been declared the year of the jawan. All the institution-specific steps notwithstanding, the army cannot manage a healthy recovery without extricating itself from politics. Firstly, the army should openly distance itself from Musharraf. Secondly, it should distance itself away from the coming elections and clarify what role it will be playing in the polls. The army has already done that. Thirdly, it should change the controversial important position holders in the army. Fourthly, it should announce army pullout from civilian institutions. Also, the serving officers in the ISI must not be dabbling in politics. The army must be advised what its institutional role essentially should be with regard to politics. There is an issue of command. While serving armed forces officers report to the ISI chief who reports to the Prime Minister or chief executive, the actions that these officers take directly impact the reputation of the parent institution. That dilemma too requires an answer especially at a time when the army is keen to resurrect its public image. That the president is a key cause of the current political uncertainty is only too obvious. The general perception is that the unconstitutional and controversial statements and the actions that Musharraf takes is because he is seen to be supported by the army; hence the need for the army to distance itself from the president’s actions.
Without the military overtly pulling away from politics there can be no possibility of fair and free elections. The army must distance itself from Musharraf and return to playing its institutional role. Beyond this the army has no constitutional mandate in playing a direct and overt role in the current contest between the president and the Opposition. That contest post-election will be fought in the parliament or in the streets depending on how fairly the elections are conducted. The army’s loyalty is to the Constitution and to Constitutional governments and not to any individual. If rigged elections create chaos it would be time for the president to voluntarily depart. The army must remain neutral in power play and overtly partisan to the Constitution of Pakistan.


El Baradei’s delusions
Farhan Bhatti


THE statement of the head of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei, published in pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on January 8, 2008, insinuating that “Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan”, is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad Sadiq in Islamabad on January 9, 2008, immediately termed it as “unwarranted and irresponsible’’ comments on the security of the country’s nuclear arsenal. It is widely believed that the Egyptian-born head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, is a mouth-piece of his American mentors, projecting the clichéd apprehensions of American officials about the security of nuclear assets. By casting aspersions regarding the safety and security of Pakistan’s strategic weapon, ElBaradei appears to be suffering from severe psychological mechanism of delusions. IAEA is an independent and neutral organization and people like ElBaradei will definitely undermine its credibility by proffering partisan comments. ElBaradei has to be careful about his statement which ought to remain within the parameters of his mandate as his concern is only with safeguarding the civilian facilities. His accusations have unwittingly triggered a “propaganda campaign against Pakistan and its national institutions” following opposition leader Benazir Bhutto’s murder at an election rally on December 27, 2007. This unwanted comment in certain sections of the international media is further upsetting the people of Pakistan, who are struggling to recuperate from tragic death of Benazir Bhutto. Since Dr. ElBaradei has not lived up to the expectation of UN’s cardinal principles of neutrality and impartiality, therefore, he should step down from the prestigious job of DG of IAEA.
Ever since the 9/11 September 2001 terrorists’ attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and Pentagon in Washington D.C., Pakistan’s nuclear programme came under rigorous probing by international media regarding its safety and control of nuclear weapons. All sort of hypothetical assumptions have been tried by anti-Pakistan forces to establish that Pakistan pose a serious threat to proliferate nuclear weapons to the terrorists. Firstly, some quarters view Pakistan nuclear arsenal as the Islamic bomb that could be used to defend the broader interests of the Muslim world. And then, a hypothesis was established that these weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of extremists who will not hesitate in using them. The Pakistan military controls the nuclear weapons, and has instituted a range of measures to tighten controls over the nuclear weapons complex. There appear to be a general consensus that all nuclear weapons are under “ironclad” control. Pakistan’s nuclear programme is in safe hands. President General Pervez Musharraf said “there is no question of [Pakistan’s nuclear assets] falling into the hands of any fundamentalists.” Pakistan is believed to maintain tight control over its nuclear assets, and it has instituted special steps to deal with the current situation. Key people are screened and controlled by 4 agencies (ISI, Military Intelligence, Intelligence Bureau, Strategic Plan Division (SPD). Every aspect of each person’s life is reportedly controlled, including families and relatives. Such screenings are repeated every 2 years. Militarymen of lower ranks involved with nuclear operations are professionally selected by Interservice Selection Bureau and screened by professional psychiatrists. Pakistan is a responsible nuclear-weapons state with a strong command and control system. A division of 8,000 guards oversees nuclear security. The division controls the country’s atomic missiles. The U.S. spent about $100 million over six years to give Pakistan equipment such as night-vision goggles and sensors to protect its nuclear arsenal. On several occasions IAEA’s Chief has been briefed about the structure and control mechanisms put in place to ensure complete safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Pakistan attaches great importance to IAEA and has extended cooperation and assistance to the Agency on many important issues towards the fulfillment of its mandate.
Americans and Western powers have long been engaged in tirade against Pakistan and its nuclear programme and their ultimate objective is to ensure roll-back of the country’s nuclear capability. A number of US officials and lawmakers have voiced concern that President Pervez Musharraf’s government could lose control over its nuclear arsenal amid the crisis triggered by the death of BB. The American presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are trying to gain political mileage over each other at the expense of Pakistan’s strategic weapon. It is very saddening that a person of the stature of the UN nuclear chief should indulge in sounding irresponsible comment while endorsing what US presidential aspirants have been saying during their electioneering campaign in recent weeks. IAEA’s credibility as a neutral organization has been at stake by un-called for remarks of its DG. It has confirmed the reservations of third world countries that United Nations is working as mere tools at the hands of the United States. In response to Pakistan’s strong criticism, the spokeswoman Melissa Fleming of UN atomic watchdog rationalized that the comments intended were not “Pakistan-specific”.
The statement against Pakistan’s nuclear assets is a part of propaganda against the country. Pakistan rejected all these baseless and absurd statements meant to defame it. Pakistan nuclear arsenals are under foolproof command and control system and are not vulnerable to get into the hands of extremist element as is feared by the western leaders. It suffices to say that Pakistan possesses adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its strategic assets and sovereignty. On the nuclear issue, all the political parties have resolved their internal problems to prepare the country for any challenge. The whole nation stands united and would not allow external force to cast doubts over its nuclear programme.




Indian Christians & Orissa Tragedy
Neha Ahmed

The tribal dominated South-Central Kandhamal district in Orissa has recently seen an outburst of communal violence during the just concluded Christmas celebrations in India, which has shaken the Christian community to its very core. The violence began on 24th December, when a Hindu mob attacked a tent displaying the nativity scene that Christians had jointly put up in a small town in Orissa. According to Christian leaders, the week that followed saw Hindu radicals attacking and destroying at least 50 village churches, 6 convents, 3 presbyteries, 6 hostels, 2 seminaries and a vocational training center in addition to at least 400 houses. Media sources confirmed only five fatalities but the confusion regarding death number still continues. Many people, including young women are still reported missing.
There were conflicting reports about what actually sparked the AntiChristmas violence, with each side blaming the other for providIng the instigation. The New-Delhi based Catholic Bishops Conference of India said that the fighting began on the morning of 24th December when Hindu extremist objected to a cultural show marking Christmas Eve, believing it was designed to induce Hindus at the bottom of the rigid Hindu caste hierarchy to convert to Christianity. The argument over the Christmas show got out of hand and some Hindu activists opened fire on the Christians wounding three in the process. The situation worsened after Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) leader, Laxmanananda Saraswati - who leads the anti-conversion movement, was reportedly attacked. VHP and Bajrang Dal activists called a four-hour strike to protest against the attack. The SP of Kandhamal district said that the strike supporters targeted the establishments and schools run by Christian missionaries. Picketing posts were set-up outside churches, denying entry to many who had come to offer prayers on Christmas day. The violence which began at Brahmanigaon village gradually spread to other parts of district. Several trains were delayed and vehicular movement hit in Cuttack, Balasore, Bhubaneswer and Bhadrak. No church group was allowed to visit the area and the Christian leaders remained unable even to provide psychological support to the traumatized victims. It is said that the Christians who were guarding churches and institutions from anti-Christian elements were been harassed and taken away by the police. Minority rights have gained greater visibility and relevance all over the world. The trend is applicable in a greater degree to India due to its multi-ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural society. India is overwhelmingly Hindu but is officially said to be secular.