By
Xeric
Also published @
defence.pk
In an editorial published in
Dawn on 2 September 2014, the editors have shown concerns over “Army’s questionable decisions” it has taken during the impasse that has gripped the
country due to the Inqilabi - Azadi protestors sitting outside the Parliament since
the last 21 days. The concerns are primarily based on two things done by the
Army. One, the statements its public relations wing has released, and two; the
action or ‘inaction’ as the editors at Dawn like to call it taken by the Army
on 30 August 2014 when the Parliament was about to be overrun by protestors.
Had this piece been a blog,
I could have lived with it understanding that fanboy criticism of Army is a
norm these days. Unfortunately, it was not the case.
Apart from many other
concerns shown in the editorial, some of which I shall address later, the
writers, in government’s defence had asked that “would the army allow even a
handful of peaceful protesters to gather outside GHQ for a few hours?” This
tongue-in-cheek or so I like to believe comment is something which I think
should be addressed at priority before it sets an audacious trend, and here is
why:
To begin with, Article 16
(Freedom of assembly) of our Constitution states:
“Every citizen shall have the right to
assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions
imposed by law in the interest of public order.”
Now by virtue of the above,
Pakistani subjects can protest against the government, even if it means
gathering outside the Parliament – after all it is the people who have elected
the individuals there. They can also gather against or go on strike against an
unpopular decision of a private or even a government organization like WAPDA,
SSGC etc, but the same cannot be done or asked from the Pakistani citizens when
it comes to military. Primarily because:
- Unlike the Parliament, is not an elected
forum, and that unlike OGRA or State Bank, decisions taken by military regarding
its internal matters does not affect Pakistanis in their individual capacity
and hence does not produce reasons that would cause a protest. This is despite
the fact that military runs on your taxes.
- Unlike in a democratic or civilian
setup, there is no concept of ‘popular vote’ in the military. Infact, there is
no concept of voting altogether (as shown in some Hollywood movies where even
soldiers settle issues among themselves through vote). You are given an order
and, whether you like it or not, it has to be carried out and hence its
employees or so to say stake holders have no grounds for a protest, unless an
individual has been punished by a court-martial. So, whereas in a civilian
setup people can protest or launch strikes for pay increase, or against odd
work hours / difficult working environments, soldiers or their families or for
that matter the larger audience cannot. That is what primarily differentiates a
military organization from a civilian one.
- Unlike in a private or any other
government organization, its employees are not under oath to obey orders
without questioning them and hence even if there is some kind of resentment,
the protest, if that is what I should call it for readers’ consumption has a
very different procedure.
In short, military is an
undemocratic organization, hence protests whether in the form of gathering
outside GHQ or even a unit by the soldiers or the larger audience are
objectionable to say the least. However, this raises a question for those who
claim that ‘Ihtijaj Jamhuriat ka husn hai.’
Another absurd point raised
in the editorial is that the soldiers did ‘nothing’ to stop the ‘thugs’ from
‘attacking’ the Parliament. Now whereas the editorial itself says that “it was
surely the army’s duty to repel them” but it fails to understand the essence of
it and forgets that the ‘thugs’ were indeed ‘repelled’. Of course the mode used
to accomplish the task was not what the government or the editors of Dawn
wanted i.e. use of force a.k.a ‘rubber’ bullets and teargas. Before proceeding
further, I must clarify here that unlike Police or FC, Army being the last line
of defence is not supposed to resort to non-lethal actions like hawai firing or
riot control agents. By law, it is required, to the extent possible to make use
of negotiations to resolve a matter, failing which it has to use lethal force
(Note: A soldier can get court-martialed for firing its weapon in air to
disperse a mob). So, it is either words or “real” bullets when the matters come
into Army’s hands. Fortunately, it was the former that saved the day or night
on 2 September 2014.
Further, the editorial’s
shenanigans go to the extent of saying that it was due to Army’s ‘inaction’
“which largely explains why the protesters were able to continue their pitched
battles with the police and attacked the PTV headquarters yesterday.” But then
it fails to answer or even question that who ordered the Police guarding PTV
removed?
Lastly, the editorial
conveniently misses an important facet of all the releases by ISPR whereby it
continuously emphasized upon Army’s continued support for democracy and then
simply alleges that “the army is hardly being neutral” and that “it is making
a choice” despite the fact that it was the government itself that got the
military involved by invoking Article 245 and later by inviting it to play a
facilitative role for resolution of current impasse.
P.S. Those who would ask why a guy in
uniform is commenting on politics should understand that I am Pakistani first
and a solider thereafter.
