Jamhuriat Ka Husn

PHOTO: Pakistan Defence FB Page

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.