Skip to main content

Six vs. One

The Army Chief General Kayani has given a one point comment on the ongoing debate on Baluchistan sparked by the six points given by the Baluchistan National Party Chief Mr...


The Army Chief General Kayani has given a one point comment on the ongoing debate on Baluchistan sparked by the six points given by the Baluchistan National Party Chief Mr Akhter Mengal. His one sentence comment—‘the Army fully supports any political process as long as it is within the Constitution’—carries a world of meaning for those willing to accept it with an open mind.
The General or his spokesperson could have denied the allegations of a ‘military operation’ in Baluchistan, or the mention of ‘death squads or any or all of the other four other points raised by Mr Mengal during his appearance in the Supreme Court. Such a denial would not have carried much weight with those who forget that there are elected federal and provincial governments and insist that it is the Army that is ‘calling the shots’. By mentioning the Constitution the Army Chief has drawn attention to what is Constitutional and what is not. The six points need to be examined in this context especially by those political leaders who have rushed to endorse them just to discomfit the government.
There is no doubt that the Army has stakes in the national security situation and the policies that manage that situation. This is true of all armies in the world. No army would want to be asked to deal with the violent fallout of a political situation that has spiraled out of control because of mismanagement at the stage at which it could have been managed or controlled. In the same context the Army once employed would not want to be pulled out of a task given to it and then asked to get back in after political failure because there is inevitably a heavy cost in human lives for such experiments. Considered against this backdrop the Army Chief’s statement could also be related to the situation in FATA where the Army is paying a heavy price in lives.
The General’s reference to ‘support for any political process’ implies that it is subservient to the elected government, that the political process is not its job but that it ready to support the process of policy formulation with its input as long as the  process is within the four corners of the Constitution. By implication the military is rejecting the ‘calling the shots’ mantra and indicating that it can put its organizational and structural weight behind the political governments’ efforts to resolve an issue that has manifest security implications. It is also sending a loud and clear message of its respect for the Constitution.
The General’s statement is also rejecting unconstitutional practices like an unauthorized military operation, a hand in the saga of missing persons or the so called death squads if there are any. He has indicated that there is a deeper malaise that begs a political solution before it is too late. Without a doubt institutional maturity is creeping into Pakistan and this is good for the future of democracy.
(Spearhead Analyses are collaborative efforts and not attributable to a single individual)
Spearhead Analysis – 04.10.12
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan can never be Madina E Saani

By Nadeem Sajjad. Pakistan is a land loved by many and lived in by millions. It has been witnessed in the past --and somewhat in the present age – that the origin of the name (word) “Pakistan” has had many different accounts of its creators/inventors. Known to be the most accurate of all accounts, is the one of the much respected Chaudhry Rehmat Ali. Others have the concept that the word “Pakistan” was given to the Muslims of India, after the success of Lahore resolution in 1940, by the Hindus of the subcontinent and was then used by Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League annual session at Delhi on 24 April 1943. Whatever may be the origin, the Muslims got their own land to practice their religion Islam, and to maintain their traditions. The thing that should be emphasized upon is that the country was created in the name of Islam.  Knowing the origin is one thing, but naming the country or the name itself to something els...

What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?

By   Patrick B. Pexton Readers periodically ask me some variation on this question: “Why does the press follow every jot and tittle of Iran’s nuclear program, but we never see any stories about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability?” It’s a fair question. Going back 10 years into Post archives, I could not find any in-depth reporting on Israeli nuclear capabilities, although national security writer  Walter Pincus  has touched on it  many times in his articles and  columns . I spoke with several experts in the nuclear and nonproliferation fields , and they say that the lack of reporting on Israel’s nuclear weapons is real — and frustrating. There are some obvious reasons for this, and others that are not so obvious. First, Israel refuses to acknowledge publicly that it has nuclear weapons. The U.S. government also officially does not acknowledge the existence of such a program. Israel’s official position, as reiterated by Aaron Sagui, spokesman fo...

Muslim Pages on Facebook | What Happened To You ???

I was prompted to highlight this issue because people were going crazy on the social media specially facebook over the blasphemous anti-Islamic film.  Yes, the film is blasphemous and the makers of the film should be punished because there is a clear difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. But the thing that I am going to highlight is the pictures that are being spread all over the facebook, for example have a look at this one: Translates : Hitler writes in his book My Struggle that "If I had wanted I could have killed all the jews of the world but I left a few for the world to know why I killed them" Now, the book My Struggle was published in 1924 and the Holocaust happened in 1930, how could Adolf Hitler wrote about Holocaust six years prior to its happening ? Take a look at this picture:  Does the maker of this photo even know that it was Hitler's holocaust that led the zionists accelerate their activities in getting a homeland ? N...