Civil-Military relations remain a contentious issue
Despite an orderly transfer of power from one elected government to another, not much has changed in the army’s perception of its role in the country and relations with the civilian administration. The army continues to take a more visible part in diplomacy than in most democracies. It considers major area of policymaking as part of its turf. The way an assertive Supreme Court had to struggle to get the missing persons produced before it, its persistence succeeding over years in the release of only a small fraction indicates, there is strong resistance to be treated equally under the law.
Of the three major points of civil-military tension that are currently causing bad blood, the easiest to resolve was that of Musharraf’s trial. Musharraf being a retired officer is by all standards a civilian. Mirza Aslam Beg, another former COAS has already been called to the Supreme Court and when he tried to throw tantrums as usual, he was sternly told to behave, which he then tamely did. Other retired generals too have appeared before the apex court. The only new thing about Musharraf was that he had recently retired from the army and some of those in the present military leadership were appointed when he was the army chief. That the factor may not count much in the changed circumstances was indicated when Kayani declined, to Musharraf’s great chagrin, to come to his rescue in the Supreme Court.
For many in the army hierarchy Musharraf must have been an embarrassment to the institution. He had already been advised by the former ISI chief against returning to Pakistan. An overconfident Musharraf however came back to lead his party, contest the elections and face the several cases against him. While undergoing trial and put under house arrest, he lost his nerve and started sending distress signals to the army.
The way a panic stricken Musharraf escaped with the help of his private security guards from Islamabad High Court was widely seen as unbecoming of a general. So was his seeking asylum in the AFIC on pretext of heart trouble while on way of the special court hearing the high treason case.
Musharraf’s support in the army comes mostly from individual quarters, chiefly from those he has obliged by going out of the way. Some of these elements have supposedly provided him three month long shelter in the AFIC. The report last month from the ISI sources regarding imminent danger to his life in case he appeared at the court for indictment is also understood to have been prepared by similar elements. It is not clear whether he dropped at the eleventh the idea of delivering a telephonic address to his supporters waiting in a hotel on his own or because of advice from the higher army circles? Similarly, was the decision to finally appear before the court after a three month long resistance a brain wave or suggestion from above in Rawalpindi?
Army had not been comfortable with the structure of the talks but was extra cautious not to publicly air its misgivings as it wanted to avoid the impression that it was challenging the decision taken by the government.
Musharraf is however strongly supported by army officers, most of them retired now, whom he had gone out on a limb to support. Fearing for their own skins if an example was set by sentencing the former military ruler, they have lobbied hard for Musharraf’s release.
Nevertheless some in the army, as in civil society, would have been happier if Musharraf was allowed to go abroad by removing his name from ECL to end the ongoing tension. The issue was raised by the COAS with the prime minister. That Nawaz Sharif declined to oblige may have displeased the army chief. It’s definitely an irritant, though a minor one.
The ongoing talks with the TTP are another source of irritation – and this is serious.
The TTP – the major militant network in the country – has attacked sensitive military installations, destroyed valuable military assets and killed thousands of soldiers, scores of officers amongst them. The army had to fight hard against the network to regain Swat, South Waziristan and the Tirah valley. The fight against the militants continues in several FATA agencies, where the army has bled profusely.
Within months of Nawaz Sharif’s assumption of power, the government leaders decided to rely on talks with the TTP to bring peace. Finding that the party in power was supportive of parleys and opposed to fight the All Parties Conference called by the prime minister endorsed the policy. Later the interior minister maintained that the terrorists may be against the government but they are not against the state. Even when the TTP owned a deadly attack, Ch Nisar tried to absolve it of responsibility, often calling it a reaction to Musharraf’s policies or drone attacks.
In September last year Mullah Fazlullah, the present TTP chief, ordered the attack that killed the Swat GOC, Gen Sanaullah Niazi and a colonel. In a video released soon after, Fazlullah gloated over the killings. The army put out a toughly worded statement by Kayani. While reaffirming the army’s support for the political process, Kayani made it clear that terrorists will not be allowed to take advantage of it. “The army has the ability and the will to take the fight to the terrorists, he said. The government, however, continue to pursue talks.
Before and after initiating the present series of parleys s with the TTP, the prime minister had held several meetings with COAS Raheel Sharif. Later while visiting Turkey he had claimed that the exercise enjoyed army’s backing. Things, however, were not that simple.
Army had not been comfortable with the structure of the talks but was extra cautious not to publicly air its misgivings as it wanted to avoid the impression that it was challenging the decision taken by the government.
The TTP continued on the warpath in disregard of the government’s pursuit of peace. As the present series of talks was about to be initiated, 23 FC personnel who were in militants’ custody since 2011 were decapitated on the orders of the TTP Mohmand chief Omar Khorasni. Their dead bodies were desecrated and the video of the horrendous scene released on the net. While the brutality was condemned all over the country, the TTP leadership kept silent.
While unwilling to give the impression that it was challenging the government’s lead role in the peace process, the army expressed serious doubt about their success. Soon after the incident the military issued figures of civilians and army personnel killed in terrorist attacks since the adoption of the APC resolution on talks with the militants. The statement showed that 460 innocent people – 308 civilians, 114 soldiers and 38 policemen – had been martyred in the attacks throughout the country since September 10
While the modalities of meetings between the government and TTP teams were being discussed by the two sides, the air force conducted strikes in several agencies killing important militants and destroying their hideouts. The attack led to suspension of talks for the time being. Subsequently the army declined to be a part of talks with the TTP.
While the TTP has called off the ceasefire and promised to launch deadly attacks, the government has released several Taliban prisoners. This is likely to be interpreted by the army as another act of appeasement. Any major attack in days to come would lead to pressures on the government to reverse the policy of talks and nothing but talks.
While the TTP has called off the ceasefire and promised to launch deadly attacks, the government has released several Taliban prisoners. This is likely to be interpreted by the army as another act of appeasement. Any major attack in days to come would lead to pressures on the government to reverse the policy of talks and nothing but talks.
The army’s India Policy is likely to turn out to be another major source of irritation.
Despite the spectre of terrorism haunting the country, there is little change in the army’s India- centric strategic doctrine. India remains for army an existential threat of a permanent nature while terrorism is a major but temporary challenge.
Nawaz Sharif on the other hand believes the country cannot progress economically without establishing better relations with India.
The army guards the LeT as its strategic asset in Kashmir for the future. Thus there can be no move to hasten action against those in Pakistan who planned or perpetrated the attacks in Mumbai, a key demand by the Congress government likely to be reiterated whosoever comes to power in this year’s general elections in India. Meanwhile Hafiz Saeed continues to fan anti-India sentiment in the country despite a $10m US government bounty on his head. Even Maulana Masood Azhar, the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed, which attacked the Indian parliament in 2001, has recently resurfaced by delivering a telephonic address on the Kashmir Day.
The military is not against better trade relations with India, we are told, but it insists that normal relations could only be restored once there is some positive movement on resolving thorny issues including Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek etc. So there is still no MFN status for India despite a written assurance to the IMF by Ishaq Dar.
A report in The Guardian on February 17 quotes Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif warning the military establishments of both India and Pakistan not to block efforts to sweep aside trade barriers between the two neighbours. “Security agencies on both sides need to really understand that in today’s world, a security-led vision is obviously driven by economic security,” he said. “Unless you have economic security… you cannot have general security.”
Tension on the issue with the army will re-emerge soon after the dust is settled over the Indian elections and the new government is in place.
Mian Nawaz Sharif will simultaneously face two challenges. He will have to persuade the army that terrorism poses a greater challenge to national security than the perceived threat from India. This seems a hard task when even Ch Nisar remains unconvinced about TTP posing an existential threat. Then he will have to convince his future counterpart in India that hegemonic tendencies threaten peace in South Asia.
