The time is not yet ripe, Mian sahib
Maj (retd) Yamin Butt
The history is not so much the mere existence of a nation that counts but what the nation does during various periods of existence. Present generation of Pakistan has been thoroughly confused about it due to lack of correct knowledge of various periods, absence of unbiased and fair analytical literature and cognizance with ground realities. They are misled by the plangent cries of power-hungry politicians, a segment of civil society and some factions of media, purporting the bitter history between military dictatorships and democracy.
A tyrannical era of loot and plunder commenced after the death of Quaid-e-Azam the leader and the father this newly born nation looked up to in blind unison. The country fell prey to the bureaucrats after Liaquat Ali Khan’s murder, instigating the dark days of political minefield. Prime ministers were changed so frequently that Jawahar Lal Nehru once made his famous comment: “I have not changed so many dhotis, the way Pakistan has changed her prime ministers”.
The trivialities of that era can be witnessed in the history books which may or may not justify the long list of debatable events which led Ayub Khan into power but history is undisputed that Khan’s 10-year rule was the era of deliverance and national honour for Pakistan on the global stage. Another huge and undeniable contribution of Ayub Khan was to give Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Pakistan, a people’s leader who changed the course of political history of Pakistan in a series of good and bad events. Besides his great legacy, Bhutto made certain decisions which not only alienated him as a politician but also isolated the people from their beloved leader, paving way for other political parties to unite against him. In 1977, Mr Bhutto was thrown out by General Zia-ul-Haq in the aftermath of a popular movement by PNA, blaming him for rigging the elections.
General Zia’s action of hanging a popular leader, later termed as a judicial murder, divided the nation into pro Bhutto and anti-Bhutto segments. General Zia’s rule strengthened with the courtesy of the same political class who sat in his lap, elevating him to the altar of Ameer-ul-Momineen, using Islam as a political slogan.
After Zia, the short-lived, half-baked democratic intervals were nothing more than a blind man’s bluff between the ever-contending politicians, muscle-flexing army and threateningly inauspicious judiciary ensuing bemused public. Whatever the factors were behind the coup d’etat of 12th October, 1999, General Musharraf’s martial law and subsequent rule was immediately validated by the higher judiciary and the same politicians by a Legal Framework Order (LFO). Here again, came the aides and abettors at play.
The rule of army dictatorship cannot be understood unless elucidating the philosophy of the army. Army gets its share of adventure due to the brawls of politicians for power and non-deliverance to the common man. The army is an institution which nurtures the culture of obedience, discipline and comradeship, where bravery and patriotism becomes a habit, where chivalry and sovereignty of the country is exalted and politics under-valued, where virtue is rather understood in the classic sense of fortitude and courage than in the modern sense of true moral excellence.
The army is hierocratic, not democratic in its make. The decision of imposing martial law or military rule is always taken by the top brass while rest of the army is ostracized. Benefit of this power base is drawn by the army dictator due to its hierocratic nature, who lets the soldiers indulge in the game of ‘martyr’ and ‘ghazi’. The predicament resonated across the rank and file of the army during and after Pervez Musharraf’s rule.
Today, a question seems to have taken over the collective mind of our nation, “Is army protecting Musharraf?” The answer is simply ‘no’. The army is protecting its ‘image’, which is being irrationally disparaged by the media and some politicians, making Musharraf a symbol of the army. It is a risky business to malign the institution, directly or indirectly, by a parallel media trial which has not only indicted but convicted the former general under Article 6. Media is creating unnecessary hype for its own benefit and the government is pursuing it for its long term political gain and short term subterfuge from the real issues.
The script of Musharraf saga is written by Hollywood, sponsored by Saudi financiers and being directed by the authorities in Pakistan. Some supporting actors are trying to play beyond their designated roles only to make it a thrilling episode for the public. The end, however, is planned to be a tragic comedy.
Governments are only strong enough to take tough decisions when the public opinion is definite and undivided. The time is not yet ripe, Mian sahib.
I love Pak army and brave soldiers.
Thanks! Love you and love Pakistan.
I do not agree with the writer. He is wrong and i can prove. Why he has missed the episode of 1971? How did mr Ayub gave Pakistan Z.A.Bhutto? Why pride of nation was not considered after 9/11. A lot more but no need
I wrote this article as a Pakistani who has lived through these national debacles and have witnessed the ground realities on both sides. You perhaps are forgetting the role of our politicians in the above mentioned events. If I may remind you of the statement made by a great politician at that time, "Pakistan has been saved" immediately after the army operation started in East Pakistan. There are several other historic actions and similar statements made by then politicians, on record. There are two kinds of pride, both good and bad. 'Good pride' represents our dignity and self-respect. 'Bad pride' is the deadly sin of superiority that reeks of conceit and arrogance. Which one are you talking about?
dear Maj you want to prove that army is innocent and the cir cum stances lead them to rule Pakistan for almost four decades is baseless please wait until the Pakistani nation is gets educated and then they will decide who is how much innocent and who deserve the or disrespect
In case if you have got the jist of it, the article doesn't support the Army Rule in any way. It only meant to educate the younger lot about the ground realities of our political minefield. Wise people learn from other's mistakes, fools learn from their own. If you are part of young generation of Pakistan which category will you place yourself in?
Regards
It amazes me that still there are INNOCENT people like the writer….. this is the dilemma; we put blame on others and we are way too good in this. We have to look inwards in order to salvage ourselves!!!
I totally agree with you and that is the very jist of my article.
However, to be innocent is to be no guilty, but to be virtuous, is to overcome our evil inclinations.
Regards
Major Sahib this seems to an essay to be submitted to your 2 IC Office. I think we have gone old enough to understand this game of power and plunder by these wadera, who ruled this area since centuries, before Pakistan came into existence. When separate homeland from India was secured, these waderas killed the whole team which created Pakistan and started fighting amongst themselves for power. All these Waderas, Choudhrys, Chattahs, Khans and Sardars were busy cutting each other’s legs, someone was shouting "Pakhtunistan Zindaabad", some had plans for "Sindhu Desh", few talked of "Azad Baluchistan" and some contended for "Greater Punjab”. That was the time, Pundit Nehru uttered those words quoted by you plus he said that Pakistan was not going to last for more than six months, hence forth. Those were the circumstances in which, for the first time Army under General Ayub came to protect the existence of Pakistan. Ayub straightened out the feudal and administered the country on the path of progress. In1967 onwards when Americans were being beaten in Vietnam, the Russians wanted to complete their “Drive to Warm Waters”. Russians wanted to remove all hindrances from their way, including Ayub Government. First they tried Fatima Jinnah using her status, but when she learnt the game, she refused to play and Bhutto was taken as substitute. Indra Gandhi had rightly said that Bhutto damaged Pakistan so much in 5 years that India couldn’t have caused that much damage in 50 years. Again Army had to take to defend Pakistan against Russian’s expected assault after smoothening Afghanistan. The way General Zia broke USSR, the then Supper Power, and drove them out of Afghanistan, with much smaller Army, without any foreign support (US beaten in Vietnam couldn't help us), was a classical job, but no one appreciated his deeds at home.
A chance was given to these feuds to bring in the so beloved “Democracy”, but they utterly failed to deliver, rather brought the country to the state of a failed state. Over and above creating dramas like (1) Attack on Supreme Court (2) Hijacking of PIA plane carrying serving Army Chief (3) Calling serving General Zia-ud-Din Butt on motorcycle to decorate him with COAS rank, while the serving was still in the hijacked aircraft.
Credit goes to General Musharraf, who owned the action taken by the Army, as an Institution, in retaliation, to above stupidities, while he was still in the air.
Thanks! It appears from your first sentence that you are or have been associated with the army. The first sentence doesnt convey any sense. In your comment you have almost supported my opinion. Perhaps, you couldn't comprehend the language of the article.
Comments are closed.