Who means what
If the military’s intent behind the chief’s retirement announcement – suddenly, at this point in time – was to quell speculation about the subject, it has clearly not worked. If anything the army’s signalling has stoked the rumour mill. Talk shows are suddenly full of analysts figuring out not what the statement said, but rather what it didn’t say, and what it might have meant. News that the government has allegedly been trying to come up with unprecedented ways to extend the chief’s stay has, of course, only added to the controversy.
It’s not in every country that the army chief announcing his intent to stick to his normal retiring schedule becomes instant ‘breaking news’. What is not breaking news, however, is the civilian-military imbalance that hovers behind such incidents and announcements. Of late, the chatter has not just been about the brass bearing down on important policy matters, but also of the government itself ceding space owing to its own inefficiencies and incompetence. In the fight against terrorism, especially, the military has clearly taken the lead and won the public’s admiration. In fact, the military had to finally put its foot down and go ahead with Zarb-e-Azb; the government was still in favour of talks.
The foreign policy dimension is another example. More than half way through the cycle, the government is still without a full-time foreign minister. Considering that Pakistan is in the middle of crucial, landmark international diplomatic cross-currents, the decision not to have a dedicated foreign minister makes little sense. It is only natural, therefore, that the government is often behind the curve on matters such as AfPak, Pak-India, Pak-US, etc. Gen Raheel has put his cards on the table just when a growing majority feels his personal touch is crucial to the war on terror. For some reason, there are signs – tough the government continues to deny – that Islamabad also wants to encourage the army chief to hang around longer than his mandate. Pakistan and Pakistanis can do without such unnecessary controversy. It is far better for everybody – people and institutions – to say what they mean and mean what they say.
