Ah, so it’s time for that part of the news cycle, then, isn’t it? Every next iteration of this part of the cycle should, in theory, occur after three years. But, our Republic, being what it is, can stretch it to six years, or even eleven.
I am talking, of course, about the discussion and speculation about who the next army chief is going to be.
Given how the talking heads on TV are supposed to be experts on everything under the sun, they certainly aren’t going to shy away from discussing a topic that seems to pull in the ratings.
The problem here is that they don’t really know any of the handful of three star generals in the run. They really don’t. They’ll have to look at their resumes to hazard a guess. These resumes, dear readers, are nigh identical. And one doesn’t mean to make fun of that. Uniformity is something armies strive for. So why not uniformity of experience?
So, you might ask? Not knowing something never seems to have stopped these great minds from holding forth, that too at great length; we’ve all seen discussions about the budget, haven’t we? True, but talking about the institution that this country serves is a prickly matter.
The analysis, specially by some of the retired brass that are now pundits on TV, is the same for almost all of them. Whenever a general in the running is discussed, expect to hear the words, “thorough professional”, “true soldier”, “impressive experience.” When the next one is being discussed, the same words in another order. Different combinations and permutations of the same set of adjectives.
But the viewing — or reading — public doesn’t really enjoy itself until a favourite has been identified. This puts the pundit in question in a bit of a tough spot. The analyst can’t exactly say that the particular general really won’t cut it for the job. The unquestioning reverence that the army demands means that you cannot imply a Lt General is incompetent. If he can rise up to have three stars on his shoulders, those shoulder are up to any task. How dare you suggest anything to the contrary, good sir?
In fact, so competent are the bright minds of the army that even they themselves are superfluous. When former PCB chairman Tauqeer Zia was asked, at his first press conference after taking over the board, about how he will perform his duties as Corps Commander Mangla, the Lt General informed the reporter that he didn’t know the system of the army; that this supremely well-oiled machine can run itself!
The fact of the matter is that it is going to be an arbitrary choice for the prime minister to make. Just the way it was for the incumbent occupant of the post. General Kayani, it is reported, wasn’t all too keen on the fellow. And he wasn’t the senior most either. But, here we are.
The current prime minister has shown, in his history of picking army chiefs (he’s picked six, a record) that there is no such thing as apna banda. In the recent, post-Zia era, perhaps Waheed Kakar was the only army chief who actually did conform to the absolutely incorrect defence that army chiefs aren’t interested in politics but the politicians drag them in. And even his case is not black-and-white.
This is not to say that it doesn’t make a difference who will or will not become the army chief. Just that institutional expectations can get the better of the most professional of officers.
