Pulling an army chief out of thin air

Our unfortunate Republic, being what it is, and knowing what it knows, takes greater interest in the appointment of the next army chief than is healthy. Or at least takes greater interest in it than other countries do.

Consequently, a cottage industry, of sorts, has emerged in the news media whose only job is to play a guessing game about who the next army chief is going to be.

The incumbent’s retirement has definitely been a downer for a number of our talking heads. They wanted him to be given an extension, at the very least. Ideally, they would have liked the fellow to have taken over. This desire was expressed unequivocally several times on different television channels.

It is sad that open statements asking the army chief to take over, which in other countries would have strained (but not transgressed) the limits of free speech, are being thrown around quite casually in Pakistan. And innocent statements like the one by Mahmood Khan Achakzai, who had only questioned the efficiency of the intelligence organisations after a gruesome terrorist attack, was being accused of treason.

On the issue of the succession of the army chief: the media is nigh clueless about who the next army chief is going to be. Not to imply that our news media is particularly clued up about, say, the budget, but it doesn’t stop them from holding forth on the issue.

This current flurry of discussion has led to a lot of rather ill-informed debate. But before we move on to the actual technical inaccuracies about the issue that are being peddled by the mainstream media, let me just get another issue out of the way first. It is a pet peeve of mine. The ridiculous discussion of “body language.”

Much attention is given to the body language of key national players, even though analysis based on it is about as accurate as the zodiac and numerology. That was a bad analogy to give, of course, because our ratings-greedy television channels actually have had practitioners of the occult over to weigh in on the issue as well.

I know, dear reader, that you also think reading body language is silly. And that, even if you didn’t think it before, I have bullied you just now into thinking it is silly. But you don’t really know how silly it actually is till you hear the Pakistani commentariat take apart things like the way the army chief has taken his seat or the gait of the prime minister. As if the pundits were judges on Dancing With The Stars and were giving verdicts like “sexy yet reserved, fluid and well as centred, I’ll give your performance an 8.9/10.”

But the award for silliness on this, as usual, goes to Dr Shahid Masood. Online readers can see below a video of his remarkable take on body language, when the prime minister and the army chief were given a presentation of a military exercise. The good doctor, never the last word on rationality at the best of times, went full cuckoo here.

Do please watch it. It is quite hilarious.

Now, on to the issue itself. One sees, ad nauseum, one retired general after the other coming on TV and talking about merit. The pundits, of course, keep talking about merit as well. Implicit in all this talk of merit is the hint that the prime minister will not keep merit in mind, which makes it an emotional talking point.

All this is ridiculous. Yes, I said it. Merit is a ridiculous thing to discuss, specially for those who hold the Pakistan army in great esteem. The choice is between five to six generals. Three stars all of them. And, though I might be wrong, all of them would have commanded a corps. So the weakest link here would be, in the eyes of those who hold the army as an institution in great esteem, an extremely competent general.

They say that the prime minister does not want to keep merit in mind but will appoint an individual who is most loyal to him. Well, since the merit issue, as I have explained earlier, is out of the window, what is wrong with wanting a loyal army chief who knows his place? Army chiefs, to state the obvious, topple elected governments. And those who don’t interfere in political affairs behind the scenes. Specially General Kayani and, if accounts are to be believed, the incumbent.

There is another aspect that is also propped up quite a lot. That of seniority. Another silly point to make. If the senior most general should get the slot, then why have the prime minister choose in the first place? Secondly, those critical of the prime minister’s choice (though he hasn’t even made one yet) are all supporters of General Raheel Sharif, a man who was picked up to be chief despite not being the senior most general. All of these guys are from the same PMA batch to begin with, further diminishing the argument for seniority.

Then there is the argument for sticking to the choice that the army chief has given. Again, many are under the impression that the prime minister appoints after advice from the army chief. No. The president appoints, after advice from the prime minister. The premiere, yes, consults the outgoing army chief. Yes, but that is mere technicality, you say. The actual thing is going with the army chief’s advice. Well, the last army chief didn’t want the incumbent to be chosen, but here we are.

It is wrong in principal for generals to be superseded, you persist. Is it? Many times during the year, scores of major generals are superseded for their three stars. Lots of brigadiers (they’re generals too, remember) are superseded. Captains are superseded. That’s the way the military works.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how one slices this, there is resentment against the fact that it is the prime minister that enjoys this power. Though the deep state tries its best to ensure it is the other way around.