Servants, not masters

The statement issued after the corps commanders meeting indicates the army leadership’s unhappiness with criticism voiced within the parliament. The army and security agencies have been under a lot of pressure, internal as well external, during the last two months. The Abbottabad affair was widely seen as an example of gross neglect by the ISI, which subsequently conceded the point, and as a security lapse that allowed foreign troops to enter Pakistan. Exactly three week later, terrorists wreaked havoc at PNS Mehran. Coming in quick succession as they did, the two incidents have led to a countrywide debate over the role and weaknesses of the armed forces and intelligence agencies.

The opposition has been in the forefront of the criticism in parliament. That top army officers agreed to brief the joint session was a recognition on their part that circumstance had changed after the 2008 elections. They were, however, less than pleased with the tone of some of the critics who wanted accountability and punishment for those responsible, something that one has not seen happening in this country. The vocabulary used in parliamentary debates is different from the one employed in military presentations. But when military leaders agree to brief the parliament, they are supposed to know they are not likely to be heard uninterrupted, and the questions may be pointed. What needs to be realised is that whosoever is speaking in parliament, his intention is to improve the working of the armed forces and the agencies.

The criticism is not confined to the parliamentary opposition alone. The media has been equally critical of the army’s blunders, again with an aim to help improve its working. The army is not in a position to divert funds given by the US for military use to the improvement of national economy. What is required is for it to be transparent about the military budget. Unless this is done, the issue is likely to turn into another topic for debate inside and outside parliament. The military has to be seen as a dedicated, professional and honest body. Above everything else, it has to present itself as the servant rather than the master of the people. That alone will improve its public image.