Adil Najam
As was expected - but much more so than expected becasue of its timing - Ayesha Siddiqa’s new book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy is causing waves in Pakistan and abroad.
True to form, the establishment has bothed up things even more than usual by trying to mess with the book’s launch in Islamabad. That only made the launch an even bigger news than it would have been. Here, for example, is the top of the page, front page news item from Dawn (June 1, 2007):
A book putting a critical spotlight on the military’s business nooks was launched from a virtual sanctuary on Thursday and some high-profile political reviewers seized upon it to denounce the army’s role in Pakistani politics.
The launching of the book, Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, a military analyst, was due to have taken place at the capital’s elitist Islamabad Club. But the author told a surprised audience that not only the club cancelled the booking of its auditorium, “all hotels in Islamabad were also told� by unspecified authorities not to allow the use of their halls for this, forcing the organisers to find a sanctuary at a third floor room provided by a non-governmental organisation.
PPP’s legal star Aitzaz Ahsan said the time had come to stand up against the military dominance while PML-N Information Secretary Ahsan Iqbal accused Pakistan army generals of not learning a lesson from other countries that said goodbye to military rule. But some other speakers had a dig also at politicians for doing little to keep the military in check while being in power and at times celebrating the ouster of their rivals. Mr Aitzaz Ahsan said the expose of Ayesha, who puts the net worth of the army’s commercial empire at Rs200 billion, had come at a “defining moment� in Pakistan’s history following President Pervez Musharraf’s controversial charge-sheeting and suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.
He narrated what he called the military’s moves in the past to convert Pakistan into a national security state contrary to the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s vision of a welfare state and to forge an alliance with mullahs in search of an ideological justification for this, but said he thought now “a watershed has come�. Mr Ashan, who heads Justice Iftikhar’s legal team, saw “a turning point� in the March 9 presidential action against the chief justice that plunged the country into a judicial crisis and said: “We must grasp it.� Cheers went up in the congested premises of the NGO Leadership for Environment and Development as Mr Ahsan referred to what he called an unexpected “no� by the chief justice to the president’s demand for his resignation and, in a reference to the nationwide protest movement by lawyers, opposition political activists and the civil society, said: “The spillway of the Tarbela Dam has opened now.� He said although the chief justice would not speak about the presidential reference pending before the five-judge Supreme Judicial Council or his challenge to the reference before a 13judge bench of the Supreme Court, it was out of compulsion that an affidavit was filed on his behalf on Tuesday about what happened to him during his March 9 meeting with the president and for some days afterwards. “We were compelled to file that affidavit,� Mr Ahsan said, citing comments made by President Musharraf about the case as the reason.
Mr Iqbal rejected as a myth usual accusations holding politicians responsible for four military coups in Pakistan’s history and put the blame on what he called ambitions of army chiefs who toppled civilian governments from General Mohammad Ayub Khan, who later became field marshal, to General Musharraf. Comparing the ills of military interventions in politics to what cancer does to human body, he said Ayub Khan struck in October 1958 to pre-empt scheduled elections next year, while General Yahya Khan snatched power from him in 1969 at “virtual gunpoint� to prevent a handover to a National Assembly Speaker from then East Pakistan in the midst of a national democratic movement.
General Mohammad Zia-ulHaq, he recalled, seized power on June 5, 1977 a day after then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the opposition Pakistan National Alliance had agreed to hold fresh elections. He said Pakistan faced no bankruptcy despite international sanctions for its 1998 nuclear tests and “everything was normal� when General Musharraf, after being sacked, toppled then prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Oct 12, 1999. Mr Zafar Abbas, resident editor of Dawn, Islamabad, and Dr Farrukh Saleem, also complimented the 292-page book published by the Oxford University Press.
It speaks about the role of the military power in transforming the Pakistani society, armed forces becoming an independent class entrenched in the corporate sector and their five giant welfare foundations, or conglomerates, running thousands of businesses ranging from petrol pumps to industrial plants.
I have not yet read the book myself, however, I have talked about it with Ayesha many times - most recently in Boston some weeks ago - and am generally familiar with the thesis of the book. But, then, so is most of Pakistan. It is that the Military’s economic footprint has become too large for teh military’s own good. From cereal to banks to airlines, what she calls ‘Military Inc.’ is now everywhere in Pakistan’s economic life. Her argument is that this is nietehr good for Pakistan nor the military.
I am looking forward to reading and reviewing the book, which Ayesha has promised to send me soon. Meanwhile, we will keep an eye out for substantive reviews of this undoubtedly important work.
I haven’t read the book yet and I would like to know if she has touched upon cantonment areas. For example how much land is needed to accommodate Pakistan’s armed forces and where they should make their ‘CHAAH’ONIS’? I’m posing this question because I am from Quetta and people in Balochistan are the most deprived one - in many ways.
Balochistan is 43% of Pakistan and almost 25% of its population resides in and around Quetta City! Unfortunately 45% of Quetta (area wise) has been taken over by ‘Faujis’- hardly few thousand soldiers) while around two million civilians are forced to live in the remaining 55% of Quetta. What a shame! Not only that but we the natives (we were there b4 the Mughals/British/Partition) are required to have a pass (Passport/visa!) in order to go through or to the other side of the ‘CHAAH’ONI’. We really feel very strongly about this discrimination in our own ancestral land while the immigrants from Punjab, in particular, roam about freely - buying and selling our land which they acquire as part of their retirement!
Please remember I am not anti-Pakistani/Punjabi but it hurts the way our people are treated by a bunch of thugs from the armed forces! And if we question their ‘misbehaviour’ in any forum then we are considered as ‘traitors’ while those have sold Pakistan and its poor people many times get away with their crimes and they get medals!
I hope the editors on this forum will run some articles highlighting the role of ‘chaah’onis’ in the crowded cities and the problems they create for indigenous civilians.
I am just hoping Dr, Saddiqa might have discussed this issue in her book.
MQ, think there are like 15 core commanders and then the meeting is also attended by Staff Officers from GHQ I think.
MQ:
Your previous post reminded me of the following article by Ayaz Amir (An excess of brass, April 27, 2001):
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20010427.htm
Well I think the author of this book is loosing her credibility by turning this into a big drama and focusing of sympathy for her more than contents of the book in every interview. Which is a pity because the content is really important and her thesis is the right one.
King Faisal, you bring up some interesting and thoughtful points, but I think it is too simple to say that anyone who criticizes a military dictatorship is a tool of the West…I think in this case it is the opposite, the Americans are behind Mush 100% and Reagan supported and possibly brought into power Zia, in case you don’t remember. Mush is the latest in the long line of “moderates” which the Americans use for their own purposes (in this case hunting down the Taliban) and when they decide he is not obedient enough to his American masters they will tear him down. Just as when they no longer needed Hussein to kill Iranians by proxy, they just got rid of him. A military dictator in thrall to the West is a dangerous thing for a country.
If you don’t like the Americans running Pakistan, the best thing to do is encourage the formation of a true, transparent Pakistani democracy which I am sure is what Siddiqa is fighting for also. This is a path fraught with peril because really, Pakistani democracy is the LAST thing the Americans really want, all their chest beating about how they love democracy aside. All they really love is an open business environment and that is not the same thing!
So I would encourage you to look twice at Dr. Siddiqa’s work before you class her in with Hirsi, etc. as a poodle of Western interests. Really I don’t think she is. Who is serving the American interests right now, her or Mush?
And the talk of Israel, Syria, Palestian problem etc. I don’t think is too applicable in this situation. Every case is unique and needs to be examined on its own merits. The military is the biggest property owner in Pakistan by far and this is no problem? I know people who own businesses who seek army officer status for themselves just because not having an “in” with the military is very bad for any businessman in Pakistan. They virtually purchase their officer rankings, pouring yet more money into the coffers of the army….this is all very unhealthy. Credit must go to Siddiqa for writing this book.
A little off topic, but last night watching the corps commanders’ meeting on TV I was surprised to see the large number of commanders sitting around the table. (There used to only 6-9 corps commanders not too long ago.) I tried to count them but would lose count after 20-21. Then I tried to count the number of tea kettles (or was it water flasks?) sitting on the table in front of each person, but couldn’t complete the count because of the angle of the camera. Then I tried to count the black hair and gray hair separately but that didn’t work either, for most of them had jet black hair. Musharraf, of course, stood out with his light brown hair (Wella 33?) and gray temples.
Ch Nisar Ali Khan says that Musharraf has played his final trump card by having ISPR issue a statement after the corps commanders meeting in his support.
He also says that if the support was unanimous more details of the meeting should be made public i.e. who said what.
Ch Nisar Ali Khan hails from a family with a history of service in the army. His brother was the JCSC, I think he may have some inside news of dissenting views expressed at the meeting in GHQ.
More on bbcurdu.com:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2007/06/0 70602_corps_statement_nisar.shtml
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of every modern democratic society but our rulers deny us the same … Sometimes in the name of islam, some times in the name of the “integrity of Pakistan” and some times in the name of an army that has never won a war but knows well how to conquer its own people.