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 comeâ€Â?. Mr Ashan, who heads Justice Iftikhar’s legal team, saw “a turning pointâ€Â? in the March 9 presidential action against the chief justice that plunged the country into a judicial crisis and said: “We must grasp it.â€Â? 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 “noââà ¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚? 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.â€Â? 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,â€Â? 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.
Its a great work and in urdu language “Ehsan” on masses to educate them too. I salute to lady Ayesha Siddiqa taht even beig a women and living in Pak she did a courage. Its not easy to call a spade a spade.
Akbar Shah Basha
[quote comment=”51350″][quote comment=”51270″]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.[/quote]
The people of Queta should forcibly take away land from the Faujis.[/quote]
Shahid Sahib, your answer is too simplistic! If 160 million people can not send these ignorant animals back to their barracks, how on earth people from a small but heavily crowded town like Quetta can do that!
The ‘cantonment’ issue needs a proper debate across Pakistan. Army as an industry (since it’s no longer an institution) should invest in the barren lands in the mountains to make new cantonments; this will also allow the surrounding regions to prosper as a result! Plus Quetta is not a strategic zone for present day Pakistan; it was important for British as it represented their western most borders of the British-India.
lastly i think its too simplistic to describe u.s. policy as being anti-islam because there have been many instances where u.s. has supported muslims when other powers have been against such as in the balkans. as far as supporting dictators go, that is a legacy of cold war. both russians as well as americans were supporting dictators all over the world. couple of muslim countries further strengthened american support by establishing diplomatic relations with israel. musharraf to his credit has not gone this route which would greatly improve his media image. good example of a dictator who enjoys very favourable u.s. media covarge is king of jordan.
on land alloted to amry wallahs, i dont have a problem with it. couple of my uncles retired as generals and only thing they have to show for their service was a house in defense and a toyota corolla. salaries, even for generals, is still very low and its unrealistic to expect senior army leadership to live like paupers after retirement. these days due to rapid rise in pvt sector salaries gulf between public and private sector is rapidly rising. govt employees have to be compensated if we have to attract good people. i dont have a problem if compensation takes the form of cash or land upon retirement.
from my previous post:
i think americans are indifferent on the issue of pakistan leadership. americans know that they would get the same level of cooperation from the two main competitors to the pakistani throne. both bb and ns have said on record that they would continue providing assistance to americans. ns and bb’s track record confirms that policy would be no different. under ns, pak was a active member of the gulf war 1 coalition despite intense opposition from aslam beg who was the army chief at that point. also under ns, americans where whisking people from pak who were involved in terrorism. kansi’s kidnapping from pak was particulary audacious. as for bb, you should read what ayaz amir had to say about her attempts to curry favour with the americans. his old columns on bb (available on the net) are essentially carbon copy of his criticism of musharraf. i also think in the short run, americans would prefer mush to stick around because there is little chance of army under cutting a military led government.
continued from my previous post:
its too simplistic to describe u.s. policy as being anti-islam because there have been many instances where u.s. has supported muslims when other powers have been against such as in the balkans. as far as supporting dictators go, that is a legacy of cold war. both russians as well as americans were supporting dictators all over the world. couple of muslim countries further strengthened american support by establishing diplomatic relations with israel. musharraf to his credit has not gone this route which would greatly improve his media image. good example of a dictator who enjoys very favourable u.s. media covarge is king of jordan.
i also think americans are indifferent on the issue of pakistan leadership. americans know that they would get the same level of cooperation from the two main competitors to the pakistani throne. both bb and ns have said on record that they would continue providing assistance to americans. ns and bb’s track record confirms that policy would be no different. under ns, pak was a active member of the gulf war 1 coalition despite intense opposition from aslam beg who was the army chief at that point. also under ns, americans where whisking people from pak who were involved in terrorism. kansi’s kidnapping from pak was particulary audacious. as for bb, you should read what ayaz amir had to say about her attempts to curry favour with the americans. his old columns on bb (available on the net) are essentially carbon copy of his criticism of musharraf. i also think in the short run, americans would prefer mush to stick around because there is little chance of army under cutting a military led government.