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.
[quote comment=”51179″]I had a chance to go back to Islamabad to buy a plot to settle back in Pakistan. This is amazing that more than ninety percents of the plots for sale in every sector from F-10 to F-11 and from G-11 to D-13 are owned by army personals. They have manipulated the price so much that it is out of reach of an ordinary person living in Islamabad.[/quote]
In the days of Gen. Ziaul Haq, I arranged some personal and company loans, and went plot hunting. F-10 plots were then becoming available in Islamabad market. I found Retd. Admiral Niazi (ex-chief of the Navy) controlled almost all of these.
Admiral Niazi eventually stood for a seat from Islamabad, and addressed a gathering of a kutchchi abaadi voters at his house. After he had finished his speech, I asked if we could ask questions. He said yes, then added “before you ask, I want to clarify one point: You may be wondering where have I got the money for all my property and for spending in the election, which I am not likely to win, but am contesting only to become well-known. You see I had a lot of ancestral land, and suddenly that land appreciated in value, and I sold it and bought all this property. Now does that answer the question you have in mind?”
I said there are supplementary questions, so may I ask those Qs. I was granted permission.
Then I asked:
Q1: why is it that when a recruit comes to join the armed forces, he writes that he and his family have no properties, but when the same recruit gets to one of the top slots, suddenly he discovers he has ancestral property, and at the same time, his suddenly discovered ancestral property appreciates so much in value that he can corner a whole sector in Islamabad?
Q2: Is there corruption in the country? If so, at what level does it exist?
Q3: If corruption is there, what would you do to curtail it?
The answers are really illuminating.
Q1 was ignored, as if I hadn’t asked it at all.
A2 after some head-scratching was that there is corruption, and it exists at the lower levels.
A3 was that he would hire some retired army officers like Majors etc. and they would root out the corruption.
[quote comment=”51375″][quote comment=”51366″][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.[/quote]
I don’t agree with your contention. Look at Britain. More than 80% of its people live in England. Scotalnd’s population is less than London. Yet the Scottish have complete autonomy in their matters. So does Wales, which is even smaller. Its not the size alone that makes a difference, its the will power that counts. Imam Hussain was fighting alone against the might of Yazeid (read today’s Army), yet through his sheer steel will he changed the course of history. There are many such examples in history. Individuals and small comunities can make a lot of difference. As for your argument that 160 million people have not been able to send the Army back to barracks, I must say that it is only now that people have developed such hatred for the military. Earlier on, thanks to the propaganda, every one used to respect military a lot, including myself. It would take time for its impact to be felt. Suharto ruled for 32 years, and during his reign Army entered every part of life in Indonesia, yet it had to retreat under the pressure from the people.
China’s Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and the military in Vietnam had also been involved in business and commercial activities. Yet under pressure those governments had to rescind their policies and military had to be cut to size.
Vietnam has only very recently cut off the military from its commercial enterprises.
I don’t see any reason why the same cannot happen in Pakistan.[/quote]
You cannot and should not compare any western country when dealing with issues in Pakistan! The people in the western world are informed people; they have got an independent judiciary and a proper democratic govt., though when it comes to their policies towards foreign nations they are the most undemocratic western nations. But still they defend the interests of their own people/nation. But in countries like Pakistan there is no rule of law, no democracy and no respect for human rights: thieves rule here!
I don’t know how many of you have ever been to Quetta but believe me it was, only three decades, ago one of the tidiest, well maintained cities of Pakistan and now due to overcrowding it is becoming garbage land while the army is busy investing in constructing a few townships on the cantonment land (45%) which again only thieves can afford to buy bungalows there – the rest of the population: to hell with them, let them rot!
They (army) have also taken control of Hanna lake and Hanna Urak (tourist resorts) to make more money – at the expense of native (Pashtoon Kakar tribes)!
[quote comment=”51366″][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.[/quote]
I don’t agree with your contention. Look at Britain. More than 80% of its people live in England. Scotalnd’s population is less than London. Yet the Scottish have complete autonomy in their matters. So does Wales, which is even smaller. Its not the size alone that makes a difference, its the will power that counts. Imam Hussain was fighting alone against the might of Yazeid (read today’s Army), yet through his sheer steel will he changed the course of history. There are many such examples in history. Individuals and small comunities can make a lot of difference. As for your argument that 160 million people have not been able to send the Army back to barracks, I must say that it is only now that people have developed such hatred for the military. Earlier on, thanks to the propaganda, every one used to respect military a lot, including myself. It would take time for its impact to be felt. Suharto ruled for 32 years, and during his reign Army entered every part of life in Indonesia, yet it had to retreat under the pressure from the people.
China’s Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and the military in Vietnam had also been involved in business and commercial activities. Yet under pressure those governments had to rescind their policies and military had to be cut to size.
Vietnam has only very recently cut off the military from its commercial enterprises.
I don’t see any reason why the same cannot happen in Pakistan.
[quote comment=”51357″]tina,
you make some interesting observations. i do agree with your point that pakistanis should not trust the americans given their track record. plus going forward, indian americans will play a big role in driving u.s. south asia policy just as yehoodis drive u.s. m.e. policy. since its in india’s interest to have a weak pakistan, that will also become a goal of americans. indian-americans will rope in the u.s. media just as yehoodis have done in their battle against arabs. its in this context that you will see more and more anti-pakistan pakistanis in the u.s. media and in the think tanks. i dont think democracy in pak will have an impact on u.s. policy because no government in pak can survive that is seen bending down to india. note that i think dr. sahiba has full right to express her views but does not mean that people who disagree with her agenda should give her a free path.[/quote]
Dr Sahiba’s agenda is to see a prosperous Pakistan based on the principles enshrined in Islam. Army’s agenda is to loot and plunder it as much as they can, make it a social welfare state for themselves and for their posterity and to make life hell for the ordinary Pakistanis.
[quote comment=”51355″]i wonder who planted in this news in the first place and how this was published without checking with the minister in the first place?
without slander laws, freedom of press especially in a country like pak where lack of ethics dont mean anything:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200763\s tory_3-6-2007_pg7_28
Durrani did not dissuade Dr Siddiqa from launching book[/quote]
Lack of ethics is the highest on the part of the Faujis who think Pakistan is their personal fief and they can do what ever they like what it as they deem fit. They should be punished for exploiting it.