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.
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.
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 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.
Editorial, The News, June 3, 2007
Censorship and the judicial crisis
The only way forward out of the current crisis emanating from the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is for the government to withdraw its reference. If it cannot bring itself to do that then it needs to engage in a dialogue with the opposition, and President Musharraf needs to choose either the army chief post or stand for re-election as a civilian candidate. The way forward is not by imposing censorship on the print and electronic media, which seems to be the new government’s tactic for now. Not only are the threats and warnings to the media that it must fall in line and keep the ‘national interest’ paramount going to not work in this day and age, they will be thoroughly counter-productive and only exacerbate an already tense situation. The reason for the clampdown on the print and electronic media clearly has to do with the thinking in the circles that matter in this country that the whole crisis has been blown out of proportion by the media and hence it will be deflated once the media, especially the TV channels, are brought under the censorship leash.
But the questions that need to be asked of the government are the following: Who was it that made the Chief Justice of Pakistan non-functional? What was the manner in which this action against him was taken and a presidential reference filed? Even if the charge that he was fond of extra protocol or that he asked for favours for his son is true then isn’t that also the case with many senior state functionaries? Furthermore, who carried out the attack on the office of Geo TV and this newspaper in Islamabad? Who threatened a journalist of this newspaper on a Voice of America radio show and then proceeded to deny it, only to eat his words when a recording of the show’s transcript was aired on Geo TV? What was the motive for the arrest and continued incarceration of former Mirpurkhas DIG, Saleemullah Khan, and for putting him in a prison where his life, as claimed by him, could have come under threat? And if the affidavit of the chief justice is to be believed, who confronted him on March 9 at the president’s camp office and tried to impress on him to quit his post? Who stood by and idly watched as over 40 people lost their lives in Karachi on May 12, did nothing as the offices of a TV channel came under attack by armed men for several hours on May 12 and then proceeded to hold a ‘National Unity’ rally the same evening in Islamabad, where PTV showed participants doing the bhangra and having a generally fun time? Who prevented the chief justice from leaving the premises of Karachi’s airport? Who made uncharitable remarks against judges of the Sindh High Court after the court took suo motu notice of the tragic events of May 12? Who cancelled the book launch of Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc, in the process ensuring that it becomes a best-seller? Who prevented Imran Khan from entering Sindh and confined him to Lahore for three days (also in the process making him a hero to some)? Who included the names of 12 prominent journalists on a list calling them enemies of the people and placed bullets in envelopes in the cars of three of the 12?
There are many more questions but these are some of the more pressing ones that come to mind. Surely, it wasn’t the print or the electronic media that did all these things. As has been pointed out several times in the recent past – and not just by this newspaper but by pretty much the whole print and electronic media – the media is a mirror and reflects reality. If it takes sides or begins to show a one-sided version of events as they unfold then it should be held accountable and that will be reflected via the erosion of its credibility (a la PTV). Also, if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the media is presenting an unbalanced anti-government version then what about coverage in the international media and what of perception on the street against the government’s policies and actions, especially post-March 9?
By pursuing such a policy, the president risks alienating (a whole lot of them have already been alienated after March 9 and then May 12) those who still see him as someone who can take on the extremists and deliver the country on a progressive and liberal path. Of course, many of these people will now be questioning the glaring dichotomy in the government’s readiness to take on the media but unwillingness to take on extremist vigilantes such as those in Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa, who continue to hold parts of the federal capital hostage (and as of June 1 tried to create a law and order situation at PIMS). Censoring the media will make an already bad situation worse and is advice that the government should do without. It is bad for its image domestically as well as overseas but more importantly, it will not bring any kind of advantage to its side.
For instance, it is quite unlikely that the number of people turning out to receive the chief justice will dwindle in the coming weeks merely because the TV channels are not carrying the rallies and demonstrations live, just like the ban on Military Inc’s launch only served to increase its demand among readers. Also, in this day and age there are several ways to counter this live ban (one assumes that those behind the censorship policy are not aware of the fact that blogs have come of age in Pakistan as have websites like YouTube as so on, where such raw footage can be shown). Those who hold the reins of power need to ask themselves what it is that has brought things to this pass. Does the fact that the president of the country also happens to be army chief have something to do with the criticism that is being laid at that institution’s doorstep? Of course politicians have themselves to blame by covertly and sometimes overtly courting the army and asking it to step in but that doesn’t absolve the latter of blame in outreaching its mandate. Surely, if the president of the country were a civilian, or if the corporate and business interests of the military’s various welfare foundations not so expansive, the armed forces would have been spared much of the criticism. In the current situation regarding the action taken against the Chief Justice of Pakistan, it is only to be expected that people will ask whether the president’s being also army chief played a decisive role in the unfolding of events.
The only way forward is to treat the cause of the crisis, not the symptoms (which is being done by what seems to be the beginning of a media clampdown). Such actions, may in the eyes of some, seem as if the government is trying to show to the country and the world at large that it is in charge, but it ends up giving the opposite impression – i.e., that it is now panicking. The government would be advised to either withdraw the reference or come to some sort of compromise with the opposition parties on the president taking a final decision on presenting himself as a civilian candidate.
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.