The recent killing of 44 Jawans of CRPF in Pulwama has once again focussed the attention of the world on the suspicious activities and obnoxious actions of Pakistan’s Establishment (Pakistan Army and its ISI) The people, especially in India and the West, are perplexed whether Prime Minister Imran Khan’s boasts of friendship with India were just a charade and hollow rhetoric and whether the Prime Minister is in control of his country’s Army and intelligence agencies?
It is a fact that in the 71-yearlong history of Pakistan, there have been only two periods when the Establishment was not in control of Defence, Foreign, Internal Security affairs etc. The first time was from 14 August 1947 to 21 October 1951, the day Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated. The second spell came on 20 December 1971 when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto took over and lasted till 5 July 1977, when he was overthrown in a military takeover.
During the rest of its journey as a nation-State, Pakistan has had the conspicuous and humongous presence of the all-powerful Establishment controlling Foreign, Defence, Internal Security and Nuclear affairs and not allowing civilian political leaders to interfere in these matters.
The reason why democracy became so fragile and the Establishment became so strong is not far to seek. The structural dynamics of the Muslim League at the time of independence answer that. It is worth mentioning that even in 1937 there was only one member of the Muslim League in the 170-member, pre-partition Punjab Assembly in Lahore. Muslim League had no presence in Balochistan and very few members in NWFP. It was only in 1945 and 1946 that Muslim League started having leaders and workers from the Unionist Party and other groups as its members in Punjab and from other groups in NWFP. They were self-seeking politicians who after the death of Liaquat Ali Khan sided with the Army to share and enjoy power and perks. The Establishment brought rich landlords, vadheras, businessmen etc. into politics so that they would play second fiddle in governance.
The Establishment never allowed independent-minded leaders to grow and the moment anybody tried to encroach upon the Establishment’s domain – he was made a horrible example for others to see.
In Pakistan all terrorist organisation like Jaish-e-Mohammad, (JeM), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Harkatul- Ansar (HuA presently known as Harkat-ul Mujahideen), Lashkar-e- Toiba (LeT), Harkat-ul Mujahideen (Hum, previously known as Harkatul- Ansar), Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islam (HUJI), Muttahida Jehad Council (MUC), Jammu & Kashmir National Liberation Army and Al umar Mujahideen are founded, encouraged, guided, weaponised and controlled by Pakistan’s Establishment. The Pakistani Establishment has extreme hatred for India and in cantonments and training institutes, India remains the big enemy and is discussed and confronted in various war games and strategies.
As a nation, Pakistan lacks coherence and homogeneity due to its critical lack of commonality. Its history, social institutions, languages and ethnicities are not constructive of a common sentimentality as a State. They have always been divergent and divisive. In pursuing a commonality based on religion, one can only bind those that have a strong consideration of religion in their affairs and this becomes very parochial in this modern world.
In Pakistan, there exists a structural and institutional divide between elements that want to have power. This is manifest in every aspect notably in society, economy and most specifically in politics. The tension between these forces maintains the status quo in the country and any fractures in this precarious balance always result in social clashes and brutalities that hark back to its repressive history. It is generally overlooked that institutional weaknesses have adverse impacts on the economy, national policies and social development of society.
When frugal nay weak political leaders indulge in undermining each other through unfair means including the use of state institutions they lower their image in the eyes of the people and ultimately become hostage of their own doings. One can give several examples from Pakistan’s past history to illustrate how important it is for institutions to reorient their thinking and stay within the constitutional boundaries. This is a major condition for graduating toward a ‘Naya Pakistan’.
Mere cosmetic changes and statements as Imran Khan makes regarding the Establishment that “we are on the same page” etc may temporarily give a good feeling but no substantial gain would be achieved.
When in his third term that started after 5 June 2013, Nawaz Sharif tried to pursue an independent foreign policy, the Establishment got livid with him. He became target of derision at monthly corps commanders’ meetings leading to his every action getting critically examined there.
That was the time when the Establishment decided to bring in Imran Khan after rejecting the names of then interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan and then Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharief. Imran’s victory March was planned and dexterously manipulated by the Establishment leading to his take over in August 2018, more as a pusillanimous vassal of the Establishment then as an independent leader of a nation.
The Establishment is not going to wither away and seemingly there is no leader likely to come in the near future who can take up cudgels with it. So, the world and especially India has to face the unpleasant reality that a nuclear-armed Pakistani Establishment with an Everest of animosity against India would rule by proxy in years to come. The recent news of likely US withdrawal from Afghanistan is also making it more confident.
We in India have no choice except to face it stoically and bravely, and send return compliments as and when possible. We also have to galvanise and improve our intelligence and security apparatus to pre-empt Pulwama type incidents.
(The writer is a senior IAS officer of the Punjab Cadre and is working as Secretary to Government of Punjab)