As the memo scandal drags on the public debate is getting more and more emotional rather than rational. Otherwise reasonable people are trying to frame the debate as a mere military vs. the civilians issue, underscoring the need to put the former in its place. The sentiment is perfectly understandable given our military men's past villainies, but it is unfair, actually wrong, to argue that the memo is only about getting the Army off the civilian government's back.
Many have argued that it is not such a big deal. But to that later. First to the reaction of the defendant Husain Haqqani's counsel to the Supreme Court's decision on the maintainability of the memo case petitions. The counsel has come out strongly against the court's verdict. Hinting at an unholy alliance between the military and the judiciary she said that in accepting the petitions the Court had subordinated fundamental rights to national security, and that the memo was just a piece of paper which had done no harm. These assertions are based on the assumption that the memo is a valid document, but that the men in uniform are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Let's take a closer look at them. First, the piece of paper which has done no harm. It is the weirdest argument given that every agreement or other matter worth any value is recorded on paper (wasn't it a piece of paper carrying Benazir Bhutto's will which bequeathed the Peoples Party and the political power it won to Asif Ali Zardari?). The piece of paper may not have done any harm but there is also something called an element of intent. As far as common knowledge goes, a defendant is held accountable for his/her actions even if an intended act could not succeed as planned.
Regarding fundamental rights, it is not known in what way the acceptance of the petitions against the memo's author(s) has undermined the rights of Haqqani. Nonetheless, had he succeeded in his alleged intent, the fundamental rights of this country's ordinary people would certainly have been compromised. The memo is a recipe for consigning this country and its people into the enslavement of the United States of America. Take, for instance, the following proposal: Washington willing, its political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government "in a wholesale manner" which would include replacing the existing national security officials with "trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favourably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities." Note that the proposal is not only about replacing military officials; it also offers a wholesale revamp of the civilian government with America's trusted lackeys. Those who say democracy is in danger need to pay attention.
Another section suggests that reordering of Pakistan's relations with India and Afghanistan is in line with American interests, and putting the objectors under effective control. This, as per the memo was to be done with " US assistance to help us pigeon-hole the forces lined up against your [American] interests and ours, including containment of certain elements inside our country that require appropriate re-sets and re-tasking in terms of direction and extent of responsibility after the UBL affair." Had things proceeded as planned, Pakistan would have become a virtual colony of the empire, which would be free to shape our civilian and foreign affairs to fit its geo-strategic plans for this region. What the US failed to achieve through the eight years of 'Shock and Awe' campaign in Iraq and a decade of blood letting in Afghanistan was being presented on a silver platter in Pakistan. America was to be our master and we the people of Pakistan its slaves.
As for those trotting out all sorts of illogical justifications purportedly in support of democracy, their main argument is that Mian Nawaz Sharif had also sought Clinton administration's help to keep General Musharraf from overthrowing his government, why criticise now? True, he did but failed to achieve his objective. That though is not an issue. Our military traditionally has had close links with Washington, from where our governments are also in the habit of acquiring both military and economic assistance. That lends it a certain level of influence; though it has its limitations, as the Sharif government was to discover. Yet there would be no cause for concern had the memo been only about protecting the elected government from some sinister power grab move.
Others have been pointing to the case of an Islamabad-based Indian diplomat who was caught having a romantic liaison with a local spy and revealing some state secrets to him, to argue that she was tried and imprisoned but that no one in India created a big furor like in the present case. The fact of the matter is that although the said person had pleaded that the information she was accused of having handed to her friend was openly available on the Indian external affairs ministry's website, still she was tried and punished. No body pleaded forgiveness for her. More to the point, hers was an individual act; this one involves a wider conspiracy to subjugate our entire country to a foreign power. The analogy doesn't work.
Yet another line of defence is that yes, the memo is valid, so what? Then follows the reasoning: through the years, the men in khaki have committed not just one but a string of major blunders. If they were never held to account, why should a civilian government be hauled over coals for making just one blunder? There are two simple but compelling answers: First, two wrongs - in the present case one plus numerous wrongs on the part of the bad guys - do not make a right. Second, much as we may want to discipline them, they do what they do through the power of the gun. This is an elected government, and hence answerable to us, the people, for any real or perceived wrongs.
It would be helpful if those crying hoarse over Haqqani's fundamental rights and protecting democracy from the machinations of the self-appointed custodians of national security can take the trouble to explain to us, the people, what would have happened to our fundamental rights and this country's independence in case things had gone as per the memo plan.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.