Playing by the rules

Ever since JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman began his 'Azadi March' and a sit-in demanding Prime Minister Imran Khan's resignation, the army has unnecessarily been made part of the political conversation. First, trying to figure out what made the Maulana sound so determined to push ahead with his demand, many political pundits suggested he may have had a nod and a wink from certain elements within the army - a far-fetched theory considering the fact that the military runs on the principle of unity of command. Then speaking at the sit-in, in an obvious but indirect reference to the army the Maulana said the "institutions" should remain 'impartial' in the 'Azadi March.' ISPR spokesman Maj-Gen Asif Ghafoor responded to those remarks in a TV programme, saying "the opposition should understand that the army is an impartial organisation... Our support is not for one party but it lies with a democratically elected government." The JUI-F and other opposition parties may dispute authenticity of the phrase "elected government", but it is not the business of the military to challenge the outcome of elections.

Although the two major parties, the PML-N and PPP, showed up for token participation in the 'Azadi March', they have made it clear that they would not be part of any move that could derail the political system. But the JUI-F chief kept ratcheting up his belligerent tone, at one point giving the PM a two-day ultimatum to resign or else the people would swarm the Prime Minister's House and arrest him, which appeared to be incitement to his followers to attack the Prime Minister. That seems to be the context in which an ISPR statement, issued following the monthly corps commanders' conference on Monday, quotes Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa as saying security and stability in the country had been achieved through a national approach and sacrifices rendered in the fight against terrorism, and that "we shall not let it reverse to suit any vested agenda at any cost." More to the point, he said that "Pakistan Army as [an] organ of the state will continue to support national institutions as and when asked as per the Constitution." Sticklers for accuracy though may want to point out that rather than being an organ of the state the army is a subservient organisation of the executive. And under Article 245 of the Constitution, subject to the law, the armed forces are to act in aid of civil powers when called upon to do so. Hence under the law, the soldiers are not supposed to remain indifferent bystanders when called upon to quell threats of violence and chaos.

It is unfortunate that some people in this country have not learnt any lesson from our past chequered political history when, to settle scores with their opponents, politicians involved the military with disastrous consequences for the democratic process. Regardless of Maulana Fazlur Rahman's grievances, which may or may not have a valid basis, his fight is all about political power. Which is best fought through democratic means.