The address of COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to
officers of the GHQ and another by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry to officers of the 97th National Management Course, both
couched in fairly strong and apparently conflicting terms, have stirred a
heated debate in the country.
It should be understood, first of all,
that though delivered the same day on Monday, they were not in response
to each other. Both the army chief and the chief justice read from the
written text. The function where Justice Chaudhry spoke ended an hour
before General Kayani moved to deliver his speech. While trying to make
sense of the statements and titillated by the timing, there are feverish
attempts at hair-splitting and divining the hidden meaning behind each
sentence and choice of word. However, whatever else might be said about
these speeches, an impression of a clash between the two vital
institutions of the state has been created, to the pleasure and
satisfaction of those entertaining such a wish. The Supreme Court’s
castigation of the Frontier Constabulary and ISI in the context of
lawlessness in Balochistan and the exposure of some of the generals
during the Asghar Khan case and others had already created rumblings
within the armed forces, used to not being accountable to a civilian
authority.
The COAS’s remarks are also being considered a
reaction to this unfamiliar treatment. The timing of even a general
known for his reserve and reticence and commitment to stay out of
politics, venturing out to make a statement that has clear political
overtones and contains a not-so-cryptic warning to avoid “creating a
wedge” between the army and the people, is being attributed to the
historic judgment in the Asghar Khan case and its ongoing fallout. The
emphasis on the legal maxim, ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, is also a
telling indication of the discomfort from a section of society unused to
criticism and media trials in the past; an experience which politicians
and public officials have long been accustomed to. The caution against
employing haste in moving forward, to the detriment of long-term goals
and in pursuit of short-term gains, is advice kindly meant – but the
pace of progress is certainly not the domain of the armed forces to
decide.
If the COAS stressed the need for strengthening the
institutions, so did the Chief Justice. The latter’s view that tanks and
missiles cannot ensure security was a telling choice of words to herald
the arrival of a new era in Pakistan. He followed with the necessity to
establish “social security and welfare nets” and added that the
protection of the people’s national and civil rights could guarantee
security. Justice Chaudhry on Tuesday responded, “Yes, we have seen it,
yesterday” to the remark of a petitioner’s advocate that the army
respected the judiciary – adding yet another tantalizing detail to those
dissecting the situation. The court also directed the same advocate to
produce the ISPR’s press releases and President Zardari’s interview
published in a US-based magazine in the wake of May 2 US Abbottabad raid
to take out Osama bin Laden. While both speeches also contained much
positive intent and a promise to abide by the constitution, this air of
intrigue that still prevails, is an ill one for the nation. If all
institutions, including the Parliament, Judiciary and the Armed Forces
are committed to obeying and upholding the constitution, then what is
all this public bristling and fussing about? It is best avoided and
replaced by the principle of self-criticism and accountability, and
trying to deliver the very best of results in each of their
constitutionally determined realms. That is what will earn them the
lasting respect and trust of the public.