Attention: Mr Ikram Sehgal, Defence Journal
Dear Mr Ikram Sehgal, May 25, 2001

Assalam-o-Alikum,

Trust you are fine. This evening as I logged on to the DJ’s web looking for its May issue, to be honest, I was not very pleased to find my article, dealing with the “arrest of ex-naval chief”, missing therein. I do not know what consideration, if any went behind the decision not to publish the article. I also cannot challenge either your wisdom or prerogative, but can assure you that in not publishing the same the public at large has been denied the right to know the other side of the story. That it was neither a personalized attack nor an espousal of some cannot be overemphasized and is amply evident from the contents. Had that not been the case, I understand an illustrated daily may never have ventured to publish its edited version. The article was merely a suggestion for the government to determine the affair beyond extradition and trial of the accused; to look deep into the institutional malaise that infests the navy; not to have double standards; to conduct an honest probe into the entire affair in an unbiased and non-partisan manner rather than resorting to bigoted approach or personal vendetta, which it seems to be.

As you may recall, few months back while I was still in Pakistan, I had a detailed telephonic discussion with you on the issue of HCR. It transpired after I wrote an article (DJ October 2000) proposing the publication of the report and recommending action against all the principal players involved in the 1971 catastrophe and who may still be alive. The idea was that the requirements of justice must be fulfilled regardless of the time period that may have elapsed so that moral decline in the rank and file, though belated, can be effectively checked. I also recall that I wrote the article after I read your worthy comments in an earlier issue of DJ opposing publication of the HCR. As it later turned out, public at large raised furore and demanded that regardless of the reasoning, the report must be made public; although most had already read a version placed on the internet by the Indians.

Subsequently as the pressure mounted, Chief Executive had no choice but to constitute a committee to study and publish the report. Rest is all history. After its publication, some distinguished authors alluding on the issue in esteemed dailies like Dawn went to the extent of demanding posthumous court-martial of some key figures involved in the debacle as also highlighting the personal rivalry between General Gul Hassan and Tiger Niazi in which the national interest was put on the back burner; the latter considering former as unprofessional and not worthy of seeking professional advice while General Gul, just to let down, either not heeding to the requirements of eastern command or ignoring the same point blank. (See Dawn April 28, 2001—-General’s ethical dilemmas).

If General Niazi was to be tried today, will it be justified to condemn him without affording him a chance to give his version or for that matter without penalizing other principal actors involved in the deluge? The point I wish to bring out is that we must always remain mindful that in personalized vendetta not only individuals but the nation has usually ended up paying a heavy price. Armed Forces are from within and not outside. That our unrefined psyche is at work and operative at all times and at all tiers is a gospel truth; be it uniform or otherwise.

Nowhere in my article have I suggested that Admiral Mansur is innocent; in fact given his track record in the service, he must have gone to great length to secure his personal interests. But having said that, are we not going to give credence when he says that a powerful figure in the present military set-up wants to settle an old score. Are we going to deny him the opportunity to plead his case? If Nawaz Sharif dismissed the accused Admiral, it was more out of political abhorrence than anything else, for the Admiral’s links with Ahmad Sadik were too well known to be denied; and no one needs to know more about the deposed PM or his manner of ruling as also his corrupt practices. I also have some first hand knowledge since, most unfortunately, the deposed PM’s political secretary (Col Mushtaq Tahirkheli) happens to be a close relative.

The local press here in the United States has already reported that a key figure (Amir Lodhi), accomplice of the Admiral, has already been left off the hook by virtue of being related to the present Ambassador of Pakistan to Washington. That was always a foregone conclusion given the trends in Pakistan. If Chaudaries of Gujrat (the unashamed pillagers) can survive and thrive under the present regime; if Nawaz can be extended that flight to freedom, this one is not a big deal. But are we so naive as to think that in a country like ours, Admiral Mansur is the first or the only 4 star who made $3.3 million? Are we so bereft of useful memory to forget the 11 years of Zia’s misrule. (If you log on to www.paknews.com an article captioned “Pakistan and American Strategic interests” currently available thereon may make an interesting reading).

I do not know what came out of the court martial (if held) of General Zia-ud-din Butt for, in my humble opinion, he was the one who served as a catalyst for disrupting the democratic process by pushing Sharif to the edge of taking that ill-conceived decision of removing COAS. In any case he stands guilty of a severe misconduct—-undermining the stability of an institution nay the country.

After the accused Admiral’s ill-gotten assets were recently made public, one writer in the daily Dawn had following to say:

Quote”————And he is just one Admiral in a sea of Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals———— are we going to see the policy of set a thief to catch a thief—— the question is not how much he made but rather how did he manage to make all this” unquote

Are we going to acquit those who must have made much more in the initial bargains? Are we going to absolve those in the Ministry of Defence for endorsing, concurring or approving what was an apparent rather a glaring unlawful and illicit act? Are there any norms by virtue of which we may be able to nab the “offering parties” in the west for bringing in such rot to a poor country like ours? Are we so innocent to conclude that beyond the accused no one else had a share? Are we so frail as not to seek extradition of the then PM at whose behest deal was formally closed. And how about the then Defence Minister.

We recently had an identical case in our neighbourhood where a person no less than Defence Minister tendered resignation after some key figures of the government. were alleged to have accepted kickbacks in certain deals. But rarely have we learnt from erratum’s of others let alone from our own blunders. As is said, wise people learn from the mistakes of others; fools don’t learn even from their own.

If we think that by trying Admiral Mansur alone we are taking care of the problem then we may not be too far from our next HCR. The problem is certainly much beyond and farther than the precincts of extradition, trial of the accused or personal malice. Perhaps a thorough review of defence procurement procedures may be in order. The malaise is deep seated and requires a dispassionate and non-partisan approach. I only wish this extradition or recovery of some amount helps the system, the institution (the navy) or the country.

If BB or Sharif came in twice and made mockery of the democracy, military regime is in place for the fourth time. The London-based IISS in its recent Annual Report has already reported the state of Pakistan as “precarious” whilst observing that “General Musharraf has not been an improvement over Nawaz Sharif”. That being the case, one need not explicate as to what must the current regime do.

I reiterate that I’m a keen follower of your writings yet in the same breath I must admit that your insight and discernment on various issues have oft left me perplexed. Pardon me but I feel, either you are always scared of the establishment or fear that the press was never nor will ever be free from the shackles of Islamabad. That may be true, but by concealing the facts out of apprehension, we are certainly not helping the essence of journalism or freedom of expression. If that is not true then you’re past relationship with the uniform is perhaps keeping you too away from reality.

But in any case in not publishing the said article the norms of journalism definitely and requirements of justice to quite an extent, stands battered and mauled. By looking at only one side, without conducting thorough investigation or judicious analysis, justice will never be delivered. We still have some distinguished analysts (thank Almighty), though very few, the likes of Ayaz Amir, churning out constructive analysis day after day and resorting to scathing critique where needed. (See Dawn May 25, 2001, you don’t shoot admirals, do you). That a sane advice is rarely heeded in Islamabad is another story but the power of pen must be used to pale the glitter of sword than to sharpen it by sweeping the truth or rationale under carpet. The present extradition for trial is a typical case of “pot calling the kettle black”.

Of late, we had the case of Justice Qayyum splashed on the world’s print media, which, needless to mention, further eroded the image of our already injured and disfigured judiciary. Are we in for another Justice Qayyum type of court? And under what authority and why? Regardless of the senseless act of Sharif, was the October 12 action by military legally justified? Who has the ultimate authority to appoint services Chief, one may ask. Forget about the hapless judiciary; it has and shall perhaps remain subservient to whosoever has been in power. Full bench verdicts favouring those in the saddle have always been the norm in Pakistan. Thanks to our stalwarts like Sharifuddin Pirzada for drafting one PCO after another.

Is Pakistan always destined to have justice, equity and fair play trembling and shaking before the authority? Are we always in to see a twisted justice; a justice that remains a casualty of prejudice and bias with one set of criminals being punished and other deriving pleasure and freedom through connections? Are we going to decimate whatever is left of our battered institutions? One wonders what came of the Chief Executive’s October 12 seven-point agenda wherein “depoliticization of the national institutions” was one. I leave this verdict to time, your wisdom as much as to those in the corridors of power.

Yours truly,

Commander (Retd) Muhammad Azam Khan,
Pakistan Navy
139 Shady Oak Lane Oviedo Florida 32765 USA
Tele: 407-977-2944
FAX: 407-977-7030
Email: mazam_khan@hotmail.com