General Jehangir Karamat

General Jehangir Karamat, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of the Army Staff while addressing officers of the Navy War college at Lahore on Monday October 5, 1998, during his annual address, covered various dimensions of regional and national security and connected matters of professional concern. While responding to questions from the officers after the lecture he said that in the present geo-strategic environment our internal security was the most significant facet of national security. He said that unlike countries with economic potential we could not afford the destabilising effects of polarisation, vendettas and insecurity driven expedient policies.

General Karamat maintained that as he had repeatedly stressed the need of the hour was total focus on the economy, the external linkages with China, Iran, Afghanistan, India, the United States, the internal situation, especially Sindh, the sectarian aspect and finally the fears of the smaller provinces.

The former chief of Army Staff was of the opinion that the political mandate (of the present government) needed to be translated into institutional strength, otherwise we would have a permanent election campaign environment in the country. This could be done, he said, by establishing a structurally tiered system with clear responsibility at each level. A national security council or committee at the apex would institutionalise decision making, if it was backed by a team of credible advisors and a think tank of experts.

The other tiers, he said, would be at the Joint Staff, ministry and services level. He stressed the need for a neutral, competent and secure (service wise) bureaucracy and administration at the federal and provincial levels.

General Karamat while emphasising the need for strengthening the national institutions said that institutions needed to be strengthened through professional leaderships and autonomy with emphasis on results. These steps, he added would lead to an environment in which response evolution would be on the basis of coordinated and collated input with assertions of state power to establish the rule of law and good governance.

In reply to another question General Karamat had said that the political leaders he had been privileged to work with in the last three years and his own institution knew that he had never minced words on issues of national importance. He added that he had been resisting pressures and had been providing unequivocal professional advice in what he considered to be the best interest of the country and the service. He would continue to do this till his retirement in January 1999 Insha'Allah.

Surprisingly the immediate response of the public and the national press to the General's remarks and suggestions were very positive and encouraging. The main political parties in the opposition welcomed the suggestion of setting up a National Security Council or Committee. A large number of members from the ruling Muslim League including the Prime Ministers senior colleagues like Mr. Ijazul Haq son of the late General Zia ul Haq and at present Senior Vice-President and MNA of the ruling Muslim League, and another senior leaguer and MNA, Mr. Ilahi Bux Soomro now speaker of the National Assembly and senator Akram Zaki, Chairman of the foreign policy committee. The General's statement and the public support it generated particularly from the ruling Muslim League seems to have unnerved the Prime Minister into taking some hasty decisions, which General Karamat had aptly called insecurity driven expedient policies.

General Karamat's resignation was widely commented upon. It would therefore be relevant to quote a few national newspapers and a press service. The Associated Press had reported on October 6th that Pakistan's powerful army chief called Monday (October 5th) for the establishment of a national security council to steer his beleaguered nation out of its economic and political morass. In a strongly worded statement General Jehangir Karamat, warned that Pakistan could not afford the destabilising effects of polarisation, vendettas and insecurity - driven expedient policies. Karamat's call for a national security council comes as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's beleaguered government faces increasing pressure both from within and outside his ruling Pakistan Muslim League.

The Associated Press went on to say that Sharif's government is in the midst of negotiations with international lending institutions to try to stave off an economic collapse. Added to his troubles has been a corruption scandal that alleges Sharif, (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) his family members and friends have been involved in kickbacks and money laundering. Already several of Sharif's coalition partners in Pakistan's smaller provinces either have abandoned his ruling party or threatened to leave. The only province where Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League has a comfortable majority is in the largest and most populous Punjab province. In his statement Karamat warned that Pakistan, which has had four elections in 10 years will have a permanent election campaign environment, unless its politicians strengthen the democratic institutions. Karamat further warned that Pakistan is passing through a difficult time.

The Associated Press quoted the Army Chief as having said that the need of the hour was total focus on the economy, the external linkages with China, Iran, Afghanistan, India, the United States, the internal situation, especially Sindh, the sectarian aspect and finally the fears of the smaller provinces. To address these concerns, Karamat said a national security council should be formed. He also called for a neutral, competent and secure bureaucracy and administration at the federal and provincial levels. Karamat was of the opinion that a national security council would institutionalise decision making.

The daily News in its issue of October 6, reported that with the three Chief of services and Corps Commanders actively participating, the top military brass held exhaustive deliberations last week in Rawalpindi. In these meetings, rumours have it that the upper echelons of the military leadership expressed concern over the economic situation of the country, besides discussing a host of other issues, With the COAS General Jehangir Karamat, Monday (October 5th) suggesting setting up a National Security Council, it seems the military establishment has gone back to the solution of Pakistan's problems that it envisaged in February 1997 - establishment of a National Security Council. As a matter of fact, within the national debate, there has been much thought on the working of a formula to keep the pillars of the executive and legislature within the frame of stability and national security. Even many from political circles are convinced the army should be given a permanent, constitutional role in the decision making .

The paper went on to say that the formation of a national Security Council has always been considered an idea that can resolve the instability crisis faced regularly by the country. With the President's powers to dissolve the National Assembly gone, the need for some decision making body was being discussed more than ever. The Council for Defence and National Security (CDNS) was constituted on January 5, 1997 by the last caretaker government, led by Prime Minister Meraj Khalid and the decision to form it was taken during a federal Cabinet meeting. The then Federal Minister for Media Development Mr. Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, explaining the main features of the Council, had made it clear that the body would have the status only to advise the government, which would not be binding on the government.

Some other functions of the Council included formulation of defence policy in accordance with national strategic objectives, securing of assessments and plans for the fulfilment of the country's defence policy, coordination of defence policy with external and domestic policies and definition of the task of the armed forces in accordance with the national strategy.

The Paper reported that while almost all the major political parties were quite critical of the move, Nawaz Sharif's PML(N) had termed the formation of the CDNS the need of the hour. Benazir Bhutto, reacted sharply to the formation of the council, and had described the CDNS as an unconstitutional body. But after assuming power in February 1997, with a large majority in the National Assembly the government changed its mind and was of the view that the council was established by a hand-picked caretaker government and there was no room for such a supra-constitutional body after the installation of an elected government. The PML(N) circles maintained that only an elected parliament was the right forum for approval of such a sensitive body. The government therefore abandoned the CDNS which has remained dormant after its first two meetings.

The daily NATION in its issue of October 6th had reported that if General Jehangir Karamat unlike his predecessors, had not been so careful to avoid political statements in the past, his address to the Pakistan Navy War College would not have sounded so ominous for the Nawaz government. His remarks about a National Security Council bear serious consideration, especially after the Nawaz government's fumblings on a whole array of issues since India's May 11 nuclear tests. However the revival of this particular proposal can also be interpreted as an institutionalised voice for the armed forces, as well as a proposal for a mechanism to avoid something which General Karamat has devoted his tenure to, the direct intervention of the armed forces in politics. The COAS's remarks seem more in the nature of a warning rather than an ultimatum.

The NATION went on to say that the General's National Security Council (NSC) proposal is not necessarily a demand for military intrusion into the civilian realm, as is the Turkish model or as suspected, of previous such proposals (of 1997). His condition, that it be backed by a team of credible advisers and a Ôthink tank' of experts, is a clear reference to the USA's NSC, which plays a vital part in crisis management, which advises the chief executive on the basis of input gathered from advisers and experts who operate independently of, though in coordination with, the normal departmental channels.

Good governance is another issue. When General Karamat said, we need a neutral, competent and secure bureaucracy and administration at the federal and provincial levels, he was implying that the present administration at both levels was politicised, incompetent and insecure, and further implying that the political leadership was allowing this.

The paper concludes by saying that the final paragraph of the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) release of his remarks provided his own defence by remarking that the political leaders knew he did not mince words on issues of national import. This indicates that he has passed on his views in private before, but has found so little response that he feels it necessary to go public with his views. Nothing that General Karamat said can be interpreted as against government policy.

Non-military men in our country often fail to appreciate that when officers are in command of troops, they are responsible for their training, discipline and welfare. They have to be trained for war and any points that may be causing them anguish or worry have to be addressed and rectified as far as possible.

This happens at every level of command. If there are any aspects of the problem which are beyond the power of the officer to handle, these are forwarded to his superior officer in the line of command. Eventually it is the duty of the head of service to bring the problems effecting the personnel in his entire command to the notice of the government. An officer who does not put across the genuine problems of his command to his superiors because these would be unpalatable, will invariably lose the respect and trust of the officers and men of his command. When this happens he ceases to be an effective leader of men and becomes a hindrance which should be removed.

General Karamat was reflecting the views of his command, the officers and men of the Pakistan Army. As he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee he was also reflecting the views of the other two services, the Pakistan Navy and the Pakistan Air Force. It is the view of a large number of officers that the Government should have acted in a mature manner with greater prudence. Forcing the Chief of Army Staff to resign was a hasty and ill-conceived decision which may eventually rebound on the decision makers, to their personal disadvantage and the welfare and solidarity of the Federation.

It may be worth remembering that when all avenues of dissent are blocked without in any way trying to rectify the problems on which it is based, dissent may erupt more forcefully at a lower level and be difficult to control. Over the years we have destroyed every institution in the country for personal power and greed. Today the Army along with the Navy and the Air Force are the only institutions that are holding the country together. It seems the politicians are battering against them repeatedly. One hopes and prays that they will stand fast and not crumble. The people depend on them.