NAWA-E-WAQT
February 28, 2005
(English translation from Urdu)
Ata-ur Rehman
Translated by: SYED FAROOQ HASNAT
Various governments of the United States as well as the Pakistani establishment have recognized Professor Stephen Cohen as an expert on South Asian Strategic and Defense affairs. The American scholar has enjoyed the goodwill of the Pakistani governments since the days of Zia ul Haq. In Washington, Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations have sought his advice on Pakistan, in particular and the Indian matters in general. He is the author of books on Pakistan and India and his latest book “Idea of Pakistan”, Pakistan edition, was inaugurated, the other day in Lahore. To express his opinion, former Director General, ISI, Lt. General Asad Durrani came especially from Islamabad.
At the function, Stephen Cohen said that his interest in Pakistan and India developed during his student days. While at graduate level, the question that why the Pakistani army repeatedly interfered in politics and took control of power, while on the contrary the Indian army refrains from interfering in the matters of governance, remained his concern. The American Professor went on to say that after doing research and having written books on both the armies, he has come to the conclusion that the reason for army’s intervention in the Pakistani politics is the presence of the Punjabis in a large number. People belonging to one area and one ethnic stock have similar interests and thereby it becomes easy for them to coordinate and take control of the government. On the other side, the Indian army does not have an overwhelming presence of a large singular ethnic group, therefore it is not possible for the Indian army leadership to capture power. Even to interfere in politics becomes a hard task for them. Stephen Cohen did not mention, although it is written in the book “Idea of Pakistan” that one reason for the Army intervention in Pakistan was that the British had wrongly installed an impression that they (the Punjabis) belong to a “Martial Race”. This instilled emotion is also responsible (for them) to take a particular action.
We are not sure about Cohen’s theory but one aspect which this famous American Professor failed to mention is the American factor that always encourages the Pakistani Army Generals to capture power. Pakistan enjoys a unique strategic geographic position, which contributes towards the attainment of the American interests. Since 1950s the US policy makers realized that in order to gain maximum advantage from Pakistan, they must rely on the military establishment, which is more dependable than the politicians. Under this thinking, during 1953-1954 Pentagon and GHQ established a relationship of collaboration and Pakistan became a member of the American defense pacts. However, Pakistan did not gained any defense related or strategic benefits from these pacts. It is the result of this understanding that the Army leadership takes advantage of the situation and at will abrogates the constitution and also disperses the political institutions. If not backed by the Americans, perhaps this dictatorship would not have been our fate.
One of the audiences asked a question from Stephen Cohen about the American patronage of the military dictators. After hearing his response I thought that I was not listening to a dignified University Professor and a writer of various books but to an American bureaucrat. He said that it is wrong to say that the United States was behind military coups. He said that he was told by the America ambassador in Islamabad that they do not intervene; rather the (Pakistani) politicians tell them to proceed in a certain manner.
About army’s contribution (for the country), Stephen Cohen said that after the army comes in, there is a change in a sense that some decorative effects take place on the trees and shrubs of Islamabad, while some activities are streamlined. No change in the governance takes place, nor is there any fundamental rectification. The reason for this is that the army is not trained for the governance nor are they equipped with knowledge of that. The syllabus of the military academy and the staff college for senior officers does not include the matters of governance. In these places matters of defense are taught. Thereby, better results cannot be expected as the army is not trained for these affairs.
The American Professor said that Pakistan can have a better future and four measures are needed to implement the betterment.
Number one, the military should go back to the barracks and democracy is fully restored.
Number two, Pakistan must act to synchronize its educational institutions with the modern challenges. The present claims are more of a façade than a substantial reality.
Number three, It is true that micro economics has seen same activity but the requirement is that the bases of economics should be constructed on solid foundations and that it should effect the common person, eradicating poverty.
Number four, Extremism based on ethnicity should be curtailed.
All the suggestions by Professor Stephen Cohen are the requirements of our time. But the people of Pakistan can only achieve these goals as an independent and Sovereign State, if the American governments refrain from making the Pakistani establishment as their instruments and stop imposing their agenda upon us. Without it should just remain a sermon and we Pakistanis ourselves, are good at that.
An interesting moment at the function arose, when a member of a “Writer’s Club” and an English teacher of a local college asked a question. His query was that what would be the American reaction if Khalafat is established in Pakistan. Responding, Professor Cohen said that in his view it was not possible as the people of Pakistan do not agree on a particular brand of Islam. There are different sects, where they have their own interpretations. Former Director General of ISI and retired Lt. General Asad Durrani pointed out that the United States would extend its friendship, in any circumstances – notwithstanding the type of regime in Pakistan. He went on to say that when the slogan of Islam was raised during Zia ul Haq’s time, the United States was our ally, nor it is something else but the Americans have maintained their friendship with us. Before that at the end of his presentation, General Durrani had pointed out that the three As and the role of the army is presented in an exaggerated form.
In response to another question the General said that it is absolutely wrong to assume that in 1988, when Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan, the army leadership had declared Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a security risk. This accusation came from her political opponent and in turn when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was also called a security risk, it came from his political opponent, as well. General Durrani might have correctly stated but when I asked him a question during tea that is it true that an Army General attended a meeting of a working group of a political party and suggested ways and means to pressurize a political government? General Durrani asked which General and political party was I talking about! I responded that his name is mentioned and the political party is none other than Pakistan People’s Party. He categorically denied that he had anything to do with it. I further inquired that then why he did not issued a contradiction as he had done so regarding the matter of security risk. He responded that he does not issue rejoinders to any accusations. I started to recall that a name of a General was mentioned, accusing him of helping to bring together different groups into a single party - IJI. First he refused (to have) any role in the matter but later responded with a smile and now he does not even deny the involvement.
JASARAT