Viewpoint: Wrong ideas of national security

A newly revised Army Doctrine identifies home-grown militancy as the “biggest threat” to national security, replacing India as the enemy Number One. That of course does not mean the conventional threat conception has undergone change but that the “sub-conventional threat” has shifted the priority order. Soldiers traditionally trained to fight conventional warfare on the eastern front are to prepare better to confront extremists endangering internal security, and western border is also to be given proper attention.

A comprehensive review is in order, too, of the old policy of promoting jihadists in aid of external security strategy as well as accepting sectarian extremists, such as the ones encouraged by Ziaul Haq’s military regime to counter Iran at the behest of certain Gulf states; and the US-backed Iran-specific sectarian outfit, Jandollah, which has been involved in recent anti-Shia attacks in Gilgit-Baltistan. The ‘sub-conventional threat’ in large part is a payback of that policy. Militants from all these disparate groups are now part of the TTP challenging the writ of the state and resorting to terrorist attacks in different parts of the country.

The new internal security strategy, therefore, should not only be about tackling militants infesting the tribal areas, it must also aim at disbanding and disarming various sectarian ‘lashkars’ and ‘sipahs’. That has to be a joint civil-military effort owned by the people through their elected representatives. Hopefully, experience has amply driven home the message that promoting any brand of militancy or extremism can be a dangerous game. That is a lesson of history illustrated by so many cases in other countries as well.

It is important to understand that political and economic stability is integral to internal security. The example of this country’s arch rival, India, is before us. Born together as independent nations, India early on opted for the democratic path to nation-building while Pakistan stumbled from one military dictatorship to another with short intervening periods of elected governments. Consequently, India has risen as the world’s much respected largest democracy and an emerging economic giant poised to be a future superpower close behind China. True, it has its share of problems facing close to a dozen insurgencies in different regions, but the country’s democratic system is strong enough to withstand such challenges. Pakistan, on the other hand, remains at odds with itself. Thanks to the establishment’s disastrous policies of the past and repeated interruptions in the political process, the international community associates this country with terrorism and lawlessness while existential worries keep cropping up in the national discourse.

Yet anti-democracy forces have not given up playing their old games. They go on to hatch new plots and plans to disrupt a nascent democratic order. This time they have brought in a man of highly questionable credentials, Tahirul Qadri, to throw a spanner in the works. Just as the general elections scheduled four months down the line promise to bring the ever elusive continuity to the democratic system, he has launched an aggressive campaign to hinder making illegal and unconstitutional demands.

Qadri has been going back and forth on some of his superfluous demands but remains insistent on the central one about Army’s inclusion in consultations for the appointment of a caretaker set-up. And to disguise his true mission, he also includes the judiciary along with the Army as ‘stakeholders’ who must be conferred with. The mission has the support of some of the usual pro-establishment political players. But PTI Chairman Imran khan is also lending a helping hand; and in so doing proving his detractors right who have been accusing him of being the establishment’s man. The PTI, he says, won’t allow just two parties (the PPP and the PML-N) to do ‘mukmuka’ (deal-making) over the caretaker set-up, and would hold protest demonstrations if it is not consulted. First of all, it is not a deal between two parties but two components of the democratic system. Together they represent the will of the majority.

Second of all, and most importantly, the PTI chairman must know that it is the Constitution’s 20th Amendment that says caretakers are to be appointed through consultation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. No other ‘stakeholder’ is mentioned. The ruling party or the opposition may want to confer informally with the PTI or another party, like they did for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, but as per the Constitution, they are under no obligation to do that. His demand for inclusion clearly is unconstitutional and therefore unacceptable. And as regards the Army, it has no business whatsoever to meddle in political affairs. No functioning democracy gives such a role to armed forces.

The amount of effort and resources that have gone into Qadri’s campaign merit the question, why so much insistence on the Army’s’ inclusion in deciding who should head the caretakers? After all he/she is to come in only to oversee the elections, ensuring under the relevant constitutional provision that elections are held within the stipulated time period. And for the first time, an uncontroversial and independent election commission is in place to conduct the electoral exercise. There is only one explanation for the establishment’s men to stir up such a storm on the issue: a hope that anyone who comes riding on its shoulders can be trusted to do as desired. Such a caretaker prime minister can use one pretext or another – like the pretext of internal disturbance beyond the power of a provincial government to control (think Karachi or the terrorism attacks prone KP) – to delay the elections for an indefinite period. That would restore power to the establishment, and add uncertainty to instability.

Two petitioners have approached the Supreme Court to stop Qadri from going ahead with his ‘long march’. The court being the guardian and sole interpreter of the Constitution is expected to declare unconstitutional Qadri’s demand for inclusion of the Army or the judiciary itself in the Caretakers selection process. But the drama he has been staging so far is a disturbing reminder that the concept of national security is grossly misunderstood by the powers that be.