Army generals, either serving or retired, are generally known as blunt, frank and free-spoken. General (retired) Pervez Musharraf is certainly of that lot. When he speaks frankly, he speaks truth. In an interview with a US magazine, the retired general, and the president of Pakistan, spoke the truth that late Benazir Bhutto was “very unpopular with the military”. The president in his interview did not elaborate whether Benazir Bhutto was unpopular among officers of the army or she was equally unpopular among the jawans, offsprings of poor parents, also.
It is amazing that a political leader, very popular with the vast majority of the people of Pakistan, largely wretched of the earth, was unpopular with the Pakistan military even though her father initiated Pakistan’s nuclear programme and her government provided missile technology to the military. She was unpopular despite the fact that she was prepared to work with the military.
What the president said implies that the thinking of the army did not correspond with the will of the people. Army personnel, as an individual, have the right to like or dislike any political personality but it is quite strange that the army as an institution loves or hates any particular political leader. The retired chief of the army staff’s “disclosure” about the unpopularity of Benazir Bhutto with the army speaks a lot about the issues of discontinuity of political process, non-existence of democracy and non-acceptance of the people’s will as well as advent of dictators in the country.
Perhaps, it was the fate of many third world countries which witnessed military rules over the time. The armies, violating the will of the people, confronted popular political leadership, toppled elected governments and assassinated popular leaders. The history of many countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia is replete with such events in which the adventurist generals on their own or on the instigation of their foreign masters toppled the popular civilian governments and banished the political process.
South Asia has its own adventurists. Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, a popular leader and father of the nation, was brutally killed along with his family members by the army officers and subsequently the army captured power in Bangladesh. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged by a general and the army ruled the country for 11 years. Some generals toppled the Nawaz Sharif government which had two-third majority in the parliament and the result is that Pervez Musharraf is still ruling the country even after his retirement from the army.
Perhaps, Shiekh Mujib, Z.A. Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto were unpopular with the army as they fought against military dictatorship, struggled for freedom and democracy and for the welfare of the oppressed people. They were punished for raising the voices of the voiceless. They were killed ruthlessly because they were popular among the masses. They knew they could be killed for their “crime” of fighting for the cause of the oppressed people, yet they continued their struggle.
The important question is if the armies dislike political leaders who are loved by the majority of the people, what the people would think about such armies. The question is why the people consider the state and its institutions their enemy? Why they break the law? Why they destroy, loot and plunder public property whenever they find opportunity to take revenge? The people used to disobey the colonial powers and the foreign masters as they did not regard the will of the people. They used to plunder Sarkar da mall (property of the government). But, unfortunately, the people still consider public property as Sarkar da mall and not their (public’s) property as the rulers did not have any regard for the will of the people. The rulers, whether military or civilian, hate political leaders who are loved by the people.
The establishment’s aversion of the leaders’ popularity among the masses eventually makes the establishment anti-people also. And, if the establishment is anti-people in its thinking and action, it is doomed to face wrath of the people. Popular mass political parties, and their leaders, reflect the will of the people and need to be acknowledged. Disliking for the popular parties and leaders only widens the gulf between people and the state, and people and the state’s institutions. It must not be a matter of pride to say that a very popular leader among the masses is or was very unpopular with the army. If it is like this then the army commanders need to review the thinking process in the army to make it a force entrusted by the people. It is encouraging that the new chief of the army staff, General Kayani, speaks a different language when he says that the people’s will is decisive.