Editorial: ''Gen Kayani’s statement ''

Ever since the Supreme Court held a former army chief and a former DG ISI responsible for adversely affecting the 1990 election by illegally distributing funds among anti-PPP politicians, we have all been waiting for the army’s response. But despite provocations from TV anchors and endless media chatter about the SC’s rare challenge, the army has maintained silence. Now, however, seemingly unhappy with the disparagement directed at the army in the aftermath of the SC verdict – and perhaps the subsequent summoning by NAB of three retired generals in the Royal Palm Golf Course case – Gen Kayani has finally broken his silence. Speaking to a group of officers at GHQ, the army chief has said that “any effort which wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and the Armed Forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest. While constructive criticism is well understood, conspiracy theories based on rumours which create doubts about the very intent, are unacceptable.” In what is being called a clear reference to the Asghar Khan case and the two senior-most army officers who have been named and shamed in it, the chief says that “while individual mistakes might have been made by all of us … Let us not pre judge anyone, be it a civilian or a military person and not extend it, unnecessarily, to undermine respective institutions.” This March 14, the same day that an SC bench headed by the chief justice suggested that intelligence agencies were transgressing their constitutional domain and the National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution calling for new laws to control their functioning, Gen Kayani was quoted in a section of the press as saying that the morale of the troops was being affected by this undue criticism. This time, too, most analysts who appeared on news channels soon after the latest statement was released were in agreement that it was a veiled reference to criticism following the Asghar Khan verdict and a warning – some even called it a ‘threat’ – to the loud voices to restrain themselves. To the extent that Gen Kayani said Pakistanis have a right to express their opinions and conspiracy theorising based on rumours is detrimental to the national interest, he has a point and is right to call on detractors and pundits to exercise caution. It is a genuine demand that media trials should not be held. However, it is also clear that legitimate criticism of the army and its intelligence arm in recent days – on the issue of missing persons, the ISI’s illegal meddling in politics and the army’s highhandedness in Balochistan – have combined to upset the army high command. Indeed, since the Raymond Davis affair and the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the army’s operations have come under unusual scrutiny. While the general refrain of the statement is meant for all institutions, it is unfortunate that the army’s response is to spurn criticism. Gen Kayani has been commended many times over for being a pro-democracy general who has proactively withdrawn the army from a direct role in politics. Indeed, the media and the judiciary have been first in line in praising him for this. However, when the army leadership exceeds its limits and its members – serving or former – violate the law, it is right to hold them answerable. Indeed, such efforts at accountability should not be read as an attempt to undermine the army or the national interest but be seen as a defence of the democratic system and the constitution itself. The media, the public and the judiciary always have and always will salute the army when it does what it is constitutionally mandated to do. But when its officers step into domains constitutionally and legally outside their jurisdiction, they will rightly be questioned for redefining the national interest according to their own whims, as opposed to the law of the land. Still the collective response of the army sets a conciliatory tone, at least for the moment, and the stress that all institutions should stay within their domains is a welcome point to begin the process of building a national consensus.