Exclusive patriotism?

COULD it be that the nature of the discourse that has surrounded Pakistan’s military and security establishment for decades is beginning to change? There are clear indications that this is the case. On Thursday, at a Supreme Court hearing on the 11 prisoners who went missing from outside Adiyala Jail in 2010 after being acquitted of terrorism charges, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain did not mince words. Speaking to the counsel for the Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, he pointed out that patriotism was not the monopoly of the security establishment and that members of this powerful elite group were not superior to any other citizen. The counsel read out a report stating that personnel of the security agencies had laid down their lives in the supreme national interest. To this, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry plainly remarked that while the sacrifices of the intelligence agencies were not being denied, “we are under oath to strictly adhere to the constitution while remaining within the confines of the law”.

The allegations that the security establishment has overstepped its authority in the case of the missing prisoners are serious and must be addressed accordingly, for no agency can be allowed to operate outside the confines of the law. Yet the judicial observation on patriotism reflects on the general mindset in the country as well as amongst the ranks of the military-security establishment. And this mindset is what allows elements of the latter to think that the law does not apply to its members. Over the decades, the power that has accrued to and been appropriated by the security establishment is such that, in the popular imagination, its members are all-powerful figures, larger than life. The reason why Pakistanis are perennially wary of a looming coup, as the ‘memogate’ affair has illustrated, is because all too often that is precisely what has materialised. Underpinning the military-security establishment’s misadventures is the belief that it alone knows what is in the ‘supreme nat-
ional interest’. This has been demonstrated often enough by different members of this elite group at various times.

If the civilian establishment — from politicians to the bureaucracy to ordinary people — is to be successful in remedying the civil-military imbalance, it is this lopsided discourse that must be altered and rationalised. The issue, as the chief justice indicated, is not to question the loyalty or commitment of the military forces or security agencies. The point is to internalise the fact that patriotism is not the preserve of a few and that no one has the right to exhibit this attribute outside the ambit of the law.