Great expectations

The news has been greeted across the country with open arms and beaming smiles. We can only acknowledge with admiration the actions taken by COAS General Raheel Sharif in forcing into retirement two generals, three brigadiers and one colonel who had become entangled in corruption cases. The message sent out by this move is crucial and should ideally signal the start of a march in a positive direction. A very important aspect of this development is that, for once, these decisions by the army were made available to the media in an unprecedented manner. This can perhaps lead to a situation where accountability even within the previously untouchable military matters is institutionalised and converted into an ongoing process rather than an occasional diversion from the norm. There have, however, been some observations in the media that these cases haven’t led to a full court martial of the officials involved and that they will thus never formally be found guilty. What has also been highlighted is that the corruption charges in question date back to 2014 and arise from older enquiries that never quite saw the light of day. All this has possibly helped fuel the views expressed in the media that the retirement of the senior officials has come at a time when it will invariably bring the government under further pressure. At a moment such as this, any mention of corruption, or any attention to it from within the powerful military, will naturally not go unnoticed and will trigger specific reactions. This is especially so as the government is not perceived to have handled the Panama leaks issue as well as it could have and has come under fire from the opposition. The clumsy juggling of accusations arising from the Panama Papers leak has in fact trapped key members of the current setup in an increasingly sticky web.

There can, however, be no doubt that the steps taken within the military are an immensely important development; perhaps a historical one – not because they are very unique in themselves, which they are not. There have been cases that we know of, and there may have been other more obscure ones. What makes the present development significant is the unprecedented scale of the action and the view into it that the media and the people have been given. It is this aspect that needs to be built on, improved and turned into a permanent legacy. It is important that the retirement of key officials not be limited to a particular period or particular section on the map, but should be converted into a tradition which is institutionalised and can help inspire removal of the stains of corruption spread across various institutions. If this happens, it cannot fail to morally compel others, in the field of politics and elsewhere, to take the issue of accountability more seriously.

The way to a true institutionalisation of any such effort has been spelt out by the COAS – ie, across-the-board accountability – and it goes without saying that such actions should be across the board in letter and spirit and with transparency. To achieve this, we must also look into other serious affairs involving army connections and relations of army officials. These also include scandals involving housing societies, many of whose affairs remain out of reach of the media and the rest of society. Then there are those whose actions have involved manipulating and subverting the democratic process through bribes or threats and also those who actually disrupted the political process and openly violated the constitution. Some of them are still in the country and some have left despite facing charges in the courts – without any kind of accountability touching them. An across-the-board exercise in accountability will not ideally stop at this particular moment in time and at this particular action. The army chief has indeed, in this matter, led by example, and led from the front. It would be tragic if, years from now, this is not seen as the beginning of a legacy that saw the army and its chief rise to previously unattained moral and professional heights in the history of a country whose progress was hampered by rampant corruption that thrived on unaccountability.

The army chief today stands much admired nationally and internationally for the rare resolve he has shown. However, this is exactly the moment when a man of stature has to beware of those who would want to try and exploit his popularity and stature for ends that have nothing whatsoever to do with any possibility of improvement in the affairs of this country but are designed to steer things towards unconstitutional directions and institutional conflicts. History, particularly ours, is rife with examples where great beginnings were turned into lost opportunities by such characters either within earshot of the man of the hour or in the wider political arena masquerading as political forces. Pose and affectation, flattery and even apparent servility mark their words and actions, when they are in fact pursuing selfish agendas at the expense of the man they flatter. In today’s context, our great tragedy would be to see a great beginning being turned into a sorry end by such characters if they pushed our progress back to the era of the 1990s and earlier. The greater good here will come from making accountability into a routine practice in our national life and ensuring it touches all aspects of society. The army chief has made a beginning. Will it become a moment when history turned?