Author: Najam Sethi
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: February 11, 2004
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=40828
Introduction: Dr A Q Khan got a
pardon, in the 'national interest'. So is accountability of politicians,
civil servants and businessmen in the national interest, but not accountability
of Generals, judges and nuclear scientists?
Among President General Pervez Musharraf's
many winning ways is his ability to talk straight and stay cool. This is
a welcome relief from the hypocritical doublespeak of politicians. We can
therefore hope that he won't get too hot under the collar by some candid
comments from us.
A pardon for Dr A Q Khan was apparently
unavoidable. We are told that Pakistanis perceive him as a national hero,
never mind that this perception was assiduously manufactured, never mind
that this was at the expense of several brilliant but unsung Pakistani
scientists and organisations, never mind that lesser mortals acting on
Dr Khan's instructions have been given no such grand reprieve, and never
mind that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who envisioned the nuclear programme in
the first place and can lay claim to be Pakistan's most popular prime minister
ever, was sent to the gallows by General Musharraf's military predecessor
General Zia-ul-Haq on the dubious evidence of a cowardly approver.
General Musharraf has also reportedly
decided not to deprive Dr Khan of his billions in ill-gotten wealth, never
mind that two twice elected prime ministers have been exiled and disqualified
from political office for stealing much less, never mind that NAB has hunted
down scores of businessmen and civil servants for lesser crimes, and never,
never mind that the official hunt is still on to compel foreign banks to
cough up the relatively piddling sums gulped by all these undesirable elements.
General Musharraf's response is
that, all things considered, a swift pardon was in the ''national interest''.
That may or may not be the case. Certainly, the controversy over who and
how many people and institutions were culpable, who was made the fall guy,
and why, will inevitably spill over into the history books. Meanwhile,
it is time to dissect one fundamental question: What is the ''national
interest''?
Apparently, every military coup
d'etat was in the national interest, never mind what happened to democracy.
The Islamic jehad against the Soviets in Afghanistan was in the national
interest, never mind its crippling legacy of sectarian warfare, drugs and
Kalashnikov culture. The support for the Taliban regime was in the national
interest for six years, never mind that it plunged Pakistan into the eye
of the storm only days after 9/11. The jehad in Kashmir was in the national
interest for over a decade, never mind that the deaths of tens of thousands
of Kashmiri and Pakistani jehadis have been in vain because it is no longer
in the national interest. The Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was buried
in the national interest, the Ojri camp was covered up in the national
interest, the testing of the nuclear bomb was in the national interest,
the subsequent freeze on forex accounts was in the national interest, the
Kargil adventure was in the national interest, and Nawaz Sharif's exile
was in the national interest.
Who determines the national interest?
The rulers determine it, of course. War mongering is therefore in the national
interest and the peace dividend is not. Accountability of politicians and
civil servants and businessmen is in the national interest, but accountability
of Generals and judges and nuclear scientists is not. So it goes on, ad
nauseam. And now General Musharraf is thundering against the Pakistani
media for ''damaging the national interest'' by publishing ''foreign- inspired''
stories about the proliferation affair.
General Musharraf is a hard man
to please. He likes to boast of the free press in Pakistan as one of his
great achievements. Then he rails against it for not behaving like the
gagged press in Iran and Libya and North Korea. Does he think that the
American press which is lampooning the American government for screwing
up in Iraq and getting its soldiers killed there is unpatriotic and acting
against the American national interest? Does he think the BBC was acting
against the British national interest when it alleged that Tony Blair had
''sexed'' up the inspector's report on Iraq? The problem with most dictators,
benevolent or otherwise, and most democrats, autocrats or not, is that
they think they are infallible, that they know best, that what suits them
personally suits the national interest.
But the business of a free press
is to hold rulers accountable, to challenge their self-righteous notions
of right and wrong. One way of doing this is to present the people with
as many facets of any situation as possible and let them determine where
the truth lies. Another way is to make assessments of the national interest
that are independent of particular individual or institutional or class
or ethnic or regional or sectarian vested interests and concerns. This
is a complex process in which debate and discussion are of the essence.
Attempts to muzzle any divergence of opinion tend to defeat the very purpose
of locating the real and enduring ''national'' interest in any situation.
We do not doubt General Pervez Musharraf's
integrity or patriotism. But he shouldn't doubt ours either. The Army and
its Generals cannot be allowed to have a monopoly over determining the
national interest. In fact, history suggests that they have been wrong
more often than right in defining and defending it.
(The Friday Times)
