Author: Shekhar Gupta
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: December 3, 2005
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=83160
Introduction: You ask any Pakistani and he
will tell you heroic stories of the work done by NGOs, charities, even lone
individuals who left everything and joined relief efforts. Equally, you would
hear stories of official ineptitude, Oddly, very few still dare to point the
finger where it must be pointed: at the Pakistani army.
NATO's earthquake relief effort in Pakistan
did not even involve a thousand personnel. It is now winding up, completing
its tight lease of 90 days in what is a most politically sensitive region.
Departing Nato officials, influential news channels tell us, have issued warnings
of impending catastrophe, death from cold, injuries and diseases as the work
of relief is still far from complete. You read the Pakistani press and you
still learn there are plenty of areas where the government has not reached.
People are dying for want of shelter or medicine. In many places Lashkar or
Jaish militants are still the only symbols of any "authority". On
the same international news channels, appeals are issued by all kinds of people
- from celebrities to UN bodies - for earthquake relief contributions. This,
after $5.9 billion has already been committed in assistance as against the
Pakistan government's initial estimate of the $5.2 billion needed for relief
and reconstruction. It is nobody's intention to grudge Pakistan, and particularly
the victims of the horrible earthquake, any amount of relief. But, nearly
three months after the event, time has now come to raise a few questions on
the quality of relief work so far carried out. You ask any Pakistani and he
will tell you heroic stories of the work done by NGOs, religious charities,
even lone individuals, students, doctors, housewives, who left everything
and joined relief efforts. But equally, you would hear stories of official
ineptitude, of insensitivity, inefficiency and confusion. Oddly, very few
still dare to point the finger where it must be pointed: at the Pakistani
army and administration largely run by it. This is not one Indian hawk's criticism
of Pakistan or its military establishment. This is an attempt to underline
some questions many liberal Pakistanis have now begun to raise, though still
cautiously. It is a case of civilian democracy versus army rule and how one
system, with all its flaws, is always better than the other. And this fact
shows up nowhere more starkly than in a disaster. Pakistan is no tiny, resourceless,
powerless banana republic.
It is the world's sixth most populous country.
Its economy is back to growing in the seven to eight per cent range. Through
most of its history it has enjoyed per capita income higher than India's.
The earthquake, though severe, was confined to one region, leaving more than
98 per cent of its population unaffected and practically all its government
structure unencumbered. Yet, why was its first instinct to throw up its hand
and ask for international aid? True, many consider India's policy of not seeking
foreign help in natural disasters cussed. But faced with their first natural
disaster of a considerable size, the Pakistani establishment threw up its
arms far too easily.
Disaster is when most civilian governments
around the world call out for the armies to help. Armies are more efficient,
organised and resourceful. In India, whether it is a flood, earthquake or
tsunami, the arrival of army contingents is greeted with confidence and relief.
What went wrong in Pakistan's case? Why did it begin to look so helpless and
all at sixes and sevens so early in the day? Was it because it was short of
resources or experience, or because its army did not know what to do in the
absence of established politico-bureaucratic civil structures of governance?
Pakistan, after all, has the fifth largest armed force in the world, with
nearly a million men in active service, besides nearly a half million reservists.
It's fielding nearly 3000 tanks and nuclear weapons. It also has the most
extensive network of establishments and infrastructure on that side of Kashmir.
While its units also suffered gravely in the quake there needs to be some
serious questioning of its performance in relief work if, three months later,
Nato and the UN still have to keep warning of an impending disaster.
To put it simply, POK is one of the most heavily
militarised zones in the whole world. It's no faraway basket case in sub-Saharan
Africa. And the military controlling it is extremely well-reputed, professional
and efficient. It has given a good account of itself against a larger adversary
for nearly six decades. Its ingenuity and enterprise are underlined by the
way it has manned its side of the Siachen ridge-line. As also by the way it
put one past India by smuggling about a brigade of troops, even artillery
pieces, way across the LoC in Kargil, just the other day. Nobody in the Indian
army ever takes the Pakistani adversary lightly.
So what went wrong in this case? Why did they
need to swallow their pride and let Nato crawl all over their most sensitive
territories and to also paint it so prominently on international television
screens? Did they really deserve the humiliation of the same foreign helpers
predicting disaster when they leave? This is the kind of language UN organisations
and NGO busybodies use while talking of HIV-AIDS in Botswana. The failure
of the Pakistani relief machinery is the failure of its army, and you could
argue it is the lowest point in its history after the defeat in Bangladesh.
It is sad for a fine, professional fighting force which is much sought after
by the UN for peace-keeping operations, along with India's, given their reputation
for discipline, professionalism, and courage under fire.
The problem is not so much either with the
commitment or ability of the Pakistani army as with its role in the power
structure which has led to a weakening of the civil structure. Civil bureaucracy
leans much too heavily on the army and the one missing piece in the equation
is the politician. Howsoever you may hate them, it is the politician, the
MP, the MLA, the local activists even if from the opposition who provide that
vital link between the state machinery and the people, particularly in a disaster
situation.
Ask the men of the Indian army and navy who
were involved in tsunami relief. They speak glowingly of Jayalalithaa's government.
She, her ministers and MLAs were out and helping. And her officials at the
district level did stellar work. Without all that, India's armed forces would
have looked as inept and ineffective as Pakistan's now. In modern societies,
governance is a business, for, of and by the politicians and the civil bureaucracies
answerable to them. In Pakistan those two vital elements were missing.
Now recall for a moment what Musharraf's response
was in the immediate aftermath of the quake. He appeared in public in full
military livery, talked about "C 130" transport teams and "M
17" helicopters being ready for help. It was a professional soldier's
response. And that is where the plot was lost. Because he did not figure disaster
relief and management are among the most complex challenges of governance.
An effective response requires a multi-layered civil government structure
that is then helped along by the armies. An army, howsoever large, resourceful
and politically dominant, can never be a substitute for this "bloody
civilian mess", to use an expression you'd hear often in army messes
not just in Pakistan, but around the world, even in India and the US where
the armies know exactly how long they belong in the power structure and where
they can never even imagine changing any of that. Contempt for civilian structures
is an essential part of the soldier's faith. In a democracy, it remains merely
an internal, clubby lament. In a system like Pakistan's, it leads to disasters
or could compound one.
That is exactly what has happened in PoK after
the quake. It is time the people of Pakistan who have put up with so many
years of army rule - particularly the last six without one public protest
- began to ask some of these questions. They have a fine army. But a large,
powerful, talented and ambitious state like theirs, which claims nuclear weapons,
leadership of the Ummah and equality with India, deserves more than just that.
The disaster of earthquake relief should underline their urgent need for a
return to "civilianism". Write to sg@expressindia.com
