I have always felt a deep-seated repulsion towards Sheikh Rashid’s style of politics. In him, I have always seen a clownishly non-serious politician. But in his last interview, he said something which attracted my attention at a deeper philosophical level. His assertion appealed to me not because of any superficial political reason but because it appealed to me both at the emotional and intellectual levels. He said that pleading for amnesty for all the accused in the May 9 attacks was his mission. He was in fact seen advocating on behalf of all those accused who are languishing in jails or facing trials on terrorism charges.
Arguments in support of awarding exemplary punishments to all those who were involved in these attacks could be found in abundance in the political discourse of our society. All of them are very convincing. At a superficial political level, no argument to support the accused stands to compete with the arguments to punish severely. But Sheikh Rashid’s utterance in the notorious interview still struck a chord with me.
I thought to myself that perhaps we can save our society from another simmering and festering wave of hatred and anger. May 9 may be one of the darker days in our political history. But by punishing the youth involved in these attacks, we will be adding another dark day in the history of our nation. The anger displayed on May 9 was the product of a perceived grievance against the military's interference in politics. This perception, by all means, would be strengthened if hundreds of workers and activists of the former ruling party would be punished and are awarded lengthy jail sentences. Managing a political situation to the satisfaction of the powers that be who sit behind seven curtains and are hardly directly exposed to the intricacies of public opinion in the streets is one thing, and preventing deep divisions in the society that results from high handedness acts of state machinery from engulfing the social and political life of the society in the long run, is quite another.
Only an impartial, non-partisan and neutral military will remain non-controversial in our society. The May 9 attacks and the legal cases instituted against those accused of involvement in those attacks will leave a deep imprint on the political memory of our society.
Ensuring the continued dominance of the power structure by the military top brass by way of smart power games is one thing, and preventing the institution of the military from getting bogged down in a whirlwind of hatred, resentment and political conflicts is quite another. The very rationale of our armed forces as a non-partisan, impartial and neutral bureaucratic and military structure is based on the axiom that it is a protector of the whole nation—a protector of each and every Pakistani, a protector of each and every segment of the society. It is not merely a principle of good PR strategy to be on the right side of public opinion; the military's harmonious relations with every segment of the society is a security imperative. Those who still believe that the military as an institution could exist and function on the foundation of antagonistic relations with segments of the society should learn lessons from the 1971 debacle. The fact that we are militarily much more secure from external threats now than we were in 1971 should not make us oblivious to the reality that a military which fosters antagonistic relations from parts of the society is only inches away from civil war.
Since the Cold War days, we have learnt from the Americans in every field of life. It would be good to take a look at how Americans treat their wayward youth who engage in violence and arson. In 2016, I was part of a group of journalists assembled from all over the world to take part in the US State Department and Homeland Security’s orientation program about how the American government and its department tackle homegrown forms of extremisms. In the initial briefing in the State Department building in Washington DC, one senior official recounted an incident in which school and college students indulged in destruction of private property in a locality in Washington DC after they were returning from a party at their school. “They demolished street lights, entrance gates of private residences and letter boxes and other items of private property by hitting them with baseball bats. All this activity took place at night and when the locals woke up next morning, they complained to the local police station,” said the senior US State Department. The students were identified with the help of CCTV footage and were arrested. The point which the district attorney had to decide was whether to institute criminal proceedings against these students, in which case they would certainly have to spend years in jail, and that would ruin their careers. “The district attorney with the help of community leaders decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the students. But these students were subjected to strict surveillance and were made to perform community service duties such as taking care of the elderly, teaching the young and taking care of cleanliness of the local neighborhood,” said the official. On merit these students deserved criminal proceedings. But community and district attorneys were mindful of their future and community relations while pardoning them. These young students were also likely white and belonged to affluent communities, which played a key role in the leniency extended to them at the hands of law enforcement. A group of black youth from a disenfranchised community would likely not have been extended the same privilege, as numerous incidents in American history demonstrate.
The Pakistani military has a genuine grievance against a party which has allegedly conspired to perpetuate arson and violence against military installations and personnel on May 9. The flipside is that what happened on May 9 didn’t happen out of the blue.
For obvious reasons, this incident in American society cannot serve as an exact analogy to what happened on May 9, 2023 in Lahore and other cities of Pakistan. The May 9 attacks were clearly political in nature and clearly driven by sinister political motives. However, this is precisely the reason why we should consider mitigating the severity of criminal cases against those involved in the May 9 attacks. Social and political conflicts are an integral part of our social and political life. A neutral and impartial state machinery is required to manage these social and political conflicts in order to mitigate conflict. If any part of the state becomes a party in these conflicts, it will sharpen social and political tensions in society and the state stands to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of at least those social and political forces which the elements of the state machinery are opposing by becoming a party to the conflict.
The Pakistani military has a genuine grievance against a party which has allegedly conspired to perpetuate arson and violence against military installations and personnel on May 9. The flipside is that what happened on May 9 didn’t happen out of the blue. Mob violence against military installations in Rawalpindi and Lahore happened after societies in these cities underwent a series of experiences since General Musharraf’s military rule—for example, after the Lal Masjid operation and two parallel tracks of violence and protests in Northern Punjab and adjacent districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The first was a serious of suicide attacks, launched mostly definitely by TTP, and second were political protests across urban centers in Northern Punjab and adjacent districts of KP in which again the military top brass was the target.
I happened to cover these protests from Abbottabad to Murree. People were angry at what happened in Lal Majid. This was the first time in recent years when people shunned their inhibitions to protest against the military and its top brass. Parallel to Lal Masjid protests were the lawyer’s movement’s protests, and here again the military top brass was the target. This was followed by political protests by mainstream political parties in which political leaders openly gave vent to their anger and frustration over the military's interference in politics.
Ensuring the continued dominance of the power structure by the military top brass by way of smart power games is one thing, and preventing the institution of the military from getting bogged down in a whirlwind of hatred, resentment and political conflicts is quite another.
My point is that what transpired on May 9, 2023 happened after a series of events and happened to remove the deep-seated popular inhibition against attacking and criticizing the military. The military top brass was up to their neck in political management and management of violence in the society when the May 9 attacks took place. Thus, an analysis of how the military and its role in the society is perceived in these urban environs is critical to our understanding of how and why the May 9 attacks took place. Military intelligence services analysis of who passed what instructions to whom would not cover a deeper analysis of the social and political currents that made May 9 attacks possible. The danger of the May 9 events repeating themselves will remain great if we don’t introduce reforms in our power structure and how we manage power in our society.
Only an impartial, non-partisan and neutral military will remain non-controversial in our society. The May 9 attacks and the legal cases instituted against those accused of involvement in those attacks will leave a deep imprint on the political memory of our society. Such a harsh reaction will create divisions, and it will give rise to conflicts at the social and political level. The military can ill afford to let narratives which will flow from this episode of our history a permanent fixture of their public perception as an institution. Some of these narratives could potentially assume a radical character and could permanently vitiate the social and political environment in which the military functions as a professional institution.
The military cannot and should not foster antagonistic relations with any popular and mainstream political party. The May 9 legal proceedings and the way our criminal justice system has been activated against the accused has the potential to create permanent antagonistic relations with the radicalized core of PTI. The Pakistani military already has numerous antagonistic relations on the periphery. Listen to what Sheikh Rashid has to say. He has a point, a point which only a person sympathetic to the military’s cause and mission can contemplate.