A SUGGESTION to elevate Gen Raheel Sharif to rank of field
marshal is rumoured to be under consideration. Some media reports
maintain that a decision has already been made. There is, however, no
confirmation or denial from either the government or the military
spokesman, raising questions about the credibility of these stories.
There are some reports that the offer came as an alternative to a
request made by the general seeking an extension of his tenure that the
prime minister is reluctant to grant.
It all sounds so
surreal as only months ago the general had promised to bow out at the
end of his term in November this year. It would tarnish the image of a
good general were this report about his impending elevation true. He
certainly does not need the grand but ceremonial title of field marshal
in recognition of his great services for the nation. Indeed, Gen Sharif
must be given credit for leading from the front the fight against the
militants challenging the state. But one must not ignore the
contribution of other commanders too in this war that has been going on
for more than a decade.
It is most intriguing how the
rumour about a mere proposal was circulated and politicised. Is it a
game of deception? Firstly, it will not be easy to create this position
without a constitutional provision, however ceremonial the title may be.
Then there is also a problem of altering the command structure of the
armed forces if his role is to be made more effective.
There
is certainly no such move yet. So what is the rumour all about weeks
before the appointment of the new chief? It has generated unnecessary
controversy casting shadows over the transition of the army leadership
that should be following the normal process.
It is most intriguing how the rumour about a mere proposal was circulated and politicised.
Field marshal is usually the highest rank in the armed
forces and it requires extraordinary achievement by a general winning a
major war. But in Third World countries we have seen many examples of
military rulers appointing themselves to that position. Ayub Khan, the
first Pakistani military dictator, assumed the position of field marshal
in the 1960s without fighting a war — maybe in order to usurp power.
The main purpose was to stay as part of the military, the source of
power. But that title could not save him in crunch time.
Interestingly,
Egypt that remained under military rule for most of its recent history
had appointed eight field marshals over the past four decades despite
the country having been humiliated in conflict against Israel. Most
recently, the country’s new military strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
declared himself field marshal after ruthlessly crushing the resistance
to the military takeover.
Afghanistan has seen field
marshals in recent history. The last one was field marshal Mohammad
Qasim Fahim who served as vice president. He was given the title
apparently for leading the Northern Alliance’s forces against the Afghan
Taliban and capturing Kabul with the support of the US-led coalition
forces in November 2001. This appointment was more to do with politics
than his services in the military. There are several other instances of
tinpot dictators harbouring self-delusions of grandeur assuming this
title.
One wonders if Gen Sharif would be interested in
getting his name listed alongside them. This kind of artificial title
cannot further raise his professional reputation and stature. During his
three years’ term that is about to end soon, Gen Sharif led his forces
clearing most of the tribal areas including North Waziristan from the
insurgents. This helped re-establish the state’s writ.
Gen
Sharif has also been instrumental in pushing the government to act
against the militant groups operating on the mainland, though he may not
have been fully successful in his efforts. A thorough professional, he
may not harbour any political ambition but he did assert the military’s
authority when it came to taking decisions on critical foreign and
national security policies. That also reinforced the perception of the
military being in the driving seat.
Gen Sharif has tried
to change the narrative on terrorism and religious extremism and has
taken a much tougher stance on those two issues. That also won him the
kind of mass popularity no other army chief had received. But there has
also been criticism within and outside the military of over-projection
of his personality by an overactive ISPR that tweets his every movement.
His frequent foreign travels have also raised many eyebrows. One is
not questioning the importance of most of those visits, but some others
could have been avoided.
There is no denying Gen
Sharif’s role as a leader, but it is the military as an institution that
has made those successes possible. One must also not take away the
credit from his predecessors who led operations in Swat, South
Waziristan and other tribal areas. The North Waziristan operation could
not have succeeded without other tribal regions having been cleared
earlier.
Certainly, a lot more has to be done before the
situation in the tribal areas can be stabilised and militancy
eliminated from the country. But it does not depend on one person to
take this existential battle to its conclusion. With the entire top
brass battle-hardened there is little possibility of course reversal by
the future military leadership.
One must learn from the
past experience of generals getting extensions. The controversy over Gen
Ashfaq Kayani getting a second term refuses to die down. However
effective and brilliant one may be, no one is indispensable.
One
expects that being a highly professional and dedicated soldier Gen
Raheel Sharif will keep his promise and pass on the baton to the next
chief who one hopes will take his mission forward. Also, the government
must clear the ambiguity over the rumours about his appointment as field
marshal. Such controversies demoralise the troops. That is the last
thing the armed forces need when they are engaged in battle so critical
for the country’s security and its survival.
0 comments:
Post a Comment