International: Perspective - "In defence of the pen" by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa

On May 31, I also found out that doing research has become almost as difficult in my country as it has become in Iran. What I want to do today is to explain to the authorities the sanctity of research and the importance for the state and its establishment to allow people, certainly researchers, the freedom to express themselves.

May 31 was the day I was scheduled to launch my book which I had thought would be read by my peers and those interested in understanding the complex structure of Pakistan’s politics. While writing the book all I had wanted to do was contribute to the existing literature on politics and social science. Of course, I was being naïve to expect that the regime, which has huge stakes in its political and economic power, would not be unhappy with the publication.

However, I never thought they would go to the extent of trying to ban its launch. Not only did they try to block the launch, there were also definite plans to disrupt the launch at the alternative venue found in an emergency. Since sufficient media hype had been created by then, the authorities thought it wise not to use force, relying instead on other methods like cutting off the wires of the microphones so that people couldn’t hear properly or distributing the story written by the Associated Press of Pakistan against me at the venue. Distributing the APP story was intended to present an alternative view.

All officials say the book was written with malicious intent and it is flawed. But no evidence is produced in support of these claims. Three days have passed and I am still waiting for the alternative view because I believe in the freedom of research and exchange of views. This is the freedom I must have, like Haleh Esfandiari and others scholars at risk, or even those who don’t subscribe to my argument.

Research is not just based on experience or how one feels about an issue — it is about scientifically analysing material. What Haleh had done in her work, much to the displeasure of those in power in Iran, was to present an alternative view of her country, a picture of women whose lives the revolution has changed for the worse. My study, on the other hand, looks inside the power of the military and how it affects our everyday life and the future of Pakistan.

Haleh’s and mine are two perspectives but not the only ones. Social, economic and political growth (and development) in a country depends on the presentation and consideration of multiple views. I am certain about myself and I believe Haleh feels the same way that our academic works are not the end of scholarship. More needs to be done. It is only through research, analyses and peer review that we can begin to understand where we are going and how might we have gone wrong and where. What researchers and scholars do is to present an analysis and leave the rest to the people.

It was my understanding of what was my duty as a researcher that I consciously chose not to hold the emergency launch of my book on the stairs of the Supreme Court which had been offered by friends as an alternative. My decision was based on the understanding of my place in the larger scheme of things. My book is an academic venture which must be treated as such — no more, nor less.

However, as I mentioned earlier the powers that be are not amused by the contents of the work and pressure continues to be exerted on me. Like many others, I am being accused of violating the constitution. How might they have arrived at such a conclusion is beyond me. The 1973 Constitution gives me the right of expression and to present my analysis. What I have written does not violate the constitution or legal norms of the land.

I must confess, though, to one error: of saying that my religion is not the military or any other institution of the state. The armed forces, like other institutions in the country, are man-made and, hence, can be evaluated. In fact, it is the president, his generals and his cronies who are trying to turn the military into a matter of religion and faith which cannot be questioned. It was interesting to hear the information minister say that people could criticise the government but not the military and the judiciary. It is the same principle on which the national accountability ordinance is based.

The problem, unfortunately, with issues of faith and religion is that any outside argument then becomes sacrilegious. The faithful become blinded to the larger argument that there is always be the possibility of presenting more than one views.

I also happened to watch one of the television programs organised by the state and its agencies on the subject of my book. The main argument of the anchor was: should people question the military whose personnel lay down their life for us? This is certainly the line of reasoning given me a few years ago by former DG ISPR. My response to such an argument is two-fold. First, have they not watched people in the US protesting against the presence of American forces in Iraq? Second, the US military itself conducts research through organisations such as RAND that often analyses the efficacy of a certain policy. Such a research is highly beneficial for the organisation. What is even more important to understand is the fact that the body of research is an essential tool in the hands of decision-makers who can consult different views while making a decision. There is never any bar on the decision-makers to only use one or another perspective. No one analysis can be used completely.

Therefore, an analysis, which does not support the popular view of the military establishment and the government does not necessarily mean that it is based on spiteful intent or is dictated by the enemies of the state. Personally, I can speak for myself and say that I wrote this book not at the behest of any enemy or enemies of the state but because I am qualified to write a book on the armed forces.

My first work was on decision-making in the military which was appreciated by many senior commanders of the armed forces. I remember the comments of the former air chief at a meeting in which he said that he had learnt quite a few things from my work. So, now how can the same person be declared an enemy of the military and the state?

In conclusion, the only thing I would like to say is that this article is not in my defence but in defence of all embattled scholars of the world and for the freedom of the pen.

June 04, 2007

The writer is an Islamabad-based independent defence analyst and author of the book, "Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy"