The New York Times

Sunday, October 17, 1999

Editorial Observer/STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Pakistan's Dangerous Addiction to its Military

It is always tempting to see Pakistan as an artificial country carved painfully out of the remnants of the British empire, a place of such virulent sectarian hatreds and corrupt leadership that only the military can hope to govern it successfully. That view has returned now that Pakistan has suffered its fourth military coup in 52 turbulent years as a nation.

Even some Pakistanis who believe in democracy but were opposed to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif welcomed military intervention to change regimes.

But if a country is unruly, having generals rule is no solution. Pakistan's last military regime, which lasted from 1977 to 1988, was a useful ally, particularly in opposing the Russians in neighboring Afghanistan. But by crushing dissent, tolerating corruption and having no accountability for 11 years, the military lost credibility among Pakistanis and was eventually over-whelmed by the nation's problems.

Last spring, Pakistan's generals got the disastrous idea of sending

forces into Indian territory to occupy the mountains of the disputed state of Kashmir. Indian guns and planes were driving the intruders out, and under American pressure Mr. Sharif wisely agreed to arrange for a face saving withdrawal. Now the generals, unhappy with Mr. Sharif's retreat, have seized power, suspended the Constitution and imposed martial law, despite the absence of any threats of turmoil in the streets.

Imagine what might have happened in Kashmir had Mr. Sharif's withdrawal agreement not prevailed. The military might well have

retaliated by bombing India's artillery positions, a step that probably would have forced Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to listen to his generals and invade Pakistan. These escalations could very easily have spiraled into a nuclear exchange.

As a nation, Pakistan always had a shaky foundation. Its name, which means "land of the pure," is drawn from some of its constituent ethnic groups. The Bengalis of East Pakistan broke off in 1971 to become Bangladesh, and the other groups have been squabbling since. Islam is not the unifying ideology that Pakistan's founders hoped it could be.

One problem is that the original building blocks of Pakistani society

- the clergy, the military and the wealthy feudal lords who owned most of the land - have fractured. Today the military is split into secular and Islamic camps. The landlords' power has flowed to a newly wealthy business class represented by Mr. Shanf.

The clergy is split into factions, some of which are allied with Saudi Arabia, Iran, the terrorist Osama bin Laden, the Taliban in Afghanistan and others. Breakaway ethnic movements flourish. Corruption, poverty, guns and drugs have turned these elements into an explosive mix.

To revive the idea of religion as the glue holding the country together, Pakistani leaders have promised many times to enforce Islamic law. But they have never been able to implement these promises because most Pakistanis are not doctrinaire in their approach to religion. Alternatively, the nation's leaders have seized on the jihad to "liberate" fellow Muslims in Kashmir, India's

only Muslim dominated state.

"The Pakistani army generals are trying to convince themselves that

defeat in Kashmir was snatched from the jaws of victory by Sharif and his stupid diplomats," said Michael Krepon, president of the Henry

L. Stimson Center. "This theory recurs in Pakistani history, and it is very dangerous."

In his address to the nation, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the army chief of staff who dismissed Mr. Sharif spoke of the military as the last

remaining viable institution of Pakistan But by imposing martial law

he has embarked on a well trod Pakistani path toward ruining that reputation Without question Mr. Sharif blundered in cracking down on dissent, trying to dismiss General Musharraf and relying on cronies and family members for advice. Some Indians like the writer M. J. Akbar, editor of The Asian Age, say that it might be easier to make a deal with Pakistan's generals now that they are overtly in charge, rather than manipulating things behind the scenes. But a major reason Pakistan has such a stunted political tradition, compared with India, is that the army has run the country for nearly half its short history. The question remains: If Pakistanis are not capable of governing themselves, why would Pakistanis wearing uniforms be any different?