Ayesha Siddiqa is a military analyst with a PhD in war studies from King’s College, London. Her recently published book, Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy has already created ripples, with the ISPR sending rejoinders to the media without actually reading the book from cover to cover, claims Siddiqa. It took her two years to write the book and three years to research it. Her earlier book was Pakistan’s Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99.
And what she says about the book:
Defining Milbus
Milbus or military business is a word coined earlier by a group of academics including me working at the Bonn International Centre for Conversion. We were looking at the military economy in different countries. I have, however, redefined it to mean military capital used for the personal benefit of the military elite but this is neither recorded nor is a part of the defence budget. The most significant component of this genre of capital are the entrepreneurial activities which do not fall under the scope of normal accountability procedures of the state, and are mainly for the gratification of military personnel and their cronies.
Army’s motive in entering politics
In 1958, the army came to power due to the personal and organisational ambitions of the then C-in-C, General Ayub Khan. The ambition had an economic dimension as well. The direct control of the state would also allow the military to monopolise national resources. It was, however, during the Ayub regime that the top leadership turned predatory. The army chief and other senior officers gained personal advantages. Henceforth, political power had two dimensions: power to control the state and its resources which could then be monopolised by the military’s top leadership and their civilian cronies.
Why Milbus as a phenomenon has assumed this blatantly predatory form in Pakistan as compared to India
Milbus is found in other countries as well. However, Pakistan’s Milbus signifies internal political and economic predation of the military. It is not found in India to the same extent as in Pakistan because of the political power of the military. The Indian leadership made sure after independence that the armed forces remained subservient to the political class and the civilians in general. In Pakistan the top leadership, starting with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, failed to institute a strong mechanism to control the military.
Nature of army’s linkages with religious extremists
The link is more political and causal than economic/business which means that the strength of the religious right helps the military sustain its significance. The primacy of the national security agenda is critical in this relationship.
Armed forces’ strategy vis-à-vis India, the composite dialogue and its impact on the army’s economic interests
The illegal military economy thrives on the military’s significance as a protector of the state and its ideology. The army will never have total peace with India. The adversary will always be propped up as a threat. Solving Kashmir is just getting rid of an existential issue. It doesn’t mean that the rivalry is over. Wars boost Milbus rather than weakening it because it justifies the military’s expansion into the state, the society and the economy. What is important to realize is that Milbus is to bolster the military’s political power. It is not about profit-making. If the generals understood profit-making, they would loosen their control of politics and the state.
Links between multinational corporations and Milbus
All military companies are making an effort to build linkages with international companies. The Fauji Foundation, Defence Housing Authorities and Shaheen Foundation have international linkages.
Class friction/conflict in the armed forces
The military economy I have discussed in my book is highly elitist. The Pakistan military is extremely class-oriented and elitist. The soldiers are treated differently from the officer cadre. The soldiers have less access to facilities which is borne out by the fact that all urban housing schemes are for officers and none for the soldiers. Moreover, they also have the benefit of discipline which is used to curb any internal class warfare.
Implications of Milbus for democracy
The military’s political and economic interests and power are intertwined. The generals will never withdraw from power as long as they have personal and financial stakes in wielding power. The problem is that these economic interests have turned the military into an independent class which now co-habits with the rest of the ruling elite. This development has eroded the military’s image as an arbiter which means that in our politically fragmented society people cannot look at the military as a neutral umpire. Hence, there is greater likelihood for the common man to turn towards an alternative ideology which could be religious extremism.
Milbus and land reforms in Pakistan
Milbus is central to the debate on land reforms because the military cannot afford to have laws which are detrimental to their personal interests and that of their civilian cronies. Since the military has evolved into an independent class which now predates with other ruling classes, it is essential to stop pro-poor laws.
Via Dawn 3rd june Books and Authors issue
