• Home
• Video
• Books by Ikram Sehgal
• About

Pathfinder’s column The inner circle

The induction of a new leader to a position of authority in any system means that he or she brings along a coterie of official and unofficial advisors. Those having official status are put into critical positions while those having unofficial status assume the posture that goes with their personalities, an extrovert chooses a high profile while a more moderate person adopts a more subdued role. A hard core of these people form the “kitchen cabinet”, they are expected to give independent counsel and advice, to act as honest brokers, without fear of their submissions being rejected and/or arousing the wrath of their mentor. The person in authority thus has access to various options, he has a great advantage of being able to discern and amplify the logic behind every course and above all be aware about the people’s true perceptions about his actions. Lucky indeed is that leader who has the benefit of men of integrity and intelligence around him, people who have confidence in him and themselves, those able to render counsel and advice without fear or favour, above all people who do not have vested interest or suffer from an inferiority complex. Genuine patriotism requires the ability to state truths for the national good, to have character that can stand against the wind even when it becomes a storm. The greatest service that an inner coterie can do for their leader is to keep him or her informed about the mood of the national mainstream. The best known among anyone’s “kitchen cabinet” was Harry Hopkins, a Roosevelt confidante, who inspite of his unofficial status was the surest conduit to Churchill, Stalin and other world leaders in World War 2.

The “kitchen cabinet” can transform the personality of their leader from good to bad, from bad to worse or even reverse the process. Since they have the ear of the person in authority in his more relaxed moments, he is more amenable to their advice, most actions usually stem from the last counsel heard, right or wrong. Such people are in a position of great influence and to a great extent it is their policies that become official articulation, such is their dominance. They also have the ability, because of their nearness to the top, to sanitize him completely from those whom they do not want their leader to hear, thus ensuring that he or she does not listen to conflicting advice. If their leader is not a voracious reader of newspapers and magazines, then only clippings that carry their message are permitted for his or her perusal. This ensures that the person in authority is malleable only to that message that they would like him to put forth, those with vested interest can go to any lengths to ensure this course. They create an iron curtain around their leader which puts them out of touch with reality. Two centuries later after Marie Antoinette, some of our leaders are so sanitized in their ivory towers that they really do not have their pulse on the mood of the masses and are likely to come out with a similar directive of letting the masses “eat cake” instead of bread. The most famous single personality to have dominating influence at a critical time of history was Rasputin’s hold over the Russian royal family. In fact, though he is reviled by history, Rasputin’s advice was making the monarchy gradually take into account the feeling of the masses. This was not seen too kindly by the aristocracy, he was murdered. Some of the people in our short history are responsible for so much wrong advice given at critical times about crucial issues that one would have been happy to see them consigned to history more or less in the same manner.

The unfortunate demise of Gen Asif Nawaz brings into focus the role of confidantes. Unlike his predecessor, Gen Asif Nawaz had no pretensions of being a great intellectual, however he was well-versed in military sciences and had learnt his politics first hand from his experience in Sindh. As was his undeniable right, he brought with him an inner circle of confidantes and put them in key positions in the middle military hierarchy, most were professionals of good calibre and as such he was well served. He was sensitive to the issue of clan and as much as he was proud to be a Janjua, he dropped the use of it in his official dealing. However, because of a nervous 60-day experience leading to his taking over as COAS, when he was fed with conspiracy theories and unfounded rumours about his predecessor not willing to hand over to him (because he was not the incumbent’s first choice as COAS), he developed a severe antipathy for Gen Beg. This was rather unfortunate because as Commander 5 Corps in Sindh he was a willing subordinate of Gen Beg and was in turn trusted by the then COAS to carry out his orders without question, which in fact he did as a good and loyal soldier should. The tension was developed by one or two unscrupulous people and created into virtually open animosity. The foundation of FRIENDS by Gen Beg, meant to be simply a THINK TANK, simply aroused more suspicion.

The problems usually magnify when a critical member of the predecessor’s confidantes changes colour and loyalties as soon as it becomes clear that the incumbent would soon be a lame duck. If this person simply changes loyalties that would not be a bad thing by itself, after all when the king is dead, “Long live the king” is not a callous slogan but a meaningful one that symbolizes the absolute transfer of loyalty, it is an institutional requirement that supersedes personal preferences. On the day the incumbent takes over, he must have the unswerving loyalty of all these who only a day earlier gave that to his predecessor. These are the demands of the system, but it works and it works well to ensure a smooth transition and continuity. However, if one (or more) despicable human being decides to become an activist and show he was “more loyal than the king” and being privy to the confidences of the incumbent’s predecessor, he is able to disseminate a lot of facts which when duly coloured by vested interests tends to vitiate the new incumbent’s otherwise honest assessment. Such people are not abnormal, they exist in every regime. To add to their perverse usefulness they also feed the new incumbent unlimited conspiracy theories, in Gen Asif Nawaz’s case it was the “Gul Hassan” scenario causing Gen Asif Nawaz to look over his shoulder constantly when in fact he had no need to, the COAS’ word is law to the Pakistan Army and that includes the entire rank and file. In fact such “loyalists” credentials are usually found to be suspect as they probably want to hide something, there may be something in the background that is detrimental to career advancement and, therefore, he is out to prove his loyalty by maligning the predecessor. If a man can disown his own heritage or sect what loyalty can he give to any individual or for that matter, to any institution?

Gen Abdul Waheed Kakar is now the COAS, all ranks of the Pakistan Army thus belong to him, irrespective of race, religion, caste or creed! While he must certainly rely on a closed circle of aides for counsel and advice, the whole Army is his constituency and he must take decisions based on their universal interest because they are equal to him. He must have had increasingly lonely days as Corps Commander when he was due to retire in a few months and now suddenly he must be having no shortage of friends and loyalists. His first real test would be in the promotion of Major Generals to be Lieutenant Generals in place of those who are due for retirement. At least a couple who would not have made it on merit have tried to force the issue by planning a news item or two in the media. This must not be paid any attention, the choice must be that of the present COAS as it is his sole responsibility. In this he must be guided by correct advice from those he has the highest professional regard for. The choice of Lieutenant Generals must be purely on professional merit and not on political or friendship basis or for any other reason. This selection will see Gen Waheed’s reputation for fairness confirmed. Of all the crucial decisions in Pakistan today, the paramount one is the correct choice of Lieutenant Generals. As the selection of Gen Abdul Waheed Kakar has shown, destiny is only a heartbeat away, a wrong choice could be potentially fatal for the country.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.