Author: Kamila Hyat
Publication: Gulf News
Date: June 23, 2003
URL: http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=90928
In Lahore's crowded Shahdara area,
not far from the local police station, a "fun fair" is advertised by a
large signboard. A signboard bearing the name and insignia of the military
police, proclaims that the fair is out of bounds for all ranks, except
for those on duty.
This is apparently a "code" term
to signal that the fair is patronised, and as such protected, by the military
police. Certainly, most police officials admit they would not dare raid
the premises, even though any fair can only be organised with police permission
and this has reportedly not been obtained in the case of the Shahdara venture.
And, as many police officials and
most local residents well know, the "fun fair" is in fact a well-organised
gambling den - frequented and protected by military police. Whereas a few
tawdry sideshows do exist, and an occasional vendor ambles along selling
balloons or edibles, the places where the crowds flock are the tables where
wagers can be placed.
The gambling games include what
number a dart thrown at a spinning target-board will hit. In general, about
Rs15,000 can be picked up by anyone winning these games of chance. Though
gambling is strictly illegal in the country, more and more such "military
patronised" dens are cropping up in Lahore and in other cities.
The fair is only one manifestation
of the increased sense of immunity from law the military appears to have
acquired over the last three years. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
recently investigated a case in Multan where army officials had placed
a banner outside a textile shop, asking all military men to boycott it.
This mysterious message outside
a commercial business had been motivated by the fact that the shop owner,
Aslam Shahzad, had testified in a case involving an army officer and a
policeman in a scuffle.
The army lieutenant, in plainclothes
at the time, had violated a one-way sign along the street. Police stopped
his motorbike, and a scuffle took place with a police inspector after which
the erring lieutenant was hauled away to a police station.
Furious military officials managed
to have the police inspector involved discharged, filed charges for assault
against the shop owner who truthfully testified before a police-military
board as to the details of the incident, and terrorised the police for
weeks. Another similar incident, involving three military cadets, also
led to four policemen being dismissed.
In Sargodha, traders at a market
have reported extortion by army officers, who seem to be charging a kind
of "protection tax" or threatening the traders with cases against them.
Perhaps most worrying of all is the attitude of senior army officials.
One Lahore-based officer, reacting
to a story in Herald magazine that described the Multan incidents in detail,
accused the journalists of lacking patriotism. A similar attitude often
prevails among the growing numbers of military men heading public sector
organisations ^ who seem to have little respect or sympathy for civilians.
Indeed, the perception that civilians
are today second class citizens in the state is growing. And with the army
top brass apparently seeing any attempts to highlight wrongs committed
by men in khaki as unpatriotic behaviour, there seems to be little hope
of a change in the immediate future, as the military retains its iron hold
on affairs at all levels within the country.
