 including the transfer of power from one set of the elite to another. Such an expanded role is at variance with the traditions and temperament of the military at the time of independence in 1947.” Unprecedented scrutiny of the security establishment in recent months has raised perhaps the most important question in the history of Pakistan: what is the true role of the army?
For Madison a powerful and large military, which sees its interests in perpetuating conflict by capitalising on nationalist myths to consolidate economic influence, is a grave threat to liberal democracy. Madison is absolutely right when he says that militaries consolidate autocratic power by portraying and inventing a constant state of war. In Pakistan, the great obsession is with India, even though this is largely unfounded because war between nuclear-armed nations would be unprecedented.
The real liberation of having an atomic weapons system should have been our military disengagement from India in the pursuit of robust civilian and diplomatic initiatives. The nuclear weapons programme for Pakistan’s security establishment has presented a deep dilemma, which is not being questioned by the Pakistani media. Why should we be concerned about India if we have a nuclear weapons programme and hence what is the justification for the institutions of the security establishment to expand their influence and power in Pakistani society? The nuclear weapons programme was trumpeted by the security establishment as an achievement, but unwittingly it will act as a catalyst for the dismantling of Pakistani praetorianism. Paradoxically, the nuclear weapons programme should have marked the end of Pakistan’s praetorian state, but it has only entrenched it even further and emboldened it to pursue proxy-based warfare that has come back to hurt Pakistan.
The ‘Ghairat Brigade’ (Honour Brigade) is being intellectually dishonest, morally irresponsible and in the process mutilating the concept of ‘honour’ by ignoring the real structural and institutional instabilities that Pakistan faces. The Ghairat Brigade has ignored the real causes of Pakistan’s situation and focused only on symptoms such as feudal leadership in political parties and religious extremism, which any person can point out with ease. The Ghairat Brigade only questions individual generals and officials of the army but does not question the wider institutional role of the security establishment in a democracy. The Ghairat Brigade is only unhappy about the policies of the praetorian state (and its relations with the west) and wants to take it over to use it to pursue their own fantastical policies. The Ghairat Brigade is hence not concerned about true civilian supremacy; it exhibits cheap populism at the expense of substance.
Asma Jahangir recently has been very vocal about civilian supremacy over the military. In order for such a possibility to materialise the judiciary has to play its role, but the problem is, historically speaking, the judiciary has been complacent and tacitly colluded with the praetorian tendencies.
Mahmud ultimately suggests that the “continuity of constitutional frameworks promotes political stability, which is the best antidote for praetorian tendencies in any society”. But the real point that Mahmud makes is that “in new post-colonial states…(the) search for stable and democratic constitutional frameworks is repeatedly derailed by the military’s extra-constitutional usurpations of power”.
Even though there are voices like Asma Jahangir, the judiciary is still one of the most controversial institutions of the country, rivalling the police.
The fact is there is no other alternative viable centre of power that can redress the civilian-military relationship in favour of liberal democracy. The PPP had a chance but it has chosen to maintain the autocratic status quo. Zardari could have established civilian supremacy in the aftermath of the Abbottabad incident but chose to gain the favour of the security establishment to consolidate political power.
Both the PPP and the PML-N are tribal clans based on kinship and feudalism, exploiting ties of faith and ethnicity to establish a political oligarchy with the security establishment. Neither the PPP nor the PML-N have a democratic process within their own parties or have mechanisms for accountability or transparency within their party. It is foolish for liberals to pin hope on Nawaz Sharif because the PML-N is ‘opposing’ the army only because he is in the opposition.
Pakistan needs a new brand of civilian politics and a more consistent judiciary, which can maintain independence and integrity across the board rather than having just a few exceptionally brave voices.
Pakistan’s praetorian state has managed to survive because it has been supported by a corrupt political system (and a much wider political elite comprising feudalism, the civil service and other powerful stakeholders), a historically weak judiciary and morally bankrupt politicians like Zardari.
Directed by Dwight H. Little.
Starring Brett Stimely, Rajinikanth, Anna Nicholas, Christopher Neame, Charlie Brill, Laura Albert, and Jack Kehler.
A pair of American newlyweds honeymooning in India get caught up in an adventure involving a stolen ruby, the ruthless criminal who wants it and the bumbling local police force trying to keep up.
Following Blu-ray releases of The Wind and Blood Tide earlier this year Arrow Video have once again delved into the back catalogue of Greek filmmaker Nico Mastorakis to give another movie he had a hand in making an HD makeover. In the case of Bloodstone, Mastorakis is credited as producer, editor and writer, with directing duties left up to Dwight H. Little (Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers/Marked For Death) which should make for some exciting action set pieces given his credentials.
Umm… not exactly. Bloodstone is basically the result of Nico Mastorakis clearly having watched Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Romancing the Stone and Octopussy, and then deciding that it couldn’t be that hard to write a thrilling comedy/adventure set in India. Hell, he could even get one of India’s top action stars of the time to appear in it for added credibility, which on paper was probably a good move as this script could do with as much credibility as it could muster out of its clichéd and hackneyed story about a huge ruby stolen from India by the British in the 18th century. The stone has been stolen back by small-time thief Paul Lorre (Jack Kehler – Lost Highway) who is on his way to return it to crime lord Ludwig Van Hoeven (Christopher Neame – Dracula A.D. 1972) back in India but along the way he meets honeymooning Americans Sandy and Stephanie McVey (Brett Stimely and Anna Nicholas respectively) and, in order to avoid the waiting Indian authorities – headed up by the bumbling Inspector Ramesh (Charlie Brill – Dead Men Don’t Die) – hides the ruby in Stephanie’s tennis bag.
However, during the taxi ride to the hotel the ruby falls out of the bag and remains in the back of the cab driven by Shyam Sabu (Indian action star Rajinikanth), who finds the stone and, after Stephanie is kidnapped by Van Hoeven, teams up with Sandy to rescue Stephanie and, hopefully, avoid getting killed in the process.
A straightforward plot indeed, and Bloodstone is nothing if not a straightforward movie. In fact, it is so straightforward one could call it bland, generic or extremely unexciting, and that is on the more positive end of the scale. Not that there isn’t enjoyment to be had in certain scenes but the laughter is unintentional and, in most cases, uncomfortable as Nico Mastorakis and Dwight H. Little have basically made It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum: The Movie thanks to stereotypical depictions of India and its citizens, and in particular the performance of Charlie Brill as Inspector Ramesh, who spends the entire film wobbling his head and delivering his unfunny dialogue in a cringe-inducing Indian accent; for context, Brill is from New York and clearly not Indian.
But despite his problematic performance, Brill is not the biggest issue Bloodstone has because at least whenever he is on-screen you are drawn to him, for better or for worse, and what is worse than a misjudged performance is one that is totally bland and devoid of any charisma, and in Bloodstone you get two leads whose performances are so lacking in depth or emotion you would have thought this was their first read through of the script. What makes it worse in the case of Brett Stimely is that he was dubbed in post-production by David Soul as the filmmakers thought that the actor’s natural voice wasn’t macho enough. Doesn’t look good on ol’ Hutch.
However, there are a couple of positives. Christopher Neame may have been the go-to arch villain in a lot of UK productions from that time but that is because he was so damn good at it and he doesn’t disappoint here, although he is sorely underused but when he is on-screen he chews the scenery for all it is worth. The other masterstroke is the casting of Rajinikanth, who may not have the muscle of Stallone or Schwarzenegger, or the dashing looks of Timothy Dalton, but he does have enough charm to have carried the movie himself without needing Brett Stimley to play the all-conquering American hero (badly). Bloodstone was his first English language film and it is a shame he didn’t go on to appear in more mainstream movies as he can clearly do comedy despite his grasp of English not being the best – he had to redo his lines in post-production after getting help from a voice coach – and he does have the acting chops to lift some truly dire material from out of the