THE old gag that "military justice is to justice what military music is to music" is amusing but not wholly accurate if for no other reason than that Beethoven himself has written some rousing military marches, strong enough to make even the dead turn in their graves. If military music (occasionally) was good enough for him, no one else has the right to cavil at it.

Indeed the Army School of Music in Abbottabad should seriously think of basing some marching tunes on Beethoven's music. This would be an improvement on some of the duller melodies that have become part of the army's repertoire ever since the zeal to move away from the tradition of British things became one of the touchstones of our patriotism.

Needless to say, this spirit of reform has mostly touched the surface of the army's existence, leaving its essence still very much faithful to its British foundations. Which is another proof of our dedication to cosmetic changes: of making concessions to tokenism.

As for military justice, there should be little doubt that people at large were happily for it in the wake of the dramatic events of October 12. Indeed, the strong show of popular support for the military takeover rested on two counts: (1) people were sick and tired of Nawaz Sharif and the never-ending follies of the heavy mandate and (2) because the takeover held out the promise of swift and ruthless accountability.

Since then public perceptions have shifted. Partly because, being an emotional people, we are liable to sharp swings of mood. Partly because the military government has signally failed to keep pace with popular expectations.

When the first batch of well-heeled defaulters was caught on November 17 a wave of enthusiasm swept the country. But as the accountability drive faltered, this feeling evaporated. While the momentum may pick up again, a poor impression remains of the army's tactics. Imagine the same thing on the battle-field: the first wave of assault being brought to a grinding halt the very moment it achieves a breakthrough. It would not be called very smart generalship.

The other charge against the current accountability drive has to do with the narrowness of its focus. While those caught in the first flush of the army's revolutionary zeal remain behind bars (that too in police stations where accommodation standards are worse than in jails), other carpetbaggers known for their financial skullduggery remain untouched. This selective zeal raises questions about the army's performance.

True, evidence is required before nailing anyone. But in Pakistan the scale of plunder over the last decade and a half has been such that on a clear day the relevant evidence should be visible from the moon. From where did Humayun Akhtar get the money for his bottling interests? What explains the rise and rise of Gujrat money? Even in poor, lowly Chakwal, General Majid Malik when he first entered politics in 1985 did not own a single brick in the entire town. Thanks to 14 years of sustained effort, he is now a successful rancher and, amongst other things, part-owner of the town's biggest bus adda. This does not mean (perish the thought) that he should be crucified but his example throws light on how far successful entrepreneurship can go in Pakistan on very little. Then we say this is not a business-friendly country. Ask Sadruddin Hashwani, the hotel-owner, who likes entertaining senior military figures. He certainly would not disagree.

While it is easy to pick on politicians, the worst offenders perhaps are mandarins who remain in advantageous positions no matter which government is in power. If the true story of the Ahmad Sadiks, the Farooquis and the Saeed Mehdis were ever written, mere politicos would look like babes in the wood--barring, of course, the Sharifs, the tycoons of Gujrat and the other political pontiffs who have imparted a wholly new meaning to the marriage of power and money in Pakistan.

And what about high-flying bankers? In a sense the current drive against defaulters is flawed because it touches only the loan-takers not the loan-givers. Unless crooked bankers get it in the neck too the right precedents will not be set.

The stuck-in-the mud accountability that we are seeing, therefore, is self-revelatory. While it shows what the army is capable of when it is single-minded, it also draws a circle around its limitations. Take, for instance, the case of the Mehran Bank largesse funnelled to Muslim League politicians in the 1990 elections. How much General Beg took from the banker Yunus Habib, how much was put into secret accounts and which politicians were the beneficiaries of this bounty is all known and even on record. A former spy-master, Lt Gen Durrani, has even given a signed and sealed affidavit in this connection. Since Nawaz Sharif's name also appears in this list, he can be thrown out of politics for life on this count alone. But mention this case and faces go hard and blank. The only charitable explanation for this is that it cuts too close to the bone.

This defensive attitude is understandable but it can often be taken to excessive lengths. While the army never tires of proclaiming that it is the only effectively-functioning institution left in the country (a claim which, rightly or wrongly, finds widespread support in Pakistan), what it fails to realize is that its self-confidence on occasion falls short of the role it assigns to itself in national life. For example, it bristles too much at sharp criticism which nowhere in the world would be taken as the hallmark of a self-confident posture.

With the above paragraph as a preface, let me come straight to the disturbing case of one of my former colleagues in the Punjab assembly, Rana Sanaullah from Faisalabad. On November 25 at a meeting of suspended Muslim League parliamentarians at the residence of Ch. Pervez Ellahi in Lahore, several persons spoke, including Rana Sanaullah. Some of the remarks he made were intemperate and uncalled for. I have checked this from other sources who confirm that he said things against the army he should not have.

Two days later a case was registered against Rana Sanaullah at the Ghalib Market Thana in Lahore. On November 28 he was picked up from his house in Faisalabad and brought to the Qila Gujar Singh police station in Lahore. The morning of November 29 he remained in the lock-up. At night, I am told, around 9.30 pm he was taken out of his cell and under armed escort taken to the vicinity of the Lahore airport. There he was blindfolded and put on a jeep. After travelling some distance he was taken out, his hands were tied and so tightly yanked up that his feet could barely touch the ground. Then followed a severe whipping by two people who knew their trade, in all 20-20 lashes being given in this manner. With blood streaming down his body Rana Sanaullah was brought back to his cell at the Qila Gujjar Singh thana. Now he is lodged in Kot Lakhpat Jail.

If the information I have received is wrong I deserve to be punished. If it is correct it portrays a barbarity which brings shame on all of us. Granted that Rana Sanaullah said things he should not have. Still, he was only delivering a speech and not planning to throw a bomb or committing any other act of terrorism. But suppose, for argument's sake, it was violence he had in mind. Does even that justify the treatment he received?

Carlos was the scourge of the western world. Picked up in a sting operation from Sudan he was taken to France where he is now behind bars. But was he ever tortured or subjected to the lash? The Baader-Meinhof gang in West Germany, the Red Army in Japan, were committed to waging war against their societies. But when caught their members were not denied due process of law. Rana Sanaullah is no member of the Baader-Meinhof gang. While not an intimate of mine, I say it from personal knowledge that he was one of the more aware and intelligent members of the suspended Punjab assembly. He did not deserve this.

Since he is unknown to Madeleine Albright or Karl Inderfurth (not to mention CNN and BBC) his arrest and punishment are unlikely to ripple the waters of international tranquillity. But that is hardly the point. Such behaviour as Rana Sanaullah has suffered hurts him less than it diminishes all Pakistanis. When Najam Sethi was arrested by the last government on the grounds that a speech he had delivered in New Delhi threatened the security of Pakistan, it made Pakistan look small and ridiculous by suggesting that Pakistan was so insecure as to feel threatened by a mere speech. The same holds true for Rana Sanaullah. While his words on that particular occasion were foolish, the reaction to them shows the country in a dim light.

Since the Governor Punjab, Lt Gen Safdar, is too busy issuing orders of the day (old habits obviously dying hard) I will say nothing to him. But can the Corps Commander, Lahore, be asked to look into the matter and, if nothing else, at least ensure decent treatment for Rana Sanaullah in Kot Lakhpat Jail? A word in the end about Mushahid Hussain. The exuberance he showed as Nawaz Sharif's information minister is a matter between him and his conscience. Of concern now is his present plight. He is being held without charge, is being denied due process and his family knows nothing of his whereabouts. Why must we do things in this fashion? It is wrong and far from making us look good, only helps our enemies to paint a darker picture of us.