Ibne Siraj :
Seemingly an undiplomatic matter has perhaps led to the eruption of recent spate of violence up to an intense anti-government movement in Pakistan. But there is a little background as to how sweet turned into sour in a very short span of time. When Pakistan Prime Minister Newaz Sharif attended Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swearing-in ceremony in New Delhi, then all eyes became fixed upon both the beaming faces of two South Asian arch rivals. Fortunately, the very cordiality and exchange of precious gifts between Sharif and Modi came out as a pleasant surprise that both the leaders would soon devise ways to solve their bilateral disputes. All smiling Sharif and Modi and the way they hugged each other mingling their bosoms into one have spoken of the fact that the enmity started with the partition of greater India in 1947 would now be set into a motion to good neighbourliness. Eventually, both India and Pakistan as their first step have fixed a secretary level meeting to find modalities to resolve their outstanding issues. It was a happy news for all peace loving people in South Asia but only God knew what was in the minds of those, who have long been playing a dirty game to keep alive the rivalry between these two countries.
Despite all negative realities between the two countries, the Modi-Newaz meet signaled green for South Asia. But the Pakistani High Commissioner to India, Abdul Basit, might have troubled the water when he met a Muslim leader of the Kashmiri Independent movement. Basit’s meeting with that leader did not receive a good attention of New Delhi, where Modi has sharply reacted at such an undesired development and cancelled the scheduled secretary level meeting of the two countries. It was just like a bolt from the blue for Newaz Shahrif and also those waiting to see an amicable settlement of disputes between India and Pakistan. In the meantime, Pakistan Tahreeq-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader and former cricketer Imran Khan along with the clerics and activists of other parties have suddenly woke up with the vigor of revolution and put Newaz Sharif’s government into almost a standstill. So, it is easily understood that something is wrong somewhere. Luck has never favoured Pakistan since its creation and the United States as its ally has always added fuel to the country’s internal flame.
It is so unfortunate that Newaz Sharif instead of addressing the issue at home effectively has chosen to remain indifferent. Pakistan is a country, where principles of wisdom and political acumen, necessary for successful governance, have been missing since its birth. Sharif has also inherited this legacy but he has been in a sweet dream as a democratically elected Prime Minister. Perhaps, his unawareness has finally landed him in this trouble. His government in power for the third time started off well by taking along friends and foes by following the please-all policy of Asif Ali Zardari. More so, Zardari’s policy became a guideline for Sharif too but gradually some sort of arrogance became evident leading to such a humiliating situation now. Taking things lightly and boasting about building mega projects and infrastructures, Sharif realised far too belatedly that he was in the middle of a massive agitation against him. From his bitter experience from Pervez Musharraf, who ousted him in 1999, Sharif tried to be friendly with the new army chief, but soon realized that Gen. Raheel Shareef is a professional soldier and least interested in politics and also, according to insiders, considers Pervez Musharraf his mentor.
Army made it clear that Parvez Musharraf need not be tried, but Sharif’s decision to try the former army chief for treason was the primary cause of friction between the civilian administration and the military. Luckily for Sharif, the gulf never widened and both went on smoothly until the two well-coordinated long marches changed the situation. As the siege of Islamabad continued for longer than anticipated, the army had to take the driving seat. Sharif realised that his efforts to keep the military chief happy failed to pay off. Also seeing the police chief’s defiance to crack down on protesters in Islamabad and army’s refusal to take control of the high security “red zone,” Sharif had little option left. His political authority to govern the country dwindled and the army now seems to be back in the game. Although the army chief’s two major statements helped in melting the ice as both Imran and his clerics counterpart had agreed to negotiations: the question, however, remains how long will Sharif survive. Observers say mid-term elections and probe into last year’s polls rigging allegations will have to be considered. Whether Sharif acknowledges or not, things are now definitely not under his control.
What is going to happen in the coming few weeks or months is hard to predict. However, as things stand today, army will likely be calling the shots but would avoid taking over responsibility of state governance because of the unanimity among the politicians that parliamentary democracy has to be protected at all costs.
Anyway, a mindset has now been evident in Pakistan, where increasingly the US hatred has become the major rallying point for all the right-wing parties. Even the so-called “left-wing” in Pakistan has been forced to “defend” itself against the allegation of US appeasement. The best way to put anyone on the defensive is to accuse him of parroting the US narrative. The high point of this hatred against the US was a survey, which revealed that Pakistanis hated the US the most in the world. On social media platforms, this survey was shared widely, and various Pakistanis gave their comments centered on the theme that it was natural for Pakistanis to hate the US. The drones were often cited as the proof of aggression along with the US conspiracies to use impressionable young kids as suicide bombers to destabilise Pakistan.
Now, has the US really ruined Pakistan? The thing to be kept in mind is that Pakistan actually tops in the entire world as far as anti-US fervor is concerned. This magnitude of opposition has to have some empirical backing to be branded as “expected.” So how exactly has the US behaved with Pakistan to warrant such opposition? But more importantly, how has Pakistan been treated compared to the rest of the world? Being a global power, it is true that the US has been controversial and of course can be blamed fairly for bolstering military rule in Pakistan at least three times. Likewise, it is a fact that US involvement in Afghanistan during 1980s used religiously inspired fighters, which ended up bolstering religious extremism in the region. There all criticism is justified as Pakistan has also received the wrath of the US like Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries. Some would say the hatred against the US in Pakistan is misplaced as the enemy is within, which is totally oblivious in the process strengthening the forces of extremism through appeasement, apologetic defense or outright denial.
Pakistan is a wonderful laboratory for the world to study the cobweb of anarchy for, here the logic of mutinies is unassailable and almost all mutineers have valid points. For example, a large section of politicians are dishonest, half-educated, and spend most of their energies in interpersonal quarrels. Very few develop even elementary knowledge of statecraft. Seeing blatant incompetence of the politicians, the military generals find reasons for mutiny. However, the military generals see the use of force (dunda as they say in local languages) as the solution to most problems. Each military general who unlawfully assumed power in Pakistan either dismembered his country or sowed the venomous seeds of dismemberment. Politicians, therefore, find reasons for mutiny against the generals. A persistent tension between the generals and politicians has weakened the primacy of the constitution.
A country without stable and reliable rules of succession from one government to the next cannot deliver prosperity to the people. Pakistani politicians themselves weaken the very constitution under which they are elected or establish federal and provincial governments. Soon after a government assumes power, opposition parties begin to conspire to shorten its constitutional tenure of five years.
