Doctrine of pragmatism

The emotion in the streets is clearly with the aggrieved party, tending to side quite heavily with Imran Khan. For remaining “neutral”, the Army has come in for a fair share of approbation. And because a lot of motivated fake news is being bandied about by those who hate both the Army and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), it becomes difficult to sift lies from the truth.

When Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) Gilani failed in his bid to become the Chairman Senate of Pakistan in early 2021, Imran Khan immediately asked for and won a “vote of confidence” with a few seats to spare, making it clear that he would complete his term as PM. However, two major things happened that drastically alter the course of things in over a year. The first was the procedural controversy about the notification for the transfer of the then ISI chief, which should not have become public. Even though it was sorted out amiably, vested interests ensured the disagreement was ruthlessly exploited.

When Taliban were successful in occupying Afghanistan in a lightning movement earlier than that scheduled by the Doha talks, which only took place because of Pakistan’s assistance, one of our intelligence chiefs carried out a publicised photo-op in Kabul. Very much like subalterns, intelligence chiefs are neither seen nor heard of. The body language suggested that Pakistan was the net beneficiary from the Taliban’s success. No one in his right state of mind would want the Taliban to take over without committing to an all-inclusive government and guarantees which included women getting their fundamental rights as enshrined in Islam. The American public hated the spectacle and chaos of the hasty evacuation at the Kabul Airport on primetime TV which was compared to Saigon circa 1975. The U.S image as a superpower took a hit.

While Pakistan was rightfully deserving in being very helpful in the Doha talks and then again during the unforeseen evacuation, instead of the plaudits we ended up on the receiving end. With Biden getting crucified domestically and internationally, one cannot blame the Americans for venting their anger on us. Our relations with the U.S, already uncomfortable because of our denial of their wish-list post-Afghanistan, further got damaged.

Our murky history about the relationship with Moscow stretches back 70 years. The then Pakistani PM Liaquat Ali Khan was invited to Moscow in the early 50s, but the PM went to Washington DC instead. This diplomatic snub was taken badly by the Soviet Union and the relationship has never been fully repaired since then. The Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty in 1971 contributed to the dismemberment of Pakistan. The lingering suspicion about Pakistan in the minds of Russians was hardened by our role in the 80s in Afghanistan which resulted in the Soviet evacuation post-Geneva talks.

Imran’s visit to Russia had been planned much before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Unfortunately the coincidence created the perception that Imran Khan was supporting the Russian aggression on Ukraine when he certainly was not. After the World War II, there has not been war on such a large scale. When Afghans, Iraqis or Syrians, etc were being killed by the thousands, they did not get much beyond lip-service. With the economic crisis and inflation gripping Europe, the Russian military threat is taken very seriously. Their aim is to isolate and overwhelm Russia economically while degrading the Russian military’s capability and morale. When any country, especially a small one, is perceived to be standing with Russia presently, the U.S and EU countries are not going to take it lightly.

Where did the apprehension about the likely consequences about Pakistan being put on the black list of FATF that the COAS expressed at the Islamabad Security Dialogue emanate from? Also mentioned was the possible sanctions stopping our US$ 20 billion exports. The FATF blacklist alone would emasculate our entire banking system from interacting with the financial world. The military hierarchy could have been simply realistic in the national interest for a pragmatic reason. For the sake of argument, such threats can also be applied to get rid of our nuclear deterrent as we have successfully deterred such pressures in the past.

Perhaps our Lordships went overboard in destroying Imran Khan’s government at midnight. With all due respect, they could have also paid heed to both the PTI defections attracting Article 63A, if not the stated foreign threat. The public backlash was very harsh which targeted both the superior judiciary and the uniform. The correct process to overcome the crisis should have been early elections, but that is neither in the PML (N) or PPP hierarchy’s interest to go for. Their “Selection and maintenance of aim” (with apologies to Clausewitz) has one solitary agenda: eliminate NAB and get rid of all the corruption cases against them.

The economic crisis is certainly baffling; every sector is showing windfall profits, be it banking, textiles, construction, cement, sugar, flour, oil and gas etc, but the Pakistani rupee fell alarmingly against the U.S dollar, both because of Afghan and domestic turmoil. It is now stabilising and so is the stock market. Farmers are getting an adequate price of their products, but in the market places their produce is only available at exorbitant prices. Why this enormous price differential?

The PTI government should have been tougher in policing markets. Who owns the sugar mills, the flour mills, the ghee mills etc? Most are owned by members of the PML (N), PPP and dissidents of PTI. The silver lining is that their faces in the new set-up gives us an opportunity to expose those crooks for what they really are.

No constitution in the world allows corruption to be legitimized, this only happens in Pakistan, and that also near midnight. When the NRO was declared null and void by the SC, all the cases before 2008 against the politicians, including almost all those presently in and around the seats of power, were revived but what about those cases against them between 2008-2018? I cannot believe that anyone in any hierarchical position of power in either the civil and/or military had no access to the mountain of evidence available in NAB, ISI, IB, MI, FIA, etc? Is our constitutional duty done by allowing such people, albeit some not convicted, to use their ill-gotten gains to buy their way again into the seat of power? Are we hypocrites to believe that this is constitutional? When criminals function in the name of justice, justice becomes a crime.

The writer is a defence and security analyst