The patriotism
card
Rashed Rahman
“Patriotism is
the last refuge of the scoundrel” – Samuel Johnson.
Nothing
exemplifies the role of the patriotism card in our national affairs better than
the raging brouhaha about Nawaz Sharif’s interview to Dawn in which he questioned Pakistan’s increasing international
isolation despite our sacrifices in the struggle against terrorism. He pointed
out in the interview that our narrative is not being accepted and we should
look into this. But the part of the interview that has literally put the cat
among the pigeons is when he states that militant organisations are active (on
our soil). Nawaz Sharif questioned whether we should allow them to cross the
border and kill 150 people in Mumbai and goes on to ask why the trial could not
be completed.
All hell has broken
loose after the interview appeared on May 12, 2018. ISPR tweeted that a
National Security Council (NSC) meeting had been called on May 14, 2018, whose
unanimous rejection of Nawaz Sharif’s statement is being reported as these
lines are being written. After the NSC meeting, Prime Minister Shahid Khan
Abbasi met Nawaz Sharif and subsequently issued a statement defending his
leader along the lines of being either misquoted or misrepresented. Nawaz
Sharif on the other hand stuck to his guns, asserting that he had not said
anything new or wrong, quoting statements from the past of former dictator
Pervez Musharraf and former PPP interior minister Rehman Malik to substantiate
his argument.
Rehman Malik
went one better than any of the critics and defenders of Nawaz Sharif by
asserting that the Mumbai attacks of 2008 were an Indian RAW ‘sting’ operation
(presumably he meant a false flag operation). Chaudhry Nisar Ali, the estranged
former interior minister of the PML-N government predictably distanced himself
from Nawaz Sharif’s statement by blaming India for non-cooperation in the
investigation and trial of the incident. PML-N president and Nawaz’s younger
brother Shahbaz Sharif stuck to his line of not ruffling the feathers of the
establishment by reiterating the latter’s narrative vis-a-vis Pakistan’s
security considerations.
A chorus of
voices from the opposition has not just criticised Nawaz Sharif for ostensibly
embarrassing the country on such a sensitive topic but some have even called
for charges of treason to be placed against the former prime minister.
Is any of this
surprising? Does it not follow a familiar, tired script of political rivals
playing the ‘patriotic’ card against each other to paint the other in the
blackest colours on the touchstone of national interest? This and other similar
shenanigans are what the late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, both battered by
their experiences at the hands of the establishment, attempted to quell through
the Charter of Democracy. Unfortunately, the Charter was abandoned in all but
name soon after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Now the patriotic card is back
in action, its benefits extending from doing down the rival in the
establishment’s eyes while currying favour for oneself with the latter. These tactics
in the past have, even if they reaped temporary gains, rebounded against the
authors and users themselves down the road.
The political
class has internalised the ‘wisdom’ that no civilian elected government can
come to power let alone survive unless it accepts the axiom that it serves at
the pleasure and will of the establishment, irrespective of its electoral
support or popularity. The no-holds-barred rivalries amongst the political
parties in the fray are regularly and frequently used by the establishment to
further its agenda. Appearing more ‘patriotic’ than the other is how the
political parties have opted for seeking the favour of the ubiquitous
establishment.
But these are
not the only games the establishment plays or is currently engaged in. Freedoms
of the media, expression and peaceful assembly and protest are not without risk
to life and limb. In a repeat of what occurred on the eve of the Pashtun
Tahaffuz Movement’s (PTM’s) rally in Lahore on April 22, 2018, its rally in
Karachi on May 13, 2018 was preceded by the arrest and disappearance of its
activists. Although mercifully these activists were soon released, the
intimidatory intent of these actions was never in doubt.
Citizens,
particularly those who hold dissident or critical views, are now expected to
hold their peace or parrot the dominant narrative of the establishment. This
narrative consists of the assertion that Pakistan is not involved in proxy wars
(now lumped in the catch-all basket of terrorism) in its neighbourhood, is in
the forefront of the struggle against terrorism, having achieved great success
at the expense of human and material sacrifices and now confronts a ‘proxy’ war
against it from Afghan soil (the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan). Unfortunately, as
National Security Adviser Lt-General (retd) Nasser Janjua has admitted, this
narrative does not enjoy any traction in the world. Pakistan’s incremental
isolation (support from China and Russia notwithstanding) stems from the
world’s rejection of this narrative as untrue or at the very least a
half-truth.
In the hard
world of global geopolitics, such isolation is cause for much discomfort, since
whatever (indirect) actions have ensued because of the gulf between our
establishment-driven narrative and the perceptions of the world may well turn
out to be the thin edge of the wedge of more stringent steps in the offing. Our
soft underbelly remains the economy, dependent as it still is on the bilateral
goodwill of the world powers-that-be and the multilateral goodwill of the
international financial institutions still under the influence if not control
of the western powers led by the US, who are increasingly impatient with
Pakistan’s role in supporting proxy wars against its neighbours to east and
west.
If push comes to
shove, the economy is where the offensive will incrementally tighten the screws
on us till the pain becomes unbearable, in the hope that Pakistan will then
reconsider its reliance on proxy wars and return (after more than four decades)
to the (largely theoretical, it must be admitted) norms of international
relations and good (i.e. acceptable to the rest of the world) behaviour.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment