Business Recorder Editorial November 30, 2019

Investigation Officers taken to task

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, addressing police officers during a visit to the Central Police Office in Lahore on November 23, 2019, made the timely and pertinent observation that if an Investigation Officer (IO) produces false witnesses in a case, he would be held equally responsible for the crime. He underlined the critical role of Investigation Officers and their instrumentality in the provision of justice, which includes their official responsibility to submit challansin court within the given time limit, according to the law. The Chief Justice emphasised that the testimony of false witnesses should not be made part of any record, as had been the wrong practice since 1951. It is time now that this practice should be discouraged at all levels. The courts have taken action against 15 false witnesses till now, the Chief Justice revealed. On the question of a true witness being ‘weak’ and lacking the courage to present himself in court, thereby opening the door to false witnesses, it needs to be pointed out that in our society, the rich and powerful are in a position to browbeat the poor and weak, and this repressive structure is what lies behind this particular flaw in our judicial system. What is missing, despite being debated and suggested over many years, is an effective witness protection programme along the lines of the system in vogue in developed countries. The Chief Justice went on to guide the police officers in attendance on the role of the judiciary: the institution was supposed only to do justice according to the law. False witness, he went on, is in itself a crime. The objective of the investigation carried out by an Investigation Officer was only to find out the ground realities and facts, not take the statement of the plaintiff as proof of the veracity of the First Information Report (FIR). These realities and facts as revealed by the investigation then had to be conveyed to the court.

There is much wrong with our creaking judicial system, not the least of which are the cumbersome procedures entailed in the pursuit of justice. If to these procedural and structural impediments is added the practice (some would say habit) of police IOs to bend the facts of a case either for malign purposes (including bribery and corruption) or sheer laziness and convenience, this obviously cannot serve the ends of justice. Interestingly, one cannot recall any instances in the past of any Investigation Officers being charged and punished for perjury because of presenting false witnesses or testimony in court. That is a lapse the judiciary needs to cogitate. While Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa dilated in his address referred to above on some of the judicial and court system reforms he has instituted on his watch, including tackling the mountain of pending cases at all tiers of the judiciary, it is in the foundations of our investigation and prosecution system under the police that the origins of many of the flaws in our judicial system can be traced. Without reforming this base, the pyramid of the judicial system will continue to suffer from distortions, injustice, and the ensuing questioning of the credibility and capability of the judicial system to deliver justice according to the law.

Business Recorder Editorial November 29, 2019

A landmark case

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan has just passed through a nightmare few days. Regarding the extension in tenure by three years of the COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa notified in August 2019 by Imran Khan, the government has had to face the kind of embarrassment before the Supreme Court (SC) that one would not wish on one’s worst enemies. And yet this is only the latest self-inflicted wound by the incumbents. It is just as well that Law Minister Farrogh Nasim resigned, ostensibly to defend the (SC-suspended) extension to General Bajwa before the SC since it was on his watch that the debacle unfolded. The level of incompetence enfolded the legality of the original notification as well as at least three fresh but just as flawed summaries/notifications presented before the SC. A superfluous amendment in the Army Regulations (Rules) was critiqued by the SC on the grounds that the impugned Regulation 255 had nothing to do with the COAS’s appointment or extension. At the same time, the legal wizards of the government were arguing before the SC that the extension/reappointment was under Article 243 of the Constitution, the legality of which was questioned by the SC. Had the SC chosen to, it could have created even more embarrassment for the government and the army. Leaning on the side of caution so as not to make matters worse and possibly create a constitutional/political crisis, the SC wisely chose a middle path that helped extricate the fumbling government from the self-created maze it seemed trapped in and avoided any vacuum of leadership in the army. In its short order, the SC allowed General Bajwa to continue in his position for six months in return for a commitment from the government that it would bring in legislation before that period expires to deal with the lacunae, gaps and anomalies in the appointment and/or extension in tenure of the COAS.

Now the ball is in the government’s court. How it proceeds from here on in this sensitive matter could either salvage something from the wreckage of its foolish and incompetent performance or reinforce the image of it being not quite up to the task of governance. One can understand (and there are statements on record by Imran Khan) the anxiety of the government in wanting General Bajwa to stay till near the end of its term. The PM and the COAS enjoy a rare mutual confidence of which we have been constantly reminded by the mantra of ‘being on the same page’. It is therefore doubly baffling how the government made such a mess of an issue so close to its heart and in its own perception critical to its continuation in office. The handling of the issue has proved a perfectly avoidable embarrassment to the government, the army, and even the superior judiciary. The post-verdict situation does warrant introspection from the civilian-military leadership. As to the superior judiciary being dragged by Indian media and other inimical sources onto the terrain of ‘fifth generation warfare’, there is no escape from the duty enjoined by the law and constitution and the now seemingly critical need to pronounce on the matter of COASs’ extension in tenure in the light of our history, laws and rules. Clarification of these matters is now an urgent and inescapable need. As to the government, while it reportedly seeks scapegoats to blame for its debacle, it should perhaps return to the drawing board and introspect on the glaring inadequacies and incompetency this entire episode has so startlingly thrown up.

The situation presents a sardonic comment on the way of governance in the country of 208 million people: how unfortunate it is that a government that has failed to honour its pledge of creating 10 million new jobs jeopardised the job of an army chief – perhaps the most secure government post. The upside of this episode, however, clearly indicates the country’s struggle towards attaining high levels of democracy.

Business Recorder Column November 26, 2019

War of words on CPEC

Rashed Rahman

US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Alice Wells virtually put the cat amongst the pigeons in a speech at the Wilson Centre in Washington on November 22, 2019 in which she cautioned and warned Pakistan about the pitfalls of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. The thrust of her remarks about CPEC centred on the risk of Pakistan being pushed deeper into an already stifling debt burden, non-transparent and overpriced projects fostering corruption, and jobs and profits being repatriated to China. She argued that CPEC was not aid but a form of financing that guarantees profits for Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), with little benefit for Pakistan. She advised us to ask tough questions of the Chinese regarding why they were pursuing an economic model in Pakistan that was so different from the model they themselves had pursued to achieve high economic growth. She also touched on the lack of transparency regarding the terms on which projects are being pursued under CPEC. She pointed to the $ 15 billion debt to the Chinese government already accumulated, along with $ 6.7 billion commercial debt.

Ms Wells underlined that these were loans, not grants, whose deferment in case Pakistan is unable to meet scheduled repayments would still leave an overhang that would hamstring Imran Khan’s reform agenda. (It is another matter that this has already happened, not because of CPEC, but because, according to Hafeez Sheikh, the government does not have the money.) Alice Wells also pointed to the fact that CPEC projects did not offer jobs to Pakistanis since both workers and supplies came from China, in the middle of a desperate need for jobs for Pakistanis. In contrast, Ms Wells argued, although the US could not muster SOEs to invest in Pakistan but private US companies offered a better economic model since they brought with them values, processes and expertise to build local capacities. She also touched on Gwadar port being developed by China, pointing to Indian (and, one could argue, western) sensitivities regarding the possibility of it morphing into a military-naval base for the Chinese virtually at the mouth of the Gulf through which some 25 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass.

In response, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Yao Jing, Federal Planning Minister Asad Umar and his ministry dismissed Alice Wells’ critique as ‘uninformed’, off the mark and propaganda. CPEC would not burden Pakistan with crippling debt, they asserted, and Yao Jing reiterated China’s adherence to its solid relations with Pakistan by saying if Pakistan was unable to meet its debt obligations to China, the latter would not insist on it but defer the repayments. The argument was also mooted that US, western and multilateral sources of lending were far more stringent on repayment conditions and schedules, with little or no flexibility or room for manoeuvre.

Alice Wells’ frank critique of CPEC comes amidst a period of rebuilding the turbulent US-Pakistan relationship and Washington’s recent launch of a major offensive against Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), of which CPEC is a part. Wells’ critique could be interpreted as a sign of Washington’s worry that it is losing strategic space in its relationship with Pakistan to rising global rival China. But it would be foolish to dismiss her arguments out of hand simply as propaganda or simply motivated by Washington’s strategic interests.

Whatever else one may say about it, there is no gainsaying the fact that China committed over $ 60 billion in investment in Pakistan under CPEC when no other country or international institution was willing. The initial phase of CPEC involves communications infrastructure and energy projects, with the Special Economic Zones (SZEs) along CPEC to be now developed in the second phase. This is all to the good, but irrespective of Alice Wells’ motivations, there do exist questions in Pakistani minds about CPEC for which clear answers are required.

First and foremost, the lack of transparency regarding CPEC is something that dates back to the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government, with Minister in charge Ahsan Iqbal unable to satisfy queries regarding the shape and terms of CPEC. That situation continues to this day, leaving a residue of concern and confusion. Wells has referred to the possibility of surrender of assets and diminishing sovereignty if repayment schedules are not met. Perhaps she had in mind the case of the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, which the Chinese developers took over under a 99-year lease when the recipient country was unable to service its debt incurred for what appears with hindsight to have been an unfeasible project in the first place (being off the main sea lanes passing by Sri Lanka, most traffic being handled by Colombo port on the western, opposite side of the island). There have been sketchy reports of similar actual or potential takeovers by China of projects that could not service their debts in Africa and Latin America. But while these examples may serve as a cautionary tale, China’s approach in CPEC appears different for the following reasons.

CPEC’s main aim is the development through trade (and its concomitant industrialisation) of its westernmost and troubled province of Xinjiang. The rapid but inherently unequal development of China over the last 40 years has produced, despite lifting 700 million people out of poverty and into a middle class existence, imbalances between the cities and the countryside, the eastern seaboard versus the inland hinterland, and between the obscenely rich billionaires and the middle class on the one hand and those ‘left behind’ amongst the working class and peasantry. Xinjiang is particularly sensitive since it has not been able to avoid the spillover from the Afghan wars in the shape of a Muslim extremist movement that seeks to break away from China. CPEC offers, through Pakistan and the new developing port of Gwadar on the Balochistan coast, a lifeline for the rapid development of Xinjiang to be able to offer the Muslim Uighurs of the province the same deal that has been implemented in the rest of China over the last four decades: economic prosperity (through the embrace of capitalism) in exchange for loyalty to Communist Party rule.

Pakistan dos not enjoy a reputation as a good negotiator. CPEC illustrates this truth. China’s need to obviate Muslim fundamentalism and extremism amongst the Uighurs could have been leveraged by Pakistan in its own interests. But old habits die hard, and Pakistan’s addiction to client state status (first the US, now arguably China) blinded us to the cards we held in our hand. Concerns amongst our business community about Chinese practices of leveraging project investment under CPEC to allow exclusive imports of Chinese plant and machinery and overwhelmingly Chinese technicians and even labour first found expression in the early days of the Imran Khan government when Advisor Razzak Dawood gave an interview to the Financial Timesto the effect that local businesses had yet to benefit from the spoils of CPEC. This annoyed the Chinese, and according to Mushahid Hussain, COAS General Bajwa had to rush to Beijing to mollify our Chinese friends.

The BRI, of which CPEC is a relatively small part, is the outcome of four decades of rapid capitalist development in China, whose outcome in line with the historical tendency of developed capitalism is now to seek outlets for investment abroad since the domestic market is no longer enough. Whereas western powers exercised this tendency initially through colonialism and imperialism, after WWII, they have instituted a worldwide system of extracting surplus from the developing world without (necessarily) occupying foreign lands. So while it is difficult to swallow Alice Wells’ rosy picture of western capitalism and its ‘benign’ effects in countries like Pakistan, we need to be aware of the risks a late developing capitalism in China could entail for us and our best interests.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial November 26, 2019

New terms of endearment?

Relations between Pakistan and the US seem to have taken a turn for the better since the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan came to power last year. The latest positive development in these relations is the prisoner exchange of two western hostages held by the Taliban with three of the latter’s cadres, an exchange in which Pakistan has played an important part. As a follow up of this development, PM Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump had a telephonic conversation on November 21, 2019 in which the latter thanked Pakistan for its help in getting the western hostages released. White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere released a statement after the conversation between the two leaders to reveal that they reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the US-Pakistan trade relationship, which is reportedly on track to set a new record this year, as well as US investment in Pakistan and people-to-people ties. PM Imran Khan’s visit to Washington in July 2019 lent a positive dimension to the troubled ties. During the telephonic conversation, the PM once again brought the fraught situation in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) to President Trump’s notice and reiterated Pakistan’s desire for the US president to follow up on his mediation offer on the issue during Imran Khan's July 2019 visit. In essence, Pakistan’s efforts for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan are expected by Islamabad to provide diplomatic leverage to persuade Washington to play a role in the easing of the ongoing lockdown in IHK. However, realism dictates that we remind ourselves of the caveat President Trump introduced after that initial mediation offer, i.e. only if both sides wished it. Since India is stubbornly against any third party mediation, this is a bird that is unlikely to take flight anytime soon. Nevertheless, PM Imran Khan’s reiteration to President Trump of Pakistan’s desire for facilitating peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan must have gone down well with the US president. This is because Trump has made no secret of his desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, but without losing face and while ensuring all the sacrifices of US lives and money in constructing and supporting the Afghan government are not undone as soon as US troops leave.

It should be recalled that when President Trump assumed office in 2016, he made no bones about his annoyance at the fact that Washington had given millions of dollars in ‘aid’ to Pakistan since the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and allegedly got nothing in return except the support of Islamabad to the Taliban responsible for US military casualties and other losses. It was this irritation that led Trump to announce the freezing of all ‘aid’ to Pakistan. The ground reality however is that even if it is conceded that Pakistan fathered the Taliban in 1994 amidst the chaos and anarchy of the intra-mujahideen civil war in Afghanistan, to think that the Taliban, let alone any proxies, are merely extensions of a sponsoring state’s authorities is to underestimate the dynamic that takes over wars of this nature over time. More often than not, the ‘proxies’ acquire autonomy from the original sponsor, sometimes to the point of independence. Pakistan may still have influence and leverage over the Taliban, as the prisoner exchange mentioned above indicates, but to equate this with Islamabad’s unlimited ability to persuade or pressurise the Taliban to do its bidding would be a mistaken understanding of the real situation. If the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath are taken as an example, Pakistan was unable to persuade the Taliban government to distance itself from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity. Having said that, Pakistan still can and is willing more than ever to exercise its influence with the Taliban to facilitate the peace process. But for Islamabad to pay a positive role in this regard, Washington too has to wend its way back from Trump’s declaration that the peace talks are dead to re-engaging the Taliban in talks.

Business Recorder Editorial November 22, 2019

Winds of change?

Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) former Justice Javed Iqbal while addressing an award distribution ceremony on November 19, 2019 made the startling comment that winds of change were coursing through the country and no one should think that the present rulers were exempt from accountability. Ostensibly the context was his strong contestation of the perception that NAB had been conducting one-sided accountability (if not a politically partisan witch-hunt). However, his statement that the perception of one-sidedness was incorrect as they had to first look into the cases of those who had been in power for the last 30-35 years and would now have to look into the cases of those who had been in power for the last 12 months or so sparked off a debate on the meaning of Justice Iqbal’s defence of NAB’s record. He went on to assert that there would be no deal, leniency or NRO-like concessions to anyone as there cannot be any compromise on the eradication of corruption. Justice Iqbal made it clear that the threats of the powerful and influential end outside the gates of NAB. NAB’s target of achieving a corruption-free Pakistan was a national duty that no one could deter him from carrying out. He advised those politicians who were on NAB’s radar and were criticising the accountability watchdog to opt for the plea bargain option. He said NAB was not allowed to work in Sindh but would not be deterred by the obstacles the Sindh government was allegedly putting in NAB’s path. The Chairman NAB highlighted the fact that 1,270 references were still pending before the accountability courts in which only 25 judges were hearing them. He advocated the number of judges be raised to at least 50 to ensure quicker disposal of these pending cases. Justice Iqbal conceded that investigating white-collar crime was no easy task, especially since such crime transcended borders.

While the speech of Justice Iqbal has set off a storm of speculation on whether the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government was now going to be targeted by NAB, it bears recalling that NAB has been severely criticised by the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) but of late also by the ruling PTI for ‘selective accountability’ and the ‘harassment of investors and the bureaucracy’. The latter in particular has aroused the ire of the government as it has impacted investment and paralysed the bureaucracy. If the purpose of Chairman NAB former Justice Javed Iqbal was merely to redress the widely held perception of one-sided accountability, there can be no quarrel with that. However, the timing and the explicit reference to the PTI government have certainly sent tongues wagging whether there is more to this development than meets the eye. If Justice Iqbal wishes to restore and enhance NAB’s credibility in the face of the negative perceptions of its functioning on his watch, he could do worse than address some of the anomalies if not rough methods that have characterised its actions. And if all-sided accountability is conducted to include the ruling party, that would certainly go a long way towards righting the negative perceptions of NAB’s track record so far. 

Business Recorder Editorial November 21, 2019

A visibly upset prime minister

In a long and rambling but aggressive speech at the inaugural ceremony of the Havelian-Mansehra section of the Hazara motorway on November 18, 2019, Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan lashed out at his political opponents in his trademark style. Needless to say, the thrust was on corruption, accountability, and not offering any NRO to them, which he characterised as an ‘unforgivable sin’. He also lambasted the sit-in staged by Maulana Fazlur Rehman in Islamabad in which the two main opposition parties’ leadership also put in an appearance as a ‘circus on a container’, aimed solely at avoiding accountability. Boasting of being an expert at dharnas(sit-ins, a reference to his 126-day dharnain 2014), he took a swipe at the opposition’s sit-in by saying he had promised the protestors he would accept all their demands if they stuck it out for a month. He criticised the maulana and the leaders of his Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) for remaining cosy in warm rooms while their workers braved the cold and the rain and said innocent seminary students were duped into participating. He also levelled the charge that the timing of the dharnadistracted attention from the crisis in Kashmir. He went on to argue that Shahbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari joined hands when asked to return looted wealth. He then mocked Bilawal by mimicking him, a new low even by Imran Khan’s ‘lofty’ standards. Questioning Bilawal’s credentials as a ‘liberal’, Imran Khan dubbed him ‘liberally corrupt’. Bilawal gave it back to Imran Khan in similar vein.

But through all the familiar rhetoric and fire and brimstone the PM delivered, the really important message was the one he sent to the judiciary. Addressing the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and senior judge of the Supreme Court Justice Gulzar Ahmed, he asked them to restore public trust in the judiciary by ensuring speedy, quick justice for all, high and low. What was surprising about this ‘message’ was the fact that in the past Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) had benefited greatly from this same judiciary. The only way to make sense of this diatribe was logically to surmise that the PM was angry at the verdict delivered by the Lahore High Court (LHC) allowing ailing Nawaz Sharif to travel abroad for treatment on a personal surety of returning. Imran Khan sarcastically said the government had ‘only’ asked for indemnity bonds of Rs 7 billion from the Sharifs, which for them was small change. In the next breath he questioned the undertaking accepted by the LHC. Repeating (ad nauseam?) his ‘ruthless accountability’ mantra, Imran Khan used analogies from his cricketing days to indicate he was up for the challenges confronting him. Political and legal circles have criticised the PM’s speech as below the dignity of his exalted office. It was a polarising speech, as though the country did not have enough of that commodity already. Commentators are weighing in with analyses that argue the LHC decision has really got Imran Khan’s goat because his alleged scheme to extract Rs 7 billion in indemnity bonds from the Sharifs could have been used as ammunition to argue he had recovered this looted wealth as he has been promising to do for years now. Others are speculating whether the speech portends some kind of pressure or apprehension in Imran Khan’s mind that the present set-up may be unravelling. Discontent amongst the PTI’s coalition partners, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Sindh’s Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA) has grown and is now being openly expressed. On the other hand, Director General Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Asif Ghafoor has felt compelled to reiterate the ‘same page’ mantra. The flurry of speculation and conspiracy theories may or may not be the harbinger of political change in the offing, but Imran Khan’s speech and the other developments mentioned above are feeding into the rumours furnace.

Business Recorder Column November 19, 2019

Shooting oneself in the foot, repeatedly

Rashed Rahman

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government of Imran Khan has shown a rare talent for shooting itself in the foot again and again. The whole handling of the Nawaz Sharif health issue is the latest and perhaps most egregious example of this habit. Despite Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan himself making noises about not politicising Nawaz Sharif’s health and medical treatment issues, he and his government and party leaders seem unable to escape the trap of misplaced concreteness, lowering the political discourse into the gutter, and making utter fools of themselves.

As though there had not been enough stupidity on display on the issue, Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan and Accountability hatchet man Shahzad Akbar once again tried to ‘creatively’ portray the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict on letting Nawaz Sharif proceed abroad without the government’s desired indemnity bonds of over Rs seven billion as a ‘victory’ (although patently hollow) for the government. In a press conference on November 17, 2019, they tried to depreciate the LHC decision as ‘interim’ (i.e. final judgement yet to come in January 2020 at the earliest, by which time it may not matter), and based on humanitarian grounds that vindicated the government’s stance on assurances required to ensure Nawaz Sharif’s return, all this while announcing the decision would not be challenged in the Supreme Court. Here too the house divided that PTI is produced out-in-the-relative-cold minister Fawad Chaudhry’s wisdom that it should be challenged. This is just another example of the confusion and lack of discipline in the ranks of the PTI.

Had the LHC verdict truly been an expression of the government’s thinking and wishes as Mansoor and Shahzad tried to interpret it, why would the federal cabinet have asked its legal team to study the judgement and brief it so it could discuss it knowledgeably regarding the issue of removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL)? If truth be told, the LHC has delivered a body blow to the PTI government’s credibility and image. Now after all this to and fro palaver, Nawaz Sharif seems poised to fly out to London today (November 19, 2019).

Is that the end of the story? Will Nawaz Sharif fulfil the commitment to the LHC that he would return in four weeks or as soon as the doctors declared him fit? There is no reason to think otherwise, given his track record of having returned in unfavourable political circumstances during the Musharraf regime’s dying days and even when his late wife was dying in hospital in London. Let us hope, in the spirit of tolerance extended to political rivals in a democracy and the basic principles of humanitarianism and decency that Nawaz Sharif recovers and returns to face his court and other troubles. He is certainly not expected to fritter away a lifetime’s investment in his party’s fortunes at this point by running away.

The conspiracy theory lobby, being the guardians of the only growth industry in Pakistan, is going wild with theories of the ‘same page’ mantra being over. Whether this is premature wishful thinking or not, the ‘evidence’ is sketchy, speculative, and unconvincing. What are the ‘signs’ being referred to to prove this latest venture into the land of dreams and nightmares?

One, the role played by the remnants of the original King’s Party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), in the shape of the Chaudhry brothers is cited. They took presumably a message from their masters to Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding his sit-in in Islamabad. The terms of endearment on offer may not have been enough to persuade the Maulana to desist from his protest campaign completely, but it did succeed halfway in ‘convincing’ the Maulana to give up the increasingly lonely perch atop the sit-in stage in favour of a dispersed campaign dubbed Plan B. The Chaudhries have also openly advised Imran Khan to let Nawaz Sharif go abroad for treatment. Two, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has also been making similar noises vis-à-vis Nawaz Sharif of late and complaining in the same breath that it has gained little or nothing from its alliance with the PTI.

It needs to be understood that the PML-Q and MQM were inducted into the coalition government, along with the usual collaborators with every government, i.e. the colonial-era created landed class of southern Punjab, as ‘insurance’ against Imran Khan in power suddenly developing a Nawaz Sharif-style ‘independence’. However, the sane advice of the Chaudhries and MQM may just be a message to the government to halt its self-destructive tendencies, not necessarily an abandonment at this stage. With ill-advised advisers, Imran Khan is in trouble across the board, whether it be his by now tired corruption mantra, mishandling of the economy, parliament, and opposition. Those who have dumped all their eggs in Imran Khan’s basket seem worried behind the scenes by his stubbornness and incompetence. However, lacking their own Plan B (the other two main opposition parties having their backs to the wall), the powers-that-be that inducted Imran Khan through a flawed and manipulated election in 2018 must be burning the midnight oil to rescue the country and themselves from one of the worst governments in our history.

If a new Plan B cannot be found, all bets are off vis-à-vis the crisis of a vacuum of political leadership yawning in front of us and whose concequences are difficult to foretell at this point in time.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com