In a massive act of terror early in the morning of Friday the thirteenth, as many as eighty people were killed in twin suicide blasts at the entrance of the FC training centre in Charsadda. Most of those killed were recruits of the paramilitary force.
This was the first such attack, owned by the Pakistani Taliban, after the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2 in Abbottabad. Essentially, it underlined the urgency of seriously probing the circumstances in which these terrorists are so frequently able to strike, like an enemy force, across the territory of Pakistan. Of course, the US raid in Abbottabad is the ready peg for such an investigation.
But the nation’s attention on Friday was devoted to the in-camera session of the parliament in which DG ISI, Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha is reported to have admitted the failure of his agency and offered to resign, if the parliament would demand it. A resolution was also approved by the parliament and one of its clauses related to the establishment of an independent commission to look into the Abbottabad operation.
Though the proceedings of the long session that strayed into the wee hours of Saturday were held in-camera, extensive coverage was spread across the front pages of the newspapers. There were also instant reviews, quoting sources. Information Minister Firdous Awan spoke to journalists. Chaudhry Nisar had his encounter with the press.
By and large, the focus seemed to be on the violation of our sovereignty by the American forces. It was in that context, one can see, that the ISI chief expressed his regrets. Drone attacks also figured prominently and, as Chaudhry Nisar confirmed, the vice chief of air staff told the parliament that if the government permits, Pakistan Air Force could shoot down the drones. What is the message here?
In any case, one does not know if there was a detailed review of all the questions that the Abbottabad operation has thrown up. For instance, is there any truth in the charge that the agencies may have been in collusion with some groups of the militants – what they call their ‘assets’ – and why was it possible for Osama to live and operate from such a conspicuous place in a garrison town?
Our relations with the United States should certainly be analysed. Irrespective of the popular opinion that is arrayed against America in a combative mood, this issue has a bearing on our national sense of direction. But the larger question that relates to the destiny of Pakistan is whether the military should retain the domination over civilian authorities that it has traditionally exercised.
A disturbing report has appeared in The New York Times which, quoting people who have met Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in the last ten days, says that he “seems unlikely to respond to US demands to root out other militant leaders”. Yes, he “does not want to abandon the alliance completely”.
The report, quoting a senior American official, argues that the US “will now push harder than ever for General Kayani to break relations with other militant leaders who US officials believe are hiding in Pakistan, with the support of military and intelligence service”
Considering the price that Pakistan and its military services have paid in the continuing war against terror, these charges tend to make no sense. At the same time, it is also difficult to believe that with all resources at its command, including the ones that come from the US, the military has not been able to wipe out the militants. And this ambivalence or complexity is what we need to properly sort out in a comprehensive investigation of what happened on May 2 – in the context of what had happened before and what is going on now.
We need truth, rooted in facts. We cannot continue to “doublethink” – to believe in contradictory things simultaneously. We cannot remain in denial. This may have become a cliché but there is a greater realisation of Pakistan’s survival being at stake in the present situation. It was the military mind that defined Pakistan as a security state. That formulation is now dead.
Even though the chances of an independent investigation in the Abbottabad raid have brightened, there are also some lingering doubts that even a high-powered judicial commission, perhaps of the level that Nawaz Sharif has prescribed, would not give us all the answers. After all, all our mysteries, beginning with the assassination of our first prime minister, have remained unresolved.
We did have the Hamoodur Rahman Commission that meticulously inquired into the ignominy of our loss of East Pakistan but its report was not promptly released, undermining our capability to learn our lessons from a monumental political and military debacle. In spite of the catastrophic reversal it had suffered, the ruling establishment prevailed. So did the ruling ideas, in an ideological sense.
One leading politician has said that the Abbottabad incident was the greatest national debacle after the fall of Dhaka. This means that our survival would depend on out ability to come to terms with it as a responsible and civilised nation. Hence the urgency to probe into the entire circumstances that led to this fateful denouement. This is necessary to promote the concept of accountability and transparency in the conduct of national affairs.
It is good that the media, including the talk shows on our news channels, has made a reference to some well-known commissions of inquiries held in democratic countries. The proceedings and reports of almost all such commissions were made public and their recommendations were duly enforced by the executive authorities.
However, one observation is that commissions of inquiry have not always been able to get to the bottom of specific issues and the veil was not lifted from a number of conspiracies. There is bound to be some apprehension in the minds of our citizens because of how the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report was suppressed. Could this happen again?
The obvious conclusion is that only a functioning and robust democracy can foster an environment in which institutions and high functionaries are made accountable for their actions. Pakistan’s deficit on this front is manifest in the power that has been exercised by the military establishment, particularly its security agencies.
This means that the civilian government of Pakistan must assert its authority and seek an affirmation of the democratic process. One reason why conspiracy theories have flourished in Pakistan is because people are kept in the dark about policies and projects that have a direct influence on their lives. Whose country is this, anyway? When we think of Pakistan, do we also look at its ordinary people who have surrendered to poverty and injustice?
0 comments:
Post a Comment