It ain’t over…
A nation of 200 million people will wait with bated breath for a handful of individuals to decide its fate
PHOTO: PICSSR/Mobeen Ansari
Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Dhaka — the carnage seems all very familiar in a morbid way. We in Pakistan have been through all this, and more. And yet we see the images of anguish and heartbreak flooding in from these terror-stricken sites and we feel… nothing?
This may not be entirely true though. In fact, perhaps the opposite — tears have dried up burying so many so often. If a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, we have millions already seared on our souls. And yet some part of us wants to tell Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka: now do you know what we have suffered and braved all these years?
But we should not say it. Tomorrow we could be where these cities are today. Make no mistake, we are better off after Operation Zarb-e-Azb but while so much has finally gone right, a whole lot continues to go wrong.
Uncomfortable questions persist. Lift the carpet and you will find them there ready to pop back out. Questions nobody wants to face up to, let alone answer; questions that pertain to matters of an existential nature; matters that resemble those unfolding in Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka. These questions will not go away with the going away of those who are meant to answer them.
Today we are as unsafe as Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka. What are we doing about this?
Ask the prime minister. He’s the commander-in-chief. Except not really.
Ask Imran Khan. He’s the PM-in-waiting. Except he’s still not sure who to blame.
Ask Bilawal Bhutto. Except don’t.
Ask Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Except he is part of the problem.
Ask politician X, Y, Z. Except why waste your breath?
Ask the Chief of the Army Staff. Except he won’t be around in a few months.
Ask the person who drafted the National Action Plan. Except he will tell you a sob story about how the plan got lost somewhere in the political minefields of Islamabad.
That’s no breaking news if you were wondering. We have all known for a while now that the National Action Plan has been cherry-picked by various stakeholders depending on their own convenience and priorities (or lack thereof). We have all known for a while too that this very issue has prompted the military to snap at the civilians more than once. And sadly, we have all known for quite a while that this snapping has not led to much progress.
In other words, we’re still in a hole. Give it time, you may argue. And you may be right. But in fact, you are not. Here’s why:
Time can be compressed through sheer will. The previous army chief did not have the will to do what needed to be done and so months became years and years translated into tens of thousands of us dead. The incumbent chief did not have the time (three years is not a long stretch) but he had the will. So he did what needed to be done within a very short span of time. Both men commanded one of the largest standing armies of the world. Both men also faced the same set of politicians at home. And yet both men chose different approaches with radically different outcomes.
This much is obvious. What is less obvious, and therefore much more crucial, is this: did individual choices make the difference where institutional leadership should have?
Herein lies the soul of our dilemma: Kayani said no, so it was no for one of the largest armies in the world. Kayani said no so the half a million strong force reined in the awesome firepower at its disposal while the enemy cut us down by the thousands. And ‘us’ meant everyone in and out of uniform. But when Raheel said yes, the same force moved with speed and conviction and cut the enemy down.
The discomfort is obvious: if we chance upon a good individual, we shall prevail and if we do not…
Flip the argument on the civil side and the situation gets worse. Generals retire, politicians don’t. Will the Sharifs take the battle to the enemy? The prime minister couldn’t even pretend to be the commander-in-chief when General Raheel launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Sharif wanted to negotiate with the enemy. And Sharif ain’t going anywhere. Even if he did, there’s another Sharif to replace him. And another. And another.
Will Imran Khan take the battle to the enemy? Heck, he just gifted millions of dollars to a friend of the enemy. If Khan were in power, he would not save us from the enemy; he would sell us to them. And Khan ain’t going anywhere. Even if he did, there’s Tareen and Qureshi and Aleem and Sarwar. Enough said.
Bilawal ain’t going anywhere. Neither is Zardari or Maulana Fazlur Rehman or hereditary leaders of other outfits. Together these men with feet of clay refused to take on the enemy when the enemy was at the gates. Together they refused to take on the enemy when the enemy crashed through the gates and decapitated our children. Together these men repeatedly fell short of their national duty.
They had the mandate. They did not have the spine.
And they still do not. For if they did, madrassas would have been reformed, curriculums would have been changed, public education would have improved, police forces would have been revamped, Nacta would have been empowered and apologists for the enemy would have been put to pasture.
Come November, Rawalpindi will have a new individual and Islamabad will be burdened with old individuals. Institutions and parties will wait for the individuals to tell them what to do, when to do, and in some cases how to do. A nation of 200 million people will wait with bated breath for a handful of individuals to decide its fate.
If we chance upon a good individual, we will prevail. If we do not…
Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Dhaka. It ain’t over for us yet.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 3rd, 2016.
This may not be entirely true though. In fact, perhaps the opposite — tears have dried up burying so many so often. If a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, we have millions already seared on our souls. And yet some part of us wants to tell Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka: now do you know what we have suffered and braved all these years?
But we should not say it. Tomorrow we could be where these cities are today. Make no mistake, we are better off after Operation Zarb-e-Azb but while so much has finally gone right, a whole lot continues to go wrong.
Uncomfortable questions persist. Lift the carpet and you will find them there ready to pop back out. Questions nobody wants to face up to, let alone answer; questions that pertain to matters of an existential nature; matters that resemble those unfolding in Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka. These questions will not go away with the going away of those who are meant to answer them.
Today we are as unsafe as Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and Dhaka. What are we doing about this?
Ask the prime minister. He’s the commander-in-chief. Except not really.
Ask Imran Khan. He’s the PM-in-waiting. Except he’s still not sure who to blame.
Ask Bilawal Bhutto. Except don’t.
Ask Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Except he is part of the problem.
Ask politician X, Y, Z. Except why waste your breath?
Ask the Chief of the Army Staff. Except he won’t be around in a few months.
Ask the person who drafted the National Action Plan. Except he will tell you a sob story about how the plan got lost somewhere in the political minefields of Islamabad.
That’s no breaking news if you were wondering. We have all known for a while now that the National Action Plan has been cherry-picked by various stakeholders depending on their own convenience and priorities (or lack thereof). We have all known for a while too that this very issue has prompted the military to snap at the civilians more than once. And sadly, we have all known for quite a while that this snapping has not led to much progress.
In other words, we’re still in a hole. Give it time, you may argue. And you may be right. But in fact, you are not. Here’s why:
Time can be compressed through sheer will. The previous army chief did not have the will to do what needed to be done and so months became years and years translated into tens of thousands of us dead. The incumbent chief did not have the time (three years is not a long stretch) but he had the will. So he did what needed to be done within a very short span of time. Both men commanded one of the largest standing armies of the world. Both men also faced the same set of politicians at home. And yet both men chose different approaches with radically different outcomes.
This much is obvious. What is less obvious, and therefore much more crucial, is this: did individual choices make the difference where institutional leadership should have?
Herein lies the soul of our dilemma: Kayani said no, so it was no for one of the largest armies in the world. Kayani said no so the half a million strong force reined in the awesome firepower at its disposal while the enemy cut us down by the thousands. And ‘us’ meant everyone in and out of uniform. But when Raheel said yes, the same force moved with speed and conviction and cut the enemy down.
The discomfort is obvious: if we chance upon a good individual, we shall prevail and if we do not…
Flip the argument on the civil side and the situation gets worse. Generals retire, politicians don’t. Will the Sharifs take the battle to the enemy? The prime minister couldn’t even pretend to be the commander-in-chief when General Raheel launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Sharif wanted to negotiate with the enemy. And Sharif ain’t going anywhere. Even if he did, there’s another Sharif to replace him. And another. And another.
Will Imran Khan take the battle to the enemy? Heck, he just gifted millions of dollars to a friend of the enemy. If Khan were in power, he would not save us from the enemy; he would sell us to them. And Khan ain’t going anywhere. Even if he did, there’s Tareen and Qureshi and Aleem and Sarwar. Enough said.
Bilawal ain’t going anywhere. Neither is Zardari or Maulana Fazlur Rehman or hereditary leaders of other outfits. Together these men with feet of clay refused to take on the enemy when the enemy was at the gates. Together they refused to take on the enemy when the enemy crashed through the gates and decapitated our children. Together these men repeatedly fell short of their national duty.
They had the mandate. They did not have the spine.
And they still do not. For if they did, madrassas would have been reformed, curriculums would have been changed, public education would have improved, police forces would have been revamped, Nacta would have been empowered and apologists for the enemy would have been put to pasture.
Come November, Rawalpindi will have a new individual and Islamabad will be burdened with old individuals. Institutions and parties will wait for the individuals to tell them what to do, when to do, and in some cases how to do. A nation of 200 million people will wait with bated breath for a handful of individuals to decide its fate.
If we chance upon a good individual, we will prevail. If we do not…
Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Dhaka. It ain’t over for us yet.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 3rd, 2016.