Desperate Nawaz Sharif
He wants to be remembered as someone punished for his efforts to assert civilian supremacy
The writer is a senior correspondent of The Express Tribune in Islamabad. He tweets @Kamran_Yousaf
The gloves are off and the game has only just begun. The three-time former prime minister is clearly on a warpath with the military establishment. His statement on the Mumbai attacks was not off the cuff but part of a well thought-out strategy. First, what did Nawaz exactly say that shook even the army?
“Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Explain it to me. Why can’t we complete the trial?
“We have isolated ourselves. Despite giving sacrifices, our narrative is not being accepted. Afghanistan’s narrative is being accepted, but ours is not. We must look into it,” he was quoted as saying.
His political opponents and the army interpreted the statement as implying that Pakistan is a state complicit in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. What added to the confusion was the different stance taken by PM Abbasi during the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting and at a news conference later. At the NSC, Abbasi and other participants unanimously rejected and condemned ‘incorrect and misleading’ statement. But at a news conference, Abbasi insisted that the NSC only condemned the misreporting and not the former prime minister. Meanwhile, Nawaz stood by his statement and bluntly rejected the NSC communiqué.
Although independent observers believe that Nawaz’s statement was not entirely different from what former interior minister Rehman Malik, former NSA Major Gen (retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani and even Asif Zardari had said on the Mumbai attacks, the timing of his statement and the manner in which Indian media picked up the news are in question. His critics believe that Nawaz’s 'unwarranted' statement has weakened Pakistan’s anti-terror narrative. Also they believe that the main objective of Nawaz was to divert attention from his corruption references that are now soon to be concluded by the accountability court.
What Nawaz is trying to achieve through relaying such a message is that he was ousted from power not because of Panamagate or his UAE Iqama but because he wanted to revisit the country’s foreign and national security policy. His critics, however, rightly asked: why Nawaz had not done anything or spoken about when he was in power? He was also being reminded of his decision to keep the key portfolio of foreign ministry vacant as well as lack of implementation by his government on the National Action Plan (NAP).
But far from the public perception, Nawaz, right at the outset, wanted to address the issue of non-state actors. Tariq Khosa, former DG FIA, who attended some of the initial sittings on counter-terrorism strategy, revealed that Nawaz, as prime minister, always raised the issue and asked security agencies to provide a road map for dealing with militant groups. According to Khosa, it was misperception that Nawaz had never shown interest in the subject when he was in power.
Nawaz had started developing differences with the military establishment in 2014 when he accepted the invitation by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend his oath taking in New Delhi. The GHQ, which always has a major say on foreign policy, especially on relations with India, wanted Nawaz to go slow. He ignored their advice and apparently had to cede considerable ground on foreign policy after the August 2014 sit-in by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT).
Nawaz announced that soon he would reveal names of those who were behind that four-month-long sit-in. However, efforts were being made to persuade Nawaz not to take things to a point of no return. Nawaz seems to be in no mood to back down. Perhaps, before being jailed, he wants to be remembered as someone punished not because of corruption but for his efforts to assert civilian supremacy.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 21st, 2018.
“Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Explain it to me. Why can’t we complete the trial?
“We have isolated ourselves. Despite giving sacrifices, our narrative is not being accepted. Afghanistan’s narrative is being accepted, but ours is not. We must look into it,” he was quoted as saying.
His political opponents and the army interpreted the statement as implying that Pakistan is a state complicit in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. What added to the confusion was the different stance taken by PM Abbasi during the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting and at a news conference later. At the NSC, Abbasi and other participants unanimously rejected and condemned ‘incorrect and misleading’ statement. But at a news conference, Abbasi insisted that the NSC only condemned the misreporting and not the former prime minister. Meanwhile, Nawaz stood by his statement and bluntly rejected the NSC communiqué.
Although independent observers believe that Nawaz’s statement was not entirely different from what former interior minister Rehman Malik, former NSA Major Gen (retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani and even Asif Zardari had said on the Mumbai attacks, the timing of his statement and the manner in which Indian media picked up the news are in question. His critics believe that Nawaz’s 'unwarranted' statement has weakened Pakistan’s anti-terror narrative. Also they believe that the main objective of Nawaz was to divert attention from his corruption references that are now soon to be concluded by the accountability court.
What Nawaz is trying to achieve through relaying such a message is that he was ousted from power not because of Panamagate or his UAE Iqama but because he wanted to revisit the country’s foreign and national security policy. His critics, however, rightly asked: why Nawaz had not done anything or spoken about when he was in power? He was also being reminded of his decision to keep the key portfolio of foreign ministry vacant as well as lack of implementation by his government on the National Action Plan (NAP).
But far from the public perception, Nawaz, right at the outset, wanted to address the issue of non-state actors. Tariq Khosa, former DG FIA, who attended some of the initial sittings on counter-terrorism strategy, revealed that Nawaz, as prime minister, always raised the issue and asked security agencies to provide a road map for dealing with militant groups. According to Khosa, it was misperception that Nawaz had never shown interest in the subject when he was in power.
Nawaz had started developing differences with the military establishment in 2014 when he accepted the invitation by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend his oath taking in New Delhi. The GHQ, which always has a major say on foreign policy, especially on relations with India, wanted Nawaz to go slow. He ignored their advice and apparently had to cede considerable ground on foreign policy after the August 2014 sit-in by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT).
Nawaz announced that soon he would reveal names of those who were behind that four-month-long sit-in. However, efforts were being made to persuade Nawaz not to take things to a point of no return. Nawaz seems to be in no mood to back down. Perhaps, before being jailed, he wants to be remembered as someone punished not because of corruption but for his efforts to assert civilian supremacy.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 21st, 2018.