Some of the questions the opposition and media ask do make sense. This needs to be acknowledged. There has, for instance, been the point raised as to why parliament was not consulted given that during the discussion on the issue, the verdict had been that any restoration of the Nato routes should be linked to an apology over the Salala incident and an end to drone attacks. Ambassador to the US, Sherry Rehman has answered this point fairly sensibly when she says that in a large democracy like Pakistan, not everything can be put before parliament and some matters have to be decided upon at the highest levels of power. The most important point made by Ms Rehman is that the whole matter has been kept in the open and not hidden behind screens as has been the case in the past.
Indeed, given this reality, and the fact that we know that the military establishment inevitably has a great deal to do with deciding matters, especially those with as much significance as the Nato supply route issue, it is a wonder why no one has raised a voice against these institutions and continue to target the government alone. The establishment, after all, had a key role to play in urging that the supply line be suspended and it is a virtual certainty that it knew about the plans for resumption. The fact is that in our country, some entities are open to attack from all quarters, while others remain well shielded. No entity should be treated differently from others and this is something we need to ponder upon seriously as the waves of criticism against the government continue to come in.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Mirza, Like the sarcasm! That's a good way to make a point. One has to wonder why that the establishment is never talked about, when discussing the matters where have been clearly involved.
Even the Dawn editorial admits that Pakistan military was partially at fault --- and if that is accurate then one has to ask why the military isn't under the spot light for causing and then exacerbating this entire debacle. Maybe it's time for a good news reporter to start to ask some tough questions.
Oh. So as this is a "large democracy", (whatever that means,) the parliament does not have the right to discuss matters "of crucial importance." Dictatorship, in democratic guise. The role of parliament in the decision making process is promoted, but is ignored and even openly denied when the executive wants to make decisions their way. Hypocrisy, nothing less. The parliament will be used and reused when it supports the opinion of the executive, but ceases to hold importance the minute that it's resolutions clash with the interests of the executive. The executive is ignoring two resolutions of the same parliament it refers to when it says "the parliament is supreme." Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Some political parties have gone too far in sucking up to and acting like certain institutions are above criticism/fault. They open themselves up to the hypocrite label and near voting time it's a bad one to have. It's their own fault, though. That's what happens when they're seemingly bent on politicizing the two institutions that have no positive outcome from being involved in such things. The military is supposed to defend all people equally, regardless of political drama and the same goes for the courts. They're supposed to remain above such things for the sake of being, or at least being seen as, impartial.
But, thanks to PTI and PML-N, the courts and military are being put in counter productive situations and there's no way to rectify what they've done without that previously mentioned hypocrite title. Not to mention I'm sure they're plenty happy to be able to hide behind such institutions. Anyone who criticizes them for it can easily be made out to be looking like they look down upon those institutions which allows PTI and PML-N to claim they support Pakistan more than those being accused of trying to harm one institution or another and it superficially elevates them in the eyes of the people. What's worse is their "fans," as "supporters" just doesn't do them justice because of the unquestioning "can do no wrong" attitudes they have, push it even further while not recognizing the harm they're causing simply because they don't want anyone but that political party to be right.