Facing up to rage
The whole matter has been kept in the open and not hidden behind screens as has been the case in the past.
Following its decision to reopen Nato supply routes through its territory, the government has come in for fierce criticism from the opposition. This was not unexpected. The reaction from the JUI-F and the PTI, flaying the government for its announcement, which came immediately after US Secretary of State expressed regret over the Salala incident, has not come as a surprise. Both parties have a hard line policy as far as Nato supplies go; other parties, of course, are eager to hone in on any issue that can place the government under pressure, especially with elections not all that far away.
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.
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.