Daily Times

If Sheikh Rasheed of the Awami Muslim League (AML) had conducted the press conference instead of Javed Hashmi, the president of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), and had revealed the same as Hashmi did on the evening of September 1, 2014 in front of parliament, probably no one would have believed him. The difference between them lies in the credibility of character and action earned by Hashmi and lost by Rasheed over the years. The same integrity brought Hashmi to the PTI of Imran Khan (as chairman) and the same forced Hashmi to forsake it. Only could a person of as high a stature as Hashmi would dare to articulate the bitter truth. After calling it a “hijacked movement”, Hashmi appealed to other members of the PTI to listen to the voice of their conscience and balk at becoming part of any conspiracy hatched to bring parliament down. It was not that Hashmi was in favour of the sitting government, as is being projected, but it was that, as he said, he did not want to be part of any party manoeuvred by non-democratic forces. To reinforce his argument, Hashmi revealed that Khan kept deriving his strength by naming the army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Hours later, on September 1, in response to the press conference, the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) issued a press release to clear its position but it did so without conducting any investigation to verify the authenticity of Hashmi’s assertions before issuing the press release.

In principle, there should have been no need for Hashmi to point an accusing finger at the army and the ISI, as both are responsible institutions. Nevertheless, in Gujranwala, Rasheed who was accompanying Khan on the container pleaded publicly to the army to intervene. Why did the ISPR not issue any press release at that time to declare the indifference of the army from the whole issue and condemn the speaker? In Islamabad, Khan started referring to the “third umpire” who was about to raise the finger in his favour and against the government. Were the army authorities too naive to discern the meaning of the message? Subsequently, not only Khan but also Dr Tahirul Qadri of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) referred several times to the third umpire in their speeches. Why did the ISPR not issue a press release that the third umpire did not mean the army? The deliberate silence of the army (or the ISPR) on the repeated allusions kept putting the government under pressure and encouraging Khan and Dr Qadri to up the ante before they inch towards their final destination: parliament. Was this point also not known to the army? Perhaps the ISPR is oblivious to the fact that merely issuing a press release does not put the matter to rest and that most people in Pakistan do not believe in the clarification given by it. Currently, the people believe more in the words of Hashmi than in the words of the ISPR.

In his press conference, Hashmi also said that Khan at least once claimed to have an “understanding”, “arrangement” or “settlement” with the incumbent Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan through “certain people”. Furthermore, as Hashmi said, a lawyer would file a writ petition that would eventually lead, somehow, to the removal of both Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif from their seats by the CJ. In this regard, many people see a reason in the acts of lawyer Hamid Khan (who is a member of the PTI and who lost in the elections to Khawaja Saad Rafique in Lahore) for getting adjournments time and again in the election tribunal despite the fact that he was the suitor. Reportedly, on September 1, while hearing the plea against the extra-constitutional act, when the court encouraged (or asked) Hamid Khan to tell the court “what kind of suo motu should be taken” to resolve the crisis after the (full) court becomes the “final mediator”, Hashmi became sure of the beginning of the last episode of the act and decided to go public. Hashmi also claimed that the present CJ had “ensured [the third party] to play a role in Sharif’s removal”.

The next day, in response to Hashmi’s press conference, the CJ made a remark during the hearing to clarify his position but the question is this: was the matter so simple as to just contradict the allegations, if not assertions, without listening to Hashmi (and Imran Khan)? Was it just a trivial intraparty dispute devoid of any bearing on the reputation of the court? The events subsequent to Hashmi’s press conference indicated something grave. For instance, both Khan and Dr Qadri stopped mentioning the “third umpire” even as a pep talk point to their supporters in their speeches. Altaf Hussain, the leader of the MQM, who had invited the army publicly just two days ago to intervene and make a national government, suddenly started speaking in favour of parliament. To shed the impression of being the army’s front man, even Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain spoke against General (retired) Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

Perhaps the SC is overlooking the fact that it will be made free of any speck of guilt not only by giving remarks in the court but by doing something more. It is the fundamental right of all Pakistanis to know the truth. Currently, people believe more in the words of Hashmi than in the words of the CJ. Both the army and the SC should understand that the disclosures made by Hashmi are not only startling but they are also bound to have strong political repercussions. Hashmi has dwarfed both institutions that now need to look into the matter through a credible formal process of investigation to exonerate their names. That would be the best way to close the matter.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com