Daily Times

Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish theologian, scientist, philosopher and mystic has said “Conscience is God’s presence in man.” What it implies is that a man with a conscience cannot do any wrong or say things which are contrary to reality or truth. Somebody acting contrary to it is a hypocrite. Why I felt the need to mention this quote is a recent statement made by former President Arif Alvi who is quite active these days and moving around to propagate the narrative of PTI.

Talking to a journalist in Faisalabad, he said, “The powerless Form 47 rulers could not make decisions and it made no sense to hold political dialogue with them; the party is ready to hold talks with ‘stakeholders and not with non-stakeholders; former Prime Minister Imran Khan be released; party’s mandate be returned and supremacy of law established in the country.” He also asked the stakeholders (a reference to the establishment) to let go of hatred and practice compassion.

It is a typical ploy of the party to dispute election results even though it has a proven track record of rigging elections.

I would rate these convulsions as sheer hypocrisy and rants of a man without conscience. One would have liked him to also mention how PTI came into power in 2018 when the mandate of the people was stolen to catapult Imran Khan into power. If he considers the present rulers as powerless, what would he say about Imran’s admission after losing power that all the decisions were made by General Bajwa? Does it not mean that Imran Khan was a powerless pawn in the hands of his mentors?

As far as the narrative of PTI that its mandate has been stolen, it is only a make-belief of the party contrary to the ground realities. The defeat of the party in the by-elections in Punjab adequately quashes the claim of the party being the most popular entity to the exclusion of all other political stakeholders. It is a typical ploy of the party to dispute election results even though it has a proven track record of rigging elections. What happened during a by-election in NA-75 Daska when PTI was in power should be enough to prove the dubious credentials of the party.

The question is why Imran Khan be released without facing the law for his wrongdoings and indulgence in corruption. Let the courts decide his fate the way it used to be when PTI had incarcerated almost all its political opponents and advised them to face the law.

Now coming to his demand regarding the supremacy of law in the country can he honestly claim that the PTI regime adhered to the supremacy of law when it ruled the roost? The answer is emphatic no. Alvi is the man who breached the constitution when after the unconstitutional dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Imran Khan he on his advice dissolved the assembly and announced new elections in the country. Thanks to the timely notice by the SC the whole process was declared unconstitutional. And the man still dares to talk about the supremacy of law. He was very much there when false cases were institution against opposition leaders and a reference based on malice against Qazi Faez Isa was sent to the Supreme Judicial Council. He was part of all those illegal steps of the regime and acted as an activist of the party rather than fulfilling the demands of the august office that he was holding.

The insistence by him in line with his party position to hold dialogue with the establishment makes no sense because this idea has been rightly rejected by the military leadership advising the party to better talk to the other political parties. Is it not ridiculous that the party cries hoarse from every convenient roof-top to reject the involvement of the establishment in politics and at the same time wants to hold dialogue with it on political issues which is tantamount to dragging it into politics?

His remark that the establishment should let go of hatred and practice compassion is also very intriguing. I am afraid it is the other way around. It is the PTI which has unleashed a sustained campaign to malign the Army and its chief which smacks of extreme hatred rather than based on any plausible reasons. The party is not only guilty of fomenting hatred against the Army but has also committed the crime of rebellion against the state by orchestrating attacks on military installations and monuments of the martyrs on 9th July. It is an unpardonable crime and any state would have taken very severe action against perpetrators of such heinous acts.

One is amazed at the audacity of the party to blame the 9th May episode on the establishment itself even though the entire nation saw it on their TV screens who were the people involved in them. However, when Alvi asks the establishment to practice compassion he is admitting that the party did commit the crime of attacking the military installations and the establishment should take a lenient view of it.

My humble advice to Alvi would be to stop acting like a stooge and listen to the voice of his conscience if he has any, ask his party to retract from its confrontational course, accept the reality of the 9th May and seek an apology from the nation. The question of compassion comes after that.

Having said that I somehow have a sneaking feeling that PTI was deliberately trying to build an anti-establishment and anti-government narrative to drive them to the limit of their patience leading to a ban on the party and allowing it to vigorously play the victim-hood card. The party and its leadership are aware of the fact – though publicly they deny it – that it has done something that can lead to horrible consequences for the party and its leadership.

But the party has chosen the wrong path to have the matter quashed through pressure tactics. The state, government and the establishment are too strong to be cowed down by such antics. Therefore the party must act the way political parties are supposed to act, try to build working relations with other political parties and even engage them in dialogue to winch the country out of the present crisis to prove its patriotic credentials. For doing that its leaders must scratch their conscience and try to find answers to their self-created dilemmas.

The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.